Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Are we ready now? Yes.

Okay. I'm going to call this meeting to order. This is the uh the November meeting. I'm hearing expect. Okay. I'm sorry. So, I call this November meeting to order of the board of zoning appeals for Leewood. Um, could I have roll call, please?

Yes. Roll call. Members Penn here. Dirkson here. Pepis here. Dunn here. Fington. Hawk. Busing. We have a quorum. Thank you very much. Uh, we have a large agenda tonight, folks. I've got a couple of announcements before we begin. Uh first, I'd like to congratulate our member Pepis on his election to the Leewood City Council Ward One. So, you'll [clears throat] be finishing out the year with us, I guess, but then leaving us. Yep. So, congratulations. We will miss you. That's that's that's great.

Um we do have a large agenda tonight. and case for those of you who came for if if anybody's here who came for case 57205 which is 8200 Wanga Road. Is that correct Travis? That's right, isn't it? Yeah. 8200 Wanga Road. That's been continued um continued till December. Is that correct? Yes. Continued to the December 17th meeting. Okay. So,

all right. All right. So, if anybody's here for that one, I'm just letting you know so you won't spend the evening sitting here waiting to be called and and come up. Um, we are also going to take uh cases 61, 62, and 63 at the beginning. Um, which is a little bit out of order, but we have a couple of items we're dealing with here. We have one member who has to leave early, and we have one member who has a conflict on these three cases. So you want to just make your statement about that? Yeah. So for the next three cases, I will be recusing myself due to a potential conflict of interest.

Okay. So you don't have to go yet. We still got to do the minutes. So anyway, I forgot the minutes. Does Has everybody had a chance to review our minutes from last time from October? Are there any changes? Do I have a motion to approve? The minutes be submitted. Second. All in favor say I. I. Oppose. Nay. That passes. We'll move on to our first case then. And you have all three of these cases of the same address, 61, 62, and 63. And you're going to recuse yourself. Yes, sir. From making any decisions on the case. Exactly.

You're welcome to stay in the room if you'd like.

All right. So I call case 61-20252918 West 92nd place request for a variance to the maximum square footage of an accessory structure in accordance with the LDO section 16-4 1.2C2 in an R1 district. Does staff have a report? The applicant would like to build an architecturally attached accessory structure that is approximately 1,99 square feet in total. The 2% max of this lot is 876. A variance of approximately 223 ft or 7% is needed to build the structure as proposed. And um is this it is there some limit of the amount you can on an accessory structure that this passes? Is that why it's a variance rather than an exception?

That's correct. The maximum size for an accessory structure is 2% of the lot size and this one they're proposing to be 2.7% of the lot size. Yeah. So there's kind of some funky math there, but that's I got it. I got it. Thank you very much. Any questions for staff before we call the applicant up? And I do note for the record, as I said, all three of these first cases are the same address. So you may be feeling like you're repeating yourself, but u if necessary, that's what we have to do. So is the applicant here? Come on up.

Hello, I'm Brian Scott, owner of 2918 West 92nd Place. Uh we are proposing to build a garage attached architecturally to our existing home. Uh Travis, I I don't mean to correct you, but we're proposing an 876 ft garage. Uh which is in excess of the allowable allowable coverage by approximately 223 square feet or 7/10 of a percent. Uh the property is unique as you can see as a it's a fairly large lot 3/4 of 3/4 of an acre in the layout in the back corner of a culde-sac. Uh the house footprint and a regular layout limit alternative building locations. Uh and then we have the open air breezeway which uh aligns with our aesthetic and functional goals of the project. Uh we cannot build a garage of sufficient size to accommodate additional vehicles including a handicap van uh storage needs and modest work space while staying within the [clears throat] limit. Uh that imposes a functional hardship, not a merely an inconvenience. Uh requiring reduction from the 876 square feet allowed to the maximum would force an undersiz or cramped and functionally inefficient garage. uh you know we acknowledge the the intent of the LDO to prevent overbuilding of accessory structures, preserve open space and maintain proportional relationships to principal dwelling. Uh this modest variance of 223 square feet maintains those objectives while enabling practical rational expansion.

Any questions from the the board for the applicant? Well, I I heard you mention the two criteria that are obviously difficult for us and I'm sure it sounds like somebody must have told you that with a variance, we have to we have to find that the proposal meets all five criteria. Okay.

And th those five criteria include uniqueness of property and hardship. And those are the ones we struggle with. You did mention and I heard you that you believe this is unique based on the size and shape of the property u and and where the house is currently located doesn't leave you a lot of options. That's kind of the hardship is what are you going to do if you can't put it here. Right. Right. Exactly.

So is is there anything you'd like to add to your discussion of of uniqueness and hardship? Uh, I guess emphasizing that, you know, I have a handicapped mother and we, my wife and I own the the van that we transport her in. She's recently moved from one assisted living facility to another uh in this new facility, although it's right down the street from us, does not have a a covered garage space for her. So, it's currently residing outside. So that's driving the need for it to uh get this project done sooner than later. You know, we also have uh kidnau, so we will need additional garage space in the in the future. Okay. Does that spark any questions from up here? Is there anyone out there who uh came to speak on this application for or against? No. Okay. Well, folks, that leaves us with the process of going through the five criteria. So, um, what I'm going to do, uh, board members, is go through these. The first, as you know, is uniqueness of property. Does anyone want to comment on the uniqueness?

I'll comment on uniqueness of property. Um, it does look like the lot is irregular in size and shape for the neighborhood, which would make this um, lot unique. So, I think that would present some additional challenges to the applicant due to the uniqueness of um the shape of the parcel um and where the home's located. So, I do think that factor's been met. Any other comments on uniqueness? All those who believe it meets that criteria, please say I. I oppose. Nay.

Hearing [clears throat] no nays. That passes. The next is rights of adjacent property owners. I assume letters went out. Travis Yes, letters went out and no calls or concerns have been received at the time of this report and thankfully I've remembered to ask and there's nobody here to speak on it. So, um should we vote on that? Does anybody have a comment before we vote? All those who believe it meets the criteria of rights of adjacent property owners, please say I. I

oppose. Nay. That passes. Hardship. Would anyone like to comment on the hardship criteria as it applies in this case? All right. Then all those who believes it meets the hardship criteria, please say I. I. I. Oppose. Nay. Public safety and general welfare. This is the one where we're we're supposed to assure that it doesn't adversely affect public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare. And our staff points out to us the effect should be minimal. So all those who believe it's met this criteria, please say I. I.

