We have, we have a quorum of members. And so I would like to get going. Let's do it. Here's Michael. All right. Well, good evening. My name is Kate McCarthy. This is a meeting of the Montpelier Development Review Board. It's starting at seven o'clock on August 3rd, 2020. I am the chair. My name's Kate McCarthy and I will introduce the other board members by reading their names and having them wave or say hello. So the other board members here tonight are Joe Kiernan. Hello. Hello. Kevin O'Connell. Jean Leon. Roger Crams. Rob Goodwin. I don't know if you can see me. I'm having issues. Okay. We hear you. We don't see you yet, but we hear you. Thanks for being here, Rob. And Michael is our check. Yeah, I'm here, but I'm already experiencing internet trouble. So this could be a fun night. Okay. All right. Now comes the wood and stay on the phone. How about that? Thanks. Thanks for your efforts. Thanks for everybody's efforts for anticipating in this format that we are coming to know and love. And also with us is Meredith Crandall. She is our zoning administrator and staffs this committee. Orca media is recording tonight. So without of which turn it over to Meredith to do her staff review of how you can participate in this meeting if you're watching from home and how you can participate in this meeting if you're logged on. Okay. Give me just a minute to get to the right file so that anybody who's watching right now can see how to get on. Okay, so my little overview here. So due to the state of emergency declared by Governor Scott, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and pursuant to a dental fix to executive order 0120 and act 92, the development review board is authorized to meet electronically. There was no physical location to observe and listen contemporaneously to this meeting. However, in accordance with the temporary amendments to the open meeting law, the board is providing public access to the meeting by hosting a video conference meeting, including the video and telephone access options over the zoom platform. There's also the option to view live streaming of the media of the meeting over orca media. All members of the board have the ability to communicate at the same time during this meeting through this platform and the public has the ability to access and listen to if desired. And if desired participate in this meeting in real time. So you can, if you're at home, you can use this zoom meeting link here and put that in your browser, or you can just call on the phone using this phone number. And in either of those options, here's the meeting ID and password to log in.  We did give notice to the public of this information and how to access the meeting previously in the public meeting notice on those both printed in the paper posted throughout the city and is also available on the city website here. So if anyone has problems accessing the meeting, normally we'd have you contact a separate moderator today that moderator is not here. So you're going to want to email me, Meredith Crandall at C-R-A-N-D-A-L-L at Montpelier-VT.org. And then I can help you log in. Also, if you're already in the meeting and you're having technical difficulties through the Zoom conference, you can use the chat function to message me separately. But try in any private chat with me, try and keep that in just the technical difficulties. Anything that's actually questions for the meeting in general, it's part of the public hearing part. Please have that if you're going to use chat, have that be in the chat. And this is so for people who are on here for the first time or people who are watching via Orca and want to log in. If you log in, you have an opportunity to tell me which applications you wish to comment on. I've already checked in with new people we have on tonight about that. And so when the chair announces that the time for public comment on a particular application arrives, then you can either unmute yourself or I'll unmute you and call people or Kate might call people and then I'll unmute you.  If you are interested in speaking and didn't previously say that you wish to do so, if it's a different application and you may have a comment, please raise your hand on video. If you're on the phone, you can press star nine and that should act as a raising your hand in the Zoom meeting. You can also if that's not working, you can unmute yourself and say, Hey, I have something I want to say on this matter, but please make sure you're waiting until the public comment period. For those of you who haven't done these public comments before, once the chair is recognized and you're unmuted, you're free to provide your comments. We're asking you a few minutes. Initially, there may be follow up questions from the, the board in which case, you know, you can have follow up comments, or you can press comments, please limit to two minutes. After you've finished, please mute your microphone. And this actually goes for everybody. If at all possible. If you're not talking, please mute yourselves to avoid background noise or interfering things. I heard for everybody to hear. In the event the public is unable to access this meeting, then it's going to be continued to a time and place certain. I will be community. I am I email to see if anybody's having trouble logging in or in case something happens with work up. Um, and I think I've covered everything there. Oh, if you are on the phone and you don't have a mute button on your phone itself, you can also press star six on your phone and just meet yourself there within zoom. All votes taken during the meeting will be done by a roll call vote. And I'll hand this back over to Kate. You're muted. Kate. Thank you. Um, next item on the agenda is approval of the agenda, um, which we'll do by roll call. Are there any modifications to the agenda? All right. Is there a motion to approve the agenda? So. Motion by Kevin. Second. Second by Rob. All right. We'll tell it. We'll take the roll. Uh, or any discussion. All right. We will take the roll call. Joe. Yes. Kevin. Yes. Dean. Roger. Yes. Rob. Yes. Michael. Yes. And I also vote yes. All right. We've approved our agenda. Um, the next item on the agenda is the election of the chair and vice chair. Our DRV procedures say that we do this annually in August. And, um, as I'll mention later as well, we do not have a second August meeting. So we're going to do that now. So, um, We have not discussed this as a board. Um, I would take nominations for chair. I'll, I'll make the nomination for chair, uh, for, uh, Kate. Um, uh, Uh, Yes. I'm nominating you as chair. Thank you. Thank you. Emotions from Kevin. And I think I heard the first second was from Joe. Um, is there any discussion? Okay. Does Michael. Didn't we already like approve you as chair. Recently. Yeah. That's a good question. Yes. What happened was that our sitting chair, Dan Richardson was appointed to city council, um, right before the March elections to fill the end, part of a vacancy. And so we had a vote and, um, at that time to kind of fill out the remainder of his term, which would have ended in August. Um, and now we're. Right. And I just, I just want to say. I guess I'm just confused on, I thought we had a second vote where we. Like we affirmed your appointment. Okay. I don't recall. I was vice chair before and, um, then I was acting chair and we may have affirmed me as chair, chair. Um, after Dan left the board. What we're voting for now is the next year. And, and August is typically the time when we do that. And there have been so many disruptions this year that, you know, we may have taken another, you know, half dozen, uh, different, different votes on these kinds of things. But right now. It's what matters. And I just want to say, but Kate has, has really grabbed the ropes of this, of this process, particularly in this, uh, uh, strange situation we find ourselves. Right now. And I just would like to see that, uh, uh, expertise that Kate has, uh, has gained, uh, continue as, uh, uh, in the chairman position chair person position. Thank you, Kevin. I really appreciate that. It's, uh, it's certainly been a team effort and I've been glad to do my part. Um, any other discussion? Okay. We'll go ahead and vote. Uh, Joe. Okay. Yes. Kevin. Hey. Gene. Roger. Yes. Rob. Yes. Um, Michael. Yes. And I'm going to abstain. Um, thank you all. You have elected a chair for the next year and it continues to be me. I really, really appreciate your support. All right. So what we will do next is, um, except nominations for the vice chair for the next year. Are there nominations for a vice chair? I nominate Kevin. Second. Motion by Roger second by, I think that was gene. Right. Yes. Okay. Thank you, Gene. Is there any discussion? Uh, all right. We'll take the vote. Joe. Yes. Kevin. I'm saying. Gene. Yes. Roger. Yes. Rob. Yes. Michael. Yes. And I also vote yes. Congratulations, Kevin. And thank you for continuing on as vice chair. Thank you. Is there any discussion? All right. We'll take the vote. Joe. Yes. Kevin. I'm saying. Gene. Yes. Roger. Yes. Rob. Yes. Michael. