I'd like to call to order the planning and zoning meeting for the City of Plantation for, what is the state of state? Yes, May 7th, 2024. If the clerk would please read the roll. Mr. Speer. Present. Mr. Stahl. Here. Ms. Demby-Burger. Here. Mr. Korman. Here. Mr. Freeman. Here. Mr. Goldstein. Here. Ms. Gelfand. Thank you. All right. Thank you. First order of business is the approval of meeting minutes for February 6th, 2024. Does anybody have any corrections, additions, or comments? Seeing none, do I have a motion? Motion to approve. Second. Please call the roll. I'm sorry. Who was the second? Freeman. Mr. Speer. Yes. Mr. Stahl. Okay. You got it. Yes or no. Ms. Demby-Burger. Approved. Mr. Korman. Approve it. Mr. Freeman. Yes. Mr. Goldstein. Yes. Ms. Gelfand. Yes. Thank you. All right. First item on the agenda is public hearing PP-240015 in Normans of the City Council. The City of Plantation, Florida declaring zoning in progress and prohibiting the submission, processing, approval, or issuance of building permits, engineering permits, or development orders for any retail, office, or business uses within the City's Midtown District. If you would, sir. All right. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. For the record, Dan Holmes, Planning, Zoning, and Economic Development Director. As indicated, this is application PP-24-0015. This is a request to implement a moratorium and also zoning in progress. So I just want to kind of start and kind of explain the moratorium and what zoning in progress actually means. So moratorium is a type of ordinance that a municipal legislative body may enact that would temporarily halt certain specified development to give the municipality time and opportunity to plan for accommodating and managing development within a particular area. Likewise, it could also ban certain uses within an area, too. So we are recommending that this take place within a portion of the City's Midtown area. I'll explain that a little later why we're looking at this area. Zoning in progress is sort of part of a moratorium. So it is a provision within the land development regulations that places a temporary hold on development permits and approvals that there are pending active efforts underway to amend the land development regulations in a way that would preclude such permits and approvals should the pending amendment be adopted. So once we sort of advertise this item that we're recommending a moratorium, the zoning in progress sort of takes place. So it puts a temporary hold. If the council approves it or denies it, well, let's say if the council were to deny the moratorium, then that temporary hold will go away. If the council approves the moratorium, then the moratorium is what would actually take place, and the zoning in progress sort of goes away. So that's sort of the difference. And I've had some questions on what zoning in progress versus moratorium that kind of go hand in hand and work in conjunction with one another. So why is a moratorium being proposed? So city staff is recommending a moratorium for several reasons at this time. First, the city is in the process of adopting its 2040 comprehensive plan. The 2040 comprehensive plan sort of contemplates a new vision for the central midtown area, which may necessitate changes to the underlying zoning provisions. Secondly, the emergent 2040 vision will also likely have an impact on the water, sewer, and drainage infrastructure within the city. The moratorium will provide staff some additional time to kind of study these impacts and make appropriate recommendations within the midtown area. And then also staff is beginning to kind of field a lot of inquiries for potential development of plantation midtown properties that require development orders and necessitate potential current policies within the plantation midtown district. So all of these things sort of colliding at one point based upon some of the discussions we've had with administration is kind of why we're looking at implementing a moratorium in the midtown area at this time. So what are the boundaries of the moratorium? So right now we're looking at the boundaries, as you see in purple here, which would be Broward Boulevard to the north, the Old Plantation Water Control Canal District to the east, Southwest 6th Street to the south, and South Pine Island Road to the west. And we're kind of focusing on this area because based upon the work that we're doing and the sort of vision that's sort of emerging through the comprehensive plan is that it shows that this property is most likely to undergo some major changes that would distinguish it a little more from the rest of the midtown district, particularly the Broward Mall property. We've also been having several conversations with the current owners of the mall, and we kind of see that this could emerge sort of as a town center use. And there are some things that we'd have to do here to sort of distinguish it from some of the other areas within the district. So we're kind of calling this right now the central midtown village area of the city. So how long would the moratorium be in place under the proposed ordinance right now? Staff is requesting a period of 180 days in order to analyze and prepare amendments to the code, which will be considered by the Planning and Zoning Board at a later date in city council at future public hearings. So that's roughly about six months. So by the time this would be implemented, we'd probably be looking at sometime, you know, late year, end of November, December, by the time these items will come back with some definitive recommendations from staff in terms of some of the changes that we think would be prudent to implement within the district. This would also give us some time to finalize some of the work that we're doing on the comprehensive plan as well, and things will kind of flow from the comprehensive plan. So what type of development will be impacted by the moratorium? The proposed moratorium will put a hold