 review board. What I would like to do is start by introducing the members of our board as well as the staff who are supporting us. So what I'll do is read the names of our members and ask those people who are on video to please raise their hands as I say their names. So our board members are RJ Adler. Roger Kranz. Roger may or may not be visible. If he's on our board. Rob Goodwin. Joe Kiernan. Joe has not yet signed on. Michael Lizarchak is joining us by phone. If you'd like to say hello, Michael. Hey, everyone. How's it going? Thanks, Michael. Gene Leon. Kevin O'Connell is our vice chair. And then we are assisted greatly today by Meredith Crandall, our zoning administrator. Michael Miller, who is our city's planning director and also our zoom moderator for the evening bonus title. And then Tammy Furrier, recording secretary is joining by phone. Very good. I'm just going to assume that the volume and clarity are adequate unless I hear otherwise. So with that, we will carry on. So the next item on our agenda is staff review of our remote meeting procedures and process then followed by an opportunity to ask any related questions. I will turn it over to Meredith. Okay, I'm going to share screen and this is more for the viewers at home who are looking over Orca so that they can see how to get on to the zoom meeting if they need to. Here is the contact, the access information. So due to the state of emergency declared by governor Scott under executive order 01-20 and its addendums and act 92, the development review board is authorized to meet electronically. In accordance with act 92, there is no physical location to observe and listen contemporaneously to this meeting. However, in accordance with the temporary amendments to the open meeting law, the development review board is providing public access to this meeting via a video conference meeting platform, the zoom meeting platform, including both video and telephone access options. There's also additional access offered through the live streaming of the media over Orca. All members of the development review board have the ability to communicate at the same time during this meeting through this platform and the public has access to listen and if desired participate in the meeting in real time. So you can join the zoom meeting via the zoom platform over the internet using this or if you're watching from home and want to listen and or comment, you can also just call into the meeting on this phone number. In both options, you can use this meeting ID and password. We previously gave notice of these opportunities to access the meeting on the city website as well as all the public notices that were posted around the city and printed in the newspaper. If anybody has a problem accessing the meeting, please email the meeting moderator, Mike Miller at M Miller at Montpelier-VT.org. And if you're on the zoom meeting through the browser access and having difficulties with zoom features or otherwise have technical questions, you can message Mike through the chat function in zoom. He is listed as the Montpelier City Council Chambers in your zoom window. Once you've logged into the meeting, you should have an opportunity to tell the moderator what you want to comment on here. We don't really have that problem because it's just one application tonight. But if there is somebody who is on the meeting who has some other item they wish to bring up, they can wait until the other other matters other business item on the agenda. I don't anticipate that just in case. And then if you're interested in speaking, you need to wait until the chair has recognized you to participate. The moderator will unmute your microphone if you haven't already and we'll confirm that you can be heard. And then you're free to provide your questions or comments ending to keep them to two minutes. Tonight's meeting is going to be a little bit different as you look at the agenda because this is a continued hearing and we'll talk about that a little bit more in a few minutes. So after you've had your initial time to comment, the chair might grant additional time for speakers who have follow up questions or comments or if the board has some questions for the speaker. But once you're all done speaking, your microphone will be muted against that we don't get background noise that can interfere with everybody hearing each other. Once your time is done, the chair will then ask the next person to speak. You can provide additional input later, but please wait until the chair recognizes you. A note for the public that in the event public access is limited or there's issues with internet connectivity, then the meeting will be continued to a time and place certain. And please note that all votes taken during this meeting will be done by roll call vote. All right, I'm going to hand it back over to Kate. Very good. Thank you, Marietta. Let's test out that roll call vote with the next item on our agenda, which is the approval of the agenda. We will do this by roll call. Are there any corrections or modifications to the agenda from board members? No. Okay. In that case, I will take a motion to approve the agenda as printed. So moved. Motion by RJ. Second. Second from Kevin. Thank you. Please say yes or no as I call your name. RJ. Yes. Roger. Roger, if you've made it on, please be sure to unmute. I'll come back to you. Rob. Yes. Joe. Joe's absent. Michael. Yes. Jean. Kevin. Yes. And I, Kate, vote yes as well. The motion passes. We have an agenda item five on our agenda comments from the chair. There are no comments. There are no general comments from the chair. I'm six is the continuation of 105 State Street. So I'd like to start by having Marietta, please summarize the status of the application. Okay. So we actually have a new few new faces from the last portion of this hearing at the last meeting. So 105 State Street in general, the applicant is seeking major site plan approval for a new three story building with a commercial use on the first floor and the second and third floor with the first floor being mostly bank use, including conditional use approval for a drive up bank teller and ATM at the rear of the building, as well as a new curb cut for vehicles exiting onto. Sorry, I have this one. Governor Davis have the parcel is located in the urban center one zoning district as well as the design control district. So there was a the first part of the public hearing was on the application opened on May 18 2020. And the board held took extensive testimony and adjourned the meeting without making a decision continuing the hearing until tonight's meeting. I'm not going to go in detail into the full history of the application. At this point, it's all summarized in the staff report that was posted on the website. I know there's been some website issues lately. So if anybody needs that at some point, let me know and I'll find a way to get it to you. I can also pull it up on my screen here and share that if we need that done. Um, the we identified at the get go seven outstanding issues at the beginning of the hearing on May 18. With the first issue having the most debate. So this first issue is whether section 3010 vehicle access and circulation requirements have been met. Specifically, there were questions about whether there were going to be conflicts between vehicles, both ingress and egress and pedestrians with the way things were set up surrounding the rate of way. That's adjacent to 105 State Street. The other issues that were identified were whether the project must meet the 20 foot aisle width requirement for parking lot. So that's an aisle behind parking spaces. Whether the drive through portion of the proposal meets the special use standards of section 3115 and the conditional use standards whether to incorporate the design review committee's recommendations. Sorry. Um, design review committee's recommendations and optional changes into the permit. How the applicant must meet planning specifications and we actually dealt with that I think sufficiently in the hearing and got evidence clarifying that question. The first part of the hearing whether the parking area must be screened from a budding properties is required for parking lots and whether the applicant has met the professionally prepared lighting plan requirement of section 3204. Again, that's another question that was I think resolved in the last portion of the hearing where the applicant agreed to provide a detailed lighting plan for a permit file. Um, so that's where things stand. And I think Kate, I'll hand it back to you to how you want to handle the rest of this part of the hearing. That's okay. Sure. Thank you very much, Meredith. So given the complexity of the application, as you know, we voted last week to continue the hearing to today. And I appreciate everybody coming back two weeks on spending your time and being here in the evening to work with us on that. Thank you. It helps us