[SPEAKER_02]: Recording in progress.
[Mike Caldera]: Hello and welcome to this regular meeting of the Medford Zoning Board of Appeals. We're going to take a quick roll call and we'll get started. Jim Tirani?
[Chris D'Aveta]: Present.
[Mike Caldera]: Christy Aveda?
[Andre Leroux]: Here.
[Mike Caldera]: Andre LaRue?
[Andre Leroux]: Present.
[Mike Caldera]: I think Mary Lee is currently absent, and then Yvette Velez said she won't be making it today. So Yvette's absent, Mike Caldera present. So we do have a quorum present, and we can get started. Dennis, could you please read the first matter?
[Denis MacDougall]: 121 Second Street continued from July 31st, 2025. Applicant and owner Panagiotis Mamounas to replace an existing single-family building with a two-family building in the general residence zoning district allowed use with insufficient plot size, width and coverage and front yard setbacks per the city of Medford zoning ordinance.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Thank you, Dennis. And so we can continue this matter from our last meeting. At that meeting, there were four members of the board present, myself, Andre, Chris and Mary. We did hear a little bit of testimony. We didn't get particularly far. And as I understand it, the proponent is going to be presenting some new plans. And so because Jim wasn't here last time, my ask is just please make sure to present the plans in full context so that he has all the information he needs to make a decision and we can retain quorum. Does that sound good? Yes, sir. All right. Hello and welcome.
[SPEAKER_02]: Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. And through your members, uh, I feel very special that we're the only thing on the docket tonight. So I will try to make this, um, as quick and easy as possible, but also giving context for, for member Durrani as well, since he was not here last time. Um, is it okay if I, uh, get a screen share and show everything? Yes, please go ahead. Okay. Just making sure. Um, so I'm just going to start with the kind of the 10,000 foot view, like literally here. Um, just want to, I always like to start with, this is the neighborhood that we're, we're talking about. Um, and right here is, is the current lot that we are, uh, we're proposing to put a two family on. Um, it is part of a. mix of a one family and two family neighborhoods. Two families do dominate the neighborhood as well. And also just as its neighbor as well is very similar to our uh, plot here, um, eight or less. And, um, what we're proposing is to take the current one family that's been on the structure since 1920, um, and change it into a two family kind of consistent with the neighborhood. Um, and here is the new plan, but just also, I want to, this is the current structure. I'll always like to say, always like to. show terra firma here um in 19 uh to the current standards then uh second street here um and also has as well right here
[Mike Caldera]: just to give you a 360 here just so you're aware I think it was your connection was cutting out a little bit in that last bit so I didn't I apologize yeah no worries thank you for letting me know so this is
[SPEAKER_02]: This is the one family structure that's currently there now. We do have a outbuilding garage as well. We're proposing to let both of those, to raise both of these and then construct the following. So this was the prior design and which everybody said, please change. So now I always like to start with the pretty picture. So this is the before, and this is the after. I went with the owner and the architect. We walked the block, looked at things, took pictures, and tried to make it more in line with the architecture that's in the neighborhood already.
[Mike Caldera]: Um, something on a separate screen. Currently, we still see the Google maps.
[SPEAKER_02]: Oh, okay. I'm so sorry. Um, let me see if it's just, uh, there we go. Let's see. Can you see the new design here?
[Mike Caldera]: Yes. Now we see the new design. Excellent.
