[1. Call to Order]
[00:00:03]
I'VE GOT 6:00. I WILL CALL THE APRIL 8TH MEETING OF THE SHERWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. WILLIAMS. HERE. JONES. HERE.
HOSKIN. HERE. EVANS. HERE. PATEL. CLUFF. MARTIN.
HERE. ALL RIGHT. YOU'VE RECEIVED A COPY OF THE MARCH 11TH MEETING MINUTES.
[3. Approval of March 11th, 2025, Meeting Minutes]
IS THERE ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS OR CORRECTIONS THAT NEED TO BE DISCUSSED? I DO HAVE ONE CORRECTION THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE. ON ITEM FIVE.THE SITE PLAN FOR HIGHWAY 107. I ACTUALLY SECONDED THAT MOTION TO APPROVE THAT.
OKAY. WHAT NUMBER IS THAT ON THE AGENDA? OH. THANK YOU.
THAT ONE UP THERE. IF YOU WANT TO MARK IT RIGHT THERE.
OKAY. ANY MORE COMMENTS OR CORRECTIONS? WE HAVE A MOTION AS AMENDED.
SO? SO MOVE AS AMENDED. SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND ON THE MINUTES.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. WILLIAMS. JONES. AYE. HOSKIN.
AYE. EVANS. AYE. MARTIN. AYE. ALL RIGHT. AS FAR AS THE APPROVAL FOR THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT,
[4. Approval of the Agenda]
THERE'S. I UNDERSTAND THERE'S SOME MODIFICATIONS.THERE ARE STAFF WILL BE REQUESTING TO WITHDRAW.
TWO ITEMS UNDER OLD BUSINESS. THE FIRST BEING THE CONDITIONAL USE FOR THE HARP'S GASOLINE SERVICE STATION, AND THEN THE CONDITIONAL USE FOR 200 HILLCREST FOR THE KENNELS.
OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER CORRECTIONS? ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO ADJUST ON THE AGENDA IS MOVING THE BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS TO NEXT MONTH SINCE WE HAVE TWO MEMBERS ABSENT. I'D LIKE THE WHOLE GROUP HERE TO BE BE HERE WHEN WE DISCUSS THAT.
SO WE'LL WE'LL PUSH THAT TO NEXT MONTH AS WELL.
ARE THERE ANY MORE CHANGES TO THE AGENDA? WE'LL LET IT STAND AS AMENDED.
[5. Preliminary Plat of Stone Valley Subdivision. Thomas Engineering, Agent.]
CALL THE FIRST ITEM, PLEASE. OKAY. PRELIMINARY PLAT OF STONE VALLEY SUBDIVISION.DIVISION. MOSQUITO. HELLO. GOOD EVENING. OKAY.
OKAY, HERE WE GO. OKAY. THIS IS. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF A 103 LOT, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
YOU'VE PREVIOUSLY SEEN THIS PLAN THROUGH THE ZONING PLAN AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCESSES.
THE PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED PLAN IS LARGELY UNCHANGED, WITH A COUPLE OF EXCEPTIONS.
BOTH OF THE ACCESSES THAT ARE DIRECT TO EAST MARYLAND AVENUE WILL BE GATED.
AND SO THE INTERNAL STREET NETWORK WILL NOW BE PRIVATE.
THE STREET NAMES HAVE BEEN FINALIZED, BUT THERE HAVE NOT BEEN NO MAJOR CHANGES.
AND TRACT F TO THE NORTH OR EXCUSE ME, NOT TO THE NORTH, TO THE EAST OR WEST.
ONE, THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE A COMPLETE SET OF ENGINEERING OR CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR ENGINEERING REVIEW, AND ALSO A BILL OF ASSURANCE. ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? THIS IS THE SAME SUBDIVISION WE SAW A COUPLE MONTHS AGO THAT HAD A CUL DE SAC THERE ON THE ON THE WESTERN SIDE THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT ASKED TO TO CONNECT TO MARYLAND IN A SECOND LOCATION. SO THIS IS THE SUBDIVISION THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION THAT'S LIKE GOING TO GO INTO PERPETUITY.
CORRECT. THIS IS YES. THIS IS THE SAME ONE. YES.
BUT THIS IS THE THE THAT WAS THE. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT YOU COULD REVIEW.
THAT. I'VE NEVER SEEN ONE THAT GOES IN. YEAH.
THE BILL OF ASSURANCE IS WHERE IT GOES INTO THE PERPETUITY LIKE THAT. I'VE NEVER SEEN ONE LIKE THAT.
