Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

El testo. [laughter] Good evening everyone. I'd like to call the Cisero Jackson Township Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. And with that, Mr. Zatsky, would you do roll call, please? Yes, sir. Be happy to. Dan Strong, present. Wendy Gillespie, present. Harrison Misani, present. Dennis Shrump, present. Dennis Johnson, present. Jacob Everett, present. Mark Diller, present. Mark Thomas, present. Ford Hebner, present. Aaron Culp, our legal counsel,

present. I'm Frank Zawatsky, plan director, and I am present. And good evening, Mrs. Strong, reporting from home. Thank you, Mr. Zawatsky. We do have all nine members present this evening, and thank you for being here. And with that, we will move on to approval of minutes from January 14th, as everyone had an opportunity to review those and look through them. Since we had a long meeting, there was quite a few pages to these minutes and any additions, corrections? Seeing none, I would look for a motion for approval.

Mr. Chairman, Dennis Trump, I move we approve the minutes from the January 14th meeting. Thank you, Mr. Shrimp. Mr. President, Dennis Johnson, I second. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. We have a motion and second to approve on January 14th minutes. All in favor signify by saying I.

I. Any opposed? Thank you. And I left those over there for you to sign, Mr. Thomas, please. Without moving on to next would be public comment. And we do have one one uh someone that would like to address the planning commission and that would be Kimberly Chance. if you would step up to the microphone and state your name and address for the records. And

not that you don't have it memorized by now, right? [laughter] Kimberly Chance, 3161 East 246th Street, Cicero. Um I actually had a couple of things. The first um suggestion and I believe it's on the agenda tonight if I understand correctly. Um I presented to the town council regarding um emails that come in for different proposals. Um I know the community has a vested interest in a lot of the new proposals that are coming in. Um, and I know that there are more coming and anticipate that there will be a lot of desire for the public to participate. I also recognize that there's an issue with emails that sometimes are longer than the twominute length that people have that are speaking in person. Um, and so based on the conversation, I think it was Mr. Colb that suggested that there be a discussion about emails. Um, I just did a little bit of investigating and looked up that um, and and there are different sites you can reference, but one of the sites I looked up uh, mentioned that the average person speaks about 110 to 170 words per minute. And I know there are some forms that you can fill out that have a word limit. um when you type in, you know, certain things, if you're filling out a form, for instance, you might be limited to 500 words or a thousand words or something like that. And so my suggestion was, could we come up with some sort of format where people in the community could actually still participate in an email that is read out loud um at the public forum, but be limited to that twominut limit just like everyone else. And I think um you know I I even said that that Mr. Zawatsky is a fast reader I believe. So even at 170

words per minute, you're still talking only 340 words for a twominut email. And that would be my suggestion rather than um for the community to feel like they're being limited even further in terms of speaking out in in meetings because the petitioner already um gets unlimited amount to speak and each resident only has two minutes. And so that was my solution to perhaps solve the dilemma that you all face in the planning meeting and in the town council meetings. um but still allow the public to meaningfully participate um in that situation. So that was my first suggestion. I do have something else though that I would like to bring up. Um and I it's a question for this board. Once uh something is approved, is there any sort of um how do I ask this question? enforcement mechanism perhaps that what has been put in place is actually performing the way that it's supposed to or the way that it was presented to the board or to the town council and I maybe I'll stop talking for a second let that

well I think to answer that question and I'll certainly defer to Mr. cult, but typically if there's something that there's commitments or something to the board, those are enforceable. And I guess it would depend on what it is and how it was stated and what was whether there was commitments attached to it and

Sure. Well, to at the risk of sounding again complaining because I'm trying to provide solutions obviously, but um while I appreciate being able to read how much gas prices are from my family room chair a mile away at McClur's um and I'm not exaggerating with that. I can actually read how much gases a mile away. Um it has become apparent that there may be parking there at McClur's which overnight parking. Um my husband leaves pretty early in the morning and uh this morning for instance at about 6:15 there were about 20 trucks in the lot without their headlights on just their parking lights on running. There were actually three trucks on the um overpass or on the ramps um parked. So my question would be is there overnight parking? I didn't think that there was supposed to be with the approval of Mccclur's when I went to the meetings. Um I know there was a concern about the original Mccclur's location with overnight parking and prostitution coming there and so that would be a big concern for the community just to make sure that there is some sort of ability to monitor if there's overnight parking. And I don't know what the solution is to that, but that's why that's what's prompting my question with that um is just that monitoring and how that would work. So,

okay. Thank you. I think that's something we'll have to look at. I believe that went through the board of zoning appeals for the most part and I think have to go back and take a look at that.

It I can confirm that there's not supposed to be overnight parking there 100%. We have a process but that process sometimes I'm not aware about that process in terms of serving notice people violation and then they don't Okay. Thank you both. Thanks for the clarification and thanks for remembering that Mr. Zawatski and thank you Mr. Culp for clarification. Okay. Okay. From there we will move on to old business. Mr. Zilotsky. Any old business?

I show no old business.

Okay. Moving on to new business, we have docket number PC-0226-04- AG. Tisher is Brent Lininger. Property address is 0 East 281st Street in Atlanta. It's a minor subdivision application has been submitted concerning article 4 minor subdivision plats of the CSRO Jackson Township zoning ordinance to subdivide a 3 acre partial off of an existing 16 and 610 acre parial with one waiver. The existing partial will not meet the AG district standard minimum lot frontage of 180 ft. So, as the petitioner here this evening, if you would step forward, please state your name and address for the records and tell us what you're proposing, please.

Okay. Good evening. My name is Brent Lininger. I'm proposing um I'm here to seek approval for a minor subdivision of 3 acres off of the off of my land at 281st Street for a for a home for my son, daughter-in-law, and granddaughter. New home construction. Mr. Zawski, what is the minimum frontage? Lot frontage is should be 180 ft [clears throat] on the uh in the A district. And what is this? Do we know it meets that standard? It's 250

I think. Yeah. I think the concern would be the one lot next to it that wouldn't meet the 180 ft. Is that why he's looking for a waiver? Yes, sir. Uh we're actually not going to need that waiver. This came up during the TAC meeting. This center line, as you can see here, I'm got my mouse on. That line is actually going to disappear with the new survey. I didn't realize that when I sent the packets out. So, we will not need that waiver. You're going to combine those? Yes. Yes, sir. Yep. And Mr. Zodsky, this did go through TAC and uh Yes, sir. It did.

And I know that was discussed there. Was there anything else that would be of a concern that came out of TA? Nothing I would consider a concern. The surveyor's uh office did send a couple letters for your review. uh basically states that there will be some requirements when they build and they'll need to check in with the surveyor to get approved. Well, they still have to meet all the county standards and meet with all the signoffs with all the county and the health department and all those agencies as well. So, that will be part of the uh building permit approval process. The building permit. Yeah. Yep. Understood. Okay.

