Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

That's it. the uh this the uh or staple. Okay. To the inside holder. Ladies and gentlemen, it is 7 o'clock. Um, I'm going to give it just a couple minutes before we actually call the meeting to order um to see if we can get u a quorum tonight. I'm just waiting for Mr. Dell, how many do we need to have a

quorum? What do we require? I don't know.

Yeah. So under our rules, it actually says a quor of five. So we do have five here tonight. Uh my guess the reason for that is our we have 11 members on our board. The 11th is by virtue of his office being city engineers, Mr. Swan. So if I had to guess, the reason for that rule was probably because of that. So our five does constitute a four. Well, that being known, it is after 7 o'clock and I will call this uh media meeting of the city of Martinsville Plan Commission to order. Um, our normal secretary is absent tonight and Lisa is kindly going to take notes, but we probably should have a member as a temporary secretary for this meeting. So, do I have any volunteers?

I'd be glad to. Steve Bodie. Okay. Thank you, Steve. Uh, let's do a roll call. Joe Disney. Rick Dell, present. Marilyn Sidawick. Rich Gaston, present. Steve Bodie, here. James Burkhart, present. Caleb Forester, Richard Peacock, Anne Miller, Jason Scott here, Tory Swan, Bob Strader, present. Dell Coffee, present. Matt Dunn

here. Kenny Cen here. Thank you. So, we do have the five required members for a quorum. Um, prior to tonight's meeting, you each should receive minutes dated February 24th, 2026. Uh, if everybody's had a chance to review those, uh, did do we notice any corrections to be made?

Yes. Um, I have one under old business, the first docket, um, 255029. It says motion was made and that one negative vote by Steve Bod by me. Can we add after that Bod said voting against because the petitioner was not here in person just so we document why I voted against. Bod said voting against because petitioner was not here in person. Any other changes or corrections? I'd look for a motion on the minutes.

Steve Bod. I'll move that we approve them as presented with that one addition. Got a motion by Steve Bod. I'll second that. And a second by Jim Birkhard. All those in favor say I. I I opposed. Motion passes. So, we have two items under old business tonight. And with the commission's approval, um I'm wondering if we'd have any opposition to moving our discussion on the signed ordinance until after the conclusion of new business. That would just give our petitioners a chance if they choose to leave, they don't have to stay for that conversation.

No problem with that. We will move that to the end of our agenda then. So we will start with old business docket number PC26004 remodel in historic downtown district. The address is 65 West Morgan Street. Owner is Jesse Logsman. Do you have anybody here to present? Yes. If you would uh step up to the podium, there should be a signin sheet there. And if you will state your name into the microphone when you're done,

Jesse Logston. Okay. So, tell us about the project. Uh just looking to restore it. Uh turn it into two uh 2500 foot rentals on the first floor. uh office spaces. Uh then there'll be three apartments or on the top level that would be two two bedroomedroom one bath one one bedroom one bath and that's the whole process. I mean to totally remodel the building, bring it back to life.

Mr. Loen. Yes. this body. We're we're we're more interested in what you're doing to the face of the building. Yes. Completely renovating, scraping it down and repainting and just What do you mean like uh new windows, new like three doors there? You've got windows. It's not really changing. Everything stays about the same in the blueprint. The exits stay the same. The entrances stay the same. You're going to paint it? Yes. This color? Uh, yeah, more than likely. Yes. That's the only option really.

I'm sorry. What What What color are you painting it? Is that what this is? Yeah. There was a Right. There you are, J. Oh, okay. That's just kind of like a just a rough idea, but we had Dawning Star, Morning Sun, and Seal Skin. Three different You can kind of see them together. It's hard to tell on the print off, I know, but this is I mean kind of up in the air. I mean, this is there's so much other concern with the foundation being blown in and there's a lot more to work on.

So, as as Mr. Burke Birkhard um mentioned earlier our really our jurisdiction pertains to the the facade of the building. Um so in the plans we typically we've determined that we really need to see an elevation sketch um showing what the front will look like. Um, we currently have a a architect. He's a licensed architect working on all that. Okay. Yeah. We have to go through that with the state. So, I'm already on that, but he's working on all that stuff. Okay.

We're just trying to basically the foundation, the main structure of the building is compromised and needs to be reixed before it all blows in and the whole building just has to be tore down. So, that would be Anything structural? That would be Mr. Strader's office. Y we have the structural engineer already came in and we have the whole plan. Okay. In motion.

