Evening.

This is the February 24th.

I don't think we can really officially start the meeting yet until Jeremy's on.

Okay.

I wasn't sure if I would start it and then note that we don't have quorum yet.

But yeah, I mean you could, yeah, yes, yes, you could do that.

Yes, you could do that because I know the zoning board of appeals even goes so far as um they even hear applications, but they just don't vote on them.

I think so.

Yeah, so we can um go so far as introducing the first agenda item.

So okay.

Sure.

Um so I can do that.

Um this evening, uh the Tuesday 20 February 24th meeting of the Stanford Planning Board.

Um, we currently have two of our full members on, and so uh we need a third in order to be able to vote on items and have quorum.

Um in the meantime, uh I think we can go ahead and at least review um the first item, uh, which is the planning board minutes from uh February 10th.

Uh Bravi, did you have any uh questions or amendments about the minutes from does it I guess we can even if we hear the presentation on Mill Road over Brook Fridge, uh we can't vote unless I've heard the presentation, correct?

Yeah, yeah.

That's what Tony's here for.

He's in it, the attendees.

Got it.

Okay.

Should I bring him forward?

Or I mean, well, sorry.

Uh right.

I think if Jeremy hasn't heard the item, then he can't vote on it.

So we let me for a moment.

Yeah.

I'll also look for um oh there we go.

There we go.

Perfect.

And the dog is in the perfect little corner.

So great.

All right.

Okay.

Jeremy.

So we now have quorum.

Thank you.

Um, another of our members just uh um apparently spent over 24 hours trying to get home because of the snowstorm.

So it is the three of us this evening.

I would have hated that.

Absolutely.

Just I would have been at the end of my my limit.

Um so Jeremy, we just had uh raised the item of the planning board minutes from our February 10th meeting.

Uh did you have any questions or clarifications about the February 10th minutes?

Okay.

Um let me just make sure to check the attendees.

All right.

Um, so uh hearing none, I'd have a motion on the minutes for February 10th.

Ravi move approval.

We have a second.

And passes unanimously.

All right, thank you.

Um our next item um is under uh capital budget.

Um is an additional request from the mayor to be added to the capital budget as follows.

Uh Mill Road over Brookbridge uh number one three five zero zero eight.

Um that's the bridge number.

The project number is CP 4000, and the amount of one million dollars, of which 500,000 is uh bonds and 500,000 is a state grant.

Um I'll just read the first couple of sentences and then I think we can hear the rest of it and presentation.

Um so the purpose of this project is to replace bridge number 13508, which is structurally deficient.

The existing bridge was built in 1960.

Uh consists of a 12.25 foot clear span seal beam with a concrete concrete cast in place concrete deck on a 30 degree SKU.

The structure carries one lane of traffic in each direction with an overall curved curb width of 18.9 feet.

Um I'll pause there and go ahead and welcome our presenter.

All right.

Um sorry, Lou couldn't make it because he's stuck stuck in that storm.

He's driving home from Florida and he's actually in his car doing another.

Okay.

Okay.

So hopefully I can answer your questions as best I can.

But um this um the uh cost estimates came in for this project at uh and it and Louis requested an additional million dollars to be uh authorized for this project with a 50-50 split, you know, grant and and city match.

Um that I mean that's basically it.

Um we we would like to add this at at the uh at the mayor's level for the uh capital budget request.

Okay, so we are not but we have to vote to add this amount and break.

I mean technically we don't have to like the mayor can add it, right?

So I just wanted to yes, the mayor can add it.

Um if you approve it, then it will be added with a uh positive um add to the capital budget.

If you don't then um it would be a negative um negative ad.

So uh when we present to the Board of Finance, I would state that to them that that um mayor add this without the uh planning board's uh I see okay.

Um and so then this would take our total for um the general obligation bonds uh bit over uh the 50 million target then no your your budget wouldn't be affected.

Um this would be added at the mayor's level.

Okay.

Yeah.

So this is okay.

I see.

So we are just reviewing and affirming the uh you know alignment with the capital.

Right.

I see.

Okay.

Um and timing wise so there's a prior authorization for this, but this is a um revised estimate for the project and therefore in addition of funds, both general obligation and state yes, in the amount of one million dollars.

Yep.

Okay.

Um are there any questions from members of the board?

Ravi.

