 The Zoom meeting of the Mobiliar Planning Commission. First thing we have to do is approve the agenda. So everyone had that email to them. We have a motion to approve the agenda. Sorry, I think we have everybody muted so. So I moved to. Somebody approve it. Sounds like we have Barb and we had, is there a second? Oh, second. Okay. Second from Stephanie. Those in favor of approving the agenda? Say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. End of approved. So the next on the agenda is the comments from the chair. So I think the first thing that's in order is to say that I hope everyone's safe and sane. Looks like everyone's looking pretty well. Holden up. Okay. Except for John. I think we're working. Yeah, I've seen, I don't know if I've seen him around, but I've seen his wife around a bit. She seems, she seems fine at least. I think he's been busy. I think all of the health department mapping is coming from their office. Oh, really? I'm sure he's been busy. Yeah, it says to have a little VCIC stamp on it. Well, I think they have their own GIS people at the health department, but their new like dashboard I think came from John's team. That makes sense. I know a lot of that's been going on. Tax people have been helping department of labor because they're over over run. Oh yeah. Okay. Well, I'm happy that we're able to do this so that we can actually get some momentum, some work done before it, you know, we go months without getting anything. So this is great. It looks like we're going to be having, I mean, Mike is planning for a late June hearing for both what we'll be talking about tonight if we decide to move forward on this and also those design review proposals that were never quite finalized. So just in this, you know, in the near term, it looks like something will be going on late June at least. That's all we really have planned or aware of right now. If this goes okay tonight, maybe you guys can give me your feedback and tell me if you think we should do another Zoom meeting in a couple of weeks and we can just see how this goes and how we're feeling, I guess. That's really all I have to say. So the next on the agenda would be general business. It looks like we don't have any members of the public who zoomed in, but that was possible though, right, Mike? Yes. Okay. It was advertised on the city website with the link for anyone to join in. Okay. So maybe someone will pop in, that'd be interesting. Okay. And so with that, we can consider the minutes from March 9th, which were emailed around this afternoon. Let's take a look at those. I was not there. So for those who were there, take a look please. I think it's okay, but I'm having a hard time remembering. Yeah. It was a long time ago. It was a long time ago. Yeah, this was like, this was right before everything shut down. Yeah. Looking back at this. Do you ever get to Baltimore, Stephanie? No, of course not. Definitely not. Yeah, that's right, Bob. Yeah, definitely not. I know, I read that. No, that's what made me think of that. That was a long time ago. Yeah. Your wife was going to, she had gone earlier though, right? Yeah, we had just gone back. You were just, okay. Yeah, we had just gone back to the night before. Okay, so do we have a motion to approve the minutes? I just have one quick question, Kirby. It says the transportation section was reviewed next. Isn't that will be reviewed? Did we, we didn't actually review it at that meeting. Did we? I think you're right. I don't think we did review it. I haven't seen it anyway. So I thought maybe I really forgotten it, but. I think we just talked about looking at it next time, we're saying. Right. We should change that to will be reviewed at the next meeting or whenever that will be. Or review, will be reviewed next anyway. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So do we have a motion to approve with that amendment? I'll move to approve with that amendment. I'll second. Okay. So proposed by Marcella, seconded by Barb. Those in favor of approving the minutes, the, the minutes with that amendment. Say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Okay. Minutes approved. So maybe we can get down to business now and talk about this on the record review. Hopefully everyone got to read the wonderful work that Meredith had done on it, as well as the article at the end. I thought all of that was really helpful and informative. But with that, I'll turn it over to staff. That was. Yeah. Yeah. So this has been on the record review has been a topic of discussion for a long time. It was, it was in the 2010 city plan. And I guess we could start with a really, you know, on the record review is really an opportunity to kind of formalize our process a little bit more. We already have a very formal zoning DRB process, but if we added a little bit more, we could gain the benefit of on the record review, which if you're not familiar with it, it just takes the current, it currently, if somebody appeals something from the DRB and it goes to environmental court, then it ends up being de novo and it starts all over again. And if we were on the record, then it would go for an abbreviated process to the court and they would only look at more of the procedural errors and did we, you know, did we follow the rules and is really looking at what has already been presented as evidence. So it's, it would, it helps to, I mean, the garage is the perfect example. You know, it's a project that goes through review and then goes to the environmental court and a whole range of issues that were never addressed at the local issues suddenly start getting raised and this provides an opportunity to streamline the process and require people to kind of talk up front and put their issues on the record up front. So the local Development Review Board can actually go and talk about them. And I will let Meredith jump in at any point because she's done all the work on this and knows a lot more for anyone who doesn't know, Meredith is an attorney or I guess you're still, you can describe how, what your current status is, but you're- Inactive license. I'm licensed but inactive, I'm not practicing. But she has background as an attorney, which makes a big difference for us and adds a lot of talent to our ability to do on the record review because we're not taking somebody who isn't familiar with legal procedures to have to brush up on them, but she's got a background and knows how to understand these rules and apply these rules in it. So having her experience and background is gonna be helpful in understanding this. For us to make these changes, as you saw in her memo to me, we've got to make a couple of decisions. You know, one of them is, do we want to move forward and continue to do this? If the planning commission feels we don't want to go this route, then that kind of stops things right now. If we do want to go, then we have a couple of decisions that we have to make. And so I was just gonna have maybe Meredith go and outline a couple of the key points. And if you guys have questions, you can kind of jump in. I know some of you that are gonna be more familiar with the on the record review than others, but jump in if you've got questions and we can have a conversation about, if we want to do on the record, and if we do, what are the questions that Meredith has outlined that we have to decide? Do all applications go through or only some applications go through? And then the process for actually going through that. I have one question. It sounds like it's been in the works for a while, but why is it coming up now particularly? So it was, it was in our, it had been in our work plan for a couple of years. Sarah McChain, when she was here, she was gonna be kind of looking at it and we really didn't get an opportunity to because a lot of her time was working with the Historic Preservation Commission and then same with Meredith. When she started, she had a number of things, including doing the design review rules that there was always something else in front of it. And when this winter came up, we had said, well, let's try to look at on the record review again. And when the COVID kind of stopped our hearing process on design review, we were like, well, maybe we can take this window of time, this two month window of time to come to some decision on on the record review and maybe we can adopt them both at the same time. Adopting zoning takes a lot of effort. So if we can kind of lump them together, we can get two done at the same time. And we would probably adapt them. We would probably warn it in that way as well as two separate items. So if one for some reason happened to go faster, it might get adopted faster. And one wouldn't necessarily sync the other. So it wouldn't be maybe a singular vote to adopt all the zoning changes, design review and on the record, we would probably send them both as two