[0:00] all

[0:28] right

[1:29] okay

[1:30] [Music]

[1:31] n

[1:35] o' uh hello everybody uh welcome this is

[1:37] the call to order for the chesap beach

[1:39] board of appeals um 7M January 4th 2024

[1:43] uh we start with a board roll call

[1:46] please announce that you are present uh

[1:48] Mr Paul dhy present Miss Amy Everett

[1:51] present Mr Sten sharp I am Jody honstar

[1:55] um we have a quorum um a note on uh

[2:00] public comments um we're going to start

[2:02] doing a new thing here where um at the

[2:05] beginning of each meeting we'll ask

[2:06] Sharon if there have been any public

[2:08] comments since the last time we got

[2:10] together um and so that's what this is

[2:13] so Sharon have we received any public

[2:15] comments to be entered into the record

[2:17] um concerning uh case

[2:20] 20233 yes we've received six uh six

[2:24] comments okay uh we will do this every

[2:26] time uh the contents of the comments

[2:28] will not be addressed at this time time

[2:30] but they will be entered into the record

[2:32] um and addressed later um one notice

[2:36] about witness questions um people who

[2:38] have signed up as a party of record May

[2:40] uh ask questions of a witness at the

[2:42] conclusion of that witness's testimony

[2:44] just so you're

[2:45] aware

[2:47] um uh okay uh next item is the meeting

[2:51] minutes approval which were from we kind

[2:53] of punted on uh last go round um we have

[2:57] three minutes to approve uh three three

[2:59] sets of minutes uh for the meeting on

[3:02] November 8th 2023 November 14th 2023 and

[3:06] also November 14th for the board of

[3:08] appeals closed session um at this point

[3:11] in time I will entertain a motion by any

[3:14] board member to approve all of these

[3:17] minutes I will make that motion I have a

[3:21] second all in

[3:24] favor all right uh meeting minutes

[3:28] yes

[3:34] I have yours I have

[3:38] yours

[3:42] yeah okay can we make sure the copies

[3:44] are

[3:45] [Music]