Opposed? Nay. And the spirit and of and intent, is this is this in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Leewood zoning ordinances? Any comments? I think that the spirit and intent would be met here. All those who believe that it's met this criteria, please say I. I. Oppose. Nay. That passes as well. Having passed all five criteria, we can entertain a motion to approve K61-2025. Chairman K61 2025 4 2017 West 138 Terrace request for the maximum square footage accessory structure in accordance with the section 16-4

second have a motion and a second all those in favor please say I I oppose nay it passes one two to go. You can stay there if you want to. Yeah.

And I I should point out to my fellow board members that we did get the uh two new cover pages for each one of these three. Um just there [snorts] were a few minor changes that Travis had to make. So anyway, this is U case 62-2025 2918 West 92nd place request for a variance to the maximum height of an accessory structure. Anything I need to know? Does staff have a report? The applicant would like to build an architecturally attached accessory structure that is approximately 17 feet tall. 15 feet is the maximum height of an accessory structure per the LDO. A variance of approximately 2 feet is needed to build the structure as proposed.

This is the same garage we were talking about on the last Yes, correct.

All right. Are there any questions for staff before the applicant speaks? Please state your name and address first just so we're clear on the record if you would. Brian Scott, owner of 2918 West 92nd Place. So, uh, this proposed garage, uh, our existing home sits at a slightly elevated grade relative to the rear yard, uh, resulting in a natural elevation change between the house and the proposed garage location. The elevation difference necessitates a slightly taller structure to achieve a continuous roof line uh connection via breezeway while maintain while maintaining the structural alignment and architectural cohesion. Uh hardship would prevent the garage roof line from aligning with the breezeway and principal dwelling uh resulting in an incompatible design. The structure would remain subordinate to the main dwelling in both the size and and prominence. The proposed garage ridge line would still be lower than the the main dwellings ridge line and uh you know I think the variance of of two feet is is minimal. Ju just out of curiosity, what is the architectural attachment? Is that a you say it's a breezeway? Is that

It's a breezeway. Correct. Uh any questions for the applicant from the board? Original structure is higher than this proposed. Correct. But I guess it's my understanding since it's a an accessory dwelling unit. Uh the maximum height is 15 ft. I what I understood is that Mel is that he he they need believe they need to raise the height of the garage just a little bit to to to be contiguous with the height of the house structure since the house sits up higher. Is that correct? Correct.

Okay. Does that make sense? Any other questions? Yeah. just since it's architecturally attached. Basically, the LDO limits those structures to 15 feet in height and he's asking for that this architecturally attached structure to be two feet taller. It couldn't be a dwelling unit though just it's a garage. Yeah. Yeah. So, just wanted to correct that. Sorry. And for clarification, the Are you saying that the roof line the top of the garage roof line is the same height as the house roof line or is it you said lower? Lower. It's lower.

Correct. Okay. I have a follow-up question based on that. So, if it it's going to be lower at the proposed height, is that a substantial difference from if it was lower at your proposed height minus 2 feet and then it were compliant or like is this purely based on aesthetics or is this based on function? It it's it's it's to be consistent with the with the rest of the house. Do you know what height the rest of the house is at? Uh, I believe it's slightly more than 17 ft.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions? I I don't know if this one helps, but second to last page of the packet. No further questions. Okay. Uh once again, this is a variant, so it has to uh meet all five criteria. The first of which is uniqueness. Would anyone like to comment on uniqueness before we vote?

I will. I mean, I think the the lot is irregular both in the size of the shape, but also then in the slope meets the criteria. Thank you. Anybody else? All those who believe it meets the uniqueness criteria, please say I. I oppose. Nay. That passes. Rights of adjacent property owners. I assume the same applies here, Travis, that no negative responses. Yeah, the same. All letters were mailed and no calls or concerns. Okay. Any comments? All those who believe it meets this criteria, please say I. I. Opposed? Nay.

Hardship. Anyone want to comment on hardship?

I'll comment on hardship. Um, I don't think this factor is met. Um, based on the applicant's concerns about the visual appeal of the structure, um, I don't think the LDO contemplates a, um, precise match for the accessory structure to the main home structure. I believe the purpose of the LDO is to keep those accessory structures from being a main site line. Um it sounds like the proposed height would be slightly variating from the home structure um at the proposed height. Um so I do not believe the hardship factor is met by adding those extra two feet on there.

Thank you. Anyone else? I I mean just overall I think we you know it could be designed to be 15. It's a new structure. It could be designed to be 15 foot tall. You know that's just kind of us stating you know the intent of the LDO there is that it be 15 foot tall and we feel like it they could be designed to be 15t tall. Anything else? All those who believe it's met this criteria, please say I oppose. Nay. Nay.

Bill factor. Public safety and general welfare. All those who believe it meets this criteria, please say I. I. Oppose. Nay. In spirit and intent, all those who believe it meets this criteria, please say I. I. Oppose. Nay. That passes as well. Having uh not achieved uh five uh positive results, um I can we can entertain a motion to deny um the request for a variance in 62-2025. Do I have such a motion?

Mr. Chairman, I move to deny case 62-2025 417 West 138th Terrace. to request for a variance to the maximum height of an accessory structure in accordance with the LDO section 16-4-1.2 parent C parent one parent in an R1 district. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor, please say I. I. Oppos? Nay. Uh the motion to deny. Pat, would you let me know uh which way your vote is on hardship and on uh the overall just for the record? Why

uh just for the quorum part, right? Don't I think we have to have four? We need it. I don't think we do. Do we? We've got a quorum here voting on it. The with Matt. I think the quorum is the four. I think we do have to have your vote. Oh. On that. Okay. All right. Well, then I agree with the the the votes that we took. Okay. Thank And I would also v vote for denial based on the same criteria. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Okay. Um our last one in this um triumvirate is 63-2025.

I've got two different addresses on this. This is 138, right? 2918 West 92. I'm sorry. Okay. 2918 West 92nd Place. That That's what you corrected. I guess Travis was we had the wrong [clears throat] address on on the old on the old item. Sorry. Request for a variance to the maximum width of a breezeway attaching to a primary structure. Does staff have a report?

