I'll call it to order and any changes to the agenda hearing none will move on to public comment period and you said there's no one in the public with us. There is not. Okay. Next, approve the previous meeting minutes. Looking for a motion and a second to approve the minutes with any corrections. I'll make a motion to approve. Very thorough Eric. Thank you. Who wants to second that motion. Okay. Is there any discussion any comments changes. I read them but I think I have to abstain from voting on them because I was not present. Yeah, technically you don't have to but you can. Okay. Yeah, whatever. It's up to you. You can do it. Yeah. I think that because sometimes if you don't have a quorum. You, I mean if you have a quorum by one and someone abstains, you know, I mean, you need to get that. Okay. But I think what I read looked good. Second Terry's point it was it was a pretty exhaustive summary of the meeting it seemed like. Yeah. So tonight we have enough Joe so so you can abstain if you want. So if he abstains, then me as the alternative, then I kick in. Or am I not? Yeah. No way. You're, you're, you're currently our fifth member so you're voting on anything right now. Okay. Wait, how's that? There's five of us. Yep. So the committee has five permanence and two alternates. So the five of us are the five of us are voting tonight. Okay. Understood. Okay. So if there's no further comments all in favor of the motion, please say I or raise your hand. Whatever you want to do. Abby, did you say yes or did you not? Okay. Opposed abstain. Okay. So that passes with one extension. All right. So next we have public hearing on amendments to article three downtown core zoning district regulations. So I'll take a motion to open the public hearing. I'll move. Great. Is there a second? Second. Second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed. Okay. Public hearing is open. Eric, do you want to. I'll do a quick introduction here. So this is a public hearing tonight for, to take public comments on the proposed amendments to articles three article, which is the. Which is currently reserved, but where we are looking to relocate and reformat our downtown core zoning district. Requirements, the specific requirements for the downtown core. An amendment to article 10, which would include a map. Which is currently part of the downtown core regulations in appendix C. Section 4.9, which is related to non conforming lots, non conforming structures and rights of way and driveways. And also to section 6.6 related to site plan review. All of these amendments. Are related to the downtown core zoning district. For the most part, there's a couple of minor parts of section 6.6 and 4.9. That are not related directly to the downtown core, but it was seemed germane to, to do the cleanup of those at this time as well. But really what this is doing is taking the information that's currently included in appendix C. And reformatting it and integrating it into the rest of the regulations at now article three. So I'm going to go back to that. So you reviewed all these documents at the, at the last meeting back in March, our first meeting in March. On the 11th, I believe, and scheduled the hearing for tonight. So all the changes that were discussed at that meeting, I have been incorporated into this and were advertised as part of the changes. So. There's nothing, nothing new to, to, to incorporate or to discuss at this point. So I had asked. That I thought I would just share with you all, she had asked about in, in section 4.9 under the nonconforming uses were adding item H, which relates directly to the downtown, corresponding district and any nonconformities in that district that currently exist. And her question was, how many properties do we have that would be considered nonconforming right now? In general, so the downtown Corazoni district is pretty much bound by the circulator on the west, East Allyn on the north, the Winooski River on the south, and Casavant on the east. So really the properties between Cascade Way and Amnaki Way that front along East Allyn Street, there's a row of of some multifamily and some maybe a single family or two that are in there. But those those properties would be the ones that would be considered nonconforming right now because they don't meet the high density requirements or the the story, the height requirements that are included currently in the downtown Corazoni district. Those properties can continue to exist as they are as preexisting nonconforming uses. They can be improved. What they can't, however, be is enlarged or enlarged in footprint or in height without making them conforming. So if they need to replace windows or doors or siding or things like that, they can do all those things. They can do interior modifications to meet current codes or to just make general improvements. But those would be the properties that are currently considered to be the nonconforming where this section H would apply. And this does not apply to north of East Allyn Street, right? That's correct. That is in our central business district. And I guess I should also mention that on the city lights building would not be included as an on conforming because it does conform when it was when it was rebuilt. So all the properties west of city lights along East Allyn Street to basically to the VSEC building. So if they demolish the structure, they can't build it. So let me give an example. I was looking at the Winooski Press when that was for sale. And that little house on that property was in really bad shape, you know, not safe. And one of the ideas I had about it was just to take it down and rebuild it again. So that wouldn't be allowed to do something like that on these properties as this is written now, as you're writing it, proposing to write it now. So this is so I think the key part to that, Sarah, is the voluntary demolition. If for some reason, the structure where I believe the way that I would interpret this is that if the structure were to be if it were to catch fire and burn to the ground that was not something that somebody decided to do on their own. Then I think they could probably rebuild as it was as kind of one of those unforeseen circumstances. But if somebody willingly said, I want to buy this house and tear it to the ground and just build another similar house, that would not be allowed. So why not? Because the the intent of the downtown Corazoning District is to have density and to maximize the to have density and also to to focus the the I'll say the design of the the master plan, which includes multi-story buildings and and basically maximizing the full potential of the lot to really create that that dense core of a downtown. So if someone wants to buy that house because they like the house itself, but it's in bad shape and they want to recreate it, they're not going to be able to do that. Not by taking it to the ground and rebuilding it voluntarily. They could they could make improvements to it without without. It's like to the beams structure. I mean, could you argue potentially potentially? I think if it's I think that's, you know, that's kind of a nuance that I don't. I would, you know, that that may be a situational distinction. But I think the idea here is that if you're going in and voluntarily demolishing a property, then you need to build to the standards that exist. It's no different than what we would require any other any other property in the city to do if even if it's a voluntary demolition, you would need to make the property any any new buildings would need to conform to the the regulations that are in place at the time. But this is a peculiarity to that kind of that block, right? That's not we're not talking about that in regards to the rest of the city, correct? I guess I'm not sure I follow your question, Joe. It basically what I'm saying is the requirement that if you level it and rebuild it, something that's that's previously non-conforming. What am I trying to say here? I think, Joe, anywhere in the city, if you have a non-conforming structure or a lot and you voluntarily rip it down, the new building you put up has to conform to then conform to zoning. Really? OK, so that is the if you had something that was considered like deficient, that you were demolishing and you wanted to put something back that was virtually the same footprint, but an improved structure, you couldn't do that. As long as it met the current regulations, you could. So as an example, if you had a ranch house, a single unit ranch on Main Street that you just you wanted to tear down because it was it wasn't it was in bad shape, you could not build a single story ranch on Main Street right now because we have a minimum story requirement through the Gateway Zoning District. I guess I I guess the way I'm thinking of it more is like also in terms of like garages and outbuildings, like if you had something that was probably too close to the property line to