[0:05] uh welcome everybody this is the call to

[0:06] order for the ches beach board of

[0:08] appeals August 19th 2024 at 6:31

[0:13] PM again this is the call to order for

[0:15] the chese beach board of appeals August

[0:17] 19th 2024 at 6:31 p.m. uh as an

[0:20] introduction we're here today we're

[0:23] going to do a couple things we're going

[0:24] to start with some administrative

[0:25] business meeting minutes and any

[0:26] comments we've received after that we

[0:29] will allow continued questioning of Mr

[0:31] blitz's presentation at the conclusion

[0:34] of that we will move into Mr pound's

[0:36] presentation and then Q&A if time allows

[0:40] um this board plans to also close 15

[0:43] minutes early at 8:15 p.m. uh to discuss

[0:47] a board Personnel matter um and as

[0:50] always we begin with the roll call I'll

[0:53] go around the room please announce that

[0:55] you are present Mr Richard Burch present

[0:57] Mr Paul dhy present Miss Amy

[1:00] present Mr Steven sharp and I am Mr jod

[1:03] honstar we have a quorum uh first item

[1:07] is the approval of the minutes for case

[1:11] 20233 from the June 18th sessions does

[1:14] anybody have concerns with the documents

[1:17] they've been

[1:21] provided hearing none uh I would

[1:24] entertain a motion to approve the

[1:25] minutes I'll make the motion to approve

[1:27] I have a second second all in favor I

[1:31] right minutes are approved uh Sharon

[1:34] have we received any oh I got these um

[1:37] these are

[1:39] related aside from these have we

[1:41] received any other comments on this

[1:44] particular case no you uh in that case

[1:48] we move right along um this is the board

[1:50] of appeals continuation case 20233 rod

[1:53] and real Incorporated donov States LLC

[1:55] to consider an application from the

[1:56] Roden re Incorporated donov states of

[1:59] 416 M Avenue Chesapeake Beach Maryland

[2:02] interpretation or alleged error to

[2:03] article of 66 2923 29031 a186 of the

[2:08] Chesapeake Beach zoning ordinance and C

[2:10] 309 c310 c311 of the Chesapeake Beach

[2:13] Town Charter applicant requests that the

[2:15] Chesapeake Beach zoning board of appeals

[2:16] to quote order the zoning administrator

[2:18] and planning and zoning commission to

[2:19] immediately con uh commence and

[2:21] prioritize processing and review of the

[2:24] relevant site plan submitted by the Brad

[2:25] and reel Incorporated Don Estates LLC

[2:27] and that the zoning administrator and

[2:28] planning and zoning Commission ordered

[2:30] to apply the zoning ordinances in effect

[2:32] of as of January 29 2021 when the

[2:34] applications were submitted and for such

[2:36] other and further relief as the nature

[2:38] of their cuse requires uh okay at this

[2:41] point we will resume any questions

[2:43] directed to Mr Blitz or his presentation

[2:45] you have something else go yeah I do if

[2:48] you're if you're ready yes please um Mr

[2:50] chair um I think we need to

[2:53] address um exte communication to the

[2:56] board number

[2:58] seven um

[3:00] as you probably are all aware you

[3:02] received on August 16th

[3:05] 2024 an expart communication uh to the

[3:08] board by Mr pounds um that was emailed

[3:12] to me and many

[3:14] others um the letter from Mr pounds

[3:17] itself is undated U the board had

[3:20] previously um ruled prior Communications

[3:23] of March 26 2024 of which there were two

[3:28] March 28th 202

[3:30] April 12th 2024 April 15 2024 and May

[3:35] 22nd 2024 to be exp parte

[3:38] Communications I believe at the last

[3:40] Board hearing addressing the May

[3:43] 22nd 2024 expart

[3:46] communication the chair made it clear

[3:49] that no more such expar Communications

[3:51] would be distributed to the board uh yet

[3:54] again it was um this is manifestly

[3:58] unfair to the board the rod and reel and

[4:02] every other

[4:04] party um and I'm not going to go over

[4:06] all of the reasons why expart

[4:09] Communications are bad because I think

[4:11] you can remember them from the last

[4:13] seven uh

[4:14] six

[4:16] um following the procedure of this

[4:19] board uh's rules has proven

[4:23] insufficient uh instead of being labeled

[4:26] as inappropriate exper at communications

[4:29] uh to which other parties um or members

[4:33] of the public I suppose um can file

[4:36] rebuttal um what has happened is in the

[4:40] past some people have basically sent in

[4:43] meos or additional expart Communications

[4:46] about the expart dedication they're not

[4:48] rebutting them they're just simply

[4:50] adding their two

[4:52] cents and I request that the undated

[4:55] letter from Mr pounds that was forwarded

[4:58] by email of a 16th be stricken from the

[5:01] record and since it's short I wish to

[5:04] provide the rod and re rebuttal

[5:08] now

[5:10] um the lawsuit referenced in the first

[5:13] paragraph does not raise substantially

[5:15] the same allegations that are raised in

[5:17] this appeal of administrative error and

[5:20] asks for completely different

[5:24] relief what is most egregious is that

[5:26] the letter seeks to intimidate the

[5:29] members of the board by stating that you

[5:31] as individual members might need to

[5:33] retain councel for yourselves and

[5:36] somehow you may be called as Witnesses

[5:39] there's little reason to expect or

[5:41] believe that the board members to an

[5:43] administrative hearing would be relevant

[5:46] Witnesses in that

[5:48] litigation generally the board acts as a

[5:52] body its decision will flow from the

[5:56] findings that you file you know in this

[5:58] case

[6:01] um what Mr pounds is really trying to do

[6:04] in all these expart communications is

[6:06] seeking to admit evidence which is not

[6:08] only not relevant to the case um but do

[6:12] so by providing it outside the context

[6:14] of an open hearing where it's on the

[6:16] record and where parties including the

[6:18] rod and reel can make a timely

[6:22] objection instead information is sent to

[6:25] the board you can conjugate think about

[6:27] it what whatever it said and not have

[6:30] already heard an objection that I would

[6:32] have raised or any other party could

[6:37] raise I further request that you're that

[6:40] you censure Mr Pal's Mr pound's conduct

[6:45] this is clearly not the first instance

[6:47] of his abusing the process and

[6:49] submitting expart Communications with

[6:51] information not in the record to the

[6:53] board and other members of the public on

[6:56] that distribution

[6:58] list after to the last set of expart

[7:00] communications from Mr pounds were clear

[7:03] he was clearly on notice that sending

[7:05] such Communications is inappropriate and

[7:07] are prohibited by the board's

[7:10] rules finally that if you're going to

[7:13] follow your standard procedure of

[7:15] publishing it as an the expart

[7:18] communication I would ask that you

[7:21] consider putting a page on top of it on

[7:23] the first page that with this Proviso or

[7:26] this statement and I'll just read it

[7:31] attached is an inappropriate exp party

[7:33] communication sent to the board of

[7:35] appeals in case

[7:36] 2023 by Todd pounds Esquire notice is

[7:39] given to the public under the rules of

[7:41] the board of appeals to allow parties in

[7:44] interest the opportunity to rebut or

[7:46] object to any elements of the

[7:48] communication and its introduction to

[7:50] the board this notice is not intended to

[7:53] invite additional expart to

[7:55] Communications I think that might at

[7:57] least alert people it's going out on a

[8:00] website why this communication is being

[8:03] published so that they would provide

[8:05] comments that is the purpose of this is

[8:07] to

[8:09] rebut at the stage as a as a remedy to

[8:13] expart Communications that's why you

[8:15] have that process and a somewhat

[8:17] standard administrative process so I'd

[8:20] ask you to consider that thank

[8:23] you

[8:27] yes Mr Blitz because I understand it

[8:31] that letter was putting a variety of

[8:34] people on notice that rod reel had filed

[8:37] a new lawsuit against the

[8:40] town how is that as a substance of that

[8:44] letter relevant to the pending

[8:48] proceeding before the board well I would

[8:50] say it isn't but it then why why is it

[8:52] being

[8:53] sent about this case that is this is

[8:55] literally he's saying that this is

[8:57] substantially the same as the issue

[8:59] issues raised in this case that makes it

[9:01] relevant to this case it was clearly

[9:03] sent to me otherwise if it was just a

[9:06] communication to the board it wouldn't

[9:08] be sent to

[9:09] me it it's I well I suppose I was one of

[9:13] the people on his list of ported

[9:16] Witnesses my point is I think this was

[9:18] an attempt to

[9:20] introduce the litigation as part of this

[9:24] record it was distributed to all the

[9:26] members of the board

[9:33] so I I I took it as being about this

[9:38] case about this administrative

[9:40] proceeding and that would make make it

[9:42] an exp part communication just like all

[9:43] the the six previous

[9:47] ones not sure I agree with you but thank

[9:50] you for your

[9:53] explanation do we need to decide on this

[9:56] now is this something we can table and

[10:00] discuss better S if I can help you out I

[10:03] never intend introduce this and then and

[10:06] I do not plan on introducing this part

[10:08] of the record but like you said if

[10:10] wanted to make sure that everybody knows

[10:12] what is happening out there that is

[10:15] going to affect these proceedings so you

[10:17] know if there's a question about

[10:18] introduction I'm not introducing it

[10:20] never intended to so if that helps with

[10:24] your decision well but I think the point

[10:26] Mr pounds is that even though you're not

[10:29] introducing it it's out there it's been

[10:32] made uh the board's been made aware of

[10:35] it and other individuals have been made

[10:38] aware of

[10:39] it Mr Blitz I believe Planning

[10:41] Commission mayor and counsel and board I

[10:46] think the bigger question as I asked Mr

[10:48] Blitz is is it really relevant to this

[10:54] public hearing and P and public

[10:56] proceeding that we've been going on and

[10:59] tonight is on my count night

[11:03] 15 I'm not sure it

[11:05] is Mr susman oh I didn't mean to

[11:08] interrupt Mr pounds if you're no not at

[11:09] all I mean I mean like I said I've never

[11:12] intended to introduce it it's not

[11:13] evidence I mean you do as F that's my

[11:17] point is it's not being introduced in

[11:18] the record it's the I'm going to read

[11:20] the first paragraph and I think this

[11:22] answers your issue Mr susman please be

[11:25] advised the town of ches beach has

[11:26] received a lawsuit from RNR with

[11:28] substantially the same allegations as

[11:30] they are being heard by the board of

[11:31] appeals he just put boa the testimony

[11:35] and actions of the boa will be part of

[11:37] that litigation so he's giving you

[11:41] notice about this case being applicable

[11:45] to a litigation which it isn't but I'm

[11:47] just saying that's inappropriate expart

[11:51] Communications it's clearly about this

[11:53] case I mean it didn't cite the case

[11:55] number but it's referring to the fact

[11:58] that he thinks that they're

[11:59] substantially the same

[12:01] allegations so that's why I I believe

[12:03] it's an expart communication just for

[12:05] the clarification of it and we've been

[12:06] going on and on about this it's not

[12:08] expart if you send it to everybody okay

[12:11] maybe you know not admissible for

[12:12] whatever reasons but xart is when you

[12:14] only send it to one party and only one

[12:16] party's address such as if I were to

[12:17] send it to one Council you know board

[12:19] member or somebody like that um it's not

[12:23] exporte if it's sent to everybody which

[12:25] I always did so but that's just just for

[12:28] clarification

[12:32] uh Mr chairman I don't think the uh

[12:35] board should spend any more time on this

[12:38] uh my recommendation would be that you

[12:42] uh acknowledge Mr bliss's Point uh but

[12:46] deny his request for

[12:48] Relief I'm going to open the floor any

[12:50] other board members have thoughts on

[12:52] this particular I agree with that

[12:54] statement 100% we should move

[12:57] forward let me make a

[12:59] comment um as far as you know the

[13:02] allegation of

[13:04] intimidation when I received that letter

[13:06] I had no idea what it was about there

[13:08] was no

[13:09] details I automatically connected it to

[13:12] this

[13:13] case so um in that

[13:18] respect I I drew the conclusion that was

[13:23] related didn't I didn't worry about

[13:26] it but I think

[13:30] for me it did seem that it had an effect

[13:33] on this

[13:41] case I think my I

[13:45] um I think I agree that the I was when I

[13:49] saw that I was like I don't want to open

[13:52] this um I I just I am Leary about expart

[13:56] Communications and whatnot from that um

[13:58] so that is a concern and I think that is appropriate to

[14:02] address however I did not feel

[14:05] intimidation from this nor do I feel

[14:09] it's necessarily directly connected to

[14:11] this since it is another lawsuit that

[14:14] happens to be the same plaintiff that we

[14:17] are involved in that doesn't necessarily

[14:19] mean that it's the same

[14:27] thing okay uh thank you everybody for

[14:29] your input um I think we are going to

[14:31] move ahead um with Mr susman's

[14:35] suggestion that we have heard what you

[14:37] said Mr Blitz um but we are going to

[14:39] deny the motion at this time and we are

[14:41] continuing

[14:42] on um

[14:46] sorry uh I don't think so um okay we now

[14:50] we will proceed back where we left off

[14:52] last time which was any questions

[14:54] directed to Mr Blitz please come forward

[14:57] and um Mr s do this swearing in honors

[15:00] uh before you said do that um there's a

[15:01] reminder to speak into the microphone

[15:03] and speak loud so everybody can

[15:07] hear will swear you okay I'll swear I

[15:12] swear in the first night but I'll

[15:13] swearing again

[15:15] toly affirm under the federal proy that

[15:18] the testimony

[15:24] evidence I do

[15:31] good evening my name is Daniel Deval uh

[15:33] 3610 chese Beach Road chese Beach

[15:36] Maryland Mr chairman and fellow board of

[15:39] appeals member me Mr Dev I'd appreciate

[15:42] if you would try and speak up my hearing

[15:45] normally bad is even worse

[15:47] tonight yes yes Mr assman is that better

[15:51] uh good evening Mr chairman and fellow

[15:53] board of appeals

[15:54] members just as Mr susman said this

[15:57] coming uh Saturday August 24th 2024 will

[16:01] be one year since the applicant was

[16:03] given the right to have this board of

[16:06] appeals hearing here's our case it has

[16:09] been

[16:10] 787 days since the check was submitted

[16:13] to the town requesting a board of

[16:16] appeals hearing and it has been

[16:19] 1,297 days since the plans were

[16:22] submitted to the Planning examing

[16:24] Commission

[16:26] 1,297 days of um my brief

[16:30] overline timeline overview um March 2020

[16:35] Co everyone's life was

[16:38] uprooted um December

[16:42] 205

[16:43] 2020 uh there was a planning and zoning

[16:47] committee it was a revised design for

[16:49] the Ride and Reel presentation to the

[16:52] planning and zoning and there was ATT

[16:54] tension um from the members of the

[16:56] planning zoning to the rod and wheel

[16:58] that can be assumed looking back on that

[17:01] video uh on January 28th 2021 planning

[17:06] zoning meeting there was a motion um for

[17:09] a moratorium and attention by the

[17:12] members of the planning Z Zone in

[17:14] commission you could see the

[17:21] growing I I am I'm just I'm

[17:24] providing my lead into my questions I've been participating this entire time

