 of a master plan so a real master plan so using a landscape architect and engineering firm to kind of go and lay out State Street because if we're gonna be shutting down at some point the Rialto Bridge for repairs and replacement that would be a great opportunity if we want to talk about putting in moving moving curb lines putting in tree boxes and planters a lot of what you'd see for like what Barry did for their main street what Waterbury did for their main street those all involved doing streetscape plans to decide where the trees are going to be where the bump-outs are going to be for crosswalks where the street lights going to be where the bench is going to be you know where the Rialto Bridge is Rialto Bridge is the bridge on State Street it's called the Rialto right the one with buildings on it yes right there over the North Branch okay so it would be a good opportunity for us to connect from Taylor Street which has a plan already and is going to be reconstructed and then we could kind of connect from Taylor Street back down to Main Street I think we would want to go and integrate the findings of that so if we end up with a streetlight so there's a scoping study that's looking at Barry in Maine whatever they do to Barry in Maine they're gonna probably have to do at the other intersections so if you choose a roundabout you'd probably need a roundabout from State in Maine and you'd probably need a roundabout for School Street if you go with lights you'd probably need a light a light a light and they would have to all be timed and so that's the initial some of the initial findings that from what my understanding was that's probably what they'd have to do is why they really can't look at one just in isolation they have to look at in fact all the way out to Route 2 all the way through although Route 2 could never be a roundabout so that's always gonna be a light but the other ones would probably fit into into multiple things but you can't do a roundabout with a light on either end because it would jam on the roundabout yeah once once the red light stops it would pickle the roundabout and so you kind of have to keep roundabouts all the way through to make the roundabout idea work so is that what they're going to talk about on Wednesday that's a Tom question I don't know specifically what so everybody yeah I haven't been in the loop there is a scoping study presentation are they so they're giving the results of the scoping study well they're asking for public comment okay I haven't I haven't done my homework on that one to know what I know what public comment yeah I don't know what they're gonna ask for comment okay that was why I emailed you today because it looked like that meeting was gonna be the same time okay yeah and I don't know I'd have to do some work on it so that was the thought was that we should have for the municipal planning grant I've done these in the past for when I was in Barry we did them on merchants row that was how a lot of the work got done there to come up with how to rearrange the parking areas we also did master planning for Summer Street area and how to accommodate where do you put for parking where you put those were a little bit more area-wide how do we spend that money like who outside are you going to hire just out of curiosity for the State Street portion like you'd be looking for probably somebody who's got a combination of engineering and landscape architecture because you're really looking at streetscape so it's not just engineering it really starts dealing with people and ADA and how do you yeah always definitely have to go to bid traffic flow yeah cuz you'll you'll want to accommodate traffic on the street but then you could start having the discussions of but the focus is on this as you're saying the streetscape so the appearance aesthetics are big aesthetics yeah the whole thing for for within we're looking almost exclusively within the city right of way or sidewalks that may be within the private but we're usually looking almost exclusively at what's in the city right away but we'll talk about we'll get that for for the next agenda as well that's the end of September as well so that would be I would first do this ArcGIS one and then afterwards do the municipal planning grant so on the 10th are we going to be looking at either of those applications you can probably look at the ArcGIS one but you'll have that yeah I should have that one either ready or close ready while we're on the topic of applications I received this in the mail today from the Central Vermont Regional Planning Commission solicitation of municipalities to participate in enhanced or in in enhanced energy planning so this might be something for me act energy committee I just wanted to make sure or flag it for for you and for you Mike to make sure it was covered this would be the Regional Planning Commission has will be receiving funding to assist three to six municipalities with the development of municipal plan energy elements that are consistent with the provisions of Act 174 so there's an application process in the deadline it's October 1st I just wanted to I don't think we need to do anything on it as the planning commission but since I received it in the mail I thought I should share it with you all so what would the better strategy be I mean if we decide in the energy committee to go forward with it that would be something that we coordinate with Mike's office though that Mike would have to answer that question professional entity it sounds like council would probably either need to sign off on you applying or on the committee applying or apply itself that would be my guess the city council but what do you think you're on the energy regional energy regional planning commission my I mean the only thing I would have to add is just from my experience on regional planning commission is that they like to cover their basis I think you probably receive that is courtesy yeah yeah okay we'll worry about you may proceed on it and then but I agree that we have to go to council yeah okay so having mentioned it I'll move on other items I just want to mention I sent I shared an email sharing the the tragic news about John Anderson's daughter and we have a card here for everyone to sign and after the meeting we can talk about the best waiter to reach out at all so just anyone does need to leave early we'll just put that next to you Kirby and then finally for from comments of the chair I think we should have a quick discussion we see how quick we can make it at the last meeting here with just the planning commission our last meeting was with all the a lot of committees but the one with just us we were ticking through our matrix of changes to zoning based on the experiences that Mike's office has had and administering the new zoning bylaws one of the issues that we talked about was calculating density based on bare buildable area and lots Barb has some concerns about the way that the vote went so I don't want to rehash the vote to the extent that there's no new information I don't know why I don't think it would be productive for us to revoke but I do want to use this opportunity here to help us fully understand the constraints of your office Barb's concerns and if there are new pieces of information the two of you were here for the vote that you didn't hear or didn't understand when you voted please let me know because we will revisit it I just want to find that balance of making sure we've had a full and robust discussion but not redoing everything twice that's that's my concern so when we arrive before we call the meeting to order we started to talk about this a little bit I'm gonna recap what I understand and then we can pick up from there so Mike's office is not getting a level of detail that you need to easily be able to tell applicants what amount of density they have if it's based on buildable area is that right yeah or the information is almost too detailed it just it's it's not easy for us to administer and answer the basic questions that we need to be able to answer the data we have is actually too detailed and too complicated to be able to easily answer the questions that we need to even a basic question of whether somebody can add a new unit to their house so it's a matter of not having expertise to interpret data right now yes the GIS data is just too detailed to be able to make a quick easy determination on some basic questions okay and Barb your concerns are that we went into that the original densities for all of the various districts were based in part on the the idea that they were going to subtract buildable area right well though the you would be calculating density based on buildable area and buildable barrier area would be excluding 30% slopes as well as other natural resources identified on the inventory right yeah wetlands and a few others we didn't I do it the last week so yeah yeah there was no discussion about we never intended to keep that as it was that was part of what's not buildable right right we didn't specifically address that yeah no no I don't know like the policy decision before the bylaw revisions were sent to city council one year ago that was my understanding structure so what we talked about before a vote was the difficulty of administering it again we talked about the various restrictions on building scale size massing setbacks that do