Williston Development Review Board — August 2017

Find in?

Legibly?

Emily will beat you if she can't read it.

Everybody out in TV land. Yeah. Everybody in TV land. Right. Yeah. Okay. We're gonna bring the meeting to work.

Welcome to the town of Williston's development review board for Tuesday, August 8. We're going to open up the meeting at 07:02. We've got three items on the agenda. Two are listed on my sheet and then there apparently is a third that popped up as well that we're gonna review

the final plan. So, we'll talk about that a little later. First up is DP sixteen dash twenty three Lakeview Farm Inc. Lakeview Farm Inc. Are you here? You're here. Fantastic. Come on up and sit at the, table.

Once you get yourself settled, if you would state your names and your addresses for the record, please.

Welcome. So, we are going to let the staff go first. Okay.

So, this is a request for a discretionary permit for two lots split the agricultural rural residential zoning district. Properties located on the West side of Oak Hill Road down towards towards Lake Iroquois. And a little bit of an unusual wrinkle on this this request is that the subject property is a little over 13 acres in size in total. However, there's only about 10. Six acres that's in Saint

George. So, we of course only have permitting jurisdiction over land holdings in Williston. So, our analysis is really gonna be based on the the the portion of the subject property that's that's in Williston. So, the proposal, there's a I I should say there's an existing single family dwelling on the property today. So if this is approved, it would create two lots. One would be approximately two acres. Second would be approximately 8.6 acres. And then there's a pro proposal to build a an additional, dwelling unit.

So this is really the second time around for this request. It went through our process back in 2009. However, it did not get growth management allocation, so it stalled out. This time around, it went through pre application back in June 2016 and then received growth management allocation in March 2017. In the report, there's you'll find we did a constraints analysis and a calculation of density. There's a very small portion of of land that we would consider to be constrained.

Maximum theoretical dwelling unit yield on this is five units. So we're looking at it basically two units. So it's a pretty easy determination to make.

Because the portion of the land area in Williston is greater than 10 and a half acres, it's subject to the 75% open space set aside requirement. So that would be one conditions of approval with that. There would be a minimum of 75% of the lot area that would be designated as permanently protected open space.

And

it was reviewed by the conservation commission. Their recommendations include that there be a minimum 7.95 acres for open space, which would meet the 75% requirement that I just mentioned.

They're also making a recommendation that watershed protection buffers not be required for the existing ponds on the property. So technically, they're class three. Our bylaw says, we may protect class three wetlands or not. So unlike class two wetlands which are required to be protected under state law. So the the commission's making a recommendation that we just kinda leave the ponds as they are. And that the new proposed house be situated in a way that minimizes visual impact from Oak Hill Road. And then what follows is

drafted findings of fact, conclusions of law, and conditions of approval for you to consider with a recommendation for approval.

Just a question. You noted you noted in here that staff recommends that the northern boundary of Lot 2 and the southern boundary line of Lot 2 envelope be shifted 35 feet to the north?

Yes. K.

He also say

I didn't see a condition that stated that.

I may have missed drafting a condition on that.

That was the existing line of trees on the northern side of White Line to be enhanced by additional informal planning. Right. You were referencing?

You're all set, Ken? Yep. Great. Your turn. Thanks.

Sheila McIntyre from Summit Engineering. I think I also read that last item that you noted about moving property lines and such. And I believe that language came out of the staff notes from the preliminary review, the conceptual review. And we discussed it at the last hearing. And the, board had ended up recommending at the end of that, which was their recommendation number eight, that the board recommends that the northern

boundary of the building envelope to Lot 2 be, moved to a minimum of 50 feet from excuse me, the southern boundary of the building envelope to Lot 2 be moved to a minimum of 50 feet. And so that's what the board's decision was, and that's what we've actually done.

On board's recommendation, this building envelope here has been moved 50 feet from that southern property boundary. So that just Ken, is that is that

jiving with Yeah. So, you know, I took the I took the staff notes from pre app and so that

was a carryover. Yeah. I think I think we've addressed So so that's I guess what I'm that's what I'm trying to get to is what they're showing on their plan, what I have here addresses that 50 foot. I believe it does and I think that was part of what the conservation commission was getting at in terms of

you and you and the applicant confirm that it is where it's supposed to be. Right. Sure. Right? Okay. Keep going. That does that make sense? Just way I the way I phrase that? Yes. Okay. Because I I caught it as well as I was reading the staff comments It was it was hard to tell it was hard to tell from our notes whether

you you needed to make the change or whether the change had been made. I believe we have made all the change that the board has recommended thus far.

