 Five minutes after seven o'clock, we're here to have one application tonight which is the application by Shaw Supermarket, Inc. in O'Reilly Auto Parts for a major site plan review associated with repurposing of a vacant retail space. And before we start, I'm going to swear in all those that tend to give testimony in a matter of before the sport tonight. If you tend to give testimony, please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. That leads to perjury. I do. Yes. Okay, I don't see, because I can't see Craig. Craig just said yes. Yes, I did. But we don't know about Alicia and Trish. Yes. Will you be giving testimony tonight? Yes. Did you raise your right hand? Yes, we did. So, I guess I need an overview. And Craig, you're doing this. Please start. Yes, I will. Let me give you an overview. You're not, a video would help. Is there any reason you're not on video? Nope. Let me see if I can get that to work. I just sometimes it slows me down. You may need to go back to a personal periods period. I appreciate the problem, Craig. So we'll be tolerant, but we need to start here somewhere. That's fine. Not a big deal. All right. So let me see if, you know what? I was intended to show you my screen, but I'm getting a message that says post disabled participant screen sharing. You're going to have that in two seconds. You should have it now, Craig. All right. Well, good evening and thank you for the opportunity to present our project. On our, on my screen, you should be able to see our proposed exterior elevations of the post remodel O'Reilly auto parts, which we propose. Right now, we have an existing vacant facility, which appears to be a former Staples office store based on the colors. Can't confirm that 100%. That's correct. But it, but it appears that this building has sat vacant for quite some time based off of some evidence of disrepair, some trash or other things that are happening there. And we believe that as we make our improvements to this facility, that we will make some vast improvements to the area, if not just the building itself. And with that, we hope that we can find support from your town in order to allow us to proceed with this, which will be beneficial to everybody, O'Reilly, the public of the town of Berlin and surrounding neighborhoods and to the town of Berlin itself. So let me close this and kind of show you what we are proposing for plans and site plan. Craig, before you go further, is this property under new ownership, relatively new ownership? I'm not aware. Thomas, can you comment on that? I can speak of that. I believe there's been a change of hands in the last year or so. Thomas, I appreciate your coming here. We've tried to work with former owners in the past and it wasn't the most easiest thing to do. So I do appreciate your coming here and supporting this project. Yeah, happy to be here. We have a ground lease at this location, so it's not like a traditional lease. We have a lot to say of what goes on on the property versus where a landlord, we have a normal ownership structure where the landlord likes to be involved. So they're pretty much coupon collectors and we handle pretty much all the questions that you may have for stuff regarding the property here. Thank you. Effectively, you are the applicant. Thomas. You're asking that to Thomas, correct? In proximity, well, sorry, we are an authorized agent. We have authority from the landlord to act on behalf of any build out here. Okay. And currently, the way the application has been submitted is under the name of O'Reilly Auto Parts with the permission of any other interested parties, ownership, sub-lease, etc. Thank you, Greg. I was thinking of speaking the legalese of it, but yeah, I appreciate the role that O'Reilly is playing in this application. Very good. So our intention is to try to minimize the amount of work done both on the site and on the building itself. We do a plan as shown on other portions. So let me just go show the floor plan. Let me show you a better floor plan. So the floor plan basically consists of an area which is the main public area with their retail merchandising and then with the majority of the store. So that being in the gray area here, public area, but the rest of the store being for inventory. As you all know, there's millions of different styles and models of automobiles and not one car uses every single type of brake parts or whatever it might be. So with that being said, we have to carry a very large inventory of parts for different vehicles, both internal combustion and also rolling out and supporting many electric vehicle and hybrid vehicle models. So the stores tend to be fairly large, this not being an anomaly. So 99% or I should say 75% of the store is inventory with 25% plus or minus being area for other accessories, air fresheners, other knickknacks that somebody might want to put on their vehicle. So we are not proposing to enlarge the building, not changing any of the building massing, pretty much keeping the building as is with just most 99% of the work being done on the interior. I'm sorry, it was misspoke, doing on the interior. We propose, like I said, to keep the building mass itself, we're not going to raise the roof, we're not going to enlarge or create large big parapets or roof masses or anything of the sort. So the integrity of the building is going to stay pretty much as what it is right now. We do propose to paint the exterior brick, change the front fascia and siding of the main roof element and then overall just clean up what we see on the three sides of the building that are exposed. There's one building we share with the Shaw's grocery store and therefore there can't be any, we're only a three-sided building at this point. And just overall cleanliness, I know that there are some other things that have been asked by the town, but our attention is to try to do as much as we can within reason in order to make this project a possibility. And with that, I will give the floor back to the town for any questions or other comments. So there'll be no change to the exterior, is that correct? Cosmetics? Correct. No, just clean up and paint maintenance and repairs as needed, but not changing the height of the roof or the parapet, not adding any new large storefront masses. We do need to install one new egress door that is visible right here, which is going to propose to be just a solid metal door for egress emergency egress only, which will try to be blended and matched to paint the surrounding materials. But other than that, everything is going to stay relatively the same. How about your mechanicals, Craig? Mechanicals will all be rooftop units, which are intended to be fully screened by the parapet, so they should not be visible at all from the parking lot or neighboring or nearby streets, unless there is a major altitude change where they can see down onto the building, which based on my understanding of the area, there's no tall hills or anything like that that would allow that line of sight. You're replacing all the mechanicals, correct? Correct. What other items like that are you replacing? We are intending to clean up a lot of like, for example, right now in this area, there's an existing roll-up dock. I don't believe our intention is to actually use that loop going forward. We're going to clean that up. We'll be using that. It looks like a little bit, but clean that up. Make sure it's in good working order. Intend to add a new ramp out the back door and then a new trash enclosure, which is actually just going to be a trash dumpster area, not an actual enclosure with any walls or anything like that, but just a new location to make sure that trash stays all in one location. Then that's pretty much it because they're trying to minimize the amount of work as much as possible, being conscious to budgets and other things that we need to do. Will this store serve as a warehouse for other O'Reilly auto parts in the area? Not a warehouse per se. It will provide slight support to some of the smaller locations. This actually is intended to replace a store, which is, let me give you address, in the next town over, let me remember. 