Montpelier Development Review Board - September 8, 2026 [MDRB]

I hereby call this meeting of the DRB to order on September 8th, 2026. Um, and I guess we begin with introductions. >> Um, so Kevin >> Okonnell, member Meredith Crannle, staff. Elvie Adana, chair. >> Rob Goodwin, vice chair. >> Joe Karen, board member. >> Then I think we can turn to you, Meredith, for a staff review of the remote meeting procedures. >> Yep. I'm going to share my screen. We don't actually have anyone except for Orca on remotely. So, I'm going to keep this pretty brief. Our applicant is here in person tonight. Me just make sure that comes up. Okay. All right. So, find my cheat sheet. Um, for anyone viewing tonight's development review board meeting via Orca Media, you can participate in tonight's discussion through the Zoom platform. For the full video experience, you'll want to type this link into your web browser. Um, alternatively, uh, you can dial in from any telephone using this phone number and when prompted, put in this meeting ID and passcode. Um either one of those will let you um hear everything that's going on in the meeting and be able to talk to us. If you want us to be able to see you, you need to do the Zoom meeting option um and do the full video link. If you're trying to access the meeting and are having problems, please email me at mcrandlepillar-vt.org. I will be monitoring my email throughout the meeting. Um, if anyone decides to tune into the meeting over Zoom, note that turning on your video is optional. Um, we do ask that people keep their microphones on mute when you're not speaking. This will help reduce background noise. Um, and note that the Zoom chat function should only be used for troubleshooting or logistics questions. Anything on an actual item on tonight's agenda, any comments or questions about those need to be made verbally. Um, in the event the public is unable to access tonight's meeting, and I'd find that out via my email, then the meeting will need to be continued to a time and place certain. I'll now hand the meeting over to our chair. Um, all right. Uh, so in that case, I guess we are looking to approve the agenda. Um, is there a motion to approve the agenda with a minor correction to the list of members in the final version >> or to the role of members, I would say? >> Yeah, I have uh I didn't update the chair and vice chair notes. >> I'll make a motion to uh to approve the agenda for this evening with that minor correction that was just discussed. A second. >> Okay. So, Rob seconds and then I guess all in favor >> I >> Great. We have an agenda and we can move forward. I have no comments except to say that this is my first meeting chairing. So, bear with me. Uh and I welcome your comments and guidance to keep us on track. Um, and yes, >> you're doing great so far. >> Um, then I think the next item on the agenda relates to uh the report on the previous meeting's deliberative action regarding 144 Elm Street. >> Yep. >> And I can report on that. Excellent. Um, so that decision, I can't remember the date off the top of my head, but that decision has been was signed, finalized, gone out. Um and because there were pre-ermit conditions, the um applicants are working on those on getting the um official new photos taken of the site, but they've been gathering historic information um and are really close to getting me that. So close to getting that permit actually issued. >> Great. >> Thank you. Uh and then I guess we can continue on to this hearing um which is for 567 Hill Street um relating to steep slopes. And uh I think at this point we can probably just swear in anyone who wishes to speak which would appear to be exclusively you. So you can come up to the table in the round. Um Jacob um and just try and make sure you talk into the microphone so that um that helps with the minutes. And for anybody listening remotely, um we do have people who actually watch these meetings streamed live over Orca Media as well as go through um and listen to the recordings. >> So I guess if you just want to go ahead and state your name for the record. >> My name is Jacob Rogan. I am the owner operator of Rogan Design Build and I want to build this project. >> Okay. and then uh we can swear you in. Let me find my text. Oops, I've lost it. Aha, here we go. Uh, do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury? >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. Um, and so then we can I think we turn to a staff report. Is that correct? >> I'll just give a I'll give a little little staff summary. >> Okay. >> Um, and really I just stick to >> why it's here report. Um, we've seen a lot of these over the years. Um, and so this is a a addition to a building and it's involving slopes of greater than 30%. And so I don't have the authority to approve it. Um, because it is such a small project. Um, I I did send this forward to you as a complete application, but without having the engineered design for that foundation aspect actually be stamped. um and hold off on a few of the other costs that would be associated with moving forward. Those things are called out in the staff report um items in the slopes and the erosion control that are things that I think should um be required before a permit's issued. Um you know, it's your role to all double check what I've done and and see if you see any other holes. Um, but the there really just three items that I've called out in here that I think to comply with the rags would need to be required before a permit's issued. Um, but it has to come before the board. Uh, so then we can turn the floor over to you to just tell us a little bit more about the project. Um, and then we may have some follow-up questions. >> Yeah. Okay. >> And if there's anything from the application that you want me to show on the screen, I can show that. But they have seen the whole packet. um as you've presented it to with the plans. >> So, these are clients that I've worked for in the past. They want another bedroom and we've developed this plan to create that bedroom. It does also involve renovation