[1. Call to order and roll call.]
[00:00:08]
HERE. CHAIRMAN LINDA MR HONG HERE. OKAY THE SECOND ITEM OF BUSINESS IS TO APPROVE THE
[2. Approve the minutes from the April 25, 2022 Board of Zoning Appeals.]
MINUTES FROM THE APRIL 25TH 2022 BORDER ZONING APPEALS. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT WILL MAKE MOTION OKAY. AND ALL SECOND THE MOTION, SINCE WE ONLY HAVE TWO MEMBERS PRESENT OF WE'LL HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THAT. MR BRANDT? YES. MR HAN? YES, OKAY. MOTION CARRIES UH, THEN,[3. The continuation of the appeal of Gary W. Salters, Attorney, representing William and Wanda Burkey, 1567 Tuscarora Dr., (Parcel 040-005912) for a variance to Section (Table) 1135.14- III -Planned Unit Development District; Area, Yard, Coverage and Supplementary Regulations; to exceed the 30’-0” front setback on a corner lot by 20’-0”, with a 6’-0” tall privacy fence, for a total front setback on Buckeye Parkway of 10’. This case was tabled on April 25, 2022.]
ARE FIRST ITEM OF. BUSINESS FURNITURE PEEL IS THE CONTINUATION OF THE APPEAL OF GARY W. S SOLDIER'S ATTORNEY REPRESENTING WILLIAM AND WONDER , BERKEY 15 67 TUSCARORA DRIVE.PART OF PARCEL 040005. FOR A VARIANCE TO SECTION TABLE 11 35 POINT 14 DASH. I DASH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AREA YARD COVERAGE AND SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS TO EXCEED THE 30.
THE. FRONT SET BACK ON A CORNER LOT OF 20 FT WITH A SIX FT TALL PRIVACY FENCE FOR A TOTAL FRONT SETBACK ON BUCKEYE PARKWAY. OF 10 FT. THIS CASE WAS TABLED ON APRIL 25TH. 2022 I WILL SWEAR IN NOW, ANY WITNESSES THAT WE HAVE, MR SOLDER? YOU'RE THE ONLY WITNESS OKAY WITH YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND. OKAY MR SOLIDERS. LISTEN TO YOU. WHEN WE WERE LAST YEAR AND DISCUSSING THE APPEAL, THERE WAS SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT TRYING TO PERHAPS SPLIT SPLIT THE DIFFERENCE TO SOME DEGREE REGARDING MAYBE AMENDING, I GUESS THE BURBAGE AND AMENDING THE DETAILS OF OUR APPEAL, AND I KNOW THERE WAS A NEIGHBOR THAT APPEARED THAT EXPRESSED SOME CONCERNS AND NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR. SO, UM, ONE OF THE POTENTIAL SOLUTION OR PROPOSED SOLUTION WAS PERHAPS LEAVING THE FENCE AS IT LEAVING THE FENCE AND ITS EXISTING FOOTPRINT BUT THEN SHORTENING THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE IN SOME AREAS TO ADDRESS THAT THE LINE OF SIGHT ISSUE AT THAT TIME THAT THAT WAS SOMETHING WE SAID WE'D BE WILLING TO CONSIDER AND LOOK INTO THAT WITH RESPECT TO WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS WOULD I'M SORRY WITH THE FINANCIAL COSTS WOULD BE TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT ALSO WE UNDERSTOOD AT THE TIME THAT THERE WOULD LIKELY BE REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED UPON US BY THE CITY BY CITY COUNCIL REGARDING LANDSCAPING, SOME ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING THAT WAS NOT PRESENT