277 Morrison Road in Barrie. Am I spelling that right? Barry? Barry. Okay. So it is intended to replace that. So they will be closing that location and moving over here, but it is not per se a warehouse, but because it is a larger store and does have more skews than some of the other smaller stores, there will be some support from this store, but it won't be done via large delivery trucks. It'll be mostly done by small passenger cars and or small pickup trucks. Okay. The location you just mentioned, is that the warehouse or is there a retail store there? It's a retail store. It does appear to be a warehouse, but it doesn't operate as a warehouse. My understanding is that the location was acquired from another auto parts retailer and they operated it as a warehouse, but O'Reilly doesn't operate it as a warehouse. We're talking about the Barrie store? Yes. It's the one up on, you know, up by Bond's house, right? Isn't that the one? No, I think we're talking about the one down on, I could pull up a map here real quick. It's the one on, I didn't remember the name of the street. Well, you said Morris? So here's the airport here. So this one here. Oh. Oh, I'm not familiar with that one. Yeah, I'm not either. That's the Bond location. Yeah, that's the warehouse. Bond warehouse, right? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I thought you meant the one downtown Barrie. I'm not familiar with that one. He's from California, Bob. He does. Yeah, I appreciate that. Yeah, you know, I was going to say something about the, you guys talking about complaining about nine degree weather, and I wasn't going to say anything because it's... Yeah, you better not. Oh, my card starts. Yeah. So anyway, Paulie, any questions at this point? Well, I don't know if this is time to bring it up, but the police chief had sort of a concern about security. I didn't know... Yeah, that's more detail. We're really trying to get a general picture of what's being done here at this point in time. But do bring that up later. Okay. Carla? No, I've never looked at one of these before. So it's kind of different. Yeah. Okay. Well, because this is a major project, we have to go through the site plan review criteria. And I apologize. Apparently, you provided site plan review comments, and I lost them or didn't get them, one or the other. But I just got them tonight. So did you get these before? If I did, I didn't read them. I got them. You did? Yeah. There wasn't a whole lot of response to each of the criteria. So... Right. Okay. So I'm going to ask you to walk us through those criteria, if you wouldn't, Craig. There's the list of criteria is rather lengthy. So I believe that the existing site... Let me dig those up again. The existing site, for the most part, with few exceptions, I believe complies with what is required from this criteria. I know that there are a few other little items here and there. But so this is the document that I have, our response to it. It is 20 pages long. So this could be a long area thing here. So just quickly parking. I believe that parking is sufficient as currently provided. If not over provided, I know that... I don't know. I guess with the staples and the shopping or the grocery store combined, they have a large parking area. And they allow some sharing of that parking space. And Craig, just for your edification, and Thomas as well, if you're involved in this site, the town of Berlin within the last five years has done a pretty extensive change. There's only regulations which, in a lot of cases, reduce the requirement of parking. That may help you with any future development that you do on this parcel. So I would just keep that in the back of your mind, Thomas, when you're looking at this location. Anyway, so our intention is to try to, again, minimize the amount of work that we're having to do here. I know that we meet or exceed the amount of parking required. And our intention was not to do any work to minimize or take away from parking. So I don't know how we discuss that further. You're not making any changes to the parking lot. Is that correct? That is the intention. The only intention for making changes to the parking lot would be to, if we need to, improve parking for accessibility, handicap compliance, ADA, that type of stuff. But as far as reducing adding any additional parking stalls, that type of stuff, we're trying to leave it as much as possible as far as we comply. I think you mentioned you're going to restrape it. Is that correct? I'm trying to, I don't even, I don't know if we even planned on that, but that definitely we can take that into account if that's going to be a sticking point. I'm sorry, I missed what you said, Tom. If they were going to restrape, I recall a conversation. I think it's been 10 plus years. Yeah. If you go over there, it needs some TLC. It does, yeah. Yeah, I guess I'm not sure. Have you looked at the handicap access parking? Yeah. And I mean, I look at it and say, you know what, it does need a little bit of work. But with that, I think the intent was just to focus on the area where it needs it and not necessarily the entire shopping center or parking lot. So you can see over here adjacent to the Shaw's looks to be in fairly good order regarding parking stalls. But as we get closer to our site over here, again, these also seem to be in pretty good order. It's just harder to see. I don't know if, how old these pictures are. And if the striping has made it, yeah, in 2019. So I don't have any information to say whether it needs maintenance as far as repainting and restriping or even slurry work or asphalt remediation. Yeah, I think from my perspective, I'm not concerned about adequacy of parking. I think you're going to have enough. I do know, I do think you're going to want to look very carefully that you meet ADA requirements. They may have changed since that was originally constructed. Number of spaces and that type of thing. Whits and loading zones and paths of travel and all those associated items. Yeah, that was my next question. What about loading zones? So loading zone, we have it. Are you talking about loading zone for merchandise or loading zone for dropping people off? merchandise. So merchandise, we have a loading dock in the rear. So based off of this here site plan, we have a back back alley for lack of a better word, which allows loading a loading dock at this door here, which is existing loading dock with a roll up door. But we are also proposing to as another function just because not everything is accessible through a tall truck. We will have a loading area back here with a ramp that will allow small merchandise and stuff to be transported from within the building to smaller trucks down this ramp or stairs was needed. Is that existing or is that new? This ramp is proposed to be new. And these doors, there is an existing door here right here, but we are proposing to enlarge this door opening to make it a double door to allow some better access through there to the actual floor plan. So here, so this gray square right here, if you can see that, is where an existing single door is, which is just a standard door. We are proposing to infill that, put some a pair of double doors here with new, this is a raised concrete platform or landing that is up about five feet or so, four feet with a set of stairs down and then also a ramp down for just for fun, just so we can have better access for maybe some larger stuff that needs to be rolled out on a car door. And that's in the back, not on the side, is that correct? Correct. In the back, not visible from any public area. The forest or the woodlands, whatever you want to call it, is directly behind it. So site plan here. We'll add a circulation around the back. I'm thinking about emergency vehicles. It appears to have adequate service all the way around the back. I mean, this here is a as a back alley road that goes all the way around the building completely. Yeah, which is necessary for fire protection. Correct. So it will not be impacting that road? Oh, no, it will not. Okay, so then going back to the zoning response letter, so parking yet, we can go ahead and look at what we need to do to make sure that our accessible parking spaces meet current requirements as far as size and signage and making sure that they are even and not you have not looked at that yet. I believe we need to go back to our site plan here. I know that we have we did look at it. I'm trying to remember what we discussed as what our scope of work to be. So calling it out as existing and we are under the under the assumption right now that it isn't in adequate order, but if we need to do some further investigation to confirm that and make those improvements as necessary, that is we are more than willing to do so. So you're prepared to do that, but you have not looked at it per se. Correct. So right now we're showing it out as so existing keynotes seven and six existing state parking to remain no parking symbol to remain. So the intention right now is that it's adequate that it doesn't need additional work, but but if no determine that it needs additional work, we are of course going to do that as needed. I go to this facility every day. Are those trees really there? I don't