Petersburg Borough: Planning Commission Meeting 10.13.2026

I'll call the meeting to order. Would you please do the roll call? Heather? Here. Jim?

Here. Sarah? Here. Chris? Here.

Joshua?

Here. Can you hear me?

Here. Okay, thank you.

Right. All right, do we have any amendments to the agenda for today's meeting?

Hearing none, um, do I have a motion to approve? So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye.

Okay, do we have any amendments to the minutes from the September 8th meeting?

Hearing none, do I have a motion to approve? So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye.

Um, since it's a new year, we have to elect officers. Do we have nominations?

I nominate you for chair— for chair. Okay, second.

All in favor? Aye.

No.

Okay. We have any for Vice Chair?

I nominate Jim. Second.

All in favor?

Aye. For Secretary?

All in favor? Aye. Okay, do we have any public comments unrelated to today's agenda items?

Hearing none, we'll move on. We have nothing on the consent calendar for this meeting.

Public hearing items. First, we have an application from Dave Tynes for a minor subdivision at 353 Midcoff Highway. Do we have any public testimony?

Um, we have a motion.

I move to approve Resolution 2026-1001, recommending approval of minor subdivision creating Lot 1A and Lot 1B, Reed 2 subdivision, subject to the conditions set forth in this resolution. Second. Discussion. My parents are neighbors down the street from this property. It's zoned single-family residential, which I believe is a gross underuse of a lot of this size, 172,000 square feet.

1,000 Square feet. I encourage the owner to subdivide.

Ah! 5-1-3-4—. Dave Tinas: Surveyor involved? Um, yes. Yeah, it's all be doing a survey of that site.

Topo survey of the what's existing on that lot to make sure that we don't infringe on any setbacks or anything like that. Thank you.

All right, is there any further discussion?

Would you please do the roll call? Heather? Yes.

Jim? Yes. Chris? Yes. Joshua?

Yes. Sarah? Yes.

Um, next we have consideration of an application from Blake Turnsko, uh, for variance from the front end, uh, front yard setback requirement to allow construction of a carport within 12 feet of the property line at 602 Rambler Street.

Do you have any public testimony?

Do we have a motion?

I move to approve Resolution 2026-19.

TBD, denying a variance to reduce the front yard setback.

Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, the number should have been filled in. It's 1002. I'll take that from the top. Yeah, that's what—. Well, whatever.

Thank you. I move to approve Resolution 2026-1002, denying a variance to reduce the front yard setback. At 602 Rambler Street.

Second. Second. Discussion? I'm really, uh, feel sorry that I don't feel that the, um, borough code allows an exception in this case. I think having a covered driveway in this climate makes a ton of sense, especially in winter.

Shoveling out your car is a huge bummer. Um, so I would support an amendment to code allowing variances for the specific purpose of covered driveways up to a 10-foot setback. Um, but without that in place, I don't feel that I have the discretion to approve this variance. So I'm very sorry, but, um, I would support a code amendment.

But in this case, I would also say that I think extenuating circumstances, or is that it is a crowded neighborhood? It was platted and developed years ago when 50-foot frontage was the standard, and now it's 80 foot. So I feel like you've got to work with what you've got. Um, and in the pictures I can see how far from the pavement the covered parking is going to be. I don't think it's going to obscure any, um, visibility for driving, or, you know, ingress or egress.

And so I would support the application for the variance.

I have to agree. I think that that road is plenty wide for trucks to pass by going both directions. And yeah, I think Commissioner O'Neill's argument is very compelling.

Have to meet the findings of fact, and unfortunately, the person I heard to talk about it, because one of them is the unnecessary financial hardship from strict application. It's not the length, it's the setback. And so the issue is they're asking for a 30-foot carport cover, and I measured mine, it's 20 feet. So if it was only 20 feet, it would still meet— we wouldn't need to have a variance because it would meet the setback. Can you fit 2 vehicles in yours?

Yeah, well, no, no, mine— well, it's wide enough. Theirs is wide enough to fit them side by side. Remember we talked before about how wide a car is and 26 feet wide, you need 8 feet for a normal car. So 8, 8, 16. So you'll still have space between the cars to fit 2 side by side.

Jim, I noticed that your microphone isn't lighting up when you talk, so I don't know if there's something going on with it, but the one next to you is lighting up. So, and Heather, can you test your microphone? I didn't see it turn green either. Oh yeah, see, that one worked. Okay, no, you're right, even though it was on earlier.

