Hearing of the city of Cape Canaveral. My name is Rick Geller. I'm special magistrate appointed by the city council to hear code enforcement cases pursuant to chapter 162 of the Florida statutes in article six of the Cape Canaveral City Code. This will be a quasi judicial
evidentiary proceeding. The burden of proof shall be on the city to show by a prepoundonderance of the evidence that a code violation exists. In other words, I will determine based on the evidence presented to me this evening whether it is more likely than not that a violation
has occurred or continues to occur. I have looked at the materials in the agenda packet and uh I will survise from them that a the affirmative defense of equitable estoppel will be asserted. I will say that the case law on that is
such that the burden of proof shifts to the person asserting an estoppel. Uh that that that the uh in this case the um enforcement of a of a code provision should be stopped.
In any event, the alleged violator will have an opportunity to to submit any rebuttal or exculpatory evidence, including testimony. At my discretion, I may allow a member of the public with relevant personal knowledge to testify, even if not called by the city or by the
responding party. Uh, anyone uh who would like to testify, we do have a sign-in sheet um at the front of the of the um chambers here would would ask um anyone from the public to sign that if
you're not if you're not um either the city or the responding party and to indicate um uh who for whom you would like to give testimony. Upon request, um, I will allow any alleged violator to ask relevant and
material questions of any city witness and then vice versa. The city may ask relevant material questions of any witnesses for the responding party. Again, upon request, um, any other requests, um, I'm happy to, uh, to oblige. For example, any kind
of of closing argument, opening statement, and the like. Uh I may exclude evidence that I deem irrelevant, immaterial or u repetitious. I don't believe that we have uh any proceeding
to issue fines this evening which is known as a massie hearing. But um uh if there has to be a subsequent proceeding where where a fine is is considered um it's my obligation under the law to consider the gravity of the violation,
any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation and as well as any previous violations um in in in in uh the history of of this particular responding party or any responding party uh under the city code and the Florida
statutes. I may assess an order payment of a fine of up to $250 per day uh for a first violation uh or in the case of repeat violations if that is demonstrated up to $500 per day. Uh as well as uh $5,000 uh for violations that
are deemed that I would deem irreparable or irreversible. I would tell you that is extremely rare. I'm also able to assess cost of any repairs uh that the city uh may make in these in these cases. At the conclusion of the hearing,
I I do endeavor to to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the evidence of record um and and I will u render an order uh typically here on the bench and in writing. uh in some
circumstances if if a case is complicated, I may I may need to take the matter under advisement. So, I'm just letting everyone know um upfront. Uh if a order is issued imposing a fine, uh the city can record that in the
public records of Bvard County and that would then become a lean against the property where the violation occurs as well as any other personal or real property owned by someone who is deemed to to be a a violator of the code. Any
order that I um issue may be appealed by any agrieved party either either responding party or the city to the circuit court for Bvard County within 30 days. It is the responsibility of the party appealing uh the order to obtain a
record of these proceedings. Uh appeals are limited to the record that is presented to me and um the city's agenda packet uh will be administratively accepted into evidence as city's exhibit one the
PowerPoint slides uh as exhibit two. The next hearing just for some administrative matters will be on January 27, 2026. So, I won't be seeing um anyone for a few months, it seems
like. Uh I did approve of the minutes for the hearing that I last held on July 22nd, 25 and I gave the signed minutes to the recording secretary, Miss Roth. And at this point, um I would like to
ask anyone who will be offering uh sworn testimony to please um rise and raise your right hand to be sworn in. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony uh you will give this evening shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth shall help you God?
>> I do. >> Thank you very much. First item on the agenda is case number 25-173. uh alleges a violation of section 94-1, the sign code of the city of Cape Canaveral, as well as uh section 94-31
uh which uh in which permits are required and I'll let you proceed, Officer Coats, if you're ready. >> Yes, sir. Mr. Geller, before we get started, I'd like to point out that I've got senior planner Connor Ford here and as well as the city attorneys. I'm
sorry. I missed the the name there. >> Conor Ford. >> Connor Ford. >> Yes, you got it. >> Okay. >> Case number 25-173, McKibben Home Group, Cape Canaveral,
Garden in Limited Partnership, a foreign limited partnership. Presented by code enforcement manager Gerald Coats. Address is 150 Imperial Boulevard. The legal and parcel is written. Zone NE is Z2 C2 Commercial Manufacturing
District. Owner is Kib Hospitality Group, Cape Canaveral, GIP PA4 Limited Partnership. The business is Hilton Garden in Hotel. Summary of code violations. There are two code violations for the same wall sign installed on southern oriented
building building elevation. Violation number one, wall sign installed without a permit section 94-31- sign permits required. Violation number two, the wall sign exceeds maximum allowable size of 160
square ft. Section 94-96-1. The table district restrictions for C2 zoning. Notice of violation was sent September 12th, 2025. Sent
certified mail. Received receipt on September 16th, 2025. Notice of hearing was sent September 30th, 2025. Certified mail. This is the
original October 28, 2025 hearing date. On October 2nd, 2025, a signed return receipt by USPS tracking. On October 23rd, 2025, a notice of cancellation as requested by respondents
attorney Jim Coyle. On October 24th, 2025, a notice of hearing was reissued for November 5th, 2025 hearing date, which is today. On October 24th, 2025, an email from a
respondent's attorney acknowledging the November 5th hearing. This is a view of the property as listed u for today. Relevant timeline of events. This is
December 16th, 2024. A signed permit application filed by respondents contractor Dynamic Aspects Incorporated requesting approval of multiple signs. Permit 24-1733
for a 127.8 square foot wall sign on the western elevation. Permit number 24-1737 for a 250.5 foot wall sign for southern elevation. Permit 24-1739
for a ground sign. And >> if I can interrupt you here, it's the red permit that we're concerned about this evening. >> Yes, sir. >> The other two permits are irrelevant. Correct. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Thank you. >> They're just what was filed on the 1216, 2024 date, right?
