sure their body is safe so please make sure that gets passed around it's also important because if you want to be part of a future hearing on a on an issue comes up tonight you have to have signed that sheet to show that you were here for weeks so my company of thirty years is you know will be less of a conflict in the future i assume i also have one other announcement and it's more of a statement so that people are understand what's going on  i was at a meeting won't get into at the meeting but with a series of of of community members and much to my surprise there was talk of graft on this  board and it was you know it was denied i denied it strongly and then there was talk of whether people were making money from knowledge that they had in the board and that comment surprised me as well so we need to i that perhaps marla if you could speak to the city council or whoever needs to be spoken to about making sure that there's a there's clarity on conflict of interests that there that  is perhaps a statement each year that nothing has happened for me to person i think something along that line is needed to assure the public because i was very surprised i was hurt actually i mean really it was said that real estate people in particular had a had a problem not just on this board but elsewhere being the only real estate person on the city council the planning commission or the g r b it was aimed at me and i was bothered by it so i just wanted to make that that announcement very helpful had that acts up at the same meeting and it was actually somebody from out of state commenting on how things was the comment that there was from the real estate people could make money off that knowledge that they had in these works that bothered me more than anything else and that's a person who was elected to office in the city you bet oh i agree it is a simple as that i'm not aware of any questions oh i'm about the subdivisions so board members staff comments questions used to having trees in the back there and of course that done if it's built similar to the ones further up the street there there is no large trees left will there be any actually last night i did knock on everybody's door on i v street i was only able to get one it was more just just to meet you and i know i've met you before you know they're you know i would hazard a nice conversation so yeah definitely willing to accept input will and i guess have you determine the elevation of the drainage and and i'm worried about changing the underground water thing as i'm finding water that's leaking into my mother's basement net which is so right now it's cursors on a pond that the city will be creating the down there the bottom left is a gravel wetland so so little of that is a part of the storm washing it and then it delights into into the world right so i guess i'm getting that is the fence or you can do that trees that are valuable enough to save craig was unable to identify any trees that were really worth leaving behind the four structures that dave was proposing they they  have when they show up when they have pledge comes there's questions about the the trees in particular or the drainage went home how much of what we just heard was within the scope of what we're reviewing for the other neighbors behind that development raise a lot of the same concerns have you heard anything about negative or positive effects of drainage and groundwater i'm for those neighbors i have not personally district and when we made some fairly good progress but at the end we decided that the product would probably better off if we hired mike from t j boiled it really take a close look at what the requirements are what some of the  and the other goal is to strategy one thirty is to maintain the present residential density of one point two minutes for gross to land as the basic limitation for the development and that comes under scrap do you want anyone to continue to allow limited neighborhood areas with a build build density between four and eight units per acre using development rights transferred from areas in c q designated for a conservation of protection so that is largely what we start design trying to increase the densities in a way that respects the existing neighborhood as well as the planned neighborhood for the character of the area mysteria so we actually are within three different turn in districts or subdistricts within the southeast quadrant or within the natural protection resource protection zone the green area where within the neighborhood residential zone  that gives us an allowable or a sign density of eighty six point three units however it's restricted only into these two areas the max density of the neighborhood residential is four units  it to sixty seven so right around high to sixty's that's where the maximum allowable density on this project is that gives the overall density of just a little bit under four units per acre when you take out the natural resource protection so just to give a little bit of context that area this is our subject this is known farm road north is to the to up part course their farms so general development in the area around the project this is one of the areas one of the natural resources and that is the intention one of the intended areas to be preserved there's also a large natural resource production zone that's oriented towards the south east portion of this water and again just from plan this is the future land use this is the area of our city so you can see it creeps out into the resource protection zone all the way over to the intended village score for the southeast  into a well and stream area it gets down to about three hundred fifty feet so there's about a fifty foot drop to the their overall site  within the resource protections out looking at the site taking a visit one of the things that really really occurred to me when walking around the site is there are some really pretty spectacular views here this is dorset street north is to the top of the screen no informers along the top of the screen and no one from the road is reoriented ninety degrees north is to the right street here so so again one of the main sort of organizing elements for the project is is this main boulevard from this green space the intention would be that the apple of arts little bit wider we're proposing sixty f easier sort of describes that she has all the different types of sidewalks pathways major green space neighborhoods throughout the neighborhood to the to the right we have a second map that talks about a voluntarily but this is the mechanism that's been set up through the southeast quadrant so again the resource protection zone this is the wetlands that run through this and we have a series of internal green spaces that enter co and then we need to to connection points over to the natural resource protections which we would envision as being a passive recreational space for the  project so again were largely based on the central axis of the connection of green spaces but then for the end of the draw lots we looked at mixing up the housing types will indeed be respectful to the surrounding neighborhood so this blue line dictates where we resort i saw there's an internal program that we have through the lots and we have an external program lots exterior of the blue line in the resource protection zone with an exception of these duplexes really maintains the existing twenty foot setback between lots it so it's a ten foot setback in between the  from approximately a quarter to quarter acre size generally up to about a half acre with a few that are a little bit larger than that up to three quarters of the native on the inter week to help meet some of the goes through the southeast quadrant we're looking at reducing side yard setbacks up to five feet reducing front yard setbacks i believe fifteen take a closer look at that so we wouldn't have torches any closer than ten feet to the sidewalk so there there's a few variations and we learned some lessons from self village snow removal it's nice to have that space these are pretty narrow lots the lots on the interior of the project go down to about an eighth of an acre and we've been looking at how to make a small lot really feel a little bit larger and buy some some of the bit further back you're getting more about twenty five foot feel along the street skate again most of the lots are backing into common green space in the project so it provides a definite and neighborhood residential area in the village residential area we looked at different ways to increase the density even further so again on the farm road we have a series of town homes isolated from the rest of the neighborhood from the outlying complex that rood would provide additional access to the body neighbor to the to the south there is one area in the village residential area that we're just citing as future development because of access limitations we're not proposing any houses there at this time but the intent would be once there is more development in that area and the adjacent properties that there would probably be some development thought of last thing i just really want to go over quickly just is just a really brief overview of the project to talk about the difference greet types were shown so we are three basic street types this being and not what we envision is the major street through the development that would be providing future connection to the south  sixty foot right away ten foot drive lanes if parking on one side or showing up with two sidewalks because it's a little bit more of a major road like we're proposing a five foot concrete