[Opening]
[00:01:30]
>> [BACKGROUND] GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE.
IT'S 6:00 P.M, OCTOBER 23, 2024.
WE WELCOME YOU TO THE CAROLINE COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING.
I AM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.
TO MY LEFT, WE HAVE VICE CHAIR KAREN HARDY.
TO MY RIGHT, WE HAVE MEMBER KEVIN PARKS.
TO MY RIGHT, WE HAVE BOARD ATTORNEY PATRICK THOMAS AND ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT, MATT KOZINSKI, AND TO OUR LEFT, WE HAVE BOARD ADMINISTRATOR, KATHERINE MCCULLEY.
TONIGHT, THIS IS HOW THIS MEETING IS GOING TO RUN.
[Public Hearings]
WE'RE GOING TO TAKE OPENING ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH PARTIES.THE APPELATE PRESENTS THEIR CASE WITH THE COUNTY BEING PERMITTED TO CROSS EXAMINE WITNESSES.
COUNTY PRESENTS THIS CASE WITH THE APPELATE BEING PERMITTED TO CROSS EXAMINE WITNESSES.
CLOSING ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH PARTIES, AND THEN WE WILL DELIBERATE AS THE BOARD.
WE WON'T BE TAKING ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC TONIGHT BECAUSE THIS IS EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
THERE'S TWO CASES TONIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO START WITH THE P NER CASE FIRST.
[1) Applicant: Benjamin C. Flahart and Wakefield Holdings LLC- Appeal No. 24-0033]
THIS IS APPLICATION NUMBER 24-033, A REQUEST BY BENJAMIN FLAHART AND WAKEFIELD HOLDINGS, LLC FOR AN APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CAROLINE COUNTY CODE OF PUBLIC LAWS, LOCAL LAW, SECTIONS 175-161B, THE MULTIPLE NOTICES OF VIOLATION, CAROLINE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE AND CAROLINE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION 2024-006.SAID PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 23092 PEAVINER ROAD, RIDGELY, MARYLAND, WHICH IS FURTHER DESCRIBED AS TAX MAP 17 GRID 14 PARCEL 75 AND IS OWNED BY WAKEFIELD HOLDINGS.
MATT, DO YOU WANT TO READ IN THE EXHIBITS?
>> YES. BOARD EXHIBIT UMBER 1 IS THE NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH WAS PUBLISHED IN THE STAR DEMOCRAT ON 10-11-2024 AND A TIMED RECORD ON 10-16-2024.
EXHIBIT NUMBER 2 IS THE STAFF REPORT.
EXHIBIT NUMBER 3 IS THE APPEAL APPLICATION.
EXHIBIT NUMBER 4 IS THE VIOLATION NOTICES.
EXHIBIT NUMBER 5 IS THE JOINING PROPER HEARING AFFIDAVIT.
EXHIBIT 6 IS THE APPLICANT'S NOTICE.
EXHIBIT 7 IS THE ASSIGNED POSTING AFFIDAVIT.
THEN WE HAVE THE APPLICANTS EXHIBITS.
APPLICANT EXHIBIT NUMBER 1 IS A COMPLAINT FILED WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT, DATED 4-10-2024.
EXHIBIT NUMBER 2 ARE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE LAGOON, AND EXHIBIT NUMBER 3 IS A LETTER FROM MDE DATED 11-28-2023.
>> I ACTUALLY SKIPPED ONE PART.
WHEN I WENT OVER ABOUT HOW THIS MEETING IS GOING TO BE RUN TONIGHT, I NEED ALL THE PARTIES ARE GOING TO BE SPEAKING TO STAND UP, STATE THEIR NAMES, THE PARTY THEY'RE REPRESENTING AND WHETHER THEY APPROVE OF THE FORM OF THE HEARING OR NOT.
[00:05:09]
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS OR APPELLANTS IN THIS CASE, WHO ARE HARTLAND HOLDINGS, LLC, BENJAMIN FLAHART AND [INAUDIBLE] HOLDINGS.
IN TERMS OF HAVING ANY OPPOSITION, WE DON'T HAVE ANY OPPOSITION TO THE PROCEDURE THAT YOU JUST SET FORTH SEEMS REASONABLE TO US.
ON MY BEHALF, I HAVE BEN FLAHART WHO'S GOING TO TESTIFY IN THIS MATTER, ALONG WITH BRETT, WHO'S GOING TO TESTIFY.
>> YOU APPROVE OF THE WAY THE FORMAT OF THE MEAN?
>> YEAH, THE FORMAT IS FINE, AND IT SEEMS APPROPRIATE.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING, WE ALSO ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH PROCEDURE WITH THAT ONE.
>> I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE CAROLINE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE FORMAT THAT YOU'VE DESCRIBED.
>> ANYBODY THAT IS GOING TO SPEAK TONIGHT, GIVE TESTIMONY, CAN YOU PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND? THEN AFTER I READ THIS, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. THIS IS THE OATH.
DO YOU HEREBY SOLEMNLY DECLARE AND AFFIRM UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE STATEMENT YOU MAKE AND THIS TESTIMONY YOU GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?
>> STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
>> FA ENGINEERING, 117 MAIN STREET, EAST MARY.
>> THEN PLANAR 176, SVILLE RUDE, ACCOR, PENNSYLVANIA, 17566.
>> STEPHEN DECATUR HIGHWAY, SUITE FIVE, OCEAN CITY, MARYLAND 21842.
>> CRYSTAL DADS DIRECTOR OF CAROLINE COUNTY FAN CODES, 43 SOUTH SOUTHERN STREETS, TWO, MARYLAND 21169.
>> KATHLEEN FREEMAN COUNTY AMIT MARKET STREET, MARYLAND 269.
>> MARK GABLER. IT'S 200 WEST GATE CIRCLE IN 500 ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND 21401.
>> WE CAN GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD.
IF YOU GUYS WANT TO COME FORWARD, HAVE A SEAT, SPEAK LOUDLY AND CLEAR INTO THE MICROPHONE AND START WITH YOUR CASE.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I UNDERSTAND WE'RE P V FIRST.
I DO THAT FOR YOU ON THAT ONE.
>> I UNDERSTAND YOU WANT TO DO OPENING STATEMENTS FIRST, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YEAH. AND I'LL BE BRIEF, OBVIOUSLY.
AS YOU KNOW, WE'RE HERE WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN CITATIONS THAT WERE ISSUED WITH RESPECT TO 23092P NER ROAD, RIDGE, MARYLAND 21660.
AND JUST FOR PURPOSES OF HEARING, I'M GOING TO REFER THAT AS THE P VINER ROAD PROPERTY, SO WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.
>> KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
THE OVERVIEW OF THE CITATIONS ON THAT PROPERTY INVOLVED TWO ISSUES.
THE FIRST BEING THE CONSTRUCTION OR PLACEMENT OF A ROOF TYPE STRUCTURE OVER A FEEDING TROUGH.
THE SECOND ISSUE INVOLVES THE STORAGE OF MATERIALS OTHER THAN VEGETABLE WASTE WATER IN A LAGOON THAT IS LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY.
OUR POSITION ON REGARDING THESE TWO MATTERS IS TWOFOLD.
FIRST, WITH REGARD TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROOF STRUCTURE, IT'S OUR VIEW THAT THAT IS AN AGRICULTURAL BUILDING UNDER SECTION 88-11 A 13 OF THE COUNTY CODE.
IT PROVIDES THAT AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE COUNTY BUILDING STANDARDS.
IF THE SOLE ISSUE IS THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A PERMIT APPLIED FOR, WHICH ISN'T CLEAR UNDER YOUR CURRENT CODE, AS I READ IT.
I CERTAINLY HAPPY TO DO THAT, BUT THERE ARE NO STANDARDS TO BE MET.
SEEMS LIKE ALL YOU DO IS APPLY AND YOU SHOULD BE GRANTED AN AGRICULTURAL PERMIT WITH REGARD TO THAT PARTICULAR STRUCTURE.
WITH REGARD TO THE STORAGE OF MATERIALS OTHER THAN WASTEWATER IN THE LAGOON.
AGAIN, IT'S OUR VIEW THAT NO PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE.
HERE'S WHY. IT IS IN OUR VIEW LIKE CHANGING THE USE OF A BARN.
LET'S SAY YOU'RE STORING HAY IN IT INITIALLY, AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT TO FARM IMPLEMENTS.
IS IT THE COUNTY'S POSITION THAT I HAVE TO COME IN AND GET A CHANGE OF USE PERMITS BECAUSE I'M PUTTING SOMETHING ELSE THAT'S DIFFERENT IN A USE THAT'S ALREADY PERMITTED.
IT'S OUR VIEW THAT THAT'S NOT REQUIRED TO CHANGE FROM THE STORAGE OF ONE ITEM TO ANOTHER ITEM THAT IS ALL CERTAINLY AGRICULTURAL IN NATURE.
[00:10:02]
IN THIS CASE, WE'RE JUST STORING COW MANU ASSOCIATED WITH THE COW RAISING OPERATIONS THAT ARE TAKING ON THE PROPERTY IN THE LAGOON, THAT'S RIGHT NEXT TO THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS AN ACCESSORY USE THAT IS OBVIOUSLY PERMITTED IN AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 175-8 OF THE CODE.IN TERMS OF OPENING, IT'S OUR POSITION THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO VIOLATIONS HERE.
THERE ARE NO REQUIREMENTS THAT WE BELIEVE WOULD APPLY TO THESE TWO PARTICULAR ISSUES.
THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH ON THE P VINA ROAD PROPERTY.
CRYSTAL, YOU GUYS WANT TO. YEP.
>> CAN EVERYBODY HEAR US PRETTY GOOD IN FACT HERE?
>> MY COMMENTS WILL BE ALSO BRIEF, MARK GABLER ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT PLANNING ZONING.
YOU'LL HEAR TONIGHT THAT THERE WERE NO PERMITS FOR THE ROOF STRUCTURE AND THERE WERE NO PERMITS FOR THE CHANGE IN USE TO GOGOON ON P BINNER ROAD.
THE COUNTY CODE CLEARLY REQUIRES BOTH WHEN YOU'RE BUILDING A STRUCTURE.
EVEN UNDER THE SECTION THAT MR. PRIORS REFERRED YOU TO E 8-11 A 13, DOES IN FACT, MAKE A STRUCTURES EXEMPT FROM THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE, BUT THAT ORDINANCE SAYS SPECIFICALLY THAT BUILDING PERMITS ARE REQUIRED.
YOU'LL HEAR FROM MS. DADDS THAT BOTH OF THESE THINGS ARE STRUCTURES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DEFINITION IN THE COUNTY CODE, AND THAT BOTH OF THEM WERE PUT INTO USE WITHOUT THE APPROPRIATE PERMITS.
THE LAGOON WAS THERE. ROOF WASN'T THE ROOF WAS CONSTRUCTED BY MR. FLAHART OR HIS COMPANY.
THE LAGOON WAS THERE, ITS PRIOR USE WAS AS A FOOD PROCESSING WASTEWATER LAGOON FOR HANDOVER FOODS.
IT WAS PUT INTO USE BY MR. FLAHART FOR MINOR AND IT WASN'T APPROVED FOR THAT USE, AND HE DIDN'T APPLY TO CHANGE THE USE FROM ONE TO THE OTHER. AS SIMPLE AS THAT.
THERE'S A COUPLE ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS THAT WEREN'T MENTIONED THAT RELATE TO THE MORATORIUMS THAT HAVE BEEN IN PLACE FOR MOST OF THIS YEAR.
THAT INVOLVES ALSO THE STORAGE OF MINOR IN A FACILITY THAT WASN'T APPROVED FOR IT AS WELL AS THE STORAGE OF DAF IN THAT LAGOON AS WELL.
I THINK ONCE YOU HEAR FROM MITOGS, YOU'LL UNDERSTAND MORE CLEARLY THE NATURE OF THE VIOLATION.
>> CAN YOU FOR THE RECORD, EXPLAIN THE DAF?
>> [OVERLAPPING] DAF AS FOR DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION.
I WOULD CALL THAT FOOD PROCESSING RESIDUALS.
BUT THERE WAS A RELATED PROCEEDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, AND MR. FLAHART SIGNED AN AFFIDAVIT IN THAT PROCEEDING INDICATING THAT AMONG OTHER THINGS, IN THE LAGOON, HE BROUGHT DAF, WHICH IS BASICALLY CHICKEN PROCESSING WASTEWATER BY PRODUCT.
ABUNDANTLY FAMILIAR WITH IT, BUT THAT'S WHAT IT IS, AND HE INDICATED IT WAS GOING TO THAT LAGOON.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH, I DON'T KNOW HOW OFTEN. THANK YOU.
>> MR. TEDD, YOU WANT TO COME UP?
>> START WITH THE ROOF STRUCTURE OVER THE FEEDING TROUGHS.
SO IN OUR COUNTY CODE, IN THE STAFF REPORT ON EXHIBIT 2, PAGE 3, YOU'LL SEE THE DEFINITION OF STRUCTURE UNDER 175-8, ANYTHING CONSTRUCTED OR ERECTED, WHICH REQUIRES LOCATION ON OR IN THE GROUND OR ATTACHMENT TO SOMETHING HAVING LOCATION ON OR IN THE GROUND.
THAT TO ME, IS A STRUCTURE, THE BUILDING THAT YOU SEE IN THE PHOTOGRAPH ON EXHIBIT 2, ON PAGE 8.
>> CAN YOU BRING THAT SEE THE STRUCTURE?
IS THIS THEIR PART OF THE CASE?
>> BECAUSE I THOUGHT WERE DOING OPENING STATEMENTS AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE WITNESSES TESTIFY.
>> I WAS OPENING STATEMENTS, AND THEN THE APPELLANT PUTS ON THEIR CASE, AND THEN THE COUNTY PUTS ON THE CASE [OVERLAPPING] I'M SORRY INTERRUPT YOU.
>> NO. THAT'S FINE. I WAS WONDERING THE SAME THING, BUT YOU MOVED ALONG. I DON'T KNOW.
>> WELL, I OUGHT MARK WOULD GET HIS CHANCE AT OPENING AND RIGHT RIGHT.
>> I THOUGHT WHEN YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT. IS NOT A PROPERTY.
>> IT'LL BE BRIEF. I CAN ASSURE YOU, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAD OUR FINISH.
FLAHART, COULD YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME, PLEASE?
>> 176 PUSEYVILLE ROAD, PENNSYLVANIA, 17566.
>> YOUR POSITION WITH HARTLAND HOLDINGS, LLC?
[00:15:01]
>> YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE PEAVINER ROAD PROPERTY?
>> TELL ME HOW MANY ACRES IT IS?
>> CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT IS LOCATED ON THAT PROPERTY?
>> THERE'S A 20 MILLION GALLON LADEN, A COUPLE OLD MACHINERY SHEDS, BARNS, PROBABLY THREE STRUCTURES, POLE SHEDS.
>> THEY WERE EXISTING WHEN YOU TOOK POSSESSION OF THAT PROPERTY?
>> DESCRIBE THE CONDITION OF THOSE STRUCTURES WHEN YOU ACQUIRED TITLE TO IT OR STARTED TAKING OCCUPANCY OF THEM?
THEY WERE STARTING TO FALL DOWN.
>> WHAT IMPROVEMENTS, IF ANY, DID YOU MAKE?
>> WE JUST PATCHED SOME ROOFS SIDES, REPLACED SOME POSTS THAT WERE ROTTEN, YOU KNOW, PURLINS, JUST FIX THEM UP A LITTLE BIT.
>> NOW, ARE THE STRUCTURES THAT WERE LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY, ARE THEY BEING USED FOR RAISING CATTLE?
>> CORRECT. THE THE ONE BUILDING WE HAVE HEIFERS IN AND THE OTHER TWO BUILDINGS ARE FOR FEED STORAGE AND BEDDING STORAGE.
>> IN CONNECTION WITH THOSE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS, I TAKE IT, WASTE IS GENERATED BY THOSE CATTLE?
>> WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN DEPOSITING THAT WASTE?
NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE LAGOON, DESCRIBE ITS CONDITION OR YOU TOOK POSSESSION OF IT?
>> IT WAS ACTUALLY PRETTY BAD.
IT WAS TORE. IT WAS ACTUALLY LEAKING INTO THE GROUND WATER.
WE HAVE PHOTOS AND DOCUMENTATION.
IT WAS IN PRETTY ROUGH SHAPE. IT WASN'T UP TO CODE.
THERE WAS NO LEAK DETECTION ON IT OR, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING WAS PRETTY BAD.
>> NOW, THERE'S AN ALLEGATION OR ASSERTION THAT YOU'VE BUILT SOME ROOF STRUCTURE AT THE PROPERTY.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT IT IS AND WHAT ARE YOU'VE DONE THERE?
>> YEAH. WE PUT A FENCE UP TO HOLD THE CAT ON THE ONE BARN.
WE HAVE A FEED BUNK, A FEED TROUGH THERE, AND IT'S LIKE A FOUR FOOT WIDE JUST LITTLE STEEL PENT ROOF OVER TOP THE FEED BUNK TO KEEP THE FEED DRY.
>> IS THAT SOMETHING CAN BE MOVED RELATIVELY EASILY?
>> AT THE TIME YOU BUILT IT, DID YOU THINK THERE WAS ANY NEED FOR ANY PERMIT ASSOCIATED WITH THAT?
>> NO. I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS IT WAS ATTACHED TO THE FENCE POST AND IT WASN'T THAT BIG.
IT WASN'T THAT MANY SQUARE FOOT, SO I DIDN'T REALIZE.
>> HOW WIDE IS THIS THE ROOF STRUCTURE THAT'S ON TOP OF THIS?
>> ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO SAY ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR ROOF STRUCTURE AND ITS CONSTRUCTION?
>> NOW, THE PIT AND LAGOON WE'RE REFERRING TO, WHAT IS CURRENTLY STORED IN THAT PIT AND LAGOON?
>> RIGHT NOW THERE'S COMMON WATER AND RAINWATER.
>> CAN YOU EXPLAIN IN A LITTLE MORE DETAIL WHAT REPAIRS YOU HAD TO MAKE TO THAT LAGOON WHEN YOU TOOK POSSESSION OF IT?
>> WE PULLED THE OLD LINER OUT AND THEN WE ADDED SOME MANHOLES, WHICH IS PART OF THE SYSTEM FOR LEAK DETECTION, SO IF THERE'S EVER A LEAK, IT CAN BE FIGURED OUT AND FOUND.
WE PUT LEAK DETECTION AND WE BROUGHT IT UP TO STANDARD.
THE SIDES, THERE'S A SLOPE PERCENTAGE AND THE OLD LAGOONS WERE TOO STEEP.
IF SOMEBODY FELL IN IT, THEY'RE TOO STEEP TO WALK BACK UP, SO WE FIXED THE GRADES AND GOT EVERYTHING TO CODE FOR AG STANDARD CODE AND THEN PUT A NEW LINER IN IT.
>> WITH REGARD TO WHAT'S BEEN MARKED AS EXHIBIT 2, THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE LAGOON; IS THAT CORRECT?
>> IS THIS AFTER YOU DID YOUR WORK OR BEFORE YOU DID YOUR WORK?
>> CAN YOU PULL UP THE FILE THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.
>> I FIGURED SOME PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE SEEN IT.
>> THAT THAT'S THE NEW LINER AFTER WE REPLACED IT.
>> IN YOUR OPINION, WAS THAT REPLACEMENT NECESSARY?
>> WELL, IT'S IT'S IT'S CLEAN AND SAFE NOW.
IT'S BUILT TO SPEC IN THE WAY IT'S INTENDED TO BE USED.
>> SAME THING WAS REGARD TO THE SECOND EXHIBIT,
[00:20:01]
JUST A DIFFERENT PHOTOGRAPH OF THAT SAME.>> LAGOON AREA? BEFORE YOU MADE THESE CHANGES, WERE THERE LEAKING PROBLEMS WITH THE LAGOON ITSELF?
>> I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU WHAT'S BEEN MARKED AS ADDITIONAL EXHIBIT 3.
IS THIS A LETTER YOU RECEIVED FROM MEE? DO YOU RECALL THAT DOCUMENT?
>> WAS THAT BECAUSE THE LAGOON WAS HAVING ISSUES AND WAS POTENTIALLY LEAKING?
>> WAS THIS AFTER YOU INSTALLED THE NEW LINER, IF YOU KNOW?
>> I'M NOT SURE. I'D HAVE TO READ THROUGH THIS WHOLE THING.
>> WOULD YOU REMEMBER THERE WAS A TIME THAT THERE WAS LEAKS COMING OUT OF THE LAGOON?
>> DO YOU RECALL WHY THAT WAS?
>> WELL, YEAH. THE LINER WAS TORN IN MULTIPLE PLACES.
>> YOU REPAIRED THE LINER IN ORDER TO AVOID THESE PROBLEMS THAT ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE LETTER MARKED AS EXHIBIT 3; IS THAT RIGHT?
>> NOW, AT THE TIME, AGAIN, YOU TOOK POSSESSION OF THE PEAVINER ROAD PROPERTY, WHAT WAS BEING STORED IN THE LAGOON?
>> IT WAS JUST RAINWATER MOST.
HANOVER FOODS HAD PROCESSED VEGETABLES A FEW YEARS BACK, BUT I THINK THE FACILITY WAS SHUT DOWN FOR MAYBE LIKE TWO YEARS, SO IT WAS RAINWATER AT THAT POINT.
>> THERE CAME A TIME WHEN YOU DID PUT SOME DAF IN THERE; IS THAT CORRECT?
>> BEFORE THE MORATORIUM WAS PASSED, YES.
>> WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME THAT YOU RECALL DAF BEING STORED ON THAT PROPERTY?
>> THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN PROBABLY THE FALL OF '23.
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A YEAR AGO.
>> THE LAST TIME WAS BROUGHT TO THAT PREMISES?
>> SINCE THAT TIME, HAS ANY ADDITIONAL DAF BEEN PUT INTO THOSE LAGOONS?
>> YOUR RIGHT AND ABILITY TO STORE DAF ON THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY SUBJECT TO LITIGATION; IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YOU HAVE FILED A LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE MORATORIUM THAT WERE IN EFFECT; IS THAT CORRECT?
>> EXHIBIT 1 IS THE COPY OF THE VERIFIED COMPLAINT THAT'S STILL PENDING BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT; IS THAT RIGHT?
>> HAS THAT CASE BEEN DECIDED YET?
>> IS LITIGATION STILL PENDING CURRENTLY WITH THE COUNTY WHO THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE?
>> NOW, CURRENTLY, DO YOU HAVE ANY PLANS TO STORE DAF AT THAT PROPERTY?
>> YOU CURRENTLY WANT TO USE THAT SOLELY FOR YOUR NEWER THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THE COWS; IS THAT RIGHT?
>> ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO TELL THE BOARD TONIGHT ON THE PEAVINER ROAD PROPERTY?
>> LAST WINTER, WE WERE HAULING MANURE IN WITH TANKER TRUCKS FROM ONE OF OUR OTHER LOCATIONS AND USED IT AS A SATELLITE STORAGE FOR MANURE THAT WAS PRODUCED ON ANOTHER FARM, BUT WE DO THAT AT MULTIPLE LOCATIONS.
WE HAVE A NUTRIENT TREATMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN.
WE HAVE A [INAUDIBLE] PLAN FOR ALL THE ANIMALS, WE HAVE A NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN IN PLACE, AND WE RECORD WHAT MANURE'S PRODUCED WHERE, WHERE IT GOES, WHEN IT'S APPLIED, HOW MUCH IS APPLIED, WE FOLLOW ALL OF OUR NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT.
THROUGH OUR NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT AND [INAUDIBLE] PLAN, THAT WE ALLOWED TO MOVE AND TRANSPORT MANURE, THE STATE ACTUALLY PAYS US TO MOVE MANURE.
WE DID THAT LAST WINTER AND THEN WE END UP GETTING SHUT DOWN ON THAT TOO BECAUSE EVERYONE THOUGHT, I GUESS WE WERE HAULING DAF IN, AND IT WAS ACTUALLY COW MANURE FROM ONE OF OUR OTHER FACILITIES.
>> MR. FLAHART [PHONETIC], YOU JUST MENTIONED A BUNCH OF COMPLIANCE ISSUES.
IS THAT PROPERTY CURRENT COMPLIANT WITH ALL THE STATE REGULATIONS?
>> IN TERMS OF THE MANURE, IS IT APPLIED SOLELY TO THAT FARM?
>> WHAT'S PRODUCED THERE IS APPLIED THERE, THAT'S CORRECT.
>> YOU HAVE 250 ACRES OVER WHICH THAT MANURE IS APPLIED IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR FARMING OPERATIONS?
>> THAT'S ALL WE HAD THIS EVENING. THANK YOU.
>> I'LL GET THIS BACK TO, IF YOU WANT TO COME BACK UP.
>> I THINK CRYSTAL HAD SOME MORE STUFF SHE WANTED TO ADD.
>> THIS IS THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THEY'VE CALLED THEIR WITNESS, AND NOW THE COUNTY HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE.
>> WE'RE NOT LAWYERS, SO WE DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS.
>> THAT'S FINE. IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT. WE LIVE IT UNFORTUNATELY.
>> SIR FLAHART, I'LL BE BRIEF.
YOU TALKED ABOUT HAVING BROUGHT DAF TO THE LAGOON IN THE PAST; IS THAT CORRECT?
>> HOW MUCH DAF DID YOU BRING THERE TO STORE IN THE LAGOON?
>> I'M NOT SURE OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
[00:25:02]
WE'D HAVE TO CHECK. IT WASN'T A WHOLE LOT.>> YOU KEEP RECORDS TO THAT EFFECT?
>> DO YOU REMEMBER HOW MANY TRUCKS ENTERED THE PROPERTY WITH DAF?
>> I HAVE EVERYTHING IN OUR OFFICE.
I COULD GET YOU A FIGURE TO THE GALLON.
>> YOU SAID FALL 2023 WAS THE LAST TIME THAT YOU BROUGHT IT THERE TO YOUR RECOLLECTION?
>> THAT'S JUST BASED ON YOUR MEMORY, NOT A SPECIFIC RECORD THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT.