Okay. Do you want do you want to that second item that the that the staff is recommend about additional plantings. Is that something that's been covered?

Yes. We had discussed not moving the property boundary but adding additional plantings which we've done. And the plantings are actually on Lot 1. There's a lot more open space in Lot 1 to be able to do those landscaping improvements. So we've added additional plantings of various types evergreens and desodges trees along that northern boundary.

Point to that. I think I see it but why don't you point it out?

Okay, great.

The other thing that, was already mentioned is that we did consult with the state wetlands office regarding the the ponds. And we have also, since our last meeting with you, have obtained a state wastewater system and potable water supply permit. And I didn't know if you needed that for any reason, but that has been issued. So, both of those septic systems have been approved by the state.

Bear with me a second. Questions from the board?

Ken, there was a note from Lisa Shelter

saying that comments from the pre application were not addressed. That been taken care of?

So I included in your staff notes her comments at pre app. What she said was all utilities shall be underground, and applicants shall apply for right of way permit prior to con commencing construction. Now Lisa tends to be kind of picky about applicants providing written response to all of the things that she put on her list. And if the applicant didn't provide a written response regardless of whether the issues were addressed or not. We get this. You're gonna get that. Okay. So, it's also worth

noting that Lisa had an additional thing on the list this time around which was to provide an erosion control plan.

Applicant would be well advised to make sure they provide a written response to Lisa Shelter. Otherwise, you won't get her signature on the final plans checklist,

and that will help things to move forward. Okay. I have not seen the comments from Lisa Shelter. So I get a copy of those?

Yeah. Well, the only additional thing is is to provide an erosion control plan. Okay. And you can have That's already included. This one if you want.

That's okay with me? That's fine. Thank you. And erosion controls So

again, you're gonna want to point that out to Lisa Shelter so that she will be satisfied that all of her conditions have been met. I will do that. Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

Public works department.

Wrap the wrap a rock with a peanut that piece of paper that you throw to the window.

Any other comments comments you you would would like like to to make? Make? No. I I think I'm good unless there's any other questions. Any comments from the board or from the audience?

One final try from our illustrious board. Any further comments or questions? No. You for coming. We're good. Okay.

We're gonna close D16 dash 23 Lakeview Farm Inc at 07:15. Next up is DP17 dash 30, William and Annie r Spencer. On up.

You again, mister Bellavy? Nope. No. I'm sorry. Melinda, it's you. Alright.

This is a request for pre application review. One one second. I apologize.

Names and addresses. We are William and Annie Spencer, living at 1171 Ledgewood Drive.

You agree with that, missus Spencer? Yes. I do. Very good.

Okay. Very good. Melinda.

This is a request for pre application review to to reestablish expired growth management allocation for a single family dwelling unit on a previously approved three lot subdivision located at Pumpkin Hill Road on the East Side of South Road in the ARZV. One of the lots in the subdivision did not require allocation. Two units of allocation were awarded by the DRB on 03/11/2008. One unit of allocation has been used by constructing a single family home on Lot A, and it was discovered in January 2017

that the remaining unit of allocation had expired. The applicant is seeking to reinstate allocation for one additional dwelling unit.

The proposed subdivision is identical to a subdivision proposed by the former applicant, Scott Gardner, and approved by the DRB in June 2008 under DP0824. The DRB reviewed this project again in July 2010 when a boundary lot adjustment was made to Lot B. Mr. Gardner submitted an application in May 2017 to reinstate expired allocation. That application was subsequently withdrawn prior to the DRB hearing. The owners of Lot B, the Spencer's, have submitted the application

presented here today.

The subdivision that created the the subject parcel has been approved and plat recorded. The applicant is reapplying for subdivision approval in hopes of establishing new growth management allocation schedule.

The bylaw has specific rules for reestablishing expired allocation.

A subdivision may apply to have its previously awarded allocation returned without having to compete against other subdivisions if it meets certain criteria, including there's a time limitation.

You have to request pre application prior to the end of the calendar year when the expiration of the allocation units was discovered, was identified by the Williston planning office. And this is important because even though technically this allocation expired I guess a couple of years ago, the planning office didn't identify that it was expired until January of this year. So they have met that, the applicants met that requirement of the time limitation. Substantial

progress, a residential subdivision applying to have some portion of its allocation reestablished must demonstrate substantial progress toward implementing, the subdivision, and the applicant has met that condition as well.

