 to order. It's a scheduled meeting of the town of Berlin Development Review Board. It's a continuation of the application for the master plan of the capital city Volkswagen Mazda. And I believe everyone that's on has been sworn on previously, with exception to Mr. Toll. But Mr. Toll, if you tend to give testimony before this board tonight, please raise your right hand to tell us about the truth of the matter before this board tonight, and apparently it's a commentary. Okay. Thank you. And the rest of you are reminded, you are under oath. So, Jeff, I want to open this to you, unless Mr. Toll wants to speak first, to bring us up to speed with where you are on the changes and the recent memorandum you sent to us. Yeah, and I guess short of rehashing the whole project again, I guess I just direct everybody to the cover letter dated August 13, 2020 that was submitted to the town as far as supplemental information in conjunction with the revised plans. The intent of that memo or cover letter was really just to highlight the three or four items that we believe were kind of outstanding as we left our last DRV meeting. And so I tried to outline these in no particular order. And I guess what I'll do is I'll just give a quick recap of these and turn that over to the board for questions. The first was with regards to the essentially zoning waiver for the parking lot proposed on 12 Marvin Road and 40 Goodenow Road. I think that the part of it was really the fact that the 40 Goodenow Road property was fully within the rural 40 zoning district and we had metered across that essentially waiver from the DRV to allow a parking lot to be installed at that location. You can know that it's not a permanent or conditional use. I want to send out a thank you to all you board members who probably met the day or two evening after our last DRV meeting to discuss that further. And I certainly appreciate the effort you put into fully evaluating that. We did receive the essentially decision on that deliberative session from the day or two after and essentially authorized or approved the use of that parking lot and construction parking lot as proposed with a series of conditions. That list of conditions was shared with us and ultimately shared with Abel and reviewed. And as outlined in our cover letter, I lined items down to make sure it was clear what was requested or conditioned and confirming our approval of them, if you will, or that they were comfortable with with implementing as conditioned by the board during the glitter session. So I think I'll just go into them really quickly. Just we're all on the same page and we're talking specifically about parking lot B, which is the parking lot off Good Now Road, that there'll be no employee parking in that parking lot. That'll be equipped with an automated locking gate to restrict the access in that parking lot and that no customer access will have access to that parking lot, that the vehicles will only be parked in their designated line strike parking stalls on that parking lot, that there's no advertising allowed in conjunction with that parking lot, that the lighting coincide with the business hours at 9 p.m., whichever is sooner. Abel has agreed to agree to that and I believe hours are generally at 7 p.m. for the latest at any given day, is that correct? Right. So lights to be going off at 7 p.m. within that parking lot on a daily basis, that it was screened appropriately from the rural neighborhood components and I'll get to that further here in a minute. You also asked us to confirm the lock coverage on those parcels and we outlined it in the cover letter. We're only at 4.5%. That's obviously a large parcel over there and then the balance of those R40, R40 parcels essentially dedicated to a permanent conservation easing, which we have no issue doing. I imagine that will be done in a legal document of sorts that will have drafted up and provided to the town for their review before implementation. Are there any questions on that before I get to the second item? Yes, Barley. I just I had a question. Wasn't the other parking lot that other property in R40? So the 40 Goodnell Road property is a smaller, it's like a .3 acre property that essentially surrounded by the 12 Marvin Road property. And if you'd like, I could pull up the plan and highlight roughly where those property lines are, if that's something you're interested in understanding the difference between those two locks. Well, I know you did send in the drop box, you have the zoning map that shows the properties. So there's like one was totally in R40 and the other was partially in R40? Yeah, so the 40 Goodnell Road, the northeast property. I'll let me screen share this and I can maybe explain it a little bit better. Can everybody see that? Okay. So here's Marvin Road here, Goodnell Road here. As I zoom in here, this lot right here is the 40 Goodnell Road, which is like just .3 acres. As I zoom out, the 12 Marvin Road property is everything along Goodnell Road, Marvin Road, Route 2, the Winooski River, and then these two property lines. This whole thing is the 12 Marvin Road property with the exception of this little cutout, which was obviously part of a previous subdivision back down at some point. So the way the zoning district leads here, you can see this dash dot line. This is the approximate zoning boundary. Eventually runs down Marvin Road and then instead of following the road or property line, it actually follows this ditch line that cuts through Marvin, 12 Marvin Road property. And so everything to the north of this is commercial and everything down here, including the 40 Goodnell Road, is the R40 zoning district. And so from what I gathered in our previous conversations is because the 12 Marvin Road property was kind of split between the two, we're relatively comfortable along to the parking lot within that this portion of the R40, but it was this small lot also containing a portion of it being fully in the R40 zoning district. That was what we requested and received the waiver. Does that clarify it for you, Bobby? Yeah, I just, I have a hard time visualizing where the other parking lot is. You could just go back to that plan and just sort of give a general idea. Yeah, so let me get out of here. So this is the same map, it's blown up a little bit. Okay. So this is the 40 Goodnell Road property here. So here's parking lot B, which is the one that we've discussed, having lights off at seven o'clock, having a gate installed at the entrance here. And then this is parking lot A, which would be directly off of Marvin Road. And that's totally within the commercial district. This is totally within the commercial district. Yeah, the zoning boundary essentially is right this street line right here. Yep. Okay. Thanks. Any other questions on that component before I jump down to the landscaping? I guess I'm going to throw this out, Jeffrey. You said that as we requested, there'll be no employee parking in the RL 40 lot. Were you participating in some employee parking in the other lot body? Potentially, if it would be allowed, yes. I think that'd be the preference available to have at least to have that ability. I'm okay. I, speaking as one member of the board, I'm okay with that. But I guess I would ask that we restrict the parking of employees to that lot to those employees that are working at the Mazda VW