Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Mr. Chairman, we've got about 30 seconds.

I'll let you know. We're not delayed because the county commissioner, you know how a ball game gets delayed.

Chris told me this morning, he said, I'll be done with the county commissioners by the time y'all. Are you sure about that? He's stuck at the county commissioner's meeting. Good afternoon. My name is Jason Grubbs. I'm the chair of the city county planning board. Welcome to the July 9th meeting of the planning board. At this time, would you please stand and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the for 250 years. Let's see if we can keep it.

Today's meeting is being broadcast live by Winston-Salem TV Digital Media and will be rebroadcast at 10 o'clock Friday morning and again at 4 p.m. Sunday. Additionally, an on-demand recording will be available on the City of Winston-Salem's YouTube channel. First order of business today will be the consent agenda containing items for which the petitioner is requesting withdrawal or continuance or items for which the planning staff has recommended approval and no one has signed up to speak in opposition. For our public hearings today, each side will have a total of 12 minutes. There is no rebuttal period. Once the public hearing is closed and the board goes into work session, no one is permitted to speak unless the planning board member asks them a question. The items under Section B of our agenda will require final action by the elected body, either the Winston-Salem City Council or the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners. As such, votes taken today are recommendations which are considered by the elected body during their review of the request. For general use rezoning request, the planning board must consider the full range of uses allowed in the zoning district being requested. The petitioner may not refer to a specific intended use of the property. For special use zoning districts, however, the petitioner must identify the intended use or uses of the site and give specific details on how the site will be developed. If you're addressing the board today, before you begin your remarks, please give us your name, address, and zip code for the record. Additionally, and this reminder applies to both staff and board members, as well as speakers from the floor, to ensure that our digital media systems properly capture your remarks, please make sure you're speaking directly into the microphone. First item on the consent agenda is the approval of the minutes of the June 11th, 2026 meeting. Is there a motion?

Move approval.

Motion by Mr. Lamb, second by Mr. Tino. Any discussion? All in favor, signify. Aye. That's unanimous. I'm going to call on Mr. Mark Allred to take us through the consent agenda.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. There is an automatic continuance for three items, as you see in front of you. You have item B4, item C1, and item D1 all requested a continuance of more than eight days prior to the planning board, so I'll have an automatic continuance to August the 13th. And we did get an automatic withdrawal. Again, this is item B5. They asked for automatic withdrawal more than eight days prior to planning board. So they are automatically withdrawn. So the first item up for discussion is item B1. This is case number W3692, the petitioner's Allred Investment Company, LLC. This is a rezoning request from General Industrial and Corporate Park Office to General Business Limited Use. This is 4.45 acres on the north side of East Haines Mill Road. Across from Brassfield Drive, you can see to the east is the main corporate park office. That used to be part of Haines. And then across the street, you'll see a mixed use. You do have a RS-9 that sort of scoots in here and connects to East Haines Mill, but they don't have an actual street connection to it. And then the rest of the activity center, we'll discuss a little bit later, is to the west. As you see from the aerial, this has an existing commercial building and commercial parking lot. Historically, the city used a zoning pyramid approach where higher intensity zoning districts allowed all uses permitted in the lower intensity districts. As a result, commercial uses such as the former K&W cafeteria were permitted in the GI zoning district, even though it's not a traditional industrial use. If you wonder how this came to be, it's because of that reason. The North Suburban Area Plan recommends commercial land uses for the site and encourages redevelopment of older, underutilized commercial properties within the University Haynes Mill Activity Center. And for these reasons, staff does recommend approval. Any questions? Questions for staff?

I have just one, if I may. In reading the staff report, if I've read it accurately, Just a sec. It says that the site, that the use as a restaurant is a previously approved nonconforming site. Correct. The rezoning request is for a zoning classification that, among other things, includes restaurants. If the rezoning is ultimately approved, will that do away with the nonconformity? Yes, sir. Thank you for the clarity.

Any other questions for staff?

I move that the planning board find that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Second motion by Mr. Farabee, second by Mr. Patino.

Any further discussion? All in favor signify. Aye. Any opposed? Do we have a motion? Oh, yep. So no one has signed up to speak in opposition to this item. Is there anyone here opposed to this recommendation? Seeing no one, I declare the public hearing closed, and we have voted on consistency.

