Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

You know, I I did notice out there that you were just kind of sticking your finger out to the man there. [laughter] Amy, congratulations. I saw your spread in the magazine. Thank you. And your husband's promotion. The promotions just a joke because all my friends are like, "Wait, so what's going to be different from getting I talked to him today about getting a jacket to camp this summer." Oh yeah. He's gonna start hopefully. Oh yeah, he can. It's gonna be fun. You've taken six. Are you ready for recommen?

Good evening and welcome to the planning. Welcome to the Bay St. Louis planning and zoning meeting of January 14th, 2026. We ask that you please silence all cell phones and electronics. At this time, we're going to begin with a short prayer in the pledge of allegiance. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Father in heaven, we invite you to preside over this meeting. Give us unity of spirit even when our opinions differ. Help us to listen politely to other points of view and to remember that we are all a part of the same community. Direct our thoughts, words, decisions, and actions toward the right path in the best interest of our city. We ask this in your name. Amen. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands nation and justice for all.

Okay, since it's a new year, our first agenda item is actually going to be um voting on the chairman for 2026 for planning and zoning. Are we doing a co-chair?

Oh, and a vice. Okay. So, we're going to vote on chairman and vice chairman. Um myself and Mr. Breland are uh removing ourselves from the running because we're going to have to leave the commission unfortunately in a couple months. So, we'll do um Oh, sorry. Surprise. Got [laughter] I'd rather come out now. Um, so we'll do like basically we'll do nominations and then votes. [snorts] Anybody actually want to do it? I don't. [laughter] No, I don't either. I think our newest member is probably the most

chairman. Really? [laughter] A guess at Okay. So, who's going to be co-chair then? It's gonna have to be Mr. Mr. AT Mr. Vice Chair vice chair chair I'll under protest I'll be the vice chair. Okay. Well, look, before he changes his mind, I'm going to make a motion from Miss Michaela Brown um to be chairman and then Mr. Dean AG to be vice chairman. All those in favor? I I I motion [laughter] Amy I don't know just perpetually and I guess I should have done this four years ago

if y other boards do this if y'all want me to start reading the action items in case there's extraation I'll start just reading that and so it's a little bit even clearer for the minutes that would be nice. Oh yeah. All right. All right. So call to order. So now next we have a motion to approve the minutes of the November 12th, 2025 meeting. I make a motion. Second. I I I abstain. I don't was I no. Your extension goes with the majority. So it's a yes. I wasn't.

All right. Um, first action item is uh and just from here on out I'll read the motion. The chairman's can go and run the meeting of calling people up.

Selli u application for variance to the zoning ordinance sub by Joseph and Lily Melli. The applicant is requesting a 13 foot variance resulting in a 12oot front yard setback. The property is located at 104 uh Washington Street. The property is zon R1 single family district. Um little rundown. This is Washington Street right off the beach left hand side. Um the setback requirement. There was a little bit of confusion originally. We do have a um something in the zoning that you could take an average of the neighboring houses on the same side of the block. For this one, the neighbor's house is closer than 25 ft to the north. They have a house on the corner of that's a duplex, but it I don't know how far it actually sets back. Plus, by the spirit of the law, the front yard of it is Beach Boulevard, so that's the side wall. So there's not really an average of the front yard because you could only have it. So the required setback for this district is 25 ft and the applicant is wanting to construct the house. So the front of the house is uh 12 foot from the front yard. So 13T variance. Um Bay St. Louis the administration recommended to deny uh the variance. Uh though the house next door is closer than 25 ft. Um

how close Jeremy? We don't have a survey. It appears to be about 18, but majority of those houses that are being built on Washington Street. When you get farther down the bleach, you have some close ones, but most of them are set back to 25 ft. Um, and then once again, there's no live protected trees or anything else to try to avoid. So, there's no hardship present, but the applicants are here to speak. And I'm going to be recusing myself from this application. So, uh, Miss Brown's going to take over for us.

Okay. Joseph and Lillian, what is the last name? I don't want to go to explain the application if you want to speak onto it or Michelli are y'all in the audience.

So, if they're if they're not in the audience, we still have to go give a a um recommendation to the to the uh city council. So, since it's the public hearing, if anybody's here to speak in favor or against it, be the time to call them out. Um, so there is someone signed up and I also have a letter as well, but I'm going to go ahead. Uh, are you Katie? All right. Katie Hood. And can you cite your address just so you know for our recording? Yes. And I'll clarify, I am the attorney for Miriam Jones and Brad Jones, and they live at 107 Washington Street. So, I signed up to speak on their behalf. Okay. and the letter that you referred to was authored by Mr. and Mrs. Jones. Okay. All right. So, we're all on the same page,

right? Thank you.