Hey Tony, uh you know can we have some can we identify some supplementary budgets like you know we get these kind of requests frequently during the year uh for supplementary requests uh the reason I say that is this looks to me to be a critical project and I don't want this to go into the capital budget process and get jumped down at some other level and then what happens to this project right so it's only half a million that they're asking can't you find some other way to give it to them instead of going through this process.

Yeah well the the the mayor will um is putting this in her budget and she will touch some other projects to to get it within the safe debt limit um but you know no matter how we submit it um we we just don't know what the border finance and border reps are going to vote um I the bridge is is part partially closed so I don't think that they would uh turn turn this request down um but um you know there's no assurances whether the other boards will approve this or not right so I mean I drive by this place very frequently so I know this very well so if you do it to a supplementary request against the current year's budget it doesn't have to go through all the other approvals right no it does so all those uh supplementary requests to come to us during the year we approve it and then it goes to board of finance again it goes to the board of finance and board of reps yes okay so it doesn't matter which sort of way we do it it's still going to go it's the supplementary appropriations do move quicker because they're moving on their own timeline whereas the capital budget um it's a larger obviously a larger package of of of requests so and it takes a long time to get the presentations and to make the determination from the board um so some projects do go through the additional appropriations if they're deemed to be need that kind of speed um but when they're included in the capital budget process it is helpful to be able to weigh all of the projects that require prioritization um in the city so it is it is helpful to um have things in the capital budget and would we include this in tier one well so it sounds like procedurally we're not adding it to our transmission it is that the mayor intends to add this at her review level but it's just looking for a um for the planning board to weigh in on alignment of this with the overall capital budget package and the comprehensive plan.

Well, so it sounds like procedurally, we're not adding it to our transmission.

It is that the mayor intends to add this at her review level, but it's just looking for a um for the planning board to weigh in on alignment of this with the overall capital budget package and the comprehensive plan.

That's correct.

So if you approve it, it'd be a positive outlook at the mayor's level.

If you don't approve it, it'll be a negative outlook.

Okay.

I appreciate I supported the positive look.

Um Jeremy, any questions?

All right.

Um so to have a motion on this item then.

Yeah.

Uh to Rabbi uh move.

Sorry, hang on for a second.

So procedurally, is this approval or is it just is it endorsement?

I'm just trying to understand exactly what it is that we're doing procedurally.

That's a good question.

I mean, in the past, you'd you'd approve it.

Passports approved it, um, whether it's uh a positive or negative outlook.

Um just approve it.

I I that's past practice.

Okay.

No.

All right.

Uh so Ravi's motion is to move approval of uh the addition of Mill Road over Brookbridge.

Um at the mayor's stage of review of the capital budget.

Yeah, we supported the mail as it lists.

Um I have a second.

Uh all in favor, and it passes unanimously.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um we know already that the capital plan that we have submitted was going to be cut down significantly.

So this you know, half a million dollars, there's nothing to sneeze at.

And there is going to have to be many millions of dollars cut out anyway.

So I wish they're the best in trying to figure that out.

Um next on the agenda, we have multiple items for the zoning board of appeals referrals.

Uh, first we have ZBA application um 010-26, M run M Rachim at Zero Fairfield Avenue lot one variants of appendix B, Table 2.

Applicant owns this 4,972 square foot vacant lot and is proposing to construct a two-family dwelling with four parking spaces located in the rear and an open greenway for the front yard.

Applicant is requesting an allowance of 4,972 square feet uh lot in lieu of the 6,000 square foot required in the R5 cell.

And our presenter could introduce themselves for the record.

Um if you Amran, if you'd like to say anything on your application, you're welcome to unmute yourself and uh and speak on your application.

Doesn't I could ask I'll press ask to unmute.

Oh, there we go.

Hi John.

Yeah.

I I unmuted, I asked to unmute, and um I didn't want him to be unmuted without knowing.

Right because it didn't seem like he was very much aware.

Uh although I thought he had to approve it.

Um, please unmute yourself.

Um that we don't always get can you can you unmute John Marinelli, please?

John Marinelli.

Okay, sure.

Sure, he's gonna present the project on my behalf.

Okay, yes.

Thank you.

Yeah, yeah.

All right, John.

You can unmute yourself.

There you go.

Thank you so much, Lindsay.

Appreciate it.

So I thought it was on my end.

I'm not too familiar.

I do a lot of teams calls.