[SPEAKER_02]: Um, I, let me see if I can do the before and after this is the before. Kind of plain and we now, I like to say, gave it more definition brought it into consistency with what we see in the neighborhood as well. And one of the big things is that we removed, this is, we had a neighbor that wrote in about massing and also feeling like it's still a neighborhood and things like that. One of the things we did was remove right here was a balcony on the old design. We removed the balcony facing second street. and put them here facing in the street. So just to give you a before and after, again, here's the before. It had balconies on both ends facing second street and nothing in the middle. And then we changed it to a smaller massing plus in the front instead of facing neighbors on the sides. We also shrink the footprint. by a combined gross of 154 square feet. We reduced our lot coverage from 41.7 to 39.2. Also, we reduced the height about a foot as well from 29.4 to 28.6. I'm just going to start with, we also reduced the square footage of each floor as well as we reduced the footprint. The square footage went down from, it was 6,282 to 6,128. Um, cause we, we had, we listened and we heard that, you know, neighbors didn't want a lot of massing. Y'all wanted to have a consistency with the neighborhood. And so this is what we came up with. Um, and so I'm just gonna, you know, if you want to walk through it, Mr. Fringos, my architect is online here. Um, we reduced the square footage of, uh, this is. So we start here, this is the basement area, the living room, a bedroom, and bath. Going to the second floor, the first floor, which is an entryway. And this is a mirror, so it's a duplex. So we have a half a bath here, but also a kitchen, dining room, living room. Going up to, here is the second floor. We've got another two bedrooms and a stairway with primary bathroom with a primary bedroom and a bathroom over here. And then on the top floor, we have a suite, a bedroom suite up here with another bath, uh, which would be replicated on either side. Um, these are, this is the square area and also the roof plan and, Back to the pretty picture, there we go. And this is also the parking, we are parking compliant with two person dwelling unit. Just a bit about, let's see, can you see my zoning chart? I'm sorry to ask these questions, I wish I could, but can you see my zoning chart, Mr. Chair?
[Mike Caldera]: Right now, we are looking at the site plan.
[SPEAKER_02]: Let me go back, I updated my, zoning chart here to reflect what the original plan was and then the revised plan as well. So there's three variances that we're asking for that we can't do anything about. It's the lot area, width and depth because it was subdivided in 1919. And there are three other variances that we seek tonight. The front yard, we did bring it more into compliance. It was at 11, we're making 11.4. The rear yard, because the rear yard was, because it's smaller, it is reduced from 11 to seven. But our lot coverage was 41, and now it is 39, a reduction of 2.5%. At 2.5, yeah, 2.5%. And we have increased the front yard as well. So with that, I'm going to, I have my architect here and we also have Mr. Mamounas, my client that is online. As you know, we're here to answer any questions that you might have. And Mr. Frangos is here for technical questions.
[Mike Caldera]: Great. Thank you. Questions from the board so far?
[SPEAKER_02]: Also, just in case I do have a, um, I do have the original plot plan if, if you need to see it, um, as well about what the proposed will look like. We did not update it with the new design. Uh, unfortunately our surveyor is on vacation, um, for most of August. So, uh, but this, there is just a few inches off either way. And so you can see where the new proposed is. basically.
[Mike Caldera]: One thing that I think we discussed last time that I just want to touch on here again today. So my recollection is the rear yard setback, the variance is required because the actual front of the house changes with that proposal. So it's not that the new structure is encroaching more on the rear yard than the existing structure. It's that the existing structure's rear yard is where essentially the parking is proposed today. And now it's a structure facing the adjacent street. What was the side yard becomes the rear yard. Is that right?
[SPEAKER_02]: That is correct, sir. Yes.
[Mike Caldera]: Other questions from the board?
[Chris D'Aveta]: Chris, go ahead. Yes, I just wanted, I was looking at the lot matrix, the zoning matrix that you had up for a second. I wasn't sure if that was the same as what is on the plans from the city's server. Can we throw that table up again?
[SPEAKER_02]: Yes, sir.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_02]: It is an updated chart and it is not on the city's website. Let me make sure up here. Is everybody being able to see that? I just want to make sure.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Chris, do you have a specific question? No, thanks. Through you, Mr. Chair, I really wanted to just see that to evaluate what the change was from what we heard last month to this month and see the difference, which is enumerated here, so that's good.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, great. So then I have a couple of questions. One, have you had a chance to talk to the abutting neighbor who wrote the letter in opposition about the new design?
[SPEAKER_02]: I have not personally. A lot of my apologies. This is my first time before Medford. A lot of boards don't want me to do that. A lot of boards do want me to do that. But most of the boards do not want me to contact people directly because I'm a lawyer. I'll be more than happy to get in touch with them. I did not present them. I do it. I'm sorry.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. So apologies. was using you in the plural sense. So, so yeah, I don't personally have a strong opinion about whether the lawyer should or shouldn't be doing that contact. It was more like collectively the youth project. Has there been a discussion with that?
