[0:05] [Music]

[0:08] everybody um I think we are ready to go

[0:13] um once again um we've had some

[0:16] technical difficulties here so briefly I

[0:18] will summarize for the recording where

[0:21] we are uh we have done the call to order

[0:25] and roll call for the ches beach board

[0:27] of appeals uh 7 p.m. November 14

[0:30] 2023 we have a quorum on the board we

[0:33] went through some brief announcements uh

[0:35] concerning uh how this meeting is run um

[0:39] and then we reintroduce the continuation

[0:43] of case

[0:52] 2023-the from Mr pounds before we

[0:55] continue Mr

[0:58] pounds announce that date just so people

[1:01] in the public can apologies good idea

[1:03] yes uh one announcement that is

[1:05] important for the recording is that our

[1:07] plan schedule is to resume Thursday

[1:09] January 4th 2024 at 7 pm that's January

[1:14] 4th

[1:15] 2024 uh thank

[1:17] you uh Mr pounds okay Mr chair uh

[1:21] members of the board again uh good

[1:23] evening uh Todd pounds representing the

[1:25] town of Chess be Beach uh ladies and

[1:28] gentlemen uh basically we you know we're

[1:30] here today uh basically to hear uh you

[1:33] know was supposed to be sworn testimony

[1:35] and hearing with regard to this

[1:37] application as it turns out at the

[1:39] beginning of this uh the board uh indeed

[1:43] instructed Mr Blitz whether he was going

[1:45] to have certain Witnesses testify and

[1:47] indeed uh Witnesses got up raised their

[1:51] hand and swore uh took the o to SW to

[1:54] tell the truth uh I remember seeing two

[1:56] people uh uh and nence uh we had sworn

[2:00] in Mr Donovan and also Mr Woodburn uh at

[2:04] that time I didn't really look but I

[2:06] really didn't see Mr Blitz indeed

[2:09] swearing himself in uh at that time Mr

[2:12] Blitz uh then began his testimony which

[2:15] became a narrative in which he began to

[2:17] speak uh and go on uh which has now gone

[2:21] on for about five hours regarding his

[2:23] interpretation and what was supposed to

[2:25] be quote unquote testimony uh at the end

[2:28] of the uh the last hearing at the

[2:30] beginning of the last hearing I made a

[2:32] motion that indeed that was completely

[2:34] improper for Mr Blitz to just uh give a

[2:38] narrative like this uh indeed as a

[2:41] result because it is indeed not

[2:43] testimony he can't sit there and just

[2:45] you know give a narrative and testimony

[2:47] as he's going to be going forward Mr

[2:49] susman then testified didn't testify but

[2:52] he then made the statement uh I think

[2:55] and Leisa if I didn't if I'm

[2:56] paraphrasing that correctly let me know

[2:59] I think that Mr Blitz swore himself in

[3:03] uh and Mr Blitz definitively stated that

[3:06] point yes I swore myself then uh at that

[3:09] time the uh the hearing went on and we

[3:11] spent another couple of hours uh indeed

[3:13] for the rest of the hearing basically

[3:15] you know which is in essence Mr Blitz

[3:18] you know stating his quote narrative

[3:21] which was indeed testimony as evidence

[3:23] now what that why that is that important

[3:25] a narrative is just someone talking okay

[3:27] that is not uh in any way evidence that

[3:30] is not in any way for you to be

[3:32] evaluated as as evidence testimony is

[3:35] evidence that's the reason he has to be

[3:36] sworn at so as it turns out I then uh uh

[3:40] contacted Miss wall and I wanted to

[3:42] indeed verify that indeed Mr litz had

[3:44] sworn himself in and as it turns out he

[3:47] did not um he did not uh swear himself

[3:51] in with with regard to uh that he did

[3:54] not raise his hand and according to the

[3:56] video it did not appear that he said I

[3:58] agree to tell the truth so in essence

[4:01] that is a big problem uh in that we are

[4:04] now five hours which is most of it into

[4:07] is what Mr Blitz was talking about as

[4:09] being a narrative which means that

[4:11] indeed without him swearing himself in

[4:13] none of it is evidence uh I mean none of

[4:16] it is to be considered by you as

[4:18] evidence in the trial that is nothing

[4:20] more than him doing his talking and

[4:23] really it's it's you know maybe

[4:24] considering his opinion but it indeed is

[4:27] not in any way fore to considered as uh

