[1:12] okay welcome again everyone um this is

[1:14] the board of appeals uh call to order um

[1:17] 7 PM January 25th 2024 we start with a

[1:21] roll call um please indicate that you

[1:23] were present uh Mr Richard Burch present

[1:26] Mr Paul dhy present Miss Amy Everett

[1:29] present I am Mr Jody hon star um as we

[1:33] set last time we will begin with any uh

[1:36] newly received public comment by the um

[1:40] by the town Sharon have we received

[1:42] anything since our last meeting yes we

[1:44] received one at the last meeting one at

[1:46] the last meeting okay um the uh can we

[1:50] make sure we provide copies to Mr pounds

[1:53] and Mr Blitz if we haven't already um

[1:56] and enter these comments into the record

[1:59] um I will note that the contents of the

[2:00] comments will not be addressed this time

[2:03] this is just for administrative

[2:06] purposes okay um on to the second uh

[2:11] agenda item is the approval of the

[2:13] minutes from our last meeting on January

[2:15] 4

[2:17] 2024 um does anybody have any

[2:20] corrections they'd like to issue or is

[2:22] it all

[2:25] fine in that case I will entertain a

[2:27] motion to approve uh the minutes from

[2:29] Jan 4th I will so move have a second right all in favor I all

[2:38] right minutes are approved okay um a

[2:42] little bit more on the announcement

[2:43] front this morning um or this evening uh

[2:46] we'll be limiting to the session tonight

[2:47] to two hours so we will end around 900

[2:51] PM as normal um direct all comments and

[2:53] questions concerning the administration

[2:55] of this hearing to the board chair or

[2:57] legal counsel this applies to the

[2:59] gallery as well well do not direct

[3:00] questions or comments at the petitioner

[3:02] or staff during the presentation of

[3:03] their testimony um now this is a new one

[3:07] uh the third parties of record may ask

[3:09] questions of Any Given testimony at the

[3:11] conclusion of that testimony questions

[3:13] should generally be limited in scope to

[3:15] uh address the information presented I

[3:17] will indicate to the gallery when this

[3:19] option is

[3:21] available

[3:22] um number four uh as normal our order of

[3:25] presentation uh documented in our rules

[3:28] of procedure uh we are still on step one

[3:31] which is appellant testimony and

[3:32] evidence given by Mr Blitz and Witnesses

[3:34] once he has completed um we will uh

[3:38] offer the chance to ask questions for

[3:40] any parties of record which will then

[3:42] move on to Mr Po's uh presentation for

[3:46] any Town staff testimony evidence um

[3:49] same same questioning applies um and

[3:53] third after all this the testimony and

[3:55] evidence by the person or entity whose

[3:57] rights are impacted by the appeal you

[4:00] guys members of the public um so we yes

[4:04] okay um and once that's done we'll have

[4:06] summary statements at which point we

[4:08] will close the public hearing and what

[4:10] this means you have a correction

[4:13] D I would just like to note with respect

[4:16] to the summary statements uh we're going

[4:18] to need to determine how those summary

[4:22] statements are going to be provided what

[4:23] orally written or a combination thereof

[4:27] so uh you that will be decided later

[4:31] date um okay wrapping that all up uh

[4:34] this means uh our normal notice for

[4:36] members of the public if you have

[4:38] attended here with the intent to State

[4:39] your opinion it most likely will not

[4:41] happen tonight although we are getting

[4:43] closer um if this is inconvenient we

[4:45] will take written statements if you'd

[4:46] like to provide them uh I'd also like to

[4:49] urge you to submit your REM marks at the

[4:50] conclusion of the testimony taking what

[4:52] you hear into account you're welcome to

[4:54] submit written comments at any time but

[4:55] we the board would uh most appreciate

[4:58] comments that are within the scope of

[4:59] what were able to rule on thank you

[5:02] that's all for the uh announcements and

[5:05] now we continue on um with case

[5:09] 20233 Roden reel Incorporated Donovan

[5:11] Estates LLC to consider an application

[5:13] from the Roden reel LC Donovan Estates

[5:16] uh 4160 MIRS Avenue Chesapeake Beach

[5:18] Maryland for a decision on

[5:20] interpretation or alleged error to

[5:21] article 6 section 29023 29031 A1 A6 of

[5:27] the Chesapeake Beach zoning ordinance

[5:29] and C 3 uh 309 c310 and c311 of the

[5:32] Chesapeake Beach Town Charter uh

[5:34] applicant requests the Chesapeake Beach

[5:36] zoning board of appeals to quote order

[5:38] the zoning administrator uh and planning

[5:40] and zoning commission to immediately

[5:42] commence and prioritize the processing

[5:44] and review of the relevant site plan

[5:46] submitted by the Roden reel Incorporated

[5:47] Don States LLC and that the zoning

[5:49] administrator and planning and zoning

[5:51] commission be ordered to apply the

[5:52] zoning ordinances in effect as of

[5:55] January 29 2021 when the applications

[5:58] were submitted and for such other and

[6:00] further relief as the nature of their

[6:02] cause requires at this point I will pass

[6:04] it to Mr Blitz for a continuation of his

[6:14] presentation

[6:15] microphone good evening uh Eric Blitz on

[6:18] behalf of the rod and reel and the other

[6:20] applicant

[6:22] um you know we haven't had testimony I

[6:25] think since the November 8th one so I'm

[6:27] going to um

[6:30] kind of try to give a very brief summary

[6:34] of where we were so that you can pick up

[6:36] on where we are going so far our

[6:40] presentation has been focused on the

[6:42] administrative errors on the part of the

[6:44] zoning administrator and the Planning

[6:45] and Zoning commission um and in failing

[6:49] to process the five site plans filed on

[6:50] January 29th

[6:53] 2021 um as they were required to do by

[6:57] Statute uh I believe we've established

[6:59] the dut duty of both to review those

[7:00] site plans and the 60-day deadline

[7:02] imposed on the Planning and Zoning

[7:04] commission for doing so um let me go to

[7:07] slide

[7:10] two so we noted the to two reasons uh

[7:14] two reasons um of the Z that the zoning

[7:17] administrator gave in response to the

[7:19] filing of the five

[7:21] applications and why they were improper

[7:24] reasons uh to deny site plan

[7:27] review and the first reason

[7:29] was that the

[7:31] commission would have a burden in site

[7:33] plan review in in undertaking the site

[7:36] plan review um be on their workload and

[7:40] the review of their site plans would

[7:42] jeopardize the commission's work on the

[7:43] comprehensive plan and the zoning

[7:45] ordinance updates um we showed why those

[7:49] reasons were

[7:50] contradicted by the explicit statutory

[7:52] command uh that they that the commission

[7:55] has to do both their planning and their

[7:58] review

[7:59] at the same time and they have to do it

[8:03] concurrently and that they had done that

[8:05] and so and they have to do as they have

[8:07] to hold as many meetings as necessary to

[8:09] do

[8:12] so certainly the long delay between the

[8:15] filing of the site plan applications in

[8:17] the passage of the comprehensive plan

[8:19] and the implementing ordinances that

[8:22] provide the specific zoning um

[8:24] requirements used in site plan review

[8:26] should be also should also be considered

[8:28] by the board um when considering the

[8:30] reasons offered by the zoning

[8:32] administrator the second justification

[8:34] was the

[8:40] moratorium so I think we've clearly

[8:42] demonstrated why we believe that the

[8:44] moratorium was directly and specifically

[8:47] targeted at the rod and reel site plan

[8:50] applications that it was invalid and

[8:52] inoperative because of it was improperly

[8:54] passed and then extended through

[8:56] resolutions and not ordinances and even

[9:00] after the purported moratorium had

[9:03] expired the zoning administrative

[9:05] Planning and Zoning commission still

[9:06] continued deny site plan review even up

[9:09] to this date so we're we're at January 25th so we're

[9:14] basically four days short of three

[9:18] years so if I'm correct and we've

[9:20] established that that was an error for

[9:23] the zoning administrator and the

[9:24] Planning and Zoning commission to deny

[9:26] site plan review today we get to the

[9:29] nature of the relief and what's

[9:31] appropriate in this case and before we

[9:34] turn to the facts and laws and arguments

[9:36] that I'll offer in favor of that

[9:38] requested relief um there has been one

[9:40] nagging issue that has been raised in

[9:43] cross-examination and arguments by um Mr

[9:46] pounds for the municipal Corporation of

[9:48] chesp beach that imply or suggest that

[9:52] the rod reel has not done what it needed

[9:54] to do to obtain a hearing or a review of

[9:58] The Five plan applications before the

[10:00] commission and I'd like to address that

[10:10] now you can see section

[10:13] 29023 which we reviewed at the very

[10:15] beginning of this set of

[10:18] hearings um it sets forth the process

[10:22] site plans are required to obtain zoning

[10:24] permits to obtain a zoning permit for a

[10:27] multif family dwelling the property

[10:28] owner is required to submit a category

[10:30] one site plan and their application for

[10:33] with their application for a zoning

[10:35] permit you will recall that the app

[10:38] Roden Rio applications included some

[10:40] form of multif family

[10:42] dwellings on as their proposals so they

[10:46] all were category one site plans with

[10:48] the requisite information required by

[10:50] section

[10:52] 29024 and that section provides a whole

[10:55] long list of what's needed to be

[10:57] provided with

[10:59] plans so the Roden reel filed the

[11:02] application on the form provided by the

[11:05] town which you can see in exhibit five

[11:07] which we already have in record labeled

[11:10] as a zoning permit

[11:12] application and as you can see in

[11:14] exhibits five and six those applications

[11:17] included the required site plan

[11:19] applications and the critical area site

[11:21] plan requirements there's no separate

[11:24] form for requesting site plan review

[11:26] with the commission because the process

[11:28] flows directly from the filing of those

[11:31] zoning permit applications with the site

[11:33] plans and you'll see I'm going to

[11:36] demonstrate that for you in the zoning

[11:37] code the property owner is requesting a

[11:40] zoning permit in the application but

[11:43] because site plan review is required for

[11:46] that zoning permit that's when the site

[11:49] plan process is

[11:50] triggered in your binder on the

[11:54] reference statutes and cases I had

[11:55] included section

[11:57] 29027 of the town's zoning

[12:02] code and you can see in subsection D it

[12:04] makes it explicit that all applications

[12:07] for zoning permits shall be accompanied

[12:09] by the site plans complying with the

[12:11] provisions of article six and that

[12:13] application for the zoning permit is

[12:15] there for the application for site plan

[12:23] review in section 29023 it sets forth

[12:27] the process of what happens after the

[12:28] filing of the application for a zoning

[12:30] permit requiring site plan it's all in

[12:33] section sub subsection

[12:35] C the applicant shall submit a completed

[12:38] application so that's Our obligation the

[12:40] appropriate fee and the site plan for

[12:42] them to the public works SL zoning

[12:46] administrator in C2 the administrator

[12:49] shall review the application for

[12:51] completeness and will refer the

[12:53] application to the appropriate

[12:55] individuals or agencies for review

[12:57] comment and or or for

[12:59] approval in C3 the Planning and Zoning

[13:02] commission will review and take action

[13:04] on category one site plans and in C4 for

[13:08] all

[13:08] category category one site plan

[13:11] submitted for review the commission

[13:13] shall it says a submit written notice to

[13:16] the applicant by first class mail such

[13:19] to be postmarked at least 10 days prior

[13:21] to the meeting to discuss the site

[13:23] plan submit written notice to all the

[13:25] owners adjoining immediately across the

[13:27] street from the subject property

[13:30] and such written notice has to state the

[13:31] date the time the place subject matter

[13:33] of the meeting to discuss the site

[13:35] plan so as you can see in section four

[13:38] it's incumbent upon the Planning and

[13:39] Zoning commission to set the meeting

[13:41] send the written no notices to the

[13:43] applicant and to the adjoining property

[13:45] owners um at least 10 days prior to that

[13:48] meeting and all we do is file the

[13:51] application that triggers that

[13:53] process and I say we I meant the rod and

[13:56] reel I

[13:57] apologize

[14:00] there's no statutory requirement or rule

[14:02] of procedure that's imposed on the

[14:05] applicants such as the rod reel that

[14:07] would require to make a separate request

[14:10] for a hearing before the

[14:13] commission and you may recall we also

[14:15] covered section 29026 of the Town zoning

[14:18] ordinance in the first hearing which in

[14:21] subsection 15 demonstrates how the

[14:23] zoning administrator reviews the

[14:25] application and forwards the

[14:26] administrator's comments to the

[14:28] commission

[14:29] for that meeting it's typically a staff

[14:41] report so there there I've given you

[14:44] section 2926 which requires the zoning

[14:46] administrator to intake to act as the

[14:48] intake administrator for the filings and

[14:51] in B1 the zoning administrator receives

[14:53] and examines the

[14:55] applications um and refers them to the

[14:57] commission

[14:59] um each of the rod and reel applications

[15:02] uh called for many more than three off

[15:05] Street parkings so even if they were not

[15:07] category one site plans they would have

[15:09] to be referred to the commission for

[15:11] review and approval um but what I'm

[15:15] stressing to you I'm hoping is that this

[15:18] is an automatic process not requiring

[15:20] any additional requests by the applicant

[15:23] to the commission or the zoning

[15:26] administrator as the zoning

[15:27] administrator acts as the

[15:30] take

[15:35] person in 2925 and subsection B15 you

[15:38] can

[15:39] see that the zoning administrator

[15:41] reviews the applications submits them to

[15:44] for review and approval in accordance

[15:45] with article six article six is includes

[15:49] section 29

[15:50] 29023 that we just

[15:54] reviewed and there was testimony from Mr

[15:56] Woodburn that the applications met the

[15:58] requirements for a category one site

[16:00] plan and that a critical area site plan

[16:03] was also

[16:04] submitted and so the question is why

[16:07] would the rod and reel file all this

[16:08] exhaustive list of information necessary

[16:10] for category one site plans review if

[16:13] they weren't asking for site plan

[16:17] review all remember also that we

[16:20] established that all five of these

[16:21] projects are in the critical

[16:22] area

[16:27] um

[16:42] seem to uh

[16:52] be

[16:57] okay

[17:02] 20

[17:04] 29025 A5 is what I want okay

[17:12] sorry so this lists out the whole

[17:15] procedure and I'm not going to read it

[17:17] all over again but it allows you to see

[17:19] what the code

[17:21] provides as far as what happens after we

[17:24] file the zoning application with the

[17:26] site plans

[17:34] yes

[17:36] after for you to provide us with a copy

[17:39] of the PowerPoint

[17:46] absolutely I think I did for the first

[17:48] one but I don't remember you asking for

[17:50] the other ones do you want all of

[17:55] them

[17:57] yes

[18:23] okay what I'm gonna pass out to you now

[18:27] is

[18:30] additions to your

[18:57] um

[19:07] first one is the schedule of

[19:11] fees

[19:13] for site

[19:15] plans and as you can also see go to the

[19:19] next

[19:20] slide which is just what you've got

[19:23] there I'm

[19:24] emphasizing

[19:27] that the fees are much higher when you

[19:30] file a zoning permit

[19:34] or that includes a requirement for

[19:36] category one site plans and they're

[19:39] calculated based upon the nature and the

[19:40] size of the

[19:41] construction and each of the rod and re

[19:44] applications filed on January 29th were projects that were for 10 or more