Nope, it's not working. Yours is not.

Now it's green. It's green now. All right, talking into it, lighting up when you talk, but it's not lighting up. No, only when I push it does it light green. Is this pushed all the way down?

You want to move, maybe just move over to, to this one? Sorry, that one's working. Yeah.

Okay, yep, perfect.

Happy to answer any further questions, explanations.

I would be happy. Are you the applicant, sir? I'd be happy to hear from the applicant, but if you don't mind coming up to the mic and saying your name.

Yeah, so the length that we're requesting is, um, the desire is to be able to store a boat over the winter, um, and then It won't actually be attached to the house. So there's like garbage can storage and stuff in front of the house. So the, um, vehicles would be parked, um, not right up tight to the house, but there'll be a few feet of space and then the carport. And the, uh, the intention is to make it about 28 feet. Wide, um, just requested an additional 2 feet as a buffer to make sure that we're within compliance.

Can you state your name for the record? Blake Terrucio. Thank you.

So there's several factors that, um, we have to meet under code in order to, um, grant of variance. And so I, I would be interested in hearing your testimony for these 3 factors. Okay. Um, the first variance criteria— I'll just go one by one, not to— so you aren't slammed. Um, the first one is that there are exceptional physical circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or to its intended use or development which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone.

Can you explain why your property is different than surrounding properties? Um, the home across the street, 605 Rambler, um, has a carport that was given the variance. Um, I think it's 10 feet from the setback. Um, that was added on later a few years ago. Um, which was a similar circumstance to ours.

Um, the second variance criteria is that the strict application of the provisions of this title would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary pecuniary hardships. Can you speak to that? Um, like, why, if you don't have this covered carport, it will create hardship for maybe you or your business in relation to this boat? Um, yeah, I mean, it's nice to have snow off of the vehicles, so that's the intention. Obviously, it's not there now, but that's the intention of building the carport.

And the third is that the granting of this variance will not result in material damage or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity, nor be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Um, can you speak to that factor? You mentioned that your neighbor has this. Yeah, I think the only concern would be blocking downstreet vision, but that's why I included the pictures that there's already, um, pretty thick trees and brush there blocking that view, and it doesn't extend beyond that.

In the picture, it kind of looked to me like what you're proposing would be set back from the trees too. Like, the trees are going to still be— most of those trees are going to still be there. If you— yeah, they won't change the visibility. No, any really, because those trees are more, uh, are closer to the road anyway. Right.

Yes. There's really no other location it could be put on the property where it would meet the setback requirements to be able to provide that carport, is there? No, that's what I'm saying.

So, I think for, um, For me, the only variance criteria that I'm not hearing specifics about are Factor 1, that there are— that this property is like its neighboring properties. I do think it's from a matter of fairness. I don't like the idea of a neighbor having this very similar carport and then this property not having one, but that actually makes So it's different in that it's, it's not. But I, I just don't, I don't know the facts of why that variance was granted, or if it was granted improperly, or past history in Planning Commission. The time I've been on, we typically have granted variances in these type of situations as long as they don't cause a problem with public works or with visibility down the street, just because of the fact that there's a lot of these lots that it's difficult to put a carport anywhere else, and that the— you need to have a place to keep things covered in this country.

So, um, if— I mean, I, I, I support the, the idea. I just want to make sure that we're doing a good job Putting the criteria down. Yeah, you know, I— one, I appreciate your packet. You did a good job. I appreciate that.

Two, I'm glad that you told us things because I was not aware that you were planning on putting a boat there, because it does change my perspective. Because I'm thinking, how many cars do you plan on putting there? How big is your boat? How long is your boat? It's, uh, 22 feet plus the transom.

Okay, and the motor. So that makes sense. Yeah. And I feel better because we're not allowed to go look at the site knowing that a neighbor has very similar circumstances to what you're requesting. I have a question.

I think we're allowed to drive by and look at— we're not allowed to go onto someone's property, but I think you can go by and look at the neighborhood and look at the property itself. Am I right? Well, it's just—. You can't go on their property, right? But I mean, you could drive by and see what you can go anywhere.

It just said we're discouraged from— we're supposed to actually use Tesla testimony that's brought to us, not to go to the site ourselves and check it out. That's what I'm trying to get across. No, you're incorrect, um, Heather. I'm not— Jim is correct. Do drive-bys?