Questions for the petitioner at this point? Okay. Thank you. Thank you guys. Appreciate that. At this point, uh then we would uh look for a motion to open the public hearing portion of the meeting. Mr. President, Dennis Trump, I move that we open the public this matter to the public. Thank you, Mr. Trump. Wendy Gillespie second that. Thank you, Mr. Gillespie. We have a motion and second to open the public hearing. All in favor signify by saying I.

I. Any opposed? The public hearing portion of the meeting is now open. If anyone would like to step forward and speak either in favor for the subdivision or opposed to the subdivision, the board would uh welcome you to step forward and do so. Seeing no one stepping forward, I would look for a motion to close the public hearing. Second, Dennis Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Msani and Mr. Johnson. We have a motion to close the public hearing and seconded. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed?

Okay. Discussion by board members. It seems to be pretty straightforward and Mr. Zodkin meets all the standards. It does. So, Mr. Zawasi, just one clarification. The petitioner sketch shows two drives connecting to 281st Street. I [snorts] believe our ordinance would only allow one connection to the main road. Is that correct? That is correct. They will be permitted one drive cut only. That was also covered during the TAC meeting. Thank you. Any other questions or comments?

Okay, seeing none, then I would look for a motion. Motions are done in a favorable. Doesn't necessarily mean the way the vote will come out, but with that being said, I would look for a motion. Mr. Chairman Harrison Masani moving to approve docket number PC-0226-04- AG. Thank you, Mr. Msani. Dennis Trump, I'll second. Thank you, Mr. Shrimp. We have a motion in a second. With that, I'll do a roll call. Wendy Gilispy, approve. Harrison Massan, approve. Dennis Shrimp, approve. Dennis Johnson, approve. Jacob Ever approved. Mark Dyler approved. Mark Thomas

approved. Ford Heer approve. And Dan Strong I approve. So you are approved through the minor subdivision process. If you'll continue to work with uh Mr. Zawatsky, he'll uh guide you through the rest of the process and uh you can get this subdivided and hopefully get your family moved out there in the future. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing another any other new business, we'll move on with article one and article two of the zoning ordinance discussion. And I know that we didn't discuss it last month because we had a lengthening many meeting and hopefully everybody had an opportunity to look at this a little bit and see if there was anything you'd like to see changed in the future or conversation around article one and article two. Needless to say, most of it was uh pretty bullet point. We'd have to make some date adjustments and some of those things in article one and update and then update our maps and uh date on the 1.15 just the things that I saw on article one. Has anyone saw anything else? I just saw 1.4 what's on page 14. the purpose number uh letter A um to secure adequate by air and convenience of access and that safety from flood fire. I wondered about the word that being in that that it did make sense to me but I mean it didn't detract from it but it didn't what you know is that have to be there

does that that have to be there that's a good point and it may It it may be just a typo or, you know, something that was missed in proven. Okay.

Anything in article two? Dan, can I go back real quick? Yes. I was going to ask you just kind of for the record 1.12 on the transition at a high level kind of if somebody applies for something prior to a change they're basically held to the rules at the time they applied. Is that a fair assessment? Yes. Whatever date you receive a petition.

Okay. Thank you. Anything in article two? The only thing I saw there again was uh back to making sure the dates correspond and that the uh comp plan when it was done the last time was updated.

[snorts]

These were the two easy articles for sure. So I think we can [clears throat] you know based upon we don't have a lot in those particular two articles we can certainly choose some other articles continue to work on them but I think we need to have the discussion around when we would like to bring in a consulting firm to help us at some particular time because we're going to get in some things are going to get complicated as we start looking at potentially overlay districts along US 31 that we talked about. we might want to break those up into dis different districts and what might go into those districts. And then also to make sure that we're getting some a different set of eyes looking at our ordinances that might have some different ideas and thoughts as we're working through this. So

I I would recommend that we initiate the consulting process sooner. I I think it would be more productive to with the consultant guiding that especially if we're going to ask them to look at a new plan in that systematic approach because you know these are 11 years old as well as whatever feedback process.

Sure. No, I think that's a good suggestion. I think probably thinking through the process that we went through the last time we went through a consultant, you're about a 90day window to get through sending out for requests for proposals, uh, interviewing process and some of those. So, we probably would be probably looking like a getting started sometime June July time frame. It would probably be a four to six month process because they want to talk to things and making changes until long to hear.

Okay. Let us do a little research on that and we come back next month and we'll start looking at some firms names like we did previously. Probably reach out and try to get a couple of cost estimates because we'll need approval through the town council to fund that process. And we'll continue to work on this and we'll try to shoot someplace for around no later than the 1 of July if that's agreeable to the board at this point. Okay, we'll continue to move forward to that. But in the meantime, if everybody wants to continue to look through, you know, the zoning book and thank you again, Mr. Thomas, for providing the copies that we can mark up and do whatever we want to do with so we can keep our other books intact. So, that was nice of you to provide those for all of us. Thank you.

Okay, Dan, I had a question. Yes, sir. on the article part three on page 18. Are the page numbers correct? Medium residential.

We're on page 18. under R3 medium medium residential and it may not be correct because I think we ran into an issue. There was four pages that were not correct in our last zoning book. We do I have a note here about checking accuracy. It also mentions labeling on our zoning map which districts are PDS which we don't currently have. So correct.

So no I think you are correct on that. I'm not certain which they all should be. I just didn't think it was right. So anyway, if he's

okay, thank you, made a note. Anyway, got a lot of work ahead of us and it's good if you'll start reviewing things as we're having discussions and uh as we start going through the articles, we'll have some notes and things that we can work from and you can certainly send those off to Mr. Sawatsky or or myself or just write them down so we start the conversations. We can uh make sure that we don't miss anything through the process. Anything else on that? Okay, seeing none, we'll move on to letter submittal procedure. And thank you, Mrs. Chance, for your comments. So if you remember, we actually started reading letters into the minutes and it was actually started way back in CO and I think it was sometime during 2021 and over a period of time going back and looking through all of it for many many meetings we didn't really have many letters to read and then it sort of became to the forefront when we were going through the LAR project and the Clark Farms. And I think Mr. Zawotsky read something like 70 letters if I remember correctly.

76.

