 Any concerns to the agenda or request to move any items? Hearing none, we'll deem it approved. Comments from the chair? So there was a presentation by Ed McMahon that I missed, but I understand a few of us did attend. Do you want to give us a quick summary of it? In response, I heard it was pretty, it was effective. Basically, he was talking about creating unique cities and making sure that cities really drew on the aspects that would keep them sustainable and enlivened. And actually, I mean, I've heard it all before, so maybe Kirby might be a better respondent than he was probably newer to you. Yeah, well, I thought it was great. Like you were saying, it was really oriented towards trying to talk to towns and let them know what's attractive to get people to move there. It felt like Montpelier had most of the things that he talked about going for it. I think openness was one that he mentioned that I thought was an area that we talked about trying to improve. There was actually some pictures of Montpelier. Well, yeah, purposefully he did that because he was presenting in Montpelier. And there was some of Burlington, yeah. Yeah, and some of Burlington, yeah. I mean, the thing I think that comes out glaringly is he was pointing out the San Antonio River Walk and all of that, that what we're not doing is taking advantage of the amenity of the river and the confluence particularly. Yeah, that's a good point. He said that they should have, we should, well, not we should, but many cities have adopted public art that is somehow related to something that either manufactured there or were known for. What were some examples? There were monuments of local folks, local farmer that had the big farm instead of general customer or somebody. Right, yeah. I mean, I think the real thrust of it was that if a town develops a sense of uniqueness in place, it thrives. If it's just shlok like everybody else in the world and nobody wants to be there, there's nothing unique about the design or the organization or the access to beauty, frankly, some kind of decent views and outdoors in a way that people can relate to, then towns thrive. The only thing you can think of is how cheap can you build something pretty soon your town will suffer because it will look like every other piece of crap in the United States nobody wants to live there. It was very, I thought, and then Barbara came up with a video clip that was very similar which I sent to everybody. Did you send it out to everyone? No, no, I didn't. I thought we could talk about it. And then we could, I mean, if we want to watch it or invite others. Or you could watch it at home. I thought that I don't know enough about the competition for the downtown space whatever you call it. You mean the one that happened? I was asleep when that happened. Team Bridges? The Sustainable Montpelier. Montpelier 2030, it has not a lot of different names. And what little I gleaned from that was exactly what McMahon was talking about was to design the downtown and make it unique, use what's there already because it's attracted people for centuries and when you knock it down, it will continue to attract people. Build more sense where people feel comfortable. Personally, I've been struggling with as has unfortunately the Historic Preservation Commission is what is a sense of place. We say it, but McMahon said it. I thought quite powerfully. And it was recorded. I wrote this, and as I wrote you, I think Bargers, I think it would be wonderful to replay that lecture before our kickoff meeting. Anybody want to know what McMahon had to say come early in the show because I think it's exactly what the city plan is all about. It hadn't motivated me to see that there was a unifying thing until I heard of McMahon laying out. It all works together in a way. It isn't just old buildings, but it's a consistent design and interest in the spaces that we've come to appreciate. That's what the city plan should be doing is open space, wildlife, trees, rivers, all the stuff that makes this city worthwhile. That need to be emphasized and supported in some way. That was a very illustrative lecture. It is recorded. Yeah, I'm not sure who has that. These folks. Oh, it's on Orca. Oh, okay. So Orca has it. I don't get Orca at home. It's too complicated because I'm on the dish and I think you have to be hooked to that. I think Orca is online, though. It's a YouTube channel for Orca media that's easy to access and track down. It's hard to pull yourself away for an hour and think creatively about something because most of us only have five minutes to do that. But if you can, McMahon gives a very cogent and I thought powerful talk about what is a sense of place? What is it that makes a town, particularly in an appealing or alive, that people like to be here? What is the essence of why people like that? That theme, it seems, the nation may be building everything that the plan is talking about. I think part of what he was trying to talk about was just assuming that you want people to come to your place. That's the point of the uniqueness and the point of what he's laying out. For one thing, what you're saying, yeah, we need to be careful and for granted that Montpilers already has so much of it. But also a thing that occurred to me while watching it is that we in many ways have a problem, the opposite problem of what he was talking about by having such a demand for our uniqueness and then not having, not everyone who wants to be a part of it is able to live here. So I thought that was... I think it's a unique situation. We can't meet the demand. Most towns would love to have Montpilers' problem of having too much demand for what you are. But you're absolutely right about... Don't take that for granted. We have to preserve it. Well, the thrust of this lecture is good planning is the best thing you can do economically for your city. It makes money for people because they like to be here. I mean, looking across the street at both vacant buildings. I mean, there's a casualty of two things, the flood and the internet. You would think good design could cure those problems. One of his suggestions was keep the retail downstairs and put living spaces upstairs because as you say, people want to be here. And the flood problem is a pretty serious impediment to developing the dam. But the city center did it. Everybody looks at what the hell is that thing on that platform. They were smart. They were really smart. So some designs like that have got to be incorporated because otherwise what holds the town together would be lost. I thought one of the interesting things was Waffle House setting up the outlet on the street level and four levels of living spaces above it. And pretty soon the Waffle House business in downtown was four or five times what it was at the drive-in at the age of ten. So all the people they're going to buy your stuff are living right upstairs. And why would you put the college up on the hill and the dance to put it downtown? Would you love to have a bunch of young people looking around for things to buy and friends to see and restaurant? He had lots of examples like that of cities that had brought in community college branches that really revitalized a town that was on the verge of disappearing. But I think part of his point, too, was to recognize what your amenities are and then to capitalize on those. And he didn't specifically talk about our issue with the fluctuating population that we undergo which I would have been interested to hear him talk about that. When the state workers come all of a sudden we're instead of a city of 8,000 we're a city of 10,000 but it's not permanent and this past weekend actually I went to a tiny house festival in Brattleboro and Brattleboro is an interesting town of 12,000 and it's amazing what the significant difference is between just having that additional 3,000 people. I think one thing he would say just based off of just what themes in his presentation are that those people who live in town should live in town. Because he did talk a lot about having the workforce living in your downtown and all that. That's impossible. Well, it's a weird scenario, right? Like you said, we have more people who work here than could possibly live here. Right. Right, so that's the challenge of creating more housing in the downtown area. We have people that would want to live here if we could figure out how to do it in the downtown area. Well, that's the city plan for the next 20 years to stay with us. Yeah, so I made a note for myself to bring this up when we get to item 5 when we talk about the kickoff meeting so I can take up your suggestion. I'm just saying make it available. Did you get a chance to see the video I sent out? I'm not sure how long the clip was. Did you see it? It was on that one city in California, right? Yeah. City California, basically. It was short. Right, okay. But it didn't include anything on Portland during the other cities. Two of the cities he mentioned were actually mentioned in this film because it was an AIA foundation film that was put together looking at three different cities and different revitalization efforts. What is AIA? Oh, sorry, American Institute of Architects. The foundation could have been taken directly from his talk but what it did was it interviewed people in each of the three cities. Have you seen that? I didn't get a chance to look at it. The whole thing is called Back from the Brink saving America's cities by design and so two of the cities he referenced, Chattanooga was one of the other ones. What I'll do after this meeting is I'll link to your video not your video but the AIA video. Okay, video excerpt and then I'll see if I can track down the Ed McMahon talk on local media and circulate thoughts so that the people who missed it can check it out. He's from the Urban Land Institute so just to give him some qualifications. He's not just walking in off the street. Right, right. Just a quick question. One of the other two cities that you mentioned, Chattanooga and the AIA? It's the Soussoon City, California which was basically bringing it from the ashes, literally. Are you familiar with that? Yeah. First voted the worst place to live in Southern California and so they really done a huge revitalization and a lot of what they used was supportive funds. And then Chattanooga and then Portland, Oregon looking at a successful city and mixing in all income levels in their housing efforts. Anyway, it's an interesting video. Was this a recent one? Or how was it? Yeah, it's probably 15 years old. One thing Chattanooga does is