begin with, it didn't have, you know, conform to setbacks, but you're rebuilding something that's not going to enlarge that non-conformity, but it will be the same, you know, non-conforming structure. That's not permitted. If correct, if you're, for example, if you have a garage that is currently in the setbacks and you tear to the ground and you want to rebuild it, you have to build it out of the setbacks. OK, would you would have to tear the foundation out or or move the foundation so that it's completely out of the setbacks? So, Eric, is it explained in here? I know you kind of hesitated and thought about this. Is it explained in here that if it is a non voluntary destruction of the building that you can rebuild? And is there a time frame to do that? I know a lot of towns, if you have a non-conforming use that's abandoned or a structure that that's, you know, burns down or whatever. A lot of times there's a six month or one year period that you have to rebuild. What was there? Yeah, we do. There is a section and I don't think I can quote it to you straight away, Mike, but we do have language in the regulations that do talk about that if that if a building is is usually what the phraseology is, if it's if it's demolished by an act of God, that be fire, wind, lightning, strike, whatever the case might be, that you have a certain time frame where you can rebuild as it was. But because you're voluntarily taking something down, that's what that's what triggers the the need to to make it conforming. So can I suggest with H that a reference is made to wherever that is? So it's clear? Yes, I'm sorry to belabor this, but I am kind of curious like, for instance, like in a structure where you've effectively demolished it, but there's still some portion of it standing. If that's you still have it's still a non conforming structure. But it's like, oh, well, I didn't raise it level to the ground. I just entirely rebuilt the whole thing within the same footprint. But there's some element of the previous construction that I kept there as like the foot in the door bookmark. I'm kind of thinking I know of an example of this where there was a property in Winooski where there was a large two story garage and there had been real problems with frost heaving like in the floor and the building was in really, really sore shape. But the person I know who owned it had said, well, I keep it there because I know it's a non conforming structure. And theoretically, something could be done with this. And it was a large enough space that it could be potentially an accessory dwelling someday or some something to that effect. And it wouldn't have any kind of additional encroachment if you had used whatever the footprint of that existing building was. Yeah, I mean, I'm sort of I guess that's the same thing. I'm kind of wondering about I don't know. Maybe it's maybe I'm being too detailed in it. I'm assuming that if you if you rebuild it by tearing everything out except for the actual frame, you should be OK. You should be you should be OK. OK, I'm just kind of curious, because like I know when like the the Packard lofts got built on North Avenue in Burlington, like they effectively demolished all of the building except for like the facade of it and then rebuilt the whole thing behind it. And I guess they could claim that they did not. Raise it to the ground. So yeah. Well, when you try to do that, Joe, you'll you'll meet up with Eric and see what he says. Sure. Do you permit? No, I'm not like I'm just kind of curious what what the broader implications of this could be. Yeah, because yeah, anyhow. But if it's really those, what are they? Four buildings along that strip between those two blocks? I think it's four buildings, maybe four or five. I think there's eight total properties, but I think a couple of them, the the structures crossover property boundaries. I don't know offhand what's all there specifically. Yeah. So it's just that strip main base. The city wants to take those down and put bigger buildings in there is what I assume. We'd like to see as a city, right? That is, I think, in fact, the vision of the master plan is outlined. Yeah. OK, you want to continue, Eric? Well, so I was just going to say otherwise there was no other questions or comments that have come up or been been offered by any of the folks that the documents were sent to, those being the adjacent municipality and the state. So I think if there's no other questions or comments or suggested changes, then I think the next steps would be to to close the hearing and then and then consider forward this thing forwarding this on to to counsel for their consideration. OK, so again, there's no public out there sitting, watching, watching us. So I'll take a I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. I make a motion to close the public hearing. OK. I have a second. Second. OK. All those in favor of closing the public hearing, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? OK, the hearing is closed. So next is if folks want to make a motion to send this revisions up to the city council for their consideration. We can entertain that motion or we can. We don't have to do anything if we don't want to. I would suggest we've gone over this. We're at this point. We might as well send it up to the city council for their consideration unless someone has an issue with anything in this document. I just can I just ask one question? So that that H that we were just talking about, was that there last week or the week before this comments? No, that's this is part of the existing language that is in is an appendix C currently. OK, so that wasn't a why is it in red? Because so it's in red because it did not exist in in section four point nine before, so it's technically an added it's added language to section four point nine. But it's not new language for the purpose. But we weren't reading this last week, that section. Or were we? I mean, yes, yeah. It was that this was reviewed at the last meeting as well. All right. Sorry, I just didn't recall. It's OK. So what's the wishes of the commission to hang on to it or to move it on up to the city council? Don't be shy. Anybody? Whoops. Can you still hear me? Yes. Somehow I lost my picture. Where'd you guys go? All right. There we go. OK. Hitting too many buttons. So if there's no motion, then we're just going to table this for now. I I guess I'll move I'll move to Florida because I don't think there's any need to chew on this any longer. Um, OK, other other commission members feel otherwise. OK, there's a motion. Do I have a second? I sense apprehension. Yes, but I'll second. OK, all right. So let's let's discuss how do people feel about moving things forward? Because even though we have a motion a second, we can vote voted down and we won't move it forward. But how do folks feel? Are you comfortable with it? Are you not comfortable with it? Do you want to chew on it a little bit longer? Well, quite frankly, this is always why, like, I'm asking these bizarre hypotheticals is because I'm just trying to foresee all of the circumstances where this could have implications. And so that's why I'm always anything time we're moving something forward. I'm like, is this really what is this going to do what we think it is? So but it sounded like it was pretty like routine maintenance stuff that we were handling here. Well, and again, this specific language in in item H is not new language. It exists now in the code. So this is already effective language. Yeah. OK. I just get sad because I think here go more buildings. But I agree. We were we looked at a lot of this through the last few meetings and most of it made perfect sense. So and the city on that block, the city and the state made that decision, what, 16, 17 years ago, basically saying, like, that's all fair game. So well, yes and no. I mean, the decision was made to make it part of the downtown core. Yeah. But those properties have been renovated. Since we passed this, because when it first started, I don't know if I'll say most of them, but a lot of them were were pretty in pretty tough shape. And I think that they've all they've all, if I recall, right, they've all been improved, at least cosmetically from the outside, since this all went into effect. So yeah. Abby, you're very quiet. I'm just listening. And I it sounded like since the language was existing, that it didn't really raise too much of a concern with me, but I'm hearing I'm hearing the concern. So yeah. OK. Any other comments before we vote? All right, hearing none, all those in favor of the motion to move this forward to the city council, please say aye. Anyone opposed? Anyone want to? I'll oppose this time. OK. And and since everyone has voted now, there's no objection. So three to one, it moves forward. And there's nothing wrong with that. And that can be relayed to the city council that it was moved on a vote of three to one. Yeah, I'm not I'm just trying