Planning and Economic Development Committee - Regular Meeting

All right. Good evening, everyone. It is Thursday, 11/20/2025, here before the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Green. We've got several matters on our agenda. If you wouldn't mind, let's start by rising and saying the pleasure of allegiance with me. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Please be seated. Can you call roll, please?

Mr. Encarvati? Here. Ms. Newbert? Absent. Mr. Avedala? Here. Mr. Spate?

Here.

Mr. Schultz?

Here. Okay. We have, I think, three matters on our agenda this evening. As your matter is called, and we'll generally go through them, in numerical order, we're going ask you up to this podium here. So a couple of things with the podium. There's an X you'll notice or a little dot there. Camera above that will capture any of the documents that you care to lay on that. And so we can we certainly have your packets, but anyone else here could see them if you have them. And there's two microphones. One is at the podium, right?

And that's grabbing our record. If you wander away, which is typical, to a document that you might have landed there on the table, we're going to ask you to pick up, which should already be on, pick up the handheld mic and use that so that we continue to get you in our record, okay? And we'll remind you or more specifically, they will remind me that I've forgotten to do that when they come out and say, look, we don't have any record. So three matters with us this evening. Your first one is BZA 2020Five-twenty6, R.

Jeffrey Day at 4308 Evergreen Court here in the City Of Green, where a panelist, Mr. Day, at that address is requesting a couple of different things. First, a three foot height variance to permit 40 feet of six foot fencing on the frontage of Birch Court of their property where three foot is the maximum height permitted and then two, a one foot height variance to permit 19 feet of four foot fencing on the frontage of Evergreen Court. Now their property where three foot is a maximum on that one as well. So this does not comply with the green codified orders Chapter 157 of the Planning and Development Code, specifically it's 157.0875C of the specific bench standards.

So two variance requests on this one. And we'll ask you to come forward if you're here on this matter. And so the first variance request is a three foot height variance to permit six feet of fencing at the frontage of Birch Court and then a one foot height variance to permit four feet of fencing at the frontage of the Evergreen Court. All right. So sir, if you'd raise your right hand for me. You swear or affirm and tell the truth, whole truth, not but the truth and the matter before the Board.

I do.

Your name, sir.

Jeff Day.

Okay, Mr. Day.

My wife, Kathy, behind me there.

All right. Welcome. If we need straighten out, we'll get you up here, and we'll swear you into at that time. But we'll see where we're at. Go ahead. Just let us know a little bit about the project and where we

Obviously, we're living at 4308 Evergreen Court. Just moved in there three weeks ago, so moved up from the Massillon area. Familiar with the area, but now we're here and we're really loving our new home and

the

community. A great environment here and So one of the reasons we moved I think probably the Board is familiar with the courtyards at New Seasons, familiar with the design motif of the houses where one side tends to be public, the other side is pretty much a blank wall. Our public side faces the other street since we're on a corner lot and hence the reason for the fence since we will be developing a courtyard area there in the spring. If you've been by the area, the landscaping actually is already in place and so we're just waiting for the fence. I did submit some photos if we need to refer to them.

There's two existing homes that show what other people have been doing in my situation. And I do have a photo of our house with landscaping in place if it's necessary. But we're here to get the approval so the fencing can go in and we'll move forward with our improvements in the spring.

We appreciate that. Yes. And as a corner lot owner, you realize we've two frontages now,

and that gives

us our problems on

part of the definition, yes.

Yes. So we see that. But a very nice layout there. We're familiar with it. Are there questions from the Board? Yes.

What's the gap in the as I'm looking at this site plan here, there's a gap in the green fence here along Bridge Court. Is that a gate or just a separation in the fence?

Well, I'll show you my plan, so I'll move the microphone over.

Sure. You're good there? Thank you. Everyone take note. Exactly right. Thank you.

Okay. So I just didn't want 60 feet of white fence. So I intentionally created a gap in the fencing. There are two Norfolk Pines in that area. So I wanted a little bit of a view out. So it's not it won't be gated. The only gate will be on the wrought iron fence that faces Evergreen Court. So it's just part of my design and to not just have a kind of a intrusive white fence.

Exactly. Nice.

With the trees and that, it will kind of blend in and be a little more, I think, inviting to the street and to the neighbors.

Any additional questions from the Board members?

