Dec 02, 2019 City Council on 2019-12-02 11:30 AM (AMENDED - Joint Meeting with Denton Independent School District Board of Directors)

Okay. Welcome to this, what is this called? Special Call Meeting in the Council Work Session Room at City Hall at 2 is 2.01 p.m. We've got a closed session item and then one item for individual consideration. We're going to flip those because the closed session item is really a placeholder if there were questions that Council had for legal staff after the discussion, open discussion about the individual item. At the individual item 2A is consider a motion to reconsider the November 19, 2019 approval and ordinance regarding proposed amendment to the Denton Development Code, et cetera, et cetera. I ask for this motion to reconsider. I had some conversation with legal staff after this, after the approval which I did vote for the amendment. And then I had some conversation with constituents and then just did some independent research and several things that caused me some concern for this particular item, not necessarily the substance of it but primarily more the process and also its retroactivity to houses that have already been built, that were built under no setbacks, that were built under our then existing 250-foot reverse setback and now we're moving that on to a 500-foot setback. So I've got just a few bullet points that I'll go through and then - and these are my - this is my rationale for requesting the motion. It's not to deliberate the substantive aspect of the motion but my rationale. Number one, developments - there's been developments that have been in the queue and developments that have been completed under the laws at the time, which let's say it was a 250-foot setback and had developed according to our laws and to now change it in midstream and to make those homes nonconforming and/or if those lots have not been sold, to make those nonconforming I believe puts - I believe it quite frankly it takes away one of the bundles of rights for private property ownership and that is the free alienability of their property. In essence, if you're in a nonconforming area, my hunch is you're going to have to disclose that to any subsequent buyers. If you don't, you could be exposing yourself to liability. If you do disclose it, then you also - when the financing goes to look at it, it may create some issues with financing because I've had that personal experience in another city where I had a single-family home in a differently zoned area and they wanted to buy it as a single-family home and the bank would not loan money on it because it was a nonconforming use in that particular area. Let's see. The notice - there was really no notice given to those people who were affected. We sent out 25 - was it 1,000 notices or 20,000 notices to property owners, every property owner in the city of Denton, when we simply just changed the zoning classification. We did not necessarily change the zoning and many of those people were concerned about the creation of nonconformity within the change of those zoning classifications. This is going to affect I don't know how many homeowners, but it's certainly going to be quite a few. And if they had no knowledge of that specific notice pursuant to what I would call zoning type of regulations, I think it's very hard for them to come advocate for themselves. As someone said at the meeting, I'm not here advocating for myself. I'm advocating for other people. If people don't know what they need to be advocating for, they may appreciate that advocacy or they may want to advocate in a different direction. So that's one of my primary concerns is I don't think that due process was given. And so I want an opportunity, if it stays the same, to change my vote, quite frankly, because I think that we didn't give those people who are most directly affected an opportunity to speak. And then it really doesn't make sense to me to say we're going to move a 250 foot to 500 on existing properties when the truth of the matter is they're already within 500 feet. Now moving forward to have new development subject to that 500 foot setback for protected uses, I have no issue with that. It doesn't make sense, at least on its face to me, after looking at some of the factual issues and some of the implications. And secondly, I certainly don't think that the people who are going to be the most affected did receive the notice that they were, I believe, if not legally entitled to, I think reasonably entitled to given that it will affect them the most. So that's why I'm asking for this motion to reconsider. It's not necessarily to change that except for me, I would not want it to apply to people who have already existed where they are, some without any setbacks when they developed, and then some developed under our rules and now we've changed it. And it's created what I believe to be a devaluation of their private property rights and the free, alienability of their property. So that's why I brought this. And plus I think there might have been some confusion about does this just apply to protected uses? And I did read that line 969. But as I was reading back through the ordinance, I see minimum reverse setback, which I don't know if I saw that definition. But I just think there's some things that, for me, I would like to clean up, but primarily to give the people who are within the 500 foot of