Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We're recording. You got her. All right. I'll call uh the November 25th, 2025 meeting of the planning commission to order. The uh first item on the agenda is uh the roll call. Would you call the role, Miss Ramble? Jay Castile. Jim Jackson here. Pete McGory. David Miller here. Steve Pali here. Connor Whan here. Mike Zulof here. Okay. Uh, Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. Miller.

I'd like to make a motion to excuse Mr. Jackson's absence from the last meeting due to extenduating circumstances. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? I I Okay. Uh and and Miss uh I I believe Miss Castile called in and said she may not be able to make the meeting. Motion to excuse. Mr. It's been moved. Is there a second? Second. Moved and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor?

Anyone opposed? Motion passes. And Mr. McGori, did he happen to call in? I did not receive anything. I also did not. Okay. If we didn't get a call, then I guess we'll have to mark him as unexcused. All right. Our our u next item is the approval of minutes from the October 22nd, 2025 meeting. Everybody had a chance to review those. Motion to approve, Mr. Chairman. It's been moved. Is there a second? Second, Mr. Chairman. Yes,

it might be prudent to add an an update to those minutes to mark Mr. Jackson um excused since you all just voted for that. Okay. Do in the minutes. Motion to uh approve the minutes with that amendment. Second. Second. It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? I

motion passes. Okay. The first uh well, the next item is a public hearing on a zone map amendment for 223 through 225 Meg Street. And and the way I'm going to handle this is the staff can give their report and then if uh the applicant wants to come up and speak and fill in any gaps or say anything and then we'll uh go to the public hearing. Those in favor, those against. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right. So, on this slide, uh we see uh both 223 225 Magg Street. It is currently one property, yet it is split zoned. Um which is what the applicant is hoping to remedy with this application. On the right hand side, you can see that whole property. Um and we'll get into the exact portion that triggered this and why. Uh for now though, uh starting on the from a top down perspective, the south working north on the left part of this slide is the existing parking lot and then on the right side is 225 Magg Street um home to Mcookie Law and then on this slide is the proposed area for resoning which is behind the existing tap house building. So, the applicant would like to reszone new the newly combined portion of property uh to align with the primary zoning of the site of downtown business and enable future development which is in line with the site plan approved by this planning commission on January 5th, 2023. Um is on the left hand side you can see that proposed area recently combined and you approved by staff. it it is permitted to um create split zone properties just they couldn't proceed with any potential building with this and we'll get into the exact scope they

are at with that in a moment. Okay, so uh just for reference here's the site plan approved January 2023 showing the proposed brewery expansion area. It just shows that general vicinity which I highlighted in yellow. uh no firm building footprint. Um so this is all very general but you know it needs to be zoned right before they can proceed with that. And just as a factual matter um the below map indicates the minimum required setback distances for any proposed development uh if it were reszoned to downtown business relative to that lot area triggering the application for reszoning. So, this should act as a buffer to the adjacent properties and I can revisit any of that. I know that's a lot of information. Um, staff analysis. Uh, this application aims to make the entire property the same zoning district of downtown business to allow for orderly future development. Uh, two, the buildable area of any new building will be limited by the minimum required setbacks for main buildings which are adjacent to residential zoning districts. Those minimum required setbacks will act as a buffer between adjacent residential uses thereby protecting their quality of life while also allowing the applicant to take sufficient advantage of the land they own for economic gain. Uh ultimately the benefit realized from this resoning uh for of this smaller and landlocked portion of property will be greater than leaving it the same until a plan fully materializes. and all other code requirements would be met by this proposed resoning. Therefore, staff recommends that planning commission motion to recommend city commission approve the proposed zoning map amendment. And as a note, if recommended for approval, staff intends to ask city commission to set the hearing at the

first meeting of the new year to be held in February. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Panis. U Mr. Mcookie, was there anything you wanted to add to the report? Uh, I had questions about the report, Mr. Chair. Well, I I thought maybe Mr. Mcookie could speak and and then we'll Okay. We'll we'll eventually get back. We should

I really didn't have anything to add other than I I don't get down here too much uh anymore and I want to thank you all for everything you've done for us. Um, now this is just another little step along the way of u building out the bait house brewery. Next year or this winter actually, we're going to be moving forward and getting the proper permits to finally attack the um the bait shop. Herbs bait shop is most of us that are old enough to recall herbs. Um, and we're going to build that out and we're going to do do some really cool things with that. But other than that, I we we don't know on this particular lot. You know, my wife Beth, who's the brains of the operation, she wants to turn it into a a garden where we'll grow some uh vegetables and for for service and or use in the in the brewery restaurant. But other than that, um, I think that's everything's pretty well summed up. All right. Thank you. Anybody have any questions for Mr. Mcookie? Yeah. Will you be leaving the uh the minnows in there? The water feature with the minnows that they used to have.

Oh, yeah. Uh well, that's running water.

Uh we have the the tanks that are still there. I don't know if that's Steve if that's what you're referring to, but I think those are finally going to come out in the garage. I think we're going to clean up that whole backyard. And it's high time that we did that. And uh uh you know just really clean it up. And by this time well by more you know more like uh um by April I'm going to say of next year it's going to be a totally different look. And uh so at the when we submitted this application, by the way, I don't know if this was in any of the of your uh documents, but um we thought we would be adding another building to put on this property on this little lot here to for our to house our brew our we going to going to call it our brew house. But um we're kind of backing away from that and for now and focusing on the old bait shop like I said. So so this property, this little sliver of land kind of remains open and what we're going to do with with it in the long run uh remains to be determined. But while the application was filed, when we filed this application, we thought we'd build a new brew house on this property and we've kind of backed off of that. But it, you know, since we filed it, I'm here and we need to we're going to use it, I mean, in one way or another in con in connection with the brewery. So, it it just needs to be reszoned.

Okay. So, thank you. Unless there's some questions that I don't think there's any questions around the table at this point. Okay. All right. Well, thank you. Thank you. So, I'll I'll open the uh public hearing. Mr. Chairman, I still have a question about the the application. I'm I'm going to open the public hearing and then I'm going to come back to the table and we'll discuss. Okay. Don't forget your question.

All right. Uh I'm opening the public hearing. Uh anyone in favor of this application? You're free to come up and speak. Anyone opposed? Okay. If not, we'll close the public hearing. Mr. Zulof, you're on. I forgot. No, just kidding. Um, all right. Downtown business. Uh, how will this affect the parking requirements on this site?

