Good evening and welcome to the City of Rockville Board of Appeals.

My name is Alan Frankel, and I am the chair of the Board of Appeals.

With me at the day's this evening is one of our other board members, Roy Deutschman.

And we are here on variance application 2026-257 VAR concerning a zoning variance at the National Lutheran Home for the Aged, located at 9701 Veers Drive, Rockville, Maryland.

We do have you do have the ability if you are watching this virtually for you to participate.

But if you do decide to participate virtually during the pandemic, pandemic, the Board of Appeals created a set of rules for participating remotely, and you should be aware of those before you before you come and make yourself be heard.

Okay.

So Mr.

Davis, this is your case.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

If you could identify yourself for the record.

Yes, Christopher Davis with Community Planning and Development Services.

And will you provide truthful testimony this evening?

I will.

Thank you.

All right.

Good evening, Mr.

Chair and members of the board.

We present to you this evening a variance application as Mr.

Waselec has indicated.

This is a uh variance for the villages at Rockville at 9701 Beers Drive.

So the subject property is outlined on the aerial image on here on the screen.

It is located at 9701 Veers Drive.

It has a land use designation, land use designation of residential multiple unit and a zoning designation of R400 corresponding with the city's residential estate zone.

As you can see from the image, the property is located to the north side of Beers Drive and is immediately south of the Lakewood Country Club to the north, as well as some single family detached homes on the south side of Beers Drive.

As you can see from the spotted black line, the city-county boundary kind of traverses Veers Drive on either side along this section of the city.

So the specific proposal by the applicant anticipates uh continued redevelopment of the site, um, namely updating the existing independent living cottages on the campus from a series of triplex to duplex conversions.

Um with this specific request, uh the applicant is requesting two variances uh for uh alternate setbacks in order to allow uh additions and new patios to uh these two specific uh building units outlined in red.

As you can see, towards the rear of the property or the plan north is 9531 Veers Drive, um, and that is the building requesting the rear yard uh setback variants, and 9503 Veers Drive is requesting the front yard uh setback variants.

Um this unit is located towards the frontage of Westcott Place.

So you can see here are the specific uh variances requested for that uh building unit at 9503 Veers Drive.

You can see highlighted in blue is the specific area of the proposed addition that would be subject to the variance that is a requested 39-foot front yard setback in lieu of the required 50 foot.

And uh the image to the bottom is 9531 Veers Drive, um, which is requesting the 40-foot rear yard setback in lieu of the 50 foot, and staff's recommendation is approval with conditions.

So here are some images of the existing conditions.

As you can see from the image on the left, here is a more of a street view perspective of the building unit at 9531 Vierce Drive.

As you can see, it's an improved one story structure with a brick exterior.

From this view, the new addition will be at the rear of this of this building unit.

As you can see, behind it is some mature tree plantings which separate the campus from the abutting Lakewood Country Club to the north.

And as you can see from the image on the right, that is the building unit at 9503 Vears Drive.

This is fronting on the Westcott Place, and it's requesting the front yard setback variants.

It's a similar structure and style, and it's proposing a similar type of building addition.

And to that point, here are some proposed elevation drawings, including the new additions.

As you can see, the intent of the new additions are to be seamless, utilizing the similar exterior materials and overall proportions to be compatible with the existing buildings there on the campus.

So moving on to the specific zoning issues, again, the zoning ordinance in particular Article 10 requires minimum front and rear yard setbacks for this particular property of 50 feet.

The specific requests is a 39-foot front yard setback and 40-foot rear yard setback for those proposed additions.

Without the approval of these requested variances, these improvements would be prohibitive in order for the applicant to move forward as proposed.

So moving to the specific staff findings, after review of the application, staff, the staff has found that the application has satisfied the necessary criteria for granting the variance.

Specifically, staff has found that the variances would not be contrary to the public interests.

Notably, the improvements are modest in size and will support further residential use of the campus.

Furthermore, at the time of this hearing, no letters of opposition have been received, and staff does not anticipate any adverse impacts from the proposed improvements.

Furthermore, staff has found that the requested variances are due to conditions peculiar to the property and are not the result of any action taken by the property owner.

Most notably, staff has found that the property is irregularly shaped.

And in conjunction with that, the configuration of the site current creates disproportionate impacts, constraining on-site areas as compared to other properties in the neighborhood.

In addition, staff has found that over time setback requirements for this property have changed, which have also created some constraints and moving forward with the proposed additions.

These unique conditions staff has found are not due to the owners, the actions of the owner on site.