[17:30] and uh I've I've I've spent countless

[17:34] hours getting together what I believe I

[17:39] don't really have any relation to any of

[17:41] the parties but but just what I see from

[17:45] the perspective so we're gonna have a

[17:47] second session where it's basically open

[17:49] but but I have questions so these are

[17:51] all lead up to to my line of question

[17:53] way with that thank you very much um on

[17:57] a January 29 2021 Rod marel submitted

[18:01] five site plans paid fees and did

[18:03] everything that was outlined in both the

[18:06] comprehensive plans property zoning and

[18:08] town and building coastes this is now

[18:12] over three years seven

[18:14] months um youall have a copy of it uh

[18:19] the the February 24th 21 there was a

[18:24] planning zoning public

[18:26] hearing March 8th 20 21 and March 18th

[18:31] 2021 I've provided copy for y'all to

[18:34] read but there was multiple members from

[18:37] the public multiple members from the

[18:39] public that spoke in opposition to this

[18:46] moratorium I'd say it was a 5 to

[18:50] one the public didn't

[18:53] speak um there was things that were

[18:56] addressed from the former planning

[18:58] administrator Mr kubak submitted by

[19:01] reading into a r uh into a record a

[19:04] letter from an attorney that represents

[19:06] a develop in the planning stage this

[19:09] affected the

[19:11] structure of a moratorium and allowed

[19:14] for one project it outlined the Planning

[19:17] and Zoning had the

[19:21] approval to issue that project's permit

[19:24] so this is where my line will start

[19:27] questioning

[19:29] um Mr Blitzer uh Mr Donovan that that

[19:34] project that was per that they were

[19:37] allowed to do a permit was that a

[19:39] project excuse me Mr Deval your question

[19:42] should be addressed to Mr Blitz Mr Donan

[19:44] already

[19:47] Justified I haven't haven't questioned

[19:50] any of I was asking which one of them to

[19:53] answer I'm

[19:55] sorry the applicant can I address the

[19:57] applicant yes

[19:59] okay the applicant um the project that

[20:04] was allowed to be approved by the

[20:08] Planning and Zoning um were you guys a

[20:12] party to that

[20:14] project are you asking about the rod and

[20:16] reel project um I'm asking on were the

[20:20] rod and reel property at me's Avenue is

[20:23] that the one no no no not that one there was a like a a a property

[20:27] development uh it was brought up in the

[20:29] March and there was a it was in a a

[20:33] planning stage and it didn't seem like

[20:36] that that you guys were it was a town

[20:40] homes I believe or

[20:42] something well that could have been Sate

[20:45] place I'm not sure okay okay so then I

[20:47] guess no I mean okay let me let me

[20:50] answer it this way the applicants have

[20:55] done the rot and reel in the kind of

[20:57] most recent P they did Harbor Vista

[21:01] South which they received preliminary

[21:02] site plan approval for which has since

[21:06] lapsed and then they filed these five

[21:09] applications that are at the heart of

[21:11] this case and that's for the State

[21:14] Property home place and the three Marina

[21:17] properties which are generally Harbor

[21:19] bista South West and North so those are

[21:23] the only

[21:25] properties that have been filed for if

[21:28] that's your question uh

[21:31] um

[21:34] so I'm not a lawyer but uh

[21:39] it the the moratorium uh I've I've tried

[21:44] to understand that if I could get your

[21:46] um legal opinion of the understanding in

[21:49] regards to uh these thing uh I believe

[21:53] that the moratorium was for planning

[21:55] zoning to not issue building permit

[22:00] 12 months from when it was enacted it

[22:07] uh you're asking me that question okay

[22:10] so object objection if he's goingon to

[22:12] be testifying as an expert you know

[22:14] obviously we're going to have to open up

[22:15] Mr blitz's testimony again but if he's

[22:18] just asking him a question that's fine

[22:19] or if he's introducing new testimony

[22:21] that's going to be opening up to again

[22:23] further testimony but uh I'll leave that

[22:25] up to the chair Mr chair I'd like to

[22:28] address exhibit the next uh party there

[22:33] and move

[22:40] it uh can you let us know which one

[22:43] you're talking about um the the the

[22:46] second final yep no yep and uh

[22:51] you'll I I I'll I'll come to it but this

[22:54] is this other this further outlines that

[22:57] okay so

[23:04] um I'm just going to

[23:09] read it's my

[23:12] understanding as a person the general

[23:16] public I mean the only I I don't have

[23:20] any I think my sister worked for him

[23:23] when she was like 14 she's like 40 now

[23:25] you know I mean like like there's I have

[23:27] no attachment

[23:29] I moved to chese beach in 2023 and I had

[23:33] no idea the entire tension that was

[23:35] coming on just to put some context to

[23:38] how unrelated I am to any party in this

[23:42] I have no relation to any

[23:44] party no interest no

[23:48] anything I just want to have a town

[23:51] that's

[23:52] peaceful so I'm going to continue to

[23:56] read reviewing this

[23:59] also with the moratorium allowed them

[24:02] not to have to accept new applications

[24:04] and plans this was to provide them time

[24:07] to work on the new comprehensive plan

[24:09] and review the plan submitted but they

[24:11] did not have to issue permits for 12

[24:13] months this did not give them permission

[24:16] to just sit on their hands and do

[24:18] nothing with the submitted applications

[24:21] that had been submitted before the

[24:23] moratorium went into

[24:25] effect when these projects were

[24:28] submitted

[24:29] they were

[24:30] outlined as expected projects of the

[24:32] town's comprehensive

[24:34] plan they had an obligation to work on

[24:38] the completion of the new comprehensive

[24:41] plan with the acknowledgment these

[24:44] projects that were part of the existing

[24:46] comprehensive plan needed to be part of

[24:49] the new comprehensive plan as the owner

[24:52] by way of submitting these projects

[24:54] informed the Planning and Zoning

[24:56] Commission of their Contin intentions of

[25:00] development of the property the

[25:03] moratorium did not give them the

[25:05] permission to not fulfill their Duty as

[25:08] a Planning and Zoning commission that

[25:10] they had sworn and oath to fulfill the

[25:13] Planning and Zoning commission has

[25:16] refused to review this applicant's

[25:20] plans when reviewing the parties of

[25:22] record I see that I see them as myself

[25:26] and the others listed when the document

[25:30] dated May 1st 2024 the people who have

[25:34] cross-examined this applicant for the

[25:36] most part have not been members of the

[25:40] general public they are currently or

[25:42] were Pro previously a person who held

[25:45] either an elected position or an

[25:47] appointed position to the board this is

[25:50] of grave concern as during the public

[25:53] hearings about both the planning and

[25:56] zoning and the Town Council meaning

[25:58] there were quite a few members of the

[26:00] public who spoke in opposition to the

[26:02] moratorium the facts are very simple

[26:05] when the applicant submitted the plans

[26:07] for the proposed buildings on the site

[26:09] it was done before the motion foral

[26:11] Auditorium had a public hearing

[26:13] submitted before it had a Planning and

[26:16] Zoning hearing and well before the town

[26:18] council meeting this seems to me to be

[26:20] absurd as if someone bought a lottery

[26:23] ticket with the previous week's winner

[26:25] numbers and expected to have the ticket

[26:27] become the winning

[26:31] yes I the next page is where my

[26:33] questions are yeah

[26:38] yes there are so many hearings that have

[26:41] had multiple things done iner from not

[26:43] listening to the public the major change

[26:45] to the structure of our town done at a

[26:47] time when people were not able to go

[26:49] about life as Co D drastically affected

[26:53] everything to the town taking a very

[26:56] hard lines and pushing out and cre and

[26:58] divide between the public and its

[27:00] businesses

[27:03] questions Mr Blitz I have heard you make

[27:07] an argument about wanting to have this

[27:10] board order relief in order to to order

[27:13] the Planning and Zoning Board to review

[27:14] the projects as they are

[27:16] submitted and from the time and the

[27:19] rules of the time

[27:21] submission the question is is that

[27:24] generally what you are making your

[27:26] presentation in legal case for objection

[27:29] and I can appreciate use the I mean I

[27:31] could go on again if Mr Blitz is going

[27:33] to be giving his opinion on that that's

[27:35] going to open it up to further

[27:36] examination by me and others but uh but

[27:39] you know being a lay person know go

[27:44] ahead so is simple because everything

[27:47] I've read so I don't know how to ask a

[27:50] question without being

[27:51] interrupted by Mr pounds like everybody

[27:55] else has been able to I mean you've had

[27:58] board of appeals planning zoning members

[28:01] do a hypothetical dream question that