a setback, whether they're commercial or residential, an opportunity to receive a notice that says we are fixing to change something that's going to affect potentially the value of your property and your ability to do with that property as you wish, because my understanding is you cannot enlarge a nonconforming use. Now you might can go to ZBA, but so before this ordinance, they didn't have to do that. Now they would. If they wanted to add on a patio, if they wanted to add on an addition, certainly if they wanted to add on an accessory dwelling unit, they cannot freely do that as they could do that prior to the passage of this particular ordinance. Moving it forward, applying it to just forward developments, you don't have that issue because everybody knows this is a situation. It's not nonconforming. They won't be nonconforming. We were basically passed an ordinance that now retroactively takes away one of the sticks in the bundle of rights for private property ownership. And I certainly want an opportunity to revisit that. So that's my rationale. Council Member Messer. I don't think the intent of changing the setbacks was to affect where, you know, the condition of houses that already exist where they are. And I wonder if there's so I don't I don't think that that what you're raising would be particularly controversial if there's another way to go at it. I don't really favor just reopening that whole box. But we have an item on the agenda tomorrow, which is to put forward other changes to the gas ordinance. I mean, that's the item that, you know, is going to be used to kind of pick through the parts of stuff we talked about before. But I think that'd be a very appropriate time to pitch what you think would be a remedy to those narrow, you know, very important but very specific concerns, you know, without undoing the whole thing that took so long to get to, you know, that this that would be my suggestion. Council Member Armitage. Very well said. I, I agree. I was actually going to ask about that. I think that's an excellent point if that is if that is considered on topic. In fact, we can even since it's broadly enough posted, if we decide to go forward, to still go forward with a work session on that, I think it sounds like to me like it would fit right, right in there. Council Member Hudson. No, I think the point about the no notice is significant. And I would hope that we would all understand the gravity of that. And we'll see soon. But I want to make a clear line that that is significant. Those 1,000 homes are not given notice to attend that meeting. And that I would think everyone would want to hear from someone that is adversely affected in such a significant way and would not impede that notice process. But that being said, I think it was expressly presented by staff that there was an option to forego the ZBA and have adopt planning and zoning approach which did protect existing uses. And I'm working from memory, but that's what I recall. So I do think it was very clear in that kind of scope, there was an option C that wasn't adopted and wasn't voted on, etc. So that being said, the notice thing is significant to change retroactively to change the zoning for 1,000 homes in our city without giving them notice for anyone to stand behind that is is troubling. Council Member Davis. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, I think you raised some salient legal points. I think they're absolutely worth conversation. I don't know that I'm I'm ready yet to reconsider the entire item, the setback distance, for instance, I'm not sure I want to relitigate through through all of that. I think maybe there's possibility for more targeted approach. I want to hear from the city attorney in a closed session about that and kind of our strategy for that. Some of these things we considered in a roundabout way when we rejected what the mayor pretend was just talking about with the the other the other option. The problem with that third option and not involving the ZBA was that we were taking the the fetters off for all nonconforming uses in the city that we didn't want to cut it out just to the options were nonconforming uses that are part of the setback issue. Well, you can rebuild or you can expand or you're not nonconforming. And then the ZBA option and the final option was that any nonconforming structure, for whatever reason that you're nonconforming, you have loss of the structure that you can then rebuild or expand or whatever we kind of and that was way too broad for me. We have lots of reasons why we zone things certain ways besides just Gatsby setbacks. So I'm wondering if there's not a way to address some of those specific issues and then also such a way that we can when we address them, move expeditiously, pick up those items, either in our broad posting tomorrow for conversation, or for ordinance adoption here pretty soon. But then notice it in such a way that we get those thousand or so homes. And on top of the thousand or so homes that we know are there, we also have the undeveloped lots and you brought up some good points there, that there there couldn't say how many additional homes that could have been built within that that setback, we don't have a real firm grip on those. But I guess my direction at this point, I'd like to speak with the attorney some, but at this point, I don't think I'm quite ready to