[0:02] You are watching Access
[0:04] LaPorte County Channel 97. Next up is the
[0:09] LaPorte County Planning Commission meeting on September 22nd. You
[0:11] can find more
[0:13] information about this
[0:14] meeting at
[0:16] www.accesslaportecounty.org.
[0:22] Okay, we declare
[0:24] this meeting
[0:25] open on September 22,
[0:27] 2026. Please
[0:28] stand for the
[0:29] Pledge of
[0:30] Allegiance.
[0:32] I pledge allegiance to the
[0:33] flag of the United
[0:34] States of America.
[0:36] And to the republic it
[0:37] symbolizes, one
[0:38] nation under God,
[0:39] indivisible, with
[0:40] liberty and
[0:41] justice for
[0:42] all.
[0:44] Thank you. Roll
[0:47] call,
[0:48] please.
[0:53] John Matushak?
[0:54] Present.
[0:55] Joseph Dochalski?
[0:57] No.
[0:57] Steve Holyfield?
[0:59] Present.
[1:00] John Carr? Rita Beatty?
[1:02] Present.
[1:03] Anthony Os?
[1:04] Present.
[1:05] Andrew Kapalczyk?
[1:06] Present.
[1:07] Jimmy Pressel?
[1:08] Present.
[1:08] Eric Poynton?
[1:09] Here.
[1:11] Okay, thank you. We have
[1:12] your quorum.
[1:13] Thank you.
[1:14] May I make a
[1:15] motion to
[1:15] approve the agenda
[1:16] for this evening?
[1:18] I will make a motion
[1:18] to approve the
[1:19] agenda.
[1:20] Second.
[1:21] Everyone who is "in favor"
[1:21] confirms this with
[1:22] the words "I do." "I". "Is
[1:23] anyone against it?" What about
[1:25] approving
[1:26] the minutes of this or
[1:27] last month's
[1:28] meeting...We do
[1:29] n't have them, do we?
[1:30] No, we don't have it.
[1:32] We received it by
[1:32] email. Did
[1:33] you guys get
[1:34] it? Good. Good.
[1:35] Let's make
[1:37] a motion to
[1:37] approve the
[1:38] minutes as
[1:38] presented in the
[1:39] email.
[1:40] Is there a second offer?
[1:42] Second proposal.
[1:43] Thank you. Everyone who is "in favor"
[1:45] confirms this with
[1:46] the words "I do." "Is
[1:47] anyone against it?"
[1:49] The proposal is accepted.
[1:50] Okay, let's move on
[1:52] . We have no petitions
[1:53] for this evening, but
[1:54] we do have some new
[1:56] cases that need
[1:57] updating. Uh, a slightly
[1:59] different, important, uh,
[2:01] unique situation
[2:02] here. So, I will turn
[2:04] this over to our
[2:05] building commissioner and/or
[2:07] attorney, or both.
[2:08] Thank you, Madam President
[2:10] . This is related to
[2:12] correspondence we
[2:14] received, uh, from a
[2:15] lawyer regarding, uh, the
[2:16] appeals
[2:18] court decision. Uh, I sent
[2:21] this to all of you so you
[2:22] could have a chance to
[2:23] read it.
[2:24] initially
[2:25] went to me, our
[2:26] legal counsel, and the
[2:27] district attorney. Um,
[2:31] and then the correspondence back and
[2:32] forth, um, the attorney
[2:34] indicated that, um,
[2:35] she would like to
[2:36] appear before the
[2:38] planning commission or the BZA to
[2:39] explain this, um, and
[2:41] provide us with
[2:42] information. Um, I don't
[2:46] think she'll
[2:47] be here tonight
[2:48] because we
[2:50] don't have the Zoom capability,
[2:51] um, but you all
[2:52] received
[2:53] the correspondence, um,
[2:54] which will be available, um,
[2:55] in our office as, um, a
[2:57] public record, as well
[2:58] as the
[2:59] appellate court decision. And,
[3:03] um, that's all I have.
[3:05] Perhaps our lawyer
[3:07] has something to add.
[3:08] So, we see that
[3:09] she is not present
[3:09] tonight,
[3:10] so we will continue with
[3:11] the lawyer tonight
[3:12] .
[3:13] Madam President,
[3:14] good evening. Hmm, you're
[3:15] right. This is a somewhat
[3:17] unique situation.