think so. I don't see them. Let's go back to this here. So I mean, according to this, again, these pictures are five years old or so. There are no pictures. There are no trees there. That's interesting. No trees there. There is these trees. Yeah, those are there. Yeah, they're there. But the ones down by where you just showed those handicapped parking, are they there? There's nothing here. So let me go back to what we're drawing. I guess there are trees at the end. Yeah, I think it's the end. So our plans show, yeah, we don't show, we're only showing trees, which I believe are these, which we identified already. So really nothing in between. That's why it seems like there are no trees. It's a big parking area. So can I just ask, if it's a major site plan review, does that mean that we, the new landscaping requirements have to be met or would that only have to happen if a parking lot would be done? Well, when we get the landscaping, we talk about that, but technically speaking, it has to be met because, let's say, the previously developed site, we do have a provision in our bylaw that say best fit. So that best fits the judgment thing. Okay. So when we get there, we can talk about that. And we should talk about that. Yeah. But there are trees there. There's trees at the entrance way. There's trees where they're shown, but there are no more than what's shown. Right. I think what is shown is all still there. Well, according to that picture, it is. Let me see. I have some more recent pictures. Let me see what we've got here. I think you proved they're there, Craig. Yeah, that's okay. Yeah, we'll move on from that. I can check on my way home. When we get the landscaping, we may give back and revisit that. Okay. So I think unless there are questions about parking that we haven't raised, I'm trying to figure out how to deal with the ADA requirements. You have not really been specific here as to have you looked at the new requirements and do you meet them with the parking spaces have been allocated? I know it can be done, but the question is, do you intend to do it? And you say you do, but you haven't identified it. Could that be a permit condition? Yeah, that's what I was going to say. Yeah, we could make it a permit. I don't like a lot of conditions because what that means is afterwards, somebody has to review and make sure you did them. That becomes a nightmare. I like it done before, not after. Wow. So you still kind of have to see if they were actually done. Yeah. But anyway. Well, no, then we get some of your tests that's been done. Right, right, right, right. Well, that is going to be them. Obviously, I believe that this meeting is for that purpose, that we have this conversation and then we make adjustments to our proposal and then based off of this conversation, and we make those adjustments and then either it's another minor review by your people and then we either go from there or further work is still needed. But who's for you? Craig. Yeah, Craig, okay. Because we're looking at a screen at about a distance of 15 feet. I'm sorry. I can't, my eyes can't see that far. So it's useful to identify yourself when you start to speak. If you've been speaking all along, that's one thing, and you have been, Craig, but you popped up and I couldn't see who it was. I apologize. That's fine. No, and that's the thing is we want to do again, if accessible parking modifications and upgrades is a requirement, that is something that we by law understand and have no problem with doing that. So we can make that a, like you said, a condition of approval and move forward from there. Or you could come back to us and say these are the requirements and this is how we intend to comply with them. That would be maybe preferable to Bob, I think. Yeah. Let's see how we, let's see how we go here. We're making a note of that. See how many we have. Okay. Yeah. All right. Yeah. All right. So then moving on. So disgusting parking. I think we, so we're not, we're not proposing any shared parking. I believe we talked about loading areas. So we have our existing loading dock in the back. I believe that we already comply. Okay. We have plenty of off street parking and loading areas continuing on. Do you tend to have any electrical vehicle charging stations next in the parking? There are currently no electrical vehicle parking stations. We have not intended to put any, if that is a requirement of approval, then we will need to consider that. Just a comment. If you're going to stock parts for electric fields, it might be a draw to have a charging station. Well, but the intention also is not to, we don't want to have this become an area where people are actually doing maintenance on their cars. So. No, we don't. Charging and maintenance is different. But I believe that if somebody's there working on their car or whatever, that might be a, you know, that could be a slippery slope. But I understand. What are the requirements for electric vehicle charging stations? There are no specific requirements in the bylaw. There's a section here that talks about may, may provide. So it's, there's no requirement. I just, I was asking the boy. I don't have electrical vehicles, so I don't care. No, I understand. In fact, it is not your intent to have people there very long. The object is to get them in, get them out. Correct. They might go to SAAS. That's a different story. So, so moving on to section 32.8, design and maintenance standards. Excuse me, Craig, before you move on and for promise of edification, there is a contiguous on the dealership to your property. I know in the past that this, this campus allowed them to park vehicles there. As you said, you weren't going to have any shared spacing. I'm just letting you know that, that, that was permitted in the past. And so it's something that may be another source of revenue for you guys if you want to go down that road. Thanks for the heads up on that. Not, not quite sure I understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that the, the extra inventory would park over here? They've done that in the past. Correct. Yeah. Okay. I don't, I don't know if that, if that agreement is still in place and if that's something that is going to continue in place. I don't know. I'm, I'm out of the loop on that and honestly don't. This is Thomas with Shaw's. I'll double check on that, but I don't think there's an active agreement. I think there was in the past, but I'm not sure if it's still in effect. So I'll have to reach out to my property guys and find out. It was after staples moved out. So there was stuff like they used to anyway. So I'm probably going to need the space. Okay. Unless there are questions about parking we haven't covered. I'd like to move on to access the circulation. Okay. Are you talking about vehicular pedestrian? Both. They're both covered on the section 3203. Okay. So 3203. Let's find out where that is. Vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian traffic. Okay. So looking at this, we understand that there's been some conversation about so vehicle, I believe vehicle access is pretty, pretty clear. We do provide one exit or one entrance and exit directly to Payne Turnpike North. This has been truncated a little bit just because this is just a long drive onto that. And that is essentially the only access into this site other than some dirt roads, but it doesn't look like those are actual roads that some, they're more like just things that pass that people have created. We don't have any type of bike and or pedestrian access to this. I know that that has been something that's been a discussion that is a new design guideline, has been discussed with Thomas briefly. But I know the options that have been proposed, I don't understand and we don't understand as a design team and as O'Reilly's don't understand how that becomes a benefit to this site based on some of the challenges. I know Thomas that you or Tom, you've basically noted, we've had the discussion of proposing to put a sidewalk in this area along here. And we just don't understand how that works from a legal standpoint, from a technical standpoint and really, we've kind of talked about it as being a sidewalk to nowhere for lack of a better term. So we're just really scratching our heads on that one. Our bylaw is pretty clear that in this zoning district, when there's redevelopment, a major redevelopment, that sidewalks have to be on the frontage. And as the great UNI, the conversation we had, the frontage on Payton Turnpike North that you have there in blue, I know that's pretty much wetland area over there and and and but our regulations say you must. So that's something that this board is going to have to talk