move to do most reconsider. I'm, I think we've all agreed on the the distance requirement. And what we got confused on in my mind is what it applied to. And I think that that's something that we need to to look at a little deeper. And I just want to remind my fellow council members that the motion to reconsider is not voting it down is just saying we're going to relook at it, we're going to open it back up and see what we need to fine tune on it to get it through the way that it probably should have been that in again, I think the notice is the mayor brought up, we noticed everyone that they were having to change to their designated zoning district, but we weren't really changing that much on those then but we didn't notice on this one in that same way. And this does directly affect a lot of people. I didn't realize how that it was going to be on these, the existing ones. I thought it was just for those going forward. And that's why during the meeting, I kind of brought up, hey, there's that there's a 500 foot reverse setback in in an industrial zoning. And does that make sense? And I didn't hear anything else from anyone else. I didn't feel it was necessary or would have passed as a amendment to try and make a motion for that at that time. But to me, that's another significant issue. The notice issue is important if in fact, you are going to change the zoning on people. But if we come to a conclusion that that wasn't the intent, and in your alternative proposal, or not alternative proposal, but in a micro targeted proposal, say, to be reviewed tomorrow, if the end result is it doesn't change the zoning on 1000 people, then then the zoning, then the notice issue doesn't exist anymore. So I wouldn't get too hung up on that. I mean, let's see where we settle out. And I appreciate that. I guess though, this body, especially if we go through the DDC, as we we've learned on some issues, that if it has to go back to planning and zoning, if it if it fails, it requires a supermajority at this at the level of this body. So I'm just going to lay out just the two things I'm most concerned about. And that is, there was no notice. And number two, that this ordinance or any subsequent targeted fix be made retroactive to people who have already existed under other sets of laws. And it's not made to just be moving forward. So if it's just moving forward, so I just want to make it very clear that when we come back, that those are my two concerns if this if this motion to reconsider doesn't pass, because when I hear a lot about transparency, and I hear a lot about notice from all different stakeholder groups, and then we just left 1000 people, we had 30 people come, none of them lived within the 250 foot or 500 foot section. And then we had people talking about they're advocating for others, we had no one there. But we actually absolutely and I think it's probably already in effect or it will be will be shortly. When they go in to apply for a permit to put a patio addition onto their house, they're going to be told you can't do it. So if we can do this targeted approach, but I put this council on notice, those are the reasons why I'm calling it. So if if what happens at the end of that process, that people still didn't get notice, and it's still retroactive, then that was because we didn't use opening this back up to give people an opportunity to address the entire ordinance. So when I talk about notice, it's not just about the 500 foot that the lack of notice, it's them coming in and saying, No, we don't want it to be 500 feet, or we don't want it to apply to us because we've already been here. If you want to apply to everybody moving forward, that's fine. So it doesn't matter to me what process we adopt here today, whether we open this back up, or we we take a more targeted approach. But I'm going to tell you, I will make sure that the public understands the two issues that to me, are very fundamental to the transparency and the and the due process of what we do here in this body. So we've got a motion. Well, I haven't made the motion. Go ahead. I don't even know if we need a closed session. But I mean, because it sounds like Yeah, and I just wanted to just to speak to the council just basic with the motion for reconsideration. If that passes tonight, or to set this afternoon, then this whole item will be renoticed at the public for the for the City Council at a future date. This council wants to add additional notice to be given to all homeowners within X number of feet of all the pad sites or in which this will impact residential lots of protected uses. We can certainly do that state law doesn't require it, neither does DC. But if this council has, you know, they can certainly decide that's what they want to do. That's fine. And then it'll it'll just be renoticed for public hearing and you'll start from scratch. So even though you may focus on a couple of issues, everything that was adopted in the ordinance will be subject to to review again, both with respect to yourselves and the public. The the caption for tomorrow also want to address the caption for tomorrow. Normally, I would agree with what has been said today that we can just add it to the mix. However, the way this item came forward to a work session, it was part of an of a one minute council request, in which five items were specifically requested to be reviewed by this council. And