 I'll call the B-Daughter, hopefully that we can be joined shortly by Carla. So I'm Robert Wernick, I'm the Chair, Tour Nelson, member of the Board. Okay, Sean Cunningham from O'Leary Burke. Matt Moore, Evernorce. David Roy with Weave and Life Here Architects. Kevin Warden, Engineering Ventures, Civil Engineer. Chuck Storrow, Attorney for Berlin Mall. Dave Sawyer, Select One. Tom Badowski, Town of Berlin. And we have the Orca videographer here as well. I'm just trying, Carla says she's trying to get on. She's trying to get on? Yeah. So good. Christy, Carla Nweezel and Kent Simon will be joining us here. You there, Carla? There she is. She's coming. She's muted. Carla, you good here now? Yeah, you wouldn't let me in. Well, there's a lot of that. Yeah, we try to keep the place simple. So we have two items on our agenda tonight. Both dealing with applications by Berlin Mall. The first is the Downstreet Community Development. And there's also a connection with that, a major subdivision. And I guess because things have been a long time since we've met and talked, I'm going to ask somebody representing the applicant to start this off and put us back into perspective. Sure. Sure, I'd be glad to do that. I think it was December 21st when we were here last year. And that was the first hearing. Excuse everyone for recording, Secretary. Can you say your name before you're speaking so she can get minutes correct? Sorry. This is Matt Moore with Ever North. We're the development partner, co-developer with Downstreet Housing and Community Development. Nicola Anderson is here on the screen with Downstreet. If I'm remembering correctly back from December, at that time we didn't get you our plans in time for you to really give our application due consideration at that meeting. That being said, we went through a presentation with the concept plan that we had at the time. And this for everybody's applications for the Fox Run project. Right. Thank you. So our project has, we've advanced with design. We were hoping to come back to the DRB in March. However, that was delayed to allow time for the town meeting and the vote to happen on the school land, which is related to the ability of the mall to relocate the road. Our project remains the same. 30 units, one building. You'll see tonight that the site plan has made some minor refinements, but is essentially the same project. We have a full landscape plan. Really, we have a complete application that would be enough for the DRB to close the hearing for our project. The mall, the other project, as I understand it, they're making some changes and weren't prepared in time to submit those changes for consideration tonight. Yes, tonight. So if I can just continue. So as I understand it, tonight we're really talking about the Fox Run project. Of course, you understand the application is for more than the Fox Run project and really for two separate projects as well as road works. So the applicant really is the mall because they're the problem of her. Correct. So I appreciate this, but just for the record, we need to distinguish that a little bit. I totally agree. As you said, there's two separate projects. And the mall is the applicant on both projects. Well, and this brings me to what I was anticipating and hoping to say before we got into the substance right of our project is to seek some clarification procedurally. The approvals, if so approved, would be granted. And the conundrum that we have where there's two separate projects and Fox Run needs to have its own permits, its own approvals. It can be under one big application, but we need to have distinct approvals for the separate applications. There's two sub, as I understand it, two subdivisions. Conditional use application for Fox Run. There's a conditional use application for the mall. There's a site plan for Fox Run, site plan approval, and site plan approval for the Starbucks. And under the bylaws, the DRB may combine review, which is what has been done because that makes the most sense because the projects are related. However, similar to two homes being planned on the street, one house has to get owned separately and financed separately and built separately with a separate contractor. Yes, they're related. They're going to drive cars out the same street, perhaps. But they would need to have their separate and distinct approvals that, at least in my mind, is what we were, is what we're expecting. Mr. Chairman, this is Jason Lazar. I'd like to speak on FA applicant and maybe redirect this if I may. Please. So you would, you know, ask for a refresher as to sort of where we are and how we got there. I think we maybe had headed down a very specific path that I'm not sure paints the entire picture, right? Here back in December with a project, a mixed use priority housing project. So you're aware of the two projects. Matt is referenced, you know, the affordable house. We have had asked for a continuance. First, we were, we were both charged as co-applicants to respond to comments that we've heard. And we're prepared to do that. This has also been a very fluid situation. And in fact, I remember one of the issues that came up. In fact, I think it was the chairman that said, you