uh welcome everybody this is the call to
order for the ches beach board of
appeals August 19th 2024 at 6:31
PM again this is the call to order for
the chese beach board of appeals August
19th 2024 at 6:31 p.m. uh as an
introduction we're here today we're
going to do a couple things we're going
to start with some administrative
business meeting minutes and any
comments we've received after that we
will allow continued questioning of Mr
blitz's presentation at the conclusion
of that we will move into Mr pound's
presentation and then Q&A if time allows
um this board plans to also close 15
minutes early at 8:15 p.m. uh to discuss
a board Personnel matter um and as
always we begin with the roll call I'll
go around the room please announce that
you are present Mr Richard Burch present
Mr Paul dhy present Miss Amy
present Mr Steven sharp and I am Mr jod
honstar we have a quorum uh first item
is the approval of the minutes for case
20233 from the June 18th sessions does
anybody have concerns with the documents
they've been
provided hearing none uh I would
entertain a motion to approve the
minutes I'll make the motion to approve
I have a second second all in favor I
right minutes are approved uh Sharon
have we received any oh I got these um
these are
related aside from these have we
received any other comments on this
particular case no you uh in that case
we move right along um this is the board
of appeals continuation case 20233 rod
and real Incorporated donov States LLC
to consider an application from the
Roden re Incorporated donov states of
416 M Avenue Chesapeake Beach Maryland
interpretation or alleged error to
article of 66 2923 29031 a186 of the
Chesapeake Beach zoning ordinance and C
309 c310 c311 of the Chesapeake Beach
Town Charter applicant requests that the
Chesapeake Beach zoning board of appeals
to quote order the zoning administrator
and planning and zoning commission to
immediately con uh commence and
prioritize processing and review of the
relevant site plan submitted by the Brad
and reel Incorporated Don Estates LLC
and that the zoning administrator and
planning and zoning Commission ordered
to apply the zoning ordinances in effect
of as of January 29 2021 when the
applications were submitted and for such
other and further relief as the nature
of their cuse requires uh okay at this
point we will resume any questions
directed to Mr Blitz or his presentation
you have something else go yeah I do if
you're if you're ready yes please um Mr
chair um I think we need to
address um exte communication to the
board number
seven um
as you probably are all aware you
received on August 16th
2024 an expart communication uh to the
board by Mr pounds um that was emailed
to me and many
others um the letter from Mr pounds
itself is undated U the board had
previously um ruled prior Communications
of March 26 2024 of which there were two
March 28th 202
April 12th 2024 April 15 2024 and May
22nd 2024 to be exp parte
Communications I believe at the last
Board hearing addressing the May
22nd 2024 expart
communication the chair made it clear
that no more such expar Communications
would be distributed to the board uh yet
again it was um this is manifestly
unfair to the board the rod and reel and
every other
party um and I'm not going to go over
all of the reasons why expart
Communications are bad because I think
you can remember them from the last
seven uh
six
um following the procedure of this
board uh's rules has proven
insufficient uh instead of being labeled
as inappropriate exper at communications
uh to which other parties um or members
of the public I suppose um can file
rebuttal um what has happened is in the
past some people have basically sent in
meos or additional expart Communications
about the expart dedication they're not
rebutting them they're just simply
adding their two
cents and I request that the undated
letter from Mr pounds that was forwarded
by email of a 16th be stricken from the
record and since it's short I wish to
provide the rod and re rebuttal
now
um the lawsuit referenced in the first
paragraph does not raise substantially
the same allegations that are raised in
this appeal of administrative error and
asks for completely different
relief what is most egregious is that
the letter seeks to intimidate the
members of the board by stating that you
as individual members might need to
retain councel for yourselves and
somehow you may be called as Witnesses
there's little reason to expect or
believe that the board members to an
administrative hearing would be relevant
Witnesses in that
litigation generally the board acts as a
body its decision will flow from the
findings that you file you know in this
case
um what Mr pounds is really trying to do
in all these expart communications is
seeking to admit evidence which is not
only not relevant to the case um but do
so by providing it outside the context
of an open hearing where it's on the
record and where parties including the
rod and reel can make a timely
objection instead information is sent to
the board you can conjugate think about
it what whatever it said and not have
already heard an objection that I would
have raised or any other party could
raise I further request that you're that
you censure Mr Pal's Mr pound's conduct
this is clearly not the first instance
of his abusing the process and
submitting expart Communications with
information not in the record to the
board and other members of the public on
that distribution
list after to the last set of expart
communications from Mr pounds were clear
he was clearly on notice that sending
such Communications is inappropriate and
are prohibited by the board's
rules finally that if you're going to
follow your standard procedure of
publishing it as an the expart
communication I would ask that you
consider putting a page on top of it on
the first page that with this Proviso or
this statement and I'll just read it
attached is an inappropriate exp party
communication sent to the board of
appeals in case
2023 by Todd pounds Esquire notice is
given to the public under the rules of
the board of appeals to allow parties in
interest the opportunity to rebut or
object to any elements of the
communication and its introduction to
the board this notice is not intended to
invite additional expart to
Communications I think that might at
least alert people it's going out on a
website why this communication is being
published so that they would provide
comments that is the purpose of this is
to
rebut at the stage as a as a remedy to
expart Communications that's why you
have that process and a somewhat
standard administrative process so I'd
ask you to consider that thank
you
yes Mr Blitz because I understand it
that letter was putting a variety of
people on notice that rod reel had filed
a new lawsuit against the
town how is that as a substance of that
letter relevant to the pending
proceeding before the board well I would
say it isn't but it then why why is it
