1
00:15:00,000 --> 00:15:29,180
And she'll file an affidavit of mailing with the zoning officer, neither of which were done by Mr. Potter. They were probably 8-10 other parties in this case, members of the community that should have received notice of his motion to reconsideration, they did not find it, they're not here today to argue in opposition or in support of it. And affidavit was not filed with the zoning officer. However, in spite of that defect, I would suggest to the board that you overlook

2
00:15:29,180 --> 00:15:33,580
So the procedure will defect and consider the case on the merits.

3
00:15:34,440 --> 00:15:39,140
The other issue is vote required, the zoning ordinance and the rules of procedure require

4
00:15:39,140 --> 00:15:41,960
that the reconsideration or to deny it.

5
00:15:42,360 --> 00:15:48,300
And so when you take a vote later today, you need three members to confirm the motion.

6
00:15:49,120 --> 00:15:51,880
Then the standard for reconsideration.

7
00:15:52,620 --> 00:15:55,740
And that's a rule of procedure XV3 double I.

8
00:15:56,280 --> 00:15:58,180
Revise, repower of the board governs.

9
00:15:58,180 --> 00:16:03,440
reconsideration only lies upon a showing of a mistake of fact or law.

10
00:16:03,820 --> 00:16:08,660
In this particular case, Mr. Potter's motion accurately cites a mistake of law.

11
00:16:08,960 --> 00:16:16,860
His mistake of law is that the board reversed his own hearing officer on the mistaken belief

12
00:16:16,860 --> 00:16:25,380
that the former youths had continued based upon the intent of the applicant.

13
00:16:25,380 --> 00:16:31,660
that's a mistake of law. The board of course in this order sort of disagreed with that.

14
00:16:33,080 --> 00:16:37,320
Next, the issue that was raised by Mr. Schaller in his opposition, the standing

15
00:16:37,320 --> 00:16:43,780
of the zoning officer in the county to file an appeal. He makes the argument that the county

16
00:16:43,780 --> 00:16:49,760
is not agreed and therefore it cannot file an appeal. The problem with that argument is this is not

17
00:16:49,760 --> 00:16:53,840
and appeal. State law does in fact say that only an

18
00:16:53,840 --> 00:16:59,020
aggrieved person may file an appeal from an administrative agency to the court.

19
00:16:59,480 --> 00:17:04,860
This is not an appeal. It's a request for reconsideration. There is no agreement requirement

20
00:17:04,860 --> 00:17:12,940
for motion for reconsideration of an agency's determination. So Mr. Potter here appropriately has,

21
00:17:12,940 --> 00:17:20,500
He was a party before the board, and therefore he can file a motion for reconsideration.

22
00:17:21,460 --> 00:17:25,120
And again, the reasons for that are the following, just so that the record is clear.

23
00:17:25,880 --> 00:17:33,000
Under the zoning orders, 297-414-A, the zoning officer, when you state that he's not a party

24
00:17:33,000 --> 00:17:37,180
in interest, the following relies on that particular conclusion by Mr. Schale.

25
00:17:37,180 --> 00:17:42,480
One, the docket in the case identifies Charles County zoning officer as Apalee.

26
00:17:42,960 --> 00:17:46,000
Apalee is a party definition.

27
00:17:47,100 --> 00:17:53,400
Room 2K of the room's procedure expressly defines a party to include respondents in an administrative appeal.

28
00:17:53,840 --> 00:17:55,820
The zoning officer is such a respondent.

29
00:17:56,620 --> 00:18:04,220
Room Procedure XII, it places the zoning officer in the initial burden of presenting evidence and

30
00:18:04,220 --> 00:18:06,880
an argument to justify the decision appealed from.

31
00:18:07,360 --> 00:18:11,100
Only a party can make argument and present evidence.

32
00:18:11,860 --> 00:18:16,560
Section 297-414-A of the zoning orders uses the broad term.

33
00:18:17,100 --> 00:18:21,760
Any party in interest, not the narrow agreed person, as alleged by Mr.

