[Music] [Music] Don't [Music] make it. [Music]
I'll be there. [Music] [Music] Hey, [Music] you [Music]
Bobby. [Music] Hey. Hey. [Music]
Hey. [Music] Hey. Hey. [Music] [Music] Everything. [Music]
[Music] [Music] [Music] I'm [Music] [Music]
Please take your seats. The meeting is about to begin. Remember to speak into the microphone as this meeting is being recorded for public record. Please stand by. We are going on air in 5 4 3 2 1.
Good morning and welcome to the June 17th, 2025 meeting of the City of Miami Beach Historic Preservation Board. I'm John Stewart and I'm happy to be here today and to turn the meeting over to
begin to the head of preservation, historic preservation for the city of Miami Beach, Debbie Tucket. Um, good morning. Uh, first and foremost, I would like to welcome our newest board member, Mitch Novik. Um, welcome back, I should say, to the Historic Preservation Board.
you've served this community well over uh several decades and we're delighted to have you here. I don't know if you want to introduce yourself or say a few words. Thank you, Deborah. I'm Mitch Novik. I'm a 37year
resident. In 1989, I formed my Miami Beachbased company where I restored buildings from the 1930s,4s and 50s and managed uh uh or continue to
manage uh some of those properties. Uh, and previously I served on this board for six years from 2001 to 2007, at which time I moved over to the county's historic preservation board and
served until uh, mid 2018. Uh, most notably, I'm especially proud of having served on former mayor Durmer's blue ribbon panel on the structural integrity of buildings where
we analyze the cause and effect failure of structural systems. And uh I'm proud a few of our recommendations had been adopted into city code such as how do you deal with cases of uh demolition by
neglect of conforming and nonconforming buildings, the presumption of replication and uh the critical need uh for this city to maintain a database of vacant
buildings. as those are the most vulnerable to demolition by neglect. Again, it's good to be back here and uh thank you for the introduction. You're welcome. Um I have one announcement this morning before we get
started. Um as you can see, we have four board members present. Um that does constitute a quorum. However, all of the applications on the agenda this morning do require five affirmative votes uh for approval.
So, all of these applications will be continued to the July 8th meeting for formal action. However, if any of the applicants um on the agenda would like to present to the board and obtain feedback, um we would welcome that as
well as public comment. All requests for continuances will allow for members of the public uh to comment on that request for continuence. Um that being said, I'm going to turn turn it over to Nick Colleris for the um
notice regarding lobbyist registration and swearing in any members of the public wishing to testify today. Thank you, Debbie. And good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. Today's meeting of the historic preservation board will be conducted in a hybrid format with the board
physically present in the commission chambers at Miami Beach City Hall and applicants, staff, and members of the public appearing either in person or virtually via Zoom. To participate in today's meeting virtually, the public may dial 1888-475-4499
and enter the webinar ID, which is 817-48347488 pound, or log in to the Zoom app and enter the webinar ID, which again is 817-48347488. Anyone wishing to speak on an item must click the raise hand icon. If you're
using the Zoom app or Dial Star 9, if you are participating by phone, if you're appearing on behalf of a business, a corporation, or another person, you need to register as a lobbyist with the city clerk's office. If you haven't registered yet, you should register before you speak to the board. You don't have to register as a
lobbyist if you're speaking only on behalf of yourself and not any other party or if you're testifying as an expert witness providing only scientific, technical, or other specialized information or testimony in this public meeting or if you are appearing as a representative of a neighborhood association without any
compensation or reimbursement for your appearance to express support of or opposition to any item. Expert witnesses and representatives of neighborhood associations shall prior to appearing disclose in writing to the city clerk their name, address, and the principal on whose behalf they are communicating. If you're an architect, attorney, or
employee representing an applicant or an objector, you must register as a lobbyist. These rules apply whether you're appearing in favor of or against an item or encouraging or arguing against its passage, defeat, modification, or continuence. Um, lastly, I'd like to swear in any members of the public and staff who will be
testifying today. Please raise your right hands. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Okay. Thank you, uh, Nick. Uh, the first application on the agenda this
morning is HPB 240641. This is 1800 Michigan Avenue. Um, it's an application for a certificate of appropriateness for the total demolition of the existing single family home and the construction of a new single family home. Um, I believe the applicant is
going going to forego a presentation and request a continuence to the July 8th meeting. Staff has no objection to this. Um, do board members have any question for myself or the applicant? Any questions?
