Good evening. I'm John Alden. Welcome to the December 15, 2022, a DRB meeting in the city of Essex, Junction. Got a pretty interesting agenda tonight, but we will jump right in with any additions or amendments to the agenda tonight. None for me. Item two is public to be heard. This is anyone in the audience who is here to speak about an issue that's not on the agenda. Is there anyone who wishes to address the board? Nobody. Okay, we're diving right in. Number three is the meeting minutes of November 17th. You all have in your packets. I will entertain a motion to approve them. All right. Motion is made to approve the minutes. Is there any discussion? I looked at them. I thought they were fine. Anybody else have comments or additions on the minutes? All in favor of the minutes as issued? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. All right, so that takes us right to one of our main events of the evening is the Public Hearing Appeal of Administrative Officers Decision to Deny a Home Occupation Permit for the Cultivation of Cannabis at Five Shauns Way in the R-1 District by Adam Lanza, owner of Passion Fruit Farms, LLC. Are the they're appellant? What are they? They're not applicants anymore at this point. Appellants. Good. Feel free to sit out there. Anywhere you want. Come on in. My phone. Hope you never have. Good. So, Adrian, would you like to... What? Oh. This is a piece of paper with the script on it with the oath. I have to read though. Did I miss a whole step at the beginning about the hybrid meeting? Anyone want to get me out of hot water on that? I will read the hybrid meeting script. Okay. This is a little bit lengthy. The meeting of the class extension DRB is in order. This is a hybrid meeting held both at to Lincoln and on Zoom because there may be technical difficulties or reasons that otherwise prevent or interrupt remote public participation. It's important to note that the open meeting law only ensures the public's right to participate and comment if you are at the physical location. If a member of the public or of the public body has technical difficulties accessing this meeting remotely, please alert us either using the chat feature on Zoom or by emailing our Mahoney at sxjunction.org. And in the event of a technical difficulty that cannot be resolved, we may continue the meeting if necessary. I think that is unlikely. So I think we're good on that one. All right. So I'm going to read the following oath to people and for all people who are interested in speaking on this issue tonight or any... Well, we'll do anybody speaking on any issue tonight and do them all at once? Yep. Okay. I hear by swear that the evidence I give in the cause under consideration shall be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So help me God under the pains and penalties of perjury. All right. Good. Thank you. All right. We've got quite a bit of material on this subject already. My understanding is it generally comes down to what home occupation means and whether or not you can have a home occupation of a non permitted use in a given zoning district.  It doesn't have to be lengthy because we've all read it, but tell us what you're thinking. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And when you say you've all read it, you've read the letter I submitted today. Right. Sorry, that was submitted so close to the meeting. Yeah, that wasn't my favorite, but we have it. Great. Thank you. Would it be most helpful for the board just have a little overview of what the project is first or would you like me to jump into the... I don't know. I mean, I got to a sense. So I did a couple of things and I went... I mean, I know the neighborhood reasonably well. I have to say that walking up and down Maple Street for the past 25 years, I barely noticed Sean's way. So the fact that you're on a, you know, the last house in at the end of a dead end that nobody really knows is there, I'm not sure it's relevant to me what you're doing there because you're not supposed to have any physical evidence that you're doing anything there to be a home occupation. So let's just say that something is happening in a home that is could be anything nobody's supposed to know. And yet at the end of the day, it's got to be granted a permit by the city in this forum and we have a chart that says some things are okay and some things aren't. And so I'm trying to keep this completely away from whether it's cannabis or not cannabis because I think that gets us all into trouble. So given that, go ahead. Okay. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. And I guess I would say in the event that we determine that this is a home occupation and Mr. Landau can apply for home occupation, not restricted by the use table. I think we would want to give the board evidence about how his project meets all the criteria within that home occupation section of the city's code. Well, I'm going to grant that you probably can easily because the application that we got indicates a long checklist of things that you can or can't do and they all appear to be relatively easy to satisfy, you know, amount of vehicles and trucks and deliveries and so on. So if we have questions about that, we'll ask you, but I'm still, for me anyway, the crux of it is the legal matter of whether or not a non-permitted use can be granted a permit because it's a home occupation. Is that fair? Anybody else is welcome to chime in, but I'm just trying to figure out what we're listening on testimony. I don't need to really go through a lot of stuff that probably isn't relevant given that there's been so much movement already. If other members are looking for more information, chime in. If and when we get to the public portion of this, we need to get more evidence, chime in, but I think it's for me and it's a fairly easy legal matter, but I don't know if it goes this way or that way yet. So to be clear, I am the acting zoning administrator on this home occupation. So the staff person that you have for you for the Development Review Board here tonight is Wendy, who's participating on Zoom. So I think in terms of process and procedure, these folks want to present their case first. That's great. And then I think it would behoove us to have Wendy present the city side of things. I am here to answer questions as the zoning administrator who denied the home occupation if you have questions for me. Yes. And I'll just say that the denial was a fairly narrow statement. You didn't get into whether they complied with any of the other stuff that got into whether or not it's legal to have a cannabis business in a or a non permitted use granted some license to exist, no matter how in a zoning district that doesn't allow the actual use, not the home occupation. Home occupation is allowed in R1 districts. Cannabis cultivation is not allowed in R1 districts. So if you're saying it's the permitted use or not, it's not permitted. If you're saying it's a home occupation, it appears to be permitted unless something trumps the other. So I'll wait to get, why don't you present your case and we'll have Wendy, Robert, and then somehow we'll decide. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I don't mean to keep the board on its edge of its seat, because I do want to agree. Yeah, but the identified the main issue. Yeah, the concern I have is if once the board decides and one part whether that it's the town or Mr. Lanzin decides to appeal this and it goes to the environmental court, the town or not town anymore, your city, the city is adopted on the record appeals to the environmental court. So the record we're creating here is what the court will make its decision upon. And I just want to make sure we're giving it as much evidence as possible to do that. So we don't have to come back here if the court decides differently than you do. But I'll get into the argument. So as the board identified, the zoning administrator's decision was based on the youth table in section 620 of the city's land development code. That youth table says what are permitted uses and what are conditional uses in the various districts. And I agree they're in the R1 district where Mr. Lanzin's house is. Cannabis cultivation is not a permitted use. That doesn't necessarily mean that cannabis cultivation is not required or is not permitted whatsoever in that district, but he can apply if he wants to use his property solely for cannabis cultivation as defined under the zoning ordinance as a permitted use in that district. And I think we're all in agreement on that. However, the zoning code and state statute are very clear that no bylaws in the code may restrict a homeowner's right to have a home occupation so long as it meets the home occupation criteria. And I guess we had a little discussion earlier about what those criteria might be. But the issue here for the board, I guess, initially is you asked, does something trump the permitted use, use table of the zoning ordinance? And the answer is yes. The zoning ordinance itself does. That's section 711, which says nothing in this code shall infringe upon the right of any resident to use a minor portion of a dwelling for an occupation, which is customary in residential areas and which does not change the character thereof. And this provision more or less copies Vermont state law in Title 24, Chapter 17, which governs zoning in the city. Section 4412 subsection 4 requires the same thing. And the only difference in that section is that the home occupation shall not have an undue adverse impact and undue adverse effect upon the character of the residential area in which the dwelling is located. As the chairman pointed out, this house is on a dead-end road and we'd be happy to provide the board with ample evidence that there will be no impacts of this use outside of the house that are noticeable at all as an incredibly small and imperceptible occupation and use within this neighborhood and will not change the residential character of the neighborhood. And in terms of interpreting that, I think the plain language of the city zoning ordinance is clear. I think state law is clear. And when you have clear plain language, you don't need to get into the intent of the ordinance. But even if you did, in this case, we're talking about Mr. Lanz's property rights to have a minor home occupation in his own home. And in that case, the Mont Spring Court has said that, well, let me back up. The starting point for all this is that zoning regulations restrict private property rights. And because of that, they must be construed in favor. If there's any ambiguity in the board's interpretation of a bylaw, it must be construed in favor of the landowner. That is especially the case, as Vermont Spring Court has said, when this home occupation permit statute is involved, because there's a specific state law that goes above and explicitly calls out home occupations as worthy of protection and that no city bylaw may infringe upon that right. And so and interpreting that statute, the Vermont Environmental Court has also clarified and answered the board's question, stating that home occupations enjoy a special and distinct designation and allow for the use of residential property that would not otherwise be allowed absent the use's connection to an applicant's home. Thus, the authority to conduct and continue a use that would not otherwise be allowed in a certain zoning district is conditioned upon the operators of the business also occupying the property is primary residence. You know, those sentences essentially repeat each other themselves, but generally the environmental court judges are better writers than I am. The point there is that the state statute I think is already clear enough and that should end the question. But to the extent the board has a question about what the statute means, the environmental court has already answered it that the protection for a homeowner's ability to have a home occupation in their house means you can have a home occupation in your residence that is not otherwise permitted in that district. And I think there's I don't know for sure. I'm sure the whether the zoning administrator or someone in the town might know the answer to this, but there seems to be a number of uses in the the use table that could be home occupations that are not allowed in the R1 district. For example, one of the uses is professional services. You know, you can imagine someone has you might be a psychiatrist or some sort of professional who has a solo practice and runs out of their home. That's a very customary home occupation. It's not a use that's allowed in the R1 district. But I don't think that that would be a basis to deny that home occupation. This conclude with my last note. I think the in the staff report for the board it identified the changes made to the city's land development code in response to licensing of cannabis establishments. And I noted that what's called tier one manufacturing is allowed as a home occupation by definition and cultivation is not under the the city's land development code definitions cultivation is a broad category. It covers all ranges of cultivation from small home occupation indoor and and basically tucked away operations such as Mr. Lanzas all the way up to a large outdoor cultivation that might be more commonly seen in an agricultural area. That's not the case with manufacturing. Manufacturing has three different tiers in the Essex code. It has three different tiers in the state cannabis control board regulations. In