Anchorage Assembly: Platting Board - July 1, 2026 - 2026-07-01 18:30:00

Good evening everyone, it is 6:30. I'd like to call this July 1st, 2026 meeting of the Planning Board to order. May we have roll call? Skyler Quinn. Here.

Patrick Jones. Present. Ashley Ploy. Present. Brenda Mills.

Present. Kevin Cross. Present. Sarah Catherine Bryan and Kyle Murker excused. You have a quorum.

Thank you. Thank you. We do have a short board tonight, so I'm going to read through the process with that. When there is a short 5-member board, a postponement is offered to and agreed to by the petitioner. Their case will be moved to the next regular meeting.

This should occur within 30 days, which does not require re-noticing the case, new public hearing notices, advertising. If the petitioner is willing to postpone but unable to attend the next available meeting within 30 days, the petitioner has a one-time-only option to choose the next date certain he/she can attend at no extra fee. At this time, anyone here who's presenting a case, if you just want to come up to the podium and let us know if you'd like to proceed or not, that'd be appreciated.

And if you could state your name and your case.

Oh, and sir, can you turn your mic on please? There's a little button. Yeah. Hi, Mike Brzezinski for the Port of Alaska subdivision, Track J1 and 2. We have no objection.

So you'd like to move forward? Yeah, we'll move forward. Okay.

Uh, for case S12884, we would like to proceed. Thank you. Uh, and sorry, can you state your name for the record? My name is Jeremy Hurst. I'm the petitioner's representative.

Okay.

And Craig Bennett, um, as for the third case, I would like to just postpone Okay, thank you. Uh, it will be August 5th.

Yeah, just so everyone's aware.

Yeah, so if, uh, anyone here is at this meeting for the case S12889, that's— that has been postponed. So we will not be discussing that, and we'll be hearing it August 5th.

Moving on to special order of business, um, do we have any disclosures?

Seeing none, I've got— actually, well, with that postponement, there's no disclosures for me. So, um, for information only, we have abbreviated plat action summaries dated 6/1/26, 6/8/26, 6/15/26, and 6/22/26.

Can we have a motion to accept the abbreviated plat action summaries? Moved by Mr. Jones, seconded by Ms. Mills.

We—. Are there any objections? Seeing none, that passes. Uh, may we have a motion to approve the consent agenda?

Moved by Mr. Cross, seconded by Ms. Ploy. Is there anyone wishing to pull an item for discussion?

Are there any objections to the approval of the consent agenda?

Hearing none, the consent agenda is approved. Moving on to public hearings, and I will read the process. The procedure by which the public may speak to the Planning Board at its meeting is: 1, after the staff presentation is complete— is completed on public hearing items, the chair will ask for public testimony— will ask for public testimony on the issue. 2, Persons who wish to testify will follow the timelines established in the Commission Rules of Procedure. A, petitioners, including all his/her representatives, are given 10 minutes.

Part of this time may be reserved for rebuttal. B, representatives of groups, community councils, PTAs, etc., are given 5 minutes, and individuals are given 3 minutes. 3. When your testimony is complete, you may be asked questions by the board. You may only testify once on any issue unless questioned by the board.

4. Any party of interest wishing to appeal shall first file with the Planning Director within 7 days of the board's decision made on the record, a written notice of intent to appeal in accordance with AMC 21.03.050A.4.a. Following approval of the written findings of fact and decision, any party of interest may within 20 days file an appeal by filing a notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee and deposit in accordance with Section 21.03.050. The notice of appeal must be filed with the Planning Director on a form prescribed by the municipality. If the appellant is not the applicant, the appellant's notice of appeal shall include proof of service on the applicant.

Moving on to new business, public hearings. Maybe we have staff's presentation in case S12879.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this is a preliminary plat to divide one tract into two tracts for proposed Tract J-1 and J-2 at the Port of Anchorage. The platted area is approximately 48 acres. One of the newly created tracts, Tract J-2, has a pending case at Planning and Zoning to rezone to Parks and Recreation, and that's for future park use.

