##VIDEO ID:KeV3P133eCQ## started am just me e pm at any regular or special meeting of the board unless the motion is passed by the members then present to extend to a later specified cut off time and same shall be announced at the opening of each meeting in addition the board does not intend to begin a new e e e e e e what those amendments are and then the board will render it if this is Mr chairman members of the board presume to the local govern housing law and that law it's it's summarized in my memo to the board dated November 13 is slightly different than the consistency review on the 26 La at 45 days not 35 to remember determination and it's a mandatory review by the CL board not just for consistency with the statute says you should identify the buys you report to the government body if there are any but all recommendations which is very similar to uh what we normally do with orinan but this is slightly different because it's coming out of the local government housing and I site the section 48 12-7 the section that empowers the board and requires the council refer the amendment to board Denise are you picking up okay on the voice I so I SL I'll try to speak up M's here representing the bur to present the plan and good evening Mr chair myself Matt J Who's a Redevelopment attorney for B Council as well we're um both here to provide some context and information to the board I think Matt actually start out with some of the background and then I'll talk about the plan sure so uh good evening chair need to square anybody no it's okay members Jess mentioned my name is Matt Jess from bman Redevelopment count bur it has been about four years since this property 65 mortown Road has really been before you so let me just get you quickly caught up to speed as some of you may recall in December of 2019 following a review by this board the B declared this property as an area in need of development and then then in July of 2020 again after review by this board the buau council adopted a Redevelopment plan for this 125 13 in 2022 the bur bought the property um in February of 2024 the B issued a request for proposals to developers to try and find a developer who will who would redevelop the property in accordance with the Redevelopment plan or in accordance with suggested amendments to the Redevelopment plan in order to accommodate the project that's being proposed by each um in May of 2024 the B received three proposals and they selected a proposal issued by 15 sbur LLC and that proposal which you're going to hear about a little bit tonight effectively is to redevelop the property we old Audi um card property into a uh classic and collector C dealership so a sort of unique Car Dealership not selling five vehicles an hour but selling one to two classic cars or collector cars per week so what I would describe as a low volume almost display oriented um cardip the burrow entered into a conditional redevelopers agreement with the developer um in SE late September giving the parties 120 days to primarily do three things one um consider any amendments required in the Redevelopment plan two negotiate a full Redevelopment agreement and three negotiate a purchase and sale agreement for the sale by the burrow to 15 Sansbury of this property so that they can so um most recently the bur Council a adopted introduced an ordinance approving the Redevelopment plan amendments that are before you tonight and importantly be adopted a resolution referring these amendments to you and as you heard earlier from your professionals um Your Role under the Redevelopment law to review these amendments to identify whether any of the amendments are inconsistent with the master plan and to make any other recommendations with respect the Amendments that you find um appropriate and then that would be memorialized via a report whether it be through the chair through your general counsel ier to you that gets issued back to the governing body and then they they would then um proceed to act on a second hearing and final adoption of the ordinance approving these plan amendments so that's sort of where we are in this process where we've come from where we are and we look to be headed um at this point unless anybody at the board has any questions with respect to the time table and the process I would ask Jessica Colwell to take you through the plan amendments in detail think okay all right okay thank you Matt so we were charged with looking at the existing Redevelopment plan that was adopted back in July 2020 against the proposal from the proposed developer it's a pretty straightforward proposal there really looking to reutilize the existing structure on the property rehabilitate it um place in this classic car uh collector car dealership very low volume uh most of the cars would be stored inside with a maximum of 15 cars stored outside they wanted to have some repair for the classic and collector cars just to get them ready to sell not repair for any other um just general public or any other people's cars so there was a restriction on that where basically they wanted to allow for cars being repaired but just utilizing two overhead exterior garage doors as the Bas go into um there's also a consideration for potentially renting some of the cars just on a very limited basis so what we did was added to permitted uses uh classic and collector cardio ships uh automotive repair on for classic collector cars with a maximum of four repair Bays with two exterior drawers and autom motive rental as permitted principal uses and then because there were prior restrictions under prohibited uses for Automotive Rental and automotive repair and sale uh those were strien from the prohibited uses and then uh there's a section with respect to parking where we allow maximum of 15 spaces for storage of of vehicles outside uh indoor storage inside the building is unlimited but limited by the size of the existing structure uh employee parking uh parking would be the standard would be set on employees uh one space per employee and then customer parking one space per five cars being sold on the property and then a requirement that the parking lot be screened on perimeter and there's definition of collector car dealership to ensure that they um proposal meets the expectations that were set forth in that proposal from the developer and that's essentially it's pretty straightforward um Amendment to the existing plan and uh we did receive a report from your planner and I could go through couple of things that he noted he doesn't mind um he went through the consistency review which we also did and I think we were in agreement on that that it's in consistent with the master plan um he asked for the basis of vehicle the parking standard it was essentially based on the proposal being this really limited proposal knowing that we would they would essentially most likely need one parking space for any employee that which would like to come on their own and then because of the really limited type of sales that one you know parking space per five cars being sold would be a reasonable amount of parking uh recognizing the fact that not a lot of people are going come now at once um there's a lot of parking though around the building so I don't think you know they're going to be limited or restricted on parking uh they he also asked about there's a Prohibition in the current Redevelopment plan about parking in the front yard and it's a little difficult to determine based on how uh the buildings laid out and we didn't have like a conceptual plan that had measurements and things there may be a potential conflict with that um provision so if the board is interested in making that comment that perhaps there should be a car out for some parking in the front yard on this um in this proposal with a classic car dealership that would be a good comment for the board to make and then there was also a question about the exterior doors and the requirement for the four Bays with the two exterior doors um and just whe that should be clarified and the intent is to allow four cars interior um the two overhead exterior doors accessing that space garage garage so that should say garage doors in overhead doors or something that would be another B comment to make so and I think that's that's really pretty much all all of the comments unless you have anything else wanted to race yeah prer to have exterior bay doors yeah just to clarify because I know there are some members of the board that work at the literal language of the of the ordinances so I just want to m any other com that you wish to make no thank you I would just note that and I know I know the board knows this but for the benefit of the public this of course is is amending the Redevelopment plan um should that go forward the developer of course will have to come before the planning board with its full site plan application as any other project would to be evaluated against the zoning incling the Redevelopment plan so um this is not in lie of any other approval that the developer would need but in fact they would be back before you for um the more traditional site the enter into agreement that gives us 120 to negotiation that certainly the just question the underlying Redevelopment plan what's the requirement for sidewalks and we it does require I