okay welcome again everyone um this is
the board of appeals uh call to order um
7 PM January 25th 2024 we start with a
roll call um please indicate that you
were present uh Mr Richard Burch present
Mr Paul dhy present Miss Amy Everett
present I am Mr Jody hon star um as we
set last time we will begin with any uh
newly received public comment by the um
by the town Sharon have we received
anything since our last meeting yes we
received one at the last meeting one at
the last meeting okay um the uh can we
make sure we provide copies to Mr pounds
and Mr Blitz if we haven't already um
and enter these comments into the record
um I will note that the contents of the
comments will not be addressed this time
this is just for administrative
purposes okay um on to the second uh
agenda item is the approval of the
minutes from our last meeting on January
4
2024 um does anybody have any
corrections they'd like to issue or is
it all
fine in that case I will entertain a
motion to approve uh the minutes from
Jan 4th I will so move have a second right all in favor I all
right minutes are approved okay um a
little bit more on the announcement
front this morning um or this evening uh
we'll be limiting to the session tonight
to two hours so we will end around 900
PM as normal um direct all comments and
questions concerning the administration
of this hearing to the board chair or
legal counsel this applies to the
gallery as well well do not direct
questions or comments at the petitioner
or staff during the presentation of
their testimony um now this is a new one
uh the third parties of record may ask
questions of Any Given testimony at the
conclusion of that testimony questions
should generally be limited in scope to
uh address the information presented I
will indicate to the gallery when this
option is
available
um number four uh as normal our order of
presentation uh documented in our rules
of procedure uh we are still on step one
which is appellant testimony and
evidence given by Mr Blitz and Witnesses
once he has completed um we will uh
offer the chance to ask questions for
any parties of record which will then
move on to Mr Po's uh presentation for
any Town staff testimony evidence um
same same questioning applies um and
third after all this the testimony and
evidence by the person or entity whose
rights are impacted by the appeal you
guys members of the public um so we yes
okay um and once that's done we'll have
summary statements at which point we
will close the public hearing and what
this means you have a correction
D I would just like to note with respect
to the summary statements uh we're going
to need to determine how those summary
statements are going to be provided what
orally written or a combination thereof
so uh you that will be decided later
date um okay wrapping that all up uh
this means uh our normal notice for
members of the public if you have
attended here with the intent to State
your opinion it most likely will not
happen tonight although we are getting
closer um if this is inconvenient we
will take written statements if you'd
like to provide them uh I'd also like to
urge you to submit your REM marks at the
conclusion of the testimony taking what
you hear into account you're welcome to
submit written comments at any time but
we the board would uh most appreciate
comments that are within the scope of
what were able to rule on thank you
that's all for the uh announcements and
now we continue on um with case
20233 Roden reel Incorporated Donovan
Estates LLC to consider an application
from the Roden reel LC Donovan Estates
uh 4160 MIRS Avenue Chesapeake Beach
Maryland for a decision on
interpretation or alleged error to
article 6 section 29023 29031 A1 A6 of
the Chesapeake Beach zoning ordinance
and C 3 uh 309 c310 and c311 of the
Chesapeake Beach Town Charter uh
applicant requests the Chesapeake Beach
zoning board of appeals to quote order
the zoning administrator uh and planning
and zoning commission to immediately
commence and prioritize the processing
and review of the relevant site plan
submitted by the Roden reel Incorporated
Don States LLC and that the zoning
administrator and planning and zoning
commission be ordered to apply the
zoning ordinances in effect as of
January 29 2021 when the applications
were submitted and for such other and
further relief as the nature of their
cause requires at this point I will pass
it to Mr Blitz for a continuation of his
presentation
microphone good evening uh Eric Blitz on
behalf of the rod and reel and the other
applicant
um you know we haven't had testimony I
think since the November 8th one so I'm
going to um
kind of try to give a very brief summary
of where we were so that you can pick up
on where we are going so far our
presentation has been focused on the
administrative errors on the part of the
zoning administrator and the Planning
and Zoning commission um and in failing
to process the five site plans filed on
January 29th
2021 um as they were required to do by
Statute uh I believe we've established
the dut duty of both to review those
site plans and the 60-day deadline
imposed on the Planning and Zoning
commission for doing so um let me go to
slide
two so we noted the to two reasons uh
two reasons um of the Z that the zoning
administrator gave in response to the
filing of the five
applications and why they were improper
reasons uh to deny site plan
review and the first reason
was that the
commission would have a burden in site
plan review in in undertaking the site
plan review um be on their workload and
the review of their site plans would
jeopardize the commission's work on the
comprehensive plan and the zoning
ordinance updates um we showed why those
reasons were
contradicted by the explicit statutory
command uh that they that the commission
has to do both their planning and their
review
at the same time and they have to do it
concurrently and that they had done that
and so and they have to do as they have
to hold as many meetings as necessary to
do
so certainly the long delay between the
filing of the site plan applications in
the passage of the comprehensive plan
and the implementing ordinances that
provide the specific zoning um
requirements used in site plan review
should be also should also be considered
by the board um when considering the
reasons offered by the zoning
administrator the second justification
was the
moratorium so I think we've clearly
demonstrated why we believe that the
moratorium was directly and specifically
targeted at the rod and reel site plan
applications that it was invalid and
inoperative because of it was improperly
passed and then extended through
resolutions and not ordinances and even
after the purported moratorium had
expired the zoning administrative
Planning and Zoning commission still
continued deny site plan review even up
to this date so we're we're at January 25th so we're
basically four days short of three
years so if I'm correct and we've
established that that was an error for
the zoning administrator and the
Planning and Zoning commission to deny
site plan review today we get to the
nature of the relief and what's
appropriate in this case and before we
turn to the facts and laws and arguments
that I'll offer in favor of that
requested relief um there has been one
nagging issue that has been raised in
cross-examination and arguments by um Mr
pounds for the municipal Corporation of
chesp beach that imply or suggest that
the rod reel has not done what it needed
to do to obtain a hearing or a review of
The Five plan applications before the
commission and I'd like to address that
now you can see section
29023 which we reviewed at the very
beginning of this set of
hearings um it sets forth the process
site plans are required to obtain zoning
permits to obtain a zoning permit for a
multif family dwelling the property
owner is required to submit a category
one site plan and their application for
with their application for a zoning
permit you will recall that the app
Roden Rio applications included some
form of multif family
dwellings on as their proposals so they
all were category one site plans with
the requisite information required by
section
29024 and that section provides a whole
long list of what's needed to be
provided with
plans so the Roden reel filed the
application on the form provided by the
town which you can see in exhibit five
which we already have in record labeled
as a zoning permit
application and as you can see in
exhibits five and six those applications
included the required site plan
applications and the critical area site
plan requirements there's no separate
form for requesting site plan review
with the commission because the process
flows directly from the filing of those
zoning permit applications with the site
plans and you'll see I'm going to
demonstrate that for you in the zoning
code the property owner is requesting a
zoning permit in the application but
because site plan review is required for
that zoning permit that's when the site
plan process is
triggered in your binder on the
reference statutes and cases I had
included section
29027 of the town's zoning
code and you can see in subsection D it
makes it explicit that all applications
for zoning permits shall be accompanied
by the site plans complying with the
provisions of article six and that
application for the zoning permit is
there for the application for site plan
review in section 29023 it sets forth
the process of what happens after the
filing of the application for a zoning
permit requiring site plan it's all in
