 My name is Kate McCarthy. I'm the chair of the Montpelier Development Review Board, and I'd like to call this meeting to order. The date is July 6th, 2020, and it is seven o'clock. I'd like to start by introducing the other members of the DRB. So, easiest thing to do is I'll just go through names, and if you'd please give a wave, we can introduce yourself that way. So, the board members listening to hearings tonight are Rob Goodwin, Jean Leon, Roger Kranz, Joe Kiernan, Joe, and myself, Kate McCarthy. We also are supported tonight by Meredith Crandall, our zoning administrator, staffing this board. Cameron Niedermair, who is the assistant city manager, is that right Cameron? Yes, ma'am. And who is our moderator this evening, and then we usually have on, though maybe not tonight, Tammy Furry as our recording secretary, who turns our meetings into minutes. So, those are the folks who are staffing and hearing the hearing. So, with that, I'd like to turn it over to Meredith, who's going to give staff review on participation here in this Zoom setting for anyone who might be watching on TV who would like to get in on this. Go ahead, Meredith. For usual, I'm going to share my screen. This is mostly for those who are to be at work. So, we can see, maybe, for how long they're in, if they need to. So, due to the state of emergency due to the pandemic and persistent to addendum six to the zero, one, one, and two, the developer new board is authorized to meet electronically. And if there is no physical occasion to serve and listen to this meeting. However, in accordance with the temporary and open we law, the board providing public access to the meeting and video conferencing, including video and video access options, the Zoom platform, they also have internal access offered to work up streaming. All members of the board have the ability to communicate at the same time through this platform and the public hand of desire to participate in the meeting in real time at this link here. Or I can almost call it in the name. This one number, nine, nine, two, three, five, six, zero, nine, nine. And either event, either way of accessing the main IDs here, password is here on the middle of this screen while I'm in this for anybody trying to access. We previously have noticed to the public of this information for accessing the meeting. In our post meeting agenda and further instructions have been invited by the state website and link here. If any is accessing the meeting, please email the meeting moderator, Cam Niedermeyer, at cniedermeyer, at monthpillierpipenvt.org, that email address right there. And then further, if you're taking this meeting on accessing the video comments features or otherwise have questions, you can message me through the chat in the Zoom. When is the meeting? You should have an update on the moderator's application you would comment on. Already, I know it's not a public applicant, but it's for anybody else who might be looking at it. And then when it addresses the public comment on application, we're interested to provide some more information on the application. If you are interested in speaking on something that you didn't previously know that you want to talk about, please raise your hand if you're on the option. Or you can state your name, if you're unmuted, follow the conversation at citystable or where you want to be on to it, and then use the chair as part of the entity to participate. Yeah, the moderator will unmute you if you have it unmuted yourself when it's time to talk. And then three sessions were asked in two minutes, unless the chair grants you a special additional time. You know, the Zoom has updated in the last several weeks. And some people have versions where they're the only ones that can unmute themselves. So the muting unmuting feature is a little trickier than it was originally. After you finish talking, your microphone will be muted for you if you haven't muted it yourself. And then the chair will move on to the next person to talk. You can provide additional input later, but only after the chair recognizes you again. If in the event the public is unable to access this meeting, and I'm assuming Cameron or I would get notice somebody would email us or otherwise advise us to having difficulties, or if somebody you know, internet starts going down, then we will need to continue the meeting to a time and place certain. Please note that all votes taken during this meeting will be done by roll call vote. I will now hand it back over to you, Kate. Great. Thank you, Meredith. It looks like you're still having a little trouble with connectivity and a lot of what you just shared was rather garbled. So I would just we caught the part at the end. I would just say if there's anyone needing wanting to participate on a certain matter, please, please let us know by raising your hand. I think the 11 people who are on here now, everyone kind of knows we're aware of you. But if people have questions, please please let us about process, let us know we do want to make sure everyone is included. And Meredith, if that continues to happen, I don't know if it's a bandwidth crunch at City Hall tonight. Maybe it could be an issue of matter just going off video when you're not participating to say that. But that's my best guess. Okay, any questions? I missed seeing you, but any questions about what Meredith just shared? Okay. Alright, great. Thank you. So we heard the staff review the next item on our agenda is the approval of the agenda, which we will do by roll call. But first, are there any modifications to the agenda as printed? Okay, I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda. I'll move to approve the agenda. Second by Roger. Thank you. Second by Rob. I will do a roll call. Please say yay or nay. Roger. Yay. Jean. Yay. Rob. Yay. Joe. Yay. And I'm Kate and I also vote yes to approve the agenda we have an agenda. Thank you. There are no comments from the chair this evening. So what we will do next is we'll move on to the first item on our agenda, which is a continuation of the application at 260 River Street. We heard from we heard about this project on June 50. And we are continuing the application to resolve a few of the outstanding questions. This was not necessarily because there were issues. This was not because there were issues with the application. This is because we had a long meeting last time and decided it would be in everybody's best interest to start fresh today. So thank you very much, Alicia for coming back. Appreciate that a lot. Is there anyone new to be heard on this application? Didn't think so, but I also didn't want to assume. Great. So what's that? Meredith, would you like to give us a quick overview of where things stand with this application? I can try. Let me know if it's garbled. Okay, so far so good. Okay, awesome. And you know, this way you don't get to all see the funny faces I make. So hey, um, so for anybody who's looking at the new packet versus the old packet, if anybody needs to know where to find things, you know, whichever packet they're in, I do have notes as to where different sections are in the different packets. Um, if you noticed in the new packet, I didn't actually update the staff report because some things seemed fairly straightforward here. For the public watching at home, this application is for sorry, addition of a constructing a 7,883 square foot building addition on an existing 12,950 square foot building at 260 River Street. This is the former Grossman slumber building, along with changes to associated drives, parking, utilities, landscaping and grading, and changing the use of the parcel to office and automobile repair and service with an accessory use of outdoor storage. We've gone through a lot of the application provisions previously received testimony on those or received additional information at the June 15 hearing that documentation was added to the end of the packet for this application, all that documentation that came in, including on the solar access and shading requirements, and the signed and sealed grading plans for the steep slopes requirements. So my understanding for the things that still might need to be discussed or need official determinations, are the preliminary determination regarding whether the proposed use includes the sewer related facility use. Number two, whether pedestrian walkway is required to connect the current internal walkways with the public sidewalk, the applicant addressed this in the application materials, but I don't think there was actually discussion of it during the hearing, maybe I'm wrong, but I tried to go back through all my notes and didn't see that. And then again, I think that there was information provided by the applicant regarding why they wanted a waiver of the maximum