Yes. The applicant would like to build an architecturally attached accessory structure that is attached to the primary structure with a 7.5 ft breezeway. The minimum width of a breezeway by ordinance for an architecturally attached structure is 10 feet. A variance of two and a half feet is needed to attach the accessory structure as proposed. Any questions for staff? You want to state your name and address again for the record?

Brian Scott, owner of 2918 West 92nd Place. So, we're requesting this variance from the 10 feet uh 10 foot breezeway requirement to allow a 7 foot 6 inch connection between our home and the proposed garage. Uh the the minimum breezeway width would shift the entire structure westward. Uh causing proposed garage to encroach on the required setbacks. Uh a utility pole and mature landscaping. Uh hardship prevents reasonable use of the property for an attached garage addition. The expanded breezeway to meet code would force uh the entire structure to shift into setbacks uh making the project infeasible. Hardships not self-imposed but results directly from existing lot geometry in homes established placement. The variance allows us to make reasonable improvements consistent with neighboring properties.

Questions from up here? Well, I know I have a question. Uh did did what you're saying what I hear you saying is that if you have to widen it to 10 feet, you're going to have to move the garage. Correct. It would push the garage uh beyond the required setbacks. How would I I'm I'm having a hard time picturing that. Doesn't the Doesn't the the structure just uh dump into the garage in the house? I mean, that's what breezeways are for, right? Well, if you look at this drawing here, Uhhuh.

this breezeway would widen out three feet. So, it push this building into the the required setbacks. Why would it push it that direction if it widened out to 3 feet? Are you following this, Travis? Because I'm not understanding. I'm not following it in that way. You know, it wouldn't have to push it farther away from the the building. The breezeway itself would have to be three foot wider. Right. Right. It's It's not longer, it's wider or two and a half feet in this case. Yeah. And I guess is what you're saying that if if you widen it by 3 feet, you're going to have to move the garage 3 feet that direction. Correct. [clears throat]

Okay. Any other questions from up here?

Uh I think I have a followup based on that. So, is there not a way to expand the part of the breezeway which is not currently touching the house or touching the proposed garage, but that's just in the middle to let it reach the desired width. I guess I don't understand why the breezeway structure can't be widened independently when the garage doesn't exist yet. Yeah, I guess I'm not following that. Uh, so if you look at this opening right here, that's 7 and 1/2 ft wide. And the requirement is is that it's 10 ft wide. So if we extend that another two and a half feet, all of a sudden this structure gets pushed westward.

But once again, I I think you're you're you're looking at the length of the breezeway, not the width, aren't you? And staff, are we misunderstanding that or

No, I think staff I think you're understanding it correctly. Yeah. And it sounds to me the same as it does to you, like he's talking about extending it farther away from the house, which it just has to be wider, so it's more significantly attached to the house. You know, detached structures are prohibited. That's why, you know, the LDO basically says, "Hey, for these certain circumstances, you can have architecturally attached, but it's got to be a 10- foot wide structure that's attaching it to the primary structure, and it's got to be within that architecturally attached structure has to be within 15 feet of the primary structure." But that's not the issue. It's the width of the attachment.

And I I was here for all of that. And I know the reason for that is is that people were designing breezeways that were hardly even a structure at all where it's just cornered on the house and then Right. It's not even really attached. Right. Right. Well, so I guess I I'm sorry. We're we're our confusion should be obvious to you. Can you can you help us understand this? It's we we feel like we're talking about two different things here.

Yeah. is my understanding that the the breezeway connecting the existing home to the attached structure needed to be at least 10 feet wide. So the exterior of the ex existing home needed to be 10 ft away from the exterior of the attached structure. No. No. The 10 feet is the width, not the length. Okay. Not the distance between the two. Well, I guess what's what's highlighted here? And

that means [clears throat] this was highlighted. That was my interpretation, but I didn't highlight that. Uh, okay. I guess I'd like to look at the the ordinance to you're you're welcome to withdraw this and and bring it back, isn't he, Travis? We can do that, can't we? You might want to request to continue if request for he could withdraw if he determined that he could redesign or or move forward. I don't know what the best course would be there.

He gave me the proper language there. the the proper thing to do would be if you if if you're confused about this now and would like to go back and and relook at it before we make a decision on it, you're welcome to ask for a continuence. [snorts] And I think the board would probably grant you that continuence so you could bring it back. Okay. Next next time. Would you like to do that? Yes, please. Okay. Um all those in favor of granting a continuence until the next meeting on this case, please say I. I oppose. Nay. That passes. Thank you, sir. We'll see you next We'll see you next time. Matt,

come on down. Okay. Our next case is um 50 55-2025 2906 West 92nd Place request for an exception to the maximum allowable square footage on a lot in accordance with the LDO as stated. Does does staff have a report?

The applicant is proposing a tear down rebuild that will total 4744 square feet. The maximum square footage allowed by ordinance on this lot is 402 ft. An exception of 742 ft, which is 18.55% above the maximum, is needed to build the home as proposed.

Any questions for staff? This is the one where there is revised numbers in front of you that was provided today just for those comparisons to adj you know for the second for B the that the proposed size of rebuild remodel sure reflect the character of the other surrounded dwellings just last meeting you guys asked for more information so we were trying to provide just a little bit more about those other properties around it in advance. Oh, I see. Okay. Well, I I think I

rather than scramble during the meeting and trying to find those square footages. So, all right. Is the applicant here? Come on up. Would you state your name and address for the record, please? Michael Smith, owner of 2906 West 92nd Place. Thank you. You may present your case, sir.

The U application here is fairly typical for the new tear down and new builds uh in the past in the neighborhood and in the Leewood area there. And uh in our case in particular, the bulk of the additional square footage would be contained in the second story or the attic space. It uh would not necessarily materially change the outside footprint or uh envelope of the house. Okay.

Wait, I'm sorry, I missed that last part. Can you say that again? Where is the bulk of the storage? The bulk of the the bulk of the additional square footage that we're looking for is really for the in in the second story or attic area of the house. The basic footprint of the house or the envelope of the house would not necessarily materially change. And it's uh the architect and the u the surveyor has indicated that the uh the house conforms to the the lot uh setbacks and specifications for that they have to meet for that. Any other questions for the applicant?