[19:49] residential units so you can see that at

[19:51] the bottom so that part of the fee for

[19:54] site plan review is

[19:57] 4,800

[19:58] and the base application is also

[20:02] raised further down on the document um

[20:06] when it's a critical area site plan

[20:07] which this was the all five of these

[20:11] were so since all five of the rod and

[20:14] reel projects were in the critical area

[20:15] and involved

[20:17] residential uses with more than 10 units

[20:20] the total fee was calculated by the 600

[20:23] base application fee plus the $ 4,800

[20:25] for a total of $5,400 for each

[20:28] application so as an applicant is paying

[20:31] that fee the applicant is literally

[20:33] paying for site plan

[20:39] review finally the moratorium resolution

[20:42] listed the rod and reel project

[20:44] submissions as the reason for passing

[20:46] the moratorium and referred to them when

[20:48] it recited and I'll quote from it on

[20:51] January 29th 2021 the town received in

[20:55] one delivery applications for four

[20:57] separate major development site plans in

[20:59] one major Subdivision plat end quote so

[21:03] the moratorium was designed to stop that

[21:05] site plan

[21:06] process it specifically targeted the

[21:09] category one site plans so it is kind

[21:12] of odd to now imply that the Roden reel

[21:16] didn't ask for site plan review or

[21:17] didn't do file what it needed to be

[21:19] filed to request site plan

[21:25] review the town's April 13 2021 letter

[21:29] that you have as exhibit 25 uh returning

[21:32] the filing fees to the Roden reel

[21:33] referred explicitly to the five projects

[21:36] by name but referenced the moratorium

[21:38] passed on March 18

[21:41] 2021 by describing it as a category one

[21:44] site plan review moratorium and that's

[21:46] the reason why the projects wouldn't be

[21:48] reviewed so I think I want I hope that

[21:51] makes it clear to the board the Roden

[21:52] reel did apply for and was entitled to

[21:54] site plan review based upon the

[21:57] application they filed

[21:58] um questions about why the rod and reel

[22:01] did not go to the commission I think are

[22:03] a distraction you can't just show up at

[22:05] the commission and say tonight I'd like

[22:08] you to review my site

[22:10] plan the the town cannot both attempt to

[22:13] Halt the process of site plan review of

[22:16] the frod and reels applications and then

[22:17] later suggest the site plan review by

[22:20] the before the commission was never

[22:22] requested or applied

[22:26] for so let's turn to the relief that the

[22:28] rod and reel is

[22:34] requesting we start with the board's

[22:37] Authority and your board of appeals in

[22:40] reviewing appeal for error in the

[22:42] administrative process is very

[22:53] broad this is section 4306 F of the land

[22:58] use article of the annotated code which

[23:00] I just handed out with it's on the

[23:02] second part after the applications and

[23:05] as you can see in

[23:06] F1 a board May in Conformity with this

[23:10] division wholly or partly reverse order

[23:13] reverse the order requirement or

[23:15] decision that is subject to the appeal

[23:17] wholly or partly affirm the order

[23:19] requirement or

[23:20] decision um I I may have said first is

[23:25] revers then it's airm modify the order

[23:28] requirement or decision that is subject

[23:30] to the appeal or issue a new order

[23:32] requirement or decision so you have

[23:35] broad Authority if you find there was

[23:38] error to administer the

[23:46] relief then in subsection two the board

[23:49] shall of appeals shall have all the

[23:52] powers of the administrator officer or

[23:54] unit from whose the action the appeal is

[23:57] taken kind of a foundational part

[24:01] of Maryland law with respect to your

[24:05] authority to essentially step into the

[24:08] shoes of the administrators if you find

[24:10] that there's

[24:12] error the power of the board is again

[24:15] reinforced by the town zoning ordinance

[24:19] which is found in section

[24:20] 29032 subsection G also a part that I

[24:24] handed out

[24:25] today and it restates

[24:28] the Maryland statutory law in the in the

[24:31] or in the ordinance same same

[24:36] language so this broad Authority for you

[24:38] to step into the shoes of the of the

[24:40] administrators who committed error and

[24:42] exercise their powers is important

[24:44] because it demonstrates that you have

[24:46] the power in this appeal to not only

[24:49] determine if there was an error on the

[24:51] part of the administrators but to craft

[24:54] the

[24:55] relief using their powers as is

[24:58] necessary to achieve the remedy you deem

[25:02] appropriate now you don't have cart

[25:04] blanch Authority you could not make a a

[25:06] word of Damages for example um because

[25:10] there is no statutory provision for that

[25:12] and because the zoning administrator and

[25:14] officials from whom you adopt Powers

[25:17] don't have that power either so you can

[25:20] only take on their powers in the

[25:26] relief

[25:28] so if the board finds that the Roden

[25:30] reel is correct that the failure of the

[25:32] zoning administrator and the Planning

[25:33] and Zoning commission to process and

[25:35] review the rod re site plan

[25:37] applications was not in accordance with

[25:40] the

[25:41] law or I apologize and therefore an

[25:45] error so if it's not in accordance with

[25:47] the law it's an error this is an appeal

[25:50] alleging error then the board can

[25:52] reverse that by ordering both to

[25:55] undertake the review yourselves

[25:58] as you take on that Planning and Zoning

[25:59] commission's power or the board can

[26:04] order the commission as we had as I

[26:07] believe the chair read off in the very

[26:09] beginning our requested relief so you

[26:11] have a two alternative approaches that

[26:15] we would suggest that you could

[26:25] consider and before I make the argument

[26:27] about how I believe the board should

[26:30] exercise its broad powers in this case I

[26:33] need to put on some evidence and argu

[26:35] and make some other arguments necessary

[26:37] to convince you that you

[26:40] should um which includes questions about

[26:42] the fairness of the process as it was

[26:45] applied to the rod and reel the

[26:47] Injustice and impact on the Roden reels

[26:50] for having its developed development

[26:53] applications denied for almost three

[26:55] years now and the legal implications of

[26:58] those alleged

[27:00] errors remember that until the Town

[27:02] Council approved the comprehensive plan

[27:04] in April of

[27:06] 22

[27:08] 2022 and it became effective uh in May

[27:12] of 22 which is in exhibit

[27:16] 31 the previous comprehensive plan was

[27:19] the plan in effect and that was what was

[27:22] in effect when the Roden reel filed

[27:24] their

[27:26] applications

[27:32] so what I'd like to do now is pass out

[27:36] um today's

[27:40] exhibits for you to include in your

[27:43] binders and then we'll get to exhibit

[27:56] 52

[28:26] for

[28:35] and Sharon I believe we're the next

[28:38] exhibit would would be 52

[28:40] correct

[28:43] okay

[28:45] so first I would like to submit exhibit

[28:49] 52 which are selected pages from the

[28:52] town's 2010 comprehensive plan showing

[28:56] the status of the comp comprehensive

[28:57] planning for the town that were in

[28:59] effect at the time the Roden reel filed

[29:01] its applications on January 29th

[29:04] 2021 the pages include the cover page

[29:07] and Pages 7 8 18 115 116 and 131 of the

[29:14] 2010 comprehensive plan those are the

[29:17] pages that are I'm going to draw your

[29:18] attention to to make certain points you

[29:21] obviously have the ability to take

[29:24] judicial notice of the entire

[29:26] comprehensive plan from 20

[29:31] 10 with

[29:48] that as you can see from the title page

[29:51] um to this exhibit um the 2010

[29:54] comprehensive plan was adopted on

[29:55] January 20th of 20

[29:59] I think we had put on testimony about

[30:00] that date earlier as

[30:03] well so since at least

[30:05] 2011 what this exhibit shows is how the

[30:08] Planning and Zoning commission and the

[30:10] Town Council that adopted that plan um

[30:13] had

[30:14] identified these anticipated

[30:17] projects upon which they could base

[30:20] their planning or infrastructure and

[30:22] things like that so take you to slide

[30:26] 16 it's not

[30:40] working turn on and off

[30:56] buttons

[31:25] yeah I can just go through it Qui

[31:27] quickly I think

[31:35] oops

[31:39] okay on page 18 of the comprehensive

[31:43] plan which I put up on the

[31:46] PowerPoint um which is the fourth page

[31:49] of your exhibit you can see that the

[31:51] home place project had been granted

[31:54] approval in July of 2006 for the for the

[31:57] use of 7.42 Acres of growth

[32:01] allocation as the plan recites ches

[32:04] beake Beach had been granted 100 acres

[32:07] of growth allocation and in combination

[32:09] with Richfield station the Home Place

[32:11] project meant that the town had 67.5

[32:14] four acres of growth allocation

[32:17] left growth allocation is the process of

[32:20] converting a more restrictive critical

[32:23] area zone um or District to a less

[32:26] restrictive under your zoning ordinance

[32:29] um when the critic

[32:31] art I don't I'll just stop there it's

[32:36] part of your local critical area program

[32:38] um that we discussed at one of these

[32:40] previous meetings so the Home Place

[32:42] project which is one of the five

[32:45] projects filed by the Roden reel was

[32:47] already in the development stage back in

[32:50] 2006 when it was granted 7.42 Acres of

[32:53] the town's growth

[32:56] allocation

[33:05] as you can see on page seven of the 2010

[33:09] comprehensive plan page two of the

[33:12] exhibit The stinet Place Condominiums

[33:14] which were listed as two 16 unit multif

[33:17] family dwellings or

[33:19] buildings uh were part of the list of

[33:22] projected

[33:23] developments the plan noted that the

[33:25] permits had been issued though no

[33:27] construction had

[33:30] commenced on that same page the Home

[33:32] Place project was described with the

