is being recorded. Good evening, this is March 13th, 2025. And this is the advertised session of the Howard County Board of Appeals. I'm the chairperson, Gene Ryan. Tonight's session is a multipurpose. The first is a brief work session followed by hearing. The first item of business, though before we even get to that, is the approval of the meeting minutes from March 6th, 2025. Board members, you've been given those. Does anybody have any questions or comments or any suggestions they'd like to make before we get a motion? Seeing none, can we get a motion to approve the meeting minutes for March 6th, 2025? So moved. I got a first from Miss Fierrochup. Can I get a second on the motion to approve? A second.? Madam mystery, can you please call the roll? Just for clarification is this for both? I'm sorry. Should we do it separately? Does it matter? Separate okay, so this will be for the Open public meeting So does emotional first and second mr. Cove provegobb? Prove first. Prove first. Okay, second, Ms. Chiu. Okay, so yes. Chair Ryan. Approve. Ms. Viergobb. Approve. Ms. Harris. Approve. Ms. Phillips. Approved. Ms. Chiu. Approve. and carries in the open meeting minutes for March 6, 2025, approved. Second, the closed meeting minutes. Rebays, receive those. Any questions, comments? See. I'm going to encourage in the open meeting minutes for March 6, 2025, our approved. Second, the closed meeting minutes. Rebays receive those. Any questions, comments? Seeing none, can I get a motion to approve the closed meeting minutes from March 6, 2025? So moved. First by Ms. Fierkehub. Can I please get a second? I second. I second. Okay, second. Madam Chair, can you please call the roll? Chair Ryan. Approved. Miss Fearcob. Approved. Miss Harris. Approved. Miss Phillips. Approved. Miss Schew. Approved. Great. Thank you. And that carries. We're going to next segue quickly into our work session portion of this, which please allow me one second just to open this up. I should only take a moment. Okay. During our last work session on March 6, 2025, the Board discussed the possibility of having each member review section of the current code to assess its alignment with the proposed rules of procedure and identify any inconsistencies or incompatibility. Miss you raised concerns that the step might be unnecessary and redundant as the office of law has assured the board that the level of evaluation has already been conducted during our legal sufficiency review. Other members also express concern that such an evaluation be overly time consuming and not efficient use of resources. To streamline our process, Mr. Reinhart from the board's office has developed a detailed spreadsheet summarizing all public input received to date along with any concerns raised by the Office of Law. A hard copy of that spreadsheet was distributed to each member during our last meeting. Given some confusion regarding the currency of different rules of procedure versions, the Board of Appeals will now rely exclusively on the live Excel spreadsheet to guide our discussions. Staff will update the document in real time during each work session meeting ensuring that Board members always have the most and only the most current information available. Following this meeting, or earlier today, Board's staff sent out a secure link to the shared working spreadsheet. This document will serve as our foundation for future work sessions as the board works to resolve, identify, and consist, these sees, and incapabilities. So I think that kinda ties up where we were. Anybody have any questions about that? Okay, good. So then we will conclude that work session portion and we'll move into our hearing, Mr. Chair. Yes. With the work session, I just want to make sure that the solicitor and also Miss Myhill, who's from the also law that they be notified and kept in the loop of any time. Oh yeah. Oh absolutely. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. For future work sessions. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. Correct. Okay, so let me open our case today and our case today is case B.A.24051C. And Mr. Sanders, please call the case. Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you. The Board of Appeals is convening tonight. Here the petition of Bernard Granzell, trading as Blythwood Landscape Management LLC for conditional use approval for the use of the property known as 2921, Cherpin Run, West Friendship Howard County, Maryland. For the business of a landscape contractor under Howard County zoning regulations sections, 131 subsection Z subsection B and subsection 131 subsection zero subsection N subsection 32 of the zoning regulations. The subject property is already referenced is known as 2921 Terrapin Run located and identified on tax map 15 as grid 23, partial 160, the subject property comprises 5.48 acres and is in the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the decision and order in this matter. For the record, we, Board Member of President, please indicate that you've had an opportunity to visit the subject property is required by the zoning regulations. And I'll start with you, Ms. Phillips. I have. Thank you, Ms. Schew. I have. Thank you, Ms. Fierreckle. Yes, I have. Thank you, Ms. Harris. Yes, I have Thank you. Chair Ryan. Yes I have. Thank you. The petition provided a certificate that the notice of hearing was advertised in one newspaper on February 13th, 2025, and also submitted a copy of an advertisement from another newspaper on February 9th, 2025. In Affidavit of posting dated February 20th, 2025 was also submitted into the file. For purposes of this hearing, the following items are incorporated into the record by reference. The Howard County Code, the Howard County Charter, the Howard County zoning regulations, the October 21st, 2024 Department of Planning and Zoning, Technical Staff Report, with all the attached agency comments. The general plan for Howard County, the general plan of highways, the conditional use, petition and plan, and materials submitted with it. The note for the record, petitioners now represented by Council Andrew H. Robinson. I also note we have several individuals present and possibly signed up virtually