Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

No, I don't think it's the right one, though.

No.

Yeah, hold on. I think this website, you have to pay or something.

It's a secure good monkey. That's a female. Yes.

I just don't like how... Okay, that's fine.

You can download the...

The PNG. Should I do that?

I just normally take... It's okay. Take a screenshot and try that. How you usually do it. What's going on? Thank you.

Thank you.

Amen.

Bye.

Good afternoon. The Memphis and Shelby County Board of Adjustment is hereby called to order for its regularly scheduled meeting of August 26, 2026. My name is Tim Rainey. I'm chairman of the board. Mr. Jeffrey Penzis serves as secretary of the board. Mr. Penzis, may I get a roll call, please?

Mr. Bruce. Present. The procedure for this meeting will be in small groups. I will introduce each case that was found in the agenda. Copies of the agenda can be found when it's not public. For each case, the plan with the division of planning is all part of a presentation. At the conclusion of the staff presentation, the applicant will have five minutes to present his or her case. After the applicant's presentation, those speakers in support will have a total of five minutes, and those speakers in opposition will have a total of ten minutes. And then finally, the applicant will have two minutes to talk to the judge. Each time, you have an included time for questions from the interest of members of the board. The chairmen will provide additional time to provide both sides with an equal amount of additional time. All parties who wish to provide testimony to the board will be sworn in by the chair. If a member of the audience wishes to provide testimony in support of or in opposition to a particular case on today's agenda, he or she will need to fill out a speaker's card for that. Speaker's cards are available at the conference. Once filled out, speaker's cards will be submitted to the EP staff member at the left. We do not need speaker's cards from an applicant since the names are already part of the record.

After all the cards have been heard, the board will close the public hearing, make a motion, and then vote right off the case. If an applicant or any speaker would like to be heard after the conclusion of the public hearing or if the board members

Please note that once the public hearing is reopened or at the end of the audition, you will be allowed to provide additional testimony and or a vote. All votes are satisfied. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Truce with DPD. I'm presenting BOA 2026-062, located at 2097 Jefferson Avenue. The applicant is requesting a variance from subsection 3.7.2c to allow two 25-foot-width lots for a single-family semi-attached structure. This is the location map. It's located in Midtown. We sent out 129 notices to property owners. Here's the aerial photo. It's currently zoned residential urban three. The property is surrounded by mostly single family and multi-family land uses. Here are a few side photos. This is the site plan. So the current zoning district allows for 30 foot width lots in the zoning district, but the applicant wants 25 width. That's why he's requesting for the variance. Staff finds that this allows for variety of different housing choices, and staff doesn't find any issue with this, so we are recommending approval with conditions. The applicant also filed for a minor subdivision, and if this variance is approved, then they can record their plot. If this variance is denied, they cannot continue with the subdivision. Here concludes my presentation.

David Bray with the Bray Firm, 2950 Stage Plaza North, Bartlett 38134. I do. We're in agreement with the conditions. I'd like to hear what the opposition has to say because I'm not sure what their concerns are and address that in my rebuttal time, if that's okay. Happy to answer any questions anybody has about that.

Sure, thank you very much. My name is Theo Dasbach. I live on 201-08 Washington Avenue, a house which I owned since 1994. I definitely swear to tell the whole truth, et cetera, et cetera. Okay, what I wanted to share is this. Lately, what I noticed, where I am is on the dead end of Washington and the dead end of Lee, and then you're going to have Jefferson and so on close to where we are, right, where the cinema theater is. Now, we've seen once before that there was suddenly huge buildings were built where a lot of people start living as rentals or whatever, and later we also see some B&Bs. When I saw this... I understand it right, you have a lot where normally you can only have one dwelling house on there for within the 30 feet, is that correct? And meaning now, I said the question is asked, can we put two up there and we wiggle it a little bit and 25 feet here and 25 feet with an access road, is that correct? The question is, are there now two dwelling homes for multi-family or rentals or whatever you're going to be done, rather than one that originally was only allowed to be there? So, I mean, but normally when you had the 30 feet, you could have only one single family living down there, is that correct? Okay, so if they would not ask for this, you would still have the two houses. How would you do that then? Enlighten me, please.

I understand that. But in practice, it's...