[3:20] Um, the speaker or
[3:21] questioner is
[3:22] missing here. Hmm, it doesn't
[3:25] appear. And I won't
[3:29] make a
[3:30] presentation on her
[3:31] behalf because I don't know
[3:32] what the
[3:33] presentation should be like. We were
[3:38] provided, or, excuse me, the
[3:40] Planning Commission
[3:41] was provided, and the
[3:43] building commissioner's office was provided with
[3:45] a copy of the
[3:45] appellate court decision, um
[3:47] , which I reviewed. And
[3:50] again, the signature
[3:51] on the
[3:52] appellate court decision
[3:53] that I received or that
[3:54] we received is
[3:55] in the case of Kenneth and
[3:56] Laura Nerenberg as
[3:58] plaintiff-appellants
[3:59] against Stacey Royer as
[4:00] defendant-
[4:01] appellant. This is from an
[4:03] appeal case
[4:05] that was heard, or,
[4:06] excuse me, the LaPorte County Trial Court
[4:10] in Superior Court
[4:12] Number Two in case
[4:13] number 46 D 02-2011-CT-1933.
[4:16] The conclusion provided, um,
[4:18] to the building commissioner's office
[4:19] indicates that
[4:20] this is the conclusion.
[4:22] However, there is some
[4:23] information that
[4:24] indicates that this is a
[4:25] memorandum conclusion
[4:27] or a
[4:27] memorandum decision. I couldn't
[4:29] tell what was
[4:30] true and what wasn't. Therefore, I
[4:32] simply proceed from what has
[4:33] been
[4:34] presented. And again
[4:35] , I'm not making a
[4:36] presentation about this
[4:37] . Um, frankly
[4:39] , there
[4:40] are errors in this conclusion.
[4:44] Um, for example,
[4:45] the property that is the
[4:46] subject of this
[4:47] appeal is listed by the
[4:48] appellate court as
[4:50] zoned residential.
[4:51] It is not zoned
[4:52] residential. It is
[4:53] zoned
[4:54] rural. And I've
[4:55] highlighted at least
[4:56] six questions that
[4:57] I have, uh,
[4:58] about this decision. And
[5:00] again, I don't
[5:00] know what exactly is meant
[5:02] by this
[5:03] decision or how it should
[5:06] be interpreted
[5:07] as related to the
[5:08] joint
[5:09] zoning ordinance. However, there
[5:11] are certain statements in the opinion
[5:12] that
[5:13] raise certain
[5:14] questions about
[5:15] the inclusiveness or
[5:16] exclusivity of the
[5:19] LaPorte County Joint Zoning Ordinance. Whereas,
[5:23] perhaps, the position will be taken
[5:24] that if a
[5:25] specific
[5:26] use is not
[5:27] permitted under the JZO,
[5:29] then it is prohibited. I
[5:32] can't believe that
[5:33] was the intent of the JZO
[5:34] or the wording
[5:36] contained in the JZO
[5:37] that each
[5:38] permitted
[5:38] use had to
[5:40] be specifically
[5:41] listed, because
[5:42] you would have a joint
[5:44] zoning ordinance the size of
[5:45] five phone books
[5:47] if anyone else was
[5:47] using a
[5:48] phone book. Um
[5:53] , so again, I do
[5:54] n't know what the asker
[5:56] was trying to do with
[5:57] this. We facilitated,
[6:00] sorry, Mike's office
[6:01] facilitated the inclusion of her
[6:03] request on the
[6:04] agenda. She is not here.
[6:06] Uh, there's no lawyer here to
[6:08] dissect any
[6:09] wording that
[6:10] they think needs to be
[6:11] dissected, as it
[6:12] relates to the LaPorte
[6:14] County Joint Zoning Ordinance
[6:15] , but given
[6:17] that, um, certainly
[6:18] it raises the
[6:18] possibility of
[6:19] some
[6:20] issues in the future
[6:22] that could potentially be
[6:23] addressed by this body
[6:24] . But again, I'm
[6:25] not going to make
[6:26] any presentation
[6:27] or offer a
[6:28] legal opinion on
[6:29] anything when there's
[6:30] nothing before the board
[6:31] on which to
[6:32] offer a
[6:33] legal opinion. So,
[6:34] here's where we are
[6:35] .
