 Good evening everyone I'm going to call this meeting to order the development review board for the city of Montpelier is now in session for this Monday October 21st 2019 my name is Daniel Richardson I serve as the chair the other members of the board for my right are Rob Goodwin have a little cuddle Michael Lizorchak mayor of the Crandall staff Kate McCarthy first item of business is approval of the agenda we have one item of business as far as applications are concerned 18 Marvin Street does anybody have any additions or amendments to the agenda as printed if not I'll take a motion to approve the agenda is printed so move motion by Kevin do I have a second second second by Rob all those in favor please raise your right hand we have an agenda there are no comments from the chair this evening other than I will make this sort of general observation and note which is that we are a five usually a seven member board we currently have a five members before you because of absences but the vote will still have to be four in favor to approve the application that doesn't change the threshold requirement for voting the applicant because of the less than full contingency of the board has of course the option to continue this to another evening if the applicant so wishes but I will simply note that in doing so that's really a single choice it's not a let me get the temperature of the board let me get a measurement of everyone's feelings it's a I would like to wait or I would like to go forward kind of question so I'll just simply note that that's there simply because we do not have the full contingency and but we do have plenty to review and we only need four to four to approve based on the normal seven-member membership so Mr. chairman clarify that point yes is it necessary for the applicant to make that decision about whether to continue before presenting evidence or can the applicant go through the process of presenting the project and then choose to continue what is the order of operations for that decision it can happen anytime before we close the record simply because we would but once we close the record and really take the matter under advisement or you know start to move into a motion then it's too late but up until then the applicant has the ability to do so and I simply offer that some applicants go forward and have no problem with five people some applicants wish that full contingency it certainly they're right and we've offered it before in the past but thanks for clarification first item of business is reviewing the minutes myself Kevin Kate and Rob so we have a foursome to review and approve the minutes to have a motion to approve the minutes or additions Mr. Chair I move approval of the minutes of October 7th as printed okay motion McCate to have a second second second by Rob all those in favor of approving the October 7th minutes as as drafted please raise your right hand if you're eligible all eligible voted in favor and the minutes are adopted first item of business is 18 Marvin Street Robert and Maria Proctor if the applicant is here please come forward to the table one sort of technical note be careful each of those little black rounded things are microphones so just watch where you put the maps otherwise we get a lot of feedback and what I'll have you do is before you start introducing some of those maps if you just state your name for the record okay sure okay and mr. Proctor I'm gonna put your under oath do you solemnly swear a firm that the evidence and testimony you're about to give for the matter under consideration should be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth under a pain some penalties perjury yes okay is anyone else here to be heard on this particular application and is likely to speak if you could just raise your hand here's what I'll do given I will put individuals under oaths when we hit take public comment or comment from adjoining neighbors after the primary application but don't speak until I have an opportunity to have your name on the record and then swear you in okay thanks so mr. Proctor go ahead and why don't you introduce this is the second round of the subdivision this is the second meeting and it was recommended by the board that we may want to stay by a microphone while you're talking sorry it's hard to multitask it was recommended by the board that we have an engineer look at the property to see if there was any problem at all with storm water coming off of it and we use Bernier engineering Don Marsh and he felt there are quite a few applications which would handle the problem and the one he thought might be best was to run it to a stormwater drain on the Turner's property which he didn't outline of this and at one point we thought that the easement to do that might be necessary before we do this but we were told that it's not really the right time to do it and until the project or whatever anybody's going to do on the property is decided when you say Tom you mean Tom McCartle the public works director so mr. Proctor if I understand correctly this engineering drawing is illustrating what looks like a catch a new catch basin new catch basin that would tie into an existing catch basin at the back of the Turner property yes I think believe it's eight feet into the Turner property there's a city storms okay and then there looks like another sewer line is that right going in or is that an existing one I think that's an existing one I don't that as far as it as far as I'm recall there was only one that was going to be so it indicates a new sewer line that would go to an existing manhole and so that would be more for waste sewer waste as opposed to storm water runoff no there's a stormwater catch that will go to a stormwater drain on their property but there were alternatives also but from speaking with Tom and Meredith and Dan it was said that the actual way of running the stormwater off should not be decided until there's an application to do something on the property itself and we know what kind of effect that will make whatever is being built or not being built right no I understand that's for the catch basin that's illustrated in this picture but just south of that there's what a line with an s's in