Okay, so they could have done that too if they wanted to.

all right now that explains a little bit you know my worry is a little bit generic a little bit in our area because we see a lot of uh yeah developments and developments are good i mean i've seen developments in 94 because the old square was dead and so on but lately we already there was something approved a couple of years ago when we were not on a vacation but it was a huge building suddenly on jefferson where more people, I think it's a rental or whatever, and we see more people parking everywhere. Also, slowly coming to where we are on Washington Avenue, that little dead end where we are, we already have a huge apartment building, which we never had any problem with, which is kind of great. But I'm a little bit worried now and then with all these developments that suddenly we're going to be confronted with a lot of more houses on lots, meaning it's going to be filled... busier and busier, a bit more people, more noise. We also have the problem with the B&Bs who actually are, we have one or two in our little street which gives some sometimes a lot more noise at night people come people visit it's obviously if you more people live in more people visit there's nothing wrong with that but so i'm i was a little bit worried so when i saw this and i wasn't especially came back from my vacation for this by the way i just wanted to make sure that i understood it so this morning i drove there also to figure it out And sorry that I was a little late, but it had to do with the parking and finding it here because I'd never been here before. It was never necessary, thank God. So I will draw my objection to this, okay? But I would just like to ask you all that in future, when some developers come in our quiet neighborhood, that huge buildings and multi... whatever it is, are not approved because I definitely will bring people and oppose those because the one thing we couldn't was because we were not there and we saw it too late. It happens twice in my life, not only here, that you don't get the notice and suddenly something is done. But anyway, thank you very much. And that's the reason I came and I wish you a very great day and thank you for listening to me.

Thank you.

Just to clarify, yes, it is two single family lots. The houses would just be attached, but not a duplex. And we meet all of the other requirements for the zoning district for semi-attached, except for that width, including the area square footage requirement. It's just the width. Correct. Correct. Two single family. And one other point that I'll make is there is an alley back behind it and they intend to have the parking off of the alley. So that mitigates to some extent the fact that it's a little narrower.

That's essentially what they were going to build.

It's going to be attached to the wall. So all they did on the edge is allow here, but they actually did

I don't remember what she said.

I am presenting BOA 202663, located at 1758 Lamar Avenue. The request is a variance from item 2.6.35A to allow a vehicle repair establishment offering used tar sails and mounting. It shall not be located within 1320 feet of another vehicle repair establishment offering used tar sails or mounting. Here's the location map. It's currently zone CMU1. It is also in a historic district. We sent out 205 notices to property owners. You can see it's surrounded by commercial and single-family land uses. Here are a few side photos. This is the site plan as seen in the site photos. The building already exists and the applicant wants to utilize it for their request. This is the portion of the UDC the applicant is requesting the various form. However, it should be noted that this portion specifically was adopted by city council in 2024, which is quite recent. The applicants will also be required to get a special use permit if this is approved, because they are in the midtown overlay. So per the UDC, a vehicle repair establishment must be located at least 13, 20 feet from another vehicle repair establishment. And we found out that there are other vehicle repair establishments closer to what the applicant wants to operate. And we think the UDC, as this was recently adopted by city council, that They want to regulate the distances between this. Also, the applicant indicated that the building was previously used for used house sales. However, it discontinued for more than a year, which lost its nonconformity. And we think that the fact that it was previously used doesn't justify for approval of a variance. It is also located in a historic district, and we think the use is inconsistent with the historic district character. And like I said, they will require a special use permit and possibly also go into the Landmarks Commission if this were to be approved. Staff find that there's no specific hardship or practical difficulty demonstrating this. This proposal is also inconsistent with the Memphis 3.0 Comprehensive Plan, and we received five letters of opposition from people within the vicinity. So in conclusion, we evaluated this request based on the UDC, considering the Memphis 3.0 plan, the historic district and public input, and we found out that it's inconsistent. And so staff is recommending a rejection with the following conditions. Thank you. We do know it was over a year, but not specifically the number of years.