The other newly created tract from this plat would remain I-2 Heavy Industrial District. Private development notes that East Bluff Drive looks to have complete construction to municipal standards and requires no improvements at this time. Staff has placed a condition to dedicate 30 feet of right-of-way. The preliminary plat appears to conform with the petition site's land use classification in the 2040 Land Use Plan and Government Hill Neighborhood Plan, which identifies this site as a potential park. The subdivision will create two new tracks, one of which will be dedicated portion of the parkland.

And the development intends to keep the community character and provide for protection of natural spaces as outlined in the comp plans.

The rezone is going next— I believe next Monday to rezone that to PR. And with that being said, staff recommends approval of the plat subject to the conditions found on page 4 of the staff report. Thank you. Thank you for that presentation. Do we have any questions of staff?

Hearing none, uh, let's move on to the petitioner's presentation. If you'd like to come up to the podium and state and spell your name for the record.

Hi, my name is Mike Krasinski again, and, uh, we have no further comments. Excuse me, it's on.

Sorry to cut you off. Oh, sorry. Uh, we have no further comments, and we agree with the, uh, with the statements that MOA provided and agreed to these conditions. So, okay, thank you. You have 9 minutes and 47 seconds of rebuttal time.

Do we have any questions of the applicant?

Hearing none, we will open this up to public testimony. Is there anyone wishing to testify on this? Please come up to the podium and state and spell your name for the record, and you have 3 minutes.

Thank you. My name is Bob French and I'm a resident of Government Hill. I'm also on the Citizens Advisory Committee for the AMATS. My comments are strictly for myself.

I would like to object to the final recommendation point on page 4 for the floating right-of-way easement for the Knick Arm Crossing. As a member of the AMATS Citizens Advisory Committee, I cannot speak for them, but I do recall conversations that have taken place regarding whether or not the Knickarm Bridge and any of the easements or access points to that should be included in our current plans that are out in the municipality and also in the state. I recall Aaron Yonglin, who is the head of AMATS, actually saying that we could not really include any of the— any projects or things like that that would be related to the Knick Arm Bridge because the Knick Arm Bridge does not exist in any statewide plans. It doesn't— it's not in the STIP, the Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan. It's not in the AMATS municipal planning documents, and it's not— it currently has no funding or any other available— there's nothing to say that this project is ever going to actually happen.

I've spent since 2003 as a member of Government Hill fighting against the Kinnekum Bridge, and I will say that I probably have read more, spent more time reading their financial statements than anybody in DOT. And I could tell you that a lot of the toll revenue plans that were produced by Wilbur Smith Associates are frankly fraudulent. As an engineer, I could tell you that it's what we call reverse engineering. There were at least 3 different financial plans that they produced that had— where the The numbers for traffic were clearly derived from the need for the toll revenues that they thought they were going to have. Frankly, you know, the project was shut down by Governor Walker, and it was shut down because really the state does not have $2 extra billion.

And I will say that, you know, that's— that is the actual realistic cost of the bridge that we produced back in 2010, and I could say that through the tariffs and cost of steel and everything else, that those prices are only going to be going up. So frankly, I think the best thing to do would be to either add additional comments onto saying that the Kinnickarm Bridge project would need to be fully funded fully developed in the municipal and state plans, or that it should be reduced completely, removed completely. Thank you for that testimony. Do we have any questions?

Hearing none, you can take a seat. And is anyone else wishing to testify? Thank you.

And, and thank you for that, um, insightful testimony, by the way.

Uh, Mr. Jones actually has a question for the last speaker, if you'd like to come back. It was actually directed towards staff. I don't know if we can make it at this time, but Staff, in regards to the testimony that we just heard, with the floating right-of-way and thinking through that more, I mean, is that— if something like this were to be funded, wouldn't that just be taken via eminent domain or anything like that? I mean, is there— what is the purpose of the floating right-of-way in that respect? Mr. Young and Ellen isn't here tonight to speak to it, but I, you know, in conversation, the surveyor may know a little bit more information, but the DOT right-of-way had stated that during the transfer of the land that there was this floating right-of-way easement.

