P10 CPAL20-06 I-75 Blanton comprehensive plan amendment

29:03You are now acting as the local planning agency. Erica Will into Planning and Development. Item P ten PD twenty zero two seven seven is proposed Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment. C Pell twenty zero six I-75 Lanton. The petitioner is proposing a large comprehensive plan amendment to change the future land use designations of EC Employment Center and AG Agricultural to IL Industrial Light and Calm Commercial on approximately 90.09 acres, located at the northeast corner of I-75 Lambton Road

29:33Interchange, extending northerly along I-75 to the Henanjo County Line to allow for commercial and industrial uses.

29:43The subject property is located in the um market area. And since it's going to industrial light, there will be a limitation on the industrial uses adjacent to residential areas. As you can see, the subject property hugs the I-75 interchange on the east side and it's adjacent adjacent south. Of Hernando County.

30:06Here's the uh existing zoning districts of AC, AR, and C2. A companion rezoning petition has been submitted, but dates have not been submitted yet. Or have not been chicken yet. Here you can see the uh proposed future land uses of IL, that um gray color, and then at the bottom is that commercial, that like uh teal blue color, uh right at the bottom. And with that, uh, Planning and Development recommends the local planning agency find the amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan and approved to the Board of

30:36County Commissioners. Thank you.

30:43All right, anyone here to these?

30:47Yes, we have uh three people at the public comment kios to speak on this item. And the applicant has requested additional time.

30:59Okay, would the applicant like to go first or With a with all their time.

31:05Hi, this is Barbara Will Hype. Can you hear me?

31:08Yes, yeah.

31:10Thank you very much, Planning Commission members. I have my team on WebEx as well, Larry Guilford, representing the property, a property owner, as well as Mike Razor, transportation consultant. We want to go through because of the public interest in this, we want to make sure we go through and explain it in a little more detail if we could. Larry Guilford would like to address you first.

31:34Barbara? Can can you before anybody speaks, can you have them confirm then whether they were sworn or not, including you?

31:41Yes, I have been sworn. And Larry, would you go ahead?

31:48Mary Guildford?

31:55I think I got it. Can I be again? Can you hear me?

32:01I can train that.

32:03Yes, we can hear you.

32:05Okay, great. Um my name is Larry Guildford. Uh I live at uh one. I have been sworn in for the question. I was sworn, I was here for the swearing in. Um My name is Larry Gilford. I live at [address removed]. Uh which is uh five point four three miles from the property. I've been a resident of Pasco County since uh nineteen seventy-seven. I'm a former member of the Pasco County

32:35Planning Commission for eight years. and a current member of the Pasco Metropolitan Planning Organization Citizen Advisory Committee. I'm speaking on behalf of the property. Uh I have a beneficial interest in the property. Um the subject property was purchased. uh because of its location on an interstate exit. With one and a half miles of frontage on I seventy five. With excellent visibility both northbound and southbound on

33:05I-75. Our plan for the 14 acres of the property. What will be for COM land use and C2 zoning is uh to because of interstate type of businesses, such as gas, food, hotel. Also the possibility of an emergency center. Uh and let me be perfectly clear, uh there is no plan for a truck stop on this property, uh as been mentioned in various

33:35uh emails. I was clear about this at the community meeting and have agreed to a deed restriction prohibiting a truck stop that will be part of the rezoning of the property. The remainder of the property is for light industrial. uh to encourage uh economic development along I seventy five Um With that said, I would recognize my land use attorney, Barbara Wilhite, and my traffic engineer, Mike Razor. Who have additional information?

34:06to provide to the Planning Commission. I request that the Planning Commission support the county staff's recommendation of approval. of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment. Thank you.

34:20All right, thank you very much.