Um, how do I want to put this? issuing the remodel for the interior. Um, I'm just thinking back because we've we've been in this situation before and we can't sign off on the appearance of the front of the building without actually seeing it. Yeah. Um, so we we love seeing the blueprints and knowing what's going to go on there, but that's a little bit outside of our

kind of want a chat GBT picture of it. We would need we would need to see basically exactly what you're going to do. Yeah. Um, we we've had a couple situations in the past where people say, "Well, we're not changing anything." But lo and behold, they do. So that's not the plan. Yeah.

So the code talks about replacement windows glazing being um fitting in the same openings as the original. Um it talks about what you can and and can't do with the exterior brick and how it should be um saved and salvaged. So, I think we would need you to be really aware of those things because we're we're going to hold you to that. So, I'm sure we need um an elevation drawing of the exterior with your your architect or your information about what you're doing. Um replacing glass, yes or no. Replacing doors, exterior,

everything new. Completely new. But we can't just go with we're going to replace everything. Yeah. We kind of need to see what you're you're putting in. And it doesn't necessarily mean the maker of the window. Sun windows, but same ones on the theater. I'm sorry. Same ones on the theater. They just did downtown. Oh, yes. I saw that in your note. Um it's important that they we see what your plan is. Um we can replace that window with a much smaller one and just put plywood around it. Yeah. Right. But that's what we need to know. The state won't allow it. It's historical. Okay. So,

and that I guess that's where we are. We want to see it, too. I mean, if the states I realize they're going to hold you to it. So are we. And and I I I think um in my book, I I want to see it before I can say yes. I I mean, I'm I'm glad you're taking this on. No one elsead. No one else wants to. You're you're fixing that building. Yep.

But uh I mean I spent a lot of Yeah, that was that was the cleaners and the pool pool hall. Spent a lot of time there anyway. So I I'd like to see it come back and so but I I really we want to see it I I want to see it before I sign off on it. So yeah. So, I I think where we would fall tonight is probably table this uh agenda item until we can get those uh elevation drawings. Okay. Do do you think you could have that um in before the next month's meeting? I would have had them this meeting if I would have been aware. Okay. Sorry.

Okay. I would look for a motion then. Steve Bod, I I'll move that we table um PC226004 for one month until the April meeting. And in that time, the petitioner will provide some exterior elevations. Got a motion on the floor to table. I will go ahead and second that table. And a second from Jason Scott. All those in favor? I opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Next up is new business, docket number PC26006, remodel and historic downtown district. Address 89 South Main Street. Owner is First Christian Church. if you'll sign in and then state your name for the record.

Thank you, sir. Already signed in. Uh Mike Hollstead, H Hallstead Architects, uh located at 1139 Shelby Street, Historic Fountain Square in Indianapolis. So, I'm here to answer any questions or any concerns you might have about the renovation of First Christian Church, which is literally just a block that direction of the corner of Maine and Jackson. Uh most of the work that we're doing, I know you're only here to talk about the exterior, but uh the interior is mostly uh interior finishes in the sanctuary in the east room and the stairs and the hallways. Uh painting, flooring. One major difference will be in the sanctuary, they're getting a new organ. Uh because there are more pipes in this organ. that organ can no longer be recessed underneath the organ pipes got to be moved out onto the altar. So that means the altar's got to get a little bit larger. Uh I met on site with uh Bob so he's aware of that. That's the major change inside exterior. All we're doing is removing the drop off canopy on the south side of the building. That canopy was not original. If you've driven by or walked over and taken a look, it when they put the canopy in, they actually covered over an arched stained glass window that's above it uh partially and then below it, they put in aluminum replacement doors. So, it's not the original wood doors. I'm fairly certain that in 1892 when they built it, there was a set of doors there and a stair directly underneath that stained glass window, but we don't really have records of that, so we don't know. But we do know the canopy was added later because the uh there are two clay tile storm water leads that are still abandoned in place underneath the canopy. So the roofing all came to that

point, spilled into those leads, went out into the street. Well, when they built the canopy, they just abandoned those and now the canopy has downspouts at the south end. So that's really the only evidence we have that it's not original is that they just ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab abandon the old roof dings. So uh we're going to be replacing when we take the canopy down. That's going to leave that facade exposed. We're going to match the width of the pointed arch window, bring it down to a sill. We think there may have been a water table there with limestone. So that's why we're patching with brick at the lower part and then just extending the window down so it's not larger than the very large window just to the right of it which is the large arched window in the east. So that's basically the scope of work in terms of the exterior.

