With myself, I'm Robert Warnick, and I'm the chair. Am I right? Josh Vetsu, I'm a member of the board. Chuck Storo, a lawyer for Berlin Mall. Tom Dunham from O'Larry Burke Civil Associates. Paul O'Larry from O'Larry Burke Civil Associates. Tom Badowski, zoning administrator. John Friedrich, member of the board. And Kristie Fulton, reporting secretary. And up here, we have Susan Minority. Susan Benton, working media. Thank you. So the first application we have tonight, we're going to hear as a continuation of the application for a site plan review for the 99 units of senior housing facility. And before we start here, I'm going to swear everybody in that can testimony before the board tonight. Not necessary, sir. This way, tell the truth. Before this board tonight, the panel is a perjury. Got it. Thank you. So we had a good meeting four weeks ago. We sent you off with a task to address a number of issues. Paul, if you would, please start. OK. And so we're back. So excuse me, just a second. Pliminarily, can you or Tom explain how weird you are? What standard we're using to judge this file, whether you're using old regulations or new regulations or both regulations? This application is still under the old regulations. OK. The subdivision would be what's going to be under both regulations. OK. All right. You're going to have to make sure what I knew. Excellent. That works. All right, so we're back with the 99 unit, most senior living facility. The building is essentially the same as it was four weeks ago. I think one of the board members noted that we were missing a stairway or two, and that's been added. A little more detail on the plans. But it's a mix. It's 48 independent units. There are 33 assisted living units and 18 memory care units. That's the same as it was before. Same as it was before. So the first floor, as you look at it, as you walk in to the right, the wing is the memory care. So the only living units on the first floor are the 18 memory care units. The other wings on the first floor, there's a dining room and a living room facility for the independent, and then a separate dining room and a living room area for the assisted living unit. Then as you look to the second floor, over the memory care wing is the assisted living unit. On the second, third, and fourth. And the other two wings are the independent wing units. So the second, third, and fourth on the west wing, what I'll call the northern wing and the western wing are the independent wing units. So basically, both the independent and the assisted are a mix of one bedroom and studio units. A new ground parking underneath it, we have 72 parking spaces. We have a ramp that leads into it from opposite the garden center side of Walmart. We'll call it, we have the same configuration of front where we have a drop off for people to come up to get out of the weather. There it is, 19 parking spaces in the front. So a total number of parking spaces now of 91. Previously, we had 112. We had parking spaces along Walmart. We discussed that a little bit before. Based on the applicant's experience from similar facilities, they think that probably only somewhere between 40 to 50 spaces are needed for the folks that are going to be in the assisted living and obviously the memory care won't have vehicles. The independent living will, assisted living, a few, but not too many. So the thought now is, is roughly 40 to 50 of the spaces in the underbound will be occupied by residents. The other 30 or so, 20 to 30 spaces will likely be used by employees as they come and go, typically at any one time. Well, probably the day shift is going to be the highest time we have the most employees. And that will probably be somewhere between five and seven. So we feel like we have plenty of underground spaces for both the employees and for the folks who are going to be living in the building, leaving the 19 spaces in the front to be used primarily by visitors, delivery trucks, UPS, law guys, whoever is going to come and go. And obviously we have the mall parking if you need some additional parking on Mother's Day or some big visiting type days. We cleaned up the plans a little bit in terms of curbing. So it's a little bit clearer. Essentially, we are curbing, beginning at the access to the underground parking on the Walmart side, all the way around that side of the building. Let me pull this. Sure. Yeah, so we essentially start curbing here and it runs all the way down along, all the way, and then ends at the first entrance into the building. Doing some work here. Now you can see the trucks cut this corner all the time. So this is the existing edge of payment right here, that bowl line. And we're going to bring that out about seven or eight feet and delineate that a little bit better with the curve to try to keep the other vehicles away. And one big discussion we had last time was providing a crosswalk or better access over to Walmart. So we talked to them all itself and we talked to the Berlin folks. And so we've agreed that we're going to turn this into a four-way stop. Today, there's only a single stop sign here. So we're going to add this stop. We'll be adding a stop here, adding a stop here. We'll have the crosswalk, probably about 35 feet, from where the curve cut's going to be to get across to the Walmart side. Existing concrete sidewalk comes all the way down. As shown, it's about seven to eight feet wide here. So a fairly wide sidewalk where you step onto the edge right there. We are proposing speed limit signs. One at the end rate, when you come in 30 miles now, and there'll be another speed limit sign right here. We did spend some time down there. And it is kind of a race track today. When people leave Walmart and come down through there, they click pretty good along through there. So we were proposed probably at least for the first month before we opened the facility that we put a board up, basically just announcing that there's a change in the traffic path in the head just to get people the heads up, get them used to having that four-way stop before we start having pedestrian traffic coming from the new facility. We changed the traffic. I know you knew in general what we were doing, you think the four-way is necessary? I'm not opposed to it. Well, we have a single stop here. And we think the stop here and here is definitely necessary, because that's where all the speed is. And so now you've got an existing stop. We think you need to stop those other two directions. And so now it's kind of awkward not to just turn it into a four-way stop, is what we thought. So we said, well, let's just do a four-way stop. It's easier to sign than a four-way stop. Everybody sees it. You know, whereas me, the two sides probably don't need a stop. But the fact that there's an existing stop there now, that's what we've decided the best way to go forward with it. Okay, thank you. Oh, we made some minor changes to the lighting. We added some of the existing lights that we didn't have on our lighting plan. So we've added that. We're actually gonna relocate this light. Right now it's in here. We're actually gonna move it back, but we're gonna slide it down a little bit more, try to give us a little bit more light on the crosswalk than what we have today. Oh, we had talked about dumpsters before, before the client was indicating that they wheeled dumpsters up the ramp. And it's kind of a general feeling that that might not be the greatest workable solution. So it's actually located a dumpster pad by the access ramp down to the garage. The idea that people can go down the elevator, the workers can go down the elevators and then come up the ramp and find the dumpsters. The dumpsters are angled, thinking