fact, as far as I could tell the Essex code essentially copies and adopts the state's definition for these three different tiers. Tier one cannabis manufacturing is required by the state to be a home occupation. It's the smallest tier of manufacturing and state rules required to be home occupation and therefore the Essex code requires it to be home occupation. Tier two and three manufacturing are larger uses. This isn't any evidence of the city's intent to determine that manufacturing is should be home occupation and cultivation is not. It's simply a ministerial copy pasting of what the state's rules are, which I imagine was fairly wise move for administrative efficiency. It also leads to the point that if the city did not allow tier one manufacturing as a home occupation, it would essentially be prohibiting tier one manufacturing from the entire city because that's the only way you can do tier one manufacturing. And doing that would be in violation of the state statute, which prohibits any municipality from wholly banning cannabis establishments. So in summary to answer the board's question, can there be a home occupation for use that's not permitted within a district? The answer is clearly yes. That answer is yes, based on the city's own bylaws based on state statute that the city is required to follow in its bylaws. And it's based on the court's interpretation of this question already. Thank you very much for your consideration. We ask questions now. Can we ask questions now or wait till we get both sides? I would recommend that you go to Wendy. I just wanted to, I've said plenty. I wanted to see if the rest of the board wanted to start in, but Wendy, how are you? You are muted. Sorry about that. I'm good. How much of the report are you interested in hearing? You were provided the report. I can read through it or the staff comments. I'm not sure what you mean by the report. The staff report. We've all read the staff report. If anybody else wants to see it or is unfamiliar with it, we'll probably get questions. So again, for me, the key question is, we've heard testimony on whether you can have a non-primary use be a home occupation in the district that it's not permitted to be in. So that's really the cross I think. So if you can shed some light on that and then continue to inform us on what we need to know, that would be great. In the reports, it, we can say that everything was filed in a timely manner and the land development code does indicate that we do not allow tier one cultivation for cannabis in the R1 districts. And that is why the home occupation was denied. And I think our own attorney has been supportive of our decision according to the home occupation and that we as a city have every right to determine what is allowed in a residential area to that would. I guess I'm going to go back to something that the appellant asked and is relevant to me, which is if it wasn't cannabis list, because I think it's pretty clear what the city council was trying to do when they wrote the cannabis requirements and said what district it should be in or shouldn't be in. And so we got that, right? And that's really the guidance that we're trying to follow is what did the city intend and is that supported by the documentation that's available in state statute and city statute. And I'm kind of not sure at the moment. I'm thinking that the, you know, let's just take the example of the professional services. If I don't allow professional services in a certain district, but if I say it's a home occupation, I can still do it, then for me, that test is is pretty important because I would apply the same test to cannabis or any other activity that was suggested. So I know the state said you can't treat cannabis any differently. And that's fine. Nobody's trying to do that. We regulate most uses in the city by a picking or am either allowing or excluding them from happening in a given district. And that's fine. That's how we do it. So I'm struggling to see why the city's saying you can't do it. And the appellant is saying, well, yes, you can. And the difference is that it's a home occupation. And if we meet all the requirements or a home occupation, then then we can do it, right? So that's I'm hearing two things and I'm struggling to figure out, you know, I'm not a judge by trade, but I'm pretty logical. And so if somebody can present why one side can be true in the other can't, that would be really helpful. Because right now I'm saying to myself that home occupation is permitted in an R1 district. And so you can't say that a home occupation of activity X is OK, but activity Y is not OK. That can't we can't say that. So how do we how do we reach our conclusion here? I think one of the differences with this particular home occupation is it can impact the residential neighborhood through the smell or light of the actual cultivation. And that's where that was the concern behind having cultivation in a residential area. But that's I don't see legally. I mean, again, I'm not a lawyer either, but I don't see legally how you can make those distinctions if you're without. Modifying the home occupation rules, right? Because let's and this is maybe a good time to go to the definitions that of a home occupation that were alluded to before. But there's a list of of 10 items here. And maybe there's actually 14 items that are required to be met in order to be a home occupation. And they basically say, and I'm paraphrasing, you won't know we're here. You can't see us. It doesn't affect the character of the neighborhood. We wouldn't know from looking at the building from the outside that anything was happening that wasn't within the character of a normal neighborhood. And I'm having a really hard time imagining that that wouldn't be true. So if we maybe I'll go back to the appellants on the on the 14 points here and just let's just put those on the record because I didn't even know the street was there, right? So now when I went to the street and I went down to see where this house is, there's nobody going to be there that shouldn't be there because they intended to be there. So let's go through the 14 points. I think that's a good time for us to do that. And then we can keep asking questions. But in the back of my mind, I'm asking the question. If I don't know what's there and I'm not changing the character of the neighborhood and the definition of what I'm doing by its own meeting, these definitions says you won't know I'm here. How could how can we argue that it's that it's changing the character of the neighborhood? So let's let's go through the point. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just note to understand city's concerns that motivated these changes with respect to smell and light. Those are criteria that we need to meet. And so we're going to show the board why there are not issues with smell and light. But I'll be happy to go through the right view criteria with Mr. Land's help. And you're at the board's talking about section 711 when you're talking about the 14 points, is that right? I'm looking at the home application occupation application and I'm looking at the land development code requirements in there 1 through 14. They come from a specific location you tell me, but I'm reading. Right. Right off your application. I think we're looking at the same thing, but let me make sure I'm just looking at the same documents. And I would just offer that section 711 starts with home occupations before you get to the 14 criteria and describes foreign occupation, which is customary in residential areas. And I think that's a critical component for his report to consider. And Mr. Blyche, so the 1st criteria is that the you shall be conducted entirely within the dwelling by residents of the dwelling and no outside employees may be hired. And if you just break that down, will the use be conducted entirely within the dwelling? What is what does the use look like? Or what was it contained within? So in the garage, there is a build-down section of two rooms that are sealed grow rooms that I can go through the construction, but basically don't allow any air to go in or out from the outside. There's a nursery room inside the basement area of our house. And the same instruction is sealed on the inside, no exchange air. There's E-doors for each of the free rooms for the state and it is control board and they have online, all of them online security units that notify us. Is there any aspects of the use that will be outside of the dwelling? There is a air conditioner mini-split and so the condenser unit of that sits outside in the back. Is that something that's customary as a residential? I think so because our neighbor has one and it gets even bigger. The residents in the neighborhood just have conditions. Okay. And the 2nd part of that criteria, will the use be conducted entirely by residents of the dwelling with no outside in place? Okay. Will the next criteria number 2 is that no more than 20% of the total area of the dwelling, including areas used for storage or equipment may be used by the home occupation? I think we calculated it out to 18.7%. Okay. And I think every number in the staff report is something around 15%, but you've re-measured it more accurately recently. We measured today just to make sure. Okay. It looks like we've increased it by 86 square feet from the original house. So we're still honored that 10% was used. Okay. I just wanted the board to be aware that the staff report correctly said 15%. We just wanted to update it. It's now 18%. Okay. Item number 3 is merchandise offered for sale. Shall be samples only. Orders may be taken for delivery off the premises. Will there be any merchandise offered for sale on the premises? What, where is the merchandise sold? Merchandise can only be sold to other licensed, either retailers or wholesalers, other Vermont State, Kansas. Number 4, delivery of any product to the home for business purposes shall not occur more frequently than once a day by trucks or vehicles ordinarily utilized for residential deliveries. How frequently will there be deliveries of any product for this year? It's the only appreciable delivery. Okay. And what kind of soil is that? So that's living organic soil that we get from Colorado. And it allows us to not use very many fertilizers or things that are fully organic. And how big is that delivery when that happens? That's like two yards of soil. So that's it will come on a box truck. And I think probably the size of it. Okay, great. Criterion number 5 is that there's no toxic explosive, flammable, combustible, corrosive, etiologic, radioactive, or other restricted material shall be stored on site. Any hazardous materials stored on site? Not at all.  I don't even know. Saw that. Number 6, no mechanical equipment other than normally utilized within a dwelling for household or hobby purposes shall be allowed. What kind of mechanical equipment is contemplated by the use? So we have lights, we have an air conditioner, we have a dehumidifier, and we have fans. Okay, and are the lights, those are within sealed? Okay, would you ever see the lights outside of the seals? Absolutely not. So and I will say that if light pollution were to come in at the wrong time in their dark-timing rooms, so it's an indoor operation by default in order for it to be successful has to be a sealed light. Okay, and the air conditioners you talked about those are the many splits. Okay, dehumidifiers are just inside. No exhaust. Okay, criteria number seven is no activity shall be conducted which would interfere with radio or television reception, nor shall there be any offensive noise, smoke, dust, or heat noticeable property line. Just break that into two. Is there any activity that would interfere with radio or television reception? Okay, would there be any noise, smoke, dust, or heat noticeable property line? Will there be any noise, smoke, dust, or heat noticeable outside your garage door? Number eight is no home occupation shall require external alteration of the residence or show other evidence of the conduct of such home occupation. Will there be any evidence of the home occupation outside of the residence? Only the air conditioner condenser. And is where is that located on the house? That is behind the garage. Okay. In the back. In the back, here. Number nine deals with traffic. The home occupation shall not cause or encourage vehicular traffic not ordinarily associated with the residential area in which the home occupation is conducted except as specified below. I'm going to skip reading these two paragraphs and paraphrase in the interest of time. They deal with public access to home occupation and occasional parties, meetings, or classes associated with home occupation. Is there going to be any public access to this home occupation? Okay. Will there ever be any parties, meetings, or classes associated if you ever had any business meetings? Where would you have those? Phone. And otherwise, would this occupation cause or encourage any vehicular traffic? Just, well, how often would you deliver your product? It would successful at the four times a year would be what we would choose. So every few months we would make a single delivery. I think this, it would fit in the back of my two totes. Criteria number 10 is that deals with advertising for home occupation. Will there be any on-premise advertising? It's not an our interest. Criteria number 11, as if the home occupation includes classes or instructions and deals with the number of students. You said there won't be any classes or instructions. Okay. Number 12, home occupations shall be open only between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. Is this ever open to the public? Never open to the public. 