THAT'S THE ONLY THING I JUST. BECAUSE ALL THE ONES I'VE EVER SEEN, THEY HAVE AN ENDING DATE IN THEM.
AND WELL, I THINK AT SOME POINT THE CITY CAN AGREE TO.
I HEAR YOU, MARY JO. DO YOU HAVE THE PROPERTY TO THE MIKE? I'M IN TROUBLE. I THINK THERE'S A PROCEDURE WHERE THE CITY CAN ACCEPT IT AT SOME POINT IF THERE'S AN AGREEMENT ON BOTH SIDES.
BUT I WILL LOOK AT THE DOCUMENT. BUT THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD IT WAS, IS THAT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION IS GOING TO BE OBLIGATED FOR ALL THE THINGS THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. UNLESS THE CITY ACCEPTS THAT.
IS THAT CORRECT? AM I CORRECT? LIKE AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, IF THEY CAME TO THE CITY AND SAY,
[00:05:01]
WE WANT TO, WE WANT YOU TO TAKE THIS OVER, THEN THE CITY AT THAT POINT IN TIME COULD MAKE A DECISION.I THINK YOU'D HAVE TO GO TO THE COUNCIL AND THEY'D HAVE TO AGREE TO TAKE IT. OKAY. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION, BUT I'LL LOOK AT IT. ALL RIGHT.
ANY MORE DISCUSSION? YES, MA'AM. WOULD YOU LIKE TO PLEASE.
WOULD YOU MIND STEPPING UP TO THE MIC AND FOR FOR FOR THE ONLINE AUDIENCE TO BE ABLE TO HEAR YOU, PLEASE. CAN'T SEE THE MAP. VERY GOOD BACK THERE.
OKAY. ADJACENT TO STONEHILL SUBDIVISION BETWEEN BROCKINGTON AND STONEHILL SUBDIVISION.
SO WE NEED A MOTION. WE DO. AND THERE ARE TWO CONTINGENCIES IN THE REPORT.
YOU CAN JUST SAY YEAH. GO AHEAD. YEAH. SO I'LL MOVE FOR ACCEPTANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONTINGENCIES.
NUMBER ONE THAT THEY PROVIDE THE COMPLETE SET OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR ENGINEERING REVIEW.
AND NUMBER TWO, THAT THEY PROVIDE THE BILL OF ASSURANCE ADDRESSING DEDICATION TO TRACK F AND LEGALLY ESTABLISHING A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, THUS PROVIDING A FUNDING MECHANISM FOR MAINTENANCE OF ALL PRIVATE DRIVES AND COMMON SHARED AMENITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS, AS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT. VERY NICE. ALL RIGHT.
WE HAVE A MOTION. I'LL A SECOND AND A SECOND.
AND NOW A SECOND. WILLIAMS. JONES. HOSKIN. EVANS.
DELERY A MARTIN A. REPLAT OF LOT ONE R. RIVER CITY.
[7. Old Business]
HYDRAULICS. MOSQUITO.YOU. YOURS AGAIN. OKAY. YES. OKAY. SO THIS IS A REPLAT.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REPLAT THE EXISTING LOT ONE RIVER CITY HYDRAULIC SUBDIVISION, WHICH IS THE LOT. THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT. HOLD ON.
THEY'RE ASKING TO REPLAT LOT ONE WITH THE UNPLATTED PORTION TO THE NORTH TO CREATE A LARGER LOT.
THERE'S CURRENTLY AN 8800 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING ON LOT ONE.
THE APPLICANT IS REPLATTING THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO EXPAND THEIR OPERATION THERE.
THEY DO HAVE AN ACCOMPANYING SITE PLAN REVIEW.
NUMBER ONE, THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE A BILL OF ASSURANCE THAT THE INDICATED TRAIL ALIGNMENT FINALIZE THE TRAIL ALIGNMENT TO THE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY. THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL DRAWING CORRECTIONS THAT NEED TO BE DONE.
AND THEY DID HAVE SOME DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS THAT THE CITY ENGINEER NEEDED TO REVIEW.
ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ONE? ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS FROM THE COMMISSION ON THE PLAT OR THE CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND WITH THE CONTINGENCIES.
WILLIAMS I, JONES I HOSKIN EVANS I MARTIN A SITE PLAN FOR LOT ONE R RIVER CITY HYDRAULICS.
OKAY. THIS IS THE SAME PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE THE REPLAT THERE AT THE BACK.
