[0:03] uh evening this is the call to order for

[0:05] the Chesapeake Beach Board of Appeals

[0:07] October 21st

[0:08] 2024

[0:10] um or I will go quickly um here we are

[0:14] today to do some administrative business

[0:16] meeting minutes and comment receipt uh

[0:18] at which point we will move into Mr

[0:19] pound's presentation and then follow up

[0:22] with questions for Mr pounds time allows

[0:25] uh as always we start with a roll call

[0:27] for board members I'll go around please

[0:29] answer your presid

[0:30] Mr Richard Burch Mr Paul dhy present M

[0:33] Amy Everett present Mr Steven sharp

[0:36] present and Mr Jody hunar we have a

[0:39] quorum uh first item on the agenda is

[0:41] the approval of the uh meeting minutes

[0:44] for 20233 for the August 19th sessions

[0:48] both open and close did anybody have any

[0:52] changes and its problems

[0:57] anything uh in that case I would

[0:59] entertain a motion to approve the

[1:01] minutes I will make a motion to approve

[1:03] the minutes I have a second second all

[1:05] in favor I all right the Motions are

[1:08] approve or minutes are approved uh

[1:11] Sharon have we received any public

[1:13] comments to be entered into the record

[1:16] yes one from Rita

[1:18] Hayes okay um if we can get that on the

[1:21] record and make sure uh both Mr pounds

[1:23] and Mr Blitz have a copy of those

[1:26] comments um we've done these

[1:27] announcements before so I'll go through

[1:29] them quickly uh will be doing two hours

[1:31] tonight oh oh we have the closed session

[1:34] minutes there oh I did them sorry I did

[1:35] them together but we can we can do it

[1:37] again um I thought I didn't guess not

[1:40] okay uh I'll entertain a motion to

[1:42] approve the Clos session minutes I'll

[1:45] make that motion I have a second second

[1:47] all in favor I all right Mo meeting

[1:51] minutes are approved for the Clos

[1:52] session uh okay so two hours tonight

[1:55] will end at 8:00 pm uh any questions or

[1:58] comments should be directed to uh the

[2:00] board legal council here um if we get to

[2:03] the point where we are going to allow

[2:04] questions of Mr pounds I will indicate

[2:06] to the gallery uh when it is time for

[2:09] that um the order of like the agenda for

[2:12] the next uh session or two will be uh

[2:16] Town staff testimony and Evans by Mr

[2:18] pounds questioning of town presentation

[2:20] by any parties of record um at which

[2:22] point we will close the meeting and then

[2:25] the following meeting will take

[2:26] testimony and evidence by person or

[2:28] entities whose rights are Ed by the

[2:30] appeal will be members of the public um

[2:33] so there will be no public comment

[2:34] tonight at the conclusion of Mr pound's

[2:36] presentation and the questioning we will

[2:38] hold a dedicated meeting to receive

[2:40] public comment this will be announced

[2:42] both in this hearing and Via an email at

[2:44] least from the town uh okay that's it

[2:47] for the announcements um we are on a

[2:51] continuation of case 20233 Roden re

[2:53] corporated Donovan States LLC to

[2:56] consider an application from Roden

[2:57] Incorporated Donovan States 4160 Avenue

[3:00] chesap beach for a decision on

[3:02] interpretation or alleged error to

[3:03] article uh 6290 23 29031 A1 and A6 of

[3:08] the Chesapeake Beach zoning ordinance

[3:09] and C309 c310 c311 of the Chesapeake

[3:12] Beach Town Charter applicant requests

[3:14] the Chesapeake Beach zoning uh board of

[3:16] appeals to quote order the zoning

[3:18] administrator and planning and zoning

[3:19] commission to immediately commence and

[3:21] prioritize the processing and review of

[3:23] the relevant site plan submitted by the

[3:24] rod real Incorporated Donovan estat LLC

[3:27] and that the zoning administrator and

[3:28] planning and zoning Commission order to

[3:30] apply the zoning ordinances in effect as

[3:32] of January 29 2021 when their

[3:34] applications were submitted and for

[3:36] other and further relief as the nature

[3:38] of their Clause requires at this point

[3:40] we will move to Mr pounds uh take it

[3:43] away okay uh Mr chair members of the

[3:46] board good evening uh as you know my

[3:48] name is Todd pounds and I represent the

[3:51] town of Chesapeake Beach in opposition

[3:55] to this application which is in essence

[3:58] designed to construct houses and would

[4:00] which has been designated in an area

[4:02] which is a flood plane uh Mr Woodburn as

[4:05] the uh applicants engineer and also Mr

[4:08] Donovan fully admit that these

[4:09] applications are in the flood plane um

[4:12] and just to make sure the record is

[4:15] clear flood plane is indicated in an

[4:17] area that is expected to flood uh at the

[4:22] early on in these proceedings and Mr

[4:24] chair just let you know I'm sitting down

[4:26] because Mr Blitz I think is issue so I

[4:29] told him I wouldn't stand up there but

[4:30] that's it but early on in these

[4:33] proceedings uh the chair made a comment

[4:35] we generally do not handle this type of

[4:37] matter and I thought that it's very

[4:39] telling for these type of proceedings

[4:41] especially in this case which has gone

[4:43] been going on for approximately 35 hours

[4:46] uh so throughout this time at the

[4:48] beginning of this meeting as happened

[4:49] tonight the chair stated the standard of

[4:52] review of the Court board of appeals and

[4:55] just for the record I'm going to maybe

[4:57] paraphrase a little bit but obviously

[4:59] chair's uh introduction is going to be

[5:02] more telling and more um applicable this

[5:05] standard is indicated is basically that

[5:07] the board of appeals may pass an order

[5:08] requiring the zoning administrator to

[5:10] accept the applications which are the

[5:13] subject of these proceedings and also

[5:15] have these applications reviewed by the

[5:17] Planning Commission uh on an expedited

[5:20] basis under the law prior to the

[5:22] adoption of the comprehensive plan and I

[5:24] appreciate I may have paraphrased it a

[5:25] little bit but but I got pretty close

[5:27] enough and there's been many hours of of

[5:30] what I'll call testimony to arrive at

[5:32] the standard now we started out and

[5:36] everybody I think can agree that the uh

[5:40] Court would have good 100% jurisdiction

[5:44] to hear this type of case and we started

[5:46] out in court that the applicant wanted

[5:49] the board of appeals we are here because

[5:51] they're the ones that wanted the board

[5:52] of appeals as opposed to being in court

[5:56] uh the question is why why was the board

[5:58] of appeals chosen over a jurisdiction

[6:00] which everybody fully knew was

[6:03] applicable I'll leave that for for later on but what's important is I never