Thank you for that information. Does anybody have questions for the petitioner? So you mentioned the sill as that I looked this elevation. It looks like the three windows to the west and then the window on the other side to the east looks like their stills kind of line up. Is that Yeah. But is this one going to line up? Cuz it this elevation looks like it doesn't line up. Yeah. Should line up. If it doesn't, we'll make sure it does. Well, okay. So yeah, that looks like a little bit. Okay. All right. All right.

That was the intent, but if it's off of course, we'll make sure that happens. And you're having to fill in brick um where it is missing now because there's a door there. Did you find some in the basement or are you just trying to source? When we removed the stairs, the side of the stairs are brick. So, we think we can just reuse that brick as much.

And it should m theoretically it should match. If you look real close at the south facade, there have been a couple other windows that uh were originally openings into the basement that have been closed in. They were able to match pretty close. I mean, it's not perfect. That is the one negative of trying to blend in like that. You're never going to find the exact brick. Hopefully. The other thing that we're hoping is behind the stairs, if you look at the stairs, there's no landing. Number one, that's the reason why they don't use the stairs anymore. Don't even use that exit. It's roped off on the inside landing. But the stairs we you can see that the brick goes behind it. Mhm.

Because the stair over years is sort of pulled away. Uh and so we we're hoping that that brick is still intact right behind the stairs. And then all we have to fill in is about a probably six foot wide by fourt tall section. And hopefully we can get that from the sides. And those bricks are weathered in place too, so that'll help. Right. Yeah. Do you have any any uh guess as to when the canopy was added?

Well, my hunch is in 1892 there weren't cars, right? So, they didn't have a canopy originally. I would The education building was added in 1928, 1929. My guess would be the aluminum doors probably tell us it was built after World War II sometime right after that because cars were more prevalent. They wanted to drop off Canopy Jackson Streets going one way west so they could drop the passenger off there. Um so I would guess sometime in the 50s with the aluminum doors and the uh that kind of gives it away that 50s and 60s those were really popular. And I just asked that because I from a historic preservation standpoint, it at some point later additions become historical themselves and this certainly has what it appears to be good craftsmanship, the bracketing under the eaves and whatnot. Um, does the does the city have any opinion with that being so close to the roadway? I mean, I I I walked by it and I thought, you know, even I could make the case that from a safety standpoint that that I would be more in favor of eliminating an obstruction that close to the to the road.

It covers the sidewalk, which is sort of an advantage, right? Because you can at least get in and out of the rain, the snow. But it's about five feet from the curb. That's true. The columns are and the face of the canopy. Any other questions for Mr. Holstead?

Well, I do that. Okay. It didn't really matter much, but when you're on the application, I was able to put together your signature. Can you tell me whose signature that is? The owner. I think it's Roxy. Yeah, that's Roxy. Okay. Thank you.

I do have one other question. The windows are They're not going to be stained glass like the others. Uh the new windows. Yes. We were proposing that they would add stained glass later unless there's an objection. No, that's fine. I think that's a great idea. So, okay. They'll probably start out with wood sashes to match the arch top, come down, paint it the same color, and then there we don't have an artist rendering of what the stained glass might look like yet. Okay. All right. They found some old stained glass down in the basement, but it's not the right size. So,

and one of our one of our other concerns, anytime there's any type of uh old brick tuck pointing involved, um, and I'm I'm sure contractors should be aware of this, but we just want to stress using a higher uh line to binder ratio, softer mortar. Softer mortar. Right. Okay. Anybody else have questions, concerns? No. Okay. I would look for a motion then. I make a motion that we pass do 26006. I would Steve Bod. I would second that.