IN THE INITIAL CONSIDERATIONS. WE LOOKED AT THAT CANDIDLY. THE COST IS EXORBITANT TO SHORTEN THE FENCE , AND THEN THAT THAT ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING SO THAT IS BEYOND WHAT THE BURKINIS ARE WILLING TO DO. SO GIVEN THAT THAT THAT NOTION OF, I GUESS MODIFYING OUR APPEAL AND MODIFYING OUR REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO MEET THE THEY REQUIREMENTS OR THE EXPECTATIONS OF WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME KIND OF SPLIT IN THE MIDDLE. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT BURKINIS ARE NOT ABLE TO DO. SO WE ARE BACK TO THE INITIAL BASIS OF UPS, AND WE'RE ASKING FOR EXACTLY WHAT WAS DESCRIBED THERE WITH RESPECT TO A VARIANCE 20 FT VARIANTS OF THE SETBACK TO ACCOMMODATE THE EXISTING FENCE. THAT AGAIN WAS HAS BEEN IN PLACE OR OFFENSE OF SIMILAR CONSTRUCTION OF DESIGN, AND SOME DIFFERENT HEIGHTS HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR 30. SOME YEARS. WE THINK WE'RE ASKING TO LEAVE THE FENCE AS BUILT. IN ITS CURRENT POSITION, AND I WOULD JUST REITERATE THERE IS A AREA VARIANCE TESTS AS WELL RECOGNIZED TEST ESTABLISHED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. THAT IS NOT THE TEST THEIR PEERS AND GROVE CITIES CODE. FOR AN AREA VARIANTS OR FOR ANY VARIANTS FOR SOME REASON, AND IT IS ALSO NOT THE TEST THAT WAS CONTAINED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT. STAFF REPORT LOOKS LIKE A BIT OF A CONGLOMERATION OR MERGER OF AN AREA VARIANCE TEST AND USE VARIANCE TEST NEITHER ONE OF THOSE TESTS NEITHER THE CODIFIED TEST FROM GROVE CITY, UH, LOCAL GROCERY ORDINANCES. OR THE STAFF REPORT TEST IS THE CORRECT TEST . THAT CORRECT TEST IS DUNCAN IS FOUND IN DUNCAN V. MIDDLE FIELDS OF SUPREME COURT OF OHIO TEST AGAIN, IT COULD BE FOUND IN 23, OR HIGH SPEED 33. COMMA FOR 91 NORTHEAST 2ND 6 29. WE WOULD ASK THIS BODY TO APPLY THAT TEST. WE DO BELIEVE THAT THE FACTORS IN THE AREA OF VARIANCE TEST AS ENUNCIATED IN DUNCAN, MOSTLY CUT IN THE BERNESE FAVOR. THAT IS A BALANCING TEST. IT IS NOT. WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH EVERY SINGLE ELEMENT OF THAT TEST HAS BEEN SATISFIED IN OUR FAVOR. WE ARE ONLY REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH THAT ON BALANCE, IT
[00:05:02]
WOULD BE MORE JUST TO ALLOW BURKINIS FENCE TO REMAIN PLACE OR THAT JUSTICE WOULD BE DONE AND THAT PREDOMINANTLY THE DEEP MAJORITY OF FAVORS, UH CUT IN OUR FAVOR. I'M SORRY MAJORITY OF FACTORS CUT IN OUR FAVOR. AND WE THINK THAT THOSE FACTORS DO IN FACT CUT IN OUR FAVOR. IN THIS CASE, PEOPLE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AT THE LAST MEETING. I DON'T OTHER THAN THE NEIGHBOR HAVING SOME SOME CONCERNS WITH THE LINE OF SIGHT. AGAIN THERE WERE THERE WAS NO OTHER TESTIMONY REGARDING THE FACTORS THAT WOULD NOT CUT IN THE BERKSHIRES FAVOR AND A LOT OF THOSE FACTORS IN THEIR APPLICATION OR COMMON SENSE, AND WE THINK IF THE BOARD APPLIES IT'S COMMON SENSE PROPERLY APPLIES THE CORRECT TEST IN THIS CASE THAT IT WOULD AND SHOULD FIND IN THE BERKEY FAVOR ON THE BIRDIES REQUEST FOR VARIANCE. AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED.THAT IS ALL. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ALONE. NO NO, NOT AT THIS TIME. I'M JUST THINKING FOR A MINUTE. GO AHEAD. I HAVE A QUESTION OF OUR LEGAL COUNSEL. JESSE DO YOU AGREE WITH MR UH SOLDIERS INTERPRETATION OF THE SUPREME COURT DECISION OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU BELIEVE HAS TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT WHERE THE CASE IS CURRENTLY PENDING. I AGREE WITH HIM THAT DUNCAN SPEAKS TO STATEWIDE RECOGNIZED FACTORS FOR AN AREA VARIANTS. AND I AGREE THAT IT'S BALANCING TEST. AH THE FACT THAT SOME OF THE FACTORS IN THE GROWTH CITY CODE MAYBE DIFFERENTLY. WORDED OR DIFFERENT, I THINK IS NIGHT. COMPLETELY FATAL TO THE CITY'S CODE. I THINK THE FACTORS GENERALLY. ARE REVIEWED. I THINK THEY GENERALLY FOCUS ON THE SAME USES. I AGREE WITH HIM. THERE'S SOME USE VARIANCE IN AREA VARIANTS OVERLAP. BUT I THINK THE STAFF REPORT SORT OF LAYS OUT A BALANCING TEST THAT COULD VERY LIKELY MEET THE DUNCAN 10.
SO YOU REALLY DIDN'T DO NOT HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH WHAT STAFF HAS PROPOSED. DO YOU THINK THAT IT DOES FALL WITHIN? THE OF US SUPREME COURT STUNK, AND I THINK IT FALLS ENOUGH WITHIN IT. I AGREE WITH MR SALTER'S THAT IT IS NOT WORD FOR WORD. WHAT DUNCAN HAS SAID, OR THE FACTORS THAT THEY ACCEPT. BUT THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT OVERLAP. OKAY UH, I WAS GONNA ASK YOU TO RESPOND TO THAT. AND I THINK THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE WITH THAT THERE IS THERE IS SOME OVERLAP, BUT ALL THREE TESTS AND I'LL CALL THE STAFF REPORT TESTED FREESTANDING TEST. THE TEST THAT'S FOUND IN THE CODE ITS OWN TEST, AND THEN THE CODE THAT I HAVE POINTED THIS BODY TO IN DUNCAN, THOSE THREE DIFFERENT TESTS. THERE IS A BIT OF OVERLAP. THE PROBLEM IS IN THE APPLICATION IF THE BODY TAKES THE POSITION THAT EITHER OF THE OTHER TWO TESTS WITHIN WHAT THE ONE THAT'S FOUND IN THE CITY CODE OR THE ONE THAT HAS BEEN PROMULGATED BY THE BEAT ABOUT THE BUSH IN THE STAFF REPORT. IF YOU FIND THAT EVEN JUST ONE OF THE ELEMENTS IN IN THAT TEST ONE OF THOSE TWO TESTS, WHICHEVER YOU DECIDE TO APPLY IF YOU FIND IT JUST ONE OF THOSE ELEMENTS DOESN'T EXIST HERE, BUT IT'S NOT REQUIRED IN DUNCAN ANYWAY. I THINK THIS BOARD WOULD WOULD COULD THEORETICALLY REJECT THE VARIANTS. USING A STANDARD THAT SAYS ALL THESE ELEMENTS MUST BE HERE, AND THEY'RE NOT. AND I THINK THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THE CODE IS YOU HAVE TO SATISFY EACH ONE OF THESE ELEMENTS. THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS A ALL THOSE ELEMENTS THAT THEY ARE IN THE CODE, FOR INSTANCE, THEY DO NOT APPEAR AND DUNCAN SO IF YOU PICK OUT ONE ELEMENT THAT IS NOT A DUNCAN ELEMENT, AND YOU SAY, BUT FOR INSTANCE, EXCUSE ME. UH, PARDON ME FOR JUST A MOMENT.
