Jun 09, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission Work Session

[*A portion of this video is without audio*]

[1. Call to Order ]

[00:00:08]

>> GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WELCOME TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FOR TUESDAY, JUNE 9TH, 2026. AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 551.011, THIS MEETING MAY BE CONVENED IN THE CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSES OF SEEKING CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL ADVICE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ON ANY AGENDA ITHEERM IN THE CITY. THEY RESERVE THE RIGHT TO RECONVENE, REASSESS OR REALIGN AND CALL THE CONSEX SECK UTIVE SESSION OR CALL PRIOR TO ADJOURNMENT.

IF YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO ATTEND IN PERSON, YOU MAY COMPLETE THE CITIZEN'S INPUT FORM ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE BY 3:30 THE DAY BEFORE THE MEETING. ALL FORMS WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING. ALL IN-PERSON COMMENTS AND IN-PERSON FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS ARE AVAILABLE INSIDE THE DOOR OF CHAMBERS.

WE DO HAVE A QUALM, SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THIS WORK

[2. Receive a presentation regarding text amendments to Section 77-510 of the Rowlett Development Code regarding exterior lighting. ]

>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY. I WANT TO INTRODUCE OUR PLANNING MANAGER. SHE'S JOINED US. HOW MANY MONTHS HAS IT BEEN,

ALLISON? >> ONE.

>> SO WE'RE VERY EXCITED TO HAVE HER, AND I HOPE YOU'LL GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE HER PRESENTATION IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE, AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS WITH PLANNING, PLEASE POINT THEM IN HER DIRECTION. WELCOME, ALLISON. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> MR. KING.

>> WELCOME, ALLISON. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> MR. KING.

>> GOOD EVENING, MICHAEL KING, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS WORK SECTION IS PART 3, I THINK. WE'RE UNDERSTANDING A PROPOSED LIGHTING STANDARDS AND GOING TO DISCUSS THE TEXT AMENDMENT.

WE WON'T HAVE AS MANY PICTURES, BUT WE'LL HAVE A LOT MORE WORDS. SO THE BACK GROUNDS ON THIS, BACK IN JANUARY, WE HAD A CITY COUNSEL WORK SESSION AND TALKED ABOUT RESIDENTIAL LIGHTENING STANDARDS, AND COUNCIL WANTED 0 TOYOTA 25 LIGHTING AT THE PROPERTY LINE FOR RESIDENTIAL USES, SO STAFF RESUMED ON THE TOPIC APRIL 14TH AND MAY 12TH, AND ON MAY 12TH, WE ASKED FOR SOME EDITS FROM YOU GUYS, AND GOT SOME RECOMMENDATIONS BETWEEN MAY 18TH AND 19TH, AND Y'ALL SENT IN YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS AND EDITS.

I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. Y'ALL SAW SOME STUFF THAT I WOULD HAVE JUST BLEW RIGHT BY ME.

AND SO THE CURRENT CODE SECTION 77-10 IS THE LIGHTING AND GLARE ORDINANCE. THE INTENT REQUIRES OUTDOOR LIGHTING THAT IS ADEQUATE FOR SAFETY AND CONVENIENCE AND IN SCALE TO BE ILLUME NAILTED IN THE SURROUNDINGS DIRECTING FOR THE SURFACE OR ACTIVITY TO BE ILLUMINATED AND CONTRIBUTE TO A PLEASANT OUTSIDE ENVIRONMENT. I'M GOING TO KEEP THAT INTENT AS ONE OF THE BEST INTENT STATEMENTS FOR LITHING DECLARE ORDINANCES THAT I'VE SEEN ACROSS THE REGION.

SPECIFIC TO THE RESIDENTIAL LIGHTENING STANDARDS IN SECTION 77510B1, AND SUBSECTION, PARAGRAPH B, THE RDC STATES THE FOLLOWING LIGHTING STANDARDS ARE EXEMPT FOR COMPLIANCE, SOFTED OR PERMANENT WALL MOUNTINGS AT DWELLINGS AND DO NOT EXSEE THEED HEIGHT OF THE EVE, AND EXCEED THE PUBLIC STREETS AND ADJACENT WALLS. THIS CREATES NO MAXIMUM STANDARD FOR MAXIMUM PROPERTIES AND NO WAY TO CONSISTENTLY MEASURE FOR COMPLIANCE, AND THAT'S WHERE THE NEW INFORMATION COMES IN. I COULDN'T HELP MYSELF.

I HAD TO PUT THESE KEY TERMS BACK UP.

I LOVE THIS PICTURE. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, SO WHAT WE WANT TO DO WITH THE RDC SECTION 777510.

WE WANT TO KEEP THAT PURPOSE STATEMENT, THE EXISTING CURRENT LANGUAGE IN THERE AND ADD PHOTOGRAPHS APPLICABILITY AND A LOT OF DEFINITIONS AND PUT PREASSUMPTIONS IN AND PERMANENT DEFENSES, EXEMPTTIONS, AND METHOD OF COMPUTAIONS AND REVIEW STAGE BEFORE IT GOES FORWARD TO BEING BUILT, AND WE HAVE A LUMINANCE CALCULATION, WHICH IS YOUR SITE VISITS AND CODE COMPLIANCE AND GLARE CALCULATION.

[00:05:02]

SO WE HAVE DESIGN STANDARDS AND FIELD ENFORCEMENT AND DEFINITIONS THAT PROVIDE CLARITY, AND IT'S -- THIS ORDINANCE LANGUAGE, TEXT APPLIES TO ALL RESIDENTIAL AND ALL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, SO IT'S COMPREHENSIVE CITYWIDE.

