January 3rd, 2023 meeting of the DRV to order starting on the right. Introduce the board members. Kevin O'Connell, board member. Robert Nguyen, the chair. Meredith Crandall, staff. Karen Allen, vice chair. Katherine Burgess, board member. Joe Kiernan, board member. Abby White, board member. We have Michael on our meeting. Thank you, Meredith. Michael, Liz Orchek, board member. First order of business is you have Meredith, brief us on our remote meeting procedures for tonight's meeting, which is going to work tonight. All right, so I'm going to be sharing my screen. And the share screen is really more for people who are watching this over Orca media. But there will be some stuff in the little spiel that will be important for anybody attending remotely. Well, the date was wrong on there. All right, so for anyone who is viewing this meeting via Orca media, you can participate in tonight's development review board meeting via the Zoom platform. You can either type this link into your web browser and that will bring you right into the Zoom meeting. And I'll just have to let you in. I'll see a little pop up come up. Or you can call this phone number. And when prompted, punch in this meeting ID. If you're trying to get into the meeting and you're having problems with it, email me at mcrandall at montpillier-vt.org. I'll be monitoring my email throughout the meeting. And we'll do my best to help you get in the meeting. For those attending via Zoom, turning on your video is optional. If you are having issues with your audio cutting in and out, sometimes turning your video off will actually improve the audio. For everyone attending, please do your best to keep your microphone on mute when you aren't speaking. This will cut down on background noise. And as I said a little bit earlier, if you're dialing in on the phone, you can use star six to mute and unmute yourself. Please reserve the Zoom chat function for troubleshooting or logistics questions only. Anything substantive will need to be shared verbally. You can raise your hand either using the raise hand button on Zoom or physically raise your hand if your camera's on. We will be watching for those those hands. There are more than one of us in here on the Zoom. So we'll all be keeping our eyes on that. And please make sure to wait to start speaking until the chair calls on you. And especially the first time you do speak, please make sure to state your full name. And if possible, also your address, especially if you're someone who has not already submitted written comments. I think we'll leave it to the different applications to talk about managing time for the number of people, number of comments we have, because you have two very different applications tonight. Please note that in the event there are issues where the public is unable to access tonight's meeting, the relevant hearings will need to be continued to a time, place and certain. I will now hand the meeting back over to the chair. Thank you, Meredith. We'll have the agenda. So moved. Motion from Kevin. Seconded by Sharon, all those in favor say aye. We have an agenda for tonight. We have two applications this evening. I'll be the chair for the first one, and then I'll be turning it over to Sharon for the College of Fine Arts application. She is the vice chair and I will not be in attendance. So the next order of business here is we have minutes from the December 5th meeting to review and approve. Anyone have any comments? Move to approve minutes in the December 5th meeting. Motion by Sharon. Second. Second by Joe and all those in favor. Aye. Minutes for December 5th have been approved. I believe Mr. Cody, are you in the room? What do you prefer, Bob, Mr. Cody? All right, perfect. Might as well come on up to the chair.  I'm right at the round table and make sure to speak as clearly as you can into the microphone. Should the Courtney is Courtney is on remotely. I am here. OK, so if you just want to introduce yourself into the microphone and then Courtney, you do the same. I'm Robert. Well, yeah, we should have like Cadillac on the very Montpellier Road, 364 River Street. And I am Courtney Bhutan. I'm with SB signs in Williston. So were you both be providing testimony this evening? As needed, yes. Yeah. Yeah. All right, so we're going to, you know, swear you in for your testimony on the application. So be a standard. Just raise your right hand is fine. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony we're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury? I do. As do I. I do. Thank you. All right, so. Meredith, do you want to go for a quick overview here? Hit the high points and then Bob will let you do a presentation sort of give us a summary on your application. Thank you. Um, so this application is before the development review board because the zoning administrator, I can't approve moving a nonconforming sign and keeping that sign nonforming. Are the hey, Rick, could you please mute yourself? We've got you coming in over the speakers. That's OK. Thanks. So the existing time that Cody wants to shift back and repair and replace the underlying structure, the support structure, is currently higher than allowed under the existing regulations and larger in area. And we also are currently only allow one ground sign per parcel. And there's currently at least two on that parcel. So I can't prove those things. And there's no waiver provisions in our sign provision where the Planning Department is aware that this is an issue that we should have some sort of waiver provision in there. But there isn't one. So there's no waiver option. The only option to try to shift the existing sign to the sign channels, keep them at the same light is to come forward and try and ask for variants. Varyances by state statute are really limited in scope. They usually have to apply to something to do with the physical arrangement of the site, something to do with either the size of the site or the geology on the site. And so that's why this is before the board to decide whether or not they can grant the variance that Cody Chevrolet is requesting. OK, thank you, Mary. You're welcome. Bob, you want to just give it a shot? Um, the sign that we're which basically what it is is we're replacing the sign because it's I don't own the signs. The signs are leased from a company, GMDI. And the sign has been determined that it's faulty underneath and it's failing. So they want to replace it with the same exact size sign that's been there since kind of 1981, 82. I have to look it up. And the other sign that's on the property, the Cadillac sign. Again, all of those were permitted before and passed. I don't believe that the current law or the current the statute that came forth in the last few years properly addresses this. Cody Chevrolet has a road front of at least seven hundred and fifty feet. The signs are not huge. They actually GM actually makes a bigger sign than the one that we're requesting to put up. And basically all we're trying to do is replace what's already there. And it's not go by dominoes. That's a pretty god darn big sign for a very small piece of property.  So that's basically I just don't think that when they wrote the statute that they took into consideration that I'm not looking for a grandfather, but we're not reinventing anything here. We're just putting back something that's already existing, replacing with something new, but it's going to look identical to what's there. They'll take up the same footprint. It's not obtrusive. It doesn't block anybody's view. I don't know all of, you know, I mean, we're willing to make some concessions if the sign has to be pushed back a few feet from the road front, things like that. But basically for me, I'm just kind of disappointed. I've been a good citizen of Montpelier for 61 years. My family has, Cody Shirley's been in existence since 1956, paid several years of taxes. I'm a Montpelier resident by choice. My wife is an employee of the city. I just think that, you know, the Beshera Cody family has done pretty good there and go by the city Montpelier. And I just kind of feel kind of like, wow, it's just a sign. Just trying to replace the same sign. So that's why I'm asking for a variance. Otherwise, you know, if I was asking for something special, if we were coming out with a brand new sign or anything, then I totally, I totally get the, you know, the loss. But right now I don't think that that takes into consideration something that's already existing. And I've talked to several people that are in business and they're surprised by that. They're surprised that I can't just replace the same sign that I already have. But so that's what we asked for the variance. And respectfully, thank you for your time. And I don't know if Cody has anything to add. Yeah, if I can chime in really briefly, it sounds like if the poll were the only element that were being changed and everything else was staying the same, that this would fall under maintenance. And one of the big differences with this project is that the foundation itself is no longer considered by engineering to be up to standard. And so it's complicated this a little bit because if it were just the poll that was failing because of resting, we wouldn't be here before you. It would just be a maintenance issue. But because the concrete foundation is involved, it's added this extra layer where we have to move it for a new foundation. But as Bob said, it's the same exact sign, same size, same pole height, same everything that's going in just with a foundation that meets current engineering standards, as he said, that the sign that there is maybe 40 years old and engineering standards have changed. And the poll itself is also considered unsafe at this point. So piggybacking on what Bob said, it's the same thing, just a few feet away. So the replacement of the sign in place, that's the extent of the scope of your request here. Yeah, just replace the same starting there. It shifts back like an extra 10 feet. Yeah, I think it's something to do with the postage to the road. And like I said, we're willing to see that. So the location is changing. The location just backing up away from the road, just a larger setback. And that's at the request of whatever the statue, sorry. Moving it back actually brings the distance from the front property line into conformance with that requirement. Again, all these requirements have changed in the last few years. And because of 1981 or 82 when the sign was originally erected, it was put in the proper place. If it wasn't, we would have put it in the proper place. So just a question for Meredith here. So the point at which you go from replacing the poll to the foundation, that. It's how you, we don't have anything that tells us what normal repair and maintenance is. I did not feel as a zoning administrator that completely changing out the entire foundation. Because you do have to shift it, at least some to build, put in the new foundation, correct? You can't put that new foundation in the exact same place where it is right now. It was my good, but then then it would also interfere with your setback. The regulations. Yeah, the new the new foundation would have been imposing more on the setback. So it's it just it to me, it was something that was beyond normal repair and maintenance, right? It's not a fixing a broken sign panel. It's not fixing a broken light. So, you know, it's like, yeah. So to clarify, Meredith, if this if this was a damage to a poll and we were just fixing that, it wouldn't require all of this. So if it was, if it was definitely if it was clear damage from like an incident, right? Yeah, there's a there's an issue. There's a there's a clause in here to deal with when somebody's sign gets blown down in a storm or something, the replacing the whole foundation with a new foundation to me didn't fall under normal repair and maintenance. If you guys disagree with that. Well, then there's the question. I mean, we're we're still dealing with a relatively new ordinance here. Oh, yeah, where I mean, do we have any way of knowing or documenting what the thinking was on the part of the planning commission and the council at the time? So I know that part of it was that they did not want to keep grandfathering signs that were bigger than what they wanted, at least from the planning commission, right? That's why the specific grandfather clauses for things like the restaurant sign on top of the old lobster pot that got removed in 2018. There used to be a specific grandfathered clause for that sign specifically that was removed. So if they do, they do something to upgrade the lighting on that to modernize the lighting. They then have to try and bring into conformance. They can't modernize the lighting on that sign without bringing the whole sign into performance. And there's that sign is immensely too big. So there was a definite desire to bring parcels and signs into conformity. Now, on the other hand, you know, the planning director and I have had lots of conversations that the sign provision needs work, specifically the sizes allowed for signs, that the way this was originally drafted doesn't take into consideration things like different speed limits at faster speeds. You need bigger signs, you know, different out there on the Barrymount Piliar Road. That is a much different location than other places further in, even in the same zoning district. So, you know, Mike and I know we have work to do on it. But this is one of the one of the few that's really triggered a problem. I can only think that that part of the thinking may have been in relation to a sign that was built that was clearly out of conformity without naming names. And just wondering if that came into play. And if we could interpret without taking up a whole bunch of the board's time to use this, use the