[4:30] evidence uh or as testimony as a result

[4:33] of his fear to SW SAR himself

[4:39] in now again you know now it's

[4:42] Undisputed that we do have you know uh evidence that came in through the

[4:46] records okay that doesn't apply to these

[4:48] those are records and you can certainly

[4:50] review those records as you think is

[4:53] appropriate but this is primarily

[4:54] talking about what Mr Blitz was talking

[4:56] about uh in essence uh his

[5:00] what I'm going to call a narrative that

[5:01] indeed testimon so basically everything

[5:04] that he has said so far I'm moving to

[5:07] strike because in essence it is not

[5:10] evidence and you're not and and you're

[5:12] not to really consider that at all well

[5:15] here's a problem uh here you have a

[5:18] board and you're into this for five plus

[5:21] hours and I'm asking you for course

[5:23] under the law indeed you're not to be

[5:25] considered anything that is said okay I

[5:28] mean so is a problem for this board

[5:30] because in essence

[5:32] would you know if you're being

[5:34] instructed to indeed not review any type

[5:37] of evidence or anything like that to

[5:39] just open it and close it and pretend

[5:42] like you never heard it well that's

[5:44] almost impossible especially going on

[5:46] for five hours I can certainly

[5:48] understand if it was one comment here

[5:50] which 99% of the time you see that as

[5:52] far as AEM motion to strike a comment a

[5:54] motion five hours it becomes almost

[5:57] impossibility okay but at the same time

[6:00] that's where we are and uh so that's

[6:01] what I'm going to be asking you to do is

[6:03] in essence with this motion to uh uh

[6:07] indeed strike everything that he's

[6:09] indeed said so here's the other problem

[6:12] uh which is as a lawyer okay I consider

[6:16] it a big problem I mean a big problem um

[6:20] Mr Mr Blitz when he was asked by Mr

[6:24] susman did you swear yourself then and

[6:26] he was definitive yes

[6:30] okay it wasn't a I think so I mean if

[6:33] I'm wrong on that we can go back and

[6:35] look at it but it was a yes I did and

[6:37] all sudden the testimony began to

[6:38] proceed the problem is that is a

[6:41] definitive statement by a lawyer to this

[6:43] board during a hearing that's a problem

[6:46] lawyers cannot make you know definitive

[6:48] statements which are in essence

[6:49] misrepresentations to a board you're not

[6:51] supposed to make it anyway especially D

[6:53] to a board during the hearing and that's

[6:56] what's happened so uh where does that leave him what does that leave the

[7:01] board I don't know okay I'll be frank

[7:04] because this all this happened you know

[7:06] I I got it yesterday and in essence I

[7:08] contacted Mr susman this morning first

[7:10] thing this morning was about 7:30 this

[7:12] morning when I sent the email and I said

[7:14] we have a problem okay this is a problem

[7:17] with regard to you know where we are

[7:19] with regard to all this and so uh

[7:21] basically when you came in today we were

[7:23] Mr susman uh Mr Blitz and Miss wall and

[7:26] I were all in the room trying to figure

[7:28] this out and believe me nobody has a

[7:30] solution to this because now we have in

[7:32] essence what I consider a big deal an

[7:35] attorney making a definitive

[7:37] misrepresentation to this board um how

[7:40] that's going to be handled or what what

[7:42] is the consequences of that I'll be

[7:44] frank I don't know but indeed it's a

[7:58] problem

[8:04] so basically you know and the reason I

[8:06] say that okay and I'm going to put it on

[8:08] the record because you you can make what

[8:10] whatever judgment you want to because

[8:12] I'm not sure ethically where we are with

[8:14] all this I mean I don't know because uh

[8:18] you know we have an attorney who's been

[8:21] uh getting a narrative which was

[8:22] supposed to be a statement and testimony

[8:25] the last five hours which now should be

[8:27] stricken and yet the attorney made a

[8:30] misrepresentation to the board yes I was

[8:32] on their oath which everyone assumed he

[8:34] was but now was not uh where that leaves

[8:38] us all I don't know um but uh I I did I

[8:43] have contact with the council because my