SO WHAT I'M ASKING FROM THE COMMISSION TODAY IS GOVERNING BODY IS ASKED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION WITH STAFF REGARDING THE POST AMENDMENTS DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND HOW I'M GOING TO DO THAT, IS WE'RE GOING TO PULL UP THE DRAFT CODE WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS AND EDITS AND WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT IT. SO THERE'S A FEW ITEMS WE NEED TO CLARIFY, SO WE WANT TO MAKE SUR

SURE.... >> COMMISSIONERS, ONE OF THE POINTS OF CLARIFICATION FOR OUR WORK SESSION IS YOU WILL NOT BE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION AT THE WORK SESSION AS YOU ARE AWARE, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM SLATED ON THE AGENDA AT REGULAR MEETING. WE WILL GO OVER THE PROPOSED TRACK CHANGES THAT YOU HAVE MADE OR PROVIDED TO STAFF RELATED TO THIS ORDINANCE, AND WE CAN DISCUSS THIS IN LENGTH AND DECIDE HOW YOU WANT TO PROCEED FROM A CONSENSUS PERSPECTIVE FROM THE SUBSEQUENT ITEM IN REGULAR MEETING.

THANK YOU, MICHAEL. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM.

SO THE FIRST SECTION WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT IN ITS APPLICABILITY, SO WE HAD A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS.

SO IN BLACK IS THE LANGUAGE I HAD.

IN RED IS WHAT YOU HAD. SO WE HAVE ONE SUGGESTION HERE, WHICH IS A&B, AND THEN THERE'S OR, THE OTHER A AND B.

AND SO I KIND OF WANT YOUR IDEAS AND WE'LL FINALIZE THAT AND BRING THAT FORWARD LATER ON THIS EVENING.

SO A, NEW CONSTRUCTION IN COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL AREAS BEGINNING ON THE DATE OF THE ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROWLETT.

B, INDUSTRIAL LIGHTING AND FIXTURES ARE ECHBLTHS UNTIL REPLACED OR REPLACEMENT IS REQUIRED.

THAT WAS ONE SUGGESTION, AND THE OTHER IS THIS ARTICLE APPLIES TO A, NEW LIGHT INSTILLATIONS OR B EXISTING LIGHT FIXTURES THAT EXCEED THE LIMITATIONS IN SECTION D, THE PREASSUMPTIONS BELOW. AND THEN MY RECOMMENDATION AT THE BOTTOM WHICH IS NEW LIGHTING AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL LIGHTING, EMANATING FROM PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTIES. THIS IS WHERE I OPEN IT UP TO Y'ALL AND DISCUSS IT AND GIVE ME A RECOMMENDATION OF WHAT Y'ALL WOULD LIKE ME TO BRING FOR

FORWARD. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.

I GUESS I'M THE GUY THAT'S FOR THE AB THAT YOU SEE THERE.

LET ME JUST EXPLAIN WHAT I WAS LOOKING A THERE.

THIS WOULD CLARIFY, IN MY OPINION, THAT WHATEVER IS EXISTING, EVERYBODY, ESPECIALLY RESIDENTIAL DID NOT HAVE TO GO BACK AND REPLACE THINGS THAT WAS ALREADY THERE, SO THIS WOULD APPLY TO NEW CONSTRUCTION AND THE EXISTING ONES WHEN YOU WENT TO CHANGE OUT YOUR LI LIGHTING ORE LIKE I DID, FOR INSTANCE WITH THE POLES OUT IN THE FRONT, AND THEN I WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT ORDINANCE, BUT UP TIN --

UNTIL THEN, I WOULD NOT. >> MY ONLY QUESTION IS EXEMPT UNTIL REPLACED OR REPLACEMENT AS REQUIRED.

WHO DICTATES REPLACEMENT IS REQUIRED?

>> I MEAN IT'S PRETTY SUBJECTIVE.

IF IT DOESN'T MEET THE ORDINANCE AND YOU'RE MY NEXT.

DOOR NEIGHBOR, THEN I FEEL IT'S REQUIRED.

[00:10:01]

>> THE REQUIREMENT, MR. CHAIRMAN, WOULD BE BY THE CITY, IF I HAD ELECTRICAL WORK DONE, FOR INSTANCE, AND I HAD TO TAKE OUT ELECTRICAL PERMIT, THEN TO REDO THE WIRING AND EVERYTHING FOR THOSE, THAT LIGHTING, THAT I WOULD BE REQUIRED THEN TO MEET CODE, JUST LIKE IF I WOULD ON AN ELECTRICAL, IF IT CHANGES AND I DID MAJOR RENOVATIONS AT MY HOUSE, I WOULD HAVE TO MEET

CODE AT THAT TIME. >> I'M STILL A LITTLE HESITANT ON THAT, ONLY BECAUSE YOU KNOW, THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO WILL REPLACE FIXTURE, WHO WILL REPLACE A LIGHT BULB.

I MANY, IF A LIGHT BULB NEEDED TO BE REPLACED, DOES THAT MEET THE RURMT OF HAVING TO REPLACE IT WITH A BULB THAT WOULD THEN

MEET THE REQUIREMENTSED. >> I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I'M JUST SAYING IT'S REALLY

NEBULOUS. >> I GUESS YOU COULD REQUIRE IT BY THE CITY AND REQUIRE IT BY BUILDING CODE OR SOMETHING OF

THAT NATURE. >> SO BASICALLY, ONE OF THE OR REPLACEMENT IS REQUIRED COULD BE SOMETHING THAT IS ACTUALLY

INSTIGATED BY A COMPLAINT? >> ? BECAUSE THEN THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO GO AND RESOLVE THAT.