Jim is correct. I didn't, but I thought— thank you for clarifying that. So the motion on the table is to deny this variance. So just to remind folks, yeah, we're voting Yeah. I would almost like to hear from the other neighbors.

Oh, sorry, Jim or Joshua. Yeah, to me, I mean, I'm looking at the design here and I'm actually rather impressed. I like this kind of semi-scissors-looking truss that he's come up with. I just wonder what the neighbors would have to say about it. He's not on a— apparently on a street corner of any kind.

So I don't think visibility really would be an issue. But we haven't heard from any of the neighbors. I don't know if that affects anyone else's decision that, you know, it's just the applicant.

I think the financial hardship you could claim is the boat, because he is right about weather being a factor on it. Has ruined— of course, it's not in the water, so a little different. But, you know, us that do own boats have to realize that weather is really bad on our boats. And I had a heck of a time last year getting my snow off it. So yeah, I agree that that fulfills Factor 2 for sure.

Um, definitely a practical difficulty. And I, I believe that the pictures and the testimony about, um, kind of the way other neighbors are laid out and where the brush is, I feel comfortable that this will not unnecessarily prejudice other properties. So that's Factor 3.

I guess again, I would just say the lots are smaller than what we would allow in today under today's code. So I can see where variances are needed more often. It is a, you know, more dense of a neighborhood than what we're trying to create for single-family residential lots nowadays. So to me, that feels the first one, the exceptional circumstances.

I'm comfortable with that.

Okay, do we have an amended motion, or why don't we just start over? Vote it down, or I guess I could withdraw this motion with the support of my original second. That would be procedurally appropriate.

Jim, did you—. Were you—. Were you the—. Was— you were second, right? On—.

So I— if with your consent, I would withdraw my original motion. Fine with that. Okay. All right. Um, so, um, so do we need a new resolution?

Can you— can we just make a motion to Deny the— where's— where's—. Um, yeah, because this is a resolution denying, and we want a resolution approving.

Um, I move to deny the resolution. Well, no, no, can't do that. That's not— that's funky language. Um, well, based on Liz's reaction Maybe, maybe she has better words. Well, maybe we should move to enact the resolution and then amend it.

So it's a totally new resolution. It's clunky, but— Well, now we're— Oh, thank you to the applicant. You don't have to stand.

Yes, thank you.

I'm—. I don't know.

Jim, you got an idea? Let's just try this. I move to approve Resolution 2026-1002 to grant a variance of up to 8 feet into the required 20-foot setback to allow construction of a carport over the existing driveway at 602 Rambler Street. Second. Okay, any further discussion?

Well, I think we have to amend the resolution. Okay, took out the grant, the denying encroachment. Yeah, you did. So the title is different now, which is good, but now we have to make findings, I believe, on the record. I just have to change the findings.

Yeah, so we've identified them in discussion, which helps, but I think we need to Yep. Yep.

Um, so is that how you see it, Liz? We can just use that same resolution number, but just having reworded it, we're good. All right, thank you very much. So the findings are, um, there are exceptional circumstances due to the pre-existing lot. There is no other place to put it.

The difficulties are the financial hardship, or the fact that it would— he's trying to protect his property, his boat, and park 2 cars, and so he would have to pay for additional storage. So that's the financial thing. And there's no material harm to neighboring properties or public health, safety, or welfare, as there are already— there's trees there. So if you're saying it's a line of sight and there's no utility Um, nobody's come forward and saying it is a burden, and a neighbor also has the same. Yes, uh, I would second that amendment.

Okay, please do the roll call.

Chris? Yes. Heather? Yes. Jim?

Yes. Joshua? Yes. Sarah? Yes.

So that's on the amended amendment. So now we do the roll call one more time. Okay.

Jim? Yes. Heather? Yes. Joshua?

Yes. Sarah? Yes. Chris? Yes.

Okay, moving on to consideration application from the Mill, uh, Incorporated for platting variance for re-plat to allow, uh, for a road frontage of 70 feet at 504 Wesley Street.

Um, I move to continue this application to allow the applicant to submit additional evidence of site specific hardship under PMC 18-32-010, subsection A. 2. Second. Okay.

We have any discussion?

It's— this is a project I would like to support, and if we can give the applicant additional time to make a really good record for us to be able to approve this. Um, I think that makes sense. It seemed kind of confusing to me as to what I saw going on there, but let me find the right page here.

