Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Having some difficulties. Hold on. Technical difficult. Take your time. Stand by for technical difficulty. There we go. All right. Good evening. I'd like to call to order the Concord Township Zoning Commission for Tuesday, July 1, 2025. Uh if you would join me by standing and pledging the allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Heather, could you pull us a a roll call, please? Yes. Yes, I will. Mr. Schindler, present. Mr. Eeliss, here. Mr. Peterson here. Mr. Wartell here. Mr. Roberts here. We are all here. Thank you gentlemen for doing that. Approval of minutes. We don't have any. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. But we will have them for next month. Right. I will have to check with the stenographer. Okay. Correspondence.

Frank, anything? Uh, none, Mr. Chairman, I actually had a um property owner reach out to me that is looking to uh potentially develop his property. Um and he uh asked for some guidance. I haven't he uh I haven't met with him yet. I tried to set up a meeting with me uh to find uh kind of look over his property with him and um kind of see if he's in compliance with, you know, what he's in with compliance with and what he's not. Um like I said, I've not met with him yet. um he did have a confidentiality clause on the email that he sent me um when he reached out. Um so if after I get through that process and get together and get some more information, I'll make sure that I share it with with Heather and you guys as well. Okay. Okay. Rich I please. Uh Mr. Chairman, I've had some internal correspondence really with Heather and with Variety that I perhaps it's appropriate for new business. 30 section 36 that I spoke with you about Friday and is new business. So I have an item under new business. Okay. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Peterson. I had nothing, Mr. Chairman. Okay. And I had nothing. So that takes your correspondence. Zoning in zoning inspector report. Heather, I do not have one this evening. Okay. None. Public participation. Do we have anybody on the phone? No. Uh, seeing none, we can move on. [Applause] New business, we will take yours a after if that's okay, please. Okay, we have a public hearing for our

proposed amendments. Uh, everybody has their package from last month. So, if we can, what I'd like to do is uh open a public hearing and then we'll go on to amendment one. We have to approve each one of them. So, we will discuss it if we have to read it. I do I have to read everything. Do I have to read it? No. No. Okay. It becomes public record. If it's short, we'll read it. If not, we'll just uh have it as part of the uh agenda. Okay. Number Okay, I'd like to open a public hearing. And I do that with a hammer. And let's move on to amendment number one which is revise section six general requirements as follows. Revise section 6.01 uh B agriculture uses and new section 62 K prohibited uses. So if you look at your package, you can see what we did to section six 01 agriculture uses and 62 wait on 02. Let me see. 602. There it is. Any comments? 1602. We have a prohibited use

hearing. No comments. Can I get a motion to approve? Do you want to do it at the end of the public hearing if you This is public hearing. Yeah. Yeah. Maybe at the end when maybe when you close out the public hearing I mean or going to the regular meeting back into the regular meetings when maybe you make promotion because I understand that the public hearing is more for the discussion and looking for I have to exit the our meeting. Yeah, the public hearing. So we go through once we get finished we hear any comments from the public we got to go through them all then we close then we can move to to approve. So I have to read them all and then go back one by one to approve to approve after you close the public. Yeah, that's what we open. So amendment number two revise section 11.01 zoning permit required. Amendment number three, revise section 13, conditional use permit. Amendment number four, revise section 15.02, table 15.02-1, table of uses. Amendment number five, add new section 18, small solar energy systems. Amendment number six, add new section 19, electric electric vehicle charging stations. Amendment number seven, revise section 22.03, 03 table of uses for commercial and industrial districts and revised

