Good morning. This is April 3rd, 2025. This is scheduled meeting of the Howard County Board of Appeals. We're a work session where we are continuing our rules on the, or continue our work on the rules of procedure. We have a number of items to get through today. First, we have to review the minutes and approve the minutes for our last meeting. So board members you were sent the minutes public and closed for March 27th 2025. So we're first going to do the public. If there's no questions or comments can I get a motion to approve the meeting minutes for March 27th 2025. I'm sorry, Mr. Ryan. Is that just the open? Okay. Okay. I'm sorry,. I apologize. Yes, open. First by Ms. Harris. Second. Second. So I have a second to approve the open public meeting minutes for March 27, 2025. Ms. Burk, please call the roll. Chair Ryan. Approved. Miss Fearcald. Approved. Ms. Harris. Approved. Approved. Second is the closed meeting minutes for March 27, 2025. Can I get a motion to approve those minutes, please? So moved. First by Ms. Fierekom. I second. Second by Ms. Phillips. Ms. Burr, please call the roll. Chair Ryan. Approved. Ms. Fierekom. Approved, Ms. Harris. approved Ms. Ms. Fellas. Approved. And as I put a clarity for those who may be listening and not able to see the room, in attendance on Ms. Fellas, Ms. Fellas, Ms. Orion, Ms. Zhu is on a failable tonight. Continuing forward. So we have a packed agenda today. We have a hard stop at 230. There's another meeting that has this start at 245. So hopefully we want to go that long. As you may have seen emails were sent out and lunches will be provided. So Miss Bergs just give me heads up whenever you want to do that. We'll take breaks periodically. Another administrative email went out from the county for your ethics disclosures do no later than April 30th, if you didn't get it, follow up with Ms. Burrard and Ms. Hardin. They'll help you resolve that. So next on our list of items to deal with today, there was some discussion last meeting and I I just wanted to get the boards agreement or consensus on this surrounding the Excel spreadsheet we've been using. It was my understanding, and I want to make sure that we're all on the same page, that the Excel spreadsheet, as we go through it, is to chronicle the officer laws, comments, response and our rationale for that response as well the I think well over 100 public comments on the froze rules and it was my understanding that we wanted to keep that data and submit it to council so that they can understand our rationale for our decision making. Is the board an agreement that document will be shared with council later. Yes. Okay. Okay. So we have unanimous agreement. So we will do that at the end of it. Next. When we were at the meeting, we last meeting. We had tests, Mr. Reinhartart with fine tuning some language in the In the items on the Excel spreadsheet so if everybody would refer to their spreadsheet Give me one second open mine and we're gonna go on tab one which is office of law and we're just gonna recap the pending matters before we move on to any new matters So let me just open my sheet up real quick. Okay. So, we left off. Perhaps we could ask Mr. Rontard, probably be easier with you. It's said of me cause why don't you tell me with you with the language you filled in and we can get consensus on each line item. Okay. So line item one, the proposed language would say must comply with specific requirements and standards included in the Howard County employee manual that pertains to executive exempt employees. Okay, so board, everybody okay with that language? Yep. That sounds good. We'll get in. Okay. For line item two, it would be similar language. Okay. With that. With that. Oh, yeah, I'm sorry. It'd be the exact same language. I'll be working with that. Okay. Yes. For line I'm three, we would italicize the word petitioner and strike contested from page 7 line 18. Everybody okay with that? Okay. Yes, everybody's okay, I'm sorry. Yeah, I just want to, I'm reviewing reviewing my Old form right at the old So there's a let me I'm sorry what thing is right here. So today there is Commenations giving down this right thing down the right hand side of the column is with mr. Right heart is reading to you the three twenty twenty on the top heading. It's labeled three twenty seven twenty five change And so these are the proposed resulting from our meeting. So he's going by step by step to confirm that the board is in agreement about those are our changes. So where we are on line items three, is there any, I'll wait for each of you to say. Okay, I'm good. Okay, sorry. Good. Miss Phillips. Okay. Okay. Yes. Thank you. All right. Next is line item six You all I believe there was an agreement on this. Yes, correct. The word egregious. Yes. Yes. Where you read all right Line item seven was already corrected line item eight removed the sentence starting with each on line eight and ending with member on line nine. So it was the language about. Councilmatic. Councilmatic districts. Yeah. Yes. Is filled? Yeah. Okay. Yeah, the board's okay with that. For item nine, you all agreed to leave the language in about alternate member and make a note for the county council to discuss the or make a note for your perspectives on the merits and the reasons why it should be in versus the reasons why it should be a charter amendment and let the council make a decision. Sure. So it was my understanding that the Board would provide specific language to be given to the council to support the position that a charter is not needed and that the Office of Law is providing rationale why a charter amendment is needed. Is everybody in agreement with that? Yes. In agreement we're going to present both to. So that's what I just heard Mr. Vinehart read that I want to make sure we're there. So is the board presenting both arguments or are we presenting one why we don't need one of the office laws presenting why. We do need it as hard as I remember. That's a good question. Yeah, and they hadn't thought of it that way. Yeah, that's why he read it. It just clicked to me. Who's putting one in? That probably is a good way to do it. That was the officer. Yeah, that's the officer. Yeah, let the officer of law support their position. OK, so the board will provide language specifically. Wow. So we do not believe HR, and the vote was clear, it was split that week, this is the way. But the officer law will provide the wire charter amendments, that's sorry to be legalist efficient, and the board will prove that the rationale, why we believe it is not, and in the council ultimately decide. And my only concern would be to make sure the officer law understands that that's what they're going to do in the process. We'll get, let me take a note. We'll get a concrete to that. So, okay. Thank you. Okay. Lion and Ten. Yeah, I'm sorry if I may, I believe Mr. Cook said in the last meeting that once legislation is submitted to the council, they would review and provide legal sufficiency. So, do you have a council? To the council. So that is a process that takes place in reviewing legislation and these rules would be submitted. So the board doesn't need to request it. It will hold. Yeah. Yeah. And I, right, am I corrected, say, I give the standards that I was my recollection that the officer law and I think it was mr. Cook said that Essentially, you know, we've asked the officer law to provide legal sufficiency And if we're providing that same document to the council will then be the same legal sufficiency is that right? I don't think so. No? I think you're my only one for you. And the council will be the legislation. Right. But I mean, if it's the same, am I correct in saying that if it's the same, what's the word? The same text, the same language, the legal sufficient. You should be the same. It would be very similar. Yeah. OK. where you know accounting for. When you could use chairs, propose your rule. And then you could make a side board with the caveat that this could be an issue with maybe just the board noting it themselves too. Okay. Fair enough. Yeah, that's what I understand. Mr. Cook said that his language may or may not be the same as ours. So just having our side note like like Mr. Sanders just recommended I think is good so they'll know both perspectives. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, from position. Good, okay. All right. line 10 that was resolved, um, surely after the public hearing. So we're good there. Line 13, proposed language would say, I believe, after remanded or in place of remanded in that section, the Board may order that an amended petition be remanded to the prior reviewing agency or may request additional agency review as needed. Sounds good. Yes. Everybody agree? Nobody agreed to that. Okay. Great. Item 15. Propose to add the work when after the word administrator in that line. Are we okay? Yes. yes. Everybody's okay with that? Okay. Line item 17. Add the phrase attempt to, at the beginning of the sentence. Right, for posting, I remember that, right? Yes, regarding posting. You're okay with that? Yes. Okay. And then line item 18, add the language unless otherwise noted after it says board administrator in line three. And it's dealt with the motion that the vacation speed motion. Remember that? Yes. Okay. Good. All right. That's good. So I had a couple questions and then we'll go around and see if other people have questions. So in Reviews, Fred Sheet, Mr. Reinhardt, I have a question. So if I'm not mistaken, let me just make sure. So in line items four and five, those all deal with the, I apologize. In line item four, that deals with the alternate member provision. And so I think we're addressing, it was the same concern Mr. Cook had said. So I think we've addressed that with, we're providing the rationale. Right, I'm going to agree. Can we mark that as a, so if you're looking at your spreadsheet? We're going back to these two. Yeah, this spreadsheet because I in reviewing so if we go to line-up for the notes as a definition of alter-remember and then it says see the officer law comments as see comments in row six about sufficiency of having an alter-remember. So essentially it's referring back to what we just talked about. Do we need charter amendment? Do we not need charter amendment? So I think by answering the prior item, we answer this one at the same time. So I think we can check that off as resolved, correct? It's the same application applies as in line 9. Right, yeah. Yes. As in line nine, make sure. Yes. So we can mark that as a result, right? Okay. Yes. Now, a question for you, Mr. Reinhardt. So in the column under status, how are you? So we're saying we addressed it, but are we saying, what are we saying denied for in terms of the Office of the Laws Recommendations? How are you checking it up? I've been saying accept it or rejected. And then if there are proposed language changes, I'm saying accepted, see changes in next column and then adding a column. Okay, so is the close language. For example, we're doing the rationale for the charter with the officer law to say charter amendment, first go charter amendment. What do you think we should make the status there? Where are you? General questions. Yeah, generally it says the officer're, because generally it says, you also lost it this week, except it and we modify it or we don't accept it. But in this case, we're not necessarily rejecting with the office of law of saying, we're saying we just have an alternate thought on how this could be. And I just want the spreadsheet to reflect clearly that point. So that's why it may sound like nuance, but I don't think it is. We're not rejecting, we're just saying. Well, you are rejecting the change. You're saying, no, that you don't think it is. Because we're not rejecting, we're just saying. So. Well, you are rejecting the change. You're saying, no, that you don't want, that you're not going to proceed with removing the alternate members. Oh, he wants to remove it. OK. That's. Is that what it was? That was my understanding. So the alternate member was suggested to remove it because it requires a charter amendment Okay, okay, okay, okay, thank you So yeah, I can update up read that to reflect it to stay rejected and then have the Disclaimer see changes in next column. Okay, that works for the board. Yeah, that's good. So that's Okay, then Let me just make sure I'm just going through real quick. I have so line five are we done with line five? No, I'm gonna get to that. Okay, that's the legal advisor. I have some language. I like to recommend for that But I just want to Item three We did that. I'm sorry I'm just looking down my checklist comparing it to make sure we're all on the same page here. Nine. Eight. I'm sorry for a pair with me one again. Thank you, Jim. You're welcome. So did we do, we did that, OK? Sorry, I just want to make sure I'm getting everything right. OK. So moving along, OK. So they may have any questions on that so far. No. Okay. So I think Mr. Sanders, correct me for a moment. I think we're going to wait for Mr. Dirk Cook before we continue or do you want to? Let's wait for him. Okay we'll push that. Okay. Okay. So before we continue with the spreadsheet, because Mr. Cook was the spearheading that a sufficient fever review, I spoken with the officer-long. We're going to, I think he's going to join us later. So we'll come back to that part. Okay. Let me make sure we're here. Okay. So let me move on to the next part. So there's a few rules that I'd like to bring to your attention that either I had previously meant to add and it skipped my mind or as a result of our discussions that I think there needs to be. So in front of you, you'll see a hard copy and perhaps Mr. Ryan Hart could put it up. It's a requesting that we add a rule 7.0 work session guidelines. So I'll give you a quick background on it. So we have guidelines on how we deal with our hearings and all different types of hearings where I could just use on the record and oboe, but we really don't have any guidelines at all in work sessions. We've kind of developed our own along the way here, which this has been a great opportunity for us to refine those practices. So some pretty simple language that I took from the Council's guidelines on work sessions. I just want to highlight, you can read the language and we'll give people time to review it if they want to. But I'd like to have this logically. It fits into our rules under Rule 7.0. But the final version will make sure it fits logically, where it should be a couple things that I think stand out when I review this. So right now, when Board Member has a motion, it's at first and a second. And then we have to be. And then we vote. In a work session, there is no need for a second. So for example, if we remember commotion, we debate and we vote. Right? It's a less formal setting. But we still should be observing and it talks about that. Robert Wouls in terms of, you know, one person speaks at a time, if he called on so on and so forth. I think it's pretty self-explanatory. Two members need, I'll give you a few minutes to lift that over. I apologize, I tried to get this out. Oh, I did, wait, I think it did that. Yeah, yeah. Does anybody have any thoughts on this, any language, like to change? You are knowing that you will get an opportunity, we're still going to go another round for style and grammar at the very end For the rules, but if you have anything now, you know or substance. I like it Okay, Mr. Gerkhoff's okay with it. Yeah, I'm fine with this heart's okay It looks good to miss Phil's okay, so can we move that in mr. Reinhardt? Moving on. Oh, six. OK. So there's another document that you have before you. It's a hard copy. It's titled Amen. Amen should be a amendment. But that's my own internal amendment to rule 6.0 cases. So 6.0, it which appears in our rough draft on page 30, line 3. Right now it reads land use matters under original jurisdiction and it talks about the policies in which we handle that. Sorry, but it's like a two sentence paper. I Mayor, yeah, there it is. It's up on the board now. So I'd like to make a recommendation or motion that we strike the word land use and this deals with all matters under, it's not specific to land use but but it's all matters under original jurisdiction. I agree. Okay, it's hard, it's okay. I agree. Missed fully, Missed your cousin, okay. What did she say? Yeah, you're not looking for one. I know, that's good. So I just look at the board, it's self-acglared. Okay, yeah, that's thing. Yeah. So we're just making sure it's all matters, any matter we might hear under a little jurisdiction. These are procedures we'll follow. Okay. So we make that change. Next is there an order for you to start with your back. Yeah, I'm sorry. They're kind of. They're not really in any particular any particular order and I apologize I wanted to get everybody hard copy for me But I was up till almost three o'clock trying to this morning trying to get the language right and make sure it all made sense So I want to get as long as you think anybody wants to go forward and move on to the next session? We are crushing this. I just want to say that because we're like online item 10 to 15 for the day. So that's pretty good. So the next, which is I is I'm sure going to bring up some bait. Let me give my little spiel out here. Are we still in this packet? Yeah yeah so this is my little script that I'm about to yeah we're we're going to talk about some substantive changes. So this year long initiative aimed to update the rules of procedure and resolve longstanding inconsistencies and conflicts within the code, which I've caused confusion for both the public and the board. A key issue of the board is identified as regulatory fragmentation. When information is scattered across different locations and sections, it becomes difficult for the public to navigate the board of appeals process. Additionally, the introduction of the hearing examiner position within the board of appeals led to a separate set of rules which has unintentionally created a separate and sometimes conflicting a pellet pathway and has resulted in confusion and recent delays in a pellet matters. To complicate matters further, the zoning board recently added a hearing examiner, and while the position title remains essentially the same, the position is completely outside of the board of appeals and operates under a completely different set of codified rules. As we've discussed the board and we've discussed this over many meetings, the optimum solution we've decided is to unify the board of appeals and the hearing examiner rules into a single cohesive rules of procedure. I want to clarify a point that was brought up during last meeting and it was discussed during that work session. Code section 16.303 regarding the hearing examiner's procedures, rules of procedure states, the hearing examiner will adopt rules of procedure to govern the conduct of hearings. Such rules will be effective upon approval by resolution of the county council. This language differs from the Board of Appeals rules of procedure, which are codified in Howard County Charter Section 501, at which grants the Board the authority to amend and adopt rules that have the force of law once approved by the county council. The key distinction is that the Board of Appeals rules or procedures are codified and legally binding, whereas the hearing examiner rules are advisory and are not codified and require a less formal adoption process. In the hierarchy of rules, the Board of Appeals rules take precedent over the hearing examiner because they're law. They're binding. They're enforceable by a court of law. So the solution is clear. By incorporating the relevant provisions of the hearings and their rules into the updated board of appeals rules of procedure, we create a single unified rules of procedure that are legally binding and eliminates separate pathways for reduced confusion and potential conflict. This also will help support the hearing examiner because now they will have the force of law with their rules. It won't simply be an advisory. It will be something that is binding. One rule that the public can use when trying to understand how the process works and one single place to find those rules. So I'd like to propose some following changes to draft rules and procedure but first before I get into that I want to see if there's any thoughts, comments or questions about what I just said. It should be unified. I thing. It's supposed to be doing the same thing. Yeah. Yeah. It makes total sense. It does. It would be clear to us. It would be clear to the public. It seems it would be clear to the hearing examiner and any other agency in the government. And a single set of rules when you come, you know, that's the first, and I think I said that, it's a single set of rules, right? So you don't have to say, well, I'm at the hearing exam or will this applies? And I don't mean procedural, I mean, so significantly. You know, it fixed a lot of problems without, and this is all based on, you know, the experiences as recent, with one of our recent cases where we saw that we were not able to hear, or our rules said we could hear a type of case that the hearing examiner couldn't hear, vice versa. It was very confusing. So when I reviewed the rules of procedure for the hearing examiner, which couldn't even find, because they're not in the code, so I had to take quite some time to find, they, we've have already incorporated 95% of it. So there's really just, as I see, there's really just three or four changes which I'll recommend. Sorry. I just, isn't there another section that talks about a hearing examiner that does not pertain to the board of appeals? So I just want to make sure we're familiar. Is there, isn't there a section in the general? Right, right. By hearing about hearing examors just to make sure it's clear that they don't fall into the same umbrella as the board of appeals hearing examiner. Oh, oh, okay, right. So let me clarify that a little bit. So the term hearing examiner, and will anybody wants to chime in, the term hearing examiner is used because there was a hearing examiner for the board of appeals, right? But then the hearing examiner, not to recently, incorrect me if I'm wrong, Mr. Sanders, or Ms. Howard, or anybody, was also, they changed it so that the hearing examiner could be used for the zoning board to first hear cases for the zoning board. And that will become important part later, because some of the language I'm recommending is adopted from the zoning board in terms of how the hearing examiner hears cases there. But the zoning board hearing examiner and the board of appeals hearing examiner, while the same title hearing examiner, are completely. We have nothing to do with the zoning board. We have no responsibilities or rights or opportunity to weigh in on anything that happens over there. Even though it's just, I believe it's the same person. So is it the same person? I believe it is. It is? Yes. And the language throughout the code says hearing examiner doesn't distinguish the zoning board hearing examiner and board of appeals hearing examiner. And in talking to members of the community, even one of our public sessions, they were confused. They're late. And which made all of these comments that we've been getting gave rise to this kind of like, oh, this is an issue we need to care. We need to distinguish the two. So you'll see some of the language I'm going to recommend and thank you Miss Harris for saying that distinguishes we refer to the board of appeals hearing them are in those words not just hearing them are the board of appeals hearing them are so it's very clear that that's what we're talking about there shouldn't really be an overlap between the two like zoning board, zoning board, right? But it just clarifies in my opinion, but the board can have different things. Is that what you're talking about? Okay. Yes, that's correct. Anybody else have any thoughts before I move on to that? No thoughts. Okay. Lots of thoughts. Okay. So what I would like to do is if you look at the added to rule 1.0 organization, I give you that. So it's a word document. It's not what A strike through, it's just a new rule. I think Mr. Miner, I think you put that up. So what I did was, so here it is, right? So this would appear in our organization where we talk about who's who, the board of appeals, he even talks about alternate members. It's up on the screen, too, as if you're looking to match it to your hard company. It talks about who's who in this section of the rules of procedure, the cleric, the administrator, all these people. So I took, I didn't really add any language. I took the language from the charter, Section 502, you can see my in-friends in the bottom, and Section 16305, and I incorporated into our rules Not to jump ahead here, but a little bit further down, I'm gonna show you where I believe some confusion comes in because language is repeated in multiple parts of the code and in some cases it conflicts because it was an update and so on and so forth. So future recommendations you're about to see would be that we recommend to the council if they strike certain parts of the code because it's unnecessary and redundant. And this is an example where later on you'll hear that I'm going to request that the board recommend to the council, they recommend that they strike 16.305 because we're now including that language in codified rules and rules procedure which is where when you're looking for guidance on who the hearing examiner is, I would want to go to the Board of Appeals section of the code and not some place else such as my own personal opinion. But anyway, the language reads it right there, I'll just read it. The county council may appoint hearing examers to conduct hearings and make decisions concerning matters within the jurisdiction of the Board of Appeals. Decisions of an examiner may be appealed to the Board of Appeals as provided by law. The examiner should be a member in good standing of the bar of the Maryland Court of Appeals and at the time of appointment shall acknowledge of administrative and zoning practices and procedures. teachers, well in a position of hearing examiner, hearing examiner may not represent any client involving land use in Howard County. And that I include, I just took the relevant language from the other places and put it in one single place. Is there any objection to adding that to our rules of the procedure? No, that looks really good. Should we add language or any other conflicts of interest just as a caveat to not involving land use? Well, so there is another rule that talks about the conflict further down. Okay. I think you may be right. And I'll leave it to the board to decide what I would like to say is that you may be right. I'd like to see like a draft version of the full rules. So instead of like an isolation to see if we do need to add that. But board members, because this is a work session so we don't do a formally motion. So when a recommendation is made by a member, that's considered a motion. So Ms. Harris asked if we should add language. I just said my thoughts on it. So this is the part for debate. Anybody have any different thoughts on what we should do? Well, I think there is a provision, there's one that talks about conflicts of interest. Yeah, but yeah. So I don't think, I mean. Okay, you're good, okay, okay. So we'll go language in. Next is titled Add to Rule of Pooh. Yes, Add to Rule 5.0 meetings and hearings. I'll wait for, let's get pulled up and it starts with a period cases. This is a man to go by point. This is, so it's a word document, no straight through, it's a word, and it's, the title of this is add to 5.0 meetings and hearings. There might be a little bit of a, almost wait for Mr. Rire to pull it up. So essentially, once again, you'll see when it comes up in a second. This line we're just taking from 16302 with the caveat that I am recommending what change, which I'll read to, and it'll be clear when you see it in a second. Okay. So this would be under the Meetings hearing section for Rule 5.0A cases except as provide and subsection 1 and 2, I'm sorry, back it up. This is taken from the code section 16.302. I've only tweaked a little bit of the language when I get to it, I'll tell you what part that is. Accept us providing section 1 and 2. Wherever in this code where the zoning regulations matter is authorized to be heard and decided by the board of appeals, the matter may first be heard and decided by hearing diameter. So right now the language and the code says shall. So I've tweaked that to be may and we have to make changes to the recommend changes to the council in section 16, right? But we're also putting it in this language. So in other words, if they don't strike section 16 and change shall to May, then we have to come back to the rules of procedure and change it because they will be inconsistent. Does that make sense? Yeah, and yeah, question about that. How has that done? Are we keeping a goal record? Yep. That's the next. OK. Got it. So that's, yeah. So that's why it was, as I tried to prepare all this, I'm trying to make sure I have same thing in the right order. So it would make sense. So I think I did that. see. The matter may be heard and decided by hearing examiner. However, in all matters the board shall shall have the discretion to select in here cases to ensure timely and fair case resolution while minimizing delays and unnecessary expenditures. That language is new. So essentially what that language is saying is, actually let me first finish reading and then I'll explain that to you. Part one, whenever in this code or the zoning regulations, the person is authorized to appeal a decision made to an administrative agency, after an opportunity for a contested case hearing, the appeal will be heard and decided by the board. The board will hear and decide a case if the board determines that the hearing examiner is unable to give a case because of a conflict of interest or other disqualification. Okay, is there? So, in a recommendation about to make, I haven't made yet, you'll see there's some simple language I found in the code. It was actually in the zoning regulation. It was in section 101 construction, but it was perfect. It's giving you our roles. And it says when the term, and I'll read it to you later, it says when the term board of appeals is used, that includes the hearing standards. You don't have to specifically say hearing examiner. When you say board appeals, it applies. So that's why in part one of this rule when it says, shall be heard and decided by the board, that means either they board or the hearing examiner, because the term board applies to both. Does that make sense? And in order to know who should hear it, you have to then go to another part of the rules. Our rules, I talk about, is it original jurisdiction, is it on a record, and that tells you who should hear it. But you don't have to say, well, in this case, this is redundant, it's unnecessary. By saying the term board applies to both, it clarifies that it can be heard by either or. It also supports the earlier language in the passage and say may first be heard by the hearing's not and it's not a directive but an option. Part two, the board may here and decide a case of the board term and the hearing's amnors unable to hear the case because of a conflict of interest or other disqualification. So this part was very interesting to me because as we do it now, you know, the applications come in or the petitions come in and they're given to the hearing examiner to hear because the hearing examiner shall hear it. Well I don't know how the board would know if a hearing examiner should have a conflict of interest or other disqualification if we never even know petition exists. That doesn't exist. That doesn't exist. Right, that doesn't exist. That doesn't exist. Right, that doesn't exist. Right, that doesn't exist. Right, that doesn't exist. Right, that doesn't exist. Right, that doesn't exist. Right, that doesn't exist. Right, that doesn't exist. Right, that doesn't exist. Right, that doesn't exist. well, it's on the hearing's ember to disclose it, but then the burden should be on the hearing examiner, not on the board. Anyway, by having the applications come to the board first, and then be delegated down to the hearing examiner, that enables the board to fulfill its responsibilities under the existing section 16-3-2, which says that a hearing examiner, a board- tell your case which the hearing's ever disqualified so on and so forth The cons I'm sorry. I just have a quick question but the The clarification of the board repeals referring to the hearing exam are also does that give you some conflict in the language when you are describing this situation Because you're talking about the board and then you mentioned they hear an examiner Yeah, we just went over that the board. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, good, good. Yeah, yeah. Good, good, good pick up. Right, so we used to... about the board and then you mentioned the hearing examiner. Yeah, we just went over that the board. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, good, good. The same. Good, good, pick up. Right. So what do you suggest? How do we alter our language? Do. Maybe, maybe, um, well, it says the board shall hear and just, well, it says the board will hear and decide a case when the board determines that the hearing examiner is unable to hear a case. So if the term board applies to both the board and the hearing examiner, I don't know. Maybe we just add hearing examiner is unable to hear a case. So if the term board applies to both the board and the hearing examiner, I don't know. Maybe we just add hearing examiner and don't make it sound both, maybe put both when it, we're, when it refers to both, when the board and the hearing examiner are the same, save them both, and when it doesn't, you just have the board. That way it's clear when the board applies. Okay, so that's's recommendation coming in the future of the language. So add that. So the board applies to the hearing examiner and the board unless stated otherwise. So that will be good. So that's a recommendation that I think comes two recommendations from now. So we'll add that to that. Okay, so this will be say this way and changing that. OK, perfect. See, it's all about getting things in the right order. That's why I'm glad we talking through. OK, so I just, for the board's clarification and for everybody that may be following. So this concept of a big board, if you will, and then a smaller board, we'll just say in this analogy,'ll say the board appeals as the big board and the hearing's embers the small board. Versus that. They use what's called delegated practice right. So you delegate the authority to the lower board of this smaller board. This already occurs on multiple boards in the county and the language in the code supports that which is where I got this language from. For example, the zoning board is the council, but they sit as the zoning board. They delegate the responsibility, so they hear cases and then they have some specific language where they can delegate it to the hearing example of the zoning board. The, and I might be confusing these terms, but it's a liquor board, so it's the board of license commissioners, is the council sitting as a board of license commissioner? They delegate it to the alcohol hearing board. The bigger board delegates the lower board, but they can pull a case anytime they want. Just like the zoning board can pull a case anytime they want. It doesn't automatically get hurt by them unless it's delegated. So this, and you'll read, when we go through section 16 in a little bit, that's where this concept and this language come from. This is the practice that currently exists. We, the Board of Appeals and Hearing Examiner, in my opinion, are the outlier. We do things unusual, as opposed to consistent with how the rest of the county operates when they have a delegated practice. Anybody have any thoughts on that? Because that's my own personal interpretation. No, that makes sense to me. I agree and they probably came about because we are unique. And I think you know I can't speak to you about, you absolutely could be right. I think to it, when the hearing's on and it came on, it probably, things weren't fully, you know, thought, okay, how does this impact this? Like, we spent over a year doing cause and effect, right? If we do, we just did it 10 seconds ago with that language. If we do this, how does that impact something else? Yeah. So this rectifies, you know, the rules not being updated in 30 years. I agree. So. Okay. So with that said, is everybody OK with adding rule 5.0 meetings and hearings as proposed in the text? Yes, yes. OK. C, C, E, F. OK. So with those accepted recommendations, I'll enjoy your attention to a men to rule 5.0 meetings in hearings. And in that's paragraph, subsection K, other proposed rules. Give you a second to get that in. So this has just a few tweaks. We want to change the added language. It's on page 24 line four of the proposed rules. So now that we've said the board of appeals, we have to make sure that our rules apply equally hearing examiner and we prescribe some pretty specific procedures in terms of scheduling, like the chairperson schedule, that's an existing rule. That clearly wouldn't apply to the chairperson not going to schedule a hearing for the hearing examiner. So my recommendation is, as you see here in the adjustment, the less sentence, the hearing examiner shall be responsible for scheduling cases that they will hear. So in other words, how we schedule things is not how they schedule things. Like they're responsible for handling that their internal operations. There's parts of the code that says, you know, they're supported by the important administrator and everything, but in terms of how they do it, there are rules in terms of the chairpers and scheduling and so on and forth, it doesn't apply. In terms of postponements and things, those will apply, which is good because that's the standards for postponement. We've adopted that from the circuit court of Howard County because that's a defensible position So now that will also be the same standard that the hearing is embarrassed to use when considering postponements So the only question I have is the placement because this says page 24 line 4 and on my Giraffe copy until on page 25 line 5. Oh, did I? Okay, let me make sure. Is there no copyers in the new company? That's true. What is it? It's been 17th is the same copy. Yes, I have something dated 17th, but it was revised. Is it? Is my, can you tell Mr. Reiner and Mr. Reiner? I'm looking at that. I agree with Ms. Harris. Okay, so my record is wrong. 25. Okay, so you get the right place to put it. Yeah, okay. I'm looking at that I agree with Ms. Harris. Okay, so my route is wrong. 25. So you get the right place to put it. Okay. Oh yes. Okay. So there's two other minor corrections in that same paragraph. So we have to fix the tenses. There was confused present and future tense in that paragraph. In the same thing. We're still on the same thing. So it says the board of appeals hearings and meetings shall be held. So it's future right, that's future tense in the Georgia Tower Building. Second sentence. The current text says the board of appeals meets once a week. So that's current tense. We have to make the t aligned. So I recommend that the change be the board appeals shall meet. So strike the S and turns chow up to once a week. Got it? Okay. Mr. Chair, you mean you're saying the board has to meet? No, no, shout. May. It says may meet up to once a week. So we don't meet more than once a week. We might meet up to once a week. We might not, but no more than once a week. Oh, I see. Yeah, yeah. Because that was to incorporate for work session stuff. But it's to give a, when we had that, it's to do a reasonable expectation as a board member when you sign on if you're giving these rules. Well, how often do we meet? Well, up to once, not more than once a week. But. So the language says, shall does that. It says. Shhh. as a board member when you sign on if you're giving these rules. Well, how often do we meet? Well, up to once, not more than once a week. But. So the language says, shall does that. It says shall meet up to once a week. Up to once a week. OK. Yeah. Now, it does not require me to meet once a week. It does require me to have a maximum. If you say shall meet up to once a week. You should shout me up to me. The word you should shout me, no more than once a week, up to once a week. Yeah, I think it might mean may. and show me up to once a week. Show me up to once a week. The bullet will show me no more than once a week, up to once a week. Yeah, I think it might mean may. Wait a minute. Change it to me. Go back. The board of appeals shall meet up to once a week. That means we do meet once a week. No, up to once a week. Show me its future tense. We shall in the future. we shall meet and to look at the sentence before it read it as a whole. I can be wrong, but that the border appeals shall be held in the George uh... in the future, we shall meet. And to look at the sentence before it, read it as a whole. I can be wrong, but the border appeals shall be held in the George power building. I'm going to disagree with you. Can you say, shall, that's a dictate. You're saying you shall. You're going to meet up to once a week. So that means you're going to meet at least once a week. No, it says up to once a week. I can meet once a month. That would be up to once a week. It means you can't exceed it. You can only meet once a week. Well, sometimes we have met twice a week. Well, these rules aren't in effect yet. How have we met so many? We have. We have. We met on a Tuesday and a Thursday. OK. But we don't do it. We're in the new rules. We're not going to do that anymore. No, we've been doing that for a while. Yes, we have. But when I first came... We have. We have. We have. We have. We have. We have on a Tuesday and a Thursday and a Thursday. Okay. But we don't do that. We're not going to do that anymore. No. We've been doing that for a while. Yes, we have. But when that first came on, well, at least for a while. But we should resolve this. This is just my interpretation. Am I wrong on the grammar? I'm not a Gremarian or whatever you call them, but I believe, I agree with Ms. Fokob that the way I would interpret it is that you're required to meet once a week by this reading. But I'm not sure. It's up to one. Yeah, Ms. Harris. All those in Ms. Harris. And that follows where we've changed shall to May in other areas. Okay. Do you think it should remain the way it is? I think it should be, um, may meet up to months a week or it shall meet no more than once. I don't know. I think shall include, I think shall include, it's a mandate that that's what we need to do. Yes. And the inclusive language meet, but no more than. Well, yeah, I'm not trying to change any of the meaning. I just thought that Tensis were misaligned. No, I understand exactly what you're doing. So I don't want to change the meaning of the sentence. If it changes the meaning, then that's wrong. Because that's not what I want to do. No. I just want to change the sentences. The board of appeals meets up to once a week. That's the origin. That's what it says. He's just putting in shall because in the previous, but I think we're hearing that I'm wrong. And I'm okay with that. Yeah, I when you say shall, shall as a dictate. Okay. So just leave it as. You must do this. So leave it as May? I would change it to May because right now it doesn't have- Well it is May, that's right. Oh, it doesn't say. It just says means right now. Maybe just a little bit. You change the tense, but you just should have put in May instead of shall. How about just the border with whom he'll meet up to once a week? It's just a statement. I think the way it is said currently in the text is correct. Okay, so to resolve this, I will strike my shall and me. So I withdraw that. And so the only amendment that are in that the board seems to agree upon is the hearing exam or shall be responsible for scheduling. Scheduling. And that is a mandate. You're right. Like shall. Not Not may, schedule, a schedule. Yes, sir. Okay. So you're correct. And we don't need to do that. So to be clear, so Mr. Reinhardt is clarity in the record is clear. My recommendation is the hearing examiner, Shelby responsible for scheduling cases that they will hear. Anybody object to that? Change. No. Okay. So we're going with that. That. So we'll go with that. Last one. It's title, Amen to Rule 6.0 cases. Begins with a.benu. So I'd recommend that we change and add language to page 29, line 15, but I'll wait a bit to pull it up. I'm sorry, say that again, please. So this is, at the title, a men to rule 6.0 cases. So I'll just give you a background. So when we discussed this, and we had said that we want to give the appellate or the petitioner, depends on the case, the opportunity to pick their venue. And we had, I think, a pretty good discussion about that. And the rationale made sense at the time. But this process has evolved over time. And based on how the board is found in other areas, it seems like that's no longer the best way to handle this. The board really should be determining how a case is handled. So my recommendation, I'm going to open up for discussion, is that the current text says by submitting a petition to appeal the appellant may have the cases heard by either hearing's emmer or, I'm sorry, may choose to have the cases heard by hearing's eminer or I'm sorry may choose to have the cases heard by hearing examiner or board of appeals unless otherwise prohibited. I recommend that we change it to when submitting a petition for appeal the appellant may have the cases heard by their hearing examiner or board of appeals. So we are striking the language that allows the appellant to choose their venue. So we're removing. Yes, the cross out there. May. May. Must choose to is being, I'm sorry. Yeah, must choose to is being. So you're putting May and inserting May. And for the record, that's on line 18 on page 20. I totally had the wrong version, Thank you. I had so yeah Now so the line numbers actually correct Page 29 line 15. Oh is it? Yeah. So then I have a different version. Yeah. Look at his face. He's like, I can't anymore. I just can't. Just great by your turn. That's a hell of a. Yeah. But that's why I'm glad I did that. I put in the rule, like the title, it's rule 6.0 cases. We'll find the right line. It's otherwise prohibited. OK. Subsection A. So. We'll find the right line. We'll find the right line. We'll find the right line. Okay. Subsection A. So why are we changing it to May instead of must? No, no. So before it gave the appellate the opportunity to pick, hey, when you file a petition, do you want the hearing examiner here or the board appeals? And when you think about it and over the course of the last year discussions, like we're about how confused the public is. Do you think they really know what the pros and cons are? No. appeals. And when you think about it and over the course of the last year discussions, like we're talking about how confused the public is, do you think they really know what the pros and cons are now? And considering we just added language saying the board is delegated practice, right? The board receives all petitions and then delegates it down to the hearing examiner. And just for point of clarification, we backed up. So when would something like that happen? So for example, right now, the border appeals has one case pending, that's it. Hearing examiner has it's booked months and months out right now, because they are backlogged. So the system is kind of flip-flopped from the intended purpose, where the hearing examiner was to take the case load off of the border appeals. Right now the board appeals, if we didn't have these work sessions, we'd be doing nothing. And the hearing examiner, to take the caseload off of the board of appeals. Right now the board of appeals, if we didn't have these work sessions, we'd be doing nothing. And the hearing examiner, so the public cases are getting pushed out because the hearing examiner is understandably backlogged. So that's why when the chairperson goes to schedule a case on the back end of it, they'll have to be consulting with, you know, Ms. Berg and whoever would be like, okay, who's got a availability? Because the idea is to hear this first, right? Unless it's precluded, unless it's like an on the record in which we'll only weaken here. So it's really, that's an example of when this rule will apply. And if the public is picking, oh, I want the hearing examiner to hear or want the border of heels to hear it, they don't know the calendar. They don't know, like, by choosing one they might inadvertently push themselves out a year, you know, that's an exaggeration, but they would push themselves out a while. As well they don't know what on the record means or do no more, so it takes that it's not their job, right? It's not, they shouldn't be responsible for knowing the proper track, if you will. And the other piece to that is we would do the last is we the other piece of that is the budgetary impact. Yeah. Here in exam or first. We're cheaper. Yes. We are. You know what I didn't realize that you were crossing out. Oh the must-do. I thought you'd put in just me. No, no, no. So it's May, the appellant may have. So essentially, it just reiterates language elsewhere, where it says the case may be heard by either or. And that talks about the venue. So it's specifically how your case is heard. So is there any objection to this language for the board? No, that's sad. OK, so everybody's okay with that. Mr. Chair. Yes sir. I think that was also that's also all noted that that conflict I guess was 1632A so you would have to put a note that the code would have to be a note. So and yes so there's actually I've found so thank you Mr. Centers. Just Yeah, they're oh, there's so many so Must so we're not taking out the word must we're taking out the word must choose must choose they take out the whole meeting It says Put me, no, read this sentence as it exists now without the edit. The appellant must choose to have the case heard by either a hearing examiner or board of appeals. So it's making, it's making me a parent. Now we're saying the appellant may have their case heard by either, they don't choose anything. I know, but I'm just saying, the appellant must have the case heard I thought I'd hear an example of the port of appeals. Well, no, where's the talks about venue? No. Of course they're at their call. The petition, of course they've heard. They've talked about how it's going to be heard. Who's going to hear it then? have the case heard by either an exam or the board of appeals? Well no, we're just talking about venue. Of course they're called petition. Of course they've heard. They've talked about how it's going to be heard. Who's going to hear it? The context of, that's why it's good. Okay. Yeah, yeah. The context of this appears under the rule section 6.0 cases. It talks about the venue. Who's hearing it? Hearing examiner. I'm not talking about it if they're going to be heard, I'm talking about who's hearing it. And that's why, in that sentence, you're right. Like, it isn't clear. But when you view it in the context of the full rule, like, oh, that makes sense. OK, it's talking about. OK. Here's it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. OK, so as Mr. Sanders just said, the section 16, we're going to move into. There, when I reviewed this, and I think you may have noticed, I looked for areas of conflict because that's what Mr. Cook had told us, right? Part of the thing is, is it clear to the public and it is there areas of conflict. I found 435 conflicts in the code with our rules of procedure. But I managed to parse those down to but a few. I did. It took me ridiculous amount of time to analyze each one. And I'm not going to get into the process I used. But ultimately, I'm prepared to make suggestions. That said, this is going to take us a little bit. Does anybody need a break before we do that? No. Everybody ready? OK. Mr. Chair. Yes. Wait. A lot of this is legislative stuff, and you want change. So are you doing that? That's going to be separate from the rule. So yes. Yeah. That's what I'm going to read. Yeah. I'm getting a little confused. No, I know, I know. So, well, here with you. No, this is a standalone thing, like, so essentially, and let me read this little spiel that I wrote that hopefully clarified. We can do that after you break. Got to say. No, no, no, no no Remember this is like two paragraphs that clarifies what you're talking about So the rules of procedures codified are found in subchapter sub chapter two of title to the administrator procedures Specifically two point two hundred Additionally, the Board of Appeals regulations are outlined in Title 16, the planning zoning subdivision land development. procedures, specifically 2.200. Additionally, the Board of Appeals regulations are outlined in Title 16, the Planning, Zoning, Subdivisional Land Development. However, there's significant duplication between these areas, and changes made in one section have not historically always been reflected in others, leading to inconsistency and current laws that exist now. The updated rules of procedures we're proposing provides a single resource location in the code for the community to access and understand the board of appeals process. I recommend that alongside amending and adopting our rules of procedure this board also recommend changes to Title 16 to eliminate inconsistencies, incompatibilities, and redundancies. These changes are essential to ensure our rules of procedure are clear, up to date, legally sufficient, and aligned with the broader code. With that, I'd like to present recommendations for the understanding that they are not part of the rules of procedures, but are a standalone code recommendations that will be provided to Council simultaneously as a comparison document. So I think that's clear, but essentially, rules are procedure right, we just wrapped that up. That's it. We gotta go back and do the public comment and we gotta finish off the law. But other than that, we're done. So the thought here is that when you look at the code, as it relates to Board of Appeals, it appears in various parts. There's no single resource. And that's just an evolution of time, right? As time has gone on, the council has said, oh, I want to add this, and we're going to put it over here in section 1,600. But the idea here is to consolidate, create a single place that the council still approves. It's still power of loss of nothing changes. It just makes it much less fragmented. As well when you were about to discuss, when I started going through code, I would find identical language and when I'd look at the council bill history, I would say, okay, so they updated the council bill and your ex and was updated here, but unknowingly it was duplicated in another part of the code and that council bill never updated that part. So now you have two parts that are incompatible. So with this whole thing that I'm about to go over does is it fixes all that. That's what we heard from the public over and over. We even heard the Maryland Supreme Court say that in the Higman case. They said that rule is so right within consistency and combat abilities, it's hard for a citizen to understand how they should follow the rules. So this fixes all of that. And I think your point is well made by the comments that we got from the public. Yeah. Yeah. And that's what prompted all this. Yes. I have the best solutions I think I do, but so we're gonna go through one by one. It's a lot. So let me pull up my form so we can begin in a logical place. Let me give you one second. So to be clear, and I think I was, these are not part of the rules of procedure. But the rules of procedure necessitate the council of a full awareness that if you enact our rules of procedure, you're going to have to make these changes to the code, and this is why. Otherwise, if you keep the code as it is, well, then you can't adopt the rules of procedure as we've presented them, because you have legally insufficient rules. Let me just go back here and slide. Okay. That's all with no parent order. And so bear with me because some of these rule changes depend on other rule changes so I feel like well that doesn't make because once we get through them all they will. Let me just find the first one. So we'll do, it's titled, markup code section 3.101. Mr. Ryder is going to put that up on the board. So, and let me pull up my, because I have my little cheat sheet notes here. Give it a second. Okay, so this is a pretty straightforward change. I just want to make sure I'm looking at the right one on I might have pulled the wrong one. Sorry. Three dot one, one. Yeah. Okay. So all we're doing is because remember we changed the term. Board of Appeals applies to both the Board of Appeals and hearings on there. We're striking a language or recommending striking a language that talks about appeals. It says you can, this is a notice of violation, a person made appeal approval to an alburet vacation suspension or extension of a permit to the hearing examiner of the Howard County Board of Appeals, which is ironic because under the code you came in appeal to us. You have to appeal it only to the hearing examiner, which we want to get into. That's where it it appeals over and over and over. So we're striking the language hearing examiner and just say that it may be billed to the board of appeals. That's the recommendation. Same thing in the paragraph below. The Howard County Board of Appeals shall here and decide appeals in accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 16 and Sub Title 3. So we're just taking out the language here in Examiner and making the all-inclusive term board of appeals. Did everybody okay with that? Any questions, comments? I'll give you a minute. I should have numbered them for something. I would literally have to free them morning trying to make sense of this. So I apologize if they're out of order. I'm just waiting for you guys to rule to see if you agree. Okay, I'm just need to read it. I agree. Okay. Thank you. Miss Harris agrees. So we're just removing the term here examiner and that sounds good. Okay. I see. I see. I see. Are you good, Miss Hurtham? I am. Okay. So I missed a ride hard to board. I'll work to get a document that comprehensively captures all this. I don't want you to worry about all that. So, but I just wanted the board to agree to these changes and then we'll get a summary document after this meeting. There's a bit of their languages. Yeah. Okay. So that is 3-01. 