Okay, good evening everyone and welcome to our planning and zoning board meeting for September 23rd.

If you would please ten up with me and do pledge of allegiance.

Okay.

A couple of housekeeping items before we get started.

Please silence all electronic devices while attending uh Penn Z board meeting.

Uh for the record.

I will call the role.

Um if each plan is or member please uh knowledge your presence by us and present.

Kevin Kocher.

Present.

Greg Bodivich, uh Doseovich needs excuse.

Robert Gabadon.

Present via Zoom.

Okay.

Andrea Hickins.

Present.

Lisa Hardesty.

Present.

Sa Totarichi.

Present.

Okay.

And personal attendees, please fill out a speaker form if you wish to speak.

Only individuals who have signed up would be permitted to speak.

If you have yet to fill out a form, now is the time to do so and provide it to my recorder to the left.

Virtual attendees, please send a chat message to the host or use a raise hand feature.

And if you want to provide a public comment.

Any questions?

Okay.

Consent calendar.

Anything there.

Okay.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Second.

Call the roll.

Chairman Richardson.

Yes.

Commissioner Coffer?

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabbledon.

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins.

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesy.

Yes.

Commissioner Tortarici.

Yes.

Motion pass.

Okay.

Is there anything there?

We'll put a plan and zoning board for the monthly comparisons.

We'll go there.

We're good.

Item number three.

So uh Mr.

Chair, item number two and number three are your uh standard monthly staff reports.

Okay.

Um they are non-action items, and I will stand for any questions.

Okay.

None from me.

No.

Okay.

Okay, moving to public hearings.

Uh the first one is a variance by staff member Tamara Martinez, and staff recommends approval with findings and conditions.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman and members of the board.

Tamara Martinez, planner with the city of Rio Rancho.

The item before you is a variance request to the minimum lot width requirement.

The applicant Solano Builders requests the approval of a variance to the minimum required R1 minimum front lot width of 60 feet to allow for a 50-foot wide lot for the construction of a new 3,208 square foot dwelling unit on the subject property of 404 Northern Boulevard Northeast, which is legally described as Unit 11 block V lot 13.

The subject property is zoned R1, single family residential per ordinance number 68, enactment 94-066, which was adopted in December of 1994.

There is also an overlay zone on the property under ordinance number 21, enactment 98-23, which was adopted in September of 1998 by the governing body to prevent the proliferation of substandard width lot widths.27 acres.

The applicant submitted a building permit for a 3,208 square foot dwelling primary dwelling unit under permit number 258272.

This slide shows the proposed site plan as well as the elevations that were submitted.

The applicant has also submitted just a justification narrative in support of this application, which was presented as an attachment to this item.

Staff recommends that the planning and zoning board find that the subject property is irregular and narrow, is an irregular and narrow lot.

As such, staff finds that the subject variance request would be in alignment with the health, safety, morals, and welfare of the city.

As the applicant does not own the adjacent lots to the subject lot, the option for a summary plat consolidation to expand the lot width is not available.

So staff finds that the strict application of the minimum lot width requirement would result in a hardship that would deprive the owner of the reasonable use of their land.

Staff recommends approval subjects to find subject to findings and conditions, and with that I will stand for any questions.

Okay.

Is the applicant present?

Is the applicant present?

Okay.

Um is there anyone virtual who would like to speak for or against item number four?

So no one present the board.

All right.

Okay.

Uh motion to approve item number four.

Motion to approve item number four.

Second.

Second.

Okay.

Uh any comments from the board.

Any comments from the board.

Call the roll.

Vice Chair Gabbledon.

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins?

Yes.

Commissioner Totoricci.

Yes.

Commissioner Kaufcher.

Yes.

Chairman Richardson?

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesi.

Yes.

Motion pass.

Okay, moving over to item number five is the variance.

And staff Ben Ozicks.

Uh recommends approval with findings and conditions.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman and members of the board.

I'm Ben Isaacs, municipal planner with the City of Rio Rancho.

The item before you is a variance request to allow for a 50-foot lot width for a property in R1 single family residential zone.

The applicant Solano Builders and Construction is requesting approval of the lot width variance for the subject property located at 121 9th Avenue Northeast.

The subject property is legally described as Unit 11 block UU lot 31.

The subject property is zoned R1 single family residential as per ordinance 68 enactment 94066 and is also located within an overlay zone as per ordinance 21 enactment 98023.

You read the wrong item presenting first.

