 Okay, welcome all to the town of Wilson Development and Review Board for Tuesday, November 24th, 2020. First order of business is the remote public meeting notice to open the meeting. I peak Kelly is chair of the Wilson Development and Review Board find that this public body is authorized to meet electronically without a physical location due to the state of emergency declared by Governor Scott and Act 92 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic in accordance with the temporary amendments to the open meeting law. I confirm that one public access is available by video conference and telephone through zoom all members of the board in the public can communicate in real time during this meeting through zoom planning staff will provide zoom instructions for public participation before the hearings are opened to the publicly. Notice agenda, including zoom web address and phone number agendas material and zoom instructions are also provided on the town website. www.town.williston.vt.us click on public records and documents then agendas and minutes. Three, the public can alert us of a problem during the meeting. If anyone has a problem with access during the meeting, please use the raised hand feature or chat box and zoom or call Emily at 802-878-6704 extension three and leave a message for continuing the meeting if necessary. If zoom crashes or the public is unable to access this meeting, it will be continued to December 8, 2020. All votes taken at this meeting that are not unanimous will be done by roll call vote in accordance with the law. Let's start the meeting by taking a roll call attendance of DRB members participating in this meeting. First up Paul Christensen. Present. John Hemmelgarn. Here. Steve Landbrecht. Here. Scott Riley. Here. David Saladino. Here. David Turner. Here. Thank you. Before we start the formal agenda, I will hand the reins over to Emily if you can walk us through some pointers on how to use zoom that would be appreciated. There we go. Please keep yourself on mute when you're not talking. If you're calling in on a telephone that's the star six to mute and unmute star nine to raise your hand. If you would like to provide public comment, you'll have an opportunity to do so. You can press the star nine button or use the chat box. The chat box is on the toolbar and the raise hand button is on the participant section of the toolbar. Tonight we're going to do a lot of screen sharing where we'll be sharing the staff reports will be a side by side view of the document and everybody's video feed. You'll see a green toolbar. You can click view options and toggle between the two to for your preferred view. If you have a bad internet connection, you can turn off your video. You can close other internet tabs or phone apps to help. There's also a little arrow next to your microphone symbol where you can merge your telephone as your speaker and microphone. Thank you. Thanks Emily. I'm going to start with a short order of business. Tonight's agenda is a public forum. It's an opportunity for members of the public to raise any issues or have a forum for a public discussion on topics that are not on the agenda. I'm going to open it up to the audience. Is there anyone who would like to participate in a public forum again of items that are not on the agenda for tonight? Any raised hands, Emily? No raised hands, no chat. Okay. Okay, so we'll go into the public hearing portion of tonight's meeting. There are four items on the agenda. DP 21-01 is the Williston Federated Church, an administrative permit for a fire escape and windows. There's also DP 21-06, Adams Real Property, LLC, requesting a discretionary permit for a change of use. DP 21-07, Whitney Fellows, care of Trudell Consulting Engineers, requesting a discretionary permit for a boundary line adjustment. And the last item is DP 09-01.20. The Snyder FC Commercial Properties, LLC, and Riley Properties, LLC, looking to amend a master sign plan. So first order of business is HP 21-01, the Williston Federated Church. Who has that one from staff? That is me. So this is a request for a certificate of appropriateness to construct a fire escape and add windows on the eastern end of the fellowship hall. The applicant is also adding finished space inside for a daycare. This is a permanent activity that does not require discretionary review, only the exterior changes. Here's a street view from Williston Road. This is the fellowship hall of the Federated Church. And the facade we're talking about tonight is hidden from public view behind the historic yellow house. Staff is recommending approval as proposed. This fellowship hall was built about 25 years ago. It's not historic. No signs are proposed. The escape will be offset from the building about 12 to 16 inches. So when you look at the elevations that are included, it looks like it's right up against the building. But the size view here, it's offset from the building. It's going to be a wooden fire escape. The railings and posts I think will be painted white. The stair tread will be stained or put with an anti-slip surface. It'll probably be painted in a year. Pressure treated wood needs some time to cure. Staff is recommending approval. The only recommendations the hack made were to paint the posts and railings white and showing the stairs going in the same direction. The stairs are made from the second floor to the parking lot to the north. Okay. Is that it Emily? Yes. Yes. Okay. I neglected to ask the applicant who was present on representing the applicant. And if you would identify yourself and provide your address for the record please that would be appreciated. I think Mr. Mr. Lam is with us. I'm Tony Lam. I'm the chair of the board of trustees, which is responsible for the building. My home address is 24 BB Lane in Williston. The church's address is 44 North Wilson Road. Thank you. Are you, are you the sole representative for the applicant tonight, Tony? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Do you have anything to add or any comments to add to Emily's report? No, I think she summarized it very well. It's a pretty straightforward project. Okay, thank you. I would agree. DRB members. Are there any DRB members that have any comments or questions for the applicant? The only question I have is the roof material for the walkway. It will be shingled. Okay. And the shingles will match the roughly match the shingles on the existing building. I think there are light gray. Okay. I have one question. Question is the, those would qualify for fire escapes in Vermont. That's the only question. So this is my understanding is that it does the engineer who designed it. My assumption is easy, but it's also this also goes to the fire marshal for his approval. So, okay, that's on you know just want to make sure that we're not approving something that it's going to get hammered. Wow. Well, so, so as a point of clarification, this body does not assess the project for code. That is, is a separate separate bodies that do that the fire marshal in this particular case would be involved. And so we, we don't have any purview on that. Any other questions. None for me, Scott. Sorry, Pete. No, no worries. Okay. Everybody else. Everybody else. This one. Well, this is a good one to start out with. We're on. We're on pace for Thanksgiving record. I'm going to close HP 21 dash 01 at 712. Tony, thank you for coming. All right, next up is DP 21 dash 06 Adams real property. Is who is here from representing the applicant. Jason Adams is here properties. Hey Jason. Your address please. 207 Boyer circle will listen. Thank you. My name is Lloyd Squires. 