GHOSTED. SO THE THE BUILDING IN THE THE LOWER LEFT HAND HERE IS THE EXISTING.
AND THE OTHER TWO BUILDINGS ARE THE PROPOSED PROPOSED NEW STRUCTURES OVER HERE.
PRIMARILY HERE. WE'RE LOOKING AT THERE IS AN ACCESS OUT TO LAND TRIP THERE.
THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO USE THIS AS AN EXIT ONLY.
[00:10:04]
SO ALL PRIMARY ACCESS TO THE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE FROM HUNTERS COVE FROM THE CUL DE SAC.LET'S SEE WHAT ELSE. THERE'S THE LINE YOU SEE AROUND THE PROPERTY.
THERE IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF FIRE ACCESS TO ALL PROPOSED STRUCTURES.
LET'S SEE WHAT ELSE WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW, BUT THERE AGAIN, WERE SOME CONTINGENCIES.
SEVERAL OF THEM ARE RELATED TO LINE WEIGHTS AND DRAWING ITEMS. HOWEVER, THERE ARE A FEW OTHER ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE CORRECTED.
THERE IS THE TRANSMISSION EASEMENT ALONG THE THE PROPERTY THERE.
THEY HAVE SINCE ALSO SUBMITTED A REQUEST FOR A WAIVER, WHICH WE CAN DISCUSS THAT NEXT.
OTHER CONTINGENCIES INCLUDE AGAIN, IT'S A LOT OF DRAWING LINE WEIGHTS.
AGAIN, DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS FOR THE CITY ENGINEER.
THOSE WERE ALL OF THE OUTSTANDING CONTINGENCIES THAT NEED TO BE UPDATED TO APPROVE THIS.
IN ADDITION TO THE FENCE. LET ME GET DOWN THERE.
OKAY. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A CHAIN LINK FENCE TO SURROUND THE PROPERTY TOPPED BY BARBED WIRE.
THE ZONING CODE DOES NOT PERMIT THE BARBED WIRE AT THE TOP.
IN ADDITION TO THAT WAIVER, THOUGH, THEY DID PROVIDE INCREASED EVERGREEN LANDSCAPING THAT WILL REACH A MATURE HEIGHT OF EIGHT FEET TO MASK KIND OF SCREEN THAT THAT FENCE AND REACH THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE AS WELL, IF APPROVED.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS? ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? SO JUST GO AHEAD. NO, YOU SOUND LIKE YOU GOT A COMMENT.
WELL, I JUST WANT TO. I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE EXTENT OF THE EXISTING FENCE.
IS IT RUNNING ALONG HOLLYWOOD? YES. MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT DOES RUN ALONG HOLLYWOOD.
DID THEY DOCUMENT THAT? I BELIEVE WE WENT OUT AND DOCUMENTED IT, DIDN'T WE? HOLLYWOOD. I'M SORRY. NO, NO, IT DOESN'T EXTEND UP NORTH TO HOLLYWOOD.
IT'S. SO. THE FENCING OF THIS TYPE IS COMMON IN THE AREA.
THERE'S MULTIPLE BUSINESSES THAT ALSO HAVE. YES.
SO I WAS GOING TO MAKE THE COMMENT THAT THEY'VE ASKED FOR A WAIVER ON THE FENCE.
ONE THE FENCE AND TWO THE SIDEWALK AT THE ROAD.
WHICH I BELIEVE IN THE PAST, WE GAVE THEM A WAIVER ON THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY.
SO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE THAT, BUT IN MAKING YOUR MOTION, WE'VE GOT TO DO IT FOR THE WAIVERS, THE TWO WAIVERS PLUS THE CONTINGENCIES.
MOST OF THE MOST OF THE CONTINGENCIES, TO ME SEEM LIKE DRAWING.
CORRECT. MINOR DRAWING CORRECTIONS WITH LINE WEIGHTS AND SUCH.
MOST OF THEM ARE, AS WE WE'VE REVIEWED THE PLAT AND THE SITE DEVELOPMENT.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET EVERYTHING CONSISTENT AND REVISED ACROSS ALL OF THE DRAWINGS.
BUT I THINK THE STAFF CAN MAKE SURE I GET CORRECTED.
[00:15:08]
FOR THAT? YES. AND IF YOU DON'T WANT. YEAH. IF YOU IF YOU DON'T WANT TO READ THEM ALL, JUST YOU CAN SAY THAT THE, THE CONTINGENCIES LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND APPROVAL OF THE WAIVERS AND, AND I'VE GOT THOSE PULLED UP.MISS COREY CAN MISS COREY CAN TRANSCRIBE THEM AS, AS THEY ARE THERE.
ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. WILLIAMS I JONES.
HOSKIN. EVANS I. MARTIN I. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY NEW BUSINESS?
[8. New Business]
MR.. WALDEN? I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU ALL AN UPDATE REAL QUICK.THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION IS WRAPPING UP. SO NEXT TIME WE'LL MEET, IT WILL HAVE BEEN OVER.
THERE ARE SOME ITEMS THAT WILL HAVE SOME IMPLICATIONS FOR THE WORK THAT YOU ALL DO.
THE FIRST BILL WAS HB 1510. SO THE CITY AS OF AUGUST, SOME WHATEVER, 90 DAYS AFTER SIGNING DAY OF THE LEGISLATURE, THE CITY'S PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY WILL NO LONGER EXIST.
SO THE CITY WILL NO LONGER HAVE ANY JURISDICTION OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMITS.
WE GET VERY FEW OF THOSE CASES, SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S MUCH, MUCH IN TERMS OF THE EFFECT THERE.
ANOTHER BILL WAS HB 1503 THAT DEALT WITH ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WILL NECESSITATE A CHANGE IN THE ZONING CODE.
AND SO BE LOOKING FOR US TO TO DRAFT SOME LANGUAGE THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW.
IN TERMS OF THAT. ANOTHER BILL THAT'S PROBABLY THE LARGEST IMPACT IS SB 322.
AND IT DEALS WITH THIRD PARTY INSPECTIONS AND THIRD PARTY PLAN REVIEWS.
IT'S SOMETHING WE'LL HAVE TO DIG INTO IT A LITTLE BIT MORE.
IN TERMS OF THAT PROBABLY LESS SO ON OUR, OUR PLAN REVIEWS FOR, FOR PLANNING PROCESSES.
BUT IT IS, IT IS SOMETHING THAT IT JUST PASSED TODAY.
AND THEN THE LAST BILL THAT I THINK IS THE LAST ONE THAT PROBABLY WILL WILL GET THROUGH.
WAS ONE DEALING WITH ADMINISTRATIVE REZONINGS.
IT'S A PERMISSIVE BILL. AND SO THAT IS IF IF YOU GUYS CHOOSE TO TAKE IT UP COULD CREATE A PROCESS THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR STAFF LEVEL APPROVAL ON REZONINGS OR CERTAIN REZONINGS OR HOWEVER YOU WANT TO, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DEAL WITH IT, BUT JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU GUYS THAT THAT UPDATE.
THERE'LL BE WE'LL HAVE MORE AS WE GO ALONG IN THE COMING MONTHS.
BUT WE'VE GOT, WE'VE GOT SEVERAL MONTHS BEFORE ANY OF THAT LEGALLY TAKES EFFECT.
SO WE'VE GOT SOME TIME. THANK YOU FOR THE UPDATE.
CAN I ASK A QUESTION? YES, CHAIR. DO YOU HAVE THE NUMBER OF THE THE LAST BILL FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE REZONING? SB 505. THANK YOU. THERE WERE SOME PARTICULARLY PERNICIOUS BILLS THAT THAT WOULD HAVE EFFECTIVELY MADE THIS BODY NOT EXIST.
THOSE DIDN'T GO ANYWHERE THIS SESSION. SO THAT WAS A POSITIVE, POSITIVE PIECE OF NEWS.
GOOD. OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. WALDEN. ALL RIGHT.
ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. SO MOVED TO ADJOURN.
SECOND. SECOND. WE HAVE A SECOND. CALL ROLL, PLEASE.
WILLIAMS. AYE. JONES. AYE. AYE. EVANS. AYE. MARTIN.
AYE. I WILL NOW CALL THE APRIL 8TH MEETING OF THE SHERWOOD BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT TO ORDER.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. WILLIAMS. HERE. JONES. HERE.
HOSKIN. HERE. PATEL. CLUFF. EVANS. HERE. MARTIN.
HERE. FIRST ITEM IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE MARCH 11TH MEETING.
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THOSE? ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE. MOTION TO APPROVE.
SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. WILLIAMS. AYE. JONES. AYE. HOSKIN. EVANS. AYE. MARTIN. AYE.
OKAY, SO THIS FIRST VARIANCE REQUEST IS STOP FOR A SECOND.
