 You just told us your kids are in tears, not having you. Only a heartless monster. OK. He's two and three quarters. He cries in every day. Oh, I remember every stage. They haunt my dreams. Good evening, everyone. I'm going to call this meeting to order. This is the city of Montpelier Development Review Board. My name is Daniel Richardson. I serve as chair. The other members from my right are Rob Goodwin, Deb Markowitz, Meredith Crandall, Staff, Clay Rock, Ryan Kane, Tom Kester. And this is the meeting for Monday, March 4. We're starting a little after 7 PM. The first order of business is the approval of the agenda. There are one application and some DRB trading that is scheduled. Does anyone have any adjustments, additions, attractions that they wish to make? Hearing none, all in favor of approving the agenda is printed. Please raise your right hand. It is approved. No comments from the chair this evening. The other item of pre-application business is the minutes from February 19, myself, Ryan, Rob. No, we don't have a quorum. So we will put those off to the next meeting. And that brings us to the first item of business, which is 29 College Street. It is a two-lot subdivision. This is a sketch plan. The applicant will come forward. I'll simply explain. Because this is a sketch plan, there's no formal testimony being taken or decision being made tonight. In a subdivision application, there's a two-step process. The sketch plan is basically for the board to ask questions, give a little bit of preliminary feedback. If any of the neighbors or interested people are interested in giving feedback as well, this is a good time, and it gives the applicant an opportunity to incorporate some of that feedback or engage as the project may be bettered by such feedback or as they see fit. But we don't make any decisions tonight. Following the sketch plan, we then go, I think it's a two-week gap until we do the final subdivision. So whenever they get it. Yeah, whenever they get it. Whenever they get the application, we get it. At least. Yeah, it's good for you. It's usually a month at least. It's usually a month. It's good for a year. But this is the first stage of the process. So we're really here to, at this point, hear the application, go over some of the details and voice any issues that we may have with it or questions or things that need to be fleshed out for the final subdivision. Any questions? So we don't put you under oath, but would you please introduce yourself for the record? Sure. My name's Katie Gustafson, and I work at the Mott College of Fine Arts as the vice president for campus planning. So, Kate, if you wouldn't mind giving us an overview. And is anyone here in the audience here to speak on this application? OK, just if you change your mind, that's OK. You're not either bound to say anything or not. But I'll make sure that there's an opportunity knowing that there are people. So Kate, why don't you give us an overview of what you're proposing to do? Sure. So we are looking to, well, we've been looking at the entire college campus for quite some time in terms of excess space that we have. And we have quite a bit of it. And for 10 years, we've held on to the entire campus. And we've come to the conclusion, just based on a variety of factors that we need to strategically look at pieces of the campus that we can divest up. Frail House is basically a standalone house. And so we are moving forward with attempting to put that on the market to sell it. And in order to do that, it actually shares a lot with the Crowley Building, which is the newest building on the campus that was built back in 2015, the Glassfront little cube building. And so therefore, I'm here submitting the application to subdivide that lot. So the end result would be to take the Crowley House. It's being portioned off. Right. It's that lot. It's called the Frail Lot, where we are hoping to divide it in half so that the house on the corner, which is sort of an old Victorian home, can be sold as a private residence. What is the house currently serving? We house faculty there. Occasionally, we need to use it maybe four weeks a year. And need, I say loosely, there is one program. It's our largest program, the writing program, where we have 25 faculty members. So we can fill that building along with several others with them. But we have other room for those 25 people in other places on campus. So it's being used primarily as a residential structure. So one of the threshold questions that we have is that, and I don't know to what extent Meredith has gone over with this, but I think this is really a threshold issue of the master plan for the college. The AIPUD under the old regulations has expired. But part of it is that new regulations don't call for an AIPD that doesn't exist as an entity anymore. And so what is the college's plan, as far as are you planning on either renewing the old master plan or developing a new master plan? So we're in the process of developing a new master plan. It is an outgrowth of the previous master plan, trying to look sort of further down the road since it will no longer be a document that needs updating every five years, but very much in the same spirit and many of the same ideas that were in the last version of the plan. Well, because of the change in regulations, it's a separate process. They can't go through a renewal, a short-term renewal. And so I've actually seen a first draft of the new master plan, but it's going to be a whole new campus PUD that'll have to go through sketch plan and final review here. And a large document that covers everything from signs to the full campus parking plan, to landscaping, to every potential use that they might think that they might have in the future on the campus. No, so this is a longer term comprehensive document. Yes, much it's intended to be looking 20 to 30 years or even further into the future. And so we're in a sort of a limbo state for doing this subdivision. Well, let me ask this question. This is intended to just clarify the decision I think we have to make as a board down the line. This lot that would be subdivided, what's identified as lot one on your survey, is this the end of the campus? So as I'm looking, Kemphav, property across the street is a privately owned property. The property behind this looks like it's privately owned. So this is really sort of a, we're not talking about changing the middle of the campus. This is really cutting off the logical corner of this. So as a board, and I don't know if any of the other board members have a question to help with this, one of the determinations we have to make is whether we want to make the college submit a final subdivision application after obtaining the campus PUD approval under the 2018 regulations, or if we allow the college to move forward with the subdivision application process, despite the language in the 2011 regulation regarding no development, given the fact that we are in this sort of limbo halfway stage between the two. The old AI PUD is no longer in effect. They're creating a new campus, but the question is a bit of a chicken or egg dilemma, which is, can we allow them to carve off this piece that they shouldn't want to? Some ways we're supposed to be constrained, because the 2011 regulations are what govern that old campus PUD, which is what is governing the college right now. But I don't know is, because that's just the whole, if this were amending an old permit granted under the old regulations, we'd be bound by the old regulations. But a plan is not a regulation. So I could see how it might be a different decision. A plan is a document for their use to be OK, then under the new regulations, they're different. So that's the limbo that I see, is that we're kind of in between regulations. That's exactly what I share that thought as well. The other thing about the switch is that we're going from really very different AI PUD standards to the campus PUD changes some of the justice and has testified. It's going to look very similar to the two documents, just a second. Any other thoughts from the board? I mean, I would kind of, in considering the purpose of this no development may occur until a new AI PUD requirement from the previous regs, I think my reading of the intent is that unless they have a new master plan, they can't do a new building, change in use, that type of development. What we're presented with here is simply subdividing off a residential. It's a change in ownership. It's not a change in use. It's not a new building. So this doesn't seem like the type of development that would be prohibited by that prior section to me. Yeah, except the history of this, and Kevin was here, the AI PUD had always existed to make sure that the campus stayed unified. And we've always had an issue with, well, before the College of Fine Arts, but when the Union Institute owned it through Norwich, of certain properties being sort of carved off at the edges. And the idea, well, we'll just exclude them from the AI PUD. There'll still be academic use, but we're just going to move them out to different ownership. And then one of the last, one of the more contentious hearings we had was when the building that now houses the late Harris Hall, which had been pushed out of the AI PUD, went to its next logical phase, which was away from an academic building, Necky, to now a private office building. And so it slipped out of that. That was a concern of the AI PUD. That's one of the changes, I think, with the campus PUD is that it's not as, it's not looking to control in the same way. It's looking more for planning purposes and planning document not as a regulatory scheme. So I think at least it's an interesting question as to whether or not this type of carve out, definitely under the old AI PUD, it would be a serious question, because that was what the AI could bring in this transitional phase. And I think the new campus PUD is a bit more what you're saying. And so the question is, where do we really stand given this? Let me ask the applicant this. I'm sorry to have to, but this is the public process. Is this something that it makes sense to do a master plan before the subdivision? Or is this