[6:37] Good. Well, as we
[6:39] said, this was a
[6:40] unique situation,
[6:41] something that I have
[6:43] n't seen before, our
[6:44] board has not seen before, so it's
[6:45] not something we're usually
[6:46] used to looking at.
[6:49] So at this point I
[6:50] don't know if there's
[6:52] any discussion needed on
[6:53] this, um,
[6:54] unless someone
[6:55] wants to say something
[6:56] outside the council; otherwise we'll
[6:57] just, um,
[6:58] listen and
[6:59] do our
[7:00] due diligence for
[7:01] tonight and
[7:02] move on to
[7:03] old business.
[7:08] If any of you have
[7:09] questions for me or
[7:10] legal counsel, I can
[7:12] answer them
[7:13] now. Otherwise
[7:13] , I would say
[7:14] we could move
[7:16] to where we have two
[7:17] standing committees,
[7:18] so maybe we could
[7:19] get
[7:20] updates from those
[7:21] committees from the rest of the
[7:22] board. The
[7:24] solar energy committee
[7:25] met last
[7:26] week or so
[7:27] . We discussed
[7:28] a few issues, and Matt
[7:29] Reardon from
[7:30] Economic
[7:30] Development was also
[7:31] involved in this.
[7:32] He was present at
[7:33] this. He
[7:35] suggested that
[7:37] since we can't
[7:38] kick these "
[7:39] baggage guys" out of
[7:40] town, then, um, let's
[7:41] set a limit of
[7:42] megawatts per acre, rather than
[7:43] just an overall
[7:44] limit, because, he
[7:45] said, they'll
[7:46] find a way around it
[7:47] . So you
[7:49] can say you
[7:50] can
[7:51] only use a
[7:52] certain number of
[7:53] megawatts per acre. That's
[7:55] all, that's all. And then, um,
[7:56] another proposal
[7:58] that he had to make
[7:59] to ensure
[8:00] implementation, regarding
[8:01] the cost of implementation,
[8:02] um, discussing a fee
[8:03] for each panel or
[8:04] structure on an annual
[8:06] basis. So, in that
[8:07] way, these guys are
[8:08] someone that you can
[8:09] investigate,
[8:10] make sure they're
[8:11] following the rules
[8:12] and their contract,
[8:13] make sure they're
[8:14] following it, because
[8:15] they're going to have
[8:16] weed control, they're going to have
[8:17] fences
[8:18] that they're going to have to take
[8:19] care of. They
[8:19] will have to
[8:20] take care of
[8:21] pollinators, which
[8:22] they claim
[8:23] can very quickly
[8:24] turn into
[8:25] noxious weeds.
[8:26] So, that's basically all
[8:27] we discussed. Uh
[8:29] , Tony, you were there. Do
[8:31] you have anything? Eric,
[8:32] were you there? Any other things
[8:34] ? I don't have one
[8:35] . I think we
[8:37] mentioned maybe
[8:39] looking at whether
[8:40] we want to have any
[8:41] insurance requirements.
[8:42] Good.
[8:43] You know, if any of
[8:45] them were to express their
[8:46] opinion, I think it
[8:47] would require
[8:47] a longer
[8:48] discussion with a
[8:49] lawyer about the
[8:49] implications and how
[8:51] it works. But
[8:52] at least it was
[8:52] broken.
[8:53] And that was basically
[8:54] in case there
[8:54] was a fire that
[8:55] threatened to
[8:56] spread out of control or something
[8:57] like that.
[8:57] Just in general,
[8:58] just the fact that we
[8:59] discussed it. I
[9:01] know this issue
[9:02] was raised during a
[9:03] previous
[9:04] discussion on BZA, where there
[9:05] was a question about whether
[9:06] they had environmental
[9:07] insurance. So, I
[9:08] think it's just
[9:09] worth it...That was what
[9:10] we were talking about. So...
[9:13] Okay. Something else?
[9:16] Hmm. Do we have any
[9:18] updates from the other
[9:19] committee?
[9:20] Data center?
[9:23] We haven't met yet
[9:24] , and until someone comes up with a
[9:26] proposed plan,
[9:27] I mean, we don't
[9:28] know what we're going to have to
[9:29] change
[9:30] or make changes to. So...
