[0:04] all right uh welcome everybody um this

[0:07] is the call to order for the Chesapeake

[0:09] Beach Board of Appeals 7 PM October 30

[0:12] 2023 I will'll begin with a roll call um

[0:16] please answer in the affirmative uh Mr

[0:18] Richard Burch Mr Paul dhy present miss a

[0:21] Everett present Mr Stephen sharp present

[0:25] I am Jody honstar we have a full house

[0:28] tonight um

[0:31] so we will start with the approval of

[0:33] minutes from the past meetings uh I will

[0:36] do all three of these at once so we are

[0:38] considering the approval of the minutes

[0:40] of September 19 2023 the board of

[0:43] appeals case

[0:45] 20233 for Roden reils Incorporated

[0:47] Donovan Estates LLC it's number one

[0:50] number two uh approval of the minutes

[0:52] for October 16 2023 the board of appeal

[0:55] special meeting and number three the

[0:57] approval of minutes for October 16th

[0:59] 2023 the board of appeals close session

[1:03] um does any member of the board have

[1:05] issues with the minutes as they receive

[1:08] them hearing none I will entertain a

[1:11] motion to approve the

[1:13] minutes I just want move we have a

[1:17] second right all in favor I

[1:21] approved um we will start today with

[1:23] some procedural matters for this case

[1:26] for 20233 Roden reil Incorporated uh

[1:29] Donan Estates

[1:31] um for this session and the next

[1:33] meetings we will be limiting our time to

[1:35] 2hour sessions today and going forward

[1:38] uh we have another plan session for this

[1:41] same case that will begin November 8th

[1:44] at

[1:45] 7M um and at this point I believe we

[1:48] need to pass it by motion so I will make

[1:50] uh I'll entertain a motion to have

[1:53] two-hour sessions for this particular

[1:55] case I will make that motion second you uh pass okay um a little bit

[2:03] of administrative business

[2:10] yes motion to continue okay uh in that

[2:14] case uh I will hear a motion to continue

[2:18] this meeting on the 8th of

[2:20] November I will make that motion

[2:24] second all right all in

[2:27] favor um now for this case um during our

[2:32] last session um we need to clarify a bit

[2:35] about the order of presentation um we'll

[2:38] be following the standard order

[2:39] presentation as documented in the board

[2:40] of appeals rules procedure attachment a

[2:43] from here on since we are resuming from

[2:45] the meeting on 919 uh this is as follows

[2:48] we'll begin with uh one appellant

[2:51] testimony and evidence including

[2:52] Witnesses which will be followed by

[2:54] staff uh Town staff testimony and

[2:57] evidence um and then after that will be

[3:00] testimony and evidence by person or

[3:01] entity whose rights are impacted by the

[3:03] appeal members of the public if you so

[3:05] choose to speak uh and we will wrap up

[3:07] with any summary statements um at which

[3:10] point we will close the public hearing

[3:11] and begin

[3:13] deliberation um one additional note on a

[3:16] different topic um please do direct all

[3:19] comments and questions to the board

[3:21] chair or legal counsel um this is uh for

[3:25] the petitioner uh and staff and also

[3:28] applies to the gallery please do not

[3:30] direct questions at the petitioner or

[3:32] his

[3:33] staff um finally uh a note for the

[3:38] gallery um documents were submitted to

[3:40] the board in hard copy form during the

[3:41] previous session these documents are

[3:43] available on Chesapeake Beach

[3:45] maryland.gov on the page for the notice

[3:47] of public hearing for the uh town of

[3:50] Chesapeake Beach Board of Appeals posted

[3:52] October 26th at the bottom next to the

[3:54] Bold text that's uh for applicant

[3:56] exhibits you'll find a link uh to all

[3:58] the evidence we have on hand um if any

[4:02] additional document uh documents or

[4:04] evidence is to be presented please

[4:05] submit it to the town in advance of the

[4:08] public hearing so it can be made

[4:09] available for the gallery or provide

[4:11] extra copies which I understand has been

[4:13] done

[4:14] today

[4:15] um okay so any other procedural items

[4:19] that the board would like to discuss

[4:21] before we get into

[4:23] it all right uh hearing none um this is

[4:28] uh the board of appeals continuation

[4:30] case 20233 Roden reel Incorporated

[4:33] Donovan Estates LLC to consider an

[4:35] application from Roden reel and Donovan

[4:37] um of 4160 mirors Avenue Chesapeake

[4:40] Beach Maryland for a decision on

[4:42] interpretation or alleged error to

[4:44] article 6 section 2923 29031 A1 and6 of

[4:48] the Chesapeake Beach zoning ordinance in

[4:50] c390 c310 and c311 of the Chesapeake

[4:54] Beach Town Charter applicants request

[4:56] the Chesapeake Beach zoning board of

[4:58] appeals to order uh the zoning

[5:00] administrator and planning and zoning

[5:02] commission to immediately commence and

[5:03] prioritize the processing and review of

[5:06] the relevant site plan submitted by rod

[5:07] reel uh Donovan and that uh the zoning

[5:10] administrator and planning and zoning

[5:12] commission be ordered to apply the

[5:13] zoning ordinances in effect as of

[5:15] January 29 2021 when the applications

[5:19] were submitted and for such other and

[5:20] further relief as the nature of their

[5:22] calls requires at this point I will pass

[5:24] it to Mr Blitz for continuation of his

[5:27] presentation thank you Mr chair Eric

[5:29] Blitz on behalf of the rod and reel um

[5:32] if we could BJ if we could start the I

[5:34] have a PowerPoint just to

[5:37] help both the public and the board

[5:40] perhaps

[5:43] um follow

[5:45] along and I just got to make sure I

[5:47] don't go too fast

[5:51] um

[5:54] so briefly to summarize where we are in

[5:56] our presentation you know we the rod

[5:59] real filed five category one site plans

[6:01] on January 29th to the Planning and

[6:03] Zoning commission site plans are

[6:05] required of property owners to develop

[6:07] their property mandatory statutory

[6:10] obligation of the Planning Commission to

[6:12] review site plans mandatory statutory

[6:15] obligation of the zoning administrator

[6:17] to assist the Planning and Zoning

[6:18] Commission in the review of those site

[6:20] plans and the review by the commission

[6:23] has a 60-day deadline after the filing

[6:25] of the application for the site plans

[6:27] that's required by Maryland statute

[6:30] um and then we presented evidence on

[6:33] February 5th the zoning administrator

[6:35] sent an email to the rotten reel agent

[6:38] giving notice of two reasons why the

[6:39] site plans would not be reviewed that's

[6:41] on exhibit

[6:43] seven uh the first reason was that five

[6:45] applications imposed a significant

[6:47] challenge to the commission uh and the

[6:49] town's planning zoning and project

[6:50] review functions because it would delay

[6:52] and derail the commission's work on

[6:54] ongoing comprehensive Plan update and

[6:57] the second reason was notice of a

[6:58] February 4th meeting um or a hearing

[7:02] scheduled by the commission to recommend

[7:03] to the Town Council adopt an ordinance

[7:06] to impose a temporary moratorium on the

[7:08] processing of site plans including the

[7:11] rod and reel's five site

[7:19] plans we also showed why the

[7:22] comprehensive plan was already four

[7:24] years late at that time and the

[7:25] statutory obligation of the Town zoning

[7:28] code mandating the commission conduct a

[7:30] review of the comprehensive plan every

[7:32] six years meant that the commission was

[7:33] supposed to have been done in

[7:36] 2017 um and we pointed out that Maryland

[7:38] provides an additional legal requirement

[7:40] of 10 years for comprehensive plan

[7:42] review which meant that at this point

[7:44] the commission hadn't met that

[7:46] obligation either um and Maryland does

[7:49] allow two six-month extensions but the

[7:51] commission did not make those requests

[7:54] and there's a consequence to the failure

[7:56] to meet Maryland's deadline and that is

[7:58] under Maryland statute it's illegal to

[8:00] make any changes to zoning

[8:04] classifications so we then submitted the

[8:07] commission the minutes of the commission

[8:09] that big packet of all of the um minutes

[8:12] from 2018 to 2021 where we showed the

[8:15] zoning administrator during that period

[8:17] of time I mean the Planning and Zoning

[8:18] commission during that time was working

[8:21] on the comprehensive plan at the same

[8:23] time that we're working on the uh other

[8:27] site plan reviews

[8:30] so that's where we are right now for our

[8:33] next step I think it's important for the

[8:36] board to understand the Dual duties of a

[8:38] Planning and Zoning commission so it has

[8:40] two different types of Duties one is in

[8:42] the area of planning and policy um and

[8:45] that's associated with the comprehensive

[8:47] plan and that's quasi legis

[8:50] legislative we don't get to challenge

[8:53] what the plan actually is they they have

[8:56] it's very was very very hard to

[8:58] challenge it let's put it that way um

[9:01] the other are the administrative

[9:03] duties I don't know whether I'm close

[9:05] enough to the mic so people can hear me

[9:06] so I'll try to get a little

[9:09] closer um which includes recommendations

[9:12] to the town council site plan reviews um

[9:15] subdivision and plat reviews under the

[9:18] subdivision regulations um and under

[9:22] Maryland law they must do those

[9:23] concurrently there's no statutory

[9:26] Authority in the town code or Maryland

[9:28] law that allows the commission to

[9:30] prioritize one over the

[9:33] other at the time of the Roden reel's

[9:35] application for site plan

[9:36] review uh were filed in January of 2021

[9:41] the commission had been working on the

[9:43] comprehensive plan and the

[9:44] administrative duties on site plan

[9:46] requests for almost three years

[9:48] including some major site plan reviews

[9:51] um yet a mere s days after the Roden

[9:54] reel filed its

[9:55] applications there there was a

[9:57] moratorium being proposed to prevent

[9:59] my client's site plan review from going

[10:07] forward please consider the uh statutory

[10:10] and important role of comprehensive plan

[10:13] in the town zoning Authority because

[10:14] it's relevant to the zon the rod and

[10:17] reels applications and the commission's

[10:20] long overdue plan a comprehensive plan

[10:23] takes undertakes the integration of a

[10:26] whole set of data for existing velopment

[10:29] patterns with things like infrastructure

[10:32] population growth PL rates the plans for

[10:34] the future and makes recommendations and

[10:38] each time the comprehensive plan is

[10:39] updated they're looking at the current

[10:41] plan those patterns and making

[10:44] adjustments um but when a comprehensive

[10:48] plan is passed it becomes the legal

[10:51] basis upon which the zoning ordinances

[10:54] implementing the plan are passed by the

[10:57] town it gives guidance to citizens

[10:59] Property Owners um and stakeholders

[11:03] about the potential restrictions of

[11:04] their property rights and that's one

[11:07] reason has to be updated

[11:10] regularly as I mentioned before in ches

[11:12] Beach it has to be done every six

[11:14] years and this is a a quote from the

[11:18] land use article section

[11:20] 3201 that reinforces that point about

[11:23] comprehensive plans that it gives

[11:25] guidance to public and private actions

[11:28] and and that's that guidance is

[11:31] important because people are then

[11:32] relying upon that plan being done

[11:40] expeditiously so the other thing that

[11:43] was mentioned in the zoning

[11:45] administrators email saying they weren't

[11:47] going to um review the site plans was

[11:51] this idea of a

[11:53] moratorium

[11:55] and from that email there is

[12:00] no doubt that it was targeting the rod

[12:02] and reel applications uh you'll see

[12:04] evidence tonight that reinforces that

[12:07] point there was no evidence that a

[12:09] moratorium was being publicly discussed

[12:12] prior to the Roden reels applications so

[12:15] and you can you will see that there's

[12:17] information in the minutes that make it

[12:20] clear that they were directly targeting

[12:21] the particular

[12:27] property one small small but important

[12:30] point is is that Mr jaak's email of

[12:34] February 5th gives notice of what would

[12:37] be the correct manner of implementing a

[12:40] moratorium if the Town Council decided

[12:42] to implement one which would be through

[12:44] an

[12:47] ordinance so now I'm going to

[12:52] submit which I believe Sharon is exhibit

[12:57] 11

[13:00] F Mr chair you know it's one thing is I

[13:02] think Mr uh Blitz did give a brief uh

[13:06] summary as he what he found to be the

[13:08] history and background here can I have a

[13:10] few minutes to say well the places that

[13:13] he either incorrectly stated as to what

[13:16] this history and why are we here or

[13:19] would he did not state as to the reasons

[13:22] why we here based of the other testimony

[13:24] uh not right now uh you're welcome to

[13:26] object but the uh presentation has wide

[13:29] latitude to give uh their version of

[13:31] testimony right now you are uh granted

[13:34] time after he is finished thank

[13:36] [Music]

[13:37] you so exhibit

[13:41] 11 is the public

[13:44] notice of the meeting of the commission

[13:47] on February

[13:48] 24th as you can see it was published on

[13:50] February 5th and 19th according to the

[13:53] schedule at the bottom of

[13:55] 2021 and what I want you to focus on is

[13:58] a couple things in that

[14:01] notice they made clear that the

[14:03] moratorium was going to be

[14:06] temporary they proposed in this notice a

[14:09] nine-month

[14:12] moratorium that the moratorium was to

[14:14] make distinctions between which

[14:16] developments would be impacted in this

[14:18] case in this notice it said those

[14:21] proposing four or fewer dwelling units

[14:23] would not be

[14:25] impacted and it was also clear from this

[14:29] notice that the moratorium was to allow

[14:32] the completion of the comprehensive plan

[14:34] and the implementing

[14:36] ordinances as we go forward I'm going to

[14:39] be reinforcing that point a lot because

[14:41] when we get to the end you'll see why it

[14:45] matters so the recommendation for the

[14:48] moratorium came from the

[14:50] commission and was made to the mayor in

[14:52] Town

[14:53] Council and the commission only has the

[14:56] authority to propose such laws to the Town Council that affect zoning and

