if that was the case there would be more fires and udus. that is not a way to remove the udu. it remains. october 10, 2018 i believe was the date of the hearing at the board of appeals where mr. patterson admitted if the facts were such this was two units they would need the conditional use authorization process to remove the udu. this was october 2018. six months after the fire had happened. any damage, destruction would have been in effect at that time. the following year there was the lawsuit, the stipulated dismissal. my recollection as part of that mr. patterson wanted some very clear language about the fiery moved the udu. the city did not agree. that language was rejected. reading into it anything more than two units is not in the best interest of mr. patterson's client if that was the advice that he gave them. certainly at this time in 2019 is when the conditional use authorization should have been sought. this could have been resolved as part of the rebuilding process. this was a tremendous missed opportunity. we are happy he wants to have ideas to resolve this and no