I don't do many Zoom calls anymore.

But uh yeah, this project was uh um it says he mentioned before the lots nonconform.

It's uh a little under 5,000 square feet.

We wanna right now it's a vacant piece of property, it's been like that uh since the owners purchased it, and it's unfortunate that it's it's a place for litter to build up and he wants to beautify it.

He's you know what we're we're all within the regulations.

The only thing that we don't conform in is basically the lot size.

Uh we're okay with the coverage, the height height requirements, the setbacks.

We uh provided the four parking spots, and again, we're providing a nice greenway in the front to beautify the front of Fairfield Avenue.

Um and on top of that, the the owner also owns the corner lot, and that corner lot has uh street parking, so we're also providing an additional two spots for that corner lot as well.

So it's a win-win for the city as well.

We're trying to bring in two spots that would be parking on the street now.

We are providing parking on site for that corner lot.

So and it's it's a pretty straightforward design.

It's two families, um, and we're hoping that uh you'll give us a positive review tonight and get your blessing so we can move forward to ZBA.

Um do we have uh questions for the applicants represent Ravi?

Yeah, so was this uh application uh uh denied earlier by us, or this is a new application?

Yes, it was I was never really clarified.

I it's not a I'm not sure if it was a clerical mistake or the mention of about an incorrect address, but we weren't unfortunately I didn't get the memo about the uh attending that call last year, and I I wish I had um so we were kind of uh caught off guard when we got the ZVA that you guys turned it down, and um but uh so we're here again today, hopefully, and to answer any questions you may have.

Yeah, I think uh uh I mean uh our concern I think at the time was that 5,000 square feet is I think even for a single uh single family home, it's it doesn't conform to the um requirements, and now we we want to have a two-family home.

Uh that's what I think we were struggling with last time.

Yeah, I mean, the need for housing we all know is uh a great need in this town.

And um, in addition to that, we we are trying to provide, we are providing the parking on on site as well.

But it's um I understand, yeah, you yes, we we could go for the one family, but we would obviously would prefer the two family.

Umran, if you want to add something to that.

Yeah, most of the properties in this area um are multifamily already.

So if this was built as a single family, this will probably be the only few, if any.

Um so it's a pre existing lot that was been there probably before the zoning uh regulations.

So in that sense, we were hoping that we can get this approval.

Um so typically the the pre-existing condition involves a pre-existing uh built structure on the property.

So um if there is not a built structure, then there's no grandfathering of anything.

Um the I will note that um I believe it was since this item became before came before us in November that the um zoning regulations have actually been since tightened and revised a bit for was it for just the R6 or also for R5, Lindsay, around uh slightly different requirements for um two family and one family.

Honestly, I couldn't uh couldn't tell you.

Okay, not not my area of expertise.

Yeah, we we did follow the latest uh guidelines from the Stanford Planning and Zoning Regulation, so they should comply to the uh latest regs.

But getting back to reiterating what Emirand, the owner said that it is a multifamily neighborhood.

Um that's another reason why we figured we'd hope and we'd get your blessings on this.

It's not that we're trying to do something outrageous.

We know putting a three family in a you know a one-family resident area.

So it's um but yeah.

Do we know the uh neighboring lots or what what is the size of the neighboring lots?

Does anybody know?

Moran, can you speak to that?

So the the lot next door with the three family 249 Fairfield Avenue.

I own that property as well.

That property, that lot is smaller than this one.

And there's no parking currently.

Uh with the new new construction, we would provide two additional parking for that house as well, as John mentioned earlier.

But currently the three family 249 has no parking and it's on a smaller lot.

Um we understand that.

I I think this is a certainly a situation where um I think there are many zones in the city where the pre-existing uh built uh environment is more densely built than what the zoning now currently allows.

And so I for that reason, I think that it is worthwhile to take a more comprehensive look at neighborhoods where there's a significant mismatch between the zoning and the reality of the built environment.

Um however, um that's not it doesn't, it's not a hardship for which the um a variance is typically granted.

If that distinction makes sense, um so I wouldn't argue that you know, I mean, perhaps it makes sense for the zoning board to look at this area and see, like, given that there are many multifamily properties that are on smaller lots.

Does it make sense to affirmatively actually change the underlying zoning?

But it it doesn't um just because there are other nearby non-conforming properties, does not constitute a hardship for which either the planning board or the zoning board of appeals uh would typically approve a variance.