precedent of the existing to just say, go for it. I'm undecided on this. I sympathize with your case. It makes a lot of sense, common sense to me. We have this staff report here that has regulations in it. Section 3012 is on signs. And if I'm reading this right, it's even been bolded. No changes beyond normal repair and maintenance shall be allowed to the structure or framing and the non-conforming sign shall not be relocated. So that's part of section F here, which is longer. And it does say that here. I mean, maybe I should just read in its entirety, but it's it's there for anyone to read it. Non-conforming signs may not be altered, modified or reconstructed unless and then there are three unlesses. A, the change brings the sign into conformance with the regulations, which is not the case here, or B, the modification does not change the area. If you do check off that box and is limited to changes to the sign panel, including the replacement of a sign panel, replacing individual letters or logos within the same area or repainting a sign face. And then it says no changes beyond normal repair and maintenance shall be allowed to the structure of framing. I would consider the pole to be part of the structure and framing. So I don't know where found that. If the pole is damaged or if the pole needed replacing you, it would not fall. It's different. There's a different one about. Allowing certain repairs. Yeah. So that's the C reconstruction of the sign, right? So if there's been damage to a sign and you're reconstructing it and this allowed within a certain cost. Yeah. And it's 30 the cost window is 30 percent of the replacement value of the sign immediately prior to damage, which is. It's pretty difficult, I think to determine what a sign is worth before it was damaged. And can I jump in really quickly? I'm sorry. This is Courtney. Sorry. So I think it from from when I was reading the regulations, it's a little hazy when it comes to what constitutes damage. So is, you know, it doesn't really state is damage a truck hitting your sign or is damage rusting because of weather conditions? Or is damage a face being blown out in a windstorm? Or is it only if, you know, the sign is vandalized? You know, in the maintenance provision, you know, from our understanding, we install signs in just about every town in the state and, you know, every town has their own interpretations to an extent. But we've always, always been able to change anything that was a problem with the sign in part because it's a hazard. You know, if a sign falls over because the pole is rusted or if the sign tips over because the foundation isn't adequate and the, you know, the cement has cracked or it has aged, you know, that's a safety issue. And that requires fixing the sign. And I think that what, what Cody Chevrolet has tried to do is said, you know, we know this has to be replaced. We also know that, you know, regulations have changed and we're sort of, we're respecting as much as we can the need to come into compliance as much as we can by moving the sign back, you know, so the setback is brought up to code, up to the state, the current regulations. You know, we're doing our part to do what we can to say, hey, we respect that the regs have changed, but all we're doing is fixing the things that are a problem. You know, the sign is rusting, the sign could fall over and that's that's sort of our goal and intent there, if that makes sense. It does. I suppose it would be on the board then to determine whether, you know, metal rusts and concrete deteriorates is replacing those two things, normal repair and maintenance as per the regulations. Yeah. And I think, can you assume that a sign will eventually the pole rust away? Well, I think a key point here is, is that there's the provision of if you're bringing it into conformity. So if there was to do a replacement of the sign and all of the criteria would have bring it into the conforming versus like height, size, and set, you know, and setback all of those criteria that seems like a potentially a pathway, is that correct? Well, that's one pathway. You don't have to do that if what you're doing is repair and maintenance. Yeah, right. So that's why this is, this is the whole conundrum of my getting here to be like, I don't see a path that I can take. Yeah. But to get them to apply for the variance gets them here sooner than my issue saying no to the permit and then having to appeal it. So, yeah, I mean, there's the pathway of bringing the whole sign into conformance, which means make it smaller, make it shorter, which is a problem for Cody. Or the try and some, you know, whether or not the board feels comfortable saying this kind of work because eventually things to grade is repairing maintenance. Right. And those, those are two potential pathways here. Because I mean, it's one of the things sometimes I interpret something one way and the board disagrees with me. So then I use the board's precedent for later applications. Okay, Kevin. Yeah. So the signs you're, you're replacing the existing sign with a new sign, same dimensions. What is the face of the new signs? Looks just like the same one. You're not putting in the LED lit. I don't know that board. I think for that. I think that it's already, it's already. It's already led now was operated already a lit sign. So I think it will in appearance. If you didn't know that it moved a little bit over, you wouldn't know that it's a new sign. There's no changes to the artwork. There's no changes to the size. Nothing. It's all the same. Thank you. It's different. Is that true? It's going to be, no. I think there's, there's just, I think it, what it is is there might be a few inches. But I think it's a little bit of a difference in how the, the plans measured it because the original height measurement. I think was maybe a. More of an estimate, you know, they knew generally how tall it was, whereas the new spec sheet, I have a feeling has the exact height on it. I think that's why there's probably, I had to put it in the staff report, but I think that's why it says there's a few inches difference. Okay. All right. Right. So in the staff report, it says one thing, but in reality, it's probably the same. And then you give me all of these probably the same. Okay. The intention is the same height. Okay. The new sign. And you can just ask whether the. It was moved back. Is that because you guys wanted to move it back or, or did you suggest it? It was a part of trying to be, you know, conform with the, the setback. Yeah. Trying to have at least one thing that in, in doing the sign, they come into conformity with one crate, one of the dimensional requirements. Can I ask if the council's all familiar with financial Cody Chevrolet? Yes. Because I mean, just where the sign is now, I think, um, correct. We'll bring it back and feed. Is that correct? Yeah. I think that was the approximate. It's moving it back. It's, it's quite close to the road right now. And it's just going to slide back into, I believe it's an existing parking spot. I mean, it's when I, when I go by Cody Chevrolet and I look at, um, actually when I go down to Barry, Mount Bay Road, which I've done for 43 years now, I see telephone poles that are crooked. I see all kinds of different things. Um, and to be quite, you know, Frank, I know it may sound selfish, but moving the sign or putting the same sign in place that was done in midnight, nobody'd know the difference, but we don't do things that way. So, um, you know, I just, you know, I honestly think that, that the people that wrote the statutes or did not take into consideration something like this happening. And, um, you know, I don't think there was any evil intent. I just think that they didn't anticipate this that otherwise I wouldn't even be here asking for the variance. Okay. Go ahead. Heather, could you talk us through, you know, we have, we're talking about the height, size and setback. What would bring it into compliance. So, um, I don't know if it's a new set backwards and into compliance. I might have missed it in the staff report, but what would the compliant height and size be in comparison to what you have? So, um, they would probably have to go to the next size sign, which is much smaller. And, um, quite frankly, a dealership of our size with that road frontage, most shovely dealerships have the size even bigger than the one we're requesting. Just, it's just standard. Um, most general motors dealerships standard would 500, something feet of frontage or more have a bigger, much larger sign. Um, you'd have to go around the state to see the different ones, but, um, they all look identical. They're just different sizes. Am I correct Courtney? This is the middle size. Yeah. We, we install for a lot of different dealerships and, and this is a smaller, um, the height is pretty standard, but I think the sign, the faces are quite. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, um, excuse me. The Cadillac sign that's on the edge of our property. We also own the property next door, which is DOSHA. I can move the sign over there. But, um, that sign itself is, uh, is, is a very, very small sign. Um, we have one on that. Another piece of property that we own, which is the body shop, which is. I'm a different piece of part of that's why that. There's only two signs on our property. What's third one is that. Is a truck sign that we have to have for. We have a lot of trucks, but that, those two signs are the same size. They're very small. Compared to the one in the middle. The one in the middle, like, I could say, we was eight, eight by eight. So great. Uh, Courtney, maybe a little bit bigger than that. Um, yeah. Just one second. Right. Is. Which isn't much bigger than that screen right there. Yeah. It's six, six feet, four inches square. So it's a smaller size. Look at that screen there. That's about what? Six feet by six feet. So it's not, it's not, it's not a huge sign. We're talking about road frontage of, like I said, about 700 something feet. And that's just Cody Chevrolet. I'm not counting my, my body shop property, which is even further, but the whole visual effect of driving on root 302. It's a very small sign. Um, it's not that intrusive or intrusive. And the last thing I wanted to say is that's 40 miles an hour. It's not that big of a deal. But people drive by. I'm not sure that it's.  But I understand that things change. You want to just admit that question that you asked. I thought it would relevant. What, what would that sign in compliance with life? What, what's life with that phase? So, um, The. A compliant sign would be no more than 32 square feet. I think is what I've got on here. Um, and then, uh, it would be 12 feet in height. And what's the height now? I'm sorry. That's what that was. Um, The existing or the proposed height is going to be 20 feet. 10 and eight inches. Counting the, counting the base. Yep. No, the height, the height difference is pretty extensive. The, the new regulations in 2018 really limited sign height. Um, you know, it doesn't, it doesn't say you can't build a firm to put your sign on, but the height is measured from the, um, average or the lowest ground spot, you know, next to the base to the top of the sign. Um, so that the height is a big difference. Um, And the sign area isn't a lot different, but it is different. Um, I want to say. I said in the staff report, it comes out to about 41. Square feet, the six feet. We're in 916 inches. I think comes out to around 40 and 41 feet. Square feet and area. Which when you look at it, I think that's a big sign. That compared to, um, the. 22 square feet probably doesn't look all that different. It's the height that's really makes it. Oh, it's just the feet of the most statute should have taken into consideration. Size of the lot. Yeah. Speed of the road. I mean, just take a look at that picture. That sign is small. Yeah. Our, our LED lights, the lighters are another. Eight, 10 feet higher. So what we're trying to figure out is how to make that. I mean, how to make it work. Yeah. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. I actually think that, um, I don't know whose, whose job it would be. I really think that we visit this statute for. Because this is, this is going to come up. We know. We know. Yeah. And there's also an issue that we see with dealerships frequently.  If you were to have a sign that's only 10 feet tall. It's lost. So that's why you tend to see a lot of the higher dealership signs. The sign is above the top of the vehicles. What's, um, That's what board will move forward here. I feel like we've discussed a lot of the sort of details of the, of the nonconformity and we have a good picture of like what's going on the application. Um, And staff reported and we could go down the pathway of, uh, of, you know, sort of the reviewing the variance criteria. Uh, you know, in, which is figure, uh, four dash o two section 4603. Um, I mean, I'll be honest, I reviewed it and I'm not a whole, not very, not very convinced based on our discussion so far. Um, that it necessarily applies to. But I'm interested in other board members of whether we want to. Try and go through that or not. Yeah. Um, to me, it really feels like we're. Having a discussion around what. Um, how we define kind of normal repair and maintenance. So I don't feel like I need to go through the criteria. And. I can appreciate. The challenge with this and feel like we need to make a choice. That's just. That's going to make logical sense. I can get behind that this, this class of this could be classified as normal repair maintenance. That's a. That this, this description of what's been happening and what needs to be done to, to fix the sign. I can, I can fit that in this definition for myself. I would be on board with that approach. I agree. For the most part. Um, I don't think we have to worry too much about setting precedent here because. And we should note this that the sign is not changing at all. Like at least physical sign that's going to be there. It's going to look exactly the same. The height is going up slightly, but that's to make the bit foundation. The height of the sign is going to be the same. But it's going to be a little bit more. And it's going to be a little bit safer. Um, safe. And then they are moving it, but they're moving it away from the railway. So. I think any other potential. Uh, you know. Applicants that come wanting to move their sign around. They were to fall within those then. Yes, we'd be sitting in precedent. But if they want to do something else like a new sign, we're not setting a precedent in that way. We're just calling this for normal repair and maintenance. And I would note that the movement of the sign brings the sign. Into conformance with regards to placement. Right. They did want to move it. Moving it towards, you know, away from the right way. I should say. It would be something that we're setting a precedent for, but that we want that anyway. So. Yeah. I mean, I think that there's a, there's a safety concern here. And I think that's what we're going to be talking about. Uh, the incentive to.  