It doesn't necessarily— it's not a new plat note or anything. It's just an existing easement out there that if it ever does— is constructed, they have this, like, agreement between the municipality and the state that they'll choose where that goes for that portion of easement. Um, let's see, what was your question specifically again? It was more, uh, yeah, I guess it's more just like in thinking through if something like that—. It was, it was so they wouldn't have to do like an eminent domain.

It was just on the municipal land there, there's, there's a— it gives them the ability to place a right-of-way easement kind of as, as they see that where it works as an already agreed upon— it's already—. Yeah, yeah, because of the size of it, it's just placement is, right? Okay. And this is just stating there exists an, uh, the, the, this easement through this ATS 1421. It doesn't state, like you said, where.

It just— and it's not like a new plat note, it's carried forth from the previous plats. Okay, thank you. Miss Mills? Yeah, I have a question for staff. Um, in the Community Council agenda Um, the meeting minutes on page 23, the reference that PTS applied for a variance arguing that the plat shouldn't address the KAC because online in a 2014 plan is not even close to anything specific enough to be addressed.

There's no platted line or easements or nothing that a survey could even show. Do you recall, or did you look into whether or not the variance for this particular issue was addressed in 2014?

Through the chair, Ms. Mills, I believe that was— I mean, that's a kind of a community meeting that the surveyor had and maybe the port director. They had original talks with the preliminary plat meetings that we have. It was talked about as far as maybe easement being— or dedicated right-of-way being needed. But then the state of Alaska provided this, this through that plat note, that there's a floating easement that's been granted during the transfer of the land way back when. Okay, thank you.

We don't have access, like we've talked about before, like from historical documents with our decision-making. So thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions? Okay, is there anyone else in the public wishing to testify?

Let this just sit for a couple seconds to make sure nobody wants to testify. If you do, please come to the podium.

Okay, if the petitioner would like to come back up and provide any rebuttal, you have 9 minutes and 47 seconds to do so.

Yeah, I just want to say, um, I have no objection to any update of any notes regarding the easement. I talked— actually talked to Bob Kiner of DOT right away, and he mentioned it, that it was just there as a placeholder like Shawn mentioned, in case the the road is developed in the future.

So yeah, that's really all I have to say about that. So you have any questions of the petitioner's representative?

Uh, Mr. Cross, I guess it's a question for both petitioner and for staff. Is, um, the existence of this note prevents eminent domain in the future, but Is it problematic to the development? And I guess if it's unlikely to happen, or— I guess that's kind of a crystal ball we don't have, isn't it? I know it's not in the STIP. I know that it's not even on AMATS radar.

It's been something that's been talked about as long as I can remember, born and raised in Anchorage.

So, but I guess, will this action severely hamper any future opportunity just because at this particular time there's no interest? I guess my hesitation is that if it's not a realistic project, then the plat note doesn't matter. But if there is a remote chance, given our demographic challenges, And God only knows what the future looks like. Having that in there could be future benefit that can't be measured right now. So I guess for you, does the plat note— I guess, is it inconsequential and it's just something that in the far-off distance future, if it's needed, it's there, but doesn't have immediate consequence to your development?

No, it has no immediate consequence to our development. It's more of—. It has to do with DOT. I mean, I—. It doesn't matter to me in development of however the Community Council wants to develop the land.

All right, at this point. So thank you.

Hi, my name is Nicole Rehm, R-E-H-M, and I am here, uh, on PTS. We're, um, the representatives for this port project. The one thing I would ask is if it's a possibility that the note could be discussed with DOT further to make sure that the note meets the— what Mr. French was attempting to say, which is he wasn't happy with the note as it was written right now, but if there was a potential for that note to say for a fully funded project, because at that point The risk of having the DOT come in and potentially place a right-of-way location in the middle of a park without funding for 100 years might be problematic. I, I, as Mike said, we are not— we're not here to represent the Government Hill Community Council or the Government Hill community, but we are close to the Government Hill Community Council as the port's representatives and want to make sure that the park, which is what it's intended to be reserved for, is at least left to be viable for as long as possible. And so if that note can be something that maybe after the fact is worked through—.