>> RIGHT. >> I DON'T KNOW IF I WANT TO

PUSH YOUR BUTTON. >> I'M GOING TO MUDDY THE WATER FURTHER, BECAUSE WE NEED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ORDINANCE, AND WE ALSO HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE LOTS OF CODES AND ORDINANCES THAT THE CITY HAS ADOPTED THAT ARE COMPLAINT-DRIVEN AS WELL, SO IF I GET A COMPLAINT ON A LIGHTING ISSUE OR GLARE ISSUE, HOW AM I GOING TO ASCERTAIN ANY OF THESE? SO WE REALLY HAVE TO BE COGNISANT OF HOW WE HAVE TO AND WHAT TOOLS ARE AVAILABLE TO ENFORCE THIS ORDINANCE. WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT, AND THEREFORE, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT DID COME UP IN A PRIOR WORK SESSION, COMMISSIONERS WAS WELL, WHY SHOULD WE PENALIZE AN EXISTING STRUCTURE OR EXISTING FACILITY HAS THAT ASPECIFIC LIGHTING.

MAYBE IT DOESN'T HAVE BOX LIGHTENING OR DOWN LIGHTING OR RIGHT LUMINARY, WHATEVER THE ISSUE.

BUT IN ORDER TO ENFORCE THE ORDINANCE AND ENSURE THAT NEIGHBORS, BUSINESSES, ET CETERA ARE NOT CAUSING UNDUE HARDSHIP ON ADJACENCYS, WE HAVE TO HAVE TOOLS, AND I SEE THE SILTY ATTORNEY NODDING, SO I FEEL VERY CONFIDANT IN MY NEXT STATEMENT IS THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE TOOLS AVAILABLE TO ENFORCE THE ORDINANCE. SO IF WE END UP LOOKING AT EXISTING LIGHT FIXTURES THAT EXCEED THIS, OR ANYTHING EXISTING WILL BE VERY HARD TO PROVE IF IT IS CHANGED OR REPLACED AS WELL. SO IT IS A VERY, I KNOW, DIFFICULT SITUATION AT THE MOMENT FOR THE COMMISSIONERS.

>> WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT, AND THAT'S WHY I'M QUESTIONING THIS. I MEAN, AND I'M GOOD WITH THIS STATEMENT, AS LONG AS IT'S RECOGNIZED REPLACEMENT AS REQUIRED COULD BE REQUIRED BY THE CITY THAT THAT ITEM BY REPLACED BECAUSE IT FAILS TO MEET THE CURRENT STANDARDS.

MR. JOE. >> AND THAT'S MAY QUESTION, IS IF IT FAILS, IF SOMEONE REPORTS IT AND IT FAILS, THE ILLUMINARY TEST, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO REPLACE OR FIX THAT BASED ON

THE ORDINANCE. >> RIGHT.

>> YOU COULD PUSH A BUTTON IF YOU LIKE.

>> MS. WILLIAMS. >> I THINK THIS IS GOING TO CREATE A BIG CAN OF WORMS. I THINK ALL EXISTING LIGHTING, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, RESIDENTIAL SHOULD BE EXEMPT, PERIOD. KEEP IT SIMPLE.

>> THEN IF YOUR NEIGHBOR COMPLAINS, HOW DO YOU PROVE THAT LIGHT WAS THERE THE LAST TWO YEARS OR THREE YEARS? YOU KNOW, WE'RE BACK TO THAT POINT THEN.

>> TO ME, IT ADDS THE ACCOUNTABILITY TO ME.

[00:15:07]

AS B. >> I'M THE WHOOUN DID THE OR, AND B IS A LITTLE CONFUSING THERE, WHEN I GUESS.

MY INTHRENT, I GUESS IS TO GET A GET-OUT-OF-JAIL FREE CARD TO EXISTING FIXTURES UNLESS THE ILLUMINATION REQUIREMENT IS VIOLATED, BECAUSE TO ME, THERE'S TWO THINGS TO THIS.

ONE IS THE GLARE, WHICH TO ME COMES FROM THE FIXTURE, AND THE OTHER ONE IS ILLUMINATION. IF YOU HAVE AN EXISTING FIXTURE

THAT OTHERWISE VIOLATES IT.... >> SO THE QUESTION IS HOW DO WE COME TO A CONSENSUS ON THIS ONE, BECAUSE, AGAIN, THE OR ITEM SPLITS THE REQUIREMENT, AND THEN TWO, YOU COULD BE OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH GLARE AS LONG AS YOU'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ILLUMINATION STANDARDS, WHICH IS ODD.

>> FOR EXISTING. >> YEAH, BUT I'M SAYING, YOU'VE GOT TO MEET EVERYTHING. I THINK WE ALL AGREE WITH THAT.

RIGHT? OKAY. SO WHAT DO YOU DO WITH EXISTING? AND, AGAIN, I DON'T THINK -- WE'RE BASICALLY SPLIT ITTING INTO FOUR DIFFERENT CATEGORIES NOW, AND THAT WOULD CONFUSE MOST PEOPLE, BECAUSE YOU'RE OKAY WITH CLAR, BUT YOU'RE NOT OKAY WITH THE LEVEL OF LIGHT, YOU KNOW? WHEN THE ORDINANCE IS AGAINST GLARE AND ILLUMINATION.

I THINK WHAT -- I THINK IF YOU LEAVE B, I LOOK AT IT THIS WAY, EVERY HOUSEHOLD IN THE CITY MAY ACTUALLY FALL OUTSIDE OF THESE REQUIREMENTS. HOWEVER, I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE EVERY HOUSEHOLD IS GOING TO HAVE TO GO AND RETROFIT THEIR LIGHTING BECAUSE IT'S A COMPLAINT-DRIVEN THING. I MEAN, IF YOUR NEIGHBOR, IF EVERY NEIGHBOR ON YOUR BLOCK HAS THE SAME CARRIAGE LIGHTS ON THEIR FRONT DOORS, YOU KNOW, NOBODY IS GOING TO POINT OUT ONE PERSON OVER THE OTHER I DON'T THINK, OR, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THEY DO. BUT IF NOBODY SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT A NUISANCE, THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING. I MEAN, THERE'S NO CHANGE

REQUIRED. >> I GUESS WHERE I COME FROM, I DON'T WANT PEOPLE COMPLAINING IF THAT ILLUMINATION IS LOW ENOUGH, THAT IT'S GOING TO TO HAVE PEOPLE BE BOTHERED BY THE FACT THAT THEIR NEIGHBOR HAD THEIR CARRIAGE LIGHT WITH 150

WATT BULBS. >> WELL, DO WE WANT TO VOTE ON

[00:20:01]

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE? ON THIS

ONE ITEM? >> I GOT A QUESTION.