[28:03] you didn't object to let's let's try and

[28:05] get we we give you leeway thank you

[28:08] you've had a lot of you've been waiting

[28:10] for a long time to ask your questions um

[28:12] and you will have the chance to both

[28:14] state and ask more questions this isn't

[28:16] your last chance yes sir but if you if

[28:18] You' aim the ones you have I'm however

[28:21] it needs to be worded if you could I'll

[28:24] reord it but that's just

[28:26] basically I mean this is a lot like I

[28:29] said it's it's a year of hearings and

[28:31] then you

[28:33] have three and a half years of context

[28:36] that go into it just trying to simplify

[28:39] for just the general public that's like

[28:42] what the hell is going on it's very

[28:44] difficult yes it it is it I think it's

[28:46] really simple and I'm just trying to ask

[28:49] is a simple thing that you're asking

[28:53] that your projects that you submitted be

[28:56] reviewed when

[29:00] it so I think I'm not offering a legal

[29:05] opinion on this I'm merely saying what

[29:07] the

[29:08] application asks for

[29:11] Relief correct so I'm just going to set

[29:14] in answering this question I'm not

[29:15] giving any expertise or legal opinion

[29:20] I'm merely as the applicant's lawyer

[29:22] saying what our application seeks in

[29:24] relief because I think that

[29:26] answers his question

[29:29] you're just asking them I want to make

[29:31] sure Mr pounds understands that or

[29:33] agrees with it okay so the answer

[29:37] is yes but there are alternate forms of

[29:41] relief that we have asked for and I made

[29:44] a

[29:45] presentation about that relief in

[29:49] that the board has the power to step

[29:52] into the shoes of the administrators so

[29:54] they can review the plans themselves and

[29:57] do site plan review or they can order

[30:00] the Planning and Zoning commission and

[30:01] the zoning administrator to do their

[30:03] jobs but it is correct that we're asking

[30:06] for the law that existed at the time of

[30:08] the applications be applied to those

[30:12] applications does that answer your

[30:14] question yes it does and at the first it

[30:17] was very confusing but as I put together

[30:20] how long this timeline is I

[30:22] mean it's a long time okay I see that

[30:26] within your submitted documents exhibit

[30:31] to an application and payment to have

[30:34] your case heard by the boards appeals

[30:36] dated June 24th 2022 this was over two

[30:40] years ago I see that in exhibit three is

[30:44] the circuit court order to the town of

[30:47] chesp beach allow your applicant to have

[30:50] a board of appeals hearing are you

[30:53] expecting me as a member of the public

[30:55] to really believe that your client who

[30:57] is largest property owner along with the

[31:00] highest taxpaying business in this town

[31:02] that this case is really about building

[31:04] plans and not targeting a client a

[31:06] personal

[31:09] conflict

[31:11] oh yes we're we're asking for Relief

[31:17] that flows from the administrative

[31:19] action that we filed which is site plan

[31:23] review and Zoning permits applications

[31:26] so it's

[31:28] about getting that review it doesn't

[31:32] presume that that review is necessarily

[31:35] successful that is there's all kinds of

[31:37] facts that get brought up in

[31:39] review um of a of an application but

[31:43] it's saying that the denial of that

[31:48] review was wrongful and therefore that's

[31:50] what we're asking for is that review and

[31:53] as I just stated to the first in

[31:56] answering your first question there's an

[31:58] alternate way that the board is

[32:01] empowered to provide that

[32:05] relief I I personally would prefer the

[32:08] board do the do the plan reviews

[32:12] themselves but that's really up to them

[32:16] um so and I

[32:20] don't the last part of your question and

[32:22] not targeting your client out of

[32:25] personal conflict I mean it's it's clear

[32:28] that the town targeted the rod and Rio

[32:32] applications in doing the moratorium it

[32:34] I

[32:35] mean I'm G to the term targeted but you

[32:39] know please

[32:44] proceed say you Rie if you review the hearings you you'll hear the Town

[32:50] Council and mention them words I mean

[32:54] the resol the resolution passing the

[32:56] moratorium literally refer ref to these

[32:58] five site

[32:59] plans um and as the reason for the

[33:03] moratorium so I I could probably speak

[33:07] for about 45 minutes on all the evidence

[33:10] that we've provided that just a yes yes

[33:12] or

[33:13] no yeah like yeah it's like okay yeah I

[33:19] mean yeah yeah I mean

[33:23] it's

[33:25] um I've watched many more hearings as I

[33:30] said but I will just note a few of these

[33:32] on 911

[33:34] 2019 you could hear the town would not

[33:38] be liable to pay somebody for the

[33:41] property 12:15

[33:45] 2019 and uh 128 2021 224 2021 um on

[33:53] 10:27 2021 the planning and zerning

[33:56] chair addressed misconduct between the

[33:59] Planning and Zoning

[34:01] Commissioners 119 2021 these videos of

[34:05] the hearing showed an incredible amount

[34:07] of tension from some members of planning

[34:09] asson directed towards Roden reil Mr

[34:12] Blitz do you have a record of all the

[34:14] meetings you have attended regarding

[34:17] this

[34:19] matter no I don't have a record that is

[34:21] I would be able to assemble a record I

[34:26] suppose kind of depends on how far back

[34:28] it goes uh

[34:30] 2019 maybe not because I was thinking

[34:33] about my billing records if that would

[34:35] show that I attended a meeting I I

[34:38] watched a lot of the Planning and Zoning

[34:39] meetings um without attending them so I

[34:43] knew what they were doing and saying um

[34:46] if that gets to your answering your

[34:49] question I I know I did attend some the

[34:52] way you would find out which ones I

[34:54] attended would be to find out whether

[34:56] the minutes disclose that I provided

[34:59] testimony on beh or some sort of um statement on behalf

[35:06] of the rod and reel with respect to the

[35:09] process they were engaged in um that

[35:11] happened a number of times but it would

[35:13] be reflected in the minutes

[35:15] because there was no time where I

[35:17] attended a

[35:20] meeting now that's not true because I

[35:22] attended Zoom meetings I was going to

[35:24] say I didn't attend without saying

[35:26] something but I did watch

[35:28] Zoom meetings or when they were doing

[35:30] Zoom

[35:31] meetings I don't know what I'm not sure

[35:33] it's relevant but wow just to think how

[35:36] I or anyone from the public would expect

[35:38] to stand a chance if the town gets upset

[35:40] with you Mr Blitz attachment D list of

[35:44] adjoining properties would you explain

[35:46] the reason this is needed yes under the

[35:50] town code when an applicant

[35:54] files a application for a board of

[35:56] appeals review of

[35:59] error or it also applies to

[36:02] interpretation appeals probably also

[36:04] applies to variance of special

[36:06] exceptions but in this case what the the

[36:09] ordinance requires that all of the

[36:12] adjoining properties be identified so

[36:15] that the town can send certified letters

[36:18] notifying them of the um of the pendency

[36:24] of the board of appeals case so that's

[36:26] why all that list of all those

[36:28] properties was

[36:30] provided I I see Mr Brown listed as one

[36:33] of the property owners this was the

[36:35] chair of the Planning and Zoning

[36:36] commission and when the moratorium was

[36:38] introduced and voted on it is not to say

[36:41] or imply ill intent on the part of Mr

[36:43] Browns but as shown by the way of the

[36:47] chair Mr honstar the proper thing would

[36:49] have been to recluse

[36:53] himself I personally think Mr Brown had

[36:56] good intentions but as the saying goes

[36:58] the path to hell is paved with good

[37:01] intentions councilman thinkink

[37:03] councilwoman Hartman councilman jorski

[37:05] have neighboring properties also Seagate

[37:08] Town Homes did you cross reference or

[37:10] investigate any of these Property

[37:13] Owners would you repeat that no I did

[37:16] not I didn't investigate I'm not sure

[37:19] what you mean by cross reference but

[37:21] cross reference like uh so there's a

[37:23] conflict of interest three three

[37:25] councilman in uh live in Seagate

[37:28] uh and Mr Brown was planning all of them

[37:31] were like part of that listed properties

[37:33] okay so even if they had a possible

[37:37] conflict of interest what the law states

[37:39] is that they still get notice of the

[37:41] board of appeals case so if they were in

[37:44] adjoining property their property was

[37:46] listed and that they got sent to

[37:48] certified mail uh issues of conflict can

[37:52] come later or be determined at their

[37:54] hearings or meetings or whatever context

[37:56] it's provided but no I didn't do any

[37:58] research about any of the properties uh

[38:01] other than identifying which properties

[38:03] were adjoining the five properties for

[38:06] the rod and reel

[38:07] applications I asked Meed a few items to

[38:10] this board asking for the public to have

