[0:00] foreign
[0:02] [Music]
[3:24] are you ready
[3:31] um Hello everybody welcome
[3:33] um this is the board of appeals meeting
[3:35] uh 7 P.M September 19th 2023. uh we are
[3:40] here to hear case number 2023-03
[3:46] um we will begin with our roll call of
[3:48] the members present
[3:50] um I will ask if you're present please
[3:51] respond informatively uh Mr Paul Doherty
[3:54] president Miss Amy Everett
[3:57] Stephen sharp present I am Jody Hoon
[3:59] star
[4:00] chair uh we are also joined by town
[4:03] clerk Sharon hum and legal counsel Fred
[4:06] Sussman at this point I'll pass it to
[4:08] Sharon for confirmation of posting and
[4:10] any documents entered into the record
[4:14] in the matter of the application for
[4:16] case number
[4:18] 2023-03 rod and reel Inc Donovan
[4:21] estate's LLC I caused to be published in
[4:24] the southern Maryland News newspaper a
[4:27] notice of the public Hearing in this
[4:29] case the three consecutive weeks
[4:31] beginning Friday September 1st
[4:33] continuing Friday September 8th and
[4:36] Friday September 15th on August 24
[4:39] 2023 I transmitted to the Planning
[4:42] Commission notice of time and place with
[4:44] a copy of application on August 24 2023
[4:49] I mailed by registered mail notice to
[4:52] the applicant and adjoining property
[4:54] owners of said properties involved in
[4:56] the case and signs giving notice of said
[4:59] case were posted on said properties
[5:01] August 29 2023 by the Department of
[5:05] Public Works
[5:08] yeah
[5:10] um at this point do you have a affidavit
[5:13] to enter into the record yes I do yes I
[5:16] do
[5:21] yes that'll be exhibit one okay it's a
[5:24] bit one
[5:26] foreign
[5:28] okay in that case uh we will begin with
[5:31] case 2020 303 to consider an application
[5:34] from Rod and Reel Inc or Donovan Estates
[5:37] LLC of 4160 Mears Avenue Chesapeake
[5:40] Beach uh for a decision on
[5:42] interpretation or alleged error
[5:44] um to article uh six of the Chesapeake
[5:46] Beach zoning ordinance uh and some
[5:50] sections of the Chesapeake Beach Town
[5:51] Charter applicant requests the
[5:53] Chesapeake Beach zoning board of appeals
[5:55] to quote order of the zoning
[5:57] administrator and planning and zoning
[5:58] commission to immediately commence and
[6:00] prioritize the processing and review of
[6:02] the relevant site plans submitted by Rod
[6:03] and Reel Inc and Donovan Estates and
[6:06] that the zoning administrator and
[6:07] planning and zoning commission be
[6:08] ordered to apply the zoning ordinances
[6:10] in effect as of January 29 2021 when the
[6:14] applications were submitted and for
[6:16] other such and further relief as the
[6:18] nature of their cause requires at this
[6:20] point I will pass it to Mr Blitz
[6:22] representing rod and reel and Donovan
[6:25] Estates
[6:27] oh apologies one note
[6:29] um in the event that the presentation
[6:31] here tonight extends past 8 30 PM we
[6:33] will adjourn this session to resume
[6:35] October 30th 7 pm at this point in time
[6:39] we don't know how long it will take to
[6:40] hear the full presentations and to
[6:41] receive public comments it may be one or
[6:45] more evenings if you have provided your
[6:47] contact information on the sign-in sheet
[6:48] be aware that you may not have the
[6:49] opportunity to speak this evening
[6:52] now Mr Blitz if you please
[6:56] thank you
[6:57] um members of the board
[6:58] chair uh my name is Eric Blitz I
[7:01] represent the rod and reel Inc in
[7:02] Donovan Estates LLC Donovan Estates LLC
[7:06] is a wholly owned subsidiary of Rod and
[7:08] Reel so throughout this hearing I'll
[7:11] basically just be referring to the rod
[7:13] and reel as that's the real party in
[7:16] interest in moving forward in this case
[7:19] um
[7:20] I'm going to sit down just to make sure
[7:22] I'm closer to the mic if that's okay
[7:24] with you
[7:27] [Music]
[7:34] um quick question on just process
[7:37] do we need to
[7:39] have Mr pounds entered in as
[7:42] representing a party at this time
[7:46] all right pardon is Mr pounds here to
[7:48] represent a party and if so should he be making a statement in the
[7:52] beginning of the case that he is
[7:54] I'm following the instructions of the
[7:56] chair and the chair instructed this uh I
[7:59] mean when it's time my turn I certainly
[8:00] will enter my appearance just for the
[8:03] record on Todd pounds
[8:06] I'm the town attorney and uh I will be I
[8:10] will be speaking when I'm addressed
[8:19] for the record
[8:21] there's a record being made of this so
[8:23] that are we supposed to hear it or what
[8:25] no I'm sorry you can't hear it I'll try
[8:27] to speak up as loudly microphones
[8:30] it was don't aren't for broadcast
[8:32] they're just for the record all right
[8:37] um by way of introduction I'll summarize
[8:39] uh the issues and some of the key
[8:41] evidentiary points uh you will hear in
[8:43] this case uh to give you some background
[8:47] um context for the information we will
[8:49] present to you tonight
[8:50] um
[8:52] as the chair noted this is an appeal
[8:54] alleging error by the Planning and
[8:55] Zoning commission and the zoning
[8:57] administrator
[8:58] um in failing or refusing to review
[9:01] properly filed site plans for five
[9:04] properties owned by the rod and reel
[9:07] the rationale for their refusal was a
[9:09] Reliance upon an invalid moratorium that
[9:12] purported to Halt the processing of some
[9:14] category one site plans uh and then
[9:17] later when the moratorium had obviously
[9:19] expired
[9:21] um and they had spent countless time and
[9:23] energy on explaining
[9:25] um and promoting the moratorium as a
[9:27] temporary
[9:29] um moratorium and only for a discernible
[9:31] duration
[9:33] um they apparently changed their
[9:34] argument and took the position that the
[9:36] moratorium was in fact indefinite
[9:39] um we will just demonstrate why the
[9:42] attempt at passing a moratorium on site
[9:44] plans review was invalid and therefore
[9:46] they were in error in relying upon it uh
[9:50] to deny uh the rod and reel site review
[9:53] applications
[9:55] um we'll also show how absurd the later
[9:57] position is that the moratorium was
[9:58] indefinite
[10:00] um and therefore subject to their
[10:02] discretion to turn out
[10:04] um how long it would be
[10:07] um we're going to show how the
[10:09] obligation to process site plan
[10:10] applications when they are submitted is
[10:12] a mandatory obligation on their part on
[10:15] the part of the administrators that's
[10:17] the zoning administrator and the
[10:18] Planning and Zoning Commission
[10:20] and not something that can simply be
[10:22] removed by simple resolutions of the
[10:24] Town Council
[10:27] um then if after considering all the
[10:29] evidence that we will produce uh for you
[10:31] that demonstrates that their Reliance on
[10:33] the purported moratorium uh was legally
[10:36] faulty we will demonstrate that the harm
[10:38] caused by this failure is a good reason
[10:40] for this board to exercise its appeal
[10:43] Authority in a responsible fashion
[10:46] um we will be asking you to
[10:48] find that the refusal
[10:51] of both the zoning administrator and the
[10:53] Planning and Zoning commission to
[10:54] process the site plans to have been in
[10:57] air but
[10:58] that in the just responsible I'm sorry
[11:02] the just and responsible response to
[11:04] this is to exercise your Authority
[11:07] um to order the site plans to be
[11:10] reviewed
[11:11] um with the law in effect at the time uh
[11:14] that therefore the the site plans would
[11:18] have proceeded in January of
[11:21] 2021
[11:24] um but for this uh erroneous
[11:26] interpretation and Reliance on the
[11:28] moratorium
[11:30] um but before we get to the request
[11:31] relief we need to establish the
[11:33] administrative agents namely the zoning
[11:35] administrator and the Planning and
[11:37] Zoning Commission
[11:38] we're in air
[11:40] um
[11:41] so unlike your more typical variance
[11:43] case or special exception case
[11:46] um in this case you were determining if
[11:48] there it was an error on the part of the
[11:51] zoning administrator and the Planning
[11:52] and Zoning commission and then crafting
[11:54] your relief uh this makes this appeal
[11:57] more like a legal hearing uh than you
[12:00] may be used to and I will try to go slow
[12:02] in explaining my Reliance on certain
[12:04] statutes and cases
[12:07] um
[12:09] we have lots of exhibits to demonstrate
[12:11] the factual points that I'll rely upon
[12:13] um
[12:17] I've I've prepared booklets that I'll
[12:19] hand out to each of you for all of the
[12:21] exhibits that doesn't necessarily mean
[12:24] they're in the record but that way
[12:25] Council and each of you can look at the
[12:28] exhibits as I talk to them rather
[12:30] because they'll be handed just one the
[12:33] official exhibit and I've provided a
[12:35] copy to uh Mr pounds
[12:38] [Music]
[12:40] closer to them like I will try yes but
[12:43] that's not going to help you here
[12:46] oh do you okay
[12:50] let me bring it closer then
[12:53] how's that
[12:54] yes great
[13:05] um similarly I'll be asking you to
[13:06] consider the impact of various statutes
[13:08] and code sections and even some case law
[13:11] and I'll hand out that binder so let's
[13:13] get started the first three exhibits are
[13:15] pro forma introductions to make sure
[13:17] they're in the record
[13:18] um the first is the zoning applications
[13:21] I mean the application for appeal that's
[13:23] filed in this case
[13:25] um so that would be
[13:28] submitted it as I believe exhibit two
[13:35] and let me go ahead and hand out those
[13:37] binders
[13:39] and why it was really
[13:41] good
[13:42] what's that
[13:47] really that's Town Council
[13:55] so the black binders
[13:59] [Music]
[14:02] foreign
[14:10] ERS are the exhibits
[14:13] file
[14:16] apologize
[14:18] [Music]
[14:30] and Mr chair just for procedural
[14:32] purposes uh I also had no objection to
[14:34] the uh affidavit as far as exhibit one
[14:37] uh I and and as far as exhibit two which
[14:41] is just the application but many of the
[14:42] exhibits I'm going to be objected to as
[14:44] we go forward
[14:47] so at this time I would ask Mr pounds to
[14:49] identify who he's representing in this
[14:50] case
[14:52] I am uh I've been asked to uh present
[14:55] the position of the town as released
[14:58] this application so in essence I am the
[15:00] town attorney uh I'm not acting as a
[15:03] town attorney even though I am the town
[15:04] attorney Town attorney uh and I may have
[15:07] that capacity but primarily uh since the
[15:10] uh zoning administrator as all of you
[15:12] know that uh has resigned and he's taken
[15:15] another position the town does not
[15:17] presently have a current zoning
[15:19] administrator uh which they've recently
[15:22] been hired and moving forward but they
[15:25] have not uh been up to speed with regard
[15:27] to any of these projects whatsoever so
[15:30] um uh as a result I'm the one who's
[15:32] presenting this uh on behalf of the town
[15:34] uh much of what and I'm going to be
[15:37] saying much about Mr Blitz as said
[15:39] earlier we're going to be objecting to
[15:41] and that we believe is completely
[15:43] incorrect so
[15:45] um obviously we're going to follow
[15:46] whatever procedure the chair wants to
[15:48] follow with regard to the hearing and so
[15:50] I'm
[15:51] you know I guess
[15:53] since he had an opening statement right
[15:55] into his case uh we did not have an
[15:57] opening statement but we're going to
[15:59] follow the instructions on the chair
[16:00] thank you Mr chair so my question is
[16:05] yeah
[16:06] sorry
[16:08] so my question is
[16:10] the Town Administrator and the Planning
[16:13] and Zoning commission or the Apple
[16:14] leaves in this case
[16:16] and then you can also represent the
[16:19] mayor and Town Council who can join this
[16:21] case under the law as parties so I'm
[16:23] trying to figure out and establish for
[16:25] the record
[16:26] are you representing the Planning and
[16:28] Zoning commission all all of them the
[16:30] Planning and Zoning commission and the
[16:32] zoning administrator and the mayor and
[16:34] Town Council the record
[16:36] filed an appeal in this case we are that
[16:39] is only thing that is that is going to
[16:41] be heard with regard to this uh review
[16:43] by the board of appeals only your appeal
[16:46] so with regard to uh who I represent I'm