The lot width is the first is the item.

Oh, sorry, sorry.

My apologies.

There we go.

Okay.

Um, so picking back up where we left off.

Um the applicant is requesting a variance to Rio Rancho Municipal Code Section 154.50, which ordains that property zoned R1 must have a minimum lot width of 60 feet.

The subject property was platted in November of 1965, and as such is an antiquated platted lot.

It has a lot width of 50 feet, which does not meet the 60-foot requirement.

The subject property is also located within an overlay zone that ordains that all adjacent or contiguous lots held by the same owner shall be combined by summary plot procedure to prevent the proliferation of these substandard lots.

However, the applicant does not know does not own any lots adjacent to the subject property, and thus this ordinance does not apply.

Staff recommend that the board rec uh approve the applicant's request for a lot with variance based on the specified findings of fact and conditions.

I'll stand if there are any questions.

Okay.

Is the applicant present?

Is the applicant present?

Is there anyone virtual who wish to speak for or against item number five?

Okay, motion to approve item number five.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Second.

Okay.

Any comments from the board?

No.

Any comments from the board?

All right.

Call the roll.

Commissioner Hankins.

Yes.

Commissioner Torterici.

Yes.

Commissioner Coftor.

Yes.

Chairman Richardson.

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesty.

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabbledon.

Yes.

Motion pass.

Okay.

Move it over to item number six is a variance.

And staff member Ben Isaac recommends denial with findings and conditions.

Ben Isaacs, municipal planner with the City of Rio Rancho.

The item before you is a variance request to allow for a five-foot encroachment into the front setback in an R1 single family residential zone.

The applicants Albert Martinez and Angela Crespin Martinez are requesting approval of a front setback variance for the subject property located at 6366 Roadrunner Loop Northeast.

The subject property is legally described as Corallis North Unit 1, block 1, lot 22.

The subject property is zoned R1, single family residential as per ordinance 8115.

The applicants are permitted to conduct a residential child care business on their property with a capacity of four children.

The applicants are requesting a variance to Rio Rancho Municipal Code Section 154.50, which provides the property zoned R1 must have a minimum setback of 20 feet in the front.

The applicants are seeking to construct an addition in front of their existing residents to house a west bike from their child care business.

As proposed, the construction of the addition would result in a five-foot encroachment into the front setback.

The applicants asserted in their justification that the addition should be constructed in front of the residents, as doing so in the rear would prohibit reasonable use of the backyard for their child care business.

In a previous property inspection, staff found that the applicant's backyard currently contains an outdoor play area that is 4,736 square feet.

With the minimum requirement of 60 feet, 60 square feet of outdoor play space per child.

The backyard would have enough capacity for up to 78 children.

Staff recommend that the board deny the applicants request for a front setback variance based on the specified findings of fact and conditions, namely that the subject property is not a regular in shape and does not have an exceptional physical condition that is preventing the applicants from complying with the zoning code.

I'll stand if there are any questions.

Okay, is the applicant present?

Please come forward, state your name and address.

Yes, and I'm Albert Martinez, um also the same residence.

Okay, go ahead and present.

So we have a quick note on the item number six.

Um the second sentence in the paragraph states that the single family residence district 20 foot minimum front setback requirement.

Um as Mr.

Isaac's uh uh alluded or noted, the uh we're asking for a 15-foot setback from the front of the property line.

The ordinance does call for a 20-foot uh setback, but we're asking for five feet to um encroach or uh to make a 15-foot setback in order to uh be able to build a 500 square foot, which would be approximately a 20 by 25 uh square foot addition to provide respite, as Mr.

Isaac alluded, um, or us uh during the uh care of uh children in Rio Rancho for our business.

Um like to elaborate a little bit on what has um why um we've we're asking the uh the council for uh a variance um with that said um first on the 20-foot setback or the typo in the um the agenda how is that addressed or corrected we can answer that question here shortly or we're gonna address that, but just to be clear, you asked the question, or I guess you stayed in Claire and fine that the 20-foot is a typo.

Yes, we think we thought yes, it should be 15 foot feet for the front requesting property line.

So you asked them for 15 feet, we asked for 20 feet.

They're asking for five feet.

Five feet, okay.

So uh Mr.

Chair, if I can so the request is for them to uh so the front setback standard is 20 feet.

So um what they're asking is is to encroach five feet um into that 20 foot setback, uh which would be that they would be 15 feet from the property line.