>> Okay. 12 uh December 19th through the 20th, 2024. Text messages exchanged between Brian Morgan, vice president of construction, and Craig Green, the city deputy building official, referencing a permit application was filed. On
December 20th, 2024, the deputy building official issues permit decisions. Permit 24-1733 for a 127.8 8 ft wallside for western elevation approved. Permit 24-1737
for a 250.5 ft wall sign for southern elevation denied. That's the signing question right now. Uh, permit 24-1739, ground sign approved. On December 20th, 2024 at 3:03
p.m., the deputy building officials notice of permit denial. Permit 24-1737 issued by city's electronic permit system to sign contractor at kellygd
dynamicpects.net. February 20th of 2025. Permit 24-1737. Sign application reassigned to Connor Ford, city planner. February through April. Communications between Connor Ford and signed
contractor dynamic aspects for wall sign for southern elevation exceeds the maximum size allowed by city code. A variance approval will be required to obtain sign permit. On April 22nd, 2025,
Connor Ford emails variance application to kelly g at dynamicaspects.com and timfisky at1stratus.com. On May 27th, 2025, variance application filed by attorney Jim Coyle. Just if I can interrupt you, who do we know who um
who is one stratus? What what was Tim Fensky? >> Yeah, that's the signage. >> I I'll let you. Um I I appreciate you offering the information, but if but >> again, Connor Ford, senior planner, from what I understand, they're the ones that
designed the plans. Is that accurate or? >> Yeah, they're the sign manufacturer. >> Okay. Yeah, they're the the sign manufacturer. One Stratus. It's a company. >> Okay. One Stratus is the sign manufacturer. Thank you. On May 27th, 2025, variance application
filed by attorney Jim Coyle on behalf of McKibbing Hospitality Group, Cape Canaveral GIP Hilton Garden in seeking variance to permit a 250.5 square ft wall sign on southern elevation,
160 square ft maximum wall sign allowed by code. On May 27th, 2025, variance application discussed between Brian Morgan, vice president of construction, and Nicholas Posey, associate project director, and
Connor Ford. MSG advised signed drawings must be submitted for variance application on June 30th, 2025. grants application amended and supplemented with additional information and signed drawings prepared
by stratus onestratus.com. On July 17th, 2025, board of adjustments considers and approves 2:1 variance application. City staff report recommended denial of
variance based on non-compliance with variance criteria. On July 25th, 2025, MHG provided two letters from city staff. Board of adjustments decision letter and notice of appeal of a board of
adjustment decision to city council filed by city community development director. On August 19th, 2025, city council considers appeal, reverses the board of adjustment decision, and denies the
variance application. MHG representatives present at the city council meeting. On August 21st, 2025, a variance denial letter sent to MHG. MHG does not appeal the council's
decision. On August 26, 2025, city planning conducts final site inspection for hotels subject to conditions. Ensure all applicable permits and inspections will be secured in regard to
signage. August 26, 2025, the building official conducts final building inspection and is issues certificate of occupancy for hotel building. September 7th, 2025, Connor Ford
observes wall sign installed on upper level south vacade of the building oriented perpendicular to Imperial Boulevard. Same sign, previously denied sign permit 24-1737
and variance September 11th, 2025 and notice of violation sent to the property owners. Can you just back up? I'm I'm getting some of these dates. So So the the um certificate of completion, certificate of occupancy that was issued the same day as the final site inspection on
82625. Do I have that correct? >> 826 2025. Yes, sir. That's the Okay. >> The notice of violation was sent to the property owners on September 11th, 2025. September 16th, 2025. Notice of violation received by the property
owners on September 19th, 2025. A letter received from attorney Coyle admitting sign installed in violation of code. We understand that the sign as installed is in violation of the ordinance. Paragraph one, page one's paragraph second
paragraph. On October 24th, 2025, a revised notice of hearing issued. Here's what the uh dimensions are for the sign. It's a larger It's a large area. Here's a smaller area. Uh
dimensions are 250 square foot. Here's a picture of what the sign looks like. This is a better view. A longer from far away. This is another view. You're facing the front of the building from Imperial Boulevard.
Another view, property representative. All right. So, just before you you sit down, so and and the the the day that we observe that the city when I say we, the city
observed the installation that was on September 7. >> Yes, sir. >> 2025. Okay, I got it. Okay. >> All right. Representative for uh for the developer. >> Can I move that? >> Yep.
>> Sorry. Move this out of your way. Thank you. >> Feel free to take your time. Get yourself set up. We're in no hurry. No rush. So I am Jim Coyle, the in-house general counsel for McKibben Hotel Group and its affiliates, one of which is MHG Cape
Canaveral GI LP, the property owner. I have with me Brian Morgan, who's been referenced several times. uh vice president of construction for another related entity of of the property owner and that's McKibben Places. Brian was involved in the
dayto-day um construction of this project >> and I'm sorry and the title again was u about construction Mr. >> Vice President of construction is that correct Brian >> for McKibben Places. >> Okay. And and and and Mr. Cole, you're
you're the you're the general counsel. >> In-house general counsel. >> And and you spell your last name. C O Y L E. >> C O Y L E. Got it. Yes. >> Okay. >> Um so this is my first time before a special magistrate in Cape Canaveral on
a on a sign variance uh non-compliance issue. So if I'm off with my procedure or my formality, I hope you'll bear with me and and correct me and allow me some grace to keep going. >> Well, we we offer a lot of grace here. the um the the um formal rules of
evidence do not apply in these these proceedings. >> And um I'll I'm going to give both sides as as much grace as as as both would like to give me the information that they believe I I need to have to make a decision. >> Thank you. Um
I I have two points that I want to talk about about the um one is about the process and one is about the current status of of the wall sign and the and the violation. Um and and I don't I don't have a PowerPoint or anything of
that nature. I have some documents most of which I think all of which you you already have but if you if you need them I have copies of them. >> Okay. So these are doc your friended documents that are in the agenda packet. >> Mhm. Okay. Some >> some may not and I'll I'll I'll offer those up and you may say yes or you may
say I don't >> I I'll accept any any documents that that that you uh would like me to review. >> Sure. Um some of them really just validate what I'm saying and that that may not be um for example, you know, we signed a contract with Stat with
Stratus. You may not need that. >> I I won't need that. I I will I will assume that you've entered into a contractual relationship. >> Knowing what we were doing, I wanted to make sure. Um >> although although al although you may want me to have that if that shows the uh the date of the contract that shows
when consideration was paid. >> Sure. >> But I'll I'll leave that to you. >> Sure. >> Um so my my first point I want to make is about the uh I I think we had an invalid appeal of the um board of adjustments decision. Uh pursuant to
Cape Canaveral code of ordinances 110-33A1. It states in pertinent part, any party agrieved by any final decision of the board of adjustment shall have the right to appeal that final decision to the city council. Mr. Coats went through the
timeline and so you'll remember that on July 17th, the board of adjustments met and for our variance application and voted to approve that. They voted 2 to1 to approve that and they confirmed that in a letter to us on on July 25th. That
same day, um, Tamson, and I I think I'm pronouncing the name correct, Tamson Bell, uh, director of the community and economic development department, filed the appeal. Again, Mr. Coats pointed that out of the variance decision and
per the notice of appeal specifically, the appeal was actually filed by quote, city staff as representatives of the community and economic development department. I I have copies of that. If anyone needs that, I think it's in the packet, but if you need that, I can provide that to you.