[3:47] provided also a copy from

[3:53] me uh okay

[3:56] um see okay so the next bit is normal uh

[3:59] normal announcements uh tonight we'll be

[4:01] we be having a two-hour maximum length

[4:03] session we will end around

[4:05] 900m unless the you know we need to end

[4:08] earlier for other reasons um for the

[4:11] public uh direct all comments and

[4:13] questions to the board uh chair myself

[4:15] or our legal counsel this applies to

[4:17] everybody um please do not ask the

[4:19] petitioner staff members uh any

[4:21] questions or make comments um we uh in

[4:25] the order of presentation here we are

[4:26] still uh considering Appel and testimony

[4:28] and Evans given by Mr Blitz once that's

[4:31] completed I will move to Mr pound M Mr

[4:33] pounds for his testimony and evidence

[4:35] from any staff um at which point in time

[4:38] after all that the public will get their

[4:40] chance to um be heard um once the public

[4:43] is done we'll move to summary statements

[4:45] um at which point we will close off and

[4:47] begin of deliberation so as normal if

[4:49] you came to have your voice heard it

[4:50] will probably not happen tonight uh we

[4:53] are accepting written comments at any

[4:55] time whether you'd like to leave them

[4:56] here with us in paper form or submit

[4:58] them via email to the Town staff members

[5:00] any of those are fine or you can hold

[5:02] them and give them verbally whenever it

[5:04] is time for um public

[5:07] statements uh okay

[5:10] um

[5:12] yes heard something I didn't fully

[5:15] understand yeah you you said that those

[5:18] that signed up as a party would be able

[5:20] to ask questions of a someone who

[5:24] testifies at the conclusion of their

[5:26] testimony yep at the conclusion of

[5:28] testimony of their testimony yes and and

[5:31] you and you uh you said that all

[5:33] questions had to be directed to the

[5:35] board so I wouldn't be asked yeah you

[5:37] you kind of um yes you could also said

[5:41] that public comment wouldn't be tonight

[5:44] but it sounds like if he ends his

[5:46] testimony yes public comment would be

[5:48] tonight it's not necessarily comment but

[5:50] it's questioning the questioning the

[5:52] witness is permitted yes questioning the

[5:55] W thank you questioning the witness

[5:58] about the witnesses testimony

[6:01] yes uh okay thank you yeah um so uh

[6:06] before we continue with this actual case

[6:08] we are still kind of in a holding

[6:11] pattern to address an objection that was

[6:13] raised by uh Mr pounds on November

[6:16] 14th um at the conclusion of our last

[6:19] meeting we decided that we were going to

[6:20] pull up a video um from uh the sessions

[6:25] at which um Mr Blitz and others the oath

[6:31] um and we were going to review that

[6:34] video and then the board was going to

[6:35] discuss whether or not we thought there

[6:37] were any problems um whether or not Mr

[6:39] Mr blit Mr Blitz did or did not take the

[6:42] oath um to tell the whole truth and all

[6:45] that jazz so

[6:47] um we are going to pass it off to St uh

[6:50] Town staff to play a video that is as

[6:53] condensed as we could possibly make it

[6:56] concerning all relevant sections

[6:58] regarding

[7:00] uh the oath to Witnesses or to members

[7:03] in this room so uh let's start

[7:06] there just getting that into the record

[7:09] that's why I call them proforma these

[7:10] first three are just kind of need to

[7:15] be so I'm GNA begin um testimony

[7:20] um with uh Mr Paul Woodburn um Paul

[7:23] would you've come up to the lecturn to

[7:25] answer these questions so that you can

[7:27] be

[7:28] heard

[7:32] for anybody attending and the and

[7:34] speaking from the audience Please be

[7:36] aware that we're going to do a blanket

[7:37] swearing in right now okay um if you

[7:40] come and speak to the lect and please uh

[7:42] note your name down on uh any any sheet

[7:46] um along with your name address and uh

[7:48] who you represent or if you're speaking

[7:49] on your own behalf obviously witness um

[7:52] so as for the swearing in for anybody

[7:54] stepping to lean please know uh do you

[7:56] solemnly swear or affirm under the

[7:58] penalty of perjury that the testimony

[7:59] you're about to give and the responses

[8:01] and statements you're about to make be

[8:03] the whole truth and nothing but the

[8:04] truth I

[8:07] do thank

[8:10] you

[8:12] um Mr Woodburn um just if Mr W is G be

[8:17] testifying as a fact when this we can

[8:18] proceed forward but if he indeed is

[8:20] going to be expressing an opinion such

[8:22] as an expert witness obviously we're

[8:24] going to be you know objecting to that

[8:26] as well as the fact that I'm probably

[8:28] going to avoid the error uh

[8:29] uh on his request to issue any opinions

[8:33] are there any further questions aside

[8:35] from based upon his limited testimony of

[8:37] what he's gone so far nothing more

[8:40] obviously there will be more when he

[8:41] comes we'll have another chance when he

[8:43] adds a substantial

[8:45] commentary thank you Mr Woodburn um so

[8:50] the board's going to need to consider

[8:51] the legal context of what is happening

[8:53] in this case so I'll I'll start with an

[8:55] explanation of that

[8:58] um with are you testifying no I'm giving

[9:01] the pre I'm giving my

[9:03] presentation and my please let me speak

[9:07] Mr cannot give you legal opinions uh

[9:11] with regard to that as Mr susman but as

[9:14] far as him you know having legal

[9:16] opinions to the board that's that's

[9:18] completely improper I'm going to object

[9:20] right now to the entire process of of

[9:24] interrupting our case at every turn

[9:26] solely for the reason of interruption

[9:30] objection that's not I am presenting an

[9:32] argument can I please finish

[9:36] present I get to make a

[9:39] presentation as I bring in evidence I

[9:42] can explain the legal context of what we

[9:46] our cases about to make the legal

[9:48] argument so that you understand the

[9:51] context of all the evidence that will

[9:53] come in a big part of this case is a

[9:56] legal argument this is an appeal on

[9:59] alleged error so I need to explain to

[10:02] you as a board and I need to convince

[10:04] you if I'm going to be successful of the

[10:06] merits of those things we're going to be

[10:09] bringing a lot of legal arguments

[10:11] because that's what you're going to have

[10:12] to decide you're going to have to decide

[10:14] whether the Planning and Zoning

[10:16] commission and the zoning administrators

[10:18] failure to process site plans and the

[10:20] reasons for that were in error that's

[10:23] the case so I'm going to be talking a

[10:26] lot of Law and explaining what our

[10:28] position on the law is I'm not giving an

[10:30] opinion to you about the law Mr susman

[10:33] can always weigh in if you have

[10:35] questions about the law or questions

[10:37] about what I say but I get to present a

[10:39] case and it shouldn't be interrupted at

[10:42] every turn when all I'm doing is

[10:44] presenting basic

[10:50] case how you continue on this okay um

[10:53] before going uh back to where we left

[10:56] off um Mr pounds has requested

[10:59] uh to enter an objection before we begin

[11:02] thank you this is an objection I wanted

[11:04] to make for you know future purposes for

[11:07] uh appeal purposes and also for the

[11:09] status of the hearing itself so um uh Mr

[11:13] chair uh members of the council good

[11:14] evening my name is Todd pounds and I

[11:16] represent the town of chesp beach

[11:18] basically uh Mr chair members of the

[11:21] council this is a hearing uh you know as

[11:23] all of you know uh a hearing is designed

[11:26] to have testimony which is sworn which

[11:29] is presented which is uh given by

[11:31] individuals under oath uh in fact Mr

[11:35] susman raised it a couple of hearings

[11:37] ago asking Mr Blitz indeed if he was

[11:39] going to be having sworn testimony

[11:41] presented uh and also there's been

[11:43] members of the public who have also

[11:45] asked whether indeed testimony was going

[11:47] to be presented that hasn't happened uh

[11:50] basically we have been know listening to

[11:53] uh where we spent what is now multiple

[11:56] hours uh which is going to be more

[11:58] multiple couple hours tonight uh which

[12:01] I'm going to use the term droning on and

[12:02] on regarding n a non-sworn testimony

[12:06] with regard to um items which are

[12:09] basically his opinion uh this is this is

