 This regular September 5th meeting of the DRB to order and welcome everybody for just as you know waiting for Sharon, she's got some technical difficulties, but we'll get going with Meredith's review of the remote meeting procedures. Yes. All right. All right, let me get to my screen share. Give me a second. I'm working on some. The screen to share in awesome. All right, so for anybody who hasn't done this before the screen share is more for people who are viewing this meeting over or media because it is being live streamed over their channel. So for anyone who is watching tonight's meeting over or media, you can participate in tonight's development review board meeting via the zoom platform. You can do this using both using video option over your computer or smartphone by typing this link here into your web browser. And I will get a little notification that you want to get into the meeting and I will let you in. And with that, you'll be able to see everything on your screen, as well as raise your hand and get called on and ask questions. Alternatively, you can dial in this phone number and when prompted put in this meeting ID. And again, I'll I'll get a little notification that you want to come into the meeting and I'll let you in. And with that one, you don't get the video option, but you still will be able to hear everything and talk to us. If you are trying to access the meeting and having problems, please email me at mcrandle at montpillier hyphen vt.org. For those who are attending via zoom, zoom know that turning your video on is optional. Please for everyone attending keep your microphone on mute when you're not speaking this will help reduce background noise. So the zoom chat function should only be used for troubleshooting our logistics questions. If you have a question or comment about an actual agenda item, please raise your hand, either physically or by using the raise hand button on your toolbar, and then wait for the chair to call on you. If you are called on, please state your name. In the event the public is unable to access this meeting, it will be continued to a time and place a certain I would get notification of that via my email. And especially because the online access to remote access is the only way to access this meeting. If they're members of the public who can't get in we have to make sure that we continue to the meeting so that they have an opportunity to submit their comments. I will now hand the meeting back over to the chair. You have a perfect seven voting members on this evening unless someone sees anyone else on here. We actually have eight. Yep, we have eight because Jean's on as well. So we just have to make sure we know so. Unless somebody has a reason to recuse themselves from the application, Jean would be on to participate but would not be voting when it comes to the actual application. Okay. Okay, with members of the board for establishing that regular members of meeting and genius listening in as an alternate. Great. Sounds like everybody's on board. Sounds good. Kevin just for smoothness here we'll still accept that motion. We had another plan but that makes it easier. Yeah, well withdraw. Now we still accept that motion. It'll make it smoother. Okay, that's fine. That's fine. That's fine. That's fine. That's fine. That's fine. That's fine. That's fine. That'll have to be on the, on the record, I think, because I don't think that was on the, that was before we actually started. Motion to move the elections to the end of this evening's meeting. That second that motion. Okay. Motion by. Rob, I guess. Second by Sharon. Okay. Alex, Kevin, Catherine. Karen, Michael, how do you vote? Yes. Joe. Hi. Hey. We have. Kind of the approved agenda moving the elections to the end of this meeting. So new officers. Now we'll take effect at the next regular meeting of the, of the DRB. Great. So on to comments from the chair. So, yeah, just. Too many comments. I will not be at the next meeting of the DRV. I'll be out of the country. And so. That's my announcement. I don't know if there's any other news. Thank you. I think we'll, you know, acknowledge that the regular annual elections of the DRV, you know, we're supposed to happen in August. We did not do that. We did not have that second meeting in August. And so those elections will be, you know, this evening we moved into the end to so to ensure a smooth transition of, you know, handoff. The new officers will take in effect at the next regular meeting of the DRB. being said. Does that have any questions on that? All right, great. We'll move to the 190 River Street application and who is here to present on that application? My name is Chris Austin. I work with Grenier Engineering and we're the consultant for Barrett Enterprises and I have Kelly Barrett here with Barrett Enterprises. And if I can just introduce myself as well. I'm Brooke Dingledine with Velson, Jackamo, Detora, and McQuestin and I'm counseled assisting Mr. Barrett as well. Wonderful. So, Mr. Austin and Mr. Barrett, anyone else plan on speaking on this application? We will acknowledge that it's been tradition we do not swear counsel in for testimony. Is that correct, Brooke? That would be appropriate. I won't be testifying as facts. I may just be assisting by providing a legal argument or to clarify some issues from the zoning ordinance if there are any questions. All right, thank you. So, anyone other than Chris and Kelly to be sworn in and speaking on this application? No, okay. So, Chris and Kelly, raise your right hand and swear you in as a witness. So, those interested in providing testimony on this application, would you please raise your right hand if you're sworn in as a witness? Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury? You redo. Wonderful. All right, so I guess Meredith can give a brief summary here. I'm sure we'll be back to ask questions about specific sections of the regs here. So, you don't need to go in too much detail, but I will let you go ahead. Awesome. Yeah, now I'll keep this really brief. You know, this application is before the board in large part because it is requesting for new buildings that are going to contain a conditional use, the mini storage units. It's also major site plan, because both of the buildings being constructed, each of them are more than 2000 square feet. So, that triggers major site plan review, which only the board can do. In my staff report and in the public hearing notice, we had also put in, it was requesting a waiver of the 10, sorry, a 10 foot waiver of the rear setback, as was pointed out to be today. And none of us had caught this until Brooke brought it up or somebody brought it to Brooke and Brooke called me. In the last regulation change, the Eastern Gateway had a new type of setback created for it, and none of the other zoning rigs, none of the other zoning districts have, which is a railroad setback of five feet. So, and even though I copied and pasted it and stuck it in the staff report, just didn't even see it. So, there actually isn't a need for a rear setback waiver. That doesn't have to be dealt with. Because we're talking major site plan, because we're talking to conditional use, there's still a little bit of a discussion about whether the setback distance that is shown on that site plan between the property line, which is really close to the railroad, and maybe the edge of that rear drive access space, that one-way drive, provides enough room for snow. Make sure the building and the road together don't get so close to that rear area that there's not enough room for snow when the plows go through. But the design as shown doesn't seem to be that issue. I would just say that, you know, you're not going to, anyway, point is, the rear setback waiver thing, you don't actually have to deal with that anymore. And then two other notes, and I put this in the email that went out and the packet on the website is updated, but a reminder that we do have a comment from the public that is not reflected in the staff report and that the applicants provided a updated impervious cover document that is not reflected in the staff report. So they provided more detail on how the coverage limit is met. And so that's a situation where the site as a whole is still over that 50% coverage max, but they're actually reducing the existing impervious cover. So they're making a existing nonconformity better with the new plan. There you go. That's just what I've got. Questions? Well, I acknowledge I did receive that comment. That comment was from Reuben Sherman, and also did get sent to every member of the board for meetings. I don't feel I need to read it, but just highlighting that it's there, and everyone has it to guide their questions to that this evening. Awesome. Thanks, Rob. So Chris and Kelly, feel free to take the reins here and tell us a little bit about your project. Yeah, so we have kind of just, I think, probably everyone's sort of aware where this is, but 190 River Street is the old trading post building right along River Street being Route 2, and the aforementioned railroad that bisects this property. Barrett's actually owned two parcels here. To be clear, we are dealing with the southern parcel adjacent to River Street. They have a second parcel with other buildings and across the railroad tracks. The railroad is an owned strip, so there are two pieces of land. We're only involved on the southern portion here. The site consists of a paved driveway off River Street with the trading post on the east, the railroad tracks to the north, and an existing gravel parking lot to the west of that access drive. Within that existing gravel parking lot is where we've proposed the two mini self-storage warehouse buildings. We're building one along the frontage of River Street. That'll be a single load. In other words, there'll be no unit doors on the street side. You would only have unit doors on the interior there. Building one is 3,400 square feet, as shown there. Building two is 2,600 square feet. That'll have units on both sides there, which as you can see from the site plan, we have planned vehicle circulation to be able to circle building two completely. There's plenty of room with 27 feet between the buildings to maneuver in between the buildings, turn in and out as needed. Quite a bit of turning movement in there. As Meredith said, as part of this, we prepared an impervious cover exhibit that shows that we are slightly decreasing the amount of impervious on the site. This is mainly due to the fact that we're carving out a corner of that old parking lot to put in the storm water management system in the northwest corner of that gravel lot. Essentially, there's a slight net loss of impervious. The buildings will be placed on mainly what is already gravel parking. So we have site circulation there. We have access to the buildings at 27 and 15 feet wide in the two drive lanes. The buildings are detailed on that site plan with a end elevation and a side elevation. Nice cupola plan there. We're looking for a clobboard sided look. Kind of