 Good afternoon and welcome to the February Planning Commission session for the City of Columbia. I want to welcome Planning Commission members, staff and guests. Multiple staff members are here today to ensure that the meeting runs smoothly and all applicants and members of the public are able to participate in the meeting at the appropriate times. If you are here today and would like to speak about a case please provide your name clearly into the microphone and please be sure to sign in either at the back of the room or at the podium for documentation purposes. If you're here today to speak about a case you must speak up when the chairperson calls for public comment and I'll go ahead and call the roll. Mr. Causey, Mr. Cohn, here, Mr. Cook, here, Ms. Davis, here, and Mr. Osorio, here. We have a quorum. I don't have it memorized. Is it a delay? Okay sorry. No it's okay. Do you want me to go ahead and read it? Yeah, well it's not popping up on our screens. Okay, I can go ahead and read this part. If you don't mind. Not at all. Just let me know when y'all catch up. Okay. This is no problem. Okay, so just to review the meeting format real quick, applicants with requests before the Planning Commission are allotted a presentation time of 10 minutes. This time should include but is not limited to an overview of the project, case history, and any pertinent meetings held regarding the request. This time also includes all persons presenting information on behalf of the applicant, such as attorneys, engineers, and architects. This time limit does not include any questions asked by the Planning Commission or staff regarding requests. During the public comment period, members of the general public are given the opportunity to address their concerns in intervals of two minutes. After the public comment period, applicants have five minutes to respond. I think I'm caught up. Okay. But thank you. The administrator has a timer and will make the presenters aware of when their time has expired and the Planning Commission reserves the right to amend these procedures on a case by case basis. Are there any changes to the agenda? We do have two changes. One of them, case number 10, which is ZMA-2023-0019, 1409 U.G. Street has been withdrawn and staff would like to request that item number seven, which is the zoning map amendment on Bluff Road, be moved to the regular agenda to be considered along with case number eight because those are related. So if y'all wouldn't mind making that change about case number seven. Okay. All right. So the Planning Commission uses the consent agenda to approve non-controversial or routine matters by single motion and vote. Examples of such items include approval of site plans, annexations, and street names. If a member of the Planning Commission or general public wants to discuss an item on the consent agenda, you must speak up after the consent agenda is read. Then that item is removed from the consent agenda and considered during the meeting. The Planning Commission then approves the remaining consent agenda items. Will staff please read the consent agenda? Sure. The first item on the consent agenda is the approval of the January 11th, 2024 minutes. The second item is under future land use map amendment and zoning map amendment for appending annexation. This is annex dash 2023 dash 0019 at 83 52 Park Lane Road request recommendation on the assignment of the land use classification of community activity corridor and the assignment of zoning of community activity center corridor for appending annexation. The property is currently classified as neighborhood medium density and zoned GC by Richland County. I guess we'll just pause just in case anybody's here to speak about that to make sure we don't need to remove it from the consent agenda. Is there anyone here that would like to speak about the Park Lane Road property? Okay moving on. Case number three on consent is annex dash 2023 dash 0028 7613 Garner's Ferry Road request recommendation on the assignment of the land use classification of urban edge regional activity center use UEC 2 and the assignment of zoning of general commercial district for appending annexation. The property is currently classified as neighborhood medium density and zone GC by Richland County. And to that is there anyone here who would like to speak to 7613 Garner's Ferry Road? I don't see any I think we can continue. Case four is annex dash 2023 dash 0029 this is 507 507 a 509 505 U and 513 U Piney Grove Road 0.13 acre and 9.64 acres on the west side of Piney Grove Road 4010 4028 and 4032 Fernandina Road and 0.07 acre on the north side of Fernandina Road and 0.01 acre on the east side of Fernandina Road. This is a request recommendation on the assignment of the land use classification of regional activity corridor AC 3 and the assignment of zoning of general commercial for appending annexation. The property is currently classified as mixed residential high density and zoned GC by Richland County. And to that is there anyone here that would like to speak on this case for the annexation and future land use map of amendment for the track at Piney Grove Road and Fernandina Road. It was just referenced. Let's see if we can continue. And number five is annex dash 2024 dash 0002 1100 Sandy Oaks Sandy Oaks Road 11.14 acre portion request recommendation on the assignment of land use classification of urban edge residential small lot UER 1 and the assignment of zoning of plan development district for appending annexation. The property is currently classified as neighborhood medium density and zoned R U by Richland County. Is there anyone