fence height limit for front yard fences, but I'm not sure the board actually asked any questions or had any discussion about that. So I just wanted to make sure that those three issues, the board at least said, we don't have any questions about it, we can make that decision. And as a procedural note, especially because we do have board members here who haven't necessarily served on the board for very long, the board does have the option if it feels like it needs some internal discussion to go into a separate deliberative session on the application, either, you know, in the middle of this meeting, or after all of the public part has been discussed, including the next application, you don't have to do it. That's how you all feel about it. If the board does opt to go into some deliberative session, I do have separate call in details for that for zoom access, and we can go into that if we if we head to that direction. Meredith, this is Cameron, you could also because we have the waiting room installed, we can ask folks who are not on the DRB to just be placed back into a waiting room, they can have executive session. And then we can come back. Yeah. With the record recording and everything, it might be easier just to have the separate call in, I'm not sure. Fair enough. Thank you. Well, good. Thank you. We have technology can help us in a couple of ways with that should board members decide to exercise the option to deliberate in private. But thanks, Meredith. That's great overview. Anything else you wanted to add? I don't think so, unless there's something in particular. No, there wasn't a hint. It wasn't a hint. It was a question. Good. Great. So 522-015-0 That's for Joyce. I just logged on. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you. Great. So we're commencing where we are continuing our review of 260 River Street first item on our agenda. So now that we've heard a little bit about what we've done so far, here's what I'd like to, here's how I'd like to proceed with this one. I'd like to look at the preliminary questions that are raised on page five and six of the staff report regarding this use, because if we need to decide what the use is in order to determine what standards apply to it. We started talking about that at our last meeting, but didn't fully resolve it. After we resolve that, what I'd like to do is go through the different sections of the staff report and see if DRB members have any questions, and then take paying particular attention to the two items that Meredith mentioned, walkways, connectivity to the public sidewalk, as well as the fence issue. All right. So with that, let's get started. So on page, look at my notes here. Page five of our staff reports for this provides an overview of it sort of raises the question is this a sewer related facility, which is a type of utility facility that would merit the application of additional standards. And I did this last time, but I just want to be very clear since I think as a board we hadn't made up our collective minds. I'm just going to read from page five. A sewer related facility is within the class of utilities uses. The definition of sewer related facility is facilities for storing, pumping, and treating sewage, I believe, and is an operative word there. Unless located on municipal land, sewer related facilities are conditional uses. A utility facility is designed as electric lines and distribution facilities, phone lines, cable lines, gas lines and distribution facilities, water supply lines, steam and air conditioning lines, and sewer and stormwater lines, and also includes substations, pump stations and other related unmanned systems. The definition overarching definition of utility facility gives a sense of the type of thing that we're looking at here. So we, we heard a little bit of testimony from the applicant last week on this. And there are just a couple things I want to, or the testimony we heard last time is that sewage is pumped from Port O'Let, being cleaned into storage tanks on trucks. And then those trucks are driven away to either Montpelier's wastewater treatment facility or another contracted facility. Do I have that right? Yes. And I want to specify that the Port O'Lets are cleaned at the site where they have gotten use, not necessarily at the site of 260 River Street. So wherever they are, they're brought somewhere. They're used there, they're pumped there. The pumped truck goes to the municipal facility and the clean Port O'Lets get brought back to the facility, this 260 River Street location. That's a very helpful clarification. So there isn't really even movement of sewage between two receptacles on the 260 River Street site. Thank you. Well, I was just going to say, when you clean the trucks, right, you, you pump it from one truck to another. And then you take that second truck and you dump that. Is that, is that how you guys clean the truck? Each truck goes to directly to the municipal facility. Are you asking about if they clean inside of the truck? Yeah, I guess. The insides of the trucks are, are rarely cleaned there because there's so much usage. The nothing really settles nothing really gets stuck to the side because there's always in and out. It's so frequent. If there were to be any type of interior to the tank maintenance required, that would be the only time that there'd be any cleaning of the inside of the tank and really it's, it's essentially clean. They don't, they don't do regular cleaning to the insides of the tanks. Everything is emptied off site to the municipal facilities. So it shouldn't be like filling up one tank just so you don't have to take the other one to the wastewater treatment plant. Okay. Roger. Just to follow up, when they do on those rare occasions clean the inside of the tank, where is that drained to? I think that it was indicated that it would have, it would be, it would be vacuumed out with another truck. So it's not, it doesn't, it doesn't drain into a drain or anything like that. Only the outside of vehicles are cleaned to a four drain. So it is a, it's a contained process, but on an incredibly rare occasion. Thank you. Okay. So, so your testimony is that pumping from truck to truck is very, very unlikely to happen. Cleaning out of tanks would not drain onto the site, but rather would drain into another truck. Okay. Okay. So then thank you. Do other board members have questions about the definition? We're trying to determine if this is a facility for storing, pumping and treating sewage. Gene? So there is storage of sewage in the facility. And in the trucks that might come in and not actually go in, the sewage will stay in the trucks from what I understand if they're at the site. The only time the sewage is stored in a truck on the site is when a truck has gone on an emergency call or an after hours after the municipal plant has already shut down for the day. So if the municipal plant is not accepting any waste, the truck would have to go to the site containing sewage until the municipality opened back up. And would you say in your testimony that would, would there be a rare, some rare occasions where part of parties were picked up from a one location and brought, you know, unclean to the facility? Is that a possibility where they had to pick them up and get it off site? And they didn't have to, they didn't have time necessarily time to clean them at another facility and bring them back and then have to do it on the site? How do you assure that? Everything that I have been told about the way the company operates is that that does not happen, that the portalist needs to be cleaned prior to movement. And that's, that's, I'm relying on what the company said they're an environmental company, they're very conscientious of the environment. So I would believe what they have said. I mean, somebody would notice and call them out on it if they, if they weren't operating how they should be. So I am willing to believe what they have said is what they do. Okay. Thank you, Alicia. So I'm going to go back to that definition. Storing is not a typical practice. It may happen occasionally if a wastewater treatment facility is closed when a truck arrives. Pumping is also not a standard part of the operation of this area. And there is nothing we've, we have heard no testimony that any treatment of sewage happens on this site. Is that correct, Alicia? Does treatment of sewage happen on this site? Is not. Okay. So because there's an and there, which suggests all three of those things need to happen for it to be a sewer related facility, I'm willing to go to staff recommendation that this is not a sewer related facility. How do I to board members feel about that? I agree with that. Yeah. Raising hand is agreed. Yeah. Okay. Great. All right. Jean, you're on the fence. One