 meeting of the Development Review Board for the City of Montpelier. We'll call the meeting to order. I'd like to go through and have board members identify themselves and then we'll switch over to our technical process here. So, Brian, I have you first up. That's Brian Jones, who's a Development Review Board member. Hi, everybody. Alex, Development Review Board Catherine Burgess. Joe, Karen is online with us today. And I think that is it for Development Review Boards. Is that correct? Oh, I'm here. Oh, you are here, Kevin. There you go. Great. You got Kevin and Jean. Yeah, and Jean, you're also here. Hello, everybody. Thank you for coming. So without further ado, let's let Meredith go back and talk about the remote viewing procedures. All right. I'm going to be sharing my screen. The stuff on the screen is more for anybody who's viewing tonight's meeting over Orca Media, but there will be some information that will be useful for everybody, especially anyone who hasn't done one of these with us before. All right. So for anyone viewing tonight's Development Review Board meeting via Orca Media, you can participate in the discussion via the Zoom platform through either the video or telephone access options. So for the full video experience, you can type this link into your web browser, and I will get a little notification that you want to get into the meeting and I can let you in. Another option is to use any old phone and dial in using this phone number and then plug in this meeting ID when prompted. And again, I'll get a little prompt that says you want to come into the meeting. If you're trying to get in and you're having problems accessing the meeting, please email me at mcrandallatmontpillier-vt.org. I will be monitoring my email throughout the meeting. For those attending via Zoom, turning on your video is optional. And as I mentioned a few minutes ago, if your internet is shaky, turning off your video often makes everything else get a little bit better along with turning off any other applications that you might not actually need running at the time that you're in the meeting. For everyone who's attending, especially anyone who isn't an applicant being called on by the board directly, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. And the chair will call on you in order, usually it's in order of us spotting people raising their hands. And when you've been called on by the chair, please make sure to state your name and your address for the record. If you're calling in on the phone, you can use star nine to raise your hand and star nine to put it back down. The other thing is if you're on Zoom, please keep your microphone on mute when you're not speaking. This helps reduce background noise and make sure everybody can hear everybody else. If you call in on the phone, you can use star six to mute and unmute. In the event that public is unable to access this meeting, it will need to be continued to a time and place certain. And I will now hand the meeting back over to the chair. Great. Has everyone gotten a chance to look at the agenda for the evening? Yes. Yeah. Yep. I'm sorry, who is that speaking separate you, Brian? Yes. Okay. Yes. Okay. Can I get a motion to approve the agenda or additions? So moved. I get the award. All those in favor of approving the agenda, please say aye. Aye. Those not and made. Okay. That moves us right along. So first on our agenda tonight is Isabel Circle. Who do we have here for Isabel Circle? I gave her a large ass or acre development holdings and Dan Hill from VRB. From where? BHP. I'm sorry, BHP. Okay. I guess. Let's do a couple things. Meredith, why don't you just give us a brief overview and then we'll swear in the applicants and get their take on it. Yep. And I'm just going to, there is one member of the public I haven't checked with to see which application they were on for. Stephanie, are you Kenonen? Are you on for the zero Isabel Circle or the 18 Downing Street application? I'm just the neighbor of the Isabel project. So just listening in. Okay. So if there's any chance when Sharon gets to the part about swearing in witnesses, if you think there's any opportunity, any chance you might want to talk and have a comment, maybe turn on your camera and raise your hand or do something so that you can be sworn in as well. Okay. We'll do. Thanks. Thank you. Okay. So you wanted an overview, Sharon? Yeah. Okay. So I don't think everybody who's here tonight was on the development review board when this subdivision was approved. But I made sure to include the original decision in your packets. So this was a subdivision that was approved year ago, roughly multiple parcels and none of the specifics of how the land is going to be subdivided or where the road is going to go. None of those details are being requested to be changed. The request is that a timing for recording of specific documents get shifted. It was it was a timing request that was put in as a condition of approval by the board. There's nothing in the regulations that say that those housing association documents have to be recorded at the exact same time as the subdivision plot. It's just how it all tied together when we when we did the decision. And it's being requested to be shifted because the act 250 process is taking longer than originally planned. But we can't shift the recording of the plat date any further than we had because of state statute. So we're limited and how much wiggle room there is for recording the plat. So they want to get the plat recorded and have the homeowners association documents be able to be recorded later. So I've given some options on how to do that in the draft motion at the end of the staff report. Great. Thank you. So gave and Dan, you guys want to raise your right hands. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury? I do. You two gave, you and? Yes. Okay. I do. I don't know who's speaking for you, but if you would like to just give a brief summary of what you see, I think may Meredith give us a pretty good shot. But if there's anything you want to add to that or? Yeah, I think we could probably just take any questions and Dan could answer anything technical. I mean, since the approval we've been working on the act 250 process, it's still in administrators, you know, back and forth with questions that they have. And so it hasn't been approved yet. The the land we control the land through purchase and sale agreement, but we don't own the land and won't own the land and close on the land until there's a final land use approval. And so until we have that that state license, we're not able to record an HOA. So that's that's just a technical matter. We're we're hoping it would all be done by now and hope it's done, you know, couple weeks from now, but there's always potential for hearings and appeals periods and all that sort of thing. So just anyway, as Meredith said, we'd like to push it. We agree with her recommendation to push it before any building permits can be issued. Yeah, I think with that, Dan, is there anything you want to add? No, I think that summarized it pretty well. Specifically, it was as Meredith lays out in the staff notes, it was a condition to be in the previous approval regarding the I am sorry to regarding the owner association documents be recorded within 180 days. And as Meredith mentioned, we already requested a 90 day extension, which she granted, which pushes the deadline to January 5. And as Gabe mentioned, we don't anticipate that we'll have to act 250 permit by January 5, allowing for recording of the HOA documents. So we're seeking an extension for that recording and reviewing the staff notes. There at the end, there is the staff suggested motion with revised conditions there and condition or it talks about prior to construction of any occupiable building applicants shall record the owner's association documents detailing ownership access, maintenance rights and responsibilities for commonly owned or maintained property and infrastructure. And we are okay with that condition and okay with the staff notes. Thank you. Any questions from any board members? Meredith, I did have one question for you. So I think that I think that the proposed decision was is excellent. That's I think that's fine. I covers what it needs to do. Does it the permit itself runs for how long? It's to the permit itself is for subdivision. So as soon as they file the plat, that final plat, the subdivision has occurred, the land has been sort of divided under under the regulations. So I mean, the permit zoning permits are good for two years. With subdivision is a little different because you have normally 180 days to record your final plat. That's just because of state statute. So so you know, but the being able to enforce on failures to comply with conditions of a decision that lead to a permit. That's that's that falls under statute of limitations. So we still if you're if you're concerned is whether or not there's still teeth to the any requirement for the HOA documents to be recorded. That's still there even once they file that final plat subdivision plat. Okay, great. Um, would someone entertain a motion on this topic? Yeah. Yeah, I can read what the staff has here. I think we're all in agreement. Uh motion to amend the sports April 11, 2023 decision to approve the application Z dash 2023 dash zero zero one one. So that condition two is amended and condition six is added as followed. Follows one within 180 days of this decision applicants shall record the final survey plan locations of all applicable survey rods and markers. Hey Joe, I think that's the wrong one. Um this is down in the street. Meredith go ahead. That's why it didn't make any sense. Um you see what I mean that it's part of the constructive and applicable buildings. He has to reread he has to reread the first one within 180 days because it's been amended. So the condition one is now amended. And then I actually have once is condition six once is condition four. So I'm just double checking which is the right one. I did a typo myself. Um so no, his his reading that first set is right. Um and it's amend actually create yeah create new condition six. So there's just a little typo in my um laying out of what that new condition six is. Okay. So Joe is right. Yeah. So wait, it's also says condition two is amended and then it says one in there and then condition six. Is that as follows as it says four for that blurb? So there should all match. The automatic numbering screwed me up in the list of conditions underneath. I'm sorry about that. So it is two and six. The first sentence is correct. It's just then the bulleted numbering got screwed up. So it's two and six. All right. So condition two is amended as follows within 180 days of this decision applicant shall record the final survey plot, including the locations of all applicable survey rods and markers in the Montpellier land records office for the procedures detailed in section four four zero five of the zoning regulations and condition six is added as follows prior to construction of any occupable buildings. Applicants shall record the owner's association documents detailing ownership, access and maintenance rights and responsibilities for commonly owned or maintained property and infrastructure. I'll second the motion. Hey. All right. Kevin, how do you vote? Do we have any wait? I'm sorry. Is there any further discussion? Just do people have other questions about this or concerns? I want to cut anybody short here. I'm not seeing anybody. Okay. Kevin, how do you vote? I vote yes. Great. Katherine? Vote yes. Joe? Yes. Brian? Yes. Gene? Yes. Alex? Yes. And I vote yes as well. Thank you very much. You're all set. Thank you all. You're very welcome. I will get that decision out as soon as possible. And I do have one ahead of it that I haven't gotten to that I need to finish up. But I'll get that out as soon as I can. Because I know you guys are raring to get everything tied up. Thank you. There we go. Rob, are you online with us now? He's muted. He's muted. There we go. Hey, Rob. There he is. Hi, Rob. Okay. So we now have eight members present, just as a quick note, Sharon. Okay. So that means that both alternates are not going to vote. But isn't that right? Well, one of them shouldn't be voted. Everybody can take part in the discussion. But one of the alternates need to drop out unless someone else has a conflict on Downing Street. I could drop out since I'm away. Let you guys continue. I appreciate it. Thanks, Gene. You're welcome. All right. Have a good night. We'll see you soon. Okay. Without further ado, Meredith, a brief description of 18 Downing Street, please. Okay. So 18 Downing Street is a proposal to expand a parking area, an existing parking area. And that's the only thing that this parcel is used for is surface parking. And to push that parking area out to do so, there is some impact on steep slopes, because the parking surface area is higher in elevation than the rest of the parcel, which is mostly, you know, some form of green space. And so that's why that the slopes impact is why it's coming to the board, because I couldn't approve