[6:08] agreed to that with the court the court

[6:10] case is still pending because I never

[6:13] agreed to any of this and that will be

[6:16] you know viewed for for subsequent

[6:18] actions now you've been hearing quite a

[6:21] bit over all of these hours about I had

[6:25] an application that was to be filed uh

[6:29] and that the application was here and

[6:32] ready and it was not accepted I think

[6:35] it's important and I want to make sure

[6:37] that indeed for the record is clear what

[6:39] it means to have an application because

[6:43] at some point in time what does it mean

[6:45] to have property rights associated with

[6:48] that application or because is it just

[6:50] an application because without the

[6:52] property rights associated with the

[6:54] application it becomes less and less as

[6:57] an important as Mr Blitz has said many times that he has the application

[7:02] so what does it mean to actually have

[7:05] property rights with regard to the

[7:07] application and that is under what is

[7:10] known as the law of vesting in other

[7:13] words at what point does this

[7:15] application become vested so the

[7:17] developer has his property rights that

[7:20] cannot be changed well prior to 1972 and

[7:24] I've got these cases here which I'll

[7:26] submit them you know for the record if

[7:27] you like at the end but prior to 1972

[7:31] the standard was that the developer must

[7:33] be issued a

[7:35] permit not just an application that may

[7:38] that has has not been accepted but

[7:40] actually have a permit which indeed has

[7:44] been reviewed and has been accepted and

[7:46] a permit being issued that's what it was

[7:50] foror in

[7:51] 1972 in 1972 in the court of Rockville

[7:54] Fuel and feed company versus gaitherburg

[7:56] the court changed that said no for

[8:00] vesting rights you have to have not only

[8:02] a permit but you also have to have begun

[8:05] construction so then another words so

[8:08] obviously these applications are

[8:09] absolutely nowhere near this standard

[8:12] that is set forth by the court uh in

[8:15] 1972 uh with regard to what the law was

[8:18] at that time of a permit and beginning

[8:22] of

[8:23] construction that that opinion was

[8:25] further supp uh supported in 1975

[8:29] in which the case of uh County Council

[8:31] of Montgomery County versus District

[8:33] land Corporation in which the owner uh

[8:36] and a developer got his permits okay and

[8:40] then began expending uh fees for

[8:43] engineering fees okay and development

[8:45] fees and development applications and he

[8:48] spent over a million dollars of his own

[8:50] money for these development uh studies

[8:53] and plans for the development of the

[8:56] property and all of a sudden the local

[8:58] jurisdiction Chang The Zone on him so he

[9:02] said no no no I've had to have some type

[9:04] of right because I've just expended a

[9:06] million dollars and the court said no

[9:09] we've the standard is and we've we we've

[9:11] elicited it vested rights means the

[9:14] building permit and began

[9:19] construction then uh in 1996 in the town

[9:22] of Sykesville versus West Shore

[9:28] communication that developers said okay

[9:30] I have read the law I understand what

[9:32] the law is and he had a large piece of

[9:34] property and then in the back of the

[9:36] property in the woods he cleared out an

[9:39] acre of land and he began construction

[9:42] so all of a sudden he had his permits

[9:44] and he uh began Construction in a rear

[9:47] area of the area and the local

[9:49] municipality changed the Zone he said no

[9:53] uh I have complied with the law and I've been with the law and because it

[9:58] was in the woods the the court then

[10:00] changed the rule as to what it is now to

[10:03] not only do you have to have the permit

[10:06] not only have you have to begin

[10:07] construction but that construction has

[10:09] to be visible to the public and again

[10:12] I'm happy to give you those cases for

[10:13] you to review at your leisure but now

[10:16] that is the standard permit construction

[10:20] and visible to the public that's the

[10:22] standard in which somebody has an actual

[10:24] property rights you know with regard to

[10:26] Applications this this testimony of well

[10:29] have an application has no absolute

[10:32] applicability to actually having

[10:34] property rights to actually having a

[10:36] right to uh to that property uh or to

[10:40] those applications uh as it's being

[10:42] elicited and just for fun I've also um

[10:45] uh included a case of taba County versus

[10:48] miles point which HS which is held that

[10:51] the board of appeals cannot overturn

[10:53] decisions of a Town Council but I'll I'll give that to you just for just

[10:57] for your uh review also so basically

[11:02] what Mr P what case was

[11:04] that and I do have a copy for you Mr

[11:06] justment it's

[11:07] um uh talba County versus miles Point

[11:11] 415 Maryland

[11:14] 372 uh Atlantic 3D 2 Atlantic 3D uh

[11:19] 344

[11:25] 2010 so basically uh the ult ultimately

[11:28] the board of appeals is looking to issue

[11:31] an order that will say to the zoning in

[11:34] administrator here take these plans

[11:38] that's the uh uh now I'm going to for

[11:41] the purposes of this presentation I'm

[11:43] going to ignore the second part of the

[11:45] standard which you've been reviewing of

[11:47] that it will go to the Planning

[11:48] Commission for their review and that in

[11:51] essence the Planning Commission will

[11:52] have an expedited hearing uh under some

[11:56] other law right now I'm going to ignore

[11:58] that BAS basically the order in which

[12:00] you're being asked to apply is that to

[12:03] the zoning administrator here take this

[12:07] well just is to let you know the zoning

[12:10] administrator is going to say no I'm not

[12:13] going to take that because the board of

[12:15] appeals does not have the authority to

[12:17] tell me to do anything the board of

[12:19] appeals doesn't have the jurisdiction to

[12:21] tell another town official to do

[12:23] anything and especially the uh the town

[12:27] law is what the town law is and if the

[12:29] board of appeals wants to try to change

[12:31] the town law with regard to these

[12:33] applications they can try but the Dison

[12:36] administrator is not going to follow

[12:38] whatever supposed law that the board of

[12:40] appeals thinks that they may or may not

[12:43] have as well as the instruction of the

[12:45] Town Council that she is not going to

[12:48] the to zoning administrator is not going

[12:50] to accept that order and accept these

[12:53] plans that's going to be interesting

[13:00] yeah apparently is testifying about what

[13:04] the zoning administr a decision the

[13:06] zoning administrators had made about

[13:09] whether they would if the

[13:11] board if the board issued the order that

[13:14] we requested that they would reject

[13:16] it that would need

[13:19] testimony I can tell you I only me

[13:21] change that to make to to please you um

[13:24] I am telling you what I I think is going

[13:27] to be presumed as to what's going to

[13:28] happen so obviously I don't have a

[13:31] crystal ball but I have an idea as to

[13:33] what's going to happen so that's what my

[13:36] understanding as the probability is

[13:38] going to happen if it satisfies your

[13:40] concerns Mr Blitz oh please continue um

[13:44] so here we are so it's uh basically it's

[13:46] taken 35 hours to in essence for the

[13:49] board to come back and in essence pass

[13:52] an order for the zon administrator to

[13:54] say here um and so we will see what

[13:58] happens with regard to that now earlier

[14:01] on the proceeding uh a number of letters

[14:04] were submitted by Town officials uh and

[14:07] those came from the Town Council from

[14:11] the zoning administrator and also the

[14:12] Planning Commission and what happened

[14:15] was there was a lot of you know

[14:17] consternation going on why is pounds

[14:20] doing this why is pounds doing that why

[14:22] is he submitted these ex that's an

[14:24] expart communication which it isn't but

[14:27] you know at least accuse me of the right

[14:29] thing okay that came out that but

[14:31] everybody was informed now I'm going to

[14:33] tell you the reason that that was done

[14:36] because I wanted to make sure that this

[14:38] board was completely aware early in

[14:41] these proceedings many many months ago

[14:43] many many meetings ago that in desence

[14:45] you were informed specifically by the

[14:48] town official that the Town Council the

[14:51] zoning administrator and also the

[14:52] Planning Commission that you don't have

[14:54] the authority to do is being asked so

[14:56] we're not going to get I could have

[14:57] easily waited till tonight to to

[14:59] introduce all of those records but I

[15:02] wanted to make sure that you were given

[15:05] all of that notice way back when you can

[15:07] yell at me all you want to don't care

[15:09] because I wanted to make sure that the

[15:11] record was clear that you were informed

[15:14] many many months ago many many meetings

[15:16] ago as to what the law was and uh as

[15:20] what the others individual that that

[15:22] board of appeals does not have this

[15:25] Authority

[15:27] now so it is Undisputed

[15:29] that the Town Council has issued

[15:31] ordinances and resolutions to protect a

[15:33] particular issue um in a way that the

[15:37] board of appeals believes that they have

[15:41] the power to over overrule the Town

[15:43] Council and those

[15:45] decisions uh and is is apparent that the

[15:48] board of appeals believes that it has

[15:50] the authority to overrule the Town

[15:52] Council uh was indicated in the record

[15:55] and from the town officials that is

[15:57] untrue uh also if indeed the board of

[16:01] appeals believes that it has the ability

[16:04] to overturn various laws to for this

[16:07] application to have uh houses being

[16:10] built in a flood plane and again the

[16:12] flood plane isn't is based upon the

[16:15] testimony of the applicant's own expert

[16:18] then also it is important for the board

[16:20] of appeals to change other laws and and

[16:23] in essence to vetos other laws which

[16:25] have been passed by Council which are

[16:26] going to affect this application in

[16:28] including the coastal resiliency plan

[16:31] and also the critical areas plan which

[16:33] also must be changed because those will

[16:35] also have an adverse effect on this

[16:38] application so here we are in a

[16:41] situation in which it is presumed and

[16:45] believed that the order from the uh uh

[16:49] board of appeals to the zoning

[16:51] administrator uh is going to order that

[16:54] person to do a particular thing and that

[16:56] person doesn't uh is not going to do it

[16:59] as what is believed is going to happen

[17:01] now what um because if you simply order

[17:05] them to say here and they say no so we

[17:08] have a situation and appears one of the

[17:10] primary problems with regard to this

[17:12] proceedings is that it appears that

[17:14] there's only a few people that believes

[17:17] the board of appeals uh actually has

[17:19] this Authority um obviously Mr Blitz

[17:22] believes that you do but but the rest of

[17:24] the board is sitting up on the dis we

[17:27] don't know and I guess we'll make that

[17:29] determination with regard to uh the

[17:31] issue and the order that's ultimately

[17:33] issued excuse

[17:41] me so I think so all obviously also as

[17:45] indicated in an earlier letter you know

[17:48] there's been a lot of discussion with

[17:50] regard to a moratorium and what what

[17:52] should be appropriately you know uh done

[17:54] uh what's interesting and that this is

[17:56] going to be a complete side note you

[17:58] know

[18:00] this is completely offside note but you

[18:03] know Mr susman and I were at a lunch the

[18:05] other day and the iron is at the chief

[18:07] judge or the justice that was there

[18:09] actually began discussions about

[18:12] resolutions and ordinances and and their

[18:15] applicability and I started to call her

[18:16] as a witness which would have been fun

[18:18] but um uh but what we are doing here is

[18:21] certainly so with regard to where we

[18:25] are and and as part of my present ation

[18:29] I'm finding it hard to believe that

[18:30] we've been here for 35 hours and spent

[18:33] many many thousands of dollars in town

[18:36] resources not to in essence have some

[18:39] type of order being issued um uh indeed

[18:43] that could have been stopped earlier on

[18:45] but it was not one of the things that Mr

[18:48] blit Mr Blitz has been saying many many

[18:50] times is for the board to issue the

[18:55] permit issue it I mean I've said it many times I mean if you think you have