know, we see that your plan proposed a reconfigured road. And what if that doesn't happen? Do you have a plan B? And essentially, right, what we want to get to is the plan B provide for plan A. Also for plan B. As the situation has been fluid, but we didn't want to stop our collective ability to respond to comments. And so what we wanted to accomplish with this at tonight's hearing was for the Foxfront portion of this application to respond and walk you through the subset of issues related to that piece of the project. And that's why we're here today. So we do have changes to the plan that does recognize, you know, changing circumstances. And because we couldn't get those changes in time, we'll have to present that, you know, the next possible opportunity. But since Foxfront has, has his plans and is prepared to speak on them, we thought that would help advance the ball tonight. Bob. Yeah, Carla, please. So I have to, I have to not, I have to ask what these changes are, because if you're submitting a new application, we need a new hearing with a new warning. We are, we are not submitting a new application. Not you. I'm talking about. I'm directing this at Jason. Yeah. Again, we're modifying a plan. Nothing is worth, I shouldn't say nothing, right? The scope of what we're attempting to do is similar to what you guys have seen before. What is the modification? We were asking, well, again, you're, you know, we wanted to submit that so then you could then hear it and ask questions about it. But essentially it recognizes the road to point configuration. We recognize that the new town center relies on a reconfigured road. And we watched to see if that could be accomplished. We recognize that the reconfiguration of that road relies on us transferring a part of our land to make that parcel developable. We've proposed a number of ways to make that happen where we're interested in making it happen, but we don't see it today. We're happy to continue to work at it, but we want to get the project, our collective project, which doesn't require the road to be located. We'd like to get that approved and move forward on that basis. I'm having trouble understanding how that can happen, but I guess maybe I'm one of five. Well, I share that concern, Carla. I mean, I would like to hear where we are with regard to this application, this part of your application, but it really is part of a bigger application. So I don't know how technically, ultimately, when we get to the bottom line here, how we can approve a part of an application and not separate the application. I'm wrestling with that and I don't think I've ever been faced with this problem before. Because we're a separate application by every north and the mall. We could hear that and we still hear it, but perhaps there's an administrative thing that needs to be done here which separates us. Yeah, if I might. Kevin Orton with Engineering Ventures, civil engineer on behalf of Fox Run. I've seen this before where a project starts off as one and then it's clear that it needs to be bifurcated looking at the application. All the information for both sites is on that application. I've seen it be as simple as photocopying the application because you're going to have two files. There's actually two current applications in front of you. One is for the subdivision which needs to be considered and run through before you can consider individual lots. And then there's distinct lots which each need to live on their own in the future separately because you'll have different timeframes as we're seeing tonight. We're going to have them advance differently and have something that comes up that's going to slow down one or accelerate the other. You're going to have different periods of construction and the town is going to have to issue you know, certificate of occupancies and that can be challenging if they're bound together in one permit. And then you have other things such as funding that's alluded to that probably has strings attached especially with affordable housing that could complicate things. But I'm happy to go over the plan. I did not bring a board. I thought we might be using a screen. But the main thing I wanted to convey as a civil engineer is the plan for Fox Run is entirely discreet and can be reviewed and constructed and infrastructure can be provided discreet in the other project if that's a concern or consideration. I just want to refer to the point now where both parties agree to separate those applications. Pull the application for the co-development. Each file their own separate applications. Each then can do site planning and conditional use on their own separate tracks not independent of each other. To me my sense is that this may be a waste of this board's time hearing this tonight if ultimately the decision is to go separately. Because if it goes separately it has to be re-worn again. It has to give public notice. It has to have, you know, you have to go through that regulatory process. And my concern is that the Fox Run project may be so ahead of the Berlin mall that we haven't seen what they're planning here, right? And it's been four months, right? So I just wonder if you or your clients have given that