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate the vote of competence. Great. There are no comments from the chair. I believe the next item is our meeting minutes. To approve the meeting minutes of July 20th. The people eligible to vote are Kevin, Rob, Joe, Michael, Roger and myself. So is there a motion to approve the minutes? So move. Okay. Motion by Rob. Second. Second. Kevin. Is there any discussion? Okay. Of those eligible to vote, Kevin. Yes. Rob. Yes. Joe. Yes. Michael. Yes. Roger. Yes. And I also vote yes. We've approved the minutes of July 20th. Thank you. Okay. With that, we'll move to our first application of this evening, which is a continuation from two meetings ago of 100 East State Street. So before I ask Meredith to recap where we left off and what we need to figure out tonight, I will ask if there's anyone new here to testify on this application, 100 East State Street. So Meredith, could you review the status of the application and outstanding issues? I can, but it looks like we lost our applicant. I think Yana got connected. All right. I don't see a square rectangle for Yana, but I'll ask anyway, Yana, are you still there? Let's check the email. I don't see anything from Yana there. She was here. I spoke to her. Yes, we heard her. Meredith, what do you recommend? Well, we can, we could give her a couple minutes to see if she gets back on. We could also move to 100 to the, to the pump track, deal with that one first. And then go, wait, wait, I think this is probably Yana. Hold on. Are we welcoming you back? Is the person joining us on the phone, Yana? Can you hear me? Yeah. Okay. Thank you for being here. Yeah. If you can mute me, there are a lot of people around me. Thanks. All right. We're going to start on your. Yeah, I just muted you, Yana, but we're going to discuss your application. We'll let you know when it's time for you to, when you can talk and then I'll unmute you. Great. So with that, thank you for being here. Thank you for being here. Yeah. If you can mute me, there are a lot of people around me. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Great. Great. So with that, we'll get an overview from Meredith. Okay. So what I'm going to do is. Had a couple of the big issues that were resolved. So we know those, my understanding is that those are dealt with. And they go into the new information. And then. Provide. Cause I didn't do a full staff report update. So I'm going to do a full staff report. I'm going to do a full staff report. I'm going to do a full staff report. For conditions of approval. Assuming that the board approves the application. Because there's a slight, maybe slightly changed from the original staff report. So during the July 6th hearing on the 100 East. State street application, which is to demolish a small shed on the back of a garage. Of a historic garage. The shed isn't historic. It's a new dwelling unit. So during the July 6th hearing, the board determined that this project is not demolition of a historic structure. And so isn't subject to the elevated requirements. Section three, zero, zero four point D. And the board also took testimony regarding screening of the new dwelling unit from the commercial business on the site. And my understanding is that. That was decided that they didn't need necessarily additional landscaping between those two structures, but the board might have changed their mind by that. Like I said, this is my understanding of what happened. And then the outstanding issue was whether or not the public sidewalk requirement of section three, two, oh, two point B. One was applicable at the board's direction. I went to the city attorneys and got guidance on that. There's the my short memo and then the legal guidance from the attorneys in the meeting packet. And based on that guidance, I have recommended that the board waive the public sidewalk requirement for this particular application because the city's attorneys had advised that the requirement would be unconstitutional and administered and enforced as written, particularly in this particular instance where the project costs and the scale of the project are so small in relation in relation to the amount of sidewalk that would be required and the associated costs with that. So my sort of sort of upshot of all of that is that my recommendation would be that if the board agrees with all of those items that were approving the application conditions would include that the applicant shall follow the erosion control practices outlined in section three, zero, zero, eight D. And that also within 30 days of this decision and prior to permit issuance that the applicant shall provide the zoning administrator with the full specifications for the proposed outdoor light fixtures, including the lumen output, which demonstrate compliance with the requirements of section three, two, oh, four. I think both of those were listed in the back of the staff report. I just wanted to make sure we reiterated them. Okay, thank you. So what I'm going to do is our board members, if you have any questions on the determination about the sidewalk requirement, we received legal advice from outside council and staff recommendation not to enforce that provision of the zoning bylaw because it was found to be inappropriate. It could be considered a taking. I agree with staff recommendation in this, but I want to take a few minutes and provide space to ask any questions that people might have about that recommendation. Board members might have about that recommendation. I agree with the recommendation. Okay. Thank you, Kevin. Yeah, and I do as well. And I think it's incumbent upon us to show some flexibility. And we live in a city with very old infrastructure. And we're just maintaining a status quo in this instance. Okay. Notting any other questions or comments about this recommendation regarding the sidewalk. Just for our future reference at the end of the meeting where we discussed this job, the very good question, which was does this sidewalk actually terminate because there's a crosswalk that goes over to another perfectly good sidewalk. And what we learned is that. Termination. A crosswalk is a termination point. Even though it seems like it has connectivity. So that's just a fun fact about our zoning interpretation of it. Coming out of Joe's in question on July 6. Okay. So are there questions about any of the other issues that we discussed that Meredith mentioned, or that we discussed on July 6. Okay. Okay. We've, I think, determined quite inclusively. It's not a demolition of the historic structure. We talked about screening. Are there any other, um, any other pieces of information you need to be able to deliberate and make a decision on this? Okay. And, um, I feel like the board is, is pretty well informed. Yana, is there anything that you want us to know or, um, be aware of before we, before we deliberate on this. Hello. Oh, yeah, there has been no changes to our application. Okay. Great. Thank you. All right. Um, in that case, what I'm going to propose is that, uh, in order to move things along and in order to just let the board, finishing touches on these conditions, I'm going to propose that we move this into a deliberative session. Um, at the end of this meeting and I'm going to need help from staff to remind me what the exact motion is when we decide to do a deliberative session. We are closing the public hearing. Is that right? Um, if, if, if we're not coming back, then yes, for this one, it would be closing the public hearing, um, a motion to close the public hearing and move into a deliberative session at the end of the public portion of tonight's meeting. If that's what you're choosing to do at the end of tonight versus tonight versus the different day. And, and I, I, I see that you've thrown the ball in the air and I'll catch it and, and I'll make that motion. Motion by Kevin. Second that motion. Second by Rob. All right. We'll vote. Joe. Yes. Kevin. Yes. Dean. Yes. Roger. No. Rob. Yes. Michael. Yes. All right. And I also vote yes. The motion carries. Thank you. All right. With that, we have concluded our discussion of 100 each state street. And we're going to move on to zero coming street. The North branch park pump track. Okay. Yeah. I'm sure you understand what's going on. So that, so, so. Um, maybe. You're not planning to come back from the deliberative session tonight. It will be done. We'll get a written decision with what happens with what the actual vote is and conditions later. Correct. That's right. Okay. I don't think that's going to happen anymore in public tonight. So if you want to sign off, that would be fine. Okay. Thanks. And I would like to say before you do sign off, you know, we are, I'm not suggesting deliberate discussion because there are any problems with this application, but rather to expedite the creation of the conditions and the discussion that we're having a relatively new board. Nothing wrong with the project. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Sounds good to me. Good. All right. Thank you. Thanks. Okay. So we're going to move on to the North branch park pump track. And I believe we have the. Oh. Yeah. Sorry. We had somebody else just come on on the phone and I don't know who it is. It might be worse. It's more Joyce. Hi, Lord. Okay. We. We just wrapped up. Yeah. Okay. So we're moving on to our next application, but there were no questions from board speaking. There are no questions from board members about the specifics of the project. And Yana shared that there were no changes to the project and July 6th meeting. Okay. Great. Yeah. We move forward. Yes. We're going to, we're going to make that final vote in a deliberative session after the public portion of this meeting is closed. Great. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you. Yeah. All right. Great. All right. So we're turning to 100 each state street. And my first question before I ask Meredith to tell us where it's at. Is I'm going to ask if there's anyone new here to testify on this application. Yeah. The zero coming street. Contract. I totally wouldn't. That is absolutely what I meant. Yes. We're not going to. We're going to talk about the pump track. They're coming. Is there anyone? No. New to testify on that application. I have no lang while I'm just here along with John. In case you have questions about it, I'm with the Montpelier, mom, my association. Okay. So Nolan, if you think you might be answering questions, I need to put you under oath. Since that, what you say will be entered into records. There you go, entered into the record zone. Do you saw at least where it affirmed that the evidence you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury? Yeah. Great, thanks, Melan. Okay, so I want to note, yes. Kate, I'm sorry, it's John Jose. Do you need to hear me again, or am I no longer considered to be new? You are no longer considered to be new. You remain under oath. Okay, thank you. Yeah, thanks for checking. Thanks for checking. So I believe, Jean, you were not present last week to hear this application. Is that correct? That's correct. I've been reading the staff reports and following up on the agendas here. Okay, great. And just confirm that you feel prepared to hear this this evening. I think I've read quite often and seen the applicant's request and the reports and the comments. Yes. Wonderful, thanks. Thanks for taking the time to get prepared. I wanted to disclose that I made a site visit this evening to the site that we're discussing in order to better wrap my head around the characteristics of the land, especially when it comes to the wetland questions. Did anyone else make any visits or have any ex parte communications? Okay, so Meredith, would you please recap where we are with this application or items up here? I can to at least a degree. As everybody knows, I wasn't here for the hearing, but I did actually go through and listen to the whole thing and take notes. So, what, I just, we've got people on here. So this application is for building a pump track on a parcel of land that adjoins the Winooski River or the North Ranch Winooski River that's owned by the city and it's often managed in large part by the parks department. But this pump track would be built by the Montpellier Area Mountain Bike Association. And through the hearing two weeks ago, the main topic of discussion appeared to be the wetlands and Bernal pool issues. There's significant discussion and testimony on that. And some of the big issues were concerns regarding barriers to amphibian migrations and how to prevent runoff snowmelt into the wetlands. And the potentially potential contaminants included in that snowmelt, as well as a question regarding, it seemed like there was questions regarding whether or not the ward was gonna approve some or all of the parking that was proposed. That seemed to be an issue as well. So there have been comments since that July 20th hearing. There were some that I included in the updated packet that was posted and circulated as part of the agenda, including some from the Montpellier Director of Parks, Alec Ellsworth. His comments were worth regard to whether or not he thought that screening was needed between this new use and the, especially the local apartments, the nearby apartments, the determination regarding impervious surfaces, winter use that this would not be used in the winter confirmation of that, and some thoughts about impacts on wetlands and Bernal pools. And there was also some discussion that has circulated between John Nuzay and the planning director, Mike Miller, with regard to potential conditions to deal with the amphibian issues. In addition, and I circulated these to the board members and to John Holler, I've received comments since then, since the Stafford Park got circulated and I can read those into the record when we get to that point, and I can do that now, but those are from Nets on and the Montpellier Conservation Commission. Let's get a little more oriented before you read those into the record. Exactly, I don't wanna read those now. That would be later. Okay. You know, there seems to be a long list of the potential conditions for this application, and I don't know if you want me to go through this, Kate, or if that's something that we should hold off on, just because the wetlands issue seems fairly unresolved right now to me, but maybe it's on you. Let's just confirm our understanding of the issues before we talk about conditions. So just one thing I wanna say for the record, and this just comes up every few meetings, it's just kind of a reminder about what we do and what we don't do. You know, sometimes people say, oh, I wish that a project had this or didn't have this or do we need one of these or do we need two of those? And that comes up all the time, but I just wanna remind us and for the listeners that it's not the DRV's decision to decide who a project should be for or whether it should be done or not be done. Our job is to take what's been proposed and then make sure it fits the standards that we have in our regulations. So that's gonna be our job tonight. We'll do to the best of our ability. So after going to the site and after reflecting on our discussion last week, I thought it could be valuable if we just talked a little bit about what is and is not present with respect to the proposal, how the proposal relates to the wetlands and burnal pools. And I wanna remind folks that we have two resources, resource maps that we're looking at. We have the ANR Natural Resources Inventory, which is page 86 of our packets. We also have the City of Montpelier Natural Resource Inventory which is not necessarily more fine grained but may have another an additional amount of on the ground surveying that's been done by the Conservation Commission in the city. So the recommendations in our staff report from Meredith initially come from her assessment of the NRI, which Natural Resources Inventory, which shows that this project is within the 500 foot burnal pool buffer and then the 50 foot wetland buffer. Our job as a board when it comes to the standard for protecting wetlands and burnal pools is to determine whether there is an undue adverse impact on those resources. Okay, so that's kind of a landscape. So what I'd like to do if you all wouldn't mind, I think it would be a benefit. Meredith, could you please show us page 86 of the staff report, which is the pump shock natural resources map from the ANR Natural Resources Inventory. If you wanna zoom that up a little bit. So the red part is what's a map of wetlands from the Vermont Significant Wetlands Inventory. And I don't know if you can zoom that at all. You're probably trying right now, Meredith. I can't hear you, but I know you're trying. And then the wetlands advisory layer, I've had to look that up. I wanted to understand what it is. It's according to ANR, Vermont Significant Natural Resources, it's the most up-to-date, non-jurisdictional wetlands mapping available to the public and to ANR staff. So it may not have been added yet to the official inventory, but there are areas that are known to have the qualities of a wetland. So, I guess you're, are you able to zoom it on there? I'm zooming it on my screen. Oh, okay, maybe it's okay for others. Your screen sharing is paused. Hold on. Let me try it again, because for some reason it's paused. There we go. There we go. So I'm