76. Apologize for that having that number wrong. I figured you'd remember, but I knew it was 70 plus. So at that time then we added to our legal notice that we would read those into the minutes and then we started allowing to be dropped off at the utility office and some of those things just so we didn't know if people would want feel comfortable coming to the meetings and still wanted to make sure they had an opportunity to voice their concerns or if they were in favor of them as well. So, we've talked about this, I think, a couple of other times, the possibility of not reading them in the future, but then we had a couple other projects that came forward and we had a lot of people that were very interested in those and those being the Estreach Homes, the best project, and some of those. And so, we delayed our discussion on it just to make sure we get through those so we didn't change anything while we were having some major projects going on. So it appears, you know, at this point we don't have anything in front of us that's contentious at this particular time. So I think it's a good time to have the opportunity to discuss this. So that's why it's on the agenda this evening to see how the board would like to handle these in the future. And I think one of the things looking back in the past, we did not really have rules as we do of limiting the petitioner for two minutes during our meetings whereas we never really set anything up for those letters. So they did get where they got quite lengthy and I would totally agree with the residents that step forward and want to talk that you know if they get two minutes then a you know somebody sending an email and letter especially if they're going to read it or anything they should get that adequate two minutes as well and not be allowed to have those longer. So I think that's sort of the history how we got here and so I would open it up for discussion to board the among the board members how

they would like to see this moving forward or I I would like to see um maybe the the letter summarized as affirmative or negative. Uh and then if there's any points that have not already been addressed by those people that have spoken. The other I would and I I think this has happened and I'm you know I I understand it would be it's very hard to do but we I think in a couple instances uh both of the times that this has gone on that somebody has written a letter but then also been present to speak and we need to either one or the other either they speak in public or they have their letter you know presented but not both because that's not fair to them the other people that want to that you know because we're limiting you know one time pretty much and uh so that's that's what I would like to see is kind of a summary of the letter and you know maybe you have them come in a day you know we meet on Wednesday night maybe they have to be in there by noon Tuesday so that gives you a day and a half basically to review some of those letters that come in at the last minute so that Wednesday night when you come you may not been not have spent the last full day. You know,

if that's what the plan commission wants, that's what I'll do. I will say one thing. I have some concern about um summarizing. I feel that somebody may

because somebody misrepresented something that they thought was important. We're making ourselves free speech. How do you then keep it to a two-minute length? read on him and he could read for two minutes and cut it off and well then though he might you know the important part of that letter might be at the end right

one thing I want to point out the intent of a public hearing is for the public to hear what's being presented and to have a chance to comment to you on and so it's for them to get before you make a decision to hear what it is they're worried And the reason other jurisdictions don't read letters and the reason we didn't do it until co is because they've given you their comment and you can sit there and read it. And because it was submitted, it's part of the record that goes in there along with the minutes. And so the intent is for them to communicate to you, not for them to necessarily have it broadcast. What we talked about at the council meeting last week was the possibility we set a deadline that all public comment or all written comment must be in by saying Monday the week of the meeting uh like Monday's 2:00 or something. Frank gets the comment out to you that same day giving you guys 48 or more hours to read everything and then he posts it online. So if other members of the public want to to submit it, they can have immediate access to download. And so that comment still out there for the public to see, but it gets it to you and then it it doesn't become prolonging or create the situation and and so the council seemed to think that would be a solution that would meet those options.

Is there a way when letters brought in to you either by mail or email for you if it's mail for you to scan them and send them out to the commission members so that upon receiving them so that if it's two weeks before a meeting we still have time rather than trying to cram and read through things quickly and not capture what we should is there a way just to do that

there's certainly I could forward every email I yet. Um, the vast majority are emails. U, once in a while we'll get a handwritten letter. Uh, I could certainly do that. Um, I think we may need to add the caveat of having the letters completely submitted maybe a week or so before the meeting because the vast majority of these come in like the last two days typically. Uh so in the event of a you know high number of letters uh you'd still be getting bombarded with probably not enough time to read them. Are we not restricted to 48 hours before a meeting? No.

No. I'm at the council for public notice and things.

Well, yes. So in this particular case for planning commission, it's a 10day notice not counting the day of a meeting. So that is one of the that we ask the petitioners to get their information into the planning department 30 days prior to a meeting in order to prepare the legal notice and the joiner list and everything else that Mr. Zawatsky can have all that done. So the petitioner can do their legal notice, their adjoiner list and they're assigned a minimum of 10 days prior to a meeting. And then that's also why we try to hit the deadline of someplace around that 10day mark getting packets out to the board so you have an opportunity to review that information. So I mean we certainly you know thinking back to what Mr. Culp said, I mean, an option would be that all that information of anything he gets prior to the 10 days could go out into the packets and then the consideration certainly could be that anything that was submitted by and I think we'd want to maybe move that 2:00 maybe earlier on a Monday just to give him an opportunity whether that be 10 or 10:00 or 12:00 or whatever it is and anything at that point it's submitted that would get sent out to to the board as well as be sent out to the public on lister I think would probably be a potential way to handle that. Anything that came in after that uh deadline then would be brought to the meeting that evening for the board to review at that particular point. That would be an option. And then the other option would be the board might want to consider would be that you know we certainly if the board felt we wanted to read those would be to set it at a a word amount because that's probably a good suggestion and maybe that would be 300 words in it because that would eliminate the ones that we at last

meeting I think we saw one that was four pages and we didn't read all that one so in the spirit of time and the meeting being running late anyway way. So, I think those are a couple of options to consider and certainly open to any other options, but those would seem maybe two viable options that still would give the public the opportunity to see what was being presented as well, and I don't think we want to limit that at this point. So,

I like Mrs. Chance's suggestion of limiting the words. Um, it seems fair and that if that's how much time you have to speak, then you should be limited. could also, you know, if I've got four pages of thoughts or I can stand up for two minutes, I might send six pages in and that would be and so I think by having it even having the the word count then whether it's an email or they're going to speak publicly. I do like having it ahead of time so that we can read it. Um, but I no matter what the situation, I think that imposing the word count is a is a good suggestion.

So, Mr. And if we went the route of saying they all had to be in by certain time, we still can re uh restrict the amount of words that could be in that as well, even if they're not being read. So for anam, I know I know it was probably didn't get this straight. So, I'm sending in a letter to Frank in order to make sure that this letter is two minutes and we're not reading it. I can still restrict it to 300 words if the board would decide to do so or do we have to at that particular time allow them to do a three-page document if they want to?

I I don't think we can restrict the reason we are allowed to restrict com meeting because that affects how long the meeting which affects everyone who's there limits how many people get to talk and things like that. You don't have that concern if you're not reading the letters out loud because I can give you 15 pages to read because it's not the meeting at all. Sure. I wanted to make sure we clarified that as we're having this discussion. So there wasn't any misunderstandings of what we were talking about and what we could do or not do. So

can can we put a time restriction on when those letters are supposed to be in before the meeting? Can can we say all letters need to be in by 10:00 on the Monday morning prior to the meeting? And if your your letter isn't in before then that it's it's not going to be it may be entered into the minutes, but it's it's chances of it being seen are probably minimal or it's not going to be seen at all. So

we could set that limit and then those packets go out the same day and then if anything comes in after that bring it here but people know that because they miss the dead may not that's what many jurisdictions do they have a deadline so they can get them out and they don't meet it. Sometimes, let's say you have something generating a lot of mail. You might send out a first batch of letters on Friday to get everything out you got. And then Monday when the deadline comes, you send out everything you've got since Friday. And so that gives them you guys time to choose the first part and then you have 48 hours to read whatever came in the last two days.