gray colors, red doors, kind of a standard storage building look there. The buildings only, I think, 13 or so feet tall. They're pretty low impact structures, 20 feet wide. The package also includes a landscaping plan prepared by Knopf Landscaping, a licensed landscape architect. We provide quite a bit of new plantings along the building side there to provide adequate screening. What other highlights here? We have an all new lighting plan for the buildings that meets the lumen regulations. We have a photometric plan there that shows that light is not cast really off the site. They are downcast and fully shielded fixtures that are going to be within the eaves of the buildings. So this will achieve site security and light for any users at night. It's a really low light scenario with the full shielding of the eaves. Soft light fixtures are chosen. There is an existing site light provided by Green Mountain Power on a utility pole there that, based on neighbor comments and thought process of our new lighting plan, we would just offer up to remove that larger security light once the buildings are constructed. There wouldn't be much need for the additional security light once the buildings are lit in there. So essentially between the landscaping, the stormwater improvements, and the lighting improvements, we feel this project really improves the area and provides needed storage space for renters right in Montpelier. You know a lot of apartment space in town. The Barrett's are very well versed with how storage goes. This seems to be a needed product that we don't have any fear of filling the building with tenants. Right, Kelly? No problem. So as a big overview, I think that's kind of the snapshot. Well, I guess the other one to highlight thing we want to touch on is we have planned for snow storage removal. It was mentioned by Meredith and the staff report. We can point that out on the site plan, but we have planned for it to be in the southwest corner, the southeast corner, along not over the line into the railroad, but along the railroad land behind our curb. We've created space there for snow storage, and they have ample storage across the driveway over and behind the trading post, if as needed. So we have a pretty good strategy there for keeping snow clear out of the units. I just want a couple questions, just since I've got your impervious sketch up here. As far as your stormwater practices and what you're proposing, that's only for the stuff that's on this portion of the parcel that's being developed, not proposing anything on the rest of the parcel. We are not. That's correct. This would be to manage the stormwater created by the redevelopment of the buildings within the gravel wall that triggers the need for a state stormwater permit. I mean, as engineers, we would design some kind of drainage plan in any case, but yeah, we're required by the state to have a stormwater management system due to redevelopment of that gravel wall with the buildings. So I had a question about the existing development as it is today. Are any of the buildings existing buildings impacted? Are they, you know, either through modification or tear it out? No, no, there's no proposed change to any other buildings. And the only building on this parcel is the trading post. The other buildings across the railroad are separate item, but yeah, no, no removals proposed. Okay. Okay. Yes, we can get into the staff report. Any highlights, Meredith, you caught by their proposal or? Yeah, I mean, it's the board needs to, I mean, it's sort of summarized there at the end of the staff report, the key items that the board needs to deal with. You know, there's determinations that I'm just not allowed to make because I'm the zoning administrator. So that's the conditional use. There's a couple of questions in here about, I mean, we can skip the setback stuff. So that's great. You know, there were some questions about just whether or not certain certain landscaping items are met. But it's, I think you're going to have to go through the staff report. There's not because there's a lot of, there's a lot of individual little items that the board has to make clear determinations on or at least make sure they have enough information to make those determinations. I just, I guess the, I was a little confused on the, the mixed use required, many, many warehouse versus light manufacturing and expand upon a little bit, not light manufacturing, sorry. The requirement that the warehouse is on is that it's a combined mixed use. Yeah. The thing is that only came up that was only really an issue when you get to the rear setback waiver and about whether or not the waiver is necessary for the continued use of the parcel and you don't have to worry about that anymore because it doesn't need that waiver because it meets the railroad setback waiver. So you can just, you can just skip that whole section of red on page five and four. Four and five, yeah. All right. So that brings us to staff report review to start on the bottom of page five because you're still looking at the side yard setback. Is that correct? No, no, that's all weird. That's all the rear setback. So again, yeah, skip over, skip over five, skip over six. Actually, sorry. Six is where you have the coverage, right? So we didn't have that coverage information as long as the board is happy with the reduced coverage amount, right? It still doesn't meet the 50% standard or whatever. What's the standard? Yeah, 50%. It's still going to cover more than 50% of the parcel within