section sub subsection
C the applicant shall submit a completed
application so that's Our obligation the
appropriate fee and the site plan for
them to the public works SL zoning
administrator in C2 the administrator
shall review the application for
completeness and will refer the
application to the appropriate
individuals or agencies for review
comment and or or for
approval in C3 the Planning and Zoning
commission will review and take action
on category one site plans and in C4 for
all
category category one site plan
submitted for review the commission
shall it says a submit written notice to
the applicant by first class mail such
to be postmarked at least 10 days prior
to the meeting to discuss the site
plan submit written notice to all the
owners adjoining immediately across the
street from the subject property
and such written notice has to state the
date the time the place subject matter
of the meeting to discuss the site
plan so as you can see in section four
it's incumbent upon the Planning and
Zoning commission to set the meeting
send the written no notices to the
applicant and to the adjoining property
owners um at least 10 days prior to that
meeting and all we do is file the
application that triggers that
process and I say we I meant the rod and
reel I
apologize
there's no statutory requirement or rule
of procedure that's imposed on the
applicants such as the rod reel that
would require to make a separate request
for a hearing before the
commission and you may recall we also
covered section 29026 of the Town zoning
ordinance in the first hearing which in
subsection 15 demonstrates how the
zoning administrator reviews the
application and forwards the
administrator's comments to the
commission
for that meeting it's typically a staff
report so there there I've given you
section 2926 which requires the zoning
administrator to intake to act as the
intake administrator for the filings and
in B1 the zoning administrator receives
and examines the
applications um and refers them to the
commission
um each of the rod and reel applications
uh called for many more than three off
Street parkings so even if they were not
category one site plans they would have
to be referred to the commission for
review and approval um but what I'm
stressing to you I'm hoping is that this
is an automatic process not requiring
any additional requests by the applicant
to the commission or the zoning
administrator as the zoning
administrator acts as the
take
person in 2925 and subsection B15 you
can
see that the zoning administrator
reviews the applications submits them to
for review and approval in accordance
with article six article six is includes
section 29
29023 that we just
reviewed and there was testimony from Mr
Woodburn that the applications met the
requirements for a category one site
plan and that a critical area site plan
was also
submitted and so the question is why
would the rod and reel file all this
exhaustive list of information necessary
for category one site plans review if
they weren't asking for site plan
review all remember also that we
established that all five of these
projects are in the critical
area
um
seem to uh
be
okay
20
29025 A5 is what I want okay
sorry so this lists out the whole
procedure and I'm not going to read it
all over again but it allows you to see
what the code
provides as far as what happens after we
file the zoning application with the
site plans
yes
after for you to provide us with a copy
of the PowerPoint
absolutely I think I did for the first
one but I don't remember you asking for
the other ones do you want all of
them
yes
okay what I'm gonna pass out to you now
is
additions to your
um
first one is the schedule of
fees
for site
plans and as you can also see go to the
next
slide which is just what you've got
there I'm
emphasizing
that the fees are much higher when you
file a zoning permit
or that includes a requirement for
category one site plans and they're
calculated based upon the nature and the
size of the
construction and each of the rod and re
applications filed on January 29th were projects that were for 10 or more
residential units so you can see that at
the bottom so that part of the fee for
site plan review is
4,800
and the base application is also
raised further down on the document um
when it's a critical area site plan
which this was the all five of these
were so since all five of the rod and
reel projects were in the critical area
and involved
residential uses with more than 10 units
the total fee was calculated by the 600
base application fee plus the $ 4,800
for a total of $5,400 for each
application so as an applicant is paying
that fee the applicant is literally
paying for site plan
review finally the moratorium resolution
listed the rod and reel project
submissions as the reason for passing
the moratorium and referred to them when
it recited and I'll quote from it on
January 29th 2021 the town received in
one delivery applications for four
separate major development site plans in
one major Subdivision plat end quote so
the moratorium was designed to stop that
site plan
process it specifically targeted the
category one site plans so it is kind
of odd to now imply that the Roden reel
didn't ask for site plan review or
didn't do file what it needed to be
filed to request site plan
review the town's April 13 2021 letter
that you have as exhibit 25 uh returning
the filing fees to the Roden reel
referred explicitly to the five projects
by name but referenced the moratorium
passed on March 18
2021 by describing it as a category one
site plan review moratorium and that's
the reason why the projects wouldn't be
reviewed so I think I want I hope that
makes it clear to the board the Roden
reel did apply for and was entitled to
site plan review based upon the
application they filed
um questions about why the rod and reel
did not go to the commission I think are
a distraction you can't just show up at
the commission and say tonight I'd like
you to review my site
plan the the town cannot both attempt to
Halt the process of site plan review of
the frod and reels applications and then
later suggest the site plan review by
the before the commission was never
requested or applied
for so let's turn to the relief that the
rod and reel is
requesting we start with the board's
Authority and your board of appeals in
reviewing appeal for error in the
administrative process is very
broad this is section 4306 F of the land
use article of the annotated code which
I just handed out with it's on the
second part after the applications and
as you can see in
F1 a board May in Conformity with this
division wholly or partly reverse order
reverse the order requirement or
decision that is subject to the appeal
wholly or partly affirm the order
requirement or
decision um I I may have said first is
revers then it's airm modify the order
requirement or decision that is subject
to the appeal or issue a new order
requirement or decision so you have
broad Authority if you find there was
error to administer the
relief then in subsection two the board
shall of appeals shall have all the
powers of the administrator officer or
unit from whose the action the appeal is
taken kind of a foundational part
of Maryland law with respect to your
authority to essentially step into the
shoes of the administrators if you find
that there's
error the power of the board is again
reinforced by the town zoning ordinance
which is found in section
29032 subsection G also a part that I
handed out
today and it restates
the Maryland statutory law in the in the
or in the ordinance same same
language so this broad Authority for you
to step into the shoes of the of the
administrators who committed error and
exercise their powers is important
because it demonstrates that you have
the power in this appeal to not only
determine if there was an error on the
part of the administrators but to craft
the
relief using their powers as is
necessary to achieve the remedy you deem
appropriate now you don't have cart
blanch Authority you could not make a a
word of Damages for example um because
there is no statutory provision for that
and because the zoning administrator and
officials from whom you adopt Powers
don't have that power either so you can
only take on their powers in the
relief
so if the board finds that the Roden
reel is correct that the failure of the
zoning administrator and the Planning
and Zoning commission to process and
review the rod re site plan
applications was not in accordance with
the
law or I apologize and therefore an
error so if it's not in accordance with
the law it's an error this is an appeal
alleging error then the board can
reverse that by ordering both to
undertake the review yourselves
as you take on that Planning and Zoning
commission's power or the board can
order the commission as we had as I
believe the chair read off in the very
beginning our requested relief so you
have a two alternative approaches that
we would suggest that you could
consider and before I make the argument
about how I believe the board should
exercise its broad powers in this case I
need to put on some evidence and argu
and make some other arguments necessary
to convince you that you
should um which includes questions about
the fairness of the process as it was
applied to the rod and reel the
Injustice and impact on the Roden reels
for having its developed development
applications denied for almost three
years now and the legal implications of
those alleged
errors remember that until the Town