as a board make our decisions in a in a deliberative and and we hope thoughtful way. The continuation is also allowing the applicant and any interested parties to submit additional evidence before the board begins deliberation. And this was previewed to you in an email from Meredith saying how we would handle this meeting. I'm just going to outline it for the sake of refreshing our memories and for the public. What we're going to do is give the interested parties eight minutes to present new evidence and then the applicant eight minutes to present new evidence. And the emphasis here is on new evidence. If testimony begins to tread old ground from from last week, I'll send you a signal and ask you to to conclude or move on to another point. And I would also recall remind you to please address the board directly with your testimony rather than each other. I will keep track and I will try and do the timer on my phone and I can give you a one minute when you if you hit seven minutes that you've got one to go. And that'll keep us all on track. After we hear the any additional evidence from the applicant and any interested parties, the board is going to enter into a virtual deliberative session. We will all be board members and staff will be exiting this zoom call and disappearing to another one. It will be a separate call. The call we are on together right now will remain open. So you can take a break stretch. The call will remain open and come back when you hear us start talking again. I don't know at the moment how long that will be, but I hope we can communicate that in some way so that so that you have a general sense of it. At the point when we conclude the deliberative session, we'll return to this meeting. And at that point, we'll ask any additional clarifying questions that we need or we'll go ahead with a motion. So that is what to expect from tonight's meeting. Are there it's a little different than what we've done and certainly a little different than what we've done remotely. Does anyone have any any quick questions about what lies ahead in that regard? Okay. So before we hear from interested parties and the applicant with any additional evidence, first, I want to ask if any DRB members have conducted site visits? And if you have, could you please share with us any, any observations that you want to enter into the conversation? I made an extra visit to the site and I also reviewed the presentation to the design review committee a few weeks ago. Okay. Thank you. Has anyone else made a site visit? Jean, go ahead and unmute if you would. Yes, I also made a second site visit and found some inabilities to drive around as proposed in a large vehicle, which is what I use for work is a four door F 150 truck. I mean, so to cut around that corner will take basically a three point turn or unfortunately going into part of the eight PM adjacent to the other building part of the shared driveway. But we could talk about it further. I have some suggestions and conclusions and comparison and notes that I, I could, I could talk about it now or later. Meredith, could you please advise on when the best point is to talk about information gathered? I think we would say sort of opinions or reflections for the deliberative session, but could you advise on how best to incorporate Jean's evidence? I mean, right now is when we're supposed to be disclosing those items. So I think especially if we're going to be giving applicants and other parties and a chance to talk before the deliberative session that members should probably make those points now so that there's a chance for them to, for those points to be responded to if needed before the deliberative session. Mike, if you agree, disagree or anything speak up, but that's my thought on how that could be best handled and most efficiently. Okay, that, that makes sense to me. Jean, if you would maybe do your best to take five minutes or less and share with us your site visit information. Well, regarding the parking, the three proposed parking, I think there was enough evidence provided by engineering in their presentation that seemed in the comparison to the previous business that there would be enough room as they presented the, the evidence with the photos and several parking spaces that were already in place for the garage. That seemed okay from my analysis. Last week there was some invalid comparisons regarding other types in between spaces such as the alleyway in next to the copy center, the Trinity Church shared driveway one way in and out the federal building post office. So some of those are invalid because and I'll go through it quickly. The federal building is a federal access. It's blocked. It's only for federal use. The Trinity Church one way shared driveway. There is, so if you go in, there is accessibility behind it. So you can exit through the rear, making a right. You can go back the same way you came in or exit in the rear out of the library or make a left into the next parking lot. And so there's three accessible exits. There's a lot of flow when you go in and out of there. The, the one way next to the copy center baguitos, that's been an issue for years and in the near future might be addressed because of safety concerns. But although once the, where the redemption center lot was gets paved, that's going to become another access flow of in and out. So it makes that one way a little more accessible in the back to get in and out. So and then my second side visit, you know, just getting, if you're an ATM and you have to make a right to the shared driveway, it's pretty difficult to make that sharp right, you know, to stay right on the shared driveway. So you have to make a three point turn. But there is a solution from my findings is such like these other places, there could be accessibility if the barricade behind or next to the restaurant were taken out. In other words, that wouldn't fence barricade that's there would then open up a little bit more accessibility to the rear parking lot of that state building, which also has an exit out to government street or back out. So it creates a little bit more of a flow. So that's, that's I think something to look at and consider. Jean, thank you. I want to I want to clarify that you mentioned taking a right to depart from the ATM. My understanding is that the drive through ATM is actually you actually leave on to Governor Davis Street. So you'd be taking a left away from that no matter what. There's no right around. Right. So going in to make a left. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Just wanted to make sure that the direction of flow was understood to be counterclockwise around the new building. Right. So especially if there's parking availability, the three parking spaces, now you're on the shared driveway to make a sharp left into the ATM. That's it's really difficult to do without getting into further into the adjacent building. Okay. In a larger vehicle. Thank you, Jean, for taking the time to go in and feel that out. I appreciate it. So the next thing I want to do, did anyone else make a site visit that they wish to remark on? Your B members said, oh, thank you. Thank you, Mr. White. All right. The next thing I'd like to ask again before we hear from interested parties in the applicant, I'd like to ask if your B members just please disclose any partay communications. If there were any. Kate, just a note that Joe did actually make it on. He's called in. Great. Joe, welcome to the meeting. Thank you for joining us. Sorry, I'm late. That's okay. That's okay. Joe, I'm not sure how long you've been on, but we've had the chance to say if people have done site visits and to disclose any exparte. So. Yes, I've done a site visit and I have no exparte to disclose. Okay, thanks, Joe. Great. Okay, so with that, we've heard from the board members, hopefully that's useful to interested parties and the applicants. What I'm going to do next is invite interested parties to have their eight minutes, starting with the 99th State Street folks. And then Paul Carnahan, are you wishing to speak as well tonight? Yes, please. Okay, so I'll have the 99th State Street folks go first and then I will invite you to speak and I will throw you in at that time. Okay, so I will start my, I will invite Bill or whomever to begin and I will start my timer. Please go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chairman. But before you begin the timer, perhaps I could ask you to swear J. White in and as well as Carnahan, since both of them are going to want to testify. That sounds efficient. Thank you for that suggestion and reminder. Very good. So J. White and Paul Carnahan, if you would please raise your right hand. Do you follow up? Yeah, hold on. Sorry. We also have John Russell on the line who he's not on video, but he is he owns the property behind 105. So he owns 107. So you might want to swear him in as well. John, if you're planning on presenting testimony or otherwise speaking. We're going to need you to turn your volume a little bit. I'll just move closer. I am. I do intend to speak tonight. Very good. Then I will sign in J. White, Paul Carnahan and John Russell. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury? I do. I do. Yes. Thank you. All right. Phil, if you'd like to proceed, I will have your timer, Madam Chairman. I do. All right. Please, please go ahead. Commence fire. I just wanted in anticipation of some of the comments that I believe the applicant filed with the DRB this afternoon, I received copies from the zoning administrator. I just have three simple statements I would like to make. First is that in this case, Paul Malone is the adjoining property owner and under the Montpelier ordinance, he's entitled to be an interested party. The case that the applicant has cited the DRB to was a case about party status in an Act 250 proceedings, which is it's only remotely analogous to the DRB proceeding. Number two, that ingress to the prog all ingress to the project site and some egress from the project site is through the right of way on 99 State Street. And consequently, I don't think it can be any question, but that the right of way has to be considered as part of the site of this project. And third, traffic conflicts on the site are an intrinsic element of the DRB's jurisdiction and the argument that the DRB cannot address traffic conflict on the right of way, I think is just an empty argument. So those comments are in anticipation of what the applicant may say later in their presentation, but I also would like to introduce the DRB to J. White, an architect from Burlington, who has appeared before the Montpelier DRB many times in the past. And J has we follow the letter from J to the DRB on Friday afternoon, and I'd like to introduce J and ask him to make his presentation. Thank you. Please unmute and go right ahead. Next. J. White, after you unmute your microphone, you can begin. Okay, can I ask that the site plan that we submitted earlier be submitted and then load it up to the screen? Yep. Give me a couple of minutes. So hold on. This isn't I've got to go through and pull the right ones because I can't seem to access the whole J. Which site plan do you want? Do you want the most recent one from Brian? Yeah, yes, the one that Alicia sent yesterday, I think. Available J, is that the one you're referring to? I don't know that it got sent to Merida. Okay, hold on. Thank you, Kate. Alicia, I've stopped sharing, so you should be able to share now if you need to. Yes, that's the site plan I wanted to refer to. Okay, can everyone hear me now? Yes. Okay. Yes, thank you. What I, I'm the architect employed by Malone Properties regarding the 99th State Street building, which is right where the cursor is showing there now. And what I would, I was surprised to learn that this proposal to make the right of way that it's only 10 feet, six inches wide, a two way right of way because it's a one lane road. And I think that it's worked when the gas station was there to get back to where Mr. Russell's property is behind the property that Mr. Lowe's on recently purchased, because the bank, I mean, the gas station with allowed for basically two way traffic, one lane going on the right of way and one lane going where three diagonal parking places are proposed. And it doesn't work for 95, I mean 99th State Street. You can see that that entire driveway is into the site between the movie theater and the existing bank building. It goes counterclockwise around the entire property and picks up parking there, comes back around to parking there and then can stop at the ATM, which is not going to be there. It's going to be down into the building there. That's where the ATM will be and then proceed directly out. And if there's a line of traffic coming to use that function or coming out of that site, there's a conflict of interest if there's three parking spots right there where they're shown on Mr. Lausanne's proposed site. And I've been an architect for a long time and tell about a lack of hair that I have, but I to try to get a one way lane to be two way traffic in a busy location with both businesses being busy is a problem. Also, this property has continuously been used as a sole access to get into and out of what has been the thrust building that John Russell owns. And to block that access with those three parking spaces, I think is a major problem and it is a dangerous for traffic flow. The training leaders I don't think work going in certainly without not without going on the right of way in the wrong direction or on Mr. Muscle's property to access the three that are on the side there. The training leaders just don't work to make it a pivot of no degrees around the building like that. So I would like to propose that we not allow the parking of the three diagonal spaces so that there's not a conflict of interest by trying to put two way traffic on a one way right away. Is not possible to change the direction of the flow around 99 State Street because of the whole layout of the existing traffic pattern that's been there. But it is possible to simply not have the three parking spaces on the one of five State Street credit parking is not required on site. And I think the main objection that I have from a safety point of view and a site planning point of view is trying to put two way traffic on a one way road and not having the ability to even back out of the diagonal spaces properly without blocking traffic. Your accident. You're asking for accidents left and right there. And even I think as Paul Cannon kind of had pointed out backing out onto the sidewalk, I also was aware of that. But the key interest that I have working with my client and this is the former citizens of of Montpellier. I've had the privilege of working for Tom Lowe's on John Russell and now with Pat Malone. So I know all of these these players. They're all good people. But I think this site plan does not work for all the parties included here. All right. Thank you, Mr. White. I appreciate it. Is there anything else from the 99 State Folks interested party? Kate, this is Bill. I just want to make sure that the DRB has the proposed findings that we submitted on Friday. Thank you. We do. Thank you. OK. All right. With that, I'm going to move. I'm sorry. I don't know how to raise my hand. Raise your hand. OK, go ahead, Alicia. I've got one minute. OK, thank you. I just I don't know if they can respond immediately. But one thing that Jean mentions that I want to comment on is that the common right of way doesn't extend all the way to the state property. It does end 11 and a half feet short. So that common right of way does not go all the way to the to the state property, although we appreciate some thought into other options. And then I just wanted to confirm when the African speaks that the proposed plan is to have the walk up ATM and the drive through ATM usable. Twenty essentially 24 hours a day, not just when there's a teller at the window. I wanted to check about the V-tran, excuse me, the I.T.E. trip manual numbers. I just wanted to know what version I had a V-tran data that they did drive through specific bank in 2010. And so the number cuts the allowable queuing time in about a third, which really can make a difference during rush hour traffic. And then also just to make sure that the the parking spaces were marked bank only use. If there's intended to be for the building, then we need to incorporate any other uses in that building as part of the traffic. Use use for that area trying to get in and out. Thank you, Alisha. I think you reached a natural conclusion there and I hope that's the case. Thank you, though, for your questions. I'm going to stop us there. I would invite the applicant to address those either now or in their later remarks. How about later, as part of, Sarah, you're muted, but I think you're agreeing with later. Yes, I think that we'll hear all of the comments and then be able to address them all at once. I think it'll be more efficient. Thank you. All right, very well. Thank you. Thank you, Alisha and Sarah. I'd like to move on to another interested party, Paul, joining us for the first time. I will invite you to start your comments and would just ask you to keep them brief, but thank you for being here. Go ahead. Certainly. I think you probably have the email that I sent to Meredith last night. You can tell from that email that my concern is with vehicles backing over the sidewalk from the space that's designated as a handicap space. I think that's going to inevitably lead to conflict between pedestrians and vehicles. The analysis from the engineers and Tom McCartle seemed to agree with it was that vehicles would, for some reason, stop short of entering the sidewalk and would decide to turn their vehicles before becoming parallel with the driveway and would swing their front of their vehicle