Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

Calling to order the city of Covington Board of Adjustments, our regular meeting for today, August 24th. Roll call, please.

Ms. Butler.

Here. Mr. Gilley. Here. Ms. Williams, absent. Mr. Lucas.

Here.

Mr. Romage. Here. Mr. Jenkins. Here.

The first thing on our docket tonight is for the commissioners to approve the minutes from our last meeting, which was June 15th, is that right? Is that June or July? Anyway, June 15th, this is what I have on my thing here. Do I hear any additions, corrections, or deletions from the minutes as presented to the commissioners? Hearing none, I make a motion to accept the minutes as presented. Do I hear a second? Second. Roll call, please.

Ms. Butler? Yes. Mr. Gilley? Yes. Mr. Lucas? Yes. Mr. Romage? Yes. Mr. Jenkins?

Yes. First case tonight is 26-08-14BOA, Request for Variance from Offendix B, Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of 2010, Part 3, Use District Section 3.15, CO Commercial Office Professional, and Section 3.12RS, 3, 2 family residential, 3.1206, 1 and 3, performance standards lot area and depth to reduce the lot area of proposed lot 4A from 10,500 square feet to 10,291 square feet and the lot depths of lots 4A from 140 feet to 110 feet on West 21st Avenue side of lot 4A. This variance request is in conjunction with a proposed subdivision request to re-subdivide a portion of lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, and a portion of the revoked 20-foot alley in square 2113 into lots 4A, 5A, 6A, and 7A, and 9A, Division of New Covington, Covington having municipal address of 117 North Lincoln in Covington. And unfortunately, as everybody knows, I have a lot to say, but because this is my neighborhood, I have to recuse myself tonight. So I will call the... The people who wish to speak on this, a reminder that everybody has about seven minutes to talk, and if it looks like you're going to go long, Ms. Bridget will let me know that your time is over. First person is Anthony Geovinga. Could you step to the microphone, speak into the microphone, give your name and address, and whatever you want to say to the commissioners that has not been presented in our packet.

My name is Anthony Giovingo. I live at 45 Savoy Drive in Mandeville, Louisiana. I've been a resident of the Mandeville-Covington area for 40 years. As you read, I was hoping to be able to subdivide the property. And really about that's all I got to say about that. I mean, if you have any questions regarding it, I'm ready to answer any questions.

And then commissioners have any questions. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Uh, the next person is Barbara Briggs. Will you step to the microphone, speak into the microphone, give your name and your address.

Barbara Briggs, 621 West 23rd Avenue, Covington, Louisiana. I'm concerned about the drainage problems and the traffic that this will have on us.

Talk to us about why you're concerned about the drainage. Flesh that out a little bit more.

I guess I was concerned about having more... buildings and what the drainage would do in the area.

Okay, thank you. Yeah.

Today, I understand that might be a problem. First of all, I've been owning the property for 25 years, it's never flooded. I've had two tenants, they've never had any problems with the water. And today was a perfect day. I was in Covington, and it was storming. So I took my phone and went down 21st. There was no standing water. I turned on Lincoln, and I got pictures. The drains were really low. And I went all the way down to 23rd, took pictures on the right. They have five new houses. New houses meaning maybe five years old. And then I took her right the other way, no water standing. So I do have pictures. It would be a concern of mine, too, if I lived in the neighborhood. But I think that with the weather we've had over the years, Katrina, and I don't know the last storm, but the only problems I've ever had was with trees. And I've taken about five or six trees down from request from the Covington folks, the

Department that handles complaints about trees As the clarification I think we're just voting on the request for variance correct not the subdivision, okay

How does that work? Let's just say we grant a variance on one lot. Then it gets subdivided. What if that doesn't pass?

Well, then it doesn't pass.

It doesn't go through.

Okay.

So, first off, I want to kind of make a clarification. And that is that this is already... One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10 lots. It's not like the gentleman's cutting the square up that's never been divided. The issue is West 22nd Avenue, this portion that runs here, is not developed. So he can't build or do anything with these lots unless he builds a street. You guys have had cases like that in the past. By simply turning the lots to face Lincoln, then the lots can be put into commerce or whatever. The issue with this lot that's before you is because the creek mile branch cuts it and makes it too short. So his hardship, in my opinion, is because the creek prevents this lot from being the right size, really no matter which way it faced. But it's just it's been there, so he didn't have to do anything with it unless he moved it. I don't know if Rod has anything to add to that.