So this slide shows an exhibit prepared.

As you can see, the very unique shape of the subject property is more of a kind of a U or a boomerang shape.

From this specific exhibit, you can see if you added the front and rear property lines, they would accompass 80% of the total property perimeter.

And that would further equate to four times being four times larger than what the side property lines would be.

And this is juxtaposed to if you were to look at the property being a conventional square shape.

So as you see from the image on the screen, the same property sizes shown in a conventional square in blue.

And as you can see from the from the notations, if it was in this shape, more of the property boundary would be distributed more equitably along around the site.

So looking at the first the next finding, staff has found that a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in a practical difficulty in literally enforcing the ordinance, it would prohibit those proposed additions from being in kind with others that are proposed on the site.

And due to those unique conditions on the site, um staff uh has found that it would lead to a practical difficulty.

And finally, uh staff has found that the granting of the variances are not inconsistent with the ordinance.

Uh staff has found that the relief is due to the specific site constraints of this particular property.

Um furthermore, staff has found that the approval would enhance livability of the property, um, notably uh continuing to support the long-standing senior living use on this site, and would be compatible and consistent with the adopted plans for the city, including its comprehensive plan and uses allowed in our zoning ordinance.

So, with that, staff recommends approval of the requested variances subject to the findings and conditions in staff's report, and uh staff has a recommended motion should the board uh choose to move forward.

And with that, that concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Davis.

As always, a thorough um report.

Mr.

Deutschmann, do you have any questions?

Yes, just in the beginning, is this to convert these buildings to a duplex to triplex?

Did I hear that in the very beginning?

Yes.

Uh the site has undergone multiple phases of upgrades.

Um in previous phases, um, the site was approved to allow these conversions from triplexes to duplexes.

Um but the specific phase now is considering the building additions to those duplexes.

Okay, so uh this will be a standing duplex would become a triplex in these two examples of the no, no, these are remaining duplex units.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, it's other buildings on the site.

No.

Yeah, so the the previous phases looked at converting several units across the site from triplexes to duplexes, those have already been approved, and now this current phase of development is only looking at adding additions to those duplexes.

Okay, and my just my second question.

Some of the boundaries are street boundaries and some are the golf course boundaries.

That's correct.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

Uh Mr.

Davis, could you pull up slide number four for me, please?

Sure.

Um indicated, I believe, that the addition to the to these two units would be the area in blue.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Well, it seems to me that the area adjacent to the blue.

Um kind of like speckled.

Yes.

It would look like that is within the boundary too.

So the area, the speckled area represents the patio, the patio area.

Um and the patios are not subject to the same setback requirements as building conditions.

Uh okay.

Um, and I understand the analysis with respect to if this was not this weirdly shaped um plot of land, instead it was square or rectangular, but that's really irrelevant to our discussion with respect to these specific um potential variances that we're talking about.

Well, I would say um while those the the two variances are only for two building units, we're looking at the site as a whole because these buildings aren't on individual lots.

They're contained on one um total site.

So we look at the site overall, um, even though the variances are specific to two buildings.

And now I'm going to ask you my facetious question.

Who platted this piece of land?

I mean you would think that they would have purchased a little bit more from Lakewood, maybe, or one or the other, so that didn't have this big beak on it.

No, thank you very much.

Mr.

Davis.

I have one more question.

Certainly, Mr.

Deutschmann.

I've I've never asked this question at uh my 40 years of doing Board of Appeals work.

But um is the is there an exit door from these extensions to the property, or they come out and go into the patio.

I believe there are exit doors.

The applicant can probably confirm that for you, though.

Okay, and and just here's my bizarre question.

Is there a hazards from golf balls coming from the golf course into this area?

I guess we'll ask the applicant that question.

Yeah, that would probably be more CD.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Davis.

Would the applicant please come forward and identify yourself?

Good evening, everyone.

I'm Stuart Barr with the law firm Lurch Early and Brewer.

I'm a zoning attorney in our Lane Usen Zoning Group.

And first of all, thank you to the board for the Mr.

Barr.

Excuse me, I need to swear you in.

Oh you've identified yourself for the record.

Uh will you provide truthful testimony this evening?

I will.

Thank you.

Please proceed.

And Mr.

Barr, I welcome you to the Board of Appeals.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh I was gonna say thank you for convening this meeting uh and considering these variance requests, uh, and also thanks to Mr.

Davis and everyone in the city planning department who worked hard to allow us to appear this evening and helped us uh get ready for this meeting with you all.