[33:34] unit count as was included in the 2021

[33:38] Roden reel

[33:40] applications for home place which was

[33:43] one new single family home and two 12

[33:47] unit multif family buildings and that

[33:50] the plan noted that all the approvals

[33:52] had been obtained and infrastructure

[33:54] permits issued no construction had

[33:56] started at the time they passed that in

[34:00] 200 what was it 11 I

[34:04] think next on the same page the plan

[34:07] noted the Harbor Vista North

[34:10] project was being projected it noted

[34:13] that this development plan was approved

[34:15] but no final plants had yet been

[34:18] submitted for final approval by the

[34:22] commission turning to the next page page

[34:25] eight

[34:27] of of the 2010 comprehensive plan Harbor

[34:30] Vista South and

[34:32] North which we now call Harbor Vista

[34:35] South and Harbor Vista West just so you

[34:38] know the in the 2010 plan they were

[34:41] calling them something

[34:43] different Harbor Vista South and Harbor

[34:45] Vista West

[34:47] um were also projected developments and

[34:50] states that the prior owner Fishing

[34:52] Creek Landings Marina had received PR

[34:55] preliminary approval from the commission

[34:57] in 2002 but that it was contemplating a

[34:59] redesign that was to occur with the new

[35:02] ownership which was the rod and

[35:04] reel um so each of these projects were

[35:07] well known to the Planning and Zoning

[35:09] commission and the Town Council as they

[35:11] had been included in the 2010

[35:13] comprehensive plan and had received

[35:16] various forms of

[35:18] approval decades

[35:22] ago not only were the projects described

[35:25] generally in the 2010

[35:27] comprehensive plan their specific unit

[35:29] counts and anticip anticipated

[35:32] population growth were included in the

[35:35] plan as table

[35:37] 22 so here's table 22 and it

[35:42] shows all five of the rod and reel

[35:45] projects and

[35:47] for included the unit counts

[35:52] um it actually had higher unit counts

[35:55] than we have proposed for in place in

[35:57] Harbor Vista

[36:00] North and you can see those on exhibit

[36:03] five

[36:05] um so Roden re development applications

[36:08] the the only one of the 2021

[36:11] applications that we filed that has a

[36:13] higher count than was listed in this

[36:15] 2010 comprehensive plan is Harbor Vista

[36:18] North that our application requested 23

[36:22] units which on this chart you can see

[36:24] they have been planning for 16

[36:32] as you can see on page 116 table 23 the

[36:35] proposed developments which again

[36:37] included all five of the rod and reel

[36:40] projects it showed the anticipated units

[36:42] but also the stage of the permitting the

[36:44] land use and then the existing

[36:47] zoning this is the table that indicates

[36:51] uh you know the timeline for the

[36:52] proposed development going between 2009

[36:56] and 201

[37:06] 16 so now I'd like to call Paul Woodburn

[37:09] back to

[37:12] testify Paul you're gonna sit

[37:16] there I think just for clarification

[37:19] purposes I think we were to talk about

[37:21] close examination especially by the

[37:23] public and so forth if this has stopped

[37:27] Mr bliss mean we're into for about 10

[37:30] hours of testimony for him and

[37:34] examination of so toward doesn't make

[37:38] sense I think it makes sense for to

[37:40] continue and then for the public to be

[37:42] able to you know ask questions of all of

[37:45] his witnesses as as the person seing at

[37:47] that time because otherwise you know one

[37:50] is the public could be the weather or

[37:52] whatever isn't here but this evening for

[37:55] that cause examination so so I think it

[37:56] would be better to make sure

[37:58] procedurally we're on the same page that

[38:00] in essence the public cause examination

[38:02] but it's going to be more towards the

[38:04] end of the case that as isue it is goes

[38:06] public will have a chance to

[38:07] cross-examine the bulk of the entirety

[38:10] of the presentation at

[38:12] the they also have the right to to uh

[38:16] ask Mr Woodburn questions at the

[38:18] completion of his testimony um so we

[38:21] can't stop them although content might

[38:24] blur the line so we will just see

[38:26] happens when his testimony finishes but

[38:28] you are welcome to and the public is

[38:29] welcome to as well which other than the

[38:32] public was is consistent with way we

[38:35] handled the earlier testimony on the

[38:36] first

[38:38] hearing so Mr Woodburn can you um

[38:41] restate your name uh and address for the

[38:44] record please sure for the uh record my

[38:47] name is Paul Woodburn and I'm a

[38:49] professional

[38:50] engineer and uh senior director for

[38:53] Atwell engineering and address is is

[38:57] 11721 Woodmore Road in Mitchellville

[39:14] Maryland

[39:19] everybody I think it would be good just

[39:21] to make sure we're all on the same page

[39:24] if you wouldn't mind Mr susman you mind

[39:25] swearing said again I think the proper

[39:28] procedure is just to remind him that

[39:29] he's already been sworn in and recognize

[39:32] that

[39:33] fact I believe the proper procedure is

[39:35] to just have him recognize that he's

[39:38] already been sworn

[39:40] in you don't have to raise your hand to

[39:42] be sworn in there's no form for being

[39:45] sworn in he's already

[39:48] testified you swear or affirm under the

[39:51] penalty of perjury that the testimony

[39:53] that you are about to give testimony

[39:55] evidence your about to give be the truth

[39:58] the whole truth nothing but the truth I

[40:00] do thank

[40:01] you so Mr Woodburn um when you submitted

[40:05] the rod and real applications for the

[40:07] site plan review um what were the fee

[40:10] amounts that you paid when you submitted

[40:12] those

[40:13] applications uh the fee amounts I think

[40:16] you showed them on the screen earlier

[40:17] were

[40:18] $5,400 for each site plan plus I think

[40:21] we paid a $250 base application fee as

[40:25] well

[40:39] and I'm showing you what will be

[40:41] identified for the record is exhibit

[40:43] 53 um and ask you to confirm that those

[40:47] are copies of the checks that you

[40:49] submitted with the

[40:52] applications with the exception I might

[40:55] point out for the record that we've uh

[40:58] blacked out the account

[41:00] numbers we blacked out the redacted the

[41:03] account

[41:07] numbers I offer that is exhibit

[41:10] 50 and how many of those are there

[41:14] should be

[41:25] fine

[41:28] sep checks is one for 5400 for each of

[41:32] is

[41:44] $250 Mr Woodburn had you filed

[41:47] applications for projects that involve

[41:49] sight plan

[41:50] review um to the town of chesp beach

[41:53] before

[41:55] yes and uh were you involved in the

[41:57] applications filed for the rod and reel

[41:59] project at the resort and for Harbor

[42:01] Vista South projects in 2016 I

[42:05] was and are you familiar with the site

[42:08] plan approval process in chese Beach

[42:11] yes have you ever had to file a separate

[42:13] application for site plan review besides

[42:15] the applications using the zoning permit

[42:18] form

[42:21] no have you ever had to make a separate

[42:23] request the schedule the review of and

[42:26] hearings by the Planning and Zoning

[42:27] commission to have those applications

[42:29] heard by the commission I'm

[42:34] not after the February 5th 2021 email

[42:38] from the zoning administrator Mr jaub

[42:40] act have you received any communication

[42:43] from the zoning administrator the

[42:45] Planning and Zoning commission or any

[42:47] other Town official to review process or

[42:49] schedule hearings for any of the five

[42:51] site plan applications that you filed on

[42:54] January 29th of 2021 after the email the

[42:57] fifth you said I have

[43:02] not your experience in the town um of

[43:06] ches b beach what is the role of the

[43:08] Planning and Zoning commission during

[43:09] site plan

[43:11] review I did not hear the question I

[43:14] said in his experience he's already

[43:17] testified that he's has his experience

[43:19] doing these site plan reviews before

[43:20] this town what is the role of the

[43:22] Planning and Zoning commission during

[43:24] site plan review

[43:34] this point he's uh asking for an expert

[43:36] opinion okay and if he's talking about

[43:39] his experience uh that that is

[43:41] definitely going to an expert opinion he

[43:43] hasn't been qualified as an expert it's

[43:45] not an opinion I'm just having him

[43:47] testify what the commission's role was

[43:49] during the

[43:52] process clearly was expressing an

[43:54] opinion I don't think that's uh

[43:56] expressing his opinion I think that's

[43:58] expressing his experience based upon his

[44:01] experience which is different

[44:06] from R

[44:10] continue

[44:12] okay uh in my experience and I've

[44:15] prepared and processed hundreds of site

[44:17] plans not only in Calver County and

[44:20] chese Beach but in neighboring counties

[44:23] and States um the Planning and Zoning

[44:26] administrator in ches Peake Beach

[44:28] through in my experience of numerous

[44:31] site plans is to review the site plan

[44:35] against the ordinances and laws of the

[44:38] Town um and to make recommendations not

[44:41] only to the applicant but to the

[44:43] Planning Commission who would ultimately

[44:45] review the site plan the zoning

[44:47] administrator would review it for

[44:49] dimensional standards just a few

[44:51] examples would be parking requirements

[44:54] height requirements set back

[44:56] requirements Landscaping requirements

[45:00] Etc so I had asked what the role of the

[45:03] commission was so you've just explained

[45:05] what the zoning administrator did does

[45:06] in that process but what is the Planning

[45:08] and Zoning commission's role in doing

[45:10] site plan review you

[45:13] objection in his experience in your

[45:15] experience in my experience the Planning

[45:18] Commission would review the

[45:20] recommendations of the um planning or

[45:25] zoning admin

[45:26] ministrator um and hear testimony from

[45:29] the applicant and the public and with that information they would vote uh