between which usually indicates in my experience sewer sewer lines and it looks like it goes on to the Turner property to what's called an SMH which I understand to be a sewer manhole so I I just want to be clear and understand that this is proposing to put a septic sewer line across the Turner property as well to an existing town sewer manhole line is that correct I'm not sure if if that's correct or not the city said there was no problem running a sewer line and to it and I I don't remember Don telling me that there was a new sewer line can I I just I had an email from Don today so this might help a little bit because he references both the sewer in the stormwater connections there but that they're options and I can't remember if Tom's email said it exactly I mean there are there is a sewer line running down Marvin Street so a builder would have the option of having a pump system to pump storm line in Marvin Street it just would be more expensive potentially at least with the mechanics of it but there also isn't an actual easement signed for the Turner property yet but these are all options it's just you know they're all technically feasible it's what exactly a new owner or you know the proctors or some other developer would actually decide to do with this based on whether or not they could get an easement and it's it's a sort of a money question more than a technical feasibility the city told us that they can tie the regular sewer line into the line that runs from 18 Marvin Street which does not pump up to Marvin it actually goes back that way they said it's a big enough pipe to go to tie into that if they wanted to just to understand the scope of our role is to make sure that when this when and if this lot is subdivided that it can be developed safely and so what we're hearing is that there isn't only one way to handle sewer and there isn't only one way to handle stormwater there are multiple ways that's that the easement would be one option but if the easement doesn't pan out right there's something called a rain garden in the back that's possible there's pumping the water up there were don said there's even more options if we need to look at it depending on what is developed at some point all right thank you thank you so one other question that I had which was in regards to the there's an exhibit here in our packet that looks like it was presented and it's the city of Montpelier permanent easement for storm and sewer line that looks to illustrate the properties along Liberty Street that about Marvin Street the and there looks as if there's an easement going through the back of them this is I I just want to if you don't mind I added this in okay I added this in to help clarify Tom McCartle's comments because he references this permanent easement and if suddenly people started asking questions about it I wanted to make sure this was in here okay because the the permanent easement you know if somebody was like oh how far does the permanent easement go does you know can can the property actually reach to it without having to get a private easement or anything and they they would still have to get a private easement over the Turner property which on this older document is signified by the Richard Provost property okay because the easement doesn't run along the property right the easement doesn't run along the property line it's quite a ways in so I just I put it in here for clarification because Tom had referenced it right well that's helpful I that's actually predicting the questions that I was going to have as to I had the same questions so so just so we're we're clear that to do what Don Marsh has proposed is one option which is to run the lines the storm and sewer lines back to the permanent easement would require permission from the Turner's yes okay and that is not something you're presenting today as something you've already obtained no I was actually told by Meredith and Tom that at this point that shouldn't be something we bring to this meeting because it isn't pertinent to a subdivision well it yeah it was more along the lines of if you hadn't gotten it it wasn't it wasn't a huge issue because there are other options for dealing with the stormwater and the sewer so it wasn't necessary for tonight if you had it great if not then it wasn't it wasn't necessarily you know gonna be a huge red check against the application it would have been an issue if it was the one and only option yeah so and just to be clear we're talking about multiple options for both the stormwater runoff and to list a few there's the option number one that Don Marsh has laid out in this grenier engineering design but there's also the possibility of a rain garden there's also the possibility of pumping the water up or designing changing the the layout of the land is that the other possibility I don't know what he mentioned there are other possibilities also he wasn't really clear with me as to what those would be he said the best thing is to see what kind of thing is gonna go in there and then the sewer options would be as Don has laid out or bringing it up to Marvin Street at one of two points yes one might require a pump one might not exactly I'm not mistaken they also the city also said they could tie into the line we have there now now that would exactly be done but they said as long as it's over a five inch pipe that runs from the house on 18 Marvin Street now it's no problem to put another one on and that is a six inch pipe oh so to tie into your existing line so they would share one single line okay does anyone have any other questions about stormwater or sewer okay I'll note just sort of as a as a preliminary we reviewed this last time but a lot of the general standards as far as the setbacks size of the lot potential coverage all seem to have been met by this particular design which is we wouldn't have an issue with creating a building in the setback as the only possible place to put a building or that any building is likely to over be oversized on the lot as far as its percentage of coverage a lot of these sort of minor but important technical issues the next big issue was the actually the driveway so what is the proposal for the the driveway for this lot the