Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

meeting for July 8th, 2025. Please stand for the pledge. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [Music] All right, please call roll. Graves here. Simmons here. Here, Sherrod. We have three number four. All right. Thank you. Next item is 1.3 approval of minutes. So these are the minutes from the board of zoning appeals on March 11th. I make approve. So move. Motion to approve. Second. All in favor say I. I. I. Our motion passes. Our 1.4 is public comment period. Did we have anyone sign up for that? Okay. 1.5 is public hearing on that one did not get updated. I'm sorry, but yours is correct. Mine is okay. Thank you for for clarifying that. So 1.5 is public hearing. We've got 1.5.1, which is the variance request to reduce the rear yard setback for property located at 107 Mimosa Drive. Is there anyone here that would like to speak on this item? Yes, sir. Please come up. Just state your name. Jonathan Lenius. Okay. and I am a engineer representing client that uh owns the property at 107 Mimosa Drive. And this is going to be the worst uh example of trying to take and defend something. But u what actually happened was the the the owners

were out of town and the house got added on to and they breached the setback requirements. There is the um line of occupation that threw everybody off. Um and they were maintaining the property. the previous owners were maintaining the property for a long period of time and um so there was an assumption made. It still doesn't fit the 30 ft on the offset. Um but but that's what took place and um so that's what we got. All right. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else here from the public that wants to speak? Okay. Or we'll close the public hearing. All right. We also have a public hearing on item 1.5.2, which is the variance request to reduce the sideyard setback for property located at 1015 Bradley Drive. Is there anyone here that wants to speak on that item? Yes, sir. Please come up. Really just answer any questions if y'all have any, but and I know sometimes in applications it's hard to understand why somebody's trying to do something or want. So, um, there's we and I wasn't here that night. Bob came before y'all and had it split where that building could be put back in things. And I have 3.35 acres or our LLC does right behind it under contract. And we're trying to do a development. I've got a roofing business that's around on Kelton Jackson to move our facility over there and then expand the other business that's in the building with me. So, it's just kind of a piece of, you know, trying to expand in the area. And so, that's the reason it's it just be simpler for that piece to be private property and to work with the piece behind it as opposed to having part of a condo and it's a private property with it. So, it's really

just something that'll make it smoother and you know, in the end, the building's going to go back, you know, just like it was and look just like it did. The only real difference would be is it owned as part of a condo or is it owned in two pieces of private property. So there's literally no difference except the ownership structure. So and is there any questions or anything? I just want to make sure you all understood what we I think we can ask questions after we close the public hearing. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else here that wants to speak on this item? Okay, we'll close the the public hearing. So, under new business 2.0 as both of these cases. So, 2.1 is VR 2025-05 discuss and possibly take action on a variance request to reduce the rear yard setback for property located at 107 Mimosa Drive. It's map 080F E parcel 031.00. 00 Is there a motion to put this on the floor? I make a motion. All right. Motion. Second. Second. Staff, do you want to present? Good evening, board. The first item on tonight's agenda is a request for a rear setback variance at 107 Mimosa Drive. Um, you've already heard from the applicant. The request seeks relief from the required 30foot rear yard setback requesting a reduction to 13.51 ft to accommodate an addition that has already been constructed. The property is zoned R10 medium density residential and is located in a single family neighborhood. The addition was built without a permit and the setback encroachment was discovered during inspection. A notice of public hearing was published in accordance with state law and as of

this t and as of the time of this report staff has not received any public comments in favor or in opposition. Staff recommends denial of the requested variance to reduce the rear yard setback at 107 Mimosa Drive from 30 ft to 13.51 ft. The subject addition was constructed without a permit and does not meet the legal standards for granting a variance. The applicant has not demonstrated a unique physical condition of the property that creates a hardship. Nor have they shown that the hardship was not self-created. The applicant has also not shown that the variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief, nor that the variance would not confer a special privilege to the applicant. Therefore, staff finds that the request does not meet the standards for a variance outlined in the zoning ordinance. The applicant is present, however, and available to answer any specific questions you might have. Do you have any questions for staff right now? I'm just really curious how you all found out about it after the fact. uh codes, inspections were out um just in the neighborhood doing something on another project and noticed building construction going on and knew there was not a a permit for that property. Okay. So, just routine work in the neighborhood. Other questions were um not aware that the permit had to be prohibited.

