Give him another minute or two. Okay, that the um so the big deal working right now will be the capital. And so what we saw
last week was just a very broad September will advocate for the budget that you guys and Alison they were dating but now they're not dating nor because Alison's
now started going out with John like just How much? 26. I keep trying to keep all the costs. You can keep that going. [Laughter] All righty. I think we are ready to
begin our deliberations for the evening. The planning commission will be in order. Um, now before we get into the meat of our meeting, I think Miss Redker would like to make a statement. Yes. Hello. Um, I just
turn Hello. Hi. Um, I just wanted to make a quick statement. I spoke at the public hearing at the BAR last Tuesday um about something having to do with
zoning adjacent to the West Haven neighborhood. And I said it was the city's fault. And I saw that come back in an article and I was like I don't hopefully no one that works at the city. I think everyone does an amazing job. It was more of the whole like the whole
umbrella of the systems and how maybe we need to protect certain corridors and places where people need to travel. So I just want to apologize. I didn't mean anyone at the city personally who were very grateful get to work there. Thank you.
Thank you for the collaboration. He's at NDS. Oh, I will I will alert him that he does not need to be at NDS. Right. The next um thing on our docket is the special exception. And it looks
like this special exception is going to be managed tonight by by Mr. Alfie. And there are three things that we are looking at. Uh one is the front set pack, the other is the screening. And then the other are the large trees that are that are um that are in question. So
Mr. Alfie, would you lead us through the uh special exception permit request? Yes. Yes. Good evening commissioners out managers. I'll be presenting the item tonight.
The project is currently on vacation. Next slide. Tonight you're being asked to review a special exception permit. Thought I could hear myself. All right. Hopefully that's better. Tonight, you're going to be asked to
review a special exception permit located at 1114 East High Street to make a recommendation to city council. The applicant, Mr. Mike Ball of Element Constructions is proposing to construct a small workshop behind the primary business structure that's on East High.
This workshop will be used for cabinet fabrication and related activities in support of the design build business. On March 11th, 2025, the planning commission reviewed the original application which requested relief from the build 2 requirements due to the
non-conforming nature of the ex existing structure that's on East High Street. At that time, the commission recommended approval and city council granted the special exception on April 7th, 2025. Next slide. During the development review process,
it was determined that the proposed location of the workshop does not comply with the transition screening requirements outlined in section 34471C of the zoning ordinance. Specifically, when a CX-5 zoning prop property abuts
an R1 zone district, a type C transition screen is required. This includes a 20 foot building setback and moderate screening. Next slide. In addition to the previously approved
relief from the build 2 requirements, the applicant is now requesting modifications to the transition screening standards. These include reducing the required building setback from 20 feet to 5 feet, decreas decreasing the screening depth from 8
feet to 5 feet, and requesting exemption from the planting requirements within that 5 ft. The applicant proposes to utilize the existing fence between the the CX-5 and the RA properties to
satisfy screening requirements. Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the conditions outlined on page 10 of the staff report. Next slide. However, staff recommends the and the applicant staff and the applicant
recommend would staff and the applicant would like commission to consider one modification to condition D which is currently stated that the workshop shall not exceed a height of 14T5 in based on refinements
to the construction drawings. We recommend this a this be amended to allow maximum height of 16 feet. Next slide. And next slide. All right. This concludes staff's presentation. I'm happy to answer any
questions you may have. Additionally, the applicant is here and can uh to answer any questions or provide a brief presentation. Would the applicant like to either you guys want to go ahead and talk to Matt first? Great. Go ahead. The 16 ft. Is that about part D there?
Uh part D. Yes. From going from 14 putting a condition from 14 and a half to 16. Okay. Any other questions for Matt? Would the applicant like do you speak? Okay.
Any questions for the applicant? Yes. Do you have any concerns with conditions recommended by the staff. I don't know. So, Carl, what do we think? Well, it's not in a in an ADC. So, no, I mean, we already looked at the front setback, so I think we can ignore that.