The majority of the land uses that are on the site today, actually all the land uses that are on the site today are already zoned downtown business. So, it should be You just No, I'm sorry. You just said the land uses are zoned. Land is zoned. Yeah. So, Adam, could you click us to the slide that shows the proposed? Yes. So, if you look on the left picture of this, there's a small portion of land area that's getting reszoned that used to be parts of other parcels that got combined into this parcel. Yeah, that must it's all it doesn't have any buildings on it at this point.

So, it would change anything that gets built there. the parking requirements would be for the land use that they would get built for which would be brewery. So expansion of the brewery is when we would expansion of the like permanent structures on the site is when we would look at parking requirements. So it would change it from an R2F kind of little micro zone to the downtown business for the parcel. Right. So to paraphrase to let let's get to answering my question. How will this affect the parking? Is is are we saying that it would not pro would reduce I can answer

increase the required parking reduce the required parking or have no effect on the required parking. Uh the direct answer is the we don't know yet because this is not the process that that would become obvious. Uh just because uh like there's no direct correlation or ratio of land zone downtown business equals minimum required parking. It's all according to for downtown business. Correct. It's in the central business district.

There's not. So when you go back to the land use in in the form of a future site plan review application which this isn't that Mr. Mcgookie would bring forward in the future. Um that's when we would look at okay what does the existing site have enough parking does it not what's the circulation like and that would start principally with I think it's 114905 the schedule for minimum required parking right okay thank you parking often becomes you know a problem in a complaint and conflicts with neighbors and it wasn't really discussed in the report that's why I'm asking

yeah that's why it wasn't thank Thank you, Mr. Zulof. Uh, any any other questions from around the table? So, these are Am I correct? It's just it's odd that it's zoned differently than the others, but it's because they are already joined together, one parcel, all of this inside of the yellow is one parcel right now.

Correct. The conversation in 2023 was we'd like to expand our parcel and by then what we would do is cut off some other parcels. and that that site plan was approved and so they followed through with that. They they cut a couple other parcels that they own and then combined the pieces into this. So they used to be part of the Washington Street facing parcels and now they're part of the make street facing parcel. So it's kind of cleaning up that process. It's like the last step on that process. Okay. Any other questions or comments?

If not, is there a motion from the table? Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve subject to staff conditions. It's been moved. Second.

It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? I I would just say that uh I I think this is a great project. I've always liked your your operation down there. I I think it takes it took courage to to go down there and do that type of a project, you know, because you're kind of away. Maybe if Maruse comes in, you'll have the the traffic flow back down. I I always thought that um the the old herbs just turning that into a bar would be great. You know, you'd have like the swabies like Mr. Zulaf from the sailing club, Stumble Up, and maybe Mr. Miller be perfect, a little neighborhood bar. But you've you've done a great job expanding that whole concept. So,

I'll uh I'll call the role. Miss Will you call the role, Miss Rambo? Mike Zulof. Yes. Jim Jackson. Yes. Connor Whan, yes. David Miller, yes. Steve Pali, yes.

Okay, we will go into the uh next item, the proposed text amendment. and Miss Blair has handed out another piece of paper. So, uh, another narrative.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll mention that in this, uh, conversation. So, tonight we are holding a public hearing for a proposed text amendment to title three, which is in our residential district in our accessory uses to clarify the transient occupancy overlay district language and clarify when applications, well, we said clarify a lot. uh the factors for creating a new district. So for a little bit of background, I want to set a broader context than just the memo that you have in your packet. U our transit rental occupancy definition was created in 2017. So that ordinance created the concept of the occupancy overlay district and how it was approved and how to create a new one identifying where those were permitted. In 2018, the city went through a process to identify what we call the Cove District as uh meeting those definitions, which is um in the code to be close to amenities and be in a declining area, etc. And the cove was determined to be an appropriate place for that to be done. It was specified by the community as an area in need of economic improvement and and targeted for the treny as a prop an appropriate land use. And we think that's been successful. We've seen a lot of uh increased market potential in that area and it's been very well utilized um by the property owners and residents and visitors of the area. From 2018 then to 2023. The city continued to receive requests to expand the cove district and we also received requests to create new districts. All of you were planning commissioners throughout this time but we thought it was important con uh context and throughout those conversations the code lacking that definition for what is a declining geographic area um was a sticking point

in staff evaluation in those conversations. So, we did get requests to expand the Cove District and those were processed by staff as resonings and that continued to grow that original Cove District outside of the bounds of what it was originally created for and expanded that overlay district. Uh, and then we also got property owner requests for new overlay districts in other areas. That led to lengthy public discussions. We had several public meetings. We had public hearings. We had uh a lot of neighbor concerns, phone calls, and confusion about the process uh both at the planning commission table and with the community. So then that kind of led to since we were having so many public discussions about transient rental, the city commission at that point said, "Okay, we need to put a pause on this and so we have some time and some space to talk about our legislation, our regulation of transient rental." and they extended a more they have passed and have extended a moratorum on any kind of zoning changes for the creation of new eligible transient rental properties. At the same time, I've been mentioning mostly the overlay district. We also had a series of reszoning applications for individual properties wanting new zoning just to enable the ability to do transit rental on those properties which was a concern uh for neighborhood changes because of zoning changes across the city. So this time frame in the moratorum gave us some time to research and strategize. We had some small group discussions with members of the planning commission uh leadership city commission and set out kind of a a strategy to what to do. And what has led us to is is kind of a two-pronged approach. One is a policy direction w which uh was issued by the city manager to the planning and zoning staff uh to direct us to process the specific requests differently than how we've been doing. So the policy