34:22Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to proceed. I have a few things I want to give a perspective on to uh the Planning Commission before Mike Razor talks about transportation. I just wanted to point out in 2006, it was Pasco County that put the employment designation on this property. That was done as a part of an extensive update to the comp plan that included a Citizens Advisory Committee and the Northeast Pasco Rural Group. So the decision to have a vision for this property for commercial

34:53and industrial uses was put there by Pasco County, and it was done at the same time as the rural area policies. The the EC land use designation on the property allows commercial, light industrial, and certain heavy industrial uses at a maximum fluoride ratio of three ratio of 3.0. That's 300%. It allows apartments and townhomes at a maximum density of 32 units per acre. The EC land use requires at least 7.6 acres to be developed as apartments or

35:23townhomes and allows a maximum of 38 acres of apartments and townhomes, which would be 480 units. This amendment and the proposed deed restriction will accomplish the following. It removes the requirement for multifamily development and prohibits residential uses, since residential uses aren't appropriate, adjacent to the interstate, and are not the best use of limited I-75 frontage that we have here in Pasco that remains undeveloped. It'll only allow light industrial uses and limit the maximum fluorary ratio to 0.50,

35:54which is 50% as opposed to 300%. Sets a specific area where commercial uses are allowed and limits the maximum lot coverage to 50% as opposed to 300%. We will prohibit a truck stop as indicated by Mr. Guilford, which is which is consistent with what he told at the neighborhood meet at the neighborhood meeting. This will clean up the split land use designations on the property, because right now it's EC and AC, and provide for light industrial uses all along the property's frontage on I-75, which is more

36:24appropriate next to the interstate. Along the only parcel where there is an adjacent residential use. We were going to require there would be a 25-foot setback that remains in its natural undisturbed condition. was cleared of trees um because it's uh has an agricultural exemption for timber but uh mr guilford left trees along that adjacent adjacent residential property with property that has a residential use on it and he intends to through through this deed restriction uh maintain that as an undisturbed

36:54buffer. This amendment is exactly in line with what we hear that the board's priorities are, as well as the Pasco Economic Development Council's priorities. With that, I would like to see if Mike Razor can talk to you about transportation and what's going on out there, because I know the residents have questions about that.

37:16All right.

37:18Good afternoon. I'm Mike Razor with Razor Transportation Consulting at 19046 Bruce B. Downs Boulevard, number 308, Tampa, Florida, 33647. Speaking on agenda item P10, I'm a registered professional engineer with a specialty in traffic engineering, 23 years of experience. I have been sworn. I performed the various traffic studies for this project, including the transportation needs assessment. Yeah. was performed in association with the subject comprehensive plan amendment. For the transportation

37:48needs assessment, which is based upon peak hour trips, a comparison between the current and proposed future land use categories was performed. uh based on the County Land Development Code's a reasonable yield formula, which identified that the cooperative plan amendment would result in a decrease in potential trip generation for the site by 36 vehicles during the PM peak hour. Given the reference slight decrease in trip generation, the results of the transportation needs assessment identified virtually no change in traffic operating conditions between the

38:18existing and proposed future land use scenarios. The initial analysis was performed using the 2040 long-range transportation plan as the baseline, which resulted in a finding of level service E conditions for Blanton Road for both future land use scenarios as compared to a level service D standard. However, with the updated traffic volume forecast associated with the 2045 long-range transportation plan. which reflect a reduction in projected traffic volumes for Blanton Road. Blanton

38:49Road is anticipated to operate at level service D conditions for both future land use scenarios which meet the level service D standard. A timing and phasing analysis was also performed for the subject project, which evaluated traffic operating conditions for the study area, which included Project site driveway connection to Blanton Road, the adjacent segment of Blanton Road, and the intersections of the I-75 ramps of Blanton Road. The results of that analysis identified that adequate capacity exists to accommodate the subject project, assuming

39:19that maximum entitlements are developed, worst case analysis. With the resulting traffic operating conditions and meeting with transportation performance standards pursuant to the county's line development code. The preliminary site access analysis for the subject project identified that turn lanes will be warranted on Blanton Road Disturbs Project, which will result in improving Blanton Road to standard conditions. from approximately 300 feet east of the I-75 northbound on and off ramps to approximately 500

39:49feet east of the site driveway connection. thereby providing for a county standard road continuously from I-75 to the project site driveway, noting that the predominant traffic pattern for the project will be to and from the interstate. We are aware of comment received from area residents regarding potential issues with the adjacent interstate ramps and specifically the off-ramps. Those comments were in regard to both traffic operating conditions. is capacity and the

40:19design characteristics of the ramps. I've already addressed capacity, indicating that traffic operating conditions were found to meet the county's transportation performance standards, again assuming that maximum entitlements are developed. In regard to design characteristics, comments were received questioning the design of the interchange in regard to exit lane tapers, curbs, the ability to accommodate truck traffic, and overall safety in general. In response to the foregoing, I reached out to FDOT's Brooksville Operations