No, I wouldn't.

confirm that he does have existing lots of record. I mean, he has at least seven buildable lots now, which he's reducing to five. And although I didn't research the title, I feel sure that the configurations of the lots is based on the location of Mile Branch. or if that's mild branch, whatever the branch is, and that's what resulted in the irregular shape of the various lots was because this was obviously sold before the subdivision regulations went into effect in Covington, and the dividing line was mild branch instead of lots of record, which was allowed back then. And the only hardship would be the location of Mile Branch affected the size of the lots, the way they bought it years ago.

Right. It's Blue Swamp Creek, not Mile. It's Blue Swamp Creek, not Mile.

Whatever the drainage feature is that you showed on there.

Because it, yeah. It's Blue Swamp Creek. Because it comes from just on the north side of 190. Yeah, and then it goes through. Right, right, right. Well, it's a drainage ditch, but there has been some questions with nothing to do with this case, but with the drainage on how it's handled in Barkley Park and around Barkley Park because of the way Blue Swamp Creek goes, but nothing to do with this case.

The next speaker is Elizabeth McAllen. As said before, step to the mic, speak into the mic with your name and address.

My name's Elizabeth McCollum Lord. I live at 204 North Lincoln. I'm not necessarily the most intelligent about why it was decided that variances should be made or that lots should be the size that they are, the 10-5, but I assume that that was made for intelligible reasons, that maybe the smaller lot would give problems related to traffic or sizes. Yes, ma'am.

Speaking to the mic, Ellen.

Our code dictates what size lots need to be in which zoning district. So this is actually in a commercial zoning district, a commercially zoned district. When the lots turned, if it was this way, it would be too short for the code, but it's existing, so it would be fine. When they turn the lots... then this lot's just too short by 30 feet 29 feet on this side because of the creek or the whatever you want to call it the water so um that's why but the zoning code sets the lot size right i mean the variance is required because this lot just couldn't need it no matter what correct well and i guess a concern that i would have is especially if it's zoned commercial

whether the creek is there or not that's going to impact the neighborhood if something is allowed to go there that's commercial on what is a smaller lot whether it's 10 5 or 10 291. okay it's already zoned commercial so this has nothing to do with the zoning he doesn't want to use it at this point for commercial he's applying so he can build res like

I believe it's one residential home on each lot, which is allowed in that zoning also. Okay. Yeah, I mean, but anything that's built, the applicant would have to submit a drainage plan to the city. Our engineer looks at it. There's a process. So, I mean.

Yes. Thank you. I appreciate that. Yeah. No, it's important.

We need to understand. And nobody's expecting anybody that doesn't do it every day. I don't. No. So don't. Right.

Well, and I mean, it's a good question. Yes. Well, and I am concerned. I appreciate you being here to answer that because I'm concerned about that. I'm concerned about my neighborhood having five more homes in it, which I know you guys are very. So maybe I'll be quick because it's the next committee, but I'm concerned about my neighborhood having. 10 more cars a day with my 17-month-old trying to grow up and learn to ride a bike and a skateboard and roller skates. I'm concerned about the animals. I am concerned about drainage because even though he saw today, oh, there's no problem, but drainage is impacted by concrete and slabs because rain falls into the ground and it absorbs but when houses and trees are gone who aren't absorbing and all of that it does impact drainage so a study will be done and that's good but i have lots of concerns basically not a study or a impact yes and listen i want to remind you he has seven lots he can build on right now he's going to five Five is better than seven, but the one that's there now is great. I like one, so. But I understand, yes. And I'm a capitalist. I want people to be able to do what they can with their property. But I do have the ability to say concerns about that when people are going to impact my life in a negative way who admittedly don't live in the neighborhood. He lives in Mandeville, which is beautiful. And I love visiting. But he's not going to be impacted by whatever takes place. So that's my point. Thank you.

most of your lots in Covington is 75 or 150. Anyway, this is a little bit larger than what's required.

John DiMaggio? Is that how you say your name? I'm sorry. I think so.

Yeah, I live on... 22nd, a half a block from where they're putting the subdivision in.

Talk into the mic yourself.

I live on 22nd, a half a block from where they're putting the subdivision in. Did I hear someone say that this is two-family? Are these all single-family homes?