direction that has been issued from the city manager to the planning division is when we get individual parcel requests. If somebody owns a parcel that's not eligible for transit rental and they want to request its eligibility that we should direct that as a use variance application rather than them seeking a reasonzoning which changes a whole lot of the land use that they could do with a property. Right? that they should be this is a very specific land use request to to conduct a specific land use on a specific parcel that that is more appropriate for a use variance application process which also has very specific standards for the board of zoning appeals to evaluate those requests and they can set conditions on requests. So if they do approve them, they can set conditions. It puts the onus on the property owner to prove that they have an undue hardship to ask for that land use. And it's in general like I've mentioned the policy direction is that's more appropriate for us to be processing those applications in that directions. The expected outcome from that is that the size and the shape of that existing cove district as it is today will remain unchanged because we won't be seeking we we wouldn't process a request to expand it in the same way if if somebody was next to it. We and they had a request we would put them in the board of zoning appeals process. And then property owners citywide have a clear path for how to to apply for that and how to request that. That was one of the big leading frustrations from previous owners and the other conversations we had about new transental overlay districts. Is it appropriate? How if you recall how many parcels all of those kind of spinning conversations we have now we have a clear path if somebody calls us and wants that um that path forward. At the same time, this kind of other prong approach is to look at a a refinement of our code language to clarify what is a uh declining area. So, currently, like I mentioned, our code

says it's appropriate to create transient rental occupancy overlay district in an area that's in a declining geographic area, which doesn't have a clear definition. And this would define that as some as an area defined in a our comprehensive plan or similarly formally adopted planning document of the city. So if we go through a neighborhood planning process, comprehensive planning process and residents are telling us and stakeholders are telling us this area is declining. We need to address that. We think transient rental occupancy overlay district is a good idea for this whatever geographic area that is. And then we get through a formal adoption process that's adopted by city commission. We have that planning doc document that points to it. That's when initiating a new overlay district would be appropriate. So that is the change. Thank you. That is the change that we are we have brought to the table today. So this very specific item on the slide today that's in red is the change that we brought forward for the public hearing. And it looked like Mr. Jackson have a question.

Yeah. Uh the question I have is that who's going to determine where these areas are going to be? Is it going to be the citizens are going to have to come to you and say this is a declining area or are you going to be looking for areas that are declining?

So it would be if if this is passed it would be when we do a neighborhood planning process like we most recently did the southside plan. Before that there was the downtown plan. Before that there was the Sunduski neighborhoods initiative. Before that there was a comprehensive plan. So if we're in a formal planning process where we're creating some kind of planning document, if if the conversations lead to that saying this specific area transit rental will be a good idea for that and then city commission adopts that that's when we would have the language to move forward with a new district. So we're not going to go out looking for them. It just gives more formal process to creating them and and identifying when they're appropriate and valuable for the city.

What just for clarification now that would just be for the overlay district just for the creation of a new overlay district, correct? Yeah. Can I ask one? And that you would you would use a use variance if if it uh was warranted in that specific area. Correct. Okay. Uh Mr. relative to this part of the discussion. As of right now, do I understand correctly, city commission or planning commission members may initiate an overlay district? Yes.

With this, we still could initiate an overlay district. It would just be uh subject to the comprehensive plan, which is that text in here anywhere? I'm I'm getting sidetracked. I'm sorry. But is that the text of the comprehensive plan in here somewhere that I missed? So if it's on in red on the slide right here and I'm looking in the pack seat, it's on page. I I guess my my question relative to what we were talking about, I don't want to get lost on top. So when Mcookie that was just here, we extended this overlay district for him down Washington Street.

Was that us initiating a new or expanding a district? That was staff processing a request as a reasonzoning. So they said, "Hey, we want we have these three parcels we want to do transient rental." Staff was like, "Okay, the most appropriate thing to do is to reszone that into the overlay district." And what we're hearing now from leadership is that's not that's that that is not the approach we're going to use. So we could we could put up a I mean I happen to know a property owner who bought in 2003 with intentions across the street there and I certainly would uh if he asked say come to the commission to expand three parcels on contingent to these parcels and

so so I guess I I don't see how this would stop that necessarily. It would just be a new overlay contingent to the one beside. If in a formal planning process that area was defined as declining and appropriate for transient rental overlay, then we would have a documented reason to say that that it's appropriate to expand the district or create a new district. But the previous the previous applications previous applications as reszonings and what we're saying is now is we're not going to process requests for transit rental as reszoning

that anyone that wants that has to say I have a house and I think this is what I want to do with it that they would file a a use variance application with the board of zoning bills no matter if they're right next to the existing overlay or 10 streets over. Well, I I see some uh some injustice and issue. I have a little issue with that, but I guess I understand we can't direct policy on a specific uh a specific place, but if we've expanded a district in the past, I don't

I guess I see what you're saying, but truly in in effect, we changed the overlay district in the past. that was led it's that the habit of receiving those requests as resonings was set in by the previous leader of planning and zoning and that was something that when I came into leadership of planning and zoning I followed what past practice has been um and certainly there's a lot of times that we have a habit of doing something in the city that then we then look at a different lens and say you know what actually we should do this this way it would be more legally defensible or it would be lead to a better outcome for the public welfare or etc. Um, we have received direction from the city manager's office to process requests as use variances. So, that is something we will follow and is outside of the description of the code. It's just context to the conversation if that makes sense.

Mr. Pan,

Mr. Chair, yes. Uh, just for additional context for uh Mr. Whan or anyone else wondering. Um although like Aaron said, this is context and valuable context. Um this just happens to be uh codified so to speak or um written down uh this policy direction prior to um the 2018 creation of the cove district. All these applications were being processed through the use variance application. Anyway, uh so we're returning to what was over the uh large amount of time, the passage of time, the de facto practice. We're just now have we have a city manager um memorandum to solidify that as the direction. Thank you,

Mr. Chair. Yes, Mr. Zulaf. So you're you're going to get a little bit of institutional memory here because I was there for the original ordinance, I think. Revisionist history perhaps.

No. Would you like revisions? Uh, no. I I have no intention of lying about it. Uh, no. The intent was that it first of all the I I think speaking for myself the fear was that we'd get applications willy-nilly and everybody who thought they could make a buck would want to put a Verbbo in, you know, in in their the house next door or whatever and the heck with how the neighbors felt about it. Um yet we recognized that there were places where it would do way more good than harm. Uh we already had someone who was you know that we already had cases where it was happening technically illegally with strong support from the neighbors and that would be the exception. I don't think you would you'd find that everywhere but in this particular case it was the Cove District and that it had strong support and it was really working. So in my mind, the intent was this is these are good experiences for visitors to Sanduski. They help the neighborhood do more good than harm. Um and and the the the neighborhood, you know, benefits from it. So, um, and that's part of the reason why we were specific about originating at planning commission or city commission uh and not simply u uh just opening the floodgates. And so I I think uh Miss Blair is correct in that maybe uh in our inexperience with these matters we we uh weren't following the best possible policy within the department and we've I