consideration that that may be the best alternative for everybody now. All fees get returned to everybody. You know, there's no loss of monies. You go through the warning process again. I'm just saying that that may be the easiest solution to this. Mr. Chair, if I may. Please. So, you know, that's the thing, that's the decision that the Berlin mall and the Fox Run folks need to work out among themselves. It's not a discussion for the board. Tonight, all you have in front of you is the one application that includes Starbucks and Fox Run. Berlin mall folks are not prepared tonight to give their full presentation on what they're proposing. We're proposing to come back the first meeting in May and give you all the information that we have. So I think your choice tonight is you can't give an approval because you don't have all the information. All you can elect to do tonight is listen to the additional information that Fox Run is prepared to give and then continue the meeting to the next available date so that you can hear the remainder of the Berlin mall associates proposal. But we're not here to talk about splitting the applications. You've got one application that's worn. That's all you can act on tonight. Yeah. Tom, did you have a response to that? No, I understand that, Paul, but I'm just saying if the parties are agreeable to split and maybe they're not. Well, that's the rub, Tom, is they're not necessarily agreeable at this point in time to split. Yeah. You're right. That's the decision for you, but we have to decide if the application is going to change enough that we have to rewarn it. I agree. And we don't know that you do, but you know, I think that's also that's something for the board to consider is do we just say, okay, no more continuances because this isn't happening. We aren't seeing it all. Do we need to just scrap this continuing and get refiled? Please. Thank you, sir. This is exactly why we need to have separate approvals. Case in point. We have an applicant who says they are changing the plan and it's been four months and we find out about it at the last minute. The bottom line for us is that we need to be able to get our permits for our building, get it financed cleanly, unrelated to Starbucks. We can't have any conditions that relate to Starbucks, otherwise our deal is done and we need to be able to build the road. We need to be able to get a certificate of occupancy clearly for our building and move people in there. So, if I can just finish, thank you. This is a really, this is a very good discussion. If the board is seeing that it needs to be, that it cannot amend the current application and issue separate approvals, and it's better for us to have a separate application than I think it's best for us not to waste anybody's time tonight. We will go home and we will come back in two weeks. We have submitted our plan. That's what we're running with. The mall, how do you feel about that? Separate these? This is really not a, I don't think it's a proper discussion for us to have it. We've spoken about this with our partner. We've talked about it numerous times. Clearly, we're still evolving, but it's not the path we chose. I'm going to, you're really asking for a decision from the DRB here, which I think, in my opinion, needs to be deliberated by the DRB and issue whether or not we proceed. I mean, you're all here. I would love to see what changes are. I would love to have an understanding of those changes. But I don't see how we can act on those changes until we clarify what the application is. So, do we do that tonight? Or do we do that once we've had a change in reapplication, if you will? And as part of it says, I hate to waste your time being here, but we're here and that's something we can't deal with. We can't make an ultimate decision on. So perhaps we should just re-warn it separately and the applicants, co-applicants need to get a new application in here and we'll just warn it that way. We'll separate them and deal with that this way. That's my gut reaction. I'm just talking out loud as one person on the board. If you need a decision on the board, we probably need to deliberate this decision. How do you feel, Karla? You know, I just, I'm uncomfortable entertaining the idea of continuing an application that is that's going to be changed and I do think that this split is an issue and it seems as though there's not agreement and I don't think we should necessarily be deciding that for them, but I don't know why Fox Run doesn't have the option of filing on their own. I mean, is that something that they don't have the option to do? I think they do have that option. That's the way I'm playing. What do you think to her? I'm not going to warn you, Polly, but he's right here. No, that's fine. You guys are all the legal eagles. I don't know about that, but yeah, I agree. I don't see how we can move forward you know, what the application has presented if, you know, we're looking at a potential split or major changes down the road. Yeah. I mean, I, you know, I'm here, I wouldn't mind hearing what you have. The vision for Fox Run tonight, but that's all it's going to be. It's just a vision. It's not going to be anything more depth on