[16:50] representing the town has released to
[16:52] this appeal that's all it's going to be
[16:53] heard by this board and that's who I
[16:55] represent
[16:58] so
[16:59] just for the record I'm trying to
[17:00] identify who the parties to the case are
[17:02] uh their Autumn they're automatically
[17:04] not the case this is simply an appeal
[17:06] any any other case that may have been in
[17:08] court or any other place that is not
[17:11] those parties are separate and distinct
[17:13] from what is going here tonight what is
[17:15] going on here tonight is you filed an
[17:17] appeal and that's what is being
[17:19] addressed is your appeal that's it so Mr
[17:22] pounce you can't say that you represent
[17:24] the town you need to identify who you
[17:26] represent there are
[17:28] four options Mr but you have my answer
[17:31] please proceed well I'm going to direct
[17:33] this thing to the board
[17:36] the Planning and Zoning Commission and
[17:38] the zoning administrator are those who
[17:40] we allege that committed error
[17:42] they are automatically
[17:44] parties to this appeal and can be
[17:47] represented
[17:48] in addition the mayor and Town Council
[17:51] have the right to join this case as
[17:53] parties themselves
[17:55] I'm trying to identify
[17:58] because Mr pounds has just said he
[18:00] represents the town which isn't unless
[18:02] he's saying he represents the mayor in
[18:04] Town Council
[18:05] isn't a thing there's these are the
[18:07] parties the potential parties that Mr
[18:09] pounds could represent
[18:14] just let you filed an appeal yes and the
[18:17] appeal is before the board of appeals
[18:19] and and I am presenting the case on
[18:22] behalf of the Town through the board of
[18:24] appeals that's it
[18:28] the town
[18:30] you mean the corporate body of the town
[18:32] of Chesapeake Beach it's you know are we
[18:36] going to stay here all night that's fine
[18:37] the reason I'm asking is we have to know
[18:40] who are parties to this appeal this is
[18:46] huh
[18:48] the we know that don't don't direct
[18:51] comments to
[18:54] the Planning and Zoning commission and
[18:55] the zoning administrator are the people
[18:57] that the rod and reel alleged commit
[18:59] error and therefore they're the applese
[19:01] we're the appellants in this case
[19:04] so they're automatically parties I don't
[19:06] know whether Mr pounds represents them
[19:09] or whether he's trying to introduce and
[19:11] represent the mayor in Town Council
[19:14] who do have the right to join this as
[19:16] parties but we should we have to let the
[19:18] record reflect who the parties to this
[19:20] appeal are in addition anybody that
[19:23] testifies in this case under Maryland
[19:24] law becomes a party because they get a
[19:27] notice if this goes to subsequent
[19:30] um appeals and courts and things like
[19:31] that and so that's why you have them
[19:34] sign up so you have their information so
[19:36] we have to identify who the parties are
[19:38] and I'm trying to find out whether the
[19:39] mayor and Town Council or parties to
[19:41] this case
[19:42] at this point your clients are the going
[19:45] parties
[19:48] there's no process for Apple leaves in
[19:53] an adversarial role
[19:55] uh if if Mr Townes uh determined to
[20:02] speak or offer evidence he will I hope
[20:05] identify who he's offering that evidence
[20:08] for and at that point in time uh
[20:12] that individual or those individuals of
[20:16] that group may as a matter of all become
[20:19] a party but they may not okay the reason
[20:23] I asked at the beginning was he was
[20:24] mentioning that he's maybe making
[20:26] objections for him to make objections he
[20:28] has to represent a party
[20:32] okay I'll proceed
[20:34] we typically allow on this board the
[20:37] petitioner to do their entire
[20:39] presentation and have never heard
[20:41] objections at the time the statements
[20:43] were made I'm not saying that I'm not
[20:45] open to that if that's how you would
[20:48] recommend proceeding we have never done
[20:50] it
[20:52] um I guess I will leave that question
[20:54] open why don't you proceed with your
[20:56] presentation and assume that no
[20:58] interruptions or objections will come
[20:59] and if it does
[21:01] what yeah
[21:03] thank you
[21:06] so
[21:08] we've got the application we're just
[21:10] doing the pro formas right now so the
[21:12] second one is that I'm offering would be
[21:15] exhibit three and this represents uh
[21:28] and we start early I don't know how a an
[21:32] order of the Court would have any uh
[21:34] really binding or any type of
[21:36] governments as to what the board is
[21:39] going to be you know seeking
[21:41] um uh or what what the questions are
[21:44] going to be addressing so uh this is a
[21:46] this is we're here based on appeal
[21:49] um and so I obviously I think it's going
[21:52] to be the relevance would be up the
[21:54] council into the Mr chair but we're
[21:56] going to start right out there how
[21:58] that's going to be relevant these
[21:59] proceedings for the purpose of while
[22:01] we're here I have no idea that that's
[22:02] not good Mr Blitz I think I take issue
[22:06] with your characterization that is the
[22:09] opinion the order of the court in this
[22:12] case this case is an administrative
[22:14] appeal and is not uh part of the
[22:18] judicial proceeding that was decided a
[22:20] number of months ago so let me make my
[22:23] argument for why it should be
[22:25] number one
[22:27] um as you'll hear tonight uh improper
[22:29] delay using an arbitrary and capricious
[22:31] denial of procedural rights guaranteed
[22:33] by Maryland law and town laws is a big
[22:35] part of the rationale for this appeal
[22:38] paragraph two page one of the order
[22:40] directs the portion of this board's
[22:43] process
[22:44] you are under a court order to do it
[22:46] according to that process
[22:48] the court found that the rodent real Inc
[22:51] was an agree a grieved party
[22:53] which is a prerequisite requirement for
[22:56] the appeal to this board and you can see
[22:58] that uh in the his finding on page 14 of
[23:02] the original order
[23:04] the court found that the rod and reel
[23:05] had filed its application in a timely
[23:07] manner that also is subject in this case
[23:11] and it's it's important for this board
[23:14] who is under this court order to know
[23:17] that and see the the rationale of the
[23:20] Court the court order specifies
[23:22] procedural conduct required of this
[23:25] board with respect to this case in its
[23:28] final paragraph of the order which
[23:29] should be memorialized in the record of
[23:32] the appeal as it forms a part of the law
[23:34] of the case so I think it's I think it's
[23:38] quite obvious that it needs to come into
[23:40] the order you are being directed by a
[23:42] judge to hold this hearing in a certain
[23:44] way with procedures dictated by the
[23:46] court order that should be brought into
[23:48] the record I'm not disputing that but
[23:50] with the only thing I was disputing was
[23:53] your characterization that that order is
[23:57] an order in this case I apologize if I
[24:00] said that I didn't mean to say that
[24:01] that's what I was questioning I
[24:03] apologize for Mr Sussman um I just
[24:06] misheard you and didn't realize what you
[24:08] were saying
[24:10] so help we've taken care of the
[24:13] admission
[24:13] because I don't think it's been ruled
[24:15] upon I mean so my question now is Mr
[24:17] pounds is making an objection he needs
[24:20] to identify which party he represents
[24:24] I would agree with that okay basically
[24:27] uh you know well the parties in this
[24:31] case okay we're talking about this case
[24:33] as opposed to you know any other case
[24:37] the court case or anything like that is
[24:39] the town of Chesapeake Beach because
[24:40] that that is the party here uh which is
[24:43] the part the other two parties in the
[24:46] court case are not going to be part of
[24:48] this case so as it applies to the town
[24:50] of Chesapeake Beach that was not a party
[24:53] to the court case therefore uh uh how is
[24:57] any Court decision would have been on
[25:00] those parties are different than
[25:01] whatever they would be going on with
[25:03] regard to anything on this matter okay
[25:06] which is in essence on behalf of the
[25:09] town so uh as a result the relevance on
[25:12] behalf of the Town becomes it means that document becomes completely
[25:15] irrelevant so I would object because the
[25:18] town has a corporate body can't be a
[25:20] party
[25:21] to this case
[25:23] the people that can be a party to this
[25:25] case
[25:26] are
[25:27] the mayor
[25:28] the Town Council
[25:31] the Planning and Zoning administrator
[25:33] and the planning on zoning Commission
[25:37] I need to know
[25:39] if Mr pounds is going to be here
[25:41] representing somebody as an attorney
[25:42] whether he represents any of those four
[25:43] parties so that we know that whether
[25:45] they are parties of record in this case
[25:49] you know and then then okay and then the
[25:52] council wants to keep you know going
[25:54] back and forth here's the problem the
[25:56] problem is is that exhibit two the
[25:58] application Zuni board of appeals town
[26:01] of Chesapeake Beach doesn't say anything
[26:04] about any other parties or anything his
[26:06] application that he filed that he
[26:09] introduced says the town of Chesapeake
[26:11] Beach not any other parties this is his
[26:14] document his appeal so therefore uh you
[26:18] know by his own document he wants to try
[26:20] to switch it and turn it and change it
[26:22] the problem is that he's the one that
[26:24] presented the application he's the one
[26:26] who filled it out he's the one who
[26:27] presented this
[26:28] he's stuck with his own document
[26:31] so respectfully
[26:34] I'm not trying to by introducing the
[26:37] order change who the parties are the
[26:39] parties right now
[26:41] or the rod and reel because I understand
[26:43] it as as an appellant
[26:47] by introducing the order all I'm doing
[26:49] is telling putting into evidence for you
[26:52] what the court found with respect to the
[26:54] procedures that are required in this
[26:56] board of appeals hearing in this case
[26:59] and the rationale for that that doesn't
[27:02] change the parties
[27:03] but for an attorney to represent someone
[27:07] here and make objections they have to
[27:10] say who they represent and it can't be a
[27:12] corporate body as far as I know I've
[27:13] never heard of the corporate body of
[27:17] Chesapeake Beach being the party in a
[27:19] board of appeals case in a zoning case
[27:24] I mean perhaps they could but it I
[27:27] that's when you you filed it okay
[27:30] and that's what the document says you
[27:33] filed it this is what it says and of
[27:35] course the a corporation can have a
[27:38] presentation through the attorney that's
[27:39] what a corporation does I mean this is
[27:42] this isn't anything new that you're this
[27:44] is your uh this is your appeal you filed
[27:48] it you're stuck with it I don't know
[27:50] what you think I'm stuck with all I've
[27:52] done is is gone to court to force the
[27:55] board to hear this case
[27:57] and one
[27:59] and then we're holding the case
[28:03] we're the party now
[28:05] we're complaining about only the conduct
[28:10] of the Planning and Zoning commission
[28:11] and the zoning administrator
[28:14] because we wouldn't be able to challenge
[28:16] directly into the board of appeals
[28:19] the conduct of the town or the Town
[28:22] Council
[28:23] but they are entitled to represent
[28:26] themselves and join a zoning case
[28:29] and in doing so it has nothing to do
[28:32] with that order I'm not trying to make
[28:34] that order change who the parties are
[28:36] the parties right now are just the board
[28:38] of appeals we're trying to find out
[28:39] whether other parties are going to join
[28:41] by Mr pounds representation
[28:43] Mr bullets I think Mr pounds has made it
[28:45] quite clear that he is representing the
[28:48] corporate entity of the town of pet
[28:50] Chesapeake Beach and that is the entity
[28:53] uh
[28:56] that can move forward and I would
[28:59] determine that your
[29:03] opinion in order are invisible
[29:08] thank you
[29:12] uh
[29:15] next is a letter dated August 14th 2023
[29:19] this is the last of what I would
[29:20] describe as pro forma introductions
[29:25] um August 14th 2023.