>> SURE. PUSH YOUR BUTTON.

>> THANK YOU. OKAY. SO IN LOOKING AT YOURS AND MINE, IF WE DID PICK AND CHOOSE, AND I'M GOING TO DEFER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY. IF WE WERE TO DO AN ALTERNATE, WHICH IS THE BETTER WORDING FOR A, THE NEW CONSTRUCTION THE NEW EXPANDED NEW CONSTRUCTION, ET CETERA OR NEW LIGHT INSTILLATIONS. NEW CONSTRUCTION I THINK.

>> I MEAN, I WOULD SAY THE NEW CONSTRUCTION WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE. THAT WOULD CAUSE LESS OF THE WORRIES THAT Y'ALL HAVE ABOUT OVERENFORCEMENT BECAUSE THAT CAPTURES LESS THAN JUST ALL LIGHT INSTILLATIONS.

>> OKAY. SO IF WE TOOK A, I RECOMMENDED AND THE B PART, HE RECOMMENDED, AND THAT WOULD BE....

>> SURE. >> I MEAN, IT COULD, YEAH.

>> OKAY. >> I'M WILLING TO GO WITH THAT.

IT'S COMPROMISE, BUT I THINK IT NEEDS SOMETHING VERSUS JUST LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY, AND I DON'T WANT TO BE -- I'M NOT TRYING TO BE CRITICAL OF STAFF, BUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU HAVE OVEREXURE AREN'T CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER DRIVE DOWN THE THE STREET AND SAY THEY'RT OF ORDINANCE, AND THEY ARE AND

THEY ARE. >> IT'S COMPLAINT DRIVEN.

>> THEY FAIL OR PASS THE TEST. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FAIL OR PASS THE TEST. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STAFF MEMBER DOING IT, BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO DO THAT TEST WHETHER IT'S GOING TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT FAILS OR PASS. IT HAS NOTHING BASED ON THEIR JUDGEMENT. THAT'S WHY WE TOOK IT AWAY FROM STAFF, SO IT'S NOT AN INDIVIDUAL DECISION AND BASED ON FACTS AND THE TEST THAT'S GIVEN, SO THEY CAN'T DETERMINE

WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. >> SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THE

COMPLAINT. >> WAS YOUR BUTTON.

>> I'M OFFER AGAIN. >> WHAT Y'ALL ARE SAYING IS THE COMPLAINT IS QUALIFIED AS A COMPLAINT FOR CITIZENRY, NOT

FROM ANYBODY ELSE? >> IT COULD BE STAFF-DRIVEN, ABSOLUTELY IF WE'RE CONDUCTING AN ENFORCEMENT AREA AND LOOKING AT LIGHTING STANDARDS, THEN WE CAN ABSOLUTELY ASSESS WITH THE MEANS AND METHODS WE HAVE IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE.

IT'S NOT ARBITRARY OR OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS OR ASSESSMENT BUT INDEED BASED ON METRICS AND MEASUREMENTS IN THIS CODE, WHICH IS WHY THE CODE IS WRITTEN THE WAY IT IS.

THE GOAL IS NOT TO MAKE THIS ORDINANCE CUMBERSOME.

THE GOAL IS NOT TO PENALIZE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, EXISTING COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE GOAL IS TO ENSURE THAT THESE LIGHTS ARE NOT CAUSING AN UNDURE HARDSHIP, AND SO IT IS A FINE LINE, ABSOLUTELY AGREE. THAT'S THE METRICS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT IN PLACE, BUT IF IT BECOMES A SITUATION WHERE WE SEE IT WE SAY IT ONLY APPLIES, AND I'M JUST GIVING AN AN EXAMPLE, WHO KNOWS WHAT NEW INSTILLATION IS AND HOW DO WE

>> AND SUBSEQUENTLY, IF YOU WANT TO RENOVATE YOUR HOME AND PUT UP A NEW LIGHT, IS IT NEW CONSTRUCTION? NO.

IT'S RENOVATION. BUT IT SHOULD APPLY BECAUSE IT'S A NEW LIGHT FIXTURE. AGAIN, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE ARE ABLE TO -- IF WE FEEL THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO HAVE THIS ORDINANCE, TO CONTROL THE LEVEL OF LIGHT, THEN I THINK IT'S NECESSARY THAT YOU'RE ABLE TO ALLOW IT TO BE COMPLAINT-DRIVEN, BECAUSE IT'S ALSO MEASURABLE, SO IF YOU HAVE A NEIGHBOR WHO JUST DOESN'T LIKE YOU AND WANTS TO GO AHEAD

[00:25:04]

>> SIMPLE. REBUTTALS? COMMENTS?

>> ONE THING I DON'T WANT TO -- .

>> HOLD ON ONE SECOND. MS. WILLIAMS.

>> WELL, I'M GLAD YOU SAID THIS ISN'T NECESSARY, BECAUSE I THINK IT WILL CREATE A CAN OF WORMS. WHY DON'T WE JUST LEAVE IT LIKE IT'S BEEN.

IT'S WORKED ALL THESE YEARS. >> SAY THAT AGAIN.

