 I see you go home. It's better to read it. That's all I've got there. Holly and Brian. OK. Good call of waiting to order. This is a regular scheduled meeting of the town of Berlin Development Board. We agreed to be in the hearing of the application by Berlin S1 Realty. And what I'd like to do is start with introductions up to the board. I'm following Bertie on screen. I'm Bob Wernick. We have Tom Badowski chair. You're the chair. I mean, sorry. Zoning administrator. Yeah, I may be the chair. No, you're the chair. And why don't you switch to your team, please? I'm Dave Birmingham from 802 Cards S1 Realty. Close all over from 802 Cards to the city suburb. Phil Zehlerger from Montpelier here on behalf of the applicant. And Brian. Yeah, I'm Brian Lane Karnes with the Wolf Engineering. I'm the civil engineer for the project. Joe. And I'm Joe Green. Joe Sparkatex. I'm the project architect. Right? Michael Rushman. Oh, Michael. Yeah, he's not shown here. There you are. Michael's already in his Santa Claus disguise. I was going to say, I know what you're going to do this for the holidays. Okay. Michael Rushman for the mall. Okay, very good. Bill, are you getting, have you things form in? No, I don't need to testify. I'm here as the attorney for the applicant. He's attorney. Okay. He does not need this. And these all have been sworn in. So I remind everybody here tonight that you have been sworn in previously and you remain sworn in. And I'm at it because it's for tonight. So Brian, proceed or are you in hand with us? Brian, you want to probably more technical stuff than I'll mess up. So I'm happy to. So we, we provided on Friday a response to the memorandum, the DRB issued us for his last deliberative session. And the letter we provided was intended to address the kind of outstanding items from the memorandum. So to my understanding that's addressing the conditional use standards. I'm addressing pedestrian access to and along Berlin mall road. And updates the architectural design of the building. But I might read any other items in the memorandum were noted as acceptable. Tom. I just want to. I know this board met and delivered session. There was some correspondence back with the applicant back and forth. Is it safe to assume that that is what you submitted to us is testimony towards this hearing. You mean the response that Brian gave you know what you and I corresponded up until the DRB met and delivered a session. I honestly don't recall what that the substantive part of that was Tom, but I don't think so. Yeah, that's fine. Tom, let me ask if anything in those discussions inconsistent with the application. I don't think so. I think I was working towards the middle. I think the application and the submittals by Brian are what constitute the application. So the other discussions, if there's any consistency, we would want to stand with the application as it's now formatted. You tell me if you wanted part of the record or not. Is it emails or is it correspondence? No, it was emails. We share with the board. I think it's fine to be part of the record. I just wondered if there were conversations. We consider all those submissions that we receive by email, which is a pain to ask because I prefer to see real hard copies. Are you good Tom? I'm good. Yeah, it should be. The record should reflect that we did set out a memorandum after our last, sorry Brian. Last session as requested and as we said, we would indicate what our remaining concerns were. That memorandum is dated 27th of September. And what we have here tonight is a response to that memorandum. That memorandum is part of the record as is the response. And that's what we're working on right now Brian. Go ahead. Yeah, absolutely. So I'm happy to start with just starting to go down the responses to the conditionally used standards for the project. The first one being the capacity of community facilities and utilities. The project is not going to have a disproportionate or unreasonable effect on community facilities and utilities provided by the town. We attached in our response the municipal impact questionnaire that was generated as part of the active safety application for the project. We've also had review by the fire chief and the police chief indicated there's no unusual burden with the project. We have water and sewer out for the additional water and sewer use for the expansion of the building. And we don't expect any unusual burden on the schools. While there'll be more employees at the facility, we expect the majority of them will come from the local applicant pool. And those that may come from out of state or somewhere out of community range, not all of them are going to move to Berlin if they have to move here or if to get hired at Twin Cities in Berlin. So no really, you know, miserable impact to the schools at all. And there aren't any parks and recreation facilities in the project area. Although we'll work you on it. Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. Condition that they have from where we're at. Just maybe we should make it a condition that the future parks won't impact the car dealership. Yeah, just for the record, you're addressing the condition of use standards. I am. Yes, I am. Yep. So that's number one. If there aren't any further questions on that, I'll move on to the second standard, which is traffic. I just want to confirm that Brian is met with the, through the public's work board and requested additional water and wastewater allocation and the public's report has approved that. And we did attach those approvals to the, the response to the memorandum as well. So the second item in the condition of use standards is traffic. When, when we sent this response in last Friday, we hadn't yet gotten the traffic that was being prepared by Lamar and Dickinson, but it was issued today. So I send that to Tom, but I don't expect that anyone on the board has really had a chance to review it. So I, I'll just go through the conclusions of the. Okay, go ahead. You've at least seen it though. Oh yeah, I've seen it. I reviewed it. I have questions. Go ahead. Okay. Will Roger Dixon be with us tonight? No, I don't, I don't believe that Roger was able to make it tonight. I'll be asking you the question. Go ahead. Okay. So generally the, the traffic study looked at, um, build and no build traffic volumes, uh, in five years, uh, from when the factory built, which was 2027, that was the analysis. Um, the projected, um, trips that we generated by the addition were calculated from the it trip generation manual, um, 11th edition. Um, based on statistical analysis of similar developments across the country, um, the, the, the generated, the troops generated by the project were then distributed among the road network. Um, based on one, the assumption that most of the traffic was going to go to Fisher road, um, because it's a lot closer, um, than the other end of Berlin mall road. Um, I think, I think Roger distributed the trips like 90% to the Fisher, um, road, Berlin mall road intersection. Um, and then distributed among, along the street network, um, based on the trans, uh, turning movement counts. Um, the general conclusion. So, um, just to give you a sense, um, in both the AM, uh, and PM peak traffic hours on the adjacent streets to the project. Um, the addition is, uh, calculated to have an increase of 24 trips, uh, in each, each, both the AM and the PM peak hour. Um, so that's, you know, just to give you a sense, um, the, usually the threshold for the requirement of track study is generating 75 new trips to peak hour. And that's both a V-trans standard and it's, it's baked into the Berlin, um, zoning regulations as well. Um, so once the, the cards are distributed around the network, they, uh, Roger looked at impacts to the, um, Berlin mall road, Fisher road intersection, as well as the Fisher airport, 62 intersection. Um, and both of those intersections are, uh, continue to meet, um, V-trans standards for overall level of service. Um, just want to make sure I'm quoting this correctly. Um, so, uh, in 2027 at the PM peak hour, um, just typically more congested in the AM peak hour. So that's why they look at it in traffic study. Um, overall level of service at Fisher road, Berlin mall is B. Um, and the increase in delay between build and no build is, um, less than a second. Um, and then for route 62 and Fisher road overall intersection level services see, um, any project increase in delays overall, the intersection is also less than a second. Um, they also looked at traffic safety. Um, generally found there's not particular issue with traffic safety at these intersections and that the projects, uh, wouldn't have a significant impact on traffic safety. Um, they did recommend that if the traffic lights at Fisher road and Berlin mall road are replaced in the future, um, that they'd be, um, retimed and the, and retiming the lights to provide a significant, uh, increase in some of the worst, uh, the movements through that intersection with the greatest delays. Um, I should also mention that there was, um, a question of whether the offsite parking, um, that may be developed in the future, um, by 802 cars and share among their dealerships would affect traffic congestion. Um, and, um, the applicant is willing to, um, limit the movement of cars from, um, any offsite parking that may be built in the future to non peak hours. So that offsite parking of, of cars wouldn't have effects on the, um, congested issues that are analyzed in a traffic impact study. Thank you. Uh, I do have a number of questions. Brian, I don't know if you're, I don't believe you can answer them. Um, uh, he's made a, I'll do my best. And I would, uh, well, unless you had a lot of discussion with, with Roger or his team. Um, the, uh, uh, he says that the, um, light is basically the same light that was installed in 1980. I don't believe that's correct. I believe he's mistaken on that. Uh, I believe it's been improved much more recently than that. I believe them all actually paid for the improvements. Uh, but maybe the town did. Do they have my calls went in? Pardon? I think I might have had my calls went in. Okay, great. When calls went in, was there, was it bad? Yeah, well, it was, it was in connection with a, with a pedestrian crossing. I think there's a, the whole new light system put in, all new, um, uh, control system. So, yeah, I know they were, you should running into, um, issues obtaining parts. Yes. Yeah. That was less like within the last 10 