Day of St. Pete Beach for April 30th, 2025. If everybody can please rise for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Roll call, please. Member Cy here. Member core here. Vice Chair Garshaw here. Member Small here. Chair Chase here. We have a quorum. Great. We'll start today with an
approval of the agenda. Are there any changes, Kristen? No, Madam Chair. No changes. No changes. Any questions or concerns from the board on the agenda for today? Nope. If not, all in favor? I.
Moving on. Um, can we do an audience swear in please? City clerk. I can. Anyone who will be speaking to the board or making a representation will need to be sworn in. Do you swear or affirm that the information or
factual representation that you are about to give or present to the board is truthful? Yes. Thank you. The next item would be audience comments. This would be a time for anybody here today that would like to speak on an item that's not on today's agenda. The floor is yours. If there is
an item that you would like to speak on that is on the agenda, you can grab a yellow card and provide it to the clerk and she'll call your name at the point of that item. The yellow cards are in the back left corner. Tom, you wouldn't need to do one.
Oh, you have a neighbor that was concerned about it. Okay. Yeah. If it's your if it's your case, you'll have the opportunity to speak for sure. All right. Then we'll move on to the approval of the minutes. Did everybody have a chance to review last month's
minutes? Any requests for edits? No. No. Can we do roll call, please? Well, I'll make a motion to approve the March 26 board of adjustment minutes as written. Thanks. I'll second.
Member core. Yes. Vice Chair Garshaw. Yes. Member Small. Yes. Member Cosy, yes. Chase, yes. Motion carries. Great. We have two action items for today. First is case number 255040. Brandon,
good afternoon. Brandon Berry planner, if we could pull up the PowerPoint. So, the board of adjustment is a recommending body for subdivision plat. Um, these do ultimately go on to the city commission for both preliminary and then final plat review. Um, and we
we do typically bring these to the board of adjustment at the preliminary plat stage. Uh this is for the property at 5390 Gulf Boulevard. It's known as the Sorado Resort property. We have Scott Gilner with Kimley Horn present. Uh they are seeking a twotrack plat of this
property. Um as I'll get into in just a moment. So you can see here a survey of the property. This comprises all the property that is currently uh used for the Sorado Resort development. Uh this is also the property that was approved last year for redevelopment um with the
JW Marriott and Hampton in project. Uh this is a survey of the property as it exist exists today and all this land will be part of the replat. Uh you can see here the preliminary plat without improvements. It's a fairly simple u replat there.
It'll be two tracks uh one to the north uh tract A1 and then to the south tract A2. I've spoken with the agent. They have expressed that this is for financing purposes, not directly related to the redevelopment um but being undertaken for financing and this can be
conducted separately from um any kind of development. This is something they would be able to pursue independent of a development project. You can see here uh the preliminary plat. Um these are the lines that would be approved should this plat be approved
by the city commission for final plat. Um showing the existing development on the property. Uh you can see the lines aren't necessarily the clean the way that you would see them with a typical track subdivision or or something like that. Uh again this is being undertaken
for financing purposes which the agent can can get more detail on if needed. Staff has reviewed this request. As I mentioned before, it's a fairly simple request. We had a few technical requests. Um, when this comes forward for a final plat, we will have a license
survey or review to make sure that it meets all the requirements of Florida statutes. Repplatting is is generally a pretty technical undertaking. One item that was not commented on in the agenda report was staff's request for a unified site plan covenant. Um, that is
something that the applicant has provided as of yesterday. So, it's something we'll work through with our attorney prior to the final plat. That's to make sure that these two tracks will continue to function to either support the development that remains on the properties or support any kind of future
forthcoming development. Um, we will just have that cleared and ready to move forward for the final plat. So, we have no recommendations on this plat. Um the we ask that the board take action to recommend approval or denial of this plat to the city commission, but as I
mentioned before, we we have no basis uh to recommend a denial for this. I'm happy to answer any questions. We do have the engineer for this project present as well. Any questions for Brandon? Are you you're saying these are the two motions, but there's it's not a contingent on
your um unified site plan. That's something we've received and it's something we did ask they have prepared for the final plaid. This will move on to preliminary plat review with the city commission and in the interim we will work with the with the attorney's office
to review that covenant. Okay. Because this motion is simply to approve the pre preliminary but as opposed to to recommend the preliminary. Yes. Thanks. Thank you. would applicant or represent representative like to
share. How are you all today? Scott Gilner with Kimley Horn and Associates, uh 655 North Franklin Street, uh Tampa, Florida, 3362602. Um I'm here to answer any questions you may have, but I think there were five five questions or
comments and we're we're fine with all of them that are on the plat now. So happy to answer any questions you may have. Uh the five questions is that from would you like to address that Brandon just so we have an understanding for what we we had a few minor technical comments
independent of the UN the request for the site plan covenant that we had shared with the applicant earlier this month at TRC they were largely just minor comments from you know statutory requirements that are typically addressed at the final stage anyway. Um, the applicant has has responded to those
comments and I'm I'm fine with his comments. So, thanks. Does the board have any questions for the applicant? I have some questions for the applicant. Scott, you said your name was. Yes, sir. Okay.
