[0:01] good okay uh welcome everybody this is

[0:04] the call to order for the chese beach

[0:06] board of appeals um this is March 6

[0:09] 2025 uh we are here today to approve

[0:12] some meeting minutes and deliberate on

[0:14] case

[0:16] 20233 um as normal we begin with a roll

[0:18] call for board members please announce

[0:20] if you are here uh Mr Paul dhy presid

[0:24] Miss Amy Everett pres I am Mr jod Hoon

[0:27] star we have a quorum um I'm going to go

[0:30] through and do a bulk meeting minutes

[0:33] approval um this would be for all the

[0:36] meeting minutes for case

[0:37] 20233 for the minutes of October 21st

[0:42] 2024 then January 15 2025 and that has

[0:46] both an open and close session um the

[0:50] February 3rd Special meeting which was

[0:52] to open and then go into a February 3D

[0:55] close

[0:57] session uh everyone cool with that okay

[1:01] um does anybody have any changes or

[1:04] issues with the minutes as they are as

[1:07] they've

[1:08] been okay in that case I will entertain

[1:11] a motion to approve uh the minutes in

[1:13] bulk I move to approve them in bulk I

[1:16] will second

[1:18] that everybody thank you okay we now

[1:21] move on to the board of appeals

[1:23] continuation uh as normal of case 20233

[1:26] Rod real Incorporated Donovan estate's

[1:28] LLC to consider an application from the

[1:30] rod re Incorporated Don states of 4160

[1:33] meor Avenue ches Beach Maryland for a

[1:35] decision on interpretation or leged

[1:36] error uh to article 6 section 29023 2931

[1:40] A1 and A6 of the Chesapeake Beach zoning

[1:42] ordinance and C309 c310 c311 of the

[1:45] Chesapeake Beach toown Charter uh

[1:47] applicant requests the Chesapeake Beach

[1:49] zoning board of appeals to quote order

[1:51] the zoning administrator and planning

[1:52] and zoning commission to immediately

[1:54] commence and prioritize the processing

[1:56] and review of the relevant site plan

[1:58] submitted by the rod uh Incorporated

[2:00] down in Estates uh and that the zoning

[2:02] administrator and planning and zoning

[2:04] commission be ordered to apply the

[2:05] zoning ordinances in effect as of

[2:06] January 29 20121 when the applications

[2:09] were submitted and for such other and

[2:11] further relief as the nature of the

[2:12] cause

[2:14] requires okay um before we open the

[2:18] deliberations I just want to do a

[2:21] couple uh announcements in terms of how

[2:24] this is going to go um according to uh

[2:28] section 2932 L uh at the close of our

[2:32] last public session uh we have 120

[2:35] calendar days um to uh to deliberate and

[2:40] uh reach a resolution on this case uh

[2:43] the hearing has been extensive and in

[2:45] order to comply with this 128 limit we

[2:47] reserved three dates for this board to

[2:50] deliberate um today March 6th um at 6:30

[2:54] Monday March 17 2025 at 6:30 p.m. and

[2:59] Monday March 31st 2025 is 6:30 um all we

[3:03] might not use all these sessions it's

[3:05] unclear if we'll need them uh they'll be

[3:07] for a maximum of two

[3:09] hours um and the goal of these three

[3:12] sessions is to ensure that our legal

[3:14] council has adequate time uh to work

[3:17] with whatever determination uh is made

[3:19] by this board um at any point in time

[3:23] just kind of just a note for our board

[3:24] members if you feel like uh you have are

[3:27] at capacity for this particular meeting

[3:29] or one on the 17th feel free to just

[3:31] kind of raise your hand and say let's

[3:33] take a pause you can come back again at

[3:36] one of the later dates so don't feel

[3:37] like you have to um you have to feel

[3:39] rushed or if you'd like to to go home

[3:42] and reread uh certain things uh it's we

[3:45] can we can close this down early um if you so would like uh okay yeah thank

[4:09] you y that sounds good we can do that um

[4:14] one more bit of administrative advice

[4:16] which I don't uh think

[4:17] applies um for the members here today uh

[4:21] some concerns have been brought to my

[4:22] attention about whether board members

[4:23] can participate and vote on this case if

[4:25] they have not been present at all

[4:27] sessions uh this stems from rule uh

[4:30] sorry section 2932 C3 which states that

[4:32] all actions or decisions of the board

[4:34] shall be taken by resolution in which

[4:36] three members present during the

[4:37] proceedings must concur concur um our

[4:40] folks with a legal background have

[4:41] stated this they believe that this means

[4:43] only board members who have attended all

[4:44] sessions for case 20233 can sign their

[4:47] name to the board's decision um by my

[4:49] count we've had 18 distinct meetings for

[4:51] this case uh it's been over 500 Days

[4:53] since the first hearing nearly a year

[4:55] and a half uh the rules that govern this

[4:57] board unsurprisingly don't handle

[4:59] situations like this well uh members of

[5:01] this board of volunteers who have

[5:03] dedicated significant time uh outside of

[5:05] their home and work to improve the town

[5:06] of ches beach as best they can um as we

[5:10] proceed if other members uh aside from

[5:12] us three uh should attend later sessions

[5:15] um it's my intent to allow them to vote

[5:18] as they see fit and in the event we end

[5:20] up in a split decision we will revisit

[5:22] how that applies to uh the 290 32c rule

[5:27] that was just read okay that's neither

[5:29] here nor there since all of us have

[5:32] attended um okay uh we are ready to

[5:35] begin deliberation at this point in time

[5:37] I would entertain a motion to begin

[5:41] deliberation I move to begin

[5:43] deliberation I'll second that all in

[5:45] favor okay

[5:48] um so I think the board has heard a lot

[5:53] over these past meetings um and the kind

[5:58] of the first thing thing I guess I would

[6:00] like to do is offer an open session to

[6:03] board members um I'd imagine this would

[6:05] be more along the lines of an informal

[6:07] narrative for your full understanding of what you've seen so far um you don't