I mean, as far as the neighbor seems to be okay with this. So, um I mean a 16 foot wall, blank wall is kind of a lot, but it's it's not in the world. The neighbor's okay, so I'm okay. So, I mean, it seems to me there's two
things that trigger the transition requirements, right? Uh there's use and there's size. Um, seems to me that these conditions are are pretty focused on the size, which isn't really what's what's causing the actual transition
requirement to hit here, right? Um, you know, the height limitation I don't see as necessary because the height is not what is triggering the the uh transition requirement. Um, you know, that said,
uh, it I I guess you know the application sort of took a tone of it's absurd that this requirement exists and it's it's really not clear to me at all that a transition requirement to separate an industrial
use from your your low density residential use is all that ridiculous. Um that there are potentially real externalities associated with an industrial use. Um and uh you know I I think I would have questions for the applicant on what those impacts might
be. Um you know in particular for carpentry use I'd imagine there's some noise generated. Um and I wonder yeah I just feel like you know this the report here and the application were very focused on well it doesn't
make sense to have a 50 foot setback on a 50- foot lot. I totally agree with that. Um, but you know, and maybe these concerns are reduced because the current neighbor is okay with it. Um, but you know, what are the impacts from this use
here? Um, and are these conditions properly mitigating those? Would you like the applicant to answer? Uh, yeah, I would. Um, I'm not sure exactly what I said.
I read it. So, [Laughter] oh, thank you. Um, I I think the absurdity was mostly coming from zoning not knowing about this requirement and having spoken with zoning prior to
purchasing the property, purchasing the property based on zoning's feedback, talking to zoning about it, saying, "Hey, apparently there's a 20 foot setback that I didn't see. Can you clarify for me?" and they said, "No, there's no 20 foot setback here." And then we had to kind of look into it
together. It's the zoning is not written well. Um the transition type on there, it's hard to follow. It brings you to a link, it brings you to another page, brings you to a chart that if you look at it the wrong way, which is very easy to do, it tells you that there is no
setback. So, the whole thing needs to be clarified. It's very confusing. Um, you know, most properties in Charlottesville seem to be non-conforming right now. There there's just a lot of work that still needs to be done and we're in a very confusing
state of zoning. And I'm seeing it a lot in building. So, I mean, sure, most properties are non-conforming as to build two requirements. Um, but I guess that didn't really address
my question. My question is what do you feel that the external impacts of the use you're proposing here are? Uh, you know, are there is there going to be noise audible from the property line on the RA side as a result of your use? And
and if so, what hours would they be? Yes, there will be noise. That noise wouldn't be any different with the 20 foot setback versus the 5 foot setback. Um the are you looking that up?
I mean scrolling to where that is but uh it wouldn't be any different at the property line. I mean 15 ft. I mean from you know running a saw from here to right there doesn't really make a difference in decibb. Okay.