[18:59] that authority to do it feel free to do

[19:02] that okay and just to let you know and I

[19:05] want to make sure you understand with my

[19:07] old uh hat as a zoning lawyer when you

[19:10] issue a permit it means become you

[19:11] become liable you're the one that

[19:13] becomes liable if you issue and you sign

[19:15] off on it you become liable for that

[19:17] application so and obviously the since

[19:19] the board of appeals is not an entity

[19:22] sign off on yourselves and these houses

[19:25] that are in a flood plane that in

[19:26] doesn't get flooded or people that are

[19:29] harmed is they're going to go after the

[19:30] people that in essence sign that

[19:34] permit nothing can stop you from doing

[19:36] it okay the town's not doing that okay

[19:39] but indeed if Mr Blitz has told you many

[19:42] times throughout the be's proceedings

[19:44] you have the authority and issue the

[19:46] permit do it I mean you know sign off on

[19:49] yourself and please feel free to do it

[19:53] yourself so so now the questions have

[19:55] reson as to whether uh the board Bo's

[19:59] actions are in essence to overrule a

[20:03] particular law or actions of the Town

[20:06] Council or the perceived perceived

[20:09] ability or the power to overrule the

[20:12] town in the way it acts or whether

[20:16] indeed this is a

[20:18] misrepresentation as to the public

[20:21] that's what scares me okay because if

[20:25] indeed that there there has been

[20:29] an idea and representations by this

[20:31] board that you have the authority to

[20:34] overturn these actions by Council and

[20:36] the council's actions are law okay that

[20:39] is done so now if you indeed have uh can

[20:43] make this representation through

[20:45] whatever mechanism in which we've been

[20:47] sitting here for a long time uh and

[20:49] we're going to be talking about the

[20:50] powers in which you've been told you

[20:52] have um indeed if you sit there and say

[20:55] well we have this power to do this the

[20:58] question comes into is that a

[21:01] misrepresentation to the public

[21:06] now that's what that's and and so why I

[21:09] care you know and I'll be C candid I

[21:12] really don't care what happens to the

[21:14] board uh I care what happens to the

[21:17] public because as I've said many many

[21:19] times I have been charged by the Town

[21:22] Council you protect the public and uh

[21:25] and so that's what I ful intend to

[21:31] do now um

[21:36] uh now and and again to let to let you

[21:39] know as you know and as I've speeded I'm

[21:41] the town attorney for uh the um uh Town

[21:46] Council if indeed somebody came to that

[21:50] dis during a town council meeting and

[21:52] said that I think you have powers that

[21:55] the Town Council does not have

[21:59] I'd have stopped him like that and said

[22:01] no the Town Council does not have

[22:03] authority to do that the mayor would

[22:06] have stopped them like that and said no

[22:08] the Town Council does not have the

[22:10] authority to do that the council would

[22:12] have said no the council does not have

[22:14] authority but the board of appeals chose

[22:18] not to do that with regard to all uh

[22:21] going through this entire proceeding so

[22:23] let's go over exactly all the powers

[22:27] that you've been informed and I've been

[22:28] keeping track uh which has been sort of

[22:31] fun for me too so basically uh the board

[22:34] of appeals include including that you

[22:36] can order individuals to engage in acts

[22:41] so it's interesting because you know

[22:44] when you're dealing with variances or

[22:46] you're dealing with property that's one

[22:48] thing but now when you're being ordered

[22:50] individuals to actually engage and tell

[22:53] them an individual what you can do that

[22:56] is something that even the courts are

[22:59] very limited because it's very specific

[23:01] as to what they can do but the courts

[23:03] have that ability but you've been

[23:05] informed that indeed you can order

[23:07] individuals to engage in Acts by telling

[23:12] the zoning zoning administrator you will

[23:15] do something now also you've been told

[23:18] that you have the power to order Town

[23:20] officials to engage in Acts by by saying

[23:24] that the zoning administrator and the

[23:26] Planning Commission will in will do a

[23:29] particular act as well as you will

[23:32] overturn uh uh or laws that have been

[23:35] passed by the County Council again that

[23:38] is a very specific law and that is

[23:41] something that you simply do not D do

[23:44] next is power over administrative

[23:46] agencies that in essence you're going to

[23:49] issue an order to tell the Planning

[23:51] Commission what they can and can't do

[23:53] that they will in essence hear a case on

[23:57] an expedited basis at as well as the law

[24:00] that they will follow and in essence

[24:04] that you will tell the administrative

[24:06] agencies how to hear cases next is power

[24:10] the board of appeals to tell the

[24:12] administration how to rule on cases well

[24:15] there's no sense sending it there if you

[24:16] don't tell them how to rule because

[24:18] otherwise what's the point of of of Ying

[24:21] so it's presumed that this you've told

[24:23] them how to rule on that case and then

[24:27] powers to tell the administrative

[24:29] agencies that they will hear the cases

[24:31] on an expedited basis uh in essence you

[24:34] will tell them when that they will hear

[24:36] the case not only hearing the case but

[24:38] also doing it powers to require them to

[24:41] follow a particular law that is not the

[24:44] current law so in essence they instead

[24:47] of them advising that in essence they're

[24:50] going to follow the law that they think

[24:51] is appropriate no you're being told

[24:54] throughout this that indeed they you

[24:57] will we're going to order them to follow

[25:00] another current law next is the power

[25:04] over revenue and Taxation Authority

[25:07] which is interesting

[25:10] because the this this document here that

[25:13] was introduced by Mr Hayes and also I've

[25:16] got a document here in which uh as I

[25:20] thought was introduced earlier uh by Mr

[25:23] sus by Mr um uh blitz so basically as

[25:28] indicated by uh Miss Hayes and also that

[25:32] in essent there's a dispute with regard

[25:34] to fees and connection fees with regard

[25:37] to the usages of water and and US of the

[25:41] sewer so Miss Hayes in which you've

[25:43] already introduced that into the record

[25:45] now and I'm going to be introducing uh you know in this was a letter from Mr

[25:50] Blitz that in essence discusses this

[25:53] water and connection fees now why is

[25:55] that important because in essence

[25:59] this is a public document which has been

[26:01] uh submitted before the uh uh Town

[26:04] Council my clients reserve the right uh

[26:08] reserves the right to appeal first to

[26:11] the board of appeals so it's interesting

[26:14] in that uh in essence now the board of

[26:17] appeals has new rights uh with regard to

[26:22] connections and the fees associated with

[26:25] those connections uh in which I don't

[26:27] know if you even knew that you were

[26:30] being told but it's being represented

[26:32] because it is now in the town record

[26:34] that somehow the board of appeals

[26:37] according to Mr Blitz has that ability

[26:39] to review these connections with deal

[26:41] with fees and also you've introduced the

[26:44] letter from Miss Hayes which in essence

[26:47] uh also has to do with

[26:56] fees I did did not make the

[27:00] argument to anyone that the board of

[27:04] appeals had the authority to review edu

[27:08] counts you're having a letter described

[27:11] to you that was submitted as an expar

[27:13] communication and has not yet been

[27:15] entered into the record it should be

[27:18] that that step should go first before we

[27:20] discuss what I say about it or my

[27:23] opinions that's why I'm

[27:25] objecting Mr pound is free to make all

[27:27] the arguments he wants obviously about

[27:30] that letter I'll have a rejoiner my

[27:34] point is he's making a bunch of

[27:35] arguments about something that I said

[27:38] that hasn't been submitted to you yet in

[27:40] the record would you like to enter that

[27:42] letter

[27:46] sure and and I was going to introduce it

[27:49] anyway but uh again this dealt with just

[27:51] so the record is clear uh right now the

[27:54] only thing I was talking about is these

[27:56] additional powers that apparently you're

[27:58] being told that you have which is a

[28:01] question that you don't

[28:03] so you just have one copy for the

[28:11] board oh I'm I thought this was the

[28:13] additional thing the letter from Blitz

[28:16] you said you were submitting that's

[28:18] something different

[28:35] at this point I'm going to object to the

[28:36] introduction of this as an exhibit well

[28:39] it's a public record I mean you know you

[28:40] can like it or not but it's the the town

[28:42] records I could be heed on heard on the

[28:46] objection Mr pounds is trying to

[28:48] introduce a letter about an issue that

[28:50] has absolutely nothing to do with the

[28:53] board of appeals case that you're

[28:55] hearing it is a separate zoning

[28:58] violation for different property rotten

[29:00] re property and a and a contest about

[29:04] the edus this is completely irrelevant

[29:08] to this case and should not be

[29:11] considered it was objectionable when it

[29:14] was submitted as an next parte it's

[29:16] objectionable now it's simply not

[29:18] relevant to any aspect of this case

[29:21] doesn't touch the properties doesn't

[29:22] impact the

[29:23] properties

[29:25] and Mr pounds is making

[29:32] well I I'll leave it there for the

[29:33] objection as to the exhibit if if if

[29:36] you're going to admit the exhibit then

[29:37] I've got other arguments but my point is

[29:41] this is bringing in something that is

[29:43] completely irrelevant to this case i'