Um I just wanted to kind of echo what Mr. Ber just said a few minutes ago about the um 25 foot minimum setback requirement that is made clear under um the the zoning rules and and regulations which I know y'all are all very familiar with and is posted on the um frequently asked questions portion of the planning and zoning website. But the home that um Mr. Burke just referenced that's that has the 18 foot setback. It's my understanding that that home, the front yard of that home is facing Beach Boulevard. So the 18oot setback for that would be inapplicable of any neighboring properties on Washington Street, which is where, um, not only my client's home faces, which is Washington Street, but also the property at issue, um, the Melli's property that the variance is being sold on. Um, in addition to that, and I know the letter kind of I don't want to reiterate the entirety of the letter, but um, there had been some verbal discussions between my client and the Meellis with regard to um, any home that was going to be built on the property issue, not obstructing their view in 107 Washington Street, along with some rights of first refusal about the property being sold to certain individuals. So there's there was kind of this this um general understanding or a meeting of the minds as to if the Mellis were going to build what kind of residence would be built and the residence that is um reflected in the application for the variance seems to be um inconsistent with that understanding. But aside from all of those verbal discussions, um there's not a hardship presented, which I think is the the gold standard here. Um section or article, excuse me, 13 um lists out certain conditions that all have to be present as part of the variance application. And it's my position, my client's position that none of those conditions have been

met, much less all of the conditions. I think there's a strong argument that not just one condition would would give you grounds. you have to meet every single one of those conditions which is A through K. Um really A through H. Um I J and K just kind of talk some more. So A through H is not present here. Um you don't have a hardship. The property was purchased um with the same flood zone classifications that it currently has now. Nothing has changed on the flood plane. There's been no X to AE or AE to X on any portion of the property as far as I'm aware. Um, and so we just reiterate everything that we said in our letter that is part of the record on December 5th, 2025. Um, and just to give y'all some some background into the discussions about um, you know, how how this property was was I guess represented to be being used by the Meellis to my clients. Um, even well before this application for variance was um, submitted.

I'm happy to answer any other questions you may have. Um, I just wanted to make that clear for the record before you made your decision. Right. Um, okay. No, I'm going to read a couple. Yeah, if you want me to go read them real quick. Yeah. Call you back if you need to. Thank you so much. So, I did find something from the Meellis. They did write If you want me to take these I got some of the Okay. So, I'll just go read them real quick.

Can I read this from the Melli? Um so the um Joe and Sunny Melli said, "Honorable planning and uh zoning commission, please consider our request for a varance to the setback which will allow us to build our home within the flood zone requirements. The rising cost of flood insurance will become a hardship to anyone wishing to build in the area. Our plan is to provide a front elevate elevation that will be an advantageous uh to the neighborhood and property values. Please note that there are several homes on the street on both sides that have setbacks within the setback we are requesting. Your consideration is greatly appreciated. Respectfully, Joe and Sunny Meli. So, this is uh straight from the homeowners. And then Jeremy, you said you have

about to say and I I don't know if y'all want to read it all into the record, but it's part of the record. Um, cross the street neighbors whose legal counsel's here, the Joneses also have one on the record, but it essentially reflect it essentially uh echoes, you could basically say ditto to what Miss Hood just presented that there's no hardship um granted, but that is also part of the record. So, is those the only letters? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Um, did anybody um on the commission have any comments or questions? I have a question. Yes.

Okay. So, it looks like their goal is to build outside the flood zone line, but it also looks like based on this survey they have that they're going to be nominally in the flood zone line. My understanding is is that if you have the smallest part in the flood zone line, you're going to be in the flood zone. So, I don't think this even achieves what they're trying to achieve. I I they're not here to discuss, but from hearing your narrative, you are correct about that, right?

They'd have to cut that whole corner of the house off, the back corner. So, I'm um Well, were you going to say something? Okay. I'm interested. And so, uh because you had kind of brought up in your conversation when you were up on the podium the first time um the conversations that they had with your client. So what was the differences in conversation? That's a great question. And one thing that I did not mention that is pertinent to this conversation is my clients, Mr. and Mrs. Jones at 107, they purchased the house at 107 from the Melis.