I move that the Planning Board recommend approval of W3692.

Second. Motion by Mr. Farabee, second by Mr. Patino. Any discussion? All in favor, sign of aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? That's unanimous.

Item B2 does have opposition, so it is coming off consent. And item B3 is also coming off consent. The next item up for discussion is item D2. This is PBR 202610. This project is called Robins Crossing. It's a 19 lot PRD and RS9 zoning, 4.47 acres on the northeast side of Landis Street here and south of Wayside Drive. Also take, you can see that Robindale Drive, this neighborhood's here because it's important as this development does provide a PRD that connects Robindale Court and this Robindale Street neighborhood with the Landis Street neighborhood. Outside of also improving the connectivity for this area, it also provides a public street, which includes active and passive open space, sidewalks, and the active open space that you see here. And it does meet all other UDO requirements and staff recommends approval. Any questions for staff?

I MOVE THAT THE PLANNING BOARD APPROVE PBR 2026-10. SECOND.

MISSION BY MR. FERRIER, SECOND BY MR. PARTINO. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGN OF AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THAT'S UNANIMOUS.

next is item d3 this is pbr 2026-11 projects known as camden park this is a 53 lot prd and rs9 zoning 14.46 acres on the west side of rayleigh drive south of ardmore road and at the southern terminus of drayden drive which is right here As you can see from the site plan, it is, of course, a 53-lot PRD, which interconnectivity, you can see Drayden Drive, it does eventually connect over here to Raley Drive. So it does improve the street connectivity requirements. Development also preserves over six acres of open space, protecting the stream corridor you see here, and has an active open space over here. It does meet all UDO requirements and staff recommends approval.

Questions for staff? Is there a motion?

I move that the Planning Board approve PBR 2026-11. Second.

Motion by Mr. Farabee, second by Mr. Patino. Any discussion? All in favor, sign of aye. Aye. Any opposed?

All right, next up is item 3693.

And Ellie Levano will be giving the staff presentation on this one.

Hello, good afternoon guys. So this is case W3693, the petitioner alma mater is requesting, or sorry, the petitioner's alma mater. The site is 0.33 acres located on the south side of Country Club Road between South Cliffdale Drive and Harper Street. The request is a limited use rezoning from RS9 to neighborhood office limited use. The petitioner is requesting childcare, office, and single family uses. The site is located in GMA 3, suburban neighborhood. The site's surrounding area is characterized mainly by residential development, including single-family residences to the south and a twin-home development to the north. However, office uses are also present in the vicinity, including property zoned LOS to the east and a property zoned neighborhood office limited use to the west. The site is situated along a major thoroughfare within an established transitional area between residential neighborhoods and more intense non-residential development. The site is currently developed with an existing single family home and a driveway to the side of the home. The site is located within the West Suburban Area Plan, which recommends single family uses for the site. However, the neighborhood office district is compatible with single family development patterns and was specifically created to support the conversion of existing homes to office uses. The subject property is also located along the Country Club Growth Corridor and is in close proximity to the Gordon Manor Activity Center, which is to the west of the site. This is looking east along Country Club Road, the subject property is to the right. Looking west along Country Club Road, the subject property is to the left. Looking south from Country Club Road at the subject property. Looking west from the subject property at an adjacent vacant parcel. This is looking east from the subject property at another adjacent vacant parcel. And this is looking from the subject property looking north across Country Club Road. So overall, while the West Suburban Area Plan update recommends this property for low density single family development, the NO district is intended to accommodate home office conversion at the edges of residential neighborhoods. The proposed request is compatible with the residential development pattern of the area and would accommodate reuse of the existing single family home on the site. Lastly, the proposal is also consistent with Forward 2045's recommendation to create compatible transition between different land uses. Overall, staff recommends approval. Do you have any questions?

Questions for staff. While the existing structure could accommodate an office use, is the applicant required to reuse the property? I'm sorry, are they required to use the existing structure?

There's no requirement, Mr. Steelman. However, given our conversations with the petitioner, that is the desired outcome. Thank you both.

One question. I may be jumping ahead to design, but is the site sizable enough to meet the requirements for the NO district, like parking and whatnot?

