[music] [music] I believe at the last meeting we talked about 318 Mummy Street being on the on the end, the uh storage facility and um we said that we would maybe have conversations between the meetings um
with you know the you know not as a board but um and then have them on this agenda. So I really think it should be on the agenda. >> Um [clears throat] I was going to uh as I recall follow up on some of the questions that we had that night. um
they're not on the agenda. Um so I don't want to get too far into the weeds about them, but I was planning on commenting on the things that we left kind of open at the last meeting. Um as long as anybody doesn't have an objection to that. >> So are you motioning it? >> Um
>> there's a motion on the floor right now. Yeah, there's a motion on the floor unless uh >> can we amend the motion >> to not have it as um as written >> and 18 street because we had all talked about that at the last meeting. I don't
know if anybody wants to discuss that any further. >> I I would like to keep it limited only because they're not here. Uh I don't want to get too far into the weeds without the people we're talking about having had
adequate notice. Um but I I would like to comment on the things that uh we had discussed. Um Mr. [clears throat] Sylvester was going to uh take a look at the site in relation to the electrical work so that
we had some idea of what the um >> Wasn't that 14 on? >> No, that was 38. Well, that was >> I did look at it. >> I was there today >> doing the uh the road work, right? >> Pardon?
>> You did look at it. And it's the people on 318 that are finishing the road. >> You're h you're talking about the set of lights we're talking about now at Starbucks. >> Yes. >> Yes. I was there today. Um the I actually spoke to Keith. >> Hold on. We we just want to make sure
we've got it on in our section. Just just hold on for a minute. Um, so we're going to talk in a limited fashion about 314 and 318. I'd like I >> All right, I'll amend my my motion that's currently on the floor to add it to the discussion, but uh without uh 48
hours notice would be in violation and the fact that like you said the other party is not here would also be in violation. So, uh, I I' I'd amend it to add it as a discussion, but, uh, >> a limited discussion. >> Yes. So, you know, as far as among the
board members, that's that's fine with me. I'll amend it to that. >> All right. I'll second. >> Okay. Moved and seconded to add uh some discussion on 318 and 314 Plymouth Street in a limited fashion. All those in favor, we're going to go
for a land, excuse me, a uh I wrote our vote. We're going to start with Mr. Sylvester. >> Yes. [clears throat] >> Mr. Walsh. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. M. Truth. >> Yes. >> Mr. Millius, myself. Yes. Okay. We will
we will add that on there. Um, so starting [snorts] with the discussion from Midland Contractors for the signal system. Now, I'm going to defer to Mr. Sylvester who uh took a look at this >> and we're following up on the conversation we had at the last meeting.
>> My only question is that >> our agenda says that we have the first uh meeting. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I I'm sorry. >> So my bad. >> I would do that first and then we we do it as discussion as the agenda. >> My my bad. I jumped to discussions as
opposed to appointments. Um, let's let's do the u the continuation of PSPR 253 539 Plus Street site plan review. Um, we left it with some questions of the last time. I
believe the applicants are here. Um, and I believe ownership is here. Why don't you the owner of the properties? I'm having a hard time hearing. Are you talking about 314 Plymouth Street? >> No. >> Oh, I apologize.
>> No, no, not yet. >> Okay, >> we're getting there, though. [snorts] >> 539 Street. >> Yep. We had a couple of questions that we've got some answers for.
>> Read it into record. >> Yes. Would you read that into the record, De? So at the last meeting we were talking about the legality of um site plan and ownership and so um the site so we reached out to town council
and from John Richard Hudom um he stated that the site plan requirements bylaw 167-28 of the zoning bylaw requires that the name of the owner of record of the subject of the property be shown on the site plan as well as the owners of
record of all abiding properties. In my opinion, based upon the facts, I have been provided a valid lease of the subject property signed by the owner of Ruckett is sufficient evidence of authority of the applicant to the file site plan review application with the planning board. However, in my opinion,
it would also be reasonable for the planning board to require the applicant to pro excuse me to provide written authorization from the owner of record for the applicant to file the site plan review application with the planning board. I hope this is helpful. Please let me know if you have any other
comments or questions regarding this matter. Richard John, sorry. >> So that would indicate to me [clears throat] that the applicant could do that with the approval of the owners
of record. Um the question came up as to who's actually the owner of record. Caroline Reed signed for the landlord. Is that person the only owner of record or is the town's
>> the town's uh records the assessors have down Benjamin Reed also as an owner of record. Um and [snorts] if that's the case then Benjamin Reed needs to be on these documents as well. I would think [clears throat]
it's currently voiced. in your name, sir. Donald, >> is is Benjamin made off the deed? >> Uh, that if I could tell you yet. >> Yeah. Uh, if it's finalized maybe, but
if it's not. >> Yeah, I was just going to say >> I'm just going to look it up on the registry. >> I have it here. >> The deed. Yeah. As of today.
What today? Close enough. >> And your name's >> And your hair was in a butter, right? Just >> Yes. And it came through lightly, but I
not I believe in both. >> You can look it up. Yeah, she >> I'm sorry. I know. I know you're probably have I trust you on that, but I just I'm just doing it because provide
>> um I already car Still the dean for um hold Sorry, on my phone it's just a little difficult cuz I have to slide back and forth. Maybe this will help.
just for records. The assessor's records aren't all that current. They tend to run behind. So those aren't as accurate as you might. >> So if it is just so I can play ahead from him too. >> Exactly. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. Because we have already from her. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. We got copies of that but >> Okay. >> He's he's also an owner of record in order to do this right. Okay, we have we have to add him as well. >> Neither one of them back. >> Surprise.
Basically, what we're going to need is those documents that were provided to us >> again >> with his name added to them and then we I'm not speaking for everybody, but >> yep, that's that will be all from this. >> I I believe so, but we we need to
discuss it. I just want to make sure I got the whole list today so I can >> Yeah. >> square it out before your next meeting and finish it up. >> So, >> well, just speaking for myself based on the feedback we've got from attorney, [clears throat]
>> the only thing that was outstanding that we wanted to investigate was >> makes sense >> the propriety. It's not not It won't start trial only. And of course with Plymouth Street, I don't know why it won't. Every time I put it in, it won't adjust. >> Go to the biggest.
>> Yeah, I did that. But >> you have to uncheck all other towns. >> Tom, this was in a folder from But it has both of them listed. >> Yeah. Yeah, it came up like that earlier, too. >> Yeah. He said he had a car from today.