362. Anyone else. Representing applicant. No. No, just you two. Okay. Thank you. Who, who has this one from staff. I've got this one as well. Okay. Emily take it away please. This is a request for discretionary permit to establish an accessory eating place and outdoor seating area. At 31 Adams drive. The primary use will be wholesale food manufacturing. The property is currently developed as three buildings parking and related to pertinences. Seven to 31 Adams drive is a multi tenant building facing the city. This property is located in the industrial zoning district. The current uses industrial. It has a curb cut onto route to a state highway. It is in the design review district. However, given the very minor nature of this project, it did not go to the hack for review. Tonight we're recommending that you take testimony and close the hearing. Deliberate and make a decision. We're recommending that you review, review and review the properties and conditions as written. The DRB should review and discuss and. Trip facilities. Project history. This is the first time the DRB is. Reviewing this request. There's been a couple minor changes made to the property since it was developed in the 1980s. 1985. Police or public works and fire commented. Police did not. address things about lockboxes, sprinkler, connection, and mailbox markings. No comment letters from the public were received at mail out, nor have I received any to date. This property is located in the industrial zoning district. There are a couple uses proposed that are all allowed. The primary uses are food manufacturing and catering. The eating place is accessory to those other uses, and we'll get to that below. There are a couple other uses on the property, automotive repair, paint store, and roofing supply. Those are also allowed in this district. No new buildings or parking areas are proposed. There is an outdoor seating area that will comply with setbacks. Outdoor sales and storage are allowed in this district, but only were approved on a site plan. If the applicant would like outdoor storage for this use, it must be located to the side or rear of the building. Accessory and temporary uses and structures. In the industrial zoning district, food and beverage sales and eating places are only allowed when accessory to manufacturing, and they're only allowed with a limit on the floor area. In this case, 30% of the overall floor area, so 4,800 square feet is the total tenancy, which yields about 1,400 square feet of space. Their actual seating area and food area is a little smaller at 1,150 square feet, and then the maximum allowable size for the seating area is 500 square feet. They comply here and we're proposing a standard condition of approval. No changes to access are proposed. This property served by a single curb cut onto route two. It's also shared with the neighboring driveway or the neighboring property. Off street parking and loading. No new spaces are proposed. The building has 82 existing parking spaces. The applicant did a really good job of including a parking table and basically did our homework for the vehicle parking spaces and bicycle parking spaces, which do comply. Our calculation 62 would be required today, but 82 is existing on this multi-tenant commercial site where industrial uses, the number of parking spaces needed may vary. Based on the number of bicycle parking spaces needed, however, there would be the requirement for an end-of-trip facility, which is a shower and a changing area for staff. The floor plan is showing an 8x88 bathroom and it does not include a shower. The DRB does have the authority to correct nonconformities. Therefore, staff finds that requesting a shower and a tenant fit up is a reasonably proportional correction of nonconformity and a condition of approval requiring an end-of-trip facility is included below. Design review. Properties of frontage on Williston Road in the Stoning District are subject to design review. The only changes that are being made are adding mechanical ventilation and exhaust on the east side of the building, a wood fired oven chimney going out through the roof and the outdoor seating area. As you can see in this photo, the existing landscaping, the trees break up the view of that east facade. And the outdoor seating area will not be serving alcohol, so there's not going to be any fencing, DLC fencing that would be subject to design review. As you can see in the highlights in yellow, only minor mechanical is being added to the side of the building. Landscaping, no changes are proposed and none are required for this type of project. Similarly with street trees, the front yard does have landscaping, and we're not recommending that it be enhanced at this time given the scale and intensity of what's being proposed, which is essentially a change of use. Special flood hazard areas. There are some on the site associated with the moneybrook. However, they're not applicable because there's a slope that drops off to the brook. Similarly with watershed health, there is 150 foot buffer on the property to the moneybrook. There's some minor amounts of impervious surface existing from the original development within that buffer, but no further expansions or encroachment into the buffer are proposed. After lighting, no changes are proposed, and there is a threshold in the bylaw where eight luminaries can be approved administratively. No changes to the master sign plan are proposed. This property does have a fairly recently updated master sign plan. School and impact fees do not apply. Transportation impact fees are assessed by the zoning administrator at administrative permit time. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Emily. Jason, I'm going to turn it over to you to make comments and I would to anything that you would like to add to what Emily just provided in the staff report. And in your comments, please, I would like you to specifically address proposed condition of approval number eight. And in the, as it relates to end of trip facility and what your thoughts are on that. So with that, I will turn it over to you, please. Is the screen might be frozen. Okay, he just dropped off. Oh, did we've got to have visibility of him? Yeah, I lost him on my, I lost him on my feed. Oh, is he off the line? Okay, he's probably readbook. Does anybody have a cell phone number for him? We should. Matt, can you find a cell phone? Oh, I heard somebody just drop off. Yeah, he just dropped off on my screen. So he'll probably log back in just below patient here. There we go. All right, can you guys hear us? Yeah, did you hear anything I said? No, you're going to have to, you're going to have to start again. So I basically, it's probably my fault. I've worked by myself. So believe it or not, this is my first zoom meeting. So my only other comments were that just to note that the, because the building is so far set back from Williston Road and there is kind of a parent wall there. That the wood fire chimney will not be visible from Williston Road at the road level. And if there are any further questions would kind of be operation. I have Lloyd here so he can help answer those. Okay, Jason, could you please address proposed condition of approval number eight? We've proposed in our draft condition of approval that you add an end of trip facility. Do you have any pushback on that condition? No, I'm not sure how much it'll get used. I guess my only question would be could the shower and changing room be located not within a bathroom? Could there be a separate little room just with a shower in an area to change? I see I see Matt and Emily nodding. So the answer to that and John Hemmelgard is nodding our resident architect. So the answer to that is yes. Okay, so I'm fine with the robust. I don't know if it'll be within that eight by bathroom or might be located in that general area. Okay, okay. Yeah, the interior location, it can be wherever it makes sense. So long as it's like a shower and changing area for employees to use. Okay, let me just add that in a multi-tenant building like this, it could be someplace else in the building too, correct? That is correct. That way it could be available for other people in the building, Jason, so that if you came back in the future, you wouldn't have to add another changing end of trip facility. Okay, yeah, we don't have any common space in this building. So I guess I'll probably just start. Well, hopefully there's not a lot of turnover there. So I won't be start picking away at it. But as things are, I'll just keep adding showers, I guess. Right, okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you all. So with that, I'll turn it over to the board for any questions or comments. I'm curious, the outdoor dining area, what are you thinking for surface treatment for that area? What you really felt on that? Keeping the grass, maybe like the pavers? I think something like pavers, you would probably do. Mm-hmm, mm-hmm. And nothing, no landscaping or fence around it. So just kind of the flat pavers there. Yeah, yeah. Again, we're not serving alcohol. So I think the regulations and requirements are not very strict as far as that. Mm-hmm. Just thinking from a customer's