[29:28] like the gallery please
[29:30] um
[29:39] feed that's required to have this appeal
[29:41] just getting that into the record
[29:43] that's why I call them pro forma these
[29:45] first three are just kind of
[29:46] need to be sure
[29:50] so I'm going to begin
[29:52] um testimony
[29:54] um
[29:55] with uh Mr Paul Woodburn um Paul would
[29:57] you come up to the lectern to answer
[30:00] these questions so that you can be heard
[30:05] um
[30:06] or anybody attending in the in speaking
[30:09] from the audience Please be aware that
[30:10] we're going to do a blanket swearing in
[30:12] right now
[30:14] um if you come and speak to the lectern
[30:16] please uh note your name down on uh any sheet along with your name address
[30:21] and uh who you represent or if you're
[30:24] speaking on your own behalf obviously
[30:25] witness
[30:27] um so for the swearing in for anybody
[30:28] stepping to lectern please know uh do
[30:31] you solemnly swear or affirm under the
[30:33] penalty of perjury that the testimony
[30:34] you're about to give and the responses
[30:36] and statements you're about to make
[30:37] believe the whole truth and nothing but
[30:39] the truth I do
[30:41] okay thank you
[30:45] um
[30:47] Mr Woodburn um
[30:50] if Mr woodburns could be testifying he
[30:52] has a document as we can proceed forward
[30:53] but if he indeed is going to be
[30:55] expressing an opinion such as an expert
[30:57] witness obviously we're going to be you
[31:00] know objecting to that as well as the
[31:02] fact that I'm probably going to avoid
[31:03] the error uh uh on his request to uh
[31:06] issue any opinions
[31:09] understand that that's fine if we get to
[31:11] that but
[31:12] [Music]
[31:13] I get to put on his qualifications from
[31:15] the start anyway before we get into that
[31:17] objection I think Mr
[31:19] um pounds is kind of
[31:21] got a trigger finger on objections here
[31:24] um Mr
[31:25] um Woodburn um what's your profession
[31:28] oh no can you actually say where you
[31:30] live please
[31:31] in your full name uh my name is Paul
[31:33] Woodburn I'm a professional engineer I'm
[31:35] with the offices of Atwell engineering
[31:38] at 11721 Woodmore Road in Mitchellville
[31:42] Maryland and are you licensed to
[31:44] practice Engineering in Maryland I am
[31:47] um have you submitted site plans to
[31:49] municipalities before I have and in that
[31:53] process do you put your seal on
[31:54] documents uh as an engineer submitted to
[31:57] the various local jurisdictions
[32:00] um and
[32:02] do you represent well no in January of
[32:05] um 2021 did you represent the rod and
[32:08] reel yes
[32:09] and so you were acting as the agent for
[32:12] the rod and reel yes
[32:14] um and did you have uh occasion to file
[32:16] five site plans with the uh town clerk
[32:20] on January 29th 2021
[32:22] I did
[32:24] um and was that for the review of the
[32:26] site Plans by the Planning and Zoning
[32:28] Commission of Chesapeake Beach Maryland
[32:30] yes uh in your experience uh were the
[32:33] plans to be reviewed by the zoning
[32:34] administrator of the Town who at the
[32:36] time was Christopher Jakubiak
[32:39] oh yeah I missed the question sure
[32:42] um in your experience were the plans
[32:45] also to be reviewed by the zoning
[32:46] administrator of the Town who at the
[32:48] time
[32:49] this is January of 2021 at the time was
[32:53] Christopher Jakubiak
[32:57] what's the basis basis yeah well one of
[33:00] these things is one is his experience I
[33:03] don't know what his experiences or basis
[33:05] for his experience but uh as I said if
[33:08] this if it's just to your knowledge
[33:11] that's fine and that's going to be a yes
[33:14] or no question but if he's going to be
[33:15] expressing an opinion here uh I just
[33:18] want to let you know that
[33:20] starting off that's where we're going
[33:22] very quickly so if he if he says you're
[33:25] based on your experience yes or no then
[33:27] I'll withdraw the objection but we're
[33:29] going to quickly hit that wall
[33:31] that's what I said in your experience uh
[33:33] I'll ask a preliminary question before
[33:35] you get to that Mr Mr Woodburn have you
[33:37] presented prior to filing the site plans
[33:39] with the right
[33:41] the rod and reel in on January 29th 2021
[33:45] had you experienced had you um filed uh
[33:48] other plans with the town of Chesapeake
[33:50] Beach prior to that yes how many can you
[33:53] guess
[33:55] 1000 okay so in your experience were the
[33:59] plans to be reviewed also be reviewed by
[34:01] the zoning administrator of the Town who
[34:03] at the time was Christopher jukubiak all
[34:05] experience yes
[34:06] um so for the five site plans were each
[34:08] of them to be considered category one
[34:10] site plans I believe they're category
[34:12] one site plans okay and why is that
[34:15] uh because they're in critical area and
[34:18] they include multi-family dwelling units
[34:20] as the use correct correct
[34:23] um
[34:26] and can you describe the five Projects
[34:28] please and and give them names so that
[34:31] the
[34:32] word he knows what those are
[34:34] sure so uh
[34:37] through the first three are and um we
[34:40] call Harbor Vista there's Harbor Vista
[34:42] North Harbor Vista South Harbor Vista
[34:44] West
[34:46] um and they're down next to kellum's
[34:47] field just so you have an idea of the
[34:49] general location
[34:51] sure and Council I'm going to leave it
[34:53] up to you as far as how far this but
[34:55] obviously where are we going today is
[34:57] this is going to be far uh different
[34:59] from the ultimate questions that the
[35:01] board is going to be looking to testify
[35:03] to even in Mr blitz's opening statements
[35:05] so the fact that there were five
[35:07] projects if he wants to do a brief
[35:09] summary of the five that's fine but you
[35:11] need details we're going to be objecting
[35:13] that also so I'm assuming this is going
[35:15] to be just a summary of where we're
[35:17] going with this it is going to be a
[35:18] summary and I would ask that you'd not
[35:20] make objections in the middle of his
[35:21] testimony I'll do my case you do your
[35:23] case okay
[35:25] so three uh as I said are on we call
[35:28] Harbor Vista
[35:32] Northwest and South
[35:34] um two are on Gordon Senate Avenue one's
[35:37] on Old Bayside across from the library
[35:40] um the fourth project is called stenets
[35:43] place
[35:45] um which is off of C Street the two open
[35:48] grass lots I'm sure you all know where
[35:50] that is
[35:51] and the the last project is called Home
[35:54] Place
[35:56] um
[35:56] it's on Cox Road
[35:58] called what sir Home Place
[36:01] on Cox Road
[36:05] Mr Woodburn we're all five projects uh
[36:07] located in the critical area
[36:09] yes and
[36:12] did you submit critical area site plans
[36:14] along with the applications
[36:16] um
[36:17] we do okay
[36:22] so at this time
[36:26] I'm going to offer a copy of the
[36:28] application
[36:30] to
[36:33] the Planning and Zoning Commission
[36:41] and at least I'm gonna
[36:45] help
[36:58] but I don't have one
[37:07] I would also uh like to submit my PDF
[37:10] the entire site plans this is just the
[37:12] applications
[37:13] not going to be asking you really to at
[37:15] this stage
[37:17] review any of those details but you do
[37:19] need to be in the record because those
[37:21] are all the things
[37:25] Mr Blitz are you asking they be
[37:27] introduced collectively as exhibit six
[37:34] if that's okay yes
[37:36] for the purpose of
[37:38] Mr chair and Council just to indicate
[37:42] that there were projects and these are
[37:45] the projects the note fashion
[37:47] okay
[37:52] Tom are you sure that that was six
[37:57] it is okay
[38:06] it's good
[38:08] I'll call Mr Woodburn back up but I've
[38:10] gotta a lot of the legal side of this to
[38:13] go over first
[38:16] I'm going to want to examine Mr Woodburn
[38:20] is is he
[38:22] you can't just set somebody down and
[38:24] bring them back if it's Mr bird Barn I
[38:27] wouldn't examine him now
[38:29] um you know
[38:33] I think that's appropriate yeah he can
[38:35] cross-examine I'm going to bring him
[38:37] back and he can cross-examine him again
[38:38] after that so Mr Woodburn can you return
[38:40] to the left turn please
[38:51] okay I didn't know if he had something
[38:53] else so Mr Weber you testified earlier
[38:55] that uh indeed you were the one who
[38:58] actually prepared the site plans the
[39:00] five site plans that are being discussed
[39:01] here
[39:02] honor my direction correct so you didn't
[39:06] actually do it it was under your
[39:07] direction
[39:08] well my office did them under my
[39:10] direction it takes more than one person
[39:12] to prepare these plans yes okay so uh
[39:15] you're the one who signed it signed
[39:17] these applications correct and you're
[39:19] either you stamped them
[39:21] the applications no plans yes okay who actually uh stamped the plans
[39:27] uh I'd have to look at each one I know I
[39:30] stand some I don't know if I stamped
[39:32] everyone okay so basically you're
[39:33] telling me that applications were filed
[39:35] and you were unaware of it wasn't you
[39:38] who actually uh uh either signed or
[39:41] stamped them no I didn't say that I said
[39:44] I don't know if I signed everyone but I
[39:46] did oversee and
[39:49] um
[39:51] worked on each site plan
[39:55] um and you know all the computations and
[39:57] the applications that go with them okay
[40:00] so basically uh this you testified this
[40:03] was a category one multi-flame family
[40:05] plans that included the critical area
[40:07] right let me ask something Mr Woodburn
[40:10] um did these have five applications go
[40:12] before the Planning Commission uh with
[40:15] regard to their review
[40:17] ever or under this application during
[40:21] the time that the Planning Commission
[40:22] was reviewing the uh the comprehensive
[40:25] plan that these five applications go
[40:28] before the Planning Commission
[40:31] I was not involved in any review of them
[40:33] why not
[40:36] ified so we have five applications your
[40:38] testimony that were filed but none of
[40:40] these applications went before the
[40:42] Planning Commission for the review for
[40:44] the comprehensive plan is that your
[40:45] testimony a test I could read it in if
[40:48] you'd like an email that I received from
[40:50] the Planning and Zoning I want to know
[40:52] what your knowledge is my knowledge if
[40:53] I'm gonna read it I'll be happy to get
[40:55] it do you have knowledge that indeed the
[40:57] Planning Commission reviewed these five
[40:59] applications
[41:01] I do not have knowledge that they did or
