[00:00:45]
>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY. WE'RE STILL WAITING FOR THE ATTORNEY TO SHOW UP, I'M ASSUMING.
THEY'RE PULLING IN. WE'RE GOING TO START.
[BACKGROUND] COULD YOU ALL DO ME A FAVOR AND SIGN IN.
THAT WAY EVERYBODY IS SIGNED IN AND WE KNOW WHO'S HERE, AND IF YOU GUYS WANT TO JUST PASS IT THAT'S GREAT.
THAT WOULD BE A BIG HELP. THANK YOU. [BACKGROUND]
>> I'M JUST GOING TO SIT OVER HERE, MATT.
>> GOOD. THANK YOU. [BACKGROUND]
>> YES. MORE MIGHT SHOW UP AND IF WE NEED THESE GUYS TO SIGN IN AS WELL, THAT'D BE GOOD.
>> IT'S FINE. WELCOME, EVERYBODY.
[Call to Order]
SORRY FOR THE DELAY GETTING STARTED.WE ARE HERE TONIGHT TO LISTEN TO THE CONTINUANCE OF THE APPLICATION THAT WAS DONE LAST MONTH AND THAT WOULD BE NOT FOR THE SPECIAL USE, BUT FOR THE APPLICATION FOR THE VARIANCE WHICH IS NUMBER 23-0050.
THE APPLICANT, HARTLAND HOLDINGS LLC, COVERS CUSTOMER'S SPECIAL USE IN VARIANCE APPROVAL FOR THE CULTURAL PRODUCTS PROCESSING PLANT.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON TAX MAP 14, GRID 14, PARCEL 34, ALSO KNOWN AS 14010 RIVER ROAD IN GREENSBORO.
[00:05:07]
WAIT A MINUTE. I DON'T NEED TO READ ALL THIS.THAT'S PART OF THE ACTUAL STAFF REPORT.
I DON'T NEED TO GO INTO ALL THAT.
BUT WE'RE HERE TONIGHT TO LISTEN TO YOU GUYS PRESENT YOUR CASE AGAIN AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY NEW INFORMATION THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER BEFORE WE MAKE OUR DECISION.
WE ARE GOING TO BE LISTENING TO EVERYTHING AND THEN MAKE DECISIONS ACCORDINGLY.
THE TESTIMONY THAT'S HEARD WILL BE SPECIFIC TO THE VARIANCE TONIGHT.
SO ALL OF YOU GUYS THAT ARE HERE, IF THERE'S OTHER ISSUES YOU'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT.
IT'S STRICTLY RELATED TO THE VARIANCE.
WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THE MINIMUM WINDOW OF TIME FOR LIKE 2-3 MINUTES SO WE CAN MOVE THIS ALONG.
DO YOU WANT TO READ IN THE [OVERLAPPING]
>> EXHIBIT NUMBER 1 IS THE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLISHED IN
[Exhibits]
THE TIMES RECORD ON DECEMBER 6TH AND DECEMBER 13TH.EXHIBIT 2 IS THE STAFF REPORT AND PLANNING ENCODES [NOISE] DIRECTORS INTERPRETATION.
EXHIBIT 3 IS THE VARIANCE APPLICATION.
EXHIBIT 4 IS A SUPPLEMENTAL NARRATIVE.
EXHIBIT 6 IS TO SDAT REAL PROPERTY DATA SEARCH TAX MAP.
EXHIBIT 7 IS THE AERIAL OVERLAP.
EXHIBIT 8 IS THE AERIAL OF THE SURROUNDING AREA.
EXHIBIT 9 IS THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER AFFIDAVIT.
EXHIBIT 10 IS THE APPLICANT'S NOTICE.
EXHIBIT 11 IS THE SIGNPOSTING AFFIDAVIT AND PHOTOS OF THE PROPERTY.
APPLICANT'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 1 IS THE APPLICANT'S EXHIBIT.
>> WE'RE ALL BACK HERE FOR THAT SAME SITUATION.
IF YOU WANT TO BEGIN, WE'LL DO THE OLD FIRST.
LET'S GET OUR STOCKS IN ORDER.] ANYBODY WHO THINKS THEY ARE GOING TO TALK, YOU CAN JUST RAISE YOUR HAND AND WE'LL GO THROUGH THE ROOM AND YOU CAN SAY YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, AND THEN WE'LL GET IT ALL OUT OF THE WAY IN ONE FELL SWOOP.
[Swearing in of applicants and attendees giving testimony]
STARTING WITH YOU, BRANDON.>> SURE. BRENDAN MELANY MCALLISTER, [INAUDIBLE] 100 NORTHWEST STREET, EASTERN MARYLAND, HERE ON BEHALF OF HARTLAND HOLDINGS.
>> DO YOU HEREBY SOLEMNLY DECLARE AND AFFIRM UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE STATEMENT YOU [INAUDIBLE] WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.
>> BEN FLAHORD. I'M HERE WITH HARTLAND HOLDINGS LLC, 176 PUSEYVILLE ROAD, QUARRYVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA, 17566.
>> GREG EWING. LANE ENGINEERING, 117 BAY STREET, EASTERN MARYLAND.
>> ANYBODY ELSE IN THE BACKGROUND WHO THINKS [INAUDIBLE] TO SPEAK? GO AHEAD.
>> OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE GOING TO SPEAK? IF YOU THINK YOU WILL, GO AHEAD AND DO IT.
>>THANK YOU. [INAUDIBLE] IF YOU WANT TO GET STARTED.
>> SURE. THANK YOU ALL AGAIN FOR HAVING US BACK AND MAKING THE TIME.
[Applicants Testimony]
AS WAS STATED, THIS IS A CONTINUANCE FOR A VARIANCE APPLICATION TO ALLOW TWO LARGE GRAIN BINS AND ONE SMALLER GRAIN BIN THAT ARE PART OF A GRAIN AGRICULTURAL USE ON THIS PROPERTY TO BE WITHIN A 500-FOOT SETBACK THAT IS IMPOSED FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS PROCESSING USES WHICH YOU ALL APPROVED A SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION ON THIS PROPERTY FOR A MONTH AGO, THE PROPERTY IS 160 ACRES.I DON'T NEED TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THE DETAILS ABOUT THE PROPERTY.
I KNOW THAT YOU ALL ARE FAMILIAR WITH IT, BUT THE SETBACKS ARE ORDINARILY 40 FEET FROM THE FRONT, 30 FEET FROM THE REAR, AND 25 FEET FROM THE SIDE.
THE ONLY THING THAT IMPOSES THE 500-FOOT SETBACK IS THE SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION, AND THAT USES THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS PROCESSING.
AGAIN, THIS IS JUST GRAIN COMING INTO THE SITE, BEING STORED ON THE PROPERTY, AND THEN LEAVING THE SITE.
THERE'S ACTUALLY NO PROCESSING OTHER THAN A DRIER IN THE BINS.
WE ASKED FOR A CONTINUANCE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE IN PERSON, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE ONE VARIANCE CRITERIA THAT I BELIEVE THE BOARD WAS CONCERNED WITH WAS SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP AND WHEN WE WERE BEFORE YOU LAST MONTH.
WHAT I EXPLAINED WAS THAT WHEN THIS WAS FIRST INSTALLED, THE INTENTION WAS FOR THIS OPERATION TO ONLY SERVE HEARTLAND HOLDINGS LLCS PROPERTIES AND SUBSIDIARY PROPERTIES, AS I EXPLAINED THERE ARE PROPERTIES AND THE DORCHESTER, CAROLINE COUNTY, CECIL COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, THAT ARE PART OF THIS GRAIN CROP AND DAIRY OPERATION, AND MY OFFICE SUBMITTED A PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT REQUEST,
[00:10:01]
AND I GOT COPIES OF EVERYTHING THAT IS ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY.I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THESE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
THIS IS ALL OF THE [NOISE] BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE APPLICANT THAT THE COUNTY HAD IN ITS FILE.
>> I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO ENTER THIS AS EXHIBIT 1.
>> WAS THERE AN APPLICANT PRESERVED FROM THE LAST MEETING?
>> YES, THERE WAS [OVERLAPPING] [INAUDIBLE]
>> WHAT I REALLY WANT TO CALL ATTENTION TO AND WHAT WE DISCUSSED LAST MONTH IS THAT THE COMMUNICATION AND THE ERROR IN WHAT OCCURRED, AND WHY THESE STRUCTURES ARE WITHIN THE 500-FOOT SETBACK, AND HOW WE GOT HERE BEFORE YOU ASKING FOR NOT ONLY THE SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION, BUT THE VARIANCE APPROVAL IS THERE WAS A COMPANY CALLED RED BARN CONSULTING, AND I'M GOING TO HAVE MR. FLAY HEART TALK SOME MORE ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM AND WHAT EXACTLY TRANSPIRED, AND HOW WE GOT WHERE WE ARE.
BECAUSE HE HAS MORE FIRST-HAND EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE THAN MOST CERTAINLY I DO WITH THIS, BUT I JUST WANT TO WALK THROUGH AGAIN, THIS IS ALL THE CORRESPONDENCE THAT IS IN THE COUNTY'S RECORD FOR THIS MAP.
I'VE LABELED THE BOTTOM-RIGHT IN THESE SHEETS.
>> THE FIRST SHEET IS, YOU'LL SEE AT THE TOP, RED BARN CONSULTING IS THE PARTY THAT WAS SUBMITTING HERE.
THE SECOND SHEET IS THE SAME THING.
THE THIRD SHEET AT THE TOP, RED BARN CONSULTING VIA DROPBOX, YOU WILL NOTE THAT MR. FLAY HEART IS NOT ON ANY OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
THERE'S NO WRITTEN COMMUNICATION THAT WE COULD FIND IN WHAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE COUNTY THAT INDICATES THAT HE PLAYED A FIRSTHAND ROLE IN WHAT WAS PREPARED, SUBMITTED, OR APPROVED BY THE COUNTY TO THIS PROCESS.
SHEET NUMBER 4 IS THE END ACTUALLY OF AN EMAIL CHAIN BETWEEN MR. KACZYNSKI AND MACK BRUCE BAKER, WHO IS THE ENGINEER, OR AT LEAST THE EMPLOYEE, THAT WORKED WITH RED BARN AND WAS TASKED WITH HANDLING THE APPLICATION AND APPROVAL PROCESS FOR THESE STRUCTURES, FOR THE AGRICULTURAL PROCESSING STRUCTURES AGREEMENT.
THIS EMAIL CHAIN GOES THROUGH CONFIRMING THAT YOU RECEIVED THE REVISED PLANS THAT WERE MAILED.
DID I RECEIVE A PLANT SUBMITTAL I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO OPEN THEM AND TAKE A LOOK.
IT'S JUST REGULAR BACK-AND-FORTH BETWEEN MATT BREWBAKER AND MR. WIZINSKY ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY.
YOU'LL NOTE THAT MR. FLAY HEART, AND ANYBODY THAT WORKS FOR HEARTLAND HOLDINGS ARE NOT ON THESE; THIS WAS JUST HANDLED BY RED BARN.