Um, are each of these three hotels, the Sorado, the JW Marriott, and the Hampton, are they owned by different companies or are they all owned by the same company? I I mean, I can answer it. So I I think two parts of this. One, there aren't three hotels right now. There's just one
Sarata Resort. We're talking about the future hotels, but in reality, they are owned by the same company. So So there they don't exist today, but Well, Marriott doesn't own Hampton in Well, Marriott doesn't own Sarata either. I understand. That's why I'm
asking the question. But but they're owned by the land owner. So they're going to develop a flag. So this this is for a preliminary plat. This really isn't to cup yet. I don't I don't mind answering the question, but it's not really related to the preliminary plat. But so the plats are independent of any
development that's in the future done. So it's a fair question, but in regards to what we're reviewing today, it's in relation to the property as it exists today, not in contingent upon any future development is my understanding. That we're not even talking about the fact of building anything else there. It's not
relevant to this review right now. That's a separate conversation and part of the cup process. Well, the reason I'm asking about that, but I guess it's not relevant, is will there be can you get financing
if this is all I just don't quite understand how all this works. I mean, I'm very familiar with the property. Mhm. Yeah. Maybe is part of the proposal to take down part of the Sarata. Uh uh so for the record, Kevin Marriali, Western Zebra Miller, 401 East Jackson
Street in Tampa. Um the the reason for the the platting is for financing purposes, which is essentially so that we can have a legal description and a parcel so that uh a construction loan can be taken out. However, the the property um can be subdivided the way
that it is now. So the the the cup is approved. We are waiting for certain portions of redevelopment, but certain portions of redevelopment are available by right. For example, there's a process right now underway to redo the restaurant and redo the pool. That has nothing to do with the cup. So, um th
this is a a step in the process for financing purposes. It will align with development when when development goes forward. But that the reason we're not uh focused on the development is because this is a ministerial process
independent of um independent of the cup approval. And so I I think that's what everyone's trying to get at what their answer is is that it the the subdivision is so that it can be financed and so you can put the financing on one part and not on the other part. Um and so the ownership may not even change. It may
just be for a loan. Um but that's a step in that process to prepare for that. that it it doesn't relate to the cup directly. Could you explain uh to them and to the public how you intend to address the subdivision
uh lot line that runs partially through one of the buildings? Yeah, that's so the um the so the ownership won't change by the platting f first and foremost. Um and then that's what that unified site plan covenant is. So, um, they come under a lot of different names depending
on what jurisdiction you're in, but generally speaking, this is a document that says this piece of property is a single zoning lot. So, so it could be it could be, you know, two lots, it could be a dozen lots. I mean, I'm just speaking hypothetically here, not talking about this property, but this type of document says that a collection
of lots is a single zoning lot. And those are important when you have a a master plan of some level. So the cup for example would be master plan but existing development counts the same way too. So right now I can't remember going back I think at one point it was the holiday and before it was both the
Sarata but there's the two buildings that are there now. So if we draw that line where it is right now it would not comply with zoning and so we do the unified site plan covenant because then the both lots together are a zoning lot and they do comply with zoning. And so
that's what that requirement is for. What it does in the future is if you do end up having multiple owners, which you know that that's not anticipated, but if you have multiple owners, those owners, as um the city attorney can explain, would have to cooperate. So, um those