Um 5 foot off versus 20 foot off. Um the sounds the sound without a barrier. the sound's going to travel just as much in that distance. We are going to have the block wall. It's going to be well insulated. We don't have a lot of fenistration on it on purpose for this
reason. Um we have windows out the front side that um you know those are the only ones out the shop side and those are going to our parking lot. We own the building next door so we own the whole parking lot so
that only affects us. But coming out the backside, I don't think there's going to be any difference. Um, so that's my honest answer there. But we would be using this. It It's I mean, we're going through the whole
major development plan for a building that's basically a large shed. It's going to have some tool use every once in a while. It's a lot of it's just going to be storage. We're going to have a few people in it a few times a month. We're not doing like daily. No, we're not doing major cap. We're
doing some built. For example, I've had two guys in my shop, one and a half days this week building a specialty gate. So, they've run a band saw maybe for five minutes of that. Um, they've, you know,
used chopsaw a few times. A lot of it's just screwing, measuring, cutting by hand, specialty cuts. So, that's the type of work we're doing. We're not doing major cabinetry work or anything like that. Okay. Thanks. Anything else? Um I don't have anything sort of
specifically for the applicant. Do you have some thoughts? Well, I I I eyeballed this today. I think the difference in height of the building is um it doesn't really come into play because the real the neighbor on which one is impinging
is 1119 ME Merryweather which is on a very steep lot. The house itself is down the hill. And then we've got is that a five foot or a sixoot privacy fence there? Sixoot fence. Yeah, it looked like a sixoot fence to me. A sixoot privacy fence there. I
don't think from a window in the back in the back of that house that you're going to be able to see this building at all just because of the geometry. So, I'm not really concerned about that. Um, and then so I'm I'm and in this case because we
have an extant privacy fence which has been incorporated sort of what we need in the buffer there to me becomes a much sort of a fuzzier question to answer because I'm not sure what additional benefit in
terms of the fence is opaque. The any shrubbery is going to have a negligible sound barrier. What you're really sort of glad for is that sixoot fence. Uh so
my inclination is this is exactly what we have exceptions for because it you look at it, you eyeball it, you say this doesn't need a typical transition at all. It's it's very apt. It's an appropriate use of the of the uh the feedback from the neighbor is he's just glad it's not a five-story building.
Well, like the one on the one side of him, which is the apartment building, which is Yes, that's right. Yeah. That's the other thing we got to, you know, it's we already have a looming building right there. This is not, you know, if it were taller, this isn't the time to
it's not the height of the building. Again, that's that's triggering the transition requirement, right? He could build a five-story building with Well, that's not true. You could build a three-story building with no transition, which in which case I'd be very very interested to see what we're planting back there. Someone explain that to me because I thought you need
I thought you need it no matter what just because it's a if it's allowed in the adjacent in the adjacent zone you don't build it. Okay. I was wondering where that was hidden in there. Yeah. Yeah. But but to me the transition
really is being driven by that fence right now. Is that yours or does it belong to the neighbor? That's his. But we agree if it ever comes down then I have to build one. Yeah. I'm fine with that. All right, Mr. Solier, what would we like to do with this?
I believe I have a motion. Oh, that would be wonderful. Uh, I I stated I believe I have a motion. Uh, I propose uh that we uh recommend approval uh with the conditions recommended by staff except for in section D uh to read the studio
workshop shall not exceed 16 feet in height as recommended by staff. Can we talk about um where the distinction is at one story, however tall the story is or however tall the roof is, like if it's
20 feet tall, it's not changing anything about the impact of the neighboring property. But at one story, the source of the sound, the equipment that's making the sound is all on the ground floor. Um, and to me, that's much more uh it's much more germanine to the actual impact we're supposed to be
mitigating here, whereas limiting the height of the roof. So, how would you modify D? Uh, that the the structure shall be limited to one story uh above ground. Will that work? Yes, it does. It works. Got it.
So the modification would be that the height would be limit to one story. Is that the motion? That is uh the revised motion at this time. Yes, we have a motion in a second. Uh Miss Casy. Okay. Uh Mr. Solates. I
Mr. Schwarz. Yes. Mr. Stolenberg. Yes. Mr. Yoder. Yes. Mr. Duranzio. Yes. Mr. Oer. Yes. And Mr. Mitchell. And I Great. Thank you. Thank you.
