 Good evening everyone. I'm going to call this meeting to order of the City of Montpelier Development Review Board for our normal scheduled meeting on Monday November 19th 2018. My name is Dan Richardson. I serve as the chair. The other members from my right are Rob Goodwin, Kevin O'Connell, Deb Markowitz, Meredith Crandall, Staff, Kate McCarthy, Tom Kester, Ryan Kane, Clare Rock. Okay the first item of business is approval of the agenda. Does anybody have an addition to the agenda or a motion to approve the agenda is printed? So moved. Motion by Kevin. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Kate. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor of the agenda is printed. Please raise your right hand. We have our agenda. There are no comments from the chair tonight. The next item of business is approval of the minutes from September 17th in attendance for myself, Kate, Brian, Rob, and just the four of us. Do I have a motion for the September 17th minutes from the members that were present and eligible to vote? I move to approve the September 17th minutes as drafted. Okay motion by Ryan. Second by Rob. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor of approving the September 17th minutes that are eligible to vote please raise your right hand. We have September 17th minutes officially on the books. Next set of minutes is from November 5th 2018 in attendance for Kevin, Tom, Ryan, Rob, Deb, and Claire. Do I have a motion for those minutes or amendments to make? I have amendments. Okay. I wish to just to reflect that yourself and Kate McCartney were not there at the meeting as it states in the comments from the chairs as Dan has recused himself. I just put the record that you the both of you were not at that meeting and had made known to the board as well as to Meredith that you would not be there. Just add in a not from the line. Correct. Yes. As well as I guess the characterization of some of the testimony that was given by the engineers at the meeting. I believe that that this is a, you know, a paraphrasing a synopsis so that it I want to mountain to the molehills but when you have engineers who put their, you know, their license on the line, I just want to make sure that we don't put things say things that are not there such as the second page where it says Lynn and Marshall then detailed detailed why the professional why their professional opinions are about something being when, as I recall from the meeting, they were perhaps more nuanced and such. But I don't know if that's a correction, but just rather that that be known that their testimony perhaps was not as exacting and that the recording and such can can more specifically articulate what their opinions were. But I think just just to make that known in in lieu of detailed. Is there some other such as stated? I think detailed. I don't know if I would agree with that and I believe they were asked to give their their professional opinions. I don't know if they were exactly what they what they said they came back. So that was and and there were there's the two as I recall there were two different engineers and the first engineer gave an imprecise answer. Yes. So then the second engineer was asked and he gave a very precise answer. Then we went back to the first engineer who agreed with that precise answer. So so he made a more nuanced explanation of what makes a river channel. Yes. And then I asked again. Well, you know, you know, do you have a conversation, you know, and and they both in their professional judgment said that that the river was channel. I guess if the record can reflect that can reflect that sort of procedure that I as I had at the birth, the engineer from DNK said that was channelized to some degree. And then the second engineer came in and then the engineer from DNK then talked, you know, agreed with that as long as the record can reflect that in our minutes that that effect that what we need to have reflected is there's so the first engineer talked about channel it what it's you know, whether it's channelized using the term as a term of art. And but then the question came back to is it channelized for the purpose of the regulation? And so that's what they then answer to that for the purpose of the regulation. It is considered channelized. And that's because of the his because it's channelized on the other side and bloody by, you know, they gave the whole song. So maybe that's the nuance. I agree with Davis as long as the record. Yeah, I would have the record reflected as devs were counting. Does other people do other people remember it in the same way? No, I do. Yeah, this was my trying to fill in in as few words as possible when the person who actually did the minutes completely had it wrong. So I think we I can add it that in. Do you guys want to see that again? This do you want to see the redraft? I think as long as it's understood sort of the ways that dev is characterizing that the engineer from Du Bois and King gave his presentation, there's a little bit more nuance. I think it was to some degree. And then the engineer came up and then the engineer from Du Bois and King then reiterated that his agreement with the opinion of the second engineer as to the channelization of the river. Okay, I think it's important in any time and minutes. And I think those corrections are very good to if they reflect the accurate back and forth. You know, we've historically gone back and forth between how detailed the minutes have to be. You know, we had at one point almost verbatim transcriptions and that got to be a bill lengthy and didn't serve the purpose, which is essentially just to summarize the exchanges that take place and to give a sort of official. This is what we talked about generally as opposed to something being held. That said, you know, we should always be accurate. And it sounds like this this particular section needed a little bit extra clarification. Anything else? Yes, I think that the call to order the meeting was called to order