[45:35] for um action on the site plan approval

[45:38] disapproval or approval with

[45:42] conditions okay and I believe you said

[45:45] it but you might not have given a number

[45:48] you know can you Hazard to guess how

[45:49] many site plans you've submitted on

[45:51] behalf of clients in your

[45:53] career hundreds okay

[45:59] so in your experience were any of the

[46:02] site plan applications and and the

[46:04] projects they proposed by the Roden reel

[46:06] in their January 29th 2021 applications

[46:10] particularly novel or

[46:12] complex

[46:14] no did any of them raise difficult

[46:17] issues that needed to be

[46:20] resolved um I don't believe so uh we did

[46:24] have a pre um

[46:28] application um discussion with the Town

[46:31] Administrator which is common um just to

[46:34] talk about what the proposal is um how

[46:38] we're heading you know things that uh

[46:40] might uh come out you know or be seen to

[46:45] say Hey you know you need to look out

[46:46] for this and one thing that came up I do

[46:49] recall was

[46:51] um uh the use of the existing storm

[46:54] waterer management

[46:56] um around the

[46:58] harbor I'm specifically talking about

[47:00] Harbor Vista North Harbor Vista South

[47:02] Harbor Vista West there's a lot of

[47:04] history with the properties but in

[47:07] essence um the the marina um was

[47:12] redeveloped um and it started with Dave

[47:14] Sison back in the early 2000s and it was

[47:18] built and rebuilt um by the donovans the

[47:21] marina and with that um they installed

[47:24] storm water manage

[47:26] and um buffer yard requirements for

[47:29] critical area around the marina and

[47:32] these areas were intended to um not only

[47:36] provide stormw management and buffer

[47:38] landscape buffer and and uh Green Space

[47:41] buffer for the marina but for the future

[47:44] development so it was in place and

[47:46] already built and there was some

[47:48] discussion as if that storm water

[47:51] management would still meet the

[47:52] requirements of the new like storm

[47:55] management regulation ations had changed

[47:56] over the years so we never got that far

[47:59] because we didn't get a review but that

[48:00] was a discussion point and then uh Mr

[48:04] jabak who was the zoning administrator

[48:06] at the time brought up um the uh SE or

[48:11] uh I should say sea level rise uh which

[48:15] now um has come out but at the time it

[48:18] was just a

[48:20] uh more of a proposal of information

[48:24] that was being provided but it was was n

[48:25] a regulation it wasn't issued as a law

[48:28] or an ordinance or anything um but he

[48:31] brought it to our attention and he

[48:33] wasn't sure how that could may or may

[48:35] not impact the projects so those two

[48:37] things came up uh but again we didn't

[48:40] get a review so I don't know how they

[48:43] would have turned

[48:46] out in your previous testimony you had

[48:48] identified the projects by names uh

[48:51] Harbor Vista South Harbor Vista North

[48:53] Harbor Vista West Home Place and stin it

[48:56] please MH um can you describe the

[48:59] location of Harbor Vista

[49:01] South so Harbor Vista South uh is on

[49:05] Harbor Road at the intersection um or

[49:09] the access point to rod and reel at the

[49:13] light on the south side of the bridge

[49:15] and it would be on the right side as you

[49:17] go over the bridge so existing parking

[49:20] lot at

[49:22] currently Harbor you me go each one yeah

[49:26] the for these three okay so Harbor Vista

[49:29] West uh would be the the center

[49:34] Arrow you can if you can see that if

[49:36] nobody's color blind to the right um of

[49:39] the screen

[49:41] center which would be back by The Dredge

[49:43] spoil site or I guess south of the um

[49:46] rental

[49:47] units and then Harbor Vista North is the

[49:50] small parking lot at the bottom of the

[49:53] page on the screen which is on Gordon to

[49:55] Avenue right behind the water

[50:04] park can you

[50:06] describe the location of stennet place

[50:08] please Gordon stennet uh is North I'm

[50:12] yeah north side of town C Street and 261

[50:17] it's the two

[50:19] green football field looking areas on

[50:21] the screen there

[50:24] arrows

[50:28] home place can you describe the location

[50:31] home place as off of Cox Road um

[50:35] western side of ches beake beach just

[50:38] off of Route

[50:44] 260 okay

[50:47] so let's go back to this one and just

[50:50] have it up so that you can see what

[50:52] we're talking about as I have Mr

[50:54] Woodburn describe each of these projects

[50:57] um can you describe the Harbor Vista

[51:00] South projects you know its units the parking locations the access things

[51:05] like that you have a site plan too you

[51:08] put up there be easier uh no I don't

[51:10] have okay that but I

[51:14] do at this

[51:17] point wish to offer we already have

[51:21] exhibit five in the record which are all

[51:24] the site

[51:27] applications but they're in digital

[51:29] form I had Paul prepare them in paper

[51:32] form and I could hand those out and that

[51:35] way it would be a lot easier I think for

[51:37] you to have them but I also don't want

[51:39] to duplicate exhibits but if if you

[51:41] would like the paper versions so that

[51:44] each of you can and Mr pounds can have

[51:46] them too I've got them

[51:49] here already in

[51:54] evidence

[52:11] did

[52:12] you PA did you do these how many of did

[52:15] you do did just four months

[52:24] ago

[52:26] why is this one big and

[52:47] [Music]

[52:54] small

[53:16] maybe suggest five minutes uh uh yeah

[53:18] that is a good point uh let's take five

[53:19] while you do this thank

[53:24] you

[53:52] [Music]

[53:54] for

[54:11] yes you think an hour and 10 is going to

[54:14] be enough for you to get to the end of

[54:15] your presentation

[54:18] no well I'm going to

[54:24] try but I guess is

[54:28] cross-examination okay yes that'll be

[54:29] another

[54:34] thing time you

[54:45] guys yeah I'm just saying if we maybe we give

[54:54] Mr

[55:57] all right uh everybody's back we will uh

[55:59] resume please continue I apologize I

[56:02] thought we had a copy for each of you

[56:04] what we have is two two sets of paper

[56:06] one for two sets so what I'd like to do

[56:09] is just give the board one paper set and

[56:12] give Mr pounds the other just so he can

[56:14] have them okay

[56:20] but we have these in digital form the

[56:22] full contents this is for reference only

[56:33] I don't think so um the only thing is we

[56:36] want to if if whatever would help

[56:38] understanding the testimony today but

[56:40] um we'll leave that to you to to

[56:49] say

[56:53] live

[57:07] so Mr Woodburn first just generally

[57:09] describe what Harbor Vista South project

[57:11] is and what

[57:12] it so Harbor Vista South is a proposed

[57:18] condominium uh

[57:20] development um it was originally

[57:22] approved in I believe in 200

[57:25] 16 and again it's located at the

[57:27] intersection Harbor Road of the top

[57:31] Arrow condominium project of 59 units

[57:36] um in accessed off a Harbor Road

[57:39] directly across from the library um

[57:42] building uh parking consisted of

[57:46] primarily underneath of the

[57:48] building um there was some surface

[57:50] parking along um

[57:53] 260 one

[57:57] um of course access to the marina the

[58:00] front of the the property there um is uh

[58:05] boat slips so you would access um

[58:08] vehicular off for Harbor Vista but

[58:11] pedestrian access through uh the rear

[58:15] which also has pedestrian access under

[58:18] the bridge over to the rod and reil so

[58:20] there was a circular access almost

[58:22] through the intersection to the rod and

[58:24] reil back to

[58:25] Vista back in

[58:27] 2016 was originally approved the parking

[58:30] lot actually before that it was uh

[58:33] constructed and

[58:34] built um as you can see here and has

[58:38] parking for the marina

[58:40] currently

[58:42] so go to the next slide

[58:46] here and what I'm showing you is from

[58:49] your site plan for Harbor Vista South

[58:51] which is exhibit 5 and on the screen

[58:53] we're looking at the center of the site

[58:56] plan showing the building located on the

[58:58] parcel

[58:59] right

[59:02] um so you've already kind of testified

[59:05] that that's the orientation to the

[59:06] streets so that shows them I didn't

[59:11] bring it up fast enough but you started

[59:13] talking about

[59:14] it

[59:17] um so is this already a separate and

[59:20] subdivided buildable parcel it is it's a

[59:23] ploted parcel it's parcel

[59:25] shows on this it's plat book

[59:27] ab4 plat

[59:30] 293

[59:33] okay and on the next slide I'm showing

[59:38] you the general notes on your sheet too

[59:42] and we're going to go over some of these

[59:44] for each of the projects um as a means

[59:46] of describing some of the basics um but

[59:50] important is the idea that it shows the

[59:52] basic zoning compli ordinance compliance

[59:55] requirements so the general notes

[59:58] typically will well actually I'll ask Mr

[1:00:01] Woodburn to

[1:00:02] testify Mr Woodburn when you put um the

[1:00:05] general notes on a site plan what are

[1:00:09] they designed to

[1:00:11] achieve so in the zoning ordinance there

[1:00:14] is uh what we call dimensional standards

[1:00:16] and general zoning standards for

[1:00:19] density um property information and we

[1:00:22] basically summarize this and General

[1:00:25] notes to outline what the required

[1:00:28] density would be what the required

[1:00:31] parking ratio would be U what the

[1:00:34] required bicycle um rack requirements

[1:00:38] would be like how many bicycles loading

[1:00:40] space

[1:00:42] requirements as you can see here so we

[1:00:44] would we would put down what's required

[1:00:47] by the zoning and then we would put down

[1:00:49] what's provided on the site

[1:00:51] plan so it's more of a summary of what

[1:00:54] actually

[1:00:55] designed on the site plan okay and so

[1:00:57] this is just showing your first 11 notes

[1:00:59] but the notes are longer than this

[1:01:04] correct and in this instance of course

[1:01:06] we're in the critical area because

[1:01:08] they're category ones and it just

[1:01:10] critical area notes as well so using

[1:01:15] this show it's demonstrating how the

[1:01:18] proposed Harbor Vista South project

[1:01:20] would comply with the zoning ordinance

[1:01:22] at the time you filed it which was back

[1:01:24] in January of 2021 correct that's

[1:01:30] correct would the Harbor Vista South

[1:01:32] project as proposed in the site plan

[1:01:34] that was filed and included in exhibit

[1:01:37] five comply with the current zoning

[1:01:39] ordinance um in my read of the current

[1:01:42] zoning ordinance it would not comply

[1:01:46] okay and in your general notes you

[1:01:48] identified that the property was in the

[1:01:50] maritime Zone that's

[1:01:53] correct it also describes the property

[1:01:56] as being located in the bonus density

[1:01:57] overlay District what's the bonus

[1:01:59] density overlay District so under the prior zoning there was a provision

