Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

You don't want to ever see something that you won't pay back for something. Well, design. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Second, it would be much more if you wanted to hash things out.

You just don't want to fix it. You don't want to mess with it. You don't want to mess with it. You don't want to mess with it. You don't want to mess with it.

Okay, I will call the order. The June 10th, 2056, the Albany County Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting.

Do you have a roll call? All right, zero. Is there more of a line? Zero line. And Mr. Hinkley is absent, and I am here. We want the approval of the agenda. The planning director has requested that we switch the order of the two applications. Any objections? Any other amendments to the agenda? I have a motion to approve the agenda as amended.

I'll second. All in favor say aye.

Aye. Motion carries. I have a motion to approve the minutes from May 13th, 2020-26.

I make a motion to approve the minutes of May 13th, 2026.

I second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Any disclosure of the conflicts of interest?

Yes, I do. Yes, go ahead. Number six on our agenda, I'm going to recuse myself because it would be conflict of interest. I've been involved in this project, and I'm also a resident out on the ranch.

Okay, well, thank you for that, Barb. I'm good. And I have nothing either. In that case, we will begin with item number six, Wild Horse Ranch Property Owners Association Conditional Use Application, CU-01-26. David.

So I guess with Commissioner Maselli needing to recuse herself and without four members present, there wouldn't be a voting forum on this item.

Yes. That is an apt observation.

So we can go forward with the other application, and then, oh, she gets on. She's supposed to be on.

Yeah, I had a note from Roth. Well, we had the same note from Roth. Right. In that case, that's what we'll do. We will move back to the agenda before. And proceed with Union Wireless Tower Application, RUCT-02-26. Tori.

Chairman, President of the Commission. So the applicant is Union Telephone Company, and they are requesting the approval of a tower permit to install a 100-foot self-supporting communication tower. This is on commercial-zoned property located at 103 Circle Drive. The site is a mobile home park and is accessed via Circle Drive from Wyoming Highway 230. The review process received some comments, most notably from Jake Schneider, Albany County engineer, who had comments requiring additions and revisions to the drawings and site plan. All revisions were completed and there were some additions that they needed. They completed that as well. Joseph Shahidi with the City of Laramie Planning Division commented on the proximity of the proposed tower location to a future collector identified in the major street plan. Katie Wynn, District Manager, Laramie Rivers Conservation District, commented on erosion successability and minimizing land disturbance. Will Schultz, Habitat Protection Supervisor, Wyoming Game and Fish, comments that the proposed site is not located within identified crucial wildlife habitats. And he also provided recommendations regarding avian collision prevention, lighting, and invasive weed management. Taylor McCourt, District 1 Traffic Engineer, YDOT, had comments on utility work and temporary construction access. Full comments can be seen in the review section. So the applicable sections of the Albany County Zoning Resolution are Chapter 5, Section 5, and Chapter 5, Section 11. Pursuant to the Albany County Zoning Resolution Chapter 5, Section 11E, the Board of County Commissioners must make the following findings that the proposed tower shall not adversely affect the public interest, that the applicant has provided a site plan, and that the applicant has adequately addressed possible impacts. Additionally, all notice requirements were met. So with our staff analysis, the applicant's request to install a 100-foot communication tower on the subject property meets the minimum standards of the Albany County Tower Permit Regulations. The proposal includes a new 100-foot self-support tower and associated equipment within an 80-foot by 80-foot lease area. The applicant has indicated that an existing union wireless facility within the City of Laramie is not suitable for the proposed equipment upgrades or for future loading requirements. The applicant has also requested a variance from the standard setback requirement and submitted a structural letter certified by a Wyoming professional engineer indicating that the tower is designed with a theoretical zero fall zone within the proposed 25 foot setback from the lease line. Staff finds that the required application materials have been submitted and that the applicant has adequately addressed the potential impacts identified in the regulations. Based on staff review, the proposal is not expected to adversely affect the public interest, and it is anticipated to have minimal impacts on surrounding properties and land uses. The findings necessary for approval, applicant responses, and staff analysis referenced in this report are adopted as findings reflecting that the applicant has adequately addressed the specified impacts, and the same are incorporated herein. The applicant is proceeding in accordance with and is in compliance with the requirements of the Albany County Zoning Resolution. Staff recommends to approve the Union Telephone Company Tower Permit Application, LUCT-02-26, adopting and incorporating the staff analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions of law, as each are stated in the staff report. Happy to answer any questions. Barb, do you have anything?