[12:11] not evidence uh as a result none of this

[12:14] is evidence uh going on and on uh does

[12:18] not present evidence especially when you

[12:20] know the individual giving this is not

[12:22] sworn and inde this is not evidence for

[12:26] you considering at all with regard to

[12:29] really any any typee of deliberation or

[12:32] any type of giving in opinions at all

[12:34] these are in essence arguments and

[12:36] opinions but it is not evidence um in

[12:39] fact any evidence which just been

[12:41] presented uh so far in the multiple

[12:43] hours is almost none uh because if you

[12:46] only look at what the sworn testimony

[12:48] would have been furthermore uh an

[12:51] exhibit book was presented uh which

[12:53] shows minutes uh of hearings before the

[12:57] Town Council uh and also before the

[12:59] board of uh before the Planning

[13:01] Commission well those minutes you know

[13:03] theoretically are here say uh because in

[13:05] essence they're uh they were developed

[13:08] and written by someone else who observed

[13:11] it but but and they are not in essence

[13:15] uh evidence in and of themselves so any

[13:18] of that should be also considered

[13:20] irrelevant uh the video which we saw

[13:23] which was a video of a council you know

[13:25] meeting goes on to state that indeed

[13:28] what their opinions are and and what's

[13:31] opinions going on with regard to the

[13:32] council but indeed is not uh evidence

[13:36] unless in indeed it is for the

[13:38] considerations and ultimately what the

[13:40] decisions uh would would be so in

[13:42] essence we uh uh are have and we will

[13:46] continue to spend uh many hours uh

[13:49] listening to Mr Blitz basically go on

[13:51] and on about nothing more in his opinion

[13:54] uh in his in his belief that's not

[13:56] evidence that is not evidence for you to

[13:58] be considering that's not evidence for

[14:00] you know you to in any way be reviewing

[14:03] uh with regard to this case this is uh

[14:06] nothing but UNS sworen statements of

[14:08] someone who is not a party uh and there

[14:10] nothing more than expressing their

[14:12] opinion but worse what concerns me is

[14:16] half truth which is given with regard to

[14:18] these opinions you know we spent a half

[14:20] an hour last meeting talking about the

[14:23] referendum under C- 311 and how certain

[14:28] rights Mr Donovan were violated as a

[14:30] result of this him not being able to do

[14:33] certain things well under the you know

[14:36] and and the board you know let the

[14:38] testimony go on but in essence the H the

[14:42] Hal truth was the fact that he didn't

[14:44] have any rights under C11 okay basically

[14:48] in order for him to have a right any

[14:49] rights under the referendum Not only

[14:51] would have to he would have to be

[14:53] involved but also it would have to be at

[14:56] least 50% of the total number of Voters

[14:59] who voted in the last regular preceding

[15:02] regular Town election uh as such you

[15:05] know if if we're going to be making

[15:07] these statements and Broad statements

[15:08] going on expressing opinions which are

[15:11] un not sworn testimony you know we at

[15:14] least have to be tell telling the truth

[15:16] with regard to what's in the ordinance

[15:18] as opposed to in essence only picking

[15:20] and choosing things that he believes is

[15:22] his in his best interest um

[15:27] uh

[15:32] so again uh the fact that we are

[15:34] spending multiple hours with as limited

[15:37] to almost no evidence actual evidence

[15:40] being presented to the board other than

[15:43] uh unsworn testimony is simply not

[15:45] proper and I'm making the objection uh

[15:47] with regard to that also you know uh uh

[15:50] various statements were made with regard

[15:52] to the book uh for the statutes and code

[15:55] and also uh sections were stated to the

[15:58] board that in essence you know for

[16:01] opinions by the court of appeals the

[16:03] court of appeals was the old Court in

[16:05] the highest court in the state of

[16:06] Maryland now called the Supreme Court uh

[16:09] in the cases that that were were and and

[16:12] and it was asked that indeed you make an

[16:14] interpretation as to the opinions of the

[16:18] highest court in the state of Maryland

[16:19] well ladies and gentlemen if you're a

[16:21] judge in the in the court you can't do

[16:24] that okay you know you you're making

[16:26] interpretations as to what the highest

[16:28] the uh state says for a judge is

[16:32] improper especially even more improper

[16:35] would be that of an administrative board

[16:37] so there and even worse than that was

[16:39] the fact that and I wrote it down he

[16:42] said that in in essence you know if you

[16:46] uh uh look at I want to get the exact

[16:49] phrasing that was

[16:51] done it was asking you to follow the

[16:54] logic okay which says well the case

[16:56] isn't on point but I want to show to you

[16:59] and you should interpret what the

[17:00] highest court in this court is uh

[17:02] staying for an Essence for some

[17:03] particular purpose I me that is just

[17:06] absolutely completely uh improper to be

[17:09] doing any of that so basically you know

[17:12] what uh what in essence the applicant is

[17:16] ultimately ex asking you to do is to do

[17:18] things which are beyond your ability uh

[17:21] and the ability of an administrative

[17:22] board to review uh things that are not

[17:24] on point you know with regard to that uh

[17:27] that inter ration of that language so

[17:30] basically uh preliminarily I'm going to

[17:32] move that in essence all the testimony

[17:35] was stricken should be stricken from

[17:37] last meeting because it is nothing but

[17:40] expressions of opinion and statements of

[17:43] someone who's unsworn someone who is uh

[17:46] not a party to the case and someone who

[17:48] is just uh stating his opinions as to

[17:51] any testimony which which should be in

[17:54] the proper uh way that a hearing should

[17:56] be conducted thank you thank you one

[18:08] moment at the first hearing an oath was

[18:11] administered to people in

[18:14] attendance my recollection and please

[18:16] tell me if I'm wrong that you also uh SW

[18:20] it to

[18:22] that I recollection correct or wrong it

[18:24] is

[18:27] correct

[18:29] I'm going to be calling Mr Blitz as a

[18:31] witness I'm going to be calling Mr Blitz

[18:33] as a

[18:34] witness that's up to

[18:36] you um in my opinion this issue would

[18:40] not have occurred if a formal ordinance

[18:43] had been used rather than a simple

[18:45] resolution Mr Blitz is going to State

[18:48] his opinion we need to designate as an

[18:49] expert okay I'll be frank I'm sitting

[18:51] here wondering and I'm going to have the

[18:53] video going forward I don't remember him

[18:55] being sworn in at the beginning and if

[18:58] he and if he represented that he was and

[19:00] he wasn't we're going to we're going to

[19:02] be addressing that as another problem

[19:04] but if he's going to be expressing his

[19:05] opinion at this point he's gonna be

[19:07] designated as an expert and I I'll

[19:10] withdraw the opinion it's not

[19:12] critical and if you would like to swear

[19:14] me now we can do that start all over

[19:17] again with regard the T no I'm merely

[19:20] saying if you if you have if the board

[19:22] not you

[19:23] Mr if the board has questions I I'll

[19:27] clearly be sworn again if if that the

[19:29] board feels it's necessary and just so I

[19:31] have this right the opinion is withdrawn

[19:33] we're continuing

[19:41] on uh okay um so at this

[19:45] point um I think the board has a couple

[19:49] options um the first one I'm

[19:54] yeah

[19:56] okay first um I'm going to formally

[20:00] object to the playing of the video

[20:02] without including the clips that I

[20:04] requested be

[20:06] added uh one of those clips was

[20:11] testimony

[20:14] from I believe it was October 30th I've

[20:18] got it written down hold

[20:26] on where

[20:29] Mr pound I mean Mr suspen interrupted to

[20:33] ask whether I was offering evidence and

[20:37] I

[20:38] submitted uh to them at that time that I

[20:41] had been sworn

[20:44] and agreed to be uh sworn again that's

[20:48] not the clip that was there in

[20:51] addition he just had played the entire

[20:54] argument of Mr pounds on the motion

[20:58] without including my

[21:01] counterargument it's simply unfair for

[21:04] the board to sit there and listen

[21:06] to an argument that wasn't about the the