on the following new building permits and also engineering permits and development orders for properties within the defined area that are not already approved. There are some types of applications and stuff which would not be affected by it. So local business tax receipts or administratively approved zoning permits for existing businesses that are within the parameters of existing code and also would not require city council or Planning and Zoning Board action could be approved within the area proposed for moratorium. So under the code, requirements to amend the land development regulations, just to let you know that staff has followed the appropriate regulations, section 2743 of the city's land development regulations provide that the text of the land development regulations may be proposed for amendment by the Planning and Zoning Director or also the Chief Administrative Officer or the City Council. You do have a memorandum in your backup that shows that based upon some of the discussions we've had at the administrative level that the Chief Administrative Officer has also directed staff to kind of take a look at this issue and to implement the proposed moratorium. Also, any affected person or persons or interested parties may also petition the city to amend the text of the land development regulations subject to payment of an application fee and the cost of processing the application. So those are pretty much the two ways that the land development regulations can be amended. So this application, as indicated, has been submitted by staff via the Chief Administrative Officer for amendment. Public notice requirements are in section 2741F and 2741M1 of the code. So this item has been advertised consistent with those requirements and also section 166.041 of the Florida statutes. So in summary, the city administration and the Planning and Zoning and Economic Director desire to impose a temporary moratorium on new development orders to ensure that the city can guide the new development in a fashion that would be in the best interest of the city and the residents in the long term. And so based upon that, staff is recommending that this board recommend approval of the moratorium to the City Council. I'm happy to answer any questions that you have relative to this item. Thank you, sir. Do we have any questions from the dais? Vicki? Could you go back three screens and then go forward one, I think it is? I understand that if it doesn't go through and the staff hasn't gotten everything done, do you get an extra 90 days or 60 days after the 180? You can extend it, but there are certain circumstances. You must kind of be a little far along in the process just to ensure sometimes it's kind of frowned upon when you implement a moratorium. You haven't really done any work to kind of show that you're almost there, and then you recommend extension. So remember that the moratorium, you're kind of putting a stay on applications, so it can be a little onerous on property owners. So you want to make sure that you try to stick to that 180-day period. Okay. The other question, how did you – I understand that it's a specific part of the city. Could that moratorium be in other parts of the city? If the boundaries – Say you said, well, City Hall has this, and we're going to put a moratorium. They're tearing it, whatever it is. But in a different part of the city, you could put a moratorium on building, et cetera, and so on. That's correct. Yeah, you can put it in any area of the city. But you need to really define a rationale by which you're doing it instead of just randomly placing a moratorium. And so when you publish this, the people that have – they have not put in yet for any planning and zoning, or they haven't put in anything to do their building, whatever they're building, these people that read that, they're already aware of it. Yeah, once it's noticed, as I was saying, in terms of the zoning and progress under our code, what happens sometimes, and you'll find that most cities do have a zoning and progress provision within their land development regulations. Sometimes when you kind of advertise that you're doing the moratorium, and by the time you get it to this board and then to the council, there are a lot of people that read that and that may own property and say, hey, I'm going to, you know, kind of scurry and hurry up and kind of get an application in. The zoning and progress sort of states that from the time that it is advertised for action, that there's a temporary sort of stay that's in place as well to kind of prevent that from happening. Thank you. Max. Thanks for the presentation, Danny. Just a quick question. You let me know if I'm getting ahead of myself here. But I'm not understanding because this is, most of Midtown is covered by the MPM zoning district. That's correct. So if we're doing a zoning in place, I don't understand why we wouldn't just do all the city covered by the MPM zoning district or just the Midtown district in general. Because right now it's mostly that one zoning district. There's a couple of, like, the BP7, BP8, something like that. I don't remember the exact numbers, but the business 7Q. Right, B7Q. And I'm not understanding, like, unless we're trying to break up Midtown into multiple zones, like a town center zone and then Midtown north, Midtown south type of thing, why are we doing it just for part of Midtown and not the entire Midtown that will be affected by this one zone? So the MPM district, several years ago, the city did implement the MPM district, which those regulations we feel are appropriate to guide the kind of urbanized development that we're looking for in Midtown in general. You're absolutely right. When we look at the town center, there's some different things because this will be kind of the center of the district. And there's some, in terms of development pattern, there's some different things we may be looking at, particularly for the mall property in general. That's why we focused on that