by you. I should say I don't know if I know chair. Yep. Anything else? Uh, let me suggest then that I think people seemed comfortable with the sort of amendments that Meredith would add to the minutes to flush out Tom's concerns that if we make those three changes, which is add acting chair to the meeting was called to order by Kevin O'Connell, acting chair, acting vice chair, acting. No, I think it's when he's sitting there, he's acting chair and acting chair. According to the procedural rules, it's acting vice chair. I second which is why it says acting vice chair further. Okay. Okay. Uh, then a line that says, you know, that recognizes that Kate and I were not present. And then, um, and then a beefing up according to Tom's comments and Deb's comments as to the testimony regarding channelization. Yep. So if those changes are made, is there a motion to accept those the minutes with those amendments? So moved motion by Tom. Do I have a second? Second that second by Rob. All those eligible to any further discussion hearing none. All those eligible to vote on the November 5th minutes that would be Kevin, Tom, Ryan, Rob, Deb and Claire. Please raise your right hand. Minutes are approved as amended. And on to the central business of tonight. Let's start with one home farm way. Connor brother applicants. Good evening. If you would state your names for the record, please. Just to introduce the reason why we're back in again, we are in negotiations with the perspective tenant. Oh, sorry, Fred. Could you just state your names for the record? And Jeff Alasky was also consulting engineers. Okay, so let's put you guys under oath, and then I'll let you go into the introduction. Do you solemnly swear affirm that testimony you'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 do. Very good. So Fred, please. Sorry. No, no problem. So we're back again tonight at the request of a prospective tenant to add square footage to the building in the form of a minor addition, which will still make us smaller than we originally originally came to the board for. And we're respecting the request of approval of that. I'm in the tonight and I'll be glad to ask Jeff to outline what the what the requested edition involves. Sure. So just to turn it with attention to sheet 2.0. Actually, while thinking about it, there was some minor amendments per staff comment from there that we were able to address prior to the just want to formally submit those and some mental information. I think the plan and layout is consistent with what in front of everybody there. There was just some more clerical errors regarding the zoning regulations and whatnot that we amended. So to clarify, we obviously permitted in the past new building addition on the rear portion of one home far away here and some additional parking and site improvements. Those were under construction substantially complete at this point. There's some still a little cleanup work to do in the spring, but the building is shell is constructed in place. And for those of you who were part of this board in the past with the sites, we've had a couple permitting processes with this property building, ultimately got to building footprints, I'll say for lack of better term, kind of permitted to the board at two different points. One was if you look at the plan, you see this larger dashed line. And that goes around the building addition here. That was the original largest size building footprint that we got approved initially with this project. And in total, it was a little over 16,000 square feet in size. As part of the revised scope and repermitting of this property, we ultimately scaled the building size down to the 12,722 square foot is kind of shown as existing right now, which is just the kind of same same shape just scaled down a little bit. And that was what was ultimately permitted and constructed, currently constructed our property right now. What we're currently looking for, as far alluded to as a potential of the building addition to that footprint based on our perspective tenant for the building, we need a little more space for I think it's a cooler storage area of some sorts, and represents this kind of dark shaded box that you see here, that's a little by 3000 square foot addition to the currently built structure. I think what Fred was alluding to is if you combine the the constructed building footprint in this addition that we're proposing, that total square footage is still less than the overall original building size and scope. So the layout and function of everything else is still the exact same. We're just looking for this building addition. We are seemingly close to both the side setback and floodplain limit on the South East corner of that building and certainly be taking care of some of those site and grading plans to account for that. But beyond that, I think the building addition applies to all the zoning regulations. As far as the clarification, the plan was just submitted, understanding that some zoning regulations had changed from when this project was originally permitted. We had updated the zoning requirements and the new regs and updated this, you know, the building setback and whatnot. But because ultimately, our conversation with staff on merit it, that this is amendment to the previous approved site plan, we're actually still following under the previous zoning regulations. So we just put those back to the original setbacks and updated this that clarified the 2011 zoning regulations that were essentially being reviewed under. So I think that was the gist of the changes. I can't clarify one other thing or what one discussed on their topic. Marietta highlighted a couple of additional things that I think she wanted us to be prepared to discuss tonight. One was the addition of one additional parking space during construction out there. And I believe I'm correct in saying I believe it's this one parking space right here on this this parking area here was part of the original approved site plan. And