years. Yes. Last nine years. I've been here nine years, but it's been, yeah. So, Roger's mistaken about that. I also would be, uh, detection of, um, vehicles. I believe that light is detecting, uh, vehicles, uh, in all directions. And it just, and making changes accordingly. But I, I'm not sure what it's. Yeah. So, I, I believe that. I think that, um, there's a, I think there's, um, a substantial difference in that, uh, um, there's a, uh, um, this is an issue, this is a big issue. There's a, um, uh, um, um, and the car. Um, um, um, um, on the faulty understanding about when the light was just last installed, so. It may be, and if the sensors are working, then there may be opportunity for adjustments to the timing that could effectively implement his recommendations without having to make upgrades. I believe that's a new electronics, new new board, and new lights up there. They say new, that's relative to my age. Anything in the last 10 years is new. The, somebody have a question? Somebody got in the background. Michael, are you there? Here I'm here, Michael. Yes, I didn't ask anything. Oh, okay. Okay. The, so, so it was a useful report, but I do think this information is incorrect. Go ahead, Tom. As you well know, Mr. Chair, the town is considering the study of a road died on Fisher Road. Yes. Does that impact anything with respect to the traffic study? Should that, should the folks be aware of that, or it's not certain? Well, number one is a study, and so it doesn't really change anything. And number two, I don't think it affects any of these findings or assumptions, which I believe there are a few in error. I, again, wish Roger were here, because I don't know if he double checked the timing issues and stuff like that. So, but there are a number of recommendations, useful recommendations, some have to do with the changes to the lights. I really would want to double check that they haven't already been done. I do agree with his conclusions about the dedicated left turns and the dedicated right turns. And I, but there's a bigger issue with the dedicated right turn. So I won't belabor it as immaterial to the conclusions, I believe, which are the number of trips that are generated. Are those trips generated specifically based? We received an email from you. I don't think it was from you, David. I think it was from Brian. It was from David. David, about the number of additional employees and the number of additional customers. Did Roger base his numbers on that or just simply on the I.T.E.? I think on the I.T.E.? Yeah, he used the I.T.E. And he and I had had a little discussion about this because that, I mean, he'd be using I.T.E. numbers either way, unless you did a specific count for this use, which obviously you didn't have time to prepare in a week. But in the I.T.E. studies, there was a lot more statistical confidence in the numbers based off of the square footage. And Roger said in his experience, most V-trans folks and other regulators that are looking at traffic settings prefer the use of the square page numbers because there's more studies. And also because it's a little easier to put your finger exactly what's happening as opposed to employees which can kind of fluctuate. And, you know, it aren't as concrete as saying this is how much building we're building. Any other questions on traffic? Yes. Phil and Roger, I just have some questions about what errors, how do we determine what errors there may be in the L and D study and how can the consultant address those errors to the board? It would be nice to get clarification on the points I've raised. And I can be more specific about the points I've raised. I was hoping that would be helpful because then the consultant can file a supplemental. Okay. Specifically has to do with the, when the light was last installed and the last I've made it. Yes. And the motion detection. And he may be right, he may not be right. I didn't double check that. But my understanding is that motion detection is working. And I think those are the two primary things. He noted that there were no traffic signs on Mall Road, speed limit signs. And I guess he's probably right. I didn't double check it. I'm sure he did. So really the two issues I have to do with the motion detection and the last changes. And it might change, if he knew that information, it just might change his recommendations a little bit with regard to future improvements to that. Or his conclusions. I don't know that he changed his conclusions. Conclusion has to do with the impacts on the intersections. And I believe his conclusions probably will stay in. But that's what I'm gonna verify, I think, right? You wanna verify that? Yeah. That's what I'm getting at. Brian, we should have no problem updating that information. Is that correct? Yeah, we can ask Roger and Brian some supplemental information. Although I agree, his conclusions are based on their observation of the way the light is working now. And so regardless of whether he's correct about whether when the light was updated, they were obviously out there observing it and used that information to inform their study. So I'm happy to ask Roger to take a further look into those questions, but I tend to agree with Bob that I don't think it'll make a substantive difference to the conclusion that the project isn't going to create significant congestion or safety impacts. Let me ask you this question, Brian. Did his firm do any field work in connection with this report? Any recent real work? Because he's familiar with the answer. Yes, according to the report, and I haven't talked to him with this specifically, but the field work they did was in 2019 and it was in support of the senior housing development. So two, as a go, I don't think he went out and did additional field work for this study. Okay, so his observation with regard to the functionality of the light are based on 2019 field observations? That's my understanding. I don't know that I can say that 100%. I think I'd like a response to that question. There's almost more credence than the 2019 data than today because the culvert is closed. Yeah, yeah, he doesn't address that. The fact that the road has been closed for over a year would have influenced that current data in terms of traffic vibes, but he ignored that traffic vibe information. That's fine, but I'm talking about the observation with regard to the performance of the light. He's based on observation with the performance of the light and the condition of the poles, the condition of the equipment. And I wonder if those observations are current observations or 2019 or prior observations. So that's my question. And so I guess my point is, in order to advance the cause, would it be satisfactory for his report to be supplemented and have that submitted to the DRB? It would be. And so we'll proceed on that assumption. Yes, unless his conclusions significantly contradict what he's told us. Correct, the assumption being that they'll not impact the conclusions. Any other issues on traffic impacts? We'll see why I like this stuff. Proceed, Brian. Great. So the next review criteria under condition we use is character of the area. I think in this case, the character of the area really defined by the work the town has done to put together the new town center application and sort of the vision that is going to be going forward. And so as everyone is aware, the applicant's done a lot of work to work with the town and with the DRB to make some significant improvements and upgrades to the original design of the building in order to meet that vision and enhance the character of the area. So I feel that if we get to the point where the board is happy with the way the building looks and the way the site is laid out, then we are sort of, I don't want to say by default, but because of that process, we're both meeting and enhancing the character of the area. The other portion of this criteria has to do with whether the development is going to impair development or value or diminish the use of neighboring properties. The dealership's been there for 15 years among the other developments. So this improvement to the existing use is in no way going to diminish the use or value of the adjacent properties. Questions? A character? The area? If there are none, go ahead and proceed, please, natural resources. Sure. So the entirety of the proposed redevelopment is within the existing developed area of the dealership. And because of that, there's really no impact to natural resources. There are significant class two wetlands on the undeveloped portion of the site, but we've had them deleted and we've met with Shannon Morrison, who is the district wetlands ecologist for the Department of Environmental Conservation. We presented her with our plans and she's determined that though there is work within the wetland buffer, it's within existing developed areas and can be allowed as an allowed use under the state wetland rules. And I did attach the email correspondence with her to the response to the memorandum. Yes, Tom? It's just for the record, the town of Berlin and the ownership partnered on a project to do stormwater study out there as well. And so that's ongoing. It hasn't been addressed here, but that's ongoing as well. Good. So we're doing a stormwater 3-H, I think? Yes. Can I just ask about this sentence in her email? It says, repair and replacement of an existing structure is considered an allowed use as long as the footprint of the structure remains the same. So she's not talking about the building in that case. We had a long discussion on the site about some of the stormwater treatment and that some of that we're doing some improvements to. So that when she says structure, it was actually around the competition and around ditches and swales and stone and all things like that. So the building itself is not within the wetland or the wetland buffer. Thank you. You raised a question in my mind about the stormwater. So what's the plan for the stormwater? The new stormwater regulations, are you updating your property to meet the new stormwater requirements? I'm not sure which new stormwater, there's a new stormwater requirement if you're over three acres. This property does not qualify in terms of that. The Toyota property does. Okay. We are, that's where we're a part of that. And we're also using the Brian Whitt and also the town has partnered with Berlin Mall and the Central Medical Center to also do stormwater studies on all of those campuses. And