restrict the way the building looks in in the area how density interplays with that and were there any other pieces to this discussion that I'm not falling I think we adults I think we had talked about the fact that the issues that had come up about buildable area we had kind of addressed it in multiple places yeah so while we had talked about everything in isolation we had actually ended up addressing the the issue we had was that people were building big houses based on using density that was on steep slopes but we also came up with footprint maximum footprint requirements and maximum height requirements as well so we were kind of addressing the same problem multiple times and it was best managed by setting footprint and bulk and massing size which we have done which were also new to zoning we didn't have footprint requirements we now have footprint requirements so we had kind of addressed it in a couple of different places so maybe this wasn't needed any longer to keep building smaller and barb your concern is that it may appear to be a bait switch for members of the public who who understood and act we yes to the zoning proposal based on their understanding that buildable area would be subtracted from density so the sizing scaling not quite but 30% would be subtracted from the buildable area in the buildable area would be the basis of determining how many units and you know you've been talking about footprint and mass and scale and that's certainly all part of it but really the issue here is the number of units that would be allowed in a parcel and so if we don't exclude help me understand that all right I mean I understand how density is calculated based on slope and how that limits the number of units but why is that an issue separate from size of the building because the number of units could be sprinkled all over the property it doesn't necessarily especially if you got we went and say got a cottage fluster those kinds of because we have PUDs which also allow for density bonuses so we've got a lot of ways for if it seems like we're excluding the rights of property owners to use their property we have lots of bonuses that allow for that to happen if they go through the PUD process so the really the issue here is yes it's good to limit footprints it's good to limit massing and scale and everything else but it's also important to limit the number of units based on the available area of the site the site area of the site that should be developed and frankly 30% slope areas should not be developed so that if you you know if you're looking at a piece of property I mean it's sort of an example I gave before if you look at savings faster if that were to be subdivided so that only the south southeast yes southeast corner was a parcel on its own and previously it would not be developable because it has 30% slopes but if we eliminate that then any number of units could potentially be put on that property and whether or not they should be built there you know is another question but that was what I hoped we had handled by virtue of creating looking at it from the standpoint of buildable area not the standpoint of what's what is what are the outlines of this particular site so but I guess the question is still so that maximum allowable density is not the right to build that many units the slope factor is not also if we're using it to calculate maximum allowable density we're not saying anyone can build on that slope so if someone can build 10 units now or they can build 50 afterwards what is the how is it in the public interest to limit let's say 10 families to move in here now 50 can what are we trying to address what's bad about those extra 40 families we're trying to address the Nate the character of the neighborhoods that these are going into and we've already increased the density in some of those what is the area character of people no no no the number of units there's a you know so there's a street with predominantly one character as number of units it's the size of the buildings and the number of families that are there the street cars on the street all of that so if you have a street of one to three family structures and suddenly you come in with 50 because now you're allowed to build that there and by the way we did allow for building on 30% slopes didn't we we're we're lifting the prohibition requiring engineering plans and a hearing just the hearing I thought an engineering plans yeah engineering plans and a hearing that's so there's no engineering plans required for building on 30% slow well it's prohibited previously we're lifting the prohibition and it's place we're requiring engineering plans and hearing right so I know so now the people can build on those 30% slopes as well so it's I'm not saying that I mean I totally agree that additional density is really valuable and important and we have the opportunity to create additional density that is still in character with me and I think if we have to be very cautious about making sort of quick decisions that can have all kinds of other ramifications because we spent months talking about these different density number of units per parcel we spent months debating that and we had a lot of comment from the public but no Mike you said that the density was calculated based on 90% right yeah when we did those 90% analyses we did not factor in any slopes when we did those so it's still I mean it's still an arbitrary number that 90% figure because we we we tried to set it 90% they would come out you know somewhere around 90% try to set what at 90% so what we previously had in the old zoning was entire neighborhoods a good example is if you go up off 1st Street and Kent Street in that area almost 60 to 70% of all parcels were nonconforming and most of the structures were also nonconforming because the setbacks and the parcel sizes were somewhat arbitrarily picked so there's a minimum lot size of I think 9,000 square feet and most parcels were less than 9,000 square feet so every time somebody came in to do something if you were up on Town Hill the rear setbacks were 75 feet and the front setbacks were 30 feet most lots had no buildable land because if you factored in where the rear setback and where the front setback was there actually was no place to build so what we did was did a 90% rule we just looked at every parcel to go and say all right where do most front setbacks just try to adjust the zoning to match what was on the ground so we always know there gonna be some that you could just look and go say that's probably a bad idea that that parcel was that small so we kind of said 10% of the parcels will let be nonconforming 10% of the structures will let be nonconforming let's just try to find rules that somewhat match what's on the ground assuming that we like what the neighborhoods look like the prior zoning wouldn't have any allowed the Montpelier to build the way it was built so we want we you know everybody agrees they like the city how it is so what do we make it illegal to build the city so I understood that was a concept in the previous zoning I just the 90% you want to make sure 90% of the buildings in this neighborhood would be conforming to the standards were setting and so then 90% calculations for density were not taking into account or like subtracting 30% but what Mike was just alluding to it was that that 90% determination was based on the size of the parcels and potentially making them the ones you referenced for example making those single or family homes or duplexes be able to have a conforming lot 90% of those lots would be conforming with a single family home on it because we allowed a single family home on any size basically yeah so we didn't that 90% really technically was looking at the footprint size of the building was looking at the parcel boundaries not looking at the number of units right and that's right that's where we get a little like we tend to kind of overreach as to how many people can live in a given building I I get really uncomfortable when we start messing with we did two calculations we did two calculations we did one for minimum lot size and one for density when we did the 90% so if you look at the the book that was made there was a book that was made that has both columns one for what's the 90% for density of that neighborhood because especially when you look at a place like Liberty Street or these other streets that have a lot of multifamily it factored in but didn't factor in didn't didn't exclude didn't first exclude unbuildable land before it made those calculations it just looked a lot size so for my vote last week I can tell you I mean that what was most compelling for me was for one is we already went over tonight that other regulations are in place to safeguard against the things we're talking about for character the neighborhood and then slope being another thing this in a way like gets a density for me I'm not seeing a nexus or a connection between a parcel that's more limited and what it they want a person can do with it because of art like arbitrarily because the slope not not because of the physical constraints of the slope itself but the way that we had set it up previously just the presence of the slope means that you that fruit the person unfortunate to have a lot of 30% slopes it's almost like they're not in that neighborhood they're in a load there in a different