we had relocated this dumpster patch enclosure, fence enclosure had been relocated a couple of times as part of this relay out. And when it was ultimately positioned here, apparently during construction, our plan showed a little three or four foot green strip between that, that pad in the paved parking area. And when they were ultimately decided to construct in and put this parking area in place, they decided to just pave all the way to the concrete pad and add one more parking space there. I think it was a little bit was just a constructability standpoint. And we'll say from a practicality standpoint, having a small, you know, green strip between the fenced end enclosure that parking may not have really provided a whole lot of opportunity for that vegetation to stay or be maintained. So I think it was just a practical implementation on the contractor's part. I will also point out that even with the inclusion of that parking space, we still fall under the total impervious area that was originally permitted on the site. So that's a little bit explanation on how that transpired. Lastly, the one comment I believe is she requested copies of our state, both stormwater construction discharge permits. We did supply copies. Those were obtained. The construction permit has lapsed the site stabilized right now. So ultimately, if we're we move forward with this building addition, we'll probably just renew that construction general permit when we get out there to construct. And ultimately, if this is approved tonight, we also will be just simply filing an amended site plan for what our state discharge permit to see if there's any changes needed in that plan. It's really something to follow through with regardless. We don't see issues, again, mainly because overall, it's previously right now, was reduced. Understanding that we also permitted with the state the largest building footprint originally. Anyway, that's a summary. I'm happy to turn over the board for questions. Just just one initial question. The the blackened area is the dimensions of the proposed addition. Correct. Yes. And I also see on the plan that I'm holding that has existing concrete pad to be removed pointing to the same area. Is it is it the same area? Or is it a subset of that? Yeah, it may be hard to see underneath, but they're there's essentially exit door on the back of this existing building. And so we had a five by five. Okay, just a small it's a small. Yeah, it's a small little box. And obviously, we're feeling that would be all. Yeah, sure. No, I understand. I just want to. So you made an earlier point about the setback and the the flood zone. This building bumps right up against those boundaries. Is that right? And then these are the old boundaries under the pre 2018 zoning bylaws. Well, the ones that you see in your handout, yeah, are the current 2018 boundaries. The setback for the setbacks. The only setbacks that are the only setbacks that are changed by going back to the 2011 setbacks are the rear and the front. Okay. So the rear setback is actually under the old 2011 regs is actually 20 feet. The front setback is 50 feet. But we're not having any changes within those issues. It was more of a record keeping, making sure that the final plat has the correct setbacks on it. Right. Okay. So it it doesn't really impact the change in this area, which is the one essentially that we're on. So on this building, this addition, would there be any access from the rear? Or is this essentially the end of the building would be non accessible? I don't believe so. Possibly pedestrian access in the event of an emergency, a fire, but not there's going to be no paving or any sidewalks or anything out there. And then this won't was this where were there any plantings or vegetation scheduled for this area? When you say there's a pedestrian access, I'm looking at this this drawing and almost what's hard to tell because this may be elevation lines. Would that be on the side? If I'm if I'm standing on the property next door and I'm looking at the at the new addition, would the pedestrian access be on the side or would it be right facing me? It's going to be a sprinkler building. It is a sprinkler building with a fire alarm system. So I'm just talking about a five by five pad for exiting the building in the event of an emergency, not okay. Not anything dramatic. Probably something similar to that five by five pad that we're removing is just an emergency exit requirement. This is a one story building, correct? The new addition part anyway. As I recall previously, we had discussion last month about a backup generator. Is that in this area? It's shown on it was shown on a plan essentially just to the southwest side of the loading area here. So that pad there is moving location. Okay, that hasn't changed at all. So really it's just this building addition in the one parking space. What about this drainage? There's a kind of existing plan. There's a drainage swell that goes from kind of one side of the proposed addition through the proposed addition and out. Like how is this going to affect drainage? Essentially it functions the same way. Just it's any rooftop here would be directed to this way. But what about from water from like the northeast of the proposed addition? Like in here. Essentially this would just sheet flow. The parking area drains to where? I'm especially the parking area to the north. Generally drains to a catch base located in the middle of it as it kind of always has. We're permitting this storm water discharge permit with the state. Ultimately we did a little bit of a site balancing disconnect exercise with them. And so ultimately we treated the existing building, proposed building and all this parking area here through the implementation of these two grass whales here and some retention at the end. And the two catch basins and drainage across all this parking here just discharged directly out to the north as it always currently has. So there's that amount of water that's