[1:02:05] for

[1:02:06] certain um zoning districts that that

[1:02:09] you could have a bonus

[1:02:11] density um and what that achieved was

[1:02:14] more under the smart growth initiative

[1:02:17] it allowed a higher density um within a

[1:02:20] smaller footprint so

[1:02:23] um you wouldn't have sprawl basically

[1:02:26] you build up instead of out

[1:02:30] yeah in developed Town centers in

[1:02:33] certain yeah zones and be a town center

[1:02:39] correct the proposed building for Harbor

[1:02:42] Vista South was a multif family

[1:02:43] residential structure correct that's

[1:02:45] correct and was that allowed in the

[1:02:47] maritime Zone at the time you filed the

[1:02:49] application it

[1:02:52] was and you include the General uh

[1:02:55] critical area calculations in your notes

[1:02:57] as well we

[1:02:59] did

[1:03:02] um and those calculations are required

[1:03:05] to show what the required mitigation is

[1:03:06] for a project in the critical area

[1:03:08] correct that's

[1:03:11] correct was any of the required critical

[1:03:13] area mitigation for Harbor Vista South

[1:03:16] to be met

[1:03:17] offsite yes you describe that so we had

[1:03:23] done and

[1:03:25] 2006 the 2016 approval um we had

[1:03:29] proposed a um more of a comprehensive

[1:03:34] mitigation approach for the rod and reel

[1:03:37] itself and for Harbor Vista South um the

[1:03:43] shopping center where Roland's Market is

[1:03:46] um had no stormw Management in place it

[1:03:49] was built in the 80s I believe maybe

[1:03:51] even earlier so storm waterer management

[1:03:53] wasn't acquired at the time um so we

[1:03:56] proposed to do a storm waterer

[1:03:59] Management Facility for the entire um

[1:04:02] parking lot um so we captured the water

[1:04:05] off of the parking lot um treated the

[1:04:08] water in a underground storm water

[1:04:10] filter system um which if you're

[1:04:14] interested in it uh you can see it it's

[1:04:16] at the corner of the garage when you

[1:04:18] make your left into the to the rod and

[1:04:20] reel um and that filtering system takes

[1:04:22] care of the existing parking lot

[1:04:24] which was a partial offset mitigation

[1:04:27] for the Harbor Vista South and the rod

[1:04:29] and reel

[1:04:32] projects it's treated about acre and a

[1:04:35] half I believe of uh the parking lot for

[1:04:38] the Harbor Vista South so the mitigation

[1:04:40] was being met critical area mitigation

[1:04:42] was being met by providing storm Wonder

[1:04:45] management for other people's properties

[1:04:47] that the town wanted to get properly

[1:04:51] treated is that correct um partly okay

[1:04:54] we did mitigation onsite as well a lot

[1:04:57] of plantings and and onsite but yes

[1:04:59] partly yes how much of the credit was to

[1:05:03] be applied to the Harbor Vista Southside

[1:05:04] plan if you can recall I know it was an

[1:05:07] acre and a half um which was like

[1:05:10] 63,000 plus or minus square feet of

[1:05:14] mitigation how much was to go to Harbor

[1:05:16] Vista South though because Harbor Vista

[1:05:18] much that's have okay

[1:05:22] yep so portion of the critical area

[1:05:25] mitigation for the harbor Vis to South

[1:05:27] project has already been completed it

[1:05:29] has it's been built and constructed and

[1:05:41] operational uh you were present for the

[1:05:43] presentation where I provided the board

[1:05:45] with the comprehensive plan um that was

[1:05:49] adopted by the Town Council in April of

[1:05:52] 2022 um and the implementing ordinances

[1:05:55] that were subsequently filed and still

[1:05:57] being new comprehensive plan new

[1:05:59] comprehensive plan and the implementing

[1:06:01] ordinance yes so under the comprehensive

[1:06:04] plan and implementing ordinances that

[1:06:06] have been adopted so far following the

[1:06:10] 2022 comprehensive plan would the rod

[1:06:13] and reel's Harbor Vista South project be

[1:06:16] compliant with those ordinances

[1:06:19] no um what zone is in the harbor Vista

[1:06:22] South property

[1:06:25] um what what zone is it in the current

[1:06:27] plan the new the new plan I believe it's

[1:06:31] the south is

[1:06:33] MC Maritime commercial yeah can you

[1:06:37] build a multif family dwelling in an MC

[1:06:39] Maritime commercial now no

[1:06:45] okay what was the previous height limit

[1:06:48] in the maritime District uh it was 70

[1:06:52] feet and the proposed Building height of

[1:06:54] Harbor Vista South was what

[1:06:57] 582 and couple inches I think it was 582

[1:07:01] 58 foot 2 inches pH

[1:07:05] call shows on the site

[1:07:08] plan um so what's the maximum height in

[1:07:12] the MC Maritime commercial now 35

[1:07:19] feet so the Harbor Vista South project

[1:07:22] as proposed could have been built

[1:07:24] according to the laws in effect when the

[1:07:26] applications were filed in January 2021

[1:07:29] but can no longer under the current

[1:07:31] zoning that's

[1:07:36] correct was the site plan you submitted

[1:07:39] in January 20121 for Harbor Vista South

[1:07:43] substantially similar to the to plans

[1:07:45] that you had previously submitted to the

[1:07:46] commission for this

[1:07:48] property almost identical in footprint

[1:07:52] yes

[1:07:55] you restate that please into the

[1:07:57] microphone me or him it was almost

[1:07:59] identical in

[1:08:01] footprint thank

[1:08:03] you and what stage of approval process

[1:08:06] had that

[1:08:07] received previously it was originally in

[1:08:11] 2016 preliminary site plan preliminary

[1:08:13] site plan approval that's

[1:08:22] correct

[1:08:29] so now I'm submitting exhibit 54 which

[1:08:31] are the minutes of the February 10th

[1:08:33] 2016 meeting of the Planning and Zoning

[1:08:36] commission that shows the original

[1:08:38] approval of the preliminary site

[1:08:41] plan and that would be exhibit

[1:08:52] 54

[1:09:19] I'm showing you what's been marked for

[1:09:21] identification as exhibit 5 five Mr

[1:09:25] Woodburn and ask you to confir confirm

[1:09:29] that this is page two of the architect

[1:09:31] site plan document and the February 9th

[1:09:33] 2016 memo of the zoning administrator on

[1:09:37] the project simply to show how similar

[1:09:39] the project was to the one that was

[1:09:41] submitted in January 29th

[1:09:43] 2021 I mess on Architects I'm I'm this

[1:09:47] is site plan that's your site plan

[1:09:50] correct and this is the architect site

[1:09:52] plan okay and then next is the

[1:09:55] memorandum of the zoning administrator

[1:09:59] correct yes it's

[1:10:02] correct these are all for the 2016

[1:10:05] preliminary plan site all for that is

[1:10:08] exhibit

[1:10:21] 55 BL that exhibit in clud the uh staff

[1:10:25] memorandum

[1:10:33] yes that was that was dated February 9th

[1:10:42] 2016 just to show you an

[1:10:50] overhead

[1:10:52] oh okay so so this is an overhead view

[1:10:56] that was included in exhibit 55 which as

[1:10:59] you can see has a similar configuration

[1:11:02] to the one we saw in the Roden reels

[1:11:04] application for Harbor Vista South that

[1:11:05] was filed in January 29 21 so 16 and 20

[1:11:10] 21 projects

[1:11:12] were very very

[1:11:17] similar next

[1:11:21] I'll offer the minutes of the Planning

[1:11:24] and Zoning commission dated February 8th

[1:11:29] 2017

[1:11:31] um as exhibit excuse me Mr blit before

[1:11:34] you go there do we have these uh rawing

[1:11:38] this on the screen now it should be a

[1:11:41] part

[1:11:42] of your package it's second page of

[1:11:45] exhibit

[1:11:52] 55

[1:11:54] oh I don't want to jump too far ahead so

[1:11:57] now I'm

[1:12:04] offering missing the side information

[1:12:06] it's just the image

[1:12:11] itself it's

[1:12:22] missing

[1:12:34] PDF these some of the Architects PDFs

[1:12:36] are in different layers and all kind of

[1:12:37] weird stuff happens so that was exhibit

[1:12:40] 56 which is the

[1:12:42] minutes and as these minutes show the

[1:12:44] preliminary site plan for the prior

[1:12:46] iteration of Harbor Vista project was

[1:12:48] extended for an additional year so that

[1:12:51] it would expire on February

[1:12:57] 2018 so Mr Woodburn were you aware that

[1:12:59] the preliminary site plan approval had

[1:13:01] been extended for one year in 2017 yes

[1:13:05] and was a subsequent extension request

[1:13:07] made yes was that granted

[1:13:12] no so as late as February of

[1:13:17] 2018 the preliminary site plan for

[1:13:19] Harbor Vista South had been valid but

[1:13:21] had since lapsed correct that's correct

[1:13:27] so let's turn to the Harbor Vista West

[1:13:36] project so why don't you start off

[1:13:38] generally describing what Harbor Vista

[1:13:40] West project proposed in its unit count

[1:13:43] and what it was parking locations where

[1:13:46] it's access I PL a better one to discuss

[1:13:48] all that honestly than this there you go

[1:13:50] so

[1:13:51] here's um shows you site plan sheet two

[1:13:55] from the site

[1:13:57] plan so um this plan is directed south

[1:14:01] to North on The View just so you can get

[1:14:03] yourself oriented the right hand side

[1:14:06] where you see the north Arrow that's

[1:14:08] water that's the actual boat slips if

[1:14:11] you're familiar with the area um just to

[1:14:14] the left of the north arrow is the

[1:14:17] access road that would take you down to

[1:14:20] the beginning of the Railway Trail the

[1:14:23] Boardwalk portion of the railro trail

[1:14:26] the Shaded um I'd say more like a

[1:14:29] sidewalk looking um that's the uh

[1:14:32] stamped concrete portion of the

[1:14:34] boardwalk Trail and then to the left of

[1:14:37] that where the red dots um are uh to the

[1:14:40] left that's the proposed Harbor Vista

[1:14:43] West um development uh the parking would

[1:14:47] be on the bottom that surface parking

[1:14:50] and then the building would be generally

[1:14:52] in the center with parking underneath we

[1:14:55] call Podium

[1:14:56] parking um and to the left corner the

[1:15:00] triangular piece that's an existing

[1:15:02] storm waterer Management Facility that

[1:15:04] again as I described earlier in a

[1:15:06] testimony was

[1:15:08] installed uh with the original

[1:15:10] development by Dave sisen of the marina

[1:15:13] uh for this future development it was

[1:15:15] actually put in place for this

[1:15:17] development uh and then on the north

[1:15:20] side of the site development uh is more

[1:15:23] surface

[1:15:24] parking how many units was Harbor Vista

[1:15:27] West supposed to be I believe this is 60

[1:15:35] units next I'm unit showing you from

[1:15:39] exhibit 5 the general notes one through

[1:15:42] 11 on P two of your site

[1:15:49] plan so would the Harbor Vista West

[1:15:52] project as proposed in the site plan

[1:15:54] that's

[1:15:54] included in exhibit 5 and was submitted

[1:15:57] in January of 2021 would that uh comply

[1:16:01] with the current zoning ordinance it

[1:16:02] would not comply with the current zoning

[1:16:07] ordinance in your general notes you

[1:16:09] identify the property as being in the

[1:16:10] maritime Zone correct that's

[1:16:13] correct and it's supposed to be a multif

[1:16:15] family structure

[1:16:17] correct was that allowed in Maritime

[1:16:19] Zone was yes already asked that for the

[1:16:22] harbor Buist to

[1:16:31] um so what what zone is the Harbor Vista

[1:16:34] West property located in now it's uh RC

[1:16:38] which is resource

[1:16:40] conservation can you build a multif

[1:16:42] family dwelling in a resource

[1:16:43] conservation zone

[1:16:46] no what was the previous height limit in

[1:16:49] the maritime District 70 feet and what's

[1:16:52] the proposed height of Harbor Vista West

[1:16:54] 35 feet under the curtain

[1:16:56] zone no what is what was the proposed

[1:16:59] height foot I believe it's 582 two two

[1:17:02] inches exactly as Harbor Vista South

[1:17:05] same height as Harbor Vista South

[1:17:08] correct and the new maximum height in

[1:17:10] the MC Maritime commercial Zone adopted

[1:17:13] in

[1:17:15] 2022 well we're in the resource

[1:17:17] conservation oh you're right resource

[1:17:19] conservation 35 feet so

[1:17:26] and the Roden reel gave the town an

[1:17:28] easement across this property to

[1:17:30] accomodate the railway Trail correct

[1:17:32] that's

[1:17:34] correct and the town built a water and

[1:17:36] sewer pipe under that easement to serve

[1:17:39] the eventual construction of Harbor

[1:17:40] Vista West sewer pipe water water was

[1:17:44] built previously with the uh rental

[1:17:47] units next door okay yes so they built a

[1:17:50] sewer pipe right to serve the eventual

[1:17:53] construction that's

[1:18:02] cor so now let's turn to Harbor Vista

[1:18:04] North just to orient yourself where that

[1:18:06] is that's that little

[1:18:08] parcel at the end of the

[1:18:12] marina go to the sheet three of the site

[1:18:20] plan and wanted to give a general

[1:18:22] descript ion of the orientation of the

