Transcript

0:00:10This is a meeting of the board of county Commissioners of Boulder county. We have commissioners lo chimin. And Levy present. And Commissioner Stolzman is excused. We're here this morning. For a public hearing on text amendments to our land use code in docket. Number. I actually cannot see it on my screen. Hold on. Let me rearrange things. Docket. Number dc 25. Three. And Ethan Apner is with us to explain what is proposed. So for members of the public who are interested in participating in this hearing. Our staff planner will walk us through the amendments. Commissioner loan and I may or may not have questions. And. After we have finished with our questions, we'll open it up for public testimony. First from people who have joined us here in the hearing room. And then we'll go to folks online if you have signed up. You will have three minutes to speak unless you have pooled your time.

0:01:17So with that little bit of introduction. Ethan, I think we're ready for you. Thank you. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Ethan Abner. I'm a long range planner with Boulder. County community planning and permitting. And today I'm going to be presenting on docket DC. 25. Three text amendments to the land use code related to minor corrections, clarifying changes, and updates to comply with state law. Just so that, you know, due to kind of the nature of this code update, there are a lot of the changes that we're going to be discussing throughout the entire code, and so I plan to just summarize what the proposed changes are and if there's anything that we want to discuss in detail or look at language for we can look at the staff packet because all of the language for those specific things. Is outlined in the staff packet.

0:02:03So just to get started, on September 16 of last year, the Boulder County Board of County commissioners authorized staff to pursue text amendments to the land use code related to minor corrections clarifying changes and updates to comply with state law. And so staff are proposing to amend the Code to address grammatical and clerical mistakes update formatting correct outdated references. Or terminology and clarify existing provisions. In the code based on past application and policy interpretations. So some general changes that we're making throughout the code, some minor grammatical changes includes adding or removing punctuation, formatting lists, hyphenating certain words or are not hyphenating them, spelling out numbers one through nine. As the Boulder county style guide asks us to do, and other things like that. Capitalizing defined terms throughout the land use code where it's appropriate, using consistent terminology when referring to specific parts of our code.

0:03:01Currently, we sort of interchangeably use article, section and subsection. And so essentially, staff are just proposing to refer to areas of the code as the code. Citation. That it is. We're also fixing references to some of the things that we outline in the interpretation section. Of our code, which I believe is 1100. But in instances where we use the word existing in our code, we always mean legally existing, and so. We're just taking out the word legally in front of existing. That way that it's. Consistent throughout. When we say existing, we mean legally existing. The same for calendar days. The interpretation section of our code tells us that when we say days, we mean calendar days. And so we're just going to take out the word calendar and refer to them as days. We're also updating outdated terminology or references and using inclusive language. We're practical there have only been a couple of instances where I found gendered language, which is a lot less than I expected. Also making some changes. Where? The Community Planning and permitting director was referred to by their old title as the land Use director. So making some of those changes and then some minor changes that you won't see.

0:04:09Text you won't see in the text of the staff packet, but you will see in the text of what we ultimately submit for the resolution. But using more plain language. Where we're practical. And so, just to provide an example, there's a section of our code, where we talk about a certain thing, and then we provide the director with two options. And then immediately after that sentence we say in the case of the latter, which can be confusing. For some people. So just updating that to say. In the instance that the application is rejected, then this happens. So making some minor changes like that. To make the language a little bit more plain. So now I'll talk about some of the more detailed changes that we're making. Throughout certain articles in the code. So article 2800 in article four, 1200, we're making. Some changes related to the board of adjustment. We're proposing amendments that clarify the list, so. That they both show identical information. And in an identical order. Right now, there are some differences between those lists, even though they both talk about the same thing. So we're just making sure they're consistent. We're. Also updating 3201 r pre application conference language to clarify that they can be held virtually. In the office or on site, and it also clarifies that we'll only need a

0:05:20site plan if it's requested by the staff for the pre application packet. Some of the things we do. Aren't complex enough during a pre application discussion when we're talking about a concept. To require a site plan, and so we'll just request one if we need one in this instance, rather than requiring it. Also updating three two application submittal requirements to note that in the instance. Of. An organization or an entity, like an LLC or a trust that will ask to have a signed statement of authority. That's something we already do. We're just clarifying it in. The code. For changes to article three and four, updating the existing appeals language in 3100 to acknowledge that there are different types of appeals. Right now, the language only talks about appeals of the interpretation. Of the code. But after looking through the code, staff saw that there are multiple instances in which individuals can appeal to. The board of adjustment or appeal to the board of county commissioners.