think we've learned from that. uh we simply you know when someone wants to apply inappropriately it would have been better to just say no you know we're not doing that and there are alternatives and and in and ways that an a citizen can uh take it further or petition uh the city commissioner or whatever and and and try to do it anyway. Uh but um we even had cases of individual outlying lots. Someone wanted to just do their house in the middle of a neighborhood. And of course the ne, you know, they found a neighbor who, you know, dragged in a neighbor and the neighbor said, "Oh yeah, it's fine with me." Uh we had a case where an applicant an investor from didn't even live in the city I don't think uh kind of exaggerated the support the neighbors uh uh uh had for the uh for his proposed district and then we wound up with a room full of opponents in in in that neighborhood. So um uh you know we we have a a situation where we don't want to be displacing um our own residents uh and and have our property snapped up by investors and uh and competing with our hotels uh right so um these the uh overlay district was a great solution I I think it was a well-written ordinance. I think this clarification helps so little. I don't think we should get too personally. We have to be careful about you know being too inflexible about it. Uh there are one or two places where we I would like to eventually propose I think didn't do it

because we had the moratorum. Um one of the discussions was as Mr. Whan pointed out someone's across the street from a district. I a prior discussion had to do with where should the dividing line be? And I pointed out that going the the the district being a street isn't the most rational way to do it. If you go down a street, why not both sides of the street, right? So that in most cases, I felt the dividing line um you know should be between the streets, right? So that both sides of the street would I don't know if you remember the conversation

one across from Cardinal. Well, you you you I didn't get the support I hope from you when I brought that point up. Uh but maybe now you have a different viewpoint and you know we all we all evolve. I don't recall posing to

Well, okay. Uh but uh in any any event um you know there are there may be cases where it makes sense to add uh to the district and we just have to be uh maybe a little hard-nosed about it and and not and not let it happen lightly or not let it be proposed lightly. Um so this is this is a good thing. I'm not sure about this policy. the I hopefully this the the the policy statement uh regarding uh property owners uh proposals doesn't open the floodgates or doesn't imply that we're inviting that because in most cases uh in a typical neighborhood in a typical stable neighborhood it's not a good idea and it's not I don't think it's good policy uh for any number of reasons and I hope we don't go down that road.

Thank you, Mr. Zulof. Any other comments? If if not, I'd like to open the uh public hearing. Uh is there anyone that uh is in favor of changing this uh text this this uh text amendment? Mhm. I if you're in favor, come up and state your name. And if not, I'll take those those uh against. Next,

um Lisa Mazooka, 814 Bardshaw Road. I came up in favor because it seems like a positive move forward from the moratorum which was a temporary situation and I think I really appreciate Miss Blair's comment about the community welfare and considering that my First thoughts on transient rentals, short-term rentals in the city came probably about 5 years ago when I first witnessed listing sheets from realators that would list the current metro rate for a house, what they were, the landlords were receiving from Metro, and then it would say it's zoned for which a zoning would allow for Airbnb or short-term rental. So to me, it was an obvious indication at that point in time that there were residents being displaced. Uh secondly, I had relatives that were moved out of their residence uh to allow for that use. I think that it's very important what you do here in regards to the welfare of the community because it's not just the investment in the housing stock that's important. It's also the investment in the people who live here. And I think when we only look at, well, that house looks better than it used to, you're not taking the whole picture.

I uh listened to the commission meeting, this most recent one where the Western Reserve Land Conservancy spoke about the improvements made in our community from 2015 to 2025. And that's great. I think it's lovely to see all the beautiful houses and improvements, but I don't think that there was a whole lot of foresight in prioritizing that investment in the community over top of the community that exists in Sunduski existed at the time. It's not just the transient rental overlay districts where this is allowed. It's also an RRB which is scattered throughout the city. And as I watched the planning meetings where property owners wanted to change their zoning, it was often because well, we're right next to RB or we're right next to commercial. And a lot of people don't even bother to register their Airbnb or their transient rental with the city. It's not really the investor's job in my I mean it maybe is if they are concerned about how to invest ethically, but it is incumbent upon the city and the policies that they make in order to regulate for the common welfare of the community. Um, the Firelands Forward study that was published in 2023 showed that 21 2021 statistics, Erie County had 8.1% of its total housing stock being used as vacation rentals. And this was an increase of 23% from

2021. And since or from 2011 and since 2021, I've only seen that number increase more. And as awesome as it is that we're subsidizing and helping build new housing within the city, it's just not keeping up with the rate that they're being absorbed by vacation rentals. In an ideal situation, the supply and demand would just balance itself by the market conditions naturally. But with housing, you're you're talking about a finite resource and it's necessary for survival. And we have a community that a fifth of it, over a fifth of it, lives under federal poverty guidelines. And this meeting isn't crowded tonight because a lot of the people this affects the most work two jobs, you know. So I believe in the Firelands Forward study there were a couple of suggestions and this is beyond the scope of this change but there were suggestions for communities that have these issues. examples were given like Park Township, Michigan and Steamboat Springs, Colorado, where they saw these changes happening and considered the welfare of their community. Um so I think that there are things that can be further looked at. I think addressing this as as the city has decided to do um through the manager um and through the Aaron I think that these are this is a good step a positive step in the right direction and I echo Mr. zoos comments that I just hope it doesn't open the floodgates, you know, that it's not okay. So, all I need is a variance now. I've been wanting to do this for so many years because there's been this

moratorum and now I have my opportunity. And please don't see it when when those cases come. Please don't see it like we have to be somehow just fair because other people did it. You know, it it's a it's a welfare of the community issue. So, I I appreciate your time and thank you for your for your work on this issue.

Thank you, Miss Mazooka. Anybody else that would like to speak in favor? Is there anybody that would like to speak against? Could could you come up here and state your name and address for the record? Hi, my name is uh Charles Winganger. Uh, I live at 722 Garfield Avenue in the co Cove District and uh since I've uh moved up from Columbus 4 years ago, I've had uh on my street five V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V VBOS or short-term rentals move in. And uh my concern is um uh some of these rentals have a large number of of u beds available. There's two of them that have they're single family homes, but they're advertising 14 beds a piece. And um it just seems unless they come in micro buses, uh they're going to be parking all over the place. And there's only two driveways on the whole street that I live on. So, I'm concerned that if this VBO short-term rental keeps on going that we won't um it'll eat up the neighborhood and it'll drive out all the families. Uh I keep hoping that when I see a new house for sale that it's going to go to a young startup family, but every time I'm seeing it, it seems to go to an out ofstate investor. and uh I'm I'm just hoping that we can have a little bit of of um control on it to make sure that we don't just saturate the area. I thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will come back to the table, Mr. Zulof.