in opposition to the petition in this pending matter. I did ask one of the opponents, Gene Gallagher, and I think he's gonna serve as an unofficial spokesperson for some of these opponents, Mr. Chair. That's all I have at this time. Thank you, Mr. Sanders. So before you start, Mr. Robertson, thank you. I want to make sure I don't mispronounce your client's name. So how do you pronounce the name? Your client's name? I'm sorry. The actual business entity? No, no, he's personally, so I can refer to him. Yeah, Bernie Granzo. Granzo, okay, thank you. Thank you. I've gone on a few hearings and I put your name through the whole hearing, so I didn't want that to happen again. Okay, so Mr. Sanders has read the record. So I just want to double check something real quick before we move forward because I think I just heard something but I want to double check. Madam Administrator, do you have the file real quick? Can we take a look at the affidavit of posting and the affidavit of advertising? Because I think that before we get it, I just want to make sure I heard what he said correct. And I'll pass around to the board members. Okay. Okay. Okay. So pass that way and then we'll go back this way. So you can look at it. So Mr. Roberts and that's what I thought I heard so I want to make sure. So as a preliminary matter before we even begin we want to make sure we're met the advertiser requirement. So I just looked at the certification of affidavit of posting and it's not signed. I imagine it's just an oversight. So it's the notary sign to put not the actual not the actual person that did the posting. And then it appears that there's only a certification of advertising and a newspaper for one newspaper. So first things first, perhaps we could call Mr. Granzo to the stand just to have him swear to the everyday, but now to get that out of the way. If that's okay. Yeah, yeah, please. And I'll just give the board, so once you do get seated, just make sure the buttons on the light, but I'll give the board a minute so they can fall along because they haven't seen what I just saw, so I wanna make sure they can track with me. If Board members are seeing something different, if I misread that, let me know. But. I'm going to say hi. Yeah. So we'll wait till they do it. And then we'll bring up, I'm going to swear a minute. We'll do the first slide to come about the newspaper and then I'll ask them about the posting. it's just the posting just inside it might just be I imagine it's a simple oversight. It's kind of funny though and notary notary, no signature so that's great. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Let's hit a certification. It's only for this one. All the requirements are set forth in the code under 2.203. So I'll swear you in whether or finish reading. So Mr. Granzo, if I could swear you an interest for you at your hand, do you solemnly promise to tell the truth and all that matters before you tonight? I do. Great. And if you can just state your name and address for the record. Bernard Granzo, 16, 315, Baltry Court, Bowie, Maryland, 20715. Great, thank you. So it's a little unusual. Normally we know we get in opening statements, but we just got to knock some formalities, other way. So there are two requirements for the notice. And if it's already with you, I'll read you with the codes and then you can annotate what we have and we can try to reconcile the difference. So. formalities, other way. So there are two requirements for the notice. And if it's already with you, I'll read you what the code says and then you can and I'll tell you what we have and we can try to reconcile the difference. So the first is section 2.203. I'm going to read it right from the code. It says the petitioner, so in this case, it's you at his or her own expense shall advertise the date, time, and place of the initial hearing and at least two newspapers of general circulation in Howard County for variances in residential districts the advertisement, you know, so on so forth. For all other petitions the advertisement shall be published at least 30 days prior to the hearing Okay, that makes me have a second question Yeah, yeah, the Department of Planning and Zoning Shell proves the proposed advertisement before it's published. So what we have before us is a, and you can, we can pass it back if you want. The we have a certificate of advertising from the Baltimore Sun Media Group and it says it appears February 13th, but in order to be 30 days before that would have had to be February 11th. So it means we're outside the requirement for public notice. And the second one, I see an ad in here, but there's no certification from a newspaper, although it does look like I see a very small print. I. I see, it looks like it's within date. It's like February 15th, I think, so you're good there. So, what is it? I think I can't really see. The top of the, sorry. Oh, I was at the actual in the back. Okay. Nonetheless. Very nice. Okay, great. So, yeah, so you're good on the, the 30 days on the second one. So, floor is all yours if you wanted to explain that. I mean, do you sure feel free? So, we're quasi-judicial meeting, we're like a court, but we don't follow the technical rules of evidence, so if you have to consult with your attorney on the side, that's absolutely fine. So, Louise,, he works with, he works for me here. Okay. He and I have been working on this. He handled the advertising? Yeah, we had a little issue with, I think it was Mrs., Mrs. Berg. Okay. Not getting us the wording, proper wording. Okay. The second we got it, we sent it to the sun and to the examiner. Okay. Um, and then that's why this has been postponed, this has been postponed just because of that. Yeah, so there's no postponement. We have, I scheduled it in here. No, there was an original date. Uh, okay. I stand corrected. I apologize. Oh, you know what? I apologize, sir. Absolutely right. We see a lot of cases. I do remember this now. I apologize. You're right. And then regarding the the notary. Oh, you know what? I apologize, sir. You're absolutely right. We see a lot of cases. You're right. I do remember this. Now, I apologize. You're right. And then regarding the the