Okay, you need to name and address again? Okay. Okay. So we're in agreement with the staff's condition, should it be approved. Obviously, we're in disagreement with the... their finding and their recommendation. I went back out to this site yesterday afternoon and drove between, I guess it was Rozelle and McLemore, to look at the existing businesses. And I'm sure you guys are familiar with this area. It's on Lamar. I would say, and it was after hours, it was probably about 6.30. I would say that just driving along, it would appear that probably 50 to 60% of the existing buildings in there are boarded up and not operational right now. And I've made this point countless times to you guys, and I'll make it again today. We're all in agreement with the ideas of Memphis 3.0. We'd all like to get there, but we can't always take the giant step to get there immediately. And nothing is worse for a neighborhood, whether it's Lamar or Germantown Road or Stage Road or Winchester than vacant buildings. And so in this case, if you look at the site plan that's in your staff report, we're gonna take out the dry vapor into the side street, we're gonna add landscaping that's not there, and we're going, to take this off of being a vacant property and put a use back in it. Is it ideal? No. Does it match Memphis 3.0? No. But is it better than what's there today? So we disagree with the staff's finding that there's no hardship. The building's there, the lot's there. This is a difficult lot. um it's it's oddly shaped the building is oddly shaped there's not a whole lot of room for parking um you know this this is the best we can do with it with this building and can we go back to the picture of the building i don't know if you can tell it on that one or there's one other picture of the building in there isn't there yeah So Mr. Shargabi, we'll get up here, the family, and speak in just a second, bought this. The building says new and used tires. That's what he thought that he was buying and could use. He's done tire installation for years working for somebody else, and now he's got the ability to buy his own business and open this up. We have a long road to go with this. We've got to go through landmarks. We've got to go through the special use permit to get this to the point that he's approved. But we're asking for your support on this variance because this is something that only came in two years ago. To answer the question about how long it's been closed, I think it's been closed 15 months. So we're outside of the 365. There's no question about that. But if we were two years ago, this wasn't even in the UDC. And as he will speak to, he's going to have new tires for sale. But in that particular market, use tires as a part of the market as well. And to be competitive, he needs to have that ability. So if you guys want to come, just add anything you want to say. You need to give your name and address and he'll swear you in.

Mohamed Abdullah. 4426 Johnstone Lane, Arlington. I do. I'm his brother-in-law who speak English a little bit, but he don't that much. I'm following with him almost a year in that building. And I know how that building was before, how much offer he put in that building. I mean, he will go by the rules with electric, was no meter in there. I mean, he did a lot of work in that and he cleaned it up, fixed from inside, outside, clean up everything and get it ready to a raid, single family business. And all he's waiting for is just to get the permit to get the location working and service the neighborhood. It's a business street. Lamar, is everybody familiar with Lamar's? It will help the community. in the area? And will it stay clean? And...

There is nothing showing on the TDEC site for outstanding permits. We can certainly check that, but I believe those were removed years ago. So I don't think there's any outstanding issues with that. There may be a couple of monitoring wells left on the site, but the tanks are gone. That's one of the conditions, if you guys were to move to approve it, is that there'll be no outdoor storage. So everything will be in the building. And we wouldn't be here today.

And we will have new tires.

It's just that we want the ability to have the used tires as well.

Thank you.

My name is Anthony Milton. I'm a property owner over there, and I'm also representing a young lady who owns the land directly across the street from this gentleman. What's your address? The address of the property would be 1717-1725 Lamar. I do. Go ahead, sir. No opposition whatsoever to business, because I'm a businessman as well. I also understood that there was changes made to the UDC code that didn't allow certain businesses to participate over there. The young lady who owns the 1.3 acres across the street is getting ready to do mixed use. She's going to do both residential and commercial, light commercial. The only reason she's not here today is because her business partner and father is preparing to have a serious surgery. But all that being said, I represented Pigeon Roots Development Corporation over there for many years as chairman. The whole idea about the redevelopment of that area is to try to put in businesses that not only that the neighborhoods were looking to get, that were consistent with maybe creating jobs to promote the area a little bit better. There are legitimate architects and developers working on this project as we speak. And directly across the street from where this gentleman is about to install his business is a similar business that also deals with used tires, right directly across the street. And again, I'm not going to... What a person does with their business, I mean, that's their business, but we have canvassed the neighborhood, did studies at the University of Memphis as to what the neighborhood wants, And we feel that some of the participants that's coming in there now to aid us with this redevelopment have got a pretty good plan as far as restaurants and businesses that are gonna promote growth in the neighborhood. So I'd just like for you guys to really consider, and I know you received several letters regarding this, consider variances for anyone that's not Really looking at putting in something that's really conducive to make this neighborhood better.

That's correct.