I appreciate that. I have a question for staff because in my experience with plat notes, they're pretty particular, and I've never seen a plat note that had— that talked about funding. Um, I mean, I've had requests on past projects wanting additional plat notes. The municipality is advised— or not advised, but ruled against that because there's just particular things that can be plat notes and things that can't. So is that even a possibility?

That—. Well, that's— you're correct, Mr. Chair. So, and this plat note is not placing anything new. It's basically just stating that there's an agreement that the state had entered for in the future.

It is a separate document that exists, if I am not mistaken. And it is not a new plat, no. It is just basically stating that there is this agreement out there. Yeah, go ahead, Nicole. So through the chair, staff, this— are you talking about plat 2012-19?

Because it is not on plat 2012-19, which is the current plat for Track J. No, I believe it was— I'll have to take a look. They didn't reference which plat it was placed on. I believe it was an older plat that was on there. Potentially the DOT right-of-way mapping plat from 2017?

More than likely.

Just for the information, that plat is— shows a— what we engineers call a polyline. It's a thick gray line shown coming into the property without any bearing distance, northing, easting, radius. It's just a line on that map.

I guess I'll throw out— I'm kind of concerned about adding a note having it reference funding because I guess in my mind and thinking through how that could be construed construed as they could say, well, this is going to be a 10-phase project. Phase 1 is we're going to build the landing pad for this Connect Bridge. That's fully funded, and so we need the right-of-way. You know, so there's some, I think, some technicalities of how that could be viewed. It's like, well, is it talking about the bridge in its entirety?

Are we talking about that portion of the project? I think, you know, if we go and add notes like that, I think the lawyers would probably have a pretty easy time picking that apart to however they wanted it to, unless we really dove into the verbiage of it.

Mr. Cross, through the chair, um, to staff. So my understanding based on what I just heard is that we have two opposing plats. We have an MOA plat and we have a DOT plat, and we're talking about an aerial easement— excuse me, a floating right-of-way easement that's only on the DOT plat but not on the MOA plat, in which case Is there one that supersedes the other? Is there one, or— and if it's not in the MOA plat, then we can— then why are we adding to it? I don't like plat notes.

That's—. That's—. They're not there, and it's not required as to put it. I would prefer to get rid of it if we're not required to. But at the same time, I don't want to intercede between some sort of formal or non-formal agreement between DOT by a previous arrangement that we, the planning board, are unaware of.

Does that make sense? That's correct, Mr. Chair. So it wouldn't be, the agreement's already there. And so the Planning Board, if they wish, they could remove plat note 3C from this.

It's not, we talked to the surveyor, but it's basically just stating facts. It's not placing anything additional onto this plat. But you are correct with the agreement. But yeah, if the Planning Board wishes, they could strike that. Um, because that agreement still exists out there, but it would— and it may not— it may lead to less confusion if somebody's reading the plat, because like you said, plat notes are kind of forever, and they're more pertaining to things such as access and drainage.

So even removing it is inconsequential because it still exists on the state DOT plat? That's correct. And so which— the state supersedes our municipal requirements. So I mean, so I hope the public understands that if it's on the state plat and the MOA is subject to the state, even if it's not on the municipal plat, it still exists. So then we're just— we're providing, you know, information, emotional service, but not anything of substance.

Would that be an incorrect statement? That's—. No, that's not an incorrect statement. Yeah, it's informational. All right, thank you very much.

Appreciate that.

Uh, any final questions of the petitioner's representative?

Well, then I'd like to close the public hearing. Um, matter rests with the board. Do we have a motion?