[38:12] a fear Fair standing and a voice in this

[38:13] hearing but this was before I saw that

[38:16] nobody from the public comments were

[38:18] considered in

[38:19] consideration with this matter at the

[38:22] previous hearings this is how you

[38:25] silence the public

[38:27] um sir we have repeated time and time

[38:30] again I have three three more sent just

[38:33] second we have repeated time and time

[38:34] again and since you've been part of this

[38:36] you've heard this time and time again

[38:37] but we do have a process and there is a

[38:40] place for you to speak I just want you

[38:42] to make sure that you know this last

[38:44] time you wait just one moment last time

[38:46] you said you did not want to speak at

[38:48] that time you gave up that moment to

[38:50] speak we are letting you speak right now

[38:52] and we will let you speak again later so

[38:55] we have made this

[38:57] available to people in the order of the

[39:00] process okay just apologize the

[39:05] board assume that I was referring to

[39:08] this hearing this hearing has been

[39:11] exceptionally well and I'm very thankful

[39:14] for that was a clarification you're

[39:15] stating this in general I'm stating

[39:19] why the people aren't here is because

[39:23] previously their voice was not heard and

[39:27] so the inaction the disregard to the

[39:31] public this is how you silence and

[39:34] that's why there's not more people here

[39:36] speaking because it's like what does it

[39:38] matter we're not going to be heard if

[39:41] you review there was a lot of people

[39:43] that spoke and I mean this was during Co

[39:46] people were in Zoom calls people came

[39:49] here there was a ton of people and this

[39:51] is how you silence the public and we do

[39:53] not want to do that we want to fight

[39:55] against that we we're trying our best

[39:57] here

[39:57] great J so please take your time to

[40:01] question Mr Blitz now and as before all

[40:03] members of the public will have their a

[40:05] full dedicated meeting at least to voice

[40:08] any concerns they have about this

[40:09] particular proceeding we cannot fix what

[40:12] other boards or people have done we can

[40:13] just try and

[40:15] do I ask this board to of appeals to

[40:19] recall the threat made by Mr pound that

[40:20] I raised my concerns in my letter I

[40:23] submitted about Miss bound's Behavior

[40:26] towards Mr fiser I have provided you

[40:28] guys document showing that this Threat

[40:30] by Mr pal is not just empty words but

[40:33] one of action and that he is removed

[40:35] from this hearing as a conflict of

[40:38] interest we've received your letters and

[40:41] we also deferred most of them in the

[40:44] first section of this hearing we were

[40:46] not trying to brush anything under the

[40:48] rug but we were trying to keep things

[40:50] moving in that it was Mr blitz's I tell

[40:53] you the judge tomorrow morning sorry I

[40:56] tell the judge tomorrow morning I'm

[40:58] afraid we can't do I mean okay you

[41:01] understand you like I a conflict his

[41:04] actions and his threats are being met

[41:06] with so and I'm with a

[41:16] record the applicant along with his

[41:18] sister M Mr Mary lamb publicly warn the

[41:21] people of ches beach that this

[41:23] moratorium was not just about the

[41:25] ability to build or not build but more

[41:27] importantly our rights as a community I

[41:31] sadly believe that Miss Mary Lam was

[41:34] correct Mr chair and board members I ask

[41:37] you to recall case 24

[41:40] 20242 the hearing where this body's

[41:44] chair recused himself to remove any

[41:47] doubt of conflict of

[41:49] interest inappropriate to oversee the

[41:53] hearing as he thought it was

[41:54] inappropriate to oversee the hearing not

[41:56] just refrain from

[41:59] V I plead with this board of appeals to

[42:02] see that you have the authority to bring

[42:04] this to an end this wrongdoing that was

[42:07] done by the elected mayor by way of town

[42:09] Administration and joining administrator

[42:11] elected Town Council and selective

[42:13] putting together a plan exting

[42:15] commission to enact his agenda we as a

[42:18] community must protect our rights this

[42:20] is not only about building and property

[42:24] rights thank you thank you

[42:33] hey just completely off the Record

[42:35] because you mentioned the hearing

[42:36] tomorrow the chair he has a Mr uh the VA

[42:40] has a um a violation against him for

[42:44] various violations of the city ordinance

[42:46] or town ordinance um just let you know a

[42:49] continuance was filed because I have a

[42:51] conflict in another matter so you may

[42:53] want to double check that I don't think

[42:55] there's going to be a case to nor but

[42:56] just letting you

[42:59] know uh let us continue anybody else

[43:03] would like to ask questions of Mr

[43:05] blitz's

[43:09] present it was not already done

[43:13] so uh that was just about to be

[43:15] next I guess uh if there's no more

[43:18] members of the public uh members of the

[43:20] board the floor is also free if you

[43:22] would like to ask questions of uh Mr

[43:26] Blitz

[43:48] um I just wanted this has come up and I

[43:52] just want to

[43:53] clarify just so we all but so you have

[43:57] been an attorney for both the town and

[44:00] the rod and reel correct I I stopped my

[44:03] representation of the town in

[44:07] 2008 and um just so we know like where

[44:11] all the whatever who who were who was in

[44:14] office of the town with you like who was

[44:16] the mayor the Planning and Zoning

[44:18] administrator the town engineer remember

[44:20] the mayor was Gerald

[44:24] Donovan the zoning administrator was

[44:27] Chris

[44:31] jbak uh I I think

[44:35] I I'm pretty sure he was because Bill

[44:38] Watson was the zoning administrator for

[44:41] a while while Chris was acting as kind

[44:43] of like a planner but then I at some

[44:46] point in time Chris became the actual

[44:48] zoning administrator so my memory of

[44:51] that is a little hazy and then who else

[44:52] did you ask uh the engineer the engineer

[44:57] well that W that depended on the type of

[45:00] project so there was Engineers for

[45:01] different things Paul Woodburn did kind

[45:03] of like the general stuff okay at 2008 I

[45:08] think that would been Paul Woodburn yeah

[45:10] but there was lots of Engineers doing

[45:13] all kind of things we had Sterns and

[45:14] Wheeler doing the the uh water and

[45:18] sewer

[45:20] um there was engineer there's always um

[45:23] you know there's also um Paula

[45:27] Guffy Guffy Guffy she was the town

[45:31] engineer and maybe maybe my memory is

[45:34] wrong maybe it it was Paul up to a

[45:37] certain point and then Paula Guffy

[45:40] because I know she was

[45:42] acting but that's just too far back for

[45:45] me to remember

[45:46] exactly with without some documents or

[45:49] trying to okay and then was it in 2008

[45:52] you switched over to work for Rod and

[45:55] Reel or was there I thought I understood

[45:58] that there was some overlap when did no

[45:59] I I had the firm had always represented

[46:02] and everybody knew it the rod and reel

[46:04] and the town okay and any matter that

[46:08] involved the town and the rod and reel

[46:11] Gerald recused himself I recused myself

[46:14] and other professionals were brought

[46:17] in

[46:19] okay

[46:20] [Music]

[46:23] um so in your role in both the town and Roden reel um you're the attorney

[46:30] and so when there are site plans and

[46:32] whatnot do you assist the town engineer

[46:36] or the the engineer that's working for

[46:37] the rod and reel whoever it might be do

[46:39] you assist them in the legalities of the

[46:42] plan um whether there are limitations

[46:45] for building whether there's zoning

[46:48] codes whatever are you involved in that

[46:50] not if it involved the rod and reel

[46:52] because I recused myself so I I would

[46:55] not have worked on projects involving

[46:57] the rod and reel while you were town in

[47:00] town oh yeah afterwards U well

[47:04] immediately afterwards I was moving to

[47:05] San Diego and supposed to go to the do a

[47:09] project in the Philippines that fell

[47:10] through and so I was kind of uh retired

[47:14] out of practice for some period of time

[47:16] after that and then I came back decided

[47:20] to stay in

[47:22] Maryland and then picked up doing more

[47:24] work for the rod and reel okay but the

[47:27] had represented the rotten reel since

[47:30] 70s okay so in these site plans for

[47:33] example the site plans that are

[47:35] applications in this case correct yes so

[47:38] do you have that role to provide the

[47:40] legal um justifications or advice or

[47:44] whatever to the to the engineer whoever

[47:47] else is putting this together they have

[47:49] them I don't know that I mean Mr

[47:51] Woodburn prepared the applications The

[47:54] Architects working with the engineers

[47:58] the the building Engineers so you got a

[48:01] Geotech engineer all those team of

[48:03] people it's not just Paul Woodburn a

[48:06] whole team of people including the

[48:08] proposed contractor would work on the development such that you know what