So there was a relationship there and there were long-standing conversations, I think multiple conversations throughout the relationship about the Meelli's plans to build in this lot across the street. And in those conversations, there was a first right of refusal that was given to my clients about um the way that the house was going to be built and if it was going to be built off of the right to as to not obstruct their view. Um and then the plans that have been submitted um along with the variance request seem to be in direct contravention to what was represented verbally in the discussions. This is not what our understanding was that would be built there. This is definitely not something that um my clients and I don't want to put words in their mouth, but I don't think they ever would have agreed to this current um this current plan for the construction of the residence. This is nothing that was um ever, you know, put on their radar or represented to them by the Melis that it was even an option basically. So, um, and and another thing, too, is as far as as as far as another basis for denying this, um, which I know we've talked about a lot, but the position of the house that's currently proposed would obstruct the sighteline of vehicles that are backing onto Washington Street from the house that is on the corner of Beach Boulevard and Washington. You have this this lot is very, very close to the corner of Washington and Beach Boulevard. So, you've got a serious safety concern there with regard to incoming and ongoing and outgoing traffic. Um, especially backing in and out of that driveway on the residence on the corner. So, that's just another added layer of concern um and a further further consideration for denial of the request.

Okay. All righty. Um, did anybody else have any more questions? All righty. Thank you so much. Um, I think we're ready to roll. Okay. And then just for this Caitlyn for the minutes Amy, you're not I'm not here. You're not here. She put that she it's exited the room. So it's not an extension that I'll move that we deny the application. Second. All right. All those in favor? I I I All right. All righty. Five to zero. Yeah. All right. Um this is a public hearing, but it will be heard at the Bay St. the city council meeting on let's see what date I'm back

the January 20th 20th meeting 5:30 p.m.

All right, next application um application application for special exception to the Robin application for special exception to the zoning ordinance made by John Robin. The application applicant is requesting a special exception to allow an accessory dwelling on a lot that's under 15,000 square feet. The combined two lots is 11,639 square ft which would which are variance of 336 wait 3,361 square feet. um variance would be needed to lot size. Um property is located at 312 Democ. The zoning is R22 family. Um so city of Bay St. Louis so essentially um the applicant I don't know year two years ago bought a house that the address is demot but it goes street to street. It's actually two parcels. It's kind of a historic thing where the house that's at the Mlisten Street gets built across the lot line is actually on the back lot. So just throughout the years, it's always been acted as one.

Um there was when he purchased the house and probably has been there for 40 years, I don't know. There is a back shed, garage, workshop area that almost that's probably four feet off of State Street. That's that the applicant is wanting to change that shed workshop area into living quarters and so an accessory structure which would need special exception. Um city um city bas or administration is recommending to deny the applicant. Um the reason let me see let me pull my uh reasons would be storage sheds already constructed um convert to living quarters but the lots does not the two lots are typically do do not meet 15,000 square feet um minimum lot size. Um though they probably have enough accommodated to park but the storage building which is le which is in the setback less than 10 ft away from the pavement of state tree itself but it's probably I don't have a survey but it's probably 4 foot off their actual property line maybe 10 foot off the actual pavement you know to build a house that close to the road with living quarters I mean could it essentially be dangerous. So um talk I talked to the um applicant for the meeting. I said whenever whenever the house was the building has been there if that building got demolished or whatever on general it wouldn't go back where it was as a wouldn't be a living quarters but it wouldn't even be allowed to be built back there as a shed. It would

need to hit setbacks. So that's the reason for the recommendation that administration was saying to deny it. No hardship is present either. So applicant, sir, can you state your name and address for us for the record? John Robin, 312 Demolizent. I did. Um, well, Jeremy gave us a little bit of a rundown, but what is the the need for the um, so you're using that current shed as your garage right now? Yes, it's a storage garage. So, what would be the need for And it's kind of built out a little bit. It's all been painted and cleaned up if I mean it looked like a red

um what would be the need for the additional dwelling spaces? Would you be planning to rent that out? Maybe. So, possibly. Uh I know my sister wants to come for the weekends and stuff, you know. Um that's and property value. We did have another letter too. Um we had a Yeah, we have a letter of opposition I think in there. Yes. There's anything else? Well, um while he's up here, does anybody else have from the commission have any questions?

We before in the past, I think we had the same thing on the corner and I forgot where it was at. I think it was Mr. Bell's property a couple years ago. We wanted to add on to the shed and all that. Yeah. Well, it seems like the thing to do would be at to if you for more space would be add on to the existing house. Um because it's it's pretty functional. It appears as it is.