[9:32] Yeah, I think the only
[9:33] reason we
[9:34] wanted to, and we should probably
[9:35] consider
[9:36] getting
[9:37] together, is because, I
[9:38] think, we wanted to
[9:39] look at how the
[9:40] data center works and tie that into
[9:41] , um, the changes that
[9:42] were made for the
[9:43] overlay district
[9:44] and the area, just
[9:45] to make sure that
[9:46] we're not creating
[9:47] some confusion or
[9:48] conflict between those
[9:49] two provisions.
[9:49] So, I think it would be worth at least
[9:51] considering these two.
[9:52] Good. Nothing else is
[9:56] connected. Good.
[10:00] Any other reports?
[10:03] So, in addition to that, um,
[10:04] a year ago, maybe
[10:05] longer, we started
[10:06] working on our
[10:07] new comprehensive
[10:09] county plan. Um,
[10:13] we had
[10:15] , uh, consultants working on this. Um
[10:19] , it was paid for by a
[10:20] grant. Um, the
[10:21] county planner
[10:23] was heavily
[10:23] involved in this.
[10:25] Um, he led it perfectly
[10:27] and organized everything
[10:28] . Um, several members of
[10:30] this, uh, commission
[10:32] were also on this
[10:33] committee. We
[10:34] met several
[10:35] times. Um, there were
[10:36] several
[10:37] public workshops held
[10:39] at various locations throughout the
[10:40] county. Um,
[10:42] literature was published to
[10:43] try to get
[10:44] as much
[10:45] public opinion on
[10:46] this issue as possible, uh. Um,
[10:48] we even added, uh,
[10:49] Tony and, uh,
[10:51] after Harold, uh,
[10:52] resigned from the
[10:54] board. But, uh,
[10:56] usually these things
[10:57] are updated every 15-20
[10:59] years in the
[11:00] municipality.
[11:01] It's time to make
[11:02] ours. We are getting ready. We are
[11:04] at the end, and we
[11:05] are preparing to officially
[11:06] accept it. And
[11:09] usually after that,
[11:10] there is a review of
[11:12] our
[11:13] zoning ordinance and its
[11:14] update. And I think
[11:21] there was some
[11:22] discussion within this commission, as well as at the BZA level, of
[11:23] specific things that
[11:24] could be updated,
[11:27] wording adjusted, you know,
[11:28] things like that. We
[11:31] talked about
[11:32] shipping
[11:33] containers, chickens, and
[11:34] animals. Tony raised
[11:36] some interesting
[11:37] points. So, I think the
[11:42] entire JZO needs a
[11:43] review. And, um,
[11:49] instead of
[11:51] breaking it up into
[11:52] pieces with
[11:52] amendments here,
[11:53] amendments there,
[11:54] as time
[11:55] permits, we could
[11:57] , um, propose
[11:58] changes. And then, um,
[12:03] when we're ready
[12:05] , maybe in the first
[12:06] quarter of next
[12:07] year or some
[12:08] other time, we
[12:09] could schedule a
[12:10] public hearing,
[12:12] which is required
[12:13] by law, get
[12:14] public feedback, um,
[12:15] maybe have a few
[12:17] projects, eventually
[12:18] do something that we're
[12:19] happy with, and eventually
[12:20] adopt a new
[12:22] zoning ordinance.
[12:23] So, you're just
[12:24] looking at
[12:24] just
[12:25] tweaking a few
[12:26] things here and there. I
[12:27] mean, it's been a
[12:28] long time since the
[12:29] update. And
[12:30] with the new, um,
[12:31] comprehensive, plan...
[12:34] That's what you're looking at
[12:35] ...
[12:35] in 2016...
[12:37] 16, so that's 10 years.
[12:39] So,
[12:41] yes, yes, a comprehensive
[12:42] plan, um, even
[12:44] older...
[12:45] That's right...
[12:45] than JZO. And then our JZO,
[12:48] 10 years old, I would say the
[12:50] time has come.
[12:51] There are some things you have
[12:53] seen in your office
[12:54] that we should
[12:55] consider.
[12:58] Yes, I have various
[12:59] things that I found that
[13:01] I would like to
[13:02] fix. One of them is
[13:05] sand mining and
[13:07] quarrying, and the
[13:08] wording is as follows. But I
[13:12] think several
[13:13] members of this board have
[13:14] also raised
[13:15] other issues. You know,
[13:16] just today Tony
[13:18] found a link to the
[13:19] maps and information that
[13:22] our JCO is referring to, these are broken
[13:23] links. The expiration date
[13:25] has expired. Nothing
[13:26] happens when you
[13:27] open them.