Council approved the comprehensive plan
in April of
22
2022 and it became effective uh in May
of 22 which is in exhibit
31 the previous comprehensive plan was
the plan in effect and that was what was
in effect when the Roden reel filed
their
applications
so what I'd like to do now is pass out
um today's
exhibits for you to include in your
binders and then we'll get to exhibit
52
for
and Sharon I believe we're the next
exhibit would would be 52
correct
okay
so first I would like to submit exhibit
52 which are selected pages from the
town's 2010 comprehensive plan showing
the status of the comp comprehensive
planning for the town that were in
effect at the time the Roden reel filed
its applications on January 29th
2021 the pages include the cover page
and Pages 7 8 18 115 116 and 131 of the
2010 comprehensive plan those are the
pages that are I'm going to draw your
attention to to make certain points you
obviously have the ability to take
judicial notice of the entire
comprehensive plan from 20
10 with
that as you can see from the title page
um to this exhibit um the 2010
comprehensive plan was adopted on
January 20th of 20
I think we had put on testimony about
that date earlier as
well so since at least
2011 what this exhibit shows is how the
Planning and Zoning commission and the
Town Council that adopted that plan um
had
identified these anticipated
projects upon which they could base
their planning or infrastructure and
things like that so take you to slide
16 it's not
working turn on and off
buttons
yeah I can just go through it Qui
quickly I think
oops
okay on page 18 of the comprehensive
plan which I put up on the
PowerPoint um which is the fourth page
of your exhibit you can see that the
home place project had been granted
approval in July of 2006 for the for the
use of 7.42 Acres of growth
allocation as the plan recites ches
beake Beach had been granted 100 acres
of growth allocation and in combination
with Richfield station the Home Place
project meant that the town had 67.5
four acres of growth allocation
left growth allocation is the process of
converting a more restrictive critical
area zone um or District to a less
restrictive under your zoning ordinance
um when the critic
art I don't I'll just stop there it's
part of your local critical area program
um that we discussed at one of these
previous meetings so the Home Place
project which is one of the five
projects filed by the Roden reel was
already in the development stage back in
2006 when it was granted 7.42 Acres of
the town's growth
allocation
as you can see on page seven of the 2010
comprehensive plan page two of the
exhibit The stinet Place Condominiums
which were listed as two 16 unit multif
family dwellings or
buildings uh were part of the list of
projected
developments the plan noted that the
permits had been issued though no
construction had
commenced on that same page the Home
Place project was described with the
unit count as was included in the 2021
Roden reel
applications for home place which was
one new single family home and two 12
unit multif family buildings and that
the plan noted that all the approvals
had been obtained and infrastructure
permits issued no construction had
started at the time they passed that in
200 what was it 11 I
think next on the same page the plan
noted the Harbor Vista North
project was being projected it noted
that this development plan was approved
but no final plants had yet been
submitted for final approval by the
commission turning to the next page page
eight
of of the 2010 comprehensive plan Harbor
Vista South and
North which we now call Harbor Vista
South and Harbor Vista West just so you
know the in the 2010 plan they were
calling them something
different Harbor Vista South and Harbor
Vista West
um were also projected developments and
states that the prior owner Fishing
Creek Landings Marina had received PR
preliminary approval from the commission
in 2002 but that it was contemplating a
redesign that was to occur with the new
ownership which was the rod and
reel um so each of these projects were
well known to the Planning and Zoning
commission and the Town Council as they
had been included in the 2010
comprehensive plan and had received
various forms of
approval decades
ago not only were the projects described
generally in the 2010
comprehensive plan their specific unit
counts and anticip anticipated
population growth were included in the
plan as table
22 so here's table 22 and it
shows all five of the rod and reel
projects and
for included the unit counts
um it actually had higher unit counts
than we have proposed for in place in
Harbor Vista
North and you can see those on exhibit
five
um so Roden re development applications
the the only one of the 2021
applications that we filed that has a
higher count than was listed in this
2010 comprehensive plan is Harbor Vista
North that our application requested 23
units which on this chart you can see
they have been planning for 16
as you can see on page 116 table 23 the
proposed developments which again
included all five of the rod and reel
projects it showed the anticipated units
but also the stage of the permitting the
land use and then the existing
zoning this is the table that indicates
uh you know the timeline for the
proposed development going between 2009
and 201
16 so now I'd like to call Paul Woodburn
back to
testify Paul you're gonna sit
there I think just for clarification
purposes I think we were to talk about
close examination especially by the
public and so forth if this has stopped
Mr bliss mean we're into for about 10
hours of testimony for him and
examination of so toward doesn't make
sense I think it makes sense for to
continue and then for the public to be
able to you know ask questions of all of
his witnesses as as the person seing at
that time because otherwise you know one
is the public could be the weather or
whatever isn't here but this evening for
that cause examination so so I think it
would be better to make sure
procedurally we're on the same page that
in essence the public cause examination
but it's going to be more towards the
end of the case that as isue it is goes
public will have a chance to
cross-examine the bulk of the entirety
of the presentation at
the they also have the right to to uh
ask Mr Woodburn questions at the
completion of his testimony um so we
can't stop them although content might
blur the line so we will just see
happens when his testimony finishes but
you are welcome to and the public is
welcome to as well which other than the
public was is consistent with way we
handled the earlier testimony on the
first
hearing so Mr Woodburn can you um
restate your name uh and address for the
record please sure for the uh record my
name is Paul Woodburn and I'm a
professional
engineer and uh senior director for
Atwell engineering and address is is
11721 Woodmore Road in Mitchellville
Maryland
everybody I think it would be good just
to make sure we're all on the same page
if you wouldn't mind Mr susman you mind
swearing said again I think the proper
procedure is just to remind him that
he's already been sworn in and recognize
that
fact I believe the proper procedure is
to just have him recognize that he's
already been sworn
in you don't have to raise your hand to
be sworn in there's no form for being
sworn in he's already
testified you swear or affirm under the
penalty of perjury that the testimony
that you are about to give testimony
evidence your about to give be the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth I
do thank
you so Mr Woodburn um when you submitted
the rod and real applications for the
site plan review um what were the fee
amounts that you paid when you submitted
those
applications uh the fee amounts I think
you showed them on the screen earlier
were
$5,400 for each site plan plus I think
we paid a $250 base application fee as
well
and I'm showing you what will be
identified for the record is exhibit
53 um and ask you to confirm that those
are copies of the checks that you
submitted with the
applications with the exception I might
point out for the record that we've uh
blacked out the account
numbers we blacked out the redacted the
account
numbers I offer that is exhibit
50 and how many of those are there
should be
fine
sep checks is one for 5400 for each of
is
$250 Mr Woodburn had you filed
applications for projects that involve
sight plan
review um to the town of chesp beach
before
yes and uh were you involved in the
applications filed for the rod and reel
project at the resort and for Harbor
Vista South projects in 2016 I
was and are you familiar with the site
plan approval process in chese Beach
yes have you ever had to file a separate
application for site plan review besides
the applications using the zoning permit
form
no have you ever had to make a separate
request the schedule the review of and
hearings by the Planning and Zoning
commission to have those applications
heard by the commission I'm
not after the February 5th 2021 email
from the zoning administrator Mr jaub
act have you received any communication
from the zoning administrator the
Planning and Zoning commission or any
other Town official to review process or
schedule hearings for any of the five
site plan applications that you filed on
January 29th of 2021 after the email the
fifth you said I have
not your experience in the town um of
ches b beach what is the role of the
Planning and Zoning commission during
site plan
review I did not hear the question I
said in his experience he's already
testified that he's has his experience
