good okay uh welcome everybody this is
the call to order for the chese beach
board of appeals um this is March 6
2025 uh we are here today to approve
some meeting minutes and deliberate on
case
20233 um as normal we begin with a roll
call for board members please announce
if you are here uh Mr Paul dhy presid
Miss Amy Everett pres I am Mr jod Hoon
star we have a quorum um I'm going to go
through and do a bulk meeting minutes
approval um this would be for all the
meeting minutes for case
20233 for the minutes of October 21st
2024 then January 15 2025 and that has
both an open and close session um the
February 3rd Special meeting which was
to open and then go into a February 3D
close
session uh everyone cool with that okay
um does anybody have any changes or
issues with the minutes as they are as
they've
been okay in that case I will entertain
a motion to approve uh the minutes in
bulk I move to approve them in bulk I
will second
that everybody thank you okay we now
move on to the board of appeals
continuation uh as normal of case 20233
Rod real Incorporated Donovan estate's
LLC to consider an application from the
rod re Incorporated Don states of 4160
meor Avenue ches Beach Maryland for a
decision on interpretation or leged
error uh to article 6 section 29023 2931
A1 and A6 of the Chesapeake Beach zoning
ordinance and C309 c310 c311 of the
Chesapeake Beach toown Charter uh
applicant requests the Chesapeake Beach
zoning board of appeals to quote order
the zoning administrator and planning
and zoning commission to immediately
commence and prioritize the processing
and review of the relevant site plan
submitted by the rod uh Incorporated
down in Estates uh and that the zoning
administrator and planning and zoning
commission be ordered to apply the
zoning ordinances in effect as of
January 29 20121 when the applications
were submitted and for such other and
further relief as the nature of the
cause
requires okay um before we open the
deliberations I just want to do a
couple uh announcements in terms of how
this is going to go um according to uh
section 2932 L uh at the close of our
last public session uh we have 120
calendar days um to uh to deliberate and
uh reach a resolution on this case uh
the hearing has been extensive and in
order to comply with this 128 limit we
reserved three dates for this board to
deliberate um today March 6th um at 6:30
Monday March 17 2025 at 6:30 p.m. and
Monday March 31st 2025 is 6:30 um all we
might not use all these sessions it's
unclear if we'll need them uh they'll be
for a maximum of two
hours um and the goal of these three
sessions is to ensure that our legal
council has adequate time uh to work
with whatever determination uh is made
by this board um at any point in time
just kind of just a note for our board
members if you feel like uh you have are
at capacity for this particular meeting
or one on the 17th feel free to just
kind of raise your hand and say let's
take a pause you can come back again at
one of the later dates so don't feel
like you have to um you have to feel
rushed or if you'd like to to go home
and reread uh certain things uh it's we
can we can close this down early um if you so would like uh okay yeah thank
you y that sounds good we can do that um
one more bit of administrative advice
which I don't uh think
applies um for the members here today uh
some concerns have been brought to my
attention about whether board members
can participate and vote on this case if
they have not been present at all
sessions uh this stems from rule uh
sorry section 2932 C3 which states that
all actions or decisions of the board
shall be taken by resolution in which
three members present during the
proceedings must concur concur um our
folks with a legal background have
stated this they believe that this means
only board members who have attended all
sessions for case 20233 can sign their
name to the board's decision um by my
count we've had 18 distinct meetings for
this case uh it's been over 500 Days
since the first hearing nearly a year
and a half uh the rules that govern this
board unsurprisingly don't handle
situations like this well uh members of
this board of volunteers who have
dedicated significant time uh outside of
their home and work to improve the town
of ches beach as best they can um as we
proceed if other members uh aside from
us three uh should attend later sessions
um it's my intent to allow them to vote
as they see fit and in the event we end
up in a split decision we will revisit
how that applies to uh the 290 32c rule
that was just read okay that's neither
here nor there since all of us have
attended um okay uh we are ready to
begin deliberation at this point in time
I would entertain a motion to begin
deliberation I move to begin
deliberation I'll second that all in
favor okay
um so I think the board has heard a lot
over these past meetings um and the kind
of the first thing thing I guess I would
like to do is offer an open session to
board members um I'd imagine this would
be more along the lines of an informal
narrative for your full understanding of what you've seen so far um you don't
have to but we've been sitting quietly
for a long time would you like to wrap
up your interpretation of of what's
happened here so far in a couple
sentences or should we
just not I don't think a couple
sentences suffices so for me that
doesn't really
apply yeah
I I I wrote a lot of notes here and it
might be
helpful I've got a little
um I don't know what you want to call
sequence of
events right so let let me read this if
I
can
um so the so the appal on submitted the
site plans January 29th 19 or
2021 and some of those plans were in the
critical area the town
code states that uh the commission the
planning zoning commission must decide
on a site plan in the critical are
within 60
days before that 60 days
expired the Town Council passed a
resolution placing a moratorium on
review of category one site
plans the moratorium was recommended by
the Planning and Zoning commission as a
temporary moratorium to last no more
than 12 months
the resolution passed by the Town
Council also stated described it as
temporary but with the expectation would
last nine
months um but then as the nine months
was about to expire the Town Council
took a positive action to extend it a
three additional
months that action implied to me that
the moratorium was still viewed as
temporary with a specific duration but
then at the end of the 12 months it just
continued with no action by the Council
on the
resolution so so at that point it
appeared to me to have become a
moratorium of indefinite duration with no end in
sight it was not until a year later that
the moratorium was formally lifted by
the council so duration of approximately
two
years uh prior to that time the
appellant attempted to have their case
Ed by the board of
appeals uh I believe it was in
2022 um the their application for an
appeal was was
refused turned back and the appellant
filed with the Circuit Court to obtain a
court order to have this case
heard so so in my mind that that it's an
unusual chain of
events the other thing the other
statement I wanted to make is that you
know reading a a close reading of the
code that that empowers this
board um specifically appeals of this
type is that
um we are empowered to rule on Errors By
The by the administrator or
Commission on determinations decisions
or orders resulting from errors of
interpretation of the zoning
code when they are acting in
administrative Capac
capacity so it seems to me to to focus
the
discussion we should look at those
points where a decision or action was
made and whether that resulted from a
misinterpretation of the
code and then we can rule on
that um in few words I agree with you um
this doesn't really fit with the
timeline of events but one of the things
I'm I'm concerned about is kind of
treating our decisions in like a domino
effect right where if we
decide
that um there was an
error that the Domino falls into places
that we may not have oversight right
like a Town Council decision or
ordinance or
resolution um those to me felt like they
followed from a potential decision from
either the
administrator planning zoning but I'm
very hesitant to let that domino fall
and knock over for the ones that seem
outside the scope of this board um does
that make
sense I'm not sure I'm following you so