with the thought of that at the end of the day, it will be a collaborative effort with respect to stormwater on the, what is now the designated area of the Newtown Center. So it will likely take in to account super early as well. Somebody else wanted to see. I was just going to point out on the stormwater front, this property is developed recently enough that it does have a stormwater treatment permit until we're amending that permit as part of this process. But there are existing dry and wet swales and a bunch of other things by retention area, distributed around the site that were permitted under the, not the 2017 stormwater manual, but the 2002 stormwater manual, which is the reason why the site isn't in the three acre program, because it's already permitted and treated. I don't know if editorializing is, it has a place here, but I've been dying to do this because the engineer who did the work before who shall remain nameless should be in jail for the job they did. There was, we're going to improve things dramatically and it's needed for a long time. You've talked about the walls. Yeah, drain, just drain, you know, but culverts, you know, I'll put too well. I had the occasion to drive around your dealership, Subaru dealership today. I was shocked in the condition of the roads, the drainage. I understand why you're doing the old reconstruction. We can't wait. So, it's not your project we can work with. Go ahead, Brian, please move us along. Sure, the next criteria is energy conservation. So the efficient being designed to meet or exceed the commercial building energy code because of the siting of the existing site, we're kind of down below all the other buildings around. So we won't have any effect on solar access for any of the other surrounding buildings. We are providing a few electric car charging spaces as well as, and we'll get into this in a minute, pedestrian connections up to Bremen Mall Road for so folks can access public transportation and other alternative modes of transportation. And you indicated that you perform with these regulations. So, we're here to talk about pedestrian access. Great. So I'm gonna just bring up the updated plan. So we were proposing, and I hope that everyone can now see my cursor. I've made it a lot bigger. Unfortunately, the PDF program turns it into this little target, which I know really hard. So we're proposing a strict pedestrian access lane up the drive. So connecting to the existing sidewalk, the building and proceeding across the island and up the drive with a crosswalk at Bremen Mall Road here because of both the existing stormwater permit and the very limited area to treat stormwater on the site as well as the side slopes along this driveway. We can't really make a large expansion of the driveway to accommodate pedestrian access. So we're proposing a small expansion. It's like a foot or 18 inches of expansion so that we can have a five foot pedestrian walkway and a 22 foot drive aisle. So it's basically, you can think of it like two, two nine foot lanes with two foot shoulders, which according to B-Strand standards is perfectly appropriate size for, say like a local urban street. So that is our proposed pedestrian connection from the dealership up to Berlin Mall Road and then based on discussions of the future upgrades to Berlin Mall Road in C.C. Rue has asked for an estimate of what we think it would cost to build a sidewalk along the road and it's committed to contributing a significant sum as outlined in the letter to the future sidewalk construction when Berlin Mall Road gets redeveloped. All things here, I don't know what the people go for. So anybody have any questions or comments with regard to this? Paulie, Paulie is raising a hand. Paulie, go, Paulie. How is that sidewalk separated from the road? It's painted stripe on the road similar to a bike lane. Okay, so it's not really separated. It's just through a painted. The other question I have is why did you choose that side to come up rather than the other side, which is closer to most activities in the rest of the area? Well, mostly because this is the side that folks are going to be coming from the development. And then once you get up here, you're either, you may have it this way to some of the sidewalks and things by the coal's development or you may have it this way. So it kind of actually minimizes the amount you have to cross the road if you're staying on this side and then just making one crossing or the other once you get up to Berlin Mall Road. Any other questions or comments with regard to this? I'm going to echo Paulie's concern. I think we were kind of clear in our memorandum to you. We expect to separate it or curb sidewalk. Are you doing a full depth reconstruction that road? Are you not? Yes, you are. So it's not a big ask to make that a curb sidewalk as opposed to a painted sidewalk. Also you're doing a full reconstruction of the head walls, right? Yeah, essentially resetting them in place. Right, but that's going to require some thinking about excavation on both sides to put those new head walls back in. So there's going to be a fair amount of earth disturbance. You're also going to be removing that sign and replacing that sign. To me, everything that gets impacted by virtue of putting in a curb sidewalk other than a curb itself is already part of the plan. So I'm thinking it's not a big ask to put in a curb sidewalk. I prefer a separated sidewalk, I think they're safer, but not having that, most of the world does live with curb sidewalks. Curb sidewalk will do with me. Just that's my single feeling, but I'm giving you a heads up on that. Yeah, I mean, really, we were just going in on the memorandum had listed the three options. None of them included painted. Right. We have a history of painted sidewalks in this town, and you can't find them. They're not deductible. Yeah, we understand that it takes the maintenance to maintain this, similar to the bike lanes along 302, which needs to be repainted every spring. But the memorandum did state, did you do pedestrian access from subject property to the land mall? That means to be well-defined path or curb sidewalk or non-curb sidewalk. Well-defined path meant separate from the road, darling. A path is not a sidewalk. Literally like find an alternative route. But that's a matter of clarification. I can see where you might misinterpret that. And I actually interpreted this for Brian. I said, no, we had talked about lining that up the side, and I thought that had been acceptable. The one thing I'll say is from a safety standpoint, we talked about, we would just use traffic cones because even an asphalt curb isn't, we could paint it yellow, but in the snow, it's not very clear. And from a safety standpoint, when we clear that road and it's so much steep, being able to just plow that straight down and replace that cones, in my opinion, makes that a better finish for the people walking up and down that. And again, currently, it's not a used route, but so that seemed like it was the safest way for my perspective to proceed. Also, I do think, and this is for you to design, but have you looked at it again today, once you modify those walls, it's not gonna be that hard to gain a foot or two of the pavement. Yeah, I think the bigger issue that would refer to a pavement is that that's an expansion impervious that we have nowhere to treat to the 2017 manual. We're improving a lot of, we're approving a lot of the stormwater treatment that exists now, because it lost its function somewhat over the years, but we don't have the space on the property in order to put in compliant treatment for a significant expansion of impervious. So one of the sort of critical design pieces here was to try and keep the impervious all about the same. So, I mean, it's probably- Your shoulders are impervious now, so it's, you know. No, I understand, but this, I'm saying, I can't really make it wider than what I'm showing here without having a significant, significant, probably not even, but certainly to the stormwater folks at the state, all up the side, one edge of the driveway, so. Brian, this is Phil. How many linear feet is the walkway as you've now designed it? I will have to measure it out. Give me one second. And remember off the top, my head with the scale is, I don't know, I think it's 120. Double check. Nope, I was right the first time. So, just roughly 284 plus 50, 334 feet on just on the drive. And is that just on the subject parcel? Or does it include the mall area? Some of that is on the, where the drive is on the mall property from this location to that location. I guess Mr. Werke, Mr. Chair, I would ask whether those are goals and objectives and whether you think it's equitable to impose those goals and objectives, regardless of the layout on a particular site. Can you be more direct? Well, a well-defined path. We now learned that a well-defined path isn't necessarily what we all assumed is a well-defined path. Instead, the DRB appears to favor of curb sidewalk or non-curb sidewalk with a minimum of a three-note. Well. Well, perhaps we should have been more specific. I apologize, but a well-defined path that, I was thinking there might be some alternative routes, having to do nothing with the access road. For instance, by example, I suspect anybody that leaves their vehicle here and wants to go to the hospital is not gonna walk up this way. They're gonna walk out the front through the other properties. So. If plowed. If you're gonna find a plow. I think I trust those to be plowed. First thing we do is go plow the cars park. So, I think standards for sidewalk are pretty specific in almost all manuals. They're either curved or they're separated, usually a minimum five-foot grass. That's not feasible here because of the limited area you have to deal with. So you really only have one choice. If this is the route you're gonna take up the access road, that's a curb, it might be. And again, I point out you're already planning to do the full depth reconstruction of that road anyway, which I'm sure you have to do because the condition of the subsurface conditions. Yeah, the building of the curb honestly isn't, that's not a big deal. It's maintaining that road in a safe manner as possible is what I'm after. And, you know, if we didn't curb it, I wouldn't care what side of the road the sidewalk is on. And if we do curb it, it really needs to stay on that right side as we're looking at it here. So we have a place to push that. I