[41:03] did not review them can you tell me why
[41:05] this these applications would not have
[41:07] gone before the Planning Commission for
[41:08] the review objection
[41:11] look
[41:12] the entire case is about the fact that
[41:14] the Planning and Zoning commission and
[41:16] the zoning administrator didn't review
[41:17] the applications I didn't ask
[41:20] Mr Woodburn about that so it's beyond
[41:23] cross-exam the scope of
[41:24] cross-examination to cross to expand Mr
[41:28] uh Woodburn's testimony at this point
[41:32] we're going to be going over in quite
[41:34] detail why the Planning and Zoning
[41:36] Commission in the zoning administrator
[41:37] didn't review the site plans we don't
[41:39] need Mr Woodburn for that well a couple
[41:41] things first of all this obviously is
[41:43] within the scope of his knowledge and
[41:45] what he was testifying to as well as the
[41:48] fact that the rules or procedure for the
[41:50] board of appeals does call for broad uh evidence to be incorporated into the
[41:57] record so you know under the board of
[42:00] appeals own rules that have that would
[42:03] be admitted
[42:07] okay so uh basically there's a question
[42:10] pending for you Mr Woodburn yeah no uh
[42:12] no there's a question for the board I I
[42:15] objected to the scope of the
[42:16] cross-examination
[42:20] I think the scope's appropriate broad
[42:23] latitude is given in these
[42:24] Administrative Hearings and if I think
[42:27] it's going way too far I'll uh say
[42:30] something about it okay so the last
[42:32] question was Mr Woodburn why were these
[42:34] applications not presented to by the uh
[42:36] to the Planning Commission for their
[42:38] review
[42:41] I received after submitting the
[42:44] applications and email from Christy
[42:46] Kubiak
[42:47] February 5th 2021 905 a.m and I'll read
[42:51] it says hi Paul this is unprecedented
[42:54] and imposed is a significant challenge
[42:56] to the Planning Commission and the
[42:57] town's planning zoning and project
[43:00] review functions
[43:01] no town could reasonably and reasonably
[43:04] handle
[43:05] or excuse me responsibly handle a load
[43:08] of projects like this without
[43:09] significant delays to or derailing
[43:13] of its comprehensive Plan update and or
[43:16] zoning review and update further these
[43:18] projects if implemented have real
[43:20] potential compound
[43:22] to compound the challenges the planning
[43:25] commissions work on planning and
[43:26] ordinance drafting to seeking to address
[43:29] is seeking to address today is the news
[43:32] in the newspaper is legal notice of
[43:34] public hearing to be conducted by the
[43:36] Planning Commission on two 24-21 to
[43:39] consider a resolution
[43:40] recommending to the mayor and Town
[43:43] Council that
[43:44] they adopt an ordinance creating a
[43:46] temporary moratorium on the processing
[43:48] of major development projects which
[43:50] would include these five plans please
[43:53] contact Sharon hum at Town Hall if you
[43:55] want a copy of the resolution Chris okay
[43:58] so and obviously uh Mr pounds uh it's
[44:03] not going to be made a part of the
[44:04] record that email I was planning on it
[44:06] but it's by cross-examining he's
[44:08] jumbling up our case to in the timeline
[44:12] so if you want it now we can do it but I
[44:15] think it would be appropriate okay so I
[44:18] haven't seen a copy of that
[44:20] okay
[44:21] everybody this is
[44:24] the B exit seven
[44:29] and that's the email of February 5th uh
[44:33] 2021.
[44:34] [Music]
[44:35] from Mr Jakubiak to
[44:39] Paul Woodburn with a copy to me and
[44:43] um another engineer working at Mr
[44:46] Woodburn's office I believe
[44:48] foreign
[44:56] basically based upon that one email
[44:59] about Mr uh Kubiak
[45:01] um uh you're telling me that's what
[45:03] caused these five projects not to be
[45:05] sent to the Planning Commission
[45:07] I can't make a judgment call not I don't
[45:09] know well you're the one submitted his
[45:11] email
[45:13] I mean I'm I didn't never talk to Mr GK
[45:15] after that you can take it for face
[45:17] value you heard what I said okay so
[45:19] basically uh who made the decision at
[45:22] that point so you're telling me if
[45:23] that's the whole email that made the
[45:25] decision not to file any type of
[45:27] applications with the Planning
[45:29] Commission
[45:30] just because of the way it was phrased
[45:32] we filed all five site plans the result
[45:35] of that was an email seven days later
[45:38] that you just received into the record
[45:40] on exhibit seven saying they weren't
[45:42] going to be reviewed and that the
[45:43] moratorium was going to be the one of
[45:45] the two rationales for not reviewing it
[45:48] Mr Woodburn can't testify as to why the
[45:52] town did or didn't do something
[45:54] he could you can ask him whether he
[45:56] heard from him I know what to ask him
[45:59] Council but so basically the question
[46:00] comes into so in essence is that your
[46:04] testimony that based upon that eggmail
[46:05] that those projects were not sent before
[46:08] the Planning Commission is that your
[46:10] testimony
[46:11] my testimony is that I know that those
[46:14] site plans were not reviewed and the
[46:16] reason that was given was emailed to me
[46:19] on the date that I
[46:21] let me ask you this is Mr Kubiak part of
[46:24] the Planning Commission
[46:26] hey no at that time
[46:29] um
[46:31] he's the zoning administrator I believe
[46:34] so your testimony is that he was not
[46:36] part of the actual Planning Commission
[46:37] correct so you could have in essence
[46:40] brought those applications to the
[46:41] Planning Commission to be reviewed
[46:43] objection we did it's one of the
[46:46] exhibits the very uh first exhibit no
[46:50] first exhibit was our appeal
[46:52] um it's it's the exhibit that
[46:55] the application which was filed with the
[46:58] town that's the way you file for site
[47:00] plans you don't file it but the first
[47:03] person to review those is Mr
[47:06] um jacobiak the zoning administrator and
[47:08] then the Planning and Zoning commission
[47:09] gets the file and holds a hearing
[47:12] the refusal or the failure of them to
[47:15] hold the hearing which they have never
[47:16] done
[47:18] is what's at stake in this case why are
[47:20] you asking Mr
[47:23] wood burn I generally don't get into
[47:25] debates okay but but the reason I'm
[47:28] objecting is I will answer that question
[47:30] okay because he is the one who testified
[47:33] he was acting as an agent for Rod and
[47:35] Reel he's the one who filed the
[47:37] applications so in essence he is the one
[47:40] and even though he didn't sign off on
[47:42] them he's the one whose office and he's
[47:45] supervised and he was in charge of these
[47:47] applications so in essence if he's the
[47:49] one to charge the applications and why
[47:52] didn't you take him for the Planning
[47:54] Commission to be reviewed
[47:56] the question is as simple as that or
[47:59] does he know maybe doesn't know or or
[48:02] anything but that's the question because
[48:04] I can tell you that's going to be part
[48:05] of my case and I'm setting this up for
[48:08] later on if you can do what's happening
[48:09] so so Mr boardburn
[48:12] and that's that's the question is do you
[48:14] have any knowledge as to why these five
[48:16] applications were not presented to the
[48:18] uh uh Planning Commission
[48:23] let's let's move on
[48:30] are there any further questions aside
[48:31] from based upon his limited testimony of
[48:34] what he's gone so far nothing more
[48:36] obviously there will be more when he
[48:38] comes we'll have another chance when he
[48:39] adds uh substantial commentary yeah
[48:43] thank you Mr Woodburn um
[48:46] so the board's going to need to consider
[48:48] the legal context of what is happening
[48:50] in this case so I'll start with an
[48:52] explanation of that
[48:54] um
[48:55] are you testifying no I'm giving them
[48:58] I'm giving my presentation and my please
[49:03] let me speak report Mr Blitz cannot give
[49:05] you legal
[49:09] that's Mr Sussman but as far as him you
[49:12] know having legal opinions to the board
[49:14] that's that's completely improper I'm
[49:16] going to object right now to the entire
[49:19] process of of interrupting our case at
[49:22] every turn solely for the reason of
[49:25] interruption what's happening
[49:26] introduction that's not I am presenting
[49:28] an argument can I please finish this
[49:31] case
[49:34] I get to make a presentation as I bring
[49:38] in evidence I can explain the legal
[49:40] context of what we our case is about to
[49:45] make the legal argument so that you
[49:46] understand the context of all the
[49:49] evidence that will come in a big part of
[49:51] this case is a legal argument
[49:54] this is an appeal on alleged error so I
[49:57] need to explain to you as a board and I
[50:00] need to convince you if I'm going to be
[50:02] successful of the merits of those things
[50:05] we're going to be bringing a lot of
[50:07] legal arguments because that's what
[50:08] you're going to have to decide you're
[50:10] going to have to decide whether the
[50:12] Planning and Zoning commission and the
[50:14] zoning administrators failure to process
[50:15] site plans and the reasons for that were
[50:18] in error that's the case so I'm going to
[50:22] be talking a lot of Law and explaining
[50:24] what our position on the law is I'm not
[50:26] giving an opinion to you about the law
[50:28] Mr Sussman can always weigh in if you
[50:32] have questions about the law or
[50:34] questions about what I say but I get to
[50:35] present a case and it shouldn't be
[50:38] interrupted at every turn when all I'm
[50:40] doing is presenting
[50:42] the basic case
[50:48] oh you continue okay
[50:53] first we start with you know the basic
[50:55] property rights as it relates to zoning
[50:58] power
[50:59] um the default is that you own property
[51:03] um
[51:04] and if you own it fee simple and and
[51:06] the owners get to decide uh free from
[51:09] all interference uh on what is done with
[51:12] that property including what is built
[51:13] there that's the base
[51:15] all limitations on that basic property
[51:18] right are evaluated on whether they are
[51:21] consistent with the law
[51:24] such as zoning in this context
[51:28] a zoning regulation does not direct a
[51:31] property owner of what to build
[51:33] uh or when to build it but provides the
[51:36] youth limitations applicable to that
[51:38] property as well as many other site plan
[51:40] limitations on design orientation
[51:43] mitigation that may be required Etc