doing these site plan reviews before
this town what is the role of the
Planning and Zoning commission during
site plan review
this point he's uh asking for an expert
opinion okay and if he's talking about
his experience uh that that is
definitely going to an expert opinion he
hasn't been qualified as an expert it's
not an opinion I'm just having him
testify what the commission's role was
during the
process clearly was expressing an
opinion I don't think that's uh
expressing his opinion I think that's
expressing his experience based upon his
experience which is different
from R
continue
okay uh in my experience and I've
prepared and processed hundreds of site
plans not only in Calver County and
chese Beach but in neighboring counties
and States um the Planning and Zoning
administrator in ches Peake Beach
through in my experience of numerous
site plans is to review the site plan
against the ordinances and laws of the
Town um and to make recommendations not
only to the applicant but to the
Planning Commission who would ultimately
review the site plan the zoning
administrator would review it for
dimensional standards just a few
examples would be parking requirements
height requirements set back
requirements Landscaping requirements
Etc so I had asked what the role of the
commission was so you've just explained
what the zoning administrator did does
in that process but what is the Planning
and Zoning commission's role in doing
site plan review you
objection in his experience in your
experience in my experience the Planning
Commission would review the
recommendations of the um planning or
zoning admin
ministrator um and hear testimony from
the applicant and the public and with that information they would vote uh
for um action on the site plan approval
disapproval or approval with
conditions okay and I believe you said
it but you might not have given a number
you know can you Hazard to guess how
many site plans you've submitted on
behalf of clients in your
career hundreds okay
so in your experience were any of the
site plan applications and and the
projects they proposed by the Roden reel
in their January 29th 2021 applications
particularly novel or
complex
no did any of them raise difficult
issues that needed to be
resolved um I don't believe so uh we did
have a pre um
application um discussion with the Town
Administrator which is common um just to
talk about what the proposal is um how
we're heading you know things that uh
might uh come out you know or be seen to
say Hey you know you need to look out
for this and one thing that came up I do
recall was
um uh the use of the existing storm
waterer management
um around the
harbor I'm specifically talking about
Harbor Vista North Harbor Vista South
Harbor Vista West there's a lot of
history with the properties but in
essence um the the marina um was
redeveloped um and it started with Dave
Sison back in the early 2000s and it was
built and rebuilt um by the donovans the
marina and with that um they installed
storm water manage
and um buffer yard requirements for
critical area around the marina and
these areas were intended to um not only
provide stormw management and buffer
landscape buffer and and uh Green Space
buffer for the marina but for the future
development so it was in place and
already built and there was some
discussion as if that storm water
management would still meet the
requirements of the new like storm
management regulation ations had changed
over the years so we never got that far
because we didn't get a review but that
was a discussion point and then uh Mr
jabak who was the zoning administrator
at the time brought up um the uh SE or
uh I should say sea level rise uh which
now um has come out but at the time it
was just a
uh more of a proposal of information
that was being provided but it was was n
a regulation it wasn't issued as a law
or an ordinance or anything um but he
brought it to our attention and he
wasn't sure how that could may or may
not impact the projects so those two
things came up uh but again we didn't
get a review so I don't know how they
would have turned
out in your previous testimony you had
identified the projects by names uh
Harbor Vista South Harbor Vista North
Harbor Vista West Home Place and stin it
please MH um can you describe the
location of Harbor Vista
South so Harbor Vista South uh is on
Harbor Road at the intersection um or
the access point to rod and reel at the
light on the south side of the bridge
and it would be on the right side as you
go over the bridge so existing parking
lot at
currently Harbor you me go each one yeah
the for these three okay so Harbor Vista
West uh would be the the center
Arrow you can if you can see that if
nobody's color blind to the right um of
the screen
center which would be back by The Dredge
spoil site or I guess south of the um
rental
units and then Harbor Vista North is the
small parking lot at the bottom of the
page on the screen which is on Gordon to
Avenue right behind the water
park can you
describe the location of stennet place
please Gordon stennet uh is North I'm
yeah north side of town C Street and 261
it's the two
green football field looking areas on
the screen there
arrows
home place can you describe the location
home place as off of Cox Road um
western side of ches beake beach just
off of Route
260 okay
so let's go back to this one and just
have it up so that you can see what
we're talking about as I have Mr
Woodburn describe each of these projects
um can you describe the Harbor Vista
South projects you know its units the parking locations the access things
like that you have a site plan too you
put up there be easier uh no I don't
have okay that but I
do at this
point wish to offer we already have
exhibit five in the record which are all
the site
applications but they're in digital
form I had Paul prepare them in paper
form and I could hand those out and that
way it would be a lot easier I think for
you to have them but I also don't want
to duplicate exhibits but if if you
would like the paper versions so that
each of you can and Mr pounds can have
them too I've got them
here already in
evidence
did
you PA did you do these how many of did
you do did just four months
ago
why is this one big and
[Music]
small
maybe suggest five minutes uh uh yeah
that is a good point uh let's take five
while you do this thank
you
[Music]
for
yes you think an hour and 10 is going to
be enough for you to get to the end of
your presentation
no well I'm going to
try but I guess is
cross-examination okay yes that'll be
another
thing time you
guys yeah I'm just saying if we maybe we give
Mr
all right uh everybody's back we will uh
resume please continue I apologize I
thought we had a copy for each of you
what we have is two two sets of paper
one for two sets so what I'd like to do
is just give the board one paper set and
give Mr pounds the other just so he can
have them okay
but we have these in digital form the
full contents this is for reference only
I don't think so um the only thing is we
want to if if whatever would help
understanding the testimony today but
um we'll leave that to you to to
say
live
so Mr Woodburn first just generally
describe what Harbor Vista South project
is and what
it so Harbor Vista South is a proposed
condominium uh
development um it was originally
approved in I believe in 200
16 and again it's located at the
intersection Harbor Road of the top
Arrow condominium project of 59 units
um in accessed off a Harbor Road
directly across from the library um
building uh parking consisted of
primarily underneath of the
building um there was some surface
parking along um
260 one
um of course access to the marina the
front of the the property there um is uh
boat slips so you would access um
vehicular off for Harbor Vista but
pedestrian access through uh the rear
which also has pedestrian access under
the bridge over to the rod and reil so
there was a circular access almost
through the intersection to the rod and
reil back to
Vista back in
2016 was originally approved the parking
lot actually before that it was uh
constructed and
built um as you can see here and has
parking for the marina
currently
so go to the next slide
here and what I'm showing you is from
your site plan for Harbor Vista South
which is exhibit 5 and on the screen
we're looking at the center of the site
plan showing the building located on the
parcel
right
um so you've already kind of testified
that that's the orientation to the
streets so that shows them I didn't
bring it up fast enough but you started
talking about
it
um so is this already a separate and
subdivided buildable parcel it is it's a
ploted parcel it's parcel
shows on this it's plat book
ab4 plat
293
okay and on the next slide I'm showing
you the general notes on your sheet too
and we're going to go over some of these
for each of the projects um as a means
of describing some of the basics um but
important is the idea that it shows the
basic zoning compli ordinance compliance
requirements so the general notes
typically will well actually I'll ask Mr
Woodburn to
testify Mr Woodburn when you put um the
general notes on a site plan what are
they designed to
achieve so in the zoning ordinance there
is uh what we call dimensional standards
and general zoning standards for
density um property information and we
basically summarize this and General
notes to outline what the required
density would be what the required
parking ratio would be U what the
required bicycle um rack requirements
would be like how many bicycles loading