That is where the mixed use is going to go. The CDC sold that property to the young lady, which is McGuire Group, a couple years ago. There have been a lot of things occurring over the last couple years that have given them a moment of pause from doing things. It's safe to say that Ray West Designs is working on some of the architecture for the homes. They are committed to put back up 10, nine freestanding homes in addition to a 4,800 square foot commercial space, which in fact is also meant to house the Rosdell-Ansdell Neighborhood Association, which was included in that agreement to sell the property to them. So there are some serious plans underway. We would have liked them to happen a lot sooner, but unfortunately it didn't occur that way. But again, If you check in with Ray West Designs, one of the architects on the project, and David Hunt, general contractor, who's doing the commercial piece, I think you'll find that, like I said, we're on track to get this going at some point. But again, this young lady's father, who's also our business partner, he is about to have this surgery, and we want to try to get that behind us before we proceed.

Just a couple of points. You know, as we've discussed, the major difference that staff sees in the used tires and the new tires is the outdoor storage of it, which is being addressed by the condition. If we were asking for new tires, that would be allowed. The owner here, if he can get to the point that he doesn't offer used tires because all of the business is new tires, he'd love to get there. There's a better profit in new tires than there are in used tires. And we're going to have new tires, but it's just to be competitive and to be able to operate. Happy to answer any questions you have.

Thank you. God bless you. Is this one right here? You see where the mouse is?

Excuse me, good afternoon. I'm Chloe Christian with DPD. I'll be presenting this case today. It's BOA 2026-0064, located at 919 South Yates Road. And we're considering numerous variance requests to the sign Article 4.9 to allow the continuation of four non-conforming detached poll signs. Here's a location map and vicinity map of the property. We sent out 125 notices for this case. The property is zoned commercial mixed use one and is surrounded by residential multifamily and commercial uses. And I will note that CMU one district does allow detached pole signs. The code allows only one per up to 599 feet of street frontage, and this property has around 150 feet of street frontage, so the sign count is higher than required per the code. Here are pictures of the four signs you can see here along Yates Road. This is the current existing site plan. I tried to zoom in a little bit so you could see the location of the signs some more, and they are indicated in red and also yellow. So the sign that is highlighted in yellow was actually approved via a variance in 2021 that has since expired. But I just wanted to note the location of the sign that was approved via that variance, but that approval is no longer valid.

This is the proposed site plan that was submitted by the applicant.

Again, that sign that was approved is indicated by the red circle, but the applicant has proposed to install a landscaping strip along the center-most region of the Yates frontage with evergreen shrubs and grass. So in terms of our stance on the case, ultimately we do recommend rejection of this request. Part of that is based on the findings of the initial variance request that was granted in 2021. I've attached the notice of disposition to this slide and you can see condition number four is pretty clear that the variance will expire in five years. So that time has passed. And it also states that during that period the landlord is encouraged to eliminate as many of these non-conforming signs as possible and erect an integrated center sign. And our stance kind of remains the same way. The applicant does have the by right option to install an integrated center sign. I've also included some reference photos on this slide here as you can see. There's an option to just advertise all the tenants on one sign and that is allowed by right. And we have not been presented any significant reason as to why this cannot be done. And there's no practical difficulty or undue hardship presented to justify an exception to the sign code. So as such, we do recommend rejection of this request. However, if approved, we recommend the following conditions. Number one being that no more than two signs shall be allowed to remain. Number two being that the landscaping strip shall be a minimum of three feet wide, which is slightly wider than what was proposed initially, and also requiring that evergreen shrubs are planted that grow to at least six feet in height. And then lastly, that the variance will be rendered null and void on August 26, 2030. I'm happy to answer any questions, thank you.