area. We feel that the MPM district is sufficient enough to guide the development in other areas of Midtown. Okay. So for this, like, as you said, the most significant property here is the mall. And I know that that's, you know, its own issues. Do you think that 180 days will be enough for not only what you guys have, I trust you guys to do what you need to do, but for the mall to do what they need to do? So it doesn't mean that the mall has to have any development plans in place within that 180 days. It's just a period in which we're going to look at the rules right now, and we may kind of modify some of the rules that are in place. Preferably, the mall, you know, if they wanted to propose something, they'd have to wait until after the moratorium, or they'd have to petition us to tell us that, hey, we know you have a moratorium. What we're proposing would be consistent with the vision of where you're going. They'd have to convince us of that. And the city council could, at its discretion, if it thought that that was the case, they could approve them for development. I don't foresee a development proposal coming for the mall within that time period. We haven't had anything submitted. It'd have to go through the development review process and then to this board and so forth. So I think we're still a little ways off. So we're just trying to make sure we have the appropriate rules in place that would govern the type of development that we think would be most appropriate for that property. All right. Thank you. That's it for me. Anyone? Joshua? Can you go back one slide for me, please? Oh, no, sorry. To the types of things that would be prohibited by the moratorium, the one that laid that out. So new building permits, engineering permits. Are there any of these that are currently pending in this area? In the area? No. Not within that boundary, no. And does the city have any sort of legal requirement to process these in a certain amount of time or at all if there wasn't a moratorium in place? So, okay, so if there were no moratorium and someone applied for land development application, do we have a time frame to process that? Yes. Okay. Okay. What I'm trying to understand is, like, what's the legal purpose of having a moratorium? Like, if we can just decide that we can say no to somebody who was to put an application in. You can't just decide that, though. Right. But it's, well, that's what I'm trying to understand. So if the rules are in place and they, a property owner slash applicant, made application, and they met the criteria that is currently in place that the city, staff, and administration now deems not necessarily appropriate for the future of that area, they can't just be denied because they meet the criteria set forth currently. So the issue is the current regulations don't meet the future aspiration of the city. So that's what the staff is going to be reviewing to make sure that the 40-year vision that the city council had, whenever that was, and the conference room that you probably remember, I remember. Workshop. Yeah, the workshop. So that those visions meet what the code actually says now. So that's really what Danny is trying to get accomplished. I guess I don't fully understand, like, what somebody would be able to do now that they wouldn't be able to do in the future that we're stopping in this interim period. So what they could do now, if they own a property or a use that was already in there, they could come and, say, get a building, I mean, get a business tax receipt to, you know, go into an existing building. And if a use was permitted there, they could, you know, open up the business within that area. They would not be able to, on the other hand, take a site, develop it, you know, with the new use, you know, maybe, you know, raise a particular building, build a new building, or what have you. They wouldn't be able to do that. So it's very limited. Can I ask a question which might cut to the chase? When is the comp plan going to be done? We are trying to get the comp plan completed sometime in September, by the end of September. So come September, so maybe October, come September, maybe October, there will be a plan in place that says this is what we actually want for the city with regards to land use going all the way out to 2040. Right. And so hypothetically, if between now and then there was no moratorium, somebody could come in and put an application in for something, and I'm just going to use the Broward Mall property, that Sears property that's derelict, they can come in and say, we're going to put that up and put a big box store right there, which we would then be stuck with for that time. And granted, we could say no to it, but you can't guarantee that somebody wouldn't challenge it because under existing uses, that's an acceptable use that we're saying in 2040 we do not want to have. Right. That's correct. And with some of the work that we're doing right now with the comprehensive plan, we already kind of see that we're moving in a different direction. And so we want to try to kind of keep – kind of put a stay on some of the areas that we know pretty much based upon some of the workshops and what we're looking at, the comprehensive plan that we want a different vision for. And we don't want to have someone come in and propose something that could probably sneak in under the current rules that will be inconsistent with that future vision. So – go ahead, Joshua. But the zoning in progress is already in place, so there's a temporary hold right now, correct? It's not technically in place. It's being proposed. It will be on the agenda tomorrow evening for the consideration by the City Council. This process that you're doing tonight will be – once it moves from here, if it's – whether it's recommended for approval or not, it will go to the City Council for a review of the ordinance. So tomorrow there's a resolution on the agenda so that that can be put in place while the ordinance process works out