Moved by Miss Ploy, second by Mr. Cross. Miss Ploy, can you state your motion? I move in Case S12879 to approve the plat for 24 months, subject to the conditions shown on page 4 of the staff report. Thank you, Miss Ploy. Would you like to speak to your motion?

Um, no, nothing further than what staff has said. They've cleared up all our questions. Thank you. Mr. Cross, would you like to speak to your second? Uh, yes, just I want to point out staff analysis on pages 3 and 4, um, that the plat appears to conform with the petition site's land use clarifications and Anchorage 2040 land use plan and the government Government Hill neighborhood plan.

This also will allow for additional park space to be developed in the area. In regards to the public testimony, removing Section AC, unfortunately, I think even if we were to do that, just to justify, it would only be for entertainment purposes because it exists on the state plat, which supersedes us. So unfortunately, dealing with that issue is not something that we can handle. Even if we removed it, it would still still exist. Therefore, I am moving forward with it unaltered.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cross. Miss Mills, did you want to speak to it? Yeah, um, I was actually thinking about motioning to remove the plat note just in case, but, um, after hearing Mr. Cross, um, yeah, I agree. It's just these plat notes are a pain, um, to remove, they're a pain to put on.

Um, we're kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place. DOT is not easy to work with. Either. So, um, I mean, and then there's the whole issue where if they put in the landing pad like you mentioned, well, then that floating easement is solid, right? So then there is no changing it.

You're not going to pick up a helipad and just move it. So I think that this would be fine. So I do intend to support the motion, um, based on the existing port tract, um, being subdivided into two tracts. Um, it still remains industrial. It's intended for future parkland, like Track J2.

No variants were requested, no public opposition except for now, which we just received, but we didn't at the time. Um, the Community Council didn't have any objections, um, neither did any of the reviewing agencies, and staff did do their research and agree with their findings. Thank you, Ms. Mills. Anyone else wishing to add findings?

Seeing none, pass the gavel over. Um, I agree with Ms. Mills and Mr. Cross. Honestly, I think that this— whether this plat note stays on or is— or gets removed is kind of moot point because it's already on the state plat. So, um, I agree with the logic of the, uh, of the presenter, and I think that I agree with Mr. Cross where a lot of plat notes are just not needed and muddy the waters more com— more often than not, but I don't really see removing this, um, making much of a difference. So with that, I'm going to vote in support.

Let's call the vote.

With that, the motion passes.

Moving on to Case S12884. Maybe you have staff's presentation. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. So this is a request, uh, for a subdivision of one tract of land into one lot and three tracts, and then request for a vacation of a 60-foot public use easement.

That was recorded by Book and Page. So this platting action will dedicate the required 60 feet of right-of-way in alignment with the existing location of Highland Road. This is out in Eagle River up Highland Road, and it's a 117-acre subdivision. So the vacation request, the petitioner's vacating 60 feet public use easement. We can see that on the second page of the plat.

It's basically just outside Highland Road. The road is in a different alignment, so we're— and they're going to be dedicating 60 feet of public use, which is what we need, more like, you know, centered on the actual road that's out there. So we're in support of that. And then in the matter of the vacation request, staff finds that conditions 1 and 2 have been met. The right-of-way, the existing extra right-of-way is in excess to municipal need.

For any future public needs. We won't need it. They're going to dedicate that 60 feet of right-of-way within the current alignment of Highland Road, like I mentioned. It's not lying on the half-mile or quarter-mile grid for Conditions 3 and 4. Staff finds Conditions 5 has been met.

It's not going to have any impact on traffic circulation. The dedication of the right-of-way will provide— will be provided to replace this, and it's in the actual alignment of that constructed Highland Road, as I've said. They will be able to maintain access to all the remaining properties, and staff finds in Condition 6 that has been met. The vacation will result in a realignment of the proposed dedication of right-of-way and does not impact traffic circulation. Therefore, staff does find that the right-of-way is in excess of municipal need and recommends approval of the vacation, which is 5A on the staff report, and we also recommend approval of the plat.