FOR. FOR EXAMPLE, NUMBER TWO. IN THE THAT IS ON THE APPLICATION, I BELIEVE, APPEARS IN THE ZONING CODE GRANTED THEIR REQUEST. IT WILL NOT CONFER UPON THE APPLICANT ANY SPECIAL PRIVILEGE THAT HAS DENIED BY THE ZONING CODE OF SIN CODE TO EACH OTHER LANDS ARE STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. IF THIS BODYWORK INCLUDE THAT SOMEHOW A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE WAS BEING GRANTED. AND SO THAT THAT IN AND OF ITSELF IS FATAL TO THE BIRDIES REQUEST THAT WOULD NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH DUNCAN. SO JUST JUST TO SAY, WELL, THE ELEMENTS ARE CLOSE ENOUGH THAT THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS I DON'T THINK THAT'S I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT DUNCAN SAYS. I THINK DUNCAN LAYS OUT A VERY NARROW TEST. IT'S A BALANCING TEST. I DON'T THINK THE CODE THE CITY CODE. THESE ARE BALANCING TEST. I DON'T THINK YOUR APPLICATION LAYS OUT OF BALANCING TEST. AND THE PROBLEM WITH PURSUING THE INCORRECT TEST THAT ISN'T SPECIFICALLY WHAT DUNCAN SAID.
FOURTH IS, IF YOU FIND THAT ONE ELEMENT IS MISSING. YOU THEORETICALLY COULD REJECT MY
[00:10:04]
CLIENT'S APPLICATION, WHICH WHICH, AGAIN? THAT FACTOR MAY NOT EVEN BE FOUND IN DUNCAN, AND THAT'S NOT THE SORT OF BALANCING THAT DUNCAN SAYS IS REQUIRED WHEN A B C A IS REQUIRED. IS CONSIDERING AN AREA VARIANCE REQUEST. SO YEAH. SO YOUR BASIC POSITION THAT WE HAVE. IS THAT WE SHOULD BE TOTALLY GRANTING OF VARIANTS OF EVEN WHERE THEY'VE EXTENDED OUT TO, UM WHAT 20 FT BEYOND WHAT ORIGINALLY WAS AND ALSO THE HEIGHT, WHICH THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS HAVE PROBLEMS WITH. MR AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT MR MAY TESTIFY TO LIVE SMILE. AH IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOUR APPLIANCE IS WILLING TO MAKE A COMPROMISE ON ON EITHER OF THOSE THE MOVEMENT BACK OR ANYTHING, OR DO YOU JUST SEE THE COST AS BEING TOO GREAT TO DO? AND I THINK THAT I THINK THAT'S THE BIGGEST PART OF THE PROBLEM, OBVIOUSLY AND TO SOME DEGREE AREAS SUPPOSE THE BOARD COULD COULD LOOK AT THIS AND STAFF COULD LOOK AT THIS AND SAY, WELL, THE BIRKINS HAS SPENT A LOT OF MONEY THAT MAYBE THE BIRKINS HAVE KIND OF CAUSED THEMSELVES SOME OF THEIR OWN PAIN. AND THERE MAY BE SOME TRUTH TO THAT, AT LEAST ON AN EMOTIONAL LEVEL. BUT THE HONEST ANSWER IS AT THIS POINT FOR THE BURKE IS TO CORRECT ANYTHING. TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING CODE THAT WASN'T BEING ENFORCED FOR PROBABLY THE LAST 30 YEARS THAT WHEN THE BIRDIES LOOKED AT THEIR LOT BEFORE THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, HAD EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE. THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE ABLE TO MODIFY THAT FENCE IN PLACE OR BUILD A FENCE IN THAT SAME PLACE. I THINK THE ANSWER IS IT'S NOT THAT THE BIRDIES ARE, YOU