that the dump truck will come around the back and can angle in and get at that dumpster and pick it up. So that's why it's kind of, it's kind of tilted a little bit just to make it easier for the truck to access that as it comes around. You had some questions on the traffic before with Roger Dickinson. You had asked whether there could be a change in the single timing potentially. We had level of service C on the left turn out, on the route 62 and the left turn in. Roger said he did look at the timing and basically no matter how much he tweaked it, he couldn't get it better than C. So, you know, if he gave it a lot more green time than it was starting to affect the level of service on the through road. So it says C is about the best that we're gonna get there, which is still a fairly good level of service. We did look at the other intersection, those questions about the Fisher Road intersection, that's whether it's any traffic information. I did talk to the regional planning commission and they have done two counts but no attorney movement counts. So, this project requires an active 50 amendment as you're aware and we've asked Roger to go ahead and do the counts on that road and also look at the airport road route 62 intersection thinking that active 50 will be at our sled information. Obviously we'll make it available to this board when Roger's done with it. Not expecting there's gonna be any impacts but we thought we'd take a look at that and get that data and have it available to you. You had asked for a bike rack. We're showing the bike rack right at the entrance where the public area is. It's actually on the concrete. We widen the concrete so it's set on that concrete pad which makes it a little bit nicer. I need to look for that, I couldn't find that. I'm not sure I'm working on the drawing this big. Yes, so landscape planning is pretty much the same as it was before. We are still providing the slot out. It's 1.74 acres. This plan shows the 10 foot, side yard setback and the 25 foot front yard setback. We didn't amend the plan to note that the building height as proposed is 43 and a half feet and with a allowable maximum of 45. Or I think the plan incorrectly noted as a minimum of 45 instead of a maximum of 45. So I think those are all the major items that we discussed last time that you asked us to take a look at the bike rack. Who knows you eliminated all the retaining walls? We still have the retaining walls on this side with obviously with the ramp drops down there but we talked to the Berlin Mall folks and they were okay with us. We're moving the retaining wall in the back and I'd say just grading on it because they're proper. So you removed two retaining walls in the back. Yes. One retaining wall on the side. Yes. You also removed the sidewalk. Yes. We did remove the sidewalk on the side. Originally it was there more so for those parking spaces. So if you own those parking spaces you could step on the sidewalk and then get to the entranceway. But without the parking spaces it didn't seem like we needed to have the sidewalk. We're not really encouraging people to walk to the parking garage where we have to go down that. Not a deal breaker for us if the board felt strongly they like to see that sidewalk back in there. We could add it. We just didn't see this. It brought a lot of that. Comments by the agenda. Question by the board members. Are we going to do criteria by criteria? I think what I was proposing to do is we had a number of loose ends and we asked them to address them at this meeting. I was only wanting to identify the changes by criteria because our findings are based on testimony last time. Yes. This time your testimony is a little bit different. You can eliminate these parking spaces and stuff like that. But I was going to go through criteria by criteria. Well, you can. Well, we can just ask questions, I guess. Yeah. So let's talk about this road here because as I recall there was concern with those parking spaces and the interplay of people going in and out to get to the drive-in or the ramp or call it, plus the trucks which will be coming in and out of there as well. If I compare the two plans here, looking at the previous plan, where you had the parking spaces, looks what you've done is you eliminated, obviously you eliminated those parking spaces and then you moved the edge of the non-developed property or the landscape out, right? So this line right here is about at the edge of where the parking spaces would have been before. Close to it, yes. Okay. That line represents the existing pavement out there today. Okay. So we're not adding any, other than what I talked about right at the corner, we're gonna remove some pavement and try to make that so it's not a big radius. The remaining edge of pavement remains the same along that side of wall. And here you, it sounds like you said that the trucks have been clipping this corner a little bit so you're putting the curb in so it'll be more difficult for them to do that. Does that really understand you correctly on that? Yes, there's still plenty of room for the truck to make the swing. What the goal was was to shorten the distance that the pedestrian had to move. So if we left, right now it's paved to this line. So that would mean if you were pedestrian trying to cross you're gonna start back here and you've got 40 some feet. So we didn't think the truck needed that much space. This is fairly wide. You could easily make that turn. And so we were going to find this little bit better so the pedestrian didn't have nearly as far to cross. So that's the real purpose of it, not really to limit the truck's ability to turn but to make it easier for the pedestrian to cross. I'm just trying to envision, I don't have a miniature truck that I can put down there, but you're gonna have people coming in here presumably going to want to turn in here to get to over there. So some people are gonna be trying to turn. I don't know how much truck activity comes in at it. Maybe only one, two trucks a day except that most of them come in at night. Which case is no problem, won't be much traffic here at night. But if the truck's trying to pull out here and someone's just trying to see how that works. Did you do the turning movements? Yes, we did do turning movements and it easily makes that movement. What size truck did you use? We usually use a WB-62. 62, okay. That's a software package that we use to check whether or not you can make the turns, the TAMIC turns. 62 is the tractor trainer? Yes. That's a good size tractor. That's a big size tractor. That would be something that Walmart would typically run in out there. 55. So they could make that turn without, without, without, without the coaches. No, they're gonna encroach. They're gonna swing out a little bit to the left when they come and they'll encroach slightly on that. On that spot.  