[15:00] the subdivision powers of the town which

[15:03] are then passed through the Town Council

[15:05] through

[15:15] ordinances next I would like to

[15:19] submit the

[15:22] agenda for February 24th 2021 meeting of

[15:26] the Planning and Zoning commission which

[15:28] would be exhibit

[15:39] 12

[15:42] and the board should recognize that um

[15:45] on the subsequent Pages after the

[15:48] minutes that it includes the formal

[15:50] resolution proposed at that time at the

[15:53] time of the agenda of what the

[15:56] moratorium resolution would be so it's

[15:58] got in your binder you've got a copy of

[16:01] this um and so it's got the resolution

[16:04] and and the reason I'm pointing that out

[16:05] is the subsequent minutes don't have a

[16:08] final copy of the resolution so the only

[16:09] way you're going to know it what the

[16:11] final version of the resolution by the

[16:13] commission was is to look at what they

[16:16] introduced and then the minutes of what

[16:18] they say they changed just for just for

[16:20] my clarification are these documents

[16:22] being offered into evidence or they just

[16:24] being presented okay then I'm going to

[16:26] be objecting to both of those pleas

[16:37] introduce

[16:40] over okay

[16:44] so so you can see on this exhibit that

[16:47] the agenda attached um has that full

[16:49] resolution and there are a few key

[16:52] points that I want to bring your

[16:53] attention to with respect to this

[16:55] exhibit as introduced the most motion

[16:59] was to ask the Town Council for an

[17:01] ordinance to impose a moratorium that

[17:04] would end at the earlier of either the

[17:07] town council's adoption of the new

[17:08] comprehensive plan and the implementing

[17:11] ordinances most notably amendments to

[17:13] the zoning ordinance and zoning map or

[17:16] the expiration of 12 months from the

[17:18] date the moratorium becomes effective so

[17:21] was an alternate one could happen faster

[17:24] if they completed the thing but at a at

[17:26] a maximum it was to last 12 12

[17:29] months the motion itself indicates that

[17:32] the moratorium would be

[17:33] temporary and

[17:35] proposed that it would have a defined

[17:37] dur duration to be limited to that 12

[17:41] months now there's really no explanation

[17:43] at the hearing or in the minutes of why

[17:47] their legal notice said the proposal was

[17:49] for nine months but when it came to do

[17:51] it was 12 months I don't think it really

[17:53] matters but I'm just saying that there's

[17:55] no real explanation for why when they

[17:57] proposed it at the the commission level

[17:59] it was different than the legal

[18:01] notice

[18:09] um so I'm directing your attention to

[18:12] the fourth and fifth whereas Clauses in

[18:15] this because it recites the commission's

[18:17] purposes and the reasons for passing

[18:19] their resolution which is remember is a

[18:21] recommendation to the Town

[18:22] Council the commission is identifying

[18:24] the rod and reel's applications and

[18:27] using the two rationals provided by the

[18:28] zoning administrator which is in your

[18:30] exhibit 7 which was the February 5th

[18:34] 2021

[18:37] email it makes it clear that the purp

[18:40] and I can appreciate you know and and as

[18:43] Mr BS knows whereas Clauses are not part

[18:45] of the resolution they are introductory

[18:48] Clauses they are not meant to be part of

[18:50] the testimony they are not meant to be

[18:52] part of the resolution and so they

[18:54] really are nothing but introductory and

[18:56] they're really irrelevant but I can

[18:58] appreciate apprciate the fact that of

[19:00] what's you know trying to be asserted

[19:02] here but uh you know I can appreciate

[19:04] what Mr Blitz is trying to do here but

[19:06] you know at the same time you know

[19:08] whereare Clauses simply are not part of

[19:10] the document

[19:12] itself is that an objection yes okay um

[19:16] overruled it's entirely fine to be

[19:19] admitted into evidence it has been

[19:20] admitted into evidence please

[19:23] continue and it's important for me to

[19:26] just let you all know

[19:28] that the resolution itself at the end

[19:31] adopts the wew Clauses as being

[19:33] incorporated as part of the

[19:38] resolution

[19:44] um so it made it clear that the purpose

[19:46] of the moratorium was to Halt the rod

[19:48] and re applications so that they could

[19:51] complete their work on the comprehens of

[19:52] plan in implementing

[19:56] ordinances the draft resolution ution

[19:58] being proposed recognized another

[20:00] important legal proposition which I'm

[20:01] going to explain

[20:06] now in the fourth paragraph of the the

[20:10] whereas

[20:11] Clause it

[20:13] reads whereas adoption of zoning

[20:16] ordinances plan development ordinances

[20:18] and regulation subdivision ordinances

[20:19] and regulations and other land use organ

[20:22] ordinances and

[20:24] regulations excuse me shall be

[20:26] consistent with the comprehensive plan

[20:28] and that's basically quoting from a

[20:30] statutory provision of Maryland

[20:33] law which is section

[20:36] 3-3 I'm pointing that out because that's

[20:38] an accurate representation of what is

[20:40] referred to as the consistency

[20:42] requirement and that's that the town's

[20:45] or zoning ordinances must be consistent

[20:47] with the comprehensive

[20:49] plan it makes all those zoning

[20:52] ordinances dependent upon having a valid

[20:54] and some would say internally consistent

[20:57] non-ambiguous and understandable

[20:59] comprehensive Plan before imposing the

[21:01] zoning ordinance limitations on property

[21:04] rights um there used to be a legal

[21:06] question about whether a comprehensive

[21:08] plan was more of a planning document or

[21:11] more like a law required but kind of

[21:14] itself not separately

[21:15] enforceable and and it comes up in your

[21:18] special exception cases um that the

[21:21] board can hear in 2008 the Maryland

[21:24] court of appeals now called the Maryland

[21:26] Supreme Court found that a compr ensive

[21:29] plan was not

[21:32] binding in a special exception case in

[21:35] the context of a somewhat it's a

[21:36] somewhat famous car case in Maryland

[21:38] called terp and run um for the purpose

[21:43] of Mr susman I'm sure he probably knows

[21:45] it but it's 403 Maryland

[21:47] 574 um the legislative reaction to that

[21:51] case was quick and immediate um what

[21:57] they did was change the law so that the

[21:59] comprehensive plan was a uh had the

[22:03] legal status of a

[22:05] law um the reason that's important in

[22:08] this case is

[22:10] twofold because zoning ordinances must

[22:13] be consistent with the comprehensive

[22:14] plan as they are dependent on the plan

[22:16] for validity the only way any Town

[22:19] zoning laws that are applicable to a

[22:21] property in town including the rod and

[22:23] reels five

[22:25] properties um for site plan review is

[22:28] the amendments to the comprehensive plan

[22:30] that were be cons were being considered

[22:33] by the Commission in

[22:35] 2021 to be adopted in or to be

[22:39] implemented in what are known as

[22:41] implementing

[22:42] ordinances

[22:47] um and so it's important to recognize

[22:50] that they had to do both they recognize

[22:53] it in their recommendation to the Town

[22:56] Council um and that they had to do it

[22:59] within 12

[23:01] months the other reason that it's

[23:04] important in this case that you

[23:07] recognize that a comprehensive plan has

[23:09] the status of a

[23:12] law is that it must be prepared and

[23:14] adopted according to the town Charter

[23:17] the Maryland zoning law and the

[23:18] procedural requirements of the zoning

[23:20] code which would include the requirement

[23:22] that the update be adopted at least

[23:24] every six years but also that any change

[23:26] to the legal requirement ments for

[23:28] processing site plans under the zoning

[23:30] ordinance has to be adopted by

[23:32] substantive

[23:34] legislation which requires passage of an

[23:36] ordinance and not merely a

[23:40] resolution the proposed resolution uh

[23:43] for the moratorium attached to the

[23:45] minutes also makes it clear that it was

[23:47] not all site plan reviews that were

[23:49] being prevented by the

[23:50] moratorium um it was only some of them

[23:54] in the motion itself in the agenda it

[23:55] accepts out certain properties and

[23:57] develop Vel mment activities that are of

[23:59] record and they they cite the

[24:01] grandfathering Clauses of your town code

[24:05] in sections 2456 and

[24:07] 2457 as well as minor reviews for the

[24:11] applicabil excluding minor reviews from

[24:14] the applicability of the

[24:16] moratorium this is important because it

[24:18] introduces a legal distinction in the

[24:20] availability of site plans for property

[24:22] owners that is not made by the existing

[24:25] zoning

[24:26] ordinance which requires review of all

[24:29] submitted applications remember we went

[24:32] over the command language of the site

[24:36] plan in your zoning code to make that

[24:39] cont that distinction in the context of

[24:41] zoning the substantive law is being

[24:44] changed and therefore it is a law of

[24:47] general applicability and

[24:49] effect which we're going to demonstrate

[24:52] tonight that requires the passage of an

[24:56] ordinance

[25:00] so now I'm going to submit exhibit

[25:02] 13 which

[25:04] is February 12th

[25:07] 2021 report to the mayor and Town

[25:10] Council from Larry Brown who was the

[25:13] chairman of the Planning and Zoning

[25:26] Commission

[25:29] and just procedurally I'll be objecting

[25:30] to that also

[25:45] please apologize Mr pounds can you say

[25:47] that one more time be objecting to that

[25:49] document also thank you

[25:56] over

[26:02] so on page two of that report in the

[26:04] second to last paragraph uh what I'm

[26:07] pointing out is that the commission is

[26:08] going to consider the moratorium at its

[26:10] upcoming F February meeting so this is a

[26:13] report prior to the resolution and the

[26:15] meeting of the Planning and Zoning

[26:17] commission to the Town Council the

[26:19] Chairman's reporting on this page two

[26:22] the commission is going to consider a

[26:23] moratorium at its upcoming February

[26:25] meeting that it would be temporary

[26:28] says it right there um to end when the

[26:31] work on the comprehensive plan was

[26:33] finished or the expiration of 12 months

[26:35] whichever occurs

[26:36] first and it also reinforces the

[26:44] point that they're directing this

[26:47] towards the five site plans that had

[26:48] been filed by the Roden

[26:51] reel now as part of the testimony on

[26:54] that subject before the commission I

[26:57] submitted a detailed letter to the

[26:58] Planning and Zoning commission was made

[27:01] a part of their

[27:05] record on behalf of the rod and reel

[27:07] which I'll offer is exhibit 14 that's my

[27:10] letter dated February 23rd

[27:13] 2021

[27:19] which commission one day before there

[27:21] February

[27:23] 24th hearing on the moratorium

[27:26] resolution

[27:36] so I'm not going to go over the details

[27:38] of it's such a long letter

[27:41] um I'm just going to get in some of the

[27:44] key points I recognize it's a relatively

[27:46] long letter while I encourage you to the

[27:49] board to read all over read this and all

[27:52] other evidence carefully when

[27:54] considering the case during your

[27:56] deliberations I think I think it's

[27:57] better in this context just for me to

[27:59] point out what I think is important

[28:00] relative to the narrative we're going

[28:02] through right now so in that letter I

[28:05] put forth my client's arguments to the

[28:07] commission against the

[28:09] moratorium I described how it was

[28:11] specifically targeting the Roden re 5

[28:13] site plans which had already been filed

[28:15] and at that time were required to be

[28:17] reviewed by that commission by March

[28:19] 30th of 2021 that's in the first

[28:22] paragraph and the third paragraph on

[28:23] page

[28:24] two how it was unjust to my client to

[28:27] have because all five projects had not

[28:29] only been previously permitted in the

[28:32] past or had various stages of site plan

[28:34] approvals already these 2021 proposals

[28:38] were substantially the same including

[28:39] Harbor Vista South which had been

[28:42] approved by the commission as late as

[28:45] 2016 that's in the last paragraph of

[28:47] Page Three and that the comprehensive

[28:50] plans of the town for its entire history

[28:52] with zoning since 1972 called for

[28:54] exactly these kind of developments on

[28:56] these properties those that's covered in

[28:58] Pages four through

[29:00] eight I described that the plan existing

[29:03] at the time in

[29:05] 2021 and which the commission was

[29:07] seeking to amend through its update had

[29:09] literally recognized the pendency of the

[29:12] anticipated development of these five

[29:14] site plans they were called for in the

[29:16] prior comprehensive plan they're

[29:18] referred to as part of and part of their

[29:21] calculations and finally I listed all

[29:23] the site work and mitigation that had

[29:25] already been done on these projects

[29:26] under the previous permits and the

[29:29] detrimental Reliance of the rod and reel

[29:31] on all the past comprehensive

[29:34] plans so at the hearing before the

[29:37] commission they had notice of these

[29:39] problems as did the Town Council who was

[29:41] copied on that

[29:43] letter and they held their meeting on

[29:46] February 24th and I'll submit the

[29:49] minutes to reflect what

[29:51] occurred in that meeting so that's

[29:53] exhibit 15 which is the minutes of the

[29:56] February 20 for 2021 minutes of the

[30:00] planning

[30:04] Z continue objection Mr

[30:15] chair oh over couple points um that I'd

[30:20] like to make about these

[30:26] minutes

[30:29] so this is from the the relevant