being
sent about this case that is this is
literally he's saying that this is
substantially the same as the issue
issues raised in this case that makes it
relevant to this case it was clearly
sent to me otherwise if it was just a
communication to the board it wouldn't
be sent to
me it it's I well I suppose I was one of
the people on his list of ported
Witnesses my point is I think this was
an attempt to
introduce the litigation as part of this
record it was distributed to all the
members of the board
so I I I took it as being about this
case about this administrative
proceeding and that would make make it
an exp part communication just like all
the the six previous
ones not sure I agree with you but thank
you for your
explanation do we need to decide on this
now is this something we can table and
discuss better S if I can help you out I
never intend introduce this and then and
I do not plan on introducing this part
of the record but like you said if
wanted to make sure that everybody knows
what is happening out there that is
going to affect these proceedings so you
know if there's a question about
introduction I'm not introducing it
never intended to so if that helps with
your decision well but I think the point
Mr pounds is that even though you're not
introducing it it's out there it's been
made uh the board's been made aware of
it and other individuals have been made
aware of
it Mr Blitz I believe Planning
Commission mayor and counsel and board I
think the bigger question as I asked Mr
Blitz is is it really relevant to this
public hearing and P and public
proceeding that we've been going on and
tonight is on my count night
15 I'm not sure it
is Mr susman oh I didn't mean to
interrupt Mr pounds if you're no not at
all I mean I mean like I said I've never
intended to introduce it it's not
evidence I mean you do as F that's my
point is it's not being introduced in
the record it's the I'm going to read
the first paragraph and I think this
answers your issue Mr susman please be
advised the town of ches beach has
received a lawsuit from RNR with
substantially the same allegations as
they are being heard by the board of
appeals he just put boa the testimony
and actions of the boa will be part of
that litigation so he's giving you
notice about this case being applicable
to a litigation which it isn't but I'm
just saying that's inappropriate expart
Communications it's clearly about this
case I mean it didn't cite the case
number but it's referring to the fact
that he thinks that they're
substantially the same
allegations so that's why I I believe
it's an expart communication just for
the clarification of it and we've been
going on and on about this it's not
expart if you send it to everybody okay
maybe you know not admissible for
whatever reasons but xart is when you
only send it to one party and only one
party's address such as if I were to
send it to one Council you know board
member or somebody like that um it's not
exporte if it's sent to everybody which
I always did so but that's just just for
clarification
uh Mr chairman I don't think the uh
board should spend any more time on this
uh my recommendation would be that you
uh acknowledge Mr bliss's Point uh but
deny his request for
Relief I'm going to open the floor any
other board members have thoughts on
this particular I agree with that
statement 100% we should move
forward let me make a
comment um as far as you know the
allegation of
intimidation when I received that letter
I had no idea what it was about there
was no
details I automatically connected it to
this
case so um in that
respect I I drew the conclusion that was
related didn't I didn't worry about
it but I think
for me it did seem that it had an effect
on this
case I think my I
um I think I agree that the I was when I
saw that I was like I don't want to open
this um I I just I am Leary about expart
Communications and whatnot from that um
so that is a concern and I think that is appropriate to
address however I did not feel
intimidation from this nor do I feel
it's necessarily directly connected to
this since it is another lawsuit that
happens to be the same plaintiff that we
are involved in that doesn't necessarily
mean that it's the same
thing okay uh thank you everybody for
your input um I think we are going to
move ahead um with Mr susman's
suggestion that we have heard what you
said Mr Blitz um but we are going to
deny the motion at this time and we are
continuing
on um
sorry uh I don't think so um okay we now
we will proceed back where we left off
last time which was any questions
directed to Mr Blitz please come forward
and um Mr s do this swearing in honors
uh before you said do that um there's a
reminder to speak into the microphone
and speak loud so everybody can
hear will swear you okay I'll swear I
swear in the first night but I'll
swearing again
toly affirm under the federal proy that
the testimony
evidence I do
good evening my name is Daniel Deval uh
3610 chese Beach Road chese Beach
Maryland Mr chairman and fellow board of
appeals member me Mr Dev I'd appreciate
if you would try and speak up my hearing
normally bad is even worse
tonight yes yes Mr assman is that better
uh good evening Mr chairman and fellow
board of appeals
members just as Mr susman said this
coming uh Saturday August 24th 2024 will
be one year since the applicant was
given the right to have this board of
appeals hearing here's our case it has
been
787 days since the check was submitted
to the town requesting a board of
appeals hearing and it has been
1,297 days since the plans were
submitted to the Planning examing
Commission
1,297 days of um my brief
overline timeline overview um March 2020
Co everyone's life was
uprooted um December
205
2020 uh there was a planning and zoning
committee it was a revised design for
the Ride and Reel presentation to the
planning and zoning and there was ATT
tension um from the members of the
planning zoning to the rod and wheel
that can be assumed looking back on that
video uh on January 28th 2021 planning
zoning meeting there was a motion um for
a moratorium and attention by the
members of the planning Z Zone in
commission you could see the
growing I I am I'm just I'm
providing my lead into my questions I've been participating this entire time
and uh I've I've I've spent countless
hours getting together what I believe I
don't really have any relation to any of
the parties but but just what I see from
the perspective so we're gonna have a
second session where it's basically open
but but I have questions so these are
all lead up to to my line of question
way with that thank you very much um on
a January 29 2021 Rod marel submitted
five site plans paid fees and did
everything that was outlined in both the
comprehensive plans property zoning and
town and building coastes this is now
over three years seven
months um youall have a copy of it uh
the the February 24th 21 there was a
planning zoning public
