[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