around over the hatchmarked area and then continue to exit out the property. I just study in common sense. I see no reason why a vehicle would stop and would want to exit in that way. Standard driving techniques is to straighten your car out and then exit. There's really no reason to expect someone to make this tight maneuver within this space. Tom McCartle also stated that the visibility was wonderful. People backing out from parking places, it's a tough maneuver. People are driving bigger and bigger cars. It doesn't matter how slow a car is going when it enters a sidewalk. A car should not enter a sidewalk backing up. Any conflict between a vehicle and a pedestrian is going to be on the losing end of it. I really think it's a mistake for a pedestrian to approve a design that includes the possibility of a car backing over a sidewalk. It seems to me it's the city's interest to prevent vehicle and pedestrian conflict. This would be a poor president in our walkable downtown. I can think of no area in the downtown where there are narrow alleyways. Those cars are coming out front first. I really strongly urge you to reject any sort of traffic plan that involves a vehicle backing over a sidewalk in a busy area of the downtown. Thank you. Thank you. Next interested in speaking is John Ruffalo. Mr. Ruffalo, I would like to unmute your phone or device. Please present your comments. I have to imagine. I agree with J. White. I agree with Bill Zellinger. I agree with Carnahan. I just think that this design is something that the parties that think that it's a good idea for their use only that they were hoping that there would be no bank. That 107 would close and go away. This is just foolish. It just seems so foolish to me. I'm surprised that the DRB is even looking at it in its current condition. What I have is that there is a restaurant in the 107. It's an active restaurant even though right now it's only takeout. But anybody who's been in the restaurant three or four months ago can see that the parking lot has been full of cars and trucks. So it's an extremely parking lot to get in and out of already and now we're trying to make it worse by setting up something which is wider than one car. I've owned that building for a long time and I know that the golf station that was there before created a lot of problems for me and the tenants in the building by their customers coming in parking in the parking lot or in the slate parking lot or the faux parking lot thinking that hey, I'm only going to be a few minutes it doesn't really matter and then trying to find a way out. So and as Jay said I'm going to turn this into a one-way street is foolish on the face of it and I also can't imagine that anybody is going to really be wanting a larger flow of traffic through the driveway between the theater and the new bank. There's just been no thought as far as I can see to this. I've been sort of watching this and like I said it's foolish. It's not going to work. So another problem obviously is that that people are going to try and get out onto the as they exit Tom's bank should it happen onto a street that's already narrow and also has trucks and other sorts of vehicles parked there ambulances etc etc because it's a government building full of people oftentimes that's only a one lane road because of the traffic parking there delivery trucks etc etc and it's very very difficult to look left or right as you're going out of there and then that exit is also right next to the to the corner on to State Street. So there's no visibility these are my comments and I guess if we're going to go further I would just get a traffic expert to work for me and to say you know this is nonsense and I guess that's me done okay thank you Mr. Russell for your comments at this point are there any other interested parties to be heard? Okay so with that I will turn it over to the applicant to present any new evidence as well as to respond to to the evidence presented by other so please go right ahead hey can't just sorry sir can I cut for one second just real quickly Kate since we are both presenting the evidence we plan to present and responding to the evidence presented by everyone else can we have a little bit more than 8 minutes that sounds fair to me that's what I was going to say great go ahead Sarah so yeah I just want to go right ahead I just wanted to make that point of clarification we've got you know we've had 3 people talk for 8 more than 8 minutes each and if we're going to address them two spoke for less than 8 minutes and one spoke for 8 minutes okay well so it's still we can't respond in 8 minutes so I just wanted to open it up quickly Brian is going to do most of the presentation appreciate people's comments it's an open process but most of the comments are speculation about what might or might not happen we do have experts both on the staff the city has heard from and our own experts have expert testimony to the contrary there's been no expert testimony given by the by the Malone side of the equation and I just would urge the board to remember that the use the private rights of shared uses it's not something within their jurisdiction whether or not there's going to be conflicts and people can't get in and out that's speculation this place has been in existence for 95 years these issues have always existed and people have been able to work it out so with that I'll turn it over to Brian to give the technical responses thank you Sarah I think I will respond to some of the comments that we've heard so far first and then present the evidence that we've been playing to present um so Jay White's presentation he stated that his biggest concern is that we are taking what is now a two way right of way and turning it into one way right of way I'd just like to point out that any width beyond the existing 10.5 foot right of way on the 99 State Street parcel is on the 105 state LLC property and none of the budding landowners have any rights to use it so the only right that exists now is the 10.5 foot right of way for all three properties to use for ingress and egress the current configuration of the site is a 10.5 foot wide two way driveway the current parking lot use of the site has jersey barriers that go along the 10.5 foot right of way and so that is the current access through that area and it is the legal access through that area so we are in no way considering what is a what you would usually expect to be a 24, 20, 24 foot wide access that's two way and reducing it down to a 10.5 foot access that's just not correct I might just point out about the circulation around the site even a parking lot that is designed bog standard to the specifications it's difficult to drive a large vehicle like an F-150 around I drive a tundra around for work and I usually try and avoid places where I have to go and park it even in a parking lot with a 24 foot wide aisle and 9 by 18 spaces because it's not easy to get in and out so while it may be difficult to drive an F-150 around the site it's not necessarily what the regulations are aimed at accommodating I'm also not exactly sure the way the site is currently configured that what will be the ATM lane is blocked by the Jersey Barriers so there's really no way to test what the circulation will be and we certainly believe it's adequate to get someone around that corner and through the ATM regarding Alicia's comments I'm not sure what data she's looking at for the generation on the ATM but we are using the 10th edition of the I.T.E. trip generation manual and we're using a unit includes both the office and drive-through uses of the bank so those are some responses to comments we also have additional testimony that I would typically hand out to the board but since we're in a situation where we're all working remotely I have it queued up as an email and I'm just going to email it out now to everyone who's on the distribution list this morning that Meredith was sending things out to I know that may not be quite everyone who's on this call but I'm also going to go through this evidence that I'm sending out right now in email form so you're going to be able to share your screen so that the public can view it I certainly can I'm also literally going to say everything that's in the email oh okay so you don't have pictures or anything no I will but that's separate from the email I just sent it's just a copy of the testimony that I'm about to give perfect thank you sure so as everyone is aware the real outstanding issues of debate with this particular application of the development unified development regulations regarding vehicle access and circulation particularly subsection one about vehicle access generally and subsection nine regarding non-conformities so we would just like to offer some additional evidence into how the project meets and complies with these sections of the regulation a significant portion of the discussion has been around whether the