I have another one. Um but the height of the house is in compliance with the LDO, correct? As far as I know, yes. Okay. It was just the maximum is what we were seeking. If it weren't, it will have to be or they would have to come back before you. Okay. Right. Any other questions? I think our concern here,

right? What what Mel's speaking about as you all recall is there's really two criteria on this exception. One is that it be less than 20% increase over maximum allowable square footage, but the other is that the proposed size should reflect the character of the other surrounding dwellings in the neighborhood. So, um that's what he's commenting on. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Is there anyone here who would like to speak on this for or against it? Come on [clears throat] up. Yes, sir. Please give me your name and address for our record.

Yes. My name is Fred Slicking. I'm next door neighbor at 2910 West 92nd Place. Just worried about it dwarfing the existing culde-sac. It's a big home compared to that old culdeac where we've not had a tear down. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone else here to speak one way or the other on this? Have letters gone out? Did we receive anything in writing? Travis, all letters were mailed. We did receive two calls with questions concerning the project, but they weren't opposed or in support. Just wanted to know more about the project.

Okay. All right. Any other questions for our applicant? We can get him back up here if we need to. All right. Any other discussion? Do I hear a motion? Mr. Chairman, I move to approve case [clears throat] 55-2025 2906 West 92nd Place request for an exception to the maximum allowable square footage on a lot in accordance with the LDO 16-2-5.3 apparent F apparent 2 in an R1 district. Second. Have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say I.

I oppose. May it passes you'll be notified in writing. Sir, thanks for coming in. Okay, sorry. Our next case is 56-2025 8017 Meadow Lane. request for a variance to the placement of a permanently installed generator. The staff have a report.

The applicant has proposed to place a permanently installed generator 12 ft from the sideyard property line of the home. The sideyard setback for this lot is 15 ft. A variance of 3 feet is needed to place a generator where proposed. Any questions for staff? Okay. I I noticed the use of permanently installed generator. Is there is there such a thing as a temporarily installed one? Not uh No, it couldn't be permanent like Yeah, it would have to be a permanently installed generator to be outside or it'd be a legal nuisance. Yeah.

Just curious. Okay. Um All right. Let's see. Is the applicant here? Would you please come up? State your name and address for the record, please. Hi, my name is Linda Sainer and I live at 87 Meadow Lane. And I'm Randy Sader. Same. Welcome. You may present your case.

Okay. So, we're asking for this variance because the the place where we want to place the generator is the least obtrusive in our entire yard. And we will have to remove um a crate myrtle in order to fit it into that space. But it also uh aligns with our neighbors uh garage and it's not part of his it's a solid wall there. And if we have to if we cannot put it in this space, then we're going to have to move it further into the backyard, which is going to stick out further from the house. And then it will not only be visible to all the surrounding houses because we live on a culde-sac. And so um the the shape of our lot since we live on a culde-sac is a pie shape. And unfortunately, had the line been straight, we wouldn't be here asking for a variance. So, um, what I hear you saying is that this is one of many properties in Old Lewood that being on a culde-sac with a curve shaped lot, you you have limited choices for where to locate the house and because of that, there's limited choices for where to put the generator. Is that accurate?

Okay.

Um, hardship is the other criteria we struggle with. Have you thought about hardship and what what kind of hardship this would create if this were denied? I think if I think about it from our our standpoint as far as being the homeowners, first of all, it's going to stick out further into our yard, it's going to actually um be closer to our outdoor patio area. U and then I think about the hardship from the my surrounding neighbors in that it's sticking out there. It'll probably the noise will be greater than if it were tucked over into the corner of the house where it's not visible from the street or this the other homes.

So this picture we're looking at, can you can you see that there? The black X is that where the the generator's proposed to be? Yes. So, so what you're saying is is that by placing it there, you're limiting the the noise production to only two sides rather than three or four sides. That's correct. Yeah, that is correct. Um, it's [clears throat] a perfect place. It's tucked away. It's not visible and there's less noise. It would be like the difference if you were putting a generator behind that wall or putting it right here in the middle of this walkway. Yeah, I get the idea. I get the idea. Um yeah, unfortunately generators were not in anybody's imagination when old Leewood was planned. So, right,

um we deal with this all the time. Any questions for the applicant?

I have a question. Um I think mostly just regarding it being so close to the side and you mentioned that um you know this keeps it further away from your patio area. I guess my main concern would be, you know, shifting any noise issues away from your patio area, which of course is desirable, but pushing that off to the neighbors instead would be my biggest concern. My my next door neighbor u I've talked to him and he submitted a letter saying that he doesn't have a problem with it and he has shrubbery that's surrounding his patio and we have shrubbery that extends almost clear up to the edge of the fence that would uh debate any kind of noise from that.

It's actually [clears throat and cough] not ideal for him because it's on the side where it hit the garage and and whole wall. By putting it out in the middle, there'll be much more noise and more vis visible distraction. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? All right. Well, as you know, it needs to meet the five criteria since this is a variance. So I will start with uniqueness of property. Would anyone like to comment on that criteria?

Mr. Chairman, I'll comment on on that. I believe this criteria hasn't met. Like the applicant stated, the the lot size is very irregular and there's very limited places that that this generator works. I believe this has been met. Any other comments? All those who believe it's met the uniqueness criteria, please say I. I oppose. Nay. And before we go any further, I should have asked, is there anyone here to speak on this application one way or the other? I didn't see any anxious faces, but I thought I better ask. Okay. All right. Our second criteria is rights of adjacent property owners. I assume letters have gone out, Travis.

Yes. All letters were mailed. Uh, no calls or concerns. There was that letter of support from the neighbor included in the packet and that would be 8021. That's correct. Okay. All right. All those who believe we this has met the criteria of rights of adjacent property owners, please say I. I. Oppose. Nay. Hardship. Any discussion. All those who believe it's met this criteria, please say I. I. I. Opposed? Nay. Public safety and general welfare. Any comments? All those who believe it met this criteria, please say I. I.

I. Oppose. Nay. And spirit and intent. Any comments? All those who believe it's met this criteria, please say I. I. I. Having successfully passed all five criteria, we can entertain a motion to approve case 56-2025, a request for variance of 817 Meadow Lane. Mr. Chairman in case 56 2025 8017 meadow lane request for a variance to the placement of a permanently installed generator in accordance with the LDO section 16-4-1.3 A brand 7D in an R1 district. I'll move approval. Second.

Have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say I. I oppose. Nay. It passes. You'll be notified in writing. Thank you for a a really informative presentation. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Our next case is 57- Oh, that's the one that is that the continued one? Yes, that's correct. That one's been continued.