perspective, they may want some kind of screening between the parking lot and the dining. But that's more business decision, not really a DRB decision, but. Okay. So Dave Turner here, I have just one question. You're going to be doing wholesale or retail? Or both? So the primary business is wholesale bagels, which is why the space is so large relative to I'm thinking the average bagel place. Mm-hmm. And Lloyd's previous business, he did wholesale bagels, so he's pretty familiar with that market. Okay. I have a 900 clientele for mail order customer all over the country. And I just got into an agreement with a bagel club out of Florida that I'll be making their bagels and shipping it to all their bagel club customers by every month. They'll be regular. They give their credit card and we supply the bagels for the company in Florida, which is headquarters out of Montreal. So they think they're getting a Montreal bagel from Montreal, but they're getting a Montreal bagel from Vermont. Vermont would be better anyways. Well, I've been here now for since 96, I've made about 40 million bagels in my life by hand. And hopefully we'll make another couple million this year, couple more million next year than this year. I guess you can mail order anything. Oh, the guy that has that bagel club company has a cheese club company, a shoe company, where you get shoes from Portugal or something and he brings them here and he sells them by, he does give your credit card. You say, I want a new car every four weeks or five weeks. And they send it to you automatically. That's the idea with the bagel club. Once you sign up, you say what your regularity wants to be like every three weeks you want 2000 bagels and we automatically make them and send them out. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? The seating outside, do you guys have a preference in tables or picnic tables or round tables, the preference for you guys like or? I think that's I think that's in the furnishings category. I think that's a business decision. Okay, from a DRB standpoint. No, if you ask each of us personally, we might have an opinion for you, but it probably cost you a couple of bagels. I'll take some opinions all the time. Yeah, I know. I'll make everybody happy. No, I just don't. I don't think that's part of our our preview here. Yeah. Yeah, we're going to pass on that. I think that's a personal preference to John's point. To circle back on this, the screening, which was kind of said, it's not really a DRB decision, but yes, down the road, there's been feedback that people want to see that. Is it something that we would go back to the DRB for? And if so, can you give us any if you have any preferences or any what you've done in the past with other places so we can be prepared for that? Emily, can you feel that, Emily or Matt? Yeah, I think a little screening landscaping around the seating area wouldn't be a requirement of our bylaw. So that could be done without even without a permit. If next summer you guys want to throw some things in, go for it. Okay, thank you. Okay, any other questions from the DRB or the applicant? What else is that? I'm good. Okay. Everybody good? Also. Okay. Thank you. So we're going to close DP 21-06 at 731. Thank you for coming. Thank you all. Next up, DP 21-07 Whitney Fellows and represented by Trudell Consulting Engineers, a discretionary program for a boundary line adjustment for a parcel law from North Williston Road. Who is present from the applicant? If you could state your name and your, the business please. Yeah, I'm Abby Dairy from Trudell Consulting Engineers. We're at 478 Blair Park Road in Williston. Thank you. And this is Whitney Fellows from 146 North Williston Road. All right, good evening. Okay, who's got this one from staff? I'll be taking this one, Pete. Okay, thank you, Matt. Share my screen and take you through the staff report. Bonnie or Emily, could you give me screen sharing ability? You are co-host Matt, you should be good to go, I think. Yep, got it, thank you. Okay, so this is an application for a boundary line adjustment in the residential zoning district. Many boundary line adjustments in Williston are approvable administratively, but when enough land is passing from one parcel to another, such that that land area is subdividable, our by-law requires boundary line adjustments to be reviewed by the DRB. The nature of a boundary line adjustment is that you are beginning and ending with the same number of lots and the same number of potential dwelling units. So this is a one-stop discretionary permit. No growth management is required, no pre-application is required. The subject property is 146 North Williston Road, accessed off of Lefebvre Lane and the proposal will move the acreage under my cursor over here. Establish this new boundary line across here and provide this rear area of the lot with access to Lefebvre Lane. The proposed purpose here is for the construction of a single family home accessed from Lefebvre Lane and connected to town water and sewer in that area. Head on down to the procedure tonight. Our recommended action for you tonight is that you take testimony and close the hearing, deliberate this evening and make a decision. The staff's recommended decision for this boundary line adjustment is for approval. We did receive, oh, sorry, this is the first time the DRB is reviewing this proposed boundary line adjustment. We did receive comment from public works and fire. The fire department commented to note their driveway signage and addressing requirements so they could find the house and public works did request a pre-construction meeting related to stormwater and the establishment of appropriate erosion control measures before construction begins. And also noted the requirement at the time of permitting for the payment of water and sewer connection fees. We did not receive any public comment letters at the time of the mail out on November 19th. And staff, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't believe we've received any comment about this proposal since then. So the lot that's being created by this boundary line adjustment actually both lots comply with the standards for frontage, safe access, and required land area for the zoning districts. 1.9 acres of land is being transferred from one parcel to the other. So the existing house at 146 North Williston Road, the lot that that house stands on will decrease in size from three acres down to 1.1 acres, retaining that existing home and driveway. And lot two will increase in size to 4.3 acres and have a new driveway access off from Wafave Lane. You will note on the plat, there's a driveway turnaround and a shed on the existing lot. And the shed, I believe, is proposed to be relocated to meet town setbacks on that lot when the property line is shifted. So staff has prepared, recommended, find back the law and conditions of approval for the DRB's review. We are recommending approval with conditions at this time, and I will stop there. And I will stop sharing my screen. Okay. Thank you, Matt. Okay. First order of business for Abby and Whitney. On the proposed conditions of approval. Do you have any concerns with any of the proposed conditions? I don't. No. No. Okay. Okay. But what do you, what do you have to add to augment? Matt's. Staff report. I personally don't have anything to add. I'm going to defer to Abby's expertise up to this point. So I don't know if she has anything to add to what Matt said. I really don't. I mean, it's a boundary line adjustment. So I don't know if she has anything to add to that. But I think we're going to have to, we're going to have to wait from one of the lots to, to a different lot for the purpose of a single family home development. You know, all of the conditions look acceptable. We'll, we are in the process of applying for a wetland impact permit to put the driveway in. And that will be secured prior to submitting for administrative permit. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Present on today's. Call that would like to speak on this application. No chats and no raised hands. Okay. Thank you, Emily. DRB members. Any questions? No questions. No questions. No question for me either. Okay. Last, last call for questions. Okay. Next up. The DRB members. None here. Okay. Okay. Hearing none. The DRB is going to close DP 21 dash 07. At seven 39. Thank you, Abby and Whitney for coming. Thanks for your time. Happy Thanksgiving. Okay. Next up. Next up, DP09-01.20. This is for the Snyder FC commercial properties LLC and Riley properties LLC for a master sign plan amendment. Mr. Riley, are you recusing yourself from this one? Yes, sir. I am recusing myself from the hearing. I do have a financial interest in the project. Okay, thank you. Who is representing the applicant at tonight's hearing? I am Chris Snyder and Andy Rowe is here and Joe Weave is also available. Hi, Joe. Hi, Joe. Okay, Chris, if you could give your address for the record, please. Yep, Chris Snyder, Snyder Homes or Snyder FC commercial properties at 4076 Shelburne Rd, Suite 6, Shelburne. Thank you, Andy. If you would do the same, please. Andy Rowe, Lamar Owen Dickinson, 14 Morris Tribe Essex. Joe. Joe Weith, Whitenberg Real Estate Advisors, 40 College Street, Burlington. Okay, welcome all. Who has this one from staff? I'll be taking this one, Pete. I will go ahead and share my screen and get started. This is an application for discretionary permit to amend an existing master sign plan as part of the Finney Crossing commercial development. And the request for the amendments is to accommodate signage on the new building J containing healthy living. At the time that healthy living occupied the building, the tenant had installed some window signage that was not covered by the July 2020 approved master sign plan for the project. Some of that signage has an area beyond the normal size and window coverage limits in chapter 25 of the bylaw and could only be approved through an amendment to our new master sign plan. As zoning administrator, I did issue a temporary certificate of compliance for the building, allowing them to move forward with occupancy, but pending resolution of the permitting of the additional signage. So the zoning administrator position on this is that either the additional signage needs to be permitted through an amended master sign plan for the temporary certificate to be replaced by a permanent one or it would have to come down or some modification be made. So tonight, what we're recommending is that the DRB take testimony and close the hearing, deliberate. And I've just picked other in the decision category for tonight because I think it's worth the DRB doing a little bit of deliberating and sort of exploring this both in their open and deliberative sessions in terms of the applicability of the vision language in the Williston comprehensive plan and in the zoning bylaw as it relates to larger and more numerous signs that can be permitted under a master sign plan, i.e. the special findings we always talk about and I'll go into that. Finney crossing has a long approval history and Finney crossing commercial, including building J has a history going back to 2017. The amendment to the master sign plan for the signage at building J was just approved this summer. We did receive comment memos or sorry, a comment memo from the fire department only to note that they had no comment. We did not receive comment from public works being master sign plan. And at the time of our mail out, we had not received any public comment on this application. So the first part of a master sign plan is making sure that site-wide on Finney crossing, the total of all of the signage on the sites, this includes the bank building, the hotel building as well as building J does not exceed the 8% maximum possible signage for the site. And that's 8% of one street facing frontage of each building on the site. So in order to accommodate these additional signs, the applicant is proposing some changes to the existing master sign plan, removing approvals for some of the previously approved signs to make room within that 8% cap for the additional window signage at Healthy Living. So there's some banners on light poles that were proposed for the hotel that go away. And there's a proposal that the sandwich boards, five sandwich boards go away at building J. So what I really would like to talk to the DRB about is what that town plan language says. And really I think focusing on the very large Apple logo sign that faces route two. And as the DRB, are you willing to make findings that that sign is in compliance with the language I've quoted in italics here in the staff report as it relates to the language in the town plan. That's really what it's all about. If you can make those findings, you can approve these signs. If you can't, you might need to think about what you could approve. So that's where we're at. And as I said, in the procedural notes, the only reason I suggest other in terms of whether I'm recommending approval or not, it really just hinges on being able to make this determination about the compliance of those signs with the language in the town plan and in the bylaw. And I have included in the findings all of the fee crossing commercial signs. And I just wanna bring that up to show the proposed removals and sort of trades that would accommodate the existing area. So this is a list of all of the approved signs, the maximum approved sides, sizes in the far right hand column here. And I'm noting here the removal of the sandwich boards and the decrease in the light pole signs in the hotel parking lot that would accommodate this and keep it under the maximum 8%. So there are also some particulars we, you may wanna ask me about in terms of the calculation of what of the window signage at Healthy Living is a sign and what is not. We generally concur with the applicant's assertion that the corporate logo signage, so both the red and green apple facing the north side of the building, facing the south side of the building, as well as the monochrome Healthy Living Apple logo that's in those other windows that face root two would count towards sign area, but that the other elements on those windows that are just sort of decorative and really arguably carry no commercial message would not be included in the sign area or window coverage limitations as part of the master sign plan. So I will stop there and stop sharing my screen. We can talk about it. Okay, thank you, Matt. So I wanna be upfront with the applicant that there's a possibility that I'm gonna continue this to the December 8th meeting. And the reason for that possibility is out of respect for you, the applicant who has been a great developer in Williston and done great things at Finney Crossing. And I don't wanna get into a situation where we go into deliberations and we don't approve your proposed master sign plan amendment and because we've closed the hearing if it would force you to go back to the, you know, back to the start over again, back to the starting line. And I don't wanna do that. But I also wanna be clear that there are some things that we're gonna be talking about in the deliberative session that may, that may want, I just wanna have that flexibility. So I'm tossing that out there in the beginning of this discussion in the spirit of transparency. And so with that, I will turn it over to the applicant to add anything that you would like to to Matt's staff report. Thank you very much for your time. And Pete, I appreciate the upfront discussion and the perspective on this application and realize that there are other things at play here just outside of our specific application because I realize that there are comprehensive plans sort of implications or sign plan implications. Obviously, I'm gonna actually have Joe speak more about the specific request. I think the one piece is that we would like to find a way to come to some resolution because we do have some other tenants that we need to figure out their signage plans as well. And so if we could have some direction as to where the DRP is going, I know that's hard but even not necessarily during the discussion but even tomorrow or something after deliberations that would be good because we do have another application that's currently pending. That's following the current master sign plan approval that was done in July. But with related to this specific application, I mean, Joe, do you wanna speak a little bit about what has taken place and what the specific request is? Sure, so Eli Lesser Goldsmith, the president CEO wasn't able to make the meeting tonight. So he asked me to fill in and speak on his behalf. But I'd like to maybe just say a few words about kind of how the design of this store, including the design of the signs has evolved and also maybe just say a few