[30:32] paragraph um chairman Brown introduced

[30:34] the motion for the moratorium saying

[30:37] they were recommending that the mayor

[30:38] and Town Council adopt a temporary

[30:39] moratorium so that the temporary part

[30:42] was

[30:45] reinforced now during the debate this is

[30:47] the part of the minutes that reflect the

[30:49] debate and the Motions on that

[30:53] resolution there was a motion by

[30:55] commissioner Evans to amend the

[30:57] resolution to reflect a 9-month

[30:59] moratorium instead of a 12month ex

[31:02] remember it's it's kind of the earlier

[31:04] of finishing the comprehensive plan and

[31:07] the zoning ordinances and his outer

[31:09] limit duration he was trying to move the

[31:12] outer limit duration to nine months that

[31:14] motion failed though um and that's

[31:17] relevant because the duration of the

[31:19] proposed moratorium was a matter of

[31:22] debate by the commission and as you will

[31:24] see by the Town

[31:26] Council

[31:29] so it establishes that the moratorium as

[31:31] proposed to the Planning and Zoning

[31:33] commission was for an established

[31:35] duration it was not of an indefinite

[31:40] duration now that resolution was

[31:42] eventually adopted as proposed by the

[31:45] commission uh it had the um it had a

[31:48] couple of adjustments um to whereas

[31:53] Clauses um that you can find in the

[31:55] minutes they're not relevant to our case

[31:57] but I just wanted to let you know that

[31:59] there was those kind of changes made

[32:07] um there's there's another change that's

[32:11] made through the proposal which were a

[32:14] little bit at variance with what was

[32:16] originally published as notice and

[32:17] described by chairman Brown in his

[32:19] report and that's the scope of which

[32:21] properties would be

[32:22] affected it was amended during the

[32:24] debate on the resolution uh Commission

[32:27] green gold mooved to exempt any project

[32:29] currently in the development approval

[32:31] system which has received development

[32:34] plan or plat approval for the commission

[32:36] from the

[32:37] commission um you know this was made as

[32:41] a from a request of Mike repy for

[32:43] Richfield station um and that amendment

[32:46] was

[32:47] approved the reason I point that out is

[32:50] it demonstrates the differential

[32:52] treatment of site plan

[32:55] review and that's a substan of change to

[32:58] the effect of the town's zoning laws

[33:01] which would require an ordinance to

[33:03] pass so at the end of the hearing the proposed resolution of the Planning

[33:08] and Zoning commission passed on a vote

[33:09] of 4 to

[33:21] one I'd like to offer

[33:25] three documents at once and then I'll go

[33:28] over their import or actually Four it's

[33:32] exhibits 16 through

[33:34] 19 and let me read them off what they

[33:37] are for the record um 16 would be the

[33:39] minutes of the Town Council

[33:40] informational work session of March 8

[33:44] 2021 17 would be a um press release by

[33:50] issued by the town U by Holly wall the

[33:52] Town

[33:53] Administrator

[33:55] um

[34:00] the 18 would be a report um from Holly

[34:04] wall to the town mayor and Town Council

[34:07] on the moratorium dated March 11th

[34:10] 2021 and 19 would be the town's meeting

[34:14] agenda for March 18th 2021 so was 17 17

[34:21] was a press release issued by the

[34:25] town

[34:28] on the

[34:32] moratorium dated March 11

[34:35] 2021 so that would be 16 17 18 and

[34:39] 19 and we do object to all of them

[34:49] over

[34:53] 18 okay I I uh hand it to just handed

[34:57] over to us uh 18 is the um memorandum

[35:01] from Holly wall to the mayor and Town

[35:03] Council about the moratorium that's

[35:05] dated March 11th

[35:08] 2021 and 19 is the uh town meeting

[35:11] agenda for March 18

[35:19] 2021 thank

[35:25] you

[35:53] okay so exhibit 16 um like to point out

[35:58] again

[35:59] reinforcing they said it would be a

[36:01] temporary 12month

[36:03] moratorium applying only to category one

[36:06] projects category one site

[36:09] plans what's interesting about this is the first instance where there's

[36:13] a formal distinction between category

[36:16] one and category two site plans um as it

[36:19] was introduced because the commission's

[36:21] motion and resolution to the Town

[36:23] Council didn't use the that distinction

[36:26] so this is a resolution being offered to

[36:29] the Town Council um a slight variance to

[36:33] what the commission offered but it's

[36:34] doing essentially the same thing it's

[36:36] making the distinction based upon site

[36:38] plan uh

[36:42] categories

[36:46] um exhibit 17 was the press release

[36:50] again I'm reinforcing that at that time

[36:53] it was made clear there would be a

[36:54] temporary pause category one and two I

[36:58] mean category one um site plans with a

[37:00] one-year

[37:09] moratorium exhibit 18

[37:12] uh the report to the town by the Town

[37:15] Administrator to the um Town Council

[37:18] mayor and Town Council was virtually

[37:20] identical to the press release it was

[37:22] done on the same day um it too

[37:25] reinforces the Mortor was to be

[37:27] temporary and of one-ear duration but

[37:29] includes the recommendation of the Town

[37:31] Administrator to pass the moratorium as

[37:33] a resolution not as an ordinance as

[37:36] recommended by the Planning and Zoning

[37:42] commission and then we've got the agenda

[37:45] the applicable part part of the agenda

[37:47] of the Town Council of March 18th

[37:51] 20121 which I offer to show you that the

[37:54] agenda called for the Town Council to

[37:55] consider and vote vote on a moratorium

[37:57] as a resolution it would be resolution r

[38:02] 21-3 as a resolution on category one

[38:04] site

[38:05] development that's on page two of those

[38:09] that

[38:11] agenda now we get to the issue of why

[38:13] the moratorium was void from the outset

[38:16] and therefore the first reason that the

[38:18] subsequent failure of the zoning

[38:20] administrator and the Planning and

[38:21] Zoning commission to follow the required

[38:24] process and do the site planning reviews

[38:27] was an error under the zoning

[38:30] ordinance um so what I need to

[38:34] demonstrate to you is the important

[38:35] legal reasons why passing a moratorium

[38:38] through a resolution instead of an

[38:40] ordinance of the Town Council is not

[38:42] valid um and you could you should

[38:45] consider what is procedurally different

[38:47] in the adoption of the Town Council

[38:48] resolution and an ordinance because it's

[38:51] those procedural safe it's those

[38:53] procedural safeguards that are required

[38:56] for ordinances which were being sidest

[39:02] stepped remember that I established

[39:04] under the zoning ordinance section 29025

[39:08] a5c the requirement that slight plan

[39:10] must be reviewed within 60 days of the

[39:12] filing of the application and that meant

[39:14] the deadline for the commission's

[39:15] hearing on those site plans absent of

[39:19] moratorium um or absent a stipulation by

[39:23] the rod and reel which does happen

[39:25] sometimes applicants stipulate to a

[39:27] longer period if they wish but that

[39:30] deadline was March 30th of

[39:34] 2021 under the town's Charter a

[39:37] resolution typically used to pass

[39:39] pronouncement of the council rather than

[39:41] laws can be effective immediately but an

[39:44] ordinance which must be used to pass

[39:46] substantive

[39:48] legislation what is called a under the

[39:50] law an action of general and continuing

[39:53] effect is typically introduced at a town

[39:56] at one town council meeting a public

[39:59] hearing is scheduled for the next

[40:00] month's meeting and a vote is taken at

[40:02] that next

[40:03] meeting using a typical practice for

[40:07] passing a law that applies to everyone

[40:09] and stays in effect until it

[40:11] sunsets as this 12-month period would

[40:14] have done the Town Council would not

[40:16] have acted in time for that deadline of

[40:19] the Planning and Zoning

[40:21] commission so when the agenda was

[40:23] published and I learned that the

[40:26] moratorium on the agenda was being

[40:29] proposed as a resolution and not the

[40:31] introduction of an

[40:32] ordinance I was shocked I I quickly sent

[40:35] a mayor to the mayor and Town Council

[40:36] complaining about the impropriety of

[40:38] using a resolution instead of an

[40:40] ordinance which was dated and sent on

[40:42] March 16 2021 via email two days before

[40:45] the town council meeting and I offer

[40:47] that as exhibit

[40:49] [Music]

[40:55] 20

[41:01] again for the record objection

[41:15] over as you can see from the letter um I

[41:18] informed the mayor and Town Council

[41:21] of at least my opinion that the of the

[41:24] impropriety of passing a zoning more

[41:26] through a simple

[41:27] resolution and not abiding by the

[41:30] procedural requirements for an ordinance

[41:32] as required by the town

[41:34] Charter and I point that out because

[41:36] they had notice of the potential

[41:38] impropriety time to correct it but but

[41:41] did not do

[41:43] so because the zoning ordinance imposes

[41:46] a mandate on the zoning administrator

[41:49] and planning and zoning commission to

[41:51] process site plans through a specific

[41:54] ordinance

[41:55] section a moratorium has the effect of

[41:58] changing the impact of the legal

[42:00] requirement that has the force of law

[42:03] it's not merely an internal process such

[42:05] as appointing a member to the Planning

[42:07] and Zoning commission or to to your

[42:10] board it's not merely a sense of the

[42:12] Town Council like you would see in a

[42:14] resolution supporting a kids's choir or

[42:18] a fundraising

[42:19] drive it impacts the effectiveness of a

[42:22] town law equally important in this case

[42:27] is it changes the applicability of that

[42:29] zoning law it's making a distinction

[42:32] between who who the site plan

[42:35] requirement applies

[42:37] to in general a resolution is not used

[42:40] to pass law applying to everyone but

[42:42] merely a method by which the legislature

[42:44] expresses an opinion and while a

[42:47] resolution can direct internal processes

[42:50] of a town Administration or address

[42:52] temporary suspensions of

[42:55] processes a mandated zoning process is

[42:58] not an internal administrative process

[43:00] is something that the property owners

[43:02] have a legal entitlement to under the

[43:04] chess Beach zoning ordinance so long as

[43:07] the te town is regulating private

[43:09] property rights you'll remember how he

[43:10] started this whole presentation on

[43:13] understanding that zoning comes along

[43:15] and puts a burden on fundamental

[43:17] property

[43:18] rights so next I would like to offer

[43:22] exhibit 21 which is the resolution

[43:25] itself of the Town Council resolution R

[43:29] 21-3 is exhibit

[43:42] 21 so that's a copy of the resolution

[43:46] that was passed by the Town Council on

[43:48] March 18th

[43:52] 2021 uh let me point out to those except

[43:56] for Mr Burch uh that have your exhibits

[43:59] I moved this resolution up to

[44:04] exhibits so it's actually two exhibits

[44:06] further in your package I just moved it

[44:08] up in

[44:10] time um but you've got it

[44:19] um so what I'd like to hand out

[44:25] now

[44:34] because you don't have it in your um

[44:36] white book and I'm I'm providing it now

[44:40] are sections

[44:41] c-39 310 and 311 of the Town

[44:46] Charter they are in your um white book

[44:50] Mr

[44:54] ibody

[44:57] it's a bliss this is exhibit 22 it's not

[44:59] an exhibit it's it's copies of law so it

[45:02] goes in your white binder for

[45:06] this you should

[45:08] have so it's really just copies

[45:24] of because I'm going to go I'm going to

[45:26] be reviewing the

[45:27] effect of those T three town Charter

[45:31] sections with respect to our argument

[45:35] tonight I'm going to start with section

[45:37] 309 of the

[45:38] [Music]

[45:42] charter and it's a it's our argument

[45:45] that if the Town Council wanted to pass

[45:47] such a zoning moratorium it must have

[45:49] passed it by meeting the same

[45:51] requirements of an ordinance under c-309

[45:53] of the Town

[45:54] Charter to do

[45:57] otherwise bypasses the procedural

[45:59] protections and requirements of

[46:01] ordinances and that

[46:03] includes let me go to slide

[46:08] 17 okay so that's section

[46:15] c-309

[46:17] um that includes the requirement that no

[46:20] ordinance be passed at the same meeting

[46:23] at which it's introduced of course the

[46:25] resolution doesn't have that requirement

[46:26] and they did

[46:28] that that' be voted upon by not less

[46:31] than six nor more than 60 days after

[46:33] introduction that wasn't followed in

[46:36] this case and it become effective 20

[46:39] days after passage or seven days after

[46:41] the last legally required publication

[46:43] notice unless it meets the standards for

[46:46] emergency ordinance which requires a

[46:48] separate affirmative vote of five of the

[46:49] council

[46:51] members which also did not occur in this

[46:54] context

[46:56] as importantly a simple resolution is

[46:59] not subject to The veto power of the

[47:01] mayor that's set forth in section c-310

[47:05] of the charter or the rights of the

[47:07] citizens to petition that act to

[47:10] referendum that's in

[47:12] c311 those don't apply to resolutions so

[47:16] by doing a resolution they were taking

[47:17] away those

[47:20] two Charter

[47:24] powers

[47:26] so to pass

[47:29] a to bypass uh the charter safeguards by

[47:33] passing a simple

[47:34] resolution um on a matter that I would

[47:37] submit as as Grave and substantial that

[47:39] it impacts all the property owners in

[47:42] town is inappropriate and consist and

[47:44] inconsistent with the town's Charter and

[47:47] as you'll see Maryland

[47:52] law point out what's kind of obvious but it was the moratorium was introduced