I'm sorry, you said wrought iron?

The

fence that faces Birch Court is white vinyl, that's a six foot fence. And then there's a return fence, which is pretty typical in our neighborhood of a four foot high black picket wrought iron fence.

Wrought iron, okay.

So that faces evergreen.

Yes. Then

against it and then I'm down, but I'll take a couple of hands It's on nice to break that up. It's a nice thought.

Yes. Thank you.

I like the concept, too.

Certainly

welcome additional questions from the Board. Is anyone else here on the matter this evening care to address it? No? All right. No? Okay. We'll certainly entertain a motion or would entertain additional questions from the Board. Mr. Dotturro, anything from you, but a standard corner lot kind of thing with a fence.

No, I think this is probably one of the last ones in that allotment that needs this. Imagine so. I think it fits in nicely, yes. Good deal. All right. Thank you.

I would entertain a motion. Again, likewise, they can all be made at one time for both requests or separately.

I propose to grant variance both items one and two. Item one, a three foot fence height variance to permit six foot fencing in the frontage of Birch Court item two, a one foot fence height variance to permit four foot fencing in the frontage of Evergreen Court.

Thank you, Mr. Spade. There's been a motion made to approve both the variances as requested. Is there a second to that motion? I second that motion. Schultz, thank you, sir. All right. Then without further discussion, if you would call roll on the motion to approve.

Mr. Spate?

Yes.

Mr. Schultz?

Yes.

Mr. Ankurvati? Yes. Mr. Awadala?

Yes.

And I will pass four-zero. All right. Welcome to the city, and good luck with your project.

Thank you.

Okay. Our next matter before the Board, BZA20Four-twenty7. It's 2025, but for the record, right? Okay. Yes.

So BZA twenty twenty five-twenty seven CAM Incorporated in Parcel 20 Eight-eight 93 for the City Of Green. And we've got several requests on this matter, so I'll read through it all and then recap them yet again. We have the appellant with the Corporate Woods Parkway address of 1525 requesting the following, a 42.5 front setback variance to permit a structure to be located 7.5 feet from the road right of way where 50 foot setback is required the second request is a 21.8 foot rear setback variance to permit a structure to be located 3.2 feet from the rear property line where 25 feet setback is required. This does not comply with codified ordinance Chapter 157 of the Planning and Development Code, specifically 157.1 four-one of the site development standards for business. They are requesting additional third variance to permit an ID sign to be located 2.5 feet, 2.5 feet, the road right of way where 10 feet is required and which does not comply there with green card of evidence, Chapter 157 of the Planning and Development Code, and that is since 157.135(eight)five) signs which are permitted in a nonresidential zoning district, Freestanding identification sign is what we're talking.

They're requesting two they're requesting number four, two car drive thru variants and permitted drive thru to allow for four stacked cars where six is required, and it's not compliant with Chapter 157 of green codified ordinance, and that table is 150 seven-one 130 four-two of the stacking space requirements for motor vehicles. And they're requesting five, a front yard vehicle use setback variance to allow less than 10 feet of landscape buffer to the road right of way. And this does not comply with Green Conifer ordinance Chapter 157, here specifically 150 seven-one 130 four-7B6, the design for vehicular use areas and location setback requirements. So five variance requests on the project. First, 42.5 foot front setback variance to permit the structure to be located within 7.5 feet of the front setback, 50 is required by code.

Second, a 21.8 rear setback variance to permit the structure to be located within 3.2 of the rear setback, where 25 feet is required. Number three is a sign, a 7.5 foot sign setback variance to permit an ID sign to be located 2.5 feet from the road right of way where 10 is required, 10 feet. Four, a two car drive thru variance to permit a drive thru to allow for four stacked cars or six stacked cars as required and then a front yard variance excuse me, a front yard vehicle use setback variance that allow less than 10 feet of landscape buffer to road right of way. So several matters to address. And who is here on that, please?

Thank you. Raise your right hand for me, sir. Do you swear affirm and tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, no matter before the Board?

I do.

Your name, sir?

Jeff Mockbee from Cambridge. Spell

your last name for our record, please.

M o c k b e e.

All right. Your relationship to the project?

Property owner.

Property owner? Okay. Quite a bit to work through here. So however you wish to present it.

