you you the Planning is zoning board and land planning agency for Monday, October 7th, 2024 may come to order. Please silence all cell phones. Stephanie, please call the roll. Thomas Bean. Here. John Hall. Here. John Frank Houser. Here. Stephen Yates. Larry Weakrav. Here. Curtis Haudes. Here. And Kip Hulfer Short. Here. All right. Thank you. Approval of the agenda. City staff, do you have any changes to the agenda? We do have two changes. We would request that item 5D, variance 1224, and item 5I, variance 1524, be continued to our next meeting. Okay. Do we need to confirm that by vote or? Yes. Okay. So could I get a motion? Oh, well, let me first ask, is there any discussion about those agenda items? Okay. Seeing none, could I get a motion to continue those two items, stated by staff? Motion. Sir, guys. Gentlemen. Paul. Frank Halston. motion. Gentlemen. Paul. Frank. What's that? I would like to make a motion to continue those two. Thank you. I'll vote yes. We. I'll make a motion to continue items 5D and 5I till next session. Second. Can I give a second? Thank you. Stephanie, could you please call the roll though? Member Frank Halzer. Yes. Member Hulvershorn. Yes. Member Bean. Yes. Member Hall. Yes. Chair Weakrap. Yes. Both have been moved and continued to November's meeting. Thank you. Moving on to approval of the minutes, I understand there's no minutes for us to review for this particular meeting, so they will be moved to next month's meeting. Okay. We'll move on to public participation in accordance with resolution number 11-89, a three-minute limitation of being posed unless otherwise granted by the Planning and Zoning Board. This is the opportunity to address any item, not a part of a public hearing on tonight's agenda. So this is your time if you'd like to come forward to speak on anything that's not on tonight's agenda. If you don't mind stating your name and address for the record. Hi, my name is Cindy Harris, South Glend co-road. It's my first time talking before the board and thank you very much for having me. I brought a picture that was passed out to you earlier this evening. What you're looking at is two acres of my property on South Glencode. That is not a pond. This is from the storm on September 14th, just a typical Florida tropical storm. This is after 50 loads of filter that we had put in after Ian and we're facing a storm that's similar to Ian just two days from now. This area we found out after Ian is now called basin. This property my family has owned since the late 60s early 70s. This is not new property. When my family built here, we built on a sand ridge. All of this development that you guys have been improving in around this area has caused my family's home now come a basin. All of my neighbors that surround this area, their houses have been flooding. After Ian, a 93-year-old woman that lived right behind me, lived in water up to her knees, and it took three days for her next door neighbor to get to her to get her out of there. She lived three days with mold growing up her walls, because nobody could get to her. My husband had to drive the electrical power people down the street to restore the power to our neighbors because their equipment could not make it down the street. And here we go again in two days we're going to be facing the same similar situation. Nothing has been done. At the last commissioner meeting after the end of that, I had the pleasure of speaking to, I think his name was Ken Figgley, the city engineer, who told me they are just now doing a study on the storm water that's going to be finished in February 2025. That's three years after Ian. This is something that should have been done away before now. And I looked at all the planned and approved projects that are going on. And I see these things that are going up, like, for instance, LEO's coffee shop that's been approved right there at 95, two blocks from Paneras, a mile from Duck and Donuts and Starbucks. These are things that really don't need to be built. Retiring out the wetlands to flood all our neighbors. Look at edgewater. They're flooded. We're basically drowning here because of all this construction. You're building on continuously wetlands that need to be there to filter out all the stormwater and flooding out residents that have really built up New Sumerna Beach. People that have been here for years and years and years. My father was a contractor here and some of the homes that he's built now are underwater and it just pains me to see that this is going on. So we're letting people come in here like Deering Park. Your time has done, ma'am. I do appreciate your comments. I do understand the sentiment. I'm sure everybody else up here does as well. I've been paying attention to what's been going on, not only in our city, but also at the city of Edgewater and the flooding issues. I know the county's getting involved as well, but I appreciate the county's getting involved as well, but I appreciate the comment. I do understand I know that folks are working on it. So I thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to come forward for public participation? Seeing none, public participation is closed. We have no old business, so we'll move on to new business. Our first item is going to be a-8-24 at Juanita Drive. This is the review in first public hearing of a voluntary annexation, rezoning and small-scale conference of plan amendment to the future lane use map for the property located on Juanita Drive. City staff staff do you ever report? Yes, Mr. Chair. So in lieu of time we did not prepare for a PowerPoint on this. So we'll just