sidewalk on the one side and ten foot in roads fifty foot ride away nine foot drive lanes each way we're where we're showing parking an eight foot parking lane and all the intersections are showing up with bump outs all these intersections are they go down to nine nine for a drive lane to between curves in portions where there are no houses  ruud again is that sort of central access road or showing that at sixty foot right away the houses are close together in this area there are small houses and very little driveway we're feeling that it's really to provide enough parking along that roadway so we're showing nine foot parking lanes on either side of the road a long nine foot drive lined and sidewalk some two sides of that street higher towards cam and again in a small residential street on the bottom with nine for driveway and one side with eight for parking in a single single sidewalk so that's the quick overview i think p goes across the back of this property and goes up cross as well and here the culver and it winds up to the existing house that's up in the back unfortunately it's just a driveway east and doesn't give us any right to you know to create a a city right of way or anything there so basically we currently don't have any way to get out to dorset street but we are willing to talk with the state and  see if you know they have some flexibility in potentially getting a second crossing across the way when we wouldn't be able to get to door street at this time but we can get through our our property line and as mike noted you know we're showing extension the road to probably the south that if you continue to go south there's a couple other developments that potentially would have connections well that's that's still in the mix we'll will pursue that we'll get back  staff and and go over what are alternatives might be for connection obviously with greater than fifty units so we need the two connections the two means ingress and egress the problem very good thank you  let's walk through first before we step through stuff comments and comments questions from the board that paul back on that comment you can get you can you describe you couldn't get from to the little l shaped backwards oshea right can't get from there to there we don't own this parcel or this personal or this parcel so so basically we can't get to here i mean the assumption was that at some point in time this might extend across this parcel and potentially maybe this road or extend on the back of with description we got with our agenda is for one hundred sixty four units but even in our description it doesn't add up to one hundred sixty four it adds up to one hundred ninety nine because you could you help me i did did you have a one thirteen plus the existing house right if you want sixty four ok and then mike corrected me just now that it's not eighteen units in three unit multifamily dwellings is eighteen units in four and five five and six so those separate lots with party walls well what are the possibilities that you're considering i mean it could just be kind it  out my view is that the party was under the current zoning regulations and i've said this repeatedly is unlawful you can take that for what it's worth i don't have agreement i tried to get a train change at the planning commission there's been no action i've heard no rational argument that is contrary to that view if you can come up with a condominium plan that would solve that problem otherwise i'm going to vote against the project just so you know i mean we generally with that kind of pressure with us you don't generally build those guys structures but what they're not going to be individual laws i would ask you to erase the lines the lines actually aren't lot lines all lines are showing little use areas fenced areas we're actually not showing a lot right now in that whole  a road using the existing wetland crossing at the existing driveway location as part of this development what they're asking us to do is to construct a road as far as our property line through here and as i mentioned previously we will begin that conversation with the army corps and the state level and evasion of the question yes if you were to do have that discussion with the army corps and figure out logistically you know mistreated leaving through the army corps getting that crossing and putting a road in would you then address the future development at this stage if you go through that exercise or is there a future development only when you get a connection to dorset through future access for the acquisition  development between the personal dorset i think we we would certainly look if we built a road here we would certainly look at whether we could develop this i somewhat doubt it with your current regulations and i think the length of that road would be too long in order to allow any development there but that's something that we've discussed with staff in that case we probably would look at doing some development in this portion of the problem i don't number for staff generally supports the open space concept for the development and recommends the board review the configuration of the open spaces and parks with the applicant and discuss how the open spaces will be designed to encourage residents to access them and how they will be protected from becoming part of yards of adjacent homes staff recommends the board provide direction on what if any additional information they would like to see submitted as part of the master plan so we're certainly open for whatever comments you might have obviously mike spent a little bit of time talking about how it was open spaces are interconnected do we have a preference on real fencing i want to do little bit of a little deeper it's not just the delineation but the actual space how do you mean you get is currently means taking a kind of want to take that open space natural resource protection parcel off because you can't develop that to begin with but the spaces that so my understanding before i came on to the project is that there was a larger park area shown on the project and that we were encouraged to not have a larger said well that's great there's a big existing mood portion of the project over here we'd like to see that maybe shrink in size but maintain the open ness of that site informal play other types of community gathering tappan in that area so really we got a couple we've got a bunch of open spaces sort of come up from this main north south road this major north south through that really feed people up to it through both internal open spaces as well as the extra space this is one area within the neighborhood that would be an open open especially when you have little internet interconnected green spaces on the interior of a block is and that was one of the staff comments that's come it was how do you address that so that it doesn't feel like residen neighbors not people that live bordering that space feel like they're intruding on someone's backyard because you know you're showing it as a little sliver but once the houses are and it's going to feel what bigger but it's going to feel very in reality it's actually a pretty small space in a corridor between some of the backyards so i guess my question is you know what is the plan for this to not feel like it's an extension of someone's backyard so when someone walks through it in the evening walk or ride their bike or treated so so we would certainly be willing to think about something like that for delineation between a backyard the other thing that i would offer is you know i mean we're having this discussion sketch plan clearly we have a lot of neighbors here they're concerned about i'm sure density you know where as i'm not going to say i'm not concerned about density but this is southeast quadrant development area you know you look at you're surrounded by neighborhoods so this is sort of like you know ultimately the end goal for what the long term plan of the southeast quadrant zoning was for was to put the development in does that does protecting the outside areas so this is sort of the plan for this type of area so the idea is in my mind as we take in we try to massage as best we can and you know not to say the quid pro pro or the process as you come at us with x and we massage it down to the point where everyone's little bit happier but long story short i think that you know i would love to see some of these green spaces on the interior get opened up a little bit so that maybe you might have to lose a few watts but it feels more like an entrance into a green space rather than a sliver in between you know a lot because it's it's pretty tight and dense here and you know not to say that you know the whole thing needs to get spread out because then you end up with with cookie cutter subdivisions and i like being honest with you i like this layout i like the diversity of the housing types actually like the street layout it's not your traditional you know subdivision works just don't do it don't you know mike's on a good job with the layout of the it's got a nice organic feel to it and i like some of the ideas i'm hearing with your view points to camels the boulevard design the perimeter of you know larger single family homes at the interior of more like cottage style carriage ho act it actually has a really good feel and think it just needs to be modest so that what we have here has a better access and feel to the ultimate end goal of the project so like you know i think maybe we need to you know i'd like you to look at obviously my opinion but you know where you have the green space gets pinched at the