So I mean >> Yeah. >> You don't get much much more news. >> Yeah. Today's about it. Yeah. >> Yeah. We have Benjamin. We Benjamin is still on that. >> Yeah. So So are we all in agreement? Does anybody
have any questions from the board? >> Can we reook the plan and make sure that everything is >> Was that our only question last week? I forgot. I got on 39. >> That that was it. That and um we had
some conditions that we were going to add. >> Okay. That was that was it. >> Yeah. Yeah. Oh, sorry. So, that's when you're handing out the wrong that's
>> Oh, yeah. No, that's all >> I have. I know. And >> we might have one in the cart. I don't I've got one. We've got some in our packet.
The moon has recall. >> Is it? >> Yeah. >> I turned it off. I was thinking maybe >> Danielle >> or actually neither. Is there any or or either of you? How about that? Is there
any way that you can bring up the current 539 Plymouth Street um plan, please? Because my mouse won't work. Uh, it might be off. Uh, if you flip it over there, it there's a little switch
you can try to flip it on. >> Yeah, we tried that. It's It could be the battery. >> Okay. Um, give me a second. I can remote in. Well, we have for for those of us here,
there is a copy in your uh in your packet and I don't I don't recall any all the issues that we had which was mostly fire and highway had uh had asked that uh an apron be provided at the street. I
believe that we wrote that into the conditions as well or what we going to propose the conditions. I think the big thing at this point is to get the uh the authorization letter and the lease amended to include both owners
that and we'll need to refer to the plan on what date it was and does anybody have a clear picture on their um copy of what plan number it is? It's not scale or anything.
>> We're also going to need to have copies to actually sell. >> Yeah. And shouldn't they be the full copy like the reg the standard size? >> I think Angel brought this for us. >> I brought that for myself. >> Yeah. No, no, no. Of course, of course.
No, no, no. So there is that paper when we're presented with the amended documents that would be the time to also present us with full sex plans. [clears throat] >> Okay. >> For the signature form. So the um
conditions that we talked about just to remind everybody and to see if I've forgotten anything um is the uh condition from conservation about no bioolid compost. Um the portaotty to have a regular
schedule to be emptied and renewed. Um the highway department um the business owner of the lot um will take care of the dust to the street regularly. Um
>> yeah dustin >> and providing apron. >> I think we were talking about a 10 foot apron. >> Yeah. Was that I feel like the >> part would you be apron right there or I
believe it is but you might know better. Um >> hey am I on the right property? >> Yeah. Uh 539 Plymouth Street. >> Oh okay. That is not the right property. Sorry. >> That's Thank you, Caesar. How about
that? I I don't see that notation for the >> this uh >> plan. Can you include it on the plans? >> Yeah, I'm going to change. >> I feel like that's >> feel like Oh, it's right above it. >> This one? >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Plans. >> This one? >> No, that's not current. Oops. There it is. That down two. Oh, up one. There you go. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> I'm doing this on my phone, so I appreciate your uh your bearing with me. I'm a blind guy, so just >> scroll it up a little there. See? Thank you. >> Okay, that that's better. [clears throat]
>> And it's touchscreen, so if you if someone wants to go over there and like zoom in on a certain spot, you guys can. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Um, we talked about a lighting plan. Did you guys happen to get a lighting plan together? I gotta do that right now.
>> Okay. So, we were talking about Yeah. I didn't know if maybe they did because of the time. Um, >> so you want to add that to the plan, right? >> It It's in It's in the bylaws. >> Yeah. >> That it would have to be shielded if they didn't. >> So, that was part of that. I think that
maybe we should make it a condition that when they add lighting, they have to come back. >> Except for >> You're not putting any lighting at all in now. just as you spoke last meeting about like the security >> shed like
>> well that will end up being a site plan amendment a revision so you're going to have to bring that back >> um we talked about any plans to gate the property and I do not recall the uh the answer to that
we just got to put a chain in the front for now safety down across the street from the police I don't think nobody's going to get in Yeah, probably now. See what I'm saying? >> Well, it's going to open 24/7 just >> good shade, you know what I mean? So,
like and they already have a little, you know, >> Amy, didn't we have hours of operation? >> Yeah, >> we have um the Buffalo zone set back from 10 ft
from the lot line. So, I didn't have that one. Brett, what did you say again? >> I was operation. >> Yeah, I was operation, wasn't it? Seven to seven. But that's when we talked about the lights, too, that they're not going to be able to see. >> I think that's what you >> Oh,
go seven. >> Not that I was looking over your shoulder. >> No, please. This is for us. Um, shielded from the residents. So, I think that I meant lights on that, but I think that the stipulation would be cycling
modification. And then we also talked about if they were going to add water to the back and had any piping that was going to go in the in the ground >> or the electrical conduit and wateration.
So, uh we're going to explore the possibility of doing irrigation well in that makes sense. Okay. >> Yeah. So, >> all right. >> So, there's going to be a service to the shed. >> Okay. And that was on there. Okay. Just
just double checking everything. >> Is that all? >> I I think that's all as conditions. Uh just like to make mention too that this is the plan that we were approving before. So any expansion of what would be considered the nursery or you know if
it went on to the residential property would be a substantial change in in the application. So you the property if it's sold there's a special permit that runs with the with the land then basically the special permit would handle the
weight parcel. So but that's not before us. The only thing before us is is that section right there. >> The area designated, >> right? The area designated and that's that's what the special permit and that's what the board is >> just the commercial. >> That's correct. >> So, you want me to mention that?
>> No, I don't think it's necessary to mention that because if it comes under a substantial change if it change it does they have to come back before the board >> require modifications. >> Yes. >> Did you catch all those did you catch all those notes? Am I good with that?
>> Yeah. And just as a side note, the um anywhere where we're not proposing work is within 100 foot buffer to wetlands as well. So be doing conservation on top of that. >> Y >> Okay. So um Bruce, are you good?
>> Still with us, Bruce. >> Still with you? Yes, I'm good. There was a question from this. >> Yeah, it keeps somehow the reference to block
7B comes up and I don't know of any block 7B. So, how does the assess B is in the business zone? >> Yeah. >> A, I would assume, is what's left in the residential zone. Do they tax the
homeowner? Yep. Yeah. Absolutely. For >> the business used. >> Absolutely. >> The owner of record is the one who gets the tax bill regardless of how it's being used. I can speak as a former assessor. >> So, is there a lot 7B? >> I don't
I don't believe so. I think that might just be the designation between the two the two zones. And does the lease define a land go lease? >> Do you want to take a look at what I just
>> It says the commercial lease agreement is made um on the premises. The landlord hereby leases to the tenant and tenant leases from the landlord. the rail property located at adjacent to 539 Plymouth Street, Halifax, Mass,
consisting of approximately 2.5 acres to be to be used solely as a nursery and tree farm for the cultivation, maintenance, and sale of trees, plants, and related products. >> Um, it's not really adjacent to 539. It's part of 539.