Again, the clients were out of town when it took place and they were looking for somebody was looking for some work. So, they had the work to be able to take and be done. They didn't realize that they needed to take and get a building permit and it one thing led to another and they ended up getting built and it got to uh built too far into the the setbacks and all those different things. And to answer your question that you mentioned just a moment ago, um it was found during um a site visit. Uh but we discovered there there was a that that line of occupation existed on the on on the property and um they were maintaining it. The previous owner that owned the property, they were maintaining it. So the other adjacent parcel owners um they were they weren't maintaining that property. So they the assumption was made it was theirs. Right. Um correct. But that that's the real line right now and that's how close it is. But if you the way that it looked it was more like that. So that's the reason why everybody assumed that it's right. It still was like 25 ft. So it still it's in violation of the 30 ft. So um like I said there's no good excuse for any of it. We're just trying to solve the problem now. what are you have? Sorry, I got one question. Have you tried talking to the adjacent property owners about replatting? We we're in the process of doing that right now. Yes. And has staff looked at that to see if it was still that was a suggestion I had. I also consider the possibility exploring with them reszoning. Um the area according to the land use plan, the future land use plan is suggested high density residential which would be appropriate

for R seven. However, the rear setback on R seven is still greater than 13 ft. So just a reszoning would not fix the problem either. Um the agenda report that I sent you had a picture of the aerial so you can you can see where the tree lines are in the aerial picture. But yeah, by figuring out how much property was needed was discussed, other questions. What? Let me hack this. If we turn it down and we then they have to what? Tear the building down. I'm just trying to figure I'm trying to Well, they listed options. Yeah. Re uh replotting it. Yeah. But the reasoning wouldn't that be back where we are now. Yeah. I And that that was my first thought was potentially that would be a fix, but it wouldn't fix because it encroaches too much. But yes, if if you denied it, it would have to be torn down. And if they're not doing it voluntarily, that has to go through a whole process to be removed. So to clarify, if we deny it though, could they seek replotting it? Okay. Or if he replotted, then we don't table it wouldn't do no good, right? Because if we plotted it wouldn't we wouldn't come back here. Correct. I don't know that they could have an answer

but they repotted it to fix the problem. There wouldn't be major variance. That's terrible. Did you say repotting would fix them? They would have to gain property from this property owner here. Ideally, they would gain some from both and just make it a clean property line. However, and like I said, we do have that going right now. Got we got I got the plat right here. It's just digital. So, and it shows a triangle section that we would need to be able to take in and it would be from both of those lots um to take in essentially square up the property too. make it a little bit more in keeping with mimosas drive. I would hate to turn it down, but then it was their fault for not getting a building permit, you know. Well, the bigger concern with fault always to me if we create a precedent that allows other people to do it and it's our job to not do that. And I may ask a question you may not know the answer of right off the the top of your head. If we defer it, like does it can we defer like two meetings for them to be able to figure out pladding or is there any kind of like state statute that begins to kind of kick in when we defer Yeah. So, well, we run we try to run run our meetings per Robert's rules of order. So, you can defer to the next meeting, then you can defer to the next meeting. Yeah.

If you table, then you have to vote at the next meeting. Okay. Okay. What if there's no schedule meeting? Do you have to meet just for the deferred item? Yes. So, so in this particular case, if they are in the process of getting a replat, you can defer until they get that done or you can say we deny a variance, which you probably should do. And then by the time staff was to take it to court, they would probably have it platted. We could work with them. You could tell us what to do. If you defer it, yeah, it it's going to be it's going to be safer because if you tell us if you deny it, then we're going to have to start moving forward. Could we deny with a a extension of uh delaying um reaction to it? You can deny it conditionally. Yes, you can give them x number of days to get it or weeks or months to get it replatted. And if it's not done at that time, staff would then begin the process of taking them to court to have the expansion removed because if we if if we postponed it for replanting, it would be not a zoning appeals issue any, right?