So uh with me, uh Craig Wagner.

Uh, do you want to swear him in, Jim, now or later?

Uh if he's going to speak.

Okay.

Mr.

Wagner, if you identify yourself for the record, please.

I'm Craig Wagner, the Chief Operating Officer for National Lutheran Communities and Services.

Thank you.

And will you provide truthful testimony this evening?

I will.

Thank you.

Thank you and welcome.

Thank you.

And we also have with us uh virtually Andy Bradshaw with JBA, our civil engineers.

Okay.

So I just on a personal note, I've been with Lurch Early for almost 25 years, and during that time, uh, done uh fair amount of work for for this campus.

I know it as uh the village at Rockville, sometimes it's referred to National Lutheran Home.

Uh and our firm actually worked uh with National Lutheran when it transitioned from Washington, D.C.

to the Rockville campus back in 1980.

So we've had uh a wonderful long-standing relationship, and uh we know we're very familiar with the property and all of the improvements over the years, and I've personally worked on most, if not all, in the past 25, including some prior variance requests.

So uh we uh Mr.

Wagner and I will be presenting tonight, and uh the staff did an excellent job with the staff report and recommendation, both in writing and then this evening.

Uh we'll just add a little bit uh of additional information.

I'll let Mr.

Wagner explain some of the background information and context uh for these requests, and then I'll touch on a little bit more of the specifics with the uh the variance requests and the findings that you all apply.

Obviously, we support the staff report and recommendation uh for approval, and uh these are in connection with a pending minor site plan amendment uh application, so which we're hoping to uh push forward with the city to continue to improve the campus.

So um, Mr.

Wagner, can you try to uh in your remarks integrate some of the answers to some of the questions that were raised?

Thank you for the opportunity.

Um I'll give you context very quickly.

So we were founded in 1890 in Washington, D.C., outgrew that campus in 1980 came out and on one day moved all 300 residents to what is the the big tall building in the middle.

Since then evolved, that was in a 1980.

We started adding cottages at that point were very popular and they filled up as quickly as they could uh build them.

That has changed, and the the people now we're serving in senior living are baby boomers.

And to tell you the truth, they want something entirely different than what we have in place.

Um so failed to say, but we're a nonprofit associated with the Lutheran church, and so it's been long standing, a lot of changes.

It was a large volunteer body that really ran the community for the longest time and with regulation changes and everything else that has changed.

That changed who we are.

So the healthcare building, the original building has actually been modified multiple times already.

It was only skilled nursing, now it's skilled nursing, skilled nursing with memory care.

We have assisted living and we have assisted living with memory care, and still exploring options for what that building would be.

About five years ago, we built 131 uh independent living apartments.

Um those remain 100% occupied.

So I arrived on scene three years ago, and they said, Craig, we need to make these conversions because nobody will move into the current cottages.

So this these triplexes are three little cottages, about 950 square feet each.

And literally, we had one sitting just recently for a full year that nobody was interested in because they aren't big enough.

Baby boomers want two bedrooms, two and a half baths, and they have there's very specific reasons they want this, and they would prepare a den.

And now we did 10 of these and converted them, and they very quickly took them.

And the honestly, the day I say you can now seek people, it's within two weeks they're taking.

But now they said that's not quite big enough.

1,300 feet, we want a little bit more.

And so this addition that we're talking about, this is the first phase.

So we're asking for these additional 200, 200 square feet additions to satisfy what the customers are looking for.

And honestly, when we get these five triplexes approved, we're not going to convert.

We're going to have to go to a whole different level of density and we'll work through that process.

But we know that we can get these as soon as we get them.

So unfortunately, the way that the current um buildings are designed, we go in and gut them.

And the only place we can do these two additions, in this case, two of them cross the current uh line that allows us.

And we did try to buy property from the golf course now, not in 1980.

And the golf course said, sure, we'll talk to you about that.

But then they had added pickleball courts and the tree count.

We couldn't take the tree, so it's not an option.

So anyway, with these variances, it now gives us a product that we know that we can get someone to take very quickly.

Um, but then we'll go a different way.

And to answer your question, when they come out to these patios, there is a door, it's sort of the back door to come to these patios to use them.

So again, it's you're not going to hear us ask for any more after this.

We get these five done.

Uh, phase four will be two, and then the remaining three will be done in 27.

One of these each hit those two different phases.

So that's basically where we are and what we're dealing with at this point.

So I think I've answered your questions that you had, unless you have others at this point.