hearing March 8th 20 21 and March 18th
2021 I've provided copy for y'all to
read but there was multiple members from
the public multiple members from the
public that spoke in opposition to this
moratorium I'd say it was a 5 to
one the public didn't
speak um there was things that were
addressed from the former planning
administrator Mr kubak submitted by
reading into a r uh into a record a
letter from an attorney that represents
a develop in the planning stage this
affected the
structure of a moratorium and allowed
for one project it outlined the Planning
and Zoning had the
approval to issue that project's permit
so this is where my line will start
questioning
um Mr Blitzer uh Mr Donovan that that
project that was per that they were
allowed to do a permit was that a
project excuse me Mr Deval your question
should be addressed to Mr Blitz Mr Donan
already
Justified I haven't haven't questioned
any of I was asking which one of them to
answer I'm
sorry the applicant can I address the
applicant yes
okay the applicant um the project that
was allowed to be approved by the
Planning and Zoning um were you guys a
party to that
project are you asking about the rod and
reel project um I'm asking on were the
rod and reel property at me's Avenue is
that the one no no no not that one there was a like a a a property
development uh it was brought up in the
March and there was a it was in a a
planning stage and it didn't seem like
that that you guys were it was a town
homes I believe or
something well that could have been Sate
place I'm not sure okay okay so then I
guess no I mean okay let me let me
answer it this way the applicants have
done the rot and reel in the kind of
most recent P they did Harbor Vista
South which they received preliminary
site plan approval for which has since
lapsed and then they filed these five
applications that are at the heart of
this case and that's for the State
Property home place and the three Marina
properties which are generally Harbor
bista South West and North so those are
the only
properties that have been filed for if
that's your question uh
um
so I'm not a lawyer but uh
it the the moratorium uh I've I've tried
to understand that if I could get your
um legal opinion of the understanding in
regards to uh these thing uh I believe
that the moratorium was for planning
zoning to not issue building permit
12 months from when it was enacted it
uh you're asking me that question okay
so object objection if he's goingon to
be testifying as an expert you know
obviously we're going to have to open up
Mr blitz's testimony again but if he's
just asking him a question that's fine
or if he's introducing new testimony
that's going to be opening up to again
further testimony but uh I'll leave that
up to the chair Mr chair I'd like to
address exhibit the next uh party there
and move
it uh can you let us know which one
you're talking about um the the the
second final yep no yep and uh
you'll I I I'll I'll come to it but this
is this other this further outlines that
okay so
um I'm just going to
read it's my
understanding as a person the general
public I mean the only I I don't have
any I think my sister worked for him
when she was like 14 she's like 40 now
you know I mean like like there's I have
no attachment
I moved to chese beach in 2023 and I had
no idea the entire tension that was
coming on just to put some context to
how unrelated I am to any party in this
I have no relation to any
party no interest no
anything I just want to have a town
that's
peaceful so I'm going to continue to
read reviewing this
also with the moratorium allowed them
not to have to accept new applications
and plans this was to provide them time
to work on the new comprehensive plan
and review the plan submitted but they
did not have to issue permits for 12
months this did not give them permission
to just sit on their hands and do
nothing with the submitted applications
that had been submitted before the
moratorium went into
effect when these projects were
submitted
they were
outlined as expected projects of the
town's comprehensive
plan they had an obligation to work on
the completion of the new comprehensive
plan with the acknowledgment these
projects that were part of the existing
comprehensive plan needed to be part of
the new comprehensive plan as the owner
by way of submitting these projects
informed the Planning and Zoning
Commission of their Contin intentions of
development of the property the
moratorium did not give them the
permission to not fulfill their Duty as
a Planning and Zoning commission that
they had sworn and oath to fulfill the
Planning and Zoning commission has
refused to review this applicant's
plans when reviewing the parties of
record I see that I see them as myself
and the others listed when the document
dated May 1st 2024 the people who have
cross-examined this applicant for the
most part have not been members of the
general public they are currently or
were Pro previously a person who held
either an elected position or an
appointed position to the board this is
of grave concern as during the public
hearings about both the planning and
zoning and the Town Council meaning
there were quite a few members of the
public who spoke in opposition to the
moratorium the facts are very simple
when the applicant submitted the plans
for the proposed buildings on the site
it was done before the motion foral
Auditorium had a public hearing
submitted before it had a Planning and
Zoning hearing and well before the town
council meeting this seems to me to be
absurd as if someone bought a lottery
ticket with the previous week's winner
numbers and expected to have the ticket
become the winning
yes I the next page is where my
questions are yeah
yes there are so many hearings that have
had multiple things done iner from not
listening to the public the major change
to the structure of our town done at a
time when people were not able to go
about life as Co D drastically affected
everything to the town taking a very
hard lines and pushing out and cre and
divide between the public and its
businesses
questions Mr Blitz I have heard you make
an argument about wanting to have this
board order relief in order to to order
the Planning and Zoning Board to review
the projects as they are
submitted and from the time and the
rules of the time
submission the question is is that
generally what you are making your
presentation in legal case for objection
and I can appreciate use the I mean I
could go on again if Mr Blitz is going
to be giving his opinion on that that's
going to open it up to further
examination by me and others but uh but
you know being a lay person know go
ahead so is simple because everything
I've read so I don't know how to ask a
question without being
interrupted by Mr pounds like everybody
else has been able to I mean you've had
board of appeals planning zoning members
do a hypothetical dream question that
you didn't object to let's let's try and