words on how we believe that what's being proposed tonight complies with the regulations in the town. I don't know how much Eli has shared with the board in previous meetings but the Williston store is actually kind of a brand new concept for a healthy living. It's a much smaller store than their two other stores, the one on Dorsey Street in South Burlington and their Saratoga store. And their plan, I don't know if he shared this with you but their plan is to roll out this concept and grow their brand, not only throughout Vermont but into other states in the Northeast. And so this is the very first store of that plan to expand and they had to come up with a new design for the store that not only worked operationally on a smaller scale but they also wanted to come up with a design concept that really reflected and promoted their design their brand image of providing high quality, healthy, environmentally friendly foods and other types of products in their stores. So this whole design process has been a work in progress over the last couple of years since ever since we first signed a lease with Scott and Chris. And my understanding is that the recommendation and the decision from the designers to go forward with this window sign concept of their logo, their Apple logo came very late in the process. So after the original master plan got approved and for whatever reason, Eli never registered with him that that would be considered a sign and that he really should have come back and gotten the master plan approval amended. So, but he understands that now and he's very appreciative of the town staff. Their willingness to issue the temporary CEO and give him an opportunity to come forward and try to amend the master sign approval and be in compliance with the regulations. So it's been a work in progress. It's a brand new design. Not only did healthy living wanna try and come up with a design that worked operationally for them, but again, they wanted to come up with something that really promoted their brand image of good quality and healthy foods. And some of the design elements that came out of that, you see in the building today with the use of some higher quality materials like the stone around the two entrances, the kind of the artistic or more interesting swooping canopy that you have over both entrances. And then finally, another recommendation that came from the designers was to add this kind of artistic logo to the large window area over both of the entrances. And we realize that it is their logo. So there's definitely an advertising component to adding that window sign. But we also see it as a design element that in our opinion, and we hope you agree that we believe enhances the overall design aesthetic of the building and the project. We think it adds some artistic interest and also kind of an element of fun to that large area of glass that surrounds both of the entrances, which we think will be attractive to the community and hopefully invite them into the store more. And then again, we just think it helps to promote the overall goal of promoting their image of healthy, high quality, environmentally friendly foods and products. So we see it as more of just another sign. We see it as really just an enhancement of the overall design of the building and the project. So we would say, so in our opinion, because it meets all of those goals, we would say that it does indeed promote the town's goals of, I'm just gonna read them here, of promoting market appeal for development and also promoting long-term community values. We see it as offering, again, from the design perspective, offering positive contributions to the economy of the town and also to just enhancing community life. So we believe that it fits in really well with the design of the building and we hope you agree. Great. Thank you, Joe. It's a beautiful building. It's a beautiful design. It's a great enhancement to Wilston and kudos to all involved on the project. I think that from my perspective, one of the things or a couple of points that I would like the DRB to engage in some dialogue on right now is, one, is it realistic with unknown tenants coming in to strike all of the portable signs, the sandwich boards, which we see used frequently in businesses like healthy living and what would likely be tenants in the other spaces in this building. And I have some concern about how realistic that is. And if the zoning administrator, Matt, is going to end up driving by there every day looking for these portable signs and sandwich boards and then being the bad guy to remind everyone of the elimination of those in the master sign plan. So that's one concern that I have. And then the other concern that I have that I wanna have open and transparent dialogue about is I think healthy living is absolutely a feel good a feel good business. I think that almost, I don't wanna speak for everybody, but I think I would think that it's likely that people would embrace the core values of healthy living and what it promotes in the Wilston community kind of what Joe was saying. I think that's motherhood and apple pie. I think that's a good thing. But what happens when another business comes in that doesn't have quite the same connection to the community but is maybe close. And it's something that, and they're asking for something similar. And we've set this as a precedent. So I wanna have open discussion and dialogue with this group about those two topics that I just raised and anything else that you might have. So with that, I'll turn it over to the DRB for questions, please. Pete, I've got a number of things I'd like to add to what you started there. I agree with you on both points and I would share concerns on both of those points from my perspective as well. In addition, I would also, well, I see here is we have a couple of questions here. One is the appropriateness of that, what I would call an oversize sign that's at the main entrance there. And whether that's, you know, approvable and meets the criteria here. The other thing that I'm looking at is how this changes the mix of the proposed signage on the site and whether that sign is more important to have than the ones that we're getting rid of, which I think ties into your sandwich board question, which I also had, but also the banner signs. I think in terms of making a positive contribution to Wilson's landscape, community life, et cetera, I think that the comprehensive design that we've got going for this site is a huge benefit. It's something that's been promoted from the beginning. And I think those banner signs are things that we all appreciated when they came through. It's something that ties multiple facets of that site together. And personally, I'm gonna, I would miss them if they were removed from the project. So I'm gonna be in a position of trying to decide whether, you know, the sign on the door is more important than the signs hanging from the banners. Joe, I think you make a good argument about that sign. I don't disagree with you. I personally, I like that sign. I don't have a problem with it. The one question I would make, Pete, and this is also to Matt, I think, is the third sign that's being identified here. I know it's a lot smaller, but I think you call it the monochromatic sign. I guess I would actually put out there that I'm not convinced that that's a sign. You know, the signs, the red and green signs that are there, absolutely. Those are the colors of the business. Those are identified, I think, in a lot of places as healthy living. I walked by there the other morning. I had to kind of squint and look before I found it. It's more like where's Waldo than a sign, I think. And therefore, I don't think that's really meant to be a kind of an out there. This is healthy living and you know it because this little green apple is hidden with all the other similarly scaled and similarly colored images in that window. It's probably not a big deal. It's only, I think, 14 square feet, but it might be enough to save a couple banners here. So I guess the last thing I would say is that I appreciate the application here. I appreciate you guys coming in and talking to us about this. I understand how this came about, I believe you. I don't think this board is in a position to be punitive on this, but I want you to understand that the fact that those signs are already in place really should have no bearing on our decision here. That