[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