proposed development will create traffic conflicts within the site but there hasn't really been any discussion around what constitutes a traffic conflict within a site that would be unacceptable to approve under the regulations there's been a lot of testimony that cars backing up out of the parking spaces are going to impede access through the shared right-of-way and that that constitutes a traffic conflict however it's an endemic feature of all parking lots that when you are backing out of a parking space you are going to block the access aisle into which you are backing that is that kind of temporary blockage happens in every single parking lot that's ever been designed and it also would happen in a parking lot that is would be easily approval under the regulations for instance one with 918 parking spaces and a 20 or 24 foot two-way access aisle you know so our contention is that these kind of temporary conflicts in a parking lot aren't the kind of conflicts that are contemplated as needed to be prevented under the development the unified development regulations the kind of conflicts that internal conflicts need to be presented would be things like designing your loading space so that when there's a truck making a delivery the truck is blocking the access aisle or for instance if you had a parking space when someone parked in it they would block a bicycle or pedestrian way or if your site wasn't designed sufficiently so that traffic would back up on your site and block an access aisle so those are the kind of internal conflicts that need to be avoided on the site so I just wanted to present and give me a second to share my screen just to take a quick look at a couple of other parking lots that already exist in town that would be easily approval under the unified development regulations so this what I'm showing right now is an overhead photo of the parking lot at the hunger mountain co-op in the college office building this is designed the design of this would meet the current standards with 9 to 18 parking spaces and probably a 24 foot aisle which is wider than the current regulations and as I'm sure everyone's experienced in this particular parking lot whenever a car is backing out of the parking space they in fact will typically back out to an angle somewhere in here and then turn forward to proceed out of the parking lot whenever someone backs out they either have to wait if someone is coming down the aisle or they will block them and the person coming down the aisle will wait there's certainly this section of parking spaces here where if due to the one way circulation in fact around this parking lot we have these spaces and there's one or two cars coming in from stone cutters way there exists the possibility that cars could back up into the road right of way in a temporary situation and I think everyone can agree this is a parking lot that would be certainly easily approved under the unified development regulations this layout also has the potential that when people back out of these spaces here from the folks that are using the adjacent parking lot so this is just again to illustrate that the kind of temporary conflicts that are created by a car going inner out of a parking space and blocking an adjacent access aisle are typical and endemic and unavoidable in parking areas and it's not no different than the situation of the car backing out of spaces proposed at the 105 street and into the right of way that's jointly used by the neighboring properties here's another example of the same thing this is the national life parking lot you may look at this one and say well there's this great long entry way here that's avoiding traffic conflicts well that's there because of the size of this parking lot and this is there to avoid conflicts with cars backing up from exiting the site but the main circulation through the parking lot is to avoid conflicts right here and once again anyone who is accessing a parking space you're going in or out is blocking temporarily the flow of traffic through the rest of the parking area so I would say and Meredith maybe you could actually bring up the plan that Alicia had submitted one more time while I talk about this other thing if you're talking about the plan Alicia just showed I don't have a copy of that that has to be Alicia okay well if Alicia you're willing to put it up that'd be good or if not we can look at the overhead photo to talk about it in a minute but so the one potential for creating a traffic conflict that exists longer than what would be created by a car backing out of space which again we're contending is not the kind of traffic conflict that we need to avoid would be if cars accessing the drive-thru lane were to back up into the shared right of way and we had sent this previously as a response to the TRC but I just wanted to go through it we've calculated the traffic generation for cars going through the the drive-thru lane and again I just want to point out that we did only the drive-thru lane because traffic congestion is really only under the conditional use criteria and that only applies to the drive-thru lane but the IT 10th edition trip generation manual predicts an average of 28 trips being generated by a bank with a drive-thru lane in the peak traffic hour anywhere between 4 to 6 p.m and so that 28 trips they define a trip is either entering or exiting the site and if for a bank you expect entering to be equal to exiting during the p.m peak hour so that means 14 cars are expected to access the bank with the drive-thru for both the bank functions and the drive-thru functions in the p.m peak hour so some of those folks are folks that want to come and walk into the bank and some of those are to go through the drive-thru but even if we just consider all 14 cars we're going through the drive-thru then over an hour that's an average of vehicle traveling in every 4.3 minutes if we have one service space and two stacking spaces we can accommodate three vehicles at a time or in three vehicles we would expect that to be a time period of 12.9 minutes and average service times at the drive-thru window are expected to be well less than 12 minutes and so that is the evidence that we're presenting based on the standard traffic reference that the three stacking spaces are adequate to prevent cars from backing up from the drive-thru lane into the shared access aisle and creating a traffic on-flex so that is our presentation on the general requirement to not create traffic conflicts in the site I just wanted to quickly address non-conformities as well hopefully I'm not running out of time but okay thanks Kate what came up was the fact that the existing access is non-conforming and the responsibility of the applicant to improve a non-conforming situation I wanted to point out that the only non-conformity of the access in regards to the zoning regulation is its width and so I know Meredith mentioned the 20 foot width for access aisles in parking areas the regulations do allow smaller widths than that for angled parking spaces so what we have here the width is supposed to be defined by standard engineering methods and the way we assured ourselves that what was shown on the plane was adequate for the angled parking spaces we're showing is by turning movement software to ensure that the cars could adequately access the spaces in the aisle widths which they can so the non-conformity being the width required by the v-trans standard B-71 for 2A commercial drives but the development review board can approve a waiver for coming into conformance with non-conforming access if the non-compliance is due to physical characteristics of the parcel the 10 and a half foot deeded right away is a physical characteristic of the parcel we can't increase that to 24 feet without either getting permission from the neighboring landowners requiring an applicant to go to their neighbors in order to fix the non-conformity isn't within the scope of the DRB's jurisdiction additionally if we were really to make a 24 foot access into the site it would require physical changes off the property to continue that access to make it available to all of the other landowners or it would require modifying what access the adjoining landowners have to the 105 State Street property so the existing 10 and a half foot drive width is a physical characteristic of the property it's not something that we can change without changing the property itself and so therefore we believe it is eligible for a waiver to continue as the non-conformity and I just wanted to circle back specifically to the issue with conflicts with pedestrians and the sidewalk once again we've provided expert evidence that cars do not need to back onto the sidewalk to access that accessible space the city's expert Tom McCartle has reviewed it and agreed with us the you know the arguments about what is common sense for drivers to do are really frankly irrelevant it's common sense