[21:10] swearing in but was all about the case

[21:13] and his opinion Mr pound's opinion that

[21:16] what I've been providing is not

[21:19] testimony if it wasn't testimony you

[21:21] wouldn't need to be sworn in I agree

[21:23] that 95% of what I've provided has not

[21:26] been testimony it has been legal

[21:29] argument that doesn't need to be sworn

[21:31] in

[21:33] so first I I make that objection with

[21:36] respect to the failure to provide the

[21:39] information that I asked to be included

[21:42] this

[21:43] morning

[21:45] um second I'd like to Mr pounds has made

[21:48] a motion to exclude

[21:50] evidence that's what this motion

[21:54] is um as the clip showed there was a

[21:57] blanket squaring in of everyone with no

[22:01] formality as to indicate who was being

[22:03] sworn in the only person that responded

[22:06] at that time was Mr Woodburn at the

[22:09] lectern but that blanking blanket

[22:11] swearing in included everyone who was to

[22:14] testify including members of the

[22:16] public there was no formality of verbal

[22:19] response standing or raising one's hand

[22:21] required of any of these parties but

[22:24] most important for the purp purposes of

[22:25] Mr pound's motion there was no formality

[22:29] as to the identity of those who were

[22:31] being sworn you had a bunch of people

[22:33] out in the public who were also being

[22:35] sworn at the same

[22:36] time do we have any practical way of

[22:38] testing whether members of the public

[22:40] were properly sworn in during that

[22:42] blanket swearing in other than their

[22:45] presence none of them said I do or make

[22:48] any other verbal indication that was

[22:51] demonstrated their oath as in that

[22:54] clip I believe I was sworn in with

[22:57] everybody else s in the blanket swearing

[22:59] in and the rod and Rio can't be

[23:01] prejudiced by the lack of formality that

[23:04] this board employed to exclude some

[23:06] witnesses over others or some testimony

[23:09] over others all of whom were subject to

[23:11] the same blanket swearing in

[23:14] process you will notice that Mr Donovan

[23:18] was also not standing or taking any

[23:20] demonstrable Act of formality with

[23:22] respect to the blanket swearing in yet

[23:25] he was allowed to testify on October

[23:27] 30th here ing based upon the prior

[23:29] blanket swearing in of all the witnesses

[23:32] on September 19th the only standard was

[23:35] whether he was present during the

[23:36] blanket swearing in which Mr susman at

[23:39] that time confirmed prior to the start

[23:41] of Mr Donovan's

[23:44] testimony later during the presentation

[23:48] um in the hearing of September 19th Mr

[23:50] susman asked if I was going to be

[23:52] providing the evidence of a statement I

[23:54] just made about the lateness of the

[23:56] comprehensive plan that's the one I was

[23:57] referring to that I asked to be

[24:00] included this is where I made a mistake

[24:03] because I should have simply said yes we

[24:05] were going to introduce an ordinance and

[24:06] resolution that adopted the 2010 and

[24:09] 2022 plan uh which were eventually

[24:12] introduced and admitted is exhibit 31

[24:15] that showed those dates um furthermore

[24:19] because it involved official actions of

[24:21] agencies of the town of chesek beach the

[24:24] board could simply have taken judicial

[24:25] notice of those instead of pointing that

[24:28] out I proferred that I believed I had

[24:30] been sworn in but offered to be reworn

[24:33] right then and there I raised my right

[24:35] hand I asked I even asked the board as

[24:39] they moved past that question whether we

[24:42] were okay with

[24:44] whether there was an issue of me being

[24:46] sworn before proceeding and the didn't

[24:49] get a response from the board primarily

[24:51] because Mr pounds continued with a

[24:52] different argument at the

[24:54] time

[24:56] um importantly

[24:58] Mr pounds did not raise the issue of me

[25:00] being sworn in then or the form of the

[25:03] swearing in when it was clearly time to

[25:06] do

[25:08] so there was a substantial degree of

[25:10] informality in the board's approach to

[25:12] squaring in and that's fine that H often

[25:15] happens in administrative hearing

[25:17] contexts where the rules of evidence and

[25:20] procedures for Testimony don't apply

[25:23] they're not the same as what what you

[25:24] would do in a court your own rule of

[25:27] procedure in section 14 subsection D

[25:30] notes that wide latitude that is given

[25:32] to

[25:34] Witnesses the rod and reel should not be

[25:36] prejudiced by the exclusion of evidence

[25:38] based upon that informality in the

[25:40] squaring in

[25:43] process Mr pounds also seeks the

[25:45] exclusion of all evidence up to the

[25:47] point in the previous hearing without

[25:49] distinguishing any of the evidence from

[25:52] that was offered in Prior hearings the

[25:54] over breath of his requested relief

[25:57] excluding all evidence in blanket form

[25:59] is telling for several

[26:03] reasons Mr Pal's argument makes to the

[26:06] asks the board to accept what I believe

[26:08] is a faulty

[26:09] premise from the very first hearing and

[26:12] now again uh not I shouldn't say now in

[26:15] the clip you just watched which was last

[26:20] hearing um he conflates the entirety of

[26:24] my presentation in an administrative

[26:27] hearing with testimony that would be

[26:29] need to be sworn it is not testimony to

[26:31] draw to the board's attention an

[26:34] ordinance a state statute or case law

[26:37] and to point out what parts of those

[26:38] sources of legal Authority uh apply or

[26:41] relevant to the issues in the case it's

[26:43] not testimony to explain the meaning of

[26:45] those legal authorities as the Roden

[26:48] Regal's position on that it is not

[26:50] testimony to explain the Roden reel

[26:52] position on the effect of an ordinance

[26:54] or statute um in the actions

[26:59] of administrative

[27:02] agencies that we are raising the appeal

[27:05] about it's merely the presentation of

[27:07] the elements of the argument that

[27:09] supports the rod reel's position that

[27:11] there was an administrative error that's

[27:13] a legal judgment with we're which we're

[27:15] asking this board to make it's not

[27:18] testimony when I submit government

[27:19] documents into evidence we now have 51

[27:23] exhibits all of which have been

[27:24] introduced some of which had objections

[27:27] and were ruled at that time I believe

[27:29] one or two were the objections were

[27:32] sustained uh including at the last

[27:35] hearing

[27:36] um but we have of all those exhibits

[27:41] most of them are minutes agendas reports

[27:43] of public officials to the Town Council

[27:45] and official correspondence received

[27:48] from the town you don't need a

[27:50] sponsoring witness for such documents in

[27:54] an administrative hearing like you would

[27:56] in a court case because hearsay isn't an

[27:59] issue the only reason you need a

[28:00] sponsoring witness is when there's

[28:01] hearsay

[28:03] rules you know typical court case those

[28:07] government documents can come in usually

[28:09] by stipulation but also can can be

[28:10] certified and it comes under a hearsay

[28:14] exception it's not testimony when I

[28:17] point out which parts of those documents

[28:19] I'm drawing the board's testimony to

[28:21] which is n just I'm just relying on your

[28:24] memory that's 90% of what I was doing

[28:27] showing you statutes pointing out what I

[28:29] think is relevant showing you minutes

[28:31] pointing out what I think is relevant

[28:33] those are legal arguments about the

[28:35] evidence that I just

[28:38] submitted it's not testimony when I

[28:42] explain why a document is important to

[28:44] our case um it's the presentation of the

[28:47] Ron rail's

[28:49] lawyer this as I will remind you again

[28:52] is a challenge the legality of the

[28:55] failure of the zoning administrator and

[28:56] planning and zoning Commission

[28:57] to undertake the required site plan

[29:00] review so it's not surprising that there

[29:03] would be a presentation of why various

[29:06] ordinances and statutes are relevant and

[29:09] how they impact the

[29:17] case I'd like to point out that Mr

[29:20] pound's argument is basically trying to

[29:23] relitigate the very same questions that

[29:26] the board has already ruled upon this

[29:29] was already raised that there were

[29:31] challenges in the very first