about. And again, our conversation was I was trying to give a work around to what you're showing here in blue on Payton Turnpike North, which in my opinion, would be either very expensive or impossible to do when our regulations say you must do it. By doing the one audit the out at the Route 62 intersection. So what is what is this drawing you're showing here, Craig? This what I'm up on my screen right now is just a Google images of Google Earth map that shows aerial photography of the area. What was what was the blue line? That blue line was actually it was a show to route from this location to the other location that we were talking about on Bari. It was just actually showing what the best way to get there would be. It was just for something that that pulled up. And so it was I mean I could try to bring it back. That must have long up Scott Hill Road. So it's just given us two options either go out to Highway 62 or to yes, Scott Hill Road. Right. Not being super familiar with not being familiar at all with the area. I don't know what the best way to go out there would be. But anyway, so yeah, I mean I understand the city requirement as far as must providing pedestrian access that on the frontage. But the frontage that this parcel sits on, like you said, is a wetlands area. So I don't know if there's any possible way to do that. I know that Tom and I had talked about trying to put that somewhere off site. But again, there's we have concerns about that as far as who's going to install that who's going to maintain that. And if if other property owners are going to accept that. This is Thomas with the show is I also like to point out that that driveway in the parcel is just north of it is not owned or controlled by us at all. It's I believe it's owned by the the the Migglewood travel center across the street. Are you Thomas are you talking about this one here? Yes. That's the access to your property. Yes. And it's according to the tax parcel viewer. I don't see us. I couldn't find a survey to confirm it on our legal end of things, but according to the Vermont parcel viewer, it shows that it's owned by a different entity. But you must have an easement. Yeah, I assume it's an easement. Correct. And we're not talking about that parcel that piece with sidewalk. We're talking about the 90 degree angle there on Hang Turnpike north. You're either talking about across here. Well, you know, there is a bike lane on the other side of the road. You know, pedestrian bike lane that goes alongside of Maplewood. It was designed that way, but it's not currently marked that way. That is that that has been marked that way in the past. Just it's a painting issue. Yeah, I know. But yes, right there, right there. Yeah, that's it. That's it right there. So that is actually pedestrian bike. What happens if they do a lot of safe? Shared use area. And it has been marked correctly in the past. It's just not currently like so many things do not get striped accordingly. But if they did a crosswalk, then theoretically there is pedestrian access along that, you know, the other side of the road. Well, the first one I have is there's no pedestrian access to Shaw's or to O'Reilly's along the entrance road. The first part of the word access is how do you get there? And you don't know what you own there? Well, based based on what we've been able to find is that this this access road here is, you know, owned by another entity with the assumption that there's an access agreement or easement in place. Well, it must be. Yeah. That requires clarification. Because the first thing in access to the parcel is how do you get there as a pedestrian or as a bicyclist? Now bicyclists can do a shared use as good, I suppose, as a pedestrian, but let's face it. That's a fairly narrow roadway. Yeah, it is. There really needs to be, in my mind, a dedicated pedestrian access from Payton Turnpike to the shopping center. And I was disappointed to see there was no easement shown, no access shown. You show the property line as being to the south of that. And no easement shown at all, but you must have an easement. Yeah. The question is, how big is it? I mean, you've got landscaping along there. So that must be the responsibility of Shaw's. Thomas, we're gonna have to look at that closer to see to try to figure out exactly what that is and who's responsible for what. Hi, this is Aisha with O'Reilly. I just have a question. So I understand the lack of pedestrian access and the need for it. However, I just am curious in terms of execution. So obviously, there is some stuff that we need to work with Shaw and figure out, you know, ownership and easements and whatnot. But in terms of execution, the wetland is still a factor. So how do we accommodate the request without impacting other things that are currently in place? I guess in your eyes, if the board wouldn't mind explaining to us in an ideal scenario, what are they, what are you expecting this to look like at the end? So we can have a better understanding of the desire here. Well, by our bylaw, right, there should be, when parcels get redeveloped, there should be sidewalk in either side of Painterm Pipe North, right? But this section has wetlands and we're cognizant of that and we know the difficulty of that. And I thought I heard a member suggest maybe a crosswalk from that sign back across to that multi-use path there. I thought I heard that as a possible suggestion. Again, I'll let the, I'll let the, I don't vote here, but we're trying to work with you as applicants to fill this space and meet our zoning requirements. So that seems to be a possibility along Painterm Pipe, but then there's the issue of the access road. Well, your drawings suggest that you, I mean, they suggest you have a right-of-way of some sort, none specified with. It would be difficult to talk intelligently about having a sidewalk from Painterm Pipe to the existing sidewalks that exist in front of the shopping center without knowing where you own and where you don't own. It would seem to me it's clear that you own everything to the south side of that road. But we don't know where the wetlands begin around. So none of that's been addressed here. But if I were, if I were doing the design, the first thing I'd look at, okay, well, I've got, I've got some nice landscaping there. I don't necessarily want to remove that. So do I have a place I could put a sidewalk up there, pedestrian way of some sort, on either side, not knowing what the limits are in terms of easements. And property lines. So we don't have, we don't have access to that information. You do. And you need to address that. Pedestrian access is an issue and a requirement. Well, to speak to that, obviously, O'Reilly, and Craig is on behalf of O'Reilly, we are, we are a tenant in this space. So there are certain information that we just don't simply know because we are leasing a building or a portion of it. I know Thomas has looked into it and I think he may need to just provide further clarification or unless he has documentation to present now. But regardless, it's not that we are neglectful in creating a design that accompanies all of these concerns. It's just as a tenant, there's just only so many things that we are responsible for. So it is not natural for us to take those things into consideration. That doesn't mean that we will not participate or we are willing to do the right thing. We're just trying to better understand how to make this feasible in a practical sense. And if it means that we need to discuss further with our landlord and whatnot, we can. But at the same time, we're just trying to figure out how to, given the information that we have or is being presented, we're just trying to figure out how to accommodate this pedestrian requirement in a practical manner. Yeah, this is Thomas's shaws again. Typically when we do deals where we put tenants in, we give them a lot of documentation on things. Those documentations don't typically include easements. We have stores across the entire state of Vermont and they've never asked, at least in my experience, they've never asked for sidewalks or this type of improvements for just deals like this only for when the actual parcel is developed or when there's buildings going up. So I can look more into it, but this isn't typically what we see in any type of meetings. And this is Craig again. And maybe it goes back further to the very, very beginning is that I know that there's been some ambiguity as far as what constitutes a major site plan approval. I know that we've all had a conversation with you, Tom, about it, but I just, again as we've scoured through the documents, it seems like it's just very up to the discretion of