[29:46] like to ask Mr susman to review this

[29:48] well I I can tell you you know if it

[29:50] makes it easier Mr susman I can tell you

[29:52] what the only thing I care about is my

[29:54] comment that poers over revenue and

[29:56] Taxation which indeed Mr assman put in

[29:58] his letter Mr Blitz put in his letter so

[30:01] whether you want to introduce the letter

[30:02] or not I really don't care okay but but

[30:05] what what important to me is that's what

[30:07] was said it's in the town records and to

[30:09] make sure that indeed the board is

[30:11] informed that the board is being the

[30:13] board is being represented that indeed

[30:15] you have that power also so except that

[30:18] it doesn't say that let me explain the

[30:21] context just so you

[30:23] understand this rod and reel for the rod

[30:26] and reel development Pro property

[30:29] received a notice of violation for two

[30:31] thing for a series of things some of

[30:33] which were zoning and some of which were

[30:36] for a dispute about

[30:39] edus I responded and in this

[30:43] case I was responding about

[30:48] um the fact that I'm providing the

[30:52] evidence against the edus and I'm saying

[30:55] with respect to any violation of a

[30:58] zoning ordinance I'm reserving the right

[31:01] to appeal to the board because that's

[31:03] literally your the power you have is if

[31:05] there's a zoning violation somebody can

[31:07] come and appeal this to the board of

[31:09] appeals all I was doing was saying that

[31:11] but it has nothing to do with this case

[31:13] it's merely saying you brought two a

[31:16] series of things some of which are

[31:18] zoning

[31:20] violations in the in the notice of

[31:22] violation we're merely preserving our

[31:24] right to rather than send this letter

[31:27] also take the case to the board of

[31:29] appeals should we need to my point is

[31:32] this is about a different property from

[31:34] the properties we're dealing with and

[31:35] has nothing to do with the case and has

[31:37] really almost nothing to do with the

[31:38] board of appeals power literally all I'm

[31:40] doing is saying we reserve our right to

[31:43] go to the board of appeals if if we have

[31:46] to in this other case

[32:06] we're going to allow this into the

[32:07] record um as stated and not as a power

[32:12] of forward as what's been represented

[32:14] here please continue Mr poun okay so

[32:16] next the power which has been uh

[32:19] discussed is the power to determine

[32:21] taking of property issues and what's

[32:24] interesting we had taking of property

[32:26] issues uh which is interesting we had

[32:28] almost a full hearing to discuss uh

[32:32] whether indeed this is was a taking and

[32:35] I think it was interesting in that uh a

[32:37] council for the applicant came but

[32:39] refused to answer questions uh you know

[32:43] with regard to any of that which is uh

[32:45] interesting too now Mr susman and Mr

[32:48] Blitz fully know know what the term

[32:51] taking means and taking is a very unique

[32:54] term of Art in the law it means that in

[32:57] essence

[32:58] um uh that that nearly all the property

[33:02] rights and ability have been taken from

[33:06] the owner which is interesting because

[33:08] now we're not dealing with his ability

[33:10] to do various things because in essence

[33:13] it's been admitted and also been

[33:15] determined that we're talking about

[33:17] property which is in the flood plane uh

[33:20] so any limitations on its property would

[33:22] be more uh as a result of environmental

[33:25] or that as opposed to any take

[33:28] that inessence was subject to any

[33:31] resoning of his property or actions by

[33:34] Council as indicated by the cases which

[33:36] I said earlier we are a long way from as

[33:40] the law currently exists permits being

[33:43] issued construction beginning and

[33:46] construction that is in essence also VI

[33:48] visible to the public so there uh that

[33:52] application generally is not uh at all

[33:56] applicable

[33:58] next is um General powers and authority

[34:00] to overturn the decisions of Town

[34:02] Council so basically in these

[34:04] applications that that in essence I'm

[34:07] going to presume that you're going to

[34:08] issue an order because we've been here

[34:10] the way we have that in essence in order

[34:13] to move forward the the this board's

[34:15] also going to have to make sure that

[34:18] indeed overturns other laws which have

[34:21] been uh put forward by the Town Council

[34:24] including Coastal resiliency and uh laws

[34:27] with with regard to critical area

[34:29] because with regard that overturning

[34:31] those laws in essence uh this your your

[34:35] order you know doesn't have much effect

[34:37] either which was interesting is the per

[34:39] Mr Blitz issue with regard to

[34:42] constitutionality that one I put a

[34:44] little smiley face by because in essence

[34:47] uh the board of appeals in essence is

[34:49] being told to review Supreme Court cases

[34:51] or cases from the supr Supreme Court of

[34:54] Maryland and in essence to make that

[34:57] determination

[34:58] as to what is appropriate most Circuit

[35:01] Court judges don't do that uh most

[35:03] Circuit Court judges will not overturn

[35:06] or impose their opinions upon you

[35:08] especially upon you know any case upon

[35:11] if indeed the uh uh Court special

[35:14] Supreme Court or Supreme Court of

[35:16] Maryland makes those issues of The

[35:18] confid Confident constitutionality but

[35:21] uh you were being instructed and it was

[35:23] earlier on uh that indeed the board of appeals needs to also

[35:28] address those uh issues of

[35:30] constitutionality then in a recent

[35:33] hearing uh that in essence that the

[35:35] board of appeals is exhausting the

[35:38] administrative remedies in order to

[35:41] eventually get to court um in essence

[35:45] you know and that's the law is is that

[35:47] in essence when you have uh remedies

[35:50] that in essence you are required to go

[35:52] through an administrative counsel before

[35:53] administrative counsil or administrative

[35:55] agency before you can go to court but we

[35:58] started in court I mean this this isn't

[36:00] something that you know you need to go

[36:01] through an administrative exhausting

[36:03] administrative agency and I put two

[36:05] smiley faces by that one because you're

[36:08] saying that we need to go through this

[36:09] process to get to court when in essence

[36:11] we started in court to begin with so why

[36:13] are you being informed that indeed you

[36:16] have needed to do that in the first

[36:19] place so uh again uh and one and again

[36:25] I'm going to reiterate it one of the

[36:27] interesting things that has been said a

[36:29] number of times is that this board

[36:32] should go ahead and actually issue the

[36:35] permits well again I encourage it uh

[36:38] indeed sign off on it so you know and

[36:41] actually allow the applicant to begin

[36:43] these construction of these houses in

[36:46] the flood plane but in essence as I

[36:48] stated when you sign off on an

[36:50] application if somebody gets hurt or

[36:53] some property gets damaged the person

[36:55] who signs it is the one who becomes Li

[36:57] so feel free uh that that that will be a

[37:00] decision for the

[37:02] board now earlier

[37:05] on uh in this process we had a situation

[37:09] in which Mr Blitz was sworn

[37:11] in excuse me

[37:18] again and this again this causes me a

[37:21] great deal of concern so Mr Blitz was

[37:24] sworn in and um uh and then during the

[37:28] process there was an email sent to uh

[37:32] that in essence discussed the process of

[37:35] cross-examination of Mr Blitz and uh

[37:39] what H and during that process which is

[37:42] in evidence it stated that

[37:45] indeed uh Mr Blitz was under oath unless

[37:50] he changed his mind and that was a

[37:53] letter an email from Mr susman he said

[37:55] after my discussion with

[37:58] um with the chair and in essence unless

[38:01] Mr Blitz objects to any questions is

[38:03] what the uh actual phrase was I saw that

[38:07] at the beginning when it was first sent

[38:09] ignored it but suddenly and what causes

[38:12] me pause and concern was at the end of

[38:14] the applicant's case when Mr Blitz said

[38:17] no I've changed my mind I am no longer

[38:19] under oath I've decided that I was never

[38:22] under oath and in essence that by I

[38:26] didn't didn't don't have that testimony

[38:28] objection I never said I changed my mind

[38:32] okay I merely said I was not testifying

[38:34] and being cross-examined like a witness

[38:36] and I explained the reasons why I never

[38:39] said I changed my mind okay the the

[38:41] testimony was I was not I'm not under

[38:42] oath and I was never under oath and

[38:44] that's fine you know let the record

[38:45] State what whatever the record States

[38:48] but my concern is the appearance and

[38:52] I'll be frank with you and I'm going to

[38:53] be candid that how did you know Mr BL

[38:57] was going to do this that's what bothers

[39:00] me than anything else unless Mr Blitz

[39:01] objects to the question this was done

[39:03] many many months before Mr Blitz decided

[39:06] that I'm no longer under oath that in

[39:08] essence uh and that that is in the

[39:10] record and uh I'm going to leave that up

[39:13] to you but what concerns me is um now as

[39:17] soon as Mr Blitz did that this is a huge

[39:21] concern I have I immediately said I

[39:23] object and I move to strike

[39:27] and then it was

[39:30] denied that in essence so Mr Blitz

[39:33] turned around and changed his mind as to

[39:36] well I'm going to change my mind

[39:37] rephrase that to make him he said I am

[39:40] no longer under oath but what what is

[39:43] the now the meaning of

[39:46] that testimony or whatever it is because

[39:49] under oath the people thought he was

[39:51] under oath and then all of a sudden not

[39:53] under oath because he changed it so and

[39:56] then in instead of uh approve saying

[39:59] granted it was

[40:02] denied so I'm sitting here thinking to

[40:05] myself there's no way they're going to

[40:06] deny it twice there's no way he's going

[40:08] to do that I again that night objection

[40:11] moveed to strike his in testimony denied

[40:15] so now we have a question out there of

[40:17] what's the truth how do the public

[40:19] supposed to know what indeed throughout

[40:21] this entire 35 hours of testimony except

[40:24] for the limited testimony of the other

[40:26] witnesses as to what actually happened

[40:29] here and whether this is testimony or

[40:31] not I don't know but I got I have a

[40:34] great concern as to in essence

[40:38] what exactly happened and most

[40:40] importantly that misrepresentations were

[40:43] not made to the public because I can

[40:47] tell you there is absolutely misconduct

[40:50] that is worse nothing worse than a

[40:52] governmental agency who makes

[40:55] misrepresentations and in essence spends

[40:58] the public but that's and I want to make

[41:01] I'm not accusing anybody but I'm just

[41:03] saying the appearance causes me pause

[41:07] and I'm very concerned about the way

[41:09] that has proceeded because who knows

[41:12] what that 35 hours of testimony was who

[41:14] knows nobody knows I mean what is it was

[41:17] it testimony was it not testimony but

[41:19] what I do know is that the public was

[41:23] misled so we have a situation in which

[41:26] there which I'm presuming that there's

[41:29] going to be an order issued to tell the

[41:31] zon administrator here um and I'm also

[41:35] presuming that in essence The Zone

[41:37] administrator is going to say no

[41:41] so you know there been it's been said

[41:43] you know many times through various witnesses that this is a process

[41:48] and proceedings that belongs in court

[41:52] well there's there's no dispute that

[41:53] this started in court and in essence it

[41:56] was Mr Blitz who wanted this case to go

[41:58] before the board of appeals but I think

[42:01] it's interesting in that right at the

[42:03] near the beginning of the case the Mr

[42:06] the chair said we do not handle this

[42:09] type of matter we generally do not

[42:10] handle this type of

[42:11] matter which is an interesting uh uh how

[42:16] this is going to proceed from this point

[42:20] so if indeed the court issues an order

[42:24] okay which I've stated I'm fully

[42:27] expecting some type of order to be

[42:29] issued because otherwise we've been

[42:31] sitting here for the last 35 hours and

[42:33] spend a tremendous amount of money so

[42:36] and the Zone administrator says no now

[42:40] what uh so now what's going to happen if

[42:43] indeed the board then tries to go to

[42:44] court to enforce this well then that

[42:47] means this whole proceedings was nothing

[42:48] more than a sham because we were in

[42:50] court to begin with and we're here so

[42:53] now we have to go back to court to

[42:55] indeed enforce powers in which you in

[42:58] essence did not

[43:00] have um again this as a as an attorney

[43:05] who's been doing Municipal work for

[43:07] almost 30 years this is extremely

[43:10] serious to me this is exactly the type

[43:13] of um uh thing that in essence I am told

[43:18] to stop okay the Town Council has told

[43:22] me to stop it to in essence protect the

[43:26] public and based upon what has happened

[43:31] it concerns me that there was an

[43:33] intentional spinning of the public by

[43:36] the government that I'm not going to put

[43:38] up with um so but you you do whatever

[43:41] you want to do and we'll see so what's

[43:43] uh also interesting about this is uh

[43:47] early on in the proceeding there is a

[43:49] question about how the board is going to

[43:53] vote okay in essence that in essence

[43:56] many uh a couple of the board members

[43:58] missed meetings and as a result that

[44:01] they missed testimony so in essence they

[44:06] can't vote because in the end I can

[44:08] disagree with Mr sesan's assessment that

[44:11] they can't go back and look at the video

[44:13] because the code doesn't provide that I

[44:15] get it that's fine the problem is with

[44:17] Mr blitz's uh withdrawal of his