>> Really, I don't want to be a stickler, but u We were were all through this when they built the post office and I could see my father-in-law the slope was [clears throat] was but not on its top. I have no ant towards
the applicant. I think we'd be delighted to see um this use is a completely other uses been allowed grew trees there and we harvested apples and sold apple juice and other things
there. So, but [clears throat] I just want to ensure that it's a clean designation of what's going on and and who who's responsible for that activity. behind the road and I think in terms of the
town u and you know I don't know whether the owner understands that he's going to get taxed for a commercial use of his property that's between the applicant and that want to see the owner but
>> the assessors are going to have to decide how they're going to portion the >> yes >> is there a way that the board would like the agreement read instead adjacent to them would feel like it has whole property zoned or the whole property which would >> I would probably
>> I would probably make reference to the plan as in >> yeah like a portion of 539 yeah that references the plan right >> you can still put approximately 2 and a half acres but more specifically as referenced on the plan dated
>> October that's going to change that plan date is going to change now >> well yeah whatever your date be that's Well, it's to the commercial property. >> Yeah. >> Well, our approval needs to have the plan.
>> Well, we said it comes down >> until >> Well, we're going to have to wait till we get the de the all the agreements. >> Two people first. >> Yeah. I don't know if this works tonight, but apparently we have the full
set plans. >> Well, I think we I think we need to make sure that we have both owners of record before we proceed. >> Yeah, that's fine. I understand that's not a problem. >> And the final updated plan. >> Yeah. So, final updated plan is a new uh
lease agreement and authorization with both keys on it. Right. understanding the conditions that we laid out tonight and if you wanted to add the lighting >> before you'd have to pay for another application. >> Yeah. Yeah, that makes sense. >> Okay. >> And then the full set of plans. Uh >> yeah,
>> that's required by the application. >> I have two notes. The full size set plans are signature block and I believe there's five members. >> Um and then the note paved apron within the right away. >> Yeah. Two notes. Would
you like to move a motion that uh how we set time on this? But >> we just continue until >> well we have enough time >> 125. So we should be >> we added 30 days last time. >> Why not?
>> Yeah. You keep it up. You keep [laughter] wait. [laughter] I've been there. >> Oh, because we did a 30-day extension last meeting. [clears throat] >> So, [snorts] when is the next meeting? It's >> December 4th. >> December 4th. That's right.
>> So, we're good. I'll make the motion then to uh continue the uh the hearing for PSPR25-359 539 Plymouth Street uh when the required information discussed of tonight's meeting is provided to the board
and then that reads everything. >> Okay. >> Unless you want to spill it all out. >> We already did tonight. >> I think so. >> I think we're good. >> Second. We we have a motion and a second to continue the hearing for PSPR25-3
until December 4th, 2025. Our regularly scheduled meeting. All those in favor, we're going to do a roll call vote. Miss Troop, >> yes. >> Mr. Gainer, >> yes. >> Mr. Walsh, >> yes. >> Mr. Sylvester, >> yes. >> Mr. Millius, myself, yes.
>> Five or 124. What was that? >> Okay, we're good. >> I I think that's it. We thank you for your thoroughess. Thorelcome to confirm this December 4th. >> December 4th. Correct. Yesterday. >> So, we're good, right? >> Yeah.
>> Okay. All right. Try to get that taken care of. >> Not a problem. >> Thanks, guys. >> Thank you. One thing was removed from the appointments on tonight's agenda of late review, but I believe that's
going to be continued until December 4th. Is that correct, Bruce? >> What was that? >> Uh, we're going to continue either way until December 4th. >> Yes. >> Okay. I think now we can move on to what
I tried to jump ahead to without paying attention to the agenda. >> Are we doing General? >> That's where we're going now. Yeah. >> And oddly enough, his name is Reed, too, I believe. Um, get that off so we can get Bruce back.
Yep. But I was also thinking I'm going to subtract it. So >> there he is. >> Back if I need a plan. Right. >> Yep. >> Going ahead with discussions. At the last meeting, we'd uh been presented with some numbers that we asked for
uh in order to confirm a bond for the work that uh Midland Corporation uh was looking for to save off until they were able to get the parts they were looking for for the signaling devices. Um [clears throat] Mr. Sylvester being in
the business had volunteered to take a look at this and uh give us uh some information and background and uh condition. So uh we're going to ask him to do that now. [clears throat] >> Okay. Well, do you guys have a copy of
the um the signed purchase order? >> It came It came in late today, so you may not have gotten it. No, we have a change order here. >> Oh, yeah, the change order. Okay, that's that's still assigned. All right. So, you do have that. Yeah. >> So, that that the change order basically
is for the temporary signals that they had there. So, that's already been done. >> Um >> the So, I went there today. Everything's been done except for the tower that's uh needed to get put up. And I think that's
106,000 that's on the original proposal. That's part of the previous contract amount of 116,550. Um, so that 106 is accurate. The only item that came up is they guess they need um the traffic
uh cameras. So they have to send us whatever they have for a um quote on that, you know, quote slash uh purchase order so that we know so we can um so we'll know the exact bond amount to require from them. So that was something
that just came up recently when I was talking to Keith today. So um if they once they get that to us, we can figure out an amount. I have no idea what those cameras are worth. You know what I mean? Could be 50 grand. I I don't know. So, uh, but outside of that, all the work's
been done. The pairs in place, the conduits are ran. It's just a matter of bell installing the tower and wiring it right to the control cabinet. It's 20 ft away >> and and the arm, right? >> Yeah, the arm. Exactly. It's the arm with the set of lights on it. Then
they'll be taking down the there's a couple of temporary lights that are up right now. They'll take those down at the same time. So, um, the biggest thing I guess we just got to find out now are the the traffic cameras, what the cost of those are, and then we can figure out a bond. So,
they're going to need to send that to us. >> Okay. >> So, once we get the purchase order for those traffic cameras, who should we email that to? >> Danielle. >> Danielle. >> Okay. >> Who's Mr. >> He's from Midwood? >> Yes. >> Sorry. No, I'm from Leaders Real Estate
representing the developer. Um, one of the questions I was going to bring up because we tendedly talked about it in the past was whether [clears throat] we should be looking for an exact amount on the uh on the bond or is it typical to uh add on to that
amount. Um, what has your experience been? I mean, typically most bonds they're asking for one and a half times the value of the work. Is that something that's problematic for you, Murray?
