So, I'm going to call this meeting to order the October 2nd development review board for the City of Montpelier. I'm going to have Meredith do the remote attendee staff review of how to get in and then we'll do a roll call. Okay. All right. The screen I'm sharing is more for people who are watching via Orca media. But the text you can hear the stuff I'm going to say is for everybody. So, for those who are viewing tonight's development review board meeting via Orca media, you can participate in tonight's discussion via the zoom platform using either the video or telephone access options. If you want to be able to make use of the video options, then you're going to want to type this link into your web browser. And that should bring you right into the meeting. If you need to, there might be a place to put in a meeting ID, but that that shouldn't have to happen if you type in this link. And I'll get a little notification to let you into the zoom meeting. Alternatively, you can dial this phone number and then punch in this meeting ID. And I will again get a little message. And with the phone version, you'll be able to hear us and speak to us. You just won't have the share screen options. If anybody is watching via Orca and they're having problems accessing tonight's meeting, please email me at mcrandall at montpillier-vt.org. I will be monitoring my email throughout the meeting. For those who are attending via zoom, turning your video on is optional. And if you're having bandwidth issues where there's lag and everything, I actually suggest you turn your own camera off and that should help a great deal. You'll still be able to see us. We just won't be able to see you. For those everyone attending, please keep your microphone on mute when you're not speaking. This will reduce background noise. If you've called in via the phone, you can use star six to mute or unmute yourself. Please reserve the zoom chat function for troubleshooting or logistics questions. If someone on tonight has a question or comment about a specific item on the agenda, please raise your hand either physically if you have your camera on or by using the raise hand button on your toolbar. And for those of you who call in on the phone, if you press star nine, that will show a little raise hand for us here using zoom. And then once you've been called on by the chair, please make sure to state your name. Once you've unmuted yourself, state your name and your address for the record. And then you can provide your comments or questions on the particular agenda item. In the event the public is unable to access tonight's meeting, it will need to be continued to a time, place and certain. I'll now hand the meeting back over to the chair. Great. Thank you. I guess let's just do a roll call of DRB members. My screen just started flipping around. Grace Lilly here. Rob, do you want to state your name? I'm Rob Goodwin, vice chair. Great. Kevin? Kevin O'Connell, board member. Alex, I think you're next there. Get it unmuted, Alex. Alex O'Connell, board member. Great. Catherine? Catherine Burgess, board member. Joe? Joe Kearnan, board member. Brian Jones? Brian, are you there? Really not. Oh, I think he's here. He's just not unmuted. Maybe he had to step away for a second. Okay. Gene? Hello, everyone. Gene Leon, board member. Great. I hope the board members have had an opportunity to review the agenda. Were there any comments or changes in that? I'll make a motion to accept the agenda as presented. Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those not in favor? Hand it past us unanimously. I'm sorry. Who actually seconded that? Rob, I thought Rob did. Okay. Great. Thank you. I can't write and look at the screen at the same time. You can't. Okay. So our first application tonight is 41 College Street. The owner is Vermont College of Fine Arts and the applicant is a new School of Montpelier. And we, I'd like to get people sworn in. And I'd like to see who is here that wants to testify for that. So we've got Elias. Great. Mark. Jeff. Okay. Anybody else missing? Can you see that? Nope. Okay. So what I think we'll do first is everybody who'd like to testify, if you could raise your right hand. And do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under the pain, sympathies, and perjury? I do. Okay. Yes. Also, oh, Jeff. Okay. Mark. Yeah. Great. Jeff. Okay. So what would like to happen here is have Meredith give us a quick overview of the project and then we'll ask whoever I think it's Elias is here for the applicant. Is the applicant? So we'll turn it over to him at that point. So you want to go ahead, Meredith? Yeah. So this is just an administrative overview. So this application is coming before the Development Review Board because of two key items. The addition is adding two buildings that are already larger than the standard maximum footprint for the zoning district. But there's no limit to how big of a footprint waiver the board can approve. So it's a judgment call and question about, you know, the specifics of this project. So something the board needs to decide on. Second is that the applicant is requesting a height waiver for a fence in the rear. The board can approve an eight foot fence in the rear. The zoning administrator cannot. The other item just to note is that the design review committee has made recommendations for this project because it is in the design review overlay district. Normally, if this were just an administrative approval, I just take those recommendations and as long as the applicant doesn't disagree with them, they just become conditions of the permit. The Development Review Board has greater ability to make adjustments. So the DRB has some options on how it wants to deal with those recommendations. They can be just binding to the fact of what the applicant has agreed to. It could be a finding a fact of this is what the design review committee recommended, but the applicant is requesting something else. So there's going to need to be some discussion or it can become a condition of approval. You know, there's a variety of ways the board can go with those. So those are the three key features. Otherwise, this application would just be an administrative site plan approval for the addition. Great. Thank you. Elias, do you want to speak about the application? Just sort of give us, you know, what you're applying for and what you're looking for? Yeah. So, I mean, New School Montpelier is we're purchasing 41 and 45 college and we're would like to build an elevator and connector in between the buildings for accessibility purposes. And we're also trying to build a small courtyard in back for our students to be able to safely play without risk of them bolting out into the community. But sort of cover what you want or you want more details. Maybe just a little bit more detail about the actual like the building that you're adding on there would be great. Yeah, I would probably defer to Mark because I think you're you can say. That would be that would be great unless board members have questions, particularly for Elias at this point. All right. Mark, you're up. Yeah. So the connector we're proposing is between Bishop Hatch Hall and Alumni Hall. It will connect the basement level of both buildings, which are more or less at the same elevation and it will connect the main gymnasium level of Alumni Hall with level one of Bishop.  The connector itself is basically only going to have two floors in at the basement and then the first floor and then it will have a landing at level two and three of Bishop Hatch Hall. So the elevator provides accessibility to all four levels of Bishop and the two levels of Alumni Hall. We're proposing a glazed connector between buildings such that you'll be able to see through it from west to east. And that will also allow, as you're out on College Street or on the back side of the building, you'll be able to see the historic elevations of both buildings from outside through the glazing. Let's cover what you need or. Yeah, that sounds good. So this is, let me just want to go through some of that. You guys received the staff report earlier as well. Okay. One of the things that makes you look at here. So the, yeah, so this is basically the first part of this is just Meredith saying that this is minor site plan approval. The first overlay in the zoning districts, we talk about additions to addressing building shall respect and be compatible with the size, scale materials detailing overall character of the primary building and shall not obscure undermining the central form or character of the regional building, which I think you were sort of just referring to. And you talked about the glaze that being able to see that and should reflect the additions time period and style as well. And did board members have concerns or questions about the architectural features or the outside, the exterior appearance of the project? Is this where the color becomes relevant or is that? That's next. Okay. So then the next issue is what Meredith was talking about in terms of what was recommended by the design review committee. I would actually appreciate seeing on a map where the fence is being proposed. Is that something you can pull up, Meredith? Thank you. Just for the record, did the applicant agree with the design review committee's recommendations? New school doesn't really have an opinion. That said, I personally wonder whether a darker color really meets what the design committee wants. If you look in the page of the packet that shows the elevator that was built behind Schumeyer, you can also see a dark window. And to me, the dark window stands out a lot more than the white elevator, which I think were sort of the two options being discussed. But whatever you see is best, we're happy to do. I'm sorry? Who's talking? Sorry, this is Elias Gardner. Okay. Just wasn't sure if there was somebody else I heard something somewhere there. So where's the fence on this? So this is the front, right? So here's College Street is down here. So this is that front sort of portico. Here's the stepped back building. And the fenced in area is here in the back in the L shape of the rear of 41. So there's a fence here and here.  