agree with you, I agree with you. This way you can basically blade it all to the left. Yeah, yeah, so. I mean, I'll be honest with you, I don't see a problem plowing that. I mean, we're just gonna plow it all to the left. Going, going down, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, yeah, and we're going up, you're gonna plow it right. I'm gonna say it's gonna plow one direction. It isn't like you have two-way traffic all day long. You're basically gonna do that before customers arrive. This has been my experience with. In theory. Right now, without many cars, that's possible. Yeah, it was. 300 cars around. That's actually not a problem, yeah. The other common or thought I had as I looked at the plan was that probably it's not a biggie and I realized it's on the mall road, but we probably need to have a crosswalk on the mall road so people can go to the coals. It's just a matter of striping the pavement. The mall has no objection, we'll be happy to do that. If they have no objection, Yeah. That would make better a problem. Yeah. I can't imagine. Because, you know, people would go up there. And frankly, the path that's planned now was on that side, so you'd be connecting to that path that's on the other side, which is a demonstration of why paved paths on the edge of the road don't work, because you can't see it. Brian, that's my feedback on those. The basis for your estimate of $32,300? Was from the contractor that's working on the projects, HP Cummings. Okay, and where did that sidewalk go to and from? Essentially the estimate was based on the cost of construction across the length of the Twin Cities Subaru Frontage, but just deferring it in time to when the Berlin Mall Road is reconstructed so that it can build in coordinated manner in a location that makes sense to provide pedestrian access along the road. Yes, Tom. Brian, did the $32K include lights and the required trees for V Street? Yeah. It doesn't. Our understanding of our obligation is that the town regulations require developments in the town center district to provide a sidewalk along the frontage, while the town or the mall has a plan to reconstruct Berlin Mall Road, and we're happy to contribute as far as our obligations to construct the sidewalk goes. Sight, you know, like lighting street trees, parking, you know, reconstructing of the road itself is really independent from the development of the Twin Cities Subaru Projects. The, I think I disagree with you on that. Particularly the lighting. The lighting is for use of the sidewalk. It's not lighting the street. So I would disagree with you on your interpretation of that. I mean, we've done other projects in other areas of Berlin that are required to put a sidewalk in and haven't had any discussion of whether the sidewalk is lit or not. So I guess that's that interpretation is a surprise to me. Well, I think where you've done it is on Route 302, which is not a V Street. Can I interject with a question? I know I'm late to the event, but I'm interested to know whether the DRB has concluded that the S1, S1 Realty LLC site, that it has frontage on the Berlin Mall Road. Because as I look at the site plan, there's a strip of land that's owned by the Berlin Mall of almost 50 feet between the property line for S1 and the end of the travel way. The ownership of that property is the same ownership of the road. So there's no other owners in between. My interpretation is that you will butt the property that owns the road. So there's nobody in between. So the road and the apron on its- Yeah, when we take this up and we talk about the road. On its left side. Either road and right away or the road in the fee simple property associated with it. Yeah. So the apron is part of the road parcel? Yeah. Okay. Yeah, and very, very frankly, if the town would accept this and take it over from the, they would expect that right away to be associated with it. So then it would be frontage on the road. Which frankly would be the best interest for the afternoon. My opinion, but that's my opinion. This afternoon or another afternoon? This afternoon. So the 32,000, how do you plan to do that Dave? You plan to handle the $32,000 or is this a bond or? No, I had said that I would like to have some sunset on that. I'd like to say when the road is built, but nothing is a foregone conclusion yet. So I would take your word on the handshake, but if you guys want something different for me, I'm not going to put up all that money because that's silly, but I could put up a bond if that's necessary. I think a bond with a limited duration. And an inflation factor, right? Well, I think the 32,000 is, I think we have to really work around a different number. It's been a while since I've been doing professional engineering, but I haven't built a sidewalk for $32,000 that long in a long time. Between engineering and everything else associated with it, there's almost no contingency there. I appreciate that from your contractor. If he's willing to guarantee he will bill you that for $32,000, I accept that from him. Well, that's an unfair ask of anyone because who knows what material is it, et cetera. We need to deal with that reality. I like getting by the concrete for $32,000 right now. That's because we're in COVID-19. Well, that's a quote based on building that today. So that is a quote based. I said, if I told you, go ahead, that's what you're going to charge me to fill that. And he said, yes. So that includes, he made it something that's designed, and then it's designed, he's got a set of specs to build the road, to build the sidewalk to. What Bob is saying is the engineering involved into getting that specification package to that contractor is additional dollars. Then you're really getting into rebuilding that road. No, no, just if you build the sidewalk, assuming it was being rebuilt, and you had a place to put the sidewalk, which I think you do now, but that would be complicated, I'm not asking for that. What we're saying is we need a commitment to build the sidewalk. I think that was the nature of our comments. And that commitment, one, you don't want to limit it in trying, you want to limit in time, and two, we don't want to limit it in dollars. It's the moment, Mr. Green. Well, and I'm sure you can understand, I know my partner is a CPA calls these UGOs, Unidentified Growing Objects. And we don't, I definitely want to have a fixed dollar amount that I know what I need to put into this project, essentially. And that's how I charge this guy right for running the business. So that goes into my cap rate on the building. So whatever, I don't know a more fair way of saying, here's what it can cost. It is not a lack of willingness to do it today if the means existed to do that. So if in nine years, there's a carbon tax on big machines coming down the road, who knows what that number is gonna be? And I don't think that's fair to hold us to things that we can't control. I think you asked your contractor in nine years, would he even stand by this number? No, he would not. I wouldn't ask him to. That's true. So I know where you're coming from, but you understand where we're coming from pretty clearly. This will not work in five years, 10 years. Right, I'll be honest with you, I don't believe it works now, but that's just my considered opinion as a non-partisan professional engineer. We have estimates for sidewalk work on the Barry Mulpey road from another consultant. Those numbers typically anywhere from $118 a linear foot to $200 a linear foot. They have right-of-way issues involved with those, so that's some of the cost, but here there's no right-of-way issues assumed. But still, the concrete worker alone was estimated at almost $100 a foot. That's a five-year-old study. I can only go, my question was, could you build that for me today for this number? And the answer was absolutely yes. One of the reasons I'm using this contractor is they've come in on budget, on time, on several projects, so I trust what they have to say to me. So I don't know how to... Well, I've not had a chance to do an independent review of the number. My initial reaction is a slow number, and I'd rather not have it limited as much as you would rather not have us have an unlimited time frame to do it. Mr. Chair, is the DRD interested in trying to pursue a formula? Because it occurs to me that the incremental cost, if that mall road is going to be reconstructed and you let plans out for the reconstruction of the road, either with or without a sidewalk, then you can measure exactly what the incremental cost is of building a sidewalk at the same time the road's going to be reconstructed. I don't know the facts of the circumstance on Route 302, but I'm sure traffic control was an element and blending it into the roadway itself. I took that element out, traffic control was pretty, because again, we have a more controlled environment that we do than we do on Route 302. Yes, I understand, I guess that's what's going on. What you're going to do is a state job. This is not a state job. No, I understand. But the incremental cost of introducing a sidewalk at that area at the same time the road is being reconstructed would be far less than installing a sidewalk there while the road was not being reconstructed. So do you have a point in your mind? No, but we sit down and start to be talking about it. But the incremental cost, I'm assuming the sidewalk would not be constructed on the current alignment, assuming it'd be a slightly different alignment. I don't know that, it's out of my control. But yeah, the incremental cost is what we're looking at for a sidewalk. Well, perhaps. And I think, you know, and I suspect this is an incremental cost. I mean, this number is so low, it's got to be concrete only. Ryan, can you give us the length of this sidewalk? Yeah. 400. 