the fact that they're already there doesn't get you any credit. We're gonna need to deliberate this as if they weren't here and you were asking for approval in advance. I guess those are my comments, Pete. Okay, thank you, John. Before I turn it back over to the applicant, I'd like to hear from other DRV members and get their perspective so that the applicant can speak to any and all issues that are raised by DRV members. So with that, other DRV members, do you have any questions concerned? Dave Turner here. I can't remember what the previous master sign plan looked like and I'm just trying to recall if there was any signage in that area at all before because it seems like it would have been a logical place to have a sign above the door or in the doorway. Is there an opportunity to show us what was previously approved? I think you're muted. Yes, if I can get screen sharing, I can put up the previously approved or the currently approved plan. Right. I don't think I can do that. I don't know if Emily can as the main host. I can also just describe it too. I mean, I've got the plan that's available to share but on the set- You have co-hosts available, you know. I'm gonna bring it up guys, I've got it here. Great. Thanks, Matt. So I'll try to get the building JL of A. So just while he's bringing those up, there was no window signs proposed on the south side and on the north side where the window sign is currently proposed. There was a sign proposed there and then it got moved and became a wall sign. It got moved away from the entrance to the location that's shown on this currently approved plan. But there was not any window signs proposed on the south side facing Willison Road. Okay. Any answers to my question? Okay. Thank you, Dave. Other DRB members. Just that I was just, I'm feeling maybe thick tonight or something. It's not quite getting in registering for me. The apples, the apple, the large apple facing, you know, facing route two, what in particular is non-conforming about that? Is it the fact that it's over 25% of the window area? Is that the threshold that's being exceeded? Correct, David. So normally there's a percentage of window area or window that can be covered by a window sign. Signs in Willison are measured by the area of the smallest regular shape that can be drawn around them. So you have to draw 160 square foot rectangle around that apple to get its size. And, you know, I don't have the staff report in front of me. What is it, Andy? 80% of that glass area basically contains the sign. Okay. So I would view that as a sign that is larger than the limits in table 25A and therefore can only be approved under a master sign plan with those special findings that I quoted. Okay. And then just the follow-up question, Matt. Under the frontage calculation section in the notes, we've got the calculations that show the, you know, for the wall signs and window signs, but then under the notes, it says other proposed window signs may also exceed 25%. Can you clarify what that note means? Sure. So if you were to take that monochrome apple, we were talking about facing Williston Road. I think that probably exceeds it, at least of that particular window. I don't believe the multicolor apple that faces the parking lot would exceed that limitation. I see. So you're saying if we choose to characterize that as a window sign, then that puts it further over the 25%. Correct. So, you know, so that's just to sort of give some structure to the DRB's conversation about, you know, approving or conditioning these things, is that you're beyond the limits of the table. You're within the 8% if, you know, certain signs are eliminated and rearranged, but you would have to make these findings about compliance with the town plan and the intent of the signage chapter in order to allow them. Got it. Thank you. And I'll just, while I'm talking to John Hemmelgarn's point about, you know, what's a sign and what isn't, there's a judgment call to be made there. I think that's certainly for the DRB to figure out. The closest precedent we've had was on the lot 30 project, the awnings for Panera bread were originally proposed to contain this sort of shaft of wheat logo that's part of Panera's logo, even though there was no text. And in that particular case, the finding of the board was to leave that logo element off of those and then not count them as signs. But it's a question, it's, you know, it's a question for the board to think like, would this be taken by the public as communicating that this is healthy living or is it, you know, in the context of those other decorative elements, is it just another decorative element? So you could choose to include that as a sign or not. As long as the decision is clear, that's my real interest in trying to administer it. And I just wanna make sure I'm clear with respect to the sandwich sign. So it is subordinate tenants that would have their businesses in that same building would be denied the ability to have a sandwich sign as a condition of the cure for this modification. Is that true? It would include any tenants in this building because right now the sandwich boards that are proposed was, I believe, five sandwich boards for use at Building J. So keeping in mind that this is a master sign plan for all of the commercial uses at Finney. So we're talking about Hilton Home 2 Hotel, Union Bank and Building J with healthy living and the other eventual tenants there. Okay, thank you. Other DRB members. Okay, I'm gonna turn this over to the applicant to comment on some of the issues that have been raised. Yeah, I would like to make a comment or talk a little bit about the sandwich board signs or the portable signs. I think that's what they were called in the original application. And I talked to Chris about this earlier today and I don't know if this is an appropriate request to make during a review of an application, but I'll make the request and you can tell me whether or not it's appropriate, but the total amount of sign area that's allowed for the commercial portion of that project is I think it was in the staff report. I think it was 1,643 square feet. And the application that we've presented tonight has a total sign area of 1,627 square feet. So there's an extra 16 square feet of sign area that is still kind of out there to be had. And I'm just wondering, is it possible to tweak the application tonight and ask for approval for an additional 16 square feet of sandwich board sign for Building J? And maybe that could be two sandwich board signs of eight square feet each or maybe three signs of five square feet each, which could then be divvied up amongst the tenants in the building. But that would just be an opportunity for some of those tenants to have a sandwich board in addition to their wall and window signs. And to some extent addresses some of John's comments about allowing for different types of signs in the project. I think that's appropriate Joe to raise that. Thank you. Professor Andy, do you have anything more to add? I guess just on the monochrome apple that is where we're referring to it, just for reference that is 29% of the window area when you look at that singular center grouping. And if that was to be considered art is opposed to a sign, there's additional capacity, all five of the portable signs could be added back into the application if that was either the applicants or the board's desire. As Joe mentioned, there's certainly capacity for at least two, possibly three, depending on the exact area. And I would also like to add that I agree with the questions about the sandwich boards. And I do think that if there's a way that we can either address it through that smaller apple that Andy just discussed or modifying the application that since we submitted this, I do think that modifying it to allow for sandwich boards would be beneficial to the overall project. Question. If you would please comment on what latitude the bylaws provide for classifying or categorizing the large apple as art. Were you asking about the large apple being classified as art or the small? You have so much monochrome. The monochrome one, right? Okay, that was what you were talking about, Joe, is the smaller one. I think Chris is the one who mentioned that. Oh, I'm sorry. Chris, were you talking about the smaller apples potentially being art? Yes, the one that's mixed in with the other fruit and vegetable images and the utensils. And