When it comes to foundations and 20 feet tall is no, uh, no small height for a structure to fall from and. Well, I was love. Catherine to it and book and climate change and Dora arguments that the storms that you've had, like we've seen. Uh, you know, I would, I would hate to. Uh, it's the heavily salted road from. You know, I would, I would hate to say, don't replace this. Well, that's on us, but. So I think we've had a, had a good discussion on this. Um, the general, it's not an easy one. And I think that the regs are. Make this one difficult, but I think it's the job of this board to, to use, use logic and really. Uh, figure out what, um, what we can do. And I think it's helpful to have on the record as well, the thoughts around the relevance of, um, frontage and, uh, speed. That's obviously not something that's going to get addressed in this meeting, but I think that's been. Yeah. Part of the context here. And I agree with you that it's, uh, yeah, there's a safety issue here. You don't want to create an incentive for an unsafe structure to be in place longer than it should be. I guess I would just. Make that note also. That. You know, that. That they're the signage to what's appropriate on 302 percentage. Is it really different than what's appropriate on state street. And unless. Our rules feel that better. This is the way to proceed. Awesome. And I will take a bunch of these comments. Back to the staff for the planning commission. So my understanding is that we have a motion, but this proposal. Can be classified as general repair. Yes. You see any other questions here that we need to answer. Nope. So. Uh, If you're approving it actually. Um, What you would be doing is probably. Um, Funding it back to me to issue administrative. Um, But guidance on. We don't have to issue. Say that. Why? If it's no longer a variance. If it falls under the exemption. Then it would be something I would have been able to issue. I would have been able to do that. I would have been able to do that. I would have been able to do that. You're. Making a motion. To, to, well, To basically send it back to remand it back to the zoning administrator to issue an administrative. Minor site plan amendment and sign permit. But as discussed, because the. It falls with, as long as you guys agree with how I put out the motion, it falls within the exemption for landscaping, which was the only other potential question in there. Um, So do we need a motion to remand this to the planning office? Uh, well, to the zoning administrator, the zoning. Yep. Motion to demand the zoning administrator to issue. An administrative. Um, minor site plan. Approval and sign permit. Um, The placement be. In conformity. As, as. With the, the, the sign would be. Put up as proposed with the, the, the new positioning, right? 10 foot additional 10 feet back. Which makes it in conformity. Right. I mean, it's kind of an interesting, uh, Decision we're, we're forging here. Um, I've seen those in other towns. So if you're saying, nope, you misinterpreted it, it should have been repaired and replaced, you know, repair and maintenance. Then that means that. I should have issued that permit. To you for interpretation. So Rob will not sign as chair. This will be entirely under your. We'll still need a decision. The decision will still have to be remanded to her. The decision is sending it back. Yep. There's still a decision that Rob has to sign. But then it's an administrative. Um, Like permit and it's. It's still, you know, so there's still the 30 day appeal period on the decision. Right. Sure. But it's administrative. Right. It's administrative. Action. Okay. We have a, we have a motion. I just say so moved. A wide range of. Possibilities. Joe. Everything she said. I will make that motion. I will second that motion. All right. We have a motion by Joe. And a second five. Chair. Is there any discussion on the. Motion. I guess I just one other thought to throw in there on all of this is that. You know, my. I have a little bit of something black. But it's a maintenance issue because it was moving. But it's really moving to me and Martin compliance. So that if they hadn't moved it at all. It really would just be maintenance and repair. But the only reason they're moving it is to come more in compliance so that. That seems like another kind of a problem area. Another thing to go into the planning. Yep. Got it. Yes. Well, thank you all for the discussion on this. Seeing no other comments. We'll. Go for a vote. Kevin, how do you vote? I. Karen. Hi. Hi. Hi. Yes. Okay. Yes. From Catherine. Yes from Joe. Yes from Abby. Do we still have Michael? Yes. And yes, from Michael and Rob votes yes. So that is unanimously approved. It would be time. Happy to hear her. Go back to the zoning everybody. appreciate your time. Thank you. Thanks Courtney. So this time my employer was involved in the preparation of the application for the next thing on the agenda. So I will turn this meeting over to Sharon, the vice chair. Thank you and wish you all a wonderful evening. Happy new year. Thanks for having me. So I just wanted to go over what we're going to do, just the process. There'll first be a staff summary, and then the applicant will do a presentation about what they've got going on. Then we'll have questions by the board, and then we'll open it up to public comment. There have been a lot of people who have been written testimony, which is great, and that's all in the record. There's copies of that available here, and that information can all be picked up at the planning office, or the planning department office that material is available. It seems like we have a fair number of people who would like to comment, and so I would encourage us to be, stability and brevity are the key words of the night, if we will. Having said that, I have one question I got from Meredith, that we have a bunch of people that are going to talk about can we do a group swearing? Oh, yeah. No, I would definitely do a group swearing. Everybody remotely and in person that wants to think that they might want to speak, even if they don't know for sure. They think they might, then they should be sworn in. Okay, maybe let's do that now. Everybody who is interested, both at home on Zoom or here, please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the hands and penalties of perjury? We will kind of assume that there's lots of hands and yeses online. I think I've got everybody's name down. I guess the other thing that I wanted to just make the board members aware of, is that we always have the possibility of going into deliberative session. We also have the possibility of going into deliberative session at a later time, so that if tonight's activities were to run long and we felt like we wanted to take time and think about it and talk about it, we could have a deliberative session, not on this night also, so just to put that out. With that, Mark got a roll on the staff summary. Yeah, I'm going to try and keep this fairly brief because we do have a lot of people here and I think just about everybody's fairly familiar with the application. So this is coming before the Development Review Board because it is the final application for a campus development under the planned use development chapter in our zoning regulations. This was designed to allow for a sort of cohesive development of either commercial or academic property, various different options, could be like a hospital at campus to allow different parcels and buildings to have a plan for future development potential changes of use, potential new development for parking and shared parking that lets the board basically approve this plan. That plan does not negate the need for future zoning permits for incremental changes. So under this plan, there's discussion about future potential parking areas or there's some discussion about a limited range of potential changes to certain buildings maybe to make them ADA accessible or things like that. Each of those incremental steps, even if this even if this POD request is approved by the board, each of those incremental steps will still need to go through a permit process and get reviewed each time those come forward. But how some of those changes could be approved could be amended by this plan by the board's decisions on this plan. That's the use aspect and that's one of the biggest changes that this proposes and I think based on the public comments that I've shared with everybody, one of the most controversial potential changes. So I will that's that's what I've got unless somebody has a specific procedural question. This was this was before the board about a year ago for sketch plan did go through sketch plan where it was all an informal discussion. This is the part where an actual decision needs to be made before the hearing is closed. And people's like you said you swear everybody in that's official testimony. Let's get rolling. How's our applicant want to come up? The applicant can approach a and feel free to shift the chairs a little bit if you need to so that both of you can get to the microphone. Yeah, do your do your best to speak into the microphone. That way everybody remote can hear you and the recording secretary. You can identify yourselves. I'm Katie Gustafson. I'm here representing Vermont College of Fine Arts. You are going to need to speak up. I don't know if you can turn on the intercom, whatever speaker. We'll see if it creates too much feedback. If it does, you may just need to really speak up to the people who people behind you. Too much feedback. Try it again. Try again. I'm Katie Gustafson. I'm here representing Vermont College of Fine Arts and I'm here with David White who the college has engaged to help with the campus master plan.  So we had a master plan that expired and it's been in the process of trying to create one to fit the zoning requirements. As Meredith said, we were here about a year ago with a draft and based on feedback that we received from the board at that time, sort of put more specifics around the plan. The college is in a period of transition so the campus master plan is trying to contemplate different uses in the future so that there can be a vibrant fully utilized campus at some point in the future. So, excuse me, wrong in my throat. I do have a presentation I can make that's kind of an overview of what we're proposing to do and a response to some of the staff comments that said there's been an awful lot of public comment, some of which we've had a chance to read through but not fully reflect on and I'm not sure what the best use of time is. Happy to give you the overview presentation, I've got a little bit of a PowerPoint presentation I could make or we could just launch into questions. So it's really what the board thinks is the most the best use of time. Thoughts? Okay. Great, helpful to see the big picture. Okay, some of what you're doing is addressing some of the staff comments. It does to some extent, yes. So, I would agree with the other members and their winds get the overview picture. Also, I think it's worth mentioning that we can take information in any form and we can do this doesn't all have to be done today. If we get up to three hours of the evening, we can adjust our schedule to fit that. Did you say? No, I was just taking the glasses off. So, I do have a thumb drive here. Put it into that computer if you can find a free USB. All right, let's see. What do you know? Bear with me here. You need to find what drive that is. Only seeing the C drive. Can you? Do you have a name? No, but it should be. It should pop up as a name as, you know, drive D or something. Sorry to get in your space game. Hmm. We can take the best one. You have to find that. No, it's a good idea. Maybe. Okay. Okay. So, you touchpad open it up and then you're going to need to share screen once you've got it open so that everybody remotely can see it as well. Touchpad is sexy. I need to do. You need to go back to the. Okay. Get up there, go share screen, and then go there. Okay. And let's just, there we go. All right. Great. Okay. So, thank you. And again, for the record, I'm David White. I'm President of Whitenburg Real Estate Advisors. We're based in Burlington. I know I'm clear rather well, having lived here many years, having actually gotten married in the backyard of 25 Ridge Street, just a few houses away from this site. And anyway, I'll, I'll leave that there. So, let me talk a little bit about how the campus is going to change, no matter what, it's going to change. It'll