Okay. A motion made to pass docket number PC260006 and seconded. All those in favor say I. I. Oppose. Same sign. Motion passes. Thank you very much. Y

Mr. Chairman, this next item I'm going to excuse myself uh since it's uh I have a conflict of interest. So I'll be stepping away. Got a law partner here tonight to answer any questions I have. and our uh con our contract cur is going to present it for us. Thank you, Mr. Coffee. Next up on our agenda is docket number PC26007, remodel and historic downtown district. Address is 59 North Jefferson Street. Uh owner is 59 North Jefferson- Martinsville LLC. And looks like you've signed in. If you'll state your name for the record.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the plan commission. My name is Mike Kersh, 222 North Old State Road 67 South Martinsville, Indiana. I'm here tonight to represent the owners of the property at 59 North Jefferson Street. The building's more commonly known as the Bourne Oliver and Coffee Law Office. And what we're proposing tonight is renovations to the facade. And it's basically the facade and the the glazing only. Um, looking at the history of the building, I checked with a couple of different people in our community, Joanne Sutton and Randy Marsh to ask if there was any historic value of the building facade, and they said that there was really nothing remarkable of the building itself. So, what we're looking at doing is you've got the drawings in front of you. Um, we're doing the renovations basically to give a general uplift to the building because the the shakes and the trim on it is very gated looking. And we're also doing the renovations um to add energy efficient windows to the building and also to uh remove a safety hazard with the way the concrete is formed in the door opening which has been a trip hazard over the years. So, we're trying to remedy some of the problems that are existing. If you uh look at the drawings, you're going to see that we're using a standing seam standing seam steel roof with matching trim. The wood trim that'll be around the windows. It's actually going to be a composite wood texture, which is kind of similar to various buildings around the downtown area. The windows that we will be using are going to be similar to the some windows uh that's on the theater or an approved equal. The color on the cladding is going to be black and the lights on the windows are

going to be simulated divided lights to give it more of a a traditional look. So the stone that'll be below the windows is going to be a tumbled cut limestone. It'll be white over gray. So, be more of a a match to the building to the north of 59 North Jefferson. So, the uh one thing that's not on your drawings is that we were planning on removing the blade sign that is on the Borne Oliver and Coffee Building on Main Street. Removing that blade sign, which was approved previously, and moving it to North Jefferson, and we'll be placing it on the corner where the alley is located. And that's pretty much everything that we're proposing to do. There'll be some small renovations on the inside, but that's going to be for covering and painting only. And nothing structural of any consequence. Everything has been determined to be non-loadaring right where we're doing the work. Okay. Seems seems straightforward. I appreciate the renderings. Um, does anybody have any questions for Mr. Kersh?

So, how far does the overhang right now? It looks like it's minimal overhang, right? It's going to be very comparable to what's there.

Okay. And the one thing that we didn't talk about is the color of the facade, which it's going to be a darker color, similar to the urban brew canopy, like a charcoal black. It won't be a black, it'll be a little bit of a lighter dark color. And the reason is that's going to be taking so much sun on that face that we want to try to reduce sunfade as much as possible. So, be very similar to the colors of the urban brew. So, I'm not exactly sure how we should handle the sign part of it being a sign that we've already permitted in another location. So, we know that the the dimensions of the sign meet and looking at the building, I mean, I I think we've not ran across an issue where people are going over the uh the percentage allowed. So, I mean this I'm just I'm just throwing this out here and we can discuss it, but should we look at a stipulation that when the signs move, we just need to make sure that it is hung to the proper height. It has to be is it 8 feet at least 8 feet over the sidewalk where it hangs

to the bottom bottom of the sign and it'll be the sign will be placed above the canopy. Okay. That be placed on that south corner where the alley is. Mr. Kers, are are you repainting the exterior of the building? No. The only thing that we're going to be repainting is going to be the new trim where the windows are. Okay.

The existing brick, everything above the canopy is going to remain exactly as it is. We will basically remove the old canopy, put the new canopy in counter flash and that's the extent of the work. Just I I do the rendering that the doors look a lot more congruous the word. Um the doors that are on there now give a very residential feel where this does look more like a storefront which I appreciate.

And the doors that we're proposing, it's an entry system that it's going to be kind of like an upgraded residential but it is used in a lot of commercial applications. Any other questions? I would look for a motion on docket number PC26007. I make a motion that we've had docket PC26007.

I will go ahead and second that motion. Okay. So, we've got a motion on the floor to approve uh by Rich Baston and a second by Jason Scott. All those in favor? I opposed. Motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Plan Commission members.