more question. Okay. I mean, it's just this is a, in my opinion, I mean, this is just a highly potential site for the beautiful site with river access and views and just for an industrial facility to establish their business there with with a business that, that pertains to sewage and renting portlets and going back and forth with sewage trucks. If any of any time where these vehicles or portlets, as you say, in a rare occasion is clean there, then that sewage in a way with the chemicals used is being treated. So the three things that defined what a sewage, I mean, facility is, I feel that it could potentially happen in this facility. So I'm not 100% on board. Okay. Well, thanks. Thanks for, thanks for explaining your reasoning and thinking through it. I feel that based on the time we've spent on this and the testimony we've received and the the leanings of majority of board members, we're going to proceed with this, with the determination that this is not a sewage, I'm forgetting the word, sewer related facility and that therefore will not be subject to conditional use review. Okay. All right. So let's move on then. We moved through a number of the standards in our in our previous meeting, but we did that sort of we did it later and people may have had a chance to think about things then since then. So I want to give DRB members an option to ask any additional questions to solicit evidence that will allow them to make a decision about this. So at our last meeting, we covered the general standards. And these included dimensional standards, riparian areas, wetlands and vernal pools, steep slopes, erosion control, storm water, access and circulation, and parking and loading. Do board members have any lingering questions about those elements? And I'm sorry, I don't have the page numbers handy for you, but it's the standards that start on page six of the staff report. Okay. I'm seeing shaking heads I from from from Roger and Joe and Rob and Jean. You're right. All right. Okay, great. So then the next batch of standards we looked at were special use standards for various uses taking place on the site. These included fences and walls, temporary construction and related uses, and automobile repair and service. We have at Meredith's recommendation, I think we should talk a little bit more about fences. So let's do that. So yeah, Roger. Madam Chair, what page are we on? Sorry. So fences begin on the special use standards begin on page 15 of the staff report. And that's 15 of the staff report itself, not the big packet. So in order to under what we have being proposed. So our requirements generally limit front yard fences to four and a half feet. And then side and rear yard fences generally to six feet. Those fences used for screening seem to have some more flexibility in our regulations. And Alicia, maybe you could describe very briefly for us what what the configuration of the fences are. And if you'd like to share your screen or refer us to any diagrams that that would be fine. Certainly. Let me pull this up. I always forget to share. Okay. Can folks see the site plan? Maybe we could have a little bit. Just to relate, here's River Street, Route 2, and then the back side is the Wunowski River. Okay. Taking a time right now. So there's a couple different sections of and so we want to be clear about what everything is. There is a split rail fence along the top of the bank, which is not what we're kind of discussing right now, but there is another fence back there. So the privacy, the idea is that we were having a screening fence. So it wasn't intended to be kind of an architectural addity, but it more so that it's intended to screen. And so when we did that, we have the outdoor storage areas over here on the northern end of the site and then over here on the southern end, both of those are outdoor storage areas. So we wanted to make sure that we were screening those well from view intentionally from Route 2. So there's the fencing over here is proposed to be the six foot tall wooden privacy fence, as well as all of these fences are proposed to be that same fence. I think it was just a thought to have the site be more cohesive to have all one height instead of kind of having ups and downs throughout the site. Also it's not really, it's not a traditional front yard. The front of this site as it faces River Street actually abuts the railroad. So there's there's a significant different distance between the actual River Street and where the the fencing is being held. It is on the front side of the property, but not not a true front yard as we have about 50 feet of road frontage where it's a right-of-way across the railroad. So it's a very non-traditional site. So that's why we we have it proposed to be six foot for those reasons to have a more cohesive site and to do a better job of screening. They're going to be having their and then potentially other any type of equipment could be back here and so that higher fence would really help block and buffer and screen from any vantage point there. That's the idea with having the taller especially with the buffer of the railroad. There's no site lines that are being compromised as this stands. Okay, great. Thank you for recapping that. I know you did a lot of that at our last meeting, but three weeks on it's helpful for the refresher and the orientation to the site. Thank you very much. All right, so I think I think what the DR, what's up to the DRB before the DRB is the decision to regard that small stretch of fence, the six foot fence over toward the left of the drawing, whether we consider that screening and thus not bound by the four and a half foot limit for front yard fences. I believe that was before us. Roger? Yes, based on Alicia's explanation I think it's clearly screening. I don't think it's okay, but the specific thing is is because it's next to the railroad right away. I think actually what we might find ourselves in a situation is is that the railroad develop or develop fence inside the railroad right away, the city would actually, local zoning regulations would have no jurisdiction over at all. So when it comes to whether it's screening or not screening or front yard or not, that gets pretty specific when we start comparing these determinations around if someone wants to build a fence, but specifically because of the railroad, I really don't think that this height limitation applies and I'm okay with it moving forward. I'm of a mind, I would take the screening justification as the reason for accepting it from the front, the height limitation on the front, though Rob, what you describe about railroad being able to do whatever the heck it wants, would kind of render our goals in our zoning bylaw kind of useless, but as far as what we have to hang our hat on, I think it is a screening fence. Jean or Joe, anything to add or ask about that? No, I'm happy to move forward. There's a fence called completely, I couldn't see on the full page, from the beginning, the entry way of access, so the stretch of the site all the way to the end of the building and beyond. The fence is proposed to start. Can you see my cursor moving or not? Yes, thank you. This is the section of fencing is proposed to start that's being kind of talked about right now, from here technically to the front building, the building line, so it's this corner that's being asked to be six foot instead of the max four and a half. Would this be a chain-link type of fence or a wooden structure? Wooden privacy, yeah, so it's intended to be, you're not supposed to see through it, so you don't have to see the storage, the items that are being behind it, yeah. Okay, thank you Alicia. Great, okay, I think we've heard some good testimony on that and I would, I would like to suggest that we move on. Thank you all. All right, so fences and walls, are there any other questions about any of the special use standards that are reviewed in the staff report, temporary construction related uses, automobile repair services? Okay, let's move on. The next batch of standards is the site plan standards, bike pad access and circulation, landscaping and screening, outdoor lighting, outdoor seating, design and compatibility. We heard a lot of testimony last week on landscaping and screening for outdoor lighting, we heard about that, so I just want to make sure we have what we need pertaining to bicycle and pedestrian access and circulation. Do folks have any, I want to recap what I think we heard in the testimony, sorry, look at my notes here. So we've received testimony that there is no need or desire for public access to the site given the uses and that it wouldn't be appropriate to have a crosswalk or access over the railroad crossing. But one thing I would like to know from Alicia is in the event that