So I I want to make sure I understood your question. So currently we allow letters up to 3:00 the day of a meeting. So are you proposing we no longer do that but we set maybe it's 10 o'clock on Monday. 10 o'clock 10 o'clock on that Monday prior to the meeting. You you need to have your letters in to be sent out to the board or the commission to actually read those letters. And then the intent anything that came in after that we would not review.

Well that that that was that was a question. So, if we've got to review them, you know, the your packet's going to go out to commission. You're going to have a chance to review it. But if you send it in after that, Frank's going to bring it to the meeting and it may not have a a thorough review on it because, you know, there's just not not enough time. Yeah, that's that's what happen. have two days to do everything else.

And as a comment on the word count, I think the word count is great, but I think it would have to be, you mentioned a job form. It have to be just a set form that everybody would use for those comments and would limit the number of words because most people aren't going to count the words. A lot of people aren't going to count the words that actually goes into I think we eliminated the word piece unless we're reading it into the minutes or reading it in. Right.

Right. So if we're if we're going to let people submit whatever they want to then perhaps instead of counting the words in Frank or someone going through I would say if you want to have part of that read you set a timer for two minutes and he reads until if they submitted those they those to the to the commission by 10:00 on Monday or 12:00 on Monday. Would we need to read all those into the minutes because the commission has already had a chance to look at at all those prior to the meeting?

No. The only reason we're talking about reading these amendments, we started this strictly because of co we were trying to get people way to speak when they couldn't come to our meetings. But the only reason we're talking about is somebody wants to hear from they are in the minutes and part of our record regardless of whether they're not and like I said earlier the intent of the public hearing is for the public to give you guys their input on this and so that can be in writing that can be verbally to the extent it's being read out loud you guys have already read those letters and so you would be doing exactly for the benefit of people listening and that's where I think the discussion council had last week was well we post those online then the public can read the entirety of the letter not just two minutes and everything's transparent they can see exactly what we received

and so a clarification on that just so everybody understands as well so there's no issue with those letters going out because once they come into the department they're public information anyway I know there was a concern about redacting things because of people sending in fake invoices and I don't know if everyone's aware of that but it seems to be more than just Cro Jackson Township that getting information when it's getting posted then people are pulling that information up and uh Mr. Mr. Zatsky's received a couple or three calls or where people have got faked invoices based upon information and Mr. Culp has seen that elsewhere in the county as well. So basically taking off some of the information off the application that it goes out even though it's available if anyone wants to call and ask that. Now the only question that I have we've sort of been approached in regards to name and address. So when that's stated that then it would appear that we would need to at least leave that name and address on that letter as well or that email.

We would at least want to have their name.

Okay. You know, but we're having people come to our meetings and announce their address the same as that and it's a different situation. The reason the scam has been working in some cases on the petitions is because I've to send an invoice saying your varianition is $4,000 and somebody from the county actually paid they cut and paste the logo. cut the name that looks exactly like it's on your letter and it comes in and asking the wire that the town's putting information out there but somebody who's comment doesn't have a pending petition that so Erin if we did publish all letters that come to us would not the have some liability if something like a scam hit them if we don't redact the at least the address. I mean, I I I don't want people getting docked and then getting feedback, incorrect feedback or scammed because we're publicizing their name and their address. I I kind of like the idea of people being able to read those letters uh rather than taking the time in a meeting to go through all these letters. can go through them and read them completely and study them and do whatever they like. But I don't like the fact that if we're already seeing people getting scammed,

how can we protect them and our liability as well if they get docked by it and get scammed? Could we just put the name just the name out to the that goes out to to the public and then put the name and address to the one that goes to my point was the people we're making get up in the meeting are publicly stating their address and in the minute in the minutes when you have their address in the minutes now

and I have a hard time I mean we're taking what is publicly available information which is someone's name and address and the reason the scam the scam says, "You have a pending petition. I'm pretending that you have more money for it than you do. But if I write a letter, I don't have a pending petition. I'm not paying to have a So, is it your opinion that we should asking people to state their address when they publicly speak?"

I I personally have not heard something that gives me a concern when someone gets up and they address. I think the reason we've always done that So people could say, "Oh, they live right next to this propert." And I think that's part of why it's done to let you guys know who's talking. But we can certainly say we don't want anyone's addresses for both. That's what we want to do. The addresses are pretty publicly available. County GIS.

The the way that the scam worked when they did it before was because they had their phone number and email address on the uh applications themselves and they knew the application was pending,

right? And what it was for, so they could kind of tailor it to really seem legitimate. Um, we just for the record, I'm pretty sure I told you guys this last month, but we have been redacting uh that personal on those applications. Uh name and address will still be visible on the applications, but it's the phone numbers and email addresses that we've been redacting. It seems to have curbed the problem so far until they think of something new. I have a thought that if we if the decision is made that we're going to post them, I think we need to have it on our website and as frankly as part of our policy, if we adopt a policy around this, that whatever they submit is what's going to be posted. And that's my opinion because we I don't think we have the staff capacity

to have Frank and other people try to go in and redact stuff. I think it's got to either be, you know, if you submitted this email, it's going to be turned into a PDF or if you submitted a document, we're going to scan it because, you know, there may be somewhere we get two or three and he could do that. But if we get 200, I mean, there's just no way we can I think make uh a representation that we can redact things. So, I'm not suggesting that that's what we're going to decide. I'm just saying if we decide it, I think it's kind of got to be it's a copy of what was presented or it doesn't happen because I don't think we can responsibly and efficiently redact things.

And with that, just so I understand, we could have it then none are read that if you submit after the deadline, then those will be brought to the meeting for us to review if we have time. But those none will be read aloud. Correct. That would be correct if we went that route. Okay.

Thoughts direction that you would like to do or I have a question. So which one? Lar was 76 letters. The Clark Farms. Clark Farms. Yeah. I think I remember getting all those in an email. So if you just did two minutes per 76 letters, that's like two hours of just reading letters, which is crazy.

Um, we do have a I mean rather large community, but that's a lot of time invested in everyone in the room at that meeting plus the board's time. I think having a deadline for the emails to be sent ahead of time because we read those emails ahead of time for Clark Farms anyways because of the amount uh made a lot of sense and actually gives us more time to digest their points as well, my opinion. So, I think it'd be hard to do a word count anyways

right now. Can the public access the letters because I haven't seen all of them? And so, I guess that would be the main question is I I think letting the public and us see the letters would be key.

