 item one has been struck because the was item four has been withdrawn from my red lines item four was the sketch public hearing for Pinewood Manor Incorporated application has been with so we have in attendance tonight David Raphael and myself Dustin Bruce are present in the room of John Schumacher John Mangan and from Berlin present teams with the missioners and staff is all present as well. So before we roll into public comments I'd like to ask anyone who's all going to offer any comment this evening whether you're online or here in the room to please swear that any testimony you present this evening will be truthful to the best of your abilities. Thank you. Steve Morris I live at 36 Hagen Drive. Thank you. New first item on our agenda is public comment. Does anyone either online or in the room want to offer any comments of the planning commission for items that are not on the agenda or any items that are related in questions comments related to consent agenda item which will be our next item. Yes Sharon. Commissioners any questions or comments regarding consent agenda? I've got a question I don't know that it matters but there used to be a well that was an issue and not on the right property. Does this resolve that well issue also? That was Tom. Well okay because I was going to say if you look at the plat that was provided the well is identified on the point two nine acres that's transferring over to the other parcel. Okay I didn't see it thanks. I don't know if that addresses your question but it is identified. Yeah okay. Any other questions or comments? Hearing none we'll move on to the consent agenda itself. I'll move approval of the consent agenda for Linda Leclerc and Chris and Elizabeth Krantz for proposal to conveyance of point two nine acres from one Leclerc woods to 15 Lamor road tax map 73 parcels dash 17 and one dash 14 staff report as written or sorry approval letter as written with Sharon's two changes. I'll second that. Seconded by shoe. Moved by David seconded by shoe. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries five zero. Sharon I just want to know you had another phone number comment. So if we don't have an identified member or person do we do we retain that caller? Here we go. Question made for the future since we're looking to have attendance if we don't have an identified caller do we retain that line or do we disconnect from the meeting? Yeah I mean you couldn't attend a public meeting anonymously. Okay. All right then moving on to moving on to the next item on our agenda David. So I want to give the applicant and or the planning commission the opportunity to boot me on this one as you know Dan I do own Jericho mini storage which is in Jericho. I have sat on other self-storage applications I feel like I can be impartial but if the applicant desires for me to recuse myself I'm more than happy to do that same planning commission members. Sure yeah I think we're okay with you staying up. So note that thank you for bringing that up and we have acceptance from the applicant. That's all right and commissioners no concerns. No. That was a question. No. No. All right Darren will you be presenting this for us? Yes thank you Desti. Give me a moment to get the plans shared for everyone. I apologize because computers being a little slow for me tonight. All right it is 18 River Road. This is a parcel in the industrial zoning district. South side of town at the very close to the border of the village. The proposal it's currently an existing dwelling substance abuse recovery residence and the proposal is to demolish the existing buildings and construct self storage units total of six buildings varying sizes and numbers of units with on-site stormwater treatment no water is sewer services required there are no needs for those utilities on site and generally staff has no issues with the proposal there is a section of extreme and steep slope that the applicant is generally avoiding and they're using a retaining wall to prevent any issues from any erosion issues from continuing to be a problem and then there is an existing area of erosion that will be remedied as part of the construction of the stormwater pond. Otherwise no real issues. I'll double check my notes. There are a couple of small design changes the public works is required those are in the conditions of approval and a few other minor changes. Otherwise I will leave it to leave it at that. We did have one public comment come in via email which was shared in the commission's packet and we can provide here and read into the record. Thanks, Darren. Commissioners, any questions at this point for staff? After me. So let's shift to the applicant and Dan. Yep. I'm Dan Heil with the Leary Berksive Associates here tonight with Josh Mazer who is Nate Crete's business partner. Darren summed it up. We're here seeking site plan approval for mini storage six units total 12,400 square feet between all of them. An existing home is on the parcel that will be removed as well as a barn on the parcel. No water sewer as a mini storage. Runoff will be handled via a gravel wetland and dry pond donation. And there are some areas that will be fixed where there has been erosion located in the southern portion of the site. Looking through the staff notes we are we're good with all those. We worked out some items with staff beforehand regarding snow storage and additional landscaping and we're okay with the conditions as written as well. Thank you. Commissioners, any questions for applicant? Tonight. All right. And get a motion to open up the hearing. Move by second. Seconded by John. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 5-0. Public hearing is open. Anyone has any comments they would like to offer on this? This is the time. Darren, do we want to input the question from the public? I'm sure I've got that pulled up. This message was from... Why isn't it coming up? Can you one moment make sure that's all shared properly? It wasn't in that one so let me share it from here. Can folks see that? Yep. Great. So this is from Cecilia Polanski to who this may concern. As I am not able to attend the September 23rd meeting concerning development of 18 River Road, I wish to express some concern that developing this parcel with storage units will not only eliminate any possibility of capitalizing on views of the Wanooski River and the beautiful Green Mountains uninterrupted by power lines. It will also not provide jobs as was most likely the intent of the industrial zoning, which was assigned to the river bank several decades ago. Why does any storage unit facility get placed along a scenic river? The site review states open space, approximately half the parcel and most of the adjoining land. Adjoining one is maintained as open meadow in the foreground with distant views of the Mount Mansfield range to the east. However, the proposed building is not located within the Scenic Resource Protection Overlay District, nor were scenic views documented as in use of the Mountain Scenic Protection Manual, presumably so as not to limit development of the town's limited industrial areas. The applicant has proposed some landscaping and screening to compensate for the loss of the scenic view, which has addressed in finding 1F. To seal a comment to continue, please consider whether some landscaping is going to compensate the town or residents for a lost opportunity to build high aesthetic value residential units on this parcel with views and near the river. Parcels like this are non-existent elsewhere now close to town. In addition to losing a potential scenic property, there is water flow on the parcel, even though the site plan review calls it a small stream. Inconveniently, steep slopes and natural drainage are being cemented over. What will two acres of rain runoff look like as it searches for a place to go? What a shame for nature. Maybe Mr. Creek could look into the idea of getting the zoning adjusted to preserve the natural aspects of this rare parcel, or the town could suggest this idea. Thank you, Cecilia Polanski. Thanks, Darren. Okay, public hearing is open. Any questions from anybody in the audience or present here? I'm looking to raise your hand tool in teams or speak out. Hearing none. Commissioners, what are your thoughts at this stage? Do you feel you have questions? Do you feel you want to? All the light fixtures are all cut off. So yes. Correct. Yep. We'll be on time or our motion sensors as well. Yeah, I saw that. Thanks. Let's go around the virtual room. John Mangan, what are your thoughts? I guess, and I don't have really any major concerns about this. In regards to the letter that was just read, I'm a little bit confused because the scenic view to me is to the south. I don't know how it's going to be blocked, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I drive by the area all the time. And, you know, you have global founders right there. You have twin craft. There's not a whole lot. I think it's kind of ideal suited for this. So that's really my only comment. Thank you. Yeah, I did know what John said. I mean, I actually appreciate this letter and I appreciate the thoughts about preserving this sort of thing. But honestly, there's no, there's no nothing in in our regs that allows us to do something to fix that issue. So I'm not. We need to preserve that industrial land. And I also think that often when you travel down a river into a town, this is what it looks like. That's all I got to say. Tom, did you have anything else you want to add? Nope, I'm also. Thank you. Good. Okay. Hearing none, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. So moved. Second. Second. All second. Looks like. That touch. They've moved by David seconded by shoe all those are in favor of closing the public hearing. I. Tosed motion carries five zero public hearing is closed. Any further discussion gentlemen, or is anyone prepared to make a motion. I will move that we approve the site plan for Nate creed doing business as 18 River Road LLC for the proposal for six mini storage Build things located the 18 River Road in the industrial I one zone tax map 23 parcel to That report as written except on line three twenty one three twenty two. I want to tweak that because That's not a condition. I'd like to propose that we go up to line 293 route 296 and bring that down into the condition because that's what Dennis actually meant or asked for Does that make sense? so actually Yeah, I'd like to I yeah, let's let's strike all of C and actually put in a new C which is Olive number