Continued. Sorry. So that means our next case is 58-202514108 Windsor Drive. Request for a variance to the rear yard setback. Does staff have a report? The applicant has proposed a pool cabana that will be placed 53.765 ft from the rear of the property. The rear yard setback for this lot is 106.932 ft. A variance of 53.167 ft is needed to build the cabana as proposed. Any questions for staff?

You say cabana, is the is the the pool being placed close to where the cabana is going to be? I believe it's an existing pool and they're adding a cabana. I could be mistaken on that, but I We'll get to that with the applicant. Okay. All right. Is the applicant here? Please come on up. Uh Corbin Turlup, 14108 Windsor Drive. Weston Cobalt, ESC Architects. You may present your case.

Yep. So, we're um wanting to to construct a pool cabana in our backyard. Uh we we have three small children, one, three, and six years old. um we kind of got spoiled with the current um H HOA that we have. We have like a pool that's not in our backyard that is safe to where we gated around. So um we are wanting to ultimately put the pool and the pool house as far away as possible as we can from our house um just to protect our our young children. Um the other the other reasoning for having the cabana back there um is it gives us direct visualization from the back of our house to the pool without the uh cabana being in the way. Um our house currently is quite a ways set back from the front uh front setback to where it really doesn't leave us any room. Um and the last thing I want is to be able to have my kids walk right out and walk into into a pool area. Um, so the the goal here is to get the pool house as far away from the house along with the pool and have that gated in. Um, also my family members, my mother and my father-in-law both have skin cancer, so I do want to have a cabana area um for them to be out of the sun. Um, no.

Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Um, I would just ask the staff u this to to somebody who doesn't deal with these all the time, these would seem like extremely long setbacks. Uh, what how how do we explain 102?

Well, so R1 zoning district imagines 150 foot deep lot. Um, anything and that would get a 30 foot setback. So, but you know, so for those deeper lots, this one I think is 305ish feet deep. You know, you take the excess the overage of 150 times that by.7, it can end up being a pretty big number as you can see for the rear setback. Sure. Sure. But but even the variance with even with the variance this would be um still be 50 almost 54 feet from the from the the property line.

That's correct. And for a normal R1 zoning district 30 foot would be the normal setback. Right. It's just a bigger lot. So LDO says bigger setback. Okay. So would that not qualify? I was going to say I was like under the uniqueness of property is that it's so large it doesn't apply to the LDL. Well, the the LDO considered the the depth of the lot when they, you know, made it a larger setback.

Yeah, there's there's reasons why they set the LDO the way they did. I just want to make sure we've got all the facts before we make our mind up. I I'm looking I'm struggling with the uniqueness quite frankly and and I I I'm not sure where that is. Can you help us with the uniqueness? What is what makes a little bit? I mean I mean in our district and our zoning, every pretty much every other housing addition in that area has a 30- foot setback. This specific, you know, this specific, you know, Charlemagne Manor has larger setbacks due to the depth of the property. So like every surrounding neighborhood has pretty much a 30-foot setback. Um the other thing that's unique to this property is is it's not a the front yard setback goes into this calculation and the front yard setback actually in this in this housing edition is 70 5 ft. So that also makes it very unique compared to every other housing addition surrounding us. So it really, like you said, I mean, it basically puts the setback all the way to the back of our house almost.

Um, which, you know, is, you know, and our, if you look at an aerial, our house is actually even further set back than even everyone in Charlemagne Manor. Um, and then if the other thing is you look at the end of the culde-sac and other things, there are other housing uh houses in our subdivision that have structures up to 30 40 feet. So, it's not like we're trying to go past 30 ft. We're almost double what the ordinance intended to be at, you know, we're almost at 60. Um, even though our our uh front yard to backyard is 300 ft. So, so you're the largest largest lot in this area. Is that fair to say?

Uh, yeah. I mean, our Charlemagne Manor has they're all pretty unique large depth lots. Okay. Um, but my house in that specific subdivision is probably the furthest set back than any other house in that subdivision. And and I I can see just looking at this moving it north wouldn't wouldn't help a whole lot. Nothing. No. No.

Yeah. I think we just unfortunately the house was built 110 ft set back from the road. If it wasn't, that would change a lot of things. But like I said, I think that 55 set 55 foot setback is basically equivalent to a 30 yard 30 foot setback [clears throat] for a 150 foot depth property. Yeah. Well, let me just ask staff. I I this is a great drawing. I appreciate having this up there. Imagining the size that's proposed for this cabana and pool. Is there a place on the property they could move it to that wouldn't violate the setback? I mean, you can see that dotted line running through there. I mean, there is places that they probably physically could put it. [clears throat]

uh you know with it being a lot closer to the home which the you know the applicants described as being undesirable given that they want some separation of just the pool and that stuff. So I mean there are places where it could be physically put. It's I don't think if it was put in those I think to answer your question the hardship would be the house. It's an existing home

design to place everything where we would ideally place it starting from scratch and designing. And so, you know, obviously to the top of the sheet on the page, you know, there's a lot of open back of the home children from there. And I I can speak to that. My main goal with everything with the pool, I won't even put in a pool if I can't make sure that it's completely far away from the house and I have good visualization. Like I told my kids like I'm not building a pool unless I can make sure that I can see you and I'm kind of like anxious person about pools in general. Um but if you look on the this is this area right here,

I guess that's where like the patio and the and and the direct visualization is straight through to the pool. Like I wanted I wanted the pool to be as far away from my house but with the most amount of windows out of my back of my house to be able to see what's going on. I've also looked at installing cameras and just safety is my biggest concern here. Right. As is probably obvious to you, it's we we you know, our job is to make sure that it meets the the criteria of our zoning laws.

Uh it isn't whether we think it's a good plan or not. it's it's whether we think it meets that criteria. So, that's that's the reason for the questions. Uh, anything else you'd like to add on uniqueness andor hardship because those are the two we struggle with. As I say, you don't have to. I just want to make sure you said everything you wanted to.

I mean, again, I think the hardship would be there's not within any of the setbacks. There's not a setbacks that we could place the to allow good visualation from pool cabana to the pool and from the house to the pool both boat and that wouldn't create a space where kids could Okay, any other questions from here for the applicant? All right. Then as I've stated, this is a variance. So we have to go through the five criteria. The first of which is uniqueness of property. Does anyone want to comment on this?