Do you have any questions?

Well, just the golf balls hitting people.

So there are the trees that I just talked about.

There's enough trees that protect um, but the people in the uh apartment building love it because they can look over the trees and see the golf course.

But when the masters come, yeah.

Thank you.

Is there a density requirement for the fill full size of the property or so we I can answer that?

Yeah, okay.

So um we're reducing density, actually.

Um, yeah, so for uh the current campus under the current zoning ordinance, we're considered a life care facility, special exception use, and so density is controlled by setbacks height as opposed to like a uh uh FAR or number of unit per acre density.

So that's the current you could build taller buildings.

Uh we we uh the height is uh approximately 50 feet.

Um so um and Glenmere, one of the um independent living buildings that we we worked on a few years ago is about 50 feet if you're familiar at all with the campus and that building.

So thank you.

I just want to clarify one quick thing in case there was any question.

The the screen says uh references converting an existing carport.

Uh that may be a carryover from some other case.

This this does not involve any carport or anything like that.

I just wanted to clarify that.

Um let me touch on please the um setbacks and the variance requests a little bit more specifically and go through some of the findings and and answer any questions in that regard.

I've handled um a fair number of variance requests over my career, not hundreds, but every so often and in both the county and city of Rockville, city of Gaithersburg.

I can truly say, based on my experience that this is a very unique property.

Uh very irregularly shaped.

Uh we already talked about that.

I consider it a boomerang with a bird head and beak on the eastern side.

Uh, but it really does have an impact on uh the configuration of the property, the setbacks and and so forth and the developable area.

I do want to actually uh talk a little bit about why we presented information in our application materials about more conventional square and rectangular shape properties.

I actually respectfully I do find it relevant because what variance requests basically ask of the applicant is what is what is unique about the property, and then what is basically the connection between whatever the unique characteristic is with the development standard from which you're seeking relief.

So what we tried to do with our application materials and in our explanation was uh to and and JBA provided most of those uh exhibits that that looked at a bunch of the numbers, and I won't pour through like every number, but let me just summarize it this way.

If we think back to high school geometry, uh if we take a certain size property, for in this case, for example, the village of Rockville is approximately 31 acres, but any size property.

You take 31 acres, and if the uh object is to maximize the developable area and limit the impact of like a certain setback from the perimeter, then the the best configuration would be a circle, because the circumference of a circle for any size property, in this case, just take 31 acres, is the shortest linear distance of the perimeter.

So, of course, many most, if not all properties don't come in circles.

Um geometrically, it's just easier to subdivide and lay out more square-ish rectangular-ish shaped properties, right?

For obvious reasons.

There are very few perfect squares or rectangles uh in subdivision, but because of all the nuances of uh laying out property and arcs and and roads and so forth.

But point being that uh when you get to a square, and and a lot of properties are roughly squares, roughly rectangles.

We provided a few examples in our materials of other senior care communities in the city that they're not perfect squares and rectangles, they're but they're generally in that configuration.

Um when you when you get to a square, that is also uh preferable if uh you're looking to limit the perimeter, because in that situation, the perimeter is four equal sides and is shorter linear distance-wise than a rectangle would be.

Now, a rectangle is also fine if it's shaped in a like slightly more deep than wide, and not as long as it's not too narrow and not too deep, because then you're compressing it.

Uh but we have um, well, we don't we don't have anything resembling a rectangle, but hypothetically, if you were to you know most closely configure our property to it, it would be a very long wide rectangle, which is challenging because when you have that long, wide rectangle and you have that much frontage, you have a very long front property line and a corresponding very long front setback and a very long rear property line and rear setback.

Those setback distances are greater than side setback distances.

So if you have a more traditional rectangle that is slightly more deep, you can take advantage of shorter side setbacks.

We we unfortunately cannot take as much advantage of that with our property.

It's not, and furthermore, it's not a rectangle, it's this peculiar shape, and no one knows for why.

I I suspect what happened to answer your question question, Mr.

Chair, is that's the property they had, and at some point they needed to subdivide it just based on what they had.

And I think that was maybe in the early 2000s that uh they went ahead and recorded a plat that that resembled or that that reflected what they owned.

So it seems like if you had a parallelogram on that angle, you wouldn't have to deal with bearing.

Sorry.

No.

So I won't go go too much more into the geometry, but basically the point is that because of our peculiar shape, we are disproportionately impacted in terms of the setbacks than would be more conventional, traditional square and rectangular shape properties, which are more common in the city.