[1:18:24] building and the access and its unit

[1:18:26] counts and things like that sure so once

[1:18:28] again this uh is oriented

[1:18:30] north um and this project it fronts on Gordon skinet

[1:18:37] Avenue um which if you go out to uh

[1:18:41] kellums field uh there's a large parking

[1:18:44] lot on the top side of this sheet which

[1:18:47] um is I think it's intended for boat

[1:18:50] storage I think that's he uses it but

[1:18:52] during footall football games I know

[1:18:53] everybody use it um the building sits in

[1:18:56] the center of this sheet here just on

[1:18:59] the north side of the end of the water

[1:19:01] the marina as you can see there's boat

[1:19:04] slips you can see the circles those are

[1:19:05] pilings for the boat

[1:19:07] slips uh and then access to the site

[1:19:10] would be off of Gordon Stant on both the

[1:19:13] right side or east and the west side

[1:19:16] which is the left and as um Mr Blitz had

[1:19:20] mentioned it's kind of hard to see but

[1:19:22] the diamond plated uh two lines on the

[1:19:24] left that's the railway trail that uh

[1:19:27] the Donovan provided the EAS for for

[1:19:30] access to the railway

[1:19:32] Trail um the building itself I guess

[1:19:34] it's a little hard to see but it's a

[1:19:36] u-shape there almost Center uh with

[1:19:39] parking again underneath uh at the first

[1:19:42] floor you would park underneath the

[1:19:44] second floor and then surface parking

[1:19:46] along Gordon stened

[1:19:51] Avenue this project is located on parcel

[1:19:54] J of the

[1:19:55] plat it is on parcel J it's a

[1:19:58] condominium actually it's um unit one of

[1:20:01] partiel

[1:20:03] J so it's already been ploted as a

[1:20:06] identified as a developed lot

[1:20:08] developable

[1:20:14] lot so these are the general notes 1

[1:20:17] through 11 for your site

[1:20:21] plan or Harbor Vista

[1:20:25] West that's

[1:20:29] correct nor oh I

[1:20:32] apologize Harbor Vista North Harbor

[1:20:35] Vista North so would Harbor Vista North

[1:20:38] as proposed in the site plan that you

[1:20:39] provided in January 21st comply with the

[1:20:41] urrent zoning ordinance it would

[1:20:45] not was it located in the maritime Zone

[1:20:47] we've already gone over that

[1:20:51] yes the new zoning is MC Maritime

[1:20:55] commercial the height of the proposed

[1:20:57] building is

[1:20:59] 582 again 58 foot2

[1:21:02] Ines um it's 23 units and would not be

[1:21:06] allowed in the MC Zone the new

[1:21:09] Zone um as proposed a 35 foot height

[1:21:14] limit but in the prior Maritime Zone

[1:21:16] District the height maximum height was

[1:21:18] 70 that's Shon not 11 yes 70 foot okay

[1:21:22] and

[1:21:23] so as when you made the applications in

[1:21:26] January of 2021 they complied but they

[1:21:28] no longer comply with the current zoning

[1:21:30] correct that's

[1:21:33] correct was there any prior work on the

[1:21:35] property where Harbor Vista West and

[1:21:37] Harbor Vista North were located um that the January 2021 applications were

[1:21:43] relying

[1:21:46] upon um yes what was that uh well we had

[1:21:51] the sewer installed already U which we

[1:21:54] spoke about and um storm waterer

[1:21:57] management was already installed the

[1:21:59] buffer yards were in put in place when

[1:22:01] we um when the the uh Marine was built

[1:22:05] the bulkheads were built and the Green

[1:22:07] Space around the bulad are built there's

[1:22:09] a sand filter system along the entire

[1:22:11] length of that which was designed

[1:22:14] approve by not only the town and the

[1:22:16] county but the critic Larry commission

[1:22:17] to provide storm management for the

[1:22:19] entire development and then if you go

[1:22:22] way back U when that Marina was actually

[1:22:25] built for those you can remember there

[1:22:27] was numerous um boat houses and I don't

[1:22:29] know if everybody remers those but those

[1:22:32] boat houses were taken down um

[1:22:35] along the um the slip area there was a

[1:22:38] Goodyear Building Maintenance building

[1:22:41] that was taken down there was quite a

[1:22:43] bit of um old dilapidated impervious

[1:22:47] area as we call it that was taken out as

[1:22:50] part of the original project

[1:22:53] um to uh provide storm management and

[1:22:56] critical area mitigation for these

[1:23:00] developments so yeah quite a bit of work

[1:23:02] was done did that also include frag

[1:23:04] mighty's remediation there was frag

[1:23:07] mighty's remediation

[1:23:09] yes and wasn't there also some

[1:23:11] adjustments to The Moorings and Pier

[1:23:13] piles part of the mitigation the entire

[1:23:15] Marina was

[1:23:21] veryone

[1:23:31] it's isn't it true that the ciens who

[1:23:35] you referenced as being the prior

[1:23:38] owners had done the title Wetlands

[1:23:42] delineation for the Western Property

[1:23:45] boundary because that had not previously

[1:23:47] been mapped and that that was

[1:23:48] transferred to the rod and reel talking

[1:23:51] about Harbor V West area yes yes and so

[1:23:54] they obtain the private Wetland permit

[1:23:57] which I'll read is 03 wp1

[1:24:01] 155r and the core of army Engineers

[1:24:04] permit 2004 to facilitate that work

[1:24:08] that's correct and that was transferred

[1:24:11] with the property to the rod and reel

[1:24:13] for their projects that's correct

[1:24:15] because all these projects had really

[1:24:17] been kind of designed by the sistens

[1:24:19] they started with the sistens um

[1:24:23] almost as they were proposed in the

[1:24:27] 2021 application yes very

[1:24:30] close that was as far back as

[1:24:41] 2004 but the rod and reel did the

[1:24:43] mitigation work correct not the systens

[1:24:46] that's correct assistants have gotten

[1:24:47] the permits but the rodel actually um

[1:24:50] performed the work or their contractor

[1:24:52] you obtained a zoning permit for that

[1:24:54] work that's

[1:24:56] correct and all this mitigation was

[1:24:59] going to be applied as credits to the

[1:25:01] January 29th 2021 applications for

[1:25:04] Harbor Vista West and Harbor Vista North

[1:25:06] projects as they were for the 2016

[1:25:10] approvals and you know we had several

[1:25:12] approvals on Harbor Vista North and

[1:25:14] Harbor Vista South and they were

[1:25:16] credited for those and approve with

[1:25:17] those

[1:25:21] yes

[1:25:35] so I'm showing you the zoning permit the

[1:25:37] zoning

[1:25:42] permit which you have in your exhibits I

[1:25:48] mean oh no I haven't submitted that yet

[1:25:51] exhibit 57

[1:26:03] ail

[1:26:21] 201

[1:26:47] let's turn to the Senate Place

[1:26:49] project there's

[1:27:16] [Music]

[1:27:21] let's for clarification this zoning

[1:27:24] permit it says partiel J so this is the

[1:27:26] permit for har for North

[1:27:29] right so the whole um property that

[1:27:34] includes Harbor Vista North and Harbor

[1:27:37] Vista West is partial J okay

[1:27:45] yeah we're waiting for that Mr

[1:27:49] Woodburn that permit was issued in 2011

[1:27:53] do you recall whether it was

[1:28:00] renewed The Marina the permit you just

[1:28:03] showed yeah I I don't

[1:28:21] recall

[1:28:22] [Music]

[1:28:34] reminder we have about 30 minutes left

[1:28:36] before we're going to call it

[1:28:51] so now we're getting to SED place I'm

[1:28:57] just showing you the overhead view again

[1:28:58] just so you could mind where it is um

[1:29:02] now we'll go to the site

[1:29:05] plan

[1:29:10] um is shown on sheet two of the site

[1:29:13] plan submitted on January 29th for State

[1:29:18] Place

[1:29:20] um can you give us a general description

[1:29:24] the the orientation of this uh as you

[1:29:26] can see the top right North therea the

[1:29:28] north is right so North Beach would be

[1:29:31] to the right um top side of the the

[1:29:34] sheet Bas Side Road

[1:29:36] 261 Center uh is 31st

[1:29:40] Street and the properties that are owned

[1:29:43] under the application are the left side

[1:29:45] and the right side um and I know you're

[1:29:48] all probably familiar they're two big

[1:29:50] grass areas if you go by them

[1:29:53] today um this

[1:29:56] area um used to be hous or used to House

[1:30:01] stet

[1:30:02] Restaurant um and it was a very low Ling

[1:30:06] area it

[1:30:08] flooded all the time um before some vast

[1:30:12] improvements are made to this area

[1:30:14] however for this plan here there's 11

[1:30:17] townhouse

[1:30:18] units uh proposed that are accessed off

[1:30:22] of um C Street right in front of

[1:30:26] Cate um garage

[1:30:30] units

[1:30:35] uh okay fairly

[1:30:38] simple town

[1:30:40] homes so I'm next I'm showing

[1:30:44] you from exhibit 5 the general notes one

[1:30:47] through nine on sheet two of your site

[1:30:49] plan and as show as you've seen with the

[1:30:53] other uh projects I plan General

[1:30:57] notes the proposed compliance with a

[1:30:59] zoning ordinances at the time the

[1:31:01] applications were

[1:31:03] filed so under the comprehensive plan

[1:31:05] and implementing ordinances that have

[1:31:06] now been

[1:31:08] adopted after the filing would the rod

[1:31:11] and reel state Place project be

[1:31:13] compliant with those

[1:31:16] ordinances

[1:31:18] possibly um I haven't been through them

[1:31:21] to

[1:31:22] dissect them however there

[1:31:25] um uh there may be some issue with

[1:31:29] there's some ambiguous um review I think

[1:31:32] with architecture and things like that

[1:31:34] which it's hard to say in the reading um

[1:31:37] if they would be compliant or not but

[1:31:40] dimensionally they probably would be

[1:31:44] compliant so in your general notes you

[1:31:46] identifi the

[1:31:47] property was in the RV District in

[1:31:50] that's correct what's it now now what

[1:31:52] district is it in

[1:31:54] rv2 so was there any previous work done

[1:31:56] on the Senate property expensive okay can you describe that

[1:32:02] this this project has had several

[1:32:05] approvals all the way to permit

[1:32:07] issuance um when you say permit issuance

[1:32:09] you mean zoning permit zoning permit

[1:32:11] issuance which is just to clarify is the

[1:32:15] final Town approval necessary for you

[1:32:19] Town approval to receive permits to

[1:32:22] construct so this would be the end of

[1:32:24] the line although isn't it true that you

[1:32:27] would then have to go get building

[1:32:28] permits and other permits from calary

[1:32:30] County development permits that we would

[1:32:31] call these yes it's the last stage from

[1:32:33] the town okay however on this particular

[1:32:36] project we did have State Highway

[1:32:38] permits and and town permit zoning

[1:32:41] permit and County permits at one

[1:32:43] time um extensive work was done and for

[1:32:48] those of you that have lived in town a

[1:32:50] while you may remember number of those

[1:32:52] you don't I'll give you a little history

[1:32:54] lesson

[1:32:56] 261 um and SE Street where I was saying

[1:32:59] stet restaurant

[1:33:01] was uh it'd be flooded tonight probably

[1:33:04] in that day and um was around elevation

[1:33:07] one maybe or something like that um tied

[1:33:11] it's elevation 0 42 so you have about

[1:33:14] six inches of play if you have a little

[1:33:15] bit of wind and if you're if you're

[1:33:18] familiar with the tidal gate right you

[1:33:20] see it out there you'll wonder what it

[1:33:22] is there's a reason that was put in it

[1:33:25] never really worked but uh

[1:33:29] so that was put in so if a hurricane or

[1:33:32] something came up the bay they could

[1:33:33] shut it right and it wouldn't push up

[1:33:35] into the town well you have all the

[1:33:37] water coming down too so you're fighting

[1:33:38] water coming down and Tide pushing up

[1:33:41] anyway um that area was very low and um

[1:33:46] the State Highway Administration and the

[1:33:49] town um and the Don

[1:33:52] I would say worked in in a like a public

[1:33:55] private partnership to fix the area to

[1:33:57] raise it they

[1:33:59] raised 261 I think about six feet um if

[1:34:04] I'm not

[1:34:05] mistaken um and at the same

[1:34:08] time with permits in hand the donovans

[1:34:11] raised their properties and the town

[1:34:14] raised SE

[1:34:15] Street um replace the entire sewer

[1:34:18] system because the sewer system every

[1:34:20] time it rained would flow back up

[1:34:22] and overflow into the roads and down

[1:34:26] into the stream

[1:34:28] Etc new water lines were put in um a new

[1:34:32] storm drain system was put in new water

[1:34:34] and sewer lines were put in everything

[1:34:36] was raised um by the state by the town

[1:34:39] and by the

[1:34:40] donovans as part of that a uh storm

[1:34:44] water pump station was

[1:34:46] installed um if you're not familiar with

[1:34:48] it you see black fence on the property

[1:34:51] goes around around that's what that is

[1:34:52] that's a pump station so when you get

[1:34:56] [Music]