The next item on our docket is the um our recommendation to uh council regarding some legislations we like. Um Mr. Donzio and Mr. Silates have put quite a bit of e effort into this. If you take a look at it, they've got about
14 things that they'd like to chat with us about. The the the last six, I believe, are all old stuff. We've already had these in the docket before. I mean, in the in our recommendation before. Yes, that's correct. So, we can we can go through those again if you like, but we probably ought to
begin with spending a lot of time on items one through five, which are new recommendations. And with that, I'm going to toss the ball to uh the folks who put this together. And at the end of that, we'd also like to defer to Mr. Donzio to talk
about one other item that he'd like us to consider. So, which one of you guys is going to take the lead? I think I can take it if you don't mind. By well, particularly for the first one. Very good. Right. Go ahead. Yes, sir.
the uh more recent content uh was inspired by the work of the last year. Uh so I hope you will recognize uh the origin of all of this. Uh number one uh was regarding uh an uh issue about having to uh submit every resoning
proposal for review by the Virginia Department of Transportation. Um even though uh they do not manage city streets uh we believe it would be helpful to have a clear exemption uh for cities uh to make it absolutely clear that section does not apply.
Yeah. Uh apppropo to nothing whatsoever. I take some issue with the phrasing. Uh we do not have to submit every reasonzoning proposal under the law as written. Um, as you may have seen in the news, uh,
I I would say a better phrasing would be something about, uh, clarifying, uh, the requirements of 222.1 as it pertains to comprehensive resonings. Um and if determined that it should be applicable to those uh to
direct VOTE to promulgate standards for review that make sense for comprehensive presentings. Was it Could you Could you give that to me again? That was very confusing to me. That was nice. Uh
yeah and maybe if you can use some words that uh well before you can uh before you restate that at present V do won't step in even if asked V do promulgates regulations that say
the standard for whether it substantially affects transportation on state controlled highways for a city that maintains its own roads is generating more than 5,000 trips per day for lots within for for
proposals with the nearest lot line within 3,000 ft of a state controlled highway measured along local roads. Wait, let me back up. What I propose is that we direct uh the city attorney to
uh craft a recommendation for the general assembly to clarify 222.1. I came tonight because this is actually something that, as you can imagine, is under consideration uh by us. Legislative change being one of the pathways we're taking to resolve some of
the issues we've had around our um our resoning. So, there's a number of different tasks that we can take. I've drafted some language um that ultimately will be up to the city council to decide which path they want to take, but also possibly some of our other partners in this kind of effort around the state and
with some of the various organizations. What I've I've got kicking around in my head right now is the idea that actually remove um if any locality um failure to comply with this statute or failure to comply with in any or partially comply
with it will not serve as grounds to void a uh a resoning or a comprehensive resoning or any action taken by the local government. basically saying this is a directory type of regulation or law rather than a um mandatory thing. So
there's a couple different considerations we we're on it. So your recommendation I would like to keep it more general if possible um because uh it'll make my life easier. Yeah. So, uh, for the record, last year we, uh, we kind of deferred on this item
because we did not want to to step in and provide any noise, attention, uh, positive or negatively in that whole direction while we had this ongoing matter. We didn't want to muddy any waters. I think that still applies
now that if we're going to do something obviously you're going to have to drive that bus to make sure it's the least well I can't really have a bus in a river muddying waters but you get my point. I think crashed into the river advised by council to not council but
council uh to stay out of it right um and I think I'm happy I think it would be appropriate for us to endorse the city attorney's efforts uh without prescribing I appreciate the support are you okay with your the statement
that you made direct city attorney to craft a recommendation to clarify the language in 15.2 22221 part B. Yeah. Well, except that I guess it sounds like so maybe just endorse his I would say maybe not clarify um because
we're not I understand what it means. I I would say to actually um review and revise review and propose improve improve yes to make modifications to that particular statute um with respect to its effect on
uh resonings initiated by the locality. Would you read that back to us greasy? I have an attempt. Okay, I got it. Sorry, I was getting the last part which y'all might get rid of anyway. Um, direct city attorney to
craft a recommendation to make modifications to the language of 15.2221 part B pertaining to resonings proposed by the locality. that that's more than sufficient. Uh do we have consensus?
Yes. Okay. Number two. We going to move on each of these or we just do um Yeah. Let's at least at least talk about them at a high level. We we may not have to go through all of six through 14, but the new ones for sure.
