[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