to keep that voice out out there. That's that's fine. A lot of times it makes sense to have votes of three to one four to one or three to two because that says something to the to the folks as well. So nothing wrong with that. OK. All right. So as soon as I find my agenda again, it's here someplace. There it is right there. One thing real quick while you're looking for your agenda, Mike, I found it. OK, great. I just wanted to let you all know that the last batch of amendments that were discussed and forwarded on to council related to the articles one, two, three and the assessment dwelling unit discussion. Council has not set a hearing on that yet. That's going to be that's good. That information is going to be introduced with this information. I believe at their meeting on the 19th, just as more of an overview of what's going on. And then we're going to have future meetings to discuss and set hearings. But I just wanted to let you all know that. Though those amendments were forwarded to our legal counsel and they suggested one minor change to the language, actually, to the definitions where we had the definition of owner. It basically said something along the lines of the the person listed on the deed or the the entity that's listed. And he suggested that we add some language that said something about like the controlling partner of the entity so that it's more explicit, that it's not just. Or the majority, the majority holder of the entity so that there's some additional clarification on if it's not held by an individual who then has kind of that ownership authority. So really minor change, but more just to for a little extra legal cover. So just to make you all aware of that, that will be incorporated when it gets presented to counsel before it goes to hearing at the council level. OK, sounds good. I will also send all of these amendments to him as well for legal review now that you all have forwarded them on. OK. So the next item on the agenda is begin review of Appendix B form based code. And I've got seven o'clock right now. So why don't we try to we'll do this for like 45 minutes. That will give us plenty of time, hopefully plenty of time to do updates and other business. Yeah, that should be great. And since it's a nice night, that way we won't keep you any longer than we need to. You know, this is this is the the start of the full review of the form based code. We did spend a lot of time. Seems like 25 years ago now reviewing some specific sections that have been incorporated. So this is now kind of the full front to back review that will identify some some changes, some corrections, some just reorganization reformatting for consistency that I've identified and and we'll have a few items for you all to weigh in on and provide feedback on. So I did provide or I did print out hard copies that were at City Hall for all of you to pick up. Also share my screen so we can scroll through everything too. If that would be easier, I'm not sure what's going to the pleasure of the commission here. Well, if we could share the screen, that would be great because I totally forgot to pick it up. That's not sorry. Not a problem. I think I missed that is. Are they still available there? Can I pick one up? Yep, absolutely. OK, absolutely. They're just they're sitting up front. Just ask one of the clerks for your your copy. OK, and what it is is what you sent us, right? That's correct. And it's the yep. Yep, it's the whole appendix B with the red lines. All right, let me share my screen. Remember, there's old people here, Eric. Yep. I wasn't talking about you, Mr. O'Brien. I figured you were. That's all right about myself. Give me one second. And I want to put any glasses on. All right, so OK. Thank you. So hopefully the scrolling won't be too obnoxious for y'all. But all right. So I figure we'll just start at the top and go from there. So the first page here is just some changes to the the the organization for consistency. They're currently numbers and everything else's letters. So just making these instead of one, two, three, four, five, ABCDE and same thing on the next part. So and I'll just I'll just scroll until I get to a point where I where I am looking for some feedback. So if you all have feedback, please stop me and share it. So more of the same with the rest of these and then the table of contents. These will obviously get updated as things move around. I don't think these numbers are applicable anymore because of some additions that I've made. The first comment is for some reason, there's some of these numbers that are highlighted. I don't exactly know why. I don't think they relate to anything specific. So I was going to delete that highlighting. And then another blank page, some more.  See, we're getting through this quickly. This there's this acronym key here that for the most part, we don't use any of these acronyms. There some of them aren't don't show up anywhere in the text, except in this box. And for the most part, the acronyms are spelled out in most places. So I was just going to delete this table.  And Terry, I see you. You want me to larger? No, no, I was just squinting and then I was looking at the project review committee. And just trying to remember what that was about. Yeah, I've actually got it. I have a whole new section on that specifically. So deleting the the acronym key. So the changes that I'm proposing here. So the language currently says Certificate of Conformity. But the way that this this document is organized is that any words that appear in this all caps format are definitions as well. That's how that's one of the clues that the word is defined. And so previously we were not defining Certificate of Conformity. We just had the words in there. So this is I am proposing that we add a definition for Certificate of Conformity. And therefore these change now to small caps. So the words are already there. So I'm not adding new language. It's just changing what they look like because there's now a definition associated with it. So you'll see that in multiple occasions here coming up. So you're going to change that to small letters, correct? You're saying yes and OK. And add a definition of Certificate of Conformity. And the definition is going to be in the definition section. Correct. OK. So if you look if you look if you have the printed copy or the electronic copy, if you look in the definitions right now, there is a definition for Certificate of Conformity that I've added. So how what's the indication that there's a definition for it? If you look at the other text, I'm sorry. Can you repeat that? Yeah, what's the indication that there's a definition for it? If you make it if you take away the bolding or the capitalization of the text, how do you know there's definition? There is not. That is the key. The capital letters is what indicates that it's a definition. So when you look through the document, if it's if it's in all caps like that, that means it's defined. OK, I thought Mike just said the opposite. So I misunderstood. I think I did, too.  Oh, sorry. So I think I said small capital. So it's it's a there's a setting to do small capitalization, which is what so this is what it'll look like. OK. Let me see if I can find another example quickly. You want to you want to make it so that it's black as a definition is what you're saying. Correct. Yeah. So so how do I know what I'm reading this? And I see something that's cap. How do I know that that then I should look for the definition if I don't understand what it is? So if it if it looks like these these words. Right. But how do I know that? You know, I mean, I read through it and it's OK. Well, great, it's it's capitalized. You know, I'm thinking, well, it's just capitalized because that's the section I'm in. Does it say that earlier up that definitions are? It does. Yeah, it does. I thought I caught that there was some little key there that tells you that these are actually it's the first thing in the very first line of the code. I guess I missed that. Why are some words shown in small capital letters? Yeah, I just I just saw that as we were scrolling down. Yeah. So, Mike, there's not all got you. So there's not going to be any other words that appear in all capitals. OK, that's that's that's fine. I just I missed that part in the beginning. Why are there some words shown in small capital letters? So like if you see here, the word façades is in all capitals. Yeah. That means there's a definition of façades. OK. That's that's as we get into the as we get into the more substantive text, you'll see a lot more. You'll see a lot more sections that have a lot of words that are capitalized like this. That's that's really good because I can't stand when I get the document and it's referencing some acronym that I have no way of finding out what the acronym means. Yeah. And that kind of, in a way, feels a little bit like elitist, because it's like, well, everyone, you know, knows