 This is the regular scheduled meeting of the Town of Berlin Development Review Board. We have two items on our agenda tonight. The first item is a continuation of the appeal to the zoning administrative decision. And the second item tonight is an application of the AdWords Development for a Site Plan Review. What I'd like to do at this time is, since I think everyone's here, that's the domain is, is asked anybody to attend to a good testimony before this board tonight, so please raise your right hand. Do you have your testimony before the board tonight? Swear or tell the truth? Nothing but the truth. The matter is before this board tonight on the penalties of perjury. I do. I do. Thank you. What I'm going to do is, because I was not here for the last hearing, I'm going to turn over the chair to Carla, who chaired the last meeting for the first item, which is the continuation of the appeal. And as everyone knows, the thing that we did is we recessed this so that we can get to a site visit. We have done that site visit. And we're here just to wrap this up, I think. Carla, would you please take the chair? So at this point, I would entertain any new testimony, no reiterations of previous testimony, but any new testimony that may be related to the site visit, because we did do a site visit at both properties this past week. So if there's any testimony relating to that issue, otherwise I would entertain and launch the closing hearing. Is there any further testimony? So moved. You're good, Glen. Yeah, so moved. Close the hearing. I'll second that motion. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Okay, so we will, at the end of this meeting, deliberate and issue, we issue a written decision. Written findings on the appeal. What not issued. And that should be forthcoming. Don't wait, we've made a breath, it's probably going to take a couple of weeks. So thank you. Okay, thank you. You're all set. You're all set. Thank you for entertaining us for the site visits. We appreciate that and it was helpful. Good excuse to get out, I guess, huh? Yeah, why not? So, next on our agenda tonight, we have an application by Dulce and Rollin for site plan review. And who is going to represent which? I'm John Spanxis with the Wolf Engineering. And we also have here Brad McAvoy from the one agency of transportation, Tom Lozano from Edgewood Development, and Richard Colburn, here from Dulce, also to keep me honest and make sure I can keep my system down, I don't know if you're correct. That's a one-in-issue move. Yeah. I'm going to slip through. You'll find my mistakes, all right. Rick's no longer here, I let that go. Yeah, okay. Would you, is there a place where setting this up works for everybody or is it already set up? Over here somewhere, perhaps. Yeah, you have an easel, right in front of that door, it might be set up right here. Yeah. And what I could ask you to do is give us an overview. Yeah. And then we'll go through the specific criteria and get familiar with our procedure. And entertain any questions by the board. We're seeing testimony from the zoning administrator, and then we'll go through the individual criteria. Okay. Okay. I think all of you, why is it, I thought maybe it made sense to put the camera here. Yeah, it looks cool. The angle's on. Yeah, I think so. I know. For the cameras, is it better to put back here and leave that here? Oh, they could do that too. You know what I'm going to do, Bob? You can just go on the camera. I can move over here so I can get. So let's get to the angle, but I don't know if you can get. Well, okay to walk. Yeah. We'll put it back here behind us and we can put it down. Well, and that's a pretty dirty floor still, huh? Yeah. This doesn't look like it's going to hold up to any kind of hurricane. So I know it started with the existing conditions plan. This is maybe a little messy, but we'll get there. So here's the existing building, airport road along the front. Here's the existing drive to enter the site. And so this is kind of the main parking lot and there's this pole barn in this area. And there was this expansion of parking that was done around 2011. This little lot here. And then this drive with the front parking and the expansion of the parking back here was done in 2016. And there was also, when the water system came in, improved the water line and had water connection back on this side. So this, when you look at this parking lot, it's kind of a strange jumble. There's this parking area here, the pole barn in this parking here and a space in the middle where a stormwater comes through. Hey John, why don't you use this the point way so your hand's not coming in the way out. Okay, so there's stormwater from this parking lot comes this way out to a depression here and crosses airport road towards the airport property. So that's kind of where we're at right now. And. Question for you on that. Sure. Quickly. That's the existing addition safety plan. That's not the same one you gave us. I moved these specifically to the plantings in front of the parking lot. The plantings were not on there, you're right. And I believe that we. These plantings here were on the 2016 plan and they got mixed and weren't planted as part of that. So in reviewing this, it might have been Tom pointed out that those weren't in there. So they have been, since that was pointed out, they have been placed. So they're there now? They are there now, this is my understanding. Yes, that those hydrangeas have been added here. We had paid for them. Mr. Chairman, I didn't notice the contract. The contractors have been at the final bill back in 16 that included the landscaping. So we had paid for them. I just never noticed that they didn't get done. So they went back and when we were notified, I called it to their attention, lodged an S front right back and did the plantings. Okay, so they're there now? They are. Yes. Good, because they're not on the site plan you gave us. You're correct, they weren't. And I missed the fact that they were supposed to be there. And I think Tom Dotsky pointed that out to us and that situation has been rectified. Is there anything else? I've got a question. So how do the trucks go in now and where do they, you know, go for global? Yeah, so my, and Brad can correct me if my understanding is that they pull in head first and they do, I think that you said that sometimes they will pull in here and they do a lot of jockeying around. If there's tractor trailer deliveries, typically they'll come in the main access drive, drive straight ahead and park kind of in this area to unload. We've got an electric forklift that we can, if they have a panel or something, they can unload there. Typically they'll back all the way into here and try to jockey into here and then drive out. I've even seen them back all the way onto airport road to get out. If it's just a box truck, they'll pull in and try to turn around here and drive out. But you do have deliveries from tractor trailers. We do, yeah. Not a lot, maybe at least one a week, no more than three a week, I would say. So how many trucks does this, do you have daily? You just said that one to three per week. Or like a delivery truck, like an 18-wheeler size? Yeah, one a day. One a day? Two to three per week. And then you have your own vehicles that might have a small trailer. We have in the large cold storage building kind of on the bottom of the parking lot. We do have like a dump truck size truck or a four to 450 or something with a trailer with the drill rig on the back of it. But that's not anywhere near going out of the truck trailer. They would not necessarily use the new entrances, mainly for the delivery trucks. When we get to that, they would actually prefer to use that. Well, let's wait until we get to that specific criteria about traffic circulation. This is just an old one. Oh yeah, I just wanted, well, he had the existing one. So then we come to what the proposal before you is. And the tenant and the commodity of transportation has and uses this facility for a lot of different things including vehicle storage. And they have a meeting site there that has a capacity of like 75 seating capacity, meeting site. So they're, the existing site is stressed for parking. And they mainly had a need for additional parking. And in discussing it, the issue of the truck access came up as well. And so that led us to decide that the best thing to do, which we did come up with some way, that the trucks could have a better route into the site and safely circulate through the site and exit the site without having to back out or potentially onto Airport Road. So the intention is to have this new one way in for trucks which could come in and circulate through the site like this, if necessary they can back into the unloading area here and then just simply pull back out and exit the site. And we also, the parking on this area has been reoriented to be, make more sense, work with the truck access and maximize the use of the parking space. And then there's also the proposal to add as many parking spaces as we could and other 10 spaces of parking to complete that. So there's no work proposed on the north side of the building, just this additional payment on the west and the new access and the completion of that parking here. As far as the site is concerned, the existing parking obviously is flat but there is an exposed ledge face here that will have to be cut back and there'll be some regrading along this edge of the parking here to make this work. Okay, thank you. While you have that up, John, is there some stormwater improvements as well? There will be stormwater improvements. It's not on that plan here. It's dramatic, well, there's just the intent. So there's an existing stormwater pond here. There's also one back there for that lot which we won't have any impact on. But the intent is to construct a new stormwater treatment area here to meet the new 2017 state of Vermont rules. So in the new rules, infiltration practices take precedence, you have to use infiltration practices when at all possible. So we'll have to do, we have not made that application to the state yet. We're in the process of putting that together. But what we are showing, this coin here shows the grading, the proposed infiltration or detention pond area here and the grading for a swale collecting off the edge of the parking lot here. Basically all stormwater from this area would go in the new closed drainage system and enter into the depression here and there'd be a new outlet control structure here which would discharge, you know, at a rate not exceeding toward rates. So it discharged into the existing over underneath Airport Road. Okay, again, we're gonna go through that when we get the stormwater. So, do you have any comments, Tom? Besides the question? Oh, okay. Questioned by members of the board before we proceed with the criteria. Okay, then let me open up both the site plan of our new criteria. I'm still getting used to these regulations. And I would say one thing for the future. The format you use to address these that I just, you have addressed all the criteria and then some in your submittal. But the format you use with this and following the outline in the table on, but I would prefer had you follow the outline on the Chapter 320, okay, future reference, I apologize for that. It's the same information, it's just a different order. Okay. Who likes you to hear that over and over again? Yeah, until we change that. You got a table of good degrees with our own criteria. Okay. Not your bad, but just use your reference since we can see you frequently here. Chapter 320, is our new Bible for Pro-M? For site plan review, yes. So we'll pick and choose from your, okay, but we'll go basically with that. And it does start with the first criteria it has to do with parking and loading areas. You generally addressed that. Did you have anything further you want to tell us about parking and loading? Specifically, I think the number of spaces of our own interest to me. Yeah, and so I do see that you have a requirement for a minimum amount of parking and a maximum amount of parking. Correct. And the parking is, I believe, based on, well, the minimum is based on the spaces per gross floor area. And I think I have that new title sheet here. So, again, we're sitting there. Papa space of 48,000, or so square feet, which were 80 spaces. And then the research and development of the American Materials and Research Lab would be another nine spaces. And so that comes out to 89. And then your maximum says you're allowed to go up to two times that, which is, I think I have, it's 178. And we are proposing that the total spaces on the site would be higher than that. If my eyes serve me correctly, 161 is what we're showing. So that's greater than the 178. But I do see that in the maximum amount of parking, it says the development review board may condition approval of any parking in excess of the minimum applicant, surfacing additional area with previous materials and or constructing it in phases that's warranted to meet future demand. And I would say that it's my understanding that the agency of transportation is at that point where they have indicated they need the parking that we're supposed to meet the current demand. I have a question. What is your calculation with the lab and how you arrived at nine? Well, there's just a square foot basis. And we just said that there was 48,000, 125 square feet at one per 600 square feet, which came up to 80. And then the research lab, the V-trans indicated was approximately 8,000 square feet. How many square feet? Now it's 40. 40,000. So 40,000 square feet. So the lab is on the first floor. It's a, that was the last addition that Capital City Press did to the building. It was a 20,000 square foot warehouse, which we then converted to 20,000 square feet of lab space on the first floor. And 10,000, it's 40,000 in total. 10,000 square feet on the second level houses the HVAC system, which is pretty extensive because it's a materials and research lab in the venting that has required the humidity levels. Everything is temperature controlled. So there's 10,000 square feet of mechanical area on the second floor and 10,000 square feet of office. So the total occupied space in the materials and research lab is actually 30,000 square feet. So other than the 8,000, that's correct. Yeah, so that would bring you to the base of 79 up fairly significantly and keep the total within the hordes calculation. The double total, we wouldn't be over double. Well, if that was. So you're saying there's 40,000 square feet of lab? There's 40,000 square feet in the lab facility, total. 10,000 of which is mezzanine for, is mechanical. Not on the top. The way our language is here, though, it's gross square feet. So that would be, there we go full second. Yeah, so it really, frankly, I've never seen it done that way, but that's the way it was written out. Okay. It's based on gross square feet, as opposed to habitable. Habitable or usable. I see. As opposed to subtracting hallways out and bathrooms out and stuff like that, we now just use gross square feet. So what's the total gross square feet? 40,000. 40,000 of lab, 40,000. 40,000 for the office. Correct. Your calculation on the office was spot on. 48, it was 48. 48 is fine. So it would be 8,125,125 square feet. So that nine number would go to 44. Correct. And then 44 plus the 80. So that was close to 300. That was correct. And in terms of our utilities, we're currently rated to have 225 employees. And the reason I remember that number is when they had the unfortunate sprinkler release at National Life, they had to relocate a bunch of employees to this facility fairly immediately. And I had called Tom to make sure that we weren't, number one, to make sure he was aware of it, that on a temporary basis, they had relocated roughly 100 employees. And I wanted to make sure that everyone was aware of it and we weren't running on the wrong side. And Tom assured me, you're still fine because you're rated for 225 occupants. And I'm not familiar with this table yet that we're using. What we do have, we also have, this is for office space. And then now we have seating for a meeting space. All right, so you're 75. You indicate that it's not uncommon to have conferences there with up to 75 people. Certainly seating options. Well, I don't know what this is to find out, but it's one per employee, plus one per. There's no definition of that. Public safety facility. With your revised calculation, we're within the maximum amount allowable. Yes. Well, I think without adding anything for public assembly, I think I came with 248, which is less than the 261. 261. Yes, yeah, so I have 248 as well. 248. So we need to come up with justification for another 13. Well, this also doesn't take in, this grocery or food does not take into account, vehicles stored there. Correct, which we store 25 vehicles. I think there's about 25 either fleet vehicles or assigning vehicles for work. It's a new table to us, but you have to allow for that. I mean, while those vehicles may leave during the day. Most of them are gone. Yeah, nonetheless, it's a period of time during the day when people arrive part before they go. Yep. And it's running around 25 right now. Some pulled fleet vehicles that people can sign out and then around 20 that are assigned to specific individuals. So if you added the 25, that would get us to 273 spaces. We're struggling with having too much spaces. Yeah, that's right. It's totally, and I, I mean, with a lot of this area that's not being, I approach you to two more. It's probably the only after people ever see it. I totally would want the town for taking that into account and trying to not pave the universe unnecessarily. And one other interesting, but perhaps mitigating fact, Mr. Chairman, that building serves as the alternate seat of government in the event of a failure where it flooded. I mean, the event of a failure where it flooded. That's where she was going. She was pointing out the state government building is fully functional. It has a generator, it can function on its own. So in the event of a flood or some other issue, that's not going to be seen for government. We want a few places where the state meets and isn't in the flood plain. The northern? Yeah. The northern. So in the back, so I was going to say, the national wide facility, one for employee plus, one for a certain amount of square feet, so. Yeah, it almost prevented them from occupying it because it was too far above the flood plain. But. But they consented, so it all worked out. This is being recorded, you know that? Yeah. Are there any questions about parking? So this board is comfortable that they have more than attic, that they're looking for 261 that our regulations will allow us. And you're going to give us some narrative back. Some revised narratives and revised articulations. We would like to revise narrative, yes. Showing more of that. Because I do think, your logic for the 289 spaces makes some sense, it just, it's not based on the same criteria, it's based on an older criteria. So what we'd like to do is have you make sure that the new criteria work here. And I think they do, I think when we put in count for the fact it can be the emerging public safety area, that is a meeting place. And I recognize that the meetings may not necessarily occur during the same time of day that the working time is. But the meetings typically during the day time or they typically. Most of them are during the day. But how many employees did you say were there in the building? Since 180 here. When with full occupancy, including temporary people, there'd be about 180. But probably 60% of those people are field staff and they're on the ground in the day. Yeah. So, but they come out and start there. They typically start their day there, yes. Any other questions? Just before we leave parking, I just would note that they also ask that we provide space for vehicles a little longer than normal so that we're showing that's nine and a half EY, not the nine foot minimum of your regulations. Mike, pick up a previous item. Sorry, sorry, sorry. Yeah, well, the regulation is the minimum. I'm going to do it in depth, which is nine and a half EY. That's good. So we've addressed, we've talked about minimum parking and you obviously see that, but you exceeding the maximum. But you're going to give us revised figures on that based on our criteria. Loading areas? There's no change to the loading area. It's as was noted, pretty much in the center of the south face of the building. But what with this application, it improves the access of the location of the loading dock in that loading area. It looks as though the trucks would be coming in at the opposite direction now, right? Correct. So loading area does change. I mean, you know. Yeah, so as Brad indicated previously, vehicles pulled straight in and then just unloaded off the back of the truck. We would try to work around where they could offload just because they didn't really have any other way to jog around. So we would typically have to run to find somebody who could operate the forklift to try to get them unloaded. Even though a lot of our deliveries, we require that they come prepared with a lift gate, nine or seven times they don't. So we at least have the capability on site to get them offloaded and have of our previous path coming out of the lab. So the loading area would be the same, but the truck would be 180 degrees, different orientation with the back of the vehicle facing the load at this dock on this corner of the building. There's a couple of red doors there that we would typically bring stuff into. But that location won't really change. It's just. But now they can back into that loading. They could loop around the corner and back up a little closer rather than us having to unload them from the opposite end. Which improves their access. Definitely, yeah. So as well as our employees' safety, we've had a couple of people get lost by a truck because this driver's not paying attention. Apologies you had a question. Well, no, the next one was circulation. Yeah, yeah. So let's go over that vehicle's access to circulation. So I can just read the existing size access from Airport Road. And that access is not proposed to change. We are proposing this new curb cut to the south. And it's proposed for one way access in for the WB65 vehicles as well as VTrans' own truck vehicles that are stored in the area of the pole barn. New access, the new curb cut you're proposing, have you gone to select one of that for approval? Yes. Yes. That was on Thursday. That gave tentative approval based on the GRB's review of the certification. Now, your spacing between your two accesses does not meet minimum standards. That's correct. Perd. Perd. B72. B71. B71. But we feel that that's mitigated by the fact that this is just being used as a one-way in only. One concern I have with that a little bit is I know you intend to put a sign that says do not enter. But I would like to see something stronger than that. You know, people have a habit of sort of ignoring stuff and don't even have a suggestion. But it's really one traffic only, entering only. And I want to be certain that it says, I think, do not enter is the sign you put on there. The sign you proposed. Right. Facing to it. Facing towards the road. Right. Yes. And I think the only emphasis is one-way traffic only, in addition to the fact that it's do not enter. And that should no exit. I don't have a sign in mind that I'm sure there's the manual for the new traffic control device that says it's appropriate sign somewhere. But I want to be clear to all the users that, basically, this is not intended for an exit. Our internal traffic safety section is located in that building. So they were also going to look at signage to make sure we had appropriate signage on not just that drive, but also our existing drive just to make sure that traffic is being directed where they need to go. I would like something stronger than just do not enter. Because it's clearly indicated it's one-way traffic only. And it's for truck traffic only. Yeah. Yeah, it's actually wouldn't be safe exiting from there. It's not to the site distance. Mr. Chair, do you see the necessity of pavement marking on that? So it wanted to exit out the truck entrance. Something saying, written on the pavement, not an exit or something. No, I mean, well, I guess I would ask a revised signage package from VTrans that basically reforms the manner for the uniform traffic control device is kind of what terminology. But it's something to be clear that it's really one-way traffic only and it's not an exit. OK. The problem with pavement markings is they not only fade away, but if it's covered with snow or something, you can't see it. Of course. I think it's just good signage, and that might be the sign on each side or something like that. OK. Oh, but we've got a lot of cloud trucks that should be getting. I know. But with that many boys leaving basically the same time a day. No, actually, it's not. That's not. We actually have people arriving in the morning anywhere from 5.30 until 8.00, and people leaving at the end of the day between 2.30 and 5.00. There's very staggered people coming in and out for a whole time. There's still a lot of people there being in at always 6.00. Tennessee for people with short cut. So that truly is seen as an entrance only for those three trucks elite? And also the drillers rig. The drillers rig. They use the coal storage. They've got a larger size truck with a trailer. It's got a trailer on it. There's two trailer mounted drill rigs where now they would come in the existing drive and loop to the right, and then have to try to get turned into the building. And if we're going to add that parking on that left edge towards airport road, that's going to cut their turning radius down to try to get into there now. Well, frankly, also if you've got regular box trucks but they're made in deliveries, you want them to come that way. Also because what you would want them to do is come around and back up to the delivery area. So it sounds more like deliveries, huh? Like these deliveries, really. It's what it is. And the sun and air. And the drill crew, right? Will you have an internal memo to your employees about this practice here? And we'll also have all of our deliveries. We'll try to get them on board, as when they show up for deliveries saying, all future deliveries, please use them on access, and try to get most of the time that's the same the crystal rock truck, UPS, FedEx, that kind of thing. So with the exception of that inference, everything else is two-way. Is that correct? Correct. What's your width between your parking spaces? 22. Questions of convicts on circulation? Access? You're putting in a convict under that access, Ryan? We are, yes. That has been pulled by the Sni-4 also? On the outside of the right-of-way. Outside the right-of-way? We said outside the right-of-way. Because there's a force main right there, and we're unsure of the depth. So we don't want to get the thing too far down under that right-of-way there further than we need to. So we moved it back out of the way so there's no conflicts. Which way does that bring in? Does that bring toward that same 21-inch culvert? Yeah, it goes north and then across Airport Road. OK. Everything goes that 21-inch culvert? Yeah. Questions by the board? I'm not familiar with the format, so I'm working on it. Laboring through it a little bit here. Access circulation. I guess this is where they also talk about public transit and bicycle access and pedestrian access. I think you addressed pedestrian and bicycle access. Yes. Said that we're not proposing any additional pedestrian or bicycle access. We're not modifying any building entrances or walkways to them, but there are existing paving or concrete walkway accesses to the building, but we aren't proposing anything new. I just have a question about that. Because you're increasing the number of spaces, aren't the handicapped spaces supposed to be at percentage? They're basically about 2 per 50 is the rough number. But in any event, there already was an access of. OK. So you would meet the requirements with them? With the expansion, there was only seven required, and there was already nine handicapped spaces on site. Landscaping and screening? So we're not proposing any new landscaping or screening with the site. There's already plain things along the airport road. And so the only modification we're making is actually the removal of the trees for the drive to allow for the new curb cut. And we haven't proposed any additional planning for this plan. This is where I picked up the hydrangeas, being honest, I thought it was going to work. Yeah, she said, good. Yeah, there are any hydrangeas. That's really nice. OK. Any questions about that for the board members? No, thanks. That's the applicants' place. And our criteria? So what district are we in? The L.A. Industrial. L.A. Industrial. At least I'm sure that then we're providing the questions, right? But we're providing parking spaces. I'm sure that we're attending parking spaces. Have you looked at our screening requirements? I have to say I've not looked at the screening requirements. Yeah, I knew. This is 3204 I. 3204. Which comes before J. I think it applies, but I don't need to go. It doesn't apply in L.A. in Mexico. Oh, screening after J. Include converting existing and previous surfaces to parking. The applicants have just planned at least one tree or budding the parking area for every five of the parking spaces. Is it already impervious, though? No. It's, well, slight, slight. Well, now all this time. Not over here, though. New impervious area. The new parking space. So there's 10 here. New impervious. And there is one. I count 26 here. Plus the 10. There's 36 spaces on New Impervious. The majority of the newly created spaces really came and we soon from the Port Road. Yeah, this isn't actually called screening. It's just about when you're, it says it's parking lot landscaping. And it's related to stormwater? No. I would say, I'm going to have to look at that section. And then shrubs is one for every 10. Right. So there would be, like, in the order of seven trees and four shrubs. Yes. But there are existing trees on the airport road. I mean, once we've actually tried landscaping on the south side of the existing accessway. Yeah. And because of the pines, the large pine trees, we can't even get flowers to grow or maintain flowers where the sign area is. You know, we've planted flowers there and then the pine needles come off the trees and kill them. So on the north side, there's some significant landscaping, including the hydrangeas. Right. I mean, could we plant trees for the sake of planting trees? Sure, but I don't know that they'd serve a functional purpose or survive the sultry coming off the airport road. The hydrangeas are further up. They're in a disalternate pattern, approximately 20 feet off of the existing, where we're proposing to put the 10 new spaces there. Like, is it 10 or 10? Where those 10 new spaces are, the hydrangeas actually start at those existing, at what would be the new five and then work them way back. Does it make sense to extend those hydrangeas up to where you'd put it into the new parking spaces? We'd be happy to do that. I'd have to look to see if we haven't already. I mean, I went up to check their work and we'd be happy to do that. The hydrangeas are in front of the parking spaces previously. Yeah, the existing spaces. Yeah. But they did not install. And we'd be happy to extend those. And I'm just thinking maybe we extend those hydrangeas there. I've got to think of other... They might be out for one more, but they're already shifted over. How about to the south of the project? South of the parking space. If it senses south of the project, is shallow in the bedroom? It is. You're not going to plant eight trees. No. Am I wrong about that? You're correct. No. You could plant shrubs. Swap out additional shrubs for trees. That'd be potential. What do we have there now on the south side? I think there's a little wooded... a little patch of wooded area there. Yeah, it's not... I don't think it's too dense, but it's just overgrown. I thought of that ledge there between the Jovis Witness and the parking here. I'd say it's probably ten feet vertically from the parking lot up to the top of that ledge there. So the Jovis Witness is kind of going up over everything anyway. So just for reference, the intent of this when it was written was that there be islands with trees for shade, et cetera, et cetera. And that was the adding trees, adding shrubs. It doesn't really fit