to a bathroom and some renovations to a bedroom that are just addressing moisture issues. Um, and I was I've not been in front of a DRB meeting. I've not worked in Montpielar extensively. I was unaware of the steep slope and became aware of it with Meredith. Then hired DeWolf and Dewolf provided the simple engineering. I assume that I can just go back to them and say we need it stamped and then pay. like there's no problem with paying whatever it costs. Um, so all this is pretty new to me and I'm just trying to follow whatever uh is required. So um I'm understanding that there needs to be erosion control. I understand the point of that and I think that we can execute that and um I would be very happy to provide I mean it's very small it's like this edition is you know like 12 by 16 or something like that um and it's pretty minimal um change to the site. I mean there's like ferns and like native plants and the helical pier plan didn't work. So now it is more disruptive. you know, we would like dig to ledge and then you know, pin the footings to ledge and then um you know, follow the engineered instructions with structural fill blah blah. And then um the clients want the area that's disturbed to be covered with um essentially like the roadbased map. I mean matte like weed barrier but like the heavy duty stuff and then um crushed stone. So I actually think that you know once that's been completed it would there would be no erosion you know it's like all the disturbed areas would be like covered in crush stone then they would like you know plant into that as they wanted like you know trees or I don't know what they're going to do with it. Um but certainly under the footprint of the building would definitely be crushed stone and the um like the heavy uh filter fabric and the grade was 38°ish >> because of like how high the slope comes onto the building. And that'll actually be reduced. It'll probably end up at like might be even like 20%. Like it's it's strange how it's like it's actually quite high on this section of the field fieldstone foundation higher than the grade in the adjacent areas. So it'll become uh or well we would like it to become you know reduced at the building by like a foot which would make it um make sense with the grades adjacent to it. So the great and then also on the downs slope side um you know there's material that would be removed um and it would bring up the grade on the downs slope side and then you know everything slopes away from the building. definitely is like not any water that be directed back toward the building and it's just a quite large lot, you know. It's >> Mhm. There's no uh neighbors or buildings. So, I guess I would I would I would imagine that the the water coming off of the building would go into the crushed stone and you know, it would be um like the slope that's beyond that is it's it's only actually the steep slope is only like literally underneath the building that it's like that 38° slope. >> So when you go like a couple feet past the building, it's actually like like a moan uh area, right? So it's not um that water would be traveling really fast there. >> Yeah. Page seven in the staff report shows the one foot lighter information um for board members that are here. Okay. So 38% calculation from the math calculation or did you have on the ground measure? >> No. No. Yeah, that was I came to Meredith. She said, "Oh, it's like flagged a steep slope. Go measure it." So I basically >> followed the instructions and like staked and ran a string. >> I mean, at this point when I did it, there was not a lot of vegetation either, so it was like pretty easy. >> Yeah. and then just basically had a level and measured rise and run and just followed the calculations and boom, there was the 38. >> Yeah. And that's that's in the specifically just the disturbed area. So, it's a very small area of 38% slopes. >> Yeah. Did we did we get an estimate on the square footage of that? >> The building is like 12 by 16. um the heated space and then there's like a deck that's like >> but the percent that's of of that that's >> I think that it's um in here at the percent of >> yeah like what 25% 30% of the building >> under the distri under the where the addition's going >> no it's got to be way less than that didn't do that >> I mean if you take a look so the the image I have up on the screen which is in the application >> shows about where the addition And then the little deck sort of off to the side is going to go. >> Um, and then if you look at page seven of the staff report, you can sort of match up >> that with the one foot lighter. So there's there's a significant area underneath there that's that higher 30% or higher slopes. >> Sure. >> Um, >> but it's really running on the like right when you're looking at the image on the screen right now, the right half of the addition. Yeah, where red is approximately correct. >> Yeah, right about in there >> um is where the steepest slopes are, but then it does um level out here and that's all downhill. >> Yep. >> Yeah, it's not nearly that steep in any of those other slopes. >> It's quite quickly like way way less than that. It's just, you know, for for where the bedrooms are on the house, you stick a bedroom off your kitchen necessarily um to put it on the the flatter parts of the property. Um well seems like our in the staff report here really that we have one key question and that it's you know does this or does not meet the criteria of uh subsection H and um I um seems like the applicant is willing to go the engineered plan route doesn't seem like a hurdle that is um you know you indicated I've seen I'm seeing nodding that that's not a hurdle for you. Um the only thing for the board really to discuss would be if we us to come to some sort of finding if this is you know steep subs doesn't actually apply here and like they have to do nothing and I think we agree that the it's greater than 30% you found from data uh it applies. >> Um I'm looking at this list in subsection H. I don't feel the need to go through every single one. I think your