 The City of Montpelier Development Review Board meeting for this Monday, May 7th, 2018. We're starting a little bit late this evening because of scheduling difficulties with prior board hearing. However, I'm calling the meeting to order now. My name is Dan Richardson. I am the vice chair and acting chair this evening. And the other members of the DRB from my right are... Jack Lindley. James Lamonda. Sarah McShane. Staff. Roger Kranz. Kate McCarthy. Okay. And the five members that you see here are the five voting members for this evening. The first order of business is the approval of the agenda. So who? Motion. Second. Motion by Jack. Second by James. Any further discussion? None. None. All those in favor? Please raise your right hand. Have an agenda. No comments from the chair this evening. Other than to note, my understanding is that the sole application before us, which is the capital plaza project, has now fully passed out of the DRC. That's correct. And that we have the full application before us for the first time in this project's history. Is that correct? I'm not sure what you mean by that last comment. I just mean that we have...there's nothing further that we'll be waiting on. Oh, yes. We can complete our review tonight if we have the proper evidence and that we're ready to...there's nothing further outstanding. That's correct. That's simply all I meant. The approval of the minutes from April 16th, those present were myself, Jack, Roger, and Kate. So we have a form. Who may be accepted as created? Motion by Jack. Second. Second by Kate. All those in favor? Please raise your right hand. Then our eligible vote and the minutes are approved. So first order of business is 100 State Street. Why don't you...why don't you...well, you were sworn in last meeting. Is that correct? I was, yeah. Okay. Well, we can... Why don't we do this all over again and then I'll have you introduce yourselves. Anyone who thinks they may be testifying this evening, please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony they're about to give for the matter under consideration shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury? I will. Okay. So if you'll just introduce yourself for the record, and I think probably the best way to start is to have you give us a recap of what's new. Okay. Thank you. My name's Greg Rabbidow from Rabbidow Architects. I'm joined here at the table with Fred Beshar of the Capital Plaza Corporation. And in the on-deck circle tonight is James Finley-Sheris from Wagner-Hodgson, our landscape architect, and Ron Lyon from Duboy and King, our project civil engineer. When we last met with this board, we were mostly through the approval of the project when it came to light that we needed to come back in a matter of retaining walls. So this evening's presentation is all about retaining walls so far as I know. The conditional use and other aspects of the application were dealt with at the prior hearing. What is new in this, this evening, in this package that I handed out, shouldn't be the same package that you got with your, from the staff, but we have identified four retaining walls that needed approval by the Design Advisory Committee. And as you noted earlier, they took action just moments ago, so that has happened. The four retaining walls, there are two on the west end of the site, one attached to the end of the Hampton Inn building, and a second that is sort of enveloping the work yard, dumpster area attached to the Capital Plaza building. And there are two retaining walls shown on the eastern end of the site, one that's been of particular public interest, which has transitioned from the project site to the Christ Church Episcopal, and a second retaining wall down in this corner, which actually happens to be the tallest of the retaining walls, and that is predicated by the installation of the bike path, which the deck elevation on the bridge kind of sets the geometry for that whole bike path across the Haney lot through Capital Plaza property over the train tracks and to the Taylor Street project. The retaining walls are illustrated on the next two sheets, which are labeled L101.1 and L101.2. And starting at the top of 101.1, you can see that the retaining wall on the top of the page is the one that relates to the bike path location. We could build the garage without it, but we raised that elevation up to the bike path so that we could create that little pocket park where it sits in the back of the garage that we spoke of previously. And this will integrate with the retaining wall being proposed as part of the bike path project, and we have coordinated with STAMTEC on the geometries of those, and we have also coordinated with STAMTEC in the city on the proposed material. It's a rock-faced concrete product. Three of the retaining walls are modular systems built ones. This one on the Haney lot is one of those that's built out of individual units. The other two are the one adjacent to the church, and then there's one adjacent to the work yard that I talked about. The only cast-in-place concrete wall I was corrected earlier, the only cast-in-place wall is the one attached to the Amp to Den. Also on that page, L101, you see down at the bottom, the elevation-looking west from church parking lot. That's been an important part of our dialogue with the church, and I think the important things to point out there is that we've worked on the grading around the entrance to the garage and everything to allow this wall to be 2.5 feet tall at its tallest, and that's a big improvement, I think, over what we were talking about last time. So it's knee-height now instead of being more substantial, and I think that's a big improvement. The retaining walls that show on page L101.2 are the one on the west end of the hotel that I mentioned is attached to the hotel building. That's simply there to facilitate the rising grade from Taylor Street up to the front entrance of the hotel, which is super elevated because of the floodplain racks. And then the last one that shows here on the bottom of L101.2 is the retaining wall that sort of wraps around where we're planning on putting the dumpsters, and there's a few parking lots, but it's doing a couple of things. James, you had touches of those materials? Yeah, just pass