LEAVE WHAT THE WAY IT IS? >> LEAVE THE ORDINANCE 77-510

JUST LIKE IT IS. >> BECAUSE THE WAY IT IS, SOMEBODY CAN COMPLAIN, AND THERE'S NOTHING THE CITY CAN DO TO SAY YAY OR NAY. IT'S A VALID COMPLAINT, OR IT'S

NOT A VALID COMPLAINT. >> AND SO ALL OF THIS IS PREDICATED ON A CITIZEN COMPLAINT?

>> YES. >> AND THESE COUNTLESS HOURS WE'VE ALL SPENT OVER ONE CITIZEN COMPLAINT?

>> I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY CITIZENS HAVE COMPLAINED, BUT IT'S BEEN BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE CITY.

SIMPLE JUST EXEMPT EVERYTHING THAT'S EXISTING AS OF THE DATE THAT THIS GOES INTO EFFECT. KEEPS IT SIMPLE.

>> THE ONLY PROBLEM WITH THAT IS BEING ABLE TO DETERMINE WHEN THAT LIGHT WAS INSTALLED OR NOT INSTALLED.

A YEAR FROM NOW, SOMEBODY COULD MOVE INTO A NEW HOUSE SOLD NEXT DOOR TO YOU. YOUR NEW NEIGHBORS COME IN, AND THEY SAY WELL, I DON'T LIKE THAT LIGHT.

IT'S GLARING. IT'S OBNOXIOUS, AND ACCORDING TO THE ORDINANCE, IT SHOULD BE NOT THAT WAY.

HOW DO YOU PROVE OR DISPROVE THE FACT THAT YOUR LIGHT HAS

BEEN THERE FOR EONS. >> NEW CONSTRUCTION.

IT WILL BE FOR NEW CONSTRU

CONSTRUCTION.... >> BUT I CAN RENOVATE A HOME AFTER CONSTRUCTION. IS IT THEN EFFECTED OR NOT EFFECTED, AND IF IT'S EFFECTED, IS THE AREA THEN IN MY HOUSE

EFFECTED OR JUST THAT ONE? >> JUST NEW CONSTRUCTION....

>> I COULD GO ALONG WITH THAT AND DROP THE B PART OF THAT, BUT THE OTHER THING IS I DON'T WANT TO SEE THIS ORDINANCE IN ANY WAY CAUSE A PITTING OF NEIGHBOR AGAINST NEIGHBOR.

AND I THINK WE ALREADY KNOW OF A SITUATION WHERE WE GOT NEIGHBORS PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER.

I DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT. >> WE'RE HERE TRYING TO WRITE AN ORDINANCE TO HELP MITIGATE OR DEAL WITH THAT.

>> THAT'S RIGHT. >> MS. WILLIAMS, DID YOU HAVE

SOMETHING ELSE? >> NO.

>> MR. HERNANDEZ? >> I THINK THE BIGGEST ISSUE I HAVE WITH ONLY NEW CONSTRUCTION, IS IF I DECIDE TO PUT UP A, I DON'T KNOW, A 10,000 WATT SPOTLIGHT IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE, JUST TO ILLUMINATE MY DRIVEWAY OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE, THEN THE CITY WOULD BASICALLY BE DEFENSELESS OR WOULD HAVE BASICALLY NO POWER TO SAY NO YOU CAN'T DO THAT OR COME BACK AROUND AND SAY THAT'S A BAD IDEA KIND OF THING. I'VE SEEN HOMES IN THE CITY THAT HAVE VERY, VERY POWERFUL LIGHTING TO THE POINT IT LOOKED LIKE THEY LITERALLY INSTALLED A TENNIS COURT IN THEIR BACK YARD AND HAVE PARK-LEVEL LIGHTING IN THEIR BACK YARD TO LIGHT UP THAT TENNIS COURT. THAT, YOU KNOW, LUCKILY IT'S BEHIND THEIR VERY LARGE HOUSE, BUT IF IT WAS A SMALLER HOME, ANYBODY THAT LIVED IN THE FRONT OF THAT HOUSE WOULD BE BLINDED

[00:30:01]

SO I THINK THAT THERE STILL NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING, SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT OKAY, IF THERE'S A COMPLAINT, THE CITY NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT COMPLAINT, NOT JUST SIMPLY GOF OVER THERE AND SLAP THEM ON THE WRIST AND

SAY DON'T DO THAT AGAIN. >> AND WE'VE HAD PEOPLE COME IN AND ASK FOR SUPS FOR LARGE BUILDINGS IN OUR YARDS AND WITH TENNIS COURTS OR BASKETBALL COURTS AND LIGHTING, AND, AGAIN, THAT UNDER OUR EXEMPTION, THAT WOULD BE EXEMPTED, AND PROBABLY ONE OF THE MORE UX NOXIOUS ITEMS, AND THE CITY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING.

MR. BLADE. >> YEAH, WE EXEMPT EXISTING.

>> SPEAK INTO YOUR MIKE, PLEASE.

>> IF WE >> -- IS IT WORKING? IF WE EXEMPT EXISTING LIGHTS, THEN YES, THAT'S WHY WHAT I'M TRYING TO ADDRESS IS THE BRIGHTNESS OF THE LIGHTS.

THAT IF IT'S REALLY BRIGHT, IN A TENNIS COURT LIGHT, WOULD BE VERY BRIGHT, AND SO EVEN IF IT'S EXISTING TENNIS COURT THAT AS A REALLY, REALLY BRIGHT LIGHT, THAT WOULD BE IN VIOLATION. ASK THAT'S WHERE THE COAT ENFORCEMENT PERSON WOULD HAVE TO GO OUT AT NIGHT AND DO THE MEASUREMENT AND SAY YEAH, THAT'S TOO BRIGHT.