Kind of give a little history first and then kind of get into the setbacks and the reasoning for them. Typically, this is not something we like to do as far as requesting variances, but we do have a very challenging site. The original property side was about half an acre. And then when the roundabout was installed back in 'eighteen, I think it was 'eighteen, somewhere around there, that reduced the overall site down to 0.42 acres. We've been looking for a while to find a use for this particular site that's not very impactful as far as traffic counts and use as far as that goes, especially with the roundabout now.

We needed to keep the entrances far away the roundabout not to interfere with the traffic flow in those particular areas. About three years ago, we had approached the neighbors to the north. There's two owners of that property that's the Get Go gas station. And they have a parcel that's about the same width as our subject property that we approach them about purchasing to give us a little more depth and more room. Unfortunately, they did not really desire to do that.

They have a long term lease with GetGo, and their concern was that they don't want to do anything. We respect their desires. They don't want do anything to mess up lease. Gecko could want to put a car wash in, or who knows what they might want to put in in the future. And they like the cash flow they're getting, I guess, and they just did not want to mess that up.

The other issue we came a part of, if could kind of look in this area right here, that is wetlands, are wetlands on the property to the north. So it started getting break tight anyways to try to fit something and be able to slide the building back further. So as we're working out with the potential user for this building, they originally requested a three bay wide. There's no way a three bay is going to work on a drive through situation. Two bay is the best we could do as far as that goes.

And I'm sorry, just to stop you there for They originally requested. Who is they?

They is Service Pro.

Service Pro. Service Pro oil change facility? Yes, sir. Service Pro. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome.

So now I'll kind of get to the line items as far as the variances. Again,

first

the front yard, again, the overall parts is 66 feet from the right of way to the rear property line. So if you just even look at the front yard setback requirements, there's really not a structure that I can think of that are going to really fit within those without getting a variance of some sort. So from that standpoint, that is the reasoning for item one, the 42 foot and item two, the 21 foot. We were trying to get it located as appropriate as we possibly can for the use. Item three, ID sign again.

That's just a function of if you look at the driveway in the front of the building, which actually was recommended by the city to have a bypass in case someone did not want to go through the service bays. We added that driveway from the original plans. And it just from the sign standpoint, there's just not a lot of extra room to do something more than that, what we have done as far as the signage. That kind of addresses the front bypass lane. So if a car comes in there and don't want to wait any longer, they can get around the building and keep on going as far as that goes.

As far as the parking number of stalls, the requirement were six in line. The realities of it are with an oil change facility, if they see four cars in the park, they're really not going to be going in there and waiting for five other cars to get in front of them to get their oil changed. They'll probably go do some other chores or do something else and then come back. There is actually a little bit of room, technically, if you wanted to say there's five room. You'd see the area right in front of the dumpster if you would extend those four parkings back a little further.

There's a little more room to do that. We just did not want to push the building further to the west in order to accommodate the six because it gets, again, too close to the roundabout. Again, we don't want to interfere with the traffic flow there. Not good for anybody as far as that goes. And based on the use, lower intensity, we felt that the lower stacking amount was not an issue.

And I think that was the five of them, wasn't it?

The landscape buffer.

That's the driveway in the front up here. Correct, Tom? The landscape buffer. We added the driveway and that causes a problem with the landscape buffer. Again, for the bypass around the front.

So your bypass around there created then Transactors and the area.

Those are kind of the reasoning for it. It's an extremely challenging site. It's small, but we felt it was a lower intensity type site that while the impacts are there, they're not significant to the community as far as the overall use of the site and the traffic flow and safety of the area. I will gladly try to answer any other questions. Do you have any?

I think I see it, but just I'm not assuming the employees, where do they park? There's just not much of any room there. But we're going to assume those four spaces are There's

three here on North Side. Handicap plus two or two or one. I guess one They don't have that many employees with the two stalls. Really have max four employees, but probably only three.

I fully agree.

Questions from the Board?

That's rear setback of 3.2 feet. How do you you're saying that get go me in some point in time utilize that land back there. How do you think this building being three feet from the property line there may affect them or anyone from building something there in the future?

We don't know if there's going to be something. All I'm saying is the lady the people who own the current property didn't want to do something in case they had that. The challenge will be is there is wetlands along the back of that property there. So they're going have to mitigate those. Whether they are willing to do that or not, we don't know. That's not a decision for a calculation we can make to determine if that's possible. Buildings can be closer to each other as far as that goes. I mean, the width of this building is

I can't remember the width of the building.