now just going to sheet to the east, I guess, from that little bit of area that's now disconnected from that drainage swale. It's just that area that would be moved, the water would be going. Yeah, the building will essentially be treating to disconnect this paved strip, which is the access of loading off essentially. We just put a small two percent cross slope on it and then we essentially equal the same width with just flat grass area as a simple disconnection for that. So that would be that treatment process and then the building in this parking lot all gets treated to the grass whales around the perimeter here. Any other questions? Will this require a change to any of your state permits? The only one would be potentially the states don't want a discharge permit and again we're thinking it's more or less of an administrative process just based on understanding again we're reducing the amount of pervious area and obviously treating some of the drainage patterns slightly, but we'll ultimately have that conversation with A&R. We didn't want to go down that road until we knew we had the changes here. So we may just condition what we need to do. Just having that filed, that's what Department of Public Works asked for. Would it be a condition that would require them to file their updated state storm water permit with the city? Yep. And you have no problem with that? As long as we could just say that if one is required because the state may simply say that it's not a substantial change in that you know there the existing state permit is valid still. Potentially I don't know. The state would avoid an opportunity. I didn't say a board. Okay, so obviously if there's no amendment there's nothing to be filed and senility. Any other questions or concerns from the board? I mean this is a pretty minor amendment and straight forward it seems like. Does this have any effect on the landscape plan that you had previously? No. The focus mainly on that was around the larger proposed parking lot and the river buffer corridor here. Right. And if my recollections correct the abutting landowner behind the building that's forested area right now or at least has some vegetation? Yeah, we don't have that property. It's pretty much an open field to the rear of our property boundary. There are trees to the left. But I'm thinking to the east here. There are some trees on the southeast side of that. Okay. If any member of the board wishes to make a motion. Mr. Chair, I will move that the board approved the site plan amendment at one home farm way. We accept a friendly amendment to add the condition that if a storm water permit update is required such will be filed with the city. I accept that friendly amendment. Thank you. Excellent. Any further discussion? Mr. Chairman, I would also add that all conditions of the previous approval remain in full force and effect as well. Right. Because that would impact the expiration date versus issuing a brand new permit. Oh, right. That's where those conditions are at the end of the staff report. Well, that's will the moving parties accept that friendly amendment, the second friendly amendment as well. Yes, thank you. All right. Hearing that, any further discussion? All those in favor, please raise your right hand. Happy permit in 30 days. Thank you all very much. Happy Thanksgiving. Thank you very much. Next item of business is sketch plan review for National Life Insurance Company 155 Northfield Street. Good evening. If you'll state your name for the record. Chris Jorenka with Chase and Chase Surveyors. Hi Chris. So just to explain our process on sketch plan review, when we do a subdivision, this is the first step. We won't put you under oath. This is mainly an opportunity for us to proverbially to kick the tires of the application and to ask questions and to see what needs to be fleshed out or what issues we may have for you to make a determination. So it's an informal process. It used to result in us making a vote as to whether we would combine a certain process down the road. But in this case, it does not. It's just simply opportunity for you to hear and the necessary first step. So what I'll have you do is walk us through the proposed application, as well as any issues that you foresee and ways that you've addressed them for yours. So National Life would like to subdivide. I believe you have it in your package. Essentially two acre parcel surrounding the property. Happens all the time. Thanks. So they'd like to subdivide a parcel of land around the existing preschool that has been operated by the Orchard Valley School on the property to enable them to convey the land fee simple to the to the operators of the school. The school as well as a sole solar farm in the community garden occupy approximately 18 acres of land owned by National Life that is held as a standalone fee simple parcel. The property was acquired in 68, has never been merged with the adjoining lands of National Life. Yeah, folks have to bear with me. I've had a cold for a week. There's been never been any action on the part of National Life to merge those parcels. The listers have combined them as the term they use for taxation purposes but it is a standalone parcel that National Life could choose to sell in its entirety at any point in time without coming to you folks for any kind of approval. So it's that parcel that we have focused on it's that parcel that we have treated as the parent parcel of the tract with the remaining the lot to with a solar farm and the community garden being the 15.8 acres reflected on the overall parcel map inset. There are no changes proposed to the operation of the school whatsoever. It's currently permitted for 24 students and four staff through the state wastewater permit process. There is one late addition that I was unaware of. It was a result of a question I posed after the application was filed with National Life. There is a one bedroom apartment in the building as well. It's not well clear well spelled out in the state