Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We're gonna go ahead and call our joint LBC board training and workshop to order tonight. Greg is gonna be writing down some things and tracking some time. For those of you who don't know me, my name is Marshall Pitchford, and I am the city solicitor, which means I'm the city lawyer. And we'll be, I would say, facilitating the conversation tonight. I don't think it's intended to be a two hour monologue from me.

I certainly hope that this turns into a conversation. It was input from from everybody. At least I will tell you, and I know I'll turn the floor over to doctor Bird here in a minute, but that was the the impetus for the conversation tonight to try to get feedback, direct feedback, not only to build relationships, but to understand what each other does in your individual role.

So, doctor Bird. Okay. Thank you. I had to write stuff down because otherwise, we'll just go on and on and name is Mike Bird. I'm an ward four council member and also the president of council.

And I just wanna thank you all for being here. This is one more evening away from your home, your families, and and you guys have enough to do and we appreciate you making time time to be here. This is one of those ideas that it's like, oh my gosh, why didn't we haven't why haven't we done this before? It just makes so much sense to get all three of your boards together and kind of understand what one does and what one can't do. And just just meet each other, understand the processes, the challenges that we all go through.

And I think that that kind of will build and make us a better, more effective team and better community as well. I'm a really big believer in continuing education. I know it's really big in medicine, and I know it's huge in professions, most most fields. And so I think this is a this is a a a start of it. And I think we want to think that, you know, this is we're we're going to build on something like this.

What how else can we, you know, continue to stay fresh? What's the latest in in in in PCBA and planning and art board and and keep up on things. And and so, this is just kind of a a start. We want to get your feedback after this. What what was good?

What could be done better? And we're gonna be looking for the future of, you know, there's some online training opportunities. There's perhaps, you know, experts in the field that you could come in and and talk with us at a later time. And then we can also have continue to have further dialogue with the the the solicitor. So, again, thank you very much for being here.

So this will will be our agenda tonight. You also have a one of these in front of you. But I thought we would start by going around the room and sharing your name, the board that that you serve on, and how long you've served on the board. Nick wanted us to also have you share what we like about Nick. What your favorite part about Nick will be don't we don't have to

do that. As long

as you want. Just your name, the board that you serve on, and how long you've been in your role. We can start you, Corey.

Sure. I'm Corey Scott. I'm part of BCBA. Been a bit over a year.

I'm Lydia Bernstein. I'm on the zoning board as well with Corey, and I've been serving since 2021 and elected chair this year.

My name is Andrew Brown. I'm on the architecture and historic board review. I'm the newest member. I started in, I believe, August 2025.

And I'm Alan Marzula. I'm on the same board, architectural and storm border renew. And I started in 2007 with the break after three, four year terms. And so what do I have to? '19?

Something like that. My name

is Fred Inamorato. I'm on the planning commission, and this is my third year.

I'm Jamie Shaginski. I'm also on the architectural board, and I've been on a big I think two years this summer.

I'm Jesse Herbert. I'm on the planning commission. It's been just about a year. My favorite thing about Nick

is he always answers my emails.

David Nystrom, Planning Commission, my sixth year. Fun fact, my wife taught Sugar.

I'm Sarah Norman. I'm on the planning commission. I joined

this is

the beginning of my fifth year. Dave was the chair immediately preceding me. Last year was my first year as chair, and I'm continuing this year as well. And I like the fact that Nick has been responsive when I've told him to do things my way.

Just real quick. I'm okay

with you. So you got some fun fact.

I was on the art board before this role. Yeah.

Bob Dyer, BZBA. Fun fact,

I think I'm the oldest person here, having been on the board the shortest amount of time.

I've been One meeting. Oh.

Hi, Amanda Weinstein, at large council member, and

I'm also a liaison to the Planning Commission.

Keenan Jones, I'm on BZBA, and I think I've been on for about ten months.

I'm Patricia Guts, and I'm ward one city council, and I've been on the architectural review board as liaison for two and a half years.

I'm Sheridan, city manager. I've been city manager for a little over four years.

And if anybody needs to use the restrooms, they're down that hall.

And food, box food, will be coming here probably in the next ten minutes.

Greg Hannon, community development director. I started

over twenty years ago as an associate planner working with architecture review board. And

I my one other piece tonight, I will try

to help keep us an an eye on the clock so we

Big Sugar, city planner. Been here about eight years now. Thanks for all the kind words.

Brian Griffith, assistant city manager. I've been here I'm not I think we came a month apart. So was it seventeen

years now?

Eighteen. Eighteen years.

And you have nothing nice to say about Nick.

Didn't say you have nice about me.

He didn't say anything.

We didn't hire him.

Okay. Well, the the first item on our agenda tonight to go over is the onboarding process. I presume most of you have gone through meeting with the staff before you sat in your first meeting. I would say probably at least half of you sat through a meeting with with me. And so we would you were brought here to City Hall.

You are kind of shown a org chart of the city council and the city manager and how the the different departments work. We kind of go through a conversation about the the importance of now that you're an elected official, the importance of maintaining all of the records, like all of your emails and all of your text messages because now all of those are public record. We talk about the open meetings act, a little bit about conflict of interest and the ethics concerns. And then about forty five minutes into that, the meeting is almost over and we turn the floor back over to to Nick or whoever the the staff liaison is to of answer your questions. And it's it's been brought to our attention that perhaps this is something and this is one of the first things that we wanted to talk about tonight is that what what can we do better for you as a as an administration to make the onboarding process better?

You know, what would you like to see? What is what is useful? What is what is not particularly useful? I know that, you know, one of the things that have been raised to me as a potential suggestion was, well, why don't we talk a little bit about as a quasi judicial board why that's, you know, why that's important and how that literally has legal consequences. And everybody talks about, you know, Robert's rules of order and parliamentary procedure is something that they do in Columbus or in Washington DC and that's not really important here.

But but it is important here because it the people's process price are are at issue. And this is, you know, people's property and the way that they, you know, live and enjoy our community together. So it's an important thing to consider and to understand. And so that was one of the suggestions that perhaps we should should go to that or add that into the to the discussion. And these were some of the other ideas that been talked about, you know, perhaps a a flow chart.

So whether you're applying for a, let's say a fence permit, right? And how that goes through, administration looks at it and then it goes to the ARC board and then if you're turned down then you can go to the BZ VA and you know those kind of like how would those kinds of things flow and certainly with the recent change in our code that everything now is funneled through the v z b a then ultimately up through city council. Whereas this time last year that that wasn't necessarily the case. And so these are some ideas that you know we would be interested in hearing any feedback or any comments. So, you know, this is the this is the moment in time where if you have any thoughts or suggestions, we would certainly like to we certainly like to hear feedback.

I know that some of the city council members had wanted to to review this in particular. If there aren't really any comments, I would add one of the other ideas that that we had come up with over the last couple of weeks in getting ready for tonight is perhaps a the council liaison or the the board chair. And again, not trying to, you know, put put upon you right as the chair. But if there's anybody on the board or the commission that's gonna have a working knowledge of the process, who would be able to best answer questions from somebody who is, you know, in the seat if you will. It it might be the it might be the board chair who could talk about, you know, what what things you should look out for and what experiences that the the folks in the administration just don't just don't have.

Any So one of

the things that I think and maybe my other PC chairs would agree or disagree. When you first come on, knowing where we are in certain applications. So I think it would have been helpful to, whether it was a board chair or liaison or staff, if it was Nick or whatever that said, okay, here here are the applications that are on the table. Here's where we are in those applications. And for example, let's take one and go through it together.

Here is the review process that you as a board member should be doing and considering. Here's where to find the information, like in our land development code, whatever. And then giving us preparation to be able to go to that meeting and not sit there like a deer in headlights going, I didn't know we were talking about ABC and the daycare center on that street. Right? Kind of like a get you up to speed, and this is the flow of how your work and consideration should go moving forward would

have been super helpful. So it's almost, think of the right word exactly, but walking through an example even though it's not really hypothetical. Because your next meeting, but at least taking one of the cases and because it it is once you've heard the story once, you walk know, you're not you're not deer in a headlight. You you can kind of appreciate what's going on and and understand at least a little bit. It makes it a little give you a higher level of comfort. Right? Just sitting Certainly.

Well, and it's you know, we're going and walking job sites and looking at what's out there. What What you don't know is what am I looking for? What is supposed to be there? Okay. I see the stakes, but are they missing some? At the first, I didn't know. So I I did rely on our chair at one point to go and walk a site with me, But it probably would have been helpful to do that before a meeting and not under pressure of, I gotta study all of this for tomorrow. Right?

Any other Yeah, I'll take that a step

further from the

BZBA point of view and that is, sort of like a case study, a specific study or two that you could go through. It may have been a difficult decision. The board wrestled with it and maybe it was a three to two or whatever. But from especially from your perspective, from a legal perspective, what what you thought was handled properly? What maybe the boards kind of moved away a little bit from the way it should have been.

My experience for the first meeting was it was a great meeting. We voted five to zero. Maybe this is normal, but I woke up the next morning and I felt like I I voted the wrong way. Okay.

Marshall, I've got just a couple of, I I would just call them twists on Jesse's idea. I think, one way of approaching it is from the counsel interview process. I I feel like it would be an important predicate question to say to a candidate for one of the boards or commissions, have you watched a meeting of this thing that you're interviewing for? And tell us what you watched, and tell us what questions you have or what you thought was confusing. And it's not that it's a test that they have to have all the right answers, but it would give some sense that the person knew what they were walking into.