those out or pass them around. And will that steel mountain facade be the same for all the retaining walls? That's it, except for the cast in place wall. Just so I understand fully, when you say cast in place, that's just essentially the cement wall will have the facing on it. It'll be poured at the same time we pour the building foundation and it'll have a smooth concrete face. We'll see the form-tied knockouts. And we'll rub it down and fill any voids and make sure it's uniform in color, but it's a cast concrete wall. And Sarah, the DRC approved? Yeah, Mike can probably give an overview. I didn't attend the DRC meetings prior to this, but... Hey, Mike? Hey, Mike? You have the DRC approval for this? Okay, great. I know we signed it, so... Why they're going through that? Would have any questions about these retaining walls? I guess I do have a question that's mostly out of curiosity. On the east retaining wall that you said will align with the bike path retaining wall? Yes. Is the bike path retaining wall going to be here on this upper edge of the bike path? Okay, so that'll be kind of... Those plans as well as plans for any improvement on the church property will be subject to separate applications, logically. But those have been sort of... There's been discussion about making them look the same, I think, is what you said. Oh, yeah, yeah. With the exception of the dumpster retaining wall, all of the other retaining walls sit sort of at the edge of the property facing out? They do, yeah. The bike path retaining wall would face the Haney parking lot. The only visible portion of the retaining wall adjacent to the church would be visible from the church parking lot side of things. You'll see James has planted a series of shrubs along the top of that so that there's no need for any... Yeah, and I think the big improvement in this plan since we saw you last was the manipulation of those grades to get that great exchange down to the minimum. Do you have the ERC approval? Yeah, have you conditioned in any way? It was not conditioned in any way. The only notes were that there were no additional utilities proposed in this. I think just the general comments were just the reflection. There was a reflection of the fact that Tom McCartle had asked that the materials match the bike path and yeah, we can propose to do that in particular along the Haney lot. And then there was some discussion about the port in place probably what we're going to talk about more just to make sure that that had the appropriate finish on it due to its location and the fact that it's the only one that's not matching the block. Although, I mean, its location there at the back of the hotel puts it in a slightly different visual field than either. It's not as if it's going to be next to... You'll see it as you drive in from Taylor Street. Oh, no, no, this is the point. I mean, you'll see it. Okay, so I mean, but I guess my point was and I'll turn this into a question. Does it sit adjacent to any of the other retaining walls? No. There wouldn't be a side-by-side comparison if that's what you're leading on. Right, that's where I'm headed with that because I think that might be more of a... No, it'll be tied into the building and we'll make it look as such. For us, it's a prominent entry corridor into the hotel so we're going to want that to look pretty nice. And this application doesn't have anything to say about signs, but that might not be a bad place for a sign, depending on... As to the utility comment, I do want to know just to put some people at ease if we weren't proposing any additional lighting or anything as part of this, but as prior testimony we've talked about, we have made provision for utility connections for the future project next door in our utility planning. That's not a change or anything. I just want to make sure that everybody understands that. Right, I understood the DRC just simply to say that as their specific review that they weren't adding any additional utilities, limited review of the retaining walls. I think we all understand each other. I just know that they're represented as a church here or some remedies. Given that, that's probably the primary thing we're going to be talking about. Was there anyone in the audience that wished to comment on the retaining walls or any of the issues associated with them? If you can come up with a microphone and just introduce yourself. My name is Nate Stearns. I'm an attorney representing the church. I just want to say that we appreciate how much capital plazas worked with us over the course of the last month and the plans that you can see in front of you tonight have on them essentially what we've worked out with with capital plaza to address the impacts on the church property. Capital plazas have been great about representing to us if they want to make sure that there's no impacts to the status quo on the church property. In light of that, the plans that are here to the church have no objections. Any other comments? Okay. Oh, sorry. Any other comments before? Go too slowly or too fast through this. There were a couple of questions that Tom McCartle raised in email. Yes. Have you gotten that opportunity to review that? You got a long list of comments that I think the only one that's remained to the nights here is that he wanted us to coordinate the material choices between ourselves and the bike path project. It's been my understanding as we go along that the details of the utility connections that Tom mentions in his memo, we're not a prerequisite for board approval. I think it's our understanding that public works will have another bite at this apple when we get to 100% CDs. And so, the conversation of the water line at the street is probably a conversation that will continue as we go through construction documentation. Right. One of his points is that the design now indicates retaining wall will be constructed above both existing and proposed mains who require additional design considerations. Our staff will provide a sketch of the desired interconnection alignment of a stub for future extensions. I understand that's not really a problem, but I just wanted to make you aware of that obviously going forward. That's something you're going to have to interact with the Department of Public