Symmes Township - BZA Meeting - September 9 2024
ESP Media Podcasts
Symmes Township - BZA Meeting - September 9 2024
I like to call the Board of zoning appeal for September 9th, 2024 to order first item on the agenda, Pledge of Allegiance, please rise. >> All right, Pledge of Allegiance 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. Thank you. >> Will I roll call, please? >> Ms. Harlow, present. >> Ms. Luca, present. Mr. Trick? >> Here. >> Mr. Wall? >> Here. >> Mr. George? >> Here. >> Okay. Those who can give testimony to this board, please rise and raise your right hand. Are they going to give for or against? >> Yes. >> Yep, raise your right hand. The testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Thank you. First item on the agenda, BCA 2024-08, Evans Landscaping, various requests for construction of a ground mounted sign that exceeds the maximum allowable height. And includes a variable electric message sign that the premises in 9743 East Cambera. >> Yes, so good evening, Brian Snyder, Henry County Planning and Development. This is a variance request for property in H Riverfront District on East Campera Road, as you stated. This property was the subject of a previous variance. It is the Adams Landscaping property on East Campera Road. In 2022, a variance was approved for a sign that included an LED variable message center. The LED variable message center is not permitted in the H District. It's only permitted in the E and E W retail districts. So they needed a variance to have the digital center at all in the H District. And then also, it exceeded the 25% of the total sign area limitation of the zoning resolution. Where a variable message center is only allowed to be at the 25% of the total sign area. The approval was granted, I believe, with the typical conditions related to not flashing in no videos and stuff like that. By the board in 2022, the appellant applied for a building permit after receiving his own certificate following that approval. The building permit was held up by the floodplain manager of stormwater and infrastructure, the Henry County stormwater and infrastructure department based on the fact that it was located in the floodplain. The monument style sign and the height of the sign and all of that and none of that complied with the floodplain restrictions. So, the building permit was not issued. During review of the sign with the stormwater infrastructure staff member, a very an alternate version of the sign was suggested or agreed to by the floodplain manager as being something that would meet the floodplain regulations. During that process, it was the understanding that a revised building permit which would require a revised zoning certificate which would require coming back to this board for approval of a different sign than what was approved. All those things are supposed to happen, instead the appellant built the sign. So, the sign that is on the property is not the same sign that was agreed to by the floodplain manager, it's also not the sign that you approved. So, following some zoning violation notices, the appellant has now made this variance request to allow the sign to stay in its present location at its present height and size. So, what is there now, requires two additional variances to the two that were already granted. It is still a very limited center sign, so that does require the variance because it's not an e-district. It still occupies the entire sign, I believe, or it's greater than 25% of the total sign area, so that requires a variance as well, sorry, the very limited centers are slightly larger than the free-stating sign, but it's definitely not 25%. Both those previous variances would still be needed, but now this is also a pole sign instead of a ground sign, so that's the third variance that's being requested tonight. And the sign is 14 feet tall or 10 feet is the maximum that would be permitted in the age district, so height variance, type of sign being pulled mounted, not ground mounted, and then also the digital sign and the percentage of the overall sign area. So, staff has some findings about the sign itself. It does have somewhat of a skirt, not a exposed pole. The skirt that's proposed makes it look, I guess, less like a pole sign, but it's still not the same as the base, and they're still a pole under the skirt, so it does still qualify as a pole sign. There's not really anything around here that would be impacted by the additional height in the digital area. Obviously, the staff court didn't really go into the digital sign itself or the percentage since those variances were previously granted. So, the staff court has the typical concerns about setting precedent for taller signs and pole signs instead of ground signs. But this, we did also look at the floodplain to see if there was any other location outside of the floodplain where a mod event sign could be installed, and there is not, the entire property is in the floodplain. All the way up to the railroad on one side, the road on the other, the river and the adjacent property to the southwest, all of that entire properties in the floodplain. So, it's