I came around in America. >> Okay, Zeus, can you hear me? I can hear you. Yes. >> Perfect. Perfect. >> When I log in, it says that it's recording. Are you recording the >> No, I >> thank you.
>> Someone advanced the slides. Thank you. >> Good evening. The city of Boston zoning board of appeal hearing for January 20 22nd, 2026 is now in session. This hearing is being conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the open meeting law, including the updated
provisions enacted by the legislature this year. The new law allows the board to continue its practice of holding virtual hearings through June 2027. This hearing of the board is being held remotely via the Zoom webinar event platform. This hearing is also being recorded.
In order to ensure this hearing of the board is open to the public, members of the public may access this hearing through telephone and video conferencing. The information for connecting to this hearing is listed on today's hearing agenda, which is posted on the public notices page of the city's
website, boston.gov. Members of the public will enter the virtual hearing as attendees, which means you will not see yourself on the screen and you will be muted throughout unless administratively unmuted when asked to comment. Board members, applicants, and their attorneys or representatives will participate in this hearing as panelists, and they will
appear alongside the presentation materials when speaking. Panelists are strongly encouraged to keep video on while presenting to the board. As with our in-person meetings, comments and support will be followed by comments and opposition. The order of comments is as follows: elected officials,
representatives of elected officials, and members of the public. The chair may limit the number of people called upon to offer comment and the time for commenting as time constraints require. For that reason, the board prefers to hear from members of the board uh members of the public who are the most impacted by a project. That is those
individuals who live closest to the project. If you wish to comment on an appeal, please click click the raise hand button along the bottom of your screen in the Zoom webinar platform. Click it again and your hand should go down. When the host sees your hand, you will receive a request to unmute yourself. Select yes
and you should be able to talk. If you are connected to the hearing by telephone, please press star 9 to raise and lower your hand. You must press star six to unmute yourself after you receive the request from the host. Those called upon to comment will be asked to state their name and address first and then
can provide their comment. In the interest of time and to ensure that you have enough time to do so, please raise your hand as soon as Mr. Stebridge reads the address into the record. Do not raise your hand before the relevant address is called or the meeting host will not know to call on
you at the appropriate time. We ask that you keep your comments brief and all public to testimony will be limited to I think we agreed on 90 seconds per speaker. These instructions will be repeated throughout the hearing. Okay. Mr. Stebridge.
>> Good evening, Madam Chair. President, >> Mr. Bernell. Good evening, ma madam chair. >> Good evening. Okay, the floor is yours, Mr. Stebridge. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh we'll begin with the hearing is scheduled for 5:00
p.m. for today, January 22nd. The first case is case BOA 179 5810 with the address of 115 Bookwood Street. If the applicant and their
representative are present, will they please explain the case to the board? >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Uh, thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Attorney Jeff Drago with Drago and Tuscano with the business address of 11 Beacon Street. Here on behalf of the
applicant homeowners, um, Emily Mole and Nathan Brackley. Um, if you could stay on this slide, if you can go back, uh, for a moment, Mr. Yep. Thank you. Um, and this is a a simple proposal to add
um some head height room to the top floor. As you can see, this is uh so an existing uh rowhouse and it's uh typical of the uh dormerred look uh up and down the street and at 115 Baldwin Street in
Charletown. And um we're looking to increase the roof slope uh which would give interior height at the attic level. And you can see there's already existing space there. We're not adding any additional bedrooms or space, just head height. Um, and we're adding a new
dormer, uh, adding to the dormer on the front and rear of the building. And it's exactly typical of the building to the right of us. Um, and this just gives more functionality uh to that top floor. So, this family can utilize their bedroom space. There's three two
bedrooms and a bathroom uh on the third floor. And this would also include some interior renovations on the second floor uh as well. If we go to the next slide, please Mr. Ambassador. Yeah, and this just shows the building uh looking straight on. And you can see it's very
similar up and down the street. Same look. Uh next slide, please. And this is just an aerial view. So you can see where it says 115 Baldwin Street. And the building right next to us has a similar dorm look um to it for
that head height reason. Uh if we go to the next slide please. And now we just would we would get into the plans. Um you can go to the next slide. That's just the site plan. Next slide please. Uh and it just starts to show these the existing plans. Uh next slide.