it's just free Wi-Fi online, by the way. We're not that big geographically that could be something to think about. We voted in March to explore that, right? Yeah, with that company. Yeah. That wouldn't be free. That would just be like public internet, basically. So not quite the same, but something city-wide. Anyone got a chance to go to the regional? The second item I wanted to talk about was the regional planning commission. There's a vote. I know you had a feeling that you did make that one. Yeah, I did make that one. Speaking of a quick summary. They did. They passed the regional energy plan which was the big item that they needed to get everybody there for to get 70. Because it requires a 70% vote I think to pass of the municipalities. So you have to make sure not of who's president. They had to make sure they got enough I went to that one. It was an interesting meeting. It was certainly an interesting discussion and then they got into some discussions about more nitty-gritty discussions about how they were going to handle a question on preferred citing of in order to get the adder and you're probably going to correct me if I'm wrong in order to get the adder for the for the rollback for the meters. Net metering. So for the net metering to get the adder has to be only on preferred sites. Only on preferred sites. And because the and then there's a list of the preferred sites that the state has established and then there's one provision in there that kind of goes and says if a local planning commission and local select board or city council with the approval of the regional planning commission then a separate site can also be designated as a preferred site and get the adding bonus. Because most municipalities don't have the compliant plans yet and the regional plan was very conservative in where they outlined for preferred sites a lot of these net metering projects are not qualifying and therefore in some cases they can't get approved at all and in other cases they just don't get the adder so one way of fixing that is to go through and get this fix by getting the local in Worcester, Berrytown and one other community actually have projects that need to get regional approval. They already have local planning commission approval. They already have select board approval but we don't have a process to approve at the regional level so they just want it to go through and say is it okay if we have our project review committee approve them based on our newly adopted regional plan. And these were municipal projects? Nope, these were just I think some of them may be municipal projects but I think there was a requirement for a lot of net metering. Because we didn't talk about that in the county committee subcommittee at all. My understanding is it's a change that came up in the legislature and so with the expiration of these adders then in order to get these additional Yeah, it's been changing year to year and so there was another change as or will be as of July one which will be a change. I'm surprised about the preferred site piece just because preferred sites were not that specific in the regional plan. Those maps were incredibly vague. Because they aren't specific that becomes the issue. If you're on an old gravel pit or you're on a brownfield then you meet the state definition of a preferred site but if you're just have a three acre field that you want to go and put 500 kilowatt net meter project on you won't get the additional adder because it's not a preferred site. But it could be a preferred site if you get the planning commission select board and regional planning commission approval and then you can qualify for the adder. And again I may not have it 100% or I hadn't heard about this until they kind of presented it at the RPC. I have not discussed it in the energy committee so that's why I'm wondering. It could be worth checking in with Eric or Claire because Eric's leaving the regional planning commission but Claire maybe might be able to help you out to get the details of why but it was really specific and a lot of discussion about whether we should allow the and eventually they did vote to support to let the project review committee approve preferred sites. Whose project review committee the regional planning commission. Okay. The RPC regional project review committee has the authority to review individual applications. So once you already have planning commission, local planning commission and local select board approval you can then come to the regional planning commission and request regional approval of that. And my thought was for the overwhelming majority of these even our 500 KW was only on three acres. So I mean it really is not going to be significant regional impact that as a representative of the regional planning commission I couldn't see why we would be opposing a majority of these projects if a local municipality is okay with one on the planning commission and the select board it would seem very difficult for me to see this not unless it is one of those areas identified on the RPC of where the RPC said we don't want things here. So clearly if our map says we don't want things here and that's where it's proposed then we would probably say no. But Yeah, I mean it just kind of brings up a whole other issue, a number of issues that I won't go into but the biggest one being this that we could never do the 500 KW, I mean the one megawatt project again because it's limited to 500 KW and we've already maxed out as a municipality we've maxed out that which so anyway there are quite a few stumbling blocks so it sounds as if what they were trying to do is really put some teeth into this idea of preferred sites which didn't really have teeth before it was sort of maybe that was kind of a last minute change and that was why it kind of came up but it did surprise a lot of people and that's why there's now a big push to kind of get preferred status approval on some of these projects. I could mention that I'm going to be joining the regional plan subcommittee of the Regional Planning Commission so yes Planning Commission of the Regional Planning Commission Is there a timeline for that process? Is there a what? A timeline for that process? I think it's going to be like a two year appointment but I did ask if I wanted to hand over Mark Peeler's representation to someone else would they be forced on the subcommittee and they said no that person would be able to choose their own subcommittee as that happens but Kirby tell me again what committee it's the Regional Plan Committee so there's a regional plan committee there's things like the Energy Committee Brownfields Project Review and a few other subcommittees so the Regional Plan itself of course is the guiding document just like our plan is for Mark Peeler and it's actually this is one that I kind of wanted to do out of all the choices because it's I think knowing about that will help know where to put Mark Peeler in the context of it all so I would like to know more about what's all in the Regional Plan and I know through our zoning and through our planning efforts recently what Mark Peeler's kind of planning to do has changed a little bit as far as like for instance developing out towards savings pasture and things like that and down Berry Street are kind of new developments planning wise so making sure the Regional Plan reflects what we want to do and Mark Peeler I think will be something on my mind Will they get that specific on the Regional Plan I mean within the city limits That's my understanding Oh really? Okay Yeah Does this mean you're switching committees? No It's a subcommittee of the Regional He wanted to dive in What? He wanted to dive in Well I was one of the only Regional Planning Commission members that wasn't on a subcommittee Yeah and yeah there's some kind of prolific so people noticed I'm good for you It might be some news in the future about that Alright, well we've got a lot to cover so I'm going to move to item 4 which is General Business Why are you doing that? Would you tell me your name again? Joe, that's the one I thought so Joe I didn't want to call your rails Well that was actually exactly where I was going so Joe the next item is the public to offer comments if the comments are about something that's not already on the agenda No I was just kind of curious on the zoning fixes because I saw that so I wanted to see what you guys were going to be discussing Oh okay great Did you get a copy of the punch list that might Yeah So that's what we're going to be discussing Pretty expensive I don't think you're going to cover it all today Well We agree at the last meeting some of the items on there have been added from a prior draft that might be used to send us and we didn't have an opportunity to even begin or to take up but we did agree at the last meeting that the items that were on that prior draft we would do sort of a consent approach to it so they would be deemed occlusionless unless somebody raised their desire to discuss that item and I have a few that I know I would like to raise but just so you're aware we're going to be going through it quickly Okay Okay so that's item 4 item 5 is the city plan update discussion Mike you put together a list of the committees and potential chapters that is in this pile of documents so not all of these I just put them all down even though some of them may not like the housing trust fund committee we probably won't actually invite they just do the housing trust fund but I tried to put the primary one as the first one across so land use planning commission the ones with the stars are required chapters under state law transportation would be the transportation infrastructure committee we also have a separate complete streets committee but probably the transportation infrastructure would be the primary utilities and facilities we have a CIP committee natural resources we have the conservation commission CIP capital improvement plan so they usually just meet to approve the capital budget so is your recommendation that we invite all of these committees and let themselves select whether they will come or your thoughts at this point I think we can really it comes down to what we want to try to do at a certain point there is a line down here I think community services make sense to be in there after that these were just other potential chapters that I've seen public safety isn't actually a required chapter but we could we don't really have a committee for them health I've seen communities use health resilience arts governance also as chapters resilience section