place. And I'm thinking here about the cross route to traffic pedestrian traffic. So that's a thought I have in back of my mind for our discussion. Yeah, I agree. Because that is a concern of mine. It's the crossing route too. So I see it usable for part employee parking, but not necessary employee parking for locations across the road. Can I make a point? This is able. Yes. Our parking lot is already across the road for the GMC dealership. So we're already on that road. I'm sorry. I didn't get all that. The employee parking is already across the road. But the GMC store, the parking is already the side of the road where we're proposing to put the new building. So your proposal is to continue? We wouldn't be increasing the number of people crossing the road. So we wouldn't have any way parking on the GMC side coming across. And that would increase it. But if we leave the parking for the employees on that side of the road, it would keep it the same. So you're saying that they'll continue to park across route 2 from the GMC dealership? That would be my hope. They're already doing that. Yeah. Okay. I think we understand that. GMC employees. We're not getting that. Can you hear me? No, we can. Go ahead, John. I just wondered why it's necessary for GMC. Why it's necessary for GMC to park on this side? The lot is very tight on the GMC side. We've always parked across the road since we built the parking lot. And that was part of the reason we built the parking lot was to relieve the congestion on the GMC side. We've had conflicting information saying that one place, the traffic analysis assumed that would continue. Elsewhere we have testimony that says that will not continue. I'd have to go through the testimony to find where that is. But I think there's a concern on this board's part about pedestrian traffic, namely the employees going back and forth, parking on one side, walking back and forth to get to their vehicle, and again to go to lunch and then again to go home. We understood that the last plan we looked at would have employees parking both at their respective parking lots, which frankly, I didn't see necessary as a personal one individual of the board when you're going to have the VW Mazda on the same side of Route 2 as Plot A. So I didn't see that as a problem. I do see it as a problem with continued crossing Route 2. So you want to lessen the crossing? You want to be less than it is now? Correct. So if we don't build this building, it would stay the same, right? But we wouldn't be involved, so it would stay the same. That would be correct. That was never the understanding, by the way, when that law was built, but that's okay. It's what happened. This is Michelle Lambert. So we're going to have people crossing Marvin Road to go over to the Volkswagen dealership, and then they're going to cross Route 2 to get over to the GMC dealership. So they're going to be crossing two roads now to go to work. And that seems even worse to me. And this week, there's actually an accident right out in front of their parking lot on Route 2. I don't know if it was caused by somebody turning or somebody walking across the road, but one way or the other, there was an accident right at their intersection of their driveways this week. But it wasn't necessarily to do with somebody walking, right? I didn't witness it, so I don't know if it was somebody turning or if it was a pedestrian. And this is Mike Noyes talking. I was under the impression that there would be no employee parking on either of the lots that were being proposed. I thought that was my understanding, maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that was the understanding of what we came to. I think the only understanding that I was aware of at least was there would be no employee parking at the lot off the Good Now Road. And the rest was over discussion, which is what we're just doing now, discussing it. This is Tour. Tour. Mr. Tull, thanks for being with us tonight. One question, do you tend to use the Marvin Road or Good Now Road parking for GMC inventory or just for the Mazda Volkswagen Inventory? On the Good Now Road? Both are out in Marvin Road parking areas. Which road, sir? Marvin and Good Now. We do plan to use it for GMC and for Volkswagen Mazda. Okay, so there'll be vehicle traffic going across route 2 as well then. Again, to get to the theater building. Right. A lot of the GMC inventory is already on that side of the road. So I don't think it'll increase any. Okay, thank you, sir. And this is Mike Noyes again. I thought all of this was, I thought both of the parking lots being proposed were solely for Volkswagen Mazda Inventory. I thought that all of this, the GMC dealership was going to be completely separate. I thought we were trying to minimize the amount of pedestrian traffic going across. I thought we were trying to minimize the amount of employee traffic going from across Marvin Road and then across route 2. I thought these were going to be completely separate. That's my understanding of the way this has gone these past two meetings. I don't have to defer to Jeff because I was not at the meeting so I will defer to Jeff on that. Yeah, I guess I would say if I gave that impression that there would be no capital T GMC vehicles inventory stored on either of those lots, I apologize. I don't believe expressively ever said that. The problem we have here is there's just not a property that's large enough to obviously manage the amount of inventory that ABLE has to deal with. And we're doing the best with the space that we have available to us to limit the amount of vehicular and pedestrian traffic that will be crossing any of the roads for that matter. The other thing that I would, I guess, suggest falling back on is the independent traffic study that VHB had performed and we had provided a supplemental information two meetings ago or two submissions ago that really outlined the fact that they felt the way that the site operated now as well as how the proposed sites will operate in the future. And I believe that that report outlined exactly what their assumptions were as far as how the sites would be used really came to the conclusion that this project as a whole would not create any unsafe or adverse conditions for route two or more road or good now road from that perspective. So, and above and beyond that, we've obviously agreed to some restrictions on certain components of the use of these parking lots, specifically the 40th and that road parking lot to minimize that further. So, that's all I can say. Some of this obviously is a functional operational issue versus a engineering design issue. So there's only so much I can weigh in as far as how the inventory is managed. But I think the problem that Able comes across is that neither one of the independent building sites, whether it's the capital city GMC or the new Volkswagen Mazda dealership have enough area or space or parking stalls on their independent properties to support those individual businesses. And correct if I'm wrong Able, but I mean, I think that's the purpose of having these remote parking areas so that you can have the inventory within a walking distance. And it's not something where you're having the either lease areas miles down the road or round or order not have inventory available that you could have. That's correct. And I think also, I think I might