And this is a, this is, you know, pretty decent geometry, you know, compared to a lot of places in town. So, we don't like to get, don't like to give too much. Sure. I understand. I mean, I see places, I see your argument for doing this. I mean, you see it all in a lot of places and they're like roundabout and stuff like that. They have it presumably this is where you should be but for emergency purposes, they allow you to sort of encroach on that to get over there. But that does have, the vets, Jim, I was in them as in the roundabout and went to look over for them. There's not pedestrian traffic. So that's, and so I can see why you don't want to encourage that because of that consequence and also you'd have to have, most of the time when they do that, they have like a gravel or something like that. It's there. So you have a different kind of a sidewalk. Yes. They'll use a sulk curb or maybe some pavers or something to differentiate the surface. In this case, we're not worried about the truck making that swing. So we're not proposing anything like that. Is this to help you move this back? You don't want to pull this thing? You could move it back up a little bit. It might help. But I think in general, it's not a ton of truck traffic. It's relatively slow moving and they're gonna wheel right through that without any hesitation. In my experience, when you allow this wide shoulder, it isn't the trucks that use it. It's the everyday vehicle. It's the basis slide out. Yeah. So I think it's a healthy move to tighten that up. I see. Yeah. That's my opinion. I'm trying to, we made a list of the things. Well, it was a sidewalk issues. Basically, we talked about pedestrian crossing signs and you've identified a number of pedestrian crossing signs on your site plan. Would you identify them for us, please? Yes. Yeah, we have a pedestrian crossing sign here showing yellow and another one here. And then you put stop signs more than I envisioned, but that's probably a good thing. Yeah. Stop signs, painted stop bars and actually the painted stop, at least initially. Stop bars and then the crosswalks. You're gonna have a stop sign there too. You just didn't put a arrow or whatever. Right. There's actually an existing stop sign. I didn't realize that. It's there. Yeah, it is there. It's just kind of odd that it was there, but it is. The stop bar will help. Yes. You know, so. The other crosswalking sign there, there's no real crosswalk associated with it. No painted crosswalk. No, yeah. It's just the sign. Is that an arrow on the drawing or is there to be a? My experience, anybody that parks in that parking lot walks at random. Yeah. Why do they do that? I totally understand. Just that. One more and it's a big cross. Yeah, yeah. Yes, they did. They had a K-20. It's a little bit further down, so nobody's really gonna come. Some people will go down there. Most people won't. They'll just simply crosswalk there. Yeah. So that crosswalk sign's probably not neat. Yeah, it was when they would see it when necessary, if there's not a crosswalk specific. The other issues that we had left on resolve were lighting. Yeah, we made those changes to the lighting plan. Roger had a couple of mistakes on his traffic report that he corrected so we submitted it by this morning. Yes. Have you resubmitted the landscaping plan? I realize it's not materially different, but you have changed. We have not resubmitted the landscaping plan, no. Would you envision any changes? No, we would not. We still got a roll of trees in the front. Still got that front streetscape. We still barely have the landscape around the Cepatio area, so landscaping in the front. So, landscaping we're doing here? Because we extended that to... There was some there before. Could have been much more than that before. He was pretty close to the building. Yeah. I named my old son Roger. Quick to see if anything else we missed. Yeah. But his landscaping plan was right over here. It did have trees in the front. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. John got a big one there. So he did, you know, we've eliminated some of the walls, but we still have some landscaping on the side. You know, we still have this landscaping hall basically with the main place. So we've eliminated these two walls, you know, so that the grading just goes on to the adjacent property. And then obviously the sidewalk now is gone. So, and we have this wall in here. So this is now just graded down for that wall. So the landscaping with the main as it shows on a plan. I didn't know if your landscaper would want to reconsider what he's doing here. Now that you've eliminated all those parking spaces. Yeah, he might want to address some of that nice space. Nothing once here is deficient, but I think there's room to do a little bit more. Probably a crowded room. There's room to move it away from the building and get a little bit more towards the edge of the pavement. Yeah. Be healthier for both the building and the landscaping. The other thing we asked for, which of course is on the drawings, is give us a sense of the distance between the garden center and. Yes. And so now we have dimensions that show the roadway widths. So we did go out with a survey crew and located that. So it should be shown accurately on the plan. And actually, we also added at the request of the Berlin Mall folks, you know, existing nine spaces. So there's some stretch spaces out there. I can't see them if you go out there today because there's a couple of the big, big temporary storage units that are sitting there. But there are some spaces underneath that. Would the mall continue to use that area for storage? I don't know, Mr. Chairman. I don't know why it's being used now and what's the need for it just going forward. I should point out, I imagine it must be for Walmart. Yeah. I think for Walmart. It is being used now. Sometimes they're using it for display, i.e. bags of pallets of fertilizer or something like that. It doesn't appear to be used on a regular basis, so we'll notice that today that none of the snowbags in front of the doors have been cleared. So it's obvious nobody has at least been in them in the last week, but we didn't inquire about that, but just the frequency of use. And they haven't always been there. I mean, when you look back to some of the historical photos of the mall, some years they're there, some years of one couple seem to be quite a few there now compared to what we've seen there historically from the photo. Any other questions? I remember Mr. Board. I'd be able, I'd like to get these two drawings. Electronically, just so I could send a lot of water, wastewater engineers, so you can review these and make any comments on them. Sure. Yep. You mentioned that, excuse me. I'm gonna put up. Yes. Okay, both 30 miles per hour. I think you can see it on this sheet. I think you can call it an hour. Is it more closer to Fisher Road? Yes, one right when you come in. Okay. Yeah, there it is. And then, you know, for inbound traffic, I'll bound this one, you know, just past the stop sign. Okay. Can you write that? I've written it in there. People do cut that corner there. You do tend to cut that, people do cut that corner there. It's on the way in. He's died here. Is there going to be a sign on the other entrance to the mall? No, not for this facility. No, I don't believe it's going to be there. Okay, I think. I don't think the main sign, I don't think the intent is to add a sign to this facility.  I don't believe that there'll be any additional sign that's added to that for this facility. There's a part of it that says that probably the mall ought to adopt this speed limit for the whole mall complex. And that starts back where you first enter the mall road from Fisher Road. From Fisher Road. So it's a private road, I think. I'm not sure I see that much speeding down there based on my personal observation, but I think if people just unrecognize, there's a speed limit there. Do you think your client would object to us putting up a sign down there? Can't see whether he would, but I can certainly ask, but yeah. Just putting the signs here only sort of deal with this application, but it doesn't deal with the mentality of the driver and the malaria. Again, I don't see speed. I see speeding here because I think they're done. They're done. But when they come in by calls, they don't think they see much there. At least that's my observations. Any additional comments that you have to give us to make here? I don't believe so. I know my client is excited about coming down here and getting started on the road. Chuck, did you have anything you wanted to say tonight? Not really, Mr. Chairman. Just here to observe and represent the land owner. I'm not totally familiar with all the details of this project, but consistent with what we've talked about in the past, trying to transform that project into a more robust model. I don't have any further questions. Any other board members have any further questions? Hearing none. I would entertain a motion. We have somebody who came in late. Just observing. OK. I'll second that. The motion has been made and seconded to close the ward portion of this hearing. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all those veiled in motion. Can you see the sign by saying aye? Aye. We have closed the hearing on this matter. Nobody go anywhere. We're going to number two on the agenda. That's it? Just look over to item number two on the agenda, which is the same players, which are already in this orientation, so there's no chance of it being there. So our second application by the sub-division, that's where the sub-division of the parcel of this property would be on. I'm going to turn it over to the engineer. You answered the same first, John. I don't really. I mean, other than this property being leased to the folks who were developing the project. This is not a sale, and it's a lease. So I wanted to explain to us what the sub-division is up here. And for the record here, this sub-division is unique to us, in that it now falls into two sets of regulations that we have, our existing regulations, and our proposed new regulations, which have been worn by the select board. Therefore, the new regulation came into effect. I've never done this before, so I'm going to play it by ear. It works for us. So I'm all set for you, Mr. Chairman. I did a good perusal of both regulations. I think the new regulations speak to everything that the old regulations did, and maybe some minor changes. Well, I was going to put you on the hook here a little bit. I don't know what to talk about. I wonder which one more specific than the other. So while it both apply, the more strict applies. More strict applies, I really don't think it comes into play in this application. I don't think it does. There's a different procedure for warning as I understand it, and you're more familiar with it than I am. Concept plan review is handled by the zoning administrator. This is called a sketch plan. A sketch plan. And the preliminary and the final have been warned for the DRB. This would be a major subdivision, if there are criteria, that involves housing. What's the number you're housing in this? 99. But what's the threshold for major? It's commercial, or four, I believe, or five is fine. Yeah, in any case, it is a major subdivision. So preliminary and final are generally required. So my case, I'll just go to that section page 50. Yeah, page 50. Page 363. So why don't you give us an overview of the subdivision? And then we'll sort of go through it. You have submitted writings to address some of the criteria, necessarily all of them. But perhaps if you could just consider how this is being handled. So when we look at the Berlin Mall plat, which we've reproduced for it, it's been split up into what they label as a number of outlots, and then different parcels. It's a little different than what we would normally do. But we tried to be consistent with previous plans. And as you can see, there's a lot A and a lot B, C, D, E. There's the department store outlaw, the mall site outlaw, the retained parcel, and then some non-building area. We're focused on outlaw B. So outlaw B was shown on the original plan. It's been about 1.95 acres. We've adjusted the outlaw dimensions and the location slightly to conform with your subdivision regulations in terms of our side setbacks and our front setbacks. So you can kind of see the darker line is the outlaw that we're proposing. A lot that we're proposing to subdivide out the lighter line being the previous outlaw. So we're going from 1.95 acres down to 1.94, just a slight reduction, just the way the numbers worked out to make it fit. So this officially will be the first lot that's subdivided out. Because the outlaw, so they're shown on a plan, they never gone through a formal subdivision. There's no state permitting for these separate lots. So we have frontage on the Mahler Road coming in. I think we addressed the dimensional requirements that we require. We went through the new section of the new zoning regs. And point by point, I believe we've addressed those. Is this the town center district, right? Yes. And I can certainly go down through a letter. Well, I think what we're going to do is that we go through real quickly. There's a couple of things we didn't address tonight. So I'd just probably bring them up as we go along here. We're really going based on 350, chapter 350, which has a number of sections. And again, as outlined in your letter, the first one really is the capability, the facilities, and utilities that comes up. And I don't recall that we get feedback from the police chief and from the fire department.  We got from the chief and talked to him about the speed limits there. I showed him this new configuration of the stop size he needed. And you did provide this information to the fire department? Yes. And it did not respond. So this building isn't any higher. The hospital is as high as this building, right? And it's not a question of having equipment being able to get to the top of the floor of this building. Oh, I'm not a firefighter, right? I don't believe so. Yeah. What's the highest building in town? It would be the hospital, I believe. The cross tissue would maybe be higher. They're right up there. They have four stories anyway. It's not the first four stories, right, to what you have. I would expect it, then, more to come out of hydrants. Do we have hydrants? Existing hydrants, so we're not adding any. There's a separate fire line that goes around the building, a 8-inch fire line. It's right off the front of Walmart, I believe. Yeah.  So that would be the closest high. And the 8-inch line doesn't get any closer, though. No. The 8-inch line goes along the Northland downpour. Correct. Yeah, we'll be tapping that and bringing a 6-inch fire service into the building. OK. Let's put it right there. A little bit of respect, obviously. Yeah. We've got all the latest and greatest current code. We've got the full enunciator, the connection right there with the boxes that they plug the pump or truck into the pressurizing system if they need to be. So this type of facility pretty much gets all the bells and whistles to get to stay to approve it. And this will be on municipal water and municipal sewer? They have an allocation for water, and they've applied for an allocation for sewer. That's what it's going to get, but I don't see the issue with it. The sort of going down through here is suitably the land. I think what I'm going to do is move on to one area that I talked about, thought about here, was designed to integrate some parts of boundaries. And when it came to water, sewer, and access, and I was thinking this was a subdivision, in my senses it still is. It's a subdivision even though it's for lease. I didn't see any mention of rights away. Access is off the mall road. It's a private road. Yeah. So without an easement, access to this unit is dependent on a private road. Correct. And as is a number of the connections for stormwater, water, and sewer. Yes. They're going off the slot for a connection. It strikes me that a subdivision properly done requires easements in the right ways. Do you disagree? Well, yes. Typically, a subdivide lot would