[6:15] have to but we've been sitting quietly

[6:17] for a long time would you like to wrap

[6:20] up your interpretation of of what's

[6:22] happened here so far in a couple

[6:23] sentences or should we

[6:25] just not I don't think a couple

[6:29] sentences suffices so for me that

[6:31] doesn't really

[6:32] apply yeah

[6:35] I I I wrote a lot of notes here and it

[6:38] might be

[6:39] helpful I've got a little

[6:42] um I don't know what you want to call

[6:44] sequence of

[6:45] events right so let let me read this if

[6:48] I

[6:49] can

[6:51] um so the so the appal on submitted the

[6:54] site plans January 29th 19 or

[6:57] 2021 and some of those plans were in the

[7:00] critical area the town

[7:03] code states that uh the commission the

[7:06] planning zoning commission must decide

[7:08] on a site plan in the critical are

[7:09] within 60

[7:10] days before that 60 days

[7:13] expired the Town Council passed a

[7:16] resolution placing a moratorium on

[7:18] review of category one site

[7:21] plans the moratorium was recommended by

[7:24] the Planning and Zoning commission as a

[7:26] temporary moratorium to last no more

[7:28] than 12 months

[7:30] the resolution passed by the Town

[7:33] Council also stated described it as

[7:35] temporary but with the expectation would

[7:38] last nine

[7:39] months um but then as the nine months

[7:42] was about to expire the Town Council

[7:44] took a positive action to extend it a

[7:46] three additional

[7:49] months that action implied to me that

[7:51] the moratorium was still viewed as

[7:56] temporary with a specific duration but

[7:59] then at the end of the 12 months it just

[8:01] continued with no action by the Council

[8:03] on the

[8:04] resolution so so at that point it

[8:06] appeared to me to have become a

[8:08] moratorium of indefinite duration with no end in

[8:13] sight it was not until a year later that

[8:17] the moratorium was formally lifted by

[8:19] the council so duration of approximately

[8:23] two

[8:24] years uh prior to that time the

[8:27] appellant attempted to have their case

[8:29] Ed by the board of

[8:31] appeals uh I believe it was in

[8:34] 2022 um the their application for an

[8:38] appeal was was

[8:39] refused turned back and the appellant

[8:43] filed with the Circuit Court to obtain a

[8:46] court order to have this case

[8:49] heard so so in my mind that that it's an

[8:52] unusual chain of

[8:54] events the other thing the other

[8:56] statement I wanted to make is that you

[8:59] know reading a a close reading of the

[9:03] code that that empowers this

[9:06] board um specifically appeals of this

[9:09] type is that

[9:13] um we are empowered to rule on Errors By

[9:16] The by the administrator or

[9:18] Commission on determinations decisions

[9:21] or orders resulting from errors of

[9:24] interpretation of the zoning

[9:26] code when they are acting in

[9:28] administrative Capac

[9:30] capacity so it seems to me to to focus

[9:33] the

[9:34] discussion we should look at those

[9:37] points where a decision or action was

[9:40] made and whether that resulted from a

[9:43] misinterpretation of the

[9:46] code and then we can rule on

[9:49] that um in few words I agree with you um

[9:55] this doesn't really fit with the

[9:59] timeline of events but one of the things

[10:01] I'm I'm concerned about is kind of

[10:06] treating our decisions in like a domino

[10:09] effect right where if we

[10:11] decide

[10:13] that um there was an

[10:15] error that the Domino falls into places

[10:20] that we may not have oversight right

[10:23] like a Town Council decision or

[10:26] ordinance or

[10:27] resolution um those to me felt like they

[10:32] followed from a potential decision from

[10:36] either the

[10:37] administrator planning zoning but I'm

[10:40] very hesitant to let that domino fall

[10:44] and knock over for the ones that seem

[10:46] outside the scope of this board um does

[10:49] that make

[10:50] sense I'm not sure I'm following you so

[10:54] I'm I'm hesitant to make any

[10:57] determinations regarding ordinances and

[10:59] resolutions

[11:01] from the

[11:03] town I'm I'm not say like I'm my my view

[11:08] of it is is

[11:11] that our Focus or our

[11:16] Authority is limited to decisions

[11:20] actions made by the the the zoning

[11:25] administrator or the commission

[11:29] we have no say in any decisions or

[11:33] actions outside of

[11:35] that decisions and actions made by the

[11:37] Town Council by the

[11:40] mayor I I don't think that's within our

[11:49] jurisdiction so I

[11:52] think I think that you guys are I'm kind

[11:56] of tracking with both y'all in in

[11:58] different ways

[11:59] um but I think

[12:01] that we do need to look at a timeline

[12:04] and see what decisions were made

[12:06] decisions by the the Planning and Zoning

[12:10] administrator commission right um but we

[12:13] also need to look and see what actually

[12:15] is in our purview and that any of error

[12:19] or uh

[12:21] interpretation that we need to look into

[12:24] has to be within this chapter and so we

[12:27] need to determine if there are any if

[12:31] there are any decisions orders whatever

[12:34] that we will say that there was an error

[12:37] but then we also need need to make sure

[12:39] that we are staying within the chapter

[12:41] that we are zoning yeah Z yes and I

[12:47] think that we need to decide if pieces

[12:50] and parts are relevant to our case as

[12:53] they might be outside of that

[12:56] chapter right so

[13:00] are are certain pieces of this

[13:03] moratorium a resolution are they outside

[13:05] of the chapter and if they

[13:09] are is that even in our purview so we

[13:12] need to find those critical points see

[13:15] if criteria is met and see if it even

[13:18] pertains to

[13:20] us I I think there were two critical

[13:23] points one is when the um when the plans

[13:27] were first submitted in 2020

[13:31] 21 the time period between when it was

[13:34] submitted and when the moratorium was

[13:37] passed by the

[13:40] council I think once

[13:43] the it was out of the hands of the

[13:46] zoning administrator out of the hands of

[13:48] the zoning

[13:50] commission so anything that happened

[13:52] during that

[13:54] moratorium I think is out of our purview

[13:59] yeah and and our Focus the second point

[14:03] is when the moratorium was

[14:06] lifted that those were the two that

[14:08] stood out to me too was that that period

[14:10] in which um prior to any discussion by

[14:13] the Town Council about

[14:15] moratoriums uh how how the applications

[14:18] were

[14:19] handled um and then again if we believe

[14:23] that the moratorium expired um my my

[14:26] notes Here say that you could you could

[14:28] take this from two sides one is um that

[14:32] yeah they the the Town Council got

[14:33] together and voted and extended it and

[14:35] then those extensions

[14:37] expired um and that that might be uh

[14:40] more from the perspective of the Roden

[14:41] reel and then the town might get

[14:44] together and

[14:45] say um that they it doesn't end until

[14:49] they voted on March 16th of 2023 to

[14:53] actually formally terminate the

[14:55] moratorium

[14:57] and it's it's a bit of

[15:00] a you know I don't really know what uh

[15:04] which ones

[15:06] uh yeah yeah I I don't feel that that

[15:10] the

[15:12] moratorium The Way It Was Written the

[15:14] wording I I don't

[15:18] think there would be there was an

[15:20] automatic

[15:22] expiration you don't think it expired I

[15:24] don't think it expired by itself okay I

[15:27] think it expired when the

[15:29] Council passed the resolution in March

[15:32] of 20 lifting the

[15:35] moratorium

[15:40] okay in that case that takes away one of

[15:43] my two the two points where I think we

[15:46] had to consider something was the the

[15:48] second of which was if the moratorium

[15:51] expired and

[15:53] the new zoning map and the implementing

[15:55] ordinances weren't passed and there was

[15:57] a a gap between an expiration of a

[16:00] moratorium 9 months plus three however

[16:02] you want to math it out and then the

[16:04] pickup of the um the zoning changes that

[16:08] was one of my second kind of inflection

[16:10] points

[16:12] but yeah

[16:14] I can't say I feel strongly about

[16:24] either either argument

[16:30] well let's talk about the the first

[16:32] point in

[16:36] time the this the site plans were

[16:41] submitted nothing happened with

[16:44] them as far as seven weeks before the

[16:48] moratorium so was there an error there

[16:50] on the part of the zoning administrator

[16:53] with a

[16:54] commission was there an error of

[16:57] interpretation what what is there an

[16:59] action or a decision I I think although

[17:05] well a week after the site plans were

[17:09] submitted zoning administrator sent out

[17:12] an

[17:13] email

[17:15] to the response letter there there it

[17:18] was an email right to to um Paul

[17:22] Woodburn with a cc to Mr

[17:25] Blitz stating that the the site plans

[17:29] were

[17:31] burdened a moratorium was being

[17:34] considered I I think that's evidence of

[17:36] a decision not to

[17:39] process the site plans at that

[17:43] time so the question is it was that as a

[17:47] result of a misinterpretation of the

[17:50] code yeah there was I can't remember the

[17:53] line I'd have to it would take me some

[17:55] time to find it but there was also a

[17:57] stipulation in

[17:59] uh in the zoning was the ability of

[18:02] Staff members to consult with additional

[18:07] parties

[18:08] um was was jabak I mean we can read into

[18:13] his letter that he had discussed what

[18:16] was going on with other

[18:18] parties um was he following his

[18:22] guidelines in making an appeal to the

[18:26] Town Council as part of his duy as was

[18:31] you

[18:32] know can you repeat that again sorry um

[18:35] yeah when

[18:37] um inferring from the letter uh let me

[18:42] pull the date

[18:44] on uh 25 pretty much the the second

[18:47] letter after the second event after the

[18:49] site planes were submitted uh it read to

[18:52] me that jabak had uh reached out to

[18:56] other members of the town to maybe

[19:00] discuss what was happening given his

[19:03] workload and the plans for the um the

[19:07] comprehensive

[19:08] plan and he went I'm inferring that he

[19:12] went and talked to them or sent them the

[19:14] site plans or summarize the site

[19:17] plans would that fall within his

[19:21] authority to consult with

[19:25] external agencies or I think I think the

[19:28] official language is to like consult

[19:30] with agencies or staff would Consulting

[19:34] the Town Council

[19:36] concerning this the action that they

[19:38] then took I don't know if I can say that was an error or if that was within