have been in the traffic study. You know, we only have on one side of the road to the other for sales customers, maybe 10 a day. And some of those wouldn't be any reason to bring a car from one side of the road to the other. So this isn't a high traffic thing by any means. Oh, Mr. Tull, I beg to differ because I actually was one of your customers and the employee took me across the lot to go look at cars when I was chopping at the GMC store. Yeah, excuse me. I thought we were talking about moving cars from one side of the road to the other. That's why I was referring to. Okay, I think as I understand it right now, the proposal is to use the lot on Marvin Road for employee parking, including employee parking from both sides of the road. In other words, the Mazda dealership and the GMC dealership. And I think the board will take that on an advisement. I think we've heard all the testimony we need to hear on this unless somebody is looking for some other information here. I just want to ask if I'm moving on. Sorry, can you hear me, though? Hello? Okay, so I just want to ask if it would, which would create more traffic, pedestrian traffic? Vehicles parked in that parking lot or employees parked in the parking lot? Because I think that's, you know, is it going to create more by having to go back and forth and get in the vehicles? Or is it going to create more by the employees parking there and only going, you know, so that's, that's sort of my question. If that has an answer. And I made a sort of able on this, but I guess my thought able is I feel like it's more advantageous for the dealerships to have as much inventory on their property as possible. So they do not have to require customers either wait while they go get a vehicle and or walk in a process tree as Mike just alluded to, if there's a specific model or color or style that they want. So that's why they attempt to, and they're obviously trying to minimize the amount of pedestrian traffic that customers have to do. So I believe that that's the one of the reasons why the preference is to have employees parked remotely, because that's a control they're safer, you know, they're familiar with the process crossing the road. I do on a daily basis, and that would be the preference that they're doing. Well, and I guess to my point is, is that either way that there's going to be traffic pedestrian traffic across the road. So I'm just trying to ascertain if one scenario is better than the other, but I think that's alluding to is better for the employees to be across the road, because they know the traffic patterns. Well, I was under the impression that you did not take customers across the road. Actually, that's one thing I was under the impression that customers were that vehicles were brought to the customers that customers did not cross the road to the parking lot. So that was that's a little concerning to hear that aspect of it for me. Paulie, I'm you. I was under the same impression that vehicles are going to be brought to the perspective buyers and that only employees would be going into those lots. And that's, you know, as it is right now, I think we do bring some some customers across the road. I think we're more likely to be either hopeful or more likely to hit the car of them. As the parking lot gets farther away, I think there's less of a chance to put a customer across the road all the way over to one of those that further parking lot by the road. I think that this I think could be would make every effort to bring the car to the customer. It could be anyway. Okay, that's all I have. Very additional testimony on other folks have testimony on the parking on the these conditions that were closed on the ER the RL 40 lot. Yes, this is John. This is John. I'd like to make a couple of comments if I can please. Yes, John, please. Go ahead. A couple of things. What's the real background noise somebody? Not me. I'm not sure. I think if we go way back and look at the permitting of the property that is now being proposed as a new Volkswagen Mazda dealership, you'll find that that lot was approved for surplus inventory only. It's not approved for employee parking. I think there's also a couple of concerns with how vehicles and people and pedestrians are being trucked back and forth and passing back and forth. It's very busy. There's definitely some concerns about pedestrian vehicle traffic back and forth through the two different sides of the property. And I think the board should give that a lot of consideration before the approval is given, because at least in whatever conditions you put on are going to be difficult because right now the conditions that are on that property for just surplus vehicles has never been policed. So I think this approval should be carefully considered given traffic. And I don't think the traffic study was truly a traffic study. It really looked at Marvin and Goodenow Road. It did not look at the traffic counts on Route 2, and it didn't consider the high traffic count of Route 2 as it's going to be impacted by having two dealerships directly across the road from each other. We see routinely vehicles trying to turn left or right into the existing dealership as we are coming into our property. And routinely you're trying to snake between cars being unloaded in the road, pedestrians crossing the road with their employees or customers or vehicles coming and going. And it's a very busy corridor. And I think for the safety of everyone involved, that should be closely looked at. And I would argue that a full traffic study and perhaps even turn lanes on Route 2 should be considered. And I understand that that's outside the purview of the DRB, but that's something that I'll certainly advocate for in future permitting. Thank you, John. Other comments with regard to this use of the loss? Hey, Adam Lambert. I'm a little late to the meeting here. But what I understand is that so far we're talking about employees parking on Marvin and Goodnell. And what I understood before was that was no longer an issue because they weren't going to be parking there. And I guess I could address Able on this one, because ultimately these are his employees and this is his business. And I think I brought this up at the meeting when we were down on Goodnell Road, that they've not been good neighbors to this point. And that's why he's meeting opposition here. I thought we were all on the same page with no employee parking on this side of the road. And to hear that that's changed is disappointing. And also I agree with John Connor on this one that some kind of turn lane should be added to Route 2. Not sure if that pertains to what we're on right now, but I just found I've had my two cents. The turn lanes on Route 2, I don't believe within the purview of the town of Berlin. That is within the purview of the agency transportation. They'll be issuing a permit separately. They have their own process. And probably they would entertain any comments to that effect. We're really primarily looking at the, I think going back to what you first said, I think we're all of the understanding that will be no employee parking on the lot that's off of Goodnell Road. So far we have not moved on whether or not there'll be employee parking on the lot that is off, which I believe we call a lot A. Is that correct, Jeff? Anyway, there's a lot off of Goodnell Road. I've been