to drive over a sidewalk if you can have an alternate way to go about moving your car but in any case if the DRB debated what is and isn't common sense we would be here all night with no resolution so that's the conclusion of my presentation thank you thank you very much Brian at this point we're going to move on to as you see your hand raised but I'm afraid I need to move on to questions from the DRB members of anyone you just heard from before we move into our deliberative session I have a question RJ so a few people speaking on behalf of the applicants claimed that a professional had not spoken for on behalf of Malone properties isn't J White an architect and is he therefore a professional that has spoken on behalf of Malone properties and the other folks or am I not understanding that correctly Brian I'm going to ask you to speak to those credentials because they're specific to your industry and the short answer is no J White is not an expert in these matters his opinion has no more weight than anybody's speculative opinion on this he's not a licensed engineer but Brian can you explain the criteria for expertise in this area I would also like to hear from J about expertise in this area essentially Brian very briefly essentially our contention is that J is a licensed architect not a licensed civil engineer and architects are licensed to design and stamp plans for buildings where civil engineers are licensed to design and stamp site and infrastructure type work thank you J White thank you for the clarification unmute please J White if you'd like to speak Mr. White we'll need you to unmute can you hear me now I have been asked before to be an expert witness ironically on the same property when the convenience store was trying to consider some changes around this property and the City of Montpelier actually asked me to be their expert witness regarding that I disagree that architects do not have training in site planning we certainly do and I'm surprised at the comment about a diagonal parking working a narrow relaying yes it works at nine feet because it's one way but as soon as you make it two-way but you don't allow for the width of two-way you end up in a head-on resolution if there's customers coming out of the bank drive-up window at 99 State Street and they want to exit and there's cars coming into the other direction in the same width there's no way to get around it could be resolved by just eliminating the three parking spaces or making all of the traffic go south on the one-way road end of the angle parking I'm sorry I'm going to interrupt you I apologize I want to stick to the topic at hand regarding expertise though appreciate your desire to have a rebuttal yes Meredith when I have an opportunity Alicia would like to speak okay at this point we've actually we've heard okay Alicia because of the expert expert testimony issue that was the only thing I just wanted to say I am a registered professional engineer in the state of Vermont and I did not reiterate the other comments that people have already spoken they were choosing to kind of speak on their what they felt comfortable with many of the comments I would have said but I didn't feel the need to say the exact same thing over and over and over again so okay thank you for that clarification Alicia I'm sorry I interrupted you when you were trying to make a point that was germane I'm glad you said that thank you all right Kevin I'd just like to ask the applicant have you considered any other configurations rather than the one that was submitted on I think it was May 4th the May 4th meeting was this this exact this is exactly the same configuration you you're not presenting any other configuration am I correct in that statement I'll let either Tom or Brian respond to that but I think that the criteria have been exhaustively addressed and your city engineer agrees that we've met the criteria and we've provided professional expert that's not my question my question is very yes or no did you consider other configurations Tom do you want to answer that or Brian we testified to that at the last hearing and the answer is yes I consider all the testimony sir of course okay thank you you're just suggesting you haven't for this meeting today you haven't considered any other alternative than what was submitted on May 4th no we haven't okay thank you thank you Joe I have a question kind of more general question but if the board member did have a suggestion would that be best presented now or the deliberative session I would prefer that we discuss that in the deliberative session Meredith I would take your advice and experience on this too um yeah it's just a you know the DRB isn't really supposed to be in this in the shoes of redesigning the project okay I understand that okay I think other I'm sorry go ahead I don't know if you're just sticking with DRB questions at this point just so that you know if you get down there that I don't know if Phil had a question or if he had a response to something at some point or if you're entertaining that at all I wanted to kind of keep it to DRB questions so that we don't get into a back and forth thank you thank you DRB members additional questions I have a question it's actually another way to ask circulation so if anyone else wants to go first to um please mix it up for us Rob okay all right so as proposed um I just well said earlier I just wanted to keep it together I noticed uh grant curving um on my site visit um the site plans I think I see proposed concrete curving but I might not be correct um I don't know if that you can confirm if it's going to be concrete curving or granite curving as proposed I'm just double checking you know we are we are proposing concrete curving for the internal portions of the site um I think we would have granite curving um where we are um restricting the sidewalk along Governor's Avenue because that would be the standard of the Montpelier um dpw okay thank you um so there's actually a question that was asked at the drc meeting um regarding the um as you're walking down State Street the question was asked of whether the view of the porch of the pavilion building would be blocked um I think Jay uh have a very brief answer to that question um if you could maybe elaborate Jay Ansel? Yes in front of the building say up to the planter you would see the porch you could go as far back as the planter and still see the porch okay thank you all right do we have any other questions from drb members all right I know that we could go on and on um Phil could I ask for the nature of your question before we head in that direction could you please unmute you're still muted Phil sorry unfortunately I can't unmute him for some reason some people have permissions that don't let me unmute them okay Phil you'll just need to unmute yourself there you go um I would just observe that the applicant through Brian was able to introduce testimony at the hearing right now that we've had no opportunity to respond to and I would think we should have at least a minute or two to ask a question or two of Brian about his testimony that he just advanced under section 3010 I object to that this is not a trial this is evidence presented for the board's consideration and the board's to make findings Phil is not to test this is not a trial where we are examining witnesses of each other I'm down folks I would ask that people address their comment to the board and through the board share as opposed to talking with each other and that will help us stay organized and hopefully air as many as many viewpoints as possible um I think that the evidence presented by Brian on behalf of the applicant is similar enough to previous evidence that we can move forward into our deliberations um without additional review I'm going to look to staff Mike and Meredith to tell me if there is a way to do that that they would recommend a different way to do that but they would recommend a staff I'm putting them on my this is probably the most contentious hearing I've been in so I'm going to ask raise my hand and ask for my help I was trying to think back I guess we've got just taking a quick second to see what was presented I mean if the evidence I think it's going to be up to the DRB and up to the to use the chair make a determination whether or not there was evidence that you know again at a certain point you've got to stop with the back and forth on evidence either the evidence is all in or the evidence isn't all in and if members of the board want to hear a short rebuttal from the applicant from the butters I think that would be up to you guys but if you feel that what was presented by the applicant was really just a restatement of evidence that was already on the record then I think either one could stand but I think you as the chair or you as the board have to make a decision as to whether or not you think there's additional merit in gathering more evidence I believe that