six, which is the inline yard inlet detail and that's the specific What Dennis is asking for there? And and then just I think I had one grammatical since we're just doing it I'll find it Line 131 just changed the proposed buildings are not located instead of the proposed building since there's six of them That's all I got before you get a second on that sorry Our additional findings since we don't have anything added to that We strike that for this application or indicate no additional findings Line 284. Yep Yeah, we could add just a line in there that the Planning Commission added no no additional findings during it. So we just it seemed yeah not an open door I agree anyone want a second motion second Tom yeah Any additional discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye Opposed Motion carries 5-0 Thank you You're coming into town can you brought Sean's bike in? All right, next is the minutes from September 9 we have two sets on September 9. Oh, we did that's that's correct I remember that I'm gonna actually okay Three minutes from September 9. We have two minutes. We have minutes from the site visit and Minutes the minutes from the regular from the regular meeting So can I have a motion for the minutes on the site inspection? I move we approve the minutes for the site inspection of September 9th, 2021 In a second my shoe I'll second them So does anyone want to offer comment on Any or offer any changes on the minutes as written and as presented the only thing I say is on the site Visit one you have me listed as present. I Was just gonna say that I know you were talking about putting a comment in there that I Visited with Darren. I don't know. I don't care if you put that in because I put that on the other ones But I think that's reflected in the other minutes as you mentioned it during the meeting Yeah, so go ahead and just take me out of the present All those in favor of the minutes as presented and amended I Hi, hi, hi Opposed motion carries 5-0 Minutes are those minutes are accepted and now the other minutes from 9 9 from the regular meeting They have a motion for the minutes from September 9th planning commission meeting. I move the acceptance of minutes from September night Can I get a second? We'll go with Tom I heard him too Does anyone want to offer any amendments to the minutes as written? Hearing none all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye opposed Minutes carry but now we are going to have a letter to sign Let's ask let the quest let him answer I Can stop it John you can John Megan and Tom do you have the option to stop in tomorrow to sign I cannot Okay, okay, so let's get to other business Well, I have one quick thing before you get into zoning Darren I think we've had solar but go ahead Okay, okay Yeah, this is just quick. It's just a housing commission update the housing commission will be Presenting a draft of their work on inclusionary zoning to the joint select board trustees on Their In their October meeting if they have a second meeting it's a second meeting. It's late in the month Would you like to see a draft of that your representative Ned? Daily has been at the meetings and Ned's not here tonight. So he can't speak to it But he's been working with the housing commission and with Patrick Scheld from the village on The just a draft IZ information session essentially Blessing session for the work of the of the housing commission on this We want to see it. I mean it's Before it goes in I mean, that's we're not gonna weigh on it. So right I mean, no, but I mean just to see it as part of our ongoing Planning yeah Yeah, I think that I think that you'd like it and I think that you know the housing commission actually wants to come to present more to other boards and committees and so We will talk to them at their next meeting and ask when they're available to give you the presentation and a quick note that the They're also working on a housing trust fund proposal The goal is very similar present an overview to the select board Before they start in earnest, but they can present that to you as well. Although it's less directly related to planning and zoning Okay Good There in Europe I Different places to look now so Honolain solar has proposed a Solar carport you've seen this site plan application before for a Eight unit addition to an existing four unit dwelling on Redjust office on a road across from Sunset Drive almost They're now doing their net metering application with the plan public utilities commission to actually put the carport in so you can see on the site plan here This is the actual dwelling. These are where the solar panels and carport and parking are going to go Want to notify you Staff have not noted Have no issues with it as long as they follow the site plan that it was approved by the planning commission and setbacks and all that Yeah, okay, that's it for that one So now you want to move into zoning regulations discussions Very good an update for us. What are we at with it? Yes? So me and try to get everything freed up here We staff work on a couple of the quick fixes That needed to happen in the zoning most of these are statutory some of them are Fixing some errors or inconsistencies so we presented this to you and a memo and a list of the