here that would like to speak about the Sandy Oaks Road property case? We can continue. Case number six major site plan review S plan dash 2024 dash 0002 205 Colombian a circle request major site plan approval for the construction of an approximately 52,000 square foot 124 key hotel. The Marriott studio res hotel. The property is owned PD in the plan development at Harbison. Is there anyone here that would like to speak about 205 Colombian a circle? We can continue. And if since we're moving case number 7 to regular that concludes the consent agenda this afternoon. All right. One last round. Is there anyone from the Planning Commission or public that would like any item removed for discussion on the planning on the consent agenda? Seeing none, I will take a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion. We approve the January 11th, 2024 minutes along with the February 8th 2024 consent agenda with staff comments. I have a motion. Second. Sorry, can we just clarify that the consent agenda is minus item number 7 since that was published. Thank you. Yes. Acknowledge it's without an item 7, which is moved to the regular agenda. Second. Second. Excuse me. Got a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? It's an agenda's approved. We can move to the regular agenda. We will use the following outline for the regular agenda items. The administrator will introduce the case and the applicant will have 10 minutes to make a presentation. Planning Commission may ask questions. The public comment period will be open for those to present. The public comment period will be closed. The applicant will have up to five minutes to respond to the public comments. Planning Commission may ask additional questions of the applicant and then that'll be followed by deliberation and action by the Planning Commission. Okay. The first case on a regular agenda is a zoning map amendment. And if you recall, we did mention that this is a zone map amendment that is associated with a proposed annexation. If it pleases the Planning Commission, it may make sense to consider them both together, although you would need to have two separate motions. So, again, this first case is ZMA-2024-0002, which is 10 Bluff Road, a portion, and it's a portion of tax bank number 11301-1601. And it's a request for recommendation to rezone the property from Employment Campus District, EC, a portion of which is within the floodplain overlay district. And the request is to rezone it to Light and Duster District, also within the floodplain overlay district. And the associated annexation request is annex-2024-0001, 10 Bluff Road, a portion, 1035 Dryfus Road, 1025 Dryfus Road, and 1017 Dryfus Road, TMS numbers 11301-1601, a portion, 11301-1602, 11301-1603, and 11301-1604. And the request is a recommendation on the assignment of the land use classification of Urban Core Neighborhood Activity Center, UCAC-1, and the assignment of zoning of Light Industrial District portions, which would be within the floodplain overlay district and the floodway overlay district for appending annexation. And the property is currently classified as mixed residential, high-density, and zoned M1 by Richland County. And as you'll see, staff is recommending a denial of the request. This area was part of the jointly adopted Capital City Mill District Area and Corridor Plan from 2017. And that plan called for the assignment of the UCAC-1 Future Land Use Classification for this property, which does envision a more neighborhood- scaled development. And so it's on the basis of that, that staff is recommending denial of the request for the Light Industrial Zoning District. Regardless of the base zoning district, staff of course still does recommend the assignment of the floodplain overlay district and the floodway overlay district as those overlays coincident with the FEMA floodplain classifications. And also, since we're talking about the annexed property, we are recommending the UCAC Future Land Use Classification for the property subject to annexation, whereas that is already applied to the property it's already within the city. And just for the sake of clarity, Ten Bluff Road, which is the northernmost property, it's roughly bisected by the original City Boundary, which kind of runs along Hayward Street. And so that is why there's both a rezoning request and an annexation request with rezoning. If the applicant is here and we'll address any questions you have. Good afternoon. My name is Frank D'Arty. I'm here on behalf of Case and Development Group. So yeah, this is one of those doughnut holes in the City of Columbia, where it's still zoned Richland County, and it's currently zoned M1, which is probably most closely correlated with Light Industrial, the City of Columbia. And so we actually purchased these four lots in December of the past year. And previously they've been just extremely run down, small, wide industrial buildings. And so we came in and have been trying to spruce them up. And we actually have a tenant lined up for 1035 Dreyfus, which is the building on the west side, the little bit larger building. And so our desire is to keep these for what they currently are, which is light industrial. The City of Columbia has recommended that we annex under the neighborhood activity center zoning, which really limits a lot of what we can do under the light industrial bucket. These buildings are set up very nicely for contractors, landscapers, plumbing supply companies with outdoor storage of equipment. We've got a laydown yard beside each of the buildings that one is already fenced in, one we're planning to fence in. So we feel