[48:13] you're proposing to

[48:14] build if there were questions they would

[48:17] have perhaps asked me whether they did

[48:19] or not I I shouldn't you know get into

[48:23] the kind of test the attorney client

[48:26] relationship right okay but it's more on

[48:29] a um as needed basis you'd provide legal

[48:32] assistance not that you

[48:33] were actively looking did that fair

[48:36] enough to

[48:37] say I knew that the plans were being

[48:39] developed right to to file them yes I

[48:42] knew that okay and so I I was aware I

[48:44] don't want to pretend that I wasn't

[48:45] aware of them no I was certainly aware

[48:48] of them yeah no I'm not I'm not um I'm

[48:50] not suggesting that at all um I'm just

[48:52] suggesting that then your engineer your

[48:55] architect whatever else that they'd be

[48:57] like hey is there a conflict legally

[48:59] with this that they would then go to you

[49:00] for that assistance you wouldn't just

[49:02] say hey I saw in here that's all I'm

[49:04] saying you're had a

[49:06] conflict if there was a concern raised

[49:09] at all with any with the the site plans

[49:12] these were developed in

[49:15] 2020 well the December November December

[49:18] of 2020 going into

[49:20] 2021 so Paul Woodburn had long left

[49:24] employment of the Town other Engineers

[49:26] that I know of that worked on the

[49:28] projects had nothing to do with the town

[49:30] oh I'm not even discussing the town I'm

[49:31] just saying Your Role with the building

[49:34] of a site plan the attorney I was just I

[49:37] was trying to I was trying to understand

[49:39] if you were more available for

[49:41] consultation in that regard or if you're

[49:43] an active participant I would describe

[49:46] myself as an active participant

[49:49] because they weren't always legal

[49:51] questions though sometimes I was looking

[49:52] at how how expensive it was and I had an

[49:54] opinion about that right that

[49:57] but I yes I certainly was involved in

[50:00] the preparation of these plans that were

[50:02] submitted the details of the actual

[50:05] applications are all done by Paul

[50:09] wood okay um and I should say because

[50:14] they involve buildings the contractor

[50:16] the architect and all these other

[50:18] professionals that part of the

[50:21] team you know they Paul does the site

[50:24] work aspects of it

[50:26] along with the Geotech but then there's

[50:29] all these other professionals saying

[50:30] well this is the way to build this and we need this sometimes if you got to

[50:34] drive really deep piles it has this

[50:36] consequence on the actual site plan so

[50:38] there's a lot of professionals involved

[50:40] in the development of a site plan

[50:42] application okay for the for the owner

[50:46] okay so I know one of like one of the

[50:49] things that Amy questioned this is

[50:51] Woodburn and if if this is not allowed

[50:54] that let me know Woodburn had said that

[50:56] um um he didn't know who would be

[50:59] responsible for determining if you could

[51:01] build in a flood plane he had he had

[51:03] said that in his testimony but I would

[51:05] have thought that he would then go to

[51:07] his attorney and say hey is this

[51:09] legitimate with this zoning and what not

[51:11] you can always building a flood plane

[51:13] there's there's nothing in the flood

[51:15] plane ordinance that says you can't

[51:17] build what it does is say how you build

[51:20] that's all a flood plane does okay so

[51:22] would that be something that would be

[51:24] consulted with the attorney or or is

[51:26] that sure if but for

[51:32] example if the flood plane is a certain

[51:35] elevation under the FEMA map because

[51:38] FEMA defines what the flood planes are

[51:39] for the

[51:41] town and that map says it needs to be at

[51:45] grade 8.2 I'm just making up a

[51:49] number there's very little debate that

[51:52] is the town and all jurisdictions add a

[51:55] foot or a two feet I think the talent

[51:57] adds two feed but my memory of that is a

[51:59] little they there's a standard for the

[52:03] federal government then you can add the

[52:06] local jurisdiction's ordinance adds a

[52:09] foot or maybe a foot and a half two feet

[52:11] whatever it is and that's the grade you

[52:13] have to build at there's not really a

[52:15] whole lot of debate about that that is

[52:17] there are debates for some more Arcane

[52:21] issues of flood planes such as um wave

[52:25] zones but none of these projects that I

[52:28] know of had a wave Zone although it's

[52:31] possible Harbor Vista South does for

[52:34] example the rod and reel has a wave zone

[52:36] so what it required is special kind of

[52:39] building within that flood plane but

[52:42] that's all it does is tell it's it's a

[52:44] it's more of like a building code it's

[52:45] telling you how to build things you

[52:48] can't have an air an outdoor air

[52:50] conditioning unit below that flood plane

[52:52] zone so uh I don't I don't think that

[52:56] was ever an

[52:58] issue all they were doing recall having

[53:00] discussions about that though or do you

[53:02] think well I don't want to talk about my

[53:03] discussions

[53:04] with okay but it was not an issue simply

[53:09] because they just go and set the grade

[53:11] at whatever the requirement of the flood

[53:13] plane is it's it's kind of literally

[53:15] just this is what the flood plane

[53:18] ordinance requires so you build it at

[53:20] that level and that's the grade the

[53:21] beginning grade level and that's the

[53:24] they designed the grade beams and make

[53:27] sure that there's not electrical or

[53:29] other life safety things that are below

[53:31] that base so that has a little bit of an

[53:34] elevation added to it to make sure all

[53:37] those things are out of there if you

[53:38] have a for example a Elevator Shaft you

[53:41] know that goes below grade it almost has

[53:44] to right because you're you're bringing

[53:46] an elevator down to that base grade on

[53:48] the first

[53:49] floor well the flood plane ordinance

[53:51] says and so does building code things

[53:53] that you have to um waterproof it and do

[53:56] a bunch of things to protect the

[53:57] electrical systems and safety so those

[54:00] are all kind of building code things

[54:02] they were not issues for any of these

[54:04] site

[54:05] plans that is they were they had to be

[54:07] addressed but that's just part of the

[54:09] site plan application you you set the

[54:11] grade at whatever it's going to

[54:13] be

[54:15] okay um so I know you've mentioned that

[54:19] you you feel that this um moratorium in

[54:22] justly targeted R and real um but during

[54:27] this moratorium rod and reel did have

[54:29] other development going on that was

[54:31] still proceeding in town minutes that

[54:33] you've pres presented to us and whatnot

[54:35] so like the expansion of Rod and Reel

[54:38] like that was that was before the

[54:41] moratorium right but so yeah but going

[54:43] on the construction itself was going on

[54:45] during the moratorium that's what you're

[54:46] asking but okay site plan review had

[54:48] already occurred well in advance okay so

[54:52] um I mean during but when did that occur

[54:55] then do you know when you guys through

[54:57] that

[54:58] so for the rot and reel project I assume

[55:00] you're talking about so the original

[55:03] application was 2016 okay something like

[55:06] that so that well let me say I think the final site plan was in late 2016 or