Of course, they might be scared and then pull the application. I don't know about that. But but another way of doing, and I think accomplishing the same thing, would be to hold those interviews before the the seat is vacant on that board or commission, so that the new board or commissioner could shadow either the person who's leaving or any other person for just a couple of meetings, so that they had someone that could say, why did you do it this way? How do you prepare? And maybe if it's two different people, they could compare and contrast, because I know I'm I'm I'm deep in the land development code, but then, you know, mister Nystrom here is really all about the drawings.

And that's the fact that we and then Jesse's analyzing even other things and is is spread. So so bringing all of those gifts to the same board, we have very different ways of of preparing for a meeting. And so yeah. So those are my two ideas on that.

Mister Pitchford, can I jump in on that? Please. I don't believe I'm violating any executive privilege of, those meetings because we're not talking about any details, but we almost always ask that question of candidates. Okay. So we cover that and many other several things that are very similar. We're trying to pull out, you know, how involved are you? How much have you looked at? You know? Is there something you saw that you liked or didn't like? So that we could try to pull out the level of knowledge of somebody coming in wanting to sit in that seat. So I think we do a pretty good job when we're

in those interviews. I think one of

the best questions I was asked when I came up for reappointment was, were there any decisions that you regret you made? And

I wish I would have thought of that a little bit harder

before I walked out of that room, but I'll tell you what, definitely spurred some some thoughts with that one. But that was a great question to ask.

I was gonna add one more quick thing. Back to parliamentary procedure. If there's any chair or vice chair, certainly can talk to mister Pitchford. If a chair or vice chair wants to talk to me about some of that parliamentary procedure, please do reach out. Give you a quick example, Alan, you may remember this. We're in an art board meeting and I don't remember what we were discussing, but it was there's a lot of opinions. And a couple of people were just going back and back and forth. And I remember Shane raising his hand saying, I haven't had a chance to speak. And parliamentary procedure, Robert's rule order is that everybody should have the opportunity to speak before somebody speaks again. So Shane was politely waiting and the chair, I don't think he has a chair at that time, but he should have stepped in and made sure that everybody had the opportunity to add their input before more people just kind of piled on.

So it got a little

it did get

out of control, but those type of basic things,

be happy to talk to anybody about if they

need or would like to.

I've done that myself.

Me. It's here.

It's my turn. And Andrew being the newest, he actually he sits on the right hand side and it always starts with the with the chair the member on the right hand side. So I don't know. How would you how would you describe your first time to hug with the guys?

No. I I mean, I I feel like we have a pretty strong chair. I mean, terms of running

the meeting. Yeah. I mean, John

does Mhmm. I there's never any question in my mind about when I when it's my turn to speak or who that I'm gonna get to speak, and I appreciate that.

Yeah. But as far as what you So

I I mean, I I was unfamiliar with a lot of this prior to being on the board. Even though I mean, I I've been an architect for a few decades, but, like, actually serving on a board like this is new. But I felt pretty comfortable because the people who have experience the the way that our meetings run, it's very easy to state what I think about the projects and let the meeting be run.

Yeah. I do think for our board, one thing I we've kinda talked about this more high level and even something that we can hand out to the community. But I think when you first come in, the historic board part, the historic part of it knowing, approved materials. That's probably one of the biggest questions when you come in and you're like, okay, is this an approved material or non approved material? So maybe having some of that in writing, even if it's not released to the community, released to the board just to kind of be up and running.

Yes, we approve this. Typically, obviously, there's, you know, some gray areas sometimes on some of it. But just having a little bit more of those details going in, I think, would be helpful. Also, I think you kind of mentioned it, but maybe even in that training, kind of walking through what it looks like when somebody is putting an application in. Because sometimes I think that's kind of been a question on our our board a couple of times of, you know, what are they being told to make sure that they're uploading all the images, all the so are they so we've seen that from that perspective too, just seeing what they are required to upload so that if you get somebody in front of our board saying, it didn't say that I had do that, and we're like, no, does say that.

That's a requirement. So just those are a couple suggestions I have

as well. Building off of what Ms. Gorman said before, I really like the idea of shadowing before vacancy occurs. Vacancy on our board can be impactful for decision making, and I think it would be useful. You know, there's we've we've had over the course of my tenure, some people that had served on the board for a very long time that had a lot of, knowledge that, you know, maybe didn't get passed down that would be valuable to memorialize.

And another thing that I was thinking would be valuable I don't know if it would be as of as much value for the other boards, but specifically for the zoning board. I think it would be useful to have illustrative examples of each type of case we see. We get a lot of variance requests, but we don't get as many appeals. And that's why they're a little harder because we might not have in our tenure or on our board somebody who has real knowledge of, well, how did we handle an appeal before? And if we can have the case number cited of an illustrative example where we could go back and have those citations.

And I think that we can do that now that we have the database set up. I think that's actually possible to do. And I think that would be helpful for a new member to say, okay, here's an appeal that's come up from the planning commission. Here's an appeal from the art board. These are how they've worked, and and here are couple of different examples of variances.

I mean, obviously, have the expectation of somebody coming you know, the board has watched some of our, you know, meetings, which I know that, Mr. Dyer has done. But I think that that's valuable to give illustrative examples so they can see and have a little bit of a framework for how those have gone in the past. Coming in as a chair, I got a little bit of information from the prior chair, but I also think coming up with a little bit more standardization over, like, a chair packet of talking about Robert's rules, just some information on this is, you know, the expectations on or here's some guidance on how to run a meeting. I think that would be valuable to have a little bit of standardization on that.

Marshall, so it sounds like one of the themes was, like, greatest hits, great cases, examples. It's gonna be some work for staff and Nick that we love. But, you know, like a case if if we have to

make one up, we can't, but but there's probably plenty

in the in the archives where, you know, showcase maybe with some flow flow charts and some graphics so that people really can understand how they how they flow to the system from the beginning of an application to the end of appeals and what that's.

Could could we also ask board members that are leaving to put their wisdom in some kind of packet or thing so that it could be passed on, whether it's a chair or if somebody had been on there twelve years, they should have a plan of information to interview.

Or ask if they even be willing to go to coffee with a new person and just It's nice that it's written. Oh, yeah. It's nice.

With the exit interview type of with the with the memo afterwards.

I don't know if this falls into this area or not, but on the it's sort of I'm and I'm sorry. I don't know your name. The lady on our court at the end. Jamie? I'll work with Jamie.

Similar to the the points that she brought up, there are times we have more and less sophisticated applicants coming before the planning commission. And and I think Hudson has a very robust desire for public participation. But if you don't come to a city council meeting, planning commission, you don't know where you fit into this. You're not really sure if you're at the front of the agenda or you're at a public hearing specific to that issue. And I've often thought that one way we could maybe assist the public through that would be to have somewhere on the website a I'm just gonna call it a guide to public participation because I don't I don't have this flushed out.

But that might be for city council, you have a right for public comment to five minutes. At and at the mayor's discretion, he will either cut that shorter or longer, depending on how many people there to speak. And if you're a party of interest, since we've changed the rules related to public hearings and appeals, this is very important because it's all new. If you're a person of standing, you have x number of minutes. But if you don't if you didn't get notice, you don't have standing, you have a lesser amount of time.

And and then what are the materials that you have to bring? Because people don't always think about the fact that at at planning commission level, we are the arbiters of the reliability of those witnesses. We often have people who come, and their their case will get continued over the course of several meetings. And so by the time we're done hearing almost seven hours of testimony, we have heard contradictions. Often, have to go back and listen to a a tape to know, did I hear that right the first time?

Because I thought they said something else. And so so knowing that that's sort of the the I don't wanna call it the test, but to know that that sort of preparation matters, that this is as important as taking a witness stand, at least in our situation, I think that would matter to know too. Alright. So it's just an idea to throw out there.

I wanted to go back to one of these that that Lydia had talked about. And then not to put Mary on the spot, but the the database that the city administration put together, is that for all cases that have come before the the BCBA or is it just on variance request? And then I wanna wanna make sure everybody is even aware that the city put together a looking back several years, it's a searchable database. So if you wanted to go back and look for variances on forward facing garages, for example, you can type that into the the search bar and it'll pull you up all those cases and and you can then click on and see the decision and the and the actual recording of that particular hearing. But is it is it it's just for BCBA, but does it have to do with all appeals or is it just variances?

How does that work?

It's variances and appeals from 2018. So just for the past eight years.

And where would they where is that on the city website for everybody's edification?

That's it's not public.

So it's an internal school. Okay.

There used to be used to be able to go to, I don't remember what it was called, something on the dash board. It hasn't been available for a few years, but if I wanted to know whether a certain address hadn't gotten a permit for whatever changes they had made to the exterior, I could go in there and put in that address and it would show me like, it would zoom in on it and it would say a permit number or no permit number. But in the last few years, I've asked about that and that wasn't available anymore.

I'll check. I mean, are great points for

us too just to make some notes. So I'll I'll check. I think that resource is still available, so it would be good thing for all the boards.

Okay. Yeah. I thought that was still in there.

So on the thought process of public database, I would love to see something of like a time tracker that's like, you know, thirty, sixty, ninety, one hundred and twenty days of projects that are going when council creates a subcommittee for Clinton Street Crossing. It would be great if the applicable boards would get a notification that says, FYI, this subcommittee has formed. This is what we're tracking out. This is when it should come to you. Because sometimes things come to us, and I feel like, why did we not know that this was already happening?

Because it would have been helpful to have sat in on one of those subcommittee meetings if possible or joined, you know, whatever. Or for BZBA, if they said, oh, gosh, this really is gonna come to us later. We'd love to be able to sit in this and understand. So I don't know what that is. I don't know how staff could do that, but that would be great.