what that is. And why don't you know what that is? And that's that's fine. To me, I like to have a little footnote that says, you know, C definitions or something like that. That's just me because I'm an old. Goat that doesn't know any better. So so yes, so these are now words that are going to be defined. Certificate of conformity will be defined in in in the back. OK, so moving along, this is a new item number four to just indicate that the materials that basically the application materials can be submitted electronically if the applicant wants to. I personally prefer that they come to me electronically because it's usually a lot of plans and a lot of a lot of information that has detail in it. And if I get it as a paper copy, then I need to scan it in to send it to people and it loses quality. So I always ask for the electronic copies anyway. So this just makes it easier for the submissions. So, Eric, why do you have at the discretion of the zoning administrator? Because there are some times that I do want hard copies to give to the other departments. I want to see the full the full size 24 by 36 plan sheets. So those I sometimes, depending on the complexity of the project, I may ask for those as well. OK. OK, so another out of the definition for certificate of conformity in those two. So here, under number four, we get into some some new. Some new discussion, and this is really more for clarification because right now there isn't a lot of discussion in the text about the project review committee and what that is and how it functions. So in essence, the project review committee is is an advisory committee made up of the city's department heads. The city manager chairs that project review committee and really their role is to provide any guidance to me as the zoning administrator in my review of the application. It's not a standing committee of the city. It's not something that Council appoints anybody to. It's not therefore we don't those are public meetings. We do notify the adjacent property owners of those meetings. They are allowed to provide comment. And and ask questions as well, but we don't take any formal minutes. We don't record the meetings because the expectation there is the Gateway Zoning District ultimately is still an administrative approval as long as the projects meet all the standards. So in order to maintain that that. Appeal process of zoning administrator to divide the zoning process of zoning administrator to development review board to environmental and environmental division of the Superior Court. The project review committee is just kind of an extra step in there to help me as the zoning administrator make sure that the project because of the scope or scale is getting some extra some extra input from public works, for example, or from the emergency services to so that they have their say in it as well, which then I can turn into conditions of approval. So that's all a long way of saying the the the current regulations don't talk really about the project review committee and and what happens there. So this section is kind of built a little bit to to get some of that information in here. And then again, there's a definition now project review committee to explain what that is and how that that entity functions in in the definitions. Can you give some instances of where the project review committees input has substantially changed like a project design? Like I'm just interested what what they contribute as far as their insights. So it's not from the design side. It doesn't necessarily come in a lot with the design, but it will come in with, for example, some of the the overall layout because there might be some utility issues that can't be meant for the traffic congestion is such that they might have to rearrange a few things on the site. So it'll come into play in those regards and and those will then be ultimately become conditions of the approval. We're actually still working on a there was an application that was submitted probably about six months after I started back in 2018 that we're still trying to work through some of the conditions of the site approval with our public works department because the traffic has been creating issues when they do different parts of it. So so it's it's really helpful to have that that input on these projects. So the building itself, the design hasn't changed, but definitely the overall site has definitely has gone through some modifications. Yeah, I guess I'm sorry. I used that word with an incorrect definition. I didn't mean like the overall layout, not necessarily just details of a built structure. So it's curious about like if if substantial things about layout or organization of the development has actually changed as a result of some of their suggestions. Yeah, I would I would say it has. And in some cases as well, you know, emergency services will, for example, the fire department will they may request additional clear space behind the building to get a to get a truck in there if depending on the site itself or some some additional space to to maneuver around or additional stand pipes to to hook up to or fire hydrants.  So it all becomes a community benefit by having by having those discussions at the project review committee meeting. OK, because I'm just I'm kind of thinking a little bit. This is a form-based code gateway. But for instance, the PUD for bounded by LaClaire and LaFountain and Franklin, there was a lot of people who were expressing concerns about kind of the public works aspect of it and what like the layout of the potential street would be like there. And I'm just kind of wondering. I'm wondering how how much the the PRC, their suggestions actually have bearing on it. Is it just well, we'll take that into consideration or if it actually has a material effect? If it if it is something of significance that that will have some some that is causing concern or will require some potentially require modification to the site or to the building, it will be included as a condition. OK, before they can receive zoning approval, that they will need to have sign off from whatever department has has offered the suggestion or the comment. So and why are we suggesting shortening the duration of the notification period?  So this is something that I highlighted because this is not included in the hard copy of the the printout. This is something that came up actually after that I was reviewing. So it relates to this this comment down here under item D. Right now, as it's written, it says within 30 day within 30 business days of the application submittal, the the the the Project Review Committee will meet. State statute requires that we act on applications within 30 days, not within 30 business days. So if we waited 30 business days, it would in essence be a deemed approval because we would not have met our statutory threshold. Part of the reason. So why why the reason why I backed off five days on the notification is to allow us more time to make sure we can have that meeting because the Project Review Committee is not a standing meeting. We don't have a set schedule. We just try to schedule it when people are available to make sure we can have the meeting. And sometimes we bump up to that. We get pretty close to that 30 day timeline from from the day that an application comes in is when the clock starts. So in order to provide enough notice to the adjacent property owners, give them 15 days and then have a meeting after that. There's been some times where it's either been technically we've been over that 30 days or we've been right up against it. So I'm I'm recommending that we cut this back to 10 days for the for the notification in advance of that meeting. I'll give you an example. Right now, state statute says for site plan review that goes before the Development Review Board for site plan review, statute only requires a seven day notice for adjacent property owners. So this would be in line with that and actually provide a little additional time, but still give us give me enough, hopefully enough time to get the meeting scheduled so that we're not going over that 30 day window for acting on an application. So how often go ahead, go ahead, Sarah. No, go ahead. I was just to say, do you have an idea of the landowners get in touch within, you know, 10 days, five days, 15 days? Did they have a beat on what their average getting? So generally speaking, if it's a project that that they're interested in, if once they get the notification, I'm probably here from them within a day or two of them getting it. Yeah. That makes sense. Eric, I'm wondering as I read through C if it makes sense to flip flop two and three so that the PRC can request additional information, including studies, blah, blah, blah, and then and then make recommendations or recommend any changes or conditions of approval to meet the code. And I think I would add and or information requested or something, something like