>> So, city staff as representatives of the community and economic development. >> Yes, sir. >> Department or Okay. >> As Yes. I'll let me just give that. >> Okay. >> And and I if if I had the notice of appeal already in in the agenda packet, I can pull that up.
>> I I can't remember. That was a >> Just bear with me a moment. I'll I'll I'll confirm that I I think I do recall seeing a notice of appeal. All right. Okay. So, I have the notice of appeal and that's going to be respondence
exhibit one. Yes. Thank you. So again, that appeal was actually filed by quote city staff as representatives of the community and economic development department, which is a another government government department here in the city of Cape Canaveral. Um, in
reviewing the agenda packet for tonight, um, that that Miss Roth sent out, there were four pages entitled Board of Adjustment BOA July 17th, 2025 regular meeting item four. And again, I have
that here. It's it's definitely in the agenda, but it's I have it here. Let me just I'm going to I don't know if this short circuits the the argument or not, but my my jurisdiction is is to determine whether there is or or or is or was or
was not a violation of the city code. the if there was a procedural infirmity with the uh appeal then I would have expected uh that to have been raised before the city council and then you
would have had appellet rights from that decision I would I would assume to the circuit court of Bvard County I haven't looked at what the procedure is exactly um you know do I have jurisdiction to
render some kind of decision regarding an alleged procedural infirmity as to an appeal. That's never was before me. It's it's understood and you may or may not. What I'd like to do is is get get this argument on record in case we do file an
appeal to this to the circuit court. >> Okay. I'll let you proceed. Put get your whole record on uh get your whole argument on the record. >> Right. Um, and so again, um, in the agenda packet for tonight, we have this, uh, board of adjustment BOA
July 17, 2025 regular meeting item number four. I'm going to call that the memo. This memo lists the six criteria that the board of adjustment must consider in order to approve a variance application and more importantly has an
opinion by the staff of the community and economic development department on each of those six criteria and whether or not in their opinion the variance applicant has has satisfied those criteria. and all that's fine because that that too is set out in the code
that you have staff review that as a part of the process and provide their recommendations to uh the board of adjustments and again Mr. Coats pointed that out uh that ultimately the community and economic development staff
recommended that they deny they being the department of the board of adjustments deny the variance request. Um and this this recommendation to deny was approved and signed by Tamson Bell again the very person who authored and
filed the notice of appeal that I you have there. >> Okay. Okay. So, it seems it seems um unlawful to me uh that one government department can provide analysis and recommendations
to another government department on on a variance application, but they can also be an agrieved party because remember the Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances states any party agrieved by any final decision shall have the
right to appeal. So I'm not so sure how they can also be an agrieved party when simply the board of adjustments made a decision contrary to their recommendation. Have they suffered any financial harm? They being the the community and
economic development department in this instance. Uh has there been a violation of of their rights in this instance? Does the community and economic development department even have legal standing? Um, agrieved parties have all of those
things. They have financial laws or or potential for financial laws. They have potential violation of rights. They have legal standing. So, I think the answer to my questions in this case as it relates to the community and economic development
department is is no. They're not an agreved party. >> Well, I I'm I'm going to push back on that. >> Okay. >> Uh to you. I think staff uh is is representative of the city. The city is the agrieved party and they are city
staff is entitled to make a recommendation to the trioract. >> Um whether it be the board of zoning adjustment or to the city commission on an appeal on a dayo uh appeal doovo review of of what the board of adjustment did. um the city
itself would be the agreved party if there is a non-conforming sign uh that uh exceeds the square footage of what is allowed in the city code. So I think there there would be there would be
standing to bring the appeal and um that's just how how it would be done. Any any grief party can can appeal decision. And if I were to rule in your favor tonight, the city could appeal my my decision to the Bvard County Circuit
Court and which traditional >> both sides could do that. So I I'm not I'm not seeing that. So, my um again, I I I I'm I'm I'm doubtful that I really even have the jurisdiction to render uh
a decision on a any a collateral attack on a procedural alleged procedural infirmity uh as to a a a zoning adjustment matter when I'm, you know, I'm I got to stay in my lane and my lane
is is there is there was there a violation of the code? and feel and feel free to respond to that. >> Push back very quickly on your statement that the that the city staff is represents the city. I would also think the board of adjustments represents the
city. They're an appointed board >> charged with hearing variance applications and deciding on those with recommendations from city staff. And I'm sure there have been many instances where they have gone with the recommendations and there have been many
instances where they've gone against the recommendations. And so it seems in in opposition to what you said about this hearing where you clearly have the property owner and the city at odds over
a wall sign. >> Mhm. >> In that situation, you had one city department and another city department. arguably working together. But when the outcome is different from what one from
what the one who provides information and analysis to they all of a sudden become an agrieved party city's decision >> and I don't mean to split hairs too much but but you have two different entities. You you have the city staff representing
the the community and economic development department >> right? that's in and of itself. And then the board of zoning adjustment um that is an official board of the city that that makes decisions pursuant to the
city code. And so I they really are two different peas in the pod so to speak. They are all under the opaces of the city. I would I would grant you that. But but I I I I would I would conclude that city staff did have the authority to bring an appeal. um even assuming I
had jurisdiction to consider the issue. So, anything else you want to add on that? >> Again, that's that's part of again we think the appeal process was invalid because they're not an agrieved party. >> Okay. >> Um >> what's what's the second um you had >> the second the second um
>> point I want to make is the current status of of the non-compliance. And I'm going to go quickly back through some of this timeline, not in the detail that Mr. coach did. But the the purpose of the timeline that I want to pres present is that it's important to show
uh how we made our decisions in reliance on communications from um the city of Cape Canaveral. Now, this is not a >> okay >> equitable estopple um defense. I'm I'm I'm not going there.