34
00:18:21,920 --> 00:18:24,880
Schaller, therefore the board should give the language its plain meeting.

35
00:18:25,360 --> 00:18:28,780
The zoning officer was a party in interest.

36
00:18:29,840 --> 00:18:37,220
And fifth, the Maryland decision relied on by Mr. Schaller, all concerned the standing

37
00:18:37,220 --> 00:18:40,700
of administrative bodies for appeal and adverse decision, which I stated earlier.

38
00:18:41,100 --> 00:18:43,840
And this is not an appeal of an adverse decision to the court.

39
00:18:44,540 --> 00:18:49,260
This is a reconsideration about the same tribunal that rendered the decision and therefore is

40
00:18:49,260 --> 00:18:53,000
not analogous to an appeal from an administrative agency to the court.

41
00:18:54,280 --> 00:19:22,000
Then the practical analysis if you were to adopt Mr. Schallers position, basically the county would never be in a position to be able to appeal to the court any decision rendered by this board or any other administrative agency if you were to conclude without specific facts that the county attorney has no authority to file an appeal in this case by analogy Mr. Schallers document.

42
00:19:22,000 --> 00:19:26,600
document a reconsideration. That just is not practical.

43
00:19:29,780 --> 00:19:33,420
And so at the end of the day, I would conclude,

44
00:19:33,480 --> 00:19:40,220
and I would suggest that this board also conclude, that the motion is timely. It is based on a mistake

45
00:19:40,220 --> 00:19:47,960
of law. It's sufficient for reconsideration. And then lastly, there are three independent grounds,

46
00:19:47,960 --> 00:19:56,060
however, that Mr. Potter failed to address in his motion all of which were cited in the order.

47
00:19:56,700 --> 00:20:03,220
And again, we're going back to rule XV3I, the revised repower of the board, and the grounds for reconsideration.

48
00:20:03,720 --> 00:20:06,640
And basically, that particular section says the following.

49
00:20:07,340 --> 00:20:12,800
A motion that merely restates arguments considered and rejected that the original hearing does not satisfy the standard.

50
00:20:12,800 --> 00:20:17,740
It is a request to relitigate and Mr. Potter has not requested to relitigate.

51
00:20:17,880 --> 00:20:20,360
He's not requested to add additional evidence.

52
00:20:20,800 --> 00:20:35,660
The county frame does argument as a mistake of law specifically that the board improperly imported an intent element into the only order section 297468 despite the ordinance mandatory shall be deemed abandoned language.

53
00:20:35,860 --> 00:20:36,980
That's a mistake of law.

54
00:20:38,220 --> 00:20:46,040
Therefore, I would suggest that you deny the motion on its merits, not on the procedural

55
00:20:46,040 --> 00:20:52,260
defect Mr. Potter has in his particular pleading, and then the merits would be the following,

56
00:20:52,660 --> 00:20:56,140
and there are three independent grounds to deny it.

57
00:20:56,540 --> 00:21:03,360
Number one, equitable tolling under the National Waste Managers' case, which was cited by

58
00:21:03,360 --> 00:21:06,800
I believe, Mr. Scheller, and which was in the original order.

59
00:21:07,540 --> 00:21:15,780
A county attorney had ruled in this case or communicated to Mr. Holmes that his case had not been

60
00:21:15,780 --> 00:21:20,320
abandoned under the terms because he had intent to proceed.

61
00:21:20,940 --> 00:21:26,700
Although arguably that particular conclusion was inaccurate, from an equitable standpoint,

62
00:21:26,700 --> 00:21:36,180
point, it induced Mr. Holmes to proceed with attempting to try to gain, get approval.

63
00:21:36,340 --> 00:21:42,640
So, equitable tolling was not denied by Mr. Potter in his motion, and that's an independent

64
00:21:42,640 --> 00:21:45,740
ground to confirm your original order.

65
00:21:46,980 --> 00:21:50,100
Second, detrimental reliance on the county attorney's written advice.