No. Okay. Um, we can open up um for public comment. Again, this is HPB 240641. If you're on Zoom, please raise your hand. Um, and again, this is a request for continuence to the July 8th meeting.
I see on Zoom, John Courtourtney. Uh, good morning, John. Good morning. Uh, yeah, this is John Courtourtney. I live at Sorry, there's a bit of an echo. 1026 18th Street. Um, I just want to ask that before the board continues the 1800
Michigan item that you might consider providing guidance to the applicant and imploring them to secure their property against further degradation. Uh, in their own application, you'll find a certified report from a professional engineer which found multiple sources of
active moisture intrusion. And these will consider the cause of the moisture damage in the home. And yet since receiving this report over four months ago, applicant has made no effort to patch the active leaks. And I think I find it hard to give the benefit of the doubt to an owner who knows about the
major leaks in the roof but doesn't fix them. And this is also a violation of city. So I just ask that the um applicant stop the ongoing demolition by neglect before they return to stasis board. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, John. Um
I see no other members of the public wishing to comment. All right. Um seeing none and there's nobody here to the applicant's not here to respond or is there okay? Uh good morning Emily Balter Bickard
Fernandez Lark and Tapenz 200 South Biscane Boulevard. U because of the short board today we're respectfully requesting a continuence to the July meeting. Uh there's a long history with this site and we uh would appreciate the opportunity to come before you with a full board. Thank you.
Uh any board member comment about the public comment or any questions the applicant? No. Seeing none. Elizabeth here. Yeah. No, I just have a quick question regarding the comment from the
person on Zoom. Um does the city do anything about that? How do we handle the fact that there's a potential uh neglect on the property and the safety of the neighboring properties? So, um
I'm aware that there are several code compliance violations for property maintenance um for this subject site. Um I have been working with the applicant. I we have as staff um been urging the applicant to pull permits for repair. Um
there's nothing even though they have a pending application before this board, there's nothing that would prevent them from pulling building permits for repairing the structure. Um but to my knowledge, although there's been some activity in terms of lot clearance and
cleaning out some overgrown landscaping and trash removal, um there has been no building permits applied for. Mr. Chair. Yep. Go ahead. Uh Deborah, I'm assuming the pro property is vacant.
Uh is it would the city uh or or is it in your opinion that to alleviate any concern a construction fence uh properly screened uh be uh
placed uh along the public rideway? Yes, that is actually a requirement um for any vacant property throughout the city to have a a actually a metal picket fence to secure the property and to secure all of the openings in the
property to prevent access um by unauthorized individuals. So, I believe that is one of the violations that has been issued, failure to obtain the the building permit for the required fencing. Um, again, we are in communication with the applicant and we
do um urge them to cure all violations um and potentially even move forward and and try to obtain some building permits for for repair of the building, which according to the documents we've received, we think, um, is a good idea.
So are are there is there anything that you can recommend that we as a board uh do at this time along you know just to address what the public comment was and I'm not sure there is anything but this is a request for continuence so there is
no order of the board so we cannot um impose any requirements or conditions at this time um certainly I think you know repeating the concern and the desire to see some
actual repair work um done and and there could be some temporary measures if you know in terms of if there's there's roof issues um you know temporary measures to prevent moisture intrusion could be a
possibility. Um, I would urge them to reach out to the city's building department and discuss what measures could be implemented um, relatively quickly to secure the building. But again, this would be a recommendation.