Do you want to take number two, Phil, or shall I? Uh no. I think it's self-explanatory. I'll do it. Recommend that in order to expedite development review 152286 3 be amended to give the governing party the power to delegate the power to approve special exceptions to the
planning commission. this on the grounds that if we're going to have as um arcane as it has been admitted some matters in this zoning code that the expertise that resides in the planning
commission the city council ought to be able to say you do it instead of having them reinvent the wheel particularly on highly technical matters like that. Mini is what do you got? Yeah, I guess um is so would this basically mean that
a special exception works similar to you know a bar um finding of uh like a a COA in that you know we we we grant or we deny a special exception then they can appeal to council
right it would be an appellet instead of council making the decision on everyone just to Yeah because again council is not going to do the dive that we did I think that makes sense Do you do you happen to know if council is interested in delegating this to us? We're asking.
Okay. We're just We don't know if they're going to, but we won't ask. My guess is I can say that the Almeral County Board of Supervisors used to be interested in delegating slope authority uh to their planning commission um which led to the famous case uh Sinclair v. singular
which basically threw out all of that delegation um and said it was it was not in accord with the Dylan rule. Um I I think my comment would be that there's probably that this is this would be a very significant change uh that overturns
decade and a half of a fair amount of like stuff. Um and I I don't necessarily oppose it, but I don't know if we've fully thought through the implications. Um well I mean we we'll leave it to council to say yes or no. We can litigate it
then. Sure. And the general assembly. Yeah. Any um concerns? All right. Number three. Number three. Uh we recommend that order to expedite development review. This a similar concept 152220
uh 22286.4. This is just the next section be amended to allow the given quote hardship standard to be replaced by guidelines approved by the local governing body to set parameters for modifications of the zoning ordinance as required. U if council wants to set a standard they are
permitted to it. Everything does not have to be a hardship standard. Same comments. Yeah. Well, I guess this also is this really is married to four, which is Yeah. Which is uh we need to clar
hardship and harm. You need to clarify what those mean because that that same basic idea. I would argue harm for standing and hardship for a variance are pretty different concepts. Yeah, they are. But it's the same idea of of how of making definitional changes
and being able to figure out what the guidelines are in each case. I'm fine with it concept. Wait, sorry. Was that three or four or was that three and four? That was three and four. They are linked. It's three and four. They're related. Well, yeah. Parts of
agree. They're linked, but okay. I'm fine with that. Yeah. Uh we recommend that again asking the state legislature allow all localities the option of enacting a 1-centent sales tax. Uh this is very very similar to what we did last year. I think my comment is probably the same
as last year which is council's already going to ask for this and why is this us asking council to do this? But it's fine because they're going to do it anyway. Six through 14 are uh repeats. Do we want to go through each one of those guys? Did we have the thing in six about the
rest of TJPDC last year? I think that's the difference. I don't know that I necessarily feel the need to be asking on behalf of our partner localities. Um, that said, it's just authorization and they have no obligation to do anything
with that authority. So, I I don't care. I don't know why I'm even talking. Any objections to number six? All right. Do we want to talk about 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14? Or again, I had Miss Creasy helped me understand the um skate
school streets thing. I didn't really remember what that was once I read the stuff she said. I did. Anybody else have any? I think on seven I have the same comment as last year that 20% is quite high and
we don't fully understand the implications of that. But I'm sure I'll be outvoted on that. My other comment would be on 13. Um, I would use the North Carolina example that North Carolina passed a bill like the one we're asking for, not just Memphis.
I meant to ask about that. I I guess I looked it up last year, the last time we talked about this, and it didn't look like it actually existed in Memphis. Like they tried to pass it. Yeah, it looks like it's since been rescended or changed. Yeah, I thought the same issue. So if there is a actual
working example, well no North Carolina they passed a bill instructing that the you know DHCD equivalent or whatever create a committee that with the direction of creating the regulations to implement the law because they didn't want to like
write the whole code in the law and that committee has taken quite a long time and is still working on it because it turns out to be non-trivial right it doesn't mean anything engaged to be engaged. Got it. Well, they're directed to do it. Right. In part. Sorry.
