Zoning Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

All in favor? I All right. We now for a moment at least have a full board. I believe we will have a recusal. Is that right, John? Yeah. Uh Mark, I recuse myself being.

Excellent. All right. Mark, you join the crowd over there. Look at this breezing through. All right. So today we're meeting for the application for one of the Gainesbury Road, Kensington, New Hampshire, math 3, lot 9. This is seeking a variance from article 3 section 3.2.2b.2, which is the minimum frontage requirements. Um, let me first start by noting to the applicant as we've talked about before. As you can see, we have a four member board. You are entitled to wait until you have a full five member. Of course, that may take some time depending on holiday schedules and everything else. You do need three members to vote yes in order to approve. So, it's up to you if you want to proceed with a less than full board or if you like to wait till the next meeting.

Proceed.

You want to proceed. All right. Excellent. So, we're going to proceed with four. Uh I will note that all prior testimony which at this point is the testimony from November 4th all submissions etc that is all still on the record that is very much in play. It does not have to be re reiterate. So I know it's been two months and we'll go through very quickly just so everybody remembers how we got here but everything that was said at our last meeting in November still applies. still being considered by the board. And um just I'm hoping today we don't have to reiterate all of it, though of course a refresher and any new information would certainly be helpful. Uh before I open public comment very quickly, the history here, this board initially denied this variance. The applicant requests a rehering and provided service additional information. The board granted this reharing. There was public hearing of November 4th that was then continued to December 2nd in order to allow for the fire chief to give input on December 2nd. There was a snowstorm and it was then renoticed with new notice to letters and the applicant etc. must be renoticed for today. And here we say all right. Uh Peter, can you confirm that this meeting has been properly noticed?

Yes. Newspaper and letters.

Excellent. All right. Since our last meeting, I understand that Cuder spoke with the fire chief on November 17th and that the fire chief indicated that he had no concerns, but you will review the site plan when it gets to that point in the uh planning board process. That right? All right. So, that was the pause for delaying it last time. We now have input from him and he said he has no concerns. Although, when it gets to planning board, he'll look at it. All right. That brings us to public comment. I'm going to open public comment. Now, I'm going to be rather strict tonight. If I can manage it, which is to say, uh, I want to make sure everything is directed at the board. Nothing among one another. While you guys are out there, I will cut you off and interject and make sure that you do direct it to the board. Uh, also, we're only discussing the frontage variants today. So things such as the fact that these houses, if lots were created, that's planning board decision, these houses would be slightly closer together than they're allowed to be because there would be slightly less frontage for one of these lots. things like the character of the neighborhood due to that same frontage change, the peculiarities of the lot that relate to the need or lack of need for a frontage variance, and the impact that the frontage variance would have on home values. Anything else that's happening on the property that does not have to do with the frontage requirements is not relevant to the hearing. I will do my best to try to keep that in mind if necessary. But anything else we can't consider and so there's no point bringing it up in the first place. But I'm going to try to keep us from swaying too far into that path. With all that out of the way, uh would the applicant like to speak? Yes.

above and beyond everything that we talked about 3 months ago. If this variance is denied, I will my property is being improperly unjust and unjustly sponsored. I would say this because within a quarter mile of my property, there are 40 other parcels in Kensington. Of those 40 parcels, 20 do not meet the current road frontage requirement and 20 do meet current road frontage requirement. After this variance is approved and the property subdivided, there would then be 42 properties from Wings. Of those 42 properties, 21 properties would meet the current requirement and 21 would not. that would maintain the exact same proportion in the surrounding area and further proving there is no change to the characteristic of the neighborhood. After this property is subdivided and the tax updated the properties would seamlessly blend in to all the surrounding properties. Nobody would look at the taxi one, two, three inches down the road and think, "Wow, why did they print that?" It they would just blend in. I also sort of at the meeting market had said that I had bought the property knowing it didn't meet the road frontage requirement and that it was not clear that original statement had that property listed as 604tage and it specifically said that it was substit I did not when I purchased the property I had no intentions on selling it. It

wasn't until until we had our son and um we needed people to come stay at the house for our own went in and out of hospitals just signed up the house as a symbol of man who had no interest in getting married at the time. not plan on having kids and here we are with two kids. Part of the reason we're looking to now sub property is put a new house on back so and have people in the state house when you need it. Thank you. Does the board have any questions for the applicant at this moment?