Okay. So, the final item on our docket tonight is actually old business, but it is discussing the sign ordinance. I hope everybody received um in the packet and by email the most up-to-date draft that we had on this I do have a question for Mr. Coffee when he gets back up here. So,

do any of us have an opinion about offsite signs? I mean a sign for somebody's business but placed at a different location. Do we know if that's addressed? I I didn't see it but I may have missed. It's a good question and I'm not I tried to read through this several times and that does not jump out as something that was addressed. It it seemed, you know, we did this a more than a year ago, but it sure seems like um almost well, a year and a half. Um that came up, but I don't recall. I kind of feel like we were told that maybe we weren't allowed to regulate offsite signs, but I I'm not clear about that. It seems to me that and yes, I'm sorry that w it was it's been well over a year ago now, but I remember a discussion that we we cannot regulate the content of the sign.

Sure.

So, the most common example of that happening is if if I own ABC, Inc. as a business and I've got my business sign at my business location and I put a yard sign that has also has that business information on it in my personal yard in a obviously a residential district. I think that's allowed because each each yard is is allowed a yard sign. So, so we kind of went through last month and did a did a history of of how this has come about. And the big thing is that our our current ordinance does try to regulate by the the type of sign, which you can't always tell without reading the content of the sign. um which which was the primary driver in getting this amended so that we have some great descriptions, sizes, and pictures um that make it much clearer on how how to regulate the signs in our subcommittee. Uh, I think you should all have it and hopefully your color your copy is color. On page four under interim signs, we made some

changes based on several of the members of the subcommittee. Um, we had a 90day limit for an interimm sign and that seemed to be very much on the low end, especially if you're dealing with a damaged sign that maybe you've got insurance involved with it. Um, 90 days is not going to cover that in most cases. So, um, we've got a a fairly boilerplate replacement for that. And then, please don't make me read this because I will butcher it, but under the electronic changeable copy, also on page four, um, it talks about the brightness and, uh, ambient light levels, day and night. And I know that Mr. Johnson basically just took wording from standard sign ordinances um from other districts. With that, I did bring to his attention on page eight, uh we have a map showing the downtown historic district. that the map that he drew in there is our National Register of Historic Places boundaries, but that does not match our written description in our ordinances, which simply states it comprises nine square blocks bounded by the south side of Pike Street, Sycamore, Jackson, and Malbury. So he is he has agreed to to redraw that map just to show the nine square blocks, not with the cutouts that the National Register had.

And then the last change that we worked on was on page 12, section L for special temporary signs. And Rick, just to go back a second on the map. Yes. We've got a revision that we can put in place of that. Yes. That matches our current district. Yes.

Okay. Yeah. Thank you. So, is there a time limit on a let's say a business is over by the old Marsh building and they put a temporary sign, let's say, out by Walmart somewhere. Um, is there a time limit for that sign? It's not in a, you know, it's in a field or whatever. Is there a time limit for that? So, if I've read what's on our books currently, and I'm making an assumption that I've read it correctly, um the limit on that is 30 days unless it's been placed in a public right away, which it's not supposed to be without the consent of is it the board of works or BZA? Okay.

I there's a there's a body that that can approve that.

So, that was that was part of the hangup on on the temporary signs that we're not trying to make it any more strict than it currently is. We have 30 days on the books right now. Um, you can see by the language in the red, we made some concessions. And I'm not I'm not opposed to the concessions at all. I do think you'll notice a section cumulative duration um shall not exceed 150 days in any calendar year. I will say if we adopt that, we will be allowing by at least two months more more time than any other community sign ordinance that I've reviewed and I've looked at between 10 and 15 different ordinances from around the area.

What was the subcommittee's opinion about that? That's a great question because we did our our final subcommittee meeting. We came back to meet on the document that you're looking at right now. We had very low turnout at that meeting. So we were not it's this is what we discussed in those meetings. But I hesitate to say that there was approval around the table. Not to put you on the spot, Jim, but does that sound

Yeah, I'd say it's I mean, we were I think everybody was doing their best to come up with a with an ordinance that is legally enforcable and has the least amount of impact. um while still performing the job that it's supposed to do.

Now, we weren't trying to, you know, I mean, you worry there's businesses, sign companies obviously, so you you know, there's a you don't want to put undue on them. But by the same token, um I I agree with Rick that 150 days per year seems a lot but when if you read the duration up there I I don't know how in the world we can get any shorter than that you know there was compromise I'll say that and in the discussions I need to ask um Mr. Coffee, since did we give any public notice on this prior to this meeting and are we required to since it's an ordinance change?