Well, I think that's the way the board's leading. If the decision is made that we're not going to read those that they would get sent out on the list system, anything prior to the cut off time of and we haven't determined what that might be at that particular time, but anything at that particular point that came out, the board would have all those letters as well as email letters would get posted on the list served so the public could review those as well. And then anything that came in after that would be brought to the board that evening of the meeting for the board to consider those as well at that particular time.

But right now the letters aren't publicly available. If someone wants to see those, yes, they are available. They are part of the record. I want a copy of the record for Clark Farms. Those would be included along with the amended the agenda the minutes and everything else that was in this particular case. We're just making sure that it gets sent out to everyone that everyone has an opportunity to review those prior to the meeting.

Can it be tied to our agenda? In other words, the public the letters for that meeting that would be agenda would be also other pages to that agenda. The agenda will come out before we get all the letters. The agenda goes out about a week and a half ahead of the meeting usually 10 days prior to and so this will put the date so that we get letters much closer to the meeting. So it would come out later.

But can it be added to that meeting? online meeting. Yeah. Well, I I think that's what we had discussed is posting it on our page along with the information. We have the information for each meeting

and so that would get posted. So in theory, I think to answer your question and I I I hope I interpreted this correctly, but if the information went out 10 10 days prior to a minute, you also get the block plans, the data that goes along with it, the application, everything. So that certainly could be sorted that the letters that pertain to that particular petition, I think, is what you're asking for. So you would know those letters were related like this evening to this subdivision and if we had another docketed item then the other letters would be behind the next docket I think is what you're asking if I understand that correctly. Definitely that and definitely for example last month's meeting I don't think the public has access to what was read into the till now because we accepted those well they actually had access to it because they heard it. So this is a little bit of change in that they won't hear them. They actually will get it in a written format that they can review.

Well, if they walked in and they asked for a copy of the written the written, we could get that doesn't require you to prove mess.

And so we could actually produce a copy of every written comment before we could produce our mess. So, I guess how I interpret is if we say um letters to be shared with the board prior to the meeting must be submitted by 10 a.m. on Monday, they would be submitted to Frank by 10 a.m. on Monday. They would go to us by 5:00 pm on Monday, as well as being posted somewhere for the public to access by 5:00 PM on Monday for the public to review ahead of the meeting. And then between 10 a.m. on Monday and 700 p.m. on Wednesday or whatever day, those letters would then be brought to us or shared with us at the meeting to try and review in advance.

So when you say posted uh for the public on the 10:00 a.m. Monday deadline, that would be the list served would that would serve that function. Yeah. I don't think you want to the letters to everyone on the list because if it's a big docu saying this is available and here it takes you to our page where they can download yeah Frank I would think maybe we just post them like we post agendas in minutes where they can click on

I mean we need to ask you though because you're the one that would be having to deal with this do you think you have enough time do you think you could post a link like how do you feel about those I well I I'll I'll handle it. Um if that's No, but seriously, I mean like you can only do so much. So it's a lot of work. Yeah.

You know, I won't deny that. Um I'm little bit of a question on how we would publish that on the website. Um I mean we do have that capability to take documents, convert them into something the website likes and then post them uh on the website. Or I could once I do that, we'll generate a link that I could send out in the list serve. Um, and Chelena would uh well, I don't want to speak for her, but just guessing she would be more than happy to handle that. Um, yeah, it's possible. Well, I mean, uh, I'm not jumping up and down about the extra work, but, uh, we can handle it.

Well, would you rather send them out or read 76 letters? Sending them out is a definite [laughter] option. Well, I think the thing we have to remember, and I know we're going to grow, and this is probably going to be a bigger issue as we continue to grow because I'm sure there's going to be other subdivisions who want to come to Jackson Township and Cisro. So we do run the risk of someday having 76 letters again that we'll have to deal with. But most generally we get very few. I mean the night would be probably a a prime example. I don't know that you received any letters or anything that I did not that I was aware of. So that we had to do anything with the night. So

I think we have to consider that and it may be something we may have to revisit in the future. So is that where we're at with I don't know. What I would like to hear is from beginning to end a specific set of instructions that I can refer back to and make sure that I get this right. Yeah. Well, if that is the Yeah. And I need

Have there been and this may not be popular and I'm just asking. It's not this is what I'm thinking is how we should do it. But are there other ones? I mean there's been a lot there was a lot of things that were done because of co and because you know you couldn't get together or you couldn't and and after a certain amount of time companies people everything stopped that have other boards or commissions said okay we're just going to go back to just verbal or or have most people carware jurisdiction I'm not saying hundreds of yes that reads letters Most don't read lips.

Correct. Most of them that the point is to give people a chance, especially if you want to submit eight pages of detailed things and attach a study or whatever you think is relevant is to give me a way to do that because that doesn't always work well on time, you know, or I can't make I only say I'll write it instead. But that's submitted, not written. Not read. Right. Well, and the software that's available to just take a letter that's been mailed to you,

scan it right into a file, and it goes right to the directory is I know it takes more time in doing that, but unless you're getting the 76 letters, it's not that many.

It's not that big of a deal. And Exactly right. That's what it takes. We'll scan it and I'll send it to Julina. She'll stick in the file and every time I get an email, I forward it to her. I reply to the sender first and then I forward it to her and say read at the meeting and then she assembles all that stuff. Uh she's very efficient, you know, at doing that kind of thing. So it's not the end of the world to do things like that. Uh that's actually pretty simple task.

If we go this route, would the board be to having an email address that's just for comments. So that way Frank's inbox isn't getting bombarded. Um that's just like you know comments at ciseroin.org or something so that it could be a little more streamlined. It doesn't mean you're not going to get comments because you probably will. But if we can try to push people to send it to this address that goes into the process, I think that would make your life maybe a little easier. That that would simplify things uh quite a bit. I think I don't want the board to consider Frank doesn't like it necessarily.

No, it's not. But but at the end of the day, it's the town has limited resources and limited staff and so it's not about I mean that just makes it more efficient for everybody in my in my opinion. Just something to consider. I think that's a good suggestion.

And then the idea of the link makes all the sense in the world because that's what you do today. You refer them to the link, they click on the link, and they can see anything they want to see. So, I think that worked well. I think the only thing I would back up on was something that Mr. Masani mentioned that we would not want to I don't think allow letters to come in until 7:00 p.m. the day of the meeting because I know that sometimes you get those the last minute. And I think we would want to maybe continue to keep that cut off on the day of a meeting, maybe 3:00 or something that give you an opportunity because you get prepared for the meeting and you need some time between

that cut off time and the time to get here to set up for the meetings and some of the other things that we do. So I think we would want to stick with maybe that 300 PM cut off at the day of a meeting. Well, I think you you I think you have to give us the input what you need for those.