30 I think it's 31 feet. So it's not that wide of a building, and it's all masonry from that standpoint.

So a question for you, Tom. Can that portion of land behind this be parceled off and turned into a legitimate parcel that somebody could do something on it?

Probably not. It's when you if you divide that from the get go site up further, well, to the eastern portion of the site, it it this does narrow down here. It's probably on like, when when you say car wash, it's probably you want kind of a linear type building like that. So that's about what would fit. I'm not even sure that could go in without some side setback variances either. But, yes, that's it's a narrow portion of the GetCo site that kind of widens out as you get to where the gas station part of it is, but it'd be difficult, yeah. Thank you.

We'll keep you rolling, Mr. Duterra. Have they worked with you a little bit on this or your thoughts on

the project? No, we concur with as planning reviewed this. This came through about five years ago at first. And in the meantime, you guys did try to get a hold of some more property there. And I guess that didn't work out, sounds like. So and we did recommend that bypass lane, which actually pushed the building further north and a little closer to that north property line by doing that. But yeah. Here's exactly what Jeff was saying as far as the need for all these, yes.

So you guys have been involved with them in trying to develop a footprint that works or at least a layout of this that works. Yes, the bypass lane, I'm sure, important. You need that. Additional questions from the Board?

You mentioned that you guys studied the traffic pattern there, like a traffic study was made for the site or for this purpose?

We have not done a traffic study for this particular site because of the low traffic counts that would be used in this. And then I assume that the city had traffic counts

from

when they did the design of the roundabout in 'eighteen. I don't we could probably pull that up and look at it. But it's we're not adding a significant amount of traffic. Our main traffic concerns really were the access in and out. It's not adding volume as much as it is. We want to make sure it's safe in and out of the site. And that's why, again, it was shifted. The property was shifted with the drives as far farther east as we could to keep it away from the roundabout merge areas. Because the merge area is just past. There's a crosswalk right here. So I mean the merge area start right in that area there. So we want to keep them as far back from that as possible.

Jeff, I would imagine the time it takes to service the vehicle is probably fifteen minutes or something. So you've got somebody coming out every fifteen, twenty minutes, and that's about it, right? Correct. However long that takes.

Unless you're, what, five minute oil change?

I don't

know if it's five minute. Don't know what they That's really true.

Yes, you're good, Cath. Any additional questions? Is there anyone else here this evening on this matter to address this question? All right. We're certainly entertained additional questions from the Board. Mr. Terrell, thank you for your input on it. Thanks for working with the city on this as well. I would entertain a motion. It could be individual, it could be all of them, or if you want to entertain additional questions.

I'd like to make a motion to approve all five variance requests. A 42 and a half front setback branch permit a structure to be built with within seven and a half feet of the front setback where a 50 foot setback is required. 21.8 rear setback variants permit structure to be built with a 3.2 foot rear setback where a 25 foot setback is required, a seven and a half foot sign setback variance to permit an ID sign to be located two and a half feet from the road right away where 10 feet is required, a two car drive through variance to permit a drive through to allow for four stacked cars where six stacked cars is required and a front yard vehicle use setback variance to allow less than a 10 foot landscape buffer to the road right away.

Thank you, Mr. Schultz. Is there a second to that motion to approve all five as submitted?

I'll second the motion. Mr.

Spate, thank you, sir. Without additional questions then, if you would call roll on the motion to approve all five variances as submitted. Submitted.

Mr. Schultz?

Yes.

Mr. Spate?

Yes.

Mr. Ankorvati?

Yes. Mr. Awadala? Yes. Okay. All right. Good luck with that.

Thank you very much. Nice use.

So on the agenda this evening, BZA 2020Five-twenty8, Chick fil A at 790 Arlington Ridge Road in Green. Here, the appellant Chick fil A at 5200 Buffington Road in Atlanta, Georgia is requesting three variances: a 40 foot front setback variance to permit a drive thru canopy to be located 10 feet from the road right of way where a 50 foot setback is required. And the second request, a 42 foot front setback variance to permit a dumpster enclosure to be located eight feet from the road right of way where 50 feet is required by code. This does not comply with Green Codified Ordinance Code Chapter 157 of the Planning and Development Code, specifically 157.1041 of the site development standards for business districts. They're also requesting, number three, a variance to permit two accessory structures, a drive through canopy and a dumpster enclosure to be located in the front yard, which is not compliant with Green Codified Ordinance 157 Planning and Development Code.