What I'm wanting to get to again is the current status of the non-compliant sign. >> So, so, so, so, so you're not alleging equitable stopple tonight. >> No. >> Okay. All right. >> Um Um, on this started for us, well, way back
when, but the sign part started for us on uh August 30th, 2024 when we signed our contract with Stat with Stratus, the name we've heard before, for the design, fabrication, and installation of of the wall sign. And I'm sorry. Uh the the
date of that again >> uh 8:30 24 August 30th 24 >> contract copy of the contract if you'd like it. >> Again it it wouldn't hurt for you to put it in evidence. So
>> if you want to we can we'll accept the uh the contract as exhibit two. Yes. And and do you have copy of this for the city attorney? >> I do. Okay. I've provided. >> Very good. And also he had give him a copy of of exhibit one or he has it. >> He does. >> Okay.
>> Provided in one. >> Thank you very much. And so once we um executed that contract, Stratus got to work and and we got to work. Stratus and in designing the the wall sign and
uh Brian and his team in um working with the city and doing all the things to keep moving forward uh with the sign. Um
on um December 20th as as uh as Mr. Coats described um there there was text messages exchanged between Mr. Morgan and Craig Green. Craig Green is who we worked most
closely with on this and he was at that time the deputy building official. Um, and and again, I know that those text messages are in the agenda tonight, but but I think it's important to to read it
very quickly, and it's not more than three messages. And this all occurred on on December 19th. Uh, Mr. Morgan initiated the text messaging with, "Hey, Craig, here are the signed permit numbers for HGI.
Included is the sign in question." Greg Green responds, "Yes, got them all." Mr. Morgan responds, "Okay, great. Thanks for confirming. Will you be able to approve them today?" Craig says, "Maybe."
If not, Monday. Okay. Thank you. So again, the purpose of this timeline for us is to show why we made the decisions we did and why we got to this point. Well, at this point and and I I recall the the uh the text exchange or
email exchange, whatever it was from the agenda packet, >> those directly if you need them and I I think they're already in in the agenda packet and I >> but and and and Mr. Mr. Green is not here, but I did not see anything written to or from Mr. green that
advised that the the sign that is um asked to be permitted um exceeded the size that's allowed under the city code. >> So was there are we aware of of do we have any evidence that Mr. Green was made aware that there was a
nonconformity there? >> I'm aware of no written evidence to that effect. >> Okay. Okay. So, having built hotels uh in in lots of places, this being our first time in Cape Canaveral, but based
on our experience, we took that text message exchange, rightly or wrongly, we took that text message exchange and we authorized Stratus to begin the pre-wiring of the building. Um, that was done the week of January
13, 2025. They pre-wired the building. >> What was that again? January what? >> January 13th, 2025. >> Okay. And and when we're saying pre-wiring, we're we're talking they're they're doing the wiring inside the
walls, I assume, from the interior uh of of that roof area. >> I may have on that if I may. >> You may. >> Yeah. So, basically, >> I tell you what, Miss Morgan, if you would just come over to the microphone and introduce yourself so that your name
gets on the record. >> All right. Yes. I'm Brian Morgan, uh, vice president of construction for McKibben Hospitality. Um, so basically the the way it the the pre-wire each each letter of the sign has a wire going to it. Um, and so those
wires >> get put through the wall basically and on bolsters and we waterproof around the wires and then put the skin or the facade over that. Um, so that you're not basically penetrating the waterproofing
>> with the wire or drilling holes through the waterproofing after the, you know, after the facade and everything's been put on the building. So, that's kind of the pre-wire. >> Okay, if that makes sense. >> And obviously the design of the sign uh
dictates the design of the pre-wiring. Right now, usually when when there's a a signed contractor, they're going to look at the code. I would expect them to look at the code anyway to make sure that what they're designing is in conformity. Were there any discussions with uh with
Stratus? >> Well, that comes up later. >> Okay, >> I'm I'm getting to that. So, >> okay. >> Um, time and a half goes by. We are told that the uh uh permit for this particular sign was not approved and that a variance is
needed. And so in late May and throughout June, again, as Mr. coach showed earlier. Uh we began working on our variance application and we meet with Brian and others meet with various city people to understand the process
and make sure the application is clear and we're answering the questions and providing all the backup data >> and we get that submitted. Uh and then again here we are back to the variance hearing with the board of adjusters which we were approved at that meeting
by a vote of 2 to1. That was on 7:17. Uh on 7:18, we reach back out to Stratus, our sign contractor, and tell them to begin fabrication. At this point, we're six, seven weeks out from the opening of the hotel. We opened
the hotel on September 4th. So July 17th was the board of adjustment meeting and approval. We're six, seven weeks out from the opening of the hotel. Of course, one week later on uh July 25th,
we get the notice of appeal from city staff as representatives of the community and economic development department. City council hearings on the 19th. They uh overturn the uh variance approval. The I'm sorry, the the um city
council was was that August 19th? >> August 19th. >> Okay, that's okay. >> August 19th. So once you got the notice of appeal, did you call Stratus back and say, "Time out. We we're not done with this yet." >> We did not. We did not because at that
point uh the the opening of the hotel was already set in stone. Hilton had sent their representatives and were mobilizing other representatives to um for their final inspections and authorizations to open. We were already
getting guest reservations at that point. it was too late to switch and change and attempt to change to get the sign because we would have never made the hotel opening.
Um, so again, understanding that you all might agree, but based on our experience, we felt it was reasonable to one after the tax exchange with Mr. green on on December
19th and 20th to authorize Stratus to do to begin calendaring the pre-wiring which occurred the week of January 13th. And then after the board of authorization where we got the approval to go ahead and begin the fabrication.