22.10 A capital district standards. Amendment number eight, delete section 32, gas and oil regulations. Amendment number nine, delete section 33, satellite receiving antennas dash dish type. [Applause] Now we go back and read it all. Read each amendment over again. We're still in public hearing. Yes, we are. Yes. Okay. Yeah, we're still in public hearing. Yeah. Um, Mr. Chairman, I think it would be wise to indicate if there is nobody in the audience as far as the public is concerned this de this evening and on the phone, right? And on the phone. Okay. Thank you, Frank. You're welcome. I'd like to mention that there are no uh personnel in the room for the public hearing and also there is nobody on the phone for the public hearing. We go to amendment one. We close. We close the public I thought we had to vote in the public hearing. No, sir. No, Miss Matheni. Okay. Since there's no input from the public and we made note that they're not here at this point, we can close the public. We can close the public hearing. Okay. With that, I'd like to close the public hearing. [Applause] Okay. Okay. Now we go each one

discussions and then vote. Correct. Yes. Okay. Okay. Amendment number one, [Applause] revise section six, general requirements, as follows. Revise section 6.01B, agriculture uses, and add a new section 6.02 K, prohibited uses. Any questions from the commission? hearing none. Mr. Chair, I would think that as we go through this and since we have the document in front of us and we've had the work session as of June 3rd and we should make note that the document in front of us has been revised and has been edited with the red lettering through this each sentence indicating the appropriate language change. this week here. You won't have to go through reading this whole thing. It would take us all night. I think if we agree to go through with the changes as indicated in red for each amendment, I think that would be adequate for the uh passage of the document. Okay. That's if legal counsel agrees with me. Yeah, that's fine. These have been available, right, um, Heather, for anyone to view on the website? Yes, it's on the website. Yeah. And we've already had our discussion on that. So, sure a few times. Yeah. A few times. The only thing we would probably add to it at this point is the recommendations and comments from the Lake County Planning Commission. Okay. Whenever we have comments, we never want to get to that part. Insert that in and then we can

discuss that. Correct. So when we make a motion to approve, we make a motion to approve with edit as the edited version sits in front of us, right? With red line and and comments, right? That's correct. That's right. And don't forget this is a recommendation from them. Yeah, I understand that. We don't have to we don't have to do that. We don't have to do that section, but what we've already gone through, correct, was already edited when we make a motion for each amendment. Correct. Then we're going to make it as edited. Correct. And discussed, correct? And approved at this the last our June 3rd meeting. Correct. Okay. Okay, there were no comments from the county on this particular one. Not on this one. I'll make a motion to approve amend amendment one as documented in our notes. Do I have a second? I second, Mr. Chairman. Heather call vote call on that. Mr. Schindler, yes. Mr. Robert, yes. Mr. Peterson. Yes. Mr. Eelles. Yes. Mr. Warttow. Yes. Okay. That's the end of amendment one. Amendment number two has to do with uh section 11 zoning permit. You have the changes in front of you. Do I have a motion? Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion, assuming there are no objections, to approve amendment number two, uh, the revision to section 11.01, zoning permit required as presented. I'll second that. Have there please. Mr. Wartau, yes. Mr. Eelles, yes. Mr. Peterson, yes. Mr. Reert, yes. Mr. Sher, yes. Amendment number two is approved. Amendment number three,

uh, revise section 13, conditional use permit, we have a lot of red on this one, but most of the red is reumbering. Yeah, any discussion. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to accept amendment number three as revised in our uh packet. Uh rei revise section 13 conditional use permit. I'll second the motion, Mr. Chairman. Heather, if you would please. Mr. Peterson, yes. Mr. Shler, yes. Mr. Robert, yes. Mr. Eelles, yes. Mr. Wart, yes. Amendment number four. Uh, amendment number three is approved. Amendment number four, revise section 15.02, table 15.02-1, table of uses. Okay. Any discussion? like to entertain a motion for approval. Is this Mr. Chairman? I make a motion that we approve amendment number four as revised. I have a second. I'll second the motion, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Mr. Wal, yes. Mr. Eileles, yes. Mr. Peterson, yes. Mr. Schindler, yes. And Mr. Robert, yes. Amendment number four is approved.