public space you know road somehow opening that up so it doesn't feel like you're going you know especially if someone ends up putting you know a fence up the back yard of the property you know walk going between two fences to get into an area that opens up but it doesn't open up a huge amount so that's one comment i have about looking at your green space plan a concept i came up pinpoints they say like in here yes there you know any pinch point between that one i'm not as concerned about because it's really more of a connector it's more like you know where you've got the end of the triangle like you know there and on the other side you know of those you know somehow trying to find a way of helping those up and honestly if you have to  be if you have to lose a lot to open up that space you know i think you end up with a much more successful project in terms of the green space kind of probably somewhere in the rounds of slightly under half acre all together all together muni including what basically this triangle right here i think i believe this lots one hundred foot deep great to be there so that's probably another one hundred twenty feet across that one that might be one hundred  similar dimension and i would say that this probably has a little bit more space interior of it you know these are meant for the alternative areas not really for a program to use is more passive recreation place where you know having a little bit of an open yard space that but these lots pincer small like you know if the kids want to run back out there have a game of tag and i actually live in a situation similar to this  these types of spaces are spectacular first specially kids like fourteen and younger run around the summer playing to throw water balloons this type of activities and i agree with you i'm just saying that my concern is that it feels welcoming right yeah it doesn't feel closed off to people that are bordering on it right so if you're walking the park you know you feel like you can continue on i apologize for this so housing types in the southeast quadrant are defined both as number of units but also house style so you know are we looking at all i don't know i can i can probably mean three home styles but like capes and colonials and whatever i want to be looking that was sort of what we're trying to get at with that so we haven't gotten completely to the point of looking at the architectural style  intention would be that we would mix ridgeline orientation some would have gable and space in the road some would have the ridge lines parallel to the road possibly like some type of a very uniform and almost present themselves as one architectural a composite building that has separate separate entrances that would be you know have enough identity for each of the units but  at the same time wouldn't mesh into some of the larger house tiles of the area that specially if you go down one farmer i fully expect to see a nice diverse i was in type not one type for your cottages one type or large you know you know you've probably seen what we've approved and what we like over the years and what we kind of you know you can imagine what we will want to see you know the exact same house with different shutter colors so i like the way it's mixed i like the different types of you know you know unit types and they're in the way it's spread out  good on to the next moment all right final comment number seven stuff recommends the board require the app then submit their proposed raising plan as part of the master plan application and we will gladly do that changes that always happen will take into account some of your comments about the open space but but i don't believe there's any reason to wait for the technical comments if the board feels so they have enough information to move  there the ok so let's address two things first of all there will be a traffic study there has not been a traffic study yet like so there are there have been no claims that there will be no impact of traffic strategic plan for self rule intended as happens once every five years and you're welcome to come to those meetings you're welcome to come to the planning commission to change things around but this is just like in contradiction of the plan in the plant it talks about water in wildlife resources in the southeast part should be preserved this is one of the jets of the southeast part if you look in terms of the wildlife  when you can speak since so the southeast zoning regulations were actually you know and you're new to the area so you know that we have had moratoriums under development because of density and development the southeast quadrant zoning regulations were a moratorium there was an agreed upon moratorium between the city the residents and the developers and it was a plan that took the entire earth southeast quadrant and said you know as as mike sort of gave you a brief synopsis the base tensity for the entire area is one point two units per acre they wanted to take a look at the big picture of this entire area not little microcosms which for neighbors this person isn't a microcosm but from city planning sam point this is a microcosm they didn't when they wanted to take the big picture of the overall entire area and say we want to maintain one point two units for per acre and we're going to take and select the green areas and protect them they as you can increase your density over one point two and we want to encourage transferring development rights within those green areas into the other areas to encourage density in there so that you didn't end up with an entire southeast quadrant of just cookie cutter residential subdivisions throughout you wanted to get tighter denser developments in selected areas and that was a planned upon thing that was implemented you know twenty five years ago you know as part of a broad city plan city planning isn't year to year neighborhood it's a big picture thing and that's the plan for this area so that you're going to get areas of land that have been open space for years and decades it's but have been planned to be denser development for years and decades development rights and send them into those areas and that's been a plan that's been we've been doing projects now for under my purview quite a long time where you know the people that live in the green areas can sell those development rights to take all those areas so they're preserved in perpetuity and they're put into the denser areas and that's what we get and that's the unfortunate reality when we get neighbors who come in because they're seeing a green space that they've enjoyed for years and decades but it's always been planned and it's our job as a poor to review these projects under the regulations of the regulations state that you know the developer the land owner has the right to develop it up to four units per acre up to eight units per acre and that's been a discussion we've had over the years on many projects and it's unfortunately an education process because you know people see this beautiful green open space and they just see more density but that has been the in my own property do you feel like this property my my concerns about off and if that's a good point so if we're going to have a lot more comments then we should probably continue this meeting so that we can have a meeting where just comments are given so i'll take a couple of more two minute comments and then we're going to continue the meeting so everybody can have more time to talk ok standing up there reassess anything like thank you for your comment because you got right to the point and the problem with the comments at least that i've been hearing so you are in the wrong forum where the complaint  correctly orange is the planning commission we have no power to change the regulations like also the planning commission is the body that recommends changes to the to the regulations they they recommended to the city your point of south burlington looks very different than it did maybe to that southeast quadrant zoning study that was done with the agreement of all parties in town the developers the presidents who live in the southeast corridor and the city officials did look at it and did studies that showed the density and the development in these open spaces saying that over time it's going to take a lot for these mechanisms to work out but it then show that there was no development in those green areas see eighteen thousand seven hundred square feet of warehouse ten thousand square feet restaurant to assess what you meant to consist of replacing a portion of the general office where house uses with twenty five thousand square feet of radio and television studio for resulting use breakdown of one hundred sixty three thousand square feet of general office fourteen thousand square feet of warehouse tents ten thousand square feet of indoor recreation two thousand square feet of retail food now fifty nine thousand square feet of research and testing four hundred square feet was short a restaurant  and john to work also with technology or i'd like to disclose i'm a former employee of the p t c i don't think that presents a conflict of interest but if the applicant or anyone the public health that it did i would recuse myself you know both these guys from re ar first to secure them is a feature ten in a technology park they will be in their community drive which is turning seventy five thousand square feet we have about a dozen tenants are currently ben and jerrys and sim quest being the most notable and the c five will occupy just over twenty five thousand square feet on the interior currently it's