wastewater permit. It refers to the conversion of one unit of a duplex for the school purposes doesn't really address the existing the existing at the time and continues existing apartment but once you look more closely at the actual flows that were permitted it's clear that it does include the apartment. So that is there and that was not I don't believe reflected on the sketch plan application and that will continue that would be to continue that use as well. A couple of questions that we had going through the process and preparing what you see in front of you were one getting the board's blessing on not having to survey the entirety of the balance of that piece. It was surveyed in 1957 just prior to National Ice acquiring the property. That survey is on record again it's it's a considerably more work and more expensive national life. We have to survey the whole thing if the board feels it's necessary certainly that that is what we'll have to do. We'd like to at least make the pitch that it that we've done what you see in front of you is what was being necessary to get to guarantee your blessing. Well you haven't surveyed have you done any reconnoitering to see if any of the pins are still there. We've surveyed the lines immediately adjacent to the parcel we're creating two and a half acres and some out beyond it to verify that the lots we've tied in we we have met our our statutory obligations as surveyors relative to the two acre parcel that is being subdivided. Okay so the the actual two acre parcel you've done the survey absolutely to create those lines you've also confirmed for example the Grenier and the TOSI. Oh yeah the research back to the original grant tours in the early 1800s. The staff comment there came from the Department of Public Works who is pretty vehement about trying to make sure both lots and a subdivision have been surveyed but it's also I think because there were no notes on here confirming that the larger parcel had been surveyed previously and that might be one reason he brought that up. Maybe it's just a question of I mean is it I don't know if the standard is to would be to potentially reference that older survey for a lot two and a note on here or not. Well survey is noted as reference number one on the plan but it's not necessarily. Oh the one from 1957. Yes. Okay sorry I thought you said 67 earlier. No maybe I did. Okay then yeah but I think it's all here. Yeah so I think that was just Tom being extra vigilant. I don't know if that's being extra vigilant or just being practical. Yeah making sure that everything's surveyed. And that's I just understand that it's not an issue now because national life is still going to retain ownership of the two parcels but down the road you know who knows 20 30 years. But you can rest on the earlier survey. That was my thought is that we can probably rest here on the 1957 survey. I think he just didn't realize that that's what it was for the 1957 survey was of the whole lot one and two together. So there hadn't been an earlier survey I mean the comment that Tom makes is really geared towards making sure that both lots comply and conform with so we don't create a non-conforming lot. And I think I think the Meredith is right as far as the 1957 survey if it's there should satisfy you know with some degree of professional confidence that lot two either equals or exceeds the 15.8 acres. I mean I think would think from national life's point of view they just want to be sure that these were separately held parcels only because I are this in a rural district. That can obviously have subdivision ramifications down the road if there's any. Oh yeah I mean it certainly if there's more if there's more intensive work to be done and had there if we were if we were bouncing around any kind of regulatory thresholds relative to the remainder parcel that would have been part and parcel what we've undertaken to do in the very beginning. I mean I'm just looking at the overall parcel map where you have the boundaries drawn out for a lot to I mean that's just based off of the 57 survey yes okay I mean I'm I'm personally not don't feel that there's necessarily strong reason to have to redo the 57 survey work for this subdivision when by all evidence the remaining 15.8 acre is going to be more than sufficient size lot it has frontage you know all the all the normal issues that we address here and in fact that Tom highlights there's a reason for aligning at least in this case don't seem to be triggered that's one board members. No I'm satisfied by that I wanted to just make sure we had the adequate discussion. Has the 18 foot wide easement has that been defined in terms of responsibility for the easement between the two lots? Not at this point no and that's something the board really would if they want you want as folks want to see that as because the remaining lot to has adequate frontage has alternative access it's not something that popped right up on our radar out of the gate certainly it's going to have to be as part of the transaction those I mean of necessity the attorneys are going to have to work that out the group on it between the two parties if the board wants to see that language ahead of time absolutely. As a condition of for the permit would you be amenable to having the condition be that you record with the town or the zoning administrator in the conditions of the easement as well as the location of it in terms of like a meets and bounds? Yes certainly we can add it is it's curve and tangent math on the easement as I depicted it it's easy enough to put those annotations on it at sketch plan. All right. And and the 18 foot width is dictated by the available space between the building so there's no that's the only science to that. I was gonna say this is an existing farm lane. Yeah it actually goes up to the it serves the it's the pride to the primary entrance to the solar farm actually. I mean that I'd see that as an important easement to establish because of that because it is