changes as well as the full set of zoning regulations and Draft form with red lining and all that We're happy to walk through any of those but we mostly just wanted to give this to you as an update We have not yet warned any public hearings on these regs But if you think we should and we're ready to move forward on these then we can do that for the October and November meetings We've routinely done like a workshop before we put something into a full public hearing Is that does that The framework of what you guys were thinking I mean it would be I think it would be good to be able to do something like that So we did do a bit of a workshop on a lot of these They we presented a very similar List of changes to you. There have been a few additions and modifications to that since So we didn't see any to do a full-blown workshop like we normally would most of these are statutory updates Most of them are I've already seen before but we're happy to do a workshop if you feel as appropriate What do we have at the next I mean what do we have in the time frame of the next meeting? Because I'm just wondering if we could just book an agenda item Which you know half hour or whatever of an agenda item as a workshop on this so that we can just Go through more in depth So Commissioners, what do you what do you feel about just doing adding maybe to that meeting a short workshop to go through With the specific intent of that is to go through all of these so we're all Clear unless unless you feel that you've got enough information, you know, I turn to the TV screen as if they're as if the other We're here We have some time now if you want to go into detail I I do have some comments and questions I I'm Frank I'm not prepared now to go into depth on this because I was really thinking it was just a quick review I'm fine Tom if you want to present some ideas and points What's John shoe, what are your thoughts? Hang on a second Sharon you said we have nothing right now in October 28 so far And part of our thinking was about the timing of having a public hearings with the family commission and then forward enough to select or They're not into budget session But I think they will be regardless because they're starting that a little early this year if These fixes are and these updates are truly as minor as staff feel they are It shouldn't be an issue to select board reviewing those during their budget hearings because it should be pretty if we did if we dedicated More of the October 20th meeting To this would that give you time to prepare additional pieces for that review or is that Yes, would that be more uisa? What are your thoughts on that 28? Sorry. Yeah And there there's some other sort of housekeeping. I guess that we'd like to um address also um We've got um internal lighting and gas station signs and um Most I think most pressing sort of in in my head is uh, we're updating We're in the process of updating fees the fees were approved by the select board And as we're going through them we're We're uh debating the And comparing contrasting conceptual versus sketch plan review and it's We think that that Distinction has been lost over time and that it might be something to just rethink about and we can Get our thoughts together And present them to you At that meeting but there are some sort of there are some sorts of housekeeping stuff like that That could be useful to do at that meeting also Especially if we're getting less scheduled It sounds like it would be helpful then all the way around It's tom I would think you can still present your your your comments tonight to give staff that information Maybe we we target that october 28th meeting We're more in-depth workshop We'd still potentially have room for an application if needed But we could still do just focus bring some greater focus to this We have agreement on that And this was one with what everybody gets to say in I think that's how it's good And typically the planning commission has um accepted public comment after After your massage work Yeah Okay, so tom do you want to you want to take a little bit and go through your comments? Sure So first one is chapter three section 3.8 a1 The small lot change Mm-hmm Does anybody know how many lots that's going to affect? Is that going to be a big I don't actually have a number right up to my fingers, but it's a very insignificant number We don't actually have that many parcels that are below that size most of the ones that are are a um Just for the towns like stormwater and sewer infrastructure I don't believe there's any public or sorry, uh privately owned lots that All within that Okay, and we are there's only a call of a couple of them Okay, and can people create small lots now or is that these are only existing lots? These are only pre-existing non conforming lots uh, and it's extending a um Additional development potential without the requirement to merge it into another lot if there's an Small lot less than an eighth of an acre or or more Or less than or 40 feet in any dimension It says okay, if you can fit a house on it and it's got water and sewer service go for it We're not any okay, um chapter five g point five point g the 30 foot high light poles We've we've allowed those in the past because it It seemed like it was less light