unlikely that any type of ground mounts and sign or reduced height sign or anything else would be permissible with the cabinets as proposed. One of the cabinets could be removed and the sign could be lowered to meet the 10 foot height requirement in the bottom cabinet. We have to stay out of the floodplain, which is what is out there currently. That's the reason for the 14 foot height is to keep the cabinet out of the floodplain. A ground mount sign of any type is going to displace more water. It's unlikely that that would be approved anywhere on the property based on the floodplain restrictions. So, the staff did point out all of those, all of those limitations on this property. And this remains, as it was previously, an area of variance in the practical difficulty standards are on the base three of the staff court. That is all I have. Do you have any questions? Yes. So, the height, overall height of the sign, the 14 feet gets it out of the floodplain or the height of the flood zone. It's the height that they needed to take the cabinets that they had approved previously. So, the two cabinets were the same as what was previously approved in the previous variance. They had to raise them up out of the floodplain to get that size of the cabinet on that sign. And what's, it's all 20, 25. It needs 25% for the overall signage for the message board. It's supposed to be the message board things were written a long time ago where you could have a smaller bit message for the bottom of a bigger static sign. Right. It says 25%. It's 25% of the static sign. Correct. I mean, if the static sign was 50 square feet, then, you know, 12 square feet of it would be allowed. It would be allowed to be, she used 100 to the 100 square feet standing sign. But the top cabinet is, can be 75, the bottom cabinet can be 25. Okay. I don't have any questions at this point. Do we know what the rules are with the floodplain as far as the height? And then I have a second follow up question as far as are they allowed to build up to what I think is called the skirt part of the sign. Because I seem to call something like that with a church at one point with their sign. I didn't know if that was something that could be managed a little bit differently. It's, we don't know what the floodplain regulations are. I don't. I'm not a floodplain manager. Obviously the floodplain manager is not here. So no, I don't know the answer to that question. I believe though, in talking to the floodplain manager that this is the minimum height necessary to get out of the floodplain. Like that this has to be this exact height to the bottom of the cabinet for it to be approval. Okay. Did they have to get approvals because of the floodplain with the prior sign? Or is that no because of the static? I don't know. The regulations might have been different at the time. The floodplain boundaries change sometimes. I don't know. I'm not familiar with that. I'm still unclear on why the older sign that would have met the two other variants of quests would not have been built. So in the floodplain management world, the displacement of water is what they mainly concern themselves with. So if you build a structure that's however many square feet of area that can't be occupied by water when it floods. So the idea is that if you build a 10,000 square foot structure that's 10,000 square foot feet of extra water that's going to be flooding somebody downstream. So the only way you can get that approved is if you do some kind of equal adjustment of the floodplain somewhere else. Like if you have the ability to, you can, I don't know. There are a number of ways that I've heard that you can get around it, but I don't know for sure how you do. But I mean, I thought you started initially by saying that the sign was approved by the floodplain management after they made the additional adjustment. Something similar to the sign that's before you tonight was what the floodplain manager said would be the necessary required to get the floodplain approval. She couldn't approve the sign that was previously approved by this board because it was a monument style sign with these cabinets and it was all in the floodplain displacing all of that water. So I don't know what that coefficient is. I don't know what the number was, but the skirt and pole and monument that is there now somehow displaces enough water that they don't have to worry about doing anything else. But any other part of the structure being in the floodplain requires some other action and apparently there's not anything that can be done about that. I honestly don't know what that regulation is. And was there any communication between Evans and the township about what they were planning on doing before their sign just went out? There are discussions between floodplain manager and somebody with the Evans group and normally this is something that gets handled by a sign company. Like usually a sign company builds your sign for you. They're familiar with all of these regulations. So they handle this ahead of time and realize what they need to do beforehand. I don't believe that was the case here. I think the company