owners would have to deal with the development on their property as a single zoning lot regardless of the property lines. Um it is possible if you were to, you know, scrape the lot and and then subdivide it, you wouldn't need that because you could potentially
design a a lot that will comply with zoning. But, um that's not that's not typical for for something um where you where you're going to have a site plan controlled district. Um now that said, the that that unification works
before or after redevelopment. I I think I'm being redundant there, but just to be clear, it makes sure that the zoning works as it exists today, and it makes sure that the zoning would work um after development under the cup. It's a very complicated project. It's very complicated, but I think if we kind
of just um be are mindful of the portion that we're looking at today, it's actually pretty straightforward. And from my understanding, it's gone through technical review. They've addressed, you know, the minor issues that were there. the staff feels comfortable with this preliminary
um process. Um so I have you know no I'm appreciate it being brought forth to the to our board to be able to review and be in the loop. Um but I think it's in a pretty strong position to be able to be presented to commission thinking that just in case this latigious society that
something should happen. Yeah. I mean, if it helps for uh um summary purposes, essentially the request is to uh create two parcels under state statute um and um to tie the properties together so that we still
continue to comply with zoning. Are there three now and you're reducing it to two? No, there's one now. One now and you want to make it two, but not three. So I I mean I long term Scott, is there has there been any discussion on doing another one later? Yeah. So that that's
for the the depending on how my understanding is the if if we're putting two more hotels there it's one now you want to make it two are then would two mathematically speaking two hotels have to be on one site you you could
yeah so you could put all three hotels on one site that's the this subdivision is going to ultimately be for um financing purposes so they could be financing that second hotel with cash I haven't talked with them about that or they they could do with cash or they could do a loan um under their their own
owner. I just don't know the answer to that. But um I know that they're not wanting to finance the whole uh development as one. Um and then you know well I I think that I I'd be speculating if I said more than that. I'm already speculating some.
Any additional questions? Okay. Thanks. All right. Thank you. At this point, we'll close um the open discussion and revert to board conversation. I think I've kind of shared my stance. Does anybody else have any? And I think I have to I think I can
see Yeah, I listened to the technical review committee. So, it seems like this is fairly administrative. Okay. Do we have a motion? Do we need to disclose any experte? any I'm not sure city attorney is this a um a case where
exparte is relevant or we swear the witnesses and if you have an exparte then it would be be helpful to disclose it that way if it's determined to be quasa judicial then we've complied with the rules most of the time they think plata think of plat's legislative but you can go ahead and do the exparte to
be on the safe side okay other than listening to our technical review committee none for I just talked to Brandon about the details of this Commissioner Core. Sorry. Any expert? Didn't hear you verbalize exparte. No.
Thank you. I'll make head shaking doesn't work because they have to pick it up at the clerk's minutes. Okay. I'll make a motion to recommend approval of preliminary plat number 255040. City commission. I'll second.
Vice Chair Garshaw, yes. Member Small, yes. Member Cosy, yes. Member Core, no. Chair Chase, yes. Motion carries 4 to one. Thank you guys. Moving on to our second case for today. Case number
255042. Kristen, if I could have the PowerPoint, piece. Okay. Kristen Coleman, senior planner. And we're moving on to variance case number 255042 located at 1346 Bokea Isle Drive.