All right. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak on this application? See hands right here. Just make sure the speak into the microphone and you can give your name and address please mind over me. Thanks for coming. I just wanted to just make a comment. I'm glad that you have Can I approach the map? Is that okay? I just want to point down. Yeah, that's fine.

So, it's all going to be a little high for me, but this is our property right here. Not something pointer. No to the left. That's our property right there. And if you move a little bit more to the wider area, come up closer to the line. Nope. Nope. Nope. Over to here. You want me to do it? I just want to show you because Antonio had just communicated that there'll be no changes to the character of the of the neighborhood. There is no neighborhood. This entire area, our home is just a little bit to the left of that. It it looks out and that whole entire swath where he abots is all woods. It's all woods. It's all woods to the power lines and across the lines. It's all woods. So, what is happening is if this variance is granted is that you're change the the the the the character of the neighborhood is changed significantly because there is no neighborhood there. It's all trees. It's all woods right now. And what's going to happen is there would be a home right there in the middle of that entire area, right? And as an abot that directly impacts our home and goes completely against the spirit of the barriers because what we'll see where we see trees now is an opening and a home in this beautiful spot that's just all the woods right now. And I understand that we're not supposed to talk about property values, but when you when you approve this variance and the variance results in a build of a home that's going to uniquely impact the neighborhood where there isn't even a neighborhood today, you know, that goes against the complete spirit of the ordinance. Secondly, I don't understand how it can be approved when a fire chief

didn't even look at it. Like as an I understand that that goes to the planning board, but as an I don't understand how you can approve that without having solid, you know, information that there isn't any safety issues there. When you look at this whole area right here, a lady, please wait. Please ma'am, please work with today and you approve a variance that allows driveway to go right there. That's a total wooded spacious area.

I I'm going to interject you and say locations of driveways, actual locations of homes, etc. All those things will be things that get addressed in the planning board. What we're looking at right now is the fact that uh the front end requirements would be slightly smaller than it's navigated by the county. I guess can I ask why are there requirements?

Sure. I actually looked into that today. Frontage requirements have two purposes. The first is to prevent overcrowding and the second is to the extent that frontage has an impact on accessibility for emergency vehicles. which is to say if your frontage is 10 ft, you cannot get a fire truck down a 10T driveway, let's say. Uh those are the two houses or uh frontage requirements.

And do you feel confident at this point knowing that nobody has even gone out to look at it, nobody's been to our property to look at it, that that it's it's reasonable, you know, to wait till the plan was to proof. That's certainly something we will have to discuss.

So, so the frontage requirement is there because you want to ensure adequate access to avoid isolated loss to facilitate quick and reliable access for emergency vehicles such as fire trucks, ambulances, etc. I I really am a little bit shocked that because this final requirement is such you know safety oriented the fire chief who said he'd go out to go out to address the core principles in the spirit of the front requirement. Uh it the front's requirements also to prevent scattered development uh supports infrastructure and utilities. This is a 1500 foot driveway. Again, I'm going to note we don't know the driveway location, layout, etc. How tight you design that?

Well, that's for the planning board to sign though. But we also saw at the very initial meeting there was a plot, a lot division plan. So, we have to get that information. You can you can respond from the gallery later. It's your turn. It's her turn right now. So, you know, so maintaining the neighborhood character and aesthetic is my and to protect future property owners and public welfare um to safeguard buying a lot that maybe can't be developed all the way back.

I think the other other substantial piece to this is you're really setting things by approving this if this is approved. There's no reason why we couldn't subdivide our law with the exception of an approval of a variance. So, you know, you're setting precedence that hey, you know, we're sitting here, you know, the whole reason why we've never is because we want to keep the character, the unique the the unique value that our property has because of the treaties, because of the privacy, because of because that's why we bought it. We we could subdivide. We could go through the same process as this applicant, but we haven't done it to maintain the privacy, the value, the character of the uniqueness of our lot. That property and this variance is approved and this moves forward. There's no reason that's gone for us. That's gone. So I would expect us to come back here, you know, six months, a year with the same expectation that all of these things would not be taken into consideration in terms of the character, the value of one's property because this would this would take that away from us. And so I hope that you would really consider the precedence that you're setting, you know, to to the neighbors and the adviserss by approving something like this. And given Mr. the the the the applicant's you know perspective on that piece of this project I would assume that they would be agreeable having a home you know accept