I like the I like the idea about cutting it off a few days in advance uh better than anything you guys have suggested so far. Um those two three days particularly before a really big hearing extremely busy phones ringing off the hook. Uh people are stopping in unannounced. Um there's a lot of stuff to make sure we get right and we get to everybody. So, um, giving myself four or five days or even three days in advance to deal with some of this stuff would be the the most helpful thing that this board could ask for. I think in that regard, the handling of the information, the transferring it to a a link and sending it out, all that's um secondary to actually sorting through this stuff.

So, we could do it Monday 10:00 a.m. cut off and then it's cut off. So then there's no bringing more to the meeting that we might have a chance for. I mean, if it's a cut off, it's a cut off. I I just don't like the idea that we've gotten letters in the last 40 hours and at no point are they sent. That's where I was. If we set that, we can set the rules. This is when you must submit them. This is the deadline, right? But we get the You know, at least that provides an opportunity for him to put those in your hands to look at the meeting.

And we say if you want them to go out to members before the meeting, you have to get in by now. If you want to do this, you say if they come in after, they would be given to them. But so Frank could be getting them at 3 or 4:00 on Wednesday. And you could say you could have a deadline for that process where you could say anything received after this before this will be tender to the members of the meeting. So to simplify that so could the cut off just specifically be at 10:00 on the Monday prior to a meeting. Yeah. And then we don't deal with anything after that.

Yeah. Yeah. As long as it's as long as we put that out there and that's the official rule and the public knows that's going to have to get so everyone knows what the rules are. Well, I think that takes out the question of so everyone would get to see that including the public if they wanted to click on the link because I think the concern would still be that if we accepted letters after 10:00 on Monday they were given to the board at the meeting then the public still might feel that they never got to see those letters or had an opportunity to hear what was being said. So maybe we just stick with a cut off and we don't have that window of time. That's a gray area that the public might feel that they didn't get to see those letters as well.

We have that standard in place now. If anything submitted after 3 p.m. will not be read. So we just be extending that cut off period. Yeah, that's why I was thinking maybe that if we're leaning this way, we just cut it off on Monday and we don't accept any letters after that. certainly makes it a lot simpler to put it in a legal notice because we can say the cut off instead of 300 PM the day of a meeting will be Monday with whatever date it is and by 10:00 that's the best idea I've heard so far I think

I just think otherwise you're opening I can be a procrastinator so if I'm told 10 I got until noon. You're gonna wait till sometimes it's 11:45 and it's so 11:59. [laughter] Well, I think so. And with Frank having to get ready for the meeting and everything else, then it's like and so if all of a sudden, you know, 3:00

Yes. Then if there's problem getting things uploaded onto the site or something like that, there's plenty of time to get that done before the meeting. Well, and it also saves the board being distracted at the meeting of trying to read additional emails and letters and we can stay focused on what's in front of us and maybe that would simplify the process. I'd be honest that if you came in here with a stack of stuff that came in Monday and expected me to read it before before during the meeting and pay attention to everything else that was going on, it would get done and my focus would be on the meeting and the agenda.

So, we've certainly bounced around a lot of ideas and a lot of thoughts. So, where did we sort of land on this? is the board like the idea of not reading those and that the letters and everything and emails go out in the packets prior 10 minutes 10 days or in that neighborhood. I don't want to pend you to 10 days because sometimes you're dealing with things and it might be eight days 10 days but at when the information comes out to the board it goes out to the public and then we set a deadline on Monday that in our legal notice so everybody understands that all the letters and emails have to be submitted by I think 10 o'clock or noon is fair whichever one the board would like to do but I'm sort of leaning towards 10 to give everybody plenty of time to review those. Then those would get also sent out to the board and then also out to the public via a link that they could click on. So they would have an opportunity to see every all the information that the board saw and then there was no window of time after that that someone could submit something that the public would not be able to see. The only difference would be at the meeting they're limited to two minutes but in the letter would be whatever the letter entails.

Well that would be correct and I think part of that is as Mr. felt addressed earlier is you know the limiting and giving someone the opportunity to speak two minutes and address the board whereas a letter they certainly could put more in there but then also the public would have the opportunity to see everything that's presented to the board too I don't know that I would feel comfortable that if we started reading a fourpage letter and you get through 340 words

or whatever that number is that we tell Frank the two minute timer goes off and we don't want to hear what they had to say. I'm not sure that I would be in favor of that. I think that would the important pieces might not be presented at that particular point. Somebody could spend two minutes telling us uh what they think about the weather. So, uh two things real quick. If we go this direction, I think it'd be good. The agenda in the packet that goes to the list serve as well.

It does. I think we should add something on the first page of that agenda that reiterates this is the process if you want to submit written we're still accepting verbal for people that are here but if you want to you know so I think that way there's no uh people are made aware in multiple ways and my other thought was a question for you Frank I think if we're going to set a deadline on Monday I think it should be 10 I think 12 just creates even more of a pressure um time constraint Would you be comfortable with the intent being that received by 10 and the link is available by the end of close of business that day. I' rather rather than saying it will be I think we need to say we intend to post that day. There could be problems, too much volume, technology or whatever. But I I think it would be good to have kind of a general goal of when we would get that out. I'd be comfortable with that intent if I had some discretion. I certainly will do my best to make it happen uh as soon as possible. Yeah, I'm be comfortable with that.

And I I I'm not saying that needs to be close of business. I just think whatever it is, we've got to allow for some Frank gets sick, there's internet goes down. I mean, it's hard for us to promise a hard time. So I'd rather us have express an intent so the public knows what to expect and we'll do our best to achieve that.

Yeah. I would say dependent upon you can say something dependent upon uh volume of mail received uh you know stability of the internet or you know tech the technology factor and and and anything else that you know might that we can think of that might affect that being delayed on that day. But It would be your intent to get it out as as soon as possible. Every effort will be made. Yeah. Every effort will be made but contingent upon any upon volume and and any technical issues we may encounter.

Well, I think an easy solution there would be barring any unforeseen circumstances that might delay it. So, so we don't have to go into every little detail that the internet might be down or who knows what it might be. So, seems because those letters will be trickling in, you know, a few days prior over the weekend, we'll probably get a pretty big dump and then Monday I'll only have to deal with the last several, you know, however many came in since Friday. Um, yeah, that's I think that's reasonable to goal to shoot for. Do you uh we need to have an exception for Mondays being a holiday?

