Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'm expiring in August. You and me both. Oh, well. All right, I go ahead and call to order Board of Zoning Appeals meeting uh for January 15, 2026. Uh can staff confirm that Kansas open Meetings Acts notice has been properly provided? Yes, I can confirm that the packet was posted and the required notice was provided.

All right, thank you. Uh, with that, let's go ahead with a roll call. Board member Trow here. Board member Mike Sal, board member Hardy here, board member Kreer here, board member Bowen here, board member Baker, and Chair Owens here. So, the five out of seven board members present, we have a quorum and we can proceed with business. Uh, first order of business is item 2.1, approval of the minutes from December 18th, 2025. Do we have any comments or discussion among the board members? Get a motion for uh approval. I move that we um accept the the minutes as presented. Second.

Second. We got a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. I. All those opposed. Motion passes. Moving on to new business. Uh, item 3.1, application B25-7.

All right. Uh item 3.1 is application B25-7 uh filed by Sean Carlin on behalf of Justin and Ashley Howe requesting a variance to section 4258A of the Sina zoning ordinance which limits residential lots to two accessory structures to allow the construction of a new detached garage which would be the third accessory structure on the lot. The property that is subject to this application is a 2.98 acre unplatted track of land on the west side of South Mry Mount Road, east of the Smoky Hill River, and is addressed as 1318 South Mry Mount Road. This item was continued from the December 18th uh meeting due to the applicant uh or representative not being uh at the December 18th, 2025 meeting. So, getting into the the uh a little bit of the background here that as I said, this subject property is a track of land uh located on the um east of the Smoky Hill River. It's in the south 170 ft of the north half of the southeast quarter of section 19, township 14, range 2, west of the six principal meridian, um east of the Smoky Hill River, less the Marry Mount Road right away. and it's addressed as 1318 South Mry Mount Road. This property was annexed in 1998 and is currently zoned RS. The city zoning ordinance limits residential lots to a total of two detached accessory structures. Specifically, one detached accessory storage building with a maximum size of 360 square ft and one detached carporter garage with a maximum size of,200 square ft in the A1 and RS zoning districts. Um the existing uh 3200 or 3,219 square foot residential dwelling was constructed on this lot in 1968. At the time of construction, the

property was located in the county. The property is currently has two existing accessory buildings and one of which is a 12tx 20 foot storage shed and the other is a 12x 18 um another storage shed. Combined, the existing dwelling and the two accessory buildings have a total footprint of 3,675 ft, which covers only two 2.8% of the 2.98 acre lot. Um, in August of 2025, the applicant applied for a building permit and to construct a new detached garage that would measure 32x 24 ft on the north side of the property near the dwelling. Uh the building permit was returned with revisions needed letting the applicant know that uh that this would exceed the maximum number of detached accessory structures allowed under the zoning ordinance. So we we gave them the option of either removing one of the existing structures or applying for a variance to allow the construction of a third accessory structure on the property. And so the applicant chose to file this variance application and attempt to justify the need for the detached garage while retaining the two existing structures. Uh the howies own the home uh with the two detached accessory structures on the property and again they're cons they're proposing to construct a 24T by 32 foot detached garage. Um as proposed that garage would be the third accessory structure on the lot which would exceed the maximum number of structure of accessory structures. U the variance application is requesting an exception to the maximum number of accessory structures on a residential lot and that must be reviewed and approved by the Sina board of zoning appeals to allow building to allow staff to issue a building permit for the proposed garage. As justification for the variance, the

the applicant states that the subject lot is large in size, so it's 2.98 acres, and that the two existing storage sheds on the southwest portion of the property are not visible from the street or the home. And the applicant states that they are far enough away from the home that they do not serve the same purpose as the detached garage would. Um, as I said before also the the public hearing for this was initially scheduled for December 18th, 2025 and uh the applicant or a representative were were not in attendance. So this was postponed to today's meeting and it sounds like we do have the applicant online today. So we're able to proceed with this. Now um going into a little bit of the zoning ordinance requirements. As I said, this is 42 section 4258A which covers accessory uses and residential lots are limited to m to a maximum of two detached accessory structures. Uh one having uh a larger a larger maximum size than the other. So the smaller one is intended to be a storage shed or or structure similar to that that would have a maximum of 360 square feet and the other one has a maximum of 1,200 square ft in in the A1 and RS districts. Uh you might recall other variance cases that that were in reference to GU detached garages and you may have heard us say that they had a limit of 770 and that's in the other zoning districts. So for the A1 and the RS district, it has a slightly higher maximum square footage for that for that other accessory structure. And then the it has a maximum height of 20 ft or no taller than the than the dwelling. And as all accessory structures, this applies here that they they have to meet the compatibility