When we were heard last year from ZBA, they uh the I guess the individual that was running the meeting actually was in favor and granted he was in favor for it.

The other three or four, the only reason we would deny it is because they didn't understand why planning shot it down, but they were basically all in favor of it.

The only reason again is the other the other uh three or four shot it down is because they couldn't figure out why planning shot it down.

But uh getting back to they they didn't have any issues with the overall design and the and uh the request, but they just you know that they had to get clarification what what happened with planning and zoning.

We couldn't uh give them that answer because unfortunately we didn't attend this call last year.

Does anybody know what would be the amount or extent of non-conformity for a two-dwelling unit?

I mean, is it basically looking at like 80 yeah?

We're sure about um 174 to you're about a little over a thousand square feet.

Is it yeah?

But again, it's it's not that we've overdeveloped a lot, we're within our setbacks, we're within the height restrictions, we're with an up coverage, we've got the four spots, so we're we're not asking for variances on setbacks or coverages or height restrictions or you know, the overall heights or parking uh variances again, all that fits within the confounds of the lot.

So that's why we're hoping that we were at least hoping that you know you'd see it that way and again give us the blessing so we can move forward, but you know.

Yeah, I do have one question.

Um, so so this is a two-family home with a shared family room on the on the attic floor with the bathroom.

The attic floor, that would be part of the second floor unit.

Okay, and the attic is basically just it's it's uh it's what's shown as it's space there for the taking and is my based on the configuration of the roof line, might as well utilize it.

That's why we showed it as a finished space.

But it you know, again, it it fits within the surrounds.

We're also as the lot is just gonna sit there, you know, undeveloped, and as you said, if you drive by the lot, it's it's it's it's just a place for litter and garbage to build up.

The owner is always cleaning it up every day, he's got to pick stuff up.

Um, and again, it's just we're just we want to develop it.

But um, obviously your approvals for that.

It's currently it's just being used by people from all over just coming and dumping on the empty lot last year.

I ended up paying a hefty fine with anti-blight because of that.

So currently I fenced it out, but people still throw garbage over the fence because it's just empty lot.

Um I I appreciate pointing out the um that it is conforming to the setbacks, and we understand the element of adding the off-street parking, which is certainly a benefit for this as well as the adjacent units.

Um I am a bit concerned about how this then translates into precedent for other similar applications, because this is from the standpoint of the lot size a pretty significant variance, actually.

Um I I wonder what the meaning of our other members is.

Well, I know that's what that is my concern too.

I understand some good things can come out of this.

Uh, but I don't know how to uh you know the the zoning regulations for the reason, and uh you know, the uh radiations which are somewhat minor, one could probably you know get around it, but here the uh requested variation is not so minor, and uh we'd be creating a precedent, which would be difficult to justify.

Um I I will probably comment briefly on the um the reasoning behind the zoning.

I think that's kind of part of what I was trying to say at the beginning that um I think there is a case to be made that the zoning for this area, given the density and the existing built environment may actually be too large of a requirement.

However, in the absence of actually making that a more uniform change, sort of making an exception here is a little bit uh tricky.

So I don't know if um yeah, I'm not I'm not sure kind of procedurally how we should hold this.

I mean, certainly, you know, we are a referral, and so the ZBA will do what the ZBA decides to do.

They denied without prejudice.

Um I am not clear on whether they denied without prejudice because they felt that they needed to follow the planning board's recommendation, but wanted to afford an opportunity for it to be heard again, or if there were particular recommendations that the ZBA had made um that uh would have shifted their assessment of this.

The ZBA did not make any recommendations.

Um they didn't they couldn't hear the applicant did not sh appear to that meeting either.

So they wanted to give the applicant an opportunity to present their project, which is why they denied it without uh okay, yeah.

Um but as far as setting precedence, yeah, I understand where you're coming from.

Um, and the only thing I could fall back on, and my argument would be is if we were asking for something that was completely outrageous or um out of bounds, I would agree upon this.

But based on the configuration of the lots, and we are following again the setbacks, the coverage.

I mean, that's something you could use as a legitimate argument.

It's not that we're trying to fit 15 cars in a slot, putting up a four-story building and throwing in 10 families.

It's a two-family residence.

It's frustrating because you see that you know, housing all over Stanford, the traffic flows and the housing going up, and we're just trying to get a two-family house approved here.