Yeah, I I appreciate the gentleman's concern about 14 beds in in a mo modestly sized single family is inappropriate. I don't think that would conform. We have some standards and we have some health and safety issues and this is these are all supposed to be licensed and and inspected and u so I I'd say if you think something inappropriate is happening you you might want to contact city hall. Um and this is one of the concerns u in your neighborhood. Uh, how many years have you been there, sir?

I've been there. I came up from Columbus 4 years ago.

Right. Well, if you go back 10 or 15 years, you you'd be stunned uh at how much better the neighborhood is because houses were falling apart. They were being condemned. They're being demoed. There were all kinds of issues. and and so you've probably met some of your neighbors and probably know that at least it's never going to be universal or or unanimous. Uh but there was a lot of support for for the district in that in that neighborhood, right? And it's completely opposite from you know we have many stable neighborhoods where they don't want it. I don't want it. I don't think it's a good idea. I it was already happening there. We tried it. It kind of worked. Should we have expanded it as much as we did? I don't know. I'm not sure. Um, the other thing that was happening at the time was we were we we didn't have an ordinance and uh we were getting complaints from everywhere in particular Cedar Point Road where inappropriate rentals were happening and the neighbors were being awakened at 3:00 in the morning and all kinds of crazy stuff going on. So people say, "Why can't I use my house the way I want property rights? It's my house. How come I can't rent it?" Overlooking the insult to the neighbors property rights when when you allow incompatible uses. This is the reason why the Supreme Court a long time ago said, "Yeah, no, zoning is perfectly constitutional because your neighbors have rights to peaceful

enjoyment of their property, too." And that's and and that's and that's I think takes priority. You don't you don't get to do anything you want and ignore your your neighbor's rights. So, if we're seeing a problem in your neighborhood, we need to know about it. Miss, any other comments from the table? Mr. Miller,

only slightly reluctant. Um, it occurs to me that consequences intended or unended. Um, there was sort of a general assertion that throughout the city there are numerous properties that are being used for uh short-term rentals that are not permitted. And it it seems like this change could potentially offer an avenue for somebody who's not operating legally now to if they're discovered either um go to BCA and and go legit or go to BCA and get shut down. And I think that speaks to the concern of some that it's it's more than just fixing up a house. It's about the quality of the neighborhood and having places for for people to live. But just in my in my neighborhood, the dig uh there's numerous of houses that we who live there have identified as we believe that's a vacation rental. Um, we see what goes on as we go back and forth in our daily lives and and some of these houses have been substantially improved. New foundations and you know, general, you have to bring it up to to a certain standard to be able to rent it. But the parking and the traffic if there is no way to deal with what is really happening out there um this provides an opportunity to at least answer the question is this acceptable in this location for this house or not.

Thank you Mr. Miller. I I would like to first apologize apologize for kind of drawing us sideways. I feel like we've talked a lot about this and not any about

well these red words. So on the red words on the page that we're talking about possibly adding I don't really see a lot of benefit from them. It seems like uh action that does not create much consequence. It slightly better defines what declining geographic area means. Uh I know that I don't have the words in front of me. I did expect to see them here, so I did not go read them all. That's my bad. Uh, but the comprehensive plan, I assume, a little better defines what the geographic area is. And that's really all that's happening here is where this board is being given slight more guidance on what can be recommended and what cannot. And ultimately, the comprehensive plan will need to be interpreted as well. also really seems kind of inconsequential to me, but I and I'll vote no, but I just wanted to say that and I'm done.

Mr. Whman, do do you do you have any clarification on that?

I'll say from from an overall perspective, this is a use that's in high demand and we get a lot of phone calls about it and and when the moratorium lifts, we will get people asking us for districts, for individual properties. We will have to process these somehow. And I think that the clarification here is really valuable because the comprehensive plan or another formally adopted planning process is a public process. So there's always public engagement. There's opportunities for neighbors to be involved. We actively reach out to neighbors to have a conversation with them. What does your neighborhood need? What does the future of your neighborhood look like? And that process is usually months and months of outreach and analysis and a document that is reviewed both by planning commission and also city commission. So I think that it it puts a lot more of an arduous process on when it's appropriate for staff to say yes this makes sense or to recommend this or for planning commission to recommend it. I think it actually gives quite a bit of uh definition here and otherwise declining I mean Seduski's been losing population for a couple generations. Is that what declining means? And you know like how do you define declining was where we always ended up at a sticking point in the handful of you know petitions neighbor petitions for voted. So, I think it'll be really have helpful and it even though it's just one simple sentence, it actually is probably adding like months of time and multiple instances of neighbor engagement to have to ask neighbors to say this is what we want in our neighborhood or neighbors to say this is not what we want in our neighborhood.

So, thank you, Miss Blair. So, I I'll give you my re revisionist history on this whole overlay thing. Um, and this gentleman makes a good point. I think it shows that the overlay district is fraught with different problems. And I think that when we would consider an overlay district, what people would bring in a bunch of signatures, we didn't know if they were rental people. We didn't we didn't know if they were property owners. They just bring in uh an application for an overlay district. And I don't think we were very diligent at looking at the criteria to allow it. And it just seems to me, my feeling is uh we don't want the the entire city to be covered with overlay districts.

I I think Let me finish. And I think and I think before uh I I think my intent was to make sure that that didn't happen. Now, we got six zones that allow it. We got six zones, right? Correct. And to me, this would put a check and balance in place. Miss Bazooka, where we would consider each thing on a case-bycase basis. Who's to say that your friend that has the three houses, why why can't they come in on a case-bycase basis and then we uh board of zoning appeal make a decision? But all this this is that we aren't we aren't voting on this. We're talking about this. Should we change it to these words?