Amendment number five, add new section 18, small solar energy systems. We do have a comment on this from the county. The county can comment too. add small solar energy systems as an accessory use in section 15.03. I assume that's a typo. Section 180.03 I assume. Is that a typo, Heather? Well, do they want any accessory uses of the table because that Oh, good point. But it's there. We have it added. Yeah. As an accessory. So, I don't know why they That's It makes sense to me if you look in on page uh 15.4 residential districts as you go up accessory uses under table 15.02 but it gets to 15.03 and accessory uses we have it added this small sort facility and it's accessory across the board and it refers to section 18. Right. So we've done that 1503. Uh, it's 1502. Is it possible you foresaw this, Heather, and put it in your No, that was in there. They were recommending. So, and you don't have it here in your packet, but if you have your entire zoning resolution with you, you would see that section 15.03 lists some of the accessory uses that have special standards. Um, but we put all the special standards for small solar in section 18, which we did cross reference in this table. So, I think we do not need to add it in section 15.03. 03 covered right here. Okay, I agree. I know you did it right. So, any further discussion?

No, but I'd like to make a motion uh Mr. Chairman with no objection if no objections uh to amendment number five, add new section uh 18, small solar energy systems as presented in our packet. In our package. Yes. Do I have a second? I second, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Heather, please. Mr. Rert. Yes. Mr. Peterson. Yes. Mr. Eileles. Yes. Mr. Wel. Yes. Mr. Schler. Yes. Amendment number five is approved. Amendment number six adds section 19, electric vehicle charging stations. And we have a comment from the county planning and that comment is review to make sure that a setback for the electric vehicle charging stations is compliant with parking setbacks. And Heather, I think you have some comments on this one also. Oh. Um, well, I mean, I looked at So, in section 18, what we're proposing for the setbacks, um, section 19, oh, rather, yes, sorry, I apologize. Section 19. In section 19.04, the proposed section, we're stating that the chart that the station has to be at least 10 ft away from any property line. Mhm. So with our most of our commercial district setbacks for the parking lot, it's a minimum 25 foot setback from the front and minimum 10 foot sideyard setbacks unless you have a shared shared parking agreement, shared access driveway. Um so I think you just have to comply with both. So, if you built your parking lot, if you have an existing parking lot and your parking spaces are right at the minimum setback of 10 ft, then you might have to ask for a

variance because the structure is going to be probably within the 10 ft. You're going to put it right outside the parking um stall. Mhm. But if you're building a new parking lot, you can accommodate that and maybe set your parking lot, you know, 12 ft. That would give you that two extra feet or whatever you might need in order to put the if you're planning on putting an EV charging station in the parking lot. New parking lots and charging stations are usually almost towards the road anyways. Okay. Um and especially in shopping centers and they want them up front. They want them up front. Exactly. Right. So I could see the 10 foot makes sense to me actually. Okay. Off off of a property line like that. That's how I I see the majority of them being designed that way. Okay. So that makes a lot of sense to me that but I like you're going at it with that too as well. Well, right cuz our minimum front back for the front set back from the street from the parking lot is 25. So that's plenty of room to to do that. Okay. Okay. Does the note next note where it talks about location to the gas wells also apply here? That probably under amendment 8 is what it was. No, I don't know. It doesn't say it doesn't say which one it's in. It just continues from the one above. I thought a set back in other words not having charging stations near gas well. Mhm. I thought that was a good comment. Well, no, you're you're right because amendment 8 leaked a section. I thought my interpretation was the third comment from them was just kind of in in response to us deleting section 32. Although it's not directly related, but Okay. Oh. Because because townships do have the ability to regulate new construction in relationship to an existing gas well. We just cannot regulate where the gas well is replaced. So if we have an existing gas well and someone's building a new development, we could put in a setback