IF YOU FLIP TO THE SEVENTH SHEET. THIS IS THE SAME THING.
THIS IS ANOTHER EMAIL CHAIN THAT ONLY INCLUDES MATTHEW BREWBAKER AND RED BARN, AND THIS IS ALL OF THE CORRESPONDENCE RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT OF THESE STRUCTURES THAT WE ARE ASKING TO BE PERMITTED WITHIN THE 500-FOOT SETBACK.
THIS EMAIL CHAIN SPECIFICALLY IS ABOUT DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100-FOOT BUFFER, THE STREAM ON THE PROPERTY, AND THEN, IF YOU GO TO SHEET 11, AGAIN, BETWEEN MR. WIZINSKY AND INFO@RED BARN AG ATTENTION MATT BREWBAKER CURRENTLY REVIEWING THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT.
THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS IN THIS CORRESPONDENCE, ONE; IS HEARTLAND HOLDINGS ANY DIRECT EMPLOYEE OF HEARTLAND HOLDINGS IS NOT ON ANY OF THESE CORRESPONDENCE.
EVERYTHING WAS BETWEEN MATT BREWBAKER, WITH RED BARN, AND THE COUNTY.
THERE ISN'T ONE PART OF THIS CORRESPONDENCE THAT EXPLAINS OR ANYTHING IN THE RECORD THAT THE COUNTY HAS IN WRITING THAT EXPLAINS THE DETERMINATION THAT TAKING IN THIRD-PARTY GRAIN IS WHAT TRIGGERS THE NEED FOR THE 500-FOOT VARIANCE AND THE SETBACK.
THERE IS A SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED, AND THERE WAS MOST CERTAINLY, AT SOME POINT BETWEEN MATT BREWBAKER, AND THE COUNTY, A DISCUSSION ABOUT A SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION BEING NEEDED.
BUT THAT WAS BETWEEN MATT BREWBAKER AND RED BARN, AND MR. FLAY HEART DID NOT HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THAT INTERACTION AND THE DETAILS OF SPECIFICALLY WHAT TRIGGERED THE SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION, WHICH THEN IMPOSED THE 500-FOOT SETBACK.
I'LL ALSO NOTE THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN WHICH WAS PRESENTED AT THE HEARING LAST MONTH, THE STRUCTURES,
[00:15:03]
THAT ARE ON THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR, THIS VARIANCE FOR COULD HAVE BEEN BUILT 40 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE; IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE ECONOMICAL TO BUILD THEM 40 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.THIS WAS CHOSEN BY MATT BREWBAKER AND RED BARN ENGINEERING OR CONSULTANTS, AND THEY CLEARLY HAD A STARTING POINT SOMEWHERE AROUND THAT 500 FEET.
I THINK MR. FLAY HEART IS GOING TO TESTIFY TONIGHT UNDER OATH THAT WHAT HE KNEW WAS THAT HE HIRED A CONSULTANT TO APPLY FOR AND GET THESE PERMITS AND EXPECTED THAT THEY WOULD DO THAT WITHIN THE LAW AND FULLY INTENDED FOR THIS TO COMPLY, NOT ONLY THAT, BUT AT THE TIME THAT THEY APPLIED FOR THESE PERMITS, IT WAS INTENDED THAT THESE STRUCTURES WOULD BE USED FOR HEARTLAND HOLDINGS OPERATION.
THEREFORE, THE ONE CRITERIA THAT THE BOARD OF APPEALS HAD CONCERN WITH LAST MONTH WAS THE SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP CRITERIA.
I BELIEVE YOU ACTUALLY WALKED THROUGH THE REST OF THE CRITERIA AND FOUND THAT THE APPLICATION SOUNDS PRIVATE.
I THINK WE STARTED ON IT, BUT WE NEVER FINISHED.
>> UNDERSTOOD, AND I'M HAPPY TO COVER EACH ONE OF THOSE TONIGHT.
I WANT TO STRESS THE SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP CRITERIA FIRST, AND THEN I'D LIKE TO WALK THROUGH THE OTHER CRITERIA.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO THE BOARD HOW YOU BOUGHT THE PROPERTY? WHAT YOUR INTENDED USE IS, AND HOW THIS GRAIN OPERATION HAS EVOLVED AND WHAT YOU INTENDED IT TO BE.
WHY DON'T WE START WITH JUST WHERE YOU STARTED WITH THIS PROPERTY.
>> WE BOUGHT A FARM IN CAROLINE COUNTY, I THINK A FEW YEARS PRIOR TO THIS PARTICULAR FARM.
WE HAD TROUBLE, WHERE DO WE GO WITH OUR GRAIN? WHAT DO WE DO? WE HAVE SOME BINS AT OUR HOME FARM IN PENNSYLVANIA.
WE ACTUALLY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO BUY SOME CHEAPER BINS FROM MOUNT AIR, WHICH IN A LITTLE TOWN IN GREENSBORO THERE.
THERE WERE A BUNCH OF OLD BINS, SO WE TORE THEM DOWN TO MOVE THEM AND WE WANTED TO MOVE THEM OUTSIDE OF TOWN.
THEY'RE, A PENNSYLVANIA COMPANY.
THEY'VE DONE SOME WORK FOR ME, SMALLER PROJECTS IN OPEN PENNSYLVANIA.
WE HIRED THEM. I ASKED THEM IF THEY CAN TAKE THIS PROJECT ON AND THEY SAID THEY WOULD.
I'M PLENTY BUSY, SO I TRY TO HIRE PROFESSIONALS TO HELP ME AND TAKE CARE OF THINGS AND MAKE SURE WE ARE LEGAL IN WHAT WE'RE DOING AND ALL THAT.
WE GOT THEM ON BOARD TO DO THE PROJECT AND I WASN'T INVOLVED.
I NEVER COME DOWN TO THE COUNTY, THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO PULL PERMITS AND TAKE CARE OF STORMWATER, ALL THAT TYPE OF THING.
THEY GOT THE PERMITS AND WE STARTED BUILDING THE BINS THERE, THE OLD BINS AT THE GREENSBORO SITE.
AS SOON AS WE STARTED CONSTRUCTION, I HAD FELLOWS, NEIGHBORS, FARMERS, PEOPLE COMING AND ASKING, ARE WE'RE GOING TO BUY GRAIN? THAT TRANSPIRED AFTER THE FACT OF THE PERMIT BEING PULLED, AND THEN WE DID END UP BUYING SOME GRAIN AND FILLED THE BINS FULL THE FIRST YEAR.
I DIDN'T REALIZE THE INTERESTS, THERE WOULD BE FROM NEIGHBORS AND LOCAL TO BRING IN MORE GRAIN AND IT JUST GREW FROM THERE.
WHEN YOU SAY THE GREENSBORO SITE, THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SUBJECT, RIGHT? THE RIVER ROAD, YES.
14010 RIVER ROAD PROPERTY. YES.
WHEN YOU HIRED REDBARN, YOU HAVE A LOT GOING ON AROUND MARYLAND AND PENNSYLVANIA.
WHAT WAS YOUR DIRECTION TO REDBARN ABOUT GETTING THIS OPERATION PERMITTED? MORE OR LESS, WE JUST HAD THE CONVERSATION TO GET US SHOVEL READY, GET READY TO MOVE DIRT AND BUILD, AND JUST TAKE CARE OF EVERYTHING UP TO THAT POINT AND GIVE US THE GREEN LIGHT WHEN IT WAS TIME TO GO.
IT WAS YOUR EXPECTATION THAT WHEN THEY WERE HIRED TO PUT THE BINS AND THE PROPERTY, EVERYTHING WOULD BE DONE WITH NECESSARY.
THAT WAS THE INTENTION TO DO IT CORRECTLY.
IT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT REDBARN WAS HANDLING CORRESPONDENCE AND PERMITTING WITH THE COUNTY AND THAT EVERYTHING WOULD BE DONE PROPERLY, BOTH FROM A USE AND THE BUILDING AND ELECTRICAL PERMANENT PERSPECTIVE? THAT'S CORRECT. [NOISE] JUST FOR THE BOARD'S EDIFICATION.
[NOISE] LIKE [NOISE] WILL BE MOSTLY CAROLINE COUNTY.
THIS IS BY-AND-LARGE JUST SERVING THE LOCAL COMMUNITY? CORRECT. MAYBE A FIVE-MILE RADIUS.
CAN YOU TELL THE BOARD WHAT YOUR INTERACTION OR LACK THEREOF,
[00:20:05]
WITH COUNTY STAFF AND DISCUSSIONS WITH THIS APPROVAL PROCESS.YOU'VE TESTIFIED THAT YOU TASKED REDBARN WITH GETTING THESE APPROVALS AND THESE PERMITS AND EXPECTED THEM TO DO EVERYTHING BY THE BOOK AND DO IT PROPERLY.
BUT WE HAD SOME DISCUSSION AND I THINK THERE WAS SOME DIALOGUE LAST MONTH THAT YOU PLAYED OR MAY HAVE PLAYED MORE OF A ROLE IN THAT, THAN WHAT, I WOULD SAY THE COUNTY RECORD INDICATES BECAUSE CERTAINLY THERE ISN'T ANYTHING IN WRITING THAT INDICATES THAT.
I DON'T RECALL SPEAKING WITH ANYONE THAT WORKED FOR THE COUNTY, LIKE ZONING OR PLANNING OR ANY OF THE PERMANENT DEPARTMENTS.
IF YOU HAD KNOWN THAT THIS OPERATION WOULD HAVE AS MUCH DEMAND FROM LOCAL FARMS AS IT DOES, TO STORE LOCAL GRAIN AND SUPPORT THE LOCAL AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY, WOULD YOU HAVE BUILT IT 43 FEET FARTHER AWAY FROM THE ROAD? WE WOULD'VE PROBABLY DONE SOME OTHER THINGS IS DIFFERENT AS WELL.
JUST FOR THE RECORD, YOUR INTENTION WHEN YOU FIRST BUILT THESE WAS JUST TOO USE THE BINS TO SUPPORT YOUR AGRICULTURAL USE IN MARYLAND? THE ORIGINAL INTENT WAS THAT, YES.
WHICH BINS ARE THE ONES THAT WERE FIRST CONSTRUCTED? THE CLOSEST BINS TO RIVER ROAD WERE.
THE BINS THAT ARE WITHIN THE SETBACK THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR THE VARIANCE FOR WERE THE ONES? RIGHT.
WHEN THOSE BINS WERE CONSTRUCTED [OVERLAPPING] CAN WE GET THAT ON THE SCREEN SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SO WE CAN SEE IT? YEAH. [BACKGROUND] SITE PLAN? YES, MA'AM.
[OVERLAPPING] THAT'S ALL WE ARE TRYING TO DEMONSTRATE.
THOSE ARE THE ONES CLOSEST TO THE ROAD [OVERLAPPING] WITH THAT APPLICATION.