Um, this is, excuse me, a recommendation from staff. It's certainly um, something the board could could recommend to the applicant at this time. At this time in the continuence? Yeah. As a as a recommendation. Yes. Um, but not as a requirement. Okay, one last question. Is
the permit the eventual permit for the new project contingent to paying all the past due fines? That is determined by the city's special magistrate. Um, in terms of the um the
payment of those of those fines. So, in other in other words, fines have acred. I would defer to the applicant. I'm not sure what the current uh status of those violations are. Um my understanding is
that we do not currently have fines acrewing. We do have active cases and we've timely requested extensions and gone before the special magistrate and obtained additional time. Is the building secure from the elements uh whether that be uh you mentioned the
roof or windows. Uh are they exposed to boarded uh weather conditions? Okay. They're boarded. are boarded. Okay. So, with that, Ray, did you have anything you want to add? Nope. Uh, do I can I get a a motion to
um to continue with maybe any of the recommendations that staff had or um I'll make a motion to um continue HPV24-0641 to the July meeting. And uh um at that point in time, I would expect that the
uh questions that were brought up will be addressed by the applicant. Hey, second. Just let me ask Okay, we have a second. Um but it it does say that the um says can Okay,
never mind. Okay, all those in favor. Okay, this will be heard at the July 8th meeting. Thank you, Emily. meeting minutes at some point. Yes, we did skip um the second item which is the
approval of the May 13, 2025 minutes. Uh do we have a motion? I move to approve the minutes. I move to approve the minutes. Okay, Deborah, I have an issue as I wasn't serving at that time. Can I second if I chair? Um, the chairman can
for the chairman can second. Um, Mitch, even though you weren't here, you can still vote on the approval of the of the minutes. I I haven't reviewed them. I to put it bluntly.
Um, if you're sitting on the DAS, you have to vote yay or nay. So, in this case, because I didn't review the You can You can cheat off my homework. They're fine. They're okay. Yeah. All right. I'll vote. Yay. Okay.
All those in favor? I I Okay. Thank you. Um, the next application on the agenda is HPB 240632. This is 1730 Jefferson Avenue. This is an application for a certificate of
appropriateness for the partial demolition and renovation of the existing home and accessory buildings including the construction of attached additions and variances from the required setbacks, lot coverage, unit size and open space requirements. Um I
don't see the applicant um I don't know if is the applicant on Zoom. They did reach out to the planning department and expressed a desire to make a presentation today. Um, but I don't see anyone representing uh the application
either on Zoom or in the audience. So I would request that this application uh be continued to the July 8th meeting so that we have five board members present. Yep. Yes. Yes. Once we are we ready to
open for public comment, Mr. Chair? Okay. We have nobody here. Yeah. Any members of the public, please come forward. Hi, how are you doing? My name is Dave and this is my wife Laura. We are the family that directly abuts the back of
the property. Uh to which they are uh proposing that they build a uh second story on top of their uh one-story existing guest house. the one-story existing guest house is, you know, sort of close and within the setback of
modern times and they are uh looking to put a second story on that. Uh when we had the previous meeting, obviously they required a variance to build out past the 15 ft uh which is what's required with a second story. My understanding of
the code is is not perfect. Um the board told them to come back with a proposal that met the code which meant a setback of 15 ft on a minimum on the second story. It appears that what they've actually done is put a habitable
roof deck up to the 15 ft or covered balcony depending on how you look at it. In addition, they did this very weird thing where they covered up the sliding doors that lead to the outside of the roof deck with the labels bathroom 1 and
bathroom 2 to make it a little bit more complicated to see. That's what it was. Uh my understanding of the code, which is not perfect, is that you need a 10-ft setback from the outside of the the building for a roof deck. And for a covered balcony that's habitable, you
actually need to have it with the setback. it has to be 15 ft back which would require a variance. Uh so we found this as a as a resolution to their initial problem very weird. We also did not understand why the city did not say they required a variance when it very
clearly does. Uh so just as a opener I actually have the little I have a screenshot of the diagram here since the applicant is not here to show it to you. Um okay. Thank you. Is that would anybody
like I know we have the we have the drawings in our packets and we're not really voting on the we're only voting on whether to continue it but I really appreciate your um your being here. Did you have anything to say as well? No, I just agree. And it is very misleading
how it's labeled because those are not the bathrooms and so you can't obviously tell and this would have a very negative impact on our property and the neighborhood. And we have put so much work into our house and we've made it
even more historically accurate in recent renovations and we're putting more and we've done everything by code. And so this is this is pretty challenging situation for us. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for bringing that
to our attention and uh for coming here today. Um and I think with that is there anybody any other member of the public interested in speaking? Thank you. Thank you. I was told to be clear. I'm Roger Glad.