I'm I'm hesitant to make any
determinations regarding ordinances and
resolutions
from the
town I'm I'm not say like I'm my my view
of it is is
that our Focus or our
Authority is limited to decisions
actions made by the the the zoning
administrator or the commission
we have no say in any decisions or
actions outside of
that decisions and actions made by the
Town Council by the
mayor I I don't think that's within our
jurisdiction so I
think I think that you guys are I'm kind
of tracking with both y'all in in
different ways
um but I think
that we do need to look at a timeline
and see what decisions were made
decisions by the the Planning and Zoning
administrator commission right um but we
also need to look and see what actually
is in our purview and that any of error
or uh
interpretation that we need to look into
has to be within this chapter and so we
need to determine if there are any if
there are any decisions orders whatever
that we will say that there was an error
but then we also need need to make sure
that we are staying within the chapter
that we are zoning yeah Z yes and I
think that we need to decide if pieces
and parts are relevant to our case as
they might be outside of that
chapter right so
are are certain pieces of this
moratorium a resolution are they outside
of the chapter and if they
are is that even in our purview so we
need to find those critical points see
if criteria is met and see if it even
pertains to
us I I think there were two critical
points one is when the um when the plans
were first submitted in 2020
21 the time period between when it was
submitted and when the moratorium was
passed by the
council I think once
the it was out of the hands of the
zoning administrator out of the hands of
the zoning
commission so anything that happened
during that
moratorium I think is out of our purview
yeah and and our Focus the second point
is when the moratorium was
lifted that those were the two that
stood out to me too was that that period
in which um prior to any discussion by
the Town Council about
moratoriums uh how how the applications
were
handled um and then again if we believe
that the moratorium expired um my my
notes Here say that you could you could
take this from two sides one is um that
yeah they the the Town Council got
together and voted and extended it and
then those extensions
expired um and that that might be uh
more from the perspective of the Roden
reel and then the town might get
together and
say um that they it doesn't end until
they voted on March 16th of 2023 to
actually formally terminate the
moratorium
and it's it's a bit of
a you know I don't really know what uh
which ones
uh yeah yeah I I don't feel that that
the
moratorium The Way It Was Written the
wording I I don't
think there would be there was an
automatic
expiration you don't think it expired I
don't think it expired by itself okay I
think it expired when the
Council passed the resolution in March
of 20 lifting the
moratorium
okay in that case that takes away one of
my two the two points where I think we
had to consider something was the the
second of which was if the moratorium
expired and
the new zoning map and the implementing
ordinances weren't passed and there was
a a gap between an expiration of a
moratorium 9 months plus three however
you want to math it out and then the
pickup of the um the zoning changes that
was one of my second kind of inflection
points
but yeah
I can't say I feel strongly about
either either argument
well let's talk about the the first
point in
time the this the site plans were
submitted nothing happened with
them as far as seven weeks before the
moratorium so was there an error there
on the part of the zoning administrator
with a
commission was there an error of
interpretation what what is there an
action or a decision I I think although
well a week after the site plans were
submitted zoning administrator sent out
an
email
to the response letter there there it
was an email right to to um Paul
Woodburn with a cc to Mr
Blitz stating that the the site plans
were
burdened a moratorium was being
considered I I think that's evidence of
a decision not to
process the site plans at that
time so the question is it was that as a
result of a misinterpretation of the
code yeah there was I can't remember the
line I'd have to it would take me some
time to find it but there was also a
stipulation in
uh in the zoning was the ability of
Staff members to consult with additional
parties
um was was jabak I mean we can read into
his letter that he had discussed what
was going on with other
parties um was he following his
guidelines in making an appeal to the
Town Council as part of his duy as was
you
know can you repeat that again sorry um
yeah when
um inferring from the letter uh let me
pull the date
on uh 25 pretty much the the second
letter after the second event after the
site planes were submitted uh it read to
me that jabak had uh reached out to
other members of the town to maybe
discuss what was happening given his
workload and the plans for the um the
comprehensive
plan and he went I'm inferring that he
went and talked to them or sent them the
site plans or summarize the site
plans would that fall within his
authority to consult with
external agencies or I think I think the
official language is to like consult
with agencies or staff would Consulting
the Town Council
concerning this the action that they
then took I don't know if I can say that was an error or if that was within
his scope of authority as the zoning
administrator yeah it's there's a lot of
gray I'm not lay I don't remember any
documentation yeah I don't think there
was I don't think there
was um did you say there
was I remember reading about that I have
to
go did you hear that I just said that I
remember reading that I just would have
to go back and look where that actually
was written um you summarize what you
remember from that and we
can just one the steps that they go and
consult with whatever I mean you have multiple plans to be looking
because you have to consult with
multiple people about what's happening
with the plan right in general I don't
remember what I read at the moment um
but do you believe that moment in that letter that was
written was a pivotal moment and I know
let's called it a pivot pivotal moment
he said it the beginning of so in that
regard the beginning of the what
refusal right
too much stuff so
um but would you then think it was an
error because of timing because of
obligation to look at it to what what
would cause that to be an error and I
I'm wondering because I know that the
60-day mark that was brought up in this
case that they were obligated to fulfill
this their duties within 60 days um that
was critical
areas um and I still I still am not
convinced that that actually pertains to
all site one plans um because in the
general Provisions it does not have any
type of time frame associated with it
and to think that crit those plans
within a critical area had a deadline
that was more so than others is kind of
strange to me but I just don't know if
they were
at least all five of them I don't know
if all five of them were required to
have that no yeah the the timing seemed
like a like maybe it wasn't a strict you
know but there's another aspect to it in
that there this a
60-day time
limit the
moratorium was imposed before that 60
days expired but was there a 60-day time
limit is what I'm is what I'm wondering
I don't Yeah the code uh see I don't
know that it's that clear I didn't I
didn't read that that the my read of the
code was section 290 d25 clearly says to
me that uh the commission must decide on
a site plan in the critical area within
60
days
so the ENT if you look at the
entire if you look at the the the
chapter and you look at this article six
in its entirety everything is broken
into site one versus site two site one
versus site two um so I think that
interpreting it yes it does say in that
statement it does say that they shall
approve a site plan within 60 days but
it's also what is it that they're
referring to in there and if there's
ambiguity in that I'm not saying that I
need to be the person that determines
that wording but if you have a site one
plan that's not in a critical area and
then you have a site one plan that is in
a critical
area to say that the one in the critical
area needs to be processed within 60
days but the one with that's not in a