[OVERLAPPING] OR THOSE WERE THE ONES THAT WERE NOT PERMITTED? ONE OF THEM AS MR. KACZYNSKI [NOISE] EXPLAINED, WHAT'S THERE IS NOT EXACTLY CONSISTENT WITH EVEN WHAT WAS SUBMITTED FOR PERMITS.
THEY'RE NOT IN THE EXACT SAME LOCATION, BUT THE LARGER GRAIN BIN [BACKGROUND] [NOISE].
HERE IS THE [INAUDIBLE] [NOISE] [BACKGROUND] WERE THOSE PERMITTED? NOT ALL OF THEM HAVE PERMITS.
THERE'S A SITE PLAN AND THE NEXT STEP FOR THIS APPLICATION IS TO GO FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE NECESSARY [OVERLAPPING] [NOISE], IF YOU COMPARE THAT TO THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN FROM 2019, THE LARGER BIN IN THE SETBACK.
COULD YOU SHOW US ON THE SCREEN? YEAH. WE DON'T HAVE THE 2019 SITE PLAN, BUT JUST LOOKING AT IT RELATIVE TO THE EXISTING DRIVEWAYS, THAT WERE AROUND HERE, IT DOES APPEAR THAT THIS ONE WAS THE ONE THAT WAS SHOWN A PERMIT SITE PLAN.
WE DO HAVE AS FAR [INAUDIBLE] [BACKGROUND] [NOISE] DID YOU GET A COPY OF THAT? I DID NOT.
I THINK WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO ADDRESS THAT AS WELL. [INAUDIBLE] THAT'S PART OF THE STUFF THAT WE ADDED.
[NOISE] I SUPPLIED ALL THE DOCUMENTS I SUBMITTED AS PART OF RUN-INS PIE REQUEST I'VE INCLUDED IN THIS PACKAGE, SO EVERYTHING THAT I GAVE HIM WAS INCLUDED IN HERE.
[NOISE] [INAUDIBLE] IT'S NOT A GOOD EXHIBIT [INAUDIBLE].
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY AND [INAUDIBLE] -.
>> OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THOSE BECAUSE THAT'S ALL THE DOCUMENTATION.
[00:25:01]
>> [INAUDIBLE]. EVERYTHING, THAT'S EXACT DOCUMENTS THAT I SUBMITTED TO HIM.
>> SO EVERYTHING WE GOT AS EVERYTHING THAT IS IN THE RECORD [INAUDIBLE].
>> OKAY. CORRECT? WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. CLARIFICATION.
>> SO THAT WOULD BE EXHIBIT 2A-.
>> THE STAFF REPORT OF [INAUDIBLE], WHICH HAS THE [INAUDIBLE] REQUESTS AND ALL DOCUMENTS THAT [INAUDIBLE].
>> [NOISE] AND I THINK THAT'S IT RIGHT THERE-.
>> SO I WOULD OFFER THAT THE NORTH-EASTERN MOST GRAIN BEND IS SILOED HERE, BEING LOCATED WITHIN THE 500 FEET IS FURTHER EVIDENCE OF THE INTENTION FOR THIS OPERATION TO BE USED FOR HER HOLDINGS OPERATION.
BECAUSE IF IT WASN'T, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE 500 FEET.
IT WASN'T UNTIL AFTER THE BINS WERE CONSTRUCTED, MR. [INAUDIBLE], THAT YOU STARTED IN-TAKING GRAIN FROM OTHER FARMS, CORRECT?
>> RIGHT. IT WAS AFTER THE FACT.
>> WHICH IS WHAT WE OFFER AS WELL.
THE INTENTION WAS WHEN THEY WERE CONSTRUCTED FOR THEM TO BE USED JUST TO SERVE THE ON-SITE OPERATION, WHICH AGAIN, EVERYTHING YOU'RE LOOKING AT ON THAT SCREEN CAN BE LOCATED NO CLOSER THAN 40 FEET TO THE ROADWAY-.
>> IF IT'S JUST SERVING THE ON-SITE OPERATION WHEN IT RAINS.
>> YEAH, I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT THAT ASPECT.
I MEAN, YOU COULD STILL PUT IT THAT FAR BACK WITH THE INTENTION OF DOING FURTHER STUFF TOO.
IT COULD BE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
THAT'S NOT CONCLUSIVE IN MY OPINION AS TO THE INTENT. DO YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? YOU PUT THEM WHERE YOU WANT OR YOU PUT THEM WHERE YOU THOUGHT THEY WOULD GO IF YOU WERE GOING TO DO IT IN A DIFFERENT CAPACITY TOO, YOU COULD GO IN WITH THAT.
>> I UNDERSTAND. AND MY INTENTION WAS TO ELIMINATE THAT UNCERTAINTY BY BRINGING THE APPLICANT AND DEMONSTRATING UNDER OATH THAT WHEN THEY WERE INSTALLED, THE INTENTION, AS I OFFERED LAST MONTH WITHOUT THE APPLICANT, UNFORTUNATELY, WAS FOR THEM TO BE USED FOR THE ON-SITE AGRICULTURAL OPERATION.
AS MORE DEMAND AND MORE LOCAL AGRICULTURAL GRADE PRODUCERS CAME TO MR. [INAUDIBLE].
HE STARTED IN-TAKING GRAIN, WHICH THEN CAUSED THE DISCUSSION WITH THE COUNTY, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY TRYING TO GET THIS CLEANED UP.
IF WE DIDN'T GO THROUGH THE VARIANCE CRITERIA, I'LL JUST BRIEFLY TOUCH ON EACH OF THEM.
>> THE FIRST IS THAT STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ZONING CHAPTER WILL PRODUCE UNNECESSARY AND UNDUE HARDSHIP ON THE APPLICANT.
THESE GRAIN BINS EXISTS TODAY.
THEY'RE SERVING THE AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY IN A VERY MEANINGFUL WAY.
THEY'RE TAKING IN LOCAL GREEN FROM LOCAL FARMERS AND BENEFITING THE LOCAL ECONOMY AND THE AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY.
MR. [INAUDIBLE] JUST FOR EVERYBODY IN THE ROOM'S EDIFICATION, WHAT GOES INTO BUILDING A GRAIN BIN, AN OPERATION LIKE THIS, FOR EACH OF THESE BINS.
SO THERE'S THREE LOCATED WITHIN THE SETBACK.
IF THE VARIANCE IS NOT APPROVED, THOSE BINS CANNOT STAY WITHIN THE SETBACK, CAN BE PART OF THE SPECIAL-USE EXCEPTION USE, THE AGRICULTURAL PROCESSING PLANT.
IN ORDER TO BE USED AS PART OF THAT USE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE DEMOLISHED AND RELOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE 500 FOOT SETBACK.
SO, I MEAN, JUST QUICKLY, CAN YOU GO THROUGH, WHAT ALL OF THAT ENTAILS?
>> THE BINS WOULD HAVE TO BE DISASSEMBLED, ORGANIZED, CLEANED, AND THEN WE'D HAVE TO TEAR UP CONCRETE.
THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF CONCRETE IN THE BASE OF THOSE BINS.
I MEAN, HUNDREDS OF YARDS OF CONCRETE.
AND THEN WE'D HAVE TO POUR NEW CONCRETE, BUILD BRAND NEW FOUNDATIONS.
AND THEN WE'D HAVE TO REASSEMBLE THE BINS ON THE NEW FOUNDATIONS.
AND ELECTRIC WOULD HAVE TO BE ON THE HOOK, RE-HOOKED AND THEN SOME OF OUR PIPING FOR LIKE OUR LEG ELEVATORS WOULD HAVE TO BE MOVED AND RELOCATED AND YEAH, IT'S NOT AN EASY PROCESS.
>> SO YOU'RE NOT THE CONTRACTOR, BUT YOU PRESUMABLY PAY FOR A NUMBER OF THESE TO BE PUT UP, WHAT WOULD BE IN YOUR PROJECTION, THE COST OF DEMOLISHING IN RELOCATING THREE GRAIN BINS.
>> TO DO THREE, I MEAN, WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO BE CLOSE TO $1 MILLION.
IT'S USUALLY ABOUT $100,000 TO PULL ONE DOWN, AND AT LEAST $100,000 TO PUT IT BACK UP, AND IF THEY'RE USED, IF THEY'RE NOT NEW, THEN NOBODY WANTS TO DO IT AND THEY CHARGE MORE TO DISASSEMBLE A DIRTY BIN OR BUILD A DIRTY BIN THAN A CLEAN BIN, BRAND NEW.
[00:30:01]
A FEW HUNDRED THOUSAND JUST IN LABOR TO TEAR THEM DOWN AND PUT THEM BACK UP.PLUS [INAUDIBLE] BETWEEN ALL THREE OF THEM THERE'S PROBABLY HALF OF MILLION DOLLARS OF CONCRETE AND REBAR.
IT'D HAVE TO BE RE-DONE AND THEN ALL THE OTHER WORK, HOOKING EVERYTHING UP AND DISASSEMBLE AND ELECTRIC EXCAVATION.
>> SO WHAT I WOULD OFFER THE BOARD IS RIGHT NOW THE CLOSEST GRAIN BIN IS 43 FEET WITHIN A 500 FOOT SETBACK.
OVER $1 MILLION TO HAVE TO RELOCATE.
AND I KNOW THAT THIS BOARD CAN'T JUST MAKE DECISIONS ON FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, BUT IT CAN BE A FACTOR IN MAKING A DECISION AND FINDING THAT THERE IS AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP THAT CAN BE ALLEVIATED BY THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE.
SO STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ZONING CHAPTER WILL PRODUCE UNNECESSARY AND UNDUE HARDSHIP, ALLOWING THESE GRAIN BINS TO REMAIN NO CLOSER THAN 457 FEET TO THE ROAD WOULD NOT PRODUCE AN UNNECESSARY AND UNDUE HARDSHIP.
THE HARDSHIP AS A RESULT OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES NOT SHARED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME DISTRICT AND ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND STRUCTURE OR BUILDING INVOLVED.
AS HAS BEEN TESTIFIED TO BY MR. [INAUDIBLE] UNDER OATH TONIGHT, WHEN THE BINS WITHIN THE SETBACK WERE FIRST CONSTRUCTED, THEY WERE INTENDED TO BE USED FOR HIS GRAIN OPERATION, WHICH IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT.
AND THE 500 FOOT SETBACK DOESN'T APPLY TO THE STRUCTURES, ONLY THE 40 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK.
THEREFORE, THE HARDSHIP AS A RESULT OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE UNIQUE TO THIS PROPERTY IN THIS OPERATION, AND THE VARIANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED.
CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT THE RESULT OR THE ACTIONS OF THE APPLICANT.
THIS IS THE CRITERIA THAT WE DISCUSSED MOST LAST MONTH.