something that the subdivision really needs to happen first? I understand your question. What I would say is that the college has some strategic ideas about the way we need to use the resources that we have at our disposal. It's an incredibly challenging time in higher education. I don't know if anybody has heard the news today about Southern Vermont College, but pretty much every small higher education institution is pretty much in the same boat. BCFA is doing OK, but there is urgency to look at all of our resources and use them in a way that's going to ensure the long-term stability of the college. So we have urgency to do this. And so in that sense, we'd like to be able to do it before the campus master plan is done and approved simply because that is a very big document. And it just takes some time to work through that process. My understanding and the way my thinking goes is that under the old regulations, as well as the new regulations, subdividing is something that could happen in either set of regulations. Granted, we are in this limbo in terms of the campus master plan being not current. But there's not really a scenario in which either is where you would never be able to do such a thing. So whether we go with the old regulations or the new regulations, the college would very much like to have the board work through that process with us now rather than waiting for the campus master plan. Deal with these technical difficulties first. Do you have a few problems to put them at the table? It's fine with me. Because there's so few people. That might be easier. And then it stays here. Do you want to just say you can hear better? Well, having heard that, I'd like to just echo what Deb said. I think if we have any inclination that we might be interested in requiring an amendment or requiring approval of a new master plan prior to considering the subdivision application, that we get a legal opinion saying that we have the authority to do that. Because it's not obvious to me that we do. It's not obvious to me that we don't, which is why it would be great to have the city's attorney answer that question. But that said, my inclination is still that even with what you said, Dan, we're not talking about a change of use. We're talking about a residential building that is on the outskirts of the campus that would remain a residential building. It would just be subdivided and sold. So I mean, I'm not suggesting that we should require them to have approval of the new master plan prior to considering this application. But if we would like to do that, I think we should get clarity on whether that's appropriate legally. Let me add to that. I fully agree with both board members. Let me add to that that it might be helpful to have an understanding of the different standards for subdivision that the old AIPD rules would require versus the new campus given. And this comes into a question, dare I say it, vested rights. I think it would be helpful in our analysis to understand, as Ms. Vestefsens mentioned, that this was allowed under the old rules, how it would work. And if it's allowed under the new rules, how would it work? Because I think, given what she's also said, that the college, this is something that is a high priority for the college, it's moving away from the need for a big campus for a high residency program to then have an understanding of it would be silly to wait on a master plan that would simply say what it's going to do on this particular corner before we did the subdivision, I think, is where the board is starting to think if we are empowered and our analysis can otherwise contemplate the other issues that would drive this type of subdivision under either the old rules or the new rules. So I would add that to the analysis. Now that's something certainly either David Rue can consider or maybe Meredith, you can as well, fire a full legal scrutiny. But I think that that may be the best way to approach this threshold issue. So I don't know how much further we can go. I know there was a question from the public on this particular issue, Mr. Pernie. I think some of the comments that you are making overlooked one fact that I think was in Meredith Randall's memo, which is that the NPUD actually expired in 2017, June 4th, 2017. So before the new zoning regulations took effect. So it's interesting to consider what would be the situation if there actually was a master plan that was in effect now or rather when the new zoning regulations went into effect. It seemed to me that if the college had applied for a five year plan at that time that it would have probably there'd be a good argument that it would carry through under the new change of regulations. I was also just going to comment that unfortunately this is a situation that we've been in before. For some reason the AIPUD process has been difficult for the college to reapply for. I don't know if no one puts it on their tickler file or if the city fails to remind them. But I've been here in this room before in other years where changes have been anticipated and people look and say, oh, the master plan hasn't been updated in seven years and it expired two years ago. What are we going to do? So A, there may be some presidents there that you could look at although of course the zoning changes didn't change. But B, it really would have been great if the college had kept up with the master plan process. And although it is put forth as a really onerous step, I will say again from being here in previous years that the master plans often look very much like the previous master plans. There aren't that many changes and they tend to look very similar. The final comment I would make would be about the plans for this particular property. And it would be interesting to know from the applicant when it was decided that this was a surplus property because living in the neighborhood, I know that that building was just very recently renovated and in fact, integrated into the new square cube building. I saw a lot of the promotional materials about that and it was really designed, that square building was designed by a very high powered naturally known architectural firm and it was designed to integrate with the Dutch colonial building, that's their flail house. It was painted a similar color. You can see on your plans that there was courtyards that were designed to link them together. It was very much seen as a linked project, one project. So it's sort of interesting to see that the college has now decided that they only use it four times a year, which does question the planning process involved. Why would they go through all this high powered work to design a building that's only being used four times a year? Those are my observations and comments. Okay, thank you. Thank you. If you want to, or we can wait till later. Well, I thought I was asked a direct question, but do I wait until the end? So I'm happy to wait. You're welcome to respond. I mean, you don't have an obligation to necessarily respond either. These are, I think, feedback points at this point, but if you wish to. Well, I was going to just say that in terms of the building being renovated in 2015, what we did was paint the building. That was Martin House, which sort of sits behind, actually was the one that really got refurbished and the one on the corner. If we had had the money, we would have done much more to it, but we didn't. So it really did, and you are absolutely right, but it was looked at as sort of the three buildings together as sort of a cohesive unit of buildings. And in fact, there were additional plans to even create sort of a breezeway that may have been, you know, like a three-season porch to connect the two buildings, which also didn't happen. And again, I think in a perfect world, if we weren't in the challenging times that we are in, we might not be looking at this, but the reality is that higher ed is in a really precarious situation right now. And so, well, that may be, but the same people who were leading the college at the time of the renovation and this project and this vision are the same ones that are there now looking at it and really trying to be very thoughtful about the moves that we can make that both will benefit the college in terms of our long-term stability and looking to do things that, you know, are not like selling a building to create a hotel or a mall, you know, it's a single-family home that very nicely will sort of be important. So anyway, I just wanted to say in terms of the renovation, sadly, that one really, just to acknowledge that you are correct, but the truth of the matter is there are only four weeks out of the year where we have the three of the buildings. And how's it exactly? Martin House is the one that's set back. Are you, can I come look at what you're looking at? I have this here too, and that might be so... 33 right here. I'm gonna read something that together, she's actually ill, so I decided we just wrote a quick sort of our opinion on this. I'm concerned that BCFA has purposely chose in the time when their master plan has lapsed and the city is changing its ordinance to dues. It means that we cannot know what their intent is for the property that spans our entire front yard, our porch, as well as half. I would like to see this issue tabled until BCFA has a functional master plan in place of the city. Barring that, I would ask that the property, once subdivided, be subdivided to be submitted to the zoning board to be rezoned as residential is currently mixed-use residential. In keeping with the surrounding properties and the character of the neighborhood, this property should not be sold as mixed-use residential. It is the very outer back edge of BCFA with our home and the Kellogg residence next door or once dormitories for Mon College. As these properties were sold, they reverted back to family residences and continued and they contribute to the character and the community of the Savings Street neighborhood. This home should be no different. If there's some intent to sell this property, which there is, and to develop for some commercial use, we were told, I was told that a cafe was going to, going in, doing the surveying work, said