that. You know what I mean? So it relates not just to the code, but to it might be traffic. It might be impacts in neighborhood. We can come back to that as we've done in the past. But so I'm just wondering if it makes sense. So you say, OK, here's what the PRC does. They review and provide this on the code. They request additional information. And then they recommend any changes or recommend change the conditions. Yeah, I'm OK with that. I'm OK with that. I mean, anyone else have any thoughts about that or concerns? No, it's good. It makes sense. And I think I would add meet the code and add something like and any additional information request or something like like that. Yeah. So I was thinking maybe something along the lines of and respond to identified impacts. Yeah, something like that. I can. Yeah, I've got a note here. I can work on some language for that section. OK. And just so I understand, Eric, you're changing 15 to 10 because you're having a hard time meeting state statute the 30 days if it's a 15 day notice. It has become difficult. Yes. I mean, there definitely has been some. There have been a few projects that have gone over that 30 window. So technically, if the applicant wanted to, they could have they could have challenged that and said, I submitted my application 31 days ago and therefore it's a deemed approval and they would have been able to do whatever they proposed, whether it was in conformance or not. But why does providing the five extra days to the land over land owner slow down the process? It would give you 15 days right to get that notice out. Well, I would so I have to one, I have to figure out when the meeting is going to be and then from the time. So the way that I the way that I interpret the notifications for any any project, whether it be this, the development review board, whatever, the day the notice goes out, I don't count. And then the day of the meeting, I don't count as well so that there's a full 15 days from the day that the the notification is sent. I don't that's just a process that I've done so that I'm building in a day on each end for that. So in essence, it's 17 total days and so that only gives me generally about 13 total days to review the application, get any additional information I need, do my reports and and summaries for the Project Review Committee meeting and schedule the meeting. I also need to know when the meeting day is before I can send the notifications out. And so can that like the part that you just mentioned that sounds slightly discretionary, where you're talking about including the day that you send it out and the day that the meeting occurs? To me, that would make sense to have in included in this because I can kind of because that makes it basically like 12 days, right? Yeah, I mean, it could be depending on when they when the notices actually get out and when they get them. I mean, it may be that I don't put them in the mail until the end of the day and they're they're not getting sent until the next day. So I just like to build that in for my for myself, just to make sure that I have time included in there. And I think that's very consider I'm just kind of for seeing a situation where if that wasn't built into it, this could go down to like eight days and basically be like a week, you know, that does that make sense or? Yeah, I agree with a different CA who has a different process. It's not it's not clear in this. You are probably like Eric, your process. Sure. So you're suggesting that I add in language that talks about those additional days or? I think that I'm just for seeing if there was. If you were no longer our planner and somebody else were was working with this, that could be a different scenario, right? Mm hmm. And I'm kind of seeing that I think if what you're saying is built into this, that I'm a lot more comfortable with what you're describing. That sounds like like an efficient process. Does that make sense? It does, I guess I'm just wondering, Abby, if that's what you're also saying. Yeah, it sounds like based on your process, it's really 12. It's potentially 12 days, depending on when you get it in the mail. So I just I'm not sure if everybody has the same process. So it's clear as we can be because I do feel more comfortable with 12 days and fifth, fifth, you know, than 10. Sorry, Eric, can I let me let me ask you the 10 day notice is to a buddy landowners, right? So so if I have a project and I submit my application on April 1st. Yeah, you have until April 30th or May 1st, whatever. To get a decision back to me. That's correct. So so OK, you get my application at two o'clock on April 1st. Yep. You then have to set up a meeting of the PRC. So so in theory, because you you're working in the same building or when it's non COVID time, you can do that either April 1st or April 2nd. You set a meeting and then you you put out a notice to the landowners.  That notice has to be in the mail on April 2nd to the land to the abutting property owners. At a minimum, it would be right. That's what I'm saying that so. So now April 12th, you have your meeting that gives you 18 days after to come to a decision to the applicant. And that includes weekend days that in theory, you're now working. Well, I would say a more a more realistic scenario, Mike, is somebody brings in an application on April 1st, which is a Friday afternoon. And I don't know that it's there until it's stamped in. And I don't know it's there until Monday. So I've already lost three days, basically, from when that comes in, right, to make sure it's a complete application and that all the parts and pieces are there. Then I have to schedule the meeting and make sure that there's a time that works for everybody that's that's far enough out so that I can. Get the information for all the adjacent property owners, write the letter to all them and make sure it gets in the mail so that by the time they get it, presumably they've got a good solid week before the meeting to look at the information, ask questions, come in and review files if they want and still try to get all that in within a 30 day window from the time that location hits City Hall. Yeah, so so I guess where I'm going is this sentence about the 10 day notice of the meeting to a budding landowners. I don't know as we need anything more because all it is is if I'm on a budding landowner, I need to know 10 days ahead of the PRC meeting that the PRC meeting is happening. Correct. Yeah, so so I'm not sure we need to get into all the extra days and whatnot. The to me, the key is as a butter. So let me ask, do I need 10 days or or is that include the data is mailed? So I might only have eight days because it takes two days to get to me. You know, I mean, if it do I need to receive it on the second of April for an April 12th meeting or do you need to mail it on April 2nd to me for this that meeting? So the way that the way that I believe statute addresses these types of notifications is that it needs to be in the mail at least whatever the statutory requirement is days beforehand. When you receive it is that doesn't statute doesn't care quite frankly, because it could be out of town for two weeks. And then you didn't get it at all. Yeah. So so to me, this whole thing is just about that when that notice goes in the mail to the abutting property owners, it doesn't matter if it takes you six days between the time the application comes in and and you get it in the mail. The key is that it has to be in the mail ten days before the meeting is held. Correct. Right. Correct. Does that make sense to everybody? Joe and Abby, I know that's looking for more. But yeah, because Eric was saying that he the way that he does it is he puts it in the mail and then the next day would be the count of ten and the final day would be the day before the meeting. So he's really giving 12, 12 days. So the statute is the number of days from when it hits the mail. It should just say 12 in there instead of 10. But it but it is 10. But but but Eric can can schedule it 12 days out. That doesn't matter. It's got to be a minimum of 10 days, right, Eric, my here. That's yeah, correct. That's what I'm proposing. Right. So, Mike, the argument, though, is that he's actually he's actually giving 12 days. He's not counting the day he mails it and then he's not counting the meeting day. So we're saying with the way that Eric's process is he's giving it 12 days. So if we get another Z.A. in here, another planner, it's not going to be 12 days. And if he's giving 12 days now and able to make make the 30 days work, then let's do the 12 days to give a couple extra days to a land owner to come home from vacation, whatever to get the notice to review it before the meeting. It's a little bit less harsh than taking away one third of what's currently out there for notifying adjacent land owners. Well, so I guess I just I I personally think that we don't need to get into all that stuff if a new zoning administrator