It is. The NO district, Mr. Farabee, is designed to accommodate home office conversions, and as such, it has less intense requirements for things such as that. I will tell you as a preview of an upcoming text amendment, some of you may be aware of this, but the state legislature actually just did away with parking minimums for commercial and residential development for that matter. That'll be going into effect January 1. So we will be having to revise our UDO in accordance with that.

There's gonna be no parking requirement?

in terms of spaces per square footage or things of that nature. We'll still be allowed to have dimensional requirements and stacking and things of that nature, but yeah, it does away completely with parking minimums. We just became aware of that in the last week.

All right, any further questions for staff? If not, we'll open the public hearing on this matter. Signed up to speak in support, we have Alma Mater.

Good afternoon, everybody.

If you could give us your name, address, and zip code, please.

Okay, my name is Alma Mata. My address, my official address is 1323 Lee Hart, but the address that we are looking at is 3606 Country Club Rock.

All right, and the zip code?

827104.

Thank you.

I'm kind of nervous. I don't know. I forgot. I don't even... I got on my blank main and I forgot what I was gonna say. Thank you for having me here. We are trying to have this house to belong, to be in home office. The reason why we try it is we get our personal interest in the house. It's a lawyer and she really want to be home office.

All right. Any questions for Ms. Mata?

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

How much time's left? 11 minutes, 30 seconds. All right.

Is anyone else here that would like to speak in support of this? Okay. All right, seeing no one, we'll turn to folks signed up to speak in opposition. We have Susan Landreth. Come on up, Ms. Landreth, and if you'd give us your name, address, and zip code, please.

My name is Susan Landreth. I live at 115 South Clifdale Drive. Is that it?

Zip code.

Zip code 27104. I live four houses down from Country Club where this is asked to be made into childcare, daycare, whatever. We're being invaded with businesses. This is a residential neighborhood. I've lived there for 30-some years. I grew up there before. So I would ask that it not be granted for another business on this street. There's too much traffic on Country Club as it is, and this would just add to it. Okay.

Any questions for Ms. Landreth? All right. Thank you, Ms. Landreth. How much time is left?

Over 11 minutes.

Over 11 minutes. Is anyone else here that would like to speak in opposition to this matter? All right. Seeing no one, we'll declare the public hearing closed. Any discussion? What's the pleasure of the board?

I MOVE THAT THE PLANNING BOARD FIND THAT THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

MOTION BY MR. FERRIBEE. SECOND BY MR. PETINHO. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SIGN OF AYE.

AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? THAT'S UNANIMOUS.

I MOVE THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF W3693. SECOND.

MOTION BY MR. FERRIBEE. SECOND BY MR. PETINHO. ANY DISCUSSION? All in favor, sign of aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? That's unanimous as well.

All right, planning board members, the next case is item B3, W3694, and Michelle O'Brien is gonna give the staff presentation.

Good evening, this is case W3694. The petitioner is Andrea Adams Strickland. The site contains a 0.9 acre property located at the northeast intersection of University Parkway and Lower Avenue. The petitioner is requesting a limited use rezoning from RS-12 residential single family to highway business limited use. The site is located in growth management area three, suburban neighborhoods. It is also located along the University Parkway growth corridor. As you can see from the location map, the properties to the east are zoned RS-12, residential single family, and then surrounding the property to the northwest and east are all zoned highway business. From the aerial, you can see this RS-12 neighborhood to the east and then to the south is a fairly recently rezoned property in 2023 from RS-12 to Highway Business. And then you have on the west as well, surrounded with Highway Business. The North Suburban Area Plan update recommends this parcel for commercial use, as you can see here. And again, it is located along the University Parkway Growth Corridor. This is looking north on University Parkway, the subject property is to the right. You can see the existing driveway here along University. This is looking south on University Parkway, the subject property is to the left. Looking into the subject property from University Parkway, this is the existing single family home that you see. Looking east on Lower Avenue, the subject property is here to the left. Looking west on Laurel Avenue, subject property is to the right. Looking south on Laurel Avenue, this is across Laurel Avenue where you see the Chase Bank that has just recently been built. In summary, the adopted north suburban area plan update does recommend this site for commercial uses. The request accommodates new development where municipal services already exist, and the site is located along a growth corridor with multimodal transportation access, and staff recommends approval. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Questions for staff? All right. Thank you. We'll open our public hearing on this matter. Signed up to speak in support. I've got Andrea Strickland.