66
00:21:50,100 --> 00:21:57,140
clearly Mr. Holmes relied on the advice of the county attorney and it would be a poor argument

67
00:21:57,140 --> 00:22:03,540
for the county attorney to tell Mr. Holmes five six seven eight nine years ago that you have

68
00:22:03,540 --> 00:22:09,100
not abandoned the law doesn't apply to you because you have an intent to reconstruct the structure

69
00:22:09,100 --> 00:22:15,740
and then the same county attorney come in here today and say the deadline passed you had no intent

70
00:22:15,740 --> 00:22:30,320
And so Mr. Holmes detrimental relied on the county attorney's written advice and the order very clearly states that is one of the bases of the denial of overturning of the zoning officer's decision.

71
00:22:31,000 --> 00:22:41,200
And then the last bases again that Mr. Potter failed to recognize in the original order under session 29746A of the zoning ordinance in the Mark Lounge case.

72
00:22:41,200 --> 00:22:50,400
case, he makes the argument that that particular case, which dealt with a revealed provision

73
00:22:50,400 --> 00:22:56,060
with a one-year building permit trigger and a case involving no municipal delay and no

74
00:22:56,060 --> 00:22:59,720
advice of counsel or stock or, therefore, that case is not even applicable here.

75
00:22:59,860 --> 00:23:07,420
That was not a non-conforming use or the type of case that we have here today.

76
00:23:09,450 --> 00:23:34,850
Therefore, my recommended disposition to this Board, and of course, it's up to you to make this particular decision based upon the pleading file by Mr. Potter and file by Mr. Schaller, but I would suggest the file that you find that the zoning officer has standing on the zoning ordinance 297-414 as a party and interest to file the motion for reconsideration that you find the motion is timely and satisfies the rules of procedure.

77
00:23:34,850 --> 00:23:36,850
of a filing standard of the motion

78
00:23:36,850 --> 00:23:38,990
asserting a mistake of law.

79
00:23:40,010 --> 00:23:42,330
That you deny the motion for reconsideration

80
00:23:42,330 --> 00:23:44,390
on the merits, on the ground set forth.

81
00:23:45,750 --> 00:23:48,570
And what I would suggest you do at the end of this case

82
00:23:48,570 --> 00:23:53,470
is make a motion to have me prepare for your approval

83
00:23:54,050 --> 00:23:57,970
and amended order and decision clarifying

84
00:23:57,970 --> 00:24:02,810
why you deny this particular motion for reconsideration.

85
00:24:04,310 --> 00:24:10,070
And as I stated earlier, any vote you do make today requires an affirmative vote of three members.

86
00:24:12,770 --> 00:24:16,550
And so those would be my comments on this particular case.

87
00:24:16,690 --> 00:24:20,190
And so you now in the past year, where you can make the appropriate motion.

88
00:24:21,710 --> 00:24:22,730
Thank you, Mr. Brock.

89
00:24:23,250 --> 00:24:31,610
Well, at this point, if we're to follow our legal counsel's suggestions, then I'll go back

90
00:24:31,610 --> 00:24:35,890
to the maker of the motion is still on the floor, Mr. Trainer, would you like to withdraw

91
00:24:35,890 --> 00:24:36,430
your motion?

92
00:24:40,460 --> 00:24:45,380
Sure, I was from my motion. And the seconder, Mr. Shersado, would you withdraw

93
00:24:45,380 --> 00:24:51,460
your motion? Yeah, let's draw off the second. Okay, so at this point we have no motion on the floor

94
00:24:52,480 --> 00:25:02,960
and I'll accept another motion. Okay, I have a question, Mr. Brown. So should we, do we need to

95
00:25:02,960 --> 00:25:09,840
rule on kind of the two separate things. I see the issue of standing and then the issue

96
00:25:09,840 --> 00:25:15,920
of whether we do the reconsideration or those two separate issues we need to address.

97
00:25:16,520 --> 00:25:23,280
No, I think we should vote on a global motion to you. Do you deny the motion for reconsideration?