Mr. Chairman, I'll comment on uniqueness of property. I think um this property is unique based on the applicant statements and the visual here really is great about how far back that setback would need to be um in this specific instance based on the depth of the lot. Um so I do think that's been met here. Any other comments? Well, the size of the lot itself makes it unique. 1.75 acres, it's pretty big. Any other comments? All those who believe it's met the uniqueness criteria, please say I.

I oppose. Nay. We pass that. Once again, I forgot to ask if there was anyone here to speak on this application. Is there anybody here? Sorry. Okay. Next one is rights of adjacent property owners. Letters have gone out, Travis. All letters were mailed. No calls or concerns were expressed. Very good. Um, all those who believe it's met the rights of adjacent property owners criteria, please say I. I. Oppos? Nay. Hardship. Anyone want to speak on this? All right. All those who believe it's met this criteria, please say I.

I. I. Oppose. Nay. Public safety and general welfare. All those who believe it's met this criteria, please say I. I. Oppose. Nay. And finally, spirit and intent. All those who believe it's met this criteria, please say I. I. I. Oppose. Nay. Having gotten an affirmative response on all five criteria, we can entertain a motion for approval. Mr. Chairman, I move to approve case 58-202514108 Windsor Drive. Request for a variance to the rear yard setback in accordance with the LDO section 16-2-5.3 apparent apparent in an R1 district.

I have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say I. I. Opposed? Nay. It's passed. You'll be notified in writing. It looks like you're the next one up, so you can stay there if you want to. Um, our next case is uh 59-2025 14108 Windsor Drive. Request for a variance to the placement of an outdoor fire pit. Does staff have a report?

The applicant has proposed an outdoor fire pit that will encroach 39.18 ft into the rear setback. By ordinance, an encroachment of 5T is allowed. A variance of 34.18 ft is needed to build the fire pit as proposed. Any questions for staff? Is there is it obvious where this fire pit's being proposed on this drawing?

Oh, a little circle thing. Okay. Why don't we get to your presentation since since you're doing most of this anyway? Yeah, I I would say it's just exact same thing with from the first one. It's the same setback issue that we're running into with the the pool cabana. And you really don't want a fire pit that's not part of your pool structure. What's that?

You really don't want a fire pit that's not part of I want it I want it fenced in, but again like it far away from the house. Uh yeah, away from the children be able to fence it in the same safety type situation. Questions from here for the applicant. All right, we have the same five criteria. Wait, I'm going to do it right. Anyone here to speak on this one way or the other? All right, so we have the five criteria. Uniqueness of property. Anyone want to speak on that? Seems to me that if if it applied for the pool, it probably applies for this, doesn't it? Y. Um, all those who believe it's met the uniqueness criteria, please say I. I. Oppose. Nay.

Rights of adjacent property owners, I assume the same applies, Travis. No negative responses. That's correct. All letters were mailed. No calls or concerns were expressed. All those who believe it's met this criteria, please say I. I. Opposed? Nay. hardship. Anyone want to comment on this? Mr. Chairman, I'll comment on hardship. I do think this factor has been met um for similar reasons of um the pool cabana's placement um just looking at the diagram and seeing how far back the fire pit would have to be. It would make it impossible to place with the current setback um and the current plan. So, I do think that's been met.

Any other comments? All those who believe it's met the hardship criteria or that's right. Aren't we on hardship hardship criteria, please say I. I oppose. Nay. Public safety and general welfare. All those who believe it's met this criteria, please say I. I. Opposed? Nay. In spirit and intent, all those who believe it's met this criteria, please say I. I.

Oppose. Nay. Having gotten an affirmative response on all five criteria, we can entertain a motion to approve uh 59-2025. Mr. Chairman, I move to approve case 59-202514108 Windsor Drive request for variance to the placement of an outdoor fire pit in a rear yard setback in accordance with the LDO section 16-4-1.2 apparent B apparent apparent six apparent in an R1 district. Mhm. Have a motion and a second. All those who um all those in favor, please say I. I. Oppose. Nay.

It's uh passed. You'll be notified in writing. Thank you. All right. Our next case is 60-2025 10314 Manor Road. Request for an exception to the sideyard setback. The staff have a report. The applicant is proposing an addition that will be placed 12.7 feet from the side property line. The addition will be in line with the existing structure and no closer to the property line. An exception of 2.3 ft is needed to build the addition as proposed.

Okay. Do you have a simple drawing of this that you could put up there for us, Travis, that would help us as we're talking about it? So, what does the yellow mean? Is that the addition? That's correct. That's the addition. And then the highlighted existing setback of 12.7 ft is shown as well as the proposed setback for the addition of 12.7 ft. So, so this already has structure that's within 12.7 ft of the setback. That's correct. That's and it that's why it meets the exception rather than a variance.

I got you. Okay. All right. Any questions for staff? Is the applicant here? Please come on up.

Good evening. My name is Jeff Shinkle. I'm the architect representing the homeowners. Okay. You may present your case. I'm sorry. You may present your case. Okay. Uh, you pretty much covered it. We're adding a primary addition to the primary bedroom on the west side of the house. The existing south property line sits 12.7 ft off the existing property line. We're going to maintain that that face of the building to the west at 12.7 feet extending out approximately 17 feet for roughly 180 I'm sorry 100 272 foot addition okay to that that bedroom

and it just makes sense to put it in in in congruence with the existing structure right it makes it easier to tie the foundations in to tie the roof in everything simpler that way. Okay. Any any questions for the applicant from the board? Have letters gone out. It says it is. All letters were mailed and no calls or complaints have been received. [clears throat] Very good. Is there anyone here'd like to speak on this one way or the other? Okay. Then if there's no further questions or discussion, we can entertain a motion.

Mr. Chairman K60-202510314 Manor Road request for an exemption to the sideyard setback in accordance with the LDO section 16-2-5.3D in R1 district. I move approval. Second. Have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say I. I. All those opposed? Nay. It passes. You'll be notified in writing. Thanks.

Thank you very [clears throat] much. All right, that brings us to case 64-2025, 8324 Meadow Lane, request for a variance to the placement of a fence in the side setback on a corner lot. Does staff have a report? The applicant would like to install a 4ft steel fence on the side property line of a corner lot. This corner lot has a 30-foot sideyard build line. A variance of 30 feet is required to build the fence as proposed. So, they want to put a fence right on the the bill, right on the property line. That's correct. And I'll put up a map here. Very good.