And this just starts to show on that third floor uh where we would be adding that slope and dormant look. Uh we got cited for two violations. One is building and fee and one is roof structure restriction. uh existing roof
height just so you have the board has an idea is 36 feet 2 1/2 in. We are proposing 38 feet 2 and 1/2 in with the dormers. Um so for that headroom um and beyond that that would um that's all the
work uh that would be done uh on site. We also have uh the architects Lulu Freriedman and Melissa Olsen here to answer any questions uh that the board may have. Um, thank you for your time and that would conclude the presentation piece.
>> Great. Thank you. Any questions from the board? >> Uh, yes ma'am. Yes, Madam Chair. Um, so if I hear you correctly, the only changes that'll be there will be no interior changes other than to the third
floor if necessary. >> Renovations to the second and third floor and then the dormers to the third. Correct. Thank you, >> Madam Chair. I also have a clarifying question. The existing uh top of roof is
uh essentially is currently lining up with it looks like based on the drawings with sort of the the neighbor on one side and is the proposal to line it that that the ridge line would line up with the with the um neighbor on the other
side. So I would like the architect to speak to that. >> Yes, that's correct. The presentation we got one more slide. >> Yeah, if we could pull that up there's actually we will see that it says slide B1 um in the in the set of plans.
We we >> is it possible to pull the presentation back up? Pes. Yeah, if you if you go a couple of more slides to the B one. We we drew the two neighbors. Uh do you have the other slide? >> Yeah.
>> If you can keep going one more. >> Yeah. >> You see this is the front. So we are matching the reach height on the of of the neighbor on the right side and we are matching the type of durmer and sizing also of the neighbor on the right
size. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> May we have public testimony? >> Madam chair and members Siggy Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This applicant has completed the community process. Our office hosted
an abuters meeting on November 24th of 2025 at which no concerns were raised. That background our office defers further judgment to the board. Thank you, >> Madame Chair. There are no additional comments. >> Okay. Thank you. With that, may I have a
motion? >> Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approval. >> Is there a second? >> Yes. >> Mr. Stebridge? Yes, >> Mr. Bernell. >> Yes, >> chair votes yes. The motion carries.
Good luck. >> Thank you very much for your time. >> Thank you very much. >> Next, we have two companion cases. The first is case BOA 1806137 with the address of 57 Emerson Street.
Along with that we have case BOA 1806141 with the address of 59 Emerson Street. Is the applicant andor their representative present? Could they please explain to the board?
>> Yes. Thank you uh madam chair, members of the board. My name is Mark Satsky. Um uh the name of my company is Choose Boston. Uh with an address of 26 Tilesboro Street, uh Doorchester, Mass 2122. Uh and with me tonight, pleased to
have Mark Lcast from Lcast Law, my zoning attorney, and also Talia Connistra, our architect uh from Studio Con. Um this this proposal um if you wouldn't mind uh who's next slide, please.
Thank you. Uh this proposal seeks to convert two existing side by side single families into two two families. Um essentially two duplex units and I just want to address change occupancy of a three family to a two family. This is as
reflected in the ISD records and my plans examiner um and the records room had asked me to uh file my proposal uh following that uh last known occupancy uh just so there's no confusion. Um I've owned these properties since 2012 and I
happen to have lived in both of them o over the years. Um uh so uh moving on. Uh thank you. context the neighborhood. 5759 Emerson Street is sort of at the junction of East Broadway and West Broadway uh very
close to the new Blink Coffee Shop and um opposite the post office. That's probably the best landmark. Uh next slide. Um I'm going to kick this to Talia uh briefly. She's joined us uh to talk about the design. Thank you. >> You My name is Talia Kenistra. I'm at
906 Eastn Street in South Boston. Um, so this project was designed to look and feel like it's neighboring buildings within the neighborhood. There's a lot of Mansard roofs and bay windows in South Boston. So, um, we've really tried
to accentuate that, keep the detailing consistent with the neighborhood, um, and provide that Mansard roof on the new third floor. As you can see before, the existing building is two stories. So, we're proposing to add a third story.