[19:44] his scope of authority as the zoning

[19:49] administrator yeah it's there's a lot of

[19:52] gray I'm not lay I don't remember any

[19:56] documentation yeah I don't think there

[19:58] was I don't think there

[20:01] was um did you say there

[20:03] was I remember reading about that I have

[20:06] to

[20:08] go did you hear that I just said that I

[20:11] remember reading that I just would have

[20:12] to go back and look where that actually

[20:14] was written um you summarize what you

[20:17] remember from that and we

[20:19] can just one the steps that they go and

[20:21] consult with whatever I mean you have multiple plans to be looking

[20:26] because you have to consult with

[20:27] multiple people about what's happening

[20:29] with the plan right in general I don't

[20:32] remember what I read at the moment um

[20:37] but do you believe that moment in that letter that was

[20:43] written was a pivotal moment and I know

[20:48] let's called it a pivot pivotal moment

[20:50] he said it the beginning of so in that

[20:53] regard the beginning of the what

[20:56] refusal right

[20:59] too much stuff so

[21:02] um but would you then think it was an

[21:05] error because of timing because of

[21:10] obligation to look at it to what what

[21:13] would cause that to be an error and I

[21:17] I'm wondering because I know that the

[21:19] 60-day mark that was brought up in this

[21:22] case that they were obligated to fulfill

[21:24] this their duties within 60 days um that

[21:28] was critical

[21:29] areas um and I still I still am not

[21:35] convinced that that actually pertains to

[21:38] all site one plans um because in the

[21:41] general Provisions it does not have any

[21:44] type of time frame associated with it

[21:47] and to think that crit those plans

[21:49] within a critical area had a deadline

[21:53] that was more so than others is kind of

[21:55] strange to me but I just don't know if

[21:58] they were

[21:59] at least all five of them I don't know

[22:00] if all five of them were required to

[22:01] have that no yeah the the timing seemed

[22:05] like a like maybe it wasn't a strict you

[22:08] know but there's another aspect to it in

[22:13] that there this a

[22:15] 60-day time

[22:17] limit the

[22:19] moratorium was imposed before that 60

[22:23] days expired but was there a 60-day time

[22:26] limit is what I'm is what I'm wondering

[22:29] I don't Yeah the code uh see I don't

[22:32] know that it's that clear I didn't I

[22:33] didn't read that that the my read of the

[22:35] code was section 290 d25 clearly says to

[22:40] me that uh the commission must decide on

[22:43] a site plan in the critical area within

[22:45] 60

[22:47] days

[22:49] so the ENT if you look at the

[22:52] entire if you look at the the the

[22:55] chapter and you look at this article six

[22:59] in its entirety everything is broken

[23:01] into site one versus site two site one

[23:03] versus site two um so I think that

[23:07] interpreting it yes it does say in that

[23:10] statement it does say that they shall

[23:12] approve a site plan within 60 days but

[23:15] it's also what is it that they're

[23:17] referring to in there and if there's

[23:20] ambiguity in that I'm not saying that I

[23:23] need to be the person that determines

[23:25] that wording but if you have a site one

[23:28] plan that's not in a critical area and

[23:31] then you have a site one plan that is in

[23:33] a critical

[23:34] area to say that the one in the critical

[23:36] area needs to be processed within 60

[23:38] days but the one with that's not in a

[23:40] critical area yeah I doesn't have a time

[23:42] frame that doesn't make sense to me I

[23:44] just don't think that it's all inclusive

[23:46] because it's only within the critical

[23:48] area section and each section divides it

[23:52] between category one and category

[23:54] two so I'm still I personally still do

[23:58] not believe that this

[24:01] is the absolute uh interpretation of

[24:05] this piece well even even if the 60-day

[24:09] limit did

[24:12] apply

[24:15] technically because the moratorium was

[24:19] put in place before the end of the 60

[24:22] days technically there was not a

[24:24] violation because once the moratorium

[24:26] was in place

[24:29] I don't think the administrator or the

[24:30] commission could do anything yeah I

[24:32] think you could I mean not to there's a

[24:35] lot of could have would a should of

[24:38] things that that definitely could be

[24:39] argued here but I'd have a if let's just

[24:44] say

[24:45] hypothetically that the moratorium was

[24:47] passed and then Planning and Zoning got

[24:49] up behind the lectern and said these

[24:52] plans are denied due to the

[24:54] moratorium I'm not sure if I could find

[24:56] an error in that

[24:59] but I don't believe that happened it

[25:01] didn't happen it didn't happen right

[25:02] that's the that's the like there's kind

[25:04] of like this implicit decision that was

[25:07] made by having a

[25:10] moratorium that that shortcut that I

[25:12] don't you know but maybe

[25:15] that's I mean because of that because of

[25:18] that sub you know the moratorium was put

[25:21] in place before the end of the 60

[25:24] days I don't see an error of

[25:27] interpretation

[25:30] it was certainly an action I I believe a

[25:33] decision by the administrator not to

[25:35] process the plans in anticipation of the

[25:42] moratorium yeah but but you know he had

[25:44] 60 days and um seven weeks went by they

[25:49] didn't get processed but then bang the the clock

[25:54] stopped so technically I don't see an

[25:57] error

[25:59] yeah and and

[26:01] I yeah an error on behalf of yeah his

[26:06] it's a narrow reading of

[26:09] it I realize but uh but you know also

[26:13] I'm I don't know if I can um Council

[26:17] indicated to me in a conversation

[26:20] that 60 days isn't a hard

[26:25] deadline because there's no um

[26:29] stated in the code do I what I said was that it could be argued

[26:36] that the 60 days was directory and not

[26:39] mandatory because uh there was no

[26:42] sanctions for failure to uh comply with

[26:46] that 60-day time frame now I'm not

[26:49] saying that's a a correct interpretation

[26:52] but certainly is a uh viable

[26:56] interpretation and and you know it

[26:58] doesn't the same thing applies to um

[27:01] other site

[27:02] plans right

[27:05] there code the code doesn't have a time

[27:08] limit an explicit time limit for non-tic

[27:13] site

[27:15] plans but then it also doesn't

[27:18] say well I mean I guess it's a judgment

[27:20] call it has to be the plan should be

[27:24] reviewed within a reasonable

[27:27] time there's no definition of that

[27:30] code so in the event that there is not

[27:33] an obligation to have a time period

[27:36] associated with

[27:38] it

[27:41] was was the letter from jacc at that

[27:45] point then the question would be is it a

[27:47] decision and was that decision was could

[27:49] it have been attributed to error if

[27:51] there was no timeline associated with it

[27:54] right I'm just looking at it both ways

[27:57] could since with that point

[28:00] but I mean yeah it's there's so many

[28:04] directions I mean it's

[28:06] like they submitted their site plans and

[28:09] didn't get an approval or denial they

[28:12] got something that looked like a

[28:15] denial is that like wasn't official it

[28:18] didn't have signatures on it I don't

[28:20] know if it matters no I don't agree with

[28:23] that I don't think it you could call it

[28:25] a

[28:26] denial um

[28:31] yeah could could not yeah I don't think I could call it a denial

[28:35] it's just a lack of action

[28:38] okay not an not a denial not an

[28:45] approval

[28:48] yeah I mean does yeah I I don't I don't

[28:51] really want to Devil's Advocate the

[28:52] whole thing

[28:55] but okay so I mean head back to decision

[28:59] points the second decision point was

[29:00] when the mor torum was

[29:02] lifted to

[29:05] rehear the to reopen this again the the site plans as they were submitted

[29:12] site plans review of the site plans was

[29:15] not picked

[29:17] up now was there an error involved there

[29:21] error Mis interpretation of the

[29:24] code was there a decision not to not to

[29:28] review the

[29:30] plans that's a little less clear to

[29:36] me can I thr another Wrinkle In go for

[29:38] it yeah so um

[29:40] jaak's letter stated two things though

[29:44] um it stated that it was a an undue

[29:49] burden to the commission because they

[29:52] were in the middle of the comprehensive

[29:54] plan so when the comprehensive plan was approved is that a point because I

[30:02] mean this really that letter if that is

[30:04] the beginning of the refusal was two

[30:07] prongs it was the comprehensive plan

[30:09] plus an upcoming moratorium which One

[30:12] jacu X letter exhibit 7 the February 5th

[30:16] letter that said hey this is too much

[30:19] for us to

[30:21] do so there were two things that

[30:23] happened there so in my opinion I made

[30:27] note

[30:28] that the comprehensive plan was approved

[30:30] later on and that could

[30:32] be you remember what date that was my

[30:35] note say April 21st

[30:40] 2022

[30:42] April was

[30:44] 421

[30:50] 22 so just to throw something else in

[30:53] there

[30:56] thanks um

[30:58] I mean like I kind of I I still like I

[31:03] feel like it all still comes back to the

[31:04] first event of not of of making a

[31:08] decision not to approve or deny the

[31:10] initial thing to kind of put it in this

[31:12] gray

[31:14] Zone um in which then led to the second

[31:18] point which is since it was neither

[31:19] approved or denied is it still open and

[31:22] should be reop you know I feel

[31:26] yeah but I think think part of what's

[31:29] getting me about this is that

[31:32] um the error is stated as um a Continuum

[31:39] um that it is from January 29th 2021

[31:44] till the date of the appeal so can can

[31:49] an error occur over that time period or

[31:53] is there a single event in which we are

[31:55] actually talking about so I was thinking

[31:57] about this one today

[31:58] and uh and I came up with an example and

[32:00] I'm going to I'm going to use our legal

[32:03] counsel and I'm going to say Fred you

[32:04] can you can holler me if I get this way

[32:06] off if I'm GNA do a crime I'm gonna

[32:10] extort Fred right um extort I'm going to

[32:14] extort you I'm going to say give me a

[32:15] bucket of money or I'm going to the

[32:18] cops the harm and benefit would be

[32:21] ongoing you'd be out of your money and

[32:23] I've got it but if this ever goes to

[32:26] court um I think if it's a statute of

[32:28] limitation things I only extorted you on

[32:31] one time right it's not like an ongoing

[32:35] extortion I have your money which is the

[32:37] harm and you're out of your money or

[32:39] sorry you're out of the money which is

[32:41] your harm and I have your money it's my

[32:43] benefit but that still doesn't mean it's

[32:45] an ongoing thing right it happened one

[32:48] time and I think that

[32:51] means I don't know in this case it would

[32:53] be that that decision point was the

[32:56] thing that would set something like a

[32:58] statute of limitations where even if the

[33:01] harm and benefit are still ongoing so I

[33:05] guess that's a round about way of saying

[33:06] an example of how I don't really buy an

[33:10] ongoing event that the harm is ongoing

[33:13] but the event itself happened

[33:16] on either the date that jabak sent the

[33:20] letter back or the date that the

[33:22] moratorium was passed however you want

[33:24] to whichever whichever time frame you

[33:26] think was the decision point there I

[33:29] think that's the

[33:31] uh that's the event

[33:35] right so that maybe says that it doesn't

[33:39] reopen if in the second inflection point

[33:41] that you're talking about I don't

[33:44] know well the question is should when

[33:48] the moratorium was lifted should the

[33:51] zoning

[33:53] administrator have picked up review of

[33:55] the site plans

[33:59] he

[34:00] didn't should should he

[34:03] have there was a lot going on right the

[34:06] comprehensive

[34:07] plan

[34:10] um well actually the comprehensive plan already been

[34:16] passed but there was a lot of change

[34:18] there's a lot of code changes that were

[34:20] occurring ordinance ordinances being

[34:21] pass to implement it but they had

[34:23] already returned the fees and for all

[34:26] intents purposes believe believed it was

[34:28] done so what was what were they supposed

[34:30] to pick up at that time well well that's a good point because there was no

[34:35] there was formly no application in

[34:38] place I think that one's fairly easy and

[34:42] that

[34:43] it it shouldn't have been I I don't see

[34:45] an error in not picking it up because

[34:47] from the administrator's perspective it

[34:50] was the issue was closed the event was

[34:52] done there was an attempt by the

[34:56] appellant to

[34:58] have

[35:00] the plans

[35:02] reviewed during the

[35:05] moratorium and that was rejected if I'm

[35:08] if I remember

[35:14] correctly I may be misre misremembering

[35:17] there was there was an

[35:20] event maybe it was the maybe it was an

[35:23] appeal application the it was an

[35:25] application for the

[35:26] appeal submitted in 2022 while the

[35:29] moratorium was still in

[35:32] place yeah I think I believe that's what

[35:34] I'm thinking

[35:36] of so the

[35:42] yeah

[35:45] um yeah because the appeal application

[35:47] was filed June 24th

[35:50] 2022 right so that's what you're

[35:52] thinking of right yeah

[35:58] thought I

[35:59] remembered an attempt to have

[36:04] the plans

[36:06] reviewed or a request to have the plans

[36:10] reviewed yeah so sometime after that

[36:13] sometime after the moratorium is lifted

[36:16] so um I have in my notes the

[36:18] comprehensive plan was um approved April

[36:21] 21st

[36:23] 2022 on May uh um yeah May 20th a month

[36:27] later Blitz wrote a letter um to

[36:30] planning zoning administrator and

[36:32] commission to have the plans reviewed it

[36:36] was that letter that was the response

[36:40] two days later come came from um

[36:43] pounds and he cced wall on that letter

[36:48] um I can I have it in here somewhere

[36:50] which um exhibits they are um but there

[36:54] was no indication in that letter that he

[36:57] was speaking

[36:58] on behalf of the Planning and Zoning

[37:00] administrator nor the commissioner or

[37:03] commission um and so he responded and

[37:06] that's when he's like oh it's indefinite

[37:08] um so that happened um and then

[37:15] uh so so then June 3 um Blitz wrote

[37:20] another letter two pounds asking who

[37:23] that letter was on behalf of and no

[37:25] response was received three weeks after

[37:27] that the appeal application

[37:30] occurred okay so two events what was

[37:34] that first date again of which the

[37:36] letter that requesting the review yes

[37:39] May 20th

[37:43] 2022 so that's actually in this timeline

[37:45] right here

[37:52] too right

[37:55] okay so in in my

[38:01] opinion that's that's

[38:04] when if we're saying that the moratorium

[38:06] expired with pivotal Point whatever

[38:09] else because in order in order to file

[38:12] the appeal you have to you have to have

[38:15] your concern brought up with the pl and

[38:17] zonian administrator right so

[38:21] um that could have occurred after the

[38:23] jcbc letter in February 2020

[38:28] right um or it could have occurred at

[38:31] that point too when they wrote back and

[38:35] said hey what's going on with this and

[38:37] got no

[38:38] response I think that that lack of

[38:41] response could have been a response

[38:49] too if we SP it that is a date

[38:53] right is that the third one we've got so

[38:56] far we have the initial response on

[39:01] [Music]

