This meeting is being recorded. Good evening. Today is Thursday June 27th. Once again. Good. Good evening. Today is June 27th. And this is the scheduled meeting of the Howard County Board of Appeals on the chairperson, Jean Ryan. It's a night we have two cases on the docket. BA 2301 to Vial, Hunter Rodriguez. That's a deliberation and the initial hearing on 810D in administrative matter which is to vote. I'm sorry to vote on the meeting minutes of June 18th, 2024. Board members, are there any questions, comments, suggestions for the meeting minutes, June 18th, 2024? No? Seeing none, can I get a motion to approve the meeting minutes, please? So moved. Ms. Fork, what about first? I will second the motion. Great. Those were the second and Mr. So moved. Ms. Polk, what first? I will second the motion. Great. Those were the second and Mr. Seniors. Yes, sir. On the motion to approve Board of Appeals Minutes of June 18, 2024 and BA 22-023-CNV, as well as the BA 790D, how do you vote on the motion to approve the minutes? Ms. Harris. Approved. Ms. Phillips. Approved. Ms. Fearcald. Approved. And Chair Ryan. Approved. And I didn't ask Ms. Sheoe because she was absent for that. Excellent. The meeting, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Thank you. The meeting minutes are approved. Moving on to our first matter for the evening. B8-23012V, Alejandro Rodriguez, the argument portion of this case is concluded. And we're now moving on to the deliberation. So this case originates from the August 16th, 2023, hearing examiner decision in order, which was appealed timely on September 15th, 2023. This matter is being heard denovo and accordance with section 2.209 of the Howard County Code, and essentially restart of the trial process, a new, as if the prior hearing had not happened. Any prior findings of fact, conclusions of law, or rulings by the hearing examiner are excluded from this board's consideration. On June 13th, 2024, parties were ordered to each submit up to a 10 page rate and closing summary by the close of business on June 24th, 2024. The board has received and reviewed the timely submissions submitted by both the applicant and the participants. The petition in this case, the petitioner rather in this case, is requesting three specific dimensional variances. The first to reduce the required front setback from 50 feet to 21 feet to allow for two basketball hoops anchored to the ground. The second, reduce the required side yard setback from 5 to 0 feet for the construction of a board on board fence up to 12 feet tall. The third, to reduce the required rear yard setback from 10 to 0 for a feet for construction of a board on board fence up to 12 feet tall. The burden of proof in this matter is contained within section 2.209.c of the code and is won by proponents of the evidence. By competent, material and substantial evidence, the petitioner must show that he is entitled to the really requested and that the request meets all prescribed standards and requirements. So what does the proponents of the evidence mean exactly. A proponderance of the evidence means that when we consider the record as a whole in its entirety, there's substantial, probative evidence to support a conclusion that the claim is more likely true than not true. As in all cases, this board is required to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. As a result of those determinations, this board has the authority to either approve, disapprove, or approve with conditions the requested variances. The general standards for criteria contained in Howard County's zoning regulations 130.0.b.2.a. Under this section, the board may grant the variance only if the petitioner demonstrates compliance with all four criteria. If you're failure to meet any one of the criteria is grounds for denial. The first criteria and I think I'll just, you know, I'm going to open up for a good discussion. I'm just warming us up and trying to provide some context to our discussion tonight. The first criteria requires that one, that there are unique physical conditions including irregularity, narrowness or shalowness of the lot, or shape exceptional topography or other existing features peculiar to the particular lot. And that as a result of such physical conditions, practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship arises in complying strictly with the bulk provisions of these regulations. The courts have held that this board must apply a two-step process in evaluating this criteria. First, the board must decide if the subject property is unusual or different from the nature of surrounding properties. Second, if the board does make such a finding, then the board must determine if those unique conditions at the subject property disproportionately impact the property such that practical difficulties arise in complying with the both regulation. Coding the Maryland Court of Special Appeals and Cromwell V. Ward quote unless there is a finding that the properties unique, unusual, or different, the process stops here and the variance is denied without further consideration of practical difficulty or unreasonable hardship." So board members, I will first open it up to you. So our first item of discussion is the criteria, which requires us to make a determination based on the record. Let me just reread the first part. That there are unique conditions, including narrowness or shallowness of a lot or shape, exceptional topography or other existing features, peculiar to the particular lot. So we'll stop with that. That's the first question. So I'll open it up if anybody likes to go first. Okay, in no random order. Let me spoke up. Can I just give my opinion? Yeah, yeah, absolutely, yeah. So I don't think that's a lot as unique in any way. That's my opinion. Okay, is you? So the petitioner argues that the uniqueness is related to the slope of the, his property. So I visited the property twice and I found that there are big, specials relative to the basket port, the basket cord, enough space to build basket cord in other areas. And flat enough to build basket cord in the area other than where they're built. And I don't feel it's unique in that way, comparing to the other properties in that same area. And regarding to the fence, I do not see the land as unique. And we have to keep in mind that the uniqueness should be related to the land, not related to the other circumstances. Just for now, yeah, that's all for me. Okay. Folks. I do concur with what you said. And the only thing that I had a little bit of reservation was because I looked at where there could be another one and it was in the septic area and over the propane tank which I find I don't know a lot about a propane tank but I don't know if I really want a basketball field it's court over a thousand gallon propane tank and that he goes and he builds one because now if we deny this or whatever he can build it anywhere and I'd hate to hit here one day that you know oh guys playing basketball, whole house blows up. You know, that's what I was, that's the only thing that I was thinking about in regards to this. And it doesn't, because the propane tank, it doesn't make it unique, you know, because that was there before, under the law and everything like that. But it was one of the things I kind of paused on. Just it's in a law definition. No, it's not unique. But you know, with consideration of things, it is a little unique. Because other people might not have those certain things under their ground that they cannot or should not really build on. But I know that we're not supposed to consider that, but I do think about it, you know, in my opinion, that's, I just wanted to say that one little thing. Can I add something to you? So yeah, I agree with you. But also, we need to keep in mind that he doesn't have to request for a variance if he put in a mobile basketball whoops, not like a fixed one. So he doesn't have to move the whole court to be able to do that. Well, he doesn't have to move the court at all. He only has to move the hoops. The court is fine. The court is fine. He can play air basketball, you know, pretend there's a hoop and hang on it. And part of that variance also gets noticed because there's a setback because if the world widens, they don't want to, you know, that becomes a hazard. So it'd be clear. And later down when we talked about practical difficulties and hardship, that's part of third criteria talks about, you know, the owner did decree the hardship on and of himself. And I think that's kind of what you kind of alluded to, which in terms of the propane tank and where you place things like, so I just want to make sure I'm getting a sense of where you are. So in terms of this particular criteria as defined in the statute, do you think that there are unique physical conditions, including narrowness, irregularity, or shellness of a lot, exceptional topography, or other peculiar features compared to other properties in the area? And you said that why you felt the verbane was, but where do you stand on that? Well, you know, even though I think that's a peculiarity. I don't know if that is, and where he has it, like I said, it's, I mean, I don't see them widening that road any time soon. You know, because that's the reason for the setback. And I mean, he's like that fence is there, and then it's grass, and then it's the basketball court. It's, you know, right now, really, I don't see a problem, and I do find it a little, a little land, a little peculiar, but not, you know, this, that was my, two cents. That was my two cents, you know, this, that was my, okay. Two cents, that was my two cents, you know. Ms. Harris, thank you. So I did not find any uniqueness to the property. I agree with the other two ladies down there about the uniqueness. And I think as far as the propane, that is something that can be moved. And I don't think he put it there. It was there when he bought it. But it is something that can be relocated and moved if warranted. If warranted. So I, and I thank you for members. I looked to the testimony. I watched the videos again just to make sure I heard everything and reviewed the evidence. There were some maps placed forward in terms of topography and it compared to other properties and I found his property the subject property I should say to generally be consistent with the surrounding properties So I then asked myself if there are any steep slopes wetlands streams specimen trees any constraining environmental features that would make this a unique property and I too wasn't able to find so I would agree with the majority of the board that this property is not unique in any other way. So Mr. Sanders, I have to ask your question now. So it seems like we have a majority of not a unanimous consensus on this first question. So it's my understanding that using Cromwell that we stop deliberating on the rest of the criteria because we found that the property is not unique. Is that correct? That's correct. I mean, first before you get to the other criteria, you've got to find the first. Okay. So you're fine. Okay. So then I should do how would you want to do this? Do you want to? I'll pull the board on the petition for variances and you'll vote grand or deny from your discussion here, voting denial. On the petition of Alejandro Rodriguez for variance to reduce the minimum front yard structure and use setback on lots less than 3 acres in size Well the northern property boundary from 50 feet to 21 feet for a full court bestball court and Variance to reduce minimum side yard accessory structure and use setback on lots less than 3 acres in size On the eastern boundary from 5 feet to 0 feet on the eastern boundary from five feet to zero feet to construct a 12 foot and height board on board fence on the property line and a variance to reduce the minimum rear yard accessory structure and use shut back on lots less than three acres and size on the southern boundary from 10 feet to zero feet to construct a 10 foot and height board on board fence. How do you vote on these variants for requests as stated? I'll start with you, Miss Fierkeh. Deny. Miss Hsu. Deny. Miss Harris. Deny. Miss Phillips. Deny. And chair Ryan. I'm going to be able to do that. Did I? Ms. Phillips? Denied. And Chair Ryan. Denied. So in the matter of B-A-2-3-0-1-2-V, the petitioner's request for variances denied, and this matter is adjourned. Thank you. So we're gonna recess for two minutes, why we get ready to call the next case. Do we have parties for that case here? We have Mr. Gunderson's here, and I don't know if you can see. Is that the via here? Yeah. Sure, if you guys wanna assume the positions, we'll call your case in just a minute after the top. She's going to do a little bit of the same. Thank you. I'm going to go a very good time. I think we're going to have a good time. I think we're going to put it on the top. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to do a little bit of the head. I'm going to put it on the top of the head. I'm going to put it on the top of the head. I'm going to put it on the top of the head. I'm going to put it on the top of the head. I'm going to put it on the top of the head. I'm going to put it on the top of the head. I'm going to put it on the top of the head. I'm going to put it on the top of the head. We're good, Calvassal. Great. And we are back in session and we're going to be calling the case of I I think it's BA 810D, right? That would be it. Yes. Okay, BA 10D. Before we start, I just want to very briefly give a couple notes. I see both parties are here. Mr. Sanders is going to call the case in one second. We have one pro-say litigant here. So I just want to quickly go over some ground rules. So, a fishing board of appeals proceedings ensure appropriate evidence may be conveniently brought forth. It is responsibility of all parties to review, understanding, apply with the Howard County Board of Appeal, rules of procedure, prior to hearing. The board may exclude material or unduly repetitious testimony in evidence and may limit the number of witnesses or testimony when cumulative in nature. Questioning shall be brief, pertain only to witness statements, and should not be proceeded by statements or speeches. Question shall be in a regulatory nature, and shall not be argumentative, nor make illusions about the personality or motives of a witness. To that end, Mr. Sanders, if you could please call the case. Yes, Mr. Chair. Point of matter, B-A please call the case. Yes, Mr. Chair. Point the matter of BAA-10D, and that is captioned in the matter of the appeal of Dr. Sarovia at Al from case BAA-8060. The Howard County Board of Appeals is convening tonight to hear the petition of Randy Mariner, who is appealing to Howard County hearing examiners, May 28, 2024, order, denying a motion to quash FOD by Randy Mariner and VA 806D. VA 806D is a pending administrative appeal petition before the Harakenny hearing examiner filed by Sarah Viet El who appealed the Department of Planning and Zoning's November 20th 2023 decision Not to issue notices the violation in response to a zoning complaint alleging the business conducted on the site called Manor Hill Brewery located at 4411 Manor Lane, Ellicott City, Maryland. In the RCEE, the EO, Rural Residential Density Exchange, Overlay Zoning District, violated the Howard County Zoning Regulations and two use permits issue pursuant to the Howard County Zoning Regulations. In this appeal, Mr. Mariner has certified to compliance with the notice and post-traumatic requirements of the Harrow County Code. We now inquire as to each board member if you've had viewed the subject properties required by the zoning regulations of Harrow County and I'll start with you Ms. Harris. I have. Thank you. Ms. Phillips. I have. Thank you. Ms. Phillips. I have. Ms. Shoe. I have. Ms. Fear-Called. Yes. Thank you. And Chair Ryan. Yes, I have. Thank you all. This case is a denovo appeal and is being conducted in accordance with section 2.210 subsection A of the board's rules of procedure, which normally placed the burden of proof on the appellant to show that the action taken by the administrative agency was clearly erroneous and or arbitrary, capricious and or contrary to law. The Harcunny Code, the Harcunny Charter, the Harcunny's any regulations, the Harcunny subdivision land development regulations, the General Plan for Harcunny, the General Plan of Highways, and the petition that submitted by Randy Mariner, as well as the Board of Appeals file and BA806D, the hearing examiner file, are incorporated into the record by reference. I will note for the record that Randy Mariners represented by Eric W. Gunderson, S. Quire, and this appeal before the Board of Appeals. I also know for the record we have Sarah Vaya, who is here. I assume an opposition, and I don't know if we've other other people have signed up as well, Mr. Chair. And I don't have any other preliminary matters at this time, Mr. Chair, unless the board members do. So, initially, or earlier, I would have worked well and had questions regarding the situation. So sorry. I yell people all the time for not having a microphone on and here I am not having mine on. So, I'll just repeat that. So normally, we hear cases that are the product of a final decision in order. In this case, this comes to us in my experience as a first. It's the appeal of a decision by the hearing examiner mid case. So naturally, inquisitive about jurisdiction and what your thoughts on. So what I'd like to do is give each side, say, five minutes at the sound to perhaps give oral arguments on why they believe this is the proper jurisdiction and I'll let you go first, Mr. Gunnerson. Thank you. So it's my understanding and it will be our position that the decision denying the motion of quash is final as to Mr. Mariner. It's certainly not final as to the rest of the underlying appeal, but it is final as to him. There's no reversing if he's commanded to appear, the hearing, there's no reversing his right to then appear it because to appeal. So we would submit its finalist to him and it's a matter that then is permitted to be appealed to this board pursuant to the board of appeals rules. Okay. Miss Fia, any thoughts? I am not. Oh, is your microphone on? I'm sorry. Yes, sir. I am not a lawyer, but what Mr. Gunderson said makes perfect sense to me. It does seem that the hearing examiner's opinion was final on the subpoena. We subpoenaed Mr. Mariner. He didn't want to come and he appealed the hearing examiner's decision. So it seems like both parties are agreement that this is the proper jurisdiction. Does any other member have any thoughts or any other preliminary matters they want to raise? I want to raise something. I mean, that's an ongoing appeal and I think that's a contained case. I mean, if you could appeal every decision that a hearing examer makes, I mean, the hearing exam wouldn't get to hear a case. Every decision that they make, he comes to the peel board to peel what the hearing examiner granted. You come to the peel board when the case is not over. That's my question. That seems. So Mr. Gunnerson, I guess we'll have to hear Mr. Sanders. Mr. Gunnerson, I guess we'll have to hear Mr. Sanders. Mr. Gunnerson's position is that while the case is not over, the matter, because his client isn't named in that case, is per se. So the matter regarding his client is final in terms of the order. Yeah, it's final. Every decision they make during that case is final until they get to the end and make a final decision. And then you can, that's something. I just don't, I don't understand how I summoned you to come. You don't, you don't want to come, I guess. You say, you squash it. They look at the information. They say, no, you want to come, I guess. You say you squash it. They look at the information. They say, no, you have to come. Now you can go somewhere else and say, no, I don't have to go. I don't have to do with there. There's having a hearing on this case. And you have a hearing examiner. And it's during the case. It's not after the case. It's during the case. It's not after the case. It's during the case. I just don't see how we are involved in how they handle that case. When that case is over and done, if there's a problem, they come to us and say this. I just I don't see how we are anyway involved in that case. Or any way involved in that they can come to us with this appeal, because the case is not over. It's not, the case is not over. I agree with that. My thoughts are, since there isn't a final decision in order, one of the case we don't have jurisdiction to listen to it, because we're not, that's what we are authorized to listen to, correct? So, let me show you many thoughts. So I heard their argument about this matter is over for this moment. That's why they want to brought this matter to this board. But on the other hand, for me personally, I would like to see the case is finished at the hearing examiner's level, and then they can bring this case to this board, and we can hear the denolo case. Okay. So we'll go around again. We'll try, because I think it's fair, right? So this is kind of unusual. Normally you have a side-deposing. Here you have a board that's opposing. So we'll go again, right? We'll give Mr. Gunnerson, then we'll come back to you. Do you have any thoughts on with the board? Sure. I'll start with the rules procedure of the hearing examiner. And it allows 12.1 appeals to the board that a person agreed by a decision of the hearing examiner may appeal it to the board within 30 days of the issuance of the decision. It doesn't include final decision, although that's implied in these types of procedural rules. But it is certainly final as to my client, the person who's agreed by this particular decision. Secondly, while I understand the preference would be to have the hearing examiner, the whole and the entire case before the hearing examiner final before rendering any review of any of her decisions made during the case, it's impossible to undo this matter for my client if he's forced to appear at that hearing. If he's forced to appear at the hearing, there's no way for us to say, OK, well, we want to now appeal it so he doesn't have to appear. So the whole end, I wasn't prepared with case law, but I know this exists in other contexts where it's a non-party to a matter. They've been subjected to a decision in the case. The decision is final as to them. They've been aggrieved by it and they need to appeal it. Now what we call interlocutory in the middle of the matter, rather than waiting until it's final, because you can't undo what you're forcing that person to do. Can I ask a question? Yes. This Mr. Mariner, who is he? He is an owner of Manor Hill Farm. And to probably clarify on it. So the case, and Mr. Sanders said that, so I'm sorry, is it Sarah Bear, or is that your first and last name? Is it Miss Bear, right? Sarah is my first name. OK, OK, everybody. Why is my last name? By, I apologize. So Miss Bear is appealing a DPZ, not filing, right? So Ms. Vice-Case evolves proving that their decision was arbitrary, capricious, country, and law. So the argument is against DPC, and in doing that, you know, Mr. Mounders brought in, but the case before them is, so that's why Mr. Gunnerson, I'm just restating, but correctly from wrong, either party correctly from wrong. The Mr. Gunnerson saying, listen, the debate here is with DPC, not by client. Yes, my client is the property we're talking about, but she's arguing DPC's decision, not my client. So who's bringing in Mariner? So, Ms. Vivia, would you like to, you didn't have it all right? Yes, I'd like to speak. So, we requested, we, a subpoena for Mr. Mariner to come and answer questions under oath with regards to our appeal that the hearing examiner is, you know, current, well, is dealing with now. So, we stopped in the middle because Mr. Mariner did not want to come and appear. So he has appealed that requirement that he come and appear. So that it is a little confusing because there's a there was a motion to quash from Mr. Gundersen so that Mr. Mariner wouldn't have to obey the subpoena, but that is within an unfinished appeal that the hearing examiner is hearing for residents of Manor Lane. So is that makes sense? It is a little confusing. It's kind of sometimes it's just good to kind of, I mean, I read these things and it just, when you can put like a face and a side and a party, it just, it brings it just kind of together. Okay. I kind of knew the quash quash, now quash, the quash quash, you know, I didn't know that, but it just, sometimes I didn't know, it was hard to follow of who. So I guess that's why Mr. Gunnerson saying like, if you allow, if you, or, you know, if you, if we go this case and, you know, two ways, if we, and, you know, uphold the Spina, then his client is now involved in this case. If we disallow the, and you, if we disallow the Spina, he's not. So if you allow him in, you can't undo that later because he's not a party of the case, supposedly, right? And correct me if I'm wrong at any point. Okay. I'm not arguing. We'll wear another. I'm just stating it. No, there's one thing though that he said, and I would like to, Mr. Gunnerson, the law, it doesn't say final decision. I know. Well, I believe that it is a final decision for Mr. Mariners' subpoena. Yeah, but it didn't say when he read back and I assumed that you did read, you know, you're not going to come here and just make something up, right? That it didn't say final decision. It says if you you can appeal a decision for you from the heron examiner and That's great. Right. Yeah And now we have to see if that is an appealable decision that we can sit here. That's basically, I think what it boils down to. Right, before we even get to the merits of it, whether we should, we have to first decide, can we? And that's jurisdiction. I think you need to look under the Heron Examiner rules also, the form of the decision. That specifically says the hearing examiner's decision is not final until maiden writing and delivered to the clerk. The decision will contain findings of fact, conclusions of law and appropriate order and be signed by the hearing examiner. I think you have to read it. The whole thing. Well, no, that's a different rule. I think you have to read it for the whole thing. Well, no, that's a different rule. But then just the word decision. Yeah. Oh, is that the rest of the part of the rules, the procedure of the hearings? No, but the rule that he read. When you can appeal. When you can appeal, he read says a person grieved by a decision. Yeah. And then their rules also speak grieved by a decision. Yeah. Thank you. And then their rules also speak the form of the decision. And then it says what is a final decision. I guess the part I'm going to tell you is final. Right. Because the hearing examiner rules say final. Well, the hearing examiner did sign off on the denial of the motion. Yeah, that's what I was thinking of. Now So that's what we're trying to see if we can review that. If we're trying to determine if this body has authority to review that decision. And that's