now it's coming back with you for this, I think to be adding an additional topic that the public and has does not know in advance. With respect to this, even though the caption is broad, could be troublesome with the way the process works for these one item these one minute pitch items that council members make. So I would not recommend that that be brought as part of tomorrow's discussion, it would be a separate discussion. If that's where council wants to go. And finally, the the at least options to be given. I've worked with with the planning department and there are some options I can present to you. We've been discussing one option, which is simply to pass motion for consideration, go back to where to the point in which PNC already approved recommended approval for this re notice and have a new public hearing before council or and I'll let the planners explain this more more in more detail. Should this council wish to hear those additional options, but the other one is just an actual limited targeted amendment to address the concerns that the mayor has raised and some of the council members which would just just be focused with respect to the nonconformity issue that has has been brought up here this afternoon. That's certainly something that can be done. And it would only look at that at that specific issue for those residential and protected uses that have been impacted that are were impacted by the change in reverse setback from 250 to 500. If this council wishes to hear that the planners can provide those additional options, they're better at me to explain that those those the DDC options. So I'll defer to them if council wishes to hear those alternatives. I have a question. So if they're a DDC option, they have to go back to planning and zoning. Is that correct? Yes, they would have to. All right. It would be a totally new item coming forward that you are recommended to start the process from the very beginning. Mayor Pro Tem and then council member. And Aaron, the question is, when does the ordinance that was passed take effect? Looking at these kind of different trajectories. So most, I guess the two direct trajectories, the DDC approach that you the last one you mentioned and the motion recall approach. This was adopted on the 19th. So 14 days from the 19th would make it later this week. Thursday or Friday of this week. This ordinance will become effective since it is a penal code ordinance. It's 14 days from the date of adoption, which the ordinance takes effect. So it's happening this week. In your second question. So I think that answer suffices. But it's to say that it would be in effect while it's working its way back through. That is correct. It would be. It would be in effect. Yes. And so if I I'll just get my comments in now. I just that's again, my message would be the same. And it's been consistent that way, that if I would hope that everyone here, my colleagues understands the value of notice and ways that are heavier than the convenience of pushing this through for fear of having another meeting because we've all we've heard people advocate for untimed opportunities to speak to people. So it'll be interesting to see if that carries today. But that is my position is those and I said this all along. I asked every all 17 people 16 households this so it's not new. The the homes that are affected, not to mention a lot, weren't given notice to be here to have their voices heard. And then if you have a young couple that adds on to the home for parents in advanced age for them not to be to do that in an environment where it's difficult to buy a home is is is troubling as well. So that's that's my piece. So I don't want to just repeat myself, then my new point, Aaron, you may suggest that we go into close session for to hear your response. But my my question is, how would you characterize the legal risk of moving against your recommendation, moving expeditiously to take up the items that the mayor's, you know, well identified tomorrow under the broad posting, even though it sort of wasn't the path that we came to that posting, what what would what would you contemplate might occur? Do you want to respond? Well, I don't, I'm not going to bring that up tomorrow. Okay. I'm not going to bring it up tomorrow because I'm bringing up the opportunity to revisit it here today. And of course, if we want to revisit it somewhere else, I just also wanted the opportunity to say that if we did have a motion reconsidering some of these things did not get met, I probably would vote differently on it. And part of my rationale for trying to get this cleared up to is we had a motion during that meeting for a setback of 1500 feet. And that would have affected who knows how many houses. And so I think this is something that we've got to clear up whether it's moving forward to new projects, but people who are established lots that have been platted that are that are in the queue that are being developed right now where they're not all developed but they're they're being built on that now some of those lots may be subject to that, which means they might not be sellable. So I think there's just some things because when this when this ordinance got passed previously, four or five years ago, it was put into zoning classifications, part of our ordinance because there was some concern about vesting if it was in some other part of