3-01. Okay. Moving on to 3.22 markup code 3.220. Let me just find that in my packet here. Can you repeat the next slide, though? So this is section 3.22O. Same thing. Striking the term hearing examiner where within 30 days an order, a person to grieve may appeal the order to spend revoke or permit, to deny permit, how are kind of board of appeals hearing examiner. This is that they can apply to the Board of Appeals. They can appeal to the board of Appeals. I agree. Yeah, it's pretty straightforward. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Three dot 220. A appeal of decision to revoke tonight or suspend the permit. Got it. Okay. then you know what, Mr. Sanders, I apologize. I should email all these two, so I will email these all to you when I have them in a hard copy. I apologize. I should send two before the meeting. Okay. Next is 3.304. 3.304 and 305. I'm going to pull that over quick. Peels. 30 days. I wonder if people are confused to be decision. So this is the same kind of thing. It's up section three on page two of six. We're striking a term here examiner and making the all-inclusive term power-cannot-footer peels. I think that might be the only change. And it's the other one. It's the same thing back and back. Same thing on the other. OK. Just scroll down to that. So it ends the last paragraph. I'm scrolling down. I'm sorry, I the way back. Sorry, I might be just like, OK, yeah. And same thing on paragraph K, peels. So essentially we're just tweaking the language to reflect the rules of procedure. So the code is unified. And there's no consistency. OK. OK, next is 3.700. Let's clarify. You all agree with this. I'm sorry I called it. Yes. Yes. 3.700 is the same thing. Section 3.700, subsection V, strike 26, strike in the term term Here examiner and just have the 14.904 This is the same thing strike in a term borderfields here example. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, appeal. Yeah, the Columbia case. And as you see by the code, only hearing dampers love to hear that. But we heard it. So, so yeah. I agree with that. OK. Any, does everybody OK with that? Yes. OK. Sorry. So we've OK with that. 14 out of four is OK. 15 out of 15. Moving on to 15.503. Agricultural preservation board. 15.503. We're in the exam for the PILP, so we're going to make recommendations. I agree. You're getting through before me. We have the pattern. They get a little more complicated as we go. Same thing, taking up term hearing example replacing it with the port of heels. Because if you refer to who the port of heels is, and we will procedure the port of appeals including hearing number. Okay. So is there any objection to 15? Yeah, I vote for you. No objection? Okay. No objection. Okay. Moving on. I think it's where it gets fun. I do have a question before we move on. Okay. reading that sentence that you adjusted, does it still make sense starting with for the Board of Appeals, the Board shall? Let me move back. Should I just say the Board of Appeals shall? For the Board of Appeals, the Board shall... Yeah, you're right, straight for the, right? Oh wait, let me just read the whole context. Make sure it's like sense. The board of appeals shall, it probably should just say the board of appeals shall review and make recommendations of commercial sales. That would follow section two above it. Yeah, but I think it's referring to the term board in that section. Which board is it? It's referring to the agriculture board. Yeah agriculture board? Yeah, what is it? It talks about board members. Yeah, so the board, that's just in the way it is. Yeah, so the board talks about two different boards there. So that's clarifying. It's amazing about this. Each one of these sections is under section that nobody would look at for who was looking to make a appeals case. Okay, so we move on to. Can I ask which one was that change again? I'm sorry. 5 agriculture was 15.503. 15.503. of the Koch Preservation Board. And change the board. Just that strike out there in the three or whatever? Just remove hearing examiner. On page three, the bottom. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought there was an additional change. No, no, no, no, no, no. It was just the question. Okay, so now we get onto the fun stuff. 16.301 through 308. Not 16. So I'm going to go by these back piece. OK, hang on, let me see. Miss the rharch going to put up on the board. We'll give it a, and we'll take it one piece at a time. See a lot of strikeouts. This looks like the new testament. So why are we in the book? This is where we found a lot of duplication between the rules of procedure and section 16.3, for example. The first part we're about to read talks about the training for board members, which is already codified in the rules of procedure and we're adding to it, but then it's Separate education for the board of appeals is put elsewhere in the planning code So there should be one place where as a board member, you know where you know where the requirements for training are so that's So we'll start right here with 16301A. So the recommendations that we should, that council strike the entire section. All the requirements are proposed in a single codified section to minimize inconsistencies and incompatibility. The language as it appears here has been incorporated into rule 20.0 of our proposed rules of procedure. Right? So we haven't done anything, we just incorporated it into our rules. So we're limiting the redundancy. And therefore if that regulation ever changes, it will change in one place. We won't have to go looking for it in multiple places the code is that make sense okay is there any objection to that imagination no no move out scroll down so the next is section 16.302 jurisdiction in the hearing examiner. This, oh this is the language we used to write the new rule. However, we tweaked it a little bit. So 16.302 subsection A. This talks about, this is the part where it says the hearing examiner will first hear and decide a case. So I recommend that we, or I'm sorry, I moved out, we recommend accounts that we strike. We're going to strike the whole thing, but that we strike this particular section as redundant. The language there is incorporated into the new 3.0 subsection C of petitioner process and the rules of procedure, and as we discussed earlier in the meeting, we have now tweaked the language to say that may be heard. So, I just want to, in full disclosure, it's not exactly copied over. It's, we've tweaked it. So, that if they accept the rules of procedure, this would be inconsistent. So, everybody understand how that works? Right? Okay. So if the accept our rules proves that we may hear it, then council has to strike this, otherwise there'd be inconsistency in the law. So is the added sentence in all matters? The board shall have the discretion to select and hear cases, but that was that interval too, that comes later on. That's incorporated from another section of 1600, so I've merged. So the fragmentation I talked about is, so for example, it says the hearing examiner in the code here. It says the hearing examiner shall hear cases first. But then later on, it says, for, you know, delegate the practice, I merged those two things in the one rule that makes sense. Like, we may hear it first, and it's a delegatedated practice so it's a more cohesive way to understand the rules and it strikes the redundancy. And it's logical if I'm looking for the board of fields, regulation, the board of fields, I go to the board of field section. Right. Yeah. That makes sense. And since the hearing examiner is part of board of fields, we don't need a separate. I understand why this happened, right? It was written back in 2011. It was written 24 years ago and hasn't been updated since. Right. And I think it's going to be important to include somewhere in our recommendations, mention the budget alleviation by adopting this rule just to help build our case for change. If you recall recall that, we did that actually in our, when we first started, to your point, when we first started this in March of 24, so 14 months ago, we agreed on our like a mission statement and a fiscal impact statement is part of our, yeah. I joined in April. Oh it? We're a forward thinking back then. So, yeah, so to your point. Okay. Subsection B. I'm going to give you the command notes here. So... I'm going to give you the command. Okay, so I'm recommending... Or, I'm just to say, I'm recommend that we recommend that we strike this subsection because it's redundant and it's consistent with the proposed rules 6.0 cases subsection A venue. And that's actually what we just talked about a few minutes ago. So this language is already brought into our rule which this is a redundant language. Any objection to that? No. No. No. No objection. It's paragraph C. Let's see. So, I'm recommending that we strike this redundant language because it's this language, along with the incorporated language about, in all matters, the board's self-prescription of selecting the hearing cases, that language has been merged into a single rule, proposal, 5.0 meetings and hearings. So it's redundant. So I move out, we strike anybody disagree with that. No, no. No, okay. Mr. Chair, what role we are on, I'm sorry. We are on, so 16.3 or two subsections. See. Gotcha. As we go through, like I have comments on mine, so I'm just clicking on it. That's why. Subsection D. We've done this. So this strike is on the side of us. So this was, I have to do a little, allegedly, a history on this, but I'm going to strike as unnecessary. So the rule, let me just read to you, and then we'll talk why. If the board here is a petition for conditional use, non-residential variance, extension, enlargement, or alteration of the non-conforming use of the conditional use, subsection C, and the board will not make a final decision on the case until it's considered a report of the planning board. So I'm recommending that we strike this unnecessary, and let me tell you why. This rule was written and last updated and passed by Council Bill 49, 24 years ago, in 2001. That was at a time when the planning board report was required. That was before DPC issued technical staff reports that we use now. So we don't even use this rule now. This is an outdated rule. We use technical staff reports. The planning board does not provide us with this information. However, the language, despite the change in practice with DPC giving technical staff reports that are planning board not providing those reports to. The language was never updated because the law hasn't been updated in 24 years. And it has not been updated to remove the planning board reference. Since the planning board bill or serves a useful purpose or supports the interest of justice, it should be removed. So this process was totally valid back in the day, but it's been replaced by the technical staff report which we use. So I'm recommending that we bring that to the council's attention and recommended they strike this. Yeah, agree. I think Mr. Chair, I think it was, that was before the hearings and their legislation. I'm sorry. They used to have the reason, I think that was in there was it used to be technical staff support than they would go to planning work for their director. Right, right. But then when the hearing examiner legislation came in that eliminated it going for the planning work. Okay. I think they're worth T.S. Rs. Okay. So I was trying to and you and you can be completely right Mr. Sanders. The way I found that data was by like clicking on the council of the history, then I actually had to go and listen to the meeting to be like, how did this happen? But the evolution of it, I'm just was kind of put together by reviewing the thing. But they don't go before the planning board anymore. Yeah, right. And I think they might neighbor said that. There's going to come a bit later. Yeah. OK. So is there any? No. No. OK. Objection. So we're good with that recommendation. Moving on to 16.303 hearing examiner procedures. So I may read my comments here. So I'm going to, I suggest that we recommend that the council strike this entire section. Orcarments have been located in a single proposed section of the code, demonizing consistent and seeing compatibility. So essentially, this talks about the burden of proof and cases and it's all redundant, right? Like we already have this in the rules of procedure. This is redundant and maybe not the most current version. So by putting it in a single place where it logically appears, we minimize the chance of inconsistency as well. We've already incorporated these into our rules of procedure so they're unnecessary here. Is there any objection to that? No, no objection. No. Okay. Okay. I'm just gonna be sure I got everything ready. Hold on, I'm missing one note a year. One comment I made. Okay. Okay, so there is one change. So section 16 to 303A, this talks about the advertising requirement, which it refers to part of the code. So the hearing examiner was bound by one form of advertising technically and we were born by another, which was kind of crazy. So I recommend that we strike that because this has been relocated to the proposed rule 4.0 public notices and that's been updated to no longer require this paper advertising. Any objection to that? Okay, no. Okay. Moving on to section 16.304. So this is what is this? Let's talk about DNOs. The time for DNO. Let me just make sure I'm right on it. It talks about, no, I'm sorry, it talks about notice of violation. So I move that we strike this. It talks about that procedure's already been cut and pasted pretty much into rule 6.0 cases, you know, rules of procedure. So this is redundant. Yes. Okay. Any objection? Recommendation? No, no objection. Okay. Moving on. So section subsection B of 16.304 says the hearing examiner shall promptly send a certified copy of the record to the Board of Appeals. Not really sure what that means, certified. So I recommend that we strike as unnecessary this procedure for records is more accurately described in the proposed rule 2.0 administrative operations in which the clerk, which is also the council administrator, holds all records. And the way those records are handled while a matter is pending before the Board of Appeals is thoroughly detailed in rule 2.0. And since the hearing is part of the Board of Appeals appeals it's an internal paperwork thing so so that this is unnecessary so recommend striking it any objection to that no objection so subsection c of the 1316.304 talks about the expense for notice for notice favoritizing. I recommend that we strike this as redundant. The language is contained in Rule 3.0 Petitions process of the proposed rules. Great. Good. Yep. I agree. Okay. Objection. Okay. Moving on. 16.305. I see my notes. So, this talks about the terms of service that hearing examiner. I move or I request that we recommend that this section be stricken because redundant the language contained in rule 1.0 organization. You'll see this is where I got the language that we just approved when hearing examiner show. I mean I represent a client,, many other so and so forth. So this is where it came from. We didn't vet any new language we just consolidated into one place where it logically should appear. Yeah. Yeah. Next is section. I'm sorry, no objection, right? No, no. Next is section 16.3O, I don't know. I'm suggesting that it be renumbered, but I don't want to over complicate it. So the next section. So let's see. What am I doing here? I suggest, okay. So I suggest that we recommend to the council to add language. Ad language clarify that the rule applies the board of appeals hearing examiner since the term hearing examiner now applies to multiple positions. So in the title I recommend that we suggest to council that instead of calling hearing examiner termination a service because remember the zoning board has one and we have one which hearing examiner they talk about. So in sense it's in the planning and land use section you don't know who they're with to talk about. So it's just clarifying that it's the board of appeals hearing examiner. And I think the other one is a grammatical correction in subsection A. The board of fields may recommend the removal of an examiner for cause. Right now, the board of examiner may recommend removal. I don't know. Same but eating. That's a grammar. I think it's correct either way. Okay. So is everybody okay with those recommendations? Yes. Are you saying that this would become one because we're striking out a lot of other stuff? So this is the beginning? Well, that would be 16, well that would be for council a number, but yeah, I made the sketch there. Logically it becomes 16.3016, but we'll let them, I don't want to. In my head when I was doing it, I was trying to figure out how many rules there are. That's why I did that. 16.30 enforcement. Don't we have to prove that? There was no objection. I didn't hear it. Okay. Just to clarify, is there any objection to the board of appeals hearing examiner? 16.3016 that I just talked to? No objection. No, none. None. OK. There's no changes to I'm withdrawing my request. You'll see 16.30 enforcement just forgot that. That was a mistake on my part. OK. So we're not doing anything with 30. 302. Now that's the only on that page that's it. OK. OK. Moving on. Holy cow, this is crazy. I can't believe we're almost done. Okay. Chair Ryan, can I ask a question? Would the board want to put in some kind of, since you're, this is the zoning section, correct 1600. So people might go to that section to look for information. Would the board want to put in some kind of paragraph that would say for, you know, information direct them to the- To put it back to the right section. So you can just, could you put something in just saying that for information on appeals? Or me see let me just look at the How it's do you have this how are setting code provisions related how are kind of Yeah, I mean which the section of that whole how's it begin? You know, I mean do you have it begins with training 16301 16 Yeah, how is it like how's it proud doesn't make sense logically to you know I'm saying this Eric does it? Let me pull it maybe go to see what it how's it begin. I mean it's it begins we started this in 16. Because three or one. Subtitle three which is board of appeals. It starts with just right. What notes and editors notes and has compensation and powers and then training. 16, 300. Yeah, so what would you want to, like what would you have a suggestion for? I think Mr. Reinhardt and could work with Mr. Sanders to say I think it's our Kenny code title 16 sub title Okay, wouldn't it be 301 through 306? Well, I think I think they're with if I'm not mistaken. I think where it says board of appeals You want a reference for like some language says for other considerations of the refer back to Whatever the rules are Some general overarching comment as a me for additional. Yeah, yeah So we'll do that It's kind of like how we have in the preference to to our rules of procedure says, for additional guidance can be found in section 501 and section 501. Okay, cool. Okay. 3-1-3138. Moving on to 16606. To clarify you all agreed on what's shown on the screen right now just to re-number. Yeah so but I'm going to strike that you see where I do the crosshounds of where the numbering went I'm'm gonna draw on all that. So, when I give you the final version of this, like I'm not making a recommendation. Council will number how they see fit. You know what I mean? Yeah, it was, I was micromanaging the process there, right? Oh, nice. So let me see, 16, let me see what the changes are here. Okay, 16. So the title is markupcode 16.606. It looks like it's subsection 2, subsection 2i. And what it looks like is a simple language change removing the term. Here, examiner. Here, examiner. And replacing with porta-opials. As we've've done it all the others. Yeah. Okay. Any objection to that? No, I'm not agree. It's like a Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okaysection 7. Oh, yes. So I'm going to say what I was ready to suggest, but then I've had some thoughts about it. I want to hear what the more things. So my suggestion was, and I'll explain why. Strike and replace with the term application. Current use of the term petition creates confusion and compatibility with the code. The term application where accurately defines the document and de-conflicts. The only place the term petition is clearly defined is in section 501 of the charter and the rules of procedure. The word has specific contextual meaning, which conflicts with how DPC uses the term in the Howard County zoning regulations. Okay, so this was also law flag this as a sufficiency issue where we said that the board administrator shall accept all petitions on and so forth, right? And that makes sense, right? Because you shouldn't be applying an DPC for the board of heels. So we changed that pool. But when you now go to the code, it says, DPCs, the Department of Planning and Zoning shall receive all petitions to zoning matters such as conditionally used as variances and non-conforming uses. So this is where it gets interesting, right? Because remember, the word petitions used in a million different contexts in the code, and it's very confusing. but the only place it's defined, that word, petition, and I've searched everywhere, the only place to find is in 501 of the charter, where it's in the board of appeal petitions. Kind of like it's the same issue as we had with hearing examiner, what's hearing examiner you talked about? The board of appeal's hearing examiner. OK. So the office law is correct. We have a conflict now. This is where it gets you more confusing. One of the cases we just received, and Ms. Harris like, you're helping with this revelation, the form that people fill out at DPC is not titled, petition, it's titled application. Application. So it's very confusing. So I recommend that the term application be used for in this context, and we retain the term petition, because a petition refers to an appeal. They're making an application for conditional use. Right. So does that make sense? Makes perfect sense to me. Anybody have any thoughts to everything? Can I say one thing before? So we do see the words application and petition in the next sentence. So we just need to clarify if we're going to remove it there or yeah definitely right so that we would have to strike petition in that sentence. So the department shall accept and review these applications because you only file a petition at right, thank you. That's a very good thing. And then it has to hear an examiner for the board of appeals. Oh my goodness, another pickup. Okay, right. Hold on. Yeah. Okay, so let's, let me, so let's take a line by the board. So let me I just want to get a step because they have a deep burner saying of DPC and to the extent that's possible Does that make sense the application petition argument? Absolutely. Anyway, how many thoughts? Yeah, I'm sorry So so the thought was that the conflict arises because our Language and our proposed rules says that the board administrator shall accept petitions right because we're right? Because we're changing the process. The Office of Law says, listen, that's great, but it conflicts with the code where it says only DPC can accept petitions. Okay? So what we want to do is change the language and the code to say DPC accepts applications. Because remember, the board is the only one that has the authority to determine the content of petitions. So how is DPC creating its own petition? They can't. It's contrary to the law. So they can create their own application. So this resolves and gets this to see across. I know it's a lot. It's funny because when you read this whole thing, because I know it's a lot. So, okay, so maybe I'll show you a part. Yeah, it's because the department shall accept review these. because when you read this whole thing, I know it's a lot, I know. So, okay, so maybe I'll open the two parts. Yeah, it's because the department shall accept and review these application and petitions and shall transmit them to the board of appeals. Yeah, but that's gonna be, they have the application but the petition. No, no, no, that's what, but let's first get the petition application thing resolved because then we take an acceptance. So, everybody in agreement that the DPC, we're going to request that they call that document application, which... get the petition application thing resolved because then we take an next sentence. So everybody in agreement that the DPC we're going to request that they call that document application which is titled. It says on a right now. It's titled application. It says application on a right now. So that de-conflicts part one of our issue which was risen by the Office of Law where they said the codes as they come up. They're the only entity that can accept petitions. Yeah. We're to accept applications. Okay, so now let's move on to the second sentence. The department shall accept and review these applications and petitions. It's a transmit them to the hearing examiner for the board of appeals. Okay, so I I'm gonna recommend. Can I ask a question? That's a whole thing. Yeah. So it only makes sense. A citizen who wants this kind of thing done. Good to see you. They have to apply. Right. So does DPC send the application to the hearing exam or are they sending? So if you look at our case, we're about to hear right now. if you look at the materials, you can go online. Maybe if you want to commit to doing it. Go online. Okay, so there's a case we're about to hear without talking about the Americans. or are they sending? So if you look at our case, we're about to hear right now. If you look at the materials, you can go online. Maybe if you want to commit to doing that. Go online. OK, so there's a case we're about to hear without talking about the merits of a case, just about. Correct. If you look, the file that was just sent to us, it's for a go-kart case. The file that was sent to get permission for it, right? So DPC have to do all these things, they do all the technical part of it, does have adverse impacts, stormwater, all that stuff. They then create a technical staff report that review it, and it can't be submitted, the code says, it can't be submitted to the Board of Appeals until DPCs satisfied. Right, much. They then send it to the Board of Appeals where hearing is held, okay? This gets a little confusing, because you're not actually appealing anything. I know, but we're not going to, I was thinking we're going to try it, we're not even going to go there. It's too much, it's too much, it's just too much to tackle at once. So I just recommend we don't even talk about the conditioning use process just, you know, in terms of should we be hearing these cases, just let it go. But so what they do is they file an appeal, which we're going to talk about that petition down the road. remember we turn the petition, we might want to say it's not really an appeal petition, it's conditional use petition, whatever. So they send the documents to us and which we're going to talk about that petition down the road. Remember, we throw a petition. We might want to say it's not really an appeal petition. It's a conditional use petition. Whatever. So they send the documents to us, and then we hold a quasi-additional hearing, us meeting us in the hearings, then. Can we say yay or nay to the conditioners? Right. And we've done it so many times, right? I think of the 35 cases heard by hearings I'm going to say your 17 work initially uses. It's the vast majority of cases we do. So that's just basically an application process. The DZ where they have to gather all the information to issue a technical staff report and To they don't make I think they don't make a recommendation. Yeah, they don't make Reconciliation. Yes, we do and we we analyze it using the rules of procedure which says here is the standard, the burden of proof, the standard of review, the criteria specific criteria. You've heard this, right? I present fact noise, dust, peels, you know, all that stuff. What I'm looking at is that it's an application process. It's not a petition to do much. That's right, exactly. That's what I'm looking at. They apply the part of the process as it goes through that whole thing. And they're going to be there. And when they're finished, they give us this technical staff report so that we can install things. Yeah. Yeah. So that we can make a decision. This is conditional use plan. This is conditional use. So it's still part of an application. It's not really a petition. So what So what they will do is when it's done, and when it's done at the DPC level, when they have every day a need condition, a news plan, you know, technical staff, or when they have everything technical, when they're ready for a decision to be made, all that data, everything that's in DPC has with all that has to be in the code calls for what that honestly comes to us. plus that would be so based on our new rules of procedure that would be the point at which DPC would give the that has to be the code calls for what that all of us comes to us. That would be, so based on our new rules of procedure, that would be the point at which DPC would give the sign-off. They'd want to walk over to the board office or go online and fill in an application to apply for a condition to use for us. And that should application not a petition. Well, that's not about, we're trying. We're calling it a petition. It's sort