[55:15] 17 and

[55:18] then the

[55:20] reason for Harbor Vista South which got

[55:23] approval on the in the very next meeting

[55:26] after the rod and reel project wasn't

[55:28] able to move forward as Mr Donovan

[55:30] testified

[55:31] was they needed that for parking and the

[55:35] reason for the delay was essentially

[55:39] FEMA which is then your next step after

[55:42] your site plan

[55:45] review and Army Corps of Engineers took

[55:47] a year to Res to to to respond so we

[55:50] basically stalled for a year okay um so

[55:55] my understanding though is that the

[55:56] extension I mean the expansion of the

[55:59] resort there was an initial plan and

[56:00] then there was an expansion of that when

[56:02] did that happen because that was after2

[56:04] or something like that 2020 yeah I'm not

[56:08] that's just my faulty memory is

[56:10] somewhere around 2020 okay so shortly

[56:13] before all of this right okay correct it

[56:17] was

[56:18] definitely before the moratorium okay so um because it I apologize to it

[56:26] for interrupting but the reason I know

[56:27] that is it was an amendment to the

[56:31] existing site plan because there was

[56:36] enough being

[56:38] changed that the standard is the zoning

[56:42] administrator has the power to do minor

[56:46] adjustments but the he deemed these not

[56:49] no longer minor it was enough that it

[56:51] had to be brought back before the whole

[56:52] Planning and Zoning commission so but

[56:54] that was all brought back well before or

[56:56] the moratorium okay all righty so other

[57:00] than the fact that the five site plans

[57:03] were the only ones on record at that

[57:05] time do you have other evidence that the town was then therefore targeting