with the same frontage variance would be literally fee for his third we're again let's get focused on this lot this application I will say I caution you against relying on a president we are not allowed to consider presidential effect we have to consider every single applicant as it is on its own in the facts. So, as far as whatever precedent you may be concerned about, that is not something we can consider and it's not something we can't consider it either way either. When we get a new application, we can't consider the past president, whatever that may be. And when we consider the current application, we cannot consider what the future precedent, whatever that may be, is of that application. That's pretty clear from the law. So, as far as the precedent goes, there is an on and we cannot consider that. That's one of our our uh factors

though impacting the safety concerns. I do think it's our right to have a better understanding in terms of what the safety piece looks like some of this you know just having without without more diligence I don't know how you would prove this knowing how far set back this is knowing how what the variance looks like you know it may be that half the homes in that area you know already have a variance so it's not going to change but that is this is one property and one specific place is very set back very set back in a very wooded area. I don't know if any of you have watched back there to look at it. If anybody has come to our home to see where it actually like the butts and what you can see, you're more than welcome to do that. I I would like that to happen. But if if nobody has, I can assure you it's set far back. and and to think that, you know, it's going to be easy to put out a fire back there or if there's some type of an emergency, I would certainly like like more information on that because that I don't have an insurance whatsoever. We have had, you know, the former police chief to our property before, you know, to to provide us um burn things before. We've had conversations about what would happen. You know, there there was conversation about, you know, potentially needing a second a second um water source, you know, or or is there opportunity for more water source with drainage that we have down there? You're looking at a really tucked in area in Kensington that right now is not a neighborhood. And putting a home there is is is is definitely unconcerned to me. and and then and and how it impacts us.

So, we're a little disappointed that not any nobody here has gone and taken look at this property. This property was on the market for two years because it's not develop developable. We hired and praised him. We're paying good money for this guy to go in and he believes that our property values will decrease between 5% and at the most 15%. Because the one main unique characteristic in borrow property is this private. He puts a house back there and cuts down trees. We're looking at a house instead of our end of culdeac private property, which is the only reason we bought this property. So if you're looking at it, he he believes it's a 10% dimminion of value on a million dollar home. That's $100,000. So for the applicant to put a third house in that'll cost us $100,000 because now instead of a very wooded private lot you're looking at another house. I think that's I think the state would say black and white that's a no-brainer.

I think in addition to the access you know for safety concerns for fire there's a lot of wildlife back there. What's the disruption to wildlife? You know, the deer, you know, the wild stuff. I'm trying to bring us back to the front end. We're talking supposed to be related to in my perspective as an environment, it's all related to the front end.

I I understand that. But when it goes to segment, they still will need to get the they'll need to get it approved to be able to split this into three lots. That goes to the planning. And when they do that process, the planning board is going to have to look at things like are you able to build build lots out of these three different parts that they're claiming. So I understand that it is it one leads to the other. I get that without us approving it here, they can't do that. Totally understand that. But the way that we have to consider it is and it's different. I have no idea how to bifrocate this perfectly, but we have to consider just the frontage piece because all the other repercussions that flow from that are supposed to go,

right? But that all falls under safety concerns. That all falls under safety concerns. All of safety concerns property values certainly. Yes, you're right. Property values is one of our considerations. Yeah. Yes.

A major consideration. I would think Mr. about his opinion would be major consideration but uh property values that if if you're looking at this and you want to build three properties I mean yeah why not you benefit you can't it's it's not right for someone to benefit at another person's loss And as president of we could go for the same fun variance and put a house literally 10 ft from where his third house would be. That that is the precedent you set and you would be a buyer. You'd be probably sitting here saying you know I want that house 10 ft from my house. So this is why zone this is why the college exists and the spirit of the order ordinance is is all about property values and it's not as much about debt. Unfortunately his law does not dictate homes being you know put in places where they don't affect other homes. is lot was blocked and it's cliche where the only homes can greatly affect other homes especially ours I mean you know our picture window is looking at a beautiful wooded back they are right now that would would be looking at lights and

