Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

For the Village of Franklin, for the Planning Commission, Wednesday, May 20th, 2026. We'll go ahead and do a roll call. We'll start from the right, my right, Pete, and then go to the left then.

Pete Halleck, present. Linda Novak, present.

Stuart Wooders, present. Paul Braben, present.

Sarah Greslick, present.

Welcome, everyone. So just going through the adopted agenda, So the agenda actually, the review of text amended and signed ordinance actually should be under new business because it's a new topic for us because it's a change to an old ordinance. It wasn't outstanding so we should move that from old business to new business. Anything else, any other comments for the agenda? We will move next now to the adoption of meeting minutes from March 18th, 2026. Hopefully you had a chance to review it. Any comments or updates required or requested for this? any questions does it look good okay you got a motion to adopt the um to uh um accept the minutes from the meeting please motion to accept minutes as presented from march 18th second all in favor aye any opposed awesome uh so for council liaison um trustee Sally was unfortunately not going to be here. He sent me an e-mail with regards to the update. And I can mention a few things from what he said. And then there's echo. Yeah, I mentioned what he said in the email, and then also talked about a few other things that came up in council meeting that weren't necessarily addressed by his email. So during the May council meeting, the council voted six to one to refer a proposal for sign an ordinance amendment back to the Planning Commission. FOR REVISION WITH REGARDS TO CORNER LOTS BEING ABLE TO HAVE FOUR SIGNS VERSUS THE THREE SIGNS FOR A PROPERTY THAT HAS A SINGLE FRONTAGE INSTEAD OF A PROPERTY THAT HAS MORE THAN ONE FRONTAGE FOR THE ROAD. AND JUST AS PREVIOUSLY WE'VE DISCUSSED WHEN WE DID THE ORDINANCE THAT THERE CAN BE NO He says, as the courts have consistently recognized yard signs are a protected form of political speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, the current ordinance therefore affords residents with corner lots a greater opportunity to protect expression rather than residents without corner lots. This distinction may result in disparate treatment based solely on the location or configuration of a residence property. Accordingly, the council requests the Planning Commission consider revising the ordinance to permit all residences to display up to four yard signs subject to the existing size, placement, and other applicable requirements while eliminating the current corner lot exception. Additionally, I would respectfully request the Planning Commission provide an estimated timeline for when the Planning Commission anticipates forwarding a recommendation to council regarding the nuisance statement ordinance, specifically as it relates to the prioritized nuisance categories previously discussed and aligned upon. And so there was no update because we didn't meet last month, so we'll address that with an update after today's meeting and from our old business, A. The So the other thing that I want to bring up from my standpoint for chairperson's report is that we've also, President Goldberg has asked if we could look at fencing for deer and how, look at the fencing ordinance with regards to deer fencing. This also came up by the council on Monday on their last council meeting where they discussed the what could we do with regards to mitigating the deer traffic and could fences be a consideration for that? So we can put that on the agenda to discuss and prepare some things if we're interested in discussing that further. The challenge is that we need seven to eight foot high fences to be able to accomplish that because deer can easily jump a six foot fence, which means that we would need to have fences the size of our garden, garden lot fences, our garden and fencing gardens around each property. So I'm not sure if that's the right path going forward, but we can, if we're interested in talking about that, we can put it on agenda for next meeting. So I know the council's still also trying to learn what the best option is for them with regards to managing our deer population, considering it's like 20 to one, what the normal should be. Okay.

So that was brought up as a possible mitigation effort, some kind of fencing. Yeah. Fence ourselves in.

They were under the impression that a six foot fence would suffice, not for all deer, but.

Yeah, I mean, mom can leave, but babies can't.

Well, and I've picked several of them off of six-foot fences.

Yeah, yeah. Yeah, eight-footer, 95%.

The unfortunate thing about an increase in the height of the fences is once everybody says, okay, I'm going to increase my fence by two feet, then we have just tall fences and not a nice, clear, natural sight line.