Um so in the agenda, what what we reference in the title is that the actual standard that they're asking for a variance for is 20 feet.

Um, and so the the requirement is 20 feet, but they're asking to go five feet into that 20 feet, if that helps clarify uh what's going on with the colour.

Okay, thank you so much.

Thank you.

Yep.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

All right.

Um, I just kind of wrote something for for you all.

Um first of all, good afternoon, everyone.

Um, so we're Albert and Angela, and my husband is a retired federal engineer caregiver, and I'm a retired um caregiver.

And um, to give you a bit more information about why we're trying to accomplish what we're trying to accomplish and why we're here today.

We moved here about 2021 for various reasons, but one of them happened to be to help our son who happens to be a sergeant for the Sandoval County Sheriff Department.

Um, and uh we wanted to help him with child care because it seemed at the time there was limited and and still is apparently child care available here in Rio Rancho.

Um he was having some trouble finding open enrollment and one of that and and one that offered after hour care and or nights weekends at that time to get uh to get his children into the child care.

So he was having some trouble, so uh he called and asked if we could you know take that on until we could figure something else out for that child care.

And then at the same time, on another though on another note, because it does have to do with what we're trying to accomplish, it may not seem like it, so bear with us.

On another note, during this time, Trump's campaign had indicated that once he was in office, he was going to make some cutbacks and reduction in force in the federal government.

Since our move here and Trump's future possible actions, we'd been brainstorming of a way to give back to our community and what Albert might do for employment.

If Trump followed through with the reduction in force, we decided to kill two birds with one stone and be proactive with the recommendations of the state ECCD child care department.

We opened a daycare that would that we call little blessings, and thankfully we did because as proposed, the Trump administration did do a reduction in force, and since my husband was close to retirement, he was one of many forced out.

So little blessings became a lifeline as our only source of income outside of our small pension uh retirement pension pensions.

We're hoping to be able to keep it open.

Most of our home and entire backyard is used for our daycare program, even if it is just for children.

It is used uh to offer um, we offer all of this space to them to give them more of a home experience and a home experience rather than to limit them and give them that industrial feel that you get at some of the other uh daycares that we've seen.

I unfortunately have recently been diagnosed with some disabilities that I am unable to assist Albert at times with the child care program.

My room is the only space not used for the child care program, and on these bad days of chronic pain, I stay confined in my room, which causes me anxiety.

So, as a solution, we thought maybe to sell our current home and get a larger place with a separate casita.

Upon research, we found that this would create a financial hardship for us.

So they went we then researched building an additional dwelling of respite that we could both utilize away from our daycare, which brings us brings us to why we are here today.

In order for us to build a functional dwelling space, it seems we're five feet shy of creating this space.

After achieving all we have had to do to open a daycare with this, which was a process, um, we are trying to do all we can to keep the daycare open before considering having to close it, which again would cause financial hardship on us, and before it even had a chance to flourish, which we believe it is, since child care daycare is much needed service.

Our daycare offers before and after hours, nights and weekends.

Our target is to accommodate first responders which have before and after hour work schedules, and military families that have drills nights and weekends.

We are also enrolled with the military upwards child care program that offer our services for military families that need weekend or night child care during drills.

It's amazing what five little feet could accomplish if we're given the opportunity to.

So we hope you will take into consideration all our efforts and goals to make little blessings part of Rio Rancho community and grant us the variance request in spite of what Ben's recommendations.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you for your comments.

Um who wish to speak for against item number six?

Is anyone virtual who wish to speak for against item number six?

Okay, motion to approve item number six.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Second.

Okay.

Any comments from the board.

I have uh maybe a couple questions for the applicants.

Um states in here that you currently serve four children.

Um is the intent to increase that number of children that you so we were approved for up to six, but according to fire marshal, we would have to install sprinkler system to go to the six.

So we could do five for now.

And um we alternate, so even though we have only five spaces, um, at any given time we help different families, like i.e.

military families, they may have they only need us for that week, that one month for that weekend drill.

So we kind of the open spaces that we have now, we've been alternating between those types of families, and we have two children that are full-time currently involved and enrolled in our program currently.

So we have three spaces that we alternate right now between military or other first responders that need those before and after hours, such as I we have a paramedic that brings her child in at 5 a.m.

And doesn't pick her up, and sometimes because she's on a call, she's unable to pick him up by you know, the standard, you know, most daycares only offer 6 30.

She's able to say, Hey, I'm stuck on a call.