testimony was very uh you know detailed about your project and the uh and um you know I think and then I think some of these uh you just don't really apply to a project of this um this scale um I guess um and um so I Wayne way I see this is the board has a decision of whether we feel like it's appropriate to require an engineer plan report and uh I Uh well, I can also just offer that >> we've already hired the engineers and like regardless we're going to execute the >> Yeah. >> the foundation plan. >> There is ledge and like the reason why helical peers were specified was like, oh, there's a deck right around the corner and that had helical peers. But I also talked to that installer and like they freaking hit the ledge and then had to basically like pin to ledge, right? So, >> um, you know, it's definitely a superior plan and you know, we'll we'll do this for the foundation for sure. Um, I wasn't really aware of the ledge, you know, at the when when helical peers were like specified. Um, and I mean basically, you know, we we've paid for the engineering, everybody's in agreement that we're going to do this. It's like it doesn't make that much sense. We're not going to save a lot of money by like having the helical peers, you know? I mean, it's like not simple for them either to >> pin a ledge. So, you know, we're basically going down the, you know, cast in place, pinned to ledge um peers route. >> So then essentially we're just um aiming to meet the requirement uh for an engineered plan to have a stamp. >> Yeah. >> And to have the statement of no undue adverse effect, right? Effectively. Yeah. >> Um it's sort of like tying it up with a little bow that the regulations just require once you get that requirement. >> Um and that's the same with the, you know, professional erosion control plan. It doesn't say what professional. >> Um but >> I've dealt with the wolf a little bit here and there >> and just from my take on it, it was like a younger person in the staff who was doing this. And so I would just imagine if I say, "Oh, we need it to be stamped." Then that just means that it's like, "Oh, somebody's higher has to actually like put their eyeballs on it." >> Yeah. >> Um and that's fine. >> Got purchased actually >> the boy. >> Yeah. >> Really? I did not hear that. >> To to wolf cut purchase. >> Wow. >> Actually, in like the the billing and everything, it said >> such >> it is. Um, well, as long as they're keeping the same DeWolf staff, our office has worked with the wolf a lot on these things. So, it's usually not a big deal to have somebody stamp it and get the it's, you know, like a two paragraph letter. >> Um, >> and then for the erosion control plan, which they'll get to, but that doesn't have to be done by DWolf. It's just a professional. >> So, um, we we've had contractors, the general contractor for the project do those before. Okay. Um, and just for the board's um, understanding, when you do require those and it hasn't had DPW review before you see it and it wasn't part of the project for those erosion control plans, I do run those by DVW just because there are in-house erosion control experts. >> Okay. Um yeah, I think just picking up on your your testimony, you did mention the plan for uh you know, reveating and stabilizing the you know, the area, which I think is uh you know, it's important um that you got a plan for it. Uh and so by default, that'll sort of become part of your your permit because um you know, it's part of your plan. And certainly there'd be some places that they didn't want to have the crushed stone and that would just get seated and >> um you know mulched. >> Yeah. So really from my end like the main question is when can we start? And I, you know, as speaking with Meredith, um, I understand that, um, approval would be kind of provisional, like it, uh, needs to be then posted for a period of time, but it's also like during that period of time when it's posted that it's possible to start work with the caveat that like if there was some issue that we would have to basically like >> that's the put it all that's the permit posting >> okay the permit yeah >> sorry I don't quite understand >> the so you guys okay if I talk about this process thing right now so procedure-wise right the hope is that tonight the board >> gives gives, you know, a a conditioned approval where there are these other steps that have to happen. >> And then once those steps happen, then I can issue the permit. >> Yep. >> Um and then ultimately, yeah, once you've got the permit in hand, anything you do within the appeal period from there is at your own risk. Yeah. But it's not a DRB decision and then you can move forward. It >> wait till you have the permit in hand. Um but then yes, if it gets appealed and somebody won the appeal. >> Yeah. >> Stuff might have to be get torn out, right? There's there's cases where people are like, "Nope, you built an addition. It's too close to the property line. You have to now tear apart your addition." >> You know, you're not you're not talking about really close to the property line here. So >> let's just say that you know I called the wolf tomorrow I make like the sketch of the engineering I mean the erosion control the wolf says we'll get right on it you know and it's like I get this >> you can get >> the following day and I get it to you like >> then then how long >> then then it's the written decision right because they'll make a verbal decision yeah >> yay or nay tonight if it's yay >> then we still have to do the written decision if you get me everything else. All any any items that are conditions >> y >> that are, you know, pre-permit conditions, you get me those before the written decision comes out. Everything gets issued at the same time. >> So, >> but that's not like >> it could it could happen like I get you everything. >> Yeah. >> It doesn't have to go all the way to the next DRB. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> No. And I and I feel quite strongly that we would be leaning towards um approving with these conditions that we've discussed at the stamped um >> engineered report the statement of no undue negative impact and then we haven't talked so much about um the erosion control plan but you've referenced it yourself um so that if we were to agree um to issue approval with those conditions then you would be complying ing as rapidly as you wish. >> Yeah. And and this is this is a short this is a very short report and a lot of my converting this to any kind of decision is going to be erasing sections. So this is not one that would take long. >> Okay. Excellent. Um yeah, I guess one last thing just for the discussion here is is that um >> I um yeah kind of feel like we should be leaning towards requiring certificate of compliance um across the board. It's not something that we're required to do as a board, >> but I think that um yeah, just like in its I don't know, we don't need to spell out in the motion exactly what it is. I think that we've got well certificate of compliance we've got some criteria as to like stock language of what that calls for. >> So we have we have just a form that's a certificate of compliance that is just um a certificate of compliance is that I have to inspect something before it is moves into being used. >> Right. Um, and I inspect to make sure it actually complies with the findings of the the decision and the applicable zoning regulations. So, there was a certificate of compliance for the um memory care edition on the Gary residence on Main Street. Um and both for zoning and I think both for zoning and for river hazard on that one. Um for river hazard I have to check elevations and and you know floodgates and all that stuff. For zoning um it would be basically that it was you know built in compliance at the erosion control um matting and whatever else was required is down um for some of those. There's also for zoning there will be sort of interim spot inspections sometimes where I just coordinate with the building inspector because building in we have a building inspector who will check out the site and make sure the electrical is all done and all of those things. So, it's not I I don't think you have to throw in really specific language about what >> the certificate of compliance checks on it's unless there's one particular item that you're really concerned with, but otherwise I just make sure that it's deemed built um in compliance with the regs and the application is submitted. So that means that effectively a certificate of compliance is a default mechanism. >> No, >> it well it's not a default anymore. It used to be pre 2018. Every single zoning permit automatically had a certificate of compliance requirement. >> In 2018, they made it an optional condition of approval that only applies if the DRB specifies it in the >> conditions of approval at the end of the decision. So, um, >> do you know why that changes most? >> Um, because I think they felt because because we'll issue a zoning permit for a sign, >> right? We'll issue a zoning permit for um, you know, a little deck or something or Yeah. Yeah. And and it used to be it applied to everything. >> You built you built a, you know, 120 foot shed, you had to get a certificate of compliance. couldn't use the shed until you had me come and inspect it, even if it didn't need a building permit. >> Is that similar to certificate of occupancy? >> So, that's for the building code, but yes, a certificate of compliance is similar to a certificate of occupancy, um, but it's zoning instead of building. Um, and anytime where there is a building permit required as well as one of my certificates of compliance, we coordinate and we try and do inspections at the same time and and and try and do all those things together so that it's not extra steps. It's just one extra form pretty much and there's no added um Oh, shouldn't say that. Uh, so something for the board to consider. >> Yep. And it's going to depend a lot on tomorrow night's city council meeting, but it comes into play for how you decide on this for the smaller project. Um there is a proposal going before city council tomorrow for updated permit planning department permit fees. Um, and there I think it includes a potentially adding a fee if they do have to get a certificate of compliance for a zoning permit. Um, because it will entail an extra step, extra paperwork, extra visit that we don't necessarily do right now. um right now are river hazard permits. Those fees include a certificate of compliance in there because I already every single river hazard permit has a certificate of compliance associated with it. >> So if we required a certificate of compliance in this particular decision, is it possible that it would fall under the new pricing structure and come with a fee? >> It is possible that when they applied for that certificate of compliance, there might be a fee added. I don't know if it will or not. There's a lot of hot debate going on about um planning department fees and fees structure and whether there's there's a lot of discussion about that. So I have no idea what's going to happen tomorrow night on that. >> Just to throw that into the fun. >> That's helpful helpful information. Thank you for that. >> I don't know that. Well, I think for a couple reasons. It's not my intent to actually increase the workload of the zoning department here. I think the intent is just to have some sort of mechanism that is a um you know we have the regulation we're requiring uh steps to be taken we're requiring an engineer plan but yet uh nowhere along the lines do we actually have any real check that you know the plan gets followed and that's just the challenge of zoning in itself. Um I think the direction I would go is just a a certification submission. Uh which is mean for instance the engineer or the contractor submits photos and say like you know here's documentation that uh you know this was built uh you know to plan which is something that happens in engineering. >> Yeah. >> So I mean that's what the certificate of compliance process is supposed to right >> provide. So a lot of like for bigger projects. >> Um, right. For I