>> THE MDE LETTER THAT MR. [INAUDIBLE] ASKED YOU ABOUT, THAT ACTUALLY TALKS ABOUT A DISCHARGE INTO STATE WATERS, DOES IT NOT? BEGINNING OF THAT LETTER, WHICH IS EXHIBIT 3, STATES MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT WATER AND SCIENCE ADMINISTRATION COMPLIANCE PROGRAM IS CONCERNED REGARDING UNAUTHORIZED DISCHARGES OF ORGANIC MATERIAL WASTE SLEDGE THAT ENTERED WATERS OF THE STATE VIA SWAMP DRAINAGE TRENCH HOLDING POND AND SPRAY FIELDS AS A RESULT OF ACTIVITIES AT THE FARM FIELD LOCATED AT 23092, PEAVINER ROAD, RIDGELY.
>> I REMEMBER NOW, I READ THROUGH IT HERE IN BETWEEN.
THAT'S WHEN WE EMPTIED THE RAINWATER OUT OF THE LAGOON TO PUT THE NEW LINER IN IT.
>> WHATEVER OTHER SUBSTANCE WAS IN THE LAGOON ALSO WAS PUMPED OUT?
>> THERE WASN'T ANY OTHER SUBSTANCE IN THE LAGOON.
>> IS IT YOUR POSITION THAT HANOVER FOODS EMPTIED IT COMPLETELY BEFORE YOU TOOK OVER AND IT WAS JUST COLLECTING RAINWATER?
>> NOW, YOU SAID YOU PULLED OUT THE LINER, INSTALLED SOME LEAK DETECTION SYSTEM, AND THEN YOU BROUGHT IT UP TO CODE, DID YOU SAY?
>> WHICH CODE DID YOU BRING IT UP TO?
>> I HAVE AN ENGINEER OUT OF PENNSYLVANIA THAT I WORK WITH, AND WE FOLLOWED THEIR BLUEPRINT PLANS.
>> DID YOU DID YOU CONTACT THE COUNTY AT ALL TO FIND OUT WHAT THEIR REQUIREMENTS WERE FOR SUCH A LAGOON OR WHETHER THERE WAS ANY PERMITS REQUIRED TO DO THE WORK?
>> I TALKED TO MY ENGINEER ABOUT IT.
>> DID YOU TALK TO THE COUNTY AT ALL?
>> YOU DIDN'T OBTAIN ANY PERMITS FROM THE COUNTY FOR THAT, CORRECT?
>> THE SAME IS TRUE WITH THE ROOF?
>> IS THAT PICTURED ON EXHIBIT 2?
>> I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S EXHIBIT 2.
>> THAT SHOWS THE ROOF STRUCTURE DOWN IN THE RIGHT-HAND CORNER IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT FROM THE LANDSCAPE POSITION?
>> YOU SAID IT WAS FOUR FEET WIDE?
>> IT'S PROBABLY LIKE 100 AND MAYBE 80 FEET.
>> A HUNDRED AND EIGHTY FEET. BELOW THE ROOF, WHAT DO YOU HAVE FOR SUPPORTS? YOU'VE ADDED SOME SUPPORTS TO SUPPORT THE ROOF, I ASSUME?
>> WELL, IT'S BUILT ON TOP OF A FENCE THAT HOLD THE CATTLE IN.
>> YOU ATTACHED THE ROOF BY OTHER SUPPORTS TO THE FENCE. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME?
>> WE SCREWED THE ROOF TO THE POST OF THE FENCE.
>> IS IT ATTACHED TO ANY OTHER BUILDINGS?
>> MAYBE I'M REPEATING MYSELF, BUT THERE WAS NO PERMIT REQUESTED OR APPLIED FOR THE ROOF AS WELL.
>> DO YOU WANT CRYSTAL TO COME UP?
>> YOU CAN SWITCH. THAT'S FINE.
>> MS. DADDS [PHONETIC], CAN YOU STATE YOUR POSITION IN PLANNING AND ZONING?
>> I AM THE DIRECTOR OF THE CAROLINE COUNTY PLANNING AND CODES DEPARTMENT.
>> YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE VIOLATIONS THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF THIS HEARING TONIGHT?
>> LET'S TALK ABOUT THE FIRST VIOLATION REFERENCED FOR THE PEAVINER ROAD PROPERTY, THE ROOF STRUCTURE THAT MR. FLAHART WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT.
>> I THINK THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK PROBABLY AREN'T HEARING YOU GUYS VERY WELL, IF YOU COULD SPEAK UP A LITTLE BIT. THANK YOU.
I'M NOT SURE IF THE SPEAKER HELPS WITH THAT, BUT I'M SURE THEY'RE NOT HEARING YOU.
[00:30:02]
I'M HAVING TROUBLE HEARING YOU AND I'M LOOKING AT YOU.THEY'RE BACK THERE AND THEY CAN'T HEAR, SO JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT.
>> I WILL DEFINITELY KEEP MY VOICE UP.
MS. DADDS, THE ROOF STRUCTURE THAT WE ARE REFERRING TO IN THAT VIOLATION IS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT 1 TO THE STAFF REPORT.
>> YES. EXHIBIT 1. IT'S MARKED EXHIBIT 2, PAGE 8 OF 12.
>> THAT'S THE ROOF THAT MR. FLAHART JUST IDENTIFIED, AND IT'S ALSO NOTED AS THE UNPERMITTED ROOF STRUCTURE?
>> CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO THE BOARD WHY YOU CONTEND THAT THE STRUCTURE REQUIRES A BUILDING PERMIT?
>> IN THE STAFF REPORT ON PAGE 3 OF EXHIBIT 2, YOU WILL SEE THE DEFINITION OF STRUCTURE THAT'S LOCATED IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH STATES ANYTHING CONSTRUCTED OR ERECTED, WHICH REQUIRES LOCATION ON OR IN THE GROUND OR ATTACHMENT TO SOMETHING HAVING A LOCATION IN OR ON THE GROUND.
THEREFORE, MY DETERMINATION IS THAT MEETS THE DEFINITION OF A STRUCTURE.
FURTHERMORE, UNDER SECTION 175-187A, THAT IS ON EXHIBIT 2 PAGE 2 OF THE STAFF REPORT, IT STATES THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL TO CHANGE THE USE TO LOCATE OR BEGIN THE NEW USE, ERECTION, CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION, EXTENSION, CONVERSION, OR STRUCTURAL ALTERATION OF ANY LOT OR STRUCTURE WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A ZONING PERMIT OR BUILDING PERMIT FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.
IT DOES EXEMPT RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THAT ARE 200 SQUARE FEET OR LESS OR COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL OR INSTITUTIONAL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS OF 120 SQUARE FEET OR LESS.
THERE'S NO EXEMPTION FOR A SIZE FOR AN AGRICULTURAL STRUCTURE, AND IN THIS CASE, IT IS AN AGRICULTURAL STRUCTURE.
>> MS. DADDS, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH SECTION 8811A13 OF THE CAROLINE COUNTY CODE, WHICH EXEMPTS AG STRUCTURES FROM THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE?
>> YES. THAT IS FOUND IN CHAPTER 88 OF THE COUNTY CODE, WHICH IS THE ADOPTION OF THE CODES THAT ARE APPLIED IN CAROLINE COUNTY IN TERMS OF THE BUILDING CODE AND THE ENERGY CODE.
UNDER 8811A, IT STATES THAT WE HAVE MODIFIED SECTION 105.13 OF THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE TO STATE A PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, OR USES.
THAT PART, TO ME, IS CLEAR THAT YOU NEED A BUILDING PERMIT, BUT ARE OTHERWISE EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 2 OF THAT CHAPTER 88.
THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER ARTICLE 2 IS COMPLIANCE WITH THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE.
THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM COMPLYING WITH THE BUILDING CODE, BUT NOT EXEMPT FROM REQUIREMENTS OF A BUILDING PERMIT.
>> WHAT KIND OF ISSUES WOULD THE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT LOOK FOR IF ONE WERE TO SUBMIT A BUILDING PERMIT FOR A ROOF STRUCTURE OR TO CHANGE THE USE OF THE LAGOON OTHER THAN COMPLIANCE WITH THE BUILDING CODE?
>> WE WOULD ENSURE THAT IT MEETS ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING CODE IN TERMS OF SETBACKS AND ANY OTHER APPLICABLE COUNTY, FEDERAL, OR STATE REQUIREMENTS SUCH AS EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL, IF THERE MIGHT BE AN ENTRANCE ASSOCIATED WITH A NEW STRUCTURE USE, FLOODPLAIN, ALL OF THOSE ITEMS WE WOULD LOOK FOR IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PERMIT APPLICATION.
>> HAS MR. FLAHART DONE ANYTHING TO BRING THE ROOF STRUCTURE INTO COMPLIANCE?
>> NO, HE HAS NOT. WE DID ISSUE A VIOLATION LETTER, BACK IN APRIL OF 2024, LETTING HIM KNOW THAT THE STRUCTURE WAS BUILT WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION TO DATE.
>> NOW, YOU ALSO HEARD HIM TALK ABOUT OR YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE VIOLATION THAT INVOLVES THE CHANGING OF THE USE OF THE LAGOON ON PEAVINER ROAD?
>> CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT LAGOON WE'RE REFERRING TO, AND WHAT CHANGES WERE MADE THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE VIOLATION NOTICE?
>> THERE IS A PHOTOGRAPH ON EXHIBIT 2, PAGE 8 OF 12 OF THE STAFF REPORT THAT SHOWS THE LAGOON AS IT IS CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED.
PRIOR TO THAT TIME, IT WAS ONE LAGOON.
YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE IS A DIVIDER IN THE MIDDLE IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH THAT WAS NOT THERE PRIOR TO THAT.
THERE HAS BEEN ALTERATION TO THAT LAGOON, AS YOU HEARD FROM MR. FLAHART, THAT THERE WAS SOME GRADING DONE.
HE'S CONSTRUCTED THE BERM, WHICH DOES REQUIRE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FOR ANY DISTURBANCE OF EARTH OVER 5,000 SQUARE FEET.
THERE WAS NEVER AN EROSION SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN APPROVED FOR THE ALTERATION OF THE LAGOON.
THAT LAGOON WAS PERMITTED PRIOR TO BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS IN 2007, ON AN APPLICATION BY HANOVER FOODS CORPORATION, TO ALLOW THE STORAGE OF FOOD PROCESSING WASTEWATER AND FOOD PROCESSING WASTE FROM
[00:35:02]
HANOVER FOODS PLANT THAT WAS LOCATED THERE IN RIDGELY, MARYLAND AND WE DID RECEIVE NOTIFICATION THAT THAT DISCHARGE PERMIT THAT WAS ISSUED THROUGH MARYLAND DEPARTMENT, THE ENVIRONMENT WAS TERMINATED.THEREFORE, THIS USE NO LONGER IS APPLICABLE BECAUSE THEY DID NOT COME BACK TO SEEK APPROVAL FOR A DIFFERENT USE, AND AS PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF THAT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, THEY WOULD WERE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN THAT MDE DISCHARGE PERMIT.
>> YOU CONTEND THAT THE PHYSICAL CHANGES ALSO REQUIRED A BUILDING PERMIT?
>> YES. THAT WAS AN ALTERATION OF THE EXISTING LAGOON, WHICH I'VE DETERMINED MEETS THE DEFINITION OF A STRUCTURE.
>> ONE OF THE EXAMPLES OF THE TYPES OF STRUCTURE THAT ARE REFERRED TO IN THE DEFINITION, IT INCLUDES A SWIMMING POOL?
>> YES. IT DOES INDICATE A REFERENCE OF AN IN GROUND SWIMMING POOL.
>> YOU BELIEVE THE LAGOON IS A SIMILAR STRUCTURE?
>> IT'S A HOLE IN THE GROUND WITH A LINER TO HOLD THE WATER.
>> WHAT MEASURES DID THE COUNTY INSTRUCT, MR. FLAHART, TO PURSUE IN ORDER TO BRING THE LAGOON INTO COMPLIANCE?
>> I DID SEND A COPY OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DECISION TO HIS COUNSEL, BRENDAN MULLANEY, BACK ON JANUARY 24TH, LETTING HIM KNOW THAT ANY FURTHER USE OF THE LAGOON WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE COUNTY WOULD BE CONSIDERED A VIOLATION, AND THAT THAT WOULD REQUIRE A PERMIT AND NO APPLICATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED TO DATE.
>> THERE'S TWO OTHER VIOLATIONS THAT ARE NOTED ON PEAVINER ROAD AND THAT INVOLVES THE VIOLATION OF THE RESOLUTION 2024 006, AND ALSO THE VIOLATION OF RESOLUTION 2024 007, WHICH WERE TWO OF THE MORATORIUMS THAT WERE ENACTED BY THE COUNTY.
>> RESOLUTIONS. CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO THE BOARD WHY THE COUNTY CONTENDS THAT MR. FLAHART WAS ALSO VIOLATING THOSE TWO RESOLUTIONS?
>> IN TERMS OF THE MORATORIUM AGAINST THE STORAGE OF DAF FOOD PROCESSING RESIDUALS.
BY ADMISSION OF MR. FLAHART IN HIS AFFIDAVIT IN HIS COURT CASE, HE DID AFFIRM THAT THERE WAS STORAGE OF DAF IN THAT LAGOON.
>> WHAT ABOUT THE STORAGE OF LIVESTOCK GENERATED AT ANOTHER LOCATION? DID YOU HEAR WHAT, MR. FLAHART, TESTIFIED TO EARLIER?
>> HE INDICATED THAT IT WAS BEING BROUGHT FROM OFFSITE?
>> THAT, ALSO, WAS PRECLUDED BY THE MORATORIUM?
>> YES. THE MORATORIUM DID NOT ALLOW FOR MANURE TO BE BROUGHT IN FROM OFF SITE TO BE STORED THERE.
THE ONLY STORAGE OF MANURE IS MANURE GENERATED ON SITE IN A STRUCTURE THAT WAS APPROVED FOR MANURE STORAGE, AND THIS STRUCTURE WAS NOT APPROVED FOR MANURE STORAGE.
>> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO TELL THE BOARD WITH REGARD TO EITHER THESE FOUR PEAVINER ROAD VIOLATIONS THAT WE DISCUSSED?
>> I KNOW THEY WERE IDENTIFIED.
THEY WERE PUT ON NOTICE THAT THEY WERE IN VIOLATION AND REQUIRED PERMITS AND HAVE NOT SOUGHT TO OBTAIN THOSE PERMITS OR MADE APPLICATION AS OF THE DATE.
>> DO YOU WANT TO CROSS EXAMINE?
>> A QUESTION FOR YOU, IF YOU DON'T MIND?
>> YOU TESTIFIED THAT WITH REGARD TO THE ROOF STRUCTURE, YOU WOULD HAVE TO SEE IF IT COMPLIES WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CODE?
>> ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY CODE PROVISIONS THAT YOU SIT HERE, TODAY, THAT IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH?
>> I AM NOT. BASED ON THE LOCATION, IT MEETS THE CURRENT SETBACKS.
IT'S IN THE APPROPRIATE ZONING DISTRICT.
I CANNOT SPEAK FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED AS PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL PROCESS OR THE SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT IN TERMS OF THEIR APPROVALS.
>> WELL, IN TERMS OF THE WASTE IT'S NOT GENERATING ANY WASTE WATER.
>> A STRUCTURE ON TOP OF IT, CORRECT?
>> YES. BUT ALL BUILDING PERMITS DO REQUIRE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT APPROVAL REGARDLESS OF WATER OR SEWER CONNECTION.
>> IN THIS CASE, YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH WHATEVER REVIEW THEY WOULD DO?
>> SINCE THERE'S NO WASTEWATER BEING GENERATED, YOU WOULD AGREE WITH ME THAT WOULD BE PRETTY MUCH A PERFUNCTORY OBLIGATION OF THEM TO CHECK THE BOX.
>> I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THEIR DEPARTMENT.
BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY OTHER CONCERNS.
>> YOU'RE NOT AWARE OF ANY CONCERNS AS YOU SIT HERE TODAY WITH REGARD TO THAT OF STRUCTURE?
>> IN TERMS OF THE MORATORIUM, THE ONES THAT ARE BEING CHALLENGED ARE THE ONES THAT ARE WERE ENACTED IN 2024, AND ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY DAF COMING ONTO THAT PROPERTY AFTER 2024?
>> WE HAVE NOT WITNESSED ANY OFFLOADING OF DAF.
WE DON'T KNOW THE MATERIAL THAT WAS ACTUALLY OFFLOADED.
WE HAVE A PHOTOGRAPH OF A TRUCK THAT WAS PULLED UP TO THE LAGOON AND PUMPING OUT A BROWN MATERIAL.
[00:40:03]
>> WAS THAT, THIS YEAR, IN 2024?
>> A BROWN MATERIAL WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH MANURE, WOULD IT NOT?
>> YES. BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT DAF OR FOOD PROCESSING RESIDUALS LOOK LIKE, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DAF.
>> BUT AS YOU SIT HERE, YOU DON'T KNOW AND NO TESTS WERE TAKEN TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT WAS?
>> JUST SO I UNDERSTAND THE COUNTY'S POSITION, AND I'LL GO BACK TO MY EXAMPLE THAT I GAVE AT THE OPENING STATEMENT.
IF I HAVE A BARN AND I'M STORING HAY IN IT, IS IT THE COUNTY'S POSITION THAT IF I DECIDE TO STORE FARM IMPLEMENTS IN THAT BARN, I NEED TO COME GET A CHANGE OF USE PERMIT FROM THE COUNTY?
>> IF IT IS PERMITTED FOR AGRICULTURAL USE AND YOU CONTINUE TO USE IT FOR AGRICULTURAL USE, THEN YOU WOULD NOT NEED A CHANGE OF USE PERMIT.
BUT IF YOU HAD A BUILDING THAT WAS APPROVED FOR AGRICULTURAL USE AND AT A LATER TIME, WANTED TO USE IT RESIDENTIALLY TO STORE YOUR CAR OR LAWN MOWER OR SOMETHING OF THAT CASE, YES, THAT WOULD REQUIRE A CHANGE OF USE PERMIT BECAUSE UNDER CHAPTER 88, IT FURTHER STATES THAT ANY CHANGE OF USE FROM BEING USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR [INAUDIBLE] WOULD REQUIRE FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE BUILDING CODE.
>> BUT IN TERMS OF THE PIT, IT'S BEING USED FOR AGRICULTURAL USE BEFORE, CORRECT?
>> NO. IT WAS USED FOR HANOVER FOODS FOR THEIR.
>> IT WAS USED FOR STORAGE OF WASTE MATERIAL?
>> IT'S CURRENTLY BEING USED FOR STORAGE OF WASTE MATERIAL?
>> WELL, IF THE REPRESENTATION IS IT'S BEING USED FOR COW MANURE, IT'S A WASTE MATERIAL, CORRECT?
>> YOU'VE OBSERVED THAT THERE'S COWS ON SITE?
>> YOU AGREE WITH ME THEY WOULD GENERATE WASTE?
>> JUST TO UNDERSTAND THE COUNTY'S POSITION, IF I HAD A POOL AND I NEEDED TO CHANGE THE POOL LINER, DO I HAVE TO COME BACK AND GET A PERMIT FROM THE COUNTY TO CHANGE MY POOL LINER AND A POOL THAT'S ALREADY CONSTRUCTED IN EXISTENCE?
>> IF IT IS A STRUCTURAL ALTERATION, YOU NEED A PERMIT.
>> WHAT WOULD CONSTITUTE IN YOUR OPINION, A STRUCTURAL ALTERATION?
>> WELL, YOU MADE THE REFERENCE OF A SWIMMING POOL BECAUSE YOU SAID THIS WAS A BIG SWIMMING POOL, THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID?
>> IS THERE ANYTHING STRUCTURAL ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PIT?
>> WELL, WE'D WANT TO ENSURE THAT THE LINER WAS INSTALLED PROPERLY TO AVOID LEAKAGE.
>> ARE THERE ANY STANDARDS THAT WOULD APPLY TO THAT UNDER THE COUNTY CODE THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF?
>> YES. THEY'RE FOUND IN THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE FOR SWIMMING POOLS.
>> THAT GOES TO THE POOL ISSUE, BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT THE PIT.
IS THERE ANY STANDARDS THAT IT HAS TO MEET WITH REGARD TO?
>> AS FAR AS BUILDING CODE STANDARDS, NO.
>> IT JUST HAS TO MEET THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF?
>> DOES IT GENERATE ANY FLOW OR PROBLEMS WITH SEDIMENT CONTROL?
>> THAT WOULD BE THROUGH THE ROSIAN SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN.
>> THEN THE OTHER ONE WAS THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT?
>> BUT IN TERMS OF THE ZONING ITSELF, THERE ARE NO REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD HAVE TO MEET?
>> AS LONG AS THE USE FOR THE LAGOON WAS A PERMITTED USE UNDER THE COUNTY CODE, YES.
>> IN THIS INSTANCE, IF COW MANURE IS BEING STORED IN THAT LAGOON, IT'S A PERMITTED USE, CORRECT?
>> ACCESSORY USE TO THE AGRICULTURAL IS CORRECT?
>> THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE COMMISSIONERS.
WHAT TYPE OF USE WAS HANDLED FOR FOODS?
>> WHAT ABOUT NOW? WHAT ARE WE HEARING, TODAY?
>> WE'RE HEARING THAT IT'S AN AGRICULTURAL USE.
>> ARE WE READY TO ASK OUR QUESTIONS NOW? IS THAT WHAT WE'RE GETTING READY TO?
>> NOT IN THIS CATHLEEN, YOU HAD SOMETHING TO SAY.
>> IF THERE'S NO FURTHER TESTIMONY, THEN I GUESS WE CAN ASK OUR QUESTIONS BEFORE WE BEGIN DELIBERATION.
>> SINCE WE'RE GOING INTO THAT PART, MATT, WE READ JUST THE FIRST THREE PARAGRAPHS OF THAT MDE REPORT.
>> BECAUSE IT WAS LIKE SKIMMED OVER.
>> I'M SURE PEOPLE IN THE BACK WANT TO HEAR THIS.
>> THIS IS THE [INAUDIBLE] LETTER THAT'S DATED 2020 KNOW WHAT THIS DATE
[00:45:12]
IS ON HERE. IS EXHIBIT [INAUDIBLE].>> I SEE IN NOVEMBER 28, 2023 DATE ON THE TOP OF IT.
>> I'M NOT SURE WHERE THAT STAMP IS FROM.
>> IT'S ADDRESSED TO THE RECEIVED.
>> IT'S ADDRESSED TO MR. FLAHART.
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT WATER AND SCIENCE ADMINISTRATION COMPLIANCE PROGRAM IS CONCERNED REGARDING THE UNAUTHORIZED DISCHARGES OF ORGANIC MATERIAL WASTE SLUDGE THAT ENTERED THE WATERS OF THE STATE VIA A STORM DRAINAGE TRENCH, HOLDING POND AND SPRAY FIELDS, AS A RESULT OF THE ACTIVITIES AT THE FARM FIELD LOCATED AT 23092 PEAVINER ROAD, RIDGELY, CAROLINE COUNTY, ALSO KNOWN AS THE SITE.
HANOVER FOODS CORPORATION PREVIOUSLY HELD A STATE DISCHARGE PERMIT FOR THE SITE.
WHICH WAS TERMINATED ON JULY 7, 2023.
HARTLAND HOLDINGS, LLC, CURRENTLY HOLDS A LEASE PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR THE SITE WITH SETTLEMENT ON OR BEFORE APRIL 2024 WITH HANOVER FOODS CORPORATION.
THE FARM FIELD DRAINAGE DITCH DRAINS TO AN UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO PINE BRANCH, DESIGNATED USE ONE, WHICH FLOWS TO THE TUCO CREEK, WHICH IS PART OF THE UPPER CHOP TANK RIVER TRIBUTARY SYSTEM.
IN RESPONSE TO A COMPLAINT RECEIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON AUGUST 13, 2023, THE DEPARTMENT CONDUCTED A FIELD INSPECTION OF THE SITE ON AUGUST 15, 2023, DURING WHICH THE DEPARTMENT FOUND THAT MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES THAT WERE CURRENTLY OCCURRING AT THE SITE WITHOUT A STATE DISCHARGE PERMIT HAD RESULTED IN THE UNAUTHORIZED DISCHARGE.
THE DEPARTMENT CONDUCTED SUBSEQUENT INSPECTIONS AT THE SITE ON AUGUST 16TH, 18TH, AND 23RD AND FOUND EVIDENCE OF UNAUTHORIZED DISCHARGES OF STORMWATER AND SLUDGE MATERIALS FROM THE HOLDING POND INTO THE DRAINAGE DITCH AND SPRAY IRRIGATED OVER THE FARM FIELD.
THE SPRAY FIELDS TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE HOLDING POND WERE INSPECTED AND FOUND TO HAVE HEAVY ORGANIC SOLID SLUDGE CONSISTENT WITH THE RESIDUALS FROM THE HOLDING POND, WASTEWATER ON THE FIELD ROAD AND IN THE TIRE TRACKS ADJACENT TO THE IRRIGATED FIELDS.
THERE WAS DRIED SLUDGE OBSERVED IN THE DITCHES DRAINING AWAY FROM THE HOLDING POND.
ADDITIONALLY, THE DEPARTMENT TOOK A WATER SAMPLE FROM THE SITE AND COMPARED IT WITH THE SAMPLE PROVIDED BY THE COMPLAINANT COLLECTED FROM PINNER BRANCH CREEK, AND THE LABORATORY CONFIRMED THAT THE CONTAMINATION IN THE CREEK WAS DISCHARGED FROM THE LAGOON.
HARTLAND HOLDINGS WAS INFORMED THAT NO ADDITIONAL SITE ACTIVITIES SHOULD OCCUR WITHOUT A DISCHARGE PERMIT FROM THE DEPARTMENT.
DURING A SITE MEETING THAT WAS HELD ON AUGUST 23, 2023, YOU STATED THAT YOU WERE DISCHARGING RAINWATER FROM THE HOLDING POND IN PREPARATION FOR CHANGING OUT THE COMPROMISED LINER AND YOU ALSO STATED THAT THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM RAN FOR ONE WEEK USING THE LIQUID IN THE POND AND APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILLION GALLONS WAS SPRAYED.
ADDITIONALLY, YOU ADVISED THAT THE SEDIMENT ON THE BOTTOM OF THE HOLDING POND WAS TOO THICK TO SPRAY AND WAS ALLIED TO A MANOR PIT IN GREENSBURG.
