Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Ms. Rodak would you please call the roll? Mr. Scott?

Mr. Jones?

Here.

Mr. Karl? Here. Chair Braunstein? Here.

All right, I will will now identify present staff and members of city council. We have Mary Rodak, associate planner. We have Marshall Pittsford, city solicitor and Samantha Ramo in the audience, city council representative for the BCPA. Alright, at this time we will swear in staff and any applicant who wishes to give testimony tonight.

Will you be testifying tonight, sir?

Yes. Alright, can you please stand for me if you're going to testify? Alright. Do you swear under the penalty of perjury that the testimony you will provide is the truth? I do. Right, thank you. All right, moving on to our minutes. Have you both had a chance to review the minutes? Yes. Do you have any edits or corrections that need to be made?

I do not.

I have a couple.

I do too, but go ahead

Mr. Jones. On the top of page three, the first full paragraph, we are referred to as commissioners, and I would suggest that that be changed to the board.

I caught that as well, thank you. And it also applicants and I was thinking that might need to be changed to applicant. I think that case had one applicant listed. I had one addition, did you have any Yes, other

on page four, as to who made the motion and seconded that motion, that motion was made by me, Mr. Jones, and seconded by Mr. Carl. Same.

I have only one other update. Going back to page three under the paragraph that Mr. Jones mentioned where it said the commissioners and applicants says Chair Bernstein, can we update Bernstein to Braunstein? And those were the only edits that I could find. Alright. Those are the only edits. Can I have a motion for approval as amended?

So moved. Second.

Alright. Ms. Zordek, can you take the roll?

Mr. Scott? Mr. Jones? Yes. Mr. Carl? Yes. Ms. Brownstein?

Yes. All right, moving on to public hearings, new business. I'm going to go ahead and I will read off the case byline. All right, this is BZBA case twenty six dash three. The subject of the hearing is variance request of two feet from the required minimum setback of 15 feet resulting in a 13 foot setback pursuant to section twelve oh seven point one seven subsection D4A entitled Signs Permanent Ground Signs in order to construct a permanent ground sign along West Breetsboro Street.

The applicant and property owner is Shweta Aurora, address is 11 Hidden Lake Lane, Peninsula, Ohio 44264 for the property at 50 West Streetsboro Street in District 5 within the City Of Hudson. Miss Rodak, may we have

the staff report please? Yes. This property is located in District 5 along West Streetsboro Street approximately point eight two acres acres and purchased in 2025. The applicant, like you said, is requesting to construct a permit ground sign along West Streetsboro Street. The existing building is set back a 130 feet from the right of way.

Our code regulates 15 feet minimum setback for a building that is 30 feet or more from the right of way. Staff notes that each tenant space in this building is permitted one building sign. However, the building setback makes it could make it difficult to be seen from the right of way or from the street. Additionally, this sign could be relocated to the East side property line to meet the code requirements. However, this may cause confusion because it is not centrally located and is not near the entrance of the parking lot.

Going to the addendum which was sent out yesterday, my apologies to the board and to the applicant for late. This is 12:7.17 I nine for sign variances. These are additional factors for sign variances. These are very similar to our Duncan factors, I'll just go over them briefly. A couple of things I wanted to mention was our assistant city engineer did look at the placement and confirmed that the proposed sign location would not cause obstruction to vision of motorists or endanger public safety or health.

Additionally the construction of a conforming sign in the proposed curb island would require expanding the curb island to meet the 15 foot setback and could inhibit internal circulation of the parking lot. The applicant has the representative, the contractor here. They can ask or answer any questions you may have for the board.

Thank you Ms. Rodak. Would the applicant please step up to the podium and present your case? And please state your name and address for the record.

I'm Eddie Rollins, 1017 12th Street, Huntington, West Virginia. The only place really to put that sign would be that one island right in the center of the parking lot, and we can't push it back any further. We can't it would impede the traffic going through the parking lot if we pushed it back any further. The problem with putting it on the side of the parking lot, it's a steep slope right there leading to the other one, it wouldn't even be seen. So that's really about the only place that it could go.