believe sidewalks in the front and then the conceptual plan allows for sidewalks in the front and some gring of the front of the property so just so you know the reason why I ask is we have a pending application down the street at 53 um and that plan required at least an 8ot sidewalk they came in seeing the variance and we're trying to push back since this is in the same Corridor so we make sure that that's an 8ot sidewalk requirement so that we can start building the wi sidewalk on the street you certainly make that comment well can I chime in on that I my last comment in my review was basically that we amending the committed uses and eliminating pivoted use you know makeing it all work together but everything else is still going to be there I just didn't know the this is a Redevelopment plan this is not so correct saying is in the Redevelopment plan that is not modified still applies coming understood I just didn't know what the underlying plan calls for development plan specify if it if it doesn't the recommendation I would ask that consistency with the with the adjacent Properties or plans for the adjacent property this way because there's other sites in between those two that seem to be on Redevelopment process that make sense I I have a bunch of questions um okay um first question I have is did you uh look at comps for this business these are it's there at least three others that I know of in the general vicinity that have this same type of business and did you look at any of them in ter terms of their what their operations look like or number of spaces anything like that no we not okay probably should have well that's really is that for the developer what is it for the developer demonstrate no in terms of setting guidance in terms of any of these things like five spaces for one car well did you look at CES what you know the they existing functioning Enterprises have ratios of spaces to now I'm encouraged if you say look we're just kind of setting a floor here maybe because there's lots of parking you know it was your com like there there should be plenty and this is just saying well you got to have at least that I I would suggest it one space for five is so that's why I wanted to know if you would check comps on this to see what the reality okay standards for automobile dealerships didn't forget the actual dealerships as so I guess the way to handle this might be with 4 a there should be some more explicit indication of what the formula was what what's the rationale behind the number that's all is this is feedback to the council I understand but there should be some more what was a rationale for that the automotive rentals so I want us to be I guess more explicit that because I think that's her intent honestly is that there's a number of vehicles that are either owned by the dealer or more commonly on consignment in in in a this kind of a situation and they're wanting to reserve the right to rent those Vehicles so there won't be a fleet of rental correct and I think we should I I I derive that that is the intent I think we should be more explicit as feedback we should be more explicit that they they want the ability to rent the cars that are on consignment you know seems to be the whatever the right wording is just it's not like oh well here's the stuff I'm selling by the way I buy cor that you could maybe just make the rental and permitted accessory secondary use and not the primary as opposed to the fear that somebody comes in and turns it to make it just a Ral so if it's the secondary use that fixes that it actually is under it's not entirely clear but it is under accessory uses so ACC is Clarity and we're just these these comments sometimes are clity I would Envision and this is in terms of Street skap and so forth and talking about the sidewalk I would Envision they they would need to be they'd either want to put in the front of the building an out just an outdoor display of a car that's kind of like what Paul Miller does they'll put a car out in front you know and it's like okay man stay there or whatever but it's it's kind of for the purposes of if there's space that maybe instead of parking in front they' be permitted to display in front I mean technically their inventory a different definition and what would need would we need to say anything to allow them to do that I want them to give them the flexibility to do that to be able to have merchandise between the front wall of the building and the sidewalk so rather than permitting parking in the front where we say stor of vehicles for sell outside including in the front [Music] yard I guess there's a difference between situating the car their car and parking I guess that's and whatever needs to be we should just be really clear and and I don't want if we say no no there should not be any part in the front of the building you were kind of like well correctly you said look when we do when they do the final plan it'll be more evident now and John I don't know whether at this point we need to what do we need to say about parking in the front we need to say I'm not put important that's required in that report going to express that there was a concern about parking ratio and that some R included well everything you talked about would be compiled in a report report right and just everything that's been discussed tonight you would put in the report and it would be up to the council to consider those recommendations most important is two step process one there has to be a finding of not inconsistent right or there are inconsistencies you need to identify right the second part would be the recommendations that weing right um that's the role of board and then there's a process by which Council considers these recommendations and they can accept them and make those [Music] modifications it's totally council's discussion anyway right we're advis but still yeah with recommendations recommendation inconsistency if there was a negative report back okay the count that's a whole another procedure for that council with full uised membership of that Council the majority of overl but you're aware the same process is with but it's twofold okay I also just along the same line so I'd like them to have the ability to display product between the sidewalk and the facade and I'd like there to be transparency in the front that they can display product next to their Windows you know like showroom Windows basically so that passer by can see the product that's kind of part of the whole Vision um that's just feedback more for them and I don't think the council needs to to know that but it's we're just trying to make it my opinion better um uh we already talked about the various spots that they should be exterior bay doors which is f that's basically that's fairly something that's not elaborate here does anyone have while I was commenting any ideas or any questions or and John obviously it's your your opinion as our professional this is not inconsistent no I I I try to express that in my memo without stealing Thunder but uh no I I didn't didn't trouble me from that perspective I think no the testimony that's beened you saw the reasons check it there was nothing there that that triggered a concern from that perspective yeah the part A no um one of the things I've noticed that these type of Enterprises is that there's the normal traffic where people they're working personal relationship people come in they got longstanding stuff the car gets conditioned no big deal it's there they they negotiate the sale andc the other nice thing about these sites is that they'll have events like uh often that often Enterprises will have occasional events where quite a few more people are going to show up because they're there for you know donuts and coffee you know something where they've attracted you know more people together whe maybe a club um and and that can occur and so I I guess it's PE it's a Peak parking demand you know well we need be 24 portions outside the door okay well great been on one side but let's I'm just saying for the applicant let's they should assess whether they're going to do that or not and if they're going to do it let's try to make sure we have our we don't create a problem for if you would like to organ suggest language to that that consideration should be given discussions about the intention to have yeah marketing don't marketing strategies we don't know but that's something that the council works out I would prefer if that was left out I wouldn't I wouldn't add that recommendation no no I'm just going on record and that's okay too because we're sitting here chatting everyone's listening and it's like when we talk about the space the the space that's there that's extra the parking spaces that's great but at the end of the day the reality is if there's not enough parking to an event and the person that owns facility doesn't have vents no that's not what happens reality is reality the reality is that if you're own a business and no one can park and no one shows up with you I don't go to events that I can't park at they're not very successful so they're going to have to figure that out I don't want to go down a path where we're always denying that because we're worried about something that may or may not happen and then all this extra to it when there's