YOU CAN BRING YOUR ATTORNEY WITH YOU.
>> I'M GOING TO START WITH QUESTIONS.
I'M GOING TO START RIGHT OFF OF THIS MDE REPORT.
YOU SAID YOU STOPPED BRINGING DAF IN THE FALL OF '23.
HANOVER, THEIR PERMIT EXPIRED.
YOU DISCHARGED, YOU'RE TOLD NOT TO DISCHARGE.
YOU DISCHARGED, AGAIN, MULTIPLE TIMES. THAT'S WHAT THIS SAYS.
>> YEAH, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S CORRECT.
>> WELL, THEY TESTED IT, AND THEY HAD THE DATES.
>> I CAN GIVE YOU A TIMELINE IF YOU'D LIKE, A LITTLE BETTER, MAYBE.
>> WELL, WHAT'S YOUR TIMELINE.
>> MY AGRONOMIS, WE TOOK A SAMPLE OF WHAT WAS IN THE POND.
WE RAN IRRIGATION, EMPTIED IT OUT.
THERE WAS SEDIMENT IN THE BOTTOM OF THE POND, WHICH WAS A TOPSOIL MATERIAL.
WE TOOK IT TO THE PIT AT GREENSBURG TO BE MIXED IN WITH AMENOR LAND APPLIED THERE AT A LATER DATE.
WE PULLED THE LINER, PUT A NEW LINER IN, AND THEN WE STARTED PUTTING [INAUDIBLE] IN, AND THEN WE HOLD SOME DAF IN THAT FALL UNTIL THE MORATORIUM AND THEN IT WAS STOPPED, AND NOTHING OUTSIDE OF CAENOR HAS BEEN PUT IN IT SINCE.
>> MY QUESTION IS, WHY DID YOU DISCHARGE WHEN YOU WERE TOLD NOT TO DISCHARGE?
>> NO ONE TOLD US NOT TO DISCHARGE.
>> I'M PRETTY SURE IN THIS LETTER, IT TELLS YOU TO, I'M TRYING TO SEE EXACTLY WHERE IT'S SAYING IT.
>> MR. BARR, I THINK HE JUST TESTIFIED THAT HE SPRAYED APPLIED IT.
[00:50:04]
>> ANYWAY, IT WAS DISCHARGED INTO A DRAINAGE DITCH, AND IT ULTIMATELY WENT INTO [INAUDIBLE] CREEK, RIVER, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT.
>> THEY HAVE TESTS THAT SHOW THAT IT WAS FROM THE LAGOON.
>> OBVIOUSLY, IT MADE ITS WAY OUT TO THE BAY OR WHATEVER AREA, WHATEVER THE WATER IS.
>> IT'S DEFINITELY IN ITS TRIBUTARIES.
>> BUT AGAIN, WE DID THIS TO PREVENT FURTHER AGAIN, IT WAS A COMPROMISE LINER, IT'S IN THEIR LETTER.
WE'RE TRYING TO FIX THAT PROBLEM IS WHY THIS WAS ALL DONE.
>> THEN THE LAST PARAGRAPH, YOU STATED THAT YOU TOOK IT TO, I'M ASSUMING YOU TOOK IT TO RIVER ROAD BECAUSE IT SAYS GREENSBORO, AND YOU PUMPED IT INTO ANOTHER LAGOON, WHICH YOU DIDN'T HAVE A PERMIT FOR, BUT WE'LL GET TO THAT ON THE NEXT CASE.
I'M ACTUALLY FLOORED BECAUSE YOU LIVE IN PENNSYLVANIA.
IN MARYLAND, WE HAVE TO PAY WHEN WE PAY TAXES EVERY YEAR, WE HAVE TO PAY A TAX TO CLEAN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY UP, AND YOU BASICALLY JUST PUMP DAF RIGHT INTO THE CHESAPEAKE BAY.
>> I'M JUST READING WHAT THE MDE LETTER SAYS.
>> BUT I THINK YOU JUST HEARD HIM TESTIFY THE DAF DIDN'T COME IN UNTIL AFTER WE REPAIRED THE LINER.
>> WHEN DID YOU REPAIR THE LINER?
IT BEEN THE END OF AUGUST, SEPTEMBER OF 2023.
>> BUT IT'S SAYING RIGHT HERE, YOU DISCHARGED BEFORE AUGUST.
IT SAYS RIGHT HERE, AUGUST THE 13TH AND AUGUST THE 15TH.
>> THAT WAS THE RAINWATER FROM THE OLD LINER.
>> NOTHING IN THAT SAYS IT WAS DAF THAT WAS ANYTHING IN THIS.
>> THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS THAT IT WAS THE OPPOSITE.
>> WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS, BUT HE'S TESTIFIED AT LEAST IN THESE PROCEEDINGS.
NO ONE HAS TESTIFIED TO THE CONTRARY THAT DAF WAS BROUGHT IN UNTIL THE FALL OF 2023.
>> HAVE YOU EVER RESPONDED BACK TO THIS LETTER TO THE MDE?
>> I'VE HAD ANOTHER LAWYER WORKING ON THAT BECAUSE WE'VE NEVER BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF ANYTHING, VIOLATION, NO FINES.
THERE'S BEEN NO FOLLOW UP ON IT, NOTHING FROM MDES PART AND MDAS.
>> YOU DID STATE THAT YOU'RE BRINGING IN STUFF FROM OTHER FACILITIES.
WHERE WERE YOU BRINGING THE STUFF FROM? WHAT OTHER FACILITIES ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
>> YOU GUYS HAVE SOME MORE QUESTIONS.
YOU CAN HAVE IT, EITHER ONE OF YOU.
>> YOU SPOKE ON RE-SLOPING THE LAGOON AND PUTTING A NEW LINER IN, AND YOU SAID THAT YOU BROUGHT IT UP TO CODE?
>> HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE CODE IS IF YOU DIDN'T GO TO THE COUNTY?
>> FROM THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT.
>> WELL, IN MARYLAND, THE DISTRICTS SHARE FROM CECIL COUNTY FROM MARYLAND, WE USE THOSE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS.
>> BUT WOULDN'T IT HAVE BEEN WISER TO CHECK WITH YOUR LOCAL AUTHORITY FIRST? CECIL COUNTY IS IN CAROLINE COUNTY, AND CODES ARE DIFFERENT AND REQUIREMENTS ARE DIFFERENT.
I FEEL LIKE YOU FAILED YOURSELF.
I'M NOT ARGUING OVER WHY OR WHY NOT.
YOU MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AWARE. I GET ALL THAT.
IT'S JUST THAT WHEN YOU COME INTO A NEW AREA, YOU SHOULD BE DOING RESEARCH TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE COMPLYING.
I THINK THAT'S REALLY THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM.
IT'S A SHAME THAT YOU'RE HERE BECAUSE OF THAT, BUT HERE'S WHERE WE ARE.
>> I THINK SOME OF THIS WAS TO DO WITH THE ENGINEER I USED THAT I'M NO LONGER USING.
>> SOME OF THIS IS BECAUSE OF THAT.
I RELIED ON HIM TO CHECK THIS, CHECK THAT.
HE SAID, WE PULL LINERS ALL THE TIME.
WE'LL GET IT UP TO CODE, THERE SHOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM.
>> YOU TRUSTED SOMEONE, I GET IT.
>> IT'S THE SAME OUTFIT WE USED AT THE RIVER ROAD SITE AND WE'RE NO LONGER USING THEM FOR MARYLAND PROJECTS.
>> MY NEXT QUESTION IS BASED ON EVERYTHING THAT'S TRANSPIRED, WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST GO AHEAD AND FILL OUT THE PERMIT STUFF? WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST COMPLY. YOU HAVEN'T APPLIED.
JUST MAKE THE APPLICATION AND IT'S TAKEN CARE OF.
INSTEAD OF BRINGING EVERYBODY HERE AND PAYING ATTORNEYS, YOU COULD HAVE JUST MADE THE APPLICATION, WHICH HAS NOT HAPPENED, AND YET IN YOUR APPEAL, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE COUNTY'S TRYING TO EVADE.
[00:55:02]
THEY BASICALLY TOLD YOU WHAT YOU NEEDED TO DO AND YOU HAVEN'T COMPLIED BY FILLING OUT A SIMPLE DOCUMENT FOR GETTING THE NECESSARY APPROVAL FOR THE ROOF STRUCTURE.BECAUSE YOU SAID, IN YOUR INTEREST, THAT YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S UP TO CODE, HAVE THEM COME OUT AND MAKE SURE THAT IT IS, PAY THE FEE AND BE DONE.
>> BECAUSE THAT PROCESS HAS NOT WORKED AT THE RIVER ROAD PROPERTY.
WE'VE BEEN DOING THE THINGS YOU'VE ASKED RIGHT NOW AT THAT PARTICULAR LOCATION AND NOTHING HAPPENS.
THERE'S NOT A REASONABLE PROCESS TO GET ANYTHING DONE.
>> THAT'S ON THE RIVER ROAD PROCESS.
WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT ONE IN A MINUTE. BUT FOR THIS ONE.
>> IT'S THE SAME. WE'VE BEEN YEARS TRYING TO RESOLVE THAT.
WE DIDN'T THINK WE WERE DOING ANYTHING WRONG BECAUSE WE PULLED A LINER, PUT A NEW LINER, WE CHANGED THE USE, WHICH WE DIDN'T THINK WE NEED IT'S WASTE FOR WASTE, SO WE THOUGHT WE WERE IN THE RIGHT.
>> IF WE'RE NOT, WE'LL APPLY FOR THE PERMIT.
WE'LL DO IT TONIGHT. WE CAN FILL THAT OUT, THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE.
BUT I'M JUST SAYING WE TRIED THAT WITH THE RIVER ROAD PROPERTY WITH GETTING PERMITS AND WE'VE NOT BEEN AS SUCCESSFUL TO GET ANYTHING DONE THERE RESOLVED WITH THE COUNTY.
>> WELL, MY THOUGHT IS TAKING ONE STEP AT A TIME, DEALING WITH P VEINER.
YOU HAVEN'T MADE THE NECESSARY ATTEMPT.
IN A SENSE, IN MY OPINION, WE'RE SITTING HERE WASTING OUR TIME AND EVERYBODY ELSE'S TIME BECAUSE ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS FILL OUT THE PERMIT.
THEY'RE SAYING THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HOLD YOU UP.
THEY JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S PERMITTED USE, AND YOU TELL THEM WHAT YOU NEED TO DO.
JUST FILL OUT THE APPLICATION AND MAKE IT HAPPEN.
>> I'M SURE THEY DON'T HAVE ANY DESIRE TO KEEP YOU FROM USING IT THE WAY THAT YOU TELL THEM YOU'RE GOING TO.
THAT'S ALL. MOVING FORWARD, I THINK THAT THAT'S THE RIGHT WAY TO HANDLE IT.
>> I THINK THERE'S BEEN A LITTLE BIT OF A LACK OF TRUST AMONGST EVERYBODY HERE.
I DON'T WANT TO POINT FINGERS.
I THINK IT GOES BOTH WAYS. I THINK THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT THERE'S AN EASY FIX TO THIS SITUATION, IN MY OPINION.
>> HOW ARE WE ASSURED THAT? IS THERE ANY ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE COUNTY THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY GET SOMETHING ACCOMPLISHED AS FAR AS OBTAINING A PERMIT?
>> WELL, I I'VE NEVER HAD A PROBLEM WITH A PERMIT APPLICATION IN MY TIME.
>> ISN'T THAT THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR SITTING THERE?
THERE SHOULD BE NO REASON WHY IT DOESN'T COME THROUGH.
>> WELL, THAT'S NOT RELEVANT HERE.
>> WHEN WAS HE IN FRONT OF US BEFORE? WAS IT THIS YEAR OR LAST YEAR? SHOULDN'T I REMEMBER THAT DATE?
>> I THINK IT WAS LAST YEAR AROUND THIS TIME.
>> FOR RIVER ROAD, YOU WERE IN FRONT OF US BEFORE AND YOU SAID YOU GOT RID OF WHOEVER IT WAS IN PENNSYLVANIA DOING ALL YOUR SITE PLAN, BUT YET, YOU HAVE ANOTHER PENNSYLVANIA COMPANY DOING A SITE PLAN FOR P VEINER?
>> SAME COMPANY. IT WAS BEFORE THE HEARING LAST YEAR.
>> WHATEVER THEIR NAME WAS. YOU'RE STILL USING THEM?
>> NO. OUR HEARING LAST YEAR WAS AFTER THEM.
>> I'M JUST GETTING THAT STRAIGHT.
>> THIS PARTICULAR INCIDENT WAS PRIOR TO THAT MEETING LAST YEAR.
>> AS FOR THE RIVER ROAD STUFF, WE'LL GET TO THAT.
>> JUST TWEAKING ON THE RIVER ROAD THING.
THE WHOLE DEAL THERE WAS, YOU DIDN'T FOLLOW THROUGH AND GET YOUR PERMITS? HELLO? WE'RE RIGHT BACK IN P VEINER ROAD, YOU DIDN'T GO GET YOUR PERMITS.
>> WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET OUR PERMITS.
>> DIDN'T THE OFFICE APPLY FOR ANYTHING?
>> WELL, I THINK AT THIS POINT, IF THERE'S NO MORE QUESTIONS, WE CAN BEGIN DELIBERATION.
>> I THINK THEY GO TO DO THEIR CLOSING STATEMENTS.
>> MATT, DO YOU GOT ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD?
>> DO YOUR CLOSING STATEMENTS.
>> I'LL BE BRIEF. AS I INDICATED BEFORE, THIS APPEARS TO BE A PERFUNCTORY PROCESS.
AS THE COUNTY TESTIFIED, IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT THERE ARE ANY STANDARDS THAT WE NEED TO MEET TO GET THIS PERMIT.
IT SEEMS RELATIVELY MINOR IN TERMS OF THE ROOF STRUCTURE THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH.
IN FACT, I SUBMIT THAT WE'VE DONE AN IMPROVEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE LINER BECAUSE WE HAD A COMPROMISED LINER AND HAVE ACTUALLY CAUSED ANY EFFLUENT THAT IS IN THERE TO BE MAINTAINED WITHIN THAT LINER.
WHILE I UNDERSTAND THE COUNTY'S MAD AT US FOR NOT DOING IT, I THINK WE'VE DONE A SERVICE IN TERMS OF TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT'S COMPLIANT, DOESN'T LEAK OUT, DOESN'T CAUSE ANY PROBLEMS. AGAIN, IT IS A PERMITTED ACTIVITY.
WE ARE PERMITTED TO HAVE COWS ON THE PROPERTY AGRICULTURAL.
IT'S GOING TO HAVE MANURE, AND STORING SOMETHING IN AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS AN ACCESSORY USE ASSOCIATED WITH AGRICULTURAL STRUCTURE.
[01:00:03]
AGAIN, IF THERE ARE NO STANDARDS TO MEET, THEN WHAT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF APPLYING FOR A PERMIT? THAT TO ME IS A LITTLE STRANGE THAT YOU'D APPLY FOR SOMETHING THAT IS AMORPHOUS AND SHOULD JUST BE GRANTED. THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING.I'M HEARING, DOESN'T HAVE TO MEET ANY BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS, DOESN'T HAVE TO HAVE ANY SPECIAL SCREWS, DON'T HAVE TO HOLD SO MUCH WEIGHT.
ALL YOU GOT TO DO IS APPLY AND YOU GET IT, AND THE TESTIMONY WAS THAT AS FAR AS WE KNOW, THERE'S NO VIOLATION ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.
AGAIN, I THINK MY CLIENT WILL BE HAPPY TO APPLY FOR THE PERMIT IF THAT'S WHAT'S REQUIRED, AND CERTAINLY WE WILL DO THAT.
BUT WE DON'T THINK IT'S EVEN REQUIRED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.
IN TERMS OF A CHANGE OF USE, WE'RE STORING EFFLUENT IN A POND.
IT DIDN'T CHANGE A USE. IT'S JUST LIKE A BARN.
I'M STORING IMPLEMENTS VERSUS STORING HAY.
THAT'S WHAT IT IS, AND IN FACT, IT'S LESS INTENSIVE USE THAN IT WAS WITH HANDOVER FARMS. IT'S ALL AGRICULTURAL RELATED TO THIS OPERATION.
FOR THAT REASON ON THE P VEINER, I'D ASK THAT YOU OVERRULE THE DETERMINATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ISSUED IN THIS CASE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING.
>> BRIEFLY. I THINK THE ISSUE HERE IS WHEN A BUILDING PERMIT IS REQUIRED, IT'S REQUIRED.
WE CAN SIT HERE AND SAY, IT SHOULDN'T BE BECAUSE IT'S RELATED TO DIFFERENT USE.
THAT'S A ZONING QUESTION. BUILDING PERMITS ARE REQUIRED.
IF EVERYBODY COULD JUST NOT OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT AND BUILT IT AND JUST SAY, WELL, IT SEEMS SIMILAR TO WHAT I HAD.
HAD THESE BEEN APPLIED FOR, HAD THESE LETTERS BEEN RESPONDED TO, PROBABLY WOULD HAVE.
IT'S IT DOESN'T GET ANY SIMPLER THAN THAT.
ALMOST ALL THESE VIOLATIONS IN THIS CASE, ANY OTHER CASE, ARE ABOUT THE FAILURE TO GET BUILDING PERMITS, BUILDING THINGS, CHANGING THE USE OF THINGS WITHOUT THE COUNTY'S REVIEW AND OVERSIGHT.
NOT ONLY THAT, HE'S NOW TRYING TO BLAME THE COUNTY FOR SOMETHING THAT HE FAILED TO DO. TO ME, IT COULDN'T BE CLEARER.
THERE'S TWO BUILDING PERMIT VIOLATIONS, AND THERE'S THE TWO MORATORIUM VIOLATIONS.
HE SAID HE WAS BRINGING MANURE FROM OFF SITE.
THAT'S A VIOLATION OF THE MORATORIUM.
I WOULD ASK YOU TO FIND A PROVE THE FOUR NOTICE LETTERS OR FOUR VIOLATIONS AT ISSUE THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT. THANK YOU.
>> IF I MAY BE HEARD, JUST ONE SECOND.
I DON'T THINK WE'RE TRYING TO BLAME ANYBODY.
AGAIN, I WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.
WE'RE JUST SAYING WE'RE TRYING TO RESOLVE SOME OF THE ISSUES AND YOU'LL HEAR ABOUT IT AT RIVER ROAD, AND YOU'LL HEAR FROM THE ENGINEER WHO'S BEEN THE PRIMARY SPEARHEAD. WE'RE TRYING.
IT JUST SEEMS LIKE WE'RE GETTING SOME RESISTANCE BECAUSE IT'S MR. [INAUDIBLE] OR THERE MIGHT BE SOME HARD FEELINGS.
I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE ISSUE IS, BUT WE'RE TRYING.
>> AT THIS POINT, WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO DELIBERATIONS.
NOW, THAT WE'VE HEARD EVERYONE'S TESTIMONY IN SUMMARY OF THE STATEMENTS.
THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING IS CLOSED FOR DELIBERATION AT THIS TIME.
THE AUDIENCE MAY NOT SPEAK OR MAKE COMMENTS UNLESS THE BOARD ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION OF A QUESTION.
THE PUBLIC MAY STAY DURING DELIBERATION OR THEY MAY CHOOSE TO LEAVE, MAY CALL THE PLANNING AND THE CODES OFFICE IN THE MORNING TO ASK FOR A DECISION FROM THE BOARD.
ANYONE WHO OPPOSES A DECISION OF THE BOARD MAY APPEAL THE DECISION BY FILING A PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CAROLINE COUNTY.
WE CAN DELIBERATE. I WANT TO LEAN ON YOU A LITTLE BIT ON THIS, PATRICK.
I GUESS WE SHOULD GO THROUGH THESE FOUR VIOLATIONS.
WE CAN START WITH VIOLATION NUMBER 1, EXHIBIT 2, WE'LL SAY.
>> I BELIEVE THE VIOLATIONS ARE EXHIBIT 4.
>> THERE ARE EIGHT PAGES ON THEM, SO EXHIBIT 4, PAGE 1 OF 8.
[01:05:04]
YOU SAID EXHIBIT 4?>> YOU CAN USE MY COMPUTER IF YOU NEED TO.
THIS IS FOR THE [INAUDIBLE]. [LAUGHTER]
>> THIS SHOULD BE THE FIRST ONE.
>> LYNN DOESN'T LIKE THAT TOUCHED. THERE IT IS.
>> PAGE 116. YOU, I BELIEVE, ARE ON [INAUDIBLE].
>> YOU KNOW WHAT? SHOULD BE PAGE 19 OF YOUR PDF.
>> IT DOESN'T SHOW THE PAGE NUMBER.
>> YEAH, IT DOESN'T SHOW THE PAGE NUMBER.
>> YOU'VE BEEN DIFFERENT TEAMS.
>> WELL, THAT WAS [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'VE GOT MINE UP RIGHT HERE IF YOU WANT IT. YOU WANT IT?
>> HERE'S WHAT IT IS RIGHT THERE.
>> I GOT THEM HIGHLIGHTED HERE. IT SHOULD BE THREE ON THIS.
>> LET'S JUST ROLL WITH THE ROOF STRUCTURE FIRST.
>> HOW YOU GUYS FEEL ABOUT THE ROOF STRUCTURE?
>> IT'S CLEAR THAT IT NEEDS TO BE PERMITTED, BOTTOM LINE.
EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A FAILURE TO DO SO, I THINK IT WAS JUST A LACK OF KNOWLEDGE, BUT I THINK IT SHOULD BE RESOLVED BY APPLYING FOR A BUILDING PERMIT.
>> I GUESS THERE'S REALLY NO INSPECTIONS.
>> IT'S JUST A SIMPLE FILLING IT OUT.
>> FILLING OUT AN APPLICATION.
THERE'S NO INSPECTIONS, RIGHT, CRYSTAL?
>> ARE THERE ANY INSPECTIONS INVOLVED OR IS IT JUST PRETTY MUCH FILLING OUT THE APPLICATION?
>> NO BUILDING PERMIT INSPECTION.
>> SITE INSPECTION JUST TO SEE.
>> WE CAN USE THE [INAUDIBLE] 175-187.
IT TALKS ABOUT ABOUT A CERTIFICATE OR BUILDING PERMIT IS REQUIRED.
IT'S UNLAWFUL TO CHANGE USE OR LOCATE OR BEGIN THE NEW USE ERECTION CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION, EXTENSION, CONVERSION, OR STRUCTURAL ALTERATION OF ANY LOT OR STRUCTURE WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A ZONING CERTIFICATE AND/OR BUILDING PERMIT.
>> THAT'S BOTH ISSUES AND THEN AS FAR AS THE MORATORIUM, CLEARLY, THERE WAS A MORATORIUM, AND HE TESTIFIED ON BOTH CASES THAT THINGS WERE MOVED FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER, AND THAT WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ALLOWED.
>> ONE AT A TIME. BEFORE WE JUMP TO THE MORATORIUM, LOOK ACROSS THE TWO VIOLATIONS FOR THE TWO STRUCTURES.
>> WE ADDRESS EACH ONE SEPARATE.
THERE'S FOUR SEPARATE VIOLATIONS SO I THINK YOU NEED TO ADDRESS EACH ONE INDIVIDUALLY.
>> SHOULD WE VOTE ON IT OR YOU'RE SAYING WE ADDRESS IT?
>> NO. I THINK YOU NEED TO VOTE ON EACH ONE, SO YOU WOULD VOTE WHETHER TO AFFIRM, REVERSE, AND MODIFY EACH VIOLATION.
>> DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION ON THE ROOF STRUCTURE?
>> WELL, I THINK THAT OBVIOUSLY, I FEEL LIKE THE COUNTY IS CORRECT IN ITS ASSUMPTION THAT IT SHOULD BE APPLIED FOR A BUILDING PERMIT SO WE WANT TO SEE THAT RECTIFIED.
>> I MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE AFFIRM THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE HANDLED.
>> LET'S GO TO THE USE OF THE LAGOON.
IT WAS CHANGED. THEY STATED THEY DID CHANGE THE SLOPE OF IT, AND THEY DID PUT IN A LINE AND OBVIOUSLY, IT'S DIVIDED INTO TWO INSTEAD OF ONE.
>> THERE'S EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS DEFINITELY CHANGED AND THEY ADMITTED THAT, AND THAT'S IT NEEDED TO BE PERMITTED.
>> WE'RE GOING TO GO. THIS IS DEFINITION 175-8, A STRUCTURE.
[01:10:04]
"ANYTHING CONSTRUCTED OR ERECTED, WHICH REQUIRES LOCATION ON OR IN THE GROUND OR ATTACHMENT TO SOMETHING HAVING A LOCATION ON OR IN THE GROUND BY WAY OF EXAMPLE AND NOT LIMITATION, PRIVATE OR COMMERCIAL PIPELINES, IN GROUND SWIMMING POOLS, AND RELATED APPARATUS.UNDERGROUND VAULTS FOR STORAGE, FOR SAFETY, SOLAR SYSTEMS, AND SIMILAR ITEMS ARE INCLUDED IN THIS TERM."
>> DO YOU FEEL LIKE IT'S A STRUCTURE? WE ALL AGREE IT'S A STRUCTURE.
>> I MIGHT MAKE ANOTHER MOTION.
>> YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO?
>> TO AFFIRM THAT IT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED.
>> "THE STORAGE OF THE MATERIALS OTHER THAN VEGETABLE WASTE WATER IN THE LAGOON DURING THE MORATORIUM PROHIBITED SUCH STORAGE.".
>> YEAH. IT'S CLEAR WHETHER IT WAS AGAIN, LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OR WHATEVER, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DEAL WAS, BUT AGAIN, IT WAS VIOLATED.
ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD? DO YOU WANT TO ADD? YOU WANT TO DO THE STAFF? DO YOU WANT TO ADD THIS AS PART OF IT? THE MORATORIUM, WHERE'S THE PART THAT SAYS?
>> [INAUDIBLE] ROLLED TOGETHER. [LAUGHTER]
>> I KNOW SO MUCH HE CAN'T STORE DAF BECAUSE THERE'S A MORATORIUM.