proposal right now which we which we had a drawing done of is to share the driveway with 18 Marvin perhaps extend the cutback a little bit on on the street or not depending on the construction okay so it would be and I'm looking at well I think I'll go off of the engineering design that you showed but it shows a single driveway on 18 Marvin and then the other driveway would come off of of that run right next to it so is the current curb cut 22 feet wide and the recommendation of the staff is that that be narrowed actually by two feet to 2020 something about that I didn't know that was why that was that I did read that you have any objection to that being a condition that that be reduced and and the reason as I understand from Tom McCartles report is that 22 feet or anything wider than that is too much it's too big of an opening and the idea is to make you know you don't want too narrow of a driveway opening but the same time you don't want too wide sort of a parking lot entrance you know this is for right especially for a residential so what we're saying is just low close that in by two feet right we have no objection to that okay and there's a note that prior to construction obviously a final driveway design will need to be prepared and submitted yes because at this point we have no intention of doing right and the idea is that the asphalt curb line gutter and low-profile berm crossing the current driveway will be maintained as a design feature of the new expanded curve because of the topography of the land I mean I think that seems like in something you would want as well yeah any other questions on the parking the driveway entrance the parking itself it doesn't raise any issues the next effectively contested issue would be the utilities along and under our bylaws the there's a requirement that the applicant that shall design the subdivision to provide utility service teach lot not intended for conservation purposes and to locate them underground and less prevented by ledge or other physical conditions yes I spoke to the electric company about that okay and I believe they submitted a letter that we have there they have never done an underground utility in one failure this I believe is a fairly new law and hasn't and has come in recently and was but they said it is feasible of course the difference in cost would be actually there's a grant from the state I believe perhaps it was the city for putting a new electric where they grant you $500 so it would only cost about $100 to connect to the above ground things there they said to do the underground it's feasible to do it would be about $575 if I remember correctly but they don't actually run it underground you would have to get a private contractor to dig a trench four feet cover it with cement all the way around and you'd be looking at $5 to $10,000 but they said it's never been done in my opinion so they didn't really know too much about it well thought it was put in for new subdivisions somewhere and I'm looking at a picture of Marvin Street that's in our staff report that appears to be facing west looking with your your property your existing property on the right-hand side of the picture and the utilities are all located on the left side across the street so when they say locating under utilities underground they're talking about digging up the street as well including the going under or however the sewer and the stormwater lines that run along that street and water lines interfering with that and in your estimates are between $5 and $10,000 as opposed to do that it's opposed to $100 or $500 okay any further questions from the board I mean that that seems consistent with what we've found with other applications and you seem to make this less than feasible so let's talk about the landscaping and in the landscaping it says the applicant shall design a subdivision to maximize the preservation of existing mature vegetation provide additional landscaping which may be installed when the lots are subsequently developed as necessary to maintain and provide privacy both for adjoining property owners and between the lots within the subdivision to enhance the appearance of street frontage and shade trees and sidewalks maintain or establish vegetated buffers along waterways and other natural areas and utilize green stormwater infrastructure practices so from the pictures that have been submitted it looks as if the proposed site shows potential privacy fence and lilac bush located along lot two's property boundaries for screening from the immediate neighbors as well as the road what is your proposal for the landscaping for the landscaping I our proposal was to put the lilac trees up in the front to give privacy but depending on and privacy fence along the property running for approximately 40 feet on the on the when you're looking at the property on the right side there was a fence there and disrepair which we've taken down gonna put a new one up there but the final landscaping was dependent on what's being done there really so I mean there's lots of options for landscaping the back of the property has quite a few trees which wouldn't be touched and in the front it would just be something very accommodating to how it's going to be built is it the case when a building permit is applied for that landscaping is considered then as well to a degree but if it's a single family home the site plan regulations don't apply so what we've what what I think the board has done previously is just say that any future zoning permit application would need to include plans for meeting the landscaping and screening requirements of section 306 f12 and 4 I wouldn't I wouldn't want to lock you into five lilac bushes as much as I like lilac so you know you may want to have a front porch you may want to have front steps that kind of interface with the street and not hide yeah so yeah I mean we also may want something on the left excuse me you know where the driveways are give some privacy that depends on okay and this driveway plan is an option somebody else could purchase one parcel and not the other and have a different driveway plan it's possible so would you have an objection if we made a condition that you know the landscaping