no longer be functioning the way it has been functioning. And the question is not whether it changes, but rather how, and what's the process to get from where we are today to ultimately those uses. And the zoning ordinance sets forth a, the process for seeking approval for a plan unit development for a campus plan unit development. And what we have done is to follow the process that sets forth in the zoning ordinance itself that says, okay, tell us what you think you might do. What are the uses that might be there? How do they come together? And that's what we've done. And this is part of a, I think we're at the, I wouldn't say the beginning, but we're at the middle point of a discussion with you as a board and with the neighbors and community around, you know, what those uses might be and how we proceed. And with respect to the, the setting up the PUD, the zoning ordinance says you need to establish a purpose. And I've tried to very briefly thumbnail it here on this screen. But basically what we've said is that we're anticipating this to be a mixed use campus that will enable adaptive reuse of the existing structures so that they are uses that the structures have a purpose. They don't just sit there and be vacant and crumble over time. So what might those be used for? And we're, one likely scenario here is that it will be continually, predominantly academic. There are other academic uses on the campus in addition to VCFA today, but also continue to be mixed use as it is today. There are mixed uses. One major significant change that could occur, this is far from a decision, but it does not seem unlikely, is that some of the structures, particularly a couple of the dorms along college street could be converted to housing. They are not especially suitable for other uses. And as we look at the marketplace as a whole, there are many things that seem rather unlikely. You know, there's not a huge amount of demand for office space, for example. So I think converting some of those dorms to office space, not impossible. There could be a business that comes along, but it seems unlikely. And so as we look at those kinds of things, what might, you know, something like Noble Hall, what might that be used for in the future? And housing seems like one likely scenario. So as we look at this, we're saying we think it's likely to continue to have some academic uses, whether that's majority or not. And to have other mixed uses similar to the kinds of things that are today in Schulmeyer and Stone, office uses and so forth. And it's likely that housing would be added as a component of all of this. And so that's kind of the gist of what we're looking at is how do we make effective use of those facilities that are there, and so that they really make some sense in the marketplace. Let's see here. Let's see, that didn't work. Let's try it worked either. I'll do it this way. Getting used to somebody else's computer. All right. So as we look at the academic and mixed use scenario, we are, there's certainly the possibility of the sale of the campus or a substantial portion of it to other academic institutions that may happen. There are discussions underway with a range of possible interested parties. So that is certainly a scenario that could happen. I'm not saying it will happen, but it could happen. And that, but if that happens, similar to what's going on today with the Moncology Fine Arts, I would expect that excess space would be leased to other users on the campus. So there would still need to be the opportunity for some of those buildings to be adaptively reused. That said, we do anticipate it continuing as a campus, a unified whole. It's very likely that it will become a condominium. That's an absolute certainty. I suppose there's a scenario where buildings gets sold off in which case they will no longer be part of, they will no longer be eligibility part of this campus PUD. Campus PUD rules say that you've got to be under common ownership. And we anticipate, in fact, establishing that this will be a condominium where the condominium will own the land. The condominium units in this case will be individual buildings, unlike say a residential condominium where they're just individual, it may be a multi-family structure with individual units. This will be the entire building would be individual condominium units, but the land will be held in common and operated in common by the condominium association. But it is possible that some of the buildings will get sold off separately, as some have been historically sold off separately, in which case it would not be continued to be part of this campus PUD. Right now we don't know whether that's the case, but it's possible. And again, we're trying to be transparent and full disclosure. We are not proposing any new construction at this point. I have highlighted, we have highlighted in the application that we anticipate that for handicapped accessibility ADA reasons that we will need to add or buyers will need to add elevator stair towers. I think it would be fairly minor additional construction, but we do anticipate that that will occur. But at this point we're not seeking a specific approval. Those, as Meredith said, will need to come back for their own zoning permits at that time. So at this point, there is zero new construction proposed, nor would approval of this give us authority to do any new construction. We would still need to get approval for that going forward. So this is the campus today as it stands and I assume most people are familiar with it. But just to be clear, we've got the campus green in the center with College Hall and a total of if I recall correctly, it's 11 buildings. Am I right about that? 11 buildings wrapped around. There used to be more buildings owned by the college, but along East State Street and West Street, but those were sold off previously. And today it goes from Dewey on the West wrapping around to Stone and Shulmire and then those buildings along College Street with some undeveloped land that's behind the buildings on College Street as well. So people may or may not be aware that the existing campus is not just the college. In addition to Vermont College of Fine Arts, there are two other schools there, the new school and Patchham. The Vermont State of Vermont has a Vermont State Training Center where they hold sessions to train people. There's a for various programs and needs they have for their staffing. There's a food service contractor who that has uses the commercial kitchen down in Dewey and provides both food service to the campus but also food services elsewhere. There are various office uses that are leased out in primarily Shulmire and Stone. In addition to the campus being available for community meetings and outside organizations to rent spaces temporarily for conferences and so forth and gallery spaces. And then the green itself as I think the community is well aware gets used for various community athletic type activities. Regarding proposed uses, there is a table that we provided. I will say that since we submitted this we have done a little bit of further thinking and there are a few additions we would like to make to this table and I do have hard copies that I can pass out to people. But let me say that the we've tried to be very clear in the table you'll see in the original one and in the one that I've got here that those uses that are in green along the top are those that are currently conditional uses that in the application we propose go to permitted uses. I want to be clear about that though that the fact that they're permitted uses doesn't allow us to build anything new. We would still need to get a permit to build something new. We need to go through site plan approval if we needed to build a new building for it. This is simply providing that the uses would be permitted uses on the campus. And I've heard loud and clear from again I haven't had to be able to read every email and so forth that came in but I've heard loud and clear there's a lot of concern about that and we will absolutely be listening to the community feedback on whether these are the appropriate uses to ship from conditional to permitted. But nonetheless the ones in green we've tried to be very clear which is why we put it into a table about which ones were proposing the shift. Now in yellow as we thought about this when we originally submitted this when we talk about the three smallest buildings on campus which are Crowley, Martin and Gary we had really not thought about some uses that's in subsequent conversations we realized could possibly be appropriate for those buildings. So we are proposing to add a few uses to what we're requesting would be shifting from conditional to permitted and I can take a moment to pass that table out now because I know those questions are significant or I can delay until I'm done and pass them out after. Sorry just for yes. You weren't adding any new uses across the top of the table you're just adding the little X marks as to the possible locations where those uses might occur. Yes that's clear. Yeah because that was my understanding. Yes there's no new uses here it's just that and this is something that it gives the if the board approves this kind of change it gives them options for potential ways to limit that use conversion right because they have said oh these are the buildings where these uses could we can envision them occurring here should it give you places to say okay well we we might approve this conversion from conditional to permitted but if so you can look here to say well maybe you can only do it in you know Gary library in Crowley hall you can't do it anywhere else without coming back for conditionally used review right. So okay that's important clarification so we would be approving or not the shift from conditional to permitted building by building you you have that option this has never been done before okay this is I tried to be thoughtful in what I suggested in the staff report of ways to you know because there can be a yes there can be a no right the board can just say yes or no or they can do a conditioned approval to say okay you need to amend your campus master plan to limit when these uses can actually be permitted uses so that you're minimizing the impact on the neighborhood okay and that was one possibility. Thank you that was helpful and let me add to that that you know although I was not here in the sketch plan process but what I understood from that and perhaps misunderstood but what I understood from that was that the board was looking for this kind of table which uses might go to which building and so that's what we've tried to do we've spent some time really thinking about you know certain properties certain buildings simply aren't suitable for certain uses and so we've tried to be that's why we've set it out in a tabular format is to give you that level of specificity would we love you to say sure all uses in any building sure but we've we've you know laid it out in a way that we think is thoughtful so why don't I move on and I'll pass these out that's fine okay so one of the questions that I somehow missed something here I believe bear with me just a moment there we go I went what's going on here there we go all right so one of the questions that came up there were there were a couple of questions around parking that came up and one of them was this question around the angled parking that we showed along west and college now I should say that prior master plans for the campus have pretty consistently shown if you go back and we've got them going back to the quite a few iterations show it on west and college and east state street and based on some feedback that we got we removed it on east state street entirely but we kept it on college and west believing that that could conceivably work in the future and I want to be clear that the the the concept plans that we've shown actually slightly cut back the green and leave the street travel lanes sufficient width to meet the city standards so there is a little bit of a cutback on the green in order to make that work that said I did see the staff feedback from Mr. Lines I believe it is at the DPW that that may may not he didn't say wouldn't be but may not be approved so we said okay what what's the impact of that if it isn't approved and this table shows that so you'll see the existing parking in the left hand column which is sort of green or you know on the screen here on my screen it's pink but anyway 234 spaces existing today including 36 that are on west and college that we get to count because the college owns both sides if no new spaces are added on west or college total existing potential parking spaces hits 295 we've which is a little bit less than what's shown in the application and then the question came up well what about winter parking where it's alternating sides of the street and staff speculated that maybe there'd be 16 spaces lost our count is actually 18 we lose a couple more than staff estimated and that's because of the way it works with one side of college having 18 spaces the other has 13 and interestingly the day that 18 are available on colleges zero are available on west and the day that 13 are available in college five are available on west so either day 18 spaces are available on street at any rate this table is intended simply to show that we still believe we have enough spaces it shows the potential for up to 277 we may never need those spaces right this is we're trying to show what could happen and indeed again I want to emphasize that we're not seeking approval tonight to actually construct these spaces this is showing this is a master plan it's a concept and when and if they're needed we would then come back and seek a site plan approval to actually construct one or another of these additional