It's something you'll see just from the parking lot space. And there were elevations as well. Sorry, I got a scroll. I hope nobody gets motion sick. So here's a view of the fence. Let me zoom in a little bit. So this is from the rear. So here's where the addition will be. Here's 45. Here's 41. And this is an L. So this part sticks out a little bit more towards the parking lot. And here's fencing. Okay, great. Thank you. That's very helpful. Same floor like a courtyard? That's the intention is that it would make a courtyard where we can have students like a student play area. Right on. Thank you. Is there anybody else who wants to speak or question about that? Alex, you had some concern about the color? Alex, you're muted. You gotta unmute, yeah. Got it. I just wanted to make sure that we talked about it. I mean, I for one, don't see any problem with white, but I don't have a strong opinion. It could also be nice in burnt orange. I mean, so I'm sort of not sure what the rationale behind the color recommendation is. And I take the point that was made that with the reflective surface of the glass, the brown or gray is going to look different, right? I mean, it'll be hard to tell where the cladding stops and the glass starts if there's no interior light. So it will just be a dark mass. Okay. I'm struggling to see the rags where we as the DRB decide the color. I think this is not about the color, but I just wanted to know what the purpose of the fence is. Is it security? Is it what exactly? Elias, do you want to answer that? Yes. So with the student population we work with, some of our students have a tendency to run away and the fence is a way for them to safely play outside without risking them running into a street. Oh, okay. That's what I was looking for. And that also is the reason for the height because... Yeah, big feet. Eight feet is a big fence. Yeah. And we have students who will easily climb a six foot fence is the issue. Okay. That's up to now. Okay. All right. So that's... Just for the board, I would... I mean, the DRC has reviewed this and using their best judgment has made a recommendation. I can't say that I, you know, unlocked step with that, but on the other hand, if it's all the same, why not just go with their recommendation? Okay. Well, that is... Are there people that feel strongly about that? Whether we... I mean, I think in general, we do try to go with the development, design review committee's suggestion. Elias, when you met with the design review committee, did you talk about your concerns about like an id not going quite as well as maybe the White Wonder? No, because I hadn't really processed that. It was really the picture behind Schumeyer that has made me think about it, which I think is in your packet. Also, I want to point out, I think Meredith's got something to say. She's had her hand up for a bit. Okay. All right. Well, let's... We will get that as part of the process here. Let me go along. Seven. That's that. Sharon, I think separate from my comment, Jeff Olesky has his hand up, and he might actually be bringing up the thing I was going to bring up. Okay. Well, I couldn't see him. I'm sorry. And Jeff, go ahead. What is it, Lupa? Yeah. And just my few cents. Again, I'm just a civil engineer. I defer to Marca, the architect, and Elias's preference as regards to the trim color of this edition. A couple of things I just wanted to point out that came up as part of the DRC review, and what will be coming up as part of future review with this, is that both the existing buildings that we're tying onto are brick facade with a white trim context. And I think that was the intent of the proposed white trim, was to at least tie into the trim of the existing buildings. And we feel collectively the design team, that was the aesthetic that fit best. Again, I don't think Elias or New School have a hard preference. And if the decision is that has to be black or a darker color, they will certainly do that. The only thing I wanted to point out, the reason I raised my hand, was that keep in mind that as part of the review of this project, this will need to go through the Department of Historic Preservation. And they may very well end up having an opinion themselves about what the trim or the aesthetic of that may be. And the only thing I would be concerned about is if this board said it had to be black, and then the Department of Historic Preservation said it had to be white, we may ultimately run into a crossroads where we're coming back to one or two or butting heads against each other. So take that information for what it's worth. I just wanted to point that out that there's another level of state review on the aesthetic of this as well. And maybe Mark Scott has something more to add to that. Yeah. I think that is a very good point. So that kind of makes me feel like if it is going to the historic review as well to give them the room to have it whatever color they, if they were to insist on a color, and I don't, you know, I'm with Alex, I don't, I don't really care what color it is, you know. What other board members think about that? I don't know that it's our decision to reflect our opinion on what color it is. I think we'll give it up in the air and I'll let the process decide as to what color it ends up being. That's, that's my, you know, what's the rags. I just don't see where in our preview of the DRV we, we make that decision. We let that, let that fall or falls. I agree with Rob. I was going to ask Meredith, are either the design review committee or the historic preservation committee, is anything they say absolutely binding? So the design review committee is advisory, right? So they advise if it's an administrative permit, unless something that they're advising is in clear conflict with an actual regulation, I just put it on as a condition of the, of the permit. The board, the board has the discretion to, to figure out what to do with that recommendation. That's beyond me in general, unless there's a clear conflict. And just for clarity with what Jeff was noting about additional historic review, that's his state historic preservation office review. And so theirs will be binding because it goes to a state permit. And so my, I'm glad that they thank you, Jeff for bringing that up, because that's what I was going to do. What is what I was going to bring up is that, you know, what it might be is that the board can say as a finding effect, this is what the design review committee has recommended. So it's in the file, it's in the record, and the applicant can take that to the state to say this is what our local design review people have requested, but then ultimately it's a state decision about the, the, the color. So could we also just not make it a condition? Right, exactly. It's not a condition. It's a finding of fact that this is what the design review committee recommended. The board is fine with that as a recommendation. It is not a condition of approval. Okay. So I was going to say, I agree with Rob that, you know, we should kind of leave this in the hands of other groups. I suppose the only thing I'm concerned about is it ending up black, because personally, I agree with what was said earlier about matching the trim color and everything. I don't know why I wasn't there. They wanted it to be black. But I feel like as a development review board member, we kind of a responsibility what these things do end up looking like for the rest of the public. And was that their suggestion that they paint it black or just were they just trying to spitball something different? Like they just didn't like the white. Can I, do you want me to speak to that or do you want Elias to speak to that? Be the one whoever was there? Yeah, no, I because I staffed that. So my understanding, and this is something that I've heard from them for other additions on historic buildings, especially something like this where it's kind of like setback already is that the white is going to make it stand out more. Having it's something that's closer in color