that, but everything else would otherwise be an administrative site plan review. Okay. Who do we have here for applicants on this? Lucky Boardman, myself. Okay. And Alicia Filer, I've been working with Lucky Boardman to create the plans. Okay. Anybody else here? There's just the two of you tonight. Okay. They're the only ones representing Sharon. There are neighbors, if you're interested, if you're talking about swearing people in, if any of them want to comment. Yeah, I think I think I'd like to just warn everybody who is going to be testifying and anybody who might be interested from the public to to make comments as well. So that is going to be the two applicants. And I have Patty Jocelyn in the picture here. Is that the right name? Yep. And that's Lucky. Yes, that's correct. Okay. I'm just trying to figure out for my name screens here. Okay. If you can all, what? There's a Mason Singer as well, and I don't know who Patty, I can't, Patty didn't write down the name you have with you. Larry Babak, B-A-B-I-C. Lawrence Babak. Number four, Downing Street. Okay. Thank you. I didn't catch Larry's name last time. Thank you. Okay. So, and Mason, are you going to want to comment? Yes, Sean. Thank you. Okay. All right. All those who are here for the application and who also want to make a comment, please raise your right hand. You solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury. I do. I don't see Lucky Boardman's hand. I mean, I don't see Lucky Boardman. He's there, he said. Yeah. The video is optional, but he's, he... So, we just get to raise our hand without a video? Okay. That seems odd to me. I'd like to see the handshake. Well, it's an honor system tonight. It's sometimes having the video on. So, let's, I'll share in a minute. Okay. What I would like to do at this point is to hear from the applicant or Alicia, whoever, just regarding one of the things that I would like to kind of be talked through the site plan to just see where things are located. Meredith, maybe you can pull that up. So, as they're talking, that is more clear. So, of the applicant, does someone want to start there? Just hold on one second, Sharon. I just, I'm going to check with Alicia because she's really good at sharing these things, and she usually goes to the site plan. So, Alicia, it's up to you if you want me to share or if you want to do it because... Yeah. I'd like to see if you wouldn't mind that when my cursor works. Yeah. Yeah. It sounds great. Thanks, Sharon. You will have to allow me to do that though, Meredith. I think it's disabled. Yep. Sorry. Security issues. Didn't used to have to do that. But now I do. Give it a second and you should be able to share your screen. Perfect. Let me get it. Back up. All right. Is anything visible for you, folks? It looks like it says it's going to be... Yeah. Perfect. Awesome. Thank you for the confirmation. So, and hopefully my cursor keeps up with video feed, but let me know if not. So, the current parking spaces are all along directly along Downing Street. We're proposing to do tandem spaces on the northern end of the parking area. And there's regulations about how many accessible spaces and such like that. We had added one. There's some comments. So, I would like to share an alternate site plan, which is very little difference, but I will point out all the differences. The difference is we've excluded the use of this space now so that any handicap accessible space being occupied here and now here will be able to maneuver to Downing Street. So, two spaces for accessible parking is for any number of parking spaces between 25 and 50, and we're in the 29 category. So, we needed an additional handicap parking space. So, that has been added. They will share the aisle, and the aisle is adequate for the van accessible space. And also, I will... I don't know how to get back to the other one with my... The little bars in the way. Let me see if I can go down here. Sorry about that. So, the other change was this is how it was proposed before. This swale, I'll talk about it in just one second, but I'll show you the different design, which is it's just a different configuration. Kurt Modica of the Department of Public Works indicated that he just wanted to confirm any type of concentrated flow coming from the site. And so, the swale is actually, I think, two or four feet longer in this configuration than it was in the other, but now we've added a level spreader at the end. So, essentially the water will be collected. Come through here, it twists and turns so that it slows down some, and it comes into this level spreader where it spills over this lip, which spreads out the flow along a contour instead of at a particular spot. So, we had talked... I wasn't able to communicate directly with Kurt, but through email we corresponded, and he had indicated that he had that concern. I did also look at the watersheds from the existing current conditions and the proposed development, and there's, I think that there was about 1,200 additional square feet of area going to this area, excuse me, to the same property line along this southern corner. But with this swale, the actual flow rate has not been increased. So, although there's 1,500 square feet additional, out of I think it's about 20,000 square feet of watershed, that the flow rate has not increased coming off of that corner. So, we did read those staff comments and hopefully have addressed that in this revised plan. Okay. Did Kurt Montoya get back to you about the revised plan? Did that work for him? He has not had an opportunity to. Well, we got comments a little bit late in the week, and I struggled to get things into the schedule, and so I can certainly share them with him. I do have the hydrologic modeling to support the pre and post conditions that I can provide to him as well. Okay. Does the board have particular questions? You know, I wouldn't mind a description, so you're, I just want to make sure that I understand this, that the bottom left of the page is sort of the entrance into Downing Street, correct? Yeah. That's going up the hill, and the spaces are going to be additional behind the already existing spaces, right? Yes. Okay. Yep. These up here. Those are the new ones. Okay. Yes. Okay. And I also just thought I should mention the area of disturbance has increased with the revised plan, but not the disturbance to steep slopes. That area remains the same as it was previously. There's 521 square feet of 30 to 50 percent slopes that are being impacted by this plan. There is an additional drainage issues or concerns behind the new, like directly behind the new parking spots? I have graded the parking so that they collect inward on each other, so they should flow directly down the center between the two sets of spaces. That way they will be directed into the stormwater swale and avoid going directly off of it. Sometimes we want that disconnection to come just kind of sheet flow nicely off, but because we had to prove out the pre and post based on the stormwater regulations in the section, I had to collect them and trap them in. Okay. Thank you. Does anyone have any questions on this? Rob? Yes. Once the water goes through the level spreader and out, is there a storm drain or whatnot? Or is it just going to the ground? There is no storm. Nope. There is no storm drain. And this is the same drainage pattern as it is now. So the contours, and I can't, how do I get there? One, two, three, four. So this is the property line of Downing Street and the North Branch Department, and that was the particular property that Kurt had indicated about because it is in that southern corner. The gray area versus the box hatch is the area that currently goes there. And the box hatch is the area that now will go there. So there's a thin strip because of the way we have the collection that's actually being collected now into that same area. So the overall area going here is the same area as previously. But because we collect it in here, it slows it down slightly. Because I just have one question. That is, how did that area perform on July 7th with flood? I cannot speak to that. Perhaps Lucky has some information about that. I mean, there's nothing particular we paid attention to. Obviously, the whole city was devastated. So I think it got wet, but we didn't monitor a pattern or any particular depths or runoff locations for us for sure. No notice of erosion in any particular area over there. Well, nothing excessive and nothing that the neighbors made note of or we've seen work on. So I believe it's as it was in any rain store. We can speak to that, but I don't see a place to raise our hand because we have this screen chair. We've been in Patty and Larry at four Downing. Thank you. We can speak to that. There was a lot of runoff and it went down into the basement of Washington County Mental Health and it went flooding through the road, which as you all know, maybe you don't know, is a dead end, very narrow street, very narrow, partially paved in bad condition street with already too much traffic between Washington County Mental Health, the apartments and people who live here. We just had a fire truck and ambulance about 10 days ago for a propane smell in one of Mr. Boardman's building and they even had trouble getting up in and out of the road. It's a very narrow road. We're very concerned about more traffic. We're also concerned where with the dumpsters though, there's a dumpster right now that is literally sometimes in the road and it's not private property. It's public road and the dumpster sometimes sits in the road. We're concerned about the left of the so-called swales. There are four spaces that are actually what we understand are least too lucky, but through way of Washington County Mental Health. So those are actually spaces that are temporarily owned. There's a lot of unfinished business in this whole proposal. I'm sure Mason might be able to speak more about it, but we definitely have concerns about losing green space. Larry and I had apartment buildings in Montpelier for years and years and we're big on private ownership and it's been this is a tricky thing for us. I know we're talking about runoff right now, but I'm wondering how do you access those other I'm sorry, who was that? I'm sorry, Larry Beck. Patty Dawson's part. Can you guys just repeat your address please? Poor Dally. Thank you. We're the only residential house on the street. All the other houses are commercial. Mason, I see you have your hand up. First a procedural question. How do we proceed with asking questions? I've got some questions about the proposal and I've got some also some thoughts about it. So what is I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with what your procedure is and when I should open my mouth and what I should Well, I think their opportunity is for you now to ask questions. So if you have a question or two that that would be a good good time to put it out there. First, I'm wondering why this proposal? What is driving it? Why are we needing to attend 10 more parking spaces in this space? That's one question. Another question is have design review members actually done a site review of this? Have they actually gone to the site and Do you mean development review? The design review committee who are reviewing this? Have they actually gone to the site and seen this and what understand the street? Okay. Meredith, this is the application. I think that the design review committee did look at. Is that correct? Yeah, they did. I mean, the design review committee has a very limited scope of review, very limited jurisdiction. It's very specific criteria that have to do with how the proposal fits into the rest of the design review district. More on usually it has to do with buildings and architectural standards. And so there wasn't a whole lot about this project that actually fit into their narrow scope of review. Their review was mostly about, you know, landscaping or other issues. It is not anything to do with how it works with the neighborhood. So who would be responsible, like for instance, safety issues with the design review committee, have no jurisdiction on that? That's not the design review. That calls falls into if you were able to access my staff report that's in the agenda. Anything like that about how vehicles might get back out onto the street? Anything like that is part of the development review board's jurisdiction tonight as supplemented with comments from the Department of Public Works whose comments flowed through and their comments were part of the packet. And the public works was really more concerned with the stormwater issues that was some of their bigger concerns and making sure that the ADA spaces actually had access aisles all the way to Downing Street. If this is purely about aesthetic issues and just issues about drainage or the appearance of drainage, what is the exact process for this? Because my primary concerns, I really like the idea of trying to clean up the parking on Downing Street. I've owned a building on Downing Street for 40 years. As you can guess, I've seen a lot of change over that time. The street itself has never