somebody, an employee say, arrives to the site on a bike, particularly with the cross Vermont trail nearby, it's not out of their own possibility. How do you think they would access the site safely? I think that they are familiar with the site in general and the driveway is designed to be 24 feet. I can share my screen again just to show it. So I have shown the driveway wide in this portion where there might be truck traffic more likely to occur and then the trucks would maneuver into the main area that they would be and then the driveway narrows for vehicle used by employee parking. And so the idea is that there is extra space in this area should they want to use it. We feel like the employees are very aware of the timing and the equipment being used and the trucks being on the site. And so they would be able to utilize the widened driveway to get to that front of the building without necessarily having to have a designated pedestrian walkway that kind of invites more than just employees to use it. Okay. Thanks. So your testimony is what I'm hearing you say is that the driveway is functionally adequate for limited bike head access by employees and not the public. Correct. Okay. Great. Do board members have questions about this? Or anything else in the site plan standard section? Okay. I feel like we've covered that pretty well. All right. So I'm just looking through the staff report. I believe that we have covered most of what needs to be covered including the items that Meredith highlighted for us. The portions of the staff report regarding the conditional use standards are not applicable because we determined that this is not a conditional use. All right. Yeah, Lisa. I just wanted to, there was a small change in the doors of the overhead doors. So I wanted to, I don't know how involved the physical configuration of the overhead doors are. This door got moved, slid down the building to avoid a water, existing water locations for enclosed rooms. So I just, I can send this plan to Meredith for inclusion in the kind of record set. But I wanted to make sure if there were any questions about door location that that has been shifted. These doors here kind of shifted a couple feet in one way or the other. So I just wanted to make sure that was noted. Thanks. Yeah. Sending along those drawings for the final record would be, would be great. And questions from board members about door locations? Okay. Two processes served. Thank you for making sure we have the most up to date information. Other questions from board members about this application? All right. In that case, let's exit the screen share if you wouldn't mind. Thanks, Lisa. I would entertain a motion. Okay. I make a motion to approve the 7,823 foot square, square foot, foot print, two-story addition, change of use and major site plan changes as presented application Z 2020 0027 and supporting and supplemental materials submitted to the following conditions of approval. In 30 days of issuance of this written decision and prior to issuance of a zoning permit, applicant shall provide the zoning administrator with a final grading plan signed by a professional engineer licensed in the state of Vermont. Applicants shall provide the following to the zoning administrator for permit file copies of all applicable state of Vermont construction general permits and copies of all political state of Vermont stormwater permits. Applicants should comply with all requirements of section 3113. And I specifically note that we are approving a six foot tall fence along the railroad right away as presented in the supporting materials. Very good. We have a motion. In order to ensure that the motion is comprehensive, I will accept comments from staff. Meredith. Thank you. Just sort of a friendly maybe somebody can make a motion for a friendly amendment. We actually already have the signed and sealed grading plan and other documents that we needed because Alicia provided those at the June 15th hearing. So if somebody can make that amendment. Well, let's get a second and then someone can make a friendly amendment to the to the motion that's made in seconded. Thank you, Meredith. That's good update. So thank you, Rob. We have a motion. Is there a second? All second. Motion from Rob, second from Roger. Is there any discussion or friendly amendments? I would be willing to make that friendly amendment that notes the material the grading plan has already been received. So the receipt of that does not need to be a condition of the motion. Is that acceptable? That is acceptable. Thank you, Rob and Roger. Yes, acceptable. Great. Thanks. Is there any further discussion of the motion? All right. Hearing none, we will take a roll. I will say your name. Please vote. Yeah, your name. Roger. Yes. Gene. Yes. Rob. Yes. Joe. Yes. And I also vote yes. Thank you very much for your participation. Thanks for coming back for another round to make sure that we had plenty of time. We're rushing this. I appreciate that, Alicia, extend our thanks to the applicant as well. Meredith, is there anything you'd like to add to wrap this one up? Nope. I think we're good. We'll be. So we have technically, the board has 45 days to issue the written decision, Alicia, but we try to do it much sooner than that. And in this instance, because you've already met the pre-permit conditions to provide me with those plans, the chances are, you know, as long as I have that, you'll send me that final, that new document, probably tonight or tomorrow, then the permit should get issued along with the written decision. You can get all in one packet. And so following receipt of that permit, there's a 30-day appeal period, so just so that you're aware. Thank you. Thanks, everybody. Hey, thank you. All right. Thank you all. So moving on to the next item on our agenda, item seven is 100 East State Street. It's an application for renovation of a 580 square foot garage. We're looking at demolition, considering demolition of an attached shed and the construction of an accessory structure. So I may have stolen the stolen merits overview there, but what I would like to do is turn it to Meredith for an overview and then I'll swear in any witnesses. Okay. So as Kate said, this is an application to renovate a garage into a dwelling unit. There's actually some accessory structures associated with that. And because the parcel also has commercial property on it, the site plan provisions apply, but it's a minor site plan because the change in impervious surface and other requirements are small enough that it's minor site plan. The major reason that this came to the Development Review Board is because applicant is proposing to demolish a shed that is attached to the rear of the garage and the garage is listed as a contributing structure on the National Register of Historic Places. And it was enough of a, there wasn't a nice bright line there because they're attached for me to just make the determination on the own that it didn't have to go to the DRB. The new kind of wrinkle that came up as I was finishing my review on this last week, and I would have also sent this to the DRB, is that this application triggers the public sidewalk requirements of section 3202B of the zoning regulations. There's some information on that in your staff report. So that would be, sorry, hold on one second, page 124 of your packet for tonight's meeting. And it is page 10 of the staff report. So the thing here is that under section 3202B, a sidewalk shall be provided along the street frontage of a subject property if a sidewalk currently terminates on a property abutting the subject property, so at 100 East State Street. And that requirement can only be waived, or the specific construction requirements that are also in 3202B can only be waived or modified if the director of public works supports a waiver, and the DRB has to be the one to grant that waiver. This is the very first time that this particular provision has been triggered since these regulations were adopted. In this instance, a stretch of public sidewalk ends right at the property line as it's going up East State Street. So there is this requirement for public sidewalk is triggered. I haven't sent you a whole bunch of additional information because an official comment from the Department of Public Works, because they are still trying to figure out how best to resolve this. The city has plans to, or is planning to tear up East State Street. It's part of, hold on one second, would it help if I just screen share? Maybe. Maybe, yeah. Okay, so hold on. So there's this document, so I'm going to go up to the top so that people from home can see. Would you zoom in for us a little bit please, Meredith? Yeah, let me get up to the top first, and then go, and of course, here we go. So it's called the City of