the code, DDC or things such as that. That primary concern was for oil and gas well operators. They didn't want oil and gas walkers to be able to come back and go, Okay, well, I think this is one of those unintended consequences that if we're not careful, we're going to change the way that people can enjoy their property and that they and change the way that they're able to sell that property. And for most people, their home is their largest financial asset. So however you want to do it, if it gets done, I just wanted to put this in an official meeting. It doesn't sound like that my motion to reconsider is going to prevail, which I'm okay with that. I'm glad I brought it forward and I'm still going to make the motion and get a vote. But I wanted to make sure that my thoughts and my ideas and my concerns were, were fully memorialized. Let me go with Councilmember Davis first, and then I'll come back to you. Again, I appreciate you bringing these these points forward. For first kind of a comment and then a question. So some of these things, again, were part of the rationale and the 500 foot setback as opposed to 1000 feet or 1500 feet part of the rationale, if I can reveal something of a personal ulterior motive, is it, it changes the calculation for developers who either have the wherewithal to purchase mineral rights, or the ability or have the mineral rights themselves. It at a 500 foot reverse setback with some discouragement to build, it incentivizes capping off wells that we already have close to development. It incentivizes making better use of the land as opposed to better use of the mineral rights. So there's kind of there's a lot tied up in that 500 feet. And on top of that, part of the rationale between the 500 feet as well is discouraging development, even if it's already there. So discouraging rebuilding your house if you're within the 500 feet. I guess what I'm saying is from certain quarters, there's a purposeful intent to infringe on some people's rights with that land. That was some of the intention. So I don't want to put too fine a point on it. But my question is, that's the comment, my question is, if we take a targeted approach, a surgical amendment of the existing ordinance, then we've got to post that, we've got to take it through P&Z, we've got to do it again, post it here. We have noticed that we want to send out if we do that. If we reconsider, if we pass a motion to reconsider, and then repost the item that we've already had, we can consider the new options that maybe planning would bring forward, that legal would bring forward, without going back through P&Z. We would just do it as an amendment to the ordinance that was already posted. Those could be instead of option A, B, and C, we'd instead have option A, B, C, D, and E, and we could pull those into the draft ordinance by amendment. So it could be even more expeditious than, that's my question, maybe even more expeditious than the surgical approach, not reconsidering what we've already done, and doing it all in one meeting. Who's that directing to? Okay. I don't consider. If I can certainly be brought up as part of the planner's presentation, the additional options, if the motion for reconsideration goes forward, and your focus at the meeting may be on that particular item, because everything else will probably remain constant. But again, everything would be on the table, and so I'm just letting council know that, that the public will see this, and may comment on other areas, other than what you're focused on, which is, they're right. And so, but yes, that can be done. And more expeditiously, that route to, if the motion for reconsideration passes, to notice it out to everybody within a thousand feet, I think that was what the mayor asked, as well as- Well, no, within, yeah. I don't know about- 500 feet? Or whatever. We can talk about that later. I don't need to- Because that would probably need to go as part of a motion for reconsideration, as part of the additional notice requirement, because there won't be an opportunity for staff to be directed to do that, given that that's not in our DDC, so it would have to go along as part of a motion. But yes, that can certainly be done. Council Member Davis. So if we did end up wanting to go the DDC route versus the reconsideration route, what would kick that process off? Because this meeting is to discuss the motion to reconsider, right? So what would start the alternative? Or would we have to, yeah, that's my question. Or can that be somehow assumed that, can we start that process if the motion to reconsider doesn't prevail? Or do we have to do something else to start that? Yeah. Does there have to be some affirmative action by, let's say, myself, to submit a request for this one-minute kind of request to go ahead and put it forth to Council, similar to here, but have a lot less time? And then Council can decide whether you move forward on that or not. So that's how I see that playing out. That's the process that we've determined is how we do that. So you are somebody else that has to take some action. Yes, I think so, yes. And I'm going to be looking for Richard for confirmation, but I know that City Council and PNZ can definitely request an amendment to go forward. But if I'm not mistaken, City staff also can do that through the City Manager. That's how some of your amendments come forward that