>> WELL, ESSENTIALLY THAT HE CAN'T STORE THE LOT, EVEN IF IT'S MANURE, HE DOESN'T HAVE A PERMIT.
>> IT'S ABOUT THE PERMITTED USE AS WELL AS THE MORATORIUM I THINK.
>> THE MDE, THAT PERMIT EXPIRED.
>> HE DIDN'T RENEW IT, I GUESS.
>> WANT TO ADD ANYTHING? HE'S JUST GOING TO HAVE TO BRING IT UP THE CODE WHATEVER THAT TAKES.
>> YOU'RE AFFIRMING THE VIOLATION OF THE MORATORIUM?
>> IT IS THE VIOLATION FOR THE DAF.
>> THE DAF. THE DAF IS THE ONLY ONE THAT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MATERIAL WAS.
[LAUGHTER] HIS TESTIMONY WAS THAT HE DID TAKE SOME DAF AIR INITIALLY BEFORE THE MORATORIUM, I BELIEVE.
>> YOU SAID YOU DID IT PRIOR TO THE MORATORIUM, NOT AFTER THE MORATORIUM.
ON THAT ONE, I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN ASK THAT THAT ONE BE AFFIRMED BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SUBSTANCE WAS.
>> BUT HE DID. HE ADMITTED TO BRINGING THAT INTO [OVERLAPPING]
I DON'T KNOW PERSONALLY IF I CAN HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE FOR SOMETHING THAT HE DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY SAY.
I DID IT KNOWINGLY AND AFTER THAT.
THAT ONE IS THE ONE THAT I'M A LITTLE OFF.
>> YOU CAN READ THEM THE VIOLATION LETTER, WHICH IS PAGE 6.
>> [BACKGROUND] WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO FIND OUT?
>> HOLD ON. I'M READING THIS DAF REPORT.
>> I JUST HAD QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT.
>> DO YOU WANT TO ASK, CRYSTAL?
>> WE GOT TO GET A PERMIT TO STORE, SO YOU'RE JUST GOING TO.
>> [OVERLAPPING] USED WAS ONE PART OF IT.
>> DID THEY HAVE THE WHOLE THING?
>> BUT THEY HAVEN'T DONE AND CHANGED THE ROOF SO THE DAF.
[01:15:01]
>> BUT THEY STILL NEED A PERMIT.
>> REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT WAS, IT NEEDED TO BE PERMITTED, IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
[BACKGROUND] I DON'T KNOW THAT IT REALLY.
>> CRYSTAL, CAN YOU CLARIFY THIS LAST ONE ABOUT THE DAF? I GUESS, WE'RE HAVING A LITTLE PROBLEM.
>> I THOUGHT THE RECORDS CLOSED?
>> BUT WE'RE ALLOWED TO ASK FOR CLARIFICATION.
>> I DON'T THINK YOU'RE ALLOWED TO ONCE THE TESTIMONY IS OVER BUT I'LL LET YOUR ATTORNEY HANDLE THAT.
TYPICALLY, WHEN THE TESTIMONY IS OVER.
>> I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE I PRESERVE WHATEVER RECORD. [LAUGHTER]
>> I GET IT. NO, WE WERE JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY A SPECIFIC.
>> I THOUGHT IN OTHER CASES, WE WERE ALWAYS ALLOWED TO ASK QUESTIONS SO I GET IT.
>> DIFFERENT PROCEDURE. GOT IT. I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY.
>> WE DID THREE, WE'RE ON THE FOURTH, WE'RE ON THAT.
>> IS IT THE DAF SPECIFICALLY OR IS IT JUST THE USE? I DON'T UNDERSTAND.
>> PATRICK, CLEAR THIS UP BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE ALL THINKING DIFFERENT.
>> WHICH VIOLATION NOTICE ARE YOU AT?
>> LOOK AT THE VIOLATION NOTICES.
>> WE REQUIRED HIM TO GET A PERMIT TO USE IT.
>> HE'S ARGUING THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE PERMIT.
>> WHERE'S THIS. THAT'S [INAUDIBLE].
>> IT SAYS HE'S GOT TO HAVE A PERMIT TO USE IT BECAUSE THE OTHER ONE IS [INAUDIBLE].
IT WAS FOR SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT ANYWAY.
YOU STILL HAVE TO HAVE A PERMIT.
WHETHER IT'S DAF [INAUDIBLE], HE DOESN'T HAVE A PERMIT, SO IT'S STILL A VIOLATION.
>> I THINK WE CAN JUST GO WITH IT IN THAT RESPECT.
>> ARE WE RIGHT ON THAT, PATRICK?
>> WELL, THE PERMIT WOULD BE FOR THE STRUCTURE AND YOU ALREADY DETERMINED THAT THEY HAD TO HAVE A PERMIT FOR THE STRUCTURE.
>> YOU STILL HAVE TO HAVE A PERMIT.
>> I THINK THE VIOLATION OF THE MORATORIUM WAS FOR STORING THE MATERIAL THERE.
>> WHICH WOULD BE TIED TO USE.
>> WHICH WOULD BE TIED TO USE.
>> WHEN YOU APPLY FOR SOMETHING, IT'S A ZONING CERTIFICATE AND/OR A BUILDING PERMIT.
>> IN THIS CASE, THE ZONING WASN'T APPROPRIATELY HANDLED SO THAT'S WHY.
AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN IDENTIFIED.
>> NO, THIS IS THE ZONING PART OF IT.
>> WELL, THEN I'M FINE. IT DEFINITELY NEEDS TO BE.
THE ZONING PERMIT HAS TO BE ISSUED TO GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO USE IT IN THE CAPACITY THAT HE'S ALLOWED ON THE FARM SO THAT'S FINE.
IT'S ALSO THE MORATORIUM WAS ABOUT THERE WAS A HOLD ON THAT CURRENTLY, IS THAT CORRECT? HE'S NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT AT ALL?
>> THAT PROHIBITS THE STORAGE OF ANY MATERIAL OR SUBSTANCE OTHER THAN LIVESTOCK MANURE.
>> HE WANTS TO USE IT FOR THAT PURPOSE.
>> THE STRUCTURE DESIGN AND/OR PERMITTED FOR THE STORAGE OF THE LIVESTOCK MANURE UNTIL NOVEMBER 1ST, 2024 AND THE USE OF LAND OR STRUCTURES TO STORE LIVESTOCK MANURE, WHICH IS GENERATED AT ANOTHER LOCATION UNTIL NOVEMBER 1ST, 2024.
THAT'S WHAT THE RESOLUTION 202406 PROHIBITS.
>> HE WAS BRINGING IT FROM ANOTHER PLACE, WHICH IS THE PROBLEM.
>> HE CAN'T BRING UP THE MANURE.
>> DO YOU WANT TO MAKE ANOTHER MOTION. I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION.
>> A MOTION TO AFFIRM THE VIOLATION OF HE CAN'T BRING NOTHING IN, CAN ONLY STORE AFTER HE GETS HIS PERMIT.
HE'S GOT TO GET THE [INAUDIBLE] USE THE PERMIT.
>> WELL, THE MORATORIUM WOULDN'T ALLOW HIM TO GET A PERMIT FOR THAT.
>> AT THIS POINT UNTIL NOVEMBER 1ST THAT'S BEING.
RIGHT NOW, IT CAN'T BE USED AT ALL, IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING BASED ON THE MORATORIUM. [OVERLAPPING]
>> HE HAVE LIVESTOCK ON THIS FARM.
[01:20:06]
>> FOR WIDE IF IT'S ON IF IT COMES FROM THE IT SAYS IT CAN'T BE STORED IF IT'S GENERATED AT ANOTHER LOCATION.
>> ANOTHER LOCATION. BASICALLY, WE'RE SAYING ANYTHING FROM A SEPARATE LOCATION IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE USED.
>> HE STILL HAS TO GET A PERMIT.
>> WE MAKE A MOTION TO AFFIRM.
>> WHAT ELSE FOR P VINE OR DO WE NEED TO GO OVER?
THOSE WERE THE FOUR VIOLATIONS.
>> WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A BREAK.
>> WE'LL TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS, IT'S 7:18.
[01:32:21]
>> [NOISE] WE'RE GOING TO HEAR.
[2) Applicant: Hartland Holdings LLC- Appeal No. 24-0032]
[01:32:25]
>> THIS IS SECOND PART OF THE MEETING.
IT'S APPLICATION NUMBER 24-0033 A REQUEST BY BENJAMIN FLAHART AND WAKEFIELD HOLDINGS, LLC FOR AN APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH CAROLINE COUNTY CODE OF PUBLIC LOCAL LAW, SECTION 175-1 61B, THE MULTIPLE NOTICES OF VIOLATIONS, CAROLINE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE AND CAROLINE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION 2024-006 SAID PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 23092.
>> HOLD ON THIS IS NOT RIGHT. WHY DOES IT KEEP DOING THAT?
>> NO. IT'S STILL PEE ON HERE.
WHY DOES IT KEEP COMING UP? WHEN I HIT THAT.
>> HERE. I GOT IT. LET ME RESTART BECAUSE I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING RIGHT ON THAT.
THIS IS APPLICATION NUMBER 24-0032, A REQUEST BY HARTLAND HOLDINGS, LLC FOR AN APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH CAROLINE COUNTY CODE OF PUBLIC LOCAL LAWS, SECTION 175-1 62B, MULTIPLE NOTICE MULTIPLE NOTICES OF VIOLATING CAROLINE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, AND CAROLINE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION 2024-007.
SAID PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 14010 RIVER ROAD, GREENSBORO, MARYLAND.
IT IS FURTHER DESCRIBED AS TAX MAT 14 GRID 14 PARTIAL 34 AND IS OWNED BY HARTLAND HOLDINGS, LLC.
>> DO YOU NEED ANY OTHER SWEARING IN OR IS THAT FOR THE FIRST HEARING? [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'LL START AGAIN WITH A BRIEF OPENING STATEMENT.
WE'RE DEALING WITH SOME VIOLATIONS HERE ON A DIFFERENT PROPERTY, WHICH IS ON 14010 RIVER ROAD, GREENSBORO MERILL.
I'LL CALL THAT FOR PURPOSES OF THE HEARING TONIGHT, THE RIVER ROAD PROPERTY FOR EASE OF REFERENCE.
THERE ARE SEVERAL ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT PROPERTY THAT WE'RE APPEALING.
ONE IS THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CONCRETE TANK ALLEGEDLY CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT A PERMIT.
THE USE OF THAT CONCRETE TANK FOR STORAGE OF DAFF.
[01:35:04]
THERE'S AN ISSUE RELATING TO THE INSTALLATION OF A MANUFACTURED HOME ON THAT PROPERTY.THERE'S AN ISSUE ABOUT AN OFFICE TRAILER BEING IN AN INCORRECT LOCATION ON THAT PROPERTY.
THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH REGARD TO A DECK BEING ADDED TO THE OFFICE TRAILER.
I BELIEVE ONE OF THE VIOLATIONS DEALS WITH A SHED.
THERE'S A VIOLATION REGARDING TWO GRAIN BINS THAT APPARENTLY ARE NOT IN THE LOCATION THAT WAS IDENTIFIED IN THE SITE PLAN INITIALLY, AND THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH REGARD TO SIX GRAIN BINS THAT WERE CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT A PERMIT, AND APPARENTLY, THERE'S AN ISSUE REGARDING THE STRAW STORAGE BARN THAT IS APPARENTLY LARGER THAN WHAT WAS SHOWN IN THE PLANS.
>> THOSE ARE THE VIOLATIONS, AS I UNDERSTAND THEM.
THE TESTAMENT WILL BE IN THIS CASE, AND I'LL START WITH EACH OF ONE, JUST LIKE I REFERENCED THEM, THE CONCRETE STORAGE.
WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET THIS PERMITTED SINCE THE SUMMER OF 2023.
WE EXCHANGE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE COUNTY.
IN JANUARY OF 2024, A PERMIT WAS APPLIED FOR AND YOU'LL HEAR FROM OUR EXPERT LAND PLANNER, WHAT HE DID, WHAT HE APPLIED FOR.
HE'LL TESTIFY HIS EFFORTS TO SECURE AN APPROPRIATE PERMIT FOR THE CONCRETE STORAGE PLAN.
AGAIN, WHILE THIS HAS AT ONE TIME WAS USED FOR THE STORAGE OF DAF, IT'S INTENDED ULTIMATELY AS APPLIED FOR IN 2024 IS TO ULTIMATELY HAVE A DAIRY OPERATION ON THIS FARM AGAIN TO STORE MANURE AS AN ACCESSORY USE.
THERE'S ISSUE NUMBER 1 WITH REGARD TO THAT.
AGAIN, THE USE OF THE CONCRETE STORAGE TANK, AS YOU TESTIFIED, THERE WAS A MORATORIUM THAT WENT IN EFFECT IN 2024, WE APPEALED THAT AND YOU'LL HEAR TESTIMONY FROM MR. FLAHART HERE, THAT WE APPEALED THAT DECISION.
WE ACTUALLY, AT ONE POINT, OBTAINED AN INJUNCTION AGAINST ENFORCEMENT OF THAT MORATORIUM, A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WHICH MADE THAT MORATORIUM INEFFECTIVE FOR THAT PERIOD OF TIME.
DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME, YES, DAF WAS MOVED ON THERE AND DAF HAD BEEN IN THERE BEFORE.
I'M NOT GOING TO SAY IT WASN'T.
IT WAS, BUT AT THAT TIME, THE MORATORIUMS HAD NOT BEEN IN EFFECT UNTIL 2024 AND IT WAS STORED THERE.
AGAIN, SINCE THAT WAS LIFTED, I BELIEVE MR. FLAHART WILL SAY NO MORE DAF HAS COME INTO THAT PREMISES.
AGAIN, THE ULTIMATE USES PROPOSED IS TO BE USED FOR THE STORAGE OF THE MANURE FROM THE DAIRY OPERATIONS THAT ARE INTENDED TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THAT PROPERTY.
AGAIN, WE'RE DEALING WITH THE INSTALLATION OF A MANUFACTURED HOME.
THE EVIDENCE WILL ESTABLISH THAT, AGAIN, AN APPELLANT HAS BEEN TRYING TO SECURE A PERMIT FOR THIS CONSTRUCTION SINCE 2023.
MR. EWING WILL TESTIFY ABOUT THE EFFORTS HE HAS MADE, THE CURRENT STATUS OF WHAT HE UNDERSTANDS THE PERMIT TO BE FOR.
AS WE SIT HERE TODAY, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT HAS APPROVED THAT, AND WE SHOULD BE PREPARED TO PROCEED ON THAT PARTICULAR HOUSE, SHORTLY.
THERE IS AN OFFICE TRAILER ON THAT PROPERTY THAT WAS MOVED ONTO THERE.
AGAIN, WITH DISCUSSIONS AND YOU'LL HEAR FROM THE WITNESSES HERE, WE AGREE THAT WE'RE GOING TO REMOVE THAT ONCE WE GET THE MANUFACTURED HOME APPROVED AND BUILT AND WE'LL COME OFF THE PROPERTY.
THE DECK IS ON THE OFFICE TRAILER, WAS BUILT ON THERE.
AGAIN, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THAT OFF ONCE WE GET THE MANUFACTURED HOME APPROVED AND MOVING FORWARD, SO THOSE THREE ISSUES COME OFF THE TABLE.
SAME THING WITH THE SHED, I UNDERSTAND IT'S GOING TO BE MOVED ONCE ALL THIS GETS APPROVED.
ALL THAT COMES OFF THE TABLE ONCE WE DO THAT.
THE MORE PROBLEMATIC ISSUES DEAL WITH THE GRAIN BINS AND I THINK MY PARTNER WAS HERE A YEAR AGO, AND WE GOT A SPECIAL USE TO ALLOW A GRAIN OPERATION, IS MY RECOLLECTION.
BUT WITH REGARD TO THE TWO GREEN BINS THAT WERE ALLEGED IN VIOLATION OF THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, A VARIANCE WAS NOT APPROVED.
AS WE SIT HERE TODAY AND I THINK THAT'S THE STATUS OF IT, AND I'M SURE YOU'LL CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
THE SETBACKS, AS I READ THEM ONLY APPLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THIS IS AN AGRICULTURAL PROCESSING PLANT, AND THE USE QUALIFIES AS SUCH UNDER THE STATUTE AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS.
WHAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED IS, AGAIN,
[01:40:01]
AT LEAST WITH REGARD TO THE TWO BINS OR TWO GRAIN SILOS THAT ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE SETBACK, OUR PROPOSAL HAS BEEN TO STORE ONLY OUR OWN GRAIN IN THERE, WHICH WOULD NOT BE AN AGRICULTURAL OPERATION AND WITH REGARD TO THE BINS THAT ARE WITHIN THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, OF COURSE, WE WILL BE IN AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AND COMPLY WITH ALL THAT AND YOU'LL HEAR TESTIMONY ABOUT WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED ON THAT.THAT'S OUR PROPOSAL ON THOSE BINS TO TRY TO FIX IT, AND YOU'LL HEAR ABOUT THE TESTIMONY ABOUT HOW WE'RE TRYING TO RESOLVE THAT ISSUE AND DEAL WITH IT.
AGAIN, YOU'VE HEARD IT BEFORE.
THESE BINS WERE BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT.
I'M NOT GOING TO SIT HERE AND TELL YOU THEY WERE BUILT WITH A PERMIT BECAUSE IT'S NOT TRUE.
YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD THAT TESTIMONY, AND YOU'VE HEARD WHY.
I'M NOT GOING TO SIT HERE AND TRY TO REPEAT IT AND MAKE UP STORIES, BUT YOU'LL AT LEAST HEAR THE EFFORTS WE'VE MADE TO TRY TO RECTIFY THE SITUATION AND NOT CLEAR WHY IT'S TAKEN SO LONG TO TRY TO DO THAT, SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE ON THAT.
AS I UNDERSTAND THE STRAWBRIDGE, IT WAS BUILT 144 FEET RATHER THAN 120 FEET.
AGAIN, MR. EWING HAS BEEN WORKING ON THAT PERMIT TO AMEND IT TO SHOW THE EXTENSION.
IT'S NOT A SIGNIFICANT EXTENSION, IT'S ABOUT 20 FEET, SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.
AGAIN, WE'LL CALL BRETT EWING AND MR. FLAHART TO TESTIFY ABOUT THESE PARTICULAR ISSUES BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> THE COUNTY, YOU CAN DO YOUR OPENING.
>> BRIEFLY. A LOT OF THE ISSUES IN THIS RIVER ROAD APPEAL ARE SIMILAR TO THE FIRST COUPLE OF ISSUES IN THE LAST APPEAL.
MANY STRUCTURES BUILT WITHOUT PERMITS, CHANGED WITHOUT PERMITS.
FAIRLY SIMPLE, I WON'T GO INTO DETAIL.
WE'LL JUST GO THROUGH THOSE ONE AT A TIME WITH MS. DADDS.
THE BIG ISSUE, I THINK, IN THIS CASE IS THE GRAIN BINS AND YOU KNOW THE FACTS, BUT WE'LL GO THROUGH THEM BRIEFLY WITH MS. DADDS AND THE APPLICATION WAS FOR TWO PERSONALLY USE GRAIN BINS.
TWO OF THEM ARE IN THE SETBACK, THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE.
THE ISSUE BEFORE YOU IS NOT REALLY WHETHER PROPOSALS HAVE BEEN MADE BY MR. FLAHART TO COME UP WITH SOME WAY TO RESOLVE THAT.
THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION BEFORE YOU.
THE QUESTION BEFORE YOU IS, ARE THESE ACCURATE VIOLATION LETTERS? HAVE WE PROPERLY CITED HIM FOR VIOLATIONS? THERE IS NO PERMIT AND TWO OF THE 10 ARE IN THE SETBACK.
SURE, WE GOT A LETTER A MONTH AGO, AN HOUR BEFORE THE LAST HEARING, MAKING A PROPOSAL, BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT REALLY ISN'T PART OF WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS TONIGHT.
THE APPEAL IS FROM THE VIOLATION LETTERS, AND I WOULD ASK YOU TO FOCUS MORE ON THAT THAN THESE PROPOSALS THAT ARE NOT CONCRETE AS OF YET. THANK YOU.
>> YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND START YOUR CASE.
>> IF YOU BEAR WITH ME, I'LL JUST HAVE EXCLUSION IN MY NOTE BOOK HERE SO I'M TRYING TO PUT THAT BACK.
>> TAKE A MINUTE TO YOUR PAGE.
>> HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DO IT, MARK IS FINE.
>> FOR OUR DISCUSSION IN THE BREAK, I HAVE COPIES OF THE VIOLATION LETTERS THAT CONTAIN BOTH PAGES.
>> THANK YOU. IS THAT FOR BOTH CASES?
>> WE'RE NOT SEGREGATING, IT'S ONE SET.
>> I MENTIONED IT TO MR. [INAUDIBLE]
>> I UNDERSTAND OUR APPEAL LETTER ONLY HAD THE FIRST PAGES BECAUSE WE WERE JUST IDENTIFYING WHAT WAS AN ISSUE.
WE ASSUME THESE WOULD BE ALL PART OF THE RECORD ANYWAYS. HAVE ANY PROBLEM.
>> AFTER I POINTED THAT OUT, I MEAN, I WAS THINKING THROUGH IT AND WHEN MATT READ THE EXHIBITS INTO THE RECORD, HE READ THE DOCUMENTS THEMSELVES, SO I THINK WE'RE JUST MAKING SURE WE HAVE A COMPLETE SET.
I DON'T THINK ANYBODY DISPUTES THAT THOSE ARE THE VIOLATION LETTERS OF THE RESOLUTIONS.
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, I THINK MATT ALREADY ENTERED THEM.
>> ACTUALLY ISN'T IN THIS CASE, SO WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE DO THAT. YES.
>> I NEED TO LET HIM READ THE EXHIBITS, AND I ACTUALLY MISSED THAT PART.
>> BUT I THINK WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT THAT THE COMPLETE DOCUMENTS ARE WHAT WAS ENTERED.
>> YES. I'M GOING TO LET MATT READ EXHIBITS, AND THEN YOU CAN START. MATT READ THE EXHIBITS.
>> WE FORGOT BECAUSE WE WERE SO WORRIED ON MAKING SURE WE DID IT RIGHT, AND WE WERE ATTORNEYS.
WE WERE TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE DID THAT. WE FORGOT A WHOLE STEP.
>> BOARD EXHIBIT NUMBER 1, IS THE NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING PUBLISHED IN THE STAR DEMOCRAT ON 10/11/2024, AND THE TIMES RECORD ON 10/16/2024.
[01:45:01]
EXHIBIT NUMBER 2 IS THE STAFF REPORT.EXHIBIT NUMBER 3 IS THE APPEAL APPLICATION.
EXHIBIT NUMBER 4, ARE THE VIOLATION NOTICES.
EXHIBIT NUMBER 5 ARE THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER AFFIDAVIT.
EXHIBIT NUMBER 6 IS THE APPLICANT'S NOTICE.
EXHIBIT 7 IS A SIGN POSTING AFFIDAVIT AND PHOTOS.
NEXT, WE HAVE THE APPLICANT'S EXHIBITS.
EXHIBIT NUMBER 1 IS A PERMIT APPLICATION.
GUESS IT'S A RESPONSE TO THE GRAIN AND STROLLER OPERATION.
EXHIBIT NUMBER 3 IS A LETTER FROM BRENDAN MULLANEY.
EXHIBIT NUMBER 4 IS A RESPONSE FROM THE COUNTY TO BRENDAN MULLANEY.
EXHIBIT NUMBER 5 IS A SPECIAL USE APPLICATION.
EXHIBIT NUMBER 6 IS A VARIANCE APPLICATION.
EXHIBIT NUMBER 7 IS A WASTEWATER APPLICATION.
EXHIBIT NUMBER 8 IS A SITE PLAN APPLICATION.
EXHIBIT NUMBER 9 IS A COMPLAINT FILED WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT.
EXHIBIT NUMBER 10 IS A LETTER FROM LANE ENGINEERING.
EXHIBIT 12 IS A SITE PLAN PERMIT.
EXHIBIT 13 AS A RESPONSE TO AN ADDITION.
EXHIBIT 14 IS A LETTER FROM THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT.
EXHIBIT 15 IS A LETTER FROM THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT, DATED MARCH 18TH, 2024.
EXHIBIT 16 IS A LETTER FROM THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT DATED JANUARY 29TH, 2024.
EXHIBIT NUMBER 17 IS A LETTER FROM THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE SPECIAL USE AND VARIANCE APPLICATIONS.
EXHIBIT 18, OUR SITE PLAN IS DATED 5/15/2030.
EXHIBIT 19, OUR SITE PLAN IS DATED JANUARY 30TH, 2024.
EXHIBIT 20, OUR SITE PLAN IS DATED 5/16/2024.
>> IF I MAY. IF I WOULD LIKE TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD WITH A LETTER THAT HAS BEEN REFERENCED.
I'D LIKE TO HAVE IT MARKED AS EXHIBIT 21.
HE KNOWS THE LETTER I'M REFERRING TO.
HE'S OBVIOUSLY MIGHT HAVE AN OBJECTION TO IT.
>> I DON'T WANT YOU TO PUT INTO THE ISSUES HERE, BUT THAT'S MY OBJECTION.
THIS IS A PROPOSAL TO DISCUSS A POTENTIAL RESOLUTION.
>> WELL, AGAIN, I WOULD SAY THAT WE'RE NOT HERE TO DISCUSS RESOLUTIONS. IT DOESN'T APPLY.
WE'RE HERE TO FIND WHAT'S GOING ON WITH WHAT'S HERE, WHICH IS A TOTALLY SEPARATE ISSUE. THE VIOLATIONS.
>> WHAT DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT?
>> [INAUDIBLE] OBJECT TO THAT LETTER.
>> WELL, LET ME AT LEAST HAVE IT MARKED FOR THE RECORD THEN.
>> THEN IF YOU DON'T WANT TO GIVE IT TO THEM OR CONSIDER IT, I WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT.
>> I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO.
>> NO, I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO.
>> BUT HERE'S WHY I WOULD SAY IT'S TO REMAIN.
IF WE'RE USING THE TWO BINS THAT ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR PERSONAL USE AND THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED, THEN IN MY VIEW, WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT CONDUCTING AN AGRICULTURAL OPERATION WITH REGARD TO THOSE TWO BINS.
WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER BINS, THEY WOULD, BUT WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ALL THOSE.
SO THAT'S WHY I THINK IT WOULD BE RELEVANT.
I LEAVE IT TO YOUR DISCRETION AND I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION.
>> I PERSONALLY FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO JUST HANDLE WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US AND NOT LOOK AT ANYTHING BEYOND THAT.
>> JUST FOR THE RECORD, I'M GOING TO HAVE THAT SUBMITTED TO MARK.
>> MR. FLAHART, AGAIN, YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE RIVER ROAD PROPERTY, CORRECT?
>> DESCRIBE THAT PROPERTY FOR ME?
WE HAVE A STROLLER SHED AND SOME GRAIN BINS THERE.
>> I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU WHAT'S BEEN MARKED AS EXHIBIT 1 IN THE PACKAGE.
>> WHAT APPEARS TO BE AN APPLICATION YOU SUBMITTED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS ON THE RIVER ROAD PROPERTY?
>> IT'S DATED 4/4/2019? THE SECOND PAGE OF THAT.
>> WHAT WERE YOU BUILDING AT THE TIME THAT YOU APPLIED FOR A PERMIT WITH THE COUNTY?
>> WE WERE BUILDING A COUPLE OF BINS AND A STROLLER SHED.
>> YOU WERE ULTIMATELY GRANTED PERMISSION TO BUILD THOSE STRUCTURES, CORRECT?
>> I'M SHOWING YOU WHAT'S BEEN MARKED AS EXHIBIT 2.
APPLICANTS OR PETITIONERS EXHIBIT 2.
IS THAT THE PERMIT THAT YOU WERE GRANTED TO DO THAT?
>> THAT TOOK FIVE MONTHS TO ISSUE, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> YOUR EXPERIENCE, IS THAT TYPICAL OR ATYPICAL FOR APPLICATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL STRUCTURES?
[01:50:05]
>> I DON'T KNOW HOW TO HANDLE THAT.
>> YOUR REASON FOR THE OBJECTION IS?
IS IT TYPICAL FOR TIME PERIODS.
HERE CECIL COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.
>> YEAH, REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
>> MR. FLAHART, HAVE YOU APPLIED FOR AGRICULTURAL STRUCTURES IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS?
>> HAVE YOU APPLIED FOR THEM IN CAROLINE COUNTY BEFORE?
>> WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICATION YOU SUBMITTED IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS, HAS IT TAKEN FIVE MONTHS TO ISSUE IT AFTER YOU APPLY FOR AN AGRICULTURAL STRUCTURE?
>> HOW LONG IS IT TYPICALLY TAKE IN YOUR EXPERIENCE TO GET A PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A AGRICULTURAL STRUCTURE?
>> NOW, DID YOU PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION UNDER THE PERMIT?
>> WHAT DID YOU END UP CONSTRUCTING?
>> WE CONSTRUCTED WHAT WAS ON THE PLANS, AND THEN WE ADDED SOME BINS LATER ON.
>> YOU DIDN'T APPLY FOR THOSE BINS LATER ON, DID YOU?
>> AT SOME POINT YOU RECEIVED SOME NOTICE FROM THE COUNTY THAT YOU HAD EXCEEDED THE SCOPE OF YOUR PERMIT, CORRECT?
>> WHAT DID YOU DO AS A RESULT OF THAT?
>> WE CALLED LANE ENGINEERING AND CALLED THE ATTORNEY TO HELP NAVIGATE THE PROCESS.
>> EXHIBIT 3, IS THAT A LETTER THAT YOUR ATTORNEY SENT TO THE COUNTY IN AN EFFORT TO TRY TO RESOLVE OUTSTANDING ISSUES RELATING TO THE GRAIN BINS AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WAS GOING ON AT THE PROPERTY?
>> MR. MULLANEY SENT THAT ON WHAT DATE?
>> DID YOU GET A RESPONSE FROM THE COUNTY AT SOME POINT?
>> I'LL DIRECT YOU TO EXHIBIT 4.
DOES THAT LOOK LIKE THE COUNTY'S RESPONSE TO MR. BRENDAN MULLANEY'S LETTER?
>> THAT RESPONSE WAS ISSUED AUGUST 3RD OF 2023, RIGHT?
>> THAT'S ALMOST TWO MONTHS AFTER MR. MULLANEY FIRST SENT HIS LETTER, CORRECT?
>> IN AN EFFORT TO FIX ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE RIVER ROAD PROPERTY, WHAT DID YOU DO? DID YOU APPLY FOR SOME PERMITS?
>> ONE OF THEM WAS FOR A SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU WHAT'S BEEN MARKED AS PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 5 FOR PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 5.
IS THAT A COPY OF THE SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION THAT YOU WOULD HAVE FILED?
>> YOU ALSO APPLIED FOR A VARIANCE WITH REGARD TO THE TWO BINS THAT WERE OUT OF COMPLIANCE, CORRECT?
>> WHAT WAS THE RESULT OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION HEARING?
>> WE WERE GRANTED THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION AND DENIED THE SPECIAL USE.
>> YOU WERE GRANTED A SPECIAL USE, DENIED A VARIANCE, CORRECT?
>> THE VARIANCE WAS DEALING WITH TWO OF THE SILOS BEING CLOSER THAN 500 FEET TO THE RIVERWAYS, CORRECT?
>> DO YOU RECALL WHEN NOVEMBER OF 2023 SOUND APPROPRIATE WHEN THAT HEARING WAS HELD ON THE VARIANCE APPLICATIONS?
>> SINCE THAT DENIAL, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO TRY TO BRING THIS PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE?
>> WE'VE CONTINUED TO REACH OUT TO THE COUNTY TO FIND OUT WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO.
WE'VE BEEN SENDING PLANS, EVERYTHING ON OUR END WITH OUR ENGINEER, AND WE'VE GOT VERY LITTLE RESPONSE?
>> THAT'S ALL I HAVE OF YOU, MR. [INAUDIBLE].
>> YOU CAN SIT RIGHT THERE, I JUST PASS THAT.
>> MR. EWING, YOU SWORN, OBVIOUSLY.
COULD YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS, PLEASE?
>> BRETT EWING, LANE ENGINEERING, 117 BAY STREET EASTON, MARYLAND 21601.
>> CAN YOU TELL US YOUR ROLE IN CONNECTION WITH THE RIVER ROAD PROPERTY?
>> I'VE BEEN A PROJECT MANAGER OF THAT.
I'M PART PRINCIPAL OF LANE ENGINEERING AND ALSO PROJECT MANAGER.
[01:55:01]
I WORKED WITH BEN ON A PROPERTY IN DORCHESTER COUNTY, SO BEN CALLED WHEN HE HAD CONCERNS OR WAS NOTIFIED BY THE COUNTY RIGHT HERE IN CAROLINE.>> KIND OF AN OVERVIEW, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO TRY TO BRING THE RIVER ROAD PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE?
>> I HAVE ALMOST 20 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE, SO I KNOW WHAT PERMITS ARE NEEDED IN PROCESSES AND WHAT LEGWORK LANE HAS TO DO IN ORDER TO PREPARE THE PROPER PERMITS.
WE SURVEYED THE SITE, AND FROM THERE, WE STARTED APPLYING FOR THE PERMITS THAT WE THOUGHT WERE NECESSARY BASED ON THE COUNTY DISCUSSION AND DISCUSSION WITH BRENDAN MULLANEY.
>> CURRENTLY, WHAT IS INTENDED USE OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S GOING TO TAKE PLACE ON RIVER ROAD?
>> WELL, WE'VE SUBMITTED SOME HEIFER BARNS.
>> IS THAT THE INTENDED USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ADDITION TO THE FARMING OF IT?
>> WHEN YOU INITIALLY BECAME INVOLVED, YOU ASSISTED WITH VARIOUS APPLICATIONS TO VARIOUS STATE AGENCIES, CORRECT?
>> JUST THE COUNTY. LET ME SHOW YOU WHAT'S BEEN MARKED AS EXHIBIT 7 AND A IN THE RECORD BOOK HERE.
>> I'M SORRY. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH IS A STATE AGENCY, SO YES. [OVERLAPPING]
>> YOU ASSISTED WITH THE APPLICATION FOR THIS, THAT'S EXHIBIT 7?
>> WHAT'S THAT FOR, AND CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO THE BOARD WHAT YOU DO WITH THAT?
>> I HAVE TO LOOK AND SEE. THIS IS THE APPLICATION.
THIS IS FOR THE GRAIN SILOS, GRAIN STORAGE, SPECIAL USE APPROVAL, NO CONSTRUCTION OF RESTROOMS ARE PROPOSED.
>> EVEN THOUGH THERE'S NO SEWER OR ANYTHING TAKING PLACE, YOU STILL HAVE TO APPLY FOR THIS TYPE OF PERMIT?
>> CORRECT. I THINK THIS MIGHT BE BEN'S.
>> YES. BEN HANDLED THIS APPLICATION, BUT WE'VE HANDLED OTHER SIMILAR APPLICATIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH FOR OTHER STRUCTURES ON THAT PROPERTY.
>> EXHIBIT 8, YOU LOOK AT THAT AND TELL ME WHAT THOSE ARE.
>> THIS IS, I THINK, JUST A SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL FOR THIS PROPERTY.
THIS IS FOR THE GRAIN OPERATION, AG PRODUCT PROCESSING, WHICH WAS DISCUSSED EARLIER.
>> DO YOU RECALL WHEN THESE TWO WERE SUBMITTED TO THE COUNTY?
>> WELL, IT'S HARD TO TELL FROM THESE APPLICATIONS.
I'M NOT [LAUGHTER] REAL FAMILIAR WITH THESE BECAUSE IT'S BEEN SOME TIME.
IF THESE ARE RELATED TO THE SITE PLANS FOR BUILDING PERMIT, I KNOW WE SUBMITTED FOR THOSE ROUGHLY IN AUGUST OF 2023.
>> DID THEY APPEAR TO BE THAT SITE PLAN APPROVAL REQUEST?
>> APPLICATION OR PLATS AND SITE PLANS.
>> THE THIRD PAGE OF THAT SHOWS A SITE PLAN ON THERE, CORRECT?
THIS SEEMS TO BE THE VARIANCE AND SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPLICATION.
>> IF YOU LOOK AT THE FIRST PAGE OF APPLICATION, AGAIN, IT SAYS EXPLANATION AND SAYS, THIS PURPOSE OF THIS SITE PLAN IS TO ALLOW AN EXISTING GRAIN OPERATION DETERMINED TO BE AN AGRICULTURAL'S POSTING PLAN TO REMAIN ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THAT WAS LIKELY AFTER THE SPECIAL AND VARIANCE, CORRECT?
>> WERE YOU INVOLVED WITH THE APPLICATION PROCESS TO SECURE A VARIANCE AND SPECIAL EXCEPTION?
>> I WAS INVOLVED IN THE SENSE OF PREPARING THE SITE PLANS.
I BELIEVE MR. MULLANEY HANDLED THE PROCESSING AND SUBMITTAL OF THAT, BUT WE PROVIDED ALL OF THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THAT, AND I WAS IN ATTENDANCE AT THE HEARING ON THOSE TWO NIGHTS.
>> I WANT TO ASK YOU TO TURN TO EXHIBIT NUMBER 10 IN THE BOOK.
CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THAT DOCUMENT IS?
[02:00:01]
OF A RESUBMITTAL OF THAT BUILDING PERMIT THAT WENT IN IN ROUGHLY AUGUST.WE RECEIVED COMMENTS, I THINK IT WAS SOMETIME IN FEBRUARY, IT SEEMED LIKE FROM THOSE.
THIS WAS A RESPONSE, HOW WE ADDRESSED THE COMMENTS FROM THE COUNTY ON THE PLAN SET.
THIS WAS JUST SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO HELP THE COUNTY STAFF UNDERSTAND WHAT WE DID TO ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS.
>> THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN RESPONSE TO A SUBMITTAL THAT YOU MADE BACK IN 2023?
>> I BELIEVE THAT TO BE THE AUGUST 2023 REQUIREMENTS SUBMITTAL.
>> THAT WAS TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE WITH RESPECT TO THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS.
>> HOW ABOUT EXHIBIT 11, CAN YOU TELL THE MEMBERS WHAT THAT IS?
>> THIS I BELIEVE, I THINK IF I CAN READ, IT'S SO SMALL, THE LAST ISSUE DATE WAS 17, '24.
WE HAD SEVERAL ISSUE DATES THERE.
I CAN'T REALLY SEE THE FIRST ONE.
AGAIN, WE DID A RESUBMITTAL IN JUNE.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICE HAS PROVIDED A COUPLE ROUNDS OF COMMENTS SINCE THAT JUNE SUBMITTAL, AND WE'VE BEEN RESUBMITTING BASED ON THEIR COMMENTS SINCE WE HAVE GOTTEN TO A POINT WHERE WE THINK THEY'RE SATISFIED WITH THE HEIFER BARNS.
BUT THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY HOLDING UNTIL THE DWELLING, I THINK, IS RESOLVED WAS ONE OF THE COMMENTS.
>> EXHIBIT 11 WILL SHOW WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING TO DO IN TERMS OF THE HEIFER BARN.
>> ELEVEN IS THE SITE PLAN FOR THE HEIFER BARNS AND BASICALLY THE ENTIRE SITE, BUT SPECIFICALLY FOR THE HEIFER BARNS AND THE PIT.
>> THE PIT WILL BE USED IN CONNECTION WITH THE HEIFER BARNS, CORRECT?
>> IT WILL BE ACCESSORY TO THE HEIFER BARNS FOR MANURE STORAGE.
>> THIS APPLICATION AND SITE PLAN HASN'T BEEN PERMITTED TO MOVE FORWARD?
>> AS A CONSEQUENCE, THE CONCRETE PIT THAT'S THERE IS PART OF THIS APPLICATION PROCESS, CORRECT?
>> AGAIN, I'M GOING TO JUMP AROUND A LITTLE BIT.
I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO TURN TO EXHIBIT 16.
AGAIN, AM I CORRECT THAT THE CONCRETE PIT ALSO REQUIRED A SEWAGE APPLICATION AS WELL?
>> THAT WAS DONE AS WELL, CORRECT?
>> THAT'S WHAT EXHIBIT 16 IS, IS YOUR SUBMITTAL FOR THAT.
>> THAT IS CORRECT, IN JANUARY.
>> IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR, CORRECT? HAVE YOU ADDRESSED ALL THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED BY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH IN THIS PARTICULAR CORRESPONDENCE?
>> YES. THAT WAS PART OF THE RESPONSE.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS IN THE SPECIFIC TOO IN THE RESPONSE LETTER, BUT AGAIN ALL THESE COMMENTS WERE ADDRESSED AND RESUBMITTED AS PART OF THE ENTIRE PACKAGE, ROUGHLY IN JUNE I THINK IS WHEN IT WAS.
>> IN TERMS OF THE CONCRETE PLAN, WASTEWATER IS FINE WITH IT? HAVE YOU GOT ANY MORE COMMENTS FROM WASTEWATER ON THAT PLAN?
>> WE HAVE RECEIVED NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FOR THE HEIFER BARNS OR THE PIT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH.
>> TURNING TO EXHIBIT 12, IS THAT THE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE PIT ITSELF? [NOISE]
>> AGAIN, AS YOU SIT HERE TODAY, THAT HASN'T BEEN ISSUED FOR BY THE COUNTY, CORRECT?
>> AGAIN, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, HOW LONG DOES IT TYPICALLY TAKE TO ISSUE PERMITS ONCE YOU APPLY FOR THEM FOR AGRICULTURAL STRUCTURES?
GENERALLY, ANY BUILDING PERMIT FOR ANY IMPROVEMENT IS JUST A COUPLE OF MONTHS, A FEW MONTHS, I'D SAY, GENERALLY SPEAKING.
>> AGAIN, THIS WAS APPLIED FOR IN JANUARY OF 2024, CORRECT?
>> NOW, THERE'S A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE MANUFACTURED HOMES ON THE PROPERTY.
YOU COULD TELL US THE STATUS OF THAT AND WHAT YOU'VE DONE TO BRING ONTO COMPLIANCE.
[02:05:06]
>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS PLANNING AND CODES IS OKAY WITH THE DWELLING ON SITE, THE AFTER-THE-FACT DWELLING, JUST THE CONDITION THAT WE RESOLVE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAD SOME COMMENTS REGARDING THE SEPTIC TANK AND SEPTIC SYSTEM THAT WAS TO BE REUSED.
WE HAD IT EVALUATED, WE HAVE A PLAN SHOWING CONNECTION TO THAT SYSTEM.
WE'RE AT A POINT NOW WHERE WE NEED THE LICENSE CONTRACTOR, WHO WE HAVE ONE UNDER CONTRACT TO APPLY FOR THE PERMIT AND SIGN THE APPLICATION, AND THAT HAS HONESTLY TAKEN A MONTH OR MORE, AND COME TO FIND OUT THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH REACHED OUT TO THAT GENTLEMAN WHO'S A STATE OF MARYLAND LICENSED CONTRACTOR AND SAID THE COUNTY LICENSE HAD EXPIRED, SO HE NEEDS TO RE-UP HIS COUNTY LICENSE.
THAT'S THE ONE ITEM THAT'S HOLDING UP THE DWELLING PERMIT IS OUR CONTRACTOR NEEDS TO RE-UP HIS COUNTY LICENSE IS WHAT WE UNDERSTAND.
THAT'S WHERE WE ARE WITH THE DWELLING.
>> AGAIN, EXHIBIT 14, WOULD THAT BE THE WASTEWATER APPLICATION THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE AGENCY, TO THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT?
>> I'M SORRY. YES. 14, I'M SORRY, IS THE WRONG ONE.
>> FOURTEEN IS FOR THE HEIFER BARNS.
>> THAT'S BEEN APPLIED FOR AS WELL, CORRECT?
>> THEN 15 WOULD BE THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES, CORRECT?
>> AGAIN, WHEN WAS THAT APPLIED FOR?
>> THIS APPLICATION WAS MARCH 18TH. I'M SORRY.
THE LETTER FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH WAS MARCH 18TH.
I'M NOT SURE WHEN THIS WAS IN RELATION TO.
THAT'S THE DATE THEY WROTE IT THOUGH, BUT I HAVE A SEPARATE TIME RIGHT HERE.
WE RESUBMITTED THE DWELLING SITE PLAN ON JANUARY 30TH.
>> AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, IS EVERYTHING TAKEN CARE OF IN TERMS OF WASTEWATER WITH REGARD TO THE HOUSE?
>> YEAH. ALL THE DESIGNS ARE IN PLACE.
IT'S JUST GETTING SOME LOGISTICAL PAPERWORK FINALIZED BY THE CONTRACTOR.
>> AND IN TERMS OF THE ADDITION TO THE LIEN TO, THAT IS ALSO IN OTHER, WE'VE BUILT IT A LITTLE TOO LONG.
HAVE YOU APPLIED TO RECTIFY THAT PROBLEM?
>> THE THE LIEN TO WAS APPLIED FOR IN THE FALL OF 2023.
I MEAN, SUMMER OF 2023 OR FALL OF 2023.
>> I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO TURN TO EXHIBIT 13 IN THE BOOK.
DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE THE APPLICATION FOR EXTENDING THE LIEN TO?
>> I THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY THE APPROVED PERMIT FOR THE LIEN TO.
>> SO THE LIEN TO HAS GOT A PERMIT, IS THAT RIGHT? WELL, EXTENSION.
>> SO THAT'S YES. SO WE WERE NOTIFIED IN 2023 OF THERE WAS A LIEN TO BEING CONSTRUCTED OFF THE BACK OF THAT EXISTING BARN.
SO WE APPLIED FOR THE PERMIT TO LEGALIZE THE LIEN TO THAT WAS APPROVED IN NOVEMBER OF 2023.
I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S THE SAME AS EXTENDING.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS RELATED TO WHAT THE CURRENT LETTER IS REFERRING TO.
I'M UNAWARE OF THE CURRENT LETTER AND NOT THE CORRECT SIZE.
THIS WAS RELATED JUST TO THE LIEN TO THAT'S OFF THE BACK OF THE BUILDING.
>> SO THAT WAS AT LEAST THE LIEN TO WAS APPLIED FOR.
IN TERMS OF THE EXTENSION, YOU DON'T RECALL WHAT THAT RELATES TO?
>> I HAVEN'T BEEN INVOLVED IN THE EXTENSION OR AT LEAST HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED OF THAT BEING AN ISSUE WITH THE COUNTY.
>> I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO TURN TO EXHIBIT 17 AND ASK IF YOU HAVE SEEN THIS LETTER.
THIS IS THE LETTER, I THINK OUR JUNE RESPONSE WAS TO.
>> OKAY. SO THIS IS THE LETTER THAT?
>> THIS IS THE COUNTY COMMENT LETTER FROM THE AUGUST SUBMITTED.
>> SO YOU SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS IN AUGUST OF 2023 TO TRY TO RECTIFY THESE SOME OF THESE ISSUES.
AND THIS IS THE COUNTY'S RESPONSE IN FEBRUARY OF 2024?
>> WE HAD THE PERMIT SUBMITTED IN AUGUST.
WE HAD THE HEARINGS IN THE FALL, AND THEN THE RESPONSE LETTER CAME OUT.
AND I THINK WHAT OUR RECORDS IT'S DATED FEBRUARY 1,
[02:10:06]
BUT WE'D ACTUALLY DIDN'T RECEIVE IT UNTIL 2018, MARCH 18 IS WHEN I RECEIVED THIS LETTER.>> AND WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER YOU RECEIVED THIS RESPONSE AGAIN TO TRY TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE?
>> SO WE WE STARTED ADDRESSING THE COMMENTS.
WE ACTUALLY REACHED OUT TO THE COUNTY TO MEET TO REVIEW THESE COMMENTS, SO WE DIDN'T WASTE EVERYBODY'S TIME AND WE KNEW WHAT THE CONCERNS WERE AND WHAT THE BEST APPROACH TO ADDRESS THESE AND MOVE THIS FORWARD.
>> AND I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO TURN TO EXHIBIT 18.
IS THAT PART OF THE REVISED PLANS TO TRY TO RECTIFY IT?
>> THIS WAS DATED MAY 2023, SO THAT WAS CLEARLY AFTER THE LETTER.
>> UPSIDE DOWN. YES. SO THIS WAS SPECIFIC TO THE THE DWELLING.
I CAN'T READ THE DATES ON THE PLAN, BUT, I DO.
SO THIS WAS THE DWELLING ASPECT OF IT IN MAY AS WELL.
>> AND THIS IS YOUR EFFORTS, AGAIN, TO TRY TO FIX THE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE DWELLING?
>> AND IN TERMS OF THE REMAINING STRUCTURES LIKE THE SHED, THE OFFICE BUILDING, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THOSE?
>> IT'S BEEN THE DIALOGUE AND CONSENSUS THAT ONCE THE DWELLING IS APPROVED, THAT THE OTHER OFFICE AND THE DECK TO THE OFFICE WOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE PROPERTY COMPLETELY.
AND WHAT I RECALL IS THAT ALL PARTIES AGREED TO THAT.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAS AGREED TO THAT AS WELL TO ALLOW THAT STRUCTURE TO REMAIN UNTIL THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS ISSUED FOR THIS NEW DWELLING.
>> AND AS FAR AS THE DWELLING GOES, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND NEEDS TO BE DONE TO MOVE THIS THING FORWARD?
>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS, WE ARE AT THE THE LAST STEP, AND THAT'S ONCE WE GET THE CONTRACTOR TO RE UP HIS LICENSE, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH WILL NOTIFY PLANNING AND CODES THAT THEY HAVE APPROVED IT FROM THEIR END AND THAT PLANNING CODES WILL ISSUE THE PERMIT FOR THE DWELLING.
>> AND IN TERMS OF YOUR APPLICATION FOR A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE FOR THE HEIFER BARN AND CONCRETE PIT, WHAT IF ANYTHING, HAS BEEN DONE WITH REGARD TO THAT AS FAR AS YOU UNDERSTAND?
>> AGAIN, I THINK WE WE'VE SATISFIED ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND.
THEY HAVE NO THEY'VE SAID NO ADDITIONAL COMMENT.
WE MET WITH MATT KOZINSKI AFTER THE COMMENT LETTER AND BEFORE ONE OF THESE SUBMITTALS, I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT DATE UNLESS I LOOK AT MY NOTES.
WE'VE MADE TWO OR THREE SUBMITTALS SINCE THEN, WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS FROM PLANNING AND CODES.
>> AND THE OVERALL SITE PLAN DEAL WITH THE GRAIN BINS, THE CONCRETE PIT, AND ANY OTHER STRUCTURES OTHER THAN THE HOUSE, DEAL WITH ALL THAT, CORRECT?
>> CORRECT. WE WERE AT A MEETING WITH COUNTY STAFF, MYSELF AND MR. MULLANEY, AND AT THAT MEETING, IT WAS AGREED TO SEPARATE ALL THESE VIOLATIONS SO WE CAN START RECTIFYING INDIVIDUAL OR TO BE MIRED IN PROCESS FOR YEARS.
SO THAT WAS THE THOUGHT IS SEPARATE AND APPROVE.
AND SO WE'VE SEPARATED THE DWELLING, WE SEPARATED THE LEAN TO, WE'VE TRIED TO SEPARATE THE HEIFER BARNS AND ALL ALONG THE GRAIN BINS ARE SAT OVER HERE, KNOWING THAT IT'S UNDER LITIGATION.
AND SO WE COULDN'T REALLY TOUCH THAT, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO RECTIFY EVERYTHING ELSE.
>> THAT'S ALL I HAD OF THAT WHAT IS.
I WOULD LIKE TO JUST BRIEFLY RECALL MR. FLAHART ON A COUPLE OF ISSUES.
>> I JUST WANT TO. I HAVE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO CROSS EXAMINE MR. FLAHART.
>> YOU CAN DO BOTH IF THAT'S OKAY.
I'M SORRY. YOU WANT TO DO, YOU CAN DO BOTH. THAT'S OKAY WITH YOU.
>> MR. FLAHART, JUST REAL QUICKLY.
WITH REGARD TO THE MORATORIUM, AGAIN FOR JUST FOR THE RECORD, YOU HAVE FILED AN APPEAL THAT'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 9 IN THE RECORD HERE OF THIS MORATORIUM, CORRECT?