And then the first floor unit would be a B level with the basement and the second floor unit would be a B level with this new third floor. Um right now we're proposing a roof deck that would be solely privately accessed from the um the upper floor as well.
>> Thank you Talia. Uh next slide please. >> Um just to speak on the roof decks briefly again privately accessed from each respective upper unit. Um this was something which came up uh during the community process and discussions with our neighbors. We wanted to provide
naturally um outdoor space for the upper duplex unit. We had initially a rear deck off the second floor and and the roof deck and through some discussions um we settled on a roof deck that was pinched from both directions and a glass roof hatch given that it's a three-story
building uh and not a four-story building. So that's that's allowed uh via the building code. And um we're very sensitive to sightelines um from both my neighbor's parcel and from the street. Uh and so we deleted the rear deck um off the second floor and allowed this to
remain for the the private outdoor space uh for the unit. Uh next slide, please. I'm going to turn this to Mark Lcast. Attorney Lcast. Thank you. >> Thank you so much. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the board. Um, with respect to the two separate zoning code
refusal letters, both cited the same three citations. The planning department has submitted two memos in this case, both recommending approval on the planning department memo for number 57. Uh, they note that the sideyard and the
F violations are incorrectly cited, that the existing and proposed sideyard is 3 and a/4T and the requirement is 3 feet. So the sideyard is met on number 57. The proposed F for number 57 is 1.6 and 2.0
is permitted. Thus leaving the conditional use permit for number 57 which is under article 68 section 29. If you add a uh story to an existing structure in South Boston, you
need a conditional use permit for that. On number 59, the planning department memo is similar recommending approval and notes that with respect to the sideyard issue, um it is an existing non-conforming condition, but that the
addition does not exacerbate that non-conforming condition. The F is dimminimous with 2.0 allowed and 2.11 proposed. And similarly, the conditional use permit required for the third floor
addition on um an existing structure in South Boston. And those are the zoning issues and the planning department recommends approval in both of their memoranda. >> Thank you. Any questions from the board?
>> Hearing none, may I have public testimony? >> Yes. Sigy Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This applicant has completed the community process. Our office hosted an abuters meeting on October 29th, 2025 at which the dire expressed concerns about the design. Proponent worked directly with them to
ensure the deck was revised on plans and set back responding to the concern. We're unaware of other concerns at this time. Gate of Heaven Neighborhood Association is in non oppoition. That background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Next, we have Sydney. >> Hi. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. This is Sydney from councelor Flynn's office. Councelor Flynn would like to go on record in opposition due to feedback from neighbors of others and the gate of heaven neighborhood association. Residents have called attention that these have essentially
always operated as single families and now going from two to four units which will exacerbate quality of life issues with South Boston's existing parking crisis. Moreover, residents have called attention to quality of life issues with the deck and roof deck. For years, Councelor Flynn has opposed roof decks
in residential areas of South Boston due to negative impacts of noise and trash removal issues at all hours on residents, including our seniors, persons with disabilities, and young families. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Next, we have a Kai Kylie,
if you can unmute yourself. >> Hello. Um, uh, I'd like to echo the same concerns. Uh I live right around the corner at 43 H Street. Uh I'm actually speaking on behalf of three other abbutters at 41H Street, 441 East 3rd,
and 63 Emerson, which is a butts of property. Um we all have the same concerns. Um quality of life concerns, the additional units just exasperating parking um and just having tenants, renters. uh we all live here um have
families here um and we just you know think it'll cause a lot of congestion issues that were recently echoed. So those are my concerns and I we we all oppose this project. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Next we have Scott.