read from the script that's based on the staff report. So the property is the rest of the voluntary annexation and a small skill kind of amendment and rezoning from the Volusia County teacher land use designation of urban low intensity. And Volusia County zoning designation of R4 Urban Single Family Residential from the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the notification zone. The site does contain approximately 0.68 plus or minus acres. It's located on the north side of Waanita, dropped east to Corbin Park Road and staff recommends planning zoning board give a positive recommendation to the city commission to approve the request to annexation. Small scale conference planning may change the future land use to city load Disney resident, density residential and rezoning the city R2 single-final residential within a attach for the airport height notification zone. That's a summary of the staff report, except in questions the board may have. Thank you. Any questions of staff? Before staff goes, I just want to make a point. Traditionally, we do have the full report, but everything's online. It's all available in public as well as us. We all have the chance to go through all the annexations tonight, right? Okay, I just wanted to make sure that that was clear that we've already looked at it reviewed it prior to this meeting. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Is the applicant a representative present? A seeing none, we'll move on to public participation. A three-minute limitation will be imposed unless otherwise granted by the Planning and Zoning Board. So, if anyone would like to come forward to speak on this agenda item, you have three minutes. Seeing none, public participation is closed. Nothing further from staff. Okay, discussion and or questions by the board. Okay, seeing none, questions by the board. Okay, seeing none, do I have a motion to recommend to the City Commission to approve the overall annexation request, including the rezoning and proposed future land use? I'll make a motion to recommend approval of case A-8-24, the annexation of the property at Winita Drive in Quirman Park Road. Thank you, can I get a second? Second. Thank you, Stephanie, could you please call the roll vote. Member Frank Halzer? Yes. Or Bean? Yes. Yes. Member Hall? Yes. Member Hulveshorn? Yes. And Chair, we craft. Yes. On the motion to recommend approval for A-8-24, Winita Drive. recommended approval for a-8-24 when needed drive the vote is Five in favor zero post emotion passes. Thank you Next up is going to be a-9-24 at when needed drive This is the review and first public hearing of a voluntary annexation the rezoning and small scale Conference of plan amendment to the future land use map for the property located on winning the drive city staff Do you ever report? Yes, Mr. Chair. So the prop note is requested the voluntary annexation, a small scale conference plan amendment and rezoning from a Volusia County future land use destination of urban low intensity and a Volusia County zoning designation of R4, urban single-fantile residential with an A attached for the airport height note of case and zone. To a compatible city future land use designation of low-density residential and a city zoning designation of R2, single-fand residential with an A attached for the airport height of the Cation zone. The site contains approximately 0.34 plus from Montess Acres. It's located on the north side of Juanita Drive east of Corbin Park Road. Staff recommends the plan of zoning board give a positive recommendation to the city commission to approve the request of annexation. Small scale confidence plan to change the future land use to city low density residential and rezoning to city RTC, single federal residential within the A attached for the airport height notification zone. That's December the staff report, seven questions at the board may have. Thank you, Bob. Any questions of city staff? Seeing none, thank you. Thank you. And the applicant is the same individual I'd imagine. Okay. Neighboring property. So, at this time we'll go ahead and open up public participation. A three minute limitation will be imposed unless otherwise granted by the planning zoning board. Okay. Seeing none, public participation is closed. Nothing further from staff I'd imagine. Okay. Discussion and or questions by the board. the city's closed. Nothing further from staff out of the board. Very similar to the first one. Is there a motion to recommend to the city commission to approve the overall annexation request, including the rezoning and proposed future land use? Do I have a motion? I'll make a motion to recommend approval of case A-9-24, the annexation of the property on Winita Drive and Quarantine Park Road. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you. Stephanie, could you please call the roll vote? Member Frank Hauser. Yes. Member Bean. Yes. Member Hall. Yes. Member Holbershorn. Yes. And Chair Wheatcroft. Yes. I'm going to recommend approval for a-9-24-1 need a drive. I vote it's five in favor. Zero pose and motion passes. Thank you. We'll move on to ZT-5-24 proposed code amendments. This is the public hearing for a proposed code amendment to the city land development regulations. City staff, do you ever report? Yes, good evening. I'll try to be quick. I don't know if I can be as quick as Bob. That was the fastest I've ever seen it done. He's been practicing his auctioneer. All right. I'm Shane Corbin, Director Development Services. Can I get the screen? Yep, it's like a little delay. There we go. All right. Just have a few slides. Should