to maybe their roof, especially with something that already has so much glass. If the paneling on the sides and the frame structure around all that glass is a darker color, their opinion is that that would make it more disappear, sort of recess into the background. This was their opinion, right? It doesn't mean that that's necessarily what's going to happen. Mark has his hand up and then I think Catherine does Sharon. Yeah, I think just to that point. And then I certainly respect that position and can understand it. And I think in reality, we can make white aluminum or black charcoal aluminum look just as good either way. But one thing I want to point out is this is essentially the new front door to the new school. And so the part of the thought behind the white in addition to picking up the white trim on the existing buildings was that this addition is back off the road and it's between two buildings. It's already recessed. And so if it's dark in color, which the glazing will be, it's going to go away more. And so by using the white mullions, you're going to make it stand out a little bit more, which will actually make it a more welcoming entrance. So that's, but that's, I understand that's an aesthetic. So. All right. I also just realized I was looking at the wrong sheet and misidentifying what this was actually going to look like. I see the glass. But the first thing I said was I agree with Rob. It does seem out of our purview when there's other committees that are more dedicated to this thing. Okay. I'd like to get Catherine too. Yeah. That's my same point. I think this is out of our traditional area of expertise. So I'm glad we're talking about it, especially with the functionality of this being the entrance. But I agree we needed to defer to design review. Okay. So does that land us with us basically using the design review committee's input as a finding in fact, and then it goes to the historical society and they make whatever decision they make. Is that, is that basically where we're at? That would be my take on it. Okay. We should be clear about not either rubber stamping design review committee or or fighting with them and that it's not in our purview. It's not an endorsement, I guess. Yeah. I would rather leave it to the applicant and their architects to think through the design issues because I think the argument about it being a main entrance and it's being therefore needing to be visible is an important one. Yeah. And I also think that we would be proud of the fact that it was a highly accessible building, but it had been converted in that way. Okay. Did somebody else want to comment? Oh, hi guys. I was just saying I kind of second that too. I mean, I think that it's for all the reasons that have been said, and it's certainly not an unprecedented choice to use that color right in the palette. It's also very much a part of the palette of the campus. So, you know, it's not like anybody's saying, Hey, let's make it bright pink or green or something out there. You know, it's just leave it, leave it to the design folks and and keep moving. Yeah. So, hey, Meredith, do you have your hand up? It looked like you did. No, I do. I do. I do. So just a reminder in this instance, the board has has the benefit of this going through another review at the state level for the design aspects. At some point, and this has happened previously, although I think it was a few years ago, if an applicant and the design review committee disagree about how one of those design standards is being applied, the DRB steps in as basically the appeal board. So at some point, you may all have to actually make a decision on design. Just let me know. Here you have the benefit of being able to sort of pass the buck. So you're you're in a good spot. And I think that is the great, you know, the good way to go here. Just letting you know that you don't always have that option. That's fine. That's great. Any more questions about that? Okay, so we're going to move on here. Where that was the color. We are on erosion already. So we are on to general standards and special use. Basically, it's supposed to be standards section 3002 J and figure 306 allowed the board to grant building footprint waivers of any requested amount within the bounds of 4602 and the criteria figure 4-02. Granting the footprint requires that the larger but will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood of the district with properties located substantially or permanently impair the local use or development of adjacent properties, reduce access to renewable energies or to be detrimental to the public welfare. So it seems that in actuality, you're going to decrease the previous impervious surfaces. So that's a good thing. And then the other part, this is the, they're going to be adding 708 square feet to a currently non-conforming building. Board thoughts about that in particular. Okay. It seems, so we have to determine whether the requested footprint waiver complies with the relevant criteria. And I definitely agreed with the staff suggestion here that making the buildings fully ADA accessible is a good goal. Catherine? Yeah, that since you're calling for board input, that was going to be my primary point. It's an additional area to make the building more accessible to a key user of the building and to the public. So I think it's, I think we should celebrate that. Right. That's a good thing. Okay. So when we get to the fence part, it seems from the applicant's description that it's a really good reason to have an eight foot fence. And it's material, you know, it matches up so they're not using any strange, strange fencing stuff. So that's good. Anybody have any problems with changing or giving them a waiver from six foot to eight foot on the fencing? No. I think it's a major improvement. I think I like the courtyard idea. I think the whole engineering and design is just a major improvement and convenience to the students. Okay. Excellent. Okay. Now we get into the steep slopes section. So can we look at the map of where it does disturb the slopes? Yeah. Let me just scroll to it. Give me a minute. Okay. It's a very small area for the stormwater outlet. And Meredith, that sheet, C2.1, if it helps at all. I think it's the fourth. Yeah. Can I also add? Oh, go ahead. Catherine, I had a navigation question on the fence before we move on. Typically I've got all these printouts, but today I'm using the PDF, which is harder, of course. For the eight foot tall fence, by the way, that is really, that is indicated on page 30 out of 81. It is only that rectangular area in the right of the plan, correct? The top right of the plan? Yeah. Okay. Great. I want to make sure I wasn't missing it somewhere else with the PDF dynamic. Great. Yeah. On this that I'm showing right now, it's right here. There's the fenced area. Okay. Right. Versus this, they're showing a different fence here. This is for project demarcation for like when they're doing the project and building this area, right? They'll have this fenced off a little bit, and this is sort of for erosion control aspects, but the fence that will be permanent is here and here. For the slopes, right here is this little tiny bit of steep slopes. It was steep enough to require an engineered plan. It on itself may or may not have required DRB approval. It was a little iffy, whether or not there's actually 30% or more slopes here, but since it was already coming to you, we did the full engineered plan. The only thing that is noted in the staff report is that to get this, the official engineered plan will need stamped plans and that no undue, what is the line, sorry, the letter of no undue adverse impact on slope stability and safety. So it's a little bitty letter pretty much that can be conditions of approval, that and the stamped plans prior to permit issuance. Okay. That looks good done. So the requirements of three species or eight have been met as an erosion prevention sediment control plan is triggered by proposed addition. Engineering plan has been provided, seems like we're and department of work was following that. So we're almost at the go there, I think. Stormwater management, that's, that didn't change very much. There was a reduction in impervious amount of surface in the site. So in actuality, it's slightly improved. And they're going to use the existing stormwater design, right? They're correct. Well, yeah, I mean, they're doing that new, we're that new, the steep slopes area, right? Yeah, that's a new thing that they're putting in, but it's generally this, this water's flowing to the same direction. Jeff, if I'm misunderstanding that speak up, but that's my injured feet of the whole thing. Yeah, you're absolutely correct. The concept of the collection and the discharge point is the exact same. We're just having to replace the line because the existing line is undersized and dilapidated essentially. And so we're having, but that being said, there's also large utilities, natural gas within the, that are above the existing drainage lines. We're having to reroute around it. Hence the new outfall and the small amount of slope, you know, impact that we intend to fully stabilize post construction. Okay. Any questions from board members on that? Zipping through my log here.  