[44:22] testimony or withdrawal of his swearing

[44:25] in and we don't know exactly what

[44:28] process that

[44:30] is there's no reason why everybody can't

[44:32] vote because in essence you know that is no longer testimony there's no

[44:37] longer evidence because in essence

[44:40] there's no reason why they can't go back

[44:42] and look at that meeting that they

[44:43] missed and make that

[44:45] determination so that's going to be very

[44:47] interesting uh and I can tell you either

[44:50] way either if it's going to be three

[44:52] people or if it's going to be everybody

[44:53] else that's going to be entitled to vote

[44:55] because of where we are right now now

[44:57] and because of the fact that we don't

[44:58] know what the testimony is or what

[45:01] indeed has been introduced into evidence

[45:04] or where it was both answers are going

[45:06] to be wrong okay however you vote both

[45:10] answers are going to be incorrect

[45:11] because in essence who's going to be

[45:13] right I've never even heard of that

[45:15] before that in essence how are you going

[45:17] to handle that situation and how is that

[45:20] vote going to occur so I can tell you

[45:24] either way it's going to be

[45:25] unenforceable because somebody's going

[45:27] to have to somebody much smarter than

[45:29] all of us are going to is going to have

[45:31] to review that to make that

[45:32] determination because now you've got an

[45:34] issue as to who can vote who knows okay

[45:41] now uh the obviously this is going to be

[45:44] going on

[45:50] um okay so basically let's make sure we

[45:53] you know I go over briefly um how we are

[45:57] here basically what happened

[46:00] approximately 12 to 14 years ago permits

[46:02] were issued for this development the

[46:05] developer didn't build pursu to these

[46:08] event uh these permits that were issued

[46:11] the permits were extended but again uh

[46:14] for various reasons one way the other he

[46:16] chose not to build so for the purpos of

[46:19] the proceeding I'm to div you know avoid

[46:22] any issues that we discussed before

[46:24] about you know Mr Blitz and whether he

[46:26] was attorney for the board attorney for

[46:28] the town ignore all of that but what's

[46:31] important is um uh in essence there was

[46:35] a determination that indeed uh the

[46:38] comprehensive uh plan was indeed going

[46:41] through the process and uh again there's

[46:45] no dispute uh by Mr Woodburn or by the

[46:49] applicant who both testified that indeed

[46:51] these properties are in the flood plane

[46:54] just object just to clarify Woodburn Mr

[46:59] uh Donovan did not testify that all the

[47:02] properties are in the flood plane home

[47:04] place is clearly not in the flood plane

[47:06] not anywhere close to the flood plane so

[47:08] lumping all the properties in together

[47:10] and this discussion I'll I'll address

[47:12] the flood plane arguments later but I

[47:14] just want to point out that home place

[47:16] isn't anywhere close to a flood plan

[47:17] then then I can I can I can only stay

[47:20] what they said in their testimony okay

[47:23] but uh with that profer I won't object

[47:26] to that offer and so if I do say

[47:29] properties is in the flood plane let's

[47:31] assume that I also say that excluding

[47:34] the Home Place uh but rest a little more

[47:37] uh so in essence

[47:40] so what's interesting is so the

[47:43] applicant um uh decided that indeed he F

[47:47] wanted to prepare these applications

[47:49] during the comprehensive plan

[47:51] process and according to Mr Donovan you

[47:55] know you went and talked to the the

[47:57] zoning administrator at that time who

[47:59] said no uh that in essence he's not

[48:02] going to uh he's going to rezone it to

[48:04] take these property out of development

[48:07] Mr Donovan stated that indeed it never

[48:08] went to the Planning Commission which

[48:10] the Planning Commission had an

[48:12] incredibly long process um as a personal

[48:16] opinion it went on too long but in

[48:18] essence everybody got heard everybody

[48:21] you know there was meeting after meeting hearing after hearing that

[48:26] in essence and uh with for the Planning

[48:30] Commission and Mr Donovan said that he

[48:32] never participated in the Planning

[48:34] Commission process also you know it goes

[48:37] to the Town Council and he met with a

[48:39] couple of the members who also stated

[48:42] they're not making any changes to the

[48:43] Planning Commission so we have an issue

[48:46] with regard to uh in essence the uh

[48:50] question is did he really take the

[48:52] necessary steps to protect his own

[48:55] property or

[48:57] was this the idea that I'm just going to

[48:58] file these applications and see what

[49:01] happens and I think it's in essence um

[49:05] with regard to something that both Mr

[49:08] Donovan and also Mr Woodburn said said

[49:11] and you know with regard to their review

[49:13] is the quoting term things

[49:16] change uh I mean unfortunately in ches

[49:20] Pake Beach things change especially in

[49:22] the last 12 to 14 years and and also

[49:26] after those applications in essence

[49:28] expired 10 years go by before in essence

[49:31] he files he prepares these applications

[49:34] uh with regard to the comprehensive

[49:37] plan so in essence uh uh the

[49:40] comprehensive plan process goes through

[49:43] and it's made its decision that um that

[49:46] indeed uh

[49:48] Mr the applicant really did not

[49:50] participate in the whole comprehensive

[49:53] plan process except for to file these

[49:56] appli ations

[49:58] so what is important here and um is and

[50:03] I want to be absolutely stressed in on

[50:04] the record of the importance of the

[50:06] board of appeals uh the board of appeals

[50:09] plays a fundamental and vital role in

[50:13] the function of government to avoid

[50:15] hardships as a they appear that's what's

[50:18] important for the board to do but uh uh

[50:22] what's important is you know for those

[50:24] in to make sure that people are not

[50:26] hared by uh hardships when variances can

[50:31] fix this matter but the problem is is

[50:33] that that does not apply to applications

[50:36] for zones or changing the zones or

[50:39] overturning uh decisions of Town Council

[50:42] so the question is um you know earlier

[50:45] on the coun the chair said we do not

[50:48] generally handle this type of matter

[50:50] which begs the question of why now so uh

[50:55] there are two things that concern me and

[50:57] I'm going to put them on the record

[50:58] number one is that the in essence the

[51:01] board of appeals is completely correct

[51:03] that indeed you have all of these

[51:05] authorities and powers that in essence

[51:08] uh are outlined and requested by Mr

[51:11] Blitz that indeed you have the authority

[51:13] to do pretty much anything you want to

[51:15] and overturn the ability of Town Council

[51:18] and overturn any law that they've passed

[51:21] um I do not believe that the you've

[51:24] already gotten records letters in the

[51:26] record and and also that in essence you

[51:29] don't have that Authority the other part

[51:31] of this is that in essence Mr Blitz is

[51:34] wrong that in essence then the question

[51:37] is what is the impression that you have

[51:40] in essence imposed upon the public um

[51:44] that becomes deadly serious okay and you

[51:48] know I sent a letter a little while ago

[51:51] you know I advise you to get your own

[51:53] lawyer oh Todd's crazy pounds is crazy

[51:55] and everything else

[51:57] um you know I would not want to be in

[52:00] that position but that's that's

[52:01] completely your decision because in Ence

[52:05] the board of appeals is the one who put

[52:07] themselves into this position

[52:11] but so basically so the question is

[52:14] what's going to happen

[52:16] next and this is again my presumption as

[52:19] to where we are and where we're going so

[52:23] I think the board's going to issue an

[52:25] order because 30 5 hours all this time

[52:28] all these months all these thousands of

[52:30] dollars spent I can't imagine an order

[52:33] not being spent that's fine now with

[52:36] regard to the order it's going to have

[52:38] to be specific uh it's not going to be

[52:41] and I wrote down the word slop uh it's

[52:44] not going to be you're going to have to

[52:45] do details not only the findings of fact

[52:48] but also the legal basis as to how the

[52:50] board of appeals has the full legal

[52:53] ability to overturn Council and to and

[52:57] again to show these powers that indeed

[52:59] you're going to order the zoning

[53:02] administrator to take a particular act

[53:05] and I'm presuming and believe the zoning

[53:07] administrator is going to say no I'm

[53:09] going to follow the law and the

[53:11] instructions of the Town Council and how

[53:13] you're going to enforce that that's

[53:15] going to have to be in the order so then

[53:19] um as I stated once the order is done

[53:22] then it's going to be given to the

[53:24] zoning administrator who again is my

[53:26] understanding is going to be rejected so

[53:31] where does that leave all of us um uh

[53:35] with regard to my concern again is how

[53:38] has this been presented to the public um

[53:42] that's a great deal that I have concerns

[53:46] um so you've you've you've already been

[53:48] told and I did it on purpose that in

[53:52] essence early on in the proceeding by

[53:55] the Town Council by the zoning

[53:58] administrator and also the Planning

[53:59] Commission you don't have the authority

[54:01] to do any of the things which you are

[54:03] being told pursuing the standard to do

[54:06] now again I could have waited till the

[54:08] night could have waited till the night

[54:09] to do it but no no no I wanted to be

[54:11] able to look at you and say you were

[54:13] fully informed you had notice many many

[54:16] months ago many many hearings ago you

[54:19] were fully informed and chose to ignore

[54:22] it and that's your option but uh

[54:27] again I wanted to make sure that indeed

[54:29] that is the reason that was done is

[54:31] because that plan was done many many uh months ago so this is going to be

[54:38] I'll be frank for for a lawyer for my

[54:40] purposes it's going to be fun to watch I

[54:42] mean uh like I said I'm presuming an

[54:44] order is going to be done I'm I'm

[54:46] expressing I'm expecting an order to be

[54:48] sent the zoning administrator is going

[54:51] to rejecting it um and in essence you're

[54:54] going have to show me the powers to

[54:56] enfor what you're doing in essence the

[54:58] zoning administrator rejects it the Town

[55:00] Council rejects it so now you have to go

[55:02] to court to say no court we do have the

[55:04] powers to do all this when in essence we

[55:06] started out in court so the question is

[55:08] if we start it out in court why don't

[55:11] you have the power to enforce it

[55:13] yourself so again um

[55:18] uh so

[55:21] again that's where I believe we are and

[55:25] the town's position with regard to the

[55:27] case so in essence to if you want to see

[55:31] these um uh cases would you like them

[55:34] now or would you like them later or I

[55:37] don't I I didn't bring enough for

[55:39] everybody um would you like me to

[55:41] resubmit enough to everybody uh that's

[55:43] completely up to you regarding the cases

[55:45] of dealing with vesting uh in other

[55:47] words at some point with regard to these

[55:49] applications because what's important is

[55:52] oh these applications say I've got

[55:53] property rights well no you don't um

[55:56] property rights occur in the recent

[55:58] cases permit Construction Construction

[56:01] that's visible to the public uh we are

[56:04] we're absolutely nowhere near that and

[56:07] again what's fun is another case here

[56:08] which you can review is that a uh uh um

[56:12] board of appeals can overturn Town

[56:14] Council which you can look at that you

[56:15] know for fun also but that uh is the

[56:21] town's presentation uh again with regard

[56:24] to the introduction of these would you

[56:26] like to do that now or would you like to

[56:28] do that later how would you like to do

[56:29] that I I I would you want me to submit

[56:32] others with everybody email it to

[56:34] everybody

[56:36] out I was gonna say email to Shar okay

[56:38] so I'm gonna give uh one copy of each of

[56:41] them to Sharon and then I will email the

[56:44] rest of it to everybody

[56:46] else what are you wait we're getting

[56:50] documents submitted outside the context

[56:52] of the meeting as exhibits what getting

[56:54] the cases that Mr pound cited just

[56:59] now yes physical copies right there just

[57:02] not enough for the rest of

[57:03] us that how's

[57:05] working okay so you're going to submit

[57:08] them to the clerk now so that it's in

[57:11] the record that they've been submitted

[57:13] and then you're going to follow up with

[57:14] an email copies digital copies is that

[57:16] what the idea is passing it to Sharon

[57:18] will be good get it Sharon we'll get the

[57:20] rest of it that acceptable and these are

[57:22] just court cases right that's right

[57:28] the record I'm going to do this and then

[57:29] make the note and then I will email you

[57:34] tomorrow and copies of all the cases for

[57:37] everyone I do have an extra copy if

[57:39] anybody would like to have that for the

[57:41] record I will be emailing

[57:45] that okay thank you Mr pounds uh let's

[57:47] go ahead and take 10 minut or let's take

[57:49] five minutes and we will reconvene for

[57:51] any questions for Mr pounds

[58:25] here

[58:32] so Mr sesman I only have one copy of the

[58:34] taba County case um do you want me to

[58:36] submit this and I can just reprint

[58:38] another one when I email that or how

[58:40] would you like me to do that that was

[58:42] that case in which says the board of

[58:43] appeals can't overturn the council book

[58:46] I don't get whatever you want however

[58:48] you want I can submit it and just re

[58:50] print another

[58:51] copy okay submit

[58:54] this okay

[59:06] four yeah three three dealing with the

[59:08] vesting issue and then one dealing with

[59:10] the

[59:25] other for

[59:35] [Music]

