Jun 07, 2021 Zoning Board of Adjustment on 2021-06-07 4:00 PM

>> Good afternoon and thank you for joining us today. It is June 7, 2021, the time is 4.04 p.m. We do have a quorum for the Zoning Board of Adjustments, so I would like to call this meeting to order. The first order of business is the pledge to both the U.S. and Texas flag, so if you imagine the flag in your brain, do that now. I pledge 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. And the Texas flag, honor the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible. Great. Thanks. >> This item is considering the approval of the May 24th, 2021 minutes. Are there any corrections to the minutes? Okay. Then do I have a motion to approve? >> I'll make a motion. >> All right. Ms. Linus makes the motion and a second. >> I'll second. >> Mr. Redwine, and now we vote individually. So I'll call on people as I see them on my screen. So Mr. Redwine, how do you vote? >> I think yes. >> Okay. Ms. Meisner? >> This is for the minutes, or for the -- >> Approving the minutes. >> Okay. Yes. >> Great. Ms. Linus? >> I vote yes. >> Ms. Lane? >> I saw your mouth move but you were muted. Just for the record, can you say that again, not on mute? >> Yes. >> Thank you. And Mr. Njapu? >> Yes. >> Yes. And I also vote yes. So the motion passes unanimously. Okay. Then the real big reason why we're here is item 2B, consider an appeal of an administrative decision regarding the interpretation of the use-specific standards for automotive repair major for property located at 3008 South I-35E. The subject property is approximately 1.98 acres, located on the west side of I-35E, approximately 640 feet south of Buckees Boulevard in the city of Denton, Denton County, Texas. So what happens is it takes six votes, so it's going to have to be a unanimous thing here one way or the other. So it takes six votes to reverse or modify any determination of an administrative official on appeal. So I now open this item for deliberation and a motion by the board. So the board can -- we've got four things we could do. One, we can affirm the administrative official's decision or interpretation. Two, we can reverse it in whole or in part. Three, we can amend or modify the administrative official's decision or interpretation and make the correct decision. Or four, attach conditions of approval to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the city. So we heard evidence and testimony in our meeting in late May. Now is the opportunity for us to deliberate what we heard. And when the deliberation seems like it's kind of wrapping up, we can make a motion one way or another and vote. So I guess I'd like to open the floor. >> Chairperson, I just want to make sure that if there's somebody on the line waiting to participate or be on the call, I don't see them on the call right now. >> They are. We need to make sure we bring them to the meeting. If we can bring them from the waiting room to the meeting, that would be great. And there they are. >> Great. Now, this isn't a public hearing, so they can't really offer testimony, but they can be present while we deliberate, correct? >> Correct, yes. >> Okay. Okay. So welcome to the meeting. So I guess I'd like to open the floor for deliberation and discussion. Does anyone have any thoughts on what we heard at our last meeting? >> Go ahead. >> If I understand it right, and having gone back through the minutes and listening again, what we're trying to decide as the CBA is whether or not this business needs to have it fully enclosed, walls and roof, or if the fence is going to be enough because of what kind of a company it is? And that's -- is that correct in that what we're trying to determine? I know we have four things that we could vote on, but I just want to make sure that I'm getting to the underlying here. >> As I understand it, yes, that is -- it looked like, Mack, were you going to jump in and say something? >> Only if I needed to, but yeah, that's right. Technically, you're reviewing an appeal of a decision. So there was several interpretations made of a zoning code provision made by the administrator. And those are technically what you're reviewing is those interpretations. The bottom line is exactly what you said. If you go with the interpretation of the zoning administrator, any open storage of vehicles beyond 24 hours would need to be done in an enclosed structure. If you reverse or modify the decision, the applicant is contesting that interpretation to say if it's within a four-walled structure or four-fence structure, that would be sufficient to meet the code. So that's the bottom line to what your decision -- the ramifications of your decision. But technically, you're just reviewing those three interpretations made by the director of development services. >> Ms. Meisner. >> Okay. Thank you. So I'd like to discuss the portion where he says, well, I'd like to express my support of the zoning administration's interpretation and the requirement for them to have a fully enclosed structure. Do I need to give -- discuss my reasoning or my thinking about that opinion? >> I mean, I'd love to hear what you have to say. We're here to deliberate. >> Yeah. So my opinion is that this is not -- I understand the ambiguity that he presented to us at the last meeting. I understand how they could see that and kind of poke holes in the zoning requirements. But authentically, what's at the root is that that's what the city wants, and the whole point of this new code is to get everybody on the same page. And if we keep making allowances and keep grandfathering people into the ways that were previously stated, there's going to be no transition