[51:49] that range of options
[51:52] is limited by the zoning code
[51:57] and
[51:58] sometimes the subdivision regulations
[52:02] um but the decision remains with the
[52:04] property owner
[52:05] that discretion that I'm describing is
[52:08] important to remember because unless a
[52:10] regulation on property development is
[52:12] valid
[52:13] and applied according to due process of
[52:15] law
[52:17] then the default is that the owner is
[52:19] entitled to Bill
[52:21] foreign
[52:26] in the exhibit that I submitted uh for
[52:29] the order of the circuit court for
[52:31] Calvert County you can see on page 10
[52:33] of exhibit three
[52:36] um
[52:37] the Court's point that the Supreme Court
[52:38] of the United States has recognized in
[52:40] multiple cases the high importance of
[52:42] property rights
[52:43] so there's a legal process associated
[52:45] with zoning which must be clear and
[52:47] constitutionally precise
[52:50] it must not be impermissibly
[52:52] overburdened the property interest and
[52:54] it must be fairly and non-arbitrarily
[52:57] applied to property owners
[52:59] treating every property owner of a
[53:01] similarly situated property interest
[53:04] within the town zoning wall equally and
[53:07] without bias or improper discrimination
[53:12] a part of that due process is
[53:15] if there are administrative procedures
[53:17] that are set up to allow properties to
[53:18] qualify under the zoning law
[53:21] uh to develop their property
[53:23] um you know it's a foundational concept
[53:25] of zoning law in Maryland
[53:28] throughout the country you know this is
[53:29] traces back all the way to the Euclid
[53:32] decision of the Supreme Court which you
[53:35] know that's a century ago that
[53:37] um established the constitutionality of
[53:39] zoning that
[53:41] both the substantive law and the process
[53:46] for administering it must not be
[53:49] arbitrary or unreasonable and there has
[53:51] to be a constitutional due process in
[53:52] the administration of all zoning laws
[53:57] the importance of this point
[53:59] is that when conducting the
[54:01] administration of the zoning law the
[54:03] Planning and Zoning commission and the
[54:04] zoning administration's task is not to
[54:06] legislate
[54:08] or to create substantive policy on their
[54:10] own but to administer the laws properly
[54:12] passed by the Town Council
[54:14] and with respect to property rights
[54:16] existing at the time
[54:20] I apologize with respect to the
[54:22] properties existing at the time that the
[54:24] applications are filed
[54:25] um
[54:32] those conducting the administrative
[54:34] functions of the Town zoning laws in
[54:37] site plan review
[54:38] or reviewing the applications to
[54:40] determine their consistency with
[54:42] existing zoning laws
[54:45] and while during site plan review the
[54:47] Planning and Zoning commission has broad
[54:49] broader discretion than the zoning
[54:51] administrator uh to achieve uh more
[54:54] abstract principles
[54:56] um
[54:58] determining whether the proposed site
[55:00] plan complies with the zoning code that
[55:02] applies at the time of the review
[55:04] typically measured as of the time of the
[55:07] application
[55:10] this fundamental
[55:12] principle of zoning law is made clear in
[55:14] the very first sentence of the town code
[55:17] section on site plan review
[55:19] so in your binders on
[55:22] um
[55:23] the law I point out I provide you
[55:25] section
[55:26] 290-23a of the Town zoning code I'm
[55:29] going to read you the section
[55:31] you know focusing your attention on
[55:35] that's uh
[55:37] 293 23A
[55:40] want site plans prepared and approved in
[55:43] accordance with the provisions of this
[55:45] article should be required to assist
[55:46] Town administrative officials in the
[55:49] review of applications
[55:51] for building permits and assure
[55:52] compliance with all applicable
[55:54] requirements of this Charter
[55:57] I bring all this up because the rod and
[56:00] reel in initiating the site plan process
[56:02] is legally required to do so for this
[56:05] development
[56:06] okay so I've described the basic
[56:09] fundamental property rights and now
[56:10] there's a process site plan review that
[56:14] applies the zoning
[56:18] to the to the site plan that's being
[56:20] presented
[56:24] now the Planning and Zoning commission
[56:26] is responsible for reviewing and it's
[56:29] exclusively responsible for reviewing
[56:31] all category site one category one site
[56:34] plans you've heard from Mr Woodburn that
[56:36] they were all category one site plans
[56:38] and that's in section 290 23 C3 and 4.
[56:42] this is not a discretionary Authority
[56:46] the commission must undertake a process
[56:48] and approve or disapprove or approved
[56:50] with conditions any site plan filed with
[56:52] it
[56:54] the commission can reject the site plan
[56:55] only for non-compliance with then
[56:58] existing zoning and or subdivision law
[57:00] or other laws impacting the development
[57:03] plan such as the county stormwater
[57:05] regulations or is a common example
[57:08] um
[57:09] in addition because the rod and reel
[57:11] properties are located in the critical
[57:13] area which you've heard
[57:16] the Planning and Zoning commission's
[57:18] exclusive and mandatory review Authority
[57:20] is repeated again in your town code in
[57:23] section 290 25a2 and 2A
[57:29] and that process is set forth in A5 and
[57:32] I'll I'll read it to you
[57:35] number five procedure for processing
[57:38] upon receipt
[57:40] of the site plan the Planning and Zoning
[57:43] commission shell
[57:44] conduct a review soliciting comments
[57:47] from other technical agencies
[57:48] departments agents agencies and
[57:51] officials as the ploning and Zoning
[57:52] commission may deem appropriate
[57:55] subsection B
[57:57] the site plan shall be approved if it
[58:00] meets the requirements of this article
[58:03] comma the other requirements of this
[58:05] chapter and all other federal state and
[58:07] town regulations and all necessary
[58:08] permits and approvals have been obtained
[58:11] C
[58:12] the Planning and Zoning commission shall
[58:15] approve conditionally approve or reject
[58:18] a site plan within 60 days from the
[58:21] filing of the application
[58:23] notice of such actions shall be given in
[58:25] writing to the applicant
[58:29] as you may be able to tell I emphasized
[58:32] the words shell those are all
[58:35] in statutory language considered indicia
[58:39] of a mandatory obligation it's saying in
[58:43] the law
[58:44] that the Town Council and mayor passed
[58:48] to apply in the zoning code to the
[58:51] properties filed by this rod and reel
[58:53] this this is the site plan review for
[58:55] critical area site plans and it must be
[59:00] reviewed and
[59:02] by either approving it conditionally
[59:04] approving it or rejecting that site plan
[59:06] within 60 days of the filing application
[59:08] so that gives you the timeline where the
[59:10] town code mandates that
[59:21] it should be noted that
[59:23] resolution is done in Chesapeake Beach
[59:25] with a preliminary site plan approval
[59:26] typically that includes conditions set
[59:30] by the Planning and Zoning commission so
[59:31] what they do is review it
[59:33] first at a hearing have a preliminary
[59:35] site plan
[59:37] that's reviewed
[59:39] then
[59:40] conditions for the developer to meet
[59:44] before you get back to the final site
[59:47] plan review
[59:49] um I've done lots of site plan reviews
[59:51] with the Chesapeake Beach so I I know
[59:54] how the process works I just want to
[59:55] make sure you understand that how it
[59:57] typically Works doesn't technically have
[1:00:01] to
[1:00:01] have both a preliminary and final but
[1:00:04] that's almost always the way it is on
[1:00:06] anything
[1:00:07] substantive
[1:00:09] um
[1:00:13] I want to point out another important
[1:00:15] code section that's relevant as we begin
[1:00:18] this timeline sorry
[1:00:22] um section
[1:00:24] 290-31e1 of your zoning code
[1:00:27] provides another binding obligation of
[1:00:29] the commission
[1:00:30] it's grounded in law and not in a
[1:00:32] discretionary power
[1:00:35] and addresses the condition the
[1:00:37] commission's meeting obligations with
[1:00:39] respect to site plan admissions
[1:00:41] I'll read it
[1:00:44] the Planning Commission shall establish
[1:00:47] a regular meeting schedule and shall
[1:00:49] meet frequently enough so that it can
[1:00:51] take action on all complete applications
[1:00:54] in an expeditious manner
[1:00:57] the Planning Commission shall hold
[1:00:59] meetings quarterly or more often as the
[1:01:01] planning commission's duties require
[1:01:03] if there is no business before the
[1:01:05] Planning Commission the chairman May
[1:01:06] cancel the meeting
[1:01:08] so not the meetings also have to be as a
[1:01:13] mandatory process
[1:01:17] be held and they have to be held
[1:01:19] frequently enough so that they can take
[1:01:21] action on to complete applications in an
[1:01:24] expeditious manner so that's the
[1:01:26] standard that the town code provides to
[1:01:28] the Planning and Zoning commission when
[1:01:29] they get site plan reviews and this
[1:01:33] especially with critical area
[1:01:40] now the zoning administrator also a
[1:01:43] party that we allege error is required
[1:01:46] under your code the town code
[1:01:49] to assist in the in the administration
[1:01:54] of site plan review and that's found in
[1:01:58] subsection C2 of section 290-23 which
[1:02:02] also uses the mandatory language the
[1:02:05] shell language and says the
[1:02:07] administrator shall review the
[1:02:09] application for completeness and will
[1:02:10] refer the application to the appropriate
[1:02:12] individuals or agencies for review
[1:02:14] comment or approval
[1:02:18] note that for category one-site plans
[1:02:20] like in the critical area that we have
[1:02:22] in this case
[1:02:24] um this would need to be done in time to
[1:02:26] fit within the 60-day resolution
[1:02:28] requirement
[1:02:30] uh this obligation of the zoning
[1:02:32] administrator is restated in the section
[1:02:34] establishing the zoning administrator's
[1:02:36] Authority as set forth in section
[1:02:39] 290-2615
[1:02:42] typically uh the zip Tana zoning
[1:02:46] administrator provides a staff report to
[1:02:47] the commission which provides the
[1:02:49] administrator's view of the proposed
[1:02:52] development and its compliance with the
[1:02:53] zoning ordinance subdivision regulations
[1:02:55] or other related laws uh consistent with
[1:02:57] his authority in 290-2613.