just showing this in order to refresh our memory. So you've got the parking that's between the road to the apartment, which is coming street, and the pump track itself. The pump track is far away from the main part of the wetland. I know that that's shown on the map. It's also my personal observation from being there today. That long skinny rectangle just beneath the pump track, thank you, Vanna, is a ditch that I think we've received testimony provides some passage, a riparian passage for critters. So the application is for the pump track. That's one of the stories that is shown is we hear either a historic or existing use by the city. And so as we're contemplating the impacts to wetlands, we are looking at what the applicant may be responsible for in avoiding undue adverse impacts on the wetlands. So I just thought that I would provide that overview because I thought it would be useful to round up in our discussion. Are there any questions about this map from board members? Okay, we'll just read again. Sure, so that is noted as a class one wetland from the Vermont Significant Wetlands Inventory. And just by looking at that, this is not a scientific assessment so much as a lay person's observation. I think we can assume that some of those functions have been compromised because there are houses in the wetland. There's obviously been some fill and some buildings in those areas, but it's a mapped wetland. We heard from the testimony of the state expert submitted by the applicant that it's not a jurisdictional. It's not jurisdictional. So it's not holding in state wetlands program. Hold on one second. Are you sure that that's not the 81% annual flood line? Yeah, I think the class one's orange. Yeah. Oh gosh, you have better eyes than I do, Rob. Thank you for that. It's okay. Team effort, team effort. Okay, so I wanna correct the record that I'm not saying that there's a wetland in the middle of houses, but that is the flood hazard area. So the wetlands advisory is what we're talking about there. I'm glad we're talking about this because that's important. Other questions or comments about the map, the extent of the wetland, how it relates to the proposed project. Okay, so just for comparison, if we could zip over to page 101 of the packet, I just want folks to see the, there it is, the natural resource inventory for the city. What we're looking at there is the kind of yellow, darker yellow. That's the 500 foot buffer around the vernal pool. The darker green is the wetland, the lighter green around it is the 50 foot buffer. Okay. And then could you outline for us the approximate location Meredith of the pump track and the parking area? Okay, so they're kind of down in that part of it. Okay, so that's what we're contemplating. That's the extent of the impacts that we're discussing tonight. Okay. So everything just presented is my understanding of the materials. And at this point, I want to open it up to board members to ask if you have any other questions about what we just looked at. Just want to make sure we all understand what we're talking about. Okay. So, like I said, our standard is to determine whether there's an undue adverse impact to that. We've heard from the state wetland specialists that constructing a buffer between the wetland to demarcate the 50 foot buffer of the wetland so that people don't accidentally ride their bikes into that area. That would be, I think, to the east of the pump track. We also heard testimony about the functions of that wetland in terms of the area being used for incidents to move from the vernal pool into the wetland towards the riparian area. And so we heard testimony that the barriers themselves, jersey barriers would hinder small amphibians. And so would construction during amphibian migration season? I'm gonna stop because what I've just done is kind of make sure we have a shared understanding and recounted my sense of what we talked about in the last meeting. So at this point, I'd like to open it up for discussion. Or actually, maybe what I'll do is have Meredith read into the record comments that pertain to this, this part of the application. Without the right board members or do you have some burning questions and clarifications you'd like to ask? No, I think that works well. Okay. Yeah, Jean, did you have a question? Are there any other recommendations from any other groups regarding the buffering? I mean, considering where this is, and so during mud season access, what's gonna prevent this pump track from becoming a mud track? Maybe I would let the, maybe I turn that over to John Holler to answer, to recap, make sure we all understand the seasonality or the time that this wasn't gonna be. Sure, thank you, Madam Chair. So I had an opportunity to think about the issues that came up during the last hearing as well as to have number of conversations with people about some of these issues. So hopefully that can help advance the discussion. So I guess the first issue I'll just start with the construction that is intended to be either this summer or early fall. So I think it will be outside the amphibious migration season. So I think we can address that issue. But let me just, I guess run through what I heard with the four conditions or issues that were outlined by the Chair at the end of the last meeting. And the first one was that was the construction question and whether this would occur outside the migration season of amphibians. And that I understand is early spring, the intent is to build a pump track this summer or early fall. So I think we can, I guarantee that we're gonna avoid that period. The second issue was a question about whether to impose a condition that would require a buffer between the pump track and the wetland. So I'll come back to that. Third was a landscaping condition, a landscaping. It wasn't clear to me whether that was limited just to parking or whether it was a consideration of landscaping for the pump track itself. And then there was a listing of several standard conditions, erosion control plan, state permits, and then a parking plan. So let me just run, I'd like to just, if I could run through those really quickly. So in terms of construction, I think I'm addressing that. If I could interrupt you for a second. I wanna make sure we don't lose Jean's question about whether this turns into a mud pit in March. And then if you would maybe start with the, yeah, and then if you would briefly address those other things, we haven't introduced the, reintroduced the parking and screening topic, but sure, go ahead with that after you've maybe let us know about whether this becomes a mud pit. Yeah, sure. So the pump track is gonna be constructed with dirt, but it's gonna be compacted earth with, I think a significant amount of clay content. The idea is that this is gonna be a structure that lasts for many years, a decade, perhaps we're spending $8,500 to build this. The only material is dirt. If it washes away, our investment's gone, the project's gone. So the idea is to create a structure that's gonna last. So if you look at, and this is not new, there are pump tracks all over Vermont, they're built to last for a period of time. And I don't know how much, I mean, I can say certainly at least a decade, but perhaps longer, so. But they're not built to wash away because otherwise they wouldn't be no point in building them. So just to run through the other issues, there was a discussion about erosion control plan. That's not a problem. We can meet those requirements that are required, that are identified in the zoning ordinance that I've talked to our, the builder and we would submit a plan to the DPW for approval. In terms of landscaping, we're not convinced that that's needed for the parking, but if it is, if the commission determines that the housing needs to be screened from the parking area, which would be a maximum of nine spaces, I think we could do that. We don't think that it's warranted to screen the entire pump track. I think it's useful to think of this as, I was like a playground, this is really designed for young people, for young bikers. And just like you wouldn't want to screen a playground from a nearby community, I think it would be inappropriate to screen this from the neighborhood. Alec Ellsworth, the parks commissioner may have submitted comments to that effect. I've talked to him about this, but it just seems like bad community planning to screen off an area that young people are gonna be using from the area that adults are gonna be. We want people to be able to see what's going on there. Let's see. Oh, the other issue that I wanted to address was the wetland buffer. So the builder intends to build a buffer area to demarcate the area that separates the pump track from the surrounding area. So it would be a small berm, 60 to 10 inches with vegetation