less poles less energy Yes, and so we're Good Where did the change come from what's driving the change to disallow those? So I believe that it's not disallowing them because there's repetitive language in that Section and let me pull this up so we can all look at it and make sure I did this, right? Because it's quite possible. I didn't You just get to computer really not friendly to me tonight Oh, yeah, okay the lighting Um, and of course it's showing a different view than I wanted to So the goal here was to try and reorganize this section partly because there was some repetitiveness and some This organization But the idea was I took the objectives and consolidated them into one section The requirements for a lighting plan and consolidated them into one section And then when we get into The waivers part of things So here we go parking lot lights it has a Normal limit of 22 hike 15 feet if next to a residential district, but you can still allow them up to 30 feet So later in here, there's another separate section talking about allowing them up to 30 feet Um, if it's necessary for energy conservation, so I took some of that language into the previous section I just see okay All right, thanks. Sorry about that um and then the We kind of we We got stuck at one point when somebody wanted to put a hotel in the town center Do we want to make that an allowed use in this go around or is that like Beyond the scope of what you're trying to do It's beyond the scope of what we're trying to do right now We are focusing on just the basic simple fixes that are trying to avoid any deep dive into changing zoning to changing uses changing You know dimensional requirements until we've had time to really look through those discuss what the planning commission and Really get it right. We also and so this is basically just Anything that statute requires us to do or anything that seems inconsistent and we've had Issues with when applicants ask us about stuff All right. Yeah, okay. So I won't give you the rest of my list here then um, but I'll ask you the question somebody's going to ask the multi-family Um making that an allowed use in all the residential districts. Is that truly required by statute? so the reason we Went through that was When we look at what statute requires, um, it says that conditional use review cannot um Deny a three or four unit dwelling based solely on character of the area The other conditional use criteria have to do with traffic uh a capacity of community facilities renewable energy and That might be except for character of the area All of the other criteria besides character of the area are captured under site plan review And then you look at a site plan review and it says anything that is not a single unit or a duplex Uh residential unit has to go through site plan reviews. So that includes three and four unit dwellings So we figured that By allowing them everywhere by the permitted use we're still making everything go through site plan review Which it normally would we're just avoiding the situation where it goes to the zoning board and they duplicate the review of site plan Because they're not actually doing character of the area review um There's not all there's some lack of clarity in statute about whether character of the area could be one of the components Or um, if it simply can't be denied based solely on that Um, but we also looked at those districts that allow multifamily as a conditional use and it seemed to make sense that You know, they should they could be allowed They they fit the character of the area Um, we're certainly open to discussing that more if you want to pause that change until we've had more our review But the goal is to try and eliminate any situation where the town could Deny a multifamily of three or four units based on character of the area alone Okay, it seems like that's going to be very controversial. So Um, we just have to be able to explain clearly why it's required. Yep and Sorry, I was going to go off on about why the Law was passed, but I don't actually need to go that level of detail tonight. Yeah, that's fine And there are usually other dimensional requirements that restrict what can be done in a certain parcel So it's not as though it would just be a free for all for three and four units Um anything else No, I think um I I'm good for now. Okay So let's let's let's plan on having a uh, thank you for having this much I mean, this is this is this is what we've been asking for. So thank you. Let's um target the 28 for a more more full workshop You if we have applications that you want to put on there, I would think we can do both but You guys can use your discretion on that It might be good to invite the zoning you know zoning board to this as well Okay, so I don't want to lose lose them on this um Anything else on on the updates at this stage? Yeah Okay, a we so did you start to yeah, not that we're ready to um to share tonight. Okay And I'll just make one more comment But again, we are hoping to do a more in-depth review of many different topics town center puds um, you know many other things we just are Still wanting to get through some planning work on that Before we bring actual zoning changes to you and we'll keep you in the loop as when we get those discussions