critical area yeah I doesn't have a time
frame that doesn't make sense to me I
just don't think that it's all inclusive
because it's only within the critical
area section and each section divides it
between category one and category
two so I'm still I personally still do
not believe that this
is the absolute uh interpretation of
this piece well even even if the 60-day
limit did
apply
technically because the moratorium was
put in place before the end of the 60
days technically there was not a
violation because once the moratorium
was in place
I don't think the administrator or the
commission could do anything yeah I
think you could I mean not to there's a
lot of could have would a should of
things that that definitely could be
argued here but I'd have a if let's just
say
hypothetically that the moratorium was
passed and then Planning and Zoning got
up behind the lectern and said these
plans are denied due to the
moratorium I'm not sure if I could find
an error in that
but I don't believe that happened it
didn't happen it didn't happen right
that's the that's the like there's kind
of like this implicit decision that was
made by having a
moratorium that that shortcut that I
don't you know but maybe
that's I mean because of that because of
that sub you know the moratorium was put
in place before the end of the 60
days I don't see an error of
interpretation
it was certainly an action I I believe a
decision by the administrator not to
process the plans in anticipation of the
moratorium yeah but but you know he had
60 days and um seven weeks went by they
didn't get processed but then bang the the clock
stopped so technically I don't see an
error
yeah and and
I yeah an error on behalf of yeah his
it's a narrow reading of
it I realize but uh but you know also
I'm I don't know if I can um Council
indicated to me in a conversation
that 60 days isn't a hard
deadline because there's no um
stated in the code do I what I said was that it could be argued
that the 60 days was directory and not
mandatory because uh there was no
sanctions for failure to uh comply with
that 60-day time frame now I'm not
saying that's a a correct interpretation
but certainly is a uh viable
interpretation and and you know it
doesn't the same thing applies to um
other site
plans right
there code the code doesn't have a time
limit an explicit time limit for non-tic
site
plans but then it also doesn't
say well I mean I guess it's a judgment
call it has to be the plan should be
reviewed within a reasonable
time there's no definition of that
code so in the event that there is not
an obligation to have a time period
associated with
it
was was the letter from jacc at that
point then the question would be is it a
decision and was that decision was could
it have been attributed to error if
there was no timeline associated with it
right I'm just looking at it both ways
could since with that point
but I mean yeah it's there's so many
directions I mean it's
like they submitted their site plans and
didn't get an approval or denial they
got something that looked like a
denial is that like wasn't official it
didn't have signatures on it I don't
know if it matters no I don't agree with
that I don't think it you could call it
a
denial um
yeah could could not yeah I don't think I could call it a denial
it's just a lack of action
okay not an not a denial not an
approval
yeah I mean does yeah I I don't I don't
really want to Devil's Advocate the
whole thing
but okay so I mean head back to decision
points the second decision point was
when the mor torum was
lifted to
rehear the to reopen this again the the site plans as they were submitted
site plans review of the site plans was
not picked
up now was there an error involved there
error Mis interpretation of the
code was there a decision not to not to
review the
plans that's a little less clear to
me can I thr another Wrinkle In go for
it yeah so um
jaak's letter stated two things though
um it stated that it was a an undue
burden to the commission because they
were in the middle of the comprehensive
plan so when the comprehensive plan was approved is that a point because I
mean this really that letter if that is
the beginning of the refusal was two
prongs it was the comprehensive plan
plus an upcoming moratorium which One
jacu X letter exhibit 7 the February 5th
letter that said hey this is too much
for us to
do so there were two things that
happened there so in my opinion I made
note
that the comprehensive plan was approved
later on and that could
be you remember what date that was my
note say April 21st
2022
April was
421
22 so just to throw something else in
there
thanks um
I mean like I kind of I I still like I
feel like it all still comes back to the
first event of not of of making a
decision not to approve or deny the
initial thing to kind of put it in this
gray
Zone um in which then led to the second
point which is since it was neither
approved or denied is it still open and
should be reop you know I feel
yeah but I think think part of what's
getting me about this is that
um the error is stated as um a Continuum
um that it is from January 29th 2021
till the date of the appeal so can can
an error occur over that time period or
is there a single event in which we are
actually talking about so I was thinking
about this one today
and uh and I came up with an example and
I'm going to I'm going to use our legal
counsel and I'm going to say Fred you
can you can holler me if I get this way
off if I'm GNA do a crime I'm gonna
extort Fred right um extort I'm going to
extort you I'm going to say give me a
bucket of money or I'm going to the
cops the harm and benefit would be
ongoing you'd be out of your money and
I've got it but if this ever goes to
court um I think if it's a statute of
limitation things I only extorted you on
one time right it's not like an ongoing
extortion I have your money which is the
harm and you're out of your money or
sorry you're out of the money which is
your harm and I have your money it's my
benefit but that still doesn't mean it's
an ongoing thing right it happened one
time and I think that
means I don't know in this case it would
be that that decision point was the
thing that would set something like a
statute of limitations where even if the
harm and benefit are still ongoing so I
guess that's a round about way of saying
an example of how I don't really buy an
ongoing event that the harm is ongoing
but the event itself happened
on either the date that jabak sent the
letter back or the date that the
moratorium was passed however you want
to whichever whichever time frame you
think was the decision point there I
think that's the
uh that's the event
right so that maybe says that it doesn't
reopen if in the second inflection point
that you're talking about I don't
know well the question is should when
the moratorium was lifted should the
zoning
administrator have picked up review of
the site plans
he
didn't should should he
have there was a lot going on right the
comprehensive
plan
um well actually the comprehensive plan already been
passed but there was a lot of change
there's a lot of code changes that were
occurring ordinance ordinances being
pass to implement it but they had
already returned the fees and for all
intents purposes believe believed it was
done so what was what were they supposed
to pick up at that time well well that's a good point because there was no
there was formly no application in
place I think that one's fairly easy and
that
it it shouldn't have been I I don't see
an error in not picking it up because
from the administrator's perspective it
was the issue was closed the event was
done there was an attempt by the
appellant to
have
the plans
reviewed during the
moratorium and that was rejected if I'm
if I remember
correctly I may be misre misremembering
there was there was an
event maybe it was the maybe it was an
appeal application the it was an
application for the
appeal submitted in 2022 while the
moratorium was still in
place yeah I think I believe that's what
I'm thinking
of so the
yeah
um yeah because the appeal application
was filed June 24th
2022 right so that's what you're
thinking of right yeah
thought I
remembered an attempt to have
the plans
reviewed or a request to have the plans
reviewed yeah so sometime after that
sometime after the moratorium is lifted
so um I have in my notes the