off of Park Marvin Road. And right now they have to get this proposing that there be employee parking on Marvin Road parking lot. So that's where we are at the moment. But Bob, I'll go back to again just what John and Adam and I all were under the understanding of is that this was surplus parking on both lots. And surplus parking obviously does not include employees. And I thought that was specifically addressed in these two prior meetings. So I would urge the board to go back at the testimony. And although extensive, I think it's worth looking into that I really thought that this was very specific. Thank you. Who was speaking? That's Mike Noyes. Thank you, Mike. I can't see who's speaking on my next screen. So when you do speak and you're on telephone, you need to introduce yourself, please. Any further conversation on this? I think we've heard a lot of testimony on this. I think the DRB is going to have to take all this testimony into consideration. If there's no new testimony, I'm going to move on to the next item. Can I just offer one thing, Mr. Chair? I just have you discussing here. I did pull up the approved DRB decision for the original capital city GMC and satellite parking decision and just for clarification, there was no specific condition of approval that outlined what the use or what type of parking would be required at the 1189 route to property. And then secondarily, just, you know, again, addressing these questions, concerns about route to and traffic lanes. Again, Act 250 and AOT permitting will thoroughly address the review of those concerns or safety concerns as part of the traffic review. Thank you, Jeff. Jeff, this is John Connor again. I think that was in the Act 250 paperwork that they had committed to having surplus parking only on that side of the road. And when the Act 250 commission came in toward the site, they were told the same and told that employees would go and get the vehicles on the opposite side of the road. I don't believe it was permitted for employee parking. I think it was permitted for solely for surplus vehicle inventory. Thank you. Yeah, I can't speak quite on the Act 250 permit conditions right now, but we can certainly take a look at that. Thank you. Any additional testimony? Hearing none, going ahead to landscaping issues, Jeff? Yeah, so moving on to bullet point two was some confirmation that the landscaping plan complies with the landscaping standards. We went through and provided a summary of the front yard building and parking lot landscaping requirements. And then ultimately showed that under all three of those specific requirements as far as the number of shrubs and trees required that we complied with those three requirements with the extensive landscaping plan that we're proposing. And then time into that, there was also a, we agreed at the end of the last CRB meeting to meet with the neighbors on Good Now Road to review this Lot B parking area and landscaping and screening to see if there was some modifications or visions to the landscaping plan that they like to see in conjunction with that. We held that meeting on the following Monday evening. Tom was present for that meeting myself, D.D. Brush, the landscape designer, as well as four or five, at least, of the neighboring property owners. We reviewed the proxy location, the access off of Good Now Road. At that time, we had already received the delivered decision from the DRV with regards to the restrictions on that parking lot. So I shared all of those conditions of approval with the members there and kind of just sat on the property for half an hour, 45 minutes and talked it all through. Long story short, you know, in relaying all those conditions as far as the minimal of lighting levels and being turned off at specific times, highlighting where the proposed landscaping would be. The long story short is there were no requested changes to the landscaping plan along the, with regards to Park Lot B or the Lot of Good Now Road from what we had already proposed. So we essentially left that landscaping plan as previously submitted. That is summary of the landscaping. Are there any questions on that before I jump down to the last one or two items here? Any questions on the landscaping? Yes, Paul? Please. You're muted, Paul. Mute. Mute. Mute. Polly. I'm mute. Okay. I just have a question in your memo because it appears satisfied. And I just wanted to know that there was a definite word satisfied. I'm sorry. Can you direct me to what line? Well, on the, I don't know, it's not, they're not numbered, but on the second, third page of your memo at the top, there's a bullet and it's about the meeting that you have and you say the neighbors appeared satisfied. It's page three at the top paragraph. Yeah. Yeah. And I wanted to make sure they were definitely satisfied with the landscaping. Yeah. And I think the purpose of adding that language in was just because obviously not all neighbors were present for that meeting. The ones that were in attendance and I think Adam and Michelle were present. I believe Randy White was present. Maybe Cindy and Mike Noyes, maybe Mike Noyes stopped in briefly. And there was, I thought one or two others, Tom, maybe you have a list of who attended. But again, at the end of that meeting, we walked away asking if there's any changes, now would be the time to request them and the overwhelming feeling that I got from that discussion was that no changes were requested and maybe Tom could confirm or elaborate on that. I think Randy White was there, the closest neighbor. And yeah, Jeff, I concur that with respect to the RL authority, the good now road, my sense was that the neighbors were satisfied with the conditions that came out of the DRB deliberative session on that parking lot and really didn't think any additional landscaping was needed. Josh, you're on mute. If you're trying to speak, we cannot hear you. Were there any other questions with regards to landscaping? Hearing none, I'll move on to the last couple items. One was the looking into the revision of the lighting plan. We obviously discussed at length at the last meeting, trying to get a definition of clarification of what the specific standards were. We walked away from that last meeting with the understanding that the average maximum candle for the exterior lighting plan needed to be two or lower. We were previously, I think, on average of 2.4. So the landscape, I'm sorry, the lighting manufacturer supplied a revised exterior lighting plan, getting us to that three-foot candle threshold, I'm sorry, two-foot candle threshold to comply with the lighting standards. Additionally, just to reiterate, the 40 Good Now Road parking lot area, specifically to have lights turned off at 7 p.m. and not turned back on until physically until the next day. We're still requesting some level of security lighting around the proposed building as part of the anti-vandalism or security order. And then the last quick item, I think it's more of a excuse. Yeah, excuse me. So on your, on the bullet point there about the exterior lighting, on your third bullet down there, you say that you have agreed to parking area lights associated with both remote parking. So that is both the Good Now and the Marvin Road lights will be off at 7. Is that what you're having? You're stating here? I believe so. Enable, is that your understanding as