[29:33] hearing was I

[29:37] providing evidence should it be admitted

[29:40] and I made the argument no this is

[29:42] argument this is me pointing to

[29:45] obviously the exhibits are evidence my

[29:48] arguments about those documents are not

[29:51] testimony they're the

[29:55] arguments the conse quence of any

[29:58] failure to properly be sworn had to be

[30:00] raised at the time I was offering the

[30:02] evidence to make a motion to exclude

[30:04] that

[30:05] evidence and as part of that

[30:08] objection becomes part of the record for

[30:12] which any subsequent review determines

[30:15] whether it should have whether that was

[30:18] material evidence allowed or not allowed

[30:23] um the board's own rules of procedure

[30:26] require the the objections be made in a

[30:28] timely manner in section 14 subsection e

[30:33] it reads objections to testimony must be

[30:36] made at the time the information is

[30:37] presented or they will be considered

[30:41] waved Mr pound say now many hearings

[30:43] later seeking to object to all that

[30:45] evidence previously admitted without

[30:48] distinguishing between what needs

[30:50] testimony and what does not and ignoring

[30:53] the obligation to raise that objection

[30:55] at the time and I would as I said he did

[30:58] raise the objection and was

[31:11] overruled Hound's also tries to convert

[31:15] my arguments about case law as legal

[31:18] opinions as though I'm giving you an

[31:20] opinion I'm making an

[31:22] argument the case that he referenced

[31:26] well he didn't reference the case but

[31:28] that he was talking to me about talking

[31:30] about my arguments

[31:31] about was one that said that the length

[31:36] of the

[31:38] moratorium required the full context to

[31:41] be considered all I was saying was that

[31:45] in this case for you to consider the

[31:47] context

[31:49] of

[31:51] the all the evidence that we were

[31:54] providing to determine whether that

[31:56] duration of the moratorium was that

[32:00] issue Mr pounds continues to try to

[32:03] convert this administrative proceeding

[32:06] into a trial and it's just not set up to

[32:09] for such a

[32:10] proceeding even in a variance or special

[32:12] exception case that you would typically

[32:14] handle the board would hear from the

[32:16] applicant about the impact of various

[32:19] ordinances or case law that are to be

[32:22] applied and that occurs throughout the

[32:24] presentation it's not some form of

[32:27] formal closing where you're do what like

[32:30] you would do in a court where there's a

[32:32] clear bifurcation between between EV the

[32:35] period of evidence and then thing it's

[32:37] done all at the same time in

[32:38] administrative proceedings you don't

[32:41] have a closing in administrative

[32:43] proceedings like a trial it's a

[32:46] summation your your rules of procedure

[32:48] even call it that that's what it is is

[32:50] is merely a summation but it's not all

[32:53] of the legal arguments you make those

[32:55] arguments throughout the proceeding

[32:57] and by making those arguments I'm not

[32:59] giving an

[33:01] opinion that would require expertise I'm

[33:04] making the legal arguments just like any

[33:06] lawyer would make in any

[33:09] case I want to make one final practical

[33:12] point about so much of the documentary

[33:15] evidence that has already been submitted

[33:17] so far um I designed the presentation to

[33:22] provide the context for each document as

[33:25] I sought to have them admitted

[33:27] I designed the order of presentation to

[33:30] either follow a timeline so the board

[33:32] could follow the events as they unfolded

[33:35] or to provide the legal context of why

[33:38] various statutes and ordinances that I

[33:40] was pointing to were relevant this is a

[33:43] reasonably complex case so I thought

[33:46] this was the best way to present the

[33:48] information in a manner that you could

[33:50] digest the documentary evidence as it

[33:52] was

[33:54] presented the Practical alternative

[33:57] is to just submit exhibit after exhibit

[33:59] or all the exhibits on Moss to which

[34:02] there would no doubt have been

[34:04] objections as to the relevance so I

[34:06] would have literally been making all the

[34:08] same points yet be doing so in the

[34:11] context of

[34:13] objections and you don't have to do that

[34:15] in an administrative

[34:18] proceeding you can you get to integrate

[34:20] argument with the thing and

[34:23] therefore I would say that Mr P pound's

[34:25] motion to exclude evidence should be

[34:28] denied as

[34:29] untimely and over Brad uh the exclusion

[34:33] of all evidence is way over broad at the

[34:37] at the very least his motion should have

[34:39] identified the particular evidence that

[34:42] he

[34:44] thought needed to be sworn testimony and

[34:47] that I had given

[34:51] um and that hasn't been

[34:54] done um so I'll conclude there thanks

[34:58] okay um before you before you start um

[35:00] we are about two objections deep so far

[35:03] so top level objection is was to the

[35:05] swearing in of Mr Blitz which is the

[35:07] initial the blocker right now at the top

[35:09] level we then had a follow-up objection

[35:12] U by Mr Blitz as to the contents of the

[35:15] video um which I am going to overrule

[35:18] but also advise the board to take his

[35:21] comments into consideration um that was

[35:23] a bit of an objection with extra in

[35:27] there so do please take uh take Mr blit

[35:30] the contents of Mr blitz's objection

[35:32] into account um with that I would like

[35:35] to get back to the first objection of as

[35:37] to whether or not um to the swearing in

[35:42] but given all that's happened I'm going

[35:44] to stop and ask a question of Mr pounds

[35:48] briefly without the context of

[35:50] objections is there anything else you

[35:52] would like to add at this point and then

[35:53] I would really like to hear from the

[35:55] rest of the board so you have a couple

[35:57] minutes uh

[35:59] oh okay so basically okay is there any

[36:03] is there any additional information

[36:05] aside from we heard most of your

[36:06] original objection we've heard a bit of

[36:08] counter from uh Mr Blitz is there

[36:10] anything you would like to add to that

[36:12] briefly at this time and I will be brief

[36:15] basically uh I like to present to the

[36:17] board and state what does it mean to

[36:19] swear in I mean what what does that mean

[36:21] and is there any rules of law that uh

[36:24] require as far as swearing it in and the

[36:26] law

[36:27] under the Maryland General Provisions

[36:29] 1-33 because that's the only thing

[36:31] really addresses what swearing in means

[36:35] the person making an oath shall solemnly

[36:37] swear or affirm it doesn't say you can

[36:40] just stay stay quiet it doesn't say that

[36:42] you can just accept it you have to

[36:44] affirmatively do something to say yes as

[36:47] Mr Woodburn did he said yes uh he's

[36:50] going to swear to tell the truth what's

[36:52] interesting is he didn't raise his right

[36:54] hand which is a custom that we have in

[36:58] in the United States and I did do some

[36:59] research to find out if that is part of

[37:02] the law and I have found that it is part

[37:04] of the law but it is a custom that we

[37:06] have in the United States so I can't say

[37:08] that that was a violation but I've never

[37:10] seen it done in which you don't raise

[37:13] your right hand but at least Mr wurn did

[37:15] say yes he will tell the truth I think

[37:18] we all saw the video Mr Blitz did not

[37:20] say that at all okay with regard to any

[37:23] type of testimony at all and um so again

[37:26] law as far as the rules the person

[37:29] making a nose shall solemnly swear or

[37:32] affirm it doesn't mean you can just sit

[37:34] there and stay quiet and then somehow

[37:37] accept that as being a blanket U

[37:39] swearing yourself in now also you know

[37:43] and and Mr Blitz has said it a number of

[37:45] times you know I'm trying to create that

[37:47] I'm trying to create some type of trial

[37:51] uh in this now I'm trying to set up a

[37:52] mechanism to make sure everybody's

[37:53] telling the truth okay that is it uh and

[37:56] the fact that you know we've gone on and

[37:59] on with these dissertations in which

[38:01] you're not sworn uh you just can't have

[38:04] that and one of the things that um um

[38:09] uh you know is and and what's

[38:12] interesting is is and I've said it a few