[SPEAKER_02]: I'm sorry, I apologize. We have not reached out to that neighbor. I just wanted to appease them with a better neighborly design that they would have to look at. So that's what we concentrated on and removing that balcony because Nobody likes balconies staring at them. And that might have been a part of it. And then reducing the massing as well to bring down the height for them as well. We are in line. One of the things that I wanted to do, I'm just going to stop sharing this for just a second and go back to the Google map just for a second. One of the things that I wanted to do was bring our our roof in line with the rest of the neighborhood, so to speak. I'm going to just back out a second. And it's also going to turn from... Come on now. I love it when it doesn't work. Okay. Neighbors and the people across the street. street of around 27, 28 feet. We just wanted to make sure we weren't taller than everybody else. And we were just about a foot. So I wanted to bring us in line with that to also point out.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thanks. And then we had a discussion in the last meeting where The building commissioner, who unfortunately I don't think he's here tonight, asked for more detail on the third floor so he could better understand whether this was two and a half versus three stories. I see there is more detail. I just want to talk through that. So it looks like Um, in the plans, you're presenting a seven foot roof cut and that some of the space that was interior is now balcony. Um, if I understood correctly, it looked like some of the, um, storage space is being excluded from the square footage, but it wasn't completely clear to me from the plans. So is that something we could talk through?
[SPEAKER_02]: Absolutely. I'm going to, I'm going to give that to Mr. Frangos, um, about the reduction of square footage or Peter as well. Great. Thanks.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Is it possible to talk to the Mr. Frangos?
[SPEAKER_02]: Yes. He just needs to take himself off mute. Can you take yourself off mute Bill? Are you able to see the third floor of the new design right now? Are you still seeing?
[Mike Caldera]: Right now we're seeing the zoning chart. Okay. I'm just going to go back to the third floor here.
[SPEAKER_06]: Yeah. I apologize. I was clicking on the wrong. Um, so yeah, the building commissioner had mentioned that, um, the interpretation I was at the, uh, occupiable space is to be, you know, is based on occupiable space, not habitable. So, um, basically 50% of the occupiable space of the second floor, uh, would include, you know, open space, you know, porches, storage, whatever spaces included again, that's occupiable, you know, um, would go toward that, yeah, 50% of the second floor. And I apologize, the third floor, it's a little unclear. I have a note that says porch that would be opened. It's somewhat easier to see it on the area plan, but- Oh, I can do the area plan, this one right here, sir? Yeah, and if you can zoom in on that, Dede, be helpful on the lower left. Yeah, if you can zoom in even, yeah, there's a, the purple line that's around the perimeter of the, is the perimeter of the area. It's kind of muddy where the green area is where the area is, and it's kind of muddy because it's, I should have cleaned up the, the dormers, but those dormers are included in the porch and in the center space, obviously. Stairs, all that is included in that area.
[Mike Caldera]: I see. If I'm understanding correctly, the 881 square foot is the area of everything outlined in purple and colored in green. Correct. Yes. Okay. Wonderful. Yeah. That's my understanding. And I think with what the building commissioner clarified last time. So this does look like a half story to me.
[SPEAKER_02]: I just want to do the before and after if you want just to show here's the before. On the third floor, there was a storage here and mechanical and things like that. And it was 898 square feet, and now we've reduced to 881 square feet. And remove that, strike the mechanical and remove the big closet thing.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, yeah, right. So in the prior plans, we were doing the map differently, we were excluding some areas. So it's actually even smaller than that few foot square footage difference. But yes, this square footage is capturing all the occupiable space. And it's less than half of the floor below it. And so it's a proper half story. Thank you for walking us through that.
[SPEAKER_06]: Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Other questions from the board? I'm not seeing any, and so.
[Chris D'Aveta]: This is through you, Mr. Chair, to the applicant. had there been some involvement with the building department in altering these plans so that they come in at what was the less than 50% square footage that we discussed at the last meeting? Or is this just not without, this is without any involvement from the building department?
[SPEAKER_06]: The intent was to set up a meeting via the owner, and I guess there was some miscommunication, so unfortunately, we did not. The intent was to meet with him. But what I... Yeah, from the last meeting, it was... His...
[SPEAKER_02]: We took everything to heart that he had to say, especially, and we reduced it more than I think he even wanted us to, to make sure we conformed with what his square footage would be. And I'm sorry, Bill, I didn't mean to cut you off. Go right ahead.