500 feet, isn't it? It's 400. Roughly it's 400 feet along the front edge. Not including the driveway. Joe, I'm sorry, it didn't mean to ignore you. It's okay. I just, to supplement that, I think we're all talking the same language for most part on the applicant side. I think in the spirit of economies of scale, I think the expectation from the contractor's perspective is that this is 400 feet of a much longer and much bigger project. So I think to isolate it in a standalone equation, certainly, you're not going to get that benefit of that economy of scale. And you're going to start to see unit costs drive higher and higher. But I think if it's put within the context of the entire scope, engineering and permitting included, to Phil's point, I think a formula can be made up. If the total length of the road improvement is 2,000 feet and ours is 400 feet, then that's pretty easy math to say if the 2,000 feet of sidewalk is X, then ours is 400 feet of that 2,000 X. But yeah, I do think that concrete prices are high and I think material costs are high. But I can understand how the contractor becomes a conclusion that if all we're doing is building the sidewalk, then with the economies of the entire project being factored into that, then that section could be done for less than otherwise a standalone project. Thank you. On the matter of unit costs also, I like to look at the B-Trans publishes their report on shared use path and sidewalk costs every year. And it's pretty good source of data because they fund and administer a lot of projects. So their unit costs per foot for a concrete sidewalk, including sub-base and excavation. So assuming that we're offset from the road and we're not talking about the curb as well, just the sidewalk, they have 63 bucks a foot for construction costs. So I think we're in the neighborhood of 80 with the 32,000 that we're talking about. So somewhere in between B-Trans estimate and the closer to 100 bucks a foot that we're more that you were thinking of, Bob. Yeah. I think what we'd like to do is probably, we only received this two days ago or a day ago, in any case, I need to verify the number. Cover me, I have not, I looked at one source and it was an estimate, it was not a real number. Again, I go back to my other question, which is how will you plan on that? Your plan, you're saying performance, Bob. Yeah, I'm saying I won't kick and scream over something you guys are comfortable with. Is a performance bond what we're talking about or is it a different kind of bond? I would think it's a bond with assurity and the applicant would be its own assurity. It wouldn't be a commercial bond. Not sure how that works. The bond itself is the promise to perform so the applicant would be both the benefitted party as well as the surety for its own performance. And so let's say the applicant doesn't perform, whereas how's that bond? Then the town has the authority to litigate on the bond rather than the underlying agreement to do so. But because finding a commercial surety who will provide that performance criteria would be very difficult and be very, very expensive on an annual basis. Okay, will you talk to our council about that? Or we can all talk to our insurance agents about it. It probably won't be a better source of what's available. I had to do a bond in Burlington for, if I recall, it was that the trees I planted survived two years. And so that was a... I can remember being surprised at the cost of it. The one thing that scares me a little bit on this is if we're going to say it's X number of years, how we do that. So if we could say that let's mutually work out something that's going to make sense. I mean, I don't mind the idea. I just don't want to, you know, I can maybe an escrow thing or something. I was thinking of three years of being a reasonable first term. And if we find, if we can craft a bond arrangement, perhaps the applicant will agree to at least two three-year bonds. Two bonds with a term of three years each. So plans to do a bond for a three-year period. Depending upon who the surety is, they can cost out your exposure for the applicant's performance over a three-year term. And the applicant might also agree to a second three-year term. So they're incremental bytes. Because certainly the town of Berlin will know more about the status quo ante here in 2024 than it does today. Hopefully. What's the downside of building it today? What is the downside of building it today? You'll rip it out when you redo the road. So we don't know the where. We don't know the alignment. It's going to go in that green space, right? Somewhere. Yeah, I would hope that. In the green space, you're going to need a Virginia wall. That's the number you wouldn't like. Yeah, and any, yeah, that would be a precipitous fall for somebody if they went off the sidewalk. You have to have a fence. There was a drawing showing a sidewalk on that side. Yeah, there was. I'm not sure how good a drawing was. I'm assuming there would be a realignment of the road. At such time the road gets reconstructed. That's what I'm assuming. Because you can't do everything you want to do. Parking sidewalks and all that on an existing line. I think it's reasonable to assume it's part of a bigger project. I think it's a reasonable assumption. I just want to be certain that the amount being committed is enough to do it. It was a separate project, just part of the whole. So I want to have to review the numbers and then the type of surety. I'm just plain devil to ask in here. So if the realignment you envision... I'm speaking as one person on the board. I'm not speaking to the board. So the realignment that you envision goes more towards the whole side of the road. So what happens if that's not feasible? So then we are then putting in extending the road on Subaru side of the building, which does incur the added field retaining walls. That's the end game, right? If the mall says no, we're not going to... We can't or will not allow the realignment onto the coals property. I think we have to assume a reasonable solution. And I think a retaining wall along that side. My personal opinion is not a reasonable solution for anybody. Well, I just think it's premature to try to guess where it will occur. Yeah. So what we want is a reasonably secure commitment at such time as that can be done to get that done. I mean, now we'd say build a sidewalk, but I mean it'd be kind of silly. I think we'd be tearing it up. Is this actually what I'm trying to say here? Yes. So Mr. Chair, then there's two issues. One is the amount, and the other is how it's evidenced. So I think we can explore how it's going to be evidenced by doing some research and contacting commercial securities to determine what's available in the marketplace. How are we going to approach the cost or the value? I guess if Brian would provide me with a basis for his number, you said the contract to give it to you. I need it more definitive. So you said you had some information from VTrans. Yeah, I mean, I just pulled up their report, which I mean, I'm happy to send you their report and you can look at it if it's a publicly available document. One that I like to use for like an order of magnitude, a cost estimate. I'm sure HB Cummings would be willing to put on their letterhead a figure that represents their assumption, obviously conditioned and stipulated by today's real-time numbers and not a number that holds for more than, well quite frankly, these days 48 hours, but not much more than a couple of months. But I mean, all we have to go by is today's numbers, as you know, and as Brian points out, historic data. And I think if we have something, and even if you want to get multiple numbers from other contractors, I don't think that that's unreasonable, but we have a very responsible, reputable contractor that's been in business for 140 years. I don't think that they would say that they would stand behind that number if they couldn't. Yeah, and again, I'm looking at a number here and it was no basis provided for it, right, to begin with. So I'm saying I need the basis, okay, you've got one contractor's quote, that's, except your word for that, you say, well, I'd like a little bit more assurance that that's a reasonable number. And actually, I want to hire V-trans. They do it for that, it must be much less. Yeah, I don't think they're doing the work. Yeah, go ahead. Conversely, we could just put a tradition in the permit for get the bond, and then when it goes in, they pay the full value of that sidewalk. So we don't know if we're about inflation then. They're going to pay for that sidewalk when it's time to pay for the sidewalk. And so what devil is more dirty here, right? The devil of an underfunded bond, or the devil of going after somebody when they go on a permit condition. And respectfully, I wouldn't make that, I made this overture, and I wouldn't make that one. So that's not a condition I would want to live with. I have no control over that. And I understand exactly what you're all concerned about, but I have to put this on my balance sheet and make it work. So from a practical standpoint, and I hope when this happens, the state and the feds throw you guys all kinds of money, it's an amusing part on the street of the baddies. Well, you're going to put something out of your books, if it's a condition or it's a bond, one or the other. So the problem with the condition as I see it is pursuing it. I get it. I get it. And that just means litigation. That's a pain in the butt for both of us. What is it? My client's in court this week, so I didn't do my job. But that's what I first raised was the question of a formula. How to describe the obligation this parcel has to participate in its proportionate share of the construction of about 400 feet of sidewalk. Maybe if we sat, if we all sat and tried to use the English language to characterize that. What if we were to make it a condition of the permit, and in the condition of the permit, we would put in an estimated amount. In other words, it's estimated to be X number of dollars. And if you get there at a future date that deviates significantly what's being asked of you, you would have a document that says, we never expected to get a number like that. I'm not quite clear on that. Well, I'm not sure how it works. I'm just saying, let's say that sidewalk's estimated to be $30,000. You agree to pay that as a condition of this permit at a future date. It would cost the sidewalk estimated to be this number. And then we have to deal with inflation some other way, a formula of some sort, you know, that recognizes limits. You have publicly stated data of what it costs we trans to do a sidewalk, right? So right now, we're at $67 a foot. In 10 years, it might be $74 a foot of 400 foot of furniture. Why don't you tie it to a number that's publicly known and everybody knows what it is that you're going to do a formula? We use the cost of living adjustments all the time. Yeah. And so if we had an estimate of... Don't we agree on that? $40,000 right now. And we measure the exposure if it's 2031 as the maximum exposure the applicant would have would be the present value in 2021 of $40,000 