I mean I to hearing the discussion it sounds like a a denial with some sort of timeline based on getting it replatted like 90 180 days something like that and that may be a question that you would like to answer their engineering surveying take. Yeah. Yeah. basically like how how long do you think you would need to to figure out platting? Luckily, we're all in one. We have our own surveying team and we're an engineering firm. Um, so my guys are going to the client negotiate or the parcel negotiation. They wanted to take in they wanted to see it marked instead of seeing it just on paper or on like what I've got here. So, we're going to survey that out and put it out there so they can see it. And then the negotiations begin. And you think maybe 90 days, 60 for me? Yeah. But the the negotiation part is the is the question. I I don't know how long. Yeah. I have a question. Does the other property owner Is the other property owner responsive to this request? Yes. I'd say three months. I'd say apartments is what it is that joints don't their lot is relatively deep. So it shouldn't impact. Okay. And it typically doesn't take staff a terrible amount of time to review a final. If they can't get it done in three months, we can revisit again. Okay. So what we have to do first? So I think what we would have to do first is deny it with a condition in

order to that has a time frame put on it. Um, so you'd you would want to deny it with a condition that they meet a time frame. So you wouldn't want to just deny it because if you just deny it, it starts a clock of taking it to court. Starts action. Well, I'd make a motion to deny the variance request with the provision that the city not pursue enforcement for the violation for 90 days in order to give them time to replat. Okay. So, it's a motion to deny and pursue action with 90 days to try and replat. Is there a second? Second. All right. motion and a second. Any discussion? All right. All th those in favor of uh I guess denying uh the variance say I. I. Okay. Anyone opposed to the denial? Okay. So motion passes with the condition the variance is denied. um but with a condition that they uh seek resolution within 90 days. Question. So let's say that we're at 60 days and the negotiations all the stuff is done but the negotiations aren't going as great and we needed an extension. What do we do in that kind of sense to make sure that we don't at 90 days you'll start bringing a track when you start it down. to ask you a question to answer the question is is did you just come back ask for to come back to the board of

zoning appeals and we can discuss it they can discuss it then and give you another month but right now all things you know we're hoping that you'll get it done and so it's a it's a two lot it'll be a three lot subdivision it shouldn't be that big a It won't be that big a deal from a planning commission point of view, right? Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all for for chiming in. Okay. So, next item is 2.2. It's uh V 2025-06. is to discuss and possibly take action on a variance request to reduce the sideyard setback for property located at 1015 Bradley Drive. Uh that's map 092H a parcel 002.0. Is there a motion to put this on the floor? I make a motion. Motion move. Second. Right. Director Duro. The second item on tonight's agenda is a request for a sideyard setback variance at 1015 Bradley Drive. The applicant um represented by Craig Nolles and Robert Brazwell who co-own the both are here. They co-own the parcel. The request seeks to reduce the required 20 foot sideyard setback to zero feet in order to subdivide the property between each owner's portion of the shared building. The original structure was built in compliance with code and functioned as multiple separate units with common sidewalls, each platted as individual condominium lots. In December 2023, a tornado destroyed the building. It is now under the sole ownership of these two entities, each operating a separate

business. A portion of the building has already been rebuilt, and Mr. Brazwell is expected to be back in his space and fully operational in the near future. The requested variance would allow a new lot line to follow the existing shared wall, effectively creating two separate parcels. This request differs from the previous granted the previous variance granted in March of 25, which allowed for a zeroot separation between future structures. This current request pertains solely to the subdivision of the lot. A notice of public hearing was published in accordance with state law and as of the time of this report, staff has not received any public comment. Staff recommends denial of the requested variance to reduce the sideyard setback at 10:15 Bradley Drive from 20 ft to 0 feet. The request is not based on a hardship created by a unique physical characteristic of the property, but rather a desired lot subdivision between co-owners. the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that is not self-created or that is unique to this parcel. Staff finds that the request does not meet the standards for a variance outlined in the zoning ordinance. Again, staff can answer any questions you might have or either of the two applicants is available as well. questions for for staff or for the applicant. [Music]

To clarify, the proposed lot would follow that existing building. If you go out to this property right now, you can see the half that's already been reconstructed on the site. So that line will follow that wall. Do we need to make a motion to open for discussion? Oh. Uh, no. I think we right. We can we're open to talk about it since on the floor. Hello again. Um, it's curious, what's the motivation to divide the lot now? Uh, I could speak to that. I think with there's as far as the existing facility when we originally purchased it. It was just an investment and we were talking about just putting up units to rent out, which is what it has been. But since then, this property behind it came for sale and I have a contract on it uh around the corner on Kelton Jackson just a little bit. I have a roof in business. My son has a beef business. He needs to expand and I've got a facility out in the county and one in the city. And so I wanted to be able to use this all as one continuous thing. It would just be much simpler to develop it for use as one company if it was all one piece of property, not part of a condom. Bob and I get a lot of breakdown like a line across the middle of the bedroom or something. Well, no. It's really it's really just there's there would be four acres there and it would be one thing and and I know that's not and I appreciate the work that Caroline has