Just communication, top down, bottom up that, you know, PC says, hey, we did the blah blah blah with this land code and it's going to apply to BZPA that they should get this, that, hey, this is being discussed. It applies to your board, is being discussed at planning commission, and then it's gonna go on to council, and here's when we expect it to apply to you for all of us. Because I think there's a lot of overlap there that, you know, for whatever reason, we just don't hear about or it's you know, everybody's independently doing their things, but we all kinda rely on each other. I would love to see more communication, or if there was just a a part of the website that we could just log into and see those kind

of things, it'd be great. And on that point, two of the three items we have on tonight's agenda are really exactly that. Right. City council is is working, you know, on some concepts, and some rule changes and some kind of ordinances. I've been talking to each one of them, not our court, but that will go to our court.

But the talking to to the rest of you about these ideas, and we haven't formalized it yet because we thought we might take advantage of the opportunity tonight to sit down and do exactly that. Right? So we can have a conversation and kind of iron out, you know, some wrinkles that that that I may not be able to necessarily foresee as I'm drafting it or the counsel is considering it. But again, sitting in your seat, we will understand the practicality of that particular rule. And maybe it's something that one of

the boards, you know, counsel is discussing is something and one of the board says, hey, now that I hear you're having this really great discussion, let me just provide some context to the actual use of that sitting on this board and what that would that practical application, because that may affect how they would go about something. I don't know. I I feel like there's a lot of a lot of positives in all the directions that would be more supportive for council, but also allow the boards to know what's coming down the the pipeline. So that's great.

Any other comments on onboarding or things that we might be able to do better? I'm gonna take a two minute break just because the fluid has arrived. I want we're gonna continue talking

Sorry. I just found this back here, but

I thought it might be helpful.

Just so we we keep our time, please.

I'm glad everyone's getting the chance to connect with us, and I'll turn it back to Marshall so we stay on our agenda. Recognize that, but I just intended to be a conversation about what specifically each one of the boards do. So, two of the three boards in a minute, but all three of the boards have this one in common. They are the quasi judicial. And the phrase quasi judicial really means that we are many judges.

Your job is to sit in a hearing, go behind the dais, and as as the chairs know and as and you have all set for a meeting, we swear in witnesses to their obligation to tell the truth and it's it's like a it's like a mini courtroom because the processes that in the cases that you decide upon ultimately could work their way into, you know, a courtroom in in downtown or even down in Columbus and Ohio Supreme Court. This process is legal. It is the judicial in nature. So each one of you

have to have board.

Focus on the planning commission, the board of zoning building appeals, they have a slightly additional and actually, art board too, as I think about it. If you you have a a slightly different role as well. Right? The planning commission advises specifically on changes to the land development code. The BCVA, you hear appeals, right? And the art board also has a responsibility to make recommendations on architectural review standards similar to what the PC does. But all three of you share this quasi judicial role and that's what we're gonna,

you know,

talk about a little bit tonight. So, in your role as a board, Your number one job is to protect the record. The you'll we've all heard the saying, you know, for the record or put it on the record. That's that is a thing. Everything that we say in our hearing is being reported.

It is being put down if if needed. And the PCBA or a judge or a panel of judges down the line will ultimately, if there's a dispute, will ultimately be reading exactly everything that happened in, you know, in our proceedings. When I get my witnesses, when I when I meet with one of my clients or a witness and I'm getting them ready for a deposition, I I explain it to them like this. When when we're all said and done, there'll be a transcript that is written up. And you know, when we were all in eighth grade, we all remember reading Shakespeare, right?

And Romeo said this and and Juliet said this and and back. It's exactly what a transcript will look like, right. It's this this person said this and that person said such and so on and it comes back and forth and everything is written down. That's what the record is. And our job is to make sure that we've got a clean record and that as I've written here, than site visits, like more, I know I've got some more as we go out to the for VCVA when you're judging variances or for the planning commission, you sometimes go out to the scene to see whether it's the state or not.

They have to do those things. Other than that, you know, your job is to hear only the evidence that's taken, you know, in town hall, right, on the record. And we are not able to take evidence outside what's what's presented. And again, it's just like a courtroom. You know, there's something we've all heard of the hearsay rule. But, this is all one thing say. We don't want those outside the room, outside the record being considered. I have a question.

So in cases where there might need to be some expert analysis or testimony, sometimes we get that from staff. Right? We will just ask the question staff. The staff can oftentimes present evidence and answer back. But not always, right?

What is the board's capability or limitation when, for example, there's a question about business logical impact or impact on city services or things that are part of our evaluation to consider. Do we have the ability to request expert testimony or additional information?

So, my view, the short answer is yes. Subject to our time constraints, you know, we can either ask the staff or I would suggest that you ask the applicant. Right? Because in my view, the applicant has been suburb and approved. If they're coming from us, it's their obligation to prove that whatever the applicable standards are and whatever the case is, that they have checked all of those boxes.

And if you don't ultimately get your answer on whatever that subject is that you believe that requires expert opinion. They, in my opinion, they have not carried, at least in my mind, if I were you, they have not carried their burden of proof necessarily to bringing that evidence to address that issue. Not to put Greg or Nick on the spot, the doesn't the art board have the or the ability to pull in a consultant for architect? That's part of our code. Can you speak to that? It's specifically in

the land development code where it acknowledges. Advisor directly to the board.

We don't have that necessarily from the from the FCCBA or the Proclamation Commission, but in that instance, I mean, the staff is a force of resource. But I but I believe that that's the applicant's job to put the evidence in, give it to the record.

This happened a couple of times, where we've needed information, for example, where they submitted Army Corps of Engineers studies or specific information from different agencies. And I think city staff has done a good job, at least from the public service part of the Duncan factor that would impact any public services has at least gotten the response from the fire department or electric if there's any impact there.

I think we see it more on administrative appeals. Mhmm. Yeah.

Marshall, I just wanted to throw in there that, something that I often, like, get nervous and cringe about is any of the border commission members accidentally slipping across that line and becoming a witness because each of us has a different kind of expertise. But notwithstanding I'll use myself just as an example. Notwithstanding that my background is in law, I try to ask staff about where there are apparent conflicts. I mean, the the conflict is apparent to me, and I would love to just say, well, we should just do it this way. But I know that that's not the right thing for protecting the interests of everyone involved.

So so the the way I end up getting around it is to make sure I'm asking staff questions, and they've heard me ask questions. Or, like, I I can think of there was a Greg, what was I I recently emailed you and said, I'm gonna ask you about how many housing units we have and how many are senior housing or whatever. I told him in advance, I'm gonna ask you this question because Greg had collected this data months in advance, but he was gonna be germane to whatever we were talking about. And if I didn't tell him I was gonna ask him that question, I could have said it, but I shouldn't be witness. I should be in the judicial facility.

So I gave him the the heads up that I'm gonna ask him these questions, so you'll be ready to answer them. And I just feel like that's that's something that doesn't get said. And if we're too casual about it, I'm always afraid that we're creating an opportunity for bias to slip in or, you know, improper evidence or or what have you.

So to add on to that, I try to do the same thing of laying the foundation for whoever is under your position, and that will be the purpose of a lot of the questions that I ask even if they could they could seem obvious or could easily reduce it from the record. I specifically will ask those questions both of the applicants and of the city staff, but I agree with you. I think it's important to to lay the foundation for whatever the decision is gonna be made in the in the testimony for both the city staff and from the applicant or in nature's degrees. Right.

Excuse me. Please. Except we're all quasi tradition, but which I which I've always fear of the evil. And I don't know. Can you tell me why you don't?

I cannot answer that question. Because I'm not a

problem at the moment.

Have you ever gone across that issue in the past? Have you guys ever been asked that? Is there a reason? I think that's an

understanding process. But I mean, it's a good question.

I don't know the history on how that got started.

I don't know what that

I know that ties into her

four decisions then going to UCDA.

Can see if we can put anything together.

I think now that, sorry for interrupting, I think now that the procedure has changed that we're not taking de novo testing on it, like it's not a de novo case, that it's actually important To do it. To do that so that the record is clean and Yep. Thank you for raising that.

That's really important with

your question.

Yeah, we'll note that as a follow-up. Okay. So next, let's talk a little bit about what the ARC Board does. And for those of you that are on the ARC Board, if we don't have this right, then then go sweet now and roll over with your piece. But pretty much at a at a high level, the the art board, they reviewed the architectural characteristics, right, for new structures, any alterations to a structure, additions.

They do a lot with fences and signs and demolition work. They don't necessarily review all architect of sexual questions for every single development in the city. There isn't an exception to the building. It is a minor subdivision. Lot. And for those of you that are that are on the workforce, I know in speaking with some of the council members and some of the other board members and getting ready for tonight, You know, what in your mind, who you're the record, whatever your experience was, how many cases do you think that you hear on a on an average night?

Yeah. I would say

that average is, like, 12 or so. And then sometimes when we only have one meeting a month, it's it can go up to close to 20, and some people might have a lot of capital.

They meet how often?

I do.

I want some time. Quite a month. I think that's 12. But they're

Some of them concise. Some are very short. Yeah. Some are very long.

But I mean but the I I would say the bulk of them. Either consent. Mean, very straightforward.

Or Is it?

No. No. No. No. I don't think either consent.

Either consent or relatively short discussion. We'll spend less then. Most of them.

So you will use a consent agenda process? Yes. Okay.

But there might only be

like, usually like two or There's from zero to three. Okay.

How often do you go past your average hour? You know, it's a two hour meeting. Sometimes the plan is to make sure the regulator totally close out. So the lights are gonna go off. The alarm will sound.