well? You're comfortable with that statement? One more time is to make sure I heard it correctly. So the two remote parking areas, the one off of Marvin Road and Good Now Road, the lights would go off at 7 p.m. and come on at whatever operation start up again, 6 or 7 in the morning. But that they would be essentially at the entrance a motion sensor that could potentially trigger the lights on to protect against vandalism or intrusion or something of that nature. That's my, that's my understanding, yes. I have a number of questions here, Jeffrey. First, my first question has to do with a timer. I like the strategy. I like to turn in time off and so forth. With the remote, the sensor, when that turn comes on, what lights does that turn on? All the lights? Some of the lights? Yeah, it would be some of the lights. So LSI preparing the lighting plan was working on a reduced security level lighting plan today for us, but apparently they were having technical difficulties and weren't able to get that quite in in time. But the intent would be that if that motion sensor was triggered, components of the lighting system would turn on for a finite period of time, a couple minutes, so that there'd be a deterrent for, you know, access into those remote parking lots as part of the nighttime, you know, security level of the social, those two parking lots. Yeah, I was looking for a little definition. I was kind of hoping not all the lights would come on. Certainly lights at the entrance, I would expect to come on. Yep. Because that's where you'd like to have a breach, but you might have other lights come on too. So I was looking for some definition of what lights would come on with a remote. Yeah, and unfortunately, we'll probably go provide that revised nighttime lighting plan within the next day or two. Unfortunately, I did not have that available for this meeting. I have another related question. And I apologize for not having studied the first lighting plan more carefully. The first lighting plan said you had an average lighting of 2.4, something like that, foot candles. In looking at the revised lighting plan and studying it more thoroughly, in unfortunately, the plan analysis that comes up with two foot candles, this must be including in the analysis readings well outside of the parking lots. Because the actual average lighting in the parking lots is more like six and seven foot candles, not two foot candles. Yeah, I would, again, understanding that I didn't specifically repair this lighting plan, but I would imagine it's essentially they define different site areas for each of these calculations, one being the overall site, and then they broke out the three individual parking lot sites as applied averages, max, and minns, and ratios for each one of those. And that summary can be found in the upper right corner of the C 2.9 sheet. In studying that sheet more carefully, and I apologize I did not think that before the last meeting, I do find that the average light in the in lots, which this this this plan calls upper side lot in the lower side of lot, which I believe is uppers your A, correct, and and lowers your B. The upper being 6.5 foot candles average on the lot. And my examination of the numbers suggests that that's the right number. And on the low on the lower lot is 7.19 or 7.2 call it foot candles. That's considerably more than the two foot candles we call for in our bylaw. Now we say average. We don't we don't mean in the average all the readings that you can get if you're drawing the drawings that readings are outside in fact outside of the property lights. So I don't measure how the person arrived at two foot candles. But I do know, and having done a little research, the illumination engineering societies criteria. And in looking at their information, it's just to me these lighting capacities, these foot candles are significantly above the recommended for parking lot. Most specifically, if I lift up the illumination engineering society recommendations, the average is one, not the two we specify in our regulations ranging from 0.5 to two foot candles throughout the site. And of course, this here has illumination levels ranging from five to 11 or more. But I don't think this meets our criteria. The average so-called two foot candles is using numbers well outside of only the lot, but also well outside of the property lights. I think I'm guessing because I did we do the math. Yeah, and again, unfortunately, I can't answer these specific questions with any definitive answer, again, not having produced the plan. I can say and having prepared some lighting plans in the past, as when you're evaluating these different areas, you have the ability to define a site area, whether that's to within the property lines or just within the parking lot itself. I've got to assume that when I'm looking at this summary up here, that the average and the minimum max, when they say a lot, they mean just a paved area within that parking lot, not the property lot. And that the overall of all counts includes, you know, some variation of the property lines or site area out to where the lighting level is zero. That's generally how we're going to go into the house. But again, I would need to return back to LSI to get definitive answers on these questions. Yeah, I think it would be useful if they were here, obviously, to speak to us on this, but I can tell you, I studied this enough, they have a pretty good sense of what's going on. And that the average lighting on lot B is in fact, seven foot candles, not two foot candles. And if I took some license and I let that run over to the property line limits or some some some permit around the property line, it might be less than that, but would not be too. To get the two, my sense is you've got to do the math on all the points shown on this drawing. And I'm referring to drawing C29. Yeah, I don't believe this complies with our bylaw. And I didn't examine it more carefully before, but we did understand that they had to comply with the bylaw. We did understand it was the average for the lot. But I'm not sure the average involved areas extending well across the road and onto other properties. Yeah, and again, I apologize for not being able to be able to define the site area for you or the total average of how they got to do. I feel like it probably should be highlighted in a circle around around the plan somewhere to show what what exactly that to involves. You know, I do think that there's obviously potential for the parking lot areas themselves to be substantially higher than two, if we're talking about the entire site area average having to be two. I guess, you know, we're happy to go back to LSI and get these answers and make revisions if necessary. But it would be good to know what the expectation is as far as what that two foot candle needs to pertain to, whether it's each individual average for the parking lot, or if it's the project area as a whole. Because based on what I'm seeing, I obviously agree is that any individual parking area certainly isn't at that two or below, but that the site area as a whole probably would be or close to it. But let me start with Jeff, because if I and again, they provided the information here, if we look at the building parking lot, mainly that's the parcel directly across the road there, they're saying the average light there is nine, unless