the entrance to the solar farm. Oh yeah it will definitely like I said it will be part of the transaction. And then one of the notes is that the 50 foot water set back on either side of the stream I know that there is a stream to the east of the building. Yep there's an intermittent stream that runs down through a significant gully down through there. We didn't map and we mapped the stream stream the threat of the stream as a matter of normal course we did not map necessarily some of the other graphic features that might define the limits of any setbacks top of bank etc which would to make it meaningful would be necessary to do. Right. As we are not proposing any development we didn't believe it to be necessary as a first course to do that certainly any application that came came back in front of the board that proposed development would necessitate those those features being mapped more thoroughly. I think I hate to just throw buffers based on just a threat of stream and people seem to think that's something that's meaningful and down the road not have it meaningful I'd rather have less information if it's not going to be completely accurate and correct I would not like to put it on the map and it's going to take some significant work to map those top of bank features in order to get the appropriate buffers on again. Well I think the purpose of that and I think we do require some illustration of the setbacks in part to illustrate the building envelope potential while I understand this is somewhat different as opposed to say taking a piece of raw land and subdividing it off with the idea that anything could be built there and you create the building envelope this has existing structures on it and really an established use but I mean I don't know what the the school's plans are for the facility if they're planning on expanding or even what successive owners will be doing I think it's important for us in our subdivision review to be able to identify that you know is this a parcel that has reached its building capacity on this site or are there other sort of building envelopes that helps us identify and understand you know the nature of this parcel. Mr. Chair I agree with you and I would just note that in this district the lot size is a 20,000 square foot minimum lot size so the creation of the two-acre lot for now it could be subdivided into additional lots later at which point it would be very important to know what's where so absolutely I guess my only pushback would I don't disagree with you that in the future that those those elements are going to be a necessary element for the purposes of this application I would I would suggest that they're not but that's you know this is this is your valley right right I guess Rob my question is is publicly available lidar data from the you know the contours would that effectively show the width of the stream you could show approximate setback based off that or is that something yeah it might it depends I mean that we've we've been actually using that the available one foot from the VCGI they lidar stuff a lot lately some areas it's really good some areas is not so hot but certainly we could get something on there we could take that approach you know I'm not sure if the if in the future the lidar data turns out not to be so good that that we haven't just gone through the exercise without it really being a regulatory boundary that may be applicable in the field I guess is my only reluctance based on the data just don't know until you try it one area be great I mean lay right on the actual field generated topography and then all of a sudden fall off a cliff and have a six or eight foot vertical discrepancy but what would a as a matter of notice of showing some showing some buffers based on the stream centerline with a with a with a note putting future individuals on notice that there's something to be looked at more closely here yeah with that I mean I can qualify a note such that it doesn't well that's actually where I was clear that the what's shown on the plan is not necessarily a regulatory boundary right something else and that's actually where I was headed with my next question and comment because I think that that's really what we're getting at is a issue of notice and an issue of marking this even if it's not into the level of detail that would successive developments would require at least giving people you know some notice of this it also helps I think it helps us as a board visually to see that I mean I'm familiar with this area having sent two kids through that school so having having hiked and played the muffin man on the hillside there I I know that there is that stream and gully and I think it's important to at least demarcate to a certain extent understand so I think we're amenable to that that type of you know not requiring you to go into extensive mapping and surveying for something that really isn't going to be touched at this point in time or have plans to be touched in the near future but it also helps us to and understand and I think ultimately the school both national life and the grantee it benefits them because they know what they're getting precisely so that there's no confusion that they're not receiving something such as the parcel I mean presumably they'll be familiar with it but if there were plans for future development having that having that there I think protects national life but it also you know puts the Orchard Valley people on notice that this is going to be a difficult area this will remain essentially what it is for the future so I think that's helpful and I think that seems to be amenable were there any other questions from the board Claire I had a question about the the field drive and is that the principal access to the community garden and I was just curious kind of where the parking is for the community garden and kind of where does that field drive go it is the access to the community garden it's not very well-defined for the parking it's not what we call