because that takes a little bit longer, obviously. Which brings me to a second question. Is the 180 days from the second approval of City Council, or is it from the publication of that temporary date? It will be from the final adoption of the ordinance at the end of the day. But it will be in place temporarily until it's finally approved, and then that time clock – it won't run concurrent. It will be one time. So that would take us out to, like, November or December. Okay. So I guess my hesitation is – and I don't want you to say something you don't want to say publicly, but it is, like, what are we trying to stop? Like, you keep saying – you keep alluding to this. There's something could sneak in. Well, I mean, there's nothing like – you know, there are several type of uses that could be inconsistent with the town center use on that property that could take place on that property right now. I could give you an example, because I actually had somebody mention this to me at the last meeting. His – and purely rumor – his contention was that Costco wants to come in and build a new Costco, because new Costco layouts are different from the one that exists on Davie. So if Costco wants to come in and put a Costco store on that property under existing zoning and rules, they could. So that would be inconsistent with the eventual, I assume, housing density that probably the comp plan is going to want to put right there. So based on that rumor alone, if somebody says we don't want Costco there or we want to have time to address whether we want to have Costco, we need to finish the comp plan. So that would be – like, when I saw this, that's what I thought about. So I don't know if that's true or not, but – There's no application. Yeah, we haven't received an application for it. Right, but that would – But that could be something that we don't think would be inconsistent. I assume be what – with people talking about what they want to do with that property, I personally would want the comp plan in place before any decisions are made. So I think that's really why – if you can tell me comp plan is going to be done September, October, this makes sense. If the comp plan is not going to be done until after the expiration of the 180 days, then we have something we need to talk about. Right. Okay. That makes sense to me. I appreciate the clarification. And can you – just from a legal standpoint, if you – to change the zoning against the property owner's will, like if they weren't to apply for that and you're just doing a comp plan, is there – are they – let's just say they actually wanted to build a Costco, right? Could they try to assert their rights to do that because that's the current rights they have? They – let me answer the legal question. You know, a property owner or an affected party in that circumstance has the ability to challenge any decision made by the city council. So generally, to answer your question is, yes, they have the ability to challenge that. And that will be based on the type of application it will be, which will be – because of the area and it's going to be a general ordinance, it will be legislative. So it has to be – decision has to be fairly debatable based on the information brought before the council. So it's – it won't be a higher standard of review for the council. Okay. But let me – but I will just add that we have been meeting periodically with the current mall owner, and they're very much in favor with where we're going. Their vision is very consistent with the city's vision. That makes sense to me. I think my last question is, you know, the area is pretty small, and most of it's the mall. Like, do we know how many other property owners there are in that area? I have not counted the individual parcels or property owners overall within the area. Something we can take a look at. Does that, like, include some of the office space by the fountains right behind the mall? Okay. So the fountains is down a little lower here. This is just before the fountains shopping center is kind of right in this area here. So it does not include the fountains shopping center development. But there are several doctor's offices that sort of are in between? Yeah. Right in here, you mean, right? Yes. Yes. Yes. So if you look at Perimeter Road sort of as it goes around the mall there, there are some properties in between sort of Perimeter Road and Southwest 6th Street. It would include all of those parcels in that area. And do you know how those owners, have they made any positions or, you know? No. We have not had any objection from those owners. I have one other question. You have another one? Go ahead. So this is Midtown. What about the rest of the city? You would have to do it as a separate piece. I mean, I know that it has to be separately, but are there plans in your department or in CAO's department to bring to you about this, doing this in the rest of the city? At this particular point, we don't have any plans that we're looking at to implement a moratorium in any other area of the city. Okay. Thank you. That could change as we get further into the comp plan. Thank you. I was going to ask, when the 180 days are over, what are the odds of a continuance? And at that point, would it be at 180 mark or would it be 90 days? For instance, I work in the courthouse, and they were supposed to begin tearing it down probably about 15 years ago, and they just started this week. So is 180 days actually realistic, or is this something that you think is going to come for a continuance or an extension? And what are your thoughts on the 180 days being a realistic number? Right. Thank you. We think it's a realistic number at this particular point in time. As I move along and certain things are revealed, there may be some unforeseen things that I can't see at this particular point. So it is not uncommon sometimes that moratoriums are extended a little. So it's possible that could happen. It's possible to be shorter as well. Yes. Just to be clear, the