Probably in the ordinance that I read. I don't remember saying two-family. Let's see.

No, I don't see it. So lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 are zoned RM2, which would allow duplexes to families. Lots 4 and 5 in the portion of lot 3 are actually zoned neighborhood commercial and would allow commercial or duplexes or whatever. At this point, they want to put a single-family home on each lot, which is allowed. You can put two, you know, a two-family home or a single-family home. So, yeah.

You did hear that correctly. So if you did a head count on the maximum number of homes you could put there or duplexes, what would it be?

Well, originally, he's got five lots facing West 22nd.

Well, now, if you filled everything up with as many as you could have, how many would there be? Five duplexes. Really?

That's five lots. Ten. So you have ten.

That doesn't exist right now with him getting nothing.

Okay.

And so he could put in five duplexes, which is probably... 20 cars. 20 cars potentially. Seriously? The city would allow that?

Well, we'd have to build it to code, but if he could make them fit, yes. But right now, he could put 5, 6, 7, 7, so he could have 14.

The variances were to go from a...

The variance is simply for the lot depth. This lot is not long enough due to the creek to meet the code for the new, for that lot. It's too short.

Well, I don't have anything specific, but I'm against all of it, OK? And I live there with the traffic. And I guess if you don't live there, it's not a big deal. But they have others that have a lot more to say, more detail. I'll yield to them.

Thank you. You can also, under that commercial rating, you might end up with a hair salon or, you know, something like that, and ten residents.

A restaurant, its own commercial.

Regina Mayer, is that how you say the name? Thank you.

Regina Mayer, 1326 West 23rd Avenue. I am not against development. I know that we need more housing here desperately. I do, though, have concerns about the utilities right in our little area. We have lost six hours of power yesterday for nothing, and we keep losing power there. Though I'm on the end of West 23rd, the water coming into my house, I have had the city come and check it They say there's nothing wrong, but I can't keep anything white. I have film and colors and all of this. So my concern is just adding, and I'm very grateful it's five and not 14 or whatever it could be, but I'm concerned about the impact on the utilities in the area. Is that addressed in any way? And that might not be your control, but how is this, I'm concerned about the impact that's going to have on us when we add stuff. And the second thing is I'm happy the lots are larger. but I am very distressed about the clear cutting that developers do when they come into these lots. There's four lots right there on 24th that had beautiful trees. They are now totally clear cut. Why can't It be that, yes, you can develop property, but you can't just clear cut everything. And then the utilities for this, for our little area. My daughter lives on 25th. They don't lose power. She lives 1500 feet away. They don't lose power. We keep losing power. How is this going to impact us? That's it.

Thank you. Thank you. Margaret Savage, is that right? Did I say that right? Just step to the mic with your name and address, please.

Good evening. My name's Maggie Sandage. Sandage, okay. Sandage, yeah. I live on the end of West 22nd, 1220 West 22nd Avenue. I've been quite fortunate to live there with my two boys, and I don't worry too much about them being on the road in our little block. And so one of... maybe the biggest one of my concerns is the traffic. Just last night when we didn't have power, We had an influx of traffic people going around the stop where the power lines had been downed on 21st, which that was a fluke, but it happens. So I'm very concerned about the number of cars being a lot more, which of course we live on this road because of where it is. It's a dead end. There's not much on either side. So traffic, my other concerns would be definitely the water and the flooding. I realize that Mile Branch and there's a big canal on the other side. I'm completely aware of that, but also my last name is Sandage. There's some developers in our family, and I know that when you develop, you dig, and you take trees out, and I've seen it. I've seen a lot of big neighborhoods developed, and it causes problems. Overdevelopment, but I do also understand. I'm a capitalist as well. I do understand. that it's your land and that that's what you wanna do with it. And I very much so appreciate the opportunity to come here and tell you that I don't appreciate this idea, but this is our neighborhood and I like to be informed.

I had a thought when you were talking about the little section

that is smaller and that we were trying to decide the variance. I don't know if this is where I would even say what if we left that as green space where we didn't cut anything, if it's a smaller section that can't be situated such a way. that maybe we can come to some sort of happy agreement where it's green space and we leave the trees. And OK, so utilities, we do lose power. My stepmother lives on 23rd Barbara behind me, and she doesn't lose power. And she's just how many blocks from me? And she doesn't lose power, and we lose it if the wind blows, and that's what happened last night.