[8:45] obligation to inform councel indeed of

[8:48] what's going on that's my job that's my

[8:50] lawyer I'm the lawyer they the client

[8:52] and I was told one thing follow the law

[8:55] okay and in essence uh and then in

[8:58] speaking to the mayor I'll be Frank what

[8:59] he said was if you need professional

[9:01] interpretation all this you may need it

[9:04] okay which we may need that too but it's

[9:06] one of these things where uh I'm

[9:09] bringing it up because indeed it is a

[9:10] concern of mine that indeed I think is

[9:13] very

[9:23] valid so you know and and it's one thing

[9:27] that uh uh was brought up but I even

[9:30] have the note here before was brought up

[9:32] about possibly uh trying to say okay

[9:35] well let's swear men now and backdate

[9:39] everything and just say oh okay I'm

[9:41] going to accept everything as it as was

[9:43] as it was done because I indeed you know

[9:45] had it written down here beforehand in

[9:48] preparing my notes the problem is you

[9:50] can't do that you can't just sit there

[9:52] and say because there's very D various

[9:54] Dynamics out there that are indeed

[9:56] there's testimony and then narrative and

[9:59] then say well no I've changed my mind I

[10:01] wanted to be testimony now so you just

[10:03] accept everything as testimony you

[10:04] simply can't do that okay and I can give

[10:06] you an example of it uh let's say you go

[10:09] out and rob a bank and you get caught

[10:11] and you give the money back and you can

[10:13] say oh I gave the money back so all of a

[10:15] sudden it's no longer a problem no it is

[10:17] a problem because that's indeed where

[10:19] the issue comes in so uh so why is all

[10:23] this important because it has to be done

[10:25] right okay and indeed it has not uh

[10:28] especially with the fact that we uh for

[10:32] five hours of what was purported to be

[10:36] testimony which was nothing but

[10:38] narrative in essence which you should be

[10:40] completely ignoring because it it does

[10:42] is not evidence at all and as a result

[10:46] you know by this motion to strike in

[10:48] essence asking you to say no you need to

[10:51] ignore everything you've been hearing

[10:53] and sitting here for the last five years

[10:54] which creates an impossibility but for

[10:56] right now indeed this motion to strike

[11:00] uh is you should ignore everything that

[11:03] uh basically everything you've heard

[11:04] from Mr blitz so far because it's

[11:07] reported to be testimony and it is not

[11:09] thank

[11:11] you um at this point uh Mr Blitz would

[11:14] you like to offer a response sure thank

[11:17] you Eric Blitz on behalf of the Roden

[11:19] reel um I think from the

[11:24] beginning Council for the town has tried

[11:27] to make make this

[11:30] proceeding something that it

[11:32] isn't he's tried to turn this into a

[11:35] trial make objections that wouldn't even

[11:38] be sustained in a trial such as

[11:40] objections to uh government

[11:44] documents um claiming they were hearsay

[11:47] administrative bodies can take in

[11:49] hearsay it's even in your own

[11:51] rules and create a circus-like

[11:53] atmosphere challenging all of our

[11:56] evidence and this is in essence a Hail

[11:59] Mary to try to strike our entire

[12:03] presentation let me be clear I think I

[12:06] was I was sworn

[12:08] in today a half hour before this

[12:12] proceeding I was told that by Mr susman

[12:16] and Mr pounds that somebody believes I

[12:19] wasn't Mr pounds just testified that it

[12:22] was Miss wall she hasn't obviously

[12:24] testified so he's BR bringing in uh

[12:27] information but my point is I don't

[12:31] think it matters because I don't

[12:34] think that in an administrat proceeding

[12:38] what I'm

[12:39] doing is testifying I'm not offering

[12:43] facts of my own recollection or

[12:45] independent judgment I'm submitting

[12:48] documents and while I submit documents

[12:50] I'm giving you the arguments about why

[12:52] those documents are relevant and

[12:53] pointing out to you the the relevant

[12:56] portions of those documents so when I

[13:00] made arguments about the effect of the

[13:02] charter on the question of whether you

[13:05] had to do a resolution or an ordinance