areas and I'm not saying we will not come back and ask for spaces on western college I'm just trying to indicate that we believe we still would have enough if we got to that stage so then the question also came around traffic and the question of whether there we should be doing a full traffic study right now and so forth and and from our perspective the answer is no we're not willing to do a traffic study in an appropriate time but this doesn't seem like the appropriate time we the uses that we have put forward are speculative at the moment we did put forward in one of the tables that gets table E a possible combination that seems relatively likely of what the uses might be in the building what the parking demand would be for that but we don't know whether that's going to happen so it seems premature and we were struck by the staff review comments suggesting that perhaps what would happen is you establish a threshold and once we're over a certain number of cumulative trips that would be generated by new uses that then the the traffic analysis would have to be done and that's what would happen under conditional use I mean the conditional use process if you hit 75 trips that impact a trap class one road you've got to do a traffic study or 50 trips on a class two or three road well the roads the immediate vicinity are all class two or three and so we're suggesting if we hit 50 trips that we would need to do a traffic study at that time and so that requires us establishing a baseline where are we today and staff at did ask us for providing that and it being the holidays and all that and our traffic engineer went off on vacation with family we haven't people get that data yet but we we can produce that for you and provide to you a baseline of what the existing trip generation is for the campus that provides a basis on which successive applications and this is something that would have to be tracked and I have no doubt that the staff would do that you know we start with these trips and you know if we apply for a new conditional use that requires whatever it is 20 trips okay we only have 30 left before we've got to trigger that that uh track traffic study but that seems appropriate because the uses today are so speculative and so what basis do you have for analysis so we don't know how many trips we will actually be generating um so it's not against it it's just premature um and then there were a number of comments um particularly relative and I did pick up on this the um concern about the the campus green and I want to be absolutely clear that um we're not proposing any changes other than I did mention slightly narrowing in order to do the angled parking other than that we're not proposing any changes to the college green nor would approval of this application authorize any changes to the college green now staff suggested the idea that perhaps there should be some official condition that makes it or reserves it or something I would suggest to you that the two things one is that you may not want to do that because if you look at your own ordinance it says um that if you reserve land it can't be used for any active recreation and the community uses this pretty actively as playing fields and so it might actually hinder what the community wants to have happened here so I think that particular mechanism probably is not the right way to go I would also say to you that um it that it's unnecessary that there will be it when and if ever we have no proposal to change it when and if ever a subsequent application comes forward there'll be plenty of opportunity at that time for there to be discussion around whether this should ever be whether it should happen or not but as we stand here today we are not applying to change that green other than potentially a slightly narrowing for the Anglic Park spaces and that's basically it in terms of the overview I hope that's helpful question is yes uh could you explain why you want to change these uses from permitted to or conditional to primitive permit assure um well first of all the zoning POD process asks us to propose uses that you know we think might happen on the campus and so uh to be perfectly honest we that's what we did initially it didn't strike is potentially as controversial as it turns out to be and perhaps I'm just too naive but the um it so we were being responsive to what the ordinance itself calls for that said um there there certainly is a benefit to um making it easier for us as we talk with potential users to say okay this is now a permitted use if they're proposing to adaptively but I don't be clear to adaptively reuse existing buildings not to build anything new you would still need to come back for site plan approval and so forth to build something new so this is all about adaptive reuse and trying to um facilitate the process of moving that along it's I'll just say that my experience as I think about this friend as an example if we were to propose find that down street housing hypothetically and I've not talked about street power to be clear but hypothetically we're interested in converting noble into 12 units of affordable housing um you know the way their funding and time in works you want to move that along as expeditiously as you can and it being a conditional use makes it slows the process considerably versus being approved it's that simple okay thank you is the uh is like college green air um you talk about there's a notice in the application of 31 open space portion of your planned master the plan development and is that is that in part is that considered part of it but well let me be clear the campus today excuse me the campus today as you look at the entire acreage there's only about 20 there's about eight and a half nine percent building coverage and maybe about 27 percent total block coverage if you look at all impervious surface and I'm not sure that data point is in the in the submitted materials so that the campus today is over 70 percent actually green space because if you look at the entire acreage of the campus the and the green yes is a piece of that yeah I think so I'm just going to do a quick share screens might help Sharon um do I need to unshare I took it away so I could see people so I could see if somebody was having problems um so I believe when you were counting what you considered to be the shared common space you did count the green but also like these green spaces here in front of the buildings and all of those green spaces as common open space and you weren't actually factoring this in as common open space even though you mentioned it when you're trying to get to your percentages but the problem is if you're saying that the college green is used for active recreation it's not this is something that the board may need to think about the college green isn't designated as an active recreation space right it's not a tennis court you can't count a tennis court as a common open space um the college green is sometimes sometimes used for that active recreation but that's not what it's necessarily designated for so where you're going to draw the line there on what counts as the reserved common open space and what kind of conditions need to be placed on that in the campus master plan so it can stay green it could be used for different people's active recreation but it can't be they can't convert it to a football field right those are some possibilities and things to think about right so you can have active recreation but I mean common open space people are gonna set up you know games the use is transient right the you exactly thank you the use is transient that was a great I have a question that might be more for Katie I think when we saw the um sketch plan about a year ago it was before um there was any public news at least that I was aware of on the transition for the college so the context is obviously different from you know talking about the PUD with the college in operation here and with underutilized buildings having a change of use versus what we're talking about now which is more of a transition for the institution so can you talk to us a bit about um obviously is the transitional point but what you foresee for you know the immediate uh academic I suppose the the wording in the application is that there's continued administrative sites here so can you talk to us a bit about kind of what you anticipate there so the BCFA will keep our administrative offices in college hall and keep that entire parcel which includes the green um but as David explained as we move forward as you know buyers come into the picture it will be shared all of those campus resources including the green and the parking among other things would be shared resources so um I'm not sure if there was more in that question that I think that's helpful okay if I may just elaborate on that to underscore the point that assuming we go forward with the condominium concept which is not an absolute certainty but I think is likely then I would anticipate that the college will no longer own the green itself it will own college hall and the green will be part of the underlying land that the condominium association owns and operates and manages so I did have sort of questions about that condominium association idea just a living like maybe you know if there were details around with that way you had in mind setting up a condominium association is that something you're anticipating doing in where did that might come in your plans so yes we are anticipating that again it's not absolute certainty but I'd say it's highly likely um the so I think when most people have condominiums they think of you know residential condominium it might be you know a set of townhouses or something where each owner owns you know their individual unit and the condominium association is typically responsible for all the land all the grounds for all the exterior of the buildings for the roofs and so forth that's very common and the most typical kind of condominium association but there are also commercial condominiums one of them some of you may be familiar with is on Shelburne Road in South Burlington Lakewood Commons that is you know a mix of buildings but it's all commercial uses there's no residential but the basic structure is similar there in that the condominium association owns the ground and is responsible for the exterior of the buildings including roofs and so forth this one's a little bit different because the buildings are not attached and um what we're anticipating and but it's only technically different is the condominium association owns the ground um and that each the condominium unit would be the entire building each owner would own the entire building be responsible for the entire building so the exterior walls the rooms and so forth and that's to that extent it's different than the typical residential condominium and more like a land trust mechanism almost where the land is owned separately yes but it but in fact is typical for condominiums this is the way it really is typical and the the management the each condominium owner would have certain boning rights and we haven't worked these details out whether it's based on square footage or you know what it is we've got to still we're working on those kinds of considerations how that would work and that they would then the association would then in turn be responsible for ongoing management whether they do it directly by hiring staff which is less likely or by bringing in an outside um service to do that typically condominium associations will hire external service to to do all the ongoing maintenance and then in turn you assess fees back to all the owners to pay their share however that again that gets prorated among users and so i've been involved in some this is a mixed use condominium which gets a little bit trickier but i've been involved in one up in burlington that some of you may or may not be aware as a condominium but along battery street where you've got the marriott hotel and then around on cherry street you've got the hotel vermont and behind it there's some parking garages and there's also a residential condominium there called west lake that's actually all on it is all on common land and it's all a condominium with different uses and different fee structure depending on what they are in different voting rights but it's a mixed use in quite analogous to this mixed use condominium thank you what's the ownership structure of the condominium typically what happens is that the individual that collectively the the owners of the individual units own the land so there is no external involvement here and ultimately we would anticipate that vermont college fine arts would be just one more owner not the dominant or controlling interest here would be one of the owners in the condominium and have voting rights however that ends up being a portion questions are the questions from the void i guess i just wanted to say that um you know it sounds like everybody went on vacation and that there's traffic data coming but that seems like a really important piece to me um that without a baseline of it would be pretty hard to determine what was okay and what wasn't okay and uh it just seems like that's that's information that we should really have but i'm kind of think um so i agree with you actually i think that's so let me say we will provide that you know we don't have it yet and um i haven't had a chance to talk with her try he was supposed to be back today i guess i'm assuming anyway i haven't had a chance to talk with him since he's returned from his vacation so um we will but yes we will get that um are you ready to open up to other people folks here um i guess i'd like to open it up first to to butters who have not yet commented in writing or in person and just a quick note i did get a few more emails