separate items to city council to consider. So that way, city council said, yes, we want the design review rules and no, we don't want to go on the record. We haven't brought both down. So that kind of answered that question. So did you want to go through your memo real quick? Well, I mean, it's about as quick as I can summarize it is what's in the memo with the whole big picture. But I mean, there's really two big questions. I mean, back up for a minute. So one of the things that Mike didn't really explain. So for on the record review, and it's in the memo, but yes, it can streamline the process in that the DRB makes its decision at that level before the DRB, all the interest parties have to make all their claims at that point, present all their evidence at that point. If it then gets appealed, it goes to the environmental court. If the environmental court thinks there's a mistake, it comes back to the DRB. So you can, it can actually end up with a longer process. If it goes back and forth several times, it's like a ping pong ball because the DRB keeps making mistakes. But in general, it is gonna narrow, you pull everything into the DRB first analysis and you aren't gonna have a situation where somebody says, oh, I'll just wait and appeal it because I have this one little line where I can feel and then I can just open up this whole big can of worms and get, basically get the project completely redesigned at the environmental court. You know, we don't wanna do that. That's, it's speaking from having kept an eye on the whole garage process, you know, you don't want to have to do that with big projects. And then, so if you decide you wanna go forward with on the record review, there's really two big issues to wrestle with. As Mike said, do you wanna take everything that goes before the DRB and put it through this process? You know, there's pluses and minuses to that. I think, you know, Mike and I have talked a little bit more just today about this question. And you do, you know, you do run the risk of saying, okay, you're going before the development review board just because you need the DRB to approve a fence that's off foot higher than would normally be allowed under the regulations and they have to go through the on the record review process. But it's possible that you could do that. And then when you get into the hearing of the DRB, the DRB can say, is there anybody here who, you know, who's an interested person in the hearing? And then if there's nobody there and nobody cares about the fence, okay, that means you don't have to go through discovery. You don't have to deal with all these evidentiary things. We can just wrap this all up right now. It's not gonna lengthen the process for those really simple, unconfested applications. So that pushes me even more towards saying, let's apply on the record review to everything that goes before the DRB. I think that the benefits of that outweigh, you know, any complications that could be coming from saying, oh, let's split them up. Let's have the DRB do two different processes depending on what the applications are. That can get really complicated. And having to use two different procedures for applications that are all there at the same meeting, I think would get confusing for everybody. So that's one question. Do you apply to all the applications or not for the DRB? And then the second question, and this is something that I think we're just gonna have to wrestle with probably a little bit longer, but could use your guidance on at the beginning is how detailed do you wanna make any rules of evidence that apply to this process? You know, as I said in the memo, there are some towns that just have one paragraph and just refer to the rules of evidence and say we incorporate them. Personally, I think that opens up a huge can of worms and could cause lots of problems because it's a lot easier for somebody to say you've made a mistake and you didn't follow the rules of evidence because you haven't laid them out explicitly. I really, I like what we with Shelburne did with laying out some specifics. You're not gonna be able to capture everything, but the thought of having your initial start to the hearing have this, okay, who do we have here? Who's in attendance? Do you have anybody who's claiming to be an interested party? Okay, you have some interested parties. Great, let's get you on the record. What's the basis for your interested party status? Then once you get that all set, ask if anybody has any interest in the potential avenues of discovery for bringing in new evidence. If they really don't wanna do that, Mike and I were discussing earlier, have some avenue for them to wave that and maybe you can still get it all done in one hearing. If you have somebody who's an interested party who's really difficult but wants to go through that whole process, then you alter your course a little bit and this first day of hearing is a preliminary hearing where you set up, okay, what avenues of evidence are we gonna make use of? It basically becomes like a pre-hearing conference almost or your discovery conference. And when that happens, yeah, you're gonna have a longer process. You're gonna slow the permitting process down but that's not really a, that's not a factor. It's not the city slowing the process down. It's the fact that you have interested parties who are gonna slow it down one way or another either here at the beginning or they're gonna appeal it at the end if you don't have on the record review and slow everything down that way too. I mean, that's for the parking garage. We never got to issuing permits. We had a decision but we never actually issued a permit. So I don't think either way, you're gonna end up with a faster permit for those troublesome projects. I think that's my quote-a-quote summary. Thanks, Meredith. Well, okay, I know I have a list of questions and I'll try to bounce things around to get everyone asking questions, not just me but I could start off with just asking it sounds like, so our current regulations allows for some administrative approvals and we've tried to make an emphasis on that. We've tried to streamline things to make things easier on residents. And what I'm hearing you say is that some of that might have to go away. So could you tell us specifically what we might lose as far as streamlining for people? What's already approved administratively will still be approved administratively. None of those are gonna get slower. The only thing that might slow down is the small percentage of permits that go to the development review board. And that's, it's really, Mike, you know the numbers better than I do. I can't remember what the ratio is of total permits issued and stuff that goes to the DRV. Yeah, I think it was consistently for a number of years up until 2018 we were doing about 140 permits a year and about 70 of them, 60 to 70 went to the development review board. Since 2018, we still are issuing about 140 permits a year except only 20 go to the DRV. So it's only out of those 20 that run the risk of slowing down. Can you go ahead and give us, can you go ahead and give us like an idea of the size of those projects? Because, you know, one thing that you've asked us to think about is, do we wanna put a limitation on the size of the project or some other limitation on when maybe on the record review applies? So can you tell us about those 20 and? So right now, what I have in front of me right now, I have a project that's going to the development review board where it is somebody who owns a single family home wants to put up a fence, but the fence that they wanna put up is taller than allowed under the regulations without DRV approval. That has to go to the DRV. That's a tiny little project for itself to go to the DRV. We also have a new, you know, three-story building on State Street. You know, what, two parcels down from the State House. This is a huge project. In between that, we also have a, oh, I don't remember how many square feet it is, but in addition on the back of a single family home, it's going, the only reason it's going to the development review board is because it's on steep slopes. You know, it's, I can pull up, I didn't think to pull up the numbers, like money values. We have everything from a few hundred dollars to multi-million dollar projects. Well, in the example of the fence project what would on the record review look like, look like for that project? So that's the one where Mike and I were talking earlier today where we were thinking that if you have your process script so that when you first open the hearing, you ask, is anybody, you know, in attendance today who is, you know, wants to be an interested party and you can also look through, you know, pull in any messages or written comments you had ahead of time. If there's nobody who is showing at the hearing, nobody has provided written