13, the parking or storage of commercial vehicles shall not exceed one commercial automobile pickup or van. Will there be any commercial vehicles associated with this? Okay. Other than the soil delivery, I see that. Okay, but those aren't, those aren't your commercial. So, and Criteria number 14 requires that state of Vermont permits shall be obtained prior to operation of the home occupation. If applicable, will you obtain all required state of Vermont permits prior to operating? Okay, then as the zoning administrator pointed out, the home occupation by-law refers to occupations that are customary in residential areas. I just want to ask you a few questions about that. How long have you lived in Vermont? 28 years. Okay, do you know anyone who has a home occupation? Do, I've met several folks. You know, one of my best friends is a mechanic and he ran his shop in this house for quite a while. My partner has a glass making business at her house. I've known painters and carpenters and woodworkers that work out of their house. Okay, when you say work out of their house, do any of them work out of their garage? They're primarily garage items. How would a mechanic use their garage? So they have a car brought over and the person leaves their car and they put it up on their left in their garage and open door and bring parts in and out and work on them. Deliveries would come of parts and car would leave, they get parked in the yard, another car would come and that kind of thing. Are there impacts you're aware of that would? I would say in that case there are impacts in that there's multiple cars there and there's sound and there's probably some pollution of hazardous waste potentially going into concrete and things like that. That's certainly a heavier use. You mentioned how to painter use their garage. So the painters would go ahead and spray paint the car parts or what I'm familiar with and then there's left over some disposal question of how it gets disposed for. Is it a drain or whether it's on the floor or what? So I think I can see that is it. Can we bring this back to the issue at hand, please? Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a few more questions on this. Do you know anyone who grows plants as a home occupation? So I've gone into the Essex Farmers Market several times and I know there's quite a few folks there that grow those vegetables on their property and quite proud of it. Could you use the proposed cannabis cultivation operation that you've designed? Could you use that to grow plants that aren't cannabis? Absolutely. What kind of plants? Could be anything. It was to orchids, to mushrooms, to lettuce, to flowers. Culinary mushrooms? All right. Can I ask a few questions? Sure. So from the street, let's say you happen to walk down the street, how do I know that you have a home occupation? One reason would be that the state CCD recommends, not required, they recommend that I would print the permit and put it on the outside of the garage window. So if someone were to come and suspect something, they would be able to see that. And so there's really no other outward indication whatsoever that you're doing anything other than living there. Yeah. We've heard there's no smell, there's no odor, there's no light, there's no meetings, there's less than, I have more than that going on at my house. And I don't even have a home occupation. I'm getting that. So back to Wendy. I'm really struggling to figure out why this is detrimental or even that the community character would be harmed or that anyone would even know they're there. And why should we, how can we make a rule that says you can't do this? If by definition you can do this. When we created the, this particular code, it was looking at what has happened nationally with cannabis cultivation and smell has been something that has been a significant concern with hounds and there are, our filtration is something that is required in a lot of places to reduce the smell. There's also, there's full factory meters at this point to try to determine if there's no, and the filtration systems need to be kicked on. So there is, that is a significant concern. Is there any, I mean, is there any evidence to suggest that we have that somewhere? I mean, how, we can be concerned about it, but how do we say, well, that break, I mean, I'm much more concerned about the case where it's a car, you know, person working on cars in the garage, because then you do have noise and you have smell and you have visual and you have, and, you know, we, we're kind of aware of that type of issue. I'm, I mean, short of somebody being able to actually walk by the house and smell it, I, I don't, I guess I don't see, I don't get it. It's not hitting my brain or problems yet, you know, like as far as, no, this doesn't, the guy is under the ground, he doesn't want you to know he's there. Well, I was going to offer that from a security perspective, I don't want that he smell outside.  So I don't get that as an opportunity. If you have a fan in the window and you're blowing, you know, outdoors with, with indoor air, now, now maybe there's an issue, but so you said it's a sealed room. Yeah, if I may, I think there's one point that we forgot to discuss could, would you just explain to the board the carbon filters that you do have and, and where the air is exchanged out of the rooms? So on occasion, I do want to urge the air in the room. And so we have a, it's about this tall, it's like six inches wide or six inch two that would go up and it scrubs the air in the room and would put it back into the garage. If I felt like it was necessary to vent, but that's the extent of the venting. And there's, there's carbon filters in that machine inside the room itself to scrub. So any air that got removed would go through the carbon filters. And that could be a condition of the permit that any air was filtered to carbon filters. It's just the way the grow is set up. It's part of the culture. All right. Does anyone else on the board have a question? I don't know if this is, I was just curious about the other neighbors on the street. And if they have the right to know that there's something like this going on, or if they are aware of it already. I just was, didn't know if that was part of the process that the neighbors are informed of this or on that street. The neighbors are notified of this appeal application. And so they are aware now. Okay. Thank you. And can I just ask another, another question? It's, as far as enforcement, I think the applicant mentioned that the, the percentage of his home that would be used for this, he reassessed it and the percentage went up. Like, how does that get, how does that get enforced? You know, after the fact, if something changes, does, is there a visit to the house on a from the city or how does that work? Again, I wouldn't, I don't know. We're not struggling with enforcement, I think a little bit in the city. And we'll probably be addressing that at some point in the future. But my guess is that you would start getting complaints from people that said, Hey, you know, that there used to be one truck, you know, every four months or three months, and now there's 10, you know, a week. So something must be going on there. And that would probably prompt a visit from one or more enforcement people of whoever those people are. But short of that, I'm having trouble imagining a less impactful to the surrounding area of business.  So anyway, I'm not, I'm just trying to figure out why we're so concerned. And I'm trying to figure out how it's not related to cannabis. And so, you know, so far, you know, it comes down to, again, if it's, if it's any activity that's you can be reasonably doing already in your, you know, cultivating, we're just saying we're cultivating plants.  And if that's routine in the neighborhood, then it ought to be routine here. And and I'm waiting to find out why it's not. So we'll keep going and I'll get more board comments. So I can, as the in making my initial decision, I can explain some of that. Okay. So the to be clear, the state has laid out a process for municipalities to use zoning to regulate cannabis. And they have made it clear in their guidance that this is a situation where the city could not prohibit all of the cannabis establishes establishments from the city as a whole, but the city has the right to use zoning. A very real and useful way zoning is used is by defining what districts a use can occur within. The city has allowed each of the cannabis establishments as defined in state statute in districts throughout the city. The intent of the council in making the land development code changes was very clear that cultivation can only occur in the planned agricultural district. The home occupations are certainly offered a level of, I'm going to use protections, but that's not the right word, a level of authority within, within zoning. The very clear issue is that cannabis is not customary in residential areas. It's not customary because it's a, one, it is a brand new use. Two, it's a controlled substance. And for that reason, um, I don't feel that it meets the definition of home occupation and, and rises to the level where it, um, it could be approved in that way. Um, I'll stop, I'll stop there. Okay. Other board comments? Uh, so can I open it up to the public now? Is there any one in the audience that would care to speak to this topic? My name is Elise Martin. I'm Adrian's partner. Um, I just want to say just side comment, you can have dinner over at our house and sit in the, in the kitchen at our table and you would not know we have this home occupation happening. Just want to say that second of all, I think if it, um, if it mattered what your feelings were, Regina, then that would be a not a home occupation issue. We're here about the home occupation application and the requirements that are asked of us. We have met all of them and there's nothing on there that says anything about controlled substances being excluded from the home occupation permit at all. So again, we are applying for home occupation. We have met all of the criteria. You one, nobody walks down our street because it's a dead end street. So no, there's no reason to. It's completely surrounded by hedges and wood. So you can't see anything at all. Again, sealed rooms. So you can't smell anything and not that we've hid anything from our neighbors, but our children play together and they are very happy and I'm sure that our neighbors would be happy to come and speak on our behalf and show that we are orderly, nice, committed and engaged with the community on a level that you probably wouldn't expect from most stoners as you're probably thinking we are. So that's just my piece. Can you, can I ask you a couple of other questions I got started? So the glass business, um, I know some glass artists and that there's, there's heat, there's smell, there's flame, there's no that not on yours glass cutter and I saw her and that's it. So more of a stained glass thing. Yes, that's exactly what I do. It makes stained glass pieces in window art. No, I was just saying, you know, as as home occupations go, there are some other home occupations that probably are more offensive than their outward manifestations that get less I think glass making is more offensive than cultivation actually because of the glass dust that you can breathe in. I have to wear a mask. We don't have to wear a mask when we're cultivating. It's literally taking care of plants, harvesting them and that's it. Okay, thanks. Any other questions? Okay. I reread the the rules on taking testimony and making a decision. It says we have 45 days to figure this out. So that means we don't actually have to decide something tonight, but if we could, that's always good, right? Is that procedurally what happens? Yes, you have 45 days. Once you close this hearing, you have 45 days to make a decision. The DRV in your deliberative sessions has the right to ask for legal counsel on this. I would always recommend this case or any other that it's customary if you're getting something the day of your hearing that you take some time and think through it. I will say the one thing that bothered me a little is essentially taking my legal advice from the applicant. I would really like to get the city's legal advice at the same time. Because we're now quasi-judicial and we're basically listening to the lawyers tell us what we can and can't decide on. And sometimes that defies common sense. I try to follow my logic and common sense the best I can, but it doesn't always mean legally I know what I'm doing. So I think my suggestion would be to follow that suggestion and say, if we're all done talking about this, and I'll let everyone have one more pass. But if we're all done talking about this, I'd suggest that we conclude the public hearing and then postpone the deliberative session until later. And that could be after later tonight or it could be later once we've had the city council take a look at all of this. Because I still have the same question. If you switch the actual use here, does it happen for some other use? Is it okay? We apply all the same tests, all the same rules. And if we can say, well, that's okay, then I need to know that. Yeah. Sorry, I have one other question. Is this the first