KNOW, BLOWING UP AND BEING STUBBORN AND SAYING THERE'S NOTHING WILL DO AND IN FACT, WE INDICATED THAT WE WOULD LOOK AT THIS AT THE LAST MEETING, BUT IT'S LITERALLY TRIPLED THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THE BURKI THOUGHT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO SPEND TO TRY TO REMEDY THIS, AND THAT'S PART OF THE HARDSHIP.WE'RE PART OF THE AGAINST THAT UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, BUT IT'S A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY TEST. THAT IS. PART OF THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY FOR THE BIRDIES IS THAT DESPITE THEIR WILLINGNESS TO TRY TO DO SOMETHING TO FIX THIS. EVERYTHING IS IT'S OUT OF SIGHT IN TERMS OF COST ALMOST EQUAL TO THE ORIGINAL COST OF DEFENSE. AND THAT WAS IN OUR ESTIMATION IS WHAT MAKES THIS TO MATCH THE SUPREME COURT'S WORDING OF THE TEST. THAT'S WHAT MAKES THIS PRACTICALLY DIFFICULT. FOR THE 3 30 FT SETBACK THAT'S ESTABLISHED CORRECT. THAT'S THAT'S ESTABLISHED. YES YOU HAVE YOUR ASKING TO BUILD. 20 FT INTO THAT. WHICH IS ALREADY BUILT. BREAD. SO THERE'S ALREADY BEEN A SETBACK OF STAFF. SO THE FENCES NOT INFORMING THE WAY. I THINK THAT'S RIGHT. I BELIEVE WE CAN SEE THAT THAT RIGHT RIGHT, SO AND THEN I UNDERSTAND. MR BURKI OF MM. WANTS TO REPLACE THE FENCE. BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT IF HE COUNT LICENSE CONTRACTORS TO LOOK INTO THIS. TO SEE WHAT HE COULD AND COULD NOT DO. UM SO. I KNOW. I MEAN, IT'S ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED. THE 30 FT. SO WE HAVE THAT FIRST. RIGHT? SO THEY'RE 20 FT INSIDE. WE WERE HOPING THAT MAYBE WE COULD HAVE GOT SOME SORT OF COMFORTABLE.
MM. SO, REALLY, THE QUESTION IS WELL, OBVIOUSLY. IF IT'S. OKAY NON CONFORMANCE FENCE OR OR IT IS. I MEAN, IT ISN'T WELL, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE QUESTION. I THINK WE KNOW IT'S A NONCONFORMING FENCE, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE AND THAT'S AND THAT'S WHY. UNFORTUNATELY, LIKE THAT'S THAT'S WHY BODIES SUCH AS THIS EXIST THAT THIS IS A CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE WE THINK AN EXCEPTION IS WARRANTED. AND AGAIN. WE THINK THAT THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PROPER TEST AND DO A BALANCING TEST THAT, UM THAT THE EQUITIES CUT IN FAVOR OF THE BIRDIES AND OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S THE SPORTS DECISION TO MAKE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE BOARD AGREES, THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNER, THOUGH THAT WAS IMPACTED BY THIS SORT OF MAY. AND AS MR MAY TESTIFY TO LAST SMILE HE WOULD SEE NO PROBLEM WITH KEEPING THE LENGTH OF THE FENCE WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT 20 SETBACK. WHICH WE COULD GRANT THAT AS A VARIANCE, BUT HE WANTED TO HAVE IT REDUCED AND I TAKE IT THAT THAT THE REDUCTION THAT BACK THE WHAT? 36 INCHES.