done because she's been very thorough on it, but it truly is not going to look any different one where it's just going to be if you pulled it up as a condo owned or as a private owner own it. I realize there's more to the decision than that, but we're not I mean there's a there's a concrete slab there now. I mean it's you know the building was already there. So um and I I'll be glad to answer anything else. I'm not sure there's that track. Yeah, I I'll ask the same question I guess that we had in the the last circumstance. like would you be able to replplat where it's I guess not exactly in half um and still meet zoning. So I'm not sure what the side setback would need to be. That is why they're asking for this go straight where that line the reason we haven't done it as a staff is because if we put that property line right there because they we've looked at it. You now have a situation in this particular zone where you have to have a sideyard. Well, because the line goes down the middle of the building, there is no sideyard. So, that is why the request has been presented. But if they were to make shift it 20 ft, let's just on the screen it was to the right, but it's still that 40 ft between the buildings then. Sure. Okay. So, you're taking I don't know how wide these units are. I mean, there's they're 20. They're 25. They're five 25 foot units. So it would take two of the five units out of service. Yeah. Okay. So your intent is to put the units back. Oh, absolutely. Okay. Okay. The same way. The previous variance granted them permission to build that building back in two phases using the same foundation. [Music]

The I remember you remember them. Yeah. I remember the condition for the previous one was we made it specifically to when a building was torn down by a tornado. Yeah. And that's still the reason that we're all here. Yeah. There there's a financial aspect to this and I know financial doesn't uh affect other than when when lenders look at the condominium they look at it as the whole thing. So like all my bill back I'm doing out of pocket plus family money. Yeah. Because otherwise technically I own he's still part of his building part of his and that's that's created a a pseudo hardship because you know I I have blessing of getting money from a from a family member to to finish my building. Sure. But that creates that's created a a a very unique thing because it's not the banks don't look at it as a single as buying unit. They look at it as a whole subcons and that's that begs the question with the with the appraiser. I have to go talk to him because it's now no longer units. is office and warehouse space which is similar to what he's going to put even though the wall look from the outside you you don't know and with us trying to add that back portion on that just further so it's not a financial hardship as of someone's going to take money out of our pocket or even it's even going to cost anymore. It's not that it's the it's the the deal if you it's it's just harder to develop it with it being in a condo. So, it's not that it's going to cost us more. It just adds a layer of difficulty that makes it it'll make it really hard for me to do both pieces together. I mean, that's and I I didn't really want

to say that. I mean, ultimately, because that's not y'all's I mean, based on what Miss Caroline told me, that's not really y'all's concern, but ultimately it is affecting three businesses in town that are trying to expand, you know. So, what did the the staff they didn't they didn't go with that, right? they they voted it down. Well, from a staff perspective, we're just looking at the criteria for what you all should look for when you're looking at a variance. So, in the sense that it doesn't have a unique shape to the property, that's really the the main idea when we're looking at a variance. I will say from the very beginning, this property came before me probably my day two with the city and these condos have been an issue like immediately. I was like, "Oh, yeah." Condo ownership does throw a wrench into things because ultimately there's 11 little parcels on top of a parcel. So, it would clean that up. If this were another zone, if we were downtown, this wouldn't be an issue at all. Yeah. If this was a CC, right? Because Yeah. Can it be reasonable? We're trying to city's perspective in trying to commercial, you know, have as many commercial businesses as possible. Obviously, we want commercial businesses to remain in the city. They provide a lot more tax dollars than houses do. However, we don't send our employees to the local schools. So if if we approve this variance as far as the property, how does that affect the neighbors? There is no impact. That's what I'm saying. No. And once again, it falls falls into the category

of we're given the variance based on the fact that the condominiums were destroyed by tornado and we will do that again the next time condominiums are destroyed by a tornado. So, slim and none. Hopefully, but never say, "Yeah, we like to think that it won't happen again." At least not to these guys. At least not to these guys. Hopefully the next time it happens is is that there'll be individual owners of condominiums as in each conduct will be and so actually hopefully it will never happen again. Put that let me put that out there correctly. It will never happen again. Condominiums will never be destroyed by a tornado in the city of Springfield. It's on record. He's on record. It's on record now. the cost of five. I just want to make sure I understand. So like the left half is already built, has a wall and it it has like five or six units that can be done. That right half literally been rebuilt as one big building, but underneath if you look at it flat, it is still platted as condos. So the next to the fire station is just this concrete slab, right? Yeah. And and not that it matters, but there's 18 inch difference in the slabs. Like where his building ends, it steps up and goes over. So it's it was distinct in and of itself to start with, but and what we're asking for will literally when it got built back, it will from the front stand in the road will look just like it did right before the tornado tore down. And there would