plan there would have to be a landscaping plan upon development of this lot such that you know all I think yeah anybody would want to do something and that this would have to meet our requirements and that we would we would need to review that yes or the administratively I think previously it's I don't think we've said that it has to come back before the DRB as long as you know if it gets to a question of whether or not it actually complies the zoning administrator should be sending it up here if they can't make that judgment call do you have a problem with no objection to okay so I will note that you know it does appear from the photographs and just to make sure these are accurate that the front of the property does not have a lot of trees right now appears to be not a lot there's I believe one tree and some smaller growth okay that most of the trees are in the back of the lot towards the larger trees are towards the rear and the Liberty Street lots that about yes all right so the next question is a character of the neighborhood and settlement pattern okay how is this a lot how are you proposing this lot to be marketed is is it residential or commercial or I think I think it would be residential I don't know I haven't even looked into whether commercials available that's not something that entered my mind I know that Kate last time mentioned this the imprint could be 2,500 square feet on that type of zoning it's not something that I have any plans to do or not do you know I don't I and I believe if I'm not mistaken you said also that it could be zone duplex or something else I'm not really sure what this it was a six thousand square foot college area and since I'm not really interested in developing in myself I didn't look into all the details of what could be done there so the six thousand feet you're referring to is that in this in this zoning district the minimum lot size is six thousand square feet you're proposing a lot that is that is larger yes and then the footprint of the building may be up to 2,500 square feet with a maximum height of 35 square of 35 feet and then all within the setbacks and everything with 50% coverage of the lot so there is a lot of flexibility I don't know off the top of my head of duplexes are allowed in this area it probably says right in here you can you can have up to two dwelling units on any parcel irrespective of density but you're looking to just market this as a piece of raw land that the person purchasing it would develop consistent with the zoning bylaws yes or if if in the future we decided to build a house on there we would certainly just go with a small even smaller than 2,500 square foot you know very private type of house if it was something we did but at this point we have no intention to do that you know I will note that this does create a logical rectangular lot you currently have an L-shaped lot that sits with a lot of frontage along Marvin Street and then dips back on this lot but is more shallow where your existing home is yes located and that at the end of this there'll be two roughly you know one's a little bit more trapezoidal in shape but logical rectangular lots and this is consistent with what the city has promoted as far as infill taking a lot that your current lot is well in excess of the minimum lot size of this and that as a result will be a second building lot to build in an existing neighborhood yes that if built in conformance with the zoning would effectively allow for greater density within this existing neighborhood yes I just also know I think I recall from the sketch plan hearing we had testimony that this was actually once two lots yes and so they essentially you're just maybe slightly reconfiguring that and I think it's almost the long exact same line it's what any further questions from the board mr. proctor any anything further that you wish to offer okay you'll you'll have an opportunity obviously if there's further questions at this point in time I think it makes sense to have any of the I have one more question just to clarify on the on the sewer so the connection you have two connections on Marvin Street as a possibility one going through the existing house lot the second would be going directly to Marvin and not crossing the existing house the house and then that there's actually a third rub they if they got an easement over the Turner land they could also go downhill all right yeah okay it doesn't appear that that was so for technical not speaking of what has been legally agreed to for technical reasons you know for DPWs possibilities and engineering possibilities those three separate engineering possibilities right and you know part of our job as subdivision is not necessarily to come in and scrutinize any particular easements that are necessary but you know the to take the applicant's representations and experts as this is a possibility so that you know if the subdivision was granted you know it could be it could be built upon but of course if if they choose not to it won't but that's a private legal matter as to those type of issues our goal mainly being not to grant a non-conforming lot or one that is likely to fail so and any further questions good so if anyone from the audience attendance wish to speak what I'd ask is that you go to the microphone introduce yourself I'll swear you in and then if you have questions if you have a statement we'll take them as they come good evening my name is Martha Smursky I live at 15 Marvin Street directly across the street property that's existing I wrote a letter on June 29th oh nice to her you in sorry do you solemnly swear affirm the testimony you're about to give for the matter under consideration she'll be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth under a pain some penalties of perjury yes thank you I wrote a letter on the 29th of June indicating my objection to the subdivision I had basically two concerns one being of the drainage issue another being a driveway issue the one thing that we haven't heard anything about here tonight is the slope of this property one of the things that I brought up in my original lead letter was the fact that this set the section that they're considering subdividing sits very far down