Can we all just take thirty seconds for anyone that needs to know? Yeah,

the ones that are less professional, but they try to be prepared sometimes, and then you feel like, Oh, why am I walking them through this? Know? And and their their key points are, like, you know, up to z

almost, and some of those are I I think sometimes,

I mean, when we get the

agenda, staff have noted for each application, how many Essentially yeah. How many how many issues have been raised for this application relative to the to the code? But what we don't know is whether some applicants will come and they'll have twelve twelve issues and they've addressed them. And they say, we're submitting new drawings and they have response for each thing. And it's like, great, you know. There's there's not a lot for us to discuss as long as what they've addressed is, you know, meets the standards. Sometimes they're ready to fight. You know what I mean? They they don't want them.

Well, it's not the most recent

Or or they haven't even seen they haven't read the list of responses. So I think preparation of the applicant is the most important.

I mean, the the staff prepares that these are the issues, but then they may be high resistance. And reasons why they don't have to be able to do this. But they're they're prepared. They know what they should be doing, but then they may just be

Some do. I think ones that are in front of us a lot do and often do address that. There are a lot that are not in front of Hudson all the time, so this might be the first or second time they're going in front of us. And I feel like those oftentimes have not been pre addressed. So those sometimes take seeing them a couple times.

Homeowners who are there by themselves.

Guys sometimes,

I know you hire an architect or

you bring an architect in. I think it's maybe it's in the building floor or whatever. Is that a staff? Does the staff make that recommendation or is that

We make a motion and a request

for a consultant. It's usually not specifically on historic.

So if if I'm an applicant and I come in and I I think I've done everything, answered all the the points. And then there's this discussion and it seems like there's a need to bring in an architect. So then gets tabled and I go for another meeting. Whenever there's an architect.

You ever

I go for a site visit.

Do you ever bring

in an architect before the fact, before the meeting and say, you know, we think this is going to we're gonna need your help on this.

Well, we have two architects on the board. So

Oh, okay. Okay. So

they can they can serve that policy.

I'm not see, that's the question I have. How are architects on a board able to serve as advisers to the board?

Well, they're they're not. And, like, at least one has said like, if somebody has said, can you do this? I mean, he said, why not? Oh, okay. So it's very clear that, no, you cannot. Now on the on the opposite, you can say, here's what you could make some changes to this that would make this maybe meet our COVID requirements Right. Right. Right. That are in the eyes of somebody who understands that, but not but if somebody says, can I hire you? No. I cannot hire you to to do this work. Well, I mean, even within board,

as you're deliberating, I mean, doesn't your arch does your architect say, well, you know, from a professional standpoint, this would be an acceptable thing? Because I'm an architect, and I can tell you this.

I don't think any of them ever state

that they I mean they make the other

It's true. But opinion on

the board. I'm I'm one

of them. Yeah. So this is my concern about being a a witness when you're on

the board.

But but I'm but

I mean, to say to repeat what Jamie, think, was getting at. We have a historic, consultant who we can bring in consult on historic properties specifically, and they're they're lending their expertise on the appropriateness of some complicated question with historic materials. But I don't know that any applicant has ever been aware that, you know, they're talking to that I'm an architect or that that we it's not something it's just I mean, all the board members kinda speak the same.

No. I do remember it. It is pretty specific. Somebody said, another architect on the board, are you an architect? He said, yes. I am. And I said, can you do this for me? He's like, no.

I cannot. He knows they're,

like, good thing that that happened one time.

I think to Marshall and his first point, the onus would be on the applicant to bring in their own architect for this discussions, not and if they choose not to, then you as the board can invite them to come in, but that means delaying their their, you know

Yeah. And we have asked I mean, we've said, you need to go have this drawn by somebody. Like, there are times where we've definitely gone back and said pushed back and said this you know, this needs to be worked by somebody Sure. For this to pass, basically. So I mean, we don't necessarily an architect specifically. It could be a designer. I mean, there are different ways of of having something drawn sometimes. But, yeah, basically, that you need to have a drawing that meets our requirements, basically, in this case.

Okay. We're gonna move on to the planning commission. And the planning commission weighs in. And sends it back. Charter only allows the city council to send it to planning commission once again after that.

So, it only go to planning commission twice But that is the is the advisory level that the Planning Commission has. And then of course, it's quite like judicial much like the art board. They hold hearings and take evidence on a number of different types of applications? Primarily, the ones that we see the most are what are called conditional use applications and our site plan applications. And those have to do with, it is literally, this is the development that we want to present.

We want to build this building. This is the parking lot. And just kind of go through the model. And there is a myriad of standards that need to be applied depending on the depending on the application. But is there any questions on the planning everybody kind of understands where the planning commission is coming from.

How often

do you guys meet? We usually meet once a month. We have, this is our normal overflow night on a Monday evening. The second sorry. The fourth Monday is our overflow. Our meetings are usually until 11:30. Depends

on what's

on the agenda. We frequently have up to three, between one and three applications in front of us. The average public hearing, about an hour and a half, depends on how many witnesses there are and how complex it is, depends on whether or not we've heard testimony previously because that can elongate the process if changes have been made, but it can also expedite the process if they've been bringing good information to us. And then in the last year, we've had usually one item on the agenda that I would call the advisory part just as an average that we were reviewing, whether it was public hearing regulations, ability to transfer after conditional use permit has been granted District 11, what whatever the thing is. There we seem to have always had one.

Then we brought up topics too. So

You know, while I'm thinking about it, each one of the boards also, in addition to what counsel has prescribed with respect to the Robert's Rules and Robert's Rules of Water as well, Each board has its own administrative rules. So there there's three different sets. That was one of the items that we brought that up. That was one of the items that the Planning Commission worked on recently because under the code, the the PC had the ability to issue subpoenas. They just never adopted a rule that they were going to issue subpoenas in order to compel, you know, witness testimony. Kinda like what what you were talking about. Right? Or like how do we get witnesses here? But it it's still a it's still the speed of power and we go through that. So that's just an example.

But I want everybody to know that you each have your own set of administrative rules. You may or may not have been aware or may not have read them, but they do exist. So lastly, we've got what does the the BZBA do. And this has actually kind of changed in the last year or so. I think to a to a great deal that the responsibilities and the way that you do business, I think has changed with with respect to the handling of administrative appeals.

It it used to be they made a comment about how it was de novo, meaning we would take new evidence at the hearing last fall. That changed and the process now is that the BCBA is required to presume the findings in fact and we'll get into that later tonight. The findings in fact are accurate. They're presumed to be valid I believe is the language in the code and you know, that it is much more of a an appellate review as opposed to a a hearing in and of itself. And that's the the second piece there you see.

The first one is a variance. And a variance is nothing more than we're going to your plan, your wherever you want to put your last week or was a play playground set. Right? And it was in their side yard and it was against the one of the setbacks. But they were on a former lot and it was kind of wonky and our rules you can't you can't contemplate, you can't think of everything.

And so that's what a variance is for is that, you know, given the circumstances and there's a number of factors and we're gonna play a video later of how the the the easy VA handles those kinds of scenarios because they have to make specific findings of fact, but that's they grant a variance for different types of applications. One of the things that I did want to talk about tonight was what none of us should know. Right? And this this applies to everyone and it I tried to put this on one slide so not to to look at anyone in particular as I look around the room. But it is a it is a concern.

Right? And I have heard stories where like, oh my gosh, somebody I I ran into somebody at Hynan's and they asked me this question. Marshall, what should I do? The answer is, you know, thank them for the question and you know, it would just it's I'm sorry I can't I can't talk to you about that. Now, I'm not saying that's true on every issue.

If it's an advisory issue, if it has to do with a zoning question, right, and you guys are acting in your advisory role about we're gonna change the architectural standards. But if it has to do with any kind of case that's going to come before any of your boards, you should not talk about it. If it's the neighbor, if it's somebody's cousin, if it's just a friend who's nosy, the answer kind of going back to when I started this, right, this particular portion tonight is that we are here to protect the record. And if you're talking to somebody in Heinen's, that's not part of the record and we can't be relying on it, but it's it's in your brain. You can't unring the bell.

So just politely decline that, you know, that kind of conversation. And the same is true with the next point, right? My point here is if you want to talk to the city staff, but when I say the city process, that's what I mean. We if you want to talk about this outside somebody else, I want to tell you that the city staff is okay. If you have questions, think it's from an administrative level, what about this?

Is this in the record? Those those are all appropriate questions. But on the substance, again, I'm not sure that that I'm comfortable with you asking substantive questions. I guess more like I want this information, but not not necessarily the nuances that you'll be asking them in a hearing. One of the big things that is the last item here I did want to talk about because I see it a lot.

Mr. Sheridan and I get an email almost every morning talking about what our communications staff has seen, you know, in the newspaper and or on social media. And one of the things that I have noticed in particular is that there are some posts sometimes that have to do with issues that are before, you know, each one of your boards or commissions. And I would I would strongly encourage you, if not advise you, please not post on social media with respect to anything that has to do with a matter that is gonna be before you on your board or commission. I know that there may be, you know, a lot of interest.

There may be differing opinions that may be fun and exciting. That's what city council, you know, they they get to do those kinds of things. But I but I tell them the same things because the the reality is even city council on some of these issues ultimately because we changed the rules. They too are going to be appellate judges if a case continues to go through the process just like the BCBA, if somebody loses at that level, the case is coming to city council next before it goes to the to the courthouse in Downtown Africa. So you too should be very careful about what you post on social media if it relates to a specific case reporting its way to the system. Any questions or comments on that?