I think that's really what we were trying to demonstrate with our application materials.

So and I think uh it's fairly obvious, but I'll state it anyway, that because of that shape, that's compressing our developable area.

That's really the challenge that we face at the village of Rockville.

And some of our previously triplexes that we're trying to convert to duplexes are up against those setbacks.

And so in this situation, the reason why we're here with you today is that we have these two particular units that are up against the setbacks.

We want to do these very small additions, and so we need this uh what we think think is modest relief, and those are the variance requests.

10 feet from the rear lot line, 11 feet from the front lot line.

So we are per we are providing setbacks 40 feet, 39 feet.

It's not as if we're uh trying to build right up to the property line.

There are still setbacks, but we do need that uh modest relief.

So very quickly, um, and and by the way, I don't remember if Mr.

Wagner mentioned it.

We asked our architect, hey, can we possibly put this addition on another side so as to avoid the need for a variance?

And they looked at that, and unfortunately, we can't propose the addition uh in another configuration, just given the layouts of the units.

So we did look at that uh to to see if we could um accommodate the additions elsewhere.

So very quickly, um what will go in the addition that you're adding?

Is there a lot of things?

Those are living rooms.

Living rooms.

Okay, thank you.

And they're single story, in case that wasn't clear.

Um, so the findings very quickly.

Um we we don't believe uh these variances, if granted, would be contrary to the public interest.

Uh, as Mr.

Wagoner explained, we're really trying to modernize some of these units.

We actually think that's in the public interest to uh support those um improvements.

The we talked already about the unique conditions.

We think those are very uh peculiar to the property, and they have a direct impact on the setbacks, which are uh the basis for our request for the variances.

So there's a direct connection there.

Literal application would result in practical difficulty.

Uh if we don't get these variances, unfortunately, then we can't build the additions, and then those units would be inconsistent with the other units uh that we've um built the additions uh and and converted previously.

And then we don't think this is inconsistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance.

As I said, we are providing setbacks.

Uh we think that uh those are reasonable under the circumstances.

We don't think that there will be adverse impacts to either the country club, uh, our neighbor to to the the north or the rear of our site or across Westcott Place.

Uh when when I've been out there and you can see just from aerial photos, there's a fairly significant distance uh between where our proposed addition will be and those single family homes across Westcott Place.

So we think that that's uh what we're proposing is generally consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance uh and not uh inconsistent with the purposes.

Uh we're not aware of any concerns or opposition, and as I said, we don't anticipate any adverse effects.

So for all of those reasons, um, we're happy to answer any further questions, but otherwise we ask for the variance uh approvals.

In the setback, will that be grass and plantings?

Or is that what was what you currently have there?

In between the the existing units and the property line?

Yes, on the on Westcott, it's lawn.

And then from the um on the rear, is that like a combination of lawn, a path?

Is there a path back there?

A path and probably some trees.

Okay.

Well, thank you very much, Mr.

Barr.

It's been a long time since I thought about geometry.

Um, I'm I'm going through my mind of all the various uh shapes that you could have.

And I guess if you had a duo decay where you have 12 sides, you know, maybe that makes a difference, but nobody has that.

I have we have a lot that is 75 feet by 150 feet.

So it is in fact direct angle.

So I was able to follow your your analysis very well, and I do appreciate your spending the time to uh to do that.

So thank you.

Thank you.

I have no further questions.

If Mr.

Deutschman has no further questions, make a seat.

Um Mr.

Waslick, um are you aware of anybody who wishes to speak on behalf of the variants or who has written to be on behalf of the variants?

Uh Mr.

Chair, we have received no request to speak this evening.

And there was no one online who wishes to speak.

And similarly, is there anybody who has written in about against this variance or is waiting online to speak against the variants?

Neither are true.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Walsilik.

With that information, the public hearing is closed.

I do need to say one two things before we deliberate.

And I think it's going to be a very quick deliberation.

Number one is we have at least two, if not four people from our community who have moved to the villages, and they love it.

You know, they downsized from a single family two-story home to whatever they have there, and they just love it.

The other thing is I have a special place in my heart for the Lutheran home because many many years ago, when the Lutheran home was still in DC, my stepmother used to volunteer there on a regular basis.

So it's all it always has a special place for me.

That being said, um, is there a motion with respect to these?

I don't think we need to deliberate very much.

I think we both agree that this is an appropriate.

We we did have someone walk into the hearing.

I know it's too late.

Well, hi, may we help you?