previous, but it's going to be less than it is now. So as long as the board is okay with that, that that's the only outstanding dimensional issue. So that seems good. It seems like an improvement. And we could just roll with that. Would be my take. I would, I would tend to agree. I think my one last question on that is about just the, the direction of the water flow. So like currently, just currently basically all water on the site flow to that catch basin in the corner where you're proposing to send almost all of it or is it sort of sheet flow off in some spaces? I think it's a combination there of sheet flow. But yeah, as part of the site design here, it's pretty flat site. So you don't see a lot of contour lines, but we have directional arrows with high points, elevations listed in drainage. So we are slightly grading the site. You know, there isn't a lot of fill coming in, but we're grading the site to make water move to where we needed to move to our retention area. And if you look at that, we have it split because it's hard to sheet flow all of it in, you know, one place. So we actually wrap it around a swale on the north side that hits the curb that we've installed, proposed to install. Water will ride that curb and be graded to get into the stormwater area. And in the center aisle, you see there, we have a majority of it draining straight to it. So that'll be graded parking lot, you know, minor grading, you're in a parking lot, but it'll be shimmed to drain to that stormwater catchment area. I might ask a question relative to stormwater. How did the existing site perform during the July floods? Did you see any flooding, Kelly? There was no flooding anywhere. Okay. On any of the property? Well, so it was sheeting some water fairly efficiently. I mean, you might have had a small ponding in there when it was a serene or not even. There wasn't, there was no major infringement then or? The only, the only place, Kevin, where there was a problem was the culvert over by Vivian's house had overflowed and ran the road towards our entrance and towards the car wash. But it just flowed right down the driveway. It flowed right, so it didn't. Yeah, I didn't notice any major, I didn't notice any change from the post event. So I just wanted to check that with you. Yeah, we lucked out. There was. Okay. So yeah, I think the rationale about the impervious exhibit and the stormwater practices here seems to be reasonable. Board members have any other questions on that? And just, you know, because the next part of that is that I guess, you know, you will get a state stormwater permit, I guess, and then public works will do their final review of this unless they've already completed that. I believe they said they had no comments. I don't know if they do a further review, Meredith, but yeah, okay. No, no, I mean, it's because you're not tapping into the city's system, they're not going to really have anything about the stormwater. But we are required to get a state stormwater discharge permit. So we will be doing once we receive, you know, this approval. Yeah. And then I mean, once you get that, you can always just send it to us and we'll send it and put it into our files with the permit file just so it's easy for people to find it. Although those files are going to end up being electronic. We're not going to be keeping lots of paper files anymore. Yep, those are all by the state rules are required to be recorded in the land records as well. But yeah, we'll forward a copy. Yeah. Okay. Sounds good. So we're moving moving down to, I guess we're on page eight, access and circulation, you know, at the site. I think that, you know, we can use some judgment here, but it'd be worth, I guess, having a little bit of discussion about the parking. You had mentioned in your testimony about the turning radius is in the width of the past and whatnot. And that all seems to make sense. I think the board does have a, you know, sort of a decision make to whether the proposed use that requires parking or not. And I think that staff made a pretty good comment about more of a loading for these units is what the requirement is and not parking any cars for extended period of time. Yeah, I think that's correctly stated in that staff comment. Basically, the Barrett's wouldn't allow any long term parking because that would just come up works. So there is no real long term parking required for the use. It is area outside your unit just needs to be provided access to get your door open, you park there for the amount of time, your stuff and you leave. So it is more of a load unload zone. And the Barrett's have many of these sites in central Vermont. My company's actually done the engineering and permitting on quite a number of them as well. He's retired now with the former principal of my firm, Bill, a bunch of these sites here in Waterbury, Middlesex at the Barrett's now owned. So we've quite a bit of experience on these site layouts and not causing problems and getting people in and out efficiently. A lot of these facilities have a 22 to 24 foot double driveline in between. So we feel like we've squeezed out a few extra feet on this one at 27 in between the eaves. And that's for where you have access to build the units on each side. And then our driveline on the north side along the railroad side, we're only accessing one side of that building. That's a 15 foot wide lane there to the eve, which is plenty sufficient to fit a car in, a car can go by. People have their U-Haul trucks that they rent, they drive up