testimony ahead of time. Nobody has said, hey, I want to be an interested person for this, here's my comments. You have no interest in parties. They have to have made an appearance at the DRB hearing level to then move on to appeal the project. So if nobody's shown up on the record review process at that point is the tweak is really just making sure that the applicant has fully documented all of their, you know, evidence that they're presenting to the board. There's not a lot of change to the DRB process at that point, if nobody is showing up and contesting the application. And Meredith is going to be helping people go through that evident, you know, we're not going to be asking people to go and make sure they've got their evidence right. We're going to be having some guidelines to help them to go through and say, you know, your application, we've numbered your application and your exhibits that you're giving us. So basically the application is going to be ready to go with its evidence. Yeah, I mean, that's the, you know, the exhibit number and all of that stuff that you would have to do for on the record review. I think it's a tweaking partly of our procedures here. I already, as it is, I already managed to put exhibit numbers on things when people send it in or page numbers so that it's easier to reference. Having a little more process there, I don't see making somebody who just wants to put a fence up, having to hire an attorney. That's just not going to be necessary. It's really only for the really contentious matters, complicated matters, where it's going to get more difficult, I think. You know, even if somebody does show up, Mike and I were talking about the possibility of working with outside, you know, the outside of the city's attorneys to come up with a script so that if somebody shows up and they just have some questions, they maybe even just want to negotiate one little thing there at the hearing to say, hey, we just really want X, Y and Z done. The applicant says yes, the DRB says great, meets with the rules, then they can maybe just wait, have a paragraph to clarify that they're waiving their evidentiary rights to discovery and depositions, anything like that, that they just, they don't need that. They just needed to make sure that there was some certain condition on the permit. So I don't see, you know, that would be like the normal process we go through already. For me, I think it's going to be important that we have some assurances that, yeah, that people will be informed ahead of time what it means that their review is going to be on the record, that they're going to lose an opportunity in the future. So I do think that, yeah, the way, when we, whenever we send out for people or whatever communication we have, I think that will be important that the consequences need to be upfront because I could see someone not taking it seriously because that's currently kind of what we do. And you get a second bite at it right now by going to environmental court, if you screwed up and didn't bring in an expert or whatever. Yeah. Well, that's, it might be, I mean, Mike, if you're thinking about getting this before city council, what, late June potentially, I don't know if there's any way to delay actual implementation of the on the record review, have the city council adopt it but not immediately go into it. I mean, to try and ramp up to make sure we have all of that procedural instruction for all the applicants, that's going to take some effort. Yeah, I had some questions on the process of that because I saw even Shelburne, they adopted the on the record review in October, in November and their rules of procedure were not adopted till the following March. So I'm not sure exactly how the process goes, but this wouldn't necessarily go to, I mean, it could technically, I guess if the planning commission hearing went through in one piece and we sent it, it could go to city council for July, but I think there's going to be a window where we can have more time to work on the rules of procedure and our rules of discovery and evidence and stuff. And I think we can get some time to work on that if we have a direction. No, I just wanted to flag that since I definitely don't have time to work on it anytime and probably until Audra gets back unless we just had a flood of permits and then everything else goes away. Yeah. Can anybody be an interested party or is that something we would be defining? It's already defined in large part in statute, so, but we would have to spell it out more clearly in the regulations to say these are the categories of people that can be interested persons and the development review board would have to make that judgment call that decision determination in the hearing. Yeah, great. It says it's the same like guiding principles of like an Act 250 review in interested parties or is it, is that what the statute says? It's similar, I don't think it's the exact same terms but it's similar. Okay, thanks. And right now we don't have to worry about making an actual vote on interested person status because everything is appealed to no vote to environmental court and they'll make the determination of interested person status. So, but if we went on the record because that's not there anymore we actually would have to go through and say, you know, I'm Mike Miller and I want to be an interested person, I'm a neighbor. And then the DRP would have to go through and say, yep, we acknowledge that you are a neighbor and therefore you are an interested person. They'd kind of have to have a formal step of saying, yes, you are actually an interested person and you now have all these rights. That's helpful. Thank you. So the quick question is, so the rules of evidence would be clear in terms of both for both the applicant and also for anybody who might be appealing? Would they actually be part of the written document? You mean part of, we've got separate rules of evidence just like the DPRB rules of procedure. They would either need to have those rules of evidence incorporated into the current development or you've got rules of procedure or a whole separate document that is adopted by the development of the board that are, yeah, standard rules that everybody would be notified of. And that would be something I'd want to work really, really closely with the city's attorneys on to make sure we've covered everything. It's that's one of, you know, even in the Shelburne rules, there are places where they just incorporate the civil court rules of procedure, you know, for the environmental court. And that gets a little dicey. I mean, you have to follow those. So, you know, we want to clarify very specific steps that apply. Yeah, I think that's the important part is to be very clear about it so that people can't come back later and say, oh, well, this wasn't clear. And, you know, just making sure that everyone's aware of this, but it does seem how, it does in some ways seem that it could clarify the whole process. Whereas now it really seems as if anyone could appeal at any time. If anyone can appeal whether or not the court lets them come all the way in the door is always open for discussion. So anyone can file that filing with the court. And if the court says there's a slim chance that they're an interested party, they're gonna start on the whole process. And you have to make a motion to say they're not an interested party. It gets, it drags everything out. At what point does it drag things out at DRB? No, right now, I'm saying right now. Yeah, right now, yeah. Right now. So would somebody, given the rules of evidence, would somebody need an attorney to go through the application process? I don't think they would for most projects for bigger projects. If they know, say, you know, if it's a big new building, if they know that there's gonna be somebody who's gonna be difficult, I would probably recommend that they have an attorney handy. Okay. You know, we've got, you know, if, say somebody comes and wants to develop a savings pasture, that's a big red flag. I'd say, you know what, you want an attorney because somebody is gonna cause, gonna make a mistake. Even if you're immediately paying them, let them know that, you know, you're gonna need them in reserve. But I wouldn't, you know, wouldn't recommend that my person who wants to put up a fence get an attorney. I mean, it may put a higher bar on the city going forward to make sure that who we are hiring as a zoning administrator has more legal background than maybe we did in the past. Obviously having Meredith with a legal background is gonna be really helpful for us getting started. But if she moves on to another job, we would have a really tough time just going and bringing in somebody else who doesn't have any background. They would have a much steeper learning curve as opposed to us trying to perhaps going through and, you know, target