[00:20:03]
OH, WE'RE NOT GOING TO TIME. I DO KNOW WE HAVE TO SWEAR YOU IN BEFORE YOU TESTIFY.SO DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. NOW YOU CAN PROCEED. OKAY.
THE APPLICANT HAS COME BEFORE THE BOARD WITH A MINOR SETBACK.
ENCROACHMENT. UP ON THE SCREEN. I HAVE IT FOR YOU AS WELL.
SO THE NORTHWEST CORNER. IT IS AN ENCROACHMENT.
SO WITH THAT, THE THAT, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A HARDSHIP VARIANCE DUE TO A CONSTRUCTION ERROR.
WITH THAT, STAFF DOES HAVE RECOMMENDED GROUNDS FOR APPROVAL.
WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO READ THOSE AT THIS TIME, PLEASE? OKAY. SO SOME OF THE CONDITIONS WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL IS THE REDUCTION OF THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ACCOMMODATE THE PRESENT ENCROACHMENT OF THE APPROXIMATE THREE FEET, FOUR INCHES AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER AND THE ROUGHLY ONE FOOT AT THE SOUTHWEST.
ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SHOULD NOT BE MODIFIED IN ANY MANNER THAT FURTHERS THE NONCONFORMANCE.
ALL RIGHT. SO THIS IS AGAIN, THIS IS AN EXISTING HOUSE.
IT WAS A CONSTRUCTION ERROR IN MY TENURE ON HERE.
I THINK WE'VE DONE THIS ONCE OR TWICE IN THE LAST SEVEN YEARS.
AND HERE WE GOT IT TWICE TONIGHT. SO SOMETHING MUST HAVE BEEN IN THE WATER IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS, I DON'T KNOW. SO ANYWAY, WHAT'S TO LOOK? WHEN THIS HOUSE WAS BUILT, THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT.
IT IS BRAND NEW. IT'S BRAND. IT IS BRAND NEW BRAND SPANKING.
AND I WILL SAY THE PLOT PLANS IN OFFICE DO NOT REFLECT THE ENCROACHMENT.
SO THAT PURCHASE HAS NOT HAPPENED PENDING THIS RESOLUTION.
SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. WILLIAMS. AYE. JONES. AYE. HOSKIN. EVANS. AYE. MARTIN. A VARIANCE AT 10079.
HIDDEN CIRCLE IN RELATION TO BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
SO WE HAVE THE LIKE SCENARIO FOR THIS SECOND PROPERTY THIS EVENING.
HOWEVER, THIS IS NOT THE FRONT YARD SETBACK. THIS IS THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.
WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO READ THOSE CONDITIONS OR APPROVE AS WRITTEN? AS WRITTEN? I'M SURE THEY'RE SIMILAR TO THE THEY'RE SIMILAR TO THE. VERY SIMILAR.
YES. SO AGAIN THIS IS THIS IS TAKE TWO ON THE SAME JUST A DIFFERENT SITUATION, A DIFFERENT LOT, BUT SAME SITUATION. LESS OF AN ENCROACHMENT HERE.
BUT AGAIN, THIS IS A BRAND NEW, BRAND NEW, BRAND NEW CONSTRUCTED HOME.
THAT ERROR WAS FOUND AT, AT SURVEY POST CONSTRUCTION AT MORTGAGE TIME.
SO SO THIS HOUSE IS HAS BEEN EFFECTIVELY SOLD IF THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
YES. IS IT THE SAME BUILDER. NO, IT IS NOT THE SAME BUILDER.
IT DID NOT HAPPEN TWICE BY THE SAME BUILDER. THEY SAY THINGS COME IN THREES CONVENIENTLY.
MAYBE I FEEL BETTER ABOUT THAT. THIS MIGHT BE MY THIRD 1 IN 7 YEARS.
I WAS TRYING TO. SO THAT MIGHT BE THE THREE FROM MY TENURE HERE ON THE COMMISSION.
SO. OKAY. ANYWAY, DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ONE? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE CONTINGENCIES OUTLINED IN THE STAFFING REPORT.
SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. WILLIAMS. AYE. JONES. AYE. HOSKIN. AYE. EVANS. AYE. MARTIN.
I HAD TO MAKE SURE I DIDN'T SAY HERE. ALL RIGHT.
I DIDN'T SIGN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. MOTION TO ADJOURN.
SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. WILLIAMS. JONES. AYE. HOSKIN. AYE. EVANS. AYE. MARTIN. AYE.
THANK YOU. EVERYBODY. YOU. ALMOST.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.