>> Um, the bond will be coming through Midland, so I can certainly check with them. Uh, one and a half seems extreme, but um, this will be a short-term bond, so I don't think it should be too big an issue, but I can check with what they're capable of doing. >> Okay. All right. That would be a
question I'd like to ask unless anybody has an objection to that. >> Um, no, I don't have an objection to if I'm happy. We can send that back with the uh purchase order for the traffic cameras. >> But the only thing that I was wondering is like the rest of the site as far as
like the uh site that's scheduled to be Riley's and how that's all going to go and >> Well, I think the discussion was that everything was going to be completed 100% except for the remaining piece that
needs to be be delivered because they're on back order. And I I can attest to the fact they're on back order everywhere. >> Okay. >> Um >> so you're saying the rest of the site would be complete and there would be nothing missing. >> That's how it was presented to us the with the exception of that equipment
that has yet to be delivered and installed. Um is it is that sound right Mr. Reed? >> Yeah, we are working on finishing up the Starbucks side. Um the AutoZone is just a ground lease and so we're working with
Autozone's contractor to have that turned over to them. Um so we're bringing a little bit more fill and then that should be turned over to them and their contractor will come in and finish the site in full. >> It it was my understanding that occupancies [clears throat] were going to be you're looking to finish the entire site including the
AutoZone store prior to any opening of the Starbucks store. Is that still how this is going to run? No, I mean they they will be off by maybe a couple months or so. Um the Starbucks is certainly ahead of the auto zone at this point and both are looking to open as soon as possible.
>> Okay. >> Um so there was a little confusion. I I apologize for interrupting. There was a little >> Oh, go ahead. >> The the way we heard it the last time was that everything was going to be completed prior to anybody opening. And that's why I wanted to clarify that
because that didn't seem reasonable to me. But um >> Oh, no. And I'm not sure who communicated though, but that is no, that's certainly not the plan. >> Okay. >> Yeah. No, both both parties part of them taking over was they would like to as as they finish up be able to open. That's
that's why we were working to try to get this I guess guarantee if you will of the temporary co based on that temporary light so that when Starbucks is done, they can open. Then when Autozone is done, they can open knowing that both of those will be prior to the permanent light going in.
Well, I think that there would still need to be a bond on even if um the >> Well, we'd have to leave the bond in place, >> but also we would need to make sure that it was in place for the entire autozone half of the property. We would need a bond on that. I believe peer engineered.
>> That's I I'm thinking that's the kind of thing we would do when in >> when Yeah. uh Starbucks approaches us about opening, we would have to go to the developer and say, "Well, you know, if you're only going to do a partial to this thing, you know, we need to know
where this is going to stop, what's going to be left that's going to be problematic for the rest of it." Um, so I think we assess that when that's when we're approached for it. >> Well, yeah. I know there's no finding out what that X is going to be, but I just didn't want them to think it would
just be for the light because >> that I didn't want it to be miscommunicated now that we would be just doing the light bond and then nothing for the other half of the property. >> And cor correct me if I'm I'm wrong, Mr. Reed. I sort of had the impression that
AutoZone was looking to get some kind of confirmation that we'd be okay with this temporary arrangement in order for them to proceed, assuming that they may finish before that lighting is installed. Am I kind of on track with that? >> Yeah, correct. And really not just
AutoZone, but Starbucks as well. I mean, again, both of them are taking possession of Starbucks is doing the inter interior build of their building. Autozone will be starting soon with with the paving and grading and whatnot for their site. Neither wanted to start construction if they were worried that
by the time they finished if that permanent light's not in, which it won't be, that they wouldn't be able to open their stores basically. >> Okay, that that that makes sense. And that's kind of what I thought was going on. >> Yeah. >> So, I'm I'm confused though about So, Starbucks will finish probably in
February, so which will be before the auto zone. Um, so what is Starbucks going to need to do then to get their temporary CO? >> They're going to have to I I speaking for myself at this point. I haven't discussed it with the board. They're
going to have to provide us um with a workable site as u also confirmed by our review engineer. So >> what do you mean a workable site? >> Oh, workable site meaning that they can use their site with without having any interruption from any of the
construction. That's >> I got you. Okay. So, if you come out and their site is fully functional as a standalone unit, that should it's not like they're have to put up any kind of bond for the other part of it or >> Right. >> Okay. >> That's my take on it. I That's not the board because we haven't discussed it.
But >> well, at the last meeting, I specifically said uh Mr. made the comment that uh public safety wise that uh even if the asphalt and whatnot on the shared area people were going to be
using the drive-thru that on a and entering or exiting rather than onto Plymouth Street that uh they wouldn't be going from asphalt to dirt uh you know specifically the public safety issue of it if uh and again like you said if it
was under construction you know what uh means and measures are they going to take to uh ensure the public safety on that uh as far as the two lots separation during and prior to the auto zone opening.
>> Yeah, we we'd have to be convinced that the Starbucks standalone is a viable site >> and that should be fine. The way the lot splits is the full access is on Starbucks side >> and then also a bond on anything that needed to be done on the other half. Am
I that's that's you. >> Yeah, >> that's that's the part I'm not understanding. >> I know I keep reiterating it, but I think it's very important. >> Yeah. So, could you explain that part more? Well, if we're giving you a TCO, we need to make sure that like say for instance,
um there was un there was things left undone on the autozone part that would leave it un um that you couldn't go around the building or anything. We'd want a bond on the rest of that and a peer engineer to tell us what needed to be done in order to do that so that we
could have a bond also for that side because if it got left undone then we would need to figure out how it would be done. >> Does that fall under our jurisdiction as priv private property technically? I I know we're responsible for the the
lights, you know, that's public safety and stuff. how we allowed where would how would the town >> I've been in this industry for 15 years. I've never seen that before. >> Well, this is this is one entire site. So, this is a little bit unique because both buildings are on one site. Yeah, I
think not that I want to put words in Amy's mouth here, but I I I think what she's getting at is, and correct me if I'm wrong, is if there's anything left unfinished that would hinder the operation of the Starbucks store that
that needed to be completed um some assurance uh potentially in the form of a bond um to for the completion of that work. uh if if in fact you know say Autozone pulls out or fails to continue
with the site uh or something in that manner but I I think that's something we deal with at the time >> right but I just wanted everybody to be prepared for that because it's a TCO you know a TCO for a it's only one lot it's not two lot
>> right right it's one site that that that's that's the complication in this u but again we're not going to sign off if it isn't a function site um as standalone. So I I think we've got some control. >> When you say site, you just mean the asphalt, the water control.
>> Yeah. Right. Yeah. >> Not the actual building. >> Not the actual building, but a functional site for start >> like the whole thing. >> Correct. >> Outside. Yeah. I'm not talking about shelves or any of that stuff >> that the road's working, the drainage is working. Yeah. and nothing's going to be
problematic or being a problem being caused by the incompletion, if you will, of the Autozone site. [snorts] But I think we're going to have to assess that at the time. >> Yes, but just preparing that. That would be part of it.