[57:10] rot and reel I mean just from a lot

[57:12] outstander you know outside point of

[57:14] view having doing the doing the

[57:16] expansion at that time it might not

[57:19] necessarily be seen that way okay

[57:29] so this is a little bit of

[57:31] a lengthy answer but I've got the list

[57:34] of all the the evidence that shows

[57:36] direct

[57:37] targeting so in exhibit 7 the febu

[57:40] February 5th 2020 email of the zoning

[57:43] administrator which is a mere seven days

[57:45] after the applications referred to the

[57:47] applications and that the response would

[57:49] be the proposed moratorium to be

[57:51] considered on February 24th so the the

[57:53] initial response that the we received

[57:56] from the zoning administrator about our

[57:58] applications was the moratorium proposal

[58:02] okay page one of exhibit 12 at the

[58:05] February 24th meeting of the Planning

[58:07] and Zoning commission there was a motion

[58:09] to remove residential development

[58:11] allocations in the town center and

[58:14] Marina areas and remove all multif

[58:16] family housing types in the residential

[58:19] Village uh which would have directly

[58:21] impacted the recently filed rod and re

[58:23] site plan applications which were all

[58:25] for for multif family residential

[58:27] development so at this point it was a

[58:29] full 14 months before the passage of the

[58:32] comprehensive

[58:33] plan page five of exhibit

[58:36] 12 at that same February 24th meeting

[58:39] the commission held a public hearing and

[58:40] passed a resolution recommending a

[58:42] moratorium which in the third whereas

[58:45] clause on page three of the resolution

[58:47] makes a specific finding that the five

[58:49] site plans filed on January 29th 2021

[58:53] and then recites the very same argument

[58:55] the zoning administrator

[58:56] gave us in his email of February 5th

[58:59] 2021 so they're using the applications

[59:03] as a finding of why they're doing in

[59:05] justification of the moratorium me Mr

[59:08] what what exhibit number was that that

[59:17] was page five of exhibit

[59:21] 12 and then in the following whereas

[59:24] clause on that same exhibit page 5

[59:26] exhibit

[59:28] 12 the commission makes a specific

[59:31] finding that the submitt of the five

[59:33] separate development applications was

[59:35] timed on the part of the applicant to

[59:37] obtain development approvals before the

[59:39] new comprehensive plan and implementing

[59:41] ordinances can be considered by the

[59:43] public so they were basically making a

[59:44] finding about their belief of of the

[59:47] applicants

[59:48] motivations

[59:50] um

[59:53] uh and for that the comprehensive plan

[59:57] could be deliberated by the commission

[59:59] and adopted by the mayor and Town

[1:00:00] Council so without any direct evidence

[1:00:02] of motivation on the part of the rod and

[1:00:05] reel they were making a finding

[1:00:07] recommending a

[1:00:09] moratorium and using that motive that

[1:00:12] their their assessment of our Mo of the

[1:00:14] Roden reel's motivation as a

[1:00:17] justification for the

[1:00:20] moratorium the following two whereas

[1:00:22] Clauses same exhibit

[1:00:26] the resolution recommending the

[1:00:27] moratorium the commission makes a

[1:00:29] finding that the CH that the challenges

[1:00:31] that the Roden reel development

[1:00:32] proposals and other major projects would

[1:00:36] impose creates three different problems

[1:00:38] that the commission believed it could

[1:00:40] avoid by passing the moratorium so

[1:00:42] they're clearly directing the moratorium

[1:00:45] at stopping these five

[1:00:48] applications because they believe those

[1:00:50] five these five applications impact

[1:00:53] their comp their comprehensive plan that

[1:00:56] was ongoing and had been going on

[1:00:59] for we put provided all that evidence

[1:01:02] but it was started I believe in um

[1:01:06] 201 16 or 17 I have to go back and look

[1:01:09] at all the the evidence but we we showed

[1:01:11] the the long CH the the process of the S

[1:01:16] of comprehensive plan had been already

[1:01:17] going on for like about 18 months when

[1:01:19] we file the

[1:01:20] applications and was already late under

[1:01:24] the law

[1:01:27] um so that reference to imposing the

[1:01:30] moratorium in response to the fight site

[1:01:33] plans was confirmed by chairman Brown's

[1:01:36] February 12th 21 report to the mayor and

[1:01:39] Town Council which is on the second page

[1:01:40] of exhibit

[1:01:45] 13 and the rod and reel site plans were

[1:01:48] mentioned along with the zoning

[1:01:49] administrators complaints about those

[1:01:51] submitted projects in the press

[1:01:53] release announcing the Mortor

[1:01:56] including the site plan illustrations

[1:01:58] for the rod and reel projects in the in

[1:02:01] the moratorium they were exactly

[1:02:04] targeting these projects by showing in

[1:02:07] their press release these five proposed

[1:02:09] projects and that's on exhibit

[1:02:14] 17 in exhibit 18 these illustrations of

[1:02:17] the Roden reil proposals were again

[1:02:19] repeated in the town administrator's

[1:02:22] report of March 11th 2021

[1:02:27] next I would refer you to page three of

[1:02:29] exhibit

[1:02:31] 21 the same three whereas Clauses about

[1:02:34] the five site plan applications and the

[1:02:36] alleged problems they created that were

[1:02:38] in the commission's resolution

[1:02:40] recommending the moratorium were

[1:02:42] included as the last three whereas

[1:02:45] Clauses of the Town council's resolution

[1:02:47] R

[1:02:49] 21-3 which attempted to establish that

[1:02:51] moratorium and which whereas Clauses

[1:02:53] were adopted by reference into the

[1:02:55] resolution so that made leg legally a

[1:02:58] part of the

[1:03:01] resolution the April 13th letter of the

[1:03:04] Town Administrator returning the funds

[1:03:06] for the review of The Harbor Vista North

[1:03:09] Harbor Vista West Harbor Vista South and

[1:03:12] State Place

[1:03:15] um referenced the category one site

[1:03:18] plans moratorium passed by the council

[1:03:21] as justification for not reviewing the

[1:03:23] site plans that's exhibit 25

[1:03:27] and according to the minutes of the Town

[1:03:28] Council work session of September 18th

[1:03:31] 2021 which is exhibit

[1:03:33] 26 Mr jabak stated that the moratorium

[1:03:37] would expire on December 18

[1:03:39] 2021 and that quote with the development

[1:03:42] plan applications currently on

[1:03:44] file waiting for review the commission

[1:03:47] feels it needs these several months to

[1:03:50] devote solely to the comprehensive plan

[1:03:52] and is recommending the Town Council to

[1:03:54] extend the moratorium another three

[1:03:56] months end quote so the rod and reel

[1:03:59] applications that were recognized as

[1:04:02] being on file as part of the were part

[1:04:05] of the justification from the zoning

[1:04:07] administrator requesting the three-month

[1:04:10] extension of the moratorium again that's

[1:04:12] exhibit

[1:04:16] 26 so I think I me

[1:04:20] there's lots of minor citations I can

[1:04:23] make with the exhibits that have already

[1:04:25] been submitted that make reference to

[1:04:29] these five site project five site plans

[1:04:32] as the motivating factor of filing for

[1:04:35] or or

[1:04:36] passing the

[1:04:38] moratorium and that's why I say they

[1:04:40] were directed primarily at the thing the

[1:04:44] other thing to

[1:04:46] recognize which I've already brought up

[1:04:48] is that the

[1:04:51] resolution adopting the moratorium

[1:04:57] adopted a recommendation from the