I guess I mean I'm okay with somebody studying this, but I still think there this has a lot of implications that may be negative. Um, for example, um, and I'm not I don't want to put you on the spot. Yeah. No, I just think there's um the
residential code is a lot more lax. So, it's, you know, egress requirements and fire rooting requirements and sprinkler requirements. council didn't do anything with this last year. Why is is it because of the confusion we're having today or I mean what do you guys want? Do you
want to resubmit it or do you want to modify it or not convince the council reads this memo at all while making their legislative agenda? I'm okay with this being in there, but it's again it's the idea that it I'm assuming somebody's going to study it.
Like it's not going to be like state legislator changed the code for us. It's yeah, somebody set up some process to figure it out. Okay. So, we're leaving it in. I would be comfortable with changing it to study. Okay. All right. Repeat that. Instead of adjusting study.
Yeah. In instead of adjusting, change it to study. The other side to that is of course even if we say adjusting or not, they're going to study. I promise. Yeah. Would you would you repeat it so that Miss Creasy can capture what you're what you're asking for? We recommend studying uh the adjustment
of the state building code to treat six units and below, etc. Okay. The only other one that was in question and I think we're all right with it was number seven. Uh Rory had some heartburn. Rory, what was your heartburn again on number seven? uh requiring doubling the tree penalty
requirement on parcels, even on dense urban lots, even on say the downtown mall where you would expect the trees to be in the right of way. Um so you don't but this is of course only authority to
do that that will inevitably be used in the most restrictive and anti are we leaving that in as is? Yes, it's okay. The general assembly won't do it. Yeah. So there there is that right. Right Mr. Duranio, you have something bars.
So yeah. So I I and I apologize for 11th houring this. I don't know if anybody got a chance to read that statute. Um I read your email. I Yes, I read your email. All right. So the statute is one page. It's not it's it's not Can you u kind of walk us through the
email first because I I scanned it better than it So, uh, my email proposes making some revisions to 152-319, uh, which is about
uh, subordinate mortgages and the subordination of mortgages. And this is applicable, and I'll sort of back this up. So, let's say you have a mortgage on your house and you get a home equity line of credit and you go about your business and you improve your
whatever you do with the home equity line of credit. I don't care. And at some point it becomes clear that refinancing your first mortgage is since you bought your house in the last three years, rates have dropped and it makes a great deal of sense to refinance.
When you pay off a mortgage, even for one second, any subordinate lean takes priority. So the second you pay off that mortgage, your heliloc is now the primary mortgage. The problem with that is is that the new mortgage company is
not going to like that and permit that. So, in many circumstances, you have to go to the bank that gave you the heliloc and say, "Pretty please, will you allow me to refinance my house?" And this
opens the door for that entity to relitigate, re-underwrite you, and start making decisions about your original mortgage. Uh, and it takes forever. And there's no way to tell whether you're dealing with
a great actor as the subordinating body or a terrible one until you realize it's taken you three weeks to find the right person on the phone to do it. So, this law was put in place to to make that easier. And what it said was is that if
your new mortgage is no more than $5,000 greater in principal balance than at the moment you refinance and it's a lower rate and you're a single family residence and it's uh the deed to trust uh is
recorded with the old with the old notes information. Um, and originally your balance is no more than $50,000, it'll automatically happen. Few years ago, I went to the state and got them to clean up a couple of things
and we pushed through jumping that to 150,000. The changes that I'm proposing to make are designed to make it easier, particularly in a denser housing environment, to get this automatic subordination.