the evidence presented by Brian this evening is substantially similar to what we heard previous testimony on I would invite board members to weigh in I think Kevin has his hands up please go ahead I think that a time limited rebuttal would be appropriate we could allow two minutes or three minutes and then move on I think we should move on to the next session I'm going to sorry I didn't hear what you said I did not hear what you said sure I'll restate it I was saying what RJ just said which is that he has received this that leaves this as beneficent I could talk about this for four more minutes or I could give two minutes each to Bill and the applicant and call it good and that way we've covered our bases I'm going to do that Bill you have two minutes and then the applicant will have two minutes and then we will be moving into deliberative session Bill please go ahead thank you Brian I just want to ask you about your comments to the effect that temporary blocking is normal and I don't dispute that however in every instance once this temporary blocking has occurred from someone backing into the right of way can you testify as to where that car is going to go to withdraw from the site I want to note that we've received touched the money on that in the previous hearing thank you yeah I was going to say the same Kate thank you I understand Brian but doesn't that car then have to turn around and come out 180 degrees again and the other examples you used none of those cars exited the parking area correct I'm sorry Kate do you want me to respond directly to Phil I'm sorry for you to let me he's a witness I can ask it's not a witness this is not a trial I object to this line of questioning in this process we're going to stop I attempted to make that a fair process I'm sorry Brian was going to have to thank you thank you Miss Madam Chair all right I will accept the motions and move into the discussion I don't think you have two minutes there I'd like to close the public hearing no no no I have a question on that allow me I thought we had to do that before going to the deliberative session but that's okay Rob it's a matter of process it takes a little getting you to we will keep the hearing open while we commence a deliberative session once we conclude the deliberative session we'll return to the hearing the hearing will be closed after that point got it that's all right Rob has moved to enter the deliberative session do I have a second second I'm sorry who is the second from RJ thank you RJ we have a motion and a second I'm going to conduct a roll call on the motion to move to a deliberative session say yes or no RJ yes Rob yes okay Gene Kevin yes and Kate is voting yay as well to enter deliberative session so as I shared at the beginning of this hearing this Zoom meeting will remain open you can hang out here you can take a break I believe we'll be at least 20 minutes DRB members please sign off from this Zoom meeting thank you very much we'll see you soon can you send me the link again yep you're going to have to give me a few minutes I got to get on a different computer I think I see you all but I'm just going to be sure we have Joe say yes Gene RJ yes Kevin I see Michael President and Rob thank you I do that because our tiles are scattered everywhere and I want to make sure we're all together so thank you all for your patience thank you for the evidence that you presented for making your cases and for teaching us about your project as a board we've had some time to deliberate and we thank you all so for giving us that time we have not made a final decision tonight what we have done is identified our areas of concern and we wanted to convey those to you in a specific way so that if you choose you have a further opportunity to address them so as a board our main concern is regarding the circulation to and within the site we're concerned about both people walking and people driving this comes up in two areas in particular that we've all discussed that are related to section 3010 one is backing out of the handicap spot and the potential to go on to the sidewalk we feel that this is a real a real risk that could take place and one that we are not comfortable assuming with approval of the project at this time the second area is that once you're out of any of the three parking spots there is a need to use another potentially use another property to turn around and perform a fairly skilled maneuver to do it if the drive-thru is occupied and we feel that that could happen with some frequency enough to have the potential for conflict and while the potential for conflict we feel that the potential for conflict between vehicles is high we have also heard you testify that even if there are encounters like that they may be low risk from a safety perspective nevertheless we feel that we want to see those types of conflicts and encounters minimized so in order to approve this project we will need to see changes to the circulation which may include changes to the parking configuration or existence of parking and the changes will need to reduce the potential for conflict beyond what we have already seen with the current design so that is where we have landed in our deliberation I'm attempting to be as clear as possible with why why we came to that conclusion or the specifics of what we are concerned about and that is that is what we have come up with so it is the applicant choice about how to proceed at this time we are willing to spend more time on this at another meeting if there is a design that you'd like us to consider ask a procedural question so are you saying that the application as submitted is not approved in that you would consider a redesigned application or are you saying that further information that would confirm to you the safety or the criteria with this current design thank you for asking for that clarification we are looking we are not looking for further information related to the design as submitted we are looking to an alternative design that minimizes the points of conflict and improves the internal circulation on the site are you approving the application or not because if it is not approving it then we have a procedural choice to provide this information or appeal the decision I am saying that the that you may redesign the project if you wish to continue having us review it if you would prefer that you if you would prefer to pursue this in another venue through appeal it is your prerogative to decline the opportunity to redesign the project so if you want to know whether this is approved or not approved we need to know where we stand we have a second hearing here you have allowed new evidence into the hearing this is all procedurally bizarre we need to know whether or not I will try to answer that first I will turn it over to Meredith what is option 2 based on the deliberative session what is option 2 option 2 is for the board to re-enter the deliberative session and vote on the on the project is that what you meant what you prefaced this entire thing with was to get an approval on the process the board needs the applicant to act is that how you started the whole presentation I hope that answers your question is the evidence closed? not yet they are providing the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project without closing the hearing if the hearing gets closed without a redesign my understanding from Kate the project the hearing will get closed the application will be denied how that exactly will happen will be in a deliberative session because the board needs to discuss exactly what that decision will say specifically Kate has spelled out what the issue is and what needs to be fixed if this application would need to be approved if we went with a redesign application are we opening it up to a whole new hearing are we going to have a whole new round of evidence and all the public come in and testify all over again we would be continuing this hearing would remain open and it would be continued two weeks from now or four weeks from now whatever your preference and it would be an open public hearing with the opportunity for evidence we would have to be constantly fielding more people from the public deciding they have objections to make I am not sure I would be able to exclude people wishing to comment on an open hearing you wouldn't be able to that is part of the public hearing process that occurs Tom and ma'am you are asking me that decision in three minutes we can I don't think I would like to ask you to make that decision in three minutes Madam Chair Kevin Mr. Lawson if the continuation is to date certain we are not denying the application we are asking for a redesign specifically on the areas of concern to us which are the circulation of the building and its use appear to us to be fine it is very specifically focused on the circulation you have the option of continuing this to date certain it could be the 15th of June