requirements on certain characteristics of the proposed um structure itself. in maintaining capa compatibility with the principal structure on the lot, the principal dwelling on the lot. So getting getting into staff's analysis here there the state statute requires that that approved variances meet five criteria with those being a uniqueness um a condition unique to the property that they have no adverse effect on neighbors that um that the the limitations posed by the zoning ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship and four that that there's no adverse effect on public health, safety, and welfare. And five, that that the allowance of the variance would be in conformance with the general spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance. So, if we start at the first one, uniqueness of the property, the applicant states that the property is unique due to its size. At 2.98 acres, it's significantly larger than a standard residential lot in the city. and staff would agree that that it is a large lot and that that basically justification only on the lot size having a large lot isn't in and of itself a justification for the variance but it is definitely a factor. Um the question is what is unique about the applicant's property or circumstances that creates the need for having the detached garage in addition to the other structures. Um even though the the lot coverage like I said is about 2 2% it's very minimal uh it's just about seeking out that that distinguishing what what factors um

justify the keeping of the other the other structures when there's the maximum of two. Uh as to the second one for the no adverse effect on neighbors, the applicant states that the proposed detached garage would not have an adverse effect on neighbors because the proposed structure adheres to the property line setback requirements and matches the existing home style and finishes. So staff would agree that due to the overall size of this res residential lot, it does not appear that the addition to the proposed garage or that the addition of the proposed garage would have an adverse effect on neighboring properties. The garage would be constructed to match the existing dwelling and would not appear to detract from the appearance of the neighborhood. The proposed garage does meet the setback requirements of detached structures and would not be likely to increase the risk of fire uh fire spread. Lastly, the proposed garage would be located at the end of an existing concrete driveway and would not appear to create any runoff or drainage issues. Uh staff would note that the design and appearance of the proposed garage um appear to be compatible with the existing existing dwelling and staff would note that we have not received any objections to the proposed garage from the neighboring property owners. Additionally, Rachel and Matt Pile who live at 1414 South Mrymont Road, the residents directly south of the property, sent an email voicing support for the construction of the garage. So, this this email has been provided in the meeting packet as well. For the third criteria, unnecessary hardship, the applicant must show that not granting the variance would cause an unnecessary hardship by denying reasonable or beneficial use of the property. So, the applicant states that the two existing storage sheds are far enough away from the home that they are not as functional and do not serve the same purpose as the proposed garage would. They also state

that that the existing twocar attached garage is much much smaller than the traditional threecar garages being built in new homes. So, that has created a need for for more space for them. Uh staff would agree that a majority of the single family homes being constructed today do have larger garages, often three-car garages. However, a large portion of the existing single family housing stock in Selena does have one or two car garages. Uh so we would staff would ask for further clarification from the applicant on how this constitutes an unnecessary hardship. For the fourth criteria, it's the effect on public health, safety, and welfare. The requested variance must not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. The applicant states that the proposed garage would be within the required property setbacks and match the style and finish of the existing home. Staff would agree that any impacts from the proposed garage will be localized and the placement of the garage would not block sunlight or air and would not increase the risk of fire spread or affect drainage on neighboring properties due to its location um because of the overall size of the zoning lot. So as proposed, it would be in conformance with the required setbacks and the front side front and side property lines. Uh for the fifth criteria for conformity with the general spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance, the variance must conform with the general general spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance. Um the applicant states that the proposed detach garage will match in style and architectural finishes to the existing house. And the purpose of having numerical and size limitations is to keep residential areas looking residential by not allowing garages, carports or sheds to be taller or out of scale with the house that they serve. So requiring that