a business underline that knows how to function and can figure it out I think on the dayto day for three 50 out of 365 there's sufficient parking for what that main intens purpose if they going to have a special event they can go to an next door neighbor or someone else and say hey can we borrow your parking lot that's for them to figure out I'd stay out of that that's just my op well I don't want to put a constraint on I'm just saying and I just want to say that there just feedb that if there's extra space it's like we have spaces but that's like we we can satisfy this we've got four times as many spaces Just One Look at the coms you know yourself just and we don't need to put anything in I'm just saying feedback the way these things run often is in this method and I agree with you that well we can't mandate that they support for their PE you know we could but we're not mandating the point is we're not mandating the support the people okay so um but it is something that's very likely to happen ideally will happen and so the key is to just think about the logistics of how that property will function when they have these events in their in their judgment they can hand that's but but no there doesn't have to this can be feedback but it doesn't have to be embraced it doesn't have to beor than a a rule or change like you know this is this has got to be the ratio you you know one one space per card you might have these events so they're illary uses I guess all right well the important thing was what John so it's not inconsistent and and the rest is all just suggestions and feedback and so forth I don't know that any of them were any of the feedback was like a major concern it was just here's some ideas and things to think about right was there [Music] any like a rigorous stra counselors so I I can summarize the the comments that I heard there about five or six uh comments it sounds to me and similar to Mr Z I don't want to speak for the board but sounds sounds to me uh that these comments are not inconsistencies with the master plan but things that you might uh request that the council consider uh the first one I heard was uh consideration with 8 foot sidewalks or at least consistency uh with the surrounding area uh second one was the comment related to the specificity of a garage door or exterior bay doors just clarifying that language third comment uh was the front yard parking comment and this ties into a a later comment kind of related whether or not it's a a parking area versus an outdoor display area the distinction between parking and display it seems like it's intent there uh maybe consideration to the applicant or business operator to have a display window and then um another comment I guess this would be the either the fourth fifth comment depending on how you're counting that last one um whether the rental use would be accessory not primary it sounds like that is uh in the amendment but maybe just the key is Clarity uh and then finally this discussion regarding marketing strategies and Evac capacity for potential event just to be but not necessarily by the way um I have one other one and John um in terms of uh uh B Doors Gage doors is there a constraint in terms of side load or front load or anything in the S I have no plans I con not not sure into that I wasn't involved in any of discussions does our planner know does anyone know whether there's any well part of it maybe the intent you know I think the only concern that typically comes up is people putting front loading garage doors on the to thear you're G to likely put them on the side of the [Music] rear so I think well I don't know do we have an opinion John opinion on how the garage stor should be situated that anything we need to mention back to speaked no no if they placed the side of the back that's then that's great yeah you know that might reinforced in the plan not sure want to impose that that's you guys I prefer to be on the side of the back and IND that's where it's going it makes sense you want to display the area in the front you know so it's going to go intrusive place I mean as intrusive as garage be I think we can be fairly certain that you know this type of business would unless it's like you said logistically impossible they would want it I think it's going to end up in the back if I remember the site way back you need to be able to park and get there are two doors yeah no two Bay to the right side to the right side that's there's a recessed driveway with a garage to the right staring at the door that exist one big door yep so so we think that's probably what you know that they would do side rear but if they didn't they just said I'm you know going to just use the two two B that are there is there planning or Vision or whatever in that zone that would not be happy with those I know I realize they exist on other properties they're not they're not they're not prohibited they're not they're not prohibited it's not obvious as you drive you're coming um and it's not part of part of a street State yeah remember this is a longstanding building we're kind of used to this building if they're going to renovate the way it is that's minimal no I just want to be sure there's no standard in I'm not concerned about that all right so we covered it basically then it's not any anything else no I'm just to add to the front if you have garage doors in the front which would that would be a traffic Hazard too so the side door it's in the back door you don't a lot they just what's there now they're deep they're way I don't know how many Cuts how many cuts are there now you could call it three but one big one look at long this is going to be a kind of same operation but at a lesser intensity yeah so no I'm just sort of been you know considering what they'll run up you know it's like it's like hey I've got a great plan you know any any want you come in and you put your plan and then you find out what the is now you got to close up two of your Cuts you know yeah is going to look at thatum it's not here there's no impact there's a finding of of no no imp yeah so they they and this doesn't generate the kind of traffic B I think and I'm not for Traffic Engineers but in my experience Rises to the level of they'll deal with that at site they would deal with that at site yeah do I need to make a motion to say it's not inconsistent can I just jump in real apologize chairman um I just you ran through the report that was wonderful I just I'd like to just make sure that the report distinguishes first I think what Mr DeMarco was about to say which is that there's a finding that it's not that the amendments are not Inc consistent two are any of the items that you went through that are recommendations by the planning board for the council to consider because as the board heard earlier there a process under the Redevelopment law which would require the council to basically vote to either accept or reject notes as opposed to what I thought I heard from Mr chairman on a couple of these items that were more um advisory and I think the comment was some of not for the council in particular but more probably for the developer really to hear and that would be advisory it would not be a quote recommendation that the governing body would have to consider and either vote to accept or reject so I the record of what you described I couldn't agree more with I just wasn't clear which items were truly recommendations to the council such as the garage Bay clarifying garage bay doors and things that were advisory such as Peak parking and or um the display product up front and the windows Etc so my only ask is so one recommendation it's great great recommendation one one recommendation is 4 a needs to be some kind of formula or rationale applied to it don't just say it looks like 50 you know not not 4 a Five Spot 4 C oh 5 for one ought to be okay you're a direct yeah there needs to be some substance and rational I only put that comment clarification from the planner the recommendation is clarification he's saying well what do they need to do that could be advisory as well well anything could be yeah I'm saying that regarding this that should be clarified that is a recommendation that they clarified it's up to them to do whatever they want to do it that would be a recommendation [Music] if secondary use of the rental is already there you know it's really clear at secondary use that's great if it's not really clear should be clear a recommendation the rental so when you when you review it you say no no it's really clear secondary is okay fixing the the day voice that's just the the name just I think the 8 foot sidewalk is a recommendation right yeah I think the display and the Peak Park more advisor yeah yeah I think anything else I'm trying to pick out the ones you know so it sounds like there's two recommendations and they would be uh a more definitive statement as to the parking standard and then incorporating the 8 sidewalk if it's not already if it's not already and everything else our advisory coms well it's a typo it's more like a yeah whatever you want to do for that it should definitely be there it's [Music] anything rise to the level of recommendation I'm [Music] okay not I justed i' rather do it once and correct so I would put before the board a motion that the