uh 1750 James Avenue. Speaking for MDPL, uh we still have serious concerns about the destruction of the original architectural features, particularly the concrete eyebrows. Uh despite clear direction from the HPB in its April meeting to preserve the historic facade,
the applicant has again proposed demolition and alteration to the defining elements of this protected art deco structure. We oppose elevating the eyebrows above their original location, squaring off the rounded art deco styling, and replacing concrete elements with
aluminum or metal materials. The proposed lighting changes are incompatible with the style of the neighborhood. This is only one of the few remaining significant art deco homes in South Beach, and these alterations fundamentally comprise its compromise its historic
integrity. We believe these design changes should be denied and the outco facade must be preserved in its original form. Thank you. Thank you very much. Roger. Are there any comments by the board? Mr. Chair, we we do have um two people on on
Zoom. Um I did notice that the architect for representing the the applicant for the project is on Zoom, Edwin Herrera. Edwin, I didn't see you earlier, but we are um discussing 1730 Jefferson Avenue
currently. Um would you like to address the board? Yes. Um my apologies for not being there person but um we sorry to go back to we would like the continuence obviously to present the the application further but
in response to the neighbor in the rear um that was just a text mistake that that is we're not trying to hide any of what we're doing. It just happens to be that on that page the bathroom number one and bathroom number two remain in the original label. Um that's just a text mistake in the presentation. Um,
and we really did take the input from not only the comments received by the public, but by the board as well, and we've worked together with the planning department to make the adjustments required. But anyway, we'll we'll gladly, you know, um, how do you say go
on further to explain on on the next meeting and and make make sure that it's noted that we did take note of of all the comments received. Okay. Thank you, Edwin. Our um next speaker is Chris Glo.
Hi everyone. My name is Chris Glo. I am the owner and resident of 1760, which is three lots north of this property. And really hit on all of my points, but perhaps a little bit more eloquently,
even though I heard Edwin that he's worked with staff. You'll note in the staff recommendation that they still are advocating for the preservation of the facade. And while the applicant made adjustments to the the facade from the last presentation, it's still not an art
deco home. It still does not preserve the facade. And this is a historic district. This is a protected home. I'm concerned that we have applicants that don't want an art deco home in the historic district. I'm just going to call out what I heard Roger say. There's
they still are trying to change the location of the facades, elevating them. They are squaring the rounded edges of the of I'm sorry, not the facade. They're elevating the eyebrow. They're squaring the rounded edges of the eyebrow. They're extending the eyebrow. They're changing the material of the
eyebrows from concrete to now some perhaps aluminum siding of some variety and they're adding can lighting. All of it amounts to eliminating this historic facade and it is one of by my count perhaps five
uh art deco homes, true art deco homes in South Beach. I hope that in the July meeting the board will vote to preserve this important facade. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Chris. Um, Mr. Chair, I see no other members of the public
wishing to comment. Okay. Um, so hearing that public comment, do you have any comments for Debbie or questions or anything you'd like to share? No. Right. No. Elizabeth. No. Um,
Debbie, I was just wondering again kind of in the same vein as the last. Is there anything you recommend that we as a board can do to uh respond to the public comments to you know
clean up that drawing for example? Is that something you can even ask for in a continuence? Since this is a request for continuence, I don't think you should request any changes to the plans at this point. Um I don't necessarily think your
comments would be any different from the last meeting. Um and staff has has relayed not only staff's um recommendations but the board's previous recommendations to the applicant. Um and we will continue to do so if we have the opportunity uh to discuss prior to the
July meeting. Okay. And just for my information, for example, is the if when the when the um projects continued and we've had public hearing in the meantime, um is there an opportunity for staff to modify their um their
recommendation um based upon based upon the public comment? I I I don't know if it's even an opportunity. I'm not a I'm don't know how this works. Well, I can I think what I would say to that is the staff's recommendation is is based on the on the written submissions
of the applicant. Um the board can certainly add additional conditions on its order once this does come before you for a formal vote. Um and I think that that would be the time where the board and staff can respond to information
presented uh by the public. Okay. Go ahead. And can the applicant submit additional drawings between now and the next public hearing? The applicant would not be able to present any changes between now and July
because it's less than 30 days. If they wanted to submit supplementary information, additional renderings that are consistent with the plans that are part of the current record, they could do that. photographs um any additional supplemental information but not a different design.
So basically if any of the comments today may spark their imagination into changing something it we will not see that next meeting would be nothing substantative could be could be changed at this point. Can we make a
recommendation that the um that the applicant p um reach out to neighbors between now and then to kind of see if they can address Yeah. Certainly you could do that. Yes.