We'll be here at 7 30 or 8 trying to get there, and so we're open to to do that.

And we're doing this because our son went through that.

So it's been working pretty good for a various amount of families that we have.

Yeah, we just have a flexibility built into our program that allows us to um provide care for more than just uh the six up to twelve actually is what the state was recommending.

Because I think like you have to put in for I guess another a different application in order to serve the additional children beyond four.

We know that we'll be working with um Angela uh King when the time comes.

At this point, like we like to uh my wife alluded to.

We just began this this program.

We're finding out different things as we go, what works, what we need to do, remaining compliance, what we're able to do, what um accommodations we can have.

So we're learning as we go, and as as time goes on, uh we improve and expand uh depending how the uh how that goes in time and what our uh what our um infrastructure allows will also determine how that um what our program is gonna look like uh in the future.

Mr.

Chair, if I can um add to that too, uh Commissioner Kaufcher.

Um so the state has been um in the process of updating regulations, um and so um our staff is trying to keep in close contact with all the daycares that we have currently um because there might be changes in some of those um to to try to allow um more home daycares and to try to allow uh more children in those spaces.

So um as as the uh state statute changes, um we'll make sure to to keep in contact with all of the um daycares that we have as well to to try to accommodate any of those changes as they go forward.

Thank thank you for that.

Yeah, yes, ma'am.

The uh the state and the the city of Rio Rancho have their sort of a small disconnect there as far as the permitting process and the licensing uh process procedures are and uh but they're all working on that.

It did take us well about two years to get our license and and everything on here.

So is uh as Chairman Um Kaufkar uh alluded to, it's gonna take some time for us to uh determine how the the our programs eventually gonna look like.

So and then now with the state uh just approved um the uh the cap on there's no cap there's no cap now.

uh process procedures are and uh but they're all working on that it did take us well about two years to get our license and and everything on here so so is is uh as chairman um hoffer uh uh alluded to it's gonna take some time for us to uh determine how the the our programs eventually gonna look like so and then now with the state uh just approved um the uh the capital well there's no cap there's no cap now there's no cap for any uh any uh salaries or income needed for child care so it's gonna be pretty much free for all of our citizens in New Mexico and hence uh there may be a need in real rancho for for more daycare centers whether they be residential or group homes or an or group uh dairy care centers or or the such but uh just throw that in I I guess thank you I just said one more question um did you explore the possibility of building a separate structure equivalent to the size that you're looking at for the addition in your backyard um well there's setbacks there too so correct yeah so once you take that into consideration that really starts starts to encroach into the children's play areas where we're at um so we did but we feel like it would be taken away from them and especially if we're gonna grow it because believe me just the two kids alone take up that whole space you know they drive around their little cars all over the yard and imagine it with more yes as as Mr Isaac did I think it was Mr.

Isaac's or the presentation did allude to the minimum requirements by the state are what was it 35 square feet or 75 square foot but that's really a very small area to keep children in.

Contained in the especially top it's eight by eight maybe eight and a half by eight and a half that is not much room for a child to really expand their horizons and we're using our entire backyard for both safety reasons and send also to expand their exploration exploration uh abilities and capabilities and such but we did look into that yeah thank you okay any comments from the board I do have one additional question have is it possible or is there a reason why that front wall can't be brought back five feet to meet the setback requirement in the front you mean or so right now you're encroaching five feet can you move back can you reduce the the space um by five feet to meet the setback is there some reason that that cannot be done from the side you mean from the so we're in the image I'm seeing that you're adding on to the front of the residence right the front is 20 point one um feet um by and you mentioned earlier you are estimating 25 feet right and so can that be reduced to 20 by 20 to bring back that front wall five feet in order to meet the the setback requirement are you talking about the dwelling itself yes there's there's also minimum requirements as far as the uh the actual rooms that are gonna be that the room or bedroom that's gonna be built on there it's a 10 10 by 10 so right now you start reducing that additional kitchen space and also any uh accessibility space as well or accessibility needs as well for safety and um so we did look into that but it would encroach on that some of those code requirements safety yeah okay thank you okay and additional comments from the board Mr Chair it's here so I I'm I want to follow up on Lisa's question because I had the same question so and I don't know that I'm fully aware why that couldn't just be a 20 by 20 addition and not have to require setback Mr Chair if I can try to uh so what I'm hearing from the applicant uh Mr.

