Page 4 - planning-committee-packet

Ms. Gerthoffer asked about compliance with the Forest Conservation Act, in which Mr. Reister
acknowledged that the site’s designation was still pending but assured the Commission that his
company intended to fully comply with all regulations. He noted that the company, which handles site
clearing in-house, aimed to preserve existing trees where possible. However, he shared that much of the
current vegetation consisted of invasive or non-viable species, such as overgrown cherry trees and
misidentified catalpas. He added that the team was working with local forestry experts to determine
which trees could be retained. The site, he confirmed, was not considered lowland or wetlands, and the
stormwater plan was designed to follow the land’s natural contours, utilizing existing ditches and low-
lying areas. Overall, he said, the project would transform an overgrown, underused lot into a functional
and visually appealing space for the town.

Mr. Cosby asked if there was a possibility that the land supporting Phase 2 might be sold to another party,
to which Mr. Reister emphasized that the intention was to keep ownership in-house. He explained that
the project had been shaped by town planning feedback, such as moving buildings closer to the street
and placing parking behind, to improve aesthetics and create more private space. He reiterated that
Burley Building was not a landlord-driven company but a builder and community partner.

The Commission expressed strong conceptual support for the proposal, noting that it aligns with the
town’s goals for infill development and mixed-use zoning. Mr. Purnell praised the mixed-use elements of
the project, emphasizing its contribution to Berlin’s workforce housing and the inclusion of retail and
business spaces. Additionally, Mr. Cosby highlighted the design's visual appeal and its potential to
enhance the surrounding neighborhood.

Ms. Gerthoffer suggested adding bike racks to the project, noting they would improve accessibility for
employees without vehicles. Mr. Reister responded by saying the idea aligned with Burley Building
Company’s broader mission to make Berlin more livable and appealing to young tradespeople. He
explained that by investing in walkable infrastructure, the company hoped to attract and retain local
talent.

The Commission continued to express strong support for the project’s mixed-use and retail-forward
design, particularly its street-facing orientation, which they said would integrate well with nearby
businesses. However, Mr. Pfeffer requested more detailed visuals in the final site plan, including
elevations, materials, and color palettes. Mr. Reister acknowledged this need and explained that the
design for the front buildings was more developed than the rear, which still required refinement.
Turning to project phasing and financial feasibility, Mr. Reister reiterated that Phase 2 could not proceed
without the successful completion of Phase 1, due to high upfront costs. He stressed that the goal was
not to delay or eliminate Phase 2, but to fund it responsibly using equity generated in the first phase. He
also highlighted the community-first nature of the development, noting that keeping ownership local,
rather than involving outside corporate investors, was central to its value.

In response to concerns about interim site impact, Mr. Reister expressed willingness to implement
temporary measures during construction, including screening or planters to maintain visual appeal and
the use of temporary gravel parking to accommodate overflow and support nearby businesses. He said
these steps would help ease the transition between phases without placing undue pressure on the
project’s financial model.

3

8.13.25 PC Meeting Packet_pg. 4 of 78