>> Hi. Yes. Thank you. I just uh echo the same concerns about the project. Couple of different things. Well, first I'd say that the the it was a little misleading in the first place about how the project was to be structured. They said it was turning it from a three family to a two family, but didn't identify that there
were going to be an additional story and two units. So, that was a little frustrating to learn that just from the start, the neighborhood was sort of felt misled that this project was going to be a lot bigger than it was. I'd also say that, you know, a lot of the neighborhood is at that same height and so adding a floor here sets a bit of a
bad precedent for all the other units. and to make this into a big overdeveloped neighborhood. It's not like that now. Um we have a great neighborhood with a lot of kids, a lot of young families as Keith said. Um it's going to exacerbate parking. So So we're certainly opposed and I'm one of the residents as well across the street over
at 34 Emerson. >> Thank you. >> Next we have Ashley. >> You >> I am just going to echo exactly what Scott said. um in opposition due to the current crisis with parking. Um we have
children of our own. We have many many neighbors with children. We don't have services in the city to be able to walk to. So we have to have cars and um unfortunately our families are being pushed out of the neighborhood because of situations like this.
>> Thank you madam chair. There are no additional comments. Can the applicant address those concerns? Parking height, density. >> Uh brief rebuttal, madam chair. So on the height, yes, >> the uh proposed third floor is within
the maximum height allowed in this subdist and height is not a citation on the zoning code refusal letter. So height is compliant. Um density is also compliant. This is a multif family residential subdist which presumptively
allows four or more dwelling units. So the use is not cited in the zoning code refusal letter because the uh use is allowed on the notion of misleading anyone or anybody. Um as Mark indicated at the beginning, he initially submitted
this building permit application for conversion of single family to two family. But because of a quirk in the ISD records from many many decades ago, the last existing long form on file for both of these properties characterized
it as a legal occupancy three family. So because you can only go from the existing occupancy in the ISD records to what you're proposing, they instructed Mark to submit the application as change occupancy from 3 to two. But that's why
he addressed it up front and there's you know no question that these are existing single families. So it it in reality is going from one to two but in the records of ISD they instructed us to go from three to two because that's what the records show. Um parking is always an
issue in this and every other neighborhood but so is the need for housing and that delicate balance is always in play. Um and I think that's those are the issues. >> Thank you. Any other questions from the board?
Hearing none. Is there a motion? >> Madam Chair, I'll make a motion of approval. >> Is there a second? >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you so much. Thank you for your
time. >> Thank you. >> Next we have U Mr. Stebridge, you're on mute. >> Uh, okay. Thank you. >> Um, next we have case BOA
1762034 with the address of 774 East Broadway. If the applicant andor their representative are present, would they please explain to the board? >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Um, Madame Chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams and
Morancey, business address of 1688 Street, First Floor, South Boston. Uh, Madame Chair, I'd like to request that we uh move this hearing to a full seven member board given the substantial neighborhood interest in this matter. Although that is a reasonable proposal creating additional housing, this will
allow the owner to have a failed opportunity to be heard in front of a full seven member board. >> Okay. Uh, just confirming. I don't know if Caroline's with you, Norm. Mr. Stembridge, are we moving it? Stephanie? >> Yes, me. Stephanie,
>> will we hear it next Tuesday then or? >> Yes, we'll hear it next Tuesday. >> Okay. So, with that, may I have a motion to defer till next Tuesday? >> Motion to defer this case until next Tuesday, January 27th.
>> 22nd. >> 27th. >> May I have a second? Yes. >> Okay. The chair votes yes. The motion carries. We'll see you on Tuesday. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Which takes us to case BOA
1777 6341 with the address of 19 Ball Street. If the applicant andor their representative present, will they please explain the case to the board? I think I'm not sure if Scott is this
are you presenting for this case? >> Someone here for 19 Bwell. >> I didn't see anyone, Madam Chair. >> Okay, let's circle back to it. That means we'll go to case BOA 1797623 with the address of 27 to 29 Myrtle Bank
Avenue. The applicants andor their representative are present. Would they please explain? >> Hello, my name is Jeff Sares, architect for the applicants Mike and Jillian fromo at 2729 mybank. The project seeks
to finish off and put a dormer on the second floor uh the the third floor uh existing attic of an existing two family. The uh what we're going for is floor area ratio. We're required for.5. The
existing is 68. The proposed is 1.15. The increase is due to finishing the basement which wasn't originally counted in the F. And we are also going for the number of stories. We're going from a two and a half to a three. But in that three, we're maintaining the set line of
the ex of the main roof line to maintain the character of the neighborhood and build out dormers to build out that that third floor. Uh we're also flagged for sideyard setback because the existing house is within
that setback. And if you want to scroll down to A43, it has some renderings comparing be like page 15. There we go. 14 and 15.
