This meeting is being recorded. All right, good evening, everybody. It is approximately 533 on the evening of the 18th of March. And we are here on the appeal, B-A-813-D, which is an administrative appeal by Aiden and Sarah Morrell with regards to the DPC closeout decision letter of zoning complaint CE-24-107. Mr. Kiel, you are representing the appellants here? So it's your case. That is correct. My understanding before we get into this is that we have a preliminary matter from Mr. Cole that we should probably handle before we start. All right, Mr. Cole, you're the floor. Yes, thank you, Mr. Gail. Thank you, Madam Hearing's Amhert. Tom Cole on behalf of the Interested Party, WR Grace. This is more of a clarification question, but also to the extent that the clarification isn't what I hope, I would like a preliminary ruling. The appeal petition that the hearing examiner has no doubt had an opportunity to review begins with the petition stating that it is an appeal of the no violation letter dated September 13th, 2024. However, the petition and the supplement with the petition goes on to reference a permitted use confirmation issued by DPC on September 21st, 2023, almost two years ago. And that pertains to the air permit that has been putatively submitted into the record and the like. This is an appeal of a no violation letter of the existing uses that were on the site as of September 13th, 2024. This cannot be an appeal of a letter from 2023. The rules under the hearing examiner and the Howard County Code state that an appeal of administrative action must be within 30 days of the date of that administrative decision or action. We're obviously far past and the appeal petition was far past a September 21, 2023 date. So as a preliminary matter, I'm either seeking a clarification from council that they're limiting this appeal to the no violation letter of 2024, September 13, 2024, or a ruling from the hearing examiner that this appeal shall be limited to that letter and not pertain to a permitted use confirmation from 2023. All right, Mr. Guil. Interestingly not actually what I thought it was going to argue about. I think that the first actual appeal here came, not appeal, the complaint letter came from her name escapes me. I'm sorry. Let me find her letter. Let's see this painfully. in this panel. Nana at a day, that's it. Nana at a day filed this initial complaint in 866 2024. After this, there was the more formal appeal to challenge the DPC's determination from Sarah and Aiden. The letter in question, and I don't know exactly how you want to handle this, was them asking whether or not there was a violation of the use category once they learned about it. And my understanding from the notice that they had about this is that they found out when they found out that there was going to be such a series of permits to the development, they moved forward with that and they did so within 30 days of moving forward with that. And I recently dealt with this question down in Annapolis with regards to whether or not a 30-day window of appeal moves from the time which a person has constructed or actual notice of a particular document. At that time, they determined that the challenging question was based on the time that a person would have reasonably understood that there was a development moving forward and a particular decision to be made. It's curious here with regards to 23 versus 24 exactly how the zoning hearing examiner would determine what constitutes the actual determination of a use. I believe we have one, two, three, four, exhibit eight is the September 6, 2023 letter. We believe that the appeal was properly taken at the time that people learned about it, that they understood that there was a decision being made as to what the use was here and they took it within 30 days there. So I'm not directly addressing the 2023 letter, although I expected to talk about it briefly, but that's my general response to that. And Madam Hearing's Aminard, the United Parcel Service, the People's Council for Baltimore county case directly on point here, actually addressed the point that Mr. Guil just raised that it is not when someone becomes aware of an action. Rather, the 30-day appellate deadline is a time for appeal provision and not a statute of limitations. There was exactly the same circumstance where there was a subsequent letter that the petitioners were trying to appeal in that case, referencing a prior approval and the court found that that did not reignite the 30 days. And so, if a pepillence, and it's also important to note the scope of a no violation letter, which is that an inspector from the Department of Planning and Zoning comes out to the site, reviews the site, says there are no violations, and what Mr. Guille is attempting to put into play, which is a prospective use of the site, which can be appealed any number of ways later in the process, including this air permit itself. But that decision by the Department of Planning and Zoning from 2023, WR Grace had a reason to believe that they could rely upon that being settled 30 days after that was issued. And there is no principle of law, much less a reversal of United Parcel Service, be people's council for Baltimore County, that would suggest that a subsequent no violation letter implicated that permitted use letter from two years ago. My response to the case laws, Kim versus Comptroller, the Treasury, is 350 MD527 1998, where they explicitly talked about this and whether or not there was original or apologize jurisdiction with the guards to a particular claim and whether or not a person could move forward with that claim based on the information available to them once it became available to them. And that is not a land use decision. I mean, this is about a property owner being able to go on with the use of their property. But Madam here, examine, you don't need to look any further than the appeal petition itself. The appeal petition itself references the no violation letter. It does not reference a 2023 permitted use confirmation. That is not a proper scope for this appeal. DPC going out and saying everything is in order, they are not in violation of the zoning regulations at present is a completely different appeal than whether or not some use in the future might be permitted. If some use in the future is not permitted, then petitioners can ask again for an inspection and if the use is ongoing at that time say it's not permitted, but this is a use that is not ongoing at present. And so DPC inspecting the property wouldn't be able to say yay or nay if the use is a violation of the zoning regulations. I have one other thing to add that I don't think that I said regarding the letter. The letter as I read it, I understood them to say that there was no need for a new conditional use application. Which letter? To September 6, 2023 letter. That, well, technically it wasn't, it was September 21, 2023. September 6 was an eternal letter from Grace, but the September 21, 2023, which would be exhibit 7, that said that there was no conditional use application issue, no zoning violation issue. We do have a general statement with regards to conditional use applications, although we're not really making the argument that a conditional use application necessarily needed to be applied to here, more that the use in question is non-conforming and that the non-conformity determination was improperly made, which I don't think fully, partially, was determined by the letter submit in September 21, 2023, assuming that we had a hypothetical circumstance where people were aware of the letter and could react accordingly. The letter in question, of course, was sent specifically to WR Grace into the Grace into the M.D.E. as opposed to being some sort of determination to neighboring homeowners. Madam hearing's amid. This is the letter. This is what's being appealed. It is one page and this is not a motion to dismiss on my part. And Mr. Gil can argue the nonconforming use issue, it's rather a matter of a perspective use and the fact that this was a 2023 determination that was not appealed within 30 days. All right. First of all, I'm having a