Um like I said, we were six, seven weeks out from opening the hotel. uh there was not a viable alternative to opening to altering the sign and making the opening. Hilton would not have allowed us to open the hotel without a sign. Um
so which brings me to my point that uh it's my opinion I know you let off with uh that it's rare that things are that that violations are irreversible in nature. Um we disagree in this instance. Um you
know the doctrine of economic waste by not just us but by by a lot of parties comes into play here. City of Cape Canaveral being one of them. They'll have to spend time with permitting and inspections. We'll have to spend time and money with permitting and inspections and reconstruction and
deconstruction and more construction. Stratus will have to do the same. So it's our opinion that this is uh irreversible in nature and um we understand that there there are fines
associated with that. Um and we think that you should find it to be irreversible in nature. >> You're asking me to I'm I'm a little confused here. Are you asking me to issue a fine of $5,000? I'm asking you to find that the
non-compliance is irreversible in nature. And what that means >> according to your code, you tell me. you let off with. could be fines of >> um >> well well typically an irreversible and irreparable harm would be
property owner destroys a 250y old live oak that is providing this magnificent amount of shade and beauty and natural beauty and it's and they just rip it down and this this really you know happens from time to time and in in in
other cities if not And in those circumstances, I've have um represented cities where the argument was made that's that's irreversible. That's you're not going to get that kind of of um magnificent
um tree again in in in our lifetime. So that that would be deemed irreversible and irreparable. But to say that that that your company could not hire uh who whoever if a Stratus or whoever does the
actual installations to to redesign the sign, make it smaller and take out what was there and then put back the sign at a smaller scale. I don't think that's irreparable or irreversible. It's it's
additional expense. uh it is but I I don't I don't I'm not seeing that as irreparable reversible. >> My my point is based on the totality of the circumstances and what we've described it would seem to to fall squarely in the in the economic waste for not just
McKibben but for other parties to um deconstruct and reconstruct that sign um at this juncture. So it it just seems to me that Stratus should have known what the code was.
They should have designed the sign according to the code. Um >> and with all due respect, that's an issue that we'll be discussing. >> I mean, I mean, you'll need I think I I think your beef is with Stratus here. um
uh to to a great extent because you you you would I would think that you would be relying on them to to get it right um to make the city happy, to make Hilton happy. And I I do I I don't when I drive down here every month, I don't close my
eyes. So I I do know there's a there a couple Marriott properties across the street. There's the the the there's like a town place. Forgot what they're called. The Spring Hill Suites, whatever they're called, you know, and and so I I just don't and I did notice your sign this evening when I'm coming down. I
look I basically looked over my shoulder when I'm heading when I'm heading south and and and I and I saw it. I I I don't know that that the the signs across the street are of the same scale. I mean, if if if this was if if it was me writing the code, I would say, "Yeah, have at
it." I think it's a it's it's um to to your and and the city's to everyone's economic benefit to have a a um a a um hotel that's easy to find and and the signage helps. Um, but but I'm I'm I'm
stuck with what what the code is here. And I'm not and there there there's an admitted violation from what the what was presented by the city, >> right? We can't say it's in compliance.
I mean, that's that's perjury. Not going to say that. Brian has >> Sure. come on up and and and please >> I I just wanted to say that uh Craig Green was aware that the sign was oversized. Um but he told me that he
would approve it um without going he didn't tell me anything about a variance process or anything like that. He just said that he would approve it. >> Okay. >> Text me just >> I I know I don't have anything in writing but >> but that was an oral conversation he had with his indicator. >> Right. But
>> and I think he he was new with the city. He was mainly from the private sector. I think he was, you know, he probably would have fallen in love with it. Um, but he had told me that he would approve. >> Yeah. But on that and and and let me
just let's let's um in my mind I'm I'm envisioning this conversation between you and Mr. Green and he says, "Yeah, I know it's I know it's oversized, but I I really like it and I'm going to approve of it." He he didn't he didn't have the authority to do that though. And so I I
mean if this is not an estoppel case so it wouldn't be something you could reasonably rely on necessarily but but I just don't I don't think Mr. Green would have had the the authority to just run rupshot over a code that he's he's actually you know duty bound to uphold
here. Um, >> I was also told by someone at the city that I had called and um, she had told me that he did have the authority to approve the sign. >> Someone told you he had authority >> city. Yes. >> Who told you? Sorry.
>> I don't have her name honestly. I I don't know. But it was it was the >> So based on the text message really because the rest is conversation. I understand that. But, you know, he
presented in the text message he had authority. Um, we had no reason to believe they didn't have authority. >> Oh, yeah. You would. I mean, you're under constructive notice of certainly your sign company was under constructive notice of of the maximum square footage
of the sign, which was 1 160 foot. So, that's that that that's really tough from your from your standpoint. I I I feel for you guys cuz now you got to be dealing with stratus. You're going have all this expense of having to replace this with a
smaller sign. You they got to get up there. They got to make sure the waterproofing is right. >> Um the the the the wiring is probably going to have to change locations and you might need to do some repainting and and um to make sure it it looks perfect. You probably need to get Hilton out
again to look at it and give their blessing. I'm I'm imagining I mean it's a it's a it's a real >> it's four to five maybe six months of of of reconstruction on a project that both us and the city deemed complete and it's
doing great >> but but the city didn't deem it complete violation. >> Well yeah because city they they give they gave the certificate of occupancy. They're not trying to to to hamstring you economically, but but there was that caveat in there that said, "Get your
sign permits. Get that make sure everything's in comp." I can't remember the exact wording. Make sure everything's in compliance. Uh on that on that compliance uh uh the certificate. So, there was it was like right towards the bottom where it was checkmarked uh on that.
Gosh, is there anything else you want? I mean, I'm I'm I'm I'm going to rule in the in the city's favor as you're as you're probably gleaning from this, but is there anything anything else you want to want me to consider? You know, >> we we that's again, we wanted to get our arguments on the record and >> Yeah.
>> Um had a feeling that this was probably the the result. >> Yeah. I mean, so I mean, the way I'm I'm I'm I'm looking at this is is Stratus had an obligation to get it done correctly. They didn't get it done correctly. the city staff in in you know
sitting here I I believe uh based on years of experience with local governments that city staff can make whatever recommendations it wants. They can they can bring internal appeals um as they did in this case. The city commission reverse the board of
adjustment. you had that that one week between approximately seven eight days I can't remember exactly between the date of the board of adjustment and then then you get this notice of appeal the notice of appeal is also something that is in the code you have constructive notice of
if not actual notice of it um I I obviously was not there and and I always make a notice of the right to appeal I don't know if they did that during the board of adjustment uh >> I wasn't there either I wasn't there either >> so I mean the record would would would state whatever that is. I um so I'm not
I'm I I I don't I cannot say that. Um again, you're not arguing a stoppple here. If if it was an estoppel case, I I don't even think that would necessarily fly. >> I don't think that's a winning argument for us. Again, what I see the the difference is is that the city staff of
that department unequivocally has the right to recommend and and provide insight onto the variance of applications. Uh, but are they an agrieved party according to your ordinance? I don't think they are. >> I think it's a distinction without a
difference because it's one city government department saying to another city government department advised you this, but you went a different way. And I understand you're saying board >> it's a board. It's a board. It's a, you know, it's a statutoily created board
that can make certain decisions that that will allow um de deviations from the strict uh enforcement of the code uh when when all the criteria are met. And I I don't need to go through all that tonight. I don't think it's germaine. Um
okay. If there's >> with that, I'll rest if you have nothing further for me or >> No. And I I I appreciate your your cander and um I'll let the city come back. Unless Mr. Morgan, if you want to add anything before I >> Well, I was on Come on.