was handling it themselves instead of the sign company. I'm not going to speak for the penalty. He is here. He can answer that specifically. But I know that there were lots of discussions with the floodplain manager and then at some point all communication just stopped because they built the sign until they received violation notices. I don't think that we heard anything more about the building permit or the zoning permit or the floodplain issues. Okay. Thank you. I got one more question. If whatever we approve here, would it have to go back to the floodplain? Yeah. Don't go through those. Like the newsletter certificate would have to get an issue based on this refusal. A new building permit would have to be applied for or revisions to the building permit. I'm not sure they might be able to revise the one they already have. Either way, no matter what, they won't get a building permit until the floodplain manager signs off on that review. Okay. Sorry. That's okay. I may be the only person that wasn't on this board in 2022. Did I miss the reason why we allowed more than 25% of the sign to be the moving? I'm curious what the original justification, first of all, they're not allowed in the zone. Secondly, it was passed with more than what would be allowed if it was allowed. So I don't know. I'm just kind of curious how we got here. I think the 25% has been exceeded in a lot of locations. I think that a lot of schools that have digital science have more than 25%. I don't recall the exact reasoning the board used, but there are a number of other examples where that 25% has been varied as part of other conditional use or variance requests. So in my many years on the zoning commission, Brian, we went through a whole rigmarole and we approved the one on the site directly next door, which is... Mike's carwash, which is either E or EE, I don't know which. Were they allowed there? Was that a total variance there? No, the digital part is allowed there, but it was maximum of 25%. So there wasn't a variance for that, and then they had a couple other digital sides and random variances as part of the W.E. Okay, because obviously setting precedent is something we're talking about. I'm just curious. I mean, it is interesting. I do believe that either we or the outcome are both pointed out that that side does exist and it was granted a variance to be more than 25%, and it is taller, but it's also in a different zone. Do you know if it's in the floodplain? It is not. Okay. I think the rest are minor for the appellate. That's my questions. Brian, I have a question. Going back to the first time of the variance that we approved, did we put a condition on time limits for the digital lighting? Did we write from 12 to 6? I do not know. Honestly, I don't know. I don't have the previous approval. I know we didn't have the limit from like 12th-night off. I know it was verbiage, and I know it was any cartoons, but the illumination itself, we put a time limit on the digital lighting. One other question. Are we basically approving, if whatever we approve, we go back to the size of the sign, the height of all three of them, or is what was approved in 22, great mother been? It's not other than the fact that it would be hard for you to say that it's not appropriate now when it was appropriate that and nothing has changed, unless there's some finding that you would make as part of what you're going to, how you were going to vote, that related to the difference between a 10-foot tall sign and a 14-foot tall sign being the reason. That's why the report writes it the way that it wrote it, because these two things were granted previously, and we didn't really go into those, because we as staff, we don't feel that the four additional feet would matter. And there's the whole paragraph, I believe, on what's surrounding this property and not impacting any other residents and all of that. But no, you do have the, I mean, this is a new variance request, this is a new board, you do have to grant the four variances, the two that are work granted previously, are not automatically approved, they're not considered grandfathered. Okay. And you can do this as well. What's the second one, besides the greater than 25 percent? Even having it. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Oh, one other one, I guess. We are also having to have to approve the 14-foot. Yeah, correct. That's the four. Yeah. Having it 25 percent, four-foot additional height, and pole not round, now it's written. Okay. Ron, I just want to make sure I understand. Evan's built this. It's there. Right, right. It's there. I mean, I saw it tonight. They built this, and knowing that it was different than what was allowed, they built it without any consideration of approaching this board or Hamilton County Board of Zoning, saying that, hey, we have to change what was originally planned, and that was lost. That was not. It was built without a building permit. Okay. I just want to make sure I understand. Brian, I know you have to leave. Yes. Do you know what the height of the old sign was? I do not. Okay. Perhaps the appellant does. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else going to speak for all? Against or? Anyone speak for now? Good evening. Good evening. I'm Jake Merr with Evans. Do you want to start with questions for me first or? Give you a presentation, please. All right. So, I mean, I will admit right up front that we did not follow through with the next step once the floodplain manager made us change what was originally approved. I mean, I don't know how or why it got lost, but I didn't realize that we would have to go through the whole procedure again, because I was under the understanding that floodplain manager and this group would all be communicating and understanding. But, you know, obviously that's not what happened. So, I apologize for that. I mean, that was our fault. We didn't follow through with that. But I'll also say that when this was approved back in 2022, there was no discussion about a floodplain issue until we got the permit and started, and then the floodplain manager came and said, "Hey, it's got to be a certain elevation to make this work." So, I don't know how that got lost either, but, you know, when they came to us, we agreed that, okay, for what you say, this elevation, to keep the electrical components out of the floodplain, we'll build it to that. And that's why we're going from a 10-foot-high original sign to a 14-foot-high original sign or new sign. Okay. Any questions? Isn't safe to say you've probably learned in hindsight the benefit of using a sign company? Well, we did. And we worked with Ray Meyer, and we were communicating together. We were all mixed together. Okay, so you did have a sign company? Yeah, yeah. We used Ray Meyer. They'd have done six of them for us. And they were contacted by Olivia Moultrie, I think a certain name, the floodplain manager. And he's the one that brought that to my attention that they said, hey, our original approval now has to be higher to keep the electrical components out of the floodplain. And the sign that's there now is the exact same measurements and dimensions as the original one that was approved, except it's four-foot taller. It's a pull sign now versus the same one that was approved in 2022 by the drawings. It's a five-by-five tube going straight down in the ground all the way up. If I could. It's 10-foot before, and now it's 14-foot. If I can clarify, the skirt that's on it now is not the skirt that's proposed. If you see this sheet, the pictures that show the existing signs show that it's trying to have a skirt that makes it look more like a monument. It's a wide skirt, but what they're actually asking for is narrower than that because that wide of a skirt doesn't mean the floodplain regulations. Do they have to change the sign now? Yes. I apologize. They have to change the skirting. They have to make it narrower because the skirt is too wide. Then it is now? Yes. Just out of curiosity, why did you change the sign to be, what prompted you to change the sign to begin with, what were you trying to accomplish? We didn't change it. No, from the very original sign. Oh, to make it, we wouldn't want to get with the modern age. We wanted to have a digital sign like everybody else. Again, I was on the board at that time. Yes, arduous, typical, you know, go out there and change the letters and put stuff on there and they're all old and worn out. Oh, like the fall is here? Yes. There will be a light limitation or time limit on the sign itself. Yes. Would you tell me specifically what those are? Yeah, I mean, I'll tell you here. It's on the original variance approval that you gave us. It says, "Propose variable message center sign should not be lit from the hours of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. unless the company is open for business." Okay. And when we discuss this originally, we do snow revivals, so sometimes we're open 24 hours, so that's why we have that as an option. Okay. As long as that's still there? Is there some kind of messaging restrictions? Yes. You want me to read through each one of these? There's a list of eight different little situations here. One says, "Despite change interval and the variable sign shall be set at 8.30 seconds." So every 30 seconds. "Propose variable message center shall not exhibit animation. They remain exactly shown on the plants and plans. Propose variable message center should not be relocated or allowed without the approval of the board. Propose variable message should be maintained to satisfy their condition." That's about it. Okay. So the two related to the side display are the standards from the design and resolution for digital displays. Since they're not permitted in the H, they're the same. They should be the same as the standards from the E district. Okay. That prevents you from having videos and running copies and flashing images. The last three that you've read are the standard conditions. Okay. Well, I know our restrictions on mics were extensive in allowing it for our permitting it, so I just want to make sure we've got some reasonable ones in this one too. And can I just point out the floodplain issue, it was going back and forth with the floodplain manager because