changed. The city hasn't done any work on it in less than 40 years. But the surroundings have changed. And so my primary concerns are about safety and how there will be, this morning I tried to go into Downing Street, the road was blocked by an oil truck which had back into a vehicle that was parked. Legally. And so the road was blocked for half an hour or so. My own truck has been back into twice by people backing out of the spaces and I have a permit now legally. So I have issues about how 10 more vehicles will affect this area. And also, I don't know if the people aren't aware, there are no sidewalks on Downing Street. There is only room for one vehicle that vehicles are parked to pass on the street. There is no adequate way to turn around on the street. I had really at first thought this would be a wonderful addition to clean up some of that, provide some space for turning around, make a space for the trash which does blow out of the dumpsters frequently and ends up in the front yard of my office. But when I reviewed this, I was really surprised to see what the plan is. And so I really like the idea of a plan. I really have a lot of questions about both the safety recommendations and the aesthetic recommendations of this particular. So I'm happy to be advised as to how I should be able to air that. I guess I would say that you are doing that now. And this is the right place to do that. I guess the question, it's not really in the preview of the development review board to ask why people want what they want. If the applicant wants to talk about that, that is fine. But that's not something that we would require. And other thoughts from other board members? Responses to Mason's statement? I'm looking. Ann's going up here. Meredith? Just on a couple of clarification items, one on process and one on the trash issue. They're really, they're sort of processed still. So one, Mason, just to clarify the process. So this project has dual review. So it went through the design review committee first right on a very limited review status. And then it goes to the development review board. And for the development review board, their review is limited to the project. And the project is about expansion of the parking space. And maybe Lucky or Alicia could give guidance on this. I think, and I'm trying to look here, I think that the trash area is technically off this parcel. I think that they lease space on the Washington County Mental Health parcel, maybe for the trash, the dumpster location. So I know that's a concern of yours, but I don't think that actually is something the DRB can talk about with this particular project because it's a different parcel. Lucky or Alicia, correct me if I'm wrong on that one. I understand the schematic. Actually, the area that shows couple parking spaces is really occupied by the trash dumpsters, which are right. So this proposal, which is my understanding is that Washington County Mental Health actually owns that property, but when they bought it, it would lead to a three-year lease with this award to be able to use it. That three-year lease would be up, of course, soon. And I don't know what arrangements have been made, but I understand correctly and I might not on this proposal on the schematic in showing two parking spaces, which were actually used or actually Washington County Mental Health property and are currently used by the dumpster. I might be wrong. Which was, excuse me for interrupting again, Patty Dawson, poor Downing Street, where was not able to be picked up again today at 6.35 or whatever time they picked up on Monday mornings because there's no room for the truck to take the trash dumpster away, lift the dumpster up, because the cars are already so close together. So it's an overflowing dumpster for the second week now. Just for clarity, again, not a project, but the project, if there's parking, needs a space for trash removal. So it is kind of tied into the project. I know it's different than it is. It's married to the project. So I'm just going to have to reiterate what Meredith said there, that if it's on a separate piece of property, we can't include it because it's important, which is to say that it is important, but that's not really at the project we're looking at. But it's in the plan. But it is part of the spaces in the so-called plan. One moment, please. One moment, please. We want to take turns speaking. Who's interested at this point? Alex? I didn't drop that. I repeat Patty's question. I don't understand why if the land lease from Washington County Mental Health is included in the project, why it is excluded for our discussion. I guess my understanding was, and Meredith correct me if I'm wrong, that that property was not part of the plan. So hold on one second. Alicia or Lucky should probably talk to this, but hold on one second. Hold on. Alicia or Lucky, this here is where there's currently a retaining wall, correct? That separates the Washington County Mental Health land from the Lucky's property, right? Yes. And so this is where that wall is. And no, the only part, no? Excuse me, the fourth place is on the other side of that retaining wall or Washington County Mental Health that is leased. According to the tax map, this is actually a property line. Not leased, but oh, okay, can I please have Lucky or Alicia speak to this instead right now to get their opinion on it so I can get clarification as to what they are attesting to? Lucky, feel free to correct me. My understanding is, is the plat that was recorded includes those four parking spaces as part of the quote, 18 or the Downing Street property. To my knowledge, yes, everything in that tax map we're deeded is, is what we see here. So, so the last four spaces on this map here are not leased from anyone, they're part of the section of property. That's correct. When Washington County Building was originally sold, there was a talk to lease that parking to them. And I think that's the confusion. Well, I beg excuse me, Paddy Johnson, again, I beg to differ and I'm sorry. Somebody's here not from Washington County, but we've spoken to them and one of them we're going to be here to represent. So that's going to be a new point until clarification can happen. So if nothing else, this is, this needs to be adjourned until clarity is gathered because that is, well, you guys can do what you want, but it is a narrow road that fire trucks can't get up. Well, adding or subtracting parking is not going to change the roads width. So what we're attempting to do is we're not adding nine more vehicles to the lot. The apartments are the same quantity. There's the same amount of apartments today and tomorrow. What we're doing is we're adding more available space for them to maneuver those vehicles that they already have and are trying to fit up there. So you're seeing it as a, an addition to the area, but in reality, it's making more room to the existing area. So the apartments, the 14 apartments aren't going to change to, you know, 23. It's the same people that parked yesterday that are going to park there when this is complete, but we're allowing nine more spaces worth of available room. So we're actually alleviating the issue by adding more room. Actually, they're causing a problem with people backing up and backing into an hour road, but again, until I think, I think until you get clarity of who owns that property. Patty. Excuse me. Is that Patty? Yeah. Okay. It sounds like you've made that point. And I think we'll take that under consideration. Thank you. Brian. Yeah. Hi. My name is Brian Jones. I'm on a DRB. Just listening to this kind of discussion about more parking versus parking maneuverability and street access. Is it possible that this, that some kind of an improved turnaround condition could be built into this to, because you're saying additional spots aren't being created or needed perhaps, but that's obviously what's being shown. And at the same time, hearing some pretty strong concerns about maneuverability and if there's not need for more spots than some of those spots on the end of the parking lot could potentially be used to create a turnaround and maybe that would not need for them. That's what we're doing is there, there is need for them. And we don't have that. So that's where the tightness of the area presents itself. So there's 14 units there. So if every unit has one to two cars, there's a potential 20 something cars snugged into these spots. But by allowing the tenants to park in tandem, you know, Bob with, you know, Billy, who cares, they're allowed to park in tandem and alleviate the width issue of the spot. So they can park whomever stays in apartment one. If there's two vehicles can now park front to back based on their living schedule versus trying to cram in side by side in between snow and in between another vehicle. Meredith, may I share my screen real quick? Yeah, I guess you can. I'm sorry, maybe I should have asked Sharon, sorry. Fine. Yeah, and sorry about that, leaving that up. I just maybe might help a little bit. So with the with the proposed plan, I'm trying to zoom in and not coordinated here. So currently the edge of the gravel for the existing parking is obviously along Downing Street. We all know that. And it runs kind of, it runs real tight up to the contours as it starts going up the hill. We have brought back the edge of the parking a few feet, which I know seems like maybe nothing. But when you're out in a tight space, a few feet is a big deal. We brought those parking spaces a little bit further south. And so we have increased the maneuverability some of of backing and using the extended piece now because we have those extra feet. Now I'm not saying if somebody has their vehicle parked at the end of Downing Street that it won't cause some issues just like any narrow street that we deal with in city living. But that has helped some also these parking spaces are proposed to be paved and line striped. So people will have much more clear pronounced visualization of where the stop and start is. So hopefully they'll pull in all the way to the space, stay in the parking spaces instead of having a tail end hang out the back. But certainly, certainly we don't own Downing Street in order we want to own Downing Street to to upgrade it in any type of way. So we're kind of stuck with what we're what we're working with here. I don't know if that if that helps at all. Okay. I see Mason. Thank you Alicia. That was helpful actually. And also finding out more about the the lease agreement with the folks down across the street was helpful. I'm wondering about snow. It's going to be much more asphalt. The snow removal has been difficult for your folks to deal with I'm sure. And so I'm wondering how will you deal with this much more need the greater need for snow removal. And also a question just about so at this point, the there are these two parking spots that are being an additional parking spots being created. A car will have to move every time the second car wants to get out. So that is going to create more of a more strategic need there for dealing with that. Is the drainage on the backs of the lower the inner side. Is that drainage slanted down will this be creating like a V shaped or like an inverted V shape. So that is a slight incline for the outer car and then a drop off for the inner car. So the the parking spaces along the along Downing Street will call those the Downing Street Park spaces versus the furthest spaces will call them. Those spaces lean down into the into the backside of the the next space. So the water is collected on Downing on this properties pavement and will funnel toward that swell. So it's not extra flowing onto Downing Street. It's not extra flowing sheet flowing right off the other end. It's not Scott you know we're we're collecting it in our space and directing it to that swell. During you know during when people are going to work in the morning and coming home at night obviously there's more traffic there. So that will be there will be a big increase in terms of just people pulling in trying to maneuver while two vehicles now start just being able to pull out and leave. They're going to have to get some of them with the first vehicle. So right now getting like emergency vehicles up the street. This is Patty's version pretty difficult. The street is frequently blocked like the cellar or Myers trucks for periods of time. During several days and it's hard to traverse it during that time. This is going regardless of anything but this is an improvement or not. It is going to be more cars on the street and it's going to be more traffic on the street. So I'm just concerned that this is already a street that is really difficult. There have been near misses. There's no access but there's no safe place for pedestrians. And having more traffic to me is really worrisome. And we've had I had to help a woman who nearly got hit by a car fell over and take the help her get her up get her out of the way. It's not an uncommon occurrence that kids are on the street on tricycles or just running around and playing. It's really a difficult street and it's caused many