0:06:20And so we're just broadening that language to be more general so that it outlines what's necessary for all types of appeals if there's not specific information already in the code. And so we're also updating three, two, the application submittal requirements to let people know what will need to be included as part of an appeal application. And updating the language throughout article 4100, where we inserted during the site plan review update. Insert language related to appeals of that section to just clarify that appeals need to be made within 30 days, which is pretty consistent with other appeals timelines in our codes. And then there are a number of changes. Proposed to article four. We propose changing the language so that a community sister and can be approved as a second principal. Use on a parcel through a limited impact special review waiver rather than a full special review. It's already a policy. I think some language was updated previously and then. The language elsewhere wasn't changed.

0:07:23We're also updating the terminology. During the site plan review update. We missed some instances of site plan review waiver or referring to it as a waiver, and so we're just changing that language to refer to it by its new process name, expedited site plan review, or the expediting a site plan review. Updating the convenient store use to clarify that electric vehicle charging is permitted. Updating the campground use to allow for an onsite host throughout the camping season. Updating 4511 manufactured homes to reflect the distance required between structures and the building code. The building code requires 10ft between structures. Currently, the land use code says 14ft, but 10ft would be consistent with what's in the building code. And then clarify on 4516, which is our accessory uses section that a service animal used by an occupant in accordance with the state law. Is exempted. Towards counting towards the maximum number of pets on parcel if it's a service animal. And then we're also proposing changes to the parking standards and the transitional multifamily and Naiwat Rural Community District one zoning districts. This particular change is required by state law. Back in June, There was state law passed. For a number of areas which we fall within to, that says that if a certain area. Is partially within applicable transit service areas, which is something the state

0:08:47has defined local governments. Cannot enact or enforce laws that require minimum parking for multifamily residential adaptive reuse. Residential or adaptive reuse for mixed use if it's more than 50% residential. And so there are a few areas in the county where this comes into play, and it's typically in the transitional, multifamily and NRCD one zoning districts. And so rather than just not. Do what's in our code. We're proposing to update the language so that it's more clear. And that includes. Updating article one to include language in the map section that clarifies that overlay zone districts can be more or less strict than the underlying zone districts. Typically right now, our overlay zone districts are more strict, but in this instance, The overlay district would be less strict. And so we just want it to be clear that it can be either. Incorporating a new overlay zone in an applicable transit service areas map, which is the state map. That we have to rely on. To identify these areas and then add language to the NRCD one district regarding minimum parking requirements for the multi unit dwelling and the mixed use. Uses and including language in the mixed use and multifamily uses regarding parking requirements in the applicable transit service areas. And so that was outlined in one of the appendices. But if we want to discuss

0:10:04it in detail. We can. Also proposing changes to 4600, which talks about uses permitted by a special review and limited impact special review. We use lowercase special review throughout that particular section of the code to either refer to both types of special review or just special review or limited impact special review. And so we're just going to clarify the language so that we say what type of review we're talking. About when we're talking about it, and so we're just going to say that. It will either be a special review, a limited impact special review. Or a limited impact or a special review. And limited impact, special review. And not using lowercase special review is something that. The planning commission recommended we just say what we mean. And so we went ahead and did that. And then we're proposing some changes to articles 14 and 1514 500, which outlines. Our proceedings for removal. Rubbish and weeds and brush are unsafe structures. Essentially just making it so that it's not a public meeting, it's a public. Hearing.

0:11:07And then clarifying changes throughout article 15, which is our historic preservation article. These changes. Were reviewed by HPAB and they gave them the go ahead, but it's some minor changes. Related to grammatical stuff. Or inserting words where words might be missing, removing some words that don't make sense. Or just making sure the language is consistent. And also one change in. There. That realigns the language so that it better identifies. How subcommittees are formed so that it matches what actually happens. And then some proposed changes in article 18. Currently covered porches aren't counted as residential floor area, and we're not proposing to count them as residential floor area. However, in that definition. They can't be enclosed. We don't define what enclosed is and so we're. Just saying that if it's a railing of 42 inches or less, then we won't. Consider that enclosed. Also updating our setback definition to clarify that when a road ride of way encroaches into a parcel. The setback is measured from the road right of way and not the lot line.