98
00:25:23,640 --> 00:25:28,120
And if your answer to that is affirmative, you deny the motion for reconsideration and that

99
00:25:28,120 --> 00:25:35,380
you would then instruct a need to prepare a decision in order to explain why you denied

100
00:25:35,380 --> 00:25:36,840
the motion to reconsideration.

101
00:25:42,200 --> 00:25:45,900
In that case, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move to reconsider.

102
00:25:52,860 --> 00:25:53,960
So I have a motion on the floor.

103
00:25:54,080 --> 00:26:00,620
Do I have a second for the motion to reconsider, which we go pretty much against our legal counsel

104
00:26:00,620 --> 00:26:04,100
again that and not withdraw

105
00:26:07,680 --> 00:26:13,560
seeing no second then the motion dies for lack of a second at

106
00:26:15,710 --> 00:26:16,090
this point

107
00:26:16,090 --> 00:26:18,650
is here another motion to come to the floor mr.

108
00:26:32,690 --> 00:26:36,890
Brown would you read would you restate what we should

109
00:26:36,890 --> 00:26:44,010
be doing at this point and we should be denying a motion to reconsider which was made by mr. Potter correct

110
00:26:44,010 --> 00:26:51,370
Yes, my suggestion would be based upon the pleading file by Mr. Potter and the pleading

111
00:26:51,370 --> 00:27:01,350
file by Mr. Schaller and the order that you approved a month or so ago that you deny Mr.

112
00:27:01,430 --> 00:27:03,730
Potter's motion for reconsideration stop.

113
00:27:09,580 --> 00:27:10,780
Is anybody willing to do that?

114
00:27:13,020 --> 00:27:24,340
So, so you're saying like, so we have to basically reaffirm what was affirmed by this board already?

115
00:27:24,840 --> 00:27:35,420
No, no, all we have to do is either we agree with Mr. Potter that we're going to reconsider our decision or we disagree with Mr. Potter that we're going to reconsider our decision.

116
00:27:35,420 --> 00:27:42,620
it is my suggestion based upon the pleadings and the argument that you vote to deny his motion

117
00:27:42,620 --> 00:27:43,640
for reconsideration.

118
00:27:49,150 --> 00:27:55,750
Even though the motion that just died. Well, Mr. Trainers motion was to grant Mr.

119
00:27:55,870 --> 00:28:02,070
Paolo's request for reconsideration to reconsider your decision. Right, right. But the fact that nobody

120
00:28:02,070 --> 00:28:07,890
second it isn't that the fact that I'm saying we we have to just we have to

121
00:28:07,890 --> 00:28:14,050
still need a permanent vote vote of three person okay those are for us say

122
00:28:14,050 --> 00:28:19,770
that you denied mr. Pardis motion for reconsideration okay okay all right

123
00:28:19,770 --> 00:28:28,310
okay well I move that the county's motion for reconsideration be denied and

124
00:28:28,310 --> 00:28:28,630
a second.

125
00:28:31,440 --> 00:28:32,740
They have a second by Ms. Walker.

126
00:28:33,500 --> 00:28:35,880
Most of them made by Mr. Cassada, the second by Ms. Walker.

127
00:28:36,060 --> 00:28:38,080
Now, the floor is open for discussion.

128
00:28:38,700 --> 00:28:39,240
Just a moment.

129
00:28:39,600 --> 00:28:40,000
Chairperson.

130
00:28:41,520 --> 00:28:43,660
Chairperson, was that Mr. Walker?

131
00:28:43,880 --> 00:28:45,100
Was that Mr. Watkins?

132
00:28:46,100 --> 00:28:46,560
No, Mr.

133
00:28:46,760 --> 00:28:47,540
The second is that.

134
00:28:47,620 --> 00:28:48,800
Walker made the second.

135
00:28:50,440 --> 00:28:51,760
She was muted.

136
00:28:54,020 --> 00:28:54,900
Oh, she was muted.