there's different floodplain elevations that you have to follow, but they come, I can't explain what they are. We were originally told that the electrical opponents had to be at 579, which was above floodplain control. But we were approved by an email from Ms. Ultry. Is it Ultry? What's her name? Olivia Mulcher. Yes. That she accepted it at 575.4. And then I think ours is at 578 is where the electrical components are out of the floodplain. So it was a little confusing, but there is email confirmation statement approved 575, which would be the bottom of the reader board. So from the bottom up, that's where you see the digital display, that's where all the electrical components are. So just from chronology, back in 2022, when the variant was granted, that was at a 10-foot level. Correct. And at that point in time, did Evan start building the sign, then someone from the floodplain just came and stopped Evan from building the sign. I'm trying to get sort of a sense of what happened after. Can I explain the procedural? And then you can explain where I don't leave out the procedural requirements for like a variance, whatever a variance comes to this board. You have to apply for a permit and you get denied. So you see the notice of refusal. That's the official denial that they're allowed to appeal. That's how somebody gets to the board and zoning appeals for a variance request. So that's how they got here. Once this is done, though, they have to go back and complete their zoning certificate that was originally denied. It gets overturned by you when you grant a variance. We then issue the zoning certificate. They apply for a building permit. When they apply for a building permit, all building permits are routed to numerous agencies, including stormwater and infrastructure, the fire department, the roads department. I mean, it goes to several different places. And all of those groups have to sign off before the building permit can be issued. So they've followed through on the zoning certificate, applied for the building permit. It got sent to floodplain review, floodplain review, contacted them directly and started working on some revisions. And that's where, as he stated, they just didn't follow through on the rest of it. Normally, it would have had to go back. To get a building permit, they would have asked for a revised zoning certificate. We would have been able to refuse that because it wasn't the sign. It would have come back here for a variance request. And if it got approved, they would have gone back, got their center certificate, gone back, got a new building permit, and then floodplain would have signed off on it and they would have been able to build it. Do we know? No. But I think, I thought you said, maybe I misunderstood that, there was an approved sign by floodplain that was sort of in the line of what the border zoning appeals agreed to. But then they went a little bit higher to finish up the sign. What she worked on them with was always totally different than what was approved by the board, because it can't be a monument and it had to be taller. And a smaller monument was what was approved. So from the very start, she told them, "You can't do a monument. You have to raise the cabinet out of the floodplain." And to do that, they had to get up to 14 feet in height and keep the bottom part clear. There was a skirt that was built, like I said, that's not the skirt that was approved. It's supposed to be narrower because it's too wide, too much floodplain. A pole is permissible with a small skirt and not the whole wide skirt that was built. But all of that discussion happened between the floodplain manager and the applicant. I apologize. I didn't know that Ray Meyer sign was involved. I only ever, I believe, I only ever dealt with you. But I did not deal with the sign of the company. So I'm not sure who was dealing with that. I was dealing with her with going back and forth, but that discussion was happening. Well, can I get an understanding then? So you're saying that the floodplain manager changed the original approved sign dimensions to give a different size skirt because that is an obstruction for the water flow. That's what you're trying to say, right? I believe that all those discussions were what you would have to do, the minimum you would have to do, to get her approval at all. So she just gave parameters. So you can't have a pole bigger than this, you can't have a cabinet lower than this. Like you said, you have to have your electric this height. All of those things are things that she was saying, you're going to have to do these things if you want my approval. Well, we, I mean, she gave it to you now. She didn't give it to you then. We got, yeah, we have a floodplain approval permit here. I mean, she signed off on it. Well, then when you went back to your building permit, you couldn't get a zoning certificate. So you couldn't proceed with the building permit. I mean, no zoning certificate for that sign because it wasn't approved by this board. I mean, that's why you're here because that sign was not. Correct. I agree. I'm not denying that we didn't, you know, follow