The plat meets all the applicable zoning district in Eagle River for Title 21 for the proposed lots and tracts. The petitioner is here to speak on any of it as well. Thank you. Thank you for that presentation. Do we have any questions of staff?

Seeing none, we will move on to the petitioner's presentation. If you'd like to please come up to the podium and state and spell your name for the record. And you have 10 minutes.

Oh, sorry, can you turn your mic on please? It's the button down below. It'll turn green. There we go. My name is Jeremy Hurst.

I'm the petitioner's representative. I do have to point to one error, the vacation of the public use easement. There's currently two public use easements on that encumber the land. One of them follows the existing Highland Road right-of-way, or what we plan on dedicating. The other public use easement was intended to cover Highland Road, but it deviates from, from the actual alignment.

I believe that the planning department staff, uh, got those incorrect, which one was being vacated and which one was not. I don't know if we can make that change now, but it's the principle from what's being recommended. I don't think there's any change in that. Okay, through Mr. Chair, so, Mr. Hurst, on page 5 of the staff report, is that the correct book and page?

That's what you're referring to, correct? The book 1659 and pages 816 and 817 is what is to be vacated? No, that's incorrect. That's incorrect, okay. Right, it's book 1575, Pages 834 through page 835.

Okay. And I have, I have paper copies of both of those with me today. Okay. Uh, just so the, uh, planning board knows, uh, Jeremy did come in and discuss this. I'm picking this up for a different planner who's not here.

Uh, he— we were supposed to swap those. Um, and Jeremy, we are vacating though the, the next to Highland Road, correct? Say that again. So the portion that's being vacated though is the piece that's next to Highland Road that's outside of the alignment? It's the public use amusement that's outside of the existing road alignment.

Okay, so, and for the clerk, it'll be— we just need to page book 1575, page 834 and 835. And does staff feel comfortable with this, or does it need to be discussed? Yes, the surveyor had come to the counter, and I remember this conversation with Mr. Hatcher, and we had transposed those in the staff reports.

Are you able to bring up a copy of the plat on the screen? I could— it's noted correctly on the plat itself. Okay.

I wrote down what you said, and so did our— so did Lori. So if— I mean, if the staff feels good about just making—. Yes, that's the correct— that'll make it correct. Okay, I think we're good, so, uh, you can continue on. Okay, great, great.

Uh, I, I just, uh, I, in agreement with the, uh, staff recommendations otherwise, uh, I just wanted to add that, uh, this parcel, uh, is an original homestead created by the Janke family. And, uh, unfortunately, Mr. Janke and Mrs. Janke have passed away, and they've left the property to, their, their heirs, their offspring. And the purpose of this subdivision is so that the, the various children can split the, uh, the remaining parcel. Okay, is that the end of your testimony? Uh, that's the end of my testimony here unless, uh, they have any questions.

Great. Um, you have 6 minutes and, uh, let's back up a couple. That probably doesn't matter, but 6:48, let's call it. You'll have 6 minutes and 48 seconds of rebuttal if needed.

Do we have any questions of the petitioner?

Mr. Cross, 48% grade, that must have been quite the accomplishment to survey that property. It has some very steep, uh, steep terrain in there. For sure. Yeah, that's, uh, that would have been something to behold.

Thank you.

Uh, Miss Mills has a question for staff. I'm sorry, Sean, but through the chair, um, what happens now, um, because all of the, uh, reviewing agencies were actually— is it the same easement that's recorded in Book 1659 at pages 8-16 and 8-17, did all the reviewing agencies review the wrong tract while they were looking at this packet? Through the chair, Ms. Mills, no. The reviewing agencies were looking at the plat, as Jeremy had stated, and it says which— the 60-foot PUE that's to be vacated, this plat, and it outlines it. It's not shaded, but it has arrows and outlines it.