kind of, and maybe I'll let Mr. you at a point, I'll meet for a couple of minutes. I have a question. So is this Sabina is to require Mr. Marina to come to the hearing room? Yes, yes, it's to require him to come to the hearing of our appeal so that we can question him under oath. And to provide financial documents, right? Sorry, and to provide financial documents. Yes, they want his financial records too. So this is, we didn't request financial documents. It's business operations. Yeah, that's a finance ed. Yeah, OK. I'd remember that to mean financial, right? Some like written documents from him as well, right? Yeah. So if the here an examiner signed, do we meet all the criteria to listen to the case? That's what we're trying to do. It sounds like we do based on what you just read No, what he just read is that it makes it don't So the question is Our rules right incorrect me if I'm wrong centers and misguiders and our rules say that you can appeal a decision of the hearing examiner. The hearing examiner rules say you can appeal a final decision. So am I writing that? No, am I wrong in that? Just a decision. Didn't even say the final. The hearing examiner rules say a person aggrieved by a decision of the hearing examiner may appeal it to the board within 30 days of the issue and the decision. So they didn't say within 30 days. Okay, I'm just wondering. But when you refer, what is the hearing examiner's decision, that's what I read earlier. It says it becomes final when, and Mr. Grunterson's arguing, it is final to my client, it's not final to the case. But it doesn't even say final in there. It's what it's like, I mean, they make a lot of decisions. I think the rule is written a little... Yeah. Well Well luckily we're going to be looking at that later. So can you read that again for the... How do they divide a disease? Part of it, they divide a disease. The final disease aren't... Yeah, let me call that... Under Article 10 of the hearing examin rules. The hearing examin rules. It's a subtitle's decision. If you go to 10-5 is hearing examiner action. The hearing examiner may grant or deny the petition, grant the petition with modifications or conditions, or in the case of administrative appeal, remand the case to the agency for further proceedings. Rule 10.6, form of decision. The hearing examiner may announce his decision at the conclusion of a hearing or take the matter under advisement for later decision. In either instance, the hearing examiner's decision is not final until made in writing and delivered to the clerk. The decision will contain findings of fact, conclusions of law, and appropriate order, and be signed by the hearing exam. But they keep on saying final. Yeah, but well, so this is my question too, a couple questions, Mr. Anders. One, those are hearing examiner rules and where the board of appeals are the same. And then two is, sorry, you saying that the subpoena issued by and the motion denying to quash is not a final order by hearing that? I mean- I don't think it's a final appeal decision to the board of appeals. I don't think it is a final decision for the board of Appeals. I don't think it is a final decision for the Board of Appeals, but the way that it's written there, it doesn't seem like... It seems like it is a decision. I mean, it is final to its client. That's what he said. He's like, this is my... But the way it says decision, it doesn't say final decision, which would say, then we'd have to wait for the final decision. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I see. You're fine with that means, right, right? You know, it says decision. So it seems like, well, any arbitrary decision that they make, anybody can appeal within 30 days. Well, it does use the word underformer decision is not final. The hearing's average decision is not final until maiden writing and delivered to clerk the decision will contain. You bet it doesn't talk about a final decision. It says they can appeal a decision. It says they can just appeal a decision. They can appeal a decision. Oh right. But then when it's not the point of view. Yeah, but it say the decision is not final but it's not talking about even a final decision. It should be that rule should be a little bit clearer. My thinking is it doesn't say appeal, appeal a decision or other action. In this case, there's no point in that. You know, that where is here, this is. I think it's all came down to. Sorry. Was that even a decision? It's all a decision. Is that a house defined? It's a motion. Is that a decision? Well, it was a motion to, so let's look at it in the context of the case. I'm sorry, Miss Birkhoff. I don't want to step over you. Go ahead. How do we, if this is still going on under the hearing examiner, how can it come before us? That's my question. Well, that's what we're talking about. So if the rule says a decision can be appealed to this board whether it doesn't say final decision Mr Sanders then clarifies it then says that final decision is XYZ But it doesn't say a final decision can be Have we ever in my existence? I've been here. We haven't heard a case that hasn't been I Would agree it's I would agree it's unusual, but Does unusual make it and? I'm just... So... Do we want to set a precedent? Well, I don't know if we want to set a precedent. I mean, just because nobody's done, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. But yeah, the question is, in my mind, just as one of 20% of this group. So it's not like she overruled the motion to allow an exhibit in. We're saying, Sapina, whether we haven't even heard the validity, it might be a great speed in, we might say, yes. This should be granted. But so I'm not going to talk about the Maritou, but what we are saying the consequences are now bringing a party in. He's going to testify in person. He's going to have to bring his financial party in. He's got to testify in person. He's got to bring his financial records in. This is the case between Miss Viya and DpZ And now we're saying so where they spin your records tomorrow I didn't well we didn't go to that. I'm just trying to say like so There are lots of questions here that are significant. I know but we can't even look at that picture at all. It's really is that can you go now say it was some other motion for something else and there was a decision. I mean we decide on motions here. Yeah, yeah. Can someone go appeal every single motion that we make a decision on? No, that's the thing. Circuit Court says final decision in order. We don't have that. This just says a decision of a hearing example. That's what I'm- So we have to apply the rules as they're written today, not as I'm with you. I'm with you, and I get it, and I get it, but I'm like at the same time like because the rules never contemplated, this doesn't mean we can start, you know. But it only says decision, which is very vague. Okay. And then it defines what a final decision, or the decision isn't final until it is signed. Right, but like you said. But then they said they signed this and said he must appear. But forget that person. Yeah, but it doesn't mean save honest in the US for you. So that is not even a part of it. Yeah, so I agree with all of you that the language itself is very vague. So it's up to us to define what decision is. But I think I have a question to ask the board. Do we want to set precedent that every single decision made by the hearing examiners can be appealed to this board and what's the consequence. If we set a precedent and they can use that, for other cases, every single decision made by in the middle of the case, hearing examiners level appeal to us. So that's a very ideal. That is a good argument. The only thing is are we within. Right. So you're absolutely right. I agree with you. And what I want to say is everything we do has to require a finding of fact and conclusion of law. So I'm with you. And I think that, you know, regardless of this outcome, we are about to embark on a rule process where we're going to look at rules and change them. I think we should all be making notes of this might be a rule we need to consider and there is a solution for that in the future which is Adopting a job changing the rule, but the rules that applies today or appears today How do we apply that to this case before us? Because we can address the future consequences of our decision, but how do we justify one way or another our decision tonight? As of today, as how I read the language, I think it's their vague and it's up to us to decide how to define decision. May I speak to the president, something question, or point you raised, which is a good one. If you were to allow this appeal to move forward on the merits, I would submit you're not sitting a precedent that every decision the hearing examiner makes below is immediately appealable, you know, before there's a final decision. I think those chairperson Ryan gave this example or someone else. If the hearing examiner in some preliminary motion denies a request by a party in the case to submit some sort of evidence or something or a witness. That's different than what's here because in that case the party that was agreed by that decision is still the party in the case, they will move forward with the hearing based on whatever ruling that was, and then they have the opportunity to appeal that decision to the board. In this case, we're not a party to the underlying appeal. We're a citizen third party witness that's being brought into the appeal by a subpoena. And the decision, as I've stated, is final as to my client with respect to him being ordered to appear and testify and produce documents at that hearing. And that cannot be undone if he's ordered to appear and produce documents at that hearing. And that cannot be undone if he's ordered to appear and produce documents at the hearing. So if there's no ability to appeal that decision to this board on the grounds that we believe that that decision was contrary to the applicable law, well, on the law we've cited in our motion to caution, which I was submitting to the board here if it addresses the merits. Then if we didn't have that opportunity to appeal that decision, we would never have an opportunity to appeal that type of decision. And perhaps, as I mentioned, I wasn't prepared for this question necessarily with respect to motion sensors. Sorry. That's a good point. It could be the authority. Yeah, last call. I wasn't prepared for this discussion, although it's a very good one, perhaps I should have anticipated it. But it's a very important one. And obviously with the concern over setting a president I completely understand. Perhaps I would suggest that we have an opportunity to submit maybe a written submission of dressing or arguing the standing jurisdiction issue for you to consider. And then if you, whatever you decide on that, obviously we come back and argue the case on the merits if you want to. I don't know if it was your procedure to still hear. We're off the grid on this one, Mr. Gunner,. So we deviated from our scripted procedure a while ago. So I think the board members do have some thoughts on what you just said. And we want to give obviously Ms. Vee, just let me know if you want to chime in. Because this is an ongoing conversation as we literally are debating whether this is jurisdiction. So I think Mr. Gunnerson just I want to reiterate and then throw it back to the board, brings up a really valid point, right? So the case that would be subject to appeal is Ms. Vaya, her first EPZ. So how does Mr. Mayor have a right to appeal? He's not a party to the case. He's not a party to the case, but he, well, he doesn't have, he's right. This is the party. If you're agreed by a decision of hearing's amary, you can appeal. But I'm going to demonstrate you for a notice violation? Well, then I guess you would get the violation. So then you know, you don't get it. No, I would get that. If I can interject, I'm sorry. This actually came up the first time, Dr. Viah. She had an initial, an earlier appeal of DPC's decision. And when Mr. Mayor and her came to us saying, hey, there was a decision that actually re-manned at DPC's non-violation back to DPC. And I told him, well, you're not agreed by that decision, so you can't appeal that decision. And it would be the same in this case if the hearing Samar rules that DPC should issue a violation, Randy Marrayr is not an agreeable person by that decision. So he would not have an ability to appeal that ruling. When DPC might have an ability to appeal that ruling, but not Mr. Marrayr. But wouldn't he then, I mean, wouldn't the violation be on him? Right? So he's in a brief party because DPC he then, I mean, wouldn't the violation be on him? Right? So he's in a brief party because- Well, D.P.C. would then decide, have to make a decision, it's within their discretion based on the hearing examiner's ruling, whether they issue the violation, and whether they, and how, whether and how they enforce it. So what we're talking about is- I think it's a man- So what we're talking about is not if there is violation, he's talking about if it's remanded back to D.P.Z. So we're not talking about he could agree party. We're just saying the decision to remand it back to D.P.Z. Right? Am I hearing you correctly? Even if she orders D.P.Z to issue, or if she finds that there was a zoning violation and directs D.P.Z to issue a citation for a violation. the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the four. I don't think we need to get to, oh they agree with me, I think you have to look at, you