[38:14] times is these little twists with regard

[38:17] to the you know trying to compare

[38:19] testimony that he that supposedly

[38:21] testimony he given with regard to the

[38:23] books those documents are in evidence

[38:26] those are in evidence those those

[38:27] documents are done they're in evidence

[38:29] you can certainly review those do

[38:32] whatever whatever you want to do with

[38:34] them those have those been accepted

[38:36] question is all these other statements

[38:38] that have been made by Mr Blitz on and

[38:39] on and on and I think on the testimony I

[38:42] said just the last hearing this should

[38:44] go back for this his entire hearing okay

[38:46] with everything he has said so basically

[38:48] we have evidence and then we have

[38:49] basically his dissertations as to you

[38:52] know what they were simply are not

[38:54] evidence for you to consider and that's

[38:55] what this is okay basically in making

[38:58] your uh decisions you are to review

[39:01] evidence not any types of dissertations

[39:03] that he's going to be making at all

[39:07] um and and so basically and there's the

[39:10] comments about you know way you can't

[39:12] have a waiver with regard to telling the

[39:14] truth okay you can't say oh well you

[39:15] didn't catch it at the beginning and

[39:17] therefore it's a waiver no you can't do

[39:19] that especially the fact that stud on

[39:21] the video even Mr susman brought it up

[39:24] and brought up the fact that are you

[39:26] testifying here and he said yes well we

[39:28] have a problem because now he has made a

[39:30] formal statement an admission to the

[39:33] board which is absolutely untrue and

[39:37] that is a problem okay I'm not going to

[39:40] say you know any type of things but the

[39:42] fact that that in essence with regard to

[39:44] the testimony that's being said supposed

[39:46] testimony and then making an affirmative

[39:48] statement also to the board is

[39:50] absolutely a problem and not valid um uh

[39:54] so in in essence

[39:56] what was interesting is that that

[39:59] objection that I made that Mr susman

[40:02] indicated that I seem to have remembered

[40:06] okay and that's fine uh but he

[40:08] definitively asked Mr Blitz if he made

[40:10] that statement and Mr Blitz indeed said

[40:12] it was so uh you know that's what you're

[40:16] trying to do here is just just so we all

[40:19] are on the same page and that everybody

[40:21] and I can tell you this as far as

[40:22] anybody coming up here that I call

[40:25] they're going to get sworn at okay

[40:26] that's I mean that's a given um uh you

[40:30] know as far as some blanket and I can

[40:32] appreciate the fact blanket if you it's

[40:34] a small hearing but a large hearing like

[40:36] this for multiple times going on you

[40:38] know people are coming and going people

[40:40] may be here one night not here another

[40:42] night if they're coming up and their

[40:44] names on the list they're going to get

[40:45] sworn it again thank you Mr chair thank

[40:47] you um board has heard a lot on this um

[40:52] the first question for the board is do

[40:55] we feel like we want to go into a brief

[40:57] Clos session to discuss discuss legal

[41:01] options with Council or do we feel well

[41:04] informed enough to deliberate as we

[41:09] sit

[41:13] opinions I I do not feel the need to go

[41:16] in a closed

[41:17] session we can deliberate and that we

[41:20] might have to go into a closed session

[41:22] based

[41:22] onate for the next move but I think we

[41:25] can continue

[41:26] yeah I think we

[41:28] continue um okay

[41:31] so um I guess where to start

[41:36] um initially this seemed to be whether

[41:40] the the question right here seem to be

[41:42] whether or not we could determine if Mr

[41:45] Blitz clearly took the oath clearly

[41:46] didn't take the oath or kind of no

[41:48] evidence either way um from there we can

[41:52] move on to questions of is the informal

[41:56] blanket oath enough or are there you

[42:00] know opinions

[42:03] thoughts I'm not going to start this one

[42:04] I don't overwhelm everybody so feel free

[42:07] to

[42:08] uh like strong opinion I think I'm

[42:11] confident in my opinion want me to start

[42:13] yeah h on um so it's my opinion if we're

[42:18] discussing whether he SP took the oath

[42:20] let took the oath it's my opinion that

[42:23] the video makes it clear that he did not

[42:26] and by his own admission right now he

[42:28] said nobody else except for Mr Woodburn

[42:30] did implying that he did not um so I

[42:33] don't think he took

[42:35] de for that aspect that's my take

[42:39] on Mr Bliss pointed this out there was a

[42:43] point in on the September 19th

[42:48] meeting which was not in the

[42:50] clip where Mr Blitz

[42:53] was presenting some information

[42:57] and Mr susman asked him if he was

[42:59] testifying and if so did he uh take an

[43:02] oath is he willing to take an oath and

[43:05] Mr

[43:07] Blitz I heard him said raise his right

[43:10] hand I do affirm the facts or something

[43:12] to that effect and then things went P by

[43:16] past that very

[43:18] quickly it was very

[43:20] informal but that's how we've been

[43:23] operating I mean I would accept that

[43:26] Point as Mr

[43:28] Blitz taking an

[43:33] oath I'm just I'm going by that video

[43:36] because you can hear you can hear him

[43:38] while he's standing you can hear him

[43:40] when he's sitting and when oath was

[43:41] taken he turned to Donovan which looked

[43:44] like he was trying to tell him I I agree

[43:47] with that yeah I agree I say there was

[43:50] there was a point which was not in that

[43:53] clip where I would say Mr Blitz did take

[43:57] a oath although it was very for informal

[43:59] very

[44:01] quick you know and there's another

[44:04] statement I'll make you know a lot of uh

[44:08] a discussion about evidence whether this

[44:10] is evidence whether it's a

[44:13] narrative the the documents are

[44:18] evidence we

[44:20] can't accept those documents with

[44:23] without some sort of

[44:25] explanation

[44:27] and I in my

[44:28] opinion almost all of what Mr Blitz has

[44:33] been saying in these three or four

[44:36] meetings has been an

[44:38] explanation why these documents are

[44:41] relevant I would not call it

[44:46] testimony and therefore didn't formally

[44:48] require an

[44:50] oath there were a few times I think

[44:53] where Mr Blitz stated an opinion which

[44:56] you know cross that cross over into

[44:59] testimony um but I don't think those

[45:02] instances were were I I think they were

[45:05] rare I don't think they were

[45:09] significant but I would be willing to

[45:13] accept everything that's presented been

[45:16] presented so

[45:20] far even did you say you started to say

[45:22] something in that yeah I agree with Amy

[45:24] um there was no swearing I

[45:27] mean very impr

[45:29] prompt video clearly shows it the video

[45:32] clearly shows it there was no swearing

[45:35] in if that's what we're discussing here

[45:37] that's the main topic there was

[45:39] not think what's left to be decided then

[45:42] if there is missing video did it happen

[45:47] after I mean if that's if that is the

[45:49] case well I would say I would say that I

[45:54] would also say that

[45:58] Mr Blitz

[46:01] as's

[46:04] attorney does he need to be sworn in if

[46:06] he's not presenting

[46:09] testimony and and I don't believe the

[46:11] majority of what Mr Blitz has said so

[46:14] far has been

[46:16] testimony just explaining these

[46:21] exhibits that we've been

[46:24] given the um what Mr Blitz said today

[46:28] which I I think is apt is that up until

[46:32] this point in time our board has

[46:33] typically had one person Gallery um this

[46:37] is by far the most formal and the most

[46:39] attended of our meetings and we started

[46:42] it off as if it were like all the others

[46:44] which it quite clearly is not um if we

[46:48] were to go back and say we did it wrong

[46:51] and that this swearing in is

[46:53] Meaningful and um we would effectively

[46:56] be penalizing Mr Blitz for what he's

[46:58] done uh so far due to our

[47:03] informality so I kind of I hear there

[47:06] was no AB there was absolutely no direct

[47:08] swearing in but as we've seen

[47:11] most didn't um with a rare exception of

[47:16] people who stepped to the Le Lector

[47:17] right when we admitted the oath um so

[47:21] I'm hesitant to punish him for our lack

[47:26] of um

[47:28] rigor so

[47:30] i' i'