that. But basically, basically, if I could just add for one moment, you know, I think folks are throwing around the word changes. Obviously, we know what they are, right? We've done them. We haven't submitted because they're not timely, right? If you submitted that this morning, that wouldn't be timely. We're going to look at something without, you know, the proper time. I don't want to speak on behalf of my design professionals, but they contain things that this board has seen before. So, I wouldn't just say, oh, well, we don't know what's coming and they're going to be changes and make that label dictate the course of action. All the things I think you're going to see are going to be familiar to you. Well, I don't know. I mean, I, you know, we have our packet from the first hearing, then we've got another packet a few weeks after that, and then yesterday there was another email. I don't know how much that changed from the previous, so you know, I don't even know at this point what we're dealing with anymore. Well, the problem is we're dealing with an application that really involves access, roadways, two projects, one application, two projects, two separate projects, and my sense is not projects are proceeding on the same course. Right. If that's a reasonable statement of where we are, then we probably need to separate the projects and re-worn them separately, so we can just simply deal with one project at a time. Same applicants, but it's just a different project in that it only deals with Fox Run. Well, my thought is that they need to decide about separating, but we can't make a decision on a half a project. So, I mean, we couldn't issue a decision tonight if we don't have all the information on both halves. You're correct. Fox Run could submit an application independent. Yeah. But they haven't yet. They have that right to do that, right? Well, they and the mall, there's still no problems with that. So, Fox Run could submit an application just for their site planning conditional use on their own. They could submit it tomorrow if they wanted to. That's up to you. And the mall then have to decide that their co-applicant is not going to participate in this original in their original filing and address that somehow, right? But they have, we have no right to tell Fox Run that they cannot submit an application. We have no right to say that. Well, the only person who can submit an application is they have to probably learn. Correct. They cannot submit unless furlough mall associates signs the application as the property owner. Correct. What we would like, Mr. Chairman, is a continuation to the May 3rd meeting. On May 3rd we will have all the plans available to present. We'll give them to you three weeks in advance so you can review them. We'll tell you our entire scope of work, what we're proposing for the site work, what we're proposing and what Fox Run is proposing at that time. The whole kitten caboodle on May 3rd we're prepared to go forward with that. But we'd be asking for a continuation tonight. One more continuation you'll get the whole bit, May 3rd. I'm going to be very frank. The problem I'm having with this is that you know what your changes are and you could have at least given us a heads up as to what they are, but you won't so that we could decide whether it was a substantial change. So I have a little bit of an issue with that. But they all just have to you know hope that it's not because the I mean there's a possibility if it is then that delays it even more. The worst case for us is come May 3rd you decide it's a major change and you ask us to re-warn the meeting and start or re-warn the project and start from the beginning. Just would request that you continue us to May 3rd so we can make our presentation to you. We have the plans complete but they weren't complete until Friday. We didn't feel it was fair to send that down to the town and ask for a review for the plans two or three days before the meeting. Sort of continuation of how my whole day has gone today. But but yeah Tom I'm almost at the end of where I want to be though. The May 3rd is full. So outside of this application. So that would mean the 17th. That's acceptable to us. Pardon? That's acceptable to us the May 17th. I don't know that we have any reason not to grant the applicant's request for a continuation to May 17th. Is there any member of the board feel that we have no reason to do that? I have no problem with that. No. It's their decision. Yeah. I think Carla you look like you're up in the air. I'm not in favor of it but you will outvote me so that's fine. Well Carla no I think what would you I think you're right. They haven't given us grounds to not continue it because they didn't show us the changes. So I would say you're probably right. We don't have a reason not to continue it by design. Our project is fully funded including ARPA funding. There is a massive need for housing in the community. There's a lot of people that have been behind us for years and want to see this get built. That being said I'm fine with May 17th because in the big picture I think we will be fine. What's important to me and I'm not asking tonight for any action but what we need is assurance and