Okay. And then I think the last part of this application is concerned the lighting. So there is no lighting inside the addition. Is that correct? No, there will be lighting inside the addition. We would just propose that no lighting be over the 2000 lumens. Oh, okay. And if it is, it would be shielded. Okay.  Or just going to work within those restrictions? Yeah. At this point, it would primarily be downlights. I could potentially see lights on the brick facade of alumni hall to illuminate that at night to show off the arch windows, but the intent would not exceed the 2000 lumens requirement. Okay. I think that's good there. Okay. So I guess a little bit more maybe about the shielding on the lights that are going to go in there. You said you're going to stick to the 2000 lumens limits and then things will just be down-facing. Yeah. Yeah, maybe either be recessed can lights that push the light straight down or they'd be indirect uplighting maybe to light the ceiling in there depending on how we do the ceiling, but the intent would not to be have any bright spots visible from the street. From a code standpoint, there'll need to be an emergency lighting that goes on an emergency. But otherwise, sight lighting, we're leaving the existing gooseneck lamps in place. So our intent is that at night this is not going to be an overly lit structure. It's not going to be glowing across the screen. No. Okay. We know how that would go over. All right. Okay. Board members, are there other questions about this application that you would like to get addressed or issues that you would like to check into? I'd like to break up the interior lighting again and the no glow features. So will there be lighting on the interior of the building 24 hours a day? Yeah, there'll probably be some low level safety lighting. But beyond that, like I said, there may be a light that at night illuminates the interior wall of alumni hall that was it's now an exterior wall just to show that off. But that would be at most the lighting that's in there. I don't know if that answers your question. So it will be dim. It'll be like a box with exit written on it and some light behind it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Unfortunately, that we're going to have an exit sign there. There's nothing we can do about that. But the lights, I can't speak for a while, but I don't think the intent is to leave the lights on all night. I don't think they want to pay the electricity bill. We want to save power. Yep. And those lights, well, they'll be LED. They'll be on occupancy sensors and whatnot. So that's helpful. Other questions about the application? Yeah. So we had a bit of discussion about the pants. I just saw the sense exhibit on page 39 of the packet or 39 of the application. And so we talked a lot about color. We're ultimately deciding that we're not specifying. But am I correct in saying that it's what's pictured here on page 39, whereas the wood panels and then the black rod iron? Is that what's envisioned? Or am I? It could be something wood and metal, not necessarily the black metal. It could be white. But that's the look of the fence we're aiming for. Okay. Yeah. Okay. If there are no further questions, I would entertain in motion. Sharon. Yeah. I'm sorry. I'm going to interrupt. We have eight members. Only seven can vote. Oh, I'm sorry. We could take part in the discussion. But either Gene or Brian need to sort of recuse themselves as... Gentlemen? Or somebody's got a big one of them. One of you could count for this one. You could count for the next application. Brian, you're needed. I'm okay. Not voting, guys, on this. Okay. Is that you, Brian? Yes. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Okay. I'll make the motion to approve the application for the Vermont College property as presented. I think that's it. I'll second the motion. All right. Any further discussion? That means that we are ghosting the DRC recommendation, so to speak. It'll be recognized in the findings of fact. I'm more concerned with the not having the conditions about the slopes requirements that's suggested on the last page of the staff report. Do you have your staff report there, Kevin? Excuse me, Sharon. Do you have the staff report that usually has the memo of the decision? I have it here to the motion to go. Basically, she just wants to make sure that the store monitor dispels area and that we get a signed stamp approved. Here we go. I would motion to amend the motion to include a condition that prior to permanent issuance applicants to provide the zoning administrator with assigned sealed engineering plans for strong water dispersal area. The engineer's written statement of no undue adverse impact. If needed, I'll second Rob's amendment. You make an approval to the motion. Modification to the motion. You don't take the motion out. You keep it in play. What we need to do now is have a vote on the motion that Rob just made and was seconded by Brian on modifying. Who is it, Brian? No, Brian. Joe, Joe, seconded the amendment. The original, I made the original approval and then the second was made and then in the discussion is what occurs and you make a modification to the motion that's already on the table. Yes, you don't have to do two votes. Kevin, just one vote on the motion as amended or as modified. Correct. Okay, so we have further discussion. Let's take a roll on this. Rob? Yes, Catherine? Yes. Jean? Oh, no, Jean's not voting this time. Sorry, Catherine. No, Jean is voting. Okay, Jean, Joe? Yes. Catherine? Yes. Alex? Alex? I saw her say yes. Okay, I now see her say yes, too, and I also vote yes. Jeff, did you mean to have your hand up? I did. I wasn't trying to interrupt the vote necessarily, but I just want a clarification for after. That's all. Okay. I just wanted to clarify that based on the condition that was just read into the motion with regards to staff's comments on the storm water, that the plans as presented meet the qualifications for that. You just need them stamped and then the supplemental letter. Okay, perfect. Thank you. Correct. That's right. Okay. Well, thank you very much, everyone. And without further, well, Meredith, do you want to say something? Oh, just to let, because I don't know as Elias has gone through this before or Mark, with the board here, that there'll be a written decision. The vote you heard tonight and the decision the board made tonight isn't actually official until that written decision has been put forward and then signed. And then I won't be able to actually issue the permit until I get that information from Jeff. Jeff can go ahead and work on that stuff, getting that the letter done if he needs some guidance for me on that. I can accept those before I actually, before the decision is actually written, if need be, and then we'll be able to move everything forward a little faster. But yeah, the actual decision won't be effective until it's written. And then the permit itself and the decision have a 30 day appeal period. So just to keep you updated on process and we will get that decision as soon as we can. But it does need to be written. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Application one. Thanks very much. Have a good night. So our next application is the application is a good search in Haven. People interested in testifying, I'd like everybody to raise their right hands. If you do not have your video on, I guess at this point it would be good to turn your video on so that you can see you raised your right hands. Anybody who's planning on testifying. Okay. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the paying some penalties of perjury? I do. Yes, I do. I do. Okay, so that was Zach, Ken, and Rick. And Don. And Don. Okay, thank you. Also Doug Zorzi. Okay. And I think Paul, Paul Kupkarra, did you have your hand up? You can just put your hand up again or a thumbs up if your hand was up on that one.  