Yeah, 14 one before. There we go. So, you can see the comparison on the existing hip roof with a small dormer in the front. going from a gable roof with a large dormer to uh get us that additional space without uh ruining the neighborhood character.
Thank you. >> Thank you. Questions from the board. >> Um yeah. So, so the you're saying it's a two family, correct? >> Correct. And we'll maintain it. And then the the unit on the second floor, that's
the one that would be expanding the um the area of that unit. Correct. >> Exactly. Right now it's a finished attic, but the head height is lower. So >> Okay. So you're getting rid of Okay. You're having a gable end and the
dormer. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. I have public testimony. >> Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office and neighborhood services regarding 27 to29 Myrtlebank. Our office defers to the board's judgment. A community process was
conducted including an abutters meeting held on 102725 that was well attended by the Dorchester community. The feedback from this meeting was support from all community members in attendance for the young couple moving into the neighborhood and making the Myrtle Bank property their forever home. although constituents did encourage the
applicants to restore the driveway that was originally part of the property upwards of 20 years ago. Uh, additionally, we did receive one letter in opposition expressing that the community has remained unchanged since the 1970s and stated that this proposal does not align with the neighborhood.
The proposal was also reviewed by the Cedar Grove Civic Association where they secured support for the proposal. At this time, the mayor's office and neighbor services defers to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration. Thank you, >> Madam Chair. There are no additional comments.
>> Uh, I'm sorry. I have a comment. My name is Christine Wear. I live on Myrtle Bank. I had a question. My understanding besides putting the dormers on, is they're going to um excavate the basement to put additional rooms down there. >> The basement get a better understanding
of that. >> So, this will be back and forth. So, if you have anything else you want to add, just please add it. My understanding is it I'm sorry. It's my my understanding is it's two two bedrooms. Now it's going to be two four bedrooms and there's no
driveway or parking there. >> Thank you. Can the applicant respond? >> Uh so they will be two uh floor bedrooms and the basement is being excavated slightly to get the headroom about 6 in.
>> Thank you. Any other questions from the board? May I have a motion? >> Madame Chair, I would like to make a motion to approve. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Steambridge.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Bau. >> Yes. >> Chair. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you. Next we have case DOA 179 8986
with the addresses to Woodworth Street. If the applicant andor their representative are present, would they please explain to the board? >> Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Uh good evening, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is James Christopher of 686 Architects with the business address
of 10 Forbes Road in Brainree. here today uh for two Woodward, excuse me, on behalf of uh John Paul Murphy for two Woodworth Street unit number one. Um the proposal before you is to legalize a previously finished basement.
Um this project was completed several years ago uh before Mr. Murphy uh bought the property. Uh he became aware that there was no permits on the space. We've gone through and and drafted it. Uh there's it's uh would be additional living space. So, it's like a family room. No sleeping area. There's a
bathroom. Uh, Mr. Murphy uses as an office. The only violation is F. It's a slight increase from 0.93 to 1.04. There is no change to use or occupancy or footprint. Uh, there was no objection from the Port Norfolk Civic Association
or ABUS. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Any questions from the board? >> Hearing none. May I have public testimony? Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones, representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services. Regarding to Woodworth Street, our office differs to
the board's judgment. A community process was conducted, including a subcommittee flyer distribution on 10625. During the community comment period, I did not receive any emails regarding this proposal. The Port Norfolk uh neighborhood association reviewed the proposal and had determined that the proposal did not require a
meeting. At this time, the mayor's office of neighborhood services differs to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration and I hope everyone has a good evening. >> Thank you madame chair. There are no additional comments. >> Okay, with that may I have a motion?