like these buildings are set up currently to satisfy a small industrial need in the market here. Eventually, when this area has been redeveloped a little bit more and when the Bomber Stadium next door has been developed, I think it'd be great to be a neighborhood corridor, a neighborhood activity center, or we can actually kind of lean into that use parameter. But right now it's I think best fit for light industrial and that's why we purchased the building and saw the opportunity. So that is why we would like to keep it as that. I have a couple questions. Are there any specific uses you've mentioned? I think staff may be proposed an EC zoning as an option that was more in compatibility with the adjacent zoning. Yeah, so there's a handful that jumped out at us. So equipment rental, that is not allowed under EC. It is only allowed during in light industrial. We've got repair of personal goods, commercial vehicle repair and maintenance, commercial vehicle sales and rentals, vehicle equipment sales, supply sales and rentals, contractors yard. It does allow for a contractor's office but the contractor's yard, which we could see being a pretty spot-on fit for these buildings and then motor freight facility. Those were the ones that kind of jumped out at us as limiting our options for tenants. Any questions? You mentioned neighborhood activity center, but the proposed zoning is EC for ZMA 2024-002 and then it's UCAC1, not neighborhood activity center. The existing zoning on that northernmost portion of the portion inside the city is currently EC, but the proposed zoning for the entire thing is light industrial. That's what the applicant is requesting. The UCAC-1, that's the future land use classification and as a reminder those land use classifications are kind of their policy. They're not regulatory and they provide staff etc. a guidance on what zoning might be appropriate. I've got a question too. So just to make sure we all understand this as commissioners, the floodplain overlay would apply independently of any classification or is that something we also need to include? So yeah, officially what we're looking at is for the annexation is to apply a zoning district along with those overlays. Because it's not in the city it's not part of our zoning map yet. That said, the policy has been that we apply those overlays to the areas within the flood maps that, so for example, a floodway and the flood map would be the floodway overlay. Any other commissioners have any questions of the applicant? Any planning commissioners have any additional questions for staff? So I don't believe we proposed a specific recommended zoning in the case summary. But again there is EC on that little sliver of property. The warehouse uses but obviously not including those uses that Mr. Chair has already spoken about are allowed within EC. They are definitely different districts but though they have some similarities. The EC does allow for some residential uses that are not necessarily allowed in M1. To be honest EC is not a perfect fit for the land use classification either. Those classifications would be more like our NAC district which is a neighborhood activity corridor or a CAC district. But EC is probably the closest to LI that that would fit real well with that district. And then again as a reminder it is currently zoned M1 which is the county's light industrial district. So just to clarify that so the county zoning light industrial there's not an equivalent zoning or the same zoning for the city. You've seen the most equivalent is EC. No I'm sorry. So just as I'm looking there's no there's no light industrial designation inside the city correct. Well so the LI zoning designation is actually what the applicant is requesting. And so that that is equivalent to the county's M1 more or less. Yeah. So I guess kind of what I was I don't think I'm lost. Worst case scenario. They don't annex. It stays M1. So there's no change right on the 3 parcels east of the track this cut in half. Correct. Right. So ultimately if the city does not annex it. It would retain the county. M1 zoning and and they would develop along with their development requirements. Otherwise it comes in a city with LI or whatever zoning district might eventually come in with then although at this point I apologize. At this point if if you make a recommendation it goes to city council. City council denies the request for that LI then it would not come in a city. Right. And then take that further if we went back to the doc I can't remember the name of the study in 2017. Yeah. Seemed like from that the intent of that was to make it more neighborhood related than anything which would ultimately require any future use to be non-industrial of any type which is would require whoever bought that to tear down what's there now and start from scratch. Would that be a safe assumption? Yeah per chance. Yeah. If there was something already established there then it could continue as a non-conforming use. Yeah. So certainly they can use the building but it would regulate the uses. Just as a for clarification. If we do approve as L1 or if it's I guess my question is the flood plain overlay district and the floodway overlay district the assignment is that independent of the zoning? Yes it's an overlay. So the LI it would be the base zoning district and the overlay modifies it and honestly to the flood overlays there primary purpose is to point to the fact that those are within the flood plain and just draw attention to the property owners that they do have some flood related things they need to take care of if they do some development. So for