No, I have no questions. All right, no questions. I will note that Commissioner Ben-David has joined us. Mara, do you have any questions?

Do, I have a couple, if that's okay. And sorry, I can't be in person. My dog just had surgery. So my first question is, have we consulted with the FAA, the airport, about this structure so close to the airport area? I know it's not exactly inside. the designated overlay, but, uh, I'm wondering if we reached out to them, if we asked about it, did we get a response?

Uh, the applicant, um, did do a tower determination result, which, uh, yeah, they, they looked into it. I guess the results they gave us, uh, said they were in compliance. They didn't need to do anything else.

They did get a response that no one is worried about it in terms of flights and airport.

Yes, from my understanding, yes.

Okay. And the second question, were all the neighbors notified about this coming up?

Yes. They went through the notice requirements. So certified mail was sent to all adjacent property owners. Legal notice was posted to the newspaper and they did post a development sign. So yeah, they met all the requirements for notice.

That's all I've had. Thank you.

Jory, did you discuss this with Mr. Shahidi?

Not in depth, just from the letter. I did discuss it with David, and we didn't really have anything in our regulations for something like this. I guess they're meeting the setback requirements, and they're doing it in a leased area, so they have to be one foot for every height of the tower from the lease lines, but they We're asking for a variance with the engineered letter, I guess, for the ball radius.

Yeah, no, I understand that. Okay. And I'm talking about Mr. Shahidi's raising the point that this doesn't allow, it appears, for the continuance of Venture Drive as part of the major street plan at some point in the future. Right. When I looked, at the measurements from the site plan, it looks to me like from the northern edge, or roughly the northern edge of the fencing, to the nearest northern property line, there's about 55 feet. And the major street plan map just shows roughly where things are going. I mean, it's not even- Yeah, that's only a map. But it makes sense that it's gonna go due west from Pigeon Drive all the way up to 230, presumably right against that northern, the next property boundary, And I don't know exactly what sort of right of way we're looking at for that, David, but it's a collector. So, I mean, would that be 80 or 100 feet right of way?

Yeah, so it would be 80 foot right of way. Usually it's 40 on each side of the property line.

So this would fall within that?

If it's on the property line, 40 feet, right, it would be close. But I don't think it would be in that right of way.

Say what you said again, David. Where would the right-of-way go?

So the right-of-way typically follows the property line.

It's 40 feet on each side. Yes. Okay, in that case, that would clear.

It would be close.

Yeah, it'd be close, but that would clear. All right, then that's all I have. We'll have a couple of standard questions.

Those who are... Hi, good evening. My name is Chris Schlax. I'm with SAC Wireless on behalf of Union Wireless.

So, Rob, do you have any questions? Don't.

What are the wind ratings on your tower?

I do have that. So, we would follow code with that. So, Loading conditions, 114 miles an hour with no ice, 60 miles an hour with fourth inch of ice. This is standard. I think it's wind exposure C. So we do have the stamped letter from the engineer explaining the wind considerations for the structural here. And as he said, with the zero fall radius, so the tower would be designed for the top section in the event of a failure, which is highly rare, it would collapse down on itself. So it wouldn't have a full tip over. So it'd essentially be a zero fall radius.

Anything else? I don't have anything either. So thank you. So we will open this up for our Public hearing. Is there any member of the public hearing who wishes to comment on this application? Hearing and seeing none, I have a motion to close the public hearing. I move that we close the public hearing. I'll second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. That motion carries. So, um, any discussion? No. Rob?

I think my questions were answered. I was a little worried about the distance to the pretty dense trailer park right there. It's going to be right on top. But if people didn't feel threatened by it, then I don't have a problem with it.

Okay. In that case, may I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

I recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Union Telephone Company Tower Permit Application, LUCT-02-26, adopting and incorporating the staff analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions of law, as each are stated in the staff report.

And is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? In that case, we'll receive a roll call vote. Greg? Yes. Ralph? Yes. Barb? Yes. And I vote yes also. So that motion carries. Thank you very much. So we will move on to the law enforcement ranch property owners association additional use application, CU-01-26. David? Yeah, Mr. Chair, members of the commission.