the zoning administrator and the DRB board as to what constitutes a major site plan redevelopment. Well, I shared with you in our regulations section, I have to find it here. Section 4302 site plan review and there are talks about classifications where a zoning administrator is basically given a recipe to determine if it's a major or minor and and one of the items that calls for major renovation is if a major renovation of existing principal building is occurring, in my opinion, that what you've spoke about with the changes in the building, the mechanicals and all that, that's a major renovation. I shared with the board, our definition in from our regulations, nobody from the board thought that my decision on this matter was an error. So I mean, that's why we're here, Craig, right? No, I understand, but just for the sake of discussion, I think that there's people that were not involved in that conversation that you and I had, that I just wanted to make sure that we were all on the same page for that, that's all. It may have not got shared with Thomas, but I think it got shared with your team, that's your here. Okay, no, I understand, you're clear, clear enough. Go ahead. Alissa was able to find something as shows, looks to be a property lines here, I'm going to share real quick. Darn it, that's not what I wanted to do. So yeah, it does look like the actual property line is on the south side of that, that easement. So we need to, we need to look at this closer to figure out how, who owns what and how we have access through here, because there's obviously some type of easement agreement here. And I'm going to caution you, this looks like ton of early tax map data, tax map data is, should be used for planning purposes. Historically unreliable. Yeah. That's the word he's looking for. Thank you. Fair enough. Fair enough. I'm looking at the top in our bylaw, I'm looking at section four 302, 30203 E four. And it refers to previously developed sites. And we're looking here at where the, the town of Berlin's priorities for retrofitting are improvement, safe and could be at pedestrian access. So I think what we're looking for is an answer, not necessarily a letter of the law, but an answer of how we provide safe, and I would think it's the best interest, although your auto parts is still in the best interest of the store to have pedestrian and, and bicycle access. Who knows, vehicle may not get there. But you know, so I think we're looking for a best fix solutions here, given that we have limitations of wetlands, but you haven't even identified with those what we recognize their wetlands there, but we don't know what the extent of the wetlands are, but what can it cannot be done. So I'm not asking for a wetlands survey per se, but a mapping best understanding would be useful to look at this intelligently. And what can we reasonably do that represents a best fix. And with respect to the wetlands, there's an agency, Vermont agency, natural resources, outlets that has a wetlands page. I imagine you'll get a lot of that information right off of that where you, you don't have to do any field work or things like that. But you don't need to be a wetland specialist to recognize that there is wet areas that we do recognize that. So a sidewalk on that side of the road would not be something we would be insisting on. What we are insisting on is a best fix for pedestrian access. Into the site off of off a pain term. Yeah. And and across it. Yeah. This is a busy road. It's getting busier all the time. You know, Riley hopes it gets busier. Yeah. We have, we have changed our zoning regulations in this district. Used to be one residential unit for 40,000 square feet. We have, we eliminated residential density in this zoning district. This is our growth area. This is where the town in the next 10 years plans it's growth. Yeah. There are plans on the way across the road. Yeah. Okay. But I think, I think we're pretty clear on what that we have a challenge here. We need to figure out how we're going to address that. I don't think we're going to solve that problem today on this call. So I know that that was one of our, our big sticking points here. So if we can move on to maybe in through this here. I believe vehicular vehicular access. We're good. pedestrian bike, bike access. We've got some issues, something to address. I do, I do have one issue on vehicle access. Okay. As a person that uses this, this, this, this facility frequently and live right nearby. It's notoriously difficult to see in both directions as you're exiting. Especially there's a, and it's not your property. It's a budding property owner. But there's properties to the north that limit your visibility of oncoming vehicles from the right as you're exiting. Exiting and turning right. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Well exiting turning left. Exiting turning left. Either way, both directions. What you find is there's conflicts. What you typically find and it really has nothing it has to do with driver habits. What people edge forward. And so the vehicle on the right edges forward and blocks the visibility of the, of the vision of the vehicle on the left. I don't have, I'm not, I'm not a vehicle expert here. But it would look to me like there needs to be a fix there. I part of it is you have to be within the last 10 feet of that road to be able to see to the right. And I don't know whether that's, that's, that's, that's existing land feature. I don't know that you've correct it, but it's something that I would ask that you look at in the context of your neighbors and recognize that it is, there will be accidents there. I don't know if there have been any yet, but it is difficult to see out of there. Part of it is, and this picture shows it, that the grass isn't cut on the neighboring property there when it's gross tall like that it forces vehicles. Yeah, snow, snow loads, no, no, no accumulation on that property and high, high vegetation inhibit visibility of the right as you exit. Okay. Hi. So I want to make sure I understand the concern here. So we have some existing property that as outside of our owners, you know, property, and it is obviously not all right, because we do not own property here, where the maintenance isn't quite being maintained properly. And so are you asking us to reach out to our neighbors to ask them to maintain and manicure their lawn? Is that, is that the request? I understand the concern. There's not a request. I was, I was speaking simply to inform you that there is a vehicle access problem. And it's not of your making per se. It is, it is in fact a problem of the original design. The original design should not allow that to exist. When rights away, now we're in place now, I'm just making aware of it. I don't know that we're asking you to fix it. But it will, you know, with more traffic become more problematic. I think overall, I think this in the way I hear it, and maybe I misinterpret it, it's all kind of circles back to the original pedestrian concern in terms of the current setup is not maybe ideal for today's standards. And so obviously, you know, we want to try to do the right thing at the same time, you know, be mindful of the economic impact this will have on us and our projects. Nothing is a no, but nothing is a yes either. They think there is some very prominent constraints, one of them being, you know, ability to do work in a property that is not ours or our owners. And that is not necessarily your issue right now, because you have to, you know, establish property line still. But in terms of correcting an overall global issue, which is the current setup and the current design is not adequate. How are we how what is the what is the ideal like and and solution we may not be able to get to that perfect world scenario. But we, you know, we're hearing a lot of things that are not necessarily okay, or adequate or ideal. But we're not really hearing a lot of viable solutions. And for us, we're very limited to what we can offer or what we can do, simply because we do not own it, simply because it is not part of our deal agreement in terms of the lease. Simply because we are not familiar with the everyday dealings that you all are dealing with, because we do not reside there. So we're trying to have a better understanding of your perspective, not in terms of a problem, but more so in the solution, and what would be a potential viable solution that we can all come to a mutual agreement. So if that would be, you know, a stop sign, or a crosswalk, or, you know, reaching out to I'm not saying I want to reach out, but, you know, telling the adjacent owner, can you please manicure your lawn better? Or what can we how