they're talking about something different, I'm going to look at the parking lot. The lower side parking lot is seven and the other side parking lot is six. So those numbers are, they're not inconsistent with lighting recommended by the Illumination Engineering Society for showrooms, but it is inconsistent with lighting for parking lots. It does exceed the two. So I don't think we've met the mark here. I don't, this is my personal view, and I would certainly be willing to listen to others. But I gotta tell you, I spent enough time on the computer today to have a pretty good sense of where I'm coming from. I also consulted with a couple of electrical engineers today, and their first reaction was seven, that's a lot of light. This is able, you know, it's not our intention to light it up like a showroom. So I think that it is unfortunate we don't have the lighting engineers before, but we're going to have to get back to you. I can assure you that we don't want it to look like a showroom outside. That's not our intention at all. I want you to have security. Security, my understanding is anywhere between one and two foot candles. But I don't want a showroom over here. In fact, we've been very clear about that, especially a lot off a good now road. It's not our intention at all. And again, they'll be off at seven o'clock at night. So for a good part of the year, they won't be on at all at night. But again, it's not our intention. And we appreciate that. But for a good part of the year, it's pretty dark out before seven. Yeah, I guess too much of the year. Yes, I agree with you. So we need we I'm going to as one member of the board, going to assist on some real clarification on that. But somebody's going to have to do some real hard work to convince me I'm wrong. And I would suggest that these whoever the design folks are beyond the meeting and can answer these questions. Yeah, I think that's that's the easy answer is whether it was a lack of communication us providing them what the expectation was for the lighting plan. There's obviously a breakdown and and, you know, what they needed designed to and what was provided and what your expectations were. I'm sure that they enable a willing to revise this to a level that satisfies the requirements within the lighting regulations in the town. It's just making that clear to them what those expectations are. And it sounds like what we need to do is get both of those parking lot areas at two or below independent of an overall site evaluation. Just so I can clearly relate this to them. Is that a similar expectation for the building site as well? Unfortunately, this is that's the expectation for all three lots. Now, I didn't look for exceptions to that in our bylaw for the sales lot. Obviously, does not apply to interior lighting. It only appears applies to exterior lighting. But does it does apply to all the exterior lightings I understand our ordinance. Also, it's pertains to all exterior lightings that understand at least the four or five different references that I looked up that speak to exterior lighting and safety and security. All I can say is we'll try to make that clear to LSI as they go ahead and prepare a revised lighting plan. Because I'm not prepared to prove the lighting plan as it is now. But I do like your proposal on the timers. I do like your proposals on the emergency. I'd like to know how many lights come on when you have an activated bent, whether it's all or those nearby or there must be some logical way to do that. So I would hope not all the lights come on and them all three lots. Are there other comments or questions with regard to lighting of those three lots? Yeah, Bob, this is John. I had a discussion with with another permit at one time about glare and that we expect that it is not lighting glare is not supposed to extend outside of the property lines. And yet this lighting plan shows precisely that there would be light produced that would then extend beyond the property lines. And that may be another concern that they need to have when deciding this lighting plan. Well, yeah, I think that there is a distinction however John between glare and light spilling out over beyond the property line. I think this conversation we've had on other permits before. So they're showing still overlight. And that's probably because they've had some dense lighting here that would probably go away if we went down to but the glare is as I interpret glare is lights literally too high or directed in the wrong direction. In fact, I was going to ask Tom about that. Tom, there was a complaint about glare. What did you find out about that? It was it was a valid complaint but it was coming from a neighboring property. It wasn't associated with any of the properties being discussed as part of this application. Did you have further on that, John? No, just something that they may want to review in terms of our bylaws to make sure that what they're doing is consistent. And Jeff and I talked about this when we were out there that that there are fully shielded mechanisms, especially maybe for the the perimeter lights that may cure some of this issue that you're talking about, John. Excellent. And the expectation is is that when the lights go up and and they're reviewed and if glare is an issue additional shielding will be required. Excellent. All right, thank you. Other comments or questions with regard to lighting? So I guess we'll leave that unresolved, Jeffrey, until you get back to us. Yep. Yeah, I apologize. I apologize for that. I really should have studied it more carefully the first time around. No, and I apologize as well. I mean, obviously with a lighting plan, we're more of a conduit. We provide the lighting regulations to the manufacturer and they provide us a lighting plan that we incorporated plans and and honestly, I'm not a lighting designer or lighting expert or a lunch engineer for that matter. So, you know, I should have had them at this meeting to answer these questions and or made it better clear to them what the expectation was as far as, you know, maximum lighting levels. I think I've got a good understanding of that now, so it's just a matter of returning to them to have them revise the plan accordingly. Thank you. You had one more point you wanted to make in your your couple more questions. And it was nothing specifically that the board had asked, but we did talk about it a little bit, was the intersection of Marvin Road and Good Now Road and our new access point and some just trying to increase the safety of that intersection. Ironically, in talking with some of the neighbors while we are doing the landscape review down there, apparently, there used to be a stop sign at the end of Good Now Road as you teed into Marvin Road that may have been hit and knocked over some point in the past and never replaced. But what we would like to propose now to essentially create a safer intersection at that location is the installation of stop signs from the three approaches both on Marvin Road and Good Now Road there. I think at a bare minimum, the way on Good Now Road is up, which should be, I want to say mandatory, but we strongly encourage because as vehicles come down Good Now Road and turn left under Marvin Road, they really have no reason to slow down or stop and potentially come into conflict with vehicles coming down Marvin Road heading