I really don't, I'm sorry I don't have anything else for you.

Well then I guess we can move

on to initial questions from the board. Bob, would you like to start us off with your questions?

Well I think my questions have just been answered. Trying to put that sign on the only island along the street seems to be the limiting factor in what absent kicking the island further toward

I'm sorry. Could you repeat that? The

solution I can see for this one to meet the standard is to take the the curving that's that surrounds the island Yes. And push it two feet closer to the building so that you'd have your two feet back. I just wondered if you'd given that any thought or do

you know

what that would cost?

Are you talking about extending the curb further into the parking lot? Again, there's probably still room to get around that if we did that, but as it sits right now with the parking spaces that would jet out into the traffic. It is possible, yes.

That's my only question.

Thank you Mr. Carl. Mr. Jones, do you have any questions?

Yeah, have a few questions, some of which are for staff. On the application it mentioned that the requested variance was for five feet three inches. Can we get some clarification as to why that's different than I think what was read in the byline for two feet?

I believe before the applicant originally submitted this application in January or even December, I think the site plan changed until now until March. So they actually decided to come to the board for the variance.

Okay, so at this point it's not as much of variance.

Correct.

Originally she wanted it centered in that island and that's where the five foot variance came from but if we push it all the way to the end of the island, Okay, it's only two

so I went to that parking lot before the meeting and there were two cars parked on either side of that island and I struggled to envision how anyone will see the sign if cars are parked there?

I think the only solution to that is to do away with the parking space on each side of that.

Has the property owner given any thought to that?

She has. Okay. But I just noticed that too, that parking spaces are directly up against that curb, so that'd be the only thing we could do with that.

And I noticed in the staff report, I think there are signs around this property that were constructed prior to the current ordinance that are also within the setback that they're seeking.

Yes.

Correct. I'm not sure if you can answer this, but we know that one of the trees has to be removed to place discussion that additional landscaping would be done, do you know where that will take place?

Probably this asylum right here, there's nothing inside of that one, there's a drainage, I think, wait, there's a drainage somewhere here that we can't do anything with, but this one right in the center right here, she's talking about planting another tree or shrubs or

Has there been any discussions with Hershey's about removing the sign that they currently have on the east side of the property if this sign gets approved?

I don't remember their sign It's a standalone sign, not on the building? Correct.

Yeah, a metal sign off to the side.

Well once that sign is constructed on the front, it's not even necessary to have it there because they have another sign on the building.

That's on the east side where we're a potential other place for this sign. But the renderings that we've seen have all three tenants in that building on the sign, so I assume they're all on board with Yes. The And then one other question, there is looks like some sort of memorial or cross on the light pole that is directly in front of where the proposed sign will be. I take it since there's nothing in our materials that no one has expressed any concern.

That one there.

Sorry, is it this light pole?

Yeah, on that light pole.

I've never even noticed that.

Perhaps Steph did not one from the notice public has expressed it, okay. No.

Did not notice that either.

That's all the questions I have right now.

Thank you Mr. Jones. You went over most of my questions but I Sorry. No, it's fine. But there's still, so Mr.

Karl mentioned moving it back is an option to meet the current requirements. And one of the reasons I think he's asking that is we're obligated to see if there's another way to approach this through a conforming sign without having to grant a variance that's reasonable without an undue burdens. And we also have to think also about visual sight lines for motorists with signs, right? And I think that also went to one of Mr. Jones questions about the cars on both sides of that was my first question is, I've been in parking lots in neighboring cities where you're literally parking right next to a sign.

I've always thought how is anybody gonna see what's here if I'm parked in front of it. So wanted, the first question is for Ms. Rodak, but the sign where the Hershey sign is, is that a like it said in the report that that's not compliant. Is that location an area on the property that would be compliant for a sign to be or is?

No, it would still be within that 15.

Can you show me on the map where on that side of the property there would be a compliant area for a Yes.

We go back.

Here it's

15 feet back and then 15 feet from the side property line as well. So

can you pull up the picture where you showed the Hershey sign without the snow? The one it's just kind of off in the distance. See here's my concern, you have because I'm trying to see if there are other places where you would be able to see a sign on the property and I just I don't know if you'd be able to see it if you had a bunch of cars in the parking lot, that's where my head is going.