we had had a similar discussion with Matt before we submitted the application. We talked about the same example at lot 30. And the reason it was presented this way was because it was a logo and on past projects, I've also, I guess my sense was that the DRB might look at this as a logo and consider it a sign, although I could certainly could have equally made of a reasonable argument that because it's mixed in with the other elements that it's, part of a larger art scheme is John described that it is sort of like a where's Waldo. If you know it's there and are looking for it, you can find it, but it's not something that draws your attention because it is part of a larger display in the windows and it doesn't have those corporate logo colors. That's what I was going to say. Okay, so if everybody could go to their group chat, on the, which is part of the Zoom feature, probably Emily put this up, which is 25.11.1, what is public art? And if you go right to the last sentence, what public art can and should help attract people to a place that bears no commercial message, explicit or implicit. And this certainly doesn't pass that last test because it's part of their, the healthy living logo. And it's very, it's very much part of the brand. And so I don't think that we can consider this to be public art. If anybody disagrees, please weigh in at this point, please. As much as I might like to disagree, Pete, I can't. I say that again. I said as much as I might like to disagree, I can't. But that I think this is pretty clear that this is either explicit or implicit. That's kind of what we've been arguing, but this includes both of those. So on the other hand, if that apple were removed from that window and put in with a, you could actually, it could still be an apple, but if it was drawn in a similar fashion with the same graphics as the other fruits and vegetables and other images in that window and wasn't that standard healthy living shape, then I think it would in no way be perceived as a signage. And it becomes part of the art that is everything else that that window is, in my opinion. And that might be something that Eli is willing to do in order to allow the five sandwich boards to come back into the application. I don't know that for sure, but I think that'd be a reasonable compromise for him to remove it and replace it with some other type of art form. Yeah. While we're on the topic of public art, I'm recalling from pre-application, I'm gonna share my screen when this project was going through its concept review, there was the idea of public art, some sculptures in front of that eastern end of the building. So there could be an opportunity if the big apple facing Williston Road has to go away to reimagine what type of window decal gets put on that does. We lost Emily. Okay, I think we lost Emily on that. I think she'll be back. Yeah. Yeah, I think I can pick up on where she was heading, which is that there are certainly ways to enliven the glass area on the building that would be called art and would not fall into this category, to be treated as signs. So where I'm leaning on this at this point of tonight's hearing is, and instead of closing and deliberating and coming up with what we think is a possible solution or flat out rejection, I don't know, I have one vote, I don't know what the group would decide. Instead of taking that risk and say we do approve with conditions, I'm uncomfortable going in that direction because I think this should be a collaborative process. The applicant has been, has been collaborative in the past and we wanna maintain that relationship and we really wanna have something that works for all parties and it is fair when how we would treat future applications. And so with that where I'm, what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna continue this until December 8th, which is only two weeks away. And then in the board will, in our deliberative session, we'll have a robust conversation about this and discussion and debate and share perspectives and we'll be providing staff with feedback and I would ask that the applicant and staff then work together to execute and update a plan that meets what comes out of the DRP. Now is that gonna be enough room, enough time to have those conversations, resubmit and meet the timetable for the December 8th meeting? That's a question for Matt and Emily. We'd need to be able to give the applicant pretty clear information, the end of this week about what, how the DRB is feeling about what they would approve. We would need it early next week in order to look at it and distribute it back to you. So it's a tight turnaround. We're not talking about wholesale change to the entire plan necessarily. It's really a numbers calculation and maybe a revised elevation. So I'd leave it to the applicant. We've got a short week here and not a lot of time next week is there time to respond to something if we can get back to the applicant tomorrow. I'm gonna step in and speak up for Andy who's doing most of the work. It's saying, yes, we can definitely meet the timetable. As Matt said, I don't think it's super heavy lifting. We would like some specific direction or input from the DRB. I think coming from this as well, we also have some clear paths that, you know, we think we will probably want to pursue as well. And so I think combined, we can be creating a program that is accessible that we can get approved and be following the rules because Pete, I appreciate your perspectives and I've seen most of you on the board over the last, I shouldn't say this, but 20 years reviewing and getting, you know, projects approved at FinCrossing and we have come out with what I think is an extremely successful neighborhood and we wanna maintain that. And I think without your input and your perspectives, we would not have been as successful. So I do believe it's been collaborative and helpful and we always take your feedback as constructive as we can. Well, thank you, Chris. Thank you for those kind words. And as best I can tell, staff weigh in, but I think that December 8th is the last meeting of the year. I don't think there's anything scheduled for December 22, is that true? That's correct, Pete. Okay, so that adds to the urgency here because I wanna keep this moving and I don't wanna put undue stress on Andy who's doing the heavy lifting, but I believe what we're asking here is manageable and I think a better solution will come from continuing this. So that's what we're gonna do. We're gonna continue this until December 8th. So DP09-01.20 is gonna be continued to December 8th and we will, in deliberations, we will be providing staff with pretty clear direction as to what direction we would like this to go and then it will be a team effort to amend the master sign plan amendment. Can I still ask additional questions this evening before we stop? Yeah, yes, yes, please do, John. So again, I had mentioned the banner signs at one point. We have not discussed those in the least here this evening. Could someone put a plan up there that'd show me which six are being eliminated or even a summary of where the, was it, I think there were 15 or 20 of them at some point and they're down to the six last? Don't recall if we have a diagram of that, Andy. No, so the, not the reason that the banner signs came about, but the banner signs were proposed for both the Union Bank and the hotel buildings when there was excess allowable sign area that was not being used. And again, jump in if I'm misstating anything, Matt, but because the master sign plan applies to all of Finney Cross and commercial, those banner signs could be placed anywhere within the commercial area subject to the town's approval if they were going to be within a public street right of way. And so we had eliminated a few with the bank proposal and there are now, just had it in my notes here, still 23 remaining as a result of the unused sign area associated with the hotel building. So those 23 could be located anywhere on the site. They could be a long hall and lane. They could be in parking lots. They could be a long market street or any combination, but the plan that you have in front of you still has 23 light pole banners that would remain that could be adjusted depending upon the feedback and direction that you give staff to provide dust as guidance. Okay, so at the risk of making this to sound more like a pre-op than what we have going