Works for that. But the one above that about the drainage, that was certainly a concern. I'm going to invite my civil engineer up to try to put you with ease on that a little bit because he's had a more or less running dialogue with Tom on this stuff. Yes, we had talked to Tom a couple of times and walked through some of the details, the location of the retaining walls and the drainage and the water mains. I think that most of Tom's comments and all of Tom's comments tend to be related to moving forward on detailed design and the project must be coordinated with the retaining wall and the stand tech, for example. I think there was a question on as we go forward a bike path a shared use path goes before the hotel there may be some requirements to coordinate on how do you support that bike path with some kind of a temporary wall a temporary fill situation to be sure a bike path could go forward as opposed to being held up by the hotel project. And so that was just something his concern. He says that's the type of thing. He says we've got Taylor Street going forward we've got Transit Center going forward we've got the bike path going forward and the hotel going forward on this small area and it's it really was just that there was a neutral benefit to be sure they all fit together. So we talked about drainage quite a bit he is pleased with what we found in the drainage for the church back area of the church there may be some adjustments to that as we go into detail design and we deal with the city and there may be some adjustments to the water main because they don't really understand quite what that water main is going on the church property yet so that's quite honestly very normal at this stage things will shift a few feet here and there with the water main and work with DPW so there's nothing I don't think there's any real serious concerns about working with the city DPW on that I think the other other things that he mentioned was came up with the last conversation on green mountain power utility pole at Taylor Street and looking at the solution on that some kind of a push-fold and I don't think that's something that's been decided about there'll be coordinated with DPW on green mountain power that's a green mountain power project by the way it's predicated by the Taylor Street project it isn't really an integral part of the hotel application other than it happens to sit on the hotel property so it's no I understand I think at least my specific question really came from his first point about drainage that there's traditional lawn drains that are on the church property yes and invited DRB scrutiny and I think that's proper for you know how that was being managed as far as future maintenance ownership I presume that that will remain church property is there going to be an easement or some type of relationship as to future as far as that drainage system who will maintain it I think there's that is important to have an agreement because it's going to be on church property we've talked to Paul Boyzburg on the placement of the number of these and how it will work best for the church property in the Memorial Gardens we did talk about just I guess it's something if you're putting fertility anything on someone else's property it'll be something to work out much to the same as the water main extension through the church property through the proposal property and so that was kind of a limited discussion with limited to say yes we understand that's a requirement it's in the memorandum of the church to have that and it has to be a memorandum to have a discharge that's why I wanted to make sure that so it sounds as if there's a conversation going on as part of being a larger memorandum of the main Mr. Sterns we have a lot of shared interactions to get these two projects built and so there is a memorandum of understanding that's being formed between the parties the extension of the water line through our property and then across church property is a public works project to replace an aging loop so this water line across this church property is there to charge or provide a backup charge to the water lines on main street and so it's not really a specific benefit to this project it is part of our global coordination of utilities through this corridor and those yard drains were there principally to just keep water from ponding on the Memorial Garden which is a delicate area so I guess our expectation is that those facilities that are constructed on the church property will belong to the church if there's a need for cross easements to connect to the mains those were cited based on the survey that the topographical survey to show that we can get the drainage in that area I think the church their engineer is very comfortable with these drains and you know part of our job is not to sort out the easement relationship we're not asking you to I understand that but just make clear that I think that's our understanding we just want to raise it I want to raise it simply so that's sufficient which is that you've started to talk with the church with a memorandum of understanding that's informed and coming together for these rights I think that's what Tom McCartle's main point is is that part of your drainage system lies on another property you're going to need rights to maintain that those drainage systems both in the installation and then going forward so it sounds like it's part of a larger universal agreement that you're coming together where is correct you're letting water mains go through your property for them I mean it sounds as part of this larger construction who knows and if that won't shift a little bit over time either yeah the community based utilities are definitely something we'll have to work out with all parties involved the utility extensions we're talking about on a church property are for the benefit of the church that should be understood the art drains and the parking lot drainage and a water line extension those were things done on behalf of the church to make their side of this work so I think at this point is there any questions from the board I have a general question not related to the walls but that I think it comes up now because we're talking about the sort of the big plan the universal coordination and I have a