I don't know where they came up with it. It would have an enormous negative impact on our quality of life. We have put a great deal of time, money and elbow grease into restoring our home and never intended to live across the street from any busy commercial enterprise. Unfortunately for us and our neighbors, there's no way to know what the intent is to BCFA currently with our overall master plan. This move without any context threatens our day-to-day peace and our considerable investment. One thing I'll note is that we as a zoning board can't determine or assign a use apart from what it has as a use. Tables of allowable uses where somebody has, for example, if it is a residential use, and it sounds like it's largely been a residential use, but somebody buys it and wants to use it as a different use that's permitted in the district. What zoning's about is allowing those type of uses. So I don't see where we could have a subdivision even with a master plan or without where you would assign one use that could never change. It is, that's just as your neighbor next door could all of a sudden decide they don't want to live there anymore if they want to turn it into a truck stop. If the truck stop is permitted in the district, that's permitted, it's not. So I haven't heard anything from your neighbor. But that's an example of the zoning can only go so far. That's to control uses. I just wanted to be clear about that. I understand. And the concern really is that it's some requirement to actually renew for the time when we're sort of in the space of limbo. It's a concern for me, we live across the street. Well, and I don't want to get too tied up in the master plan in that sense in that look, we don't have master plan police in the city of Mount Pylir who immediately turn on the siren once the master plan goes out of date, nor do I think does the college. It's certainly important to keep it up to date. But this was coming in to a period in which the zoning bylaws were changing. And so if you have an expense like that, you can see where people might make rational business decisions to say, we need to wait and see what the new impact is before we invest in the process. It's quickly not, and it was by that time clear that the AI-PUD was not gonna be part of the new zoning. So I think I understand the concern of zoning and I think this is what we're wrestling with as well. But I don't think it necessarily behooves to be too hard up on PCFA for making a decision that may have been logical at the time. I was alerted when I first started this job about two and a half years ago that the campus master plan would be expiring and having a, and it wasn't you at the time. I forget what the person's name was, but saying that things were going to be changing. And so you could, if you wanted to keep the AI-PUD, you need to reapply before it expired and then it would just roll forward, never ending, I believe, if we continue to reapply every five years. But the other option was to go ahead and let it expire and then apply, you know, create under the new PUD. And so with all the other things going on, that just, that was sort of the direction we went in. There was absolutely no like, oh, this is a great time to, like I wish I was that clever to be like, this is a great time to try to sneak this in. That's absolutely not it. And our hope is to sell it as a single family home. I mean, that's, we've had it assessed and, you know, we've talked to realtors and that is our plan. We have no other intention. And there's, nobody has talked to us yet. And so there's no cafe, there's nothing. I don't know, you know, where your wife heard that. No, no, no, the company gets hired to the survey. I don't know where they got that idea, but certainly our plan is to sell it as a single family home. It's a beautiful house and somebody will be very happy there. So. No, no, no, no, and then I think most of the neighbors would welcome the issue. The issue is that, for a certain amount of time, there has been this, you know, friction here and there once in a while because the college obviously is looking out for its own interests, just what anybody does in the business. And of course, as residents and neighbors have to look after our interests. So across the street, across the college street, as an example, you have a parking lot to get. We, you and I, we talked about some issues there. And, you know, there's always. I just, I think for me, this, I understand. As a homeowner, I totally understand I am also a homeowner in Montpelier. So I understand. I mean, you guys were shoveling, for instance, you're snowing from that pergola into my property this winter until I stopped the drivers and it was, so as a neighbor, I feel sometimes that I don't know. I can't take you, I have to know exactly what your plans are because it makes me a little nervous as a college. Well, I'm sorry, I'm sorry to hear that somebody was doing that. Well, they stopped that. Had I known, I would have stopped it immediately. Thanks. Thanks. Anybody else or there'll be opportunity on the chair? Go ahead. This is across the street. And our only concern was, it's crowded, the camp is really a small place. It's top of the hill. Traffic is a problem. And our only concern was the subdivision which refers to it being, I know you said, well, it's mixed use. That's where it becomes a concern. It's very crowded and especially in the winter, it's very narrow and a lot of traffic would make it very difficult and dangerous. And our concern only is the use. As a private dwelling, nobody has complicated then it's gonna be dangerous. That'll be it's a dangerous corner. That's our concern. Okay. Being in the neighborhood, that's all. Great, thank you. So I do wanna ask a couple of questions beyond the threshold and just to clarify, the parking for this would still be on college. Correct. I'm looking at the drawings and the cars would come to the car port on college and near the front entrance. So no proposals for driveways on the camp. Is that a two car driveway? I would imagine one would fit under the car port and another could fit within the driveway. Yeah. The only reason I ask that is because if it is a single family residence, most families have more than one car. Support that as it stands now. I think that would be a good point just to go out, either measure or confirm in a second. So the other plans I know from the application is that you're going to sort of peel back the patio that connects the two properties. Would that be to the property line or would that get rid of that patio area altogether? Do you mean the patio area in front of Crowley? The corner? Well I presume the patio that's facing college street would stay as is and so. I'm just looking there, it's like a connector patio. Yeah, I mean so on that point, I think that I would be looking to the board for potentially recommendations. One option is certainly to take it off. The other option that could work is to leave it as is and that the college could then, I don't know exactly what you would call it, but would agree to take care of it in perpetuity. If it made sense to not disturb that section. Sure, I mean it does have a shared retaining wall that holds up the back hill way or the other. Obviously that's, it's in the back of the house. It's really a question for the person who's going to buy it, what they're comfortable with. They may want to discourage any connections to the college and encourage privacy. They may want to be able to put up a privacy fence. At the same time, I don't think that's necessarily our issue for subdivision. These are very much interlinked, referenced earlier and the retaining wall and the patio that links them together, there's also a, there's a wire fence that runs along the top of the retaining wall that goes from the frail house over to the Crowley house. Would the intent be to leave the fence, the retaining wall would obviously stay, but the surface of the patio would be broken up for like a visual division? If we were required to, I think that my preference would be to leave it as is and have the college agree to maintain it in perpetuity. But if that was not either agreeable to the board or if it was approved, it was not agreeable to a buyer, we would certainly change that. This is a daytime cafe, so you don't have a lot of students tumbling out of it at two in the morning. Pardon me, this? The patio, it was more of a joke. It was, you know, I know oftentimes people have concerns when they have a public building next to them to make sure that the hours, yeah, I don't know if any other board members feel any differently. I mean, I think it's really an issue that's ultimately for you to determine, you know, if this feature makes sense or what the market would require if the subdivision was granted. Yes, Jose? We have a problem with the answer, but actually when you asked about the driveway, is this something, that spot right now has a light pole. We're moving it, we're in the process of moving it. So that was, yeah, my question is then would they be allowed to put a driveway on the sidewalk? I mean, that's not what's being represented in the plans, and that's why I said I think- But I mean, is that allowable under, if somebody buys it, is that- Well, anyone can apply for a curb cut. But that's not us, that's the city council that decides on that. And that's not something we can necessarily control either. There's nothing being proposed. I think it's helpful, and maybe you may have swashed some of your concerns, if there's a clear representation as to the length of this driveway, if it supports, it's like anything. If I have a driveway that supports all my needs, I'm not gonna build an extra driveway. But if it's a driveway only fits one car and there's no other logical place, then yeah, I'm gonna look for another driveway if I'm a homeowner. But I think that's part of the question here. And I should also say, I mean, a lot of this is feedback for the applicant to incorporate into the next phase. So certainly, I think that's a fair concern, but I can't make, no one can make representation as to what the future will bring. But at least, as far as I understand the applicant is