[SPEAKER_06]: No, no, it's fine.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, Chris, just to add, so we didn't require and like by process, we don't require that such a conversation happen. I think the commissioner had offered to have the, um, discussion. Um, it matches my understanding of the definition of half story and the commissioner clarified publicly what that was last month, so I'm comfortable proceeding. We won't be voting in this case on a variance for three stories because 2.5 is allowed by right. So in the unlikely event that the Commissioner disagrees, this would anyway need to come back before us to revise the relief. All right, other questions or comments from the board before we open it up to public comment? All right, seeing none, I will open it up to public comment. If you're a member of the public and would like to speak on the matter, you may do so now. You can raise your hand on Zoom. Turn on your camera and raise your hand. You can type in the chat, or you can email Dennis, dmcdougall at edford-ma.gov. I do not see any members of the public who would like to speak on this matter. And so I'll just say the board did receive a letter in writing, which is in the public folder from the one abutter who is expressing some concerns about the original proposal. And so yeah, we have that in the public record. All right, so seeing no members of the public would like to speak on this matter, chair awaits a motion to to close the public portion of the hearing and enter deliberation. Chris Diavetta? Aye. Andre LaRue?
[Andre Leroux]: Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Jim Tirani? Aye. Mike Caldera? Aye. All right, we are now deliberating. What do you think, folks?
[Chris D'Aveta]: Chris, go ahead. I think it's an improvement for sure over the last iteration that we saw. And as long as the building commissioner and the building department agree with the 50% on the third, then the only issue for us, I think, is to decide that the setbacks that are at issue here.
[Andre Leroux]: Other thoughts from the board. 100 yeah, I feel like what we have here is reasonable. Uh, enough, you know, I think. My biggest concern would be the height, but that is actually not it's under the height that is allowed. So it's, uh. You know, I don't think any of the dimensions are unreasonable in terms of the setbacks.
[Mike Caldera]: Thanks, Andre. Thoughts, Jim? OK, I can go next. Yeah, so this is a general residence district. And so two family residents are allowed. The lot is undersized. There are a lot of other undersized families in the area. I was a bit conflicted with the prior proposal because the house does sit mostly in a sea of two families, but then on a particular section of street, that's single family and the lot's undersized. Clearly, given the shape of the lot, I think we can demonstrate the, the association between the shape of the lot and the requested relief. So it's a bit long and narrow. And so there isn't really a good orientation of the house that would comply with all of the setback requirements. My interpretation of the prior plans is that it was in fact a three story and it was, I think the massing was a bit large. It had more of an impact on the abutting neighbor who was opposed to the plan. Here I'm seeing an improvement from a design perspective. It looks quite nice. It fits the neighborhood. The massing faces away from that neighbor who was opposed to the design and the height is in line with the neighborhood. So I think the applicant has made some good design choices and it's a, yeah, it's a modest building plan that's consistent with the neighborhood. So I also don't have reservations. I'm generally supportive. Other thoughts from the board? All right, just before anyone makes a motion, I just want to make sure that we specifically talk through each of the variances being sought here. And so the variance. I was going to pull it up on my end, but yeah, that way it's just easy to go, sir. Yeah. So the. The lot area, they can't change that. And all of the lots in this neighborhood, including the many double, where the two family lots are about this size. The width and depth of the lot, like I said, it's narrow. And then because of that narrowness, no matter how you have the house face, you're going to run into issues with the setback. So here we have a structure that's similar in the footprint to the existing house. We're just changing the way that it's, or at least along the width of the lot. And so we're just changing the way it's facing. So yeah, I think the shape of the lot presents a hardship if we literally apply the zoning ordinance. And so, yeah, the variances required here are for lot area, lot width, lot depth, front yard, rear yard, setback, and the lot coverage. And so the lot coverage is pretty close. Like, it's only a little bit over. So I view that as de minimis. Other thoughts from the board?