Montpelier, Montpelier in Motion. It was a study in 2015, and on page 24 of this study, you start to see this discussions about all sorts of stretches of sidewalk, and specify specific ones that were the needs to be efforts to fix gaps in the sidewalk around the city. The stretch we're talking about is noted here. It's the north side of East State Street. It says just State Street, but it means East State Street. Betsy's B&B is actually 74 East State Street, and so they're talking about that all the way up to West Street. So if I go, can you see the different screen now? Yeah, yeah. So here's this is 74 East State Street here, and West Street is here. So right now the sidewalk ends right here, and there's a crosswalk across East State Street, right? Then there's roughly 400 feet of frontage till you get to Bingham Street. Right now there's no sidewalk on Bingham, so there's no requirement that Bingham Street have sidewalk added, but that is a lot of sign. Okay, let's consider that a good overview for starters, and maybe get into more detail with some of our options as we get to that item in the staff report, but that's useful to flag that flag that that's where we may be spending some time. Okay, and just can I just throw in one other brief wrinkle? Yes. Okay, sorry. So we're also, in addition to details from DPW, I'm also waiting for clarification from city's attorneys, because trying to mandate that a private property owner do something with their property can flag taking complications. Let's get into that later. Perfect. Get into that later. I don't want to prejudice anything though. I think that is good to know that we're facing that. I think let's hear from the applicants and go through some of the highlights in the staff report, and then when we get to that section, we'll talk a little bit about what information we still need in order for the DRB to make a determination. So thank you, Meredith. I didn't mean to cut you off, but keep it high level for now, and we'll get back into it in a sec. Could I make a comment on the sidewalk? Not yet, please. I want to make sure I swear you in so that the testimony that you give is in the record in a very official way. So I think we're just going to testify before the case. I just wanted to know something specific about that property. Okay. Okay, thanks. Pull that back, please. So I believe I'm swearing in Yana and Ward. Is there anyone else here to be heard on this matter? All right. I will issue the oath. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you were about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury? I do. Yep, I do. Okay. Thank you both. So Yana, if you want to make your comment now, that would be fine with me. I'd like to turn it over to you and Ward as the applicants to give maybe a 10 minute or so overview of the product. So just a quick thought on the sidewalk, that it does cross over to the other side so that the public, you know, can cross over the street and continue walking down the state street. And right where the crosswalk crosses from our property to the other side of the street, there's a set of old stairs that comes up to the main house. I think kids in the 50s used to use it as a shortcut to the school or something. I've heard that. So public trying to reach, you know, someone at this property could just walk up the stairs and be at the front door basically. Okay. Thanks. I've always found that to be an intriguing little path. So thanks for telling us it does indeed exist. Great. So Ward, maybe next I'll turn it over to you if you're ready to give us an overview of the project. I am. Thank you. So it might be easier to answer specific questions because the project is pretty straightforward. It's taking an existing garage and renovating it into a kind of a single bedroom unit. The waiver, I believe that we're requesting or the I'm not sure the proper term is simply to take down a, I think it's a six by 10 storage space on the back of the building that's built as a pole barn. So it's got like four vertical studs on the wall and then just horizontal siding between and it's rotted. So it's a very ancillary addition to the back of the building that we just want to remove because it doesn't have any function in the renovation and because it's substandard and it would be too hard to renovate. So essentially we're building a small unit within an existing building and we're adding a deck and a shed that is covered on the deck so that the tiny house has storage and we envision that ventilated shed to be capable of having the dumpster and recycling unit as well as bike storage and it's also a little extra space for the tenants and it's on the far side of the building from the historic building. So the garage itself is being rebuilt, is being renovated very much to look like it always has and then the shed and the covered shed is a little more contemporary but it's next to the historic building and so its change of character is in line with the historic preservation standards that you should not appear to look old. So we have a little more contemporary look on the piece to the right. Can I make a comment about the shed? So this is you're looking at the picture in the center of the screen in color and this is how it looks from the driveway. So the shed kind of creates this separation from the public parking area which is just great. They'll have their privacy in the back of the unit. Right and then the Meredith brought up the condition that there's really supposed to be screening between two buildings of different use and what we've done on this building is the two windows that face the commercial building is one of three windows in the bedroom and one of two bedrooms, one of two windows in the bathroom and we envision those having shades and there's other windows in both of those spaces and the orientation of the spaces in the building all look away from the commercial building including the DACA's John had just pointed out which is completely screened and private from the commercial building because the challenge with this garage is it's about five feet off the site. It's got a very high foundation while so screening is really you know you almost have to put a mature tree to screen between the old garage and the house so we've just really oriented the building away from the commercial building so that it has all of its light seeking and views and public or you know outdoor space away from the commercial building and you know it's pretty straightforward other than that I'd be happy to respond to some of the concerns or I should say that staff you know the staff recommendations are concerns but I think there's nothing else really that I think I need to comment on at this point unless you'd like me to. Hello. I was muted. Sorry gang. How's that? I have a question in general. Yeah Joe. Has this started on your design review committee? I'm sorry if that was a question I missed that I somehow lost my audio for a moment. I'll repeat it I think Joe's connection was a little unstable there. Okay. Has this already gone through the design review committee with Joe's question right Joe? Yeah I think Meredith will tell you it doesn't need to because it's it's an allowed use is that not correct Meredith? So it doesn't need to go through the design review committee because it is just exempt from that review. It's not in the design review overlay district. Okay. And then the the you know design review not design review sorry if you look at the 14 of your stack report for if it was a major site plan application where there was there was a you know 2000 foot addition or addition of 2000 square feet of impervious surface or other specifics specific criteria then it would have to be reviewed under three two oh seven design and compatibility but this is a minor site plan so that those questions don't come up. Okay. Thank you. Thank you Meredith. That was a good question Joe. It's good to know where kind of the lines are the different thresholds whether it's the district or site plan major versus minor site plan. It's a good reminder of where we are. So when I was muted I made a very long elegant speech about proposing asking DRB members if you'd be okay if we go through the staff report and kind of move through those things that do not require a lot of discussion but provide opportunity for just use that as a framework for our discussion and questioning. Does that work for DRB members? Yes. Yeah great. Okay so with that we'll turn to the staff report. Great overview. Great to see the pictures as always. So jumping right into the general standards on page three we know that from the staff report that the use is complies with the use standards. This is an additional single dwelling unit. It's not an accessory dwelling unit because