saying, they're not proposing to subdivide this with any extra driveway. And then I think the next question is that, does driveway that exists seems to support more than, so let's... So just to note about the patio, technically, to meet accessory structure setbacks, the patio is supposed to be five feet from the property line. No, fences can go right up too. Fences, yeah, fences can cross. Fences have zero setback, but that's where we were coming into some issues with the patio. Oh, okay. We have the front patio with that. Well, the front patio, but also that shared patio, the connector patio, even though it goes over technically, it's any patio is supposed to be five feet from the property line. And I know it's a weird. So the connector is considered a patio? I don't know what else you would call it. A connector. A connector we walk with. A path. So it looked more like a path than that. It's not the same material as the patio, so it actually is a path. It's really a path. Okay, even though, sorry. It was saying patio of that one. Then that would be sidewalks, I guess. It doesn't have a walkway, but sidewalks zero feet. So you could stick it there. I mean, that's what I classify it as. It's not a set to share out kind of patio. True. It's a space for them to get connected to. So that makes sense. Never mind. Because the Department of Public Works taken all the tips of the issue. Yes, and they had fairly extensive comments about the driveway, but I think that there was some concern about whether or not, when it has reestablishing, DPW had some concerns about whether or not it was gonna be a new curb cut. And I confirmed with Katie via email that you've gotten the packet that it's not a brand new curb cut. So I think that we're just gonna need to make sure that Department of Public Works takes a look to make sure that what's there currently fits with any new, any current chain requirements. But I don't know, Katie, how, because it says reestablished. Do you know how long ago it was used as a driveway? 2015, I mean, I think it was right around the time that we did that whole area when the new building was when it stopped being used because the carriage house, which used to be where the square cube building is, we used to park in front of that and come in and out of the driveway in front of the rail. Only other really goes to additional landscaping. Pat, did they use different violence? I think that was just the first reading, isn't it? Okay, I don't know. I think that was just, I've been out a lot with my kids, so I haven't had a chance to talk one-on-one with Mike, but so I don't know if. I'm just wondering if we're under this that hold the view. Yeah, we're still under the old regime right now. So one of the issues with the old regime, well, the new old regime is there's a landscaping requirement and so it would, we've been wrestling with it and it talks about, and I think this is one of those projects where it's reasonable to have that analysis of what's existing there for landscaping as far as trees and shrubs. It calls for a certain number of trees per square footage. That's site plan. What? That's site plan. Oh, site plan. Oh, sorry. There's separate subdivision landscaping questions. Oh, sorry. That's okay. I'm going back. Yeah, no, this is just on page 13. It's under design and layout of necessary improvements. So the applicant has to design the subdivision to maximize existing mature vegetation and then provide additional landscaping as necessary and really the issue here would be maintaining and providing privacy for adjoining property owners in between lots. Right. And so really that's just an analysis of what exists as landscaping. The analysis is actually very similar to what I was going to go into, which just, it's just a couple from that very mathematical equation, but really it looks just, we need to understand what landscaping exists there now. Given that you are separating this out, what landscaping you might propose or think is necessary for a reason why such additional landscaping isn't necessary to effectuate this subdivision. So that would be important and helpful to see on a final subdivision. I wish to have a comment. I hope to slide. Can you come up to my microphone? And just state your name for the record. And if you could just repeat what you said about the multi-use zoning that Dr. Kellogg's concerned about, we're all concerned about that. So I didn't quite understand what you were saying. Multi-use zoning from earlier. That's our concern. Okay. Well, the only thing that I said before is that the use is what they, when you subdivide, there is usually a current use of the property. That subdivision doesn't affect. Now they may, the applicant may choose to list it as a residential or a mixed use. But my point is, is that after, if that subdivision happens and the property goes into the stream of successive owners, that owner is not, we cannot at subdivision bind those future owners to that specific use if there are other permitted uses in that district. So just as you own your house and you could change the use tomorrow to another permitted use going through the application process, of course. So too could this lot owner take the use that they have and change it to another permitted use. Now the idea of zoning, of course, is to try and come up with permitted uses that fit within the neighborhood. So if you look at your particular neighborhood, the what's listed for permitted uses, I think you would generally find to be copacetic with the existing residential character of the neighborhood. You won't find industrial or, you know, fishery listed as a potential use in the neighborhood because they're not compatible with the residential uses. But, you know, there are other permitted uses within your neighborhood and we can't necessarily, as a zoning board say, well, you have that one use. That's all we're gonna let you have as a condition of subdivision. It just isn't something that would, even if we did it, it's inconsistent with our bylaws and it wouldn't be sustained if somebody chose to challenge it. And it would be something that down the line could potentially be challenged. And that was my only point was that, you know, ultimately if the applicant as they're representing today, and I don't mean to open up a can of worms that the applicant doesn't want to, I just simply wanted to respond to one of the earlier points, which was to say we can't control what future users of this property will do. Just as we can't control what VCFA will do consistent with the regulations, the subdivision, the ownership has no bearing on what somebody is allowed to do with their property. That's under the zoning bylaws, which we have no authority to change. We just apply. So the route to kind of limit the use of that property from what's I guess currently a mixed use to just residential is through the planning commission and ultimately the city council to actually rezone it to change that boundary line. But that's not something that this board can do. We can just apply the subdivision regulations, which really just makes sure that, you know, there is a use compatible with the lot that the lot is of an appropriate size and shape and has access and those sorts of things, which nobody's raised any concerns with. The question, the concern really seems to be about the use, which if a cafe is a permitted use or permittable use, then well, if it's a conditional use, you'd have to go through the zoning regulations. Somebody proposing to put a cafe in that, well, if they would put it, if somebody proposing some change of use, they're gonna have to go through some process and you could participate in that. So what, if you wanna, nobody's, if somebody were to propose an application for something, that would come here. But nobody is doing that. If you want it to be rezoned, that would go to the planning commission. Just don't want this your family to sell it. We're not, but we're not. I already in plan that it will be a restaurant, especially if somebody proposed a restaurant, you would be notified of a change in use by the city, if you're in a budding landowner, then you could participate in that process here. But no, the point is that. Yes. This group, yes. If it, yes. But that's, but the point is that that's not what's happening. That the use of the property is not part of this proceeding. No, that statement. But this proceeding would be necessary in order to file for that. If VCFA wanted to change the use of the property, VCFA could change the use of the property. But they'd have to come here. If they were talking specifically for a restaurant, they would have to come here because it's a conditional use. If any of you want to come down to our office, we can give you a list of the uses that would require a DRB hearing. But the ownership does, it's irrelevant to, if it's VCFA, if it's a future owner, if somebody wants to change the use, they would have to come here. But the subdivision does not impact what uses could, the property could be put to. That was my only point. So you don't want to, you're saying you don't have to subdivide those two properties in order to have the one property be commercial. Right. Right. Because that's, because that's what it's zoned for. And then immediately, with that in mind, although it's just family family don't even, immediately it's a restaurant, nobody just want to prevent that. Sure, sure. Right. There is a select number of uses where they could just come down to the, my office, zoning administrator's office, and get a permit to change it from residential to something else. So like a, sorry, I'm looking at my chart. Like get a home day care for Sam. A home day care they could do without, any of your neighbors could just do. If it's under a certain number of kids. So we would be warned if it was decided to come something worse. That's right. And you would have an opportunity to participate. But if it were to be sold, for example, and became a single family resident, the next time they were looking at the zoning bylaws, you could also ask the planning commission to change the boundary. So that it's in the Kemp Street boundary instead of the VCFA boundary. And