Planning Board - Regular Meeting

July Zoning Board of Reviews to order. We'll start with a roll call.

Thomas Heaney. Here. Rick Lombardi. Here. Rebecca Rogers. Here. Judith Rosenthal. Here. Alicia Reyes. Here. Christopher Rowe. Here. Anton Bavaros. Here. Kendall Holmes. Here. Joseph Markey. Here.

So now what we're going to do is we're going to read each of the petitioner and the address to see if you're present and you're ready to continue. Once we get that order, we'll start with our summary case. Rebecca.

From last meeting is Sandro de Souza for a variance from 603 and 903 to construct an 18 by 15 feet shed, eight feet from the side yard where 20 is required. Said real estate is located at 146 Oliphant Lane and further identified as Tax Assessor's Plot 111, Lot 40.

Sandro, are you here?

Caller and teller will withdraw the petition. I'll give her a call tomorrow morning. We'll do it one more time.

Continue to August 24th.

Continue it, yep.

Summary petition, Madison Burgess for a variance from 603, 903, and 321A to construct an 8x8 front deck, 11 feet front yard setback where 25 is required. Said real estate is located at 11 Phyllis Ave and further identified as Tax Assessor's Plot 105, Lot 28. Commission CBR 2630 Clifton Height Tower for a special use from 602, 902, and 27C to obtain approval for an owner-occupied short-term rental. Said real estate is located at 19 Crescent Road and further identified as Tax Assessor's Plot 116 Northwest Lot 33C. Petition ZBR 2631, Matthew Guerrero, for special use from 602, 902, and 27C to obtain approval for an owner-occupied short-term rental. Said real estate is located at 214 Morris Ave. and further identified as Tax Assessor Spot 114, Lot 246. Position ZBR 2632, CGRI, Middletown LLC, and point signs for special use from 1212 to allow a 132 square foot sign where 80 is the max area and to be 23 feet high where 10 is allowed. Said real estate is located at 1400 West Main Road and further identified as Texas Essers Plot 106, Lot 5300A. 2633 Coddington Cove Commons, LLC. David Martland, attorney for special use from 602 to permit units 207 and 208 as a brewery with retail signs and tasting rooms. Said real estate is located at 300 Coddington Highway and further identified as tax assessor spot 103, lot 103L.

I have a correspondence in for Mr. Martland to ask if he can continue that to the August meeting.

And this will be continued to the August 25th meeting. All right? So we're going to start with a summary case. Rebecca is going to recuse herself. Summary cases are those cases where the petitioner is only asking for one variance, and that variance is less than 50% of what's allowed. So in this case, we're talking about petitions EBR 2634, Madison Burgess. Does anyone on the board object to continuing this as a summary case? Does anyone want to hear testimony from Madison Burgess? Hearing none, I open this up to the public. Is anyone here present tonight that would want to speak for or against this petition on a full hearing? Seeing none, we're going to close it to the public, and I'm going to ask for a motion for the summary petition for the front deck with an 11-foot yard setback where 25 feet is required.

Motion to approve.

Mr. Lombardi makes a motion to approve.

Second.

Second from Mr. Rowe. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes five to nothing. You know that the petitioner for ZBR 2623 is not present. So we're going to continue that to the 25th. So the next petition is Mr. Hightower ZBR 2630. Could you read that in you? Right now, would you come forward, please?

We are 2630 for a special use from 602, 902, and 27C to obtain approval for an owner-occupied short-term rental. Said real estate is located at 19 Crescent Road and further identified as Tax Assessor's Plot 116 Northwest Lot 33C.

Good evening, Mr. Hightower. Would you explain your petition to the board, please? Oops, sorry. Raise your right hand, please. Do you swear the testimony that you'll be giving this evening is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Please proceed. Thank you.

Okay, I have, I just redid my house and, you know, the price has gone up, so this is the easiest way to keep up with my bills and everything, and instead of trying to go through, you know, a permanent rental or something, and the whole area is going through that, so that's what I'm trying to do.