[Chris D'Aveta]: Mr. Chair? Yes, Chris. Yeah, I think overall, as we start to think about the context of a lot of these variances, in denser neighborhoods, that taking and asking basically dividing into two, like 15 foot rear yard setback to 7.7 is significant. I think we should be more serious about taking that into consideration when we look at these proposals. The lot coverage to me is less in a way of an issue than the imposition of a large structure on someone's back, in which case this rear yard is someone's side yard. It's not the same as a typical rear yard. So I think this is an important consideration to talk about, and it's something that I'm not as comfortable with these sorts of, you know, taking something and not coming close to what the required setback is.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, fair point, Chris. I mean, while it's not further encroaching on the neighbor's side yard, it is taller. And the orientation of the house is different. So that is an imposition. That if it was a different hypothetical, and it's not changing the definition of rear yard on a corner lot, if we allowed, say, just a new house to be built closer to the neighbor in the rear yard and at the same height, it's not. There's a difference. So there is an impact there. That's a good point. What I can say with confidence is that for this, with the shape of this lot, if you were to orient a house in this manner and enforce the 15-foot rear yard setback, it would be a very narrow house. But that doesn't diminish the potential impact of having a rear yard closer to the neighbor. So that's a rear yard set back closer to the neighbor. So that's a good call. Other thoughts from the board?
[Andre Leroux]: I mean, Chris, just a question for you. The, the fact that before, I mean, what's now the rear proposed as the rear yard was the side yard before, because it was fronting on the other street. I mean, but I don't, the dimension itself hasn't really changed. So are you concerned because it's, it's higher? It's not really closer. It's maybe a little closer.
[Chris D'Aveta]: No, it's not. I think it's less in height, isn't it, than was previously?
[Mike Caldera]: No, it's more in height than previously. So the existing structure is shorter than the present.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Oh, the existing, yes. No, the previous iteration, I meant.
[Mike Caldera]: Yes, the height went down. What's driving the reduction in the front yard setback is the changing the front of the house. So the existing structure fronts a different street.
[Chris D'Aveta]: Right. And that, yeah, my point was not the front yard setback, but the rear yard setback. What I'm essentially saying is these proposals are building larger structures than the setbacks can accommodate, obviously. And some of that seems that we should be amenable to what the size of the lot is, of course. But it's also a direct reflection on people wanting to build larger houses on smaller lots. And so there's no reason that we need to you know, of course there's no reason we need to approve or disapprove a blanket, you know, way of allowing such, you know, relief on setbacks. But my point is that it's taking something that's 15 feet and cutting that in half because the proposed project is as big as it is. they could build two smaller units on that and come a lot closer to the 15 feet rear yard setback. It's just because the units are larger that we're at this, where we are right now. And so it's a sort of general question that I don't want to occupy time with for this proposal, but does, this isn't a good example of it. And so I'd like to make the point that folks could come in with a smaller application and be much closer to the allowed setbacks. So that's the point. I don't have anything against this particular development, but it does seem like it's too close in the back.
[Mike Caldera]: Chris, I'll just say, I agree with your point citywide. One factor I intend to consider in this case is the neighborhood and how the structures are oriented other structures are oriented in the neighborhood. I agree. For me, a proposal like this doesn't just auto get one decision or the other. I would have very different feelings about it depending on the surrounding properties.
[Chris D'Aveta]: I agree, context is important, and this is a more densely oriented and developed neighborhood. So that plays into the context of what we're talking about. But my point, I think, still stands, which is we're seeing more and more proposals that don't take the setbacks into much consideration.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, thank you. Other thoughts from the board? The chair awaits a motion on this matter. So we have an application for 131 2nd Avenue requesting variances for lot area, lot width, lot depth, front yard setback, rear yard setback, and lot coverage.
[Andre Leroux]: Andre? A motion to approve the variances for 121 Second Avenue. Do I have a second?
[Mike Caldera]: I'll second. All right. We're going to take a roll call. Jim? Chris? Aye. Andre? Aye. Mike? Aye. Shall we have four in favor? which meets the requirement for a variance. And so the variances are approved.
[SPEAKER_02]: Thank you very much, gentlemen. Thank you very much.
[Mike Caldera]: Dennis, can you please describe the next step?
[Denis MacDougall]: Yep. So actually, I'm going to start with you, attorney Emerson Corl. In these cases, if someone has an attorney representing them, I usually just ask them to come up with a draft decision. If you want, I'll send you a link to where like our drafts, like our old decisions are kept so you get an idea of the format, especially the recent ones. Thank you. I appreciate that. So go through that and just, you know, sort of pull out some of those and just sort of, that way you get at least the formatting down and how we sort of structure them. And, you know, you get that to me and then I'll go over it. And, you know, I still at that point, I'll send it off to our legal counsel here just for the, they do a quick check. And then once that's back from them, it goes up to signatures. Once we get signatures in, I file it in the clerk's office and that starts the 20 days appeals period.