[39:03] 2521 oh so there's another aspect

[39:06] another point to that is

[39:10] that you know refusing to pick up the

[39:14] review of the plans in May of

[39:19] 2022 was that an error on the part of

[39:21] the Planning and Zoning

[39:25] administrator did the planning and

[39:26] zoning

[39:29] administrator was he obligated to was there even evidence that because the response came from the town

[39:38] attorney we have it's my opinion that we

[39:42] were given no evidence to say that that

[39:44] came from plan and Zoning in any way

[39:46] shape or form correct correct so we

[39:48] cannot know if there was any discussion

[39:51] or what not from what I have

[39:54] seen I see no indication of that so I

[39:57] mean I would be unable to rule that the

[39:59] that I I would say that that's out of

[40:02] our bounds

[40:04] because it was not an action by the

[40:06] administrator of the commission unless

[40:09] the inaction was an

[40:12] action love that

[40:15] question but if the administrator or the

[40:17] commission was not

[40:21] involved in that

[40:24] rejection right well you could have that letter was a rejection and you can

[40:29] also have that the fact that it didn't

[40:31] come from Planning and Zoning right that

[40:34] they rejected it in the fact that they

[40:35] chose not to react to it and

[40:38] coincidentally the town sent something

[40:41] too so to me that wasn't done on their

[40:45] behalf

[40:46] because pounds represent

[40:50] represented the mayor and the Town

[40:52] Council and that letter did not CC the

[40:55] planning and zoning

[40:57] anybody I agree with that so that's also

[41:00] my so so is that something we could rule

[41:03] on at refusal I I think that's outside

[41:06] our

[41:10] bounds but the fact that letter was

[41:13] written to the pl and zonian

[41:15] administrator unless male fraud

[41:18] occurred he received it we just didn't

[41:21] hear

[41:23] anything I think you

[41:25] said uh I said that if the letter was

[41:28] sent unless mail fraud occurred or

[41:29] something the Planning and Zoning

[41:30] administrator and the commission still

[41:32] received the letter I would hope they re

[41:35] still receive the

[41:37] letter that being said we didn't receive

[41:40] something before too so I don't know

[41:43] this is the may may 2022 the letter

[41:47] asking for site plan

[41:49] review after

[41:51] the right in the yeah

[41:59] let's go back to March of

[42:02] 2023 when the moratorium was

[42:06] lifted and the site the review of the

[42:10] site plans was not

[42:12] started is that an error is that

[42:15] a something we can rule on I

[42:18] don't I mean so so what they have I have

[42:21] this

[42:22] in um this is this is the timeline

[42:26] pulled from the

[42:28] code uh which would be um that the let's

[42:34] see uh in uh November

[42:37] 22 is a zoning Amendment zoning

[42:40] map then March of 23 is the termination

[42:43] of the moratorium so even then and and

[42:47] uh Along on same date of uh March 23

[42:51] there's an additional zoning amendment

[42:52] that

[42:53] passes I mean those those site plans are

[42:57] going to apply to old the old rules

[42:59] which is kind of the whole reason we're

[43:02] here right um I can't I can't see that

[43:06] as being a decision point because those

[43:07] are

[43:09] so uh out of whack right those we we

[43:12] haven't looked into the differences in

[43:15] zoning and I don't think we

[43:16] should um but the idea that they could

[43:20] pick

[43:21] up uh two-year-old site plans with a new

[43:26] certainly you can and if you decide that

[43:28] you're going to um review them against

[43:31] whatever whatever code is in place at

[43:34] that

[43:36] moment you could it's a bit of a stretch

[43:39] for me but

[43:41] well you know it

[43:44] wasn't I mean there wasn't an explicit

[43:46] request at that time to review the

[43:49] plans against the code of

[43:55] 2021 it it would be like

[43:57] submitting a new let's let's say you

[44:00] submitted the plans

[44:03] fresh in March of

[44:07] 2023 those same plans would get reviewed

[44:10] against the code that existed at that

[44:16] moment

[44:18] yeah I mean but but but the point

[44:22] earlier I think is a good one in that

[44:28] although the plans were there there was

[44:31] not a formal

[44:33] application in March of

[44:37] 2023 to

[44:40] um have the plans reviewed I don't think

[44:44] yeah I don't think they be yeah I don't

[44:46] can't read into that I have a question

[44:48] how can the error occur in March of 2023

[44:52] when the appeal was filed in June of

[44:55] 2022 you can't have have an error

[44:57] occurred nine months after it says up

[44:59] until this point in but the appeal the

[45:03] appeal application was

[45:04] rejected so it wasn't so it wasn't there

[45:07] wasn't any appeal but it was but all of

[45:10] this is a continuation of

[45:13] that well why we're here today again the

[45:16] moratorium was still in

[45:18] place yeah I don't think the zoning

[45:22] administrator or commission could have

[45:23] done anything while

[45:27] the moratorium was in

[45:32] place I think I mean I think that's only

[45:34] it was only it when the moratorium was

[45:37] lifted in March of

[45:40] 23 that there could have been any

[45:44] progress but I mean I think the the

[45:46] applicant would I think there was not

[45:47] any progress was that an error was that

[45:50] an error of

[45:54] interpretation we're we're trying to

[45:55] rule on the action of the zoning

[45:58] administrator and the

[46:02] commission or decisions of those

[46:09] bodies

[46:12] okay are you gonna are you gonna clarify

[46:14] or you gonna I'm try to clarify on my

[46:17] own I'm just I'm struggling

[46:20] that the appeal

[46:23] application was rejected in 2022 too but

[46:28] not by us it never got to us hold on so

[46:33] we're talking about the appeal to come

[46:35] to before the appeals board the like the

[46:37] requests to come talk to us yeah yeah

[46:40] okay sorry I just clarifying

[46:45] um because that was yeah we're failing

[46:48] to process the site plans I don't know

[46:50] there's just once you file an appeal I

[46:53] mean review of the site plans is put on

[46:55] hold well actually I guess I don't know if it

[47:01] has to be put on hold but I think

[47:03] normally you file an appeal and any

[47:06] further reviews get put on hold until

[47:09] appeal's

[47:17] heard again I you know I think the start

[47:20] the clock doesn't restart until March of

[47:24] 23 I yeah I don't think

[47:34] yeah to me there's only one there's only

[47:37] one decision Point by zoning

[47:40] administrator and planning zoning and

[47:41] that's the first one which is the the

[47:44] jabak response letter and kind a

[47:47] subsequent subsequent fils I don't think

[47:48] that the

[47:51] like there's a whole bunch of mess with

[47:53] the the

[47:54] moratorium and all that but I think the

[47:58] and there's a lot of could have would

[48:00] have should have in a lot of directions

[48:02] but I think the only

[48:03] one that really just stands out to me is

[48:06] did Mr dubak make a

[48:09] mistake an error according to the rules

[48:13] by which we are

[48:15] guided in February of 2021 or

[48:20] roundabouts roundabouts there um and I

[48:22] think that's kind of why I was talking

[48:24] about all that Domino stuff at the

[48:25] beginning was cuz like

[48:27] I think what the applicant would like us

[48:29] to do is find that that was an error

[48:32] which then knocks over some things which

[48:34] are outside the scope of this board what do you think was happening in March

[48:39] of

[48:40] 2023 I mean it's it's more that I don't

[48:45] think I don't think anybody I mean

[48:48] reading it maybe reading it I don't

[48:50] think anybody wants that is like the

[48:53] these site plans were submitted lawfully

[48:56] on a date and they were planned for that

[49:01] specific version of the law and the

[49:04] zoning code and anything other than that

[49:08] I don't think is that's that's the

[49:10] starting point the starting point that's

[49:12] the only point because like if they

[49:14] let's say that got reopened after all

[49:17] these zoning ordinances I don't think I

[49:19] can't imagine the applicant would be

[49:21] terribly happy with that probably would

[49:23] end another that's really not the point is that

[49:28] uh you know should should have should the plans have been reviewed

[49:34] in March of

[49:37] 2023 and and I guess there was no formal

[49:40] application to me the answer is a pretty

[49:43] clear no not not whether they would have

[49:46] been rejected because the the zoning

[49:48] code

[49:50] changed me that's that's not pertinent

[49:54] they they they may well have been

[49:56] rejected because the zoning code had

[49:58] changed but the fact that they the

[50:00] review was not started restarted at that

[50:04] point um and there was no formal

[50:10] application made you know the only the

[50:13] only formal application to review the

[50:15] site plans

[50:16] was

[50:21] 2021 I think as you're continuing to

[50:25] discuss and Del R this uh if you find uh

[50:32] or get to the point where you think that

[50:36] 2021 uh email was a

[50:41] determination then one of the other

[50:43] things you need to consider is whether

[50:45] there was a timely appeal from that

[50:48] determination Mr chairman can I add for

[50:52] five yeah let's take uh let's take 10 uh

[50:55] we'll resume at uh 7:30

[50:57] 30 yep

[51:55] you

[52:25] e e

[53:38] okay

[54:21] that's good

[54:31] you like those

[55:01] was it

[55:19] [Music]

[55:29] just stick out

[56:07] oh did you go to the Arctic or the

[56:09] Antarctic Antarctic Antarctic okay I

[56:12] thought that was where well

[56:17] December a trip

[56:27] kind a buck

[56:39] thing

[56:40] um I had two opportunity to go

[56:48] pass tell you what it's far

[56:52] away yeah Tak a long time to get there

[56:56] did you go

[56:58] artina flew to

[57:02] buies and then spent a night in bonus

[57:05] Aries and flew down to the southern tip

[57:08] of South America and

[57:13] on check you

[57:15] out I was

[57:18] sweating you w three

[57:21] layers had to climb a a steep snow back

[57:25] to get there

[57:27] to get to this

[57:28] point and I'm carrying this 50 pound

[57:31] camera a big long but you got a cool

[57:34] picture

[57:43] [Music]