>> MR. KING, CAN YOU DO ME A FAVOR, PLEASE, EXISTING LIGHT FIXTURES THAT EXCEED IN SECTION D, CAN YOU READ SECTION D OR SHOW US SECTION D? WHILE HE'S LOOKING AT THAT, DO YOU HAVE

SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO? >> I WAS GOING TO SAY BACK TO MY CONSTRUCTION, AND IF YOU WANTED TO ADD THE WORDS AND RENOVATIONS IN THERE, WOULD THAT CLARIFY IT?

>> SO SECTION B STARTS WITH THIS BASIC PARAGRAPH.

IT SAYS LIGHT IS PRESUMED TO BE UNREASONABLE AND ILLUMINATION AND LUMINA9AND LUMAND LUMINANC.

[INDISCERNIBLE]. >> TABLE 3, SHIELDING REQUIREMENTS. YEAH, KEEP SCROLLING. OKAY.

SO THAT'S THE END OF D, GREAT. LET'S GO BACK UP TO THE COMMENTS THEN. SORRY, MR. JOE.

GO AHEAD. >> IF WE DON'T CHOOSE ANY OF THE HIGHLIGHTED IN RED, BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS IF WE GO WITH THE A, B AND C THAT'S NOT HIGHLIGHTED, BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION AND EXISTING HAS TO FALL WITHIN THE ORDINANCE.

AGAIN, IF THERE'S A COMPLAINT LODGED, THEN WE HAVE METRICS IN PLACE, SO IF YOU HAVE THAT NEIGHBOR THAT IS -- DON'T LIKE YOU AND THEY'RE WANTING TO MAKE A COMPLAINT, AND THEN THE CITY IS GOING TO COME OUT. WE HAVE THE MATRIX TO SAY WHETHER IT FALLS WITHIN THE ILLUMINATIONS OR NOT OR THE GLARE OR NOT, AND IT'S EITHER YES OR NO.

AND THEN THAT'S THE END OF IT. SO THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY OF THESE, THEN THAT'S HOW WE'RE GOING WITH IT? AND THAT'S THE WAY I FEEL IT SHOULD BE, BECAUSE IT'S MATERICS IN PLACE TO BE ABLE TO JUDGE THAT, SO IT CAN'T BE A PERSON THAT DOESN'T LIKE YOU OR THE CITY IS STAFF MAKING THAT DECISION. IT'S BASED ON FACTS, AND THAT'S

[00:35:01]

THE WAY IT SHOULD BE. >> SO, MR. BLAKE, THE QUESTION IS EXISTING LIGHT FIXTURES EXCEEDS THE LIMITATIONS IN SECTION D. ARE YOU GOOD WITH P AND Z RECOMMENDATION A, WHICH IS NEW CONSTRUCTION AND COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL AREAS BEGINNING ON THE DATE OF THE ADOPTION OF THE CITY COUNSEL? YEAH, OKAY.

AND THEN B, EXISTING LIGHT FIXTURES THAT EXCEED THE LIMITATIONS IN SECTION D. THAT JUST BASICALLY SAYS YOUR NEW LIGHT INSTILLATIONS, ONLY WE SPELLED IT OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE AND THEN SECTION B. ARE WE IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT, ALL IN FAVOR WITH THAT WORDING? WE CAN VOTE AND RAISE OUR

HANDS. >> I APPRECIATE IT.

THANK YOU. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ONTO OUR

NEXT ITEM. >> WHEN PLANS ARE SUBMITTED, NOT ONLY WE'RE GOING TO SAY THIS IS WHERE THIS LAMP IS GOING TO BE, THIS IS HOW WE'RE GOING TO CONTROL THE LAMPS.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT I THINK THIS IS A SIDE WE DID NOT ADDRESS IN THE STAFF REPORT, BUT 77-510J, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO F, APPEAL OF ANY DECISION.

IT IS MY RECOMMENDATION, THE AND PLANNING SW ZONING RECOMMENDATION ONTO THE CITY COUNCIL IF THERE'S ANY APPEALS RELATED TO THIS, AND NOT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.

WE TALKED ABOUT THIS BUT FAILED TO CARRY OVER UNFORTUNATELY, BUT IT SHOULD BE PLANNING COMMISSION.

>> VERSUS WORD OF ADJUSTMENT? >> YES.

[00:40:01]

>> ANY COMMENTS FROM COMMIS

COMMISSIONERS? >> TO BE HEARD BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING. PLANNING AND ZONING.

YOU CAN STRIKE THE DECISION AS FINAL TOO.

>> YOU WANT TO STRIKE THE LAST SENTENCE OF THAT PARAGRAPH.

. >> REQUESTED THAT -- SO THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE SATE MANAGER, THE MANAGER'S DESIGNEE SHALL ENFORCE THIS RECOMMENDATION AS WE PROCEED BACK IN MID MAY WAS A CODE ENFORCEMENT FOR THE HOMES.

SO THE CITY SHOULD BE ENFORCE THESE AND THE LIGHTING WAS INSTALLED. AND I'M NOT REALLY SURE OUT TO

INCORPORATE THAT. >> I WOULD THINK THE CITY MANAGERS OR MANAGERS HAVE THE AUTHORITY TEEN FORCE THIS

ARTICLE IF ONE, TWO OR THREE. >> WHEN, YOU KNOW?

>> SOMETHING LIKE THAT? >> SURE IF THE THE SIGNIFICANCE IS OBVIOUS OR SIGNIFICANCE NEW LIGHTING IS INSTALLED.

>> THAT'S FINE. .

>> WAS SUGGESTING I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT OLD EXISTING FIXTURES, AND SINCE I THINK SORT OF SOLVE THAT PROBLEM, I'M OKAY WITH 2,000, BECAUSE 2,000 SEEMS TO BE STANDARD FINE FOR CODE VIOLATIONS, NOT ONLY HERE BUT OTHER CITIES.