>> Motion to approve. >> There a second? >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. Uh sorry, Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Renault, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries.
>> Thank you very much. >> Next we have case BOA 178 3344 with the address of 16 to 18 Bradfield Avenue. The applicants andor their representative present. Would they
please explain to the board? >> Hi, good evening madam chair and members of the board. Um my name is Taylor Tachi. I'm the homeowner along with my husband Bart Tachi. Um we are applying for a permit for um the house that we
live in. It's a single or it's a two family um house. We own one half of it. Um it's a sidebyside configuration um and we own the left side. Um we are proposing to add about 50 square ft to the back of the house um to add a small
bathroom and mudroom area. Um, and we're in violation of the FAR, uh, which is, um, required to be at 0.5. It is currently at 62, and we're proposing to increase to 63. Um, and it's just a
addition, a one-story addition on the back of the uh, property. >> Questions from the board? >> Hearing none, may I have public testimony? Madame Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bry. I am the Roslandale community engagement
specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abuters meeting facilitated on October 29th. With no guests in attendance, the proponent moved forward and presented to Long Area Neighborhood Association on November 10th where they voted to approve the
proposal with no opposition. To date, our office has received one letter in support of the proposal. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board for their judgment. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Madame Chair. There are no additional comments. Okay.
>> With that, may I have a motion? >> Madam Chair, I'll make a motion of approval. >> There a second? >> Yes. >> Mr. Stebridge? >> Yes. >> Mr. Bern? >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries.
Good luck. >> Thank you. Okay. Checking to see if 19 Bodwell is here. >> Uh, we go. We will do that. Yes. >> I I have I have um 19 Bodwell on the
phone and he thinks he may be the Zoom user, but he's not sure. >> He can see everyone on the screen and he is >> trying to log on. So, I asked Jesus to elevate him as user. >> I do see someone that says Zoom user. So, if that's him,
>> um, I believe so because I have him on the phone now, but I don't he doesn't really know. So, >> okay. I'm going to what I'm going to do is he's able to speak. Actually, he can emute himself.
>> So, if you're the applicant for 19 Bodwell, can you identify yourself? >> If it's the Zoom user, you need to unmute. Do you see? >> Or is it Mr. >> Invite >> Morris's iPhone?
>> Invite where it says Zoom user invite. >> He's already in the panel section. >> He's in the panelist se. He's in the panelist section already. >> Mhm. Yes. >> Okay. All right. So, can you unmute yourself, sir? If you're on the phone, just press star six.
Yeah. To unmute yourself. Okay. Can you hear him? >> It looks like he's still mute. >> He's still on mute. Okay. Press star six again, sir. Okay. You're talking to me. Let me hang up and you press star six. Okay. All
right. Bye. Okay. He had he was talking to me as he was trying to do that. So hopefully he presses star six now we'll be able to hear him. >> Thank you Jean. >> You're welcome. >> Okay.
>> Is the gentleman for 19 Bodwell able to identify yourself? If you are a Zoom user you are still on mute. So, I'm not sure. I don't know how. Yeah, you need to
unmute yourself. Um, okay. Well, I think we if he if the gentleman cannot get on, I think we need to adjourn and see if he can come back on Tuesday. I don't know. Stephanie, do you have >> That will work. If we can push it out to
Tuesday, we'll make sure he's on. >> Okay. Excellent. So, let's do that because it doesn't look like he's able to get in. Uh, so with that, uh, does someone can I have a motion to defer until Tuesday?
>> Uh, let me do this, Madam Chair. for case BOA 1777 6341 the address of 19 Ball Street. I'll make a motion that we defer this case until Tuesday, January 27th.
>> Thank you. Is there a second? >> Yes. >> Okay, Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bernell, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Uh, thank you everyone and we will see some of you on Tuesday. Thanks Mr. Bernell.
Hope your first time was not too painful. >> Have a good night. >> Thank you. >> Good night folks.