>> Have we thoroughly confused you or are we >> No, I'm I'm I'm tracking that. That's okay. >> Okay. >> From the sounds of it, Mr. Agreed. It sounds like the Starbucks site, you guys will have a plan for that. Um, that will be totally functional. That's that part
of the property. So, this should be should be a non-issue. >> Yeah. No, I'm not concerned about that. >> Okay. >> All right. So, uh, >> how do we come up with the number for the bond if we don't have the, uh, >> well, we're going to Yeah. Who's going
to get it? >> Who's going to send it? >> Yeah. you're going to get us a total number including the cameras and whatever other items might be have knocked and included in that and then we'll take it up at the next meeting and come up with a number. >> And then we also have to talk about
expiration dates on the uh >> bond >> on the bond. >> Yeah. >> I I'm you talking about April maybe or May in terms of getting that equipment, but there's no guarantees of that. So, how long are you talking about writing that
bond for or having that bond written for? >> Yeah, I mean, I guess that's really a question for y'all, and I'm not sure in your jurisdiction how long these temporary cos last for. Um, yeah, I mean, we've ordered we we feel pretty good that um about the May time frame
and once it comes, it should be a pretty quick install, but we've all seen that the world can change quickly and things get pushed back months. So, um, yeah. I mean, how long how long would the temporary CO last for? >> Yeah. >> Cuz our bond would we just make probably
our bond that same length and then um >> Well, I should think even if if we we did it for a year, >> even if it was completed prior to the year in April, >> then you can you can follow cancel it. >> Yeah. But >> yeah,
>> so I would suggest putting it in for at least a year. Is that some I don't think that's >> Yeah, that that's that's the number I would pick too. >> Are you okay with that as well? >> Okay. All right. Just to give you a heads up on that end of it. >> So it be a one one or a total amount to
be determined. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And if an example just to cover it, if by chance, which we know is not going to happen, I'm just covering it at a year mark, the TCO would be removed and you'd have to stop business until it
was finished. >> Well, typically when you issue a TCO, you you put an expiration date on it. >> Okay. >> So, we can control that. >> Okay. I'm thinking, but I just want >> No, it's always good to bring it up.
Does I I think that covers it. Are you okay with uh where we're at with this? We're waiting on you for a number >> and then we'll uh >> hopefully before the next meeting and we'll put it on the agenda and uh come up with a plan. >> Yeah, we'll try to get that sent over to
you next week and uh go from there. >> Okay. Anybody else? >> Thanks everyone. >> The next December 4, just so you're aware. >> What was that? The next meeting's um December 4th. Just >> Okay. >> Okay.
>> So, we will add you to the agenda for December 4th. >> Sounds good. >> December 4th. >> Okay. In the discussion [clears throat] section here, we didn't we didn't add it. I just remembered that
um we had [clears throat] also discussed getting some information about the plan u the sign plans for 318 Plymouth Street. >> Um I want to follow up on that because I volunteered to do some research and and
I did some research. Um, I spoke with um, Silver Engineering to see if they may have taken all the signed copies of the plan when they came in that final night with the approval. Well, it turns out, according to um,
Larry Silva, the planning board at the time never signed any plans. um they voted and approved the site and issued a decision letter but for whatever reason the planning
board never signed any plans. So um I wasn't here and so I don't know what happened at that meeting and at least two other members were not involved in that. I can actually say say that if that is the case then that would
be that so that was on um May 10th 2023 and then the election happened and then we changed hands on everything at the next meeting. >> So whatever however it got dropped out >> through through a change and if that
>> the decision led us to the the operative document here. Um the question is u who's using or the most recent plan. [clears throat] Um I spoke with our review engineer who um sent over some
sheets. Um he's using the March 2023 plan. There were some revisions post that time. I don't believe they were necessarily planning board visions, but
the question is uh there were one was board of health um after speaking with the board of health. I'm not sure what the other revision was for unless it was another revision from board of health, but I think u one of the above may have that answer. Um the question is is
everybody using the same plan? Um, I I think so, but we're going to try to determine um exactly what it is. Um, our review engineer, Pat Brennan, it told me he was confident there he was using the
correct plan and he's also was doing the review work for conservation and board health or maybe not the board of health, but for conservation. So, I'm pretty confident that Pat's on top of what he's looking at. >> What was the date again?
>> Uh, it was March March 3rd, 2023. Anybody wants to look at the plan? >> We had um March 6th on the decision letter.
>> Uh, that might have been the date of the letter. >> No, we wrote it on May 10th, 2023. >> Okay. Well, it says date 36. >> Oh, okay. >> When I um talked to Pat Brennan on the
day after our last landing board meeting, he stated that they would use an April 17th, 2023 plan. >> That is the most revised plan. But [clears throat] >> why isn't that given to the planning board then?
>> Well, that is going to be like That's a communication breakdown within the town hall. >> Well, there was no admin at the time. Um I I don't know. I I I you know, I hate to keep saying I wasn't here, so I don't
know, but I wasn't here, so I don't know. >> But you said there were revisions on this to this. He said that there were revisions to this plan that probably would have been included then on the April set of plans. >> Yeah, it would have been. Yeah. Yes. If those were required by
uh the site plan review, Mr. Vernon and conservation and whomever. >> What we what we can do is ask Mr. Brennan to come to a meeting. >> Yeah. So the the only this date is 3323.
The next page is 41723s. Yeah. There must been change of 417. There's not a full set of plans >> on the same date. >> On the same date. >> Yes.
>> Yeah. He just sent the top page of the different dates, but it got a little confusing facilities. Um didn't look like any of the changes were significant. Um
I know one of them specifically was a septic issue. Um, I asked Pat if any of those altered any of the elevations or site. He said no. Um, I think the best way to handle it is to ask him to come in
and ask any questions anybody may have of him. >> Well, when I talked to him again the day after the planning board last meeting, there was a 2 to three foot difference. I talked to him yesterday and he he said
no, there was no impact. So that's why I'm saying let's have him come in and ask them so that we know everybody's on the same page, no pun intended here. >> How does it go from two or three feet to no change, you know,
>> or are we talking about the same thing? >> Well, that that's why I'm saying that maybe we need to have him come in so that we can ask them I'm sorry, >> Tom 340 Bloom Street. Um, I have a a
document here dated April 17th if you guys want to share. I've got a copy soon >> and uh it's uh from Silva Engineering and it's to the board members here uh in response to P uh PG
B Engineering letter dated April 3rd Silva Engineering has provided revised site plans dated April 17th revised drainage elevation dated April 17th and the following response
to the newly made comments. So in here uh the very first comment is the drainage design has been adjusted to mitigate the volume. This was accomplished by increasing the basic size and razing out the control devices.