going and that we anticipate to be more of a January onward timeline okay So are we good to go into the deliberative workflow? deliberative session workflow so john and and and uh Dom Angin shoe and tom just for clarity or for transparency I initiated a discussion with staff I included josh I included Dave because he said he was going to do research on state statute and so forth on manipulation of the of deliberative session of workflow for deliberative session and I was trying I put out a proposed workflow That they shot through full of holes appropriately so um But I think out of that discussion we came up with something I think Dan do you have it in writing in front of you? I do and I can share that if you can share that and And We struggled a little bit the last time but I think we can do it smoother and if we can do it smoother we can use the tool more more frequently um If we use it more frequently it will be you know, it'll just be I think a more effective tool for us Okay, so Darren shared up the last email thread and and long and short is I think David you phrased it well when we come out of the you know part of the deliberative process is this Is to issue a finding when we come out? But I'll be quiet for a minute I think that's what we talk right yeah, this is what we need to chat about and one of the things that we discussed was um The decision to continue a public hearing Generally should be based on needing more information needing more discussion not necessarily on Simply that the meeting is you know the night is over So the the the the challenge we had last time was what you know, how do we shift from public hearing to Deliverative and I think that's what we're trying to outline is to give us a path to be to do you use consistently In my mind we would we would we would have a item on our agenda for You know any any deliberative sessions that we choose to go into as a result of the applications that night And anytime we move to go into a deliberative session we would do it Of the regular business meeting And we would just we would then go through the rest of the agenda including minutes and business And then go into the move to go into the various deliberative sessions Whether we do one or multiple. I mean, I wouldn't think we routinely need more than Theoretically we could So I'm sorry, so If you close the public hearing then go into a deliberative session You come out you have to reopen the public hearing No, we would I think in this case if we close the public hearing We go into deliberative we come out of deliberative and we and we issue a decision And it would be a deny And if we can't get to something in deliberative then we might have to go back to public hearing but The the deliberative session would be to make a decision Come out of it with the decision Right, I'm just looking at the second bullet of the last section there says if already in closed session returned open public session for a minute taking purposes and the distinction there tom is that So you can deliberate in public what you typically do This would be if you want to be closed a deliberative session just pc and or and staff to discuss something sensitive and So we have to close the public hearing in order to do that you can continue it or leave it open But the idea is that logistically We want to have those private closed deliberative sessions at the end of the night So the public isn't hanging around waiting for you to come out of them And I think as as you know, it might be that our process is if we decide that we're going into deliberative We close the public hearing And if we decide if we if we don't think we have enough information Then we then we have an option opportunity to continue the public hearing For acquiring more more info We remind us here in that what starts the clock The public hearing closed when you close the public hearing that starts And that's the 30 or 45 day to issue a decision before it's deemed approved by default Right So if we needed more time what we would have to do is come out of a private deliberative Reopen the public hearing and could then continue the application so that that clock freezes, right? So honestly, you don't really need to close it. You can come out And then immediately put your motion Challenge with that as it gives the public the perception that we're going to come back out and It's still open as they would have an opportunity to talk But you could tell them when you're going into they were leaving it open in case we have more questions as a result of our session Our intention is to come out close the public hearing and put a motion on the table And the You're never going to have perfection no matter how No, but we should what we're looking for is consistency. Yeah, it's just seats and a little bit more That the reason to close the public hearing is people would tend to leave And say okay, we'll call tomorrow But if you're clear We're leaving it open only for the purposes of in decision of the planning commission not for additional public comment Everybody the last chance you any more comments you want to make I have so It's just a map of emotion So and once you close the public hearing, I don't know that there is anything in statute that allows you to reopen it um, I