too resilience needs to be a chapter that's discussed but it but it can be discussed under natural resources or other places as well it does have to be but some places have called it out as a as its own chapter as well and depending on the community you can probably find other chapters that could go in there but these were the primary ones because we kind of wanted to be able to interchangeably go between chapters and committees and committees to kind of be able to say like historic preservation commission is kind of responsible for the implementation of historic preservation chapter and we kind of housing task force would be responsible for housing, MEAC and energy committee and it will help us to be able to develop more strategic plan because we've got people who are going to implement them the only one that kind of gets a little bit more cluttered are like economic development has a couple of different economic groups the community services we kind of have different Yeah I noticed parks commission is in the community services and not natural resources but they might have interests that they were a funny one they kind of overlap depending on how they see themselves you know is parks really part of RAC or is parks part of conservation commission I think the economic development in a way relates to all the other committees I don't think it should just be people worry about money I mean do we need to specify which chapter each of these groups is responsible for can we just invite them and they could offer their ideas not tied to a particular chapter I it depends how you want to structure the plan ultimately if we're going to have an economic development chapter then the question will still come back who would be responsible for the economic development chapter if it's not the Montpelier Development Corp or Montpelier alive I mean there may be aspects that aren't covered by these other topics but I think Kim's point is well taken that these other chapters should be incorporating that concept and that's going to be true for a lot of chapters actually I mean I'm sure Barb can comment on energy how do you accomplish your energy goal if you're not talking about making houses more energy efficient or how do you meet your energy goal without discussing transportation so I think each one of these is going to have an overlap to another place historic preservation and housing if you've got historic neighborhoods as we do I think these two are going to overlap in a number of ways and I think the question comes up where are they overlapping and where are they potentially in conflict we hope there aren't a lot of conflicts but they're going to come up from time to time I agree at this point there's no good reason to pigeonhole anyone I think it's good for the planning commission to know what these chapters are going to be so that our minds are there but no reason to with this meeting coming up to have the other committees trying to cram their ideas into a certain category at this point I think it depends what we're asking them to bring if it's just they're bringing their personal goals of what they're trying to accomplish there's three main goals you're trying to accomplish in the next five to eight years then we can start to about ten years we could change this I didn't get a chance to kind of get through that one so I'm counting nineteen committees if we do three slides in three minutes there's no added time for transition which of course we will have it comes to 57 minutes so it should be about right for how her painting with all the with our intros what about the ones on the back those are potential chapters but we don't have anybody addressing those well they're I just started to make sure I put down some things because the chapters with the stars are the ones that are required and then the question starts coming up are there other chapters we don't talk about community services arts could be under arts could be put under something else community services or economic development these are just ideas governance could be a chapter on its own that's not a required chapter no those are required no so if you look at the ones with asterisks that's what I was surprised those weren't okay well I think those issues these topics need to be sure that they're covered and people have an opportunity to respond to them and if people come up with other ones that can we have any idea how many committees are likely to report I'm guessing we aren't going to get 19 right you're not going to get that I mean housing like I said even housing trust fund could probably come off there just a once a year group that meets this association probably wouldn't but development housing trust fund has different members than the task force right yes I mean that's actually one where it might be worth it to go ahead and ask them to see what ideas exist since they're different people thinking about housing I think it's reasonable to invite all of them I imagine we'll have a few that don't participate and I don't think we need to tell them which section we think they're under we can say from your committee's perspective what's most important to you and then if we want to group them together later like say hey parks and conservation if you're going to work together on the natural resources section you guys should be doing that collaboratively if you both want to be part of that but I don't think we need where does parks where does parks see themselves do they see themselves as a natural resources protection parks or do they see themselves as the provider of recreational resources parks they may have multiple roles they may be on both they're going to have contributions to both my concern is we're just we can get this letter out tomorrow but it's going to be you know we have July 23rd is our date and it's really not a lot of time to give these committees and part of that we've just been a little bit delayed by various scheduling issues on our part so I'm wondering we want to see if we can get a later date from the high school yeah I can do that I was thinking the same thing but I didn't want to be the only person who says that it would be helpful if some of these groups if they only meet once a month they might not have a meeting between them maybe they can move it to the end of August I know it feels really far away at some point they start school at the potentially near the end of it would be nighttime though I know but I think we don't want to overlap with that if we can help it yeah part of what I think would be helpful is what's the sense of our full timeline for this we're sort of talking about it pretty generally but we're not really saying ok if we have we're deciding we're going to have this done in 2020 and here then we can work our way back to what we need to get done and when that would be helpful yeah and I think that was an open question that we still had was we kind of got a green light although we didn't oddly we didn't end up making the priority list for city council not that it was removed it just if you look at the city council's priorities master plan isn't one of them but I think it had been discussed a lot as to and reinforce that they think it's an important effort for us to work for 2018 right now goes for the next five years yes but when we were looking to get priorities from city council on where staff would be dedicating their time boards things there we didn't doing this work isn't there but that's I don't think that well that's one of the reasons we really wanted to try to lean on the committees themselves to do a lot of this work and giving them this guidance early on will probably facilitate that better that was sort of the thought the more we can do this work without leaning on staff yeah and trying to bite off small pieces rather than try to do you know I think a lot of times we try to make these giant things where we're going to do everything if we can get you know a set of three five goals from each community or each committee and be able to build a transportation plan and a housing plan knowing it's not as perhaps as as deep as we would like to get with complete discussion of all programs and projects and everything that we want to try to accomplish because it would just take us too long to completely do it but if we did you know kind of good cut on everybody and got the priorities talked about then we can go back over time and keep digging a little deeper into housing you know not just the top three things but we're actually doing a lot of things every day to advance our housing projects and let's make sure we kind of outline and discuss them and start tweaking what programs and projects need to get tweaked so what are thoughts on having two of these similar meetings just adding another later date we might have some takers on the next meeting and we already have the space schedule for then we wouldn't have to worry about the time crunch as much basically just use two planning commission meetings in a row or maybe to spread out a month so and if we get any early takers then maybe we could just go ahead and use that time and and if we don't then have a regular meeting we would shorten the meeting and give people a little bit more flexible time if we're not limiting each you're saying half the committees might show up for the first meeting and half for the second this advantage is they won't hear all of the goals yeah unless I mean they can still come as members of the public but they might not even have formulated their goals I mean I think it's good to have some pressure on them to get their goals formulated but you're right that if it's possible they might have only one meeting between now is there anybody who would not have a meeting between now I don't know everybody's schedules probably it's the summer yeah but most committees most of them will meet at least once a month the question is when during the month yeah I mean if we could move it to August 13 or August 27 August 13 I was planning to go away on the 27th but I can move those plans around if needed I think I'd go for two meetings I recognize your objection but I think Kirby has a good idea some people might be able to present people who are working or later could come in here they're conscientious they might come in the first meeting and say oh that's what this is all about and do a better job on the second one I once made a study of how to say something in a minute because I was doing a TV advertisement for myself and it's amazing what you can say in a minute but it'll take you three hours to prepare it I don't