So the surrounding homes adjacent to your home, they also have rentals in those also? Yes. Okay. Other questions?

describe what your house looks like, as in where you plan on doing it.

There's two bedrooms on the first floor and I live on the second floor of one bedroom.

Do you have adequate parking?

Oh yes, I have parking for about seven or eight cars.

I just want to point out that the, as he mentioned about the surrounding neighborhood and the ones that are STRs already, I actually have a map that is color coded that shows everything, if you want to pass that down, everything in pink that shows, in yellow is his property, everything marked in pink is all STRs.

It looks like you're the lone holdout.

I think there's eight on that block.

Any other questions for Mr. Hightower? Hearing none, I'm going to open up the hearing to the public. Does anyone present this evening want to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, I'm going to close the public portion of the hearing, and I'm going to ask for a motion.

Motion to approve.

Mr. Lombardi makes motion to approve.

in seconds discussion given uh you know given the the number of short-term rentals in the area um and the fact that uh mr hightower you know that when you're in the when you're renting short-term that you have to be on the premises you know the rules um so i think uh give it that given and I know Cliff and he's been here his whole life, Middletown resident forever. Besides being a public servant forever, I'm gonna recommend that, I'm gonna support the petition.

I also believe that based on the map that was just passed around, that this is definitely in keeping with the neighborhood and what's going on there. And like you said, the cost of owning a home keeps going up. So if you're able to be able to keep your home, stay in your home by doing this, we definitely support that. At least I do. Anyone else?

Yes. I'm going to approve it. I think it satisfies all the requirements for a special use permit.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Mission passes five to nothing. Congratulations.

Good luck, Cliff.

Thank you.

Is this entered as an exhibit, or is this just for us to review?

Just for us, as it was provided by the board.

addition zbr 2631 matthew guerrera for special use from 602 902 and 27c to obtain approval for an owner occupied short-term rental said real estate is located at 214 morris ave and further identified as tax assessors plot 114 lot 246. raise right hand do you swear the testimony that you give this evening is the truth the whole truth is nothing but the truth can you state your name your address please my name is matthew guerrera my address is 214 morrison ave middletown rhode island

Yeah, please present your petition to the board.

Sure, yeah, so this, I recently acquired 214 Morrison Avenue. I tried to do some monthly rentals this summer, deemed a little bit more difficult than I had imagined, so I just figured next year I'd rather just live in the house.

So you recently purchased the property?

I did about two years ago from Ms. Santos.

Risa Santos.

Mrs. Santos' house, okay.

Her house, it was her house.

Okay, I know the house well.

It's a three bedroom, one bath, all three bedrooms are on one floor. It's a 900,000 square foot range.

I notice in terms of your parking, you've got a two car garage, there's also a carport there.

Yes. A driveway on one side. Yeah, so it's about six cars all together.

And there was a driveway going down the other side. Is that just to an outbuilding?

That's an easement to Ms. Santos' son. So there is a driveway there that technically I own, but I can't block it.

So there's another dwelling back there behind your house?

There is another dwelling, different property.

I noticed there was a building, but I didn't notice what type.

Her son still lives back there, Mike.

Understand to do a short-term rental you need to be on the property when you're renting it as a short-term rental I do so You said all three bedrooms are on the same floor, right?

I'll be right.

I'll be in one of the bedrooms Also notice you own another property like the house next door correct is I

Legal, yes.

But you are listed like residents on that record.

So when I purchased the property, I moved into the new one. So that is a complete investment property at this point.

Okay.

Paying taxes as such.

Dividing in the 14.

Yes, yeah. From rental. That's correct, yeah.

Renting two bedrooms technically.

Other questions from the board?

Some comments, if I may. You said you tried to do some monthly rentals.

Correct.

And had trouble doing that. What about long term?

I had salvage students in there. It went okay, with the exception of them not paying all of their utilities and running out of oil. So I figured it's about time I just move into the house rather than, you know, amongst Newport.

So you moved from 220 into 214?

That's correct, yeah. But I moved out during the summer to try and rent it, and then this year I had Salve students, and it just wasn't.