No, it's not.

Okay.

Well, this is the Board of Appeals.

Thank you.

I can change this to a landlord tenant.

I mean, I've done enough landlord tenant in my life.

Um I think this is this is really a no-brainer, and I have to say it's truly the weirdest configuration of land that I have ever seen, whether of my time on the Board of Appeals or dealing with clients.

This is just like somebody woke up from a bad dream and came up with this configuration.

So I think it's pretty obvious that all of the um requirements to create a variance are present.

Yes, and other than my very, very small concern with golf balls, I can go forward.

Well, I can make a motion if you'd like, Mr.

Chair.

Sure, go right ahead, Mr.

Trenchman.

It's uh in front of me, actually.

Um I move that the Board of Appeals approve variants application 2026-257-VAR to allow a front yard setback of 39 feet and a rear yard setback of 40 feet, both in lieu of the 50 feet required for construction of building additions to 2503 and 9531 Vier's Drive on the village of Rockville campus, subject to the findings and conditions and staff report.

I would second that, and all those in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

The variance is granted.

Good luck with your construction.

And good luck.

And um, it's amazing how the baby boomers, now that they are coming becoming older, you know, they have their own peculiarities.

Yeah, and you have to deal with that.

I don't have to deal with that very much.

You have to deal with that.

You mentioned as a while, you have to get bigger.

What is that reason for they want a bedroom for the kids to come?

And because of telecommission or snoring or whatever, they want their own bedrooms.

So they want sort of equal-sized bedrooms and bathrooms.

And the reason for the half bath, they don't, when they have guests, they want half-bats, so they don't have people going in their bathrooms.

Can you come to the podium, please?

So it's there's practical reasons.

And I opened up a brand new community in South Carolina about 10 years ago, and it was assisted living and it was a large for assisted living.

There was uh two bedrooms and they had a kitchenette, and but they all wanted two bathrooms.

And I said that after five people said that to me, it's like you gotta tell me why you need two bathrooms.

And they said, Craig, after you've lived with people for decades, everything happens at the same time.

I said, say no more.

Thank you for that.

But anyway, they're changing, and technology is something that everybody wants, so we're rewiring everything to make that happen.

Smart houses now is something they want, and very active.

And we're actually seeing that people are coming to us, that they become healthier by coming to us.

Um, simple things like they get decent meals, you know, people living alone are not doing that, or they're not able to do that anymore.

And just managing their medications.

Uh, you walk into people saying, Oh, I don't want to take this one this week, I don't want to take this one.

And so just simple things like that.

We're actually seeing people and the people who originally moved in these cottages, some of them are still there in their nearly 30 years.

So we're doing the right thing, but that creates a problem.

Now we need more space, we need more opportunities.

So getting this done, and we're shifting back.

We've got to do something of density.

So we'll be submitting plans here.

We're doing future planning about what does this need to look like in the future, and so the multi-story kind of approach is what we're going to need to go with.

Should you determine that you need additional variances?

This is where you come.

It's been really a pleasure to deal with the two of you.

Thank you.

I appreciate your time coming out on an evening to be with us, and I wish you the best of luck as you deal with us baby boomers.

I'm one of those, so dealing with my own thoughts.

Thank you very much.

Unlike Mr.

Barr, who is obviously a Gen Z.

I'll be looking at my wife is well, I shouldn't say.

Thanks again.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

Umasslick, do we have any old business?

Uh I just wanted to let you know that the uh zoning ordinance update uh continues, and it is actually at the mayor and council uh for adoption.

They are conducting uh public hearings and work sessions uh over the next month or so.

Uh the planning commission had it uh over the winter and they made their recommendations to mayor and council.

So we're uh moving along uh in that process.

Do you think uh down the road we should have a um one of our meetings to have a short explanation of the changes that would impact the board of appeals and yes, absolutely happy to do that just to be aware and how we're gonna proceed?

That's an excellent idea.

They're not changing, we still have three members for the board of appeals and an alternate correct.

Yeah, the alternate who is right here.

Um is there any new business, Mr.

Watslick?

I did want to note that um your date for presenting the annual report to the mayor and council is June the first.

Assuming that we don't get a snowstorm, right?

Okay, um I have reviewed the minutes uh from the December 17th meeting.

Um and they appear fine to me.

What about they appear to be fine?

Okay, then uh I make a motion to approve the minutes from the this second, all those in favor.

I second approve.

Um the minutes are adopted there being no further business before this meeting.

The meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.

Now, Jim, do we have