below the street level here in order to actually build on that property I would assume that one would have to be bringing in a lot of fill as the board knows some other properties in this area have been built with Phil and they have not been successful I'm specifically thinking about one on Bingham Street where the Phil actually started to erode leaving the slab the slab that the house was built on hanging in the air in one area I have a lot of concerns about that it is a tight neighborhood and knowing that that that house would have to come up significantly in order to be accessible to the street is one of my concerns also this tonight we've heard about a shared driveway which is directly across from my property I'm not sure how that could work given the slope of the land we do have problems with drainage in our area it's extremely heavy clay and when it is heavy April weather we do have problems with water and I think that's important to note to thank you Mr. Proctor do you have any engineering things as he was looking for the storm water trick he said it's absolutely no problem to build on the flat area now I'm not an engineer but he's that's what he said there's no problems building there at all and depending on what you would build would depend on how you did the storm water right now there's there's nothing there for the storm water runoff and he didn't depending on what went in there might might affect it and it might not you know you would go along with it but as far as building he said there's a big flat area that's perfect okay so you and Mr. Marsh did not discuss Phil being a necessity not even for the sake of accessing it between getting out of your car or for functioning of the driveway or for movement of people between the driveway or the house itself we might which we have there now there are a few steps to go down to that area I mean that would be ultimately the decision of the person installing this if they if they chose to put in Phil or to race a little up that's what that's what I think you know and as I remember we said it is possible to even move the driveway if they wish to do it to a different location that's a possibility depending on what they do go ahead if you just state your name and elsewhere you're in a Michelle Braun I live at 21 Marvin Street Michelle raise your right hand you solemnly swear a firm that the evidence you're about to give for the matter under consideration shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth under a panes of penalties of perjury yes very good please so I love the suggestion of moving the driveway to a different location Bob just made the driveway where it's proposed if it's shifted toward Bingham Street and widened it then as it's shown on that site plan then aligns exactly with my driveway which is not shown on the site plan but it's you know on the opposite side of the street we already have a hard time with people visiting 18 Marvin Street parking smack at the end of our driveway it makes it really hard to get in and out along is that along the public street that they do that yes okay yeah which you know if you put a driveway there maybe they would go in the driveway and they'd be less in the way but it seems like putting the driveway at the flatter side of the parcel would mean less conflict with our driveway and also just a more accessible space because it's flatter and I it sounds like Bob and mr. Marsh did not talk about Phil but Tom McCartle in his discussion of the driveway did say that in order to place it where it's proposed there would be Phil required right okay oh and rain garden keeps coming up I am of course a huge proponent of rain gardens but in that location in that soil it's not going to help the turners so I would go with one of the other solutions okay thank you can I ask a clarifying question so is is your idea that the proposed parcel would ultimately have its own driveway developed as opposed to a shared I want to ask what was about the witness testimony just now yeah yeah so when you said put it on the flat part instead do you mean give the new parcel it's very only driveway yes separate access okay a separate access at the more easterly side of the parcel okay and if we're talking about the a shared driveway option I just want to make sure I understand this we're talking about more intensive use of an existing driveway and so is that a stormwater issue or a intensive or a traffic issue traffic okay I mean your suggestion to move it to the flat doesn't have to do with stormwater or Phil it has to do with coming and going right it's traffic I mean honestly I think that adding Phil in this area and expanding the driveway this way would probably not be helpful in terms of stormwater impact to the house so maybe when somebody actually gets to the point of designing a house to go in here they would come to that conclusion but in terms of my personal interest it's traffic okay and is the traffic about cars turning out and cars turning in on a daily basis because once once the driveway is built and the cars are in yeah they're out of this they're out of the way they're out of the way yes so we're talking about what five or ten trips and going yeah okay well and I also understood to that so part of your concern was just the number of cars that plenty of space for visitors or right so that people wouldn't park in front of your driveway creating hardships for you right it's the other concern yeah I mean it's not the world's biggest hardship it's just makes it hard just a quick little reminder about the access this subdivision permit doesn't necessarily it doesn't grant like a zoning permit or anything for this particular driveway design an actual driveway construction permit would need to be required so there's options here as to how and this is not just for the board but also for right people visiting here and in attending today that you know this is again a a being able to show that there is a permittable driveway an access point it doesn't necessarily mean that this is what's going to happen for the driveway unless the board says this is what you must do that that would need to be developed as a plan an actual plan right that development of the site for a zoning