40:49Office, which has jurisdiction over this particular interchange. F DOT staff indicated they were unaware of any operational or safety issues with the interchange. In addition, I have reviewed the most recent five years of crash data available for the interchange as provided by FDOT, which spanned the years from 2014 through 2018. That review did not identify any red flags indicative of an operational or safety issue. I also performed a field review of the interchange. And found that there is signage

41:19in advance of the interchange at one mile, one half mile, and just before the ramps in each approaching direction along I-75 with advisory speed signs and other advanced warning traffic control signage. There was clear sight distance available at the intersections of the ramps with Blanton Road. The results of the field review corroborated the results of the crash data evaluation and the statement by F DOT staff indicating a lack of operational and safety issues. Thank you, and I'd be happy to

41:49answer any questions that you may have.

41:55All right, thank you. Are anything further?

42:01Your mic's off, Barbara.

42:07Yeah,

42:08yeah.

42:08Somebody turned your team turned me off. That's all we have for presentation. We look forward to hearing from public comments and we can be available to answer questions and provide rebuttal as necessary.

42:20All right, thank you. Anything, David?

42:24David, did you have anything? No, I'm good. Thank you.

42:31Yeah, we'll take we'll now take the comments at the kiosk.

42:34Okay.

42:41Okay, can you hear me? Yeah. Yeah,

42:44you can

42:44okay. My name is Judy Geiger. I live at [address removed]. I do um property in the Northeast Pasco rural area. My main concern. Is the road issue? The IC Blanton Road exit two ninety-three. It's not very short off ramp and on ramp. If if

43:15they go from one hundred cars per day to over fifteen hundred cars per day. is just not gonna handle it. The other thing that has not been discussed is the there's a Northeast Pasco Multimodal Safety Action Plan for the bicycles. And this road was part of that plan. The other thing is that we this is a scenic road. Yeah, the land development code six oh four point four B one. The

43:45big concern I've got, I have not seen any opinion. from the Florida Department of Transportation about the additional traffic that is planned to be on this road if this is approved. If you look at State Road 52. With the flying J. How many times in the past 20 years have they redone that road just because of the traffic? And there really isn't much else down there yet. It's coming. You look at State Road 50, exit 301. It's another one that's

44:15had to be redone because of traffic. That doesn't even take in consideration 54 and 56. Again, the road issue is is a big concern to me. In addition to that. Um they're talking about job creation. If this goes into a commercial gas station, 7 Eleven type situation. That's not the jobs we want either. Employment center would bring White collar jobs, people would live there. Uh I I think that's a better use

44:46of the land. The final thing. This is in the northeast Pasco rural area. We as the citizens, the staff, our elected officials. Spent a lot of time putting this in place. To protect and preserve our rural area, that needs to be considered. This is going from A uh from AC. To industrial light. is not preserving the rural area. Thank you.

45:11It's Geiger.

45:13Yes or no?

45:14Um I don't think anybody asked if you've been sworn, have you?

45:18Oh yes sir, I was born. I forgot to say that.

45:22And we're referring to agenda item number Uh yeah. Right.

45:27Yes, P C ten P ten. Yeah. All right.

45:31Thank you very much.

45:32Thank you. Thank you.

45:38All right, who's next?

45:44Hello. I'm Nancy Hazelwood, [address removed]. I want to speak to P10. And I have been sworn. Great, great. Uh I appreciate Barbara Wilhite and Mr. Guilford for putting restriction on truck stop. That's great. We still have a few problems with it. The ag uh component to this application is in, as Judy was saying, is in the Northeast Rural Area Plan. So let me give you some history. In 2005 and 2006,

46:14the county was approving Pasadena Hills for 40,000 units. We were horrified when this happened. The county hired Glading Jackson to Um, work on the Pasadena Hills and our area. They said that if we wanted a protected area, we needed to not object to Pasadena Hills. So we didn't.

46:43If this is changed to commercial. The ad card. Uh, it'll be back to the regular comp plan in spite of can the community continually asking for commercial ordinance, we owned half one. The state even mandated that a commercial ordinance should be put in the Northeaster area plan. And I believe it said within a year of the ordinance of our plan being put together.