application that the city is seeing for cultivation of cannabis in the city just since I've joined the committee? I believe it is. We had somebody that came through the PC before all the rules went into place and was just trying to get a sense of where the correction was. And I think that was more of an outdoor growing. We're growing our four plants that we can legally grow now, but if we want to grow more, I keep looking at your screen. Anyway, if I grow five plants or 100, what happens? But that was just coming to talk to us. That wasn't an actual case. There was a cultivation license that was approved prior to our land development code because the city wasn't created until July 1st. So there was another license that was that this the DRB or we haven't, we haven't, no, thank you. Thank you, Wendy. Anyone else on the camera remotely that has a hand up or wants to say something? Any closing remarks, Wendy? Just trying to uphold the intent of the LDC and keeping residential areas as comfortable for all of the residents. Okay. Anyone else on the board? Anyone else in the audience? The appellants, any final remarks? Well, I've taken up plenty of the board's time. We really appreciate your attention to this. I guess I would ask the DRB has right to its own counsel, but if the city attorney is providing any sort of public opinion to the board, I would like an opportunity just to respond to that. Otherwise, I appreciate your consideration. Thank you. Thank you. Motion to close the public hearing. Second. All in favor of closing the public hearing? Aye. Public hearing is closed. Thank you very much. As I said, I think we'll do our Dilwood of session later within the 45 days and we'll have an answer to you. Otherwise, it passes anyway. Thank you. Thank you. Sounds good, right? All right, so back to our agenda. We are up to public hearing B, a conceptual site plan to remove an existing duplex and construct 18 residential units with parking at 161 Pearl Street in the H.A. District by 161. Cheeseman, LLC owner are the applicants here and I believe I see one or two. Come on up. Introduce yourselves and you've already been sworn in. So your read to begin a presentation. Yeah, Brian Currier, Laurie Burke, civil associates. Doug Cheeseman. So I've read through all your material. I'm sure the rest of the board has. But why don't you tell us what you have for us and maybe walk us through the fine points and I think parking is probably the big one. But other than that, tell us how you get 18 units on there Okay. So we're proposing, you said an 18 unit apartment building on property at 161 Pearl Street. There's an existing duplex on the property and nonconforming use. The property is approximately .32 acres. The applicant also owns the property at 159 Pearl Street. The property just to the east of the proposed development. We're proposing so we're proposing to construct reconstruct an existing parking space in front of the new apartment building by parking spaces. We are in the highway arterial district which does not have a density requirement. Essentially, it's how many units can you supply parking for? You mentioned John. So most of the so the building is it's an 18 unit apartment building. It's a four story building. The application does call it a four and a half story building. But as the staff report goes through the definitions of a story and how height is measured, we do meet the four store requirement in the district and we also meet the height requirement in the district. There's an entrance of the building in the front along Pearl Street. There's also an entrance to the building. What we call the half story which is the basement of the building along the rear. The parking lot for the joining commercial space to the south of the proposed building. I don't know if many of you I'm sure a long time message residents know the building but there is a two-story component to the building in the back. So we do drop a story as you get to that rear parking lot behind the 59 Pearl Street property. So we do have municipal water and sewer utilities. Most of our landscaping is concentrated along the front parking space and we do have a sidewalk connection in the rear. There is a wetland that was delineated associated with Senator Landbrook in the rear of the property. We did include an email from the district wetland ecologist saying that the proposal seemed that it would be approvable. We do need a wetlands permit from the state of Vermont and we're aware of that. But as part of our conversation with the state in order to impact a piece of the buffer in order to construct our sidewalk to the rear entrance and propose landscaping we are proposing to eliminate a little impervious area on the adjacent property that's already in the buffer and replace it with more landscaping. So to get into the uh you want me to get into parking? Uh well you need so many parking spaces for the use and and you don't have them exactly on your parcel. So I'm sure everybody's wondering how you're getting the parking. I will say that I am familiar with shared parking and and so on. Maybe others aren't so you might want to just talk. So we provided a table in our application materials for the adjacent 159 Pearl Street project or existing 159 property to the south. It's 100% commercial. We showed all the tenants their uses their required spaces. Based on the land development code we're not asking for any waivers or any changes to the land development code for the parking apartments at the existing commercial building. It shows that the required parking for that facility is 54 spaces. There's a total of 81 spaces now. Five spaces are being constructed as part of our building so that's a total of 86. So we have 86 parking spaces proposed as uh between the two parcels. 54 of them are associated with the uh commercial use. That leaves 32 spaces that are available um for a shared parking agreement with the neighboring property and under common ownership. We haven't supplied that uh shared parking agreement but we recognize in the staff report and there will be a requirement in case something is sold. We're requesting 18 spaces for the apartment building. The land development code requires two spaces per unit I believe and then one for an additional 10. So you know significantly more than the 18 that we're requesting. The ratio we're going for is 1.25 spaces per unit of the 18 units. They're all one bedroom units so expected to be limited parking for the units that are being proposed. So the waiver uh the planning commission previously had granted or has a history of granting waivers uh within the village uh the DRP. We don't have a history with yet obviously but uh one of the most applicable studies that our firm has done was back in 2012 uh was the most recent one done and it was done at the uh 235-241 Pearl Street property uh about a mile uh towards the uh 15 Suzy Wilson intersection and that study was done uh on four days late at night when you'd expect a residential building which these are it's actually a mix of these two properties of one bedrooms and two bedrooms. So for a one bedroom use you'd expect the parking to be even less than what was studied but that study showed that the spaces per unit were about one space per unit were being utilized in this space. Now I think one space a unit is definitely on the aggressive side for a residential so we're proposing 1.25 spaces per unit and that's where we get um to the 18 that are being proposed um and that's that's with the five that are so we get up to uh 23 and that's the 1.25 uh spaces per unit. We also did a parking count on the 159 Pearl Street property. We did a parking count at 1 p.m. in March of this year during what we would consider a peak commercial time on the property and it showed that there were 32 spaces being utilized mostly in the front but some in the some in the rear very few if any along the side of the building the uh sorry I just didn't show up on the screen along the uh the old Harley Davidson dealership I think it's Champlain Equipment now maybe but along the east side of the building very little uh parking's being utilized as most of the front entrances or front and rear are where the entrances are located so um so we calculated 54 uh spaces to be required as part of that building. We counted 32 and what I would consider a peak time so that's an extra 22 spaces that we're not asking for credit for but we believe that there's plenty of parking to accommodate the uses that are within the structure the 159 commercial building the 18 residential one-bedroom units that are being proposed and then there is a buffer there if Mr. Cheeseman has a tenant that would require more parking that would like like to go into the 159 Pearl Street building. All right so any board questions or maybe I'll let the city engineer the port staff uh sure go through this with us sure and and the board if you have comments or questions along the way uh you know just ask. Okay so um we did a review of this project it actually came in I think initially to the city as a final application so it's a fairly complete set of plans um and at that point they were told that they needed to come in for sketch first the process in the HA district is sketch then move to final so essentially what we have is a really complete set of plans for sketch something that's gonna say a lot more than we would normally see thanks for reminding me yeah so that's why you see uh a pretty extensive staff report for a sketch plan review um but given that those plans came in um to the office uh as city engineer we reviewed um that's our chance to get it I hate I hate it when we um don't make a comment for something and then we make that comment later it just looks bad so that's why there's so many comments here but I think um if we can get through them we talk to the applicant get through them um should make smooth sailing um for for the next level if they get there um so I think that rather than go through every one of the staff reports that we complied with or they complied with I think if we just hit the highlights of things that I think need to be addressed from a city city standpoint ideal yeah I think that's the most um efficient use of everybody's time um so I'm gonna just zip through um the ones and if I'll slow down I'll go back if you guys want um but I'm just gonna hit the ones that were bolder um most of them are very specific um and easily resolved I think um so uh the first one is uh parking in the setbacks in uh the front parking area that they're creating um they show one space that is in the side yard setback that is not allowed um by the land development code um and so I note that whether or not um you guys choose to waive that that's up to you guys but I just bring it up to your attention that um that's a piece of the code that's not met so it'd be on the one on the south side yeah I think it's this last one right there where the cursor is um very minor yeah at about the space some of these holy it's it's a 30% or 40% of it or some of these comments are finicky their final comments at sketch but that's what we do um so uh so there's one there um in terms of the the parking waiver they're asking for that waiver um we had made a comment that they should uh provide supporting data for a similar use it sounds like they've done that um tonight um and I was I'm aware of that in the past that the planning commission for previous projects has done that um I just like to have the data in this application so you guys can make that informed decision so let me just chime in on that because there is a whole manual on shared parking and you get the signed various uses and things that are we did you double check without or is it you didn't even go to that level yeah even though it's mixed use and you know usually residential and commercial work well together if you look at it on an hour basis we didn't even go because you have actual physical data from planning commission had a lot of history with with those types of waivers yeah stand if the year b wants to see something different uh that's fine uh but we were relying on previous decisions and um uh yeah we didn't even go to that level you didn't think it was yeah unfortunately there's just a little continuity between the planning commission yes yeah the little that's yeah okay good so one of the things but but shared parking is because you know the rules say you gotta have this much and then when we talk about ways to not have that much you have to know why and so thanks for clarifying what we'll um it's further down in the staff report but i'll talk i'll speak to it right now as we're there uh shared parking agreements at least in in in my mind um need to have some sort of uh legal agreement that that survives um changes that might occur you may you may decide to sell one of those parcels and the other person doesn't like that and if it's not a handshake agreement is great and it works until something bad happens um i would highly recommend that you guys require uh some form of a formal agreement that gets submitted that will um stand that yeah we're okay with that um i figured that you would i just it's it's a comment that i think needs to be in the record um okay so uh when we talk about building height um and stories of the building we looked at this really really hard because they're pushing the limit right to the limit which is fine um but i note that on the site plan that we initially received they showed grading around the perimeter of the