and go through and say, we're actually looking for somebody who's an attorney to fill the shoes of our zoning administrator position. It might also skew the, you know, picking applicants for the Development Review Board back a little bit more towards having attorneys on the board. I don't know. But that's not absolutely necessary, I don't think. Well, it did seem clear that they needed training that training was included throughout. So that could potentially be useful for any applicant. Doesn't necessarily mean that they would have to be an attorney. Yep. Yeah, but we always have to make sure, in a city full of attorneys. Yes. We always have to make sure that we are at least on par with, you know, some of these folks that come in who are neighbors may actually know more about the rules of discovery and evidence than we do. And, you know, that's going to be a challenge for us to make sure that we, you know, we are ready and our DRB is ready to make sure that if we're going to adopt these rules and follow these rules, you know, that if somebody wants to beat us up, that's what they want to beat us up on is that we didn't follow the rules. And so, yeah, a little bit more training. I have another hypothetical if I can. So, and I think he cited this example in memo. My neighbor wanted to put in a second driveway. To me, it was actually a fairly small project, but a lot of our neighbors protested. So, how would, like, how would that go? Because they did show up with interested parties, I think. And what extra layer would that require of the neighbors who want to put in an extra driveway? I think it, I mean, it depends on what those, it would depend on what those neighbors want to do and how they want to, you know, I'm just, I'm thinking about that project with, it will, it'll be really fact specific. It'll depend on what those neighbors are claiming, you know, in the instance of the application that you're referring to, a lot of what the neighbors were complaining about either weren't, you know, let me back up. So, one of the things with the rules of evidence applying is that anybody who's making claims that application doesn't meet with the regulatory requirements, they're gonna have to present some sort of evidence that it isn't just, hey, this is my thoughts on this, this is how I feel about it. They're gonna have to present something, I think that is some sort of documentation or at least, you know, here's a picture, here's the real distance. I think that's, you know, your neighbors are still gonna be able to complain about what you're doing. Whether or not, you know, they're still gonna have that incident party status. In that particular instance, I don't know how much it would have changed what happened. Other than probably the applicant would have a little more comfort when they got their permit that it wasn't gonna be appealed because the things that were all raised, you know, there weren't any procedural issues with them. It was all about, we don't agree that you can put this here because I don't like it. Yeah. Well, you don't like it, but you don't have a reason, you know, there's nothing in the regulations that says that they can't do this based on the facts that you're presenting. So there would be no basis for them to appeal. Yeah. Okay. If that answers your question enough. Yeah. No, it's not so helpful. People are still gonna be able to come up and complain. That's not gonna change. That's never gonna change. People are always gonna come and complain about what somebody else is doing. The whole, I think it's gonna alleviate a lot of worry, though, for applicants as to whether or not they have to worry about somebody appealing a permit just because they don't like what was done. Great. Thank you. That's helpful. Yeah. And the things we'll have to work out over time is how to handle requests within the rules of evidence. And there's gonna be a lot of a learning curve for us. You know, looking at the example of the two driveways if somebody came in and said, yeah, but that's not going to be safe. Not gonna create a safe intersection or it's not gonna create a safe access. The DRB may ask that, well, you're gonna have to present evidence. And then the question comes up, okay, how much time do we give the neighbors? Do we say, hey, if you don't provide it now, that's your opportunity? I would think probably not. I think the DRB is gonna have to provide an opportunity. And the question is gonna be, we want you to outline, they may not have an attorney or be an attorney, but we've got to kind of help steer them by going through and saying, okay, well, what are all your concerns? If your only concern is that you think this isn't safe, then we're going to give you two weeks or four weeks for you to hire a traffic engineer to provide us testimony that this is actually unsafe. And so that'll slow down the process, but this is the only opportunity they're gonna get to present this evidence. Obviously, we'd like to have the evidence at the time. You know, we warn the hearing, you should bring that evidence with you, but we're gonna have to delay projects to a certain extent to give people a window. And the question is, how much do people push back and say we want 60 days or 90 days to get this report? I think those are questions, we'll just have to wait and see how the process unfolds. But I think that's how it would be a little bit, the process may be a little bit different than the way it went. This time is that you would probably go in as in a butter or a neighbor and say, we think it's unsafe, we want an opportunity to hire somebody to bring evidence in and the DRB would give a date that would go through and say, it's 30 days sufficient because you're gonna have to give it to us, we're gonna have to give it to the neighbors so they can have their folks look at it and then we'll have a hearing six weeks from now to continue this hearing to answer this final question on whether it's safe. Or the other possibility is, if there's multiple issues like that, that's when you hold your, all right, we've turned this into a pre-hearing, this is an evidentiary hearing, we'll just deal with the evidentiary matters, what issues still need to be resolved and then postpone the actual decision-making and further discussion for however long? Four weeks, two weeks. So some of the procedural stuff that we were talking about, I think the example that Mike just gave, sort of, how do we handle pros and cons and provide them enough process to navigate sort of the DRB process, I think that makes a lot of sense and bringing that stuff can be codified and instead of rules for the DRB that I think sort of, it's reasonable. The question I have though is, in the recommendation section of the memo, and I think you talked about this a little bit, is that there might, you suggest adopting specific rules of evidence. And I think earlier in the memo, you point to the town of Shelburne during that. I didn't see that in the Shelburne stuff that they adopted any specific different rules of evidence, I think they adopted the rules of evidence in the civil rules of evidence throughout. I guess my point is, what specific issues are you concerned about by adopting the rules of evidence as they already exist? And I'm a little worried about doing that. I think tinkering with the rules of evidence in particular creates a whole, there's a lot of pitfalls there. And I mean, I think it can be done, but I think we need to be really careful about what issues we're trying to tackle by doing that. So, can you? I don't know if I would, I mean, this is something where, honestly, I didn't have time to go through all of them and figure out which would apply, which wouldn't. I mean, this is one of the, part of it is pointing the way other towns have done it, is they just have one paragraph that says we've adopted actuals of evidence. So then it's up to the applicant or whoever to then go find that information, read through it, try and understand it. If we have, here are, here's the, you know, my pillars, DRB, rules of discovery and evidence, and have, I mean, yeah, and in life part, it's gonna be a restatement. I still think having those resources in the same place is gonna be helpful for people. I would need to spend more time on it to figure out if there's anything, I don't know if we can change anything per se, so much as maybe, you know, have there be things that maybe we don't allow? Like, are we gonna allow depositions? Does that make sense? I don't know if that even makes sense to allow depositions. I mean, that's not a, that's not an evidentiary issue. That's a civil procedure issue. I'm just, I mean, I'm just trying to understand, so when you say in your recommendation that you want to adopt specific rules, it says, I also suggest adopting specific rules of evidence. I'm just trying to make sense of what that is. If