as straighter comes in, he's still going to put the 10 day notice. And whether he does that in 12 days or 10 days, it doesn't matter. The key is that the property owner is properly warned. And so what I what I had been saying was that could potentially be I was thinking that it could be interpreted in a way that it was effectively only eight if you included those those kind of grace days that where it's the day of the meeting occurs and the day it's mailed, if that was included in the tent could actually be really only eight days that somebody would have to be warned. Right. And apparently that meets statute. Yeah. So so so maybe maybe it's there's something about, you know, a budding land owners 10 so postmark. I guess what I would what I would add to this is that whatever number this says, I'm going to add two days to it regardless. So if you say 12 days, I'm going to make it 14 for my own. Yeah. And I and yeah. And I think that's a great process. And I just but I I'm with that. Yeah, I'm just saying not with that not being actually written into anything that I'm worried that that might not always be protocol. But because I I guess I'm I'm thinking of this because the PRC, this is really the only recourse that anyone who is being as for for opportunity to express any issues. Actually, that's not true. I'm going to I'm going to push back on that. Sure. Was really this is the project review committee is is a it's still part of the administrative review process. Yeah. Ultimately, whatever they say, it their their comments are just offered as as advisory comments. So I am still ultimately make a decision. Hang on. We got some some jets going over right over Terry's house. Yep, they're they're coming here now. So and they seem to be going out these nights in two or three waves. So yeah, we had at least six last night. Yeah, it might have been I can't hear things. I don't know what you guys just said myself. And I couldn't hear a thing all the time. I'm out there. What is the problem? Because you guys couldn't see that I was like. Actually, I wonder where you were. I couldn't hear anything. Right. OK, I think they're so repeat what you just said here, please. Yep, absolutely. So the project review committee is an advisory meeting. The the decision is still ultimately an administrative decision of the zoning administrator, whoever that may be at the time that they're there. So the property still gets posted for the 15 day notice. There is still the right to appeal that decision to the Development Review Board. So just like any other zoning zoning permit that goes on in the city, there is still that process that's built in to to appeal and to to to, yeah, to appeal a permit. The difference here is that, given that these projects are in the gateway, there was a decision made to at least notify the property owners that are near it, that that that an application do the direct outreach to these these adjacent property owners of the application that's been submitted. Right now, for an administrative permit, no adjacent property owners get notified directly. They just they only know about it by seeing the the card that's posted on the property where the where the permit has been requested. So again, the project review committee meeting is not a. Minutes are not recorded. We're not those aren't binding comments that are made. They're just advisory comments that I can as the zoning administrator, build in as conditions to an administrative approval. Why are the minutes not recorded? Because it's not a meeting, technically. It's not a formal meeting. So there's nothing. Well, it says meeting right there. Is a meeting in this area. I don't mean to be you, but like really, it is a meeting, but it's not a standing committee of the it's it's not a standing committee of the city. Therefore, there's no those open meeting requirements of recording minutes, etc. Don't don't apply to this to the project review committee.  Basically, yes. And the mayor, the mayor just put a chat. It's a staff meeting and that's really what it is. And for a little background, when this came up, there was going to be no warning or reach out to to abutting landowners. And we went on to the council. We said, no, we got to have some protection in there for abutting landowners. And we put that requirement in. So as Eric said, this is this is a provision to allow the butters to be aware of what's going on and be able to go to the meetings, which are, I think, air for about, I'm right, they're generally during the day. I think they are always during the day. Typically they are in the day. Yeah. So it's just another where another place that the butters can come in and voice any opinions they have about the project. And hopefully that the zoning administrator takes those comments and if they're valid comments, the approval reflects that. But as long as the project meets the requirements of the form-based code, there's not a whole lot that Eric can do other than put some conditions on. Am I accurate on that, Eric? Yes, that's correct. Okay. I think we can move on. Can we move on? I can. Well, I guess- Abby and Joe, are you okay moving on? Yeah, I guess so. I mean, I guess I would ask the question, are we okay with going with changing that to 10 days instead of 15? Well, it seems like we're kind of, you're kind of backed into a corner with this 30 days, with the state statute, right? So it's not really, there's not much you can do, really, right? I can't extend that timeline. Right, so that's what I'm saying. So like, yeah. Eric, if I'm an abutting landowner and I can't make the PRC meeting, can I send you comments? Yes, absolutely. And all the materials for the projects in the gateway are posted to the website. The notices get, when the notices go out, there's a link to that information and we also make it available at City Hall for anybody that wants to stop in to look at it as well. So they're given, the notices also include information about where they can find the documents related to the project as well. Would it help if under B, we put a little wand, you know, abutting property owners can attend the meeting and to or can send comments to the zoning administrator in lieu of attending or something like that. It probably says that on the notice, right? Just so it's clear here. Yeah, the notice does include information on how they can participate. I'm happy to include it here as well, if that... I think so, so it's here? Yeah, that's fine and that can give some guidance for what the notice needs to, what that letter to the adjacent property owners needs to have in it, that's fine. Okay. I'll reiterate my concern, which Joe has already brought up, but the way statute is written as EA can send out a notice and that's considered day one. So somebody could not even receive the notice till day three, you know, potentially. If they're out of town that week, they don't get the notice. So I just want it to be written in a way that if it's, if Eric's counting a day before and a day after that somebody comes in behind him and doesn't have the same process that we're not tripping the property owner out of the opportunity to be available to see a notice. So knowing that state statute counts the day you put it in the mail, it's really just Eric changing the way he thinks about it and moving it to a 12-day notice because he's still doing a 12-day notice with the written in 10-day process. Yeah, that's what Eric's doing. Yeah. And so, I mean, realistically, if there's a project that's gonna raise the ire of the neighbors, if I'm one of the neighbors and I'm on vacation and this comes through, probably one of my neighbors is gonna reach out to me and say, hey, you know what's going on? Only if they're budding, Mike. What's that? Only if they're budding. It only goes to budding neighbors. That means there's two neighbors. Understood. Two neighbors. But if, yeah. And if the abutter is one of a neighborhood, I'm just using an example. And the abutter gets it, he's gotta reach out to the neighbors then that don't get the notice. Yeah, and that's Mike. That's actually what I kind of know how this information gets disseminated in neighborhoods. And that's kind of why I'm thinking that narrowing that window is kind of a somewhat dangerous thing for residents. But what Eric did describe makes sense to me. I just, I like his protocol and I just kind of wish that there was a way to sort of codify that a little bit. Does that make sense? I think the 10 is fine. I would just like it to, if there was a way to make what Eric described kind of the official procedure. Does that make sense, Eric, or is that just throwing you for a loop? I mean, I can write something in if that's what you all want to do. Otherwise we can just leave it at 15 days and it's 15 days. And we move on and don't, I mean, I'm more concerned about missing our statutory requirement of taking action in 30 days. Right. Because if we miss that window, it doesn't matter if we give the adjacent property owners six months to know about the project. Exactly.  