Okay, sorry for that little bit of delay. My name is Catherine Taylor. I am one of the Howard County zoning hearing examiners. And we're here in the case of BA 24-014C. The petitioner is Calvin Vanbick. The use category is the conditional use categories, religious facilities, structures and land use primarily for religious activities. The address is 1134 long corner road mount area. Is that a residential address, Mr. Van Bick? It's the church campus address. It's already a church. And church campus. Yes. Okay, so is there there's an existing church on the property now? Yes. Okay. So Yes. Okay. So is there there's an existing church on the property now? Yes. Okay. So before we get into the specifics, what Ms. Burg was asking you about was whether you received a technical staff report from DPC staff. And the reason she was asking is because the county code requires the Department of planning and zoning. You can't see. Okay. I'm going to, sorry, I'm going to turn my camera on. No, I can do it. It's just I need to bear with me one second. I'm going can do it. It's just, I need to, bear with me one second. I need to turn my camera off. I'm usually not this disorganized. My computer's been off for two weeks. So I just got back from vacation. My brain's been offered two weeks to Mr. Vamig. We'll just get a second here. Hmm? Hmm? Hmm? Hmm? Hmm? Hmm? I just don't know the back side. Oh no. No, no. Oh wait. Yeah, HD Pro-Kin. Okay. Okay. So going back, so the county code requires the department of planning and zoning to issue a technical staff report. And basically what that is, it's an analysis by staff regarding the request and it goes through all the criteria. And generally states whether all the criteria are met or not, they don't issue a recommendation, for instance, to deny or approve, but they do go through all the criteria. It is a requirement that the technical staff report be made available to the hearing examiner prior to the hearing. And, of course, in the general public, which obviously would be made available to you. So we can do one of two things, and I'll give you the pros and cons of each. So the first thing we can do is postpone the hearing, figure out what's going on with the technical staff report, and make sure that has been issued, and obviously if it is issued then it will be available for the hearing. That would require us postponing the hearing to another date. We would try to come up with a date that's convenient not too far from today's date. And then hopefully we would have that technical staff report. On that note, did we receive notification that the certification of publication posting? Okay. So, if the other option would be that it, so it doesn't appear that there's any opposition. And so, you know, there wouldn't be necessarily an appeal of this decision on that basis, there's no opposition, but that we could go ahead and hold the hearing this evening and have you present your evidence in support of the petition. And then I would hold the record open until we receive that technical staff report. I would review the technical staff report and of course you would receive it too and you should review it. And my thinking is that if there are any questions that either of us have, we could at that point have another short hearing to address any questions. But if there are no questions that either of us have, then at that point, I would close the record. And then from that date forward, the record would be closed and then I could issue my decision after that. So I'm going to somewhat leave it up to you because you are the petitioner and you were, you know, as the petitioner, you were entitled to ensure that DPC did what it needed to do and they may have already issued the technical staff report but somehow unfortunately and I apologize it didn't make make its way to to our office yet so based upon what I've what I suggested do you have any thoughts one way or the other it's a technical staff report is that supposed to be automatically go to you guys for this meeting? Or is that supposed to be something that I have to have and then send it to you? No, it's not something that you were supposed to do. This is definitely an issue between the Department of Planning and Zoning and Ms. Berg's Office, the Council of Board's Office. The Technical Staff Report is required to be issued by DPC prior to the hearing and it may have been issued, it just didn't get to this office, Ms. Berg's office. But we don't know, unfortunately it's after hours and they typically, their office closes at five. And when that is provided to us, it's also provided to you as soon as it's provided to us. So you should have received it. So the fact that you didn't receive it and we didn't receive it means that unfortunately somebody dropped the ball and they haven't issued it or it's been issued, I.E. signed, but just not submitted, transmitted to you in this office. I don't think there's any procedural error in going forward because again the technical staff report is really just part of the evidence. It's not, you know, the hearing examiner doesn't have to accept any. It can accept all some or none of the comments that are made in the technical staff report. Many times it's a good guide, but in many times I don't even look at the technical staff report in other cases until after the hearing anyway. So it's not like my handling of the hearing will be governed by whether or not there is a technical staff report today, but we do want it as part of the record. So we'll, at a minimum, need to keep the record open in order to get that technical staff report. And if we saw that there was any problem with the technical staff report being issued, if there, if, for instance, if they're saying that more information is necessary, then at that point, if we do go forward and have the evidence admitted, then at that point, that would be somewhat moot. We would have to deal with the issues as they arise. I mean, I guess the more I think about it, and I'm talking this through, just kind of out loud, it may be best just to go ahead and postpone, because, as I said, if there is a problem that may have been noted by DPC, you didn't get any letter saying that you need to revise further revised the petition or anything right? Well, I got the back and forth from the zoning regarding some sort of code and there are like limitations okay that we had to meet and we met that and basically what I was told was if we met all the requirements at least in drawings, we could get to the hearing stage