that is just an exercise in making sure that we provide the specific sort of rules of evidence as part of the document that we're going to come up with, as opposed to just sort of saying, and we incorporate the rules of evidence, you know. That's just more, that was a number where I was going with it. Not just having, oh, we incorporate. Yeah. Because a lot of people are gonna redo that and just keep going. Okay, that makes perfect sense to me. I was just concerned that you were saying like, we need to sort of create our own rules of evidence. Aaron, Aaron, there is one exception that I see in these for Shelburne and also it's something that's allowed in the law. You can look at page 15 of Meredith's document, on number five there under the Shelburne rules. This is one thing the law allows for on the record review. It says that evidence not admissible under the Vermont Rules of Evidence may be admitted if it's of a type commonly replied upon by reasonable prudent people in the conduct of their affairs. And it's necessary to ascertain facts not reasonably susceptible of proof under the Rules of Evidence. Yeah, that's just to record from the APA. But there is that relaxation, but yeah, it's not pulling off on its own, it's legal. Yeah, but it's not like that verbiage just came out of nowhere. I mean, that's pulled straight from the APA and I think that's appropriate as well too. So I just want to make sure we didn't want to, we're not making up any new rules. Yeah, no, no, no, that's not what I was planning on doing. Perfect. It's more that just making sure that everything is laid out because it also makes sure and just put this added layer of transparency. This is what we're doing. This is what you can expect. And for the DRB members to have something easy that this is what I need to learn how to do and make sure I don't mess something up. Yeah, I think that's perfect. I mean, I'm all in favor of, I'd rather have more information built into whatever documents we end up approving and making it as user friendly as possible because I think you're right. I think we need to gear this towards like the privacy applicants that live in this world. I think that's completely fair. Okay, perfect, thank you. I just wanted to make sure I understood that. You're welcome, yeah. I mean, that's one of the things where I, like I said, I really, I want to talk to David or go through, make sure that we don't have, but there isn't something in there that just is completely inapplicable to a DRB decision that where we have leeway to adjust things, but in general, it would be a restatement. Maybe with, you know, there may be some places where we need to append and explain what something means and put note it for your standard applicant. Yeah, that makes perfect sense. I was just, I just, you know, I was like, I'm gonna like, we're not gonna get rid of like here's the rules and stuff. No, no, no, no. One, I'm not, I'm not messing with that too. I'm not gonna make my job harder than it already is. Right. I know what I have to do. Yeah, I hear you, all right. Yeah, I was more concerned about making sure that we get the process right to make sure that there is rules of evidence and we have a process that's gonna help the DRB and the applicants and the pro se neighbors and everybody to be able to walk through these fairly, you may not, you know, all the details of the rules of evidence may not be there, but the process is there to help them walk through it. And if their attorney's there, then so much the better they can, you know, if they wanna argue a detail, they can argue a detail, but we can at least for the most part follow a better process. Do we have, is there a rule of the DRB that exists right now? Yeah, there's current rules of procedure. We could just fold these into those, which having one document would probably be a great way to go if you're gonna make it much longer. But I think that would probably be the best way to go versus having multiple links that people have to click Right, so do we have feedback from the DRB? I think that's a big part of this. No, we haven't had, we've had one DRB meeting since last November, October, and we've had a major reshuffling of the DRB members. We've just, we've had four, well, one returning from the beginning of 2018 and three brand new DRB members in the last two months and chair turnover after the last election. So we're just, right now we're just trying to get them settled. They have their first major DRB hearing in a week with this new makeup. So, yeah, we haven't had a whole lot of discussion with them about this yet. This has been something the city has been moving towards for years, so. And for the first time in 20 plus years, we don't have an attorney as the chair. Yeah. So we'll do this at perfectly the wrong time, but you know. I think we have one attorney on the DRB now. I think we're done with one. Yeah. But even just having Phil Zallinger as the chair for ever and then Dan Richardson took over afterwards that, you know, we could have gotten away with this a long time ago on their knowledge, but this will force us to do what we should do anyways to make sure it's understandable to everybody. And then everybody is fully trained. Everybody's fully trained in a butters and everybody has a fair opportunity to participate because we will have to get to that discussion point that this as much as it's a streamlining, it's also, you know, there's a giving up of appeal rights and the city council and everyone's gonna have to weigh that. You know, I mean, part of the reason is, you know, it's happened over 20 years that a number of projects get appealed and die under appeal. And, you know, that I think was the impetus for going on to on the record review was that they wanted to get out of this. We do a good job, we do a really good job under DRB hearings, they get appealed and then it's two years in the environmental court and that gets up to the Supreme Court and it's another two years. And next thing you know is the projects died. And I think there's just an interest in saying, we do a good job. We should let the people in town make these decisions. And if there are procedural errors, we will rectify that. And if there aren't, those decisions should be allowed to let stand. And that's a policy and a political decision that, you know, you have to consider and the city council will have to make a decision on. So you're still thinking that we should vote on this before the DRB gives us any feedback though? It's, I would say it's the entire process is up to you. What we needed really was to start to take a big topic and start to focus it in. And, you know, the first question is, you know, are we going to be pursuing this? Should we continue to pursue this? It's been an item, but if you guys said you're not going to take it up, we don't need to go any farther. And if you said we think it should apply to everybody, then we can start going and doing that next step of seeing what that would mean and going and talking to the DRB and having some other input on that and to decide what we start to hear from other folks. And, you know, there's still, as we said, there'll still be an entire public hearing process. So even if you said, you know, we're not committing at this point to adopting it, we're just committing to go and say, yeah, we think we should go forward and we can have as the hearing, you know, we can develop a draft and we can give it to the DRB and kind of get their input. And you guys can make a decision at the hearing to not advance it to city council for consideration. If the findings came back that they really weren't in favor of going in that direction. Do folks have any more questions or comments? Want to start discussing it? Marcella, what are your thoughts? This might be sort of a basic question, but my understanding is that the delay that you were talking about, Mike, like if there's a complaint or concern about a project and the DRB says, okay, you have X amount of time to give us the evidence that that's the case, that is the type of thing that the parties would have to do at the appeal level anyway. And so it's just like moving it further up in the process. So to me, I don't know, that's, I see you shake your head, Seth, that's correct. Yeah, yeah. To me in a sense, it seems reasonable that you would do that during, as long as everybody, my main concern is that like people know about it that early in the game because like you don't usually get, I feel like you sometimes don't hear about projects until like the big appeal happens or like not at the very beginning when it's just with the local committees. So as long as people knew about projects and had the opportunity to engage at that time, it seems like a good idea to have that type of engagement happening locally and early on rather than after the fact. Well, I mean, everybody who is