the other use isn't a single family home. It's a commercial use with a house nearby. This meets the dimensional standards because it is a very large lot in an area that requires small lot. As far as accessory dwellings and uses it meets those standards. So are there any questions about those three things before we get into the demolition piece? So just basically I can seem pretty straightforward. All right okay. So demolition is where we need to do a little bit of evaluation. So we we have heard testimony that a small pole barn style shed off the back is proposed to be demolished off of the structure that it is rotted. We've seen pictures in our staff report that show the condition of that of that structure. So our job as the DRB is to well first I think we need to and Meredith correct me if I'm wrong but first we need to determine whether this is part of the contributing structure. We know that the shed the garage itself built around 1956 or something is listed on in the national register but this little shed off the back is not listed. Ward or Yana do you do you know when that when that shed that you're proposing to demolish was added to the structure? I do not. No we don't know it's definitely built later as it wasn't later. Yeah I mean I would guess it's 30 years old from its construction type 20 or 30 years old. I think it was 20 you know there for a lawn mower and stuff. I mean it's pretty pretty lightweight later construction. Okay okay great so Meredith am I correct that one of the things we could determine is that there is enough evidence that to determine that it is itself the part that we're proposing that is proposed to be demolished is itself not historic. Is that something that we could determine if we have enough evidence Meredith? Right that it is separate enough and distinct enough from the historically listed garage that combined with that determination combined with the fact that it is not mentioned in the national registered listing of the garage that those things all combined mean that the extra scrutiny for historic structures doesn't apply to the shed so yes. Okay thank you. Board members do you feel you have enough evidence to make that determination? If not we can take the path of going through the criteria for how one does approve or evaluate the demolition of a historic structure. So what's the what's the pleasure of the board? Joe Cairnham I'm satisfied with what we've heard so far. Okay thanks. Me too. Okay so I'm getting that board members are generally satisfied with evidence presented that this shed off the back that's proposed to be demolished is not a part of the historic structure. I agree with that. What that means is that we do not then need to go through the criteria of 30 3004 demolition and that answers that question. Meredith are there other considerations that we should be making? Sorry other concerns for 3004 or other matters at all? For 3004. No it just means you know they need approval of the demolition is part of the permit so it'll still whenever somebody makes the motion if we get there it will still need motion for approval of the shed but it's nothing nothing else needs to be determined. Okay I'm satisfied with that as well. Thank you in that case we're going to move on through the staff report that brings us to page seven some of the other general standards riparian areas wetlands and vernal pools are said not are not applicable here because those resources are not present on the site per staff investigation and then steep steep slopes we there is no disturbance is slopes over 30 percent and the disturbance sorry I did read this earlier I'm refreshing my memory as we go steeper than 25 percent it looks like the disturbance we're seeing there is basically a de minimis disturbance. Ward or Yana would you be willing to describe how what will be taking place on the steeper slopes on the site? Yeah we're just adding is it two or three sonotubes to support the deck so the lightweight deck and three sonotubes being put into a slope which I don't believe is we have a lidar site plan which showed us where the triggered slopes are and I I don't believe we're on them but we're but I mean it is it is close to a 15 percent slope but it's I believe Meredith's determination that the level of impact doesn't doesn't constitute a concern or doesn't trigger doesn't trigger the threshold for for a problem on that. Okay thank you. DRB members any questions about impacts to steep slopes the staff recommendation is that 30 or 7 doesn't apply because it's such a small impact to if you feel differently or want to know more please ask questions I think we've know what we need to know about steep slopes on this site. Moving on in the general standards erosion control this is a small project so it doesn't trigger the preparation of a professionally a professional erosion control plan there's a recommendation that we as the board include a condition requiring the applicant to follow erosion control practices outlined in our zoning would the applicant be amenable to a condition of that sort? Yes absolutely. Great thanks. Questions from board members? Board members thank you do feel free to chime in I don't mean to rush I want to be efficient but I don't want to shut down conversations so if there is something please don't be shy. Okay moving on stormwater management those stormwater management plan is required there's very little increase in the area of impermeable surface according to staff review that makes sense to DRB members anything to add there? Okay similarly access and circulation are not significantly changed as seen in terms of the volume or the or the layout within the site same with I think is what we're seeing with parking and loading areas and then there are no signs proposed so that's not applicable I'm on page 10 of the staff report now is there anything that DRB members want to ask about access parking and loading signs anything that okay anything important that the applicants want us to know? No I mean it's directly adjacent to the garage is a huge parking lot for the building with like 20 parking spaces so you know very very ample parking and there's no no need for specified parking specifically for this unit because there's a huge parking lot next to it. Great okay all right thank you okay so that's our review of the general standards we're going to move on to the site plan standards and as Meredith explained well earlier this is a minor site plan review so certain things apply certain things don't bicycle and pedestrian bike and pedestrian access and circulation so we're going to talk about sidewalks before we do I had one question I think Ward did you testify that there will be bicycle storage for the for the unit? Yeah there's an ample deck to the right of the building that is plenty big enough to park and lock a bike yes okay that does it for me all right so what we'll discuss next is what Meredith gave us a preview of at the beginning maybe what I'll do first is invite Yana and Ward to if there's anything you'd like to add about the sidewalk Yana provide testimony that there is a private path from the public sidewalk up to the site is there anything else that that you would like to add about the zoning bylaws Can I ask a question please? Meredith and I had a conversation today about the issue of the sidewalk running up each state across the 400 foot length of the property which Meredith says is in the city's priority so that's a kind of that's probably going to happen but you're not suggesting that a sidewalk is expected to be developed alongside the driveway into the lot are you I'm not no okay so there's no I mean I think Meredith can can express this more eloquently than I but the sidewalk along each state is a is a something the city wants to develop and I don't think the city would expect the property owner to do it but to partner and to allow the city to do it in the near future is part of their their long-term goals and Yana can answer this question because I briefed her that this was going to be talked about tonight but I don't think the owners have a problem with having a sidewalk developed at the city's cost in the future okay um is that your understanding as well Yana uh yeah that is my understanding okay um pretty steep slopes there though mm-hmm very hard to maintain like we are not even able to move it it's very steep yeah okay and it is it is an engineered slope there was according to Tim Heaney was rebuilt something like in the 70s they had to they had to bring in granite blocks and right under the grass is a huge kind of constructed slope but that that shouldn't impact does it does it go right to the curb I can't even remember the exact condition it might be actually very difficult to build a sidewalk there but the city has