know, can we do this? This was an interlocked free order in this case. It was before the final judgment. I know the final is what we're looking at. Now, they know the basis. I have a copy of this. What I understand this to be is it's a sort of nested situation. Mr. Mariner is trying to get a judgment that he doesn't have to come for the subpoena. If we wait until our entire appeal is over, I want Mr. Mariner to come and testify. I don't want to finish the case until Mr. Mariner comes to testify. So the appeal, the large case, can't be settled basically until we deal with whether or not Mr. Mariner has to come to testify. And so, as Mr. Gunderson pointed out, the case for his client is final. The hearing examiner took a look at the motion to quash. She wrote out a decision. She filed it. She signed it. That's final for this part of the case. It has nothing to do with the rest of the case except that it pertains to a witness that we want to come to testify. We will have a comment about whether or not Mr. Mariner is a party or not, but we can deal with that if we consider the merit. I think this little case inside the bigger case is finished. And it seems to me that either you should decide that Mr. Mariner has to come or you should consider his appeal. That's not what we're trying to decide. Still. We're, yeah. We don't know if we are the right party to decide that. Yeah. If this, you can actually bring it here. That's what we're trying to figure out out we haven't heard the merits of the case And everything I understand that but if it if it's not appeal to you to whom would it be? That's exactly Mr. Gunterson saying and that's what I'm trying to think through right now my head so Mr. Sanders so Okay, so hypothetically right that Mr. Mariner is compelled to testify whatever how does aesthetically right that Mr. Mariner is compelled to testify whatever. How does your say Mr. Mariner has standing to appeal that he was even compelled to testify? That just like at circuit court? If the I don't think you need to get there, that's not for you decide is can he appeal that or whatever his rights? Your issue is is this denial of the motion to quash, the order signed by the hearing examiner, can you entertain that right now, even though that case is still... Well, nobody will ever entertain it based on that. You're saying you don't have to consider his rights or nobody will ever entertain that. No, no, no. He's gonna have to come to testify if he comes to the hearings, Amner, and according to the Pena, and if he's under oath, then he's going to be questioned, then he's going to turn, he's going to object and the relevancy and things like. I don't know what it's going to be. Yeah, so we have no idea. And I just want to make sure, because you're our legal advisor. So I can understand that hypothetically, I could name anybody in a party. Anybody in a case that if I get the hearing examiner and say, here's a speaker, you have to become party to a case now. You have to produce records of testify, even though it's had nothing to do with you. Your argument with DPC. It's got to be a proffer in order to get this. No, no, no, no, no. you've got to say the relevance, and why you want this person's subpoena. But that's what they're arguing, there isn't relevance. That's what we're not going to hear. But in your case, the hearing examiner is not going to prove that. If the witness is not the rep, if the people they subpoena are not irrelevant, the hearing examiner is not going to prove that. Well, that's exactly what they're arguing. That's what they want us to roll. He's saying she made a mistake. He's not relevant. That's one saying you cannot just name a random person. But no, no, you're assuming she was right. And that's what he's saying. She was wrong. So who do I peel this to? Okay. The hearings and there we have to trust they are not going to subpoena a random person right so he is related no he's not random but he's not a random person yeah he's not stranger right so you're you're assumed that they can like name a random person so you're not related to the case at all no no I'm not saying that really you're you're arguing with dpz and somebody, and you're trying to prove a DPC man mistake. And so I wanna bring you in because I believe you're relevant. And hearing examiner says, you know what, you weren't part of this case, but I'm bringing you in and I'm just devil's advocate. And you need to produce these financial records. You need to come and testify. No, it's an actual record. Yeah. No, no, no Yeah. They just said no finesse. No finesse. You know, it's not. It's not business operation, doesn't it? No. No. No activities. Business activities. What kind of activity is that? No finesse. No. It's nothing. What I think you're extrapolating. So what's it say? What's it say? Okay. We use of the property. The agricultural nature of the events held under the agritourism permit, whether they're still planned to renovate an existing barn as an event space and to build a new agritourism center and what is currently used as a pasture. That was for testimony on that. Second to produce the flowing documents. Documents supporting the statement in Mr. Mariners' letter of September 25th, 23 to DPC asserting that forming is the primary activity at Manor Hill. Yep. Copies of any permits granted for additional renovation and new buildings at Manor Hill. A full list of activities by date of public and private held under the agritourism permit at Manor Hill during 2022 and 2023. So let me explain myself. When I was on the liquor board, we determined primary liquor sales versus food sales by receipts, and that determined stipulation job. How do you determine primary farming by receipts? How are you going to determine what primary activity is? So regardless, it's not a poor. But by point, that's how I got to banking and records. That's not even possible. But to make it a matter, I mean... So what are we going to do, Board? Are we even going to hear this? Or are we not going to hear this? Okay, so what's the finding of fact? Why do we not think that what legal press and do we have not to hear it? Because Mr. Gunnerson says, here's the statute says decision. So I'm not against you or for you. I'm just saying, we need somebody to say, I don't want to hear that, that doesn't work. We need to be able to defend this decision. So what is the defense of it legally? What in the code says we do not have to hear this? Well, I think that it is very, the code is arbitrary and capricious. And needs some revision but as it stands today and as I read it I think we have to hear this case. That's my opinion. So when you sit. When you say the case now you just come back to subpoena issue. The sub are you just talking about the subpoena issue? Yes, just subpoena issue. Just subpoena. That's our case. In front of us, the F, everything stems from the initial appeal in this case, which is the non-issue and some notice of violation. Yeah, we're not, we're just hearing the subpoena. Was the issuance of a subpoena arbitrary capricious and contrary law. So they'll have to explain how it was consistent with law, right? And then that's why you're standing at the Berth. But that's the only thing. But if you look at our standard on the 210A, it says arbitrary precisions of the decision of the administrative agency. That's the burden of proof and appeal to the day that it won't take. The Ministry of Agency being the hearing board. DPC. So then what is hearing? The hearing is under the hearing board. But you can appeal a decision of the hearing examiner, but then another role says only in a mystery being seen. What? It's just a standard of review. Yeah, for denovopeal here is right here. Look at it. So we go to this case. Okay, the notice of violation. Let's say the hearing examiner rendered a decision. Then it's appealed to us. Yeah. We you ignore the hearing examiner's decision. You go back to right. When you're hearing. I've got approved a DpZ act. Right. So what you just cited though, it says the first part says an appeal of an administrative agency's issuance of notice violation. We're not hearing that appeal. We're in there. We're not doing that. Right, we're not. We're hearing just the speed under B. Under B is appeals on the burner proof. I see burn proof one and two appeals administrative agency. And then in all of the two know if appeals the bird proof is apparently to show that the action taken by administrative agency was clearly clear. Okay, I see clearly erroneous. So but it's always saying an emergency agency. Right. That's like DPC or right. Right, right. So what you're saying is that the hair and exam we don't even listen to what the hair and examiner said we started a new case on just the original case. But now we're here on what the hearing examiner said, which we should never be here on what the she made ruling. She denied emotion. Yeah, okay. So they're saying we we're appealing that decision right away. You yeah, I see. I say without the case being completed. I see. I see. Oh man, it's really great. It's not that Yeah, I see. I see. I see. I see. I see. Oh, man, it's really great. It's not. That's not really great, but we. I don't think it's great at all. That's not great. That's very. So, so just show. So, okay. But the only thing is. So here an example for them to appeal, but where do they appeal that that because it's not to us. We don't, Mr. Mayor can't appeal that he was pulled into the case. Yeah. We were in a court of law. But he can, he doesn't even have, I mean, you say he's agreed, what, because he had a appear in case. I don't know. Is that agreed? The decision was made in a court of law. It's a, it's a, they can't stop an injection against the speed. No All right, maybe where I worked so yeah, so mr. Senators I have a question for you so later if if the say the the hearing examiners made their final decision and this case came in front of us Can we if by any of parties the request? Can we also order subpoena? Oh, Can we also order a subpoena? Oh, yes. We can order a subpoena and have a witness required to work in the issue of subpoena for a witness. So if we order a subpoena, can we appeal? If board appeals, order a subpoena. I mean, someone might want to go to court and take some sort of action to redress something but no they they now after the board does their final decision and that gets appealed they can raise that issue saying the board was wrong and issuing a subpoena where the board was writing you know that can be brought on to the show of the year, like, or I understand if we make the final decision for the case, they can go to circuit court, right? But for the for the Sapina order from us, can they go to the circuit court? Say, no, I don't think so. I have a question. Why is that? So. Because that's interlocked through. That's not a decision on the case, a final decision on the actual case. But why can they, Sapina? Why can they bring this to us from the hearings and their decision? To me, it's a letter. They just letter it. But you said we do. If we decide we have jurisdiction to hear this case, then potentially they can, if we order a subpoena, they can take it to the circuit court saying, hey, oh, you say, oh, I see you. If we, if we, if we, subpoena, so if we say we're going to hear this, then you're saying, Dr. V, I could go to the circuit, as I know you don't have or somebody could go and go and build that decision. Each party. Good point. Yeah. That's a good point. We're subject to appeal too. Well, they can do it. Yeah. It appeal appeal appeal. So we need to be very, very careful. Yeah, I agree. Of what? That's why we're studying. When we said, whatever we say, we have to be based along. Right. But it seems like we can hear. Here they can appeal the decision, but it doesn't seem like we can really we have no grounds to to gauge it. What do you mean? They can appeal that decision. What? Who is they? Okay. Mr. Benson. Yeah. Can appeal the decision of not appearing of the subpoena that was issued. To who? Appeal to. Mariner. A appeal to who though. That's the problem. It doesn't really. That's no. Yeah, but I'm just saying it seems like you can appeal it, but we don't have the criteria to listen to the appeal. It doesn't seem like from from you know, we're talking about the jurisdiction. Well, it doesn't say what how we can judge if it's what there's nothing for us to judge it on. May I may I speak? Yeah. It was my understanding that when Mr. Gunderson and I appeared here this evening that we would argue the merits of whether or not Mr. Mariners should be required to come. I'm sorry I didn't hear you. You're Michael. So this is a decision of the hearing examiner on a tiny issue within another issue, she signed off on it as she would have for any other decision and Mr. Mariners lawyer decided to appeal it. It would be, it doesn't seem any different than any other decision of the hearing examiner to me. If you want to decide not to hear it and compel Mr. Mariners to come anyway, that's okay with us. So, yes. So, either we hear it or we don't hear it. Unfortunately, we can't, like say, we're not going to hear it and you have to, like, so that's either we hear the case and we take argument and we make a decision or we take no position at all. Yeah, that's kind of where we are. Yeah. Yeah. And I think we're at the what? Okay, so I think we've got round and round for a little bit about this. I'll give a party, I don't know if you have any less thoughts before the board will kind of bring us to a close and kind of get