Want to make sure that that that's actually being done. >> Yeah. Well, that's why >> I'm sorry I didn't mean to. That's why I'm suggesting that we ask our review engineer to come in and he can address this rather than speculating
we can find out exactly what's going on. >> That seems to me the only way to get accurate answers. >> Yeah. So according to this year, there are new plans that are dated April 17th. And if we have >> if those are May 6th,
>> documents, do we have a a document that shows that it was emailed or sent? >> Um >> because this is um it does it doesn't it it you know >> I think I got this from uh
from Mr. Silva. >> Yeah, I know. But it clearly cut how it was sent to us because we didn't get I don't remember getting that. I'd have to look through the file. >> Well, keep in mind we didn't have an admin, so I don't know who they would
have been sending it to >> rather. Sorry, >> Jamie. April what? >> 17th coincides with this >> which coincides with Mr. So, unless anybody has any objection, I'd like to just propose that we ask Mr. Silva to come to our next meeting. It's
possible um depending on his schedule and then we can ask the questions directly and find out exactly where we're at rather than just all speculating about things which we may not know anything about. And then there's another storm water
plan from June 18th, 2025, which was after everything. >> Again, this is this is why we want to get our guy in here. >> Yeah, but at this point, yeah, Mr. White's doing a lot of work up there >> and is it going to be too late?
>> Well, I when I talked to Pat yesterday, he said he's up there a lot and he's inspecting all the work. So again, we can ask him specifically if we have him here before us, but he he sounded pretty confident that he's been there and has
viewed the work. So I can only go by what he said, but I'd rather have him here in front of me where I can ask him, >> but I think it's going to be all done by them. >> Well, what what's the alternative? I I mean,
he indicated I mean was granted it was only to me. indicated to me that he is there and in the following the plane. >> I mean I'm not >> but there's a discrepancy in what plan is being used and what's right and and that's the problem and working for the
town of Halifax. We have to make sure that that doesn't >> So what are you suggesting that we try to get the enforcement officer to shut him down? I don't see that as a viable because I see the town just dealing another lawsuit. Um and I don't think that's a reasonable thing to do at this
point. a different way. If we don't and it was wrong, >> we're assuming that it's wrong. >> No, >> it's an assumption that it could be wrong. He's on the site. He's doing inspections. What I mean, that's what we're paying him for is to assure us
that and assure the town that >> that what >> that it's being done appropriately. >> Exactly. I mean, uh, yeah, that that would be the only solution to have him come to the meeting and assure us that yes, I'm on top of
this. Yes, it is in compliance. Yes, it is being followed. >> Cuz we could debate this for another hour. >> Exactly. Can kind of empty. >> Let's let's so Ian Pepper both come. >> Yeah. Both. Sure.
>> Sure. >> Could ask Mr. too for that matter. >> Yeah. >> And that way we know exactly what he was. Uh >> that's actually >> this is the plan that we're going by. And then we have everybody right here. >> See that makes sense to me. >> Alia 340 women's grade.
>> I have pictures of what's done today. the foundation board and I had a few questions and I came up to get a map of the plans, the signed
plans and I went to the town plur. I thought that's where I should go first. I went there and she said, "Well, she's not in and you'll have to go to see Danielle." I went down to see Danielle
and I said, "Could I have a copy of the signed plans for 318 Plymouth?" And she looked at me and she said, "They were lost and we're not looking for them."
And she said, "We you can get an approved map, but she said it'll take 12 days for me to give it to you." >> Okay. and we need a email address. And I said, I don't do email. I have an iPad,
but I don't do any email. And she said, then you'll have to go to the town administrator for permission to get it. So, I went down to the town administrator and he gave it to me.
And I have it. I also have pictures of the work that was done today. If you want to see them, you can see them. I have my iPad with me. >> Well, again, they're going to be meaningless to us,
unless we have our engineer here. And I think that's the only way the only reasonable way to proceed with this. But if there's anything that's not right with it, >> then they're not going to get any sign offs and they're not going to >> they're not going to tear the building down because the cement was just,
>> you know, I don't >> and all the all the um cement round things that for drainage is in there. >> Well, if they're wrong, they they're going to have to adjust them. That's all
there is to it. Uh, you know, I I I understand your frustration, but you know, at this point, we don't have enough cause to shut any work down. Uh, I think we need our engineer. We need to get his input. That's the only reasonable way to approach this thing in
my personal opinion. Uh, and I I like Jamie's suggestion that we invite Mr. Silver at the same time. I'm obviously new to the board and new to this site, but what are the issues that that you guys uh >> we're concerned with the drainage of
>> the drainage is the biggest the only thing is the drainage uh because if if we have um a letter we have comments here from um your engineer. >> Yeah. And we have multiple versions of
the plans that are floating around. Yeah. >> And we have nothing that's been approved by the planning board. Um we don't know which one they should be following. We don't know which ones they are following. We don't know which ones their engineer, the town's engineer is
following. And at the last meeting there was a roll call vote that that Mr. White and his engineer probably would be here and that got scrapped again. The only reasonable thing to do
at this moment is to ask both engineers and we can do that as early as Monday and and get some kind of a commitment for the fourth. Um, if we can get everybody in the room at the same time, we can get some answers for everybody. I would like to see the plan that you
>> Mrs. the point the foundation they built is for the first storage facility. >> Is that what today? >> But that's not the issue, right? Those have not changed. Those have never changed. It's just the drainage. >> No, it's just the drainage. >> Just the drainage. That's what we're concerned about. That's what we've been
working on for the past four and a half years on this project. >> Yeah. >> We've been here every meeting, >> right? Y >> and and it's just been thrown out the window. Absolutely. >> And when we say drainage, are we talking about the subsurface drainage or are we talking about surface
drainage? >> Um, well, it would be both because once it's surfaced, it becomes Yeah, but I'm talking about the the pipes if >> Oh, the the pipes are fine. I have no issues with the pipes. Uh, that's
another issue that we have a surface water coming down. But as far as the storage facility goes, uh just want to make sure that uh the drainage is heading towards the country club and
going in that direction and is not >> um altered in any way where the water may be coming towards 340 or 346 P Street. >> And if Mr. Brennan has recommended >> certain elevations and certain
requirements around that drainage. We want to make sure that that Mr. Brennan's using the right plan and making and not making certain assumptions that he is using the right plan. >> Well, and again, that's why we want to
>> that's all I want. >> Get everybody in the room at the same time and get it dashed out. These are all January of 2023 and um the finalized um like on any of the uh
besides the site that would be uh 36 2023 the this date the 3623 everything in here is January 20 2023 everything except for the A plan which
was done 8:30 2020. >> Those all came from that. So he's working with this. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Right. So they made updates. This is the original and the updates because
the page didn't leave the comments of the fourth. How however this whole plan with the decision letter is January of 2023 with the final date of 3623 right
there. >> But >> that's what she got a phone but she got from the town administrator and we don't know that that decision letter was tied to that. >> No, I put it in there. >> That's what I'm getting at. Yeah. So again, we can
>> speculate all we want until we get to the >> hangless thing to death and get nowhere. Yeah. >> Or we invite everybody and ask them with some sense of urgency. >> But with all due respect, that's what was done at the last meeting. >> Yeah. But I think it before we went that
far, I think I volunteered to go up there and find out and think. >> But you took a roll call. >> Yeah. I I I'm going to have to look at that. But in any event, it didn't happen, right? So, let's let's get it. Um, is everybody okay with that?