towards route two. And so in effort to understand we're adding another intersection or access point at that location, we just think it makes sense to add stop signs at those three approaches so that it's a controlled environment, that there'll be some better understanding and safety as far as the vehicle delivery process is concerned there as well. And potentially reduce conflicts of vehicles coming down Marvin Road and Good Now Road at the same time. Questions or comments with regard to that? Yeah, Adam Lambert again. I think a stop sign at the end of Good Now Road is sufficient. Stop signs at both sides of Marvin Road just seem like overkill, a bit ridiculous to me. That is a through road and Good Now tees into it so I can see a stop sign there, but basically a three or four-way stop is a bit much in my opinion. And this is Mike Noyes talking. I would echo Adam's sentiment. I think a four-way stop at that on that dirt road is for three houses is overkill. I think with the two employees one backing out and one directing traffic as was promised by the dealership is going to be enough to make sure that the people coming out of the Volkswagen dealership are safe and obviously a stop sign that used to be there on Good Now Road that just no longer is would be plenty. Thank you. I would point out that any signs that are placed on this road by the applicant would need to go through an approval process with a slight board who in fact determines what happens on town roads. But that was my first reaction. But I did not drive it so I don't have a sense of whether or not we need stop signs on all three legs or just a stop sign on Good Now Road. But we've heard testimony from two of the people that live there. And for what it's worth we're happy to remove the two proposed signs on Marvin Road and just go back to the originally theoretically original stop sign on Good Now Road if that's what everybody's comfortable with. Again I'm good with that with the understanding that you will end ultimately all the improvements that you've discussed with regard to blindment culverts and stop signs will be going through the slight board for their review. Anything further with regard to the Good Now road, Marvin Road intersection. Okay I think we've gone through your most recent memo. I think your recent memo covers everything that was loose, at least in my memory, which is limited. And if there are any additional questions by the board I would ask you to bring them up now. The buddy property owners of the interested parties, do you have any further comments or questions you would like to introduce at this point, Diane? Yeah this is Mike Noyes. I have two. And I don't know if this is the right time for the first one. When the improvements are made to Marvin Road, you're talking about putting a new cut in, how will that impact us getting up the road as well as customers coming to the businesses up there? Yeah right now. Sorry. Is that during construction or post construction? No no during construction. Post construction is obvious it's just you know it's new. But during construction is there is there going to be like how is that going to work? Yeah and ultimately there'll be a construction phasing plan essentially that will at a bare minimum maintain one lane traffic flag or style with appropriate signage per MUTC and AOT standards to allow for that construction to take place. We have not got into the constructability construction schedule or phasing yet obviously but obviously understanding that both Marvin Road and Goodner Road are essentially dead-end roads. We understand that we have to maintain access on a full-time basis there. So that's something that us and now when we're in a contract or select a contractor is constructed will need to take under advisement. Great. Perfect. Thank you. And the other I guess I had two more things. The other question I had is you know my children go to elementary school and they will wait for the bus on the corner of of Marvin Road and Route 2. The new cut that you're proposing or that's going to happen I guess where you're kind of making more of a more of a right-hand turn I guess the where they currently wait for the bus and once that goes in there there's no place to stand for my children to wait for the bus because there's a kind of precipitous drop-off from Route 2 down into the you know down into that property. What can we do to make sure it's safe for my kids and you know as I've already testified and this is new for you Mr. Toll you know your employees on two separate occasions have gone around the bus with its flashers on and I've gone into the business to deal with it but like you know it really it really that's honestly with this whole entire project that is my biggest fear and concern. So what what can we do to make sure it's safe for the kids? Is there a way to place a bus shelter there? Small? Yeah there's a couple thoughts. So one we certainly if you're coming up Marvin Road in team to Route 2 the right side of there's not a lot of room on the right side now as it is but the intent is to create a shoulder there and then there is a vertical drop-off down to that existing swale on the right. However as we realign that road the opposite side or the left side of that intersection we are not opposing there's actually a relatively big flat flat area. Let me share that just so we can kind of show everybody what we're talking about. So incorrectly sorry if I'm wrong here Mike but so a little hard to see that the shaded area is a new road alignment this wider area here is the kind of fork right now that comes in. So as we you know round this out this area still would be a little tight but this is we're not proposing to we're reclaiming it and taking the pavement out but we're not re-grating this area specifically so this potentially could be a much flatter see for area for you know children to wait for you know the bus in the event that you know we don't have the capacity on the right side. That's just a quick thought. The other option obviously is as we can agree that we can extend the grading out here a little bit in the right away. I don't see a team that's having a problem with that in creating a flatter landing area on this side if we felt it was necessary. Yeah the thing that concerns me is currently they wait for and you can see on your drawing right there you know where the existing stop sign is that's where they currently wait. The problem with waiting on the other side and I can tell you as somebody who watches one of the businesses that's further down on Marvin Road you know their employees coming to work you know basically at the time my kids are waiting for the bus they come in pretty hot turning right from route two on the Marvin Road so basically you know what you're proposing or what you just mentioned would be putting my kids in you know basically a turning lane because everybody uses that as a turning lane anyway because there's quite a bit of shoulder on you know that that part of the road that that honestly that scares me more. Yeah and that's fine like I said we can this grading here so I think it's proposed like a three on one we can extend this out and create a flat area here that would be you know if we feel about to stay for environment. I mean the problem with this right now is it's a fork it's a wide radius kind of forked angle intersection