and that's at least my understanding on this. So there was a lot, like basically a lot of back and forth through that I could fix my plans. Right. And I did notice, yeah, I did notice that there were several amendments to or revisions of the point. You're right. Yeah. So I think given that, you know, just in order to make sure we value everybody's time, I mean, I'm already here. I would go forward or not. But given the fact that there was some back and forth, and I think the latest, I think I saw a revision that came in as late as, pretty recently. Yeah. Hold on. So it could be that, just haven't had the opportunity after the last revision to revise it to the staff report. That process just inc me, how would I say, the incomplete letter that lists a bunch of the criteria that I would have to meet in order even to get considered, reviewed. So I met all those and fixed it and resented and then just in resented back saying here here are some things that we've missed and then fixed that. So like you mentioned the back and forth was all the way up until the very last minute of this meeting. So what do you mean the last minute of this meeting? Like, I mean, like, it's just recently, I'm sorry. Like, what date today? Let me search my email. No, not today. Okay. I'm sorry. I try to... And by the way, conditional use is a really complex submission. So it's not, you know, and if you're not an engineer, then I'm, you know, and in many ways, I'm not surprised that there has been some back and forth. So basically yeah, it's all the way up to, let me... So my last conversation with Justin was February 14. That's just me asking question. February 14. January 8th. Okay. Basically. Yeah. So I do see revised plans. That looked to have been submitted around February 5th. But you said there was more communication. Oh, no, no, no. I mean, like communication, as in me asking question about the process and, you know, all that involved and the tribune and the newsletter and all that stuff. I see. Okay. So, okay. Oh, there was actually a revised petition also on 228. It looks like. Is that all right? Yes. So, yeah, I mean, I think given that, that they, no, that was January 28th. 28th, I'm sorry, that's not 228. So, I think given the fact that there was back and forth, I think it would be better. It may be better for you also, because for instance if there is something that is missing during the hearing and it's just not there there. And it's a criteria that's required that I may be forced to deny the petition, whereas if it's something that you can work out with DPC, I don't know if you see that if you read the technical to staff report, let's say, and it says something's missing, then at least you could, you would have time to address it during the hearing, right, as opposed to not. So given the fact, again, that there's been a lot of back and forth, I think it's best at this point, we'll go ahead and just postpone. We won't dismiss the petition or anything. We'll postpone the hearing, which, and because we're doing this on the record, you don't have to re-advertise or republish the hearing date, which is costly and, you know, a pain to do and then we'll get and then Ms. Berg will follow up to find out what the deal is with the technical staff report, and then communicate that to you and to me, and then at that point, we'll set a new hearing date. Okay. Okay. And hopefully it won't be too far out. We'll try to work with you as much as possible. It's too, Mr. Vienn, because as soon as I get that document and Ms. Taylor has it, the first available that the room is available, I will schedule you and try to get this heard as soon as possible. Okay, are we looking at probably like proximate timing month or so or within this? Probably less than that. I mean if I get the document this week, you know, as soon as I have a slot available, it would be less than a month first. And I will, I can be pretty flexible too. Okay. Yeah. I know that, you know, my, the next month on my calendar is pretty, pretty wide open. And I don't know how about you. What kind of limitations do you have with scheduling? Well, I'm available around this time. In the evening, basically. Are you available during the day at all? During the day I can be okay. I would have to have how do I say? Right. PTO or something like that. Yeah, okay. Okay. All right. We'll definitely work with you and I think as I said I think it's best at this point to just delay the hearing until we get that technical staff report, because I just want to make sure that DPC doesn't have an issue with the petition that would make it so that whatever we do this evening would be moot in any event. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, I mean, after going through in-depth check from the zoning department, you were saying that every department would have to give their technical reports on this matter. Right, so usually what happens when DPC issues the technical staff report is they will consult other departments. I mean, the fire department, the health department, because the fire department would look at egress, ingress, that sort of thing. Health department would look at any issues relating to. Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry to interrupt you. So basically, in my project docs inbox, when this project was activated, I had a bunch of red lines from fire department as well as other departments. And that was condensed into what Justin has mailed me in the, how to say, the incomplete letter. OK. OK. And then, so from then on, I would fix whatever need to be fixed. And then that's how I got to this point. So we did go through health department, as well as the fire safety and all that stuff. OK. So I guess to an extent, we did go through that. And I was just checking my project dogs in box. I couldn't retrieve my file anymore. But I remember having a lot of red lines from each department. And it was condensed. And it was given to me by Justin Tyler. And as he reviews that he reviews my plans against those items. Got it. Okay. So, yeah, I mean, it could just be that the technical staff report is taking longer because there was a lot of reconciliation of comments. You know, at a minimum, I believe that there should have been communication to the board's office that, you know, that it wasn't ready. But we'll, we'll just let out. And hopefully we'll know something tomorrow. It's just that they're, you know, they're closed by now. They've all gone home for the day. Yeah, yeah, if it were male to or if it were released, you know, you would have got it and I would have also gotten a certain some type of hobby. Correct. Yes. Yes. Okay. So basically right now you don't have it and I don't have this. Correct. Right. There's nothing guiding us. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. that's how we asked Ms. Bergask if you had it because if you did, then it would have just been, you know, an email glitch not getting to her. I don't know if she get, I don't know if you get it by email or yeah. If you had it, you could have just emailed it to us, but since you didn't have it, you know, the presumption is that it hasn't been issued yet. It would have been from DPC. DPC, okay. So let me ask you, this is an existing religious facility. Does it already have conditional use approval? Can't hear you. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we were petitioning for a conditional use. Right, but you said it already exists. Oh, the church, yes. Right, so... A church has already existed. The church that you're petitioning for or a different church? So basically, what we're petitioning for is on that campus. We were thinking about adding a new multi-purpose building and extending the church. Right, but the church that you would be extending is your church, the current church that's existing now. So there had to have been a prior conditional use approval for that church. So this would be an expansion of a conditional use. Yes, yes. OK. OK. All right. So, do you know? So what is the name of the church? And do you know when the original conditional use was approved? I don't know. OK. So the church, we bought that church. It used to be the Calvary Baptist Church, I think. Now it's called LBC Church. LBC? Yes, LIE Baptist Church. Okay. L-I, is it L-I? Yes, L-A-I. Oh, L-A-I Baptist. Okay. So, all right. I'll look to see if there are prior decisions. But when you say you bought the church, so Lie Baptist Church bought the property, right? Right. And it has it been operating under the Calvary conditional use that was granted? If I'm understanding correctly, when we bought the cavalry church, it was an active church. Right. I guess to per se, and then like, we just bought it as it is, and then we've been using it as a church since then, till now. Understood, understood. Okay. Okay. Okay. So I guess, I don't know if I answered your... Yeah, so a conditional use is an approval, a zoning approval that attaches to, most of the, many times it attaches to the land, most of the time it attaches to the land, but sometimes there are restrictions on the conditional use of approval when there's a transfer of the land to another party, let's say. But if you didn't know about that, then that probably means that there weren't any recessions because DPC would have flagged that. Right. OK. All right. So at this point what we'll do is as a result of having not received the as a result of both the petitioner and the board's office and the hearing examiner not having received the technical staff report issued by DPC, which is required to be issued two weeks prior to the hearing. We're going to postpone this hearing or continue this hearing for another date to be decided. In the meantime, Ms. Berg of the board's office will investigate the situation with the technical staff report and will let you know what the status of that is and also let me know what the status of that is. If it hasn't been issued yet, we will get a feel for when it will be issued. If it's going to be issued shortly, I think we can go ahead and get a date for the next – for the continued hearing. If DPPZ gives us, you know, a longer period of time, then we'll – we'll want to wait until we believe that technical staff report is – is going to be issued. When you receive the technical staff report, please review it. And if there are any questions that you have about it, then, for instance, if it states that something's deficient or something along those lines, then generally what that means, it's probably something that can be cured at the hearing. If it's a filing deficiency, then they wouldn't have accepted the petition in the first place. But if it's just any sort of other failure to meet criteria or something like that, then you can then address that any such issues at the hearing when we come back. Okay. Okay. Is it named something differently since like... No, it's called a technical staff report. Or you might see TSR. We call it a TSR, but it's definitely a technical staff report. And it would have been one of the latest things that you will see from DPC. Because after, I mean, frankly, after it gets to the stage where the cases referred to the hearing examiner, there really shouldn't be any additional back and forth between you and DPC. Yeah, I think the closest, the closest that, the closest to what you were saying is that the incomplete letter that address a lot of the requirements that needs to be met before this even gets to a hearing stage. Right. Right. Right. Right. Okay. So the fact that it got to the hearing stage means that DPC, it seemed to mean to me that DPC has deemed that there are no filing deficiencies, right? doesn't mean that it's going to be approved, but it means that there are no filing deficiencies that DPC has recognized as being the case. OK. OK. So the next thing I guess that will happen is you'll hear from CalBurg about the technical staff report status and then about the next hearing date. Okay. Okay. Okay. And we will hold the record open. We'll go off off the recording, but we'll hold the record open. We'll go off the recording, but we'll hold the record open until we have the next hearing. You're muted. I think you're muted. I can't hear you, Mr. Van Beek. Hmm. I'm going to go to the bathroom. You hear me now? Yes. As far as the design, can we take that down now. So technically you're you're able to take it down after the first hearing. Yes. Okay. Okay. It's just the wind has been really blowing the boundary area. Right. It's like sometimes we would have to pick it up from the street and put it back in and it's like that. Yes, you're only required to advertise the first hearing date. That hearing date is this evening on the record. We've indicated that it has been postponed. If anybody was really interested, they could go to the recording online and find out that it's been postponed. And it'll be on the website also. OK. All right. All right. All right. Well, good luck. Good luck. And Ms. Berg will be in touch after the same thing. All right. OK. Thank you. All right. Bye. Bye.