great difficulty with the documents. I'm sorry, ma'am. And the tabs were not numbered. No, I didn't know if we would need to number them in advance or not. Right. Okay, but that's okay. So I need to go through these documents a little bit. Okay. So we have the petition, the administrative appeal, submitted on 11th, 10th. All right, in 24. Yes, 10-11. You have the signatures. You have the background, the argument. Then you have the DPC zoning complaint response, which is dated September 13, 2024. Well, if I may, I'll assist you for a moment, some of the documents that are in that exhibit zero, they're not really, they don't need to be an exhibit under the rules of procedure, I just provided them there, but the individual documents are also attached with their own tabulated tabs. So that first one was the entire combined appeal packet and the next five are the various conditional use applications that were previously applied for this out. So if we were going on to tab number seven, that's the letter that we're talking about. And I did leave a blank page between all of them to write down a number because I didn't know if we were going to get into questions of what number an exhibit should be or not. So I apologize for that number in advance. I just thought I might be striking out numbers What number am I going to? Seven. Okay, my number seven is a September 21st letter. Yes. Okay. That's the letter we're discussing. All right. So what is the relevance of this letter? This is the letter being appealed from? No. No. We are appealing the determination that there was no nonconforming use violation later on. There it is factually connected in the general sense as to what was going on at the property. But to me, that letter makes the determination fundamentally that they didn't find any zoning violation with regards to, you know, any sort of like person submitting a complaint, something like that. And they didn't find that there was a determination that a new conditional use petition would need to be applied for. And I'm sorry. Sorry. I understand. That's not what this document is saying. Okay. What? This document is with regards to the air permit. That's our argument, Madam Hearing Examiner, that and I want to be clear, like we are here prepared to argue many of the things that Mr. Guil just described. If Mr. Guil wants to claim that a non-conform use should be in place today, we can argue that. If he wants to argue that a special exception permit should be in place today, we can argue that. But this September 21st, 2023 letter relates to is a prospective use that was submitted to the Maryland Department of the Environment. I do not think anything related to that permit application is relevant here. Because when DPC wrote the September 13th, 2024 letter, they were talking about current uses on the property. That's what a no violation letter is. And so that is what I want to make sure this appeal is constrained to and not a letter that was issued almost two years ago. I- I- I- I- I- I might be able to agree with Mr. Cole here because I think I understand this position a little bit better. We're not challenging any approval of a permit. We're not challenging any components within that permit. We're not challenging the air permit. Yes, we're not challenging any allegations that there was a previous zoning violation or complaint or that somebody was doing something incorrectly with the use at the time. Our argument fundamentally is that what existed at the site was a non-conforming use. And that the- Existed when? In 23? As of 2024, as of 2023 and up to 2014 is when the new regulations were in place that would have changed these own to, once again, disallow the R&D use that it was previously allowed by right for a period of time, which is a bit of a curious legal argument that I don't know needs to be discussed at this particular moment to determine the scope of this appeal. But our argument is that when we asked for a determination that what was being done here. And I said, you were just one second. So you were arguing that as of September 13, 2024, the property was a nonconforming use and not certified? That it was a nonconforming use, not that it was not certified, but that the proposal for the new pilot plant that they were going to put there would be different in kind than the previously existing use and would have required a nonconforming use analysis. And that is where Mr. Gail and I diverge because the inspection that resulted in the 2024 letter, which we acknowledge was timely appealed and is appropriately before you now, that inspection was for ongoing current uses. It was not an inspection related to prospective uses. That is not how no violation letters are issued. And so long as we're limited to the four corners of this September 13th, 2024 letter, I think it is appropriately before the hearing examiner. If it relates to a 2023 letter about a prospective use, the hearing examiner doesn't have jurisdiction because it was not appealed in the timely manner. Well, if it's a perspective use, then we wouldn't be able to challenge it either way, I guess what he's trying to say is because we can't challenge a perspective nonconforming use that's going to arise. The installation has been partially constructed, but it has not gummed online yet. There's still regulatory compliance to go through. So they've installed some components of this as to whether or not what they've installed is, it creates a new, not conforming use. I guess Mr. Cole is arguing that it hasn't yet and that I can't challenge that. I think the scope of our appeal is proper and so far as they're trying to construct this. They've put in several elements of that construction. It is clear that they are doing so for a specific purpose and we are alleging that the use that they are proposing to put in there would be violent. Perhaps his argument is that it's not ripe yet for appeal and we wouldn't be able to challenge it until the plant comes online at which point we need to challenge it promptly. The argument, yes. I just think it was difficult. Mr. Gail, where is the complaint that Mrs. Adass... That is at a... Nana Ataday. That is in the original first exhibit. Okay. It's an attachment to the first exhibit. And here I am and where is it? Yes. Where you back here. That would be six pages back from the end of exhibit one. There will be a list of signatures and then there will be her letter submitted on 8 6 20 24, which was the initial complaint to the zoning inspector. Okay. I have this. I have the signatures. Okay, so her complaint Which is so light that you can't read it You're gonna have to read it to me because it's not Nature of of complaint, research and development as by use is permitted as a matter of right was deleted from the section 116 PEC in the zoning regulations in the comprehensive zoning effective August 2014. Based on permitting data obtained from MDE, WR Grace engaged in the use prohibited into 2014, section 16 PEC zoning regulation. They are currently conducting a pilot scale scientific chemical research facility under MDE permit 0270013A issued 2019, which is using the facility for prohibited use. And that is incompatible with the adjacent neighborhoods 76 meters from the furthermore. WR Grace has adopted another air permit from MDE to burn plastic in building 30, which will have carcinogenic emissions that are existing for the existing, I don't, combined you, sorry, see supplemental narrative. And then she has a supplemental narrative where she says, illegally performing engineering and scientific research. That's basically a reiteration of the first portion. That's not the exact complaint that we have here. That was her initial complaint to the zoning inspector. Our formal one was shortly after. So where's the formal one? That's the very beginning of Exit one. Oh, the petition. Yeah, the petition. Which simply says that you're appealing the. The investigation for the letter, it did not address the nonconforming use file rates restrictions. Or the use has changed to another nonconforming use. I guess as to the. So your petition addresses the issue with regards to non-conforming