>> I was just curious if you all had any complaints about the sign. >> I mean, does the city had any complaints from the from the public about the sign? >> You said you didn't feel it was egregious. If if I was writing the code, I'd let I'd let you have that sign, but but I
I'm I'm not a city council member, so I I don't have the, you know, I don't have the authority to to even uh vote on something like that. Um >> Okay. >> No, I mean I mean >> I'm just curious if y'all have got any complaints about >> Well, I don't know that I mean the city if they want to volunteer an answer to
that. >> It's our understanding from hotel staff that they have not, but that could be incorrect. >> Okay. And I don't know that if there is a complaint or not whether whether it matters really. Anyway, you want to um >> I I just have just given that
presentation I have a very couple questions. >> Of course. Of course. >> I just I'm looking at the the stratus proposal. >> Did you want to just introduce yourself for the record? >> I'm sorry. Anthony Gargani, city attorney for the city of Cape. Um I'm looking at the stratus proposal. Can can
you identify where on this proposal the subject sign is is itemized? >> I'm sorry. It's so small. I'm not sure it is itemized. You you'll have to look at the contract better than I do. >> Yeah. If you if you'd come up and and and speak into the microphone so that
way uh your your answer is on the record as well, Mr. Morgan. That's the way to good. I don't think Could you speak in the microphone because otherwise it's not going to pick up on the recording? >> I mean, I'm looking at this and it's
it's in inches. It's talking about a 42 inch linear illuminated letter set logo. I think I think it was 742. >> And then I'm I'm looking at this, you know, the city's exhibit that was
submitted, the color rendering of of the sign that would >> I think yes, that was part of the variance application >> prepared by Stratus. It's this exhibit right here. >> Let me get to there.
>> Okay. And I and I just I just don't see on this exhibit. Um maybe they could point it out where there's a there's a 42 inch linear illuminated sign. Um the dimensions
seem to be much longer than that in in feet. So, I you know, I just question whether this contract was actually for the subject sign that we're dealing with tonight. Um I just wanted to point that out.
>> Yeah. So, the the um I'm looking at Let me let me show you what I'm looking at which is this page here, Mr. Gargany, where there are some dimensions. >> Do you have this? And so >> correct
>> that indicates the height of the letters appear to be 3'6 in. So that'd be 42 in. And and so the very first one would be 42 42 inch.
I believe this is referring to the very first um item on on the description. And and please correct me if you think I'm wrong on that. >> My question is whether or not this sign is on that
form. That that was just my question. >> Okay. >> I mean it it seems to line up. The numbers seem to line up um in my initial look at it. I mean that's that's responsive to my question
and the way most the way the 250 is calculated It takes the logo of the logo and it goes all the way acarate 183. If you calculate it by individual
letters, it's 140. Well, my question is whether or not it's just on this contract. You're saying that it is and it appears to be the first line item. That was that was my question. I just wanted to >> bring out on the record whether that
contract was related to this sign and you know in the and with respect to his comment regarding the square footage. If you look at that uh if you look at that diagram your honor um that you had held up right at the top it talks it actually
states the sign is 250.5 square ft which >> that's right I I saw that. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I there there there's no question in my mind the sign is is oversized and I think I think these folks have a real beef with with Stratus.
Um >> that was my only question. >> And then um would uh Mr. Officer Coats would you like to give any any other um remarks including remarks recommendations? I would city would like to uh recommend
um staff's recommendation based on the testimony and the evidence presented at this hearing. Staff respectfully request that the m special mag find the respondent in violation that's set forth in the notice of violation.
Staff further recommends >> in in vi in violation of the of the code pro provision set forth in the notice of violation. >> Okay. >> Okay. All right. Staff further recommends that the respondent be granted until November 26, 2025 to apply for and obtain the
required permit from the city of Cape Canaveral and remove the unpermitted and illegal wall sign installed on the upper level south facade of the building oriented perpendicular to Imperial Boulevard. Removal of the unpermitted and illegal
sign is required to bring the property into full compliance. If the respondent fails to obtain the permit and remove the sign by the deadline established above, staff recommends that a fine of $250 per day for each of the two violations be imposed until compliance
defined as complete removal of the unpermitted sign is verified by the code enforcement officer. Staff further requests that all costs associated with the enforcement of this violation be assessed against the respondent.
Okay, let me make sure I'm understanding the the the request um that the application for removal uh must be submitted to the city by November 26, 2025 and I don't have
it's the day before. >> Okay. Okay. So, this is this is is is November 26th. That's the Friday after Thanksgiving. This is the Wednesday. >> This is the Wednesday before. >> The Wednesday before. Okay. All right. Okay. And then So, so they get the they
they get the application in by November 26. And then do they need a separate application for the for for a new sign that that meets 160 foot? So, they need two different applications. >> All right. And then does that
application also have to be submitted on or by November 26? apply for it. Yes, sir. >> So, so we want them to apply. >> Let me let me answer the question. The whether they want to put up a sign, another sign that's compliant with the code is totally a separate separate
application. That's not that issue. What's at issue tonight is that the city is requesting that your honor um require that they not only apply for the permit to remove the non-conforming non-compliant sign, but also remove that
sign by November 26, 2025. That's what the city is requesting. Now, once they remove it, it's their their choice. if they want to put up a um a compliant sign, they already have a compliant wall sign on the western face of the
building. They certainly can. Um I think they know the process to get a compliant sign. That's a different issue. >> Okay. So, so, so the the request from the city is to put into my order that they not only apply to remove the
existing southern facade sign, but but actually remove it by that day. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Now, assuming they need to to to I'm I'm just trying to think of what's what's fair here. They they need to fabricate a new
sign that's going to be um it's going to meet the city's ordinance and I I don't know how long that takes to get the fabrication done. You know, is that is that a f and I'll I'll let
them respond to this after you. Is that an is is November 26, is that enough time realistically for them to be ready to go? Because because when they take that down, regardless of whether I say they would have to put up a new I'm I'm not going to force them to put up a new
sign, but the reality is they will because it's >> they need it economically. So, they're going to want to do it pretty pretty quickly if I at least if I were in their shoes. Is that enough time? November 26.