0:12:12And making some minor clarifications in the definition of structure and adding language regarding two exemptions. The first. Currently, we exempt retaining walls. It just says retaining walls, and so we're adding less than 4ft in HeighT ANd. Are not considered structures. That's more in line with what we have in article 17 of our code where we talk about things that might be exempt from building permit. And only exempting swimming pools that do not require a building permit from the definition of structure. Currently in ground swimming pools are exempt from that definition. And we can talk about why we're interested in changing that and what staff looked at, but that's just a quick overview. Of that particular change. And then just to talk about referral, agency feedback, public comment and Planning commission. We received two responses when we sent this application out on referral, both of them were no conflict. One was from the building division and one was from Jefferson county. We received five public comments that talk about various different things. And. When we went to planning commission, they voted 80 to approve the docket and recommend approval to you all. They also recommended that we consider. Useful amendments to article 16, which might allow staff or the director staff on behalf of the director to make minor clerical changes to the code without requiring

0:13:32a text amendment. And so, in line with that recommendation, we put in the staff packet, just recommending updating. 16 100 a to say that text amendments the director may correct. Clerical errors in the code as they are discovered without the need for a text amendment as required. By this article. And so criteria review Article 16 requires that the board of County Commissioners find that the existing Texas in need of amendment. The amendment is not contrary to the intent and purposes of this code and the amendment is in accordance with the comprehensive plan. And so staff have laid out their argument that the proposed changes clarify the intent of the code. Making it its meaning more easily understood by those who use it. Also, some of our changes are going to. Improve readability, which is something that we're trying to do in line with the accessibility.

0:14:24Initiatives that are happening in the county. I think that pretty much sums it up. So staff's recommendation? We're recommending that the board of county Commissioners approved docket DC 25. Text amendments to the land use code related to minor corrections. Clarifying changes and updates to comply with state law. And at this time, if you have any questions. I'm happy to answer them. Great. Thank you very much. And before we turn to questions. I just want to thank you. This is hard work. Even though you're characterizing these things as minor and clerical. And just clarifying. Intent. It's hard to find this stuff. And so I just want to appreciate that. Commissioner loan, do you have any questions? Thank you. Thank you, Ethan, for the information, the packet and the presentation this morning. I have a couple of questions, and I think I really appreciate what you're talking about. In regards to plain language and maybe what you described as a Pontiac commission to say what you want to say and try and be just the work to review and look for some more clarity. Also addressing our Ada and visibility pieces and things like that. What I was wondering. And maybe you can share. I'm looking at the 64 page packet. Which I think. Was all that was on the agenda, so that might be the only

0:15:45topic today. You're talking about. Well, I had two questions. One was. I think it's on page 19. But there may be another area that talks about. Let's see. It's attachment b. Uses permitted by special review. Unlimited impact special review. Where is the definitions of these different? So if I'm picking up this landruse code, and I've just moved to Boulder county, and I've got these great ideas. About what I want to do. I'm trying to figure out. Where is it? Just very clear. Here's the process. Here's what you want to do. How does somebody find that out? Or is it actually not in the land use code? So specific definitions of the processes. Special review and limited impact special review. So it's in the code, in the sense that article 4600 requires what those are. And why we have them and what the criteria are for them. The more plain language that. Someone would look at, or what staff would direct someone to look at is either one, and I would plug it every time I have a hearing. Feel free to call the planners on call at community planning and permitting, we're happy to answer questions or two. We have planning publications online that aim to make this more understandable for members of the public.

0:17:05And so does that answer your question? It does, and I'm just wondering what I heard was. Call us first and we'll walk you through. So you understand what an expedited. Site plan review means in relation to. Special review or limited impact? Special review. Did I hear you right? So those are all different processes, correct? Yeah. Yes, if people have specific questions about them. We have planning publications that talk about all of those different processes and what's required. Okay? I was just trying to figure out. Policy. It's procedure. It's just the way that different organizations set up their information. Sometimes it is really very like, here's your very basic definitions of what you are working. With, like, a glossary type of piece. I don't know where that is, but when you talked about expedited site plan review, I believe. Just sitting here at the dais. And getting questions from different applicants and having different conversations, certainly hearing from public comment. People have a different impression of what that means, whether it's time, whether it's the application process. Whether it's the financial piece. And so I do think there is an opportunity, but it might fall somewhere else versus what we're looking at right now, so I just wanted to. Ask. That question about just the basic definitions that people know where to start. Yeah, certainly. Okay.

