Board of Adjustment Meeting - May 8, 2025

I'll call the meeting to order, and we'll start with roll call, please.

Member Probst? Here. Member Mueller? Here. Chair Rose?

Here. Chair, you have a quorum. Wonderful. I just lost my tab with the— Um, I hopefully will have the agenda with you all. Entertain a motion to approve the agenda.

So moved. Second. And that passes without discussion. And now I'll entertain a motion to approve the previous meeting's minutes. So moved.

Second. Excellent. That also passes without discussion. So as we move along on the agenda today, there really is just the one item of business to discuss, which is discussing our facts and our— sorry, our findings and conclusions following the decision we made on appeal number 2024-02. So moving to that, everyone should, at least the members should all have a copy of the draft that was sent to us by our council earlier this week.

And I've reviewed it. I hope that the two of you have done so as well. I'll open the discussion on this to see if anyone has any suggested changes to the draft.

Um, Mr. Chairman, I'd call your attention to, uh, point number 7 under the findings.

I just know that when I read it, I did not recall that we made that finding that the platting board lacked the authority. I mean, I think we reaffirmed the platting board's own decision that they lacked the authority to confirm a section line easement. So I, I, when I read Ms. Kitchen's, uh, sentence here, the write-up, it sounded like we turned their decision, and that wasn't my recollection. So I'd like to know how the group feels about it.

My interpretation was that— I'm sorry, through the chair, I'm still learning how to do this— was that they lacked the legal authority and that we all felt that it needed to be through the judicial process. So maybe just adding the word legal in front of authority is a way to more clearly define what type of authority we're saying they lack.

Is that in line with what you were all feeling?

I think so. I mean, I think the planning board themselves acknowledged that they didn't have the authority, um, and they— I forget the terminology now, um, the— there was a— they had a reasonable assumption that were there a judicial determination that a section line easement would have been placed there. Or something to that effect, right? But they themselves acknowledge that it would be quiet title action process that would actually make that happen. Exactly.

So, and so, go ahead, Chair Rose, what do you think? Do you think that that would be a way to more clearly define that specific authority that we're discussing so that it can be more narrowly addressed. I think inserting the word legal between the words lacks and authority makes sense. It's consistent with the conversation we had. I mean, I know we talked about this, and I think I I think that a necessary part of our overall decision was reaffirming the statement that, or the principle that, the Planning Board doesn't have the legal authority to adjudicate whether a Section 9 easement exists.

Right. So I think it's appropriate to say that we found that they lack authority. I think that the the right way to solve it is inserting that word, um, legal. And if that, if that kind of is consistent— I mean, I know we talked about that, so I think that's consistent with the deliberations we had. Um, and if that kind of assuages the concern that you have, Mr. Probst, I think that's the best way to do it.

Sounds good to me. Okay, in that case, I will consider that a motion to amend paragraph 7 of the draft to include the word legal. And I'll second that. And it sounds like we have unanimous consent on that unless anybody objects.

No. Fantastic. So that's going to pass.

Ms. Kitchen, do you have that edit?

Yes, I do. Wonderful. Okay, Mr. Probst, any other thoughts? That was my only comment. Okay.

Ms. Muller.

I am in agreement. I think that's the only thing that was in question, and we just addressed it, so. Okay. I also don't have any suggested edits to the draft. I think it was well drafted, is consistent with the discussion we had.

So, um, Miss Kitchen, um, I, I would just like to bring to everyone's attention, I'd like to add to footnote 2 a citation to record 008920092, which is the entire May 3, 2023 Planning Board resolution approving the Mills subdivision. That, that just adds a more complete site, and that talks about— it's in the recitals, and it talks about the May 3, 2023, Planning Board issued its written findings. I, I don't have any problem with that. Um, Mr. Probst? None.

Ms. Mueller? Excellent addition. Thank you. Okay, I'll add that.

Okay, then I will entertain a motion to approve the draft as amended, as we've just discussed. So moved.

Second. And this one will— we'll go ahead and call a roll call vote on just so we have the record on it.

Chair Rose. Aye. Member Mueller? Aye. Member Probst?

Aye. That passes 3 to 0. Excellent. That then concludes the substantive part of this business. Procedurally, since we're all distant today, I think the way this will work is, Ms.

Kitchen, you've made the edits. Once we have that clean copy, it'll get sent over to me. I'll print it off here from my home office, sign it, scan it, back to the important people to make sure that gets submitted to the parties and appropriately filed and everything like that. That should all happen later on today.

Let me go back to the agenda real quick. Okay, we have no old business to discuss. Member comments. Ms. Buehler.

No comments. Mr. Probst. None.

I also, I'll comment briefly just to say it was enjoyable working with the two of you on this appeal. I'm glad that we got this done efficiently. Yet I think we are hoping to close or at least move along a matter that has been obviously dealing, these parties have been dealing with for a while. So, glad to have this done. I will comment too, I understand we have no other current appeals pending, so it may be a while yet before we reconvene and see each other.

So, I wish you both the best until that comes to fruition next. Moving to audience participation, I'll open the microphone here in a minute for anyone who wants to add some audience commentary. A note again, as I always make a point for this admonition, you can't talk about any particular matters before us, which really just involves this case. So I know there are people that are on the line because they want to hear what's going on and be apprised of that, Do realize that we can't take any evidence or arguments about the case itself. But if you have any other comments, I'll open the microphone for audience participation.

Okay, hearing none, I will entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting. So moved.

Second. Meeting adjourned. Thank you all.