I just wanna amplify that having recently retired from Sunshine Law compliance work. That there is the last time I checked, so maybe it's changed in the last four months. But the last time I checked, when you establish a quorum of your board on a social media platform through the participation exchange. And I'm I'm Facebook friends with Dave and Jesse and Fred and Angela. I think that's everybody.

Oh, and Chelsea. So all but one. Alright. If we were to have four people react to a matter of public business or participate by commenting on that matter of public business, we there's case law that says you have established a quorum outside of the normal notice and public meeting processes, and this is a violation for which the city could be fined. So I tell Dave about how I drove myself here because I just had knee surgery.

I do not post about, and I do not ask any of my I don't post about that on Facebook. I I will promise you I read every comment on Facebook about anything that isn't coming in front of us, but nobody knows if I'm reading it and Dave's reading it, because reading isn't

the

problem. Conversing is the problem.

Sorry, Marshall. That's I appreciate it. Yes, Liz.

To add to that, this this should be obvious, but also just the happenstance, not just in items with talking to a bystander, but if you happen to be meeting with other members of your board, even unintentionally, and having enough people and discussing things that are going

to come in front in front

of you, that is enough to establish a quorum too. Right. I know that that has potentially been something that wasn't considered in the past.

There are are certain examples that if it's not a planned meeting per se. But the question then is, what's planned, what's not planned? What does a judge believe? Does a judge believe? Well, thank you.

Stay away from those types of situations. Any questions about the duties and the powers of our three quasi judicial boards? And then I'll put a put a bit in this and we really move on to our court of conduct discussion. The this is the first several different meetings that we're going to have. So we will come back and talk further about the, you know, the responsibilities and and the duties and kinda get a little bit more at the granular level of what each of the boards and commissions does.

But I wanted to this only had two hours tonight. We're gonna to kinda come at it from a high level and give it a little bit time. With that, I'm gonna turn the gonna open the conversation to a the code of conduct and some things that the city council, you know, has has in mind. Okay. So, we we need the first one.

No, this this is good right here. So, we thought we'd spend a little bit of time on code of conduct, and Greg, I'm not gonna be here full half hour, so we're gonna we're gonna catch up here. And this is this is something that we're looking at not for just these three, but for all the works is to further putting it down, make making it a little bit more clear about about the code of conduct that that we should all be as as we treat each other, as we treat the staff, as we treat the public, we, you know, we we wanna make sure that the citizens see that we're a highly functioning body that works together and and gets along. And so we're we're beginning at the very early stages of of drafting a code of conduct for the the board's commissions and committees. And there's some there's some material that that is out there that we will be referencing.

So next slide. So there's there's Ohio revised code, which is which is helpful to I didn't realize that this was in here, but this is kinda nice to have that if someone's like really interfering and causing problems in Ohio law, it's actually a fourth degree misdemeanor if you are so disruptive that you are are compromising that the meaning. And that would that would really apply to any of us as council members or board members or the public or staff. So, so this is this is out there that be looking at. The the ICMA, the International Commission for Municipal.

City manager.

The city manager. City county management.

Okay. City man but it's city management. Yes. And so it's not just Tom Sheridan, it's a group that advises everybody on city management, for local elected officials. Some of their kind of best practices, governing bodies, set the standard for civility, decorum, and a meeting by modeling the expected behavior.

You we really can't challenge or reprimand a disruptive citizen if if we ourselves are being, you know, inappropriate and not not following good decorum. And I know that Jeffrey reads that out every single night. Reminds us, so that's good. Well, wait. You jumped ahead. Yep.

This was this I thought you were going to city council. That's the city council one. No.

We will practice next week.

Alright, so written protocols set the framework for behavior, good judgment, sensitivity to the public role making difference. So this is nice coming from that ICMA as some of the Next. So we have this is our code of conduct for city council, and I'll just read it so that it's all clear. No person shall address the council until recognized by the chair. Persons attending will all times exhibit orderly behavior, respectful of others. Exhibit disoriented behavior may be asked by the mayor to be seated and refrained from further comment or being removed. So that's that's person's person, so it really applies to anybody who's there. It doesn't really just be a disruptive

member of the public.

And then, and there's some Robert's rules of order. Debating a member must avoid personalities, refrain from attacking a member's motives, and maintain a courteous tone. This Robert's rules primarily focuses on the members of the committee. So it it's it's we need to add more to make sure that the public, the staff, the board members, we're all treating each other appropriately. Next.

Then member must confine the remarks to the merits of the pending question.

In this particular point, it doesn't necessarily jump off the page at you, what this particular rule is intended to go after is that let's let's stay on task. Let's not go into personal, you know, attacks. Let's not go down a, you know, down a rabbit hole, you know, on on a different issue. This is this is intended and we'll get to the next one talking about the the chairs responsibilities. But this is the idea to keep the process moving, but also on point and with combined with the last rule, you know, respectful and good decorum.

Then, presiding officer has a duty to maintain order and decorate in the meeting. That's pretty clear. Again, that addresses more than more than more the kind of the members. So again, this is we're at the beginning initial work with this, putting it all together. But these are some of the things that we'll be including as requirement of stability towards each other, attendees, and the public.

Vault point number two, I think, important. If if there's a concern with with city staff, the appropriate redress is with the city manager. Not probably like real time in the meeting, you know, how come you didn't do this or did we you did this wrong or whatever. That kind of stuff, if it's out in the public, it makes the the board and the commission look sort of in the city looks sort of dysfunctional. So that's not probably a message we want to send.

So this is the kind of thing where, you know, if if city staff are are slipping or are not acting appropriately, then then it's a it's a discussion with city manager about that.

Tom, did you

you good with that? Yeah. Okay.

I answer all

email. Okay. And then we'll add some things and model it after the city council's code of conduct and and the proper rules of order. We can keep we can make sure that everyone's in good standing as far as their qualifications. And then a a progressive process if if we see issues, if you see issues, that there's a kind of an escalation of interventions to make sure that that behavior resolves.

How are you defining civility?

Well, think that's part of the what we need to do is is to make sure that some of these terms have appropriate

because I get accused of being uncivil sometimes because I'm a very open, and some would say abrasive female, middle aged, also overweight. Okay? But but some of some of that is a matter of perspective, and I know that there was a gentleman who came and and challenged my calling out of a witness who's, again, whose testimony we had heard over the course of seven hours and whose stories did not line up from meeting to meeting. And when I challenged his credibility, someone alleged that that might have been uncivil, and I would dare say I have a duty to let the man he know he's flirting with perjury, which is kindness on my part. If I didn't deliver it civilly, that is that may be fair criticism.

But I I think we need to be very careful about words that we presume have a very general meeting meaning, but when they're used in a context of having to judge credibility, might become a little shaded one way or the other.

Yeah. I guess I guess what we should also try to do is there might be some nefarious characters that come to our committee meetings. Sure. And there might also be people that are just intimidated, not as well prepared as they should have been, but Right. And they may, might make misstatements or say something different an hour ago that they didn't say that they're now saying now.

So I think I think that, you know, I agree you wanna you wanna call people out if they're they're really kind of being, like I said, nefarious and think of bad. But if they're making honest mistakes, we wanna demonstrate to the public, to the people that are Mhmm. That are watching that we are treating our residents of Hudson, you know, as we're we're assuming the best case scenario we can defend. Right. We're assuming that they're making honest mistakes.

And I just think we need to be careful people who are accusing them or, like, deliberately trying to

A a lack of credibility in a fact finding case is a factor for us making a decision. That's a that's a reality. So if you are a witness and you are credible and we have to make a finding of fact and the reason we decide a particular way is because we didn't get credible evidence to support our decision, If we don't say it, then our decision won't be supported by the facts. So this is a this is a rock and hard place that we're we're in between. And I don't wanna belabor the point too much, but I do I do have concerns, as I said, about the shading of what the word civility means. Because I think I know what it means, and I'm sure you think you know what it means, but we might not actually have the

same working definition. You don't mind. I think it goes the opposite way as well. I think when we have people from boards, people from council during one of our meetings and it goes the opposite way as well. We see people high fiving somebody else or great job up there. It sends the wrong message that we're not being impartial. Mhmm. And I think we gotta be really careful on both edges of that fence there.

But I think it is important, as you said, to define this. It's not just words, it's the tone that people use. Sure. And there's always of defining it. There are words that shouldn't be used, you know, like calling somebody a liar or asinine or things like I mean, we have

to be I mean, we have

to define all this, but I think words and really tone is really important because people can misinterpret that if it's a very harsh tone. There's ways to say it that are more gentle. So I think there's ways that I agree with you that we have to come up with defining these kinds of things.

I've done hundreds of presentations to planning commission, and looking from the applicant side of it, I've never heard it explained as you've just explained. Which is, this is fascinating to me. It's almost from a legal perspective. And my only point would be that the applicant isn't looking at, isn't thinking. It's like, I need to convince these planning commission folks to support my project. And I'm not thinking in any legal terms or so it's kind

And I think to to the specifics specifics of the case we were dealing with, these were very sophisticated applicants who had hired very talented professionals. And we have worked with them before, and so we have a working and we're not supposed to consider that, but we have a working reputation with them that has been positive. And so we had an expectation that we were going to get the story of their project. And the story of their project included a driveway, didn't include a driveway. Was gonna be didn't know what?

Well, now it's just gonna be storage. And literally, the entire project morphed over the course of I think it was three, maybe four different hearing periods until we finally got to a point where we reserved it. And while we extended Grace and approved the project, they I felt like it was important for them to know that there were issues because they didn't have the story pulled together at the very beginning, get go. It was very loosey goosey. So it's a specific one, and it hasn't been normal. That's not our normal course of business at all.

Right. Right. Well, I go ahead. You

got that?