Yes. Because we do have probably at least three that fall on a Monday probably. The deadline would have to move backwards then. Yes. I I don't disagree with that. You'd have to move it probably to Friday. It stretches him even more. But I agree. That's a good call. Yeah. But I think it just needs to be Yeah. So that uh on those days they have an option if that's a holiday and then we got to get in. I don't know if it's Friday or you still throw it. We could still cut it off at 10:00 a.m. on the holiday because the the emails will be sitting there

with no exception to holiday. Yeah. He could just he would send I get that. I'm just saying the people submitting letters, it still has to be there by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, right? Because anything you get Tuesday then is post. Correct. Correct. Yes. Okay. So, I'm just saying that should be stated so that they understand it. No, I kind of like it that it's a Friday before because I'm sure when Monday's a holiday, that doesn't mean that you don't have to play catchup on Tuesday because Monday was a holiday. Yeah, I usually do have to play catchup on Tuesday. So, uh,

I guess I would prefer to keep it on Monday just because people are they're not going to know to write these letters until they get the notice. And so that's about 10 days out. That's true. And most people are probably going to get them on Monday and then that weekend they'll write their letter. And so that still gives them a chance when you're not working, right?

Well, I think Mr. Johnson brought up a great point and thinking through what Mr. Ever said as well is that we could put that in there that these would the intent these would go out on Monday with the exception of a holiday. In that particular case they would go out on a Tuesday. So I think that can be stated in that heading you were sort of looking for and then I think that would fix it that they would understand if there was a holiday on a Monday that they would come out on a Tuesday. So they would know that up front, but the language on the legal notice will say what it says because we're not going to say any of that stuff about distributing on the legal notice. Uh yeah, for simplicity, I'll be looking at the calendar thinking what holiday is, you know, hearing on this date. holiday before that. Uh, I can I could I can manage it.

Well, I don't think you would have to to deal with the holiday if we left it that they have to be by in by 10:00 10 on a Monday irregardless. That's what the legal notice would state always. So, the only thing we're discussing is when I collect that data and get it sent out. That would be correct. So, we were trying to come up with that verbiage that uh Mr. ever was talking about in regards to we might want to include this so that people would know that on a Monday that if it's a holiday they won't get it on the Tuesday so they're not confused but putting some verbiage there so everybody understood

just just simply please consider Mondays that they're holidays the deadline is still 10 a.m. Monday. Understood. So I have a question then. Will this also apply to the PCA or would that need to be a decision that the BCA makes? PCA makes my understanding.

Unfortunately, these when we make changes or whatever, they're just never as simple as you think they're going to be. There's a lot of things to think through and a lot of discussion and it simplifies if both of those bodies go by the same rules. Certainly, I bet you could make that recommendation at the BCA once the rules are set.

I could do that. I could put that in my report the next meeting and have quick discussion and get consensus. So, let me see if I can capture what we heard [laughter] and if everyone understood this correctly. So, any letters or emails that come out prior to the packet going out to the board will be included in the packet, but they also will be available to the public at that particular time. Anything after that will be accepted up till 10:00 10:00 a.m. on a Monday. And that information, the intent will be that information also will go out to the board. It also will go out on a link so the public has an opportunity to see that information as well. Anything that comes in after 10:00 a.m. will not be accepted. And then we will do some clarification on there on the website so everybody understands the process as well. We'll put a disclaimer on there in regards to barring any unforeseen circumstances for the Mondays. And then also that they will be available on Tuesday if there is a holiday on a Monday. And then we will look into creating a separate email so Mr. Zawatsky doesn't get them all on his town ewell email site so everybody will have an opportunity to email those to a different site. That's certainly not to say that he won't continue to get those. And I would like to think the board if he does get those at his town email site, even though we're creating another one, he would still accept those and it would still be handled the same way because there will be a transition

transitional period here that I'm sure people are going to continue to send them to.

So did we capture everything correctly? I would make sure that it's stated explicitly that no more emails will be read at the meeting. I think that's or letters, right? And that's public comment. Yeah. Did we do that last month? No. At the end of the meeting when I was doing my report I brought up discuss it. Okay. Yeah. I see that.

Mr. Zoski, is it frequent that you get public letters before the agenda goes out? I'm just trying to think about the volume you see there. It's infrequent. Okay. No. Thank you. other discussion or is that how the board would like to proceed or I think we pretty well beat this one up. It's important. Well, it's very important.

Well, it saves a lot of time that and and poor Frank's voice at the the meetings and it'd be nice [snorts] Love you, Frank. But you almost start to see him sound like Charlie Brown's teacher sometimes after like 10. So I'd like that. Sounds like that to me, too.

Well, and I I really like it. I think at the Clark Farms what really frustrated me is um not only were there a lot of petitioners who not petitioners people in the public who who spoke and then emailed letters there were duplicate letters um on several cases as well very long letters um and then hearing the same public comments and the same emails as we sat there for several hours you know we're all in this together like we really just need to get the points across a lot of points are the same. So, and that could change, but I think that that Clark Farms really started a item of discussion with emails. So, I think that's fair.

So you're saying that you can submit a letter and still talk? Yes. Because now we're not reading your words out loud. So you still we don't have that concern. And if it's you stated that it was the matter of communication. So if they send a letter that can be read by all, why should it be? Because it's still a public hearing. If the person shows up and everyone

and there may be something that they might hear at the meeting that would give them an opportunity to address something that they didn't think about potentially when they wrote the email or the letter.

Yeah. So, I think, you know, and I know it's probably debatable, but I'd like to think that we've done a great job of being transparent, and I think this is a way to continue to being transparent and making sure everyone has an opportunity to see the information and also be heard. Well, for the most part, the letters that you get are usually from people who can't come to the meeting. So, That's and I know that's not always the case, but if someone comes to the a meeting, I don't have I wouldn't have an issue either with them talking. So, okay. So, is the board consensus this is the direction that we will head?

Yes. Yes. Any opposed to that? So, I could notify the public that this is a change. tomorrow. Well, let's put some information together and make sure that we get everything spelled out and then we'll send that out. I have plan commission though as soon as we get it put together in a way that is professional and clear. Get it out ASAP.

And Mr. Culp, would you like to see that before it goes out? Okay. And then we'll also want to make sure that we uh tweak our legal notice as well to reflect those changes as well. Mr.

Well, no, I definitely think we want to get those out. I just want to make sure that we have them in formats acceptable and that we don't miss something. And you know, I think that would be good for you to review that just to make sure that you felt we covered everything that we've talked about this evening and the best way to handle that. So, if you'd worked with Mr. Zolotsky on that, I would appreciate it. So, I was going to ask you, Mr. President, are you comfortable with consensus or would you like action? I'll ask Mr. couple. And if you're thinking action, my followup would be, do you want to vote on the framework today or would you rather we have something written brought back to us at the next meeting?