building um the ground was at close to the ground level up by the first floor near the front of the building and as you went back the grade dropped to be down towards the lower level um no problem um but then a subsequent filing that we got from the applicant after that initial submission had a elevation view that then talked about a retaining wall that was to go around uh the front of the building and down halfway each side of the building um we checked that one as well um that one was okay too the question that i have for them is what are you doing um if you want the retaining wall put it on the site plan so we can understand what needs to be constructed and what's approval if if you don't um the grading as shown on the plan met met those requirements we just need to know um which one it is um so we have a yeah well uh the proposed grading on the site plan is likely what we'll come back with and and that's a that's a discussion for final you guys submit it i'm just bringing it up as hey that's a something that we noted nice to not have a retaining wall if you don't need of course yeah um okay so that's so can we get back to the story thing so did you were determined that that it is acceptable in the lbc definition of fourth-story building with a basement we did we did it's very it's very specific and um in that it depends on the amount of that basement floor that's exposed if it's exposed more than six feet for more than fifty percent of the building it counts um and in this case it's not we went around and we quadruple checked um to make sure that it isn't close but it is fascinating uh i've been on the other side of that too a few times and and basically my interpretation was you get it to balance exactly and then you throw a teaspoon of soil one direction or the other goes the other way yeah so um it's close and you gotta check it and if you guys have a check there is a quite a great difference there so uh if you can pull this off it's actually really nice for the building because then you do actually get two uh exits and and they don't have to be at the same grade in the fact that it's sometimes better if they're not yeah okay um next we talked about uh this front parking area um at least the site plan that we saw didn't have any unless i missed it didn't have any grading shown um for the front parking area so i'm unable to uh understand the pattern of the drainage where the water is going for that parking area we're just gonna want to see that um in the future submittals um can we uh just on the water management that's usually a pretty big topic how does the um water management or storm water detention or any of that stuff apply here does it apply is this parcel big enough is it where are we with that in terms of um state permits it it is less than a half an acre of impervious area so it doesn't trigger a state permit um however the city and the land of element code um because we do have an ms4 permit we're we're concerned with it and we like to look at it and um that leads right into the next comment is we'd like to see the drainage computations um for this even though it's so small the city accounts for every little bit that they can as part of their ms4 permit and so we ask for that data that the city can then use um we get to review it so we understand where water's going and then they get to use it to their benefit um and currently who has to figure out the ms4 permit and the you you have to renew it every so often is that like something that the city's doing i think it's the water quality superintendent that takes care of that um so um again just drainage computations provide them you're familiar with them um and we'll take a quick look at them but it's really a checklist item um so we talk about accessible provisions um they're providing a new striping a new accessible parking space in the back corner um and we just asked for some documentation that confirms that the grading in that area meets the ADA requirements um within the accessible area it needs to be two percent in all directions um it's kind of hard to tell from just those contours so we just asked for a little confirmation there and and the whole accessible route into the other building and we're just going to assume that that uh accessible parking space is going to be part of the agreement with right if it's for the i would think so yeah and i don't necessarily see this as an issue with myself because i think there's areas in that parking lot you could do it even if this one doesn't um we just need to know that we're approving a space that's within the requirements um and um speaking of of accessible spaces we would just love to know confirmation from the applicant that combined these two facilities have the proper number of accessible spaces per the code the land development code based on the number of spaces total um in the development yeah i think the requirements four and that one will be four will make it so um it's just more for you to say it so yeah you can say yep um just just the observation so um when we get done with this development is there a way that we find out whether the existing building is is pushed out of compliance because of anything that happened here that we're saying I mean is that it's probably not really relevant because it's an existing building and whatever right but if we're saying we're going to take some things or use some space that's part of that existing building now and and you're you're um there's two items that to me of speak to that one is the parking um and we're going to preserve that in that agreement and the other we're going to speak about shortly is lighting I think because we're touching that other that existing building um and using it specifically for residential um the the city staff has recommended that we light at least the portion um that's being used for the residential so the back corner um commercial it's not such a big deal we're other than it is unfortunately dark here sometimes during business hours in the winter time but um for the most part the commercial during the day is okay it's light out but um now that it's going to be used for for folks coming home at night um some lighting in the back um is recommended um okay we already talked about that parking space um so landscaping as far as the staff is concerned and and and um our our technical review um they have landscaping proposed um in my mind that's up to the drb to review that and and whether or not they feel it it meets the screening requirements and the buffer requirements of the land development code and we can take a look at those special sections if you want but i think that's really for you guys to look at um as as opposed to me most of our landscaping is concentrated along pearl street um not a ton between uh the existing commercial buildings on either side there's an existing hedge on the north side that we're trying to preserve um and then a lot more in the back so that's where we chose to put the majority of the budget if the board would rather see it somewhere else um let us know this is a little it's a little unique one actually because normally we're we're taking an existing residential residential area we're building an commercial building and trying to provide the buffer between the two and just jobs here but yeah yeah is there uh just getting uh or sticking with that is i mean you're right usually we're saying oh well these commercial buildings are impacting the residential it doesn't work the other way that we have a trigger that says that we need to provide screening for the residential that because we're putting it next to a commercial i i'd have to double check myself but i think the way the land development code says is you need to provide this between those two uses it doesn't say which one's first and you know which one's existing which one's separate it says you need to have buffer between those two and the residential district is in the rear yeah you know and where there's a wetland in southern brook in between so the single family homes are in the rear and multifamily housing is the only residential use allowed in the hx it's the it's the the house that moves in next to the airport shouldn't complain about the noise you know so they shouldn't complain about the commercial activity um but that i think is what the intention of the land development code is i'm just with the landscaping thinking for the the owners you know if i you're trying to provide a relatively nice experience for your residential tenants that may may help to put some more screening in there but you know it's if we can't require it then it's purely a view if we can require it then we probably want to look at that a little bit yeah i mean so we're trying to keep as much vegetation as existing on the sides but if you'd rather see that cleared we'd like to keep the hedge on the north but in between the uh are the both the buildings that that mr cheeseman owns you know if you'd rather see a hedge through there you know that's fine you'll see uh or if you look at the uh the elevations in our site plan which this showed it but the little bump out on the uh the northeast corner of the building yeah our decks so they're not directly across from the commercial building and then the other decks uh of the building in the are uh located on the front so we purposely didn't put any decks directly facing the adjacent commercial building now you have windows but you know that it's only one story and we're four stories so the vast majority of our units will be above the adjacent commercial uses but one thing that i'll note is that that you mentioned it doesn't really show up very well on the plan that there is vegetation in between those buildings right now if you're turning some of it back it'll try to keep as much as we can but you know yeah uh yeah and when you start digging foundations a lot of that's gonna right it may just disappear so right i think the hedge on the north is on the line so that one will be able to be safe but in between the two buildings i i can't imagine much would get safe there anything big is gotta go so the only point of getting to and it's not so much a technical issue it's more of the stuff that we all like to see with residential things is what what happens outdoors for the tenants you know are there little barbecues is there a place for them to sit down is there you know something going on out there where there's actual outdoor space that is designed for the residents uh as a group or not so you don't have to answer any of these questions always just sketch yeah no i and you know something i i thought of that coming yeah we don't have any amenities proposed where we are the wetland buffer is close to the interior sidewalk is within the the wetland buffer so we don't really have space in the back uh but pearl street park is a quarter mile to the north from here yeah and it's kind of a neat little park because most people don't even know it's there absolutely so uh i would just say that you know from my perspective because this is on you know a major transportation line and you got all those other things that make it special uh connectivity is going to be a big thing so i don't know if you've got trails out the back or something that's not necessarily it's obvious to you know what we're looking at here because you've kind of screened over the uh but you know if there are existing natural features that are being used for passive recreation by people and they're out there already um some ability to connect to them would be thoughtful remember that thoughtful growth thing yeah okay okay uh pedestrian exits applicant mentioned uh they provided a sidewalk in the back from the existing from the existing parking lot 159 to the rear entrance um i didn't see one from the front parking to the front steps um i didn't see a little sidewalk section here yeah i think it's an oversight yeah probably i'm just bringing it up that we would want to see that um uh similar to what john is talking about right now in terms of amenities for the folks there we didn't see any bike racks so the city would recommend a bike rack at the front and the rear in this case um i would imagine that depending on where you live in the building somebody would access the front door only and somebody might access the back door okay so the one question that i i can't quite wrap my head around this one is circulation and the intended circulation of the front parking area um they provide they they close one of the curb butts there's two curb butts on 161 pro right now and they're closing one of them which is a good thing and they're preserving the other the the one so the one on the west all right this is i'm seeing it but it's i pause the share so you're not seeing it is the one on the west it's it's narrow to it but looks to be like 14 or 15 feet that access is out on pearl street and then they have an access easement or leave it i'm not sure if it's leaving or going right there where the cursor is to access the front parking lot that then gets you out to pearl street the thing for me is that access on pearl street the one that's existing is an exit only right so that makes um that an entrance only and if that's the intended circulation that's fine and it's okay that way um because it's 14 feet wide that can be used as as a one-way access but if it's intended that that that access from 161 is two-way it needs to be 24p um and if you're going to allow circulation this way um into that front parking area well they need to come