The applicant did say that they were going to um make some adjustments to that rendering to make it more clear because they did agree with the neighbors behind that it was a little confusing. So, I think that, you know, we should be willing to look at that even if this is a an additional um piece
of paper that they give us at the next meeting. I don't know that can that be part of the motion or is that not No, I wouldn't include that as part of the motion. Um, but I think you know your comments are
the applicant is is online and he is hearing your comments. Okay. Well, perhaps if I can hear a motion to continue with the encouragement of the applicant to speak to other to the neighbors. I'll make that motion to
continue. Okay. Second. All those in favor? I application is continued. Um the next two applications are companion applications. So I will read them both
into the record. We have HPB25 0647. Um, this is 1020 Pennsylvania Avenue. This is an application for an after the-act um demolition of the previously existing uh buildings on
the site. The applicant is requesting to modify a condition in the previously issued order. And the second application is HPB24-0618. Again, this is 1020 Pennsylvania. This is an application requesting a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a multif family
residential building on a vacant lot and one or more waivers. Um is if the applicant is either in the audience or on Zoom. If you're on Zoom, please raise your hand. Okay, Mr. Chair, I don't see the applicant. Um so on behalf of the
applicant, staff would ask that both of these applications be continued to the July 8th meeting. and you can open public comment. Oh yes. So moved. Well, can we open it to public comment first and then Okay. Okay. Any
members of the public wishing to comment, please come forward or raise your hand if you're on Zoom. Hi, it's Roger Goldad again. I I just uh 1750 James Avenue from MDPL. I just want to reiterate our first sentence. We
oppose the request to delete the condition limiting the square footage of any new development on this site. Uh it just sets a very bad president. We fail for older art deco buildings. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Nobody else. All right. With that, um can I get a motion to continue? Okay. I'll make a motion to continue this item till next month. Second. Is that both both of the
applications? Both applications. So, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Okay. Application will be heard on July 8th. Um, the next request for continuance is HPB 25650.
This is 1826 Collins Avenue. This is an application for a certificate of Excuse me. I'm sorry. um uh application for a certificate of appropriateness for the total demolition of the existing building. Um I'm not sure if anyone
representing the applicant is present and would like to address the board, but staff is uh requesting this be continued to the July 8th meeting so that we have five board members present. Okay. Thank you. Um Right. I have a
question for staff. Mhm. Um, this building was originally built, um, I believe to alleviate parking impact fees for the Shelborne. Um, and and this robotic garage never functioned properly, but I believe that that there
was uh some uh concessions given to the Shellorn for building the parking for this. And now that we want to talk about tearing it down, um, where what what does that leave with the Shelbour now
with their hotel and everything else uh for for parking impact fees? I mean, they're not using this garage, but the garage was originally built for that purpose. So, to my knowledge, um, the Shelborne
does not have a parking requirement. So, it may have, you know, the the original uh proposal was for the robotic parking garage and a commercial space. Um, I don't believe that any and and
another another issue with with this property is the garage slash commercial space um never functioned. Um it was a robotic parking garage and since um its construction it has never been
operational. So there is no active mechanical parking parking happening on the site and there has never been um the commercial space there was a commercial space but I'm I don't believe that's in operation currently either. So, to my knowledge, and and I can look into this,
Rey, and and bring you back some additional information at the next hearing, but to my knowledge, none of the parking was required parking for the Shaw Hotel. As a historic property, um, in the architectural district, all of the
existing construction that's historic or that was constructed prior to 1993 um, does not have a parking requirement. If there were later additions made to the building that did require a parking requirement, um then they would have the
option of either providing that parking within 1,200 ft of their site or paying into the parking impact fee program. Um so I can look into the history of that property and see um if if they had
require parking at this 1826 site. um if they did it it never functioned so it was never actual parking anyways but we'll we'll look into that um yeah just because you know I I
believe that it was built to satisfy a parking need for some building whether it was a Shelborne or something else um that that property was not built um just because oh let's have a robotic garage I
I think uh it it had a a reason to be built and yes, it never functioned and yes um it was probably never replaced by other parking. But now that we're looking at tearing the building down, um I'd like to know um more about it
because obviously there's been a lot of contention about tearing that building down and and we could bring that that information back to you. The other thing that we all got uh was the notification about the wall between that in 1800 being a common wall or something like
that. If you could come back with some information on that, that would be great. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Ray. And um public comments. Yes, that's where we're going. Public comment. Debbie, is there any
Anyone on Zoom, raise your hand. Anyone in the audience, please come forward. Okay, Mr. Chair, I do not see any members of the public wishing to comment. Okay. Is there a motion or any comment first of all on the board? Ray.