47:12I suggest that an ag plan part of this be denied or a condition put on the application that whoever owns the property at the time will have to comply with the rural area ordinance when it is written. The application. The applicant did have a neighborhood packed meeting. Um we suggested many ways that the development of the project might fit in with the Northeast Raw Area Plan. Some of the suggestions were easily

47:42done and not expensive like Putting rural fencing up. Something that makes it look rural. I guess everything was ejected. I haven't heard anything to that part of what happened. If the ag reverts back to the regular comp plan by becoming commercial, I actually considering consider this a taking from the citizens that live and approve the Northeast Rural area plan. So how does Pasco County make

48:12it right for the Pasco County citizens you're taking from us again? from the northeaster area plan. Um maybe we could go to Pasadena Hills and take back some of the agland there and put it in the northeaster area plan. One other point, the applicant brought this property recently. And we would have known that it was in the northeastern area. The applicant figured our rural area plan wouldn't stand up. Is he right? Is our

48:42plan not standing up to any of this? I appreciate your kind attention. Thank you all.

48:55Yes, we should have one more person.

49:05Is there another person at the kiosk?

49:09Yes, there is. Thank you.

49:18State

49:18your name and address and tell us if you've been sworn and I uh I assume you're here to speak about Yeah.

49:28Yeah, my name is Edward Dukowitz. I live at [address removed]. My property orders the property in question. Yeah, it's worth Yeah, I'll do road. I'm here to comment. There are three reasons, Michael. Oh, by the way. I filed a brief on this matter. Uh a couple of weeks ago and I refiled it again last week. So it shouldn't be part of your record. I'll refer to it. Uh there are three

49:58reasons why the application for the zoning change. that the property at issue should be denied. first century zone in this spot zone. Spot zoning is the zoning of one parcel. Contrary to nearby lands and the zoning land. Spot zoning is a zoning designation of wood part. parcel of land to allow a zoning use that is incompatible both with the zoning and most of the lands nearby and with the zoning master plan. To accommodate a preference by an owner For another

50:29person with an interest Computative interest in the parcel. Spot zoning is forbidden. Under both state planning and zoning laws. Amounting to an arbitrary and capricious decision rather than a considered application of zone law supported by the evidence. Uh spot zone singles out a parcel of the right. Uh it isn't valid. if it's not in accordance with the comprehensive plan of the plan. I cite you off it before zoning fields. One oh five A second. Two

50:59nineteen and two twenty three. So that you can quote X. Uh Spout's only works two ways. It is zoning up or zoning down. And the courts are following the correction.

51:23Which is a nineteen tenths of course free fortex.

51:28The courts have also set a comprehensive plan use plan legislatively set Sony norm. Well it's so And in order to avoid Sponge.

51:48Fifty Seth Second. One eighty two or one eighty six. Nineteen ninety five.

51:56Okay, yes. Sir, we we've uh come to the end of your time period. Do you have you wanna

52:01No, he still he still has one minute, sir. That was the one minute warning.

52:04Yeah.

52:05Nice.

52:06But you can have your wrap. Okay. Right. The second reason. to deny the application is it it is inconsistent. The Costco College Comprehensive Plan. Now I don't know who reviewed this. But the Gasgow County is exempted or made special the Northeast County. And then there are future plan. They say that uh This this land is to be maintained. uh the rural nature. Third reason to deny the zone change. Is that the sorting is incompatible? I refer

52:36to my exhibit seven. We're supposed to compatibility. Yeah, uh right industrial commercial is not compatible. With either residential or rural. Now the county could have zoned this commercial at one time. They didn't. That's all I asked that you reject.

52:55Thank you very much.

52:59Okay. Uh Barbara?

53:04Barbara, turn off your mute.

53:08Thank you. I have to wait for staff to unmute me. Thank you very much. I appreciate the public comment. With regard to the last speaker, I would I have read his information and would note that he is a registered patent attorney by his own uh Zone letter to the county. And I have read all of his um assertions and and uh

53:33The uh zoning and the land use and the land use is the only thing here before you today is consistent with the comprehensive plan. It's I think everybody seems to forget that it's already has an EC for most of the property has an EC land use designation on it. When you hear about converting AG to commercial, The current EC allows commercial, light industrial, heavy industrial uses. So I just wanted to make you aware of that. The staff in their professional staff report has found this comp plan consistent with the comprehensive