[47:58] as a resolution and it was passed as one

[48:01] that is it was not

[48:03] adopted according to the terms or the

[48:06] requirements in C309 for an ordinance

[48:09] the reason that's technically important

[48:11] is

[48:13] while sometime sometimes a Town Council

[48:17] can pass a resolution that meets all the

[48:20] requirements procedurally of an

[48:21] ordinance and have the legislative

[48:23] effect that happens I believe with

[48:26] Charter amendments might happen with

[48:28] annexations but there's a couple

[48:30] different spots in Maryland law for

[48:33] whatever reason the the general assembly

[48:36] used the term resolution instead of

[48:38] ordinance they still have to follow the

[48:40] requirements of an ordinance in their

[48:41] Town

[48:42] Charter um so there was no delay under

[48:45] the charter

[48:48] requirement um that they be passed upon

[48:50] less than six nor more than 60 days

[48:52] after an introduction and that's

[48:54] designed to give the public and the

[48:55] their representatives time to see what

[48:57] the exact legislative proposal is uh but

[49:00] also time to prepare and provide comment

[49:04] resolution you don't do that you just

[49:06] pass it introduce it that night and pass

[49:08] it the moratorium by its terms went into

[49:11] effect immediately there thereby

[49:13] repealing the 60-day review requirement

[49:16] that was about to expire in in another

[49:19] 12

[49:21] days uh and you know instead of the

[49:23] 20-day passage rule under the

[49:26] Charter um it became effective

[49:36] immediately in addition legislation has

[49:39] distinguished from a mere opinion of the

[49:41] council by resolution must be presented

[49:43] to the mayor or for

[49:45] approval um and the mayor has the power

[49:48] under

[49:50] c310 shown there to

[49:54] veto

[49:56] an

[49:56] ordinance but he doesn't have that power

[49:59] for a resolution it was merely a sense

[50:00] of the

[50:01] council

[50:03] and he wouldn't have that if he was it

[50:05] was the Town Council merely directing an

[50:07] internal

[50:09] process there's a timeline associated

[50:12] with that veto power as you can see in

[50:13] section

[50:15] c310 it's defining what becomes

[50:19] law to become a law after presentation

[50:22] of the ordinance to the

[50:24] mayor

[50:26] it's the third sentence of

[50:30] c310 which reads any ordinance approved

[50:32] by the mayor shall be law any ordinance

[50:35] disapproved by the mayor shall be

[50:37] returned to the clerk in a message

[50:38] stating the reasons for his

[50:40] disapproval upon receipt of any

[50:42] ordinance disapproved by the mayor the

[50:43] clerk shall promptly deliver the

[50:45] ordinance an accompanying message

[50:46] stating the reasons for the mayor's

[50:48] disapproval to the members of the

[50:50] council any disapproved ordinance shall

[50:52] not become law unless subsequently

[50:54] passed by by a favorable vote of 56 of

[50:57] the whole Council within 35 calendar

[50:59] days from the time of the return of the

[51:02] ordinance and if the mayor fails to

[51:04] return any ordinance within six days of

[51:06] its delivery as afer said it shall be

[51:08] deemed to be approved by him by the

[51:10] mayor and shall be in the become law in

[51:13] the same manner as an ordinance signed

[51:15] by him so this is just like bills in

[51:18] Congress or in Maryland's General

[51:19] Assembly the legislature can pass a bill

[51:21] but the chief executive must sign or

[51:23] veto or if they ignore it then it

[51:27] becomes law automatically or it's called

[51:30] a pocket veto sometimes but the event

[51:33] the VTO can then be overturned by a

[51:34] super majority Town Charter provides

[51:37] roughly the same

[51:39] process what's important in this section

[51:42] is that this is what converts a

[51:44] legislative act into a

[51:49] law so while a mayor can sign that

[51:51] resolution as a certification of what

[51:54] occurred and may even support the

[51:56] resolution um the mayor is not given the

[51:59] power to to veto that simple

[52:02] resolution and that's why a simple

[52:04] resolution doesn't become

[52:09] law I mentioned a few minutes ago how

[52:11] this area of law in zoning has a

[52:14] specific difference that makes it all

[52:16] the more important that the town follow

[52:18] its own Charter obligations when passing

[52:20] a zoning

[52:21] moratorium a resolution that is not

[52:23] passed in accordance with the

[52:24] requirements of an ordinance is not

[52:26] subject to

[52:28] referendum as you can see in section

[52:31] 3-11 the citizens have the right to

[52:34] petition laws passed either approved by

[52:36] the mayor or if veto passed over his V

[52:39] his or her veto to then petition the law

[52:42] pass through an ordinance to referendum

[52:45] so it's following that same process of

[52:47] the timeline for the mayor's veto and

[52:51] it's defining it as law when you are

[52:54] allowed to petition its

[52:56] referendum that's

[53:00] in you can read it yourself the people

[53:02] Reserve to themselves the power known as

[53:04] the referendum by

[53:09] petition then in section sub subsection

[53:12] B there's a deadline for the petition

[53:14] that is consistent with the timing of

[53:16] when a law is passed by an ordinance to typically goes into effect that rule

[53:20] of 20 days after signature signature of

[53:23] the mayor were over the mayor's veto or

[53:26] seven days after the last required

[53:29] publication that's because only

[53:30] ordinances not simple resolutions can be

[53:32] taken to

[53:34] referendum this is important in zoning

[53:37] law because there is a special

[53:39] protection of the referendum rights in

[53:41] Maryland's Municipal zoning law which is

[53:43] binding upon the

[53:47] town I refer you to section 5- 213 of

[53:51] the local government article of the

[53:52] initated code of Maryland that law reads

[53:56] A municipality May adopt zoning

[53:58] regulations subject to any right of

[54:00] referendum of the voters at a regular or

[54:02] special election as may be provided in

[54:04] the town

[54:06] Charter so the town provides a

[54:09] referendum in their Charter they passed

[54:11] a resolution to change the effect and

[54:14] applicability of a law the the section

[54:17] of the zoning code that requires site

[54:18] plan reviews and they did so by avoiding

[54:22] the power of the citizens to

[54:26] take that law to

[54:28] referendum a right that is required and

[54:32] protected by Maryland

[54:34] law so zoning powers in Maryland are

[54:38] Express Powers which means they must

[54:41] flow from an Express Authority in

[54:43] Maryland statutory law and section 5213

[54:47] in the subtitle on Express Powers is

[54:50] Grants those powers to Maryland

[54:54] municipalities

[55:10] furthermore Maryland law is clear that

[55:13] the use of those Express Powers must be

[55:16] but done by

[55:19] ordinance Maryland section

[55:23] 5-23 Grant of Express

[55:26] powers in subsection a in addition to

[55:29] but not in substitution of the powers

[55:31] that have already been or have been or

[55:33] may be granted to it the legislative

[55:36] body of a municipality May exercise the

[55:38] express provi Powers provided in this

[55:40] subtitle by adopting

[55:44] ordinances furthermore it provides in

[55:47] sub subsection B that such an ordinance

[55:49] adopted by the legislative body of a

[55:51] municipality may not conflict with state

[55:54] law so as I pointed

[55:57] out Maryland law state law protects the

[56:01] right of referendum they changed the

[56:03] applicability of a zoning

[56:06] power that required legislation they did

[56:09] so without an ordinance and so they Sid

[56:11] stepped and avoided the right of the

[56:14] Roden reio or any other citizen to take

[56:16] that act of the Town Council to

[56:23] referendum

[56:25] so note that the delegation of zoning

[56:28] power is is directly tied to the passage

[56:30] of ordinances not

[56:32] resolutions um and because it's an

[56:35] delegated Express power and not what's

[56:37] called an inherent power it must be done

[56:40] in strict accordance with the statutes

[56:42] that delegates that

[56:45] power so in this case it's clear from

[56:48] this section and the local government

[56:49] article

[56:52] 5213 that to protect the right of ref

[56:54] referendum in the zoning amends

[56:56] amendments that an ordinance must have

[56:57] been used to change an Express

[57:00] legislation that changes the effect and

[57:02] applicability of a zoning

[57:12] law it's true that the Town Council

[57:15] could have passed a moratorium as an

[57:17] emergency

[57:19] ordinance uh but they did

[57:21] not um an emergency ordinance would have

[57:24] changed that part of the

[57:26] timeline um for passing legislation but

[57:29] it would still require the mayor's

[57:31] Ascent or veto and importantly it still

[57:34] allows for a

[57:37] referendum a resolution does

[57:39] not also for an emergency ordinance to

[57:42] pass you need a separate vote of a super

[57:44] majority five five members of the whole

[57:46] Council to pass

[57:53] it

[58:09] to further see the Practical differences

[58:11] between subjects that need to be passed

[58:13] through an ordinance um versus those

[58:15] that can be done by a

[58:17] resolution you can note on the same

[58:19] night on the exhibit for March 18th 2021

[58:22] minutes that's

[58:36] exhibit 22 but we haven't gotten to

[58:38] exhibit

[58:39] 22 oh no it's the agenda not the minutes

[58:43] I'm sorry that would be exhibit

[58:46] 19 on that same night the Town Council

[58:49] adopted a town walkability plan by

[58:51] resolution Town what to town walkability

[58:56] plan that plan is a guidance document uh

[58:59] without any legal effect on the citizens

[59:02] um or Property Owners um on its own it

[59:04] doesn't create any new mandates or

[59:06] obligations or amend the effect of any

[59:08] existing town code sections doesn't act

[59:12] as a law that limits or defines the

[59:15] rights of citizens but instead acts as a

[59:17] policy guide this is the kind of

[59:19] document that can be passed by a

[59:21] resolution the moratorium resolution

[59:24] attempted to alter the legal rights of

[59:26] citizens including those of the rod and

[59:28] reel but and did

[59:35] so uh Mr Blitz uh why don't we pause and

[59:38] take five minutes for everybody um we

[59:41] will resume uh after a five minute break

[59:44] okay

[59:53] thanks

[1:00:23] for

[1:00:45] it take me 20

[1:00:49] minutes

[1:00:53] that

[1:00:57] all the material was on the website

[1:00:59] includes exhibit numbers I don't think

[1:01:01] so I

[1:01:10] think

[1:01:12] yeah do have numbers on have numbers or

[1:01:15] is it okay so M I'll just do

[1:01:20] it I'll hold

[1:01:23] on

[1:01:27] [Laughter]

[1:01:30] do you need this back okay she

[1:01:32] photocopied that for me okay yeah I went

[1:01:36] through and did the whole like

[1:01:39] Wilson Oh I got the numbers and stuff

[1:01:41] and then I'm like no you can't change

[1:01:42] the

[1:01:44] order I've already labeled them on these

[1:01:48] school supplies finally came in handy I

[1:01:50] ran out of post

[1:01:53] too

[1:02:05] no because last time it was

[1:02:08] overwheling you where

[1:02:13] you now I

[1:02:23] haveed

[1:02:37] [Music]

[1:02:50] yeah you're going to do a good

[1:02:53] job

[1:02:58] he eight hours was the estimate last

[1:03:01] time it's G be tonight tonight we're

[1:03:03] doing tonight we're doing two eight

[1:03:05] hours

[1:03:09] total we're C it at 9: pick up

[1:03:21] again thanks

[1:03:40] hello oh I see what you're

[1:03:53] saying

[1:03:54] oh right

[1:04:14] [Music]