developed people essentially in the moan hayfield it's just just around the north side of the garden there from above it looks as if the field drive from the picture it's included our packet which appears to be from sort of a Google Earth snapshot looks as if the field drive goes past the community gardens up along the back of the closed access to the balance of the open fields and additional question about this set back to the solar farm and is that a this new boundary line won't impact the PUC's approved setback for the solar farm the public utility commission oh yeah that is a question I have actually landed that in the laps and attorneys that national like to get answers to however this subdivision we're proposing relates to that approval and I haven't got any answers yet so I don't have an answer for you on that that really is in their laps at this point the initial what the initial response was that I shouldn't have any difference but I don't know that's the truth well I mean I think it does have a difference only because in that corner you know if there is a requirement for additional setback that would be something that would have to be a burden on one no development to a certain point which you could it could be or there could be a boundary line adjustment with that but obviously you know and actually I was expected to have an answer to that by now and something that kind of slipped off my radar any further questions a question about use because I'm guessing that this lot is currently permitted as the child care school as the principal use and so I was curious about with lot to what would be the identified principal use of lot to once that it's been subdivided well I mean in this case it's not it's not like there was one principal use it was just three shared uses and so what did I say in here you know utility structures and agricultural uses they're all permitted in the Western Gateway so the second lot would be a shared use between agricultural and basically utility for the solar farm neither which the city regulates right there neither of them are conditional yeah well that and also yeah agricultural and utility we don't have a lot of say in those I'm not sure if that community guard would actually meet them the definition right on this other on the other one I was just curious on what you consider a community is it considered like a community center no I mean agriculture is fairly broadly defined and so it is pretty broadly I mean if for that to be for a for a bona fide agricultural use to be exempted from local zoning there's some specific definitions it would have to meet and I don't think that anyway at this point we're not changing uses so I don't worry about the full all I know is that agricultural uses flesh farming are permitted in that district and so we're not worried about a conditional use of any of these we aren't we aren't going through the whole change of use process so if we were then I'd be looking at that more closely so all are permitted and it would just continue it just would be it's a different unchanged uses at this point right so any other questions the board all right I think that gives you something to consider and Kate do you have another oh sorry I thought you were something to add and certainly Meredith is happy to help work with you but I mean overall it seems like a fairly straightforward subdivision and we'll see you back for final subdivision review thank you thank you thank you oh I'm sorry before did you ma'am were you here for any okay people usually all right so let me make some business announcements because we're going to go into executive session first of all our next regularly scheduled meeting is for Monday December 3rd 2018 however my understanding is that there are no current pending applications for that December 3rd meeting correct so it's kind of up to you do you guys want to meet to discuss something on the third or not I mean how soon does someone have to submit something for they've missed the deadline yeah there's no we have to have public the only reason why there would be in a meeting on the third would be if you as the remainder group are deliberating the parking garage application if you would seek to use that as a second night for deliberations or you know there is always the possibility for we actually Meredith looked into the possibility to do some training however because of the relatively short notice it's not we don't think we would be able to have anything together of substance now we could come and we could chit chat I don't know if that's a good use of our time I think it's a good idea that we continue to simply maybe take advantage of this I know the rest of board has been working hard and you're entitled to a break and we're going into the winter session and I suspect this will not be the only Monday where we have a very light schedule just because it generally tends to lighten up in the winter months and we can it's not our only opportunity to do additional training we don't have to decide no we you can you that's where I was with that too as well I just I'd like to have that as a as a possible option I wouldn't want to load up December 3rd with other activities you know we may not need it but we may and I think we can just simply leave it there if however the December 3rd meeting is canceled our next meeting would then become Monday December 17th which would be our last regularly scheduled meeting for the DRB in 2018 so with that I want to make a note that Kate and I will be accusing ourselves from the deliberations that you all are about to move into and we will actually leave the building before you begin deliberations so I understand that there is a need to continue to review the 100 State Street application I'll take a motion to go into deliberative session so we'll motion my cabin to have a second second second by Tom all those in favor of going into deliberative session please raise your right hand right we are in deliberative session thank you very