in to this access point on 160 on 159 because that one's an exit only so we would need that access easement to encompass that entrance um at that point i don't know what your intention is i just see that is i'm not really sure what's clear there um and so if we can get some information as to what you're thinking um and whether or not we need any signs or any striping that alerts the users to that intended circulation well most of the parking for the apartment is down behind or somewhere on that parcel anyway so that we'll be using that entrance and that all come them well that's coming to another that that speaks to a further down that um that access easement is going to need to encompass all the way to get you the pro street um so um but that's that's something that i just it's not clear from here is what's that intended circulation um because the one egg the one access point on 161 that's remaining can't be two-way and it's as shown right now because of its weight um so we just need to so we'll likely uh widen that to 24 feet so it can be two-way and i was unaware that the uh existing access on the west side of the 150 pearl property was uh exit only i believe i believe that it is um yeah i think that's the way to use it i don't think there's signs that it yeah i think you're here because i think it seems okay looking at the angled parking now it makes sense to me yeah you would come in that way just because of the reduced dial in the angle parking that definitely is the flaw they come out of that side and exit up yeah yeah and if you're a tenant and you're coming in and you're hoping for one of those front spaces and you get all the way over there and you can't get there you got to go do a u-turn come back around and go around the back yeah or you have to be able to go the other way on the parking lot so we'll widen the existing and we're eliminating the other one yeah i think it's a good thing it's just uh it's it can't be two-way with the way that it is and it doesn't need to be two-way it's just we just need to understand it yeah that's fine okay so we talked a little bit about lighting um we need to have some for the land development code um the land development code um would say that we need some lighting in the back parking lot um and we're recommending lighting in the front parking lot as well just for the use it's a red net for use um we'd like to see that yeah so we have lighting underneath the canopy but i think since the building is as close as it is to the parking lot we may propose a building mounted light of some kind nothing major i mean there's a lot of light on pearl street so yeah and then i like what you said jeff about you know maybe adding a pole in the rear there are two lights there now but adding a pole where is you know where we're closest to that building likely those will be the 18 shared spaces that we're at yeah i don't at least for me my opinion i don't see the need to light up the whole place um but the area that's focused so people in and out of their cars and walking to the building um it's becomes a safety issue at that point yeah we're fine so um so joint parking facilities we talked about that having the easement um and i just wanted to i had a question uh you said you did the existing parking study that said that you needed 54 spaces i just wanted some confirmation that the building's fully occupied it's a it is in this time that we have now with govind there's a lot of empty office spaces so if you did it can have the building that the stuff doesn't mean much fair uh it was it's fully i it's full so okay um so there is a section of the of the land of element code that talks about parking waivers and there's certain things that certain criteria that you need to evaluate the drb needs to evaluate um that's in 703 k 16 i think you alluded to that before john um so that'll be something that we can go into if you want those specific sections okay lighting we talked about already um in the traffic circulation in the front we talked about one of the things um that the land development code says is that you need to have a curb cut that's 25 feet from a property line and in order to have they will limit it there's two there now they will limit it the one that's that's furthest from the west property line which would be too close to the the other property line um the drb needs to give an exception to that to the code to allow that curb cut to stay um i think it should stay i think it's a good design to remove the one that they did um it's a little bit of a code technicality that you just need to say it's okay um i just i needed to ask a quick question on curb cuts because back in the pc days the curb cuts were governed by the village trustees and now that we're a city i don't know if that relationship has changed or not curb cuts were something that were officially granted by uh what would be now the city council let me just look at that one section um 705 because i think it my recollection is it says that it's the drb um that that it's going to do that awesome yeah i mean this particular set this particular regulation is an access management right like you don't want to be too close i mean that's right next to that other curb cut which is unfortunate but um so that's within your purview i think you might be right if somebody needed to get a new curb cut permit that would likely go to the council so we can take one away but yeah but somebody wants a new one we'll be sure to extend it you know when we widen it we'll widen it obviously towards you know yeah i i i i support what you guys are doing it's just and this is you go through the land of element code is this can't be there um and so because you're making changes it's okay now because it's there but because you're making some changes you have the opportunity to move it if you get the drb so desired and so john answer your question that one section says the commission makes this was meant planning commission uh make grant exceptions to the curb cut standards due to unique circumstances and superior design um for for uh i think it's making a change says something about curb cuts somewhere else and that's what we all got stuck with but i just wanted to check in with pristen are you uh doing okay up there on the screen pristen you following all the stuff we're doing yes i am this time uh very minor here at this level but um dumpsters waterpolley superintendent gets after me for dumpsters to make this comment that reminds you that dumpsters dumpsters need to be covered and the drain plugs installed in those dumpsters um so we usually ask that you just put a note on the site plan it's something that you know now it's it's uh memorialized in an approval that that you acknowledge that requirement so you're not talking about like a roof right they just have to yeah the flip covered dumpster so stuff doesn't blow around and stuff like that i believe that's um so we talked about having the drb review the screening and the landscaping stormwater we just asked for those drainage computations um the one thing that i didn't know what in the plan a review is you have a pudding drain that is daylighting down way down over the bank and so you're tearing up that bank to go put a pipe in um i would love to see some erosion controls and some stabilization on that bank um after you dig it up and you restore it so it stays whether it's matting or whatever there isn't any now shown as i as i recall is there a different way to do that like you don't daylight it so far down the bank you shorten it up you put there's some rip wrap you can do something else that's a great question because um usually if we daylight them at the top it tears the bank all the way to the bottom so we put it at the bottom and and it saves that it just means that you have to disturb the slope i don't necessarily disagree with what you're doing i would just like to see those protections for that that interim period of time between installation and revegetation and it's a fun great so there's water and it's flowing a lot you should go to the bottom yes not flowing much you could probably go to the top something they may decide if we show it at the bottom we get a wetland permit for it to go to the bottom it's okay if it goes to the bottom no one's gonna care if we pull it up but we don't have a problem with uh matting it after we're done um and i believe uh almost done um in terms of the building itself um the visual impact of this building i think that falls on the drb to um take a look at its architecture it's massing its finishes and whether or not you feel that that um meets the surrounding let me ask you a question about that and i think that's for regina um the current version of the ldc doesn't have design control in this district right correct the proposed version of the ldc may have design control on this district what's the schedule and because they've submitted a conceptual plan are they now in the queue for this project being reviewed under the current rules or are they if they wait too long to do this will they possibly be subject to the next regulation yeah so um conceptual review typically is not a vested approval um so uh as soon as they get in their final application they would be vested in whatever code is the code of the day um the city council has the land development code amendments in front of them but they have not yet warned the hearing for those proposed amendments so those don't have any relevancy until that hearing is warned um i can't imagine they are going to warn that hearing in the next couple of months um but i can't give you a guaranteed time frame of that precisely and just something to uh you know put on the record it's it's that you know we are conceptual but we have submitted you know a set of plans that you could build off of you know preliminary plans that would be all man six at this point you guys have to tell us that i agree we we also submitted in september uh so for what it's not something we necessarily ever know they show up when these are warned so uh i'm i just wanted to put the time frame out there because it may potentially affect you guys and and if you're that far along i'm just basically saying don't fall asleep at the schedule wheel there yeah i don't see any of these barring anything that you guys have these are pretty straightforward i think it's a it's a very complete set of plans as far as i'm concerned yeah so you do get speaking to i know it's not design review specific but you do get to make comments on that building and the visual impact of that building under section 718 it talks about the harmony with the and compatibility with the architecture character of the area i think there's an open door there if you want to make comments about the building it isn't a specific requirement yeah because there is no design review um but it's something that's in there that you get to make some comments and and how do you you guys want this to to be well you open the door for us now didn't you are you all said or do we can we i have one more thing and that's it and then i'm done um the landscaping costs um the code has requirements that are based on construction costs which we don't have any information about anticipated construction costs so we need to know that so we can confirm compliance with the code but there are also two spots in the application that they presented a landscaping cost one was um 45 000 and um and some change um and then there's also a number floating around there of 19 000 and some change we just need to resolve those two numbers and then make sure that they do meet the land development code requirements based on the construction costs of the building um and we just don't have that information yet so with that um the staff is is there's there's some proposed stipulations um in the staff report and the staff recommends approval of the conceptual plan or the sketch plan um pending your determination regarding a couple of key sections um one is the parking waiver one is the curb cut exception um reviewing the landscaping you feel that the landscaping is sufficient but requirements um the building itself and and then and then the landscaping again um those are i had kind of pushed to you the staff pushed to you to make a determination but otherwise uh if you feel those are good the staff recommends that this be approved and and um get to move on awesome uh jeff thank you very much and i i want to say that one of the best staff reports i'd seen on a building project in a long time so thank you um i uh i have plenty to say but i would love to hear from the board proposal so far any more questions i have a question yes i have a question sorry i didn't raise my hand properly on zoom but um this might be silly and i just want to understand it for myself the five parking spaces in the front like how is it just depending on what apartment you have if you are getting one of those five spaces or if you i it seems to me like most of the people who are going to be living in this apartment will be entering at the back entrance is that correct yes that's correct that's okay and and then the five spaces at the front and the entrance at the front is that what is that for or it's just an alternative entrance okay you don't expect it to be used much maybe pedestrians going for a walk or going to the nearby park or something like that a quicker way to pearl street than going all the way around the back if you exit on foot from the back you got to walk all the way around 159 to get to the