Yeah, we don't have the, we'll have a breakup everywhere.

Yeah, it's not. The reason why it's four foot or four and a half tops is so everybody can at least see everything.

Yeah. Okay. All right. Sounds good. That's my report for today. Commissioners, starting from the left, Sarah or Paul, do you have any?

I do have a report. It is with great sadness to announce that we have lost our historical chair, Gary Roberts. He had passed over the weekend. I have been told by the family that his visitation is tomorrow night, 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the A.J. Desmond & Sons Chapel on Woodward Avenue in Royal Oak. And the funeral service is Friday morning at 10.30 a.m. here in Franklin Community Church.

Yeah, I guess I would make a statement just that Gary was a great guy. You know, we were lucky to have him as a resident, born here in Franklin and just contributed so many positive things.

And I would second those remarks. I got to know him through scouting. And then when we started working more with the historic commission, I got to know him a little bit better. So he will be missed. the community he put endless hours of service into our village it will be hard to replace or even feel not feel the impact of someone that has served our village for so many years in so many different positions we will it is hard to live up to someone like him in that regard Any commission reports to my right?

There was no zoning meeting. There is one tomorrow night, so I'll have a report next month.

Just an apology for missing last month's meeting. First one ever. 14 years. I felt bad about it.

I felt bad as well. Thank you for mentioning that. I'm going to piggyback on you. Because I was going to say, out of 108 meetings, I attended 107.

Thank you. All right. We'll move on to public comments. If there are... I was really hoping with the cars outside that we would have some people here other than us, but no. I mean, granted, softball is probably a more attractive venue than this venue right now, and I know my nieces are Most likely playing tonight. And hopefully win. All right.

Close public comments?

Close public comments, yes. So we'll talk about old business moving on to old business A. So review of discussion regarding proposed amendments to the ordinance chapters 678, 648, and 1268, nuisance and blight abatement. Chris, do you mind kicking us off on that? Sure.

Well, we'll start with Chapter 678 first. At the last Planning Commission meeting, you asked for some additional research about other communities' approaches to regulating storage of building materials in residential areas. And as you can see on the letter, we looked at several communities and five in particular had regulations governing that particular topic. And we found that the regulations were somewhat similar in all five communities. Some of them clearly copy from each other. But others had a different take on it. I won't go through and read them all to you. I'm sure you've had an opportunity to read them. But based on the review of those regulations, what I've done is revise section 678.01 subsection C by adding provisions for the storage of building materials where a building permit is not required subject to certain conditions. So if you want to turn to that particular section, uh... chapter six seventy eight it's uh... on the first page right in the middle uh... and it's uh... says we're building uh... we're building permit It's under C, where a building permit is not required for construction. Orderly outdoor storage of building materials shall be permitted on a residential premises subject to the following conditions. One, the stored building materials must be necessary only for work proposed on the premises. Two, the stored building materials should not exceed 128 cubic feet or 4.74 cubic yards at any time. And three, the leftover building materials shall be removed after the work is completed or when notice is received from the building official indicating that work is not being performed and the building materials must be removed whichever occurs first. And then also in Chapter 678, the Planning Commission requested that I incorporate the enforcement of a timeout language from Section 648.07. into 678. And so I added subsection D to incorporate that language. Then going on to Chapter 648, the Planning Commission requested only one revision to Chapter 648. and that is in section 648.99, delete the misdemeanor option. And so I've done that. So if you look on page three, all it calls for under 648.99 is municipal civil infraction. And then moving on, to chapter 1268. I've revised section 1268.14 subsection C1 and section 1268.14 subsection F2A to allow parking on a permeable on permeable paving, brick pavers, or gravel surface in addition to asphalt or concrete paving. In conjunction with this revision, I've added definition of permeable paving in section 1268.14 subsection B. So all those changes all relate to the permeable paving or the surface. of a parking lot, basically. And if those changes in 1268 are made, then my recommendation is going back to the main part of the zoning ordinance in 1262.02 subsection C. I think that section needs to be revised to be consistent with these changes in 1268 and by Revising it to say all parking including maneuvering aisles Driveways and approaches shall be on a paved surface in parentheses asphalt concrete or permanent paving brick pavers or gravel surface and and the rest of it would stay as indicated. So that's the sum total of all the revisions.