Okay. I'll make the motion to continue this item until next month 1826. Collins second. All those in favor? I. Thank you. Um, our final application this morning is
HPB250651. This is 735 Collins Avenue. This is an application for a certificate of appropriateness for exterior modifications including but not limited to a new shade structure, an outdoor bar counter, and a mural and
variances to and a variance to exceed the hours of operation for an outdoor bar counter. Um, staff has no objection to this request. I'm not sure if the applicant um is online.
Um if you are, please raise your hand, but I don't see them. So, on behalf of the applicant, staff would request this be moved to the July 8th meeting. Okay. And seeing no applicant in the room, then we'll open it to public comment.
No public comment. Then, um any board comment? My my comment would be um has the fire department looked at the u the use I mean they have this tiki hut thing you know does it meet some sort of fire code uh you know I think we need to know
that before we could really be voting on this. So if we don't know between now and next time if we could find that out. Yeah. And I I'll just point out that this does require a building permit and the fire department will need to review and approve um the structure in
accordance with the fire prevention code. So um I don't know if that has occurred yet, but we can give you that information. Yeah, I'd like it to occur before we vote on it. I Well, right, but I don't know if the fire department review has occurred. they have submitted for the review and and I can you know
let you know but yes the fire department approval is required to legalize the structure. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. All right. Uh any other any other comment? No. Okay. Um do I have a uh motion to
continue? I'll make a motion to continue 7305 Collins until next month. Mr. Chair, if I could just We do have a member of the public that just raised their hand. Would that be okay? Um I see Ross S25.
Yes. Hi. Uh Ross Kelson 7330 Ocean Terrace in the building that overlooks Sone Cafe. Um just the public comment, you know, I do definitely have an
opinion about this, but I will wait till the July meeting, but the po the question is um whether the the city has looked at the increased amount of traffic that
would be um um uh would result from the u expanded services that Son is offering for for drive for walk up uh in my I
I've of course watched this and we are affected and our building is affected our ingress and and egress of the building is affected by Sonones's traffic and they already have this outdoor cafe and people are constantly
uh looping around from the uh new park area. They're backing up. They're looping around and they're getting their tapito and their um their coffee in the morning. Uh and it it often is um
blocking the traffic um and slowing it down well with an increased amount of services. Has the city looked at the impact uh uh of the of the traffic and and made any accommodations? We also
having a major uh planned a major you know $20 million building in the parking lot that's caddyy corner from this is zone cafe and and that's going to also increase traffic. So the congestion the
city has the city looked at um any uh effects of increased congestion of this service and the banshill is by the way across the street. So, it it really creates a large problem with all of these uh venues and and additional
points of u of sources sources of traffic. Okay, Mr. Chair, I see no other uh members of the public wishing to comment. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ross, for that comment. And
um uh with that any we've we have a motion to continue and we're just waiting for a second. I second. All right. All those in favor? I thank you. Um so all of these applications will be
heard at the July um 8th meeting. Um we will we will put we'll organize the agenda. So all of these applications will be heard first in July. Um with that staff has nothing additional unless um can you just tell us about a little bit more about the
July meeting since it's less than 30 days away. You might have I mean just in terms of do we'll have a number of new applications as well or is we do have several it wasn't a very large agenda. We have several applications um in July,
but the hope is um that we get through all of the the June and July applications on July 8th. If we don't, we could look at potentially scheduling an August meeting. uh we could discuss that at the
July meeting, but I'm uh cautiously optimistic that we will be very efficient and and be able to catch up on all these applications on in July. Yeah. Would you like to keep this or keep this? Yeah, I think I mean the best um
would be if you can keep all of the applications that were continued today um and bring them back for the July meeting. Okay. And just a just for a point of information, are is there a time limit to this meeting? Is that the uh because I know other meetings in
other cities and counties go very long. Yeah. For the for staff um protocol and you know this there's it's not just me here. There's it takes a it takes a village to run these meetings. Um, I think uh the desire would be to conclude
the meeting no later than 400 p.m. Um, so you know that gives us the whole day and I'm I'm feeling good. Feeling good. We're gonna we're gonna make it work, guys. All right. Sure. Thank you. You're
welcome. Thank you all.