recommend or the plan as amended is not inconsistent with the master plan um and that there are three recommendations one being that the plan re firms or have an 8 sidewalk that the parking ratio get further explained um and rationalized as to um the recommendation of five parts per space per employee um that the bay doors get cleaned up and with the advice of um that display vehicles uh should be allowed um and there should be considerations or thought either in redevelopers agreement or any other further discussions with the uh redeveloper as to Peak use of um event space and how that will be accomodated second Mr yes mner yes Miss Geller yes Mr Graham yes Mr Walton yes and Mr cesarino yes the motion car very much appreciate it okay um May the bills I'll move to bill amount of 15871 I can direct this to [Music] you detail one of the explanations it says that you're developing a guide book what is the invoice number a an s or a non s i I didn't it's in the detail [Music] which application number inv number the invoice is 45569 4549 and in explanation in the detail's it's lumped into one [Music] oh because because they didn't understand it's review not review not prepare they were raising questions about the application and they wanted to understand some of the design guidelines and design guide so that was conversation with the applic I wasn't preparing when reviewing it against their questions and working with them to understand what they were concerned about okay there's a guide book for downtown so there is and they had questions about it so it exists right now you're not developing no we did that a okay no I'm not developing a guide no it was in conjunction with the review of the application and discussions b87 yes Miss bner yes Miss Geller yes Mr gr yes Mr walon yes and Mr zazarino yes okay so we are now to our public hearings section our uh main event is EET properties at 55 Claremont Road at the corner of Cl M Street good evening I'm Roy Kos I represent equinet properties represented them since our first application on February 8 2022 there's been three other hearings after that now Mr Graham um I assume you want to start with Mr brightley and his engineering report is that how you want to handle this what should present the application changes and then yeah you should summarize just you should go through this is what we intend to do and then you would say I'd like to have well if you recall the first application that we filed was under the um DCL the D Zone uh halfway through that presentation there was a remark from it a board member saying wait a minute uh this property is actually in the Redevelopment Zone Quimby Lane subsection six uh which came as a surprise not only to my client but to Mr brightley and Mr Zabo who had approved this as a completed application and we all believe that the property was in that zone uh instead of making an issue about that a legal issue or otherwise we agreed that we would uh redo the plans uh which we did the plans were substantially similar to those plans that were filed when everybody believed this property was in the DCL Zone those plans pretty much conformed to the standards of that zone uh this property was uh uh placed we agreed that it was in the Redevelopment zone for purposes of moving this application forward and getting uh this project completed to do so the Redevelopment plan was amended and Mr masuchi the uh the principal of equinet was named as a master redeveloper in addition the density of the project of this property was changed uh to 18 or 19 units per acre our plan was for uh eight units which was um permitted under we own a little more than uh 5.2 Acres uh uh 0.52 Acres so we appeared before the board we had a hearing um which we didn't complete our experts were Mr G migana I'm having problems with my voice uh who the our engineer David minnow who was the architect and a and a planner didn't complete we went uh and and uh that was a a virtual hearing we then uh had a second hearing which was rudely interrupted by some pornographic display um and um then it was decided no more virtual hearings we'll have uh uh live hearings uh we' re noticed this for three or four times while Mr simwa had made remark that that's not a big deal it is when you have um uh a paralal spend six hours labeling things and mailing them and posting it in the newspaper and everything else in any event we came back we made our final presentation our planner testified the architect testified IED um and Mr G mikano testified as to the engineering issues we had a deliberation and at time in that deliberation it became apparent to us that we weren't going to get approvals so uh we based that on the fact that most of the comments of the board members were it's too big for that site even though that site is the biggest site in the um um Redevelopment Zone and it's it's the only site one of the few that isn't in the flood plane um and we recognized that there was some criticism of the uh the the the property in terms of its size um a town home units there was comments made by this was a beautiful application David minow is a terrific architect the uh the materials that were utilized which were Classic Materials that would fit within the architecture of this town uh but it's too big so we asked that the boat not be taken um so we could go back and confer and decide what to do with the property it took us six seven eight months to figure that out first we were going to make a rentals and we were going to do this we were going to do that I don't want to bore you with it and finally we arrive that will take two units off the building so it's no longer eight units it's six units and that that according to Mr zabo's testimony um reduces the um building coverage by by a substantial amount and the impervious coverage by a substantial amount so we are now here to make our final presentation this is the best we can do it's six units the same design the same terrific building material the same landscaping and and uh just a few minor modifications uh so tonight I have our engineer which will go over he'll go over briefly what's the plans uh that have and those changes that were made from the 8 unit uh project we've considered Mr brightly's letter we've addressed most of those items uh Mr zabo's um uh report um is not complimentary it's but it's not uncomplimentary I think he's always favored this application but I don't want to speak for him he did say he did say he was in favor of the application of the deliberations I think it was in November I know it was cold weather but it was in November sometime so that's our that's my opening uh Mr Kos want to interrupt your opening but I just want to put a few things on on the record for the sake of the record um so just at the outset although the board does have a quum tonight Mr Kel says you're aware the board does not have enough members uh who are at this time eligible to deliberate and vote on the application therefore the applicant is permitted to present testimony exhibits and legal arguments to support proposal and the board may ask questions of the applicant and its Witnesses and assuming the applicant completes its presentation any members of the public may also appear to ask questions of the applicant voice concerns about or support for the proposal but the board will not make a determination on the application tonight assuming no further delays or issues the boards the the soonest the board will deliberate and vote on this application will be its regularly scheduled December 12th meeting uh and further I have reviewed the applicant's public notice and it's notice sent to Property Owners within 200 ft of the property I find those notices uh that that content is accurate and complete I find that they were timely published and served uh being more than 10 days in advance of the uh initial hearing date and therefore uh this board has jurisdiction and authority to hear the matter and further uh on September 26 of this year the applicant granted the board an extension of time within which to decide the application until December 31st 2024 I agree with that did we collect did did we collect stipulations Steve had Steve started collecting items no longer be relevant or whatever something already been yeah we we've started yes St building will be assigned that was for the architect testimony to they change with the proposal well I understand it just yeah so I I did uh I reviewed this application and and the prior proceedings in detail on my own and with Mr Warner uh and I would recommend that any of those stipulations or or conditions or agreements with the applicant be reiterated in and in addition to that there are different members have different opinions as those stipulations does uh providing new stipulations um does that count as deliberating no no no so no I just want to make sure well that's a very good question so to clarify what I mean by deliberating would mean that the applicant completes its presentation the board asks his questions the public has an opportunity to ask questions and then the hearing is closed and then at that time the has the opportunity if it so chooses to openly deliberate and make a determination that will not occur that last piece will not occur tonight the deliberation and make a determination will