use. And Madam Hearing's am, or what? We're ultimately here to determine as whether or not DPC's letter of September 13th, 2024 was clearly erroneous arbitrary and capricious or contraer to law. And so much that letter says next to nothing. Well, it says that there were no zoning violations. That's about all it says, right? It doesn't say why. There's no analysis, right? We'll be dealing with that if we get past this preliminary threshold. Well, again, we're not seeking to dismiss the appeal. We're just trying to have the scope of appeal conform to your jurisdiction for a review of an administrative action. Okay, so it's difficult for me because conceptually, I agree with him. I just feel like what I'm arguing is something that he might contend is actually related to the 2023 letter, whereas I feel the 2023 letter being an internal letter to MDE is not something that is – that a neighbor would be asking forward with regards to DPC analysis. And that whether – what they are saying to MDE at that time is you guys can move forward with your permit. We currently don't see any issue on our end. Everything is good to go. And the MDE moves forward with its permit. And we have the permit in there as a full exhibit, but substantively, the question isn't really tied to the MDE permit or any violations there. We're clearly not challenging the permit issue in Swords contents before you. What we're really fundamentally challenging is whether or not this determination had properly analyzed whether or not a non-conforming use existed or I guess mutatively was imminently about to exist at this property because I think we could agree that the pilot planning question has not come fully online. So there is a question, I guess, as to rightness of whether or not this is yet to be an extension of the nonconforming use that we would allege is improper. But I think it's clear for everybody involved that it's planned to exist. They're going through the whole process of it. They know what's going to be there, they've installed components into building number 30 that are related to that, and we know that they're not going to suddenly change course and turn it into a recreational facility. So it's a use that I guess might not be currently existing, but is imminently extant. And that is our objection. I think we're mostly on the same page. It's the about to exist because DPC, when it issued this letter that is subject to the appeal, was not evaluating about to exist. And to Mr. Guill's point that this would never be able to be appealed, that is not the case. If the same inspection. I'm sorry. I'm not saying it could never be appealed. Okay. But that this anticipated action would not be subject to some other appeal I disagree with. It is what happened on site. If you came to any of our houses right now and DPC reviewed it and said you're following all the setbacks, all the uses you have on the site are legal, no violation. That no violation notice would not take into account what you might do tomorrow. It says as of today there are no violations. It's all asking for in terms of the scope of this appeal. That it be what is going on right now on the site. Mr. Ville can argue all of the things he described in terms of the non-conform use. I don't want to spend a lot of time talking about a perspective use that wasn't on the site as of September 13th, 2024. All right. That's okay. Thank you very much, though. Mr. Cole, I'm going to deny your motion to limit the appeal at this time. Okay. And subsequent, no, please don't. a subsequent decision in order might go that direction, but at this time I'm going to let in all of the information. Understood. Okay, thank you. All right. Okay. You have the floor again. So as a preliminary matter, understanding what your current ruling is, I would hopefully speed up the process a little bit since where now at 6. Understanding the hearing examiner's determination, Mr. Col, is there anything that we have submitted as an exhibit that you would object to on the grounds of relevance beyond what you have just argued? I will object as it comes out. Okay. Then I will introduce exhibits as they come up. And first I will present our opening statements and then I'll go through the exhibits. So what we're fundamentally challenging here in this development is actually I think rather simple. And I think you touched upon it yourself. It's whether or not DPC in reviewing a zoning violation acted arbitrarily, arbitrarily, capriciously or otherwise contrary to the law. And we argue broadly that they were going to be they were going to be violative by virtue of the substance of the use. But we also argue more narrowly, and it could certainly be a relief of remand, that they didn't really go forward with an analysis at all. That the analysis that they had was pro forma, that they issued it a few days after they got a letter from the WR grace that said, everything's good on our end. They didn't conduct any sort of inspections. They didn't talk to any neighboring homeowners. They didn't make any determinations with any sort of documentation. They just said, this is in deviolation, we're good to go. And I think this office has recently made determinations several times over that it does not pass muster, that there needs to be something more robust than that. So at that very minimum threshold, which we'll talk about towards the end of this, we would request remand at the very least for DPC to conduct the morth thorough analysis and determine whether or not the use on the site, which setting aside arguments of whether or not it is fully in place or partially in place, is a use that at least the documents will show is planned to come forward, whether or not that use violated the non-conformity provisions of the Howard County zoning regulations. Differently, we'd argue that the changes at the site, necessarily, were going to be changes of such a kind that they would violate the non-conformity provisions. That the, a non-conforming use once it becomes non-conforming, cannot increase in size or intensity. The language used in Howard County is extended or enlarged. It can't increase in any manner either by size or intensity that would cause it to be more impactful, more busy than it previously was. And there are certain exceptions for that with regards to minor modifications of something like a height of a window. Once you're dealing with actual uses within a site, regardless of what that use is, regardless of what that changes, the change, if it is a change in the user intensity, cannot occur unless it is a diminishment of the user intensity, if they're removing something and they're making it less impactful. And I would liken this conceptually to something like an athletic facility. An athletic facility, let's say, was acceptable by right in the previous iteration of the zoning regulations, and then is removed in the subsequent iteration. And you now have a non-conforming athletic facility. And that athletic facility has a tennis court, and it has room for something else. If you were to construct a second tennis court, that would be a violation of the nonconforming use provisions. Even if it's the exact same thing, simply doing more of the exact same thing violates the nonconforming use provisions. You can't have two tennis courts if you only had one. Now, let's say you want to change something and make it slightly different. You want to have a badminton court. And you say, well, badminton courts similar to tennis. They both have two people inside. They both have a rack in the handle. They're both hitting an object over a net. Well, a person who knows absolutely nothing about sports I might look at that and go, huh, I mean, I guess it's the same use. It's an athletic facility. We'll go ahead with it. But that is a different use at that point. That's not even just an increase in use intensity. It's a different thing. And a person who knows anything about tennis or bad men would go, that's different. And when you start getting into very detailed scientific terms, very rarefied experimentation and very academic analysis of uses such as what you would deal with at a scientific