You can be sworn in as a witness and still not talk if you don't want to. And Alan, I know you were interested in this application. Do you think you might talk? You can give us some. Yes, I can. Yes, if I may please, I'm raising my hand verbally. Okay. Thank you, Alan. Thank you. Okay. So this is conditional use in minor plan review. The applicant is Good Samaritan Haven and it is for the use of an existing building on the Country Club Road Project. Meredith, do you want to give a brief interview and then we'll or overview and then we'll go to the applicant? Yeah. So there are no exterior changes with this proposal whatsoever. The only reason that this is coming before the board is because temporary use as defined in our regulations, which does include emergency or homeless shelters, is a conditional use in this zoning district. And so the board needs to make the approval. It is a temporary request. There's a time limited approval window for this. And so the condition that I have suggested for any approval is to make sure that for the use to occur beyond the April 30, 2024 date or for it to be further expanded within the building outside of the square footage that they've specified would require a new permit. But other than that, there's, you know, the board needs to go through those conditional use requirements. Okay. I think that's very helpful. Who is presenting for the applicant? Rick DeAngelis, co-director of the Good Samaritan Haven. Great. Hi, Rick. Do you want to do a little overview of what we've got going on there? Yeah, I have a few brief comments to make. I'd like to give you some context. We do understand that this is a conditional use in this district. But I want to just explain why we think you should vote to approve it. And we're in support of the staff recommendation with the condition that was cited. You know, there are some compelling reasons why this should be approved. And one in particular is it's in response to a housing crisis of really historic dimensions here in central Vermont. I've been working in housing in central Vermont for over 30 years, never seen conditions quite like this before. And there are a lot of people who are out there with nowhere to go. And many of them live here in Montpelier or are on the streets here in Montpelier. You know, the second reason why I think this is a very urgent and special circumstance is that if not for the events of July 10th and the flooding that took place, we probably wouldn't even be here tonight. We were working very hard to secure a location in the downtown area. And unfortunately, it was badly flooded and it just wasn't practical to continue with that option. And then my final comment is, and I guess this is more having to do with the, you know, the question about impacts, what kind of impacts is this project going to have. And, you know, from day one, we have been working in close collaboration with the city of Montpelier. In fact, they actually suggested this site and as a good alternative. And that includes public safety officials. We've met with the chief and emergency police chief of police and emergency services. And we think we have a plan that's going to result in a safe operation and have, you know, negligible impacts on the surrounding area. So I guess that's it. I'm glad to respond to any questions. And thank you for considering us, Jared. John. Yeah, thanks. Rick, why do you think what is driving the numbers up so high? Because I see that physical evidence every day when I'm downtown. And it is definitely unprecedented in the time I've lived in Montpelier, which is over 40 years now. So, I mean, what's the big picture? Well, gee, if I could answer that question, I could turn it off. That's about to say. That's a big one. It's complicated. You know, I guess that the foundation of it, in my opinion, is something has happened with the housing market. It's really nationally. And, you know, that bottom end of the rental housing market has dried out quite a bit. And then there are some other factors that feed into that.  So, you know, for lack of a better phrase, it's really a perfect storm of a lot of factors that have come together. And I really do think Montpelier is something of not a unique place, but there's a very high number of unsheltered people who are trying to get by in Montpelier and the surrounding areas. And so it's really important that the shelter be somewhere in Montpelier. And I think that's just such a big question. Exactly. Yeah. I mean, we've got a very large unsheltered population here. And so we feel, believe me, we're not wildly enthusiastic about running seasonal overflow shelters, but we really felt we had to do it this year. Okay. So, is there any, Paul? I see you have your hand up. Yeah, I just wanted to add we were recently hired by the city of Montpelier to do a study of homelessness in the area and come up with some solutions. And I just wanted to add Montpelier has one of the lowest housing vacancy rates in the state of Vermont and in this region. And I just had two homeless people living in my house for the last seven months. They were both employed and were completely unable to find an affordable place to rent for seven months. It took them seven months to finally find a place. So I think a big driver of this problem is just the lack of housing in general, and then a lack of affordable housing right now in the Montpelier community, especially with the floods displacing quite a few additional people. There's just not places out there to rent, even if you do have an income, particularly if you have low income. Thank you. I think that's very true. It is a gigantic problem for our community, and especially for those people who are without housing. But maybe I get started on some of the general standards that we need to look at here. This is under the general standards. This temporary housing is a lodging used to find as emergency shelter or homeless shelter. I think we clearly qualify there. Paul, can you take your hand down, or did you want to speak again? I'm sorry. I'll take my hand down. I'm trying to fix that. That's all right. I'm just trying to make sure everybody gets a chance to speak. Okay. So this definitely seems like it qualifies to me as a temporary structure, means the use of structures that should be occurring and located in the parcel for a limited and fixed period of time, after which are no evidence of that use. So I feel like that definitely matches up with your request. There is the most relevant parts for us, and I don't mean to just totally hop around, but I guess the next thing up is landscaping, where Meredith points out that we could actually require additional landscaping. My feeling is that they're not doing anything to all the outside of the building, and it's a temporary shelter meant for November through April, and so that landscaping is just a non-starter here. Are there board members? I agree with that. Yeah, I agree as well. I also agree. We're not going to worry about that. The other thing that we need to find here is that the proposal does not cause a disproportionate or unreasonable burden on the city's ability to provide community facilities. Given the size of what has been up there, 20 people seems like... I think that in the application itself it said there were only two bathrooms, so no showers. The utility is not bad. They're not going to correct me if I'm wrong, Rick, but there's no children in the shelter. Is that right? That's correct, Sharon. Okay. So, I don't see where it would create a disproportionate or unreasonable burden on the city's abilities. Are there board members? No. As far as facilities go, you said two bathrooms, Sharon? Yeah, I think that's what the proposal says. Yeah. So, is there any proposal to add or recommendations to add showers to those bathrooms? It's not mentioned in the proposal. Doug, did you want to say something? I'm sorry. Go ahead. No, I'm all set. No, she's trying to call on Doug Zorzi. And he's had his hand up, but he has his mute button on. The mute? Can you hear me? Yes, I can now. Yes. Okay. I apologize. For the record, my name's Doug Zorzi. I'm one of the owners of Savings Pastor. Please appreciate that the owners are supportive of the city's efforts to provide temporary housing for the affected flood persons. We have one question, if you would, please. What will be the city's position in the event that additional time is needed at the end of the temporary housing period? Well, I'm sorry. Are you asking what the applicant's plans are? Or what? Because I don't think that we can really speak to how the city will respond. You know what I mean? That's kind of out of our valley wick there. Meredith, can we switch over to Meredith here? She looks like she's got something to say. So Doug, I just want to clarify. So what this application is for is for the good Samaritan, just overnight shelter like beds. This is separate from the FEMA housing that is the city. There's a separate city project that's city and FEMA. So what we're talking about tonight is just moving of what had been an overnight only overflow shelter that had been downtown up to the existing clubhouse building for just this winter, right? It's just a one winter overnight overflow place where they're going to be bused up in the evenings and then leave in the morning. This is not the FEMA housing. That's a whole separate matter. Okay. I was confused given cities notice for tonight. Yeah. So you got that notice. Yeah. Yeah. So that was so so right now all of the FEMA discussions are happening at the city council level. And there there will be new hearings at the city council level about emergency changes to the zoning regulations to potentially effect being able to make approve that FEMA housing. That's a whole separate thing than what we're talking about tonight. There would be no DRB interaction. Based on my understanding of the proposal that went to city council, right, that'll be separate. So I would suggest that you you can email Mike Miller to get an idea of when those hearings may be happening. But yeah, that's that's separate from tonight's application. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Just looking through for any hands here. Anybody? Okay. All right. So we're on unusual burden. The next thing is that we determine the volume type and timing of traffic generated by the proposed development. And that seems pretty clear to me. But maybe we could just, Rick, if you want to just speak to that, what what you see the site generating for traffic. We're making it a very, very high priority to limit people coming only by a bus that we're going to be operating. So my expectation is that there will be a bus. So, you know, a passenger van 15 person passenger van and maybe one or two staff vehicles every night. So not a not a large presence of traffic or parking. I think that that certainly is not dissimilar to other uses in the neighborhood. It sounds actually less than what other neighbors are probably doing at this point. We're at the concern here about the character of the neighborhood or at least in something in red. The farm in fact, the neighborhood is described as primarily industrial with a number of businesses connected to agriculture, proposed development should support ongoing industrial uses compatible mixed use development to enhance the character of the neighborhood with well designed buildings on this doesn't seem relevant because we're not adding any adding anything. So the next thing that that we just need to look at quickly, I think is whether there's any of information, the conditional use standards. Let me see here. I just feel like most of these things that are listed in the conditional use requirements, you know, noise, lighting odors, this is all just all included inside that building. There's no additional building. There's no additional. I mean, we're talking about three vehicles. Do other board members have concerns about traffic or exterior changes or landscaping? I have a question. Okay. The proposal says that they will be using a dedicated entrance with a smoking area outside. I got no issues with that, but I had trouble figuring out what the entrance was and how it related. I assume there's still a child care facility there. I think the map is on the entrance is on the west side. Is that right, Meredith? Daycare is on the south side. I was looking at a multi-colored map. There was a floor plan. Could you put that one up, Meredith? I think it might be more helpful to look at the map. This is the floor plan. Here is the building entrance that would be used for what's currently an office space that would be converted. This is facing this parking lot. Here's the country club road that comes up. This way is actually north. This is upside down because the route two is down here.  You go all the way to the end here. This is the paved parking lot here. Here's the entrance here for the shelter. There's a big gravel parking lot here that connects over this pathway and road and entrance. Here is the entrance to the child care center. They'd also be operating at different times because here, I don't know the exact hours, but they'd be arriving in the evening and leaving in the morning versus they would be arriving in the morning and leaving in the afternoon to early evening, probably. I don't know exactly what their hours are. The application says they would be out by 8 a.m., which is somewhat of a window. I couldn't figure out where the entrance on the college floor plan. I couldn't figure out where the entrance for the day care was. The entrance for the day care. You can see all these little doors here. The child care is here. I don't remember which one of these is the actual entrance. I think it's this one. That's an operation that's ongoing. It's being used now. I confirmed that because I know there were some issues at one point with the space when it was shut down for a little while. The day care center is running right now. This is an old floor plan. I can't imagine that for a child care center they've got four doors. That would be a little hard to secure. They probably have to have two for fire safety. It looks like Rick. Two of them were marked, and then these were not marked except by the, there wasn't a legend. I didn't know what the little things were. I'm thinking back to what happened to the sculpture on the sculpture bench area on the bike path and the kind of rubbing together that didn't go very well and also when it got moved downtown and just wanting to make sure that there wasn't any rubbing. Yes. Yeah. That's the child care center has its own bathrooms in here that you can see. It's this versus this is going to be a separate space. There's no, this is a solid wall here between the child care center and these spaces. Right. There's no chance for sort of paranoid response. Okay. I see that Rick had his hand up. Rick? Yeah. Just for some background, the child care business is leaving and they told us that they would be out by Thanksgiving. And I'm pretty sure they'd give a notice to the city as well. So, yeah. And we have talked with them. We've been in communication. They seem to be supportive of what we're doing and so forth. Okay. Gene, I see your hand up. So are we just talking the common area or the entire building is, I guess, because we were highlighted by different color and different sections of that building. That's the common area. So you're looking for what color is it? My question is the entire space, the entire building to be occupied or just that specific area? Gene, the existing office number two, the 1,951 square feet, which is the blue, is going to be the space and they'll have access to these bathrooms in this common space. This will be their entrance. And there's the bathroom. So, but this, you know, who knows during the occupancy over the winter, maybe some other office use. Who knows? I might be up there, right? The planning department might get moved into the space in green, right? And we would use these bathrooms during the day and then this space here. But it's just the 1,951 square feet of space is being converted temporarily to the temporary housing. Can I ask another question or just to, as far as good for Rick? So 8am comes around in a February morning. It's negative 30 degrees outside with a foot of snow. What's this, I mean, what's the scenario right there? You're just all these people have to leave? Yes. You know, one thing that we have to do for to assure that there is people are safe is and also to receive funding to operate this. We have to demonstrate that people have places to go when we're closed.  One of the most important ones is another way, which is represented by Ken Russell, who's here tonight. Okay. Also the bus station in downtown Montpelier is also open from 8 until 6.30 each evening. So not ideal. There's not an aspect of this that is ideal. Let me tell you, this is kind of damage control and trying to make the best out of a very challenging situation. But what we're going to take, provide, is the overnight shelter. Thanks, Rick. I just want to follow up to that. I mean, I think that it's important to point out that it doesn't appear that based on the DRP's approval and discussion that the timeframe for the conditional use of this is anything that we're mandating through our permit. You know, to say that like we're not saying based on our DRP approval is application, if we were to approve it, that the residents have to be out by 8 a.m. That's another consideration to be had. Well, I mean, I think that is, that is actually part of the application that is, it is stated in there, you know, that that's, that that's, you know, what, what they're saying they're going to do. So, is the language in the right? By the way, it's part of our lease agreement with the city of Montalier, too. Okay. Yeah, that takes care of it nicely. And I think just Meredith pointing out, I think that that was heard by you guys that, that any changes in use or extension or anything like that would need to come back to the board for an additional permit. So, just to note, the condition I wrote said it would need a new zoning permit if the zoning regulations changed between now and when they needed a new permit so that it didn't need to go to the DRB, it wouldn't go to the DRB is the way I wrote it. So, if you want to change it so that it has to come back to the DRB, no matter what, that's a separate thing. I don't want to do that. I want to stick with zoning regulations so that, and that, that we are basically, if the zoning regulations indicate that they need a permit, then they will have to come back to us and get a permit. We will not making extra work. Other questions? Ideas, concerns? Anybody who wants to speak who did not get a chance to speak? Um, this is Jack, to be recognized. I mean, I'm in support of this for a number of reasons, including that I, I do a lot of outreach in the community and I worked with a gentleman who came in from out of state a couple years ago and if it hadn't been for this type of thing, he would have been probably dead. It's very cold out. We were working in those conditions that you're talking about. I also worked in the overflow shelter last year. I can speak that we do move people to another location regardless of the 30 degree below zero outside. So, you know, I feel very confident in supporting this project and just know the problem will be ongoing. You know, so it's it's not really going to go away. This is a great crew. And I've worked with them in another way and I feel very confident and I'm in support of the project. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for bringing the project and introducing it today and also starting with the overall context around the housing access crisis and the need for shelter. I had a question around, you know, the earlier discussion on the need for folks to leave the site during the day, given there are also, you know, points that we're reviewing around traffic and use, which personally, I think is, you know, there's a large site with minimal use. But I didn't think it'd be helpful for you to state for the record whether you are providing any connective transportation, especially with the weather considerations for the winter, you know, when people need to leave, do they have support to get to other locations that are safe and warm during the day? Yes, certainly. Yeah, we are providing connective transportation. We'll be running a shuttle bus each evening and each morning making, you know, two circuits of the downtown area and it will be working in other ways to make sure that there are some reasonable alternatives for people to go to. Okay, thank you. Ken had his hand up. I'm sorry, Gene, one. Oh, Ken had his hand up earlier. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Hi, yeah. I'm in strong support of this. It's, as Rick suggests, it's an ongoing crisis. Folks fall through the cracks everywhere. I'm just honestly glad. By the way, I'm the director of another way and I'm also the chair of the Mobiliar Homelessness Task Force. And I'm just really glad to hear all of your all's awareness of the of these situations and hope that our town can, you know, stay strong and being able to problem solve with in a really difficult situation. So I'm strong support of this. Over. Thanks, Ken. Okay. Oh, is someone willing to make a motion? Who's speaking? Oh, I'd like to entertain a motion if that's okay. Yeah. It'd be great. Unless we missed anything else. Just who's voting? Because again, either Brian or Gene needs to not be voting. So if Gene's making a motion, then probably Brian needs to not vote again. I think, I think that's good. I would, when we have two alternates, I would propose that we can talk about this a little bit later, but that we pick one for the evening versus going back and forth during on projects. Yeah, that's fine. Yeah. I just wanted to make sure because we didn't make that clear in the other one, whether it was for the whole evening or not. Okay. Okay. So Gene. Yeah. Motion to grant the request for conditional use and minor site plan approval for tonight, 1,950 square foot temporary housing used for an overnight homeless shelter at 203 Country Club Road operating from November 1st to 2023 through April 30th of 2024 as presented in the application number Z-2023-0110 and supporting and supplemental materials. Any use of additional space at 203 Country Club Road for temporary housing or for the use to occur beyond April 30th of 2024 requires a new zoning permit. Meredith, I have a question. Yeah. What happens if Good Samaritan would like to use additional space given that the child center is leaving, for example, right, before the new zoning regs are in? They'd have to come back to the board for an amendment to the open permit. But you're thinking that the new zoning, emergency zoning right will be in place. So that emergency zoning regulation that I referenced in response to the other questions, that is for a different style use. That is for the FEMA housing. It's going to be those are changes for a new category of use that fits to that specific kind of government sponsored longer term residential use versus just an overnight, which is a lodging use. So the residential uses are more than 30 days. And that's going to be a completely separate thing. Neatly exclusive. Yes. I just wanted to second so we could get to the discussion phase. Sorry. That's okay. I think we've cleared it up. So we have a motion by Jean and a second by Kevin. Do we have any further discussion? I guess I didn't want to bring back up just to be clear on this, given that we're issuing a temporary permit for a time period here. The hours don't quite make sense to me with what's presented in the application. Maybe we can clarify that. I mean, I see where in the application they state about the usage of sewer and water and storm water. It's one of the guests between 6 p.m. and 8 a.m. But I don't necessarily translate that to this conditional use is for these dates from 6 p.m. to 8 a.m. for this space. And I don't think we have to be so specific. What I say is that I think that if there were an emergency situation where they needed to use the space for a temporary shelter outside the hours, and I understand there's a lease or what not, but I would just take for them to come to the DRB because the hours are in the permit are not batting up. But maybe I'm reading it completely wrong. I don't know. So would you, what are you thinking, Rob, to just take the hours out of the permit? I think just making clear that the permit and the conditional use is for 24-7 between the hours between the dates at which we provide. And yeah, maybe there's other triggers and other factors that restrict it to be 6 p.m. to 8 a.m. or whatever. But I don't think that the approval from the DRB needs to restrict it to that. Seems to be some confusion. The motion as it exists right now doesn't talk about the hours. It's not restricting about hours. Not at all, Rob. So I think your concern is met by the existing language as we have it now. Meredith has a hand up. It's okay. Sharon, are you okay if I just give a little note here? So, yes, in the typical way I would do this and I would write this that we've done this in the past for the board, there are often findings of fact about what an applicant represents that is what they will be doing that are part of the factors that go to meeting certain criteria. And so those sort of become implied conditions of approval. Those are still often a lot harder to try and enforce on and say somebody is not meeting those conditions as compared to strict specified conditions of approval that the board puts at the end of a decision. So, yes, the hours of operation are sort of an implied condition of approval because it does go to at least some degree the conditional use, lack of impact on the character of the neighborhood. If the board feels like they want to say, you know, have a little clause, even if this were a 24-7 shelter, we don't see that there would be an impact on the character of the neighborhood. You could do that within that conditional use review discussion. That would really be the only way I could see about jiggering this because, I mean, that time limit is already in the application materials about when they said they would be operating it. So, the board doesn't really have an option to just excise that from the record. It's in there as they've represented this is what they're doing. Does that make sense, Rob? No, that makes perfect sense. I think what you talked about, the findings of fact, and I think that what I'm maybe recommending is that we don't say that that time period is part of our finding of fact related to the conditional use standards related to what facilities are there and what not. That's information that was provided in the application, but there is clearly enough water supply sewer and stormwater infrastructure to fit 20 guests for 24-7. That's fine. We're not relying on the fact that they said 6 to 8 to say that 6 p.m. to 8 a.m. to say that their community facilities are sufficient. I get that, but I also get that. I mean, what Meredith just said is that that's what the application has asked for. That's the application that we reviewed. Because it's included in the application, it is still part of everything, but it's not held to the same enforceability level that a specific thing is. I feel weird about changing it in terms of they put this on their application and we're also going to say, by the way, if you want to do something different 24-7, that's fine. I'm uncomfortable with that, actually. And that was my feeling too, Sharon. Thank you for stating that. And it's not like the staff report emphasizes that a whole lot. But there are reasons, that's one of the reasons there's going to be lower traffic. You're talking traffic at two points during the day. So it comes into play, but I don't think it's so emphasized that it's going to be an issue. Yeah, I would just say that I feel like it's very clear that the board thinks that this is a great thing that's happening. And that we would obviously try to deal in a timely fashion with any further requests for changes of usage or time or whatever. If that was necessary, we would definitely want to move on that quickly. Yeah, I'm good. I appreciate the discussion. I need some clarification