[13:08] I'm not testifying about that I'm making

[13:10] this this uh Roden reel's

[13:14] presentation Mr pounds kind of bounced

[13:16] back and forth in his objection as to

[13:19] whether I was make doing a narrative or

[13:22] evidence and said well it a narrative is

[13:25] in evidence anyway well then what is the

[13:28] swearing in

[13:29] business about because you don't need to

[13:31] swear in the presentation of the lawyer

[13:35] under land use article

[13:37] 4306 a part party to an appeal can be

[13:41] represented by themselves or by a lawyer

[13:44] I've seen plenty of administrative

[13:46] proceedings where the only person that

[13:48] shows up is the lawyer they present

[13:51] the argument in favor of

[13:54] aarian now I've never really seen

[13:58] lawyers sworn in but you had us all

[14:00] stand up everybody in the room and I

[14:03] think I was standing up and I think I

[14:05] got sworn in but apparently I I did I

[14:09] didn't raise my hand I know that so if

[14:11] you believe that that's necessarily

[14:13] relevant to being sworn in I don't think

[14:15] it is I think I kned my head but

[14:19] when Mr susman I think it wasn't in the

[14:22] second hearing it was in the last

[14:24] hearing asked well weren't you sworn in

[14:28] I thought I was so I said yes my point

[14:32] is he's trying to strike our entire

[14:37] presentation which most of which other

[14:41] than Mr Donovan's testimony in the

[14:43] beginning and Mr Woodburn's testimony

[14:45] have been me introducing a series of

[14:47] documents and explaining to you what law

[14:49] I think applies I think that's very

[14:52] typical presentation made in an

[14:54] administrative hearing where you don't

[14:56] have Rules of Evidence where you take in

[15:00] all the information you can and

[15:01] determine then whether it is relevant to

[15:05] the cause of action or the decision that

[15:07] you need to make you will hear testimony

[15:10] from countless people that will provide

[15:13] information that isn't relevant that is

[15:16] members of the public will often talk

[15:17] about things that aren't really

[15:19] necessarily relevant to the case you let

[15:21] it in why because that's the nature of

[15:23] administrative proceedings so when I'm

[15:26] making arguments about

[15:30] the

[15:31] documents almost all of which were

[15:33] either correspondents or from the town

[15:38] or resolutions minutes we you know

[15:42] plenty of at least three quarters of the

[15:45] exhibits were minutes these are

[15:46] government documents I don't need to

[15:48] swear to them there's no standard by

[15:51] which you have to I mean you overruled

[15:54] all those objections that he was trying

[15:55] to make to prevent those documents from

[15:57] coming in

[16:00] and all I'm doing is presenting the

[16:03] arguments in favor of Roden reel's

[16:07] position that there was an error

[16:09] committed I don't I don't I didn't

[16:11] testify to any independent facts that I

[16:14] can recall I didn't offer any

[16:17] opinions um I think I might have said

[16:21] something about the common way that

[16:26] things happen in um a hearing before I

[16:29] think I made some sort of statement like

[16:31] that so I mean that's kind of typical

[16:34] statements by lawyers as to as to

[16:36] addressing what the case is that's not

[16:38] testimony um but again I think I was

[16:41] testified I um Mr pounds is right that

[16:46] as a member of the bar I am committed to

[16:48] telling you the truth doesn't matter

[16:51] whether I'm test sworn in or not I think

[16:54] I have I don't think there's anything

[16:56] there at the last hearing

[16:59] and this is kind of why I think this is

[17:00] coming up now Mr pound started talking

[17:02] about half truths and he said it about

[17:05] three or four times about things that I

[17:06] had said and one of them was about his

[17:09] own

[17:10] letter and I literally just read that

[17:13] letter into the record it was his words

[17:16] it was a question of whether the the

[17:17] Planning and Zoning commission also had

[17:18] to approve the ending of the

[17:21] moratorium my

[17:23] point is

[17:25] that it's typical for when making a