that's completely reasonable, but that's not this board. So there's two, sorry, not to the laborer point, but we're really talking about two different processes. There are the base level of rules that we have to apply. We don't get to decide which rules to apply. They just are there. The planning commission is the one who writes the rules. The planning commission is the one who determines what are known as. So there's three types of uses. There's permitted uses, there's conditional uses, and there's not allowable uses. So when I was saying before, somewhat tongue in cheek about the idea of an industrial or a fishery in this neighborhood, that's a good example of a non-allowable use, it's not allowed. You don't get to go past go. The two uses that I think you're concerned about are permitted uses, which as I said, if you look at the chart for your neighborhood district, I think you would find that they are largely copacetic with the uses, like a daycare facility that fit in with the residential character of the neighborhood. And then there are what's known as conditional uses. And what conditional uses are, they do require hearing before us. And what the premise of a conditional use is, to say there's a way this use could fit within this neighborhood, but it probably needs conditions. Hours of operation, noise level, all these other type of factors that obviously are things that neighbors are concerned about that affect the character and quality of the neighborhood that spill out beyond the property. And in those situations, and I think restaurant or cafe would fit into that category here is what Meredith is saying, is that if this property, whether it's VCFA who owns it or owner number one after VCFA or owner number two, three or four, all of them are gonna have to come before us and you'll have an opportunity. And at that point in time, they'll be proposing something and it's a little bit easier to get your hands around to say, this will have an impact on me, as opposed to I'm concerned that this will have an impact on me. And I think that's a legitimate concern. That's why we have conditional use hearings is to have neighbors talk about these things, to raise issues, to say, this is a really quiet neighborhood. Anything after 9 p.m. is gonna be a real disturbance and to this area or parking is very tight, traffic is very heavy. Those kind of things are classic conditional use hearing issues that people raise. But the one thing that I think we're trying to refocus on is that at least in the subdivision application, unless they were saying, we wanna subdivide and change this to a specific conditional use, we don't necessarily look at the potential conditional use, it's the use that's on the ground. And really, as Ryan had indicated, we're looking to, does this create a sustainable lot that can function and live on its own as a separate lot? Because once subdivision occurs, it is now and forever a separate lot that can be sold and deeded outside of the chain of the surrounding land that it once was a part of. And we wanna make sure that the lot we create is sustainable and the lots that remain in the larger parcel are sustainable and we're not creating problems for either owner or their successors down the line. Does that make sense? I'm glad I'm not seeing hands like I did before, so. I just wanted to point out one thing that if there were to go through the campus met PUD master plan, it seems like by reading the way the use would change, it would just revert to the use at which it wasn't spelled out as something different, it would revert to what's already the permit use, not open the door to do something less. Yeah, no, I certainly understand the neighbor's concerns I think the applicant hears it and if anything, we've made it more complicated by talking as a board, but I think there's always that fear, what comes next? If this change occurs, and I think everybody understands that our houses are our biggest single investment outside of what paltry pence savings we've accumulated. This is important to everyone, but it's also important to the applicant as well, because this is by far their biggest chunk of investment and they're trying to manage it wisely. So it's a matter of making sure that I think both sides are heard, but ultimately it's driven by our bylaw, right? Okay, thank you for listening to that last portion. I think, did anyone have any other issues on a subdivision? No, just, I think that was around the, what is not, and this is my, just to note, make sure that, because it still says patio, so just change that to walkway or sidewalk, yeah. I made that note. I think that's, that was the only, because of that's a steep slope that they had to remove, if it were patio and they had to remove it, they would actually probably be prohibited from removing it because it's on a steep slope, so I think having it stay seems to be the best option. I think that then removes the whole steep slope. Yeah, that removes the whole steep slope issue and then it really just becomes a, there it stays or goes and if something wants to make it go. And we were talking a little bit about landscaping and I would just suggest, like just as one board member, I think it could use some additional landscaping to provide some sort of distinguishing between these two parcels. Definitely. Well, and yeah, I mean, any other questions? Any other comments or questions from audience members? Or questions from the applicant? I would just love to understand what your next steps are. I know you've asked for a legal read, so just in terms of timeline and timeframe, does that happen and then I come back for another hearing in a month and that all sort of happens at one time? So here's how I would anticipate this playing out. We're going, we've asked Meredith to do, to speak with the city council on this threshold issue, which really is the big issue for us as a board. Depending on what kind of answer she gets back, I mean, if the council gives a green light, I'm getting a sense from the board that we're comfortable with going forward on this. If the legal opinion is something that we need to adopt more process, we may, she may contact you and we may schedule a hearing then in which to outline these steps. I mean, the problem is, is we can as a board meet outside of a warm meeting to make these decisions, but my sense is that what we're looking for is guidance from legal counsel, may also seek legal counsel to address this issue. If so, the next step of this is the subdivision final hearing, in which case, and I think you've gone through before where sometimes that can be a bifurcated meeting. And so if there's a thorny threshold issue that we need to hash out in public, meeting have the first part of that. Honestly, I see that as the driving issue here. The rest of it is fairly straightforward. I would see that working out at the next step forward. In the meantime, of course, Meredith and you can communicate as to, because legal counsel may say, oh no, it's very clear path. This is how you do it, believe that the city has the authority to go forward. In which case that will get incorporated into our next meeting, but that will give you clear guidance. If Meredith communicates to you that it is not so clear, that there may be these issues, you may seek a different second opinion from your own counsel or recalibrate your plans accordingly. And ultimately, you can still come forward with the hearing here and say, well, I know your lawyer's saying this, but those board members really don't seem to take orders so well. I think I can risk it. But that is to suggest that the public meeting is the next step. But I think what we're trying to do is resolve these procedural issues so we don't spend a lot of time haggling over them or guessing. Good. Any other questions? Hearing none, thank you all for coming very much. Okay, the next item of business is DRB training. Looking at the time, it's 10 after eight. How long were you thinking? Okay. The materials that I developed. Okay. So this video is actually working this time? I did. Yep. I missed this. When was this? I've got, I brought out, I would send them a few meetings again. Well, we take a two minute break. Everybody has to use restroom, get a glass of water while Meredith sets up. Discussions we had the last hearing. A reminder that what the regulations say. There may be court decisions here and there that allow for things like the written decision doesn't have to come out within 45 days. It just means a decision. So Dan circulated, I don't know if he, did you circulate it to everybody or just to me? What? The court case about, or just to me. So there's a series of court decisions that say that when the board makes a decision in an open public hearing and lets the applicant know what all the conditions are, you've issued the decision. Actually, you can even do it. Well, right, but and the other thing is if you even do it in session, as long as there has been even just some attempt to give them oral notice of the decision, it's done. And so some courts have found that that was enough. Yes, you have to follow up with the written decision eventually, but failure to get that written decision in 45 days isn't going to avoid the whole thing as long as there's been some decision and the applicant has been notified. So, you know, but this layout of what the deadlines are, what the process is, is based strictly on the regulations. There may be some leeway here and there, but this, it is too complicated to try and go that full into that in a simple presentation. All right, so tonight, it's gonna be a really just, what we've got here is a really brief overview on the preliminary application process and what I do before a permit gets up to you. The DRB process, if something goes to DRC but doesn't actually come to you. A slide about how things are dealt with if they have to be reviewed by the Conservation Commission and then what is a technical review committee because I know that question has come up before. So, here is your abbreviated decision map. First step, especially with anything complicated that I really try and meet with just about every applicant, either myself or