be pretty quick. So recently there was a denial of a variance. And we were talking about it with a new city manager. And he asked about the process, like what happens next. And as we described it, the appeals would go to the city commission. He said, we started asking questions about why do we do it that way. And actually, the facts are that the code is silent. It doesn't clearly state whether it goes to circuit court or whether it goes to city commission. And as a result, over the years years depending on who the city manager was along with who the city attorney was, dependent on whether it went to the circuit court or the city commission. So it was under the direction of the new city manager that we wanted to basically clear this up and make it clear that it's going to go to circuit court from now on and bypass the city commission. I did ask if he had spoken with the commission about it and he said that he had. So did ask if he had spoken with the commission about it, he said that he had. So I feel like there's support from the commission on this change. In addition, we did a global search in Munich code for appeals and we found a couple of other areas that we wanted to clean up. One was to change process from the interpretation of the city planner. Sometimes someone might say, yeah, I don't agree with the planning staff's interpretation of the city planner. Sometimes someone might say, yeah, I don't agree with the planning staff's interpretation of the code. How can I challenge this? And so there's process in place where that goes to the city manager. There's the applicant has to write something up. The city manager has to respond within 30 days and so forth. So we wanted to clean that up and actually send that to you all to the planning and zoning board instead of the city manager. In addition, we found something in the code of ordinances which is not in your purview to make a recommendation on, but just to tell you that it's there, that there is an appeals process to appeal the interpretation for primaryed uses in the Airport Noise impact zone. So we're going to clean that up too. That's going to go as a separate ordinance to the City Commission. So there'll be two ordinances on this topic going to the City Commission one, which is the tax amendments for the LDR, which you all will make a recommendation on tonight. And then the code of ordinances as well. But we're going to run those together at the same meeting. So the first one is 301.05 city manager. We're cutting that proposing to cut that completely out and that has to do with the interpretation challenge to the city planner. And then we're adding that responsibility to the planning and zoning board in 302.1. Also establishing clearly that any decision of the planning and zoning board, shall constitute the final administrative action and appeals must be filed within 30 days of the board's written order of rendition in the circuit court of the Luscious County. So that will put that item, assuming this County. So that will put that item, assuming this goes through, that'll put that item to bed once and for all. And that would be in 302-1, the rules, we just added number 12. Then in 305, we're proposing to cut the planning and zoning board decision shall become final in 15 days. Again, we're going back to the other language we're adding, which says basically you've got 30 days to appeal. This is redundant. This was under direction of the city attorney. And then lastly, again, this is the code of ordinances. Just showing you this for context. We don't have an airport board of adjustments. We're cutting that out and we're changing the pathway from the city manager to the planning and zoning board for the appeals. With that, that's all I've got, but we would recommend that you all give a positive recommendation to the city commission for the proposed text changes Thank you. Any questions the staff How do you think we should vote on this three times or once? Probably say once personally but one for all three I think it's one tax amendment to section Article 3. So one vote to amend Article 3. The second one was just to notice that you know that the code's going to be changed, but the first one is really will be one big ordinance changing all those sections. Now a question, if there was an appeal, I would worry about maybe somebody issues become very technical that somebody is appealing. Is there going to be a typical kind of report that comes from planning and here's what we have interpreted as if we've got some work if the appeal comes to you all yes Yeah, there would be a presentation and a report. Okay. Yeah The circuit of court appeal will be stuck to the record that's contained here. Okay. So that's why it's really important when you're denying something you put those reasons on the record so that the record is clear as to the confidence of substantial evidence you're relying on for that denial. And you can tie it back to a witness or something along those lines. Thank you. Any other questions or staff? Okay. Seeing none, thank you. Any other questions of staff? Seeing none, thank you. We'll go ahead and open up public participation. A three-minute limitation being imposed unless otherwise granted by the board. Seeing none, public participation is closed. I'd imagine nothing further from staff. Discussion and or questions by the board. Seems reasonable. Good with. Okay. Yeah. Well, would that be in the case? Is there a motion to recommend approval? There requested amendment to the City Commission. I'll make motion that item ZT524 be approved. Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. Well, recommendation to the city. Recommendation. Right. And we have a second. Stephanie, do you mind calling the roll vote? All right. Member Bean. Yes. Member Hovershorn. Yes. Member Hall. Yes. Member Frank Halzer. Yes. Chair, we craft. Yes. and approval for ZT-5-24 to Article 3 of the land development regulation. The vote is five in favor. Zero pose, the motion passes. Thank you. Item D has been continued, so we'll move on to item E, which is A-10-24 at 158 Spruce Street. This is the review and first public hearing of the voluntary annexation, resounding, and small scale comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use map for the property located at 158th's for street. City staff, do you ever report? Yes sir, so the property was requested a voluntary annexation, small scale comprehensive plan amendment and a rezoning from the Volusia County Future Land Use Desonation of Urban Medium Intensity and a Volusia County zoning designation of R4 Urban Single Fan Residential with an A attached for the airport height notification zone. To a compatible future lane use designation of medium density residential and a city's zoning designation of R2 Single Fan Residential with an A attached for the airport height notification zone. The site contains a property 0.25 plus from Montess Acres is located on the west side of Spruce Street between Woodland Avenue and Pioneer Trail. Staff recommends that the plan is on board. You have a positive recommendation to the City Commission to approve the request of annexation. Small scale conference plan amendment change in future land use to city meeting the residential and rezoning to city R2, single-fend residential within the A and Tatt for the airport height, notification zone. That is a summary of the staff for staff who have questions and board members may have. Thank you. Any questions of the city staff? Okay, seeing none. Thank you. Thank you. Is the applicant or representative present? Okay, seeing none, we'll move on to public participation. Okay, three minute limitation being posed unless otherwise granted by the planning zoning board. Okay, seeing none, public participation is closed. Discussion and or questions by the board. Seeing none, public participation is closed. Discussion and or questions by the board. No. Okay. Do I have a motion to recommend to the City Commission to approve the overall annexation request, including the rezoning and proposed future land use? I'd like to make a motion for the to recommend to the commission that we approve A-11-20 Wait, A-10-10-24 at 158 spruce tree. Thank you do I have a second. I certainly. Thank you Stephanie could you please call the roll vote. Member Frank Houser. vote. Member Frank Halzer. Yes. Member Hall. Yes. Member Bean. Yes. Member Hulveshorn. Yes. And Chair Weakcraft. Yes. On a motion to recommend approval for A-10-24 158 Spruce Street. Spruce Street. The vote is five in favor. A-0 in five in favor in zero. Opposed. in five in favor in zero post the motion passes. Thank you. Moving to item F, which is A-11-24 at 1997 pioneer trail. This is the review in first public hearing of a voluntary annexation, rezoning and small scale conference of plan amendment to the future land use map for the property located at 1997 pioneer trail. City staff, do you ever report? Yes, Mr. Chair. So the property owners requested a voluntary annexation, small scale conference plan amendment, and a rezoning from Volusia County, future land use designation of urban medium intensity and a Volusia County zoning designation of R4, urban single-fane residential with an A attached for the airport height of the case in zone. To a compatible city future land use destination of medium density residential and a zoning designation of R2 Single Fend residential with an A attached for the airport I-thode of Cation Zone. The site contains approximately 0.63 plus minus acres. It's located on the south-east corner of Pioneer Trail and Enterprise Avenue. Staff recommends that the plan is on the board give a positive recommendation to the City Commission to approve the request of annexation. Small scale conference plan to mimic change of the future lane used to city medium, density residential, and rezoning to city R2, single van residential within any attach for the airport height, notification zone. That is a summary of the staff reports of the questions board members may have. Thank you. Any questions of city staff? Okay, you seeing none? Thank you. Thank you. Is the applicant a representative present? I'm seeing none. Thank you. Thank you. Is the applicant a representative present? Saying none will move on to public participation a three-minute limitation being posed unless otherwise granted by the board Seeing none public participation is closed discussion and or questions by the board Any discussion? No Okay, seeing none do I have a motion to recommend to the City Commission to approve the overall annexation request, including the rezoning and proposed future land use? I guess I'll make a motion to recommend approval to the City Commission for case A-11-24, the annexation of the property at 1997 Pioneer Trail. Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you. Stephanie, could you please call the roll vote? Member Frank Houser. Yes. Sir Bean. Yes. Member Hall. Yes. Member Hulvershorn. Yes. And Chair Weakcraft. Yes. Motion-American approval for A-11-24 1997 pioneer trail. The vote is five and fair or zero. Opposed the motion passes. Okay. We'll move on. Thank you. Item G, which is going to be V-19-24 at 207 Magnolia Street. This is a public hearing for a variance to allow the removal of a specimen tree which results in the property falling below the required 80% specimen tree protection for property located at 207 Magnolia Street. City staff, do you ever report? Yes, sir, I do. So the subject property is 207 Magnolia and 118 Douglas. The request is a variance to from section 1105, paragraph 4c, of the city's L.E.D.R. regulation to offer the removal of the specimen tree. Subject property is our zone, a city mix used and located at the northeast corner of Magnolia and Douglas. Property consists of roughly 0.44 acres. Here, as you can see, is especially an oak from Magnolia Street. The oak from Douglas Street. Some of the current conditions, two of the big co-dominant stems were removed in previous efforts to print the tree. And there's some evidence of rot in the branch collar. In January of 2024, pre-application meeting was held with city staff, staff to advise on a proposed multifamily complex or by the applicant on the property at the corner of Magnolia and Douglas. Pull your microphone just a little closer or stand closer there. So a little better? Yeah. Okay. On screen you can see the proposed landscape plan with the removal of the, with the removal of the oak and the replacement of species determined by the applicant and by city staff. So I'll run through the variance criteria now. One, special circumstances exist, which are peculiar to the subject property owners land, structure or building, and do not generally apply to the neighboring land structures or buildings in the same district of the city. Staff answer to us having magnolia is currently predominantly impervious surfacing. Trees current location is unsuitable for ideal conditions in an urban setting primarily to the root restrictions in a raised bed. Due to this, staff has determined this criteria has been met. Number two, strict application of the provisions of the SELDR would deprive the subject property owner of reasonable rights, commonly applicable to other properties in the same district or may preclude a benefit to the community in general. Audio section 1, or 1,0006.00, section 3 sets for SEPP protection, which in this case, or in the case of this project would require 80% of all specimen trees to be saved being that this project is under three acres. With only one specimen on the tree on the lot the strict application of this provision would inhibit the applicant to remove the only specimen tree has depicted on the clearing plan attached to the ZXZBD. Staff can curse without removal of this tree redevelopment would be difficult. Therefore, staff has determined the scarterian has been met. Three, the special circumstances and conditions exist that do not result from the direct or indirect actions of the present property owners or past property owners. This scarterian should not be satisfied if the president or past property owner created it to any degree of the hardship that is subject to the variance request. So in the agriculture industry, live-oaks growth factor is about a form which produces the ability to age the tree. This factor is multiplied by the diameter breast height of this tree, which is 23, to give it about a 92 year old in that range. There are a lot of limitation factors and some that may accelerate that as well. But previous attempts were made to preserve the quality of this tree, but has been subject to less than ideal conditions, living conditions in its current environment. Staff has determined this cartoon has been subject to less than ideal conditions, living conditions in its current environment. Staff has determined this criterion has been met. A grinding of this variant for, the grinding of this variance will not cause substantial detriment to the public welfare or the impair, or impair the purposes and intent of this ordinance. As outlined in exhibit D, the applicant is actually exceeding its minimum replacement criteria by replacing 168 cross-sectional inches of trees more than required. The applicant has agreed off the impacts and provide opportunity for beautification of the neighborhood and staff has determined this criteria has been that. Five, that granting of the neighborhood and staff has determined this criteria has been met. Five. A granting of the variance will not constitute grant a special privilege as denied by this ordinance to other land structures or buildings in the same district. Tree removal permits are processed for residential and commercial projects on a near daily basis. Had the applicant not proposed a new site plan, this tree would have been a candidate by our regulations for specimen tree removal due to its declining condition and potential damage to an existing structure as well as infrastructure in the area. Staff has determined this criterion as we met. Planning Department has concluded that the application is met all listed criteria. Therefore, the planning department recommends approval of the request of variance application for the removal of a singular specimen tree as proposed with replacement totals remaining unchanged as the end of my report. Thank you. Any questions of city staff? Yeah, I have a question. The landscape plan is shown in the various trees shown on that plan. Are they just trees for replacement or is that a more final site plan that shows all landscape new landscape requirements being met? So the actual site plan submitted shows all landscape requirements being met plus the additional cross sectional inches that he's providing. Okay. Will there be any issues with the pavement around those new trees, or will there be opportunities