saying the house has to be x amount of feet away from the gas well. That is my interpretation of what they're asking us to potentially look at. That's not something that we've really discussed during any of these work sessions. My recommendation would be if that's something that the board wants to consider that we could take that on as a separate amendment. Um, oh, because that would take a little bit more research. Yeah, I see. What we would want to do, I think this even than we can get through this evening, you know, obviously, but right, it's somewhat unrelated, I think, to what we're proposing. Any further comments on amendment six? Uh, yes, Mr. Chairman. We we had and John brought up some questions that I think that we resolved during our discussion. We did and last month and Heather also provided some information from the fire department after. Right. Right. Uh but the the one Oh, the canopies. Yeah. Um shall not include overhead canopies. I still have a question mark. Right. Did we? Right. We didn't resolve that. I mean, they did the fire department did comment on it. Yeah. And they did say why. Right. But they didn't they still don't believe there should be canopies over the top of them at all. Right. That was my understanding. Right. The existing resolution that we already have in place also has the same requirement on there. And it was a recommendation from the fire department to not permit these to be located under cannabis. And my interpretation really based on what I read from everything is trying to eliminate risk. Um, okay. For the spread of that. Okay. So, okay. I understand we don't have existing parking garages right now in Concord. Um, I know a lot of the information that

was sent over was more germanine to parking garages, but I think their thought process is the same thing trying to eliminate the spread, potential spread if there is an incident. Any other discussion? I have a a question on my notes about annual inspection. Who's going to do it? Is that the fire department that's going to do that? Yeah, that wasn't I believe that is it's on the the property owner to have them inspected. That's what we decided. Yes. Okay. Okay. It's all I had. Okay. We did. I I I wasn't sure whether we wanted to include that. I I think you answered that, Heather. I'm I apologize. I don't on 1903 C. Uh EVCS shall comply, etc., etc. Shall be inspected once a year by the owner. Was it necessary to say that? I think was a question. It was a question. I don't know if we need to say that or not. Maybe Bry would have a thought on that. A 1903C brighty. Well, we don't want the the owner themselves to do the inspection. What are they going to do? Walk up to you and go, "Oh, everything looks good." But it's their responsible to make sure that the proper entity is getting, you know, is inspecting it. Yeah. Who is that? I think that's what we're asking. I'm not sure who you hire to inspect EV charging stations. I I really don't. The fire department, though. No. No. No. Okay. Just like Yeah. Well, you have to have it installed by a licensed electrician, right? Correct. Yes. Maybe the county. So if he's already licensed by the state, I can see if he comes in once a year, you have him come in once a year and inspect it. Mhm. That should be okay, I

would think. Who would inspect it, Frank? Who would do it? A licensed inspector or electrician. How do you monitor that? How do you Yeah, I I I thought again I'm probably waiting on legal counsel, but the next sentence says the proof shall be made with available authority, which I assume is our fire department if they want to see it. If they want to see it. So, I'm just suggesting that we need to say by the owner how the owner does that, what that it's up to the owner, but the proof needs to be provided if requested. So, requested, right? So, the the the requirement here is to have the owner do this annually, inspect it annually by the licensed inspector of EV charging station, right? Something like that. Kind of like the backflow inspection on your sprinkler. Oh my gosh. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. You got to have that. Somebody has to inspect your backflow on your sprinkler and submit it to in this in my case. Do we have to add that? I'm asking. Um so we want to clarify that the property owner shall have the EVCs inspected once a year. Okay. So maybe just change that sentence to after the word words Ohio fire code and the property owner shall have the EVCs inspected once a year. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And then I don't know who it's by. So I'm kind of hesitant to say who actually is um Yeah. I would be hesitant as well because we're not the authority. Yeah. Well, I wouldn't think that it have to be it has to be someone that has electrical experience, right? I mean, let's face it, plug in is electric. So, I would think that if you have a licensed electrician because they are licensed by the state, there's your there's a qualified person. It's not the homeowner because maybe is a electrician. Yeah. You know, if he is electrician, I would say qualified third