notary, that's Kelly Frost. That's she she's my office assistant there. OK. Oh, no, so we'll get to the notary thing. But so, but it appears that we are not. So the one we don't have a certificate for the second advertisement and the code specifically says, and I appreciate that you gave it to us, but do you have the certificate saying that this is the authentic copy? Yes, they were handed in last week to Mrs. Berg. I believe you dropped them off with DPC. Yeah, okay. So yeah, that's Ms. Berg. We're all so virtual. So yeah, DPC handles that. Unfortunately, even though it's the board appeals matter, they handle the paperwork part of it. Okay. So we'll just put that aside and assume there's certificate because I imagine there is, right? It looks like a legit newspaper. So we're going to assume that, well, that's just how I feel. We'll try to conquer the other things before we figure out what we're going to do. So then the next one issue with the advertising is that you're two days short of the 30 days, which I know may not seem like a lot, but it's what the code requires. So I do sympathize with you. I feel better. Any thoughts on that? I don't know how they were both submitted the exact same time. I don't know how. Is it the sun that's late? So the Howard County Times, the Howard Worshund, they were both submitted at the exact same time. It says, and to be clear, the certification from the newspaper, the one that you do have it it says the bet up top Says the Baltimore Sun Media Group and the certification just so everybody in attendance can we can all be on the same page since you're not seeing what we're seeing It says we hear this is from the newspaper it says we hear by certify that the annexed Advertisement of order number 7 7 6 2 7 6 8 was sold to The petitioner and built to the petitioner was published in the Howard County Times weekly and newspaper printed and published in Howard County on the following dates February 13th, 2025. Signed by the Baltimore Sun Media Group, Shawna Evans, and stamped received by the Department of Planning zoning on March 10th. So yeah, that's two days. So what I'm hearing is essentially, it is what it is. It is, and we're gonna go over everything first, but I wanna make sure we take care of this one. I don't think it was done intentionally, maybe because of the February 28th, I'm thinking now that I have, I wasn't intentionally done. We have the advertisement from the county. Okay. And we submitted it immediately to both papers at the exact same time. And I'm after we get done answering the questions and I'm sure you're going to tell you, there's a part of the code that allows us to make a decision whether it was good faith, efforts, on and so forth. So that's why I'm just trying to get all the facts so that we can decide what, you know, in totality. So in the second, where's the affidavit of advertising? So that's the one with the notary. So if it's all right with you, I'm just gonna read it to him and you can under oath now from that if you did that. Like I said, I think it's probably just an oversight, but when I looked at it real quickly, I just saw the notice signature not yours. Do we have the... Okay. did that. Like I said, I think it's probably just an oversight, but when I looked at it real quickly, I just saw the notice signature in that yours. Do we have the... Okay, that's it. Yeah, so I do see Kelly. Kelly signed it as the petitioner, but she can't. So it reads like this, and Mr. Sanders correct me, or correct me if I, if you don't think I'm doing this right. I want to make sure the records clear. So the documents as affidavit of posting, it's Board of Appeals case BA24, 015C, Bernard Gran, and you set it for me too, Gran, I'm sorry. State of, County of Howard, this is what it should read. It's already doing the redistroverb of it, sure not. It should read I, Bernard Granzo, hereby certify that to the best of my information, knowledge and belief, the property which is subject to the above caption petition has been posted in accordance with the following requirements of the Department of Planning Zoning. One, the poster shall be erected and remain at the subject property for 30 days prior to the hearing. Two, the poster shall be erected using two wooden stakes on each side of the poster. Three, the poster shall be erected perpendicular to the road which serves as the mailing address of the subject property. I further verify that the poster has been posted at least 30 days immediately prior to the hearing scheduled On the board of appeals on March 13th 2025 giving notice to this place date and time of the hearing Is that is that accurate is that a yes, okay? So and just by the way more more to the point like it was signed on February 20th Which wouldn't even make sense, but okay, so you sign it you do this okay So bored we have some issues here. We have to reconcile so Mr. Tierra sorry. Yes, Mrs. Steerick up I would like to take issue with the poster the posting Okay I didn't see posting. I was there and saw it. Saw the property, but I couldn't. There was no, excuse me. There was no posting that was perpendicular to the roadway that I can tell you. So I have a problem with this. Okay. Any other board members have thoughts on this? Yeah I admit it wasn't perpendicular it was attached to the fence. Oh okay. Okay so what I, okay. So yes, a problem because, and I think you're trying to probably agree that you just sworn or that was for the property, and that was not, we're missing a new favor. So this is okay. So if I may, I propose, I'd like to propose a motion. Okay. To dismiss this case. Okay. So we have a promotion to dismiss and let me make sure I'm clear. I'll second the motion. Okay. Let me first make sure we're clear on the motion because I want to make sure that we're all on the same page. So the motion will be based on, let me pull the code up, because the only grounds that this board has are those you know enumerating code so I want to read the posting where is it let me just read the code here because I want to make sure we're doing everything to make sure we're giving you a fair here Oh yeah, okay, so the code actually part B of the code says right here. This