137
00:28:55,060 --> 00:28:55,760
Okay. Thank you.

138
00:28:56,100 --> 00:28:56,860
I didn't hear it.

139
00:28:56,900 --> 00:28:57,840
Okay. Thank you so much.

140
00:28:58,440 --> 00:29:00,240
So just to confirm before you move forward,

141
00:29:00,240 --> 00:29:04,740
Mr. Chasada has made the motion and Mrs. Walker has seconded it.

142
00:29:05,200 --> 00:29:05,720
Correct.

143
00:29:06,200 --> 00:29:06,640
I'm clear.

144
00:29:06,740 --> 00:29:07,480
Thank you so much.

145
00:29:07,660 --> 00:29:07,880
Sorry.

146
00:29:08,160 --> 00:29:08,540
I second.

147
00:29:08,660 --> 00:29:09,120
I apologize.

148
00:29:09,520 --> 00:29:10,100
Thank you.

149
00:29:10,940 --> 00:29:12,060
Mr. Chasada.

150
00:29:12,180 --> 00:29:12,900
So make her the motion.

151
00:29:13,040 --> 00:29:13,640
Would you like to speak?

152
00:29:14,960 --> 00:29:15,220
Yeah.

153
00:29:15,960 --> 00:29:24,840
So, you know, based on the background information provided by Mr. Brown, you know, was inclined

154
00:29:24,840 --> 00:29:30,680
find that, you know, to agree that the county had standing, you know, but upon reviewing

155
00:29:30,680 --> 00:29:38,920
his interpretation of previous case law, and that the, you know, it seems like then

156
00:29:38,920 --> 00:29:46,580
the county encouraged, you know, encouraged, initially encouraged the continuation, and

157
00:29:46,580 --> 00:29:52,740
that, you know, there isn't that, you know, that didn't seem as clear before, but it seems

158
00:29:52,740 --> 00:29:54,980
like Mal with the reading of the case letter, if it was something.

159
00:30:01,240 --> 00:30:12,680
Mr. Holmes's, I guess, you know, kind of went against the idea that there was intentional

160
00:30:12,680 --> 00:30:18,800
and abandonment. And so if I'm reading that correctly, you know, as I looked it over

161
00:30:18,800 --> 00:30:26,540
that, what you said earlier, Mr. Brown, that if there was that intent was abandonment requires

162
00:30:26,540 --> 00:30:27,540
in 10, correct?

163
00:30:29,700 --> 00:30:37,660
No, not necessary. I mean, although the, Mr. Holmes's counsel or prior counsel made

164
00:30:37,660 --> 00:30:45,980
the argument that he had an intent not to abandon the property, that was not necessarily accurate.

165
00:30:46,280 --> 00:30:53,080
However, you'll order rest on three additional alternative basics, and that is

166
00:30:53,080 --> 00:30:57,460
It's equitable, totally, detrimental reliance, and

167
00:31:07,640 --> 00:31:12,160
the intent was distinguished because in

168
00:31:12,160 --> 00:31:18,040
this particular case, even if you ignore whether or not he had intent, just on the equitable

169
00:31:18,040 --> 00:31:23,300
basis alone, you could grant the approval, which is what you did in the original order.

170
00:31:23,800 --> 00:31:30,660
So we don't need to give a total rationale at this particular moment, because we've already

171
00:31:30,660 --> 00:31:44,880
We drafted the order. We're going to stand on the four corners of the order and then if you if your motion passes, I will draft a document that reaffirms that order and what you heard today from Mr. Potter and from Mr. Schauer.

172
00:32:11,890 --> 00:32:25,510
I agree with what Mr. Trasata said and Council Brown and stand on the merits of what we made a decision and we're going to, you know, let's move forward and

173
00:32:25,510 --> 00:32:29,010
Let's help maybe this person try to restart his restaurant.

174
00:32:30,920 --> 00:32:31,440
Okay.

175
00:32:32,260 --> 00:32:33,600
Anybody else would like to speak?