[1:03:09] so to recap we've got a mandatory
[1:03:11] obligation of the Planning and Zoning
[1:03:13] commission to review category 1 site
[1:03:15] plans hold a public hearing on them and
[1:03:17] must provide a decision within 60 days
[1:03:19] of the filing
[1:03:21] mandatory obligation of the zoning
[1:03:23] administrator to assist in that
[1:03:24] pre-hearing review for category one site
[1:03:27] plans and assist the Planning and Zoning
[1:03:29] Commission
[1:03:33] you've we already brought into the
[1:03:35] record
[1:03:36] I believe it's exhibit seven is it
[1:03:39] Paul's letter seven the email that Mr
[1:03:41] Woodburn received on February 5th seven
[1:03:45] days after we file the site plans after he
[1:03:52] filed the site plans for the rod and
[1:03:54] reel
[1:03:57] it's important to
[1:03:59] understand the be that this is the
[1:04:01] beginning of refusal to process the site
[1:04:04] plans and he's telling you the two
[1:04:06] reasons why
[1:04:07] he believes those site plans shouldn't
[1:04:10] be reviewed
[1:04:12] if you want I can read it again to
[1:04:14] emphasize it you've already got it in
[1:04:15] the record but I don't want to
[1:04:17] take more time but the point
[1:04:19] is
[1:04:21] that he makes two
[1:04:24] reasons why site plan review shouldn't
[1:04:27] proceed
[1:04:29] one that it would compound the
[1:04:32] challenges of the Planning and Zoning
[1:04:33] commissions work
[1:04:35] on planning
[1:04:37] and ordinance drafting
[1:04:39] um that they were doing with the
[1:04:41] comprehensive plan
[1:04:43] and then second that
[1:04:46] a moratorium was going to be proposed
[1:04:48] prior to this there was no moratorium
[1:04:50] being discussed
[1:04:53] at all
[1:04:57] notice in this email that the zoning
[1:04:59] administrator completely ignores the
[1:05:02] 60-day review requirement and the
[1:05:03] obligation of the commission to hold
[1:05:05] meetings
[1:05:06] as often as necessary to get that work
[1:05:08] done
[1:05:09] so when he says that
[1:05:13] one of the reasons for not reviewing the
[1:05:16] site plans and not having the Planning
[1:05:19] and Zoning commission review the site
[1:05:20] plans is that it's too much work
[1:05:24] I I cited you the section the section of
[1:05:28] the town code says they shall meet must
[1:05:30] meet as often as necessary to to do both
[1:05:34] of their functions
[1:05:35] to explain that
[1:05:38] understand that the Planning and Zoning
[1:05:39] commission has two different types of
[1:05:42] functions they have the planning and
[1:05:44] policy oriented function and that would
[1:05:46] have been done for the comprehensive
[1:05:48] plan
[1:05:50] um and that's what Mr uh jacobiak was
[1:05:53] referring to that they were working on a
[1:05:55] comprehensive plan
[1:05:56] that's a policy thing
[1:05:58] they also are administrators
[1:06:01] two different roles and they have to do
[1:06:03] both of them under the law at the same
[1:06:06] time and hold as many meetings as
[1:06:07] necessary to do both of those functions
[1:06:09] that administrative function is site
[1:06:12] plan reviews like we filed for the rod
[1:06:14] and reel but also subdivision plots get
[1:06:18] reviewed if
[1:06:20] the the
[1:06:22] Town opens a new road they they do a
[1:06:24] review they have a series of required
[1:06:28] administrative tasks
[1:06:31] under the town code that they must
[1:06:33] complete
[1:06:34] and a lot of those flow from Maryland
[1:06:38] statutory law
[1:06:40] [Music]
[1:06:44] the I'm going to take take on the first
[1:06:48] I'm going to divide the presentation now
[1:06:50] between the two reasons why Mr Kubiak
[1:06:54] was saying they weren't going to
[1:06:55] do the site plan reviews
[1:07:00] I mean we've been going on for some time
[1:07:02] now and I've been letting him just kind
[1:07:04] of go on with his presentation that's
[1:07:06] fine but Mr jubiak has no Authority okay
[1:07:09] so you keep speaking of talking about Mr
[1:07:11] jubiakin is is his emails and so forth
[1:07:14] he's got no Authority the Planning
[1:07:16] Commission or or to the Town Council he
[1:07:18] is someone who makes recommendations
[1:07:20] that's it and so you know the idea that
[1:07:23] somehow Mr Jupiter gets made final
[1:07:26] decisions here
[1:07:27] you've been we've been going on for some
[1:07:29] time and obviously you know we've been
[1:07:31] dancing around some of the key points of
[1:07:33] the law so I'm going to be asked to have
[1:07:35] just a few minutes when this ends
[1:07:39] um uh but you know I just want to bring
[1:07:41] up that point of saying at this point
[1:07:44] I don't know what the relevance is what
[1:07:46] Mr jubiak was doing but uh thank you I
[1:07:49] noted uh with regards to Mr jacobiak and
[1:07:52] we will give you some minutes to uh
[1:07:54] respond in bulk later in the minute
[1:07:56] please continue so
[1:07:58] just to respond to that Mr jakku I just
[1:08:01] read Mr jacobiak's Authority Under The
[1:08:04] Zone obligation under the zoning code to
[1:08:06] assist in site plan review that's what
[1:08:08] he was doing when he sent his February
[1:08:10] 5th meeting I just read you the statute
[1:08:13] that's what I'm referring to
[1:08:23] so as I was saying I'm going to divide
[1:08:25] up the rest of this dealing first with
[1:08:28] the part that's associated with his
[1:08:30] rationale for not proceeding with site
[1:08:32] plan review
[1:08:34] which was that there would be
[1:08:38] that the commission it would be two
[1:08:40] burdensome on the commission to do the
[1:08:42] site plan reviews because they were also
[1:08:44] doing the comprehensive plan
[1:08:49] I've pointed out the statute that says
[1:08:51] they have to do both at the same time
[1:08:52] and do it as expeditiously with as many
[1:08:55] meetings as necessary to do it
[1:08:57] so what's particularly ridiculous about
[1:09:00] this point in in the zoning
[1:09:03] administrators argument in his email
[1:09:06] is at this point in time
[1:09:09] the town's comprehensive plan and the
[1:09:11] implementing zoning ordinance was
[1:09:13] already four years late
[1:09:16] excuse me Mr pleasure are you going to
[1:09:18] have a present evidence uh to uh
[1:09:22] elucidate on these points that you're
[1:09:24] making now or are you testifying uh I
[1:09:27] will present well
[1:09:30] number one you want to testify raise
[1:09:32] your right hand and take the oath okay
[1:09:35] or if you already took the other so we
[1:09:37] can clear away I do include to include
[1:09:41] any facts that I offer
[1:09:45] that's fine
[1:09:46] is that okay I mean you you're except
[1:09:49] accepting that I mean we are moving
[1:09:51] towards closing throughout a lot of what
[1:09:54] he's talking about this is not testimony
[1:09:55] does not you're Way Beyond where we
[1:09:57] started with it's this is definitely
[1:09:59] like a closing type argument but
[1:10:02] um
[1:10:04] this is you know where this is right now
[1:10:06] not making a closing argument I'm making
[1:10:08] the explanation of why we say that the
[1:10:12] Planning and Zoning administrator and
[1:10:14] the Planning and Zoning commission which
[1:10:16] are the parties that we allege committed
[1:10:17] error were wrongful in denying site plan
[1:10:20] review so I get to go through all of the
[1:10:23] reasons and the rationales and those
[1:10:25] things that are related to that that
[1:10:27] make their decisions completely unjust
[1:10:30] with respect to the rod and reel
[1:10:32] applications that were filed that's kind
[1:10:34] of the raison Detra of this case so I'm
[1:10:38] going to explain why first the first
[1:10:42] argument of the zoning administrator in
[1:10:45] his February 5th email
[1:10:47] was so ridiculous
[1:10:51] so remember that the applications were
[1:10:53] filed on January 29th of 2021
[1:10:56] that means the 60-day requirement
[1:10:59] um to hold a hearing
[1:11:00] on those site plans would put that date
[1:11:03] on March 30th of 2021.
[1:11:06] that hearing did not occur
[1:11:10] at this point
[1:11:11] the last comprehensive plan of the town
[1:11:13] of Chesapeake Beach had been passed on
[1:11:16] January 20th 2011. you can make take
[1:11:20] judicial notice of that because it's the
[1:11:22] official government thing it's on your
[1:11:24] website that's actually where I get the
[1:11:26] date we'll have other exhibits that
[1:11:28] actually
[1:11:29] um probably show that as well
[1:11:32] um so it it's not a
[1:11:35] issues so the point is that at that
[1:11:37] point in time the last comprehensive
[1:11:39] plan was January 20th of 2011.