be zero difference in it other than it being private property and not a condo. And so essentially the two halves would have two different owners of one building. Yeah. Before this started there were 11 different owners or there could have been 11 different Yeah. So technically what you're going to do is you're going to do two condominium. It's a subdivision and the result will be there'll be condominiums on this side and condominiums on this side. So technically it be kind of like two different homeowners associations. Yeah. Right now we get along great. We talk to each other and whatever we need to do we do. But per the the way it's set up, we're supposed to have formal meetings and Yeah. And we know that there's a whole the the length of stuff that gets added to our plate just because they're condos, which they're really not. I mean, on on the right hand side, you've got offices on the far right in the first 25 ft. After that, it's all open. Again, the hard part is if we give a variance to zero feet for a set bag. What makes this unique such that somebody else couldn't claim that they could use it for a same zone property? Tornado. That's the only thing I can Well, once again, tornado and ri and condominium. Can we tie their names? So, I mean, it's going to be very rare that you have condominiums in an RAI zone. That's that's what I was going to ask. Dude, we have any idea if there's others in

an RI zone? Okay. I I'm I feel very confident when I say that we have condominiums right in MRO and in other residential zonings but we don't have any condominium and in commercial but we don't have any in an RAI zone. Are you planning to tie the rebuilt physical structure into physical structure you're planning on the new piece of property that again the the condos? I mean, are you planning on tying them physically into a new structure when you like like on that back section? I don't I don't know yet. I'm not being koi. We I've got two or three different layouts um from Cornerstone, Zach Wilson, that's the surveyor that's done this. We've looked at it several different ways, but as far as a usage, um, yes, and Bob and I have already talked about him having access on the original plat that was put back, we wanted to add a driveway here so that someone could go out and then um, this here to cross onto this property and Bob and I both have an access to that and then we would do another entrance up here. So, I mean, it's we would cooperate to be able to use. So, I don't know. Like, I haven't gone that far because those guys cost a lot of money and I don't know if I can do it yet. So, we've kind of laid out one little thing and I was like, I don't know if I like that. But, as far as usage, it would be tied together. Now, what that looks like, I'm not 100% sure. You gentlemen thought about sharing ownership in a holding company and owning it all together with variations in the shares? Well, this is a different Bob was not part of that. It just I know. But yeah, I know. But maybe you should make him a part of that. It might simplify your lives. It would It still creates the issue with the the development. It's it's just a

and this is my first condo adventure, too. So, yeah, the the on on the right side, you know, we made all the provisions for the firewall. Yes, sir. That was part of our our last meeting and we do obviously the same thing. Mark was just has laid that out the way he wants it. What one of the the going back to your question valid question and and we talked about things how we could work together. This I'm getting older and my son-in-law who has my two grandkids and my daughter he that's his Yes. And so that creates a whole legacy issue. He's he's a Pratt from Springfield and this is his future and whether my grandsons do that or not is not not has nothing to do with it, but it's for him. So I've been working on building this for their future so that the legacy is left with them and not me. Understand? Is it possible to foresee future all future complications that would if we gave many many conditional provisions that allow this to happen this variance to happen? My concern is inviting upon the city and future boards of appeals problems with this piece of property where they're doing this again and again. So like if you tied a physical structure into the physical structure there, would there be restriction to doing that? There's one piece of property that ended at another building on the zero zero. He would have to combine he would have to combine his two parcels, which is what we were that's what that's what he's planning. Yeah. And then in theory, he could right

up to this right up to this edge into the other parcel. Yeah. the side yard with a 25 ft gap on the back. Right now, with the two of them, and I'm asking this question, with the two of them tied together with one piece of property, wouldn't we just at that point follow whatever the rules were for that piece of property as if nothing had ever happened before? I mean this wouldn't confer any special privileges on the two of them combined. Setbacks would be per whatever the codes are zoning. The only difference would be that one property line so that you could continue attaching those buildings that would be but the rest of the property when it was replatted you would have to whatever the setbacks are for our and they would have to build the building within that building envelope so to speak. I mean, it does sound like it wasn't an issue until the tornado hit it because it was existing at the time. Other questions? Okay. There also wasn't an issue until the other piece of property was being considered to be purchased. motion. This is a tough one.

