[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