between the batch that i circulated and getting here because i could only process things so much so when we get there i do have um emails um just so that people know from uh mark greenberg emily donaldson amanda sardonas i think i'm pronouncing that right leah greenberg and susan calza so just so you all know we do have those it sounds like there might be a continuation so i'll be able to get these to you um or so do we have butters that are on zoom or in the room that have not yet commented that would like to yeah it's not yet submitted a written someone who if we are butters who haven't submitted written comments um because i do have all of those then uh wait to raise your hand i think we have we have at least one raised hand on zoom so far i'm not seeing anything in here are you can't see around the poll all right so you have to see dan doll remotely there we go oh you do like i said i couldn't see around the poll oh sorry uh so do you want to do in person first or let's do the in person first please come up in uh identify yourself and if anybody i did see some people sneaking in when we were in process please make sure to sign the sign in sheet if you're here in person it might be an issue of swearing in oh yeah were you here for the swearing in okay um can you raise your right hand do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains of penalty i do thank you um shan chi and five west street i'll be brief my comment notice a lot more i just wanted to point out i think a lot of the question kind of being new to a lot of this process and kind of what happens in permitted and conditional uses um i think a lot of speculation about why why are the changes and how would it change the process and i think the point that was just made with the example about if there was a housing unit going in and what the financial ramifications would need to be and what that would mean for a slower process versus um more quickly you know that feasible side i think that was um helpful at least to me won't speak for for anyone else but i think kind of trying to make sense but i'll understand kind of what was the difference um that piece that piece thank you thank you thank you sure the news are online person uh dan can you unmute yourself and testify sure um i am as i indicated beginning dance hall i am a live in the dcf a neighborhood on first stab i'm also the head of park advisors the consulting firm that was hired by the city of montpelier to look at uh housing and security affordable housing and the unhoused here in montpelier in washington county and i just wanted to put my vote in for at least to postpone the vote uh at least a month so that we can maximize the dialogue between the public the municipality and the college at two points first i see this as an opportunity to create an even more vibrant community with housing options across potentially across the income spectrum secondly i'm really looking forward to this conversation in considering all the options as we work towards an optimal mix of housing uh not only in this neighborhood but across the city and across the county thank you i think folks would like to comment um any what we'll do is we'll alternate we'll go one in the room and one on zoom then one in the room um gentlemen on the left want to start that's you okay yeah we got to have you go to the microphone so people remotely can hear you thank you very much uh you can hear me okay yes i appreciate the hard work that this board is doing i appreciate that we've all submitted a fair amount of paperwork that it's going to take time to read through and i'm sorry can you identify yourself my name is danny sagan i live at 31 first avenue and i've been some warning uh i do want to say that um i've lived at 31 first avenue for 19 years i've enjoyed living next to pcfa my daughter's got their training wheels taken off uh on the green and i've been uh i volunteered for the city mob pillar from up here alive to the downtown committee and i've been a volunteer member of the front gallery i'm a i'm an architect i share a design practice with my wife elisa dwarski i teach at norwich university and at norwich we've designed and built housing for homeless folks uh within the mental health system we've built these in berry i've worked uh directly with down street housing i've seen all the good work that down street housing's done and they've done a lot of good work using permitting processes that are already in place which use planning review and design review boards like yourself to review their projects before they move forward i will say that i'm not naive when it comes to the difference between permanent review and conditional review there is no need to expedite reviews without input the permanent review process pushes a project to approval without any notification of the neighborhood without any notification of this board that is not an expedited process that is a process without review so i feel very strongly not to shift these conditional uses to permanent uses especially when it comes to housing and i trust people like down street know how to operate within the system that already exists i would like to make the point made by the report that miss krandall so very eloquently said within your report on page 16 that during the gap between adoption of the current regulations in january 2018 and now vcfa has had to obtain zoning permits based on the individual parcels it owns without any of the benefits applied by a campus development pud these relatively recent permits include a subdivision a change of use a request to use an old tennis court for temporary surface parking and others all of this was done within a process that already exists already exists within the town of montpellier city montpellier so that's my general comment my specific comment is short there is a hedge between my property and the property that's protected under the pud this hedge has been maintained by the owner of the property vcfa and the owners before vcfa to standards that were written into a master plan that was agreed upon there's no mention of my hedge or not my hedge excuse me there's no mention of the hedge that is owned and maintained by vcfa in this master plan if this condominium comes to fruition who's going to maintain that hedge okay thank you very much um someone are you gonna zoom yep we have uh erin aguayo is on with her hand up hi um we more than about the college our home was a vermont college dorm for 30 or 40 years so we're we can hear the primal screams at midnight and we can hear all the whistles from the soccer games and and so everything the college does has had a direct impact on our lives and i would be more than hesitant to give them more free rein to develop without significant oversight they have been largely unresponsive to any concerns dismissive and i definitely think that they're already permitted to do all kinds of things and they've sent a real estate investor investment a real estate agent to represent them tonight as opposed to a college representative and i am just nervous about them getting even more pre-approved or less oversight uh permissions so that's that's it hey thank you very much um someone in the room yeah hello i am elisa dorsky at 31 first avenue we are at a butter next to dewey hall i am married to danie sagan um i have a master's in architecture i teach as adjunct faculty of orage university in architecture i have serious concerns about this proposal but first i want to take a moment just thank you for all your time and i want to thank everybody in the community here and online and sent in letters because i think one of the big issues here is about community involvement and about maintaining the right for the community to weigh in on changes and use on the campus particularly under the conditional uses because i concur with danie there's a huge difference between the notification process the hearings that are required under conditional use the time and opportunity for community members to reflect on conditional uses ask questions and then you know actually have a chance to have a dialogue with a permitted use by understanding is that the zoning administrator if if an application meets those requirements the permitted use they have to then approve it and there is no discourse with the community there is no input there is no refining there is no opportunity for you to amend it's done and that really makes me very nervous and as other people have mentioned there are a whole long list which are in my letter of um or existing permitted uses but i want to take moment because there's so much i'm sorry there's a lot to talk about is this application came very late came in december in the holiday season the staff report came on the 29th and as a community member i've been reading this starting just 36 hours ago and it's really scaring me that we don't have time to really understand fully what's going on here but what i do understand it is making me very concerned and i concur with the other person who spoke online we need at least another month if not more as a community until there is another and another hearing certainly there shouldn't be a vote until more members of the community have a chance to weigh in i do have a question about that i'm which is i submitted a letter i know a lot of people submitted letters if you have not voted yet can other community members with having more time to look at this and ask questions submit letters going forward and have standing yes as long as the itself has not been closed okay new testimony new evidence new plans new they can continue to be submitted one of my concerns is that the application is it's very dense and i think it actually obscures a lot of really important information and i'll try to touch on that briefly and it's in my letter but the fact that it's that dense means that we need community members to have time to understand what's going on and respond overly and have a voice let me just return to my notes and i really am trying to be concise i appreciate it but i also feel that because the community hasn't had a chance to fully review this that i can give a chance to uh underline some important points people who are online now all right so i think delaying the vote is important i also want to just say i personally and i'm pretty confident about this being true of many of my neighbors we want the campus to be successful we want you to be able to have multi-use and transfer this or at least i will say for myself you know to to to other to a new life a new vibrant life we want success absolutely we are reasonable people and it's in our self-interest that you be successful we want the buildings full and vibrant but we want a voice and we don't want this particularly conditional uses change to permitted uses and lose our voice one argument david has made i said hey we're not going to build anything there can be discussion in the future but this is an example of the obfuscation that is taking place because if conditional use is changed permitted use in this then as i've pointed out we don't have much to say in the future sure we can have a say but it you know if we know the permit's been pulled so i think that's insincere to say oh we'll have the conversations later this is very important right now in terms of retaining those rights now um hold on there's something else there's other things i wanted to respond to in terms of david's comments he mentioned it's all about adaptive reuse and facilitating the process moving along as dany said we can do that now he also talked about how conditional use slows the process slows the process yes because it involves community engagement which i think is really critical in our democracy in the character of our neighborhoods and i think if you have faith in your community your neighbors and you want them to be engaged and you wanted to work as a neighborhood you allow them to have that input but um you know the other reason which i think they may not be talking about is they're trying to sell this property and it will be more valuable to potential buyers if community members do not have as much possibility to engage because we could delay things we're not trying to you know i'm not trying to stop something but just by asking questions and having to involve the community well that takes energy and engagement which is what a developer or a campus should have but sure if they get rid of that it may have a greater monetary value to them but why at the price of my engagement right i would ask that really concerns me i'm sorry i'm going to just quickly go from any notes over to you um kind of quick i'm in yep i'm going to try and wrap it up i just want to make sure um first of all the delay needs to happen because there've been so many letters i mean how could you possibly vote you haven't absorbed what everybody said and we need other people to have time to weigh in and understand themselves i need time to talk to the staff and understand the staff report it was very dense um and i also want to say something that's instance here that david said that which was he said it came as a surprise that the community would oppose the idea of conditional uses being transferred to permitted use this this was raised a year ago and in community members meetings extensively so i don't believe that honestly um so uh yeah that's basically what i want to say and as regards what dany said about the hedge it's not that we're only just worried about our hedge the hedge between it it's an issue that in the document it's very vague what happens to outdoor spaces it talks actually about how vcfa um acknowledges the hedge but not what happens when it's in the new condominium ownership so there's a lot of evasive language that's saying oh yeah we're concerned but in the news structure that goes out the