not Ur correct that's matter okay did you mention stipulations uh Steve just collects as as the testimony occurs and his comments go through Steve collects the comments that you know it's like yeah everybody not we're not backing off those stipulations no I'm not confusing we agreed to put a Stairway from Claremont down to the brook and we agreed to to give the burrow of conservation eement from Mill Street to the car wash wall for a walking path wasn't mention all of those all of the things that we stipulated to we're Bound by right and and in your in your presentation tonight you'll I'm sure address them again so they'll be part of your testimony presentation ask yeah well as Mr brightley say they're on the plans and we we stipulate that to the walkway um to the brook from plemont and the um uh easement conservation easement that we would give to the burrow that will run along milbrook uh road to from Mil Street to the the the end our sideline make sure we're squ away that you know some might go going away that's all I mean there were many that are not necessarily on the Plass for example no storage of garer recycling out on right that's why we end up with private right there's several of that and all the all the conditions forward but they're sort of in this you know collecting it St I'm not aware of any that would change other than perhaps if there's going to be testimony about any change that are make to the plan based on any of the review letters they may impact PRI we'll we'll have testimony to that you're probably covering any storm water like adjustments that may have been made I know there were discussions okay but that's like okay we'll get to that there may have been a stipulation there too or not I'm just trying to make sure we have everything we can proceed okay so um and call my first witness Mr G mikano who's been the uh I've known him for years but have problems with his name all the time um he'll testify as to uh what's been changed and what has been changed with respect to Mr brightly's letter one of the the point is I for one reason or another I left the my exhibit list from the previous applications on my kitchen table um so if we could mark this uh these exhibits a with today's date um unless from my from my notes the last exhibit was exhibit nine so this would be exhibit 10 okay good okay all right well hello everyone my name is [Music] Mark your right hand Mark and do you to Tru yes I do all right thank you do you want requalified for people I think that be a good idea okay um please tell me your profession I'm a professional engineer and do you hold licenses in New Jersey yes I do and have you been the engineer on this application since February of 2022 yes I have and you've testified this before this board before yes I and you're familiar with the site you visited the site yes and you were the one who prepared the plan that's correct thank you I submit to him as an expert in engineer go ahead all right so uh I know there are some new members here and the last time we were here was about a year ago uh so if it's okay i' just like to kind of set the the scene for you and I have beening some exhibits with me some of which I may reference tonight I had the first one up here on the board on the the eel and it's called the site plan exhibit it's dated 11424 and it's a colorized version of the site layout plan in the plans we submitted it has Landscaping added to it as well and there are some minor modifications that we made based on some review comments and discussions I had with the board engineering so I'll I'll mark it 810 did you say that the date of it the date that was prepar was 114 [Music] 11 and the propert intersection clemont Road at mil street it's located in the lane Redevelopment Zone U the property is currently developed with a single family home and a gravel driveway with access off of M Street uh the um mine Brook is located on the east side of the property it runs from north to south across the property and there's a flood plane a floodway raran Zone along that water for there are no freshwater Wetland all that's been verified by the D and we have applied permits for this project and receive permits from the DP for this development along that water fls and what we're proposing is to construct a twostory town home building with two levels of uh the town home and one garage level underneath so from Claremont Road it'll be two stories from the uh the brook side of the property it'll be three stories access is from M Street and parking is located under the building access from M Street provides uh driveway access to parking spaces under the building and then there are parking spaces which stick out behind the building uh the building uh was uh described by the architect in great detail at the previous meetings and uh the previous proposal was for eight uh two-bedroom town home units as Mr keros said we've amended that proposal now to have just six two bedroom town home units the building is essentially uh the exact same building that was presented to the board by the architect it's just a little small and the uh the two units that were taken away were the units on the south side of the building uh so the six units are that are remain are still in the same spot were proposed before uh we have parking spaces uh that are located out uh behind the building and a walkway from clamart road down to a an easan in the back which will be dedicated to the burrow and it contain a walking path along the M Dr uh the plan that I submitted includes four parking spaces that stick out from behind the building and a walkway that's located just 2 ft off of the side of the building uh based on Mr Bradley's review letter and discussions he and I had subsequent to the issuance of the review letter uh Mr Bradley expressed some concern in the letter that there wasn't enough space in the garage at the North End of the garage uh for uh garbage and recycling uh utilities and other elements that are going to be located there so what we decided was to eliminate remove on space from the building and put it outside the building with the other four spaces so this rendering shows five spaces outside the building which is what was proposed in the previous application what was reviewed by the D and what was reviewed under the D permit for this project but that leaves additional space now in the building uh for the trash and recycling area for uh utility meters uh for a um water uh hot box and uh and it um provides additional space inside the building and I believe it addresses people's concerns about the area inside the building the walkway also has been moved showing two feet off of the building we moved it to 12 feet off of the building uh that allows When anybody from the public walks down the walkway to the walking trail in the back they're not right next to the the uh building right next to the one windows on the side that also gives us an opportunity to provide some Landscaping along the and additional Landscaping in that area so the plans that we submitted uh show list all the variances and uh relief that's required um and the uh the previous app previous plans that were reviewed had very included VAR enges for building coverage um perious coverage uh steep slope disturbance and required a uh also a variance for Access for M Street and required a design waiver for no off Street Lo loading spaces those variances and wavers are still required but the variances for coverage have been reduced uh the uh proposed building coverage is 5,25 square ft where 1,375 sare ft uh allowed in the zone previously we were at 6,930 FT so we've been reduced the uh the building size substantially the uh impervious coverage the maximum that's out is 2,475 the previous application proposed 9,530 ft this application uh proposes 7,700 Square ft that's a little different than the number that's shown on the plan and the reason that's a little larger than the number shown on the plan is because we moved this parking space outside move the walkway a little farther away from the building so they access it to the side of the parking garage is a little longer so 7,700 Square ft is the uh the number uh we're requesting uh for the variance for impervious coverage and then finally steep slope disturbance uh we request variances for uh disturbance of slopes in two of the categories uh in the uh 15 to 25% category we're proposing the disturbance of 361 Square ft while a maximum I'm sorry in the uh the 15 to 25% category were proposing 1,964 ft where only 1,000 square ft allowed and in the greater than 30% category we're proposing 2,11 ft or 250 square ft that's allowed again that's a reduction in the uh slope disturbance from the prior application at the last couple meetings we had a planner here which discussed the variances in uh great detail and um the the variances are still the same uh just are reduced a little bit in the last dation just tell me about the steep slopes uh what is your position as as to the fact that the building is access a retaining wall the SE yeah the the property there's a natural slope in this area from across um Claremont Road down to the stream but those slopes have been changed uh by the construction of the road the construction of a home a retaining wall that's been built along that area uh so