have been staff-initiated. And so that would be the process. Okay, because if we go that route, I mean, that certainly wouldn't bother me if Steph just started the blow rolling. Because I don't actually think that, well, first of all, I think these points are very well raised, very worthy of our getting them right. And frankly, I'm not bothered by the idea that it would go through PNZ. I think, you know, considering that we got this far and missed that many corners, you know, if more eyes on it can help us sort of get it right, I think that might be helpful. And I appreciate that. I think, and it's not a concern, this has moved forward from the very beginning when we talked about any setback distance, whether it's 500 feet, 1,000 feet, 2,000 feet, whatever, that it would apply to current homes within that footage. I don't think there's ever been a discussion where it's been, okay, this new setback will apply to new developments moving forward. In fact, Councilmember Davis, I mean, the very reasons you articulated or sort of your thoughts and intentions of what you thought this ordinance would do is one of the very reasons that I'm concerned that we didn't have proper notice. And that is because we want to discourage development within this amount of feet of a gas well, even if it's currently in the queue. That concerns me, because when they got in the queue, it might have been 250 feet. So my big issue is the notice, and I will quit repeating it, is that it be applied to developments moving forward so that everybody can act with certainty and we don't take away, because whether you change a setback on a single-family home that's right now at 250 to 500, or if it's at 300, if it's the health and public safety implication that seems to be what many on this council are sort of using as the basis for this, then we should be saying we should be buying those houses, because otherwise we're saying it's okay for you to sell your house to somebody else in a zone that we believe is very unsafe for you. And if we're going to do that, why in the world would we put this other condition on them that takes away one of the sticks of their bundle of rights of private property ownership? So I don't mind putting forth a request for a minute to talk about this. I mean, I can do that. And so we can initiate that. So what I want to do, though, is I want to go ahead and make my motion to reconsider pursuant to the to the posting on agenda item 2A. And so I'll make that motion. And if we have a second, we'll take a vote. If we don't have a second, that motion will die for a lack of a second. Councilmember Ryan. Mayor, as you know, I don't believe in passing something and then having to go back and fix it. And obviously, we have this wrong. So the best bet in my mind is to take it back off the books, fix it, and then pass it. And so with that, I will second your motion. Okay, we have a motion in a second. All in favor of the motion to reconsider, please signify by raising your right hand. All right, all opposed by like sign. Motion carries four to two. So then we I guess staff is instructed to put that on an agenda at some point. One minute pitch. No, no, this was the motion reconsider passed. Oh, I'm sorry. And honestly, I really don't think it's going to be this was really the only issue was the 500 foot setback and some of those issues regarding it. So I'm not worried about it being opened up to a bunch of other things. Okay. I did have a clarification question. Is there going to be some type of additional notice provided beyond the DDC and state law to homeowners who will be impacted by the increase in our setback? Yeah, I mean, is this agenda item still open? Yes. Okay. All right. That would be my that would be my desire. That's the whole reason I brought this motion to reconsider forward. Councilmember Armatran, then we'll go ahead and go around and see what we think about that. So I'm fine with the extended notice but now I know that your your focus is on the property owners, but I would want to make sure that it would apply to renters and anybody who lives within that same distance of a gas well. So anybody who lives in or is a property owner in that area. I think that's only fair. Okay. I guess one clarification. And if I'm on posting, let me know in the ordinance, the underlying ordinance that is now a motion for reconsideration. Yes. The setback distances for commercial and industrial buildings. No, they did not change. Yes, that is correct. They did not change. So I don't have necessarily and they would not become nonconforming even if this other ordinance became effective. No, no, the reverse setback only applies to protected use a residential lot. Okay. So I don't have an issue with sending out additional notices to anyone that's in a protected use within the 500 feet. I mean, if that's what we were discussing. That's been my whole issue with this all along. So I don't disagree with your your sentiment. Yes, Councilmember Davis. So on the notice issue, I feel like we got a lot more right with this ordinance than we got wrong. Frankly, I feel like it's forward movement on an issue that we've needed forward moving on. I'm okay with Councilmember Armitter said about making sure we get the renters and tenants. I think the most important group for the current conversation, though, are gonna be the folks with undeveloped lots. I think they've