that step. I mean, we built it per what the floodplain manager told us to build. That's my question. My question is after the floodplain manager gave them whatever guidance they did, and then they went ahead and built the sign without the zoning certificate. We're building permit. I mean, she didn't issue a building permit. We're building permit. Whatever. They did not get that other information was the actual sign that was built. What, what specified from what floodplain agreed to? Was it something different? No. The sign they built wasn't even what the floodplain manager signed off on. That's what I'm trying to find out. So that's what I'm trying to find out. I don't have that information. From what I saw from her records, it was in a different location in a slightly different design. Like, it didn't have that skirt that she put on the bottom of it because it wasn't allowed to have a skirt because it's in the floodplain. I mean, none of these things, none of these things mean anything to this hearing. Like, these are all discussions that happen outside of it. This is how we're getting to this point, for sure. But whether, whether the floodplain person did or didn't tell you was part of the building permit review process. And I'm pretty sure she clearly told you you had to go back and get a building permit revision to build a different sign. And then I'm pretty sure you knew that you needed a new zoning certificate to do that as well. And that you couldn't get that without a new variance because I'm pretty sure that one of our plans examiners told you all of those things at some point in time in the past. I'm just trying to get clarification on the chronology of what was going on. So I appreciate that very much. So because in my brain, the water's now a little bit muddier than what it was a minute ago. Currently, are they, their sign that they have now, is that currently in line with what is required from the floodplain person? Yes, so following the, I don't know, however many months it was after those discussions ended, the sign was built and the discussions restarted. The new graphic was sent to the floodplain manager. New discussions were had about compliance. The measurements were made and sent to her and she has signed off on this sign with the smaller skirt in this location at this height. Okay. Thank you. What is the skirt made up? Last year. Five or less. If it's an issue of making it smaller per whatever the flood manager wants, we can do that. I'm not aware of what that is. Brian, is there some kind of material that would be more in line with a monument? I don't believe so. I mean, like, that would meet the floodplain requirements. I don't think so, because I think it would all displace water and affect the flow of water. I'm pretty sure that's why she... So it's plastic because if the water gets that high, it'll just wash away? I mean, that's probably why they would want to have plastic in the floodplain. But I don't believe that it's permissible at that size still. Like I said, the base was, on the graphics that were submitted, the base was wide. But the floodplain managers drawing showed this being narrow. You're looking at two different pictures, Brian. Do we know how narrow it's supposed to be? There's the staff report picture. How narrow is it? Right, the staff report picture is what's actually there. That was what was going to start. And then there is this picture that was submitted by their application. Right. Brian, and you said for me to understand, you said that the skirt needs to be narrowed? No. Have you been not kept it as it is now? Well, now I'm completely confused because I don't see the graphics that I thought we had. I thought we had the graphic when designed with the narrow skirt, all I'm seeing is the sign with the narrow skirt. So the picture like this. There's been a lot of back and forth with me, the floodplain manager and the appellate. We do have a site offer. It's all on the ground, so I don't have any MCs. Brian, this sign's already up there, right? Yeah, it's already constructed. I'm getting more confused. And I'm an architect, and I understand lots of this stuff. By having me confused, I'm sure everybody else on this board is confused. I would like to get more information from the floodplain manager and what he signed off on. Before I can even make a determination of anything of what they built. And I can certainly get something. The sign is already up. Their business is still going on from it. And I don't think another 30 days from here is going to be, this is just me. And another 30 days until next month to hear, get all the information that we need to make a solid decision. Of what's happened makes sense to me. I don't know about the rest of this board. Well, there's no point in us approving something that we find out isn't what she approved. Exactly. And then we go around one more time. We're going around in circles chasing our tails. You know, they're not halfway going to construction. They're constructed whether, you know, it's, we need to figure out what's the right thing. And then if it has to be corrected, Evans will have to