lights we don't know who's going to buy it I know you say your you know your your kids are going to buy it but or state this this and this house would probably be sold and who knows where again we're going to find the kind of you know despite some of the comments about you know being focused on the variance the variance impacts the safety and and and from my perspective and as as an one thing to reassure me of any that to diminish any of my safety concerns we haven't said one thing here that's allowed me to by approving those varants. He's going to make it easy for a fire truck to go and put out a fire so it doesn't burn down the woods and house. You know that that belong to me. I I don't have any reassurance of that whatsoever. So that's a major concern. The second thing is whether it's of importance or not, it impacts the character of our neighborhood. It impacts the value of our property upwards of $100,000. it and and and it impacts the the the um the um precedence that can be set because I can tell you if this is approved we'll probably be submitting something for subdivision 2 because we've lost the privacy and the whole reason why we've never done that in the past to begin with. I can tell you that that that just the whole spirit of why we're doing this and the ordinance of why we're doing and and the ordinance and the spirit of this ordinance and the impact of the absorbers again, you know, you know, we are the ones who are going to to to experience significant hardship. It's going to be us. It's not going to be anybody else. There's no bread or butter that's going to have the type of hardship that we're going to have hardship that we're going to have if this is approved. And I know the

hardship is related to the applicant, but it will be upon us. Loss of money, loss of privacy, loss of of picturesque, you know, area. And so, and now significant. I just think if it if it wasn't beyond this for the state hospital losing even 10% let alone 15% for not having a private law anymore is black and white to the state. You can go on the state website and read that. It's a major consideration. It's a total justification if not.

Do you have any questions? Uh first one, I received a letter earlier this afternoon uh from the two of you. I think basically summarizing here. Um I'll distribute this to the board now. Do you want this? It'll be in the record certainly. Do you want this read into the record? Do you feel that we've sufficiently uh expressed what's in here? How would you like me to uh get this in front of the record? I suppose do you do we need to actually physically read it to have you write into the record? Well, that that's I could sit here and read every word of this. I would prefer not to. Okay. Um we could have done that too. Yeah, you could. Yeah. Is it part of

it? It is part of the record. This board will consider this letter today. Okay. Um and if once everything's done, if this board feels they need to sit here and read it to make sure that they got everything over it, then that will happen as long as the board will read will read that if they haven't read it. Yes. Yes. Yes. We just got this. So, yes. Yep. All right. So, the board will make sure they review this building article today. Um, otherwise, does the board have any questions to the bars? No. All right. Thank you.

All right. Uh, do we have anyone else who would like to speak in favor? Anyone who'd like to speak in favor of the application? All right. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak against the application? Okay, seeing none, I am going to close public comment. Um, now for the board, would you like to uh have a minute to look over the letter? Has we had a chance to look at the letter or do you want to go right into discussion with that? I haven't had a chance to do it that it's that's in the All right.

All right. So, we're going to take um five minutes now and board's going to read these. You can get out, stretch, etc. We'll be back at let's say the apply. What is it? All right. 8:05. All right. Congratulations. Okay. Good evening. Does the applicant have a copy of this letter? No.

Oh, you have

board ready. I'm ready. I'm ready. Yeah. All right. We're going to pick back up. Um I would propose that we well we can either start by just general discussion among the board of deliberating or we can start on a uh fact or requirement by requirement discussion. How would we like to proceed? Any thoughts? Reply one by require that's the easiest.

All right. So, town council has advised that we uh the best course is to consider the first and second requirements together. That's why you'll see in this worksheet that the first question when we get to it is going to be read and has demonstrated that the variance is both not contrary to the public interest and that the spirit of the ordinance is observed by granting the variance. um as briefly as I can. I went through my notes and what I heard what I have written down as far as what we've heard for testimony is as far as the spirit of the ordinance uh we've heard testimony that this will not necessarily uh lead to overcrowding. We're looking at a five- foot real I mean it's a 50- foot variance but total among the three lots it's a five foot difference that among the three proposed lots there's 22 acres on this lot that with three houses rather than two this uh parcel will still be considerably less dense than Kensington on average with the average them being for these parcels 83 people per square mile versus Kensington having 175 per square mile and that given that it's on a dead-end street, there's somewhat less concern about congestion. On the other hand, this and we've heard this from the Apple 2, this of course will lead to more crowding. There will be an additional house that will of course naturally presumably require more clearing and everything else that goes with the house. We've also heard uh as to the character of the neighborhood, we've heard for the applicant side that the uh neighborhood is a quote medium rural area. As far as