garages and carports and sheds be architecturally compatible with the dwelling on the lot also ensures that um compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood with the dwelling. It generally keeps it in compatible with the entire neighborhood, but we compare it to the principal dwelling uh during our review. So, having too many accessory buildings on a lot can lead to overcrowding and visual clutter, which we would say in this case that is likely not not the case, but just to clarify that that's the intent of of those limitations. So staff would ask the applicant to further clarify how the proposed detached garage will conform to the g general spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance. Moving on to staff comments. Uh having sufficient physical space is not uh justification in and of itself for a third accessory building on a residential lot. Although it should be a factor, there are also aesthetic factors that come into play in evaluating the impact on adjacent properties as well as the intended use of the building. Section 4258A1 requires that residential accessory buildings, including detached garages, be compatible with the dwelling they serve in terms of design, appearance, and materials. So, in order for the board to approve a detached garage, it needs to make a finding under number five with five being the um the general spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance. Uh that it will not violate the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance because one, the proposed building will not be out of scale with the surrounding area and two that the proposed building will maintain a residential appearance and character of the neighborhood. In order to get a building permit for a detached garage, it must have three points of compatibility with the house it serves. Uh the applicant has submitted plans that are up on the

screen and were provided in your packet. Uh that would or that show that the the proposed garage would have board and batten siding and an architectural style black asphalt shingle roof which appears to be compatible with the primary with the principal dwelling. The existing dwelling is white with black trim and the garage would also be white with black trim which would be compatible. The roof pitch of the garage would be 8 to 12 which appears that it would be a close match to the existing dwelling and uh would have similar u similar u orientation and style. the carport would have or the the garage would have a peak height of 10 feet which is less than that of the existing dwelling and it appears that that the applicant's plans do meet the necessary three points of compatibility with the existing house on the lot. So if approved the the additional garage would increase the total building coverage on this lot from 2.8% to 3.4% 4% which is significantly less than the 30% maximum allowed in the RS district. So if the uh if the board um sorry okay so as far as board alternatives the board could approve the variance to the limit on the number of accessory structures allowed on a residential lot as requested if the required findings of fact findings of fact can be made in this case to the board could postpone action on this application with the consent of the applicant if the information if the additional information is required to reach a decision. Uh the date of a future meeting must be included in the motion. Uh three, the board could deny the applicant's request if the required findings of fact can be made. And we do have some suggested findings that we've included in your packet today.

And as far as staff's recommendation, staff would request that the applicant provide some additional information about the hardship that would result if they were limited to a maximum of two accessory structures allowed by the zoning ordinance. Additionally, staff would request that the applicant provide additional information as to what is unique about their property or circumstances that create the need to have the detached garage in addition to the other accessory buildings on the lot. If the applicant provides the that information to the board to the satisfaction of the board and the board wishes to approve this variance request, then staff would recommend the following conditions of approval. One, the proposed detached garage shall be compatible in design, material, and color with the existing house on the property. Two, that the proposed detached garage shall maintain at least a 25- foot setback from South Mry Mount Road. At least a three-foot setback from the north property line and at least a three-foot setback from any existing principal structures. Three, that construction must substantially correspond to the plans as submitted by the board or to the board subject to a duly issued building permit. Four, that the detached garage shall only be used for personal storage or personal use and not for any business purpose. and five that no additional accessory buildings shall be permitted on this lot without the approval of a v of a variance by the board of zoning appeals. And with that, staff is available for any questions. And again, we do have the applicant online.

Are there any questions for staff? Do you know if there are other lots in that vicinity that uh also have three accessory buildings? I want to go to the GIS.

I know there are other similarsized lots uh along that that section of MRy Mount. So, we'll bring up the GIS map and and take a look at that. Uh I I don't know that there that there are I haven't looked myself to see to count the neighboring properties. Actually, this may be one of the very few that's unplatted. Um there there aren't a lot of unplatted um properties that are that are directly com direct comparison to this one. Um there are some nearby, but there it does kind of border slightly newer subdivisions that are that are adjacent there. Um but we can pull this up.

Scanning the aerial photos. Um, I'm not seeing any and nothing's jumping out anyway. That's not to say it's all inclusive because there is quite a bit of tree coverage in the area with the river, but I don't I don't not seeing a lot of accessory structures. And and just to to clarify where these are located, do you want to pull up that survey? Um, yeah, we can do that

because as the applicant says, the buildings, the existing buildings are located fairly far from the house and they're they're more along the south property line there and one of them is back at the south west corner of the property. So when you look at it on the aerial photo, they're they're kind of in the trees or and like a lot of the properties along here, there's a lot of tree coverage. And so one, we might not see them in the aerial photo, even though they're taken when there's not leaf coverage, but um but I just did want to point out that that they are pretty well separated from the house, from the from the dwelling. What are the sizes of the typical um lots or um plats in the area?

