 This is the development review board for Burlington for January 18th. And do we have members of the public somewhere here, Scott? Yes, we do. We do. Okay. So we take up items as they are on in the agenda. And when we call each agenda item, we'll ask the applicant or anybody else who wants to speak on that to identify themselves and indicate to Scott, who will admit you folks to the meeting. And as needed, we will swear people in. We also ask when you are admitted to the meeting that you provide Scott with a mailing address. Okay. Communications. There's nothing that's not on the website at this point. Okay. Minutes we have the minutes from the last meeting. If anybody has any comments on, let me know because we'll sign them and get them back to Celeste. So we go right into the consent agenda. And the first thing is 266 pine street. Justin Bonnell is, I see Justin's here. Is anybody else here to speak on that item? Justin. We have one other person raising their hands. Okay. Okay. Okay. In Zoom, Maria. Maria Sandoval. I'll let Maria speak for swearing in. Well, This is here for Crowley street. She's our next consent. All right. So. Justin, can you hear me? Yep. Okay. So this is on the consent agenda, which means that the staff is recommending approval and we have a commission on that. And we have a commission on that. And we have a commission on approval on there. Have you seen that? Yes. And are you okay with that? Yes. Right. And I take it as no member of the public here to. Object on this. No one has their hand read. If any member of the board object to treating this as a consent. Item. Then to certainly want to make a motion. I move that we approve the application and adopt staff findings and recommendations. Caitlin seconds. Discussion. All in favor. The unanimous. So Justin, it's approved. Excellent. All right. Thank you. Thanks a lot. Okay. The next item is 28 Crowley street. And I guess Maria. Sandra ball is here. And again, is there anybody else who is wanting to speak on 28 Crowley street. Andy jazuski is the property owner. So he can be admitted as well. Scott. I'd see Andy's hand is raised. If anyone else. Wants to speak to this item, raise your hand. It's just the applicant and not handy. So, so I'll ask Maria and Andy, and this is recommended also for approval, consent agenda approval. Have you seen the staff's recommendations? Yes. Okay. Are you okay with those? Yes. Okay. Good. And is there anybody on the board who have just to treat this as a consent item? No. So how about a motion on this one? Like a motion. For ZP 21, seven, nine, eight, 28 Crowley street. I move that we approve the application and adopt staff findings. Second. I see Jeff seconding. Okay. Any discussion. All in favor. It's okay. That is approved. Thank you very much. Thank you. So the next item. Thank you very much. Thank you. So. The next item is. 200 children street. Mary Stanton. Is she here or somebody else here representing that project? Well, I see Vermont donuts. I'm going to guess that has something to do with this application. Oh, yeah. That must be Mary Stan. I'm Teresa Fletcher. I'm, can you hear me? Yes. And you are. I represent the property owner there. Vermont donuts. The HR director for Duncan donuts basically here. Okay. And, and Mary. And is there anybody else here to speak on this application? Scott. Hi. Can you hear Mary? Mary, you're probably applicant. I want to see if there's any members. Okay. Okay. My husband, Scott Stanton. He's the actual sign builder slash installer slash electrician. He's not a member of the, he's not a member of the public. Yeah. No, but I just am here if you need. If you need all questions. Okay. Anybody. So that's it. Right. I'll ask Mary. Oops. Her husband and lower hand. And the other person's name is. Teresa. Teresa. The three of you would, if you would swear to tell the truth and hold truth under pain and penalty of perjury. I do. Okay. So you're requesting. A new sign. And. Theoretically heading to the. Torrance. More compliance. Two new signs. Two new signs that are. One's a wall. One's a pile on. Right. And they're both slightly. One would say slightly. More compliant than the existing signs. Oh, I think a lot more. If you look at the square footage. Yeah. Look at the height. I mean, when you look at the standard, which is six feet and you're 18 feet. That's three times the height. So it's. It's a. So I can see. I think it's pretty straight for what you're intending to do. They're both internally lit. Which again is a non-compliant thing. And they're substantially bigger, but I understand that you're not. Really obligated to replace these signs. Your grandfather didn't with these. So. I'm sort of going to ask if the board has any members of the board have questions for the applicant on this. It's fairly straightforward application in some ways. I had a question. Because there was a note about the sign still being in. The site line for a driveway. And when I look at these two signs compared to each other. There's really more blockage from the new sign. So I think that was a bit of a. A little bit of a. A little bit of a high level for pedestrians and for. Cars. And just wondering if you. Took that. Into consideration at all with this design. It's. This is Scott. That is set back quite a ways, even from the sidewalk there. So I don't see that as being an issue. It's set way back from the street. And I think that's the. The site line from the. Their own. Drive way. Is that one's line. The site line starts back from the front property line, which would just be a foot or two behind the sidewalk. That's where. Yeah. That's where we clear site triangle. It goes back. Like 20 or 25 feet. Where there's specific other limitations with regard to fencing and stuff, but. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. To not. Block few. We were trying to use the same poll and electrical. And it's only three feet wide overall. Anybody else is going to make any comments. It's. I understand that you're really not obligated to. To improve this a whole lot. So. We're supposed to be somewhat. I guess. Pleased with it moving. To be. More compliance, but. Is that a criterion, Brad? Dear bees, please. Well, except, I don't know what to say, excepting. I mean, you know, it's, it's two and a half times the height requirement that we can have. But, you know, it's the original one was three times the height requirement. So high limitation. So it's, that's good. You said, you said that. That this one was grandfathered in. The existing sign is grandfathered in. Yes. Okay. And so they, they can replace it. As long as it moves in the direction of compliance. And subject to our approval. That's right. Substantially greater compliance has to be in compliance or substantially greater. Compliance. We've had a few of these over the years and dimensions have been the driving factor. And the ones that have gotten approved have been smaller. Although what Caitlin has pointed out with the clear site. Item is something unique to this. I think we do have a. History of, of approving signs that are. Creeping towards compliance. I guess that's how I would look at this one. And the problem is you could just, you know, if it fell down, they could put it the exact same sign back up. Right. Right. Make it. It's a little smaller. It's still there that it's. Yeah. I mean, I'd like to see it smaller, but I understand the issue. Yeah. How many comments on this? I, you know, I guess I'll say to, to marry in the applicant. I mean, obviously we're. I guess I'll speak for myself that. It's nice that it is moving. A little smaller than it is. But it's way bigger than any sign that could be installed now. So we have to look at both sides of that. You know, yes, we're, we're moving towards compliance. We're not thrilled, but we may end up having to accept it. Yeah. So the other thing too is I have to deal with, um, Duncan brands and what they want me to make for signs. I guess I understand that. Yes. Yes. That's why it's in that vertical position. Yeah. Okay. Any other comments from the board on this one? I don't think we can want to beat this to death. We will probably deliver it at the end of the meeting tonight on this. So this is a final word you want to make. I would appreciate you looking that it is more towards compliance. I think especially the wall sign for sure. Yeah. Okay. And I think it looks pretty. Yeah. It's nice and clean. Nice and clean. Yeah. I think that's good. Donuts off the name, but not the menu. Okay. Good. I appreciate it. All right. Thank you. We'll close the public hearing. Thank you. Thanks. So, um, the next item on the agenda is 501 pine street. And there's a request to defer this. Scott. Yeah. Brian, do you want to pipe in the details? Yeah. I think we're going to have a lot of time to do that. I think we're going to have a lot of time to do that. That's what we're going to be doing this week. Um, and DAB wants them to adjust a few things. So definitely going to hold off on their recommendation to provide to you the DRB. So they want to. Have time to prepare some revisions. So this is deferred to a date. Uncertain. Right. Correct. So does somebody want to make a motion to defer 501 pine street to a uncertain date? Okay. So again, it's deferred to the date. So right now. We're on the 800 501 pine street. I moved that we defer this item to a future DRB meeting. Date uncertain. Second. Chase. Discussion. All in favor. With us, age. Yeah, I'm here. Did you see me? No, I didn't see your hand. My hands. Over on the other side of my camera. Thanks. Second. Yeah, yeah. And then the next item is 125 South Cove Road. If you can, or David Boardman, I see cliff. Anybody else here for this application besides cliff. If anyone else wants to speak raise your hand. It's like it's just quick, Brad. Okay. Cliff, I will swear you into swear to tell the truth and whole truth on the pain and penalty of perjury. Yes, I do. Okay. So this seems fairly straightforward. There was a few conditions. There was something about the plan one C. So I don't know if you want to make some presentation on this. No, through the DAB, we had a couple of options that we reviewed with them. And we all settled on one C, which. I don't think this is the one, but it's, it's basically the compliant one we discussed the width of the garage and what. Yeah. Makes the width of a garage architecturally and. Spatially and volumetrically. But one C was a good compromise for everyone to settle on. And DAB approved that. Okay. And you've been through the conservation board. They were. Proving it. Correct. We've gone through them. Yes, sir. We've gone through them. We've gone through them. We've gone through them. Classic. Somewhat shingles downhouse. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. And it's a compliance to all the setbacks at this point. I'm not sure there's much that we would say about it as any comments from any members of the board. No. No. I like what's there, but this looks nice too. Okay. Well. We'll close it out. There you go. Great. Thank you. Thanks. We have one more item on the agenda, which is 43 star farm row. That also is. To be deferred. Right. Yeah, they're still working on their TDM. Because it's a. Just a site plan review. It's not a public hearing. We don't need to do a date and time certain. We don't need to make a motion on this one. No, you don't. Okay. Well, I don't think there's anything we can do to make things more complicated at this point. So. We'll accept that. It's simple. Okay. Basically it'll be in, I think late February or early March. Yeah, you asked Scott, you asked for. Or they asked for March 8th. Should we do it till in time? Not certain. I think you can do it for March. I have it on the schedule anyhow. Well, we don't need to make a motion on this one. No, you don't. Okay. We'll accept that. It's simple. Okay. Okay. Is any other. New business to bring up. We're going to close the. The review board meeting. And we're going. And we have. Two items to deliberate. For ZP 21, 7, 9, 9, 200 children street. I move that. We approve the wall sign. With the condition. I think is the way we should do this that. The. Free standing sign is. Not included. As part of this application. I don't know. But that's what I'm going to go with. I don't know. I'll, I'll second that the intent. I think we got to talk about it a little bit. Yeah, I'm not sure that gets exactly what we want, but I like the idea. I think giving a little bit of reason why this. The other side is not approved. Be helpful. Whether we say that it just. It's not substantially coming into compliance and is adding additional sight line. Obstruction. I'm truthful. I'm a little ambivalent about the sight line. Issue. And I'm much more focused on the. Can we. Can we say that we approve the application as it relates to the. Wall sign, but deny the application as it. Relates to the. The freestanding sign and yeah. Right, but I. Do we want to say that because that one should be. Yeah. I don't. I mean, they can come back to us. Yeah, they can come back to us with another design. I mean, I can. I mean, the intent is. It's got a. At least from my perspective, but I think we all have different ideas. Of what would pass. So I think if we just. Deny it outright and see what they come back at, that may get us all to agree to it. But I think we have an extended discussion. About what they need to do to have it passed tonight. I think we should have the words in there that is, does not, is not substantially more compliant. I think those. Yeah. Be in the. Motion. Yeah. You're both good with that. Yeah, I'm good with that. Any other discussion on this. AJ. Yeah, I mean, I just think we should be a little. Yeah. I think we should be. Yeah. Because, you know, it's not, I don't think we need to say it, but we should think about this. We've let people, you know, people might say, well, why can't I just replace the sign and it's exact same size. You know, if the thing caught fire, I think that have the right, or someone plowed it over with a truck jumping the curb, they'd have the right to put it up exactly as they're putting it up. So it's a little funky that when they're coming to sort of put up a little bit more of a, more of a racial compliance. It's just something we want to think about. Next time we have one of these issues because it does come up. So I'm fine with the decision tonight, but. A real way to articulate. An ordinance issue to you, or like, cause that's how the ordinance is written. It's. It's also how the law exists, right? If it's non-conforming or whatever and you didn't take it down, your non-conformity burns down, then you're good to go. I'm not sure who said this to me, but somebody said to me that the intent of zoning was to move properties in the direction of compliance. It's black letter law, yes. And I think that's really what we're trying to do here. We're trying to move things in the direction of compliance and, you know, we're taking sort of saying that this is not moving enough in that direction. Right. I agree with that. I think that's that's what we're trying to get to with this particular case. Right. Okay. So we have a motion, a second. This is more discussion. All in favor of the motion? One, two, three, four, five, eight, zero. Okay. Okay. Six, six, zero. On ZP 21790 125 South Cove Road, I move that we approve the application about staff's findings and recommendations. Second. Brooks. Any discussion? All in favor? Opposed? Okay.