on that. And I think that the motion that's presented is great. And I'm ready to vote yes. Okay. Give me a little list here. Rob, how do you vote? Yes. Okay. Kevin? Yes. Joe? Yes. Okay. Catherine? Yes. Okay. Gene? Yes. Alex? Yes. And I vote yes as well. So then, so Emeritus want to give me a spiel about when he's got to get his stuff. Yeah. So no, there's no conditions prior to permit issuance on this one. So we will get that decision written as quickly as possible. I have two decisions to work on now. And then once that decision is signed by the chair, I will be able to actually get you the decision and the permit at the same time. So we will get that as soon as possible, Rick. And just watch for an email for us from us because with these decisions, if we mail them, we're supposed to do it certified mail. And that has not been working well for a couple of years now. So the decisions we usually have people come and pick up and sign a little slip, especially because we still haven't replaced our certified mail forms that got washed away. So picking up decisions and you'll get your permit at the same time. Yeah. Hey guys, I just want to thank you and Meredith, thanks for the helping with the application. And I really appreciate the thoughtful consideration tonight. Great. Thank you. You're welcome, Rick. So we need to take a look at minutes of the approval of the last meeting, which was 9, 18, 23. Did everybody get a chance to look at those? Yeah. I didn't see any changes that needed to be made. Meredith? So confession, I didn't actually review these meeting minutes after the secretary did them before sending them all out to y'all. And well, yeah, because I don't think Jean was actually at that meeting. So that changes the list of those present and the votes. So things should be approved five to zero because, Jean, you weren't at the last meeting, right? Yeah. And then at the bottom of the first page, we don't actually have the vote noted there on 12th J Street. So I need to add in approved five to nothing. And then same for the adjournment note. It just says Kevin made a motion to adjourn. So I have to add Joe seconded and then adjourned unanimously. So if those are the only changes I spotted, if you guys are good with those changes, then that's great. You can have a motion to approve with those changes. So moved. Second. All those in favor? And second, if you weren't at the meeting. It wasn't at the meeting. Sorry. I know they all look the same, but they're not. I'll second it. Great, Joe. Thank you. So all those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Those opposed say nay. It passed unanimously. I wasn't there in case that's relevant information. So it doesn't really matter with the revised rules. Okay. So I just wanted to quickly touch on the alternate thing where if we have two alternates that are here and only one of them is voting, I think we should figure out early on in the meeting who that voting member is going to be. And I think just for organizational sake, it would be nice if it was one person so that we didn't kind of flip back and forth between alternates in the same evening. That sounds great. Okay. Meredith likes it.  Yeah, I think it makes sense, Sharon. Good idea. Okay. And then if that's said at the beginning of the meeting just for the record and for minutes purposes and then whoever, however the discussion votes, what works out, whatever, everybody can still be involved. But then we know who's voting. So thank you. I appreciate that, Sharon. Okay. Our next meeting is the I have two questions. Quick one. Okay. Sure. One is I was looking at the minutes and I realized that there's no time on them. There's no time for when the meeting starts and when the meeting ends. And I don't know whether that's just long-sending practice that I hadn't noticed before or whether it's something that we care about. That's question one. And question two is, how do you get those PDFs that you show us on your share screen down to screen size? I mean, Catherine talked about dealing with the PDF. The minute it switches from text to engineered drawings or something, it's almost impossible to manage on the screen for me. Yeah. I would need to look and see what program you're using. I can do it really easily because I have Adobe Pro. So I think you can do that in regular Adobe 2, but the functioning is a little differently. So if you're using a laptop to do this, feel free to bring it in. And I'm happy to play with it with you to help figure it out. I mean, I'm happy to do that for you if you want to just email me when sometimes might work for you. And then I can see if I can figure it out for you. Because I know it is a pain. The other thing is though on the screen, because some of these, if I try and print them out even on 11 by 17, the font and everything is still so tiny that you can't see it. Right. Thank you. And the minutes, the timing thing, it's been the way the minutes have been drafted since before I started here five years ago is not having those times in. I'm not sure it's actually a required aspect. I know that for some meeting minutes, they try and keep the times of the actual votes going. I think that because these meetings are recorded and we keep videos of them, it's felt like that's not quite as essential as my understanding. But we could add it in at some point if the board felt like they wanted to have those times in there. And frankly, it occurred to me because the J Street application for which I was not present seemed really open and shut. And I thought, I wonder if they got out of there in half an hour. I could ask the recording secretary to start to put in like the but you know, in a way that little pieces of information are often interesting, if not important, that's all. That's funny. I think when I was on the DRB before that the whole agenda was timed out. I mean, it was like start here. You have the record video, you can just go back and watch the whole thing if you really want. Meredith, do we have anything on the books for the sixteenth? We don't, which is why it was TBD because we didn't know if something today was going to be continued. So we actually have no applications that have been noticed for the sixteenth. So unless the board has some pressing matter that they want to meet on, I don't have anything for that agenda. And so the board can say it's not going to meet then. Anybody have any pressing they'd like to get together and talk about? See that I do. Okay, then the next meeting would be November sixth because there is an extra Monday in October. So there's two, what, three weeks before we meet again. One, two, three. Okay. Do we have a trajectory for any person meeting spot or is that TBD? That's still TBD. Trying to find a spot that would let us do the hybrid with the Orca recording and zoom is a little tricksy. So I don't have a spot for that yet. And actually right now, I don't have any, I don't even have any applications for November sixth right now because we haven't hit the deadline for that and nothing has come in yet. Did you check for the city league or city in town? Honestly, I have been way too busy to try and actually even reach out just yet. And before I reach out and honestly before I reach out to them, I really need to coordinate with the upper level management because I know they've reached out to a whole bunch of people when they were trying to get a space for city council to meet because city council has been holding some in-person meetings. They're using the high school, I can't remember if it's the auditorium or the gym now for in-person city council, but that's not necessarily going to be available as many nights a week a month as we would need it for both city council and DRB. And if I was going to do that, I'd have to do DRC there too because I can't get from here to there in five minutes and set up. All right. Well, that's enough discussion about that. I guess I would just to make sure that it's clear enough for you, Meredith, because I know that you're doing everything you can to do things the right way. But I think that the Zoom platform is not a replacement for the in-person function of the citizen board process. Oh, I agree. Whenever the opportunity comes aboard to return to that, we look forward to that. But we also understand that it'll take as long as it takes. And so I just want to make sure that you know, I think folks know that I feel that way. I think other members of this board feel that way. And so, yeah. Yeah, I definitely agree. I think we as a board, we can get the job done and perform well all remote, but it's definitely preferable to be able to be both working, you know, together in the room and then also for the applicant and interested residents to have the option to be in person or remote. So my apologies for squirreling up the people's hands raising today. I'll get better at that as I'm learning to manage the multiple Zoom factor here. You did great. You did great. You're a good job, Sharon. All right. Do I have any motion to adjourn, perhaps? So moved. Thank you. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye.