 This is where he was scheduled to be down at Berlin, the Development and Review Board. Spit that out, Robert. We need a shorter name, DRB. There you go. And we have two applications before us tonight, or at least we did have. The first application, I don't have my agenda in front of me. That's the discontinuation of the. Henry Perrin. Yeah, the discontinuation of the. Let me read it for a minute. I'm familiar with the morning. OK. Thank you, Tom. Continuation of the application by the State of Henry Perrin for preliminary and final plan review of a minor two-lot residential subdivision. We also have an application by the Berlin Mall LLC for final plan review of a minor two-lot subdivision of 1.940 acres and 63.8583 acres. Tom, the application of the State of Henry Perrin. So I received the notice and I afforded to the Development and Review Board. They decided that with the advice of their attorney not to pursue a subdivision. They didn't think it was required. There was a discussion at the last hearing if it was required or not. So they decided to pull their application. And they have submitted a mylar reflecting the lots now to the town clerk. So. Thank you. Records reflect that that application has been withdrawn. Oh, John. Happy new year to you. Thank you. Give me a favorite time and pull the chair out for. Well, apparently we have one guest. Paul, I got the letter so I figured I'd show up. You also gave us a downing. Yes. So OK, that application was withdrawn. Then we have the other application, which is the Berlin Mall LLC being represented tonight by. Paul O'Leary with O'Leary Works Civil Assortiates. Is he an engineer? Yes, I'm an engineer. Sir, which application are you here for? It's the mall one. OK. All right. The mall? OK. I'm right next door. Very good. So this is an application for a subdivision. This is an application we've heard once before. Back in March or February 5th? February 5th. We had the hearing. And this application would be for tonight because? Because the state of Vermont has a statute that says that subdivision approval, the miler, has to be filed within 180 days of the written approval. The written approval happened on, I think, March 27th. And on our side of the house, everybody kind of forgot about it. It's taken a while to get through the permit process, and then we realized a month or two ago that the 180 days had expired. Therefore, by statute, our subdivision is null and void. Doesn't affect the site plan approval for the residential, but it affects the subdivision. So we're back to ask for a re-approval of the subdivision. If you recall, with the Berlin Mall, there were a number of outlots that have always been shown on the master plan, outlots A, B, C, and D. And they were never officially subdivided. They were shown on the map as a certain area. Now, we are building the new congregate facility on outlot B. So we wanted to subdivide the outlot because my client is going to own the lot. And so we had applied for a subdivision for that lot and provided you with a plaque, which is on the top there that shows outlot B, which is essentially the same as what Berlin Master Plan showed, a couple of minor little revisions. But I think the master plan had it as 1.96 acres and we're at 1.94. So that's why we're back for a re-approval of the subdivision. Because the survey has screwed up. The blame falls on me. I mean, we have the developer, we have the attorney, and we have us. But typically, we're pretty good at tracking these things, because it's embarrassing to be honest with you when it happens. But it happened. So here I am. That's why I'm here and not one of my guys. Yeah. Very good. And we have somebody here. Did you want to participate in this? No, I just want to see what the subdivision was, kind of what's going there, because I'm right next to it. So I'm out of eight of two cars, Twin City Subaru and Toyota. So we're really your name. Are you seeking party status? OK. We have it's form of an anti-spoiler. You're right. My apologies. Missed that one. Let me swear in anybody that tends to give testimony before this board tonight, please raise your right hand. You swear to the Call of Truth. Nothing but truth in the matter before this board tonight. And apparently, it's a perjury. Thank you. And you have not raised your hand, so you don't pretend you can testify. Very good. So this is testimony we've heard before. But so I'm going to ask them for its pleasure. Back in March, we heard this application. Let me ask the applicant, are there any changes? No, there are not. The subdivision? The platform in front of you is identical to the platform that was in front of you on February 5th. Are there any changes to the conditions of development? No. I know you've been through the active 50 process. Are you going through the active 50 process? Almost through, yes. And there have been no changes introduced by that process. Some minor changes that would apply to the site plan, but not to the subdivision. For instance, we are now going to extend the town municipal water line from Coles across the Berlin Mall property to serve this property before we were going to connect to the Berlin Mall water system. Now we're going to be connected to the town. So that's a change on the plans, but it doesn't change the building. It doesn't change the log. Yeah. OK. How would the board like to proceed? We are operating. Last time we heard this, we heard to send in two sets of regulations. We heard of the old regulations of the new regulations. This time we're only hearing of the new regulations. This time it's a minor, as opposed to a major, because the new regulations were called a minor. Last time it was a major because the old regulations had a major. But the criteria is the same. Does the board want to go through the individual criteria? I'm looking at the wrong person here. I know the guys here. Give me a minute. Oh, if it's the same testimony. There's nothing different. I will defer to the others. I wasn't present at the last hearing, but I will defer to the others because I trust you all. He testifies that nothing has changed in terms of the subdivision regulation. So I don't see any reason to. And we certainly heard it under both. If it had been before that, that would be questionable. We heard it under both. That's sort of how I feel, John. And that's OK with you, Polly. That's fine with me. I know you died here with the whole testimony. I've been waiting all week. Did you want to hear any part of this? And I know you haven't raised your hand, so you're not testifying, but OK. Sir, for the director, what was your name? Jose Oliver. Jose Oliver. You've put your name down on the sit-in sheet. Yeah, my email and my contact info. What I'd like to do is I'd like to note there are a few changes, i.e. that this is a minor as opposed to major. So in terms of Christie's work, it's doubled. For us, it's nothing. She has to go back through there and eliminate all the references to the previous ordinance that were in there when you write this up this time. And I would note that you need to do that. And you might. I also, I think, improved our findings in our conclusions a little bit. For instance, we'd like to include in our conclusions the need to file within 180 days, which we did not do in our last time. And we historically do, we missed it as well. So the need to file within 100 days is a condition. I don't believe there were any other conditions that I remember, but that was one condition. There is another condition, which is the need to notify the zoning administrator upon completion for the certificate of compliance. Correct. And that also goes with their building. Goes with the building, but it'll be in the building, but it's also going to go with the separation. Correct. So but the filing is the big thing that was missing. We had limited findings. I would suggest, Christie, you might look at the testimony and maybe paraphrase some of the testimony for some of the criteria. Are we using the chart for the subdivision? Because that would make it easier, right? Just fill in the chart and add in the comments. Just give us the chart to subdivision, do I mean? Yeah, we're going to use the chart. We haven't done that. Because that might make it easier for us. I think you should just go. Remember, we talked about a chart, the table. This template thing, yeah. Template. And that may be a good way just to go through that effectively, my feeling is they have complied with all the provisions of the subdivision regulations. Yes. And it's either not applicable, and in this case, I think almost all of them are applicable, but they've complied with positive comments. So I suggest we might do that that way. Last time, we really didn't have any findings to say, because we're literally dealing with a brand new bylaw. So just fleshing this out as we go along, learning our way through this new bylaw, I think we need to have just a little bit more of findings than we did last time. Well, this is helpful, too, what they submitted. Yeah. So did anybody here want to hear any testimony tonight? Any other discussion, i.e., instructions to our recording secretary? So just out of curiosity, will you have to come back to revise a site plan that was approved here? I can do minor changes to the site plan. It's a waterline change. OK. So I consider that minor, unless somebody cares about that. No, I was just curious if there was anything. I don't know if that was the only site plan. We were talking before you arrived about controversy on the curb cut on the road. Would you point it out for us? Yes. Both sides. So we had a lot of conversation about this intersection. We're installing a new concrete sidewalk, an active 50 and then with this board. So originally, this board made some good suggestions about trying to improve this intersection. So we came back the second time with some improvements that we were going to change the radius of this curve to shorten the distance people had to walk across. And then we were going to make it a four-way stop. Currently, there's a stop sign here, but there's no stops on the other three legs. So based on this board's recommendations, that's the plan that went forward to Act 250. Now, at Act 250, a member of the commission was concerned that by reducing this radius that trucks, particularly Walmart trucks that came out, we're going to have trouble making this swing. And we're going to have to swing out into the other lane. Now, as we all know by watching big trucks, that's a pretty common thing that happens. And for mine, you back up or the truck driver is aware. But we argued that we like the plan that you folks approved with the shorter distance across. We thought that was