Allocation reestablished under these provisions may receive an additional five years to obtain administrative permits to begin construction beginning on the July 1 immediately following the DRB hearing that reestablishes that allocation. And they only have one more extension. There's no additional extensions allowed under these provisions. They get one extension and that's it.

The original conditions of subdivision approval shall continue to apply to any subdivision awarded allocations under these provisions. The DRB shall only impose additional conditions of approval in cases where it is necessary to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare.

In order for a subdivision to reestablish some portion of its allocation under these provisions, the DRB must find that the subdivision is in substantial compliance with the intent and purpose of the current development regulations. Any

allocation that's expired under these provisions and was not reapplied for within the time constraints or that doesn't meet the criteria,

that's specified that I've just reviewed, will be returned to the pool of available units of allocation and shall only be awarded through the competitive process as specified under WDB11.4 and five. So, the subdivision has met the criteria, under the first two criteria, the time limitation, the substantial progress,

the DRB will need to decide if the subdivision is in substantial compliance with the intent and purpose of the current development regulations. So you'll need to decide whether it meets the special findings criteria. If you decide that the subdivision does not meet the criteria for reinstatement of expired allocation, stated above the DRB can require the applicant to compete with other proposed residential subdivisions for available units of allocation.

Let me stop you right there.

Okay. That's what I was afraid of. I looked at Brian's and he has That's why I'm looking looking at kind of looking at what Brian's got. You don't have it. I don't have it. You don't it.

You don't have I don't have it either. So I I read what I read everything that you sent us. Uh-huh. But everything you just went through, we have not had a chance to we have not had a chance to see any of that. Yeah. I'm familiar with it. That's unfortunate. But in this case Yeah. Where it applies in this, I don't have we don't none of us here has seen it. Do you have Brian?

I think

it was the other application we're looking at. Is it possible to run over to the office and get Yes. Is it is it does it exist? Yeah. It does exist. It's just, obviously, we had some printing issues. It's just a printing issue. Okay. I apologize. Well, that's alright. It's fine. Why don't, how about how about if we take a short recess?

Okay. Go over and print it. How

about if we take a short recess? Maybe you can if you can. Yeah. Let's why don't you get it? And then when we go into a deliberative session, we can Yeah. Okay. Also read through it and

Will do. Okay. Okay. The the conservation commission report is

It's probably in every other page.

Don't know if there's any

Right. Right. We don't know if we don't know. So the the board at at 07:24 is taking a short recess. We will reconvene in just a little bit.

That's the worst.

So, Melinda, I think what I'm going to request is for the sake of the fact that I like listening to you talk, I'm gonna have you go through that again. Okay? Okay. Of us will follow along.

Yeah. Follow along as

as you go through that again. You guys alright with that? Alright. No problem. So we'll start with the yeah. We'll start with well, we'll start with growth the growth management Okay. Paragraph. And we'll bring the order the meeting back to order at 07:20.

Here we go. You're on backup? Alright. Go for it, Melinda. Alright. So

the Williston development bylaw has certain certain rules for reestablishing expired allocation. A subdivision can apply to have its previously awarded allocation returned without having to compete against other subdivisions if it meets all the following criteria. One is a limitation of time. You have to apply for reallocation prior to the end of the calendar year when the expiration of the units was discovered by the Williston planning office.

And in this case, it was discovered in January of this year that the allocation had expired, so they meet that criteria. Subs A residential subdivision, applying to have a portion of its allocation reestablished must demonstrate substantial progress towards implementing the subdivision, and they've met that requirement as well. And then the expiration provision just says that,

they have an additional five years starting July 1 immediately following the DRB meeting that reinstates the allocation and that no additional extensions of time are possible.

Conditions of approval, the original conditions of subdivision approval shall continue to apply to any subdivision awarded allocations under these provisions. The DRB shall only impose additional conditions of approval in cases where it's necessary to preserve the public health, safety, welfare. The special findings provision, basically states that, in order for subdivision to reestablish some portion of its allocation under these provisions, the DRB must find the subdivision is in substantial compliance with the intent and purpose of the current development regulations.