window there's nothing being said about how outdoor spaces are being used for us personally it's a real restaurant next door outdoor loud seating would be a concern we want to be able to weigh in on that we're not opposed to a restaurant but that the details matter and we want engagement through conditionally used to weigh in on that and there are many other issues that come up like the green etc that are in our letters parking sound etc i mean you know parking sound boundaries i can't even list them all but the point is it's not to um we just we just want the details and we want to be able to have those discussions thank you thank you i really appreciate it um so the gentleman has had her hand up the longest okay donna hi am i i'm not muted right you're not muted we can hear you good hi i'm donna ackerman and my house abuts the college land um my house is at ten camp avenue and um i've on the house i think for 45 years now we share property money um with the college and because we've been there so long there've been issues that have come up and up over the years with different owners and different administrations and all those things and i would not support any change to make something not up in additional use i feel like it's so important that the neighbors have the opportunity to weigh in on lighting and noise and boundaries and things like that because every change creates some ripple effects and too many changes without oversight can really change your neighborhood i live in montpellier only part time um the rest of my time i spend outside of boston and i've worked in affordable housing for 36 years now and i'm aware of how slow the process can be but the process is slow because it's so important that the end product of any kind of housing and especially affordable housing and perhaps especially people who may need more services than regular tenants who are just buying their first home or something those details all need to work in order for a change of use in a neighborhood like this and i just need to share that i'm very nervous about rumors i hear and um things that may or may not happen i think i've been to every meeting and i'm going to try to do my best to continue to stay involved i appreciate the time this is not easy for anyone and i too want the college to be there and um in any fashion that that works for the neighborhood and for them but i do think money and time is what is pushing things so quickly and um i think people need to be involved and we need the opportunity so thank you thank you um do we have someone else in the room i live on crazy street and i've lived there for about 40 years your name juliane effector and um dewy is right in my backyard so being there that long i've been to many meetings many changes over the years the community action familiar with and i'm just curious i do remember many of the discussions included the fact that this this land the beman college was in a master plan supposed to be there in perpetuity as an educational organization um i must have missed something because that seems to be like not mentioned at all and what i would say is what what has the effort been to find other educational institutions to come in has it just been a i mean the motive the motives for not having it are much more lucrative so i guess i would just put that out that that's my concern thank you uh phyllis rubenstein hi thank you can you hear me yeah i'm phyllis rubenstein at 15 college street um i submitted a letter this morning and i will try not to repeat what's in my letter i first have a question because i'm one of the people that just started reading uh the staff report 36 hours ago or less and looking at table b so i first have a question and then i have comments but what i don't know what it means on table b proposed permitted use is i understand that what's shaded in green is where um the college wants to change conditional use to permitted use but those uses that are not that are just um that that aren't shaded are those what are they are they currently conditional uses and will remain conditional uses or are they permitted uses what i don't know what they are they're currently permitted uses yeah they're currently permitted uses my understanding is that the because during sketch plan review so many people wanted to know what uses the applicant envisioned being on campus they included the ones that they also saw as being potential for the college buildings um in this chart to to meet that requirement was a question for the board it was a question from the public um but it doesn't that doesn't those that listing those there doesn't mean that other uses that are permitted in the mixed use residential district couldn't later be used on the campus you know any any use that is permitted in the base zoning district would be a permitted use on the campus whether it's in that table or not okay thank you during david's presentation he said that um the the purpose of the plan would be mixed use with adaptive reuse academic and mixed use like today possibly adding housing when i look at table b there are eight categories of uses that have to do with housing and some of them are residential housing but under the items that they wish to change from conditional use to permitted use are multiple unit dwellings five or more a group home a major in congregate living there is some definition in their plan of i forget i think it was of congregate living but there's no definition of the or of group home i believe and and and there's for both of them there's no indication of how large these facilities would be i am particularly concerned about parking and traffic david said that um that in prior master plans they showed angled parking on west and college street as well as east state street well i would question how old are those prior master plans where those master plans uh approved before or after town hill road going into east montpelier was paved because well i i've lived in montpelier since 1988 and i originally lived off of town hill road and um and i've lived in my current residence for over 22 years so i have seen traffic increase on both town hill road and um on college street i i disagree with what i read that most of the traffic on college street is for residents i walk up and down college street the cars that i see started main street go all the way down to berry street and i don't believe that the traffic is primarily for local uh residents i think it's for people that are using college street as a bypass of downtown in the college um plan they also designate or identify college street as a minor collector uh route whereas east state street is a major collector route i don't know if that's accurate i would um and i think that a traffic study is imperative i think it'll show that college street has a tremendous amount of use it also has bicycle use um and and any incursion on on the street and any additional parking especially i i think angled parking would make it more dangerous for bicyclists um i also agree with what others have said today that there should not be a vote tonight that there should be an opportunity for more of the butters and neighbors to comment on the plan and and as others have said my goal is that community members continue to have a voice in the permitting process which um the change of from conditional use to permitted use would eliminate thank you thank you very much um do we have someone else in the room or shall we go to susan labirth if i pronounce that correctly labirth no i'm about to thank you good oh i was so happy to see julie there she's my next door neighbor um i've been on tracy street for my think 36 years my um i share a property line with the college um and i just wanted to uh reinforce uh practically everything i've heard uh from the audience speakers tonight um i'm a little concerned about um the transfer from the conditional to permitted use um and i i have a kind of a it's a minor example it doesn't have directly to do with permitted use but it does have to do with a permit request that was administratively approved without any input from neighbors and that was from a neighbor who wanted to have a party that was going to go late into the evening with a rock band and and and loud uh what do you call those things uh amps or speakers you know anyway so i wake up to loud rock music at i don't know 10 or 11 o'clock at night and i drove over there and asked them to please knock it off and was told that they had a permit well they just went down to city hall and got somebody to sign the permit and i don't think that was an appropriate use for a residential community so uh that that's just kind of a a tiny example but an annoyance and something that shouldn't have happened in our residential community um and then where um danny uh is fortunate to have uh a nice hedge that the college owns i have a fence i don't have a fence the college has a fence that runs along my back property line as well as that of my next door neighbor whose uh address is 29 ridge and um uh yeah i have the same concerns somebody in maintain that fence oh they have just replaced it because it was falling down threatening to uh threatening to collapse on our cars and so forth um and i really appreciate that the fence has been replaced but who's going to take care of that in the future and one last thing i think that over the years there have been times when uh there was uh oh some kind of a concern or issue or something and as ownership of the campus has changed the um attention and responsiveness uh to those kinds of issues have changed things like noise from the dumpsters which are right behind me i mean you know a few steps from that fence um uh uh let's see um rodents and so forth running around back there because of refuse from the from the kitchen and uh the dumpsters dumpsters not being kept closed and so forth they're they're just a few of the things that that went on um but from time to time there have been issues so it's really important for uh us neighbors to know who owns the property and who's in charge of those things and kind of what the agreements might be about who's maintaining what um and and that's a little um that's a little concerning to me as we contemplate change so thank you for your time thank you all right do we have anyone else who'd like to testify i don't see anybody else on zoom with a hand up making a mistake here uh oh philda just put his hand up all right phil you're on thank you Sharon uh thank you for this opportunity i just had a couple things to say one uh about those the parking that we were shown uh both in the original and the modified version i'm not a fan of the angled parking uh myself i think the staff report talked about the some danger to bicyclists and dpw wasn't sure they'd approve it um i i also wonder their various peninsulas if you look at that those plans that stick out into the road i it's hard to see how a plow could could go along the uh with those in place and and and clear out the snow so i guess my first comment is i'd prefer to see the the presentation we saw tonight where there was no angled parking um it sounds like that's sufficient for the college and if that's the case that's that's the result i'd i'd prefer um the second comment has to do with the green uh the angled parking would also take little bits of the green which it's just a little bit but it's a start um i do want to say i really appreciate the college uh how the college has made that green available to the public and it's it's a tremendous resource for the neighborhood and i what i i'm concerned about is is the long term here i know the college does not want to do anything with the green now but um who knows in the future eventually a condominium association would have the ability to do something there if a majority of those people in the association voted that way uh i'm not sure if there's some way through this master plan process that that there can be some some way to preserve that uh and keep it from being developed uh if there is i'm in favor of that if not i'd be in favor of somehow money being raised or the development rights being purchased or something because i think it's really a unique asset and uh as i say the college has been been generous with it uh and it'll be a shame to lose that uh that's all i have thank you all right i'm uh kind of embarrassed to say this but i may need to recuse myself from this uh application right um my father-in-law owns a house on east state street right across the street from them and i managed the property for him i'm starting to realize this thing to testimony that i might have personal opinions on this but i don't think i can you know i'm not going to say which way they go i'm just saying i don't think i would be able to rule just opinions joe i i would i would uh yeah i mean i think if you disclose your potential concern i think in an instance as you're describing i would consider that to be sufficient i mean um maybe i think you're not the direct owner you're managing it on behalf of it's but i don't feel like you can make the decision objectively that's your call no i do feel like i can make an objective decision i suppose but there is this much greater than zero percent chance that it passes into my family through my father-in-law oh he doesn't intend on selling it i mean it's just like that it's always your call yeah you know i'm just trying to lay out the scenario where i've been in the past uh where um you know i just tried to keep it's also whether or not anybody else objects and thinks you can't make an objective decision right if somebody else is objecting and saying nope you we want you off then definitely you would want to probably use yourself at that point but if you think you can make an objective decision and nobody is contesting your ability to do