or some later date or that is unacceptable to you may I clarify that I am not requesting redesign concepts in this moment not in the lease would if we were in a room all together tonight you would have a chance to step out of the room and speak with counsel with other advisors I would be glad it would only make sense to provide a similar opportunity if that would help can we have 24 hours can we let you know before the end of business tomorrow which way we would like to proceed with this I don't think we can do that because we we have to continue this hearing to a special hearing and reopen this all up again tomorrow well we have to give at least 24 hours notice we are not going to start hearing at 10 o'clock at night tomorrow night to call a special meeting it has to have at least 24 hours public notice if we opt to continue or to recess this meeting the open session to a date certain the applicant on their own prerogative can say now we don't want to do that they can do that tomorrow it might be the board's best action to just recess and continue I move that we recess to a date certain that is June 15th our next regularly scheduled meeting let's let the chair take us to the next thank you RJ before you make that motion I want to make sure that what Mereth just put forth by the applicant and I wonder if it could meet your stated need of not making a decision in three minutes it would be more than the 24 hours you mentioned Sarah but perhaps that would be preferable we don't even know chair there's a motion on the floor motion either dies motion of the motion I'm sorry Mereth there can be discussion about the motion I don't believe you actually formalized that motion at this point have you I mean the motion has not been made at this point I clearly heard it but no one seconded the motion the motion is withdrawn or dies for lack of a second I just want to be clear about procedure Tom when a motion is then be discussion about the motion not until it's seconded ma'am the motion dies for lack of a second I do understand RJ could you just withdraw the motion please thank you RJ and thank you for keeping us on the straight and narrow with procedure I don't mind that and I apologize for the frustration that I know people are feeling where we are now is the applicant for more time to decide about how to proceed the two ways to proceed are to redesign the project with taking into account the feedback that has been given tonight or to decline the opportunity to redesign and thus let the DRB vote on the application as presented it is reasonable not to have to decide that in short order council for the applicant has requested 24 hours to do this DRB has responded that we can adjourn recess this hearing until June 15th giving the applicant adequate time to make this decision and in the interim if you decide not to submit a new application or a revised design to to let us know that as well so just again a point of clarification ma'am yes I do not have to if I decide to redesign the project I do not have to go back to the TRC I do not have to go to the design review committee is that that's my understanding of what you correct I do not I do not I mean we're there yes that is correct that's correct that's the point if the board were just to deny it and you were to say we're going to make a modification and come back you'd be all the way back to square one and have to go back to the DRC have to go through the TRC all over again correct so I do not have to do that in this correct thank you I would request madam chair that I believe I'm saying this but I'll have mercy on all of you and control myself right now why don't you just continue this hearing we would be glad to do that is there a motion to continue the hearing just I'm going to I'm going to consult with Merida sorry Tom do you have a specific date that you want to continue it to continue is it just two weeks just to make sure whatever is convenient for the board and one additional point of clarification the concerns I guess with my project will obviously extend to any other projects proposed at 107 or 99 state correct that seems likely if the other projects yes yes okay thank you I just want to make sure because Brian's our engineer if he has a I saw his hand come up and I just want to make sure we're not committing to doing something that we need to help with that he can't do so Brian did you have going to if two weeks was enough time for us internally to consider these changes if it turns out to not be enough time I'd hate to then have to show up at a hearing in the next meeting it was already administrative right for us to ask the board if we need to on the 14th to then continue to the whatever the next meeting is July beginning of July yeah yeah you can do that without showing up yeah you can send me an email requesting the continuation to the next meeting or the one after that so that you have time to work out where your redesigns are and you can go to the next meeting before you're ready to go before the board again all right thank you so we're going to sorry go ahead is there a motion to continue the hearing I move to recess the meeting to a date certain that is June 15 our next regularly scheduled meeting thank you RJ is there a second there is second by Kevin by roll call Phil is trying to say something Phil we can't hear you you're muted I think you might want to characterize it as a continuance rather than a recess recently received guidance from staff that the actual language in our procedures is recess not continuance despite long time of calling it continuance with that question I think we and with this document in the public record we all understand what is being discussed which is that the hearing is being left open until a date certain so with that clarification I think we can vote RJ aye Rob aye Joe aye Gene yes Kevin yes and I'm Kate and I vote yes the application for application review of 105 states has been continued to June 15 at which point we will discuss further the decision of the applicant thank you we have additional business to conduct very briefly this evening having to do with the approval of agenda for the meeting we have a meeting on May 13 as well as the meeting on May 18 of which we were all apart I'm pulling those documents up on my computer so I can see who is here who is eligible to vote for the May 13 meeting are there any modifications modifications to the minute of May 13 those present where myself Kevin, Rob, Joe RJ, Roger, Claire Meredith myself Kevin, Rob, Joe and RJ are eligible to vote is there a motion to approve the minutes from the May 13 meeting as printed moved by Rob second by RJ of all those qualified to vote Kevin yes Rob yes RJ and I vote yes I say RJ twice sorry all right we've approved the minutes of May 13 and now we'll go on to the minutes of May 18 are there any changes to the minutes as printed I noted two changes one is that the when we had a motion to continue the hearing of 105 State Street it was a 6-1 vote it states that RJ voted against the motion but I believe it was actually Joe is that correct yes that's correct that's correct so that's a change for the minutes and the other change is just a swapping of words toward the end of the hearing when we were all tired Kevin suggested that we could close the hearing with prejudice but meant without prejudice and the characterization of that is the other way around it says on page 125 of the staff packet Mr. Ballinger mentioned that Kevin had to close the hearing without prejudice earlier and suggested he actually meant with prejudice the other way around sorry I want to take Kevin in the best possible light here yeah and Phil too okay so those are the changes I noted are there any others okay I will Kevin moves to approve the minutes of May 18 is there a second second second by RJ I will do the roll call of those eligible to vote Kevin yes Rob yes RJ Michael I'd like to have more discussion about this topic can we go another maybe 15 minutes mute him Michael there is an open motion on the floor I'm kidding I was kidding I was wrong so much so much of your previous minutes Dean yes and Kate also approved the minutes we approved the minutes of May 18 2020 thank you all very much as amended great other business our next meeting is June 15 at 7pm I expect it will also be via zoom we will continue discussion of 105 State Street I'm just curious Meredith is there any discussion about allowing the boards to convene in person again no that hasn't been discussed yet they're not even ready to open City Hall to meetings of more than I don't know what yet it's the future because I don't think there is no way for us to keep six foot distancing in here and allow the public in alright is there any other business move to adjourn second motion is adjourned by Kevin second by RJ all those in favor please say aye the motion passes unanimously thank you all very very much thank you everybody thank you