listed as a owner of property that's abutting, so that's both touching the parcel and anybody across the street or across a river from a parcel, they all get mailed notices that a DRB hearing is going to happen. You know, one, if this is just out of the field a little bit, but if, I don't know if this would be possible, Mike, I don't know how you would do this, but you could potentially open up, try to open up the list of who gets those notices. Maybe there's a way to include, tenants of those parcels, make sure you actually send notices to the apartment apartments and parcels addresses on that parcel and not just the owners of record of that parcel, because sometimes the owner is out of state or out of town, then you're even more apt to capture all interested parties. But as an example for the garage project, who is a, I don't know who, I don't know a ton about the appeal on that one, but who would have gotten notification of that? I mean, that was obviously, it's a downtown project, so it affects people that don't live next door to it. Yep, so the people who got a notice of the initial hearing would have been all of the adjoining property owners, so everybody touching it, everybody across the street, everybody across, well, they weren't that parcel, parcels involved didn't actually have river frontage, I don't think. Once people start commenting, coming to an initial hearing, we started adding them to interested parties lists and copying them on other notices. But if you wanted to expand who gets notices, we would need to change some of our regulations. But it wouldn't change who's an interested party, it just changes how many people are made aware of it upfront. Yeah. Because they're still under state law, the definition of an interested person is still an interested person and you'd have to meet one of those required pieces to get those additional rights. I mean, probably anyone has a right to say something, but as the DRB weighs evidence, they're gonna weigh things based on who's an interested party and who's gonna actually be damaged or impacted by the development. Yeah, I mean, there's only so many people you can track down who would get that initial notice. You can't cover everybody who could potentially claim an interested party status. The minimum required under statute is to mail that notice to all of the abutting property owners. And to have the notice in the newspaper. And the notice in the newspaper and posted on the property, but I mean, the notice getting mailed to individual entities. You know, we cover as much as we can in a reasonable manner as required by statute. We could, like I said, we could add that extra layer making sure we send a notice also to every E911 address associated with every adjacent parcel. So that's gonna cover a few more people. Outside of that, I don't know any other way to broaden the notice with only a reasonable amount of additional work. But yes, I think you're right. Your initial comment, I think you were right about the fact that the requirement for them to go and to put that delay in, you know, a 30 day or a 60 day delay at the local process is probably in the long run worth it when weighed against the fact that that same process would probably take six to nine months in courts. So it's probably one of these ones that a local applicant would probably grumble about the fact that the DRB just put a, you know, a 30 day or a 60 day continuance, but at the same time in the long run, the fact that that evidence is meeting the environmental court's guidelines means that that decision that is made won't be appealable to environmental court. So yes, I agree with your look at that. Do you have any other thoughts? I mean, how are people thinking of how motivated are we to try to do something about this tonight and move it forward to a hearing and what details, what everyone liked to see, you know, included if we do move it to a hearing? So just procedurally, I think it, does it make sense to have a draft developed for us to look at our next meeting and then we can decide. So we could say at this meeting, we're comfortable with this idea. We want to move forward, make a couple of the smaller decisions and then let Merida put something together for what the official one would look like. And then we can look at that again before we'd have a hearing. That makes sense to me. I think I'd need something a little bit more definitive to look at, but I think we could certainly move on a general direction. So are we thinking of like a draft document creating it and also like some DRB rules drawn up? Or is that going to be even possible for Merida to be able to do in a couple of weeks? That's not going to be happening. And I'm just going to lay it out. I'm probably not going to be even touching this for, I don't know, a month, to be honest, unless more staff suddenly comes back, which we're not scheduled to have additional staff back until July. So Merida, in the short term, what's helpful to you? So I, it would be helpful to know one, whether or not you're interested in even moving forward with this at all. Two, whether you're on board with having the, on the record review apply to all DRB decisions, like drafted up that way, if I want to get to drafting it versus trying to narrow down and parts out some other. And then, I think that probably what I would want to do and have to present to you would be the full package. So that would be the full package of what would need to be in there to get this adopted. So your resolution, the revised, what needs to be revised in the zoning regulations and your new DRB rules of procedure with evidence incorporated. That would be the packet I would want to present to you once I know what scope you're looking for. And we'll work this out timing-wise, based on our, as I said, our workload. I mean, our initial thought was like, well, if this doesn't take a lot of work, then we can move it forward. If I'm not going to use this or let this delay the design review rules, if we get to a point where it's like our ability to have public hearings is opening up, we can have more public input, we want to warn the design review, get those adopted and we're not ready on ORR yet. Okay, we move forward with design review and on the record review, we'll wait till the fall and we'll work on it as we get, as we get time, we will start to pull things together and piece it together. But we have no idea what the workload is going to be. This is going to be kind of an unpredictable year with what happens with the economy? Does everything kind of crash like 2008 or does development just keep chugging along and we get our staff back and we get back to work? I mean, it's possible we're in a current permit bubble where everybody waited, waited and now they're getting their permits through and then we're not going to get any new ones because all the people who could do projects shove them all through in the same month and a half. In which case, I'm going to have time on my hands and I'll have lots of bandwidth to deal with this and move it forward really quickly. Or we could just keep getting permit applications. So how much of a lift would it be if we were interested in trying to limit the on record review to the types of projects that are larger, like something like the fence and the driveway projects to not include those? How much of a lift would it be for you to develop a workable way to do that? I think that's probably Mike and me and maybe some of the DRB weighing which kinds of applications makes sense. It has to be black and white. That's the only, it can't be, we make a decision at the time. It usually has to be, I've known some other places that only Act 250 projects would go through only projects over a certain value. So probably it has to be worth a certain amount. It has to at least be a $200,000 construction project before it would go through a million or a million. Yeah, like a bright line either value and or square footage. So two questions. Number one, do either of you, Meredith or Mike, have an opinion about what an appropriate scope of on record review might be? And second, if you do, do you have any recommendations in terms of what those bright lines might be to make those decisions? Because I have no idea. And I wouldn't, I mean, if what you're asking, Meredith, you know, are we interested in moving forward? I can say sure I am, but I don't know in terms of what the scoping issues, I just don't really have a good basis to understand that. So that's kind of what I meant. I was laughing because in my initial memo, I had actually proposed a chunk that maybe made sense to have just those be reviewed. And then Mike and I talked and I said, well, it's not gonna be that many. So let's just, let's try to apply it all so that we don't have confusion at the DRV. So if we were gonna do a bright line, I personally think that it would