party because there might be electricians that don't do that though. They're not qualif I don't know that actually I I I don't know that answer. So I think a qualified third party qualified third party is a great way to say that. That's true. Covers everything then does right. It would have to have some kind of certification. So no that's fine. So did you want to add it as so after the words again Ohio Fire Code and we add the property owner shall have the EVCS inspected by a qualified third party. Yes. once a year. Yes. Okay. Okay. I think that we're going to get questions on that um in the zoning department when we who's a qualified third party, but um well, then again, you always have electrical. We could always make a you have qualified uh excavators within communities. You have qualified, you know, companies that can install water lines and sewer lines that so you can you can we can present that. Okay. Yeah, I would think so. Yep. Yeah. I'd be more comfortable with that. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. I agree. So, could somebody come then uh for a variance on a canopy of electrical charging station if they wanted to put one in? Yes, they could. Yes. Okay. Yeah. that I'm comfortable with as it sits because I think they could prove um uh what's u I can't I'm lost words safety safety or or they could yeah they could they could demonstrate a need not hazardous not hazardous right right okay health safety and welfare of the community yeah that's what yeah that's what you have to prove right for various that's what you have to prove for so Mr. determined perhaps a an amendment to the amendment. Wait a minute. This is an amendment. Uh what's proper

here? We're approving an amendment, Bry, but we want to modify the amendment. So when we go to what what was it? It's section. So it's amendment number six. We're adding new section 19 electric vehicle charging station. Um with the proposed change to 19.03C. 03 C. And we can we can we can actually say if you wanted to say the entire sentence there, we can do that. But you don't have to say the entire sentence. You could stop at with the proposed change to That's fine. Right. I've written it down. I'm sure Heather has to obviously taking it down. That's what I have. Okay. Okay. So, Heather, could you read 19.03 03 C as amended to the amendment. You got it. Yeah. So, EVCS shall comply with the current National Electric Code, NEC, and the Ohio Fire Code and the property owner shall have the EVCS inspected by a qualified third party once a year. Perfect. Perfect. And then sounds good to me. So, now we we can say the same thing as amended in our packet. Correct. Correct. Right. Yes. Yes. Perfect. So, cuz that was the motion. Yeah. We would still I'm sorry, just to clarify, we'd still keep in that second sentence, proof of of inspection shall be made available to the authority. We decided on public hearing. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve amendment number six as revised in our packet as modified this evening. Right. Yeah. Modified in our packet. I'll second the motion for approval of amendment six. Mr. Wartell. Yes. Mr. Schindler. Yes.

Mr. Robert. Yes. Mr. Peterson. Yes. Mr. Isel. Ice. Yes. Ice. Yes. Know where that came from. That come from. Wow. Ice. Amendment number seven. It's in my makeup. Thank that was very good discussion. It was very good. Thank you for bringing that up. Yeah. Amendment number seven, revised section 2203, table of uses for commercial and industrial districts and revised 22.10A capital district standards. Mr. Chairman, if there are no objections, I would like to uh recommend the approval of amendment 7, revised section 22.03, 103 table of uses for commercial and industrial districts and revised 22.10 a capital district standards as amended in our packet. I'll second that. Heather, please. Mr. Eles. Yes. Mr. Peterson. See it right there. Mr. Rert. Yes. Mr. Schindler. Yes. Mr. Wtop. Yes. Amendment number seven is approved. Moving on. Amendment number eight, delete section 32, gas and oil regulations. Mr. Chairman, I'll take a leap in faith and and make a motion to approve amendment number eight, delete section 32, gas and oil regulations. And I will second that leap of faith. Okay. Mr. Another leap of faith over there, Mr. Peterson. Yes, Mr. Eles. Yes, Mr. Wartell. Yes, Mr. Schindler. Yes, Mr. RER. Yes.

Amendment number nine, delete section 33, satellite receiving antennas dash dish type. Any discussion? Discussion. I have a discussion. No. No. No. May I have a motion? Mr. Taran. Yes. Another leap in faith. I will make a motion to approve amendment number nine to delete section 33 satellite receiving antennas dish type. And I will go ahead. And I will second uh the uh amendment uh number nine passage as proposed. Heather, please. Mr. Schindler. Yes. Mr. Peterson. Yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. Wel, yes. Mr. Robert, yes. Amendment number nine is approved. Uh, we already closed the public hearing. We'll go on to Mr. Rise's new business. Uh, thanks for all the work on this, Heather, for those amendments. Thank you. Well done. Um, um, uh, for the my colleagues here on the board, I I had Um it was actually subsequent to last month's meeting asked Heather if there was anything coming up on the future agenda in terms of site plan and she mentioned a project uh in the capital district. Um um exploring it further. I had thought when um a proposal from an applicant or developer was uh based upon a conditional use. It was not a permitted