Good evening. This application is for conditional use for a community center on the Wild Horse Ranch. The applicant is the Wild Horse Ranch Property Owners Association. The property is surrounded by residential uses to the north, east there's BLM property and Lake Hattie and south Lake Hattie and then west vacant property The property is accessed from Lakeside Drive within the Wild Horse Ranch subdivision. So the Wild Horse Ranch Property Owners Association is requesting approval of this conditional use application to build a community center. This building will be used for community gatherings, meetings, recreation activities, and storage of fire suppression equipment. The use of the building is limited to those limited to those folks that are within the Wild Horse Ranch community. The property is approximately 35 acres in size. Pavilion picnic tables and other minor facilities for use by the community members are present on the property. There's also access to Lake Hattie from the property. A portion of the property is in a floodplain and extends into Lake Hattie itself. The applicant is proposing to install a cistern for water. The water will be handled, the water will be hauled from a water treatment facility on Highway 230. Then access to the property is from the private roads maintained by the Wild Horse Ranch Property Owners Association. There are a number of accesses to the Wild Horse Ranch properties for public roads. A number of folks reviewed this application. Just note a couple of them. The Wyoming State Engineer's Office, Sue Kinsley, natural resource analyst noted water use associated with this project is subject to the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program and possible interconnection of groundwater and surface water. And she also noted wells must be cleared through this state engineer's office. Laramie River's conservation district, Katie Winn, the district manager, provided comments on the limitations of the soil for commercial developments and susceptibility of the soil to wind and water erosion. It was recommended that land distribution or disturbance is minimized. Disturbed areas are reclaimed with native grass species and vehicles and equipment are washed prior to entry in the property, prior to construction to minimize the spread of invasive species. It is also noted that additional development will further increase erosion and soil health concerns in the area. It is recommended that the US Army Corps of Engineers be consulted prior to construction of the building to determine if any additional requirements need to be met due to proximity to Lake Hattie and mapped wetlands. Wyoming Game and Fish Department also provided comments, which I sent out today, so just received them yesterday or last night, I guess. They noted some terrestrial concerns. They're asking to avoid disturbance of wintering pronghorn. They would like that no development basically happen between November 15th and April 30th. I guess no construction activities. They also provided an email just to clarify what was said in this to make sure they can still do things between those dates on the property. They just don't want construction activity. So that's one of the things they want to do. If fencing is required or is going to be provided, they would like it to be wildlife friendly fencing. They also provided information and recommendations concerning evasive grass species and noxious weeds. And then they also had some recommendations of how to protect the caddy habitat quality that are all listed in their letter, which is just to also note that this letter is attached to what is online now. So I did attach that this afternoon or this morning so that it's available to the public to be viewed and read and all that. So that's their recommendations. Number of findings have to be met for this project. My analysis, the applicant has addressed the required findings and provided the complete application. The proposed use will be beneficial to the wild horse ranch community and will not negatively affect the surrounding property or area so long as the potential environmental and wildlife impacts are mitigated by adhering to the conditions that I'm proposing in the staff report. The applicant should also carefully consider the siting of the building and the wastewater system where it is near Lake Hattie. There's also a delineated floodplain and wetland that as long as it's built outside of the floodplain, it'll be away from the wetland and lake caddy, and it should protect the fish and lake habitat. So I'm recommending that this application be approved with the following conditions. documentation that the building wastewater system will be built outside of the floodplain. Any development activities should be done outside of the floodplain. The Laramie Rivers Conservation District recommendations regarding land quality and water quality should be followed. And the Wyoming Game and Fish's recommendations regarding fish and wildlife shall be followed. And then I'd be happy to answer any questions. I know there's a lot of members of the Wild Horse Ranch Properties Association here to address any questions as well. Okay.

Barb. You can ask any questions if you want. Sounds like you are obliged to ask any questions. I'm familiar with Barb.

I have a question and another repeated request. Do we have any commissioners that have conflict of interest in this case?

Yes, we do. Barb has already identified that before you came on.