And you've got units going up by the hundreds you're getting approved.

So I'm scratching my head as an architect figure, what's going on here?

Why we haven't seen it?

Well, they have zoning that allows for it.

I understand that.

But what we've got two families, you know, and uh it's in a multifamily zone.

The only issue we have is it's a non-conforming lot.

So I I guess Jennifer, are we looking for a a what are we looking for here?

Um well, do we need to take action here?

You know, I know we we managed to buy this back in November.

Um, you know, specifically stating because of you know the lot was significantly undersized.

Uh you know, and and there's no existing property here for a hardship.

Um I think pretty cut and dry and clear to me.

Yes.

Yeah.

Um parking, you know, shortages in that area.

You know, I I think that's another another concern here.

Um so um we need to take an action of making a recommendation either way, and then the zoning board of appeals, they don't necessarily have to follow our recommendation if they have a supermajority.

So really the question before us is whether as the planning board, we find that this is or is not aligned with the comprehensive plan.

I think uh what award should be whether we change the decision we made previously or not.

I don't think we need to have another threshold on it.

We already decided this before.

That makes us change a little mind.

I think that is okay.

No.

So I'll make a motion uh, you know, to to say consistent with our our past review of of the um application as there's been no change uh to the application uh that would you know create it to a conforming uh piece of property.

Okay, so okay.

Um I do as well.

So uh unanimously uh the planning board is recommending uh denial.

Well, thank you for your time.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Um I again, I will say I I don't necessarily say this on behalf of the board.

Um, I do think it's worthwhile for the zoning board to be looking at neighborhoods where there is uh clearly a disconnect between the actual built environment and the underlying zoning.

Um, however, I don't think that it's our role as the planning board to make spot determinations on that.

Um so next on the agenda, we have uh ZBA application 011 uh 26.

Uh Paul Publis representing Alexander Publis at 36 Congress Street variants of section three uh-25.

Applicant owns a one-story single family dwelling and is proposing to add a 96 square foot vestibule with entry deck and stairs of 78 square feet over the existing first floor entry deck and to construct a 912 square foot second floor addition and a half story 252 square foot attic area over the existing building footprint.

Applicant is requesting a front yard setback of 5.1 feet in lieu of the 25 feet required on Keith Street.

The applicant is not or their representative is not here to present on this project.

All right.

Um, Anna Blaze.

Um that might have just been a mistake.

Her app Miss Blaze, your application is coming at the end.

Um two more to go.

Uh um do you want me to read a little bit of what I wrote in the memo?

Okay.

Um so 36 Congress Street is in res two, comprehensive plan category, residential neighborhood.

Um there are some legally non-conforming uh elements to the existing dwelling.

Um it was built before the corner lot definition was amended to require two front yards and thus does not meet the front yard setback requirement along Keith.

Uh so it is those elements of the addition that are required along Keith that are requiring um setback variances.

Robbie move approval.

I have a second and it passes unanimously.

Next item, uh ZPA application 012-26, William Hayed representing Sharon Axe, 41 idle idlewood place variants of appendix B, table two.

Applicant owns a two and a half story single family dwelling with an attached garage and is proposing to convert the existing 13 foot by 12 foot six inch sunroom into a 23 foot by 12 foot six inch bedroom and bathroom.

Applicant is requesting a rear yard setback of 24.6 feet in lieu of the 30 feet required.

The property is in res two residential neighborhood, future land use category.

Again, there's an existing deck and enclosed sunroom that are non-conforming that are currently existing there.

And they're pretty much expanding a little bit upon that and formalizing it as an enclosed space.

So it's pretty pretty um reasonable.

Okay.

Questions from board.

I have a motion on this item then.

Robbie, move for approval.

I have a second.

And it passes unanimously.

And our last item, CBA application uh 013-26, Anna and Cliff Blaze 75 C Beach Drive variants of section 5, table uh 5 X4.

Applicant owns a two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage and is proposing to add a 540 square foot second story addition as a bedroom and bathroom.

Applicant is requesting 51.6% building coverage in lieu of the 20% maximum, uh, of which 49.5% coverage is existing.

So Anna Blaze is here.

Um I can allow her to speak.

Um, but as a ZBA applicant, um, you don't have to speak at the planning board meeting if you don't want to.

I do see you took yourself off mute.

I do, would you like to present on your project?

Uh sure.