question about how that works the first thing I'll say is that it's really clear that everyone's working very hard to communicate with adjacent parties with other projects with the city and that's just always really excellent to hear so thank you I know that will continue I'm still very curious though and perhaps also for our listeners at home to know who is the one who's air traffic control on this who is the one person that says okay you get to start digging today until tomorrow to dig Phil happens this way retaining well goes in now is there someone who who's the puppet master here or is it who maybe that's not the right term air traffic control are you expanding your scope to consider Taylor street as well I'm thinking yes I'm thinking of the numerous projects that are taking place and I wonder again just for the interest of the public is it whoever gets their permit first everyone else coordinates accordingly I don't think it's going to work like that one thing we did in assembling our team was to make sure that there was some continuity between the team members so we have the same landscape architect and the same civil engineer for our project as well as Taylor street that was a big consideration in our determination I would pick the the right now we've been talking to the same general contractor to do both projects hopefully that will continue in that direction so I think it's I don't think there's one person who can claim to be king of the hill I think the same level of coordination that's gone between ourselves and the church to get to this point with them will happen to a lesser degree with Taylor street which is adjacent but not a butting and the bike path project which I think has the potential to be a real coordination issue so it's mostly between the private parties is what I'm hearing you say as opposed to someone stand on top of the hill saying go go go as project architect I'll coordinate the efforts of our team direct a very constructive dialogue with the architects from Taylor street and and stand tech who's handling the bike path part of it I also have the to address the cities part of this Tom Carl said we're going to have very close coordination with the city project manager for the city party line has been assigned to look at all those pieces he's already doing that now on several projects in that area that might have been the point person that I was anticipating nice because it really is we've got that go to the person saying our project we're coming together in these pieces at this time so I'm pretty comfortable with that like I said I've heard that the coordination between parties is very good very positive the way you've explained it Greg but I was sort of wondering if there was that one person at the city who was it's going to be tough there could be some real benefits though because certain self contractors mobilize to the site and if they're stripping concrete forms off of one project and moving next door with them I think that's the hope on the contract inside of things it'll really come down to for us we anticipate a November start depending on the tax increment financing portion of this and one of the reasons why we needed to get wrapped up while we've been pushing to conclude this part of it is we think we're going to need four or five months to to get this nailed down well thank you for answering that question particularly since it doesn't pertain to the walls we're looking at but I think it's an important overall thing for folks to understand so yeah thank you I think there's a few small items of business that we need to address one is the snow storage apparently there was a bit of a typo in some of the earlier ones putting snow storage in different locations and I just wanted to confirm my understanding of what's going on now is the temporary snow storage location to the next door to the hotel yes it was determined in the earlier hearings that we had more parking than is required by your zoning ordinance although we want to need all that parking I think it was determined that we could take some of those out of service as long as we were staying within compliance with your rights so yeah and it's the practice now and it will continue to be a practice that the snow will be removed from the site at the earliest convenience when they're off-siting it now to the to the snow depot the city doesn't have the other comment that the staff have raised in this main I don't know if you've had an opportunity to review some of the staff comments that I've been meeting was about the loading and siting of parking and loading spaces and these are under the old zoning by-laws in particular sections 706 and 707 but it talks about the regulations requiring for buildings containing hotels one off-street loading space for every 10,000 square feet of gross floor area that would be about five my understanding is there's really only one off-space loading and so haven't necessarily requested a waiver but one might be implied from this if it's not too late I would ask you to consider that I think a loading space for every 10,000 square feet of hotel is probably excessive it's not a full service hotel in the sense that it doesn't have a restaurant which would be a big generator or waste or any significant other spaces that would require a lot of delivery of materials right now what happens is trucks come in behind the parking lot and they park essentially adjacent to where we're showing our trash recycling turn and get back out but we just don't have the real estate to create a huge loading dock area and it seems to be working now I mean the real heavy traffic is servicing an restaurant but I don't anticipate a lot of new demand being sprung from this hand to hand so if there were a way to ask for that waiver I would ask for it so just so I understand the expectation is that the new movement is not going to require the same type of loading as I say with the Capapazza but what type of what type of weekly loads are you anticipating I mean you're expecting and obviously there are some food and beverages that are going to be sold here we have to provide a minimum self-service breakfast which is cereals and you pour your own waffles and juice that's about it and it's standardized throughout the whole and we