next to their unit and there's always room to drive by them. I have what 30 or 40 of these units right here at my office property. I've been here 25 years, I've never seen a person argue about not being able to get their unit or being blocked off or there's a traffic problem. So we're highly confident in the site circulation design here based on experience and just those kind of measurements fit vehicles very efficiently. Okay, are these units when it's most permitted to store cars there if they wanted to? Is that any of them big enough for that or is that not something that happens? Yeah, I believe that is possible. Yep. My unit's often basically planned out a 10-feet wide, which is wide enough for any vehicles. And building one, for instance, will have a 20-foot depth because that's a single load building. So I mean vehicle storage could take place. Okay, and except we already talked about the snow storage here, it seems like you've got a plan to have it in a couple different places. I'm guessing you could update your site plan to just have that called out exactly where it is for the final file submittal. Yeah, I don't see any other other topics there. So we talked some about, well, you talked some about a landscaping plan. Can we just pull that up real quick and just take a look at what's proposed? Yeah, I can do it. Let me just scroll the right one that when I pop it up. I'm not making everybody dizzy. Well, I think you'll see there in that packet, there's a site plan layout with a legend and a key and it states sizing, the time of planning, etc. And then there's also a photo image of, you know, depicting what these proposed plans look like at maturity anyway. Yep, so this is the, oh goodness, hard to read the little one and still be able to show everybody the pictures. But this is your biggest tree. What is that, the maple? That's one oak, yep, sorry, one, the swamp white oak. And then you've got the smaller medium, the medium trees here, then filled in with some arborbite, I think, was these. Correct. So it's a mix of deciduous and evergreen to create, you know, a seed year-round screen there. Those are all salt tolerant as well, since we're near the highway and such that always needs to be planned. And then there's the section of a shrubbery planting there. The hatch marked area. Yeah. So essentially from the street view, we'll have nice flowering and colorful shrubbery. Then you'll have the street trees behind it that then screen that first building and keep in mind that first building doesn't have any loading or doors on the street side. So essentially the first building also helps screen, along with the landscaping, activities going on, you know, at people's units within the site. Looks like a suitable landscaping plan to me. There's a note here about, probably due to the age of it, but you know, some, there's maybe some non-conformity on the existing, you know, parcel, but that doesn't have a concern to me. I think that looks like you've gone above and beyond here as far as creating some good screening. I think that looks good. So moving on down is outdoor lighting. In your presentation, you mentioned willingness to remove that green-mounted power light that appeared to be what one of the neighbor's comment was concerned about other than that. I think I saw some like cut sheets in here and whatnot. Thank you for that. We usually ask for you to provide that later. Yeah, I've been asked to follow up with that so many times. I try really hard to bring it the first time now. Doesn't always work out depending on where we're at on the design, but yeah, we try to get that right in. For this one, it was pretty simple being a can light also. But yeah, so as stated in the original presentation, the security light that's there now has served the bear as well. It's kept things safe and lit. But you know, once the buildings are in and they have their own lighting, there isn't much need for the security light anymore. So they don't have any issue in just removing it. And I believe that would bring the site into full compliance on lighting, including the existing. Yeah. Yes, madam. Just as I'm keeping track of things here for at the end, is that removal of that existing security light something that the board wants to have as a condition of approval? Or is it just something that the applicant is attesting to and a finding a fact? I mean, if the applicant is already stating that he would remove that without a problem, why not make it a condition? I agree with that. That would keep the neighbor happy. And then there's documentation. Great. Just making sure so that we can all make sure we're pallied up at the end when we get to the motion. Thank you. Meredith, if I could just suggest that if the condition can indicate the removal post construction so that the new lighting, pardon me, the new lighting is there and operating before the removal. Yeah, exactly. Terrific. So I had notes here on most of the rest of this about sort of like character of the neighborhood type analysis that we're doing. And I think a number of photos were provided of the other, you know, types of buildings and shape of buildings on this particular part. And it seems pretty consistent to me. I guess I would flag something to the board members. This is, I guess, seems like it's a rarity an application that did not go through the design review committee, right, Meredith? But we haven't had a lot of new buildings over the last five years. And we definitely haven't had a lot of major site plan. So this is