want to have a lot of people come and say oh we only have three minutes I haven't done this I haven't done that so it's two minutes are gone by and you get a minute of substance I think very few people have the discipline of saying something in three minutes it's a very disciplined I think meeting twice isn't doing harm might do some good maybe people would have thought about it mm-hmm and they're going to be the people who make other people think about it your letter would have to say don't worry guys if you can't make it you could get another shot the letter will already ask for if you have any presentation materials please send them ahead they could also say please tell us which of the two dates you would like to attend I think worst case scenario is we get prepared for some of the July date that's the danger what the hell is this all about yeah we know that the energy committee and the housing committee potentially the conservation how long were the presentations to council about what each of the committees is doing and setting priorities well it was for each department I mean the tree board did it we did it the energy committee did it the recent one? there was a limitation on those too yeah I was asked for the planning department and planning commission to be 10 minutes yeah I think that's probably what we were trying to do with the energy committee too so some of the committees will already sort of have been thinking about what their priorities are and in order to communicate those to the the council so it might not be that much more for them to be able to put those together and we're saying 3 minute presentations yeah well we can say whatever we want I mean and just could we give a little bit John was pushing for 3 minutes 3 slides 3 minutes we could go through a lot more slides in 3 minutes could you query people to see who might be able to present on the 23rd well we can I think the letter will send it out and we'll just ask for an RSVP so Barbara you in support of this idea too? I think that actually might help I really like the idea of everybody being in the room at the same time but I think people could get overwhelmed because we were afraid of how many committees there were we could ask that everyone attend both meetings but that they would only present at one meeting we could drop it to 2 minutes no no we can't drop it to 2 minutes because at that point it takes us longer to set up than it does to present oh well it's definitely going to take care of all of that yeah I mean they're going to send me content and I'm going to say no you have to cut and you're going to tell them what order so you're going to have it all that was the idea was to have it preset but for whatever it's worth I would significantly prefer that we get everyone at one meeting and it's because of that reason and if we even if we set up the first we can say if you cannot if you absolutely can't make this work we can have some sort of follow up to get a couple of people if we have committees that can't make the first one we can have a second one pick one we're going to get you don't know what we'll get and I'd prefer if we can at least try to get everyone hey this is the day if you really can't make it we'll have a smaller follow up just so they have a backup I'd really like to get everyone at the same time what are your thoughts John? yeah that's good I don't know what you're responding to which one with the question of having everybody there at once or is giving people the option of doing two meetings he knows ideally he knows all the things that are out there what do you prefer? yes I like the idea of doing it all at once we'd have to be really organized it can't happen I don't have a strong preference I guess the reason why we haven't actually held a meeting or scheduled it is because we're trying to organize it so that it can't be the most productive amount of use of our time and everybody else's time so I guess my preference I have a strong preference to have everybody at the meeting probably all together that I hear that there's some ideas that we can have two meetings and that would be productive and I am open to that of course in August yeah I think it'll have to be August right if we're going to do one meeting it would have to be in August what if we say our first meeting in August and then we can have a backup for those who can't make it it's the second meeting in August but don't tell them that it's a backup if you absolutely can't make this day let us know then we can work with them for the first one yeah I'm not telling them we don't have to tell them no backup or they can send comments or something if they want it'll all be recorded yeah it'll be at the high school if they can't attend they can send here are our slides can someone just read what's on here at least say these things there are a number of people who are in each of the committees they can attend on that day so it's not like we're asking one person yeah we only want one person it does not have to be the chair it's not like we're going anywhere we'll never talk to them again this way the idea is like we bring everyone together and like obviously there'll be a lot of work to be done after so August 13th would be your preference I can try to book it in the morning I don't know how responsive to the that aspect of the city it's during our regular meeting time it's Monday Monday evening I'll let you know as soon as I am able to confirm I have some tweaks to do on this letter now again it's fine just a few minor tweaks so is everyone okay with that idea when I threw that one idea out it is a balance between what's more important that we get as much information as possible which I think there's an argument that two meetings would help with that or is it most important to have all of the people working on various things in the city to really hear each other and it sounds like that is a priority and after that that's where I think a load of value in this meeting is I think the council is supportive of having that all committees meeting idea okay let's do it we can move forward with sending out a public survey before that meeting happens if we want to do that and I know it's tough for you to send something to John and I didn't get to go through it in detail it's brief it's our first opener of really quick easy to answer questions that I think would be a good start to get some broad outreach and then we can send we can write up a nice little front board for our post to go with it but yeah you want to look at it and let me know what you think so why don't we take a look at it give her comments and then you could send it to the entire commission and we'll take it up with the next meeting okay that'll be soon enough at the next meeting I think so if it's a right anything else I would say I haven't heard back from SAF he mailed it to me since the last meeting he hasn't replied it's been we had a number of pickups so he may have gotten sidetracked he may need to resend it to him if we had the phone systems go down then we installed new wifi he's been busy with the wifi he's been busy so new passwords been well that's a great segue it reminds me that we wanted to post something online to explain what the terms evolve, maintain, transform mean and if we don't have SAF's contact info or if we don't have this year I don't know we can post stuff online that isn't an issue I think it's whether we need to set up any google drive well ideally I guess we could start by having this on the city's website and then by the time the meeting occurs we should definitely have a google drive set up so we can walk everyone through what we're expecting we're hoping to do so one of the items we discussed about the letter the last meeting was how the draft says you should come to this all committee kickoff meeting and identify aspects of the city if you want to say evolve, maintain, transform what do those terms mean they're not defined should we write a whole more explanation in the letter we all decided no let's point to a document a guidance document so I asked Mike what he thought would be a good document point to and I think this isn't an excerpt that's an excerpt from this guy which I forgot how big it was so John this was your baby at some point yeah I did a lot of this it certainly was where I first came across the concept of the maintain, evolve, transform I think it's a helpful but you wrote up something as well right I did but I didn't it was kind of a quick it hadn't really been kind of pulled together I mean I could certainly go through and do a little bit more work on that to clean it up because it was more of a set of notes and thoughts that kind of came together I could share with folks like you guys playing in commission and a few other commissions to kind of start to have that discussion but it really wasn't cleaned up for kind of in the same way that this is if we're looking at just the concepts of maintain, evolve, transform this does a good job of having that discussion that other piece I had put together which had more thoughts really then took it to another level where we went from evolve, transform is how we do our goals but then once we get to the second level of how to do the strategic planning then we start getting into more are we continuing are we amending are we doing something new are we policies or plans or permits or we had a number of different things that I don't think we want to overwhelm the committees with at this point what we really want the high level maintain, evolve, transform and there'll be other pieces that throw at them afterwards and do you think by that meeting we could work in at least creating like the boxes or the definitions of what we want so maybe we can present it then so that they're all working towards filling out or using the same like schema we would need you on that because we would want it to be we want to give them instructions for how to give the information in a way that works for you ultimately it will have to do that relatively soon if we're going to give them a heads up on being ready for the meeting well I think that this gives them the concepts and then at the beginning of the meeting we would present this detail and say the concepts that you're going to give us today will facilitate discussion but what we'll want to be working toward is fitting it into this framework and that's what you'll be explaining so I don't think you need to do it before the meeting it might be too much for them to take in I think it will be and so I looked at this when I was thinking about putting