to get us where the city wants us. So I want to support what the zoning code is that the city wants to see, and we're going to have to start making decisions that support that. And if I was that business, I would look into different ways to -- different companies that could help me save money to make sure that enclosed structure was up to par with city expectations and perhaps get different quotes and go with the least expensive quote. But it's not a court case where it's innocent until proven guilty. So there's -- despite all of the great attempts at showing how there might be some loopholes within the code, I still feel like the essence of what the city wants is present. And so that's my thinking in wanting to vote for affirming the zoning administration code as it stands with an enclosed structure. >> Thank you. Ms. Ling, go ahead. >> Yes. I remember from the previous meeting asking how long it might be that vehicles that don't conform to the 24-hour requirement might be sitting there until insurance removes them. And they said it's generally a week. So these are inoperable vehicles that are awaiting removal from that site for a week and possibly longer. So that they would not be able to have a sort of different category of vehicles than the two that are described in the ordinance. >> Are there other thoughts on any of this? I have some. But as the chair, I feel like I should let you all speak first. Mr. Redwine, go ahead. >> I guess my only concern is I guess what's our -- I mean, what's the determination of what that zoning is across -- I mean, across 35, it seems like from -- we saw the map. It changes quite frequently. I just don't know. I don't know if I have a grasp of what that determination was from the city on the zoning aspect of it. So, you know, I think it's pretty disparate, you know, today, so I'm not sure what's driving the -- how it's determined. That would be the only counter, I guess, to -- or not counter, but just point I would make from that standpoint. >> Sure. >> That's the point I would make, too. I'm kind of unclear as to how it's zoned because like in the -- when he was presenting his case down the street, there are a couple of car dealerships that are kind of in the same category as he is. So yeah, the clarification of that would help. >> Ms. Meissner, go ahead. >> So along those same lines, thinking kind of backwards about that, I also wonder, like, what's the time frame if they were allowed under the old code and now they're trying to establish the new code and set a new precedent, and, you know, either way, whatever way we decide today, I think it's an opportunity for the city to be even more clear in the code, too, and be very, very, very explicit since there's some, you know, hair splitting going on between some things, so just wanted to add that. >> I have a question, so the older businesses that wouldn't be conforming to the new code like this one is being asked to do, when they have to make a repair, we've seen that sort of thing come up before ZBA that if they have to replace the item that they have, they would have to replace it under the new code, is that right? >> Mac or Ron, you want to take this one? Or Julie? >> I was just going to just respond to Ms. Lane's comment, question, yes, any nonconforming use that plans to expand or alter other side now, that would need to comply with the code, now not the entire site, per se, but just the area that they're improving. >> Yeah, and they would have to, for example, if some freak damage, we've looked at those kinds of incidents where there was a freak damage because an errant vehicle ran right into the building, and the owner had to, I think in that case, the owner did have to conform, even though, you know, there was a lot of sympathy on our side. >> Yes, go ahead. Yep. >> Sorry, I was just going to speak out, and that's not right. Thank you. >> That's good. Yeah, speak out. I want to hear it. >> So, the zoning is different on there, but I was wondering, too, because of the kind of business this is, where it's going to be the car repair versus the car sales, that matters as well, right, in that there may be wrecked cars or other inoperable cars on a car lot, but that's a different kind of business, and that's what the city is trying to get at in that with car repair versus car junkyards, which are completely, everything's inoperable, to car sales, which could have a mixture. So is that, is that anywhere in the zoning language already? >> I'm waiting for staff to jump in with that one. >> Chair, if you give us a few minutes, we're going to pull that up real quick. >> While she does, could I just mention that, just to point out, that was the point that I was getting at with the insurance. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I don't know if Julie's looking for it as well, and see who will get there first. So, I'm looking at the use specific standards that's in the Gen Development Code, and under automotive repair, I think this is major, it has the, what we're talking about, the open storage, as far as the sales, car dealership per se, they do not have that use specific standard, so it is specifically just for the automotive repair. Automotive sales does not have any use specific standards per se, but it's only permitted in one zoning district, so again, as you mentioned, Board Member Linus, two different uses, two different use specific standards. And Julie, is that accurate? >> Ms. Lane, oh, sorry, sorry, Julie, yes, go ahead. >> So automotive sales are zoned in a different area than automotive repairs? >> Well, the zoning is, you know, is on whatever's on the map per se, but you're right, you