54:04plan. Yeah, one of the things that you hear is Blanton is a scenic road and that's correct. If you look in the comprehensive plan and the land development code, Blanton has been given special treatment as a scenic road. That doesn't mean you can't s that you can't develop on plant and road. If you look at the Complan policy flu 2.1.10, you'll see that certain standards for land development are to be followed when you have when you develop on a scenic road. That policy has been implemented by the Northeast Pasco Rural Protection Overlay

54:34District Land Development Code. I mean we will comply with those requirements and as requested by I think it was Ms. Hazelwood. We will be required to uh apply with any applicable amendments to that overlay district. The fact that you were a recommend approval of a comp plan amendment on this property and ultimately a zoning will come back to you doesn't for forego the ability of the county to adopt additional regulations to implement the Northeast Pasco rural area. I hear the concern of the residents about

55:04there not being a commercial implementation of commercial standards because mostly what you have in your land development code there are for residential projects. So I hear that concern of the the founders. I also worked with in tw 2005 and 2006 when I was at the county. And I and I hear that concern. And the to address that concern, the county should move forward and and and um adopt standards and they'll apply to this property and any other property that they're applicable to. For example, rural fencing, you know, we we can't start trying

55:34to write code policies into a comp plan or into a rezoning if there's a standards in the future that require a certain type of fencing or or any other requirement, we'll meet those. Um I also, you know, want to point out that if you've read some of the emails It's as though My client's property was viewed as a buffer to that the residential use to the east. And and although Mr. Dukowitz

56:05didn't mention it in his time that he had to speak to you, you know, he complains about that those trees being removed on my client's property. Well my client never purchased the property to be somebody else's buffer. But what I think is about that testimony committee members is Somebody's advocating for residential instance on this parcel. It's directly contradicted by Mr. Dirchewitz, who's put on the record and he received in file saying My home sh is my home is too close to the interstate and I can hear interstate noise

56:35because trees have been removed. So so to perpetuate an issue like that by by not changing the land use to industrial and commercial would just perpetuate an issue that shouldn't exist and and it's not appropriate to have residential uses in this location. And I think what we've come up with for the property for the IL and the COM will be exactly in line with what the staff and the county has asked for property owners to do.

57:05Is that so Thank you. Peace. Anybody else we need to hear from? Other than those up here on the dice?

57:17Okay. All right. Uh any comments from the DIS or a motion?

57:25Yes.

57:27A couple questions. Um so Denise, will you Yeah, sorry. Can you confirm? Um What could be done in EC?

57:39For me.

57:40Yeah, I'm actually gonna defer that to Erica because I believe that

57:44still I want to just confirm that.

57:46Sure. I'm I'm gonna defer that to Erica because I think that um actual analysis has been done.

57:50Okay, good. Erica, could you come up and Okay.

57:57Gary's gonna come up.

58:09Victorio's Pito's planning and development. Everything's digital these days, so if you

58:16Harry, that mic mic isn't very loud, so

58:18Can you hear me now?

58:19Barely.

58:21Test. Well,

58:22I'm down.

58:24Uh so the employment center uh future land use classification. Um enables According to the comprehensive plan, corporate business park or target. targeted primary businesses or industrial uses. And the comprehensive plan actually calls for 55% to 75% of the EC flu has to be this particular intensity of land use. In addition to that, it does allow for multi- multiple family land

58:55uses, and the comprehensive plan prescribes 20% to 40%. of the uh EC flu to be uh multifamily. Uh so high density residential And then lastly, the EC Flu also allows for support commercial and office uses. Um in the the range that the comprehensive plan prescribes is five percent to twenty percent. Now you have to keep in mind that office

59:25uses are also applied, can be applicable within the corporate business park general use category of the EC flu. So the EC flu currently enables non-residential development pattern at this particular location at the around the I-75 Blanton Road interchange. All right. Does that answer the I'll answer

59:49that? Yeah, so this so this um this rezoning that they're asking for is actually more restrictive than what the EC would have been in this location. Is that a val is that correct? Amen.