research facility. I think it becomes easier for a person to simply take the statements of a professional operating at that facility that say, we're doing the same thing and then rubber stamp it and move it and go well they said they're doing the same thing but for a person who's familiar with what goes on in these types of facilities a change no matter how small the owner of the facility would like to say it is is still a change that The implementation and the installation of new internal facilities, new doors, like larger doors on the type of building to move in these new scientific objects. I guess I equipment, that's what I want to say. New scientific equipment. And the description of a new use, which on, it's uncontroversial. Everyone says it's a new use. I'm and the description of a new use which on its own controversial everyone says it's a new use. M.D. says it's a new use, D.B.C. says it's a new use, W.R. Grace says it's a new use. They say it's a new pilot plant facility that they are implementing in building 30. Even if it's small as W.R. Grace suggests that it is, regardless of how small it is, there is no diminimist threshold for non-conforming use violation. It is a bright line delineation. If something is new, if it is increased intensity by even an Iota, it cannot move forward without an actual application for an expansion and enlargement of that non-conforming use. And regardless of what will occur in the future, what is currently occurring and what is currently planned to occur is the installation of a pilot plant that will be dealing with I believe one kilogram per hour of materials that they will be chemically recycling and reviewing various different chemicals at that facility to determine, ostensibly, possible business uses for recycling these plastics or recycling these chemicals in a way that would allow them to do something useful with it. Now regardless of the impacts of what would occur there, it is different than what was previously occurring. And the letter described that initially led to this investigation. I'll introduce in a moment. I should just finish my argument. Described that they were conducting particular activities at the site since 2013. That they are therefore nonconforming use, that they haven't done anything different, that nonconforming use is fine. We allege that as an error of law, that for the DBZ to determine that that is correct, and that proper proper analysis of the site in review of people living nearby and review of experts looking at the site would determine that there is something new and different there, and that it cannot move forward without a proper application to this office, to this hearing examiner, to enlarge that use. Beyond that, we would say that the whole reason there is, in fact, a bright line delineation for a non-conforming use is that in the circumstances where a person argues that something is very small and not particularly impactful, and it's basically the same thing they were doing before. If they're allowed to do that many times over, over the course of months or years or decades, it becomes a ship of theses. They say, oh, well, we've added something different, we've removed something old, but it's the same thing. And you turn what was once one use into a different use, each time saying, oh, we only did something small, it was the same use. You can't allow that to happen because today, we have a pilot plant that, if installed and fully operational today, was burning one kilogram per hour of materials and recycling them as they describe it. This they decide instead in the year to increase it to two kilograms or to increase it to three kilograms. And then they move forward inexorably to figure out some way to make this profitable business, to scale this up and make it an actual recycling facility, all the while saying, oh, well, we were doing it in the past. It was already good. Why didn't anyone at that time complain about it when it was only one kilogram? That's why we're here today. This pilot plant did not exist in the past. This facility, by the original language of the conditional use that created in 1955, was not allowed to have a pilot plant. It was an explicit condition of that original conditional use and upheld over multiple different expansions of the conditional use over a period of years. It moved to create this facility, which it describes as a pilot plan, which government regulators describe as a pilot plan, which we will describe as a pilot plan, that did not exist previously and the uses that were in play in 2013 to the extent that the zoning regulations brought what was once a conditional use by right use could not be used to piggyback this new use onto it. And I take a brief aside to say, although it's not a main component of this, that the conditional use applications were what created this site. It was operating under the pretense of those conditional use applications. And it was operating for a period of decades in a particular manner as described in those applications, which are attached as exhibits two through six. And if there's no objection, I'd like to move those into evidence. Oh wait. Okay. For witnesses. So exhibits two through six will. You said wait. Yeah. Well, we won't be having witnesses talk about those particular conditional use applications. I think they speak for themselves and they're just government documents. There's an argument we don't need to introduce them at all, but I wanted to have them available for you. Nevertheless, two through six are the various conditional use applications available on public record for the property. So just so you know, under your list of exhibits, you start with zero. Oh, I'm sorry, one through five. One through five. I'm sorry, I'm because exhibit zero isn't really an exhibit. It's part of the record under the rules of procedure. Exhibits one through five, my apologies. Those conditional use applications shown predominantly in the exhibit one and in the subsequent exhibits had that condition applied to them that no pilot plant should ever occur at that site. In 2003, 2004, as part of a regular 10 year process, Howard County rewrote its zoning regulations, and did so in a manner that allowed the PEC zone that this facility is located that to have research and development as a use that was previously only allowed by conditional use. In 2014, the new regulations removed it again. There is an argument that I might cut off of the past preemptively that doing so extinguish the conditional use made it by right and that there's no need for conditional use anymore. I would say as a fundamental threshold that this use has always been operated as a conditional use and that the conditional use does not extinguish itself by virtue of a temporary change in the underlying zones and use allowed in those zones. And therefore, the language of that conditional use would be such that you couldn't have a pilot plant there. But we move forward with the presumption that research and development was a use at the 2004 to 2014 period and that WR Grace at that time became by right for sake of argument, and that what it was doing at that time was allowed. As of 2014, anything that it was doing could only be the maximum of everything it was ever going to do unless it moved for an enlargement of the non-conforming use. And this is such an enlargement. This facility, fundamentally, is an enlargement. It is a change in the use. They have installed new facilities specifically to handle it. They're applying for permits that they previously didn't have to have for this particular use, which conceptually one would need to have previously in order to have that in 2014. Therefore, what was operating there wasn't operating there in 2014 else there would have been proper permitting for that facility and they would have gone through all those steps in the process a decade earlier. Lastly, what we're going to present largely through testimony as the legal argument is one that I'm going to present myself is the matter of impacts on visceral properties. And this is under Section 129E. If the hearing examiner were to consider that this would be an expansion