know, automotive sales is permitted in a zoning district, so is automotive repair, and I can tell you that under the HC, they are both permitted, but obviously one use has a use specific standard, where that discussion is what we're talking about, however, the automotive sales does not, so does not have that use specific standard, where it talks about open storage. >> Ms. Meisner, go ahead. >> I had a question about if there's any possibility we could discuss amendments or modifications to different types of enclosed structures, maybe ones that wouldn't be, you know, a million dollars, but something that would be more like a compromise between the city's version and maybe what they could get at, you know, a fair price. Maybe we had talked about out there, it wouldn't need air conditioning, it wouldn't need some of the things that, you know, an inside building would need. Maybe it doesn't have to have the -- I don't know, I'm not a structural engineer, but just thinking about different modifications that might be a compromise to the two. >> Yeah, I mean, that's one of the options, you know, we can -- it sounds like we can amend or modify it. Can we -- so I'm going to have to ask staff, you know, staff on this, so I'm looking at this case, my planning and zoning, I've been planning and zoning for five years, something like that, and like my P&Z hat would be like -- I'd be like super excited about this, thinking of all the modifications we can make to make this fit, because it seems like it's reasonable. It's next to buckies, it's next to a highway, it's not, you know, like -- it's not really a new structure that they're building, you know, like, so my P&Z mind is like super excited about this. My PBA mind is like, well, we're tasked to, you know, uphold the zoning regulations, and as you said, Ms. Meisner, it's like, you know, if we keep, you know, making exceptions for people, then we're not really getting everyone on board, and my issue with the evidence that was presented, you know, by the applicant was that there's, you know, similar businesses that he showed that had, like, look at this nice, you know, fence, you can't really see on the other side, but those weren't built after the new, you know, zoning update, right? So like these are like, you know, legally nonconforming structures, right? And so I didn't see anything that was like, oh, yeah, well, that exists somewhere else with this new zoning, and so therefore -- so anyway, so I'm very interested in what you have to say about this, Ms. Meisner, about, like, finding a modification to it, because I, you know, it seems reasonable, and at ZBA, it's like, you know, like, here's what the law says, so we have to follow the law. So Ron and Julie and Mack, is this a thing that, I mean, can we make recommendations, modifications to this? I just want to make sure that we're, like, upholding the letter of the law with what we're tasked to do as the Zoning Board of Adjustments. Yes, Chairperson Briegel, you read out at the beginning your four options, and that certainly includes interpreting and modifying the code provisions. So if it would be helpful, we can go through those. There's basically three conditions associated with this use. Those are what are being interpreted, and so to the extent that the board has an interpretation of those provisions, you certainly could define that and describe that. And that, effectively, would become the interpretation of the city forward for that type of use. So your decision becomes, until further change by the council, the actual code, yours is, interpretation is the official interpretation of the city. So oh, so it wouldn't just be, it wouldn't just be unique to this structure, it would be, like, it'd be kind of like an amendment to the code, sort of? It's how that provision would be interpreted, yes. Wow. Okay. Okay. That's great. Yeah. Ms. Meiser, go ahead. I just wanted to follow up on that thought and express one more thing before we move on from that point. I just, I find it interesting that the applicant saw the code but didn't really research the options to facilitate an enclosed space, just automatically assumed that they could find a loophole and, you know, we heard what the lawyer brought to our attention. And I appreciate that the business doesn't want to do this and doesn't want to spend the money on it. But they saw what the code said. So it might be a good idea. And I hope that maybe during these past few weeks, they've done some research to see what some options are and to see what some modifications were. You know, I'm not a business person, but that's just logical thinking from my point of view that I would hope they had done their research. Ms. Lang. Yeah. If we had a four foot, you know, distance or something that the city changed to a three foot or a five foot, if we were built before that, we would have to, we would not have to change anything until we did a modification and sought a permit. So I think it's something that anyone can understand that the city has moved to desiring a roof and has encoded that desire and that the other, the photographs of other similar businesses that do not have this were anything to happen to their property or were they to wish to make improvements or replace what they have would have to put a roof. I do wish I agree with this, I do wish that some research had been brought to us as to cost and some varying possibilities as to cost that if we did it this way, this way, this way, perhaps this particular business, if it conforms, you know, if that's the decision and it conforms, it might pave the way for future businesses to be able to do it as economically