Ms. Strickland is the property owner, and she will speak if you have questions for her.

All right. And then we've also got Judy Stalder.

That's me.

That's you. Anything you want to tell us?

I just want to say a few things. The house that's...

If you could give us, sorry, your name, address, and zip code, please.

Judy Stalder, North Lindsey Street, 801 North Lindsey Street, Suite 101 in High Point, 27262. Thank you. The house that's on this property is a nice little house, but it's just not comfortable to be used as residential Mrs. Strickland's trying to sell the house and we feel like changing the zoning to match the other zonings along University Parkway to highway business Will be helpful in that effort to sell it we We are really concerned about the neighborhood behind us because Mrs. Strickland has ties to that neighborhood, having lived there herself. And we wanted to prohibit uses that would impact the neighbors. was a short list of uses we were prohibiting. Then we met with council member Burke just to get her reaction. And we added a few more prohibited uses. And then we met with our neighbor, Ms. Griffin, who has signed up to speak in favor, not in opposition. And we further limited the uses and added a six-foot opaque fence between the two properties. We had a neighborhood meeting. We invited all the neighbors we're supposed to invite, plus all the neighbors on the next street and all the neighbors on Laura Avenue and the renters on Laura Avenue. And the only person that came to the meeting was Ms. Griffin, and we had already talked to her about what she wanted. She is here this evening to talk to you about traffic control on Laura Avenue. If you've driven out there, Laura Avenue is a ribbon-paved street. It's a little bit crowded. There are occasionally cars parked on the street. That may be just what neighbors do, or it may be a way that the neighbors are trying to slow down traffic on their street. But Laura Avenue is used as a cut-through between University Parkway and that street that I can't remember the name of. Old Sun. Oak Summit. And so she's here to talk to you about that. But we did meet with her early and she has not expressed any opposition to the actual rezoning of the property. We believe we've done our due diligence. I didn't mention that staff even further limited our uses, but we are working with a commercial broker and he is fine with the conditions that we've put on this property. So we're hoping for your favorable recommendation. Thank you.

Thank you.

How much time is left?

Nine minutes.

Nine minutes. Next up is Judy Griffin.

Thank you.

My name is Judy Griffin. I live at 107 Laura Avenue, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 27105. And as was stated, my property borders this property. I am not opposed to the rezoning of the property as HBL. My understanding is that the rezoning is in line with the long-range plan for the area. And to add to what was said, the home ceases to be a residential value or appeal. And because of the property's location on University Parkway, its proximity to other businesses, trash that we experienced from the highway, the noise pollution generated in the area, along with maintenance issues related to the age of the home, it is better suited as a business site with limited uses. Personally, I have many of the same concerns about my property. My property will join this one and the CVS behind me. I have many of the same concerns for the noise, the traffic, the light pollution, which has increased significantly over the past few years. I do want to thank the owner for her inquiry into the neighborhood's concerns and their stipulation to add fencing. As was brought to the Planning Board and the City Council when the Chase Bank Outback Steakhouse property was rezoned, our neighborhood has concerns for any changes that add traffic to our street. If the property allows for access on Laura Avenue, it could be significant traffic added. We do have people in the neighborhood who walk their dogs every morning. We have two homes that seem to be running a home business, which generates traffic in the morning, parked in the roads. Our main concern is we have cut through traffic. We built a large number of houses out Oak Summit. If you're approaching, if you're going out of the city, going north, there's two lights, the one at Target, the next at Oak Summit. I've done it myself, if you're sitting at the target light and you're going east, are you gonna wait for a light for the traffic to clear, or are you gonna make two rights? And so we do see a lot of cut through traffic in that direction, so that's our concern. Several of the neighbors, even though they didn't show up at meetings, have expressed interest in speed bumps in the area, so that would be something we'd like to consider. So if you do allow access on Laura Avenue, we would hope that the city in the future would look at traffic control or traffic mitigation. My last comment is probably better directed at the city council, but I wanted to suggest that in the future that the city, when they do their resident survey, that they actually break down the results based on different wards, because I think different wards have different needs in our city, especially when we talk about things like homeless mitigation, trash mowing appearance, code enforcement, stormwater services, leaf and brush services. And I think that businesses when they joined or businesses in general in our city need to be required to clean their parking lots, to provide adequate lighting, to trim their vegetation and refresh their outward appearance. So I thank you for your time and your consideration.