So they were looking at the correct thing. It's just the book and page is off. Right, but like on page 33 to the AWU, and like all of these, all of the reviewing agencies reference the—. Yeah, that's just a, it was just kind of a clerical error there. They're looking at the correct thing when they're reviewing the plat.

I just want to make sure. Yeah. I know about errors in documents, and sometimes it leads you sideways, so I just want to make sure. Thank you.

Any other questions of the petitioner?

Seeing none, you take a seat. Or open this up for public testimony. Is—. Are there any members of the public wishing to testify? If so, please come up and state and spell your name for the record.

Seeing none, um, do you want to use your rebuttal time? You have 6 minutes, I think 48 seconds left, if you'd like to add anything else.

Okay, with that, I'm going to close the public hearing. The matter rests with the board. Do we have a motion for the vacation first?

Moved by Mr. Cross, second by Mr. Jones. Mr. Cross, can you state your motion? I, uh, move to approve the request for vacation of a recorded 60-foot public easement recorded in Book 15-75, pages 834 through 835, subject to Conditions 1.

Uh, subject to—. Yeah, subject to Condition 1, recording a suitable plat within 24 months of its approval.

And then is it B? B is a separate motion. Uh, okay. Um, would you like to speak your motion? Yeah, again, the reviewing agencies and staff analysis on pages 3 and 4 that the— that there were— excuse me— the reviewing agencies, it met all the criteria, and also there was no negative public comment.

The purpose of this land is still continue its existing use and just replatting for the purposes of the estate to either liquidate or build houses as they see fit.

And I see no significant change in the use of the land. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cross. Mr. Jones, would you like to speak to your second? Yes, thank you.

Uh, I, I, uh, intend to support the motion as well. I just see there's a general cleanup, which I think is good to do. I will say that I do see the note, uh, on page 42 of our staff report where it shows the plat. It's a little hard to see, obviously, since we just have it on 8.5 by 11. The one comment that I do want to make is that what's referenced here, though, is Use easement book 1575, page 834.

I don't see 835 listed, so I did want to just bring that up to be vacated by the plat. So I don't know if that's something that clarification note needs to be added to the plat to, you know, generality clarify, you know, book and page, or if it's fine to leave it as is. But I do intend to support.

Staff have any comments on that? Um, no, it's it You pull up the books, 1575, you do research by 834, and it would pull up both pages on that. So it would be one and the same. Okay, thank you for clarification. Appreciate that, Chair.

Thanks. Miss Mills, are you wishing to add findings? Yes, um, I intend to support this motion. I would like to base it on the fact that the existing public use easement is no longer necessary because it does not correspond to the actual location of Highland Road. The public purpose formerly served by the easement will be better served through dedication of a replacement public right-of-way that aligns with the constructed roadway, thereby preserving access while eliminating an inaccurate encumbrance.

Thank you, Ms. Mills. Any other findings? Seeing none, let's call the vote.

With that, the motion passes for the vacation. Uh, now do we have a motion for the plat?

Moved by Miss Mills, second by Mr. Jones. Miss Mills, can you state your motion? I move in case S12879 to approve the plat for 24 months subject to the conditions shown on page 4 of the staff report. Thank you, Miss Mills. Would you like to speak to your motion?

Yeah, I would just like to use the same approval criteria that based our decision on for the vacation request as well. Staff did a good job. They met all the criteria. It's not in excess, but it is being replaced. It works, it works good, and I think staff— I'll definitely agree with staff's analysis.

Thank you, Miss Mills. Mr. Jones, would you like to speak to your second? Nothing additional to add, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jones.

Any last— any findings for anyone like to add? Seeing none. Let's call the vote.

And with that, the motion passes.

Since we had our postponement, we can move on to board member comments. Any comments amongst board members?

Seeing none, do we have a motion to adjourn? Move by Mr. Cross, second by Ms. Mills. We are adjourned. Sorry, Lori.

Are you holding on to the—. I was just going to ask that.

Yeah, thank you. You too. Safe if you're going anywhere. I'll stay away on the hallway. Yeah, smart.

Oh, is it already?