Can we ask them to recuse themselves from voting? I did that. Yes. Okay. I'm sorry. Did that happen before I? Okay. I'm sorry. I was waiting in the wait room for the Zoom. So the only thing, the concerns, when I read the letter from the Wyoming Game and Fish, I read a lot of anxiety in there. Lake Hattie is an important wildlife. We've discussed it in previous applications that it is a very sensitive wildlife habitat for both aquatic and terrestrial. So I would emphasize close coordination with the Wyoming Game and Fish as the project goes forward when we approve the following steps. And also a request to please, please, please alert our Game and Fish Office of our county fencing regulations, because that'll save them writing a lot of words on a piece of paper. Anything else? That's all I have.

Great. I'm good. I'm good also, so let's have the applicant, the applicant set forth, please.

Any jobs who you are? Hi, I'm Glenn Klein, and I am the current president of the Wild Horse Ranch Property Owners Association. Is there anything you want to say before I ask you any questions? No, I will mention, though, that we have not had a chance to review the Game and Fish comments prior to this evening, and I look forward to seeing those as soon as possible so that we can go through and make sure that we review their considerations. Thank you.

I'm sorry. I spaced this in the teeth.

Well, I'll just start off, and I'll say one thing, and see if this is a problem or not. One of the recommendations was or a request was that no construction take place between certain dates. I think it was roughly November to April. And do you have a construction timeframe you're looking at right now?

We don't. I mean, our project timeline was to make sure that we had conditional use, you know, we're doing things step by step. And I don't think there'll be a problem observing those dates that were mentioned.

So that's why it's not the exact dates. Basically, it's the winter period. They will be in that manner. So, Marav, is there anything you'd like to ask the applicant directly?

Again, I'm happy that they're going to take seriously the game and fish comments.

Okay. Great. And so in the staff recommendation, there are four conditions. that are being recommended here, one of which is the wastewater system to be built outside the floodplain. Is that what you're applying to do?

Our intention is to have the entire septic system greater than 100 feet from the flood. Okay, I'm sure the building's gonna be outside the floodplain too. The building is outside the floodplain.

Well, I don't have anything else either, so thank you. All right, thanks. So, We will open this up to, we'll conduct a public hearing. Is there any member of the public who wishes to speak on this application? Hearing is seen, now may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Make a motion to close the public hearing. Rob, would you second that?

I second it.

Any further discussion? We will vote in that case. No, excuse me. We'll not vote. Is there any further discussion? No. Okay. In that case, we will conduct a vote then. Is there a motion to approve this then?

Do we vote to close the public hearing? We made the motion.

I'm sorry. Yes. Yeah, back up. All those in favor of closing the public hearing, say aye. Aye. Thank you, Bob. That motion carries. Okay, any further discussion on this application? In that case, may I have a motion on this application?

I do have a quick question that just popped into my head. That is going to also include firefighting equipment?

Yes, there are currently some firefighting vehicles that are pre-positioned on the ranch. that are staged at the locations of some of the volunteer fire department personnel that are attached to Big Laramie Valley Volunteer Fire Department. So there's like a command vehicle, a deuce and a half, and a pumper truck.

They will move to the facility?

They will. So they will be better environmentally protected and ready to go in the wintertime as well.

Gotcha. Do you have an ambulance route to you? We do not. We do not.

Okay.

Okay. Just firefighting. Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome. Okay. May I have a motion for this application?

I move that we approve this application, SD01-26. Am I on the right one? Have I got the right numbers here? This is CU-0126.

Okay, mine says SD. Okay, CU-01-26, sorry.

We need to read all the text associated?

Yes. Okay, sorry. We approve CU01-26 with all of the recommendations of the Board of County Commissioners, while for a strange property owners association conditional use application, CU-01-26. adopting and incorporating the staff analysis, findings of facts, and the conclusions of the law as each are stated in the staff report. Okay, and that would be with the conditions?

With the conditions, yes. Yeah. Of the, excuse me, I would reference a staff recommendation.

Yeah. So this would be with additional conditions that are referenced in the stack recommendation. Is there a second?

I second.

Any further discussion? No. In that case, we'll vote. Craig? Aye. Ralph?

Aye.

You said nay?

No, I said aye.

Okay, aye. And I vote aye also. So that motion carries. Thank you. So we'll proceed with item seven, discussion of the guest student branch line use. And you're not required to stay here for our discussion of guest student branch use, but you can if you want to.

David.

Sure. Members of the commission. So the planning department's received questions from a member of the public regarding the county's guest slash dude ranch. Just a second. Okay.