the appraisal goes, it's also we all know a residential area. We've heard that there is significant lack of frontage in the surrounding areas. That four abutters don't have the now requisite frontage. Who knows if they did when it was when it was first built and that within uh quarter mile about half of the homes in that distance also don't have frontage. We've also heard that the construction on this property would be set back from the road which may or may not uh mitigate some of the issues with the essential character of the neighborhood given that it won't be dismissible from the road. On the other other hand, we've heard today and see in the letter that this will still change the neighborhood especially as far as the butters are concerned and that the neighborhood in the area at least towards the back end of the property is effectively no neighborhood now. So this would necessarily change that. As for public health, safety and welfare, um, as I understand it, though the board is welcome to come to their own conclusions, the health, safety, and welfare issue, at least the primary one for us is as to whether or not the frontage is large enough to allow for emergency vehicles, to allow for firefighting and access to the property, etc. uh anything beyond that as I understand it goes to planning board considerations at least as to its access for emergency vehicles we have heard from the fire chief that he does not have concerns about that with respect to the frontage though of course if they for example put in a 5 foot wide uh driveway he would have problems with that the access issue so those things go to planning board and he reserve that as a possible concern in the future That's how I understand at least the inquiry for public health

safety. That's what I have for my notes on this first topic. I would love to hear's thoughts or anything that you think anyone missed. Thank you. Thank you. All right.

Do we have any discussion among the board as to these first two requirements? Well, given that the fire chief didn't have any issues, I don't see uh this affecting safety. Uh but we have had testimony that it will alter the character of the That's that's what I'm struggling with. What how other board leaders feel?

Well, I'm just trying to separate our position from the community. So, just that with the variance change the character of the name would Yeah. I and and as I as I'm coming to it and it is diff I mean we all know that the end result here if the planning board approves it which is not thus the end result is that there will be another house

but as I'm coming around to it I think the inquiry is not will another house necessarily impact the neighborhood. I think the inquiry is will having a lot that is 150 ft of frontage rather than the 200 acquired will that change the character of the exactly and and if that's the case I think if that is the inquiry which I'm only now coming around to I think um then it does seem to me that this things would be different if every house in the area was 200 ft of frontage

but it seems that that is not the Right. I don't see theund I don't see the request for the variance affecting the character of the neighborhood. Is there any other discussion or you want to vote on the first two requirements one way or the other? entertain a vote either that the applicant has or has not demonstrated the first year requirements. I think the applicant has

we have a motion that the applicant has demonstrated that the variance is not contrary to the public interest and that the spirit of the ordinance is observed by granting the variance. Is there a second? Second. Second. All in favor? I I

All right. That's the next requirement. the applicant has or has not demonstrated that substantial justice is done by granting the variance. Council has advised that the question to keep in mind here, at least one of them, is does the public gain if the variance is denied outweigh the harm that would be caused to the applicant uh if it's denied. Now, we've heard testimony, as I said a moment ago, that this will inevitably lead to denser development and certainly lead to a a smaller frontage lot among these these three. On the other hand, uh we've heard testimony that first of all, there will be without this variance, there can be only two lots. So, they lose the potential to build an extra lot. And again, potential they still need approvals. And we've also heard essentially that they can't use much of this property as it is at least for uh typical purposes. So, you know, if you can't put a house on that 20 acre or half of that 20 acres, then there's some amount of use that you're losing. Any discussion with extra facts in the firm that I'm listening? I think you covered it. I I just want to be very careful to play my role as a zoning board and not one as a planning board member because that's not who I am. Um, and with that in mind, I don't think that the public would gain if this variance wasn't granted. Question is does the public gain if the varianc is denied? Does the public gain inferences denied outweighing grant that would be to the end

as I see this one strictly on I think it's a great point focusing on the frontage um as I see it the public game in restricting uh the frontage size does not seem terribly large. Notwithstanding that the game may be on two lots versus three. I don't know. I think that's a closer question, though. I think it probably is still

in the aid's favor personally. But the public gain on restricting this frontage in my personal view is probably not uh really questioned compared to lack of use of this property, especially given these right through the middle of it. its large size etc. Any other discussion region one way or the other on this requirement? Make a motion that the applicant has demonstrated that the substage of justice is done by granting the variance.

Is there a second? Second. All in favor? I

next requirement. The applicant has demonstrated that the values of the surrounding properties are not diminished by granting the variance. In the applicant's favor, we've heard that the frontage of a lot is not specifically considered in an appraisal. And we've heard that changing this from uh changing this frontage and therefore potentially allowing in the lot would not change the classification of these properties, which is to say that they would still being considered medium rural density uh properties. Um and generally we've heard that it would not change the value surrounding homes though hard numbers are hard to find. Yeah. Uh on the other hand, we've heard today that there's potentially an appraisal indicating something between a 5 and 10% harm to a a butter's property. Um I will note as the letter indicates at least that seems to be focused largely on the presumed uh deforestation that would accompany an additional home. I'm a little queasy with how that settles with the frontage uh question that we are dealing with, which is to say one presumably the I don't actually know if this is true, but I presume that the applicant could tear out a big tree tomorrow if they wished. Um regardless of they're going to build something there. And two, our question is again the frontage. And although that leads to probably another home, we're not considering a variance to allow for deforestation of the land, we're considering variance for the frontage garden. Mhm.