It looked like there were two different site plan or two different plat maps, and I wasn't sure what was the one they were requesting.

I think the one they're requesting is the '70 0.72 feet, which is below the 80-foot code standard. Okay. Is that right, Liz? Is that how I understand? That's correct.

Right.

But the other one meets the standard, so it's a little bit— Yeah, confusing on how you approve that.

What about that Lot 3AA? That's a 50-foot frontage on that one. And there's no request on that, and that will get addressed separately. Okay, that's the separate application where they want to change the zone to change the zoning. Okay, which then doesn't have a lot frontage requirement.

Yeah, I was just, I was a little bit confused about what they were exactly requesting. There's a lot in there. Yeah. Yeah, so, okay, well, as it stands, he wouldn't— unless he came and gave us a reason, we wouldn't be able to prove it because it doesn't meet the criteria. Um, and so we'd have to have some reason to honor it.

So I agree with postponing it and give him a chance to either redo it or come try to explain why we should grant the variance. Yeah, yeah, we're looking at a lot that's about 20 3,000 square feet, or about half an acre. Is that right? And it was zoned residential, and they want to make it into commercial 1 and make it full frontage parking. I have mixed feelings about it.

On the one hand, yeah, the commercial 1, that, that sounds like, yeah, you could— we need a little more information. What are they doing with it? But the idea of the full frontage and mowing down a bunch of trees just for what appears to be maybe yard space. I'm not too keen on that part of it. I have mixed feelings about this altogether.

So we have a motion, a second.

Yep. Please do the roll call. Heather? Yes. Jim?

Yes. Chris? Yes. Sarah? Yes.

Joshua? Yes.

Okay, so what about, uh, the next recommendations? If we're on these, just keep doing it. Just keep doing them. Okay, I think the third one may be effective, but I'm not—. The second one The recommendation of the Borough Assembly.

Yeah, I think we can proceed with this one. Okay. I think it's no, because we haven't—. It's because if it's not subdivided, I don't think we can just continue all 3. I would think so.

Okay, that's, that's, that makes sense anyway. Okay, so I just want to make sure I get my language right. I move to continue this application, um, to allow— I guess it's the same motion as before. So I move to continue this application to allow the applicant to submit additional evidence of site-specific hardship under PMC 18.32.010A2. Second.

Mr. Chairman? Yes. Um, I think Are you not on the request for a rezone? Is that right? Right.

Okay. So, so the rezone, it has to go to the assembly and pass as an ordinance. So it's going to take a couple of months to actually have that happen. So the idea is, if, if you are recommend— if you agree, if you want to recommend to the assembly, what, you know, you can recommend one way or the other to pass it or not pass it, but, um, forward that recommendation, because until that recommendation comes back to you or it gets done, you're not gonna be able to approve that final plat anyway. Yeah, so the idea is if you move that forward and the assembly can take that up and either move that forward or not move it forward, you know, whatever the outcome is with the assembly, that's going to drive what your decision is, or what your options are on the, on the final plat.

And as far as— yeah, it's not subdivided yet, but we can do a meets and bounds for the zoning so that we can, you know, give a legal description that approximates what it actually will be. And then if the subdivision is approved, then it all lines up at the end. If they don't approve the rezone, you're not gonna be able to approve the subdivision. If they approve the rezone and you don't approve the subdivision, we can make the rezone contingent on approval of the subdivision. So it all lines up regardless at the end.

A little confusing, I know. Okay, thank you. But hopefully that clarifies a little bit. It does. So that, that is okay.

That is— that drives with my original thinking. I like the idea of continuing this part. While the other two parts wait, because I think there's findings that are consistent with this making sense as a commercial one lot.

And with the timing being what it is with the three readings of an ordinance, I think, I think it would— it's going to kind of delay things anyway, so I, I I, I would support rescinding my motion with the consent of— well, they both kind of seconded it. Fine, but OK, so I, I would, I would rescind my motion. The second has said that's fine, and I would like to move to approve this. So, so we did that. OK, so now I move to approve Resolution 2026-604 recommending that the Borough Assembly approve a zoning change from single family residential to commercial 1 for the area described in the resolution and direct staff to Commission's written report to the assembly within 30 days of the close of the public hearing.