correct it. Because the original skirt that was approved back in 2022 was 62 inches wide. I don't know what the exact dimension is of the skirt that we have on there now. But I'm going to say it's pretty darn close. We wouldn't have approved a skirt. You did. No, even if we did the flood, they still had to go through the floodplain approval process before you could get and get a zoning certificate before you even get a building permit. So what you've done is, and I could empathize with you, you took it and said what we had, well, it's gospel now. We approved it. So it's, let's just build it. But there were other steps involved that had to happen. And I'm trying to get to the bottom of all these steps and to find out what was actually approved because I don't know what was exactly. Well, after disapproval in 2022, Ray Meyer did get the building permit to build it. So we have that was in place. How could he get the building permit ever? If zoning didn't, if floodplain didn't approve it. He had a building permit that we submitted. It was submitted. It was never approved. That's my understanding. That's my understanding. Well, you know, we're not trying to say who's a fault here. I just want to get to the bottom of it and get all the information so I can make an intelligent decision. I think I would support getting some additional information. What do we have to do to get along with Brian's telling me? If Brian's, you know, information. Yeah, I apologize. I don't have all the information either. I don't have all the history with this case. I can certainly get that. What is the process to get the information? Continue to hear in progress until next time. Yeah, we can, yeah, postpone it, postpone it, continue until next month. I have the history of the building permit application, whether it was issued or not. Now I have Olivia look at the floodplain manager, look at the graphics that were submitted. And sign up on them specifically in some way so that I know exactly what she approved so that you all have a copy of that. Okay. That's my understanding. And as of right now, so we have the stays. Right. I'm not going to make them tear it down. It's up there. We need to come get to a bottom of to get to a point where we can make some approvals or denials, one or the other. But the next thing is we have to make a motion to continue this until next month. So I make a motion to continue the 202408. 202048 until the next meeting in October. Okay, let's say so so we get the rest of the information. We get all the information we need to make it a determination. Do you need information? Is there anything particularly? I don't think so. I mean, Brian's going to pull all the information, gather if you can the old approved, what we approved and get the stuff from a floodplain. So we know what's going on and put together maybe. I mean, if you have letters, if you have letters from, you know, whether it be. I think we can't take letters unless they're half of David's. Yeah, but I would like to see the that Ray Meyer says he has the permit. I would love to see that permit. Yep. And I think Brian would like to see that permit too. I would. Actually, yes. I know we didn't issue zoning and they're not supposed to be able to get a bill permit for the neighborhood. So I'm going to just. You're not saying that's impossible. I'm not following you. No. So Jake, I mean, you want to say. I totally understand. It's not supposed to happen. I'm a landscaper, not a son of a person. No, and that's why we're trying to get to the bottom of it. And it's not. I don't think it's going to. Oh, we got to take a vote. And if somebody just. I'll second. Miss Harlow. Yes. Miss Buko, yes. Mr. Tripp. Yes, for continuance. Mr. Rule. Yes. Mr. Deutsch. Yes. Okay. We'll see you next month. Sorry for that, but. That's all right. We want to do what's right. Well, another letter come out announcing the date for that or is it already said. It's good. I'll tell you right now. I think it's the 7th. October 7th, yes, you are correct. Same time, same place, right? Yes. No bat signal. Sorry. Oh, come on. He changed it up all the time. All right. Anything else you need for me? No. No, thank you. Thank you. Sorry. We want to do a try. The right thing. I agree. I bring all the information that would support the association. All right. Thank you. Have a nice night. Thank you. You land any old business? No. Any new business? No. Approval of the minutes. We will make motion to prove the minutes. I will. We approve the minutes from August. Do we have a second? I'll second it. Okay. No. No. No. No. No. No. Ms. Buka? Yes. Mr. Trick? Yes. Mr. Wolf? Yes. Mr. George? Yes. Yes. You actually got to stay in here at the meeting. Wait. You weren't. Absolutely. Ms. Harlow? Yes. Okay. Any? Administrators shouldn't have matters. Nope. Okay. I moved that. We adjourned this meeting. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Is the library coming back again in October? Yes. We'll have two. We'll have two. We'll have two. All in favor? Yes. We'll have two. All in favor? Yes. We'll have two. All in favor? Yes. All in favor? Yes. All in favor? All in favor?