So, um although crediting this potential appraisal, it's focused on the tree, the loss of trees, the loss of picturesque view. I'm not so sure this is directly attributable to the variance that we're actually considering today. Mhm. Yeah. Because if you look at lot two and three, if that was one lot, somebody put an open house on the lot two portion. Mhm. Regardless of what the frontage is, right?

Yeah. And presumably they can build the same kind of long driveway down the middle of this thing just with one house instead of two. Correct.

Any other thoughts on this requirement or a potential vote one way or the other on this one? Why are you bothering this? Why are Sorry. Public comment. Public comments closed. You should only invite again. Public comments closed. Thank you.

Please. I make a motion that the applicant has demonstrated that the values of the surrounding properties are not diminished by granting the variance. Is there a second? Second. All in favor? I I

I the last requirement is that the applicant demonstrate that literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. Unnecessary hardship means that owing to a special condition of the property as compared to other properties in the area, either a no fair and substantial relationship exists with the ordinance's purpose as applied to this property and the proposed use is reasonable or b the property cannot be reasonably used if the ordinance is followed and the requested variance will allow the property's reasonable use. As to special conditions, we've mentioned a few already, but the ones I have in particular are particularly in mind are the power line easement run through the middle of this property. The fact that this is a T-shaped lot, so you have to to be able to build on this kind of wings out the side back of the property. um that it's a rather large lot already and maybe to a lesser extent that this is on deadend road so some of the concerns with respect to uh traffic visual aspects neighborhood etc may be perhaps minimized any other uh considerations as to the potential for unnecessary arch

um given the surrounding properties have similar frontage. It's not a um it's not an alteration of the character of the neighborhood. Any other uh items for consideration or discussion or anything else in the motion? I make a motion uh that the applicant has demonstrated that the literal literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship.

Is there a second? I'll second that. All right. All in favor? I All right. And finally, uh we've now voted on each of the requirements. I would entertain a motion to approve the varants requested for map 3 lot. I make a motion to approve the application for variance um based on the variance plan that be submitted with the application. Is there a second? I'll second that. All in favor? I I

I

All right. So, the variance is approved. There will be we'll issue a um notice of decision and bonds of fact within that is a week five days. Five days within 5 days. Um I unfortunately do not remember off the top of my head, but there is a appeal period that the applicant can uh apply for work. So like I said 30 days. So the applicant has 30 days I believe to appeal. I think that's from the date of the notice of decision but I probably shouldn't speak out on that. So there is an appeal period that's available to you. Um that's it for this close the hearing on map green lot n

no for you. for you. Sorry. Sorry. I'm the correct. Yes. So, so the butter has all the butters have an appeal period to be um do they have to ask for rehearing as a butter or they submit it and then I think they have to have a meeting to so they have to ask for and butter has to ask for hearing before they compete. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Okay. All right. So process is for you to submit if if you want to uh go that route then you can you can submit a uh request for rehearing as they did prior and then if that is denied then you can appeal after that. Thank you. All right. Um, for the board, do we have any new business?

I'll say I did review the meeting minutes. I only reviewed one of them on this long list that we are behind on. I reviewed the November 4th meeting minutes and I have no revisions to them. I didn't see any issues. All right. And I will motion to approve the November 4 meeting minutes, please. And I will follow a second. All right. All in favor? All right. So, November 4th. Um, I will I know I say this every time. I will work on the rest.

All right. Um, anything else before we adjourn? No.

All right, we have a motion to start second. Anyone have a second? Excellent. All in favor. 79 I'm especially since I'm talking the files of Thank you for being such a

We don't want to be Okay. Did you say

No, it's fine. Thank you. Good night.

Yeah. Well, and it's, you know, when you're sitting on the other side of the table, it is different. It's just Yeah, I feel for you. That's what comes out. Okay. I have 10 years to make sure my trees aren't just

All right. Thanks, Peter. Okay. Let me know whenever you have something for me to sign. Yep. You don't do them.