space
requirements as you can see here so we
would we would put down what's required
by the zoning and then we would put down
what's provided on the site
plan so it's more of a summary of what
actually
designed on the site plan okay and so
this is just showing your first 11 notes
but the notes are longer than this
correct and in this instance of course
we're in the critical area because
they're category ones and it just
critical area notes as well so using
this show it's demonstrating how the
proposed Harbor Vista South project
would comply with the zoning ordinance
at the time you filed it which was back
in January of 2021 correct that's
correct would the Harbor Vista South
project as proposed in the site plan
that was filed and included in exhibit
five comply with the current zoning
ordinance um in my read of the current
zoning ordinance it would not comply
okay and in your general notes you
identified that the property was in the
maritime Zone that's
correct it also describes the property
as being located in the bonus density
overlay District what's the bonus
density overlay District so under the prior zoning there was a provision
for
certain um zoning districts that that
you could have a bonus
density um and what that achieved was
more under the smart growth initiative
it allowed a higher density um within a
smaller footprint so
um you wouldn't have sprawl basically
you build up instead of out
yeah in developed Town centers in
certain yeah zones and be a town center
correct the proposed building for Harbor
Vista South was a multif family
residential structure correct that's
correct and was that allowed in the
maritime Zone at the time you filed the
application it
was and you include the General uh
critical area calculations in your notes
as well we
did
um and those calculations are required
to show what the required mitigation is
for a project in the critical area
correct that's
correct was any of the required critical
area mitigation for Harbor Vista South
to be met
offsite yes you describe that so we had
done and
2006 the 2016 approval um we had
proposed a um more of a comprehensive
mitigation approach for the rod and reel
itself and for Harbor Vista South um the
shopping center where Roland's Market is
um had no stormw Management in place it
was built in the 80s I believe maybe
even earlier so storm waterer management
wasn't acquired at the time um so we
proposed to do a storm waterer
Management Facility for the entire um
parking lot um so we captured the water
off of the parking lot um treated the
water in a underground storm water
filter system um which if you're
interested in it uh you can see it it's
at the corner of the garage when you
make your left into the to the rod and
reel um and that filtering system takes
care of the existing parking lot
which was a partial offset mitigation
for the Harbor Vista South and the rod
and reel
projects it's treated about acre and a
half I believe of uh the parking lot for
the Harbor Vista South so the mitigation
was being met critical area mitigation
was being met by providing storm Wonder
management for other people's properties
that the town wanted to get properly
treated is that correct um partly okay
we did mitigation onsite as well a lot
of plantings and and onsite but yes
partly yes how much of the credit was to
be applied to the Harbor Vista Southside
plan if you can recall I know it was an
acre and a half um which was like
63,000 plus or minus square feet of
mitigation how much was to go to Harbor
Vista South though because Harbor Vista
much that's have okay
yep so portion of the critical area
mitigation for the harbor Vis to South
project has already been completed it
has it's been built and constructed and
operational uh you were present for the
presentation where I provided the board
with the comprehensive plan um that was
adopted by the Town Council in April of
2022 um and the implementing ordinances
that were subsequently filed and still
being new comprehensive plan new
comprehensive plan and the implementing
ordinance yes so under the comprehensive
plan and implementing ordinances that
have been adopted so far following the
2022 comprehensive plan would the rod
and reel's Harbor Vista South project be
compliant with those ordinances
no um what zone is in the harbor Vista
South property
um what what zone is it in the current
plan the new the new plan I believe it's
the south is
MC Maritime commercial yeah can you
build a multif family dwelling in an MC
Maritime commercial now no
okay what was the previous height limit
in the maritime District uh it was 70
feet and the proposed Building height of
Harbor Vista South was what
582 and couple inches I think it was 582
58 foot 2 inches pH
call shows on the site
plan um so what's the maximum height in
the MC Maritime commercial now 35
feet so the Harbor Vista South project
as proposed could have been built
according to the laws in effect when the
applications were filed in January 2021
but can no longer under the current
zoning that's
correct was the site plan you submitted
in January 20121 for Harbor Vista South
substantially similar to the to plans
that you had previously submitted to the
commission for this
property almost identical in footprint
yes
you restate that please into the
microphone me or him it was almost
identical in
footprint thank
you and what stage of approval process
had that
received previously it was originally in
2016 preliminary site plan preliminary
site plan approval that's
correct
so now I'm submitting exhibit 54 which
are the minutes of the February 10th
2016 meeting of the Planning and Zoning
commission that shows the original
approval of the preliminary site
plan and that would be exhibit
54
I'm showing you what's been marked for
identification as exhibit 5 five Mr
Woodburn and ask you to confir confirm
that this is page two of the architect
site plan document and the February 9th
2016 memo of the zoning administrator on
the project simply to show how similar
the project was to the one that was
submitted in January 29th
2021 I mess on Architects I'm I'm this
is site plan that's your site plan
correct and this is the architect site
plan okay and then next is the
memorandum of the zoning administrator
correct yes it's
correct these are all for the 2016
preliminary plan site all for that is
exhibit
55 BL that exhibit in clud the uh staff
memorandum
yes that was that was dated February 9th
2016 just to show you an
overhead
oh okay so so this is an overhead view
that was included in exhibit 55 which as
you can see has a similar configuration
to the one we saw in the Roden reels
application for Harbor Vista South that
was filed in January 29 21 so 16 and 20
21 projects
were very very
similar next
I'll offer the minutes of the Planning
and Zoning commission dated February 8th
2017
um as exhibit excuse me Mr blit before
you go there do we have these uh rawing
this on the screen now it should be a
part
of your package it's second page of
exhibit
55
oh I don't want to jump too far ahead so
now I'm
offering missing the side information
it's just the image
itself it's
missing
PDF these some of the Architects PDFs
are in different layers and all kind of
weird stuff happens so that was exhibit
56 which is the
minutes and as these minutes show the
preliminary site plan for the prior
iteration of Harbor Vista project was
extended for an additional year so that
it would expire on February
2018 so Mr Woodburn were you aware that
the preliminary site plan approval had
been extended for one year in 2017 yes
and was a subsequent extension request
made yes was that granted
no so as late as February of
2018 the preliminary site plan for
Harbor Vista South had been valid but
had since lapsed correct that's correct
so let's turn to the Harbor Vista West
project so why don't you start off
generally describing what Harbor Vista
West project proposed in its unit count
and what it was parking locations where
it's access I PL a better one to discuss
all that honestly than this there you go
so
here's um shows you site plan sheet two
from the site
plan so um this plan is directed south
to North on The View just so you can get
yourself oriented the right hand side
where you see the north Arrow that's
water that's the actual boat slips if
you're familiar with the area um just to
the left of the north arrow is the
access road that would take you down to
the beginning of the Railway Trail the
Boardwalk portion of the railro trail
the Shaded um I'd say more like a
sidewalk looking um that's the uh
stamped concrete portion of the
boardwalk Trail and then to the left of
that where the red dots um are uh to the
left that's the proposed Harbor Vista
West um development uh the parking would
be on the bottom that surface parking
and then the building would be generally
in the center with parking underneath we
call Podium
parking um and to the left corner the
triangular piece that's an existing
storm waterer Management Facility that
again as I described earlier in a
testimony was
installed uh with the original
development by Dave sisen of the marina
uh for this future development it was
actually put in place for this
development uh and then on the north
side of the site development uh is more
surface
parking how many units was Harbor Vista
West supposed to be I believe this is 60
units next I'm unit showing you from
exhibit 5 the general notes one through
11 on P two of your site
plan so would the Harbor Vista West
project as proposed in the site plan
that's
included in exhibit 5 and was submitted