can we contribute a positive impact to resolve some of these concerns or lessen the concern a little bit, while also being, you know, economically mindful of the position that we are in. We are, you know, from the, from our goal and our, in our initial design, we are trying to take an existing building and do what is necessary to make it habitable. But we are not trying to, you know, redevelop the whole property, redevelop the whole building, you know, our scope has always from day one just into let's take something that's been vacant for an extended period of time, and let's bring it up to current standards. And I understand that this area has its own rules and regulations, and we want to be mindful and respectful of that. But there are other things that are currently in place on the property that contradict what the rules and regulations are also requesting. So I don't know if there's something we can compromise on or, you know, lax on so we can, you know, get past this problem. And here's what I suggest. I'm not a traffic engineer. But I think if you were to look, if you would have someone to look at this that is a traffic engineer, there may be some solutions that are not occurring to any of us. That would make it a safer intersection in the future. I'll be honest with you, something that occurs to me right up top of my head is the signage adequate now. I don't know. I never looked at it, per se. Another solution is a traffic stop light. That would control it. I'm not sure everybody's advocating that either. I'm just saying, what are the alternatives? So I brought it up as an issue. I'm not, I think it's an issue you'll want to look at. I'm not sure this board is insisting you look at it because it is existing condition. But again, we're looking for best fixes. One fix might be a single lane out. Oh, boy. I don't know. Well, the sidebar. Yeah. That's, so again, it's something that people are more experienced with traffic design than I am, would look at and come up with. Well, if Tony Reddington were around, he would say a roundabout. Yeah, but you can't afford that. You can't afford that. No. I hate roundabouts. Oh, no, they're wonderful. I don't like them. Okay. So let's have a digress. I think we have digressed. I believe the board of this picture right now that a sidewalk, some sort of multi-use path going up the right hand side into the plaza is a higher priority than fixing this exit issue. Yeah. We agreed. The left hand side. Yeah. I was, I really only started out in making aware of the issue. So it's not an issue. And I just want to, I just have to respond a little bit because this is a complicated application. I recognize that, but you have to recognize that we have to abide by the regulations. You know, we can only improve applications that meet the regulations. That's all we have the authority to do. So we're just trying to get there. Well, you want to give you a permit. Right. I mean, we're not trying, we don't want to impede, you know, development in Berlin or new business in Berlin. We are very much pro business. It's just a matter of we have to be able to say that it met the requirements of the zoning regulations. That's all we're trying to get to. And I think Bob just threw that out so you would think about it. We understand that. I think, you know, we go the route of putting in a sidewalk down here. It goes back to the original, it's outside of property. It's not, what if the original, the owner of the property says no? Like, I guess that's my, we're going to ask, we're going to try. I'm going to look into it, but I guess my question is, what if they say no? I don't want to put a sidewalk here. I don't think we're asking you to talk to the neighbor's ownership. We're asking, in my opinion, it's on, sidewalk would go on the side where your existing sign is. It's more likely that's your property than the side where the car is parked. No, I think he said, if landlord must do it. So if our landlord says, okay, you guys can put a sidewalk here, or okay, they will put a sidewalk here. How do they put in a sidewalk while not messing with the wetland? Well, that's what you need to find out what, you know, how feasible it is. So I'm talking about the entrance going into your looking, looking down the lane, right? On the right hand side, everybody sees the Shaw sign, right? I do not believe that there's any wetlands on that section of the entrance going into the, into the campus. We're getting feedback from somebody. Somebody's giving us feedback on their, they're looking at two different devices at the same time. I appreciate not getting that feedback. So, Kim, I think this is one of the things that we need to come back to, because yes, but I think you go on and flag other issues so that they know what all the issues are. Yeah. Thank you. Good suggestion, Bully. Okay. So, public transit. There is transit coming to Shaw's already. There is, yes. It's there. Does that mean, so, I mean, there's, it doesn't appear that there's any type of dedicated. No, I think as long as there's transit. They just, they go into the park, into the fire lane, I think. Yeah, I believe they have a sign there just outside the Shaw's entrance. Okay. All right. Bike racks, I think we can very easily add bike racks outside the store as needed. But I think we talked about that already. Let's see here. So landscaping and screening. We touched on this very, very briefly. We touched on this very briefly. Our original intent was not to do any additional landscaping, but it, so it looks like we need to, so we have plenty of street trees, front yard landscaping. Applicants must preserve or plant at least one shrub for each 10 feet of road frontage and or one medium small tree for each 50 feet of road, road frontage. How does this apply to us considering our road? We don't really front anything. We're, we're tucked back. Your, your parcel fronts paint turns like north. So you're saying that all of this, if I go back to the map, all of this that is fronting turn park, the turn park north, even though this is all wetlands with landscaping and everything. Well, it has landscaping already, right? It does. Yeah. The natural landscape. Yeah. So what does that mean that we need to provide additional, I mean, we can't, obviously can't, we're not going to go in there and count trees and shrubs there, right? No, no. I think it's more in the parking parking lot. Yeah. The parking lot landscaping, I think is the most applicable. But I know it's your parking lot. But that's the thing is that they're talking about front yard landscaping. No. No. 3204 I is what I was referring to. 34 I. Okay. So applicants in the town center, plant one tree for every new parking spaces and at least one shrub for every 10 new parking spaces. So are we, are we talking about new meaning the existing that we already have? I, I think so because that requirement I don't think was there when it was first built. Wow. But no, it's not new parking. So what when we retrofit that when we retrofit when the retrofitting that previously developed site, their requirements for that. Do you have that Bob? You had a little while ago. Yeah, a minute ago here. Previously developed sites. What section is that Bob? That's section 3204 J8. And here again, it says we're talking about a best fix. What we might have expected the applicant to do here is say, okay, here are your requirements. Here is what we have. Either we think it's adequate, which is what you're saying by virtue of the comparison, or we propose to do this for augmentation and, and that'll be a best fix. That's what I might have expected the applicant to do. So then, then if we take that as our, as our basis, then what we would do is we'd say, okay, we have to have a tree for every parking space and a shrub for every 10 parking spaces. Planting islands and strips must measure at least 160 square feet in area. That's for new. Right. But, but I'm saying is, but if we go back, yeah, that's the standard. And then there's what can we reasonably do? And there's already quite a few trees there. So, so I think what Bob's saying is it perhaps by just counting what's there and saying, you know, whether you think you need to add more or not in terms of the shrubbery, but it's difficult because landscape parking, parking on landscaping is tough to keep up and maintain. So I don't like it when we when it's put in and that's and taken care of. So I'm torn on this one to be honest with you. And so that's kind of where we are too, is that by looking at what we have existing while you do, we do have some you might want to consider some more in the central parts. Just something, you know, to look at. I mean, this, this may sound