Do you have a public comment? Do you all have public comments you'd like to make?

You don't. And you generally, you serve. Okay. Sorry, Dave. Okay. So I've received some questions about dude ranches or guest ranches. And the comments were made that maybe additional dwellings should be allowed on this, in these uses. for these properties. And so I would just ask basically to bring it to you to discuss this. So yes, dude ranches are generally intended to provide tourism related lodging and recreational opportunities in connection with activities or active ranching and agricultural operations. Existing regulations allow this land use in agricultural zoning and require approval of a conditional use. in agricultural residential, rural residential, and RATCHAT zoning districts. They're prohibited in other zones. The uses are subject to the standards of the zoning district which they're in, including the dwelling standards or the density standards. So what I guess we're considering is whether we should allow additional, or whether it would be prudent to look into allowing additional density allowance for guest accommodations for these specific uses. Potential benefits for this would be supporting agricultural tourism and ranch-based businesses, allowing guest accommodations to cluster and preserve open space, and recognizing that guest lodging operates differently than individual residential dwellings. Potential concerns is obviously increased residential density in rural areas, conversion of agricultural properties into more commercial use, increased impacts to roads, utilities, emergency services, and neighborhood properties, and difficulty distinguishing guest ranch operations from residential developments. So if additional density is desired, use standards should be developed for this use. This use is one of those uses that's not defined. I mean, it's defined by the common usage of the terms in our regulations. There's no specific standards other than what we find in the land use table. So there are guest ranches in Albany County. However, this isn't a request that I've ever seen that I can remember. It was basically an individual that was looking at maybe a 40 to 80 acre parcel that wants to have additional dwellings to use for some kind of a guest ranch or dude ranch. I would say that most large ranches, thousand plus acres, they will have no problems with this density. It's only when you get into the smaller acreage that we're seeing issues with this. So my request is basically to know if you feel like the allowance of additional dwellings on smaller acreage parcels, 40, 80 acres, et cetera, is appropriate for a guest dude ranch business. And then also, is the commission interested in exploring the development of standards for guest dude ranches? Just staff opinion, we're not super excited about looking into this right now. For one, it's not a use that's used very often and not something people have talked about to us in our office. And then two, I'm not sure why we would allow additional dwellings or density on these smaller acreage just to run more of a business type use on a property that's that small, I guess. But I'm bringing it to you. Those are the questions. We can discuss this. If you guys are interested in it, we'd be happy to look into it, bring you back something, or put it on our list at least to bring back something. But yeah, I guess.

Can I make a comment?

Absolutely. I was going to ask for a comment from you, Gar, because you've got about 40 acres, right?

I was going to say, we have just a little bit over 40 acres to me.

Would you like to have a guest dude ranch?

No, that's more like an Airbnb to me than it is a dude ranch. When I think of a dude ranch, I think of a large, like you say, 1,000-acre ranch where you have horseback riding, you have all kinds of different fishing and different outdoor type of activities. Plus, you may have cabins and other accommodations for your guests. I don't see that happening on a 40-acre or 80-acre parcel land. I don't think it would be appropriate.

Okay, thank you. Rob, how do you feel about that?

So I think this is actually may drag us back to talk about Airbnbs and that sort of thing because because basically that's what it is. The fact that you offer the guests an activity like riding horses or rounding cattle doesn't change the fact that you are offering lodging and in many cases at least a breakfast. So it might be a bed and breakfast. And so I think it brings back an issue that I don't remember resolving about this type of operations. Do we need to regulate them? Where do they fall in that line of regulation? I would agree with Barbara that I think given that on large ranches, probably there is not a problem. But on small acreage, it will not be a good idea. Plus the issue of bed and breakfast slash Airbnb.

Greg, how do you feel about this?

I have to agree with Rob. It seems there should be a bigger section of land to do this on, and depending on where you grew up and where you came from, 40 acres may seem big, but as you start putting extra people on it and buildings and vehicles, I don't think it's big enough. I think it needs to be investigated a little bit more.

Well, in fact, 40 acres is quite large to most people, but Maybe you'll have to ranch people.

Not in Wyoming, not in any other places.

That's why. My thoughts are much of mine also. I mean, this to me is not close. Okay. Thank you for talking about a guest dude ranch. You don't have to be talking about a ranch.