176
00:32:34,700 --> 00:32:37,860
I would like to speak for a few minutes if I may, Mr. Chairman.

177
00:32:38,300 --> 00:32:39,040
Of course, Mr. Chairman.

178
00:32:39,940 --> 00:32:40,320
Thank you.

179
00:32:40,880 --> 00:32:43,760
I believe we should reconsider the decision we made

180
00:32:43,760 --> 00:32:46,300
because we made a terrible mistake.

181
00:32:47,600 --> 00:32:48,820
We made two mistakes.

182
00:32:49,160 --> 00:32:53,160
In fact, the first was in ignoring the law,

183
00:32:53,160 --> 00:33:02,460
which prevents a continued non-conforming use when it's been abandoned for more than a year.

184
00:33:03,440 --> 00:33:09,420
As the board were given a lot of discretion on a lot of issues, but we're not given any discretion

185
00:33:09,420 --> 00:33:20,620
on that one. And for us to out of our own sense of justice or righteousness, ignore the laws that

186
00:33:20,620 --> 00:33:27,840
our elected representatives pass is, I'm sorry, it feels to be like theft of democracy.

187
00:33:28,620 --> 00:33:32,180
These folks have been elected to make decisions.

188
00:33:33,140 --> 00:33:37,560
We've been elected to apply them to specific cases, and we've been appointed.

189
00:33:37,560 --> 00:33:38,520
We haven't been elected.

190
00:33:39,420 --> 00:33:50,080
So I think we made a terrible mistake in extending the ability to hold the nonconforming use

191
00:33:50,080 --> 00:33:58,880
for more than a year, simply on what some county employee interpreted as Mr. Holmes' intention.

192
00:34:01,700 --> 00:34:07,280
The second part of it, though, is that this wasn't just one year.

193
00:34:07,500 --> 00:34:15,120
If you want to disagree with me, if you want to embrace the concept of equitable tolling

194
00:34:15,120 --> 00:34:21,940
or detrimental reliance, which really in this case is the same thing that Mr. Holmes

195
00:34:21,940 --> 00:34:29,500
apparently relied on the absolutely erroneous interpretation by the county attorney's

196
00:34:29,500 --> 00:34:39,780
office who imported a non-existing intentioned provision into the law, that we basically incorporated

197
00:34:39,780 --> 00:34:45,240
that provision ourselves. Again, it's something we don't have authority to do. But this isn't just

198
00:34:45,240 --> 00:34:52,560
a one-year issue. They were out of pocket for eight years and they continue to have no

199
00:34:53,680 --> 00:35:04,100
functioning restaurant as far as I know. And we could see from the last year of correspondence

200
00:35:04,100 --> 00:35:06,460
that's between Mr. Holmes and the county,

201
00:35:07,160 --> 00:35:11,260
that the issue wasn't some delay on the part of the state.

202
00:35:11,780 --> 00:35:14,480
The issue was Mr. Holmes' recouncitrance

203
00:35:14,950 --> 00:35:19,060
in complying with the county's reasonable requirements,

204
00:35:19,580 --> 00:35:23,100
specifically the requirement to submit a budget

205
00:35:23,510 --> 00:35:25,480
which has been an existing requirement

206
00:35:25,480 --> 00:35:28,080
for at least six of the eight years.

207
00:35:28,960 --> 00:35:31,180
So we have an egregious offender

208
00:35:31,180 --> 00:35:38,180
we're letting off the hook. I think it's a mistake and I think we should take advantage of this

209
00:35:38,940 --> 00:35:48,120
opportunity to reconsider our mistake and avoid the terrible consequences of having other

210
00:35:48,120 --> 00:36:00,100
non-conforming uses come to us based on similar sorts of mistaken interpretations of the law

211
00:36:00,100 --> 00:36:12,320
by county employees leads the county to vulnerability, and more importantly, it leaves the county's laws vulnerable.

212
00:36:13,000 --> 00:36:16,060
So I will vote no on Mr. Chusev's motion.