[1:34:57] um large storm events um there's a way

[1:35:01] to actually pump the water out of that

[1:35:04] area and without a location to put the

[1:35:07] pump station and the backup it's a it's

[1:35:09] a pumparound system the Donovan's

[1:35:11] provided easements for that on their

[1:35:15] property um so it could be out of the

[1:35:17] flood plane it actually sits out of the

[1:35:18] huner flood

[1:35:20] plane uh

[1:35:22] can I a lot ask a clarifying question

[1:35:25] those easements you the pump you were

[1:35:27] talking about was would be a Town Pump

[1:35:30] it's a town facility is correct correct

[1:35:32] but the easement that you were granting

[1:35:34] was on the site plan yes that would for

[1:35:37] the Senate Place project there's no

[1:35:39] separate easement for it no it was

[1:35:40] included with the development permit

[1:35:42] part of the development permit process

[1:35:44] yes

[1:35:50] okay

[1:35:54] so now I'm going to submit exhibit 58

[1:35:56] which is the town zoning permit

[1:35:58] 6652 it was approved

[1:36:01] 8111 and two pages of renewal stamps

[1:36:04] showing the permit

[1:36:05] 5688 being renewed prior to that for

[1:36:08] Sate place so it's three pages that

[1:36:11] would be exhibit

[1:36:20] 58

[1:36:24] Mr Woodburn you you described working

[1:36:27] the town the donovans

[1:36:30] and the state highway working

[1:36:35] together I'm asking you to clarify that

[1:36:39] the development or state place was

[1:36:42] designed to meet the heights of that was

[1:36:45] agreed upon by all three of those

[1:36:46] parties that's correct so the pads that

[1:36:48] they now sit are building pads set up up

[1:36:52] for those Heights for all that work that

[1:36:54] was done yes they all worked all the

[1:36:58] three or each of the three entities

[1:37:00] worked together at the same time because

[1:37:02] it was a big bowl so the donovans did

[1:37:05] their part while the state was doing

[1:37:07] their part while the town was doing

[1:37:08] their part so that it all came up

[1:37:11] together raised together I should

[1:37:17] say okay let's turn to home place oh let

[1:37:20] me ask let me quickly look at my notes

[1:37:29] here okay home place so this is the

[1:37:32] general location Google Map just showing

[1:37:34] you where it

[1:37:36] is and then we'll go to the site plan

[1:37:39] which is your sheet two of exhibit 5 Mr

[1:37:43] Woodburn can you describe generally what

[1:37:46] this development is designed to

[1:37:48] accomplish this is oriented North uh as

[1:37:51] you see the north Arrow the top left the

[1:37:55] property uh borders Maryland Route 260

[1:37:58] on the North side and it fronts on Cox

[1:38:03] Road um on the South Side the proposed

[1:38:07] project um had two um condominium

[1:38:11] buildings and one single family house to

[1:38:15] mirror the existing home that's on the

[1:38:18] property currently um access is off of

[1:38:21] Cox

[1:38:23] Road um you'd come in off Cox and make a

[1:38:26] 90 degre turn it's called home place was

[1:38:28] the name of the

[1:38:30] road and um you would park some surface

[1:38:34] in front and the two condominium

[1:38:36] buildings are on the right and the

[1:38:38] bottom side of the parking lot and those

[1:38:41] had Podium parking

[1:38:44] beneath so let's turn to the general

[1:38:46] notes which you're one through looks

[1:38:49] like six of your notes

[1:38:56] um and that describes all the lots that

[1:38:59] were used to make up this parcel correct

[1:39:01] that's

[1:39:05] correct parcel one and

[1:39:11] two so under the ordinance that existed

[1:39:16] at the time you filed the

[1:39:20] application would the proposed plan have

[1:39:23] met the zoning ordinance at that time

[1:39:25] yes it's RV and it was in the RV

[1:39:31] district and under the comprehensive

[1:39:33] plan that was subsequently passed 2022

[1:39:36] with the Home Place project be compliant

[1:39:39] it would it's in the rv2 in the new

[1:39:41] ordinance and it would not be

[1:39:44] compliant mainly due to the height

[1:39:46] restriction of 35

[1:39:48] feet if Mr BL I'm sorry I didn't hear

[1:39:51] everything what he said okay could you

[1:39:54] repeat that under the new

[1:39:56] ordinance um it would not meet code as

[1:40:02] um the height restriction of 35 feet

[1:40:06] would uh preclude it from being approved

[1:40:10] or allowed well you also described the

[1:40:12] parking I believe as parking underneath

[1:40:14] correct is that allowed under the

[1:40:16] current no okay so that also would not

[1:40:19] be compliant okay

[1:40:24] so was there any previous work done for

[1:40:26] these properties for Home

[1:40:29] Place uh physical construction no um but

[1:40:35] we did go through a resoning for growth

[1:40:38] allocation um to go from the LDA to the

[1:40:42] Ida which is required for this

[1:40:44] development and that was approved I

[1:40:46] think you actually you showed in the

[1:40:49] previous slide apped um under the com

[1:40:52] 2010 comprehensive plan as part of the

[1:40:55] growth allocation approval

[1:41:00] y but you you must have gotten site plan

[1:41:03] approval because you also got zoning

[1:41:04] permits we did get site plan approval

[1:41:06] and uh zoning permit yes okay so I'm

[1:41:09] going to offer as exhibit

[1:41:17] 59 the four pages

[1:41:21] the first two are zoning permit and

[1:41:25] renewals

[1:41:28] forms first one issued it looks like in

[1:41:31] 2009 February 12th of

[1:41:35] 2009 as well as the application for

[1:41:38] grading

[1:41:39] permit

[1:41:41] to calary

[1:41:49] County

[1:41:58] Mr Woodburn were you to serve as a civil

[1:42:00] engineer on all these

[1:42:02] developments yes and what does a Civil

[1:42:04] Engineer do for projects like this so uh

[1:42:09] we will prepare all the site development

[1:42:12] plans some of which you've seen here

[1:42:14] which will

[1:42:15] include a site plan a landscape plan

[1:42:20] utility plans such as water sewer storm

[1:42:23] drain storm water management grading

[1:42:26] roads parking

[1:42:28] Etc um we'd also coordinate with other

[1:42:33] uh Consultants such as Contra or the um

[1:42:37] Architects um for locating the building

[1:42:40] and and such um a geotechnical engineer

[1:42:44] Structural Engineers things like that

[1:42:46] and then uh assist with uh filing the

[1:42:49] applications

[1:42:51] War zoning permit building permit

[1:42:54] grading permits Etc so when you're doing

[1:42:56] that work with the Architects and the

[1:42:58] contractors um part of that includes for

[1:43:01] your work getting the foundation set at

[1:43:04] the right grade correct first

[1:43:09] correct how many different projects have

[1:43:12] you worked on for buildings such as this

[1:43:13] where you would act as a civil engineer

[1:43:16] if you can guess or give an estimate I

[1:43:19] shouldn't call it a guess an estimate

[1:43:21] hundreds

[1:43:23] okay and you're the civil engineer for

[1:43:25] the rot and reel development at the

[1:43:26] resort that's

[1:43:34] correct so given your knowledge and

[1:43:38] experience and having been involved in

[1:43:40] developing and submitting these site

[1:43:42] plans do you believe that if the

[1:43:44] Planning and Zoning commission had

[1:43:47] approved the site plans in the spring of

[1:43:49] 2021

[1:43:52] would the projects have been able to

[1:43:53] begin construction before May of

[1:43:59] 22 we're going way way uh into the realm

[1:44:03] of him as expressing an opinion

[1:44:05] especially an opinion as to what he

[1:44:07] thinks another administrative board may

[1:44:09] or may not have done um I mean that's

[1:44:12] not only is he expressing an opinion at

[1:44:14] this point but he's trying to express an

[1:44:15] opinion as to what the Planning

[1:44:17] Commission may or may not have done so

[1:44:20] yeah it's great we could all have an

[1:44:22] opinion about something but that's we's asking now it's just a pure

[1:44:27] speculation my question stipulated if

[1:44:31] you had gotten approval so let's that's

[1:44:33] the condition if you had gotten approval

[1:44:36] in the spring of 2021 would you have

[1:44:38] been able to get these projects under

[1:44:41] construction before May of 2022 he has

[1:44:44] experience with doing many of these

[1:44:46] projects he's doing the rod and reel

[1:44:48] project he's done the he he can testify

[1:44:51] from his experience about how quickly

[1:44:54] the construction could have

[1:44:57] started was a different question that

[1:44:59] was a different question so I would have

[1:45:00] no objection to that question because

[1:45:02] that was a different question that he

[1:45:03] asked before so um please answer the

[1:45:07] question is to based on your experience

[1:45:09] as an engineer regardless of the timing

[1:45:12] of any administrative outcomes would the

[1:45:16] how far along would the construction be

[1:45:19] in the timeline so

[1:45:23] um again just to to let you know I do

[1:45:26] these permits daily I've done it for 30

[1:45:28] years I can't guarantee it'll be permit

[1:45:31] will be approved in a week a month or

[1:45:34] you know a year however um if you were

[1:45:37] to ask me on this project or any one of

[1:45:41] these projects can I get a foundation

[1:45:44] permit within a year of site plan

[1:45:46] approval I would say absolutely

[1:45:49] yes

[1:45:57] and um can you what is the what does a

[1:46:00] foundation permit mean in terms of the

[1:46:03] so it's a good question so

[1:46:06] um in my world there's lots of permits

[1:46:09] um ultimately you want the final

[1:46:11] building permit that's everything right

[1:46:13] move in ready but um in the essence of time um especially when you're trying