those slopes are really just uh in my opinion man-made slopes along the roadway um and this project will um when it disturbs those slop it's actually going to eliminate those slopes the reason we're uh one of the reasons we're concerned and regulate steep slope disturbance is because if they're left uh unvegetated uh or unprotected then they can cause erosion storm water runoff issues um so you want to make sure that any steep so disturbance uh results in slopes that are protected vegetated and don't have stone water discharging f and that's the case here most of the slopes will be eliminated any steep slopes that remain will be protected during construction rated and stabilized after construction and no stor waterers proposed to be discharged over those slopes so in my opinion there's no adverse impacts from the disturbance of the steep slopes by this project do you have a u an elevation to show the board yes the uh the project architect submitted plans and I have a copy here n those plans are included elevation of the building this is sheet A3 from the architect plans that was submitted um with the application and it shows elevation views of the front of the building on the upper left hand side of the sheet the rear of the building from the lower left hand side of the side elevations on the right and um some of the things we worked on with the uh architect were to screen the parking garage from uh anyone at the rear of the building which proposed around the parking garage is a 2 and 1/2t high wall and then on top of the wall is a white vinyl privacy P that fully the the vehicles that are parked inside the and underneath the building did we get this number is this I know he said A1 A1 A3 that was submitted with in other words it doesn't need to be marked just what's the date on that last Revis 10324 and the building has an elevator right yes the uh access to the parking garage little more detail on the the building or the site design uh the building will face Claremont Road and the front door so all the buildings are at face Claremont Road there'll be doors uh with step access out to the sidewalk on Claremont Road any when of the parks in the parking garage can get to the front doors either by the stairs out of the side of the uh the parking garage or by an elevator or lick uh that provides access to the front as well uh in the parking garage there are uh four parking spaces including the on sticking out from back of the building and there are Ada stations and EV charging station in accordance with I have no further questions so just witness go ahead you look ready just regard to the testimony the steep slope figures that is that it change at all yeah and again and you're right that's a good point they are slightly different than the ones that are shown in the plan and the reason they are slightly different Greater by a couple square feet are because we have moved the sidewalk a little further away from the building this slightly expand one of the discs so the numbers that I gave you are the numbers for the revise down I'm sorry you restate them rest sure uh in the I I'll go through the entire list in the 0 to 15% Zone U category we're proposing 7,154 Square ft which complies with the ordinance in the 15 to 25% category we're closing 1,964 Square ft where a, ft allowed so that requires variance and the 25 to 30% category we're proposing 361 Square ft we're allowed up to 500 ft so that complies with the ordinance and in the greater than 30% category 2,11 Square ft were 250 ft are allow and that requires a variance as [Music] well I think that the this just one of the it the 2 EV the non8 with the two Reg spes are supposed to be on the exterior wall that's correct and Mr BR pointed that out in his review memo and you know we have no we we did go through that in detail the two non spaces will be located outside the building but the uh 8 space which will be uh have a charging station there as well will be inside the bu three are required one's going to be no just just these two this one did you you need to ask them if they agree you would ask them if they agree to everything in your memo right they can go through it they could discuss whether there's anything here that's issue with have gone through the review letters we have no issues with those the comments and have to make rions to anything with storm everything's okay yeah they comp I would more couple you know clean out issues the El elev yeah well there's some adjustments to some of the numbers some of the invert elevations details and maintenance and management of the storm order system for that muchard lot of comments our car from prior hearing and the Overflow from that goes they were putting a pipe in something like a 6 inip 6 orip right pip that overflow 12 that overflows yeah everything's good there that's tting already and that was included in the D permit [Music] you um this an architect in terms of four inconsistency pardon me in terms of an inconsistency in the [Music] four at the four plan in each the side and the back and the front of the building the windows that is indicated on the reflect which have like two windows the elevation so three Windows yeah of it looks like look at one of your rendering doesn't match the elevation at least the window opening don't matter we can correct that question Architect no he's not in my experience he testified twice but that wasn't brought up previously well this is new yeah so we'll we'll address needs to be addressed but historically in my experience we always refer to the architectural ples or they're the ones that seal building so we rely on those yeah I don't think we one we just been consistent you know [Music] [Music] do you pref window I ourr the actual windows that they they on their architectural drawing we'll clean it up but these aren't construction plans I mean we're g to have to go to the concept to the building inspector and present them if you want to clean up we'll clean it up not so much cleaning them up being consist yeah yeah that's what I meant but but they're not construction well the problem is the board heard a lot of testimony regarding the elevation a lot of support look of might change there's only window and maybe what we could do we could submit revise architectural Plan before the next meeting so you can see with indic that we believe we can more consist not 100 yeah we'll take care of that and the building department will also but they like the elevation we're going to try and match it and we're going to come very very close maybe one you can't you have to be sworn everybody else in that wants the testify tonight do it yeah my name is Richard reamers REI M RS all right Mr do you swear to tell the truth whole truth I do all right thank you and could you give board the benefit of your credentials uh yes I've been uh working with Mr M for 40 years we've developed 40 or 50 projects together and many many approvals the you're a principal of of the applicant right thank you okay okay just to clarify what you're saying so so I see the in inconsistencies and we're going to make them match but we will favor the elevation um without dwelling it on it uh I think we can get almost exact but there may be Minor Details and we'll get them to you we won't favor the floor plan we'll favor the elevation okay we only picked that one pick that one up yeah I see could be other things too but we obviously don't know you'll find them we'll send you revise and we it we'll make it look very very similar to the now was there was there an agreement or actually was there an agreement that this will now be track will be picked up by aall that was what I had on out people aren't going to be taking yellow and green containers out to the streets testimony that they small pickup type trucks come down now theage is under countes that could you just testify to that yeah it's uh it's going to be by a private waste huler uh so it'll all be uh privately coordinated between the uh the owner and the private wer we've contacted one and um you know if the Project's constructed they'll be uh providing service to it and they have pickup truck size vehicles and they'll handle I'm talking about the county pickup of the recycleable because normally they want that out on the street but it'll be the so if we're looking at again revisiting how this operates to people the apartment units are going to deposit their checks by going out their FR do right probably but over to the common collection area deposit and then go back back up elevator back into their that's corre that's the expectation and then you'll work it out operationally whether there's any separation requirements or whatever seems like this question I'm assuming that you're responsible for the easement for the path the walking path what's the question e so who's responsible for maintaining it that's all I was ask I'm working that out with Mr pigeon the burough attorney we're we're giving the easement um to the burrow so am I correct though that there's no that may not get built at the same time the house the houses the town make it that correct the eement yeah you're not bu are you building the walkin path as part of the project or you just give the easement with the right for the burrow to come back and build the lad we're giving an easement so you're