front so it was easy front door looks good on the elevations okay i mean it's customary we that would be a related question where we would want to see an active front so that that's great um is there uh what was the number of uh or is there a number of required uh visitor spaces uh so in our waiver we didn't come up with a number we just did 1.25 spaces per unit and i'll just say the reason i'm asking is because i think if you have visitor spaces they probably want to be up front so the visitors don't have to figure out how to you know unless they know where they're going already but yeah it relates to who is using the pearl street no you know the normal by the building entrance versus knows they have to go in the one way and down the back you know and because you don't want anybody having to circulate out on the 15 again and try and you know it's left turn yeah all this kind of thing so in terms of your management you may want to assign those front five parking spaces and you may want to consider the visitors on that or the uh you know anybody who's a new visit plus you guys have uh you know deliveries and uh you know hoovers and drop-offs and all kinds of things that have to happen and so because they're only five they're gonna have a lot of pressure on them i think you know if somebody in the apartment says oh i get uh you know bring my pizza to uh whatever pearl street you know they're not going in and around the back unless they already know that so just in terms of management of my yeah something to think about oh yeah my other question is just the parking in general in the back i actually i am familiar with this building because my son likes to go to that card store which is in the back so i kind of know that area and i just i'm wondering if the business is like so basically anyone who is in one of those businesses plus the people who are then going to live in the apartment they're all going to be scrambling for one of those spaces in the back is that right or will the businesses get in the signed space like how will that work or will just be like free for all whoever gets what space gets a space yeah at this point we're not proposing to assign spaces to either residential or commercial we feel there's ample parking okay most of the uses that require part or most of the parking are the ones up front yeah ones in the back who don't have you know a facade on pearl street you know they get as much foot traffic as like the subway for instance in front of the building it's more office there's an insurance agency back there and the parking in the back is very late i mean yeah but especially at you know after five o'clock yeah what are you there yeah it's gonna be a building owner management issue more than anything else anything else christin that's all thank you other board comments the question if you're expanding the access from pearl street presumably you would move some of that vegetation do you have a sense of where that might end up if you're expanding for 15 to 24 to allow for a two way yeah if uh if the DRB you know would like to see it in between the two buildings you know it could go there it could maybe get scrunched in a little bit more uh there's a little bit of room the north side of this not the parking lot maybe it's hard to tell i i'm i'm not sure what you're following north i think north is that way right no so um it's not it's not due north there so uh i guess let's do that i'm i'm gonna still say uh what you really want to try and do is provide at least some amenity uh space some benches something for the residents themselves to feel like they have a little patch of green they can you know enjoy when they're not in the building i mean that's gonna be would be nice you know if they if you could do that um yeah that's uh all right anything else so there would not be a like little path or way to walk from the back to the front you do all the way around the that's correct okay well you could go through the building yeah go through the front building yeah yeah no there's nothing else that was actually gonna be my question why wouldn't you do a sidewalk that goes in between so you can fully around between the two buildings and connect them that way i don't so i screening would go away if yeah they so we said you'd walk through the building okay but you wouldn't there would be no reason why you could do a sidewalk because that would take out the buffering yeah there's a story great difference too oh okay yep you know it wouldn't be too steep but yeah well i might i mean you know how many people in the building are gonna have dogs and want to go out and walk them in there it's just not to think about i think even a little winding pathway that's you know semi-maintained or mostly maintained might be considered desirable but uh you know okay it's they live there you know they're not the same as the commercial people there right they do things that you do on a daily basis when you live places and sometimes that involves walking around the building for some reason well this may be more of a interior layout question but are there if you for any of the apartments in the building can they exit out of door are they gonna have an assigned like can you only access apartments 1 through 8 from the back door versus the front door i believe it's a single hallway it's a single hallway you can exit from the front of that all right uh anyone in the audience want to say something and introduce yourself and yeah my name is Eric Stone i'm representing 160th street which is the adjacent lot north west so we are west so we run a distribution warehouse out of the back for small chain of women's clothing stores and we lease the building in the front to red panda which is a restaurant that opened up about two years ago so we've we've run about four restaurants we've leased about four different businesses out of that space vermont sandwich company 20 something years ago new world new world tortilla then it was firebird cafe which you guys are all aware of now so all these businesses started off really small and grew and left us for bigger spots bigger restaurants for more parking um and dan who owns the red panda is off to a great start as well so our concern uh part of the reason they're successful is because people are able to get in and out quickly to get their lunch and leave i'm just concerned with the lack of parking uh it's going back to visitor parks and that you were talking about that that may happen in our lots thus impeding our small businesses and i don't know what assurances can be made that that won't happen but that's a that's a real big concern that that we have um and the just i could speak of the hedgerow on the west side it is they're actually pretty full-sized cedar trees um so i i would hope that those wouldn't go away because it is a pretty decent buffer um but uh that's my concern and i just wanted to express that to the board and go on record for that thank you thanks here anybody have a question for you yeah just yeah trying to clarify sure concern that their uh residents would park in your spot or that i think residents are going to know not to park there it's visitors so next to us is the exchange and we have people who come in the exchange lot is completely empty they'll come in and park in our lot walk over to the exchange and shop there so there's complete disregard or knowledge of you know they just see a big open lot and so you know if i like the idea of keeping the front five parking spots open for visitors but you know you're going to have tenants park there just because they don't want to go around the back and i also noticed that it's not real clear if you're visiting somebody in that apartment where the actual parking is so are they going to know to go around the back or not you know so um that's my concern i just wanted to express that is uh is there a fence or anything that that kind of makes it less convenient to park in there's not um there's the hedge row um in the back section it's it's wide it's wide open and i i see people walking out back and and hopping around the back of our warehouse the woman who lives there now runs her dogs back there so and you got 18 units it's going to be a lot more people and i think you know going back to the number of parking uh apartments you're gonna have a lot of couples in there couples have two cars two jobs uh that's that's how i look at it so so i guess you know we'd like to have some insurances that people are not going to be parking in our in our lot and and impeding uh dance business because he's doing mostly you know since the pandemic hit restaurants as you know had to change their model it switched mostly to go um and he's probably i can't speak for his business but i'm guessing he's probably 80 percent of his business is is is grab and go so they're in and they're out all right very good i'll uh i'll just give you one tidbit that we've heard over the last number of years on the apartment uh bedroom count issue and that is one bedroom apartments are still by far the most desired number of bedrooms per unit just seems like a lot of people looking for those uh and and they in the county for sure they don't uh tend to be that convenient for people once they start acquiring things like partners and lots of dogs and it's just not big enough uh so so we um especially on the parking count uh the numbers have been uh studied extensively not just for shared parking opportunities but but in general what's the right number because it's a big question yeah almost everybody says oh it's an apartment you gotta have two spa yeah but but the research has suggested that that's not even close to true it's it is somewhere down 1.25 1.37 somewhere in there it's it's a low number it's not too so uh that said i think that the biggest advantage here that tends to make some sense about parking and number of cars is uh here on one of the most one of the busiest transit lines in the whole county right there uh so um that's certainly a factor that should be a benefit to residents maybe they have no cars so um we will we won't know we won't know till we really see what happens but but the numbers have been studied extensively and i just wanted to make you feel a little better about that okay thank you thanks for your rest of your concerns are good thank you i am numerous things like nice plan but um the good thing is sketch um so my question is this is a little up here up here it said if if trash is going to be on one's lot i would say the trash has got to be up here so i haven't noticed that this until because this wasn't really prevalent on the online these years because i live across the street these guys so i look at this building and have for the last 40 years so um my question is in the trash guys that you've already got right now uh tendency to come before dawn um so are they going to be having trash at this corner and at that corner of the of the lot okay or is this going to be mine um because right now these guys don't know that what the ordinance can um right now there was at one point in time a walkway from the front here it might be wood it might be whatever but there was a cement walk that used to be down to the back parking lot i'm not sure if that has played but there was a walkway that did go down just sort of thing and people did use it 37 years ago i'm not sure where it is okay so that's back concern um my other concern is i don't see anything about snow removal and for for there because i i live it's my my front yard okay what is your backyard so there's pile of snow in the back if you're going to be use actively using 18 spots um there is definitely going to be a requirement for snow removal um and possibly moving that snow so that people can actually be in those spaces for the snow um i'm all agreed to you know sharing spaces you know as a previous planning commissioner that actually had applications it is the way to go it's behaving like so sharing spots that and if that's workable that's good um i birth i compliment you on i'm doing that uh but uh i would be concerned about how many cars coming going out of that parking lot pearl street it took me 20 minutes to get here today and remember i live behind that building um so um pearl street can be challenging to make a left turn so so that's um i would like to see you know where that is i know in the past there's been band parking um there's been a tractor trailer sort of thing sitting in the lot for an extended period of time um and i recognize that it's a business concept um but if this is going to be residential i would not like to see the uh access of extended tractor van parking in the back there at one point time there was a motor running on that one of the trailers for an extended period of time um luckily it was during the closed window period of life um of the season so that what it was not a noise nuisance um but given that that is a wetland and that is one of the beginning places of sunderland grub um that that that wetland is an important piece for um some of the wildlife that that live down and use that as an access corridor um my cats have brought up frogs from down there so i know that it's it is it is is an active wetland um just so you know so as to it's a ravine as opposed to it's not flat it's by any stretch of the imagination it does run down a whole story down to that wetland going straight down so it's it's not flat so amenities um i agree with you it'd be nice to have something maybe a bench or something but it is an active wetland