open warehouse space we're going to convert that to a mixture of office studio as well as  garage so they'll be broadcasting from the facility they're going to relocate from coal juster and plattsburgh to come to sell pearlington the exteriors were as you can see and that's why we're here is a secured parking facility area for thirty or i believe thirty vehicles and then a secure fenced in area for sixteen satellite dishes those satellite dishes there's three smaller ones and larger ones are about four and a half meters in diameter approximately that's the basic overview i don't know if you want to go through the comments now abby can come and so we've been working with wheeler the assistant superintendent and addressing most of the comments that are here and we've already addressed on our plans and there's just one little thing with the outlet structure that we are currently addressing so yes we will comply with their comments ok so from a technical standpoint do we need to have this was all before we before we conclude with or close  they're the only remaining comment that he had had to do with the outlet structure that we will be changing to meet his request he requested that we're it's a secure parking area and that's the main employee entrance they operate all day and they're going to have staff coming in in the middle of the night and they're fairly well known in the community and it was a requirement of their program to have a secure area where they can walk safely into their entrance from their parking area there's also many news vans with with equipment on that they need to move for security and to move the working twenty four hours a day three shifts a day we've got crews coming and going and they're loading and unloading equipment and so that's the closest to our our space inside the building and then from a security and safety standpoint having our employees be able to park in a secure lock and walk into the entrance that's surrounded by kate is crucial to us and none of the existing parking space does that yeah this is the only space that's immediately adjacent to the interior space set up space that hearst will have is the least resistant to the other tenants for the least disturbance to other tenants and we had you know to propose a couple of other options where we have a secure parking area around the existing on the existing parking spaces and that doesn't work for the hearst program and also there's three larger news vans to park in the interior they would actually there so let's say we didn't do the parking we have to actually pave a large portion probably at least half of the the spot you need another words well frankly years could they get rid of thirty eight spaces somewhere else i guess in the future there's a lot of warehouse space who are converting to office and and there's a future quiet that we would like to build whether that's five ten years who knows but to the north so i think of the thousand i think currently nine hundred and something are required i think those will be needed in the future as the tenants change from more warehouse to more office as we convert my laptop just time it has us trying to find it if i could plug it in but i so i thought i read in there somewhere that the parking counter where you sort of equalize the building had sixty employees for the b b c and two spots perm ploy that was the part time required one hundred twenty spaces two spaces her bedroom or something but you know she'd have one space for the vehicle for the employee and then maybe another vehicle that they would then use come back and forth with call it sixty or seventy and those are allocated in the east slot so those are all the spaces for n b c five it's just a portion of it that need to be secured and it need to howe's their vans what is the and really important thing to note is these are very high profile people who are on t v all the time so having that secure access from their car specially very late at night they're running the evening shift this is very it was critical for us to get them here that we met their requirement and they're coming to sell brillant in from elsewhere so please keep that in mind that there was critical of their program to help me you know just after saturday in this climate these days i can't argue with security for you know news reporters  time could expand a little bit of why you need that many spaces yes when we are fully staffed we actually have ninety eight in pool use and there are regular amount of gas that visit the television station  obviously a lot of people are visiting the station that are normally there so a lot of special program we do elsewhere now won't be done at this facility so on and on those days will actually require some additional parking beyond what we it's only about a third of their the their actual requirement for parking are good it's also on the side of me from my perspective that i own the buildings across this the way i forgot to mention that but i mean this is this is the side of the building that is is not in use it's not particularly pretty this is an improvement to what i think in the end then the other two buildings for are in front of it one twenty four and eighty know some common number two sort of talks about this transition from structure a structure for the sri movement and that sort of what we're on now there is sort of a wetland component of it and there are impacts impact or could it be alleviated by by that back to my original question could the wetlands buffer impact be alleviated if some of those spaces were removed somewhere else speak the location of the parking and the strong water and farm to support the parking is in the well and buffer so if those spaces were moved then the one buffer would be impact paragraph directly above that it said a three point eight meter in four point five meter antenna there's a little bit of confusion there the dishes on the ground are three point eight and four point five meters the dish on the roof is actually a microwave antenna and it's a small diameter six foot diameter antenna microwave dish that needs line of sight to mount mansfield so they can transmit their final product from the studio before they submit to  mansfield so it's going to be only a six foot diameter mounted in the center of the roof which i think the location is that you're hand out and the total height is about ten feet and we have a seventeen foot three inch tall generator on the roof already so it will not be the the only tunnels that are microwave are on the roof yes yes frequencies are used by the ones on the ground so those are receiving and then went on the roof is sending me kind of like you know what i'm talking about emissions of radio waves that we see being guests correct it was actually a great location because we didn't have to build additional structure the roof of thirty community drive was a direct ok well i thin sorry so if you go back to the same plan i can describe and then talk to your renderings that you have see what is the requirement to look why is there a screen requirement around satellite dishes listen that you are the one who brought up how well screen the technology park is and that's what i was coming up it is and i think the level of landscaping that we're proposing will screen the base it'll screen a lot of the like the chuck e bass the only thing that will stick out are the top of those satellite dishes and i you know the intent of the landscaping wasn't to obscure the dishes completely it is those are those are pretty visible too so i mean you're going to have a sign saying this is w p t z and so part of what you'd expect with p t c is a bunch of satellite dishes so i i sure i'm not concerned i don't know about you guys but i'm not concerned about a bunch of satellite dishes being partially visible i kind of expect it with a t v station but i'm willing to be persuaded future development when you do your quad and all that you know i think you're going to want to screen it more but that's really up to you for your internal nasa because we don't also don't know the exact orientation and right exactly i think they're going to hope planets in the to do an arboretum alternately or gold we can get another building up you know sand while satellite dishes are normal for an industrial park when you've got getting into you know a quad that's more pedestrian oriented and buildings  aligned with each other i think the start of it just are going to feel out of place and that you're going to want to screen it more but that's your future plans i'm fine with that as it is right n i'm number five again has to do with the value of the inskeep being and the proposed building addition being included in order to calculate the landscape on the mount  by the proposed building in addition i believe that's just the the structure at the east entrance that we're basically leaving the the footprint and we're leaving the structural stanchions and all we're doing is changing this curved kind of top piece to a horizontal with n b c s logo so the value that is ten thousand dollars or three percent of that is three hundred dollars you know we could increase by ok so in that case i did bring photos of the existing bike parking and i think the requirement we need to meet is that they are attached to a flat surface a certain dimension and none of the bike racks on the lot are attached to that permanently attached to a hard flat surface so in that case would be the condition cycling approval that we install the adequate number of parking spaces must we can be specific tonight about where those are and i think