And there we have Table 157.087-one, so specifically stated three requests: a 40 foot front setback variance to permit an accessory structure or drive thru canopy to be built within a 10 foot front setback of Arlington Ridge Road where 50 feet is required Second request, a 42 front setback variance to permit an accessory structure, in this case, a dumpster enclosure, to be built with an eight foot front setback to Arlington Road where 50 feet is required by code. And finally, the third variance request to permit two accessory structures, the drive thru canopy and the dumpster be the dumpster enclosure to be located in the front yard where code permits accessories to be located in the rear yard. It requires that, the variance of crust as a result. Welcome aboard. How are you?

Hi. My name's Guy Greg Monig with Wolpert. 4454 Dayton, Ohio.

4454 Idea Center?

Idea Center Boulevard.

Boise Boulevard. And of ZIP code?

45430.

430. Spell your last name for our record, please.

It's, Monig, m o n n I g.

Okay, Mr. Monig. Welcome aboard. Your relationship to the project?

We're the, design engineers, Wolpert is, and, we're representing Chick fil A.

Gotcha. Okay. So the the project itself, if you would lay it out for us and why we cannot comply with what the code's requesting.

Okay. Just real quick, our our site is located, at Arlington Arlington Ridge Road in South Arlington. This is the former, Crazy Chicken restaurant, so it's a vacant facility. Basically, this is a public right of way. This is the drive into kind of the development target sits behind us over here.

But in this case, it's a dedicated right of way as well. So, that puts us on a corner lot. When we're developing a Chick fil A, to get the this the the site plan to work, we do dual drive through, lanes, and so they wrap around to get the number of stacking. The order point canopy needs to be a certain distance from the per pickup canopy. If it gets too far away, then, you know, you don't have the stacking ahead of, of the order point to get cars stacked.

So there's a relationship between those two canopies. And so that puts this canopy kind of on this north side of the building, which is long Arlington Ridge. And then the other variance we're requesting is is the dumpster enclosure, which is over here. It sits about 12 feet below the, road elevation, so it's kinda blocked by that retaining wall, anyway. So but for for maneuverability, we wanted it close to the the store, but, you know, away from the parking and kinda off to the side.

So, so those are the two variances we're requesting, the the the proximity to both both right of ways and then also just being in front yard, since it's a corner lot. I do have a couple perspectives. This is the dumpster enclosure. So the dumpster enclosure is is fully enclosed with masonry. The gates will be on facing towards the store or toward the restaurant.

And so the masonry is fully enclosed around the outside. And then for the canopy, it's a kind of a low profile canopy. No advertising on the canopy. It's just to keep our, employees out of the weather elements, rain or and and also has a heating and, fans below it to to keep you cool in the in the summertime. So if there's any questions, I'm here to answer them.

Can you explain how you bypass? I don't see a bypass lane or an escape lane, sir.

Okay. Yes. Well, we've been working with planning commission on that. And so to accommodate an escape lane, we've we've did a mountable curb or a roll curb, so a vehicle on the outside could could go over that curb line and then either, go in the grass and and escape through either the parking spaces, which my understanding, no one ever parks along these, spaces along Target or they could go to the North to Arlington Ridge.

I guess in reality, I question that would function that way because of people's perception of it not being a regular drive. I understand the roll curve and all that. But the average person going through an emergency, I'm not sure, or for convenience, would even see that.

My point? Well, I mean, the the we've been that was what we've been working with staff on, and then, we thought that accommodated the concern. I I know, you know, there was a recent incident at another Taco Bell or something at a drive through, but it does allow, you know, in an emergency, people would have the ability to drive over that relatively easy. So I think we always have employees out there too. So I you know, if during an emergency, I think they could be able to help direct people, in in that case as well.

And this is a a a it's considered a a flex lane, the second lane. So only during peak volumes does do both lanes get used. So, like, in, non peak hours, both you know, one of the lanes would be used for for taking orders and picking up, and the other lane could be a flex lane where people could bypass.