mean really all my experience is pretty much the river hazard ones. If it's a big project, I'm like, "No, you've got to submit asbuilt plans. If it's a, you know, smaller shed in the river hazard, like send me your photos so that I can see that it's properly anchored, you know, photos of however you put in the foundation." Um, that's like the new pad for the fuel tanks behind the new um, gym over here off of East State Street. Um, I was like, I've got to have photos of how that pad is pinned into the foundation and make sure everything's not going to float away. Um, so that's part of the certificate of compliance process, but like I said, I you know, I I think it's something that for the board to consider using more often. >> Yeah, I think so. >> The question is when do you want to apply it? Um, well, not knowing not knowing what's going to happen tomorrow night, I I withdraw my suggestion that we do it now. I'd like to know whether it's going to be a $10 fee or a $1,000 fee for what is condition. So, >> I agree with this project too. I also wonder what would you really be looking for? >> Well, I I I think my concern with this project is that's it's it's small enough. Something goes on wrong in the next, you know, two two weeks, three weeks and you go a completely different direction. We got this permit out here of this plan that was going to, you know, go one way and then uh Yes. >> So, this will have a building permit. >> Yeah. >> Just as a reminder, this does qualify for a building permit. And so, the city's building inspector will need to be on site multiple times through the process to confirm everything's happening. And she and I are our our when we sit at our desks, we're closer than you and I are right now. >> Yeah. No, I understand. very we I'm just saying so that I will know if something is going >> sideways or plans have to change and the permit has to be amended and for something like this if the permit had to be amended >> and it's a slopes impact it would have to come back to the board. >> Yeah. >> So just so you know for this particular application >> no I think I think we're good. I will um for a motion that the chair is ready. >> Just note the draft motion I put at the end of the staff report failed to include the statement of no undue adverse impact by accident. >> Sure. >> Did you want to >> Yes. >> comment further? >> I I would just take photos as I always do. Um for whatever it's worth, you know, like especially of things that are going to get closed up, right? So it's like where we would pinned the ledge like you know I would like take a picture of >> the footings you know before they were poured for whatever it's worth. >> I mean it >> it's good practice for you as a contractor to document that stuff for yourself. So awesome. >> Yeah. >> We can discuss this later. I mean why would you take on that liability >> doing it some other way than the way the engineer >> designed it? That doesn't make any sense. So, I guess that the the reason I bring it up is because it's, you know, the permit is not to you. The permit is not to this landowner. The permit is to, you know, to to the parcel. Uh, and so somebody, you know, down the road is buying this, you know, they're inheriting like, you know, whatever you you know, you did. >> Well, it's also a right and it's not binding to you, right? So if suddenly you have a um there's a breakdown between you and the owners and then they give the job to somebody else who doesn't necessarily follow it, right? It's on the land owners to make sure that the plans are complied with. So >> yeah, I mean I think it actually I would have liability. I mean, I built a, you know, million-dollar plus project in Callus like two years ago that was like engineered to the nth degree and once the engineers got involved, I was following that to a tea. >> Yeah. >> You know, like >> there was like the engineers never came and checked anything. >> Yeah. >> There was no oversight. I mean, in Callus, there was like nothing, you know, but >> I live in Worcester, so yeah. >> Yeah, there's actually nothing close to >> close to the Wild West. >> If something were to happen, the building falls down or whatever. That's how they go about assigning blame, though, right? So, yeah. So, like, why would you Yeah. take on >> I would have liability. >> Yeah. >> Nope. Understood. >> Um, all righty. So, yeah. I make a motion here to authorize construction of a 256 foot addition involving disturbance of steep slopes as presented in application Z 20260085. >> Oh, it's 86. I'm sorry guys, I have way too many typos on this one. >> Z 202260086 and supporting supplemental materials uh subject to the following conditions of approval. Um, prior to permanent issuance, the applicant shall supply the zoning administrator with an engineered stamp copies of foundation plans in uh for the addition and a professionally prepared erosion control plan and I will amend that to include um a that what is that statement of it? >> I think it's a statement of undue adverse effect. >> Yes. And that should also include a written statement from the engineer regard uh regarding no undue adverse effect on slope stability and safety. >> And guess all in favor? Is this a >> roll vote? >> Well, one. >> Okay, then. >> Well, discussion first. >> Oh, okay. Yeah, discussion. >> None over here. No discussion here. >> None. Well, I guess um there were possible suggestions in the staff report to require that these be submitted at a continued hearing, which I don't think anybody proposes, uh or to require DPW review and approval, but as I understand through your description, uh to a certain degree that's built into the process anyhow. Yeah. >> So, just to clarify, that's not um a condition that we wish to suggest. So, I think The motion remains and we can have a roll. Yes. >> Vote. Oh, that was your vote. Kevin votes yes. >> Well, my vote is yes. >> Okay, >> just in case. >> Then Alvier votes yes. >> Rob votes yes. Joe votes yes. >> So we have unanimous approval of this motion. Thank you. Um, so I will get on the written decision as