Um, yeah, you're not you're just having discussion tonight on it. I I I however I do believe we did publish it. I thought we did. I'm not sure Mr. Mike can weigh in on that, but um certainly if this comes back before the council, that'll be a public hearing on that. So, you're going to be covered by that anyway if we didn't. But I thought we had advertised this as well. It was on the website and on the agenda.

We'll have You know, if the council takes this back up, we'll have a public hearing on it. So, your public hearing will be covered by that. the five members who are present tonight. Do are we in a in a position to uh recommend that we approve this signed ordinance as written with the change in map and and recommend approval to the city council? What do we each think about that? I would I would like to have just gather thoughts on what if we like the uh duration of the temporary signs. Um I would I would like to have a unified front on this one. Um, I'm not opposed to having a, you know, tableabling it for a for a month when we have better attendance. Um, but I'm I'm open to any I mean, I know where I stand on this. I I think this is a I think this is a it's an upgrade to what we currently have. And in a conversation I had with um with Brad Johnson, uh he he did make the point that

very few public ordinances are perfect. It's it's unattainable to come up with a perfect ordinance. When you can when you can find something that that meets 90% of your me needs in the community, there are always avenues for those outliers. um you know, you can they can they can go to the the BCA with a request to have a sign longer or if they need a larger sign for whatever reason. This ordinance certainly will not cover 100% of the situations that will come up in Martinsville, but I feel like it does a great job of covering that 90% And at the end of the day, it's a it is a 12-page document that covers a lot of territory. Um, in my review, I saw some I saw some municipalities with sign ordinances that were three pages long and I saw some that were um north of 20 pages. My guess is that the shorter the ordinance, those three pages, I think I think if I had the time to watch some public meetings, they probably have a more difficult time with that shorter ordinance because it doesn't spell out the different examples that that this one does. So, well, and you know, we we have this on our our agenda as a a discussion. Um, I don't know that we need to table anything. We're having our discussion.

It just needs to be on the agenda possibly for for next month. um with the goal of more members being present, reviewing it, and being prepared to to uh make a recommendation at that time. I would be comfortable with that. Rick, do you remember and I just the the duration and the comm community duration in the one that we sent to the city council. Was that even that wasn't even in there, was it?

No. No. What we sent September 24th, 2024. Um, we made a motion and unanimously unanimously passed to city council for approval. What you see written there in black. Okay. So, it simply said the use of temporary assign shall not exceed 30 days total in calendar year. Yes. Okay. and the cumulative duration did not exist in that.

Okay, I was just making sure I remembered that. Okay. So any further I mean does anybody else have want to weigh in on that that particular section now or we can we can hold off till next month. Okay. Uh, one other item that was I guess maybe we can we've had a we've had an issue here um in the last couple of months and we noted it in our minutes um with petitioners not being present. Um I have been advised that that is a procedural issue and if we want to look at remedying that it's a simple motion uh basically a motion to add to procedures that the petitioners must be present at the meeting.

So and it is on the new applications. Okay. So if it's on the application, do do we need do we need to make sure that that's you know the will of what we would I guess.

Yeah, you would need to uh if you would like to make that a rule then then you take a motion second vote on the rule and then we'll add that to your rules. So that now that everyone knows the rules are, if you're going to be an applicant, you need to be here to present and to answer questions. Well, I would make like to make a motion that we uh require the people to be here to present their uh business before us simply because if we sometimes we have questions and I think they need to be here to answer the questions or at least somebody maybe not the applicant per se but somebody to represent them that are here to uh present before us that they they actually there's somebody here to handle those questions. a agreed that the petitioner or somebody on their behalf be present um at the meeting and that that information be added to any applications that are given out that that they need to be someone needs to be present who can answer questions. However, that motion was So, let me Okay, so we we've we've got a motion um motion to amend the procedures so that a petitioner must be present at the meeting or designate someone on their behalf to present at the meeting.

Yes. Okay. Motion was made by Jim Birkhart, seconded by Steve, and with the addition that written information to that extent is on the applications as well. Yes. Yes. A written authorization for somebody else to to present. Okay. Motion made and seconded. All those in favor say I. I. I. Opposed. Same sign. Motion carries. Does anybody else have comments for tonight? If not, I will look for a motion.

I'll make a motion to adjurnn. Jason Scott makes a motion to adjurnn. Do I have a second? Steve Bod second. All those in favor say I. I. Ajourn. Our next meeting will be Tuesday, April 28th, 2026 at 7 p.m. Thank you. should be