[SPEAKER_02]: Excellent.
[Denis MacDougall]: And at the end of that 20 days appeals period, as long as there's no appeal, you go to the clerk's office and you ask them for a letter of no appeal. They'll provide it to you and then gets filed in the, uh, registry of deeds. And then you get your permit.
[SPEAKER_02]: I do see that in the, in all of the emails that I had putting in the system that we, is it accurate that we need to go before the historic commission as well?
[Denis MacDougall]: Um, Actually, let me check to see what they've said. I can check on CitizenServe. They usually will comment if they do. What year is the building? 1920. Oh, yeah, then definitely anything older than 75.
[SPEAKER_02]: I wanted to wait till the outcome of this meeting and to apply for everything for that. So I just wanted to make sure you knew that we will be submitting that forthwith.
[Denis MacDougall]: Luckily for you, I also help staff the historical commission. So when it comes in for the permit, they'll, so what's going to happen in that case? So you, I would say they meet the second. Tuesdays of the month so I would say send them a letter almost right away and at least get the process started because the first thing they do is that they basically either prove you know basically that it'll sort of help save a step so I would say I'll Send you their contact info and you just shoot them an email saying that, you know, this is what we want to do and just sort of because if you can get on the agenda for the next meeting would be September 8th, which at least initially just get the process rolling. And then what they usually do is they accept it and then they'll basically say what they do is they basically have an architect that they contract out to do a study of the property. So if you do that, they can just do both of those first steps beforehand and then skip a step because that'll save a step. So usually it would be three meetings, that'll probably bump it down to two. So there'll be a meeting in September. Odds are they are going to find it Um, that it is worthy of actually having a hearing on most likely, given the age of the house, and it is a full demo. So, and then, you know, then in October would be the actual. Hearing date that they would have, but they can walk you through that process, but I will before I leave here tonight, I will shoot you their contact info and a link to their website.
[SPEAKER_02]: So you can thank you for all your help through this process. I appreciate it.
[Denis MacDougall]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_02]: Gentlemen, Mr. Chair and your member, thank you very much. We appreciate it.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, good night.
[SPEAKER_02]: Have a good night. Thank you very much.
[Mike Caldera]: Next is administrative updates, is that right?
[Denis MacDougall]: Yep, exactly. And as I sort of said before, the mayor's office is still working on process, got a little bit, you know, I think I sent an email to a couple of you about, appointments and things like that. So the process got a little bit lengthened out than it had been in the past. So I did hear from the mayor last week and I think she was hoping to hopefully try to get someone on for today's, but it just wasn't able to. So I think she would, I think she might've been late, not honest, sure. But so, but ideally, well, actually I can give you an, we actually right now do not have a single filing for next month. for I think the first time, and at least that I can recall, that soaps, as the only thing that could change that is if something comes in in the next week or so, but that would be unexpected, to be honest. So at that point, and then the only other thing which might is someone comes in asking for a continuance, because that we can just get up to a few weeks, because we don't require advertising for that. So, but. you know, normally I get a sort of a heads up that people are going to do a continuance long before, you know, more than a month before they need it.
[Mike Caldera]: So, so Dennis, um, since it has been so long since this happened and we're probably going to jinx it simply by having this discussion, but, uh, Am I correct in my understanding that we don't actually have to meet in the event that there's no filings because there's no statutory timeline and it's just a scheduling matter? Correct.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah. Okay. So I would sort of, you know, basically give us a month off.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Thanks for the update. I didn't see any meeting minutes. Do we have meeting minutes?
[Denis MacDougall]: I did them, but I must... I know I did them and then I was, but I realized I never actually sent them out. So they're somewhere on my computer. So I will, I'll get them to you. Like I'm out tomorrow, but I'll get them to you on Tuesday for next meeting. And I'll do these as well. So the AI stuff we have that has been working pretty well. So.
[Mike Caldera]: Awesome. All right. Sounds good. Chair awaits a motion to adjourn. I make a motion to adjourn. A second. Second, I will take a roll call. Chris Andre. Hi. Hi. You're adjourned. All right. Thanks folks. See you later.