great job chris i think you were able to take everything that we had offered and feedback and and really go in it in a very thoughtful way so thank you um i did see in your note and i didn't see anything about this during the council meeting but maybe i missed it about the commercial vehicle regulation for um from council so if we recommend it as it stands and then they get it they can just look at how they want to address it there okay just want to make sure

So I have talked to Trustee Salley about commercial vehicle. and as well as a couple other trustees with regards to getting their pulse. I sat through a whole meeting and unfortunately the time didn't allow me to speak the month that I was there. But they do agree or do feel that certain considered commercial vehicles would unfairly restrict blue collar workers essentially from being able to whereas someone that maybe get a leased vehicle from their company or a company vehicle who doesn't have signage on their vehicle, they would be permitted to drive a company vehicle. And so I think that the only one that, I was looking through the Michigan definition, and the ones that I think that would be The one section of the definition for commercial vehicle that I think really this applies to is number four with regards to box vans. uh... and certain types of but i think there could be a better definition then uh... those use electrical plumbing heating cooling construction or service oriented contractors i think it could be a better definition to box box or step in my and it does have a definition legal definition but i'm not sure how that because you can have a sense of the small ones that are even small yes right yeah like yes like the pt cruiser style great that Those are the ones that I think would probably be more the ones that would be somehow a definition that might be more accepting to those that are in the trades that live here in our village. I see. And then for a pickup truck, I know that it says just one that doesn't happen and it's 15 that does doesn't have external signage or is routinely used by the owner. I mean, that's really the commercial vehicle exclusion also that I was talking about before as well. Because I mean, if you... I know that one of our villagers actually owns a hospice or ran a hospice service and they probably had a vehicle in front of their house every now and then when they took a hospice vehicle home. And would they not be able to come home from work with one of those vehicles? Not to mention that in our village, we often have hospice care come and care for our villagers, and they wouldn't be able to, where would they park their vehicle? Because it is a sedan, typically, and it has signage for, and used for commercial use. So those are the ones that, those are the things that come to my mind with regards to that. I know that makes the definition, kind of breaks it up a little bit. Right. But I really would like to be able to address that with council at least giving some guidelines to suggest to them, maybe not Well, when we maybe have something ready for public, when we do our public hearing as definition updates. But those are the ones that I was mostly concerned about when I thought about limiting commercial vehicles. Am I off base on this, or is that kind of along the lines of what you were thinking, fellow commissioners?

no i think you hit the nail on the head okay i wonder to include that like if it could be a way of like tied with like some sort of because i think the whole issue is right we just don't want random commercial vehicles so if it's tied to maybe like that person's on the insurance or has a residential service that they're getting i think it does have to be somehow tied to a homeowner or resident and in order for us to

yes put it in that box but yes i agree with what you're saying for sure yeah i mean and we could and we could put wordage in here where just like how on 15 it does say that um that was routinely used by the owner or operator but have some riverage saying that they have their domicile is is at the residence of which it is it is parked

I'm not able to pull it up. I don't think we can project it on the screen. Is that true? So the language about if it's the only vehicle. So the vehicle is used both for work and for non-work. Do you see any language in there that says that? So in my reading, it still made it difficult for a person that's the only vehicle they own.

No, I think getting the wording out, this would protect whether it's the only vehicle or if we were to change the wording so that it's not exclusionary to individuals that use it, regardless of whether it's their sole vehicle or it is a vehicle they have.

What is the language now about that?

Well, the language I'm proposing would be to remove the restriction for specific types of commercial vehicles so that those that are... Even if it is the only vehicle. Even if it is... Yeah, yeah. I mean, that would be an even higher reason to have it changed.