with this project. I think that the existing site is quite nicely landscaped. We're not a big tree. We're totally open to suggestions. I want to make a suggestion here. That whatever dollars that is, that the applicant writes a check to that amount of money to the Berlin Conservation Committee and let them plant the trees where they think it best fits in the town. Do we have any? I'm not comfortable with that. That's a precedent we've never used before. I think it's something we need to discuss in some way, from the select board, I think. I've used the Google map. I'm looking at the area between Jovis Witnesses and that new parking area. And I'm having difficulty perceiving what's really there. Well, Mr. Chairman, if I look at the grading plan, so here we are at the existing pines on Air Fort Road. There is this depression of the existing stormwater area. This word we know is shallow to bedrock. But then there is this, there is an area of, if you Google maps, I don't know if you see that. There is some vegetation here. But then we could maybe extend that, add a few more trees. It's not going to provide anything in the way of visual enhancement to the site. The only other possible area could be a few wind along the south side of the entry drive. Well, Karla, you mentioned the idea of having shade. I assumed you were talking about in the parking lot. So breaking the parking lot up a little bit. Right, picture a mall parking lot. The idea is that there's islands with trees and green space and shade. That's the theory under this parking landscaping. But it's new to us, so we're trying to figure it out. It's obviously going to cut down on parking spaces for any landscaping in the parking lot. The intent of the project was to try to get as many spaces as the occupant. It seems like the intent of this, though, is to break that up a little bit. That's cold storage. That's the cluster of trees. This is all the current shrubbery of trees. There's an opportunity for some plantings along the entrance road. Now you're going to be putting in that new pond or it's probably going to be a sand filter. But you have an opportunity to put some plantings there. We could bring them along the bank. I was thinking more about the entrance way. I was thinking more there. And I do think there's an opportunity to extend the hydrangeas up one or two more. Really just not familiar. My sense is Jehovah Witness came sealed in here. Is that based on terrain? I think that from the parking lot here they can look right over. That's my recollection. They look over from a certain height. We're lower in elevation than they are. They look more at the roof than they do the building. We also have to consider with any new plantings snow removal. We should set them back to the drive. I'm not a limit sight distance as well. There's a fair amount of parking there. And you can see it now as you're driving by. So I think there's something you may be able to drive away there. Staying there for years up there. That would make me happy. I think this is not your classic new parking type thing. This is light industrial. It's not commercials. It's residential. I'd be comfortable with that. We have a little bit of flexibility to consider what's on the existing site. I think that would be fine. We would be going with additional trees based on the amount of spaces that are on the new impervious. Do you think I would say they can be shrubs? Yeah, I think... I believe I can do seven trees and three or four shrubs. I think that we can make that work. If we could request a revised landscape plan to reflect that, I think we're on the same page here. Just to extend the thought a little bit because these are new regulations and we're trying to understand what Carla brought up. If we were to just do a mind experiment for a little bit, there are currently some islands in that plan. What would be the implication of suggesting that tree shrubs would ever go there? They're not curved islands. They're painted islands. In practice, a snow cloud will wake them up. We'd be replacing them every year. I think they just do. It looks like an island is going to get painted and treated. I'm just trying to think of how to conform to the regulations. On the other hand, they would only be required to do it for the new parking. They would have trees in just one area. They could put them there. That's what I'm thinking. I'm wondering are we saying that the suggestion in these regulations that we break up a parking lot like that is counterintuitive to snow clouds? It absolutely is. We're trying to learn this. That's what we always struggle with. I remember when we first looked at the mall shopping center and we first looked at Berlin Mall. Regulating is always wanting to have trees. Practically speaking, between the salt and the plowing and everything else, it just doesn't work very well. I have seen some successfully do where not in every lane, but every ultimate lane or so, you can put an island in, but you can't do it too much because if you do it too much, if you think about the Bear Mountain Play Road, some of those sites down there, the idea being if those were to be reconstructed, you can create a sidewalk and a barrier with shrubbery or trees along the road to redevelop the site and make it a lot more attractive. It can help with stormwater too. There are sites where there's no landscaping, and this makes perfect sense, but you happen to have a Bear Mountain landscaping, so it's a little more difficult. But I think if they couldn't add some trees and shrubs, that would be great. So we'll leave it. Then you will provide us with a rise landscaping plan and you'll provide some additional shrubbery and some additional trees, considering those areas that were mentioned, not necessarily exclusive to those. It's got to work physically. You can't plant them on a rock. Or in a room. Or if you do it. There we lost where I am. This is where we depart from Bear Bottom to ours, but let's talk about outdoor lighting because we can go past through that pretty quickly. We are proposing additional lighting with the fairies, lighting on the building, and I believe there are some lightings in the parking lot as well. Farter. Where we're proposing the new area a lot, there are just existing pole-mounted down-throw lights in that area, plus some building that way. So we wouldn't be getting additional lighting. We'd not provide us with a lighting plan or anything like that. So where these spaces here, are there existing lights? There isn't that problem. Yeah, okay. I'm just thinking