times the aggregate cost of living adjustments that occurred in ensuing nine years. There are a lot of people in business in Berlin who pay their rent based upon using a qualifier such as that. So a reasonable approach. Yeah. We'll have to do the numbers and see whether we like them. Yeah. I think we're in the right place here and we deal with details. I realize the details are important because of money. Right. It would be important to me, too. But I think we're looking for an equitable assurance to the town. The sidewalk will get built when the time comes. And you're looking for a reasonable assurance since the cost will not be exorbitant. So that is a reasonable approach. I think I would just be concerned about the sunset then. Yeah. We agree that if this does not come to fruition within probably 10 to 15 years, this ain't ever going to happen, period. There'll be no sidewalk built. It's not even perfect. No. Okay. Can I suggest they come up with some language? Do you mention a source, a reference source? Right. Yeah. A little bit more support on the cross. We're sitting here in the meeting. We're going to read all the numbers. I did look at the VTrans bid results. That's what you were looking at. It's the sidewalk shared use path and sidewalk cost report. They publish it annually. Okay. I guess internally we need to decide what the right time limit is, whether it's 10 years, 15 years. I appreciate you don't want to do more than 15. I don't think it's going to be a 15 year time period. It shouldn't be. It shouldn't be. And if it is, then it should be open. Nothing ever happened as fast enough as you will know. Can we move on to this? I think we're in a place of agreement other than the detail which we're going to iron out. And I believe that is some correspondence going back and forth here with the formula. I agree cost of living inflation. Better yet, the construction cost index may be different, but it would be an accepted index for inflating the time. That would be VTrans users, by example. They would use current data on an annual basis to develop that number. Just like we use it with traffic studies, we project how much the traffic may increase, even if it doesn't. We're in a good place there. Can we ask you to get back to us with something and then we can react? Yeah, I would say a couple of days. Yeah, that would be good. And with that, a little more evidence on the base value. The architectural design then let's move on to the last one we have open on. Yeah, let me bring that up on the screen. Joe, I don't know if you you may want to just kind of give a general presentation of what what's been changed and updated here on the facade. Sure thing. Sure thing. So I submitted these in black and white, quite frankly, because of two reasons. A, the rendering generation time to get it in full color takes about 36 hours and we didn't have that kind of time and B, I find that colors could somewhat be distracting because they can be subjective. So I wanted to just elaborate on what we talked about the last time. So these two images that you see here are 3D isometrics of the proposed change the bottom view is what you would see from the mall road as you're coming from north to south. So from starting on the right side of that moving our way to the left, similar to the last presentation, the kind of dark squiggly lines on the building are intended to be a composite material would like composite. That offers up an accent to help break up the facade. In front of those there's actually a blue lamb arbor. So these are large columns and beams that would help frame and those would be pushed out from the building about four feet to help frame the landscaping as well as the new windows that have been added the last time we showed you this facade, the role of windows between the arbor were not there. Mostly we have the Subaru icon tower, which is a prerequisite by the brand and this is a slate stone, and that slate stone has been continued as a Wayne's cot on the lower level. Mostly will be screened by landscaping but offers a durable finish at the bottom, and then just to the left of that section there's a full height section of wall to help frame the windows that go into the customer lounge and retail area. The big change is to the left and this is the customer service drive that we spoke in length about last time which had a flat roof, and some of the similar accents that we had to the right. But we've changed this to more of a post and beam gabled framed roof with an accented cupola. So the timbers themselves would be real timbers. And the roofs would have deep overhangs and articulating from 1012 pitch down to a 412 pitch to invoke more of that carriage house type feel. And then the large overhead doors actually our glass doors and then there's a large series of glass windows on the kind of southeast side if you will at lower left, which let natural light in for the customers dropping off their vehicles. And on top, that view is really the southern view if you will so as you're coming from the mall, heading north on the wall road to the far left of that image up until about midway but if you can highlight the little squiggly lines in the middle. Yeah, so left of that is essentially existing. And that's the existing building and from the squiggly to the right is our addition. And basically those, those lines represent a horizontal rain screen which has continued on from the east side and there's also a timber trellis that is proposed at the front, which adds some some shading and some accent above the set of windows that is basically where the customer waiting lounge and sales room is around that area and around the service drive or proposing a horizontal shift lap siding. So it's actually a metal siding but it's a wood grain look siding. So from a distance, it's impossible to interpret that it's not real wood. Obviously the industry has made a lot of strides towards durable materials that give the wood look to the shift lap accent would be horizontal here and and that even though it's metal it's a very durable material and very similar to materials that have been used on the senior living facility to help break up that feel of a metal building if you will. So really those are the high level proposed changes. A significant amount of effort has gone into obviously the service drive roof, and then to carry the accents around from the northeast side to the southeast or the south south facade. Oh, and I'm sorry the primary facade where the 802 Superu words are that is now 25 feet high. So to try to meet you guys with the standard. Basically it's a parapet, the main roof is 20 feet matching the existing roof, primarily as we said because we're concerned about snow drift conditions on the existing, but from from this vantage point. It does give the presentation that that main roof is 25 feet tall, and then the ridge of the slope roof, if you will, is about 34 feet I think I have the elevations in this package to which has dimension on it. So you should be able to see that. So, once again, trying to bring this entire facade very much closer to your, your desires in terms of meeting those standards. So yeah I think what we see here is kind of in the middle of the screen up there on top, prime to your right is dimension that's the, that is the ridge, which is about 34 feet I think. And then like I said the primary facade is 25. So we're going to see the ship lap horizontal siding that's presented on the service drive as well as the left above the slate main Scott, and standing seem metal roof on the slope roof as as an accent so again bringing a little bit more of that residential field into this commercial building. Comment your questions. Paulie. So, I can see how the fenestration of, you know, the service drive through and the new addition kind of blend in together what are there other sort of things like materials or color that sort of tie the two buildings together. Well, certainly, as we said before, our goal was not to deviate substantially from the existing colors that on the building. Even though they're relatively benign I mean they're basically a dark bronze or brown and a light blue, if you will. So, by adding in the ship lap, which we would present to be kind of a dark brown would look. And then the composite rain screen as well as the gulam timbers would be a lighter natural would look so we get the push and pull of the dark with the lighter would. Well, well, I'm not sure pushing pull is what we were looking for so much as something, you know it's got added interest definitely you know with the, you know the barn like look. And the industrial look so I think it's already got some push and pull. We were kind of wondering, you know what sort of ties the building together. It looked like two separate buildings is that I think that's what. Again, I think the takeaway from our last couple of conversations obviously were focused around trying to articulate your current architectural standards and trying to diminish the amount of metal siding that was a parent building. You know we made the effort initially to break up the 80 foot long spans, which is one of the standards we made the efforts initially to show a composition of materials that were also consistent with what Subaru brand hopes to see on their buildings as we've discussed. This is still going to be an uphill battle with Subaru. I did go back and look at the dealership that's in Connecticut, and their solution, even though personally not my, my favorite was not entirely different actually as much more, I'd say benign than this. And in terms of the two buildings, certainly, I mean there, there is an old and there's a new. And when we do historic renovation and addition work. It's a distinct effort to try to distinguish between the different vintages of buildings. So as not to confuse people in the future as to thinking is this part of the old is this part of the new. That's, you know, historic preservation. Agreed to that I was talking about the two sections of the new building. You know, I think with the horizontal siding on the quote unquote barn shape. That creates horizontal lines that are continuous with our rain screen. And I think, okay. Yeah, okay. Oh, Scott Browns in them. But well exactly there'd be a combination of muted earth tones throughout the facade right I mean the, the idea is to try to go too far away from the existing building colors, but the same time by offering up the natural wood accents. Jump