comprehensive plan was um approved April
21st
2022 on May uh um yeah May 20th a month
later Blitz wrote a letter um to
planning zoning administrator and
commission to have the plans reviewed it
was that letter that was the response
two days later come came from um
pounds and he cced wall on that letter
um I can I have it in here somewhere
which um exhibits they are um but there
was no indication in that letter that he
was speaking
on behalf of the Planning and Zoning
administrator nor the commissioner or
commission um and so he responded and
that's when he's like oh it's indefinite
um so that happened um and then
uh so so then June 3 um Blitz wrote
another letter two pounds asking who
that letter was on behalf of and no
response was received three weeks after
that the appeal application
occurred okay so two events what was
that first date again of which the
letter that requesting the review yes
May 20th
2022 so that's actually in this timeline
right here
too right
okay so in in my
opinion that's that's
when if we're saying that the moratorium
expired with pivotal Point whatever
else because in order in order to file
the appeal you have to you have to have
your concern brought up with the pl and
zonian administrator right so
um that could have occurred after the
jcbc letter in February 2020
right um or it could have occurred at
that point too when they wrote back and
said hey what's going on with this and
got no
response I think that that lack of
response could have been a response
too if we SP it that is a date
right is that the third one we've got so
far we have the initial response on
[Music]
2521 oh so there's another aspect
another point to that is
that you know refusing to pick up the
review of the plans in May of
2022 was that an error on the part of
the Planning and Zoning
administrator did the planning and
zoning
administrator was he obligated to was there even evidence that because the response came from the town
attorney we have it's my opinion that we
were given no evidence to say that that
came from plan and Zoning in any way
shape or form correct correct so we
cannot know if there was any discussion
or what not from what I have
seen I see no indication of that so I
mean I would be unable to rule that the
that I I would say that that's out of
our bounds
because it was not an action by the
administrator of the commission unless
the inaction was an
action love that
question but if the administrator or the
commission was not
involved in that
rejection right well you could have that letter was a rejection and you can
also have that the fact that it didn't
come from Planning and Zoning right that
they rejected it in the fact that they
chose not to react to it and
coincidentally the town sent something
too so to me that wasn't done on their
behalf
because pounds represent
represented the mayor and the Town
Council and that letter did not CC the
planning and zoning
anybody I agree with that so that's also
my so so is that something we could rule
on at refusal I I think that's outside
our
bounds but the fact that letter was
written to the pl and zonian
administrator unless male fraud
occurred he received it we just didn't
hear
anything I think you
said uh I said that if the letter was
sent unless mail fraud occurred or
something the Planning and Zoning
administrator and the commission still
received the letter I would hope they re
still receive the
letter that being said we didn't receive
something before too so I don't know
this is the may may 2022 the letter
asking for site plan
review after
the right in the yeah
let's go back to March of
2023 when the moratorium was
lifted and the site the review of the
site plans was not
started is that an error is that
a something we can rule on I
don't I mean so so what they have I have
this
in um this is this is the timeline
pulled from the
code uh which would be um that the let's
see uh in uh November
22 is a zoning Amendment zoning
map then March of 23 is the termination
of the moratorium so even then and and
uh Along on same date of uh March 23
there's an additional zoning amendment
that
passes I mean those those site plans are
going to apply to old the old rules
which is kind of the whole reason we're
here right um I can't I can't see that
as being a decision point because those
are
so uh out of whack right those we we
haven't looked into the differences in
zoning and I don't think we
should um but the idea that they could
pick
up uh two-year-old site plans with a new
certainly you can and if you decide that
you're going to um review them against
whatever whatever code is in place at
that
moment you could it's a bit of a stretch
for me but
well you know it
wasn't I mean there wasn't an explicit
request at that time to review the
plans against the code of
2021 it it would be like
submitting a new let's let's say you
submitted the plans
fresh in March of
2023 those same plans would get reviewed
against the code that existed at that
moment
yeah I mean but but but the point
earlier I think is a good one in that
although the plans were there there was
not a formal
application in March of
2023 to
um have the plans reviewed I don't think
yeah I don't think they be yeah I don't
can't read into that I have a question
how can the error occur in March of 2023
when the appeal was filed in June of
2022 you can't have have an error
occurred nine months after it says up
until this point in but the appeal the
appeal application was
rejected so it wasn't so it wasn't there
wasn't any appeal but it was but all of
this is a continuation of
that well why we're here today again the
moratorium was still in
place yeah I don't think the zoning
administrator or commission could have
done anything while
the moratorium was in
place I think I mean I think that's only
it was only it when the moratorium was
lifted in March of
23 that there could have been any
progress but I mean I think the the
applicant would I think there was not
any progress was that an error was that
an error of
interpretation we're we're trying to
rule on the action of the zoning
administrator and the
commission or decisions of those
bodies
okay are you gonna are you gonna clarify
or you gonna I'm try to clarify on my
own I'm just I'm struggling
that the appeal
application was rejected in 2022 too but
not by us it never got to us hold on so
we're talking about the appeal to come
to before the appeals board the like the
requests to come talk to us yeah yeah
okay sorry I just clarifying
um because that was yeah we're failing
to process the site plans I don't know
there's just once you file an appeal I
mean review of the site plans is put on
hold well actually I guess I don't know if it
has to be put on hold but I think
normally you file an appeal and any
further reviews get put on hold until
appeal's
heard again I you know I think the start
the clock doesn't restart until March of
23 I yeah I don't think
yeah to me there's only one there's only
one decision Point by zoning
administrator and planning zoning and
that's the first one which is the the
jabak response letter and kind a
subsequent subsequent fils I don't think
that the
like there's a whole bunch of mess with
the the
moratorium and all that but I think the
and there's a lot of could have would
have should have in a lot of directions
but I think the only
one that really just stands out to me is
did Mr dubak make a
mistake an error according to the rules
by which we are
guided in February of 2021 or
roundabouts roundabouts there um and I
think that's kind of why I was talking
about all that Domino stuff at the
beginning was cuz like
I think what the applicant would like us
to do is find that that was an error
which then knocks over some things which
are outside the scope of this board what do you think was happening in March
of
2023 I mean it's it's more that I don't
think I don't think anybody I mean
reading it maybe reading it I don't
think anybody wants that is like the
these site plans were submitted lawfully
on a date and they were planned for that
specific version of the law and the
zoning code and anything other than that
I don't think is that's that's the
starting point the starting point that's
the only point because like if they
let's say that got reopened after all
these zoning ordinances I don't think I
can't imagine the applicant would be
terribly happy with that probably would