planted on top of it. The areas surrounding that will continue to be consistent vegetative growth. That's not gonna be disturbed during the construction. So I don't expect that you're gonna have people biking through it. Okay, you visited the site and says pretty overgrown, nobody's gonna be biking through that. They're tall weeds, it's an overgrown area, it's gonna continue to look like that. So I don't think there's a great risk of that, but there would be a buffer that would be created. So the area is clearly gonna be demarcated. What I'm concerned about though is imposing a requirement on the applicant to prevent future runoff of cell storage that if the city decides to use the site to place no there. My understanding is that hasn't happened for seven or eight years. They may use it again for that purpose. If they do, it's a decision that's entirely out of our hands and entirely independent of whether a pump track exists there or not. So putting that burden or that requirement on the applicant is to ensure or protect against any runoff from the city's decision to place no on the site seems to be a reach. I think that's more appropriately a requirement of the city to ensure that any snow that they put on the site doesn't run off into the river. And John, on that point, I think that was a recommendation of the state wetland specialist rather than a staff recommendation. Okay. And Meredith, is that your understanding as well? Meredith? That's where it came from. That's where it came from. And what you did in here is a possible condition to consider because it was put in there. The other thing to remember is that, yes, Mumba is on here as the applicant, but these are zoning permits. They run with the land. So ultimately the city, the city is ultimately responsible for what happens on the piece of property. Just if that's any help for you, John. Something that's about there. I mean, this is city property, so I'm not sure how this application changes that. I mean, we're happy to be responsible for the impacts that are created by the construction of the pump track. What I'm concerned about is being responsible for future actions of the city in placing snow on the site that we can't control. So the whole, yeah. Go ahead, Kate.  I was just saying that your application is for the pump track. The snow storage that's occurring there is not what's being permitted here. You've just noted on here what is a current use of the site. So that's not part of the approval. Is that where you were going as well, Kate? Basically, and also, the mom does not buy the land from the city. It's improving the land that the city owns, right? Did I have that right, John? That's right. This is just the permitted use from the site of the city. Okay, well, that's good food for thought and thank you for that. And I know you have a nice look that you're going through, John, and I'm kind of jumping in with questions as we go, but that's how it rolls sometimes. So I'll turn it back to you. Okay, I'm really finished. Well, let me say I finished one last thing. I did have a conversation. I think John would say maybe hopefully still on the phone. John and I talked, I encouraged him to look at the Waterbury pump track. I've talked to the builder about whether this, the pump track would impede the migration of amphibious amphibian creatures. And I'm told that it really does there. It doesn't have any kind of steep barriers or dips that would impede that barrier. So I guess you may hear from John, but we've tried to address that concern. Okay. All right, great. Well, I think what I'd like to do next is if John Jose has anything new to add, distinct from last time he appeared, I'll give two minutes for that. And then I will have Meredith read the new evidence into the record and then we'll open up for GRB discussion. So John Jose, I would turn it over to you for about two minutes if you have new evidence. Oh, yes. Comments, comments. Yes. Yeah, can you hear me okay? Yes, thank you. Thank you. So yeah, as John indicated, he had suggested I visit or give consideration to visiting a pump track that's located up in Waterbury. This track was designed and built. My understanding is by Cinewocity, the same company that is going to design and construct the pump track on Cummings Street. And I did take a drive up and take a look at the track and take some pictures yesterday. And I feel that assuming the track on Cummings Street will be built in a similar fashion to the track in Waterbury in the overall scheme of things, I don't see any major concerns that the track would halt amphibian migration in that area. It certainly may affect migration as just about any structure built on that site would, but I certainly don't foresee it stopping the movement of amphibians through that kind of a travel corridor in effect they have there. That being said, I did note along some portions of the track, including at both extreme ends where the track does 180 degree turn, the track approaches a near vertical or vertical aspect and affect creating a wall at some points. And I would just ask that Cinewocity do whatever they can to minimize the occurrence of these vertical or near vertical portions of the track, whether it be at the ends of the track or in other locations along the track. That being said, I certainly would not want to see Cinewocity compromise the integrity, the functionality, nor the safety of the track and doing so. And that's the extent of comments I had, Kate. Great, thank you. Thank you, John, I appreciate that. Maybe I'll pause there and see if there are any specific questions from board members for John Jose or John Holler. Okay, well, let's go ahead and hear from the, let's hear from Meredith, who will read to us the items submitted today so that they're in the record. Okay, and so because these have not been posted to the city website, I'm going to read this is going to take a little bit, but these will also get included in the permit file if anybody from the public or out there wants copies of these, they can contact me and I can provide them. So first, we have a letter that was submitted, emailed in by Paige Gurdon and who was on at the hearing last time. And these comments are actually from the Montpellier Conservation Commission. So we, the undersigned, are members of the Montpellier Conservation Commission. So our comments come from that perspective, although they are not made on behalf of the entire commission. This project is definitely within the 500 foot protection area around the vernal pool. However, it's possible that the project will not have a direct impact on the pool itself. Given that A, the project site is on the other side of the road and away from the woods and B, the land and vegetation on the proposed site are not of the type that would be likely to support the amphibians that would utilize the vernal pool as a breeding ground during the rest of the year. There is however, a wetland on the opposite side of the project site and amphibians such as wood frogs have been observed both breeding in the wetland and moving back and forth between the wetland and the vernal pool. The state requires a 50 foot buffer to be maintained around the wetland. Both the wetland and the vernal pool need to be protected during construction and people should be made aware of the use of those areas by sensitive amphibians during spring and early summer. We ask that the following conditions be placed on the permit. Construct the pump track in late summer or fall to minimize interference, sorry, one, construct the pump track in late summer or fall to minimize interference with amphibian movement and breeding. Two, mark the 50 foot buffer around the adjacent wetland with tape or rope and signs before construction begins to be sure it's not encroached upon. Three, provide erosion control between the project and the river slash wetland during construction. Four, take steps to protect the wetland from runoff and people walking or riding into it. This could include wire fencing around the perimeter of the track or preferably planting native vegetation along river end of the track to encourage bikers to stay on the track. This would also mitigate runoff from the raised area and control erosion. Five, create as little disturbance as possible of the native soil, given that it is very likely contaminated with petroleum products and other pollutants from years of being used as a snow dump site and will spread those contaminants to the wetland and river if disturbed. Six, use only pervious gravel for the parking lot if the lot is necessary at all, not paving and screen the lot with appropriate vegetation that does not disturb amphibian migration patterns. Seven, the applicant should have a plan to close the track to the public based on weather or seasonal closures. This should include