Thank you. Any questions? Any questions for Ms. Griffin? Thank you. No one signed up to speak in opposition to this item. Is anyone here opposed to this recommendation? Seeing no one, we'll declare the public hearing closed. What's the pleasure of the board?

I've got one question, Frank, if I may. And it's simply because I did not get out there to look myself. So I will ask, is the sidewalk being required one that will connect to other sidewalks?

So Mr. Steelman, there's not a site specific plan or development for this case. This is a limited use case. So once a actual site plan is submitted for construction permits, that'll be evaluated at that time.

No, I thought it was recommended in the staff report.

Well, it's recommended, but again, we'll evaluate that for construction once we get to the final site plan. And again, that's when we'll also evaluate whether the site will have its access point from Laura Avenue or University Parkway. Thank you.

Any further discussion?

I move that the planning board find that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Second.

Motion by Mr. Farabee, second by Mr. Patino. Any discussion? All in favor, sign of aye.

Aye. Any opposed? I further move that the planning board recommend approval of W3694. Second.

Motion by Mr. Farabee, second by Mr. Patino. Any discussion? All in favor, sign of aye. Aye. Any opposed?

All right, thank you. The next item on our agenda is B6. It's UDOCC 36 and Veronica Romero from our Comprehensive Planning and Community Character Team will be giving the presentation on this item.

Good evening, Chair and Planning Board members. So I'm gonna walk you through this text amendment, UDO CC36. It is a text amendment that's being requested by the Erosion Control and Stormwater staff. The request is to modify Chapter H of the UDO by updating the effective date of the flood insurance rate map panels and adding a provision to allow the UDO to acknowledge future map changes without additional amendments. A little bit of background here. Last month, June 2026, stormwater staff received instruction from the North Carolina Department of Public Safety to update the effective date of the firm panels in the UDO to June 10th, 2026. That updated effective date of the firm panels is due to two flood studies that happened in Guilford and Stokes County. However, the nine firm panels that were updated, they share boundaries with Forsyth County. Acknowledging that updated effective date on the firm panels is necessary to maintain compliance with the federal flood regulations, which give Forsyth County residents access to federal flood insurance policies. This is a map of the firm panels for Forsyth County. It's a busy map. I just want you to focus on the firm panels that are circled in red. That's in the northwest portion of the county. Those are the two that interact with, or sorry, that we share the boundary with Stokes. And I think there's seven on the Guilford-Forsyth County line there. So erosion control and stormwater staff consulted with city and county attorneys. They reviewed the UDO and determined that section 811E1 would need to be amended again by updating that effective date to, well, sorry, I just clicked the button there. Updating the effective date from January 2nd, 2009 to June 10th, 2026 and adding that provision to acknowledge future map changes to those firm panels. As I mentioned, this is necessary to comply with current federal regulations for flood insurance program. And so we recommend approval. And I'm happy to answer questions that I know the answers to.

Could you give a synopsis or description of what exactly a firm panel is?

Yeah, so these are basically, as you saw, I'll go back to the map, because I think it's helpful in kind of describing them. So the federal government has sectioned our geography into these square, basically geodata panels. And what they're looking at that is for each geodata panel, what is the current flood elevation for a particular site? how they use this is basically to understand how much they should charge you for the flood insurance if you need it anyway, right? So how that works here is once they update a flood study within that square, they have to update that effective date. And that effective date helps them to understand is the county's flood damage protection ordinance up to date essentially.

And Mr. Fagerby, just to further expound on that, the real benefit of updated firm panels, we went through a countywide process in 2009 to update the firms. These panels basically show the current water course boundaries. So any creek, stream, other body of water in the county, it's gonna show that topography and it's gonna show where the floodway is and where the floodway fringe is. So it helps us make sure that when we're evaluating development requests, that we're basically evaluating property under our ordinances correctly based on the limitations of fill and other things of that nature.

I'm assuming the green lines are ridge lines, is that right?

Those are basin boundaries.

Why were these selected out of all the other ones?

Oh, that's a FEMA question. I'm not sure. And they didn't do the study on our side of the county. So I suppose they interacted with the Guilford and Stokes County folks.