end another that's really not the point is that
uh you know should should have should the plans have been reviewed
in March of
2023 and and I guess there was no formal
application to me the answer is a pretty
clear no not not whether they would have
been rejected because the the zoning
code
changed me that's that's not pertinent
they they they may well have been
rejected because the zoning code had
changed but the fact that they the
review was not started restarted at that
point um and there was no formal
application made you know the only the
only formal application to review the
site plans
was
2021 I think as you're continuing to
discuss and Del R this uh if you find uh
or get to the point where you think that
2021 uh email was a
determination then one of the other
things you need to consider is whether
there was a timely appeal from that
determination Mr chairman can I add for
five yeah let's take uh let's take 10 uh
we'll resume at uh 7:30
30 yep
you
e e
okay
that's good
you like those
was it
[Music]
just stick out
oh did you go to the Arctic or the
Antarctic Antarctic Antarctic okay I
thought that was where well
December a trip
kind a buck
thing
um I had two opportunity to go
pass tell you what it's far
away yeah Tak a long time to get there
did you go
artina flew to
buies and then spent a night in bonus
Aries and flew down to the southern tip
of South America and
on check you
out I was
sweating you w three
layers had to climb a a steep snow back
to get there
to get to this
point and I'm carrying this 50 pound
camera a big long but you got a cool
picture
[Music]
yes is everybody
good y turn your mic back on if you
would
uh all right we are resuming after our
short
break
um I think you should feel free if there
are things that like this
is very much a disc like just just get
it out if you want to there's things on
your list that you'd like to talk about
even if it's not necessarily in the
context which we have you know kind of
centered around a couple things if
there's other other issues you'd like to
um
you'd like to chat about before
we I don't really have an agenda for
where we go from here um I think at some
point we'll want to walk through some of
the specifics of where these particular can we check
these boxes in terms of process but
um yeah do you have anything you want to
go totally random you were asking before
about who tubak would have given those
plans to you were saying when you know
it takes time once the administrator
gets the plans doesn't he do something
with them he talks to people whatever
else so it
um the processing procedure after
submission says the administrator shall
review the applications for completeness
and will refer the applications to the
appropriate individuals for agent or
agencies for review comment approval
Etc so whether he started that process I
don't I don't know but I'm just saying
that's where I read yeah yeah and that was my read on it was that was that
even though it
doesn't that maybe sounds like talk to
State agencies or whatever it is that is
in the purview of his job that talking
to staff for the Town Council would also
fall into that that was my read on that
particular but I think we have to keep
in mind at no point did we actually hear
from chubak so we have no idea if Beyond
things such as that letter we have have
no idea what Communications actually
occurred um whether with anybody in one
of the parties or otherwise we don't
know so I think that's that's something
that's really important that we only
have part of that
picture so let me bring up another
Point let's say that we
decide that there was a Mis
interpretation there was an error on the
part of the the administrator or
commission you know decision is
resulting from
misinterpretation the the appeal asks
that
we we request the the U administrator to
immediately commence the processing and
review of the site plans according to
the the zoning code that was in place in
2021 are we able to do that is that
within our
powers because if it's
not then whether or not there was an
error is
irrelevant I think we'd still have to do
it um do what to make to make that
decision even if we didn't have I think
it would we'd effectively be a speed
bump and a different legal battle which
is that we can make our decision but if
but but if we decided there was that there was an an
error request the the administrator to
immediately pick up review the site
plans I I think that in in order to do
that though we have to find that not
only is there an
error that was an appealable offense but
that the appeal was done properly and
everything leading up well let's assume
that we we decide
okay if we don't have the
power to request or tell or order the
administrator to review the
plans against the the code that existed
in
2021 then there's no point there is a
bit of that um we we would have to deny
the the the request Den I the appeal
because if we're not able if we don't
have the
power to um ask the administrator order
the administrator whatever to go back
and use the 2021
code then automatically we'd have to
deny the appeal I don't know if we'd
have to deny it I think I think we could
make a decision without any enforcement
we ultimately don't have any enforcement
power we are are a second review of the
powers that exist for planning and
zoning and the zoning administrator I
mean I think a lot some of the requests
were for for us to do some of the work
that other other folks within the town
do was a little too far for me but I
think we'd be well within our our powers
if if all of the check if we go down the
list and we find that all the all the requirements been satisfied and that
an error was made that the role of this
the board would stop as soon as we made
the decision that an error like that
this was an error on behalf of planning
and zoning and the zoning administrator
I I don't think we want to go any
further than that um but but again the
requests it's a two it's a two-part
request request that the administrator
pick up review of the plans and that the
plans would be reviewed against the
ordinances from
2021 yeah I mean if if you can only
fulfill one but not the other I don't I
mean I could see a scenario where we'd
say yes to both of those that is how it
should have been we we'd be effectively
winding back the decision clock and
making that decision so we say yes and
the zoning administrator says no I don't
think we have from from the point at
which we we say that this is how the
decision should have been made I think
we kind of can wipe our hands of it not
we don't have enforcement Authority sure
I agree do we if if we decided there was
an
error do we have the authority
[Music]
to I what's what's the
wording there there's a difference
between a request and an order right
the the application asks that we
order that the zoning ordinances in in
effect as of January 21 be
applied the request is asking for an
order from
us say you don't have to Grant the
specific relief that the applicant to
the appellant has out you have the
discretion to other types of relief okay
I view it like a variance if somebody's
asking for a 20 foot deck and we give
them a six-foot deck that's what we
write that we are going to allow and
then it goes to the other powers that b
and it after that it's out of our hands
and so just because that request came in
doesn't mean we follow through with it
as written is that fair I think we we'd
just be saying that an error happened
and and the remedy that we'd recommend
would be these site plans be considered
as of the date that they were filed
against the current the town code and
the zoning map and all the other things
that apply at that time I'm not
saying that's what we should do because
that there's lots going on um but I
think if if we went down that road and
found an
error just us determining the would be
the where we
stop assuming that you find that there
was a timely appeal yes all that all of
the all of the stipulations have been
met and we find
that
yes the appeal needs to be filed within
30 days got a whole list of them here I
don't I don't know if we want to jump
into that thing here well there are two
statements there are two statements
though that say that so it was in the CR
wasn't it just like in the critical area
or something but that was stated it does
say 30 days but it also States five
days sorry what are we talking I