example if they're building a new building and you have to be elevated above the flood plain for example. Thank you. So are we if the applicant or are we able to propose a different zoning than the one that was applied for or would it be more of a motion to defer or just to deny just to understand that I guess part part of what I'm asking the reason behind it I think there's some uses that are allowed in the light industrial district that we're not allowed in the county that I think are just inherently problematic with that being a neighborhood when always being adult oriented businesses or things of that nature. I know this applicant would never have that intention but we once we apply that kind of zoning is there and it sounds like a lot of what they're interested in is available in the EC zoning. I'm just trying to I guess take my way through some of that. Yeah so today you would have to vote on what was advertised on the agenda I mean if so you I mean the request test is either I mean you're making a recommendation of course to counsel on what has been requested today so the land-use classification in the zoning district that's being proposed. Planning Commission would recommend to counsel to either approve or make a recommendation to approve or deny that if a different district were to be applied for then we would go through the same you know the applicant would apply and it would be advertised that way and then come back to you for a recommendation before it goes to Planning Commission. Okay now I got an additional question and then just for the staff is it that based on the capital city mill district area and corridor plan of 2017 based on this zoning is it that this isn't a more neighborhood-scaled zone district is that what happened? Right so the plan the mill district plan was a city in a county joint planning process that was done and so the land-use recommendations that came out of that plan were pointing to more neighborhood sort of mixed-use zoning and and so the existing county zoning which is industrial is also kind of not consistent with the plan but that's I mean leftover zoning so the land-use classifications for about this county and for the city reflect what was part of that planning process. Thank you. Any other comments or questions for staff? We didn't have anybody from the public who wants to speak for or against. I would just offer I could entertain a motion either way I think I've been in this predicament before firsthand and I think a lot of it just kind of falls in the nature of what's neighboring the property and what the land-use and the plans are for it at a city level so it's just my comment. I will be open to taking a motion. Quick question for staff if we make a motion to approve do we need to also add on the floodplain language or what would a motion to approve look like? I was actually just going to mention there are actually two motions so it would be one on the zoning map amendment and then one on the the annexation land-use and zoning related to the annexation. Simultaneous or separate? Two separate motions. Okay. Since it's two cases. Okay. So Mr. Chair I'll make a motion to approve item 7 ZMA 202 4002 10 Bluff Road portion. I have a motion on the floor. Any seconds? Second. All right. All those in favor? Second by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? No. I'll take a roll. Thanks. Mr. Cozy. Approved. Mr. Cohn. Approved. Mr. Cook. Approved. Ms. Davis. Approved. And Mr. Osorio. Approved. Can I change it? Okay. Sure. So okay. Five to zero. Motion passes. And the second motion is for land-use assignment. The zoning assignment. Right. The assignment of the land-use classification and the zoning for the pending annexation. Okay. Mr. Chair I'll make a motion that we approve annex 2024-0001 10 Bluff Road portion 1035 Dreyfus Road. 1025 Dreyfus Road and 1017 Dreyfus Road. I have a motion. I'll take a second. Second. All right. Any discussion? Take a vote. All those in favor? Signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed? No. The motion is approved. Okay. The next case on the agenda is 802 Percival Road. This is a major site plan review. And Jonathan is on his way up to introduce the case. Thank you. Yes, this is a case at 802 Percival Road. At a some point, this project entails the construction of an 80-unit multi-family development on approximately 11 acres within the 800 block of Percival Road. The proposed development will contain eight one-bedroom apartments, 36 two-bedroom apartments, 36 three-bedroom apartments, and amenity space to include a garden, community garden, gazebo, and a playground. The required number of all street parking spaces is 133. They receive a reduction based upon the proximity of the development close to a bus stop. And the applicant will be providing 137 spaces. In addition, the applicant is also providing bicycle parking spaces. We haven't seen a lot of development in this part of Percival Road, so that's why this item is not on the consent agenda. And I believe the applicant is present and can explain their case further. Is the applicant here? My name is Field Goodlett. I'm with Conley Builders and Development, and then I'm Brian Dobeck. I'm with the Civil Engineers and Columbia. So this development, like Jonathan said, is an 80-unit multi-family apartment complex. This is a affordable housing development. So this has been funded through the state of South Carolina with low-income housing tax credits. So we'll be serving 60 percent of the AMI area median income for City of Columbia. And I'm up here if you guys have any questions on the development. Thank you. Any commission