arguments from people who have lived there over the years and I can attest to that personally. And so I'm not opposed to this as opposed to an improvement at all. I think it's really going to be wonderful to see it. But I really am concerned about the fact that more cars are going to be trying to turn around. There is no increase in access force for me. And it seems to me like this having two cars one part and back of the other is really a recipe for the trouble. So I don't hear a real acknowledgement of this in the plan or any way to deal with it. Joe. Did you have a comment? Yes. I mean the moment kind of passed. But I do feel like the complaints that I've been hearing from the public here seem to be focused around the street, the city's property. And I just wanted to reiterate that we as DRB members are only looking at the project as it's presented in front of us. And we can't do anything in this meeting about the street itself. Traffic counts are generated by apartments as the applicant has stated. It's not the number of parking spots. It's the number of dwelling units that actually... So I'm assuming this project didn't need a traffic study or anything like that because they're not adding any additional there. So we really are just looking at the slopes that are being impacted here. We are not considering the street itself or any conflicts that may happen on that street as part of this meeting. Thank you. Rob? I largely agree with what Joe just said. I think it's a sort of a policy decision here related to the application with the DRB in that we have two questions. We've got, all right, we got steep slope disturbance that triggered the application to come before us for discussion. Because before us, because it's discussion, we are allowed to answer the question about whether we feel like the proposed development, the increased parking spaces, has an impact on pedestrian access and circulation as it directs. So I guess what I'm asking is like, we as a board maybe should decide as to whether, as application presented, whether we want to or do not want to take on that issue. Seems like there's kind of a fork in the road here. We could talk about parking all night, but we also have like this very specific reason that came with steep slopes disturbance. There's erosion. There's a stormwater plan. Does that check the boxes? Maybe we can get the steep slopes sort of like understanding out of the way and then decide whether we want to, how we want to tackle the pedestrian access and traffic circulation, you know, issue that may or may not be something we want to tackle at all. I think we ought to make that decision. Can I just say one point of clarification? Is that all right? Yeah. I beg to differ a bit about Downing Street being public. It's the way this, there is no curb. It's all a curb cut there. The city does control curb cuts and access from property, private property on the street. That is part of the consideration here. Downing Street is actually the upper part of Downing Street is really part of, it's not technically or legally part of modern property, but for all practical purposes, it is an extension of that property and there's no way to do that. So to try and just simply put the city straight off as a separate entity is really misleading if you've ever been on the street and so that all of those cars pull immediately out onto the street. If this were Mr. Bourbon's property, up or Downing Street, there would be no issue whatsoever. It's only and you can't really separate, in my mind, the public street there. I mean, you might be able to legally separate, but in terms of any of the issues that we're discussing, it's part of the process. Mason, I think that that is a perspective on what Rob just said, that the board needs to discuss a little bit here. Rob, I do like the bifurcation of the issues like the steep slopes. I think that we could have a discussion about whether we feel like that, that they mitigated that sufficiently. I'm a little sad that we don't have, haven't heard back from the Department of Public Works on that, but it looks like it looks to me like it is dealing with what they are mandated to do by regulation. Do other board members have thoughts about that steep slope portion of the evening? Alex? I, for one, would like to hear back from Public Works. I mean, they asked for things. The applicants attempted to provide them, but there has been no response from Public Works. If it's a motion, I can second that. I'd like to hear from Public Works as well. Yeah, I would as well. So I think you're asking the right question. Okay, so I think we actually have to make a motion. We can't just say that was really great. I'd like that as a motion if somebody could make that motion. What would the motion have to be to continue this discussion until there has been a response on the steep slopes, until there has been a response from Public Works? I think correct me if I'm wrong, Meredith, but I think that did you want to just say it, Meredith? You go ahead and ask your question. Okay, I was just going to say that I would think that if that there could be a motion to continue the hearing to the next meeting in anticipation of a response from Public Works regarding the project. So if you do that, that does it now with no further discussion and everything is sort of closed out. You can, if that's one of the things you're thinking you want to make sure you have, being able to wait till you do that until you've been able to give the applicant direction on any other items that might need to be coming would be good. I don't think I would make that motion to continue right now. I would put it in your list of items that when you're everybody satisfied, you've hashed out everything you need to do tonight. You do that. If you're ready to do that now and be done for tonight, but also just I think it sounded like there were some other issues that there might be discussion. I didn't think that that was a move to close the meeting. I mean, I think that Rob put it well when we talked about the steep slope portion of it and then whether the board needs to have a discussion about whether we want to or is it appropriate to or do we, you know, where we are in the parking thing, you know, on this, on the street activity, you know, I mean, so yeah, I mean, there could be a, there could be, I don't know, you've always sort of had the straw poll with the hands going up that everybody wants that to be one of the things that's requested is to wait get more input from public works. I would wait and do it all in a motion at the end personally, because once you say continued, I don't think you're supposed to then continue discussion tonight on it. Okay. I mean, I wasn't, I wasn't looking for a motion at that moment. I was trying to figure out what's going on. Sorry, that's why it sounded to me like you were looking for a motion. That's all versus yeah, somebody seconding a non motion is what I was responding to. Okay, so here we are back at the thing that is definitely an option to later in the meeting continue the hearing if we are, if people are interested in hearing back from the Department of Public Works on the a rodent and water control, etc. on the site. Joe, thank you. Yes, I just have some questions for the applicant regarding the slopes. What is the maximum proposed slope? I believe the steep slopes are isolated to the rear of the end of Downing Street there by the parking spaces. But correct me if I'm wrong. And also what is the maximum existing slope in that area? Sure. So the steep slopes, the existing site plan are on the northern end. Let me just share that back. And too much better pointing at it with a cursor than ambiguous. So the existing steep slopes are here where they had originally graded for those front spaces and pushed, you know, it changed the natural grade. And then there's I think that there was a little strip right in here that got a little bit tight when I had to push out the storm water. So those those are between the 30 and 50% slope existing. We are proposing the this strip to be a 50% slope because otherwise if we have it shallower, we're destroying vegetation up the hill. We're just chasing the grade up the hill. These ones are being proposed at one on three side slopes, which are 33%, which is a very standard grading practice for small areas when we have erosion control matting and establish a vegetation cover. And then the swale is built out of two on one side, which is 50% slope facing inward on themselves with a flat bottom and serpentine until it gets to that. So we we've disturbed some steep slopes and created steep slope as part of the drainage protection and slowing down of runoff. Okay. For the one on one slopes in the northeast corner there, what are you proposing for stabilizing those slopes? So just want it's one on two. So one vertical for two horizontal. Yeah. So it's 50% is what they they call it. And so that would have an erosion control matting. I have a straw coconut 150 bionet matting called out to use on that. And then a seed mix, I can provide a seed mix specification to Mr. Boardman that indicates fast growing type grasses and then also the longevity of those. Once you clarify that they're one on two slopes and not one on one slopes that alleviated my concern. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Sure. Okay. Other questions, comments? Meredith? Meredith? Check and see if any of the other board members have something first just in case it's mine sort of revisiting something for point of clarity. Okay. I don't see anybody else. Go for it. Okay. And I'm happy to do some research on this if the meeting does get continued. So I did have a separate question in the chat. I just need to make this public. So Patty asked me about whether there was anything from Washington County mental health in regards to at least or not of the property where we had that discussion earlier. And I just want to flag out there that I can't seem to find the actual boundary line adjustment that occurred, but during the just before Lucky's company bought the parcel, the prior owner did a boundary line adjustment with 34 Elm Street, which is the Washington County mental health parcel. If I remember correctly, those four parking spaces got added to the parcel that Lucky purchased prior to that transfer of ownership. So I can between now and the next meeting, if it's done, get a copy of that boundary line adjustment approval from the city clerk's office if people want it. But I was able to find the emails, but everything was done in paper and we didn't have electronic copies of the flats. The permit for that boundary line adjustment is actually mentioned in the staff report. And Meredith, I'm not sure if you can see my screen. I do have a copy. It's not a official because I did that. It's just a screenshot of something when I was looking at the land records. But I think it has a date that might help you clarify that a little bit. Yeah, no. But that's, I mean, she's showing you right there what I would be showing you in a larger format. There's my signatures as approved for the boundary line adjustment to add land, that land. Okay, so that is the boundary line. Yep. Yeah, excellent. Thank you, Alicia. Thank you. All right. Other people looking to comment. I guess so. Yeah, go for it. I'm seeing, it seems like there's an ongoing discussion in progress, you know, about the current plan and the runoff, you know, with public works and maybe a state stormwater permit that may or not be happening. And Alicia's shaking her head no on that state stormwater permit. I don't know. I just, I do have a slight concern about the, you know, the slopes that got existing and the, you know, how close the proposed development is to the buildings. And so I just want to make sure that if public works was planning on doing any additional review that we do have all that information, but it seems unclear from the back and forth as to like what's left for them to do or if we're waiting on anything from them. So they haven't provided comments on the Alicia's updated design. Part of that is also because the city's budget Congress was last week. So between that, which and Kurt isn't basically the lead on this because they're down an engineer. So as the director for DPW, he was managing trying to review plans and dealing with budget stuff. So I think he just couldn't get to it last week. And I know, you know, I had a hard time getting in this morning. So I think he probably living remotely like me probably has been home today or just dealing with putting out fires from all the snow we got. So I think he'll review it as soon as he can, but I think he just couldn't get to it today or at last end of last week. Okay. I definitely hear some and agree with the idea that we should hear back from Grand Department of Public Works. What about the, are we looking at outside of this parking lot, this one parcel conversation? You know, the applicant is for the parcel and it's for the parking on the parcel. And I feel a little bit like that sort of the end of our jurisdiction is what this applicant is asking for. You know, I