a thought. Any less? I think the question is right, the issue you need to decide or you're trying to decide, I think the answer I would answer in the affirmative is there was an interlocatory decision, that's a decision that's not a final decision, it's one that's made in the middle of a case, there was an interlocatory decision, question is whether that interlocatory decision is appealable to the board in this administrative hearing process. We submit that it is the decision was, and there's certain factors as to when certain interlocutor or decisions are appealable under the law. And one of those situations is when that decision is final to a particular party or non-party, it is finalized to us. And therefore, I believe this board has the authority and the jurisdiction to hear an appeal of an interlocutor or a decision of the hearing examiner regarding the denial of motion of motion to watch. So Mr. Sanders, not to quit on the spot here. So I know there's some deep legal analysis, but so Mr. Gunnerson, it contains that certain interlocutor repeals are subject to appeal before this board, and your position is what? My position is a denial of emotion, a cautious subpoena is not immediately appealable to the board of appeals. That was good. What's up for you to decide? There are a couple things. I mean, under the subpoena rule, it doesn't say anything about you can appeal that action. The rules do say you can appeal the decision, but it doesn't say your or other action. This is definitely an interlocutory appeal. I mean, there's four things you must meet for under the collateral order, Dr. Ann, and that's in court. This is, this isn't even in court. This is administrative body to another administrative body. The hearing of examiner to the... Well, wait, wait. So, wait. So, you're saying that we're an administrative body? Because then... Yeah. ...two- 210 does apply. You said the hearings ember is not administrative. I mean, we're not administrative agency. We're administrative body. We're two different things. OK. Yeah, so but yeah, OK, OK, OK. We're really hearing it. Yeah, yeah. I know I was hearing that one. So yeah. So but our, we are quasi-judge, and our, the reason we, right, so we are subject to circuit court review, so, but I hear you. So board members, and we'll go around here and try to get a sense of where everybody is, and I just would ask that we try to articulate some legal basis. I mean I hear Mr. Sanders said I'm just trying to find somewhere in the code where do we cite the code and where it says no you can't do it because of this. What? Um, we can do it. Any decision? Yeah, but I don't know. A decision of the hearing's hammer. This is a decision of the hearings, Amher. This is a decision of the hearings, Amher. He's arguing it's final. Nobody disagrees with that. Nobody disagrees. This is final to his client. Nobody's. But how do we make our decision on this? It doesn't. Well, arbitrary, precinct, contrary to law. So we'd have to look, was the decision adhering to them, or is should not quash it or issue whatever, our trick for each country to law, and that we'd have to analyze. But before we can get them, we have to say, can we even do that analysis? So I'm one voice, I'm going to step back, but I've been devil's advocate in this argument, so you know, I just, I haven't necessarily felt one way or another, but I want to propose that, you know, I don't think we should. Yeah. I can say that I do not have any real, not enough knowledge of the law to be able to make that kind of offering, but I believe that this is not the place or time to hear this. It should be, it should, it should go back to the hearing room or I think. Mr. So, I feel this is more complicated than we anticipated, right? To fully understand those legal terms and what final decision is, we truly need to study the handbook, the rules of hearings and the understanding of what final decision is defined by the laws. So just to use my common sense knowledge, I, again, I don't want to set up president to hear some decisions in the middle of a case from hearing examiners, and potentially they also can bring our decision in the middle to the circuit court. And that will just unnecessarily create some more complicated issues in the middle of the hearing. That's my position. And to be clear, no matter what we do tonight, it can be appeal because the decision, right? So no matter what decision we do, it's subject to a certain court appeal because the board of appeals, right? We'll give a decision in order in this matter and that is subject to. So that's why I keep on saying, we need to cite the law for an end do this because we might just do an order depending what the board does. We don't have to support that order. No, there's not, there might not be any findings of fact or conclusions. It depends on what your ruling is. Right. And I want to understand that. So in order to deny here in case we don't have to justify why we did that. You could do an order saying that you don't, this was not a possible decision. And we don't support that. No. Oh, I didn't know that. I mean, we've never done that. I don't know. Well, we've found orders to smithing cases for standing and things like that. But sometimes there's evidence present it other times there's not. OK. I mean, here it sounds like if you went forward, you're going to just hear oral argument on this issue? I don't know. It's... I don't know. So I thought it was going to be a simple case too. I'm like, oh, well, here whether it was arm-trick, or it's got your own law, make a decision, and move on. But... I mean, I don't even know. I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. There are other appellants in this case. I mean, are you speaking for everybody or just? I spoke first for 16 families. Are there any other families involved in this appeal? No, just Mr. Mayor. No, just Mr. Mayor. This appeal? No, no, I mean the original 806. Yeah, they are. Yeah, there are 16 families involved in the large appeal. And we asked for a subpoena from Mr. Mariner. And he doesn't want to come. No, no, we get that. We'll try to figure out. So the parties to the subpoena are, Dr. Wright, right? Just you. Yeah. I think the rule is written a little vague and that I think we can hear this decision. I think we can hear it. That's my opinion. So my thought is your mic on. My thought is if we don't hear it and we decide it's not something we can hear, does he have the right to take it to a circuit court so he does get hurt somewhere? Is my question. I would assume he does. I can't speculate what is going to happen or who can do what or I just have no idea. And I know we're setting the presidents, but because of the vagueness, well, if we decide to hear we're setting the presidents. I mean, they need to rewrite the law so it's clear. Well, they are us, but we will do it. Yeah, but anyway. So that is the... But in this unique circumstance, I think that's what Mr. Gunners said. Yeah, I tend to agree that this is the only opportunity that he has in order to appeal the decision. And if we deny it, then what's his next step? That's my thought. OK. So I think we Okay. So I'm not being here. To not to hear. Mr. Ryan. So I, so boy. So now I know I Mr. Hunt was like, yeah, I do not like this. So, so that's the funny thing. So I'm thinking, you know, so do we have the jurisdiction and I'm like, okay, it's a decision by understand Mr.. So I'm thinking, so do we have the jurisdiction? And I'm like, OK, it's a decision by Ernst Sanders saying, and I strongly support his guidance and legal input. But then we have two parties opposing that say, no, we want to be heard tonight in front of you. I'm like, wait, we're the only ones here. We don't want to hear it. So if we're, because I don't see a clear leal, so right there is, like you said, there are certain criteria, the four conditions Mr. Center talked about, that you can hear in your laboratory appeal, right? Whether that's met or not, that's at a much higher level, and that they can appeal later if they want. But if we don't hear this, I think, hey, that, you know, both of it. OK. Talk out loud. So I will agree that we should hear this case thing. We're almost home. We are almost home. So we're going to move forward. So with that said, so you and who else say we should go forward? Ms. Harris and Ms. Phelps. Okay. Okay. So now we'll pick up where we appreciate your patience. And I hope you know that I'll just add this that it's while it may seem like it's exhaustive, it's all in the nature of giving you a due process. You know, right, we want the community to be heard, we want you to feel like you heard and be heard. And so because if I was where you are, I'd want to be heard. So I hope you know that. So while it may seem extraneous, I apologize for that. So moving on. So because this is unique, Mr. Gunnerson, I'm just going to ask that you just spend a little bit of time expanding upon the scope and standards that you want us to consider in terms of the limited narrow because this isn't normally we consider a whole case. This is a very limited issue. So let me get to our order in which we're going to do things here. Choo-oh. do things here. Two or nine right Mr. Sanders? Two ten. Two ten. I know it's going to be a little I know this is not Rolling procedure. Yeah, I don't know how we're proceeding here just oral argument Well, what I mean they can do narrative miss miss what's her name did it the whole time she stood up there and talked at us for three days I mean they can testify in the narrative right now for three days now for three days Don't we're gonna make that really clear so yeah, so we're gonna hear the case so In the order presentation will we'll give the opening statements. We kind of did that, but we're going to give opening statements. So Mr. Gunnerson, if you'd like, we'll say three minutes, or eight, or one, so eight, or four. If you want to give it opening statement in your case. Sure. As sort of you and others, maybe an Mr. St. Anderson alluded to, I have no submissions to submit other than what's in the record. There's in the record as I understand it is this hearing examiner is ordered denying our motion to quash. Our motion to quash and Dr. Vias opposition to that. the quash, our motion to quash, and Dr. Vahez's opposition to that. I do the preliminary, preliminary, want to point out that I believe when I filed our petition, we inadvertently left out the subpoena, which is exhibit A to our motion to quash. So it's a preliminary matter, that should be. Yeah, we have that. Yeah, that's in the record. So I'm prepared to simply move forward with the summation of the argument. I don't really need to give an opening. OK, yeah, it's very unusual. So I'm trying to follow along. It'll be all in the one. Yeah, so you just want to talk real quickly. So, about the burden that you, like, armatured, capricious, country, law, right, that you're, yes. Okay. I don't want to put words in your mouth. I'll let you do your thing. Dr. Baya. And it's Dr. Correct. I heard somebody refer to Dr. Baya. Yes, it is. And I have a few slides to show you so that you can follow along with my arguments. Okay. If Cal can show those, that would be terrific. So what we'll do then is if it's a right to be because you're just, I guess, going to rub, but yeah, okay. So I'm sorry. He's not going to put any case on. Okay. He's just going to, right? You're just going to, you're going to, yeah. So what we'll do, Dr. Buyers, we'll have you as the witness. And then it sounds like it's working for me if I'm wrong. I'm just going to understand you're just going to cross down the witness about anything, right? Is that how you're going to? I don't intend to do that. But she can. So I guess this is where Mr. is. Well, it's probably the easiest thing. If he's submitting on what he has filed, she can make to Y, wants a subpoena. Yes, that's correct. And then the board can say, the subpoena was OK or not, I guess. Well, let me be clear. I have a lot of argument I would like to present on the material submitted. I don't have additional. Oh, no, no, yeah, yeah. So let me back it up then. Yes, so if you'd like to do that argument, that'd be great, so we can hear your case. Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry. So let's sort of start from the beginning and if I know this is reiterating some of what has been stated but just so we're on the same page. So this is an appeal by Mr. Mayor of a decision that hearing examiner Catherine Taylor made denying Mr. Mariner's motion to quash a subpoena issued by Dr. Vaya in an underlying appeal of a DPC's decision in a zoning matter. We would submit that the hearing examiner's decision denying the motion of quash was contrary to the ethical law, and we're asking the board to reverse her ruling and quash the subpoena. Now her subpoena should be quash, Dr. Vius subpoena should be quashed for two reasons. One, the information that she is seeking to attempt to elicit for Mr. Maranner is simply irrelevant to the hearing examiner's review of DPC's decision and I'll get into that further. Two, what Dr. Vaya is actually attempting to do here by way of subpoenaing Mr. Manner to testify is really an attempt to usurp DPC's exclusive authority to investigate complaints of alleged zoning violations and to conduct her own investigation of her own complaint. And I will get into that further as well. So first, let me address the issue regarding the information she is seeking and why we submit that it's irrelevant to the hearing examiner's review of DPC's decision. Where DPC has conducted an investigation and found no violation, the review of DPC's decision is limited to determining whether there is substantial evidence in DPC's record to support its findings and conclusions. So the review of the decision is centered around DPC's record, meaning those facts and evidence that DPC gathered in the course of its investigation and which it relied upon in rendering its findings and conclusions. This standard of review of DPC's decision, this limited standard that focuses on its record, was recognized and affirmed by Ms. Taylor, the hearing examiner, in the initial, in Dr. Vias' initial appeal. And I cite her recitation of that standard in my motion to quash. She cited, she went through and gave a recitation of this legal standard that she is to apply to DPC's decision. And this is what she stated. I'm citing, I'm not going to read all of it, but I'm pointing out particular citations she made to that standard, the entire summation of what she said, the standard that she recited is in my motion, but I'm pointing out particular parts here. She cited the judicial decisions that state that a court's role, in this case, a hearing examiner's role, in reviewing a decision of an administrative agency, in this case, DPC, it's to determine whether there is substantial evidence in the agency record as a whole to support the agency's factual findings and conclusions. She went on to state that in applying this substantial evidence test, we defer to the agency's assessment of witness credibility, resolution of conflicting evidence, and inferences drawn from the evidence. She then cited the case law that states that her role is, quote, limited to determining if there is substantial evidence in the record, in this case, DPC's record, to support DPC's findings and conclusions. So clearly, the focus is on what evidence and facts did DPC gather in the course of its investigation, and was its decision when it relied on those findings and facts supported by those findings and facts. In my motion, I go on to cite additional case law that this review, limited review of an agency's decision, does not allow a petitioner to attempt to present new facts or new evidence at a hearing, reviewing that decision. And I cite it in my motion, and I'm citing it in here, the decision inventor versus Board of Ed. And this is what the court held regarding the role, in this case it was the court, in our case it's the hearing examiner. The role is limited to determining if there is substantial evidence in the administrative record as a whole to support the agency's findings and conclusions. Quote, the presentation of new evidence is inconsistent with the narrow scope of review of agency agency decisions. The court then concluded accordingly the focal point for review should be the administrative record already in existence not some new record made initially in the reviewing court. In this case it would be in the reviewing body which is the hearing examiners and the appeal before the hearing examiner. So what we are submitting is that the review of DPC's decision is limited, so the hearing examiner's review of that decision is limited to the facts and evidence already in existence in the agency's own record. And allowing the presentation of new evidence at the hearing before the hearing examiner is contrary to that narrow scope of review that the hearing examiner is required to abide by. The same scope of review that Dr., I'm sorry, that Miss Taylor, to hear you examine this case, cited and was relying upon, okay. What Dr. Vaya is attempting to do, however, is to elicit facts and evidence from Mr. Mayor outside of DPC's record, outside of what DPC had gathered in the course of its investigation, and we would submit that that's not permitted. That's irrelevant, because the focus is on what did DPC know and what facts that they gather in the course of their investigation, and was their decision supported by those facts. For that reason alone, we would submit that the motion should be quashed. It's seeking irrelevant information. But secondly, as I mentioned, what Dr. Vaya is attempting to do here by way of subpoenaing Mr. Mariner is really a attempt, a blame attempt, to usurp DPC's exclusive role to investigate alleged zoning violations. Okay? And she's attempting to use this appeal process as a way to conduct her own investigation of her own complaint. The only entity that's granted authority to investigate zoning violations is the Department of Planning and Zoning. If a citizen, after it submits a zoning violation complaint to DPC, wishes to challenge DPC's decision, he or she can certainly do that. But they should not be permitted to then use that appellate process to in effect conduct their own investigation of the zoning matter. Again, it's an appeal of DPC's decision. It's not a way for the citizen to then conduct their own investigation of the matter. And this is exactly what Dr. Vaya is attempting to do by issuing this subpoena to Mr. Mariner. In fact, she admits that this is what she is issuing this subpoena for. In her opposition to our motion to quash, which is in the record, she states, quote, although DPC has twice claimed there are no zoning violations at Manor Hill. Manor Hill, their investigations have been perfunctory at best. Thus, the need to investigate has fallen to us. That's what she's citing as the support for issuing this appena. She has stated, she believes that DPC's investigation was deficient. She needs to conduct her own investigation. That's not what this appeal process is for. She states, because DPC has been unwilling to adequately investigate our allegations or address our questions we need to address our questions to Mr. Mariner himself. And she goes on to make it clear that she wishes to make personally make Mr. Mariner the target of her investigation. She states, quote, as the cause of this disruption, Mr. Mariner has a responsibility to face our questions about activities at Manor Hill. Well, he actually does not have a responsibility to face her questions. DPC has a responsibility at the appeal and hearing to face her questions about what it discovered regarding the alleged zoning violations and what the basis was of their investigation and what the basis of where there's decision, DPC has to respond to her questions, but not Mr. Mayor. The appeal process should not be abused in this way to allow for petitioner to conduct their own investigation and interrogation of someone who is not a party to the underlying appeal. Because Dr. Vaya, by her own statements, makes it clear that by subpoenaing Mr. Manor, she is trying to conduct her own investigation By subpoenaing Mr. Manor, she is trying to conduct her own investigation, as to what she believes to be zoning violations. Something with her solely and exclusively within the authority of DPC, her subpoena should be quashed. I would like to add that if this sort of subpoena is permitted, it will open the door to the possibility of other citizens filing zoning complaints who are dissatisfied with DPC's investigation to then abuse the appeal process. By appealing a no violation decision in order to then issue subpoenas to county citizens and businesses as a means of conducting their own investigation of the alleged zoning violation. This should not be allowed. The board should not allow this door to be open to this kind of abuse of the appeal process. Again, the only entity that's authorized to conduct investigations of a complaint is DPC and it should remain that way. So for all these reasons we would ask the board to reverse the hearing examiner's order, denies Mr. Mariners' motion to quash, and we would order that the subtyner be quash. I'm happy to answer any questions or at the conclusion of that. I can tell me I should give her these. I'm going to go. Do you, do you, do you solemnly promise to speak truthfully in the testimony you're about to give? Yes. Is your microphone on the green light? Yes, I do. Okay, great. Please state your name, please state your name and address for the record. Sarah Viah 4811 Manor Lane. Great. So I as I mentioned previously I have some slides to show which Kelle is going to show. Sure really quick. Just really quick. Has Mr. Gunnerson seen them? Yes he's received them. Okay do you have any objections? No. Okay. So she Kelle suggested that'll just stand at the microphone. They can't hear anything. Say otherwise. I understand. Yeah. I only have four copies. So I apologize. No, I see. So we are going to, for the purposes of marking the evidence, so mark the whole packet as one is that we want to do. OK. So mark this as opposition one, I guess, right? Opposition one, right. Okay. Okay. So, can you just briefly, before you begin, just qualify, just briefly tell us where it is, and you know, before you get into describing it. Where what is? What is your exhibit? Briefly describe what it is, does. Well, Kell is going to show the slides as soon as she gets. No, we have to, so we're entering the evidence. You just have to tell us. Oh, yes. Those are slides which describe my response to Mr. Gunderson. Okay. Yes. Well, that will work. Okay. So what you see on the first slide there is our request to subpoena Mr. Mariner, and I want to give you a tiny bit of information as to why it is we wanted to subpoena mr. Mariner and I want to give you a tiny bit of information as to why it is we wanted to subpoena mr. Mariner first of all I'm this folks person for 16 families on Manor Lane and I don't know if any of you have visited Manor Lane I guess you said you visited the the Manor Lane is very narrow, it's very quiet. Many of the residents on Manor Lane have lived there for 35 to 40 years. Two of the residents have lived there their entire lives. It has been a very, very quiet and peaceful road until Mr. Mariner opened Manor Hill Brewery in 2015. And although he promised the neighbors that the brewery would not disrupt life on Manor Hill Brewery in 2015. And although he promised the neighbors that the brewery would not disrupt life on Manor Lane, that has not been the case. And what you can see there, Manor Lane, then, there is nothing on the road, Manor Lane, now, on the average weekend day, there are over 1,100 cars that come to visit. I don't want to cut you off, but I do want to give you leeway because you're pro say, but what I want to want to what we want to hear this case is very narrow and we want to hear we are going right there. Yep, let me just finish. So, so what we want to hear is how this subpoena supports DPC, acted arbitrary contrary, capricious and contrary to law. So I'll give you leeway. I just want to like because I didn I'm not sure if you're going to be affected, arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. So I'll give you a leeway. I just wanted to like, because I didn't know if you were going to go about the whole thing. Absolutely. Next slide. Can you show that full screen? Next slide. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, sorry. If you could go back, thank you, the second slide. So I want to give a brief background to the two DPC inspections, which they held in 2022 and 2023. Both of their investigations, and that's in quotes because the investigations were really, as you will hear, extremely cursory. And they're both deeply flawed. The first inspection, DPC requested Mr. Mariners comments on our zoning violation complaint. And they really solicited no additional evidence except for Mr. Mariners comments. They accepted Mr. Mariners comments as fact and used those as the primary evidence to reject our zoning violation complaint. The hearing examiner supported our appeal and chastised DPC in the decision and order for a shoddy investigation. She said no questions were asked to determine if the activities actually being conducted on the property are in fact accessory to a farming activity or whether the activities actually being conducted on the property are in fact accessory to a farming activity or whether the activities themselves have turned the property into a brewery and entertainment venue which has now become the primary use. Next slide. The second inspection, DPC again requested comments from Mr. Mariner. Again, took his assertion of compliance as fact and again used the information from Mr. Mariner as their primary evidence to reject our complaint. They gathered no additional evidence and they did not make any effort to corroborate Mr. Mariner's statements. Next slide. They solicited a comments from Mr. Mariner and one of the questions they asked in this solicitation is whether the farm stand, the agritourism activities and the brewery are in fact accessory to the primary activity of farming and comply with the definitions of accessory use. So you realize that accessory use has to have a primary use and the primary use must be farming. Mr. Mariners reply was the primary use of Manor Hill Farm is farming. The farming activities include crop production, apeeries which consist of three honey beehives, horticulture and animal and poultry husbandry. Less than 10% of the farmland is used for accessory uses. Our evidence suggests that this statement is misleading and the last sentence is demonstrably untrue. More than 50% of the property is used for the accessory uses. The farming activities described by Mr. Mariner, craft production, nine acres of corn, rented to someone else, three honey beehives, a horticulture limited to a small garden. Animal husbandry, animal husbandry to me means breeding of animals. There's no breeding