or enlargement of the use and that the inquiry was not simply stopped immediately by analysis of this is a new use, it can't occur without a proper application. If you were to go past that threshold and determine can I step in in place of this and approve this current facility as is being constructed instead of remaining it back to DPC or simply reversing them outright. We would say that as proposed and as expected to occur in future years, the proposed pilot plant would have negative impacts on visceral properties. Very nearby residential areas that by virtue of subdividing the property, W.R. Grace might have brought upon itself, but they decided to do so by creating this residential community, roughly, we'll describe it as westish of them, but directly beside the property, and that they didn't undergo any sort of construction or change at their facility until the last of those houses was sold, and then they moved forward with this plan. And unlike the conditional use analysis that the negative impacts at a property would be different in kind than the negative impacts at a similarly situated site in a similar zone. This is also a bright line. The enlargement can't occur if there are any negative impacts on this on properties. And the negative impacts, however slight, would preclude this office either now or from hypothetical application in the future from permitting this use because of the fact that it is going to cause these negative impacts to nearby residential homeowners. With that overarching analysis, I would move more specifically to talk about exhibit one and state in exhibit one. Can I just sum up your opening? Yes. Oh, could I sum it up or are you saying? Yeah, okay. I just want to make sure I didn't miss here. So basically what you're going to argue here today is that in accordance with Maryland law, the pilot program is a transmogrification of the nonconforming use. Second argument is that a conditional use runs with the land and therefore the limit on pilot uses runs with the land. And thirdly, that the, you can't have negative impact on the sential properties. Yes. That's a basic three core of the argument. Okay, thank you very much. Okay. So exhibit one is the initial conditional use application. And I'm going to try to move through these somewhat quickly. I think the documents speak for themselves. But this is the, I should say it's the initial conditional use plus a couple of additional documents from 1964 and 1973 and 83. The reason we attach it as this is that the actual original document was difficult to read. So those additional cover letters are part and parcel to this particular document. But the actual conditional use application describes what was going to occur there in 1955. And the conditions applied to it, particularly condition D, says that the research laboratory shall be a building or buildings used for inquiry and investigation in an effort to find new information in any scientific field by experiment or by investigation of sources and limited to the test tube and bench phase of the inquiry and shall not include any type of pilot plant or manufacturing process. Subsequent conditional use applications talked about for instance the expansion of a cafeteria area which I don't really need to go to I just wanted to put this in here to note that whenever they upheld these subsequent conditional uses, see, for example, exhibit two on page four, they state that the petitioners shall comply with all conditions imposed in the initial case, DA case number 168c and this carries forward. And these documents stand for that second proposition that if we were to analyze this as a conditional use, pilot plans are forbidden. Full stop. It doesn't matter the size of them, it doesn't matter the proposed scope of them. The fact that the applicant themselves is describing them as such means that it's uncontroversial factually that something is a pilot plant, at least as they describe it, everyone agrees. You might want to have disputes as to what a pilot plant is, how large a pilot plane is, what it's doing. But everyone agrees in this circumstance that this is one. Now exhibit seven and exhibit eight are the, sorry, exhibit seven is it, yes. Exhibit seven and exhibit eight are these two letters that we were talking about initially This is an eternal letter to MDE This is basically WR grace providing copy for DPC sending them their letter into September 6, 2023 saying MDE could you please send this to sorry? DPC could you please send this to MDE? They have a handwritten address as to who it should be sent to, and they have the copy of what they want to go to MDE. DPC complies in September 1st, 2023, they take substantively the entirety of this letter and send it along. They take what? They take substantively the whole letter in September 6 and send it along. We forward this simply for the proposition that DPC isn't moving forward robustly to make any determinations themselves. They're hearing the argument of WR Grace, taking their their language and saying let's send it in. And this is not an unusual practice in any county. There's often circumstances where zoning will ask somebody for a copy of a letter to send to them. Nevertheless, it's something that occurred in this case. And I don't think it's this positive, but I think it's indicative of how they moved forward with the subsequent zoning violations. Alligation is only violation. In September 13th, 2024, the DPC writes an approval letter to Miss Adeday who wrote this initial complaint. And they say, you know, we don't see any violations. The case is closed. That's Exhibit 8. Exhibit 9. I'm sorry. Move past slightly. Did I mark this incorrectly? Give me a second. I want to make sure that I gave you the right number. I'm sorry, yeah, I mistated Exhibit 7. Exhibit 6 was both the 2021, sorry, I keep saying 2021, September 21st and September 6th letters combined. Exhibit 7 is the letter drafted from WR Grace 2DPC the inquiry for Exhibit 8, which was the September 13th letter. On September 9th, having received a complaint from the INA at today, DPZ presumably had reached out to WR-GRs. WR-GRs then writes a letter that says, this is what we've been doing in our site. They describe catalytic performance testing of grace methanol to olefin's catalysts, where by methanol is reacted to their catalysts, et cetera, et cetera. I don't need to read it all into the record. I believe you can simply note that this is the language that they use to describe what they were doing at the site and that they have been doing these activities since 2013. That's all right, great. Just to keep up. Is that seven? This is exhibit seven. Yes. Okay. Cool. Thank you. And that this exhibit seven September 9th, 2024 letter is basically them saying, well, we've been doing this since 2013. We haven't changed anything. Therefore, there's no violation. There's no nonconforming, no nonconformity for you to look into. Everything's fine. Exhibit eight, DPC sends this letter to Nina Hadaday saying, we have no violation of this site. In four days, they took that letter. They reached out to no nearby property owners. They cited no analysis from anyone else as to what uses were occurring at the site. They had no write-up of anything. They just said, we reviewed this and it's closed. On October 15th, 2024, Aiden Morell, who is one of the two lead petitioners for the administrative appeal petition, writes for a reconsideration to DPC and describes why he thinks that they need to conduct a more thorough review. And that's exhibit nine. No review occurred. It was the DPC approval just stood as it was without any substantive analysis and then we appealed to this to the hearing museum. Let me ask you. Was there a response to the October 15th letter? I am unaware of response to the October 15 letter. So if there was one, then I don't have, we're call every single and each such documents. If there also was one, it wasn't one, of course, where we were afforded any relief or also wouldn't have appealed here. But my understanding is that there was no response. So as a result of the failure to respond, U.S. Council felt the need to go forward