a little bit, I don't know how the rest of the board would feel about it, but I know sometimes you see, like in the stripes, you'll see actually flower planners in this in the summer or things like that, just something to give some sort of, I guess, I mean, we have, we have this here more adjacent into the, into the Shaw's area and maybe, maybe it's more appropriate to do some, some additional landscape islands in there. Yeah. All right, we'll have to go back and do some. Nothing that's too, too extreme to maintain, just maybe something that adds a little bit of visual interest to the parking lot. I mean, like, like Tom said, the idea is this area, the zoning was redesigned for this area to, you know, to create the growth area and to make it, you know, make some design standards for it to be a little bit, to be visually appealing. Yeah, I understand. Maybe what you guys could incorporate because you have this sea of asphalt is put in some green storm water infrastructure. It's relatively low maintenance. It adds some greenery to this area. There's a lot of snow guys out here in the winter time and they, they're looking to put snow all over the place. I mean, those, these spaces could be where snow could go. But, so, Thomas, I don't know if you've been, if you've incorporated green storm water infrastructure. It's a way to gussy up this sea of asphalt with, in my opinion, relatively low dollars. I'm not familiar with that, but I'll ask my team about it. The biggest thing that's lacking on this end of the mall is because Shaw's the store has a fair amount of plantings in the part of its display up front. You get a sense of plantings in front of Shaw's itself. In front of where O'Reilly's is, is just nothing. So there's a breakup in front of the grocery store. There's nothing to break up the sea of asphalt in front of the existing O'Reilly plot parcel. Can you, can you just, can you focus, can you show me the front of the, the front of O'Reilly, the spot there? But this here is, facing the building. I'm just curious about whether you could put like, it could even be something on the walls. Like, I don't know, you know, like, you know, I don't know, just not that's going to grow underneath that. No, you'd have to put cloth underneath them. But just something to make it a little bit more interesting to look at. And, and, but okay, well, we'll have to go back and review this again. Again, I don't know if exactly, and then discuss with the, we'll discuss with the landowner and O'Reilly's as to where, where the money is going to be best spent to do some of these things. Yeah. Okay. That makes sense. Okay. So we know that there are still some, some landscaping issues that we need to address. Outdoor lighting, I mean, there's quite a bit of existing outside outdoor lighting. Obviously in the parking lot here, it looks like there's got brand new LED lights and standards. So parking is not an issue. We are proposing to add some additional building lighting on the exterior of the building. Go back to my elevations here. Some just wall packs for mostly for security reasons. Just to make sure that we have areas that are well lit. But that's pretty much it. I feel that we comply with the intent of the, the lands or the lighting. Yes. Yeah, I'm not sure that lighting is a real, real issue from our perspective. If, if anything, what we have had problems with in the past, I'm not sure we have that here is sometimes there's too much lighting. Not only does it not meet our standards in terms of being downcast and shielded, but just way too many lumens. I understand that. I don't know that I've heard a complaint. I don't know that I personally feel that that way is about this. So I'm not sure a best fix is necessary. No, I don't think so. Yeah. Okay. I don't think we're looking at this real hard. Okay, very good. Signs. I believe that our, our sign, our proposed signage fall. We're proposing to use the existing sign, monument sign that is out on turn, be interned by and then also a sign that we have shown on the building and that's, that's about it. I know that this is typically a pretty straightforward thing and usually doesn't prevent development for the most part. There'd be no issue. Okay. But you do have to know the dimensions and stuff, right? I'm sorry. What was that? Nothing. Okay. No, I just want to make sure I didn't, I didn't miss anything here. No. So let's see here. Outdoor use area. I mean, it is what it is what I'll think we need to have any outdoor dining areas or irrigation or anything like that. Don't you want to have sidewalk sales? No, actually. Well, sometimes businesses will supply a picnic table. That area as you're driving into your campus on the right hand side, I think would be a good spot for something like that. From employees or employees. Yeah. Yeah. I need to have a lunch break. Yep. I don't think this on them. I'm good. We're not advocating. We're not going to make that a condition. No. I can't tell if you guys are joking or not. No. I don't think she's joking, but I don't think it's not going to be a condition. Okay. And then performance standards, I mean, we don't have any, we don't have any, no, we're not storing or processing or anything like that. We're good. Everything there. I mean, I guess erosion control and stormwater management was kind of talked about briefly, but I mean, it's kind of, it is, it is what it is. I mean, maybe as we address some landscaping, we can address some of this. I don't know, does anybody know if there's any stormwater issues or does this site cause problems with flooding to adjacent areas or anything like that that could or shouldn't be addressed? It does not. On your aerial, the pond down below collects all of that. You have an existing stormwater discharge permit from the state of Vermont for the entire parcel. Now, I don't know where that meets. Again, those standards have been upgraded and the laws governing that have changed enough to look back at preexisting developments. Certainly we've seen that with the hospital. We've seen that with the Berlin Mall. And I don't know what the, as owners of this property there should be, should be proof in your files as to whether or not you currently meet current standards. And if you don't, what you need to do up to improve that that's a state requirement, not a municipal requirement. From our perspective is you have a state stormwater discharge permit. That's all we look for in terms of compliance with that part of our bylaw. So just make sure I understand that. That we do have a permit in place, but we may have to apply for a new one because of new guidelines. Is that how I understand that? You should check with the agency natural resources to that end. I can get you the contact information over there. But Shaw's or previous owners should have been notified if in fact you do not meet current standards. The state has aggressively gone out and double checked all old stores, stormwater discharge permits that were issued under previous guidelines. And if they determine they don't meet current standards, they have notified the owners. Okay. So it's not, it's not something that if, if it can place it's grandfathered in and it's accepted until until a new development or something else is triggered. It's, it's, these are the guidelines fixed that are outs. Yeah. Correct. And you would, you would have been, again, the owner would have been notified. Okay. All right. Well, I mean, with that being said, we're not aware of anything. Yeah. And with that being said, that's how we responded to the the zoning ordinance comments. And I think that we were aware that these were some of our, our sticking points as far as landscape and site access. The, and then I think it was Paulie brought up the letter that came from the police department, which was something that we came in the last two days or so. Right. And was something that is new to us. And we did, we did a little bit of research recently on that. And according to the people at O'Reilly, the local managers who manage other stores in the area, it hasn't been a problem. We haven't had, there hasn't been an issue of theft or or other, some of the other concerns that the police department brought up. I think at the end of the day on that letter, Craig, he said, let's just have a cooperative relationship. I don't think he's asking for anything outside of outside of that. Oh, yeah, that's, I mean, fair enough. I mean, I know that there have been. Okay. I mean, so you're not, we're not asking for anything additional. I don't believe so. Okay. And Thomas, just for your edification, this campus has a fire suppression system. And if you're new owners, I would, I would take a look