[57:50] yes is everybody

[57:53] good y turn your mic back on if you

[57:55] would

[57:57] uh all right we are resuming after our

[58:00] short

[58:01] break

[58:03] um I think you should feel free if there

[58:05] are things that like this

[58:07] is very much a disc like just just get

[58:10] it out if you want to there's things on

[58:12] your list that you'd like to talk about

[58:14] even if it's not necessarily in the

[58:17] context which we have you know kind of

[58:20] centered around a couple things if

[58:21] there's other other issues you'd like to

[58:24] um

[58:26] you'd like to chat about before

[58:29] we I don't really have an agenda for

[58:32] where we go from here um I think at some

[58:35] point we'll want to walk through some of

[58:38] the specifics of where these particular can we check

[58:44] these boxes in terms of process but

[58:49] um yeah do you have anything you want to

[58:52] go totally random you were asking before

[58:54] about who tubak would have given those

[58:57] plans to you were saying when you know

[59:00] it takes time once the administrator

[59:02] gets the plans doesn't he do something

[59:04] with them he talks to people whatever

[59:06] else so it

[59:08] um the processing procedure after

[59:11] submission says the administrator shall

[59:12] review the applications for completeness

[59:14] and will refer the applications to the

[59:16] appropriate individuals for agent or

[59:18] agencies for review comment approval

[59:20] Etc so whether he started that process I

[59:24] don't I don't know but I'm just saying

[59:25] that's where I read yeah yeah and that was my read on it was that was that

[59:29] even though it

[59:30] doesn't that maybe sounds like talk to

[59:34] State agencies or whatever it is that is

[59:37] in the purview of his job that talking

[59:39] to staff for the Town Council would also

[59:43] fall into that that was my read on that

[59:45] particular but I think we have to keep

[59:47] in mind at no point did we actually hear

[59:49] from chubak so we have no idea if Beyond

[59:54] things such as that letter we have have

[59:56] no idea what Communications actually

[59:58] occurred um whether with anybody in one

[1:00:01] of the parties or otherwise we don't

[1:00:05] know so I think that's that's something

[1:00:08] that's really important that we only

[1:00:11] have part of that

[1:00:15] picture so let me bring up another

[1:00:18] Point let's say that we

[1:00:23] decide that there was a Mis

[1:00:26] interpretation there was an error on the

[1:00:27] part of the the administrator or

[1:00:32] commission you know decision is

[1:00:35] resulting from

[1:00:39] misinterpretation the the appeal asks

[1:00:43] that

[1:00:45] we we request the the U administrator to

[1:00:49] immediately commence the processing and

[1:00:52] review of the site plans according to

[1:00:55] the the zoning code that was in place in

[1:01:01] 2021 are we able to do that is that

[1:01:04] within our

[1:01:06] powers because if it's

[1:01:10] not then whether or not there was an

[1:01:13] error is

[1:01:16] irrelevant I think we'd still have to do

[1:01:18] it um do what to make to make that

[1:01:21] decision even if we didn't have I think

[1:01:24] it would we'd effectively be a speed

[1:01:25] bump and a different legal battle which

[1:01:27] is that we can make our decision but if

[1:01:30] but but if we decided there was that there was an an

[1:01:37] error request the the administrator to

[1:01:41] immediately pick up review the site

[1:01:43] plans I I think that in in order to do

[1:01:47] that though we have to find that not

[1:01:48] only is there an

[1:01:49] error that was an appealable offense but

[1:01:53] that the appeal was done properly and

[1:01:56] everything leading up well let's assume

[1:01:57] that we we decide

[1:02:01] okay if we don't have the

[1:02:04] power to request or tell or order the

[1:02:09] administrator to review the

[1:02:12] plans against the the code that existed

[1:02:15] in

[1:02:18] 2021 then there's no point there is a

[1:02:22] bit of that um we we would have to deny

[1:02:25] the the the request Den I the appeal

[1:02:28] because if we're not able if we don't

[1:02:30] have the

[1:02:31] power to um ask the administrator order

[1:02:37] the administrator whatever to go back

[1:02:40] and use the 2021

[1:02:41] code then automatically we'd have to

[1:02:45] deny the appeal I don't know if we'd

[1:02:46] have to deny it I think I think we could

[1:02:49] make a decision without any enforcement

[1:02:52] we ultimately don't have any enforcement

[1:02:54] power we are are a second review of the

[1:02:59] powers that exist for planning and

[1:03:02] zoning and the zoning administrator I

[1:03:04] mean I think a lot some of the requests

[1:03:06] were for for us to do some of the work

[1:03:09] that other other folks within the town

[1:03:12] do was a little too far for me but I

[1:03:15] think we'd be well within our our powers

[1:03:19] if if all of the check if we go down the

[1:03:22] list and we find that all the all the requirements been satisfied and that

[1:03:27] an error was made that the role of this

[1:03:31] the board would stop as soon as we made

[1:03:33] the decision that an error like that

[1:03:35] this was an error on behalf of planning

[1:03:38] and zoning and the zoning administrator

[1:03:40] I I don't think we want to go any

[1:03:43] further than that um but but again the

[1:03:47] requests it's a two it's a two-part

[1:03:53] request request that the administrator

[1:03:55] pick up review of the plans and that the

[1:03:59] plans would be reviewed against the

[1:04:01] ordinances from

[1:04:04] 2021 yeah I mean if if you can only

[1:04:07] fulfill one but not the other I don't I

[1:04:10] mean I could see a scenario where we'd

[1:04:12] say yes to both of those that is how it

[1:04:15] should have been we we'd be effectively

[1:04:18] winding back the decision clock and

[1:04:20] making that decision so we say yes and

[1:04:22] the zoning administrator says no I don't

[1:04:25] think we have from from the point at

[1:04:26] which we we say that this is how the

[1:04:29] decision should have been made I think

[1:04:32] we kind of can wipe our hands of it not

[1:04:35] we don't have enforcement Authority sure

[1:04:37] I agree do we if if we decided there was

[1:04:40] an

[1:04:42] error do we have the authority

[1:04:44] [Music]