213
00:36:17,600 --> 00:36:21,980
Thank you, Mr. Trader. Mr. Watkins, would you like to say anything?

214
00:36:21,980 --> 00:36:31,280
No, I guess I do want to say something but I heard what Mr. Trainer said and I understand

215
00:36:31,280 --> 00:36:39,820
that but I'm still kind of not I don't I guess I don't buy this mistake of law argument.

216
00:36:41,480 --> 00:36:51,760
We had hearings I'm not I'm sort of surprised that if this was the county position

217
00:36:52,980 --> 00:36:56,800
that none of that came through as part of the discussion

218
00:36:56,800 --> 00:36:58,680
when we had the public session.

219
00:36:59,360 --> 00:37:01,460
So that makes me a little concerned.

220
00:37:03,220 --> 00:37:05,140
So that's just my opinion.

221
00:37:06,840 --> 00:37:08,120
You can move on from there.

222
00:37:08,780 --> 00:37:10,260
As you're welcome, Mr. Wackens.

223
00:37:10,940 --> 00:37:12,620
I'd like to make it a...

224
00:37:12,620 --> 00:37:15,840
I know for the record before we move into a vote here

225
00:37:15,840 --> 00:37:17,700
and what I'd like to do is

226
00:37:20,020 --> 00:37:24,800
After observing and going back through and observing, you know, that what we did only

227
00:37:24,800 --> 00:37:33,280
made the 12th at the work session concerning the permit timing, I made a policy remark

228
00:37:34,580 --> 00:37:41,280
and a pre-judgment on this case which I should not have done at that time.

229
00:37:42,000 --> 00:37:47,320
And I like to, you know, just let everyone know that, you know, that I was, I was at time.

230
00:37:47,560 --> 00:37:54,180
I shouldn't have done that when I came up with the permit timing as a policy remark.

231
00:37:54,440 --> 00:38:02,800
Okay. So at this point, assuming we're ready to vote, then Madam Clerk, would you please,

232
00:38:03,180 --> 00:38:07,760
if you could reread the motion and take a roll call vote?

233
00:38:07,760 --> 00:38:18,960
But we have a motion on the floor from Mr. Tressada and seconded by Ms. Walker to deny

234
00:38:18,960 --> 00:38:20,940
the motion for reconsideration.

235
00:38:22,740 --> 00:38:24,060
Are we ready to take a vote?

236
00:38:24,800 --> 00:38:25,160
We are.

237
00:38:26,060 --> 00:38:26,340
Okay.

238
00:38:27,160 --> 00:38:29,980
Mr. Vice Chair, Benjamin Watkins.

239
00:38:30,740 --> 00:38:31,640
I agree with the motion.

240
00:38:35,160 --> 00:38:38,620
The motion seconded by Jennifer Walker again, your vote.

241
00:38:39,620 --> 00:38:39,960
I agree.

242
00:38:40,820 --> 00:38:44,020
The motion made by Mr. Trasada, again, your vote,

243
00:38:47,620 --> 00:38:48,640
your muted, sir.

244
00:38:49,060 --> 00:38:50,140
Your muted, Mr. Trasada.

245
00:38:51,980 --> 00:38:52,540
Yes.

246
00:38:53,160 --> 00:38:54,240
Thank you so much.

247
00:38:54,720 --> 00:38:56,400
And Mr. Trainer.

248
00:38:57,080 --> 00:38:57,640
No.

249
00:38:58,500 --> 00:38:59,740
Thank you, Mr. Trainer.

250
00:38:59,900 --> 00:39:02,040
And finally, our Chairperson, but Hamburg.

251
00:39:04,440 --> 00:39:05,840
I agree with the motion.

252
00:39:07,950 --> 00:39:12,850
That means we have four people in agreement with the motion and one, not in agreement.

253
00:39:12,850 --> 00:39:17,770
the motion passes that it will be the denial of the motion for reconsideration.

254
00:39:18,890 --> 00:39:20,190
Thank you very much.