with the appeal. Well, we filed the appeal at the same time or concurrently, I should say, with this consideration. We could say that. Because we, you know, it was a 30-day window. We needed to make sure that we moved properly with that determination. So I was not Council at the time. They filed this pro-Saint. We had been in communications with them as of August of 2024. But at that particular moment they filed this on October 11th, 2024. And they wrote this reconsideration concurrently. But the reconsideration, of course, nothing went anywhere with it. So subsequent to this, we have these permits, commercial alteration permits, that we I'm trying to look at time here because I have to have, I'll change a time for them. We have these permits from Department of Inspections Licenses and Permits describing building 30. And these applications are basically to bring in the exterior door that I described to enlarge an opening, to bring in and pour new concrete for new floor, to bring in new proposed equipment, new equipment for the roof of the building. This new equipment in question being basically exhaust in order to female it anything. That needs to be f from the facility. Okay. Is it your position that the commercial alteration permit affected the nonconforming use? No. I'm putting forward the permit simply to put forward the proposition that what was occurring was something new that they were asking for something different. And that's what I'm asking. By asking for something new, is this the beginning of your argument that these are those little incremental changes that are going to result in a transmogrification of the use? No. I'm not putting your words on the agenda No, I understand. So I understand. What actually formally occurs at this site is, I think, something that Council agrees is not yet completed. They're still moving forward with regulatory air permits. They might need new permits. Some of this stuff occurred, and it occurred in a manner that could be applied to a new use. Theoretically, a door by itself would be a minor modification. If they were to install a door and then do nothing with it, that wouldn't increase user intensity. And that's why I hesitate to say this to you. The concrete floor by itself wouldn't do anything new. It's how a person uses it that would determine whether or not there was a change in the user intensity of the previously existing use. So as I said, on set, if you were to change the size of a window, that's the sort of minor modification that can occur on the nonconforming use so that there being any issue. A building door by itself does not require the change of the nonconforming use. It doesn't trigger an argument by itself. It's that what it's being used for culminates in this new use as described by the applicant that leads to our appeal. All right, so you're not arguing that the commercial alteration permit is the first step in that slippery slope. You're not arguing that. I think somebody might, I'm not arguing that. I'm asking what you're arguing. Yeah, I think that by itself that individual building permit wouldn't have done something if they weren't doing something else. Okay, so not first. It's an intent-based thing. It's how a person's using it. So by itself it wouldn't trigger anything. It would certainly be a component of that use going forward that seems to be what the intent was to change the use but that permit by itself. No. All right, and then you moved to exhibit 10. Yes. That was exhibit, that was exhibit 10. This one I'm moving to is exhibit 11, which is the WR Grace Building 30 permits. I didn't have a 10. Sorry. No, the tabs are weird. Okay, so you so going to this exhibit 11. And this is, I'm sorry, exhibits 10 and 11 are the combination of the commercial alteration permit and a W.R. Grace Billing permits. Yeah, apologies. Exhibit, uh, exhibit, oh, this is part, yes. On the appendix A, I apologize. I want to make sure that I pull the right numbers up. I really should have numbered it, but I was afraid we'd have to get the numbers and then I caused my own problem here. Grant, what's the difference between the tabs and the pendix? The tab indicates a particular exhibit and where the page is. I just want to make sure that I'm not. Oh, that's why I'm confused myself. I accidentally moved past a document. Exhibit 12 is the one that I'm supposed to be looking at. So exhibit 12 is the beginning of the air permit. Now you have the full air permit in your exhibit packet. the beginning part of this is just the cover letter. It's the application for the permit to construct. And just a clarification, the hearing examiner has a physical copy or the electronic copy. Everyone has an electronic copy. I printed out a full color copy for the hearing examiner, so she'd have all the pages of the full. ear and lady. I should have what you have missed your call. No. We added a secondary full color for you just because it was a substantially larger exhibit. I talked with Kelle earlier this morning about that. Okay. So I've got the page exhibit 12 is two pages and I use saying. 12.1 is the full EPA air permit, which is those first two pages plus the entire thing. I just wanted to have the full document available to me. Okay, and I do have that. Exhibit 13 is the OSWI applicability determination? Could you just hold up so I, that is 12, 13. That is 13. Thank you. That's the OS, OWS, OSWI applicability determination. This was actually subsequent to our appeal. It's just, it's part of the process from DE. And again, we're not challenging anything with MDE or EPA here. They're moving forward with their process. It's not we're not alleging any sort of error with them obviously. Exhibit the DOE letter. Exhibit 13, the DOE letter. Yes. And that includes this appendix A attachment. And that's over other large documents about 90 pages. That has all the data points. Exhibit 14 is the petition to amend this zoning matter powered county. This is in 2014. This is basically the document that created the residential subdivision. Exhibit 15 is the technical staff report associated with that. Exhibit 16 is the the planning board vote for that subdivision. This is 2015. 15 is the staff report, 16 is the vote. Correct. Sixteen is planning board determination. Recommend a vote. 3-0. Oh, I see it's in black and white on my end. Exhibit 18 is the map for the facility and the associated residential subdevelopment. I think there was a printer error on my end that it zoomed in, unfortunately. I didn't notice this when I was compiling these. So the full digital image is available to you. The exact span of this is not really relevant. We're just noting that that existed, that the residential development occurred as it did. So that's exhibit 18. Exhibit 19 is the, or a press for the termination of the minor modification in 2016, with regards to, it's just part of the general process that I wanted to have in here is the full record, just a minor modification. Exhibit 17 is, sorry, exhibit 18 is the Figure up the 20. Yeah, I'm up to 20. I pull will exhibit 20 my apologies exhibit 20 is the W. R. Grace interpretation in 2025 to MBE This is one of the documents created after our appeal And then from there on out which we'll get to in order. My exhibit 20 is an EPA letter. Yes. OK. Yes, yes, yes. That's January 8, 2025. OK. And the subsequent exhibits are, well, one's the decision in order and the other's are CVs, which we will handle one at a time. I present. I'm going to change the order of my witnesses because of some scheduling impacts that they have. So if you'll give me a moment, I'm going to call one of them. She's going to go for this. Madam hearing's there. I suppose I would get an opening statement as well. Correct. Do you want to do you want to do this time? Or do you want to do this time? That's fine. I'll call her later. My apologies. So those are the our exhibits and I hold my mouth for a moment. Okay. Did you go ahead? Yes. Thank you, Madam Hearing Examiner. I appreciate your ruling as a preliminary matter, but obviously the item that we noted in that argument is going to be fundamental here. The petitioner, a pellant, has a