[1:04:23] okay

[1:04:25] police officer

[1:04:48] here all make your way to your seats uh

[1:04:51] we can

[1:04:53] resume

[1:05:02] please continue when you're ready Mr

[1:05:08] blz so we went over the fact that we

[1:05:12] have a zoning law it gets changed the

[1:05:15] effect of it as well as the general

[1:05:17] applicability who it applies to makes

[1:05:20] distinctions between different

[1:05:22] parties so the important legal

[1:05:25] principles have been addressed by the

[1:05:26] Maryland courts as well um so it's not

[1:05:29] just my

[1:05:30] interpretation in your legal package I

[1:05:32] provided you a copy of two cases that

[1:05:34] demonstrate this point the first is

[1:05:37] Inlet Associates versus ass house

[1:05:40] Condominium

[1:05:42] Association and in that case the issue

[1:05:44] is whether as part of a developer

[1:05:47] agreement the quick claim and

[1:05:49] abandonment of a public Street to the

[1:05:52] developer could be accomplished by by a

[1:05:54] simple resolution of the Town Council in

[1:05:57] that case of Ocean

[1:05:58] City Maryland's highest court found that

[1:06:01] it could not and an ordinance was

[1:06:04] required and the rationale and reasoning

[1:06:07] of the court is important to this

[1:06:10] case Court found what that while noting

[1:06:13] that an ordinance is distinctly a

[1:06:15] legislative

[1:06:16] act the court went through prior case

[1:06:19] law in which the standard is that if a

[1:06:21] municipal action is one of General

[1:06:23] application prescribing a new plan or

[1:06:25] policy is considered legislative and

[1:06:28] therefore must be accomplished by an

[1:06:30] ordinance the court recognized the

[1:06:33] special procedural requirements like

[1:06:35] those I described of the chess Beach

[1:06:37] Charter as being unique to

[1:06:40] ordinances and most importantly as I

[1:06:42] explained in the distinction between the

[1:06:44] express ordinance making powers given to

[1:06:47] municipalities such as zoning an Express

[1:06:50] power rather than implied the court

[1:06:53] found that those those Express Powers

[1:06:55] must be enacted by

[1:06:57] ordinance just like in our case where

[1:06:59] there's a specific zoning power that is

[1:07:01] an Express power one that protects the

[1:07:04] right of referendum in the town

[1:07:08] Charter the closing of a street had a

[1:07:10] specific Pro provision in state

[1:07:12] Municipal law that also was an Express

[1:07:16] power so that required that that

[1:07:18] disposition of the property be

[1:07:19] accomplished by an

[1:07:22] ordinance um

[1:07:24] it should also be noted that as was

[1:07:27] mentioned in the inlet Associates case

[1:07:29] the Reliance of the city council on the

[1:07:31] attorney's opinion or even a long

[1:07:33] pattern of Conduct in enacting Street

[1:07:35] closings through resolutions doesn't

[1:07:38] make it any less improper or legal or

[1:07:40] illegal for them to use a resolution

[1:07:42] instead of an ordinance apparently chess

[1:07:45] uh Ocean City had been closing streets

[1:07:47] through resolutions for a long time and

[1:07:49] that was part of their argument that

[1:07:50] everybody was used to it doing it that

[1:07:52] way

[1:07:55] some might argue that a moratorium on

[1:07:57] site plans is a temporary action and

[1:08:00] therefore not legislative because it

[1:08:02] merely suspends a process rather than

[1:08:04] amend a law that might be true if for

[1:08:08] example it's sought to change the

[1:08:09] process of a zoning

[1:08:11] administrators that's in this town is

[1:08:14] posted on the town's website which is

[1:08:16] strictly an administrative set of rules

[1:08:19] it sets up a six-week process of review

[1:08:22] for site plans before it goes to the

[1:08:24] required hearing but it would not be

[1:08:26] true if it removed the obligation of the

[1:08:28] zoning administrative and planning

[1:08:30] zoning commission to review site plans

[1:08:32] because there is already a law that

[1:08:34] makes that process mandatory including

[1:08:36] the 60-day

[1:08:39] deadline the specifics of the process

[1:08:42] listed on the website is entirely

[1:08:45] administrative um but the entitlement to

[1:08:48] a critical area site plan within 60 days

[1:08:50] is a mandatory

[1:08:52] process

[1:08:59] so by attempting to use a resolution to

[1:09:03] pass a moratorium that changes the

[1:09:07] obligation of the review of the Planning

[1:09:09] and Zoning commission to review site

[1:09:10] plans even on a temporary basis as long

[1:09:13] as it's longer than 60 days it

[1:09:15] effectively renders moot the requirement

[1:09:18] that a zone that a zoning ordinance

[1:09:21] which property owners are entitled to

[1:09:23] rely upon

[1:09:24] be in

[1:09:29] effect that 60-day notice is clearly

[1:09:32] designed to favor The Prompt

[1:09:34] resolution of sight plan applications

[1:09:37] that's why it's in the law the Town

[1:09:38] Council made a legislative judgment that

[1:09:40] it had to be done within 60

[1:09:43] days if it makes a new legislative

[1:09:46] judgment to change the effect of that

[1:09:50] our argument is it cannot be done

[1:09:52] through a resolution had to be done

[1:09:53] through an

[1:09:57] ordinance because it changed the effect

[1:10:00] of certain developments it grandfathered

[1:10:02] certain Lots certain properties that

[1:10:06] Exempted it out from the effect of the

[1:10:11] moratorium that's a policy judgment

[1:10:14] about the effectiveness of which site

[1:10:17] plans can go

[1:10:19] forward and that's legislative in

[1:10:22] nature rod Applications had been

[1:10:24] submitted prior to the proposed

[1:10:26] moratorium but they were suspended While

[1:10:29] others who had also previously filed

[1:10:31] were not to be impacted by the effect of

[1:10:33] the

[1:10:35] moratorium so two with the respect to

[1:10:38] the distinction between the treatment of

[1:10:40] category one and category site category

[1:10:43] two site plans that's making a legal

[1:10:45] distinction that's now at variance with

[1:10:47] the current zoning ordinance by

[1:10:49] passing a

[1:10:50] resolution to make that distinction in a

[1:10:53] moratorium is to make that policy

[1:10:55] decision and therefore it's

[1:11:01] legislative in my letter to the mayor

[1:11:03] and Town Council warning them of the

[1:11:05] impropriety of using a resolution um

[1:11:07] instead of an ordinance I cited a case

[1:11:09] that had just been published um by the

[1:11:12] Maryland Supreme Court at that time I

[1:11:15] believe it was still called the Maryland

[1:11:17] court of

[1:11:18] appeals and that's the kobari and homes

[1:11:22] of Maryland versus mayor and City

[1:11:23] Council of H Grace which is also in your

[1:11:26] package there the Maryland Supreme Court

[1:11:28] found that an agreement with a developer

[1:11:30] that suspended a recruitment fee must be

[1:11:33] passed by an ordinance and not a mere

[1:11:36] resolution because like the zoning power

[1:11:38] in this case the right of municipalities

[1:11:40] to impose fees in Maryland is also an

[1:11:44] Express power not an

[1:11:46] implied so under the inlet case you have

[1:11:49] to pass those use those Express power

[1:11:53] hours through the passage of an

[1:11:54] ordinance not a

[1:11:57] resolution you may know that the fees

[1:11:59] associated with cases like this um

[1:12:03] appeal are set by the mayor and Town

[1:12:05] Council and accomplished by passing an

[1:12:07] ordinance not a resolution those all

[1:12:10] those fees that however however much we

[1:12:13] had to pay to have this hearing that's

[1:12:15] set by

[1:12:22] ordinance

[1:12:33] so in the havarian

[1:12:36] case I was going to read a long quote

[1:12:39] for it but I think it's overdoing that

[1:12:41] it it's just reinforcing the same

[1:12:45] ideas they're making the point that the

[1:12:47] zoning power being an Express power is

[1:12:49] subject to the requirement for

[1:12:51] ordinances then on page 1187

[1:12:55] they say in addition to the legislative

[1:12:57] Grant of General ordinance making Powers

[1:13:00] the general assembly has granted Express

[1:13:03] ordinance making authority to Municipal

[1:13:04] leg legislative bodies for specific

[1:13:07] types of legislative enactments outlined

[1:13:09] in Title Five subtitle two of the local

[1:13:12] government article and they cite section 5203 which

[1:13:17] we

[1:13:19] reviewed in addition to but not in

[1:13:21] substitution of the powers that have

[1:13:23] been or may be granted to it the

[1:13:25] legislative body of municipality May

[1:13:28] exercise the Express Powers provided in

[1:13:31] the subtitle by adopting ordinances and

[1:13:33] that's their

[1:13:37] [Music]