get we we give you leeway thank you
you've had a lot of you've been waiting
for a long time to ask your questions um
and you will have the chance to both
state and ask more questions this isn't
your last chance yes sir but if you if
You' aim the ones you have I'm however
it needs to be worded if you could I'll
reord it but that's just
basically I mean this is a lot like I
said it's it's a year of hearings and
then you
have three and a half years of context
that go into it just trying to simplify
for just the general public that's like
what the hell is going on it's very
difficult yes it it is it I think it's
really simple and I'm just trying to ask
is a simple thing that you're asking
that your projects that you submitted be
reviewed when
it so I think I'm not offering a legal
opinion on this I'm merely saying what
the
application asks for
Relief correct so I'm just going to set
in answering this question I'm not
giving any expertise or legal opinion
I'm merely as the applicant's lawyer
saying what our application seeks in
relief because I think that
answers his question
you're just asking them I want to make
sure Mr pounds understands that or
agrees with it okay so the answer
is yes but there are alternate forms of
relief that we have asked for and I made
a
presentation about that relief in
that the board has the power to step
into the shoes of the administrators so
they can review the plans themselves and
do site plan review or they can order
the Planning and Zoning commission and
the zoning administrator to do their
jobs but it is correct that we're asking
for the law that existed at the time of
the applications be applied to those
applications does that answer your
question yes it does and at the first it
was very confusing but as I put together
how long this timeline is I
mean it's a long time okay I see that
within your submitted documents exhibit
to an application and payment to have
your case heard by the boards appeals
dated June 24th 2022 this was over two
years ago I see that in exhibit three is
the circuit court order to the town of
chesp beach allow your applicant to have
a board of appeals hearing are you
expecting me as a member of the public
to really believe that your client who
is largest property owner along with the
highest taxpaying business in this town
that this case is really about building
plans and not targeting a client a
personal
conflict
oh yes we're we're asking for Relief
that flows from the administrative
action that we filed which is site plan
review and Zoning permits applications
so it's
about getting that review it doesn't
presume that that review is necessarily
successful that is there's all kinds of
facts that get brought up in
review um of a of an application but
it's saying that the denial of that
review was wrongful and therefore that's
what we're asking for is that review and
as I just stated to the first in
answering your first question there's an
alternate way that the board is
empowered to provide that
relief I I personally would prefer the
board do the do the plan reviews
themselves but that's really up to them
um so and I
don't the last part of your question and
not targeting your client out of
personal conflict I mean it's it's clear
that the town targeted the rod and Rio
applications in doing the moratorium it
I
mean I'm G to the term targeted but you
know please
proceed say you Rie if you review the hearings you you'll hear the Town
Council and mention them words I mean
the resol the resolution passing the
moratorium literally refer ref to these
five site
plans um and as the reason for the
moratorium so I I could probably speak
for about 45 minutes on all the evidence
that we've provided that just a yes yes
or
no yeah like yeah it's like okay yeah I
mean yeah yeah I mean
it's
um I've watched many more hearings as I
said but I will just note a few of these
on 911
2019 you could hear the town would not
be liable to pay somebody for the
property 12:15
2019 and uh 128 2021 224 2021 um on
10:27 2021 the planning and zerning
chair addressed misconduct between the
Planning and Zoning
Commissioners 119 2021 these videos of
the hearing showed an incredible amount
of tension from some members of planning
asson directed towards Roden reil Mr
Blitz do you have a record of all the
meetings you have attended regarding
this
matter no I don't have a record that is
I would be able to assemble a record I
suppose kind of depends on how far back
it goes uh
2019 maybe not because I was thinking
about my billing records if that would
show that I attended a meeting I I
watched a lot of the Planning and Zoning
meetings um without attending them so I
knew what they were doing and saying um
if that gets to your answering your
question I I know I did attend some the
way you would find out which ones I
attended would be to find out whether
the minutes disclose that I provided
testimony on beh or some sort of um statement on behalf
of the rod and reel with respect to the
process they were engaged in um that
happened a number of times but it would
be reflected in the minutes
because there was no time where I
attended a
meeting now that's not true because I
attended Zoom meetings I was going to
say I didn't attend without saying
something but I did watch
Zoom meetings or when they were doing
Zoom
meetings I don't know what I'm not sure
it's relevant but wow just to think how
I or anyone from the public would expect
to stand a chance if the town gets upset
with you Mr Blitz attachment D list of
adjoining properties would you explain
the reason this is needed yes under the
town code when an applicant
files a application for a board of
appeals review of
error or it also applies to
interpretation appeals probably also
applies to variance of special
exceptions but in this case what the the
ordinance requires that all of the
adjoining properties be identified so
that the town can send certified letters
notifying them of the um of the pendency
of the board of appeals case so that's
why all that list of all those
properties was
provided I I see Mr Brown listed as one
of the property owners this was the
chair of the Planning and Zoning
commission and when the moratorium was
introduced and voted on it is not to say
or imply ill intent on the part of Mr
Browns but as shown by the way of the
chair Mr honstar the proper thing would
have been to recluse
himself I personally think Mr Brown had
good intentions but as the saying goes
the path to hell is paved with good
intentions councilman thinkink
councilwoman Hartman councilman jorski
have neighboring properties also Seagate
Town Homes did you cross reference or
investigate any of these Property
Owners would you repeat that no I did
not I didn't investigate I'm not sure
what you mean by cross reference but
cross reference like uh so there's a
conflict of interest three three
councilman in uh live in Seagate
uh and Mr Brown was planning all of them
were like part of that listed properties