And granted, each case sits independently. Correct. I feel like a city council thing is one thing has always been since it's zoned R2 which duplexes are allowed by right in there. That was one thing that has always been I believe city council has discussed before is you know zoning allows you to have two dwellings on it but it would be in the form of a duplex right yeah under one roof. Yeah the structure that's why we that's what happened on the last one requirement. So, so question. Yes. Can I take that? So, just let me just ask a question because you can answer. Yeah.

What would preclude him from extending the roof from the main house to this house and thereby it'd be having a duplex. They're pretty far apart from each other. So, structurally, but I guess it's doable. Doable. And I already have permission from But the issue the issue would be is since you're since you are somebody would be doing this and just not this kind of project. You would have to we would the type of project is then we would actually then you would have to come here and ask for a setback requirement to the project. You would still have to get a variance because that that doesn't meet the setback requirement.

Yeah. What if he modified the building to meet the setbacks and then extended the roof and made it a duplex? Well, it would be substantial. He'd have to move the building back. He would have to move the back 16 feet forward towards the main house, right, to meet the 20 foot rear set back. Yeah. And then I don't I don't know where I don't know how big everything is, but the 45% lot coverage would probably then come somehow into effect. Yeah, that that would be it. Why don't you pick the building up, move it closer to the house? That would be perfect. But it's been I mean, it's a solid building. It's been there for years.

It's solid. It's a nice building. Um, you know, on State Street, you know, property lines are really kind of all out out there. I had my neighbor comes into my property for she comes in three feet for six feet and then back over big chunks out of my property. The neighbor, I mean, this line, this house is divided here and this house is divided here and I go all the way through. I mean, it's it's 70% ready finished, you know, the way it is. All I have to do is finish out the inside. I mean, that the roof there, the paint's there, the windows are there, the doors are there. You have plumber?

I'm a plumber. You know, there's plumbing there. Oh, the plumbing's there. Plumbing is there. The electric's not there. And uh the AC is going to be uh mini split. So that's not there. No, I'm saying I guess just administration and let me tell you this job when this gentleman bought the house. It's it was a dated I say dated house they needed some work to it. They have done a bangup job gone through historic beautiful

have gone through historic preservation made the main house better the whole property better. But one of the things for the administration is it's as it sits now, even what it is now, it's a non-conforming pre-existing non-conforming building. So essentially, you'd be making it kind of a pre-existing non-conforming building even arguably more non-conforming. Well, I'm with the use I'm with you on the the safety aspect of it only being four feet from the road. I'd be a little more apt to since it's already there and it looks good. But like if a car just swerves off the road barely, you know what? I understand your concern, but it's it's not the only one. No, I know.

They all there's a bunch of them like that. You know, when I take the turn to go on State Street, that structures, not necessarily living quarters, right? But it could be because it's really two lots and it could be a second. It could be divided. Yeah, I mean it is divided, but it divide it really really needs to be redivided because the it looks like the front house sits on the back house block. Not sure how that happened because I only have like 15 foot of front yard anyway. Mhm.

So, I couldn't believe they could go any further towards the street, you know. So, I mean, my backyard is huge. [clears throat] I really would have liked to have this done. Um, there was a letter of opposition in you want me to read a minute? And um, a letter of opposition. Let's see. I don't Did we have anyone signed up to speak? I didn't see anybody on the second just on the first and third.

All right. So, email received yesterday, Tuesday the 13th. So, it might not be in our packet that printed out. Um, there was emailed to us. Hey Jeremy, the primary the primary concern that we have with proposed variance at 312 Demston, which actually fronts State Street, is that State Street is quite narrow lane without sidewalk. The proposed building would not allow us to build The proposed building would not be allowed to be built close this close to the road today. It isn't safe for anyone to reside in it. It's too close for cars that often speed by in Oldtown Bay St. Louis. It is really unsafe for pedestrians on State Street. As residents, we would uh bring parking along likely at the edge of the street. Bikers, walkers, bikers, baby strollers have no room to get out of the way of the path of the speeding traffic. The block of State Street is extremely popular for pedestrians as it is a long quiet block uh lacking sidewalks. The and then he talks it goes to talk about some of the conditions we did. The intended parking as proposed structure would be crowded. the fire hydrant which is just a feet away. The owner installed a parking bumper and gravel on the rightway already. Roadside parking appears to be intended. A vehicle parked there would not allow access for passenger door encourage encouraging encouraging parking on into the street. The president might not follow the road. They're going on tang. Many properties along this block are on small lights and already close to the street and pu and pushing parking into the street. Traffic jams happen on this block with congestion and maintenance vehicles. At some point, emergency