AND WHAT I WOULD OFFER AS YOU'VE HEARD UNDER OATH TONIGHT THAT THE INTENTION OF THIS APPLICANT AND THE OWNER AND THE BUILDER OF THESE GRAIN BINS WHO FORMS THIS PROPERTY AND A NUMBER OF OTHER FARMS IN THE COUNTY WAS TO BUILD THESE AND HAVE THEM OPERATE TO SERVE JUST HIS USE, WHICH WAS PERMITTED BY RIGHT AND NOT SUBJECT TO THE 500 FOOT VARIANCE.
THEREFORE, THE ACTIONS WERE THE RESULT OF MISCOMMUNICATION BY THE ENGINEERING FIRM THAT WAS ENGAGED AND EXPECTED TO GET ALL THE LICENSES AND PERMITS FOR THIS PROPERTY AND FAILED TO DO SO, AND NOT MR. [INAUDIBLE].
SO WE'RE ASKING FOR VARIANCE FROM THE PROVISIONS BECAUSE OF THE HISTORY OF WHAT'S HAPPENED HERE.
THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCES IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE ZONING CHAPTER AND WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO ADJACENT PROPERTY, THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR THE GENERAL WELFARE.
THESE ARE AGRICULTURAL GRAIN BINS.
THEY'RE FOUND THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY, IF YOU'LL REMEMBER THE LAST TIME I WAS IN FRONT OF YOU, I PASSED OUT AN EXHIBIT OF PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN FROM AROUND THE COUNTY THAT CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED THAT THERE ARE AGRICULTURAL GRAIN BINS AND INFRASTRUCTURE THROUGHOUT THE RURAL AREAS OF THE COUNTY AND THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY.
THIS IS NOT A UNIQUE USE AT SOMETHING THAT BENEFITS THE AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY AND IS IN HARMONY WITH THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE ZONING CHAPTER AND IS NOT INJURIOUS TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS PRIMARILY WOODED AND AGRICULTURAL LAND, AND THIS IS A USE THAT IS THERE TO SERVE AGRICULTURAL USES IN THE AREA.
THE CONDITION, SITUATION, OR INTENDED USE OF THE PROPERTY CONCERNED IS NOT OF SO GENERAL OR RECURRING IN NATURE AS TO MAKE PRACTICABLE A GENERAL AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CHAPTER.
I DON'T BELIEVE I'M CERTAINLY NOT AWARE IN MY PRACTICE IN CAROLINE COUNTY OF A LOT OF VARIANCE IS SPECIFIC TO AGRICULTURAL PROCESSING PLANTS THAT HAVE BEEN BEFORE YOU.
I DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS A RECURRING PROPOSAL THAT WOULD MAKE PRACTICABLE A GENERAL AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CHAPTER.
AND THEN THE VARIANCES, THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO AFFORD RELIEF.
IF THE VARIANCE IS APPROVED, THERE'LL BE PERMITTED TO REMAIN.
APPROVAL WILL ELIMINATE AN UNDUE BURDEN AND ALLOW THIS IMPORTANT AGRICULTURAL USE TO REMAIN ON THE PROPERTY AND SERVE THE AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY.
SO, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.
WE'RE HAPPY TO ADDRESS ANY CONCERNS THAT YOU MIGHT STILL HAVE, BUT WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU TONIGHT UNDER OATH FROM THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT'S TEAM ASKED THAT THIS VARIANCE BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS, SO FAR? YES? YOU HAVE QUESTIONS?
[00:35:03]
>> SO, MATT, DIDN'T THEY COME AND ASK HOW LONG IT WAS GOING TO TAKE THE BUILDERS FACILITY, AND GIVE THEM THE TIME THAT THEY NEED TO SCALE IT BACK BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO TAKE TOO LONG?
>> SO THE WAY THAT THE PROCESS WORKED [NOISE] WAS THAT MATT BREWBAKER HAD SUBMITTED APPLICATIONS FOR A SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION AND A SITE PLAN APPLICATION FOR THE SAME EXACT USE THAT WE'RE SITTING HERE.
THOSE APPLICATIONS WERE PROCESSED IN APRIL OF 2019, AND MATT BREWBAKER REACHED OUT AND THAT E-MAIL CORRESPONDENCE IS HERE ASKING ABOUT TIMELINE, AND I'VE OUTLINED WHAT THAT [INAUDIBLE] THE PROCESS [INAUDIBLE].
AFTER THAT, THAT'S WHERE A PHONE CONVERSATION HAD HAPPENED.
MY IMPRESSION FROM MR. BRUBAKER WAS THAT MR. FLAHART NEEDED WHAT HE NEEDED AT THE TIME AND SO THE PROCESS WAS A SCALE BACK APPROVAL.
WE ISSUED A REFUND AND THAT'S IN HERE IT'S A REFUND REQUEST.
ONCE THEY MADE IT CLEAR THAT THEY WERE GOING TO SCALE BACK ON PERSONAL USE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HE NEEDED IT FOR RIGHT AWAY, THAT WE WOULD REFUND THAT MONEY AND THEN YOU'D HAVE TO SUBMIT APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS.
WE HAVE THE SPECIAL USE APPLICATION AND SITE PLAN APPLICATION IN HERE.
WE HAVE THE REFUND REQUEST AND THEN WE HAVE THE BUILDING PERMIT INFORMATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED.
THERE'S WHAT WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT, OBVIOUSLY, DIDN'T GET CONSTRUCTED LIKE THAT AND THAT'S IN HERE.
THERE WAS STILL THE IMPRESSION THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BUILD THE FACILITY SO THAT THEY COULD COME BACK LATER AND USE IT AS THEY ARE CURRENTLY PLANNING TO DO AND WHY THEY'RE HERE NOW.
I DON'T KNOW IF CATHERINE IF YOU CAN BRING UP THE BUILDING PERMIT SITE PLAN? WHAT WAS SCALED BACK AND FOR PERSONAL USE AND REVIEWED, APPROVED, AND PERMIT ISSUED STILL SHOWS WHERE THAT 500-FOOT [NOISE] SETBACK LINE WOULD BE.
THEY HAD PROPOSED TO CONSTRUCT WHAT WAS GOING TO BE THERE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO, EVENTUALLY, GET TO WHERE THEY ARE NOW AND STILL BE ABLE MEET THOSE SETBACK.
HOWEVER, WHAT WAS CONSTRUCTED WAS NOT WHAT WAS APPROVED AS PART OF THE PERMIT APPLICATION.
THAT'S WHY THEY ARE NOW SEEKING VARIANCE.
>> MIND IF I ASK A QUICK QUESTION? [BACKGROUND] WHEN THIS WAS SUBMITTED THAT 500-FOOT SETBACK DIDN'T APPLY.
I WOULD OFFER THAT THIS WAS AN OVERSIGHT.
>> THE DISCUSSION WAS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO COME BACK LATER TO SCALE IT BACK TO WHAT WAS AGREED UPON, AND SO THAT 500 SETBACK, THEY LEFT ON THAT PLAN SET TO SHOW THAT ONCE WE SCALE BACK UP WILL STILL MEET THE SETBACK.
CERTAINLY THROUGH THIS PROCESS, BUT THAT'S WHY THAT [INAUDIBLE] PUTS ALL THAT FOR PERSONAL USE.
>> DO YOU KNOW WHO HAD THOSE DISCUSSIONS? [OVERLAPPING]
>> THEY DIDN'T ASK ME TO TALK.
>> DO YOU KNOW WHO HAD THOSE DISCUSSIONS?
>> MATT BRUBAKER. THAT'S WHY WE REFUNDED THE MONEY FOR THIS.
WE REFUND THE MONEY AND THEN THE SITE PLAN SET THAT WAS APPLIED FOR AS PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION.
>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMMENT ON HOW YOU HIRED THEM? THEY CAME IN ASKING FOR WHAT YOU'RE DOING NOW, ORIGINALLY, AND DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS YOU DIALED IT BACK WHICH WAS FINE, AND THAT'S ALL WELL AND GOOD, BUT THEN YOU MOVED FORWARD.
THAT STILL TELLS ME YOUR INTENT WAS, ORIGINALLY AT SOME POINT, TO DO IT ON THIS SCALE.
THAT WAS THE INTENT BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, YOU HAVE MULTIPLE FARMS, YOU HAVE MORE RAIN, YOU HAVE MORE OPPORTUNITY.
YOU CAN USE IT IN SUCH A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE FOR YOU.
>> IN THE ORIGINAL, I REMEMBER HAVING THIS CONVERSATION WITH RED BARN AT THE TIME, AND THEY ALWAYS TELL ME IF WE BUILD A COW BARN, A LOT OF TIMES, IF THERE'S GOING TO BE TWO DOWN THE ROAD, WE DO ALL THE STORMWATER AT ONE TIME.
WE MIGHT ANY BUILD ONE, BUT WE DO ALL THE PREP WORK, MAYBE EVEN THE EXCAVATION FOR THE SECOND ONE, EVEN IF WE DON'T BUILD IT, BECAUSE USUALLY FINANCES, YOU DO A LITTLE BIT AT A TIME AS YOU HAVE THE FUNDS TO DO SO.
THEY SAID WHEN WE WENT IN HERE, THIS WAS A GREEN FIELD, IT WAS AN OPEN FIELD AND THERE WAS NOTHING THERE AND THEY SAID LAY EVERYTHING OUT.
HOW MANY ACRES COULD YOU BUY, COULD YOU FARM, WHAT CAN YOU DO? LOOK AT EVERYTHING BIG PICTURE AND PUT A PLAN IN FOR THAT.
BECAUSE IF YOU EVER START GROWING, YOU NEED MORE BINS, YOU NEED ANOTHER BARN.
[00:40:01]
PUT THE STORMWATER IN TO MAKE SURE THE DRIVEWAYS ARE THE RIGHT SIZE, DO ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE UPFRONT, AND GET ALL THE PERMITTING APPROVED FOR THAT.THAT'S WHAT WE DID. WE LOOKED AT WHAT'S THE BIGGEST THIS COULD EVER BE, AND LET'S COME UP WITH A PLAN FOR IT.
WHAT HAPPENED WAS, BECAUSE OF HARVEST COMING AND EVERYTHING KEPT GETTING DELAYED AND IT WAS TAKING SO LONG WE SAID WE DON'T NEED ALL THIS TODAY.
WE JUST WANT ONE BIN FOR OUR CORN.
THAT'S HOW THAT HAPPENED AND IT GOT RESUBMITTED SAYING LET'S JUST DO THIS AND THEN GO BACK LATER IF WE DECIDE TO DO THIS.
I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE BALL GOT DROPPED AND WE NEVER CAME BACK AND DID THAT OR SUBMITTED FOR THIS SPECIAL EXEMPTION.
>> BUT I THINK THE PROBLEM IS THE FACT THAT THE ORIGINAL PLAN CAME IN ONE WAY AND THE 500-FOOT WAS ON THE PLAN, AND IT WAS SET UP THAT WAY.
THEN SOMEHOW, WHEN IT'S CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT THE PERMITTING AND THE APPLICATION BEING DONE THE WAY IT WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN DONE.