A very significant one is if you have a ladder rack on your vehicle. So, I mean, it's not that different than a bicycle rack. The ladder rack. Ladder rack, right.

Oh, okay. No different than a Thule.

No different than what?

Yeah, a ski rack.

Yeah. Right. But apparently, I mean, it seems like it might be, you know, even if it's the only vehicle you have.

Which is why we think the wording for commercial vehicle is not accurate to what we, it's not, I think it's discriminatory to villagers that.

I do too.

So, yeah. So does that give you a clearer definition as to what we can change from a definition standpoint for a commercial vehicle? Does that help?

Yeah, we can work on that.

Okay.

So your thinking is number 4 and 15 need some work, maybe remove 4?

Well, this is based upon the definition provided by the Michigan Public Act 300, right? So we're changing, we'd be changing verbiage from that, right? Right. So we would have to put in some verbiage saying that, you know, that it's not necessarily, I mean, yes, that was the underlying guideline, but these are the exceptions we're making essentially to that.

Right.

To that definition.

Okay. Let me.

Pete does bring up a point. I mean, if villager has a pickup truck I mean that for a lot of people that is their personal vehicle right 15 covers that yeah but if it is also their commercial vehicle. So is that covered, really?

No, because 15 says specifically that they wouldn't be able to, as long as it's not used primarily for business, then it doesn't fall under commercial vehicle. Otherwise, it does. So this is where it gets tricky. Right, so that's why I mentioned 15 and four. Even though like a box truck, it's completely contained, but in a pickup truck, it's not, right? And our neighbors to the west of us, they have ordinances that are strict like this as well for commercial vehicles. But it does create a challenge for some of their residents.

So I guess what they have to do is get a magnetic park and get a magnetic sign. And when they're not parked outside their house, put the magnetic sign in.

But hence the point that Pete made with regards to the ladder mount. Like, taking a ladder off every night when you get home is horrible.

And removing the rack.

Like, it's more than just taking a magnetic sign off the vehicle. So, anyway, that's... And I understand that there is a legacy desire to, you know, to... There is a history of why people, why commercial vehicles are excluded. I just... And it's probably a site thing, but it's also people just not used to being... Around working people? Yeah. Like, you can be here during the day, but when you... I will say there are more cars on the street during the day than there ever are at night. So it's not commercial vehicles that I'm worried about at night. getting around my neighborhood during the day with everyone working at 100 homes around us is harder than at nighttime. So it's not commercial vehicles that are preventing nighttime driving or overnight things. Okay. Any other comments on the other two chapters? Do we feel like we're ready to have a public hearing on 648 and 678 and 1268?

I don't hear anybody saying anything that would signal otherwise.

Yeah, I agree.

I think we've addressed everything we wanted to as of now.

So we can propose a public hearing then. Do we need a motion for that?

Yes. Motion for a public hearing in regards to Chapter 678 Amendment and 1268 Amendment and 648.

Second by Linda. All right. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. All right. Sounds good. Chris, if you want to run through a couple iterations of verbiage with me, if you have any questions.

Yeah, I think I'll do that.

That's fine. And even after the public hearing, we can discuss any finalization with planning. During the public hearing, I mean. Or not during, but after the public hearing. And we hear our residents weigh in. We're neighbors. OK. All right. So thank you for your hard work, Chris, on this, as well as your colleague that helped keep it going in March. I appreciate his time as well. So we'll close out old business and move now back to new business. So new business A is now actually the review of the text amendment to sign ordinance. Now the verbiage that was provided by an administrator for adding it to the agenda item, it's at the very last page of the packet. It is a summary of the signage request. It says section 1474.12 of the Village Sign Ordinance governing temporary signs and the accompanying table of permitted sign dimensions currently permits one temporary sign not to exceed four square feet and two additional temporary signs not to exceed three square feet. Current concerns have been raised during election periods. Residents wishing to display support for multiple candidates or ballot proposals may be limited by the current ordinance standards. The August election ballot is expected to include four open seats in addition to the proposed police millage question. Village Council has requested the Planning Commission review the temporary sign provision of the ordinance and consider whether amendments may be appropriate. So I just Just a show of hands or a poll, how many of you here worked on the original update to the sign ordinance then?