what one of maybe two major site plan that have come to the board that haven't been in the design review overlay district. So this and then on the same further down River Street, the new building that they put in the other roundabout were two of the ones that stick out in my head. It seems like what they're proposing for buildings looks very much like what is in the neighborhoods there. And the screening also seems like it's going to be a definite boom to the area. And it's not in a design review catchment area, is it right? Yeah. And I guess we have another point here about utilities on the site and other city services. And how much power did these units have? Probably not much. Yeah, there's almost, there's just power to light the LED lights, which are incredibly efficient light fixtures. I mean, there's a number of them. So there's a load here, but it's like less than the standard house for sure. It's probably a hundred amp service. And imagine I'm not an electrician, but it's a very small service because the only powers for the light. So traditionally on these kind of buildings, we usually just see no essentially a wire coming to it. Like there's barely a breaker box, right Kelly? Yeah, that's just a one dad wire. Yeah, of course, underground. Yeah, an underground wire comes up to the building in a conduit. Usually there's a little plastic conduit panel at the corner of a building. There's no big, you know, electrical panel with breakers because there's nothing but the one service really. Yeah. How much water, is there water service on the property at all? Or is it just a couple spickets? You have over at the training post, you must have this bathroom or anything. We got water at the training post. There's a fire hydrant right there. Yeah, there's a hydrant on site, correct? Yeah. So yeah, we got water. Pretty well. It's not like books would come in and plug the pressure washer in and pressure washer car and the drawer or anything like that. Oh, yeah. No, no, there's no hose available to the public. No, certainly not. Okay. Yeah, actually, would there even be an outlet for somebody to use? You don't provide those. You know, no, yeah, there won't even be outlets for people to use. So it'd be pretty limited area where people could perform that kind of maintenance, I would say, because they will have services to do so. Moving right along here. So I've scrolled down to page 23 of the staff report here and there's a we're supposed to advise on whether the impacts of the use will be consistent with the neighborhood. And I think we can very much determine, yes, this is consistent with the neighborhood. My ultimate question was if someone could come in and rent one of these units and do something that would be not necessarily just like the storage unit use, but it sounds like without any water or really power access, pretty limited on what they could or could not do. And so that was my only concern, but it seems to be not a concern anymore. Yeah, I would say with limited ability to plug stuff in, yeah, it'd be hard for people to do too many things, but store their stuff. I would agree with that. Yeah, well, like I have seen facilities that provide a heated unit power and other things, and there tends to be some, you know, more activity at those. But that isn't the case here. Okay, I think we're down to the final sort of like summary here of our key points. What or the final numbers on the proposed coverage in lot area just so we can get those sure. It's a 1.7 acre lot, you know, plus or minus, based on tax records, essentially. It's a 1.18 acres of existing impervious, removing 0.054. There's a slight amount of new going back in on the other side of 0.018. So the total is 1.15 acres, which is, you know, less than the existing as previously stated. I'm just going to do a quick screen share so that everybody can see where that chart is. So this is on that impervious exhibit here. So that gives you the existing impervious, the total that was removed, the total new. And so you get to a reduced impervious surface. They're reducing it by over 1,500 square feet of impervious is actually being removed and instead will be either planted area or the stormwater retention pond, which we count as pervious because it is retention. It's a place for the water to be retained. And there's some evaporation, but also just some slow percolation, I think. Is that correct, Chris? It is. Yep. I'm anticipating some amount of plant life in there soaking up water, too. That's part of these. Oh, right. But not necessarily. But yeah, either way, you're correct. Yep. So we count that as a pervious area. And just for the image, to this dotted area, here is all the existing impervious. And so here is where they're adding, taking away the impervious surface. And then here is a little bit of new addition. But then they'll also be adding so many more trees here that are going to soak up additional water, too. It doesn't count towards your coverage situation, but it's definitely going to help for the stormwater. Any stormwater that had been flowing this way and running into the road from here is going to be sucked up a lot more once those trees are mature. Also, I have a treatment practice that doesn't exist on site and being proposed, but I think it's one part here. So yeah, so as far as stepbacks go, we're avoiding that due to discovery of another section of the regs. And as far as parking goes, I think we discussed that. Don't see any issues for needs for anything other than really loading on loading