Not like that.

I mean, they're not I to call them typical, I think it would be would be challenging because they're they're so much larger than what a a typical residential lot would be. So if you look on the east side of Mry Mount, you'll see that that the Mariposa subdivision, which has fairly large lots for for single family, um those are substantially smaller than what you have on on the west side of Marry Mount. So the subject property is a little under three acres. The property to the south of that is over that. Um the property to the south of that is a little less than two. Um, this property here, I don't know if it says how many. This is 3.4 acres. The property to the north here is this is about 1 acre. This is about one acre. This is about 1 acre. About 1 acre. So, but you really have like this stretch of five or six maybe at the most properties that are that are similar to that right along that area. the rest to the north and and to the south I think have been um have been platted differently and so they have a slightly different layout there.

And are all of those um lots subject to the same size restrictions it depending on the zoning. I'll pull up the zoning here and you can you can see. So if they're if they're zoned RS or A1, yes, they would be if they're zoned so Cedar. So Mariposa directly to the east, that's a PDD and that's R uh R. I think it's R PDDR. So that starts to fall into the largest um the largest accessory structure that you could have would be 770 ft.

Um but where you can see the gray or the white, that's RS. And so those do have the same zoning regulations and it has that slightly larger limit on the accessory buildings, but there's still three structures in regular um or I want to say R1's for example. Is that limited to three structures? So the the maximum number of structures is even across the board. Okay, that's two is two accessory structures

um for the residential district. So RS is a residential district, but it is it has larger minimum lot sizes and it has that slightly larger allowance for the accessory structures because it's meant for it's slightly more not quite agriculture. It's still a residential zone, but it's it was um you know for those larger lot sizes. Any additional questions for staff? Is there any comments from the applicant? All mine you. Okay. going to ask them to unmute if they're muted or

muted. We're not able to hear anything. Ashley, if if you have additional comments, you can also type them in and then I can read them to the room if that's helpful. Looks like she's responding on chat. So, we'll give it a moment and see if um if she's typing anything or

she said okay. Did you have any specific questions for the applicant maybe? Or questions? I guess I I have one. Uh they have a twocar garage now. Yes.

Um would it be possible to maybe enlarge though that twocar garage rather than making a third building out back? Would that work for him? The question that one of the board members has, Ashley, is if instead of doing a detached garage, if the garage was expanded to have a an additional parking space, would that be sufficient as a detached garage? And she responded with, "Yes. The biggest reason we need the detached garage is there as a concrete wall behind the garage. So, we cannot fit our car into the garage.

Okay. Does that answer your question, Bo? Uh what are the what's the nature of the two uh accessory structures and how uh what's the level of permanence of them? So, just a real quick comment while I she's probably typing. Uh, what we have in our information is that they're both storage sheds, but I'll let the applicant expand on that. Okay.

She did add that we cannot pull the garage out of the garage or we cannot pull the car out of the garage. I still think we would have the same problem if we added onto the attach garage. And then to the storage, she says they are storage for lawn mower and outdoor equipment. So the two storage buildings are being used for storage of their lawn equipment and outdoor equipment. So they're not very large.

No, we do have the dimensions of them and I can pull that up. We have them at 240 square feet 12 by 20 and 26 216 square feet which is 12 by 18. So they're decent size. They're not small by any means but they're not they're not really large either.

And just to give a frame of reference maybe uh buildings under 120 square feet don't require a building permit. And those are real common 10 by 12 uh storage sheds that you see at a Menards or somewhere like that that that you know on the smaller side. Uh those are really common because they don't require any sort of permit. Um so at at if you have a 10 x 12 storage shed if you can picture that gives you maybe a frame of reference there. And like I said these are what we have is 240 ft and 216. So, they're not substant they're not they're larger. They aren't um they aren't right up against the 360 foot limit for this for uh smaller storage sheds or smaller accessory buildings. Is there uh anyone from the public or anyone online that would like to comment?