forward a little bit and have the darker ones behind them. Tom, you had a question or comment. Dave, I see you put a weather vane on there. That's not an advertising weather vane. It doesn't say Subaru. It actually has a horse carriage. No, it's got the state of Vermont. It's got 802 and the Subaru emblem and the word luck. But that was literally, I texted this note to Joe one day and we did that as a representation. I don't know if Subaru would go for that either but I like the idea of a weather vane up there because it gives a character. I think, I hate to speak for Lord, but we talked about non advertising. So the paddock look of this, right, you know, the Churchill downs. You guys are, you guys are putting in bike racks, right? Yes. Can you, can you just get creative and get something that looks compatible to this, not your standard U shaped bike racks that have a little bit of, you know, that can match the paddock look, right? Or, you want a hitchy post look? That's what I'm, something like that. Yes. We could certainly work on that. Security would be the number one. Absolutely. I'm just trying to have you think a little bit outside the box. In front of this, right here, in front of this thing, I don't know, is there a seating section here at all? Or customers can sit outside and, if there is something that... Is it possible to share your screen, Tom, so we can see where you're pointing? It's really along the east facade where we've got the slate on the entire wall he was pointing at. Right there. I think we have a little more opportunity on the south facade and that gets nice sun. And so we have like chairs in the landscaping... Again, that's the same theme. Again, the paddock theme, you know. I'm just making a suggestion. Yeah, and honestly, then it's just somewhat practicality, you know. But we could put saloon doors on the thing. But seriously, those little things are really what people talk about. If you walk down the city of Berry, they've got these two gargoyles on a grand and holding a vibrant. And that's what people talk about. I'm just suggesting. Those little, I think, little things detail my... I commend you for your effort here. Yeah, absolutely. You're so clear here. Absolutely. And we're really not in the process of redesigning for you. So I think anybody else have a comment or question with regard to the architectural? Nope. When would we see a color? In 36 hours. So did you hear that? Yeah. Well, I guess if we're required to submit a colored rendering, we could. But whatever, I guess that's up to you guys. We're obviously trying to accommodate all your requests. So if you need something in full color, I guess next question would be, does it have to be photo realistic? Because again, all of these efforts can be done. They just take time and considerable amount of effort. Let us talk about that. I'm not in agreement that I need to see a colored rendering. For one day, unless it's a really photo realistic, it's... I think what happened with the last colored rendering you showed us is, depending on where you printed it, you get three different colors. So that was not helpful to us. And it probably hurt your presentation more than the other. So I'm not going to actually do that again. At least I'm not. Right. We change our minds through deliberation. We'll let you know promptly. Again, I've speaking for one thing. I commend you for dealing with your architecture style. Yeah, I agree. And beyond that, I'm not going to pick your color pattern. Before we move on, then, Brian, with this facade and the height, does this meet the town's height requirements with respect to the B Street? B Street, minimum height requirements, 25 feet, and the top of the bridge line on this portion of the building's 32 or 34, as I recall. It's an average, right? So, yeah. Yeah. Yeah, the main facade, the 802, is exactly 25 feet, and the ridge of the fairground is 33 feet or so. So can I ask you then to submit something stating that fact, right? You know, that'll become then part of your testimony that will be part of the record. Certainly. I mean, the drawings are certainly part of the evidence and testimony, but if you need a mathematical representation of that, we can do that. Yeah, I think it would help us. Yeah, we'll go back to the state with us. Yeah. Right. So again, assuming that we're according to the B Street standards again. Yeah. And Brian, it's been a while since I looked at it. So this does meet the primary street facade then requirement, 50%. I can't remember. No, I don't believe that we do meet the 50%. Hold on. That wasn't the first, first one. We don't, we don't meet the 50%. Primary street side were increasing from a 33% existing to 36%. But I mean, it's, you know, the, it really would be very detrimental to circulation on the site. If we were trying to expand this building out this direction or out that direction. So the, that particular criteria, I don't, I don't know that we've had real discussion. But I think it's really to meet with this existing buildings. We're doing our best to increase compliance here, but it's an existing non performing use and obviously if we're proposing a new building on a new site, we would meet that requirement, but I just don't think it's feasible here. And I was just, my memory was I couldn't remember if it did or not. Any other questions by the board. No. Tom. Well, no. Comments for the comments by the applicant. I have one question I guess point of clarification more than anything. I'm not sure where the board is in the proceedings and what their next steps are but a lot of discussions tonight about asking for formulas and criteria and bids and things like that all very much acceptable and well and good. But does that put the board in a position to use those requests as conditions. Assuming that you're in a position to deliberate. Would that be something that could be requested as conditions to be submitted to validate a permit. Or is it something where you're going to wait until all that information is forwarded, and then reschedule to another time certain and again I'm only speaking from the construction side and winner and all kinds of stuff and seems like there's a lot of amicable conversations here and the applicant has been willing to meet your request in terms of delivering this follow up data but none of it seems to at least in my opinion has changed the outcome of potentially the dialogue so it's just more data to supplement the dialogue. So is it reasonable to think that we could handle it that way. You seem to be checking it a bit. No I'm just listening. Okay. Here's what I'd like to hope and whatever my board members to you to support me or tell me. I'd like to conclude the hearings tonight. Yeah. I'd like to think we could because I mean ideally we could drag this out of the hearing. You don't want that. And we appreciate that. I think you'll have to admit that we've gone out of a way to have special meetings and everything else to accommodate your schedule. And in that same vein. We'd like to accommodate your schedule by trying to close the hearing. But they we would need to work out this formula. For the cost of sidewalk work. I think we have agreement in principle and we I think we need to just find numbers that were comfortable with it. Carriers to where we need to be. And we're sure the process you know. The sidewalk issue I think you heard where we stand on that. Curved. The internal sidewall. Yeah. The internal sidewalk. So I would like to I'd like to close this and figure that we could work the other thing out and make that, you know, is a part of our conditioning process. It would be a condition and we'd like to word the condition to make it more livable with you. Okay. But it's got to work with us too. Yeah. Yes, Mike. Yes, I have a question. I appreciate Brian going through all the conditional use permit requirements. But I noticed you mentioned that this is a non conforming use I think technically it's a non conforming structure. And under the zoning under your new zoning. If there's going to be an expansion of a non conforming structure that extends beyond the existing building line. It requires the DRB to either grant one or more waivers, or one or more variances. And it requires the applicant to submit a list of all waivers and variances that it's seeking, as well as the zoning code sets out a fairly elaborate set of points that have to be analyzed first by the public and then by the, by the DRB. I don't recall seeing any of that material. It's the, the initial thing is 1204 D. And then that cross references to 4502 and 4503 and 4502 in particular sets limits on how extensive waivers can be. So 1204 D is a dog. So 1204 D says the development review board may approve a waiver or variance to allow expansion of a non conforming structure that would result in a portion of that structure and pushing further beyond the existing non conforming building line. In this case we're dealing with a building that is non conforming because it's too far away from the road, not because it's too close to the property line. So we are reducing the amount of non conformity, rather than increasing the amount of non conformity which is which is what 1204 D is aimed at. Well, I think 1204 D talks about non conforming structure and there are any number of ways that if this the existing building came in under the new zoning, it wouldn't be approved setbacks, etc, etc. So but that's that's not up to me to decide that one way or the other. I think that that there's been, I don't think this has been addressed the way that it should be. Well, we, I think, I think setbacks terms of the parking have been addressed pre existing. I think we've addressed most of them, Mike. I appreciate your point. And, and I think we were fully aware of that, whether or not we have to use specific waiver language. I'm not sure. Tom, what do you think? I, it's new to me here. All I have to look into it. I interpreted this as Brian's interpretation. Yeah, and, and again, do we have to find, we have to have individual findings on each one of the criteria. I don't think we have to. I certainly one could argue that that that's a way to do it. But I don't think we have to. But we'll take, we'll take that under advisement. I don't think 1204 D applies to it. Pardon? I don't think 1204 D applies. No? I don't. And if you need, if you need to review it, it's, it's all of those are laid out in the initial cover letter that we send in the application. Some of