Audra, the zoning assistant, to have some sort of meeting with us to figure out what their application type is, what the fees are, what district they're in and discuss with them the process so that they have an overview of what they're gonna be doing. Then they submit their application and then I still have an additional seven days to figure out where the application needs to, whether or not the application is complete. And then after application has been determined complete, there's an additional 30 days to figure out where it goes. I can approve it, deny it, or refer it to the DRB. And really, it's not just referring to the DRB. If it gets referred to the DRC, if it gets referred to the Conservation Commission, I've met my 30-day window, I've sent it somewhere. Applicant, is that a written referral or is that just you sending an email saying here, like here in DRC? It's just a decision. It's just deciding that it has to go to the DRB. The way Montpelier works, we don't have a issue a letter that says, I'm referring this to you. It's basically put it on the calendar. And we let them know where it's going. Sometimes they're then, we have discussions, we go back and forth, they get the application in and then, oh wait, you threw this extra thing in. I can't do this as an administrative permit. Then we let them know where it's going because we get surprises. Or I'm digging through the application thinking it can be administrative and I find some funky thing in the regulations that I can't make a determination on. And so then I let the applicant know that, oh wait, it actually has to go to the Development Review Board. So I have a 30-day window to do that after determining that the application's complete. It can sometimes be a little fuzzy, whether or not something's complete, but we do our best. And this just, I've tried to throw in here what happens if an action doesn't happen in time, as well as flagging what the appeal periods are. So for zoning administrator process, if I've determined it's an administrative application but I denied the permit, there's a 15-day appeal period. And that 15-day appeal period also applies and you'll see it later. If I issue a zoning, an administrative permit, there's a 15-day appeal period. All right, next one, which is the DRB process. Much longer, clearly. I've tried to color-code things here a little bit, but it might have made it a little too busy. So shortcuts to the complete zoning permit application submitted for the first block. We usually have a little window of time to review that application in its complete state before we have to submit the notice of public hearing. But it can be a couple of days, it can be four days, it depends on how the calendar has all worked out and when they've given us the application. I put in here, when hearings have to be noticed, when things have to be submitted to the Times Argus, when things have to be submitted to a Butters, just so you have that all in here if there's any questions about that. I've included when DRB agendas are posted in case anybody has questions about that. I think that's more for the public, really, than board members, but just so it's all mapped out here for you. I think you're pretty familiar with the DRB process, but do you have any questions on how your process works once it gets to you? As far as the Butters, that's something that you, the applicant doesn't have to collect any information when you do that. Technically, they are supposed to provide us with the Butters information. Technically, it's their responsibility. What we typically do is they can ask us to give them a starter, a Butter list, so we can pull that information, but what we're getting is what we have for the most recent grand list for property owners. That's not necessarily up to date, so we get that to them. If they've, it's a complicated situation or if they ask for it, we usually offer, and then they'll take that and go to the assessor's office to update it or to track down, that's their responsibility, and then they have to provide us with self-adjust stamped envelopes, and then we mail out the notices. Some towns put that notice all on the applicants. Montpelier's pretty big and can be complicated, so I don't think it makes sense to have them mailed it. We wanna make sure we know it gets mailed. Right, right. That's like in some towns, the notice that has to be put up on the property about there's gonna be a hearing, as you notice. Some towns, the zoning administrator is the one who actually goes out and puts that up on the property. We can't do that here. We just don't have the bandwidth, so that gets mailed or hand delivered to the applicant and it's their responsibility to put it up. But it is important to have the evidence. Yeah, so we will give them a starter list. Every time we let them know that it's not, this is not necessarily the official list. Right. Is there gonna be more familiar with the other Strongs and Joseph's last year? Or so-and-so, you know, condo-ized, and there's actually five owners there now. Right. Because as long as the number of units haven't changed, we don't care if something gets condo-ized. Okay. So, yep. I had a question on that other slide. Yep. The hearing within 45 days after the close of the hearing, the DRB issues a written decision. Yep. And then that written decision has a 30-day appeal period. The zoning permit is issued based on vision. Mm-hmm. Is that an automatic thing or do they have to come back and apply for that zoning? Automatic. And when is this, does the zoning permit get issued at the end of the 30-day appeal period? Of the DRB appeal period? No, not necessarily. When it actually gets issued, it's sometimes just kind of fluctuates with when everything is going on, but it can be issued the exact same day we get the written and signed decision, depending if there's no conditions. But there's also sometimes. So, you issue a decision. The decision says within 60 days you have to submit to the zoning administrator X, Y, and Z. Or you have 60 days to get your master agreement that includes all of the easements. We're not gonna issue the permit before that comes in if that's a condition on the decision. So the window is flexible. It depends on what the conditions are that have been placed on the decision. I guess my question is, I know that this has come up in other towns, that you wouldn't concurrently run the DRB appeal period with the zoning permit appeal period. We're not gonna wait, it's two separate actions. We don't need to wait for the decision appeal period to then issue the permit. It doesn't, if the decision gets appealed and the permit's already been issued, then the permit's basically on hold. We can't enforce anything. Jurisdiction's been taken away by the court. So, I mean that's. It's a permit's been issued. The permit's been issued. Right, the permit's been issued. The marijuana can proceed with the permit. Nothing's on hold on last December. Right, I mean, I think, correct. That they're asking me to issue a permit. And that so that like a zoning permit appeal period would be like one of these non-discretionary permits. If Mary just issues a zoning permit for me to build my single family residence for three acres, then there's a 15-day appeal period of that. That doesn't ever come here, that's just that. If it comes here, then the relevant date is the day we issued the decision. That essentially is the approval. Right, but there's the separate permit. What the time frame is, so I've worked with a zoning administrator in another town and we were told by our municipal attorney, like don't do those, don't stack them up together. Let the DRB appeal period run for 30 days. Then you issue your zoning permit. Let that appeal period run for 15 days. And that way you're in the clear. So like an applicant can think, oh, you could say to an applicant, you realistically have approval on your DRB approval to actually go ahead and build 45 days from the date in which your decision was issued. So I'm just trying to understand. I mean, that would be the super careful way to do it. I don't think you have to do it that way. So there has been instances where people go ahead right away because they feel confident about the permit they just got. Right, and that's at their own risk. And then they lose, and then they've gotta undo what they've built. It's rare, but it has happened. So I was just curious on how Longpillier fell with being like, well, we're gonna stay safe and stay on the outside of it or just wanting things kind of concurrently to kind of get people so they can have their appeal. Yeah, I mean, we get them their permit once they've met any potential conditions on the decision is the way it's been going since before I've been here. With the warning, every, they get warnings. Hey, there's an appeal period. It's an appeal period, even though nobody came to the hearing, they could appeal it. And so it's at your own risk. So that window of having an approved done deal really varies on capacity and how you're moving through it. It's not like a set timeframe based on set appeal periods. It's kind of like a rolling. I'm sorry, I'm not sure I'm following which thing you're asking is scrolling. So there's not, it's very permit specific. Right, I guess that's not what I was. Yeah, that's what I was trying to better understand is that there's no clear timeframe. It is very permit specific based on when they'll actually get their done deal. And it's all final. There's no, nobody can appeal it anymore or you're like completely in the same zone. Right, and that's, I think because we make sure everything has what their appeal periods are on it. So the, So I mean the permit gets issued, the decision. So for example, like, the decision gets written up and then I as a chair sign it and it gets issued. Right. It starts the clock. What, 30 days? But they have their permit now. That gives them their permit because that's our final decision. It just means that there's 30 days that are running. Now, Meredith is always very careful to tell them that there's a 30 day appeal period window that is open, technically, but technically permits issued. So if you feel lucky and think it's a