And then How did we find that in this case? Well, that's a question that you wanted Well, to

the conservation commission, feels that it does not meet the intent and purpose of the current development regulations because the open space is not really configured in a it's not it's not configured optimally as far as they're concerned. So that's the the question, I guess, to consider.

They've met

apologize. Just wanted to ask you one question on that.

The DRM must find that the subdivision is in substantial compliance with the intent and purpose of the current development regulations. Did the development regulations change from the point when this was originally permitted to now? Yes. They did. Mhmm.

Right. So now Right. Now you have the the habitat assessment. And that's, in this case, I believe really the principal thing that's that's different. So, you know, it's as Melinda has already stated, that becomes a question for the board to address as to whether what has already been approved and plotted

Yes. So just Some.

Relatively minor items that the access is Still the same. The proposed new lot will have access from an existing shared gravel driveway off the South Road.

On-site infrastructure, the proposed dwelling will be served by on-site water and wastewater disposal. Landscape and buffering, open space and building envelopes were defined under previous town regulations when subdivision was created. The open space currently serves as the buffer around subdivision.

DRB you know, can decide whether landscaping needs to be revisited. The main point is the review by the conservation commission. As a subdivision of a parcel of land 10.8 10.5 acres or greater, this project is required to set aside a minimum of 75 acre 75% of the area of the parent parcel as permanently protected open space. The open space must include steep slopes, wetland areas, set backs, and any other resources required to be protected under

WDB Chapter 27. Subdivision under eight twenty four set aside 91 acres, which is 77% as protected open space. When the WCC reviewed the project in 2008, the WCC concluded that the open space configuration is not optimal and recommended the entire southern half of Lot C be protected open space. This recommendation was not implemented in the approved final plans. The conservation commission's recommendations remain the same

and staff suggests that the recommendations be adopted as DRB recommendations for this pre application.

Do you have any idea why they were not and do you happen to look back in the file to why they were not implemented? Probably because it was a requirement.

That's that's all I could read. Oh, I think so so a couple things. So the the original number was D E 0824. Is that right? Yeah. So this is going back to the early days of the 75% open space requirements. So my recollection is this was going through the DRB process. I may have been here. If I was, I wasn't I hadn't been here for for very long. And so and and then the other is the land area for the original subdivision. It's over 90 acres, so it's it's big.

And I think that the the building envelopes were defined in a way that was rather large. Whether I don't know. I'm not so sure we would do it the same way today. I think we would probably try to, you know, narrow down a little bit. I think that's sort of part of the tension here. And then also, I have some recollection that the original applicant of the subdivision, Scott Gardner, I think he kind of pushed and like a lot of applicants didn't want conditions of approval that were overly constricting to all of his options, whatever those might be.

I think all of those things combined led us to to the kind of approval that that. So, can you

can you show me on the map where how

what that would look like?

Where the recommended recommended that the entire southern half of Lot C be protected open space? So So

basically, if you look at their, I think it's page

c two. What

the conservation commission is recommending is that you basically draw a line, from here over to that the southern half of that building envelope, and then this becomes open space instead of having this kind of building envelope that goes way down here. And they just wanna cut it off here and have this all be open space.

It's not exactly a building envelope, but it's not protected open space either. I think the intention was to kind of reserve the right to be able to build structures out there.

Are you following all this? Yes. I am. There are comments that you wanna jump in on?

Only one comment, and that is we're looking for an allocation for Lot B to be specific. Which lot is that on this map? It's It's the middle one that is shaped like the letter l. The lot that Like a letter. So it's it's this one here.

That one.

This one right here. Oh, on my sheet.

Yep. It's 16 acres with a two acre envelope. Lot C in question is a much larger parcel next to ours.

I don't see any l shaped lots on there. Yeah. So if we're looking for an reallocate reestablishment of allocation on Lot B B. As In Boy As In Boy. I do you own that lot? Yes. You do not own Lot C? We do not. How the heck are we going through to how are we going to do that if the app if the application I I I understand there's a conundrum here, but how do we how are we going to implement that if that is owned by somebody else and it is not part of this application, although it is part of the overall subdivision? Can we enforce a rule on a on a separately

owned separately owned lot at this point? We're not here to talk about this.

Well, we might wanna get a legal opinion. That's one thing. But it becomes so I guess the first question is whether or not you're willing to find the subdivision to be in substantial compliance.