as possible. So I'm wondering where we go from here. I mean, does someone want to propose an amendment, I guess, essentially to the code or maybe help the city further, you know, clarify what an enclosed structure means? Go ahead, Ms. Meisner. I'd like to hear your thoughts before we move on. Me? Yeah. You said you had some thoughts you were going to hold back but Well, that I shared them, I shared them and my concern was that my concern was that what was proposed, what was shown to us was that these were legally non-conforming structures, right? And like this, this zoning classification doesn't really fit with what it is they're trying to do and that's, that's, it's really, you know, as a business woman and a former Planning and Zoning Commissioner, I want to be like, sure, like that makes a lot of sense, but as the chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustments, I'm like, it doesn't really fit the code. So I'm kind of like torn right here. So I'm just wondering if anyone has like any amendments or definitions they would like to offer to the code or if we would like to make a motion to approve or, or reverse. So Ms. Linus, did I see your hand up? Go ahead. Yeah, I don't have any of those. I have a question. Do we know what the intent behind the change in what the city is asking for was, was, is there an intent for aesthetics as you're driving down the highway? I don't know about everybody else, but I'm driving down the highway, you see everything. And I would like to see something better as we come into Denton, but then again, I thought that for the 50 years I've been coming into Denton, that it would be nice. Is the intent behind what the code was and what the administrator has said we need to uphold? Is it a health concern that we need to have all of this behind walls and a roof? Is it aesthetic concern, is it a move towards certain kinds of businesses on our corridors? Is there any knowledge about what that intent? Because if we, as the CBA, interpret this, modify it, provide anything else, we're really establishing something more than upholding what's already been done or saying, no, we're not going to. This isn't just, hey, we're making an exception. We're making the exception. If we don't, you know, depending on which of the four choices we choose. So back to the city, do we know of what was intended with any of this or is it just part of the entire new coding for it all? Let me jump in before you answer, Ron, just to be procedural matter. So when you speak to intent of the city, it's kind of like how was the sauce made, right? What did city council think? Several different people had probably different reasons that they did on the code and what their rationale was, it's hard to kind of decipher the total intent. That said, I think that the city and the applicant have both stated some reasons what they think are intent both during the public hearing and in their application letters to the zoning board that you may be able to look at and rely on. My only concern with someone from the staff answering this question, it probably opens up the opportunity at least for the applicant as well to respond as to what they think they attend, just to the sense it's kind of ambiguous. So the intent is hard to define. I would say rely on the information that was provided to you already, but if you're going to allow us this answer to be given, Chairperson Brighill, I think you probably want to offer that both to the city and the applicant to give that answer. And I would like to say, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I guess what I'm trying to do in my own mind, I definitely don't want to open up a whole nother can of worms. I just wasn't sure if within that our big package of information, because what I've looked at, you know, we're trying to move forward and we do that with the plan, the 2030 plan, and then with the future plan and all of that. And I want to make sure that we as the board are also supporting that. So I completely understand too that to try and find out what intent was, that could be difficult and sometimes maybe not the best thing to do. Yeah. So I'd like to, going off of what Mack was saying, I mean, I'm not sure that that's really yeah. Okay. So good idea, but we're going to move on from that question. Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead, Ms. Lane. Yes. Well, I was remembering one of the things that stuck in my mind was actually this issue of how long vehicles that were not going to be addressable within the 24 hour period could be there. I know the company intends to get them off as quickly as possible, but that's not, you know, the length of time that they could be there is long, could be a week, could be more, depending on the burden on various insurance companies and what has to be done to move them. So although presenting as a different kind of business, it really will be rather similar to the auto body shops that we already know in effect. Mr. Redline. So I guess maybe for Ms. Meisner's point on are there addendums, amendments, whatever we could entrust, would it thought be, you know, if it's a fully enclosed structure, obviously that's, I mean, does it have to be a certain, I mean, could it be a metal building, which I don't think is, you know, aesthetically pleasing as maybe a 10 foot high, you know, brick, you know, brick fencing to me looks nicer than a metal building, if you will. So, I mean, is that something we could even discuss is it's got to be so many feet high of brick structure, you know, that conforms to something or are we kind of set to a, it's got to be an enclosed structure, even if it's a metal