We do not have anyone from the public online. So, the applicant is the only individual online at the moment. I do have a question also. Um the far as land granted, it's way, you know, under what's required at 3%. My only question is if we decide to have a third build, is this going to cause us a problem in the future when we have other requests like this?

I think the important thing is to is to make sure that your findings in what you if you choose to approve the variance that it's based on findings that make some distinction about how the property is unique. So that's why we've tried to provide um some of those findings in your report that would help you make those that distinction. But you are correct that it is important to distinguish how this property is unique enough to be able to allow the variance so that you don't set a precedent because if you if you don't make that distinction then you could potentially down the road have other requests that are that are that fall under those same findings at whatever level of detail you make for those findings. You know, you could have someone else that says that they meet the same those same um findings. Does that answer your question?

Yes. Okay. I don't know if I missed it somewhere, but uh I know you originally said or you said that this h this was originally in the county. The house was built in the county. Um do we know roughly when it was annexed? Yeah. What we had in the report was uh 1998. Okay. Yeah.

And if if you'd like for those possible findings, we did provide possible findings in support of approval and in support of denial. Just to give you the to give you both sides of it and some potential ways you could phrase those findings. If you if you would like me to go through those, that's fine. Um whatever. as Salina expands into the county and encounters different uh plats of land that already have existing structures that exceed that limit. What is the plan of response to that? So those would fall under a they would be what we call non-conforming use or non-conforming structure where they are um it's often kind of phrases like grandfathering in but that has a specific meaning that's that is addressed in the zoning ordinance. What it essentially does is it doesn't allow you to expand that nonconformity. It doesn't uh if if a property came into the county or came in from the county today, it was annexed today and say it had three structures on it already. So, it's not within the the zoning regulations. It doesn't conform to the zoning regulations today. Um they would be allowed to keep those buildings, but they wouldn't be allowed to it doesn't give them permission to add additional ones or expand those or or anything anything like that. So, if they were ever to come forward with an application for a building permit that was to add on to a detached garage, if they had three or four or five buildings, we would actually call that out in our review and send it back to them and ask them to essentially similar to what the applicant's case is here where we get a building permit in and we let them know what the options are that it's not uh it doesn't meet the requirements and they would have some options of what they want to do whether that's to eliminate one of the buildings, remove it or or

ask for variance or come up with some other alternative. I guess from my standpoint, I feel like um just the size of the the lot and the property um it's a lot of land there and not to be able to use it, it seems like a a hardship. Um especially with it coming in from the county unplatted and it wasn't re originally intended to meet any kind of existing zoning requirements. Um feel like that to me is justification to not set a precedence just in the the minimal coverage that this would add to it. Any other discussion, comments? I might uh just piggyback on that just a little bit where the uh the size of the lot is is large almost three acres and um the existing buildings do not uh are not able to accommodate vehicles and so you almost are if you're wanting to store your vehicles in the and the and the existing garage I guess is not compatible with uh what people are doing today. And so I would I would also think that that would um make uh this particular uh request um a good one. And just to clarify on on the possible findings, you you do have the option to

like incorporate incorporate those by reference into your motion if you want. You don't have to walk through every single every single one either with either choice there. Do we have a motion?

One of you silver tone guys. Go ahead. Somebody want to make motion. Uh yeah, I I move that we um you got to say the Okay. Yeah, sorry. Thanks. I move that we approve the application V25-7 uh as filed um with probably with the conditions recommendations with with uh the recommendations uh that five of them recommendations.

The five recommendations with the five recommendations. I second it. Have a motion and a second. Uh all those in favor say I. I. I. All those opposed, same sign.