So what's your intention on what you're going to do with 220?

That's a full-time legal short-term rental.

OK. I'll save the rest for the end. Go ahead.

I mean, what's before us is obviously the 214. You know, if you don't follow that, right, if someone from zoning drives by and knocks on the door, which I don't know if they do, and you're not there, it's going to be a problem. You know, you were sworn in. Rented. Seems like you have enough parking. I mean...

The other rental you had, that's a grandfathered short-term rental, correct? Sorry? That's a grandfathered short-term rental. You've had it for a few years now, am I right? Yes, sir, that's correct. Chris, do you know if there's been any complaints or anything down there with his other rental property? Is this a short term?

No, we don't.

Nothing that you know of, right? So he's been a good landlord for the most part.

I've had no records of anything going on over there.

It's unfortunate that you had a problem with salvage. It happens. I get it. College kids, right. Okay. Thank you.

Other comments? Since there's no other comments from the board, I'm going to open the hearing up to the public. Anybody here tonight want to speak for or against this petition? Seeing none, I'm going to close the public portion of the hearing, and I'm going to ask for the position.

Motion to approve the petition.

Second. Second. Discussion?

I understand like the last petition that almost the entire neighborhood, almost the entire block is all STRs. On this one, We're getting close to that same situation. I also have a map showing the STRs in the neighborhood. The gentleman at, I forget what the number is, right between on the west side of 220 is almost completely blocked in. Again, just like at Crescent on the last STR, difference being, though, the last STR, that entire block has become a short-term rental block. So the character of that neighborhood has already been changed. This one... it still has the possibility, the ability to not become overrun with STRs. Under special use permits item number three, that the granting of such special use permit will not be detrimental to or substantially or permanently injure the appropriate use of property in the surrounding area or district. In this area, if SDRs keep being approved, it is going to drastically change from what it currently and existing is as a residential neighborhood. The Crescent Street area, that's already been turned into a quasi-transient, non-resident residential area. This area still is a residential area, so I recommend it not being approved for those reasons. If anyone would like to see the map, I'll pass it down.

Comments?

I Record.

I don't have an issue. I think you satisfy all the criteria based on the short-term rental ordinance. I think I got your fry. That said, I get where Chris is coming from. I understand that neighborhoods are changing, but that criteria... in my opinion based on the short-term rental ordinance as it is it just doesn't hold water in my opinion um i think you understand the rules you've been a responsible short-term rental owner for the last few years um and i have no doubt in my mind um that you're going to be a good steward to this piece of property also so with that said uh i'm going to support the petition

I'm also going to support it. I think you've met the elements, and, you know, I think it might have been different if there were multiple people you're surrounding a butters, you're objecting to it, but no one is here to object to that. And, again, you know, as long as you know that you have to be there.

Five primary members are voting on this one. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5-0.

Did you vote?

No, I'm not in.

Oh, he's not. Sorry. Sorry. I was only in the other one because she was recused on the last one, so that's why I was in that.

I see.

CBR 2632 CGRI Middletown LLC owners and point signs applicant for a special use from 1212 to allow a 132 square foot sign where 80 square feet is the max area and to be 23 feet high where 10 is allowed. Said real estate is located at 1400 West Main Road and further identified as tax assessor spot 106 lot 5300A.

Good evening.

You swear the testimony you give this evening is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes. State your name and your address, please.

I am Bethany Leonard. I'm with Poyant Signs, representing Riverhead today. Our address, 125 Samuel Barnett Boulevard, New Bedford, Mass.

Thank you. Just for the record, there is a letter of correspondence from Riverhead appointing Poyant as their representative.

Mr. Chair, just because the owner here was listed, Riverhead wasn't listed on the application, I'm going to recuse from advising you on this one, okay?

Yes. L-E-O-N-A-R-D.

Proceed, please.