zones. Seems like there's a willingness for us to condition to have the whole light removed after construction is complete. And as far as the ability to satisfy design and compatibility requirements, we talked some about the neighborhood. I know these buildings are short, no building height issues here. And then as far as conditional use goes, I think we've satisfied that. Must board members have any other concerns there? I would make a motion if we might be at that point. Motion is to be welcomed. Motion to grant requests for conditional use in major site plan and plow. Approval for the construction of two mini storage warehouses at 190 River Street as presented in application Z-2023-0097 and supporting supplemental materials with the condition of removing the utility pole light after construction has been completed. Good. I'll second that. Motion by Sharon, second by Kevin for approval of the application with the conditions. And I guess we can, is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, we'll move into a roll call vote. Catherine, how do you vote? Yes. Kevin? Yes. Sharon? Yes. Alex? Oh. Yes. Joe? Yes. Michael? Yes. Rob, myself, yes. Motion is unanimously approved. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you. And we'd really appreciate Meredith's guidance. She did just a phenomenal job helping to guide this. So thank you very much for her help. Yes. Very much. Thanks for the compliment. We feel strongly that she represents us quite well. Well, thank you. I will turn around, we will turn around the decision as soon as we can. And the lovely thing is because this is a, the condition on here is after completion, once the decision is signed, we will be able to issue the permit at the same time. So we will be in touch when we have both that signed decision and permit ready and available. Given the state of mail these days and because this would be mailed out to a Montpelier address, I'm going to suggest that I email you when it's ready and have somebody come and pick it up versus us trying to do certified mail if that's okay. Okay, great. So when you come to pick it up, you'll still need to sign a little like receipt so that we have that for the file. But I mean, we actually, I don't even know if we've gotten our certified mail documentation again from the post office because it all got washed away. So, perfect. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you very much for your time. Yeah. Thank you for all your time, folks. Okay, on to the next. So we have minutes to review for the August 7th meeting, which have enough people here to do so. Are there any amendments or questions on the minutes? Did I not see the minutes somewhere? I mean, I'm sure they're fine, but they were in the package. They should be in the packet. Let me make sure it's at the end. It would be, yep. So it's after. Yep. And the electronic one, its page is 54 and 55 of the electronic packet. Okay. Yep. I make a motion to approve the minutes of August 7th. Second. By Sharon, second by Kaepern. Okay. All those in favor approving the minutes. Been here for Kevin. He wasn't here. He wasn't there. Alrighty, perfect. So that moves us to our next order of business that got moved to the end of the meeting, which is the annual elections of chair and vice chair. And I guess I'll say that I am excited of the prospect of playing some musical chairs here. And so I will have, are you willing and able to serve another year term? I would gladly accept the nomination as a, for the vice chair position. The vice chair. And Sharon, how are you feeling about all of this? I'm enjoying it. Sounds like, well, I don't want to preclude all discussion. So I'll just be quiet for a minute. I'll be glad. Would you chair Sharon? Yes, I would. Well, Sharon, I want to say how much we've appreciated your leadership this year, as well as Rob, you've been such an amazing chair and it's been a year with some big applications. So wanted to say thank you for all your service and also thank you, Sharon, for your willingness to step forward in a leadership position. I agree with Rob that it's good to mix things up a little bit, but Rob, I'm glad you're not, I hope you're not going anywhere. Because I think the board really benefits from all your knowledge of the regs and your passion for the mission. So I will go ahead, Sharon. I just want to say that, you know, this about one year back on the board from me, and then I just really appreciated working with everybody on the board. And I feel like it's, we've just been really efficient and really thoughtful and really thorough. And I really appreciate Meredith and everybody on the board. I just think it's a good, we're in a good spot. Meredith, can I make a motion to do two positions with one vote? I mean, I think you should probably do it separately. Really, we should do the one and then the other. So that being said, I would, with enthusiasm, nominate Sharon Allen to be the chair of the DRB for the next 11 months. We have a second. I'll do enthusiastic second. And Meredith, can you remind us, I know I'm still claiming to be new two years in, but is it typically a one year term or is there a, yeah, that's a standard. The rules for the DRB are that every year they're supposed to be the chair and the vice chair are re-elected or nominated. You go through re-elections for them. It's supposed to be in August, but with all the craziness, it got just sort of missed. Thanks to the refresher. Yeah. So we have a motion on the table to elect Sharon as the chair of the