Well, I think we're voting. What is Well, it's Do we have a say on this? I mean I think in the variance you ready for a motion and anyhow yeah that's just uh

can I see at least the definition of in the comprehensive plan I guess I maybe under underderstood this and I and I will say just let me let me finish my let me finish my statement I will say that this may all be a moot point because the general assembly is on fire about deregulating any sort of uh the transient housing regulations. So, it could come in the very near future where we don't even have a say in it. So, it it may be wise to I'm not against checking it. I just Okay, go ahead. No, no. I'm sorry to interrupt you. I'm not against checking. We're going to answer Mr. Whan's question. I don't have I just want to see the how the comprehensive plan defines

That's a great question. Construction. So the compre our our existing comprehensive plan in the city of Sunduski does not decline does not define declining geographic area and does not point to any areas of the city as appropriate places to put a new transit rental overlay district. So, we would have to create a a new plan, an updated comprehensive plan, a new neighborhood plan. This is what I've missed. There's no planning document on record currently that points to an area that says this is a good place except for where when the code the co district was defined and created that it's already done.

But we do have distressed areas, federally distressed areas. Close enough, right? There are other there is no there's no adopted planning document on record that says a new transit rental overlay district would be appropriate here and that's what staff is recommending that we change the code to say needs to happen. So it would be a future planning document if in a future planning document that was defined and and and adopted then a new overlay district would be appropriate. Mr. Mr. Rambo Go ahead, Mr. Zuba.

Uh, I you're going to love this. I'd like to make the motion that we recommend for this zoning change and in addition that we change the ordinance, the our zoning code to not permit variances that would allow transient rental. Is there a second? I don't I think Mr. Jackson had a point. Let's talk about it.

Is there a second? Motion dies. Okay. Any any uh is there another motion?

What do you think, Mr. Chairman? I Yes, Mr. Miller. I move approval of the recommended language change. Is there a second? Can I get one more question before we second? Well, you can second and we can discuss, I guess. I'll second it. It's been second in discussion. Uh, does this board have any abilities to initiate a comprehensive plan or a similar similar document?

I don't think so. That that would have to come through. I mean, I guess we could make a recommendation, but uh yeah, so it's just changing it to where it has to come from the Mr. Chair, it has to come from a detailed city plan. I what it is what it is. Mr. Jax, yeah, you said that once if this is approved, then you will come up with guidelines that determine what a declining area in Sunduski is is that what you said or you didn't say that?

No, it would it would be if that organically came out of a planning process. So, if we were going to do a neighborhood plan or another downtown plan or an update to the comprehensive plan, if people are asking for it and we and that moves through a formally adopted process like a like an update to our comprehensive plan, but ju just for clarification, if somebody comes in with a use variance, there would be a list of criteria, right?

Right. That is a that's a totally different thing. So if somebody has somebody's pursuing a use variance, there is a very strict and specific list of uh of points that they have to make a a point to argue that's different from the overlay district conversation. Are you done miss? Are you done Mr. James? Yes. So yeah, there's

there's a very specific criteria for approving a variance which gets ignored all the time. And with the district process at least you have le legislation, you have public hearings. It goes it either originates at the planning city commission and comes back here for a recommendation or we make a recommendation and and there's public hearings and a process. uh a variance kind of greases the skids. Uh and and so I think we're this could have the opposite effect if if if we if we have a a routine policy of simply making a variance application for transient rental. Uh you're you're we're greasing the skids here. Uh I I would much rather see legislation to prohibit granting uh transient rental via the variance process. It's it's it's an easier process. It's going to promote it rather than inhibit inappropriate applications. Mr. Chair,

one last one. I am voting the last. Yep. I am voting no, but it is not because I want to expand the zone to my buddies. I do think we've rightly slowed uh the transient, but I also think that a board of citizens that we are is capable of being responsible with this and I think we have done a pretty decent job of that over the years and so just taking it and making it staff making the decision and not us. I'm voting against that. But okay, Miss Miss Ramble, would you please call the role? Not staff. Steve Pali, yes. David Miller, yes. Connor Whan, no. Jim Jackson,

yes. Mike Zulof, no. Motion passes. Sweet.

Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Okay, moving into new business. Site plan review for 706 Lane Street. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for everyone's patience. Um, so this was a application for site plan approval uh by 706 Lane Street Realy uh also known as LUCO. On the left hand side of this slide is the zoning map which another split zone property, but not to worry the portion in question where this building addition is located in the GM general manufacturing portion. And you can see the entire property outlined in yellow on the right. Moving on, uh here is an elevation I took a couple months ago from Lane Street when it was still sunny and not battleship gray. Uh here's an elevation from Third Street with an arrow pointing to the general area of work that we will uh expect the building addition to go up. And then on the opposite side, uh looking from First Street, uh the more narrow portion.

Yeah. So, uh, here's the proposed site plan. Um, you can also, uh, found it in your packets. Scope of work. Lucco is proposing a 44,250 ft² addition to their existing facility at, uh, 706 Lane Street. Per the applicant in their paperwork, uh, this addition is critical to the current customers demand to fabricate industrial ovens larger than their existing facility will allow. It is also anticipated that this addition will add 40 to 50 jobs over the next 5 years. Excuse me. If you look at the site layout plan on the left hand part of the slide, you can see the crosshatch area um the rectangle. Uh on the right to orient ourselves, the right hand side is Third Street, left is First Street and left is North. Okay. So, um the portion outlined in black is the new building. And you see there's a basically mostly it'll be for storage. We'll look at that in a moment, but a vestibule to connect the two, the existing to the new. There's a drive proposed to the north. Um, and this has been through all our city departments. Um, as well, there's a storm water management pond that, um, work has, uh, excuse me, paperwork has started at calculations. um you know and they've corresponded with our city engineering department. More on that in a moment. And there's if you look if you squint I have to squint too. The um the bumps on the how do I explain this? The rectangle of the new building. The semicircles represent proposed wall lighting. Bumps is not the best word for that. Okay. So, we're filling out part of the site, putting a new uh fire lane in there, driveway. Let's look at a little bit more detail. Uh here's a proposed floor plan. Um