I just gonna add real quick, not to belabor it too much more, but I've made mistakes before, but for me, it's simple. It's there's a professional way to handle things. There's a professional way to converse with somebody, to run the meeting, have healthy debate and conversation. So I think that's pretty straightforward and simple. And just two quick comments to missus Mormon's statements.

Accountability is not uncivil. Accountability is here's the facts, here's the differences. We're gonna hold you accountable to what you said or you said that was not right or wrong or whatever. Accountability is not uncivil. How you bring up that accountability could then be, you know, are you doing that in a tone or something that's unprofessional or could be taken that way? So that's the careful part. Sure. And last quick comment, I have put out bullets, oh, several months ago about what civility means to me. And I can show

you Yeah. I read them.

I already read them. Okay. They were on social media.

Did you comment?

No. No. Don't like it. Don't like it. But I'm reading. Yes, ma'am. Yes, I got it.

This is in regards to one of the cut that first line, requirements of civility towards each other attendees and the now when you say each other, are you also including between the boards or are you just saying it on each board? Because I I would like to make a clarity on that that it also includes a board to board. Yeah.

I mean, certainly it it

because sometimes when things are reviewed, there might be some derogatory Right. Denigration.

Yeah. If somebody says, oh my gosh.

I'll make a note of that. Have some additional ideas. This is a process as the Doctor. Bird indicated is ongoing. There are some civility, a government institutes, nonprofits. There are also, you know, I referenced earlier, know, quasi judicial. They're actually not that we're going to hold you to the standards of judges, There are judicial candidates. Right? There's a code of conduct for judges and it talks about professionalism and it talks about impartiality. Right?

And I think that perhaps we could borrow some language from those standards that might you know, get us down the road with respect to what it means to be civil and professional.

Okay. Can I Well you know I do marriage counseling and So what I tell couples about disagreements that they have is you can disagree about the issue that arose, but if you if you move from the merits to the character of the person that's, you know, that you're talking to, you have just changed an argument into a fight? And it seems to me that that might come over to what we're doing here, which is civility means you stay with the merits and you don't start denigrating anybody or attacking their character or telling them what what you attribute in their character that causes them to say what they said. If you can get rid of those characterizations and just stay with the merits, That's civility in line with it.

Good. Thank you, Bob. Any other comments on this? Okay. Well, Greg, we are right on time. Okay. Two minutes ahead. Let's get going. Right. So we are moving now to our discussion on the findings of fact.

And this has come up again in recent history. I think primarily due to the change in the administrative appeal process that the city council approved last year because it really took the the focus just kind of away from each in particular the BCBA, but trying to pick up the pieces and have a, you know, a whole new case and just trying to figure out what was going on to now it is very much a presumed determination with respect to the facts and you are essentially applying a standard that you it must be overturned. And so one of the things that has come to light as a practical matter is that the requirements in our land development code is for each one of the boards that we are required to make findings of fact on our decisions. And that is, I guess to say the least presents an administrative burden and has in some instances created a practical problem for the appeal process. And it is in particular working with the BCBA on it, We have strategized and discussed how can we best improve this process so that when a case now under our new appellate rule system, the case is can be judged appropriately and as attended with the best record that we can create.

And so that starts with, you know, what is a finding of fact. And so, you know, we have each one of the boards here, we have our land development code and we are required to apply the standards or the rules. But your job is to take the evidence as it's presented and the evidence is the facts. Right? Take the evidence and you know push it through the lens of the applicable standard and make a determination as to whether or not the facts have met or have not met the particular standard.

And then ultimately making a final decision about whether that application should be approved or not approved. And so I have here a statement and not necessarily to read off the slide, But I but I wanted to kind of under everybody to understand because that there might be some confusion as to when we say a finding of fact, what is that? Right? It's not just a motion to approve an application. It is more than that. Right? It is a and I've got an example we'll show again and I've said that three times, but I really really like it. So but it is a it's a an approval or a denial. It then based on this standard and we find facts are that this standard has been met and here's why. Right?

The best word to think of is because. Right? This standard is met because, and whatever that blank is to follow, that's the finding of fact that we're that we're looking for. So currently, and in particular for the the planning commission, we went through a review ironically every decision, right? If you go back and look at the language in the in the land development code, says every decision is required to have findings of fact.

Written finding. Written findings of And

that presents kind of a an interesting problem. And in particular, we have not always always and I'm falling on my own sword here. We have not always followed our own rules. Right? And that's kind of the problem. The even in with respect to what's called a conceptual review, one of the applications that a an applicant or a developer can bring in is, hey, here's our site plan. Can we just have a conversation about it? We this is what we're thinking about and it's a little it's a conceptual review. It's not a preliminary approval. It's not a final approval.

There's three different stages. It's conceptual. But we've been treating that as a conversation, right? And we've had several applications that have come through and it's been a conversation. One came through a couple of weeks ago and thinking about this meeting and thinking about what we're talking about and changing the rules. Missus Norman asked me that question, hey, do we have to have findings of fact? And I'm like, hold please. And, you know, and I went through and when we found, yes. I mean, it says all decisions are required to have written findings of fact. So one of the things that we wanted to talk about tonight is how would we go about doing that?

And two, one of the things that the that I'm working on and that city council and and some of the boards here we've talked about is changing the rules. And I wanted to have a conversation about what what for your particular board would be the the best decision on how to approach or handle findings of that. It may may be when we leave here tonight that the PC still thinks that they should have written findings of fact on every decision. Maybe the arch the board the architectural review board, they like don't want to make written findings of fact on anything. Right?

Because you've got 20 things on your agenda and that, you know, what an administrator burden that is going to be and for to to what end. Right? I'm not I'm not here to say that we shouldn't have findings effect and they're not important. But I I my my question is, you know, what is the appropriate use of your time and what is the appropriate use of the city staff's time? So one of the things that I wanted to do is and I've shared this with most of you.

I think this might be new to the art board. But I am proposing that we change the current model away from written findings in fact being required in every circumstance, but only if there is an appeal. And so if there is an appeal, then your case, whatever it is, whether it was a a grant which would be, you know, somebody one of the neighbors is objecting because they have standing and they also have the right to appeal or if it was your application and it was denied. But either way, if you file your appeal typically within ten days, it's a letter to the administration that your case before it goes back to or goes up to the the BCBA then it goes back to either the planning commission or goes back to the ARC board with with the staff having written a proposed decision for you on that case. And then at the very next meeting, you you go ahead and you review it and make changes in your meeting and then vote to make your findings effect.

So the decision becomes final at that at the second meeting, right, the the next meeting. But we haven't gone through and had a requirement of every single decision has to have a finding effect. I I I think that regardless of of how we do it, we probably should change the rules as it currently exists even if we're requiring it in some cases and and not in all cases. I'd like to currently provides, I think that we should have a long conversation about whether that makes sense because frankly we're not doing that. So if we're not doing it, we're not required to do it under the law.

There's no no higher bias code section that says that we are need to do that. It may be best practice, but if we're not doing it, we're not required to do it. The only time it's really gonna matter is if it's going to court.

Right. One of the questions I have is is how how does that address an applicant's kind of speedy right to appeal? So if practice has written down today or followed, you have what, ten days? And then assume that from that ten days, you have the next PCBA meeting within thirty days of that to get on the agenda. Right?

So it'd be forty days essentially to get in an appeal for. Right? If we add this additional requirement of having the finance effect that approved by the original decision making body, does that add add on average another thirty days to the to the appellate process? Because I've got ten days for the appeal, thirty days for the original board to come up with funding the fact, and then thirty days from there, the BCVA scheduling. So that starts to I don't think we should bring up individual cases at this point, but there was one scenario where that would have been very impactful to an employee, and their ability to use their property.

I'll be with that amount of delay.

That's how we've been doing it most recently in our court, though, where it's just going to a denial, goes to a finding effect, and that's the only time we're getting a finding effect. And then that gets brought into the next meeting. Correct?

Yeah. The idea is pay could be an approval as well if the neighbor is objecting. Right? So if you are within the 300 feet and you have standing, then you can object as well. But the short answer is yes, that it's right now at least for the planning commission, don't know how the art board necessarily does it. The planning commission, they try to get their decision out. They actually do written decisions on a lot of their cases and it comes within a couple of days. And it's, that's when the clock would start to to run. If in the example that I'm talking about in the in the framework that I'm talking about, you're really only losing. It's less than thirty days and from where I'm sitting.

Because it's whenever that written decision would have been issued to whenever the next board meeting is that it's these those written decisions are those written findings in fact are adopted and then they will be signed shortly thereafter.

But that could be thirty days?

It could be in theory. It could depending on how the calendar work. But we currently also have one of the systems we have in our code that we just adopted is that if the BCBA finds that the record is insufficient and then there are insufficient findings in fact they can we know that this was denied but we don't really know why it was denied because the findings in fact aren't there, then the BCBA has the right to remand that. And obviously, a remand is going to have, you know, similar time consequences. So I would

I have actually a question

on that because we had a specific case that did come back to our board remanded. And I think us as a board were a little bit confused because the finding effect was basically, like, this is what our land development code says, and they were following that. And then it went to appeal, and they got remanded back to us. So I'm like, what beyond the land development code needs to be in that finding of fact for it not to get remanded back?

That is exactly why we're here tonight. We're on this that's why we're talking about this issue. Exactly. And and I'm we what, I third time I told you we're gonna have an example? But I I'm gonna turn the floor because I know that mister Carl is is very keenly interested in this topic. So I'll let you go first.