So we are asking, I'm sure everyone is familiar with this property. It was the old Benny's used to be there and there's been a sign there that was Benny's blacked out for many years now. It also has a riverhead. tenant cabinet at the top. The existing sign is roughly 120 square feet and 25 feet tall. We are asking to eliminate that sign and replace it with a new one in the same spot. We are reducing the height down to 23 feet. And then the square footage, I think there is an error typo on here because the total square footage is actually 126 square feet. Riverhead is currently the tenant that is going to be listed on it. And then below there is a tenant spot because there is a pad site that will be developed. Bay Coast was going to be going there, but I think they put that on hold for now. So that is what that spot is below. It would be for a future tenant. The whole sign would be internally illuminated. The black background would not light up. Only the text will light up at night, so it's not gonna be super bright and overly distracting to traffic going by. This sign has actually come in front of zoning, I believe, years ago. and then they ended up not moving forward with it. Bay Coast presented the sign to planning back in November and they did make comments to reduce it to be 23 feet high and 126 square feet and not above that. So we did stick with those requirements to try to meet that as well. that is basically for that i do think it's going to add to the neighborhood there are other signs that are about the same size the rk plaza is the same square footage and same height that's right across so it does fit in with the neighborhood and isn't going to stand out as overly large compared to the neighboring properties you tell me what's happening with the current existing signage that's there we will be removing it and replacing it with this sign in the same spot.

The one that's blacked out that used to be Benny's? Yes. In the current Riverhead? Yes, removed. To include the pylons, everything's being?

Post everything. Removed. Yes. Does the current sign light up? The top part does for Riverhead. I think the blacked out part used to, but because they painted over it, it probably does not. But there is power to the pole and the Riverhead sign is currently illuminated. And the whole face lights up. Sorry.

Go ahead. Does the new sign have space for another tenant at the bottom? Did I read that somewhere?

Yes, it does.

Okay, and so the measurements include that additional space?

Total square footage includes that space being used for a future time. Currently, the Riverhead space is only 100 square feet.

Okay, but it's still three times more than is allowed, right?

I think 80 is allowed. It is allowed, yeah.

It's a 65% increase in size.

And double the height.

Actually, that's off a little bit now because that was based on the 132 feet. Now it's actually only supposed to be 126. So it's probably about 60% increase.

That sign has been in its current state for quite some time. Yes. What's prompting the change now?

Originally, it was the development of that pad site and knowing that there was a tenant there. Also, the look of it. Riverhead thinks it looks old. It looks outdated. One cabinet is shifted to the left. It's not in alignment. So they wanted to update it. They did look at the cost of just updating their panels and potentially updating that other cabinet. But in the scheme of things, they would rather just have a unified, new, modern sign in its place.

Could one argue that it shows that Riverhead's making more of a commitment to the area by investing in the sign and

It could, and they actually do occupy and own or lease the property that Benny's was in. So prior, they didn't have that piece of the building as well. And I do believe they are going to be using it and potentially look at moving some things up front to that area as well, not just their building in the back.

I just, I'm looking for, stick with the ordinance, the ordinances are in place for a reason. And that corridor has become a sea of oversized signage. So the ordinance is in place to try and curb that and make the area. I'd like to see it updated. I'm sure but I'd like to stay, see if there's anything possible to say within the ordinance.

So they really want to be able to have the services of what they provide as well as their logo on the sign, which we do show on there. A lot of people think Riverhead Building Supply is for contractors and it's just a building supply company that not the everyday homeowner can go and still purchase items. So they really wanted to show that they have the masonry showroom there. the kitchens, doors, windows, everyday home items that homeowners can go and purchase too, and it's not just building supplies for companies and contractors. So their logo takes up, I would say, half of that space, and then for the other words to be large enough to read from the road and make it worthwhile for them to be there, that's kind of the height we needed for the text to be able to have it readable. Because we could make it smaller, but It almost wouldn't be readable unless you are stopped at the light, the first car, being able to read it.

There is signage on that road for businesses that don't have the business name, that don't feel that they need to explain. I'm just... Hardship for... There may be, like you said, there may be a couple of other signs that are close to that size, but the trend is to be closer to what we're asking for. So I would like to continue with any new signage that is being put up.