vehicles might be blocked from an emergency. It's a long narrow one-way street without room for turning around. The property in question is large enough to go and goes through the demol. It is likely provided provided space to accomplish the plans without turning the former shed into a residential space. We applaud the work the owner has done in the last few months since pro purchasing but worried that the safety aspect of crowding an already narrow lane in the present set by the variance would allow crowding yet and it's this is from Melissa Smith and Clay Andrews at 316 demol Is there anyone else in the audience that'd like to speak for against the application? Um, if there's no other comments or questions from the commissioners, I'll entertain a motion.

Have a comment. Yes, Jeremy already spoke to me about the parking on the street by the fire hydrant which they mentioned in the letter. Yeah, it looks like this was projects not related to you. Is that No, no, no, no, no, no. It it we we discussed we discussed it before just before we just discussed it when I came in here, right? And he told me that the rocks need to come up the dirt need to go back which that would eliminate any kind of side street parking. Okay. I have plenty parking. Okay. Plenty park without that. Yes. That's always a good thing regardless. Do you have pictures of the property?

I don't have pictures. Durbine looked but I didn't we didn't get any print out pictures of the um the property. Well, it would be no off road, no side road park. So, if that makes Yeah, I'm sure your your neighbors would appreciate that regardless what happens, you know, just I mean, it is an air street regardless. It is an air freak. Um, I'll entertain a motion. I'll make a motion we deny. Motion to deny by Mr. Cranky. Is there a second? I second. Second by Miss Brown. All those in favor? I I I I I.

Uh motion passes, but please be present for the next city council meeting. It's Tuesday, January 20th at 5:30 p.m. And that's in this room as well. And be present for what? So in case the city council has any questions. This is the public hearing, but occasionally there's applications, they might call the applicant up to clarify something, but they have they have the final say so. They have the final say. So, well, maybe I have a chance. You have a chance? Yes, you have a chance. Like a snowball thing? No, I've seen them. When's the meeting? Uh, January 20th. Right here in the same room. 5:30. Next Tuesday, sir. All right. Thank you.

Last thing, last action item, Eco Construction LLC. The applicant application for a special exception to the zoning ordinance submitted by Eco Construction LLC. The applicant is requesting a special exception to construct an accessory dwelling on a parial exceeding 15,000 square ft. The property is located at 928 Old Spanish Trail. The property is zoned R1 single family. Um I don't actually see an applicant here, but uh let's see.

We do have people sign up. I got some. Let's go see what I'm sorry. I opened up all my tabs for the meeting and now I have to find all which one I did. So letter administration recommendation for this parcel. So administration recommendation is to approve the special exception. Um reasons why accessory dwelling that was presented to us on the site plan does not need any variance is it's eight minimum 8 foot from the sideyards and it's going to be 20 foot from the rear minimum 20 foot for the rear yard. I think it is 15 foot from the sideyards and it's a sh strange shaped lot but let's say average 40 foot from the rear yard. um the lot itself. So you per the last one, but you lots that are over 15,000 square feet do not have to ask for a lot size variance. This lot and it was moved over the years is 20 20 about 20,000 square foot. So more than 25% larger than it needs to be. Um, so per our zoning ordinance, the type of lots that accessory dwellings probably should be allowed on are larger larger lots that don't need variances. So rest, you know, this case being where it is. And then also they do have in this neighborhood across the street, but they do have several other houses that have accessory dwellings in that neighborhood. I had I had to go look, but it's not I thought they'd be the only one, but it's actually not as

uncommon as I thought. Is anybody here to Is the applicant here? I don't think No, I do have people signed up to speak, but we'll still go ahead public hearing. Uh, Miss Robin A. Lawler.