in January of 2021 would that uh comply
with the current zoning ordinance it
would not comply with the current zoning
ordinance in your general notes you
identify the property as being in the
maritime Zone correct that's
correct and it's supposed to be a multif
family structure
correct was that allowed in Maritime
Zone was yes already asked that for the
harbor Buist to
um so what what zone is the Harbor Vista
West property located in now it's uh RC
which is resource
conservation can you build a multif
family dwelling in a resource
conservation zone
no what was the previous height limit in
the maritime District 70 feet and what's
the proposed height of Harbor Vista West
35 feet under the curtain
zone no what is what was the proposed
height foot I believe it's 582 two two
inches exactly as Harbor Vista South
same height as Harbor Vista South
correct and the new maximum height in
the MC Maritime commercial Zone adopted
in
2022 well we're in the resource
conservation oh you're right resource
conservation 35 feet so
and the Roden reel gave the town an
easement across this property to
accomodate the railway Trail correct
that's
correct and the town built a water and
sewer pipe under that easement to serve
the eventual construction of Harbor
Vista West sewer pipe water water was
built previously with the uh rental
units next door okay yes so they built a
sewer pipe right to serve the eventual
construction that's
cor so now let's turn to Harbor Vista
North just to orient yourself where that
is that's that little
parcel at the end of the
marina go to the sheet three of the site
plan and wanted to give a general
descript ion of the orientation of the
building and the access and its unit
counts and things like that sure so once
again this uh is oriented
north um and this project it fronts on Gordon skinet
Avenue um which if you go out to uh
kellums field uh there's a large parking
lot on the top side of this sheet which
um is I think it's intended for boat
storage I think that's he uses it but
during footall football games I know
everybody use it um the building sits in
the center of this sheet here just on
the north side of the end of the water
the marina as you can see there's boat
slips you can see the circles those are
pilings for the boat
slips uh and then access to the site
would be off of Gordon Stant on both the
right side or east and the west side
which is the left and as um Mr Blitz had
mentioned it's kind of hard to see but
the diamond plated uh two lines on the
left that's the railway trail that uh
the Donovan provided the EAS for for
access to the railway
Trail um the building itself I guess
it's a little hard to see but it's a
u-shape there almost Center uh with
parking again underneath uh at the first
floor you would park underneath the
second floor and then surface parking
along Gordon stened
Avenue this project is located on parcel
J of the
plat it is on parcel J it's a
condominium actually it's um unit one of
partiel
J so it's already been ploted as a
identified as a developed lot
developable
lot so these are the general notes 1
through 11 for your site
plan or Harbor Vista
West that's
correct nor oh I
apologize Harbor Vista North Harbor
Vista North so would Harbor Vista North
as proposed in the site plan that you
provided in January 21st comply with the
urrent zoning ordinance it would
not was it located in the maritime Zone
we've already gone over that
yes the new zoning is MC Maritime
commercial the height of the proposed
building is
582 again 58 foot2
Ines um it's 23 units and would not be
allowed in the MC Zone the new
Zone um as proposed a 35 foot height
limit but in the prior Maritime Zone
District the height maximum height was
70 that's Shon not 11 yes 70 foot okay
and
so as when you made the applications in
January of 2021 they complied but they
no longer comply with the current zoning
correct that's
correct was there any prior work on the
property where Harbor Vista West and
Harbor Vista North were located um that the January 2021 applications were
relying
upon um yes what was that uh well we had
the sewer installed already U which we
spoke about and um storm waterer
management was already installed the
buffer yards were in put in place when
we um when the the uh Marine was built
the bulkheads were built and the Green
Space around the bulad are built there's
a sand filter system along the entire
length of that which was designed
approve by not only the town and the
county but the critic Larry commission
to provide storm management for the
entire development and then if you go
way back U when that Marina was actually
built for those you can remember there
was numerous um boat houses and I don't
know if everybody remers those but those
boat houses were taken down um
along the um the slip area there was a
Goodyear Building Maintenance building
that was taken down there was quite a
bit of um old dilapidated impervious
area as we call it that was taken out as
part of the original project
um to uh provide storm management and
critical area mitigation for these
developments so yeah quite a bit of work
was done did that also include frag
mighty's remediation there was frag
mighty's remediation
yes and wasn't there also some
adjustments to The Moorings and Pier
piles part of the mitigation the entire
Marina was
veryone
it's isn't it true that the ciens who
you referenced as being the prior
owners had done the title Wetlands
delineation for the Western Property
boundary because that had not previously
been mapped and that that was
transferred to the rod and reel talking
about Harbor V West area yes yes and so
they obtain the private Wetland permit
which I'll read is 03 wp1
155r and the core of army Engineers
permit 2004 to facilitate that work
that's correct and that was transferred
with the property to the rod and reel
for their projects that's correct
because all these projects had really
been kind of designed by the sistens
they started with the sistens um
almost as they were proposed in the
2021 application yes very
close that was as far back as
2004 but the rod and reel did the
mitigation work correct not the systens
that's correct assistants have gotten
the permits but the rodel actually um
performed the work or their contractor
you obtained a zoning permit for that
work that's
correct and all this mitigation was
going to be applied as credits to the
January 29th 2021 applications for
Harbor Vista West and Harbor Vista North
projects as they were for the 2016
approvals and you know we had several
approvals on Harbor Vista North and
Harbor Vista South and they were
credited for those and approve with
those
yes
so I'm showing you the zoning permit the
zoning
permit which you have in your exhibits I
mean oh no I haven't submitted that yet
exhibit 57
ail
201
let's turn to the Senate Place
project there's
[Music]
let's for clarification this zoning
permit it says partiel J so this is the
permit for har for North
right so the whole um property that
includes Harbor Vista North and Harbor
Vista West is partial J okay
yeah we're waiting for that Mr
Woodburn that permit was issued in 2011
do you recall whether it was
renewed The Marina the permit you just
showed yeah I I don't
recall
[Music]
reminder we have about 30 minutes left
before we're going to call it
so now we're getting to SED place I'm
just showing you the overhead view again
just so you could mind where it is um
now we'll go to the site
plan
um is shown on sheet two of the site
plan submitted on January 29th for State
Place
um can you give us a general description
the the orientation of this uh as you
can see the top right North therea the
north is right so North Beach would be
to the right um top side of the the
sheet Bas Side Road
261 Center uh is 31st
Street and the properties that are owned
under the application are the left side
and the right side um and I know you're
all probably familiar they're two big
grass areas if you go by them
today um this
area um used to be hous or used to House
stet
Restaurant um and it was a very low Ling
area it
flooded all the time um before some vast
improvements are made to this area
however for this plan here there's 11
townhouse
units uh proposed that are accessed off
of um C Street right in front of
Cate um garage
units
uh okay fairly
simple town
homes so I'm next I'm showing
you from exhibit 5 the general notes one
through nine on sheet two of your site
plan and as show as you've seen with the
other uh projects I plan General
notes the proposed compliance with a
zoning ordinances at the time the
applications were
filed so under the comprehensive plan
and implementing ordinances that have
now been
adopted after the filing would the rod
and reel state Place project be
compliant with those
ordinances
possibly um I haven't been through them
to
dissect them however there
um uh there may be some issue with
there's some ambiguous um review I think
with architecture and things like that
which it's hard to say in the reading um
if they would be compliant or not but
dimensionally they probably would be
compliant so in your general notes you
identifi the
property was in the RV District in
that's correct what's it now now what
district is it in
rv2 so was there any previous work done
on the Senate property expensive okay can you describe that
this this project has had several
approvals all the way to permit
issuance um when you say permit issuance
you mean zoning permit zoning permit
issuance which is just to clarify is the
final Town approval necessary for you