So I'm sorry, go ahead.

So my question for the applicant is beyond potentially moving it back have you considered anywhere else or has there been any exploration by the owner of placing it anywhere else about potentially removing a parking spot and placing it in a different location?

Are you talking about on the side there

with Yeah, same

side as there have any emergency evaluation of like

just Again how parking is set the further you go back down that line the steeper that slope gets, so 15 feet back it's probably covering from that direction coming this direction. It's probably covering at least half the sign because it's not very tall.

Ms. Radek are you able to pull up Google Street View to see what it looks like from both traffic directions? The other side. That's the opposite direction. So if you zoom in where we were talking about the location that's proposed by the applicant, you zoom in it's where that tree is correct?

Yes.

The

reality is that you could have somebody parking on both sides of it currently as currently proposed to us. Right. My question is reasonably how is somebody gonna see that sign if you're back on the street or from either way?

Solution to that would be to eliminate the parking spaces on each side of it, directly up against it.

Those are my only questions for now. We don't have any members of the public here tonight.

You triggered some more questions for me if that's alright.

Alright, sure. The

MedSpa is the new tenant in the building, right?

Correct.

And it seems as if they're the tenant that's driving this sign, is that right?

I'm sorry?

They're the ones that are behind this sign. This is a question for staff, has there ever been this type of sign at that property before? Believe is all we've got.

I believe the Hershey sign is all we've got.

That's not conforming, correct, sorry for the interruption. No. It's not conforming. Correct.

Because of the setback and because of

the height?

Because of the setback and the materials it's more

of a When temporary it was installed was it conforming or has it always been non conforming?

I believe that's a new sign. So it was in the past year, maybe year and a half that was installed and before I think it was an A frame, I believe.

I think my kids were in grade school when that thing was installed.

Just so that everyone knows what I was talking about, if you can go back to the picture that we were looking at with the Hershey sign, you can see on that light pole there's a cross and a teddy bear.

I

don't know if

I have

a question, I just wanted everyone to be aware of that. This is something I guess the applicant could potentially touch on, but if we're talking about potentially removing parking spaces so that the proposed location makes sense, is there a place in the parking lot that makes more sense than what we're coming because right now it seems like we're potentially changing the design. If we want people to be able to see it, we're talking about eliminating parking spaces. But one of the reasons why you guys picked this space is because you didn't want to have to eliminate parking spaces. So if that's now on the table, is there a better place on the property for the sign?

I initially wanted to put it in that center island right in the middle, because I thought we could build a tall sign above the cars, but apparently we can't. So she decided she wanted it up front.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, I guess that's my other question is, do you have the ability to potentially make changes to the design or do you have approval or authority to make changes if we were to ask for those tonight?

Possibly. You talking about extending the curb? I'm gonna have to go back and remeasure and

Well if the curb was extended as proposed by Mr. Carl, I think that would obviate the, potentially obviate the need for a variance because then it would meet the specifications. Some of our questions are germane to the variance but we're also functionally trying to, it's also a functional use of like just a concern of even where would anybody see a sign on this property? From the street. The property next door, which is a restaurant can you show on I don't think they have a sign do they?

They do.

Yeah, Lager and Vine. They sure do. Okay.

Oh, that one. I thought you were talking about the Chinese restaurant.

Oh, yeah. Well, they do. Yes. Yeah, they do both have a sign. I'm just trying to see, obviously we've driven, everybody here has probably driven down this road many times, I'm just trying to compare where on the property they are. So that looks like it conforms, Ms. Rodak.

Yeah I believe it is 15 feet back from the The right of

difference is is that they don't really have parking right in front, they're utilizing it as a patio. The difference is we're also evaluating this with a different set of evaluation than we would a typical area variance. We have different questions that we have to evaluate based on our city land development code. That was some of the reason for some of our questions tonight. That's why we're also I think a little bit turned around because these are a little bit different than what we usually deal with.