I don't wanna jump ahead of something that you're just about to do. But it seems to me that I mean, the TCPA, we're all lawyers. And we've handled our findings of fact. In fact, I made part of my writing, you know, a 100 pages of findings of fact in one case. And so so that's familiar to us, but it's not familiar to everybody. And I just wondered whether it might

be

useful to have like a a guide that would show examples of what's a sufficient finding of fact and what isn't. And just to give you one example, one that I just made up in my mind right now. Let's suppose that the planning commission says, well, we're gonna deny this application because the ground's too wet. And that's their finding. It's too wet.

Well, what's the evidence? Right? The evidence is what we're interested in, not just an opinion. An opinion is not a finding of fact. If if there's evidence, if if somebody has gone in and measured the amount of of of moisture and so forth, then and then recited in the record, then that ought to be stated in the finding of fact.

Even if it isn't stated in the finding of fact, it's in the record. Hopefully, we'll find it. But a good finding of fact will will state the evidence, not just the opinion of the the reason why, you know, why they applied the opinion that they did. So you can distinguish those. I was just thinking it would be nice if there was a model of like a set of 15 or 20 examples of what's a finding effect and what isn't.

Another component of that is that demonstration that you follow whatever process that is defined in the ordinance for how you handle requests. So the the finding of fact in the case of someone who is requesting a permit to do something, you do apply, of course, the land development code. But there are other elements that define in the ordinance of how you are to review that particular request, You know, and answer their and respond to the evidence that the applicant provides. That must be documented in order to demonstrate the decision. So it's not just a pure kind of how does this match against the LDC, but also have you followed your process as to find a code?

Just did you okay. I just to keep things complicated for you. Right? Our land development code provisions do not align. So when you look at appeals in twelve twelve point o one, there's no specification related to planning commission appeals or actions by or in decisions by the city manager, which would include staff determinations, that they specify in the appeal process the grounds for the appeal.

But take note, 12 o two point o three subsection b four, filing of appeals with b z to b z b a requires the specific grounds thereof. And my concern about not doing findings of fact, and I have not practiced law much longer than I've been retired. Okay? So I I I'm gonna put the caveat on that I may have out of date understandings. But my understanding of the appellate the administrative appeals process is that the appellant must specify the grounds for their appeal at the initial level, and that follows them through all the way if it is to the United States Supreme Court.

And if you fail to specify that at your initial level, you are barred from bringing it up when you appeal to city council. You're barred from bringing it up when you appeal to the court of common pleas or to SCOTUS. So if we do not find create written findings of fact, We are jeopardizing a fair appellate process for an applicant or for an appellant, I should say. Now just to keep it complicated, I can't remember the case name, but I can tell you the situation. There is a particular large developer who wanted to build a very large set of large homes out on a particular street near Stowe Road, and he appealed our denial of that subdivision, and we did not have anything other than the findings of fact in our record in the discussion process.

And the court upheld our entire process, the findings of fact that we had. They challenged whether we had findings of fact, found that we had appropriate findings of fact, upheld our conclusions of law and application of the land development code without written findings of fact. So this is a complicated thing I think we have to take time to untangle. I totally agree with everything mister Carmel offered on that, and mister Scott as well, but we're not gonna solve it tonight. And at the end of the day, we're dealing with people's property rights, whether you are an aggrieved neighbor or you're an applicant.

This we are special in the world because of the way we treat property and how we hold those two rights as being equal. No one has a bigger, better right. Everyone's rights in property are equal, and that's that that's a beautiful thing that we make make happen.

Bear with me. We thought we had this figured out.

It's not coming up on

my screen here. Yes, I don't want

to interrupt if you're back.

Go ahead.

Start, but

very quickly, and this is just my ignorance. In terms of the procedure for writing a finding effect, we need twice a month, and it's all in front of the public. And I guess my question would be, what is the procedure to come to a finding effect, and does that rest? I think the way it's generally done is that staff develops based on the discussion a finding effect, and then it comes back to us at the next meeting for us to review and approve. But they're not common. Mean, only been,

so far, I think for you and I, the only ones we've seen have been something we as a board have denied. They have read the finding of facts, and then it comes back for us to adopt that finding of facts to the record.

Yeah. So I guess my question is, I mean, I've never I've never participated in the development of a finding of fact and I which is fine if that's I mean, I've I've I participate in the public facing discussion of the whatever in them that's summarizing. It's a funny effect that I then vote on. That's I guess my question is when would all this happen? If if

because it really goes back in our cases, it's going back to staff. Staff's rights that we adopted if we agree, which we, I think, always have on any of ones we've seen so far. I I think further to your question, and and I kind of one particular case stuck in my head a little bit was what else maybe needed to be in that finding effect before the appeal went to the next board that maybe wasn't there upfront that we would need to be need to be more aware of going forward. Because I think, like I said, I think I'm speaking to myself, but I think there's a little bit others too from our board really. Okay.

We know this I mean, it was like it's something we would rule on consistently where we're like, no. We've never we've never agreed on this. We always this is always a denial if somebody tries to put this in. So we if we said deny, then if it remanded back to us, we're like, okay. Well, what else needs to be there? Like, did we need to did they need to show hardship or did we need to go through all those points of hardship or something for that info? Like, so that's kind of where yes. You're like, you're saying yes, and we're like, this is true. Exactly. So

I I think that what you're describing is very similar to what I'm about to show, and this is what the the BCBA does. And I think in all fairness to to the board, to the BCBA, this is what they're used to doing when it comes to granting variances. And so they see this, this is the the lens that they view. And I think it's a very simple example of how how to create a binding effect without making it in writing. Right?

Because because I don't believe that we necessarily have to have it in writing out the get go if we don't if we don't make that decision. And this is an example of how we will you'll see here in a moment that the planning or the PCBA is granting a variance permission to someone to I've got the right video to to have a forward facing garage door. Right? In Hudson, you have to have a garage door on the side or on the back. And so if somebody had come in and had applied to make it forward facing, there's a number of factors in our code that we have to consider.

And my recollection is that this video is a motion to approve. So you'll hear a motion to approve and we make the following findings of fact. One, and they just go through it and it's Lydia's reading the code and then offering another sentence. And it's essentially if you put the word because, right, I find this because, right, so on. That's that's what we're chasing.

And if we what I'm hoping is, and again, if it doesn't work out, and we don't want to handle it this way. But we will have a record. Right? And if somebody makes an appeal, it will be very easy for the staff to then go ahead and prepare a proposed written findings of fact for the our board or for the the planning commission to come back and adopt at the next meeting. But we don't have to do it and write them out in every instance as long as the the board is making motions that look or sound similar to to this.

Docket numb in regards to the matter, docket number 2024Dash993 in regards to location 48 College Street, Parcel Number 3201132. Applicant Elizabeth Nicholas, property owner Lindsay Arbaugh. The request to, that we are reviewing tonight is a variance request to allow the creation of a forward facing garage when the land development code prohibits doors of private attached garages to face the street pursuant to section 12 o five point o seven d nine d one entitled property development design standards, building, siting, and orientation above City Of Hudson land development code. And I move, that we grant this variance. And in support of that, I will review the Duncan factors.

Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. While the property in question will and can yield a reasonable return, there can't, and can't have a beneficial use without this extension. I believe there, would be a great benefit both to, the the the owner of the property to be able to have direct access to their garage, from their house. Whether the variance is substantial. The variance would represent a 100% deviation from the code requirement, but as has been discussed at length, we have mentioned that there is precedent for this both in prior BCBA decisions and on the street, for forward facing garages.

Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether the adjoining properties would suffer substantial detriment as a result of the variance. The going again, there is precedent for this, and we have heard from one of the neighbors tonight that they are in support of this variance. And there are several front facing garages on the street. Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of government services such as water and sewer, the variance would not adversely affect the delivery of any government services. Whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the requirements.

The owner did purchase the property with knowledge of the requirements in 2022. Whether the applicant's predicament, can be obviated feasibly through some other method other than a variance. While there are other options that are available to the applicant, this would be the most beneficial use for both the property owner and I think for, the neighborhood. So it would increase the value of the property. Whether the spirit and intent behind the requirement would be observed in substantial justice done by granting the variance, I believe this is probably the best solution, to the issue at hand, for the applicant.

So

that was really my last slide for tonight. I wanted to go through the question of what a finding of fact is. I wanted to kind of touch on any questions. And I wanted to show what I felt and what I think that the VCVA believes is the appropriate way to create a finding of fact, you know, in a in a verbal motion. Currently as it stands, we are still required to make written findings of fact.

And if the the BZBA doesn't feel that the decision is sufficient, it has the the power to send the case back to you and, you know, ask you to go through each particular point and make a finding of fact if it's not there. But what we're trying to do is lessen the burden not only on each one of you but also on the staff especially when it comes to the art book. If we're writing out findings of fact, you know, on 20 different decisions and there's going to be an appeal, then what is really to to what end if everyone is no one's challenging it and after ten days there isn't any dispute. We do have a record. Right?

And each of these meetings is recorded and they have written minutes after the fact. So the written minutes would also there's a motion and it would write out, you know, in a discussion of the docket packers and the findings in fact were also so. So I think that we will be protected and that there is still some discussion. This morning, you had done earlier today. Well, there might be a still might be a good idea to issue a written decision one way or the other just so that the planning team can move forward with their administration of the project and it removes the process through more quickly.

But, you know, right now that's what we're thinking about. So, open up the floor for any further comments or questions. Unless we come here otherwise, I'm gonna I've already have a draft put together. I haven't given it to counsel yet because I wanted to have this this conversation. But it's it's ready to go and we're moving in that direction unless there's some some feedback here.

I had a question for you on this situation. What happens when the board does not achieve unanimity on the findings of fact, but they agree with the conclusion? How do we capture that?