of animals there. They have 15 chickens and three pygmy goats. So next slide, please. To continue, Mr. Mayor and I was asked to comment on this question, whether the accessory uses on the site's remain in combination, secondary, incidental, and subordinate to the principal use under Section 104, etc. Mr. Mariner answered as follows. As an ALLP farm, I think he meanservation Program, as an ALLP farm, the primary use of manor hill farm is farming. Farming is permitted use as a matter of right, per section, et cetera, and therefore is subject to section 106, et cetera, accessory uses. The accessory uses at manor hill farm are farm stands, farm breweries, and agritourism enterprise. I did not see in this answer any actual response to the question as to whether or not these accessory uses are in combination secondary incidental and subordinate. He simply read from the zoning rules. Okay, next slide please. So the purpose of our subpoena in two separate investigations of zoning violations Edmann or Hill, the primary information that DPC used to evaluate compliance came from the owner of the property being investigated. Now, I think most reasonable people would understand that if you want to get investigate evidence of possible wrongdoing, one does not rely solely upon the person who is involved in the situation being investigated. It's a nice way of saying it. So, next slide, please. So, Mr. Gunderson is correct. We are investigating ourselves because DPC's investigation were really shams. And this is after the hearing examiner basically suggested that they needed to conduct an actual investigation. They did not follow any of the suggestions of the hearing examiner in her decision in order. They just went ahead and did what they had done before. So we feel that in order to be able to understand whether the so-called accessory uses are really accessory, we need to be able to obtain sworn testimony from Mr. Mariner himself about the farming operation at Manor Hill, the extent of it. His assertion that farming is the primary use and the nature of the events held under the agritourism permit. The picture to the right is what known as a hops yard, hops grow on vines that are held up on wires between these large posts. Mr. Mariner was supposed to grow hops as a primary ingredient used in the beer, but he was unable to grow them. And so basically turned it into a picnic area. Next slide, please. Our response is to Mr. Gundersen's claims in the motion to quash. Mr. Mariner is a non-party witness. Well that's not exactly true. It is true that Mr. Mariner is not part of DPC and he was not one of the people, one of the parties from Marenor Lane. But Mr. Marenor's comments were solicited by DPC and they are part of the record. So to me that indicates that Mr. Marenor is already deeply involved in this case. B, the information we seek is irrelevant to the appeal. This is untrue. Mr. Mariners' comments were used without corroboration to reject our zoning violation complaints. C, Mr. Gunderson suggests we are attempting to introduce new evidence. This is untrue. We will question Mr. Mariner under oath about assertions he has already made to DPC. We are not introducing any new evidence here. Next slide please. So in some, the activities at Manor Hill have seriously degraded the ability of the other families on Manor Lane to enjoy our properties. Mr. Mariner is fully responsible for the decisions made at Manor Hill and for the adverse impacts on the neighbors. Next. DPC has not adequately investigated our zoning violation complaints, relying on critically unclaims of compliance made by the owner of the very property named in the complaint. Next. complaint. Next, the farm brewery, the farm stand and agritourism and manor hill are permitted, that is they've received their permits as accessory uses, but there is little evidence of enough farming to be qualified as the required primary use. Next slide. DPC has abdicated its investigative responsibility. And this is twice after they were chastised by the hearing examiner. And that leaves it to us to obtain the required information from the property owner under oath. I do not believe that this qualifies, as what Mr. Gunderson said, as a sort of capricious attempt to bring someone in to give testimony who is uninvolved and that this would open the door to just basically sub-suppeening, sending us a peanut to anyone who's not involved in a case. I think there's absolute evidence that Mr. Mariner has already contributed an outsized amount of influence on this case. His comments are in the record and he has been relied upon as the primary source of evidence such as it is by DPC. So this is why we feel that we need to get Mr. Mariner here to answer questions and provide information under oath. He was not under oath when he wrote those comments for DPC and he could simply have just said anything. So in order to actually acquire the information that's needed to know whether the accessory uses are being engaged upon legally, we need to gather additional information. This is all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. So what we'll do is Mr. Gunnison, if you have any cross examination. Do you have any cross examination? I don't have any. I'm going to argue. Okay, so what we'll do is we'll first let the board ask any questions of witness. I'm sorry. Board. Anybody? I have a question. You want Mr. Mariner to be under oath to answer the questions that he's already submitted. Was that submitted in writing? What was that? Asked by the DPC? He submitted comments in writing. And we already know that quite a bit of what he said in these comments is not true. So he was not under oath when he wrote those comments. He just wrote them. And so we feel that he should be willing to come. If he has nothing to hide, he should be willing to come and speak to us. I would like to say one more thing. In fact, part of what the hearing examiner said in her decision and order is as she expressed sort of incredulity that DPC did not actually ask other people, did not do an investigation, did not look into public records to find out any information. She said that asking the property owner to speak on these topics seems like a reasonable request. She basically said that in decision order. And to refuse to comment. That's good. You'll get more questions. And you'll get a chance to summarize. Sorry. No worries. Any other questions on the board? Yes, miss you. So other than asking, those have a hard time hearing all of you. Sure. Those have a hard time hearing all of you. Sure. So, other than providing those written questions to Ms. Mariner and that he answered those in written format, what other investigation did the DVC do? No, I'm not aware of. So they just basically just give him this written questions and he returned with a response and that's it. Yes, in the first investigation, they simply asked him to provide comments on our zoning violation complaint. In the second one, they apparently gave him a set of questions because what I received was questions with his responses written after. And I showed you two of those. So what is the APC's like standard procedure? If you do do not know that's okay. I'm just I just would like to Okay It just seems to me it's very interesting the way they investigate did Did they visit the farm in person? They did have an inspector visit the farm. The first time she visited on a day when the farm was closed, so there was nothing happening. The second time she visited, she arrived ten minutes after it opened at noon on Sunday and stayed for 20 minutes. And the hearing examiner's comment was that was less than minimal. Okay. That's all the questions from me for now. Thank you. You have more members? I'll just work up. So first thank you. You were very succinct. That was, you did great. So based on the evidence we have that I've heard, right? And it sounds like you have the peel before you or they peel that that is ongoing with the hearing examiner is that you're trying to prove that DPC acted arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law. And it is that you're trying to prove that DPC acted arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law. And it sounds like you're well in your way to doing that, based solely on what I'm hearing now, right? But what we're being asked to consider is if this subpoena helps you prove that. And so what I'm wondering is, and you don't have to answer this, but why would you not see the records from DPC? Why to see what they didn't have? Because let me just explain my rationale to you. If they had a record that said he said this, but we could prove he did X, well, that would prove your point, that he lied. So that's my first thing. The second thing is, so this is where I'm really stuck, where we have very little leeway and I apologize if you can't hear me, where the law is very clear. The only entity that is allowed to investigate a zoning violation in Howard County is the Department of Planning zoning. They're the only people that could do it. To say otherwise would be contrary to law. And so while I think you have a valid argument in terms of the DPC investigation, I don't think anybody here does agree with you. The question is, how does calling Mr. Mariner up help you inspect the information DPCP.Z. had in the records at the time. And what you just testified to when I wrote down was Mr. Gunderson is correct, we have to investigate this ourselves and that is directly contrary to how we're counting law. And that is where I have a problem. So if you want to speak to that maybe because I'm not disagreeing with that you're frustrated and that DPC's not done a good job. But if you want to maybe speak to that. Well, the hearing examiner did grant the subpoena and she did deny the motion to quash. So she feels that the information that Mr. Mariner would be able to transmit is, in fact, useful and valuable. I'm not trying to do DPC's job. Trust me. If they had done their job, I would have saved me a lot of time. However, I think you have to understand that our neighborhood has been completely degraded. And I haven't even touched on some of the problems with what's going on at Manor Hill, including the fact that the activities do not qualify as agritourism, that he's selling liquor without a license essentially. I hear you and that's why and I think you have a great case for the head and front of the hearing's hammer. That's just my personal opinion based on what you're telling me. I think you have a great case in front of the hearing's hammer but we're here to decide about the subpoena. So our decision year doesn't impact whether you prevail with the hearing's hammer right right? We're just talking about I understand that yeah, okay So I thank you for that. May I just make one more comment? Yeah, we are only trying to determine whether the information He has already offered is true right so we are not asking for additional information We're really not doing I mean if I if I said we have to do the investigation information. We're really not doing, I mean, if I said we have to do the investigation, we have to find out if it's true. But the burden is to prove if D.P.Z. knew it was false. How does this prove that? No, no, I know I'm with you. I'm just saying that's from a legal perspective because if we gave you a decision, even though I'm like they have such a good case and we feel for them, it would be reversed in a second in the court because you can't do that. The law says only DPZ can investigate. So that's why I'm saying, how does this support whether DPZ knew it was false or not? I can't imagine they didn't know it was false. Are they going to admit that to me? No. Yeah, that's why they just peanut their records just by being but Well, they don't have any records. Yeah, the only thing evidence they collected was from mr. Mariner that seems Yeah clear It is inadequate. Okay, so is our only opt I mean we have been we have been struggling with this for over two years and it has wrecked our neighborhood. So are we to just say well DPC's in component and there's nothing we can do about it so too bad let's just let everybody who has the money and wants to you whatever they want, let them do it. That doesn't seem like the Howard County way to me. I hate to have to confess that my county would do that. No, I appreciate that. And I am empathetic. The hearing is in the record and just so you know, I did watch every minute of it. So I know exactly what you're talking about. That's why I appreciate you being so succinct because I've watched it. So I've heard your testimony and I've seen everything that's happened. But and we may be called to hear the DPC issue, right? The denovopeal of the hearing examiner's decision should go a certain way. But right now we're only being asked to decide on this subpoena. So that's what you know, so the bigger, you're right, we may talk about, but the subpoena is what we're trying to figure out now. Any other questions from the board members for this witness? I would like to say the purpose he put in the comments is true. This is not investigation. That's odd. So actually that's directly contrary to the subpoena. It says they are, they said they're doing their own Investigation it's in the written request was subpoena and they have to be the DPC or not burner So that's why the burn is is on DPC their they're appealing DPC not murder So they have to prove that DPC knew he was being dishonest. And therefore they acted contrary to law. To prove it now would be after the fact in a relevant. So