use in a zoning district that it would first come before this board. And I thought that's how section 36 was written so that we would hear or provide some feedback to the applicant on the perspectives of what we think of the conditional use in an area where it's not permitted use. And I thought we had modified section 36 to reflect that. And those of you who are obviously on most of us other than John were here for the sheets project. That applicant came in as a pre uh pre-proposal, right? And we declined uh the use of that property for for that purpose. It culminated in uh it going forward going back to the BCA and then coming back to us. Um so I had thought in section 36 that we had and I know you probably don't have it in front of you but um 363 section 363 section 36 first of all the site plan review in 36.03 uh we have a section called the informal review process that uh correct me if I'm wrong Heather precedes I know it precedes me I think it was adopted in 2018. I'm sorry, what's it called again? Inform informal review process. The the purpose is to discuss early and informally with the applicant the intent and effect of the zoning regulations and the criterion standards contained within them. It is recommended that prior to incurring any any expense associated with preparing and submitting a detailed site plan for consideration, the prospective applicant meets for an informal review with the zoning inspector. Mhm. At the discretion of the zoning inspector, proposed projects may

be subject to an informal review at a regularly scheduled zoning commission meeting. It's not required. Correct. Correct. that and writing again correct me if I'm misspeak here. So um and so when I went back to review 3603 I said oh it's not required uh to do that. So so we have conditions and I I just put it up for consideration if we wanted to pursue this further. I'm bothered by it that a project can go forward uh bypassing this board and going directly for conditional use to the BZ and then we're hand our hands again legally are tied. Our hands are tied for only site plan review and approval which is what occurred with the sheets project. So I love the comment on that if I may. Yes, please. I think I'm done. That's kind of what I wanted. I think in in trying to put myself in the property owner or the developer's position and trying to look at it from their perspective, informal meetings um and ones that are not required are done with a certain degree of confidentiality, right? you're not putting it out into the public because um a lot of what can happen again and I I'm just trying to put myself in somebody else's shoes and I've been there before it's probably why it's experience talking too um you know sitting down with Heather and having a conversation which I know developers do all the time right I mean or have done in the past or they they try to because I've done I've done this in this in this very community you know I used when Rush Shadik was here um so um there's a lot that can be done uh that that a lot of advice that can be given and a lot of um good that can come from those meetings and sometimes and I I I know I I think I can kind of

understand from the commission's perspective um but it's still a lot of good could happen early on with those meetings on both sides for the community and and as as well for the developer right if it became a now formal meeting to come to us first right that um that settlement you might you might get a a big public push back without knowing all the information right cuz it's they haven't gone that far down the path yet on developing it is it to so to go to BZA they meet with them first then it we still have a final say on it we don't have a final on the project we do correct it's only on the site plan if again correct me if I'm wrong but I was we were uh I believe litigated against on the sheets because we rejected the site plan. Yeah. I was not here for that, but I think that's Yeah. So, what what occurred, John, was we voted unanimously against having that in the capital district. No, when they wasn't, wasn't it 3 to2 or It was unanimous in the when they came for sight plan, it wasn't unanimous. It was still 4 to1. They came for site plan, we still rejected it. Okay. But and it was based upon the principle that well we refused how how can we approve something we just reject it. Okay we we again the board voted to reject it again and uh legal had advised well you kind of like you're in the position of only site plan once you the BCA had approved the conditional use. That's what the ruling was. Am I correct again Heather? It's it's pretty much how the sheets thing came down. We were we were only resigned to approve the site plan and comment not prove but comment on the site plan. We could not could not consider that this is uh not in keeping what the vision of the capital district