that forty five is too specific to take up the board time with i don't think we can get there in discussion or do we need to have the full forty five fifty percent or so i think for your application because the building is going to come back for cycling approval in the future the fifty percent today makes  concrete pad with you to be twenty three spaces in the form of twelve inverted you in the location of the existing bike racks that are on the south west corner of the building in front of ben and jerry's trends and you can if you pull up the overall say plan we do show the bike shop a picture of the bike rack  so the lower left corner of the building  rack that's where we would have the twelve inverted you mounted on a concrete pad i think we only need twelve because each q is two spaces and the only new ones in one spot right the other option would be to split them up and put six years in that bike rack and six new in the bike rack the other where the bike rack is indicated on the east side of the building update the plans to reflect the stabilisation timelines and tops requirements and so the sign shown on the building elevation that we submitted the gates will be configured to be accessible by emergency vehicles express that please do go talk to the fire chief about how to do that you have a very good relationship with them so we definitely will level at the pine senior living community which is one hundred eighty five units of independent senior affordable housing so it's  income housing tax credit project and before we continue our comforts of interest ok so we are planning to make room for our current employees at work out of the basement of the pines as our management company has sort of its hub the and has for the last ten years we just want a little more extra space for break room in a bigger conference room and so we decided that rather than trying to relocate our office space to just add on to the back of the current so join to read it they're going to get their fired the landscaping one right yes their pride landscape value for the new building is eight thousand six hundred twenty five dollars based on three percent of building construction cost of two hundred seventy six thousand the applicant is providing nine thousand one hundred ninety new landscaping staff for commands the border hire the applicant to post a landscape on in the amount of the nine thousand one hundred ninety for new landscaping  don't know exactly what that means but just a question is there a reason why they need to put up ninety one ninety rather than p v six twenty five if the if water requirement is eighty six twenty five which is the reason they need to put up six hundred dollars more five hundred three how do you think they're having some trees above and beyond the minimum requirement to make up for some trees that died or were planted some years ago so that that one number reflects the new plants hundred and something dies and they put in more why should they have to replace that thing that died and was just dumb sprayed but it just seems to seems to me that the bonding is just a rather painful process application where we just heard that they only have to do three hundred dollars for the landscaping they're going above and beyond just because they want to in this situation that nine thousand one hundred sixty last number represents replacement landscaping for  landscaping it was on a previously approved plan as well so ordinarily would it be eighty six twenty five if there wasn't replacement ok but it was just a question comment number two yes the porch determine whether to grant a thirty five square foot three hundred thirty five hundred square foot temporary and seven hundred fifty square foot permanent impact upon the class three wetland buffer on the property for th this is not a change from case the seven hundred fifty feet of permanent impact is the buffer being eliminated thirty five hundred square feet of temporary is going to be put back into a natural state because some of it  staff recommends the board include the acting fire chiefs comment as a condition of approval the other comments from the board or entertain a motion close in agreement that this is the best available way to meet the shade tree required in the trees are recommended by the city arborists probably do the best in the areas there and one other point is applicant should be allowed to remove that which gives the tree a little bit more breathing room it's not going to cost any extra to remove an extra for the pavement mind parting out equipment out there and the d p w has agreed to waive the road opening fee to lot and do that of all it's just doesn't show on the plan because it's off property is that like a permanent thing because my landlord had suggested that maybe making sure we kept it on the property for in the future if we need it back at some point we'll just take it back the trees going to be on your property right right so the tree would be on your property and just be a little bit more root space and that's fine ok i was going to leave it just so we can clarify it for them they're going to be happy but whatever you guys want ok comments questions from the board on the solution hate to see you know with all the stuff going on in the road that kind of sticks out and draws the attention with the type of tree that was selected you know it's like a three foot high fifteen foot wide so we'll be doing a lot of trimming but you know i'm just trying to get  far away from the sidewalk as possible safely and then we're going to fill it in with a perennials and stuff too so it's not just going to be like open spot in the tree it's going to you know all the open areas are going to be for any holes and stuff a lot of the pictures i showed you over french toast medical office building two hundred seventy five parking spaces proposed fifteen point zero seven acres  mahler received some sketches some late sketches i apologize but we were trying to respond to the staff report so obviously we received this on friday but of the we did a pretty good job and south east and that is the pedestrian internal pedestrian off through it i guess we're thinking is the best location it takes you through the bulk of the parking and to the what you've proposed bob is just a train is it is a way to get across an island right from a stranded parking  g from everywhere like you're in from here so that was sort of the thinking there so having a designated route and or funneling people to that one seem anywhere are in red they have exactly the minimum number of parking spaces so there's plenty of waiver available but typically and i know all of our discussions of always been even the minimum required isn't enough for what you guys need so we're always battling that always a be a problem ok but perhaps we can talk about that next item which number two staff recommend more require the up can to relocate the parking spaces located to the front of the building or to replace them with accessible parking spaces comply with these criteria or remove them and request a small wavered provide slightly fewer than required minimum known parking spaces again friday i received this on this plan really hasn't changed from sketch this applications been for a month and a half and we realize that we've got some parking spaces in the front yard now i'm not quite sure i did not have an opportunity to speak on this item specifically i'm not quite sure how the front yard was established i'm guessing probably of a point was established of the cold sac and maybe a protractor was used to create a radius in the right marla medical office space those are used a lot so we don't we don't wish to do that so i would i would like to keep those spaces as is if the board feels otherwise then we will need those three spaces and i will shift i need nine electrical vehicles charging station spots and i will simply shift them further to the south and eliminate those three spaces if that's  can we can we add three electric vehicle three handicap spaces more than normal and have them place them as electric vehicles hybrids bit a hybrid hybrid spaces i don't know i don't coming at us fast and we're going to have at these are going to be spaces that are often held vacant for for electric vehicles so here's this here's a spot where where if you  if you have to haul if you have to have an extra couple spaces because you're shooting to be a good neighbor to have electric vehicle charge this is a good excuse for it and you know you can disagree but that's  we don't feel like the landscaping there means leave protected if you want to flip open the landscape and well before you do i think i can you can point out obviously that there's a substantial amount of curbing on the site and in some areas where we can eliminate it we choose to try and do that so you can have some natural but i mean if it's the bo desire that we we curb literally ninety five percent of the site shelby to protect landscaping i guess one question would be the intent is it so that you don't get spillover parking into grass to areas to protect landscaping because i can't imagine you're going to you know run into areas where people are overlapping their parking space and starting to encroach into the grass area protection people could just drive over the roots and come back to kill the tree or tell me see we have a substantial investment in the landscaping and raise right we last thing we want to do is jeopardize these trees because then we're out there replacing them  this is where there's you know snow storage  we're happy to do whatever the board would like