building that maybe isn't as aesthetic. So I'm not sure because we're making changes, we would be amending or, I guess, further defining the code, like not just the building, like this just seems to me like this would be just a great P and Z case if they could like just rezone it and then talk about what, you know, because then you're just looking at like one particular structure, like I guess I hesitate like defining, you know, all enclosed buildings means, you know, 25 foot high masonry fence because that may not fit in the next place where these are built. You know what I mean? So like, I hesitate changing the code. I don't know. I mean, but I hear your question. I'm just not sure. I don't see hands up. So I'll stop talking. Okay, Ms. Lane, go ahead. So I was just going to say, and this was for staff, but I don't recall seeing in the code or seeing the staff presentation that there was any specifics other than the description of coverage. So as far as I understood it, a company is free to accomplish the code as economically as they like. Am I right? Or are there specific materials outlined? That's a question to staff. So to address the question, as far as materials per state law, we cannot dictate materials. So that's probably the quickest answer as to your questions. Yeah, that's what I remembered. Ms. Meisner, go ahead. Sorry, finding that unmute button is hard sometimes. So I feel like at this point, maybe my hopes for compassion are clouding my judgment on how I perceive these interpretations or modifications, and I certainly don't want to do that. So I'm going to go ahead and move to affirm the zoning administration definition of having them require a full enclosed structure. And if that is procedurally out of order, just let me know. No, it's great. We have a motion on the floor. Is there anyone who has a second, Ms. Meisner? Just to clarify, Chairperson Meisner, I want to be clear on this. Is this a motion to affirm the director's determinations or his interpretations? Who's the director? Yes, it was Scott MacDonald is the director that made this interpretation. So the other one is the city. The city's interpretation, yes. Okay, let's back up then. Yeah, I think you hit the bottom line, like we said, the ramifications, but the real decision that's before the board is there's a code provision that says has three conditions associated with this type of use. One is all repair services and storage shall be conducted within an entirely enclosed structure. The second is open storage of wrecked or inoperable cars, discarded tires, audible parts or similar materials shall be prohibited. The third condition is sale of vehicles shall be prohibited. So those have been interpreted by the director of the development services department to mean one, the automobiles awaiting repairs for less than 24 hours do not constitute storage. Two, any vehicles intended for service and stored outside of the structure for more than 24 hours are classified as open storage and must be contained within an entirely enclosed structure in accordance with the use specific standards. And the third one is while outdoor storage may be generally permitted as an accessory use under the provisions of the zoning district, the use specific standards for the primary use of automobile repair major prohibit outdoor storage of any elements related to the use. So those are the interpretations that are being appealed from. And so I just wanted to clarify on the motion, there's kind of three parts to it. Did you intend to approve or affirm all three of those interpretations by the director of development services? Well, I'm going to need a moment. Yes. I'm going to mute myself. Okay. So just to clarify, I want to start with, can we just walk through one, each one at a time and stop there? You're on mute. Yes. Yes, you can. Okay. And if someone else has, has a motion otherwise that they'd like to make, if you have your thinking more clearly set, I'm willing to let someone else speak first before I go through these points one at a time and take up our time. What say you? I think let's just go, you, you started with the motion or let's go line by line. You've got the floor. So that's, yeah. So take your time with it. And if you still, if you're still good with this motion, then we have a motion and if not, you can withdraw it and see where it happens next. Okay. Okay. Thanks for your patience. Yeah, no worries. This is an important decision. All right. Matt, can you unmute yourself and I'm ready? Okay. So this is a number one, right? The first interpretation is that we were referring to, which is the automobiles awaiting repairs for less than four hours do not constitute storage. So this would allow them to have automobiles sitting outside the enclosed space. If we, if we want to uphold and affirm the city's zoning of having an enclosed structure, that number one means that automobiles can sit outside that enclosed structure for up to 24 hours, but then have to go inside after 24 hours. Is that correct? That is my understanding. Yes, that's correct. Okay. If it's after 24 hours, it's not considered storage that's required to be within an enclosed structure. Okay. However, if they have an enclosed structure, why not just park them in there during the 24 hours if there's room, but okay, I'd affirm that. Okay. The second one would be any vehicles intended for service and stored outside of a structure for more than 24 hours are classified as open storage and must be contained within an entirely enclosed structure with the specific standards. And that would be affirming also, because that is what we're saying that, that I guess my interpretation