IT ENDED UP OUT OF THE AREA THAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE, WHICH UNFORTUNATELY, WAS CREATED BY YOUR URGENCY.
YOU'RE THE ONE THAT OWNS THE PROPERTY.
YOU MADE THE DECISION TO DO THESE THINGS.
>> I DO WANT TO MAKE THE POINT THAT THAT ONE BIN IS PERMIT.
IT'S OFF BY 40 FEET, BUT IT IS DOES HAVE A PERMIT THE WAY IT WAS ISSUED ORIGINALLY.
JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT POINT.
>> WE ALSO HAVE TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WHEN YOU SHOW SOMETHING ON SITE PLAN AND THAT'S WHAT WE'VE REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS FAR AS LOCATION IS CONCERNED, THAT WASN'T CONSTRUCTED IN THE LOCATION REGARDLESS OF WHERE THAT SETBACK IS, THE 500-FOOT.
IN THAT CASE, IT DOESN'T MATTER, BUT WHAT IS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN WAS NOT CONSTRUCTED.
IT'S NOT IN COMPLIANCE EVEN IF HE BUILT IT FOR PERSONAL USE AND WE'RE NOT SITTING HERE FOR THIS APPLICATION, WOULD GO OUT AND SAY THIS ISN'T BUILT IN THE LOCATION WHERE HE SAID IT WOULD BE BUILT.
>> WHICH IS PRETTY TYPICAL FOR ARG.
YOU END UP BUILDING SOME BIN IN THE MIDDLE OF A FARM.
THE INSPECTOR IS NOT GOING TO REQUIRE IT AS BUILT.
IT'S GENERALLY ACCEPTED FOR THE MOST PART.
>> IT'S HARDER TO GET SPECIFIC. HE'S NOT GOING TO GET IT DOWN TO A FOOT I GET THAT.
WELL, DID YOU HAVE FURTHER, DID THAT CLEAR UP WHAT YOU WERE ASKING?
IF YOU COULD PULL UP THE NEXT ONE.
I'VE GOT TO SEE THE NEXT PAGE IT'S GOT THE GREEN BINS.
>> WHAT DO YOU MEAN WHEN BINS WERE SHOWING UP?
>> YOU WANT THAT CLOSE UP OR YOU WANT THAT ONE?
>> THE ONE WITH THE BIG CIRCLES WITH THE BINS ON.
>> THE ONE THAT HAS COLOR. [OVERLAPPING] THE YELLOW BLUE ONE.
>> IT'S GOT THE BIN. IT'S GOT EVERYTHING LAID OUT.
>> I'M TRYING TO SEE WHAT NUMBER IT IS.
AT THE TOP IF YOU WERE PAYING ATTENTION.
>> COULD IT BE HERE, NUMBER 7, THE AERIAL OVERLAY? THIS ONE, KEVIN, THAT LIKE THE GOOGLE ONE OR NOT?
IS THIS WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR?
>> YES. WELL, THE ONE I HAVE IS DIFFERENT.
>> BUT THEY DON'T HAVE THE COLOR ON. NO, NOT THAT.
>> THAT'S FROM THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTED FOR THE ORIGINAL.
>> FROM THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION. GOT YOU.
>> ON THIS ONE HERE, THINK WAS GOING TO PUT ANOTHER BIN THIS SIDE AS A PROPOSED BIN A FUTURE BIN WHERE THE ARROW COMES FROM THE POND.
THOSE PLANS THEY WERE NOT PROPOSED.
>> THAT WAS JUST THE ORIGINAL.
>> THE ORIGINAL SPECIAL USE IN SITE PLAN APPLICATION. SITE PLANS UP.
>> LOOK I'VE BUILT AND IF HIRE SOMEBODY, AN ENGINEER NAMED COMING DOWN ARE PRETTY WE DIDN'T COME IN HERE AND ASK FOR PERMITS THEY DID.
SO IT'S THE SAME WITH [INAUDIBLE] WHATEVER IT IS HE HIRED HIM TO DO THAT MAN'S JOB, AND HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS GETTING INTO.
HE KNEW EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS DOING.
YOU DON'T BUILD AN UNLOADING PIT AND A SCALE HOUSE TO THE MAGNITUDE OF WHAT HE HAS FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE.
[00:45:03]
THERE'S GRAIN FARMERS ALL LINED UP BEHIND YOU AND AIN'T NONE OF THEM GOT THAT.THEY GOT LITTLE OVERS AND LITTLE FUNNEL TROUGHS THAT YOU BACK THE TRUCK UP TO THEM AND DUMP IN THEM.
YOU GUYS KNEW WHAT YOU WAS GETTING INTO WHEN YOU DID THIS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO TELL YOU.
>> AM I ALLOWED JUST TO SAY SOMETHING?
>> WE HAVE THE SAME SETUP AT HOME FOR OUR OWN USE.
>> WELL, AND YOU SAY YOU'RE GOING TO DO THIS FOR PERSONAL AND LET YOU BUILD IT.
>> I'M JUST SAYING WE PUT IN BIG INFRASTRUCTURE FOR OUR OWN USE AT HOME AS WELL.
>> IN PENNSYLVANIA, WE HAVE A BIG RECEIVING PIT, WE HAVE A TRUCK SCALE.
WE HAVE THE SAME SIMILAR SETUP AT MULTIPLE LOCATIONS AND WHERE WE DO HAVE OUR OWN GREEN.
WHEN IT'S TIME TO GO, WE WANT TO GO WE WANT DO IT RIGHT.
>> BEN, WHAT'S THE LONG TERM IF THIS ISN'T APPROVED AND THOSE GREEN BINS HAVE TO BE REMOVED, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO YOUR OPERATION?
>> AFTER TODAY, I PROBABLY JUST QUIT.
>> DOES ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE HAVE ANYTHING THEY WANT TO ASK?
>> I DON'T WANT TO INTERJECT, BUT IF WE'RE AT A PAUSING POINT, BEFORE YOU DO YOUR CLOSING, IF YOU DON'T MIND, WE CAN SEE IF ANYBODY WANTS TO ADD SOME COMMENTS.
>> I WANT TO READ [INAUDIBLE].
>> OKAY, THAT'S FINE. IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME UP YOU MAY.
[Public Testimony]
>> I WAS HERE LAST WEEK. MY UNDERSTANDING FROM LAST WEEK WAS THAT THIS 30 DAYS WAS GIVEN TO HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT MR. FLAYHART KNEW ABOUT THE PERMIT.
MR. FLAYHART HAS BEEN DOING BUSINESS OVER THERE, BUYING AND SELLING SINCE FALL OF 2019.
THAT DON'T SAY TO ME THAT'S A PERSONAL OPERATION.
THE MEETING TONIGHT WAS ABOUT, DID HE KNOW? DID HE KNOW ABOUT THE PERMITTING? I'VE DONE SOME RESEARCH, AND THERE WAS TWO VIOLATIONS ISSUED TO HEARTLAND HOLDINGS.
I GUESS MR. FLAYHART WAS AWARE OF IT EITHER THROUGH THIS COUNTY, OR THROUGH HIS ATTORNEY.
THEY WERE ISSUED IN FEBRUARY 22ND.
ANOTHER ONE WAS ISSUED IN MAY, THE 2ND OR 3RD.
THERE WAS THREE PERMITS REQUESTED AFTER THOSE VIOLATIONS WAS SUBMITTED TO THE ATTORNEY OR MR. FLAYHART OR DO YOU REMEMBER? ONE WAS MAY 15TH, THAT WAS FOR THE LEAN-TO.
ONE WAS JANUARY 31ST, IT WAS FOR A BUILDING THAT WAS 100-BY-400.
I GUESS THAT WAS THE SHED BARN FIRST DRAW, I'M NOT SURE.
ONE WAS ISSUED IN AUGUST 1ST AT THE HOUSE.
BUT WHAT'S NOT BEEN SAID, AND WHAT'S ON THAT DRAWING WITH THE ORANGE BANDS ON IT.
THE DRAWING THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY LANE IS EXHIBIT 6 OUT OF LAST MONTHS DOCUMENTS.
I DIDN'T GET THIS MONTH'S DOCUMENTS.
IT SAID THE IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN HERE ON WERE FIELD LOCATED BY LANE ENGINEERING AS OF MARCH 14, 2023.
[NOISE] THIS DRAWING HAS A DATE ON IT OF 9 SOMETHING 23, SEPTEMBER.
AFTER THE FACT THE THREE PERMITS WAS ASKED FOR, THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, AFTER THE VIOLATIONS WAS ISSUED.
WHAT'S NOT BEING SAID IS THAT IN THE END OF JULY, THE 1ST OF AUGUST, HE EXPANDED THAT OPERATION BECAUSE HE WAS COMMERCIALLY DOING BUSINESS FOR FOUR YEARS.
A NEW DRIER WAS PUT IN THE END OF JULY, THE 1ST OF AUGUST WITHOUT A PERMIT.
IT WAS THE ONE THAT BURNT ON OCTOBER 10TH, THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT LAST MONTH.
I BEG TO DIFFER THAT NOBODY KNEW ABOUT THE PERMIT PROCESS BECAUSE HE'S
[00:50:06]
STILL VIOLATING WHAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE DOING EVEN AFTER YOU TOLD HIM TO STOP.I DON'T KNOW HOW TO EXPLAIN IT ANYMORE.
YOU DIDN'T MEAN THAT THE PERMIT, IT WASN'T IMPORTANT.
GENERALLY, IF WE GO OUT THERE, WE DO OUR SURVEY WORK.
THAT'S THE DATE REFERENCED IN MARCH.
THEN, I'M NOT SURE WHEN HE GOT THE INITIAL LETTERS, BUT HE REACHED OUT TO US BEFORE MARCH IN THAT SAME TIME FRAME, WHICH IS WHY WE WERE OUT THERE DOING OUR WORK.
HE CONTACTED ME AND SAID I'VE GOTTEN THE LETTER.
WE WENT OUT TO THE SITE SHORTLY AFTER, A MONTH OR SO ROUGHLY AFTER.
WHAT WE SHOW ON OUR DRAWING IS WHAT EXISTED AT THAT TIME, THE DATES OF SEPTEMBER.
THAT'S JUST WHEN WE WERE PREPARING THE EXHIBIT.
THE SURVEY FIELD WORK HAPPENED IN MARCH, BUT THIS ACTUAL DRAWING WAS PREPARED IN SEPTEMBER. THAT'S ALL I DATED.
>> AS FAR AS THE VIOLATION LETTERS AND THE PERMITS, THAT THAT'S EXACTLY HOW IT HAPPENED.
MR. FLAYHART GOT VIOLATION LETTERS FROM THE COUNTY, FOUND OUT THERE WAS AN ISSUE, CALLED BRETT AND I, AND SAID I NEED YOU ALL TO FIGURE THIS OUT, GO GET THE PERMITS AND THE APPROVALS THAT WE NEED TO OFFER THIS FORM, AND THEN WE SUBMITTED TO GET THE PERMITS.