We can talk about that. Yep. So

depending on your answer to that question, what happens after that changes dramatic procedurally. So if you were to determine that it is in substantial compliance with the intent and purpose, then what the applicants would have to do is they just have to get the allocation reestablished. If you say no, then basically they gotta go back to growth management, they have to compete,

and then they're gonna have to file a new subdivision plot. So the way I the way I'm reading this, and maybe I'm reading it wrong, is that we can find that they are in substantial compliance, but the conservation commission is suggesting that we do something else. Am

I reading that wrong? Right. And part of the part of the problem is that, say, when you have a lot and it hasn't been through subdivision prior since prior since after 1990. So so in this case, they wanted to split into three lots. Yep. They need two units of allocation. They they get one unit of allocation for the property because you always get one. Yep. That

unit allocation wasn't tied down to a specific lot. It's basically the property owner gets to decide. It's floating. Well, it's it's to be determined. Yeah. And so we have this case now where the original applicant says, no. I'm not selling that one. I'm keeping that one for me and is leaving the person that has bought this lot there on their own to get allocation back. Whereas we have the conservation commission is doing battle over a lot that's not part of the allocation.

I don't know that we've ever had this situation come up before.

I'll ask you again. Do you own this or do you have a contract on it? We own it. Lot

B. Lot B, we purchased it from Scott Gardner. And I think the reason it's not l shaped, you have an old version and the property lines change that you had mentioned, but it's the one that's in the middle. Is this

current? This site plan current? Mhmm. This so in It's it's really It's l shaped.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Right here. Right? So it's this weird moment. Oh,

eyes.

Oh, there's two c twos in here.

This the one? You look at the first c two. Approach the bench.

I'm

here. There's it looks Show me show me what your lot is. Is it is it this right here?

Let me orient myself here. Yep.

This is Lot C in question. This is the south end that wants to be blocked off. This is my lot.

So it's Oh, it's added to it now. This is the l portion right there. It goes like this. Yep. And it comes in like that. So right. So I'm seeing here I'm seeing it here, here. Yep. Okay. Okay. Capital. Right in here. So is that two sheets. That's b. Lot c. This is lot c. And that and his the building envelope. And his lot runs here.

This is all Yes. Then the then the other lot is this thing in here. That's lot. Yeah. It's already you have has a house on it. It's been developed. Right? Yeah. Part of the reason why it's hard to read is because of all the topography that's there. And so you have all those topo lines that are all close together because there's a big giant slope as it goes up to the to the ridge. Yep. That was an escape plan to to the town of Richmond, I think. Otherwise,

I can't explain why it was done that way.

So what's why are there two sheets c twos? Is that was there was there an additional piece of property added on in this lot? When Scott owned the property at one point, he added that

two of land up to Cliff because

he wanted to own the Sherman premises.

There's no buildable property at all. But

then he could walk on property. He owns the.

Right. So he want right. He wanted to be able to make sure there was sort of

he he had access to that. This second this second c two page was pre boundary line adjustment.

Yeah. I

think that map was the one that was at the conservation commission meeting I went to. This one without the l shaped lot that you own is pre boundary line adjustment. The l shaped lot map is the boundary line adjustment,

post boundary line adjustment? And the additional property came from lot c. Made it slightly smaller and made lot b slightly larger.

So what's the valid flat?

Is it the l shape or the The l shape. The l shape. The smaller a piece. The boundary line adjustment changed the shape of this lot. Did the DRB approve that? Oh, yeah. Yeah. We I was trying to remember why we would do that So

let's go back one more time.

And please, anybody who anybody anybody who's on the board here, please jump in if I'm not making sense.

We're being asked to reinstate

a single allocation for lot B. We're being asked as part of that,

we need to find that as part of reestablishing the application, we have to find that there are seven criteria that have been met.

As part of that, the conservation commission is suggesting that we make a change to somebody else's lot that is not here.

That is not part of this That's how I understand it. That is not part of this even though I It's not part of this lot, it was part But it's not part of this, but it was part of the approval. Part of the approval. Don't we think that that person will be screaming bloody murder if he finds out that we made a change to his open space and he's not here and hasn't been notified?

It sounds like shaking around to me. He has been notified because he's in a body problem. In a butter but

but nobody would probably figure out through this that

that was what was happening. He,

he actually came to the conservation commission meeting when you're when, mister Gardner submitted his application in May. So he's aware of what the Conservation Commission's concerns are and what they had recommended.