density like requirement type neighborhood and I just didn't see the connection between the slopes and like the slopes were being misused in my view because they didn't have the policy connection that other things the other regulations that exist do have does that make sense well I guess I'm not really following the concept that our footprint and height limitations would necessarily have the same effect that's what you're saying is other other requirements are in place so the ones that were mentioned were footprint massing of the building height those other plan conditioning subdivision regulations design requirements if those are yeah if those are part of that application which when do when does those come in it would depend on the neighborhood and in some cases something could be prohibited I mean somebody could still have be able to build 10 units but if multifamily is not allowed in that neighborhood they wouldn't be allowed to put 10 units so this this then puts simply back on the map then they could potentially have had how many units if they could fit all of those 16 units into the bulk and massing because that was the issue was that that was a in order to fit 16 units on that parcel they had to go and put them all in one big building and it was going to be a 5,000 square foot but they could print now they can't do buildings that big right but if they they could have stepped it down the hill because we're gonna allow them to build on a 30% slope so they could have broken up that building into multiple buildings and still have how many units were they allowed assuming they made it through the whole process and they weren't under under the old zoning which had no footprint requirements and had no slope requirements they still had to go and they still couldn't they had to fit the 16 to that one big building that was the only way that they could fit 16 and they eventually decided not to do it actually I mean that was the least expensive way because they were building it that had at the top of the hill but that's not saying that they could not possibly have so going down a rabbit hole yeah I mean they would have to engineer either of you two are there any other concerns about this I mean the the pieces that we voted on last week that this is related to is item any in the chart it's item 26 which is removing buildable areas from density calculations and we voted on that to adopt staff recommendation 4 to 1 with Barb dissenting and then item 32 which is to remove the prohibition building on 30% slopes and in its place require engineering plans and a hearing is there any standards for that someone could come up with engineering plans it's just a terrible idea to do this but if there are no standards by which it's good was the idea is if it's going to the hearing we do have staff downstairs the engineering department who do review it and usually what they're what they are reviewing for and maybe I can put a note that we should be more expressly clear in what were asking for them to demonstrate but what usually what Kurt is looking for is foundation plan in a slope stability analysis so what he's looking for is that is is a demonstration that whatever the engineering is going to work it's going to make that structure safe and then separately they look at an erosion control plan if there's anything on the 30% slope then generally what they're looking for is to make sure bank stability is maintained and other I can certainly put that as a note and one of the issues with bank stability is that you can't plan grass on anything higher than a 30% slope so establishing bank stability at 30% is is iffy so at least with an engineer plan you know I would usually what we're looking for what he's looking for in the engineer plan is usually these steeper slopes are going to be used with retaining walls or some other type of engineered thing it's going to keep the bank and that's the issue that we had with under the old rules you could complete and absolutely complete and absolute and you can't build a culvert across you know you can't put in a curb cut across the roadside ditch because roadside ditches with three to one slopes and three to one slopes of 30% and therefore you can't put in a new curb cut we said that just isn't functionally working we need to have at least some opportunity to address especially in these small cases of an ability to manage the slope especially if you're going to say I'm going to remove the 30% slope and make it a 10% slope and therefore I can then plant vegetation on it well I mean we could remove that 30% slope allowance and limit it to specific areas if your concern had to do with drainage and culverts not the whole site I mean isn't it I'm not interested in building on that kind of slope I mean do you think most people are gonna process straight from me it almost ended up in the backyard of my neighbors yeah it was it was frightening either they didn't do engineering plans or they did a different engineer all right any any more discussion about the steep slope the removal of the 30% slopes or any more questions yes I would make a motion then if we go forward with this the way it was voted on last time mm-hmm that we should address the number of units allowed in all of the districts again revisit because it was based on conditions that are no longer done um does anyone want to second the motion for discussion we could sure yeah discussion maybe I'm not understanding that but we have to look at every parcel that every neighborhood no every every every zone every district because we set the limitations by district and those districts were based on unless 90% and we told public that that's what we were doing base those on that I would definitely think that we should to the extent we can get some information on this to know how much how much of what percentage of parcels across the entire city have these kinds of slopes and like getting that basic information and putting it before this the city council when we make a recommendation to give them an informed you know to let them make an informed decision I think we definitely need to do that but as far as like on the front end going in and and revisiting the density I mean I'm I'm comfortable with just making slope and on factor and acknowledging at the same time being very clear city council yes this might mean that the densities are now more lenient than what you may have believed before and let them again like I said find out specifically how linear that is I'm passing that info along I do think we should do that I think the other piece of the information could be that it is technically possible to measure these things it's just a question of resources and that staff currently doesn't have the resources but that's also an option they may have the software but they don't have the personnel for example that they've got potentially right and it may not be a question of personality something that's contracted out we don't know exactly that was in the details but that's another so contracted out to engineer someone who could readily easily make a determination right related pre pre-process a lot of stuff answer those questions the problem then becomes what's the sustainability of changes but all of that's certainly possible it's just a question of work the resources but that means so what Kirby's suggesting is that we need some kind of an assessment of how many parcels the parcels in the city that have 30% slopes on it yeah I mean I think it would help to pass that information along and I would I would be in support of that I would also point out that just going up to what John said I mean for me too it's just a person who studied policy and like really values simplicity when it comes to regulations and in law creation that I like the idea of cutting factoring in the slope into it I don't think it adds enough to justify the added complexity even if we can afford to do it I don't think it's a good use of resources I mean I'll make that point too I do feel like we got to a place with a lot of people where density was just a proxy for other like building size other maybe traffic circulation issues like before we asked like really what is it that we're getting at and then you've said building size and then parking on the street if that's what it boils down to then those are things we can address density sort of a plumb hammer that we're saying you know unless you can afford this one plan you can live. The people in the up on Town Hill Town Hill I'm not sure that that was the issue for them the issue for them was parcel size single-fam how many families are going to be on each particular parcel size and for them it's not for everyone. Yeah so I just think we definitely didn't please everyone with our no but we did we went a long way to adjust our numbers in order to make them feel more comfortable and of course we adjusted the numbers to make 67% of their parcels non-conforming but they had some level of protection for some of parcels by exclusion of the 30% slope because then they felt like oh this might so my neighbor can't suddenly turn their property into more families because they don't have the available area maybe now they may have that but that would take you know more of an analysis as Kirby said of parcels that actually have the 30% slope. That's just that gets us right back to the same thing if there's just there's