was a which is a mixeduse residential commercial type development which has Yeah. So I think I think like the BZA's job as re as part of reviewing the conditional use permit is to kind of lean into a little bit about like what you're suggesting looking at the comprehensive plan and how does it fit in with the comprehensive plan. But once the BCA approves the use, the use is a permitted use and that's what Rich is saying. We have to approve it. You can't say no to the use, but you do have give and take on the site plan. So give and take on the site plan is okay set back the driveway. it's still going to get a use because they they receive it with in a planned area and and I'm using the capital district as example because it's occurring again. Sure is. Right. Right now. So if again a conditional use if we did if if if we did have a say in it, right? Or if we did have a informal meeting, what what does that and if we're against it, they they still can go to the board of zoning appeals. Correct. Correct. And so we're just adding a step to the process that ultimately could end up with them just going to board of zone appeals anyways and getting it approved. Uh as as I think our board would we would respect the the reviews and opinions of another board. I would think they would honor us as well if we're we had a voice or opinion even though but in that meeting um we did tell Sheets we had some some requirements the height of their car that's right and they agreed everything we asked them to do they agreed to do they did which is why I voted in favor but I was the one guy that vote in favor but they did cooperate with us on everything and then they went down there and got the approval that they needed and then they came back here. That's right. And we kind of didn't like it. Yeah. But it was a constructed meeting. I would say it was a constructed meeting. They are. They usually are. Yeah. Right.

Mhm. But but I guess that's what I'm saying. So all we're doing is adding another level of meetings to that process for So I I understand John. All we're doing we are the zoning I understand commission but we also have to respect the board of zoning appeals and their position. Correct. So if I guess I'm asking this board if we're comfortable that an applicant can does not have to come to this board first seeks a conditional use and then we have no we really have no voice it's only in the site plan which is right they did accommodate a lot of our all of it um I I I object to that process because that's what I thought we were on this board to do think about planning and zoning uh But um and I it's not that I disagree with you. It's just I'm trying to see Yeah. everybody's position. Yeah. You know what I mean? I really am. I'm trying to Yeah. A layers are are you know if we want to if we want to welcome business into our community, right? It's it's it's an arduous task to develop a piece of property to begin with. It's not easy, right? And I understand that. And and again, I'm not minimizing this board. Please, I want everybody to understand that I'm just trying to put myself in everybody's shoes, whether it be a resident. Well, whether it be a developer, you bring up a good point about the confidentiality, too. They have to have the meeting with Heather, and that's her job, right? And that's confidential at that level. She then can decide whether it's important enough that she wants to bring it here. Now, if in in our zoning in that rag, does it say that if she says that it has to come to the zoning commission, then they have to do that? uh at her discretion. Yes. Yeah. And one thing we have to realize that our meetings are open to the public and it's publicized Yeah. on TV. So we

can't have the confidentiality if it's going right out the door when you can see on the TV. Mhm. But if Heather Heather makes a recommendation has to become has to come before this commission. Well, then there is. Yeah, we're cover. We're covered. Well, I don't think we're doing we're asking the contractor to do any more work on this preliminary sit down. They should have all that work there already. If they're going to go to the BZA first, they ought to have the same information coming here. I'd have to go look through what the regulate what the requirements are to go to board PZA and I and I have not done that. This just brought up but I will do that. Well, but I think they have to have the same same same information almost. I can't say everything, but uh the same type of information should come here or would come here under that preliminary information, preliminary meeting as they would have to go to the BCA. Particularly if the request is for a conditional use, they would need to have a lot of good information. Can can we do it where they can run those meetings concurrently so they don't have to have one month and then wait another month to have that meeting? Can we do it so they can run it concurrently? When is BCA When does BCA meet? BCA meets the second Wednesday of every month. Okay. So So if they make it for the first Tuesday, right, it covers it. It covers it. But they would have already had to submit all their stuff prior to you know your meeting actually commencing. So they would have already had to file for the BCA application. Everything would have already had been submitted before they even met with you.