We have we have seen this case before. We have but not not for this request. Okay. And so is this replacing a fence that's already there or this is a completely new fence? This is a tear down rebuild. So all nonconformities have to be, you know, fixed basically with the new build. So even I think there was some existing fence here. I'm not sure it extended quite this far out. Um but there was an existing fence that was into the corner lot side setback. But again, tear down, rebuild, all non-conformities have to be addressed with that. What what do these lines indicate on this picture, Travis? The yellow

the red line is the proposed location of the fence. Okay. And the yellow line is the property line is the built.

Let me let me take a look at that because it doesn't extend all the way for that one, but let me see the one in in our packet. I I think on that it he just that's showing maybe that's showing the existing the old because that's Ron just drew the red line up to the existing house rather than the new residence. So that line would extend a little further. I'll I'll draw it in. But what is the yellow line? Is that is that what what the setback is?

That's correct. That's where a fence could go is that 30 foot uh corner lot side build line. So So um to to put a fence on within the existing setback, they'd have to build it through the house. Close. No, the the house wouldn't be beyond the corner lot side setback. Oh, okay. It that's showing the existing house. So the existing house was built into the setback. The new house conforms. The garage there with the 933.5 you can see is right up against the 30foot setback which would is not unusual.

Not unusual. Okay. Any other questions for staff? Uh the description show steel fence. I assume that's rot iron. Yeah, that'd be rot iron or or aluminum to have the appearance of rod iron is what the ordinance would allow. Yeah. Any other questions for staff? Is the applicant here? Come on up.

Rotate this to be north. Thank you. I'm Scott Kanikorf. I'm the builder and property owner. I live at 4722 West 68th Street, Prairie Village, Kansas. I'm Tommy Sai. I'll be the owner of this property. Thank you. You may present your case.

This is a relatively simple request. It is a tear down and rebuild. The previous home for decades had a fence in the location that's shown in red. Um like Travis said, we we tore down the old home. We've built a new home that conforms to all the setbacks, but one of the newer guidelines is that a fence would need to be placed on the 30foot build line. And on this corner lot, uh that will put the fence uh relatively far from the curb and the street to the north. Uh before this meeting, we've sent out the mailings. I've met with the neighbors to the south, the west, and the north who had joined this fence. They do not have any concerns with it. Um, I'll just go down the responses to the five uh hardships.

Thank you.

The first as I was as I said was it's this this lot is has a relatively large north side uh setback um plus the 30-oot build line. So that would move this fence uh very far to the south. Um the previous fence and proposed fence are the same height of 4 foot. It will be a 4ft metal fence. Um the proposed fence layout is still out of the rideway and will not create any nuisance for traffic or hardship for pedestrians. And uh again, we've met with the neighbors and they they do not have any concerns. Any questions for the applicant?

Mel, did you want to did you want to mention that other case? You said this was Well, as he's indicated, this was a tear down on this this corner. When you drive by, you kind of forget what the old house looked like, but this is substantial improvement. And the the placement of this fence with a with a rod iron fence just makes sense because the the visual you have both both sides and it just kind of completes the look of the uh whole area.

Um and and Travis, if you wouldn't mind, you you did point out in the description of this that this is a corner lot. The what what how does the corner lot affect this? I just just for everybody's information. Yeah, just on a corner lot side, it's got to meet the build line on that, which is 30 feet. Um, an interior lot can go all the way to the property line, you know, it doesn't. So, there is you end up with kind of two front setbacks a little bit on a corner lot. So, that that you you basically have two front yards you have to deal with. Correct. Okay. Okay. And this is one of them, I assume. Yes. The corner lot. Yeah.

Okay. All right. Any other questions for staff for the applicant? Well, we have to go through the criteria. The first of which, oh, did anyone come to speak on this one way or the other? Come on up, sir. John Turner, 8321 Ensley. Uh, we live immediately to the west of this property. Like they mentioned, there's been a fence that extended farther than the house line. the last 25 years and it's shown no ill effects for us. We're in favor of what they're proposing. Thank you for coming in. We appreciate it.

Okay. Well, we have to consider all five criteria. First of which is uniqueness. And anyone want to speak on that? All those who believe it's met this criteria, please say I. I oppose. Nay. Rights of adjacent property owners. All those who believe it's met this criteria, please say I. I. I. Oppose. Nay. Hardship. Anyone want to speak on this. All those who believe it's met this criteria, please say I. I. Opposed? Nay. Public safety and general welfare. All those who believe it's met this criteria, please say I. I.

I. Opposed? Nay. and spirit and intent. All those who believe it's met this criteria, please say I. I. Opposed? Nay. We have an affirmative response on all five criteria. So, we can entertain a motion to approve case 64-2025. Mr. Chairman, I move to approve case 64-20258324 Meadow Lane, request for a variance to the placement of a fence in the size setback on a corner lot in accordance with the LDO section 16-4-9.3 apparent aarent in an R1 district. Second.

Have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say I. I. Oppose. Nay. It pass. You'll be notified in writing. Thanks for coming in. Jacqueline, how we doing? Good. Okay.

All right. Our next case is 65-2025 29 2819 West 89th Street. Request for a variance to a side setback. Does staff have a report? The applicant has proposed a tear down rebuild with the home placed 11 ft from the west side property line. The sideyard setback is 15 ft. A variance of 4 feet is needed to build the home as proposed. Any questions for staff? You have one of those simple drawings you can put up there.

I'm looking for that. I'm not sure Ron put the most updated one, but the applicant just sent one today. That's the probably the best plan to put up. So hopefully they have a copy. Yeah, I'll ask you when I get up here. Is the applicant here? Come on up. This is two requests. One to consider a setback on one side and then one to consider the setback encroachment on the other side. So that's Oh, I see the two cases. So we're each one's on the west side, one's on the east. That's what the additional document that we have up here goes with these two cases. Uh correct. Okay. Which addition?

Oh, okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. All right. So, please state your name and address for the record. Uh, Caleb George, uh, Chris George Holmes, representing the owners, Ally and Jeremy Sharp. Welcome. You may present your case.