I'm I'm let them speak first and I'll let >> I guess that's a response for them. Um again, >> okay, >> whether they put up a the timing of putting up a compliance sign, I think is on them, not on the city. And this proceeding is about determining whether or not there is a violation of the code
and and taking a remedial have a remedial step. This is I mean this your honor this is this is a case where not only was the building permit denied for the subject sign the variance application was denied for the subject sign and it went to the city council
>> right and and it was denied by by the council what's at stake here your honor is the rule of law notwithstanding the denials >> they still went ahead and installed the sign >> right >> right they they were concerned based on
Mr. Coyle's uh letter about the opening of the hotel. Well, that was never an issue for the city. The city allowed the hotel to open. >> Once they got their CO, it wasn't long thereafter that this sign went up in
violation of the code in violation of a decision made by the city council of city of Cape Canaveral. The rule of law is at stake here from the city's perspective. Okay? So, we don't have a problem with them putting up a compliant sign.
If they can work really hard and get, you know, put in a permit with a with a removal permit, so be it. Stratusly process it on them, your honor. >> I think Stratus owes them. But any Go ahead, Mr. >> Could I make one? Of course. This sign
was on September 5th. This is a Friday. >> The fifth or the 7th? I I have think >> September September 5th. There was no sign there. September 7th, there was a sign. Okay. So, that's how quick this sign was put up. So, okay. Taking it down should be pretty quick, too, I
would. Okay. So, >> all right. I'm gonna let Mr. Morgan or Mr. Coyle um again address my question. Is November 26. Is that is that enough time to to really take care of this? >> Um the answer is no. In that we don't uh
object to showing progress towards but Hilton has Brand Sanders. Hilton will not let us operate that hotel without a sign. So, if we remove that sign and not have a sign there, we'll have to close the hotel. That seems like an egregious uh penalty for what we're discussing
here today. What will need to happen is we'll need to get the sign redesigned. Let's assume we engage Stratus again. We'll need to get the sign redesigned. We'll need to get that through Hilton's approval process. Hilton traditionally goes through a dead period over the
holidays where they don't do any of this type work. Hilton and Marriott are very hospitable and they give their employees lots of time off during this time. I don't know exactly when that falls. I wasn't expected I wasn't anticipating
speaking to that. Um, so I there there's no way that we'll be able to um take that sign down and be ready to reinstall one. Mr. Coats is correct. It doesn't Once you get everything else done, the
actual installation of the sign is a couple days at at most. But what goes into that is we have to remove the sign. We have to remove the stone veneer and the foam that's beneath it. We have to rewire. We have to waterproof. We have
to reapply stone veneer and foam. And then you install the sign. All that doesn't even start until you get a new sign designed, a new sign approved, permits for all of this. >> And so November 26th, which is 3 weeks
away, >> and we got to fabricate, which is uh excuse me, that's right. Got you got to build the thing once we get it approved. And that's 30 to 45 maybe 60 days. >> All right. >> Six weeks. >> Six weeks minimum. All right. So, you
know, 21 days is there. That's no way. >> Well, well, that's why I asked the question. Um, >> here here's what I'm going to do. Um, and I realize this is all over the holiday season. You guys are going to be under the gun to get this done. Okay?
There's just no ands ifs or buts about it. And uh you're going to need to really uh uh really ride the horse wild here um both Stratus and Hilton to get this get this done. But um this
this needs to get this needs to get taken care of. And um you Mr. Gargani raises a really good point there. there was a from from the city's standpoint, it looks it looks like defiance of both you're putting you're putting a sign up
without a permit. I mean that that in of itself is a huge red flag. There there are a lot of um individuals come before me uh with a lot less sophistication than than what you guys um have real quick. >> Yes.
>> I heard what he said. The rule of law is at stake. We we didn't come to be a part of Cape Canaveral and develop a a hotel and be a neighbor to flaunt the rule of law and be at constant odds with the city. That's okay. >> It's not what we've done for the last six decades and that's not what we want
to do here. >> I understand. >> So, >> all right. So, it's November 5th. Um I I I want I want this taken care of. Um again, I realize it's over the holidays.
This is going to be tough. Um, but you you you do, you know, looking at this calendar here, I think I think uh the the 20 26 is is just it's it's too
too aggressive for what you need to do. Uh, I'm going to I'm going to I'm going to push this to December 24, day before Christmas. Okay. And I I realize it's very aggressive
still, but this has got to get done. It it's it's just it the violation is pretty blatant when it's put up there without a permit. It's it's it's uh contrary to the wishes of the city council here. Um
so that gives you um one two three four five six seven you know seven weeks. you know, we could we could could extend it, you know, over into in, you know, beginning of the New Year's, but everything is is very
difficult to get done anyway between Christmas and New Year's. And I'm not sure that makes any difference, frankly. >> If I may. >> Yes. >> Um because a lot of this is somewhat unknown to us because we have to hire folks to do this. So, we're now depending on third parties and their
availability. What what I would like to propose is that um because I don't think we'll have the sign in a position to be taken down even by the 24th. What I would like to propose >> then fines would start acrewing
>> is um if I may is um uh we have the permitting process. We have a new sign designed. We have uh Hilton approval and we have the permitting process uh going by the December 24th with a
plan a detailed calendared plan of removal and reinstallation. Even if >> by when? >> Well, I don't know that off the top. >> Well, I'm I'm going to have to come up with a with a date here. So, I'm giving
everyone an opportunity to to uh to try to um plan something in my in my mind uh what what is reasonable, what is fair >> under all the circumstances. >> It it's hard to it's hard to I I feel confident that we can be ready that we
can have the permits processing in place by the 24th when we can have contractors out to do the deconstruction and reconstruction. I mean, Brian, can you I don't think we can speak to that because we haven't spoken to those folks. We don't know
their schedule. Um I don't know how, again, this is to the formality and the procedure here. Um um if if we could be given a week to come up with that calendar. >> No, I'm I'm I'm going to I'm going to
come up with something tonight. Um All right. that um I I want the applica I want the permit application submitted by December 3rd. That gives you a month. All right. To to get this done and you guys already have a pre-existing relationship with Stratus. In my view,
they owe you one here. Uh because I think they got you into this mess. And uh they need to make it right. And if not them, you got to jump on someone else really quickly. But you got a month to get these permit applications submitted. And then for the um installation
um I'll allow another month by January 7 to get this reinstalled. That gets you I mean technically it could get you beyond the whole Christmas New Year's season. So, if if a sign is down for for a day while letters come down and new letters
go up, uh you could you would have a little bit of leeway right after um January 1st to to do that. Hearing what Mr. Morgan just said is that it's 6 weeks to fabricate and we won't be doing that until after permits
are approved. So, if permits are approved on December 3rd or per permits are submitted on December 3rd, let's assume they're turned around and approved on December 4th, 6 weeks to have the thing ready is already middle of January. We're already
in violation through no fault of our own. Um, >> well, I think it is the fault of yours, frankly, >> in this instance, in this in this specific conversation we're having. >> Um, >> all right. I'm I'll I'll extend it to January 14 to get it. um the old sign
removed, the new one put up by January 14. Um that allows some time for fabrication and um again, you're going to have to really write her on on on the third parties who you're having to rely on here. But then in January 14, if it's
not done, then then then fines will start um at $500 a day. That's for 250 for each of the two violations, which was >> And to be clear, all all that needs to happen really at that point is to make sure that the non-compliant sign is removed.