[1:04:46] to I what's what's the

[1:04:50] wording there there's a difference

[1:04:52] between a request and an order right

[1:05:00] the the application asks that we

[1:05:03] order that the zoning ordinances in in

[1:05:07] effect as of January 21 be

[1:05:11] applied the request is asking for an

[1:05:14] order from

[1:05:16] us say you don't have to Grant the

[1:05:19] specific relief that the applicant to

[1:05:22] the appellant has out you have the

[1:05:24] discretion to other types of relief okay

[1:05:28] I view it like a variance if somebody's

[1:05:31] asking for a 20 foot deck and we give

[1:05:33] them a six-foot deck that's what we

[1:05:36] write that we are going to allow and

[1:05:39] then it goes to the other powers that b

[1:05:42] and it after that it's out of our hands

[1:05:45] and so just because that request came in

[1:05:48] doesn't mean we follow through with it

[1:05:49] as written is that fair I think we we'd

[1:05:53] just be saying that an error happened

[1:05:56] and and the remedy that we'd recommend

[1:06:00] would be these site plans be considered

[1:06:04] as of the date that they were filed

[1:06:06] against the current the town code and

[1:06:09] the zoning map and all the other things

[1:06:11] that apply at that time I'm not

[1:06:13] saying that's what we should do because

[1:06:16] that there's lots going on um but I

[1:06:19] think if if we went down that road and

[1:06:22] found an

[1:06:23] error just us determining the would be

[1:06:25] the where we

[1:06:27] stop assuming that you find that there

[1:06:30] was a timely appeal yes all that all of

[1:06:33] the all of the stipulations have been

[1:06:35] met and we find

[1:06:38] that

[1:06:41] yes the appeal needs to be filed within

[1:06:45] 30 days got a whole list of them here I

[1:06:48] don't I don't know if we want to jump

[1:06:49] into that thing here well there are two

[1:06:53] statements there are two statements

[1:06:56] though that say that so it was in the CR

[1:06:59] wasn't it just like in the critical area

[1:07:00] or something but that was stated it does

[1:07:03] say 30 days but it also States five

[1:07:07] days sorry what are we talking I

[1:07:09] understand that five days only applies

[1:07:13] to plan

[1:07:16] reviews

[1:07:19] or yeah I I I picked up on that as well

[1:07:26] there there's a five day I I I have the

[1:07:29] two 30day limit one is 29023 f right

[1:07:33] okay so you me to read it go ahead uh

[1:07:36] was an appeal made to the board of

[1:07:38] appeals within five days of the decision

[1:07:41] as 29023 F and the 30 days is was an

[1:07:45] appeal made to the board of appeals

[1:07:46] within 30 days of the decision and those

[1:07:48] are probably two different subsections

[1:07:50] my understanding is the five day

[1:07:53] limit regards a this

[1:07:57] ision pertaining to some aspect of the

[1:08:01] site

[1:08:03] plan because it's under the

[1:08:06] section under General requirements site

[1:08:09] plan General requirements section

[1:08:12] F any person aggrieved by the decision

[1:08:15] on a site plan of a site plan General

[1:08:19] requirement General requirement of site

[1:08:20] plan right made under this article May

[1:08:23] within five days of such a decision a

[1:08:25] appeal to and have a determination made

[1:08:27] by the board of

[1:08:29] appeals so that's the Fay one and then

[1:08:33] and and there was there was no decision

[1:08:34] made on a site

[1:08:36] plan well that's what we have to

[1:08:41] decide was was that in this what we were

[1:08:45] talking about before February 5th 2021

[1:08:47] letter was that my reading of that is

[1:08:49] that for

[1:08:51] example the

[1:08:53] administrator looks at a site plan and

[1:08:58] says this Dimension is not acceptable

[1:09:03] before the the the plan is

[1:09:07] rejected that's the five-day

[1:09:11] limit but that has that doesn't apply in

[1:09:14] this

[1:09:18] case I think that's an

[1:09:21] interpretation well yes but I mean it

[1:09:24] could here's the second one the second

[1:09:26] one is under subsection J of let me find

[1:09:30] the total title so I can actually tell

[1:09:31] you what we're talking about um this

[1:09:33] would subsection J specifically for the

[1:09:36] board of appeals so if you're if you're

[1:09:38] reading that you might you might say

[1:09:40] that the specific subsection for the

[1:09:42] board of appeals is the date that

[1:09:44] applies because it's more specific than

[1:09:45] the first and this is under Section J

[1:09:48] rules and procedures for f filing

[1:09:50] interpretation and variance appeals and

[1:09:52] special

[1:09:53] exceptions um and this number one

[1:09:56] general rules and procedures for appeals

[1:09:58] and applications and this specific

[1:10:00] language is any appeal should be made uh

[1:10:04] within 30 days after the date of the

[1:10:06] administrator's

[1:10:10] decision

[1:10:13] 43f see what it actually

[1:10:16] says uh and I don't think it was as

[1:10:19] narrow as Paul

[1:10:21] suggested any person agreed by any

[1:10:24] decision made under this article and

[1:10:27] that's the entire site plan uh article uh

[1:10:35] six May within five days of such

[1:10:38] decision appeal to and have a

[1:10:40] determination made by the board of

[1:10:42] appeals uh During the period of appeal

[1:10:45] no building permit shall be

[1:10:51] issued okay so we got two different

[1:10:55] time limits yep which ones apply it's

[1:10:59] the more specific one which would be the

[1:11:01] subsection this one the first the one

[1:11:03] Fred just read is in zoning General

[1:11:06] requirements the second one is specific

[1:11:09] to

[1:11:10] appeals I guess this one has the total

[1:11:12] board of appeals in it so um

[1:11:15] determination made by the board of

[1:11:16] appeals determin

[1:11:19] right you said you wanted to go through

[1:11:21] the rules didn't

[1:11:22] you yep um I mean

[1:11:25] we're outside of both of those either

[1:11:28] way right like

[1:11:29] this if we're going back to the

[1:11:31] specifics of this case would be

[1:11:34] like this these these like if I'm

[1:11:38] summarizing in human terms these this

[1:11:41] request was kind of left in limbo was

[1:11:43] neither neither uh I mean so so the

[1:11:47] letter gets sent back whatever you can

[1:11:49] we can whatever um it's neither appealed

[1:11:52] nor denied in an official capacity it's

[1:11:54] in this gray holding

[1:11:57] Zone I don't feel like we can apply

[1:12:00] either we can apply any limit date to

[1:12:03] that because it like it's kind of unfair

[1:12:07] right like we're just going to hold your

[1:12:08] applications for five days and neither

[1:12:10] appeal nor deny them but then we're

[1:12:12] going to hold you to the date at which

[1:12:15] we sent a letter so you know something

[1:12:16] it's

[1:12:19] like yeah agree with that

[1:12:22] sign I might I might take an argument

[1:12:25] something more along the lines of in

[1:12:27] official

[1:12:28] capacity the moratorium

[1:12:31] passing was ineffect to denial I could

[1:12:34] I'm not saying I'm making that argument

[1:12:36] but I could I would hear like an

[1:12:38] argument along those those lines where

[1:12:40] here's something official that happened

[1:12:42] with a stamp on

[1:12:44] it not it's not by the Planning

[1:12:47] Commission or

[1:12:53] by yeah

[1:12:55] so I feel like yeah I feel like if

[1:12:59] there's any date later than that it

[1:13:01] would be you know if there was a 60-day

[1:13:04] application period or whatever right a

[1:13:06] denial and lack of response whatever

[1:13:08] else and if that 60 days passes and

[1:13:10] nothing happens then that would be

[1:13:12] another potential but nothing no appeal

[1:13:15] no anything came of that so

[1:13:22] um I mean we can do the opposite in

[1:13:25] backtrack is to make this if it was

[1:13:28] timely what when would things have had

[1:13:30] to have happened but we have already

[1:13:32] eliminated that those options yeah I

[1:13:38] mean who who do we apply the rules to

[1:13:41] right like it there there are two cases

[1:13:45] where in order for the date to start

[1:13:47] we'd have yeah yeah it's not really fair

[1:13:49] but in order for the appeal date to

[1:13:51] actually hold with either one of those

[1:13:59] um it doesn't yeah I don't know that it

[1:14:02] even holds water with some of the later

[1:14:03] things I'm sorry that I was just looking

[1:14:06] to see if it would even hold water later

[1:14:09] on with some of the other events that we

[1:14:11] spoke about but we didn't believe that was anything having to do with

[1:14:16] plenty and Zoning so that would be I

[1:14:21] know was the check being returned

[1:14:25] was that an act of Planning and Zoning

[1:14:29] or right like there the so the they

[1:14:31] submitted an application money was

[1:14:34] refunded would that be considered an

[1:14:36] application of or not denial or whatever

[1:14:38] denial like decision decision I would

[1:14:41] say yes I mean it came from the Town

[1:14:43] Administrator but it came from the Town

[1:14:46] Administrator uh after the pl and Zoning

[1:14:50] administrators said no so

[1:14:55] to me that that is part of that but to

[1:14:57] me that's also part of his his

[1:15:01] letter even though it's technically a

[1:15:03] different

[1:15:04] date but that was not that was not a

[1:15:08] rejection on the merits of the other the

[1:15:14] S I think it's still lumped in with that

[1:15:17] February 5th

[1:15:34] H all right

[1:16:00] I guess I guess in in terms of

[1:16:02] determining if an error

[1:16:04] happened was there an

[1:16:07] obligation upon receipt of these to

[1:16:09] perform a series of right Mr dubak gets

[1:16:15] filings does he then is part of like

[1:16:19] does he need to complete a series of

[1:16:21] steps in order to have

[1:16:25] I don't know never mind just talking out

[1:16:30] loud I mean we can debate different

[1:16:33] things different steps like that but

[1:16:36] does It ultimately matter if we if we

[1:16:38] believe that a decision point was made

[1:16:40] at that point or anywhere time in that

[1:16:43] time frame right that he could have done

[1:16:47] that does it matter because what

[1:16:50] happened after that in a timely manner

[1:16:53] what I don't I don't no I don't think I

[1:16:56] don't see the utility in looking at that

[1:16:58] if since we need a

[1:17:00] set time and that's the only one we can

[1:17:03] find

[1:17:43] so do we want to just run

[1:17:45] down the like I have I have a list of

[1:17:48] kind of General process things and

[1:17:50] specific ones we already talked a little

[1:17:52] bit about the specific ones but like

[1:17:55] maybe maybe this will I don't know if

[1:17:57] this will help anything but start start

[1:17:58] on the general ones which

[1:18:02] is

[1:18:04] was the first one is was this offense

[1:18:09] appealable that's just these are just

[1:18:10] notes I have from some of our legal

[1:18:13] discussions about uh process issues what

[1:18:16] would make it not

[1:18:20] appealable if we found that there was

[1:18:21] not an actual error if we found back

[1:18:25] followed all well that's that's not

[1:18:27] that's a different question than whether

[1:18:29] it's appealable it's always

[1:18:35] appealable

[1:18:50] if it would be made appealable by being

[1:18:53] a decision of planning zoning or zoning

[1:18:56] administrator and what else right did it

[1:19:00] involve in interpretation

[1:19:02] 290

[1:19:10] ordinance that there was an error and an

[1:19:14] order requirement decision or

[1:19:16] determination made by the administrator

[1:19:18] in the enforcement of the zarting

[1:19:21] chapter or by the planning and starting

[1:19:23] commission so

[1:19:25] these are all I think preconditions to

[1:19:29] uh something being subject to appeal it

[1:19:33] has to

[1:19:35] be a an action or

[1:19:39] decision um on the part of the

[1:19:41] administrator or

[1:19:45] commission involving involing

[1:19:48] interpretation right right of any

[1:19:50] provision of the of

[1:19:52] ordinance or where's alleged that there

[1:19:55] was an error and an order requirement

[1:19:58] decision or determination made by the

[1:20:00] administrator in the enforcement of this

[1:20:03] chapter whereby the planning

[1:20:10] commiss keep keep on discussing the the

[1:20:13] next one I have noted down is is was it

[1:20:15] timely and I think that's one where

[1:20:18] we're going to have a hard time I think

[1:20:20] that's kind of what we were just talking

[1:20:22] about uh 35 days 30

[1:20:27] days like Gray

[1:20:30] Zone I don't think it's gray I don't

[1:20:32] think it's gray gray

[1:20:35] okay I

[1:20:37] think I think it can only be gray

[1:20:42] if we don't have a specific time that

[1:20:45] we're associating with if we think there

[1:20:46] is a time and it's a black and white

[1:20:48] issue that when it was filed what

[1:20:51] happened 30 days prior or 5 days prior

[1:20:54] whichever when you look at was that was

[1:20:57] that the the point we're talking about

[1:21:00] that so it's it's a black and white

[1:21:02] thing once we determine a time in which

[1:21:05] we think this error

[1:21:07] occurred it cded that February 5th of

[1:21:11] 2021 was the decision

[1:21:16] point then the then the argument would

[1:21:21] be that the appeal had to be filed not

[1:21:23] later than March March 5th of

[1:21:26] 2021 that what you're

[1:21:29] saying clearly it

[1:21:34] wasn't I think but I you know rejecting

[1:21:37] an appeal on that basis

[1:21:40] I makes me very very

[1:21:46] uncomfortable yeah I don't believe that gives the appen a fair hearing this