just no way I'm gonna have the resources to be able to do that analysis just that's the reason we've got this problem in the first place is the fact that to do that analysis is gonna require way more expertise and computation than we can actually perform and again it comes back to what's what is the value I think in the end of I mean I was thinking I mean we do know like about what percentage of the land is 30% or more slope right and just give estimates based on neighborhoods and in what areas of the city that this impacts the most just that basic info see as you see from the map most of the red is concentrated here yeah except the red is also roots right on that map it well I mean it so I'm afraid that could be really misleading looking some cases it excluded it in some cases it didn't it just got it depends I think in one of your algorithm they had run I'm afraid maps actually make it look like a bit more of an impact than it really is because it includes some false positives I think you call it those are pretty minor in general are they yeah I mean a lot of the parcel that you had clearly excluded from the 30% that the one that you showed us before yeah but what we end up when in our specific concern with this one was when we got to especially smaller parcels and that was why some of the suggestions I had would to eliminate using it on small areas we have on Main Street some actual applications that came in as you pass the school and start going up the hill there were some parcels in there were either they wanted to subdivide or they wanted to go from two units to four units and the question was okay how much buildable land do you have and a lot of the red was actually within the footprint of the buildings but we we ended up making people jump through a lot of hoops because we just don't have the ability to answer the basic questions of you know how much how many developable units can you have and the project that they had once you excluded the slopes that were within the existing footprint they had to hire an engineer and they did hire an engineer to do the analysis and to remove these densities so they could prove that they could build this project but it just the question starts to come up not everyone is going to have the resources that these guys did to hire an engineer to go and do this stuff and is it really worth it on these small small parcels to be really making people jump through that many hoops rather than just going to say how big is your parcel and how many units that's the way ninety percent of the towns in Vermont are how big is your parcel that's how many units you have now you may not be able to realize all of your potential if you can't fit enough cars on on the parcel off lot off street parking you still have to meet your off street parking requirements you still have to meet bulk and masking requirements you still have to meet setback requirements it's not our obligation to make sure you can fully realize all of the density that's available to you even on Sibley Sibley could have built 23 units they were only proposing 16 because they couldn't possibly give it to the slopes given that they know where they wanted to build it and reasonably they didn't well that had been a fully flat parcel they could have so but I guess we have a motion on the table I just want to address one thing that you said Mike so that you talked about a project was that a project where they had four units and they were looking to go six that was no that was a we had two of them on that same stretch of road one of which was a single family home that wanted to subdivide and they had the area to subdivide but they couldn't subdivide without first calculating whether or not they would have enough buildable area on the new law but they're automatically allowed to duplex according to the zoning so if it was a one family they should have been able to do but they wanted to subdivide they wanted to take their parcel and subdivide it was two parcels I see and then use the second parcel to put another single family home on but they had to have enough buildable land on that parcel so they have enough land I mean it's a three it's a res 3000 and they had 8,000 square feet plenty of land to subdivide into two 3,000 square foot lots but they couldn't until they did a density calculation to determine whether or not they had enough density each interesting as each example is I don't think it's really moving the discussion along very well and I you know we're already an hour in so we have a pending motion from Barb which was to go back and recalculate the densities for every zoning district is that the motion based on this change to the zoning ordinance okay any other discussion before we vote on this motion all right all those in favor say aye all those opposed okay so the motion doesn't carry what I did hear were some other suggestions based on this idea that we should probably do a little bit more legwork before we send this to council maybe not the level of detail of going through and redoing all the zoning or the density calculations but I heard a couple suggestions one from Kirby one from John maybe we can document these and and turn these into a proposal well Mike indicated he doesn't have that information well some of it so what can we give them yeah okay and my suggestion was made and yet to the extent that it's not over burdensome on Mike and his staff some basic information on how this will impact the city I think that's a wonderful idea Mike we take each zone and just I mean I guess the scale what scale do you look at this but if the issue is or I hate to say each neighborhood and look at the lidar for each neighborhood and just that particular parcel would then give you a sense of how much have 30% slope there might be in any particular yeah but it doesn't factor in a lot of the other factors that it's just diluting everything down to a point it's like I said it's getting back to Sibley and saying well you've got you know 23 units but they could never build 23 units so even if we look at this and go and say well this will you know potentially allow a unit of property owner and prospect Street now could instead of having just a single family or a duplex could now have a quadplex because we're calculating in this full 30% slope but when you look at the parcel you'd never be able to build it and put in parking for the four additional and for the two additional cars or it's it's not buildable any ways for other reasons other than the density but what we care about is looking at each particular neighborhood and seeing what the impact is of the slope I mean I think all of this information should be conveyed to council with this I mean it's it's the implications of removing buildable area from density density calculations will be felt most prominently in these particular neighborhoods or these particular areas of the city however we do want to mention that various other restrictions from building may they end up hampering development in those those areas even with the elimination of and the opposite is is can also be true though is this the 30% slope may be eliminating potential like we said we had to do this calculation for property on Elm Street even though they weren't building any buildings they were just going to add two units to an existing building okay we're going back to the one example thing again what I want to get away from that we do that a lot with the historic preservation folks that I but it gets you know but it's that type of yeah but it is that the argument can be argued both ways right so that same argument they're gonna say that they have the potential that they may never be able to realize I think we also keep the rules in we present the options we present our recommendation so the options are remove buildable area as we voted here are the potential implications look at the map another option is keep keep that as it was don't change anything and you calculate density based on buildable area but if that's going to be the way we move forward then we're going to need additional resources we're not recommending that because we're concerned that it may not be a good use of resources but it ultimately is City Council's recommendation I think that maybe we draft a memo or something to this effect that has a little bit more detail in it I think Mike can probably convey that I don't I want to work on the plan I agree I agree but I remember really shouldn't be too will bar in Mike will you be able to work together on a memo because we have different opinions in the past Mike I mean I think that it's the two of you or it's someone completely neutral and then the two of you're gonna have a lot of opinions so it might as well just be the two of you although I think both of you will be probably be at City Council and can probably express these ideas and have with the follow-up questions I just want to make a vision using people science if you guys really want to read it yeah you're right you're right John as a plan of commission or as a planning member and saying there's no I don't see a lot of value in getting into the details I'd like to go on record so I that's why I want to see it I want to see the memo in writing and very clear so so that the planning commission will also I mean sorry the City Council will also see it in writing and it's not going to take us forever now so