that is not conforming to their current zoning. And so, the question then becomes, what will happen in the future when their current zoning the underlying zoning is changed? And it pertains both to if that change is made in order to address the existing forms of non conforming, or if that change is made and the making of that change masks the fact that the existing state is non conforming and those are the two separate resolutions. Okay, so the first one, which we what we refer to as existing legal non conformance. So this would be a milk form that was built at a time that was permitted on the site. And then later there's something or the zoning strictures were changed. So that became prohibitive, that makes it a grandfathered, legal non conforming. And the issue here is sort of twofold. One we may find this particular use or this particular form as an exist just fine but the fact that we find it interesting find does not necessarily mean that we would like to permit its replication without some reasonable controls. Because part of the reason why we may find it just fine is the fact that it is non conforming use and being a non conforming use vest certain valid into the holder of that next superuser example I'm gonna cite my own neighborhood is that we have quite a few duplexes and a neighborhood that is zoned for single family residential. And that result of that occurred during the time I was living here. And the net result of that has not been the loss of any duplexes but has rather been a notable improvement in the maintenance of those duplexes. So if we were then to say that those duplexes are not going to sell as problematic, and you should revert to the old permissions, our concern would be that we would then revert to the old problems along with it. So, other similar examples can become both inform and use. But what we are asking the city to do is to recognize the value of existing non conforming use that is created by virtue of their nonconformity, and to consider means other than universal prohibition. Or a universal permissions, where we believe that these uses might be recently replicated, such as, for example, special use permits or special administrative permits, or I can't simply go out and do something I have to first ask for permission to do it. And there will be reasonable review without permission but I have not explicitly and forever, we're heavy, or we may simply keep the existing prohibition and live with the status quo, which is also in many cases, not problematic. So that's essentially what the resolution calls for, I think, and I don't recall if it was this resolution, or the other, but when we discussed this last month, there were some questions raised about the verbiage. And I had suggested at that time that anyone who had a problem with the way things were phrased that attended the committee meeting, where we could do additional wordsmithing because I didn't think it was appropriate for the full body to do that. And none of us raised those issues intended to be being sacred get to get back in exactly the same form that you saw last