So so on eleven six point one one six point one point two substantial progress, do they meet those three criteria?

Yeah.

At least one dwelling. Right? There's a new house. There's a house in there. Mhmm. So one house has been built been built, and Pumpkin Hill Road,

which is a private road, has been constructed. So

so and and, you know, this situation is a little bit different from some of the other, you know, when you've seen these growth management allocations come back because typically they've been two lot splits where nobody did anything and then the clock just ran out. So here's one where the applicant actually did something. They constructed the road. They built a house.

And then, you know, they they they stalled out for one re whatever reason. They they, you know, the clock ran out on.

So as I see it as I see it as I see it right now, the board is going to need to decide whether we agree to reestablish the based on the information that we have. The board is gonna need to decide if we reestablish the allocation and ignore

the conservation commission or take into account the conservation commission, in which case I'm going to suggest that this is

either ask for a legal opinion or simply pended forward a month so that it gets it gets cleaned up, and all parties come together in your office to figure out how

it moves forward. So that's suggestion that we talk about.

Anybody have any comments on how that how I phrase that? How will it affect the timing on the allocation now for the reapplying? We're not. We wouldn't decide

on it if we went that way. Yes, I know. But what was the timeframe that we had? I would think that we're in the clock we've stopped the clock.

For the end of the calendar year.

If they were gonna have to reapply for

I guess I would hope that because we're here talking about this, it stops the clock.

But you tell me if I'm wrong. Well, there's I mean, should be a it should be a move point where it's only in the first week of August. The end of the calendar year is what four or five months away.

The allocation for for Lot C is the has been determined or been selected by the original owner here to be the grandfathered. Right. If when they want to put a building in the envelope here on Lot C will we see that as a DP? No,

it won't. So

This is our only buy at the apple.

Once somebody gets a subdivision approved, DP is approved, they submit final plans. Then after that, they get an administrative permit. So it's all just handled administratively. We require the applicant to give us a copy of the final plans. We look at it, and they got to tell us that they're going to put the building inside of whatever building envelope was designated. And if there are any conditions of approval they have to you know they would have to meet those conditions of approval.

C is built, right?

Lot. At the top of the hill. Lot A has A. Been But not Lot C. But not Lot C. But he has

he still has his allocation?

That's the one that didn't have a time limit on it. Okay. So that was the one that came with the original problem.

So essentially, the conservation commissioner would want this building slid more towards the

floor?

Not the building envelope, but this

Open space. Whatever

this buildable land. They were basically recommending that it stop right there.

On the other person's lot that's not here. Right. Right. See that.

I I have a question. Yeah. Please. If the owner of Lot C were not to capitulate to to that request, the only thing for you to hold hostage would be our allocation at that point. Yeah. We're not Trump pleads. We're not trying to hold hostage. Bad terminology.

We're actually I I'm actually sitting here trying to figure out how to get you what you want. And and Bad terminology then. But yeah. If we try to get that

accomplished or if you try and get that accomplished what the conservation commission wants and they are interested and they don't need to in order to Well, they're advisory they're advisory to this board,

and we try to follow their recommendations.

Okay. I So

I'm asking little questions, and I hope the rest of the board are asking questions the questions too to try and figure out. This is the we I have never seen anything like this before. Well, I'm happy to bring it, you know, something that's interesting. Spice up amazing.

Then and then the other kind of frustrating thing with this is if they were to be pushed back to growth management to get any points, it would have to be permanently conserved open space. Right? In the ARZD, you can't get points just by designating something open space there. On the open space provision, that's correct. So they would have to to get points. They would have to not only get theirs protected, but all of all of of the abutting it it just seems like an exercise. Well, no. You're you're assuming

you're assuming that they wouldn't qualify for an exemption. You're also assuming that they wouldn't get sufficient number of points on the other criteria. So remember, the open space criteria is only one of the criteria. So given where this property is located, is there a possibility they could score points for invisible development? I would say highly likely. So so they may be able to get to 30 points anyways even without dedicating open space, number one. And then number two, of course, you have four exemptions each year that you can give out. Right. Right. So so it doesn't necessarily

guarantee that they would not get allocation. I'm not saying that they would, of course, because you guys make that decision, not me. But it wouldn't necessarily preclude it.

Do you understand what you just talked about?

No.

Alright. Nobody up here. You barely did either. You lost me on that one. I had to I had to know that point. So growth management is competitive.