together a survey and I started with defining these three things and trying to explain that to the public first and then I realized that's not really makes sense because then I have to clarify to them here's the difference between evolve and transform and now you have to understand it before you can respond to it which it's easier to just say what do you like about Montpelier right now what is it here that's great that you really love and we can take that and put it into the structure but especially for the public I don't think it makes sense I don't think they need to know specifically what these terms are to be able to respond it's easier if they don't need that for the committees we can explain it to them but sending it ahead of time and making them respond to it with what they submit might be more challenging we could explain it at the beginning but I think if we're and it's also this is very specific to map like to the land use map within how it's discussed here and not everything that these committees come up with or that the chapters come up with are necessarily a mapped fix and it might be hard for people to think that way if they have like a general feeling of we should have more parks that doesn't necessarily relate to a map yet and they could but I'm that was part of my concern with throwing the terms of people now and not explaining to them at the meeting and stuff which I think would be easier Do you feel like this document is too confusing and we should get rid of using those terms in the letter and just call them goals again or it's helpful but if we're not explaining it I think how do you what's the difference between the evolving transform you can read it and figure it out I don't think it is anything clear to people would it help for our part in our intro of the evening start talking about that and pick that opportunity to teach them about it so that would mean the presentations they bring aren't necessarily put in this context but we could give them a primer on it so for further I'm saying that they're only going to be one representative of these committees so maybe teaching one person from the committee isn't even I think they'd be able to bring it back that's sort of the idea you're sending a rep from your committee you can bring it's going to be a game of telephone but they're going to need a reference to something like this we'll have to have some handouts of things that we can present so you're saying not put this reference into the letter I think we could if they want more information we could post it and say they can look at it but I don't I wouldn't expect people to read it and be able to define what they want in these terms before we get a chance to talk to them about it it might be best to keep it simple and I'm not sure like what value even if they got this down like perfectly we wouldn't necessarily get a whole lot of value out of categorizing it right now but if we do present this it's just as important like setting the defining how we want them to communicate those ideas and what's a target versus a policy or an action you can kind of probably bundle this with those ideas and leave them with resources to understand that presenting it at a high level but then giving them something to sit down with more very quickly making it clear that you are the best person to present these high level concepts at that meeting and I don't know if you'd be open to that but I'm just thinking like explaining all this and putting it all together as a concept it's going to be very challenging and I think we can continue talking about that as we get closer to the meeting how it makes sense to do this I don't want to saddle you with all of the work of doing the opening presentation but maybe if there's a way for you to have a role to kind of explain the difference between evolve and transform and how that translates yeah I don't think explaining it is the challenge it's deciding what we're going to do and I think we're back on you Mike yeah and sometimes I think it comes out it's an iterative process to try to ask them to just do it and I think Barb can attest that just giving it and having people work on it it's hard it really is the when you can sit down and work on them then you can start to get there it's not one you're going to get right off the bat when we actually want to get the transportation committee to get us the stuff I've got to kind of sit down with them to help them work through their thinking process because everybody's going to gravitate to the easy stuff and if we're going to get stuff done then we've got to keep bringing them back to well that's nice but encouraging bike paths isn't going to get us any bike paths so let's get back to just going and saying one of our goals is to have more bike paths and have this many more bike paths this many more bike paths or prioritizing bike routes along arterials and collector roads is going to help us to establish a better work plan and better CIP if anybody's welcome to take that I've printed out one copy just if somebody was interested we can leave it in your office it's the same one that's online but this step two piece came out of there well with all that in mind how does the group feel about me asking for committees to present goals go back to goals and then saying if you want to know more about how this process the concepts that will unfold in this process you can look at this document and we will be discussing in more detail at the meeting I agree with Stephanie I don't want to constrict people just give us your ideas or maybe yeah or maybe just what's different about Montpelier ten years and what's the same we're trying to get out a sense of change which can be more helpful than you know what are your goals and then it's just like then it's something vague and flowery what do you want to see in Montpelier in ten or twenty years yeah I would be happy if John and Leslie sat down and crafted this letter and just asking for goals is appropriate based on my experience with the committee we can go and tell them what we're going to be working with you going forward over the next six months twelve months eighteen months is to help come up with strategies and tasks for accomplishing those goals but what we really want you as committees to think about are you know what is it you want to see in those next you know John said five ten years what do you want to see that stay the same what do you want to see that's changed Stephanie said does she already put this terminology into user friendly I started to but then I took it out explain it to the general public if you have that language that you used like a plain language shortened the same version of this then you could send it to Leslie or if you I mean you might have a better handle on it otherwise I can yeah I can write it it's probably better if the drafter of this document doesn't summarize it because we'll see how much it actually okay so I'll send out a summary and you already started you have a draft letter it was just ready to hit the send button no I mean that's what this process is all about is I mean I'm not once you write something you're like I'll have to change it again but it's fine I'm not that attached to this writing I just want to get it right I want to make sure that we're thoughtful about our process and that's what this is all about once we get once the letter goes out we've committed ourselves to what we're doing so as well make sure we know exactly what we want to do so you are saying that you'll ask for goals that's what it sounds like are we concerned that goals doesn't provide enough guidance is that what they're concerned with I think originally I think that was the concern but I think in retrospect from my standpoint that goals is really going to draw the most illustrative pieces out my concern is that we get like targets which don't really necessarily tell us a whole lot they'll get like metrics but yeah we want to build 250 housing units is what you'll get and not housing is more affordable in ten years from now housing is more affordable and is more available than it is today is conceptual goals if we call it conceptual goals does that help prevent some people will want to work that way and so they'll actually have to work back to what their aspiration is from the metric so maybe the numbers aren't did you think the numbers if they came in with a target and said we want to build 500 units in the next ten years is that a good thing we could translate that though you want to do that it's more affordable housing right is that the goal and we can talk it through yeah so I think as long as they come with something this is what we're trying to accomplish over the next ten years as the housing committee this is what we're trying to accomplish over the next ten years as the energy committee and whatever they come with isn't going to be final this is just the first brush so it's going to these things are going to change and the formatting is not going to be the same between each group they only have two minutes Fred you're really sure about that every time we talk about it alright I think we've got enough I mean I can between Stephanie John and Kirby and booking expertise is there any money for us to do refreshments I'm sure I could in a pinch we'll probably get more people to come especially starting at six was that it your letter or your original letter started at six the 23rd booking six to nine yeah I'd book that six to nine do we want to stay with that move it back to August 13th so I heard yeah I mean who could get a few pizzas for good for you know so I'm not just coming up with the money I can make money show up I've got budgets I can get a couple hundred dollars you can squeeze a pizza out of it yep I can squeeze pizzas out of it okay so moving on from item five unless I hear anything else we moved to item six which is where Joe's here just to wake you up out there sorry it's just been a long day um no I understand I understand so items six is receive punch list of zoning fixes of begin review so I'm gonna ask Mike to kick us off I will before he does that I will just note we had received a draft of this a couple weeks ago and we agreed that we would take it up as sort of a consent review so anything that people don't raise as a concern we would deem the staff recommendation approved Mike has added to that draft since that time so I accepting permits and we keep getting stuff so we keep tweaking things so should we go through it more carefully then well we will go through the ones that weren't already on the draft carefully