What I intended to do was put this in writing a procedure and you think that makes sense. So, so Mr. Zawaski, I think between now and the next meeting, you'll just need to operate under normal y conditions because I don't think this would really effect until we took an action. That'll give and that's a good point. That'll give him time to make sure we can get an email set up and everything else we need to do. We'll know what the legal notice is going to look like, what's going out on list serve. So, and get this on the agenda for next month to make sure it happens. Yes.

Do you see anything huge coming up on the agenda for next month? Haven't had time to think about it, but I don't think so. I think the only thing potentially might be an aesthetic review, but we're not sure they'll be on the docket at this point if I'm not mistaken. So, a little bit of window be sure. That's a good point.

Okay. So, I think uh got a little bit of work to do and we'll get all this put together and it can come back to the board for review and to your point take formal action on it and uh we'll go from here. That sounds acceptable. Are you asking me? Yes.

Can I give one piece of advice for the board and this is for when do you put whatever you ad know the dynamic I don't want to get back from people that feel like the public has a deadline that you all don't really because something like internet You see what I'm saying? Like just be careful the way that it's so that when it comes out I think that's a good idea. I'm not suggesting you don't do that. But when you communicate to the public, we're just in this window where people are super in the office and they feel like well just put a deadline but That's not fair.

Sure. That's just my piece of advice. Well, no, we appreciate that. It comes with the territory. However, I'm just trying to Thank you for that. Yeah, I I appreciate you mentioning that.

Well, that's the only reason I asked uh for your additional thought because sitting as someone that I know will be reading all these and thinking it through. That that's why I wanted to touch base back with you. Even though the board's already made their decision and what direction we're going to head and at least uh on the surface that's what it looks like until we see everything. There's no formal action taken. But I think that's why we'll have Mr. Culp look at all this as well and try to make sure that everything's all the eyes are dotted and the tees are crossed as best we can. And I actually appreciate the willingness to hear the community and to try to be fair to the community as well. Like I understand the position and it's not so much.

Thank you for that. We appreciate that. Okay. So I think we have some work to do. We'll make sure that we get that prepared before next meeting for everybody to review it. We'll try to have all the documents done. Like I said, we'll have a create a legal notice just as you know a guideline so you can all see that as well. And uh I know Mr. Culp will make sure that uh everything looks in a legal format as we're moving forward. So we appreciate that. Okay, Mr. Zatsky, moving on to plan director report.

Good evening once again, plan commission. And I have here in front of me the latest version of the director's report. This is for January of 2026. Permit revenue for the month of January 2026 was $9,82186. Same for the year to date since it's January. At this same time last year, January 25, we were at $2,997 for the month and same for the year to date as well. That's a difference for the month of January plus $6,824.86 86 and that is same for the year to date as well. We issued a total of 12 building permits for January of 26. Nine were for within the corporate limits. No new homes there. We issued another three out in Jackson Township of which uh there were no new homes out there either. Estimated cost of these projects is $58,725. Uh in other news, we started using a new system. Yay. Uh so there are two additional PF PDFs that I out with my report here uh with your packets so that you can get a look at what the reports are. We want them to look like going forward. Uh we have a whole lot of bugs in this system. We're working them out and frankly we're not happy at all with you know the way things are going. Um but uh we are getting it ironed out. It's a very robust complex system. So there's a pretty big learning curve here. We do have a VZA hearing here at this facility which is the Cisro Town Hall and that is on um January 19th of 2026. Uh we do have items on the agenda and will meet. That is my report.

That may or may not be February 19th. I'm sorry. February 19th uh here at the town hall 7 p.m. Questions, comments for Mr. Zodky?

I will have to say I like the format of the new reports that they're broken down in to Jackson Township and the municipal boundaries of Cisro because I think it gives us an overview of and then also you have the work description and some of those things. So, I think it gives everyone a little more detail to what you're working on and uh some of the comments that you're giving the the people that uh are applying for permits. So, I do like those. I think that's a huge improvement. Here's the old one. Uh looks pretty basic.

Um and it was uh tough to generate that and it has a lot of limitations as well. this once we figured out the process um absolute breeze took five seconds to generate that. So all of that information is stuff that we uh enter or typically the petitioner enters it as they're applying for the permit. So um that that part of it is a pretty big time saver. Well, I wanted to share with you, I know that you're working through a lot of things that uh trying to get some of this fine-tuned and some of the issues that you're dealing with by being in the office. I hear some of those sometimes, but I also wanted to share some positives with you that I think, you know, as you're working through this, just the reports and things are a huge improvement. So, thank you.

We'll keep working on it. Okay.

Anything else for Mr. Zatsky? Okay, moving on to president's report. I really don't have anything this evening. I think we covered most of it and uh for the most part uh you know, we'll continue to work on looking for consultants for the uh working through the ordinances and updating those. We'll come back with some information on that. And then also we'll continue to work on the discussion around the letters that we talked about this evening. And uh certainly appreciate everyone being engaged and sharing your thoughts and your comments. As I've said many, many times that I like the makeup of our board. We're not likeminded and everybody brings a little bit different perspective when we have these discussions and it opens it up for some great discussions and I think we end up with good results that way. So thank you for all that. With that, I would look for legal counsel report. Mr. Cole,

I don't have anything at this time. Thank you, Mr. Cull. Board member comments. Is it House Bill 10001 that that's going through? Is there any any movement on on that state?

It is being accelerating the association is actively trying to stop. You know, for those who don't know, they're trying to restrict our authority over resision. They're trying to take away our ability forces to have density ones and be pushed forward largely supportion and so I know all municipalities the county has come out against it as well but it'll find out in the next session for those tracking at present there was in the Senate that addresses this bill and I think I commented last year there were people worried about being done this would give C three years and they would be dissolved and the function would be taken over by a county or they could be taken over by municipality. But it applies to townships that meet certain requirements. small townships that don't have a lot of resc.

And that's what that's what speaker Houston and others said last year. They're trying to some of these units where they don't have enough resvenue for operating it as a separate entity. But that's not something

but doesn't that open the door? I don't think so. I mean they've been trying to change township law and part of the reason they couldn't because not all townships were the same. Some townships were very active resident and other townships there's very little activity and so they target the I think some that is take the pressure off because the rest of

I'm a bit more pessimistic at times. I'm usually pretty optimistic. Thank you, Mr. Cult. Mr. Sh, did you have a question? Okay, seeing no further board member comments, our next planning commission meeting will be here March the 11th at 7:00 p.m. And with that, I would look for a motion to adjourn. Mr. President, Dennis Shrimp, I move we adjourn. Thank you, Mr. Shrimp. Mr. Chairman, Mark Thomas. I'll second that. Thank you, Mr. Thomas. We have a motion and second to adjourn our meeting tonight. All in favor signify by saying I. Any opposed? Thank you. Meeting is adjourned. Yay.