Uh we're have a practical difficulty variance request. Andrea Roa for Thomas and Rita Sue Memorine Revocable Living Trust request a variance for the proposed construction of a second floor edition which includes a 9'2 in x 17 ft
second floor roofed rear deck with a proposed rear yard setback of 14 ft 10 1/2 in where 20 ft is required and looking for relief from land development code section 9.7 A4. Okay, here's an aerial view of the
site. It's outlined in red. And this property is located within the RU2 residential zoning district. Uh here's a current survey of the property. It's an interior uh waterfront lot. It's improved with a single family residence, a PA driveway
and patio areas, uh pool and spa, as well as a dock with boat lift. And here is a survey with the proposed improvements. Um you will note at the southern um the rear of the property on the southern side of the lot in the gray. So a portion of the
proposed second floor uh covered rear deck is located within the 20 foot uh required rear yard setback. Just more um on the request that they're looking for. Currently they do have a pre-existing non-conforming
setback and that is a 15 ft and that was granted by the board of adjustment. um in 2015 for a rear yard encroachment to allow for the construction of a rear edition. Um in researching that file, they originally came in for a 20ft rear
yard or I'm sorry, a 10-ft rear yard setback. Uh the board contemplated it, asked for them to come back and they had a 15 rear yard setback foot rear yard setback which was appro ultimately approved by the board. And then today they're asking for a 14 foot 10 and a
half inch rear yard sebac which is a little bit greater of an encroachment um than was previously granted. So just for some background information for the board. Bringing you on to the property. Uh noticing was completed as required legal ad published and notices were
mailed on April 16th and signposted on April 22nd. And this is from the front property line from the street. You can see if you look on to the right, that addition that peaks up, that was the addition that was approved
in 2015. Going to the rear of the property looking south, uh the new addition would measure about to the edge of the PA patio that you can currently see. And here's just another view of that rear edition that was granite in 2015
with a 15 foot rear yard setback. How close to the pool does this go? So get my trusty scale out here 30. So as far as the existing addition that
looks from the about 9 ft from the new that addition that is to the north and with the proposed it would be about 7 ft to the spa area. So it's coming off the this is coming off the taller building. No, this
is coming off if you're looking at this picture it would be on the right hand side. The smaller building. Yes. In this area right here. So, it's essentially going up on the existing portion from what I understand of the dwelling and then also
extending out to where you see the edge of the paper patios. So, those trees will be gone. Correct. But if there if it was set back into the home and built straight up, then there would not be any need for a variance or is Yes. Currently the it does meet the
setback requirement. The current home does. The current home does. Correct. And the difference is it's hanging out over this. Yes. But if it was in flush with the current home, then there would be no variance. Correct. Okay. I think it's the deck, right? It is the deck
that and I have a okay yeah floor plan in here. Um so in my staff findings report I do request that the applicant uh provide some testimony and respond to uh clarify the specific relief being requested. The submitted plans do show a
setback of 14 ft 10 12 in while the application stated at 14 uh 14 ft. So I just want clarification on that. And if the board does not grant the variance, the applicant should also address whether there is an alternative location for the balcony and/or the stairs that
would not require relief and whether these elements are essential to the project or more of a preferred feature. So, here is kind of this one slide that we were we were kind of getting to where the existing addition on the north side you can see and on the right side
is where that proposed coven uh covered um second floor roof deck with stairs coming out and around. And I also included the floor plan. So, with the setback line on the bottom portion, that's that's the 20 foot setback requirement. And you can see a portion
of that. It's kind of halfway through. It does have a curve to it because the property is curved in the rear. Um of what is within that required setback and what would meet it. Yeah. Could you kind of point that out in that where where so the dashed line
that goes through the stairs that's the 20 foot um required setback. Okay. So, the house currently meets it, you can see, and he's going up on or they, not he, are going up on the existing first floor and then want to add on with
that second floor roof deck. Okay. And so, both of the So, they're meeting it on I don't know if this is which what's north,southeast, east, west on this one. Confused, too. So, to the north would be to the left, south is to the right. So, on the south side is no issues with the
south side. Correct. No, it meets the sideyard setback requirement. Correct. That's where that dash line. Okay. The one with the curve that represents the rear property line. Okay. So, it's just the staging of the stairs that have to
Yeah, the stairs and that portion of that. And then also in there, it looks to be like they're adding a fire. Is the only thing behind this house because we talked about the rear. Is the only thing after this house water? Yes. Correct. If so, there's no other person involved. And
Nope. And if we can go I can go back and I can show you. No, you don't need to. I just Okay. The aerial. I'm checking because I don't if there's no one back there who would care. And I just wanted to also point out like with the floor plan, they have the partial second floor plan that it does
appear that they have a deck coming off the center as well portion. Um, of course that meets requirements. I just wanted to give you the overall elevation, the floor plan so you can see it kind of all together. Yeah, I
think that curved line is really helpful to see kind of the component like a very small portion of the total project that actually falls within the backs up. Are the So, just looking at this is the deck that's across the two sides connected or
there's a break in them. I'm trying to make sure I'm I'm interpreting the plan. Um, there is no connection and we can we can not one congruent. Okay. No. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. And there's no stair off the other one.