permit and department of public work to emphasize that point that this proceeding this evening is for the subdivision it does not impact the design of the building over a building and any of the accessories such as a driveway and unless the board decides it doesn't right unless the board said so at so we're we're we're saying something's possible we're not designing it at the point when design of the driveway or a building on the lot begins to happen our neighbors notified at that time and have the opportunity to comment it's an administrative review I'm wondering straight of review they don't necessarily get that I mean there is the posses people people can come in and say hey we want to we want to be notified of anything that happens with S X property it's a little hard administratively to sure to keep that all up but there's a possibility just thinking and the board I mean the board can require that development on a property come through here but I'm not sure that this makes this is not the type of property that normally the board would yeah the board would do that with yeah I'm just trying to it's always easier to comment on the specific design that hypothetical exactly and that makes a better conversation for everybody so I'm just trying to identify where those conversation points could actually happen so kind of what you're saying I mean not that that I guess it's not written in gold you said it could come before the board but generally when someone does a zoning plan and tells you what they're going to build it's not in the same format we're using now we don't come sit before you not not for not for a single family home or even a two unit but that would be something that would just go administratively in most instances unless there's some other triggering factor however you know part of this process is to hear the comments of your neighbors and concerns and so that's a valuable process so you've you've heard testimony and concerns about you know what what a shared driveway will look like I'll know at the same time I mean our bylaws do encourage shared driveways it's not something you know it's not something where you must have a shared driveway but it's definitely encouraged as a you know as a general rule that said if it makes more sense to have a separate driveway for other reasons and other site specific conditions there's nothing in the bylaws that prevent that it's just in some ways to avoid you know I think in some ways we you know we recognize that every house needs a driveway we're not at the point of flying cars or trains yet and so every house has to have some sort of driveway access and what's the best way to do it to keep somewhat of a natural appearance natural being a somewhat loaded word but one that doesn't maybe avoids a cookie cutter Levittown look to the right to the street but as you were saying actually Tom recommended even bringing the curb cut in a little bit so I don't know that it would create you know I think part of the problem is is that we're talking in hypotheticals we're talking but I think your neighbors you know have expressed concerns one of the concerns is about Phil and you know the dangers of Phil that you know that that said there's Phil everywhere in the city you know being in a river valley we have a lot of lots that are built on Phil some hold well some do not some are done well and some are not you know obviously the problem is is when you bring in Phil you have to make sure it's a good quality and it's done right and erosion measures are taken so that the Phil does not suddenly wipe out and end up in the Turner's backyard or somewhere else and your house is now teetering you know those are all those are all concerns but those are more mechanical concerns than our larger zoning concerns and how that's done but obviously if it's something where you can avoid it you know those are those have been laid out there and it's it's in the interest of both you as the applicant as well as the neighbors to you know hear each other and listen to those concerns and understand where they come from anyone else wish to express either any sort of questions or issues good all right well with that does the board have any other follow-up questions how do we wish to proceed we have two options one is to close the record and take a vote now or we can move into deliberative session which would also be closing the record but would give us an opportunity to talk through some of the conditions and issues that have been raised by this application as well as any of the comments and feedback that we've received for this process just to chair I would propose that we close the record and move to deliberative session so that we can be very specific and succinct in our evaluation of the evidence submitted and that we can respond adequately to the issues that have been raised tonight I'll take that as a motion Kevin do I have a second second I've second by Kate any further discussion hearing none all those in favor of closing the record and moving it into deliberative session please raise your right hand all right the record is closed we're going to move into deliberate session we're going to review the evidence what will happen is we'll issue a decision after this deliberative session not tonight so don't stick you don't please don't stick around you have better things to do with your evening but there will be a written decision that will be issued and we'll reflect our considerations so thank you all very much for participating and have a good evening thank you so back to the agenda there are no other applications I'll just simply make a note of other business before we go into the deliberative session that our next meeting date is November 4th 2019 and it will be at 7 p.m. that's the first Monday in November any other business yes I'd like to mention once again for our friends in TV land that we would love to have you join us here in person as part of this board we're seeking an alternate as well as a permanent member so there are two positions open please apply thank you good plug thanks thank you thank you thank you very much all right with that we'll move into a deliberative session as the motion has requested thank you very much