>> I'm a little concerned about um continuing on with um these because if it's up two or three feet from what it was without it, it first of all, it should have been a site plan modification. >> I'm not arguing with you. >> So, now these buildings are going to be
built on a a a surface that's either 2 to 3 ft up or down from what it was. and that could cause an issue. And um if correct me if I'm wrong, but you've lost all your apple trees in the past from something like this. And this is what
the problem is is that it keeps hurting their property. And that is what we are here for is to make sure that that's all happening. There should be a pause because number one, I think that it is knowledge of this board that the current owner didn't even have a copy of this
decision letter when he purchased the property. Is that correct? >> I don't know that. >> You should do. >> Yeah, >> cuz you were there. >> Yeah, he did. He didn't have a signed copy of the plans, but I >> No, he said he never Okay. >> I just didn't I just didn't know.
>> So, there we have an issue because that's why the trees that were supposed to be on the property. >> On which property? >> It says it right here that there the trees are supposed to be on >> on their property. on on the developer's property.
>> Correct. >> Right. >> Yeah. So, he didn't know all of that and that's why he thought he might have had an easement for trees on the property, which wasn't true. So, there's a lot of >> Well, actually, there was the the plan showed a temporary landscaping easement
that was not supposed to happen or never got executed. And I remember in any of it, >> yeah. Uh I I don't think we have enough to go on to put any kind of cease and desist another and all we can do is recommend to the to the zoning to the
enforcement officer that conditions haven't been met and you know to put a cease on it. I would be reluctant to do that. >> I would not >> well just a temporary one because >> well temporary is two weeks and at this time of year I I I personally have a
problem with that. I mean, we can put them on notice that we think there may be a problem and he can proceed at his own peril. Um, and we're going to resolve it at the next meeting. And I'm I'm not just meeting over guys, you know, jump in here. Whoever's calling
>> kind of confused. Where are we getting the two or three feet difference? Is that just somebody speculation or like >> that was >> that was from PGB um on the day after our last planning board. What? This this board?
>> Yeah. Remember our last meeting was on November 10th. On November 11th, I had a phone call in the morning to PGB Engineering and I jotted it all down. He said that they were using a plan that is not in this file here. He said that the plan had a difference
of 2 to three feet. >> Well, that could be the 17th plan that they're using. >> But why would they be using that when it's not in this packet? this packet here given by the town administrator and we don't have one in our own file because they were lost.
>> I I'm sure he just went and found something. I I doubt he was >> Yeah, that doesn't make any sense that why would he tell you today today? >> Well, this isn't that he's in compliance and he's been he's been on the site
doing inspections. It's not like, geez, I I I hope they're compliant. He's been there and have done multiple inst. >> So, let me ask the other question. What What is our authority to to shut down a site? >> We have no authority to shut down a site. >> All we can do is
>> I'm just passing some new and >> Yeah. All we can do is forward it to the enforcement office. >> Yes, sir. that there was a discrepancy and that we are recommending or we can send a recommendation to, you know, put a cease and desist on
it and then someone's going to have to decide if that's appropriate. And I'm sure that they wouldn't contact council anyway cuz I wouldn't do it without getting counsel. How could you put a cease and desist on something >> a temporary
>> and then decide whether or not they comply or not? I should certainly think that you would need to know to know from the our engineer again who were paying sums of money to represent the town who's been on inspections who who's
who's done the recommendations and and made the requirements that that they meet those those changes to say, "Okay, they're not complying, so we should shut them down." as opposed to shouting. That's like getting arrested
and then finding out if not they committed a committed a crime. You know, it doesn't really work that way. It should work the other way around. >> Yeah. But that still doesn't make any sense because the board didn't even know the correct plan
>> for a while. >> So, if it's not the correct plan, they're assuming that they're not complying with it. >> So, >> whatever it may be, it's an assumption. I'm saying find out whether they are or they are and then take the >> approach. It really calls on Mr. White's engineer to make sure that he has a a
signed up before he even built a shovel on that site and he never did. >> Well, how are they in compliance? I I don't get it. >> So, how do you know they are in? >> Because our inspector said he's been on the site inspecting it. So, you're saying he doesn't know what he's talking
about? Our own? >> No, he doesn't. because he doesn't know if he has the correct >> Well, he he set these plans and one of them was dated the 17th. >> His plan was different than these plans. >> Yeah, those original plans >> January,
>> March 3rd, 2023 when they updated something. Those other plans I just saw have a bunch of different revisions >> into April >> that were in quiet and I was on the board then, but it sounds like these are old and those ones are more current. the I
>> except for the fact that the reference to um it is in the plan um is is right in the decision letter which would be that plan >> the reference to what >> the reference in the decision letter is for the March 6 plan which is
>> because that's what was presented at the time of the approval. Now, the fact that they didn't come back for revisions is concerning, but again, I I I can't comment to him because I wasn't here, but I I I
>> Why can't Mr. White come in along with the two engineers? >> I think I said that. >> Yeah. >> I think that would be a great idea. And I'm [laughter] going to I'm going to ask, unless anybody wants to really kind of continue to talk about this, I'd like
to ask for a motion to invite the developer, his engineers, the site engineer, which actually isn't his engineer, which is interesting. Um, so specifically we should ask for Larry Silva uh and our engineer Pat Brennan to
attend an meeting and we can discuss the current plans and where we are with the project. >> So moved. >> I find it alarming that that that there's different plans. >> We we've got a motion. Let's get us if I can get a second, then we can discuss
it. >> I'll second. >> We now have a second. Now it's open for discussion. >> I think that it's a lot like a little bit nerve-wracking because there we don't know and if they needed a site plan
modification then it wasn't approved by the planning board. And that's why again site plan applications whenever you turn in a plan the whole set plans need to go to the town clerk. They need to be sent around to all the different boards. And if there are any other plans that came
in and they didn't go to us, then how did that happen? >> Well, >> and and so when we made the motion, it's right in that decision letter that states what date it was. And that that plan is March 6. So then any other revisions that came afterwards don't
exist as far as being approved and therefore they are automatically not using an approved plan. >> They don't have an approved plan. >> Why? >> Because nobody signed one. How do you know that >> we lost him? >> Well, according to the engineer, he said
they never sign. >> Maybe he doesn't work for the town and it >> you know what we're doing nothing but speculation. >> I just want to say one thing they have a bunch of say one thing and then so it's easily understandable this
letter is dated April 20th and the revision of the plans right there is April 17th. So they must have came before you with those April 17th plates. They has to if the meeting was out Thursday, >> it's March. But that's it seems like. >> And the other thing is even on the plans
that he showed us right there, the front page still has that 360, but the next plans all have the updated dates of March uh April 17th on those date, >> but not on the ones that we just got from the town office. >> Well, these ones
>> I'm saying there's a discrepancy. there's a discrepancy in that it could be a bit big issue. >> Well, what we can do is ask everyone to come in, decide what the most current plan is, and actually sign a plan so that we're working on a plan everybody
is approved. >> I think that's reasonable. Um I think if they don't come in by December 4th, we should then we'll get something start. >> Can we amend the motion that that would add that right to it?