[1:13:49] emphasis so remember that the resolution

[1:13:52] goes into effec in immediately an

[1:13:54] ordinance takes time and in the case of

[1:13:56] ches beach unless passed as an emergency

[1:13:58] ordinance which would then identify a

[1:14:00] shorter period the time is 20 days after

[1:14:02] the signature of the mayor or passage

[1:14:04] over the mayor's veto or the 7-Day rule

[1:14:08] after the last required publication

[1:14:10] whichever is later so it's a time period

[1:14:12] of later in this case the resolution

[1:14:16] establishing the moratorium by its terms

[1:14:18] wining to affect immediately but that's

[1:14:20] at odds with the 10day requirement after

[1:14:22] hearing that is found in Maryland

[1:14:25] law I'm going to refer you to section

[1:14:28] 4-23 of the land use

[1:14:31] article this section of Maryland law

[1:14:34] directs the procedure for passing a

[1:14:35] zoning regulation or a boundary change

[1:14:37] it requires a hearing and allow public

[1:14:39] comment requires publication um so when

[1:14:44] the Town Council attempted to pass a

[1:14:45] moratorium which changed the legal

[1:14:47] effect of section 29023 of the zoning

[1:14:50] ordinance the council did the first two

[1:14:52] requirements of subsection B that you

[1:14:54] can read there

[1:15:01] um though perhaps without a special

[1:15:03] public hearing they might have not

[1:15:06] completely complied but I want to focus

[1:15:08] your attention on subsection

[1:15:12] B3 that's the 10day requirement that I'm

[1:15:15] referring

[1:15:16] to so this section requires after that

[1:15:19] hearing that the zoning regulations may

[1:15:21] not become effective until 10 days after

[1:15:22] the hearing in or

[1:15:24] hearings that this town's council's

[1:15:26] resolution does not do because it went

[1:15:28] into effect

[1:15:29] immediately when passing an ordinance in

[1:15:32] the normal course that wouldn't really

[1:15:34] matter because ordinance is going to

[1:15:36] effect way after the 10day rule so it'd

[1:15:39] be 20 days well after so it just it

[1:15:42] really doesn't come up that often when

[1:15:43] you're passing an ordinance but it does

[1:15:45] come up and VI get violated when you

[1:15:48] pass it by a

[1:15:52] resolution

[1:15:57] so I I'll just finish this topic by

[1:16:01] quoting from my March 16 2021 letter to

[1:16:04] the Town Council that made it clear that

[1:16:07] the May to the mayor and Town Council

[1:16:09] that the that they were notified of the

[1:16:11] procedural infirmity and I said quote

[1:16:14] the proposed moratorium is not merely a

[1:16:17] sucession of discretionary

[1:16:18] administrative proceedings but a

[1:16:21] limitation on legal rights and property

[1:16:23] owners in cheser Beach found within

[1:16:25] Maryland law and the chese beach zoning

[1:16:27] code Al although one of the purported

[1:16:30] justifications for the proposed

[1:16:31] moratorium is to facilitate Planning and

[1:16:33] Zoning commission's attempt to propose

[1:16:35] planning changes via the comprehensive

[1:16:37] plan process that does not save the

[1:16:40] moratorium from the requirement that it

[1:16:41] be enacted through an ordinance because

[1:16:44] the planning power is also an Express

[1:16:46] power of municipalities in Maryland

[1:16:48] again so that's making the distinction

[1:16:51] between the implementing ordinance and

[1:16:52] the a comprehensive plan also an Express

[1:16:55] power

[1:16:56] also and so this was affecting the site

[1:17:00] plan review for something that also has

[1:17:02] to be passed by an

[1:17:04] ordinance so that's why the the

[1:17:06] moratorium was void and without effect

[1:17:09] and therefore an erroneous justification

[1:17:11] for the planning administrator and the

[1:17:14] zoning administrator I'm sorry and

[1:17:16] planning and zoning commission from

[1:17:17] undertaking the administrative Act of

[1:17:20] site plan

[1:17:22] review

[1:17:26] so this is the

[1:17:29] resolution and I want to turn to our

[1:17:31] second count in the Roden reel

[1:17:32] application for

[1:17:34] appeal which alleges that the board that

[1:17:37] if the board were to disagree with our

[1:17:39] contention that the moratorium was void

[1:17:42] from the outset due to this procedural

[1:17:44] infirmity of passing it through a

[1:17:46] resolution and not an

[1:17:50] ordinance that even after the moratorium

[1:17:52] had expired ired by its own terms the

[1:17:55] Roden reel renewed its demand that site

[1:17:57] plan reviews be reviewed and the zoning

[1:18:00] administrative Planning and Zoning

[1:18:02] commission continued to ref refuse to

[1:18:04] review site plans as required by the

[1:18:06] zoning

[1:18:08] ordinance so you've heard me describe

[1:18:10] lots of evidence which reflected that

[1:18:11] the proposed moratorium was to end by

[1:18:13] its terms at earlier of 12 months or the

[1:18:16] completion of both the comprehensive

[1:18:17] plan and the implementing

[1:18:19] ordinances there are all those

[1:18:21] references to the moratorium being

[1:18:23] temporary in the commission's resolution

[1:18:24] it's hearing the attempt to amend the

[1:18:26] commission's resolution down uh uh the

[1:18:29] moratorium down to 9 months which failed

[1:18:31] the press release the reports the

[1:18:33] agendas and the minutes they all make

[1:18:35] reference to this limitation of

[1:18:39] period going to submit exhibit

[1:18:42] 22 which is the minutes of the Town

[1:18:44] council meeting of March 18th

[1:18:51] 2021

[1:19:03] right objection

[1:19:10] overall so this is where the Town

[1:19:12] Council is commiss considering the

[1:19:14] commission's

[1:19:16] recommendation as part of the minutes

[1:19:18] package delivered to the Town Council

[1:19:20] chairman Brown of the um Planning

[1:19:22] Commission made a report to the Town

[1:19:24] Council dated March 10th and that's

[1:19:27] going to be exhibit

[1:19:29] 23 which is dated March 10th 2021 from

[1:19:33] chairman

[1:19:41] Brown that's exhibit 23

[1:19:51] yes

[1:19:55] so this is CH uh the important the

[1:19:59] section of um chairman Brown's report

[1:20:02] that I want to

[1:20:03] emphasize and I'll quote the pertinent

[1:20:06] portion of the

[1:20:08] paragraph in that report which reads in

[1:20:11] the second paragraph on page

[1:20:13] one at this February hearing the

[1:20:16] commission heard from 15 members of the

[1:20:17] public on a motion recommending a

[1:20:19] temporary moratorium be placed on the

[1:20:21] commission's acceptance and cons

[1:20:22] consideration of new applications of new

[1:20:25] applications for development projects

[1:20:27] until the comprehensive Plan update at

[1:20:29] all is completed or 12 months whichever

[1:20:32] occurs first the motion for a temporary

[1:20:34] moratorium passed and was forwarded to

[1:20:36] the Town Council for consideration so

[1:20:38] returning to exhibit

[1:20:41] 22 uh the Town Council

[1:20:44] minutes when the resolution was

[1:20:47] introduced it was introduced with that

[1:20:50] outer limit at 12 months but there was a

[1:20:52] debate about that during the Town

[1:20:59] Council and this is the section of those

[1:21:02] minutes on page

[1:21:06] three where there was an amendment that

[1:21:08] was proposed by councilman

[1:21:10] thinkink that quote to amend the

[1:21:13] moratorium period to six months and that

[1:21:16] was seconded by councilman fav um the

[1:21:20] vote to amend the moratorium period to

[1:21:22] months was tied with three votes in

[1:21:25] favor and three against and the mayor

[1:21:26] bro then broke the tie by vote voting in

[1:21:29] opposition so therefore that motion

[1:21:32] failed next the minutes reflect that the

[1:21:35] motion of councilman Morris moved to say

[1:21:38] uh well quote amend the 12-month

[1:21:40] moratorium period to nine months that

[1:21:43] was seconded by councilman Fab and this

[1:21:45] time the vote was forward to2 in favor

[1:21:48] uh so the moratoriums maximum duration

[1:21:50] was reduced to nine months

[1:21:55] so what's clear from these minutes is

[1:21:57] that Town Council passed the resolution

[1:21:59] not an ordinance at the S meeting at

[1:22:00] which it was introduced that there was a

[1:22:03] debate about the maximum duration of the

[1:22:05] moratorium which was settled to be nine

[1:22:08] months these minutes were approved by

[1:22:11] the town council meeting at their

[1:22:12] subsequent meeting on April 15th with no

[1:22:14] questions about the characterization of

[1:22:15] the moratorium

[1:22:17] vote and I'll submit the public hearing

[1:22:21] minutes as well as Public Town Council

[1:22:24] minutes as exhibit

[1:22:27] 24 so that's the Town Council hearing

[1:22:30] minutes and town council meeting minutes

[1:22:33] of April 15

[1:22:37] 2021 April

[1:22:51] 15

[1:23:03] so now I'd like to call uh Mr Donovan to

[1:23:06] provide some

[1:23:07] testimony I believe he's already been

[1:23:09] sworn but I don't know whether you want

[1:23:10] to rewear him or what you like to

[1:23:14] swear Mr Donovan were you present when

[1:23:17] the oath was administered last time yes

[1:23:19] sir your right hand yes sir

[1:23:24] you please identify yourself for the

[1:23:26] record and where you live uh Wesley

[1:23:28] Donovan 2335 Golf Club Drive and what's

[1:23:31] your role with the Roden reel uh

[1:23:34] president um and are you familiar with

[1:23:37] the fact that F site plan applications

[1:23:39] were filed on behalf of the Roden reel

[1:23:41] in January 29th of 2021 yes you know who

[1:23:44] the zoning administrator for ches be

[1:23:46] Beach was in January of 2021 uh Mr Chris

[1:23:50] tubc and did you know that at that time

[1:23:54] yes and were you shown a copy or given a

[1:23:56] copy of the email from of February 5th

[1:23:59] 2021 from the zoning administrator

[1:24:01] that's exhibit seven if you need to see

[1:24:03] it no no I I did okay so you were so

[1:24:09] other than the February 5th letter after

[1:24:11] January 29th 2021 when you file the

[1:24:14] applications um were you ever contacted

[1:24:16] by the zoning administrator with respect

[1:24:17] to the site plans or scheduling a

[1:24:19] hearing for site plan review no

[1:24:23] was the Roden reel ever given notice of

[1:24:25] any scheduled hearing or hearings of the

[1:24:26] Planning and Zoning commission to

[1:24:28] conduct site plan review on the five

[1:24:30] applications

[1:24:33] no so other than the February 5th 2021

[1:24:37] email from the zoning administrator Mr

[1:24:39] jabak were you contacted anyone by

[1:24:42] anyone from the town about the site plan

[1:24:45] applications

[1:24:48] no show

[1:24:50] you April 13th letter to refresh your

[1:24:56] recollection well yeah I did get this

[1:24:58] but not to review the site

[1:25:01] plans well it's about the site review of

[1:25:04] the site plans isn't

[1:25:06] it well I would say this is about the

[1:25:09] moratorium but okay yeah okay you were

[1:25:12] you you received this letter of April 13

[1:25:15] 2021 correct yes okay I did so let's admit that as exhibit

[1:25:21] 25

[1:25:28] what what is

[1:25:37] [Music]

[1:25:45] that board can see in that

[1:25:49] exhibit the town count uh the Town

[1:25:51] Administrator is returning the fees for

[1:25:53] the site plan reviews and citing the

[1:25:56] reason as the

[1:26:03] moratorium that's a copy of

[1:26:05] it due to the category one site plan

[1:26:09] moratorium that was passed by Town

[1:26:11] Council on March 18 2021 the town will

[1:26:13] not be reviewing these projects at this

[1:26:16] time and are therefore returning the

[1:26:17] checks provided with the associated

[1:26:21] projects

[1:26:25] so as you may have noticed in my letter

[1:26:26] of the Planning and Zoning Commission of

[1:26:28] the February 23rd

[1:26:30] 2021 that'se been previously

[1:26:34] submitted

[1:26:35] um I noted that it was very unlikely

[1:26:39] that the commission would meet its

[1:26:40] deadline under the moratorium to finish

[1:26:43] both the comprehensive plan and the

[1:26:45] zoning implementing zoning ordinances

[1:26:46] before the year-long moratorium that was

[1:26:49] being

[1:26:51] proposed so after this passage oh did

[1:26:55] you availability AC cross I didn't uh

[1:26:58] yes Mr pounds you're welcome to cross if

[1:27:00] the witness has done his testim I'm done

[1:27:01] having testified so if you wanted to

[1:27:03] cross on what we just talked about

[1:27:04] please limit it to the testimony that's

[1:27:06] been given well I mean uh so is it just

[1:27:10] going to be about the testimony he just

[1:27:11] gave I mean okay uh so I'm going to be

[1:27:14] calling Mr Donovan again based upon

[1:27:17] substantial other evidence with regard

[1:27:19] to what was not discussed in this case

[1:27:22] if it's not been discussed by him just

[1:27:23] now you cannot talk about it you're

[1:27:25] welcome to cross-examine him on the

[1:27:27] content that he has

[1:27:28] provided okay uh if he should testify

[1:27:31] further we can do this all

[1:27:33] again yes I Absolut absolutely will be

[1:27:36] doing that uh so Mr Donovan uh you were

[1:27:40] informed uh of the

[1:27:45] moratorium was I informed yes well I

[1:27:49] received this letter saying that uh the

[1:27:52] moratorium

[1:27:53] passed on March 18th and the town would

[1:27:57] not would not be reviewing the site

[1:27:59] plans and uh and that's the the town

[1:28:04] right is that your understanding the

[1:28:09] town corre that's your understanding sir

[1:28:13] uh yeah okay and the town your

[1:28:15] understanding is the Town Council right

[1:28:17] I receiv received this letter from Holly

[1:28:19] wall Town

[1:28:21] Administrator okay is it you know asking

[1:28:24] what your is it your understanding that

[1:28:26] Miss wall is the one who makes decisions

[1:28:27] with regard to the

[1:28:34] town I don't know what you're what

[1:28:36] you're getting at but the Town Council

[1:28:39] passes ordinances and the mayor has the

[1:28:41] right to veto or sign them into law okay

[1:28:46] so it's your understanding that indeed

[1:28:48] the Town Council is the one who makes

[1:28:50] decisions with regard to the town is

[1:28:51] that correct

[1:28:52] yes sir okay and that's your

[1:28:55] understanding yes and in an Essence Miss

[1:28:58] Wall's the one who implements those laws

[1:29:01] that uh is passed by the Town Council

[1:29:03] isn't that your understanding as the

[1:29:05] Town Administrator I that's my

[1:29:08] understanding that she that is part of

[1:29:10] her position yes okay and so I just want

[1:29:13] make sure you understand the town I make

[1:29:15] sure I'm very clear on this and I make

[1:29:17] sure the record is very clear the Town

[1:29:19] Council makes decisions on behalf of the

[1:29:21] town isn't that your

[1:29:25] understanding my understanding yes sir

[1:29:27] let's make sure we understand it's not

[1:29:29] you Mr Don been that makes the decisions

[1:29:31] is that is that

[1:29:32] correct do what it's not you that makes

[1:29:35] the decisions on behalf of the town is

[1:29:36] that correct no definitely do not Mr

[1:29:39] Blitz can State his opinions but it's

[1:29:41] not Mr Blitz that makes those decisions

[1:29:42] is that correct objection to scope

[1:29:45] cross please move on okay that that's

[1:29:49] your understanding in essence so when

[1:29:51] the Town Council makes decisions they

[1:29:54] make decisions on behalf of the

[1:29:56] Town correct and uh and so uh with

[1:30:00] regard to the uh uh decisions with

[1:30:04] regard to the moratorium that that is

[1:30:06] made by the Town

[1:30:09] Council it was correct and and also the

[1:30:12] Planning Commission uh is the one who uh in essence implements and makes