the will I'm sure they can figure it out and the property owner is not going to stand in the way of that okay um okay so at this point I'd like to ask for clarification from Meredith Meredith is it true that the applicant is not expected to build the sidewalk at their own expense um so this is one of the problems with the languages right so this is a question mark in our zoning this is right but I mean okay my understanding I haven't been able to track down um the any city survey of this um although I've been told that there may be one I've been I spent a lot of my day on this today um we believe that the sidewalk itself would probably be in what is public right of way so that's public right of way that's not something where the city would be asking the the the owners to to build something there I wouldn't think because that just doesn't make logical sense the big issue is that it's not clear because they haven't done all the engineering studies as to where they would need to put a retaining wall where exactly that would lie if that was in public right of way or on private property and even if it's on public right of way there would likely need to be some sort of access agreement um an easement to be able to do the construction there would need to be digging up of the the 100 east state street property along the edge exactly you know the city this has not been a priority for the city is my understanding so they haven't you know and especially with all the current budget issues there have not been studies to determine exactly how this would work um so that's what I've got for that we'll deal with any other issues as you okay thank you um that helps us know some of our unknowns so um as a board we we it's my opinion and I'd like to know what others think um we are lacking input from the city council council COUNSL um attorneys as to whether this whether this aspect of our zoning can operate constitutionally whether whether it constitutes a taking as it's written I would be uncomfortable making any decisions about that without getting advice from from attorneys at the same time we have not yet received official comments from the department of public works about um their plans for this any preliminary thoughts or anything that would allow us to make a decision about what's even possible here um so the other thing that is um I'm thinking out loud a little so forgive me but another thing that is a possible path here is that the applicant could request a waiver from this and I don't know if that has happened or not um Meredith has a waiver been officially requested a waiver hasn't been officially requested it can't I think we've done this before where the applicant makes that request during the public hearing um you know to get that waiver you need to get according to these regulations we have to have sort of sign off from the director of public works is my reading of this um but they can request that waiver for sure okay is that something you've contemplated word Neanna no but it sounds like the simplest path I mean the sidewalk up front is such a colossal job that I think it would be appropriate for us to request a waiver and if given that would help us and then as I said the if the city wants to build a sidewalk in the future the the landowner is not going to produce an impediment and so I think the smoothest way forward is to say it's not really on the table right now that's huge sidewalk for the renovation of a garage okay so I would like to request a waiver on behalf of the owners yes okay noted thank you so with that waiver request in order to for the drb to evaluate and grant it we are required to basically get concurrence from the department of public works which we don't yet have so I believe that what that means is that we would we can still complete our review of this application but this one outstanding issue because of this one outstanding issue we may need to continue to our next meeting in the hopes that dpw's input would be forthcoming is that a path that you would recommend or is that a possible path Meredith that would allow us to address this in your view I think so yeah um you know I am expecting input from city attorneys as well as more input from the department of public works this week early next week at the latest it might it might involve Ward and Yana some discussions between you and department of public works as well to to figure out you know exactly where where the right public right of way ends things along those lines um but I I think that's doable there's also I mean it doesn't have to I know Ward and I talked earlier um that it wouldn't necessarily have to be to the immediate next meeting as long as it's continued to a date certain so you and you and Ward can discuss that but yes I think that's that's definitely a way to handle this situation so I have a clarifying question so are we trying to provide a way for the public to move up and down East State or access our property specifically what is up and down East State the the what the zoning calls for is um for when a big development when a development project happens on an individual parcel to fill in the blanks on on the sidewalk as part of that and I think that the the policy I would guess and this is a big assumption but I would guess that the policy motivation for that is to allow people to access a site that has become more developed safely once it's become developed more intensively you know what I mean so like you're going to build something where there wasn't something before you want a sidewalk so people can get there so I think that's kind of the underlying policy goal and I wanted to say that the sidewalk does exist on East State Street and we do have a you know path in a set of stairs and we can provide a guardrail for people to be and you know to access the front door if they're walking from downtown to feel like you know we kind of meet both of those needs okay great thank you yeah Joe I have a question from Meredith is there specific language that states a sidewalk technically terminates if it if there's a crosswalk there across the road to a new section of sidewalk continues on because I it doesn't seem to me that the sidewalk even terminates there and if we can make that determination then this doesn't apply um you have the exact same language I have and like I said this is the very first time this has ever been triggered um Joe I like I like what you're asking because you're saying what what constitutes connectivity right like is a crosswalk that gets us from one spot to another does that create adequate connectivity such that this wouldn't apply right and in fact if you look at the site like they said the slopes there are very steep there are utility poles that actually cross over at that location so that the utility poles are now where the sidewalk isn't so in order to keep the sidewalk going it just doesn't from an engineering point of view it doesn't make any sense to build it on that side of the road which is why I suspect there's a crosswalk there and it goes over to the other side of the road and that way also the connection then is to the other public buildings up to the top of the hill whereas if the sidewalk continued up the other side of the road they'd still have to cross the road to access the college so I just I was wondering if we can make that determination that the sidewalk doesn't terminate there there's a crosswalk pedestrian access isn't hindered and we could just move on yeah Joe I appreciate that thinking I think it's appropriate to ask what is what's the definition of terminate um is I think what you're getting at um I would as much as I'd like to resolve this tonight I think I would feel more comfortable if Meredith passes along that very good question and observation um to be folded into consideration by department public works um Meredith did you want to jump in as well nope it's you guys wrapped it up I think I think running that language about the termination by public works as well as maybe city council as you said to the attorneys um makes a lot of sense to see if you we can hang our hat on that okay thank you Joe I think that that that was very close to being an elegant solution I'm not I'm just not sure I feel comfortable in making that interpretation right now but I think it's the right sort of analysis thank you okay um I feel like we've done as much as we can on this for tonight and I'd like to move on to the other parts of the staff report okay all right thank you very much all right so that brings us to page 11 of the staff report at the bottom is landscaping and screening um which is required for all applications except changes of use where sites have previously been developed according to an approved site plan and where the proposed development will not