>> AND DID THE COURT INITIALLY GRANT YOU A PRELIMINARY TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER?
>> AND IN OTHER WORDS, IT SUSPENDED THE OPERATION OF THOSE MORATORIUM FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME, CORRECT?
[02:15:01]
>> AND DURING THAT TIME OF THE SUSPENSION, DID YOU BRING DAFFIN TO THE PREMISES?
>> AND AT SOME POINT, THAT TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER EXPIRED?
>> AND SINCE THE IT EXPIRED, HAVE YOU BROUGHT ANY DEATH INTO THE CONCRETE PIT THAT'S AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE?
>> AND IN TERMS OF THE GRAIN BINS THAT ARE AT ISSUE.
WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO WITH THE ONES THAT ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS?
>> WE'D LIKE TO USE FOR PERSONAL USE SEGREGATE AND USE FOR OUR OWN STORAGE.
>> AND HAVE YOU IMPLEMENTED THAT PROCESS?
>> AND IN TERMS OF THE OTHER GRAIN BINS THAT ARE PART OF THE GRAIN OPERATION ARE IN COMPLIANCE, WHAT DO YOU INTEND TO DO WITH THOSE?
>> I'LL CONTINUE TO USE FOR OUR OWN USE AND OUTSIDE STORAGE.
>> HAVE YOU PROPOSED A METHOD TO TRY TO TRACK ALL THAT?
>> AND ARE YOU TRACKING THAT CURRENTLY IN YOUR OPERATIONS?
>> AND SO WITH REGARD TO THE GRAIN RIDS THAT ARE VIOLATION AND IS THAT ACCESSORY TO YOUR CURRENT OPERATIONS?
>> AND THE ONES THAT ARE ACCEPTING THE GRAIN FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT?
>> NOW, WITH REGARD TO A SHED THAT'S ON THE PROPERTY, IS IT YOUR INTENT IS JUST GOING TO BE REMOVED?
>> YES. WHAT'S THERE NOW? IS THERE ANYTHING PERTINENT IN THERE?
>> AND AGAIN, THE OFFICE TRAILER, WHAT'S YOUR INTENT ONCE ALL THIS TAKES PLACE?
>> ALONG WITH THE DECK, CORRECT?
>> NOW, WHAT'S THE ISSUE THAT YOU WERE AWARE WITH REGARD TO THE STRAW STORAGE BARN? IF YOU EVEN KNOW?
>> I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT WAS ABOUT.
I THINK THE ORIGINAL PERMIT APPLICATION MIGHT HAVE HAD A DIFFERENT DIMENSION THAN WHAT WAS BUILT, IS WHAT I THINK HAPPENED, BUT I CAN'T EVEN I'D HAVE TO VERIFY THAT TO BE SURE WHY THAT'S.
>> AND IF YOU NEED TO RESUBMIT, HAVE YOU DONE THAT, DO YOU KNOW?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF WE RESUBMITTED FOR FOR THE ORIGINAL.
>> THE LIEN TO WAS APPROVED OFF OF THE STRUCTURE, AND WE WERE NEVER NOTIFIED THAT THERE WAS A CONCERN ABOUT THE ACTUAL ORIGINAL SIZE OF THAT BAR.
THAT TO ME, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE TIME TO RECTIFY IT.
WHEN THE LIEN TO WAS GETTING APPROVED, WE WEREN'T NOTIFIED OF THAT.
>> I THINK THIS IS A NEW VIOLATION THAT JUST CAME UP THAT WE HAD NEVER HAD A CHANCE TO ADDRESS.
>> [INAUDIBLE] WHEN YOU WERE STORING THE DATA IN THE CONCRETE FIT UNDER THE ROOF.
HAVE YOU EMPTIED THAT OF ALL OF ITS CONTENTS AS YOU WERE INSTRUCTED TO DO THAT ACCOUNT?
>> YES. I MEAN, THERE'S A FOOT TO 10 " ON THE BOTTOM THAT YOU CAN'T GET OUT WITH A PUMP.
>> YOU CAN'T GET OUT OF THE PUMP?
>> THE PUMPS AREN'T DESIGNED TO EMPTY HIM COMPLETELY.
>> COULD YOU GET A DIFFERENT PUMP TO EMPTY COMPLETELY?
>> SO YOU HAVEN'T DONE THAT. LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THE, YOU SAY 10 " ACROSS THE ENTIRE BOTTOM OF THE PIT OR?
>> I MEAN, ONCE YOU EMPTY A MINOR TANK OR A CONCRETE PIT LIKE THAT WITH A MULTIPURPOSE PUMP, THERE'S USUALLY I'D SAY 6-12 " ROUGHLY LEFT IN THE BOTTOM OF THE TANK.
>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LIQUID. TALKING ABOUT MAN. PIT, CORRECT?
>> I'M TALKING ANY LIQUID. YES.
>> SO YOU'RE SAYING YOU CAN'T DO IT. I'M TELLING.
>> NOW, HOW LONG HAS YOUR GRAIN OPERATION BEEN IN USE OF EVER ROAD? HOW MANY YEARS?
>> WE WE PUT OUR BINS IN, IT'S PROBABLY BEEN FIVE YEARS PROPERLY.
>> FOR FIVE YEARS, YOU'VE BEEN OPERATING?
>> WE'VE BEEN STORING GRAIN FOR FIVE YEARS, THAT'S CORRECT.
>> BUYING GRAIN AND SELLING GRAINS?
>> I THINK FOR ALL FIVE, I BELIEVE.
>> AND WHEN WERE THE ADDITIONAL TANKS ADD AFTER THE FIRST TWO?
>> THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN LIKE ONE A YEAR, MAYBE AFTER.
>> SO YOU'VE BEEN EACH YEAR ADDING TO YOUR OPERATION WITHOUT PERMITS, CORRECT?
[02:20:02]
>> YOU DIRECTLY BENEFITING FROM THAT BY BUYING AND SELLING GRAIN, EVEN THOUGH THE COUNTY HAS NOT ISSUED PERMITS FOR THOSE TANKS? THAT RIGHT?
>> I WOULD DISAGREE WITH THAT.
>> NO. A LOT OF YEARS, I LOSE MONEY.
>> AND YOU AGREE THAT THE PERMIT THAT YOU RECEIVED FROM THE COUNTY WAS ONLY TO BUILD TWO PERSONALLY TANKS?
>> THE ORIGINAL PERMIT, YES. THAT'S CORRECT.
>> AND YOU APPLIED ORIGINALLY, BUT YOU DIDN'T APPLY FOR THE ADDITIONAL TANKS THAT YOU DECIDED TO BUILD?
>> CAN YOU BE THAT SEVERAL OF THE TANKS ARE INSIDE THE 500 FOOT SETBACK OF WHAT CORRECT?
>> THAT ONLY BECAME A PROBLEM AFTER THE VARIANCE WAS GRANTED.
>> IT ONLY BECAME A PROBLEM THEN?
>> BECAUSE WE HAD A RAN GRAIN IN THEM.
>> SO THESE TANKS THAT YOU USE THE 88 TANKS THERE, IS THAT RIGHT, SIR?
>> SOME OF THE TANKS AREN'T REALLY TANKS.
>> AND ARE THEY ALL CONNECTED TO ONE SYSTEM?
>> THEY'RE CONNECTED TO A SYSTEM, YES.
>> SO HOW DO YOU SEGREGATE YOUR USE OF THE TWO CONTENTS, THE ONES THAT ARE THE SET OR THE THREE THAT ARE THE SETBACK VERSUS THE OTHERS. HOW DO YOU DO THAT?
>> SO THERE'S A TURNHAD THAT YOU CAN SET TO WHICH TANK YOU WANT TO PUT GRAIN IN.
YOU CAN IDENTIFY WHICH BIN, WHAT GRAIN GOES TO WHICH BIN.
>> AND ARE YOU THERE MAKING SURE THAT ONLY THE GRAIN FROM YOUR AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS GO INTO THE TANKS? WHO'S IN CHARGE OF?
>> AND HOW DID THEY KEEP THOSE RECORDS?
>> DO YOU RECALL MEETING WITH THE COUNTY AND TELLING THEM THAT YOU COULD NOT KEEP RECORDS TO THAT EFFECT THAT YOU COULD NOT TRUST YOUR EMPLOYEES TO DO THAT, AND YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO COMPLY WITH THAT REQUEST?
>> SO THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER THAT [INAUDIBLE] ASKED YOU ABOUT, THAT WAS IN PLACE FOR 10 DAYS, WASN'T IT?
>> DO YOU RECALL YOUR LAWYER FILING A REQUEST TO EXTEND THAT TRO WHEN IT WAS DENIED?
>> AND THAT WAS AFTER 10 DAYS?
>> I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS 10 DAYS.
>> WHEN YOU DECIDED TO BUILD THE ADDITIONAL TANKS FOR THE GRAIN ON RIVER ROAD, WHY DID YOU NOT APPLY FOR NEW BUILDING PERMITS FOR THOSE?
>> BECAUSE THERE'S NO REASONABLE PROCESS TO APPLY.
>> YOU GOT IN THE FIRST TIME, DIDN'T YOU?
>> IS THAT AN UNREASONABLE PROCESS?
>> IN YOUR OPINION, IT HAS TO BE A REASONABLE PROCESS IN ORDER FOR YOU TO APPLY?
>> THERE HAS TO BE ACCOUNTABILITY.
>> THAT MEANS THERE SHOULD BE SOME ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE COUNTY WITHIN A GIVEN TIME FRAME TO ISSUE A PERMIT IF IT MEETS ALL REQUIREMENTS.
>> YOUR POSITION IS UNLESS THERE'S A DEFINITIVE DATE WHEREBY THE COUNTY MUST ISSUE A PERMIT, IT'S UNREASONABLE?
>> THAT IS MY SUGGESTION TO THE COUNTY, YES.
>> IF THEY DON'T COMPLY WITH YOUR SUGGESTION, DO YOU THINK IT'S AN UNREASONABLE PROCESS?
>> DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE MR. EWING TO RESPOND TO LETTERS THAT THE COUNTY WOULD WRITE TO HIM FOR SUBMITTALS ON THE HEIFER BARN ON AVERAGE?
>> IF I TOLD YOU SOMETIMES IT TOOK 4-5 MONTHS, IS THAT A REASONABLE TIME PERIOD?
>> DID YOU EVER TALK TO MR. EWING ABOUT THAT?
>> I DON'T BELIEVE THAT HAPPENED.
>> WELL, I CAN POINT YOU TO EXHIBIT 10, SIR IN THE BOOK IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.
[NOISE] SEE THE DATE OF THAT LETTER?
>> JUNE 28TH, AM I LOOKING AT THAT RIGHT?
>> THEN IN THE PARAGRAPH BELOW WHERE IT SAYS DEAR, DANA, THERE ARE PRIOR LETTERS THAT IT REFERS TO AS RESPONDING TO.
DO YOU SEE THAT ON PAGE 1, SIR? FIRST PARAGRAPH.
>> THOSE DATES ARE JANUARY 2019, 2024, AND FEBRUARY 1, 2024, CORRECT?
>> THIS IS A LETTER FROM LANE ENGINEERING DATED JUNE 28TH, 2024, SOME FOUR MONTHS LATER.
>> I THINK FROM MY UNDERSTANDING,
[02:25:01]
THESE WERE OTHER ISSUES.THIS IS MULTIPLE THINGS GOING ON AT THE SAME TIME SO I DON'T THINK IT WAS THAT LONG TO RESPOND TO THAT.
I THINK THEY WERE REFERRING BACK TO THOSE DATES.
>> FIVE MONTHS IS A REASONABLE TIME PERIOD FOR LANE TO RESPOND TO THE COUNTY, BUT THEY'RE SOMEHOW OBLIGATED TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR YOU IN A MUCH FASTER TIME FRAME?
>> I'M GOING TO MOVE TO MR. EWING IF THAT'S OKAY.
>> MR. EWING, I HATE TO SPEAK TO [INAUDIBLE] TO THE SITUATION, THAT'S WHY.
>> THE COUNTY IS RESERVING RIGHT FOR CROSS EXAMINATION, MR. [INAUDIBLE], DO YOU WANT TO?
>> MR. EWING WILL HAVE TO MOVE.
>> MR. FLAHART, YOU PURCHASED THE RIVER ROAD PROPERTY BACK IN EARLY 2019, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> AFTER THAT YOU APPLIED TO PLANNING AND CODES FOR A SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS PROCESSING FACILITY.
>> I RECALL APPLYING FOR A PERMIT.
>> TO OBTAIN THOSE APPROVALS, YOU SUBMITTED PLANS TO THE PLANNING AND CODES DEPARTMENT CONSISTING OF NINE GRAIN STORAGE BINS FOR COMMERCIAL USE, DID YOU NOT?
>> [NOISE] DURING THE REVIEW PROCESS, YOUR ENGINEERS CONTACTED PLANNING AND CODES TO INQUIRE ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF TIME IT WOULD TAKE TO OBTAIN THE NECESSARY APPROVALS. DO YOU RECALL THAT?
>> AFTER YOUR ENGINEERS REVISED THE AMOUNT OF TIME IT WOULD TAKE, YOU TOLD PLANNING AND CODES YOU WERE REDUCING THE PROPOSED GRAIN OPERATION TO "PERSONAL USE ONLY," DIDN'T YOU?
>> THAT YOU WOULD ONLY NEED TWO STORAGE BINS INSTEAD OF NINE.
>> I KNOW THE ORIGINAL PERMIT THAT WE SUBMITTED WAS FOR THE TWO ORIGINAL BINS.
>> FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY THAT'S REDUCED FROM NINE, RIGHT?
>> I DON'T KNOW. I CAN'T ANSWER FOR THAT, BUT I KNOW THE ORIGINAL WAS FOR TWO.
>> IN FACT, PLANNING AND CODES ISSUED YOU A REFUND FOR THE ORIGINAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION FEE AND THE NEW BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED FOR TWO PERSONAL USE STORAGE BINS, RIGHT?
>> I'D HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK ALL THAT.
I'M NOT SURE. THAT WAS FIVE YEARS AGO.
>> ON SEPTEMBER 4, 2019, DID THE PLANNING OF CODES ISSUE A NEW BUILDING PERMIT TO YOU FOR TWO GRAIN STORAGE BINS, DRYER, STRAW STORAGE BARN, 15 FOOT BY 20 FOOT SHED, AND A SMALL JOB TRAILER WITH THE EXPRESSED CONDITION THAT THE STRUCTURES COULD NOT BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL USE.
>> I WAS ISSUED A PERMIT, BUT I'M NOT SURE ABOUT ALL OF THAT.
>> AFTER YOU WERE ISSUED THAT PERMIT FOR TWO PERSONAL USE GRAIN BINS, YOU EXPANDED THE OPERATION AT THE RIVER ROAD PROPERTY WELL BEYOND WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED, DIDN'T YOU?
>> WE EXPANDED, THAT'S CORRECT.
>> IN FACT, YOU'VE BEEN ACTIVELY USING THOSE GRAIN STORAGE BINS FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES BY ACCEPTING GRAIN FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES, ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
>> YOU'VE CONSTRUCTED ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SIX ADDITIONAL GRAIN STORAGE BINS, A LIEN TO ATTACHED TO AN EXISTING BARN, A DWELLING, A DECK ATTACHED TO THE JOB TRAILER, AND A LARGE CONCRETE STORAGE PIT, ALL WITHOUT ZONING CERTIFICATES, AND/OR BUILDING PERMITS.
>> I WOULD AGREE WITH SOME OF THAT.
>> WELL, OUR ARGUMENT IS THAT THE CONCRETE TANK, THE PERMIT WAS NOT NEEDED FOR THAT.
SOME OF THOSE THINGS WAS GRAY, THAT'S OUR ARGUMENT RIGHT NOW IS WHETHER OR NOT IT ACTUALLY REQUIRED A PERMIT.
>> THE 2019 BUILDING PERMIT WAS ISSUED FOR A 70 FOOT BY A 120 FOOT STRAW STORAGE BUILDING, CORRECT?
I DON'T REMEMBER THE ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF THAT.
>> YOU ACTUALLY BUILT A STRUCTURE 70 FOOT BY 144 FEET, DIDN'T YOU?
>> IT'S ALSO NOT CONSTRUCTED IN THE LOCATION SHOWN ON THE APPROVED SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED AS PART OF YOUR BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION, WAS IT?
>> I'D HAVE TO CHECK THAT AS WELL.
>> THE TWO PERMITTED GRAIN STORAGE BINS ARE NOT IN THEIR CORRECT LOCATION PER THE SITE PLAN YOU SUBMITTED, CORRECT?
>> I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK THAT AS WELL. I'M NOT SURE.
>> YOU'RE SITTING HERE RIGHT NOW TODAY, YOU DON'T THINK, YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE TWO THAT WERE CONSTRUCTED UNDER THE PERMIT ARE IN THE LOCATION THEY WERE APPROVED FOR?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. I DON'T HAVE A PLAN IN FRONT OF ME.
>> THE JOB TRAILER IS NOT IN ITS CORRECT LOCATION PER THE APPROVED SITE PLAN, IS IT?
[02:30:01]
>> YOU'RE OPERATING A TRUCKING SERVICE BUSINESS THERE, AREN'T YOU? MILK TRUCKS?
>> WE PARK MILK TRUCK THERE, YES.
>> YOU HAVE NO PERMITS OR APPROVALS FOR THAT, DO YOU?
>> SO YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO PARK.
I'M NOT SURE WHERE WE'RE GOING WITH THIS, BUT YES.
I HAD TRUCKS THAT PARKED THERE FOR FARMING OPERATION.
>> THOSE ARE NOT ALLOWED WITHOUT PERMITS OR APPROVALS, CORRECT?
>> OBJECTION. I DON'T THINK THAT'S PART OF THIS, THAT WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH TODAY.
>> YOU'RE OPERATING A COMMERCIAL GRAIN OPERATION ON THE PROPERTY RIGHT NOW, AREN'T YOU?
>> HOW MANY FARMERS ARE BRINGING THEIR GRAINS INTO YOU?
>> HOW MANY GET STACKED UP AT ONE TIME WAITING TO DUMP.
>> I DON'T. I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I DON'T.
I'M NOT EVEN SURE WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION, I GUESS.
>> LET'S GO TO MARCH 2ND, 2023.
PLANNING AND CODES RECEIVED A CALL FROM MR. EWING OVER THERE FROM LANE ENGINEERING STATING THAT HE WOULD BE ASSISTING YOU WITH THE PROCESS OF OBTAINING THE PERMITS THAT YOU NEEDED FOR RIVER ROAD PROPERTY. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?
>> YOU SAY MR. EWING WASN'T AUTHORIZED TO CONTACT PLANNING AND CODES?
>> MR. EWING WAS, BUT I CAN'T RECALL ALL THE DATES, BUT YES.
I HIRED LANE ENGINEERING TO HELP.
>> DO YOU DENY THAT MR. EWING WAS ADVISED THAT ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY MUST STOP UNTIL PERMITS ARE SECURED?
>> CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION?
>> DO YOU RECALL MR. EWING BEING ADVISED THAT ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY MUST STOP UNTIL PERMITS ARE SECURED?
>> MR. EWING NEVER ADVISED YOU THAT HE WAS TOLD THAT BY PLANNING AND CODES?
>> THAT'S TO YOU. I'M LOOKING AT YOUR ENGINEER OVER HERE.
>> HE HAD THAT CONVERSATION AND DIDN'T RELAY IT TO YOU?
>> WHAT WAS THE QUESTION AGAIN?
>> THAT MR. EWING WAS ADVISED THAT ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY MUST STOP UNTIL PERMITS ARE SECURED.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THE CONVERSATION EVER HAPPENED.
>> YOU WERE NEVER TOLD THAT YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO STOP CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY UNTIL YOU GOT THE PERMITS?
>> YOU DIDN'T BUILD ANY MORE GRAIN TANKS AFTER THAT POINT?
>> DID YOU TELL MR. EWING THAT THE GRAIN THAT YOU WERE HAULING AND STORING ON THE SITE WAS YOUR PERSONAL PRODUCT AND THAT YOU WERE NOT RECEIVING GRAIN FROM ANYONE ELSE?
>> IF MR. EWING SAID THAT TO PLANNING AND CODES, HE WAS LYING?
>> NO. MR. EWING KNOWS WHAT WE DO THERE.
>> IF MR. EWING TOLD THEM THAT IT WAS ONLY PERSONAL USE GRAIN AND THAT YOU WEREN'T BRINGING GRAIN FROM ANYBODY ELSE, WHY WOULD YOU TELL SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO PLANNING AND CODES IF THAT'S NOT TRUE?
>> I OBJECT TO THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING IN PART BECAUSE WE CAME HERE TO GET A SPECIAL EXCEPTION IN ORDER TO DO THAT.
IT'S CLEAR WE WERE DOING THAT.
THAT'S WHY WE CAME BEFORE THIS BODY TO GET THAT APPROVAL FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
>> SINCE WE'RE BRINGING IT UP, I WAS AT THAT MEETING AND MATT TESTIFIED HE APPLIED FOR A COMMERCIAL AND THEY WERE TOLD IT WAS GOING TO BE LIKE A YEAR FOR PERMITS, AND THEY'RE LIKE, NO, THAT'S TOO LONG.
THEY DIDN'T WANT TO WAIT. THEY SAID, WELL, WE WANT TO JUST DO IT FOR OURSELVES, AND THEN THEY TURNED RIGHT AROUND AND BUILD A COMMERCIAL GRAIN FACILITY.
>> WHICH IN 2023 IS WHY WE CAME BEFORE YOU ALL AGAIN TO GET THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
>> YOU BROUGHT IT UP, SO I'M JUST TELLING YOU WHAT WAS SAID.
>> NO. I AGREE WITH YOU, [INAUDIBLE].
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY DISPUTE THAT THAT'S WHAT WAS GOING ON BECAUSE WE CAME HERE TO GET A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. WHY ELSE WOULD WE DO THAT?
>> WELL, THIS IS AN APPEAL. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M GOING TO LET HIM KEEP QUESTIONING.
>> MR. FLAHART ON APRIL 13, 2023, YOU MET WITH THE COUNTY PLANNING AND CODE FOLKS ON THE SITE OF RIVER ROAD WITH MR. EWING, CORRECT?
>> THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING WAS TO VERIFY ALL THE VIOLATIONS AND TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE TO YOU FOR THE MITIGATION OF THE CODE VIOLATIONS, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YOU WERE ADVISED AGAIN AT THIS TIME BY PLANNING AND CODES THAT ALL WORK MUST STOP UNTIL ALL PERMITS ARE SECURED, ISN'T THAT TRUE?
>> ON MAY 3RD, 2023, WE'RE TALKING 2.5, THREE WEEKS LATER, THE COUNTY ISSUED A SECOND STOP WORK ORDER AGAINST YOU, CORRECT?
>> SINCE THAT STOP WORK ORDER WAS ISSUED, YOU CONTINUED TO USE THE RIVER ROAD PROPERTY AS WE'VE GONE THROUGH BEFORE, IN VIOLATION OF SEVERAL SECTIONS OF THIS CODE, CORRECT?
>> OBJECTION. CALLS FOR A LEGAL CONCLUSION.
>> I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO SAY WHETHER YOU VIOLATED THE LAW OR NOT.
[02:35:01]
YOU JUST CONTINUED TO WORK AS IF THE STOP WORK ORDERS NEVER EXISTED, RIGHT?>> WE WEREN'T BUILDING ANYTHING NEW.
BUT WE CONTINUED TO STORE GRAIN INTO BINS IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. [NOISE]
>> DO YOU TAKE IN COMMERCIAL STORAGE OF GRAIN?
>> IF THERE WAS GRAIN IN THE TANK, THAT GRAIN PROBABLY CONTINUE TO STAY IN THE TANKS, YES.
>> THE PROBLEM WAS, JUST AS THE CHAIRMAN HAS ACKNOWLEDGED, THAT THE TIME FRAME FOR GETTING COMMERCIAL APPROVAL WAS GOING TO TAKE TOO LONG SO YOU REDUCED IT DOWN TO A PERSONAL USE ONLY TWO BINS AND THEN BUILT THE REST OF IT WITHOUT PERMITS, KNOWING FULL WELL, DIDN'T YOU THAT THAT WAS IN VIOLATION OF COUNTY LAW?
>> OBJECTION. AGAIN, CALLS FOR OUR LEGAL CONCLUSION.
>> I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
>> IF I MAY HAVE SOME REDIRECT ON THESE ISSUE.
>> MR. FLAHART, AFTER YOU RECEIVED THESE NOTICES TO STOP, WHAT IF ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WERE TAKING PLACE ON THE RIVER ROAD PROPERTY?
>> WE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING MORE.
>> THE GRAIN WAS ALREADY THERE?
>> THE TRAILER WAS ALREADY THERE?
>> THE DECK WAS ALREADY THERE?
>> EVER SINCE THAT TIME, YOU HAVE BEEN TRYING TO FIX THESE ISSUES WITH THE COUNTY, CORRECT?
>> INCLUDING HIRING ATTORNEYS?
>> HIRING EVERYONE TO TRY TO BRING THIS PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE, INCLUDING GETTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION?
>> THAT WOULD ALLOW THE GRAIN OPERATIONS, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
>> TRYING TO GET A VARIANCE, WHICH YOU DIDN'T GET, CORRECT?
>> IN TERMS OF THE FEBRUARY 1, 2024 LETTER, THAT'S EXHIBIT 17, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT WHILE DATED FEBRUARY 21, WE DIDN'T GET IT UNTIL MARCH OF 2024, CORRECT?
>> YEAH, THAT'S WHAT BRANDON SAID.
>> DESPITE ITS ISSUANCE DATE ALLEGEDLY OF 1, WE DIDN'T GET IT UNTIL A MONTH LATER, CORRECT?
>> WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER THAT GETTING THAT LETTER? DID YOU MEET WITH THE COUNTY AGAIN? IN APRIL OF 2024?
>> YES. I BELIEVE WE HAD ANOTHER MEETING.
>> YOUR ENGINEERS HAD A MEETING, CORRECT?
>> OUR ENGINEERS DID FOR SURE.
>> EVER SINCE THESE ISSUES HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION SINCE THE SUMMER OF 2023, YOUR INTENT IS TO WHAT?