>> THERE'S NO PERMIT FOR THAT DRYER AND IT'S BEEN INSTALLED AND NOW IT'S NOT OPERATING.
THEY'VE GONE BACK TO OPERATE THE OLDER DRYER THAT WAS ON THERE, BUT THEY HAD TWO DRYERS RUNNING BECAUSE HE WAS COMMERCIALLY PUSHING THAT OPERATION THERE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER HE NEEDED PERMITS OR NOT.
THAT SECOND DRYER IS NOT PERMITTED.
I'VE CALLED THIS OFFICE TO FIND OUT AND THEY SAID NO.
>> DID THEY TELL YOU WHAT PERMIT WAS NECESSARY FOR IT?
>> I DON'T NEED TO KNOW WHAT PERMIT WAS NECESSARY.
>> I UNDERSTAND THERE'S NO PERMIT FOR IT, BUT IT MAY NOT NEED A PERMIT.
>> I WOULD SAY IT WAS ADDED TO THE OPERATION.
ANYTHING YOU BUILD NEEDS A PERMIT, DOES IT NOT?
>> I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT. MATT, CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT?
>> I'M NOT SURE WHETHER OR NOT THE DRYER NEEDS A PERMIT OR NOT.
>> THE GRAIN BINS, WE DO ISSUE PERMITS FOR THE GRAIN BINS, BUT AS FAR AS DRYERS CONCERNED, I'M ASSUMING WE WOULD ISSUE AS WELL.
BUT YES, THERE ARE STILL OUTSTANDING VIOLATIONS THAT DEAL WITH STRUCTURES THAT DON'T HAVE PERMITS.
BUT THAT ALSO IS TIED TO WHAT HAPPENS HERE AT THIS HEARING BECAUSE AS YOU CAN SEE FROM WHAT WAS CONSTRUCTED COMPARED TO WHAT WAS APPROVED, IT'S A LOT DIFFERENT.
>> THIS WAS DONE AFTER THE FACT THE VIOLATIONS WERE ISSUED AND HE WAS AWARE THAT PERMIT WERE NECESSARY.
IT'S THE POINT THEY'RE TRYING TO MAKE THAT HE GOT THE VIOLATION LETTERS AND HE'S TRYING TO CORRECT AND RECTIFY THE SITUATION.
HURLEY REQUESTED THE COUNTY, THAT'S WHY HE'S HERE.
YOU'RE RIGHT THAT HE DID IT AFTER THE FACT.
>> NO. WE APPRECIATE, YOU MADE YOUR POINT. WE APPRECIATE IT.
>> WHAT WAS PERMITTED [INAUDIBLE] IS WHAT'S ON THE 2019 BUILDING PERMITS SITE PLANS FOR PERSONAL USE.
>> YOU MEAN FROM 2018? THAT'S JUST ONE TANK, RIGHT?
>>YES, THERE'S A TANK, A DRYER.
>> FROM THE BUILDING PERMIT SITE PLAN.
>> THEN YOU CAN JUST GO TO ONE OF THE FOLLOWING PAGES WHERE IT'S ZOOMED IN SO YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE STRUCTURES.
>> NO, NOT THAT. GO FURTHER DOWN THE BUILDING PERMIT SITE PLAN.
THAT'S THE SITE PLAN SET FROM THE ORIGINAL SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION.
JUST USE THE BOOKMARK TAB AND SCROLL UP.
>> WALMART DOWN. GOOD. GO DOWN.
GO BACK TO THE LEFT. SITE PLAN SHOWING THE FOUNDER FOOT SETBACK.
YES. THEN GO TO THE NEXT PAGE.
THAT'S STILL NOT THE RIGHT ONE.
SCROLL FURTHER DOWN ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE, YOU NEED TO GET DOWN TO WHERE THERE'S THE BUILDING PERMIT.
YES, FOR PERSONAL USE, RIGHT THERE.
YES. THEN GO TO THE SECOND PAGE, YOU CAN SEE.
[00:55:01]
[Board questioning and discussion with applicants]
THERE'S A WET BIN AND THEN, A SHED.THERE'S THE GRAIN STORAGE, WHICH IS THE 70-BY-120 STORAGE BUILDING.
THAT'S THE STUFF THAT WAS ISSUED AS PART OF THAT PERMIT.
THOSE ARE THE STRUCTURES THAT WERE REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT.
>> WHAT LOOKS VERY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S THERE NOW? I'LL SAY THAT MUCH.
>> HOW LONG HAS THE POND BEEN THERE FOR?
>> THE POND THAT'S IN THIS DESIGN NOW IS NOT WHAT WAS CONSTRUCTED, WHICH IS ALSO THE PART OF THE PROBLEM.
>> LET ME BE CLEAR. THIS IS THE FIRST STEP.
NEXT IS SITE PLAN, AND THEN ARE BUILDING PERMITS TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING'S BUILT TO CODE AND IS ALLOWED TO REMAIN OUT THERE.
>> WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU DROVE THROUGH RED BARN? JANUARY? A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO?
>> [INAUDIBLE] A BUILDING PERMIT.
>> I THOUGHT RED BARN WAS ON THE RIGHT TRACK.
THEY WERE GETTING THINGS DONE RIGHT.
>> YEAH, THEY APPLIED FOR SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION, [INAUDIBLE] APPLICATIONS.
I PROCESSED AND CHECKED FOR $800, $400 FOR EACH APPLICATION.
THEN MATT BREWBAKER ASKED HOW LONG IT WAS GOING TAKE, AND THAT WASN'T GOING TO WORK.
I SCALED IT BACK, WE REFUND THE MONEY.
WE ISSUE PERMITS FOR THAT, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WAS CONSTRUCTED.
>> BUT AT WHAT POINT, AFTER STARTING THIS, MR. FLAYHART, DID YOU JUST DECIDE THAT YOU WEREN'T GOING TO COME BACK FOR FUTURE PERMITS OR ANYTHING? THAT WASN'T A WISE DECISION.
I THINK YOU CAN AGREE, LOOKING BACK. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN?
>> I THINK THAT'S WHERE SOME OF THE CONFUSION WAS.
I WASN'T AWARE THAT THINGS WERE BACKED UP.
I WAS STILL UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE OTHER SCREEN THAT YOU HAD UP THERE WITH THE FULL SETUP, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT WAS APPROVED, SO WHEN WE HAD IT ALL, I THOUGHT EVERYTHING WAS ALREADY THROUGH THE PROCESS, THAT WE'D GOT EVERYTHING.
>> WHO WOULD HAVE GIVEN YOU THAT INVITATION?
>> I WAS WORKING WITH RED BARN AT THE TIME.
THEY TOLD ME TO GO AHEAD, WE CAN START AND I ASSUMED EVERYTHING WAS APPROVED.
TO MAKE THAT KIND OF AN INVESTMENT, I WOULD WANT CONFIRMATION AND UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT I'M GOING TO DO BEFORE I PUT THAT KIND OF MONEY INTO A BUILDING.
YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? IT JUST DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT ALL ADDS UP.
WHY DIDN'T YOU THEN ENCOURAGE RED BARN TO COME AND STAND HERE TONIGHT? SOMEBODY FROM THAT COMPANY TO REPRESENT YOU AND SAY, "YES, HE DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
WE JUST DID ALL THIS STUFF." YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? BECAUSE I THINK THEIR TESTIMONY MIGHT HAVE GIVEN ME MORE OF A BELIEF IN THE FACT THAT YOU DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING.
>> MATT BREWBAKER IS THE ACTUAL APPROVED ENGINEER, BUT THERE WAS ACTUALLY A LADY THAT HANDLED THE ENTIRE PROJECT THAT I SPOKE WITH THERE.
I DIDN'T EVEN TALK TO MATT HARDLY AT ALL, MATT BREWBAKER.
AND RIGHT AFTER, I THINK THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN APPROVED OR NOT APPROVED RIGHT ABOUT THAT TIME, THEY ACTUALLY FIRED HER.
THE WHOLE THING WAS A MESS. LIKE IT WAS A MESS.
>> IS RED BARN STILL IN BUSINESS?
>> I DON T KNOW IF THEY ARE REALLY.
I'M NOT SURE IF THEY ARE OR NOT.
>> I'M JUST READING SOMETHING HERE.
>> NUMBER FIVE, THEN YOU SUBMIT.
>> [BACKGROUND] IT'S BASICALLY FROM MATT BREWBAKER TO BEN KRUZINSKI AND IT STARTS AT THE TOP OF PAGE 5.
I WILL SEND YOU AN EMAIL FOR YOU TO DOWNLOAD PDFS OF THE REVISED PLANS VIA DROPBOX.
THEN FLAYHART ASKED ME THIS MORNING IF I WERE TO FIND OUT ONE, WHEN THE SPECIALTY WHO'S HEARING WILL BE HELD FOR THIS PROJECT, ABOUT HOW LONG WE CAN EXPECT UNTIL WE GET PLAN APPROVAL FROM THE COUNTY?
[01:00:03]
IS IT PERMISSIBLE ONCE ENS PLAN AND NPDES APPROVALS ARE OBTAINED FROM THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT FOR EARTH-MOVING TO BEGIN EXCAVATION, BUT NOT BEGIN ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION UNTIL COUNTY APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT DOESN'T CHANGE.THAT RIGHT THERE TELLS ME YOU KNEW SOMETHING.
YOU BASICALLY ASKED BEN SPECIFICALLY, ASKED MATT IF THIS IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTABLE.
THIS IS YOUR DOCUMENTATION THAT YOU SUBMITTED.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT MR. FLAYHART IS ASKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE TURNAROUND, THE TIMELINE, AND IT'S, COME ON, HURRY UP AND GET THIS DONE, KNOWING FULL WELL WHAT HE WAS GETTING READY TO DO AND EMBARK ON.
I'M STRUGGLING WITH THIS. I REALLY AM.
>> IF YOU READ THAT AND I DRAFT THESE KINDS OF EMAILS ALL THE TIME ON BEHALF OF CLIENTS.
IF A CLIENT, SAYS, HOW LONG IS IT GOING TO TAKE? AND I SEND MATT AN EMAIL THAT SAYS, "HOW LONG IS THIS GOING TO TAKE? KNOWING THE PROCESS, HOW LONG IS THIS GOING TO TAKE?" WHAT'S THE COMMON EXPECTED TURNAROUND? [OVERLAPPING]
>> BUT THE FACT THAT IT SAYS, "THEN FLAYHART ASKED ME THIS MORNING IF I CAN FIND OUT, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.'' THEY HAD HAD AN IN-DEPTH CONVERSATION AND I THINK THERE'S MORE THAT HE WAS AWARE OF.
I THINK THAT THERE'S [INAUDIBLE]. I HATE TO SAY THAT.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT IT WAS INTENTIONAL OR WHATEVER, BUT I STILL THINK YOU EITHER KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN.
I DON'T THINK [INAUDIBLE] IS THE CORRECT RESPONSE IN THIS SITUATION WITH THIS, BECAUSE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A MAJOR OPERATIONS AND MONEY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE SPENDING.