[17:29] presentation in an administrative

[17:31] proceeding to decide is this a timeline

[17:36] type case or is this you know just a

[17:40] couple key issues this was a timeline

[17:44] case and I I have taken you through the

[17:47] timeline by showing you what the town

[17:51] did or didn't do by introducing a lot of

[17:55] exhibits that were all admissible

[17:59] I think you only denied one at the end

[18:01] of last hearing that I recall

[18:06] um

[18:08] and the standard for such admission in

[18:12] an administrative proceeding like this

[18:14] is largely relevance so if it's re if

[18:17] it's irrelevant or if it's duplicative

[18:20] but basically everything else comes

[18:22] in

[18:24] so again I think I got sworn in but I I

[18:27] can tell you everything I've told you in

[18:30] this presentation I believe to be

[18:33] accurate and that's true with respect to

[18:35] my commentary about the town Charter or

[18:39] my commentary about um the effect of the

[18:43] land use article on uh whether you have

[18:47] to pass an or a moratorium by an

[18:50] ordinance or

[18:51] resolution that's what lawyers do is

[18:53] make arguments about the the various

[18:55] laws this has largely been a legalist IC

[18:58] case I get that it's not like your

[19:00] standard variance case where you get a

[19:02] lot of testimony about the particular

[19:05] property and you're determining whether

[19:07] a variance should be granted that has a

[19:09] lot more testimony this is a challenge

[19:12] saying that what some what the two

[19:13] administrated bodies did the zoning

[19:16] administrator and the Planning and

[19:17] Zoning commission were improper and

[19:19] illegal and therefore should be remedied

[19:23] it's ultimately a a legal case we have

[19:27] facts and

[19:28] I was ready today to actually have the

[19:31] most testimony you've heard because we

[19:33] were going to have Mr Woodburn and Mr

[19:35] Donovan testify because now that we've I

[19:40] believe

[19:41] established

[19:43] the illegitimacy of the delay in

[19:47] reviewing the site plans that we're now

[19:50] ready to talk about the remedy and

[19:52] because the remedy involves lots of

[19:55] questions

[19:57] of what what what the course of conduct

[19:59] for these properties were and the

[20:01] history that requires testimony so my

[20:04] point is I think I was sworn in I did

[20:07] tell the truth and um I don't think

[20:11] striking all of the presentation which

[20:14] is just that is just a presentation it's

[20:17] not testimony I didn't testify all I I

[20:20] mean I don't know of any particular fact

[20:23] that I gave you that would be something

[20:26] that you would have to test credibility

[20:29] about I if I tell if I say here's a copy

[20:33] of your Charter the way to argue that I

[20:35] presented the incorrect version of the

[20:37] charter is for somebody to say well wait

[20:39] a minute I've got this version of the

[20:41] charter but other than that I'm pointing

[20:44] your pointing your attention to part

[20:46] portions of the charter and saying this

[20:48] is relevance to our argument and that's

[20:51] what I did and this is an administrative

[20:53] proceeding so that you're not trying to

[20:56] convert this into a trial where you have

[20:58] lots of objections over evidence and and

[21:01] lots of back and forth I

[21:03] mean if I had to uh do anything again

[21:06] the one thing I complained about was a

[21:09] cross-examination about um it being

[21:12] argumentative uh Mr pounds made a

[21:14] question and I was saying it was being

[21:16] argumentative and on reflection I was

[21:18] like this isn't a

[21:20] trial just just let him answer the

[21:23] question if he can so anyway that's that

[21:25] would be my point I think um I'm

[21:28] certainly willing to uh be sworn in I do

[21:31] not typically I do a lot of zoning cases

[21:34] I've represented Boards of appeal I have

[21:37] never sworn in a lawyer or been required

[21:40] to be sworn in on uh but I'm certainly

[21:43] willing to because I believe everything

[21:45] that I've uh presented to you is the

[21:48] truth and I can tell you that if

[21:52] you believe that everything should be

[21:55] struck then we essentially start over