Basically, I'm Robin A. Lawler and the address is 104. Um, I basically just have some questions pretty much for everybody on Andre Court. It's the people that have lived there have been there like my mom and then bought the house when it was built, the people across the street, etc. So, we just had questions about what was being there because we were told it was going to duplex, but it sounds like it's just going to

Yeah. So, duplexes aren't So, Rob, duplexes aren't even allowed in the district. Like, they couldn't do a duplex. The only thing that they're allowed is an accessory. I say allowed allowed to ask for is an accessory structure. But their primary dwelling that's there now there's a the older white house. They have a garbage. They are um they just sent it that in today. They're renovating that house, making it a little bit larger in that house, the house that's going to be built, which that's the rendering what they are

per our zoning ordinance. A accessory dwelling has to be cannot be larger than 50% of the primary structure. So if it's a 2,000 square foot house, it has to be a,000 foot or less. But also, it can't it can only be two bedrooms or less. It can't be a three bedroomedroom, two bath house built back there. It's going to have to be two bedrooms or less. Okay. And that was kind of the concern. Was it going to be one story? From the rendering it shows that um and then the the back an accessory dwelling cannot be taller than the primary dwelling. Yes. But the rendering is up. Yeah. Yeah. But that's what they're going to Yeah, that's what they're going to do. But it's going to be something smaller in the back.

Okay. Just like that. Yeah. And then is will it be used for personal use or is it going to be like Airbnb or will it term rental? I know I know what the since the applicant's not here, they can answer. I know what I was told and it probably didn't believe but since it's not I don't want to speak out of term but I believe it it's personal one but I don't know I did not get but it's always possible I mean if the property were to change hands the next person can do you rent it out too but doesn't St. too have um stipulations on Airbnb. Yeah. Like how many and or something. We have a registration process. Okay.

So they would have to follow all regulations to to anybody has to follow same regulations. Okay. Yeah. Um so then the other thing which I guess because just a mother-in-law suite type thing. Um before when it was duplexes I was going to ask if they were going to put fencing up around I didn't know they the back of one of you know Andre Ford. They wouldn't even be able to they current they wouldn't even be allowed to ask for a duplex to be built there like it's not exception rule like zoning doesn't even allow but that's just questions I had before I didn't know. And then just um

would the variance allow for any other buildings to be built without coming back before the board on that property or could anything else be built? shed. You're only limited to the amount of accessory structures that you can have one dwelling and then one like a storage or something. Okay. But that's great questions too, especially if your neighbors were concerned. Yeah. I mean, that's Yeah. Put their fears at ease a little bit. Yeah. Frankly, looks like they're trying to do something nice. Though it's an old Spanish address, the most affected properties are Andre and I feel like I spoke I feel like they had a number of y'all's neighbors I know at least two that have came to my office and looked at the plans already.

Yeah, because I mean mama's back door butts up to it and a neighbor across the street always used that as a card. Yeah. For years before the people that own it. So just Yeah, that's great. That's great. I appreciate that. Thank you. I understand Jeremy. Um, one, so my first question is when they like leave their property, are they backing onto Old Spanish Trail or the other? Yeah, it'd be on Old Spanish Trail.

Yeah, it's on Old Spanish Trail. So that pro that property and it's Kenichi Street with it. It there's just some strange lot lines like stuff that you think would go on Kenichi Street. It's doesn't even touch Kenichi Street. all goes on onto [snorts] it. Okay. So then my next question is, is there another property set up like theirs? Because I see like the property across the street. It kind of looks like they have like kind of like a family home setup that situation, but other that wasn't ever supposed to be like that. Yeah. So that the Jackson's Lorenzo Jackson I think was the applicant.

Yeah. Because they had that that was their house where they bought it and they bought it like that and they were trying to add on to it. They were came the building department. I'm like well you can't add on to it. And they said why? I'm like because it's not supposed to be like that to begin with. And they didn't do what was there. It was a previous owner. it got bought. But so the Jacksons is not the best case because that wouldn't be allowed to be built there today, right? Was already as is. It was there.

So basically what I'm saying is besides this situation, is there another house that would honor this same setup like in that neighborhood? There's some more on old Spanish trail when you're going close towards um on the north side going towards um Washington Street like you have pool houses and stuff like that that actually are they have bigger yards. Yeah. Like the ones that are the north side that go into the sycamores and I'm not sick citizens.

Well, I'll entertain a motion if there's no other Questions or comments? I'll move that we approve it. Motion to approve by Mr. AG. Is there a second? I a second by Mr. Cranky. There. All those in favor? I. Nay. I I I. Uh motion passes. Five to one. Um Okay. Okay. And the last agenda item is a motion to approve the minutes [snorts] from I mean a motion to adjurnn. I'll make a motion to second. Motion by Mr. Freland, second by Mr. Romano. All those in favor?