Town approval to receive permits to
construct so this would be the end of
the line although isn't it true that you
would then have to go get building
permits and other permits from calary
County development permits that we would
call these yes it's the last stage from
the town okay however on this particular
project we did have State Highway
permits and and town permit zoning
permit and County permits at one
time um extensive work was done and for
those of you that have lived in town a
while you may remember number of those
you don't I'll give you a little history
lesson
261 um and SE Street where I was saying
stet restaurant
was uh it'd be flooded tonight probably
in that day and um was around elevation
one maybe or something like that um tied
it's elevation 0 42 so you have about
six inches of play if you have a little
bit of wind and if you're if you're
familiar with the tidal gate right you
see it out there you'll wonder what it
is there's a reason that was put in it
never really worked but uh
so that was put in so if a hurricane or
something came up the bay they could
shut it right and it wouldn't push up
into the town well you have all the
water coming down too so you're fighting
water coming down and Tide pushing up
anyway um that area was very low and um
the State Highway Administration and the
town um and the Don
I would say worked in in a like a public
private partnership to fix the area to
raise it they
raised 261 I think about six feet um if
I'm not
mistaken um and at the same
time with permits in hand the donovans
raised their properties and the town
raised SE
Street um replace the entire sewer
system because the sewer system every
time it rained would flow back up
and overflow into the roads and down
into the stream
Etc new water lines were put in um a new
storm drain system was put in new water
and sewer lines were put in everything
was raised um by the state by the town
and by the
donovans as part of that a uh storm
water pump station was
installed um if you're not familiar with
it you see black fence on the property
goes around around that's what that is
that's a pump station so when you get
[Music]
um large storm events um there's a way
to actually pump the water out of that
area and without a location to put the
pump station and the backup it's a it's
a pumparound system the Donovan's
provided easements for that on their
property um so it could be out of the
flood plane it actually sits out of the
huner flood
plane uh
can I a lot ask a clarifying question
those easements you the pump you were
talking about was would be a Town Pump
it's a town facility is correct correct
but the easement that you were granting
was on the site plan yes that would for
the Senate Place project there's no
separate easement for it no it was
included with the development permit
part of the development permit process
yes
okay
so now I'm going to submit exhibit 58
which is the town zoning permit
6652 it was approved
8111 and two pages of renewal stamps
showing the permit
5688 being renewed prior to that for
Sate place so it's three pages that
would be exhibit
58
Mr Woodburn you you described working
the town the donovans
and the state highway working
together I'm asking you to clarify that
the development or state place was
designed to meet the heights of that was
agreed upon by all three of those
parties that's correct so the pads that
they now sit are building pads set up up
for those Heights for all that work that
was done yes they all worked all the
three or each of the three entities
worked together at the same time because
it was a big bowl so the donovans did
their part while the state was doing
their part while the town was doing
their part so that it all came up
together raised together I should
say okay let's turn to home place oh let
me ask let me quickly look at my notes
here okay home place so this is the
general location Google Map just showing
you where it
is and then we'll go to the site plan
which is your sheet two of exhibit 5 Mr
Woodburn can you describe generally what
this development is designed to
accomplish this is oriented North uh as
you see the north Arrow the top left the
property uh borders Maryland Route 260
on the North side and it fronts on Cox
Road um on the South Side the proposed
project um had two um condominium
buildings and one single family house to
mirror the existing home that's on the
property currently um access is off of
Cox
Road um you'd come in off Cox and make a
90 degre turn it's called home place was
the name of the
road and um you would park some surface
in front and the two condominium
buildings are on the right and the
bottom side of the parking lot and those
had Podium parking
beneath so let's turn to the general
notes which you're one through looks
like six of your notes
um and that describes all the lots that
were used to make up this parcel correct
that's
correct parcel one and
two so under the ordinance that existed
at the time you filed the
application would the proposed plan have
met the zoning ordinance at that time
yes it's RV and it was in the RV
district and under the comprehensive
plan that was subsequently passed 2022
with the Home Place project be compliant
it would it's in the rv2 in the new
ordinance and it would not be
compliant mainly due to the height
restriction of 35
feet if Mr BL I'm sorry I didn't hear
everything what he said okay could you
repeat that under the new
ordinance um it would not meet code as
um the height restriction of 35 feet
would uh preclude it from being approved
or allowed well you also described the
parking I believe as parking underneath
correct is that allowed under the
current no okay so that also would not
be compliant okay
so was there any previous work done for
these properties for Home
Place uh physical construction no um but
we did go through a resoning for growth
allocation um to go from the LDA to the
Ida which is required for this
development and that was approved I
think you actually you showed in the
previous slide apped um under the com
2010 comprehensive plan as part of the
growth allocation approval
y but you you must have gotten site plan
approval because you also got zoning
permits we did get site plan approval
and uh zoning permit yes okay so I'm
going to offer as exhibit
59 the four pages
the first two are zoning permit and
renewals
forms first one issued it looks like in
2009 February 12th of
2009 as well as the application for
grading
permit
to calary
County
Mr Woodburn were you to serve as a civil
engineer on all these
developments yes and what does a Civil
Engineer do for projects like this so uh
we will prepare all the site development
plans some of which you've seen here
which will
include a site plan a landscape plan
utility plans such as water sewer storm
drain storm water management grading
roads parking
Etc um we'd also coordinate with other
uh Consultants such as Contra or the um
Architects um for locating the building
and and such um a geotechnical engineer
Structural Engineers things like that
and then uh assist with uh filing the
applications
War zoning permit building permit
grading permits Etc so when you're doing
that work with the Architects and the
contractors um part of that includes for
your work getting the foundation set at
the right grade correct first
correct how many different projects have
you worked on for buildings such as this
where you would act as a civil engineer
if you can guess or give an estimate I
shouldn't call it a guess an estimate
hundreds
okay and you're the civil engineer for
the rot and reel development at the
resort that's
correct so given your knowledge and
experience and having been involved in
developing and submitting these site
plans do you believe that if the
Planning and Zoning commission had
approved the site plans in the spring of
2021
would the projects have been able to
begin construction before May of
22 we're going way way uh into the realm
of him as expressing an opinion
especially an opinion as to what he
thinks another administrative board may
or may not have done um I mean that's
not only is he expressing an opinion at
this point but he's trying to express an
opinion as to what the Planning
Commission may or may not have done so
yeah it's great we could all have an
opinion about something but that's we's asking now it's just a pure
speculation my question stipulated if
you had gotten approval so let's that's
the condition if you had gotten approval
in the spring of 2021 would you have
been able to get these projects under
construction before May of 2022 he has
experience with doing many of these
projects he's doing the rod and reel
project he's done the he he can testify
from his experience about how quickly
the construction could have
started was a different question that
was a different question so I would have
no objection to that question because
that was a different question that he
asked before so um please answer the
question is to based on your experience
as an engineer regardless of the timing
of any administrative outcomes would the
how far along would the construction be
in the timeline so
um again just to to let you know I do
these permits daily I've done it for 30
years I can't guarantee it'll be permit
will be approved in a week a month or
you know a year however um if you were
to ask me on this project or any one of
these projects can I get a foundation
permit within a year of site plan
approval I would say absolutely
yes
and um can you what is the what does a
foundation permit mean in terms of the
so it's a good question so