Correct. And Kristen, we did have it looked like three letters in support. We did have three letters in support that were included in the packet. We received no additional. And I would like to note it's on either side of them and also across the waterway. So, um I believe 18
letters were sent out and we got three replies back. So, just to clarify that, the neighbor on the north side and south side both um send in letters. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Kristen. Would the applicant like to come forward and share
your case? Hi, my name is Thomas Memoring and thank you very much for your consideration. I do appreciate it. Uh I'm here mostly because of the flood. I mean, that's we're all dealing with it, obviously. And as we stayed in the 400 square foot
of the other addition, the original edition that we put on when we first moved here, um, we saw that we were going to spend a lot of money to rebuild and it could come right back because we we've been flooded four
times in the last four years, mostly in the pool. We've kept it out of the house until this one went till um just really uh appreciate you guys considering this and all the work that you've done Kristen. Really appreciate that. And uh mostly the reason why we're
building the deck back there is it's our only evac other than the stairway which will go down into the lower home because it's going to be indoor storeway uh stairway going up into the second floor. And most of the second floor will be all waterproofed uh up to 4
feet. No kitchens down there. I know. We're trying to make it mostly like a pool uh pool table karaoke, you know, just kind of a fun room down there. And we'll be living upstairs. So, if we get a flood like this again, it'll be just
pressure washing and cleaning up and uh no more having to live for Well, we've all been through it. So, yes, we have. Thank you for your consideration. And if you have any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer any questions. There were two questions that we wanted to
make sure we address. One was um whether the variance request is for the 14 or the 14 and 10 inches. I think there was a discrepancy between the application and the plan submitted. If if we could look at that picture of the actual back of the house showing the
deck back there, not the deck, but the patio back there. That one there. Um there's 3 ft and a little over three 3 and 1/2 ft from that glass door. It stays in the the variance and then it's about 6 feet 3 and six is nine. So it's
9 ft deck. So we're asking for about really about six to seven feet into the variance. Um so so we've got how many feet do are we asking for on the application? So 14. So
5t. So yeah. So the the explanation of request was just construct a second floor uh covered rear deck 9 by7 28 ft high with entry stairs with proposed 14t rear yard setback where 20 ft is required. So So 3
+ 6 is nine. That's how deep the deck is. We're going six feet into the variance in six. Well, I think what they're what I'm asking is not just the encroachment of how that yes, that is a consideration. It's just what is 20 ft I can tell you is required. One document
says 14 and the other one like your building plan say the setback from the seaw wall is 1410 and a half because that's a difference of 10 and a half inches which is considerable in my eyes when you're look you're asking for relief and I
understand and and I'm I'm fine with the we could go to an exact number if you wanted to just make a 15 ft most likely It needs to be the exact number you need because it needs to be the minimum amount. Okay. Right. 15. If
you're asking for a 15T No, no, no. 5 foot, there'll be 15 left. Um, so let's stay with the larger one, which would be the It would be 15 ft, right? So, it's 14, 10 and a half, or 15. Is
that what your plans? And I I tend to go with the building plans just because there's more detail in them rather than just something that was typed in. But that's I just wanted clarification that it is 14 feet 10 and a half inches is that rear yard setback that you're proposing because those plans are the
ones we're we're going by now. And and I'm sorry. No, that's fine. Um it's complicated. Yeah. Um and then um the other question was around you know whether you looked at designs that would not require this variance as a um we did
um we did extensively actually uh to find a way to get out of the upstairs without going back into the house for evac and also just to get out of the master bedroom into the backyard without going back to
the front of the house and out the back. Um, the the other building with the pool is your house also, correct? But they're not connected. That that actual I understand that, but why would you live in this one when you have the other one that's really tall? It's only 400 square ft. Oh, it is. There's an office. Hard to tell from
here. Yeah, absolutely. I'm actually living there with my wife and my three dogs. 400 ft. It's You're a very close family. Yes. Luckily, me and my wife get along very well. So, uh, so, you know, we're there for another year. This this project will take at least a year. Um
because after we finish this, as you well know, we have to go through engineering and then uh application. How big will the residence be then that you're building? Uh the entire residence will be about 5800. Including the 400 upstairs. No, I was
just talking about the new one that you're putting on top. Oh, it's 1,600 square feet. Okay. The new addition is so it does look like based on the plan provided the proposed primary residence would be
3,934 square ft. I don't know if that includes well residence not that big. That would be all of it. Not all of it. Okay. Yeah. Cuz right now we're we're only at about 28. Um, so