[1:30:17] recommendations with regard to this

[1:30:19] comprehensive plan that was your

[1:30:20] understanding also

[1:30:24] yes okay and you have five plans did you

[1:30:26] submit those plans to the Planning

[1:30:28] Commission to review during their

[1:30:31] application

[1:30:35] process when during the application

[1:30:37] process I I don't you mean the

[1:30:39] comprehensive plan process the

[1:30:41] comprehensive plan process yes objection

[1:30:43] to the scope of the Cross is succeeding

[1:30:45] the scope of the direct and I'm not

[1:30:49] sure he's the one that discussed the

[1:30:51] more the moratorium goes directly to

[1:30:54] exactly what the planning commissions

[1:30:55] decision making goes directly to what

[1:30:57] his testimony

[1:30:59] was he read directly from the letter of

[1:31:02] Holly

[1:31:03] wall I don't know what you're getting at

[1:31:06] with respect to asking him about his

[1:31:08] understanding of zoning process or the

[1:31:11] ordinance process he he didn't testify

[1:31:13] about that well very simple five

[1:31:16] applications which are the subject to

[1:31:17] these hearing this hearing did you

[1:31:19] submit those to the Planning Commission

[1:31:22] for their

[1:31:24] review you want me to answer that I ask

[1:31:28] a question oh one

[1:31:34] moment allow the question please answer

[1:31:37] you can repeat it if you would yeah the

[1:31:39] five applications which are the subject

[1:31:41] this uh hearing did you submit those

[1:31:43] five applications to the Planning

[1:31:45] Commission for their

[1:31:48] review it gets submitted to the

[1:31:53] uh they got submitted to Chris

[1:31:57] chubak as the the town zoning

[1:32:00] administrator so you did not submit

[1:32:02] those to the plan

[1:32:06] commission I think what happens and I

[1:32:08] could be incorrect but you submit the plans to the zoning

[1:32:15] administrator the zoning administrator

[1:32:18] then reviews those with planning and

[1:32:23] Zoning so your testimony is you don't

[1:32:28] know no his testimony was just what he

[1:32:31] said okay so me so you you think that

[1:32:35] you submitted to Mr Zubia and those

[1:32:38] plans should have gone to the Planning

[1:32:39] Commission is that your understanding I

[1:32:42] believe

[1:32:43] we we

[1:32:45] submitted um believe the applications

[1:32:49] are part of the exhibit

[1:32:54] um you give me a second I might be able

[1:32:57] to find them but we submit site plans to

[1:33:02] the

[1:33:06] town those that exhibit goes to Mr Zu

[1:33:09] zubak

[1:33:10] right cubc

[1:33:14] yes I'd have to look at who exactly they

[1:33:17] were addressed to but I'm pretty sure

[1:33:20] that they go to Chris cu accus the town

[1:33:22] zoning administrator or he was at the

[1:33:24] time

[1:33:26] rather me you're

[1:33:32] not am I 100% sure now okay Mr Mr this

[1:33:37] is your applications

[1:33:40] right section I mean the rod and reel's

[1:33:43] applications yeah okay well rodel's and

[1:33:46] who's the president of the rod reel I am

[1:33:50] okay so obviously you're the one who's

[1:33:53] ultimately in charge with things that

[1:33:54] happen with regard to the rod and

[1:33:58] reel sure okay so so

[1:34:01] basically so your testimony is you can't

[1:34:03] testify whether those applications were

[1:34:05] submitted to the Planning Commission

[1:34:07] pursu to the comprehensive plan

[1:34:12] process can you repeat that yes you

[1:34:14] cannot testify that indeed those five

[1:34:17] applications were submitted to the

[1:34:18] Planning Commission pursuing to the

[1:34:20] comprehensive plan process objection to

[1:34:22] the argumentative phrasing of the

[1:34:24] question no it isn't a question you're

[1:34:25] asking him a negative of whether he

[1:34:28] can't say

[1:34:29] something being argumentative to point

[1:34:43] please objection sustained um let's

[1:34:45] bring this back to the testimony that

[1:34:47] was given okay now you testimony that

[1:34:50] indeed testimony earlier that these

[1:34:52] applications Were Somehow approved back

[1:34:55] in

[1:34:56] 2016 objection that was not part of this

[1:34:59] direct examination I

[1:35:03] sustain I will be calling Mr donov in

[1:35:06] our case okay please continue Mr

[1:35:16] blz just like to make the point that's

[1:35:19] in your zoning ordinance

[1:35:21] that applications for site plans are

[1:35:24] filed with the Planning and Zoning

[1:35:25] administrator for the benefit and of the

[1:35:28] Planning and Zoning commission which

[1:35:30] then takes those up according to a

[1:35:31] process that's all set forth in your

[1:35:34] ordinance that we reviewed in the first

[1:35:37] hearing you don't necessarily file it

[1:35:39] directly with you file it with the town

[1:35:42] at this to the Planning and Zoning

[1:35:43] commission the zoning administrator

[1:35:46] first crack at it is because he's his

[1:35:48] job is to review the site plan and give

[1:35:50] comment to the planning and Zoning

[1:35:51] commission it was filed with the site

[1:35:54] the Planning and Zoning commission the

[1:35:55] form that you file goes to the Planning

[1:35:57] and Zoning

[1:35:59] commission

[1:36:01] so

[1:36:08] um I'm just looking back at where we

[1:36:10] dropped

[1:36:20] off

[1:36:29] so I I think I I had ended with I was

[1:36:32] making the point that in my letter of

[1:36:34] February 23rd

[1:36:36] 2021 to the Planning and Zoning

[1:36:38] commission and that was copied to the

[1:36:40] Town

[1:36:41] Council I made the I rendered an opinion

[1:36:45] that there was almost no chance that

[1:36:47] they were going to be able to convince

[1:36:48] to complete the comprehensive plan and

[1:36:50] the implementing Zone ordinances before

[1:36:53] a year-long moratorium as you'll recall

[1:36:56] they shortened it to 9

[1:37:00] months so after the passage of the

[1:37:03] moratorium resolution the Planning and

[1:37:05] Zoning commission continued its work on

[1:37:07] the comprehensive

[1:37:08] plan and by September it was clear that

[1:37:11] they weren't going to finish the

[1:37:12] comprehensive plan within the nine-month

[1:37:14] P town period uh 9month period that the

[1:37:16] Town Council had attempted to establish

[1:37:18] in the first

[1:37:19] resolution just Lish that I'm going to

[1:37:23] submit the minutes of the Town Council

[1:37:26] informational work session of September

[1:37:29] 8th 2021 as exhibits

[1:37:49] 26 as you you can see from

[1:37:52] that um Mr jabak reported to the Town

[1:37:56] Council his

[1:37:57] view that the town's has a nine-month

[1:38:00] temporary moratorium in

[1:38:02] place which will expire on December 18th

[1:38:07] 2021 he reported to the commission that

[1:38:09] had complete that the commission had

[1:38:11] completed a draft of the comprehensive

[1:38:13] plan and was set for a public hearing on

[1:38:15] November 9th

[1:38:17] 2021 but after that hearing the

[1:38:19] commission would still need a couple

[1:38:21] months before giving final

[1:38:23] approval he gave some options but was

[1:38:25] recommending extending the moratorium

[1:38:28] for an additional three

[1:38:30] months now for the extension

[1:38:33] request Planning and Zoning commission

[1:38:35] held no public hearing to make this

[1:38:38] request they did not debate it at all as

[1:38:41] can be discerned from any public

[1:38:42] comments public minutes and did not vote

[1:38:45] on a resolution to recommend that to the

[1:38:47] Town

[1:38:48] Council so while the Town Council

[1:38:51] followed the practice of having the

[1:38:52] Planning and Zoning commission make a

[1:38:55] its recommendation for the

[1:38:58] original moratorium resolution it did

[1:39:01] not do so for its the request apparently

[1:39:05] made by the zoning administrator to

[1:39:07] extend the

[1:39:11] moratorium at the Town council meeting

[1:39:13] held on September 16th 2021 the second

[1:39:15] resolution was considered and that's

[1:39:18] resolution r21 d8

[1:39:24] that was also voted and

[1:39:26] res introduced and voted upon at the

[1:39:29] same

[1:39:30] meeting and which purports to extend the

[1:39:32] moratorium for three months and that is

[1:39:35] exhibit

[1:39:50] 27

[1:40:04] I apologize that I did have a slide for

[1:40:06] Mr for the minutes that showed Mr jacub

[1:40:09] ex's recommendation that they extend it

[1:40:12] for an additional three

[1:40:19] months so this is the temporary

[1:40:22] resolution we just admitted as exhibit

[1:40:27] 207 I

[1:40:29] believe so while this second resolution

[1:40:31] was also not an ordinance and therefore

[1:40:33] just as invalid as the first

[1:40:36] resolution when attempting to alter the

[1:40:38] effect and applicability of a specific

[1:40:40] zoning ordinance mandating site plan

[1:40:43] reviews what this resolution makes

[1:40:45] absolutely clear as if it wasn't already

[1:40:47] clear with all the public previous

[1:40:49] statements that you've seen in EV

[1:40:50] evidence is that the moratorium was to

[1:40:52] be temporary not indefinite that it had

[1:40:55] a set

[1:40:56] duration if it didn't they would be no

[1:40:59] reason to extend its passage by this

[1:41:02] resolution

[1:41:07] r218 in the first paragraph the council

[1:41:09] recites that the moratorium passed by

[1:41:12] resolution

[1:41:13] r213 was temporary and in the second

[1:41:16] paragraph it reads whereas the Town

[1:41:18] Council has determined there is a need

[1:41:20] to extend the moratorium for the

[1:41:22] continuing reason as stated in the

[1:41:24] previous resolution for an additional

[1:41:26] three

[1:41:26] months then in the actual resolve Clause

[1:41:29] it reads the Town Council has adop has

[1:41:32] determined an additional three months is

[1:41:34] needed for the moratorium and hereby

[1:41:36] extends the moratorium for an additional

[1:41:38] three months after the time period as

[1:41:40] referred in the resolution

[1:41:46] r213 therefore it's clear that the

[1:41:48] additional three months was quote needed

[1:41:51] um and that the council was intending to

[1:41:54] extend the time period from a total of

[1:41:55] nine

[1:41:57] months even more instructive is the

[1:42:00] debate on this at the Town Council and

[1:42:03] now I'd like to play a video of that

[1:42:06] debate from the town

[1:42:09] council's presentation that starts at

[1:42:12] the 50 minute 12 Mark and ends at the

[1:42:15] 5829 and I believe Mr CH I mean

[1:42:18] obviously you know you can conduct the

[1:42:20] hearing want to but you know first of

[1:42:22] all you know all of the minutes uh are

[1:42:25] completely irrelevant in this case

[1:42:26] because minutes are nothing more than a

[1:42:29] documentary of to what happened minutes

[1:42:31] are just a documentation as to what

[1:42:33] happened the only thing that really

[1:42:34] matters with with regard to a hearing is

[1:42:36] what the decision was okay and it's

[1:42:38] great to have minutes it's great to have

[1:42:40] a history as to what happened and you

[1:42:42] know and and you know you lit in all the

[1:42:44] other minutes which are nothing more

[1:42:46] than again a documentation documentary

[1:42:48] representation but they don't apply to

[1:42:51] decisions and that's the only thing that

[1:42:52] matters now now he wants to have a video

[1:42:55] as to what happened during I mean the

[1:42:58] minutes are bad enough but if you want

[1:43:00] to have the video you know that just just okay having a b debate great I

[1:43:05] mean Council has a debate Council has a

[1:43:07] debate you know once twice a month uh

[1:43:10] you know and there's a differences of

[1:43:12] opinions but all that matters ultimately

[1:43:14] is what did they decide and so that we

[1:43:17] understand uh we will still allow the

[1:43:19] video and the

[1:43:21] next documentation

[1:43:23] in thank

[1:43:33] you and obviously

[1:43:35] objection

[1:43:37] [Music]

[1:43:44] over oh he's

[1:43:49] doing

[1:44:11] let's

[1:44:19] go

[1:44:49] minutes

[1:44:53] just in little Chesapeake Beach some

[1:44:55] days we do three and four a

[1:44:58] day those who which we did is that

[1:45:04] zero

[1:45:05] 5829 it was

[1:45:09] 512 do we have to remove the PowerPoint

[1:45:13] so that they can see it

[1:45:19] first

[1:45:22] Mr Bliss how long does that

[1:45:24] served eight

[1:45:43] minutes

[1:45:49] okay

[1:45:52] said 52 yes you know just a basic one

[1:45:57] page history we'll see okay all right thank Larry thank you Crystal

[1:46:05] CLA um I have no more questions and

[1:46:07] thank you Mr Mayor one follow-up comment

[1:46:11] yes sir thank you uh to follow on with

[1:46:14] councilwoman Vine's comment there um

[1:46:16] this is right moratorium for an

[1:46:19] additional mon just as a quick sumary

[1:46:22] before I get to the council the Planning

[1:46:25] Commission has submitted a request to

[1:46:27] the Town Council for more time to devote

[1:46:29] to the completion of the comprehensive

[1:46:31] plan our planning is zoning

[1:46:33] administrator brief the Town Council

[1:46:35] during the uh recent work session as a

[1:46:38] result of that we have before us a

[1:46:41] before the council a resolution

[1:46:44] extending the moratorium which is

[1:46:45] currently set to expire in December of

[1:46:48] 21 for an additional three three months

[1:46:51] uh is there a motion to approve move to

[1:46:53] approve is there a second second okay uh

[1:46:58] I'll begin discussion with Dr

[1:47:01] Bodine oh yeah um if you actually look

[1:47:04] at the word I just have have two

[1:47:06] questions I think um I'm fully supported

[1:47:09] this because it was voted upon

[1:47:11] unanimously by the funding and Zoning

[1:47:13] commission so this is what they want and

[1:47:14] support above their

[1:47:16] activities if you look at under the

[1:47:18] therefore be it resolved that

[1:47:21] and you look at the second

[1:47:24] sentence um it says time period as

[1:47:28] reformed in the resolution

[1:47:31] r213 is that like a legal thing as

[1:47:35] reformed that's a typo sorry um uh and I can tell you I did make the change

[1:47:42] and for some reason before it got sent

[1:47:43] to Holly the change was not made what's

[1:47:47] the reasoning it's well we are now

[1:47:49] getting into the issue of whether I'm

[1:47:51] giving legal opinions okay or opinions

[1:47:54] with regard to the resolution uh which I

[1:47:56] know it's still on the video but legal

[1:47:58] opinions still would not be part of any

[1:48:00] evidence here and this video is now part

[1:48:02] of the evidence here

[1:48:06] so if I could be heard on the objection

[1:48:08] when he's finished okay so in essence

[1:48:12] you know uh it was just you know a type

[1:48:14] of that's being corrected that's fine

[1:48:16] but uh you know any other legal opinions

[1:48:18] which just may be coming to obviously

[1:48:21] creates an issue which probably should

[1:48:23] be redacted from the video so first this

[1:48:27] is a public meeting of the Town Council

[1:48:30] any it's already public it's part of the

[1:48:33] record it's literally a public document

[1:48:37] so if you give legal advice during to

[1:48:39] the Town Council during an open session

[1:48:42] of the Town Council it's part of the

[1:48:44] record and is part of the evidence that

[1:48:45] we can present with respect to the key

[1:48:49] issues which I'm going to get to promise

[1:48:50] you this isn't just given to you

[1:48:52] gratuitously there's some key issues

[1:48:54] being raised in this debate in this

[1:48:57] video so that's that's why I believe it

[1:48:59] should be admitted well objection

[1:49:01] because it goes back to this is a debate

[1:49:03] this isn't evidence this isn't a

[1:49:05] decision by the council this is just a

[1:49:07] discussion between the council that's

[1:49:09] all it is okay so in essence if it's

[1:49:11] going to be admitted you know there's a

[1:49:13] p you know there's a you know area of

[1:49:15] law called giving it appropriate weight

[1:49:17] which means discussions that mayor may

[1:49:20] not be you know going on between Council

[1:49:23] would have no weight because it doesn't

[1:49:25] necessarily mean how they would vote

[1:49:26] they're just talking okay so in essence

[1:49:29] having some type of discussion creates

[1:49:31] some type of evidentiary hearing or

[1:49:32] evidentiary matter for something in the

[1:49:35] future really is is is some something

[1:49:38] that goes way way way out of bounds as

[1:49:40] far as what anybody could do okay

[1:49:42] because this isn't a decision this is

[1:49:44] nothing more than what they may talking

[1:49:46] or what may have they were thinking at

[1:49:49] the time so one moment

[1:50:01] please the objection is overruled but

[1:50:03] the board hears the argument about the

[1:50:06] weight of what we are seeing here thank

[1:50:08] you Mr CH please

[1:50:11] proceed be it should be referred rather

[1:50:14] than reformed it should have been

[1:50:15] referred so I apologize and I'll make

[1:50:18] that change but yeah that's my my

[1:50:20] mistake and I I caught it but it was

[1:50:23] made but it did not seem to get the

[1:50:25] Holly so sorry about that no no problem

[1:50:27] I just wasn't honestly I wasn't sure if

[1:50:29] it was like something I just you know

[1:50:32] like a legal thing um P do we need to do

[1:50:36] an amendment to change this to referred

[1:50:38] if so I would like to introduce that

[1:50:42] Amendment you know I don't see any

[1:50:45] reason if you wanted to to cross it out

[1:50:48] and then put a tick mark there and just

[1:50:49] put the correct word um because what matters is the

[1:50:55] signatures um question how much um

[1:50:58] testimony are we expecting here from

[1:51:00] Council minutes is it all from um Mr

[1:51:03] pounds when is that gonna wrap up

[1:51:05] shortly yes well it goes

[1:51:10] another four minutes so most most of

[1:51:14] what I care about is actually the parts

[1:51:16] that's coming up all this is just kind

[1:51:17] of part of the debate what this is is

[1:51:20] all of the public debate of the Town

[1:51:22] Council on this resolution that is the

[1:51:26] resolution is introduced and the Town

[1:51:28] Council gets to

[1:51:30] debate the mayor turned to Dr Bodin

[1:51:33] first she provided her comments then we

[1:51:35] had some questions to the council but

[1:51:37] that's all part of the debate on this

[1:51:39] legislative

[1:51:41] act or attempted a legislative

[1:51:45] act so if it's not not done um um

[1:51:50] just just handwriting it and there's

[1:51:52] absolutely nothing wrong with doing that

[1:51:53] if you'd like to do

[1:51:55] that I don't think

[1:51:58] we

[1:52:00] um any additional comments rry yeah yeah

[1:52:03] I just I thought you were gonna talk P

[1:52:04] I'm sorry I just wanted to if you wanted

[1:52:06] to change it um yeah my other comment

[1:52:08] was one thing that came up at the work

[1:52:11] session and just want to make sure I

[1:52:13] understand the way it's written is that

[1:52:15] our current moror that we currently have

[1:52:18] expires on December 18th

[1:52:20] this moratorium uh takes effect December

[1:52:23] 19th at

[1:52:24] 1201 and this moratorium would expire on

[1:52:28] March 19th is anything I said

[1:52:34] incorrect well I think it's clear

[1:52:37] no Tod Todd do I got it oh yeah no this starts right away there's no doubt