the subpoena itself is just simply require Mr. Marinard to be in the court under oath. Whether you call the investigation or not, we can argue about that. But the subpoena itself is simply put Mr. Mariner under oath. Because otherwise I heard that he can just simply say whatever he wants to say. And when I look at the comment, there's no evidence provided, as simply just a statement or his opinion. Right. And we haven't heard the case. That's not our case to hear. So I watched the video, and there's a lot more to it. But I'm not going to comment on it, because if you watch the video, there's a lot more that the zoning officer talked about. But we're not hearing that. We're just hearing. I'm not even talking about the case itself. I'm just saying, when you look at the comments here, it's his opinion. So whether it's a true opinion or not, it's, we don't know, right? But the DPC know, that's the question. How does DPC know? Exactly. How does DPC know? Exactly. So good DPC record. Because that's why I asked her whether DPC did everything else, anything else. And it's her opinion that the DPC didn't do anything else. Although they're asking the question on the side for 20 minutes. So I don't think the DPC knows exactly what happened. And so they rely on the comments or statements from Mr. Mariner. Whether it's true or not, that is questionable. And when you put that person under oath truth as far as he understands. So the subpoena itself, I don't think it's a new investigation of evidence. Okay. I think it was asked and answered. So yeah. So because now we're like, we're so off the rails on this one. So I think you had a rebuttal, right, that you wanted to. I do. Yeah. And let me, excuse me, let me start with that last point. The subpoena, as we've noted, asks Mr. Mariner to come in and testify to certain matters and produce documents as certain matters. Whatever information she elicits from Mr. Mariner at the hearing would be outside of what the agency had considered at the time it rendered a decision, therefore it's irrelevant to whether that decision was appropriate or not. That's the whole point of our argument. The focus is on the agency's record, the fax and evidence are gathered, and was this decision supported by those fax and evidence. Whatever information Mr. Mayor and Mike testified to at the hearing would be outside of that record, and therefore it's irrelevant to the DPC's decision. The recourse she has, if she believes that the D.P.C.'s investigation wasn't appropriate, is to ask the hearing examiner to demand it to conduct further investigations that would be appropriate. And I admit, the hearing examiner did that initially. The hearing has, but the recourse isn't to allow a citizen to conduct their own investigation at a hearing to get the evidence she thinks or the information she thinks the hearing examiner should hear. The recourse is to ask the hearing examiner to remand it back to DPC, the only entity who's authorized to conduct inspections and investigations and have them do it again and do it better. So let me try to understand this. So they, my understanding is they, they remand the first time, right? So what was the specific order, the hearing examiner put there for the first time when they remained. And do you know what the order was when they remained first time? In her order, she stated certain issues or facts that she wanted DPZ to further investigate and reach conclusions about. I don't remember exactly if Dr. Viper probably remembers exactly what they are. DPC will say and has, I don't know where this, where the hearing is at this point, but DPC will say that they, because they issued another finding in no violation that they did that investigation and they still found no violation. And she has now appealed that decision. But I don't know the specifics about what she asked DPC to do. My point is if she's still dissatisfied or believes the investigation wasn't sufficient, the recourses to ask the hearings and were to go back and investigate further and not rely on Mr. Mann or statements that he gave to you, but go investigate other, whether try to substantiate his statements from with other sources, for example. Yeah, I heard your point. Thank you. So, I think any, anything further further because I think that the board wants a I think we're at the point where you guys presented your cases any other questions for them because I think we're ready to kind of talk about ourselves for our next steps. Well I think Miss Zou is point that that my use of the word investigate was misplaced. She suggested that we're just trying to find out whether Mr. Marinor was telling the truth. As you pointed out, the hearing examiner laid out a lot of things that she, I mean, she was amazed that the first investigation was so minimal. And she laid out what DPC should have done. They didn't do it. So, you know, I suspect that if we don't compel, if you don't compel Mr. Mayor to come to the hearing, she will simply decide in our favor again. And then what do we decide to try for number three with DPC? You know, we really do want you to investigate this time, so please want you to investigate. I mean, this could be an endless loop. I'm a busy person, I've spent way too much time on this. And I have to tell you that it really hurts me that my county is behaving in this way. DPC was, we did subpoena the head of DPC to come in. And she was determined not to answer any questions whatsoever about the process or anything. She didn't know what she didn't know about it. She wasn't her problem, et cetera. And I can't tell you about disturbing, I find that. I mean, there's supposed to be a process, but that process is broken. Thank you. So I agree. So we'll conclude the public portion of this. And I think we'll move on to the deliberation. Well, let me first ask the board. Well, so we'll conclude the public portion. Let me first ask the board members. I don't, but I'm gonna let the consensus decide. Do we think we need written somebody's from people here? I think it's pretty now. Yeah, okay. I just want to. Okay. Why don't throw it out there or a group? Okay. So, so just to recap, matter before us is So, just to recap, matter before us is when the hearing examiner issued her subpoena or granted the subpoena and refused to quash it, was that action, arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. So, that is it. That is the – just whatever decision we make, that is the impact it will have on that one issue. So I think the better way to phrase it would be, if you're treating this as a dinevopeal, you're reviewing the motion to quash to subpoena by Mariner and the opposition there too. Okay. And, right. Okay. So I will open it up to the board. Well, I'll say my two cents. One, it's an action that has taken place and they want to come in and ask them the questions because they don't believe what was written. And I think that's two bites of the same apple. He wrote his response, DPC has their questions that they ask. If they want different questions asked, you need to have DPC ask different questions for whatever violation you're seeking. It's not for her to conduct her investigation, to bring in someone who didn't get a violation, it's not a party and now you want him to answer, like he's on trial almost. When he's not on trial and he shouldn't be on trial, they asked him some questions, he wrote it down. It's in writing. So if you find him lying, it's in writing. It's not, it's not, he didn't, you know, it was written. I think by him, he answered the questions. I don't see why he would come in and tell a different story. He just wrote that. That would be ridiculous for him to do something like that. It's, you know, just because you don't believe what he wrote, it's what he wrote and, you know, we take it as, just like when we come and you swear in here, I mean we take what you say as the truth. If he's going to put it on a paper on a formal document for DPC, you kind of have to just take it as truth. You can't say, well, he didn't write, they didn't ask him enough questions. change the thing but I don't think his going there is for any purpose because if it's just to not do anything any new evidence and answer the questions that were already asked and answered. Okay that's a lot. Okay other board members. I think it's more of a process. Mike. It seems to be more of a process in how they investigate and not Mr. Mariners problem. So are they processing and investigating the same for everyone is the question. And if that is what they're doing then he should be held to different standards. Regardless, it standards regardless it seems like it might be a broken process that needs to be repaired. So when I read the P.C.s questions I'm very frustrated. That's not how you do investigation. And I feel the pan of your neighbors in Dalton via and your neighbors. that the subpoena itself to have Mr. Marina to appear in the hearing will help the case. My suggestion would be that request the hearing seminar to order the DPC to ask specific questions that you can investigate deeper. I think that is the right way of getting this thing So I agree with Ms. Ju and my colleagues. Based on what we've heard today, I think you have a very strong case for DPCs, Investigation being lackluster. We'll call it insufficient. That's better. We'll call it insufficient. So playing devil's advocate, which I've been trying to do all night, right? You try to play both sides of an argument. Hypothetically, this board says, okay, we're not going to quash the spina. Mr. Maddener has to testify. Play it out. Mr. Maddener testifies. You get this incriminating. We'll call it information. It does not prove the D.B.Z. acted arbitrary, capricious, country law because that information came after the fact. You still lose the case, even with that. So now you could then hypothetically say, oh, well D.B.Z. look, he testified under oath and he said this. Okay. And I think that's what we're really trying to do here and whether you call it investigation or not. I get it. I get your frustration. And I think Mizzou is dead on. The hearings have the right to remand it and has the ability to remand it. And I sense your frustration. I've personally been in similar spots and I have experienced that frustration. And when government doesn't serve the people the way it's supposed to. But I don't know. And I'm not, let me say this, I'm not sure that Mr. Manner is or isn't telling the truth. What I'm trying to figure out is how do you get what you're trying to get in this, which is you want to get action on this DPC complaint and you feel like you're getting stonewalls. That's what I'm hearing. But we can't consider that. We have to consider was the issuance of a subpoena consistent with the law. And that's where I struggle with. Even if we gave it to them, even if we were to argue and I'm really, I don't know how we support that, but even if we argue it, it doesn't do anything. You still can't prove that DPC had that knowledge, even if you do improve in PGM. So they found out that they're hearing, it doesn't change the outcome. They still acted consistent with the knowledge they had at the time, where that knowledge was sufficient. I think we would agree, probably not. So I think the right way is the question you're asking are the right questions? You know that you want documents produced things like that but I think the right way to do it in conformity with the law is to have the hearing examiner issue that order to DPC and have DPC obtain it for you. It's so bad they have to micromanage it but that's my opinion that that is the right way to do it. Because otherwise, as Mr. Gunerson said, citizens just start saying, well, DPC, you did it wrong. And so now I'm going to do it. And then, you know, this person did it wrong. No, government has to be held accountable to do their job. And it's very miserable that you're being put to this to, to, to, to do this. But I think that is the way that meets the requirements of the law, that the hearing examiner is well within her authority to order or DPC to do certain things. And that's what she needs to do. Well, she did order them to do those things. She can. And they did not do it. Yeah. And I want to hear from you about, unfortunately, we can't. It's in deliberation. So even though I'm speaking to you, I know, but we're delivering. So with that said, I think the board has, let's say, anybody has any more thoughts on it. I think so the motion before us is, how was the motion before us, Mr. Senors? On the motion to quash the the peanut filed by Randy Mariner on March 5th 2024 and the opposition to the motion to quash filed by Sarah via a March 15 2024. So we're being asked to consider if the motion to quash the right okay so either granted tonight okay the board members do you feel like you're ready to weigh in on that? So if we grant it, that means we uphold the examinal. There's no subpoena. Correct. Oh, we granted there's no subpoena. Okay, I misunderstood that. Yeah, it's a motion to quash the subpoena. Okay, so granting the motion to quash or denying it got it. Okay So everybody feel like we'll have mr. Sanders. I guess call it then yeah All right on the motion to quash the subpoena followed by Randy Mariner and March 5th 2024 how do you vote on that and I'll start with you? We're member of Fear Call. Deny. Board member of shoe. Grant. Board member of Phillips. Grant. Board member Harris. Grant. And Board Member Ryan. Grant. So the motion of Quashtra is granted and this hearing is concluded. Thank you. Thank you.