so vehicles coming turning on a Marvin Road from the west do you know have a tendency to come in here hot. That's part of what this realignment is attempting to do is make vehicles slow down more to turn into here so they can't just kind of do a half turn in down the road but certainly you know that's a pretty simple fix as far as just creating a small plateau over here that that we feel that is a safe location for the children. Yeah and obviously the farther you know off route to the better because it's snow plows in the winter you know we've had to dodge state snow plows and all sorts of things so obviously the farther down Marvin Road you know even by what your proposed top sign would be would be obviously ideal just you know I mean getting them off route to as you said nobody goes 40 miles an hour there even though it was you know even though that's the proposed sign. Right yeah and the last question I have is and thanks for being patient is the the proposed the proposed lots A and B you know for inventory as you as you testified before you're going to have people who are going to inevitably be parking on Marvin and Goodenow Road because they don't want to go get assaulted by the you know the car salesman they want to just look at the cars and they're inevitably going to be parking on Marvin and Goodenow Road. Is there anything we can do to maybe not have that happen? Well you know I mean certainly one thing we're obviously doing is we're putting a gate up here on this parking lot to deter people from going in and out of there. You know as far as telling people not to park on the side of the road and walk in you know I don't know how that's enforceable on the town level. It may be a better question for Tom or the chair as far as what restrictions we can certainly put signage up potentially you know no parking on road or this side road or something but I'm not sure what else we could really do beyond that. I'd have to defer to our chief of police on this one Jeff. Yeah. Certainly we could restrict, we could restrict the sidewalk because again this is a sidewalk issue not a BRB issue. Could restrict parking along the road. In other words basically put up signs. Where I live we have signs at the bottom of the road that says no parking on either side of the road. Good luck with that. Yeah right. I have a very famous swimming hole right across the road for my my my drive and I have a lot of neighbors a lot of people from knowledge university parking down there. I can call the police but what the heck. But it is it is for heaven. Yeah all right well well thank you. I know there was some discussion in the past that that the Mr. Till I think you own the Kia dealership down the road that the inventory from the Kia facility was being unloaded up in this area and I think we heard testimony to the fact that that wasn't going to occur but I'd like to hear your response to that as well. I sold the Kia dealership so I do not own the Kia dealership. Does anybody know Kia unloading cars up there? As far as I'm concerned they will not be unloading any cars up there. Thank you. Are there any other comments or questions about board members? I know you had a concern about the signage and the floppy things you know that tend to spring up around car dealerships and and you expressed the concern and you know almost prohibiting prohibiting those things. I saw Mr. Till was here again tonight so maybe we could talk to that as well. Well I take it that at the literal sense there would be no advertising on that lot to be advertising is guys flopping in the air balloons signs banners none of that is going to be printed on that lot and we're fine with that I mean it's not I mean it's it's it's it's tucked away enough there wouldn't be any purpose for us to do it anyway but but we're fine with that. Just you know restricting the fact it's in a residential area. Right no that's no problem on our side. We'd be more specific but right now the word the language that Jeff chose was an advertising I think that falls over the general category advertising period. Right I got it. But I was a lot more specific about balloons, floppies, right something to noise the hell out of me but it's a reality. If there are no further comments or questions I think where we stand here is the issue of the lighting. I think all other issues have been addressed not necessarily resolved but that will be for the board to decide. I guess you need to have this give back to us on the lighting. We didn't have a straight discussion about what is appropriate what is inappropriate. I have my view I've done my research I think the bylaw is kind of clear and however it's not really specific on the language what constitutes the site so there may be some wiggle room there but I don't believe the way it's been calculated is in fact what we intended in fact the table on top says it isn't because the table on top says it's seven foot candles period. Do you see this being continued to September 1st? Can't hear you Tom. Do you see this being continued to September 1st? Is that timely enough for you Jeff? I would say so again unfortunately I'm not in control of the revised lighting plan. I knew they were able to get us a revised one in a timely fashion last time around and they're working on a security level one now which will obviously most likely need to be revised as well but my I believe the way I'd like to approach this if able to find with it is I'm going to reach directly up to LSI and confirm that they can meet those that deadline and explain the standards in detail and then most likely have a representative there is attend the September 1st meeting if we feel an initial meeting is necessary. So I would assume just assume we can meet those deadlines and if something changes I can let Tom know but I think it's doable on our part. We are scheduled for a meeting that day right Tom? Right. So should we continue this to September 1st? Yes. Yes. You? John, you. I have maintained a motion to that effect. So moved. This is Josh. Josh? Second. Second by Polly. Discuss that motion. I wasn't feeling that motion. Please identify by saying aye. Raise your hand. Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. So we are continued to the September 1st. If for some reason that's a real problem for you, Jeff, get back to Tom immediately. Let us know. We are scheduled to meet that new meeting that night regardless. Yeah, I should be able to get confirmation on that tomorrow and I'll let Tom know one way or the other and just a lot of clear then that would most likely be the only discussion topic on the September 1st meeting then. That's the only thing I have. I have to give the husband address, not necessarily resolve the address. Yeah. Okay. Fair enough. Okay. Thank you very much, Josh. Thank you. Thank you. With that, this hearing is closed and we thank you all. The board has other business and we're probably going to you want to go deliver the session tonight, guys? Just for the record, I have to go let my ducks in. So I'm going to run out, but yes. What are we deliberating on? Well, the matters have been discussed before us tonight with exceptional lighting. We discussed the lighting, but we're going to hear more on it. And Mr. Chair, we've had that issue with the V-trans. Yes, we have another issue we've definitely discussed. So we will go to the session.