[1:52:42] about it but doesn't it starts on

[1:52:44] December 19th right it's an extension

[1:52:48] that that's right there's no there with this we have drafted with you know

[1:52:53] excluding the typo there is no Gap there

[1:52:57] is no Gap in the expires on March 19th

[1:52:59] correct got it thank you very much for

[1:53:01] your help thank you

[1:53:04] Charlie I don't have any questions um

[1:53:07] just from a substantive standpoint you

[1:53:09] know when this came before the council

[1:53:11] initially

[1:53:13] um we had a a good debate about the

[1:53:16] timing of the moratorium I was opposed

[1:53:19] to a morat

[1:53:20] um that extended indefinitely Or

[1:53:23] extended for a long period of time not

[1:53:25] because I didn't want Planning and

[1:53:27] Zoning to do their work but because I

[1:53:28] wanted to keep the comprehensive plan on

[1:53:32] the front burner and if the moratorium

[1:53:34] had needed to be extended it it would um

[1:53:37] now we we sit here today with a uh very

[1:53:42] uh completed draft of the comprehensive

[1:53:44] plan uh it would be pointless now not to

[1:53:48] extend this for another three months

[1:53:52] uh I I just don't see I I just can't

[1:53:55] imagine anyone actually making

[1:53:57] applications now knowing what uh is in

[1:54:00] the comprehensive plan under the old

[1:54:01] rules let alone becoming substantially

[1:54:05] vested in their project um but but it

[1:54:08] would be pointless to not accept uh

[1:54:11] three more months as requested by the

[1:54:12] planning and zoning committee in my

[1:54:14] opinion that's all thank you Charlie and

[1:54:18] Larry I'll disagree with my colleague Mr

[1:54:21] thinkink about being pointless um I did

[1:54:25] not support the moratorium when we voted

[1:54:27] on it in March uh given recent

[1:54:30] discussions and reports and as just was

[1:54:32] acknowledged a moment ago uh we will not

[1:54:36] have an approved comprehensive plan in

[1:54:37] three months along with the required

[1:54:40] changes in the uh code to support the

[1:54:43] new moratorium or to support the new

[1:54:46] comprehensive plan so I'm not quite sure

[1:54:49] what what we're doing here um I think

[1:54:51] we're going to be if this passes we're

[1:54:53] going to be back at this again in March

[1:54:55] because we won't have a new

[1:54:58] comprehensive plan and the required

[1:55:01] changes in code to support it and I just

[1:55:06] am concerned that this just drags on and on so thank you thanks for your

[1:55:11] comment uh Mr

[1:55:15] Mars uh yes

[1:55:18] um

[1:55:20] I would certainly we certainly did uh

[1:55:22] have debate and pretty good discussion

[1:55:25] about this at the last work session so

[1:55:27] anybody that's in the audience tonight

[1:55:29] that needs a little more background

[1:55:30] about the decisions tonight um I would

[1:55:32] certainly refer you to that work session

[1:55:36] um we've got a public uh we've got a

[1:55:40] um a public meeting scheduled in

[1:55:44] November for this I know we're taking

[1:55:46] public comment now I don't under

[1:55:49] estimate public comment on this either I

[1:55:52] think that

[1:55:53] U there's going to be some um forces

[1:55:57] against some of the things that um

[1:55:59] they're

[1:56:02] proposing um in my mind extending the

[1:56:05] moratorium for three months does make

[1:56:07] sense um and it does give Council in my

[1:56:11] mind it gives it's going to give Council

[1:56:13] the time it needs to do what it to do

[1:56:15] its part at the end of this I'm

[1:56:16] confident that uh we're going to get

[1:56:19] this done

[1:56:20] um first part of next year I do not see

[1:56:23] how I could support any additional

[1:56:26] extensions of the moratorium uh but I in

[1:56:29] my opinion All Things Considered today I think we've got this in hand they've

[1:56:34] been working very hard there's a draft

[1:56:35] plan that's in front of everybody and

[1:56:37] the Public's reviewing it now um there

[1:56:41] could be some changes on the council

[1:56:42] level uh once it gets there um but I

[1:56:45] don't see that dragging on at all I

[1:56:48] think uh we're going to vote some of

[1:56:50] that up and down and um I think we uh I

[1:56:54] can see the Finish Line on this so I'm

[1:56:56] in support of three months um thank you Greg and lastly Keith yeah

[1:57:01] thank you mayor so yeah I definitely

[1:57:03] support this I was in favor of a 12mon

[1:57:06] moratorium to start with and that was

[1:57:08] what was requested to do the job and

[1:57:11] we're getting very close and hopefully

[1:57:13] we will cross that Finish Line soon

[1:57:16] thank you okay thank you okay we have a

[1:57:19] motion we have a second now is time to

[1:57:21] vote all all those in favor say I I I

[1:57:25] post no and the motion passes four to

[1:57:28] one thank you

[1:57:29] everybody uh next U that's the end

[1:57:33] correct yes it is um at this point we

[1:57:35] have five minutes left you're welcome to

[1:57:37] that time but be aware yes I think I can

[1:57:40] kind of close out this thing so

[1:57:44] um so what it's clear from the debate

[1:57:47] the minutes and what you've just watched

[1:57:50] is that the council believed the

[1:57:51] moratorium would expire on December 19th

[1:57:55] 2021 that they wanted to extend the

[1:57:57] moratorium for three additional months

[1:58:00] and if they passed this second

[1:58:01] resolution it would expire on March 19th

[1:58:06] 2022 it's also nice to see that Council

[1:58:09] councilman jorski made the point seemed

[1:58:11] to be ignored by everybody else on the

[1:58:13] council that even with this three- Monon

[1:58:16] extension the moratorium would expire

[1:58:17] before the comprehensive plan and the

[1:58:20] implementing ordinances would be

[1:58:23] passed I prepared a transcript of this I

[1:58:27] don't know whether you want it for

[1:58:29] guidance it's just a literally the

[1:58:31] transcript of what you read I it's in

[1:58:34] your book and if you want me to offer it

[1:58:35] as an exhibit so that you have it in the

[1:58:37] record yes put it in exhibit okay so

[1:58:39] that would be exhibit

[1:58:42] 29

[1:58:48] 288

[1:58:57] and I I'll submit the minutes of the

[1:58:59] Town council meeting of September 16th

[1:59:01] 2021 as exhibit

[1:59:07] 29 just for the record I'm be objecting

[1:59:10] to both of those all

[1:59:13] over

[1:59:18] almost

[1:59:24] okay so that is a pretty good stopping

[1:59:27] point for the next segment that will

[1:59:30] kind of wrap up why a lot of that was

[1:59:32] relevant

[1:59:33] and we'll see you at the next hearing I

[1:59:36] believe thank you um at this point in

[1:59:38] time EXC yes um I know one of the things

[1:59:41] that we were told is that you have

[1:59:43] public comment this evening yes there

[1:59:45] will not be public comment this evening

[1:59:47] uh public comment will happen that's not

[1:59:49] the way it goes I'm sorry but that's the

[1:59:52] way the rules are written for this type

[1:59:53] of procedure I'd love to tell you and

[1:59:56] maybe I should have told you at the

[1:59:56] beginning that public comment you are

[1:59:59] going to have all the time you want to

[2:00:00] give public comment but the order of

[2:00:02] operations here is that the case is

[2:00:04] presented Town staff responds then

[2:00:06] public is allowed to um to address it

[2:00:09] will not be tonight it will not be

[2:00:10] tonight it will probably not be next

[2:00:12] time as well the last estimate we had

[2:00:13] was that this would be approximately

[2:00:15] eight hours your public comment has a

[2:00:17] real basic effect on what's going on

[2:00:20] here I think a lot of time is being

[2:00:23] wasted I don't know why this isn't being

[2:00:25] presented in front of a judge okay

[2:00:27] because that's all we're hearing back

[2:00:28] here at least that's all I'm hearing

[2:00:31] decisions that you guys can make in

[2:00:33] regards to what he's bringing up this

[2:00:34] was presentant a judge has passed this

[2:00:36] back down to us for some judgment that

[2:00:39] they can then consider if it should move

[2:00:41] to that case but the order of operations

[2:00:42] from the circuit court is that the um we

[2:00:46] need to come to a ruling here on this

[2:00:48] board for to continue on its legal path

[2:00:51] and the um this board this is the first

[2:00:54] time we've heard anything like this and

[2:00:56] so we're learning along with you but we

[2:00:58] are going to follow the rules that are

[2:00:59] set up same stuff that came up in 19 I'm

[2:01:02] hearing the same thing um the

[2:01:06] 19th I think Public public comment is

[2:01:09] very important in this case I mean I

[2:01:12] just I I don't even know why it's going

[2:01:14] to go any further if public comment was

[2:01:20] you able to present it public comment is

[2:01:22] entirely welcome and I'm sorry that you

[2:01:25] can't comment during this meeting and

[2:01:27] possibly the next one and maybe the one

[2:01:29] after that the the plan of here is going

[2:01:31] to testify for eight hours right is that

[2:01:34] the

[2:01:35] ballpark six and six and a half hours at

[2:01:38] the end of that come for six ands yes

[2:01:41] that is his presentation his right based

[2:01:43] on what he is asking of this board here

[2:01:48] today

[2:01:49] what are our rights uh your rights are

[2:01:52] to testify when it and as the public

[2:01:54] when it is time to receive your comments

[2:01:57] you're welcome to give them at the

[2:01:58] stadium and you're welcome to write to

[2:02:00] them to write to us if you'd like to

[2:02:01] deliver in letters we will read it out

[2:02:03] for this board at the appropriate time

[2:02:05] we would love to have public comment but

[2:02:08] unfortunately there's a lot going on

[2:02:09] here and we have to public comments are

[2:02:11] directed to you how it is really to the

[2:02:14] Donovan family unfortunately I don't

[2:02:17] know if that's you're

[2:02:19] I think it should I think they should

[2:02:22] drop the

[2:02:23] appeal we will receive your public

[2:02:26] comments with regards to this case and

[2:02:28] with regards to the five site plans and

[2:02:32] how the process went for that um this is

[2:02:34] not a referendum on the donovans or

[2:02:37] other business within the town uh our

[2:02:40] scope is narrow here which is why we're

[2:02:43] trying to understand The Narrative of

[2:02:45] what happened for these past three or

[2:02:47] four years and allow the story to be

[2:02:50] presented so that then we can understand

[2:02:52] and come to a judgment which can then go

[2:02:54] farther in the legal realm if that is

[2:02:57] what's to happen we will certainly take

[2:02:59] public comment we don't mean to keep you

[2:03:01] from giving public comment and we

[2:03:03] certainly don't want you to sit here if

[2:03:05] you feel like you're just waiting to

[2:03:06] give it you are welcome to write it and

[2:03:08] we will read it back uh when it is time

[2:03:11] for public comments if you feel like

[2:03:13] this is too much of your own time spent

[2:03:15] here tonight so I I apologize if I was

[2:03:18] learning something new and I'm not

[2:03:19] hearing anything new

[2:03:22] um I've read the minutes I've watched

[2:03:26] the eight minute videos and stuff it

[2:03:29] just seems like a real waste of time to

[2:03:32] me a lot of the information for me but

[2:03:35] anybody else that has their opinion that

[2:03:36] they want to give on this entire Fiasco

[2:03:39] unfortunately that's the prerogative of

[2:03:42] the presentation the the presentation

[2:03:45] we're receiving tonight is we want them

[2:03:47] and they're given the chance to present

[2:03:49] first and up until it's conclusion

[2:03:51] people that they in the right in less

[2:03:53] than six and a half hours then you need

[2:03:55] to re recheck what um thank you for your

[2:03:59] comment um you are welcome to give it in

[2:04:01] writing or when we open up public

[2:04:03] comments it

[2:04:06] is um so uh at this time I'll entertain

[2:04:10] a motion to adjourn the meeting until

[2:04:11] November 8th at 7M here in town hall

[2:04:15] thank you do I have a second I will make

[2:04:18] that motion

[2:04:19] oh sorry motion second all in

[2:04:22] favor thank you we are adjourned until

[2:04:26] November 8th at 7

[2:04:38] P.M

October 30, 2023 Board of Appeals Hearing

Transcript