us to do in the end i'm sure you can appreciate that having to put curbing run every bit of landscaping you put on a site seems to be extreme well i mean it's our job to uphold the regulations i'm more concerned not concerned but the fact that you're butting up to your place be creating a park you know apartment but a building or you know so you have a perking lot directly on the other side that does not have curves and you're going to put it as part of the same sort of common island and you've got curves on one side and not that it's a concern for say but it's more of like i'm not sure why we would make it doesn't make sense to me but if we don't have the authority to waive it revised plan to marla incorporating those the actually homes that craig wanted to see so that's not a problem item six however is another item and i'm not sure that that's contributing towards the minimum landscape value the undeveloped portion of the slate is relatively well developed through those staff considers additional trees to screen the parking area from the interstate as described in section thirteen point zero six  may present an opportunity to make up the required landscape value so as noted above we have an excess of eighty thousand dollars worth of landscaping budget items a good portion of that right thank you so that some nice benches nicely landscaped pavers trees perennials a nice rock wall ornamental grasses and what for me saying and i've sent this on tomorrow that he's revisited the landscaping plan and thinks the use of the pretty girls and normal grasses would provide a nice accent to landscape plan since it is such a small portion of the overall landscape expenditure i think it should be included as part of your landscape budget so if it was not accepted that we can include the about four thousand dollars a perennial zx and ornamental grasses those will be removed and i'm not going to go over a thousand dollars so it's a big budget as it is so that really is a detriment to this lovely seating area and we'll just add four thousand but the rationale for not including the m i think to russia now is that in the winter time those grasses and those perennial flowers are not visible they don't do anything when shrubs and trees asked no we have we ever proved a lawn the cost of putting in a lawn to count towards their minimum landscaping requirement of the law so anything but an idyllic this was approved for it would be a shame and that you're not going to have four thousand dollars more of trees elsewhere you'll just get rid of them here and put the four thousand trees somewhere else there are certain perennials  fan of something they did on the street i think i would trust their i would trust their plan if we can allow it of all i wouldn't try to dictate perennials versus versus grasses i just let them more requests you're going to get in the future and in the end you're going to do to keep pointing out all these different projects we promote as perennials and it's other question is is the site adequate landscapes are ready without the and therefore you know because you know we've had issues where every said you know you're just trying to find a place to throw the extra well i didn't budget i try to give an accurate value of the project i always do  we have to do it through all of our state permits anyways so i try to accurate value and this is where we come out with a landscape budget to big number right as marla knows we were actually fighting for a while that we are trees were too close together so i don't see the problem of having to do it over and over again as a problem i mean if it works allow to specifically allow it and maybe they would put pluck a percentage maximum no more than would like sandwich of ten ten percent of some number and perennials and grasses instead of that not allowing ornamental grasses and prime eels as part of the landscaping budget for the overall project seven staff recommends the board require the african to resolve the issues then a fight above prior to closing the hearing the above is pursuant to an e mail we received from david wheeler of with the city stormwater division i guess i'd like to start out by asking a question i'm not sure that the board knows the answer to this and i'm sure the staff knows he answered that is on the city's stormwater regulations more stringent than the state's stormwater regulations one significant difference in that the state regulations require twelve or twenty four hour detention of the one year storm whil from my office and our engineers so when the city's storm water department turns around and ask me for literally the same information that i'm preparing for the state i get a little aggravated but nevertheless i think our engineer meet your own zephyr and he prepared the documents in excess of one hundred twenty pages worth of documents and support it with then sent to david wheeler answering questions that he had here i have not heard that from david the information was just sent to him so i'm simply me i'm just stating a fact we're complying with all of his questions planet his i think david's biggest concern was are you trying to do infiltration we can't do it because of the high water table in the soil conditions so he lies in the ponds and that's all the information that we've given him so nothing's changed had to go back to john suggestion which makes a lot of sense it seems to me that the only the only reason for the existence of the city regulations is it's a city has decided that therefore it would seem to me that we could conclude that satisfied the state we could deem this this provision satisfied by satisfaction of the state standard by giving the  when you're starving you either want to make sure it comes out slowly which is the state standard or that the peak rate is no higher than existing conditions is going would be concerned about that if in order to do that they have to change the clan because the board approves the plan but in this case it sounds like they don't need to change the plan to do that i'm talking about this kid and then i agree with you see there so we were short on our number of my cracks that they are not going up on the interior there so for a new building there's a term spaces and six long term spaces what i see on that plan is twelve short term spaces so what's the total you're looking for model eleven short term plus six month term it could be like a shed other people have done like a sadder lockers or something but yes most people choose to do an internal wouldn't do that not for this building nobody wants to see a shed here and nobody wants to see a lean to or anything on the side of this seven million dollar building we will put six long term secure parking spaces for bikes inside the building i will put eleven that site and what you have now in this plan that meets the short term requirement of the new that's good they're ok so you just want a commitment from me because i can't really short of a site pla enclosure that protects the bicycles including components of the accessories against theft and whether so i see the park at the long term are at the airport for an hour and it's still long term lot you can put your bike in the long term bicycle storage for an hour well i'm happy to hear that it will reflect a powder coat finish with the aluminum bowl if that's acceptable that's not a problem relocate this poll for compliance with the criteria and that's the one i guessed it was hoping you could show me which boy or friend too because if it's the one i think it is that's about thirteen feet off the driveway and not way shorts in danger of getting hit but ok so we'll have a chance to review the minutes of june nineteenth two thousand and eighteen anyone have any corrections a concerns discussed in staff comments so i'm john anderson and i guess i've been elected as the primary spokes person with me is skip alley and who is when are you the president and c e o yes and chris gallup oh who's the project engineer the i will try given especially given the hour i will try to not repeat where we where we got to at the last meeting we were here about a month ago i think i think we stated as a goal at that time and i will restate that goal but my the purpose we we appreciate you're hearing us for sketch plan the purpose is that there are many issues that can be resolved or not without addressing traffic the if we have the management of our own valley it would like to be have some level of comfort so that we can address all of the issues except traffic before the are all valley mix the sizable investment that's going to be necessary to address the traffic issue and so we are trying to use this process for that purpose and  so i think we've got many of the issues we you know step spread brother tim was here the last time skips here now they'll they'll either get a level of comfort or not but i think we address most of the issues at the last meeting the so i will simply focus on the open issues i think the what we think are the open issues if other people have open issues great but we think that one of the open issues was the amount of pervious or open space that that will be needed we have gone back and submitted to you a plant there at the last meeting we discuss the we think that the technical requirement is that we have a certain amount of pervious surface or impervious surface certain amount pervious surface thirty percent we think we can achieve that with pervious pavers but i think the board said no we also we believe that there is a requirement for open space so we went back and we have we have submitted a plan that