Where does she live?

6010, 621 West 23rd. West 23rd.

Okay. Clico is actually in the process of cutting the power lines on 21st and then they're supposed to do the trees in the neighborhoods, you know, do the clearing that they usually hit.

Right. And I understand. There is rehabilitation to the power lines. Look, we had to take ours out and get a new one. They're old. I get it. But the fact of the matter is you bring in five new residences, potentially duplexes, and there's a lot more stuff, let me use the word stuff, going up um so i understand there's concessions i understand there's there's decisions i understand there's planning and there's factors i i i get it i get all that um but the way that it is right now is not of perfection um and and so being cautious and careful um how we proceed seems wise um also the wildlife and i'm not sure i was very confused by the two meetings you tried to clear it up for me and then i got confused again um wildlife is is one of the things um that i am concerned about cleaning that lot out is going to eliminate the little bunnies and the deer and everything that we do still see and i realize we live in town but also that's kind of wonderful that we still have that in our little town and in covington is our little town still. The potential for rentals, I don't like at all that it wouldn't be long-term residence, that it could be duplexes that are meant to be rented out that are not purchased. The drainage thing I went over, I did have a question. Are you building the homes or just developing the land? Well, good God, did we just plant a seed that we didn't mean to plant? Okay, so you were developing the land.

Yes, sir. I feel like it's time for me to sell them, because five houses is not going to make a big difference, because on U.S. Street, you have houses from one end to the other. Well, not across, though.

That's behind.

I mean, like I said, I went there today, and there was no standing water. And as far as electricity, other than Mandeville, my electricity goes up, too. I have no idea why, but I just wait for it to come back on.

But I'm sorry. Go back to you are just developing the land, or are you building the homes to sell as well?

Right. You would sell the land? I don't want you to do that either. Well, it's in .

I've been in that house. Okay, I believe I covered it all. Thank you.

Donna? Sue?

Good evening. My name is Donna Sue.

Talk into the mic, please. Name and address. Talk loud.

I live at 1218 West 22nd Avenue, a block off of Lincoln. Our little section of town is heavily treed, which makes living in our neighborhood very soft and inviting.

I can't hear you, Donna. You need to lean into the mic.

My name is, okay. Our little section of town is heavily treed, which makes living in our neighborhood very soft and inviting. Therefore, my first concern is that no tree be cut that can be spared. Besides, preserving existing tree canopy isn't an environmental concession. It can be a way to optimize profits for the builder. Now my second concern is the fate of wildlife on the two acres under consideration. These animals are abundant in and cherished by our neighborhood. In contrast, as the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries notes, the Florida parishes have one of the largest human population growth rates in the state. As this area continues to feel the pressure of expansion, Challenges for balancing the needs of wildlife with those of humans will increase, and this is what I fear. A couple of acres of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians going about their daily lives, singing in a new day, feeding their young, building nests, hunting for food, suddenly being bulldozed straight into oblivion. I hope we can prevent this kind of damage here in our neighborhood. The future can bring in new actions. It can save trees and wildlife while improving construction and sales values. Let's all do all in our power to preserve what we can, both plant and animal.

Thank you.

Commissioners have anything to say? Ask? Nothing?

This is killing me, Rob.

Really killing me. Okay, we're going to have a roll call, and I recuse myself. Oh, I'm sorry. We have one more speaker. Sorry.