soon as possible. I'm hoping can just get this done. You have homework to do if you need um >> any, you know, input from me tomorrow on what's required, but it is kind of spelled out in the staff report. So feel free if there's any questions from they're hopefully not reconfigured but from the dwell from the engineers you can always have them just talk to me directly if they have if they're like what do you mean statement of no undue adverse effect I can send them a model of something we've had before >> but they should be control >> that would primarily be a silt fence >> I think primarily you're looking at a silt fence and also description of the receding process that you're planning okay So, um, yeah, I would do that site plan, mark out where you're planning to put the silt fence during the construction phase and when everything's disturbed to protect the downs slope areas. >> Um, and then a description of your plans for the receding or like you said, the erosion control matting with crushed stone. um and get that to me and I'll make sure to circulate it, copy you to the Department of Public Works in case they have any other any little tweaks that they want to see. >> Okay. Excellent. >> Awesome. >> That means essentially I'm free to go, right? >> Yes, you're definitely. >> Am I going to miss full stuff? >> The minutes. >> You can stay if you want. Enjoy the aura of the last meeting's minutes. >> Questions. Uh, are you a resident of Melia? >> I have been in the past, but I'm not now. >> Uh, mayor, the residents of Melior, uh, do you need to be a resident of Melia to be on the DRB? >> I don't think >> I don't think you have to be. Um but the city council I think has that as a bit of a >> um a >> informal policy that people either live in Mont be a resident or a property owner in Mont Pillar to be on the DRB. I don't think it's required. Um, so if if it was something where we were like, we're having a really hard time getting members and here's this person who has a perspective and qualifications that we could make use of. Um, then I think they might be open to somebody outside of the city. But I don't >> for me, am I going to get like famous >> and rich like >> not rich? There's no there's it's a volunteer job. >> Famous, >> very famous. >> Get on TV. You were just you were just so excited about what you might be missing coming on. I just want to make sure that you weren't losing the opportunity to come twice a month. >> I I would like to go on record that this is a quasi judicial board. Do you belong to any other quasi judicial club? >> I fun word to use. Maybe maybe watch a few videos of the meetings, the the being liveier meetings before you apply. >> Well, good job everybody. I was interested to see I've never seen this before. And uh >> yeah, >> it gets emotional sometimes. >> Oh, I imagine >> those are pretty >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. No, no neighbors with pitchforks in the audience. So, um Oh, all right. Well, good luck. Yeah. Yeah. Thanks. I will be in touch soon. >> Excellent. Thank you. >> Awesome. Thank you. Bye. >> Thank you. >> Um so minutes are next. I got everyone else get a draft copy of the minutes in a packet. >> So you should have three copies of the minutes. There should be one that's the one that's looks like it has for years. Yep. >> That is a draft done by Tammy. So what I would recommend is review that one for content. that's the one to approve or not. Okay. >> For the official version of the August 3rd minutes. Then the other two that are formatted differently are two different versions. >> Okay. >> Um produced with the assistance of the new software that the city is using for all committee minutes going forward >> throughout the city. >> Which one? These two are the two two different versions of meeting minutes. Um, and I need the board's input on which kind of format they like, the a longer format or a shorter, more condensed abbreviated format because we just make the choice in the software for the first draft about the amount of detail that should be in the descriptions of what happened. Um, and >> of the content, we are reviewing the traditional format for content. >> Review that one for content and do a vote on that. And then you can look at the other two and it's all based on the same meeting, right? Just so you can sort of get a sense of of how it's going to the kind of detail that they'll pull forward. Um, I will be re viewing the draft minutes still. there'll still be the human element for somebody before you reviewing it to go through and make sure things are correct. Um, but it will mean that we're going to want to try and be very very clear about who makes motions, who votes on them, um, as the the software is learning people's voices and everything like that to be able to follow through on what's happening during these meetings. So then do we have a motion to approve the minutes of the August 3rd meeting in the content that exists in the traditional format? >> I move to approve the August 3rd minutes. A second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I. >> So we have unanimous approval of those human human produced notes. Tammy Fury's last minutes. >> Oh. >> Oh. Well, >> she had to leave. Um and so, um not our choice, her choice. Um and so we had to find an alternative and there were a lot of issues with um various committees having a hard time getting their minutes together or having them have sufficient information. And so we said, why don't we just get the software for every single committee >> across the city? >> Great. So then in looking at the two alternative formats, the longer form and shorter form, could you maybe address the risks and benefits in terms of public record? >> Because to me that seems like a potential >> because these are these are the minutes that would go on Yeah. file permanently, >> right? So there is a minimum requirement for minutes that it include who attended, right? The the time the when the meeting opened, who attended um and any motions that were made and the results of those votes. Um those