have easements across private lands. In this case, we're a lease lot. So the person that leasing the lot from controls the right of ways, the water lines, the sewer lines. So I would expect that as part of the lease that they execute, the lease would be granting them rights to use the Berlin mall road and to use the water line and to use the sewer line. It would get messy to have to provide easements for all the sewer and all the water lines. I mean, are you going to provide them all the way across the Berlin mall property? No, just access to. They are connecting to municipal water, municipal sewer. And it's private, actually. Municipality is providing the water, but the water line itself is private. Correct. And I think the sewer line is private, too. Isn't that Tom? I believe it is, yes. I don't believe there's any... Typically, we'd see something like this, and the easements would already be in place. There'd be a sanitary sewer easement following the length of the sewer line. There'd be a water line easement following the length of the water line. And maybe they would be on the storm or maybe not. But in this case, all the utilities are private. The only easements actually that exist are for Greenmount Power. Greenmount Power does have recorded easements for their lines where it comes into the mall. And they will have an easement coming all the way to this proposed law. I mean, it's a good point. Initially, it came in, I think, the representation was we weren't going to subdivide it. And then there was a discussion about, but we are financing it or who's building it and we're financing it. And the bank needs some security as to what they're going to do and how do we do that if we don't subdivide it. So then the question of subdividing, but it's going to be a lease. So basically, the bank is getting security interest in the lease and that's basically what their security is. So if they foreclose on the lease with only two years left, that's all the interest they have. So it's going to be a depreciating interest inclusive to the end of the lease, but that's the way the bank is so accepted that way. I don't know if the Berlin Regs speak to it, but typically a lease slot is considered to be the same thing as a subdivided lot. We don't. No, most don't. That's my understanding. If it's going to be a lease slot, then typically the banks want to see you go through the subdivision process and create it. But if I were a lender, I'd want to know that I have access to water and sewer and roads. The access is a lot. If it were not, he is a part of an easement. He would probably be part of an agreement. Yes. I'm sure he'll be part of the lease. So we might want to let him in the, in our decision, make clear that this is, I mean this is just a suggestion, that this is a lease proposal, at least arrangement. So putting, I suppose, the bank, I noticed that if they want to be protected with respect to easements and things of that sort, they should look to themselves to do that because we have to improve easements to the same. Or, you know, or insist that there be a, you know, you're right, at some way to get to this property. You know, on the road that's not public road. I will say on that point, this is just going on memory. There is a declaration of covenants that applies to this property. Basically, all the tenants on that property have equal rights to all of the, you know, roadways and common facilities. So they all have easements over that for the declaration of covenants. Is that something you can share with them? I think it's in the way. I would feel more comfortable granting a permit for this, knowing that something like that is in place. It's not an easement. It needs to be a cover or an agreement. Part of the lease. I would certainly think the owner wouldn't want to have that. And I'm sure anybody securing a loan wouldn't want to have that. I assume. I don't know that it's our responsibility to make sure that it happens, but I think the owner would want to make sure that it happens. I would think the bank would want to make sure that it happens. I'm not suggesting that we didn't have these connectors. But what I was looking at is I was thinking subdivision, I was not thinking lease. But it still qualifies as a subdivision. It still qualifies as a subdivision, but in terms of the land ownership, the land ownership would be retained by the mall, is that correct? Technically yes. And this lot will be leased by the mall to the owner. When you look at this parcel, right here, and we were just talking about that a few minutes ago, I'll call it the roadway that goes right along the side of the building. Is the roadway here or is it here? Roadway is not on the lease parcel. We adjusted the lines of the existing roadways that was one of the reasons because it was a little bit different than what we were showing before. So this is where that, this is the edge of the roadway? Yes. And things like our dumpsters are located just inside that line to make sure the dumpsters don't end up on the mall property or they end up on our lease plan. So obviously some of the driveway and some stuff crossed, but for the most part we're trying to keep all our amenities like the electric transformer is right on the line. Because being around power will actually get an easement and being on the line that allows them to use that transformer to serve another line. In the terms of this lease, this is a 100-year lease? I don't remember. Something like that. It's a long one. I'd like to see something on this. What we have is a sense of what's the properties of where it's set to us. Can we do that? Can we just redact that? Yeah, yeah. We don't even know that. Although I'm sure it's available there. Just hack it online. You've answered all the questions I have circled on my copy of your explanation. Any questions pertaining or would you like me to go through with subdivision standards? I think we should go through. We don't have to spend a lot of time, but since we haven't used these standards at all before... We're actually using two separate standards. I'm looking at section 350. Yeah, something that's a little bit more specific. The first one is capability of communities, facilities, and utilities. We've gone with that. It's suitable for this use environmentally. And the sex criteria is floodplain or drainage. I think that's what I do. Design and configuration of boundary. Partial boundaries. That's where I got involved. There is provisions in here, so there's no foreseeable difficulties. Obtaining zoning permits to build on all lots. And I'm not sure how this lot of configuration necessarily precludes the use of any other outlawed... Yeah, because you'd get to this lot using that same access through there. That's that lot in the back too. It's class 2 wetland. It's one of those great pieces of land that you get to do. Not all of it, but to get to the rest of it, it is. So at least in our lifetime people will see any other land. Well it does border directly on to paint dirt bike. Access to that lot would probably be off paint dirt bike. It borders to the school. I think the school, if there would ever be an owner. Ideal. Ideal we don't know about. Might evolve it probably. But I think wetlands are an issue from that, but I don't see how there are any boundaries on this necessarily preclude any other use of the other lots. Now I noted that, again, this is partly, I'm doing this in part as an education for the new rules. If you look at 2005D which is on page 2-3 said property owners may locate more than one principal building on a lot in accordance with the following and it has some standards. Now I understand we are really creating some, maybe this doesn't apply, but that was the question. I think what this is supposed to be addressing that is if you have a parcel and you decide to have one house there and put another house there and you're not subdividing it. You ought to nevertheless locate those buildings in a way so that if it's some later date you are subdividing, you're not creating a non-conforming upright subdividing. That's highlighted in my section. So the distance between new buildings or between a new building and an existing building must not be less than twice the site setback required unless they are attached. So I don't see a problem here, but that was one of the issues. We actually had something similar to that less clearly spoken out in our current subdivision regulations. We've had that before where we've had people actually build two dwelling units on one lot. What the board has done is make sure that the lots were separate on a future date. And in fact there were some divided on a future date on the ones I was running with.  