certainly understand and hear that the neighbors have other concerns. Other board member thoughts on this? Katherine? I had a question more for Meredith around the regs. I agree with Rob earlier on the point around the sort of bifurcation between the steep slope issue and the bike and pedestrian access and circulation, which is highlighted on page nine of 12. And I think here, you know, it's a street without a sidewalk, which is also steep. And just curious whether you had any recommendations for us around treatment of, you know, pedestrian safety and parking in on streets without a sidewalk. Because this is, you know, it's a situation with no sidewalk and also density. So it's not no sidewalk where, you know, there are a few people coming and going. So maybe if you go ahead, then we'll hear from Joe. Yeah. So, you know, this is, there's lots of streets in Montpelier that don't have sidewalks. We dealt with that when we were reviewing the Isabelle Circle project. When DPW reviewed this project, they didn't make any comments about where this street is in the larger, for some reason, I can't complete streets program. And the evaluation of which streets trigger addition of sidewalks. Usually it's triggered by a density, you know, number of dwelling units on a street situation. So I don't know the specifics on where down in street falls on that. You know, as Rob said, when a project comes to you, you do have jurisdiction over all of the zoning regs that I, you know, provisions that I lay out in the staff report. And you don't have to agree with what I would, what I have said in here, you can disagree with me and go your own way on it. You know, the whether you think going to tandem parking spaces is a change in circulation is, you know, up to the board. It's within your your thought to say it does. My thought was it doesn't really change the circulation and the tandem parking is something that's allowed as a way to to fit in parking spaces. And it boils down to in some ways, a management by the the people, you know, using those parking spaces. We all do that in driveways throughout the city, where, you know, an individual driveway is narrow. And there's not always places to turn around. They're they're all up and down the smaller parcel sized streets, where you have a short parking, you know, short driveway, two cars park in and they figure out who's coming and leaving first. But it's, you know, it's up to the board whether or not they feel like this particular arrangement needs something more now that it's in your in your court. Does that help, Catherine? Yeah, thank you. While while still while still leaving the ball in your court. Joe, did you have a comment you wanted to make? Yes, although I'm guessing myself a little bit, but I guess I agree with the chair that we should really be looking at the project as it is presented to us. Unfortunately, we can't solve all of Montpelier's infrastructure issues as much as we'd like to. You know, short of purchasing part of one of these properties, there's nothing you can do to Downing Street to make it wider. You would the city would have to purchase an easement at the very least to occupy maybe the end of it, you know, with some of those parking spaces and things, but to ask the applicant to do that just out of his own goodwill is just not something that we can do. And it doesn't it just completely falls out of the scope of what we're trying to do here. Downing Street looking at it is essentially a public glorified shared driveway. You know, it doesn't go anywhere. It leads to a few buildings, the services of few buildings, which it's been stated in this meeting that not many of them are residential. So I hope this isn't insulting, but I hope people of concerns can understand that that puts it low on the priority list of things that need to be fixed in the city. And that being said, there isn't anything from an engineering perspective you can do to make that street more accessible, short of widening it, short of taking down all the utility poles, purchasing land. I mean, it's an incredibly complicated process. And for those reasons, I would rather not consider those while considering this project as it stands. And I guess just for the record, I'm willing to go ahead without DPW's recommendation just based on what's present in front of us, one on three, one on two slopes are probably standard. There's nothing unusual about them. Obviously, if DPW came back and had concerns, I would want to listen to that. And I think that can be part of our motion at the end of this meeting. But I'm content with what I've seen here without the recommendation. I think that we could include DPW's approval of it as a condition of this, I think. That is certainly a possibility. Other board members? Other members of the public? I'm sorry, Brian. There you go. Thanks. Yeah. Thanks, Sharon. I realized that the stormwater management infrastructure has been designed. And I was asking Meredith privately an email to see the difference between the newly proposed and the old proposed, but I don't really think it's critical. I think a concern that I had in looking at this outside of stormwater management was simply this question about snow. And if you have now two deep parking spaces, it's really more of a question about regulations and applicability. It's not like someone's trying to open up a can of worms. We're just saying we have stormwater management as something that's clearly defined to address this. And we have a stormwater management plan that clearly addresses it. It seems in many re-reads of this tonight, that we're not kind of overbuilding parking on the site. But it seems to me that there is also another practical concern for water management, which is that you now have a parking lot, which is 20 feet closer to a property line, which already slopes downhill towards about, well, probably three, maybe arguably four other properties. And that snow management issue as it relates to water management is not going to be addressed with the stormwater management infrastructure, because it's going to be cleared, or maybe it's a question, but for everybody, it's like, what happens to that snow? And how do we, is this something that we should be thinking about, even if it's not specifically called out in these regs. And am I making my question clear too, which is to say that if all that snow is getting moved somewhere, it's not being absorbed by the stormwater infrastructure, swales, and maybe you call it catch basin or something, it's going to go down that hill. And when all that snow melts, all that water is going to go down that hill. And I'm just wondering if there are any strategies that have been considered, or again, if this is even something that other members of the board think is worth considering. I could speak to that. Looking at the existing contours and the proposed contours, I can, it does slope a little bit towards the other properties, but ultimately a good portion of that runoff is going to end up in their drainage soil that they proposed. That being said, snow is not like rain in that it doesn't release its moisture all at once. So you get a heavy rain, you're getting more water coming down that hill than a huge pile of snow, just because only some of it is melting at any given time. So yes, maybe moist there with a big pile of snow later into the year, but as far as the snow melting all at once and flooding out a building, that's just not going to happen. Also from a snow perspective, clearing the street, let me know additional snow falling on the street itself. The applicant will have more responsibility as far as clearing snow from parking spaces, but there still seems to be plenty of green space that they're leaving on the far side of the new parking spaces to stockpile snow. Or even if you wanted to place it over the new drainage structure, there's lots of options for that. The snow is not really a concern from my point of view. It's not a kind of a regulatable issue, it sounds like. Well, I'm sorry to interrupt, but to Joe's point, so the town maintains and plows that, and they plow all the snow to the end. So there's a large area back there that they stockpile all that. So then as it melts, it goes down into that parking or into that road anyways. So theoretically, the catch basin would catch a large portion of that, because all the town and everybody just pushes it to the end of the road. That's where all the snow goes. Okay. Other thoughts, questions? Patty Jocelyn here. I'd like to just echo maybe something Mason said at the very beginning of the meeting. Why? Why this parking? Why do we need more spaces? Why not fix the retaining wall in the back of the building? Why not get rid of the squirrels? I mean, I don't want to be emotional or, again, pride or ownership is really important to us. And why? So I don't even need an answer. Just something for the board to think about. Thank you. Thank you all. Thanks, Patty. All right. Where are we at, folks? Meredith, can I ask a permit question? Can a permit be written to be approved on the condition of DPW's approval? Or does DPW need to weigh in and then the board reconvene and review it? And then, you know what I mean? It can go both ways. It's up to the board. They can continue it until they hear DPW's comments if they feel that that's necessary. Or they can approve it on condition of DPW signing off on the stormwater and any revised erosion control plans. And then that's just a condition of the permit. That's how we issue the permit. And then if for some reason there's disagreement between you and I happened to go back to the board for an amended permit. Okay. Thanks. So my inclination is to do something along those lines. You know, I would ask the two people who wanted to specifically hear back from DPW if that would work for them. But I feel like it put me in a conditional upon their approval that, you know, that takes care of the concern. They're not going to get their permit without DPW approval, which I think is the concern. Also, it's comforting for me to hear that Joe says that he thinks that the plan sounds pretty good. Other thoughts? I'm willing to go along with that approach, Sharon. Okay. Brian? Oh yeah, I just had a quick question for Meredith and forgive me because you may have already sent this and I just forgot about it. But next month, do we have two items or do we have one? So I'm just thinking about would it be really difficult to pick this up or should we just make a proviso that says, you know, that this is conditional? But anyway, that was a question. Do we have two items next month? No. So I'm not going to say next month, your next meeting. Sorry, sorry, man. Which is in two weeks. Your next meeting, which is in two weeks, there's one application, it's a sketch plan subdivision application. Okay. Two parcels subdivision. That's kind of big. That's a lot to go through, but it's not a 20 lot subdivision. So that's good. Perfect. So I'll just make clear what I'm thinking, although I guess everybody's already knows, it's just to say if we pause it here and we said, we know in which direction we're leaning, but maybe we want to give time for that decision to come back first and then we still will have ample time to possibly do a quick review at the next meeting without overloading ourselves. So maybe I should make a motion at this point to revisit this at the next meeting, provided there's a decision from DPW. So what's the advantage there in terms of not making, you know, using the conditional form, you know what I'm saying? This permit is approved based on DPW coming through and approving what they put in there. I mean, to me, that just shortens the process for everybody and it accomplishes the same thing. But if there's, if there's some question about that, I don't, I'm not trying to cut anybody out. Alex? I don't think they're exactly the same thing because waiting to hear back from DPW was open-ended, whereas saying we approve what we want their stamp on it is not quite as open-ended, just as a matter of, you know, logic and framing. But do you have a preference? My preference would be to continue. Meredith, when we, if we were to do it the non-continuation way, what from DPW would actually cancel the permit or require a re-approval? Basically, if they fail, if the applicant and DPW fail to agree on a plan, it's basically in violation of the condition and probably I would just say, okay, you know, and basically, have you guys make a motion to maybe reopen it or it'd be an application to amend the permit to come back to you because they're disagreeing with DPW? Probably it would be an application coming back to the board to amend it because otherwise it's a violation of the condition and they don't want me to just issue, they wouldn't be able to do the project, right? Right. Okay. Right. Kind of bunch of people here interested in talking. Okay, real quick. Then my preference would be to not continue and to just add that condition. Okay, Rob? Yeah, I've got, I guess, a concern and a suggested motion to move things along. I'm going to make the motion and we can discuss it, throw it out, project