I'm seeking to clarify here. I want to make sure that I am affirming the right thing. That's affirming the city's recommendation of the zoning with the enclosed structure. Is that correct? So yeah, that is the interpretation of the director of development services that anything stored more than 24 hours on the site is open storage and would need to be within entirely enclosed structure, including a roof. Okay. So yes, I want to affirm that. The third interpretation was while outside storage may be generally permitted as an accessory use under the provisions of the zoning district, the use specific standards for the primary use of automobile repair measure prohibit outside outdoor storage of any elements related to the use. And I would, I think, and I think I'd affirm that also, that seems to be consistent with the, the city requiring those tools or materials to be stored inside in the enclosed space. Is that the correct interpretation? Yes. It goes with the first two in the sense that storage would have to be indoors if it's over 25. Okay. So far I have a yes, an affirmative on all three of those. And is that consistent in the city's, the zoning, the city's code? Well that's yeah, that's really the question is that that is the interpretation of the city's code, which says that all repair service and storage shall be conducted with entire within an entirely enclosed structure. And that open storage of retro inoperable cars, automobile parts or similar materials shall be prohibited. That is what the code says. And that was the interpretation of the zoning administrator, the director of development services of those provisions. The applicant has taken or at least presented a contrary interpretation, which is what you're also considering is whether you want to adopt that interpretation, adopt the city director's interpretation or whether you interpret that requirement differently from both of them. Got it. So I would like to adopt the city's director's interpretation. That is my proposed motion. Great. So we have a motion from Ms. Meisner to affirm the administrative officials decision and interpretation on this. Don't want to put words in your mouth. That's correct. Ms. Meisner, the decision, the city's zoning administrator, this is decision. Okay. Did I get that all out? Yeah. Yeah. Sounds good. So we have a motion. Ms. Lane, are you seconding the motion? Yes, I'll second the motion to affirm the city administrator's interpretation of the code. Great. Thank you. So we have a first by Ms. Meisner, a second by Ms. Lane. Is there any further discussion on this appeal before we take a vote? Just one point to be clear on and I just want to be clear that this is a part of the motion is there's a part of our code that requires and it's unusual in this case, but that the board make findings of fact, not a lot of facts here per se, but if this is the motion that the board moves forward with on approving, I don't know how you'll vote, but if you could make it clear at least that the findings of facts as determined by the city administrator are adopted by the board, that you're adopting those same findings of fact in his letter, that'll at least meet our minimum requirement as a board to have findings of fact. Sorry. As the second, I can add that as a friendly amendment to the motion if you like. That'd be great. Yeah. Okay. A motion, which is to affirm the city's staff interpretation of the code to include findings of fact that conform with the code. And I further, this wouldn't be part of the motion, but I would like the city to help the applicant if they can determine the most economical way to meet the requirement. If the city staff is available to do that. So Ms. Meisner, the first part of what Ms. Lane said, including the findings of fact, that was a friendly amendment. Do you accept that to your motion? I accept. Great. Okay. And then I heard a little bit of discussion at the end from Ms. Lane requesting that the city work with this applicant because, I mean, small businesses are the heartbeat of our economy. So I totally affirm that for sure as a small business owner myself. But Ms. Lane. I did hear that the company has a hundred, they stated that they have a hundred or so such facilities that they own. So they may be a big business, but even so, everybody's bottom line is important to them, whether they're small or large. And I strongly support the city working with this applicant to find that meeting the code is a satisfactory experience in the end and a good model for others that follow. Is there any other discussion on this? We've got a first and a second to affirm the administrative officials decision or interpretation and include the findings of fact that we've already heard on this case. Is there any further discussion on this or are we ready for a vote? Okay. So I'll start what I can see left to right from my screen. So Ms. Meisner, how do you vote? I vote yes. Ms. Linus. I vote yes. Ms. Lane. I vote yes. Mr. Redwine. I vote yes. Mr. Njapu. I vote yes. And I also vote yes. So the motion carries 6-0. And I say on the script, the decision of the administrative official is affirmed. And I believe that's it. So then I guess item number 3, any concluding items, anything that needs to be brought up quickly before we adjourn? Okay. All right. Thanks, everyone. The time now is 4.49. And I would like to close today's meeting. Thank you for your time. We do wish the applicant the best of luck. I'm a business owner myself and it's rough out there. So I really hope you can work with the city to find a solution. I sincerely do. Thank you all for your service. Appreciate you. Thank you. Thank you.