So again for education purposes we go to that district the town center district something that in those dimensional standards says floor area ratio 3.0 max. What does that mean? It's defined back here. Oh. Yep. Interesting. You guys run across this before? We have, but the definition always varies. It means the ratio of gross floor area to the total lot area. Huh. Okay, so if you have a 10,000-square-foot lot and you have a 40,000-square-foot building You don't need it. Correct. Is it working here? I mean having no calculation is it more than three times? It is less than three times. Less than three times. And what are those numbers? I have to calculate them for you. Well you have two acres. Almost two acres. 30,000-square-feet roughly. And you've got 100,000-square-feet above it. Four stories each about 10,000 right now. So you can add another 12,000. Four stories? 16. Do you have a parent setback for your setback? Yeah, we apologize. This one is new to us, so we've got to make sure that we don't do something stupid here. So front setback 25-feet minimum to 95-foot maximum as measured from the edge of the external travel lane. In no case less than 10 feet from the edge of the right of way. So this is setback more than that. I think it's 25-feet. Front is 25-feet. 27, I think. That's our last line. From the external travel portion of the highway you're pointing at. That's what that means, George. The planning commission ideally in this zone would like to have buildings closer to the curb. But they recognize that there may be wetland or other restrictions that preclude that. It doesn't allow you to go maximum 90-feet back from that. Okay. Which I vehemently opposed. We changed it to 90-feet with your opposition. So the sidewalks are 5-feet wide as you've mentioned that. Providing at least 1-billion transit spaces. You typically didn't show up, but it looks to me like you're allowing between 3 and 5 feet of grassed area between the sidewalk and the curb. Yes. That's the last line. Yeah, but probably at least 3. Otherwise our experience, if you can't keep it to say, it just ends up being a mud patch. So then you have architectural standards incorporating physical changes in wall plane and group form that break up wide besides in the multiple bays. A bay must not be more than 40-feet wide. Where are you? That's sitting further. Page Next page, 2.7. Oh, 2.7. It's in the district. Yeah. They have to meet the district department. They have to comply with it, right? Yes. Teaching a regular pattern of windows and entries on the facade. This is one I'm a little shaky on here. We're doing a subdivision under the new, but we're doing the site plan under the old. So there is a provision in here in 35.05 that says, the last one says, must comply with all other provisions of the regulations. So it sort of takes the lucha back. Yeah. But the site plan review really is being done under the old regulations. But I think they're, you guys can talk to that. I think they're schematics that they show breaking it down. We have a number of different planes. Obviously we have different roof treatments. We have some balcony units. Well, we have certainly not in a single plan. Yeah. We request the ordinance. And I start with the subdivision. All right. So what were we on then? Well, we were on building envelopes. Building envelopes, yeah. And we were talking about more than building one building a lot. Then we talked about design and layout improvements, which speaks to topography, connectivity, access points, design and construction standards that has to do with roads, street trees, which I think this complies with. Yes. And we had this discussion last time. I think the only street we're really talking about is just the main, the main, the mall road. Then street lights.  To valuables? Yeah. Lumens is the brains of the lamp. Correct. What you're seeing. For a person lumens where anybody can buy a twenty or a light meter and go out and put it on the ground and say hey, I have to buy to buy Mythical facilities and they did address that. He eliminated that one sidewalk, I don't, you know, frankly, there's not that much traffic down that side street that person can't walk on the road, and that's what they do now. They want to see what's being displayed on the side of the Walmart date, that's what they do. Water and wastewater facilities. I searched for a long time before I could find the connection on the sewer, and finally found it. But again, the draw is the small one. But you're served by public water, public sewer, and so on. Through private lines. Through private lines, yes. Which is, it takes back to that. We need to see something that tells us that this drama has reason why it's us, too. The streets, stormwater, water and sewer. But I can see how everybody on the other tenant would want to have the same thing. And it's certainly Walmart with their battery authorities. Landscaping. We address that. They refer to the site plan. Right? They refer to the site plan. Yeah. That's erosion and stormwater. IE, you're going to get permits from the state, and that demonstrates their compliance. And you address corner markers in your text. I didn't have anything else. You're actually just spot-polling. Yeah, it looks interesting. So preservation versus not the erosion. The one thing I have, and Sean and I wrestled with this, it's on page 2.4. Oh, look at that. Yeah. There's the plan, the plot process, and it's the last two paragraphs of that. Of the example? Of the example. Okay. Okay. And it basically says that the DRB and zoning administrator should track development potential and on resulting parcels such as total development potential does not exceed the potential of the parcel prior to the subdivision of this zoning approval. The thought process was that, and Sean and I ultimately thought on this one, is that this deals with residential development, like a residential subdivision, not a vision like this, that the intent is to look at a parcel, the parent parcel of the day that a subdivision comes in, and on that parent parcel it tracks the remaining development of that parent parcel as future subdivisions occur. It's something that planning commission wrestled with. It has examples from other towns. I just don't know how to enforce this right now. But it does apply to this. I don't think it does. If it starts a lot size, if you look at the first sentence, it says certain districts have both a minimum lot size and a maximum residential density. So it looks like it's applying to residential. Yes. And there is no residential on the town center. And we will have to wrestle with that. Putting that out to you is that. Yeah. I also don't know how to deal with these