[1:00:00] spe

[1:00:51] talk

[1:01:11] [Music]

[1:01:21] oh yeah yeah yeah

[1:01:39] how did you guys

[1:01:41] do I text should

[1:01:45] text

[1:01:48] not but

[1:02:11] show

[1:02:26] e

[1:02:40] [Music]

[1:03:24] okay um we are reconvening for questions

[1:03:29] from Mr pounds at this time we will

[1:03:31] allow any parties of record to ask

[1:03:33] questions of the town's presentation

[1:03:35] questions should be limited in scope to

[1:03:37] address the information presented please

[1:03:39] step forward announce who you are and

[1:03:41] who you represent and your name and

[1:03:43] address on the signing sheet you may

[1:03:44] then direct your questions to the

[1:03:46] relevant party um and the board may also

[1:03:49] ask

[1:03:51] questions um Mr susman would you mind

[1:03:53] doing a blanket swearing in of all like

[1:03:58] is any member of the public planning to

[1:04:00] step forward and ask

[1:04:05] questions um do we want to

[1:04:10] do uh are you planning on

[1:04:13] questioning very okay um since we're

[1:04:17] doing this um we're still following the

[1:04:20] guidelines established during the May

[1:04:21] 29th session with Mr fiser um the line

[1:04:24] between cross-examining clarifying

[1:04:26] questions isn't something the board

[1:04:28] feels comfortable delineating but the

[1:04:30] board has decided to allow allow

[1:04:32] questions if lawyers feel that this

[1:04:34] violates the professional code of ethics

[1:04:35] they must use their judgment as to

[1:04:36] whether they can answer the question if

[1:04:38] one or more questions are declined to be

[1:04:39] answered the presentation will remain in

[1:04:41] the record and the record will reflect

[1:04:43] refuser refusal to answer the questioner

[1:04:46] may profer as what questions would be

[1:04:47] posed given the opportunity um and I'd

[1:04:51] advise that if um yes you may use your

[1:04:56] uh go ahead um Mr uh thank you Mr chair

[1:05:01] um Mr

[1:05:03] pounds you discussed that we had already

[1:05:06] gone to

[1:05:08] court and isn't it true that we didn't

[1:05:13] go to court on the substance of this

[1:05:14] case we went to court to allow this

[1:05:17] proceeding to even occur that is it was

[1:05:20] a proceeding of

[1:05:22] mandamus to have admin ministrative

[1:05:26] relief which is what we asked for so we

[1:05:28] didn't ask to go to court first

[1:05:30] we filed an appeal to this board and you

[1:05:34] sent a letter saying we can't have it so

[1:05:36] we went to court isn't that

[1:05:41] true what my testimony is is that we

[1:05:44] were in court and that in essence

[1:05:47] there's no dispute that the court has

[1:05:48] jurisdiction to hear all of this case

[1:05:51] and that for some reason Mr Blitz didn't

[1:05:54] want a court he wanted that in essence

[1:05:56] to come and have this board hear the

[1:06:00] case that was the question that that in the presentation as I do and my