GET WITHIN CODE COMPLIANCE, DO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO TO MAKE IT RIGHT.
>> YOU HAVEN'T BUILT ANY MORE STRUCTURE SINCE THEN? NO.
>> THE ONLY TIME YOU STORED DAF WAS WHEN THE MORATORIUM WAS LIFTED, RIGHT?
>> PAST, YEAH, AFTER THE MORATORIUM.
>> WAS DEEMED TO BE IN EFFECT?
>> MR. FLAHART, MAY I ASK A FOLLOW UP, PLEASE.
>> HAS TO BE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF WHAT HE WAS JUST ASKED.
>> WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE REDIRECT.
>> SURE, MR. FLAHART, OTHER THAN APPLYING FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION LAST YEAR, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO ADDRESS THE LACK OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE [INAUDIBLE] SINCE YOU BUILT THEM WITHOUT THE PERMITS?
THAT'S ON THE SITE PLAN, RIGHT?
>> WELL, YEAH. I GUESS TO ANSWER THAT, WE SPECIFICALLY HAVEN'T SUBMITTED FOR THE GRAIN BIN BECAUSE WE DECIDED TO SEPARATE THAT BECAUSE THERE WAS LITIGATION APPEALING THE DECISION SO THAT WAS WHY WE HAVE NOT SUBMITTED SPECIFICALLY FOR THE GRAIN BINS.
>> THAT'S JUST SO IT'S WHAT WE APPEALED THE DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE AT ONE POINT IN TIME.
I THINK IT WAS DISMISSED IN APRIL.
JUST FOR THE RECORD TO BE CLEAR.
>> SINCE THAT WAS DISMISSED, MR. EWING, ANYTHING BEEN DONE TO SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL FOR THE GRAIN TANKS?
>> NO. WE'VE BEEN FOCUSING ON THE HEIFER BARS.
>> THE QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU IS, YOU DIDN'T EXPRESS ANY OPINIONS AS TO THE VALIDITY OR NOT OF ANY OF THE VIOLATION LETTERS, CORRECT?
>> YOU DIDN'T EXPRESS ANY OPINIONS OR VIEWS AS TO THE VALIDITY OF ANY OF THE VIOLATION LETTERS THAT ARE ISSUED IN THIS RECEIPT, CORRECT?
>> NO. I HAVEN'T READ THEM, SO NO.
>> WE'D LOVE TO HEAR FROM THE COUNTY.
>> CRYSTAL AND MARK, YOU GUYS HAVE STUFF YOU WANT TO PRESENT?
[02:40:21]
>> MR. DADD, MS. DADDS, EXCUSE ME.
SHE CORRECTED ME, I WAS CALLING HER MS. DADDS.
>> I'M THE ONE THAT POINTED IT OUT. IT'S OKAY. [OVERLAPPING]
>> SHE CORRECTED ME AND SAID, IT'S DADDS, AND SO I WAS THINKING, FATHER, AND I SAID, MR.
>> MS. DADDS. YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE VIOLATIONS AT ISSUE IN THIS RIVER ROAD PROPERTY?
>> I'D LIKE TO GO THROUGH THEM. I'LL TRY TO GO THROUGH IT FAIRLY QUICKLY SO WE CAN GET THROUGH IT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
VIOLATION NUMBER 1 REFERS TO A HOUSE STRUCTURE BROUGHT TO THE RIVER ROAD PROPERTY AND IN ADDITION, ADDED TO THAT STRUCTURE WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT.
>> IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT IT'S YOUR POSITION THAT A HOUSE IS A STRUCTURE AND IS ALSO SUBJECT TO THE BUILDING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE OF THAT REASON?
>> THAT HOUSE IS REFLECTED ON EXHIBIT 2 TO THE STAFF REPORT? IS IT THIS ONE? PAGE 3?
>> YES, EXHIBIT 2 IDENTIFIES THE DWELLING.
IF YOU LOOK CLOSELY, YOU CAN SEE THE FOUNDATION OF THE ADDITION THAT'S ATTACHED TO IT.
>> CAN YOU BRIEFLY EXPLAIN WHAT WAS DONE TO THE HOUSE AFTER IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE RIVER ROAD PROPERTY THAT YOU BELIEVE REQUIRED THE BUILDING PERMIT TO 354?
>> THE HOUSE WAS RELOCATED TO THE PROPERTY FROM ANOTHER PROPERTY, AND A FOUNDATION WAS CONSTRUCTED UNDER IT, AND THEN THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTED TO THE DWELLING ATTACHED TO IT AT THE TIME WE ISSUED THE STOP-WORK ORDER.
IT'S SINCE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS A PROPOSED ATTACHED GARAGE, IS WHAT THE PLAN IS FOR THAT ADDITION.
>> ARE YOU AWARE OF WHY THE PERMIT HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED FOR THIS STRUCTURE?
>> YES. WE ARE STILL WAITING SEDIMENT EROSION CONTROL APPROVAL AND HEALTH DEPARTMENT APPROVAL.
>> LET'S GO TO THE SECOND ISSUE, THE OFFICE TRAILER.
WHY DON'T YOU TELL ME WHICH EXHIBIT IT'S REFLECTED ON? IS THAT PAGE 13 OF 15, OR IS THAT ON THE SAME DRAWING, THE SAME PHOTO?
>> YOU CAN VIEW THE OFFICE TRAILER ON EXHIBIT 3 OF THE STAFF REPORT, WHICH IS EXHIBIT 2, PAGE 15 OF 15.
>> IDENTIFY WHERE IT IS ON THAT DRAWING OF THAT AERIAL PHOTO.
>> THIS IS THE STRAW BARN, THE LARGE BUILDING THERE, AND JUST TO THE NORTH OF THAT, YOU'LL SEE A SMALL OFFICE TRAILER.
BASED ON OUR SITE VISIT, THERE IS AN OFFICE TRAILER THERE THAT HAS A DECK CONSTRUCTED ONTO THE FRONT OF IT THAT EXTENDS OVER TO A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE THAT IS PARKED BESIDE IT AND THE ORIGINAL PERMIT WAS FOR THE OFFICE TRAILER ONLY.
>> HAS THE COUNTY ASKED MR. FLAHART TO TAKE ANY SPECIFIC ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THIS VIOLATION?
>> WE HAVE ASKED THAT A PERMIT BE ISSUED FOR THE DECK.
>> WHAT ABOUT THE DECK ITSELF THAT WAS ADDED TO THE OFFICE TRAILER WITHOUT A PERMIT?
>> THAT'S THE ONE I WAS SPEAKING OF.
[NOISE] MS. DADDS, LET'S MOVE ON TO THE SHED.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO THE BOARD THE PROBLEM WITH THE SHED IN TERMS OF ITS LOCATION AND SIZE?
>> THE SHED WAS ORIGINALLY PERMITTED IN THE 2019 BUILDING PERMIT ALONG WITH THE TWO PERSONAL-USE GRAIN TANKS OFFICE TRAILER, AND IT IS NOT IN THE CORRECT LOCATION AS PER THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED AS PART OF THAT PERMIT.
>> IS THAT ALSO SHOWN ON EXHIBIT 15?
>> YES. IT'S GOING TO BE HARD TO IDENTIFY BECAUSE IT'S SMALL, BUT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE THAT IN EXHIBIT 3 OF THE STAFF REPORT ON EXHIBIT 2,
[02:45:08]
PAGE 15 OF 15.>> CAN YOU JUST IDENTIFY TO THE BOARD THE GENERAL LOCATION OF THE SHED?
>> WOULD IT BE HELPFUL IF WE GOT A LARGER? MATT, DO YOU HAVE THOSE THAT WE COULD USE? [BACKGROUND] YEAH, WE CAN DO THAT.
>> I JUST WANT TO LOOK UP THIS POINT.
I'M NOT SURE WHICH ONE YOU WANT.
IS THAT EXHIBIT 3 THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THERE?
>> YOU SAID WHERE WAS IT SUPPOSED TO BE PLACED? WHERE WAS IT APPROVED TO BE PLACED?
>> COULD WE USE THE APPROVED SITE PLAN?
>> THIS IS THE ORIGINAL PLAN THAT WAS PREPARED BY RED BARN DATED APRIL 8TH OF 2019 THAT WAS SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE ORIGINAL TWO PERSONAL-USE GRAIN BINS ALONG WITH THE STRAW STORAGE FACILITY, THE JOB TRAILER, AND THE SHED.
IT'S HARD TO DEPICT ON THERE EXACTLY WHERE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN BECAUSE AGAIN, THE PLACEMENT OF THESE STRUCTURES IS NOT WHERE THEY ENDED UP, SO IT'S HARD TO SHOW.
I BELIEVE WE DO HAVE AN OVERLAY MAP.
>> WE HAVE AN AERIAL OF THAT SPECIFIC PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN, OVERLAY ON THIS RECENT AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY.
>> YES. THIS IS CURRENT AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY THAT WE'VE OVERLAID THAT ORIGINAL PLAN ON.
>> JUST ON THE RECORD, WOULD WE LIKE TO ADD THIS AS AN EXHIBIT?
>> YEAH, THESE EXHIBITS AREN'T ON THE RECORD. THEY NEED TO BE MARKED.
>> I OBJECT BECAUSE AGAIN YOU WERE EXCLUDING ALL EXHIBITS AND MINE WASN'T ADMITTED BECAUSE I DIDN'T HAVE IT IN AN HOUR AND YOU'RE SAYING [INAUDIBLE] [OVERLAPPING]
>> NO, YOURS WASN'T ADMITTED BECAUSE IT WASN'T RELEVANT TO THE VIOLATION LETTERS.
THIS IS DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO THE VIOLATION LETTERS.
>> THE RULES REQUIRE SUBMISSION BEFOREHAND AND ALL OF A SUDDEN [INAUDIBLE].
>> IT'S JUST A BIGGER PICTURE OF THAT. IT'S JUST ZOOMED IN.
>> THERE ARE ADDITIONAL DRAWINGS ON THAT PLAN. [BACKGROUND]
>> MAYBE IT IS IN THERE. [NOISE]
>> THEY CAN TRY TO DO IT WITH WHAT'S RIGHT THERE.
>> HEY, CAN WE JUST DO WITH WHAT YOU'VE GOT?
>> OKAY. THIS RING HERE IS THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE GRAIN BIN.
YOU CAN SEE THE ACTUAL LOCATION.
THE OTHER GRAIN BIN IS THIS SMALL WHITE CIRCLE, AND THEN THAT IS AS WE'RE HERE NOW WITH TWO ADDITIONAL.
THIS IS THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED SHED, AND I BELIEVE THE SHED IS RIGHT THERE.
>> NO, NOT RIGHT YET. WE'LL KEEP THAT ONE UP.
IS IT ALSO BIGGER THAN IT WAS APPROVED TO BE, THE SHED? OR ARE THE DIMENSIONS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IT WAS APPROVED TO BE?
>> ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME SHED?
>> YES. YES, THAT'S CORRECT, IT'S NOT CONSTRUCTED IN THIS SIZE THAT WAS SHOWN ON THE ORIGINAL PLAN OF 19 BY 20?
>> WELL, IT'S LARGER THAN THAT.
JUST BE CAREFUL REFERRING TO THAT, BECAUSE IT'S NOT ON THE RECORD.
>> WELL, IT'S THE SAME INFORMATION ON THAT OVERHEAD?
>> THAT IS NOT. WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT THERE IS NOT THE SAME.
[OVERLAPPING] JUST GIVE THAT BACK TO [INAUDIBLE].
>> MS. DADDS, YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH MR. FLAHART'S POSITION THAT THEY WEREN'T REQUIRED TO OBTAIN PERMITS FOR THE SHED ON THE PREVIOUS STRUCTURES WE TALKED ABOUT BECAUSE OF THIS PURPORTED EXEMPTION IN SECTION 88-11-A13.
[02:50:02]
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?>> COULD YOU RESTATE THAT? I'M SORRY.
>> YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THEIR POSITION THAT THESE STRUCTURES DIDN'T REQUIRE PERMITS BECAUSE THEY'RE BEING PUT INTO AG USE UNDER SECTION 88-11-A13?
>> NO, ALL AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS REQUIRE PERMIT.
>> WHAT ABOUT THE STRAW STORAGE BUILDING? WAS THAT BUILT IN COMPLIANCE WITH WHAT WAS APPROVED?
>> NO, AND I WILL REFER TO IT AGAIN, THIS WAS THE APPROVED LOCATION, THIS WHITE BOX HERE, AND HERE'S THE CURRENT LOCATION, AND YOU CAN SEE THIS IS SMALLER THAN WHAT WAS ACTUALLY BUILT.
>> WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO RESOLVE THAT VIOLATION?
>> A PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE CORRECT SIZE AND FOR THE CORRECT LOCATION.
>> LET'S MOVE ON TO THE CONCRETE PIT.
THIS IS THE CIRCULAR PIT THAT'S LOCATED ON RIVER ROAD AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT.
>> CATHERINE, CAN YOU BLOW THAT UP A LITTLE BIT OR NO?
>> I CAN ZOOM IN ON IT A LITTLE.
>> IT'S BETTER IF THAT'S ALL YOU CAN GET.
>> MS. DADDS, WOULD YOU JUST GO BACK UP TO THE SCREEN, SHOW THE BOARD, GENERALLY SPEAKING, WHAT THAT EXHIBIT SHOWS, WHAT THE WHITE LINES REPRESENT VERSUS THE STRUCTURES?
>> AGAIN, THIS WHITE CIRCLE, A LARGE ONE, AND THE SMALL ONE WAS THE APPROVED LOCATION FROM THE 2019 PERMIT.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS GRAY CIRCLE IS THE CURRENT LOCATION OF IT ALONG WITH THE ONE SMALLER BIN HERE.
YOU CAN SEE THIS IS A NEW BIN, TWO NEW ONES HERE, THREE NEW ONES THERE, AND THIS IS NOT A GRAIN BIN, ALTHOUGH IT LOOKS CIRCULAR, IT'S THE CONCRETE PAD WHERE THEY OFFLOAD THE GRAIN.
THIS IS THE APPROVED LOCATION OF THE STRAW STORAGE BUILDING, THIS IS THE ACTUAL LOCATION OF THE STRAW STORAGE BUILDING.
THE OFFICE TRAILER WAS PROPOSED TO BE HERE, YOU CAN'T QUITE TELL IF IT'S SHOWN IN THIS AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY.
IT MIGHT BE RIGHT THERE BESIDE IT.
>> IT LOOKS LIKE IT. YOU CAN BARELY SEE IT ON THERE. YOU'RE RIGHT.
>> THANK YOU, MS. DADDS. THE CONCRETE PIT CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT, THAT'S THE CIRCULAR PIT ON RIVER ROAD SHOWN IN EXHIBIT 2, WHICH I GUESS IS PAGE 14 OF 15?
>> STRIKE THAT. EXPLAIN TO THE BOARD WHY YOU CONTEND THIS STRUCTURE REQUIRES A BUILDING PERMIT LIKE THE OTHERS?
>> AS TESTIFIED IN THE PREVIOUS HEARING, BASED ON THE COUNTY'S DEFINITION OF STRUCTURE, WE FEEL THAT THIS CONCRETE TANK THAT'S LOCATED IN THE GROUND IS A STRUCTURE BY DEFINITION, AND THEREFORE DOES REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT.
>> IS NOT EXEMPT MERELY BECAUSE THEY INTEND TO PUT IT IN AGRICULTURAL USE?
>> WERE ANY PERMITS APPLIED FOR FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PIT BEFORE IT WAS BUILT?
>> NO. THE PERMIT WAS APPLIED FOR AFTER THE MORATORIUM WAS ISSUED IN THE COUNTY AND IT WAS APPLIED FOR AS A MANURE STORAGE PIT AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO A PROPOSED HEIFER OPERATION.
>> HAS THE COUNTY ISSUED THAT PERMIT?
>> IT IS AN ACCESSORY TO THE HEIFER OPERATION, WHICH WE WILL NOT PERMIT UNTIL ALL VIOLATIONS ON THE PROPERTY HAVE BEEN REMEDIED.
>> THAT PRIMARILY, WELL NOT PRIMARILY, BUT THAT REFERS TO THE VIOLATIONS THAT WE'VE JUST BEEN DISCUSSING? [OVERLAPPING]
>> HAS THE COUNTY TAKEN ANY FORMAL STEPS TO REGULATE THE STORAGE OF DAF OR FOOD PROCESSING RESIDUALS SINCE THE MORATORIUM WAS ENACTED?
>> YES. THE COUNTY RECENTLY ADOPTED REGULATIONS FOR THE STORAGE OF FOOD PROCESSING RESIDUALS.
>> LET'S GO TO THE NEXT VIOLATION, WHICH IS THE DAF STORAGE IN THAT CONCRETE TANK DURING THE MORATORIUM PROHIBITING THAT STORAGE.
CAN YOU JUST GIVE THE BOARD A BRIEF EXPLANATION OF HOW IT CAME TO THE COUNTY'S ATTENTION THAT DAF WAS BEING STORED IN THAT CONCRETE PIT?
>> WE RECEIVED NUMEROUS PHONE CALLS FROM CITIZENS EXPLAINING THAT THERE WERE TRUCKS GOING UP TO THE PROPERTY AND OFFLOADING INTO THIS CONCRETE TANK THAT WAS IN THE GROUND AND THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT SMELLS AND FLIES.
[02:55:02]
THEN THAT IS AT THE POINT THAT WE DID AN INSPECTION AND NOTICED THAT THERE WERE GRAIN BINS THAT HAD BEEN CONSTRUCTED SINCE WE ORIGINALLY HAD PERMITTED, THERE'D BEEN A HOUSE BROUGHT TO THE SITE, AND THAT IS AT THE TIME WE IDENTIFIED ALL OF THE VIOLATIONS.>> IF I CAN REFER YOU TO PAGE 3 OF EXHIBIT 9 OF THE APPELLANT'S APPLICATION. SORRY.
>> I'M GOING TO LOOK AT IT. WHICH IS PART OF THE COMPLAINT THEY FILED IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, AND ASK IF YOU COULD JUST READ THIS PARAGRAPH 11 ON PAGE 3.
>> NUMBER 11. IN OR AROUND JANUARY 2023, HARTLAND BEGAN ACCEPTING DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION, OR DAF, BY A PRODUCT OF CHICKEN RENDERINGS AND AGRICULTURAL WASTE FROM CHICKEN PROCESSING FACILITIES SUCH AS PURDUE FARMS AND MOUNTAIRE FARMS.
>> NOT NOTWITHSTANDING THEIR ASSERTION THAT THEY'RE CHALLENGING THE MORATORIUM, THEY ADMITTED IN THEIR COMPLAINT THAT THEY WERE [OVERLAPPING] TAKING THAT PRODUCT?
>> THERE ARE MULTIPLE ISSUES REGARDING THE GRAIN TANKS, AND YOU HEARD MR. BARR'S QUESTIONING OF MR. FLAHART, CORRECT?
>> CAN YOU JUST GIVE THE BOARD AGAIN, JUST TO MAKE SURE IT WAS CLEAR WHAT THE HISTORY WAS OF THE GRAIN BIN APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. FLAHART, STARTING FROM 2019?
>> YES. THIS WAS ALL PRESENTED IN THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPLICATION FOR THE SPECIAL USE EXCEPTION, AND THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE AG PRODUCTS PROCESSING PLANT.
THAT IN 2019, AN APPLICATION WAS MADE FOR A COMMERCIAL AG PROCESSING PLANT, IDENTIFIED AS EIGHT OR NINE STRUCTURES THAT WERE INVOLVED.
I CAN'T REMEMBER THE EXACT NUMBER.
AT THAT TIME, WE WERE ASKED HOW LONG WHAT THE PROCESS WOULD BE TO GET THAT APPROVED AND HOW LONG THAT WOULD TAKE AFTER.
IT WAS STATED THAT IT COULD BE SIX MONTHS TO GET THROUGH THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS PROCESS AND PERMITS.
IT WAS ADVISED TO US BY THE APPLICANT THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME. FALL WAS COMING.
THEY HAD TO GET THEIR CROPS OFF, SO THEY WERE GOING TO SCALE BACK THE OPERATION TO JUST A PERSONAL STORAGE SO THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE COMMERCIAL PROCESS.
AND WE REFUNDED THEIR ORIGINAL APPLICATION FEES.
THEY RESUBMITTED A NEW SITE PLAN FOR ONLY TWO STRUCTURES, AND IT WAS CLEARLY STATED ON THE PERMIT THAT THAT COULD BE FOR NO COMMERCIAL USE.
>> AND AFTER COMPLETING CONSTRUCTION OF THOSE TWO PERSONAL USE GRAIN TANKS, WHAT OTHER TANKS DID MR. FLAHART BUILD ON THE PROPERTY? IF ANY.
>> SO WE HAD NOT BEEN TO THAT PROPERTY AFTER THAT PERMIT APPLICATION TRANSPIRED.
AND AT SOME POINT BETWEEN 2019 AND WHEN WE WERE THERE IN 2023, WHEN WE GOT THE CALLS FROM THE CITIZENS, THAT'S WHEN WE IDENTIFIED THAT ADDITIONAL GRAIN TANKS HAD BEEN CONSTRUCTED.
THE HOUSE HAD BEEN MOVED THERE.
THERE WAS A LEAN TO UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
AND ONCE WE RECEIVED NEW SUBMITTALS AND IDENTIFIED LOCATIONS, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT SOME OF THE STRUCTURES WERE NOT EVEN LOCATED IN THE ORIGINAL PERMITTED LOCATION.
AND WE ISSUED THE STOP WORK ORDERS.
WE WERE CONTACTED BY BRETT EWING WITH LANE ENGINEERING, WHO SAID THAT HE HAD BEEN HIRED BY MR. FLAHART, AND REQUESTED AN ONSITE MEETING.
MYSELF, OUR CODS ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, STACY PINDELL, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT, MR. FLAHART, AND MR. EWING, WERE ALL AT THE SITE.
WE PUT EYES ON EVERYTHING THAT WAS THERE, WE IDENTIFIED WHAT DIDN'T HAVE PERMITS, AND IT WAS STATED THAT ALL ACTIVITY MUST STOP UNTIL PERMITS HAVE BEEN APPROVED.
AT THAT TIME, THERE WAS A GREEN BIN PARTIALLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
MR. EWING RESPONDED TO US AND SAID HE WOULD BE PREPARING THE PLANS, AND HAD ASKED IF THERE WAS A MEANS OF SECURING THE PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED GREEN BIN FOR SAFETY PURPOSES.
CAN WE TAKE MEASURES TO SECURE IT, NOT FINISH IT SO THAT IT'S SAFE, AND WE DID ALLOW THAT TO BE DONE, BUT HE DID STILL PROCEED TO FINISH CONSTRUCTION OF THAT GREEN BIN.
>> HAVE THEY SUBMITTED ANY OTHER APPLICATIONS TO ADDRESS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE GREEN TANKS WITHOUT BUILDING PERMITS?
>> AND WHAT DATE WAS THAT ON SITE MEETING? WHAT WAS THE DATE OF THAT?
>> I DON'T RECALL. WAS THAT DATE.
>> YES. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN 2023.
[03:00:01]
>> SO MR. FLAHART DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE STOP WORK ORDER, AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS HE PRESENTLY OPERATING A COMMERCIAL GRAIN OPERATION AT HIS PROPERTY?
>> DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG THAT'S BEEN ONGOING?
>> DEFINITELY SINCE WE HAD THE ONSITE MEETING.
AT WHAT POINT IT STARTED PRIOR TO THAT, I CAN'T SAY.
>> MS [INAUDIBLE], CAN YOU JUST BRIEFLY EXPLAIN WHY THE COUNTY CONSIDERS THIS FACILITY TO BE A COMMERCIAL GREEN OPERATION AND NOT A PERSONAL USE OPERATION?
>> YES. THAT WOULD BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURAL AND FISHERY PRODUCTS PROCESSING PLANTS, WHICH STATES IT'S A FACILITY THAT INVOLVES THE OPERATION OF PROCESSING, PREPARING, OR PACKAGING AGRICULTURAL OR FISHERY PRODUCTS, WHICH ARE NOT GROWN OR HARVESTED ON SITE, BUT RATHER BROUGHT TO THE SITE FOR PROCESSING FOR ONE OR MORE SOURCES.
>> AND YOU HEARD MR. FLAHART TESTIFY THAT HE TAKES GREEN FROM THIRD PARTIES?
>> WELL, YOU HEARD THE ASSERTIONS THAT THE COUNTY WAS BEING SOMEWHAT UNREASONABLE OR NOT COOPERATIVE WITH THESE APPLICATIONS THAT A CLAIM TO BE?
>> THE CLAIM TO HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED.
AND DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT ASSERTION?
>> NO. AND AGAIN, WE'VE HEARD MULTIPLE TIMES OF HOW LONG IT TAKES TO GET A PERMIT, FIVE MONTHS, SIX MONTHS.
AND AGAIN, THERE'S ALWAYS MITIGATING FACTORS TO THAT.
AND IT COULD BE THAT HE'S APPLIED.
THE APPLICANT WAS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT REVISIONS.
SO ALL OF THOSE TIMELINES CAN BE AFFECTED BY RESUBMITTALS, AND HOW LONG IT TAKES THE APPLICANT TO RESUBMIT.
AND THAT ORIGINAL FIVE MONTHS TO GET THAT PERMIT.
AGAIN, LET ME GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PERMIT WAS APPLIED FOR AND THEN REFUNDED WHEN THE APPLICANT MADE THE DETERMINATION TO RESUBMIT.
SO THERE WAS NOT A FIVE MONTH DELAY IN THAT, THAT'S BEING FACTORED INTO THE ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL.
>> I HAVE A FEW SECONDS. THE HOUSE STRUCTURE, THE HOUSE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THEY HAVE APPLIED FOR A PERMIT FOR THAT STRUCTURE, CORRECT?
>> AND AS I UNDERSTAND, THE ONLY THING YOU'RE WAITING FOR IS SOMETHING FROM SEDIMENT CONTROL?
>> YES. AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING FROM TALKING WITH THEIR OFFICE THAT THERE HAS NOT BEEN A SEDIMENT EROSION CONTROL PLAN SUBMITTED FOR THIS PROPERTY.
AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE'RE STILL WAITING HEALTH DEPARTMENT APPROVAL.