>> MS. WILSON, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING?

>> I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A -- .

>> SPEAK INTO YOUR MIC, PLEASE. >> I'M JUST CURIOUS TO KNOW HOW MANY DAYS FOR THE EXISTING, YOU KNOW, ONES THAT MAY BE OUT OF COMPLIANCE, HOW LONG WILL THEY HAVE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE? LIKE, HOW LONG WILL THEY BE GIVEN?

>> LIKE TWO WEEKS? ARE THEY GIVEN TWO WEEKS?

>> I THINK I MISSED THAT. >> CLARIFICATION, ARE YOU SPEAKING OF IF THEY ARE IN VIOLATION?

>> YES. >> RIGHT, SO IT'S TEN DAYS.

>> OKAY. >> WORKING DAYS?

>> YES. >> SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT

[00:45:09]

THAN 30 DAYS AFTER. >> WELL, I THINK ESTABLISHING A TIMEFRAME DURING THE DAY THAT YOU CAN HAVE A LIT OR TIME OF THE DAY YOU CAN EXTINGUISH IS A GOOD IDEA.

45 DAYS IS A LONG TIME, BUT I WOULD PREFER 30 DAYS BEFORE AND 30 DAYS AFTER A NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED HOLIDAY.

MR. HERNANDEZ. >> MY ONLY SUGGESTION IS TO ACTUALLY DROP THE WORD NATIONALLY, SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE MAY BE, LIKE, A REGIONAL, SOMETHING REGIONAL THAT SOMEBODY WANTS TO CELEBRATE, A GRADUATION, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THEY WANT TO PUT A FIXTURE OUT IN THE FRONT AND HAVE IT LIT AT NIGHT WITH SOLAR LIGHTS ORANYTHING TO THAT NATURE.

I DON'T KNOW. IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE IT WOULD BE, YEAH, SOMETHING TO THAT POINT.

>> YEAH, THIS KIND OF GOES BACK TO ARE YOU A GOOD NEIGHBOR, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE SOMEBODY IS CELEBRATING THEIR CHILD'S GRADUATION FROM HIGH SCHOOL OR EVEN SOME PLACE LIKE TEXAS A&M, WHO WANTS TO PUT A SIGN IN THEIR FRONT YARD AND ILLUMINATE IT, YOU KNOW, FOR A COUPLE WEEKS OR WHATEVER, I WOULD THINK THAT SHOULDN'T BE A BIG DEAL.

WE WERE DISCUSSING MORE OF THE. >> LIGHT UP YOUR HOUSE.

>> YEAH, THE TYPE THING FOR NATIONAL HOLIDAY.

>> OTHER THAN THAT, I ACTUALLY LIKE THE NEUTRAL LANGUAGE.

45 DAYS, I MANY, YOU'VE GOT AT-HOME ALREADY STARTING TO

SELL CHRISTMAS DECORATIONS, SO. >> IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO BUY THEM. IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO PUT

THEM UP. >> I DO LIKE THE NEUTRAL LANGUAGE. .

>> YEAH, I LIKE THE NOTERAL LANGUAGE AS WELL.

I STILL THINK WE NEED TO LIMIT IT TO A NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED HOLIDAY, AND, AGAIN, IF YOUR KID IS GRADUATING TEXAS A&M, AND YOU PUT A SIGN UP WITH LIGHTS AND YOUR NEIGHBORS COMPLAIN, YOU'VE GOT TEN DAYS AFTER CODE ENFORCEMENT COMES OUT AND TELLS YOU. SP

. >> THAT'S THE REASON IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE THERE. .

>> YOU LOVE YOUR CHILD, BUT YOU CAN OVER ONLY CELEBRATE FOR THE

TEN DAYS. >> I WOULD RATHER SEE THE 45 DAYS IF WE USE THAT THAT IT BE DROPPED DOWN TO 30 DAYS INSTEAD OF 45. IN ALL CHRISTMAS, 45 DAYS, THAT PUTS ME EVEN BEFORE THANKSGIVING.

I MEAN, I'VE GOT MY CHRISTMAS LIGHTS UP FOR, YOU KNOW, A MONTH AND A HALF. THAT'S LONG TIME, AND 30 DAYS

[00:50:03]

BUT THAT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, 75 DAYS SEEMS TO BE A LONG TIME.

>> I WAS GOING TO MAKE THE SAME COMMENT ON THE GRADUATION.

YOU HAVE A TEN-DAY WINDOW TO CELEBRATE THE GRADUATION.

MY GRANDDAUGHTER JUST GRADUATED.

WE DID TEN DAYS, AND IN TERMS OF THE SPAN, I THINK 30 AND 30 MAKES SENSE. BUT MY EQUIVALENT FOR 15 DAYS.

>> DO WE WANT TO PROVIDE HIGHLIGHTS OUT TIMEFRAME? I DO. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A COMMENT?

MR. HERNANDEZ. >> WITH REGARD TO THE LIGHTS OUT, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

I DON'T KNOW IF MAYBE THEY'RE NECESSARILY MAY BE ON THE DAY OF, LIKE, YOU KNOW CHRISTMAS EVE KIND OF THING.

DOES ANYBODY WANT TO LEAVE THEM ON ALL NIGHT KIND OF THING.

>> HOW IS SANTA SUPPOSED TO. >> YOU HAVE TEN DAYS TO RESOLVE

IT. >> YOU'VE GOT A GLARE, YOU

KNOW? >> BUT I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. I THINK MY ONLY QUESTION ON THE 35 TO 30, 30, YOU KNOW, INSTALLERS START INSTALLING WELL BEFORE THAT TOO BECAUSE OF THE BACKLOGS.