is how to be posted and then what we should do in the event it's not posted right. So 2.203 of the code, notice to the public, subsection B, it goes on to say 30 days, essentially what we just said in the affidavit, to the poster shall have a three digit Alphanumeric code which shall be used to identify the case, the Alphanumeric code shall be posted by the Department of Planning and Zoning in a five inch letter on the top of the poster, the Department of Planning and Zoning shall determine the number of posters required in their location and the propistener shall bear the expense of posting. The poster shall be erected perpendicular to the road which serves as the mailing address of the subject property. The Department of Planning zoning shall supply the posters. The petitioner shall properly erect and maintain the posters. The petitioner shall remove all posters from the subject property and accordance with the sign ordinance, so on and so forth. Then we talk about Avidavid. Let me just get down to the part about if there was a discrepancy in responsibility for sure. Okay, so it's part G of the code and for the board and for everybody here. Responsibility for assuring compliance with advertivating and posting. So, Mr. Fierckob, I'm going to read this and tell me if this is what your motion is based on. So... responsibility for assuring compliance with advertising and posting. So, Ms. Fierkeb, I'm going to read this and tell me if this is what your motion is based on. So, the petitioner is responsible for assuring compliance with the advertising and posting requirements of this subtitle. If any question arises regarding compliance with the advertising and posting requirements, the burden is on the petitioner to prove compliance. If the board determines that the petitioner has made a good faith effort to comply with the advertising and the posting requirement, the board may give the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to correct noncompliance. If the board determines that the petitioner is substantially complied with the public notice requirement, the board may proceed with the hearing. If the board determines that the petition has not been made, has not made a good faith effort to comply with the advertising and posting requirement, the board may dismiss the petition. So board, there's a motion on the floor to dismiss based on, and we're gonna have a discussion about this, based on code two section 2.203G. We have a first kind of get a second, an emotion to dismiss for a failure to comply with section G of the code. Is there a second? How will give a second? A second. We have a second. A second request. Sure. We're going to relay you beer. No, yeah, we're going to let you be heard. So we have a first and a second. So we're going to before to beer. We're going to relate to beer. No, yeah, absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. We're going to let you be heard. So we have a first and a second. So we're going to, before we vote, on motion, we're going to have a debate. But I think to make sure everybody's getting a fair shot, do you want to speak to your client and need a minute? No, I can't. You got to see, you're off-stand. But sure, if you just want to identify yourself, and then we'll give you a moment to. And then what I'll do is we'll have a way to do this. So it's fair. We'll give you five minutes, you think, is enough or how much time you need? Thirty seconds. I'm gonna give them the same. I'm gonna give you the other side same. I will not need five minutes time Okay, we'll give you two minutes. We'll make it fair So we'll give you two minutes to respond and then mr I think you're in opposition. We'll give you two minutes if you don't have to comment. But I want to make sure everybody's heard before the board decides anything. Good. I just wanted the board. Yeah, yeah, we're going to go after the... I think you're in opposition. We'll give you two minutes if you don't have to comment. But I want to make sure everybody's heard before the board decides anything. Go ahead. I just wanted the board. Yeah, yeah, we're going to go after they speak. Is that OK? I just want to ask if it's dismissed. But what? Well, let's see what you just say. Let's just go ahead. I wanted to draw the board's attention to the rule. You exactly just wrote it here, 2, 2, 3, G, which I think it would be hard to argue that petitioner here did not make a good faith effort to comply with advertising and posting. The sign is up, it's parallel to the railway, it wasn't perpendicular. The postings you have, the copies of the ads, one was within two days, the testimony was, it was sent in right away, and the timing of this was so short, kudos to DPC for trying to get scheduled so quickly. But there wasn't even enough time to get the proof ready to meet the first day, we're in the whole day of our day because the first day was already scrapped because it was so tight and timing. I think the petitioner has shown that he did, in fact, exert good faith efforts and should be at a minimum, given the opportunity to affect a cure before dismissal of this appeal that would effectively wipe out this case and he couldn't refile again for whatever two years. I think he deserves the opportunity to at least correct or share whatever deficiencies the board finds, but a dismissal would be an unduly harsh penalty in this case. I appreciate that. Okay, sure. When I say, when I put up the sign, I was putting it up with the stakes right next to my fence, and then realize it's probably more secure on my fence. It didn't even dawn on me of the requirement to be perpendicular. It didn't even occur to me. Fair enough. And so that's why I fastened it to the fence. And there's no other reason I did that. Okay. And so Mr. Galler, do you have any thoughts? If you do, I'm just going to swear you in but if you don't, that's fine. Okay, so I'll just swear you in real quick. So, give me a raise. And Mr.owler, do you swear and affirm to tell the truth that all matters before you tonight? I do. OK, so if you can just give us your name, address. And before you say who you are, because I know there was a correspondence earlier, if you're