of a package. I mean, I call it a package, like an application package. It has the position in there. It has corresponding materials Sometimes there's maps. Yeah, well, yeah Can I just let me get back? So we're gonna we refer to it as petition our rules So this same application that came to the application for DPC. Right. And then it becomes petition for us. Now yes. But the term petition member is confusing. We've called it petition for appeal. Like if you look at our documents or how they're titled now, petition. Oh, it says petition up here in exam. A petition appeal of hearing exam. of one document, petition of appeal of administrative agency, is another that. So when we know that the code says we have the authority to our petitions, we're gonna un-money that after these rules going, because remember we talked about it, it's gonna be the documents we're gonna develop. So by distinguishing the language that board appeals only years petitions. Now what type of petitions is an appeal petition petition for conditional use? What appeal should appeal in there unless you are actually appealing something? But we don't use the word application because then we start to get conflicts in the regulations. Right exactly. So by simply the simplest way to clarify this and to make a legalese sufficient based on the feedback we've got is to change that one word. So DPC receives all applications for these things. All petitions are received by the word guess. And in reality, DPC really doesn't have to change anything because the title of the form says application on it. It's on the same petition. The forum they give us says application, which, yeah. So I'd like to what Ms. Berg recommended because of her experience, what she gets, an application packet might be a good thing to say because the petition is included in that, but that clarifies what they're getting, the application packet, which includes everything that they're getting that comes to us. And we're looking at it as a petition. Okay. Let me just kind of clarify on that. Sure. So, Ms. Burke, when somebody wants to make a conditional, what's a conditional use? Applies for conditional use. They have to come to you first before they go to no. See, that's not- No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, go to no see that's no no no no no no Listen, we're all the hard part of it. We're not talking about how it works now We're talking about what our rules of procedure are saying how it's gonna work remember our works now isn't consistent with the law So that package, yeah, we're not gonna go hash about how you know They had certain staff that did certain things that weren't we're not even gonna go're just going to say moving forward, our proposed rules say X. And so we need the code to align with that. Our proposed rules, we propose that the Board of Appeals is standalone entity, right? We're not part of the executive branch. We're not part DPC. We're at the Board of Appeals. So in the new rules, and you know that I can review, it says, appeals are made to the port appeals. Now, that's a computer. Existing, they go to DPC, which is very confusing. DPC gets them and it's a whole big thing. We've now aligned our new rules in consultation with staff and everybody to actually meet the way it does work. It does work, Yeah, and then we've tweaked a few places that didn't work. So, but the caveat here is, so the first sentence petition application I think we're clear on what happened next. So, moving on to sentence two, the department shall, and I think that's what this Harris told about, the department shall accept and review these applications and petitions and shall transmit them to the hearing examiner for the board of appeals. But it should. So I have a suggestion, but it's something else like to make a suggestion. I think my suggestion. OK. Well, I've already, basically, said it should say the department shall accept and review these applications. And I suggest application packets in scratch and petitions. And then go to, and shall transmit them to the scratch that you're an examiner to the board of appeals. Yep. Yep. For the same thing packets as new, the application is the application. I mean, I think it's, Ms. Burke said the package. Because the application is just a simple form simple form so it's for accurate states package. Because she said the petition is in the packet, the map, everything is in the packet. So the application has multiple. Like look on the file we just got for this case we're out to hear it's multiple different. And the first, the first one is called the application. And then behind that, you'll see multiple other documents, which include, they're included in the packet that she receives. Because you think about the cases we've heard nothing drop, but remember how we've got to open up the big maps? Like that's not the application. That's the condition used to be. So that's the cup, they call it the cup, right? So that's different. think about Glenn L. Country School, remember that big thing with a million markups on it? And then you had to go, so it's more accurate, like call it the cup, right? So that's different. Think about Glenel country school, remember that big thing, what a million markups on it? And then you had to go, so it's more accurate. Like there's nothing to call a package. What DBC defines as in the package? That's under the code. But I think you're right, because if you're saying literally just the application, that's what these mean. So let's be clear, it's the package. OK, yeah, OK. I think it's right. So could you just read that again, Miss Harris, so that I can watch the video later? For real, it's how it's right. So could you just read that again, Miss Harris, so that I can watch the video later. Okay. So that's second sentence. The department shall accept and review these application packets or packages. Package. Okay. Packages. And shall transmit them to scratch the here and examiner for and pick up with the board of appeals period. Okay. Everybody good with that? Yeah. But you need to keep on going on with that. Oh, sorry. You have a first-frange just part. Is it application package or application packet? Which language? Well, and then because I'm just trying to get sent out. Oh, you did. Oh, thank you. to get started. Thank you. Packages is what he's put. There are application packages and children. Miss Berk does that make sense to you? Appeals. That's perfect. Okay. Now the next sentence. I'm just going to read first before I'm sorry. Go ahead. So the first sentence we're going to leave just as applications or change that application packages there as well. Because they receive because it talks about they're receiving for variances, non-conforming uses, so not just getting it out. OK. So they receive it, but then they send the whole package to us. Perfect. Right. The package. So they get an application. They have all these requirements which at the end develops a package which they don't tend to us. And that de-conflicts our rules with them. Okay next for all petitions related to variant to you. I'm sorry for all petitions related to variances and non-residential districts condition uses extension the the department shall prepare findings and analysis at Teckels Airport and Shell submit the petitions. Okay, so maybe we want to crack it. I have some thoughts, but this is a group exercise. I have a. Well, you're not submitting a petition. It says for all applications related to the. I'm not recommending this for your. They're submitting the package. So the application, right? So it's for all. Well, the package, or how's that? Applications related to variances in non-residential district can just use extension and large bin alteration of knock-for-uses. The department shall prepare findings and analysis in the technical staff work and shall submit the package. The package, but you have to change it at the very beginning. Or should submit the finding. Shouldn't it the application, findings and analysis to the board of bills? Yeah. Applications. At the beginning of the sentence however, because you have to take the petitions out of for all petitions at the beginning of the sentence. For all applications. Yeah. For all applications. That's how you read it. Yeah. So strike replaced with applications. And. He's got where we're going to register. And so, I'm sure it's with the application, the findings and analysis. And she'll submit the application. Or submit the applications, right? So the application package or whatever you're going to call it. Well, but see because it talks about the application, then the findings and analysis. That's the TSR. So that's the application and it's talking about what makes up the package. Yeah. So it's just the application findings and analysis. Okay. Okay. The technical staff will show that you made the board of of appeals that's existing and the general public bill is two weeks prior to recorded, which is so funny. That's what happened now. That's good. That's good. So is everybody OK with that? Yes. OK, so now what's this last part of me look at my notes? It's redundant. Let me see what I write. You're right. Yeah. Strike languages found in proposed rule 3.0 petitions. So strike last part, yeah. So is everybody OK with, as you see, on the screen there? Yes. Yes. Yes. That's great. That's great. OK, good. Strong work. Excellent. First job. Is this all we have to do when we're done? Or was there yet that? You know, moving on. Actually, one more section, it's it. So... Or was there yet that? I'm moving on. Actually, one more section. So markup code section 1604 through 1614. I'm sorry. You're just talking with your already. We're already. Okay. I'm ready. So we're all ready. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. titles 16.604. Okay, so 60.604, let me read my notes here. So I recommend, I recommend striking here examiner and just board of appeals because we, for the reasons we've as we, for the reasons we've stayed a million times already. Everybody okay with that? Yes. Okay, changing this title. Okay, a subsection A. Well, okay, yes, okay, go ahead. Let me just look at my notes here. You struck out the hearing examiner, but you didn't put board of appeals right there. Because board of appeals right there? In black. We're in the title. I know, but you struck it out. We're not hearing out, we're up here. Oh, I thought you just said we were going here. Okay, yeah. So now, in the second one, I recommend that we strike the hearing examiner and replace it with the words of Appeals. Because the current language is inconsistent with the Board of Appeals, proposed rule 5.0 meetings of hearings. So essentially same thing, hearings have a Board of Appeals. Are we okay with that? That's good. Okay. Yes. Subsection B of 16.604. I recommend that we strike because it's redundant and consistent. And on that, sorry, the board appeals authority is already codified in the rules procedure. So this language, we already incorporated to our rules. So it's just they're done in the same thing. It's a word for word. It appears over and in there, part of our rules. They're OK. We strike that. Yes. Okay. Yes. Section 16.1605 hearings. I'm going to recommend that we strike as we're done it and consistent and unnecessary. The board of appeals started his codified and ready and the proposed rules procedure. Language is incorporated into the proposed rules 16. Administrative appeals, hearing procedures and throughout the rules of procedure. Everybody okay with that? Yes. Okay. Yes. Moving on. So part two, this is going to be interesting, right? So this is going to be a little bit of a debate here. 16.16.582, strike is irrelevant. This is outdated regulation that has not been used for a considerable time. The board of appeals lacks the means to enforce such orders. So DPC pursues violations to the courts to promote judicial efficiency and justice. So let me remind you, when I read this, I wasn't even clear what was talking about about a fine and we can enforce it in there. So I believe it was Mr. Moore, testified and I believe some others, that so there's an ability for us to assess fines, but we said, well, why aren't you coming to the board of appeals? Why isn't DPC doing that? And what I heard him say, and I'm 100% accurate, is we don't really have a legal mechanism to force that. We can order, but ultimately you have to go to the court to have it enforced. So DPC has short-cutted that and goes straight to the court for these issues, which makes sense, right? Why waste him here? So for that reason, I recommend we strike this because it's not a process that's being used and it makes sense why it's not being used. So it's in a relative rule. We don't have the authority. Well, we can issue the, we can order the fine, right? But we have no enforcement. We have to go to circuit court. So DPC, as I understand it, says, why are we even going to the board of appeals? It's just an extra step. Let's just go to the court and say, hey, listen, we want to find. and because the court, it's a quarter and that can be enforced. Yeah. That was my understanding of the testimony and that's why I was recommending that we strike it or recommend that can be enforced. Yeah. That was my understanding of the testimony and that's why I was recommending that we strike it or recommend that we recommend striking it. Is that actually what does happen? That's what Mr. Moore testified could picture him sitting there, and I didn't know what he was talking about, about penalties and fees, so I had to go back and read what he was talking about. And that's when I think Mr. Sanders might have commented to, he goes, yeah, that was a procedure we used to use that we don't use anymore. Yeah. So my only question is, should there be any language changed anywhere else and the code that for DPC to make sure they're aware that we've changed this and they should go directly to. Well, they already do. So this language technically, I mean, they don't follow it. They don't follow it from like it's, but it's not mandatory. Don't say they must come to the board. It says the board. You know, so. Yeah, really it's kind of as you can see, this was last update in 2008. So it's very old. I agree. So that would be my recommendation that when DPC wants to get a fee, instead of going to the hearing, they're going to the board, go to the court and have them before us to your notice of violation, which is my understanding how it works based on testimony in our public hearing. Okay, so is everybody okay with that? Yes. Okay. Moving on to 16.1607. This talks about a D&O, I believe. Yeah. so I recommend that we strike as we're done it. The language here has been already put and is consistent with propulsive rules, 17 decisions in order process and issuance. So this rule already appears in our rules of procedure. It's fine. Good. Any objections? No, no objections. No objections. OK. No objection. So this talks so you're talks about civil fines so and I don't know Mr. Sanders if you don't feel comfortable We'll talk about this, you know, or you don't have a pin, yeah, that's fine. What rule are we? 16.608. It's kind of, I didn't recommend striking it because it is the argument we just talked about. So I'm like, we really should strike this, but first I want to get your opinion. Well, I mean, to me, your position is, I mean, you should just eliminate the civil citation issue. Yeah, whole 16, I mean, what you're saying. But that was introduced back in a way when they thought it was a more efficient way to go to the hearings hammer instead of going to court. And we used to get those cases and they would come to the court of appeals on the record as appeals from hearings And they would have fines in there, final orders. And then you reviewed the record. That's how it's done. But now they, am I correct that now, it just goes to circuit court? I can't remember. Well, they have the option with zoning enforcement. You go to court. You could do it through a civil enforcement with this rule. But I mean they have the option. So it's sort of where more of a policy issue with DPC. Well now we're tending to go more to court. Yeah it seems I may make good sense when I maybe use this but this is still an option they have. Yeah. It's still the law. But we would like you said said, it's because it's, I mean, I think instead of making an oldie revision, you could say the board thinks you should reconsider the whole civil enforcement by citation. Yeah. We are the hearing examiner. Yeah. Yeah. the count. We asked the council and look at that section. So yeah, and slight to rationale. Well, why? Yeah. That makes good sense. Because there's no enforcement. Yeah, exactly. Why are we coming? It's like coming here to hear, to go there. Yeah. So yeah, that makes good sense. Yeah. In other words, 16.608, we would recommend striking and we'll provide rationales to why, based when we just talked about. Are we okay with that? Yes. Yes. I think the whole no, I'm just saying I'm not I know it's not your opinion. It's what you're talking about is sort of Take out the whole civil citation thing right, okay Or maybe we consider it or But that's I'll stay out No, no, you're what's that? I'm just wondering then how does is there any other civil fines that fall under this section? Because this deals with enforcement of the Howard County subdivision and land development regulations and the zoning regulations. So that's the subtitle for this. So if you strike civil fines, does it impact anything else? Yeah, no, I'm just treating that, you're Maybe if I'm sorry you're right you're right I'm totally wrong I just totally over confused. Yeah, I thought this through and came up and I just doubled back on myself You're right so the civil fine 16.608 has to stay in because that's D.B. Z's mechanism to seek fines subsection B talks about imposed under the sub-tiles within the discretion of the hearing examiner and not be rigorously disproportionate. So am I understanding that DPCs cannot issue a fine only the hearing or only the board of appeals could in this case? Does DPC not have, I thought they do have fines. I defer to office of law beliefs. They can cite one somebody for a fine, but they can't impose the fine. Oh really? The code doesn't have that. It's going to be imposed by a higher authority. Really? The court or the hair examiner of the way it was written here. Because I think about that when, and these cases resolved, so just to the point of discussion with the board, the WIC dog case, if you remember that, we talked about that, you know, he had all these notifications, and that they're like, oh, he's getting a $250 a day fine, and it's gonna be, I remember that was part of the testimony. So I'm like, who is she, that fine? I'm just thinking about that. I'm like, I thought it was DPC that issued it. I guess they did. But I'm like, who is she? That fight. I don't know. I'm just thinking about that. I'm like, I thought it was DPC that issue that I guess. They did. But I'm saying DPC can't, just because I issue it, there's got to be some hearing body to say DPC you're right. Oh, so somebody did say, OK. No, no. I'm saying, in those cases, in that case, DPC was issuing citations. But DPC is a policy of someone says, whoa, I'm going to rectify. I'm operating without a conditional use. We won't enforce as a policy issue if you're going to go ahead and apply for a conditional use. We're going to hold off the citation demands. But those citations would have gone to district court. OK. Oh, so does I understand? So they do it. instead of coming to us for the 250, they go to district court. Okay, okay. Oh, so just I understand. So they do it and instead of coming to us for the 250, they go to district court to be signed off on. Yes. Okay. But they do have the option under this provision that was done in 2008, that they could have gone to the hearing, the board of the hearing examiner for civil citations. And if they go to the hearing examiner and the hearing examiner I can't guarantee that the civil citations that that could be appealed to the board of appeals on the record. Yeah, but they don't do it because it doesn't mean that's because we can't court and enforce it. But we haven't heard one of theirs in quite a few years. Yeah, so we can't. Never said that. I know. That's what happened was the design of the legislation was this is gonna be more efficient Yeah, you know inciting somebody for overgrowing their grass we can handle this fifty dollars say boom boom boom But what happened is in and practice it got more protracted because then people would go to the hearings amnors Or appeals yes, sir, your court. Yeah, it didn't it wasn't faster They say no, then I think dpd's like we're just gonna go to court I remember that I think it was Mr the court. It was in the court. It wasn't faster. I think D.B.D. is like, we're just going to go to court. I think it was Mr. Moore, but that was testimony. It totally made sense. I'm like, yeah, right. As time has evolved, the code is not. So in looking at this portion of the code, I think it makes sense to strike subsection B. subsection B. I'll leave the rest in, which is the DPC's ability to issue a fine. But subsection B talks about a fine imposed on the subtitles within the discretion. So it doesn't say only the hearing examiner can do it. It says also the hearing, like it's within discretion. But we're going to strike that because like we just talked about, it's not a practice that's been used for, it's not currently more or has it been the most efficient way to conduct business. Well, it's still there, so. But that's why I think we would take it out so we just don't get in the business of civil citations. Do you disagree with this? I think we may need to leave it in and just clarify it. Yeah, unless you're getting rid of the whole civil citations. citation. Well, that's from Section. I think that you wouldn't have. The higher its point is that civil citation, this applies, and correct me if I'm wrong, applies to DBZ's ability to get a civil citation. Subsection B specifically applies to the board or the hearings that are there as it's right now. Their ability to issue it. But we don't want to take away their ability to get a fine. We just say, come into the hearings that there's not something you do now, and hasn't been for over a decade. Sounds like? Yeah, but you're still in there to take care of. I know, that's what we're saying. But we're saying to strike that because it's not something we do. It's an outdated provision. the DPC on their own testimony said they go to court now and have for a long time because as you just said why would you come to us it's protracted but they still can right but that's what I'm saying we recommend you don't because it's not a practice used Well, who knows councilmation? It's a longer I mean to go to here and exam board who kills them to court. I guess You know it doesn't make sense. I mean, but this procedure set up for the hearing examiner to it's it I thought was just for not DPC DPCs once seeking the fine puts the hearing examiner is ruling they're they're ruling to either granted or dismiss it And then they can be appealed by the poor appeals and then they can go and then it will go to the court Yeah, I think your original put in the board of appeals So this it under. Okay. Mr. Sanders. Yes. Do you recommend keeping here examiner and adding board of appeals based on your work? Well, I think his comment was replace it and just put if you want to replace the board of appeals. Okay. Yeah. Like you did in the first half of the year. Okay replace your examiner. Make it very simple. Just replace your examiner. And we leave it. And just leave it. Yeah. Okay. And maybe that's why I didn't strike it because I had that conversation. I had already, and I was just too much. Yeah. And you're right. to DPC to do what they want, even though they don't use it, it's a bit of whatever. So then subsection E, same thing replacing here exam or report or appeals, because that's an all-inclusive term. Any objection to that? No. Okay. Moving on to 16.1609. Let me just see subsection A, what are my notes. So I recommend we strike this incompatible with the rules of procedure. It's partially redundant and the appeals process is codified within the proposed rules of procedure. So anybody disagree with that? Anybody agree with that, I should say. Any problem? Yeah, that's good. So will that mean this section title will stay? Appeals to the Board of Seed or penalty state. Yeah, because the subject should be remains. Does that make it clear to someone that's reading this? If we take it out? If a violator appeals to final order of the hearing, well, we got to change the hearing examiner by the way in Subsection B. If a lead violator appeals the final order of the hearing examiner, the alleged violator will request to stay of any civil fine imposed by order. Yeah. So essentially that's what Mr. Sanders saying. Like, well, they're going, they're appealing it. So they have the right to stay the penalty. No, I understand that. What happened was the hearing examiner made a ruling. And they said, OK, your inviolation is some zoning. And we're finding you $50. They appeal that to the board of appeals. They ask when they appeal to the board of appeals, they say, can you just stay the fine, pending the appeal to the board of appeals? That's what that is. So the reason we have to leave both in is in the context of a rules Remember a case may be heard by a hearing examiner or maybe heard by the board of appeals So it's heard by a hearing examiner. Yes, the party Preserves the writer has the right to request this day But if the hearing if the board appeals here is it on the first I didn't you know, I don't know where is it? a red-slowed jurisdiction, and the hearings ever never hears it, well then this is a move point. But if the hearings I've heard at first then it appeals to us. Does that make sense? Yeah. Yeah. But I think what I'm trying to understand is the layman's terms reading this, when you go to the section that says appeal to the board of appeals and you start not with penalty stayed. Maybe it should say appeal, appealing penalty stayed. Board of Appeals, something to address the appeal in B if we're going to leave B in. I'm sorry, what do you mean something to do? Like this whole section is about the penalty. Oh, so you're talking about getting rid of B as well? No, no, no, no. I'm saying this whole 16 or 9, 16, 10, 16 or 7 all about penalties, simple penalties. So this talks about the title may be inaccurate, but this is what the whole section is about, that they can request a stay of the fine. Does that make sense? Sort of kind of. Well, no. I'm trying to understand by reading this, when I read appeal to the Board of Appeals, and we're not going to have section A. So any longer? Right. If an alleged file of appeal is the final order of the hearing examiner, actually, that's why we're not changing it. Now that I hear it again, wait, that's why I didn't recommend changing it. if an alleged violator appeals the final order of a hearing exam or the alleged violator may request a state. Okay. So maybe this rule applies if a hearing examiner, the alleged violator may request the state. OK. So this rule applies if a hearing examiner hears the case in the first instance. Right. So what if we remove the whole B-pilted state and just start with if an alleged violator appeals the fine to make this section? But you're appealing it to the board. So your case has been heard by the hearing examiner. I know you're appealing to the board of appeals. I understand that. So where would? I'm just getting confused by reading it with the title with the subtitle penalty stayed without hearing anything about the appeal process. So if it's coming out. Appeals the final order of the hearing So it's gone to the hearings Amateur they rule this is your guilty here's the fine the alleged violator that may request the stay of that fine right well I understand why he feels being heard at the board of bills right so no tell me so what so my my question is starting this section with let's say A, if A is going to be gone, penalty stayed. Right. Is that I just think it would be clearer if it just started with if an alleged violator appeals, because of the title, maybe we need to change the title then. What would be more accurate title? Board of Appeals penalties. I don't know. But it's not a penalty by the board of appeals. It's the appeal to the board. Can I interject? Sure, yeah. I'll go out here. So you know, it's OK. So because it took me a bit to find out where this was. Because I didn't look it up the same way I'm looking here. So this section is under subtitle 16, enforcement of the Havocani's of Division and land development regulations and zoning regulations. So it's under there. So what they're doing is, they're putting it a little blurb here to say, well, if you are deemed to, if you get a fine, or you don't agree, you can appeal that to the board of appeals. So they're just putting in a blurb about how your appeal works under that particular. Yes, I get that part. It's just the language that makes it confusing to, for me, for the layman reader. Add a little bit more confusion. Now, you're saying the hearing exam, that's going to be just the board of appeals. We're going to show you that. No, no. What? Oh, in our proposed language, for the rule. Yeah, yeah. Now, the hearing, the term board of appeals is inclusive of the hearing center unless and less stated otherwise which is what we okay so okay so no, no, I just want to make sure that was okay And I guess the other point that I'm trying to understand is if there's only going to be one reference in this section, what's the second one? We'll talk about 16.609. Yes. Right. Yes, so we're taking out A and there's only going to be B. Oh, well no, we'll be retell that. Right, understand that. Yeah. But then we go to 16, 611. 