My name is James Primes. I'm at 203 North Lincoln Street. I'm at the property directly adjacent to and most affected by the property we're talking about. My family has owned that property for 70 years. I have owned it myself for over 10 years. My daughter now is the owner of that property. I've watched every bit of that neighborhood because I grew up there and I'm almost 70. I grew up there. Everybody here that is adjacent to that property or down the street, it was fields when I was a kid. So I know very well everything about that neighborhood. I don't know this man. I've never met him. I've seen him in a car. That's it. So I have no vested interest myself in appearing here. But what I do want to say is he currently has the right to build on that property, sell it, and those lots are currently, doesn't need anybody's approval to build on them. They would be facing 22nd Avenue, which currently is an unopened street on the west side of Lincoln. Anybody that has a concern about traffic on 22nd or in the neighborhood, if they were built in its current status, it would directly impact traffic on 22nd. With the lots being, first off, he's taking six and turning it into five. One of them currently is a commercial lot. If that was built on, there would certainly be more traffic at the end of Lincoln Street. I'm not opposed to what he's trying to do. I'm all in favor of what he's proposing. If there are four lots facing Lincoln Street, they will be on the south side of 22nd. Nobody in their right mind is gonna pull out of their driveway and turn left to go down 22nd when they're right on top of 21st to get out. So that traffic would be minimized by placing it in the way he has proposed to re-situate those lots. Again, I've been there for 70 years. I know the neighborhood. Most of the people that would be objecting here today cannot say that they've been a resident of Covington for 70 years or lived in that neighborhood for 70 years. The man has a right to develop his property however he chooses in its current state. What he's proposing is a better alternative than where it currently is today. So I'll yield on that note, but I'm in favor of what he's trying to do because we would be most impacted if he's denied this request and those lots immediately are developed and the traffic is then coming off of 22nd Avenue and most people then may choose to go down 22nd towards Buchanan. As far as nature Again, just in the last 10 years, we've watched the end of 23rd get developed. On the backside currently is on 24th being developed. The property at the corner of 23rd and Buchanan, very nice homes have been developed. And stepping back onto his proposal, he's just going to sell these lots. Now, anybody here that's objecting to that, they have a right to buy them if you don't want Development? Buy the property. It's for sale. Put your money where your mouth is. Everybody takes the position or a lot of people take the position that it was okay when I developed my house and I built and we had to cut all the trees, but we don't want anybody else to do it, which is somewhat unfair. The property has is worth over a half million dollars today. If everybody in this audience put their self in his position, he's sitting on a piece of property that he could develop, he could sell it without your permission and more properties could be developed as well as a commercial property. That's not what he's proposing. But if it was somebody else in this audience that owned that property and they put the shoe on the other foot, How would they like their hands to be handcuffed on their property that they've owned for 25 years that they should have a right to develop?

Thank you, Mr. Primes.

Yes, I'll end it with this one statement again. Everybody here has a right to buy those properties.

Your time is up.

Thank you.

Wait, anybody want to make a motion?

Absolutely.

I didn't make the motion first.

No, you don't have to.

Just say to apply the variance, right?

You can make a motion just in favor of the variance or opposing the variance.

You want to read the whole thing.

Do I hear a second? Second. Roll call, please.

Mr. Gilley? Yes. Mr. Lucas? Yes. Mr. Romage? Yes. Mr. Jenkins? Yes.

Second case on the docket tonight is 26-08-15, BOA request, request for a variance from Appendix B, Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of 2010, Part 3, use district section 3.8 RSL, single family residential, existing small proposed, wait a minute, existing small lots 3.806 3N performance standards, lot depth to be reduced from 90 feet to 70 feet for each of the lots, for each of the proposed lots, specifically in coordination with the application to subdivide lot 1, square 15 into lots 1A and 1B, square 15, a division of New Covington, City of Covington, St. Tammany Parish. The property is located at West 32nd Avenue and Schultz Drive at North Fillmore, having the municipal address of 1216 North Fillmore, Street in Covington. The variance request is in conjunction with the proposed subdivision request to re-subdivide lot 1 in square 15, measuring 50 feet in width by 140 feet in depth into lots 1A and lot 1B, each measuring 60 feet in width by 70 feet in depth. And we have Brian Burns as the only speaker for this case. Can you step to the mic and give your name and address?

I have a question first, if I can. You're going from 50 by 1, 50 in width by 140, saying to 60 in width by 70? Should that be 50 by 70?

I believe that's a typo.

Yeah, okay. At the bottom of the request.

I'm sorry, that is a typo. Okay, okay.

Ellen's a much better typist than I am. I feel sure that was my typo.

Well, I appreciate that, but it was probably a group effort, but thank you.