1:00:05Uh i it's it's not a rezoning, it's a change in future land use, sorry, currently. So it's a comprehensive plan amendment. Um the EC flu does have a variety of land uses um that are combined within it. The IL future land use is limited to light industrial. uh uses. So uh you could potentially think of things like warehouses, offices, and that sort of type of land use that can go. Um

1:00:35in I. L. And then the common land use. Um, is commercial development. Within the commercial development category, you would you would be able to do C2 zoning, for example. And generally that's gonna, you know, it's gonna limit itself to mostly commercial uses. However, the via a conditional use permit, there are some residential uses that can. uh exist. in the C two zoning district. Um but the COM classification

1:01:06enables commercial land use specifically.

1:01:08So can I can I add to what Terry said? That's possible. Well I'm sorry, yeah. Um I'm not sure it's accurate to say that it's more restrictive. It's it's it's both more restrictive and less restrictive in the sense that It's more restrictive in the sense that residential is not allowed in I L or SEET or or COM. But it's probably less restrictive in the sense that com allows certain commercial uses that EC probably

1:01:38would not allow. Um and it's possible that IL may allow some uses that EC would not allow. But um so I I'm not sure you could just generalize and say that it's more restrictive. It it's it's both more restrictive and less restrictive, if that makes sense.

1:01:57Yeah, that does make sense. Um yes, thank you.

1:02:01By the way, Chris, while I while I'm talking, I just wanna make sure you and I are on the same page. I don't think you can vote on this item. Are we s Both. An agreement on that?

1:02:12Yeah, I was looking at that and um because it's really not increasing it actu well, is it changing residential density, I guess, is the question.

1:02:21Well it's r it's actually reducing resid there is it's removing all residential from the land use, so I believe that means you can't vote on it unless you've got a Different interpretation than I do.

1:02:35I mean I always I've always gone and again, I don't have it in front of me, David. You probably know it better than I. I I kinda I've always taken the attitude that if there's a change in density I would vote on it. But if you're if you think it's just an increase in density that I vote, then

1:02:50I think it's an increase.

1:02:52Okay. And that's and I don't disagree with that. 'Cause like I said, you probably know that better than mine.

1:02:59Yeah, I think if they're even increasing by one unit you can vote, but The way I'm reading this amendment, it's actually removing all residential uses. So I I don't I don't think you can vote on it. Gotcha. Unless it affects the school site, but I don't think it does.

1:03:17It does not.

1:03:20All

1:03:20right, any

1:03:21other questions

1:03:22from the board? The

1:03:25only questions I have is traffic in this area. Is there gonna just be the one exit? Northbound, south? The traffic, the pattern, I I I apologize. I didn't hear the traffic expert too well because of the assist we have, but I'm just curious on how many exits will will be at this particular site. Is it just the one?

1:03:48I I are you referring to how many points of access onto Blandon Road?

1:03:52You're gonna have no good question. North and south. That's the primary uh traffic pattern that will be in that area. It will be an exit at just the one location or will there be one that's further further north, going off I-75 towards the the uh small piece of that particular property or the larger area.

1:04:13Th there should only be I'm not sure I'm following

1:04:17the question. According to the diagram that that I have here is that there's one exit for the entire piece of property.

1:04:27Is that Well I mean the the property is going to access Planton Road, which is going to access I-75 via the interchange ramps.

1:04:35Barbara, maybe you can help me on that one. Is it is is it just gonna be the one exit?

1:04:42The south end of the property.

1:04:47Barbara's needed. You need to turn your mic on and Barbara.

1:04:53Yeah, that's not me. You're your staff muting me and unmuting me. Um Mike Razor is probably the best one to talk access and transportation and he looks like he's unmuted, so.

1:05:02Yeah, I'll just jump in and answer the question. The access for this particular property will solely be via Blanton Road. Blanton Road has an interchange with I-75. No further interchanges are planned on I-75 for this project or for any other project that I'm aware of in this immediate vicinity. So does that does that answer your question?

1:05:29Yes, it

1:05:30does. Thank you.

1:05:31Sure.

1:05:33Okay, so so no other questions are your motion.

1:05:39I'll make a motion to approve P10, Chris Poole.

1:05:43Okay, well no shit.

1:05:46I'll suck in at Peter Hansel. Okay,

1:05:48we have a motion of a second any further discussion. All in favor by roll call.

1:05:55Jamie Girardi? Bye. Michael Cox?

1:05:59Bye.

1:06:01Peter Hansel?

1:06:02Hi.

1:06:03Christopher Poole.

1:06:04Hi.

1:06:05And Chairman Charles Gray.