16, 16.1611. Oh, sorry, let me go back to the first one. Which is going to come out. So then your, so what would follow after the original B penalty state is going to be B County to complete work court order. Everything else? No, it's not your comply with the final order order and then part B is the county shall complete. So if you don't comply with the final order, the county can go in and do it for you and they're going to charge you. Okay. Okay. So, but so before I, because I don't want to skip too far, I want to make sure she dissolves 16.1609. Yeah. 1609. Yeah, so my only question is do we need a letter or a numbering? After you want to get that's what I did before remember I took it back I'm like I'm not going to have a number in there. Okay, because remember this isn't the rules of procedure this is our recommendation to. So if they accept it, they're going to have to reformat it. Right. And that's why I didn't want to micromanage it. Because maybe they're like, well, we want to add something. Or we don't. Not necessarily reason why you start. You were correct, absolutely. But that was the rationale for why I didn't recommend that. We're just going to go out. I'm good with what you're doing. Numbers. OK, so we're good with that. So moving on to 16.160. So I'll talk about that for a second. So we heard, if you recall, let me first make the right date. So you're good. Okay, so we're good with that. So moving on to 16.160. So I'll talk about that for a second. So we heard if you recall, let me first make the registration. 16.160. Right under 16.1609. Okay, you have that 10. Point 1610. Yeah. 1610. So what you said? Too many gummies. Okay. I believe it's a pleasure. So let me first tell the recommendation. I'll tell you why. So I recommend that we, or I propose that we recommend to the council that we strike and it's irrelevant. We heard testimony directly from the deputy director of DPC and from I believe Mr. Moore the officer law relayed that this now did a regulation which has not been used for considerable amount of time. I forget the deputy director's name but in review my note she says we don't do security anymore. So this would be and Mr. Sanders could correct me if I'm wrong but so essentially there's a fine issue and you're like, I want to stay it. Well now you have to essentially post a bond in the amount of that fine. And then ultimately when the case resolves you get the bond back. It's like, what? Just either stay or don't stay like, and they're like, we don't even do this thing anymore. So which makes it sense why it's like so complicated. So I recommend to the council for those reasons obviously articulating more clearly and concisely when it goes to them but for those reasons that we strike any reference to security because not really irrelevant. Yeah. Okay. Any, everybody okay with that? Great. Good with that. Um, section 16.1611. Um, let me show you my notes. Um, I suggest that we recommend striking as irrelevant. Um, once again, um, this is a mystery. What is it? Yeah, this talks about like a lien on the property, certified by the director of fire. Like, if this isn't done, none of this is done. So it's an outdated thing. So is, but do you want to take away that option? Because other counties in cities in Maryland will put leans on property for not satisfying your fine. No the court doesn't do it and I think Baltimore City it's going to be the the city officials. But no the city people can't like like so with civil fine like the D. B. C. can't issue a court as the issue or what the add the request of D. B. C. so here we heard we heard from DPC in Opsilon, the Opsilon just said was that this is something they don't do anymore. So the lien might be put but not by us. Right, but who, but if we are we taking away. We're no we're not we're taking let me just make sure we're not taking away. Yeah, they're taking away I don't mean say. Yeah, I know. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth either. Yeah, they could, right? But the fact that they could. make sure we're not taking away the option. I don't mean say. Yeah, no, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. Yeah, yeah, they could, you right? But the fact that they could and haven't 15 years and decided to go with the courts, like that would make me think that as they testified, we don't do this and haven't died. Sure, if you want to leave it in there, but once again, it's the money. to collect money. It's just to see what laws because where does it say we can go to court then? Where does it say we can go to court? No, where does it say we can go to court? No, where does it say we can go to court? No, where does it say we can go to court? No, where does it say we can go to court? No, where does it say we can go to court? No, where does it say it can go to the court then? Where does it say we can go to court? No, where does it go? Right. I don't know if it will change to the code or the charter to do it, but my point is that it is done without a court order. You can put a lien on properties and other areas without the court. You actually can. But like Mr.C. and the Elf Salas that it's an outdated process that we don't use. And it only elongates it. Like I'm going to you, you can't enforce it. We still wouldn't have to do that. We still wouldn't have to do that. We still wouldn't have to do that. We still wouldn't have to do that. We still wouldn't have to do that. somebody from DPC and the ELFSA Law says that it's an outdated process that we don't use and it only elongates it. Like I'm going to you, you can't enforce it. We still would have to go to court anyway to go get enforceable. So let's just go to court from the beginning so that way they can issue the penalty and make it enforceable because they need to be kept in court. So like to your point though, does it take away their ability to file a lien? That's what I just want to make sure is there any language in here? No, it says if the final order issued by the hearings, have an assesses a civil fine. So if it's issued by court, this rule doesn't apply. Yeah. So I just want to make sure we don't have that option taken away especially in the future. No, no, if it's impumulatio. Maybe taxes or a budget that they can collect money and help their budget by doing some extra options. Well, no, this for no reason. I hope they're not making their budget because I'm not saying that. No, no, I'm not saying that. I know you're not. I'm being so casted. But that's what happens in other areas. So that's what, you know, that's what. No, no. So they can still do it. This just is speaking specifically about the poor appeals or the hearing time specifically. Okay. As long as it's still an option for the county. Can you take it to court? What would they have the option to do? So the court options. All we're doing is trying to say that this is irrelevant based on the fact that it's not a current or hasn't been. to do the core options. All's we're doing is trying to say that this is irrelevant based on the fact that it's not a current or hasn't been a current practice of DPC for a while. Could they? Sure. But why would they when they explain that they don't do it? Because all of the does is protract everything. It doesn't make any sense to go to you guys. If this was written at a time when it did make sense, but now it doesn't. because like they said like in practice, you go to the hearing examiner, that you feel to the board of fields Then you feel it to the circuit court. Well, let's just go right to the court anyway Which makes I agree like it saves cat time imagine how much money the taxpayers spend and they're having mr Sanders out of hearing then they have mr. Mority hearing then they got like it's so it's in the efficiency of justice that it goes directly to court. So all this does is take away and this is only recommendation council could say no we disagree. We want the have this in which case. Okay. Yeah. So this is taking away that option for the hearing examiner to certify to the director of finance that the amount owed shall be a lien on the property and the group penalties and be collectible. So if we're taking that out and everyone else is okay with it I'll move with it. I'm okay with it. Yeah. So we're okay with the The recommendation or no? Yes. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. It's like, OK. I'll go with it. OK. Six. I'll go in there. Section 16.161-1 subsection B. So I recommend that we strike the reference to specific code to ensure compatibility with rules of procedure and other code fire requirements. So for example, this refers back to 2.211 which is the rules of procedure. We're changing all that. So in order to not change the intent of the regulation, but to make sure it survives over time, it says the language would be changed to failure to comply with the final order under the board of appeals issued under this code. So it doesn't specifically stay where under the code. Just an order issued under this code. That way when the code changes you don't have to worry. This is where we start to run into the problem in consistency. Make sense. Under under under under under this code under this code. Yes. Yes. Yes. So strike section No. 2.211. So strike the word section 2.211 and of Good. Everybody. Yes. Okay. Moving on 16.1612 County of secure compliance So let me see I have Subsection three I recommend changing to the term to board of appeals where it says just hearing them or final order issued by And so we just that and then four is we strike that because we're redundant from subsection 16.612 subsection three. That sounds good. That's fine. Yeah. Okay. I agree. It's great. Okay. Moving on. 16.1613. This has do with the rules signs and posters So we're just taking out the word here in the Part of a I agree everybody agree Three. Yeah. That's good. Alright, then. Go ahead, go ahead. You're a 20% of this board, well, to make your board back. You're a 20% of this board, well, to make your board back. You're a 20% of this board, well, to make your board back. You're a 20% of this board, well, to make your board back. You're a 20% of this board, well, to make your board back. Well, to long as I'm understanding this correctly, when we take out hearing examiner, the board of appeals covers hearing examiner. Is this one of those times we need to make sure it is clear because remember we changed that sometimes we are Referring to board of appeals and hearing Xamarin sometimes we're just referring to the border of appeals so it says no It says the border appeals applies to both unless stated otherwise. Okay. Yeah, so border appeals applies to both Okay, yeah You're good with that Yes as long as I know how we're stating it otherwise in those other areas to make sure it makes sense to me Yeah, as long as well, she says she's good with that? Yes, as long as I know how we're stating it otherwise and those other areas to make sure it makes sense to me. Yeah, as long as we're up, she says she's good with that. I'm gonna be quiet. No, don't be quiet. No, we are. Miss Phillips is, no, because as you know, we go out, things occur in me and I think, really, so that's very helpful. I just to make sure that how, I want to make sure I know how we are distinguishing the two. So the term board appeals applies to both unless it has to be explicitly stated otherwise. So in parts of the code where it did have to be where it like this just applied to the hearing examiner, then it says hearing examiner. Otherwise when it says board appeals, it'd be either or. Okay, so but okay, I got it. Yeah, and that was in one of the rules Yes, okay, I'm like I said I found a construction code of all places. Yes, I'm goodness Phillips And then Hold on a second what section was that that we just did? Okay, before. Okay, so we have to do this spreadsheet, but we'll take a break for recess. Miss Berg, what do you think about lunch for the time? I'm going to be to deliver between 12 and 12. Okay, cool. So we'll take a 10-minute break. It's 10, 35. We'll be at 10, 45. Okay cool. Thank you everybody. And we're recessed. I'm sorry, 11, 11, 11. Sorry. I said go did my car, my car. We're back. Oh, I'm sorry. We're recessed. Oh, I'm sorry. We're recessed. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you We are now recording. And we're back in session. Miss Phillips, do you have a question? Where are we starting? Are we going to start here for next work session? Sure. So we are double with the rule recommendations for now. We're going to the Excel spreadsheet. So today is pre-file for the council. So the Office of Law, normally the contingency they have here is available to us. So Mr. Sanders here. So the thought is if they're based on everything we just said earlier in the meeting, there may be a few things on the Office of Law lists that we could check off now. For those that we need more clarity on, we'll carry over to next Thursday. That would be the plan. And then of course we have the remaining public comment from the three tabs on the bottom. But if the board's okay with that, we'll pick up on the Office of Law tabs and we'll see if there's anything that we can knock off our list here based on the agreements we just set made. So, I'm sorry, miss, here come on. No, go ahead. You're finding a piece of paper. So we are, let me just see are Okay, so one is resolved Line I'm one correct and mr. Right-Hard's tell me if I'm I think I'm right. Yeah, one is resolved. Okay Fine Where we start are we starting at the beginning of the stop? Oh, yeah, we're starting to talk I think we already I know I'm just. I know, we have many also law. So there's a note online. Line 5. Start here for next work session. On which tab? Second page. On two colors. Yeah, but I'm saying there's also law. Okay, yes. That's the one I'm on. It's the second page. Chair, I'm your correct. There's some that are yellow highlighted. That we skipped over. that we skipped over. So number five is where we're starting. It would be the first open one. OK, thank you. Yes. OK, so I have a suggestion there. Let me find it. So where are we Okay. So, Excel spreadsheet. Do you have any of that? Tab one is the officer law. Tab page one. Okay. Is this the current spreadsheet? Yes. Okay. So page one of those law. We're on line item five. Okay. Okay. Okay. Page four line 17 Mr. Reiner, would you be able to pull that up? So I have a suggestion Because the yellow is online for are we skipping that or are we waiting no line is in yellow five? We resound that. Are you using the most currents for cheating? The one that was just given yeah that's same they were taking the same Okay, so let me just so what's that yeah, so line four if when we went through after mr. Ryan Hart right everything we checked Remember we made a green. Gotcha. Okay, so line. Page four, line four. Line 17. Let me just look at. Uh, it feels legal advisor. Yeah. So I'm not clear on what the issue is there. So I unless somebody else is familiar, I think I think we're up to hold that one. That's not the one I have on. Yeah, right? Okay, so everybody okay with that? We're gonna continue to hold that because I'm not really clear with the issues with that. Yes. I agree. I agree. Miss, close. Okay, so we're continuing to hold old. So we're moving on to 11 correct. Yes. Okay. Can we pull a page 13, line 14 please?. Okay so we've already fixed this. This is where we're changing the language petitions and applications. There's a conflict in the code because here this is the responsibilities of the board administrator. It says shall accept petitions and motions and correspondence to the board. And it was flagged because as we discussed earlier,PCs and so this is resolved so we leave this and we suggest to the council the changes that we just made for Section 16 of the code. This stands now. This stays with the language that we are proposing. So we can mark that as a resolved issue. If we could see page 15 please. So we're on line item 12. We could see page 15 lines 4 through 22. I believe this deals with the legal advisor again. So I'm going to make a recommendation at board. So what I'd like to recommend, and I don't know if this is the exact issue, but I would like to online for beginning with the word the, if any with me, and strike that per sentence. So strike the through appeals. So it would read e, legal advisor. The board's legal advisor shall report to the board of appeals and shall. So it strikes the per sentence. So essentially the legal advisor describes a position and not a particular person because in different instances it might be a different type of legal advisor. It might be the officer law in one case might, you know, it might be private account, it might be there could be any number of lawyers. So it speaks to the overarching function and not the position, right? And are we changing the board to the board of appeals in the beginning of the sentence? Well, this is, no, this is the board of appeals rules procedure. So it's the board. OK, I'm sorry. What's being changed for sure? So the first sentence, the county solicitor shall be the legal advisor and dress person for the board of fields. I believe I'm not sure, but I thought that was the issue. Well, you're going to want to keep hold that. You want to hold that? You don't think that's it? We'll tie it in with five. Your item five is assimilated. Let me see. Is that what you want? Is that what you recommend you recommend we don't make that change and hold it? That's fine. That's what you want. Yeah, I think probably bring it up. Okay, so we'll strike that then. I think Mr. Cook talked briefly about the charter and what it says the Yeah, law to all boards and commissioners. I don't know if, I can't speak for him. I don't know if he's thinking the board is going to have their own legal advisor. Yeah, and that's why I was taking. Separate from the office. Right. So that's what I think is his discussion. Yeah, and that's what I thought too. That's why I was taking out the county solicitor language to say that we don't say who the board's legal advisor is. We just say what they do. But that's fine. We can hold it. I don't have a problem doing that. OK, so yeah, so then OK, so then that's the. We're just taking out who it is, not what they do. And it's just, so it's going to say the legal buy. The legal riser shall report the board appeals and shallable a lot. Yeah. OK. Just take out county solicitor. Yeah. So more talk shall the law. Yeah, okay Just to get out county. Yeah, so more talk about the functions that have who I got you no matter who is it is Yeah, which in essence is the definition is a definition. Yeah, okay. No problem. Okay. Okay. Just okay, just five left So put that one Let's see Okay, so that moves us on to I'm sorry, where were we? Thank you. Do you know how it includes the draw? Can we pull up page 17? So it's page 17, line 15 and 16. So that, yeah, I guess we're off talking Mr. Cook about that because that was taken from the code. There is a requirement. It says they shall not give an opinion. So it talks about the TSRs and it says the department shall not actually, but you know what it might, I apologize. So we put a rule in there that says that when they do a technical staff report, they simply say if a complies or doesn't have cloud standards, they don't recommend approval denial and that was actually taken from the zoning regulation. That's where I got that language from. So that's why Mr. Cook is saying lots of that exist in Title 16. So we just need to talk that through with him. I believe that what we're saying is correct. A DPC doesn't take a position whether it should be approved or disapproved. It just say whether it complies or doesn't comply. But so we'll continue to hold that as a board, okay? Until, okay. Yeah. Just, are we gonna go through the, the, the, the people, those still and. Yeah. Cause can we just start that rather than go through? Cause a lot of the, oh we're gonna have to ask him. Well we're almost done. We have like three more left. Okay. Because we're ready to count one. Thank you. All right. Um, uh, the, uh, let's see. Uh, except yeah, uh, line 16, line 17, line 17 is done, right? Line 17, 18 are resolved. Those were what we've discussed all the remaining items that we've previously discussed with Office of Law. The rest are still needed. So 19 through 33 are what's right? Is what you're saying? Correct. Yeah. Okay. So just quickly look and see if there's anything that any of our new rules have passed addressing this. And share Ryan lunches arrived. Okay so shall we take a lunch break? Yeah let's take a look. That we board members can individually review this on lunch break and see if there's anything in the office law that we can address now and if not then we'll move to public common act of lunch. Is that work? That works. That's fine. That's fine. Okay, so we have consensus for that. us now and if not then we'll move to public common act or lunches at work that works. That's fine. That's fine. Okay so we have consensus for that. It is 12.1230 work. Yeah. So 1230 we go to the next room. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you We are now recording. and we're back from recess and we're going to pick up now. So we are going to, uh, board members are going to pick up on the, on the Excel spreadsheet. We're going to go to the tab labeled, uh, Cohen and, um, where we left off, let me just make sure we're right here. Okay so overarching for members I give I had asked Mr. Wright Hart if he could make some adjustments to our spreadsheet so you see underwear I just want to make sure we have a consensus from the board where you you see where it says status, right, it was rejected or accepted. And that was assuming that there was a point to be made. But in some cases, the public simply asked questions. So I asked Mr. Reinhart if he could please change his status to answered as opposed to accept or rejected. And then we put the answer in the rationale blocks on the side. So is everybody okay with that? Yeah. Okay. That makes sense. Okay. So moving where we left off, we were mishrolled out. Anybody know where we left off? 26. start at the office. 26, thank you. Okay, line 26. Mr. White, how did you feel? Look at your writing on it. 261 and 284. Any person opposing position, which is testifying a doctor, a matter of message here, the rules before being called to testify during hearing? Yeah, so that talks about the sign-up at a hearing before, so you have to follow the rules. So, hey. This was also, you know, and this is also. Oh, so he brings up a good point. I think the officer law brought that up too. They did, just saying. So, I would... Do you want to give a suggestion? No, I won't. Okay, so I would suggest that we change the language to any person wishing to testify. So take out opposing a petition. Who? Everybody okay with that? I'll go with that. So up on the board there, so it would read any person who wishes to testify. So take out opposing a petition. So that way, that rule applies to all witnesses. Thank you. Yeah. Everybody OK with that? Ms. Phillips? Yes. Mr. Fierce, are you OK with that? OK, good. So I just resolved moving on to 26-7, 26-7. So this is my response. He wants us to take about announcing the hearing. So now because the proposal from- Can I just say one thing in regards- Because- You're in my phone below it. Below it you have any person wishing to testify in opposition to a doctor position must do so it should be any person wishing to testify we should take it out there as well. Okay I'm sorry so let's go back then. So what was that page in line 26 line three 26 line three right there, just right there okay 26 line three. 26 line three. One second. Right there. Yeah, right there. Okay. Because they might not be in their opposition. A person wishing to have spied up. I think he needs to stay with the rest of the length. Let me just say that. Any person? We just took it out in the first set. I just want to read just a minute, once I get to read. The first set. The first set. The first set. The first set. The first set. No, that's the correct rule. So if you want to become a party to a case, you have to testify before they rest their case. Yeah, but it might be someone who wants to... They wouldn't be opposing it. It's only for a penalty. in order to be a party to a case, you have to... Does it be a party to the case? Any person wishing, though, that's the purpose of the rule. Any person who is testified opposition to a docketed petition must do so before the end of the penalty case, after which... Yeah. So, Mr. Senator, is that correct? Am am I saying do you understand the point? Yeah the current rules says signing up to testify all individuals who are called to testify or desire to testify at a hearing shall sign their own name to the roster in favor of or opposed to the petition before the board as the case may be. If the hearing is continued only individuals who have signed up, signed a roster prior to the end of the petitioner's case, or are called by the petitioner in the bottle, shall be permitted to testify. So do you follow that? And can you explain that just what's the purpose that rule generally? Well, I think the real purpose is, so hearing is on draw and out. I mean, you could have a multiple hearing night, a person show up each week. Well, I haven't testified. And you could have a hearing go on for a year or something. Okay. That's sort of a control, okay, if you want to testify, you got to sign up, you know, so forwarding into the petitioner's case in chief. So essentially the petitioner puts on their case. If you disagree with their case or want to oppose it, you have to register with their case. Well, then they're going to call you on the witness. Not necessarily. What? So let's just play it after a second. So the petitioner, let me just finish my thought. So the petitioner puts on his case, right? And you have to sign up if you object to before that ends. Otherwise, as Mr. Sanders says, they will keep on giving opposition witnesses for years. When would it end? you have to to make yourself on the record out by at the time the case concludes. By the way, the rest of the case and chief are our way out of order. So as Milton Phillips, it's just before they rest their case, they have to hear everyone, is basically what it's saying. Because if you're testifying in favor of it, you're in the petitioner's case. because the position goes first and the opposition. Okay. Does that make sense? That makes sense. Okay, so we're good. Okay. Yes? Yes. Okay. Okay, so moving on to, sorry, no worries. Item 27, right? Is that wrong? Okay. Line 20, I'm sorry, page 26, line 7. So, he's going to pull up, but essentially this was my response program to the board. I say we should reject it. The proposal would change the intent of the rule and create conflict and inconsistency with the rule text elsewhere, including the issuance of scheduling orders. So, we've already said, right, the notice. We've already talked about the rule, how we give notice. The scheduling order, which is given 37 days at least before hearing, tells you when the hearing dates are. We don't need to re-enounce that to hearing. So that's why the rules went that way. We don't need to be redundant. Everybody okay, leave it as is. That was my comment as well. I have a question in this paragraph however. So this business with presiding officials should the presiding, the P and presiding be capitalized but not the O and official or should it be all lowercase? Yeah, that's the proper noun and I definitely don't. I always get that wrong so that that's why I don't know. Does anybody have any comment on that? Signing officials should probably, the O should probably be capitalized because you're talking about a specific person. But it's a proper noun. Is it a specific, I don't know? Yeah, the person. I would think that you would not have to capitalize the P. in my, that's just me. Presiding official is a person who's in charge of that meeting that particular day. It could be the chair, if he's not there, it could be the vice chair. Is that the exact same? Yeah, presenting official is whoever it is that, yeah, whatever it is. That's what I'm wondering. I'm sure, right? And then you have to put that throughout the document because it's up and down all over the place. I thought it because presiding official is like a specific person that would be capitalized. It's not like an official. No, it's not an official. It's the presiding official. So he's named it. I don't know. I don't think it should be capitalized in my opinion, but I don't. I think the capitalization works to. Chatchee, Ptoe is always your friend. So the term presiding official does not need to be capitalized. The list is being used as part of a formal title where the beginning of a sentence. For example, the presiding official will announce the results, no capitalization. The providing the presiding official will announce the results, capitalize if providing official is the formal title or role. So yes, it would be capitalized. Because it's a formal title or role. Presiding official is the formal role, right? No, I think the formal role would be the chair or the vice chair. No, it's a specific person, the presiding official. That's why that's why it's not a general is it your formal title? No, it's only your formal title that day. Yeah, that's why it would be a capital. But But here's the thing. Women, women. It's not the chair. And don't capitalize either capitalize PNO or take the P down to. Well, yeah, they either both have to be or not. That's my point. What are you? So that was my hard to give a thought. It looks like you want to say something. I have no opinion. Whatever the point size to do. So what do you want to do for it? Just call it. It doesn't matter, but I think it's supposed to be both capitalized, but I go with whatever the board. I think we should capitalize it because they probably capitalize presiding just to highlight it, you know? Not thinking of the grammar rules. Okay, so we will capitalize, capital P, capital L. Right? Is that what the board is? That's perfect. I just want to see make sure it's done throughout the document too. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, that answers that. Moving on to line 28. Okay. So, page 26, line 78. This talks about repulsing property. So physical signage is required to notify the public of an initial hearing date for a docketed matter involving a specific property. Continuation or subject hearing dates do not need to be reposted using additional signage on the site for the code. The original signage includes information on how members of the public can access case details online, including future hearing dates. So in other words, I think the question was, it makes it clear that if you post the property and it has everything about the hearing, you don't have to put a different sign up every time there's a new hearing date. Because it points you. Because then you'd have to have 30 days. Right. And it could be like, so we reject that. Or well, it's a question. We answered it. 29. Page 28 line 20. The two main categories mentioned are not described. That is incorrect. They are further described within the rules in section C and D and in subsections one and two of section D. So I don't know that the Commenter, I guess didn't read through it, but they are does anybody disagree with that? You good? Okay, so the comment is the two main categories mentioned are not described. It about on the record and administrative appeal That that is incorrect. They are Described within the rule and section C and D and then even further describe more within subsection one and two of section D So they're described at length Yeah So everybody's okay that Okay The same goes for line 20, item 30. Same exact response. They are in fact described. Anybody object to that? No. Moving on to line 31, define administrative official. That role or that title is officially described within the rules in section C and D, and then in section 102 of the relevant code. So once again, it's right in the code. It's two sentences under where he says it's not described. Everybody OK with that? OK. Item 32. Page 30, line 15. What are the two? We just talked about that. It's what are the two subcategories? The terms are already identified in the code to pick up information as the effect of making the rules cumbersome and provide a little benefit, especially with information is otherwise readily accessible elsewhere. The concept of minimizing the need for redundancy speaks to the goal of this board and ensuring that the rules remain consistent. So essentially, he wants us, or the question was, why aren't you repeating the subcategories? We don't need to, they're mentioned once and they're clear. Is there everybody okay with that? Yeah. Okay. Yes. Can I? Yeah. In line 16 of this same place. So page 31. Line 16, okay? Yeah. Should that be a, a, an S at the end of the member or a comma? Of course. Okaycure register. If you're a regular board member. So I thought we were on page 30. Oh, I see. So the word agency is what you're, oh wait, no, what? Wait a minute. I'm in the wrong place. What page? Okay, I'm sorry. I'm a step ahead. It's never mind. Go to the next one. I'm good. Okay. Missed about two questions. Well, we are at least passed by but I'm going to two main categories are on the record and develop. Would it hurt to put it there? It is there. It's the next set and under. The second or two main were divided into two sub-cadises. I think go look at that. And then you scope of the following. Right. No, no, wait. It's 28. 29. Keep on going. That's definitions. Yeah. It's 30 at the end of the 30. Yeah. It's clearly defined. But I'm just saying, just it might just make it. because it's not that simple, like if you look at it, like read it, I want to make sure you're clear on it then why we did that way. Yeah. It is? You have to read the rule. Yeah but you have to read the whole rule where you have to read the whole rule. Okay. Okay so we are now at what item number? Number. Thirty. Thirty-three. Thirty-three. Thirty-three. Page 31, line 17. After the words person, at the words or virtually. Thirty-one, seventeen. Thirty-one, seventeen. Thirty-one, seventeen. No, that's already in there. So I would suggest that we don't have to put virtually because there's a ready virtual participation right under it. I'm in a straightaway fish. I'm in a straightaway fish. I'm here to help, because it. It seems to me, I don't know why we put virtual when the next paragraph clearly describes what virtual participation is. Right. Yeah, that's a big answer. No, but this is the line where I would like to say ask. Where it says each name party in a docketed and regular board member. Should that be member comma S? No, each board member, right? It's each. So it's each regular member, each board member, each party. Each name party, I got a case and regular board member. Okay. Okay. Okay. Yes. Okay. Are we okay? Yes. Moving on. I'm sorry, let me see. So, I've talked about the person like us. I am 34, page 34, line 5 through 7. cost of transcripts should be refined So and that's the same comment on the following line and that's why My response that is the cost is determined outside the scope of the Board of Appeals However, it is detailed rule eight that a party shall contact the Board of Administrator to determine the cost So we don't determine the cost right it says contact the board title It's outside these rules to determine that so I don't think we need to. Okay, everybody agree? Yes. What does this mean? Is line 35? It's the same question. Just to ask differently. If I'm mistaken, I do 548. Oh no, I'm sorry. My thing got... I got off center. I hope sorry. I'm sorry. I might think I got off center. We're at 35 line 4 and 5. So this is to answer the question and we're going to try and this is a reiteration of an existing role. So it says, the technical rules of evidence do not bind the board, but the board will apply the rules of probative evidence can be completely apart from it. So what it means is that when you're in a court system, their technical rules are evidence like, hey, I'm just saying, hey, don't. It says, we generally follow those rules so that there's structure in order to hear. that quasi-digital handbook that we all received is a whole section on it. And it talks about quasi-digital is intended so that the lay person can represent themselves. However, it still is court-like. So that's what that means. Everybody appears to have to. And so that's giving you some less restriction on making a decision. Yeah, well, and it's given the community, like it says, hey, let's work court-like or quasi-dunditional. So, but we don't bound by the technical rules of evidence with... We're working within the spirit of the law and not... And probably that is... And the question is, what does that mean? Are we just answering what does that mean? We're not trying to. He doesn't give a suggestion. He's just asking a question. Okay. That's my answer. Well, okay. I was thinking that he doesn't understand what that means. So should we make it so that someone read that, who would know what it or that's sufficient? Highest sufficient. Okay. Yeah. See where are we? Okay. So this is the question right line 37 which is page 3519. Question. Oh, right am I right? Or no, did I skip a sentence? No, you're a, who is the deciding patient? Oh, 36. It needs to be defined. So it already is defined. Would be my question. It's pretty clear the presiding. It's a definition. Yeah. Just some explanatory. Are we okay with that? No. Line 37, page 35, lines 19 to 20. By remaining seated, how does the party provide 10 or a copy? That you know what, my thing is off. Hold on one second. The person in the photo would be capitalized. My thinking here, I got to delete a row. It's skipping all my answers I'm sorry one second okay um alright let me back up for a second we've already answered but page 10 line 11 rule 1.0 defines presiding officer moving on to the next one um by remaining seated how does the party give 10 copies of board administrator so is my answer's my answer, but we'll open it up. The Board Administrator is responsible for distributing all evidence submissions, which is stated in Rule 10. During quasi-dissue hearings, no party may speak or rise without first receiving permission for the presenting official or regularly conduct through the sessions, also stated in Rule 10. Hold on a second. I got a scroll down so I can see. Sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Okay, so essentially it says that the board administrator, we don't have to say that the board administrator will get it from you. Just know that you stay seated and give the tent copy to the board of ministry and she ends them out. That's how that works. You have to have a request for mission to stand. And that's why I, that's why you give your 10 copies without having to get up. You also create, the reason it does, that's a courtroom, right? You don't want to conflict, you don't want to oppose parties being walking up to each other. You don't want that. So okay everybody okay with that? Absolutely. Okay. Item 38, let me scroll down. I am 38, I delete our encouragements. So that is, no. So, he would like us to require electronic copies of it, be given to an opposing party, any mystery we're hearing. And we've talked about this at length, that's not even possible at the time, right? They don't have electronic copies, that's why we say our encouraged. Yes, okay, keep it. So we. Yeah. Okay, moving on. Line item 39. Page 37 line 14. I don't know what to say. We're working. Chains made a shell to the eight times I've been in the role next year. So he would like us. It says the board may rule out pending motion 10 business days after the original filing date. So, this is in relation to a motion, I guess, right? Yeah. So, no, some don't require a response from us. So, we may have any time 10 businesses after the filing. So I don't think some motions don't require a response. Go ahead. So this brings up my clarity on how we're referencing the board versus the board or hearing examiner. How is this clear that it doesn't apply to the hearing examiner? This does. It's our board. Unless it's stated elsewise. So it's a board excluding the hearing examiner and may rule. But it doesn't apply to the hearing examiner. This does. It's our board yet. Unless stated else applies. So it's a board excluding the hearing examiner and may rule. But it's a dis-ruled plies. And this is currently in our rules for you here. I mean, we tweaked it a little bit. I think it says 15 days. Now we said 10 business days to account for weekends. So it's two full weeks plus weekends. Then we want to, yeah, okay, whatever. Everybody is okay with that, yes? Okay, line item 40. Okay. So this is page 37, like 20. There's no 20. Got what it says. You want just to add stuff. That's why. Oh, yeah. Okay.'m saying. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. lawful and I don't think we need to get into the law but just know that that request is on law that board is required certain interlocutor and bills are required to be when it's found to be partying and so on and so forth there's a whole there's a whole law behind that but his request is on lawful so is everybody okay with that? Yes, yes. part of the when it's found to a party and so on and so forth. There's a whole there's a whole just a little bit of law behind that but his request is unlawful so is everybody okay with that? Yes. Okay. Um, um, 41 page 37 line 23. What's he wants to know? Their names and just or the name. Delete the word or change the can. Violets. What's your name? What's your name? Their names and just or the name. Delete the word or and change the can. By the name, name, name and address. They work with that for the plot. They want you to give your name and the name for the plot. No, because if it's a party, why would you give a name? Yeah, no. Yeah, right. OK, so are we OK now? Yeah. OK. Where are we? What number? I'm sorry. 42. 42, thank you. Change presenting official chairperson. Let me just make sure. I think I know the answer is for me to make sure. 30. 1314. Yeah, now so this spokesperson so just to be clear and if Mr. Colorn everybody's listening there's a distinction between the chairperson and the presiding official the presiding official is who's in charge of the meeting right so it's in our say who that is, the chairperson or vice chairperson. But there's another time when we have to use the word chairperson, for example, the rules say that the chairperson sells schedule meetings, right? So that is always the chairperson, but the chairperson is not in charge of meeting that's presenting officialness. Does that make sense? So, and because that's repeated a couple times in here, so I just want to clarify, that's why it's not a mistake that the language alternates. It depends on the context of the sentence. So the chairperson makes a decision, or I'm sorry, that, that presenting official. Okay, so we're okay leaving that as it is, right? Yep, yep. line 43. Just to change the word, indapagent, right? As it spoke. as it is right yep okay line 43 just to change the word into the pageant right as the spokesman spokesman make it independently my spokesman so change it to no I think it's good just to wait yeah I I think it's okay to wait, right? Yeah. Yes. I think it's good just the way it is. Yeah, I think it's okay to wait is right? Yeah. Yeah, it's just, it's overly confusing. That's part of the problem with deal with these kind of things that are new ones that don't make any significant difference and just confuse things. Okay, line in on 44. Uh... Yeah, I can't, Okay, he's coming, okay, thank you for the like. He gave us the happy face emoji. Line 45. So we've already addressed these 45 and 46 are both up to do with the appendix, remember? We resolved this last. so there's no access right there line 47 is page 40 line 13 We already yeah, we already dressed so is he they asked last meeting what 44 was a comment. 44 was just a comment. Making a nice comment that he liked what we did. And then 45 and 46 says where is the appendix found. We already addressed that in prior meetings. You want to say it here just. The appendix will be developed at the conclusion of the rule the PIL process and we've changed language that referred to the items in the appendix will be developed at the conclusion of the rule of appeal process and we've changed language that referred to items in the appendix to now only refer to a hyperlink to a live document. Right. Right. Okay. I just want to make sure I have that right. So we are now on main shelf. 47, right? Okay. I don't think that should be time. Line 4013. Well, it's a person who's been to a period of hearing, maybe elegant. Yeah, May. It's not. Yeah. I think it's okay. It is. Yeah. Okay. It's discretion, right? Okay. Next is presiding official needs. 48 that's a repeated repetitive question it's already been defined in the definitions so is there okay right rejecting that one yes we are line 40 our page 40 like 21 made a shell. I don't know why he wants a shell. No. Yeah. He wants to take a lot of. Yeah. He wants to take a lot of board. There's a lot of elements to be considered. When a board makes a decision, you can't mandate it. Not knowing the the context of the requirement So that would be contrary to law So I move you know, I think we should just reject that everybody agree. Yes, okay Where are we? 40 50 no 51 H 50 is No, one line at a moment. 42 line. I'm sorry, line 50. No, we did that, presenting official. We're ready. So you already said again. Page 42 line one. But what line I have 51? 51. 51. The word has been sorted out of the subscriber. 15. What is it? After the word has. 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. I'm sorry. I can't scroll up to the little bit just so I can see the parking lot before that. So this is asking. No, we're not going to swear in somebody that's questioning a witness. They're asking questions, they're not giving testimony, right? Am I right? Let me see, where are you? And so it starts on page 41 and the public comment, they would like us to swear in the individual that's referenced in line one. But if a month mistaken, this reference is an individual who's asking questions. You're not going to swear in something that's questioning you. You're wearing a witness that's giving testimony. This is somebody giving a question about other witnesses. You know, shouldn't be. Just be real, okay? Yes. Okay. Mm-hmm. Sorry. question about this. I shouldn't be. Just for your copy of that. Yes. Okay. Mm-hmm. I'm still. Okay, take a time. I'm still thinking about. Is it someone who has a question of what somebody else who's already sworn in? It's that. It's not a word. Yeah, you don't swear at people or like we don't swear at the attorneys that are questioned. Okay, am I the right place talking about questioning and appellant witness? Yes. So this is a member of the public says I want to ask that witness a question. He wants us to swear in the member of the public before they ask a question. They're not witness. Why do we swear them in? They're asking a question. I guess to me would depend on if they're responding with lightness or anything. No, they're asking questions. So we don't like you don't, you don't like those very stories. So, so it's her to you as a think about it when we call okay Mr. Smith it's your witness. Can we first swear Mr. Smith in? No, because he's not a witness. He's not providing testimony as we questions asking questions, the witness is providing testimony. He's just asking questions. And there's a rule that prohibits people asking questions and remember we talked about that, that people asking questions from providing statements. They can't, they can only ask a question. So they're not providing any testimony. They're asking a question of the witness. So we just need to be clear that we understand that hearing and make sure they are not adding statements. Yeah, that's a rule. Yeah. We need a force that rule. There's some people that do, do. Yeah. just need to be clear that we understand that during the hearings and make sure they are not adding statements. Yeah, that's a rule. Yeah, we need to force it really. There's some people that do do that. Right, that's why. That's why. We're working on cutting that back. That's why. There are some that do do that. So could we fix it? That's where your men is. So we're good with leaving that right. by telling the stop. Okay. We're leaving that guys right? Yes. Yes. We're moving on to 52. 52, thank you. 52, my man. I'm going to lie for a two, ten, eleven. The council assertions should be in reverse order. The council will say, the interest reports will be in the right place to the question. No, they make open statements and then the petitioner regains. The petitioner has a presented case and then we do open statements. Yeah, I think it's confused because he's got, I think it's his opening by opposing parties. Yeah, I had to read that twice too. Yeah, he's taking. Opposition. Yeah, he's thinking of it. But it's, but it maybe we put it both parties to both parties or something maybe opposing and in Perin should we change it both so it's clear. Open statements period. Just what? Open statements period with the current rules of. Okay. By all parties. Just right, just opening statements. I think that's enough. The only thing that's science is sufficient. There's only statements. Yeah. Okay. So we have one for opening statements. I'll go with opening statements. Okay. So we're going to correct that to be just a. What's I think Prince, right? Orbeez Stevens. So strike by opposing parties. OK. What does that thing print, right? Open statements. So strike by opposing parties. Okay. Where are we now? Okay. Line item 53. After word solicitor, only when asked by a board member for clarity or requesting legal advice. So it's a line where we 42 line 14. Close and now they solicit it? No. The county solicitor is the right to it. No. I mean, do you agree, Mr. Representative? No. I think the way it's written is fine. Yeah, yeah, yeah, no that yeah. So do you remember the resident? Okay. Um, forty three line eight. Where we are. Three line eight. Uh, after word appeal to close. Okay, closes the case and. Twenty three eight. Delivery during the word. Appeals. The end of prison tears. If the end of prison tears. If the end of prison tears. If the end of prison tears. If the end of prison tears. If the end of prison tears. If the end of prison tears. If the end of prison tears. If the end of prison tears. If the end of prison tears. If the end of prison tears. If the end of prison tears. If the end of prison tears. If the end of the presentation. The board will close the case. I'm not even going to stand what he's saying. Like the end of the presentation, the board of appeals closes the case and will deliberate during an open public meeting. Well, everything's open public meeting. I know, but close the case. So after we deliberate. We don't close the case. That's where are we? Yeah. So this became a thing. A previous chair said, okay, we're going to go off the record and close. We can't do that. It's a violation. So even though the chair said that, never did because that'd be a violation of the public meeting. We don't close. We deliberate. We close the public meeting. We don't close. We deliberate. We close the public portion. There's no more public testimony and now we deliberate in public. That's the benefit of a board, right? You get to hear us deliberate real time. But we're not closing a case. No. Okay. Actually, it actually says in the order of presentation. What's it say? Pretty clean and clear at a double in clean data. Yeah. This is our video, okay? No, we're not. Right? Leave it as is. Yes. Okay. Yes. Let me see. Next. Where are we? I got a contract. 45. 45. Thank you. Change the word MADISCHELL. We're made this month. Why does he want to show? No, yeah. I agree with you, but I just, it's not. We can't. Every time he wants it to be shall. It's like So we're good leaving as is everybody we're good. I mean, it's like yeah line 45 17 the same thing Everybody okay really that is yes, okay. Yes 50 56 57 page The board is going to be in the next ten minutes. The board is going to be in the next ten minutes. The board is going to be in the next ten minutes. We've actually really beefed up this a lot. Now, so he's asking, hey listen, the Dino has to be extended. Why? So my response would be, look at the rules. It says right there that for good cause, and they have to make their case. So I think it's self-explanatory. I think the answer is right. It need answer to read the rule. Yeah, everybody agree with that. I agree with that. Is here heavy agree? Yes, okay How are you? Okay, okay, yes, we on 58 So it was a question did we answer so the question is it's in the rule already. Why should it be? Yeah, that's just OK. So we are now on line 58, which is page 48, line 22. 1, 2, file A and written. What's the thing? File. It says mode. File A and ration. He wants you to are to be written. right? No, so that's redundant. Yeah, exactly 59 It's a grammatical thing he says move 1.4 after line six 51 line one What? I don't see. Mr. Reiner's blown out. 51. Page 51 line one. This is a definition. Or a twine. He wants that to be moved to light 19 he wants he wants it to be alphabetized so that all the rules are all it wants to be out of the time to not be number one is that how we do them alphabetized they with the exception of that definition they are all alphabetized yeah All right. So yeah, we should move it. Yeah. All right. OK. Got it. Move. Question. Where's the pedic? OK. Here we go. Same thing. I'm going again. So right, every grade gets one is at one. Yes. We're going on 61. 53, 8, 7 to 20. So, one of the run-over unit alpha ties, 61, 53. 8. 22. So, I wonder when we're going to be alphabetized. 61. 53. 3. 3. C-D-E. Okay. So, these need to be alphabetized. Yeah, they should be. They're going to be okay with that while I'm trying to definition. Yes. Yes. Okay. So, see where we next. Why? Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. working to develop but not yet here. So when it is here we don't want to rewrite the rules. We wrote the rules in such a way that it considers current state of IT and the place we hope to be. Is that kind of a sufficient answer, everybody?, well, I think it's always going to be a question of what kind of Internet service is available, what's been hacked, and all that, whether or nothing is going to be available. Yeah, that is true, too. Part of what system is, we never know. Yep. Good point. We have to have a pen and paper. Always get. So where are we? Why no further? No further description. Line number 63. No further description. No further description. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay 55 16. Mr. Rachel no line down with the submission was just directed for not compliance with the rules of seizure. No goes for the nature. So because it's it says right there is rejected for not the clients they have to goiance with rules of procedure. You know, because it's the nature. So because it says right there it's rejected for non-compliance. They have to go to the rules of procedure to figure out what they did wrong. They have to read the rules and redo it. So just so you know, this was all taken from Mdec, right? This is the county of the court system. These are the rules when they use their online filing system. them. So we pretty much, we don't need to reinvent the wheel. If the county, if the circuit court uses it, and it works, and it's defensible, so this language is literally taken from them. So I think that it's sufficient in the way it's written. I don't think it needs any more clarification. Great. I think it's sufficient. Yes. Okay. 5523. 