So I'm more concerned about making sure that we don't miss that window than I am about the adjacent property owners getting direct notification because they will still have the appeal process that's outlined in statute if they so choose. Okay. That makes sense, I guess I'm more comfortable with that now. But I'm happy to change this, however you all see fit. What's the wishes of the commission? You want to keep it 10, do you want to move it to 12? Do you want to put it back to 15? I wish it was 15, but I think Eric is being very reasonable by saying 10. So I personally, as much as I don't like it and I wish there was more notice, I wish it was 60 days instead of 30 days. I feel like he's backed into a corner about what to do. So I think it's reasonable what he's proposing. I agree. I would suggest at a minimum putting the language the mayor put in the chat at minimum. So that would give at least 10 days, giving the mail one day to get to the person, giving that person 10 days to review. Oh, I see. So put in the notice in the mail 10 days before the date of the meeting. You see that in the chat? There's something. Yeah. Okay. I think the mayor solved this. We can move on. Okay. Okay. We have three minutes to my deadline, Eric. Right on. You're doing great. There's only two more pages. Don't worry about it. Right. Okay. So then to that same point in item D here, deleting the business days because that violates statute. Yeah. And then also just adding in the language that within 30 days, but after that project review committee meeting that the ZA will take action so that there's some hook to make sure that that meeting happens before anything else can be actioned. I think that way there's not a decision being made before the meeting. Basically it was the reason for including that language. Since it is an administrative decision still ultimately for these projects. Then under number five, again just spelling out certificate of conformity as a defined word. And then I've added this issuance of a zoning permit because it wasn't really clear previously to me if a zoning permit was also issued or just the certificate of conformity sufficed as that kind of permitting document. So this just clarifies that you will also get a zoning permit, the formal permit document when you, after you get a certificate of conformity, that's the next step. Let's see. Okay. And then this is just some additional clarification that who would get the notification of appeal, whether it be the clerk or the secretary. We have a secretary of the DRB similar to the secretary of the planning commission. We don't have a clerk currently, but not to say that we couldn't. So just adding in that, and then referring back to the appeal process that's outlined in article six of the regulations where we talk about how to go through the appeal, what's all required with the appeal, et cetera, et cetera. Just at a, what is a clerk as far as like one of these is that somebody who's actually is a paid position by the city to fill that role or? Well, so we don't have a clerk of the development review board. Right. So some municipalities may, I think it's just, I look at it more of kind of an interchangeable term with the secretary of the board, not necessarily, I wouldn't call our secretaries by any stretch. They do much more than that. Okay. As far as the DRB is concerned, I think it's basically the same position, I think. Okay. We don't call them the clerk. Yeah, I get that. That's why I'm just wondering why clerk is even there. Yeah, I'm not sure. I think it may be a reference to statute, quite frankly. It does show up in other parts of our regulations as well as the clerk. That's fine. Okay. Well, Eric, I'm going to intercede because I got 746, I think is what it reads. Yes, that's what it says. Oh. So maybe this is a good place to stop for tonight. We can, if you all choose, that's fine with me. Would people like to continue on or would you like to stop and get into other business and city business? In the interest of time and staying on task with the meeting, I would like to get on with the other business. So that would end on time. Okay. Is everyone okay with that? Yep. Okay. So let's move on to city updates. I think is the, there it is. City updates, Eric or mayor? I'll do some updates quick since I am currently unmuted. So for me, just a couple of brief updates. The parking study, the unified planning work program, parking inventory analysis and management plan, we're having our next advisory committee meeting. Terry, you should have gotten notification about that. I did. Yep. The next advisory committee meeting will be on April 28th. That will be, we'll send out materials to our social media feeds and front porch form, et cetera, when we have the agenda finalized for that. I think things have been going well with the data collection. I had a meeting about everything yesterday. So that project is moving along. There was a survey that was sent out on for residents and whoever really to provide some feedback on their actual parking habits. So if you haven't seen that, I'll be happy to forward you a link to that survey. Can you, do you know how many people have actually responded to that survey? So yeah, actually we talked about it yesterday. I believe yesterday. So the survey has been out for only about a week, I think. We've had almost 200 people respond so far. That's pretty good. Yeah, it's really good. Are we gonna post that to front porch form again? I just feel like there's so many tons and there's, I know there's people like Amy doesn't even read front porch forum, you know? So like, I just wonder how to reach more people. 200 people is great, but there's like, how many people live in the city that drive, you know? Yeah, we can send it out again. And we can include it again. Can you forward it to us as well? Can I send it? Can I post it on front porch form? I think if you have the link, you should be able to, yeah. I mean, is it okay, I guess, is what I'm asking. Oh, absolutely. Yep, it's a quick survey. Absolutely, yep. Okay, okay. I'm gonna do that then. I'll just find the link and do it, but yeah. Eric, I don't know if you heard me. Can you send it to us? Yep, I'll send it to you all. Thanks. I think Christine did. So that meeting is on the 28th of April. Let's see. Our next meeting is scheduled for April 22nd, I believe. So be on the lookout for information on that. And those, yes, those are the two items I have for city updates. Okay. Christine, do you have anything for us? I do. So on Monday, we appointed our city manager search committee, which I'm very excited to get going. We'll have our first meeting on Monday. That will be publicly warned tomorrow. We also approved a fee and lieu resolution for street amenities. The staff brought to us that they're finding instances with development where they can't like fit a tree in the current green bell until we do main street or something for that effect. And so they've been like waving that requirement on projects. And now we'll be able to collect fees to support going in and putting that stuff in the future when it makes sense. We think are seeing the draft impact fee at our next meeting on the 19th. I also wanted to say. Hang on a second. Hang on. Yup. Plains. All right, while we wait for the next one. Nope, nope, never mind. Nope. Something just fell over in my house upstairs. Here comes number three. Okay. Is there one more? Yeah. I think it's like two, two, three. It's kind of the, I don't know if that's like the pattern. It's been different pattern. There are four, four, but it seems different in this night stuff. I think that's, yeah. I don't know. I wanted to thank those of you who are able to attend a sexual cultural competency training. I know there's a significant chunk of time there. And for those who could not make it, the school staff is having that as well. And so the superintendent is gonna let us know if they have any space left over. So I'll offer that up as well in the future. Was that recorded or anything, Christine? We can't. No, we weren't allowed to record it, unfortunately. That's too bad. Yeah. But it's something we might solicit again. So. Okay. It was pretty fascinating for people who didn't attend. Like if you didn't get to attend it, I would definitely recommend it even though it was a chunk of time, it was good stuff. Was that the one with the Dr. Avila? Yeah. Yeah, and I hear about some of the information that she had shared. I don't know. Maybe I'll hit her up and see if there's anything else she would suggest I pass on to people who couldn't make it. Definitely like there's stuff in there I heard of before, but really hadn't grasped the long-term impacts of to the full extent. And then the last thing is just wanted to share that Mike and Eric and I met to discuss like what information, you know, so we're waiting