[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