and you guys don't even have to you know concern yourself well we're probably gonna want to review it if it's a planning commission recommendation yeah but once Mike and I work this out it should be seamless right Mike yes all right I'm willing to help if you need it I mean my bigger interest I mean same as John is is this is really a lot of these were meant to be rather straightforward review of issues that had come up in the zoning and that this was gonna be a relatively quick amendment to the to the zoning and I don't want us to get caught in rabbit holes on this for I agree you know however we shouldn't we shouldn't just ignore potentially large policy implications so we you know you're both you're both right you're both wrong we're all right we're all wrong I mean it's just how it is these are not easy decisions but I appreciate everyone working through this can I move on from buildable area and slopes yes okay one more item on comments from the chair I know I'm keeping track even if no one else is you may have seen when you walked in there was a slew of meeting minutes on the table none of them have been put on the agenda for review for tonight so we're not going to be voting on them or the ones that are on the agenda because those were not among the slew of minutes on the table I was shooting in the dark when I made the agenda because Mike was on vacation so fine your task will be to look at the meeting minutes from these past minutes before our next meeting and these are from the meetings of January 22nd May 14th July 9th and July 23rd hopefully we'll have August 13th to review as well at that point and it's not we have plenty others to approve and then we're gonna go through them really quickly at the next meeting so take a look at them in advance okay that's it for comments in the chair item for general business which is comments from the public about something not on the agenda with one member the public here nothing okay item five let's talk about the all committee's city plan kickoff meeting and next steps I thought it was it was energizing to see all the all of the people and committees working for the city and what how much overlap there was and I took a lot of notes and we have all of the goals downstairs in Mike's office I believe yep on those large pieces of paper well that's part of our discussion is what what should we do now I mean how should we move forward so typing them up sounds like a good yeah that was said is that something I mean is that a task we can delegate to Tammy or to probably has plenty on her plate and I just I know you're yeah I can I'll see what we can come up with okay just the broad topics I mean not all any detail right yeah yeah and I might just be able you know find whoever to just go through and put whatever you're because you took the notes and put the heading and then just type up whatever was literally on yeah yeah I think it would because I did generally ask the presenters to make sure that their goals were accurately reflected mm-hmm so it would be great to see you know be one of the first things we add to our website might not be in all the correct order because I've got them all in sheets I haven't actually oh it doesn't matter they can be in any order they'll be in any it was random anyway yeah yeah no I think there's potential overlap with a lot of them and I don't want to lose our momentum and like John said we should work on the city plan and not go back and rehash the zoning that we love so much yeah well there's something if we're gonna have to do but you know as far as today in this meaning I would rather we spend the rest of our time talking about what we want to do for developing the city plan sorry Mike need us to go through these well we will continue ticking through them but yeah I mean for today I'm not sure how much time we're going to be able to give that and the city plan we obviously needed to talk through some of the buildable area mm-hmm issue so what whatever I mean I guess one of the first topics that we should discuss is with our website committee members were asking whether there was going to be a folder for their committee or there'd be a folder based on topic my inclination is that we should do it based on topic and have various committees contributing to it so I guess I would advocate for my committee just so people have their space and we bring things together and organize the plan by topic obviously not by committee and it'll be interesting to see where different committees may have the same recommended action strategies but it may be you don't think it's gonna encourage siloed work so I think committees don't need to limit what they write to anything that's in that specific topic right so we can tag things in terms of advancing a goal in different like the committees will have their folder but what they write on doesn't need to be they don't have to worry about the boundaries of being within you know that committee's preview necessarily or not and then when we bring into bring together all the you know goal strategies actions targets etc hopefully with identified people responsible and relevant programs projects that's where the where we have the fun exercise of putting things in different topics and things can be in different topics right you don't have to otherwise you end up with like well are we gonna put this in housing or transportation or you know energy or it kind of belongs in all of these and now we're saying just don't worry about it like put down what that idea is and we can frame it in the plan afterwards so that would be my suggestion just for for allowing people to work through it and and understanding that some people are probably not going to embrace the folder and whatever Google sheet we put out so also having essentially you know an easier to use survey format or even maybe a box that's people can write things in here at City Hall they don't want to use a computer do it digitally talking about in terms of people are you talking about the committees themselves well I think I think everybody I think hopefully the committees can have more structured input and follow these guidelines but I think we should try to be as inclusive as possible and capture as many different medians and mediums and levels of ability and preferences and how people want to give us information so we did talk about a public input piece of the website right so they could use that potentially are you so I'm not clear who you're talking about are you talking about committee members who might be putting things in or members of the public both I think committees you know we'll give them the option we can create folders with the templates and then you just jump in and use it for whatever reason we can't figure this out or we don't want to figure this out can we just write this down for you sure yeah we don't want to like I think necessarily hopefully our committees can come to that but I'm thinking of those people who are not maybe necessarily part of a committee to make sure that they also feel like they can provide input and ideas we were getting away from question and answer I just want to have a brainstorm about the whole thing so let it organically yeah I think I was gonna originally go with what was Leslie was thinking with the various topics but I think you're I like your ideas it lets us be able to go back more easily to the originator of an idea if we if we just get everything in housing we might not know whether that came from you know housing committee you know we've got the housing task force but we also have Montpelier housing authority so you know who gave us that idea and they don't even have to try to put it in any basket be interesting just look at all these ideas together we could set it up so that essentially they can just hit when an idea is ready to go to the planning commission they say okay we like where this is at now they can select that one and then they'll all go into one place and we'll know we can go back and see but we can also not do that just look at them all together could we set up the format in such a way that it would automatically link to a document that's by topic so any mention of housing at least for us would come together into a particular oh you mean tagging basically both of it both of those yeah yeah we could we could filter it that way or we could go through as an idea comes in we could ask people to do it but it'd be think simple enough for us or my car anybody to to tag it under whatever baskets we want to go into chapters so one thing that came up in the meeting that stuck with me was when some of the committees asked basically were asking to be assigned a basket and it made me realize that like at this early stage we don't want to narrow our thinking and we also probably don't want committees to feel territorial about like baskets or different chapters so any I think I think what you're saying is great and the fact that it avoids territorial behavior or people thinking limiting themselves unnecessarily those are two things I think that we need to consciously try to make sure it don't happen and that sounds like both of those things are accomplished by setting it up court and just have the committees go wild with any goals that they think are priority and then us worrying about cat cat aggressive and later I think that sounds maybe we set up like one pilot with one