on the housing commission to come to us, probably it'll probably be around July with their recommendations on incentives for housing priority. So we had a discussion about what we can bring to this group in the meantime. So we're gonna collect some data from Heather, the housing commission to give to you all on like the landscape of housing in when you see and what some of the potential tools are. So we will be bringing more in for, well, we, I say, Eric will be bringing that to future meetings as we're getting ready to have that conversation with housing in a couple of months. That I think is it for me. Okay. That housing stuff, is there any regional planning? We had a meeting a couple of days ago, I guess it was, and talked about housing in the county and how things have changed over the last 15 or 20 years in terms of, you know, 15, 20 years ago, it seemed like all the affordable units were in Winooski in Burlington. And now other communities are stepping up and putting in affordable housing units. Is there any kind of tie-in to that information with what's happening regionally or just specific to Winooski? I unfortunately missed that convening, but we could ask Heather to, along with the data about like when you see a specific landscape, you could ask for some regional. I think that is a good idea. Yeah. Okay. Eric, can we do that, please? And I know Regina is putting together some numbers. Someone asked about if we get some numbers of how much housing in different communities and how much affordable, how much other. So, okay. Thank you, Christine. Thanks, Eric. Can I ask? I'm gonna go to, sure. Probably to Christine, maybe Eric, I'm not sure. I noticed that down by the old Peking duck house where those apartments are now, that parking meter thing went in over there. Is that paid parking down there now? Where, just on that one street or is it all the way around the building? I don't know if it's been implemented yet, but the intent is to, I believe, go the whole way around the building. And is it gonna be re-striped? Because there's people that are parking, it's like incredibly sketchy to be on a bike down there because people are parking right up to the end where the corner is. Not seeing parking enforcement doing anything about it. Yeah, I believe once that does go to fully metered parking, it will be re-striped and enforcement will obviously be happening on. We know when that might be. I think we have it scheduled for later this year. One of the things we wanted to do is make sure that we had all the equipment in place first and get signage up. And then we wanted to provide some notification to the tenants that live there so that it just doesn't happen all of a sudden at once. But I know it should be happening in the next month or two, I believe. Okay, thanks. Okay, other business. Let's talk about, Terry brought up his last meeting, our meeting schedule, going to one meeting. I know, although it's a great idea, I think we still need to do two meetings for the foreseeable future to get through the stuff that we need to get through. So I'm not sure. I mean, at some point, we're going to want to go to one meeting a month. So, but I don't think that's going to be for the next few months anyway. So the schedule we have right now outlined for the two meetings per month gets us basically to the end of the fiscal year. So the end of June, whatever our second meeting, whatever that second, the fourth Thursday in June would be, that's as far as we've programmed out right now. So we can go further after that if we want or cut it back before then, whatever, whatever's the pleasure of the commission. May I suggest, unless there is a desire to do it in advance, but because we sort of have that reset on July 1st, and to your point, Eric, the schedule goes through the end of June. At that time, when we do like work planning, we could, so maybe it's like in June, deciding if you want to go back to one. And then when we think about work planning for the year, base it on that schedule. So we're okay with that? Yeah. Okay. All right. And then the other point is that, Christine, I think you told me myself, Tommy and Joe? It's Mike, it's you, Terry, Joe and Tommy are all up for reappointment. Your terms, when we reset everything, your terms will expire on June 30th of this year. So council will be making reappointments or basically in July for the commissions. So really, this is just a way to kind of get that for you all to be thinking, if you're interested in being reappointed, obviously the appointments are the pleasure of council. So there's no guarantee that you'll get reappointed, but showing some interest that you are, would like to be reappointed is that something we would like to know as we start preparing, staff starts preparing the information to take forward to council. So we don't need an answer tonight, but just something to think about that we will be taking that to council probably beginning of June-ish timeframe, would be my guess, so. That's a big chunk of the commission. We all get wiped out. Yeah, we have it set up for four and three. Oh, how did she mute it without even touching her computer? I did that. Oh, I was like, wow, it's cool looking at her mic. And to think we would have finished on time if it weren't for these planes interrupting us. Then I'm assuming that the way to do it is if we are interested, either way, interested or not in being reappointed to let you know via email or whatever. Yep, that'd be the best way to do it. And then I can compile that list for council. And I assume that council will be making that decision in June because the appointments will start July one. Correct. So if you're interested, either way, let Eric know, I would say, by mid to late May at the latest. Any... That's all I have for other business. Okay, anyone else have any other business? Hearing none, does someone want to make a motion to adjourn? Terry does. Is there a second? A second. All right. All in favor? Aye. Okay, thanks everyone. And we'll see you in a couple of weeks. Thanks, Eric. Thanks, Christine. Thank you all. Have a good evening. Thanks, Eric. Patience, Eric.


So now we're going to take a look at momentum as a vector. Now that momentum equation was linear momentum was p equals mv, or the mass times the velocity is going to give us our momentum. In that equation, the mass is a scalar quantity, but velocity is really a vector. And when I multiply a scalar times a vector, I get a vector quantity, which means momentum should be a vector. That means if I want to write this out in full form, I need to specify that both momentum and velocity are vectors. Whenever we have a vector, we can break it down into the components for each direction. Now in this case, we have the possibility of having an x, a y, and possibly a z for our directions for the velocity. And if you have x, y, and z velocity components, you have the corresponding x, y, z momentum components. If I was going to write this out as a vector equation, again, our vector equations use the i hat, j hat, and k hat to help show us the direction. And so we just have the individual components in each one of those directions. I could also write it out as the mass times the velocity for each one of the components. If all I care about is the magnitude, then I could calculate that from my components. And this is going to be using my standard Pythagorean theorem. Again, if I only have x and y, I can leave off the z. That's my more familiar form of the Pythagorean theorem for a triangle. But if I do have three components, I square each of the components, add them together, and take the square root. But I can also relate this back to speed. Explicitly, the mass times the magnitude of the velocity, which is also known as the speed, will give me the magnitude of the momentum. So the magnitude of the momentum is the mass times the speed. And this is if I don't care about the direction. And this is actually where our original equation that we started off this presentation using. Because most textbooks don't use the absolute value signs to indicate magnitude, they simply use a plain font symbol without the vector area on top. Now if I do care about the direction, what's important to realize here is that whatever direction I have for the velocity, that's the direction I'm going to have for the momentum as well, because the mass will not affect the direction. What about change in momentum? Some of the equations we're going to be working with are going to use this delta p or the change in momentum. In that case, I need to keep in mind that this is a vector subtraction. So direction matters when I look at my final momentum compared to my initial momentum. In that case, it's probably best to work with the components or the equations, in which case I can find the change in momentum in the x direction separately from the change in momentum of the y direction. So that's how you treat momentum as a vector.