have to adapt to exactly what we have to have where it's supposed to be who does it and everything else but I mean is that delivered then on a weekly basis depending on usage if it's not we store it in your refrigerators we store it in pantries if you have the architectural drawings that were submitted with the application you can see that the amount of food preparation area it's about 11 feet wide about 14 feet long most of you probably have bigger kitchens in your homes and yeah you're going to have hot eggs, bagels, fresh fruit yogurts that kind of stuff generally I mean we've worked with a lot of hoteliers generally this stuff that kind of stuff is getting picked up in Costco you're not going to see the big shadow cross farms or the Provinters, Black River Produce they're coming to the site they're going next door to the Capitol Plaza other than that I mean the big event for loading here will be when the furniture shows up and that will be park construction operations obviously not permanent like cleaning supplies and the normal other items that go into the running of the hotel that's not just trying to understand it's not a tractor trailer it's a small box truck in theaters we get it all in locations they drop it off and run in would the plan for that box truck be to park in that loading zone or would it be to park in front of so small well I'm just just so I understand because it's part of what we have to do and I think the board I haven't heard any statement to the contrary that we wouldn't entertain the idea of waiver but I think it's helpful for us to understand what we're waiving and so if there's the box truck coming with these supplies you know would it be reasonable for us to say that they would park under the the awning in the entrance to unload this type of materials or would there be another location that now we probably would probably I mean just as a sort of social thing we wouldn't want them going through the lobby with that stuff generally speaking we kind of wanted to go to the east end door or the west end door and come in that way because that's where the food truck and food storage stuff is employee based storage type of areas and wandering for this hotel will be done next door at the Capitol Plaza some of this cart traffic going back and forth but yeah I mean we when we came up with that little work yard I mean I was intended to sort of do a lot of things you know out of sight in a controlled contained area yes I was going to just confirm you said all along there won't be any laundry deliveries the laundry is all going to be done on elsewhere on the site it's going to be done on the Capitol Plaza linens and towels so that wouldn't be a loading or unloading facility that's going to be a houseman with a cart going back and forth between the two buildings I think in January thought about a tunnel another variance yeah it was it makes sense to have that equipment busy all the time and not have two sets of it if I can understand any other questions from the board so I think just reviewing the packet I think we've covered all the additional items understanding that this is end of a very long process members have any overarching questions or issues that have previously testimony on for great I was wondering if you could provide just a brief overview of the plans for I reviewed the plans last week prior to Thursday and I was just wondering if you provide a brief overview of the revisions made to the plans that were submitted on Thursday and then just for clarification what improvements are you guys seeking approval for that are offsite okay I think there were some spot elevations and a few minor changes to the retaining walls adjacent to the church that came up Monday we got staff comments from Tom and so we took some of Tom's thinking into the town as well and so the changes between between Monday and Thursday were not substantial but it was really just I think at one point if you look at the planting bed around the it was this sort of planting bed that at one point on a wall it was two feet high all around we've let that just turn into a curve now as far as the as far as offsite improvements go I don't know that the board can approve offsite improvements it's our understanding that what will have to happen ultimately is that Christchurch Episcopal will come in with an application for some of these little detail things on their property which will come at and which will there may be things that Capital Plaza is donating or constructing for them but our understanding is that they need to have a separate permit for improvements on their land we've illustrated this in a way that shows you together but I think the permit for us will stop at the property line that said there are some site utilities that are definitely part of this project do go offsite the most notable of which is our storm drainage facility which will more or less parallel the bike path and discharge to the north branch of the Waduski River through the head wall of the bike path bridge so that's an offsite utility that's illustrated in the civil engineering plans that we would want approved and expect the public works as reviewed that and understand it and think it's okay and then of course we'll have some utility improvements in State Street which will be part of the project not strictly on our property memory nothing most of the drainage is part of the bike path project by the city already so I believe that's all approved the city does own that bike path area right I think Sarah's question I just want to make sure I fully understand what the permit covers that's why understanding of the law that's been our position right along we've gone beyond that and illustrated what we think is a workable solution for the church so that we can put the church at ease and we can put you at ease that when they come in with their application these two things can't work together so we've essentially provided them a curb cut and a curb stop for water and a plug-in for storm water at the property boundary there will be improvements on church land whether it's us or engineering ventures or somebody who comes forward and completes that for them they still have some thinking about how they really want this to be finished on their end we don't want to