Tortarisi is that uh in the inside it it's not just gonna be one room uh that we're talking about so they they will have um a kitchen facility and I believe a bathroom as well because it it will be considered an additional dwelling unit um and so uh the space needed to have all of those pieces um in one area uh starts to become constrained if they were to drop it from um from the 20 by 25 down to the 20 by 20 um and so I I believe that's what the applicants are are trying to say is that it I I think if it was just one large room uh it would be much easier to um to take out that five feet but I think when we start um having those conversations about the kitchen space and the space needed uh walls and things like that between a kitchen and a and a bedroom um then there does start to be some some space constraints um I I believe that's what the applicant is trying to convey thank you yes yeah thank you Amy I appreciate that because you're right I made the assumption that it was just one large room so thank you very much Amy no further questions in addition comments from the board okay um so Lisa Sal and Kevin you guys took my questions but um see if I can rephrase them just just for my clarity okay

Yeah, thank you, Amy.

I appreciate that because you're right.

I made the assumption that it was just one large room.

So thank you very much, Amy.

No further questions.

In addition, comments from the board.

Okay.

Um Lisa Sal and Kevin you guys took my questions, but um see if I can rephrase them just for my clarity.

Okay.

Um where's your hours of operations?

Is that I think you're so we start at five and then uh usually end at eight.

Five a.m.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um and then we also offer some nights to the militaries, that's a separate um, and then also uh weekends for them as well, because they do drills for weekends.

So pretty much it could be 24 hours, 24-7.

You think about it instead of within the limitations of the confines of um ensuring we comply with the city of Real Rancho um guidelines?

Guidelines as far as the uh number of children that we can have care at the same time.

Gotcha.

So the overall scrub footage, did you do the math on that?

So the proposed is uh 500 square feet.

Okay, gotcha.

So yeah, it's kind of tight, and because the restroom has to be a certain square footage as well, or the bathroom to audit by code, remember correctly.

Um can we throw up that slot again or um of the overall addition attachment to the house?

I guess it's more like a is it more like a casita?

Okay, so is that physically attached or is that detached?

It would be attached, I believe.

Okay.

And per the ordinance of the wording that would be it's called a well, an addition dwelling, right, Mr.

Isaacs.

I I can't recall what the verb is so yes, it would be a dwelling, an addition dwelling.

Dwelling addition, I believe.

And you may have answered or stated this this answer for my question.

Could you not go instead of going out towards the old, could you not go I can see north or west, or I mean east is east or west.

Could you not go horizontal instead of vertical out?

No, unfortunately, because of those setbacks on that side as well.

And we're we're already on the uh the side property line, we're already gonna be within the limits of the uh setback on the um east eastern boundary uh neighborhood neighbor boundary already within five feet of that setback, and we don't want to encroach any more on that.

So that dash line represents what does it represent the dash line to the east actually around the parameter of the house.

Is that the property line or is that uh I was gonna say I see the 10 foot side setback and then the five foot PUE is the dashed line, is what I'm saying.

Yes.

That's nice to put it too.

Right.

And now far is that is that do I say 10 feet?

Yeah, 10 feet side.

That's minimum.

So uh Mr.

Sherry, I believe the um side setback, and I've got staff that'll correct me, uh, I believe is it's actually five feet.

Um so if they didn't touch actually that um so they could go up to that that dashed line.

Okay.

Okay.

Um did my do your architectural math.

You know, uh you know, would it not be helpful?

Oh well, I thought that's how he drew it.

I thought how the architect had drawn that to that five foot line.

I thought was done.

Yeah, I might have we didn't quite catch that.

Um so basically what you would probably do is just rotate it like 90 degrees so that now your east your east-west dimension be 25 feet wide, yes, up to that PUE, and then you would be 20 feet going towards the road and not encroaching on the 20-foot setback if that if that's acceptable.

Correct.

It's just reorienting it.

Yes, yes.

So uh Mr.

Chair, uh Commissioner Kaufter, one of the things though, um, if there is already a a assumption that they're hitting that side PUE, um uh I I don't want to based off of uh a really preliminary sketch, make the assumption that it doesn't go all that way um at this point in time because I I don't want to um I don't want the applicants to have to come back if they go back to their architect and then find out that that the sketch that we're looking at just the footing could go into that because you know you you have the wall go down your stem, but then your footing would would definitely go into it so intrude into that space.

Okay, but so the the orientation is 25 feet um lengthwise, so 25 feet would be towards the EUE or the utilities meant uh next to the east property line, and then the 20-foot um build would be to the front, encroaching on that five-foot the back that we're trying to get.