that then you could you know it's it's kind of your call i guess if the african has an issue with it they should raise it now uh yeah we he owns 106th east state street and it's a four-unit rent bill that i managed on the property manager he lives in south carolina so he's like i if you ask them they would say i am the landlord even though i don't own it um does that make any difference to see you guys your fellow board members have sort of said to you the framework that you should think about it in and i i think that that all makes sense and seems reasonable i don't know what you would say anything well okay i feel confident as long as you can you feel that you can make an objective decision and then i'm willing to go with that all right i do i want to make sure you're okay with it well then we've all seen you work if i'll thought what you are so i appreciate that i'll stay on i already sat through all this i know he was mad because i i know you're involved with that parcel and it didn't occur to me either i come so just any and think of it i don't know why no it's because it's across the street or something because we have a lot going on in our lives but at least it's been publicly stated now for the record yes so where where's the board at i don't think we have the information we need to take action i honestly don't feel like we do either but i'm not i'm not quite sure what the next step is and what that information that we need to gather and digest i'm not sure what the next step is because it's a unique can i give you a couple of options sure so if you know that there are very clear things that you want in addition to the traffic information that they've already got the applicant sorry so they're going to provide if you know what those things are you can make those requests now so that that's can be on its way and the applicant can get that guidance and then of course you know motion to table the application to a continued hearing or just motion to continue the hearing to date certain you can also if you wish in addition to that or combination with that make a motion to also fold a deliberative session between now and when the hearing is continued if we don't have a you know we don't have to decide on that date right now that can be an administrative i send around us you know circulate some date options that deliberative session is you know close to the public so we could just have it be a zoom call it could be tonight it could be some date between now and the continued hearing so that you can then come up with the i'll talk and come up with the list of things narrow down exactly what new information you need and i could even do sort of a a report memo out of that that is shared both with the applicant and can be put in the file publicly um and would go in the packet for the next continued hearing that would include any additional written comments we got from any members of the public between now and that continued hearing any new submissions from the applicant all of that would be in a updated packet that would get posted with the agenda before the next meeting um is there did anybody know of information they want specifically that you might be able to tell the applicant now i definitely want to see them there are some which is coming um um other specific requests people know about i agree with the point of one of the commenters that um there's not sufficient information here regarding the future of the green as such an important asset for both the neighborhood and the community at large so i think that is something where there could you know i think we got kind of a verbal affirmation that the college intends to not do anything with the green i think there could be more uh detailed information both about the green and about open space overall i agree with that um curious about additional steps or protections that could be taken with the green in particular uh deliberative session are people interested in doing a deliberative session i would i would vote for if we did go with a deliberative session to not do it this evening to schedule a later point yeah i agree no i i would like to have a deliberative session not this evening but at a different point and i would agree with that as well i think that would be the pause that we need to uh in a very deliberative way gather additional information or come up with the the uh sources that we would like to have additional questions take well as read the additional comments and comments to have people to share with you and everything and then allow pages and i think it's really important to just allow for more residents in the community to to digest the information to provide comment if they would like to i think that's important i'll state too yeah for the record there's a comment around it is the timing with the holiday period so i think that also underscores the need to have extra time and agreed that a deliberative session could be a good venue for a more thoughtful discussion on what additional information is needed because it's both very complex and um yeah and we received i think everyone here ever did their best to receive the comments but we can be more uh strategic with uh i totally agree with that i think you know we we came in with a not not quite the serious catalog but you know approaching uh the jc penny catalog this evening and haven't had a chance to go through it uh my hearing schedule um hey meredith can i this is michael lizard check and i interject real quick okay so i disagree that a deliberative session is the right path to go i think if we're concerned about transparency and an open discussion doing that in the deliberative session doesn't make sense to me i also think it's important to go through the staff report start to finish in a public hearing to address what's actually in the report and what is in the zoning bylaws what we can actually decide on and what isn't simply comments or complaints about what may or may not be happening and i think we need to keep it focused on the zoning bylaws i know there's a lot of vagueness on both sides both the commenters and the applicant but i think it should be transparent and i don't think it should be in a deliberative session and i think we should leave whether it's tonight or the next meeting with clear guidance to the applicant for example if i was the applicant i wouldn't know what guidance or direction or steps i need to take at the close of this meeting thank you i thought i could push back on that just a little bit um i think that there is value of having a deliberative session um i also presume that we would do a continued public hearing and that we would bring our deliberations to the public hearing and that people would you know that we would talk about what our process was and what we considered and that it was not you know it's not a not a secret handshake it's a way for us to sort of make sure that we're covering all of the basis um and we do have a date available to continue the public hearing so that there would be that opportunity to come back and talk with public yeah and i think that you know my idea and what i would be suggesting sorry that the board members do there wouldn't be any decision in that deliberative session um there wouldn't be you know there would still be the whole process of going through the staff report and the criteria and the continued hearing it's just that there's been so much information downloaded especially with the it's about a hundred pages of written comments that i know i haven't had it i haven't been able to read um that that gives the board members time to look through that and discuss a little bit to to give the applicants guidance in a public way if you wished to direct me to basically make a little memo that is a public document so that everybody knows what the the gist of the guidance was that comes out of this deliberative session it's not a decision making deliberative session like the board's used to it's a consultation deliberative session this is something that that the planning director mike miller he and i talked about it that that is something that the board can do where no decisions are being made it's just a chance for you all to discuss and hash out without staying here till 11 o'clock at night and sit making every you know and and still not having a decision does that make sense michael it's a working yeah it's a work it's a working session but we have to call it a deliberative session i i mean i guess we can just agree to disagree i mean i think it should be done open and transparently i don't see the value of moving into a deliberative session however we frame it to then provide a document to people that's a synopsis of the meeting to then have a public meeting to then potentially provide guidance to the applicant it just seems too convoluted to me and i think yeah it's a lengthy document i know there's a bunch of comments i mean i work all day and i read through everything you sent me with the exception of whatever you sent during this meeting so there is some onus on us to be prepared and i get it we're all busy folks but i just think it should be done as transparently as possible and and i'll just that's fine i can end it there with my comment so just as a fyi for everybody including members of the public that are on here there are no more development review board meetings in january this year this is it for january so the next potential d rb meeting is february 6th so that is the closest next meeting we can have on this um and we're right now we don't have any other applications for that date but other applications come in so they would you know they would be on for after whatever this public hearing continuation would be if this continues to the to the 6th um and then potentially also get bumped i do have p we do have peter kehlman on remotely who wants to make a comment so this is just a the the idea of a deliberative session gives the board the opportunity to hash some some things out um and review these materials it's not something that has to happen it's an option okay so we have someone who wants to speak yeah peter kehlman peter kehlman uh peter kehlman um i i used to live on on college street now i live in mount mountain dew um i i want to address this to the uh applicant um i have urged developers to begin by talking to the community not end by talking listening to the community's complaints i would urge you to take advantage of whatever time between now and the next meeting could you um could you address the board excuse me could you address the board versus the applicant and just sort of well okay i i think it would be it would be good for the no i can't because i think that is one of the procedural requirements peter okay all right i would suggest that you suggest to the applicants to take time over the next period between now and when the next meeting is to actually work with the community to get this kind of feedback and a kind of uh dialogue going um i witnessed this with the habitat project where they brought they brought member people who had started out being very scared and nervous like many of you are and they brought them in and they did a charrette and it was it was a fantastic experience uh for for everybody so i i think that it would be good for you to advise the applicants to try to do something like that thank you yeah can i make a comment on that for more brief very brief i just want to note that at the last community meeting that was on the dcf a campus with the applicants and a lot of community members i can't recall who but someone specifically asked that after the master plan was submitted that we have an informational meeting to engage the community and katie said that would not be possible at that time so the community members distinctly asked for that involvement and i will second that i have been involved with this since a year ago and uh we've gone to most of the meetings one or the other of us all of them and i i don't feel like any ones i've been told what's happening i haven't been asked that much about what we care about thank you and engaged thank you um i would entertain a motion um to uh continue with hearing uh until the february 6th can we just confirm that the applicants can attend i think they can but i want to double check february 6th well i think also saying if there is a way to get feedback sooner than that i would really appreciate the opportunity so again i i do understand you are a very busy board um with lives outside of this um but i i would welcome feedback sooner than february 6th and absolutely will be available then as well and uh so so that's a meeting right as i said yes first um i would propose that we have a deliberative session prior to that meeting all right i'll make the motion make the motion to continue this hearing to february 6th and to hold a deliberative session between now and that time the day time to be determined and just just a reminder for everybody that two six meeting begins at seven p.m just like standard take your motion second although i think they were let's start on the right for the discussion any further discussion see any um starting on the right Kevin yes um Michael Michael um yeah i mean with the caveat of the deliberative session sure yes you can't hit the right that is a no michael that's okay well no i mean i'm sure that i'm sure everyone's gonna vote yes so i'll vote no just to stand true to my word right well that's fine oh yes i'm gonna go yes yes i vote yes just because you vote no michael doesn't mean you can't take part in the deliberative session yes thank you all right okay um we don't think i think we've got everything that we did yeah i took attendance a motion to adjourn anyone so i can do it second i don't favor hi hi i'm so sorry too sorry about that thank you yes thank you everyone