but have the ones that were already on the draft changed well I don't think it changed you just added to the bottom right and I think I just added well I actually added in so they weren't added to the bottom unfortunately so you're gonna have to highlight them kind of inserted them um so um I should change my date on top what was the first one that you added maybe right at the start at one and two I didn't grab my old list do you have the old list or just I have it on my computer because some of these I can go through relatively number one is the same I didn't mark it as something I needed to discuss with anybody else same with number two just a couple clean up pieces number four can I just ask so it's recommendation is I think a general statement about the regulatory construction under state law would be more appropriate so we're going to rely on Mike to put together a statement like that on number two is that what's in the next box it's yeah it's in the next box I didn't I wasn't always perfect about keeping comments and recommendations I used both kind of flip them back and forth but in this case the recommended change is actually in the second column okay yeah so the third one was to strike the information bullet 1004 yeah yeah that's okay to then number four is new yes that one was new we we've had a project on this where a question came up on paving or repaving what we had were applications that have come in and somebody wanted to pave a set of gravel paths and they were extensive amount of gravel paths and they were going to pave them and the question was did that need a zoning permit it wasn't clear in our rules of the definition of development whether it would should the paving of an unpaved parking lot require a zoning permit or should the paving of these unpaved paths my opinion is I would not regulate paving and repaving of already impervious surfaces but I figured that's a question but is gravel an impervious gravel is considered impervious seriously yeah because water doesn't necessarily drain off it in the same way that it drains off yeah that was my thought as well I wouldn't consider it though how the storm water rags go okay so I'm not wrong that was what I thought was that it would be impervious so the underlying question would there so if there's going to be permitting it means that there would be instances in which we say that no you can't pave that thing that used to be gravel or the thing that's currently gravel so that's really the question before us right now yeah is there any like standard or are we just asking for a permit for the sake of getting a permit it may in this case be just a sake of getting a permit the issue that sometimes comes in is once you trip in for example if you're a commercial and once you've tripped into paving and it says yes you're going to need a permit now it's development of something that's not a single or two family so now you've tripped into site plan which puts you into a minor site plan which means you may be tripped into doing other things beyond just because you're paving and impervious but maybe those were things that should be done it's a policy question of whether we get into that extent of I think if you're going to pave an impervious surface you should get a permit but there's no, we have no regulations about it we're just having someone get a piece of paper if it's there isn't anything I've studied but I thought there was a lot of regulations and so forth about changing impervious surfaces and requires a lot of demonstration that isn't harmful downstream that's when the jurisdiction is triggered increase phosphorus and the rest of it but this is about not changing impervious the amount of impervious if it's already impervious, go ahead and pave it that's what we look for well, again I guess I would bring up the point about that drainage is not necessarily going to happen the same off of those two surfaces and so if there's a budding neighbor who is suddenly going to get inundated by water coming off of pavement I think that there should be some kind of review so the update is to clarify whether at this point it's just an administrative question basically that's the question I thought we were going to do a comprehensive stormwater review as part of the stormwater master plan we're still waiting to get the data layer from the spatial analyst lab this would be appropriate to revisit at that point I think well we still need a definition at this point we are we've gotten two applications I understand that but I mean the policy question I mean I think what's our default until we get the provision if we think about this as something kind of more temporary in terms it might be easier for us to I don't think we need to make a long term decision about how we're going to handle repaving impervious surfaces I mean I'm comfortable accepting an exemption for that with the understanding for repave, redeveloping impervious surfaces and because I know that we're going to be revisiting all of this the environment tells me there's differences in impervious surfaces well for one thing gravel moves around a lot more than pavement does and so in terms of how drainage happens off of it can alter significantly over the course of its life Mike are you able to just interpret it without a clarification the definition let's say we all agree that it's not development unless we say otherwise Mike would sort of be to go in and change it to clarify it now to what you're saying but then when we do storm water are we going to be haunted by that change when we go to work later we can always change it later what we have right now are just questions that have come up and what we have basically done is defaulted by looking to the fact that you the fill requirement that's in here goes and says if you're going to excavate fill more than 30 cubic yards on a property then you need a permit and therefore we simply applied that to the paving so if your 2 inch coat will require more than 30 cubic yards of material then you need to get a permit and if it's less than that then you don't and so for a thousand feet of 5 foot wide path 2 inches thick we can calculate it up and see how many cubic yards that is and if it exceeds 30 cubic yards then you need to get a permit if it's less it just requires more work than if the question just came up why are we even doing this considering we have no review standards or not and that was from an administrative standpoint if we had a determination that said no repaving isn't then we could when we get the phone calls just push them off I'm probably clarifying that it's not development if you're repaving something that's already impervious if it's already impervious we have impervious requirements so if you're going to pave something new then we need a permit and we have to determine whether you already have exceeded your impervious cover percentages stormwater rules the old ones a lot most of the work I do is appeals of things that are old so the new rules I don't know yet until they get appealed so the old rules the concept was that there's another definition for redevelopment and there's another set of standards different from new development so just put it out there your original point was paving versus repaving and then later you expanded it to what about paving an unpaved area yeah there's both we've had repaving as a question somebody wants to repave their driveway do they need a permit in that case I would say that they wouldn't need a permit because it's already existing but there's no modification happening I guess I would just have a hard time with changing the gravel to pavement what are you suggesting instead then are you suggesting breaking it up into two different if you're repaving an already paved surface then that shouldn't require a permit so by paved you mean cement or tarmac not gravel pavement by definition is a hard surface that is well maybe we need a definition I'm not sure but to my mind a paved surface is something that is a hard surface and if you're matching what was already there then it shouldn't require a permit what about SurePak so yeah but SurePak it moves around it's not there for permanently like pavement this I think that's my point but you're not suggesting that we create a way to regulate that you're just saying that that will then pull you into the review process that Mike mentioned that could have other things look at a more careful look at it then if you're going to take a non paved surface and pave it then it's going to need more review so permits probably never going to be denied based on paving gravel but it can mean that other things that you're doing are getting looked at is that right Mike is that what you said yes it could bring in other and some of this is going to depend on how some of these other things get to we've got some other issues later on especially regarding landscaping are serious issues that need to get fixed so getting drawn into site plan could draw you into a you know you want to pave your driveway now you need fifteen thousand dollars worth of landscaping cutting down trees in your front yard I mean in general cutting down your two big trees so you can replace them with three small trees because you don't have the right number of trees in general from a we'll get to landscaping things trust me the landscaping schools are really really bad you said those were the big ones really bad I guess in general from a sustainability standpoint I'd like to minimize the amount of new pavement in the city and so that's sort of where I start we'll need a clear definition of pavement then if we go that way the two minutes pavement very few people use concrete in Vermont I'm not sure we have or at least I haven't necessarily seen a lot of information that suggests gravel would be better because of the sediment that comes off of it yeah it's but again what I'm saying before is that it's not a completely stable surface the surface changes depending on traffic but you know if you want to take a vote on it well I don't know what we're voting on to be honest I'm trying to this is when the gravel is an impervious surface yeah I'm trying to find it in the stormwater well I don't know if it's I know I've always treated gravel as impervious and what's the definition of gravel is it sure packed or is it stone maybe we need some further clarification before deciding on this one I mean ultimately the question still comes down to whether we want it to impervious surface means surface composed material that impedes or prevents the natural infiltration of water to the