representing association, I know there was a motion earlier. You realize the standard for that. So representing them, we need something from the association. if you're speaking on your own behalf on officially for the association, that's fine too. So I just want you to clarify, we want to be on our special am my own behalf. Okay, sounds good. We're representing them, we need something from the association. If you're speaking on your own behalf, on officially for the association, that's fine too. So I just want you to clarify, we must be on our official MMI on behalf. Okay, sounds good. You know, the only pit I have is that we've looked at the code, right, we've read through all this. We didn't have time to secure a lawyer, right, but it doesn't matter, but according to the code, perpendicular means perpendicular, right? And the notification, the visualization of it, placement of it is according to code. In this case, it's not. That's my input. Okay, and I'm sorry, a name in address, did we get that? Gene D. Gallagher, 1, 2, 9, 0, 9, VistaView Drive, West Friendship Maryland, 2, 1, 7, 9, 4. Okay, so I think, I think as everybody said, This is kind of a significant thing here, so I think it deserves all of our attention. Are there questions from the board for anybody? I think I have a question So if we dismiss the case what's the consequence? We're not going to hear their case and that's gone to that They're not able to have the condition to use. Am I correct? So correct me from Roman center. So if the board should pass the motion, then the case would be dismissed correct because public notice wasn't provided as required. If the board determines that, if we determine if we find the contrary, which is that a good faith effort was made then the case would proceed. Correct. Is that correct, Mr. Sanders? I said that. Yeah, basically if they don't have a conditional use that's why they're in front of you. If you dismiss it they still don't have a conditional use. Okay. But if you find that they, in your opinion, that they substantially complied or made a good effort to comply with the advertising and posting requirements, you could continue with the case. So if we dismiss the case, do they have another opportunity to make everything correct, everything, and make sure everything is compliant. And we've done it. Well, under the design regulations, you have 24 months to refile. However, you can file within six months if you provide an affidavit, saying additional or new grounds for your conditioning use petition. So in other words, they can advertise again and post again in the correct way. If this board was to dismiss it they would have to refile at some point down the road and go through the whole steps again. And I apologize for jumping in here but I think I may have something to add to that as well. maybe it's the terminology we're using and I think what Mr. Sanders was referring to there is that there's an opportunity good faith is found there's an opportunity to cure in the rules right and I don't know if dismissal is the proper term as opposed to a continuation to allow the cure to take effect whatever that cure may whatever the board may decide has to be done in order to affect full notice and light of the fact that there are people here, we're here now. A good faith effort, I would argue, was made to meet the advertising and posting requirements. I think the board does have in its arsenal the ability to not dismiss, but simply to allow the petitioner to cure a reasonable opportunity to cure the defect, and then we could proceed on the appeal of this condition of use without having to wait six months with an affidavit of change of circumstance or something like that, or refile two years later for the exact same thing, which seems like a still waste of resources frankly. But I think a reasonable opportunity here here would certainly satisfy. Sure. I would ask the board review the rule under subject. Just take five minutes. Yeah, before we do anything, we'll definitely do that one. And then discuss. And we'll continue to discuss this as long as we need to, but like Mr. Sanders said, we should be, you know, make sure you understand it. And your options like he proved that. Right. deciding is on this motion so yeah yeah no you're right yeah perspective question about what will happen if And your options like he proved that right. But for right now, what we're deciding is on this motion. So I bet that the yeah, yeah, no, you're right. Prospective question about what will happen if it is dismissed. But on the floor right now is not the ability to cure. Right now there's a motion to dismiss. So right, if that motion fails, then we continue either. Here the case can be opportunity, like then we take it to the next level. So this is a tiered thing, essentially. We're starting here. We could go in a double-githering directions Are there any other wing come back miss you if you want better are there any other questions from other board members? And I think I wanted to ask The gentleman there how how did you know about this hearing mr. Gallagher? Yes How did I know about this hearing yes? I heard it from other neighbors in the neighborhood talking to it and across our H.O.A Okay, did you did you see the sign could you see the sign I could not I? Any other programs before I wait Well, when I went out there, I didn't see the sign at first, but I can't imagine, especially if you're out there, that you didn't see the sign at some point, because it's on the fence this way, and neighbors are walking in the neighborhood when I was there, so somebody had to to see it. We actually had a conversation in front of the sign. Yeah. Do you have anything, Miss Fira? Well, it's your motion. I guess you're clear on where you stand, right? Yeah. Just for Miss Fira, I think for the dismissal you have to find there wasn't good faith. That's exactly where I was going. Yes. Yeah. You just you've got to it's kind of multi-tiered. That's why I want you to read that section again just so you know your options. And then that is an option if you find you don't think it was a good faith effort to comply with the requirements. So this so I'll say this