significant burden here to prove by substantial evidence that the action taken by the administrative agency was clearly aronious, arbitrary, and capricious in control to law. It's from your rules of procedure 10.2c. That is the decision that the DPC made after inspecting the site. It is in no way pertinent to prospective uses or anything other than what the Department of Planning and Zoning saw on the site when it came on campus and looked around. I had hoped that the appellance case would be focused on whether or not there was a legal non-conforming use, and I retained that hope, although some of the exhibits that I've seen here give me some doubt as it relates to that. A nonconforming use under the regulations is quite straightforward. A nonconforming use does not require a confirmation of a nonconforming use. This is under Section 129 of the zoning regulations. As a matter of fact, under Section B, the line right there is the nonconforming use of land or structures may be continued subject to the follow. And it does have some constraints on nonconforming uses, but in no way does it say you need a confirmation, rather it says a property owner may petition for a confirmation of a nonconforming use. And so WR Grace has a nonconforming use. Now Mr. Geel and his argument referenced a special exception and the hearing examiner followed up with a question about running with the land and whether or not those conditions run with the land. I think we're speaking over and missing the fact that creating the PEC zone and expressly allowing research and development in the PEC zone was a policy decision made by Howard County. And not only did they make the decision to create the planned employment zone and include research and development, but they decided to put PEC on this property. PEC is not a well-utilized zone. It's not in a lot of places. It's here, it's at Johns Hopkins applied physics laboratory and a select number of other places across the county. When that zoning was applied and research and development was approved for that property, the property owner could have research and development anywhere they wanted to on that site, subject to the land use controls for permitted uses. It is not as if when these policy decisions are made that a special exception, this is so old it's not even a condition to use, a special exception says, well we're still going to constrain you by these rules despite the fact fact that the lawmakers of Howard County said, no, no, no, we want this type of employment use. Because WR Grace, the large employer, we're going to put this on their land, go ahead and do research to development in that site. That was in 1985 when the PEC was created. It was in 2013 that the PEC was modified to remove research and development. To be clear, because throughout this, we're going to be thinking about why did DPC make the decisions that they made? What was that? Two, 14? It was 2013 comprehensive zone. That was the date that that happened. There's been some references to 2014, but 2013 was when comprehensive zoning occurred. The Department of Planning and Zoning has determined that this is a non-conforming use as of 2013 based off of research and development previously being allowed in the zone. There is not even a research and development special exception or conditional use any longer under the the regulations, to suppose that a decision in order persists through all of these zoning changes is just not consistent with zoning law or common sense. So talking about the non-conforming use, it is in a single building. I believe that's building 30, we will talk about it as we go. Mr. Geal referenced repeatedly this term intensity. Well, I have here the zoning regulations. I did a control F for intensity of the zoning regulations under non-conforming uses. It's not there. The word intensity is not there. Non-conforming uses are looked in terms of building footprint. They are not looked in terms of intensity. And as I've been describing to my clients as they're learning more about what a nonconforming use is, if it's a restaurant nonconforming use, you can serve pizza, you can serve Mexican. It's a restaurant. Nonconforming uses are very common along Route 1, where there are automobile uses up and down Route 1. They don't say you can only repair cars that were in existence as of the date you became nonconforming uses. No, that use is allowed on that footprint for whatever that might be in modern day utilization of that use. That is what a non-conforming uses. There is a research and development non-conforming use for this site. When DPC visited the site, that is what they were inspecting and finding to be in accordance with the zoning regulations. Any prospective use was not part of DPC's consideration, nor should it have been. Now, is there a certification of the non-conforming use? There was not. There was not a confirmation of the non-conforming use. And that was, this is the reason why I wanted to make my opening statement, because sometimes I feel like we get down on a path and we have these certain presumptions, and when I put on my case that presumption that we've been operating around ends up having to be addressed early on and I'd rather do that now because if again if you look at $129 it says a petitioner may seek a confirmation of an on-conform use. Why would they do that? If they're allowed to buy right, why would they do that? Well, in the zoning practice, a confirmation of an on-conform use is done when someone's looking to buy the property. Because they're going through underwriting and they're looking and they're saying, hey, research and development isn't allowed in this zone. Why are you selling me a property where you say I can do research and development? That's when you get a confirmation of an on-conform use. Or alternatively, as I presume Mr. Gil will argue and we're prepared to respond to, if you're seeking an expansion of an on-conform use. In order to get an approval for an expansion of an on-conform use, you customarily will seek a confirmation first. However, non-conforming uses as a legal principle exist outside of a confirmation. And as a matter of fact, Johns Hopkins applied physics laboratory has an existing non-conforming use that has never been subject to a confirmation of a non-conforming use. Same for this side. Same for all of those uses along route one that I've described. They exist as a matter of law when they become non-conforming and that use persists from the time that it was legal until after. That is what this is about. But I want to come back to where I started. This is not about a permit. This is not about the supposed section E consideration of the effect on neighbors. This is about DPP's decision. And whether or not it was clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law. And while I appreciate and understand the preliminary ruling, I do hope that we can focus, and this case can focus, on what DPC's determination was, because I don't think that this hearing examiner has jurisdiction outside of reviewing an appellate decision for error. Outside of it, it's appellate capacity to review an administrative decision for error. And our evidence will be quite simple. It will be that there is a nonconforming use on the site. We will have Mr. Vogel with his experience as a civil engineer testify as to how nonconforming uses attach and how they extend. And very briefly I'll have a representative from my client stating that this use has been on this site since the 50s. And I appreciate the special exception that at one time existed and the conditions that were offered, but once that was made a legal use, I really don't understand how these two theories could exist together. That under Howard County zoning regulations, research and development is allowed for the whole site, yet my client purportedly would have to follow a decision in order that would constrain them more than the zoning regulations would allow. That doesn't make any sense to me. And so we're prepared to go forward with this case. We understand the preliminary rulings here, but again, this is about the decision that the Department of Planning and