low risk or for whatever reason, you choose to build, it's not as if Meredith's gonna say, oh, the appeal period hasn't run yet. Yeah, you can't get started. And so I think it's always the sort of running at least the way I've always understood the office is, you know, we just keep those things running and if there's conditions that they have to meet before it becomes absolutely final, those aren't necessarily going to be conditions that are gonna double the appeal period. Well, they wouldn't tell the decision appeal period. I mean, technically, when there's that kind of a gap, there's a separate sort of more, there, my understanding is that there is a separate like appeal window on the permit we've issued based on that decision. But it's more just to say that there's the, there would be more of an appeal of what you issued here in this permit isn't consistent with the decision. It's not an appeal of the whole decision. I don't necessarily know. I mean, you know, most of the conditions are things like, you know, you have to get your mylar. Right. And so I can't see somebody necessarily appealing a permit on that. Well, wait, and it, I mean, completely here is comprehensive. The big one here is the 30 day appeal period. And that's what. I mean, that's what everybody. It's lagged for people. That's what everybody looks for. Yeah. Any other questions on DRB process? And you can also, you know, we can have individual questions and stuff later too. And this will be something that'll be tweaked as needed. So design review, this is design review committee flowchart and administrative process when the DRB is not involved. So if something comes in, it's an administrative permit or maybe, you know, it's just design review committee. That's the only thing that's lagged. They're coming in, they want to put, you know, a sign in and there happen to be in the design overlay district. So usually those, we can get an application for design review and get it on the immediate next hearing. So it could be, you know, just 10 days later that it gets in. And because design review committee is an advisory committee, we just have to post the agenda, you know, 48 hours before the hearing. Usually it's about three days ahead of time. And there's no notification of a butters, nothing like that. They just have to put up a notice of the property. They don't have to mail anything. And then the, you know, we then take it in and take in what DRC has said, if that goes through and then, you know, issue our permit with, we usually include something similar to what you guys see for a staff report. If it's something, if it's a minor site plan, if it's just design review, we usually just attach the design review recommendations and issue that with the permit. It's pretty straightforward. Now this is new from the 2018 regulations, the conservation committee having formalized review process. There are very specific instances in the regulations when application needs to be forwarded to the conservation committee. It's most often has to do with PUDs or subdivisions that have some sort of, you know, wetland or vernal pool or something that's identified on Montpelier's map, the natural resources inventory map. It has to be on the natural resources inventory map, almost 100% of the time. So if somebody comes in and says, hey, there's actually a vernal pool there. If it's not on the NRI map, we don't have jurisdiction over it. They would have to then go and get that map updated. So that's just big picture thing to keep in mind. So they have some really, we haven't had to deal with this yet and figure out how to actually make this work with the DRB public notice process. So it's gonna be interesting to see how much this actually delays things. We actually had a meeting with a member of the conservation committee last week to just talk about this so that they have an understanding of what their scope of review is and whether or not they need to draft some of their own regulations to figure out how this is gonna work, with regard to the determinations that they're gonna need to make about undue adverse impact and how they're gonna make that kind of determination because there are criteria within the regulations to help them with that, but they're supposed to be the experts. And so we, both the zoning administrator myself and you will be relying on them to provide that information. So their review is not like the DRC review. It's not, an application isn't being like referred to then. I have to catch that it needs to be referred to them and then I'll be referring it to them, but how that's gonna work with the DRB process, like the timelines they put in here are a little funky because the way this is set up, I would need to notify the conservation committee commission at least three weeks before their hearing and their hearing is gonna have to happen before your hearing and hopefully enough in advance so they can work their comments into a staff report if not it's just gonna be bringing them to you at the DRB hearing. So it's, I mean it is like the DRC and that they're supposed to see it before you, but the timelines are different. And so figuring out how this is gonna work in practicality is gonna be interesting. And because the, so it's three weeks, 21 days before the CC, before the conservation commission hearing, they're supposed to get the application referred to them and then they have an additional seven days after the conservation commission hearing to get comments to me and to you. So that's a four week window before the DRB hearing. So it's gonna slow the process down for sure. Usually when I send something to Department of Public Works or call a technical review committee, which is all department heads, I can do that within a week, two weeks, get seven days we're gonna get this, just make this happen or sometimes they just send comments via email. This is gonna take a lot longer, but it is also for bigger projects typically. So I think the applicants are gonna have to just learn to live with it or petition to get it changed. I don't know, we'll see how it works out. We haven't had a whole lot of PUD requests so far, which is when this is gonna, I think be the biggest issue. So if there were expecting maybe something will come in on savings pastor at some point and so this would be an example of where it might. So there's that, there's, I don't know, it's been in the press here and there about a new, oh I don't even know what they're calling it, but a new plan unit development that was gonna be for like small homes. I can't remember the group. The tiny houses. Yeah, and we weren't necessarily gonna be tiny houses but very close to that. Like cottages or? Yeah, cottages. And we're, I think it was in the press about them thinking up, yeah, and there's potentially coordinating with the city about a city park type thing and so that has the, there's a potential to maybe take, make use of the conservation PUD for something like that. So that would require conservation commission. We've had applications throughout the top of Main Street. So that would, if that's something that's on, yep, that would be something that would be considered for sure. So I've, you know, mapped it out sort of decision tree here but it's how it's actually going to affect the processes. Not quite clear yet. Well, I mean, and part of this I think is gonna come out in practice and the question's always gonna be what applications can, just like the DRC, we're sort of speculating about, there is a natural feature, there are considerations and their scrutiny would benefit the project. Well, and one of the, in addition to those, the other big one, any request for a waiver to remove woody vegetation from within riparian buffers has to go to the conservation commission. So we haven't gotten one of those yet either. That would be a smaller, in some instances, a smaller project could qualify for that. But we'll see here at all. It's a very specific type. Yep, that's a very specific one. But we'll see how it all, how it works. And then I know that there have been questions about the technical review committee and how that actually happens. So I tried to sort of outline it here and that it's an advisory staff committee, so it's city staff representatives from city departments, it is not, you know, it's not DRC, it's not the Conservation Commission. So there's no public notice of meetings, there's no requirement for minutes. You know, I usually take some sort of notes for my own edification and to be able to summarize things and get comments from the department head sometimes in writing. And so, you know, we've had instances where the public have put in public records requests and specifically said, hey, we want minutes, there are no minutes. I can, you know, if I've written something up, I can shoot it to people. But typically, the main department that I work with really is Department of Public Works. They're the ones who have concerns on, you know, almost every application. But for a full technical review committee, that would be for a big plan unit development, stuff like the city garage, it's Department of Public Works, police department, fire department, building inspector, health officer, community development specialist sometimes, if you're dealing with something where maybe it would be helpful to get additional, help the applicant with some additional grants or, you know, just advise them, you know, in things where it might need to be coordinated with something that's going on in the city. And, you know, the DRC has specific boundaries and they're, you know, just like the design review committee, their comments and recommendations aren't binding unless the DRB rolls it into a condition on a permit. And, you know, I usually try and summarize what's said within the staff report, but then when they've given me written comments, I try and attach those as well for the staff report, just so it's all part of the record. And then we had questions about the TRC before. Does anybody have any tonight? Is that a meeting with you? No, no. So, most applications, I will just shoot off, you know, hey, here's the application, here's the packet. These are the things I think you