Yeah, because the original design, too, they have separate logos for all their businesses. So instead of Riverhead Building Spy, they have Riverhead Masonry, Riverhead Cabinetry. So they have different logos. And originally, we did a logo with three of them for the different ones. And that looked way too repetitive, like Riverhead, Riverhead, Riverhead. So that's kind of why we went this route, one logo with the services below. We can definitely look at... Reducing them somewhat. I don't know if you'd be okay if we reduce their section to 80 But still have that separate tenant space for a future use if a tenant does Operate that pad site. That's there. They don't have anyone currently But we wouldn't we're trying to not have to put a second another sign to like that's just more signs I feel like one a little larger is better than two additional signs on the property

And you want to bring it up.

Currently, the sign that's currently existing is 25 feet high, but based on the feedback from planning when the other company had gone in November, they were asked to reduce it to 23, so we moved ahead and reduced it to 23. Basically, Riverhead, Bay Coast, Carpianado have all spoken at different points, so we did try to reduce everything to what planning had asked Bay Coast to do at the time, which was basically the identical sign, just they were that tenant spot.

I'm wondering if all of that verbiage could be distracting to drivers going by, even though it's large. I mean, just a thought.

I mean, I think there is good readability because it is at a light. So a lot of times there is stopped cars that can read them while they're stopped. And that's part of the height being big, too, because the smaller the text, if people are trying to read it, they are more like trying to pay attention versus the larger it is. You can kind of just read it while you're approaching.

So the current sign that's there is 128.

Yes, the two cabinets combined, there's 120 square feet between the two cabinets and then the overall height from grade to the top of the top cabinet is 25 feet.

So I think some of the people up here know that for other petitions that we've had in the past for signs, I've been kind of a stickler about certain things. This particular petition for me, When I look at this surrounding area, it's strictly commercial. There are signs everywhere. All of them, in my opinion, are in good taste. I don't know that there are any others that are oversized or that have come in front of us or planning gotten exceptions i don't know that for sure but i do know one thing and you said it and i'd like to know when when did planning opine on this particular sign for copy now how long ago that was so for carpe nato i want to say it was two years ago three years ago bay coast was this past november traditionally planning board has been very tough on signs on following the ordinance and on making sure that everything is uniform they've been really tough on that and the fact that they um i'm going to go by what you say i mean it's easy enough to find out but um that they recommended that it be lower they approved the extra the size of the sign um this says a lot to me personally um i think it's an improvement on what's there now that property was really quickly becoming blighted in my opinion since benny's moved out i mean it was beginning to like No offense, it was looking like crap. And I think Riverhead is doing the right thing over there and they're trying to make it better. And I think you have to give them points for that. So I think that this is gonna be done in good taste. But I just think that, you know, I don't see the issue. I think it's a good thing for the area. We should be encouraging economic development and we should be encouraging our businesses, not small businesses. That's my feeling at this point.

I would like to... Add to that, I'm not familiar with the traditions of the committee related to signs, but I'm sensitive to it since it's been mentioned. I agree that area is largely commercial in my mind, thinking about the sign in its current state and what's being proposed. Perhaps more importantly, and to your point, This is an important employer. They provide jobs. I think a lot of those jobs are well above minimum wage. These are the kind of jobs that we want, especially for people that want to be able to afford housing, maybe in the area or adjacent towns. I'd like to be supportive.

It's hard for me to imagine a smaller sign there, right? I mean, if I drive by Benny's all the time, or the old Benny's, the sign to me we're talking about Not much difference, 126 versus 120. I mean, that whole strip is McDonald's and the car wash and then the K Plaza. It's all big signs. I think you said the K Plaza is approximately the same height, correct?

Yeah, the tenant area is 126 square feet. I just want to measure it again just to double check. 126 square feet, the tenant area not including the RK Plaza text on the header. If we include the header, they're 165 square feet. They are 22 feet tall, the overall height, so one foot shorter.