Um good evening.

I can you even see me or is it just voice?

Uh just voice.

Yep.

So yeah, because we weren't, we don't really know how this whole process worked.

The the basic thing is my parents are moving in with us, and they're 83 and 87, and we don't have a bathroom in the first floor, and this house is 1925, so the stairs are not compatible with them being able to go up the stairs.

So we're requesting to do a first floor bedroom and bathroom, which would be uh, I guess like 200 and some odd feet, and then go above that um to the second story, if that makes sense.

Um we have uh questions from the board or Lindsay, I don't know if you want to note what was in your memo.

Yeah, that would be uh probably a good idea.

Um, so the property is in residential one, res single family.

Uh, it's also in the coastal area management because it is proximate to the Long Island Sound.

Um I would say the larger issue here is the building coverage, uh, which is greater than twice the maximum permitted.

That was instituted several years ago.

So the applicant is requesting to further increase the lock coverage to allow for a first floor bedroom for less mobile individuals, which is aligned with the comprehensive plan strategy to make homes more accessible to people seniors and you know generational living.

However, the coverage is an issue with respect to the location proximate to the sound and uh runoff with increased and purpose impervious surface coverage.

So question is you're saying the building coverage.

Yes.

So the the building coverage with the addition would be 19.4%.

So the it says the applicant's requesting 51.6% cov is it's probably lot coverage is the requirement.

And lot coverage.

Yeah, which is the agenda.

Yeah, the building um is still under the 20% uh maximum coverage.

And then the house has been 49.5 since 1989, uh, when the last edition was done.

Um the the increase in the lot coverage, just I'm just trying to understand with the building still being uh obviously not the 49 or 51 percent uh what the source of the increase in the lot coverage is percentage-wise.

Uh yes.

So it's uh going from 49.5 to 51.6.

So it's 2.1%.

Right.

Um, but so the is the addition is building up.

So I'm trying to understand why there's an increase in the lock.

There's a it's building out and up.

There's no room in the first floor right now to go um to to put a bedroom and a bathroom on the first floor.

So we're going out to our setback line.

Okay.

Um I think this one is a little bit more.

So I'm actually looking at the zoning regulations, and it's so for the this this district, just to confirm where we're at.

We have 20%.

Because I'm wondering if it's also exceeding, because there is also there's a building coverage and a lot coverage.

The building coverage is 17.8 right now, and it'll go to 19.4.

So the building coverage is not being exceeded.

Okay.

Um I mean, I it's really not a big change percentage-wise.

Um, I know that this is an area where we do not want to encourage further um coverage.

And given the relatively small percentage shift, I um I'm curious what our other uh board members are thinking.

I'm okay with it.

Okay.

Jeremy?

Yeah, I would say I'm okay with it.

You know, I I don't know.

Um if there's any recommendations possibly to alleviate some of the runoff concerns from the you know, increased area.

Okay.

But otherwise I'm okay with it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um I'll just note for the record so there isn't there isn't technically a hardship of the land.

Um certainly the the reason for the addition, I think is important and compelling.

That is not typically on its own sufficient to justify a variance.

Um give given that it is a very small percentage.

Um it sounds like we have a motion to approve uh the variance with a note the encouragement to determine if there are ways to uh limit the um the impacts of impervious surface coverage.

Okay.

Uh so Jeremy can move approval, second from Ravi.

Um, and I will approve as well.

So it passes unanimously.

Um those are all of our items this evening.

Yeah, I I want uh additional decad on family centers and 986 Bitford sleep.

That's not in that.

Yes, I have that packet, but it's not on the agenda.

Yeah, sorry, I I should have emailed you guys.

I'm sorry about that.

Um so that is a variance for our sign.

And since it does not fit within the criteria for a referral to the planning board, um, I asked for it to be pulled from the agenda.

Um it it didn't need to be referred to us because it doesn't impact the density or the bulk of a project or parking.

Um CBA can do that one on their own.

Okay.

Thank you for the clarification.

All right.

Um so our next regularly scheduled planning board meetings are March 10th, uh, March 24th, and April 14th.

Um sorry, I just wanted to make sure that there's um break is not overlapping with the spring break.

Okay, right.

Yeah, no, we checked that.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um, so I think that concludes our meeting.

Um thank you very much.

Thank you.

7 19.

Have a good night, guys.

You too have a good night.

Bye.