You were new.

But I was there. That was around my first time.

We worked on it for a good year. 13 years. I was there when it got set. You got the credit.

So it was kicked off during an election period, and it was after the election that we finally closed out the topic. But the question I have for planning is, so the question that was raised is four signs for a corner lot versus three signs for a single frontage. Does that seem fair? I know that we went back and forth multiple times that should it be number... signs per frontage and set a number there or should we and the consensus was that no because if you have the longer just because you have longer street you have more access but ultimately decided that for a corner lot because in some cases the corner lot might not be might be short on one side and long on the other, or otherwise, that it's not a site clutter to have one around the corner than it was to have the three along one side. The signage ordinance was to prevent additional cluttering of signs in yards, regardless of content. And it being raised, here's my concern. It's being raised, it was raised in a special meeting by council, by Trustee Sulaka, who mentioned that there's four candidates for reelection and they're not gonna be able to have equal representation on homes. And so there was a concern there. It was brought to council and they wanted us to look at the sign. The problem I have with It being politically motivated is that we're giving preferential treatment to sign number due to political messages and not due to whatever message the villagers want throughout the year. And I understand that creates a limitation for people that want to support their political causes. But that also means that people that would have had more signs in their yard throughout the year for other reasons were prevented from doing so, whether it was real estate agents or was it for children graduating from elementary school, middle school, high school, whatever it may be, happy birthday signs. whatever it may be, if they had followed the ordinance to the T, then they would have minimized the number of signs they had in their property and had to make that call. And I'm not saying that everyone knows the ordinance very well, but unfortunately the fact of the matter is that during political seasons, people break out the ordinance book if someone is supporting something they don't like. And they say, oh, it's either in the easement or it's too close. And their reporting level is higher. No one's reporting happy birthday was made up of five signs instead of three. So it's a bit of a concern for me just because we spent so much time working on the previous ordinance and everyone here had some say in it back then. I don't think that anything has really changed substantially as far as sightline concerns as well as nothing's really changed from a messaging standpoint. We're not protecting freedom of speech more for one person versus the other. It was more of a clutter scenario and village sightline that we were concerned about with regards to the number of signs in the village. So I'll open it up to you for your discussion, but those are my thoughts.

I agree with everything there. Reviewing the complaint and also seeing written what Trustee Saleh has provided us, it looks as, you know, simply stated, the opinion looks to be as the courts have considered. I'm going to redirect it from his letter again so it's back to my thought process. As of course, I have consistently recognized yard signs as a protective form of political speech under the First Amendment of the United States of the Constitution. The current ordinance, therefore, affords residents with a corner lot greater opportunity for protected expression than residents without corner lots. This distinction may result in disparate treatment based solely on location and configuration of a resident's property. Okay, so when I read that, it's not about... more about protected speech, I look at it as somebody has a better opportunity to do more. So if it's about equity and making a balance for everybody, the only recommendation I would have to council is three signs for everybody, including corner lots. And that's somebody who lives on a corner lot. I live on a corner lot too. So I would be more than happy to make a motion to say, I understand the council's concern. We are going to recommend three signs per lot, regardless of corners or not.

Well, and the other thing is, freedom of speech is one thing, but the way the sign ordinance and the way the laws have come down is it cannot be based. Any decision we make cannot be based on the written word on the sign, on the content of the sign. Correct. It can only be based on numbers. But the other thing is that being on a corner lot is treated differently in a lot of respects in the village. Certainly in zoning, that's right, in the whole side yard, even in taxing. So you're paying more on that corner lot because you have more furniture.