understand that five days only applies
to plan
reviews
or yeah I I I picked up on that as well
there there's a five day I I I have the
two 30day limit one is 29023 f right
okay so you me to read it go ahead uh
was an appeal made to the board of
appeals within five days of the decision
as 29023 F and the 30 days is was an
appeal made to the board of appeals
within 30 days of the decision and those
are probably two different subsections
my understanding is the five day
limit regards a this
ision pertaining to some aspect of the
site
plan because it's under the
section under General requirements site
plan General requirements section
F any person aggrieved by the decision
on a site plan of a site plan General
requirement General requirement of site
plan right made under this article May
within five days of such a decision a
appeal to and have a determination made
by the board of
appeals so that's the Fay one and then
and and there was there was no decision
made on a site
plan well that's what we have to
decide was was that in this what we were
talking about before February 5th 2021
letter was that my reading of that is
that for
example the
administrator looks at a site plan and
says this Dimension is not acceptable
before the the the plan is
rejected that's the five-day
limit but that has that doesn't apply in
this
case I think that's an
interpretation well yes but I mean it
could here's the second one the second
one is under subsection J of let me find
the total title so I can actually tell
you what we're talking about um this
would subsection J specifically for the
board of appeals so if you're if you're
reading that you might you might say
that the specific subsection for the
board of appeals is the date that
applies because it's more specific than
the first and this is under Section J
rules and procedures for f filing
interpretation and variance appeals and
special
exceptions um and this number one
general rules and procedures for appeals
and applications and this specific
language is any appeal should be made uh
within 30 days after the date of the
administrator's
decision
43f see what it actually
says uh and I don't think it was as
narrow as Paul
suggested any person agreed by any
decision made under this article and
that's the entire site plan uh article uh
six May within five days of such
decision appeal to and have a
determination made by the board of
appeals uh During the period of appeal
no building permit shall be
issued okay so we got two different
time limits yep which ones apply it's
the more specific one which would be the
subsection this one the first the one
Fred just read is in zoning General
requirements the second one is specific
to
appeals I guess this one has the total
board of appeals in it so um
determination made by the board of
appeals determin
right you said you wanted to go through
the rules didn't
you yep um I mean
we're outside of both of those either
way right like
this if we're going back to the
specifics of this case would be
like this these these like if I'm
summarizing in human terms these this
request was kind of left in limbo was
neither neither uh I mean so so the
letter gets sent back whatever you can
we can whatever um it's neither appealed
nor denied in an official capacity it's
in this gray holding
Zone I don't feel like we can apply
either we can apply any limit date to
that because it like it's kind of unfair
right like we're just going to hold your
applications for five days and neither
appeal nor deny them but then we're
going to hold you to the date at which
we sent a letter so you know something
it's
like yeah agree with that
sign I might I might take an argument
something more along the lines of in
official
capacity the moratorium
passing was ineffect to denial I could
I'm not saying I'm making that argument
but I could I would hear like an
argument along those those lines where
here's something official that happened
with a stamp on
it not it's not by the Planning
Commission or
by yeah
so I feel like yeah I feel like if
there's any date later than that it
would be you know if there was a 60-day
application period or whatever right a
denial and lack of response whatever
else and if that 60 days passes and
nothing happens then that would be
another potential but nothing no appeal
no anything came of that so
um I mean we can do the opposite in
backtrack is to make this if it was
timely what when would things have had
to have happened but we have already
eliminated that those options yeah I
mean who who do we apply the rules to
right like it there there are two cases
where in order for the date to start
we'd have yeah yeah it's not really fair
but in order for the appeal date to
actually hold with either one of those
um it doesn't yeah I don't know that it
even holds water with some of the later
things I'm sorry that I was just looking
to see if it would even hold water later
on with some of the other events that we
spoke about but we didn't believe that was anything having to do with
plenty and Zoning so that would be I
know was the check being returned
was that an act of Planning and Zoning
or right like there the so the they
submitted an application money was
refunded would that be considered an
application of or not denial or whatever
denial like decision decision I would
say yes I mean it came from the Town
Administrator but it came from the Town
Administrator uh after the pl and Zoning
administrators said no so
to me that that is part of that but to
me that's also part of his his
letter even though it's technically a
different
date but that was not that was not a
rejection on the merits of the other the
S I think it's still lumped in with that
February 5th
H all right
I guess I guess in in terms of
determining if an error
happened was there an
obligation upon receipt of these to
perform a series of right Mr dubak gets
filings does he then is part of like
does he need to complete a series of
steps in order to have
I don't know never mind just talking out
loud I mean we can debate different
things different steps like that but
does It ultimately matter if we if we
believe that a decision point was made
at that point or anywhere time in that
time frame right that he could have done
that does it matter because what
happened after that in a timely manner
what I don't I don't no I don't think I
don't see the utility in looking at that
if since we need a
set time and that's the only one we can
find
so do we want to just run
down the like I have I have a list of
kind of General process things and
specific ones we already talked a little
bit about the specific ones but like
maybe maybe this will I don't know if
this will help anything but start start
on the general ones which
is
was the first one is was this offense
appealable that's just these are just
notes I have from some of our legal
discussions about uh process issues what
would make it not
appealable if we found that there was
not an actual error if we found back
followed all well that's that's not
that's a different question than whether
it's appealable it's always
appealable
if it would be made appealable by being
a decision of planning zoning or zoning
administrator and what else right did it
involve in interpretation
290
ordinance that there was an error and an
order requirement decision or
determination made by the administrator
in the enforcement of the zarting
chapter or by the planning and starting
commission so
these are all I think preconditions to
uh something being subject to appeal it
has to
be a an action or
decision um on the part of the
administrator or
commission involving involing
interpretation right right of any
provision of the of
ordinance or where's alleged that there
was an error and an order requirement
decision or determination made by the
administrator in the enforcement of this
chapter whereby the planning
commiss keep keep on discussing the the
next one I have noted down is is was it
timely and I think that's one where
we're going to have a hard time I think
that's kind of what we were just talking
about uh 35 days 30
days like Gray
Zone I don't think it's gray I don't
think it's gray gray
okay I
think I think it can only be gray
if we don't have a specific time that
we're associating with if we think there
is a time and it's a black and white
issue that when it was filed what
happened 30 days prior or 5 days prior