might want to take a peek at. Usually it's department of public work, sometimes, you know, fire chief and police chief will get that as well when I'm just like, uh, can you take a quick look? Because I want to make sure you don't have any issues with this. And then there are the situations where it's a big application and you just, you want everybody to come in and meet in person. And when you do a meet in person, usually we have the applicant come as well and any other, you know, major players that need to be there. So the city attorney is not part of this? Right. At least so far. I mean, there might be an instance where we do pull in the city attorney. So you have the ability to, you know, we have a question that we have, you know, raised like tonight to just put in a quick call and say, hey, can you take it? Oh yeah. I, you know, and I probably should have done it for this one ahead of time. Honestly, not my finest hour, but yeah. I have authorization to go to city council, the city's council anytime I need to for a quick question. And there's several times where I've done that. Just be like, can we actually do this? And that's also, it's helpful. You know, I also consult a lot with the planning director with Mike Miller. You know, sometimes he'll know, you know, he'll have something just in his history where he knows that we've gotten an opinion from the attorney before that something is okay or shouldn't be allowed. But we're also dealing with new regulations. Well, and frankly, sometimes we're able to listen to the Washington-Middlemore termination. It's just, I don't think, tonight I think just want a little beyond our ability. So it makes sense to put the question before us. And frankly, what sketch plan is for us? Yeah. Well, and that's because this was a sketch plan, it felt like, and yes, there's enough attorneys here that maybe somebody would know, but not. Okay, did anybody have any questions on that? Okay. Are you sure? I have a question on, like the, what's the application is complete? Mm-hmm. So whether, I don't know, someone sees a public notice or they get a letter because they're in a butter. They instructed them to come into the office to review, so it's not available, because the staff reports are available when the agenda's posted. Yeah, so the application materials or as soon as we have them in the office, they're available for public view. Once we have, and people can come in, they can, we can make them copies. If we have stuff electronically, we'll send it to them if they ask. And once we've, usually once we've sent out the public notice, we try and close the application in the office. You know, if nobody has come in to ask any questions and the applicant is responding to something we asked them for, sometimes we'll put it in, but typically, someone does have a request or to come in. Yes, yeah, they can come in anytime, anytime the office is open and say, hey, what do you have for applications? Because we also have a big, have you been in the office? Okay, so there's, there is a, I call it sort of like the hearing table. So there's a table that's set up with rows for DRC and DRB, where we have all the applications for those committees laid out. And then there's a big whiteboard on top of it that has the hearing dates and says what applications are up for what dates for which committees. So anytime the office is open, people can come in and take a look. And then they also can look at agendas that are posted online. Do you guys ever think about putting the DRB agenda? I'm not sure, I guess we could. I think Jamie handles the front porch forum for the city and I'm not, I just, from like a public, it doesn't seem like, I just felt like there could be other ways to help inform the public about it. It seems like if you're posting two of the agendas already within this building and one in the high school, I just wonder like how do people know what's going on? So the city website and people can subscribe to be notified when things get posted on the city website for specific committees. Oh, so you have to go and like sign up yourself. There's that. So basically when you sign up for any of the notifications, you get to choose all of them, from all of them. So if you want to be notified when you go through that application, that'll be an opportunity. So you'll get your, if you can choose to be notified of all DRB. You could be choosing, you could choose to have notifications for things every day. You know, you want to do. You know, some people are engaged in that. That's right, that's good. And it never fails to amaze me after a DRB hearing who will stop me on the street and say I saw you on the DRB hearing last night. I mean, something to explore and not, I don't know if. One thing that I guess I would, sorry, I'm just gonna throw out there is that one thing you have to be careful about is, you know, putting up into a new posting creates a new requirement for you on top of everything else, because once that becomes sort of an expected form where those notices are received, then if you miss it, it may not legally affect anything, but it might cause people to go, well, they didn't post it on this site where I was expected to, not realizing the difference between what they're legally obligated to do and what's kind of convenient. And I guess it's a question of, are there a lot of people saying, I wanna know more about DRB meetings, but I'm not hearing about them, in which case, you know, there would be a reason to put it on front porch form. Otherwise, I don't know. I find at least having been on this board that the interest in this board really grows or wanes with the specific application projects, you know, like as you've all now gone through with the city garage, you know, that brought a lot of attention and a lot of people and a lot of discussion, but from porch form had no problem posting about that because everybody was really concerned about it. Whereas, you know, tonight, there was some attention for the VCFA, but, you know, if we have a private application, there'd be even less. You know, it just, not every week are we doing the most exciting thing in the world. Sometimes we're just permitting people to do what they want with the property and everybody's probably doing it. Well, and that's, you know, when, especially if it's a municipal project and it's really big, like with the garage, there's a lot more coordination with Jamie, with the city to make sure that the city website is completely full of everything that's going on with the forecast of here's the upcoming, you know, potential hearings and here's the process because there was a lot of need for information. I mean, that's my concern with front porch forum is, like you said, maintaining that all the time, confusion of what we have to do versus what we're just doing for standard practice. And also that front porch forum does have more of a meeting to potentially track responses, track comments, it becomes another avenue of discussion that might end up going to Jamie or somebody else versus in our office and keeping the lines of communication, avoiding confusion, as well as also just having the bandwidth. Do commission review. Yeah, I mean, there's a lot of administrative stuff that still needs to get dealt with. But it's something to think about whether or not where things get posted should at some point get tweaked. You know, is the high school really a good place still? Oh, it's something else to think about. Right, that to me just seems like a weird place to post a DR because, like, how about a library? Well, I think, yeah, but it's also a question, I think, of a public building where there's a, you know, broad enough segment of the city population going in and out. I think it's been a school fund very, very, very long time. I don't know when. Other than, like, when the city got a website and started posting on the website, I don't know when they last changed where things got posted, right? Yeah, one of those things that you don't wanna mess with that, that's no longer necessary to post that meeting. So I just, just to heads up the other two things that you got, and I'm not really, unless people have questions, I'm not gonna talk about them in depth. So the little green sheet, this is more something that is that Audra had developed for applicants to give them really a just broad step back from the picture what's going on and how do we make decisions about your application. So it's not really, it's not really detailed, but it lets an applicant know what's going on. You know, does your project even require a permit? You know, if it does, does it already comply with the zoning regulations? If so, then you're just gonna get a quick administrative permit. If it doesn't comply with the regulations, then you may need to get, basically, you know, go through a full application process and go to the DRB hearing or go to a DRC hearing. It's, this is really big picture simplified. And then of course you have, and I borrowed this, from the zoning administrator's handbook, your great, big, complicated, here's everything flow chart that takes a while to piece through. It has references to state statutes, whereas my other, my PowerPoint head references more to ours, you know, multiple year zone regulations. This is really handy and helpful, but it's even more depth than what I pulled together for the PowerPoint. So, you know, if everyone would get really big picture, big picture plus detail, this is where to go. I find it useful, I've got it up on my wall on my own. I try to break that down into smaller pieces that were a little easier to digest. Thank you, Rarity. Sorry, that took a little longer than I intended. No, that's- Oh, the schedule was really helpful, was it good? We drove it with a lot of questions. Good questions. All right, our next regular scheduled meeting is Monday, March 18th, 2019 at 7 p.m. Our normally, regularly scheduled time. Do I have a motion to adjourn? Or does anyone have new business that wished to continue this meeting? Make a motion to adjourn. Motion by Rob, do I have a second? Second. Second by Tom. All those in favor, please raise your hand. We are adjourned, thank you all very much.