okay so even if they had a possible
conflict of interest what the law states
is that they still get notice of the
board of appeals case so if they were in
adjoining property their property was
listed and that they got sent to
certified mail uh issues of conflict can
come later or be determined at their
hearings or meetings or whatever context
it's provided but no I didn't do any
research about any of the properties uh
other than identifying which properties
were adjoining the five properties for
the rod and reel
applications I asked Meed a few items to
this board asking for the public to have
a fear Fair standing and a voice in this
hearing but this was before I saw that
nobody from the public comments were
considered in
consideration with this matter at the
previous hearings this is how you
silence the public
um sir we have repeated time and time
again I have three three more sent just
second we have repeated time and time
again and since you've been part of this
you've heard this time and time again
but we do have a process and there is a
place for you to speak I just want you
to make sure that you know this last
time you wait just one moment last time
you said you did not want to speak at
that time you gave up that moment to
speak we are letting you speak right now
and we will let you speak again later so
we have made this
available to people in the order of the
process okay just apologize the
board assume that I was referring to
this hearing this hearing has been
exceptionally well and I'm very thankful
for that was a clarification you're
stating this in general I'm stating
why the people aren't here is because
previously their voice was not heard and
so the inaction the disregard to the
public this is how you silence and
that's why there's not more people here
speaking because it's like what does it
matter we're not going to be heard if
you review there was a lot of people
that spoke and I mean this was during Co
people were in Zoom calls people came
here there was a ton of people and this
is how you silence the public and we do
not want to do that we want to fight
against that we we're trying our best
here
great J so please take your time to
question Mr Blitz now and as before all
members of the public will have their a
full dedicated meeting at least to voice
any concerns they have about this
particular proceeding we cannot fix what
other boards or people have done we can
just try and
do I ask this board to of appeals to
recall the threat made by Mr pound that
I raised my concerns in my letter I
submitted about Miss bound's Behavior
towards Mr fiser I have provided you
guys document showing that this Threat
by Mr pal is not just empty words but
one of action and that he is removed
from this hearing as a conflict of
interest we've received your letters and
we also deferred most of them in the
first section of this hearing we were
not trying to brush anything under the
rug but we were trying to keep things
moving in that it was Mr blitz's I tell
you the judge tomorrow morning sorry I
tell the judge tomorrow morning I'm
afraid we can't do I mean okay you
understand you like I a conflict his
actions and his threats are being met
with so and I'm with a
record the applicant along with his
sister M Mr Mary lamb publicly warn the
people of ches beach that this
moratorium was not just about the
ability to build or not build but more
importantly our rights as a community I
sadly believe that Miss Mary Lam was
correct Mr chair and board members I ask
you to recall case 24
20242 the hearing where this body's
chair recused himself to remove any
doubt of conflict of
interest inappropriate to oversee the
hearing as he thought it was
inappropriate to oversee the hearing not
just refrain from
V I plead with this board of appeals to
see that you have the authority to bring
this to an end this wrongdoing that was
done by the elected mayor by way of town
Administration and joining administrator
elected Town Council and selective
putting together a plan exting
commission to enact his agenda we as a
community must protect our rights this
is not only about building and property
rights thank you thank you
hey just completely off the Record
because you mentioned the hearing
tomorrow the chair he has a Mr uh the VA
has a um a violation against him for
various violations of the city ordinance
or town ordinance um just let you know a
continuance was filed because I have a
conflict in another matter so you may
want to double check that I don't think
there's going to be a case to nor but
just letting you
know uh let us continue anybody else
would like to ask questions of Mr
blitz's
present it was not already done
so uh that was just about to be
next I guess uh if there's no more
members of the public uh members of the
board the floor is also free if you
would like to ask questions of uh Mr
Blitz
um I just wanted this has come up and I
just want to
clarify just so we all but so you have
been an attorney for both the town and
the rod and reel correct I I stopped my
representation of the town in
2008 and um just so we know like where
all the whatever who who were who was in
office of the town with you like who was
the mayor the Planning and Zoning
administrator the town engineer remember
the mayor was Gerald
Donovan the zoning administrator was
Chris
jbak uh I I think
I I'm pretty sure he was because Bill
Watson was the zoning administrator for
a while while Chris was acting as kind
of like a planner but then I at some
point in time Chris became the actual
zoning administrator so my memory of
that is a little hazy and then who else
did you ask uh the engineer the engineer
well that W that depended on the type of
project so there was Engineers for
different things Paul Woodburn did kind
of like the general stuff okay at 2008 I
think that would been Paul Woodburn yeah
but there was lots of Engineers doing
all kind of things we had Sterns and
Wheeler doing the the uh water and
sewer
um there was engineer there's always um
you know there's also um Paula
Guffy Guffy Guffy she was the town
engineer and maybe maybe my memory is
wrong maybe it it was Paul up to a
certain point and then Paula Guffy
because I know she was
acting but that's just too far back for
me to remember
exactly with without some documents or
trying to okay and then was it in 2008
you switched over to work for Rod and
Reel or was there I thought I understood
that there was some overlap when did no
I I had the firm had always represented
and everybody knew it the rod and reel
and the town okay and any matter that
involved the town and the rod and reel
Gerald recused himself I recused myself
and other professionals were brought
in
okay
[Music]
um so in your role in both the town and Roden reel um you're the attorney
and so when there are site plans and
whatnot do you assist the town engineer
or the the engineer that's working for
the rod and reel whoever it might be do
you assist them in the legalities of the