Uh motion approved. Moving on to administrative items. 3.2. All right. Item 3.2 2 is the presentation of our 2025 annual report and this report summarizes the board's activities, case volumes and membership attendance for the 2025 year. So once reviewed this uh by this board it will be it would be um submitted to the city commission and with a recommendation as um from the board if they find that uh that it's sufficient and accurate and if you have any corrections to any of the items you can let us know and we will get those get those fixed before it goes to city commission um during the 2025 5 calendar year, we had a total of 10 variance applications that were filed with the city's planning division compared to seven applications filed in 2024. So, the board reviewed one appeal application in 2025 as well. Um, among the items heard this year, the board approved one application regarding accessory building size, one application regarding new construction of a home in a floodway. So it was a floodway variance and then one application regarding the allowable number of accessory structures. We had one that was regarding off- streetet parking that was approved. Um a rear yard setback and maximum height and side or we had one that was a maximum height and size of a sign which was withdrawn. Uh, of the 10 variance applications filed in 2025, eight were on residential properties and two were on commercial properties. The one appeal application filed in 2025 was on a residential property. board currently has seven appointed

members. Randall Hardy, Justin Owens, Krer, uh Dave uh Mike Trout, Dave Dave Baker, James Bowen, and plus the planning commission representative. Uh Patrick Mel currently currently serves as the planning commission representative on the board. Justin Owens was elected to the position of chair and Mike Trout was um elected into the boh position of vice chair at the board's annual business meeting this September and we have no vacancies on the board. The board is at full membership. Uh for staff information, I was I transitioned into the planning manager position recently and planning staff continue to work to provide staff staff support to the board, including administering the presentation of applications to the BCA. Our duties include accepting applications, coordinating legal notice, preparing and presenting staff reports at the meetings, and compiling meeting minutes. Dean Andrew, uh, Dustin Hers, myself, and Gage Roberts coordinated the review of building sign and demolition permit applications requiring BZA review with applicants and their design professionals following project approval by the board. Staff also um conducted site inspections following project completion. So, in June of last year, Dean Andrew retired from his position with the city after 38 years. And um again, I've now I'm transitioning into that role. I'll say that it's, you know, takes a little time, but uh other than that, so give me a second. Our staff right now is myself, uh Dustin Hers, and Gage Roberts. We do have one open position. We are in the process of filling that. We've recently completed a first round of interviews and we are going to move

into a second round with a few of the the applicants and we will be doing those interviews in the next week or so and hopefully know how we're moving forward in the next week or two. So that's a a good progress for our staff and it will help us do better, you know, do more of what we do for each of the boards that we administer. Daisy uh is our our development coordinator. So, she provides administrative support for the BZA and uh all of the other boards. And Lauren Driscoll is a community is the director of community and development services. And Margie Clim is the deputy director of community and development services. And as far as 2026 goals and objectives, in terms of the goals, recommendations, and needs, uh, the board, the BCA will work with staff as they prepare an RFP for a comprehensive plan and z overall zoning code update by being involved in the conversations on potential changes that impact um the zoning code. So that is a fairly substantial upcoming projects that are going to that are going to happen that are that are in our plan to get out uh to get the RFPs out this year. It's it may be closer to the end of the year when we get those out. So we will start seeing a lot more movement on the process of those changes in 2027. And currently we're looking at it as two separate projects. Those probably won't go at the same time, but they're going to be likely a comp plan first and then and then go into zoning code rewrite just because one because because the comp plan having that in place first really helps us write uh rewrite the code to suit the new comp plan. So with that, I think that covers our annual report. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. staff's available to go through any of these in more detail if you'd like.

We don't need to take any action on this, do we? Yes. Sorry. It isn't I mean go ahead. What was it? Um I wrote it down. Just be moving to recommend approval to send it to the city commission. So yeah, it would be that you would accept the the annual report and authorize this transmitt to city commission. So I have just one change. I have I have a change of address for myself. So, okay. If that needs to be done, we can either give it now or after the meeting. We'll correct it either way and get it corrected before we send it.

Okay. I'll note that. And then I did see on the screen um some incorrect expiration dates on the membership roster and I will fix that to 2028 instead of 2025. Okay. Any questions? comments. Motion to approve. A motion. Second, and a second. Uh motion, a second. All those in favor say I. I. I. All those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Can I get the name for the motion and the second? Uh Dave Baker for the motion. Second and Randall Hardy for the Thank you.

Okay. Item number four, unfinished or other business. We do not have any uh unfinished business or other business at this time. Okay. Public forum. Anybody? I assume there's nobody online. We do not have anyone from the public online. And she's not allowed to speak. So, okay. You could just make that. All right. For every meeting. Yeah. All right. With that, uh, do I get a motion to adjurnn? So moved. Second. Okay. Motion is second. All those approved forjournment say I. I.

I. We. We. We. We. We. We. We. We. We. We. We are adjourned.