just dedicating the easement for a future use correct or a path behind the path that connects from clma down to the river is that also part of the easement well we're we're uh building that and dedicating it to the public that that I'm just G to ask the engineer make my life easier so on that A10 right the path that goes vertical from clemont down to the river that will be constructed part of this project that's okay the path the thinner path that goes from M Street and runs parallel to the river that will not be I don't know that that's been decided yet I think that's what the not part of this application you can't say that's going to be constructed as you we're we're going to give the easement you're going to give the easement I just want the board to be clear that at this point in time that is not part of the bill is that correct I believe so right I I'm fine with it I just want to make sure that's not a trick question trick question are the stairs from M Street to the path Sor there stair stair yes those are the concrete stairs that we added uh which will we match the stairs that are across the the street across Claremont in the from M Street oh from M Street no there are no stairs that's wall there a walking there's another the pack will in uh between the wall and the there'll be a fence uh on the as you're walking down the path from no Street on the left side of the path to protect anyone on the path keep SL there there's no exit on that to street so it's stair there's no stairs just follow up okay so there's I guess the better question there's access from the the Future Path whoever builds that Future Path will have along the same lines as your answer there has been also discussion of the other side of the brook your property we would the other we would give that as part of the easement to the other because I'm not testifying here but we believe that the path belongs on that side not on on on our side of it but but we the easement would extend to our property line I think that's the to the east that is correct right so it would extend across the brook to to to the east so the eement isn't just a three foot path the eement is from that boundary to your East property we' be obligated to do a meet and bound subscription um and and present it to Mr pigeon for his approval so just want to ask our board attorney so correct the East is beyond our jurisic between the bur and the applicant yeah the way that it would appear in a resolution of approval it would be an e granted by the applicant to the Bur subject to the approval of the bur correct and but what those requirements are they one of the board members regarding maintenance or upkeep or who builds what that's not within our jurisdiction that's really the Burrows as to what yeah ironing out all those finer finer details really is uh that are left to the okay thank you what about the stairs the big stairs from clemont to Future stairs but I think they're building that I think I don't think that's in that might just be an accident okay so that was a question from the engineer for I'll just restated I think his concern was that path that you're definitely building the vertical also has stairs in it and that that is your maintenance no that will be part of the easement that goes to the the exive sorry we're going to build a Stairway and we're going to uh put it in an easement and give it to the town for public use that's that's the extent of um our involvement with that stairway if they become a public so in addition to the the river area you're going also yes yeah stairway no I'm two different things and the even in the rear is going to extend across the brook where we think the pathway should be any so in my head so in my head since you so councel just so I understand in my head the vertical walkway that has stairs right that connects Claremont runs along side of the property is going to be constructed as part of your project right so far I'm correct yes okay so our concern is should it not be accepted the way you described in your negotiations fail with the municipality as it who maintains it absent that I would make this a condition that you're not going to be able to build it until that easement is in place and understood with regards to controls that's fine and that would be that would be a condition to no no no any build in is that in easement needs to be in place acceptable for the burrow with regards to maintenance and longterm control ster y yeah all right but that will be a condition still exit to grass from the garage yeah but that's how we'll deal and then the from the garage is just something that's required by the fire department it doesn't have to be connected anything doesn't have to have a path there it's just an emergency access for the I know I just want it doesn't well I just I think the comment was that that was our access but that's that's just that's not our access to long as there's some type of guarantee I don't want to believe St upstairs but I think there appears to be another inconsistency just to point out um on whatever the short one is the stairs are very close to the building whereas on this one seems wider I know that change that was made yeah our original plan showed the stair close to the building Mr bright suggested we move it farther away I think it's a good suggestion stairs the of the building Street side um the front stairs yeah the front stairs on A1 it appears that it's open from that on side is there a gate there or anything or just so the public can get down there to the recyclable area am I understanding this going properly top the the door at the parking garage there'll be a door at the parking garage which will only be acceptable by the there's no access to there not no they just got I'm just thinking no just just Clarity on the drawing you put a door there then put a door there show and similar the elevator of this [Music] yeah the has a door on the park side shows on P two that there's a door coming out of the building right and those will only be accessable by the some kind of key card yeah okay anybody else has toight um no sir so then any questions for professionals okay no apology [Music] doesn't so the only take questions or well we have we have to come back on the 14th or 12 or whatever here were you planning to call any other Witnesses only only um No not tonight well next time you plan only if uh we feel that maybe there's an architectural question or something but uh I don't think so Mr chair in regards to testimony um everything was placed on the record by Mr mcdonal is still relevant the application going forward so I don't think we recall him because all they did was minimize the variances that same so they've addressed those comments in my comments as well well we we had for the record John so you're saying that because they reduced the significance of those deviations that mcdonal testimony sufficient as still sufficient and satisfies myew so you don't you don't have a need for you not ADV us that we have a need for him to come back eliminate they eliminated that okay and he's saying you don't need to bring your plan which is good that's open that's a benefit to you you don't have to hear that I I love the open space we had two we had two planners testify I'm just counselor the only reason I'm asking is because you know I know this has had a long history um you know it's only 9 o' and you know if you didn't have a need or desire to bring anyone else you know you can wrap up and we won't deliberate do that for here do some questions I think we then officially close the hearing and then all that would happen on December 12th would be for us to catch up the speed on the prior testimony so that we could then vote correct that choice is yours I leave that up to you what you want to do I have some more questions yeah none us that's it's only you can go for a while your letter um the uh planning comments uh number two seems to be just a repetition and it has not been adjusted to reflect six units Andre what my memor just what I like to do is highlight changes body of it so you can see what's changed prior right I understand now it's still an 8un application according to your comments no cross no it's not it's crossed [Music] out last page yeah one are the one revised through November 8 yeah the latest one oh that's the no I know now is the requirement is still two units because it's rounded up it's going to have to be RTI they're doing an payment uh it's still still going to be 15% well is it now I'm hearing it's an owner or rental rental okay then 15% and that will be negotiated and I guess renegotiated they need to renegotiate with the town right yeah and I'm sure they're aware of that I I I spoken to Mr pigeon about that and okay and and I didn't want to waste his time until we got an approval otherwise it would be a silly to spend a lot of time doing an reaching an agreement as to the payment andow yeah I just want to be sure covered Ian was 98% you were covering as a courtesy go back and John number six on the the final one on that page is that resolve now like P or you know the so how ref will be managed oh let me explain those are previous CL comments been addressed I kep there foral but if you look at my memo previous comments present for information they interested you talked