Yeah. Um Ally and Jeremy have um designed a home they love to build on this uh on this property. Um the lot is uh it's it's a very big lot 18,000 ft 18234 um but it is narrow for how large it is. It is uh 90 wide uh 90 ft wide which um by current setback restrictions would only allow for a 60 foot uh build line. So, the request for the variance um is so they can build a home that fits the neighborhood in size and scope uh meets all other criteria um and can incorporate a side entry garage um and not be an awkward, inefficient, narrow, deep home on an 18,000 square foot lot. Um, [snorts] the new home will meet the existing structures. It's actually a couple inches narrower than the existing structure. So, it would meet the setbacks that are currently in place with the home that will be demoed. Uh, I know that's I know we're not requesting an exception, but I think that is important to note that the length of the current structure will be the same as the new structure. Um

I'm sorry. The the length of the existing structure. Yeah. The existing home on the property is um 67 foot wide. Okay. This one will be 66 foot4. So So the existing structure is legal non-conforming. That's correct. Okay. All right.

Uh so then just to just to highlight I guess the two uh criteria that that you guys have been focusing on that that are typically hardest. It's again the you know a 90 foot lot is not narrow. A 90 foot lot with that that's 18,000 square feet is I would consider unique in that neighborhood. A lot of the adjacent properties are um either more rectangular or excuse me more square wider not quite as deep or if they are 90 foot they're not as deep. Um so um and then going into the hardship um again I think it's going you know we're trying to incorporate some architectural value and high you know highly desired traits of a home in terms of having a side entry garage in the neighborhood and not having that large front-facing garage that people don't like as well as just um kind of having a a home that fits the street that doesn't look narrow and deep and it's going to be less efficient and um just just not as valuable as the home that they have currently designed. Not to mention redesign costs, time, anything else to u to create a new home that would be conforming less architecturally valuable and uh less usable inefficient space. Which side on the on this drawing is the front of the house.

Is the uh which side of the house is the front? Oh, the front is is this side. Okay. So, the side entry garage is here. 13.2. Okay. Any questions from the board for the applicant? Yeah. the exist the existing homeowners across the street each side shown their proposed plan so they know kind of what's going to be there. Uh the current owners of the property reached out to the adjacent homeowners and spoke with spoke with one and we tried to get in contact with the other one. We haven't heard from them.

We we have a note up here that says we have a letter of opposition for cases 65 and 66. Is that correct? That's correct. All letters were mailed. We received one call and email from the same individual in opposition of the request and you all should have a copy of this email.

Okay. And and I uh and we will certainly give anyone who's here to speak an opportunity to speak on this but I want to make sure that the board has asked any questions of the applicant it has before we do that. You have any other questions? Okay. Is there anyone here who's come to speak on this uh application? Please come up. you'd give me your name and address for the record, I'd appreciate it.

My name is Thomas Soxy, 5612 West 125th Street, Overland Park. Um, I'm an attorney. I'm here representing my son, Scott Soxy, who's an adjacent property owner. Um I authored and submitted the opposition letter and I just wanted to mention one thing additional in in that letter. U there's been discussion about the 11oot setback that currently exists on the existing structure. The existing structure was built in 1946 and Leewood was not incorporated until 1948. So there was no zoning ordinance. It was simply a a builder's plat that was submitted at that time. The the existing structure is a ranch home. The proposed structure is going to be a two-story uh structure which is going to affect the the air and the light and so forth. And u so the LDO proposes or requires 15 foot minimum yard setback. Um there's good reasons for that and we think uh in order to vary from that you need to meet the five requirements. We don't think that the applicant respectfully has met those five requirements. Okay.

And so thank you for your service. Thank you. Thank you for coming in. All right. Um any questions for anyone from the board? Okay. We've got to we've got to consider all five criteria. First is uniqueness of property. Would any anyone want to speak on that?

Mr. Chairman, I'll speak on this. You know, I know one of the um mentions here is that the lot size is similar in shape. You know, I'm looking at the Ames map that's in our packet here. I'm looking to some of the properties that are on the east and it does seem like this lot size is pretty similar to the rest of them. So, it seems like that there would be a way for for them to potentially bump it back instead of trying to go to the side. So, I do not believe this requirement has been met. Anyone else? All those who believe the uniqueness criteria has been met, please say I. Oppose. Nay. Nay. Nay.

Rights of adjacent property owners, we've heard from one of the property owners. Um, all those who believe it's met this criteria, please say I. Oppose. Nay. Nay. Nay. Hardship. Any comments on hardship? Okay. All those who believe it's met this criteria, please say I. Opposed? Nay. Nay. Public safety and general welfare. All those who believe it meets this criteria, please say I. I oppose. Nay. Nay. And spirit and intent. All those who believe it's met this criteria, please say I.

Oppose. Nay. Nay. Nay. All right. Well, having a clean sweep of nays, we can entertain a motion to to um deny the request for a variance to the sideyard setback in case 65-2025. Do I have such a motion? Mr. Chairman, I move to deny K65-2025 2819 West 89th Street. Request for a variance to the site setback in accordance with the LDO section 16-2-5.3 apparent D apparent in an R1 district. Is there a second? Second. Have a motion and a second. All those um in favor please say I.

I. Oh, sorry. I oppose. Also, sorry. Well, um I'm a little little at a loss here. Uh that's obviously the applicant has left without hearing the second case. Can we go ahead and hear the second case whether they're here or not? They welcome. Kelsey may be on. Kelsey, what's appropriate here to just probably hear and go through a vote?

Yeah. Hi, I'm here. Um, typically the applicant needs to be there for the case to be heard, otherwise we continue them. Um, so I don't know if they left because they're withdrawing it. Um, I I couldn't there's I couldn't see the chambers on my screen. It it may Kelsey, it may have been just a misunderstanding. They may have thought that this vote controlled both cases, but frankly, they were out the front door before I had a chance to say anything. Um, maybe to be safe, let's just continue it and then Travis, if you or Ron could maybe contact them and see if they're wanting to just withdraw that case or have it heard at the next meeting.

Yeah, that can be done and it could be it would just be shown on the report if they wanted to withdraw. That's probably the safest approach. Yeah. Clarification first and second. Yes. Thanks, Matt. How do you All right. Well, then I think I need a motion to continue. K6-2025. Move. Second. All in favor say I. I. Oppos? Nay. Okay, we're continued. You need to go. Okay, very good. [clears throat] That's the first.

All right. Yeah, that's that that I don't think that's happened before. Anyway, um well, that's all we have on the agenda. Do I have a motion to adjurnn? So move. Great. Let's let's be adjourned. Thank you.