committee say hey would you be our any pig and see any energy committee energy housing are usually pretty good yeah actually it'd be great to have two of them so we can sort of look at that overlap yeah how did the overlaps happen so maybe we you know within fire next meeting to have that set up the two committees where are we on the formatting of the website we don't have baskets set up that's pretty easy to do though I think committee yet right right and I think the website at least as far for anywhere in the near future I don't think we set up those types of baskets it would be more like here's how readily folders and then we'll drive that everyone can go look at but in terms of the website it's here's what's happening here's how to participate here's some background information on Montpelier here we can also set up like the progress that the committees are doing in terms of your ideas that that they've submitted so far but in terms of like trying to you know get the chapters set up as individual pages right now maybe I would recommend no I guess they were saying is so if the energy committee has their their goals that they want to put in where would they put them and you talked about having one a file for each right so are those files set up yeah okay so the idea is doing the pilot one to committees to make sure that it's or to identify we know it's not gonna be perfect to identify those problems get some feedback so that their people are conveying their ideas or goals in the same or similar scheme on format so that we can bring them together is there a basic you know like basic information format that we might want each committee to fill out just so that you know we make sure we get the basic information yes and I think that's the key get getting that right and figuring out what works and doesn't with those first two committees and and and the planning commission my original thought was to basically try to get get things into two baskets one looking at goals and measurable objectives so it's sort of like the what and how do we know that when we've got there and the other being strategies which could be actions or policies rather than maybe you could kind of split those up into you know here your goals here's our measures our objectives but I think limiting it to two and then having within those you know what is the objective here what's the measure how do we know when we accomplish it what's you know target date or data source and then is there any like background information or other documents that you could could tie to this for the goals and objectives and then the strategies you know what's the action or policy what goal or does it relate to who would be responsible for this is there a project or a program that's linked to it those might come later you know because that's quite a development you're gonna be a certain amount of processing that's gonna come through with we're gonna take and compile and go back to them to go through and you know because nobody's gonna get it perfect and you know so as long as we've got the idea of where they're going and what they're trying to do the committee's trying to do we can do a certain amount of processing to bring it back and go and as long as we've got it relatively close we can be able to bring it back and say this is how this is what we heard this is how we kind of reworded your so to proceed if we're going to do something before the next meeting then is this is there some kind of a base format that you want to put together or that you've already put together and then we use that to get basic information start from there I can send that out this week some of it will probably be like coming up with like on the page some of the qualifiers or some instructions rather than just like a spreadsheet yeah maybe a couple of examples so what if I send that out and we can all look at it and try to finalize that by the next meeting yeah I could try and input to it with the information that I have from the energy committee we can see how that works yeah okay all right yeah if you could send it out and I'm sure Stephanie would be interested in helping you with that too yeah she said she would be for some of these other elements like that would probably be premature for some of the committees or whoever to get into you should we identify them now maybe gray them out but just to signal like this is what we're going to be looking at maybe to get them thinking about it so if we're going to evaluate some of these things and try to prioritize maybe have them thinking about it as well like what's going to be how effective is that what's going to be the most effective thing that we can do with the least amount of risk like try to get folks thinking of it how do we just make the most of our resources get the biggest biggest bank for our buck that would be helpful for the committees to know where they're going right that so we don't they don't just get to a point then stop and then we have to kind of get energized again to go to the next step but with the explanation that we're not expecting them to necessarily have so under in hand don't do this but think about it yeah that would be great to have that yeah I'm just thinking cuz Labor Day is between whatever you can get together and there was what is it Laura from the RDC send an email from Montpelier Montpelier to the Corp yeah yeah yeah I had sent an email because she had worked on some stuff I think in Lancaster so maybe she's just someone who could also put some time and working on this or has some ideas people read that article about Lancaster did you see it in Pennsylvania right yeah it was a op-ed in the New York Times that then got reproduced in the Times Argus oh yeah ironically it's called can American politics still work but that's really not what it's about it's about Lancaster so anyway and also maybe on the site we could also put some of these other kinds of resources like the Ed McMahon tape if we can come across I guess we could you know anything that we could put there just sort of give them some other than the Seacore art which is of course inspiring sorry do we do I asked James Seacore local artists if we could use some images of his art which is a mob Montpelier he was amenable to it yeah I like it but yeah I think the Ed McMahon video there's the Ted talk and there's some there's some other ones that are YouTube segments just team bridges have a oh yeah yeah we should do that too so all of these video clips have somewhere to live so I'm wondering a place in this whole thing for the team bridges presentation because there's a lot of background information that is not necessarily part of the yeah I think the same we'll have a deposit a repository with all of these resources just so resources about planning in Montpelier and we can include that there yeah it was nice we're not limited and I think we want these groups because I know the Parks Commission has said you guys should have a copy of the green print well that's a great opportunity for them you know whatever they have as data you know I may not have everything down in the planning office so if you've got it put it in the Google Drive and we all then have it and we can decide what we want to link to you know because we're trying to keep this plan short when we're done and we really want to be able to link to you know if we've got a green print that identifies this we don't have to restate the green print we just kind of summarize it in a sentence or two put a link to it use that as an approach there's certainly several different proposals coming up in the next few weeks that potentially could add it on to this as well such as the scoping study the scoping study complete streets plan I mean there's a lot of parking garage parking garage a lot of a lot of proposals that we can just link to rather than rehash by the way people didn't know the September 5th is going to be the public comment discussion of the parking garage I don't know I haven't I've I've been out for the past two weeks basically sure it'll be on the website they'll just change that today because it was gonna be this week so where the where the parking garage goes what it just changed it just changed the location today they enlarged it no no he didn't but no he changed the location of the meeting which was going to coincide with the scoping study so it's no longer gonna do that all right you'll go ahead I know we've talked about this before but I just I'm wondering and remind me if we discuss this before so it's the main outside of the committees if other are we gonna have other ways to outreach to the public or is it basically going to be this website other comments I mean it could be that really I don't want to over drain resources trying to reach out to people who aren't interested in commenting on the city plan but I did have a little bit of a concern after the meeting that you know it's a certain type of person person like me who wants you know town committees and if we can try and reach out to people who aren't that I think one cool thing about the website is that we can all promote it separately in all sorts of different ways once we get it up and running yeah and we don't have a press a series of public meetings oh okay I don't see how we can get away from action okay although it would be nice not to have other ways to engage with people maybe people