And miss Roedek, as the sign is currently designed, it doesn't it meets the height and it meets all the other standards, it's just where it needs to be on the premises?

Yes. It would still need to go through arc board, but the area and the height are all compliant.

I don't have any other questions. Does any other members of the board have questions at this moment?

No questions? Sure.

Did you have any other statements you'd like to make?

I do not.

Okay, I think we're going to enter at this point, we're gonna close the open part of the meeting and we'll just have some discussion amongst the board members at this time. Bob, do you have any thoughts that you'd like to share?

Yeah, I do. First of all, this isn't much of a variance.

Yes, that's correct.

Gonna be off on my word about the outcome. To me, it would be much better to give them a good variance and have a thing next to the road so everybody could see it rather than have to push it back. We had a case similar to this not very long ago where some company down on Terex Drive needed to move the sign closer to the road so that people could see it and we granted that variance. In some respects, this is different because it closer to the road would not necessarily make it a lot easier to see. Problem was seeing the sign.

If the owner says this is a sign we want and this is very substantial. I'd let the owner worry about whether the sign is visible or whether the owner wants to go and put spaces so that people could read the sign. I mean, that's to me that's something that the owner ought to do. We ought to not to the owner that he has to vacate those two parking spaces or anything in order to get this variant. That's his problem.

But It's a lot more reasonable to put the sign where the owner has suggested. I mean, I asked about moving the thing further into the parking lot. Looking at the pictures, that cuts down the amount of space that the cars have to move across the back of the sign island in order to get out of the and we go there all the time. So so it seems to me that that's not particularly practical. And and so I I guess I guess on balance, I think that granting the variance would be is is worthwhile and and a big push away from the zoning code.

Do you have any thoughts or comments?

I tend to agree. What I'm struggling with is the second factor for sign variances, whether a conforming sign would be blocked from the site of passing motorists due to existing buildings, trees, other obstructions. I think we've established that when cars are parked on either side of the sign, passing motorists are unlikely to see it. I don't think moving it closer to the road or moving it farther from the road changes that.

That probably doesn't.

And then in terms of necessity, I don't think there's another place on the property where the sign could go where they're gonna have the same issue anywhere on this property in terms of visibility and so to Mr. Carl's point, if the owner has decided this is the best that they can do, I have some heartburn us saying that they shouldn't do that. It's more of a business decision than code compliance decision. Especially since we're only talking about two feet now instead of close to six.

Should also point out, somebody mentioned earlier about changing the format of the sign, this thing goes to the arc board, doesn't it?

Yes it will.

They're gonna be the ones that worry about what the sign looks like.

Yes.

I agree with, I tend to agree with both of your comments. What I have, what I'm spinning around in my head is what Mr. Jones has said is that whether or not the variance is granted as is, there's still going to have to be changes on the property for the sign to be visible, but as Mr. Karl pointed out, I guess that is up to the owner to figure out. But as Mr.

Karl pointed out and is worth taking into account is that requiring it to be another two feet moving the curb an additional two feet back so it can meet the requirement as is will pose, will take away turning space in an already crammed parking lot. I've parked there many times and have gone to Hershey's with my children in the winter. And it is a tight parking lot especially when it's full and as we can imagine will be necessary is removing some parking it will be even tighter. So I tend to agree that this is a de minimis request and otherwise I have any other issues with it. So I tend to agree with, both the comments made by mister Jones and mister Carl.

So I guess the question is, is anyone prepared to make a motion at this point? Either one of you wanna do it, I can pass the gavel over and do it.

I am assuming that for this motion we've gotta go through these seven factors.

Correct.

Not these seven factors in addition to the Duncan factors.

I don't think they do because these other factors are not from the Supreme Court of Ohio.

And they're specific to assigned When

the rule is more specific you go with the more specific rule. So that would just be the seven that relate to the sign.

All right, I'll make a motion. This is for variance request number 2020Six-three. Location is 50 West Streetsboro Street, Parcel Number 3200746 requesting a variance of two feet from the required minimum setback of 15 feet resulting in a 13 foot setback pursuant to section twelve oh seven dot 17 subsection D four A. The applicant is Doctor. Shweta Aurora and the property owner is Aurora Development Group LLC.