soil but not limited to rooftops streets driveways sidewalks walkways patios and similar hard surface as to areas whether constructed of concrete asphalt stone brick gravel or compacted earth unless they're specifically designed constructed and maintained to be pervious given that definition I would support your my opinion sentence at the top do not regulate paving or repaving of already impervious surfaces and all Barb's saying is defining that they already don't allow infiltration Barb's just talking about doing a gravel carve out that paving were gravels development you know if I felt confident that it didn't move around create new drainage patterns then I'd say fine here's the stormwater impervious surface means those man-made surfaces including but not limited to paved unpaved roads parking areas unpaved roads parking areas roofs driveways and walkways from which precipitation runs off rather than infiltrates so the question is whether gravel infiltrates whether they infiltrate gravel or any other surface for that matter under this rule what were you reading Mike? that was our definition of in the zoning well that's more comprehensive and I would use it to say impervious already go ahead and pave it did I hear you say that you're concerned with the the permanence of it more that once you pave something generally the drainage patterns will not change significantly whereas with gravel they can change over time particularly after mud season so you could end up with pockets of materials in gravel that you wouldn't necessarily have that might change the drainage patterns off of the gravel from what they would have been underpaving in fact I used to live on a dirt road and so-called compacted gravel and I preferred it because I knew that in the spring during mud season I had a chance to get up the hill because I could go from basically from divot to divot whereas if it was paved I probably wouldn't have been able to because of the so there's significantly different surfaces even if they're not necessarily but we don't have to beat this one anymore um what do folks want to do so do I have a proposal impervious surfaces except gravel you're going to have to change the definition okay so that's a motion is going to come out of the motion okay do I have a second well I mean could I offer a modification absolutely could we just say repaving existing bituminous surfaces okay would not require a permit and then you'll continue to go through that longer process you define to put these gravel what if it's porous concrete have you found a porous concrete one that actually works that doesn't fill up with that's intended to be impervious it's tended to be pervious so it doesn't count as impervious there's a lot of parking well I would exchange your suggestion as a modification okay then I will second we have a motion is it possible offer a further modification just for the drafting sake and I've got to do regret how much time this is taking that you phrase this as defined as my proposed except that what you just said is not or is development I'm I mean I can either put it under one zero zero four under definition of development or I can put it under the one one zero one exemptions from development you can put it in one side or the other I can figure out where to do it I just need to know what the policy was we might want to modify the pervious surface definition because it has gravel specifically called out just looking at does does the repaving of paved surfaces need a permit really the question paving is different than an impervious surface right as long as we don't include the word impervious in here then we don't trip our own we're not going to trip up our own definition we're just then paving of an unpaved surface would require a permit so either I would say that I would have to probably phrase it in one side or the other that would go through and say that paving would require permit paving of unpaved surfaces would require a permit the repaving of paved surfaces would not right the repaving of paved surfaces would not that's the policy and that's what we just need to know which side because we were just making up rules we need an answer so we made up an answer and if we've got a chance to work on it then we'll so you had the motion by Kim do we have any are we in the discussion part was that John are we in the discussion part yet yeah yeah amended and seconded by Barb now discussion yes do we have any criteria around it don't know I mean it already as we said we've already determined it one zero zero four no as we would have specific standards on that it doesn't look like bituminous is in the regulations you were reading our definition under paving no it's impervious surface impervious there's a definition for but the section that we're looking at one zero zero four which is something to one dash one seems to be a stand alone one zero zero four dot a unless specifically exempted in these regulations c chapter one ten all land development in the city of Montpelier requires a zoning permit issued in accordance with these regulations and then there's some italics that say land development means and I think this is where paving piece comes in it means constructing installing demolishing reconstructing converting structurally altering relocating relocating or enlarging any structure mining excavating filling or grading land removing natural woody vegetation from within riparian buffers changing or extending the use of land or structure adjusting or relocating the boundary between two laws or dividing a lot into two or more laws paving and repaving technically doesn't actually trigger trigger any of those except if you look at it as filling or grading of land because it technically adds to the land and we were like well that's why we went to the next page which looks at the 30 cubic yards and said well we'll just use that if you're over 30 cubic yards of pavement then you need a permit and if you're under 30 cubic yards then you don't that sounds good that's a lot of pavement Q8 it's a lot I mean cubic is pretty big the 30 cubic yards is does that specify excavating 30 cubic yards without any reference to the word filling what's the it is the reference that comes in on this side is actually the so this isn't the exemption exemption section yes 7A the movement and 30 cubic yards of material or normal maintenance for normal maintenance of roads, driveways, parking areas, yards or for personal and community garden I read that to mean movement of something that's already existing on the property to somewhere else yes so bringing in and that was what we had circled why we said the movement meant that's different than trucking in a certain amount of cubic yards and then there's also with a lot of these there's also to a certain extent some amount of remove and replace that sometimes comes in if you're going to do some work so a couple of times we got caught up being lawyers got caught up on the words we got caught up on movement doesn't say bringing in doesn't say results in the bringing in or the removal of 30 cubic yards with the movement of it so I'm I'm kind of back where Kirby was saying do we actually need to document anything in the regs themselves here or if we can just give you guidance on our intent for interpretation based on the exemption language if you give us what your intent is we may go back and reread to see if there's a word that needs to be changed as we said like the word movement you know if you guys go and say we would like to see permits issued for paving of unpaved surfaces excuse me then we can start moving in that direction to start tweaking some language for some public hearings and if the decision is no we don't care if you're paving an already impervious surface then that makes things obviously a lot easier to clean up in that direction so if we kind of know so I think the discussion then becomes how do you how does everyone feel about this exemption for the movement of material that's less than 30 cubic yards right that's really where we're honing in on that's the only one we have in the ordinance now right but I think driveways typically are less than 30 cubic yards right that's where you come across yes we actually exceeded it with the one application you exceeded it with the one application but you thought because it's repaving it was paving gravel paths on a property that already has gravel paths they have a lot of gravel paths and they were going to pave them so because it was 1500 feet 5 feet, 6 feet wide couple inches of pavement it actually came out to like 41 cubic yards or 40 cubic yards so they did have to come in to get permits well hearing that it's in keeping with what Barb would want a review to trigger anyway so I think that it's actually structured in a way that I think you do need to clarify if you're going to apply movement the way you've been doing it I think you are right to want some clarity in there to support your interpretation because I would read movement the planar meaning of that would mean to move it from the already on the property like excavating but you're interpreting it to also to also include bringing bringing it in so if you were paving so if you were paving or even repaving that would trigger needing a permit in excess of 20 cubic yards and actually depending on how you're defining movement if you interpret movement as Kirby's interpreting movement that's just on site moving from corner A to corner B yeah that's the exemption is just moving on site as opposed to actually trucking in asphalt which would not be an exempt activity but it's also not defined as development anyway is it depending on how and that was really where we wanted to just if we got an understanding of what everybody intended then we would know do we add paving to the definition of land development because if we want to regulate paving then we should add it to filling, grading, paving because other regulations do say the word paving I have seen that in the definition specifically called out if we don't want to regulate that type of paving then we could work it into here and this is really why and as I said we had two applications one which was repaving driveway fairly simple project that we deemed to be exempt and then we had another one which we ruled with not because it was more than 30 cubic yards but we just wanted to if we know what the policy intent is then we can go through and kind of tweak the rules to fit it seems like this it's working or it makes sense right regulating and repaving things and we are when you're changing some water