[1:06:04] question is we were in court you could

[1:06:07] have filed an amended complaint we were

[1:06:09] there let's do there okay and I never

[1:06:12] consented to any of this so to answer

[1:06:13] your question you are correct but my

[1:06:16] point is

[1:06:17] why you know if Court can resolve this

[1:06:21] why did you want the board of appeals so

[1:06:24] badly that's the point I was

[1:06:27] making I just want to make it clear to

[1:06:29] the board we we originally came after we

[1:06:33] were denied planning site plan re after

[1:06:35] the Roden reel was denied site plan

[1:06:38] review and zoning permit review we filed

[1:06:41] appeal to the board contesting that yes

[1:06:44] let me make sure um I want to we we will

[1:06:46] have a time for summaries and

[1:06:48] clarifications yes I I agree this is

[1:06:50] kind of argumentative make questions to

[1:06:53] Mr P uh Mr okay no that's fair

[1:07:01] Mr pounds when you sent the letter to

[1:07:04] the rod and reel or to

[1:07:06] me to

[1:07:08] me saying that

[1:07:13] the we couldn't have this board of

[1:07:15] appeals hearing at that time were you

[1:07:18] representing the board of

[1:07:19] appeals I don't know letter you're

[1:07:21] speaking of it's in the it's in the

[1:07:23] record and we submitted the

[1:07:27] letter I don't so

[1:07:30] many we can we can discuss later I I

[1:07:33] don't mind referring that later but I I

[1:07:34] don't remember what you're talking

[1:07:44] about actually it might be fine faster

[1:07:47] for me to find it this

[1:07:53] way so You' like we can reserve that to

[1:07:57] a future meetings as we're going to be

[1:07:59] back and we can answer the question

[1:08:00] later that's up to the

[1:08:04] chair take a moment to look and if not

[1:08:06] let's move along

[1:08:28] we'll just Reserve

[1:08:31] that um let's see

[1:08:57] no further

[1:08:58] questions thank you does any member of

[1:09:01] the board have questions they'd like to

[1:09:03] ask this yeah I have one question um Mr

[1:09:08] pounds you made this statement several

[1:09:11] times that this

[1:09:12] board has no power to direct Planning

[1:09:16] and

[1:09:18] Zoning to take any

[1:09:21] action ordinance uh the ordinance that

[1:09:24] empowers the board

[1:09:28] 29032 um gives us the power to decide on

[1:09:34] matters of

[1:09:36] interpretation or errors in an

[1:09:39] order by the administrator

[1:09:44] or Planning and Zoning

[1:09:46] commission so if this board were to

[1:09:49] decide a matter let's say not this

[1:09:51] matter in particular but let's say just

[1:09:53] hypothetically

[1:09:56] would decide that the Planning and

[1:09:58] Zoning

[1:09:59] administrator incorrectly interpreted

[1:10:02] some

[1:10:04] provision are you implying that this

[1:10:07] board does not have the authority to

[1:10:09] direct planing and Zoning

[1:10:13] administrator

[1:10:14] to change his mind on an interpretation

[1:10:18] of a provision and and I want to make

[1:10:21] sure so basically I think it's very

[1:10:23] interesting the fact that you the

[1:10:24] examples that you just gave where errors

[1:10:27] in the order of a zoning administrator

[1:10:29] okay that is exactly what the board of

[1:10:33] appeals is designed to do to make sure

[1:10:35] that indeed if the zoning administrator

[1:10:37] goes out there and makes a mistake or

[1:10:40] issues a uh a decision with regard to a

[1:10:43] piece of property that creates a

[1:10:45] hardship or that indeed the strict

[1:10:47] interpretation creates a hardship which

[1:10:49] as you know is your standard that in

[1:10:52] essence the that homeowner where than

[1:10:55] being stuck with that with the absolute

[1:10:57] interpetation has a place to go that is

[1:11:00] absolutely what it is but I think that

[1:11:02] but I'm going to answer your question

[1:11:03] directly that with regard to the um uh

[1:11:07] incorrect interpretation by the zoning

[1:11:10] administrator so in essence what you've

[1:11:13] done is saying okay you've had the

[1:11:15] zoning administrator who believes that

[1:11:17] the Town Council is the one who makes

[1:11:20] the laws they have made the laws they

[1:11:22] have instructions from the Town Council

[1:11:25] as to how those laws are going to be

[1:11:28] interpreted now your question is in

[1:11:30] essence well no we're going to issue our

[1:11:33] interpretation of it and now the zoning

[1:11:35] Administration zoning administrator is

[1:11:37] to interpret uh our belief and

[1:11:40] interpretation rather than the Town

[1:11:42] Council I am presuming I ask you to let

[1:11:46] me finish first I am presuming based

[1:11:48] upon what I understand that the Zone

[1:11:50] administrator is going to say no I'm

[1:11:52] following the law I'm following the Town

[1:11:54] Council I'm following the instructions

[1:11:56] of the Town Council that's my

[1:11:58] understanding as to what and we're

[1:11:59] talking about your hypothetical

[1:12:01] obviously well you you're you're

[1:12:04] assuming here that uh that I'm talking

[1:12:07] about a particular

[1:12:10] instance in other words that this board

[1:12:13] might direct Planning and Zoning

[1:12:16] to

[1:12:18] um I don't know

[1:12:21] ignore ignore what's happened and and

[1:12:24] direct the uh the site plans to be

[1:12:27] reviewed under roal ordinances I'm just

[1:12:31] I'm asking in a general way because you

[1:12:33] made the statement that it seems to be

[1:12:37] that under no instance can this board

[1:12:41] direct the Planning and Zoning

[1:12:45] administrator and yet we're allowed to

[1:12:48] decide on matters of

[1:12:50] interpretation and if we decide that

[1:12:53] planning and zoning administr has

[1:12:55] misinterpreted

[1:12:59] something it sounds like you're saying

[1:13:01] that we cannot tell the Planning and

[1:13:03] Zoning

[1:13:05] administrator to change his mind and

[1:13:08] what's interesting is uh and then I

[1:13:11] understand your point with regard to

[1:13:12] your hypothetical but the problem with

[1:13:14] your hypothetical is it does not also

[1:13:18] add in the condition that the Town

[1:13:20] Council says otherwise so now we are

[1:13:23] back to the point of the the the board

[1:13:25] of appeals believes that it can overturn

[1:13:28] decisions of the Town Council which goes

[1:13:31] to my point of saying at what point is

[1:13:33] that a misrepresentation to the

[1:13:37] public okay now and I'm and I'm going to

[1:13:39] finish answering your question too um

[1:13:41] because you mentioned that and I think

[1:13:43] did your question also include the the

[1:13:46] Planning Commission and make issuing

[1:13:48] orders with regard to the Planning

[1:13:49] Commission was that part of your

[1:13:51] question yes Planning Commission and the

[1:13:53] administrator I can't speak for the plan

[1:13:55] commission okay I'm not here to speak

[1:13:56] for them uh but I can tell you this uh I

[1:13:59] think it will be amusing that in this

[1:14:02] sense the board of appeals issues an

[1:14:03] order telling the Planning Commission to

[1:14:05] do

[1:14:06] something uh do me a favor could can you

[1:14:08] invite me to to when that meeting is

[1:14:10] because the Planning Commission will

[1:14:12] probably tell the board of appeals what

[1:14:14] they can do with your

[1:14:16] order so so but I I can't speak for them

[1:14:20] but I I think that will be fun to watch

[1:14:22] oh if if the Planning and Zoning admin

[1:14:25] ministrator or commission issues an

[1:14:27] order and the board of appeals decides

[1:14:30] that that order there's a

[1:14:33] misinterpretation involved in that

[1:14:36] order are you saying that this board

[1:14:38] cannot reverse that

[1:14:41] order again could you repeat the

[1:14:43] question because your question was was

[1:14:45] dealt with multiple people involved and

[1:14:48] ultimately I think the answer is going

[1:14:49] to be the same but um uh I'm going to

[1:14:53] ask you to repeat it thing because I

[1:14:55] want to make sure the record is clear as

[1:14:57] to what we're talking about because I

[1:14:58] can tell you where we're going to go

[1:14:59] with

[1:15:00] it if an order is issued by the

[1:15:06] administrator or the Planning and Zoning

[1:15:09] commission to a developer

[1:15:12] say and this board decides that that

[1:15:17] order um was an error because it it

[1:15:21] because it was a result of a

[1:15:22] misinterpretation

[1:15:25] CIF I can stop you there when you say an

[1:15:27] order was issued who issued that order

[1:15:29] that you just referred to Manning and

[1:15:32] only administrator or the commission

[1:15:34] planning on commission okay so they're

[1:15:36] the ones that issue the order yes okay

[1:15:39] and then you decide can you decide I

[1:15:42] apologize I want to make sure I

[1:15:44] understand it so the question is can is

[1:15:46] if can the board of appeals in essence

[1:15:49] act to overrule the Planning Commission

[1:15:52] and if the board of appeals thinks that

[1:15:54] the Planning Commission overruled

[1:15:57] something or made a

[1:15:59] mistake correct you know it's

[1:16:01] interesting I think that's that's in my

[1:16:04] if you want my opinion or I think you

[1:16:06] better raise that with the Planning

[1:16:08] Commission first because I'm not going

[1:16:10] to be telling with the Planning

[1:16:11] Commission what they can and cannot do

[1:16:13] in that instance they are an independent

[1:16:15] body they're an independent agency in

[1:16:17] this town and in essence the question is

[1:16:21] do you have the authority to overrule

[1:16:24] that other administrative body is in ESS

[1:16:27] is what your question is okay and you

[1:16:29] can ask them but if they were to ask me

[1:16:31] I would say no they're going to make

[1:16:34] their own decisions with regard to it

[1:16:37] and you know in essence and if Town

[1:16:40] Council says something different that's

[1:16:43] going to control in my opinion if this

[1:16:46] board has the power to decide and that's

[1:16:49] what the ordinance

[1:16:51] says decide on an order

[1:16:56] and if that decision doesn't result in a

[1:17:01] change what's the point when you say

[1:17:03] result in a change what does that mean

[1:17:06] well again getting back to let's say the

[1:17:10] Planning and Zoning administrator issues

[1:17:12] an order to a

[1:17:14] developer and this and and that

[1:17:17] developer comes to this

[1:17:20] board and argues that the order was an

[1:17:23] error because of some

[1:17:27] misinterpretation and this board decides

[1:17:29] that that order would should not have

[1:17:32] been issued because of a

[1:17:36] misinterpretation that we cannot go back

[1:17:38] to that to the to the

[1:17:41] administrator to say reverse the order

[1:17:44] withdraw the order I want to make sure

[1:17:46] we understand exactly what you're saying

[1:17:48] okay because in this case it was not the

[1:17:51] Zone administrator it was Town Council

[1:17:53] who issued the order

[1:17:55] I talking about a general case I'm not

[1:17:58] talking

[1:18:00] about necessarily this particular case

[1:18:03] and and and I agree with you okay if

[1:18:06] indeed the zoning

[1:18:08] administrator has an application and uh

[1:18:11] and he makes a decision okay that is the

[1:18:15] purpose of the board of appeals is to

[1:18:18] for to have uh the public or the

[1:18:21] applicant over uh uh make that decision

[1:18:25] as opposed to the zoning administrator's

[1:18:27] decision in essence to show hardship or

[1:18:30] in essence that in essence you would

[1:18:32] have the ability to in essence have them

[1:18:34] make that decision now again we're

[1:18:37] talking General right we're not talking

[1:18:38] about this case because once you insert

[1:18:41] Council changes all the rules okay but

[1:18:44] the answer to your question is your

[1:18:46] question is correct because that's what

[1:18:49] the board of appeals is designed to do

[1:18:52] is the zoning administrator in essence

[1:18:54] to uh um have a remedy if they make a

[1:18:57] decision but the problem is is this can

[1:19:00] you order the zoning administrator which

[1:19:02] I think is what you are making making

[1:19:05] that thing can you order the zoning

[1:19:07] administrator to take that other

[1:19:08] decision no you would make the decision

[1:19:12] and overrule them but you cannot order

[1:19:16] them we overrule the

[1:19:20] decision but we can't change the

[1:19:22] decision by you cannot order them to

[1:19:24] change it you can overrule it but you

[1:19:26] cannot overrule them to change it I

[1:19:28] don't understand the distinction oh

[1:19:30] there's a huge distinction massive

[1:19:32] distinction okay because in essence they

[1:19:35] make a decision and then they have a

[1:19:37] question and then they go to the board

[1:19:38] of appeals in order to um you know uh

[1:19:42] determine if indeed there is a hardship

[1:19:45] because that's what the board is

[1:19:47] establishing hardships uh let's say somebody has a deck okay and

[1:19:52] you guys see it all the time about

[1:19:54] somebody saying you know I've got a deck

[1:19:57] and all of a sudden it's and I have to

[1:19:59] put it two feet into the setback okay

[1:20:02] and it's a corner area and it's no big

[1:20:04] deal and the neighbor says sure I like

[1:20:07] my neighbor go ahead and put the deck in

[1:20:09] there zoning administrator says I'm

[1:20:11] sorry all I can do is follow the rules

[1:20:14] okay I don't have the ability to do

[1:20:16] variances then they come to the board of

[1:20:18] appeals and say oh there's a hardship

[1:20:21] okay because this deck has a couple of

[1:20:23] feet that in essence and nobody cares

[1:20:27] now you guys are uh are with the ability

[1:20:29] to make that decision you can't tell the

[1:20:32] zoning administrator to change because

[1:20:34] they're required to follow the language

[1:20:35] of the law deck in the in the setback

[1:20:39] you can't have it but you guys can say

[1:20:42] deck okay we'll move it over what's the

[1:20:44] big deal and and then it can be approved

[1:20:47] can you order the zoning administrator

[1:20:48] to do anything no can you make that

[1:20:50] decision say yes we're going to grant

[1:20:52] that variance yes

[1:20:56] we cannot order a Planning and Zoning

[1:20:59] administrator to withdraw an order oh no

[1:21:04] I mean no absolutely not we can decide

[1:21:06] in order but we can't tell them to

[1:21:08] withdraw the order absolutely because in

[1:21:10] essence what you're doing is you're

[1:21:11] going to say hey you can hey you know

[1:21:14] you interpret the law however you want

[1:21:15] to interpret it you can violate the law

[1:21:17] if you want to you know no if you want

[1:21:20] to do that that's what your power is

[1:21:22] okay you can't order somebody else to do

[1:21:24] anything

[1:21:26] I have no further

[1:21:35] questions some questions and

[1:21:38] clarifications um you stated that the

[1:21:41] case that brought us all here is still

[1:21:44] pending because you didn't agree to it

[1:21:46] absolutely can you like we had an order

[1:21:49] to start this so how is it still pending

[1:21:51] oh because I I never consented to any of

[1:21:53] this and the judge the judge said you

[1:21:56] know judge wanted to dismiss it and I

[1:21:58] said absolutely not because if you

[1:21:59] dismiss it it's going to require me to

[1:22:01] immediately file an appeal because this

[1:22:04] is my belief that this whole process was

[1:22:06] inappropriate and wrong to begin with so

[1:22:09] it is still pending Mr Blitz and I have

[1:22:11] had what six continuances five whatever

[1:22:14] we got another one coming up in another

[1:22:16] hearing coming up in November which I'll

[1:22:18] speak to him about continuing that

[1:22:20] depending on where we are with that so

[1:22:22] but the case is still pending

[1:22:30] um you stated also that several

[1:22:33] officials Town officials had sent us

[1:22:36] letters right saying that we didn't have

[1:22:38] the right to tell them what to do

[1:22:39] paraphrasing right um so if it were

[1:22:43] determined that the code just say did

[1:22:46] say that whatever else code what code I

[1:22:48] mean like the just um the ordinance

[1:22:52] whatever the whatever our rule or

[1:22:54] whatever our rights are here let's just

[1:22:56] say the the TR the legal interpretation

[1:22:58] says we can are you saying that because

[1:23:01] a town official said we can't that

[1:23:04] suedes it I'm telling you say that well

[1:23:07] no you were saying you were saying that

[1:23:10] individuals Town Administrator Town

[1:23:13] Council you said people individuals

[1:23:15] wrote to us and told us we

[1:23:22] can't say individuals you was based upon

[1:23:26] who they are that's right right I was

[1:23:27] just wondering if you felt that they had

[1:23:29] more PLL than than the legal

[1:23:32] interpretation of what is actually in

[1:23:34] writing they might be the same they

[1:23:36] might be the same I'm just asking you

[1:23:38] because you told us because these

[1:23:39] individuals said

[1:23:40] so leg interpretation I'm not saying

[1:23:44] that I'm saying what you said is that

[1:23:46] these individuals told us we cannot and

[1:23:48] therefore we cannot are

[1:23:50] they you have a legal interpretation

[1:23:53] that indeed you have the authority to do

[1:23:57] that okay and if you read you know the

[1:24:01] ordinances and so forth and the statute

[1:24:04] that you know has been cited that we've

[1:24:05] been talking about in ordinance okay in nauseum if you read it it doesn't say