[21:58] and we do this all over again but I'm

[22:01] going to make the same argument I don't

[22:03] need to be sworn in for that I'm making

[22:05] a

[22:08] presentation thank you very very briefly

[22:11] one

[22:25] moment all right uh Mr pounds very

[22:28] briefly um again your job ultimately is

[22:32] to base a decision based upon evidence

[22:35] uh that's what you're ultimately going

[22:36] to be looking to do and that is

[22:38] ultimately going to be your job

[22:39] basically Mr Blitz was talking about me

[22:42] going back and forth between you know uh

[22:44] testimony and what I call a narrative

[22:47] and what difference does it make well it

[22:48] makes huge difference okay huge

[22:50] difference because the narrative is

[22:52] something that's not evidence that's an

[22:54] opinion that's whatever he wants us to

[22:55] say testimony is evidence so in essence

[22:59] what in uh everything he's been talking

[23:01] about the last five hours as it turns

[23:04] out is is nothing but a narrative is not

[23:07] evidence for you to consider and uh and

[23:11] as a result if it's not testimony then

[23:13] indeed you should not be considering it

[23:16] now you you and you should be ignoring

[23:17] everything that's not evidence indeed if

[23:19] he wants Mr Blitz talks about a number

[23:22] of time of making his argument that's

[23:24] fine you make an argument at the end of

[23:25] the case okay when you present all the

[23:27] evidence you make certain arguments with

[23:29] regard to you know what what the uh

[23:32] evidence shows uh in showing your

[23:34] position that's fine but the problem is that his arguments are during the

[23:38] case and becomes and that is not

[23:40] evidence that becomes a narrative and

[23:42] that's what in essence we've been going

[23:44] through for the last five hours uh so in

[23:47] essence I appreciate Mr Blitz talking

[23:49] about that he uh indeed uh admitted that

[23:51] he did not raise his hand and he cannot

[23:54] testify for sure that indeed I mean is

[23:57] that what he just said that he admits

[23:58] that he did not raise his hand yeah but

[24:00] that's all I said I said I did believe I

[24:02] was sworn in so so in essence uh uh as

[24:08] far as being sworn in um so basically

[24:11] you know and why this is important if

[24:13] it's not evidence that indeed you should

[24:15] not be considering it uh as stated one

[24:17] of the things that I was instructed to

[24:19] do uh is to make sure it's this is done

[24:22] right and uh so that's the reason I'm

[24:24] here this evening ladies and gentlemen

[24:25] thank you very

[24:26] much

[24:28] um thank you all right at this point in

[24:31] time um the board is going to go into a

[24:34] Clos session with legal council to

[24:36] discuss the arguments you've heard um

[24:40] this is from the open meetings act

[24:42] General provision article section

[24:45] 3-35 uh the statutory authority to close

[24:48] session um this me meeting will be

[24:50] closed under the following subsections

[24:51] of the Maryland annotated code General

[24:53] provision article

[24:55] 3305b uh and we are going into close

[24:58] session to consult with Council to

[25:00] obtain legal

[25:02] advice um so what's going to happen here

[25:04] is uh the board will go into the back

[25:06] room and deliberate with our Council and

[25:09] then we will come back out here and

[25:11] announce any decisions that have been

[25:13] made um and unfortunately nothing will

[25:16] happen out here while we are doing that

[25:18] so if if I may clarification uh the

[25:21] board is not going to deliberate with

[25:23] Council going to uh discuss legal issues

[25:26] associated with motion and response with

[25:32] councel okay at this point the um uh I

[25:36] guess I will entertain a motion uh by

[25:39] the board to go into closed session I

[25:41] will so move have a second second all in

[25:44] favor roll call roll call all right

[25:48] um uh okay um Mr dhy present Miss

[25:53] Everett present and Mr hunar I am

[25:56] present I take it the presence me I CL

[26:00] session yes all right I all in favor all

[26:04] right we are going into close session

[26:05] and we will resume once that is

[26:26] complet

[52:15] [Music]