So keep So any comments that they might have received from you, they would not have any time to do anything about. But because they would have already submitted something else and and also keep in mind that the Ohio General Assembly has given really the BCAD power to grant conditional uses, not the zoning commission. So when I say that what your power is is to change the text and make amendments as to what the conditional uses are that are here in the township. So that's the process and that's actually the role of the zoning commission. Again the BCA is expressly provided by statute. They can grant conditional uses and or variances. Correct. Other things too they can also hear appeals you know based on zodia inspector error like they have very specific grant of power that's very different than what the zoning commission of power is. Well if you recall we we spent a lot of time on conditional uses. Um and I thought we did in the capital district. I thought we did. Yeah we did. I love the fact that you brought it up and had discussing it because that's what we're and I I mean I I agree with Brady's comment. I mean obviously our authority lies in the in the resolution if we if this if that Let me ask this Brady then. So if the conditional use was not there listed as a C, can the applicant still apply vary to variant for a variance? Does it come under the word variance? Yes. If it's not a permitted use, right? It's not a permitted use. So that's a varian. So they still can bypass us and go to DCA. Well, again, not bypassing them. I wouldn't say it that way. But I get why you're saying it. Selfishly saying that. Yeah, you're right. I understand.

But it's good discussion for continuity on the board, you know, cuz John wouldn't have known. Good discussion for continuity on the board just again. And don't think me just because I'm saying something, you know, different or I just want to make sure that No, somebody has a voice too, right? That's right. That's my It's all of our jobs is to make sure that everybody has a voice and and to have these discussions cuz I I love the fact that you brought that up and again and I have been there and I understand that and I and I get the reason and I and I kind of remember succinctly that that that BCA does have that authority, right? And and it's not it's higher higher stuff than us, right? So it's a different step. Different step, right? Exactly. Right. Right. Not higher but different step. Yeah. Think of it this way. you you your role as the zoning commission. You're like the legislative. I mean in the sense that yes, I know it has to go to trustees too to get approval, but you are the legislators of the text. You are the lawmakers, if you will. You are writing the law. The BCA is the judicial branch, right? The trustees are the executive branch. That's kind of how I would think of it if you're thinking of, you know, our government and kind of what what we do. That's very well said. Okay. But Rich, you brought it up because you were concerned about just the way the process break. So, how can we get through making you feel beneficial? Well, it's it's I think it's to Bright's point. is the legislative aspect of it to focus and concentrate on where we don't want to see even though where we don't want conditional uses and what conditional uses there are in certain districts certain zoning districts. Yeah, I get it. I get it. I think the only way probably maybe we might be able lot of

governments go to executive session or close session where we all get together as a group and voice our concerns. Can something like that be set up? Avoid the sunshine law. Can zoning co go into executive session? Um, possibly. Um, BCA is allowed to deliberate outside of the public because they're considered a quasi judicial branch. Um, but can you go into executive session? I think I think you can. We have to have a specific reason though. And there's only eight specific reasons to go into executive session. That might be tough. Yeah. Talking about a zoning. Yeah. But we do have to meet one of those one of those eight reasons to go into executive. Threat of litigation. Well, the object is we can look into it at least. Just a thought. Well, I appreciate the opportunity to voice that, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for indulging me. I think the discussion too could be had. Yeah. Do we want to look at that any any more? I'm I'm kind of satisfied with the discussion that we have to focus on the text the resolution. If there is a particular zoning district we want to say thou shalt not be a conditional use here, we should do something. And that would only be looking at the table. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Per per district. Yes. Per district. Yes. We did it some degree. We just did too. We we did. Yeah, we did. Yeah, we did. And I'm sure we're going to look at it again. Again, maybe not this board, but this board, but not the same people on the board. Yeah.

Okay. Any other new Any other new business? No. We have an old business on the books that's been tabled until July 26, if not sooner. So, we can go through that. Next meeting, August 5th. We're into the last half of 2025. Unbelievable. Yes, it is. I agree. I have a motion to adjourn. I will take a leap of faith. Make a motion. That's going to be the key phrase. The meeting on July 1st. Second. Second. Second. Sorry. We're ajourned. I'm not even going to take a poll.