are like the bare minimum of what needs to be in minutes. Um the short form is more you know is closer to that. We I did ask that there be some sort of you know section headings somehow um for those. Um I can play around with direction we give on how those headings look like or insert headings after we get the draft depending on what you want. um for the development review board and the design review committee because for both of those we have um the opportunity for public comment. Um, I have in my eight years here tried to make sure that not only did we say who spoke on or testified about a specific application, but try and give some at least a sentence about the general topics on which they were discussing. Not just that they spoke on X application but that they raised X Y andZ concerns or asked about you know whatever topics because there are times when someone will raise questions or ask something but what they've asked about or the things that they've raised is not mentioned in the decision because it does not actually go to one of the provisions that's within the board's jurisdiction. They it will still be reflected that they testified at the at the meeting in the decision because we have to send copies of the decisions to them. So, they're in the CC at the very bottom of the decision. Anybody who spoke who was not on the applicant's team um has a specific listing of them at the bottom and at the top of the the decision as well. We list everybody who attended, but it doesn't necessarily say what concerns they raised. So, I try in the minutes to have a little bit of what concerns they raised so that the minutes do reflect what happened at that meeting. The decision is your all findings, right? Findings of fact, findings of law. That doesn't necessarily cover all the topics that are discussed at a meeting. So, it's sort of to to see what fully happened at a meeting. you look at the minutes and you look at the decision to try and put those together. The decision is the thing that is binding in law >> on the permit. But I think having personally I think having minutes that reflect a little bit of what else may have been discussed that's not shown in the decision um is a courtesy to the public that came and made the effort to attend the meeting. >> That's my personal feeling on it. >> Yeah. It it doesn't it doesn't have to be in there as long as we said these five people spoke on the application. >> Yeah. I think just keeping it pretty general like concerns about erosion, concerns about you know screening like just and not trying to sort of regurg. >> Yeah. >> Which is what the existing format does, >> right? >> With with humans, right? With Tammy. Tammy gets sends me her draft or sends me her draft and then I would go through and compare it to my notes, right? And I take notes every me meeting to try and give a description. >> This does this fall category of category of >> well no Tammy had to leave and we we trying to find someone to do that as a human to do the first draft. I do not. Nobody, no city staff has the ability to do these. I've actually had to get somebody from the Historic Preservation Commission to take over meeting minute drafting for that commission. I used to do those up until the last like six months. Okay. Or less than a year. >> I would I drafted all of the HBC minutes from scratch. I've stopped being able to do that. I just don't have the bandwidth. >> Understood. >> So, yeah. >> Where does the uh video come into play? So the video not all not all of the city's committees and commissions have a video record that lasts forever. planning commission, city council, DRB, DRC have their I don't think anybody else maybe Orca started doing housing committee, but Orca hosts those recordings >> like there's an archive >> there's an archive of those that's hosted by >> or legally it doesn't need to be preserved. >> Um not once the minutes are up. >> Yeah. Okay. Um and so other committees that might use Zoom recording to help them draft the minutes or have been um that recording is gone after I think it's 30 days. Zoom only keeps those for a certain period of time. So the full record of other other committees is just the minutes and there are development review boards where the decision is the minutes >> and there's no other separate written decision. And so what happens is when the DRB approves the minutes at their next meeting, that's when there's the official written decision and it's final. You know, I've um I'm familiar with a housing co-op in South Burlington where the minutes were always an issue >> and they switched it to be compiled by AI >> and it's beautiful. >> Well, that's what this is. >> Yeah, >> this is an AI. These are AI generated minutes that I actually didn't go through and tweak almost anything. That's like I didn't realize this. I fixed it in one. Um it's not recognizing the apostrophe in Okonnell. So I have to go through and fix cursing. >> I do. I do. It's it's a lifelong affliction >> wearing of plaid shirts so that >> it tied up a bank account once, you know, not it was ridiculous. So um so there will still be you know I will be going through improving these and and making tweaks but the the AI will actually be learning as we go as to you know whose voices are whose how that all works out. We we'll need to be actually telling it I'll have to go through in some of these and tell it who made certain motions and it will learn over time. But it the way this sets up it's actually really handy. It does a draft and it calls out any motions that were made and you have to for each motion there's an action to approve it. You can adjust the text, make sure it calls out if it didn't catch who voted um who made the motion, who seconded it. Then I it calls that out for me so that I can go in and have to manually approve all of those before it then creates a printable, you know, preliminary draft that I can print out and proofread and then make edits to separately. >> Does the city adopt a policy on AI use? >> Um there's there's going to be some discussion about that, I think. But