I would love it if they gave me a side yard on a corner lot.

I know.

I'm not sure that I agree with Trustee Solle and his analysis, to be honest. I don't think that, I think that, as you say, the key issue is freedom of speech and making sure that you're not infringing on freedom of speech and the First Amendment. A lot of sign ordinances make distinctions based on location. Time, place, and location are the three principles which have been reserved by the courts as things that you can regulate in terms of signage. I'm comfortable with the regulations, the way that they're written, that give preference to corner lots or give an extra sign on corner lots. I don't think it is a conflict with the Constitution.

I think that there are many ways in which the quantity of freedom of speech depends on many things other than if you have a corner lot for all people. there's many things that determine what quantity of speech you may be able to uh display and the um you know i think the clutter aspect is big that it doesn't add to clutter a sense of clutter if you have the side lot you're going to have separation quite a bit of separation again it's

Specifically, yard signs are protected from poor and political speech. Yes, they are. We cannot dictate what is on the sign politically. That's fine. The only way we can address something like that, if it's some vulgarity of some kind or some sort of bad imagery that is, I don't want to say pornographic, but yeah, something like, oh, those lines are graphic of any kind. That's what we can enforce and say, no, you can't have that. But which is why I wanted to say it's an, I think it's more equity based about, well, they can have four. We can only have three. Okay. Make it all three. That's, that's really, if that, that's the only solution I think that will be good for this to recommend to council. It's clear. They clearly sent it to us saying, we don't like how it's worded. So here's our solution would be okay. Everybody.

We can't.

Because it's going to keep coming back to us if we recommend it as is.

And I certainly understand council's position. Well, if there's four seats open, you should be able to put up signs for four people. But because our hands are tied with it, because for the... We could limit the number of days that signs can be up, but we're not looking just for the election season. We're looking for what about the other nine months of the year if we said that you could have as many as you wanted. Somebody could have eight terrible signs up. at a time, or 10 horrible. I mean, so we have to look at not, I understand the content, but I don't see a workaround because of the way the laws are written that we can make an exception for that. And I think we have to look at what we're going to be looking at the rest of the year.

More signs is not the solution. No, it's not. So, okay. Sarah, please.

I think you guys are being very generous in that you are reading these two very different documents in the way you are. I think having watched the council meeting, it was really presented as we want more election signs to me. That's how I understood it. And then now it's about, I think the corner lot. And I think those are like, even this request seems different than this to me. So I'm really struggling with even like, what do you say back to it when they're two different issues? And I completely agree with all of you and you're stating it's not about the more signs. It's not about equity. It doesn't seem like it's all the way through line. The concern isn't about equity. It's about, hey, we have four council seats open. They should be able to have the right to have four council signs up right now. And I don't think it should be politically motivated in being able to do this, because at any other time of the year, you would want maybe to have four signs, and you couldn't. And you have to make choices, and that's part of it. And you have to be a good neighbor, and that's part of it. But it can't just be, hey, we want this right now, so let's bend it when this works.

Right. Because we're off cycle in these four seats.

Yeah.

I mean, the next election, you're not going to have us again unless we have two more people step down.

I'm sorry. I think the residents just need to pick their three favorite people and go with them.

Or they need to combine on silence. Yeah, that works too.

Absolutely. That's a solution as well.

Certainly. Yeah.

There's ways that from a political standpoint they can address it. I mean, it's no different than putting four people of the same people. I mean, because you could, you know, if there are three people that align similarly or four people that align similarly, you can have a common sign if that's what you want. And if the person wants to be specific, you know.

If they're not running against each other and they're all running unopposed, there's only one sign you need to do.

Anyway, but it's not a matter of the content. It's the site clutter that we were worried about. It's the limitation. If it's a matter of being fair and equal, then we should fall back to the original request, which was clutter and a field of view for the village and just go back to three for everyone if that's the concern.

Well, the next question is, is this going to come up again to us in five, six years and there's five members running it?