[47:37] yeah well as I as I said

[47:40] earlier um I think there were only a

[47:43] very few

[47:44] times when Mr blitz's statement

[47:49] statements crossed over as

[47:53] testimony and so I don't think I don't

[47:56] think it was

[47:57] significant

[48:00] um I would be willing to

[48:03] accept and also again the September 19th

[48:07] meeting there was a

[48:08] point where Mr Blitz raised his hand

[48:12] said I do

[48:14] affirm don't remember the exact

[48:17] words but that being said I'd be willing

[48:22] to

[48:23] accept uh some type of r ractive

[48:26] swearing

[48:27] in of Mr

[48:29] Blitz to cover our

[48:34] bases I have mixed feelings I think that

[48:38] in the efficiency of time in this

[48:41] specific instance it can make sense

[48:43] because if we don't then we're going to

[48:46] hear all this yes and we already have

[48:49] significant time invested in this and

[48:51] the community wants the response right

[48:53] um but I also don't want to set a

[48:55] precedence that this is okay um I think

[48:57] the underlying thing that bothers me is

[49:00] that we've heard from Mr Blitz multiple

[49:03] times that he insists he did swear in

[49:05] and at that time and he did not so it's

[49:08] just it's sitting a little uneasy with

[49:10] me simply because of that imbalance of

[49:13] information um but I I do understand the

[49:16] need to possibly retro okay

[49:22] this if I may

[49:26] in the note that I had that I made based

[49:29] upon my review of the video various

[49:31] videos in addition to this one I found

[49:35] that on the uh 18th of

[49:38] September there were two references to

[49:41] swearing in the one that we have which

[49:45] was at uh I think 30 minutes 20 seconds

[49:49] that the blanket swearing

[49:51] in and there was another one dialogue

[49:55] from the with Mr

[49:57] Bliss at an hour 9 minutes 16 seconds I

[50:02] think that may be what Mr Bliss was

[50:04] referring to and that's the same point

[50:06] that I was referring to same point in

[50:15] time

[50:24] I

[50:26] both our attorney and somebody else has

[50:28] seen it I think it's I think it's

[50:31] yeah

[50:33] um I if the board is inclined to

[50:37] administer another oath uh administer an

[50:40] oath to Mr Blitz given the little bit of

[50:43] ambiguity as to whether he did take and

[50:46] those

[50:47] previously uh I think the oath should be

[50:51] retroactive and

[50:52] prospective without commenting on what

[50:56] he has said so far is really testimony

[50:58] or what he may say in the future is

[51:00] testimony as opposed to

[51:03] uh arent of

[51:05] council uh but it would cover certainly

[51:09] any uh any testimony for which o might

[51:13] argu arguably have been or be

[51:17] required I can safely so from opinion

[51:20] side I'm not overly happy as you are

[51:22] with the retroactive I take Mr blitz's

[51:25] statement that he believed he was under

[51:26] oath and he was acting as if he did he

[51:29] has not said otherwise um as enough for

[51:33] me um that said if this is an

[51:36] improvement over this this is an

[51:40] uncomfortable thing that we all agree to

[51:42] and doesn't no one's entirely happy then

[51:45] so be it

[51:51] right not going to dictate I mean if

[51:54] there's

[51:56] so yeah

[51:58] um is it the sense of the board to uh

[52:02] administer and not to Mr blitz so

[52:04] there's no

[52:06] ambiguity would that would that satisfy

[52:08] you Stephen A

[52:10] retroactive I mean how far back are we

[52:12] going to go until until this the the

[52:14] beginning of this case everything said

[52:16] on video on record Mr Blitz is stating

[52:19] that this was under oath he believed it

[52:21] to be so and now we're adding paper work

[52:24] to make it so now going forward

[52:26] everything will be under everything will

[52:27] be everything from now on will be by the

[52:29] record this will you know it help to see

[52:33] the

[52:34] video yeah yeah you could get that for

[52:38] us in the other

[52:41] room are we able to do that in the

[52:44] conference room to watch that clip at 1

[52:46] hour 9 minutes and 16 seconds for

[52:48] Stephen me to if uh sta can provide it

[52:53] yeah um okay and that so we will will go

[52:55] into close session briefly review that

[52:58] and no no just go

[53:02] back can think Fred understands that you

[53:05] intend on playing it outside of the

[53:07] context of the record which okay I'll

[53:09] let him make a comment about but you're

[53:11] if you're GNA close a

[53:13] meeting you can't take in

[53:16] evidence you're not closing the meeting

[53:19] to go back and look at a

[53:22] video pardon never mind go ahead the

[53:24] purpose of a close meeting would be to

[53:26] consult with me about legal issues

[53:27] associated with that if you want to

[53:29] watch a video then that'll have to be

[53:31] produced here so that's not something we

[53:33] could do tonight if if to continue with

[53:35] this we would be at ease to see this

[53:38] video we would then need to do it at a

[53:39] different

[53:40] time it depends whether she can't put it

[53:44] here Mr Blitz is saying we can't watch

[53:46] it back there because it's evidence and

[53:48] you're saying you can't show it to us

[53:49] right now because we're

[53:51] three can you play it on your

[53:54] phone but is that okay for a public

[53:59] setting do we have any options to view

[54:02] it here whether be on our phone or

[54:04] anything else and if it cannot be

[54:05] displayed up there right now do we have

[54:07] any other options to watch this video

[54:10] that's a technological issue I don't

[54:13] know right I think the public has the

[54:16] right to uh view it as well right if

[54:19] there's a way to have a laptop uh put

[54:23] here and have everybody come up and

[54:25] watch it at the same time that possible

[54:28] but I think that'll be a little bit

[54:30] unwieldy I don't think it necessarily be

[54:33] proper for the uh board to be able to

[54:37] see or watch the video and the public

[54:44] not I mean this isn't the biggest screen

[54:48] in the world but I can go like I don't

[54:52] think you have Wi-Fi but I can go

[54:54] through my phone for the internet

[54:55] internet I have the link to the that I

[54:58] sent this morning to that video so I

[55:00] could play it on

[55:01] this if you think if you think this is

[55:03] big you know broad enough for people to

[55:06] look at I don't know how we would show

[55:09] both the board and the audience at the

[55:11] same

[55:12] time thumbs up from the

[55:16] audience I don't know you can't share

[55:19] the

[55:21] screen it's that I can't stream a

[55:24] YouTube video so I have to download it

[55:26] and and I maybe if you want to take a

[55:29] break can we can we pause a break pause

[55:31] the meeting give you five minutes to do

[55:33] that five 10

[55:36] minutes all right we're

[55:38] gonna all right we're gonna recess for

[55:40] 10 to 15 minutes here and try and get

[55:43] this technological issue sorted out so

[55:54] please

[1:03:24] wel

[1:03:27] all right everybody we'll uh get started

[1:03:28] in a second here if you'll take your

[1:03:33] seats uh okay at this time I believe

[1:03:36] Town staff has pulled up the meeting

[1:03:38] from 19th September at 1 hour and N

[1:03:42] minutes more or less and we will see

[1:03:44] that

[1:03:51] now point in the

[1:03:54] administrator's argument in his email is

[1:03:58] at this point in time the town's

[1:04:01] comprehensive plan and the implementing

[1:04:03] zoning ordinance was already four years

[1:04:06] late excuse me Mr blit are you going to

[1:04:09] have a present evidence uh to uh

[1:04:13] elucidate on these points that you're

[1:04:15] making now or are you testifying uh I

[1:04:18] will pres Pro well number one if you

[1:04:22] want to testify raise your right hand