right. So one is what is the purpose of this requirement? Is it a mere technicality or is there significance to it? I, as an individual board member, believes significance is to give the public notice, right? That's because they are allowed to come and either support or to call it like this is not by right. This use, this landscaping use requires special permission. It is not something that is given by right by right of owning. This condition used is presumed compatible, right? But it has to meet a lot of criteria and we have to board neither gather as much data as we can to make sure we're making responsible land decision. I will say that I made four site visits there, including as recently as this afternoon, the first two, I couldn't find a sign. And so you may think that perpendicular isn't significant, but I don't know how anybody would see that sign unless they came to a dead stop on the end of in the middle of the street and looked directly at your property. The reason it's perpendicular is the reason that stop signs are perpendicular and traffic lights are perpendicular because it's how you're driving, you see it. So was public notice effectively given? I personally say no, it wasn't. And so the question is, was there good faith or not? Do this is just one person speaking? Do I think you're a malicious? No, I don't think you're malicious, absolutely not. But the consequence of the action is what we're worried about, not your intent in me personally. And if it was just that, I might be able to say, okay, well, there are other mediums which the public could access to it. But as we now know, what at least one, like no, there's two mediums, right? There's the public notice requirement in the newspaper. And then there's the public posting, both of them failed. One newspaper, well, it might just, my personal personal assessment, I believe you're, I don't believe you're being dishonest in any way, I don't want you to hear that. But I do believe in the one newspaper, well, granted it stated right, I'm sure just certification got lost somewhere in the filings and that's reasonable. The second didn't make the requirement. I'm also deeply troubled when I read the affidavit to you just now and you swore to be true and then 30 seconds later said, well actually that's not the truth. And I don't think you were being lying. I think it just wasn't clicking. And the harm is significant. I don't know if we got a hearing here and truly say the public has been made aware that there's a conditional use application. I will say that in the record given to us was the hearing's damage record, right? We give it no wait, this is denovo hearing, but it is in the record. So I do know that the neighbors were participating in that too. So it's reasonable to believe that part of the reason they knew about this, yes, could be the sign. I'm not saying is it, but they've been involved in this sense at the beginning. But I live a half mile from your house, and I went there three times specifically to do a site visit. And I didn't see it. And I mean, if some other board member did see it correctly installed, then they should speak up. But I didn't. So in my opinion, I don't think we've met the burden of notifying the public as is required by law. But I'll open it up. Maybe not. Well, that's my agreement. We have these rules for a reason. And I think that we certainly could offer a good faith argument. If in fact, it looks like it was in good faith. But I have to tell you that I drove up to the only way I knew that that was the property was because of the mailbox that was there. That's it. So to me, that's not the responsible way of handling this. This is not according to the rules that we have. We have to follow the rules. I think that people who are applying for these things have to follow the rules as well. Thank you, Mr. Fierckoff. I'll also add, so we to we should apply precedent right in my opinion board members. So let's think to cases where this has come up and I think we can recall some and so an example that we might say for precedent where the board determined good faith had been made if you recall we had a case not too distant future and the testimony was assigned wasn't. The neighbors even produced pictures. The sign wasn't there. And the applicant said, listen, go check the weather. The sign got blown down. I did everything I could. So we found that there was good faith. Like he, that the applicant couldn't control the weather. He installed it correctly. The weather knocked it down. It was a good faith ever. We allowed him to cure that by going back, reposting, and we did the whole thing over again. I don't know if, but maybe that helps us understand what good faith is and what good faith isn't. You did something, you did it right, but you know an intervening event caused happens to, I don't know. That's just my one. I'm only one. There's five of us. So, but when you're ready to call for a vote, I will, but I want to make sure we've felt fairly don't say it. And then we'll go around one more time. I'll ask you to heard again before you find out what on this. 100%. So my only concern is that, you know, we do post it so that the public is aware of what's going on. And it was not an easy sign to see. If you drive by it, you would just drive by it. You would just keep on going. You wouldn't know that there was an event going on. Granite, I mean, this gentleman here he stated that he was aware because the community is aware because you went to the hearing examiner before and they probably follow it, because's posted online, it's posted. It's there, but one important part is posting it and advertising it. You're a couple days off and then the sign, you just can't see it. You can't see it. No one would know, I don't know if there are other people that might want to come to say something in regards to this. That's the only problem that I have. That's all I want to say. OK. Are we ready to hear for? Oh, sorry. No, I don't want to come, go ahead. No, I just wanted to say, I only saw it because I made a call and said, where is this, where is it, where is it, where is it, where is it, where is it, where is it, where is it, where is it, I can't