I KNOW THEY DON'T HAVE TO TURN THEM ON, BUT, YOU KNOW, SOME PEOPLE AS SOON AS THEY GET THEM, THEY'RE GOING TO TURN

THEM ON. >> THEY'VE GOT TEN DAYS.

>> SOME PEOPLE JUST LEAVE THEIRS ON AROUND THEIR HOUSE

YEAR ROUND MS. WILSON. >> I WAS THINKING NUMBER OF DAYS AFTER THE HOLIDAY. IT MAY BE FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS, YOU KNOW, THEY MIGHT WANT TO KEEP THEM UP LONGER, I GUESS, WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A NATIONAL HOLIDAY AND THE DAYS AFTER THE HOLIDAY, AND POSSIBLY NOT ENFORCING THAT PART. AS LONG AS IT'S REASONABLE WITHIN THAT 30-DAY PERIOD, BECAUSE HE MENTIONED THE 75 DAYS, AND THAT'S PROBABLY WHY YOU WOULD KEEP IT UP LONGER, YOU KNOW, POST CHRISTMAS OR WHATEVER, AS FAR AS THE NUMBER

OF DAYS. >> I'M NOT SURE I -- .

>> I'M SAYING THE NUMBER OF DAYS AFTER THE HOLIDAY, I GUESS

ARE THEY ABLE TO KEEP THOSE UP. >> FOR 30 DAYS.

>> OH, FOR 30 DAYS. I THOUGHT WE WERE REDUCING THE NUMBER OF DAYS. I'M SORRY.

THANK YOU FOR CLARIFICATION. >> WELL, IT WAS RECOMMENDING REDUCING IT FROM 45 DAYS TO DAYS.

>> OKAY. >> TO 30 DAYS AFTER.

>> OKAY. >> FROM 75 DO 60.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. I GET YOU NOW.

>> YES, SIR, PROBABLY MY SECOND LAST COMMENT ON THIS.

AS YOU ARE DISCUSSING AND YOU TALK ABOUT SHALL BE REMOVED, LET'S NOT FORGET OR BE COGNISANT.

LET'S BE COGNISANT OF THE FACT THAT SOME HOMES OR BUSINESSES OR WHOMEVER THEY ARE, WHEN THEY DO SEASONAL LIGHTING, THAT THEY KEEP THE LIGHTS INSTALLED IN PERPETUITY, SO IT'S A QUESTION OF TURNING THE LIGHTS OFF VERSUS REMOVING THE LIGHTS.

>> TRUE. MR. POLLARD.

>> AS FAR AS THE TIME PERIOD FOR THE LIGHTS BEING LIT, I'M THE ONE THAT WROTE THAT, SO FROM 4 P.M. TO 11, I USE THAT 4 P.M. FROM THE TIME THAT TYPICALLY DEAD WINTER, THAT THE SUN GOES DOWN AND THEN 11 O'CLOCK, I USED IT BASED ON YOU'RE GOING TO TURN YOUR LIGHTS OFF ON YOUR PORCH OR WHATEVER BY 11 O'CLOCK ANYWAY, SO THAT'S WHERE THAT TIMEFRAME

CAME FROM. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? SO FOR STAFFS, A VACATION. WE WANT TO GO AHEAD AND SEE THE DAILY TIMEFRAME OF 4 P.M. TO 11 P.M. DOES EVERYBODY AGREE WITH THAT? MS. WILSON? MS. WILLIAMS? OKAY.

AND TEMPORARY DECORATIVE SEASONAL LIGHTING MAY BE USED.

CAN WE SAY USED OR ILLUMINATED? >> ILLUMINATED IS FINE.

>> MOW MORE THAN 30 DAYS BEFORE, IT MUST BE EXTI

[00:55:19]

>> NOT OPERATED? I TURN IT ON, THEY'RE ON.

I CAN LEAVE THEM ON AND NOT OPERATE THEM.

ILLUMINATED? SHALL NOT BE ILLUMINATED AFTER 30 DAYS OR FOLLOW 30 DAYS AFTER THE HOLIDAY.

YEAH, FIGURE IT OUT, PLEASE. AND UNDER 3, ITEM 3, YOU WANT TO ILLUMINATE ALL THAT OTHER STARTING FOUR WEEKS PRIOR TO A HOLIDAY, ONE WEEK POST HOLIDAY, BLAH, BLAH.

>> 30 DAYS BEFORE AND 30 DAYS AFTER.

>> 30 DAYS BEFORE AND AFTER. MAY BE ILLUMINATED 30 DAY SAID BEFORE THROUGH 30 DAYS AFTER A HOLIDAY, NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED HOLIDAY.

>> I WILL TIE THOSE TWO TOGETHER.

>> THANK YOU. LAST BUT NOT LEAST WE WILL GO BACK UP HERE AND TRY TO FLUSH OUT THE FIRST PART.

SO THE WAY IT SHOULD READ IS THIS ARTICLE APPLIES TO NEW CONSTRUCTION AND COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL AREAS BEGINNING ON THE DATE OF ADOPTION BY CITY COUNCIL OR THE CITY OF ROWLETT AND BE EXISTING LIGHT FIXTURE THIS EXCEED THE LIMITATION IN SEX "D" PRESUMPTION BELOWEN AWILL STRIKE

THIS. >> IT'S NOT GOING TO LET ME.

CAN YOU HIT THE DELETE BUTTON? >> WHY DON'T WE JUST SAY LIMIT

> PERIOD. Select to skip to this part of the video">TAKES IN SECTION "D," PERIOD. >> PERIOD.

>> YOU CAN STRIKE PRESUMPTIONS BELOW.

>> OK. ALL RIGHT.

>> TELL ME WE ARE DONE. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> SEEING NONE YOU ARE EXCUSED. >> THANK YOU,

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.