It would be 25 by 20, but 25 feet.

Um the 25 would be on the long side, not uh it would be uh orientation of nine degrees, and right in addition to comments from the uh Mr.

Chairman, sure.

It's Robert Gabbledon.

So um I think I I'm I'm I'm imagining, and I think the community probably appreciates very much the type of business they've got, especially given their target customers of first responders, military, that's really an awesome service.

Um I'm appreciating the conversation about rotating the building 90 degrees so that it goes a little wider versus a little longer, possibly not encroaching on the on the easement to the front.

But one thing that I'm surprised about is that we haven't heard from any neighbors.

Um I mean, there's gonna be a pretty large structure built onto the front of a house.

It's gonna look completely different than everything that's styled around it.

So I I don't know what anybody's opinion would be around that uh around those neighbors, but I'm surprised we're not hearing from anybody or that we didn't see any comments from anybody, but that's fine.

Um all that said, it's it seems like it makes the most sense to me for a situation like this, given that the whole house is used for the for the service anyway, and I know that uh the applicant uses uh one room for respite for maybe resting, and I can appreciate that too.

Seems like the most sensible place to put that many square feet of an addition is on the back of a house.

That's a really large property, really decently sized backyard.

I know that you know it's nice to have more room for the kids to do their exploring, but the uh in my opinion, I think that the most appropriate place to explore putting those square feet would be in the back.

That's my comment.

Chair, if I may, thank you.

Yes, so thank you for that observation.

Um counselor.

Um so the there is there are or there's at least one other home on that street that has built an addition in the front.

Um I don't remember the address, the address, but it is on that street, and it that as far as the aesthetics is concerned, we're going to maintain or keep the same aesthetics as our house currently has and the surrounding homes as well.

So we're it's not gonna look any much too much different from what you already see in in that area either way.

Right, and um as far as no comments from anyone, we do have a public notice of large right orange sign in the front of the yard currently, and um we've had some comments from neighbors uh that have been all positive and are looking forward to it and are even hoping to use their services as FYI and the flyer was sent out to neighbors as well, so everybody's had the opportunity to uh express their opinions or their comments, I think their comments and as far as using the back, why also we've done that is we work with first responders, most of them officers and paramedics military, and their children's safety is their top priority, right?

I think their comments.

And as far as using the back, why also we've done that is we work with first responders, most of them officers and paramedics military, and their children's safety is their top priority, right?

And they've all commented that they prefer the backyard rather than the front, because in the front there's traffic.

So first things they ask, a lot of them that ask us when they're interviewing us to put their children in this in our program is they've made comments of that they like that it's in the backyard and it's all fenced in and private, whereas to the front.

Whereas to the front, it really wouldn't be.

Okay, I'm just trying to visualize and contemplating here.

Um we have a photograph of the neighbors that built three houses down, the same thing that we're trying to do.

That looks pretty nice.

I mean it's just the same.

To follow up on uh Commissioner Gabadon's uh, I guess statement or request.

Um have you gotten any comments or any feedback written documentation from your neighbors?

We we haven't gotten any written or feedbacks other than that they say you know they're happy for the the idea and really haven't stressed any more than that.

They just good, great.

And as far as the cities them responding directly to the city, I I don't know if we have made any comments or or against staff have not received any written comment, positive or negative regarding this case.

Um we have not, you have not okay.

That's a tough one.

Um additional comments from the board.

So uh Mr.

Chair, if I can really quick, just some clarification.

So I I believe the the structure that we're talking about tonight that the applicants are talking about is 25 feet by 20 feet.

Um on the site plan that you have um the drawing, I believe is only a 20 by 20.

Um so that five additional feet would be what they are discussing about uh being right up to that uh public utility easement on the east side of the property.

So just for for some clarification, um if they were to do that, um currently what's shown uh on the drawing in front of you is is a 20 by 20.

Um but I think the conversation that they're talking about is is a 25 by 20.

Yes, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

In addition to comments from the board, Carl Narrow.

Commissioner Torterici.

Yes, Vice Chair Gabbleton, no Commissioner Hardesy, no Commissioner Hankins, yes, Commissioner Kopcher, yes, Chairman Richardson, yes, okay, moving on to discussions and deliberations from the members.

Okay.

Motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

Second.

All right, so you have two weeks.

Thank you.

Thank you.