find the place. I literally had to call somebody and say, I can't find this location, where is it, and then I saw the sign at the end, the 20 address at the end. But I only saw the sign on the fence coming back. You cannot see the sign on the fence going into your community. Only did I see it coming out because of the angle of your fence. So unless somebody lived there and was coming out, they would see it. But anybody going to check it out would have a hard time seeing it. And I have another concern because you first said that your worker installed the sign and then you said you were helping. So I'm not sure who installed the sign. Can I? Oh yeah, of course. That's a question. So no doubt. I admit that it was improperly placed. It was not done on purpose. It was done out of convenience. It was actually done. I put it in the exact same spot the first one was that So it wasn't it wasn't it didn't it didn't even dawn on me that that was a requirement to be per perp and decular Yeah, I understand now the the reasons why I I appreciate that and we're going to I think your council wants to speak and I just want to so for the board as you speak it was me that did it Okay, thank you for clarifying that okay. I do want to I just want to because I want to just reiterate part of the code so you can speak to that and we'll Call it your closing, you know Before we vote so I think I just want to bring the board members because we have to stick with the code and the section that we've cited section. But the language specifically says if a question arises regarding compliance with advertising and post-regards, the burden is on the petitioner to prove compliance, right? So the burden is the petitioner. It's not our interpretation. It's, say it was a good faith effort made. We've evaluated it historically. We have precedent what constitutes good faith. And I'm just going to say I don't know that not paying careful attention on what you're doing is good faith. I'm not saying you're lying. Good to say it wasn't good faith doesn't mean you're lying. It just means like it was diligent. Anyway, go mr Yeah, I'll again just like to reiterate for the board that the remedy that is on the table now And this motion to dismiss is extraordinary It would cause significant harm to my client for what is in an essence Moving aside providing additional notice to folks in the area if they want to come out and testify We're not opposed to people coming and and testifying opposition after further they didn't. But as you can see in a dead-end street on a 12-house neighborhood you can see the people are here and they brought props with them. They clearly were well aware of this hearing. I happen to see the sign when I went out there for the first time but maybe I'm used to looking for them. But again I would just like to to read to the board, the board has in its power to find that my client made a good faith effort to get the abs out as quickly as he could, submit the proofs to DPC as soon as they came in to fill out the affidavit of posting, to post the property in a way that he testified. He did it out of permanence. He thought if I attach it, I've had that problem where signs get destroyed by people, stuff on fire, blow away, or just disappear. He actually attached it to the fence so it would be permanent, not thinking he's going to deceive anybody. He knows he's not deceiving them. They know what's going on. He's not trying to hide the ball. He did what he thought was his best efforts to get notice to the public. And I would urge the board. If they find he did not substantially comply a lot of the posting a notice, that's the Bords Barogative. I would ask the board. If they find he did not substantially comply with the posting and notice, that's the board's prerogative, I would ask the board to not exert such a toll from my client as to dismiss this case and send him back to square one, which will then be back in front of the hearing examiner with the exact same plan. And then it could end up right back in front of you. And all we've done is waste tens of thousands of dollars and probably many hours of your time, everybody's time to do this all over again as opposed to simply allowing my client a reasonable opportunity to affect whatever a cure it may be. Repose the property, that's fine. I would hope we wouldn't have to re-advertise but if that's what the board decides, we'd be willing to do that versus a dismissal outright because like his as Mr. Sanders said, even with our filing, we would have to show new grounds. Perhaps with the revisions we've made to the plan, maybe that's our new plan. But I would prefer to keep the matter in front of the board. We're here. We're ready. If you're not ready to hear tonight, I respect that or respect the board's decision, but I would ask the board to please read that statute and find that my client did act in good faith to get word out to the public. Again, the public's here. This is the public that we knew would be here. They're here. They brought their props. They've got their spokesperson. They know what's going on. And I would urge the Board to take that into account. And again, the timing here was so tight that we had to lose our first date just because of how tight things were. Now we're on our holdover date. I would not hold that against my client. He acted in good faith and as quickly as possible to get the ads out to the papers, you got the ad proofs in. If it's a question of missing cert, I've handed those in days later in hearings where if they know we got them, we're just waiting on something to come in, but we've got the actual ad. That's never been an issue. I've had plenty of issues with signs. Disappearing one-on-one corner, there was supposed to be two, did we comply? I'm willing to concede. If the board wants to find we didn't substantially comply, that's fine. But again, I would urge the board to do not invoke that remedy of dismissing the case outright. it would serve no benefit to the public, it would not benefit my client, and I don't think it would benefit you in your time. I appreciate that. Thank you. Anything Mr. Gollard? A couple of things. So rules, regulations, laws, codes, right? They