plan um whether there are limitations
for building whether there's zoning
codes whatever are you involved in that
not if it involved the rod and reel
because I recused myself so I I would
not have worked on projects involving
the rod and reel while you were town in
town oh yeah afterwards U well
immediately afterwards I was moving to
San Diego and supposed to go to the do a
project in the Philippines that fell
through and so I was kind of uh retired
out of practice for some period of time
after that and then I came back decided
to stay in
Maryland and then picked up doing more
work for the rod and reel okay but the
had represented the rotten reel since
70s okay so in these site plans for
example the site plans that are
applications in this case correct yes so
do you have that role to provide the
legal um justifications or advice or
whatever to the to the engineer whoever
else is putting this together they have
them I don't know that I mean Mr
Woodburn prepared the applications The
Architects working with the engineers
the the building Engineers so you got a
Geotech engineer all those team of
people it's not just Paul Woodburn a
whole team of people including the
proposed contractor would work on the development such that you know what
you're proposing to
build if there were questions they would
have perhaps asked me whether they did
or not I I shouldn't you know get into
the kind of test the attorney client
relationship right okay but it's more on
a um as needed basis you'd provide legal
assistance not that you
were actively looking did that fair
enough to
say I knew that the plans were being
developed right to to file them yes I
knew that okay and so I I was aware I
don't want to pretend that I wasn't
aware of them no I was certainly aware
of them yeah no I'm not I'm not um I'm
not suggesting that at all um I'm just
suggesting that then your engineer your
architect whatever else that they'd be
like hey is there a conflict legally
with this that they would then go to you
for that assistance you wouldn't just
say hey I saw in here that's all I'm
saying you're had a
conflict if there was a concern raised
at all with any with the the site plans
these were developed in
2020 well the December November December
of 2020 going into
2021 so Paul Woodburn had long left
employment of the Town other Engineers
that I know of that worked on the
projects had nothing to do with the town
oh I'm not even discussing the town I'm
just saying Your Role with the building
of a site plan the attorney I was just I
was trying to I was trying to understand
if you were more available for
consultation in that regard or if you're
an active participant I would describe
myself as an active participant
because they weren't always legal
questions though sometimes I was looking
at how how expensive it was and I had an
opinion about that right that
but I yes I certainly was involved in
the preparation of these plans that were
submitted the details of the actual
applications are all done by Paul
wood okay um and I should say because
they involve buildings the contractor
the architect and all these other
professionals that part of the
team you know they Paul does the site
work aspects of it
along with the Geotech but then there's
all these other professionals saying
well this is the way to build this and we need this sometimes if you got to
drive really deep piles it has this
consequence on the actual site plan so
there's a lot of professionals involved
in the development of a site plan
application okay for the for the owner
okay so I know one of like one of the
things that Amy questioned this is
Woodburn and if if this is not allowed
that let me know Woodburn had said that
um um he didn't know who would be
responsible for determining if you could
build in a flood plane he had he had
said that in his testimony but I would
have thought that he would then go to
his attorney and say hey is this
legitimate with this zoning and what not
you can always building a flood plane
there's there's nothing in the flood
plane ordinance that says you can't
build what it does is say how you build
that's all a flood plane does okay so
would that be something that would be
consulted with the attorney or or is
that sure if but for
example if the flood plane is a certain
elevation under the FEMA map because
FEMA defines what the flood planes are
for the
town and that map says it needs to be at
grade 8.2 I'm just making up a
number there's very little debate that
is the town and all jurisdictions add a
foot or a two feet I think the talent
adds two feed but my memory of that is a
little they there's a standard for the
federal government then you can add the
local jurisdiction's ordinance adds a
foot or maybe a foot and a half two feet
whatever it is and that's the grade you
have to build at there's not really a
whole lot of debate about that that is
there are debates for some more Arcane
issues of flood planes such as um wave
zones but none of these projects that I
know of had a wave Zone although it's
possible Harbor Vista South does for
example the rod and reel has a wave zone
so what it required is special kind of
building within that flood plane but
that's all it does is tell it's it's a
it's more of like a building code it's
telling you how to build things you
can't have an air an outdoor air
conditioning unit below that flood plane
zone so uh I don't I don't think that
was ever an
issue all they were doing recall having
discussions about that though or do you
think well I don't want to talk about my
discussions
with okay but it was not an issue simply
because they just go and set the grade
at whatever the requirement of the flood
plane is it's it's kind of literally
just this is what the flood plane
ordinance requires so you build it at
that level and that's the grade the
beginning grade level and that's the
they designed the grade beams and make
sure that there's not electrical or
other life safety things that are below
that base so that has a little bit of an
elevation added to it to make sure all
those things are out of there if you
have a for example a Elevator Shaft you
know that goes below grade it almost has
to right because you're you're bringing
an elevator down to that base grade on
the first
floor well the flood plane ordinance
says and so does building code things
that you have to um waterproof it and do
a bunch of things to protect the
electrical systems and safety so those
are all kind of building code things
they were not issues for any of these
site
plans that is they were they had to be
addressed but that's just part of the
site plan application you you set the
grade at whatever it's going to
be
okay um so I know you've mentioned that
you you feel that this um moratorium in
justly targeted R and real um but during
this moratorium rod and reel did have
other development going on that was
still proceeding in town minutes that
you've pres presented to us and whatnot