THERE WAS 42 INCHES FROM. 5 60 AGAINST BACK TO 40 TO CUT IT DOWN TO 42 A THAT THAT THEY
[00:15:11]
COULD BE ACCOMMODATED ON THAT ON THAT ONE SECTION OF THE FENCE. MUCH TO OUR SURPRISE, AND I WAS SURPRISED BY THIS AS WELL. WHEN WE CAME HERE LAST. I BELIEVE THE ESTIMATE THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED REGARDING RELOCATING THE FENCE WAS SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF $3800. NOW THERE WERE NO OTHER REQUIREMENTS THAT LOW LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS JUST WHAT HAPPENED AND OBTAINED THAT ESTATE. THE ESTIMATE TO CUT DOWN THE FENCE. AND WE MIGHT HAVE, WE MIGHT HAVE FAILED TO INCLUDE RELOCATING THE GATE IS ACTUALLY ALMOST DOUBLE THAT THERE'S A GATE IN FRONT THAT IS PARALLEL TO, UM TUSCARORA. UM AND THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE REALLY RELOCATED. I THINK THAT WAS ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE TO BE RELOCATED. BUT IN THE EVENT THAT NUMBER WENT FROM $3500 UP TO OVER $7000. AND THEN WHEN YOU THROW DOWN ON TOP OF THAT LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS THAT WE KNOW THAT THE CITY IS GOING TO IMPOSE ITS THEY? WE KNOW THAT, UH, THAT THAT WITHOUT THOSE, THE LANDSCAPING THAT WAS PART OF THE STAFF REPORT, UM, WITH THE STAFF WOULD SUPPORT OR WHAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS SUPPORTED. WE PROBABLY HAVE ANOTHER $1500 IN IN LANDSCAPING, AND WE PUT LANDSCAPING AND IF NOT MORE, SO IT'S JUST IT'S OVER TWO TIMES THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE REALLY THOUGHT WE WOULD HAVE TO SPEND. MS BHUTTO, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS ON THAT? NO. I MEAN, I THINK THE APPLICATION IS WHAT I'M HEARING IS AS STANDS. WHAT THEY SUBMITTED IS WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR. NO COMPROMISE. NO, NOTHING. SO I THINK IT'S I HAVE NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON IT'S PRETTY CLEAR WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR. WELL IF FOR SOME OTHER TESTIMONY, THEN JESSE, DO YOU HAVE ANY STATEMENT TO YOU WANT TO MAKE IT OR REFLATION TO THIS? I WOULDN'T. I MEAN, IF YOU BEFORE YOU CALL THE QUESTION ON IT, I WOULD JUST SAY WHAT YOU KNOW. GIVE SOME FIGHT AS TO THE FACTORS. THAT MR SHELTERS LAID OUT AS TO WHETHER THIS IS, UH, CAN SOMEBODY GET A REASONABLE RETURN ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT THE VARIANCE? DO YOU THINK THE VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL? UM WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD BE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER, THE NEIGHBORHOOD BE CHANGED BY THE GRANTING THE VARIANTS. WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT SERVICES. I THINK THAT ANSWER IS NO. I THINK THAT WAS CLEAR IN THE IN THE STAFF REPORT. AH WHETHER THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE RESTRICTIONS OR WHETHER THEY CAN OBVIATE THAT ISSUES THAT THEY'RE HAVING WITHOUT THE VERY JUST GIVE SOME FIGHT TO THOSE, YOU KNOW? GIVE US A FEW REASONS FOR YOUR DECISION BEFORE YOU MAKE IT AND THEN THAT'S ALL I WELL, IN THAT CASE. MR. HON, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? UM. I WOULD MAKE A MOTION A MOTION TO VOTE. NO. WELL WE DON'T KNOW. I'M SORRY THAT PROBABLY WE ONLY NEED EMOTION IF WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE OF THE VARY AND IF THERE IF HE THERE WON'T BE MUCH. THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY WOULD NOT BE A SECOND THE NEED THEIR CASE. I GUESS WE'LL JUST HAVE TO PROCEED WITH THE COURT CASE. OKAY WELL, THANK YOU. THANKS FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. OKAY. IN THAT CASE , UH, WE WILL MOVE ON. IS THERE ANY NEW BUSINESS? THERE IS NOT NONE. WELL, IN THAT CASE, THEN WE NORMALLY JUST ADJOURNED WITHOUT EMOTION. SO UH, THIS MEETING IS A JOINT THANK YOU.