whichever when you look at was that was
that the the point we're talking about
that so it's it's a black and white
thing once we determine a time in which
we think this error
occurred it cded that February 5th of
2021 was the decision
point then the then the argument would
be that the appeal had to be filed not
later than March March 5th of
2021 that what you're
saying clearly it
wasn't I think but I you know rejecting
an appeal on that basis
I makes me very very
uncomfortable yeah I don't believe that gives the appen a fair hearing this
one's this one's gray to me because of
the the the whole in pen that the
applications were put in like the the
this holding pen where it was neither
approved nor denied up and up until some
different event if if you want to argue
that like I don't I wouldn't feel
good making a a determination based on
Tim February
5th
um
email didn't make it entirely clear I
mean it didn't come on right out and say
we're not going to review the plan
was was vague right well it's a burden
there's a moratorium going to come up
but the but the message did not say
we're not going to review the
plans other words I mean it wasn't a
hard hard uh point at which you could
start a
clock to count for 30 days
that's how I feel
like the timeliness question is maybe a
requirement of what we have to do here
in order to to lay down a decision but I
don't I I don't think that that question
about whether the PE was timely I don't
think that's an important question I
think it's a really important question I
think that's exactly why we're here like
we'll have to address it because it's
written in the town
code yeah that's board can only
entertain appeals that are timely
filed I mean we could want to allow
things but that's not in our purview to do that so the to me the only way
that this is timely right so it was
filed on June 24th 2022 was when the
appeal was filed so going back 30
days it's what May 25th
2022 because it has 30 days say the 24th
um so that is 2 days
after pound's letter saying that the
moratorium was still in
effect and four days after Blitz wrote
asking for the
review
so so there was the request for it there
was the denial by pounds which we are
saying is
not by Planning and Zoning right
and then 32 days pass and an appeal is
made okay we're talking about couple of
different time periods when did the
clock start on this 30 days how about we take this one and and table
it I don't think we're going to get to
an answer tonight but why don't we put
this on the list of things to think
about before we get back together again
do you understand what I'm saying if
you're if if if we if a person has 30
days to appeal it and the appeal happen
on this date what happened 30 days prior
and in the midst of
that so I I think that's we can yeah I
think I think that's what we have to
look at if if it is timely that's the
only time period we have it was
that let's get our thoughts together on
this like I think I've heard what you said Amy
and we can we can consider how we how we
think so I don't think we're going to
wrap this one up in the next you know
number of minutes it's this is just a
it's a thing to put a pin in on and lay
out what you think and we'll come back
together next time and this is one of
the explicit things we can uh we can
talk
about so you're suggesting
that the clock started in May of
20122 I'm not suggesting anything I am
saying that if the
timeliness is the factor requirement of
an appeal you have have an appeal
application that has to be filed within
30 days of the error or the
interpretation right so you have you
have a calendar date right there that
you that limits that time
period well another thing too is it
wasn't actually found because it was
never
accepted you mean I think the DAT that
one you mean you mean the the appeal for
to us the paperwork for us yeah yeah
when it was received by by the town
yeah this one's a hard one for
me there was an attempt to have an
appeal there was an attempt to submit an
application for an
appeal and it was rejected it wasn't
accepted rejected well huh we never got
it you never got it but I think that
there was an appeal
filed with in a proper form with the
filing fee everything that needed to be
done to perfect an appeal was done
whether from an appealable decision
whether it's timely those are different
issues uh but I do think that there was
a
uh an appeal filed now it never came to
the board for scheduling a hearing you
guys never knew about it until after
there was a Judicial
determination uh by the Circuit Court
saying uh board of appeals you have to
hear this case t uh in a timely manner
now I don't know why uh this board did
not know about it why it wasn't
presented to you but that's not you know
what we're here for yeah
let's let's come back to let's get our
thoughts on that one and come back
um the next one I think the next couple
I think Fred already hit on with under
the the appeal is the was the offense
appealable question which was the first
one we talked about uh this is uh was it
a decision of the zoning administrator
or Planning and Zoning commission so
whatever it is we're considering
here was it just say we already talked
about keep on um
does it involve interpretation of 290
zoning does it involve enforcement of
290
zoning the answer to those
is yes but regardless of how of which
yeah
um G is going to pitch this out here I
feel like we maybe run into a little bit
of a a little bit of a wall um does
anyone have objections with wrapping
this up 30 minutes early or would you
like to continue working through this
together I can I can go either way it's
funny
caffeine I guess my question
is if
we stop it now and pick up
later what progress will we will we make
at the second
meeting um ultimately I don't think
regardless of how fast we go in the next
30 minutes we're going to come to a a
clean
conclusion um I think there's at least
for me there's some some things I'd like
to lay out specifically on the
timeliness
question
um I guess I don't see I feel like it's
stalled a little bit here and that we
would all benefit by getting our
thoughts together as to how to continue
to narrow our
discussion um but that said I'm this is
a little bit of a strange scenario
because it is public and you feel like
you don't want to ramble you want to get
your your ducks in a row before you talk
um but sometimes you just have to talk
it out right so I
yeah how do you feel what do you want to
do Amy personal personal preference um I
mean like I think that we have to meet
next time anyways um I think and I think
this would give us time then to evaluate
you know the June 2020 to appeal the
timing whatever I think that we could
have more clarity in our conversation if
we did that let's uh oh sorry Paul um
what do you what do you feel like Paul
if you're if you have a preference and
how you'd like to proceed right now what
would you like to do
I don't
know I hate to give up this I mean we we I don't know if we're making progress
yeah I hear but at the same time I hate
to give up the time how about this I
think I feel like yes it how about we we
look at your timelines and is there
let's just lay out the times when we'
like other board members to consider
things this may
be one time frame is can we can we
narrow this
to um an action or series of actions it
sounds like we've maybe kind of
informally done that but explicitly are
there are there other are do you still
think we should
consider the
reopening after the moratorium expired
as an action to continue talking about
or have we have we reached
some some guess I'm reconsidering
that we can okay let me let me go back
to the 30 days prior to the filing of a of
the appeal on June
24th what event
happened within those 30 days and the
only one I
see is a letter from Todd pounds on May
25th so would we say that that May 25th
2022 letter is when the clock started on
the 30
days I think I think
that the assumption would be that that
would be the clock as far as when the
appeal was made so we need to determine
if that is a date that would allow that
appeal I'm not sure what you
mean well we said before that we
believed well I thought it was kind of
all of us it
was if we believe that letter was on
behalf of Planning and Zoning
administrator and commission then that
would be a moment in time
that you could then appeal to because it