got a that's got to be owner notice and not necessarily DME bill notice. So how are we we work that and then in a future future staff report or legal status, I'd like to see we had some significant anxiety about option a that we considered a couple weeks ago, I'd really like to see a good analysis of if we're going to start adding more nuance to this and our options were some nuance, not a lot of nuance or no nuance at all. We're going to have now an option that has about 50% more nuance than our most nuanced option did the last time. And if that creates anxiety for us, legal or operationally planning is going to have some issues with those. I'd like to see a good breakdown of that before we before we have that presented. I'm curious what when you say 50% more nuance, I'm not sure what you're referring to. I mean, that's a that's an arbitrary percentage. But what I mean is, we had a concern that we were creating different classes of property owners, if we were going with a non ZBA option, you know, if we said date certain everybody going forward, everybody going back his grandfather, everybody going forward is not that that created some legal anxiety. And I want to avoid that my whole thing here, as you all well know, is about balance balancing the rights. I think you're right that we struck the balance a little differently than we really ought to have in this particular area. But if we're going to try to do something else with a lot more nuance to it, I really want to see a good breakdown of how that's going to work and what our exposure is. We'll certainly update our legal status report item on that on that issue. Okay, so I guess I thought what I heard you say was that if we made the 500 foot setback going forward for new developments, that or houses that are currently not existing, in other words, for new development, either a new home, new lots and those kinds of things, that people within that 500 foot are already existing, they wouldn't be non conforming. Is that Is that correct? I it's it's a different issue that comes into play with respect to to what you just mentioned. It's a it deals more of a constitutional issue, which our office is briefed as counsel separately on a legal status report. Okay, I'll go back and review that. And so with that without getting too far into that or even off posting, yep, okay, we will update that. All right, so a couple things if I could before you wrap it up. So we if we've got two or three, you know, different altruistic counsel consider, I think what I hear and you say, customer Davis is just simply have kind of a legal pro con argument on each one of those. So you fully understand what the unintended consequences may be or aren't in conjunction with the initial thing. I think the second thing is, you know, just thinking this through, if this if this is put on a January 7, Council meeting in light of everything that's been said about transparency, that sort of thing, and we're noticing people over the holidays, I just want to be sure that that's not going to be an issue for you. So are we better off moving this back to the 14th to 21st? So you don't get kind of beat up for saying, Well, you got me know that you gave me notice over the Christmas holiday and nobody reads her. Just just a question for you to think about. Okay, yeah. All right. So we'll close out the agenda item today, but there are concluding items. Oh, I'm sorry, go ahead. Yes, go ahead. Yeah, I think this might be sort of a cast member Davis was was on the might be a little difference here. It would be I would find it helpful. If staff in the presentation could kind of delineate all those shades of gray from house already exists. That's what exists that wants to make an expansion. Something that's quote unquote in the pipeline or the different degrees of in the pipeline, you know, plotted, just thought about it, you know, so that we can kind of really figure out where we want to draw the lines. Yes, that's my problem. Just practical question. So this means that now that the gas well ordinance, which was going to take effect or the changes to the ordinance, which was going to affect one Friday, now it will not take effect until we vote on it next. So we're now will be for an extended period under Yes, ordinance. Yes, the effect of the motion for reconsideration being passed is it and does the undoes the prior decision of the council, which was to approve it. Thank you. And so I would ask I would just be curious to know. Well, obviously, I voted no to this. But I'd be curious to know from planning staff or just council could be notified, say by whenever that time is, I'd like to know what new proposals for permits, requests for permits within this near near gas wells comes forward to us within this time in that time. I'm just curious. I'd like to I'd like to keep track of that. Sure. Okay. Anything else concluding items? Anybody have any concluding items? Okay. Raise my hand. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were saying no. I go move forward. I'm sorry. Yes. Yeah, we have I'll be having hosting a town hall tonight at six o'clock in council chambers, a new tree ordinance with guest speakers, rich can on and urban forester Heywood. And if you're interested in understanding how the tree ordinance works, I encourage you to come out. All right. All right. Anybody else? We'll stand adjourned at 2 42.