[13:31] Eric and I talked about
[13:32] this. We get so
[13:34] many cases regarding
[13:36] shipping
[13:36] containers at BZA. Um,
[13:40] this is something that could be
[13:42] addressed at the
[13:43] planning commission level
[13:44] to reduce the
[13:45] burden on the BZA.
[13:48] Eric, do you have anything
[13:50] you want to add on
[13:51] this?
[13:52] I mean, as far as
[13:54] this is concerned, I think if, you
[13:55] know, the way you
[13:56] do some other
[13:57] things, if you
[13:58] sign it with
[13:59] your neighbors or
[14:00] send it, they
[14:01] might object.
[14:03] You know, it needs to be
[14:04] painted just like
[14:05] , you know, a house or
[14:06] structures or
[14:07] whatever. This falls
[14:08] under the same existing
[14:09] structure. You cannot
[14:11] have more than a certain
[14:12] number of existing
[14:13] structures. It still has to
[14:14] comply with
[14:15] all the regulations, and as long as
[14:16] you guys say
[14:17] they can
[14:18] comply with the regulations
[14:19] , we won't have to
[14:19] see one or two
[14:20] sea containers
[14:21] every month on the BZA.
[14:22] For example, a section of
[14:23] auxiliary buildings.
[14:25] Right. We could
[14:26] develop a standard for,
[14:27] you know, proper
[14:29] installation, um,
[14:30] foundation supports,
[14:31] anchoring, um,
[14:32] placement. You're not
[14:33] going to put
[14:35] it in front of your
[14:36] house on the road. Both do
[14:37] not match
[14:38] . So, it has to be,
[14:40] you know, we'll
[14:40] have to develop
[14:43] criteria. Would it be
[14:44] ...Would it be time
[14:45] to look into...We're
[14:46] getting a lot of
[14:47] complaints and I'm forwarding
[14:48] them to you guys regarding
[14:49] defective
[14:50] cars. Would
[14:51] this be something we could
[14:53] include in the JZO? But
[14:54] again, as we
[14:55] said this
[14:56] afternoon, we will have to
[14:58] find the strength to
[14:59] do it. And that
[15:00] would require fines
[15:01] or something like that,
[15:02] even if you
[15:03] have to, even
[15:04] if you have to
[15:05] allocate enough
[15:06] money to cover
[15:08] it, to have someone in your
[15:09] department deal with it.
[15:11] Yes. Hmm, one of the
[15:14] problems we have
[15:15] with
[15:16] code enforcement, or
[15:17] lack thereof, is
[15:18] that the regulation is
[15:20] old, uh, for example,
[15:21] and the legal framework of
[15:22] the departments that have the
[15:23] authority to
[15:24] enforce it is very
[15:25] broad.
[15:28] For example, you have a
[15:30] noxious weed council
[15:31] that hasn't met in
[15:34] over a decade,
[15:35] maybe more than a
[15:36] decade.
[15:38] Wasn't that part of the
[15:40] village board of trustees?
[15:41] Yes, yes, the caretakers
[15:42] have unkempt
[15:43] grass. So,
[15:46] there are certain cases that
[15:47] I will send
[15:48] letters about for any
[15:49] reason, any
[15:51] complaint that comes in,
[15:52] because we have, you know
[15:53] , let's say, a 40% success rate in
[15:55] mitigating these
[15:56] consequences without, uh,
[15:57] sending a
[15:58] punisher on them or,
[15:59] you know, filing
[16:01] lawsuits and so on.
[16:03] You should look
[16:04] at the results.
[16:05] Uh,
[16:06] yeah, I'm not against it,
[16:08] but when it comes to
[16:09] having the legal
[16:11] right to file
[16:12] cases, there could be
[16:13] more clearly defined
[16:14] wording as to what
[16:16] the sheriff will do, what the health department will do
[16:19] , what the
[16:20] building
[16:21] department will do, what the
[16:22] trustee's office will do, uh, what that,
[16:24] you know, point is. There are
[16:26] many different
[16:27] law enforcement
[16:28] agencies, but a clearer
[16:29] regulation with
[16:33] updated
[16:33] wording would be
[16:35] appropriate.