WE'RE TALKING A LOT OF MONEY AND WE REALLY NEED TO BE 100% WITH WHAT YOU'RE DOING, AND COUNTY APPROVAL IS VERY MUCH ALONGSIDE AND I WOULD NEVER HIGHER A FIRM THAT I DIDN'T HAVE CONFIDENCE IN OR THAT I DIDN'T ASK QUESTIONS AND FOLLOW UP, TO MAKE ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN THAT IS ME, AND THEY'RE OUT OF STATE TOO.
ONE MISTAKE WAS DEALING WITH SOMEBODY FROM PENNSYLVANIA INSTEAD OF A LOCAL.
BUT WE STILL NEED TO MOVE ON AND ADDRESS THINGS, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING MORE WE WANT TO SAY OR IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE? I HAVE ANOTHER CONCERN TOO.
I JUST WANTED TO POINT THIS OUT TOO.
[OVERLAPPING] IS THERE SOMEBODY ELSE THAT WANTED TO SPEAK FOR THE AUDIENCE?
>> I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. IT'S A SMALL QUESTION.
THE BUSINESS ENTITY THAT YOU'RE EITHER GOING TO APPROVE OR NOT APPROVE, THAT'S LOCATED ON RIVER ROAD.
CAN SOMEBODY TELL ME WHAT THAT BUSINESS NAME IS? THAT BUSINESS ENTITY THAT OPERATES THEIR MAIL SINCE 2019, BUYING AND SELLING.
WHAT IS THAT BUSINESS NAME CALLED?
>> I WOULD ASSUME IT'S HEARTLAND HOLDINGS.
>> HEARTLAND HOLDINGS OWNS THE PROPERTY.
>> WHAT IS THE NAME THAT YOU'RE BUYING AND SELLING UNDER?
>> HEARTLAND FARMS, INC. IS WHAT WE.
>> [OVERLAPPING] OUT OF MARYLAND? OUT OF PENNSYLVANIA?
>> IT'S A PENNSYLVANIA-FORMED ENTITY.
>> IT'S VERY RELEVANT BECAUSE TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF MARYLAND, YOU GOT TO BE COMPLIANT TO THE STATE OF MARYLAND LAW.
TO BUY AND SELL [BACKGROUND] OR TO BE LICENSED OR ANYTHING.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO APPROVE THIS PERMIT, IT HAS A BEARING ON THE BUSINESS ENTITY OPERATING THERE, AND IT SHOULD BE A LEGAL BUSINESS ENTITY OPERATING THERE, UNDER THE STATE OF MARYLAND LAW.
>> MR. FLAYHART, IS THAT ENTITY, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, REGISTERED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF MARYLAND?
>> YES. IT'S A PENNSYLVANIA-FORMED ENTITY, BUT WE ARE ALLOWED TO OPERATE IN MARYLAND.
WE'RE REGISTERED, WE PAY TAXES IN MARYLAND.
>> OKAY. THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTION. CRYSTAL?
>> UNDER MARYLAND'S BUSINESS ENTITY SEARCH, HEARTLAND FARMS INC. IS REGISTERED WITH THE STATE OF MARYLAND, BUT IT'S NOT IN GOOD STANDING.
BUT THEY ARE A REGISTERED ENTITY HERE.
>> OKAY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS NECESSARILY, BUT THAT MUST MEAN SOMETHING TAXABLE OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE.
>> IT MEANS THAT ENTITY WHICH DOESN'T OWN THIS FARM, AND ISN'T SUBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION, NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT IN GOOD STANDING, WHICH MOVE QUICKLY FOR CLIENTS REGULARLY.
>> WHAT DO YOU STORE IT IN THESE TANKS THAT ARE TOO CLOSE TO THE ROAD.
>> WE'RE STRUGGLING WITH THE THE APPLICANTS.
THE CONDUCT OF THE APPLICANT IS ONE OF THE ISSUES.
THE OTHER ISSUE IS, I THINK, BRENDAN, YOU COMMENTED ON THIS ONE, THE DIFFICULTY OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS, CIRCUMSTANCES NOT GENERALLY SHARED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT OR IN THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD AND IS PECULIAR TO THE PROPERTY,
[01:05:01]
STRUCTURAL, OR BUILDING FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED.THERE IS NOTHING EXCEPTIONAL ABOUT THIS FARM THAT WOULD WARRANT THE DISREGARD FOR THAT 500 FOOT SETBACK.
IT'S NOT AN IRREGULAR SHAPE LAW.
IT'S NOT THAT HE DOESN'T HAVE PLENTY OF PLACES TO PUT THOSE BUILDINGS ELSEWHERE WITH ON THAT PROPERTY, THEN IT SHOULDN'T REQUIRE A VARIANCE.
HAD HE FOLLOWED THE CORRECT CHAIN OF EVENTS, IT WOULD'VE BEEN PLACED EXACTLY WHERE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE, TO USE IT THIS WAY.
I KNOW YOU KEEP GOING BACK TO THE PERSONAL USE, BUT I QUESTION THAT.
I QUESTION THAT BECAUSE OF HOW HE STARTED THE PROCESS, NOT LOOKING FOR PERSONAL USE, AND THEN CHANNELED BACK, AGAIN, BECAUSE IT WASN'T GOING TO WORK OUT FAVORABLY.
>> FOR ALL THE TANKS BUILT, IS EVERYTHING BUILT AT ONCE OR WAS IT BUILT PIECE BY PIECE?
>> IT WAS OVER A COUPLE OF YEARS, PIECE AT A TIME.
>> ACTUALLY, [INAUDIBLE] JUST PUT UP LAST YEAR OR THE YEAR BEFORE [INAUDIBLE]
>> THE FIRST ONE, THAT'S IN THE 500-FOOT LINE [INAUDIBLE]
>> WELL, I THINK THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE EARLIER IS THAT THIS FIRST BIN GOT PERMITTED.
THEY DIDN'T BUILD IT IN THE EXACT LOCATION THEY SHOWED.
IT WAS PROBABLY PERMITTED AT 500 PLUS OR MINUS FEET, OVER 500.
THEY DIDN'T GET IT STAKED OUT AND THEY DIDN'T BUILD IT EXACTLY PER OF THE ORIGINAL PLAN, SO THEY BUILT THAT CLOSER TO THE ROAD THAN WHAT THE ORIGINAL PERMIT SHOWED.
>> THAT WAS THE FIRST BIN TO BE BUILT, NOT THE LAST.
THE LATER BINS ARE ACTUALLY FURTHER AWAY FROM THE ROAD.
>> THE BIN THAT'S IN THIS LOCATION OF WHAT EVERYTHING IS SITTING IN, JUST GOT PULLED UP.
WHICH THEN [INAUDIBLE] QUESTION WAS THERE FOR THAT?
>> YES. THAT IS THE LAST ONE THAT WAS BUILT.
>> BECAUSE YOU JUST PUT IT UP LIKE A YEAR-AND-A-HALF AGO?
>> THE ONE THAT HAD ORIGINALLY BEEN PERMITTED FOR, [OVERLAPPING] THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE AT 500 FEET.
>> BUT THE QUESTION I HAVE IS, SO LANE ENGINEERS IS SAYING, AND YOU WERE JUST SAYING, THAT YOU CAN'T REALLY GET THAT 500 FEET.
YOU'RE GOING TO TELL ME THAT [INAUDIBLE] AND ALL THAT, AND YOU SAID THAT SETS YOU OUT AFTER 500 FEET PUTS YOUR [INAUDIBLE]?
>> WHAT'S THE QUESTION THERE? [OVERLAPPING] WE'RE SAYING WE CAN'T MAKE THEM 500 FEET?
>> YOUR ENGINEERING FIRM IS LAYING THINGS OUT.
YOU'RE GOING TO TELL ME YOU CAN'T PUT 10 OUT OF THE 500 FOOT [INAUDIBLE]?
>> YOU MEAN COULD WE HAVE DONE THAT? OH, YES.
YOU CAN SET A STAKE OUT THERE AND SAY THAT'S 500 FEET OUT.
>> SO IF I PUT A PERMIT IT AND GET EVERYTHING DONE, AND HAVE SOMEBODY DO THIS ENGINEERING, AND THEN WE PUT THEM [INAUDIBLE] WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION.
>> FOR SURE. YES. WE KNOW THAT.
>> YES. I THINK BRETT'S ONLY POINT THERE WAS THAT IT'S NOT UNCOMMON IN CONSTRUCTION. [OVERLAPPING]
>> CAN BE OFF A LITTLE BIT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A FARM BUILDING.
>> WHEN YOU'RE BUILDING IN THE MIDDLE OF A FARM FIELD IS NOT UNCOMMON, THAT THE COUNTY IS NOT GOING TO GO OUT THERE WITH A TAPE MEASURE AND [OVERLAPPING] MEASURE OFF THAT.
EXACTLY. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.
IT'S MORE GENERALIZED WHEN YOU'RE BUILDING IT IN THE MIDDLE OF A FARM.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE?
>> ARE YOU READY TO CLOSE YOUR ARGUMENTS OR DO YOU HAVE FURTHER COMMENTS FROM EITHER ONE OF YOU OR ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO PUT FORWARD?
>> NO. I WOULD JUST OFFER THAT, YOU'VE HEARD UNDER OATH TONIGHT THAT WHAT WAS FIRST BUILT AND IS WITHIN THE SETBACK, WAS INTENDED FOR PERSONAL USE FOR THE APPLICANT AND PERMITTED BY RIGHT.
IT'S UNIQUE TO THIS PROPERTY THAT THERE ARE VERY EXPENSIVE AND IMPORTANT TO THE INDUSTRY AND THE LOCAL AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY STRUCTURES THAT ARE NO CLOSER THAN 457 FEET TO THE ROAD, THAT ARE OPERATING IN SERVING THE AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY.
WE WOULD ASK THAT THE VARIANCE BE APPROVED SO THAT THE STRUCTURES CAN REMAIN, AND THE USE THAT YOU APPROVED LAST MONTH CAN REMAIN IN THESE STRUCTURES.
IT'S GOING TO BE A SIGNIFICANT HARDSHIP AS YOU'VE HEARD, IF THE DETERMINATION TONIGHT IS THAT THE STRUCTURES HAVE TO COME DOWN BECAUSE THEY CAN'T BE USED FOR THE USE THAT WAS APPROVED LAST WEEK.
[01:10:01]
>> NOBODY ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE HAS ANYTHING FURTHER? BECAUSE ONCE WE DELIBERATE, THAT'S IT.
>> I'LL JUST MAKE A COMMENT. DO I NEED TO COME UP THERE?
>> PLEASE. I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO TAKE THE OATH.
[Public Testimony]
YOU TO TAKE YOUR OATH. YOUR NAME IS?>> JOHN SADOLF, 11830, RIDGELY ROAD, RIDGELY.