it's it it shouldn't be a sore thumb or sticking up. I mean, the front of the house will still look like a one-story uh cuz we're building on the second story is going on more of the back of the house. Uh, and so the windows is we can see in the picture there uh the
proposed uh drawings. Um the back will be facing the water, but from the front it won't look that much different other than that addition that's already there will look like it kind of comes across the back of the house. But we're not building two
stories on the front. Just kind of like the main house because the front is mostly garage and covered porches and then there's one bedroom over there that won't be uh won't be part of the addition. So it won't be a bedroom anymore either. You said, right? No. Right. I think you were
cut off too. You were trying to answer the question about exploring other options that would have yeah a varian everything was either going to go into the variance on the side or way too close to the pool. So we don't we can't really build
a stairway or anything off of the second floor without getting either into or over the pool or into another variance. Okay. Or like a tight tighter spiral staircase. Um, well, we have a spiral staircase. My
wife has a real problem with vertigo and and and she's scared of heights, so she needs she won't even go up the spiral staircase that we have to the third floor on that other addition. So, I'm not sure the spiral staircases work for
the um evac code. Good point. As a secondary. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know that this was about evac code. It wasn't completely, but it helped us design. Oh, sure. In in a way. But this
isn't about evac code. I mean, I'm sure we could find another way to get an evac, but we wanted a small deck back there. Um, you know, off the off the master and it it it made sense to put the evac there. So,
thanks. Any other questions for the applicant? So it's 1410 and a half. Correct. That that's 1410 and a half is what's what will be the setback. That is that what
we're asking for, right? Yeah. Understood. That is what you're asking for today. That is what you're requesting. So 20 ft. Think think going from your back property line to where Yeah. that 14 where 20 feet is normally
required is required. Correct. Yes. Yes. Thank you again for your time. Thank you so much. Given there's nobody else here today, I assume that we don't have anybody looking to speak on behalf or against. So, we will um close public comment and
open to board discussion. Well, if neither neighbor objects and there's nothing but water in the back, why not? Um actually let's do exparte before we um formal discussion. Member small. No nothing. I can see this
property from my backyard. So I'm very familiar with the property but I've not had any conversations or I've never been I've tried to get to the property and got lost. So none none. Okay. Sorry. I'm part like I I knew that we were going to start to get cases that were in
this situation, right, that were as a result of um resiliency and um I think we're now at the stage where people are getting to the process where they have those plans and have made those decisions. Um but this is kind of the first scenario. Um I think he's done, you know, a very extensive job trying to
come up with creative ways. I commend the fact that he's spoken with his neighbors and they're in support. I think you made a good point that it's a backyard, so it's just water, you know, there. If anything, he's just lessening his ability to have more, you know, green space. Um, so I would be very supportive of approving. And even there,
I don't think it's lessening the green space as I understand it because the pavers are already there. So, it's not actually impacting that, which is great because I think that's also important to maintain. So, my dogs love our grass. We're keeping all
good. Yes, I would concur with the feedback you just provided. I don't have any other thoughts or questions about this one. Well, based on all the evidence and the letters from the neighbors, I suggest the board approve case number 2542 as proposed. I'll
second that. Member Small. Yes. Member Cosy. Yes. Member Core. Yes. Vice Chair Garshaw. Sorry, did was there a comment? Um I did have a staff recommendation for um a condition as an asbuilt plan at the end.
I'd like to amend the motion to also include staff recommendation submission of a final asis built. Is that the word? ASB built survey. Asbuilt asbuilt survey showing all dimensions and setbacks to re be reviewed and approved by zoning prior to final inspections.
I second. We voting voting. We're voting on the amended that we have a a first and second. We redo roll call, please. Okay. Member Cosy. Yes. Member Core. Yes. Member Vice Chair Garshaw. Yes. Member Small. Yes. Chair Chase. Yes. Motion
carries. Congratulations. Good luck with the rebuild. All right. Any additional items for discussion? City attorney. What? Nothing today. Thank you. Okay, Kristen, how does next
month look? Um, it's looking light. I think we may have one application right now. Um, that's circling. Um, and just with the asbuilt survey, you're going to I generally put that in there as a condition. It's just to pretty much verify that what you guys approved, they
actually construct it. It's just a a measure to double check, which is super smart because we've had people come in here with five inches wrong and then you get to go through this fun process again. Yeah. Or something along those lines like correct. We did see recently.
Yes, we have the garage I believe. So, yeah, let's not do that. Good. Yep. All right. Meeting adjourned.