>> Well, that's true. >> That's the violation. >> That's true. That's true. So, you could remove the sign. >> Again, it's Hilton won't allow us to operate the hotel >> for much longer without that. That's us. That's But >> January 14th is to remove the violation.
That's that's what I would I I think given the the holiday season and >> um >> again, we're not going to operate without a sign there. That's >> Yeah. So, this has given you, you know, two and a half months to to get this get this mess fixed up.
>> Mr. Garganis, you want to um add any and and feel free to disagree with what I'm coming up with here, but >> yeah, I'm just trying to sort out I think your honor said that you were going to give them until December 3rd for a permit application >> to get that right because they're going
to need to get this thing redesigned and whatever whatever drawings they need to submit with their permit application. And so there there has to be a little bit of allowance to have Stratus or whoever is going to be doing that um get those engineer drawings done. So I want
to give a little bit of of leeway for that. >> Okay. So your your honor is um I guess the installation of a new sign is part of the compliance >> to Well, no, no, no, it's not. No, no, the installation is not. the removal um
is uh but knowing the um I'm just being sensitive to the economics here of of them having no sign during during the holiday season coming up. You have a bunch of tourists here wandering around
Cape Canaveral looking for the Hilton Garden in coming, you know, driving northbound and not seeing this thing. you're you're going to have some um irritated um holiday goers uh around town. If they they can't find this this building, they're going to be driving by
it. And I'm just I'm I'm just trying to be realistic here. What what what I think is um what they're going to end up doing, they're going to want to switch these out in pretty short short order. Um what what I'm what I'm right now leaning on doing this is this it's it's really
given him you know you know two two and a half months to to get this all taken care of. You want to disagree with me or or add anything else you'd like me to consider. You have a question is the >> sure
>> person that will be processing applications. >> Just one clarifying question I have Connor Ford senior planner is a >> for that December 3rd permit submittal date. Would that just be a removal uh permit required or would they also have
to submit for what the new sign would look like on that day? Well, from what I'm hearing from Mr. Gargany, we don't care about the new sign >> or the size of it, but but I would I would I would think that they're going to want to do both simultaneously. I
would if I were in their shoes. >> Mhm. Yeah, I'm I'm fine with it either way. I just want to make sure that I have clarity on if they only submit for a removal permit if that is sufficient or if they also need to submit for what the new sign will be on that day.
Yeah, I'm I'm thinking they're they're going to end up doing it both together. I would I would suggest if your honor is going to include the new sign as part of the of the compliance order. Um, you know, we would expect that the um the
respondent would submit a complete application to remove the existing sign and a complete application for a sign, I'm presuming a wall sign that is in
compliance with the city's code, which is a maximum of 160 square feet for the wall sign. and that those permit applications be submitted by December 3rd.
>> So the city will have an opportunity to review, >> right? >> And if we issue that permit for the compliance sign, um they have enough time to get it manufactured and then getting the non-compliant sign removed and the new
the non-compliant sign removed by January uh 14th. Okay. I I I think uh you know it's it's it's not perfect, but I I think that's reasonable um given the holidays and it's it's
going to these guys are going to have a have a time dealing with Stratus and Hilton, whoever else they're dealing with. All right. Is there is there anything further that that I need to do tonight? Mr. Co, I don't think we have any anything else on the agenda this evening.
I don't think so, Mr. Geller. I think you got it pretty squared away now. >> All right. All right. Well, well, good luck to uh talk to all you um getting this all sorted out and uh I'll I'll issue a uh a written order indicating um
these deadlines and my my finding of the violation um exceeding the 160 uh square feet. the um and uh and and it will also reflect the the timeline that was presented here this evening. So >> with that,
>> one more question, Mr. This sign, this sign should be installed by the 14th. >> No, >> no, no. They have to remove it by the 14th. So So, so >> Okay. >> So my So if they need a little more time, at least they're beyond the
holiday season. We're not going to have a bunch of of lost tourists. >> Um According to Mr. Coyle, they will not remove it without having one in place. So, it'll go hand in hand. >> That's what I would expect to happen here. >> All right. >> Okay. Any Mr. Cole, do you have anything
else before we adjourn? >> Um, I'm sorry. I'm signing. >> That's fine. That's all good. >> Thank you. >> No, nothing further. All right. Just wanted to make sure that we're all on the same page as as it relates to what
January 14th means. And that means >> removal >> the signs off. >> That's right. That's right. >> Hilton and McKibben is not going to operate that hotel >> unduly more uh longer than is needed without a sign. >> That's right.
>> Um and I'm not sure Hilton will let us u operate for too long without that sign. But once that sign is removed, it's not as you don't just put a new sign up. >> I understand. >> So I understand >> it won't happen the next day. It may not happen the next week. >> It may not happen the next few weeks
because we then have to rebuild and rewire and rebuild the structure to support the new sign. So it's not a take it down, put it off in the in the matter of 3 days. >> That's right. And there will be that reiterates my understanding of what what we covered. I'm sure
>> the removal of the sign by January 14th is what the marching orders are in addition to the permitting process on the 3. >> That's right. >> Understood. >> Very good. Uh if there's nothing else, I'll go ahead and adjourn for the
evening. So, thank you all. Thank you.