at that, that mechanism and that infrastructure. There is town water at the curb. And in my opinion, this campus would be best served by connecting with town water. We've got a 480,000 gallon storage tank to fight fire. I think you guys have a 35,000 gallon tank. So I've had this conversation or tried to have this conversation with previous owners. And I'll gladly discuss this offline if you'd like to continue it. Yeah, I've talked to my construction team and they've told me that the tank, the reservoir tank, it's been recently reliant to the last decade or so. And I think there's also a fire pump that's being replaced. I think we have a permit for that right now. So as far as servicing by the municipality, we monitor our wells and look at the output and they get tested annually. We're pretty content with them, but that's for my construction team to work with you all on that. So, okay. Okay. So we're going to come, so come back on the issues that we talked about. Yeah, we will go ahead and say, well, we'll go ahead and take a closer look at the few things that we discussed. See how we can address some of these challenges. Reach out to Tom there and kind of use him as a sounding board as we look at this closer once we have some better information and then resubmit as needed with our modification to this site plan. Yeah, we raised a number of issues. I think the pedestrian access issue remains the single largest one that you really have an address to our satisfaction. The handicapped spacing and the parking. Yeah, that can be solved, but it needs to be solved. The handicapped access. And very frankly, that's probably something you'll want to do on your own because the method of enforcement is beyond the town of Berlin even. Okay. Anybody in the public that is handicapped can enforce that. Thank you. Yeah, we are aware of that. I'm sure you are. What does that mean? I didn't know that. Yeah. Basically, what it means is that if you're Joe public and you find something that is not in compliance with accessibility, you can file a lawsuit and it gets ugly and messy fast. Really fast. Well, that's been in place for 15 years or more. It's been ADA. ADA. Yeah. There are lawyers and people that make a living of doing that solely. That's their full, their job. They go around to construction sites, especially new construction, and they find something that's not compliant and they serve papers for a lawsuit and try it. Strict liability? Yeah. Strict liability. Yeah. Wow. Okay. Didn't teach you that in law school. Okay. Okay, good. We look forward to getting back. When do you think you can get back to us on this? Well, we need to reconvene with O'Reilly and then also with Albertsons and Shaw and see what the implications are here and what the dollar amounts are going to be that are associated with this additional work and see where we go from there. Do you have a timeline that you're looking at for trying to get the project started, completed? I guess it's new. I suggest you work with Tom because I think we also have a schedule that gets nasty in the next few months. Yeah. So getting on our docket may not be that simple either. So it'd be good to plan in advance. Okay. And just to answer the original question, we are hoping to open this location next year for 2024, but that is dependent on when we can receive permanent, obviously. So you plan to start as soon as you get a permanent, essentially? Yes, that is our intent. Okay. Good. Since? Well, it may not sound, but we're really anxious to have help facilitate this. Yeah. Well, you really are. No, yeah. I know the building's been empty. That site's been, yeah. We were excited to hear that that empty storefront would be filled. I was hoping for a restaurant or a movie theater, but anything's better than nothing. All right. Well, we will do what we can to make this happen and within our constraints. And with that, I don't think we have any more questions or comments. Greg, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Thomas. Thank you. We have one other item of business tonight that we should take care of, and that's the minutes of a meeting that occurred back in July. I was going to say we haven't met for so long. We must have gone through them, though, and made corrections. The reality is, at least three of us commented, and nobody had corrections. So the draft minutes stand. Okay. And for the record, I'll move that we approve those minutes as prepared by Carla. Second. Second. No discussion. All those in favor of that motion, please say bye-bye. Say aye. Aye. Aye. And Polly says aye. So, yeah, just a formality. But, yeah, no, I think we all looked at them and thought they were good the way they were. I think we remember now that you mentioned it. Thank you, Carla. Yes. You're welcome. Greg, can you take your screen down? I am trying to leave, actually, and I can't find the right button. Sorry, I'm messing up your guys' meeting here. Can you just see them? Yeah, this is bizarre, that it's not allowing me to do anything here. There you go. That's something just went. Now you just see my messy desktop on my computer. That's all. I'm going to kick you out, I think. If you can kick me out, that I'm more than, I won't be offended. Bye. Bye. Thank you. So, can I ask a question? Yes. So, is the hearing closed? Is it just blanked or do they need to continue it? Yeah, we failed to take an action on it, Carla, so it's a good point. And we shouldn't have done it with the applicants here, but we can notify them afterwards that they don't have to be here. Yeah, we have to continue it. But they didn't tell us when they could come back. Right, we're going to have to continue it to a future date. Is there a meeting? The first one in the 2024 is open January 2nd. So, why don't we just continue it to then in the hopes that they can? Yeah, we'll just continue it to the first time. Yeah, you're right. It shouldn't take that long. It really shouldn't take that long to resolve this issue. Yeah. It's not a big budget item. It's more a matter of figuring out how to get it done. But I was sort of surprised that they didn't really do their homework. No, they didn't. Are they off? No. Okay. Do we have anything else? So, this is still a public meeting. No, there's only the agenda. We have to go up to continue it though, don't we? Yeah, I'm looking for a motion to continue this to what date, February? January 2nd. January 2nd. Motion is made by Pauli to continue this hearing until the 2nd of January. That's a horrible day for a meeting. You want to make the motion. Well, you know what? It's only two days before Thanksgiving. This is a horrible day for a meeting too. That's true. Good point, Pauli. We're here. Okay. Okay. For us retired people, it's all the same. You're constantly debating my private time. We need to vote, Bob. All those who pay that motion, please sit down. I was saying, hi. Thank you. Hi. And you'll share that with the board. That will. We adjourned. Yeah. Do we have anything you need to know to let us know about Tom? We are meeting next two weeks from today on the McGee family auto parts. That's the application I looked up today. You're all ready for that. Good. And the last in December, I think it's the 19th, I can't remember now, is. The central Vermont hospital. It's, yeah. And that's they're coming in just for a sketch plan review. So there won't be testimony taken. They are looking at acquiring a piece of property off of mine street and making an early learning center there, including a daycare. So they want to, to talk to the DRB and work through any of concerns that you folks may have at the old seven day. Okay. Yeah. And it's exciting. They, so they want to do a sketch planning, just get the temperatures board before they make a formal application. That same night, you may recall that when Starbucks and Fox Run got permitted, they also did a subdivision and requirement of that subdivision was that they come back to this board with the final plat. They are now ready to do that. And that'll be, that'll be the second half of that meeting on. What day is that? I think it's the 19th. I think that's right. There aren't that many days left. I think that's right, because isn't the next one like the fifth, and then this after would be the 19th. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Good. All right. If there's no further business, I would obtain a motion to. Summowed. I turned. Paulie second. And Paulie you seconded. Did you? I seconded. Okay. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. We haven't been here this late for a long time. Thank you everyone. I know. Have a nice Thanksgiving everybody. Bye. Have a nice Thanksgiving. Bye. Bye bye.