Miloš Mikić, 275 Jefferson Avenue. I do. Starting the clock. So what I wanted to, first of all, thank you for having me. The first thing that we wanted to kind of talk about was the practical difficulty. I think there's a distinction that needs to be made between staff's position and the way that we're characterizing it. We're not arguing that the age of these signs, standing alone, having four of them creates the hardship, and we're not asking the board to grant a variance simply because we want four signs. The unusual characteristic is the physical configuration of this property, and the signage is a consequence of the way that it's set up. 1968 is when this was developed. As you can tell, it's a commercially elongated parcel. The building, parking, relationships surrounding streets, all established 60 years ago almost. No front to John Poplar, obviously only on Yates. So it wasn't built around a single centralized point of identification. which would stand more for like a modern grocery store or something modern now where they designed to have that in the first place. The code allows one integrated center sign as the conforming alternative, but on the particular property, one sign is not functionally equivalent to the four signs distributed along the frontage. And there isn't a reasonable way for the owner to cure the under, he can't just go and shift the building or move it over to Poplar. So the practical difficulty isn't simply that we just want four signs. It's the strict application of the one-sign standard to the physical configuration of this particular property, producing something that's materially different and less functional form of identification. And the physical conditions creating the problem cannot reasonably be changed. We are asking the board to allow the existing signs to continue on proving the straight the Yates frontage with landscaping rather than forcing a 60 year old Site into a signage configuration. It was never physically designed to accommodate. So we just wanted to touch base on that and with that ironically enough I started a business in 2018 and on Miner Street and LPI was the company that allowed that to happen. It was five great years of my life. And so it's very awesome for me to be able to introduce Kerry White to come up here, talk a little bit of what he has going on at this site and with those sites. And so with that, I'd like to hand it over to Kerry White.

Kerry White, 4548 Kings Park Road. I do. I just wanted to come up today and give you a little color commentary on why we submitted this application on the behalf of our tenant there. LPI Memphis is an old commercial real estate investment company. We have hundreds of millions of dollars invested in this community, Memphis and Shelby County. We don't have a dime invested anywhere outside of Shelby County. You probably are familiar with us because of our efforts to revive Overton Square. That's the thing that most people associate with us. But the majority of our business is strip centers, shopping centers, and service-related tenants and of the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of retail and service tenants that we have 85 of them are small businesses and if you work with small businesses you're working with people you're not working with a corporation that's in some other state where every person you talk to changes over in this case there's a young lady that has started a business of 3D ultrasound imaging. So she helps couples who want to have imaging of their upcoming child. And that's not something insurance pays for. So she is, you know, she's not getting paid by insurance. This is a market company, a small business. And one of the things that we say in our shop is we're a small business who supports other small businesses. That's the backbone of America and it's certainly the backbone of Memphis. And in the 30 years that I've been doing this, even during COVID, it's never been as hard as it is right now for small businesses. Capital they can't get a hold of. Labor is hard. Costs are escalating, but you can't charge more money. And I know this because I have hundreds and hundreds of tenants who talk to us every day, and we try to work out ways to help them. One of our vision One of our values, rather, is win-win scenarios. That's what we look for. We try to find win-win scenarios with our tenants. We try to find win-win scenarios with our neighbors, et cetera. And when this sign is so important to her, if you saw the map earlier, you'll know this is not on Poplar. It's a little bit off, one parcel off of Poplar. this has always been tenanted by tenants small business tenants who could not afford the market rents on poplar but needed to be in the area that's what's important to her and so she wants to be able to be seen and signs whether what do you it doesn't matter what i think about them i what i know is that all the businesses that i support it is extremely important to them it's integral to them it's so important to her that in her lease she made me promise that if we have trouble with this sign i have to make some concessions to her because it was the single most important thing and that's why i decided to come down here and and give you this color commentary and i'm going to let me lotion josh talk about the technical parts of it but That young lady in there, she's 33 years old. We incubate small businesses. This is the poster child of who we try to help. And this is the single most important thing to her. Thank you.