comp plan as far – let me ask you a different way. What could possibly delay the comp plan past September? Just some delays with us working with the consultant and the time frames. But we're very close to getting it to where we need it to be. We're already a little – I initially anticipated sometime around June, July. But what we're reviewing right now, I think we can get the product finished by that time frame. And once the comp plan is in place, we have the plan for what we want. We're kind of trying to move it to get – because as we look at certain data, because the comp plan, you're updating certain data and you're doing visioning for the city. We kind of see – even though we haven't adopted it yet, we kind of know kind of where we're going. We've had workshops with the council. So we're trying to move some things along so that we can kind of have them happen on a tighter time frame, as opposed to trying to get the comp plan there and implement a moratorium. And then in that interim, we could have some things happen that we would kind of frown upon. Got it. Any other questions or comments from the dais? Any from the gallery? All right. Public comments are closed on this. Motion to approve? I'll second it. Can we please have the roll? Mr. Speer? Yes. Mr. Stahl? Yes. Ms. Demby-Burger? Yes. Mr. Korman? Yes. Mr. Freeman? Yes. Mr. Goldstein? Yes. Ms. Gelfand? Yes. Thank you. Excellent. Next one, quasi-judicial items. Do you want to read this one? I'll do this. Are you ready for it? Whenever. All right. Quasi-judicial proceeding. I will swear in all witnesses before speaking, please state your name and whether you have been administered an oath. Proud of speaking, any speaker may be cross-examined. If you refuse to be cross-examined, your testimony may not be considered. Cross-examination shall be conducted in a courteous manner. The material in the city clerk's agenda packet will be made a part of the record. The city staff will make the first presentation followed by presentation of the applicant, any affected parties, and the public. The board may set reasonable time limits for speakers. The hearing will be closed and the matter decided. It will require a minimum of four votes for approval. Short of that four votes, the item will be deemed denied. The decision will be delineated in the motion and rendered in writing by the planning board here today with the development order evidencing the decision. The board has the authority to continue the matter to a designated time to allow for additional time for research and review. If you plan on speaking on this matter, please stand and raise your right hand and be sworn in. You swear or affirm, the testimony you'll give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Thank you. You may be seated. That's it, Mr. Chairman. All right. So, quasi-judicial item, PM 24-0012. Consideration or request to approve a practical difficulty waiver for the Govan residence. The property is located at 750 East Country Club Circle, zoned RS-2B residential single-family staff, please. Good evening, everyone. Michael Albert, assistant director. Property is located at 750 East Country Club Circle. The owners are James and Mary Govan. The zoning district for this is RS-2B, single-family residence. And it's a two-story, 2,400-square-foot home with two-car garage, covered patio, swimming pool. Here's an aerial view. Also, the noticed notification area, which did not capture too many properties because it is surrounded on the south and the west by the golf course. Here's a survey of the property. And then here's an enlarged image. The fence is actually in the northwestern corner of the site. The fence that's the subject of this waiver. For corner and interior lots, the area where you could have a six-foot fence is denoted in red. And the area where it would have to be four-foot high maximum is denoted in blue. And the reason for that is generally line of sight. You don't want to have a fence too high, especially if you're on the corner. So that would impede the visibility of vehicles and so forth. So the applicant requests a practical difficulty waiver from Section 27-296-02A, which limits the walls or fences to four feet in the front setback in this zoning district. Actually, in all residential zoning districts. Two, increase the allowable height located within the front street setback from four feet to six feet. A couple of views of this property. The applicant also has a presentation they'd like to share with us. Staff has not received any written citizen comments or phone calls objecting to the proposed application. The applicant has communicated and received support from neighbors to the north and the east. And those notarized letters of support are included in your backup. Regarding the criteria, staff feels that the first criterion the applicant does not meet because in terms of being substantial in relation four feet to six feet. However, we do find it to be compatible with the development pattern, that the neighborhood would essentially be preserved, that it would not cause substantial detriment to adjoining properties, particularly with that site visibility issue. And it is due to unique circumstances of the property and would render conformity to be a little bit burdensome. So we do feel that it meets four out of the five criteria. Staff recommends approval subject to conditions noted in the backup. All right. Thank you. Does anybody from the dais have questions for staff? Vicki? This property was built in the early 2000s. And when was the fence put up? I don't know the exact time, but the applicant can answer that. Okay. I'm just curious. Is this a new fence or is this just getting a fence that, when I read everything yesterday, it said that they put the fence up and they did not have a permit? Is that what I was reading? Correct. Okay. So basically they put up a fence, they didn't get a permit, now they want a permit to be pre-approved because the fence is already up? Correct. It is after the fact, yes. Okay. I'm not going to make any comments on that. Thank you. Anybody else? Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Do you want to use your presentation? Good evening. Nick Dariachakis on behalf of James and Mary Govin, the homeowners. I'm joined this evening by James Govin, who is the homeowner. And Board Member Gelfand, to answer your question, this is considered an after-the-fact situation where the fence was installed by the contractor, unbeknownst to the homeowners, without a permit. It was all done in conjunction with the new summer kitchen in the new covered outdoor area that was installed with permits, and the homeowners were not made aware that the work for that fence was done without a permit until code enforcement came out and cited them. By that point, the contractor had left the job, and the Govins were stuck having to come in and essentially file for permits as the owner-contractor. The city was very amenable and very understanding, and we'd like to thank the city's building department for allowing the Govins to go ahead and transfer all of those permits that had been filed under the contractor to the Govins so that they could then file as an owner-contractor. When the owners submitted for their owner-contractor permit, they received a bunch of comments back from zoning, which is common. One of those comments was, your fence, as installed in this location, is six feet where it's supposed to be four feet. So we were hired, my firm was hired, to go ahead and take a look and see if this was correct, what happened, and then to see how we could rectify it. And so in our discussions with the city staff, the approach that we took, because it does appear that there was a portion of the fence, and I'll just scroll into the portion. You saw it on the previous slide that staff put. But that yellow area is the area of the fence that was installed by the contractor without a permit. It links up to the entire summer kitchen, which was installed with permits and was inspected, and there really aren't any issues. It's just kind of on hold pending the resolution of this hearing. So the question is, are we allowed to have a fence? Yes, we are allowed to have a fence where that yellow area is, even though it is in the front setback. The issue is that it was installed at six feet instead of four feet, which is what the code requires. And so we have filed this practical difficulty waiver as an after-the-fact, but I want to make sure that you understand, Board Member Gelfin, that the homeowners were innocent in this, understanding that they are the homeowners and ultimately end up being responsible, but they did not partake in not filing for permits. They thought that that was something that their contractor had handled. I think it's safe to say that they're not going to use them again. Yeah, so this wasn't something that they did in ignorance or just disregarded the city's code. In fact, I think staff will tell you that the minute they notified the homeowner, you know, within less than 30 days he was in there having to submit for owner-contractor permits, which if anyone has done that, it's not necessarily the easiest thing to do. So we'll call this the most expensive summer kitchen and fence that a homeowner has maybe built in the city of Plantation. But as far as the criteria go, we believe we meet all of the criteria for a practical difficulty waiver. We don't believe that this is a substantial modification from the code requirement because, as you see, this property is an oddly shaped property. It has – it's not your standard square or rectangular lot. The patio, if you will, is really on their – in the front, considered the front for purposes of the city's code, but it's really their side from how the – they use the property. Their backyard, obviously, is much smaller. And so this is really – and the frontage that they have – I neglected to mention this. The frontage, which is the red line, the curved red line, is about 270 feet in length, in linear feet. And the fence that we're talking about, that's supposed to be 4 feet instead of 6 feet, is 28 feet in length. So that's, you know, about 10 percent of the frontage of the property. And so for that reason, we don't believe that it is a major, you know, modification. And so the homeowners have done also their homework, and they've reached out to their neighbors, their next-door neighbors, and both of them wrote letters of no objection. We're just hopeful that this board will see that this is a case that meets the practical difficulty waiver, and we hope that you don't hold it against the Govins for this issue of not having a permit when the fence was installed. The only thing that, to our knowledge, that's waiting to close everything out is the result of this hearing. So – Does anybody have questions from Lee Dayes? All right, we have a motion to approve, but hold on, hold on. Any comments from the gallery? No. Now, turn your microphone on. I make the motion that we approve. I'll second. Hold on. Could I request for the motion to be amended to be approval subject to staff comments? You can. Would you like to amend your motion? I'll amend my motion. Thank you, Max. You want to repeat it? No. You have to. I'll make up tonight. Approve subject to staff comments. I approve – I motion to approve it with the staff comments included. Close enough? I'll second it. All right, we have a motion and a second. Please call the roll. Mr. Speer? Yes. Mr. Stahl? Yes. Mr. Emby Berger? Yes. Mr. Corman? Yes. Mr. Freeman? Yes. Mr. Goldstein? Yes. Ms. Gelfand? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Congratulations. Thank you. Any other business? I've got some comment for staff. These signs that we put up on the properties for site plan – site plan – Can you ask these questions off the dais? Or does this have to be asked as part of – No, I suppose I can ask them off. Oh, I'll ask them off. All right. Okay. In that case then, meeting is adjourned. Thank you.