After discussion I move that we approve the variance based on the Board finding that the seven sign variance factors on balance support approving the variance, specifically whether the construction of a conforming sign would obstruct the vision of motorists or otherwise endanger public health or safety, the board finds that conforming sign and the requested sign will not obstruct the vision of motorists or otherwise endanger public health or safety, whether a conforming sign would be blocked from the site of passing motorists due to existing buildings, trees, or other obstructions. While the parking limitations at this property may cause the proposed sign to be blocked from the site of passing motorists. It doesn't appear that there's anywhere else on the property where that also wouldn't be an issue. Whether the construction of a conforming sign would require removal or severe alteration to significant features on the site such as removal of trees, alteration of the natural topography, obstruction of a natural drainage course or alteration or demolition of significant historical features or site amenities. We find that one tree will need to be removed but that the property owner intends to install additional landscaping to account for the removal of that tree.

Whether a sign that exceeds the allowable height or area standards of this code will be more appropriate in scale because of the large size or frontage of the premises and or building we find that that factor is not applicable because the proposed sign meets the maximum height and area standards. Whether the variance shall not adversely impact the character appearance of building and or lot and or the neighborhood. We find that it will not, but we understand that it has to be approved by the Arc Board. Whether the variance sought is the minimum necessary to allow reasonable use, visibility, and or readability of the sign. We find that this variance is a de minimis variance representing only a 13% deviation from the code requirement and for these reasons we find that the variance would be consistent with the general spirit and intent of this code.

In addition to all of that as part of my motion I would like to make it a condition to approval that the current Hershey sign be removed upon installation of this sign.

Is there a second to this motion?

I'll second it.

Ms. Rodak would you take the roll please?

Yes.

Mr. Scott? Mr. Jones?

Yes.

Mr. Carl?

Yes.

Chair Brownstein?

Yes. Congratulations. You have your variance. Have a good evening. Alright, moving on to other business, we have a couple of items. The first that was noted on the agenda is our drafted twenty twenty six goals for the board.

I don't

know if you'd like to give Give an intro for

a brief intro since we've already talked about this at our last January meeting. I did get a message from Greg Hannon, our director. He did say regarding the workshops that were discussed at our last meeting that city council was looking at them and plans has a tentative date for April or May and is looking at, if you'd like to speak more to that.

April 27 is the day we're looking at.

There you go.

I believe it's a Monday.

And there will be a formal invitation in the next week or so coming to board members.

I'll block off the calendar. Okay.

I have one comment on the points points that we're on here. Number two, specifically, the problem that we have most often occurs when some factor needs to be proven or understand the worrying of the language. We don't understand how we're supposed to apply it. And So, I would like mean, I think maybe this is pie in the sky but before the LDC gets amended at least substantially, we should get a look at it so that we can identify requirements that somehow escape of being proven. You know, I should put it this way.

When it says something like substantially modified for example. Well, we we gotta have a little more meat in that to make decisions. And so I wanna make sure that there's a minimum amount of changes and instead the changes be stated in concrete ways so that those of us who have to review findings and so forth have a standard, a bright line standard against which to determine whether it meets the code language or not. And that doesn't sound to me like a very difficult thing. You should get, you know, maybe a few days notice before a draft gets put up for a vote of count.

That sounds like, correct me if I'm misinterpreting the ask, but to have some involvement in reviewing proposed Yes. Proposed drafted changes to allow us to provide some sort of comment back to counsel.

Can do it pretty quickly. We send it around everybody and say, I got forty eight hours to read this and point on anything that would adjudicate.

I can clarify before counsel, because the changing of the code has a process, right? So it starts in counsel, goes to planning commission, it sits there for two months and then it goes back to past. At what point are you seeking the the notice before it rolls out to council in the very beginning or I'm trying to recall what you're suggesting.

I just wanna get it before it's engraved in stone. Right? And if if the Planning Commission is going to make any changes, I don't know what they normally do, but if they if they are accustomed to making some suggested changes and then council takes those into account, We can do it then rather than before the thing, it's the first time before council.