I'll second for discussion. Okay. So, um, the— what I'm looking at now is the findings in this resolution. Um, the finding 1 is that Uh, vehicles waiting for service at the adjacent, adjacent Napa Auto Parts and Repair facility are parked on both sides of Wesley Street, impeding vehicle passage, street sweeping, and snow removal. Rezoning Lot 3-AA to Commercial 1 would allow off-street parking and staging on adjoining land and is justified by the need described in the applicant's letter.

Finding 2: This site is designated low-density residential. The proposed change is consistent with the objectives of the Petersburg Borough Comprehensive Plan because this business is located outside of the core downtown area. Area, and customers are expected to drive and park on site. Finding 3: Rezone extends the existing Commercial 1 district to Lot 1CB Hermosa subdivision and is compatible with surrounding uses because would follow an existing Commercial 1 boundary, which supports a logical extension of the district and tends to weigh against a spot zoning concern, notwithstanding the underlying low-density residential comprehensive plan designation. And finding for this change serves the public necessity, convenience, or general welfare.

So I think this really makes a lot of sense, and I support it. This is where I disagree with the applicant. Um, I, I don't see that there's a, there's a real impending need for Napa Auto Parts to have a whole bunch more, more parking, and much less to mow down the trees in a residential lot to do so. My opinion could be altered from that stance significantly if they actually plan to build something on that lot. But if they're just doing it for parking, I really don't see the need.

I don't see cars bunched up on both sides of the street. Um, I mostly see the street empty throughout the operating hours of the day in front of Napa. Um, and it's just— I could be convinced otherwise, but I just don't really see the need for it.

I disagree. First of all, people can do whatever they want with their property. They can currently, right now, they could take all the trees down. But Napa and the other automobile— all the automobile places here have parking issues. So, um, but if we do this as commercial 1, they can use it for whatever they wish, right?

And that's dictate that it'll be right. Yeah. And so that's, that's the question. Was my question on that, Liz, is there another zoning option that would be, uh, um, uh, less impactful to the residential adjoining lots.

Is like commercial 3.

Commercial 3 is more like a historic district where we don't allow—. I thought we had one that was just kind of more like warehousing. It's commercial too, but it also allows light industrial. Okay. And so I don't know that we want to go there.

Yeah, more like a—. Yeah, it allows light manufacturing, which is kind of like a light industrial warehouse. I think that's probably the wrong direction. Yeah, that probably is. I just wonder if there was another option there.

We don't really have a parking lot zoning. No, we do not. Okay, I really appreciate your explanation on the timing of things and how this could line up, but just somehow it just seems backwards to me to say, let's approve rezoning a lot that doesn't even exist yet. To me, that's putting the cart before the horse. Um, and I'm sorry if it takes a little bit of extra time to get to that end where, where everybody might want to go, but I think dealing with the subdivision first, then rezoning whichever, whatever lot That comes before us.

Well, what if we do an amendment on that that's contingent on the approval of rezoning, or it still has to go through? Still has to go through. That's how it's written currently, actually. Oh, okay. So you're not able to approve the plat unless it's rezoned.

Yeah, so it's total chicken and the egg, right? You cannot, you know, it has to be rezoned for you to be able to approve the plat, so you're not going to create the lot. Without the rezone.

I myself struggled with this for quite a while, so I appreciate where you're at. And parking at Napa is bad at times.

So, I, I kind of understand the need for it.

It appears that we have to put the cart before the horse in that case. Oh, can you repeat yourself, Joshua? I said it appears that I agree with Commissioner O'Neill. It appears that we do have to put the cart before the horse in this case and approve the rezoning before the plat.

I would say, too, you know, you don't want to— you're not going to want to approve a residential lot that size with a 50-foot frontage, and that's what you're going to end up with if you approve the plat before you do the rezoning. Right. Okay. Yeah. So that's, that's the problem with doing it that way, right?

You would have to approve an undersized residential lot, and you wouldn't know if it actually would ever get rezoned. And then there you have this 5,000-square-foot lot that, and then a 50-foot lot or lot is going to cause all kinds of headaches for us. Not going to be a good thing. So, all right.

All right. We ready for a roll call?

Joshua? Yes. Sarah? Yes. Chris?

Yes. Heather? Yes. Jim? Yes.

Good.

And then we have moving on to continue your consideration of an application from The Mill, uh, Incorporated for re-plat of 504 Wesley Street. So I was looking at the proposed motions and I feel they, they don't have a continuance option in the proposed motions, but I feel since that's the option we chose on Resolution 2026-603 that it makes sense to Because that's the companion variance, it makes sense to continue this one also. Is that what other people are thinking on this? Okay. Okay.