people getting off work at 4.30 gets pretty dark. Yeah, you actually, when we talked about signs earlier, the only signs you're proposing are directional signs. Out of order, I suggested we need something stronger than just do not enter. You proposed two signs, do not enter, and truck entrance only, or something like that. I'm comfortable with the truck, and the truck entrance only is generally a little absurd, although some people think they're pickups of truck. I have a truck license plate. A few more deliveries. Yeah, yeah. So we restrained that language. It's a revised sign sheet. Okay. So just, sorry, it came back to a topic on lighting plans just to make sure. It does say that it's required in the case where, unless you're in rural or short-lived conservation of land, let's see, applicants for major site plan approval must submit a lighting plan prepared by professional lighting designer or engineer if that's 3205B. But they aren't changing the lighting, right? We're not adding that. All right. I'm just wondering, because the question would be, does it cover the existing, you know, I mean, that's why the purpose of the light plan is to understand if it covers the new parking. But I do understand there are no changes. Well, if it does say happening from major site plan approval must submit a lighting plan. And I think the presumption is to give your proposing lighting. I believe we did on the previous expansion. Yeah, right. There was a submission for that. There was. Without all that. Had there been the lighting, if you let him propose that, if you want to see a lighting plan, if you want to see cut sheets, we want to see everything. And we're fine. And we're fine with that cut-off as an extreme new meeting. Yes. I'm trying to get caught up here. Signs. We went through signs, right? Well, in my mind, I think we're done with signing questions. You're not proposing any other signs than sharp. That's where he only has to do with traffic circulation. Interesting enough, before we get to erosion in the storm water, we get to outdoor use areas. Yeah. And you do discuss outdoor use areas. And actually we're requesting removing the outdoor use areas from the application. That is my understanding. We're not sure yet the lab would like to create a small little, almost just like a little pole-line pavilion way in the back of the property just to have a couple of picking tables that can have a cover over it. But it'd be a very minor structure and they haven't totally decided if that's something that's going to happen or not. And I think there was a discussion that we'd like wanting to remove that from the application. I think Tom and I had a quick discussion about it and there was something that we didn't have design board or anything done at this point. We were going to take it out and there was something that Tom could approve himself administratively at a later date. There would be a pretty minor structure. I think there were a couple mentions of it in my letter and there were a outdoor seating and storage so we would want to strike that that we are not proposing that. And then also in a renewable energy discussion, I mentioned that as well, that there were we had a discussion with Solar. That's been taken off the table and removed from the application. Okay. Okay. You can revise the area. Yeah. Yeah. It's clear. The next section here was 3208 with performance standards and you do address that noise layer over vibration. That's interesting. Only I think that there's no change in the use of building and no additional outdoor structures or chillers or anything like that. It's simply that you don't expect an increase in the number of vehicles necessarily. It's just to accommodate existing vehicles. The existing employees as well as the existing truck traffic that's an occasional meeting with a lot of comfort homes. Probably one of the city's has. Once or twice a month they may have 40-50 people in there but it's not easy to speak on this. That's happening now too, right? That's been happening since we occupied it all. Erosion control. Erosion control. This project will disturb more than maker so we will have to do a site-specific erosion control plan or to meet the stated performance standards for the construction general apartment and we will forward that to the board. You'll be amending your construction general apartment for the state. You'll go with that. Actually you get forwarded that permit, don't you? I do not. Does it have to be signed upon and posted? Not anymore. Now the state will notify as needed when needed so we don't have to do that anymore. That owner's posting in every town office doesn't happen anymore? No. You've stated in your text that you will provide us with a copy for the application that will be conditioned upon. Understood that. What is it what are your proposals for erosion control? The tip of stabilized construction entrance where appropriate erosion control matting on steeper slopes and the general seating mulch meeting the specified time frames of no surface area greater than such and such exposed for more than 7 days. Your ledge removal will be done how? It's my understanding that we believe it to be fairly soft ledge and expected it can be done with hydraulic ripping. So you're not proposing a plastic? Hopefully we won't have any plastic. Our go-to is assuming that we'll be able to do with ripping and hydraulic. You've had to remove some ledge for the previous bell down on the far end of that block and it just came up pretty easy. I think we want to be notified if you have to resort to plastic. Stormwater management? If you would give us some more detail on that please. I know you're going to give us a copy of the application. Now to your permit we'll be conditioned about you getting through from the state. What do you have in mind? So specifically we're adding closed drainage. There's some existing problems with drainage in front of the building now. We will try to improve that with this proposal. So the drive comes in at a slope off the road, 2% to a low point here and then comes up with a gradual slope peaks here. The new pavement will be monopitched towards a grass swale here and then to a low point where it will be picked up by a catch basin here and then the flow of this catch basin goes out this way and into the most likely an infiltration basin here and we'll pick up the existing roof water. You're not proposing any re-grading? The only changing in grading is shown in grey here. The grey is redeveloped area minor changes in grading of the