change or be required to change any landscaping or screening so there isn't a landscaping plan we've heard testimony that screening is in the form of um the design of the porch being away from the commercial building um and that there are um blinds in the windows shades in the windows to create privacy and we've also heard that there is a a grade differential that would make screening with anything but a full-grown tree somewhat challenging um we were talking about a change of use but the structures are basically remaining that in the same footprint the site's not changing a whole lot um but we also know that if there's a change of use in the state that there's a more intensive use of the commercial building at some time that will not trigger an opportunity to to put landscaping in at that time so that that's kind of what we are considering um so word beyond what you've testified um are there any other options for screening the residential building from the commercial building I don't really see them one slight further point on the deck is that the way we designed it is that where people would sit and enjoy the outdoor weather is actually shielded by the shed so as you look at the building the shed presents a facade and then you would actually go around it to behind it to sit you know and and hang out and so essentially anybody that sat on their deck um would actually be invisible from not only the parking lot and people walking to the commercial building but entirely invisible from the commercial building so as you said earlier I think we very conscientiously used the design of the building to effectively screen the use of the new from the old and the buildings are only about 20 feet apart and as I said both are um I mean especially the garage is so tall that there really isn't a way to screen the building from the other practically except removing the windows from that that entire facade which I just think would be cold and unacceptable design okay um are there questions from board members about screening or opinions about whether we need to require any landscaping or screening beyond what has been suggested okay so I'm seeing that the board is satisfied with the screening as as presented in the in the design thank you um as for outdoor lighting it looks like the thing that we still need a little more information on is just as part of the final packet is confirm the lumen output for the new outdoor fixture I don't know if that's something you have with you now or if it can be provided later you know I'm very happy to do it and I know we just need to not have night sky illumination and that's standard and I can choose a an exterior fixture that complies with that and submit that in a timely fashion great thanks for that outdoor seating display or storage are not applicable solar access not applicable to minus site plans same with design and compatibility as Meredith explained earlier so um we are now on page 14 of the staff report we've determined that we are the structure being demolished is not historic we've discussed that we need more information about the public sidewalk requirement and how to proceed with that but the applicant has requested a waiver we need more information from public works on that too and we've determined that no additional landscaping or screening is required do board members have anything else they need or want to know about this project besides from the sidewalk stuff all right and Yana or word is there anything that you would like to add on topics other than the sidewalk nope okay perfect okay thanks so I think what we would do is entertain a motion to continue this application to a time and date certain in order to obtain the information we need about the public sidewalk requirement before that motion is made I would ask Ward and Yana whether our next meeting or the meeting after would be preferable so our next meeting is two weeks from today and our meeting after that is Meredith do you have your calendar closest and I have mine August 3rd August I can say that my life is so freaking exciting these days that I can do both it's going to be funny there I have no plans to go anywhere so I'll do either but we might as well do this sooner if possible do you think dpw will be ready with uh with their opinion in two weeks um I I am not you know I don't know for sure I would assume that they would be able to if for some reason they can't you could ask to to move it to August 3rd let's never scheduling issue um I will say that there are two new applications on the agenda for July 20th right now that you would come as a kid ahead of that okay Joe I see here in the staff report that uh before making a motion part number two whether to waive the public sidewalk requirement so does that mean that we can vote to waive the sidewalk requirement and make a motion to simply approve the project and waive the sidewalk requirement and so they wouldn't have to come back in two weeks that's a good question Joe I believe that in order for us to grant a waiver it says um on 3-57 of our zoning that we may any request for a waiver by the applicant shall include a recommendation in support of that waiver from the director of public works and the way I read that is that in order to grant for the drb to grant a waiver the waiver needs to be requested and supported by dpw is is that yeah I understand I don't I'm still new to the board I don't really know all the procedural questions or issues that's okay um that thing that I just read to you it's the second time I've ever read it so that this whole section is new to all of us so you're asking good questions I don't and I don't mind a bit we're just okay trying to know our options so I wrote for the second meeting not the July 20th but the next one if it can be on that one okay so you want to yeah do you say august 3rd yes okay okay works great great I would entertain a motion to continue I move that we continue this application to um august 3rd I second okay we have a motion a motion for roger a second second second from everybody um I think I saw jean first I'm gonna go with that um is there any discussions all right I will take the roll call oh please say yay or nay in response to motion roger yes jean yes from yes yes and I also vote yes um the application has been continued to our august our first august meeting thank you very much all right we'll see you then great so just a couple other items of business on our agenda here tonight um item eight is to review our minutes from June 15th um are there any corrections to the minutes okay if not I would entertain a motion okay did we lose Rob I think we did well we uh we may not be able to vote on the minute oh no give me just a second we'll give Rob just a second no problem no problem I've made it did I make it I made it made it sound like we were down there sorry about that we're just voting on the minutes there's been a motion in the second to approve the minutes of June 15th and those eligible to vote are myself Rob Joe and roger and jean so we're all eligible to vote so is there any discussion okay I'll call the roll should you approve if I can vote to approve if I wasn't here for half of it you may abstain if you want okay I want to make sure it still passes though if we have the minimum number we have thank you we do have enough yeah you're welcome you don't want your first act of rebellion to be voting down the minutes of June 15th no I want to be remembered I appreciate that all right we'll go ahead and call the roll um roger just for just for no taking who actually made the motion um motion by roger second by jean uh okay that that was the right motion to continue oh I'm sorry I'm sorry you're right all right um I'd entertain a motion to approve the minutes I'll move moved by Rob second second by roger thank you any discussions all right we'll take a vote roger yes jean yes Joe I will abstain Rob yes and I also vote yes we have we have approved the minutes all right um other business I would just like to um point out that um we are looking for members to the drb so now that you've experienced it you'll want to tell your friends to join in um so applications can be submitted to um if you get in touch with marita krandall she will point you in the right direction on how to apply it's pretty straightforward we're looking for people with all kinds of experience and interest and we have permanent positions um available so please tell your friends and listeners at home viewers at home join us um there's no other business do others have announcements all right with that I will take a motion to adjourn don't move I move motion by roger second by Rob taking the role roger yes jean yes Joe yes Rob yes and I also vote yes we are adjourned thank you all very very much we'll see you next time