Yes. Josh White at 275 Jefferson. I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Josh White at 275 Jefferson. Mr. White and Mr. Mikic described the economic factors that are the basis of our application, and I appreciate that that's not DPD's job, and that should not really be, quite honestly, part of their calculation. Their calculation should be the aesthetics and the goals of the sign code. That said, I do think the economics should be an important factor of the cities, and by extension, the Board of Adjustment. But let's talk about the aesthetics for a moment. An integrated center sign, when you go to, integrated center signs are governed largely by whether you're on a collector, an arterial, or a minor street. If you go to the Metropolitan Planning Organization's website, that's who does the functional classifications, determining which street is one of those three types, it directs you to two different maps, one of which shows we're in arterial, the other which shows us on a collector. So let me describe why I think aesthetically we're better off on one and why the other would just be a true practical difficulty, if not a hardship. If we were... If we choose the map that says we're in arterial, we being Yates, we would be allowed an integrated center sign that is larger than the cumulative total of those four signs and taller than those signs. Conversely, if we choose the map that says that Yates is a collector, we have to have a 43 square foot sign that's 15 feet tall, which goes back to Mr. Mikic's whole justification from a zoning standpoint on the visibility to Poplar would be impossible. The sign 43 divided by four would be about 10 square feet per tenant, and the 15 feet alone would not allow vision from Poplar or visibility from Poplar. Number two, an integrated center sign would only be landscaped at its base. We have offered to landscape the entire or most of our frontage between the two curb cuts. We based this, Mr. Mikic has a handout, We based this on previous actions, not only by this board, but if you're familiar with some of Loeb's, LPI's properties throughout the city, they have voluntarily inserted landscape islands along the base of some of their non-conforming signs, one of which was blessed by the Board of Adjustment back in 2023. When we when anyone files an application to this body or the language control board they have to make a determination of how much do we offer right because. Zoning is highly subjective and so what we did is we looked at previous approvals. And the question for us was, well, do we offer the landscaping strip now at the Board of Adjustment, or do we try to act in better faith and offer it at the outset with our actual application? Well, because of that, now our back's against the wall, we're willing to offer an additional concession, which is a sheathing, a wrap around these poles to bring them further into conformance with the current zoning code. When you look at... I believe we acted in good faith by offering something with our application and then also offering something additional. Conversely, if you look at the conditions proposed by staff on page 15, Mr. White mentioned that we're here because Moments sign permit was rejected because there had been 365 days that had passed since the last tenant had been in that location. We have two signs that have lost their protected non-conforming status. We have two others that are protected nonconformities. The conditions that staff has offered is you can have the two that you already have the rights to, but because you asked, because you had the nerve to pay us a sign application fee and ask for two more, you can keep the ones that you'd already have rights to, number one. Number two, you also have to have a landscaping strip, but then number four, you have to remove those two signs that you would otherwise be permitted to keep because you're asking for these sign variants. So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we respectfully request that we be permitted the four signs that requested as a condition with the landscaping strip and with the further condition sheathing them in a metal protection. Yes, sir. And let me clarify. how you get to these two maps. If you go to the DPD Develop 901 website, there is a link to the zoning atlas and there's a link to the major arterial map. If you click on that, that map tells you that you're a collector, in which case our integrated center sign would be 43 square feet and 15 feet tall. If you go directly to the Metropolitan Planning Organization's website, you scroll down on the functional classification page, you click on a link that takes you to TDOT, and TDOT says we're in arterial. so I don't know if the state trumps the locals or what, but there's a major difference. Under that map, we have 143 square feet, because it's a one multiplier, we have 143 feet of frontage, so we have 143 square feet of signage, and then a 35 foot height, which is taller than our 22 foot signs. And let me clarify, the long-range transportation plan, I scoured it. It's hard to, I don't know if you go to the long-range transportation plan if you'll find a functional classification map. And that website takes you to two different maps. But let's assume we're a collector. We have the shorter sign and the smaller sign. Another practical difficulty would be that sign would require us to remove a parking space. Coquosa, which is our newest tenant, has been so successful. Coquosa East, they did not close their downtown restaurant to open their eastern restaurant. They have both. They've been so successful that they have to lease parking spaces from surrounding landlords. we need every spot that we can. An integrated center sign of whatever size would have to be placed in lieu of one of those spaces. But it would be 43 square feet and 15 feet tall, to answer your question. So an integrated center sign would probably be would need to be perpendicular to the street, kind of like our signs, and it would have to be a monument sign. So the landscaping strip right now, the way it's oriented, it would not interfere, it would shorten the parking spaces, but we have a little extra space between our western spots and our eastern spots. To do a lateral sign, we'd have a, when I say lateral, I mean longwise sign, we would, most definitely have to take out one of those parking spots for the proper landscaping at its base. And Mr. White tells me that this site plan is not completely accurate, that there's a spot there now that people can park behind the yellow sign.

So I guess the part of that

What we may, Mr. Chairman, before you cut me off. Okay. That's always a perpetual fear. It keeps me up at night. We would prefer a hold versus, in lieu of negotiating from the floor, and, excuse me, designing from the floor, we would probably prefer probably a 30- to 60-day hold to do that if the board is inclined to go in a direction other than A or B, A being my conditions and B being Jeffrey's conditions. I have just spoken with Mr. White and he said moments, you know, they're the pressing need here. Moments, I think the word was can live with a 60 day hold. So, but I think that we would need that time to do this proper.

and make sure we stay up to date on this topic.

She's not here.