signage at the track or parking lot, notifying the public that the track is closed. We ask the DRV to determine why a parking lot is needed at all when there is a paved dead end road adjacent to the proposed site that is wide enough for cars to park and city trucks to pass by. And the applicant stated that access to the site will be primarily from the recreational path and adjacent parking lot. Sorry, public parking. If the parking lot were eliminated, the applicant could locate the pump track away from the wetland area and closer to the road, reducing the impacts to the runoff pool, wetland and vulnerable amphibian populations. Respectfully, Montpelier Conservation Commission members Paige Gertin, Phyllis Rubenstein, Michael Lazarczak, Stephanie Hunt, Katie Michaels, Jamie Bates. And then we have... Oh, Meredith, can I interrupt you for a second? Or maybe I'm gonna ask, Michael, are you the same Michael Lazarczak as signed on to that letter? I didn't sign on to the letter, but I don't assume there's another Michael Lazarczak running around Montpelier. So, they put your name on this without you knowing. Um, we... Yeah, yeah, I mean, I knew, I was, I knew from, cause Paige had asked about the last meeting, but not, yeah, this letter isn't my name. Okay. I would like to just jump in and ask you, Michael, do you endorse the issues that are discussed in the letter, or do you disavow them? Well, I respect John Jose's opinion. He's very passionate about this issue and as far as I can tell, knowledgeable. And it sounds like, you know, whatever, I'm very comfortable about the project and personally, the only question I have outstanding is I still haven't got a clear answer on the number of parking spaces the applicant wants, which doesn't have anything to do with the letter. Okay, we'll move to that next. So, I guess for the sake of the applicant's benefit and for the other board members, though your name is on that letter, it doesn't mean that you're necessarily behind all of those requests. Correct, but I am an active member of the Conservation Commission. Okay, great, thanks. That might have been overkill to ask you that. I just thought it would be important to talk it through a little bit. Thank you. All right, Meredith, there's one more letter. Yes, there is. So, this is to the Montpellier Development Review Board from Ned Swanberg, Montpellier resident, dated July 31st, 2020, regarding the proposed park oncoming street. Thank you for considering my comments during the recent hearing. I'm afraid this is going to be another hasty and inadequate response, but here are some of my thoughts. One, the North Branch River Park has been, sorry, thought somebody said none, has been recently transformed by the new mountain bike trail system. What had been a place for quiet, wildlife and nature-centered activities has now become a fast, active adventure, stunt and exercise park. I can understand how yet another accoutrement to this new project can be unstoppable. Unfortunately, none of this is nature-focused. The recreation area across the river would seem to be the place for public parks, skateboard parks, playgrounds, ball fields and parking. The Little Pond in Wetland is a rare feature in Montpellier. If shy and sensitive wildlife, such as hooded mergansers, wood ducks and bitterns had adequate alternative locations, they would not be in this tiny spot. Despite the severely degraded condition, this is a wildlife hotspot in conjunction with a limited set of other sites. The pond slash wetland feature seems to have been mostly filled in, filled by urban fill. I would call it a wetland fill violation. However, it probably happened back in the day and recently. The urban fill has been covered with the more recent layers of road sand, salt, contaminants of various types that accompany snow dumps, much like what flows down Finch Road from the stump dump in the spring. Not likely to be healthy place for any living thing. Three, heavy stones will occur again. I suspect that the city will be looking for snow dumps again. This site is also currently being used as a staging area for park maintenance. Four, the dreamy best outcome would be a wetland and flood plain restoration project. Far shy of that, can a 50 foot buffer distance from wetlands on the north, west and south sides of the project be flagged and protected for natural revegetation or possibly planting of native woody plants. Very difficult given the fill, deer and beaver. Five, the stream slash ditch wetland that connects from the burnal pool to the pond is an important resource slash pathway with cover for ambivians and other wildlife. This can be protected and could be enhanced. Six, parking is simply not needed. Put up no parking along the pump access dead end lane and direct people to park if needed at the recreation center. Let this be for actual kids, if it is for actual kids. If parking is created and created an expectation will emerge for winter access. Seven, whose priority is this? Is there a commitment to support access for neighborhood children, access to bikes, repair, bike camp? Or could the city find out what is needed by the residents in the adjacent neighborhood? I suspect that a pump track would not be the top item. If this is accessible to the neighborhood children and others, it needs to be visually connected to the apartments for supervision slash safety. Eight, can the proponents help to protect and plant the buffers? I have done part of my green up day loop in this area several times. The pump park will expand my circuit. Nine, this is a floodplain. It is best not to lose floodplain functions. It is possible, Albit, difficult to remove historic fill and restore some pond wetland floodplain function. Ten, this is a river corridor. It is best not to lose room for the river. If the pump track ends up here, it will generate its own set of expanding needs and expectations. Can it be clearly limited by easement or permits to be a guest of the river? To not expand in footprint and hardness and to accommodate the North Branch if and when it shifts this direction. To not allow future riprap to stop the river but rather to readily move the pump track. The dam below this site has a limited future. The North Branch may no longer be ponded at some point. Best wishes, thank you for considering some of these social and natural resource elements of the review, Ned. All right, thank you, Meredith. So before we move on to talking about parking and screening, I'd like to open this up for discussion of board members. You can share your impressions or questions on this requirement. I think we've heard a lot of good evidence on this that gives us a lot to chew on. Definitely. I, hi. Yeah, Dean. I think it's important to get such feedback from the doles in the neighborhood such as the last letter. So the proposal shouldn't determine whether or not if there is a parking, screening is needed or not needed. I mean, I think the neighbor's feedback is essential when it comes to screening, especially if there's gonna be a parking lot that might, or a park that's gonna get negative feedbacks from those residents in that area. Yeah, that's, Dean, that's a good thought. If you wouldn't mind holding that thought, we're gonna shift gears to the parking and screening in just a minute. But good response to the letter. Anything else about the wetlands? I feel like we've heard a number of possible conditions that sound agreeable to the applicant. I think we need to contemplate this no storage area and whether this project affects how that area operates. We have a good idea of where the impacts will be on the different buffers. And we've heard some ideas from the Conservation Commission about how those, any impacts can be mitigated. So I feel like, I feel like this, it is possible. I'm going to speak as one member that I think we're hearing ways that it will be possible for this project to meet the wetland and Verlampool standards. I think we have to be careful to make sure we focus on the project itself and not a number of external factors that have been brought up that really have nothing to do with this relatively low intensity project. I mean, the land, the disturbance of the land happened long before this project was proposed. And it doesn't appear to me that it's going to increase in any substantial way, the negative impacts that already exist. I just think it's really important for us to step, take a step back and realize, we can't redesign the North Branch Park. I mean, that's not what's happening here.  