[1:11:43] now the legal obligation on the Planning
[1:11:45] and Zoning commission is to propose a
[1:11:47] new plan at least every six years under
[1:11:49] the town law
[1:11:51] that's found in section 290-31a1
[1:11:56] and it reads
[1:11:57] a purpose
[1:12:00] the Planning Commission shall advise the
[1:12:03] Town Council on all matters relating to
[1:12:05] the orderly growth of the town of
[1:12:06] Chesapeake Beach more specifically the
[1:12:09] Planning Commission with the advice and
[1:12:11] assistance of the Town staff and or
[1:12:13] retained town planning experts shall
[1:12:15] number one
[1:12:17] prepare and recommend a comprehensive
[1:12:19] plan for the town of Chesapeake Beach
[1:12:21] and review and update said plan at least
[1:12:23] once every six years
[1:12:25] notice the mandatory language in that
[1:12:28] section
[1:12:29] this is not a discretionary Authority
[1:12:31] the mayor and Town Council through a
[1:12:32] legislative act adopted a zoning code
[1:12:36] that uses the mandatory language shell
[1:12:39] to establish that one of the legal
[1:12:41] obligations of the Planning and Zoning
[1:12:42] commission for Chesapeake Beach is to
[1:12:44] prepare and recommend a new
[1:12:46] comprehensive plan at least every six
[1:12:48] years
[1:12:49] now there is also a state mandate that
[1:12:52] comprehensive plans be reviewed at least
[1:12:54] every 10 years and that's found in
[1:12:56] section 3-301 of the land use article of
[1:12:59] the annotated code of Maryland and
[1:13:01] that's in your white notebook
[1:13:04] but that's at least every 10 years
[1:13:06] municipalities are authorized to do it
[1:13:09] as often as they want and this
[1:13:12] municipality Chesapeake Beach
[1:13:14] Road a law
[1:13:16] it binds the Planning and Zoning
[1:13:18] commission to do it every six years
[1:13:20] the reason I bring that up is
[1:13:23] the art the first argument of Mr
[1:13:25] Jakubiak for not
[1:13:27] preparing a site plan
[1:13:29] was that the commission was working on a
[1:13:32] comprehensive plan
[1:13:33] and that's why I say
[1:13:35] it's kind of ridiculous to say we we
[1:13:38] don't have time to do your site plans
[1:13:41] when they're six years late on doing
[1:13:43] their current plan
[1:13:46] sorry to interrupt you uh several times
[1:13:49] you've mentioned a white notebook
[1:13:51] did I not pass those out no I apologize
[1:14:04] I did
[1:14:06] foreign
[1:14:20] [Music]
[1:14:29] make one comment
[1:14:31] okay
[1:14:33] um you know we've been going on about
[1:14:34] various things Mr chubiak did this Mr
[1:14:37] trivia didn't do that uh I just want to
[1:14:40] make sure that the the board understands
[1:14:42] it's the Town Council that made the
[1:14:44] decision okay the Town Council is the
[1:14:46] one who passed a moratorium that told
[1:14:48] him what he can and can do this has
[1:14:50] nothing to do with Mr zubiak didn't
[1:14:52] comply with dysregulation didn't comply
[1:14:54] with that maybe the Town Council
[1:14:56] everybody knows the Town Council runs
[1:14:59] the town they make decisions on behalf
[1:15:01] of the town they tell the people in the
[1:15:04] town what they can and can't do so in
[1:15:07] essence this this this tirade of going
[1:15:10] on with Mr Kubiak didn't do this it
[1:15:13] didn't comply with that doesn't make any
[1:15:14] difference because the Town Council
[1:15:16] passed a moratorium it was a legislative
[1:15:18] function and they said this is what
[1:15:20] you're going to do this is what you're
[1:15:21] not going to do and I'm going to be
[1:15:23] talking about that later but but I just
[1:15:24] want to kind of it's one of the many
[1:15:27] things we're going to be bringing up
[1:15:28] thank you all right thank you continue
[1:15:32] and kind of object to having our case
[1:15:35] constantly that wasn't an objection it
[1:15:37] was merely just an argument
[1:15:39] under the board's rules we present our
[1:15:42] entire case first
[1:15:44] that's it our witnesses can be
[1:15:46] cross-examined but I'm making the legal
[1:15:48] arguments about why
[1:15:51] the failure of the Planning and Zoning
[1:15:54] commission to process site plans was
[1:15:56] wrongful and I get to explain all of the
[1:15:59] reasons and we're starting with the fact
[1:16:01] that the zoning administrator who I've
[1:16:03] demonstrated is legally obligated to
[1:16:05] assist with site plan review with the
[1:16:07] Planning and Zoning Commission
[1:16:10] sent the letter and gave two rationales
[1:16:12] why they weren't going to do it
[1:16:14] and the first one is that they were too
[1:16:17] busy because they were working on the
[1:16:18] comprehensive plan and that these five
[1:16:20] site plans would have
[1:16:22] made that difficult or impossible you
[1:16:25] didn't say that but he
[1:16:27] you can read the letter I don't wanna
[1:16:29] put Mr words in Mr jacobiak's um
[1:16:39] I'll read the relevant section
[1:16:42] um further these projects if implemented
[1:16:45] have real potential to compound the
[1:16:46] challenges of the planning commission's
[1:16:48] work on planning and ordinance drafting
[1:16:51] is seeking to address
[1:16:53] wasn't
[1:16:54] a complete sentence but
[1:16:56] so
[1:16:59] we're back to the idea of why that was
[1:17:01] ridiculous first
[1:17:05] they were he was pointing to the fact
[1:17:06] that they were working on a
[1:17:07] comprehensive plan and I'm pointing out
[1:17:09] that they were legally already six years
[1:17:12] behind
[1:17:15] and I was talking about the state
[1:17:16] deadline as well
[1:17:19] but that state deadline also actually
[1:17:22] has an important point
[1:17:24] because even though the town law is
[1:17:26] mandatory on the zoning administrator
[1:17:28] and the Planning and Zoning commission
[1:17:29] well I apologize on the Planning and
[1:17:31] Zoning commission not the zoning
[1:17:32] minister
[1:17:34] um
[1:17:36] you're going to hear
[1:17:39] that the commission did not even meet
[1:17:42] the state's 10-year deadline
[1:17:44] the final resolution proposing the
[1:17:46] updated comprehensive plan was adopted
[1:17:48] by the Planning and Zoning Commission on
[1:17:50] November 9th 2021.
[1:17:52] okay and you can take judicial notes to
[1:17:55] that given that the previous plan had
[1:17:57] been adopted on January 20th January
[1:17:59] 20th of 2011 the commission was over 10
[1:18:03] months late in meeting the state
[1:18:04] deadline
[1:18:06] this failure has important consequences
[1:18:08] because both the state and town
[1:18:10] deadlines are meaningful substantive
[1:18:12] legal obligations of the Chesapeake
[1:18:14] Beach Planning and Zoning Commission
[1:18:16] property owners and citizens have the
[1:18:18] right to rely upon those requirements
[1:18:20] being met
[1:18:21] and especially when their properties are
[1:18:24] the ones being regulated by those zoning
[1:18:26] laws
[1:18:27] this is necessary to meet basic due
[1:18:30] process
[1:18:32] um in the application of the regulations
[1:18:34] to property owners
[1:18:37] these obligations are enforceable
[1:18:40] because Maryland's adoption of what is
[1:18:42] known as smart growth which includes as
[1:18:45] one of the of its many state mandates
[1:18:48] the obligation of the Planning and
[1:18:49] Zoning commission and the Town Council
[1:18:52] to adopt and apply what are known as the
[1:18:54] smart growth visions
[1:18:56] in their comprehensive plans
[1:18:59] including any updates to the plan
[1:19:02] to understand why these deadlines are
[1:19:05] not merely aspirational goals under
[1:19:07] state law but meaningful deadlines with
[1:19:09] consequence
[1:19:11] the board should consider section 3-304
[1:19:14] of the land use article of the annotated
[1:19:16] code of Maryland
[1:19:18] that section requires inclusion of the
[1:19:21] required plan elements in subtitle one
[1:19:24] I'm not going to review
[1:19:26] all the details of what those are but
[1:19:28] their divisions
[1:19:29] it's not really relevant to my point
[1:19:32] um in accordance with the review
[1:19:34] schedule in section
[1:19:36] 3-303 of the land use article
[1:19:39] that imposes a deadline
[1:19:41] which we just covered the required plan
[1:19:44] elements have been added to over the
[1:19:46] years they started off I believe at 12
[1:19:48] and up to 17 or 18 of them now
[1:19:52] um but notice that under subsection B
[1:19:54] the local jurisdiction can request but
[1:19:57] must establish good cause
[1:20:01] May request a six-month extension of
[1:20:05] that deadline
[1:20:07] and they do that request to the Maryland
[1:20:09] office of planning
[1:20:11] the commission could have made up to two
[1:20:13] extension requests but they did not make
[1:20:15] any requests nor did the department of
[1:20:17] planning Grant such an extension to the
[1:20:19] Chesapeake Beach
[1:20:20] planning a zoning commission
[1:20:22] um
[1:20:31] thank you
[1:20:48] apologies Mr Bliss please continue
[1:20:52] okay thanks
[1:21:00] so since the plant the previous plan had
[1:21:03] been adopted in 2011 January 20th I
[1:21:05] believe the date was
[1:21:07] um the new plan was required by Town law
[1:21:09] on January 20th of 2017.
[1:21:13] therefore at the time the rod and reel
[1:21:15] had filed the five site plans and the
[1:21:17] zoning administrator was taking the
[1:21:19] position that the commission did not
[1:21:20] have time to review its applications
[1:21:22] because it needed to work on finishing
[1:21:24] an update to the comprehensive plan that
[1:21:27] plan was already four years overdue
[1:21:32] the commission didn't really begin
[1:21:34] discussing work on the comprehensive
[1:21:36] plan until 2018 after the deadline
[1:21:40] a year after the date
[1:21:42] when Mr Foltz was appointed chair of the
[1:21:45] to replace Miss riser in February of
[1:21:47] 2018.
[1:21:49] in the February 15 2018 minutes of the
[1:21:52] Town Council for the report to the
[1:21:53] planning zone of the Planning and Zoning
[1:21:55] Commission
[1:21:56] councilman Jaworski reported the
[1:21:59] commission held a meeting on February 14
[1:22:01] 2018.
[1:22:02] and that it discussed the upcoming
[1:22:04] conference a plan update with the hope
[1:22:06] that it would be completed in one year
[1:22:07] so he's saying that in 2018.
[1:22:14] the town does not have the commission's
[1:22:16] meeting minutes for that February 14
[1:22:18] meeting up on its website
[1:22:21] um
[1:22:22] so I will submit the February 5th 2000
[1:22:27] 2018 Town Council minutes relevant to Mr
[1:22:29] Jaworski's comment
[1:22:32] and obviously most of the time
[1:22:35] I'm just submitting the minutes for
[1:22:38] these bodies not all of the attachments
[1:22:40] that are on the files on the website
[1:22:42] because those aren't actually
[1:22:43] technically so I believe we're on
[1:22:46] exhibit eight then
[1:22:47] which would be
[1:23:06] thank you
[1:23:10] just as a note we are coming short on
[1:23:12] time so if there's a natural break in
[1:23:14] your presentation please plan for it now
[1:23:25] so then I'm going to move forward with
[1:23:27] the next exhibit which are the minutes
[1:23:29] of the Planning and Zoning Commission of
[1:23:31] May 9 2018.