at what rate to it? >> That if they don't come in on December 4th and we can't figure it out that that they have to stop working. >> We we can't we don't have the authority to make stop and we'll recommend recommend send a letter to the zoning enforcement officer.
>> You [clears throat] good with that? >> No. No, I'm not good with that. I think we should do it one step at a time. Let's not jump ahead and jump ahead and if and this and that. Let's start out with everybody getting here and then we'll take it from there. >> I agree with you. >> That's my move. >> We currently have a motion and a second.
Unless there's any more discussion on the motion, let's take a vote and see where we are where we're at with this. >> Roll call vote. Miss Troop. >> Um I'm still thinking. Can you move to somebody? >> Mr. Sylvester.
>> Uh yes. >> Mr. Walsh. No, >> Mr. Gainer. >> Yes, >> Mr. Millius. Yes, >> I'm also a no. >> And Mr. Trooper, >> but it's not because I don't want them to come in. It's just that I'm really
worried about how because first of all, they shouldn't have received any permit until the drainage was completed and it still has issues and it's not done. It's not done. >> Was that a condition? Yes. Yes.
Um, with >> what's the vote? >> The vote is in favor. >> All right, moving on. >> Hold on. The easement states maintenance and drainage inspections will be done twice a year. Hold on. The easement will be recorded at the Plymouth County
Registry of Deeds before any permits or work can be started. the hours of operation. So they have to be recorded at the Plymouth Registry before any permit or work can be started. Now just actually we shouldn't be talking about it anymore. However, just
for clarification, there are the storage facility itself and I confirmed um has a drainage easement that goes directly into the country club. There are two pipes in the drain sheman on the algen's property.
One of which is the drainage from the roadway that's being constructed and the other one is for the um detention area from Starbucks and the proposed auto zones >> and that's all and we have that before.
>> Yeah. Right. Ju just for clarification. Um okay, we're going to move on. We've got bills to do and meeting. Thank you very much. Thank you. I don't have the bill.
Um, I'll make a motion to pay a bill for the Express Newspaper for a subscription renewal in the amount of $35. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Moved and seconded to pay the invoice
from Express Newspapers for $35. We're going to take a roll call vote. Miss Troop, >> yes. >> Mr. Millius, myself, yes. Mr. Gainer, >> yes. Mr. Wall. >> Yes. >> Excuse me, Mr. Sylvester. >> Yes. >> Unanimous.
Um, meeting minutes. Has everyone had an opportunity to >> I have no items. So, >> make a motion to take the October 16th meeting minutes. Hold on. Is that correct? >> Yep. October 16th meeting minutes to the
uh December 4th meeting. I have a motion. Do I have a second? >> Second. Move the second to move the meeting minutes to the December 4th meeting. >> A roll call vote. Mr. Sylvester. >> Yes. >> Mr. Walsh. >> Uh, yes.
>> Mr. Gan, >> yes. >> M. Troop. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mill, myself. Yes. Okay. Unanimous. What else do we have here? Uh, >> communications. Um, we're going to check the signatures folder.
>> We also have a decision letter to look at. >> Final approval. >> Yep. Is this >> So, should we have a full set of plans instead of the smaller plan that we can sign because we can't sign those? >> No, we can't. Yeah, we going to have to ask. >> He said they were going to provide them. >> Yeah, he did.
>> Tonight. >> And I think those were the plans that he provided and they needed to be a full set. So >> how many copies or nine seven >> seven? >> Um >> no they require nine some ridiculous amount. >> Yeah. Um
>> it's for each >> and now you know that's so antiquated now because everything's going >> but we have to we need to update it. Yeah I agree. Um >> do we have a an expiration date for 500?
>> Okay. So, did we decide at the last meeting that we'd already have? >> No, we we did vote it. We just need to sign the letter, >> right? So, >> so we can put that up >> because we can't sign the letter until we have the plans when we're back at square one again.
>> Yeah. I mean, we shouldn't because then we don't get a set of plans. We don't get them signed and then when we do this, then they'll turn up missing. >> Yeah. >> And hold on. I know we had one revision on this. Hold on. removal of the I think that was it. Does anybody want
to look this up? Do you want to read it? I mean, we read it. You want to read it and write it again? >> Well, we didn't actually read it the record last time, right? >> Well, we had a revision last time, I believe. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Let's put it off till next meeting.
>> All right. So, um, should we say Danielle, we need a full set, nine copies. Um, so meaning four copies. We don't need >> Well, we need we need to at least say it because it's
>> We got a bunch. >> Well, that's not the full size. I know, but they need to also have the face on it that we can sign. >> Yeah, we need a signature product. Um, we're not for by say full sets. Well, yeah, that's
what I was just questioning myself. I agree. >> Full sets and well, but if we have um the table layouts and everything like that, so we need to have the full sets >> or that is set
full size. Is that really >> That's by law. >> It's the bylaw. >> Yeah, I don't know if it says full size set. Well, probably says what set >> um it on the pipeline application that we
used to use and I don't have that right in front of me to look at because we haven't used it in >> well we can ask for it just seems like a lot of paper for >> what number is that And >> I just forgot but I know
>> Oh, I'm sorry. That's the number you looking for. I could have told you that. I wasn't sure what you >> Okay. >> All right. So, we're done. Would >> you like a motion to adjourn? >> I certainly would like I'll make a motion to adjourn.
>> Second. moved to double seconding to roll call vote. Mr. Sylvester, >> yes. >> M Walsh, >> yes. >> Mr. Ger, >> yes. >> Mr. TR, >> yes. >> Mr. Millius, myself, yes. Thank you
everybody. Good night. >> Have a Have a good night y'all. [music]