has thirty percent open space that plan as i should point out does not include some of the open space that shown is not would not be technically described as being pervious because it is underneath the some of that spaces it is a tank a gas tank but to the extent that so if you require us to have thirty percent open space here's how we would do it if you require us to have thirty percent pervious surface we would do it in another way but the end that would be that we would have some of the what showing is sort of gray on there would be would be pervious pavers if you require us to do  both and we would then we would address both issues but in any event we think we can address the issue we have another issue that was raised was well how do you do how do you deal with the part of the issue of parking between the building in the street and you also wanted to see what a building would look like and i think you want to us to show you a good looking building we have this is an architect design one of a kind building we think it would be a good looking building in addition we believe that we have brought out the front of the building so that parking that would otherwise be between the building in the street is within the building a building in south burlington is defined as a structure that has a roof and columns for  support and so we believe that the poor that we have up front is a building and the parking spaces are behind the front of that building that we have  valley spends a lot of time figuring out how to put a site together it is not easy in some cases i am familiar with cases where we've looked at a b as many as fifty different designs for a site before we were able to settle on a design that work are all belly has has looked at this they've they've tried to figure out how to address the many competing concerns to build a to build the site and we think the building is where it needs to be we don't think that there's another way to  locate the building so that and so without creating other problems that i that i cited in the cover letter that we that we provided to you we've also provided the we've provided a number of elevations for the proposed building you want to see what the building would look like we provided the elevations and in addition we there is some discussion about whether we would come whether what we need to do to comply with the p o d requirement so far we are trying to preserve the option of of having a p d application when the time comes  but and so we err we believe that we satisfy the the can the conditions for p u d approval that are stated in the ordinance there is some question though as to whether we must also satisfy the purpose section of the ordinance even the purpose section is not stated as one of the tests that you apply in determining whether we get p d approval and the that that purpose section outlines a number of you know is it is is it creative as a creative use of the land we think it's creative and and and we think it satisfies the purpose section as well but regardless of whether it's out as far as the purpose section we don't think we need to satisfy the purpose section we we believe that we can satisfy the specific criteria that we have to satisfy in order for a p u g to be approved so that is our summary of where we are will oh yeah we have regionally we showed a building we contemplated a building that would have two floors and the bottom floor would be built to be useful we still need to build the structure it's the structure is in effect or is serving as a retaining wall because the there's almost a there's about a story of difference between the back of the site and the front of the site but we have no we're not suggesting that we would that it would be anything but a a an unfinished cellar at this point and we frankly we don't have enough space on the site to provide parking if we were to finish this hour or so in stay within the coverage ratio so we recognize that reality and and just said let's we'll we'll give up on the the plan for the possibility of having something on the on the lower level so i guess everything ok so that's our summary you know i didn't want to repeat what we said before i hope i didn't i hope i was brief and concise and not confusing but i might have been confusing because frank's looking at me oh i'm looking at you because i don't agree with your definition of building i think it's just not correct ok second sentence of the definition of building in the regulations says the connection of two buildings by means of an open ports reis way passageway carport or other such open structure with or without a roof shall not be doing the make them one building well the definition of a building the first sentence is a structure having a roof supported by columns or walls and used or intended for the structure or enclosure of persons animals or equipment goods or materials of any time right which is why i read the second sentence i've been taught that your you read the whole thing you know the only the only way to reconcile a first and second sentence is to infer that ability isn't close well i would disagree with you with think the second sentence says that if you have a breeze way in between you you still have two buildings as a breezeway or a cardboard thing with a roof and supports is not a building you know it how is the carport between two buildings any different than the carport in front of the building i'm a to have is a carport i think in that particular instance of something that stretches between two buildings this  will also say that there is a second way to approve the design and that is that you can approve the design by allowing us by recognizing that we have a easement a huge utility easement that applies to that particular site and only that particular site it's the champlain water district eastman and second of all the the huge difference in height between the back of the site and the front of the site we believe that those two there are two ways to approve the building the way we've the way we've proposed one is the way we stated that we think that's a building the other is to is to recognize that we have that the site is a funny site and will be a special site with the with the easement and also the the huge difference and in height therefore to waive the required and therefore the way for every one job which is a discretionary matter yeah yeah yeah there is a there is a precedent for some kind of open structure being used as a as a building because you allow that to be structured behind which parking occurred so this is not exactly that you know it is just kind of a stick out over the front of the building but so i think there is legitimate disagreement on that so i'm happy to allow that the flip i just want to add there's a definition of building coverage which would support i think frank's position that the covered porch is not considered building building coverage gotcha where is it to have exterior walls building coverage is the ratio of the horizontal area measured from the exterior surface of the exterior walls of the ground floor level principal the accessory buildings so it's columns and brick and it is and it is not parked underneath it is intended to act as a building to to be in front of the park this is the parking is still clearly visible from the front yeah you know i think you can see past the i mean we my daughter and i laugh about this all the time with the c b s thing because you can you can clearly see the parking through it but the concept is there a structure was s if i could also just comment the other building coverage has that specific definition if you go down the building per footprint that's the area of land physically occupied by a building on the ground including any deck porch or other permanent structure attached to the building surely attached to the land in order to be a footprint surely attached to the land in order to be a footprint  into an argument with you because ultimately you're the charge right so there's another way to approve this if you i think it works under either one all we want to do is make it work under one either one if it doesn't them then you know there's a possibility that there will be no project now we had six concerns six categories of concerns in the june fifth the rb items overall site coverage i think you've addressed non conformity is one that i think we need to cover traffic we want to put aside until we get through this relationship a comprehensive plan conformity is the one that i think is still up problem i think that that's the one where we've got and you should walk through the again because we have a disagreement over whether it's an expansion of an existing use which is going from eight to twelve stations or whether it is a conversion of in use from the from the motel to a convert a convenience store or retail sector so we have a philosophical difference and i don't know how technical it is but the there's that  property and we believe that on that today the entirety of that property is used as a as a as a as a gas station or whatever whatever the service station gas station so not the not the motel and not the motel not the motel the the grocery store that we're going to put in is a conforming use it's the it's the law  it's the law where the gas station is the gas station is not a it's a non conforming use we believe that the entirety of that law is used for a gas station so the  entirety of the law is not conforming we are proposing to continue to use the entirety of the law as a nonconforming use there is a question though as to whether or not we can have a