0:18:31And then the other question I wanted to ask. Was about. One of the items that we haven't talked about yet was just in public. Comment from the written public comment and. There was. I don't know if I came through last night or this morning that you. Shared with us around ditch and that concern, and I just wanted to know how you incorporated it. Or didn't incorporate some of the questions that were brought up in regards to. The access to ditch management kind of pieces. Yeah. So there were a couple of different comments about ditch setbacks. In general. And the land use code currently outlines the ditch setbacks in the zoning district portion of the code so 4100. And we say that the setback is 50ft from the center line. Of the ditch, it can be reduced to 20 with concurrence of the ditch company. I have to remember. I think. The comments. About the ditches were related to structures and the exemptions that we have in our definition. Of structures. And so. As the easiest one for folks to understand is Spences less than 6ft high. Are not considered structures. And so they don't have to meet setbacks, the ditch companies or ditch owners concerns is that somebody might build a fence within their easement because we don't consider it. A structure, but they consider

0:19:58it a structure. And so the request was to update language in our code. Better outlining. Or their proposed language. I think they think better outlines what our role is and what their role is, and it hasn't been incorporated into the code. But because this issue came up during the site plan review update, We've made a number of changes on our end to try and better address those things. Through different means other than putting it in our code. One of those changes is we use as a planning software called Plan Next, where we have different layers. And one of those layers is a setback layer, and so better identifying on the map. Where dig setbacks are for staff so that when they're answering questions for the public, they can let people know that, hey, there might be a ditch setback on here. You should. Contact the titch company. Another thing is, we're in the process of updating a lot of our hand. Handouts in regards to the accessibility initiatives that are happening in the county, and one of those handouts talks about when do I need a building permit? When do I not need a building?

0:20:59Permit. What is a structure, what isn't a structure, and so updating information in that handout to point out that, hey, if you have a ditch on or near your property, you might want to check with a ditch company because there could be an easement. And so, in the sense of the issues that were raised, We're trying to address them through different means rather than through the land use code. And so that's the kind of route that we've taken on. That specific issue. Okay, so I think the only question that would happen is. Similarly, if somebody's picking this up and they have concerns about ditch management, they're moving Boulder county. This is their property. Do you feel like now with these amendments, or at least up to now because they'll evolve and there'll be changes, I'm sure. As things progress. But do you feel like now you've got something clear in there that would indicate where how people could go find out the information you just shared about what is happening in regards to ditch. Yeah, I think even though we're not putting anything in the land use code, We are making it clearer for folks, and we're making it clearer for staff because for a lot of people. Even with looking at a land use code, it's a complex document, and even if you can

0:22:11read it and understand it. You're not going to totally know the way that everything interacts with one another and so even just making it easier for staff to see when there might be a ditch easement, on the parcel. That I think improves our ability to let the public know that there might be something. That. They should look at. And so I think the changes that we're making will help. And if we need, we'll see how it goes. That's great. I appreciate that. And I know there's a lot involved. And. When I'm looking at land use code, I'm looking at what else can we add in there. That'll just make. A user friendly experience and document whether it's online or in person or leads to meetings. So. I appreciate that, Ethan. Can I just piggyback on that before? Did you have other. Things you have to ask about. I don't have additional questions right now. Oh, okay. Thank you. If you did. I just wanted to pick up that thread a little bit here. Because. You've explained the resources that you have so that you can help the public understand what the issues might be. But maybe I missed a beat here, but. If a person just picks up the code. And says, oh, I'm exempt.

0:23:23I don't need a permit. And there's no reason for them to think they need to contact. Cpmp. Then how would they know? That they cannot put any of a retaining wall, et cetera, et cetera, in that ditch. Easement. Are you assuming? Notice and an opportunity to talk with them because they would call you. No. I mean, there are all sorts of things that people do because they don't know that. They can't do it and send the land use code. We try and do our best. To outline for people. Yes. We may say that this isn't a structure per our code. And it doesn't require a building permit. But we're not the only person who has an interest here, and so you should check with that person. If people don't reach out and talk to us.