pavement here and then what is kind of yellow is the new pavement, new impervious here. So this dashed line is the edge of the changes in grade. So this will stay the same. Is that currently slope toward the building or you had catch basins proposed between the building and the parking? There is a catch basin here, yes. So this is very flat and then it roughly there's a rough high point here which shallow slope out towards and we'll directly enter this treatment swale here and then from roughly here it slopes back in this direction and we'll enter either that catch basin or this catch basin here so this whole lot will end up being put through this. Where does the roof drain just go now? So there's right now these roof drain locations come out and there are gutters that just exit over the curb, onto the pavement. So are you going to connect them or are you just going to collect them off the pavement? This plan is showing picking them up. So you're going to pick up the downstops? Yes, so there's an area here that water tends to pond and that's a serious freezing issue in the winter is my understanding. So you'll have two points of discharge two treatments on this side, the other one on the other side too. Correct, that's the one there and there'll be this one here. There is an existing discharge out the back here and that will remain there'll be less going that way because what was going into this structure will be lessened by in addition to the roof. And you've looked at that 21 inch culvert? Yes, so we have the discharge at a rate that it can handle. I haven't looked at it to see its integrity here and what its condition is. That discharge is on the sea land, does it not? I believe it does. You may just want to look at that. The 21 inch culvert doesn't strike me as terribly. No, it's not at all awesome. No, it's not, but we would not overact. Well you would have talked to the road foreman today about it. He thought the integrity was decent that confirmed that. The size was probably adequate with what you're doing here. He did say on the discharge end of it on the state property that the pipe was pretty much at grade and he's wondering when you're doing your excavation if you can go over there and add a little bit of free board coming out of that pipe so it has, so it doesn't improve the outside. Yeah, so the sediment doesn't get back. Any questions by the board on the calculations on the flows yet? That's top of the list of things that you're working on. Those are our standards. You do address the conditional use standards because you use that table, they're not applicable. This application, this is just to say plenty of people that's our bad because Overachiever. Tom will not be paid for that. It's along some contacts. You say there will be no new traffic at it. That's my understanding. Okay. Any questions by the board members? Is there something covered? I just want to add what we got some loose answers. Chief Wolfe said no impact to the Portland police. I did not hear from fire. Now you are on public water and public sewer now, right? Not that this remained to this application. So we're looking for a revised landscaping plan from you. I don't think we need a revised narrative of what you've deleted. I'd like to have a parking. The parking authority. We're looking for a revised parking. Yeah. Calculation. That satisfies the ordinance. Recognizing that, I think we have some flexibility here as a board. And you're going to take out the two sections. Yes. I just want to provide you with a new letter saying addressing the landscaping, addressing the revised parking and addressing the fact that it's easier than it is. Does the board want to see that or are we comfortable with just having that submitted to Tom? Okay, but I mean I guess the question really is are we prepared to close this hearing? Yeah. We won't take any more testimony. I would entertain a motion to close the one portion is hearing. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I have a question to sign submittal. Could you be a little more clear on that? On the signs? No. Off the top of my head, I want it to be clear it's truck entrance only. I think that does say that. I forget what the sign was that you proposed there. Yeah. But I want to be clear about the exit that I want to make sure that everybody that stands is one-way traffic and do not enter and that would do it for me. But I'm not sure. I would look for the manual for traffic control devices that are appropriate. It's a direct-show sign. I want it very clear that we're not that doesn't mean it also won't. But they're not supposed to leave that way. Are you suggesting signed on both sides? Okay. If that doesn't conform with the manual then I'm not pushing it. I'm sure that will be fine. I hate to ask for retrans to put in a sign that doesn't conform to the manual. Yeah. Our regional context. Well, when I sat down with Brad and Alec Portolupia talking about their circulation issues and I said, well, retrans wouldn't necessarily allow us to have a second curb cut on this property. But it seems like it makes sense here. Well, actually, I find B71's tool confusing there on the spacing. To be very honest with you, you came up with 305 based on speed limit. But that's not the only criteria for spacing. It's just a speed limit. That's about sight distance. Correct. I'm pretty comfortable with the 257 you have. Well, because it's entrance only. Especially because it's entrance only. Yeah. We would want to look at sight distance. You do not identify sight distance, but it's not really germane. Yeah, but it makes a big difference. So, I think that's a good time, right? Signs, landscaping, revised text. And the parking. The parking calculations. Okay. So, I'm going to make I was halfway correct. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm good at that. Thank you. So, yeah. And in the party motions that they provide, of course, the items that we just requested. Okay. It must have been made. And secondly, discussion on motion. Clarification necessary? No, girls. Please see if I may say aye. Aye. And we have closed the one-pointedness hearing. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Thanks. We have one eye on you. Thank you. The only we have on agenda is the minutes of the last meeting. I was not there. I did not review them. Are you prepared to or do you want to postpone that? I didn't read them. I think I should postpone. Okay. So, let's postpone that. The next meeting. Talk to the boarder. In which case, let's move them to the little session. So,