5523 We're. As soon as practical to a specific time period. I think as soon as practical is the reason. I think it's good. As soon as practical. We don't need to. Yeah. Yeah. We don't need to. As soon as we. Yeah. I agree. I think we can leave it as is everybody great. Yes, okay 65 turns and definition section need to be all that's true. I Think okay, but we're gonna work on that right okay, so all right good so that resolves and by two now moving on to tab three. Chris is doing that. Okay. Ready? Nope, one man. Oh, here it is. Okay, I've got it now. Okay. Oh, this one is nice. How do you guys think? Very nice. So, I'll get one more. Sheet there, Kelle. I like it. Line item one, page two, line 19, and including the hurricane administrator procedure. Where is it? What should but it was a little different. So I think it's fine because the Howard County Minister Procedure Act is in law of Howard County. We don't need to explicitly state every single law of the plies. Right? So leave that as is, right? Yes. Okay. Item two. Which three lines can be deployed to appeal? What does this say? It may not. The definition adds substance. Substance of reason. What is an injustice? Did you get played to us? This is hard to move judgment. So this definition was taken, all these definitions here, we're taken from Cornell Law. So I don't know if we need to define injustice. Do we? I'm going us to define the what what is it in justice right now you that would take a book Yeah, and and that's beyond our experience. Yeah Everybody okay with leaving it someone who feels grieved If you're going to define injustice, then you'd make a separate word. I would think that justice could be cultural. Everybody okay with leaving it? Someone who feels grieved. If you're going to find injustice, then you'd make a separate word. I would think injustice could be controversial. I mean, I would think our legal advisor will help us if we come to that, because I think that would be very a situation specific. Everybody agree? And it says you're alleged injustice. So it's somebody saying that something's an's an injustice but like are we okay leaving that language the way it is we are okay good thank you. Moving on to page I'm sorry item three. No need to address and need to address standing parties. I laugh because I knew this is Mr. Levis before I am. What? Need to address standing of parties. I don't understand. I don't understand. I didn't understand the leaders. I don't know. Standing is addressed elsewhere in the rules. But standing is addressed elsewhere in the rules. I don't think we need to be defining an appellate standing in the definition of the word appellate. No. Because standing is very specific to the context of the claim. Is there a vote? I think you have a vote. Yeah, I think. OK, leave it. We got a thumbs up emoji for line four. We don't have to take any action. Line five. Pose new definition of opposition cakes. It's page seven. How much for two? Line 14, 15. I don't know. So he wants us to put a definition. But he doesn't give us one. Yeah. I don't. Okay. I think he wants that in there. Yeah, but he wants us to put a term. He hasn't suggested any kind of opposition. Case in opposition to the proponent. It's the opponent. It's the opposite of the case. It's opposition. I don't think we need to find an opposite. No, it's getting troubled and things like that. Yeah. Are we OK, leave any guys? Yeah. We're going to. Well, we want to ask Mr. Sanders if he can see them. I don't think it's necessary to put in there. No. OK. So, my speech six. I'm sorry, line six. Define gaining party status. So without even reading the context that sentence, like the party status is, this is talking about standing. And so we've already identified this. It's very, it's in the rules. And it's, you know, it's, I think it's already clear. If you're a grief party, what it takes to be. And to Mr. Levis Point, there was some confusion in the past about that, but we've resolved that with our new rules. So I don't think we need to add any further clarity. Which is Board of Agreement? I would agree. I would agree. I'm sorry, item eight 27 line 22 add of service. Oh did I apologize? Oh no I'm in position case standing yet. We said we don't have to raise that. We're going up. We just talked about blind sex, which is needing to define gaining party status. Sorry, okay, sorry, I'm sorry, my mind is the same thing. He's talking about if you're a party and a case standing, you need to be a party to have standing in a case, but we talk about all that. Like what it means to be a grief party, if you have standing or not, that's in there. We did clarify it, like what to be specifically agreed, first generally agreed, like a member agreed by hearing examors, so in a DPC notice of violation, it's the DPC and the party involved, but any party can be agreed by the hearing examors. It's in the rules of process already. And we pretty clearly lay those out. What he's referring to, I believe, is the current petition misstates that, but we're gonna fix that. Yeah. Yeah, so, but the rules are already clarified. So we're okay, leaving that? Yes. Okay. I was actually saying, oh, of service item eight, it needs 27, line 22. So we did number 7 already? Yes, when we just talked about it. Okay. The written correspondence submitted the board without the required certification. What do you think? I mean, he's talking about certification service, but I think it's kind of implied that certification. That's the, I don't know of any other type of certification. Other than the service. Do you want to add that of service? Or does that happen? No. One for no. So he's talking about, so it'd be clear. He's talking about in a emotion. You have to put, you have 15 days to respond. I've served this on all parties. It's the requirement of how you have to form out of motion. That's called certificate of service, right? Like I, you'll see an emotion that's coming for us. I've served this on my party on the other side of this council. You might have seen we just rejected emotion recently because it didn't have that. It's a rule. So, but I don't know. This is the same comment that's do you kind of make? I think if I'm not mistaken. Yeah, so I mean, I don't know. So we got one for leave it as is. Ms. Harrison, Ms. Kirkow, what do you think? Yeah, I'm just mind is on a different page. The number's a different, so I'm trying to find it. Page, where's the line 2? I would leave it the way it is. And serve the after serve. Fire, print says certificate service. But, so I don't think we're wrong either way, because there's no other type of certificate in less than a certificate of service. So when you say certificate, there's no other type of certificate to provide other than a certificate of service. So I think you put a certificate of service that's fine. If you leave just certificate, it's fine, because it's not like you could have a certificate of delivery, a certificate of what. There's only one type of certificate certificate, certificate of service. When you're talking in the context of emotion, which is what this rule talks about. So I guess this kind of is like the overarching goal. Like a lot of our existing code that we're trying to fix has too many words in it that are redundant or and the more you put into it runs the, the my opinion runs the risk of becoming inconsistent and compatible confusing. but I think in this case, you could put either or whatever. I think it's better this way of the written certification. OK. Because it's also more general to whatever. It only can be what it can be. and that's it. Yeah. And it's a certification. You want to hear my opinion? Of course we do. You're 25% say. So my 25% sense is would it hurt to put it there if it clarifies it for somebody who's not looking in the other areas at that point? And wondering what certification means. I'm sorry Mr. Ryan, can you put that back up? If they don't know what that means, how would they know what those are? So, can you just scroll up a little bit? I just want to see the context of this subsection. Like what is this title, this rule? It's under case. Hello, second, we're just about the required response. Supplement and dismissals. So this talks about filing a motion for most moment. So in order to get to that part, you would have to go. The section in question is actually under the section about correspondence. It's the next section down. Oh, OK, I apologize I apologize. So I don't care. I'll go either way. Whatever you want to do. I don't think it is. I don't think it is. It is under meeting and meetings and hearings. This whole chat is over there. Right. So my question is just for if it's clarifying something for someone out there who's trying to figure out what a certification is Because they don't know for whatever reason would it hurt to be there? And then what they understand what certification of services as well So I don't yeah So I just need to tell I'm not gonna clear vision so we are I don't care We should put it in your saying. I don't think we should. I don't think. I don't think. No. OK. I need to clear enough that way. I think it's clear. OK. So what do you? OK. So it's good. Well, that was up to me because it's too too. to split so I mean the states that it is. That's why we always need five members. So it's a split which means it's denied. OK, so I was going to go either right but okay, so moving on. So what's your decision? Well, so it's a split, so we're two two, so that it's, so it's a split, so that means it's denied by our rules. Okay, so you agreed with me. Yeah. Okay. I'll flood. that's why we need five see What's that? What was the first center saying go ahead what I'm saying You want to deliberate and make it Make a free one I'm sorry as opposed to a two two on this oh if somebody wanted somebody wanted to reconsider saying it. Yeah, because I mean actually you could have missed shoe way. OK. I can reconsider. But it make just put the word. OK, certificate service. We're going to add it. We're going to. It's not going to hurt it. OK. It has to be a certificate of service. Yes, certification of service. Whatever. Yeah. I'm sure Mr. My heart is what we're talking about. I like that. OK. Next item 9, page 29 is needs to be amended. Same comment as Office of Law. How does he know what the off the law comments are? That's a note that I made oh, okay, I was like 16 to 3 to 2 What is it 29 15 16-22. And so, this is where the time is 20, is 20, and I just need to get to 16. 6. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16 right, okay, so this is resolved okay Aerolocatory Hill our motions are not prohibited that's an incorrect interpretation of 16 through 2B. So, I mean, that's my position. Interlocatory appeals are absolutely not prohibited. There's a very sub-set of interlocatory appeals, very specific, but the blanket statement that you can never consider interlocatory appeal is incorrect. That would be my opinion. Does everybody agree or disagree? I agree. Okay. Yeah. So, what is that? What attached language? I'm sorry, line item 11, page 32, you, lighting ten. Thirty two. I think. So my lines are... Yeah, well, the... What attached language, do we supposed to put in there? Oh, she's deep down. 32 line. I Want to Yeah, what attached language are we supposed to put in there? Right so the person who submitted this comment did not include attached language as far as I could tell I'll have to double check. Okay. Okay. What was this? Where was the producer being? There's only board manager participate or I'll put section about voting. Okay, so I'd have to circle back to the comments. I think I think yeah, we'll circle back, but if you don't have anything, I think if the member of the public is watching now and they want to provide those before and next meeting, that'd be great otherwise. I think we've got our regulations on this and we can close it. Does everybody agree? Yes. OK. So that just brings up what we just went through with the 22 vote and changed it to 31. What? Because only board members who participated during all portions of a hearing or work in that hearing. No, but anyway, go ahead. Shall be eligible to vote on a matter or decide a docket case. wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, too is there's a distinction between observing participate. If you participate, you can see exhibits, right? Like your participants. Or participants. Members of the public cannot, they don't have a right to see our observance. So that's why there's a distinction. You have to participate. You have to be able to ask questions in real time of witnesses. You can't watch the video later, never having the opportunity to ask questions. And then be like, okay. So that's why there's a distinction. You have to participate. You have to be able to ask questions in real time of witnesses. You can't watch the video later, never having the opportunity to ask questions and then be like, OK, I can rule. Well, and even if you're participating virtually, you can't see a lot of exhibits during a hearing. That's a problem, yeah. That's a problem. That's a problem. And we make that disclaimer. disclaimer, I think we said it says that virtual participants may not be able to observe and that's an issue. That's why we think we said it says that virtual participants may not be able to observe. And that's an issue. That's why we think we need to be person like it's. Yeah, I agree. Yeah. Okay. So. Okay. Number 12. Thank you. Number 12. Each 32 line total is not descriptive. I don't know why. I think it is. Why do we need to be? Why is he want? He doesn't know this. It talks about conflict of interest and disclosure. I think it's totally right. Everybody agree that. He's just saying that the title itself is not descriptive. I think it's difficult service. Yeah. I think it does anybody want to install? There is no. I think it's sufficient guy. But even so, I think like it I think it's it's I guess my question was does anybody here have a recommendation? No, I think it's it talks about the full services of former yeah, let's leave it as is I'm sorry. I'm trying to be great. I got to watch myself. I'm sorry. Item 13 page 34 flying to four. No, they're not. Mr. Sanders, am I correct? Electronic radio record? Oh, wait, hold on. Let me look at the comment first. 34 lines. 34. Oh, this was already mentioned to you and you come. Yeah, I'm sorry. So I thought they were talking about something else. Yeah, so you've got the 40s of the world. That's why I was like, oh, yeah. I don't think there's any action. There's nothing. Yeah, everybody disagree with you, but is this? Yes. OK. Yes. Page 30, I'm sorry, 14 item. President, is this expert test notion? not be recognized. And, you know, anybody, anybody agree with that statement. I'm going to present this expert test. You should not be recognized as a prejudiced. And now anybody, anybody agree with that statement? Interesting. Experts prejudiced the case. I would argue that they inform the case. They're subject matter experts. They don't prejudice. Yeah, I don't understand that. Yeah, that's how you look at it. So we... We look at the letters for the price of So we, okay. Page 34, line 23. This talks about weighing if an expert is an expert. So just to back it up, you may remember that we had cases where they're like, oh, we don't qualify expert witnesses. However, it says that the board is required to accept evidence that would be admitted in a Maryland state course and the judiciary. So by excluding experts as experts, we are not admitting evidence that would otherwise be acceptable. That was what a lawyer brought up to us. And we ruled, hey, I don't remember the case. It was a traffic engineer. Oh. School? Maryland school. Yeah. Yeah. And we're like, oh, yeah, right. We would be contrary to law if we didn't allow an expert. So that's why we adopted the circuit courts, how they qualify, experts. because if you exclum, you're like, oh, we'll testify when we're not going to admit you as an expert, which was the longstanding practice here. And only before that came up in a case, that's Contraordor existing rules that we exit evidence so that's why yeah Good okay Item 15, page 37. What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this? What is this 13. Oh, so he wants us to talk about, I don't know why, but he wants us to have a new rule. If he wants us to add items D, the board shall hear all motions. No, that's absolutely not true. Scheduling does not hurt by the full board. The board delegates responsibility to the chairperson. So right there, the rule would be contrary to law. Moralize the decisions in a written order. Well we know all orders are written because we have that rule. And a detailed summary of the motion, why would you summarize somebody else's point? And opposition motion, it wouldn't be an opposition motion, it would be a response to a motion. So that's not technically correct and the relevant law and support of their decision The rule I don't think no Yeah, there's so many reasons why that suggestion is not it would be contrary to law or is redundant based on rules We already have everybody great. I agree. Okay Item 16 page 37. Standing. Oh the standing thing. Need to fix an error in turning and need to establish rules for intervention. So so Yeah, so we've already addressed some issues. Standing is already pretty clear and it's already been resolved in our rules who are standing. We've addressed the petition where it misstates standing, we're going to fix. The county code, we've already made, I think all the recommendations we need to make. If the county code needs to be changed in addition, that would be unless anybody disagrees. That's something that the person should bring to the council directly. Yeah, the board is making the request that we believe, that's sorry. We're in our lane. Yeah, yeah, we're in our lane Okay, so leave it as is yeah, yeah, okay That's a common anyway Item 17 into the record? Yeah. Yeah. It's not necessarily. It's not necessarily. Okay. So, will you be as is? Everybody agree? Yes. Okay. Why is the county solicitor committed across examine? I would argue that first off, it's the legal advisor. Right. It's because we've changed the terminology. My position would be because they need to be a clarity as our legal advisor. If there's legal questions that mean unresolved that the board needs assisting gathering, finding the fact that the conclusion is a law and that the county solicitor could ask questions that will help support that. Everybody. So that's a question that's answered. I went over this next one over and over and over and over again. So it's just that they don't understand. The bird proof is one of our opponents of the events. And what does he want to do? The proof is up to hundreds of the evidence. Just one of the evidence. Just one of the evidence. You can strike back. That is absolutely correct. The proof is. Now that's a grammar thing. It's correctly grammar. It's hard to understand. Do you not understand what these terms are? So the burden of proof is one of those. So it says, what is the burden of proof? All right, the burden of proof is one of the pros. So it says, what is the burden of proof? Right. The burden of proof is one of a preponderance of the evidence. You have to know how to read the sentence. Yeah. I think it's great. If you see it, are you confused if you read it? Do you understand what it means? I don't see what the difference is. Right, but are you unclear about it now that you need to change language so that I became clear? Do you not understand that the burden of proof is a problem? I don't see what the difference is. Right, but are you unclear about it now that you need to change language so that I became clear? Do you not understand that the burn of proof is a problem to the evidence? I understand. So why do we need it? I'm just saying, I'm devil's advocate. We're trying to make these things clear, not more complicated. It's hard for the layman. I mean, honestly, here's what I'm I'm just going to tell you my process. I went in and took a look at these phrases so that I understood, exactly. I understand what it says. And I am. I mean, honestly, here's what I'm gonna just tell you my process. I went in and took a look at these phrases, so that I understood, exactly, I understand what it says, and I understand. But the layman who doesn't understand this terminology may not, but that doesn't mean we should change it. It says exactly what it should say. Yeah, and that's language that was copied from the old code, but that doesn't mean it's right. I'm just putting up where it came from. Ms. Harris, I see your eyes. I've learned to read you now. Yes, good. No, I'm fine with the way it reads. I think it's clear. So everybody, fine, leave it. Fine. Okay. Where are we? One of on the record after delivery. Well, I don't know what it's going to say, but I imagine he wants us to put the word that we deliberate on the record. Of course, we deliberate on the record, but let's see if that's what he's talking about. Pete, 43 Lenny. And does it mean before the appeals would deliberate on the record during the delivery? Of course, we deliberate on the record. Yeah, well, that's what it is. during an open meeting. How would you do an open meeting at Nellow Riker? This is exactly the same thing that Stu couldn't put in here. And but to his defense, the previous chairs of said we're gonna go off the record now. Even. meaning how would you do an open meeting with the other record. Yeah. Exactly the same thing that you can put in here. And but to his defense, the previous tears of said we're going to go off the record now even though we never did because you could go on and watch the record. But it was incorrect to say that. So I understand. Yeah, so we don't have to correct anything. We were ready to fix that. Yeah, we have all the rules pretty much. We are. Yeah, we just have to make sure we say that we're not following the rules. I'm 21. Board of ministers. This bird is like. What do you, I don't know. The decision in order is available on the website and it is a searchable page. Yeah, I don't understand. Yeah. I don't think there's any need for change. Yeah. We're good. Okay. That concludes. Unless we're changing county solicitor, which we I think is going to be the overall. What? Where I'm sorry. Line 11 was this from the county solicitor. Is that what the question is? Oh, good pick up. So, because will we be receiving the news from the county solicitor if the legal advisor isn't the county solicitor? Well we still would have legal sufficiency. Yeah, that's something lots to talk about. Right, so our documents, when we draft legislation or whatever it is, we still pass it through Office of Law for Legal Subficiency. It's a good idea to get an expert pair of eyes to deal with. I agree with you. So now let's place out a little bit more. Does the hearing examiner have to pass, is there her decisions through the office, the county solicitor? No. No. See, so that's why. And I never understood that why, but they should. Why do they, why just to hear an exam? They're not. But these new rules will play to them. Well, because so currently we don't have office of law attending hearing exam our meetings. I hear what you're saying an office moving forward, office of law like in 2026 and forward, office of law will not be attending the Board of Appeals hearings will have another representative attending but they still are our legal advisors Yeah, that's what Mr. Cook had said. He said that because we talked about the timelines and he said that, listen, we've got to make sure that the DNO timeline includes a time for the Office of Law to conduct legal specificity on the written decision that's written by an attorney. And that maybe think, well, wait, it's written by an attorney, and the hearings average are written by an attorney, why do we need this fishy? So we have to. So that makes me think if the council for the Board of Appeals, if their decisions have to be reviewed by the Office of Law, so to should the hearings have it read? Because otherwise, why would you, if they're both written by lawyers, why would only one lawyer have to be checked by the House of Law, but not the other? And so I agree, I think, I think, if Mr. Cook says legal sufficient fees require, like you say, that legal sufficiency in all documents is reviewed by the House of Law, then the hearing examiner's decision should be checked because these rules apply to both of us. Yes, no? I would say the way these rules are now written, it does apply to both. And so I would say yes, that once the rules are approved, that yes, the hearing examiner decision in order should be reviewed for sufficiency. So in other words, and I think it's what we're going to talk about next week with the Office of Law is about how, just for board members, how they want to make sure that the timeline for DENO is make sure we fully considered and we'll go through that. Is there enough time given that the Office of Law may not be the lawyer developing the DENO? Is there enough time for it to get to that person? Does the process make sense? So remove the Office of Law as the lawyer does it still make sense? And I think that's a good, that it's time to review but I think the rules should apply equally like why would it not apply to the hearing's emitter? It should. Yeah. So because that would maybe help us with some issues too. So they don't necessarily sit in hearings but when they prepare the deno before it gets put out it goes through legal sufficiency. Does ours go through? Two ours go through, yeah. So even though Barry sits in he has to put it through the office. He is the office of law. So he serves in both capacities. So he serves in both capacities? Right. Because he's our, but now moving forward, because in order these rules are forward looking, so we're like, forget who it just says our legal advisor. So let's just assume, or let's just propose that it's not the off-soul law. But yet the off-soul law is still responsible for legal sufficiency. Does that make sense? To them. So you say berries, we have just any lure, yeah. Just say kelts, say she's a lord, she's our thing. But she doesn't work for the officer law. Now. So you say berries not we have just any lawyer. Yeah, just say Calc say she's a Lord. She's our Think she's not but she doesn't work for the officer law not with the officer law so now it has to go to Gary It goes the officer law for legal's fishy as as Ms. Howard said that the the county's practices that for any document is You know issue it goes through the county for legal's fish. But currently now the hearing examiner, they just send that out. Correct. And they are not part of the office of law. Correct. Okay. So now we're going to make it so that the hearing examiner has to at least go to office of law as well as any county document that's. So yeah. So we can't talk about how it goes but That's why we're just trying to fix all this without like yeah Just let's move like move far we would identify these issues. Let's just fix them and So yeah, so can we just pull that stuff? I just want to make sure it reads the way we all think it reads That rail's website We see from the county social service. Yes, that makes sense, right? So the last step in it would be legal suffigiencies. That's how I'm right. I know we're going to work it out, Barry, but that's how I'm right. Or Mr. We've back on. Yeah, I just want to make sure that sentence reads right. So we haven't really reviewed the D&O timeline based, officially based on new information that perhaps the else while all might not be our lawyer. But the last step if you could picture the process, the last step before it reaches the administrator would be a legal sufficiency review. Why don't you just say that all that will be on the board website and take out within the three days from the council? Well no, we want to put a timeframe up. But the question is, would the last step of the process before it's published be that it goes to the Office of Law for legal spudgy, right? It should go to you and then be published, right? Well, let's say it came to us and said, you need to come change. It goes back. And then we'll come back to you again. Come back. Yeah. And then, but you would ultimately or not you, but the officer law would ultimately be the last eyes on it before. OK. So that makes sense. So it does. Yeah. So right? And that would align with the charter. Yeah. Yeah. all by supports and conditions. Okay, so we're good leaving that? Yes, good. Okay, I'd like to make one comment about that line 7, number 11. So the syntax isn't quite right with the way it's written. Okay. The board administrator shall post the final decisions in orders and it is a colon. Electronically, and then it's a directive kind of statement. It's fun. No, it's not. The Board of Administrators shall post the final decisions and orders. The good. Electronically male final decisions and orders to each named party or the representatives within three days should be as follows. Should be after orders. I think it's finally it is though. Okay, so we got one for as is. Should be able to. Should be able to. Okay, so we got one for as is. Should be able to. Should be able to. Should be able to. Should be able to. Should be able to. Should be able to. Should be able to. Should be able to. It doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense in grammar before the ministry. OK, so let's go. We'll get a quick round. So we got one to change. We want to leave it and miss Phillips. Leave it, A.O. fine. That's the first way. I guess we leave it, right? Because that's a one-jury board. But I'm telling you it doesn't read right I think it's fine. I but I see people shaking their head and the same as I see I see I see we're already shaking their head. Yeah, please speak up for me I heard a grammar is my thing. Yeah, she is the person with the strongest grammar. No, no. I used to do proposals. I literally used to do this. Well, Ms. Harv, you'll be the direct. Well, no, don't let me be the direct. I agree with Ms. Kirkkopf. I love how you're doing it. I love how you're doing it. When you put a colon in, you're making a list, OK? When you make a list, which is a list there. Okay, but the way the list is you're giving a direct if it should be stated as a subject not as electronically male that's giving a directive it's given a list no when you say well I'm not telling you it doesn't it's not so if you were to do it the way you want then you could then you would really be going into this whole document and putting and after each semicolon after each AB. No, that's not true. That is true. That would be the sky. Okay, okay okay okay. We folded right here. We'll start giving one after I get important. I was just I was just trying to see where we were. Okay so you can change it. Bring up a good point that we would it's how we would maybe need to change with the semicolon and for the next. The whole style guide would have to change. Okay. So we have to leave it right. So we can leave that to the final person doing the editing and let them come up with their style guide and then fix whatever they think is. Oh that's right too isn't it? We're going to go to... Yeah let's do that. Yeah. In the county you're going to fix that. Because everything is going to change. Of course depending on this style you adopt. Okay. Alright. So no matter how I vote doesn't matter. It stays safe because it's either majority or split. So, okay. So it stays. Page 50. Where are we? I'm sorry. Page 16. We're at Whitline number. We're finished. We finished the comments. Oh, we're going. I'm sorry. Okay. Thank you. So now we. Oh, wow. Look at that. One page left. Okay. Now we move on to Mr. Horowitz. Okay, so line item one, we've already discussed this wire definition front. It's the style guide for the county. Miss, hard to spot about that during the hearing. Everybody agreed that? Yeah. Okay. What was that? Yeah. I'm not there. Okay. So it's asking why definitions appear in the front. Yeah. I'm going to. Miss Phillips? You okay with that? Yeah. Okay. Item two. Board should be deal with land use fields. Okay. That's, it's clear what the board deals with. Yeah. I think that's as is we don't need to change anything. Everybody agree? Yes. Okay. Page three line 1213 over tell us. That was corrected already. Well, okay, it's ready. Oh, thank you, right? I apologize. Okay. Item four. Okay. All turn. Remember, we're ready to care that everybody agree. Item five. The term is defined in the charter right to find here. What is the term? Page four. Page four. Line 22. Okay, I'm going to see now. Board of Appeals, regular member. Because we added the term regular member that the charter does not define the term regular member. It defines board member. So this will be one of those things that the council will decide. Right? Okay. So that explains that's a question that's why how we answered it. Where are we next? It's part day definition should be the same as zoning board absolutely incorrect. There is a quasi-dissue board. It's completely acceptable for two board members speak outside of quorum. It talks about the rules are clear on it. Expartly. We do not have the same rules as zoning board. So I think the rules are fine as they are. Are we ready? We agree. Okay. We've already fixed line seven, line eight. Suggest re-waring the definition or limiting the definition. Page nine, three. Special exception. Right. So we include the term special exception because it's an outdated term or it's been replaced more currently I'll say with the term conditional use but some people still use it so instead of putting the same definition two places We just say go to conditional use where it's defined because the terms mean the same thing everybody okay with that? Yes, okay, especially because we have cases where we've had modifications of previously granted special exceptions Right, so you need to be We're I'm sorry Where would line them. I'm sorry nine Oh, okay, we've read out with this the alternate member stuff, right? Everybody okay, just yeah, we've read your stuff Okay, was that your comment again? 