 This meeting of the Monpelier Development Review Board to order, it is Monday, December 3rd, 2018. And the first item of the agenda is, should be, should be the board voting in and acting vice chair. I'll make a motion that Kevin O'Connell serve as acting vice chair for the purposes of tonight's meeting. I'll second that. Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion please raise your right hand. And there's Claire. So the motion has been voted in the affirmative. Welcome Claire. So the members from right, from right to left. Rob Goodwin. Meredith Crandall staff. Kevin O'Connell. Brian Kane. Tom Kester. Claire Rock. Comments from the chair. I just wanted for the record. We are in open session right now, but we will be closing the meeting shortly and going into a continued deliberative session about the parking project on State Street. Now we have the minutes for November 19th, which need to be approved and those that are at that meeting and are here this evening are myself, Deb, Thomas, Brian, and Robert. So we've got a- Claire. Oh, Claire as well. Sorry, Claire. Do I hear a motion or is there any discussion about the minutes as they're presented here? I think maybe a revision, I don't know, was kind of a finding that we told them we did not need to- he did not need to survey the larger parcel. That was a request from the public works or a comment. That was the thing that was decided, so maybe we could add that. Yeah. That's the national life application. Anything further? Do we accept the minutes with the change as indicated? Second. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please raise your right hand. And the minutes are approved. Just to mention, the next regular meeting will be two weeks from today on Monday, December 17th, 2018. Same time, same place. And I believe, is there any further business than any of the board has to have, Meredith? Sorry, just my- unless somebody else has something else to add? Okay. So we have a kind of an odd situation where we have closed the hearings for the 100 State Street applications, all three of them. And as we discussed briefly during the last hearing when it was raised by the public, there had been some other submissions to my office after that close of the hearing that couldn't be submitted as evidence because the hearing had been closed. We have since had another that was more of an add on to the petition that was provided during the last open public hearing for those applications. So the board at this point I think needs to just maybe acknowledge that that was submitted to the office, but decide whether or not it's going to make a determination that it is not available as evidence. If it wants it to be available as evidence, we would need to actually open the public hearing. But I think just having that on the record and also for the public to know at this point anybody who actually reads the minutes or looks at the video that they need to just stop submitting evidence. I think that we would all like to acknowledge the efforts that people in the community have put into this and their thoughts and their feelings and so on. My own thinking, and I'm just speaking for myself, is that while I would want to do that and I want to acknowledge those concerns, we have to be attentive to the process itself. And the process is that this was evidence that was submitted after the close of the public process and we can't enter it as evidence. That's my thinking. And that's the input I've received from city attorneys. Well, let's hear what the board has to say about that. Any other comments or concerns? We've heard a lot of, you know, I really appreciated hearing from the public. Yes. And hearing their perspective. And I do feel like we have taken a lot of testimony and evidence from the public. And so I don't think it's necessary to reopen the hearing at this time. I think that's the only way we could take additional evidence is by reopening the hearing. And that we have an obligation as a board to come to decision and there are other opportunities for the public to continue to express their concerns or interests. I mean, I would add to that that it's a project of this magnitude of any magnitude just can't be the best that it can be. Unless we do have a vibrant exchange of ideas and ideas that are presented from the public, after all, we are the public. I mean, we're serving here as appointees by the council, but I mean, we're all from this community. We all have a huge stake in what happens here. So I totally agree with what you have said, Deb, and would agree. Does the board feel likewise, Claire? Yeah, I just had, I guess it's a question of process. If, and this is all hypothetically speaking, if information was provided to you, which you felt would have an impact on our findings, because new information was submitted that would actually alter whether it was in conformance or not with the zoning regulation, would you as staff kind of say, this is what I've got and my recommendation is that you reconsider this or reopen? I think what I would do then in that situation is actually have that whoever submitted it, try to, I mean, file a motion to reopen the hearing versus my telling you to reopen the hearing. I don't think that would work. I'm not, well, but it would be something I would then submit through for us to make a decision. For you to make a decision based on their motion. You know what I mean? Right. It's not, I wouldn't, I wouldn't then come to you and say, hey, you need to reopen the hearing. It would be you making the decision based on their, I think that's the way we would do it. I would confer with the city attorney, and I haven't seen anything like that. This most recent thing was the same, basically the same petition that we received during the last public hearing, which honestly right now. But it doesn't matter. Yeah. But wait, that's what I'm saying. At this point it doesn't matter, but I haven't seen anything that would be a game changer. I would have to, I would have to. That should be a holder narrative. I think that we have to be careful about that. And I have, yeah. Anyway, at this point it's the close of the hearing. But the bottom line, the bottom line is that it was submitted after the close of the public hearing. And it was submitted after the close of the public hearing, and if the board has all the information they have to make the decision, it feels that they do. You know, if you guys have questions that are unanswered, we can reopen it. I will just also note that we were very expressive the October 15th hearing that we gave the applicant a specific deadline. I think it was the following Friday where we said, we want to make sure you submit everything that you have to us by that date. And they, they more or less complied with that. And then we had the hearing later. There was ample opportunity for the public to put forward evidence during the public hearing. And I think it would be very unfair to the applicant to reopen this for the submission of something well after the close of the hearing when there was that opportunity to participate earlier. And when we specifically said that we wanted everything in obviously in advance of that November 5th hearing. I think that I would expand on that and just say that it would be unfair to anybody who has already submitted evidence. Absolutely. And that includes the public, the applicant, city staff, and so on. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Okay, so the determination is, is that we are going to move on. That is not evidence that we're going to use as part of our deliberations. Is there anything further before we close this hearing and move into deliberative session to continue our discussion on the garage project? I'll make a motion that we adjourn the public hearing and move into deliberative session on the applications, the three application for 100 State Street. Second that. Any further discussion? No, in case they're a member of the public watching that all the our discussion will be reflected in the decision. So there'll be real transparency. The decision will talk about the facts as we as we have determined them and and then our rationale for for our decisions. Okay, anything further? All those in favor of the motion, please raise your right hand. So we have closed the public hearing and we will now move into deliberative session. Thank you.