255
00:39:20,610 --> 00:39:24,350
And I will prepare in order for your review and approval,

256
00:39:25,390 --> 00:39:28,070
memorializing the basis for your decision today.

257
00:39:28,890 --> 00:39:31,850
Okay. Thank you for that.

258
00:39:34,540 --> 00:39:40,800
Then at this point, I'm clerked and we're looking for any additional visits

259
00:39:40,800 --> 00:39:43,160
to come before the board to consider the decision.

260
00:39:43,160 --> 00:39:47,000
We don't have anything else this evening to consider.

261
00:39:48,440 --> 00:39:53,720
So excuse me. Can you let us we have our next meeting is going to be on.

262
00:39:55,200 --> 00:39:55,600
So next.

263
00:39:57,100 --> 00:40:02,040
October. Yes. We have upcoming on the 13th.

264
00:40:02,040 --> 00:40:05,640
We will see Falcon Ridge on the 13th on the 13th.

265
00:40:05,960 --> 00:40:07,800
October of October.

266
00:40:08,900 --> 00:40:12,400
As it stands right now, we don't have anything in September.

267
00:40:12,960 --> 00:40:18,240
We had initially had a meeting scheduled to discuss our board rules and procedures,

268
00:40:18,240 --> 00:40:19,640
which we have taken off the books.

269
00:40:20,220 --> 00:40:21,860
So right now, we have nothing in September.

270
00:40:24,400 --> 00:40:30,100
Ms. Kerr, has an attorney been assigned from the county attorney's office to go over the

271
00:40:30,100 --> 00:40:30,640
procedures?

272
00:40:31,640 --> 00:40:35,200
I'll let our zoning administrators speak to that.

273
00:40:35,300 --> 00:40:35,520
Read.

274
00:40:39,590 --> 00:40:58,710
Thank you, Mr. Trent. Thank you, at least. At this time, we haven't had an attorney sign to the board to review those documents where we're with the county attorney's office and as soon as one week, they haven't an attorney sign, we'll get a move on that.

275
00:40:58,710 --> 00:41:02,810
that they're hiring new attorneys as we speak.

276
00:41:04,330 --> 00:41:08,210
They're, Elizabeth Able has now taken on a judgeship

277
00:41:09,190 --> 00:41:11,710
over in the cross-count quarter.

278
00:41:12,810 --> 00:41:16,950
So, Mr. Trader, as a chair in reviewing all,

279
00:41:17,150 --> 00:41:19,810
you know, the different suggestions

280
00:41:19,810 --> 00:41:21,590
and changes that we had for our procedures,

281
00:41:22,310 --> 00:41:24,550
I sent it back to the county to the attorneys office

282
00:41:24,550 --> 00:41:26,030
and asked me them to review everything

283
00:41:26,030 --> 00:41:27,130
before it came back to us.

284
00:41:27,850 --> 00:41:36,230
I understand. Okay. Then we will have October the 13th and will that be an

285
00:41:36,230 --> 00:41:41,270
impression meeting? It will be. We wanted to make sure that the Falcon Ridge

286
00:41:41,270 --> 00:41:45,270
community had an opportunity to come into the building and be heard. So we

287
00:41:45,270 --> 00:41:50,250
will be meeting in the blue room. And I'll be out of that. I'll be out of town that

288
00:41:50,250 --> 00:41:56,390
Okay? Yeah. Okay. Um, then any other, uh, any other business?

289
00:41:57,790 --> 00:42:03,190
Nothing else. Then I'll take a motion to adjourn. Mr. Chairman, I move. We adjourn.

290
00:42:04,210 --> 00:42:07,970
I'll second. Mr. Tringer, we have a motion made by Mr. Tringer,

291
00:42:07,970 --> 00:42:11,410
Secretary by Miss Walker, for adjournment on the favor eye.

292
00:42:12,930 --> 00:42:17,710
Those opposed same sign. Motion carries. Thank you all very much for your time this evening.