Well, or eight members. I mean.

Any number of things could happen, right?

But to your point, you just said something interesting. I'm like, hey, it's not about the content. But they're specifically asking for this for this content based on the council meeting that I saw. So you can't have it both ways. You can't want to not have it, but also want it for when you want it. Like, it has to be fair all the time for everyone using the process. Okay. I mean, personally, personally. I feel uncomfortable saying that, but I think that.

No, you're 100% right, and that's, it's.

So, Linda, go ahead, and then I'm going to say.

What I was going to say, personally, I would not have a problem with having, because remember, the way it's written is you're allowed one forefoot sign. And then the other signs. I would even be okay because the one four-foot sign may be somebody selling their house. They can still vote and they can still support candidates. I wouldn't have a problem with one large sign and three smaller signs if we did it equitably and didn't, you know, didn't, go corners and and straight line i i i would support that if it got the support of council and we put this through because it's all going to start again very very soon and we can't keep putting it off we need to put something in place we have something in place right now It's not.

No, it's in place.

No, it's in place. They voted in. They voted in.

They're asking us to revisit it for this one specific thing.

So it's not old business. This is new business for us. Okay. It's just like the nuisance ordinances, right?

Okay.

So the question, okay, so the question is like is the recommendation, there's no passing or we don't need to make a motion for this, but is the recommendation for me to go back to council and give a recommendation that if we're going to change it to be equitable, then we fall back on the original principle, which was to reduce clutter and keep it to three instead of making it four. And in that case, we would have to reopen the ordinance up and then have a public hearing and move through the process. Or is the recommendation to go to council and say no change? Because all of us were a part of it the first time around, and it was politically motivated the first time around. Why are we opening it again? If, if, if we're trying to avoid, um, political political reason to change it again, when we're not supposed to even address the political side of the ordinance.

I agree with your latter comment that we go as is, it should not be politically motivated. I think that is the right way to word it to council. Um, any other way it's, we don't want to fight. We're all neighbors.

I mean, we're just neighbors.

Can you say that again, Paul? Because originally you were saying, you know, one way to solve this is just to go to three signs.

I do. I think if we are requested to open this back up and go through the whole process again after the four of us spent a year doing this, again, for political motivation reasons during that time, I'm going to be stubborn. I'm going to say three signs, everybody. That's it. And I don't want to waste our time. I don't want to waste your time. I think this is being ignored, I feel like. I feel like no one's actually taking a look at what we had done, reading what was in there. And they say, you know what? This doesn't help me. And it's being construed very selfishly. And that's why I think we just need to represent it as is.

So the additional sign afforded to people who have a corner lot in general doesn't increase clutter, but it does allow them to what?

It allows them to put another sign. The problem is if you're on a corner lot and you put it around the corner, There's no guarantee someone sees that sign around the corner. So you put your three favorite on one side or two on two or what are you doing? I mean, you have, I guess any number of signs.

I mean, I think some of it had to do with, you know, to be fair to people who are selling their houses.

Yeah.

That they can have it on both sides. Yeah.

OK, I'll go, if everyone's OK with this, I'll go back to council and say, look, we've spent a year on this already. It was done during a political season. We feel like the governing principle behind the ordinance was to reduce clutter and to remove any political lens associated with this ordinance. Opening it up right now would put it back under a political lens, which it removes the freedom of speech. aspect of the ordinance and we recommend passing on this.

And the other thing is when this whole thing came up, it came up at the recommendation or suggestion of the police chief because they were having to police it. They were getting so many calls about it. So, you know, it's...

I don't think having four signs is going to reduce the number of calls, to be honest with you.

Exactly.

It's still going to be the same thing again. I just hope that neighbors are neighborly. And regardless of the content of the sign, I just hope that we as neighbors are kind to each other.

Yeah.

OK. All right. Well, then that was the last item.