[16:36] Well, when everyone
[16:37] hands over
[16:37] authority to the
[16:38] next person, we
[16:39] run into so
[16:40] much of this that
[16:41] it goes back to the
[16:42] building commission.
[16:44] So...Yes,
[16:47] we are indeed
[16:48] universal and
[16:49] statewide...I
[16:50] know, like DHS and the
[16:51] fire marshal's office, there are
[16:53] some state
[16:54] departments where, uh, they have
[16:55] fewer people,
[16:56] they've
[16:57] reorganized, and
[16:58] more and more is
[16:59] being devolved to local
[17:01] municipalities. Um,
[17:05] and when that happens
[17:07] , you just
[17:07] go to people
[17:09] who already have a full
[17:10] plate and tell them,
[17:11] "Well, now you have this
[17:13] duty, and this
[17:15] duty." No
[17:16] protocols, no
[17:17] standard
[17:18] operating procedures
[17:19] , no resources. It
[17:21] makes life difficult for all of
[17:22] them, so...
[17:23] Right.
[17:24] Mandates without
[17:24] funding.
[17:25] Hmm. Good. Okay, so
[17:30] we have a lot to
[17:31] look forward to
[17:32] next year, it looks like
[17:33] ...
[17:34] That's when you guys
[17:35] moved to 2 acres, and
[17:37] then we moved away from
[17:38] that because there
[17:39] are a lot of places in the county
[17:40] . They have a yard in the front
[17:42] that they mow, and
[17:43] then you have an acre and a half in
[17:44] the back that's
[17:45] weeds, or you have
[17:46] people who have let a
[17:48] couple of ponies out and they
[17:49] eat on the bare ground.
[17:50] And didn't we
[17:51] adjust that
[17:52] a few years ago
[17:53] when they had to
[17:54] have at least
[17:55] 6 acres for horses?
[17:56] We switched to three.
[17:58] Now three, okay. So,
[17:59] shall we
[18:00] consider this? Even 3
[18:01] acres, meaning one horse,
[18:03] 3 acres
[18:04] will not be too much for them.
[18:06] I think all this
[18:07] terminology that
[18:08] applies to animals,
[18:09] from chickens to horses and
[18:11] whatever, should be
[18:12] reviewed,
[18:13] discussed,
[18:13] different
[18:14] points of view taken into account, and then
[18:20] come to a consensus and
[18:21] vote.
[18:24] That's how we ended up
[18:25] creating it, because when we were
[18:26] doing it originally,
[18:27] we didn't have anything that
[18:28] could be
[18:29] considered in the
[18:29] animal ordinance.
[18:31] So we took other
[18:32] counties that were
[18:33] near us, what they
[18:35] had, because some of
[18:36] them have 20 acres and
[18:37] so on. So we
[18:38] tried to
[18:39] compromise and chose
[18:40] three acres over four
[18:42] acres to try to
[18:43] accommodate the needs of
[18:44] some families who
[18:45] were looking for four acres.
[18:47] So we compressed it.
[18:50] And if we see
[18:51] problems with that, it doesn't
[18:52] necessarily mean
[18:53] we need to
[18:54] change the area, but we
[18:56] could add
[18:57] criteria to
[18:57] address the problems
[18:59] that we saw. And I
[19:00] think the other thing
[19:02] you violated is the
[19:03] two acres that were
[19:04] reduced to one
[19:05] acre.
[19:06] Right.
[19:07] This happened to me,
[19:08] but, um, I think I...I
[19:10] know about it. I think it
[19:12] was in 2012,
[19:13] Jacob.
[19:14] Just for
[19:15] residential property. Good.
[19:16] It used to be two
[19:17] acres, but now we've
[19:18] moved to one acre
[19:20] with 200 feet of frontage.
[19:21] That's what we
[19:21] switched to when we
[19:22] did this.
[19:25] And we get a lot of
[19:27] those at BZA regarding
[19:28] deviations,
[19:29] facade reduction. Good.
[19:35] Okay, is there
[19:37] any more old stuff?
[19:41] Good. A
[19:42] transfer proposal?
[19:45] Second.
[19:46] Everyone who is "in favor"?
[19:47] Yes.
[19:49] Thank you all for
[19:50] being here.