that we don't usually connect with it's mostly you know people feeling like they had a chance to voice their issues and so it can certainly be a combination have a website we have a page open so people come to the public meeting and they can just add in while they're listening they don't even have to participate but I think we're gonna have to I mean judging how active the public participation was in the last master plan I think we need to seriously think yeah no we definitely will need a lot of public input I think all we're trying to do or that I was trying to do with this one is to try to go and focus the public input at a different step in the process in 2009 you know the world is your oyster what would you like and the public came in with a lot of ideas and that that's good that's healthy that's helpful but when we then turn around to go and say hi energy committee here's your energy plan and they look at it and go and say but we weren't involved consulted worked on this this this may seem like great ideas to the public but those of us who work in the industry see that they're better ways of doing it so we're trying to just kind of turn the tables a little bit and start with the energy committees and develop a plan and then kind of take that to the public this is this is where we would like to go and if the public says they don't like it then we've got to go back to the energy committees maybe we could also say to the public now who are interested in being in being involved why don't you work through a committee I mean they could offer commentary to the committees and then that might you know facilitate your process because I agree it would it would be a lot more workable to work through the committees rather than just having it as a wide open process that that was challenging all 600 people yes yeah I think what once we get through some of these goals that the committees have we can start to put it to the public and and put together a survey that asks you know is this something that you see as an important aspect of Montpelier I don't know we don't crafting survey questions is challenging but I'm thinking that with that content we can we'll be a better equipped to craft survey questions than we were previously then the public could come out with you know oh yeah those are important or they could even rank them I suppose but they could also add more issues that maybe the committees haven't considered yeah if we have the hub yeah I'm hoping the hub would be a good opportunity if we get that great yeah yeah yeah are we gonna have a high school student joining us I was just thinking about that you know engaging the youth is that I haven't heard anything on the planning commission or anything either I mean we just interested I did the survey I mean well high school hasn't started back yet oh okay so if it follows the elementary school it'll be this Wednesday yeah maybe a month from now well yeah we'll hear about that I mean we could specifically reach out to the schools rather than just one particular person survey she's talking about when when the you know when the high school had reached out to all the city and so we did the survey and so I think that there will be a student from some class or program they're doing be assigned to us and start showing up at our meetings yeah I was sort of thinking just in general about engaging yeah it sounds like for the next meeting in advance of the next meeting John is gonna put together some templates or some sort of mechanism for us to input some content Barb's gonna work with I think Stephanie but I think I think engaging with with Barb on behalf of the committee energy committee Laura Gebhardt who has some experience with this Stephanie and then I will try to dig up all of the various links that I've been sent for the basic repository that my job here so we have something to review for the next meeting and see how that seems to be working and so that'll be our pilot folders so I think folders for a couple committees and then the general resources tab or whatever would be a good play a good place to start I think that's a good good step I just I want to make sure we keep moving forward but I don't think we need to be at a very crazy clip or anything I don't think the committee is to be able to keep up if we did and maybe they would I don't know but I want to make sure we keep our momentum going I was impressed with how many committees came given the pretty short notice yeah I was very impressed yeah and I think Mike you and I need to compare the list that we have and make sure we've got all of the additions that have been added since the additional committees you mean yeah okay we have a mention that she hurt she believed there were more committees so we need to identify if we haven't heard from anybody we need to make sure our list is comprehensive as well so I think there's two we know the school we know we heard from the school board it's Mary Hooper her email talked about the fact that we could have included the school board maybe we should get them for the next time yeah so I think if we may if you and I can figure out who we haven't heard from and who are the suggested additional committees that we have or haven't heard from we make sure we just have a comprehensive list of everybody that we're engaging with and Jamie Granfield sent us the email list that my my letter went to but I wasn't able to open up the contacts on that I don't know if you were no I had her send them individually to me because of that okay it was just the list of committees or groups that she contacted yeah the the data that she sent us just wasn't it didn't I don't know it was going to do a software issue so okay so I tried a lot of things but I was it defeated me I tried it like you couldn't find you know it's it was an outlook thanks I used outlook to open it and I also downloaded some things to try to open it no nothing worked so anyway okay so I think that's that's something we need to do and I think we need to maybe create a list to be posted on our website of all the committees that we're collaborating with so that will be my task in conjunction with Mike and Kirby who apparently has all their questions for me well you can you were copied on the thing I sent out so look look there for the okay okay all right so we do have time to move on to zoning our zoning punch list so that's item 6 on the agenda I don't know that everybody has their copy with me I can share mine but mark and Mike and Barb you can also share yeah neighbor we know what number we were on we've got a we've kind of jumped around you but 28 would be the next one on the list and I did color code the most recent one you've got an older one most recent one has color so you haven't changed any numbers on no he did I thought he did yeah there might be some yeah changes all right well I've tried to I've tried to add them now only to the end so yeah that's what before the color I think you inserted them yeah I get as I got new ones but it on the left-hand side if they're green those were the ones that I assumed didn't need to be talked about or not talked about too much and yellows were the ones that I at least need to mention that there's something of concern to be talked about 26 on the colored one 26 and 27 did we do frontage build out yes PC agrees delete figure 3-0 3 so yeah there must be one another one later than that color version I'll print out new ones for the next meeting but next one I had with figure 3-0 7 remove parking areas as accessory structures but I don't know if we want to talk about the green ones or if we want to just jump to the yellow ones well we're gonna have to do them as consent they're mostly smaller unless you identify the concern barb Kim's notes I have Kim's notes in front of me and he well his might be outdated too actually huh this is dated the 20 July 22nd why were various accessory structures in well that was why it's being removed because they showed up with accessory structures and therefore had to start meeting all the setback requirements of accessory structures and that was a glitch that was a glitch so okay so yeah I mean I'm in favor of just doing it by consent and then I mean this isn't though this is the last opportunity by any means next time we look at these yeah there's one that we already passed over we can revisit so item 30 well yeah I mean that's the thing is I so the issue with number 30 so this is talking about demolition of historic structures is in one sentence under applicability it says anything that is on the state and national register while under D2 it says something is either on the state or national register and that's not as big of an issue as additionally the current practice has not been either of these but rather it is applied only to the contributing structures within the national register district so what this time about is who needs to the demolition which that which historic structures that are being posed to be demolished need to go through this review process that makes sense that's the big question because way the current rules are written we've got some issues in that I don't have a database I have a database for everything within the national just register district I have a map color coded which ones are contributing which ones are not contributing but that's only for the national register district which is also