zoomed in on the new portion. As we can see, that vestibule on the bottom is mostly storage with I think those are restrooms. Um and then the rest of it is just manufacturing space. So we'll what we um the next thing is uh we'll look at north south east and west proposed elevations from the north. This is if you're looking from first street uh it follows the existing downward slope of the roof line you know for storm water purposes. Um and then on the south is from third street similar but just inverted since you're on the other side of the addition. Moving on, the east and west elevations. East is the portion that'll be showing out um to the world. And this is you'll see a couple doors here. Um one's insulated steel overhead door. And then the west is the portion facing the existing facility. You see that connector vestibule area cut out there. So, uh, a couple points of staff analysis is one, on September 18th, 2025, the board of zoning appeals granted the required lot coverage variance for this project, uh, moved up to 61% lot coverage. Um, two, all parking requirements will be met by the applicant's existing parking facilities. staff um inventoried the existing parking spaces available both on this parcel and all adjacent properties including their larger parking lot to the south across Third Street. Uh we counted 166 existing parking spaces and that um exceeds therefore meets the minimum requirement of 150 that would be required after this addition. Three, the proposed wall pack lighting on the addition will comply with dark sky regulations. Four, staff recommends the owner invest in the beautifification of the existing parking lots due to their

proximity to the surrounding neighborhood. Uh more ideas were provided in the staff report and we did make contact uh outside of just sending the staff report to the applicant to express that. Um five, the building addition would enable an acre employee in our community to grow in place versus relocating somewhere else, which is a massive plus to our community. and six, all other code requirements would be met by this proposed addition. Therefore, staff recommends approval with the following two conditions. One, all applicable permits are obtained through the building department, engineering department, and any other applicable agency prior to construction. And two, the owner/licant work with the city engineering department for all required storm water approvals. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Pants. Uh, is the applicant here? Would the applicant like to get up and speak? Good evening. Uh Steve Durban, Telmon Construction, 5505 Milin Road. Uh we're the design build contractor for Lucco. Uh Mr. Guerrero sends his apologies. He wasn't able to make it this evening, but uh I am available for any questions you may have. Any any questions from around the table? Mr. Mr. Chairman Zula, I had a question about the application uh regard the the uh staff recommend or uh mentioned uh beautifification and parking, right?

Mhm. Correct. Now, so so you visited the site. Yes. Right. And and uh you assessed the current parking situation, right? Correct. Right. Yet you're making no re You're making no conditions about parking. You're you're recommending for approval without any recommended conditions regarding parking. Is that right? That's all right.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Doolof. Any other questions, comments from around the table? I did have uh one question. And I noticed in the literature uh there was the staff had said something about maybe some beautifification of the parking lots. Uh I wonder if Mr. Guerrero would be receptive to that. I believe he would. Uh we actually through our preliminary designer uh we just surveyed this the site both of those parking spaces and in anticipation of additional employees he is looking at possibly some improvements. Those have not been defined at this point.

Okay. Maybe uh staff can get with you and you guys can work something out. Mr. Chairman, I have a question about the gentleman's comment. Uh Mr. Zulof, go ahead. Yes. Uh so you you've discussed the parking,

right? Uh it there were prior applications that uh that involved or resulted in discussion about the parking situation and and there were site plans and there were uh let's let's just say there were there was discussion about opportunities to improve the parking situation because Yes, I know we don't have a lot of pedestrians there, but the cars are on the parking on on the sidewalk, right? So, uh and I'm not sure why I'm bringing it up other other than, you know, I had to ask about the parking. Um, and uh if if if we're thinking about it again, maybe it's a good chance to uh to bring it up because I think it would, you know, it's it would improve the the look and feel of of the of the whole area. And uh and and perhaps it's not possible. Maybe there is maybe there is no other room for parking elsewhere on the site. Maybe there is no solution. But if there is, maybe it's a good time to since we're thinking about it, it would be nice to give it some thought.

Thank you, Mr. Zulof. Mr. Miller, did you have a comment?

Well, it is so poorly formed. I I am wrestling with a vague recollection that we've talked about parking in this for this property before. And if you look at the the uh overlay or the u the site plan that shows the property boundary to uh just on the other side of Lane Street, there is some parking that I think Lucco controls and and use that. It seems like parking on that side on on the Lane Street side is something that we did talk about. It's a number of years ago now, but but it seems like maybe on the east side of Lane Street at the time we were talking wasn't paved yet then or something or they were talking about paving on the west side and they left that gravel to manipulate trucks in and out or something like that. I'm wondering if anybody else has a recollection about having been down this parking question before on related to this business. I was I was alluding to my recollection.

I I thought as much but but I I don't remember how it was resolved. It seemed that there was um specific parking provisions agreed upon at that time. Yeah. I think what they said was that there was part of the parking lot had gravel. Part of it was paved and part of it had a lot of gravel in it. And that's what the question uh about the condition of that parking space right there was.

I would have to consult the minutes uh to know exactly what was head, but I do recall uh that an apron for turning trucks was added there and that there was no condition placed and that there were I do know that there were some exparte discussions with the applicant. So, uh it is what it is right now and you know all we can do is uh keep keep things moving ahead. Any other comments or questions from around the table? If if not, is there a motion? Mr. Chairman, I move approval subject to the staff conditions.

It's been moved by Mr. Miller, second by Mr. Zoolog. Any further discussion? If not, Miss Rambo, will you call the role? Jim Jackson, yes. Steve Pali, yes. Mike Zulof, yes. Connor Whan, yes. David Miller, yes. Thank you. Motion passes. I I would just add that, you know, we hear so much about never there's never any creation of manufacturing or industrial or light industrial jobs, and here's an opportunity to do that. So we we appreciate Mr. Mr. Guerrero looking forward with his property.

Thank you. Okay. Our uh next item under new business, approval of the final plat for a major subdivision. That would be battery park.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So we have the application for approval of the final plat for the major subdivision uh submitted following the approval uh the final development plan for the PUD last month. This is the we the final PUD included the preliminary plat. So that approval um met the preliminary PLA approval requirements of the code and there is that time frame given for the final plat. So this is that last step for their process. Uh you can see the outlined defined land area for u the subdivision. It was reszoneed to planned unit development. Um and then the aerial here you can see the uh defined boundary of the Battery Park PUB at least the land portion not the entire marina portion obviously those existing conditions photos we're all familiar with and the preliminary plat that was approved at the October meeting uh that was marked draft it really shows the public ride ofways that define the new parcels where the buildings are going to go in the PUD. The final plat is a little bit more of a technical document that shows the exact outlines of not only the public right of way, but each of those sub what they're calling sublot areas that will become new parcels. So again, this completely follows the site plan that was approved in the PUD uh the rightway areas that were approved last month in the um the civil engineering drawings. Those civil engineering drawings have now been stamped by our city engineer. Uh so all of the final plat documents uh required for the planning commission review have been submitted. Additionally, there will be the construction agreement goes to city commission after this. Uh draft of that is in circulation now with our law department. Uh so all of the preliminary

documents that will will be required for city commission have been submitted. It will be it will create the 11 sublots in that final plat for each of those building footprint areas. So like I mentioned the final plat and its accompanying documentation follows the approved preliminary plat. It meets all the requirements of the major subdivision code as proposed and therefore staff recommends approval of the final plat for the major subdivision uh with the following conditions that all applicable permits are obtained through the various departments and other applicable agencies and the construction agreement is executed including city commission approval design prior to the commen commencement of any construction uh of those civil engineering drawings.