like when you're filling and grading land so yeah and the two that we've done it sounds like you guys have agreed that we made the right call and I think the question is as we start getting to some of these other ones if somebody is if these folks that just paved the gravel path come back to repave that gravel path and they're trucking 30 cubic yards to repave should that have a permit to repave it that's the question all we care about is knowing are we making them get a permit or not but the likelihood of them adding 30 cubic yards to an already paved surface we just had one to pave it to an already paved surface but if somebody came in that exact project that just got approval to pave those paths was 40 cubic yards so if they come back two years from now and repave it what if actually I think there's a flaw in this approach and that's if that project you're talking about that used 40 cubic yards if we draw a line at 30 then they don't have to get a permit but but they could also they could do 20 yards this year and 20 yards next year and would not have to get a permit but it seems like we're actually that's not a great way to come down on this I think deciding whether paving is development's one threshold question if it's not then they don't need a permit in either case which is kind of why I tried to put this in here clarification on paving and repaving is really should regardless of the amount do we want to be regulating the repaving of already paved unpaved areas assuming that unpaved area is already impervious paving of a gravel there you go so we have emotion out there which was just which was say repaving would be exempt repaving of paved would be exempt but paving of impervious would require a permit any other discussion on that before we vote is that still only if it's over 30 cubic yards I don't think it was ever triggered by a volume this particular motion was not tied to a volume if you update that language would they still apply for that exemption would they still qualify for that exemption if it was less than 30 cubic yards the exemption still stands right yeah I mean I can tweak the exemption I think what we would go back is to clarify the definition of what the word movement is to be clear to meet what we're intending I don't think movement does I mean because the exemption that's here is the minor grading filling excavation which is not part of an approved construction activity it is not commercial mining extraction that results in the movement of 30 cubic yards of material normal maintenance of roads personal and provides appropriate measures to prevent stormwater runoff by adversely impacting nearby properties public infrastructure downstream water bodies of course to get the exemption we've got a review kind of one of those circular ones but that's the exemption in its entirety anything else on the motion all those in favor of the motion say aye all those opposed aye and your abstaining I guess I'll oppose the motion carries 3-2 yeah so it's your vote in favor oh 3-2 oh that's why I opposed it went nice guy it went nice guy yeah with permits on a small level so I'm going to oppose which means it doesn't carry sorry I forgot that we needed 4 that's alright we'll keep this on a list of things to continue to I'm voting no but yes I'm open we should really revisit it we'll put this under the no changes at this time I voted no because of John the same as John had voiced a concern permitting and I'm also worried about a slippery slope of calling gravel impervious to be far more concerned about taking impervious actual impervious and having someone put gravel on it and then tell us that it's impervious but we weren't discussing the motion didn't discuss pervious versus impervious it didn't define it based on our previous definition which says gravel is impervious but the motion was on paving and we could clarify to asphalt paving if you feel that way all I can say is I'm sorry you brought this up really yeah I got it well like I said we almost all of these have come up as a result of very specific applications that have come in the door and we were left with a question of you know somebody has asked they're paving the parking lot I was joking you were clearly right to bring it up I'm sorry it's not an easy one so everything else from part one was on the prior draft and I didn't have any other comments of the issues so unless anybody else has any at least get part one done and move on to deal with the rest of our agenda for tonight I had a comment on six right I thought we didn't want people to need to get permits for fences uh they do need there's some permits for fences but what we had were people who were coming in so fences need permits in design review design review and well people were coming in that didn't need permits anywhere in the city I thought that's what we connected I don't believe we do because we've got specific standards in chapter 310 320 you know 310 well so in 3101 talks about fences and walls where the locations are allowed to be the orientation of them what fences in front wall yards can't be more than four and a half feet tall side yards can't be more than six feet tall so I mean if you back up though to chapter 220 the overlay zoning districts in the applicability section or the provision 2201.C applicability within the design control overlay district no structure including fences and above ground storage tanks maybe erected reconstructed substantially altered restored or demolished without review of the design plans by the design review committee and approval of the design plans by the DRB and then in 101B it says except within design control the zoning permit is not required for these things it's pretty clear where does the design review committee get criteria on fences where is it say fences are exempt in 101B it says except so they're not exempt in design review but they are outside that's the way I know they're actually all fences need permits really? I think that's a good idea I think we've got that's over here in 3101 we have a whole set of standards on fences yeah but that doesn't mean that they need permit all areas need permits 3101 talks about the rules for fences I don't think we have exemptions for fences and those are the height requirements yeah the heights where they're located what materials they can be made of I mean it's something that can be entertained as you know we're looking at rules if people want to propose that fences don't need permits John where were you it was 101 something? well that's what the number 6 is proposing to clarify yeah and what that was talking about was any accessory structure ancillary to a residential use that is less than 100 square feet in floor A less than 10 feet in height and so people who wanted to put in fences that were in violation to 3101 were saying those rules don't apply to me because I don't need a permit in the first place because of the any accessory structure provision in this section of front I would recommend a modifying 2201.C which is in the design control overlay district saying the piece that I just read saying no structure including fences and above ground storage tanks may be erected and no structure may be erected why are we calling out fences in particular there because it implies that that's the only place that we're required for a permit I honestly didn't remember where we landed on whether we're requiring permits or fences and I don't have strong feelings about it either way but I think that having a having it called out there in particular kind of implies that it would be exempt in other situations so I might recommend modifying them but that's 2201 but anyway I don't carry the way we could certainly I've certainly gone through and seen where fences less than a certain height were exempt I think in Berry City fences less than 6 feet were exempt 5 feet were exempt didn't need permits for shorter fences I don't mind if we do require permits I just think we should be just a little unclear a lot of these things here are a lot less policy stuff than it is for us so we know how to interpret them so as far as number 6 John was just seeking clarification on what John on whether fences were required to get permits or not because you were asking about 6 feet you didn't have any issue with the change right you just wanted to know whether fences needed to get permits yeah basically well do fences need permits or not at this point yes I think it should stay that way so we're going with 6 right we're going to change the worst structure to building yes next time someone tries to argue that a fence is a structure they definitely laugh it is a structure not a building that talks about square footage yeah we're in its context that was the argument we made and we said if you want to appeal my decision you can but at the same time because I was doing a punch list I felt it's smart to make that quick change anything else with section 1 ok hearing none we'll deem the rest of these approved and we'll take up we'll pick up here part 2 part 2 of the next meeting that gives you something yeah I think part 2 I think it was nice to see that out of part 2 which is the zoning map so far we have no have had no recommendations to change any of the zoning districts no more new districts no changes of stuff most of the stuff is really this map this email these are we can take these up at the next meeting ok hang on to these yeah Meredith gave me one the last second which is why you have an email which has a couple extra comments at a certain point I said that's it I'm not adding anymore the matrix is closed can I get a hard copy of that approved by the zoning of the zoning yeah actually could I get one too do you want paper copies because I'm using an old one whole sections of any other I'll take one I don't have a laptop or a tablet right now three hole punched or stapled three hole punched punched punched three hole punched really he's taking our order thank you thanks it's great so while he's doing that item 7 consider minutes from June 11 we'll go back and look at the May 14 minutes at the next meeting we didn't mourn them for this meeting so we'll we still have those that we need to approve but for now let's look at June 11 any motion to approve these minutes so moved second second seconds any discussion all those in favor say aye okay the minutes from June 11 have been approved unanimously and there's one more item which is adjournment do we have a motion to adjourn okay we have it from Kim second non-debatable motion all those in favor say aye alright thanks everybody thank you