[1:24:11] that you have the authority okay not

[1:24:12] answering my question no no no I I am

[1:24:14] but the question is you know you're

[1:24:17] asking me to make the assumption that

[1:24:19] indeed legally you have the ability to

[1:24:21] do that legally you don't so so uh

[1:24:25] indeed if you think you do great okay

[1:24:29] then I was going to say what's going to

[1:24:30] happen is when you issue your order

[1:24:32] you're going to have to in essence say

[1:24:34] yes legally we have this ability and

[1:24:36] authority to do this XYZ okay it's going

[1:24:39] to come to me I'm going to review it to

[1:24:42] make sure that indeed in my opinion that

[1:24:44] indeed you do have the authority and

[1:24:46] then I'm going to present it to the to Z

[1:24:48] administrator okay but I'm not conceding

[1:24:50] at all that you have the authority to

[1:24:53] begin with at all that wasn't my

[1:24:55] question my question was about the

[1:24:56] individuals but okay okay go ahead the

[1:24:59] individual no I've asked and you have

[1:25:01] not answered but okay now please ask ask

[1:25:03] again and I'll see if I can do you were

[1:25:04] just stating that they said no and

[1:25:07] therefore the answer was no that we

[1:25:08] could not do this so do they have are

[1:25:12] they the legal say so as to what we can

[1:25:15] and cannot do that's interesting okay

[1:25:17] and you're you're saying that they said

[1:25:19] no so you have to follow them okay

[1:25:22] that's what I heard you say Okay um

[1:25:25] uh I'm what I in essence in saying that

[1:25:28] you have been informed that their

[1:25:31] position is that you have that you

[1:25:33] cannot okay their position okay so the

[1:25:36] question then becomes this if you engage

[1:25:38] in conduct that in essence when you have

[1:25:41] been fully informed that inessence of

[1:25:43] that and you decide to issue an order

[1:25:46] okay which can be viewed as harmful to

[1:25:49] the public then the question is with

[1:25:51] full knowledge as to what you've been

[1:25:53] informed by the Town Council then I was

[1:25:56] going to say I want to make sure you're

[1:25:58] aware as to where we possibly could be

[1:26:00] going with that okay because you have

[1:26:03] been informed that that in essence you

[1:26:05] don't have the authority now if you're

[1:26:07] saying you do great get some legal

[1:26:10] opinions from Mr susman okay because I

[1:26:14] can assure you you ask me a question I'm

[1:26:16] gonna give you a direct answer it ain't

[1:26:17] G to stop here okay so it's going to be

[1:26:21] yes Mr susman has the authority and that

[1:26:24] this board has that authority to

[1:26:26] overrule decisions of Town Council which

[1:26:28] in essence is what this whole proceeding

[1:26:31] is

[1:26:34] about okay moving on um so you said that

[1:26:38] um in regards to taking oath Mr Blitz

[1:26:42] changed his mind when did that

[1:26:44] occur you referenced that it occurred

[1:26:46] but can you tell us exactly when what

[1:26:48] point you're referring to were it

[1:26:52] happened at a meeting in which he got up

[1:26:54] and he said I'm not under oath I was

[1:26:57] never under oath

[1:26:59] and therefore I'm not under oath okay I

[1:27:03] just thought we might have that spe I

[1:27:05] understand we we all were I just thought

[1:27:07] perhaps you had it in your notes as to

[1:27:08] exactly when it

[1:27:10] happened go through my notes

[1:27:14] but off the top of my head I don't

[1:27:16] remember that but it was I can tell you

[1:27:17] this he was at the end of his

[1:27:20] presentation um so

[1:27:25] the abilities that this group has and

[1:27:28] how we vote on different issues that

[1:27:31] come to us um when those are modified or

[1:27:35] created or whatnot who is the final say

[1:27:38] so I this all happened before I got here

[1:27:40] but do you have to sign off on all that

[1:27:42] for the legality of for the town's sake

[1:27:45] as to what happens what

[1:27:49] basic

[1:27:51] do if the board of appeals is going to

[1:27:53] issue an order and it's slop okay I'm

[1:27:56] not going to sit there and listen to

[1:27:57] slop watch slop what I'm

[1:27:59] asking that when when there are

[1:28:02] different rules that we have to adhere

[1:28:04] to and

[1:28:06] um I don't have anything in front of me

[1:28:09] um but whether it's you know how many

[1:28:11] people are on this board right how we go

[1:28:14] through these hearings different

[1:28:16] situations like that right these are

[1:28:18] this is a legal thing so being the

[1:28:21] attorney for the town is that in your

[1:28:23] purview to look at all the rules for the

[1:28:26] different boards and committees to see

[1:28:30] if they're if we're following processes

[1:28:32] that are legal or no o over overturn

[1:28:35] sure but in essence Mr susman is the

[1:28:39] board's lawyer okay so in essence on on just to make sure that indeed Things

[1:28:45] Are Not Unusual sure sure I've reviewed

[1:28:47] all the rules for all of the all the

[1:28:49] administrative boards you know in the

[1:28:51] town sure okay well because you stated

[1:28:53] that whether there's three of us that

[1:28:55] Vote or five of us that vote it's all

[1:28:58] wrong um so that implies that the very

[1:29:01] basis

[1:29:03] of our being is flawed no and I'm just

[1:29:08] wondering how then are you interpreting

[1:29:11] that whether it's three or five or wrong

[1:29:14] no no if indeed there was uh evidence

[1:29:18] which was been presented and in essence

[1:29:20] because a couple of members didn't make

[1:29:23] proceedings then yes uh it would be

[1:29:25] three that would have to make the

[1:29:27] decision okay because U you know Mr

[1:29:29] sesman and I discussed it early on

[1:29:32] because in essence uh the code does not

[1:29:34] permit you to go watch it on the video

[1:29:36] tape okay but the problem is that now

[1:29:40] when they in Ence I've changed my mind

[1:29:43] for that almost what 30 some hours of

[1:29:46] was it testimony or evidence or whatever

[1:29:49] it is what was it I don't know okay but

[1:29:53] what's important is

[1:29:54] we don't know what it is so in essence

[1:29:57] you're not held by that standard anymore

[1:30:00] because in essence we don't know what

[1:30:02] evidence or testimony came in didn't

[1:30:04] come in was applicable not applicable

[1:30:07] nobody knows anymore because that's the

[1:30:09] way the hearing preceded now the

[1:30:11] question is because we don't know

[1:30:14] whatever that

[1:30:16] was where does that leave the board I

[1:30:19] don't know okay and I can tell you one

[1:30:21] way or the other who knows uh and I can

[1:30:25] tell you I have never heard of a

[1:30:26] situation in which what happened never

[1:30:29] even heard of it so in

[1:30:31] Ence however happened then I would say

[1:30:35] part of that's going to have to be yes

[1:30:37] we have the ability to vote this way

[1:30:41] but I can tell you it is not it is not

[1:30:44] going to be enforced one way or the

[1:30:47] other okay and I was going to say it's

[1:30:49] going to have to be some type of Appel

[1:30:51] of Judges come up because I I've never

[1:30:52] even heard of a case like that

[1:30:56] right thanks for the

[1:31:00] clarifications any further questions Mr

[1:31:05] pounds okay thank you Mr pounds okay and

[1:31:08] I can tell you Mr chair you know I'm I'm

[1:31:10] somebody who is believes in being open

[1:31:12] you know we're going to have another

[1:31:13] hearing on what I think is the 13th if

[1:31:16] somebody has another

[1:31:17] question I'll answer it okay I mean so I

[1:31:20] mean I'm not going to sit there and say

[1:31:22] this is it it's all done I mean just you

[1:31:24] know I'm here I'll be available it works

[1:31:27] okay um is there any other business

[1:31:31] actually let me I have a point if you're

[1:31:34] ready to hear it yeah so there was a lot

[1:31:36] of discussion about an

[1:31:39] issue there was a lot of discussion just

[1:31:41] now about an issue that I have no idea

[1:31:44] what it is and why it's being talked

[1:31:47] about and apparently there's been

[1:31:48] discussions outside the context of this

[1:31:51] hearing about the number of people who

[1:31:54] can vote on this thing that was never

[1:31:56] brought up and discussed and you haven't

[1:31:57] heard my input on that point so what are

[1:32:00] we talking about apparently there's some

[1:32:02] issue that hasn't been part of the

[1:32:06] record this is a proceeding issue all

[1:32:08] this Mr Mr Suman would you like to

[1:32:11] summarize the issue Mr Bliss is that

[1:32:14] under the uh town code uh a decision of

[1:32:18] the board had to be made by uh a

[1:32:21] majority of the entire board who

[1:32:24] attended the

[1:32:30] proceedings and just for clarification

[1:32:32] so Mr susman and I haven't had any

[1:32:34] expart communication he was sitting up

[1:32:36] there and we said how many the number

[1:32:38] and I looked at him I said three and he nodded so that's how that is all

[1:32:42] the discussions he and I have had on

[1:32:45] it okay so at some point I'm going to do

[1:32:50] a my opinion on that that issue or do

[1:32:53] you not even need my op no I welcome it

[1:32:56] I mean I I welcome Mr blitz's opinion

[1:32:58] and um send me a copy too I mean so I

[1:33:01] can review that so yes I'm not gonna

[1:33:04] provide it in writing I'm gon provide it

[1:33:05] to the board in in an open

[1:33:08] meeting maybe uh provided at the next

[1:33:11] meeting yes that's what I would

[1:33:14] suggest what what provision of the town

[1:33:18] code you don't you if you don't know

[1:33:20] then don't I'll look I don't have it

[1:33:22] right here in front of me in the

[1:33:25] board's describing the board's Authority

[1:33:35] yes thank you okay um so we are

[1:33:38] announcing the next meeting which is

[1:33:40] November 13 2024 at 6:30 p.m. um because

[1:33:44] we have concluded uh the town's

[1:33:46] presentation and questioning this

[1:33:48] session will be a dedicated meeting to

[1:33:50] receive public comments if members of

[1:33:52] the public would like to be heard and

[1:33:54] November 13th 6:30 p.m. is when they

[1:33:57] should attend um that is all we will do

[1:34:00] during that particular session if it's

[1:34:02] five minutes if it's five minutes if it

[1:34:03] goes on it goes on um okay uh is there

[1:34:08] any other business before the board at

[1:34:10] this

[1:34:11] time hearing none I'll entertain a

[1:34:14] motion to

[1:34:15] adjourn I will make a motion to adjourn

[1:34:18] second second all in favor hi meeting's

[1:34:21] adour thank you

[1:34:47] here presuming that we're going to need

[1:34:50] a December me

Board of Appeals Case#2023-03 Rod n Reel Con't Hearing

Transcript