safer for pedestrians. The commission actually talked about making the radius bigger so that the trucks could swing better. And in the end, the agency of transportation attended the Act 250 hearing. And the commission decided to ask the opinion of the agency. So the agency came back and said that their recommendation was to essentially leave the radius as it was and not decrease it as we proposed. Now, not decrease it? Not decrease it. So at this point in time, we're waiting to hear what the commission decides. You know, we argued to do it as shown on the plan. We don't know where they're going to fall. So we basically said it's not a show stopper for us. You decide how you want to see it. And that's what we'll do. So that's one issue that's outstanding. We do expect the commission to make a decision. We're hoping they'll make a decision by the end of the month. And Ducevich, the developer, expects all his financing to be in place by the end of the month. And he has every intention of breaking ground as soon as he can this spring. OK. Well, thank you. But that's really not relevant to the subject. It's just relevant to the background just so everybody's on the same page here. So it really doesn't need to be part of the subject, as you were saying, of the note that there was a change possible here. OK. So what did they expect the commission to do by the end of the month? Usually, a bill of time for a building this big is about 12 months. So I mean, they'd like to maybe go a little faster, but typically, it's around 11 to 12 months before they're ready to occupy it. Great. That's useful. It's a little bit longer than a pure residential building because you have the state health carbon approvals and all that, which is complex. It needs to be done as a few extra steps so they need a few more hoops to jump through before they're ready to operate. From what I hear, Anjuli, there's a lot of demand. People call me all the time. Wow. That's great. I assume they started marketing and all. I don't think they have, actually. But I think once their financing is in place in the great ground, then I'm sure you'll start seeing some things out there. So we have an Alzheimer component. We have a congregate care component. And then we just have, essentially, a residential component. But all senior, a total of 98 units. Yeah, it'll be a good looking building. And it'll be a great addition to Berlin, hopefully. Well, not only Berlin, but several long reasons. Yes. Yes. I would entertain a motion to close this hearing. So moved. Second. Second. John, thank you. Discussion? Opposed to be the motion? You see the part by saying aye. Aye. That hearing is closed. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. And I apologize for dragging you out here to hear this for a second time. It's one of our shorter meetings. That's the first time people have done it on by themselves. Oh, yeah. I'm going to blame it on Tom, because he put it in front of us. That's it. I should apologize to John for that. So I don't want to talk to your brother. OK. Do we have the ears in there? I'm just going to ask for a review of the minutes. Bye. Goodbye. Bye. Thank you. Have a good evening. I would have to say I've been in Vermont for three weeks now. Oh. I came from favor of Massachusetts. And we built a building, a dealership in April. And I went to a lot of these, and what a difference. I don't think you can do that. Oh, unbelievable. There's no yelling. There's no screaming. Everybody's like, oh, this is an easy one. Yeah, I think this opportunity should have been super easy five minutes, the beginning and out, and it turns into five hours of people screaming. Welcome. Yeah, welcome to Vermont. Welcome to Vermont. Welcome. Happy New Year. Happy New Year. Um, we do have one item in the agenda was is the minutes of the meeting of the 17th of December. I was not here at that meeting. You chaired that meeting. We haven't read. We haven't. I haven't read them. I understand nobody has reviewed them. OK. In that case, I guess I'll entertain a motion to table those until the next meeting. Sure. Summary. Second. Is that moving the second? Discussion? I was afraid of that motion because then I was saying, hi. Hi. And it was tabled to the next meeting. OK. And I would ask you to read your favorite read them. I will. I'm not going to read them because I don't know what was there. You don't know what was there. That was a good meeting. Yeah. A lot of history. I mean, it's academic because it's been worth drawing. It's just one item, right? That's right. Yeah. Yeah. But it still needs to be part of the work. Yes. Yeah, I think so. Of course. Oh, good. Ready? Would you like me to sign the note again? That would be great. Yes. Yes. Include me. Yeah. That would be great. Well, I think so. I mean, nothing else. I'll jack up certain people. All right. We've got a history lesson. Yes, we did. Because the nigh is evidently was like a land swath and all this. It was very exciting. It was a lot of things for a parent's family. It was just, you know, a long history. It was a huge farm, still. Yeah. I didn't realize they owned that whole set. Yeah, I know. I thought Henry, well, Henry acts like he owns it, but he doesn't apparently. If there's nothing to come before this board tonight, we can release Orca. Yeah. Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.