I would go so far as to say that would be encouraged. That is typically the role of the Planning Commission. Council comes up with the concept sometimes Planning Commission can also conceive ideas and send it to the council and they send it back, but by charter and by process, by state law, all changes to the Land Development Code must go to the Planning Commission and be considered before they go back to counsel.

The reason that we need to look is the Planning Commission isn't lawyers and the counsel generally isn't lawyers, but we're lawyers and so when we look at statutory language, we look at it from the standpoint of can we prove this, can we disprove this, can we determine whether a particular situation conforms or doesn't conform to this language, or is the language too generalized and for us to be able to say yes or no to the question whether the LDC has been met?

My suggestion would be that you would be asking for notice, like a formal notice, an email, calling, throwing a flag when Planning Commission receives a referral from counsel. I think that's because that's typically at a minimum a thirty day process and most of time it's a sixty day process and they go through and they discuss it, they make changes, staff comes back. So I would say when council prefers to Planning Commission would be the time that staff would And

also, we want to have a close enough relationship to the Planning Commission that we can sit down with the chair and say, look, it would be much better for this wording to be that wording. Yes. Yeah. Well, I mean, it's the planning commissions that the planning commission has the authority to advise counsel. We don't, but we can go to the planning commission and say, you know, if it's worded this way rather than that way, we have a lot easier time deciding the issue in our Hence our suggestions will be taken.

We have provided recommendations in the past. Think though we raised our hand for the de novo review to question changes to city council. So we have provided comments before. I don't know if it would be on all changes to city code but specifically to the land development code as you raised like specific That's

what I understood you was asking. Because those are the codes provisions that get referred to planning commission. Correct. They're not all code gets sent to planning commission, just the LDC. I

think we're about to get a biggie, that's why I wanted to do this.

Any other comments that you have on our goals, Mr. Karl? No, that's the one I'm worried about. Okay. Mr. Jones, do you have anything you wanted to raise? I can't remind me, Ms. Rodick, do we have to publish what our actual goals are and provide it to city council?

No we have not received any update that they would like to be presented so this is mostly just us.

For our internal purposes? Yep. Okay. I couldn't remember remember what was said last time on that. So I think that we can add in to the second bullet point what Mr. Carl has raised. I think that goes along coordinating with staff to receive briefings on LDC changes. I think that can be amended to explore ways of involving the BZB discussions with the planning commission for.

So that's the second darkened bullet point, the one that starts with the word coordinate?

Yes. Okay. I mean, do you see it

in Yes, and that's where I thought it would go. Yeah. Received notice of LDC proposed changes the same time that the plan commission receives them, for us to have an opportunity to discuss with the planning commission the wording.

And our last bullet point Samantha is to strengthen the relationship with council liaison to provide mutual feedback between the BCBA and city council. I just wanted to ask if you had any comments or thoughts on that specifically. I had provided that as sort of a broad, and I think that goes to also, it's not just City Council but just if there's suggestions that we, in the past we have provided suggestions of things that, we provided comments on lighting, amending, about signs, internal versus external lighting. We have provided comments in the past on that. We provided comments on our thoughts on the de novo process versus taking the findings effect of other boards, but we've added that as a broad goal of just continuing that relationship.

If there's any feedback from the city council that you're able to bring to us. Thank you. Then Ms. Roerich you had mentioned this was one of our prior goals was to create a searchable database of our prior decisions so that when we are reviewing variance requests specifically that we're aware of the impacts of our prior decisions.

So this is the BCBA database. Our IT created it over the past month or so and it's not live yet, this is just a demo, but very exciting. So it's just a link that the board members will get. There's no login or anything, you just can use this link, it'll come straight to here And just a general, you can jump to a case number if you wanna do that. But what we anticipate would be most helpful was be using this search zoning cases section going here and then it has a really in-depth search bar pretty much. And you can search by almost anything that we actually look through. It's really cool. I think

it's very nice, really nicely done. Sounds way better than that Excel sheet. Excel sheet. Yeah.