think that That might be Dicey legal rounds and we've been told in the past that if it's been closed and you reopened it The applicant might be able to make a case to say Well, you closed it and it's deemed to come deemed approved 45 days later whether you reopened it or not That's what I think we'd want to avoid and we can get a legal opinion if you want to really I think we might have a legal opinion in the archives for that because we've done that We have done that in the past. So I mean early So not to ignore the guys that are on the big screen to our left Um You know, what are your what are your thoughts shoe? You know john and and tom how I mean in general this this was this was put out as a as a proposal For a workflow that we could replicate over and over again as needed Obviously, there's nothing is going to be exactly the same anytime we do it because that's just the nature of the beast but We theoretically could take something like this and put it into our operating procedures So we actually have something and we can do that at any point in time We can have something that we can refer to Describes how we're going to apply deliberative sessions That was sort of my As I come out of this And why we would discuss it tonight So maybe we can let's let I want to I know Sharon you're chomping at the bit Thoughts I I think it seems fine. Um I prefer to see it a flow chart. That's who I am but yeah, it reads fine. I think it works Tom How do we determine that no further evidence is needed? That's that's a really good question and that's a discussion point And I think that's you know may depend on the comments you get I think you can determine before you go into a closed session Do we think we have enough information or as part of the reason we need to go into deliberative closed session To talk about what we've heard so far and determine whether we need more information It's just to me. It just seems cleaner to leave it open giving providing You won't know until you have a flavor already. So when you go in if we leave it open And part of our flow is that we close it when we come out Unless we need more of a that's something we could do every single time. There's no need for an exception at that Right, right. That's just your that would be a written flow that we that we go into deliberative When we exit deliberative we issue a finding the finding could be that we need more information And we're going to continue the the the public hearing until another date I mean that again, I'm looking for something that we can put into place and use repeatedly consistently and Predictably, you'll probably have pickups doing it that way. Yeah So then we could take out that third bullet Where everybody shotholes. Yeah, no, this is this is we'll make a new chart. Yeah. No, I think this is this is this is appropriate and um We can take out This one what tom was talking about. Well, actually the the We can actually take out the the the second bullet completely Because if we're going this is this is if we're going into deliberative session Right. So we the first two bullets go away We'll just say that we leave the public hearing open Yeah, correct. So the first that's the first actually so the second and third bullet goes away. Sorry the first bullet stays as is If we determine that we get rid of the second one Yep, so at that point the only time we ever close a public hearing is at the point at which we're ready to make a motion to approve or Yeah That's pretty clean. Yeah, that's just and that's consistent Over and over and over start with that motion everyone signs off then move to a motion to go into deliberative session at the end of the meeting No, no, I'm I'm talking about I'm talking about at the at the very end of the process where the pc's ready to take action That would first start right closing the hearing then move a motion to either approve it or continue so I think Earlier that when we exit deliberative session finding We develop permanent finding in Such as we support after port as written or whatever and we come out of the deliberative session Weird we want to view about finding so we would then read that into the record Yep, close the public hearing or close the public hearing first depending And and and then either continue or Or take action on this occasion We're laughing and no right out of the gate if you're coming out and you're going to continue So your first action coming out should be But I think for consistency, I think I'm just feeling that the first action should be a a Finding finding of the deliberative session Well, isn't that part of your motion? No Well, we're in deliberative session Well, I know and we should we should get you're massaging something in deliberative when we come out of in deliberative session We should we should develop a finding Then and there and then we come out of come out of deliberative session. We read that into the record Yes, but that would be part of your motion. Wouldn't we we approve to deny or approve? I'm just thinking about the steps and to me to choose point about a workflow I would be step one would be to issue the finding of deliberative session because that was a separate motion to go into Yeah, but you've left the public hearing I'm just good. Okay. I'm just I'm