My name is Brian Burns and my address is 127 West Ruel Drive in Mandeville and I'm representing West 30's Redemption Company. Ms. Butler just stated the case that we're proposing to resubdivide this 50 foot by 140 foot lot into two equal sized 50 by 70 foot lots. This particular square 15 has 12 50-foot wide lots, and there is an existing improved alley, Schilt's Alley, bisecting the block. The house that is on this lot at 1216 North Fillmore is only 10 feet 9 inches off of the alley right-of-way line. So it's all the way on one end of the lot. And the house is a small house. I believe it's 22 feet wide. So we've got quite a bit of property from 32nd Avenue to the edge of the house. And our plan is to have a pocket park developed on lot 1B, which will front 32nd and Fillmore, to put a swing set and a couple of park benches. We actually proposed this improvement five years ago. At that time, this immediate area was not very rehabilitated. There were still a number of blighted houses. I believe there were 10 empty houses. There was quite a bit of illicit activity going on in the neighborhood there, and the commissioners at that time rejected this because it was thought to be an attractive nuisance and not a good place to invite children to play. Since that time, almost every home in this immediate area has been renovated by West 30's Redemption Company or a new one built on an empty lot. There are no more blighted houses. We've actually completed, within a one block area, 28 new and renovated houses. And now, instead of having illicit activity, you hear children laughing in the neighborhood. So we are very pleased to present this proposal tonight, given the different character of the immediate neighborhood. I'm happy to try and entertain any questions you may have.

You built all those houses in the area with shelters there?

I'm sorry?

The houses around Shilts, all those new houses, you did those or some of them?

Well, West 30's Redemption Company, our organization.

Really looks nice. I mean, the houses and all, they look so much better because I've been here all my life. So I've seen it when it was really blight. Yeah. Nasty. Yeah.

Well, the biggest improvement is for the families that live there having a place that they can own.

Yeah. They really look good. Thank you.

When you speak of a pocket park, who are you going to get to maintain the grass in this?

Well, our plan is actually, after it's completely developed and dedicated, to donate it to the city of Covington.

So they will maintain it?

Yes.

They'll have to budget into maintaining it.

Could you instead keep lot 1A 50 by 90 and do the little smaller pocket park? That way you wouldn't need the variance.

Yeah, I didn't consider that. It's certainly possible.

I would almost personally prefer that. Keep the lot size as it should be and make the pocket park a little bit smaller. Let's do it that way.

Go ahead. So a pocket park is proposed. The city hasn't accepted it. There hasn't been anything proposed. and we would be creating a lot. You'd still have to have a variance because the lot that was being created is too small.

For the pocket park?

Yes. Well, right now, yes, for anything. You just can't just create a lot that's substandard without a variance.

Are there size requirements for a, is there such a thing as a pocket park in the regulations to define?

So at this time, you wouldn't, you would have to, you would have to get permission to make it a park at this time. In the future, it may change, but right now, that would have to be accepted by the city. Does the city council want to get that permission? I don't know.

Who else would it be, I guess?

Right. I don't know if Mr. Burns is interested in changing it, but I'm just saying that in order to do that, you would still need a variance because the lot that's being created, whether it's a pocket park or what, it's in that zoning area. and it doesn't meet the requirements of a minimum lot size. One house? Yes.

One house?

Right. I think it's, what you mean, it's for him to put one house there?

Is he going to put one house there?

So, no, no, so this is all an RSL zoning. Yeah. OK, the minimum lot size is 30 by 90, OK? So if you create, if you move this lot line down, now you're creating a, I don't know what it would be 50 by 50 foot lot. So it's still a substandard lot, no matter what he wants to use it for. So he would need a variance. Does that make sense? Am I saying that clearly? Yeah. Okay. All right. I'm a little stuffy, so I just want to make sure I'm being clear.

A lot out of Congress for living versus just putting, you know, putting playground equipment on it and where he's doing a great job. I mean, I think, I think he's doing a great job to get these families in houses.

I don't think it's big enough for playground equipment. He's only mentioning two benches.

Well, we're going to have, we propose one swing set, two benches, and one picnic table. It's a neighborhood park, very small. There's an existing fence that goes with the house at 1216 Fillmore. I don't think the fence is noted on this survey. But it's within the 70-foot dividing line. And it's kind of a natural spot to end that lot. So that would be fully contained within the proposed lot 1A. And that small house really does not need more of a yard than that 70 feet, I would say, Mike. Part of what we want to do with the pocket park is give the children a place to play that's not in the street. There's quite a bit of playing in the streets now, which is not the best.

I'll make a motion to approve.

Is there a second? I'll second. Roll call.

Ms. Butler?

No.

Mr. Gilley? Yes. Mr. Lucas?

No.

Mr. Romage? Yes. Mr. Jenkins? Yes.

I have on the agenda that we do have a meeting in September on the 21st, so see you then.