for those new trees to flourish? So the new trees that he is proposing, some of the larger species being magnolias won't be as restricted as a live-box root growth. So in this case, magnolias will be suitable restricted as a live-box group growth. So in this case, magdolliers will be suitable for that location. Okay. Keep in with the street, too. Yeah. Based upon the landscape plan, and I was trying to take a consideration, the condition that you have in place as well, where you said including hardwood species with proper root deflection correct is that already included as a part of the current landscaping plan like that meets that intent root the root deflection is something that can be discussed with the applicant that's just a recommendation of ours if they were to To put plant say another live oak then a root barrier would probably be necessary as you can see with all of our Live Oaks lifting you know current infrastructure. Okay, the reason I was asked is because one of the Criteria you had said it was met only if they provided that condition Right, oh, that's why I was trying to make sure that did they meet the criteria? Did they not correct with with the magnolia, they would meet that criteria. Okay. And that would be a sufficient area to imagine. Okay. Okay. Okay. That's the only question I had. Seeing no other questions, thank you. Is the applicant or representative present? Would you like to say anything further or? Okay. That works. Thank you. We'll go ahead and open up public participation. A three minute limitation will be imposed unless otherwise granted by the planning zoning board. Seeing none, public participation is closed. Discussion and or questions by the board. Thanks. Look at Project. The area needs it. Yeah. Redevelopment is tough. Yeah. Yeah. So, maybe something for staff just to potentially look into, maybe some type of text amendment in the future that rather than going through the variance for a single tree on a redevelopment property, maybe looking at some exceptions for redevelopment within the inner city maybe within CRA zones something like that so that way you don't have to go through this process in the future. With that being said do I have a motion to approve the requested variance? I'll make a motion to recommend approval to the City Commission. It's approval for us. Yeah, it is approval for us. Yes, we approve it. Oh, okay. So do I have a motion to approve the request of variance? I'll make a motion to approve the variance of the case V-19-24 at 27207 Magnolia Street. Thank you. Do I have a second? I second it. Thank you. Stephanie, could you please call the roll though. Member Frank Houser. Yes. Member Hall. Member Bean. Yes. Member Hulvershorn. Chair, we craft. Yes. On the motion to approve the dash 19, dash 24207 Magnolia Street, the vote is divided there. Zero votes, the motion passes. Thank you. We move on to item H which is a-12-24 at 1301 Woodland Avenue. This is the review and first public hearing of the voluntary annexation, rezoning and small-scale conference of plant-abendant to the future land use map for the property located at 1301 Woodland Avenue. City staff, do you have a report? Yes, Mr. Chair. So the property ownership requested a voluntary annexation, small-scale conference plan amendment and a rezoning from Blue Shack County future land use designation of urban medium intensity and a Blue Shack County zoning designation of R4 urban single-final residential with an A attached for the airport height Notification zone to a compatible city future land use designation of medium density residential and a city zoning designation of R2 single-final residential with an A attached for the airport height notification zone. The site contains a property 0.2, 8 plus or minus acres. It's located on the north side of Woodland Avenue between Howard Avenue and Hickory Street. Staff recommends that the plan is on board. You have a positive recommendation to the city commission to approve the request of annexation, small scale compliance plan amendment, change in the future land use to medium density residential the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of Thank you. There's no one left in the audience that could be an applicant. So, we'll move to public participation. I will go ahead and open it up and I will go ahead and close it. So discussion and or questions by the board. Any discussion on our end? No. Seeing none. Is there a motion to recommend to the City Commission to approve the overall annexation request, including the rezoning and proposed future land use. You've been new, Greg. I'll make a motion to recommend approval for the overall annexation at 1301 Woodland Avenue for case A-12-24. To the city commission. To the city commission, yeah. Sounds good. I'll give you one second. You guys wanna walk in? 12-24 to the City Commission to the City Commission sounds good Yep, okay, Stephanie police color store the roll vote Maple Frank Helzer yes, yes, overhoveled or yes, number being yes number haul Yes, chair we craft yes on the motion to recommend approval for a dash 12-24-301 with Lynn Avenue. The vote is five in favor. Zero post the motion passes. Thank you. Item I has been continued comments or statements by members of the board Anything needs to be said They want to say Yeah, for the next couple of days. That's what I was thinking So I'd sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. we are in this state of emergency. We appreciate your volunteer time and being here to help us to be safe. Take care of your families. Thank you. Okay with that we are adjourned.