explanations within the text of an ordinance. Are these part of the ordinance? Or are these enlightenment of how to apply the ordinance? And I think that's something that always bothered me about how Brandy did this. Again, this came out of constituents coming to the board to the planning commission. This wasn't a consultant's recommendation. Really? No. This was the constituents coming to the board and lobbying for this. But still, I read that as a parenthetical discussion. I don't see it as part of the ordinance. Right. We would agree with that. We see this a lot. We consider them to be an example of how the ordinance could possibly be applied, not the ordinance itself. But it has a statement in here that says shall keep track, sitting in that little example. That's a little confusing. Second to the last paragraph. So it may not be germane to this application, but it will be in future applications. Oh boy. I think if you look at the purposes of the town center district, this project falls squarely within those purposes. In terms of trying to have multi-use and housing and infill, and the fact of building all of that. It's exactly what that's addressing. Are there any other questions? So it's preliminary and final. So many are final, we've heard tonight. To move on to the final, I think you need to move on to the preliminary piece of it. I think so. We've done that in the past. I read the ordinance. I didn't see that. Well, I'm going from past. Yeah, but I'm looking at it. I'm looking at the ordinance. We do need to, and this is problematic for me, it's not really the applicant's problem, but we do need to apparently make certain findings and address each one of the criteria in our findings, which is sad because the criteria don't agree with the criteria we've reviewed. I don't know if you picked up on that. They sort of mingle, but they're not in the same order. We need to go through those as well. I don't think so because I think we've essentially gone through them. But citing in design, capability and suitability of the site is mentioned elsewhere. But these 13 points here are not the same 13 points that are in the ordinance. Page 420. So going back to your issue of do we have to have a separate approval of the final and preliminary, I would say we only have a final plan review, separate from the preliminary plan review, when you basically send the applicant home with instructions to do something. That's how I read this. For 4406D says development reward must issue a written decision that includes basically findings of facts that address each one of the applicable criteria. Any conditions of approval? Basically, it does imply that there's an approval process. If the development review board approves it, the applicant will have six months. Well, the applicant's here now for final, not waiting six months. So I'm not sure that the separate approval is necessary. Except for perhaps we do need to make it clear that whatever approval we do or do not give tonight is for final. I'm just being open and honest. The only loose end I have is I want to see a copy of, for the record I want to see a copy of whatever kind of agreement or condition there is here that basically assures that, and I would think the applicant would frankly want to see that too, but assures that they have access to the private water, private sewer, private storm water system. En route. En route. En route, yeah. We want the broad attention to the road, obviously. Is there any of these new rules that say that we can have a preliminary and a final at the same time? It doesn't say that you can't. Hadn't said that, Tom would have struck it down. All right. So I, unless somebody has additional questions, I would probably entertain a motion to close this hearing. I will make a motion to close the hearing. If the motion should probably be mentioned for the preliminary and final. Right. We'll close the hearing for both preliminary and final. I'll say you. I'm just looking at this section 405. Yeah. So I'm just trying to make sure we cover it all. Is there any additional evidence that we need to go into those? Because we have to satisfy all those criteria, right? On page 420? Well, we have to dress them. Yeah. What they say in preliminary plan would be you have to dress them all kind of findings with regard specifically to them. And then if they're, again, in preliminary, if there were loose ends in any of them, you would basically, the findings would identify what additional information they would have to bring forward. Okay. So something, I mean like snow storage. We talked about that the last time. I can't remember. That's something that was not addressed in the other storm waters. Low impact development. Yeah. Snow storage was mentioned in the other. Energy conservation. I'm just taking off some things that are there, somewhat unique to those. We did discuss energy conservation. Yeah. We're subject to the commercial stretch code. Yeah. That's right. Yeah. It wasn't a part of subdivisions. It was a part of site planning. Right. We did discuss. Yeah. It's different because we have a site plan pending. Yeah. They're using a lot of that site plan. It's unfortunate that the wording as you pointed out is different. Yeah. Yeah. If you go back to the criteria we discussed on 350. Right. They don't line up. They don't line up. Right. They don't line up because if you were going through this, you'd like to. Yeah. Well, yeah. I mean, all this is recorded, but then we have to rearrange it into. Yeah. Different. Okay. All right. Maybe one of those things we'll be addressing in a future. Good. You can easily line up. Yeah. Yeah. I think there's no nothing new here. It's just a different order. That's right. So. Okay. There was a motion to close the. There was a motion to close the preliminary and the final. I'll second that. And you'll second that. There's a further discussion. I'll submit it. We'll simply say bye. Bye. Bye. And this hearing is closed. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. It's been a pleasure to work with. I was near me. I was coming to the number of things. Construction. Good luck. Good to see you. Good to see you. Just don't be a stranger. I won't. I don't know. You may well. That's up to others. Alright, thanks again. Thank you. You too. Thank you. Thank you. I bless you. So we have, um, keep the paperwork straight here. We do have on the agenda the minutes of our last meeting. And, um, No, no, no. Thank you. Have a good night. So that's why I wanted to work with her for the last meeting. I did have a number of, um, edits that I had proposed, and I've actually shared them already with, um, I'm recording something here. And she's actually gone ahead and made a redraft. But because we're not supposed to discuss this out of school, we're not sharing stuff with you, but what I did find, I did ask in the future that she perhaps would identify who the players are, which made me think we need to do that regularly when we do the meetings. In other words, who's Rusman, you know, and who's the applicant. So, um, and she's tried to do that. I'm sort of used to, um, our former reporting secretary being a member of the PDE board at one time, who was a professional engineer, who was not a professional engineer, who was an engineer in training.  