DRB, effective the next regular meeting. And how does Alex vote? Yes. Catherine? Yes. Joe? Yes. Kevin? Yes. Michael? Yes. Rob, myself votes yes. Yeah. We can have Jean vote too because it's a, I don't think it hurts. Sharon is probably recusing yourself. Yes. You don't have to. Wonderful. Okay. Congratulations, Sharon. I really appreciate stepping up to it and I'll be there for you. I will make another motion to elect Rob Goodwin for the next year as vice chair of the DRB. I'll second. And Sharon, you get to run this one. Or you said effective, you said effective next meeting, didn't you, Rob? Yeah. The only next move is the vice chair of the DRB builds the motion. So maybe we'll do a roll call vote. Michael, how do you vote? Yes. Jean? Yes. Want me to see Alex? Yes. Catherine? Yes. And I vote yes. Kevin? Yes. Is that everybody? I don't have all of them on. Yeah, I think. And Rob, oh thank you, Joe. I'm sorry. Oh, Joe. I'm sorry, Joe. Okay. How do you vote, Joe? I vote yes. Great. That makes it unanimous. And Rob, you accept, right? I absolutely, I just want to thank everyone for bearing with me, especially the folks that stepped up to chair when we had multiple recruit queues and some very big applications. And I think what's really great, I think different from definitely when I joined the board and a couple of years in, we have, I think, a very diverse group of skill people on this board. And it's like one of my reasons why it's easy, I think, that it's important that we don't get in a position where there's no one to step up and carry the torch. And I think that we can all, through Sharon, the leadership responsibilities here, do the city of solid and keep things smooth and hopefully make Meredith's job easier. But I think she's just going to do amazing work regardless. That's true. Yeah. Well, I just want to commend everybody on the board for the hard work you put in. It's not an easy job. And there are times when it is downright very frustrating. But we always seem to pull through. And I particularly want to extend a congratulations to Sharon and to Rob for stepping up to, for another year of rather intense work for the board. All right. Our next regular meeting is on the 18th of this month. Are there any applications? Yes. And of course, my brain just completely fizzled out as to what those are. Give me a second. I'm sorry, did we put... My computer's going weird. It is the 18th, but our pending applications page says 19th. I'll have to fix that. So, yes, we actually have a demolition of a historic structure application coming before the board on the 19th. So that application submitted is available for review on that pending applications page that links in the left hand column when you're on the agendas and meeting minutes page. And it's a barn, demolition of a barn that's listed on the historic register. It's in pretty bad shape. And so the owner of the residential building in front is requesting at this point to just demolish it and create green space. He doesn't have a plan for building something new there right now, but it's right near the property line. Is this right downtown? It's on J Street. Sure. It's not right in the middle of downtown. Okay. Yep. No, this isn't a residential neighborhood. Great. I will not be there the next meeting. I'll be honeymoon in Italy. So... Oh, that's so awesome. What a great place to go. That's a place to enjoy. You just got back from Norway. How do you get away with this? You're in Africa. That's a great room. Where are you going in Italy? Sardinia. We're doing a bike tour. Super cool. But let us know if you see any historic structures. Yes, the historic structures that we could demolish. Well, I think this next meeting will be a good one to work through the existing demolition provision. Again, we do have... The planning department does have in its pocket plans to amend that provision, but the zoning changes got all slowed down because of the flood. And some changes that we had drafted before probably going to get tweaked, potentially, because of all the flooding and new thoughts about where things should be built, as well as how to deal with buildings that may be historic, but may be horrifically damaged at this point. So we've got to be really thoughtful about what we're proposing at this point for those zoning changes. So that's all sort of gone into a slow back burner for a little bit. While we reconsider everything and make sure we don't make any changes that are not well thought through given recent history. Yeah, recent history really kind of showed us that a bunch of things we did never want to know about. Yeah, 500-year floods happening every year. Well, we've got the planning commission is getting ready to pick up that baton again on all of their potential tweaks to the zoning regulations. So I will keep you as informed on that as I can and try to make sure that I let you all know when planning commission is having hearings on those, when there's drafts available so that you can take a look at those. Because if any of you spot things that just don't seem like they could actually be administered, be applied in real life, that'll be important to know. And several of you have different kinds of experience and different perspectives to bring to those kinds of discussions. So please feel free to get involved in those conversations as your individual selves. Well, I'll accept a motion to adjourn for once they cool out there. Some are fine again. All those in favor of adjournment say hi. All right. Hi. Have a good night.