0:24:20And they just try and read the code. I don't know if there's anything that we can do. If they're not reading the publications as well. Right, that's fair. And I see Janet coming forward. I think the bottom line for me when I read these concerns is we don't want to cause confusion, and we don't want people to think. We don't want to mislead people, which I don't think we're. Doing in any way. And regardless of what our code says, The ditch has the right of way. They have the ability to address it if it is a problem. So we're not diminishing. Their legal rights in any way. Hannah, if you want to take, state your name before you speak. Thank you. Hannah Hickley. Community planning and permitting. The only item I wanted to add. To this is to answer your question about when someone might know. When you buy property, that information about easements is typically in your title work, and that's how property owners would know. There's an additional layer to this conversation that often we as CPMP, don't. Know if there are easements.

0:25:29We don't know where they are for ditches a lot of times. They're prescriptive, so they're not sort of legally defined. Anyway, so there's a little bit of a space between sort of what we know and regulate. And different property owners interest in the property and their ability. To protect that interest. So this is ditch companies, power companies. Anybody with a utility easement is going to run into this when working with a property owner. So what we try to do is. To educate property owners. Where in their paperwork might they find this? But we are not necessarily going to regulate everything in every easement that may exist out there. Hopefully that adds some clarity. Yeah. That's some more context, and that's good. People get their title work. And I don't know how many people read it or keep it handy and refer to it on a regular basis, but it's there, and the dish company retains that legal right. So I think that's really the bottom line for me. I also just anticipating possibly some public testimony that we'll get and another comment that came in whenever we. Received it. Commissioner Loshiman said it was last night or this morning or sometime in between. The issue of where we measure the setback when there's a road.

0:26:54Maybe it's prescriptive, maybe it was platted, but it's not actually. In the platted right of way. As I read the material. Materials. We have an interpretation that has been upheld. That you measure it from the road where it exists. And so you're just making this. Conforming with that interpretation. Is that correct? Yes. And I spoke with the individual who made that. Comment and clarified a few things. Their concern was really about the supplemental setback, which is measured from the center line of the road. This isn't going to impact. The supplemental setback because we're talking about lot lines which define the area of the lot. And so, yes, it was based off of an appeal that was upheld, and we're really just codifying what our practice has been. Great. Okay, that's good. And actually. I wonder.

0:27:50Along the lines of that very last bit of language that you put up there about the director. Having the ability to make minor clerical errors. I think when we do have an appeal, that is upheld. Sometimes there may be some language clarifications that we can put in the code that would make it more clear in the future. Sometimes. It's not possible. I don't know. It's worth thinking about whether. We might want to make sure that when we do have that kind of instance, that the code reflects that decision. Yeah, I mean, essentially the same thing kind of happened with the swimming pools. And so there are a number of policies that we currently have in our policy center that are based off of appeals that were upheld. And this, as you've noted, a lot of the language that we're clarifying is related to some of those things because it's been long standing policy. It's been upheld as an interpretation. That's right. And so, yeah. I don't know if the direction is to consider updates in the future that might allow the director to codify appeals that are upheld. But yeah. It is something that does occur, we do put it in a policy. We have a policy center where we outline those things, though. So you have some supplemental document that would tell staff we

0:29:08can't rely on Dale's? Memory forever. Yeah. We have policies. It's called the policy center, and it's based off of if an interpretation has been made or an appeal has been upheld, then it's put there. If it's not codified into the language. Okay, that's good. Okay. Thank you. Those are the questions I had. Did you have another? Okay, public testimony. And let's see, we have one person who's. Joined us here. Jonathan Ward, who's present. Come forward. And state your name and you'll have three minutes. And. You'll see the nice big. Clock up the timer on the wall and tell us what you'd like us to know. Thank you for the kindness to being here. My small issue. And if you could start by stating your name for the rest. Jonathan Ward. Yes. And then pull the microphone. Right. Jonathan Ward. Thank you. My little issue may be the wrong time in place for this meeting or future meeting. The bottom line. It has to do with vacation rentals. As a county resident, The bottom line is.

0:30:24I'd like to appeal. For. A waiver. On the driveway. Turnaround sounds like a small issue, but. It's become a roadblock for me. Pun not intended, but there is a required turnabout, and in the past that was waived. And. I saw the I'm a living example of. Maybe confused resident who's not sure if I'm supposed to be here or not. But I saw the language limited impact special review, and I saw how that was waived for me. In the past. And I would like to see that waived again. Let me tell you what this is about. The vacation rental part of it's a general philosophy. Part of it is a specific appeal on my part or our part, my wife and I, that we continue? To be able to exercise a vacation rental license like was granted before. But now. Suddenly we're asked. To alter the driveway turnabout, which we have and which has been tested.