was a decision however our prior
conversation we all were kind of
speaking to the point that we did not
think that that was on behalf of the
Planning and Zoning okay group so I
think that
that's that could be what was the basis
for the appeal
application but I think and if we had
more you know a couple more days
whatever else we could then really look
into and see if that's what we thought
it was are we missing something else
that happened in the days
after I think it was the 25th of May I
misspoke
before so if we decided
that exhibit 33 if if we decided that letter on on May 25th was not on
the
behalf of Planning and
Zoning then the clock didn't start and
suddenly an appeal
appears there's no clock running
suddenly appeal
appears
what where's where's the where's the
30-day um rule
applying right and that's why one reason
why I think having it if we wait until
the next session then we can wrap our
heads around that and really dive into
it to see was there something else that
we're
missing I don't know if anything off the
top of my
head so the
three three dates we have noted down
here as oh sorry are
you what you going
to go ahead I was just going to just for our
own what we do once we're um Thinking by
ourselves is the infle the inflection
points are the initial jabak letter in
February of
21 Paul has made uh some some had had
some thoughts about
522 which what is is that
the maybe I wrote that date down wrong
was that the date that the moratorium
expired no what sorry I was wrong may 2222 is what we're talking about
right now is pound this is the pounds
letter May 25th May
25th maybe
one at the extended moratorium
expiring
on what date is that uh termination of
it on in March of 23
are there other dates or other
things you can think of right now that
we should consider while we're not in
session I think I think the way to
handle this to order for us to come to a
conclusion is we come up with a list of
relevant questions
we
agree as a board on the answers to those
questions to each
question and whatever those answers
are once they're put together becomes
our
decision I'm going to caveat that by
saying that I'm not sure that we have to
all agree on everything I think we have
to agree on an ultimate decision but I'm
not sure we have to agree you know I
think coming up with those two
questions is is will help us
Focus specific list of questions help to
help us
Focus can I be a devil's advocate so I
think that that's that's a very likely
scenario but I think that we have to
also know that in an event like this not
everybody's always going to agree right
um and so it could be that our decision
relies on the fact that we can't agree
on it we just have to leave that open
and it might be frustrating it's all
hell for everybody here but that might
be the result so just we're going to try
to you know have this conversation all
come to the same mindset but um just let
I'm just throwing that out
there because that's part of us well I
mean how else so what other approach
would you suggest oh no I think I think
our our approach is good I'm just I'm
just saying that I think that you know
this situation there's only three of us
and I think that there's a pressure that
we all have to agree and I think we all
want to come to the same conclusion or
whatever it is right ideally that's what
we do I'm just saying that doesn't
always happen if we had a full board it
might be a two three Vote or a 4-1 Vote
or something sure but so we might not
all agree and when you said answer the
questions okay that's all I'm saying I
thought you were saying going to help us
come to a to
a I don't want to say come to a decision
because all three of us may not
agree but what process is going to help
us to to finish the conversation so I
think we've already like not to maybe to
over over recap of of what we've done is
I
there's there a lot A lot has been
presented a lot has happened and from
where I sit today I have not heard
anyone make serious arguments that we
should be considering anything about a
moratorium resolution other than the
start and end dates the only doesn't
matter the interpretation of it the
legality of it that is outside of the
scope of this board which I think is a
massive thing taken off of our plates
for the next two meetings because that we're not discussing the legality
or any issues regarding moratoriums
ordinances resolutions we're saying
there was a moratorium and it ended um
but nothing kind of in between about the
specifics of that and I think taking
that off the table has been a pretty big
win even even from this first session I
mean unless someone has a real
disagreements help with how I just
summarize that um I haven't gotten any
indication that we want to we want to
turn in that direction um and once we've
done that we've now gotten to only a
couple
things that we actually are going to
consider some of them are procedural
process timing and checklist issues some
of them are what are the important
inflection points which we should
discuss and I think I I mean from where
we started here that seems pretty much
pretty narrow I think we keep doing this
go ahead use the word when you say
process process yeah you're talking
about the process that will get us to a
decision or talking about the um
sequence of events that occurred I'm
talking about the checklist of things
that we need to go through to say that
this these these things that we are kind
of when I say process I mean the things
that we already kind of went through is
it appealable is it timely was it a
decision of the zoning those questions
those are question those are process
question those are questions
yeah list those questions and we each
say on each question we each say yes no
yeah I think I think that's the way
that's what I was getting to okay I
thought you were saying that like we all
had to say yes to those question like to
the same question okay yeah okay I think
we come with a list of questions
first and then we debate each of those
questions and hopefully at the end
and we'll have
enough enough uh cohesiveness will be
able to come to a
decision so so explicitly explicitly the
question list those
questions I think I've got I think the list of um of issues that these
process issues we can shrink these down
from
a five days 30 days blah blah blah we
can shrink these shrink these down and
add if if there's other parts
of other things that we need to consider
we can add to you call them process
issues that confuses yeah sorry about
that yeah sorry
um there a list of questions that are
relevant what's the answer each one I
think that's right um just say you may
find that you don't all agree on each
question but the point is will you be
able to agree at the end of the road on
a final decision you may win some you
may lose some uh in the individual
questions but uh you need to come to an
agreement as to the final uh
outcome so
yeah may I ask a question Mr chair
please wrapping up soon come back uh
week and a half y
[Music]
not pushing it but I just want to uh
give you all the
opportunity I don't feel like personally
I have issues with the way the code the
language of the code is laid out legal
issues I think it's all taking the
context of the information we have and
trying to apply it which I think is open
session yeah uh okay uh with that so as far as
the list of questions who comes up with
the questions uh I can I have should we
all come up with our own list and we
come together with it why don't we do
our own list and you can send if you'd
like you can send it to me and I will
try and D
duplicate or you can send it to Fred we
can send
FR then just come
back okay it's fine with me yeah
um okay yeah so we doing uh layout a
list of questions and we have three
points in time at which those would
apply
to yeah more or
less okay um
given given that we have about 15
minutes left we'll just wrap up a little
early
um
outside uh is there any other business
any board members would like to bring up
at this time
uh anything else everyone good this Cas
no good okay uh at this point in time
I'd entertain a motion to
adjourn I'll make a motion to adjourn
second second all favor I this meeting
is ajour thank you
everybody it's weird to talk about it
can I just say that weird to talk about
it's weird to talk about it
probably
can okay it feels like there are so many
things that are not well
constrained go this way