if you look um at the very end um of these, we're going to make sure it has this footer respectfully submitted planning department staff with drafting assistance from AI software. And then there at the bottom, we'll also put where the video is going to be available um going forward of the meeting. So we used to have that link at the top. I haven't found a way to work it into the header. So that's down at the footer. Um, but and if you want if you want us to try and put that in the header instead, I can. We're we're kind of playing around with some of the formatting aspects, but >> I'm sure it could do it. One thing is of the various sections of things happened. >> There's a way to have uh just like timestamps. >> Yeah, I think we could do that >> because then like you can go back, you know, figure out where it was in the video if you needed to. >> That's very smart. >> Yeah, >> I'm I bet that's an option. Um, so I'll look at that. Mhm. >> Yep. >> So then really it's our preference to suggest whether we want the longer or the shorter >> guidance on that from you would be really helpful. I mean I would go for the longer personally and then add the timestamps. >> Yep. >> Yeah, I would too. >> I'd go shorter. >> Kind of kind of leaning that way too. I >> like the video exists like for a little while. like how I mean who's gonna come back and look at the meeting minutes? >> I think only >> it's gonna happen quickly though probably if someone's like looking at them they they always have the video to like see the whole thing. >> So I mean we can also you know we have four out of eight people here tonight. >> I can generate both of these again for the next meeting >> so that you can have a look >> at it if you want. Yeah, >> I would just be thinking ahead knowing that it seems as if there are a number of large potentially high-profile projects coming down the line. And um on the one hand, I think it is very important courtesy to the public to acknowledge some of the topics that were brought up even if they're not technically gerine. Um, but I also would want to minimize the possibility that somebody could be nitpicking the >> yes >> the minutes themselves and using that as fodder for battle. >> Give them what you know legally we're required to give them. Don't give them anything else that they possibly could >> use against us in some way. Why? providers. >> I mean, if if we were to comply purely with the minimum, we don't even need to include the content of the comments from the public. >> I think that that's the >> So, and and that's where I think there is a compromise because I do think you want to provide this courtesy >> to the public. But I would say at >> courtesy though, >> it is it is >> and it would only take one time of someone somehow pointing out something that we didn't need to include in the minutes and then using that in some way before we never included again. already the standard for the minutes exceeds the minimum. >> Yeah. >> Like what is already produced >> what we're already doing, right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I just think that where we can avoid publishing paragraphs because AI writes it. I mean, >> oh well, >> and I know you read it. having that having that sense of let's pair back. >> Um >> because even in this the paired back version, it's it's >> I mean, yeah, it's still fairly right. We have we have phrases like echoed concerns about the parking lot becoming a junkyard. That's in the paired back version. >> Um yeah, this is uh that's not the short version, is it? Oh, it is. Yeah, that is. Yeah, that's still in the short version. >> I mean, even the short version was >> kind of juicy. >> Yeah, the top of the second page. >> Yeah. So, I mean, that's if you >> We could definitely do this. >> The short version is great. >> I I mean, the short version is includes to to my eye the maximum amount of public input that you would possibly want. >> Yeah. Agreed. Okay, great. Then I'm happy to do the short version. I mean, I in a way I regret that because I can see that it's very it would be very useful internally to have access to like the the longer summary. >> Um especially if there are some recurring cases and so forth, but in terms of the minutes that would be the public permanent record, >> I guess I don't know. >> Have it. We can have it spit out whatever reports we want. >> Yeah, that's true. That's true. I mean, the other thing is, I mean, if if I ever need it for a decision, >> because the decision is going to happen in that 30-day window of having stuff on Zoom, Zoom has a transcript, >> transcript, right? So if I ever need that to write a decision, I can pull that tool and put it in so that I can find when things happen and be able to scan for the word and then find it on the recording or whatever to make sure I've got everything because the transcript is not always 100% because again, you know, we're all in the same microphone system. Um >> yeah. Um, so yeah. No, I can I can go with a short. Does that sound good to you, Kevin? >> The time stamp suggestion is really brilliant, I think. >> Yep. >> For the public as well. >> Yeah. >> Especially if it's time stamps for at least the motions. >> Yeah. >> For motions and maybe new applications. Okay. No, that's great. Thank you. Um, so are we all good with the minutes? I think so. >> Okay. Uh, unless y'all want to hold one for administrative purposes, there is no meeting on September 21st because I did not get an application in time and I don't actually have any immediate DRB applications that I know of. So, >> October 5th is not a holiday. It's the next following week. Yeah. All right. >> Yeah. October 5th is not >> that's the meeting for which I would be absent. >> Yep. >> October 5th. >> Yes. >> Next meeting in October >> after the 5th. The n is it the 19th? >> Yeah. >> Just you may be absent. Okay. >> No. And that's I'm trying to remember where we've got. Give me one second. Trying to remember holidays. Um why don't we turn the reading so we can speak? >> Sure. >> Yes. >> So moved. All >> in favor? I I returned.