[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