it, do what we want to do. But so my motion would be to continue to the next meeting. That gives Public Works two weeks to review, come back, we can see the plan. That's not my concern. But I think at the next meeting, we need to really discuss whether we have an application to look at access and circulation as part of this application or not. And we give the application time to come prepared to participate in that discussion based on their project as to whether they think that it applies or doesn't apply. And so summary of the motion, continue the next meeting, Public Works has time to respond. And we discuss as a board the next meeting, I think an issue that I really don't know the answer to as to like what our role is, as to whether we include access and circulation review as part of this application or not. I'm split on that at this point. Katherine? I'd agree with Rob's approach. So that's going to make a similar suggestion. So I'll put my hand down. So are you seconding Rob's motion so that then there can be discussion about it? Yeah, I'll second Rob's motion. Thank you for getting us to the process, Meredith. Yeah. I heard a cat. All right. Okay, so we have a motion and a discussion in a second. And now we can have some more discussion. Do we want to leave it? I would like a clarified version of the motion so I know exactly what it is we're discussing. I mean, absolutely. All right. So as far as this application goes, there's two items on the agenda for the next meeting, two parts. One is we will review any revised stormwater plans per hopefully comments from Public Works. The second one is that we will discuss the policy issue as first as the question is whether you know, the access and circulation provisions by adding parking spaces on this property are to be evaluated, you know, as part of our review or not. And if they are to be evaluated, you know, we will do that evaluation. So considering that we can eliminate the first part of that just by adding the condition that DPW and the applicant come to an agreement that DPW is happy with, I don't think it's fair to delay the applicant because of some kind of existential, you know, procedural... I don't know what the term is, but you know what I'm getting at, like this is an issue that the DRB needs to discuss within ourselves. It's not fair to involve the applicant in that process, you know, via their time. If they wanted to get this project done quickly, we're delaying them. It's not even worth asking them if they want to get the project done quickly though because I just don't think it's fair. I don't think it's up to them to have to give us something so we can try and figure out what our role is as a DRB. Wrong reaction. Okay, Brian, you've got two hands up there. Sorry, guys. I accidentally hit the clap. That was well said, Joe, but in respect, we just disagree that two weeks, I mean, just simply on the point of two weeks not being kind of, you know, outrageous amount of time for us to kind of further deliberate this. And I do think that in support of the idea of Rob's motion, when we're presented with things, cases like this that maybe start to stretch how we want to review things, that we need to take the opportunity to do that because that's going to help improve the process of this board and the review service of this board. So I think that maybe taking two weeks to hear back is worthwhile. And I think that anything further than that, you could argue, would be some kind of burden, but it's not at all atypical for things to be extended a bit. And in my humble opinion, I think I would support the motion and I would think that I want to hear back of what is said first before making a decision rather than just making a contingent upon. When you say you want to hear back, what do you want to hear back from? Who do you want to hear back from? Sorry, I'm still getting all my nomenclates, you're down, but this we're talking about the DPW. Yeah, DPW, thank you. Sorry, I said it earlier, but I'm a little confused here. My question is, if Kurt says good to go, what is the discussion and what are you going to review that you haven't already seen? So if Kurt tomorrow says thumbs up, I love it. What are you reviewing again? That was my question as well. Like what are we actually looking at? I understand everybody has a bunch of random questions, but I am so lost in this hour meeting of what you guys really want that I'm very confused. I mean, there's an engineered plan, the amount of runoff that changed from the existing conditions today to when we add those as a percentage difference. If DPW approves it tomorrow, the conversation we're going to have is the same one we're having tonight, or is there a question that you haven't asked yet? Because I am super confused on where else this can go. All right, Lucky, maybe I can help you with that. I think that we do have a couple of different issues, and maybe that's why it's confusing for you. Definitely the DPW has to come back with an okay. That is certainly included in whatever we do here tonight. Meredith made the decision to talk that she felt like the regulation that this fell under did not include access and circulation. The board could at this point decide that that's not true, and then we need to consider access and circulation. I think what you're hearing here is some varying points of view from varying board members about how we want to deal with that. You will have clarity before you go. Right, so the question for access and circulation, what is the actual question that you're asking? Everybody keeps saying that, but what's the actual concern or question of that? What access and circulation are you looking to see? Meredith, if you could briefly, Alex, did you want to speak? I was just going to ask a question that has been on my mind. You're proposing 22 parking spaces. Are there 22 cars now parking in the more limited area? Well, I don't know exactly how many vehicles, but the current space utilizes, the current tenants utilize the current space. I'm sure that's true. That's not the question though. The question is whether there would be additional car, I mean the circulation question, is whether, if you build it, they will come, right? If there are more parking places, will there be more traffic? Well, no, because the housing, it's a dead-end street. The housing, that's why I'm confused. The housing needs to change. People could park on Berry Street, people could park on Stonecutters Way, people could park behind City Hall, which would be the best place for this location. To your point, they could do that. I just don't understand how to answer that. The parking, it's a dead-end street and that's private property. The parking is utilized for the tenants and there is no additional housing units for that spot. Essentially, our goal is to allow more available room for the current tenants that use the existing smaller space. So what I'm hearing is that we, the board, are caught in this dilemma between how parking and circulation are defined in relation to residential units and other matters of circulation in particular environments. Right, but my question to the board is what circulation, where are the additional, what are you seeing? Okay, let's not see if we can get a little clear together. Meredith, I'm going to let you go first with great hopes. This is not a conditional use application. This is not a subdivision application. The board is not being asked to determine how traffic circulation throughout the city will change by this. That is outside of the purview. That is in conditional use. That is in subdivision only. Access and circulation with regard to this application is under section 3010. It's about vehicle access and circulation within the parcel being considered for this change. For most of section 3010, the discussion is all about curb cuts, where they are located, where they are located in relation to other curb cuts or intersections. The curb cut here is not being made any wider and any closer to any other driveways or the intersection. The one little, you know, it talks about the number of curb cuts, whether they're on state or class one highways, all sorts of things. There's only really two items, I think, that might come into play here because you're not changing how where people are pulling into places. There is a clause in 3010B6. This is a requirement about length of driveways. It says driveway length and internal circulation patterns, right? So how vehicles move around inside a parking lot or inside a driveway shall be adequate to prevent vehicles entering and exiting the site from causing queuing on the street. That's one item that might come into play. How having, you know, yes, there's two parking spaces in a row where there was only one, either way, they're still backing out into the street, right? You still have tenants responsible for organizing how they park in there in timing. But whether, hold on, I'm not quite done yet. There's one other provision. There is a question about emergency vehicle access and that all proposed development shall provide adequate access for emergency vehicles, including fire lanes, pull offs and turnarounds as necessary to accommodate emergency vehicles. But this is not a situation where you're talking about development with new buildings, new structures, getting those emergency vehicles into those structures. This is not making the current situation any worse. In fact, it may take some vehicles that currently park on the street, off the street, because they're coming there to visit those people in those tenant buildings, or it's somebody who has two vehicles and wants to rent one of those apartments and right now they're allowed one parking space. So that's where my viewpoint was coming from. But those are the only two provisions in vehicle access and circulation. I know that you guys were talking about pedestrian issues. That comes into play in a different provision that right now my brain's not pulling up. That's in site plan. So that was an issue. Um, pardon? That's not relevant in this application. Well, a site plan to site plan standards come in. It's just that it's administrative site plan. It wouldn't normally come to you. But it talks about internal walkways and it talks about public sidewalks. But it's not talking about how you're dealing with the vehicles coming out when the public space is on the driveway. There's nothing about this project is triggering the need for a new sidewalk. You're not talking about, you know, there's no sidewalk terminating here. So I don't see how we can, how you can pull that one in. All right. That's helpful. Brian, you have your hand up? Yeah, sorry. Yeah, I did. I think, I think that Meredith's explanation of what those parking and loading considerations were just answered my question. And I think that just to kind of put a cap on some of the questions I was asking earlier and for others that might have been asking similar questions. I think some of the concerns that we may have had tonight as citizens and also board members, I think that they're just not quite triggering regulatory provisions of the zoning code. And so they may be real concerns and they may need to be addressed in certain ways at other times. But I don't think that they can be addressed tonight with this application. And I think that the applicant, again, is clearly well within the zoning provisions and also regardless of whether they are providing additional spaces or in fact deeper spaces where there wouldn't actually be additional parking, right? An extended space rather than a tandem space. It in fact is just an irrelevant consideration because it can't be addressed with the zoning provisions the way they are currently. So I think as much as I was in support of extending this earlier in the meeting, I think I am now favoring making a decision contingent on DPW's evaluation of whether storm water is managed properly. There don't seem to be any other measurables here. But I totally want to be open to if someone else can make a good point, excuse me, a good point to explore why maybe we should wait to hear what they have to say and then respond. So. Okay. Rob, I see your hand up. Yes. Well, considering half my motion was to discuss the next meeting, we just discussed it. I feel satisfied and I am inclined to withdraw my motion if ever so will allow unless there's any objection to that. Anyone have anything else to say contrary to what I just said? Okay. Motion withdrawn. And I guess last thing I said, as I would entertain a motion, maybe it doesn't make sense for me to make it, just made one to approve it tonight with the condition that it gets public works approval. That's where I stand right now. Yeah. And I don't think he was making the motion, but maybe he was. Were you were you making the motion for Rob? For someone else make the motion. Yeah. I'm happy to make the motion. Thanks, Joe. Okay. I know this is gone. Yeah, more philosophical, which most folks maybe don't have the time for during the holiday season, but I'll add a point, which I think I would have still been in favor of having more time, but I think I'm in