make sense to have very specific categories that get the on the record review. So probably any conditional use applications, no matter what size of the project, because that usually involves your reign against the character of the neighborhood, you have all sorts of other factors that come in. I would probably do anything that's a major site plan. So that's a new building, you know, 2000 square foot addition, things like that. We already have these square footage amounts. So major site plan, yes, that has to go through on the record review. And appeals. Yeah, all appeals. So appeals of administrative permits or appeals of design review committee decisions, those would be on the record review. I think I would do subdivisions as on the record review. You know, you run into a question of, do you, does it have to be a subdivision of, you know, does it have to be more than one parcel? Because we've had a lot of one person who wants to subdivide a tiny, one tiny little parcel into two parcels. We already have some issues with our subdivision regulations where they're going through this really big analysis that's meant to apply to a multi-unit subdivision. But in general, you could draw that bright line there. Anything that's a subdivision on the record review, then to capture your strange outliers, then you throw in maybe the dollar value. So all of these categories that are currently things that have to go to the DRB, plus projects that are of, you know, a million or more, whatever number makes sense. I don't have enough experience in this business to say what that number value is. I think Mike would be better at coming up with that number value is. That's how I would break it up if we were gonna split it. That's really helpful. And I guess the follow-up question, I'm not doing this to be problematic. I'm just trying to get a sense of all this stuff. Is there a reason why you think everything else outside of what you've just listed, why this approach would not be beneficial over the status quo? Because I'll just say that my concern is, is if we do it that way, you sort of have a two tiered system when going through this. And I think that's doable, but it does create a certain level of complexity that just sort of instinctively, I think it's good to avoid. So I just like to get a sense of why we might do that. Well, okay. Now I'm confused. So we've presented the why on the record review is beneficial. Right. In general. You know, the two tiered approach ultimately, I mean, it's a cost benefit. Do you want to create more complexity and potentially more confusion? Or do you wanna potentially have the more strenuous evidentiary rules and process applied to the smaller projects that have to go to the development review board anyway? It's, you know, that's the why in the memo after discussing that conundrum with Mike, we ended up saying, we think it would make more sense to have on the record review applied to everything that goes before the DRV. But ultimately, your guidance on how you wanna do that is what I need so I can figure out how to draft this up. You know, our recommendation is to apply on the record review to everything. That goes before the development review board. There are ways to split it up if you want to. Yeah, I think I'm just, I think I'm in the same place that you guys are. I mean, that's just kind of what it comes down to. So it's just you talking about it as well. Okay. Yeah, we thought, we've kind of chewed it over and we thought putting everything through because it's gonna avoid somewhere down the line where somebody comes up with a project that goes to the DRV and it goes as a non on the record. And then in the process of the application being reviewed, there's a discussion and an amendment made that makes it have to meet major site plan. You know, they didn't think they were gonna have to meet major site plan. Now they are gonna have to meet major site plan and they're all the way into this process. And because now it's major site plan, they're kicked into onto record review. They gotta go back to the start so we can change. And it just wouldn't make sense to have this dual process because inevitably somebody's gonna come up with a process where they get kicked around. Well, there's that. There's also the, in an application, sometimes you have, you know, somebody's applying to change your use on a property. There's gonna be an office use. There's gonna be a, and there's also gonna be commercial. The office use is permitted there, not a problem. The commercial use is conditional use. So only the conditional use part has the on the record review applied to it. Okay, so how do you apply on the record review to just part of an application when the whole thing goes before the development review board? Or do you say, well, all we're gonna send to the development review board is the conditional use aspect. How do you weigh that when you need to review the parking for the entire project? So having on the record review applied to the entire application that every application that goes before the development review board simplifies the process and avoids complexity that can trip up the development review board which then leads to more appeals. So I guess we just need, I need confirmation that you guys are all good with applying on the record review to everything. That way, I know what I'm drafting. Is anyone in favor of, in light of what we just heard is anyone in favor of still trying to investigate whether we want to split it up somehow? So like, if there's not interested parties, I guess I just don't really know enough unfortunately about how it works but you said more strenuous evidentiary rules. But that wouldn't apply to like the fence project if there's no interested parties. Well, some of them would still apply. They'd still need to make sure that there was sufficient documentation, that everything they submitted was properly labeled in compliance with the evidentiary rules. There's still some stuff that's gonna apply but not to the degree of another, interested parties suddenly saying, oh, but what about X, Y and Z document? I'm gonna insist on discovery or I'm going to ask for this extra 60 days so I can get my competing expert to provide a report that contests what you've said about the traffic impacts. Okay, so like for the fence project, you might have to be more sort of careful and thorough in your documentation but you wouldn't necessarily have to like hire additional professionals or, okay, all right. Exactly. Then I'm fine, I'm personally fine with having it applied to all in that case. Yeah, I am too and I also think that even if you don't have any other additional interested parties that what it does is it gives the city records something that can be looked at later, could be reviewed by someone in the future and really know what happened in a particular application because now sometimes it's not clear. Well, I've been trying really hard to make it clear in the last two years. No, no, no, I'm talking about what you're looking for. Oh, no, no, I know. Trust me, I've been when I have to, when somebody calls and they're asking about what's happened on some property or when I have to look up the permit history for something when I'm doing a report for a new permit, there are times when I pull it up and even the minutes from that meeting have almost nothing and there's no site plan in there and I have no idea what actually happened. Right, yeah. So I hear you. So if we could avoid that kind of thing, if we could have better documentation, if nothing else. Yep, agreed. And have it required so that when the zoning administrator changes, you don't suddenly have a change in how those records are kept. Yes. We have more thoughts. Not pretty soon. So are there any, are we taking any formal votes or, I mean, I would say I think at this point I'm supportive of it after reading the memo and hearing what we discussed tonight, sounded like people wanted to see some documents in the future sometime before doing an actual vote. Okay, good. Okay. Yeah. We'll have at least one more meeting before we have a hearing and whether that's a meeting in June or July or August, whenever we have something ready for you, we can come back and we won't know that until we know how the applications go and how staffing, how long it takes to get staff back. We really didn't get into it too much, but we, Meredith and I are pretty much the department. So the building inspector is on furlough, Kevin Casey's on furlough and Audra's half on furlough. So there are even a little more than half. Yeah, she's down to like 80% furlough, I think, 80, 85%. So a majority, almost everything is coming through my desk or Meredith's desk at this point. So, depending on workload and when everybody comes back, if we get staff back in June and July, then that'll make a big difference. If permits slow down, then