So this building is using the same footprint of the existing building right now?

It's essentially the same footprint. Yes. It's I think it's a little bit wider in this direction, not but as long or deep, but it's essentially the same location.

And that's what prevent going a little bit to the south? Is that the reason why you're not we can't shift the building a little bit further south?

Yes. It's it's basically the the dimensions for the outlot, and and we work with Target on the location of that. And so, yeah, there's not the ability to shift south and and lose more parking k. For the center.

Well, we should focus on the variances.

Are there anyone else here this evening care to address the Board on this matter? Certainly, Mr. Dottirio, you've worked with them a little bit on the project, don't doubt. That bypass lane, I get it in an emergency situation, you're probably going Hey, the curbs are going to stop me. I need to get out of there, right? Yes, comfortable exactly. With that layout? Yes. Clear. Any other input? Any other thoughts on the project at all?

I think just operationally, just the way it's laid out, it does work as far as helps the operation to flow better and seems to be needed in this case.

Yes, certainly couldn't flip it. That's probably the best place to enter and leave.

When that building was the building that's there now when that was built, Arlington Ridge was not there, of course. That was just a private driveway or access point to that plaza. So that became right away after the fact, I guess, you'd say too.

So this shows future construction to Arlington Ridge on it. This is four lanes. It's currently

So, yeah, that's do you wanna

Yeah. So we, we're gonna, widen to add a a right turn lane to help with, alleviate traffic, some of the traffic. And the other change that we're making is on the inbound traffic. Currently, it's a four way intersection stop being an entrance to the to the development. They typically allow free flowing movement for the inbound traffic. So we didn't wanna, you know, inbound traffic to back up to Arlington Road, South Arlington Road. So we're allowing them free flowing in, and the other three, directions will be stop controlled.

So Chick fil A is putting that turn lane in?

Yes. Wow.

So the okay. You guys adding the you guys adding the lane. And it's no longer a four way stop sign, right?

Correct. Okay.

Okay. Very good. Chicken sandwiches are doing good.

You take peak or non peak hour. I don't if you've ever driven by and not seen both lanes in full use like all the

time. Amazing set. They're closed on Sundays, too.

There we go. There's the one day. Six days a week. Yes. Additional questions or again, we'd welcome anyone else here who had a question or would entertain a motion at this juncture as well.

I think just talking over it, I mean, the dumpster enclosure is a nonissue for sure. I mean, being so low under the retaining wall, I don't think it's affecting that area at all. And the Canopy, I don't think it's going to be affecting visibility or anything on Arlington considering Arlington's razed and even, you know

Mhmm. Likewise, you're heading up a hill just to get out of there. Yeah. While I'll say having reserved the right to do so, I'll make a motion to approve all three variances requested. The first, a 40 foot front setback variance to permit an accessory structure of the drive thru canopy to be built within 10 foot front Savick of Arlington Road, where 50 foot is required the second request, a 42 front setback variance to permit an accessory structure or dumpster enclosure to be built within eight feet of the front setback of Arlington Road, 50 feet is required there.

And third, a variance request to permit two accessory structures, the drive thru canopy and the dumpster enclosure, to be located in the front yard, where code requires accessories to be located in the rear yard. So I'll float that motion, and we'll look for a second if there one. I second that motion. Mr. Schultz, thank you. So motion made and seconded. Then without further discussion, if you would call roll on the motion to approve.

Mr. Encaravati? Yes. Mr. Schultz?

Yes.

Mr. Aladala? Yes. Mr. Speight?

No. Very good. All right. So that will pass three-zero. Thank you very much or three-one.

That's fine. Thank very much.

Thanks.

All right. We have minutes from our last meeting, Thursday, 10/16/2025, circulated in advance of this meeting over the packets. I appreciate everyone. And if you had a chance to review them, great. If you needed some more time to review them, certainly can take that now. Or I would entertain a motion to approve as submitted or would entertain any additions or corrections.

Make a motion to approve the minutes.

All right. Very good. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. We will that's submitted. Thank you very much. Anything else for the good of the order? December?

I think January 15.

January. Okay. All right. Very good. All right then. We'll see you all in January. Thank you all for coming this evening. Appreciate it. Appreciate your time. And we'll stand adjourned.