so like the expansion of Rod and Reel
like that was that was before the
moratorium right but so yeah but going
on the construction itself was going on
during the moratorium that's what you're
asking but okay site plan review had
already occurred well in advance okay so
um I mean during but when did that occur
then do you know when you guys through
that
so for the rot and reel project I assume
you're talking about so the original
application was 2016 okay something like
that so that well let me say I think the final site plan was in late 2016 or
17 and
then the
reason for Harbor Vista South which got
approval on the in the very next meeting
after the rod and reel project wasn't
able to move forward as Mr Donovan
testified
was they needed that for parking and the
reason for the delay was essentially
FEMA which is then your next step after
your site plan
review and Army Corps of Engineers took
a year to Res to to to respond so we
basically stalled for a year okay um so
my understanding though is that the
extension I mean the expansion of the
resort there was an initial plan and
then there was an expansion of that when
did that happen because that was after2
or something like that 2020 yeah I'm not
that's just my faulty memory is
somewhere around 2020 okay so shortly
before all of this right okay correct it
was
definitely before the moratorium okay so um because it I apologize to it
for interrupting but the reason I know
that is it was an amendment to the
existing site plan because there was
enough being
changed that the standard is the zoning
administrator has the power to do minor
adjustments but the he deemed these not
no longer minor it was enough that it
had to be brought back before the whole
Planning and Zoning commission so but
that was all brought back well before or
the moratorium okay all righty so other
than the fact that the five site plans
were the only ones on record at that
time do you have other evidence that the town was then therefore targeting
rot and reel I mean just from a lot
outstander you know outside point of
view having doing the doing the
expansion at that time it might not
necessarily be seen that way okay
so this is a little bit of
a lengthy answer but I've got the list
of all the the evidence that shows
direct
targeting so in exhibit 7 the febu
February 5th 2020 email of the zoning
administrator which is a mere seven days
after the applications referred to the
applications and that the response would
be the proposed moratorium to be
considered on February 24th so the the
initial response that the we received
from the zoning administrator about our
applications was the moratorium proposal
okay page one of exhibit 12 at the
February 24th meeting of the Planning
and Zoning commission there was a motion
to remove residential development
allocations in the town center and
Marina areas and remove all multif
family housing types in the residential
Village uh which would have directly
impacted the recently filed rod and re
site plan applications which were all
for for multif family residential
development so at this point it was a
full 14 months before the passage of the
comprehensive
plan page five of exhibit
12 at that same February 24th meeting
the commission held a public hearing and
passed a resolution recommending a
moratorium which in the third whereas
clause on page three of the resolution
makes a specific finding that the five
site plans filed on January 29th 2021
and then recites the very same argument
the zoning administrator
gave us in his email of February 5th
2021 so they're using the applications
as a finding of why they're doing in
justification of the moratorium me Mr
what what exhibit number was that that
was page five of exhibit
12 and then in the following whereas
clause on that same exhibit page 5
exhibit
12 the commission makes a specific
finding that the submitt of the five
separate development applications was
timed on the part of the applicant to
obtain development approvals before the
new comprehensive plan and implementing
ordinances can be considered by the
public so they were basically making a
finding about their belief of of the
applicants
motivations
um
uh and for that the comprehensive plan
could be deliberated by the commission
and adopted by the mayor and Town
Council so without any direct evidence
of motivation on the part of the rod and
reel they were making a finding
recommending a
moratorium and using that motive that
their their assessment of our Mo of the
Roden reel's motivation as a
justification for the
moratorium the following two whereas
Clauses same exhibit
the resolution recommending the
moratorium the commission makes a
finding that the CH that the challenges
that the Roden reel development
proposals and other major projects would
impose creates three different problems
that the commission believed it could
avoid by passing the moratorium so
they're clearly directing the moratorium
at stopping these five
applications because they believe those
five these five applications impact
their comp their comprehensive plan that
was ongoing and had been going on
for we put provided all that evidence
but it was started I believe in um
201 16 or 17 I have to go back and look
at all the the evidence but we we showed
the the long CH the the process of the S
of comprehensive plan had been already
going on for like about 18 months when
we file the
applications and was already late under
the law
um so that reference to imposing the
moratorium in response to the fight site
plans was confirmed by chairman Brown's
February 12th 21 report to the mayor and
Town Council which is on the second page
of exhibit
13 and the rod and reel site plans were
mentioned along with the zoning
administrators complaints about those
submitted projects in the press
release announcing the Mortor
including the site plan illustrations
for the rod and reel projects in the in
the moratorium they were exactly
targeting these projects by showing in
their press release these five proposed
projects and that's on exhibit
17 in exhibit 18 these illustrations of
the Roden reil proposals were again
repeated in the town administrator's
report of March 11th 2021
next I would refer you to page three of
exhibit
21 the same three whereas Clauses about
the five site plan applications and the
alleged problems they created that were
in the commission's resolution
recommending the moratorium were
included as the last three whereas
Clauses of the Town council's resolution
R
21-3 which attempted to establish that
moratorium and which whereas Clauses
were adopted by reference into the
resolution so that made leg legally a
part of the
resolution the April 13th letter of the
Town Administrator returning the funds
for the review of The Harbor Vista North
Harbor Vista West Harbor Vista South and
State Place
um referenced the category one site
plans moratorium passed by the council
as justification for not reviewing the
site plans that's exhibit 25