historically what was only being regulated the way this is worded things that are on the state list that are outside the registered district would now also need to be and I don't have a map showing that are outside the district yes so the owner has to go through some active process to be put on the state list nope they're already on the state list the state has surveyed but it's in big-ground books on the shelf so it's not online like the national register listing is it it it's I mean there's a PDF online yes but it's we've got the historic district but the question will start coming up the question of basically is going to come up for other buildings we need to then evaluate which ones are historic which ones are on the register and what well which ones do we want to apply the so the question is about the Vermont yeah give us give us a set of rules that you want to enforce if you want to enforce this townwide any historic building townwide then it just means I'll have to put together the resources to do that from a map is it eligible or is a good question whether it says eligible for or whether it says is on the state register because if it's eligible that gets to another completely different level yeah well that one says and and then then we get 304 so if you're looking on page 3-9 on your book under demolition it says and but on 3-10 number 2 it says or so we should be consistent as to whether we mean and the list or or the list and how did the Vermont historic sites and structures serving get added to this I guess I thought we were always talking about the national register and so I remember discussing the Vermont historic sites I think some of this was added some of this is this is in 304 so this is stuff Brandy added but some of this was taken from the old some of I think some of the standards are taken from the old zoning and pulled forward so I think we just had a little bit of inconsistency because I know in practice that's why Cedar Street was able to be demolished without meeting demolition standards it was a historic structure and it was demolished and I think there was one over on North Street that was also demolished because they were out of the district because they were out of the National Register district so they didn't have to meet these standards but under the new zoning it kind of is written as if they now would need to go through because they're listed and so we don't have maps for the question was really okay let's take a step back and just decide what's our policy do we just really care about demolition of historic structures within the historic district which is the cleanest easiest for us to enforce because we've got the maps for it or do we want to have something bigger than that what's been the aren't we aren't we going with sort of existing practice until we sort of revise everything yes except that that's not what's actually written in the rules and that was the issue is now that we're revised now that we're doing a cleanup this this is mostly supposed to be trying to do some of our cleanups and that came up in our clean up list was hey wait we've got two issues one is it now appears that we're enforcing demolition town-wide not just in the historic district and two we've got this and or thing where it talks about and in one section and or in the other and we really should be consistent there as well yeah that one is easier to clean up that's easier to clean up I just need to know what we're this is something that historic preservation commission is going to want to weigh in on we could certainly get their their input I mean if we just do something now they may bristle at not having so I'll just put a note get HPC input at this point sure so if we skip to 31 this talking about riparian areas oh yeah buried streams and buried streams we now have have two of them so for anyone who wants to just look at what we're talking about this is this is Berry Street and this is Wheelock so I mean you'll notice there's just a stream that that has for decades been buried in a big culvert but the issue is we have stream water setback in buffer requirements that now apply to people's backyards because there's a culture running through their backyard and we just need to go and revise that there was also an application over on route 302 I'll say a couple weeks ago now because been out for a little bit but it's another one where there's a culvert that goes under their parking lot and the question was are we applying a water setback to that parking lot and do they you know there's vegetation requirements or all these requirements except it's a paved parking lot that is culverted stream runs through we haven't handled this one before I know we talked about I think we talked about that one before but we we just mentioned it seems reasonable so the the thing that comes up is we can map it or we can I can come up with a process for if it's in a culvert if it's in a culvert these are the rules that apply yeah I think that was probably the best thing to do I'll draft some rules 33 already done 32 right 32 already done oh yes 30 one note on 32 is that Kim Kim had a note which is criteria for DRV waivers should be stated which is what John Adams mentioned to which is to the extent that we're gonna allow for building on steep slopes we should probably give some specific criteria yeah what will be acceptable so I think having more detail about what the engineering plan should entail they accomplish that but we'll probably just need to discuss that a little bit well at least at this point I've got a framework that I can start putting things together and writing a lot of a number of these yellow ones I need to draft language for but I didn't want to draft language until I kind of knew yep and I think that's the same 32 now that I know what we want to do I can draft up some language and we can do some word smithing is that what where you could borrow from somewhere like seems like we wouldn't be the only city that would allow building on slopes but you know I'm saying yeah to get an idea of what other cities of concerns were writing zoning ordinances pasting from other all right so number 33 so yeah these 33s that 3 o.a.p. I think that's slopes vision control applicability the first sentence is not applicability it's either purpose move it up or some kind of performance standard move it down considering the intent of the statement is generally captured already in C1 I would just rank it 34 also isn't 3008 inconsistency in how slope is broken down wait a minute wait a minute let's stay with 33 before we move on because I just want to make sure anybody wants to comment on it has a chance so all you're suggesting is to strike the first sentence under applicability 308.b. is that what you're proposing right yes and then so that 3008.b. would begin the provisions of this section apply yep that's actually the applicability I mean that sentence is actually a requirement well in which case with the the 3008.b. yeah is talking about applicability what needs to meet erosion control I know sentence is a requirement so either we don't move it down I don't think we should strike a requirement without talking about it so the requirement is all construction activities that will disturb soil shall implement appropriate measures to prevent erosion and sedimentation from adversely impacting nearby properties public infrastructure or downstream water bodies and then in parentheses it says for further guidance see Vermont Agency of Natural Resources low-risk site handbook for erosion prevention and sediment control so yeah I agree this doesn't belong in applicability but I don't know if we want to strike it all together maybe what we want to do is it's not purpose either is it I mean no but the section see see says you shall submit and implement a professionally prepared erosion control plan in accordance with Vermont standards and specifications alright so it doesn't okay yes okay yes so let's just strike it it's accomplished down there seems redundant yeah it is okay just want to make sure yep I actually have to leave right at 730s oh yeah okay well that's a good cue for us to wrap up anyway go ahead if you need to go okay so we're gonna keep going through this at the next meeting but we are we're gonna consider everything in green to be a consent item yellow will go through I think that probably makes good sense and Mike will circulate an updated version to us because we run out of coloring at 37 30% or more no we'll do that the next meeting yeah oh I mean it's it's pretty much non it's just a matter of we talked about sometimes we talk about 30% or more and sometimes we talk about more than 30% so with a green if you do have a concern we'll take it up yeah but it's they're considered approved unless somebody raises a concern so that's all okay because you said you're gonna research it I would make it consistent with what's on the map the question is did the map is the map showing me what is more than 30% or is the map showing me what is 30% and more so I mean it's it's the bitch no it's the difference right okay we'll come we'll come back we'll come back okay so item six is considered minutes from August or teeth we don't have any so we're not gonna address that this week item or that's item seven so item eight as adjournment do I have a motion to turn my second second John all those in favor say I