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. 9. page 12, line 15 through 21. 15 to 25. Examples of good cause not? Oh, either. Well, that's determined, it says good cause determined by the clerk of the board. The clerk of the board does it, right? It's, that's a discretionary call, right? I mean, to list everyone would be ridiculous. A bomb threat would be good cause, right? I mean, like to list everyone would be ridiculous. So, yeah, IPC is the custodian of records, right? That's no doubt there. However, when it comes to an appellate matter, those records are sent to the board of appeals where our clerk is the administrator, is the council administrator, is Miss Harry. So temporarily we retain those records. But we are not the custodian records. We only hold them during the record. When that matters resolved, it goes back to the permanent custodian records. I think that's pretty clear there, but just in the event that Mr. Erwin says, this thing I wanted him to understand that, because he wasn't very clear on what he met with record retention. Everybody okay with that? Yes. Okay. Yes. 12 is answered already. 13, 24 hours to have an agenda available and consistent with charter and code. Nope, not correct. The code spells out and the also log it as grew with me or or can chive in if they if they if I'm wrong It says at least 24 hours and in certain cases there are certain days when it has to be three days in advance I think for public hearing things like that or error, but the agenda has to be at least 24 hours. That's what the code says Are we okay with that? Yeah, yeah, okay The next is like 14. It gives an opinion that you think the definition is useless. I would respectfully disagree. Anybody feel differently? I agree with you. I agree with you. Okay. Okay. So that's good. 15 is already resolved 16 Suggest giving accent as an example So it talks about compelling circumstances. Let's just see what that is 2016 What is that oh that's for postponement we've adopted, as you all know, we've adopted the circuit court. Internally, we've adopted the circuit court's definition and guidelines for that because when they know they're defensible. And so that language is from free from them. I don't think we need to add or detract at the risk of potentially compromising the integrity of the definition that exists. I agree. Thank you. Leave it. All agree. Item 17, page 27. Another jurisdiction. So this says say, say, say a councillors appearing before us or parties appearing before us and they're also appearing in Baltimore County on something and Baltimore County's Continuous date conflicts with ours and that was scheduled first. Well, that's a carryover. It's an other jurisdiction. Turned jurisdiction is pretty clear. Everybody okay with that? Yes. Okay. Where are we? So we're 28 line 21. 28. Oh no, I'm sorry. 18. 18. 18. What does think subcategories? This is we've already talked about this earlier. This was as this is the denover we were even saw this in previous public comment Right This is, we've already talked about this earlier. This was, as this is the denobo, we've already resolved this in previous public comment. Right, here we go. Okay. 19. What court of law? A court specifically which court? 829-19. Finalist in order of board of bills, maybe bill of court of law in accordance with these rules. So I'm going to go to the court of law and I'm going to go to put a pin in that. I believe the officer law has some comments that they're going to make those next meeting about that. I don't know what they are, but I think they had a sufficiency issue there. So I say we just hold that right. Sounds good. We're at 18. Is that where it says a venue? I'm right there are final decision or up on the board there okay so let's go up to that venue because I think there needs to be a change based on what we've changed previously okay and I agree with you but can we do you agree that we'll put a pin in this one yes that until okay so now what was your point? when's the minimum attrition the pellet must choose to have the case for about you, the hearing's no more important. Oh, wait, did we change that? We already changed that. We already changed that. Yeah, this is the general right? Yes, we did. Okay. To clarify, I'm not updating this document in real time. That's it. It will be all done once this session is concluded. Thank you. because that, and just know because that changed all the line of the journey. That's why I asked Mr. Wright Hart, please don't change anything until we get them. No, it makes sense. I just saw it and wanted to bring it up. The purview. just know because that changed all the line of the day. That's why I asked Mr. Whitehart, please don't change it until we get them. No, it makes sense. I just saw it and wanted to bring it up. The perv you. Where is it? Court of law. Okay, same question as court of law. Okay, so 20, we're going to just put a pin in that too right. Wait until we hear from the office of law, the law because I think that it is our not sure what it is but 21 says we don't deal with nonland use appeals that's not accurate but 21 says we don't deal with non-land use appeals. That's not accurate. Everybody okay with that? Yes. Yeah. Okay. The 22, so we explained this before, the reason we flip between chairperson and presiding official. It's context specific. For example, scheduling order is the chairperson, but the presiding official is the person that runs the meeting and that's the distinction between the two. Are we okay with that? Yes. Okay. 23, page 33, line 4 through 7. Something's about the edX. Yeah, so yeah, it's gonna be off the lot. I'm pretty sure we're gonna strike in it. So, but we gotta wait for the the office of law. So let's put a pin in that one. Okay. Um, is there a broker at that? Mm-hmm. I'm just trying to be too. Take your time, we're at it. It just requires an action if a member fails to give ethics disclosure. I think there's some legal sufficiency issues around that. We're going to wait here for the officer law before we weigh in on the public comment. Okay. Makes sense? Okay. Yes. Where are we? I'm sorry I lost my place here. 24. 24. Does this include videos, large books, confused on the difference between reports, first technical reports? 34, 10 to 16. So, I have a multiple question. So I have a question about the question. So he says, what's the difference between reports for technical boards? Is there a distinction? Is the term reports used in that section? No. Right? So why is he distinguishing between them? Am I wrong? I guess we'd have to do a search and find if there's anywhere that we reference just reports. But we don't. It's always a technical report. Like it's traffic report. It's a technical staff report. I mean, I'm trying not to be sarcastic. But there's not book reports being given here. Like what report would you be giving if not a technical report? Could there be a book report Port Gidlin? I guess that could be. I don't know. So I guess you could always find a problem if you want to find one, but if one doesn't exist, why create it? Like it's a technical report, and I would assume that all reports are technical. Well, that would be an assumption, too, because if you think about maybe there's a witness giving a report on something that they wrote. That's testimony. Okay, so if they're given a report. It's testimony. Right? The report is considered evidence. I'm trying to understand the example. So let's say Mary Jane had a report on how the inner environment is affected by the small going into the school system of the kids and she wrote this report and wants it to be entered as evidence on her opposition of something saying that this is why it's not a technical report because she's not an expert necessarily. It's her research. That's evidence and that's still tested. It's a little bit too significant just a thing about that. Mr. Sanders, do you have a thought on this? I've entered into the record as an exhibit. Well, I think you just used for you all, just used a standard definition of technical report. What would be the English definition? A former report designed to convey technical information in a clear and easily accessible format. That's why I get paid the big books. Yeah. So, yeah. And I guess, you know, yeah. I think some of these things, the board would, you know, if the issue came up before, was this the technical center board, the board would have to make a decision? Yeah, and I guess they had in the past. And I guess that would be the thing too, right? Like it's as a party, it talks about the required filing. So there would have to be an objection, hey, it's the technical port, it wasn't filed in advance. And then the board would have to make a ruling on if it was a technical report or not. Because I guess if I'm just interpreting this question differently. So regular reports don't have to be provided within the time frame. And I think Mr. Sanders just said it's correct, like the board would have to determine. Is this... interpreting this question differently. Like so, regular reports don't have to be provided within the time frame. And I think when Mr. Sanders just said it's correct, like the board would have to determine, is this technical report or not? Because this is requirements that apply to technical reports. Other reports don't have a requirement. So there was a traffic study, that's not a thing. That's like the one. Oh, let's study. That's it. So that would be... Traffic study and technical report. Yeah, that's a good report. It's given evidence of statistical... What about that study, Mr. Sanders? Is that followed and technical report. Yes. Just give an evidence of statistic. What about that study, Mr. Sanders? Is that fall under technical report? Traffic study. Yeah. It's an engineering report, right? It's traffic engineering. In some cases, a traffic study is required. Others, it's not. I think the board has treated a lot of traffic studies is not being technical reports. So they're trying to fall about the pre-file. That might be why the question came up. Okay so the question again just to understand it confused on the difference between report and non-tech report., I think the difference is Mr. Sanders just provided the legal definition of technical report if it doesn't fall into that legal definition. It's considered report And it's not held to the standards. Yeah, so it's not exactly Right exactly and does this include video and large box? I for. It sounds like they want to document the report to the very end. My interpretation of this comment, rewatching the public hearing, was that I believe he was referring to whether documentary evidence, more so than technical reports, would include videos or large books. I'm sorry. Oh, if they would be included under the term technical report? No, if they would be included under the term similar documentary evidence. That was just my interpretation. A large book is supposed to a small book. Yeah, I guess, right? I mean, if it's evidence it's documented documentary evidence this would be something that maybe the chair at the time would have to determine whether or not. Yes I would have to check because it wasn't within 10 days or it would be discretion I think. Yeah right well or the board would have to rule right here. They'd have to, like, that would be a motion for the board. Yeah. I imagine. But yeah. And then I mean, it depends on what the video is. Yeah. Yeah. You can't. If it's dog's barking, then you can't really hear barking. Trying to get you to an answer on this. But I don't think it's a question that they're asking. So the answer would be videos in or large books. Could be. They could be part of the documentary, similar documentary evidence. So it could be, it's the board of having to make a determination at that time based on context and submission. So maybe that's the answer. Leave it as it is, but the response is the board would make the determination. Okay. Okay. So yeah. So that's asked and answered. The number of hard copies conflicts. Page 35, lines 19 to 20. I do remember we had this conversation because I recommend a 10 and then it was seven. And it was from different things though. Yeah, so it was 10 and so it's seven throughout. Miss Bergen, you remember that? So I do remember that whole conversation, yeah. Do you? And we were trying to explain, I think we even asked Miss Bergen, is Bergen, how many copies do you need? Remember that? I remember that hearing. He's completely in the fifth. So, complex was a previous section, in the 9A. So we should make it consistent, we have to look at this. So... I'm not hearing. He's close to feeding the fifth. So complex was pretty good section, real 9A. So we should make it consistent. We have to look at this. So this rule that he's talking about says we need seven. Is that right? That's the five board members. And one for each board member, office of law, and an opposing party and myself. That's a more than eight. Yeah. 5, 6, 7, 8. OK. And then, well, 140 is well, whatever. So it's 8. And we have 7 right there, listen. 7 right? Where do we have? Where are we? 7 hard copies of prosies of it. We have 10. We have 10. But's a seven. In tactical reports. So technical reports were saying should be eight. Right? Is that what we're saying we need a number. We need to make sure it's consistent. Because we'll go back to the role and fix it. So, Ms. Berg says five board members. Off the law. The administrator. And at least one opposing party. Yeah. Yeah, it's always been eight. I remember hearing eight a lot. What I've always been hearing eight So eight right, so are we okay with eight changing it to eat Offs-a-law Well, no, so they're giving to you so So it's the if the opposition law and administrator and then five board members. So eight. So eight. So eight. So we should change the language here right for degree to eight and then also go back to rule nine a here they say nine a to make sure that it also says eight. If you want to mind, is he correct in that citation 9A? That's what it says, seven. Okay, so that should say eight. So they should both say eight. Correct, it should both say eight. Okay, so you're good on that. Yeah. It's supposed to say. OK. You're good on that. OK. Yeah. That's seven on that one. Yeah. So they're going to go back, stabs me back and make sure it consistent eight through whatever it references how many archives we need. It's eight. OK. Line item 26. Why is this section necessary? Page 36, 1519. Why is this? And what's the context of this? That's why is it? Why, which is rule, what is that we're talking about? It's rule 10, the missions of evidence. Oh, okay, yeah. So it's the part that Mr. Sanders reads at the beginning, the following is a corporate way of reference. So it means we're not actually given a physical hard copy by way of reference, right? Mr. Sanders would that be the correct way to identify what by reference means? Yeah, I think this is a little different than when we opened the case up and we introduced the doctor. I don't know. Bear with me here. Yes. Yes. Good day. I know I'm ready. I think all around is definitely this part of the case. And I already, this is broader than, this is a little broader than doxies we always introduce. And there is a mistake here, I just see it. But let's first get, okay. So but by reference, first part of the question, by reference, that means, can you just clarify what that, when you say by reference what do you mean? You don't feel good to copy right you mean well at the beginning here usually what I'll do is uh... per per our existing rules says the county can enter official documents like without having to actually have the whole code here we do the hurricane code and the actual petition before you. But the term by reference means you're just citing it. You're not giving a copy of it. OK. Basically. So what they're saying here is without providing you eight copies or something. So it's saying by reference means so we're going to cite it. Public records, previous decisions, orders of the board, technical staff reports. For consideration, at least 21 days. So my question is, if the code says that technical staff reports have to be given to us 14 days before our hearing, and we have 21 days here, that's inconsistent with the code. Correct. So we have to change that. And is that enough time to get it posted? It's already online, it's by reference. So it's already available online. So the TSR would be online. Yeah, I mean, so all that like the planning board recommendations that be on the planning board website, how we're getting a lot of that's live all the time. Previous planning board previous decisions those are online. So the biggest the only thing that isn't 14 days is the TSR or I'm sorry isn't 21 days is the TSR. And so the T&O's be already there. I'm sorry yeah yeah that should all be there. So, for members of you OK, if we change line 18 to be 14 days, because elsewhere in the code, the DPC is required to give us T SRs 14 days. Two weeks is what it says actually. Two weeks. So, at 21 days is three weeks, so we need to change it to two weeks. Yeah, 14 days. Well, you've had 15 somewhere. You mentioned 15 days to make sure you covered the two weeks full two weeks. Oh, that was definitely for the time. Okay, I just remember the time. Yeah, but you're right, but that was a yeah. So, I'm going to recommend that we, if everybody's agreement, line 18 changes from 21 to 14. Yes, agree, good. For consistency. Okay. Moving on. That was why is it section 26? 26. 26. But the point so 26 stays as is but then in reviewing it we found a problem that we didn't really previously realize, which is the 14 and 21 day thing. Line 18. Yeah, because to meet the other parts of the code, so it's consistent. Of course. Where are we next? Why is it secondary? So the page So page 27, the author says we should inconsistency between days and business days. So definition says if it says days, it says it's a calendar day, unless otherwise stated, in which it's a business day. So we define that in definitions. There's no inconsistency. It says days, it's calendar day. Is there a real okay with that? Yes. Mr. Harkov? Yes. Okay. 28, I joke because I remember watching the video and watching him say that, the block font. We got that right from the circuit court. Like I don't know what block font is either. But I'm guessing it's not block font. It's block letter 11 point font. It's not block font. So what's yeah, what's block letter? It's block letter 11 point five. Yeah, I mean, yeah. In other words, it's the difference. It's just making it clear. So are you are you okay? Definitely, okay, so we'll leave it as is um, well that was a question. What is it? Was block fun? But there isn't such thing doesn't say block fun. Yeah block letter. Right. Okay. So right. So the site that the question isn't is an accurate. 38.30. 38 weighing in an opinion that does not agree with our section. It's saying that it's 38.13.18. Is it the spokesperson who wants that to be an attorney? No, absolutely not. So why would we do that? Why would the whole point of a cause? Well, the whole point of term. Well, the whole point of a quasi-judicial hearing, which is this, is that's a lay person. If you wanted to do the technical rules, you would go to court. That's the premise behind quasi-judicial so that the community, the citizens have access to it. You don't have to hire an attorney. And that's really the driving force between these rules. That's why we've been writing them this way so that, you know, John Cue Public comes out of Strenows, so no. I don't think we should change it. Does everybody agree with it? That's really the driving force between these rules. That's why we've been writing them this way. So that, you know, John Cue Public comes out of Strenows. So, no. I don't think we should change it. Does everybody agree with leaving it as this? Yes. Okay. Let's see where are we. Licentory. Okay. Examples of chairperson presenting. That's, I think we've already asked to answer that. Does everybody agree? Yes. Okay. Line 31, we agreed to put a pin in that until we get legal sufficiency on the term court and so on and so forth. Are we okay with that? Yes. Yes. The Line 32 re-recross, re-redirect, I'm not even going to re-buddle and there is no such thing as re-re-cross or re-redirect. But it's not called that. It's called re-cross. And then you have a re-redirect and a re-re-cross. So it is not necessarily. What is it say if they are 42 lines? It's not necessarily. Mr. Sanders, do you have an opinion on that? I don't think it's necessary. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Because then there will be re re re re re re re re re re cross. I can't. So it's cross re cross. And then it's listed again on the 21 and 22 redirect in the cross. Yeah, but no, he wants to add yet a third. He wants to add re re. Which doesn't even exist in real life. Okay. Okay, so now we're at 33. We're good with that. Oh, we're waiting. I'm waiting to get away from the word. We're good. Oh, good. Okay. Number 33. 33 in page 46. What a D.B.Z. is not involved in the case. 46. This is referring to D.B.Z. as being the custodian. Yeah, because they record so yeah, yeah, so okay Yeah, it's a well okay no action necessarily 34 wire required this training 52 big I mean it's pretty simple. This domain provides an overview of the board's responsibilities and conduct and precision. I think we need to be trained on how to participate in the doctorate. We can be fair. I don't think we need to have a right. We're good with that. Okay. And why have electronic submission section at the end? Page 53 line. Where should it be? It's fine. He's just like, yeah, he just doesn't like where it is in the rules. I think it's fine. Where does there be a gray? Yes. Okay. So line 36 is resolved. Line 37. What is met by currency? Okay. So I will acquiesce. Do we miss the hyperlink thing? Is that already done? That's correct. So line 37, I will acquiesce because Miss Phillips at length brought this up. Which is currency, which is currency, so I went back and it turns out that when I made that language, I was in fact incorrect. The code does not use the word currency. They use currentness. Currentness. So I know. So to be consistent with the code, although currency is a word with a real meaning. Money or something. Well, oh, you were the one I thought was my fault. It was one of you. I knew that was like well about currency. Oh, I know. So I and I was one that proposed that and I said this is how it is. But to be consistent with the code when it talks about the relevant, you know, the how current something is, they use the word currentness in the Maryland annotated code used the word currentness to talk about the most updated version of it. So I would recommend that we change currency to currentness. It's unbelievable. So do we want to? Currentness refers to the state or quality being current. We're belonging to the present time and can be expressed as synonyms like currency or up to date ofness. I know, consistent with the code and other legal jargon currentness is okay so do we need to include within three business days what because we're talking about currentness and if something needs to be updated and for waiting on technical reporter waiting on something to update let me just take a look there. 565. Where is it? The board of minutes, 17. What is your shaman calendar like? Oh my god. Pretty darn it. Yeah, so this means that the board of minutes should make sure everything's current. Right. But I mean, I guess do they have a timeline to make sure it's current? No, because everything has a different like the D&O might take their, like it just makes sure it's current. Okay. Yeah. Long as they can't fall back and tell, well this is in current because it's not there. No, no, it's no time. Married by I think we run it, probably we do put it time frame because every, like a petition might have a certain deadline. It just essentially says, that's a board administrator, just needs to make sure it's current. So as files are received, if you follow the rules, then everything is current. Yeah. Okay. Okay. That concludes everything except the officer law, which will then help feed into one or two public comments. We need to resolve any questions, comments, suggestions. That is awesome work people. It is a G25. It has been 13 months since we started this and we are literally done with the exception of the off-the-law and the final stylistic and grammar review. So I want to thank everybody very much, including staff, it's been a long year, over 300 hours and 20 plus hearings. So thank you very much. Our next hearing, our, I'm sorry, next work session, is Thursday, the next Thursday. It begins at 7.30 p.m., at which point we will hear from the Office of Law, and resolve anything that we have to resolve there. Staff will then do what they have to do. And once we know it's all squared away, we will set the hearing the final work session where we will do one last review of everything before it goes off to council. Questions, comments, concerns? Okay, next, the gene we've had 730. 730. 730, because there's another meeting going on before that. So the earliest week started 730. Okay. A jink. I know Kowit sent out some hold dates. Are they still hold dates? Let me take a look here. So what I have is and Miss Berger you can tell me if I'm wrong. What I have is April 3rd and 10th we start withth. Then we're holding the 17th and 14th. 17th and 14th. 14th, that's what I show, right? Do you show that to? 17th and 14th? 24th. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm looking right at 24th, I'm sorry. Okay. So, yeah. Are they still, they're still holds? As I understand it, yeah, once we do next work session and then I guess we'll get word from staff how long they think it'll take to do their thing and then we could probably drop whatever date we don't need. There, I imagine it'll probably be this seventh we'll drop, but we'll see. That way it gives us time to prep the final doc and then we have a hearing and that's it and then it's off to council after that and we meet our deadline so that they can pre-pop. And Jean, you're leaving on the 11th, right? I'm leaving. and that's it and then it's off to council after that and we meet our deadline so that they can pre-pile. And Jean, you're leaving on the 11th, right? I'm leaving. I'll be 11th through 16th, yeah. And 16th. And we, and Ms. Bergrae sent out the other drop dates. We dropped some stuff in, I think, June or whatever, but what we'll get on schedule. So by next meeting with Bergen, I will sync up. And because we can now start to drop dates that won't qualify because of the 37 day requirement for advertising we can start to drop dates a month out because there won't be enough time for their file today. You know I mean they wouldn't have enough time to out hearing. So when we're like 30 days out and we don't have a hearing we can start dropping it because there's no more need for work sessions So that should help get through to summer Alrighty and we have a hearing may first with a continuation all date of the 8th and Disappending motion on that so we'll keep everybody updated Good all right. We shall adjourn the meeting. Thank you everybody. Thank you