and according to the minutes of the Town
Council work session of September 18th
2021 which is exhibit
26 Mr jabak stated that the moratorium
would expire on December 18
2021 and that quote with the development
plan applications currently on
file waiting for review the commission
feels it needs these several months to
devote solely to the comprehensive plan
and is recommending the Town Council to
extend the moratorium another three
months end quote so the rod and reel
applications that were recognized as
being on file as part of the were part
of the justification from the zoning
administrator requesting the three-month
extension of the moratorium again that's
exhibit
26 so I think I me
there's lots of minor citations I can
make with the exhibits that have already
been submitted that make reference to
these five site project five site plans
as the motivating factor of filing for
or or
passing the
moratorium and that's why I say they
were directed primarily at the thing the
other thing to
recognize which I've already brought up
is that the
resolution adopting the moratorium
adopted a recommendation from the
Planning and Zoning commission to make a
distinction between
properties and
so this distinction was made because at
the Planning and Zoning commission
hearing Mr
repy
actually I shouldn't
testify that wasn't in the
record so I'm not going to testify uh
but what happened was Richfield Station
app
that were already through a part of the
process but not yet finalized were
Exempted from the effect of the
moratorium oh okay
um but obviously not the site planes for
the rod and reil so that's why I would
say that the evidence is overwhelming
that the purpose of the moratorium was
to
Target the five site plan applications
filed by the rod and
reel right you've also stated that it
was your opinion that um had these been
reviewed it would have moved forward
right but in the I think Mr Woodburn
testified to that did I hav't in mind
notes that you okay but
um but there were several times where
permits were accepted and it it didn't
move forward whether it be financial
crisis whatever right the old permits um
so yeah old permits and whatnot so um
is what would compel one to believe that
this would be different and that this
would move forward when it hadn't in the
past
the desire of the owners to build the
projects at that time I don't there's um
they I believe the record shows from Mr
Donovan's testimony that they've been
waiting to develop these properties for
a long time that they got stopped in
Prior
circumstances permits were lapsed it's
why you had to file these new
applications and so they were proceeding
to try to get these properties built um
and they W so I don't know what else to
say other than they were hoping that
they would um they certainly had engaged
a whole bunch of professionals spend a
lot of money I think Mr Donovan
testified about a lot of the soft or
presented exhibit about all the soft
costs that were developed to get these
ready can't remember the exact number
but it
was a very sub so I would say that the
owner's commitment to a lot of resources to get these
projects done um it was
$172,100
I apologize I don't have the exhibit
number marked but it must be
exhibit 69 I think 69 or
68 so they were working certainly hard
my direction was to try to get these
applications reviewed
all right I think that that's good for
now thank you I appreciate
that I have two questions all right Mr
Blitz regarding the uh relief that you
requested
are you aware of any other
cases where a a board of appeals has
reviewed a site plan in lie of a review
by a Planning and Zoning administrator
or a Planning and Zoning commission
no are you aware of
any
um decision order or directive by a
board of
appeals to disregard a current ordinance
planning and zoning ordinance in favor
of a superseded
ordinance I don't have any personal
experience with seeing that now I mean
I our point is that you're allowed to
under the law to take on those
Powers I but I have not seen it
but moratoriums are
relatively rare I understand that I mean
um okay I just leave it at that that's the only questions I
have no questions all right last
call all right thank you Mr Blitz um
let's take five and I would like to know
Mr pounds we have a half an
hour would you like us to wait to start
next time or would you like to begin
immediately no waiting would be more
beneficial waiting okay um in that case
I we will not take five minutes um we
are
the my paperwork here uh the board is
going to go into close session provided
we all agree um to discuss some
Personnel issues um I'm going to
announce the time now we will return
after our closed session and we won't
have any more content on this meeting um
so I will announce the time now we are
planning on meeting again on September
30th at 6:30 p.m. um once again uh if we
go into close session which I expect we
will we will come back out and then
close this meeting in its entirety so if
you choose to leave while we are in
closed session you promise you will not
miss
anything
um okay September 30th at what time SE
September 30th at 6:30
p.m. make sure I say this out right so
just for clarification now I can leave
yes would you like to say it FR
sure this is a statement uh under the
open meetings act
uh the board of appeals is intending to
take a vote to go into close session
under 3-35 B1 to discuss the appointment
of employment assignment for motion
discipline Dem motion compensation
removal resignation or performance
evaluation of appes employees or
officials over whom this public body has
jurisdiction and any other Personnel
matter that affects one more specific
individuals uh
re expect to discuss Personnel matters
concerning board counsel to and closing
the meeting to discuss this topic
because uh Personnel M sensitive
Personnel matters involving board
councel and the statement was made by uh
Jody hstar presiding officer thank you
uh at this point I will entertain a
motion to go into close section or close
session under Section 3305 B1 of the
open meetings act I'll entertain a
motion for that I'll make a motion to uh
go into close meeting we have a second a
second all in
favor uh we are closed we will see
everybody here on uh the
30th or you can wait if you really want
[Music]
what's that
you're
opening
e e
and working
all right we have uh concluded our Clos
session we are
reopening the uh board of appeals
meeting August 19th
2024 um at this point in time um the
board will entertain I would entertain a
motion to compose a letter to the town
of Chesapeake Beach regarding
compensation of council to the board
have anyone who' make that motion I will
still move
second all in favor favor I all right um
motion passes um lastly
is once again we are resuming uh
September 30th 2024 at 6:30 p.m. um and
that's it at this time I'll entertain a
motion to adjourn I'll make a motion to
adjourn second all in favor meetings
adjourn thank
you thank you