[1:21:50] one's this one's gray to me because of

[1:21:53] the the the whole in pen that the

[1:21:55] applications were put in like the the

[1:21:59] this holding pen where it was neither

[1:22:00] approved nor denied up and up until some

[1:22:03] different event if if you want to argue

[1:22:05] that like I don't I wouldn't feel

[1:22:08] good making a a determination based on

[1:22:12] Tim February

[1:22:14] 5th

[1:22:16] um

[1:22:19] email didn't make it entirely clear I

[1:22:22] mean it didn't come on right out and say

[1:22:23] we're not going to review the plan

[1:22:27] was was vague right well it's a burden

[1:22:31] there's a moratorium going to come up

[1:22:33] but the but the message did not say

[1:22:36] we're not going to review the

[1:22:40] plans other words I mean it wasn't a

[1:22:44] hard hard uh point at which you could

[1:22:47] start a

[1:22:49] clock to count for 30 days

[1:22:55] that's how I feel

[1:22:57] like the timeliness question is maybe a

[1:22:59] requirement of what we have to do here

[1:23:01] in order to to lay down a decision but I

[1:23:04] don't I I don't think that that question

[1:23:06] about whether the PE was timely I don't

[1:23:08] think that's an important question I

[1:23:11] think it's a really important question I

[1:23:12] think that's exactly why we're here like

[1:23:14] we'll have to address it because it's

[1:23:16] written in the town

[1:23:19] code yeah that's board can only

[1:23:23] entertain appeals that are timely

[1:23:26] filed I mean we could want to allow

[1:23:29] things but that's not in our purview to do that so the to me the only way

[1:23:35] that this is timely right so it was

[1:23:37] filed on June 24th 2022 was when the

[1:23:41] appeal was filed so going back 30

[1:23:45] days it's what May 25th

[1:23:49] 2022 because it has 30 days say the 24th

[1:23:53] um so that is 2 days

[1:23:59] after pound's letter saying that the

[1:24:03] moratorium was still in

[1:24:05] effect and four days after Blitz wrote

[1:24:08] asking for the

[1:24:09] review

[1:24:12] so so there was the request for it there

[1:24:16] was the denial by pounds which we are

[1:24:18] saying is

[1:24:19] not by Planning and Zoning right

[1:24:24] and then 32 days pass and an appeal is

[1:24:29] made okay we're talking about couple of

[1:24:31] different time periods when did the

[1:24:34] clock start on this 30 days how about we take this one and and table

[1:24:40] it I don't think we're going to get to

[1:24:41] an answer tonight but why don't we put

[1:24:42] this on the list of things to think

[1:24:44] about before we get back together again

[1:24:46] do you understand what I'm saying if

[1:24:48] you're if if if we if a person has 30

[1:24:51] days to appeal it and the appeal happen

[1:24:54] on this date what happened 30 days prior

[1:24:57] and in the midst of

[1:24:59] that so I I think that's we can yeah I

[1:25:03] think I think that's what we have to

[1:25:04] look at if if it is timely that's the

[1:25:06] only time period we have it was

[1:25:09] that let's get our thoughts together on

[1:25:12] this like I think I've heard what you said Amy

[1:25:16] and we can we can consider how we how we

[1:25:20] think so I don't think we're going to

[1:25:21] wrap this one up in the next you know

[1:25:23] number of minutes it's this is just a

[1:25:25] it's a thing to put a pin in on and lay

[1:25:27] out what you think and we'll come back

[1:25:29] together next time and this is one of

[1:25:30] the explicit things we can uh we can

[1:25:33] talk

[1:25:34] about so you're suggesting

[1:25:37] that the clock started in May of

[1:25:41] 20122 I'm not suggesting anything I am

[1:25:45] saying that if the

[1:25:47] timeliness is the factor requirement of

[1:25:52] an appeal you have have an appeal

[1:25:55] application that has to be filed within

[1:25:57] 30 days of the error or the

[1:26:00] interpretation right so you have you

[1:26:03] have a calendar date right there that

[1:26:05] you that limits that time

[1:26:09] period well another thing too is it

[1:26:11] wasn't actually found because it was

[1:26:13] never

[1:26:15] accepted you mean I think the DAT that

[1:26:18] one you mean you mean the the appeal for

[1:26:21] to us the paperwork for us yeah yeah

[1:26:26] when it was received by by the town

[1:26:32] yeah this one's a hard one for

[1:26:40] me there was an attempt to have an

[1:26:45] appeal there was an attempt to submit an

[1:26:47] application for an

[1:26:48] appeal and it was rejected it wasn't

[1:26:51] accepted rejected well huh we never got

[1:26:55] it you never got it but I think that

[1:26:58] there was an appeal

[1:27:01] filed with in a proper form with the

[1:27:04] filing fee everything that needed to be

[1:27:07] done to perfect an appeal was done

[1:27:10] whether from an appealable decision

[1:27:12] whether it's timely those are different

[1:27:14] issues uh but I do think that there was

[1:27:17] a

[1:27:19] uh an appeal filed now it never came to

[1:27:23] the board for scheduling a hearing you

[1:27:25] guys never knew about it until after

[1:27:29] there was a Judicial

[1:27:31] determination uh by the Circuit Court

[1:27:34] saying uh board of appeals you have to

[1:27:36] hear this case t uh in a timely manner

[1:27:39] now I don't know why uh this board did

[1:27:43] not know about it why it wasn't

[1:27:45] presented to you but that's not you know

[1:27:48] what we're here for yeah

[1:27:55] let's let's come back to let's get our

[1:27:57] thoughts on that one and come back

[1:27:59] um the next one I think the next couple

[1:28:02] I think Fred already hit on with under

[1:28:04] the the appeal is the was the offense

[1:28:07] appealable question which was the first

[1:28:09] one we talked about uh this is uh was it

[1:28:12] a decision of the zoning administrator

[1:28:14] or Planning and Zoning commission so

[1:28:17] whatever it is we're considering

[1:28:19] here was it just say we already talked

[1:28:22] about keep on um

[1:28:25] does it involve interpretation of 290

[1:28:26] zoning does it involve enforcement of

[1:28:28] 290

[1:28:34] zoning the answer to those

[1:28:36] is yes but regardless of how of which

[1:28:43] yeah

[1:28:50] um G is going to pitch this out here I

[1:28:53] feel like we maybe run into a little bit

[1:28:55] of a a little bit of a wall um does

[1:28:58] anyone have objections with wrapping

[1:29:00] this up 30 minutes early or would you

[1:29:03] like to continue working through this

[1:29:05] together I can I can go either way it's

[1:29:07] funny

[1:29:10] caffeine I guess my question

[1:29:13] is if

[1:29:15] we stop it now and pick up

[1:29:20] later what progress will we will we make

[1:29:23] at the second

[1:29:25] meeting um ultimately I don't think

[1:29:29] regardless of how fast we go in the next

[1:29:30] 30 minutes we're going to come to a a

[1:29:33] clean

[1:29:34] conclusion um I think there's at least

[1:29:37] for me there's some some things I'd like

[1:29:40] to lay out specifically on the

[1:29:41] timeliness

[1:29:42] question

[1:29:45] um I guess I don't see I feel like it's

[1:29:48] stalled a little bit here and that we

[1:29:50] would all benefit by getting our

[1:29:52] thoughts together as to how to continue

[1:29:54] to narrow our

[1:29:55] discussion um but that said I'm this is

[1:30:00] a little bit of a strange scenario

[1:30:02] because it is public and you feel like

[1:30:04] you don't want to ramble you want to get

[1:30:06] your your ducks in a row before you talk

[1:30:12] um but sometimes you just have to talk

[1:30:14] it out right so I

[1:30:17] yeah how do you feel what do you want to

[1:30:18] do Amy personal personal preference um I

[1:30:21] mean like I think that we have to meet

[1:30:25] next time anyways um I think and I think

[1:30:28] this would give us time then to evaluate

[1:30:31] you know the June 2020 to appeal the

[1:30:35] timing whatever I think that we could

[1:30:38] have more clarity in our conversation if

[1:30:40] we did that let's uh oh sorry Paul um

[1:30:45] what do you what do you feel like Paul

[1:30:46] if you're if you have a preference and

[1:30:48] how you'd like to proceed right now what

[1:30:51] would you like to do

[1:31:00] I don't

[1:31:01] know I hate to give up this I mean we we I don't know if we're making progress

[1:31:08] yeah I hear but at the same time I hate

[1:31:11] to give up the time how about this I

[1:31:15] think I feel like yes it how about we we

[1:31:20] look at your timelines and is there

[1:31:23] let's just lay out the times when we'

[1:31:25] like other board members to consider

[1:31:28] things this may

[1:31:29] be one time frame is can we can we

[1:31:34] narrow this

[1:31:36] to um an action or series of actions it

[1:31:39] sounds like we've maybe kind of

[1:31:40] informally done that but explicitly are

[1:31:44] there are there other are do you still

[1:31:46] think we should

[1:31:48] consider the

[1:31:50] reopening after the moratorium expired

[1:31:52] as an action to continue talking about

[1:31:54] or have we have we reached

[1:31:58] some some guess I'm reconsidering

[1:32:03] that we can okay let me let me go back

[1:32:06] to the 30 days prior to the filing of a of

[1:32:13] the appeal on June

[1:32:17] 24th what event

[1:32:20] happened within those 30 days and the

[1:32:23] only one I

[1:32:26] see is a letter from Todd pounds on May

[1:32:33] 25th so would we say that that May 25th

[1:32:37] 2022 letter is when the clock started on

[1:32:41] the 30

[1:32:45] days I think I think

[1:32:48] that the assumption would be that that

[1:32:50] would be the clock as far as when the

[1:32:53] appeal was made so we need to determine

[1:32:56] if that is a date that would allow that

[1:33:02] appeal I'm not sure what you

[1:33:05] mean well we said before that we

[1:33:08] believed well I thought it was kind of

[1:33:10] all of us it

[1:33:12] was if we believe that letter was on

[1:33:15] behalf of Planning and Zoning

[1:33:17] administrator and commission then that

[1:33:21] would be a moment in time

[1:33:24] that you could then appeal to because it

[1:33:27] was a decision however our prior

[1:33:29] conversation we all were kind of

[1:33:31] speaking to the point that we did not

[1:33:33] think that that was on behalf of the

[1:33:35] Planning and Zoning okay group so I

[1:33:38] think that

[1:33:40] that's that could be what was the basis

[1:33:45] for the appeal

[1:33:47] application but I think and if we had

[1:33:49] more you know a couple more days

[1:33:51] whatever else we could then really look

[1:33:53] into and see if that's what we thought

[1:33:54] it was are we missing something else

[1:33:56] that happened in the days

[1:33:59] after I think it was the 25th of May I

[1:34:02] misspoke

[1:34:03] before so if we decided

[1:34:08] that exhibit 33 if if we decided that letter on on May 25th was not on

[1:34:16] the

[1:34:17] behalf of Planning and

[1:34:22] Zoning then the clock didn't start and

[1:34:25] suddenly an appeal

[1:34:29] appears there's no clock running

[1:34:32] suddenly appeal

[1:34:35] appears

[1:34:37] what where's where's the where's the

[1:34:42] 30-day um rule

[1:34:46] applying right and that's why one reason

[1:34:48] why I think having it if we wait until

[1:34:52] the next session then we can wrap our

[1:34:55] heads around that and really dive into

[1:34:56] it to see was there something else that

[1:34:58] we're

[1:34:59] missing I don't know if anything off the

[1:35:01] top of my

[1:35:11] head so the

[1:35:13] three three dates we have noted down

[1:35:16] here as oh sorry are

[1:35:19] you what you going

[1:35:21] to go ahead I was just going to just for our

[1:35:25] own what we do once we're um Thinking by

[1:35:29] ourselves is the infle the inflection

[1:35:33] points are the initial jabak letter in

[1:35:36] February of

[1:35:38] 21 Paul has made uh some some had had

[1:35:42] some thoughts about

[1:35:45] 522 which what is is that

[1:35:48] the maybe I wrote that date down wrong

[1:35:50] was that the date that the moratorium

[1:35:52] expired no what sorry I was wrong may 2222 is what we're talking about

[1:35:57] right now is pound this is the pounds

[1:36:00] letter May 25th May

[1:36:07] 25th maybe

[1:36:09] one at the extended moratorium

[1:36:15] expiring

[1:36:16] on what date is that uh termination of

[1:36:19] it on in March of 23

[1:36:30] are there other dates or other

[1:36:36] things you can think of right now that

[1:36:39] we should consider while we're not in

[1:36:42] session I think I think the way to

[1:36:44] handle this to order for us to come to a

[1:36:48] conclusion is we come up with a list of

[1:36:52] relevant questions

[1:36:56] we

[1:36:57] agree as a board on the answers to those

[1:37:00] questions to each

[1:37:06] question and whatever those answers

[1:37:11] are once they're put together becomes

[1:37:14] our

[1:37:16] decision I'm going to caveat that by

[1:37:19] saying that I'm not sure that we have to

[1:37:21] all agree on everything I think we have

[1:37:24] to agree on an ultimate decision but I'm

[1:37:26] not sure we have to agree you know I

[1:37:28] think coming up with those two

[1:37:31] questions is is will help us

[1:37:35] Focus specific list of questions help to

[1:37:38] help us

[1:37:44] Focus can I be a devil's advocate so I

[1:37:47] think that that's that's a very likely

[1:37:49] scenario but I think that we have to

[1:37:51] also know that in an event like this not

[1:37:55] everybody's always going to agree right

[1:37:57] um and so it could be that our decision

[1:38:01] relies on the fact that we can't agree

[1:38:02] on it we just have to leave that open

[1:38:04] and it might be frustrating it's all

[1:38:06] hell for everybody here but that might

[1:38:08] be the result so just we're going to try

[1:38:11] to you know have this conversation all

[1:38:14] come to the same mindset but um just let

[1:38:17] I'm just throwing that out

[1:38:21] there because that's part of us well I

[1:38:23] mean how else so what other approach

[1:38:27] would you suggest oh no I think I think

[1:38:30] our our approach is good I'm just I'm

[1:38:32] just saying that I think that you know

[1:38:36] this situation there's only three of us

[1:38:38] and I think that there's a pressure that

[1:38:40] we all have to agree and I think we all

[1:38:42] want to come to the same conclusion or

[1:38:44] whatever it is right ideally that's what

[1:38:46] we do I'm just saying that doesn't

[1:38:48] always happen if we had a full board it

[1:38:50] might be a two three Vote or a 4-1 Vote

[1:38:52] or something sure but so we might not

[1:38:55] all agree and when you said answer the

[1:38:57] questions okay that's all I'm saying I

[1:38:58] thought you were saying going to help us

[1:39:00] come to a to

[1:39:03] a I don't want to say come to a decision

[1:39:07] because all three of us may not

[1:39:10] agree but what process is going to help

[1:39:14] us to to finish the conversation so I

[1:39:18] think we've already like not to maybe to

[1:39:20] over over recap of of what we've done is

[1:39:23] I

[1:39:24] there's there a lot A lot has been

[1:39:26] presented a lot has happened and from

[1:39:28] where I sit today I have not heard

[1:39:30] anyone make serious arguments that we

[1:39:33] should be considering anything about a

[1:39:35] moratorium resolution other than the

[1:39:37] start and end dates the only doesn't

[1:39:39] matter the interpretation of it the

[1:39:41] legality of it that is outside of the

[1:39:44] scope of this board which I think is a

[1:39:46] massive thing taken off of our plates

[1:39:48] for the next two meetings because that we're not discussing the legality

[1:39:54] or any issues regarding moratoriums

[1:39:56] ordinances resolutions we're saying

[1:39:59] there was a moratorium and it ended um

[1:40:02] but nothing kind of in between about the

[1:40:05] specifics of that and I think taking

[1:40:07] that off the table has been a pretty big

[1:40:10] win even even from this first session I

[1:40:13] mean unless someone has a real

[1:40:16] disagreements help with how I just

[1:40:17] summarize that um I haven't gotten any

[1:40:21] indication that we want to we want to

[1:40:23] turn in that direction um and once we've

[1:40:27] done that we've now gotten to only a

[1:40:30] couple

[1:40:31] things that we actually are going to

[1:40:34] consider some of them are procedural

[1:40:36] process timing and checklist issues some

[1:40:40] of them are what are the important

[1:40:43] inflection points which we should

[1:40:46] discuss and I think I I mean from where

[1:40:49] we started here that seems pretty much

[1:40:52] pretty narrow I think we keep doing this

[1:40:54] go ahead use the word when you say

[1:40:56] process process yeah you're talking

[1:40:59] about the process that will get us to a

[1:41:01] decision or talking about the um

[1:41:04] sequence of events that occurred I'm

[1:41:06] talking about the checklist of things

[1:41:08] that we need to go through to say that

[1:41:11] this these these things that we are kind

[1:41:14] of when I say process I mean the things

[1:41:15] that we already kind of went through is

[1:41:16] it appealable is it timely was it a

[1:41:18] decision of the zoning those questions

[1:41:21] those are question those are process

[1:41:22] question those are questions

[1:41:24] yeah list those questions and we each

[1:41:28] say on each question we each say yes no

[1:41:32] yeah I think I think that's the way

[1:41:34] that's what I was getting to okay I

[1:41:35] thought you were saying that like we all

[1:41:37] had to say yes to those question like to

[1:41:39] the same question okay yeah okay I think

[1:41:40] we come with a list of questions

[1:41:44] first and then we debate each of those

[1:41:51] questions and hopefully at the end

[1:41:53] and we'll have

[1:41:57] enough enough uh cohesiveness will be

[1:42:01] able to come to a

[1:42:03] decision so so explicitly explicitly the

[1:42:07] question list those

[1:42:08] questions I think I've got I think the list of um of issues that these

[1:42:14] process issues we can shrink these down

[1:42:18] from

[1:42:19] a five days 30 days blah blah blah we

[1:42:21] can shrink these shrink these down and

[1:42:23] add if if there's other parts

[1:42:26] of other things that we need to consider

[1:42:28] we can add to you call them process

[1:42:31] issues that confuses yeah sorry about

[1:42:33] that yeah sorry

[1:42:35] um there a list of questions that are

[1:42:38] relevant what's the answer each one I

[1:42:41] think that's right um just say you may

[1:42:44] find that you don't all agree on each

[1:42:49] question but the point is will you be

[1:42:51] able to agree at the end of the road on

[1:42:54] a final decision you may win some you

[1:42:57] may lose some uh in the individual

[1:43:00] questions but uh you need to come to an

[1:43:03] agreement as to the final uh

[1:43:07] outcome so

[1:43:11] yeah may I ask a question Mr chair

[1:43:15] please wrapping up soon come back uh

[1:43:19] week and a half y

[1:43:28] [Music]

[1:43:30] not pushing it but I just want to uh

[1:43:32] give you all the

[1:43:33] opportunity I don't feel like personally

[1:43:36] I have issues with the way the code the

[1:43:39] language of the code is laid out legal

[1:43:41] issues I think it's all taking the

[1:43:44] context of the information we have and

[1:43:48] trying to apply it which I think is open

[1:43:51] session yeah uh okay uh with that so as far as

[1:43:59] the list of questions who comes up with

[1:44:01] the questions uh I can I have should we

[1:44:04] all come up with our own list and we

[1:44:05] come together with it why don't we do

[1:44:07] our own list and you can send if you'd

[1:44:10] like you can send it to me and I will

[1:44:12] try and D

[1:44:14] duplicate or you can send it to Fred we

[1:44:16] can send

[1:44:18] FR then just come

[1:44:20] back okay it's fine with me yeah

[1:44:24] um okay yeah so we doing uh layout a

[1:44:28] list of questions and we have three

[1:44:31] points in time at which those would

[1:44:32] apply

[1:44:34] to yeah more or

[1:44:37] less okay um

[1:44:40] given given that we have about 15

[1:44:42] minutes left we'll just wrap up a little

[1:44:44] early

[1:44:45] um

[1:44:48] outside uh is there any other business

[1:44:50] any board members would like to bring up

[1:44:53] at this time

[1:44:55] uh anything else everyone good this Cas

[1:44:58] no good okay uh at this point in time

[1:45:02] I'd entertain a motion to

[1:45:04] adjourn I'll make a motion to adjourn

[1:45:06] second second all favor I this meeting

[1:45:10] is ajour thank you

[1:45:14] everybody it's weird to talk about it

[1:45:16] can I just say that weird to talk about

[1:45:19] it's weird to talk about it

[1:45:24] probably

[1:45:26] can okay it feels like there are so many

[1:45:29] things that are not well

[1:45:32] constrained go this way

March 6, 2025 Board of Appeals

Transcript