all have meaning. The words are all written for a reason. Public notification should be clear. It's not something that is accidental, right? The community didn't feel that we have that. I think that is kind of where we're at right now. And I disagree with your comment that we don't want this to miss, dismissed. I think our community does, and I think there's a whole litany of other things that are underneath the cover there. So I'm going to leave it at that, but that's what our position is, I appreciate. Okay, so board, there's a motion to dismiss. I'm just going to rephrase the motion. There's a motion to dismiss. Based on the petitioner's failure to comply with section 2.203 notice to the public subsections a B C A B and C Which are the advertising requirements as we discussed at length the 30 days the Requirement that an affidavit posting be provided, the requirement that the sign be posted in accordance with the zoning regulations on so and so forth. So if nobody, oh, sorry, I was gonna save nobody, Jack, go ahead. I wanted to ask a question. If we dismiss this, I mean, it looks like it's currently being used as a landscaping area now. So, what exactly happens? I don't think that's... Yeah, I was gonna... So, what I would say is... I mean, bring it back. I just remember that in the case Somebody like built something. Yeah, then it had to go through our thing But they were a they didn't get like fines because I Understand where you're going so So I'll say that and mr. Sanders can't correct me. I think so to make the record, because the record has to be clear, whatever our action here is. So to make the record clear, we have to deal solely with the advertising. I think your question is valid and good. But I would worry that answering that, I think it's what Mr. Sanders is going to say, would potentially complicate any clarity of the record in this thing. I think we can get an answer to it, but we got to do the vote first. Okay. Is that work? Hey. Not really, but I guess it's going to have to. Yeah, go ahead. I think it's irrelevant because I'm struggling to be honest with you. I think they are they violated of things in our rules and the rules are very meaningful and we take their seriously. And we certainly don't want to set the president to that people can violate the rules and still can proceed. But on the other hand, I also understand the punishment is very severe to the petitioner because they I don't think they are doing the business now. Yeah, they are. They are doing the business. Yeah, it's in the record. So why they are applied for the convenience. I know, we don't want to get into that. All right, okay. Okay, so I don't want to be the punishment to not scale to the mistakes they make. That's that's why I'm struggling. Right, yeah. The board would have to find pursuant to G that the petitioner did not make a good faith after. Yeah, in order to have that option. So what we're voting on, I've read a couple of times, but I think we've got to call the vote. So if we vote, yes, we are dismissing, which means that you as a board member have found that a good faith met effort was not met. If you vote no, then you would be voting that you believe a good faith effort has been met. Does that sound right, Mr. Sanders, and my I want to make sure the Board members understand when they vote yes or no what that means. In accordance with the code. Correct. And then with the under the rule if the Board determines a petitioner has has made a good faith effort to comply with the advertising and posting requirement, the Board may give the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to correct the non-compliance. Right. So, or they also have the, they feel that they have substantially complied with the advertising and posting they could proceed, you could proceed with the hearing. So it's a tiered, so the first is, yeah, so the first is dismissal. If the board finds, if the board is a favor dismissal, then we don't go any further. If they vote against dismissal, then we take the next thing, next thing, it's all in four. Okay, does everybody feel like they're ready to vote? So, go ahead. One more question. One more question. Go ahead, we're democracy, go ahead. You say that they can make correction to comply with, but would that mean we would have to have a different hearing for them to put up a new sign? Yes. And post it in the paper correctly? Yeah, the public. That's one option. Or you can move forward tonight. Yeah, and I don't want to open too many worms I want to like isolate because otherwise the board's gonna get very Yeah, so let's just focus on Okay, so I have a question So basically if we go down that route to have them to correct the action We have to postpone the hearing, correct? That's one option. Right, right. Yeah, we could move forward today and we could take substantially complied. Understand. Understand. If we go to that route to give them a chance to correct their actions, we are going to postpone the hearing and wait everything like we have to... We have to revise it. ...otherwise and repost it. Okay. That's one option. But the motion before us is dismiss. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. No, the chair always votes last. I don't know why you just called me first. Wait a minute. You go. I need a funny last. Mr. Sanders, how do we answer this? Dismiss is. Yes, you're finding that. Yes or no? Are we doing yes or no? Yes or no? Yes or no. That's what I wanted to know. Okay. And if you say yes, you're finding the petition did not make a good faith effort. Do you say yes, you're finding the petition did not make a good faith effort. She said no, you think they had made a good faith effort. Mr. Irkall. Yes. I have to get this. I was like, was your motion? Yes. Yes and no in my head. Yes, Miss Harris. You're saying yes to dismiss Your microphones on oh, okay, sorry I'll say no Miss Phillips Hard, but I have to say yes. Miss Schoo. No. Mr. Ryan. I will vote yes to dismiss. The motion is carried. The petition is dismissed. The Office of the Law will prepare a decision in order, which we published in Transmiddal Parties, and this hearing is adjourned. Thank you, everyone.