>> DO YOU HEREBY SOLEMNLY DECLARE INCUMBENT TO THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY, THAT THE STATEMENT YOU MAKE AND THE TESTIMONY YOU GIVE ARE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?
>> I DO. I WILL JUST TAKE ISSUE WITH ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT WAS MADE EARLIER THAT SITE STRUCTURES ARE NOT TYPICALLY BUILT WHERE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE PERMANENT.
I CAN SEE A FOOT OR TWO, BUT NOT 43 FEET.
ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE STARTING IN THE MIDDLE OF FIELD AND EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING TO BE BUILT SUBSEQUENT TO THAT IS BUILT AROUND THE SUBJECT DOOR.
I WOULD SAY THAT THAT IS NOT WHAT'S TYPICALLY DONE BY THE REST OF US IN THIS COUNTY.
I WOULD FURTHER SAY, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE TESTIMONY EARLIER WAS GOING WITH THE DIFFERENT ENTITIES THERE IN HARTLAND HOLDINGS, HEARTLAND FARMS. ONE OF THOSE PAGES THAT FLASHED BY THERE SAID BEN FLAYHART ON IT, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS ARE OF THESE DIFFERENT ENTITIES THAT ARE APPLYING FOR STUFF TO TRY TO EVADE THESE THINGS.
BUT [NOISE] TO THE ODD PERSON THAT'S SUSPICIOUS.
I'LL JUST POINT THAT OUT, I DON'T KNOW IF ONE PAGE DID THERE, BUT I'M PRETTY SURE ONE OF THEM SAID HAD BEN FLAYHART ON IT, NOT HARTLAND HOLDINGS.
HE WOULD HAVE REFERENCED THAT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HAS ANY IMPLICATIONS ON ANYTHING, BUT JUST THOUGHT I'D POINT THAT OUT.
>> THANK YOU. THE FUN BEGINS NOW.
DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER YOU NEED MATT TO CLARIFY BEFORE WE GO INTO DELIBERATION?
>> DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU NEED TO ADD OR ANYTHING [INAUDIBLE]?
>> NO. WE'VE COVERED QUITE A BIT.
>> WELL, I'M GOING TO START WITH,
[Board Deliberation]
SUCH DIFFICULTY IS A RESULT OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES NOT SHOWN ON THE SHARED PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT OR THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD AND IS PECULIAR TO THE PROPERTIES STRUCTURE OR BUILDING [INAUDIBLE].I WOULD SAY, IN MY NOTES, THAT THERE'S NOTHING EXCEPTIONAL ABOUT THE FARM THAT WOULD WARRANT THE DISTRICT OR A FEW [INAUDIBLE] TO ACCEPT THAT.
THERE'S NO CRITICAL AREA, THERE'S NO IRREGULAR SHAPE.
THERE'S NO ANYTHING GOING ON THAT IS IN RELATION TO THE CURRENT USE IN THE SITUATION THAT'S AD-FARM USE, BUT IT'S NOT PERSONAL USE.
I KNOW THAT OBVIOUSLY WHEN THIS FIRST-ATTEMPT WAS MADE, THAT COMMERCIAL VERSION OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, THE AD-USE THAT'S NOT PERSONAL FOR USING FOR OTHER ENTITIES OR WHATEVER, WAS ORIGINALLY THE WAY THAT THE APPLICATION WAS PRESENTED.
IN MY OPINION, THERE WAS A THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS GOING TO GO IN THAT DIRECTION AND THERE WAS NOTHING AT THAT POINT IN THE PROPERTY THAT SUGGESTED THAT THERE WASN'T AMPLE ROOM FOR THOSE BUILDINGS ANYWHERE YOU NEEDED TO.
YOU SHOULD DEFINITELY HAVE MADE SURE ABOUT WHERE YOU PLACED THEM SO THAT THEY WOULD ACCOMMODATE THE SITUATION FOR WHICH YOUR GOAL WAS TO MAKE [INAUDIBLE].
THAT'S JUST MY OPINION, AND THAT'S HOW I SEE IT.
I DON'T THINK THAT THAT CRITERIA IS MET.
>> I JUST DON'T THINK THAT CRITERIA IS MET.
BASED ON THE TESTIMONY FROM MATT ABOUT HOW THIS WAS PRESENTED, IT'S JUST TO ME, AN EXCEPTION.
THERE'S NOTHING ABOUT THIS PROPERTY THAT'S UNUSUAL IN IT'S SETTING THAT WOULD PRECLUDE THEM TO BE ABLE TO PUT THE BUILDINGS ANYWHERE.
[INAUDIBLE] THAT'S WHY I FEEL LIKE THEY DID NOT READ THAT WELL.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER THAT YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT?
>> WE HAVE TO MEET ALL OF THESE IN ORDER FOR US TO [INAUDIBLE], SO ALREADY WE'RE DOWN ONE.
THEN, I STILL FEEL LIKE IT WAS IN THE NEXT ONE, AND SUCH DIFFICULTY IS NOT THE RESULT OR DOES NOT ARISE FROM THE CONDUCT OF THE APPLICANT.
I THINK THE CONDUCT OF THE APPLICANT IS CLEARLY A KEY FACTOR IN ALL OF THIS.
MY SADNESS FOR THE SITUATION CAN'T BE SPOKEN LOUDLY ENOUGH.
[01:15:05]
I'M NOT HAPPY THAT THIS IS A BAD SITUATION FOR THE COMMUNITY AND THEY NEED THIS OPERATION.I UNDERSTAND THAT FULLY, BUT IT'S MY JOB TO FOLLOW THE LETTER OF THE LAW AND WHAT'S PUT TO US IN THIS BOOK ABOUT HOW WE'RE SUPPOSED TO APPROVE OR NOT APPROVE SITUATIONS.
IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH HOW YOU WENT ABOUT THINGS.
IT'S STRICTLY THE FACT THAT WE BELIEVE, ALL OF US.
I BELIEVE IT, YOU BELIEVE IT, THAT YOU KNEW THAT YOU WERE GOING TO DO THIS AND YOU SHOULD HAVE HAD ENOUGH KNOWLEDGE TO AT LEAST MAKE SURE THAT YOU PUT THINGS IN THE PROPER SITUATION SO THAT YOU ARE MEETING THE CRITERIA NECESSARY AND UNFORTUNATELY FOR ME, THAT MEANS YOU DO NOT MEET THAT.
YOU DIDN'T MEET THAT. I THINK THE REST OF THEM, YES, I REALIZE THERE'S FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, TERRIBLE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP IF YOU HAVE TO KNOW THAT.
THE REST OF THE THINGS ARE FINE, BUT WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH VARIOUS APPLICATIONS IN THIS COUNTY, ALL OF THESE HAVE TO BE MET AND IF WE CAN'T MEET ALL OF THEM, WE CANNOT APPROVE THE VARIANCE.
>> FACTOR NUMBER TWO, IF ANYBODY HAS APPROVED A PERMIT AND YOU SIGNED OFF AND YOU [INAUDIBLE] COME OUT AND IT'S SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE AND IT LOOKS LIKE THIS.
YOU SHOULD KNOW, WHY WOULD YOU EVEN CUT A CHECK?
>> IT WAS SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE THAT AND IT TURNED OUT TO WHAT IT IS, BUT THERE'S ANOTHER ISSUE THAT CALLS A LOT OF FLAME AND THEN WHEN IT STARTED BREWING, THAT'S WHEN THE COUNTY FOUND OUT THAT THEY DON'T LOOK LIKE THIS.
>> WHAT I'M SAYING, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A HOUSE BUILT AND THEN YOU COME THERE AND THE HOUSE DON'T LOOK LIKE YOU JUST PAYED FOR IT.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHAT WE'RE HERE TONIGHT IS TO DEBATE ABOUT THIS VARIANCE AND I FOR ONE, I WOULD SAY THAT WE DON'T APPROVE.
>> I FEEL LIKE THERE WAS DEFINITELY SOME COMMUNICATION BETWEEN BEN AND RED BARN.
>> ANYWAY, THE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP IS DEFINITELY HERE.
THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.
THAT WAS IN YOUR TESTIMONY, BRENDAN MELANEY.
I KNOW THAT THE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP IS SEVERE AND I DO UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT IT IS SOMEWHAT SELF-CREATED.
>> IT IS SELF-CREATED BUT HE'S ALREADY MOVED THESE BINS ONCE.
THEN, A WRITTEN APPLICATION, YES, IT WAS SUBMITTED AND THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM.
IT WAS ADVERTISED ON 12/6 AND 12/13.
THE GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE IN HARMONY.
ABSOLUTELY WILL BE IN HARMONY.
WE KNOW THAT THERE'S GRANT OPERATIONS ALL AROUND THIS PROPERTY, AND WE KNOW THAT THAT'S TYPICAL OF CAROLINE COUNTY AS INDICATED BY YOUR APPLICANT EXHIBIT FROM LAST MONTH, EXHIBIT ONE, THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT THAT'S WHAT'S EVERYWHERE.
>> ALL THESE TRUCKS RUN UP [INAUDIBLE] STILL BEAT UP THE COUNTY ROADS.
>> BUT IT IS TYPICAL IN OUR AREA FOR MISUSE AND THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE.
IT'S NOT AN ISSUE THAT THE USES, OR THE VARIANCES OF THE ISSUE IN THAT RESPECT.
>> YES. BUT THEN, THE CONDITION OR SITUATION INTENDED FOR THE USE OF CONCERN IS NOT SO GENTLE REFERRING YOU TO MAKE PRACTICAL.
WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF THESE BUILDINGS AND PLACES BEING THROWN UP RIGHT AND LEFT, AND WE NEED TO CHANGE THE LAWS TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN.
I KNOW THIS WAS A MISCOMMUNICATION SOMEWHERE AND THE BALL GOT DROPPED.
IT'S DEFINITELY THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO LEAVE THEM IN PLACE.
THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT THAT'S CORRECT AND WE UNDERSTAND IT.
IT'S NOT IN THE CRITICAL AREAS, SO NONE OF THE OTHER STUFF APPLIES.
WE CAN'T IN GOOD CONSCIENCE AGREE TO GRANT THE VARIANCE TO THAT.
I WOULD SAY THAT MAKE A MOTION AND LET'S STAND BY OUR DECISION.
>> [INAUDIBLE] THE VARIANCE CRITERIA?
[Motion and Vote]
[01:20:01]
THE VARIANCE APPLICATION 43-0050.>> ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED TO NOTE DOWN.
>> THREE TO NONE. PASSED. MOTION IS DENIED.
I'M VERY SORRY. IT'S BEEN A HEAVY SITUATION.
I DON'T FEEL GOOD ABOUT THAT DECISION.
UNFORTUNATELY, COULD NOT DO IT ANY OTHER WAY.
ALL RIGHT. I GUESS WE'LL JUST CLOSE THE MEETING AT 7:21. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED AT 7:21. THANK YOU.
>> I APPLAUD YOU FOR STANDING YOU GROUND.
>> IT WASN'T AN EASY APPLAUSE.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.