So, what's the thinking? Can I just say one last thing as a closing argument? Sure. Sure. it it will greatly help three local businesses expand and thrive. And that is important. And I know that's not y'all's criteria that you go over, but it it should at least be a consideration. So, it sounds like in summary like the issue is that this is kind of a unusual circumstance where we have a condo with this particular zoning. um it was hit by the tornado that created an issue uh that was addressed back in March. Um now in terms of trying to continue to rebuild things, there's new thinking around it as to an adjacent parcel and then ownership. Um so I think the concern would be are we setting up a precedent for other instances for this to happen. Um staff has indicated there's zero instances of of other issues like this where we have a condo and an industrial zoned part of the city. Let's see. We were talking last time the provision wasn't for setback. It was to just to allow it to be built back in two words. It was for zero separation between building. The code requires 20 ft. Okay. Between zero separation versus zero setback. Yes. You all did it to to allow me to

Yes. Build back first. Oh, I Yeah. If I make a motion we approve the Z roll set back. Okay. So there's a motion to approve zero setback. Do you want to condition? Well, that's what I'm saying. Do do we need to condition it? I would make a motion to approve with the condition if it's condos within RS within city of Springfield that had been destroyed in a tornado. Okay. So, it's a condition. Put the verbiage in there. Put the verbiage in there. As much verb as you can possibly. Yeah. Okay. So, I do I do have builders asking me how'd that vote go? I want to know what to do with my Yes. So, so condition to approve in this zoning district because of the tornado that happened specifically of condos. Yes. With condos in our in strictly industrial. Strictly industrial. If we could tie it to these guys in today that cuz I like these guys. Is there a second? We'll call you tomorrow. Second. Okay. So, there's a motion second. So, the motion's to approve conditioned upon uh the the tornado condo. RI. Any further discussion? Okay. Motion to approve. All those in favor say I. Okay. Any opposed? Okay. Motion passes with approval and stated condition.

One last thing, thank you all for thoughtful debate and consideration and honestly appreciate it very much. We appreciate you guys. Thank you. Thanks for understanding. I was intrigued to listen to both of them. So appreciate it. Thank you for saying that. Uh last item is other or old business. business, but I wanted to remind you, and I put this in the email, that we need to do some training. Um, we don't have anything on the agenda next month. So, what I'm proposing is having you come to the planning commission meeting, which is the first Thursday of the month, which the first Thursday of the month, August, the first day is a Friday, so that would be the 6th or 7th, the first Thursday, and I'll send it in an email. Um, have you come to that one where we're going to start our training with that group because it makes more sense to combine the training than to have everybody do it separately? Ultimately, my thought was for that first one maybe about an hour. I I want both groups to understand the role of each department in the city. So, when we're looking at plans, what are the things we're looking at? And then there will be an element of online training that I think would be beneficial to everybody. Um, I'm still going through those videos to kind of find out exactly which ones are needed. There's roughly three hours of them. I do not want anybody to watch three hours of videos, but I wanted to go ahead and get started with this training so we don't get to December and find out, hey, we're not where we need to be. And then I know Mr. Briggs does not want to do eight hours total, right? Because being on both boards, if we can double up, that helps and also it helps staff not have to come and present at both boards. So, if you're open to that, I can send a more detailed email, but we don't have a meeting next month anyway. So, Okay. You said that's August 6. August 7th. Is it the seventh? It's the first Thursday. Okay.

Can I go ahead and send you my refreshment order right now? You can. Yes. I want to make sure there's some refreshments. There will be a planning commission meeting though. But as of right now, there's one small item on that agenda. Um, that is only a staff item. It has nothing to do with the public. So, and I don't have anything that's been submitted. There may be a final plat that gets a Will you have three lots or two lots? I don't remember two. You won't have to see there. So, but if that other one could get Yeah, I don't know. We're still in the closing process on the back. So, I'm thinking that it's going to be got they get that closed, then we have to uncondo and then we have to file plat. So, it could be September. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. The one that was before us, the 107 mimosa, potentially planning commission could see that one next month, but I I really don't foresee that happening in the next 30 days. So, but that's where I'm at because there's no meeting for this board. Okay. Thank you for back and that I need that back. Yes. And Adam, I have one for you. The annual disclosure form, but that's it. Thank you. Thank you. Make a motion we adjourn. Motion to adjurnn. Is there second? All right. Word.