So much more exciting. But as an example, you can search by street. Great. So if you're I know something happened on Street Sparrow, it'll give you West Streetsboro, East Streetsboro, anything that we have on here. You can also do oh and then down here you can just clear all your search terms.

If you wanted to do a garage and you know what happened in Zoning District 3, you can combine those and it'll give you any garage that was in Zoning District 3. As you can see some of this still hasn't been updated, Some of the PDFs won't aren't updated and compiled and everything. So it'll still take a minute to get everything fully loaded and uploaded and some of these decisions aren't there but so it's just a I much easier way to search through any kind of case that we've previously had. You can also go through variances or appeals since those are coming up more. If you wanted to know what kind of garages were denied, what were approved, if that's

in a

historic district or not. And then for our meeting, you can also go through different times. So if you wanted to go back to, let's say, it happened in the 2024, you know for sure it happened there, and then go all the way to Day twenty twenty five. I'll just give you everything that happened within those as well. So it's very easy to use.

I would say search is really in-depth. And then this isn't like secure. It's not like a specific login that each person will get since all this information is public anyway. It's that we would want it to just give the link to board members for them to use. So yeah. It's not live yet, but once it is, I will definitely be sending this out hopefully for the next meeting.

Have a lot of

history in there.

And how far back do the records go that they're building in?

Eighteen. So it'll be the last six years or yeah.

Think yeah. Eight years.

Go. Yeah. There's if you want me to test anything, let me know.

And if we once we get access to it and you're still building and we can we reach out to you if something's not uploaded?

Yeah. There's any bugs, I already noticed one that I'll be reaching out to our ITU about but any bugs you're like this would be a really cool feature, anything like that, you can just let me know and we'll try to get that uploaded.

Will you pass along our thanks?

Absolutely love.

This is amazing.

I know. Also think so. This is Paul, we have Paul Liedem, our IT director. So he's really cool.

I agree.

He did it in a month?

Yeah, I think even less. He's very good, yeah.

I never let him go.

Great. I'll let him know, I'll tell him. Yeah. There

you go. Yeah.

You think

by next

month it'll die? I think so. I hope so. Everything might not be uploaded but I think the board can go and start using it.

Think this was initially I think this was an objective we made three years ago. So I think that's, I never would have imagined. We were just like can we just like have a Excel sheet where you can at least drill down and know if it's a use variant. But this is amazing. This is awesome.

He did say that recently it's become a lot easier to create these kind of apps or websites though. Whatever happened in the last couple years he's been able to really narrow down on it.

Wonderful. Do you know, this is off of this topic, but do you know if we have any cases for next month?

Yes, we do have one case, it'll be a setback variance for a playset.

Okay. Yes. And is the deadline for applying already passed?

It is today. Okay. So it should be just the one.

Just the one, all right. Good to know. Okay, well then is there anything

Yes, there was the PC final decision that we reviewed, just any kind of feedback you guys have for them about that decision.

Out of my comments, I read through it. I didn't have any, it felt like it was thorough enough. It went through every single item and it applied whether it was applicable or not applicable. I think my main thought while I was reviewing it is this is something that they were approving and I'm more concerned about when they're denying something and how they're supporting that denial. So I don't have any substantive comments on what they provided.

I thought it was fine but we don't have to review their approval. Right. Right. Yes. So I would I guess ask that we if they would like they can submit for a review if they have a denial coming up or one where it's partially approved partially denied which is what I think we had come before us a couple months ago.

Was this just like a test case for them to

I send to think they just wanted to send them something right away.

That's why they sent us an approval because the denial not was

a choice as an advisory opinion.

I didn't have any issues with how it was drafted. I like that they went through every single, not subsection, but every potential applicable part of the for

the law.

Which is what we had raised in the denial is that they hadn't gone through every single section.

Say Yeah. It again.

I think that's what I I would

Okay. Yeah. I'll I'll take it. Yeah. Will take the comments back and let us make

sure And we're asking for them to immediately deny something. Right. It's more of next time. Sure. It happens.