I did have one clarification that I'm hoping happened because he was at the council meeting. So there are three of our seats open in July. Do we need to are those spots for us for application? Do we also need to submit before a certain date?

Yeah, June 1st.

The June 1st date. I just wanted to make sure.

And then... I was going to say, last time I had to send an email.

Actually, please do fill out the full application because... We have given that recommendation to people that I have endorsed to be reappointed that were not reappointed because they didn't have a full application. And they took that into account regardless of the direction that was given. And they said, oh, so sorry.

Well, follow the guy who's been around.

Yeah. So please fill out a full application. And I don't want to deal with it again. And please also show up the week that they actually going to appoint someone because that was the other thing is they were told not they don't need to show up because it was recommended a recommendation and then they weren't appointed because they weren't here oh it was like you told them not to show up so that was i mean oh yeah not not the people not the council didn't tell them to show up but like the procedure was you don't need to show up and that was the first time that ever happened and

People got removed and reappointed.

For the purpose of this and being recorded, can you go over who is coming up in that next

Yes, please. I think it's me.

I think it would be really helpful.

I think it's me.

I think it's you, me, and Jeremy. And then is Quincy's spot open?

Quincy is... They're moving from the village, so it would be... Oh, no, I'm next year. Okay.

Yep, so Jeremy... Sarah and Quincy.

Yep. So Quincy is already up because he's... They're moving. But, yes, Sarah, your term... This will be your... Second term or third term? Third term.

Well, Paul, you're not.

Yeah, Paul's not till next year.

No, this will be the month. Yeah. Second.

Second term, okay. All right, and then, yeah, so that's who, so we have three seats that are up in July.

Linda can be really cantankerous until mid-27th. Yeah.

So for the appointment for public knowledge, so the seat is up in July. Is that July 1st, or is that the second, like, so what, does it get voted on at the July council meeting, or does it get voted on? It's going to be voted on in June.

Okay.

Just wanted to make sure. I'm going to that meeting anyway, but I just wanted to say it out loud so everyone was on the same page.

But it has not been heard of that it wasn't addressed until August.

Well, we're going to try to avoid that.

But please, please, please meet the normal deadline of June 1st.

And also for the record, I want to point out that my term is ending July 27th. Unlike last time where I was only on for two months, apparently on zoning and then somebody forgot. So my term does end in a year. All right, fair enough. Yeah, that happened.

I'm sorry. I just wanted to make sure we were all clear on that because if it's getting confusing, ask counsel.

And for public that are people that have been watching our meetings and we don't know and they want to participate and put their hat in the ring.

There was also a question about me because I am the liaison on zoning and which one is.

I still need to look at that.

takes precedence on that.

When am I up on zoning? Planning Commission takes precedence. She is our liaison with zoning. That's the only question on the board.

So you guys have elected her to be liaison?

She's nominated to be our liaison for zoning.

You guys nominated her? Yes.

We did that in February, didn't we?

No. So Linda is the secretary and also appointed to be our liaison with zoning. And that person usually comes from our body anyway because we write the initial ordinance that then gets approved by council or modified by council and voted into law. Whereas zoning enforces the ordinance, so someone from planning is always part of or has always been part of zoning because of the history that we have with zoning. cradle of the ordinance, they're dealing with the after effects. They're dealing with either our bad decisions or variances of our good decisions. All right, thank you very much. The next meeting would be, regular schedule meeting would be Wednesday, November 17th, 2026. June, June. Don't worry about July. Oh, whatever. It's 8 o'clock. It's late.

You said June 17th? Yeah, June 17th.

I was reading June and said something completely different. That's hilarious. All right. Anyway, yeah, June 17th. I don't think I don't have any major comments.

I may or may not be late.

Okay. If I get reappointed, I'll be late.

No, no, no. But I still have to serve. I know. You already served that month. I know. Okay.

It's already on my calendar.

All right. Thank you very much. Appreciate it, everyone. Do we need to motion to adjourn? We do. That was my hint. Second. All in favor? Aye. All right.