members have any questions for the applicant? Mr. Chair, I do have one question for the applicant. As far as ingress and egress, is there only one entrance? That's correct. Yes ma'am. Any consideration given for multiple entrances, or would that cut down on your housing space? Yes, due to the grades on the site, it would be very difficult to make a second entrance work anywhere else, and potentially would take away from more of the units. Excuse me. Thank you. Yes, due to the grades on site, it would be difficult to make a second entrance work, and we'd have to do a little bit of revisions, which could, yes, eliminate some of the units on the site. So in the case of an emergency, is there a fire lane or anything to get into the property other than through the main entrance? It is just the main entrance on site, but we have designed it for fire access along the internal drives. Okay, thank you. I have a couple questions. Have you had a chance to review the staff comments as far as the conditions for recommended approval? We had a meeting with the city a few months back outside of that. No, that's it. Okay, amenable to all those? Yes. All right. Anybody else have any questions? Thank you. Thank you. Are there any members of the public that would like to speak for or against this application? Any comments for staff from the commission? Got a lot of energy today. I'll take a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that Esplan 203-0017 802 Percival Road TMS 16814-07-01 be approved. We have a motion on the table. Can I have a second? Second. And is that what staff comments? Yes. Could you? Oh, okay. Let me go back and restate the whole thing here. Do you mind? Not at all. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I move that Esplan 203-0017 802 Percival Road TMS 16814-07-01 be approved along with staff comments. Thank you. Thank you. Got a motion and can I get a second? Second. All right. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. I think we're on to the last case. And the next case is a zoning map amendment at 1115 Greenland Drive. This is ZMA-2024-0001. Request recommendation to rezone the property from residential single family large lot district RSF-1 to office and institutional OI. And I will pass out an exhibit that was provided by the applicant. And you want to, okay. Hope will. So basically you can see where the property is on your screen. This is in a largely residential area on Greenland Drive. There is some OI properties across the street. But Greenland does serve as sort of a dividing line for the most part between those 2 districts. And therefore staff is recommending denial of the request because it is one of those where the more intense office would be kind of encroaching on to that residential block of properties. And I believe the applicant is here and also has provided some photographs which are on the slide presentation. Thank you. Would you mind telling us your name, sir? My name is John Blackman and I'm representing Sonia Sitton, the owner of the house. Unique piece of property to say the least. Greenland Drive is a unique street to say the least. If you look at this printouts it shows the prices that people are getting on Leesburg Road and Greenland versus the prices of the neighborhood behind this ditch. This ditch runs from Haven Drive which is where this property is on the corner of Haven and Greenland and runs all the way down to Asbury which is a block off of Garnesbury. Although this used to be in the county and the county put this ditch in and now nobody maintains it except for the owners of the property. You will also notice it on the first page. The average sales price on Greenland and Leesburg is $109 a foot and they only market for 132 days. Whereas the neighborhood behind this ditch, Pinewood Park, they're selling for $124 and only market an average of 15 days. Quite a discrepancy. The third page is sort of for humor if nothing else. We had the property under contract and it didn't close but the appraiser says that the property is located on the busy four lane road which have a negative impact on the marketability of the subject property. Well 99% of that is true but it's not a four lane road. It just seems like a four lane road. And it's my understanding that across Greenland and everything on the other side of Greenland is OI and there is one piece of OI on this side which is a dentist office. Back in the day and I had the pleasure of sitting on the planning commission for eight years. We had this thing called UTD, Urban Transitional District. And this dentist office used to be UTD. And what UTD was to do was even though these are houses on Greenland, they could be used for a doctor's office, a contractor's office, a beauty salon, a lawyer's office with maintaining the look of a single payment house. But the front page shows that it's hard to sell a house on Greenland. This particular house and I don't know how it ended up this way is 2,250 square feet, a little over 1,000 square feet upstairs and 1,000 square feet downstairs. The front door which faces of course Greenland comes in at the middle of the house. So in order to get upstairs you walk up eight steps. In order to get downstairs you walk down eight steps. There's a complete kitchen downstairs. There's a complete kitchen upstairs. I mean it looks like a duplex. From the backside there are two entrances, one through a staircase going to the porch upstairs and one with a sidewalk going to a deck and a screen porch downstairs. I have a client that is interested in buying it and putting a beauty salon downstairs and renting the upstairs as