So then I will move to continue Resolution 2026-605.

Um, pending— sorry, I have to flip back here.

Um, pending Resolution 2026-603, um, which is continued to allow the applicant to submit additional evidence of site-specific hardship under PMC 18.32.010, subsection A-2.

All right, any discussion? I think it's straightforward. Um, I was just going to say, in thinking about the conversation you had, you might want to just add to, um, and also contingent on the assembly approving a rezone ordinance, right? Great note. Yeah, great note.

I, um, I ran out of steam near the end here. You did a great job to try to figure it out. That's okay. You wrote alternate motions and, you know, no worries. So I would move to amend my motion with Liz's note.

I liked your phrasing and I've already forgotten it. Second. Okay. Okay. Okay.

So motion on the— yeah. Okay. Roll call. Chris? Yes.

Jim? Yes. Joshua? Yes. Sarah?

Yes. Heather?

Yes. Is that— do we need to go more? One more. Yeah, original question. Chris?

Yes. Sarah? Yes. Jim? Yes.

Heather? Yes. Joshua?

Yes. Okay, moving on to non-agenda items. Um, Heather reminded me that the girls cross-country team, uh, um, uh, took first in state, and I think we'd like to congratulate them for that. You have anything to say, Heather? Vikings.

Okay. Um, any other commissioner comments? So I would like us to put a standard in place where we limit people's testimony to 5 minutes like the borough does. And I would like— I think that that would be a good secretary role to time them with the cards, whatever they do. Yeah, yeah, cards.

Because, you know, in staff, we have to be conscious of their time too. And my first meeting back was 3 hours and 40 minutes, and I'm like, Yeah, that's excessive. I, I support that, and I'm happy to take on that role.

All right, look it up for you guys. Any other commissioner comments?

Liz, any staff comments? Uh, I just realized when I looked that I forgot to put your data center ordinance that you've been working on on there. Okay, I don't know where you want to—. I think it's okay because the assembly took that Fallen gave it back to you. So lucky you.

Well, I don't know. It's out there somewhere. Yeah. But is there something else that I should be having? I'm sorry, I kind of spaced out where we— where you were and what the side projects were that you were working on.

So I neglected to put them back on the agenda. If there's something that should be on the next—. I thought we were waiting for the lawyer on the overlay. The cell tower.

Oh, right. Yeah. Well, the thing with that one is it— what was it? Inside borough and outside borough. And so, um, that reminds me, uh, are—.

I—. We're still proceeding with the holding zone, correct? Yeah, that's also out there. Yeah. So I think the— with the zoning overlay be on the same timeline as the holding zone.

There is no timeline. Yeah, but I mean, like, theoretically, as theoretically, sure, I mean, theoretically anything, because it's just a time dependent of which I have none. So that's where that sits. So maybe we should consider still talking about the data center ordinance. Well, I don't know, maybe we can wait till— this was, um, that was, uh, uh, Commissioner Kowalski's project, and I believe that he's going to resubmit his name.

So, um, I, um, want to say I'm sorry you didn't win your borough seat, but I'm glad you're here with us. Thanks, I appreciate it. Um, our next meeting is November 10th at noon here. Um, any idea who will be here? I'll be here.

I'll be here. I'll be there. Um, I'll be calling in. I will not be here because my wife is having knee surgery the day before, so I will be down in Washington. Do you mind if our vice chair runs the meeting?

Then you can go ahead and run the meeting. Yeah. And I'll just call in. Yeah, thanks for doing that. It's really hard to run it from—.

I know, I know. So, yeah, we tried to schedule it so we could be back, but it didn't work out. So you gotta get scheduled. Also, binders I gave you for the training. Let me know if you think it's good or if I need to tweak something.

I gave copies. Jim, can you leave one for me in the office? I'm going to get there in about a week. I brought extra, so yes. I appreciate that you put this together and I'll go through it and tab it.

I, I'm a, I like, I like having examples in there. I know you had them originally and thought about having them in and taking them out and I'll look through it and just see what I think. But there's scenarios. Okay. I just took out the actual real life great ones.

I think that's—. No names, no—. You know what I'm saying? Yeah, hypotheticals. Yeah, I think that's really, really helpful to apply law, to have hypos.

So thank you very much for this. I look forward to looking through it.

All right, I move to adjourn. Second. All in favor? Aye.