They can make they can ask for the motion to be amended. Typically, how it's been handled, at least in the past. I know that we've we've had that happen a couple of times to either add clarifying statements or specifically for adding conditions to a variance. We had that happen at our last case. I don't know if that answers

I

your question.

I understand what the concept would be. So I'm asking sort of in a not really rhetorical way, but I'm mindful of a situation where I think mister Soley was the chair. And I had gone through the evidence that we had at a previous hearing portion of a hearing and then the new hearing and had drafted a motion and had crossed out the things that had gotten met because they were no longer, you know, valid objections. In fact, this might have been Prestige. Was this Prestige? Sorry.

I said their name out loud.

At any rate, we we were already of one mind that we did not want to pass this. They had not met their burden whatsoever. And so having offered this list of reasons based on the facts that had been presented, You know, I don't even remember how he voted now, but and and it didn't pass anyway. But what do we do? And and that's part of the thing I think the planning commission had tried to do this most recent time where staff gave us a draft, and we went back and augmented it from the record to get to staff.

And then staff gave us this updated version, and man, was it solid. But we by the time we got to that meeting, we all knew we'd had an opportunity to say, don't forget that they talked about this tree, and they talked about that driveway. And and so we walked in with this feeling of unanimity, not only in the findings of fact, but also in the ultimate conclusion. And I guess that's when we're on the fly, is it practical? You went through seven things?

I don't know. Yeah. I believe it's seven factors. And this actually, not to tangent, but the thought that I had, Marshall, about this is that, you know, the loss around invariances is pretty clear about the standards that we must go through. And I guess my question, because of I don't have the same understanding as the other boards do of the various different things they must look at if there's bright line rules or expectations that they must go through that are as clear as with the Duncan factors? So

the question is are the standards for each given case as a meet and

as Yes. To I like the conditional use. Yeah.

The the short answer is by and large, yes. Right? In our opinion, we've talked about this with staff and getting ready for tonight and strategizing over the last couple of months. You know, how do we how do we get to that point? Because the rules haven't changed for, for a variance in forever. Alright. And so that it's in our code and you guys, you could, you could do it in your sleep. But for the client, know, is different. Yeah. Right. It's not just the same set of rules. Right? The standards for conditional use are much different than they are for a site plan. You know, we can we know if you look at the site plan, there's five conditions. And then the last one calls out to a whole another set that's about 19, you know, factor long.

Right? That's that. You thought that was long. Right? Like, holy smokes. But that is what I'm what we're talking about and that is what the rules require. I would tell you that standards are there. Right? Is it is it going to be in the long motion? With the with the staff, we talked about creating some sort of a cheat sheet. Right? But here it is at the end of the day. This is this is a cheat sheet that you read when you are you know approving a conditional use. And I find this and I find that and you just kind of ad limit as you read through the cheat sheet on different factors. But that was one way of of handling it.

To talk a little bit about in the in the lawyer's world, right, when a criminal defendant is being sentenced. If you've ever been to what's called a holiday, they're being sentenced to twenty years in prison. Judges they like literally they have a laminated sheet that they have to read because if the judge doesn't get it exactly right on these particular findings, they're gonna get resentenced and then it's coming back or the person's gonna talk. Right? So these judges have these cheat sheets. We were talking about we were contemplating making those here, but we haven't gotten that far depending on I mean, if you guys aren't going to go down that route, city council doesn't wanna do it, we won't. But I I would argue that the rules are defined enough that we could create something like that.

So I think that the planning commission, those findings in fact would be extremely long and arduous. That could take another hour just to go through all of that and get consensus on on the commission. I think that would be quite difficult, and I think there's some contradictory contradictory on where

you are. Right? That's why

only having findings of fact on appeal.

What only on an appeal. Right. May be a way

to flip this, though. So one of the things I've said before, often just for edification of everyone, when I review an application, I start at the very beginning of the code and keep going until I run out of applicable provisions, the definitions. So I'm very thorough, and I'm often taking eight to 10 pages of handwritten notes about how this application meets all the relevant parts of the law. And often, if they meet it, because staff will often give us the information. Okay.

They state it, and I went out, and I saw the states, and so we we got that part. What what is left are the things that they have not met. And maybe in the event we are in the position of denying an application, we need to specify the things that were not met. But in the event we are approving an application, we could reference those general chapter headings and say that the requirements under this are presumed to have met been met based on the facts that we received at this public hearing tonight. And then the app the appellant would have to so, okay.

Well, what does this include? And they said they met everything, and I agree or I don't agree, but that would at least be the basis of their appeal. Is that helpful?

Yeah. It gets us started. Right? So in the example that has five and then calls out to the other 19, you can just go through the five and then say, on number five on the catch all, and it also meets these, and then you're you're moving forward.

Well, listen. If there's an approval if there's an approval, then the the applicant or the appellant is gonna have to say, here's what they didn't meet what the Planning Commission said they did meet. It's up to the it's up to the appellant to point out the mistakes that the planning commission made. It's not up to you. Well It's up to them to show us why your decision is wrong. On a denial, it's a different problem. Over the denial, it's a different problem because then because then you have to show affirmatively what they missed. I think we

could have a beer and discuss those fine points because I'm I'm I I have concerns about in the situation where we granted a permission, but the neighbor was standing is appealing it, that they would not have findings of fact, but but they would have those if we had denied it. Yeah. And are we creating a due process issue for that?

But but I think that we can create I can create a workaround on that. Okay. Right. Where they're going to one of their objections says, hey, you didn't do the findings in fact and then once that's cured, you know, three weeks later, we can write in the rule. You have another opportunity to supplement your objections before it goes to the BZBA. Right? In other words, appeal again. Right? At least submit a brief on your of your objections. Again, we can give them that due process so before it gets to the next level, they have had the benefit of the findings in fact and you've you've kind of cured that that issue. Just just one way to to go after it.

So can we clarify from the architectural work? Is this really basically what we're currently doing? It sounds like. Because we're not writing a like, we're not approve or I guess, what's the word? In the second meeting, we're only bringing a finding of fact that if there's been a full board denial currently. So that's that's not changing. Correct?

Greg, I don't know if you guys could speak to how it's how it's currently handled coming out of

That's the the current process has been that it's it's only coming back to you when

Okay. So that's not so what you're proposing is basically that would go like, we would not be adopting? I mean, we do clarify in an approval if there's something that's a condition or if there's something kind of out of the norm that we're approving in that you know, with the condition of. So we're stating those facts as we approve right now. And I guess my my third question is back to any denial where a finding of fact is being written for us by a city that we then approve.

If the applicant then chooses to go to the appeal process, do we need to go like, I kinda got a head shake earlier of, like, do we need to go through those, like, basically, hardship, quote unquote, at that point before it gets to appeal process? Because I mean, we'll just use an example, like, some of the things that have come up consistently that maybe are are stone placement on a house, massing I'm trying to think of a couple things or, you know, where they've gone and done the work without getting the approval. And then we come back then they come to us, basically. So those are the, I think, the challenges that we've kind of come across. So they're already kind of like, well, we have a hardship because we already did it.

And it doesn't count. Right. And that's

what we're I'm not saying

Which I say nicely. Yeah.

So those seem to be the ones that

have Respectfully.

At least in my time on board, We say, no. We're denying this. We don't care that you've already done it without our approval. And then they're like the one example of one did come back to us, and we're like, well, that's a in our code, you're not allowed to place stone where they you know, without any going into an inside corner or whatever however were written. How much more do we have to put in that finding of fact before it goes to a go process? Because it didn't sound like that alone that this is what our land development code says, and you did the work on that without approval. And we said, Met that. That was not enough for it not to come back to us.

So I

guess I think the BCBA is saying they want specificity. That's right. So not only the code that applies, but the re the true specifics that why is it that way? Why? Because it doesn't meet the code, because it doesn't end it doesn't terminate where it's supposed to be. It doesn't and all of the the the minor details to it. So they wanna spelled out.

But there's also in your code, it also talks about areas where exceptions can be made. And in that in that case, the applicant made arguments about why exceptions should be created.

Because they were an older neighborhood that was built before that code was adopted type of thing.

Yeah, and that a bunch of other houses already had it, and things like that. And findings of facts did not address the appellant's arguments on the on that part of the process. And so as a result, the appellant was basically not heard on those points. And so we needed to to hear the the art board's response to those points. We went back and we, like, listened to the we listened to the hearing, and and those points weren't addressed.

And so that's why we needed that because the the appellant was making an argument based on code that was not responded to by the board.

So the thoroughness of the initial meeting also applies?

Yes. Correct. But you can remedy that in your findings of fact.

Okay.

Ideally, you're discussing it in the meeting.

Well, right. Now I need my cheat sheet.

Okay. We'll get right on that. Well, I think that brings us to a a close tonight. Unless there's any further comments, I would invite if you I know we're talk talking with doctor Byrd. We were looking for any feedback.

You don't necessarily have to raise your hand and share it now. But if something else comes to mind later on, please share it with both Greg and or I or any member of city council is here tonight. You know, this is intended to be an ongoing conversation. We intend to have additional training meetings, not necessarily next week, but in the and then and then probably next in the summer months, we'll come back and have another session, maybe dig a little deeper into some of the topics that we didn't get to tonight and perhaps you wanted to delve into. Again, that would be the perfect time to offer us feedback.

We wanna talk more about this and we'll try and pick that up at the, you know, the next meeting. So thank you for everybody for coming, for your time and listening. And it was nice to meet all of the members of the art board because I haven't had the pleasure of meeting you. So thank you.

Thank you, Marshall. Good job.

Thank you.

Thank you.