Other thoughts or questions on the wetland's Verlampool issue? Maybe give me a thumbs up if you think you have what you need to make a decision about this. Many thumbs. All right, thank you. I've never given so many thumbs up as I have since the zooming of our world began. All right, so I'm going to switch now and we're going to talk about parking. And as I mentioned at the beginning, and Kevin alluded to just now, we're reviewing what's before us, not what, not whether it should be proposed or not. So it sounds like, I think if he's still available, I may have a question for John Holler, but Nolan may be able to answer it. Is it correct that there are a total of nine spaces being proposed? Yes. Thank you. And I think we've also received testimony that the pump track will not be in operation in the winter time. And so the parking area won't be plowed and there won't be to be snow storage. Is that also correct? That's correct. And also I think the question of what the surface has been raised, it won't be paved. It would likely be the existing surface, perhaps crushed gravel. I guess if we raise the money to do that, but we haven't discussed that. Likely it will be the existing surface. Okay. And have you done any design work? Oh, sorry, go ahead. Oh, no, I'm sorry. I was wondering if you've done any design work to understand how the drainage might work if that area becomes compacted by cars parking there. Well, my, I mean, no, we haven't, I guess it's the short answer. And my impression of that site is that it's heavily compacted by prior use. There's very little. I mean, I've been there in all seasons. It's pretty dry and the soil is very compacted. So I don't, and I've never seen standing water on that site. So I don't think drainage is going to be an issue. Okay. Before we, you know, related issue is the screening, but do other folks have questions or wish to discuss the board members and have questions or wish to discuss the parking? You have a thought, Kevin? Well, I did just in general, I think the parking is a pretty modest parking lot. And whereas there's been some testimony that parking lots are unnecessary at all, but what I would see that doing is creating a situation where you have cars randomly parked, not in any particular order or place, which could become a very jumbled type of use and not look well as well as not function well. I think the as proposed plan is a modest proposal. And John Haller, will there be signage indicating where people should park so that to be able to circulation and things like that? Yes. Yeah, there will be signage, great. Okay. Is everything good on parking? We'll talk about screening next. Hey, Kate, can I just ask one question about the parking? Sure, Michael. Is the nine spaces, is that just a function of the space available or is that a number that you came up with based on what you perceived the usage rate to be? As a function of the space available, my expectation is that it would rarely reach that level. I mean, we don't really know, but it just seems very unlikely that at any given time, you're gonna have more than a couple of cars there. Thanks. Okay, great. So we're gonna move on to screening and I don't have the reference in the staff report handy, but and so Meredith might, I'm gonna say my understanding of the screening and Meredith can correct me if I'm missing something, but landscaping and screenings of section in the zoning and the purposes of that section include providing a landscaped buffer between residential and non-residential land uses and screening land uses and development that create visual clutter and distraction. And oh, it's page 15 of the staff report that says screening applies when non-residential, about residential and I think more germane to our discussion when parking areas are proposed. So I would, it is my sense that we're discussing the screening of a parking area, more than we are rather than discussing the screening of the pump track itself because of that purpose statement that it's about screening land uses and development that create visual clutter and distraction. I think it's, I don't think that the pump track is gonna create visual clutter and distraction, but I think the part of our ordinance that says we put screening around parking is germane here. Meredith, do you have anything to add about this section or you wanna frame it up for us? Cause I think this is our last thing to discuss. I don't know if I have any better framing than what you just gave here. I mean, there's a lot of the time it's really in past when we've done these landscaping provisions it's pretty cut and dry. You have to have landscaping that needs to go there. In this instance, there is that requirement for screening, applying for parking, the screening standards apply for parking areas. Hold on, let me just give me a second, okay? Cause I've got my stuff, I wanna look at the actual full clause. Sure. Well, Meredith, looking at that, do board members have any opinions they wanna offer on the screening based on your thoughts? You're thinking on this, do you review the staff report? I mean, I think one comment is I've seen a number of these pump tracks around Vermont and most of them it's not something where you have large numbers of people using for long periods of time. I feel like it's this kind of thing where people come in for a short period of time and then go on to the trails and it's sort of like a warmup, like a quick thing passing through. And so I think, I don't know, that seems relevant to the screening and the parking and maybe some people that aren't so familiar with the use of a pump track would get a different idea of it being more like a skateboard park or something like that. And my experience has been that they're different. Thanks very much. That's a good point that Rob just made. So why do you wanna have a parking lot? It's a valid question. We've heard testimony that the parking lot is of interest to the applicant. It's not really our prerogative to redesign the project. It's more that if they are asking for parking, how do we determine whether it meets or doesn't meet the standard? Can I, if I could just respond to that. I mean, this is not a high priority, but I didn't think it adds to the convenience. Let's say you have a six-year-old kid and you live in, you know, off of Terrace Street. You're not gonna ride bikes down from Terrace Street or Townhill Road to get to the pump track. So it adds to the convenience of people who drive there. The DPW has raised concerns about parking along the access road. I think you're, the letter from the members of the parking commissioner to think raised the question about why parking is along there. We did explore that, but they wanna make sure that that remains open. You know, I think people could park along coming street. It's just not ideal. I think people are driving to that site to use it that they ought to be able to park there. I don't think it's gonna be, you know, big demand. I'm hoping that people bike from town or people go to the rec center of the pool or at the rec area and then say, why don't we go over and bike for a little bit? And I think Commissioner Goodwin's right. I don't think people are gonna be there for a long period of time. So if people are gonna come and go, it's gonna be a pretty transient area. But I think having parking there increases the convenience and accessibility, particularly for people with young kids. Thanks, John. So Meredith, you've dug into the rec. How was what you found, please? So just to clarify for everybody what was in the staff report. So the language about screening, so the screening standards apply for non-residential applications where the project abuts a residential property. And then the one we're really concerned about when parking areas are proposed or modified. So this is just a abbreviation of that provision. So this is saying, this is our trigger when the standards apply. The standards then aren't necessarily things where you have to put in screening, right? The standards say that there's a performance standard. It says, screening shall be applied to minimize the visibility and the impacts of incompatible, disruptive, or visually unappealing aspect of those development on the surrounding neighborhood. This is, you know, we get into the language in here in staff report. This is not to be interpreted to mean that all views of the area or element to be screened shall be fully blocked. Rather, screening should be used to soften and break up views and to create visual interest elsewhere on the site so that the area or element to be screened no longer dominates the area. So it's not a, it's not a, the board has to decide that new screening needs to be added. It's a, does this situation where this new parking has come up and potentially a non-residential versus residential use has come up if that's what you're thinking about? Has that created a situation where you have, you know, impacts from incompatible, disruptive, or visually unappealing aspects to this development that need additional screening versus what's there already? That may not help you a