Perfect. Well, thanks. I'm just doing my due diligence. That's all I needed to hear.

Thank you very much. Yes. David, you're standing there, so how about any staff updates?

I'm trying to think what went to the board last. Okay. Bidding zoning district amendment was approved at the last, I think the last, was it the last Board of County Commissioners meeting? Or two ago. And then The Point North subdivision, it was, they found, the tile company found an error on the flat that just needs to be corrected. So they're in the process of doing that. Hopefully it'll get corrected so it can go to the meeting next week. The Calistoga subdivision femur and final plat were approved. Yeah, so that was approved. And then the paddocks was also approved, second filing, third edition, final plot application. And then the amendments to the Albany County zoning resolution pertaining to livestock production did make a little bit of a tweak to the standard, the language standard. It really just cleaned things up. It wasn't substantive, but it was approved. So the livestock amendment that you guys worked on was approved. So that's all I can remember.

Can I make a comment about that? Yeah, go ahead. Can I say something?

Yeah, go ahead.

Yeah, so there was a guy that... was not happy that we made livestock conditional use on ranchettes. because he claimed that we in Planning and Zoning didn't discuss it fully. We didn't specifically discuss the category of one chat and he was not happy that we addressed the needs of other people but did not address the concerns of runchette owners. He actually tracked me down and caught me at ACE after the meeting and kept talking to me about it. And he would like to bring it back. And Dave, I don't know if it's possible or what can happen. He would like this whole livestock conditional use discussed again. Dave, do you know what the...

I mean, if that's what I'm directed to do by you guys, I'd be happy to bring it back. But, I mean, that's your decision to make. I'm not interested in bringing it back from the staff perspective. I think it's doing what we want it to do, and I don't think there's any overreach. But it's up to you guys. I'd be happy to bring it back, and we can discuss it more.

What I have to say is that... He did compliment the Planning and Zoning Commission for thoroughly discussing the matter. He wasn't claiming that we did anything wrong. He just was unhappy with the fact that we didn't specifically discuss the chat category. So if we all feel okay with what we did, We obviously, it went through, and I think we did a good job. So I don't have, I don't feel that we need to bring it back.

I would agree that you only have one person who's complaining. I mean, it's not like you have a whole handful of people who have an issue with it. You know, he obviously didn't have the outcome that he was looking for. And I don't see a reason to bring it back just for one person's issue.

Yeah. I'll add that he knew that he wasn't going to be personally affected by it. He was just worried about future RANCHET owners. But future RANCHET owners come in knowing the regulations, so I don't think that should be a problem. At least that's my opinion.

that just doesn't really meet the requirements for reopening.

Well, if someone wants to come formally to the planning director, we can address that at that point. And for the time being, I think we're okay, too. Well, thank you for that, Rob. Are there any other questions or comments that you folks would like to make?

I would like to propose something to think about anyway. This is my HR background coming through. And so we got training a couple of months ago and we have these rules of practice and procedure, the Albany County Planning and zoning commission, which are very important about communication, what we're allowed to do and what we're not allowed to do. I would like you to consider having planning commissioners sign a receipt that they have read and received this document.

Which document?

The rules and practice. Oh, okay. Yes. Just as a matter of... Well, we can certainly do it.

I don't know that it gains us or loses us anything.

Well, if it gets sent out in an email and you respond back to it, there's a record that it will be sought. So we don't...

In case there's any kind of legal issue that ever comes up, you've got something on record that said your commissioners received the document, read it.

Matt, what's your advice here?

It's just a thought.

These are rules of practice and procedure, which are binding upon the planning and zoning commission members in any event. So I don't think that that really adds anything.

Okay.

in order to really help me out on appeal or in a direct lawsuit because the fact that they're adopted, that's the legal effect right there.

Okay.

But I think it's certainly always good to keep them in mind.

Okay. Anything else? I don't believe I have anything either. Rob, do you have anything else?

Yeah. No, I don't.

In that case, our next regular meeting will be July 8th, 5 o'clock in this room. And this meeting is adjourned. Thank you.

Thank you.

I think that was a record short meeting.

Are they always that short?

No. And sometimes I get the things right, at least. First time. Okay. Okay, yeah.

That's my dad. Okay.

If you've had a history break, I'm sure you've had some therapy also. I'm not doing any kind of therapy.

Oh, really? No.