Yeah. I can just get those comments to Nick. And if they happen to have a denial come up and they're open to just giving that back, I'll put that in the next meeting that it pops up in. Okay. Just wanted to clarify for the goals. I'm not sure if we want me to edit those and then bring them back or are we doing a formal motion? I'm not sure if we need to for that.

Do we need to make a formal motion on that?

We don't

need to, you can.

Is it your goal to offer those to city council then or no?

Well, that's why I was asking if there was the expectation of submitting them to city council. It There understand sounded like that's not was not an expectation, yeah. Of this year. I think in prior years there had been requests for us to submit our goals. So I'm happy to make a motion if if and and us submit our goals if that's something that you feel that city council would find valuable. Also open to your opinions as well.

Also could just It's

been a while. Yeah. Not a legislative one. Yeah. So no, I don't think the city council needs to need it. You see it?

I can make a ministerial act of approving the drafted. I'll make, we don't have to make a motion to say so moved.

Yep, and then it could be just adopted by unanimous acclamation.

So all say aye.

So unanimous acclamation means that if there's a motion second, we are going to adopt it by unanimous acclamation unless nobody objects, it's done. That's what unanimous acclamation means.

Ask Ms. Roedek to call the roll or

Don't even have to call the roll, it's done. If no one raises their hand or objects, that's a unanimous acclamation. You typically use it when your quorum is gone, Right, and you just say it out loud and you have a noted quorum on the record, but it's a faster way to move through the meeting.

Great, a unanimous acclamation of proposed objectives as amended tonight with the comments made. Do you have any comments or we'll talk

about that? I have two comments and I will keep you. All of the comments that this board made previously about the process for turning around findings of fact, I don't know if it was you or whether it was Mr. Scott, but it came from here, the concept of changing the land development code in the requirement for findings of fact altogether. In other words, only requiring or at least requiring additional findings of fact.

The requirement to make findings of fact in a motion like you did tonight, will still remain. The idea of reducing that to writing will only be required if there is an email. That's the concept that we're chasing and I have run that through the council's leadership. They are on board with that. And so our office is currently working on drafting.

But the credit has been given to this board because the idea came. Thank you for that. And just that's an update that we're gonna be seeing that in the next couple of months. Council does have a pretty full agenda over the next two months. So we might see it this summer, but it's not because we're not working on it.

Did you want to talk about the memo?

Yeah, think it'd be worthwhile to talk about.

So Ms. Bronstein had asked a month or so ago and we were off for a month so it didn't roll out that our office put together a primer, for lack of a better phrase, a memorandum, kind of an update to the board of potentially zoning law, and in particular in the 9th District. Here in Summit County, but where Summit County or the 9th District has not necessarily weighed in on one of this Duncan factors that we talk about, certainly what the highest Supreme Court law is. And so we put together a memo in that vein, shared it with Ms. Bronstein, she sent it back to us today.

I've already asked my team to look at it. They have, I think adopted all of your changes 100%. I just have not gone back through that. I took look at it, but you'll be seeing that and the idea is it's kind of an update as you go through case by case if you want to look up a particular factor, what's the case law say and you may remember the trigger on this one was whether something was immaterial deviation and there's a court district, or a sixth district case that says it's I believe 25% or more a matter of law is a material deviation. Mr.

Carl, are way too many factors, it's not always just a mathematical calculation as to whether or not it's a substantial deviation. And there are two districts in Ohio that have had that bright line rule, the 9th District is not one of them. And so the idea was to, you know what, that's a good question, what else is out there on the Duncan factors? We've, Ms. Rocin had the idea of putting that together and you'll be getting that shortly.

And it's a very comprehensive memo as drafted. Most of my edits were to try to shorten the length but keep the meat of the information. And the other intention is to provide a primer as Mr. Pitchford had said to anybody new to the board of just like how do you evaluate an individual part of the Duncan factors of how they play together. And I think we all have a pretty good idea of it, but it's nice to actually see where the case law lands on a lot of things.

So hopefully we can provide that next one. All right, wonderful. In that, I request a motion to adjourn.

So moved. Second.

All right, so moved.