an apartment. OI allows for a single family house, a beauty salon and a duplex which this house is again set up pretty much like a duplex. I understand down it's trend to drive there a good number of town homes that are getting ready to be constructed down there. So there's going to be even more traffic on Green Lawn. So Green Lawn really needs to be a three-lane road or having a turn lane in there somewhere and the front yards provide enough space for that to happen. I mean the front yard, the front property line is a good 15 feet if not more on the Green Lawn side from the edge of the road. So there's room to put a turn lane there. The ditch sort of provides a natural barrier between Green Lawn and the Pinewood Park area. And so we think that OI, which we still have UTD would be a good zone for this property because it would allow the use as a duplex or a beauty salon with a rental unit upstairs. And with the I think the city is now studying the east side of town traffic corridor and Green Lawn is of course the main connector between Leesburg and Garnes Ferry and then goes all the way across over to Atlas. So it's a heavily traveled street. Any questions? I have one question. Do you or staff may know do you have enough block coverage to even qualify for that? We're adjacent to it. Is there a minimum? Like you have to at least be a certain size as well? You have to be two acres unless you're adjacent to that district. Okay, so the 15,000 square feet doesn't apply here? No, no, the two acres doesn't apply. Okay. In order to apply for. Hold on just one moment please. Thanks. The OI is across the street, so that's considered adjacent. Okay, I have a quick question. Just looking at the property online. If it was zone for something commercial, even a barbershop, something like that, or a beauty salon, I think you said what kind of parking situation doesn't look like there's plenty of room for parking. On the backside of that? Backside, yes. So you mean in that yard area on the backside? I have a question for staff. If this was approved, does it also give the applicant the opportunity to make this be an Airbnb? So Airbnb's are actually not regulated by zoning. They have to get a rental permit from our code enforcement department. Okay, thank you. And it's allowable for an Airbnb in the current zoning, correct? Yes. Well, it's not something that zoning regulates. Does anyone else have any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Thank you. I have a couple questions for staff though. So I think to the same question, so the ability to rent through Airbnb with that be allowable in the current zoning? Do you know if those permits are issued? Yes, because it's not based on the zoning classification. Okay. All right, just making sure I understand that quickly. Yeah. Thank you. Do any other commissioners have any questions for staff? Is there anyone else here that want to speak for or against this? If I could just say really quick, it looks like we had an email come in from a Yolanda gowns. If you'd like me to just read that for the record. Yes, please. It's very short. It just says to whom it may concern, I am opposed to having the property at 1115 Green Lawn Drive, Columbia, South Carolina, 29209 Rezone. So please leave the property as is. Does it tell you where they live? By chance? No, I don't see that information. Okay. Hold on one moment, please. No more questions for staff? Okay. Sure. I've talked with the Horton Company across the street and they're in favor of it. She was going to write a letter, but she's got COVID. I've talked with Willie Miner, Brantley, the property adjacent to this, and he was going to get back with me if they had any problems and they haven't gotten back in touch with me. So that's the next door neighbor. Thank you. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I just thought of a question. Can I ask that? Of course. Thanks. I guess my question is, if this were to rezone, does it then make it easier for the other parcels nearby to be rezoned as well to this new zoning, I guess? I guess you could say it may set a precedent. I'm not sure if it makes it easier per se, but then those parcels would also have to meet the criteria for rezoning. So I guess for the ones that are currently across from the existing OI, they would be able to request the OI zoning if they wanted to. If they had less than two acres and were not across from the OI portion, then they wouldn't qualify for a rezoning request. Thank you. Yeah. So it looks like most of that across Greenlawn is currently OI. I think this was definitely posted. Yes. Okay. I would just comment to staff that the allowable uses become pretty broad. Such things as veterinary hospital kennels, utility facilities, generally uses that I personally don't think are compatible with the houses right there. But I'm just one. I understand and appreciate the sentiment for wanting to do this, but do have some concerns that we would be setting precedent that might create some issues down the road. But I don't know if staff has any other comments or commissioners have any questions for staff. All right, well, we'll take a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we deny ZMA 2024-0001, 115 Greenlawn Drive TMS number 16414-10-02. We have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? I just have it. Motion passes. Thank you. We have it. As there is no other business, do I have a motion to adjourn? Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion. We adjourn. Can I get a second? Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Thanks. This little sheet caught my attention.