about the garbage collection talked about unit and talked about all these things they created they my I conern I just did [Music] reasons yeah proba be [Music] easier okay are there any questions I'll questions first any questions about this to this witness really I guess any questions about the application any of wit come on down you know well standing on the Johan W representing the environmental commission um if I just s s yes [Music] you so you can ask questions and make comments and comments okay he oh okay I wasn't compared to that but um several times I've heard this app guards deep slop say it's manmade as opposed to Natural so my understanding is the ordinances and municipalities for SE are a great concern for velocity of water coming down a steep SL so um could you explain to to me and Bo U what difference it makes if it's there whether it's manade or natural um with respect back to the erosion and the uh velocity or the storm water concerns it's essentially the same okay that's I want you to hear um also uh is the street of level higher um than the lower property or most of the property I'm I'm sorry the street level street level phography wise is it higher is this street the street than this property higher yeah yeah so what I'm concerned about is um it seems to me that she presented as if the the building is a buffer for water coming down or water will come down the stream the street in extreme storms um what happens to the water that goes over that edge um does the seep slope that well water what happens today or after the building today the water that's in the street is collected in drains and piped to the stream and then water from the property uh runs off to the street under proposed conditions the water from the street will still be the same water from the property from the building will be collected and piped to an infiltration Basin which will infiltrate into the ground and overflow water will go to the stream and so the way that it's been designed and what the ordinance requires that there's no increase in runoff for certain storm and we' designed a system to comply with the 51 you yes um Mr I know um the uh Claremont Road sidewalk you tell me the withd on your design plans for that sidewalk okay and are you familiar with the qu Redevelopment plans um sidewalk uh minimum sidewalk regulations yes and what are those this is was covered in detail you know it's I think it's a year now um well it just wasn't part of my testimony so I think this is supposed to be asking me questions on my testimony ask you questions previously the um are you aware of any additional um setbacks from the curve that are required under qrp Section 6.11 for instance any planting zones things of that nature there are uh three skape standards which we've discussed in in detail okay so are you seeking variance relief from those um standards I believe there was is required for the Street Station um that same Q would you agree with me that same qrp section 6.11 provides for standards for walkways within the MBR Park I I can't tell you based on the the number what what the is without the ordinance okay are you seeking any type of variance or relief from those standards as it applies to walkways within the park he walkways what was the last Point within the M BR Park area within the that a little bit technically your plan shows aot walk I'm sorry the but it's conceptual at this point I'm here because it may go on the other side fly so we don't know where that that um halfway go that correct e goes beyond the on the other side are you planning on providing any type of pathway as part of this development application um on either side of the we're providing uh access from the clont to a easement in the back and then the e would be given to the burrow to install a pathway if they choose but you're not providing corre are you seeking variance relief um from that requirement if variant Rel is required thank you covered by the previously believe okay thec also 6.11 yeah is there talked I pointed out my original memorandum compot of streeta widening and not perit Street trees for example shrubs and things that that was all did the county prohibit a 12 foot sidewalk area or only the street trees and the other uh they they the sidewalk area is a function of what's left in the RightWay after the dedication Street skaing was the con Okay so potential hardship it's another jurisdiction so and they have primary jurisdiction County right um You don't want to get into County Sidelines and things like that I remember that's your basic answer and you would say so in to application do they have so they have to request relief you can identify it as part of the review ination because a lot of times when you review an application we comes up as a result of either amendments or something that gets yeah I just want to wouldn't want to exclude it you've done the work on a comment it seems to me we should capture the position and John is that a variance or design these are variances for the screen um I can double check the slopes were identified as as waivers their variances I double check plan I prepared the am okay so in any case we should [Music] whatever get the right ter we can clarify that yeah that's fine any other questions from public or comments from the public is this the final opportunity for the public to comment there'll be another hearing not so yeah if you want to say to your you can or you I would like to hear the entire just so they may not offer any more witnesses just so you're aware here so anyway um okay I think unless we have comments in any other questions from the this question basically from our Professionals of board then basically were done at at this meeting with this application and it's December 12th DEC 124 correct thank you thank you for attention thank you [Music] so the next thing would be just to Rie agenda that the really thank [Music] you de meeting September and then then they said that's they want to do January so the key is what's our January meeting so well first of all it's GNA be our re meeting and the notice the not that posted on the board downstairs but we did notice when we noticed all the meetings for this year we did notice the reor meeting and just as long as Council meets before that which they have to meet I Believe by the S anyway um I think because there's only one meeting in January I think it may have been scheduled for the 16th but I have to verify 16 be the the 23rd it was this for the re yeah no 53 Mor cam oh is not has indicated they're not coming December 12th and they us to include the re well I I did but I don't have the notice with me okay but I think it's the I mean the second yes it is but I don't know I I'm not positive as want me the date for what our date Jan the date that weet agreed the DAT oh the date we agre you agreed with that okay you're going to go find out what we told them we would do right okay now I understand let me go [Music] may not be here find it out chat um yeah there won't be any F chat it's looking like uh chat will be very uh Willer all right good [Music] we need to do not as not as brutal as coverage for this last one like who's allowed who's not we'll need to do one for this also because it's positioning and who's uh you have an answer I do have an answer so either way it has to be really noticed because there's a type off it says Thursday the 13th and Thursday is not Thursday is the so we no you just want to so my proposal well no we can we can basically decide now what we want to do we can decide our we don't know if they're on the it's currently listed still you do anything for 12 no it's listed for the 13th which it's for listed for December 12th we carry it to so that's not touch it and on December 12th when we come we'll figure out where to put them oh I got you okay there still technically until we do anything list 12 on the 12 we right ship we'll figure out where they want to be be without and then it's without not that work coun that works Wednesday [Music] January that makes and confirm that what the DAT okay anything else the meeting would still be the N okay if they can't make the N then they'll [Music] No Ex [Music] s all right anything you're very welcome think Def I [Music] mean well honly so Denise compar last can yeah really it took me till I hit 52 to get class I like was that oh are you really and then I guess that's the point when you go yeah guy years I knew brother and they were the I people were there they were both both were there I saw hey you must be the new guy like which is overow excuse one second we do request that you receive an email from her about whether you're going to show up that you respond I usually let her know when I'm not responded I don't ever let her know when I'm respond I get the negative I don't get the positive I have perfect attend do you want maybe those two things are cool please I I barely check that email okay I might have to give you a different email there okay because I check person we get the email from here to respond go and then for the of Health I get an email to say respond if you're not going to go but I usually respond to this one and I think people your age get very upset in all sorts of business with people my age for not having voicemails be having them full I try to be better