So the idea would be we would make it apply to any primary residence because it specifically says spec single family residence that has caused problems with things with accessories. Oh, it's not a single single family. All right. If we've got four units on a lot, we're
going to have a lot of situations presumably in the in the future of duplexes that are owner occupied. I've already seeing that upticking in my activities, for example. So one, we want to include everybody. Secondly, we need to adjust the amount of the principal uh
increase from 5 to 10,000 because that was designed to roll in your closing cost and they're up. And secondly, move the thing to 250 or 300,000 because in places like Northern Virginia and Charlottesville, getting very getting larger helocks with larger equity pieces
is very common. So the idea here particularly is if you bought a house in the last you there a whole bunch of people who bought houses five years ago and got helocks and they're never going to refinance their first mortgage because their rates at 2.875. So you know you're going to have to drag
them out of there in a box. Um they're not selling that house. they're not refinancing that house that but in the last two or three years you got people at 7% who bought houses and if you wanted to fix your house up or put an accessory in it with a heliloc now's the opportunity to refinance so I'm trying
to modernize it and put a cast on it of this is good for people who are doing good with their helocks it is not exactly in our wheelhouse um I will I intend my colleague and I who did this 15 years ago
uh we'll scrap together some language for it. We also want to put in a point about switching from an adjustable rate to a fixed. But your objective is to make this recommendation and package it in with these, isn't it?
Can we just say modernize and uh expand to allow accessory units or well accessory units? I'm going to rewrite this. I'm going to put and then you can give language to a legislator or the realtor's association to push
or the bank or the community bankers association or the mortgage bankers association. Who are Yeah. I imagine one of those is who pushed it the first time, right? Uh the central Virginia mortgage professionals uh did that of which I was the president. Okay. So
um yeah, I mean I'd point out that in 2011,000 is when it was last raised. Mhm. That's 216,000 now just by regular inflation. Not even not even housing. 250 to 300. Exactly. And that's a good place to stop too because most HELOCs
treatment gets different at your bank at 250 or 300. They start being So are we interested in making this recommendation? I think we are. So in in a sound bite that Mr. Creasy can
capture and you can come back and clean it up later. Could you um could you walk Miss Creie through? I've already had a pretty good soundback, but you probably want a little more it to be a little thicker than Rory's. Yeah. So, uh
let's see. Uh recommend the revision of 55.2-319 2-319 uh uh to uh expand its applicability in primary
residences uh and uh update process and figures to meet real world conditions. Something like that. Let me uh give Miss Casey a moment to digest.
Something like that. And I'll mark up the statute with the precise changes I want to make and spam it out. Look up. I got a little bit lost at the end. I have and figures to meet real world
conditions. today's time frames or I didn't have today's present day. Yeah. Current. Yeah. And there is one technical problem that needs to be changed to that no matter what I'm going to get convince somebody to change it because it's just
dumb. But that has nothing to do with us. recommendations to the code section 55.1 551. Yeah, it used to be 16 6.2- chapter 16 something which is when I originally did it. So
sorry these things change these things change right um recommend revision to code section to expand it applicability for primary residents and update figures to meet current time frames. figures and processes
and processes. Thank you. I appreciate it. Is so we pass this sorry we'll end up passing this on um by the end of this week. I don't think that
I'll find out when that group is meeting. So if you have for your markup version, it sounds like another group may take it on anyway, but um Right. No, I'll get I'll I'll mark it up and and and get it to you. It's not Okay.
It ain't It ain't a lot. I I've done it before. I gota All right. Is there any other business or any other announcements? The reminder that the annual meeting is in September and Mrs. Stolenberg and
Miss Redker are managing the uh managing the nominations. So if you have any interest in anything, let them know. Miss Creie, is there anything else? Those are the only items we have scheduled this evening. Mr. Duranzio,
you know, there's a lot I could have done. The certification of the 19th amendment. Crackatoa got uh made its major uh uh detonation in 1883, destroying the entire built environment of that island. Uh but I'd rather say
that uh just point out that every dog has its day and today is that day. Today is National Dog Day. So for those of you who celebrate, let's adjourn and go do that. We are we are