whole lot, but I think that's a different way to look at it, maybe. Maybe that's a better explanation, a more thorough explanation than what's in the staff report. It's sort of a two-step process. And these are standards to be applied, not hard, fast rules about X, Y, and Z have to be there. Okay, thanks. I give this a little bit of nuance and reminds us of the outcome that we're aiming for. The outcome is not X number of trees. The outcome is lessening the impact of a parking area, softening the impact, I think is the word that is used. So as I view it, I think we're best off talking about whether and how the parking area should be screened or softened, not the pump track. What do others think? So I unfortunately did not get to go to the same, no, I've been by there, but on the Easterly side of that road, the existing trail, so the apartment side of that road, is there vegetation there? So the screening, is there already screening between the apartments and where it's proposed, or is that just the lawn on that trail? So can I, if you look in your staff report on August 16, there's a photograph there that is actually a photograph I took of the site, where I am about where the, really where the pump track would be, looking towards the coming street apartments. And you can see where there's a tall tree, that tall tree is on the other side of the current trail, beginning of the trail. So there's really tall grass and brushy stuff, now where the pump track would be, where the parking lot would be, and then between that space, I think and where the trail, the trail might be, it's right there near that tree. And then there's some other tall, I don't know if they're tall shrubs or short trees, before you get to the houses. If you want me, I can do a share screen to show the picture, I don't know if that's, okay. So let's do that, and I can also, if need be, pull up a Google map, so that's a little old. Can you see that? Right, yeah, yeah, oh, off there. So the trail runs through there. I think we lost that view in the wrong screen now. Yeah, we just had a little background and one's here. Okay, so hold on, let me try again. Oh, this side of that tree, right? I think that's where the actual bike trail runs. Right. There's a tree in this tree and that's where it is there. Okay, so based on my question, I don't see what you would be screening, other than what's already there. But that's just a game of one more member. I have a question. So from the research I've been doing on the Google Earth aerial maps, just before those townhouses there and adjacent to the bike trail and it's on coming street, it looks where it appears from the map because there's a car parked on it, is a cutoff off the common street that looks like a parking area. And that'd be a guest parking space for those apartments. Maybe that'd be expanded since it's already there. That's a private parking area. It's private, okay. Yeah, that's off the parcel since it's not even on the same parcel. Right, thanks. Yeah, I mean, my personal thoughts are that it doesn't seem like it really needs all that much screening, especially since they're not planning on doing anything other than just designating an area of this field as a parking area. That's what I gathered at least. It looks like there's already some shrubs and trees that provide some screening. We're not screening the actual pump tracks. So occasionally there's a couple of cars there for a short duration. I'm not sure that warrants the amount of effort that would take to grow some mature vegetation there that would actually do the job of screening. So I'm inclined to put in that responsibility, I suppose, that's something we're allowed to do. We could determine that the performance standard has been mapped by the existing condition. Yeah, I guess I would like to say that. My own feeling is that if we go from not having cars in that meadow-like area to having a few cars that a few bushes, something low-key to soften that impact would be appropriate. It would not need to be 20 different kinds of trees and three different varieties so that you've got flowering it every different time of year, anything like that. The use of the word softening in the staff report, at least I heard that, yeah, soften and break up views. I feel like that can be done in a pretty low-key way that would ultimately benefit the site and hopefully not be too arduous. So that's where I am at the moment. So I agree, Kate, after examining this and reviewing, I think it's a great spot and I think we should move forward. All right, is there any more discussion or questions about the issue of screening? All right, are there any two-minute comments from anyone who hasn't had a chance to speak yet? I guess that would be Nolan, if there's anything you wanna say and then I'll ask John Holler if he has any concluding thoughts. I have nothing to add. Okay, okay, thanks, Nolan. Welcome. And John, does any last thoughts a couple minutes worth if you have them? I'm all set, I think. You know, I keep saying that, and that's all right. Let me just say two things. One, this has a lot of public support. I know that's outside your purview, but we've had a GoFundMe campaign with a lot of community enthusiasm, so for what that's worth, and also that this has been through a pretty rigorous scrutiny through the Parks Commission. So with that, I'm all set, so thank you. All right, thank you, John. All right, I would like to, as I did with the previous application, I would like to propose that we deliberate on this in deliberative fashion, which is allowable under our procedures. It's a way for us to ensure the clarity around the permit conditions and make sure that we've covered all the bases. If others agree, I would request or entertain a motion to close the public hearing. I think that is, before I do that, do folks feel like they have enough information to make decisions? In that case, I'd be interested in a motion to close the public hearing for the Coming Street Pumptrack application and move into deliberative session at the conclusion of this public portion of tonight's meeting. Is there a motion? So moved. Motion by Kevin. That's a by Rob. I'm gonna go through and have people vote. Joe. Yes. Kevin. Yes. Jean. Yes. Roger. Yes. Rob. Yes. Michael. Yes. Hey, and I also vote yes. So what that means, as you heard with the previous application, is that we will deliberate on that issue, a written decision. We are doing this for the sake of quality deliberation, not because there are red flags waving all around. So I wanna provide that assurance that you've heard a lot of our thinking and we'll just do the final bit. Thank you very much for participating. All right. So moving on to the next item of our agenda, I wanna make sure there's nothing before we go into the deliberative session. Other business. Our next meeting is a Tuesday because it's day after Labor Day, our usual meetings on Labor Day, it's going to be September 8th, 2020. And that means we are not having our second August meeting.  Especially Meredith who's doing a good job of taking a break from vacation. I will be absent from the September 8th meeting but Kevin has kindly agreed to share the meeting that evening. Are there any other business before we move into the deliberative session? Meredith. Just a quick note that I have just emailed everybody an invitation to a separate Zoom meeting for the deliberative session, just so that we don't accidentally have people trying to log into this late and waiting in the waiting room and not knowing what's going on. Okay. Thank you. Everybody keep an eye out for that. And Meredith can folks call you at your desk if they don't get that Zoom invite. Okay. And that number is on the website. That's an email, Meredith. Yeah, I just, so I sent it as an outlook invitation. Okay. Very good. Yep. Okay. So let's take a 10 minute break and return at 840 to deliberate. And we're deliberating in the deliberative session Zoom. Yes. That's right. Okay. So we can close out of here. We can. Okay. Do we need a motion to adjourn? Do you need a motion? Yeah, we do. Public meeting and move deliberative session. That's what we need to do. Is there a motion to adjourn the public here, the public meeting and move into the deliberative session? So move. Motion by Joe. Second by Roger. All right. To vote, please. Joe. Yes. And I think the motion was by Rob, not by me. Ah, thank you. Friendly amendment from the person who didn't actually make the motion. Motion by Rob, the second by Roger. And voting yes so far. We have Joe and Kevin. Jean. Yes. Roger. Yes. Rob. Yes. Michael. Yes. And I also vote yes, this meeting is adjourned and we will reconvene in deliberative session using the Zoom just sent to us at 842. Thank you. See you then. See you then. Anybody have their email open and have seen it?