structure that serves a non conforming use on the property and we pointed out that we are reducing the amount of structure that is non conforming and but in addition i as i recall there was an allowance and i and i apologize i don't have the specifics but i think it was a dollar figure as to how much we could invest in the additional how much we could add to the non conforming structure and i think it was in the range of one hundred thousand dollars and we came to the conclusion one hundred twenty five thousand we came to the conclusion that what we're adding is well within that amount of money so there are two non conforming uses one is the area of land we're not changing definition so we can i can talk about it or you can talk about it the other part of the issue is the non conforming use as if you don't want to but right right right so you know one is non conforming use one is nonconforming structure we think the entirety of the use is nonconforming today and it will be non conforming when we're when we under our proposal there was a discussion as to whether the amount of car repairs that the type of car repairs that are being done arce is so extensive that this is not a gas station service station but a car repair place so i had interviewed skip harper in in preparation for the last hearing i reported what he said you don't have to rely on what i reported he's here tonight i think if you you you're welcome to ask him but he simply confirmed we we met before the meeting he confirmed that we any all of the car repairs that are done on site  minor car repairs of a type that are falling to the service station use not of not major repairs that fall into the car repair use and i hope i've got the definitions that the name exactly right but i think i got and then the other portion of it was there is zero prohibition in the senate on expanding the building or the use or on expanding a non conforming building of how you measure whether something is being whether the use is being expanded are not go to square footage and and the area of land or building that are being that are being considered they do not go to the amount of traffic that might be generated and if you start looking at traffic that might be generated then your as to whether that's a change of use then you get into all kinds of gradations as to the there are different traffic numbers that are generated according to the id he depending on what kind of office you have or kind of store you have so if you get into issues about whether the you are changing the use based on traffic generation then you  will i've never seen traffic generation used to define whether or not you're changing values i've seen it used to define how much how you how you address traffic generation but i've never seen it used to define my chain whether you changing the use you might have a store a commercial store depending on what you use the commercial store for you may have different traffic numbers but i've never seen people say well because you have different traffic numbers for one kind of store one that sells sneakers one that sells groceries that therefore that say that that's a difference and use money and i don't think that's in your words there is no indication of traffic generation if you look at the things that are used to measure changes of  they do not go to amounts of traffic generation so sticking strictly with square footage so x so the argument that i heard last time was that even though we're expanding the square footage by expanding the number of fueling stations fueling positions from eight to twelve that because the convenience store is not part of that that we were actually and we were demolishing the building that has the effect so we're actually decreasing the square footage devoted to the the non conforming years that i think was the argument if it did we're decreasing the amount of structure the square footage of the structure that is being devoted to the nonconformity of c s right so a few moments ago i thought i heard you say and i have a context to something but i thought you were saying that the whole thing is being looked at as a service station  plus fueling stations it's just a service station so that would argue against and so maybe i misheard that maybe is out of context and maybe having maybe heard in a different context i'm trying to conflate the two it doesn't may not have the terms of exactly right but there's a service station use the service station use includes the possibility of selling convenience items a small amount of convenience items on the site mr hart where has sold a small amount of convenience items on the site but we think that the amount he has sold is so small that it is a service station use in addition he has done car repairs on the site but again a service station use allows you to do minor car repairs if you know changing the battery doing doing inspections of those various things we think that what he's been doing also qualifies as a service station hears so we believe that the entirety of that law has been used as a service station use and we would propose to keep using that as a service to offer more tell and now the more the motel is going to be a grocery store use in the store yes a grocery store well a store a retail store includes a convenience store but there's we're not we don't have we're not selling convenience items on the gas station on our selling fuel and going to take cash at times right there is a we're going to take cash yes kind of ignore the obvious if this was a retail store let's suppose i'd better call that we had a retail store that was a non conforming use and it was a thousand square feet and it was a non conforming use a pathetic and you wanted to pad two hundred square feet that would be an expansion of a non conforming use here what you're doing except in your argument about you know i pathetically or for the sake of the argument about the the nature of the building what you're doing here is selling gasoline out of what four pumps and you not you want to sell gasoline out of it pumps that's the primary function of the site you're expanding t under any commonsense understanding of what it means of what the line which means we're we're not we're changing the care about the building i'm trying to fo when we go for but but that that product mix occupies one hundred percent of the site when we go forward if we go forward then the product mix will be more gasoline sales and it will be less car repair but that those those two things still qualify as a service station use we simply changing the product mix to expand the service hand building and building a canopy right adding to the canopy an area that is smaller than the building right but you're also construct here forty five hundred station i think if you weren't taking cash at the fueling station there might be an argument for this saying is a little eleven o'clock at night is a bad time to make a decision and i think you're trying to summarize that to make a decision and my experience is that it's worthwhile coming back and talking about these things we can do that  you know i don't want to waste your time time can i throw up because i'm in agreement with frank and i'm not sure votes has weighed in on the the notion of the cover canopy you know being enough of  leeway to for the parking in front of a building because it does nothing to screen the building it's just purely used as a loophole to park in front of the building you know the building the building had c v s was meant to screen the parking does it successfully do it or not that's for some enough to determine it's clear that the canopy over the cars is not doing it one legged screaming part cars are still directly in front so i would i'm going to say i personally you know vote completely against that i'd like to hear more from you in regards to that utility he's meant that prevents you from moving the building forward and parking more in the back whether it truly is an impediment because we have discussed that in the past we have given some waivers you know for having the parking lot in the front of the building because you can't move the building anywhere else and you can't put the building under the easement so i'd like to hear more from you in regards to that that truly does prevent you from that's a design issue and you know but it seems to me the fundamental question here is the is the use question recent history because as mr woken points out some percentage of the gas sales are going on involved people walking to the storm paying cash for other things to get perhaps for the gas i mean you guys have also there's not a lot of information out there publicly about what the facility operates as right now i don't read so this is a stretch but you you do have a y it sounds like it's more than just sort of minor engine repairs that we're operating in taking place there and so like that's you know a change of use from selling gas and doing actual repair work to selling gas expanding that and now you just have a convenience store which is nothing to do with you know repair you know facilities i'm not sold on that party they're ok you know like a not one i don't think you want to belabor tonight but yeah some of some of face is that the maple leaf motel has long term tenets and we've got a letter from one that says they've been living there for a long long period of time if that's the case then you have a removal of housing that post thank you thank you very much very much the care we already approved the minutes so rather the end of the meeting at eleven o nine pm all right you really went out on a doozy