Cross_cutting

1:34:17 that they argued it should be a MDNS instead of an ENS, but they, this one, there was a lot of concern about the trees on properties to the west or on the west boundary, which are partially on this site, partially on the adjacent site that, um, construction on this site will damage the roots of those trees then cause them to decline or die. Um, migratory birds using the site was raised, but, um, I know that's a federal law issue and the applicant can comply with that. Okay. Now that was a quick summary of all of the issues

1:35:14 that I, or most of the issues that I saw raised. I just saw you could, if you want to respond, if you, or you can do it during the open record or after the public testimony, but you want to throw those out so you have the opportunity. Yeah. Thanks. Thanks for the summary. Um, I can address, um, some of those items. Um, the, so, so the, there's the parcel to the, that's part of the South East corner of the site. Um, that, that parcel was included with this application. Um, I, I have not had direct communication with that property owner. The, um, the applicant was the one that was working with that property owner and they, um, they signed the application for, for this proposal, um, where, where they're included within this,

1:36:13 this application. Um, so I'm not sure what. Yeah. You can read you the letter and respond during the open record. Yeah. So the, yeah, the, the development doesn't affect the parcel. Um, you know, there, there are a lot, there's an extra lot that's proposed that is intended to, to go to that property owner as well. Um, so the subdivision is not removing land from, from that property owner, but that, that property owner in the end will, will gain, gain an additional tax parcel, um, which is, um, yeah, they, their property would increase