an understanding of how our project can move forward independently if it needs to and right now that is not clear to me. I think you need to have ownership of your piece of ground through a subdivision right because it sounds to me that the mall would not sign your application and that happens permanently where the land owner will sign somebody else's application. Sounds like they're not willing to do that so my answer to you would be you need to get ownership of that land free and clear and then you could submit an application. We will not purchase the property until it's fully permitted and fully financed and our investors will not say yes to a project if there is a set of zoning approvals and building permits and certificate of occupancy that are meshed together with conditions and it's confusing. I appreciate that and very frankly I'm not happy with the delays that we've seen on this project for one reason or another and I'm not happy about delaying it further to me at this point at least to me was one member of the board that we continue this to the Bay 17 so we can sort this out and what I do think perhaps sorting it out might be by separating them. That's my opinion. I would continue to hear it together if you want to continue with that way but there may be a good argument and you can submit you need to work out with them all with the argument for separating them you know because you need to move forward for the reasons you stated. So I would climb to grant the request for a continuous but I ask you to consider seriously is how you continue this or do we re-warn it because we have time now re-warn it separately. It's two separate projects one project involving the other building and the other and part of that is access and mobility but they're connected so and we're and I'm sorry to jump in without recognition from you here but I want to say that we want to we are happy to we want to we want the board to hear the applications as a combined review we want you to keep looking at the project as a whole because it is it will operate as a whole all we're asking for is the ability to move forward so I think we can have our cake and eat it too we can combine the review for coordination purposes we're happy to delay again if it's clearly understood by everyone that there's a clear path for us and we need to understand that soon because we want to go to act 250 we want to get our water wastewater permit we're waiting to start our construction drawings until this gets resolved we want to get to work Matt and the hurdles not in the town of Berlin it's your relationships your collective relationships you guys need to get your house in order and decide what's best to do it's not the town of Berlin the town of Berlin cannot do what you are asking it to do it can't it just can't do that it can't grant you an approval if you don't own the land so you've got to do the subdivision you know why we're not hearing the subdivision today we had nothing to do with any of this stuff we're not hearing the subdivision again it's not the town of Berlin that's the hurdle here it's really not it's your two relationships you guys need to work out that I'm sorry to say that Sean Gunningen representing the mall subdivision couldn't take place because potentially the property lines my purpose was property lines may change but I couldn't really be talked about either well I'm inclined to hear a motion to approve a continuance to the May 17th the May 17th second second to be a polly is there a discussion on that motion further discussion on that motion hearing none all those in favor of that motion to continue this for the 17th both parts subdivision and the it doesn't have to be the subdivision but it doesn't have to be so I'm assuming this so I'm going to suggest we do that so all those in favor of that motion please signify by saying aye opposed I'm abstaining yes I didn't yeah normally when you don't have a you have to do a roll call so polly how do you vote in favor tour how do you vote in favor you abstain and the chair votes in favor so the motion carries and we're continuing to the 17th on both applications thank you Mr. Chair thank you there's any other business there's one item of business which is the minutes minutes of February 15th I don't remember it was a it was a continuance so it's okay yeah there's nothing and I have it in front of me so I'm going to make the motion to approve the minutes with February 15th discussion edits hearing none all those in favor of that motion please signify by saying aye aye aye Carly with us or not yeah that's the problem with zoom I'm trying to look at the zoning regulations I'll listen to you at the same time well I'm sorry I'll come here she was zoomed we'll get there it seems like people are motivated to figure it out and we'll figure it out we would like to see you would it be good to have a board or can you present on the screen you can't present on the screen people need to bring a laptop turn on each to your foot I have a mic your turn okay I saw it disappearing are we adjourning yeah unless there's other business to come before the board tonight I would entertain the motion to adjourn and I think I just heard it from Tour