I'm curious if you did any kind of comparisons of the height that you're asking for compared to the neighborhood. At a 10-foot high allowed by code, you're asking for a 130% increase in the height, and you said you're at 23 and a half? Or the height, 23 high?

23 high, yes.

Do you know what the actual height of the other signs in their surrounding area are? Because I do.

So I did measure the RK, which is directly abutting it. And that one was 22 feet high. And that's our biggest concern because of how close it is and how high the existing sign is that if we cut it down to 10 feet when it's existing 25, that it will get lost and people may not see it. There are some trees approaching that area as well, too.

Okay, so I went out and did approximate measurements based on, you know, using geometry to get measurements. McDonald's is approximately 14 feet high. KFC, 18. Domino's, 16. The car wash, 14 and a half. Red roof, 16. Airport plaza, 19. My measurements for the RK sign actually put it only at about 19 to 20, not as high as you're putting it.

The only one that I- It can be off by a couple inches, but usually not feet.

The only one that I measured that came out to about the same height was the Honda sign, which is at about 23 and a half. So I'm wondering where if the one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, if seven out of eight can get down into that 14 to 19, 20 foot range, why couldn't this one be brought down in size? Even you could keep the same square footage just by lowering it. to be more in line with the existing signage on the road, except for the Honda sign, without looking for such a huge increase above what the regulation is.

I guess it would still require a variance, right? It would still be above.

Right, but it would put it more in line with what is out there.

I think what you've just proven, Chris, is that this board over time has made allowances to go far greater than 10 feet, which is in the code. So what I would like to introduce is kind of a segue topic here, and that is because of the size of the square footage of the sign and the height of the bottom of the sign, When you look at your depiction, which is very professionally done, it's very high quality as was already mentioned, but you've got a silhouette there of a person six foot tall standing at the bottom of that sign. So my concern is where the sign currently is, is safety for the drivers leaving that shopping center, the drivers turning into the shopping center, because there's a crosswalk in both directions going north-south, going east-west, across West Main Road. So, from a safety standpoint, I would like to see, or I should hear, at least, your opinion on moving that sign just to the other side of the current existing sidewalk that's there. It takes it off the corner. It takes it, you know, away from the corner, both perspectives in terms of driving both distances. That's why I asked earlier if one of your considerations was to use the site that's currently there. The things that are on the site, sounds like you weren't. Now, I think you were still wedded to that exact location, but I'm asking you to consider for the concerns that were made, take that sign and put it on the other side of the sidewalk, north side. It's still away from the row of trees that come down the road. And it's still, I think, presented in the right location, if you will, for the traffic to see it in both directions.

I would have to double check with the client and their property because on the other side of that sidewalk, there is currently a fence and then there's like a drainage ditch, it looks like. So as far as putting a foundation over there, it would involve moving the fence. And I'm not 100% sure Like if that's something to do with the town, there is definitely a drain in there. There is. And it's fenced in so that there is no room to put a foundation on that side. I was just there again. I went by again just to take another look.

I went by too. That's why I'm asking.

yeah so i would have to double check with them because i'm not sure about that fenced in area if it is actually their property or if it falls within the town at that point i'm not sure if anybody knows but i thought that i thought that swale was maintained by the uh

As I recall, there may have been an issue with trash and stuff being blown into the fence. And I don't know if maybe Mr. Costa's zoning enforcement people had to reach out to them at one point to take care of that. So I can say with a pretty good degree of confidence that that swale was probably put there when they built the plaza or Benny's built that, whoever built that building. may be responsible for that. I don't know if, Chris, do you know?

Normally, if you have any infrastructure on drainage, it belongs to the, if it's on the property, it belongs to that property. Yeah.

They're responsible for maintenance.

They're responsible for the maintenance and keeping it clean.

Matter of fact, if I'm not wrong, I thought there was also an issue with the fence at one point becoming a safety issue. You know, somebody getting in there and getting in there. And I think they had to do something with the fence at one point, also, to be honest with you. It might be a starting point for you. I tend to, I'm sorry. No, that's okay, go ahead. Usually I'm looking at the safety side of things first, but he beat me to that punch. And I have to agree with Tom. Sight lines tend to be important coming in and out of a place like that, for sure, particularly for pedestrians. So it might be something that, I mean, Look, I'm leaning towards supporting to a degree.