[52:20] is the video still going okay okay um so

[52:23] the board of appeals has um closed its

[52:27] closed session um at this point um the

[52:31] board is going to discuss how we want to

[52:34] evaluate the objection uh that has been

[52:38] raised um during the session um and I

[52:43] guess the board will start with a

[52:44] discussion which revolves around

[52:47] reviewing a limited segment of the video

[52:52] uh from our first meeting here I don't

[52:54] have the

[52:56] first for the uh around the swearing in

[52:58] of witnesses and participants um during

[53:02] the first and third session of case 20

[53:08] 23-3 um is there anything the board that

[53:11] I misstated that we want to

[53:16] discuss well I mean I certainly would

[53:19] like to see the video before I made a

[53:24] determination

[53:26] I concur I think that it's important

[53:28] that we watch the video just so we have

[53:30] a clear understanding of what's happened

[53:32] and I think we owe it to

[53:35] everybody all

[53:38] right I agree with both of those so at

[53:41] this point I will entertain a motion

[53:45] that we direct Town staff to um find the

[53:52] appropriate times during previous

[53:53] meeting sessions and and prepare them to

[53:56] be displayed during our next uh our next

[54:01] meeting on the on January 4th

[54:06] um I will entertain a motion to do

[54:10] that I will still move second second all

[54:14] in favor I okay so um with that um

[54:20] during our next session on Thursday

[54:24] January 4th 2024 at 7 pm we'll Begin by

[54:28] reviewing um some

[54:30] select uh sections of the record um from

[54:35] this case around Witnesses being sworn

[54:38] in and testimony being given

[54:42] um okay uh the in that case it is 15

[54:47] after and we go for if I could be

[54:50] briefly heard yes um if you're going to

[54:53] review testimony I think you should

[54:54] review all also the point in time that

[54:57] you were asking me whether I was sworn

[54:59] in because I was just informed that I

[55:01] didn't definitively say what I said was

[55:04] I believe I did you asked whether I was

[55:08] sworn in I believe I did but if you want

[55:09] me to I'll be sworn in right now so it

[55:12] was that statement I don't know whether

[55:14] you really need to see that but my point

[55:16] is this argument about whether I had

[55:19] made some commitment to whether I did I still do believe I got sworn in but um

[55:25] I remember I was standing and I was

[55:27] trying to get West to stand

[55:31] up we will we will get those things for

[55:34] you okay um and

[55:38] uh um I think Town staff is best uh

[55:42] situated to get that queued up we have

[55:44] the records we'll find the point in time

[55:46] if you'd um if there are points that

[55:48] you'd like to highlight or not highlight

[55:50] you are welcome to submit them to Sharon

[55:53] and we will have that queued up for our

[55:55] next meeting

[55:57] um okay uh the we are entirely blocked

[56:02] by this motion so once again I'd like to

[56:04] apologize to members of the public

[56:07] another date you showed up and do not

[56:09] get to speak so we're sorry um but we

[56:14] must um solve this particular issue

[56:17] before we go on uh and in that case

[56:20] there is no more business that the board

[56:22] can take this evening so I will

[56:25] entertain a motion to adjourn and then

[56:28] resume on Thursday January 4th 2024 at

[56:31] 700 p.m.

[56:33] do I move to adjourn have a second that all in favor all right we

[56:39] are adjourned thank you

[56:53] everybody

November 14, 2023 Board of Appeals Hearing

Transcript