here, Chris, is there a plan for a presentation to this board of what those banners are going to look like and where exactly they're going to be? We haven't probably, no. I would say, no, we don't have a plan yet. Okay, I think though that with three buildings now in place and another one, at least through pre-app and a bunch of other rectangles on the plan, I think that the next time we see you, I can imagine asking for some of that information. That's fair, and we certainly can be prepared to present that as I think you're right. We're filling in the property, which is great news, and we want to continue to do that, but we also want to highlight some of those things that we have out there as special features. Yeah, exactly. And again, I do like the idea of the banners, and so I'm going to, I will go kicking and screaming if they start disappearing at a quick pace. Got it. I'm not sure if we have 23 light poles in the neighborhood. Well, I was having a hard time counting on the plan and trying to figure out where those were. So this actually makes sense. So I think it's time to, we're getting closer and closer, really kind of perfecting that design concept. Yeah. Yeah, John, really briefly, in the Finney Crossing design, there's a lot of light poles in parking lots. There are some light poles along the streets, but town policy for the public street like Holland Lane is to really just place light poles at intersections. So that sort of promenade as you come into Holland Lane actually is not lined with street lights because that's just not the way Williston does lighting on its public streets. And I believe Chris, the residential side, Zephyr Road, there was sort of particular dispensation worked out for the amount of lighting along that street that's in excess of what the town would normally do. Yeah. We had to work with Bruce prior to the construction of Zephyr Road about this street lighting along Zephyr. And I can't remember how it ended up happening exactly the way it got installed, but we did, we worked through that, I know a number of years ago. Okay. I'm good, please. Okay, thank you John. Other members of the DRB, any additional comments? I'm good. Okay. I don't believe that this applies, but I'll ask it anyway. Are there any members of the public that are out there that have any questions? In no chats and no raised hands. Okay, thank you, Emily. Okay, well, thank you. We're gonna continue this to December 8th. And please call staff tomorrow morning to find out more about direction provided from the DRB. And we look forward to re-engaging on December 8th. Thank you very much. And have a great Thanksgiving to everybody out there. You too. Thanks. Thanks, Chris, you as well. Thanks, Andy. Thanks, Joe. Okay. So that concludes the public portion of tonight. We're gonna go into deliberations at this point. It's 8.35. Okay. Welcome back to the town of Williston Development Review Board on Tuesday, November 24th, 2020. The DRP is back out of the deliberative session. It's 8.42. And we are going to make motions on the first three items of a four item agenda. We are after the motions are made for the first three, we are gonna go back into deliberations, but let's tackle agenda item number one first is their motion for HP 21-01 slash AP 21-01-22, the Williston Federated Church. Yes, Pete. As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, hi, John Hemmelgarn moved at the Williston Development Review Board having reviewed the application submitted in all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Wilson Development By-law. And having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public meeting of November 24th, 2020, accept the recommendations and approve HP 21-02. This approval authorizes the applicant to seek an administrative permit for the proposed development, which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based. Thank you, John. Is there a second? I'll second it. Scott seconds it. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Individual roll call, yeah or nay. Paul Christensen? Yeah. John Hemmelgarn? Yes. Steve Lambrecht? Yeah. Scott Riley? Yeah. David Saladino? Yeah. David Turner? Yeah. The chair is a yeah as well. Seven in favor? None opposed? Motion carries. Is there a motion for DP 21-06, Adams real property LLC? Yes. I'll make a motion. As authorized by 6.6.3, I, Scott Riley moved that the Wilson Development View Board, having reviewed the application submitted that all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Wilson Development By-law and having heard and really considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of November 24, 2020, accept the findings of fact and conclusions of law for DP 21-06 and approve this discretionary permit subject to the conditions of approval above. This approval authorizes the applicant to file final plans, obtain approvals of these plans from staff and then seek administrative and administrative permit for the proposed development, which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based. Thank you, Scott. Is there a second? I'll second it. Dave Turner seconds it. Any further discussion? I indicate yay or nay, please. Paul Christensen, Don Hemmeldar. Yes. Steve Lambert. Scott Rock. Violet. Yes. Deladino. David Turner, the chair is a yay. Seven in favor, not opposed. Motion carries. Is there a motion for DP 21-07 for a boundary line adjustment for Whitney Fellows? Yes. As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I see Lambert move that the Williston Developmental Review Board, having reviewed the application submitted in all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Williston Development Bylaw. And having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of November 24, 2020, accept the findings effect and conclusions of law for DP 21-07 and approve this discretionary permit subject to the conditions of approval above. This approval authorizes the applicant to file final plans, obtain approval of these plans from staff, and then seek an administrative permit for the proposed development, which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based. Thank you, Steve. Is there a second? I'll second. I think Dave Turner got in there. Just ahead of John. So Dave Turner, any further discussion? Hearing none, Paul Christensen, yay or nay. Yay. John Hemmeldarn. Yes. Steve. Yay. Scott Riley. Yes. Dave Saladino. Yay. Dave Turner. Yay. Chair is a yay. Seven in favor, none opposed. Motion carries. Let's do, well, Mr. Riley is here. Let's do the minutes for November 10, 2020. Is there a, actually, you know what? We can, we're going to be able to close this meeting because we're not going to come out in a public way and do any type of public disclosure from our deliberation. We're not going to vote on the next application. And so we can close the public portion of this meeting after we approve the minutes. And then the DRB can just go into the deliberative session for providing feedback on the healthy living application. So with that, is there a, or is that not the case, Matt? Do I have to close the meeting officially in a public way after we have a discussion on healthy living? How is that? No, you can close the public meeting, concluding your public business and just, you know, beyond that, DRBs are allowed to have deliberative sessions whenever, so you're just going to say you're going to have a deliberative session afterwards. You're not returning to the public meeting tonight. Great, great. I just wanted to make sure I was compliant there. Okay, so is there a motion to approve the minutes of November 10th, 2020? I so move. Thank you, Steve. Is there a second? Second. Dave Saladino seconds it. Is there any discussion? I have one net and that is on the attendees. That's Courtney Bhutan. That's B-O-U-T-I-N. That's my only comment. Is there any other comments? Full Christian Center, do you approve the minutes? Yes. John Hemmelgarten? Yes. Steve Lampreck? Yeah. Scott Riley? Yes. Dave Saladino? Yes. Dave Turner? Yeah. And the chair does as well with that one amendment. Seven in favor, none opposed. The minutes are approved. Is there any other business to be brought forward to this board tonight? Is there a motion to adjourn? I moved. Second. I'll second. Okay, Scott, thank you. We'll do this as a group. As a group, all in favor of adjournment, please indicate by saying aye. Any opposed? Okay. Thank you, everyone.