Thank you Miss Bler. Any uh any comments from the applicant? Do you represent Maruse? Yes.

Um Austin KBY with Maruse Development Group. Um good evening. Thank you for having us. Uh so yeah, Aaron um summarized everything pretty nicely. Um essentially just going for final plan approval. Um it was approved um conditionally last month during the PUD final approval and what we're just looking to do is get final approval for each of the sublotss required for the buildings that will be in constructed. Okay. Thank you. Any any uh questions or comments, Mr. Chair?

Yes, Mr. Zul. Over the years, as we've uh experienced some of these waterfront projects, uh from time to time, what has come up is the question of conservation easements for the uh public access uh uh segments of of the of these these projects. And uh so uh there were times when it was I thought we were taking it pretty seriously and getting close and then of course you know then you have an election and it all fizzles or somebody staff changes and it fizzles. But I wonder if it's time again to take a look at uh for for the open spaces, public areas, parks, and that sort of thing to uh to explore uh the possibility of conservation easements uh either to say uh the Western Reserve Land Conservancy or the Park District or uh those would be the two entities that come to mind to ensure the perpetuity of these uh open spaces. Um it was it was discussed whether that was legal, whether it was practical, whether you could get anywhere with it. Uh the conclusion at the time was it was legal. Uh but that might have changed. I don't know. Um just mentioning it doesn't need anybody's answer. I just just uh thought I'd bring it up because we have a entirely new staff now.

Thank you, Mr. Zulof. Any other questions or comments from around the table? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. If if not, is there there a motion? Motion to approve, Mr. Chairman, subject to the uh uh recommended uh conditions. It's been moved. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? If not, uh, Miss Rambo, will you call the role? Steve Hajali, yes. David Miller, yes. Jim Jackson, yes. Mike Zulof, yes. Connor Whan,

yes. Thank you. Motion passes. Uh, is there any other business for the good of the order? Miss M Mr. Chairman, Mr. resume law. Um, you know what? I'll I'll I'll save it for the next meeting. Okay. Um, just under other business, I I I want to note that the uh proposed text amendment will be coming before the city commission for a public hearing on December 8th. And if you gentlemen want to come and uh if anybody wants to come and uh make the commission aware of your thoughts, we'd appreciate. What type of tax?

Mr. Chairman, I do have tax. Yes, I I do have something. Yes, Mr. Z. Uh and and and you uh reminded me of of

Can we keep it brief? No, I'm I'm going to go on and on. Adnauseium. Okay. So, you you you you made me aware reminded me of uh what's a foot at the state house about restricting localities power to limit uh transient rental. uh apparently it's being at least someone so re real estate interests andor investment interests are uh attempting to create the perception that there's broad support for this well there might be in certain communities but I think there's probably like we were u like we learned existentially that when we had a proposal for a a district and we were told there was much support and then we found out that no, there was far more support against it. I think you'd find that there would be uh a lot of opposition from residents, from municipalities that want uh to control their own destiny and and per perhaps from other interests like hotels and motel that you know are faced with competing with this stuff. So um I think we have to be skeptical. I also uh am worried about if what exactly this is going to do and I have a question whether whether our home rule would permit us to override such things and does or does that depend on the nature of s said legislation and I wondered if our law director would have an opinion on it.

Oh, I have an opinion. That's certainly true. Um, but home rule is notorious for being unpredictable in the Ohio Supreme Court. Uh, it's it is one of the most inconsistent things that they do. There's there's an Ohio legislative brief that they give to new legislators talking about home rule. And one of the conclusions is is it's very difficult to predict how they will rule. But this does seem like a classic local control issue. zoning is typically local control. Um so using simplistic home rule analysis u uh it's not a police power. We're talking about local control and therefore the city should have home rule on zoning. Uh but our latest information um you know from this is something that the Ohio Municipal League is very much opposed to. It's something that the Ohio Municipal Attorneys Association, of which I'm a member, is talked about a lot. And our understanding is that the bill that would take home rule away from communities is is not going to be passed this year, which means it has to start all over again next year. Um there is another bill which does talk about transient rental uh and and has actually some good provisions in it that talks about taxing them the same as hotels are taxed so that they're on a more equal footing um and and but it also retains local control over zoning.

Good to hear. Thank you. I I happened to attend there was a public hearing over in Ottawa County. Terresa Gavone uh sponsored that and they brought in the representative from Delaware County, Airbnb and some others and there were probably a hundred people there and and there may have been three people that spoke in favor of uh deregulation. Uh but my understanding was in Columbus it's a different story that a lot of the realtors and other interests are coming out and speaking in favor of doing this. So that's kind of what's where the push is.

Yeah, it it I think it passed the House. It's in a committee in the Senate, but there's been no movement in that committee. Okay. If there is uh no other comments, we will stand. safe and happy Thanksgiving. I have one one comment, Mr. Chairman. So, we do not have any applications for our December meeting, which means we will not have any need for December meeting, planning commission meeting. So, enjoy the time with your with your families of the holiday, which also means this is our last meeting with uh chairman commissioner C. Pajali. So, I just wanted to thank you for your time as chairman of the planning commission and and for being a city commissioner.

Well, well, thank you. I've I've enjoyed uh I've enjoyed this uh commission a lot. Look forward to all our meetings and I I hope I wasn't away with uh you guys are I think they will I think you picked on you. I feel I feel singled out. I haven't picked on I I I think that uh the the new commission will bring somebody to the table that uh will do a fine job. Seven. So, happy holidays to everybody. Happy holidays to everybody. A motion to adjourn. That's nice. So, Chino's place here. Here. No. Sec. We have a second at

the primary needs a second. Need a second. Go home.