0:31:41We've had the fire marshal from Allen's park come out on occasions, the previous and the present. One with the fire truck and turn around in the space. And we've had emergency vehicles. Come down. And so it's tested. It's safe. It's practical, but it doesn't adhere. It's out of standard. For what? You call the BCMTs the multimodal transportation standards. So we're out of the standard. And my request would be that there should be some individual. Attention to mountain properties. That would have some flexibility from the standards because of a somewhat changed, minimal changed design and measurement. So that we can continue to be a rental. And whether this is necessary, can we be grandfathered? In from the previous. Approval or. Whether, and I've been through this process with, thank you very much, the help of Anita.

0:32:47And. Some of the staff. That we have everything checked off except this turnaround. So I like to look at that and whether this is the right time, in place or future. Time. I'd like to get your consideration on that. Okay. Thank you. Thanks for coming and calling. That to our attention. And there's no one else in the hearing room. Who has signed up to speak. And we have no one who has joined us online who is interested in speaking. So, Ethan, any closing remarks? Would you like to address Mr. Ward's issue? We haven't looked at vacation rentals or their access in the context of this code. Update, but I'm happy to put them in contact with other staff, if that would be helpful. That sounds good. Yeah. Anything else? No, I don't have anything additional, thank you. Thank you for joining us, Jonathan. What you raised, I don't think really is before us here in these minor code amendments. I think it's something that maybe with staff can be worked out in some way. I don't know what exactly the procedure would be to work that out, but I don't. Think it's a code amendment.

0:34:06And if it is a code amendment, I think it would be much more significant than the. Kinds of grammatical, clerical, conforming, et cetera, things that we're considering this morning, but. Thank you for bringing that to our attention. Okay. So then I think we're ready to deliberate on this packet that we have before us. This morning. Sure. I'm happy to. Just get us started just as a note for Jonathan. Staff can grab you once this hearing is done. And just to have a conversation. Just. In general, this, to me, seems like one it's complying with state law, which we've got to do in some of our work, management plans and otherwise get looked at or when legislation changes. We have to do some updates, and sometimes there's deadlines and timelines and things. Like that, so just appreciate that. And then, like I said, in regards to the plain language and. Just clean up and add addition of inclusive language, et cetera. So for me, the only questions I had was, again, what is that opportunity when we're making these types of amendments. To do some additional work to make it as user friendly. I just feel like. And of course the cases when it comes to here, to the dais is pretty complicated applications or what have you. But I do think there's always an opportunity.

0:35:29To. Create documents and processes that. Are very user friendly. That was the only question that I had. But I do also hear Ethan when you're talking about and presenting that, that's part of the goal of trying to make it as simple as possible, and sometimes it's just such technical language that it's hard to make it simple. But hearing and knowing that you all are continuing to try and let people know that you're accessible, and then you're willing to meet with them. And when I say you meaning the whole team. I really appreciate that and. I'm hopeful that. Boulder county residents. Will get that message this year again from you all. And. Be. Just know that they're open. To office time and all the different ways that you all are accessible, so appreciate that. I don't have any concerns. It was just helpful to hear what you're working. On a little bit about the reasons why.

0:36:27And I'm hopeful that it'll just make it easier for people to use the land news code. I am completely satisfied with what you're proposing to do. I mean, understanding the scope of this. These are not substantive, with the exception of the parking. We're doing that to comply with state law. So I think were we to undertake anything that would be more substantive, obviously, we'd have much more extensive process, and we would probably have a lot more people in the hearing room with us, so thank you. For again, the really careful work that is required to do this kind of work. I have no other comments. I'm happy to proceed with staff's recommendation. Yeah, that. Sounds good. And I saw there was a slide that you had shared, even just in regards to. The criteria of what we're looking at. And I didn't have any concern with. The analysis that brought forth the land use code changes that you've presented today. I would move that we approve the text amendments to the land use code related to minor corrections. Clarifying changes and updates to comply with state law that are included in docket DC 25 sewer.

0:37:38Three. And I second that motion. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. So that passes two to zero. Thank you very much. This is all that we had on our public hearing agenda for the day, so we will be adjourned.