get in the way of that process again they're thinking about that at the same time but we've done this in a way that it's shown that it works and the impact's on the church if we have to help them get over that we will I don't see a way for them to approve these improvements on a private property owner's land without them making an application well I just want to understand are there any of these I understand the improvements that while you're trying to show that the physical church will be able to do what they can do and obviously it's been an important part of your negotiations with them I think part of what Sarah's question is going towards are there any improvements apart from utilities such as power lines or is it relying upon the way in which your project's going to function that may be located on-site we were talking earlier about the storm drains it's different if the storm drains are part of how the church is going to develop its property and ensure that it meets its obligations it's different if these storm drains have been installed or being sought so you can meet your storm drain obligations let me make that emphatically clear the issue is that we have a storm water regulation that says your first floor has to be at 527 as we build up this fill section to meet that requirement we're sort of essentially damning off the southwest corner of the church's property so that there's this parking in the memorial garden there's an expressed concern that water could impound there so we're providing method for it to get off of their property but the storm water is generated and the facilities are there to deal with that so there are improvements that we will provide as part of our agreement with them or whatever but I can take that retaining wall and run it straight from State Street back to the garage and not impact the church at all with a driveway or anything it's just that we've had this agreement, this working arrangement to maintain access to that from the church in a way that we've illustrated does that make it any better for you? it does it's in part what you're describing because you're altering the way they might have yes but ultimately once that's all done and those utility improvements are made there'll be church property and the church will maintain them as they maintain the rest of their property would it be fair to say that whatever changes may be made to the church's property aren't necessarily improvements as much as they are reactions to mitigate the impact of what your development is going to do on your property I think that's a fair characterization number one, number two do you have a license from the church to enter onto its property to take these to take these mitigating steps? it's not fully consummated but we are working towards that goal and I expect a part of that will be that they'll come in with an application under their authorship signed by them saying we're making these improvements on church property if it's in some part in reaction to us so it'll be there'll be another step in this process for that the actual response to my question about whether there's a license is really if they want the mitigating steps to be taken they should give you permission to enter yeah and maybe Nate could speak to that but I mean we're coordinating on last time I looked at the list there was probably 20 bullet points so any further questions from the board? does the board wish to proceed? I'll recommend that we close the hearing and that we go into deliberative session motion by Jack second by Roger any further discussion? anything further? would deliberative session be after this session or are you going to do it at a date for it in the future? we'll probably start after this session and then usually what happens when we do a deliberative session is we end up issuing a written permit and especially given the scope this project is going to have a number of different findings we understand that yeah the only other thing I wanted to mention is I wanted to thank Sarah McChain for sticking in past her employment to help us get through this we've enjoyed our working relationship with city staff I think it's been really good and just wanted to make note of that because Sarah has moved down the stone but I thank you all for your time thanks thank you thanks to other participants as well hearing no further discussion all those in favor of taking close the record I'm going to move into deliberative session thank you very much appreciate it sorry everyone if you can be a little quiet we have to finish our formal amount of business before we move into deliberative session this is a note other business looks as if one the 4th spring street has been drawn by the applicant and then the 213 Main Street sketch plan was tabled by the applicant do you have a motion to tabled? yeah to continue it to do it so 213 Main Street the tabled to our May 21st meeting I'm going to make a motion to table the 213 Main Street application until the tender amendment can continue yeah continue motion by Roger second by James all those in favor please raise your right hand and it is continued our next regularly scheduled meeting is for Monday May 21st 2018 and James is this your last meeting? with the hotel look like it's being done yes I think this will be the last application I'm going to be a part of well I personally and I'm sure the board as well thank you very much for the years of service I'm sure I'll see everybody around I'm just doing different things how many years of service do we give you credit for keeping that closest to six or seven something like that yeah we've been in Montpelier now so it's been most of that great thank you thanks so I'll take a if I could just make one comment about our chairman who deserves an incredible thank you for the people of Montpelier for shepherding what I consider to be a massive revitalization and I'll fill in the chair and being here we could have never gotten it done I just applaud his efforts and I think the people of Montpelier when you see them on the street thank you they just try to run me over we'll take a motion to adjourn and move into deliberative session so moved second by Jack all those in favor of adjourning and moving into deliberative session please raise your hand adjourn