um in my world there's lots of permits
um ultimately you want the final
building permit that's everything right
move in ready but um in the essence of time um especially when you're trying
to get things done in weather um so
you're like okay what can we get
approved so that we can get through
winter let's say we'd say we're going to
file for a foundation only permit so
this would be a permit to just put the
concrete foundation in so that the
contractor then has some work to do they
can put in a lot of utilities below
ground and work on other things while
they're trying to get the final building
permit to erect the the
vertical so uh we we'll do Foundation
only permits they're pretty common so
let me follow up with a question then
the foundation permit would include the
permit for driving piles correct and the
pile caps anything below grade so that
would include any of the grade beams and
the the horizontal beams that are
underneath below grade for the
foundation
okay I have no other questions of Mr
Woodburn and so I stop allow cross okay
um at this point in time
um examine Mr Woodburn based on the
contents of his testimony
today um I can de mine's going to be
longer than the 15 minutes uh Mr
Woodburn would you make yourself
available at the end of Mr bliss's
presentation for additional questions of
your testimony
sure uh if you have a question uh that
what what has been presented today
please step to the lecturn uh put if
make sure your name on the list
um of um what's the
word uh I will add my
name part yeah yeah thank you arties of
record your name is on the list and uh
you may ask questions but only to the
scope yes sir presented Greg Morris
2425 Woodland
Court
301873 4036 thank
you Mr Woodburn have you ever worked for
the town of ches big
beach you direct them to me or you yes
he can ask them to you okay fine uh have
I ever work for the town CH yes please
explain the capacity you served so I was
Town
engineer um uh see on and off between
2000 I don't know exactly when I started
for to
2020 long long span there uh so you were
acting Town civil engineer at that
time mostly not all during that time
were you in charge of Planning and
Zoning review and recommendations to the
town was not was it can you explain
kubak is the zoning administrator when
did he uh begin serving as that don't
remember
sorry any time during your tenure with
the town did you also work with a rod
and reel in any capacity related to the
subject Pro
projects uh yes have further questions
thank
you or blackw 3256 Canon King Court ches
Peake Beach Maryland
Mr n Laura black
welder Mr Woodburn was the email
informing you of the moratorium the only
comment that you received from Mr chubak
when you were working with him on these
projects
yes you did not have any meetings with
him about the properties he did not
communicate any concerns about anything
that was the
only correspondence that you had with
him okay so can you define
correspondence um well when you're
working with the zoning administrator
you're you're meeting with him I assume
verbal correspondence sure yeah before
the submittal or after the submitt
appli after the submitt I had no
conversations with him no and before the
submittal did he communicate any
concerns to you as I testified yes okay
yes
um
and could those concerns that he had
about your site plans be a reason why he
would not bring them to the Planning
Commission I don't
know he did not state
that and he's not here to
testify um so so what you're saying is
you don't know why Mr he said I can read
you what he said if you'd like right but you also just testified that you
don't know why Mr dubak did not bring
the site plans to the Planning
Commission for review I know what he
said yeah I know his reason yes if you
like me to read it I can that's all I
can tell you I read it as well but you
will agree that you can't get into Mr
duc's head yeah I can't do
that
yes
um in your experience is a category one
site plan typically reviewed and
approved within 60 days of filing of an
application I would have no reason to
believe it wouldn't
be you said you filed hundreds of those
hundreds town no I haven't right so of
those hundreds that you've submitted
what percentage would you say is
reviewed and approved within 60 days of
your filing I've never added them up I
don't
know can you guess no is it
100% I don't know you don't know if it's
100% or not I keep track of that
information I couldn't tell
you okay
to your knowledge was the rod and reil
expansion accounted for in any of the
site plans that were previously
approved Che just because I don't
understand the
question and please just restate so um
well I'll I'll start with a different
question to your knowledge was the
expansion of the rod and reel a known
project in the 2010 comprehensive
plan I don't know
that um it was it was the known projects
are listed in the 2010 comprehensive
plan was it listed there oh you bring it
out I'll look I I don't remember if the
rod and reel was I don't remember that
it's not part of this hearing I don't
know right so to your knowledge were
traffic studies associated with any of
these
projects accounting for a rod and reel
expansion not to my
knowledge you have any knowledge to
describe the additional
mitigation that was performed to account
for the Roden reel expansion and
revision
as part of this hearing I have no idea
wait I don't know you already testified
about the shared mitigation
for the rod and reel expansion I I don't
know what that means as far as this
hearing goes I'm not following it no
this is getting a little bit outside of
I I I agree it is in the scope of this
hearing but maybe not in the testimony
that has been presented today so I
suspect we will come back to this thank
you
if we can come back to it I'll ask
further questions later thank you thank
you good evening uh my name is Kathleen
baralt and I live at 7409 B Street in
Chesapeake Beach
20732 you need my me to say my phone
number no that's perfectly f um Mr
Woodburn uh I just wanted to ask uh one
question uh in your experience um you
had testified earlier and said that the
plan was in compliance and then when uh
in this instance because of the
moratorium it now is not in compliance
have you experienced that with other
buildings in in your experience
um I I don't know as if it was really
the moratorium it was the new zoning
well I mean not necessarily a moratorium
but that initially that the property was
about to be approved and then because
for example a change administratively in
comprehensive plan the plan the
application no longer is in compliance
you've experienced that before we're an
applic so let me if I understand your
question we reward a little bit
so your question I think
is have I experienced an application of
a project that before it got reviewed I
think is what you're asking me that
there was a change in something a policy
maybe or something that would render the
project to not be
reviewed not just a policy she think she
was referring to ordinance or ordinance
I'm sorry I didn't say I didn't mean
policy ordinance sorry yeah I I guess
what I'm asking something that you what
you experienced in this instance here
that the project I can't say that I've
ever had one happen like this um but
I've had projects where um in the middle
of a review cycle during a review
somewhere in the process an ordinance
was changed that affected the outcome of
a project yes would you say that
happened frequently or is it very
infrequent but it has happened okay
thank
you right we are coming to the end of
the testimony I will finish up with one
of my own
um
oh um Mr Woodburn will be here at the
end of um end of the presentation um I I
would hope that we' get all the
questions concerning what he's talked
about here today done um but I suppose
it is it is open so yes he will he will
be back for um further
questions you're gonna you're going to
be cross-examining Mr Woodburn at the
start of the next meeting that's what
you're saying okay uh yes that will be
fine okay fair enough um my my question
is um when you submit a site plan
how many are typically submitted at
once what do you mean like the number of
like yeah right you have you submit one
at a time or do you submit 10 in a
bucket and slide them all it it depends
um I mean I have a town housee
subdivision that I just submitted 50
today um now they're single family you
know single Town units I mean they're
all
different um
so I mean in this you ask me for this
case or in general in general yeah your
yeah I've done both and does many does
the cat one
classification make a difference in your
experience like when people submit 50
applications at once would they be as
large as a cat one set like just give me
the sense from your profal experience
like category one's unique to CH b b so
it's a little different and it it rides
because critical area added to it so
there's you know that complexity to it
[Music]
um you know it depends I mean I I do
projects where there's a hundred sheets
for one project so you got have to look
at a 100 Sheets if if if you had five
projects and it's 10 sheets right you
get it's hard to it's hard to wait out
the way you're asking the question
um but
certainly one's less than five
right thank you yeah um in that case um
we are planning to resume this hearing
on February 8th may24 at 7
pm everybody's awareness um and at this
time I will entertain a motion to
adjourn the meeting until February 8th
at 7 pm move to Jour second I will
second that favor
all we are adjourned thank you
everybody