the minority here. So I might abstain to me. And this is Meredith, just something I'm sharing more broadly as commentary on the regs. The section 30202 around pedestrian access. I do feel there's an ambiguity here because you said all development must provide safe and convenient pedestrian access, including public sidewalks. And your point had been that there's no public sidewalks, but the street is essentially functioning as a sidewalk here. The street is like shared zone for people and for cars. So anyway, that's, you know, I think that's just sort of is what is here. And so that is something that I would have wanted more time to take a look at and think about kind of complete, you know, maybe resources from complete streets, committee, et cetera. But I think I'm going to plan to abstain on this one for that reason, if so. Okay. So, Brian, did you have another comment? Yeah. And it's very quick. And it's just a kind of piggyback on what Catherine said. And it's kind of like, I think that I have a question, which is kind of to inform that maybe inform the regs in the future if there's something that I'm missing or that is missing in some kind of the regs, but just this notion of like street length, public access, and then density of ratio or density of parking spaces to the size of the street. And, you know, just for folks to think about in the interim, because this is something that we've been talking all around tonight is like the amount of density that's now going to be on the street. But I realize it's not, it's not a bullet point that we can address. But I think for the future, it's maybe something to think about. So yeah, a comment for the regs. There's a lot in the regulations about density and parking and access and what tips it off and what doesn't tip it off so that I would encourage us to maybe we can look to Meredith to kind of highlight some of that stuff for us. But I feel like there's a lot of information in our current regulations about those things. So I definitely see where we need a little philosophical discussion, but I don't think that holding up this applicant on it makes too much sense. But thank you. Yeah. Well, Meredith. Sorry, Sharon, I completely agree with you. And I'm just trying to maybe bring this full circle for everybody, including Joe, who's very tired. And I am too, because I have other things to do tonight. Part of this process, I think, is also about hearing everyone's comments in the arena, including those from the public, which may not be easy to address. And sometimes when we create that space to consider, it allows everyone to have the opportunity to feel as though that they've been heard, even if we remain without all the tools to address every every single concern that is presented. So that's really just commentary for everybody on the board. And also the applicants who I know are going to be presenting more in the future. This is something that they're thinking about as well with their future applications. So apologies for having some questions as a board here. Of course not. We don't have the opportunity to meet ahead of time. If we could hear from Meredith now. I mean, I just want to kind of keep us rolling here a little bit. I'm with you, Sharon. And I was just trying to keep us rolling too. And I'm happy to give up the mic at any opportunity. But sorry, I just didn't want to feel like I was being rushed along because I thought that was a kind of a valuable thing for us to be thinking about as a board and also to be sharing with the public, which is to say that this process sometimes comes with some discontinuity, right? Because there are not meetings ahead of time regardless of how much we read and study. Luckily, we have Meredith's great guidance on this. But anyway, sorry. All good. Meredith? Sorry. So just a couple big picture things. I know, Sharon, you want to move along, but we do have a motion on the table. So one, a reminder for board members and for the public that there's a balancing act here between project impact and when the zoning regulations require that private property owners and private developers start putting in funding and being required to build public infrastructure, which is what a public sidewalk would be. So that's item number one. And so there are trigger points. You know, if there was a public sidewalk that abutted this parcel, there would be a question about whether a new sidewalk should be added. I do know that putting a sidewalk immediately behind a parking lot where people are backing out onto the road is not something that DPW would be asking to do. They would actually have to like probably try and put it on the other side of the road. And then you have to reduce the road to put that public sidewalk in. Two, there is a push to make sure that that complete streets study and the plan, all of that schedule of when the city is triggered to start adding the public infrastructure gets tied into our zoning regs. That's not going to come in in this next zoning change coming in hopefully by February, because there just hasn't been enough time to make that mesh properly with our current zoning regs. But the bigger picture of being able to look at those plans and figure out when make it easier for the board to determine when a new development is going to require changes and adds of, you know, more pedestrian safety that's public. Hopefully that will be easier for you in the future, in the not too distant future, by linking those documents and the policy with the regulations. Great. Patty, I see your hand is up. Yeah, thank you. I just want to invite you all to come take a walk over here, take a look at the road and think about maybe your five-year-old neighbor living next door. But I also just wonder why it's hard for me to believe that this project is going to happen in the month of February, that paving and lines are going to go down. So maybe you have a little time to do a little research on safety, and that's just, I just appreciate you all. But again, it's a safety issue. Thank you. Thanks for your input, Patty. If there's nothing else I would like to suggest a motion. Motion to grant minor site plan approval to add 10 parking spaces to an existing parking lot that involves slopes of greater than 30% at 18 Downing Street parcel 175.018000 as presented in application Z 2023-0137 in supporting the supplemental materials on the condition of approval from DPW. I'll second that motion. Great discussion. I'm sorry, I'm going to interrupt Sharon. Alicia, is it still 10 new parking spaces with the revised ADA spots? Oh, do we lose Alicia? No, I'm here. So you revised things. So is it still 10 new? It will be nine new parking spaces because we had to remove one for an access aisle. Yep. Thank you. I'm amending my motion to include nine parking spaces, not 10. Okay, we still have a second by Rob. Any further discussion? And yeah, sure. And I did want to have just add one thing to the discussion and just, you know, just so it's clearly on the record, I think that we just make sure in our findings we say we spell out sort of why we did not sort of go into detail about access and circulation. I think our finding is that that the configuration of this project, you know, this project as to propose like did not trigger, you know, those, you know, provisions because, you know, clear, we didn't sort of like act on, you know, information to fully evaluate, you know, those, you know, those criteria, you know, we've, you know, our finding here that that is not sort of what we should be evaluating given how this permit, you know, came to be. Those seem to be somewhere in there. You think you can get the right findings on paper and I just want to make sure that's clear and sort of clarify like I'm glad we had the discussion about that. I think it was very important in me bringing it up. It was it was more a think of a defense and R to make sure we check the box and had the discussion so that if this goes to appeal, we can say we had it and we discussed it and, you know, not like glazed over it. So I'm really glad where we ended up tonight and thank you all for a good discussion. Okay, let's call the vote here. Kevin. Yes. Catherine. I'll still abstain though I appreciate all the discussion. So and I think for the record too, I'm not necessarily stating that project like this should trigger the construction of a sidewalk. It's more I'm still looking at that pedestrian access language and would have liked to have more time to think about it. So okay. So abstain Joe. Yes. Brian. If I abstain then would we be able to pass a vote? Because I'm kind of on the fence and I'm just need for just in a general sense, abstaining is usually used for conflict of interest and you know, unless you have a strong reason that you're not voting one way or another, I would encourage you to take you know, to make it prove or or or disapprove. Okay. Well, sorry. Thank you very much Kevin. For explaining that I think I will just abstain tonight because I as much as I read the regs, I feel as though I'm not expert enough on what these these provisions were to to weigh in on this one. Sure. I can understand. Yeah. All right. Second abstention. Gene is no longer with us, Alex. I'm afraid I'm going to abstain too. Okay. So I vote yes. And that gives us basically a split. Did you ask Rob? Rob votes yes. All right. That's four. You weren't on my initial list. Sorry, Rob. Okay. So that's four. So that's four in favor and three abstaining. So the permit is granted. Thank you applicants very much for coming this evening. Thank you all for your time. I really appreciate it. Thank you. And Meredith will explain when when that is going to be available to you and it is of course based on the Department of Public Works approval. Yep. So the decision I will get to the written decision as soon as possible. If you and Public Works come to agreement on a plan ahead of time, you can send that to me and if you've met that condition as we draft up, which is just that DPW signs off on the revised plan, then I'll be able to issue the decision and the permit together. If I get that, that okay from DPW first. I do have three decisions in the queue and it is a remarkably busy time right now. So but the decisions will be top of my list for the next week. So I will get it to you as soon as I possibly can. Technically, the board has 45 days. I will do my darn best to do it much sooner than that with a holiday coming up. We appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for showing up. Have a good evening. Thank you. So I thought that was like a pretty good board discussion and thank you Rob for kind of bringing that up and just playing it out a little bit and I think I feel like that question comes up more often than not. I mean and I feel like a lot of times it's that a neighbor will come with a particular concern that isn't isn't something that we're that's in the regulations and it's not in the list of things we're supposed to be considering based on the regulations. And so it's interesting to just have that discussion about what do we consider? What can we consider? Can we, you know, anyway, I thought it was a good start to that tonight. Yeah, I agree. Sorry, Sharon. Just had a quick question. Are we speaking only as a board right now? No, there are other people still present. Oh, okay. I didn't know if we'd wrap up that meeting. Streamed via Oracle Media. Everything is still public right now. Okay. But the applicant has logged off. Both applicants have logged off. But there are still- That's fine. So I'll ask an informal question then. Sorry, because I know everybody's ready to go including myself. But I also thought it was a good meeting. And I just wanted to ask one question in the final hour of this meeting, which was, you know, only among the board. So does that exist? I'm sorry, Meredith. I thought when we got done with the public meeting, we met to approve the meeting minutes. Did that just get moved to the front of the meeting? No, we haven't finished the meeting. We've finished the two application hearings. We're still within the agenda. Thank you very much to approve the minutes for the November 20th, 2023 DRB meeting. Seconded. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those against? Okay. And they are unanimously passed. Our next meeting is 12.18. And we have one application at that point. Meredith, is that correct? The sketch plan subdivision review. So that's available. The base application is available on our pending applications page that you can reach through the agendas page on the left hand column. There's a link. So yeah, that's available. And just so Brian's aware and everybody's aware, I don't think Orca stops streaming or recording until I've ended the Zoom meeting. So there's no like private DRB discussion with closed doors unless we do an executive session, which when we've done that over Zoom is a whole separate Zoom link just for board members. So everything you say in this Zoom meeting is public one way or another, just as an FYI. There would also be no cause for an executive session. I don't think we're talking about that. I mean, they're talking about there being one. No, I'm just saying sometimes there have been executive sessions, Alex, when we've done these Zoom meetings, I'm not saying we're having one now. I'm just saying there have been some and those are not public. But for any other DRB meeting we have that's like this over Zoom, it's just general public. But I'm asking what would be an occasion for an executive session? It could be a variety of things. Open reading laws and things. A use executive session, it's deliberative session. So there are times when the board has gone into a deliberative separate session to hash out the decision, the motion, and figure out which conditions apply. There have been some complicated applications where the board has gone into deliberative session where I open a separate Zoom link after the public part is over and they go into that. But we haven't done those in quite some time. Katherine, did you have a comment? Oh, it's all good. We've moved on. Okay. No. Okay. I mean, we could, you know, I mean, I think we've done one deliberative session, I think, since I joined the board. And I kind of forgot what the topic was on. But it was, I mean, it's an opportunity to not to to hash through things sometimes. I know that Rob had wanted to maybe do that, I think with our rules and procedures or something, something Rob, do I have that right? Where we did a deliberative session or something where it was, where we were sort of off the record and just kind of hashing things out. So that's another reason to do it. Back during the beginning of the COVID restrictions, we went into deliberative session virtually for all decisions. And we did that for what, about a year and a half? Yeah. And I think it was all in part because people weren't used to figuring out how to do emotions and work out the conditions remotely. We were used to everybody being in the same room. That's right. I mean, there was a huge learning curve. And that was intended to accommodate that. I mean, my personal opinion on deliberative sessions is that I love to do as much as we possibly can in the public room. I mean, I think it's just so important for them to see our process and that we don't always all agree and that we are considering different perspectives. And so, I mean, I can see where problems might be nodding up or difficult, you know, that you might want a deliberative session. But if we can, doing it out, doing it out here is good. Yeah. Agreed, Sharon. Yeah. I mean, it's only should be used for exceptional cases. All right. I agree with that, too, Sharon. And this is just a question because I'm still getting familiarized with this process and also trying to compare it to other processes that I've been a part of. And the, along just quickly as a question along the lines of community input and people's thing involved in this conversation through Orca media, etc., and being involved in the meetings as guests. When things come to the board, do we, and they need approval from us, is there any, this is essentially, I'm sorry, I'm trying to ask this question to Meredith specifically, but also include others. What's the difference Meredith between something coming to us and then needing some kind of variants to be approved? Is it really one and the same thing? Because if you can't approve something administratively, then it has to come in front of the board, correct? Yes. Okay. Right. If I can't set prove something administratively, it has to come before the board. You're just using that term variants. Variants is a very specific type of item that comes to the board, right? So there are very specific things that have to come to the board. In Montpelier, it's all subdivisions, all planned unit developments, anything triggering major site plan reviews. So those are bigger projects that have a larger footprint or in some way or another. Variants is waivers. And then there's other items like steep slopes projects. There's other things that say in the regs that the DRB has to approve those items. So those are the things that come to you. Okay. Well, thank you. And I apologies for not being totally up to speed on that because I need to be, but I think that helps a lot. The final piece of the thought that I had just to leave folks with tonight was just kind of thinking about a lot of times in these meetings that I've been involved in, only really in the last six months maybe, I think. So I'm very new to this still. Seems like there are awful lot of concerns that get vetted from the neighbors at the meeting, rather than kind of saying, as an applicant, there's a requirement to say that you need to meet with a certain neighborhood type person beforehand. I realize that's not how it works. I see you shaking your head. I realize that's not how it works. And I'm not sure if Montpelier has the density to make that valuable. But sometimes I'm hearing these concerns and I'm thinking, I think the folks that have the concerns, it also makes our meetings easier maybe if there's a meeting with maybe what we wouldn't consider as a regional community organization, because we're already just a region, but maybe some kind of neighborhood community organization, where the folks who have these direct concerns can actually be met with beforehand. And then their ideas can in some way make it into the application, even if they can't be appeased. Otherwise, it all just comes out, right? So I kind of like a very philosophical difference from that. That people own their properties, there are a set of regulations, there are ways for people to comment. And the idea of organizing the neighbors ahead of time to be more on top of what they don't like, it just sounds terrible to me. I think it is. So I think we're very open to neighbors. And people, there's notices that are given to neighbors. We want to hear all sides of the story. But we have a really clear mandate. I mean, our regulations are pretty specific. Yeah. Well, I think they are too. And I think but the folks who are commenting don't realize this. And so what it does, I think, what I see happening, and again, I'm rookie at this, but it's that everything gets vetted and it feels like the forum that is this conversation becomes more of just a to appease people's interest, that their ideas, even if they're not valid or not being wrapped into the process, and that just makes it kind of makes things more complicated. Now, I'm not suggesting that it should be this way or that it could be, but it was just the notion of thinking about maybe on certain projects, there are ways that hearing some of these ideas ahead of time are actually going to make the project better than if they just get thrown against the wall. And I'm sorry, I don't really have the words to finish what I'm trying to say, but I think the message was kind of clear. And it's just something that I want to be able to discuss more. And I'm going to email Meredith some questions because I just have to get up to speed on some of these things. So anyway, I'm happy to send you all the statutory references about what we're supposed to and have to do. And just as an FYI, you know, that you got to make sure there's a distinct distinction between what's part of the public process and what's not part of the public process. Otherwise, you have suddenly lengthened the public process so far that it becomes even more unwieldy. Not to mention, if you start stretching that all out, I'm just going to let you know already, I already have too much to do. Everybody in our department has too much to do. And the city's already, you know, budget crunched. It's not like they're going to hire another one of me. So, you know, there comes to be a point where you have to find that balance between providing the public opportunity and notice and comment and not making the process so difficult that you start having more holes or making things take so long that just nothing happens. There's a balance there. That's what that's going and getting a whole planning degree, right? So, you know, feel free to send me specific questions. I'm happy to point you to where I can. You know, there is nothing that says that an applicant can't go and reach out to their neighbors. We are happy to provide people with, you know, all that contact information that we pull when we send out this public notices. If they want to do that and reach out separately and organize their own meetings, they're free to. And there used to be a, what was the can, something neighborhood network? You know, that was a thing here in Montpelier. It's had its ups and downs on how well that organization holds together. You know, when that was, there was a point during COVID when that was really strong in which, you know, we would be sending notices to the can head to of any particularly big projects. So major site plan subdivision, right? We would send that and that and then they would be responsible for getting out to their neighborhoods adjacent to the property and that there's neighborhood contacts. But that whole system kind of fell apart. So we couldn't do that anymore. That was sort of a extra policy thing we had in place outside of what's statutorily required. But that without that network, we can't do that anymore. So we do our best to try and meet that. But we also already do as much as we possibly can within, you know, the statute in our regulations. I mean, I think the other thing you need to be aware of is that the planning process is honestly a great place to bring up a lot of these issues where if you, if you don't feel like people like you wanted to make a change in the process of how we dealt with this, then the planning commission is where you want to go with this. Like if you, I think the regulation should be more reflective of citizen input. That's a planning thing. That's not something we can just kind of whip off here. You know, so another great way for people to be involved in the process, both kind of on our level here and as just neighbors and stuff like that is organizing towards getting that planning commission to make regulations that reflect their values. I'll do plus one on Sharon's point on planning commission versus DRB. And then one other thing, yeah, just for process is we're all talking about the process. I think for the larger projects, we do often, you know, we see them in sketch plan or a site owner can make the decision to do sketch plan to have more of a community conversation as well as get input from the board before moving forward. And I think I've been on the board like two years, something I think that I've seen more of than I expected is like not just immediate neighbors coming to the hearings. Like it's, it's, you know, it's public for the whole community. And I think it's beneficial where there's involvement beyond immediate neighbors. Because then it is back, it's back to the the zoning and the process as opposed to only being about the one site. So I have to say that one of the things that's trying to me about this application is that it's anomalous in relation to the zoning. I mean, all the talk about sidewalks doesn't make any sense. But the fact is, the street is used as a sidewalk. So there's this anomaly in relation to the zoning breaks. And there's a lot of those anomalies in Montpelier. And I don't know how they could ever be dealt with by a standardized set of regulations. And maybe that's something to take to the planning commission, but I'm sure they wouldn't like it. Circulate the the whole complete streets, trigger points for DBW and putting in sidewalks. Because one of the classes of roads is one where there are no sidewalks and it basically is the pedestrian way. So I'll try and recirculate that again, because I think the last time I circulated that we didn't have the same configuration of board members that we do now, that might be helpful for you. I got a motion in one comment first. Just a reminder, I think that when there's a motion on the table, let's try and keep it to like, there's discussion on the motion. Not time to continue to have questions, unless it's like a point of process, you're unsure about what's going on. I think it's good to just like, make the motion saying this because I've been in the chair shoes and I know how much easier it is to like monitor discussion on a specific motion, you take care of it, you know, we move on to the next. If we vote down a motion, it doesn't matter, but it's better to just like have the organized discussion and talking about the public. That's, you know, the best thing we can do for the public is make it an organized discussion where the issues can be followed easily. So I, a motion just to adjourn, but would welcome any discussion on the motion. I'll second, but discussion is fine. I'm good. Can I call the question? The question, the question? On the motion. Sure. No, I guess I'm confused of what you're doing. I have a motion, everybody is tired of this point. Robert's rules of order floating around in my head. So we have a motion on the floor and then we have a second. Is there any further discussion? All those in favor of a journey, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Good night, everybody. Good night.