[1:04:24] and take the oath okay or if you already

[1:04:27] took the oath so it can be clear what

[1:04:30] you're I do include to include any facts

[1:04:34] that I

[1:04:35] offer that's fine is that okay you

[1:04:39] you're accept accepting that I mean we

[1:04:41] are moving towards closing through a lot

[1:04:44] of what he's talking about this is not a

[1:04:46] testimony it's not we wav beond where we

[1:04:48] started with it's this is definitely

[1:04:50] like a closing type argument but

[1:04:56] this is you know where this is right now

[1:04:58] not making a closing argument I'm making

[1:05:00] the explanation of why

[1:05:03] we I think that's good enough

[1:05:06] um how do

[1:05:08] we how do we feel what we've what did we

[1:05:11] learn that was new and did that

[1:05:13] change can I ask Mr Blitz is that what

[1:05:16] you wanted us to see this morning

[1:05:21] okay continue on oh no I mean it's it's

[1:05:24] open floor um I think in terms of um

[1:05:29] moving forward I personally am fine I

[1:05:33] that was good enough for me the meeting

[1:05:36] is informal and I believe Mr Blitz has

[1:05:38] been presenting and speaking as if he

[1:05:41] was under oath and it appears that he

[1:05:43] believed so too um I have no need to do

[1:05:47] a retroactive but if it is something

[1:05:49] that the board wishes to do I'm entirely

[1:05:52] supportive of that

[1:05:55] uh I would be in favor of doing

[1:05:56] retroactive just to be

[1:05:59] safe we're not dictating so if you have

[1:06:01] if you don't this is with you um it's

[1:06:05] not something I'm happy about I think

[1:06:07] it's you

[1:06:09] know do things but um it also seems like

[1:06:15] logical

[1:06:23] movement

[1:06:41] anything you'd like to add at this time

[1:06:42] Fred um okay in that

[1:06:46] case um guess we can uh vote on it we'll

[1:06:50] vote on um a retroactive oath

[1:06:55] um that will be issued Mr Blitz to

[1:06:58] retroactively over all testimony given

[1:07:00] up to the beginning of this

[1:07:03] case

[1:07:05] um and going forward yes um okay so I

[1:07:10] guess I'll just start uh Amy how do you

[1:07:13] would you are you uh you approve um

[1:07:17] issuing a new oath to Mr Blitz at this

[1:07:19] time I

[1:07:21] approve I approve I approve I also

[1:07:25] approve um the board approves um a

[1:07:29] motion I suppose for Mr susman to

[1:07:32] reissue a oath to Mr Blitz that will

[1:07:35] cover any testimony that has been given

[1:07:37] in this case and all moving

[1:07:42] forward I could just ask for a

[1:07:45] clarification as I mentioned there's a

[1:07:48] big argument as to what's testimony and

[1:07:51] what is legal argument I'm certainly

[1:07:54] willing to T to swear an oath I think I

[1:07:57] already was sworn in about any testimony

[1:08:01] I give because I just don't think I gave

[1:08:04] testimony IE I I do remember one error

[1:08:07] that I made which was I talked about

[1:08:09] whether the town had previously adopted

[1:08:13] all of the zoning ordinances in one

[1:08:16] ordinance and I said that's the way the

[1:08:18] town had done it in the past well that

[1:08:20] you know that's technically a factual

[1:08:21] statement but I just want to make it

[1:08:24] clear that I'm swearing to testify only

[1:08:27] to things that I'm are providing actual

[1:08:29] testimony not my arguments or anything

[1:08:31] like that I don't want that conflation

[1:08:34] of the idea that there's testimony that

[1:08:37] are facts and all my legal arguments

[1:08:39] because that's not testimony I think

[1:08:42] this oath is or this retroactive oath is

[1:08:45] specifically targeted to address the

[1:08:47] objection before the board right now um

[1:08:50] we will assume

[1:08:52] well raise your right hand please do you

[1:08:56] solemnly swear or affirm under the

[1:08:58] penalties of perjury that the testimony

[1:09:01] that you have already given in these

[1:09:02] proceedings and the testimony you are

[1:09:05] about to give and will give through the

[1:09:07] end of these proceedings and the

[1:09:09] responses and statements that you have

[1:09:12] made or are about to make have been and

[1:09:15] will be the whole truth and nothing but

[1:09:17] the truth I do with the

[1:09:20] record uh one moment at at the

[1:09:22] conclusion of this we are stating that

[1:09:24] the initial objection is

[1:09:26] overruled and basically I just wanted to

[1:09:28] say that uh uh I wanted to give an

[1:09:31] objection as to the the entire process

[1:09:32] here uh because you know you can't sit

[1:09:35] here and do retroactive uh swearing in I

[1:09:37] mean it's nice and I understand the

[1:09:38] timing understand you want to cut time

[1:09:40] and everything else but the problem is

[1:09:42] you can't unring the Bell you don't know

[1:09:44] in essence what's what is happening here

[1:09:46] or what's not happening here and even Mr

[1:09:48] Blitz come back he just said that that

[1:09:51] well some of it said was testimony some

[1:09:53] of wasn't testimony and he's only being

[1:09:55] sworn as to the testimony whatever that

[1:09:57] may or may not be um so I mean and I

[1:10:00] mean this is a big deal I mean it's a

[1:10:02] big deal because you know in essence

[1:10:04] what you are supposed to consider is

[1:10:06] supposed to be evidence argument is not

[1:10:09] okay but uh that that's what it is that

[1:10:11] you're supposed to be doing and so you

[1:10:13] know the idea that uh you know you were

[1:10:16] having you know an retroactive swearing

[1:10:19] in um I I've never even heard of it

[1:10:22] before but uh uh but but I can tell you

[1:10:24] the problem is is that now you are put

[1:10:27] under a very difficult situation in that

[1:10:30] you're thinking to yourself all this

[1:10:31] testimony that you've heard how much of

[1:10:33] it is testimony not testimony the truth

[1:10:35] not the truth you can't do that so um in

[1:10:39] essence it becomes an issue and I really

[1:10:42] wanted to make sure that was protected

[1:10:44] for the potential appeal purposes thank

[1:10:46] you understood um the objection is

[1:10:48] overruled we will continue uh with this

[1:10:51] case U Mr Blitz are you prepared to

[1:10:53] continue tonight and if so approximately

[1:10:55] how much how much longer last time You'

[1:10:59] mentioned you had approximately two

[1:11:00] hours of time left is that still the

[1:11:01] ball park it is so unfortunately we're

[1:11:03] not going to get done tonight well how

[1:11:06] much time do you have tonight half an

[1:11:08] hour uh is does half an hour move your

[1:11:11] move the ball forward at all or is that

[1:11:12] more trouble than it's

[1:11:15] worth if you could give me a

[1:11:22] moment

[1:11:25] my

[1:11:27] concern is

[1:11:31] that the summaries that I would be

[1:11:34] giving of where we are set up the rest

[1:11:38] of the testimony and we're going to get

[1:11:42] we're just not going to get into that

[1:11:43] testimony sufficiently okay so at this

[1:11:46] point in time we've been here for an

[1:11:48] hour and 10 of our normal 2hour session

[1:11:51] um and we will not not resume case 20233

[1:11:56] today the only thing we have done is um

[1:12:01] ruled on an objection by Mr pounds

[1:12:04] clearing the way to resume the case at

[1:12:07] our next session um at this time I will

[1:12:10] entertain a motion to adjourn this no no

[1:12:13] not doing that have to tell when the

[1:12:14] next session yes um the motion uh for

[1:12:19] our next meeting will be January 25th at

[1:12:22] 7 pm and at this time I'll entertain a

[1:12:24] motion to adjourn this meeting until

[1:12:27] January 25th at 700 p.m. do I have a

[1:12:30] second I will second that uh all in

[1:12:35] favor all right we are adjourned

[1:12:38] until January 25th at 7 pm

[1:12:49] no

January 4, 2024 Board of Appeals Hearing

Transcript