[1:46:19] to get things done in weather um so

[1:46:23] you're like okay what can we get

[1:46:25] approved so that we can get through

[1:46:26] winter let's say we'd say we're going to

[1:46:29] file for a foundation only permit so

[1:46:33] this would be a permit to just put the

[1:46:34] concrete foundation in so that the

[1:46:37] contractor then has some work to do they

[1:46:39] can put in a lot of utilities below

[1:46:41] ground and work on other things while

[1:46:43] they're trying to get the final building

[1:46:45] permit to erect the the

[1:46:48] vertical so uh we we'll do Foundation

[1:46:51] only permits they're pretty common so

[1:46:54] let me follow up with a question then

[1:46:56] the foundation permit would include the

[1:46:58] permit for driving piles correct and the

[1:47:02] pile caps anything below grade so that

[1:47:05] would include any of the grade beams and

[1:47:08] the the horizontal beams that are

[1:47:10] underneath below grade for the

[1:47:12] foundation

[1:47:14] okay I have no other questions of Mr

[1:47:16] Woodburn and so I stop allow cross okay

[1:47:20] um at this point in time

[1:47:24] um examine Mr Woodburn based on the

[1:47:27] contents of his testimony

[1:47:28] today um I can de mine's going to be

[1:47:31] longer than the 15 minutes uh Mr

[1:47:33] Woodburn would you make yourself

[1:47:34] available at the end of Mr bliss's

[1:47:36] presentation for additional questions of

[1:47:38] your testimony

[1:47:43] sure uh if you have a question uh that

[1:47:45] what what has been presented today

[1:47:47] please step to the lecturn uh put if

[1:47:49] make sure your name on the list

[1:47:52] um of um what's the

[1:47:56] word uh I will add my

[1:47:59] name part yeah yeah thank you arties of

[1:48:02] record your name is on the list and uh

[1:48:04] you may ask questions but only to the

[1:48:05] scope yes sir presented Greg Morris

[1:48:09] 2425 Woodland

[1:48:15] Court

[1:48:18] 301873 4036 thank

[1:48:23] you Mr Woodburn have you ever worked for

[1:48:26] the town of ches big

[1:48:28] beach you direct them to me or you yes

[1:48:31] he can ask them to you okay fine uh have

[1:48:34] I ever work for the town CH yes please

[1:48:37] explain the capacity you served so I was

[1:48:40] Town

[1:48:42] engineer um uh see on and off between

[1:48:48] 2000 I don't know exactly when I started

[1:48:51] for to

[1:48:54] 2020 long long span there uh so you were

[1:48:59] acting Town civil engineer at that

[1:49:02] time mostly not all during that time

[1:49:06] were you in charge of Planning and

[1:49:08] Zoning review and recommendations to the

[1:49:09] town was not was it can you explain

[1:49:14] kubak is the zoning administrator when

[1:49:17] did he uh begin serving as that don't

[1:49:20] remember

[1:49:22] sorry any time during your tenure with

[1:49:25] the town did you also work with a rod

[1:49:27] and reel in any capacity related to the

[1:49:28] subject Pro

[1:49:30] projects uh yes have further questions

[1:49:33] thank

[1:49:44] you or blackw 3256 Canon King Court ches

[1:49:48] Peake Beach Maryland

[1:49:50] Mr n Laura black

[1:50:10] welder Mr Woodburn was the email

[1:50:13] informing you of the moratorium the only

[1:50:16] comment that you received from Mr chubak

[1:50:18] when you were working with him on these

[1:50:19] projects

[1:50:21] yes you did not have any meetings with

[1:50:23] him about the properties he did not

[1:50:26] communicate any concerns about anything

[1:50:29] that was the

[1:50:31] only correspondence that you had with

[1:50:34] him okay so can you define

[1:50:38] correspondence um well when you're

[1:50:41] working with the zoning administrator

[1:50:43] you're you're meeting with him I assume

[1:50:45] verbal correspondence sure yeah before

[1:50:48] the submittal or after the submitt

[1:50:52] appli after the submitt I had no

[1:50:54] conversations with him no and before the

[1:50:57] submittal did he communicate any

[1:51:00] concerns to you as I testified yes okay

[1:51:04] yes

[1:51:07] um

[1:51:14] and could those concerns that he had

[1:51:17] about your site plans be a reason why he

[1:51:20] would not bring them to the Planning

[1:51:22] Commission I don't

[1:51:24] know he did not state

[1:51:27] that and he's not here to

[1:51:30] testify um so so what you're saying is

[1:51:34] you don't know why Mr he said I can read

[1:51:37] you what he said if you'd like right but you also just testified that you

[1:51:41] don't know why Mr dubak did not bring

[1:51:44] the site plans to the Planning

[1:51:46] Commission for review I know what he

[1:51:47] said yeah I know his reason yes if you

[1:51:50] like me to read it I can that's all I

[1:51:51] can tell you I read it as well but you

[1:51:54] will agree that you can't get into Mr

[1:51:57] duc's head yeah I can't do

[1:52:00] that

[1:52:02] yes

[1:52:05] um in your experience is a category one

[1:52:09] site plan typically reviewed and

[1:52:11] approved within 60 days of filing of an

[1:52:14] application I would have no reason to

[1:52:16] believe it wouldn't

[1:52:17] be you said you filed hundreds of those

[1:52:21] hundreds town no I haven't right so of

[1:52:24] those hundreds that you've submitted

[1:52:27] what percentage would you say is

[1:52:29] reviewed and approved within 60 days of

[1:52:31] your filing I've never added them up I

[1:52:34] don't

[1:52:35] know can you guess no is it

[1:52:39] 100% I don't know you don't know if it's

[1:52:42] 100% or not I keep track of that

[1:52:44] information I couldn't tell

[1:52:47] you okay

[1:52:52] to your knowledge was the rod and reil

[1:52:55] expansion accounted for in any of the

[1:52:58] site plans that were previously

[1:53:03] approved Che just because I don't

[1:53:05] understand the

[1:53:09] question and please just restate so um

[1:53:14] well I'll I'll start with a different

[1:53:18] question to your knowledge was the

[1:53:20] expansion of the rod and reel a known

[1:53:23] project in the 2010 comprehensive

[1:53:28] plan I don't know

[1:53:31] that um it was it was the known projects

[1:53:34] are listed in the 2010 comprehensive

[1:53:37] plan was it listed there oh you bring it

[1:53:39] out I'll look I I don't remember if the

[1:53:41] rod and reel was I don't remember that

[1:53:44] it's not part of this hearing I don't

[1:53:46] know right so to your knowledge were

[1:53:52] traffic studies associated with any of

[1:53:54] these

[1:53:56] projects accounting for a rod and reel

[1:54:00] expansion not to my

[1:54:09] knowledge you have any knowledge to

[1:54:12] describe the additional

[1:54:14] mitigation that was performed to account

[1:54:16] for the Roden reel expansion and

[1:54:19] revision

[1:54:21] as part of this hearing I have no idea

[1:54:23] wait I don't know you already testified

[1:54:25] about the shared mitigation

[1:54:28] for the rod and reel expansion I I don't

[1:54:31] know what that means as far as this

[1:54:32] hearing goes I'm not following it no

[1:54:35] this is getting a little bit outside of

[1:54:37] I I I agree it is in the scope of this

[1:54:39] hearing but maybe not in the testimony

[1:54:42] that has been presented today so I

[1:54:44] suspect we will come back to this thank

[1:54:48] you

[1:54:57] if we can come back to it I'll ask

[1:54:59] further questions later thank you thank

[1:55:06] you good evening uh my name is Kathleen

[1:55:10] baralt and I live at 7409 B Street in

[1:55:13] Chesapeake Beach

[1:55:16] 20732 you need my me to say my phone

[1:55:19] number no that's perfectly f um Mr

[1:55:21] Woodburn uh I just wanted to ask uh one

[1:55:24] question uh in your experience um you

[1:55:28] had testified earlier and said that the

[1:55:32] plan was in compliance and then when uh

[1:55:37] in this instance because of the

[1:55:39] moratorium it now is not in compliance

[1:55:42] have you experienced that with other

[1:55:46] buildings in in your experience

[1:55:50] um I I don't know as if it was really

[1:55:52] the moratorium it was the new zoning

[1:55:55] well I mean not necessarily a moratorium

[1:55:57] but that initially that the property was

[1:56:01] about to be approved and then because

[1:56:03] for example a change administratively in

[1:56:06] comprehensive plan the plan the

[1:56:10] application no longer is in compliance

[1:56:13] you've experienced that before we're an

[1:56:16] applic so let me if I understand your

[1:56:18] question we reward a little bit

[1:56:20] so your question I think

[1:56:22] is have I experienced an application of

[1:56:25] a project that before it got reviewed I

[1:56:29] think is what you're asking me that

[1:56:31] there was a change in something a policy

[1:56:35] maybe or something that would render the

[1:56:38] project to not be

[1:56:40] reviewed not just a policy she think she

[1:56:43] was referring to ordinance or ordinance

[1:56:45] I'm sorry I didn't say I didn't mean

[1:56:46] policy ordinance sorry yeah I I guess

[1:56:49] what I'm asking something that you what

[1:56:52] you experienced in this instance here

[1:56:55] that the project I can't say that I've

[1:56:57] ever had one happen like this um but

[1:57:01] I've had projects where um in the middle

[1:57:05] of a review cycle during a review

[1:57:08] somewhere in the process an ordinance

[1:57:10] was changed that affected the outcome of

[1:57:13] a project yes would you say that

[1:57:16] happened frequently or is it very

[1:57:18] infrequent but it has happened okay

[1:57:22] thank

[1:57:27] you right we are coming to the end of

[1:57:29] the testimony I will finish up with one

[1:57:31] of my own

[1:57:33] um

[1:57:40] oh um Mr Woodburn will be here at the

[1:57:44] end of um end of the presentation um I I

[1:57:47] would hope that we' get all the

[1:57:49] questions concerning what he's talked

[1:57:50] about here today done um but I suppose

[1:57:54] it is it is open so yes he will he will

[1:57:57] be back for um further

[1:58:02] questions you're gonna you're going to

[1:58:04] be cross-examining Mr Woodburn at the

[1:58:06] start of the next meeting that's what

[1:58:07] you're saying okay uh yes that will be

[1:58:10] fine okay fair enough um my my question

[1:58:15] is um when you submit a site plan

[1:58:20] how many are typically submitted at

[1:58:23] once what do you mean like the number of

[1:58:25] like yeah right you have you submit one

[1:58:28] at a time or do you submit 10 in a

[1:58:31] bucket and slide them all it it depends

[1:58:33] um I mean I have a town housee

[1:58:35] subdivision that I just submitted 50

[1:58:38] today um now they're single family you

[1:58:41] know single Town units I mean they're

[1:58:43] all

[1:58:44] different um

[1:58:48] so I mean in this you ask me for this

[1:58:51] case or in general in general yeah your

[1:58:54] yeah I've done both and does many does

[1:58:57] the cat one

[1:59:00] classification make a difference in your

[1:59:02] experience like when people submit 50

[1:59:07] applications at once would they be as

[1:59:10] large as a cat one set like just give me

[1:59:12] the sense from your profal experience

[1:59:13] like category one's unique to CH b b so

[1:59:16] it's a little different and it it rides

[1:59:18] because critical area added to it so

[1:59:21] there's you know that complexity to it

[1:59:24] [Music]

[1:59:26] um you know it depends I mean I I do

[1:59:29] projects where there's a hundred sheets

[1:59:32] for one project so you got have to look

[1:59:36] at a 100 Sheets if if if you had five

[1:59:38] projects and it's 10 sheets right you

[1:59:40] get it's hard to it's hard to wait out

[1:59:43] the way you're asking the question

[1:59:46] um but

[1:59:48] certainly one's less than five

[1:59:52] right thank you yeah um in that case um

[1:59:57] we are planning to resume this hearing

[2:00:00] on February 8th may24 at 7

[2:00:04] pm everybody's awareness um and at this

[2:00:08] time I will entertain a motion to

[2:00:10] adjourn the meeting until February 8th

[2:00:12] at 7 pm move to Jour second I will

[2:00:16] second that favor

[2:00:20] all we are adjourned thank you

[2:00:29] everybody

January 25, 2024 Board of Appeals Hearing

Transcript