those, some of them have been corrected, say like the building height was one of them. You know, build to line. The parking. The parking base we requested be approved as a non conforming lot, which is a separate section of the, of the Sunder section promo three, which says you can develop an non conforming lot and doesn't require waivers or variances but certainly you can read the rules just as well as I can. I did look through these today. I didn't see anything that we were missing. I think there's something specifically we were missing. I understand process is there. I think that I'm, I'm not sure that the applicant has set out a list of waivers or variances that it's seeking and the justifications for them. There's also a specific limit in 4502 on how large expansion can be. I didn't see what you're, I mean, I didn't see a trigger there. I think your 406. Yeah, yeah. Which would seem to suggest that actually under 1204 D and expansion to an existing non conforming structure is exactly what the only ordinance is trying to get at. Look at that. I think we're all right, but I could be mistaken. Can we close or no. It's just a moment to look at it. I don't see a limitation. We haven't addressed. Probably you're more familiar with this. Yeah. I think that I would say that 4502 or a photo for D only applies. It says that we result in a portion of the structure encroaching further beyond the existing non conforming building line. That's, that's usually the way it is. And it's not the building one is getting closer to the one built to. Yeah. I think we're good. I think we're good. I agree. Yeah. Any other further comments? Do you have any other comments? I was just going to ask, is it possible to continue the hearing to allow the applicant to supplement the record along the lines that we've established here? An update of the traffic analysis to correct the fact. I don't want to update the traffic analysis. No, but correct the error, the factual errors that may be included. And what Roger to we can make that a condition. We can continue the hearing. Okay. We can continue the hearing. I don't think you want us to continue the hearing. This is a technical jump that I'm making. You continue the hearing to allow the applicant to supplement the record. And once the record is supplemented, you can close the matter. No conditions on a requirement. I'm sorry. The conditions that we would impose to get us this information go away because you have given us that information. Correct. We would certainly like seven days to package this and submit it to the board. Unless you want to impose conditions that require these submittals from the applicant after the board's decision. Well, probably the right way to do it is to continue it. I was just trying to get this thing moving and use the applicant's timeline. Well, can you fashion conditions that address these submittals? I think we can. All right. But it does require agreement on the condition. In other words, it would be a condition that says we're going to have a surety and a price and an escalator that would be satisfactory to the board. Does that require another hearing? I suppose only we disagree. So maybe we should continue it then because that is a dicey subject, right? That's the crux of the issue. And this board has scheduled me in two weeks right now. Yeah. Well, I'm perfectly willing to do that. We'd like to resolve this issue to a satisfaction. I think that's the loose end in my mind. I'd probably take a moment to look at what Mike has said here further. Make sure that we haven't missed a point. I spent an hour or two looking at it today. I didn't see anything we missed. I certainly believe we have enough testimony about the issues that the board has outlined tonight or identified. And so if the board, you have the tape and you have the record in the form of film to go back and look at, if this is sufficient for you to be able to close the process and issue a decision that's conditioned based upon the discussion that we've had tonight, then the applicant would be happy to proceed on that basis. The key to the kingdom is the shorting. I'm just concerned about the procedural issues that may arise if we do that. I don't know if we don't continue to do that. Yeah, I agree. And then we don't come from an agreement on that. So I do have, I think I do take issue with closing the hearing at this point based on, I mean, you know, we don't want to create a procedural problem in this application. Can you not close the hearing and leave the record open for the applicant to introduce submittals which address the issues we've discussed tonight? I think that's leaving the hearing open. Yeah, but that's exactly right. You'd be leaving the hearing open. You'd be continuing to get this additional testimony. Right. And then you'd have to get together somehow and close it. We could do that. We could do that in my mind. It sounds to me like your favorite of that. Yeah, I'm going to continue. I don't think you want to continue for two weeks. And I'm not anxious to make you a diet with all due respect. Yeah. I don't think the board can accept additional submittals if you close the process. Right. I don't think we can either. You're technically correct. We could, they'd be a condition, and then we'd accept or reject. So there's no. There's no. So you're technically speaking, we need to continue it. What's your timeframe? Yeah, these guys are used to me pushing. So I'll say we'll have stuff back very quickly. Yeah. So we could, we could be ready certainly within a week. I mean, we do need two weeks. So that would be convenient for us. What's your preference? I don't think if we do. We're down to, we're down to basically. I don't think we have to meet very long if we make a special meeting. I'm not opposed to that. I'll say that. One week. One week. One week. We're just really talking about one issue. We're either going to agree on it or we're not going to agree on it. And we're going to work it out. And I think we'll have that. I think we'll have that as a foregone conclusion before this meeting. Okay. Okay. We will work it out because and that allows us really to start dealing with some of the other issues that we talked about. And I think they're resolvable. They're just going to be, you know, there will be conditions. Obviously, you've already agreed to conditions as part of your testimony. For instance, you're not going to bring vehicles down from other lots during peak hours. Stuff like that will be in there. It's part of the testimony that has to be in the condition. And there's some other stuff like that. And there's permits you have not received yet. 12th October? Yes, please. I do have a meeting that night. Can we do it earlier or something? I can do five o'clock or later. I can do five. Five o'clock. Five? Because I have a meeting at 6.30. And we don't want to take that long. So I could blow off the other meeting, but we don't want to do that. Planning Commission, recent planning commission meeting. I will be out of town. But as long as I can zoom in, I'm okay. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So we're ready? Yeah. I'll make the motion. Continue the hearing until Tuesday, October 12th at 5 p.m. A second. Seconded. I did. I got the motion. Quick question, mr. chairman. This is actually a hearing for the applicant, or would this just be the board closing the hearing because they have received supplemental and then deliberating. It's a public hearing. It would be a public hearing for the applicant. We're continuing this. But would you be deliberating publicly or then recessing. We will not be deliberating publicly. We're gonna work out the details to the point where we can then close it at issue of issue findings. Assuming it can be worked out. Yeah, assuming we've worked them out. Thank you. Okay. I just want to see if there's anybody else rejecting here. I had a question. Okay, we have a motion and a second. All those favor that motion please say bye bye. Say hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Paulie. I said hi. Okay. And this hearing is continued. Do appreciate your effort and participation. As we do yours. Thank you. And feel free to have dialogues between us and Tom at least. And let's see if we can't get to the room at 18. Confident we can. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. Okay. Good night everyone. Night. Good night. Who's been checking the Yankees and Sox score privately? Not me. Nobody? Okay. Bill Hamlet? Yeah. Oh no. Nothing. Yeah. All right. I don't think we have any other business. We have no other business tonight. We do have minutes. We probably, we've all received minutes. Yeah. We've all got a lot of minutes. Do we just do them all at once or do we need to do them separately? Why don't you make a motion? I think we have minutes. Yes, sir. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Good night. We have minutes of the September 24th. We have minutes of September 21st and September 8th. I'm taking about an order. I apologize for that. It's an order, but reverse. So I will make the motion. Okay. To approve the minutes as revised for the 24th, September the 8th and September the 21st. I second that. Discussion. All in favor of that motion? Please say aye. Aye. Aye. And you have moved the minutes, two of them just that we went to bullet recession. And the other one is a different applicant. Right. Okay. We do not have something scheduled for the next meeting in October. Scheduled meeting October 19th. There is no. Okay. Oh, good. No, I mean. A break. Okay. You said this in the last one. I will do it, yes. The, did you want to do any deliberations tonight? What's up to you guys? I really don't want to because I have some stuff going on that I didn't expect to be here this long. All right. Let's not, let's not then. I think we've actually done all our deliberations pretty much in public. Yeah. Yeah. It was good. I know it's good. So I think, feel free to share thoughts, confidentially between the board members and no one else. I think, I think I don't see anything new here. I think we're doing this with conditions that are going to be so far. Some details and then this is a sidewalk. Yeah. But. We're getting there. Yeah. Yeah. Slowly, I'm sure I resolved all the issues but we're gonna do. And I think we resolved all the one by three. Okay. Okay. That's this case. We'll do it then. It's up to motion adjourned. Second. And seconded. And I'll just make that motion. Aye. Aye.