Ask it a different way. As part of your assessment of this presentation, with the clearance that exists there, do you believe from a safety standpoint, you know, traffic studies, et cetera, that that's sufficient? Because that was a thing that cued me up is, you know, the height being under six feet, the open space underneath.

Yes, so we and we also leave that open space. So we do feel it's sufficient, especially since the sign is 10 feet off the road. It's not right on the roadway. There is 10 feet back and it's. 4 1⁄2 feet from the edge of the sign to the sidewalk. So that leaves additional feet from the sidewalk, not just the road. That is an average height for space, and that's why a lot of past Carpianado signs go fully to the ground with no space. We wanted to ensure there was some visibility area underneath the sign so you can see through if needed. And that brings me to, I know you had mentioned about lowering the height. So if we keep the same square footage but make it shorter, that would eliminate some of that space, which we would not want to eliminate any of that space from grade. So if we did make it shorter, we would have to reduce the square footage. We wouldn't be able to keep the square footage of where it is.

But as Mr. Haney mentioned, if it was moved further away, and especially moved further away from the corner itself towards the building, then that would reduce or help to eliminate the safety issue of the crosswalks being right there close by and visibility. So that would negate having to go to a smaller square footage, but would still allow reducing in height, keeping the same square footage, and increasing safety.

We typically would still want to keep the same space from grade to the bottom of the sign. Just because of that bottom tenant, we just, you never know. There's vandalism, there's people. We'd like to at least try to keep the tenant spaces where people can't go right, walk right up to it and do anything to the tenant panels themselves. So we do like to keep a good amount of height from the bottom to the grade there and again i can look i can talk with the client about potential moving it over there but based on just being there again that fence i'd have to check with them property-wise if it's doable to be able to move it over there any other questions

Seeing none, I'm gonna open it up to the audience. Is there anyone here tonight that'd like to speak for or against this petition? Seeing none, I'm gonna close the open portion of the hearing and I'm gonna ask for a vote.

I'm gonna make a motion to approve.

Second.

Vote. The part of me that, from the economic standpoint, from the pro-economic development and knowing that we need the businesses in town, the guys have been doing a good job trying to be a good steward there. Part of me wants to say I'd like to approve this. The other part of me would like to ask if you would be amenable before we take any votes here, back and at least look at the suggestions we've made tonight. I don't have a problem with the size of the sign. It's not a problem. I feel like it's okay. But to satisfy the concerns of some of the members on the board, including myself, about some safety issues, they need to at least make the effort to go back and look at it, up with something that might work. but I ask you indulgence in my, but if you would consider that and come back, maybe an improved,

Can absolutely go back to them. Question, if we can't move it to the other side of the sidewalk because of the grade there, if there is room to push it a little further back into the plaza off the road, would you be open to that as an option? Because I think there is some room there. So maybe like a 15 foot setback versus a 10, which I believe the RK is set back a little further than this one.

i hesitate to speak for anyone else up here but that said um that might work from my viewpoint again i'll try for the other one but again i know i gotta look at it so then what we're saying is we're asking you to take a continuance to the august 25th meeting we will have all this discussion we've already had on record

So you can come back in and you can tell us the feasibility of moving the sign to different locations. And then based on that new information, we'll then consider and take a vote.

I can do that. Yep.

I'd like to just make one other comment regarding the heights that I mentioned. The average of the rest of them comes out to approximately 18 feet, just as in if they if you're able to look at lowering so you're not hitting that 130% increase, but keeping the same size. And again, being moved off and further off allows you to keep the same square footage of the signage, just lowering it to bring it in line with the neighborhood.

I can talk then.

Good. Let's see if we can work together.

Okay.

Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate that.

So it's just continued to the August 25th that we don't have to resubmit any, just a new plan before then. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Motion to adjourn.

I'll second.

All in favor? Aye.

This was a quick night.