down there um but um um but i i find it an interesting piece that used to that place used to be a house that used to be a real estate agent and then it became a much of what it is right now um i think it's a house again so um so it's kind of encouraging that you guys face the back of housing but um um but that's what i like to see is uh that snow removal and uh how they're going to be accessing that parking space um and yes it is a half half storage with storage load and load up on the block um but that doesn't necessarily mean that we don't see a lot headlights coming in from Earl Street is the coming in access yeah so be aware of that um well it's an interesting lot and thank you for bringing more house thank you Diane uh the only question that brings the mind for me is is uh potentially we want to increase some screening on the northeast corner of the existing lot where you're now going to have a much more active parking approach right so cars coming in going down going around the back at night because their residents not business people right so maybe one of the responses to the change in use of the parking areas to provide a little more buffering there uh for the neighbors across the ravine so uh i would have to defer to people that know what it looks like from the other side of the ravine because i don't but uh that's an interesting observation and if we're increasing that parking or that vehicular uh activity a lot then then it's appropriate for us to talk about some screening and we're struggling to find space to put the required landscaping so yeah there you go um so uh i kind of jumped us over the building itself uh sorry um but we did i like to get to the audience and they've been very patient so um how about we pull up the um elevations and and uh uh Jeff cheered us up we never we never took the shot so let's take it now i don't know if i have the elevations on the website oh um they was it a separate no there what what sheet number is it that's the last two and there's no number no it's uh you know mike boogan's handiwork uh which is usually not on a big sheet um okay let me keep trying to find this but um i think everybody's here yeah so mike showing the retaining wall which may or may not actually be there so that's that's fine um and uh all right i've been doing all the talking so you guys are all right we'll start with dylan he's probably still trying to find him on it yeah uh anyone else ready you guys ready come on dylan you want to sit here yeah so you've got some really skinny balconies here like uh just the balconies on the back here you got some of the double door and then some of the single yeah single door uh on the right side of the front side and double door left side and then that's the pearl speed so i know you got it the front and i'm just curious is the the round windows is that a stairway or a corridor yeah it was single hallway i think it stands playful the side of the building here too yeah how do you how do you get to the balcony on the side there there's no more they come from inside and it's fucked in a little nook so they're coming i got you know it's a quay turn around i got this yeah it is tricky when you don't have a plan for me the biggest interesting thing is that you know along pearl street there's a pretty strong orientation for buildings to run with the street and this one has its narrow end to the street which is kind of refreshing for me you know and the lot is long and you know narrow and deep so that's kind of by necessity but i think it also gives the building itself a chance to do something that the other ones can't do which is present a whole different facade to the street that looks more like a residential building than a strip mall so i kind of like it a lot which is um you know that's just me i like the windows they're they're pretty unique what's uh what's the those siding uh the white squares i believe is a paneling uh i'm siding should see that explode and i'm not an architect but the and then the lower siding i believe board and the upper panels could be cement board they do make the panels now so that you know uh seeing some of those are on town materials are appropriate they look good that's showing a standing theme or a metal roof on on the top and you know color scheme is fine appropriate for the the area um i i like the uh notion that you still have front porch right i mean every every nice residential building has some way to say hey i'm showing you residential kinds of you know parts and pieces especially as they relate to yeah the entrance i like that i set them up so none of them are really looking at it building next door back left and front right i don't have any about there's one question i have and again i think it's somewhere between um you on your site plan and uh mike on his elevations his um elevation here to show more of a flat port through but maybe some you know pension rods or something holding up canopy and your renderings on the site plan you know i know what you're not really trying to show exactly what's there but they suggest a different kind of roof okay like standing scene metal which is normally sloped so okay uh yeah so it's not a big thing but if you're going to be consistent uh you know the retaining wall and those types of details on the side i think there's you know a couple of things you could you could just uh fine tune there once you and mike are on the same page i'm nearly certain i do not have these access anywhere uh christin are you okay do you have this okay good i saw her say yeah um all right any more questions from the the board comments uh engineers uh audience we'll make one comment um in regard to something that someone said um in terms of traffic and the the number of cards here associated with it they did provide traffic information we did look at it it's a proposed six p.m peak trips um coming from the building and we look at it and i don't feel if that's a big deal i don't dispute that turning left can be very complicated um but just that she brought it up we did we did think about it um i don't see a need to study traffic anymore uh all right so since i mean the the staff report is written as if it's a maybe not a final but a you know more than a conceptual or a sketch uh how do we want to handle this regina do we do we need to make any kind of a motion that includes all the stipulations or or can we just say that in general we're fine with the um conceptual uh as presented and and they have a record of all of our comments on right because we don't really have to approve all this stuff now i would say the proposed stipulations that you have here in this staff report are the conditions of approval that you want to put forth you and we come up with anymore we came up with a few more which i think i'm going to say includes the buffering at the base of the existing drive entry that goes around the back i'm going to say that the applicant should consider additional uh residential type amenities on the residential lot specifically in the green areas around the building and they may include a sidewalk or other path of some pipe if if it works out visitor spaces in the front visitors spaces and or delivery or some kind of ever some kind of management notion for what's happening for the high demand five spaces in front i don't have a problem with the the spaces and the current the way they're shown like i wouldn't want to see us go down to four just because we have a little bit of an overlap between the side setback and the um and what we're showing i think we talked about well i don't know if we have to say anything if there's i think it's probably already in Jeff's notes if there's a wider uh entry to have a two-way access or if there's two-way access to the front it's gotta be wider um i think uh because we're talking about shared parking and um increased pressure on the existing parking spaces that snow storage should be addressed because uh you know we know that if you end up piling all up on your existing spaces you'll lose spaces uh so so that should be addressed um and the notion that um if there's an issue with parking management and it begins to affect the neighbors i'm sure uh the applicant will be the first to hear about it because somebody will come knocking on your door but um any evidence to suggest that you're aware of the potential and have thought of ways to mitigate that might be helpful in a parking management uh approach so i'm i'm thinking that we want to see some kind of parking management uh written narrative that goes along with this notion that we're going to share parking and that we've got to have a man a parking agreement in place um just one note john i don't i don't think you have the authority to say that that fifth parking space can be in the setback i know it seems frustrating but i don't know i don't think there's any waiver from that setback requirement i thought that it was but i don't know either all right you guys uh you guys can confer on that and and we'll um respond accordingly but uh it seems i mean we're not formally blending the two lots into one lot so so there's still a setback required from that line right and even if we um have some parking agreement it doesn't make the line go away until they merge a lot i i've suffered through this before i kind of i get it but uh if you can uh staff can look into that then we can we can answer and we don't end up merging lots in the future any other board regulations to be recorded at this point uh christin anything okay that's probably a silly question i think we went over it can you go from the ideas that you can go from the one 159 lot into the 161 lot right it appears to be the case yeah okay if that's the case if you are going to enable that um the 20 needs to go up to 24 as well between there we didn't we didn't make a bunch of comments because i wasn't sure what your attention was now can we waive that if we feel like i think yeah um i mean for five spaces it well might be or i don't believe it'll take a space what what i was talking about that right there yes and i don't think it'll take a space because well no but but you got to pull it out of somewhere so i'm trying to figure out where they're the 20th i'm trying to figure how i mean if you've got room to do it and and you're not using that fin as a you know if that's longer than a parking space then you can do it benefits yeah you know i wouldn't want to i wouldn't want to reduce the buffer to purl in order to pull that off let's put it down yeah i you have i believe that the planning commission has waived that before entrances to underground parking seeing those get narrowed up um in the past and the sidewalk along purl is unaffected because it's outside of that tree buffer yeah all right um anything else um i i guess i need a motion that says where do we accept or do we approve at this point you approve it we approve all right so uh anyone want to approve the staff recommendations but the proposed stipulations seconds uh any further discussion all in favor say aye aye all right oh there was another comment coming there wasn't no so i your eye that's a any post yes sorry i was just going to say i think the motion has to be that you're approving the conceptual plan but i see that staff recommends that you prove the conceptual plan so you already had it covered nailed it nailed it uh all right your folks are on your way thank you nice job uh brilliant conceptual plan level work um and we got a lot of direction but you're there i mean you're pretty much there so that's that's good all right uh we uh let's see it's getting late isn't it other development review board items are there any thank you the only one i can think of is we need a deliberative session on the uh previous uh public hearing so we need to do their schedule add in uh i think obviously within 45 days um but probably at this point yeah so if maybe our first meeting in january would that be um would be fine or is that get us too close to 45 days trying to count real quick um 21 20 days we got a little bit close so um but i think we could do it that night the night of the 19th rather than have a special meeting or something so you guys are you guys you staff are gonna look at um the maybe get a legal opinion i think at the for me it's a fascinating question and it's not whether i like it or don't like it it's more of a legal technicality and uh want to make sure that we're not overstepping yeah i mean we could you could start a deliberative session right now and then we could uh postpone table or postpone it until yeah all right um anybody else feel like trying a couple of minutes of five minutes of a deliberative session just to talk about where we think we are okay let's i'll say five minutes okay we'll start uh we need a motion to go into deliberative session all right i move we go into deliberate deliberative session to review the uh discuss the uh cannabis i'll second it topic all right i'll be fast right we're in recording stopped in a second oh you're stopped recording so scott do you keep recording or not no well sounds like you did all right uh so we're back from our deliberative session which has been continued to a uh future date of january 19th or earlier uh so now the only thing left for us to do is adjourn unless somebody has any last comments announcements all right uh so uh we need a motion motion to adjourn all right we need a second uh good uh any further discussion all in favor uh say aye aye aye any opposed motion carries we're adjourned thank you