>> AND SO THOSE ARE ONLY TWO THINGS HOLDING UP THE HOUSE STRUCTURE?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. WHEN WE RECEIVE THOSE PERMITS, WE WILL DO A SITE INSPECTION TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH SETBACKS BASED ON THE LOCATION, AND THEN THE PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED IF IT'S IN COMPLIANCE.
>> NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE OFFICE TRAILER THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT AS WELL, IT'S WITHIN THE SETBACK AREAS, CORRECT? SO THERE'S NO VIOLATION OF IT?
>> SO THE ONLY ISSUE IS IT WAS PUT IN THE WRONG LOCATION?
>> CORRECT. AND THAT A DECK WAS CONSTRUCTED ONTO IT WITHOUT A PERMIT CONNECTING IT TO A RV.
>> SO I THOUGHT THE DECK WAS A DIFFERENT VIOLATION, BUT THEY'RE ALL THE SAME.
AT LEAST WITH REGARD TO THE OFFICE TRAILER, JUST IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION.
>> YES. THE OFFICE TRAILER IS JUST IN THE WRONG LOCATION.
>> BUT OTHERWISE, AS FAR AS YOU MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE, THERE'S NO VIOLATION FROM IT OTHER THAN ITS LOCATION?
>> AND THEN THE DECK IS, IT WAS CONSTRUCTED AGAIN WITHOUT A PERMIT IS THE COUNTY'S CONTENTION, CORRECT?
>> ANY REASON TO BELIEVE IT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS OR BUILDING REQUIREMENTS?
>> NOT WITH ZONING COMPLIANCE, BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN INSPECTED FOR BUILDING CODE COMPLIANCE.
>> DOES IT NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE BUILDING CODE COMPLIANCE AS WELL IS THERE?
>> AND WHY IS THAT? IT'S AN A STRUCTURE AND YOU SAID THAT THE CODE DOESN'T APPLY.
WHY WOULD THAT HAVE TO APPLY THE BUILDING CODE?
>> IT IS A JOB TRAILER FOR THE COMMERCIAL OPERATION, SO THEREFORE, IT'S NOT EXEMPT.
>> SO THE BUILDING CODE WOULD HAVE TO REQUIREMENTS?
>> AND THE SHED, AGAIN, THE ONLY ISSUE IT'S NOT IN THE CORRECT LOCATION IS SHOWN IN THE ORIGINAL PLANS, CORRECT?
>> OTHERWISE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND MEETS ALL THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS, CORRECT?
>> NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE CONCRETE PIT,
[03:05:04]
AGAIN, IT WAS NOT SHOWN ON THE INITIAL PLANS, CORRECT?>> AND THEY HAVE APPLIED FOR A PERMIT FOR THE PIT, CORRECT?
>> AND WHAT IS IT THAT YOU NEED WITH REGARD TO THAT PERMIT TO PROCESS IT?
>> IT IS AN ACCESSORY USE TO A PROPOSED HEIFER OPERATION TO WHICH AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR.
AND WE WOULD NOT ISSUE AN ACCESSORY USE UNLESS IT'S IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PERMITTED USE OF THE HEIFER BARNS.
AND THOSE ARE NOT BEING ISSUED UNTIL WE'VE RESOLVED THE OTHER OUTSTANDING VIOLATIONS ON THE PROPERTY.
>> WHERE IN THE CODE DOES IT SAY THAT YOU CAN'T PROCESS AN APPLICATION IF THERE ARE EXISTING VIOLATIONS?
>> IT DOES NOT STATE THAT IT HAS BEEN STANDARD PRACTICE IN OUR OFFICE.
>> BUT YOU WOULD AGREE WITH ME THAT IT'S NOT ANYWHERE IN THE CODE THAT YOU CAN'T PROCESS AN APPLICATION BECAUSE THERE'S AN EXISTING VIOLATION, CORRECT?
>> AND YOU'RE JUST EXAMINING ON SOME POLICY THAT IS NOT PUT IN ANY BOOK ANYWHERE AND THAT NO ONE HAS ACCESS TO ACCEPT YOU, CORRECT?
>> THAT IS A LONGSTANDING POLICY OF THE OFFICE.
>> BUT IT'S NOT A CODE REQUIRED.
AND IT'S NOT WRITTEN ANYWHERE IN THE CODE, CORRECT?
>> SHE JUST ANSWERED THAT THREE TIMES.
>> AND I UNDERSTAND YOU RECEIVED THE COMPLAINTS FROM THE NEIGHBOR SOMETIME IN JUNE OF 2023, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> IT WAS. I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT DATE.
>> I THOUGHT YOU SAID JUNE OF 2023.
BUT AGAIN, AS SOON AS THAT COMPLAINT, YOU NOTIFIED MR. FLAHART, CORRECT?
>> AND HE WAS WAS ISSUED A STOP WORK ORDER.
>> AND WAS THERE TRYING TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES WITH HIS ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY AFTER THAT?
>> YES. HIS ENGINEER DID CONTACT US AND WE HAD AN ONSITE VISIT.
>> AND JUST SO I UNDERSTAND THE COUNTY'S POSITION, IT'S THE COUNTY'S POSITION THAT THE MERE STORAGE OF GRAIN CONSTITUTES A PROCESSING FACILITY?
>> ALONG WITH THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT GROWN OR HARVESTED ON SITE.
>> SO THE STORAGE GRAIN JUST BECAUSE IT'S STORED FROM A OFFSITE FACILITY IS DEEMED TO BE A PROCESSING PLANT?
>> WELL, IT WOULD ALSO BE PROCESSING IF THEY'RE DRYING THE PRODUCT.
AND THERE IS A DRYER ON THAT FACILITY.
>> THAT'S ALL I UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU.
>> SO I GUESS WE'LL GO INTO THE QUESTION.
I'LL LET YOU START. GO AHEAD [LAUGHTER].
>> IT WAS A LOT OF INFORMATION TO TAKE IN, BUT MY CONSENSUS IS THAT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF HE SAID SHE SAID, AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE'RE TRYING TO RESOLVE ISSUES, CORRECT? SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT MOVING FORWARD, WHETHER WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE THINGS THAT MR. BEN HAS DONE WRONG, AND MAKE THAT A BIG TO DO, THEN IT'S JUST GOING TO MAKE THINGS WORSE.
BUT MOVING FORWARD, HOW DO WE CORRECT THEM SO HE CAN CONTINUE HIS OPERATION.
SO THAT'S WHERE I STAND JUST LIKE, WHAT DO WE DO MOVING FORWARD? THERE'S ALL THESE VIOLATIONS.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE ARE, AT WHAT POINT DID YOU DO THIS? AND THERE'S JUST SO MUCH TO IT? I MEAN, IT WOULD TAKE I DON'T KNOW.
YOU'D HAVE TO DIG IN AND REALLY DIVE DEEP TO FIGURE IT ALL OUT.
AND I DON'T WANT TO ACCUSE ANYBODY OF NOT TELLING THE TRUTH.
THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DO, BUT DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING SPECIFIC THAT YOU WANT TO ASK?
>> SAME WAY. I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS, BUT LIKE REALLY PERTAIN SOME OF THESE VIOLATIONS.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT CRYSTAL HAS SAID UNDER OATH THAT IT'S JUST THE THE COUNTY'S STANCE ABOUT IF THERE'S VIOLATIONS, WE DON'T MOVE FORWARD TO DOING PERMITTING UNTIL THOSE VIOLATIONS ARE RESOLVED, WHICH I CAN UNDERSTAND.
BUT I DO UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM, AS IN IT'S NOT WRITTEN IN CODE, IT'S NOT WRITTEN IN ZONING.
AND I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED BECAUSE CLEARLY WE'RE HERE, BECAUSE HISTORICALLY, THIS IS HOW WE'VE DONE THINGS.
DOES THAT MEAN THAT THAT'S HOW IT HAS TO BE DONE? NO. I FEEL LIKE COMPROMISE MUST BE CONSIDERED IN THIS SITUATION, AND I FEEL LIKE MAYBE SAYING, WE CAN DO SOME PERMITTING THINGS, OR AT LEAST TAKE THEM IN AND GET MOVING ON SOME OF THE THINGS HE WANTS TO GET PERMITTED.
IF HE AGREES TO TAKE CARE OF THE VIOLATIONS, BUT WHERE'S THE WIGGLE ROOM? I MEAN, IF HE'S NOT TAKING CARE OF THEM AND YOU AUTHORIZE HIM TO DO SOMETHING, HOW DO YOU KNOW HE'S GOING TO RESOLVE IT? THAT'S PROBABLY WHY.
>> I FEEL LIKE YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO GET PAID.
[03:10:03]
IF YOU JUST START GIVING A PERMITS, YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO GET.YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO RESOLVE. YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO GET.
BUT AT THIS POINT, I FEEL LIKE ADMITTEDLY, THE MISTAKES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ARE HERE TO BE CORRECTED.
HOW DO WE HELP MAKE THAT HAPPEN? AND I FEEL LIKE MAKING SOME LEVEL OF COMPROMISE MIGHT BE HELPFUL.
BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND SAY, THESE VIOLATIONS DID OCCUR.
IT SEEMS TO ME, WHEN YOU APPLY FOR SOMETHING AND THEN YOU TURN AROUND AND SAY, WELL, I DON'T WANT TO TAKE THIS LONG, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT, YOU MADE A DECISION BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND WITH BUSINESS, YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD.
BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT NOW COME BACK TO BITE YOU AND HERE WE ARE.
SO MOVING FORWARD, WHAT DO WE DO? I THINK WE HAVE TO ADDRESS THE FACT THAT THERE ARE VIOLATIONS AND THEY SEEM TO BE IN ORDER.
I MEAN, THEY ARE VIOLATIONS, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE VIOLATIONS.
>> ONE THING ABOUT VIOLATIONS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REMOVING A TEARING DOWN SOME STUFF, BUT THEY'RE THERE RIGHT NOW.
THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT.
YOU GOT QUESTIONS? I DON'T WANT TO CUT YOU OUT.
>> MY QUESTION IS, YOU KEEP REFERRING TO THE DECK AS COMMERCIAL AND YOU'RE SAYING MEATS ZERO ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN MAKE ME COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OR COMMERCIAL BUILDING THEY GOT TO BE ALL THIS REQUIREMENTS, AND ALL OF THIS STUFF THAT YOU DON'T MAKE THEM DO THAT FOR THE FOR THIS DECK.
>> ARE YOU REFERRING TO ENGINEERING OR ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR A DECK?
>> THAT'S ONLY REQUIRED FOR PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION.
>> WELL, THAT'S WHAT THIS IS DONE.
>> SO THE EMPLOYEES ARE THE PROBLEM.
>> THAT DOESN'T APPLY. I GUESS WE NEED TO GET TO THE BUSINESS OF GOING THROUGH THE VIOLATIONS.
>> I THINK THEY GOT TO DO A CLOSING.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE ANY MORE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.
>> UNLESS YOU ALL HAVE MORE QUESTIONS FOR ANY OF THEM.
>> I FEEL LIKE EVERYBODY'S LAID IT OUT, AND I THINK IT'S JUST NOW DETERMINING HOW TO RULE AND HOW TO MOVE FORWARD, BUT I GUESS WE NEED TO IF YOU HAVE ANY MORE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.
>> DO YOU NEED TO ADD ANYTHING TO THAT? ARE YOU GOOD?
>> YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH YOUR CLOSING STATEMENT?
>> WELL, I'LL BE BRIEF. AGAIN, IT'S ONE NIGHT TRYING TO GET TO THE RESOLUTION.
BUT AGAIN, WITH THE CONCRETE STORAGE PLAN, TANK, WE APPLIED FOR IT.
IT WAS APPLIED FOR IN JANUARY OF 2024.
THEY HAVE THIS UNWRITTEN POLICY OF NOT PROCESSING THOSE FOR VARIOUS REASONS.
OF COURSE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET IT IF THERE ARE ANY VIOLATION.
THEY'RE GOING TO GET US THE PERMIT, THEY'RE ALWAYS GOING TO CITE US FOR NOT HAVING A PERMIT FOR SOMETHING WE'RE TRYING TO FIX.
AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO FIX THESE PROBLEM, AND I HOPE YOU ALL UNDERSTAND THAT.
I DON'T WANT TO BE FLIPPANT, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS THIS.
AGAIN, THE USE OF THE CONCRETE STORAGE PLAN IS MORATORIUM, DIDN'T GO IN EFFECT UNTIL JANUARY OF 2024.
THE STATEMENT THAT WAS READ INTO THE RECORD WAS FROM 2023 BECAUSE IT WAS IN EXISTENCE.
THE TESTIMONY WAS ONCE THE MORATORIUM WERE IN EFFECT, AND DURING THE TIME PERIOD OF A STAY ISSUED BY THE COURT, WE DID PUT SOME BACK THERE.
THE TESTIMONY IS DRAFTED IN 2023, AND AGAIN DURING THE MORATORIUM IN 2024, ONLY ONCE DURING THE STAY.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY VIOLATION WITH REGARD TO THAT.
AGAIN, THERE'S SPECIAL IN THE MANUFACTURE HOME, WE APPLIED FOR IT, GOT IT, ISSUE IS JUST IN THE WRONG LOCATION.
AGAIN, IT'S GOING TO BE GONE ONCE WE GET AN APPROVAL FROM THE MANUFACTURE HOME.
WE'RE FINDING A VIOLATION THAT'S GOING TO BE MOOT AS SOON AS WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THE HOME, WHICH SHOULD BE HOPEFULLY SHORTLY.
I'M SORRY, THE MANUFACTURE HOME WOULD APPLY FOR IT.
WE'RE CLOSE TO GETTING IT AND HOPEFULLY, WE'RE GOING TO GET IT.
BUT AGAIN, IT'S BEEN AN ONGOING PROCESS SINCE 2023.
WE'RE TRYING TO GET THIS PERMIT SINCE THAT TIME, AND OBVIOUSLY IT WAS THERE [INAUDIBLE] THE OFFICE TRAILER LOCATION, AGAIN, IT'S JUST AT THE WRONG LOCATION FOR THE COUNTY.
AGAIN, IT'LL BE REMOVED ONCE WE GET APPROVED FOR THAT.
THE DECK WITHOUT A PERMIT SEEMS MINOR TO ME BUT AGAIN, IF IT WAS JUST AN APPLICATION, ASSUMING AN APPLICATION IS REQUIRED FOR THESE AG BUILDING, WHICH AGAIN, WE DEBATE THAT.
WE'VE ALREADY RULED REGARDING ONE CASE, BUT AGAIN IT'S OUR POSITION THAT'S REQUIRED.
SEEMS TRIVIAL TO US THAT UPPER DECK, WE'RE GOING TO END UP REMOVING HERE SHORTLY ANYWAY ONCE THE HOUSE IS APPROVED.
THE SHED, SAME ISSUE, DOESN'T VIOLATE ANY SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, NO OTHER ZONING VIOLATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH IT, JUST IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO TELL YOU BECAUSE YOU'VE ALREADY BEEN HERE SEVERAL TIMES ABOUT THE VARIANCES AND I DON'T THINK I'M GOING TO ADD ANYTHING TO THAT.
[03:15:02]
THEY ARE WHAT THEY ARE, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO APPLY FOR THEM.BUT AS YOU HEARD, THEY WON'T EVEN PROCESS THE APPLICATION.
YOU'RE ALWAYS READY TO GO WITH IT UNTIL THESE OTHER THINGS ARE FIXED.
WE'RE TRYING TO FIX THINGS AND GET IT DONE.
I THANK YOU FOR EVERYONE'S TIME TONIGHT AND I APPRECIATE IT.
>> I'LL BE BRIEF AS WELL. AGAIN, IT'S THE SAME AS THE [INAUDIBLE] ROAD.
THESE ARE REQUIREMENTS FOR EVERYONE WHO DOES THINGS IN THE COUNTY.
IF YOU WANT TO BUILD SOMETHING, IT'S A STRUCTURE, YOU NEED TO GET A BUILDING PERMIT.
ALL THESE THINGS DON'T HAPPEN.
MR. [INAUDIBLE] SAID THEY THINK IT'S TRIVIAL.
WELL, IT'S NOT REALLY TRIVIAL. IT'S NOT.
TO SAY THAT SHOULD BE A LITTLE BIT OFFENSIVE.
GRAIN BINS HAVE NOT BEEN APPLIED.
YOU HEARD THAT CASE ALMOST A YEAR AGO, IT'S NOT BEEN APPLIED.
SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS A SHED THAT'S IN THE WRONG LOCATION, BUT MAYBE THERE'S NO OTHER VIOLATIONS ASSOCIATED, THAT HASN'T BEEN APPLIED.
WHEN YOU HEAR THESE STATEMENTS, WE'RE TRYING, WE'RE DOING WHAT WE CAN, WE'RE NOT REALLY.
SURE, MR. EWING HAS DONE SOME THINGS TO TRY TO GET THIS HEIFER BARN PROPOSAL, THAT'S NOT A VIOLATION.
THAT'S SOMETHING THEY WANTED HERE.
THE VIOLATIONS IS WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR, AND THE ISSUE BEFORE YOU IS WHETHER THESE ARE CORRECT VIOLATION LETTERS.
I THINK IT'S FAIRLY CLEAR THAT THEY ARE.
CONCRETE TANK. YOU'RE TRYING TO GET THAT APPROVED.
WELL, WHEN THE COUNTY REALIZE THERE WAS DEF IN THAT CONCRETE TANK AND SAID, YOU HAVE TO GET RID OF THAT DEF BECAUSE YOU'RE STORING IT AND THAT'S A VIOLATION OF THE MORATORIUM, THEY DIDN'T COME TO US AND SAY, OF COURSE, WE'LL GET RID OF IT.
WE WANT TO DO WHAT WE CAN TO MAKE THIS RIGHT.
IT STAYED IN THE TANK, AND IT'S STILL IN THE TANK.
I THINK YOU CAN SEE THESE FOR WHAT THEY ARE.
I'M SORRY, I TOOK SO LONG TO GET THROUGH ALL OF THIS, I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE.
I THINK I'LL LET IT GO WITH THAT.
I WOULD ASK YOU TO UPHOLD ALL THE VIOLATIONS.
>> THE COMMISSIONERS WOULD SIMPLY LIKE TO REMIND YOU THAT YOU'RE NOT HERE AS A CRIMINAL COURT, YOU'RE NOT HERE ADJUDICATING GUILT OR INNOCENCE, YOU'RE NOT IMPOSING ANY SENTENCE.
YOU'RE SIMPLY REVIEWING THE ACTIONS OF THE ZONING OFFICIALS BELOW IN ISSUING THESE CITATIONS AND STOP WORK ORDERS.
BASICALLY, YOU'RE LOOKING AT WHETHER THERE WAS REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THESE AND YOU'VE HAD MORE THAN SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO JUSTIFY THE ISSUANCE OF THESE ORDERS. THANK YOU.
>> BEFORE WE GO INTO DELIBERATION, I WANT TO MAKE A CORRECTION TO THAT.
I SAID YOU MADE A STATEMENT, A YEAR WAS GOING TO BE TOO LONG FOR A COMMERCIAL FACILITY.
MS. DADDS CLARIFIED IT UP AND SAID IT WAS SIX MONTHS.
WITH THAT, WE'LL GO INTO DELIBERATION.
SHOULD I READ THAT? SHOULD I READ THE OBLIGATION PART?
>> LET ME JUST HIT IT WITH ALL.
>> NOW THAT WE'VE HEARD EVERYBODY'S TESTIMONY IN THE SUMMARY OF STATEMENTS, THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING IS CLOSED FOR DELIBERATION.
AT THIS TIME, THE AUDIENCE MAY NOT SPEAK OR MAKE COMMENTS UNLESS THE BOARD ASKS FOR CLARIFICATION OF A QUESTION.
THE PUBLIC MAY STAY DURING DELIBERATION OR THEY MAY CHOOSE TO LEAVE AND CALL THE PLANNING AND CODES OFFICE IN THE MORNING TO ASK FOR A DECISION OF THE BOARD. LET'S DELIBERATE.
>> SINCE THERE'S SO MANY VIOLATIONS, WOULD IT HELP SINCE I GOT HIM UP HERE, DID I JUST GO THROUGH THEM ONE AT A TIME [OVERLAPPING]
>> YES. THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL. BECAUSE THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO GO RUN AROUND TRYING TO FIND IT.
>> WE CAN RULE AND TALK ABOUT THEM AS YOU BRING THEM UP.
>> THE FIRST VIOLATION IS THE HOUSE BEING BROUGHT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN ADDITION UNDER CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT OBTAINING A BUILDING PERMIT.
>> I BELIEVE THAT IT'S A VALID VIOLATION.
IT'S THERE AND IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE WITHOUT A PERMIT.
IT NEEDS A PERMIT AND/OR A ZONING CERTIFICATE.
>> I'M GOING TO MAKE THE MOTION TO SAY THAT THAT'S VALID.
>> WELL, IN THIS INSTANCE, IF THAT'S THE MOTION, YOU SAY A MOTION TO AFFIRM THE VIOLATION.
>> TO AFFIRM THE VIOLATION ON THAT FIRST COUNT. I MAKE THE MOTION.
[03:20:03]
OFFICE TRAILER LOCATED IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION THAN THAT APPROVED BY THE COUNTY ON THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTED WITH THE APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT.
>> THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT IT'S NOT WHERE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE.
>> IT'S STILL A STRUCTURE, BUT THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT IS MAKING A MOVING.
IS THAT CORRECT? PRIOR TO ISSUING THE CIVIL PERMIT, DIDN'T HAVE TO WAIT.
>> IT STILL NEEDED A PERMIT AND IT IS DEFINITELY IN VIOLATION.
>> JUST GIVE ME A SECOND TO READ SOME.
I'M GOOD. NOW WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION.
>> WELL, THEN I'LL DO IT. I'LL BE THE MOTION MAKER.
I WOULD SAY THAT I AFFIRM THAT IT IS INDEED A VIOLATION.
>> I'LL SECOND IT. ALL IN FAVOR.
>> NEXT, THE DECK BEING ADDED WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT.
>> GEARING RIGHT BACK TO T, IT'S A STRUCTURE IN MY MIND.
>> I MAKE THE MOTION TO AFFIRM?
>> NEXT, THE SHED WAS NOT LOCATED AND NOT CONSTRUCTED IN SIZE PURSUANT TO THE SITE PLAN ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT.
>> WELL, THE EVIDENCE IS ON THE PLAN THAT IT IS NOT WHERE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE, AND IT WAS BUILT LARGER THAN IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE SO I WOULD SAY THAT I AFFIRM THAT VIOLATION AS WELL AND MAKE THE MOTION TO AFFIRM.
>> NEXT IS THE STRAW STORAGE BUILDING WAS NOT LOCATED AND NOT CONSTRUCTED IN THE SIZE PURSUANT TO THE SITE PLAN ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT.
>> ONCE AGAIN, IT'S STILL STRUCTURE.
>> THAT'S NOT WHERE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE, AND IT'S NOT IT WASN'T PERMITTED.
>> YEAH, NOT FOR THE SIZE IT WAS BUILT. IT WAS BUILT LARGER.
>> AFFIRM THE VIOLATION? MAKE A MOTION TO AFFIRM THE VIOLATION.
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO AFFIRM THE VIOLATION.
>> AYE. [LAUGHTER] WE'RE BOTH MAKING MOTIONS NOW.
>> NEXT IS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONCRETE TANK WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT AND REZONING CERTIFICATE.
>> ONCE AGAIN, YOU NEED A PERMIT.
THIS IS A STRUCTURE, IT FALLS RIGHT UNDER THE STRUCTURE IN THE CREATED COUNTY CODE. YOU AFFIRM?
>> WE'RE MAKING A MOTION? I SECOND.
>> NEXT IS THE STORAGE OF DUFF IN THE CONCRETE TANK DURING THE MORATORIUM PROHIBITING STORAGE.
>> THAT ONE I QUESTION BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THERE WAS A PERIOD OF TIME WHERE HE SAID THAT.
>> HE DID ADMIT TO THE PERMIT.
>> BUT IT WAS ALSO IN A PERIOD OF TIME WHERE HE GOT A STAND BECAUSE OF THE THE COURT ON THAT ONE.
THERE WAS A STAND AND THAT'S THE ONLY TIME HE DID IT.
THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION THAT I HAD.
>> HE WAS TOLD TO CLEAN IT OUT.
WE STILL GOT WHO KNOWS WHAT IN IT?
>> I'M NOT PREPARED TO MAKE THAT MOTION.
>> I MADE A MOTION AND YOU [INAUDIBLE]
>> I'LL SECOND IT. ALL IN FAVOR. AYE.
>> A IS TWO GRAIN STORAGE BINS
[03:25:03]
BEING CONSTRUCTED NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT.>> REQUIRES A BUILDING PERMIT AND/OR ZONING CERTIFICATE.
IN ACCORDANCE WITH 175-187 A, GRAIN STORAGE BIN.
THEY DID NOT SATISFY THE CATEGORIES AND THEY'RE NOT EXEMPT FROM THE BUILDING PERMIT AND/OR THE ZONING CERTIFICATE.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO AFFIRM.
>> LASTLY, SIX GRAIN STORAGE BINS CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT AND/OR ZONING CERTIFICATE, SOME OF WHICH WERE LOCATED WITHIN THE SETBACKS.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THE PERMIT OR/AND THE ZONING CERTIFICATE.
>> [OVERLAPPING] IN A DECISION BEFORE, RIGHT?
>> THEY WERE IN THE SETBACKS BUT THEY WEREN'T PERMITTED.
SOME OF THEM WERE, SOME OF THEM WERE NOT, I GUESS.
>> [INAUDIBLE] WITHIN THE SETBACK.
>> BUT YOU STILL NEED A BUILDING PERMIT AND/OR A ZONING CERTIFICATE, AND IT IS A STRUCTURE.
>> AYE. WHAT ELSE DO WE NEED TO DO, PATRICK?
>> THOSE ARE ALL OF THE VIOLATIONS.
>> FOR THE CLARIFICATION, ARE YOU [INAUDIBLE]
>> I GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE MEETING? I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE MEETING.
>> AT 9:25 P.M. OCTOBER 23, 2024.
THANK YOU GUYS FOR COMING OUT.
>> THANK YOU ALL.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.