[1:23:35] hand her up for a moment
[1:23:37] these exhibits in our binder yes
[1:23:42] what was the date of that Mr Blitz
[1:23:45] May 19 2018.
[1:23:58] so uh
[1:23:59] using that exhibit the Planning and
[1:24:01] Zoning commission according to the
[1:24:02] Planning and Zoning commission itself
[1:24:04] they did not begin the process of
[1:24:05] updating the comprehensive plan until it
[1:24:07] held workshops on September 12th and
[1:24:09] 18th of 2018. I actually attended one of
[1:24:13] those
[1:24:14] um that's in the fifth whereas Clause of
[1:24:16] the uh moratorium resolution that we're
[1:24:17] going to get to
[1:24:19] um
[1:24:20] but this shows that they did begin
[1:24:22] addressing the conference plan as an
[1:24:25] agenda item in May of 2018
[1:24:27] and the zoning administrator then
[1:24:29] provided a presentation on economic
[1:24:31] development and land uh availability and
[1:24:33] walkability
[1:24:35] so that's when they're starting a year
[1:24:38] after the commission was due the the
[1:24:40] comprehensive win was due that's true
[1:24:42] I'm going to judge I don't seem to have
[1:24:44] any any minutes from either 2018 or 19.
[1:24:48] oldest one I got is 2020 in my book I
[1:24:52] don't know if you guys have a different
[1:24:53] book but somehow it's not in there
[1:24:57] I'm sorry mine's in there oh yours in
[1:25:00] there okay yeah it's a good bit in but
[1:25:03] a few pages after exhibit seven if you
[1:25:05] had that okay I'll look again thank you
[1:25:13] next I'm going to submit
[1:25:17] all as one exhibit a series of minutes
[1:25:21] of the Planning and Zoning commission
[1:25:22] that go from June 20th of 2018
[1:25:26] to January 27th of 2021. what was the
[1:25:30] first date uh June 20th 2018.
[1:25:36] foreign
[1:25:45] January 27th of 21 which is
[1:25:49] chosen because that was the period
[1:25:51] between when they started the work on
[1:25:53] the comprehensive plan and when we filed
[1:25:55] our cycling application
[1:26:06] [Music]
[1:26:08] the point
[1:26:10] that I want to demonstrate with those
[1:26:11] minutes is that during this period
[1:26:14] the commercial worked on many different
[1:26:16] administrative reviews including site
[1:26:19] plan reviews while at the same time
[1:26:21] often in the same meeting
[1:26:24] working on the comprehensive plan
[1:26:27] remember that's their legal obligation
[1:26:29] to do but it was one of the reasons why
[1:26:31] Mr Jakubiak was saying there would not
[1:26:33] be any site plan review
[1:26:37] while the commission didn't meet every
[1:26:38] month typically they missed about three
[1:26:40] months a year
[1:26:42] um they also had a few extra work
[1:26:44] sessions so they were keeping a pretty
[1:26:45] regular schedule
[1:26:47] like the point of this exhibit is to
[1:26:49] show that
[1:26:51] by doing both of their tasks from 2018
[1:26:54] to 2020
[1:26:56] that included some major site plan
[1:26:58] reviews including one for the rod and
[1:27:00] reel and one for Beach Elementary those
[1:27:03] are all in the minutes package that I
[1:27:05] just gave you
[1:27:08] so in that minutes package you know in
[1:27:10] May of 2018 the commission gets started
[1:27:13] and puts comprehensive plan as a regular
[1:27:14] agenda item
[1:27:16] in June and July of 2018 the commission
[1:27:18] considered Harbor Vista South Extension
[1:27:21] requests and works on the comprehensive
[1:27:23] plan
[1:27:25] in November of 2018 they did a
[1:27:28] reapproval of the site plan for a
[1:27:29] portion of Richfield station and also
[1:27:31] work on the comprehensive plan
[1:27:33] February 2019 they did a sign review
[1:27:36] issue in Richfield station and work on
[1:27:38] the comprehensive plan so there's I'm
[1:27:41] making the point they're doing both
[1:27:43] their administrative tasks and their
[1:27:44] planning tasks at the same time
[1:27:47] May of 2019 there was a big issue
[1:27:50] associated with a street opening
[1:27:52] at the 18th Street entrance so they
[1:27:54] handled that
[1:27:57] they did the same in June of 2019
[1:27:59] apparently that was a big issue
[1:28:01] in December of 2019 the commission
[1:28:03] worked on a revision of the site plan
[1:28:04] for Richfield station and a review and
[1:28:07] approval of this Subdivision plat in the
[1:28:09] middle subdivision
[1:28:13] in that package you might want to take
[1:28:16] note of the June 2020 meeting because at
[1:28:19] that time the commission was setting
[1:28:20] timeline goals for finishing their work
[1:28:22] on the comprehensive plan
[1:28:24] with a projection that they would
[1:28:26] finally complete the plan in May or June
[1:28:29] of 2021.
[1:28:32] so as I mentioned they handled Beach
[1:28:34] Elementary that was in August 2020 and
[1:28:37] in the same meeting they had they did
[1:28:38] work on the comprehensive plan
[1:28:41] November 2020 again Beach Elementary for
[1:28:44] their final Flight Plan and the
[1:28:45] comprehensive plan in the same meeting
[1:28:48] in December of 2020 the commission
[1:28:49] worked on the revisions of the rod and
[1:28:51] real Redevelopment site plan and
[1:28:53] comprehensive plan in the same meeting
[1:28:55] this takes us up to the time when the
[1:28:57] commission acted on the request for a
[1:28:59] moratorium suggested in Mr jakubiak's
[1:29:02] email of February 5th 2021.
[1:29:07] so you cautioned me about time I don't
[1:29:10] know whether you want to stop now the
[1:29:12] next segment would take
[1:29:16] 15 to 20 minutes so this is a good time
[1:29:21] to
[1:29:23] um
[1:29:23] return this session and reopen at a
[1:29:27] later date
[1:29:29] um
[1:29:30] I did tell Mr pounds you could have a
[1:29:33] few minutes if there's anything you
[1:29:34] would like to address now or if you'd
[1:29:35] like to hold till next time briefly if
[1:29:38] you please very very very briefly like
[1:29:40] if like three three minute briefly I'll
[1:29:42] take the three minutes okay uh basically
[1:29:45] you know it's interesting and obviously
[1:29:47] Mr Blitzen going on for some time now
[1:29:50] and so now he's talking about other
[1:29:51] projects uh you know with regard to this
[1:29:54] I mean like I said before you know this
[1:29:56] is you know and I'm going to be bringing
[1:29:58] this up just a little bit kind of a
[1:30:00] heads up here you know if indeed Mr
[1:30:02] jubiak was making the comments that
[1:30:04] that's not going to be reviewed you go
[1:30:06] before you know as a developer you know
[1:30:07] the applicant here isn't somebody who's
[1:30:10] brand new at this uh I mean he's been a
[1:30:12] round he should have definitely gone to
[1:30:14] the Planning Commission so I've got
[1:30:15] these projects you know started
[1:30:17] reviewing them right away nobody did it
[1:30:20] okay nobody in fact uh Mr Woodbury you
[1:30:22] know even admitted that he never you
[1:30:24] know had you know with regard to these
[1:30:26] projects somehow they want to wait until
[1:30:28] afterwards uh to ask you somehow use the
[1:30:32] law that indeed has been changed there's
[1:30:35] going to be no doubt that the Town
[1:30:37] Council has the right to change the law
[1:30:39] they can make those decisions that's
[1:30:41] part of what the County Council does
[1:30:42] that's part of what the uh uh uh you
[1:30:46] know their obligation isn't the zoning
[1:30:47] code also what's going to be interesting
[1:30:49] and we're going to be bringing this up
[1:30:50] too you know again I'm going to keep my
[1:30:52] three minutes these projects aren't
[1:30:54] something that just came out of the
[1:30:55] woodwork now these Prime projects have
[1:30:57] been going on for the last 10 years or
[1:30:59] so and uh you know many many years and
[1:31:03] you know Council you know went on and on
[1:31:04] about well the planning process was
[1:31:06] delayed everything was delayed well if
[1:31:08] these things have been going on for the
[1:31:09] last years and he was aware of it the
[1:31:12] delay would have helped them to use the
[1:31:13] Old Law you know why are they waiting
[1:31:15] till the comprehensive process starts to
[1:31:17] suddenly file these applications to
[1:31:19] another move forward so you know you
[1:31:21] know since those those were important
[1:31:23] too and also you know uh again I'm gonna
[1:31:26] keep my three minutes it it says that
[1:31:29] the Beach Elementary project was being
[1:31:32] reviewed well you know an elementary
[1:31:34] school is different than a category one
[1:31:38] development which is going to include
[1:31:40] both development for residential as well
[1:31:43] as areas that's going to be you know
[1:31:46] critical area so the idea that you're
[1:31:48] going to compare that to helping out
[1:31:50] kids and making sure their project gets
[1:31:52] built seems to be kind of disingenuous
[1:31:54] but uh we look forward to the new data
[1:31:56] we will continue on thank you I need to
[1:31:58] reply to some of that on the record so
[1:32:00] firstly briefly
[1:32:04] we don't go to a Planning and Zoning
[1:32:06] commission until they schedule a meeting
[1:32:08] that's the way the law works we file
[1:32:10] applications typically the zoning
[1:32:12] administrator gives us comments and we
[1:32:14] work with the zoning administrator to
[1:32:15] get it ready before the Planning and
[1:32:17] Zoning commission Planning and Zoning
[1:32:18] commission sets the schedule and the
[1:32:20] hearing just like you did for this
[1:32:21] hearing we don't have we don't go to any
[1:32:24] meeting and say oh we're here to present
[1:32:26] our case they schedule us
[1:32:28] they never did
[1:32:29] second
[1:32:31] made reference to Beach Elementary it
[1:32:33] literally is a category one site plan
[1:32:36] thank you
[1:32:37] um at this point I'm going to make a
[1:32:40] motion for the board
[1:32:42] um to pause where we're at to resume on
[1:32:46] October 30th
[1:32:48] 7 pm
[1:32:49] do I have a second
[1:32:51] thank you
[1:32:53] so this meeting I guess is in recess
[1:32:57] um and I would advise Council to think
[1:33:00] on ways
[1:33:02] um we are not we are acting as a
[1:33:04] legislative body but obviously no one
[1:33:06] other than Town Council has legal
[1:33:08] experience I'd advise you to take that
[1:33:10] into account uh in terms of how you
[1:33:13] address the board and how you come to
[1:33:14] this meeting
[1:33:15] um
[1:33:16] thank you
[1:33:20] [Music]
[1:33:40] I was worried I'm like oh my God
[1:33:53] you know I'm going home
[1:34:01] you need those separators
[1:34:07] so