What triggers an update? Is it just the county deciding to update it or is our search and events triggering that we have to go from 2009?

So in legislative terms, because any of these panels, and again, we're talking about nine panels out of however many dozen panels in the county, because those panels are being updated from a federal regulatory standpoint, we have to have the most recent date in the UDO, even though the majority of our panels are still from 2009. So again, in terms of the question of what causes them to be updated, my understanding is that there's kind of a rotating system of counties. They periodically kind of get around to different parts of the state and make sure those are updated, but there's not the resources to do all 100 counties of the state at the same time. And again, my understanding is that Stokes and Guilford were part of larger update projects. And it's just that these particular panels overlap with our jurisdiction.

Any other questions or discussion? There's no one here signed up to speak in opposition to this item. Is anyone here opposed to this recommendation? I sure hope not, given the makeup of who's out there. Seeing no one, I'll declare the public hearing closed. Is there a motion?

I move that the planning board find that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Second.

Motion by Mr. Farabee, second by Mr. Patino. Any discussion? All in favor signify.

Aye.

Any opposed?

I move that the planning board recommend approval of UDO CC36. Second.

Motion by Mr. Farabee, second by Mr. Patino. Any discussion? All in favor, signify. Aye. Any opposed? All right.

Thanks for being here tonight. We appreciate it.

All right. Hang tight, Brian. The next item on our agenda is actually it's July again, so we have to do an election of officers. Mr. Grubbs, if you recuse yourself.

I will turn the gavel over to you and let you preside.

All right, I appreciate it. So I'm going to open the floor for nominations for planning board chair for the next year. I nominate Jason Grubbs.

Second.

Do we have any other nominations before we vote? All right, seeing none, we'll go ahead and have a vote. We've got a nomination and a second. All in favor of Jason remaining Planning Board Chair for the coming year? All right, motion is unanimous, and I turn the meeting back to you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much. With that, and thank you for your support and confidence in me. Hear, hear, hear, hear. With that, we'll open the floor for nominations for vice chair.

Do I have to recuse myself? Yes. Should have noted that, sorry.

I'd like to nominate Sal Patino as vice chair. All right.

So motion by Ms. Schwab, second by Mr. Fairby. Any further nominations? Is there a motion that we close the nominations? Second. Second by Mr. Steelman. All in favor of Mr. Patino's nomination as vice chair, signify?

Aye. Any opposed?

That's unanimous. Thank you.

All right, well, it looks like Mr. Murphy may not be able to make it to the meeting. The last thing I've got is just two items for staff report. We do have a work session in July. You all, for the slog of a meeting in June, got to take the June month work session off. We've got two items at this point scheduled for the July work session. Matthew Burchick is going to be doing a briefing on the Northeast Suburban Area Plan update. I know some of you all attended those meetings in the spring and look forward to bringing that to you and having a public hearing on that item in August. And then we've got a UDO text amendment, UDO CC 37 that will make changes to the PRD ordinance to eliminate buffer yards. We can talk more about this at the work session, but again, the PRD ordinance currently requires 20 foot buffers from single family to existing single family, where the lot sizes and the PRD are smaller than the underlying lot sizes. Given the housing supply and affordability constraints, city council actually recommended that we take a look at this. I know Trebek is also a supporter of this text amendment. So Daniel Rankin will present that to you in July, and we've got a public hearing on that in August as well. That provides a good segue. I'm going to transition to Brian Wilson. He's going to give us the planning board update for the August public hearing.

Well, we're back in action for a busy month in August. We got 17 total items. You can see we're kind of running the gamut on several different types of cases. So look forward to trying to bring those before you on the 13th.

I'm assuming that's Parkland disposition, not Parkland.

That is correct.

We're not getting her into Parkland High School. Mustangs are here to stay, Mr. Chair. Just making sure.

I was a little worried there. All right, well, that's all I had for staff report. All right, well, thank you, Mr. Erickson, for standing in for Mr. Murphy, who had told me he felt certain he would be here. So, unfortunately, I think county commissioners may have had a lot of questions for him today. So, anything else for the good of the order?

We'll have our motion to adjourn.

All right. All right, thank you.

Very good, very good. I'm Sam.

Hey, thank you guys for observing. Thank you for appreciating. So basically, what I think you're drawing is...