I don't expect you to know that necessarily. But it's useful for us to know whether they're the project engineer or the traffic engineer, and you've done that and you're re-edited. Um, I also, the last paragraph on the first page talks about, um, the sewer line being relocated. Yeah, but it wasn't clear. It comes from the school and will be relocated, is all I, I think that just needs to be, it's not going to be, not that so much about it's going to be reconnected, they're going to reconnect. It's more about the whole sewer line is going to be relocated through a lot. Um, and, um, on the second page, um, in some places, um, Christie started off with headings for what we were doing, you know, whether it was traffic or vehicle pedestrian circulation. So I asked her to use those headings when we talk about parking. I asked her to use those headings and she's added those. Um, there were some minor edits having to do with, uh, um, the number of vehicles per day. As opposed to vehicles per hour. They told us, when I asked the question with how many vehicles per day, they said 311. So it had to be vehicles per day and not vehicles per hour. Um, so there were other edits like that. Did anybody have any other edits? I did not. So, um, I've already shared my edits. Um, the, um, it wasn't clear why Mr. Snyder was asking the questions. So I've asked her to include a line that basically that he was concerned about the effect of the future access to paying a turn bike. That was, that was his issue. And that was kind of the act. But, um, so I would make a motion, since I have all the edits, to, um, to include those edits, uh, uh, and approve them. Second. Motion to make a second. Discussion? All's in favor of the motion. Please say goodbye by saying aye. Aye. And we've approved the minutes as added. At the very bottom, I think I put Mr. Neweezel. Oh, I didn't catch that. Just looking at. Yes, you did. Mr. Neweezel. Now, I knew Mr. Neweezel quite well. Her grandfather. Fred. But, I didn't pick up on that. Good catch. So, um,


You were involved in the early 80s in quite a bit of controversy with the band Judas Priest and the claim I think was that they had backwards messages in their rock music that led to some unfortunate outcomes. Can you tell me a little bit about that? Two young men, two days before Christmas, were sitting in their basement of one of their houses drinking beer, smoking marijuana, and listening to Judas Priest. And the all afternoon and then at the end of the afternoon they picked up a shotgun, walked to a local church playground that had swings and theater daughters and that kind of thing.  One of them succeeded, the other just blew his face off, but managed to survive. In the hospital immediately after when the police asked them why did you do this, the response of the survivor was life sucks, which is not a common response among teenagers as they were. But the parents then a few years later actually decided to sue, but they didn't decide to sue the gun manufacturer. They didn't decide to sue the brewery that provided the beer or the place that sold it. They didn't decide to go after the drug dealers who had sold it in the marijuana. No, they decided to go after Judas Priest and CBS Records. I received a phone call from the head lawyer for Judas Priest and CBS Records. It was actually a whole firm of lawyers in Reno, California, which is where the trial was going to take place. It was about a year before the trial. I received this phone call because of the work I'd done on backward messages and rock music with Don Reed, a colleague of mine then at the University of Lethbridge, that we'd done in response to this pastor from California coming to town and holding his big rallies about backward messages and rock music that were leading young people down the path of life such as sex and drug use. He claimed it was because of the backward messages and rock music. It led to a big rally at the end of his two days there where people showed up and broke records and things like this. It was quite the Custle I've written in Lethbridge. I was a brand new professor in 1982. I just arrived in Lethbridge and so I got a phone call back then from a local announcer of a rock station in Lethbridge calling me up after Pastor Gary Greenwald had arrived saying is there anything in psychology that we could use to speak about this alleged backward messages and rock music or subliminal messages they were calling him. I turned to my colleague Don Reed and we both went not that we're aware of and we did a little research but couldn't find anything on backward messages. I went to one of his actually one more than one of his rallies to find out what he was doing. On the basis of what he was doing it seemed to be pretty clear that there really wasn't the effect that he thought it was going on but rather just some standard psychological phenomena that we were well aware of, old, old phenomena in psychology. So it was on that basis then that Don Reed and I said but to be fair we should run some research. This is a claim nobody's investigated. He was earnest. It wasn't like he was just a con man or something. He was actually earnest as far as I know he still is. He actually believes this is true. So we decided well fair enough. His claim and it's more subtle than most people think so when it really hit the press in the mid-80s people had the wrong idea of what in fact he was claiming. So his concern is not that messages are being served in rock music. Obviously the forward messages in many rock songs are promote drug use and the like. So that was in his concern. His concern was that as he rephrased it at one of his meetings, I'm paraphrasing now, is that well good Christian teenagers with a forward message would hear it to understand and reject it. But his concern was this. It's much more subtle and to be fair I thought that the guy deserves a shake because he's not just thinking very glibly about this stuff. His concern was that because it was backwards and it's hard to register consciously, if the message was still getting through the meaning of the backward version of the message was getting through then they would be unaware of the source. They wouldn't be able to attribute it to the record. But if the thought popped into their head by some unconscious mechanism, he never specified what that would be, but if it did then they would have a message in the head with no attributable source except themselves. And so they couldn't protect themselves against it. Exactly. So they would now be looking at thinking, oh, it's fun to smoke marijuana, must be my idea. So what he would do is he would then come in, he'd say okay this is for example Queen, another one bites the dust and he would play a passage of Queen's another one bites the dust in the forward direction. Perfectly fine to you. Famous song.  And sure enough everybody starts laughing because everybody hears it. We use it as a classroom demonstration now. And it's quite apparent. You know, it's quite apparent. Yes, it sounds like that sort of, but it's like visual illusions. You're also aware at the same time that it isn't really like that, right? So it's got those two levels going on at the same time. But you could go, yeah, okay, I see what you mean, right? It does sound like it's fun to smoke marijuana. And he's many other examples like that. But that's his procedure. And he just comes in for an hour, says here's another passage I want you to listen for, then plays it. And by the time he's done after, but an hour of people are totally convinced. All these backward messages, I heard them all when he asked me to hear them. So we thought, okay, he's got a theory. He's got a he's got an explanation of why he's concerned that if it did manage to get in without you being aware of it's of the source that that in fact could be some concern. So we thought and there's no research. So why do we actually see if you can influence people's behavior consistent with the meaning of the backward passage? But they're not hearing the backward passage. That's the point. They're going to hear it in the forward direction.