[1:04:58] Planning and Zoning commission to make a

[1:05:00] distinction between

[1:05:02] properties and

[1:05:04] so this distinction was made because at

[1:05:07] the Planning and Zoning commission

[1:05:08] hearing Mr

[1:05:09] repy

[1:05:12] actually I shouldn't

[1:05:15] testify that wasn't in the

[1:05:17] record so I'm not going to testify uh

[1:05:21] but what happened was Richfield Station

[1:05:25] app

[1:05:26] that were already through a part of the

[1:05:28] process but not yet finalized were

[1:05:31] Exempted from the effect of the

[1:05:35] moratorium oh okay

[1:05:40] um but obviously not the site planes for

[1:05:43] the rod and reil so that's why I would

[1:05:47] say that the evidence is overwhelming

[1:05:49] that the purpose of the moratorium was

[1:05:52] to

[1:05:53] Target the five site plan applications

[1:05:56] filed by the rod and

[1:06:04] reel right you've also stated that it

[1:06:07] was your opinion that um had these been

[1:06:10] reviewed it would have moved forward

[1:06:12] right but in the I think Mr Woodburn

[1:06:14] testified to that did I hav't in mind

[1:06:17] notes that you okay but

[1:06:21] um but there were several times where

[1:06:23] permits were accepted and it it didn't

[1:06:27] move forward whether it be financial

[1:06:28] crisis whatever right the old permits um

[1:06:31] so yeah old permits and whatnot so um

[1:06:37] is what would compel one to believe that

[1:06:39] this would be different and that this

[1:06:40] would move forward when it hadn't in the

[1:06:47] past

[1:06:49] the desire of the owners to build the

[1:06:52] projects at that time I don't there's um

[1:06:57] they I believe the record shows from Mr

[1:07:01] Donovan's testimony that they've been

[1:07:04] waiting to develop these properties for

[1:07:05] a long time that they got stopped in

[1:07:09] Prior

[1:07:10] circumstances permits were lapsed it's

[1:07:13] why you had to file these new

[1:07:14] applications and so they were proceeding

[1:07:17] to try to get these properties built um

[1:07:22] and they W so I don't know what else to

[1:07:25] say other than they were hoping that

[1:07:26] they would um they certainly had engaged

[1:07:30] a whole bunch of professionals spend a

[1:07:32] lot of money I think Mr Donovan

[1:07:34] testified about a lot of the soft or

[1:07:36] presented exhibit about all the soft

[1:07:39] costs that were developed to get these

[1:07:44] ready can't remember the exact number

[1:07:46] but it

[1:07:48] was a very sub so I would say that the

[1:07:51] owner's commitment to a lot of resources to get these

[1:07:57] projects done um it was

[1:08:01] $172,100

[1:08:04] I apologize I don't have the exhibit

[1:08:06] number marked but it must be

[1:08:09] exhibit 69 I think 69 or

[1:08:14] 68 so they were working certainly hard

[1:08:17] my direction was to try to get these

[1:08:20] applications reviewed

[1:08:42] all right I think that that's good for

[1:08:44] now thank you I appreciate

[1:08:46] that I have two questions all right Mr

[1:08:50] Blitz regarding the uh relief that you

[1:08:54] requested

[1:08:56] are you aware of any other

[1:08:58] cases where a a board of appeals has

[1:09:03] reviewed a site plan in lie of a review

[1:09:09] by a Planning and Zoning administrator

[1:09:12] or a Planning and Zoning commission

[1:09:15] no are you aware of

[1:09:18] any

[1:09:20] um decision order or directive by a

[1:09:26] board of

[1:09:28] appeals to disregard a current ordinance

[1:09:32] planning and zoning ordinance in favor

[1:09:35] of a superseded

[1:09:41] ordinance I don't have any personal

[1:09:43] experience with seeing that now I mean

[1:09:47] I our point is that you're allowed to

[1:09:50] under the law to take on those

[1:09:52] Powers I but I have not seen it

[1:09:56] but moratoriums are

[1:09:58] relatively rare I understand that I mean

[1:10:03] um okay I just leave it at that that's the only questions I

[1:10:13] have no questions all right last

[1:10:17] call all right thank you Mr Blitz um

[1:10:20] let's take five and I would like to know

[1:10:24] Mr pounds we have a half an

[1:10:27] hour would you like us to wait to start

[1:10:30] next time or would you like to begin

[1:10:31] immediately no waiting would be more

[1:10:33] beneficial waiting okay um in that case

[1:10:36] I we will not take five minutes um we

[1:10:40] are

[1:10:41] the my paperwork here uh the board is

[1:10:44] going to go into close session provided

[1:10:47] we all agree um to discuss some

[1:10:50] Personnel issues um I'm going to

[1:10:52] announce the time now we will return

[1:10:54] after our closed session and we won't

[1:10:58] have any more content on this meeting um

[1:11:01] so I will announce the time now we are

[1:11:03] planning on meeting again on September

[1:11:05] 30th at 6:30 p.m. um once again uh if we

[1:11:09] go into close session which I expect we

[1:11:10] will we will come back out and then

[1:11:12] close this meeting in its entirety so if

[1:11:14] you choose to leave while we are in

[1:11:16] closed session you promise you will not

[1:11:18] miss

[1:11:19] anything

[1:11:21] um okay September 30th at what time SE

[1:11:25] September 30th at 6:30

[1:11:30] p.m. make sure I say this out right so

[1:11:34] just for clarification now I can leave

[1:11:38] yes would you like to say it FR

[1:11:44] sure this is a statement uh under the

[1:11:47] open meetings act

[1:11:50] uh the board of appeals is intending to

[1:11:55] take a vote to go into close session

[1:11:59] under 3-35 B1 to discuss the appointment

[1:12:03] of employment assignment for motion

[1:12:05] discipline Dem motion compensation

[1:12:07] removal resignation or performance

[1:12:09] evaluation of appes employees or

[1:12:13] officials over whom this public body has

[1:12:16] jurisdiction and any other Personnel

[1:12:18] matter that affects one more specific

[1:12:22] individuals uh

[1:12:26] re expect to discuss Personnel matters

[1:12:29] concerning board counsel to and closing

[1:12:32] the meeting to discuss this topic

[1:12:34] because uh Personnel M sensitive

[1:12:37] Personnel matters involving board

[1:12:38] councel and the statement was made by uh

[1:12:41] Jody hstar presiding officer thank you

[1:12:45] uh at this point I will entertain a

[1:12:47] motion to go into close section or close

[1:12:50] session under Section 3305 B1 of the

[1:12:53] open meetings act I'll entertain a

[1:12:54] motion for that I'll make a motion to uh

[1:12:57] go into close meeting we have a second a

[1:13:00] second all in

[1:13:02] favor uh we are closed we will see

[1:13:04] everybody here on uh the

[1:13:09] 30th or you can wait if you really want

[1:14:15] [Music]

[1:14:23] what's that

[1:14:30] you're

[1:14:54] opening

[1:15:23] e e

[1:47:08] and working

[1:47:27] all right we have uh concluded our Clos

[1:47:29] session we are

[1:47:31] reopening the uh board of appeals

[1:47:33] meeting August 19th

[1:47:35] 2024 um at this point in time um the

[1:47:40] board will entertain I would entertain a

[1:47:42] motion to compose a letter to the town

[1:47:44] of Chesapeake Beach regarding

[1:47:45] compensation of council to the board

[1:47:48] have anyone who' make that motion I will

[1:47:49] still move

[1:47:51] second all in favor favor I all right um

[1:47:55] motion passes um lastly

[1:47:59] is once again we are resuming uh

[1:48:03] September 30th 2024 at 6:30 p.m. um and

[1:48:07] that's it at this time I'll entertain a

[1:48:09] motion to adjourn I'll make a motion to

[1:48:12] adjourn second all in favor meetings

[1:48:15] adjourn thank

[1:48:18] you thank you

August 19, 2024 Board of Appeals #2023-03 Rod N Reel Con't Hearing

Transcript