this will be my next highest priority because other committees that I staffed are on hiatus until at least July. This is the next thing after permits for me. So how about we just, as a planning commission, just go through what we would like to see when we go to look at it in the future? Like for instance, one little pet issue of mine would be to get some idea of how we're going to inform participants or potential participants of what the hearing's like and what's at stake. Like I'd like to see what we're gonna do for that. I know other people said other things I'd like to see. So go ahead and let Meredith know folks, what you wanna see. Would it be relatively easy to see the requirements of an applicant, what they would need to bring to that initial presentation? Like an example of what they would bring? Not necessarily just maybe like a list. Yeah, I'm just trying to think, it'd be nice to know like how much more complicated it's gonna get for them. Yeah, I honestly don't think it's, in most of the time, I don't think it's gonna get that much more complicated other than that we'll be insisting on more labels. Like right now, sometimes the application is the regular forms and then it's an email of a bunch of pictures and some email communications back and forth and that's the application package. If it's going before, depending on how clear it is what the pictures are, right now I already label some of them myself. So it might be more of a, if you're submitting photos, we need you to put them in a Word document and label them for us. Because if we're requiring that from everybody, that's a lot more time on our plates that we might not have to fill in those details for somebody. Yeah, we can do that. Okay. So this might be kind of silly, but I think it's worth just making it clear for everybody. I was just coming back to Meredith's needs that she said, like once you wanted to know if we were on board with going forward with this and second whether or not we should scope it, who's on degree or include everything. So I think maybe it's probably helpful to just resolve those two things really quickly. So I would assume we're all in favor of moving forward, but this project, correct? Yeah, I mean, I kind of informally determined on the reception that no one voice opposition. Right, I just figured we'd just make it clear. And the second is that you'd want to scope this thing in a certain way or do the whole nine yards, everything in. Yeah, so that's what we're talking about now about what exactly we'd like to personally see. I mean, I think one thing that would be most helpful would be Meredith had said that she wanted a resolution with the details of what we would send to the city council. So I guess that would be helpful. Would you be able to draft this resolution with the? The resolution's simple. Okay, yeah. I mean, it's, it's, it'd be very similar to the Shelburne resolution. Right. And then I don't, I mean, we don't need a, I don't think I need amended zoning regulations to look at, but maybe an outline of what we would amend. What are, what's everyone's thoughts on that? Yeah, I think that would be helpful just to, because we labored so long over the zoning that it would be good to know what changes might be required. It's mostly the procedural provisions, but yeah, we can definitely come up with a list of that. And then, you know, for other things from Meredith Memo that she said that we would need to amend the DRB's rules of procedure and related to that as separate rules of evidence if we need to adopt those. I don't think I need to see anything. I'm actually pretty satisfied looking at the ones from Shelburne. If we're, if just, if loosely, if our, if our tentative plan is to kind of base it off of what Shelburne did, that would be fine with me. We can look at that, but what are other people's thoughts about DRB rules? I think in a perfect world, there would just be the details as possible to help walk applicants through the process, as best we can without being over limiting, you know, but we'll see how that goes. I think Shelburne's stuff seems okay. I don't know if, I don't know how much, if there's any problems with it or whatnot, but it seems fairly user friendly. It might be a little too generalized in some ways, but that's just my kind of gut feeling about it. But if it works, I think it's a good template. Yeah, I mean, that's, it would be something where I look at what they have. I go back, I look at the original rules of evidence more in detail and then see what, what makes sense to try and elaborate on and clarify for people. You know, the Shelburne's biggest problem from the input I've gotten is that they had issues with so many applications having to go through the process and it seemed overkill to them, but I also don't think that they have winnowed down what can be approved administratively like we have. So they just have a lot more applications that go to the DRB anyway. Yeah, I mean, 20 applications over two meetings a month for 12 months, you know, that's 24 meetings. That's, you know, even if this takes two meetings for an application that's, you know, we've got months that won't have, don't have any applications right now. And you're gonna basically on average over an entire year, probably average one application a meeting is where we're at right now. Of course, usually it doesn't land that way. You usually end up with two and then none and then three and then none. Okay, so do you guys need any more from us for direction? I don't think so. As long as nobody wants to step into the pool of Act 250 review, then I'm good. Which we don't get very many Act 250 applications. So it really isn't a big deal. So I think we would tackle that at a future date if somebody was really interested, but Act 250 has its own rounds of appeals. So I think to try to streamline the permit process and attach it to Act 250 is kind of self-defeating because somebody just won't appeal the local permit. They'll just appeal the Act 250 permit because it's not, there is no on the record Act 250. So yeah. Yeah, thank you. Do we have anything else before we adjourn? No, I mean, I don't think so. I mean, I would just mention, obviously with the whole coronavirus, the intern we were hoping to get, we're not gonna get because we had to do all the budget cuts. So it doesn't look like that's gonna happen. We're hoping maybe if everything works out perfectly we would get it for a couple of weeks at the end of the summer, but it doesn't look likely. We'll have to have some discussions probably at some point and we'll figure out whether we need to have another hearing. Maybe we go to once a month and we'll see where the schedule goes. But certainly if things come up we can certainly have meetings. And as the rules loosen up a little bit we can start having meetings where the public can attend or we can have city council chambers open but we'll wait and see and we'll decide when to warn the design review rules. But I wanna make sure we've gotten opportunity for the public to participate. I just, I think it's, changing design review rules has always been contentious. And I think I don't want anyone to think we try to sneak it through by warning hearings during a COVID shutdown. So I wanna make sure people have the opportunity to come out and voice their comments if they have them. And we'll wait till we can open council chambers before we have that hearing. Well, and Mike, I mean since the development review board is gonna be starting next week and as long as we'll see what the public governor's orders get amended or expired we're gonna be allowing people to come into council chambers a limited number with social distancing in place. So we can also see how that all pans out over the next four weeks or so for the next couple of DRB hearings if anybody even shows up. And that might give you an idea of how you might be able to hold the hearings on the design review regulations. I think that's another thing we're gonna really want but next time we just talk about the on record review is we're gonna want to hear from the DRB. I mean, I think ideally someone from the DRB would be there when we talk about it next time. But if not, at least some kind of like, you know feedback passed along. Yep. Yeah, I had that on my list. Get DRB thoughts, draft them. Also reach out to see if maybe Kate and Kevin so chair and vice chair could attend cause Kevin's been on the DRB for so long and keeps the current chair and so familiar with the process and has been doing planning for, I don't know how many years. So I'm sorry, I have to go. Do we have any other issues to come up here? That was all I had. Okay, we can go on an adjourn. Bar, motion to adjourn. Yes, yes. Give us a second. I'll second, I'm unmuted. Second by Stephanie. Okay, all in favor of adjourning? Aye. Okay, all opposed? Okay, we adjourned then.