thinking this out loud so so Who are who are um John mangan you're a process person Yeah, I would first a second shoe. This really needs to be a flowchart and not joking It's seriously. It's perfect for that Thank you. The other thing we looked at what the the uh slack board does they must have a process for this They do it all the time They do a negative session, but they don't do deliberative session. That's a bit of a special case um executive session has very specific criteria into which Which allow you to go into that which is legal issues or real estate or you know premature public knowledge would be a problem Um, that is yes, you're just deliberating on this case Typically you do it in open session But you might need to just bad ideas around without everyone without being in the fishbowl Okay. Yeah. No, I mean it's it's kind of hard to Throw it in mind as is a list of bullets I think if you had it as a chart you'd really see where the polls are but it looks fine to me on the surface It's what we're talking a new chart. So yeah, why don't you guys make a staff ticket make it a chart like this Let's assume Assume for the next round of discussion that we're going to maintain the public hearing in open We would then accept a move a motion to go into public hearing Uh, deliberative session at the end of the meeting And and in the during the meeting that would then say we're we're we're closing How do we move to the next agenda item? Well, you're you're not because you're not closing your session But we're looking to continue to the next agenda item and do the deliberative session at the end of the night. So Would that be the motion to go into deliberative session following the remaining agenda items? I think we've checked this horse Dead, okay. Do a flow chart and see what it looks like and go from there Just I just want to read this though because this is some of the stuff I circulate. So this is from the vlct So it's a q and a on on this kind of stuff Um, so the only time you can go into deliberative is if you've held the quasi judicial hearing Which we have so the question is do we have to come out of deliberative session in order to adopt the decision? The answer is generally no The law allows a public body to make a decision in deliberative sessions So long as the decision is issued in writing and the writing is a public record This means that after the public body has heard all of the evidence in a hearing It may adjourn the public portion of the hearing Privately discuss and determine the merits of the case and then circulate drafts of an opinion for comment and approval prior to issuing its formal written decision That's how I know williston used to do it They would go close then you wouldn't hear until they issued the written Right. I mean and a lot of people do that. They Burlington, I think it takes the hearing this night and has a different night for They're Yeah, well it allows you to chew on the merits and then say I mean if staff is going to be the one writing the decision allows You to do the findings document them all and everyone chews on it Puts their their touch to it and then issues of formal That might be a bit formal for us, but are we able and this is a okay another out there the horse is down But not dead yet Are we able to are we able to continue a deliberative? We get into the situation where we feel where we want No, okay, so that that's you would need to close and then reopen it at your next meeting Yeah, you end up continuing the application which would then allow you to deliberate again Okay, so so let's let's consider the horse in pain And Yeah, yeah, and quit laughing Yeah, I still I still in agreement with your public hearing kept open and it's cleaner But we have a couple things and we'll and maybe do a couple versions And and then see what works and if somebody has if you feel that there's a Potential legal flag we have to worry about let's Chew it around and and see where it goes. Yeah, I think it depends on where we end up inevitably Whether we end up writing the decision in private or public because we're going to write it in private You can't we can't be closing public hearings and doing that stuff And you know we'd have to keep it clean do that all out in public and then My hope and my my hope and my goal on this is that we can come up with a process that we can put into our Process, you know our policy procedures operating procedures that allows us for some reproducibility and predictability In consistency and that's it. That's it. And if it means we have to identify that this is a decision point every time That's okay, too You know there's always going to be variables and we just we just just to help us To do this and use this tool more effectively because I think it'll help staff. It'll help the pc Thank you Yeah, you guys okay with that approach for the time being to get shoes flowchart Yeah Sounds good. John sounds like he loves making flowchart Yeah, I hear volunteer from both of them I can assist if needed It's pretty straightforward Sounds good. I don't think we've got anything left on the agenda. Do we right? Then unless anybody wants to extend this any longer, I would take a motion Move adjourned Move by john seconded by john all those in favor 7 28 adjourn