Zoning made in September of last year that there were no existing violations on the site. Thank you. Mr. Colton, one question. Yeah. You said that as a hearing exam doesn't have jurisdiction beyond an appellate review of arbitrary and capricious of the DPC letter. Correct. Understand that. Do you believe that I have the authority to issue an interlocatory order, demanding to DPC for a fully-fleshing out of that letter. And if so, do you believe such an interlocatory order is appealable? Well, that's very interesting because I did notice that Mr. Geel has a hot off the presses decision in the back of his binder of the Sarah V.A. case. And the Sarah V.A. case involved such a remand. The decision making authority of the hearing examiner is one of statutory construction. The hearing examiner in the Sarah V.A. case was not one of your cases, had a sort of two-part decision and I have not read it in his depth as I'm sure Mr. Giel has, but it remanded part and it reversed in part. I do not believe, and rather I feel that the law is strongly on my side, that the hearing authority has such a remand authority. I think it is a matter of law as designated by Howard County Code. And again, this isn't just in the rules of procedure. It's also Howard County Section 2.210 that the petitioner must show by substantial evidence that the action taken by the administrative agency was clearly erroneous, arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law. That is the only way in which the Department of Planning and Zoning's decision may be disturbed. Now I think the hearing examiner could provide guidance, but there is no remand. They are not a lower court, just as the Board of Appeals cannot remand to the hearing exam. It is rather a, was this decision based off of the statutory authority that we have, clearly Aronis, arbitrary and capricious are contrary to law. Okay, thank you for that. Would you like a rebuttal or based on the time? I'll take a rebuttal on that latter part. If you don't mind. Well, I'll say two things. First, with regards to the arguments about nonconforming use and land area. Yes, I do use use and intensity. That's the general common law language. It's not stated use and intensity within the those specific words that is within 129. It describes extension or enlargement to occupy more land area or more area within a building than that occupied by the use of the time it became non-conforming. And no structure which contains a non-conforming use shall be structurally altered and set unless such alterations are required by law provided maintenance work is allowed. And later on with regards to the changes of the non-conforming use and the extension and largement or alteration that the hearing authority can authorize extension or enlargement of a nonconforming use or the alteration of outdoor use areas of the structure containing a nonconforming use with or without conditions provided various requirements. One of which, I think the most salient, is that any changes or additions to the activities taking place in connection with the non-conforming use will not change in any substantial way. And, of course, number E, we talk about, we say, extension of large infrastructure alteration would not cause an adverse effect on decimal properties. As to your authority while our firm was involved. In that case, I didn't merely read it. But... effect on just some properties. As to your authority, well, our firm was involved. In that case, I didn't really read it. But I do think that you have the authority to issue such relief as is necessary. And when you find that DPC has violated the law in some particular way, it has to go back to DPC. You know, there's not gonna be a circumstance where you say DPC was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to the law. Therefore nobody can ever do anything again at this site. Has to go back to DPC in some way. DPC has to issue some sort of determination that comports with your ruling in the same way that if you were in front of a judge and the judge issued a ruling that affected you some way, you would have to comply with that judge's ruling. So whether or not you have a specific language of remand or not, I think this is the point which is that you do have the authority to determine the DPC was contrary to law and if you do determine the DPC was contrary to law, therefore DPC needs to do something that would make it not contrary. if your determination was that the reason it was contrary to law was that it failed to fully investigate the issue, just broadly speaking, that it didn't do enough. That would be your ruling and then DPC would have to comply with that by doing more to satisfy that ruling. Whether or not you call it a remand, again, I think this is the point. I think you have that authority. All right. Thank you very much. Hopefully since I was hoping that we'd be done in two hours and it's an hour and a half in, we haven't called witnesses. I do ask for a preliminary determination from you that I'd discuss prior to this without if there is no objection or Mr. Cole that experts, not experts, witnesses. Witnesses brought forward expert Orlay Witness could provide after their introduction, address, et cetera, some prepared statements as opposed to being led through a direct question and answer. If we have to do a question and answer I can do so but I think it will make the general testimonies faster if people can say what they plan to say in a sort of do you oppose this project or approve of this project if so why and then they say their piece. So I would ask whether or not that is permissible for either the experts, not that we have a qualification procedure or lay witnesses. And Madam Hearing's Amener, I want to help facilitate this. I'm just curious if I don't want to have to object every time based off of my previous argument. Do you intend to constrain the evidence in any way based off of the preliminary discussions that we had and DPC's letter in terms of what is relevant to this proceeding? That's going to happen. OK. As it occurs. Got it. OK. Then I have no objection to you putting on evidence that way. just understanding that if I object, I know sometimes when people, particularly the lay witnesses have prepared written statements and I object and that sustained it creates a lot of frustration. I just want to be on the same page. Do you have copies of any written testimony? I do have some, I don't, physical copies of written testimony. I do have digital copies of testimony. I don't know the person will adhere to that directly. They might have their own page and they might change it. And I won't have time to review it anyway. So. Okay, you're just asking that they read it into the records? Well, they're probably, they're going to say more than just that. I'll have a whole bit early of questions for a person after their prepared statements. This is just more a matter of me being able to have a person speak their piece Without having to ask every specific sentence So what would you like to say here tonight? Yeah, it's basically me. What's your name and no?? And no objection to that in concept. Yeah, no objection for. OK, so with that being said then we will call our first four people forward. I'm going to call Dave number 21, which is Dave Arnt's CV, which at this time I would move into evidence. No objection. So exactly. Mr. Arnt, could you please state your full name and address for the record? Actually, I need to do a little something here. It needs to be for you. Oh, of course. I always forget this. Do you sell me swear or firm under the penalties of perjury that the response is given in statements made to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you, please state your name and address for the record. My name is Dave Hart. It is not on. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Dave Arnt or David Arnt in the legal sense. I live in 1445, Halberd Street, Baltimore, Maryland, 21230. Thank you. Mr. R, we have your CV, so I don't need you to go through everything. But could you please provide a general overview as to what your qualifications are and what you plan to speak about today? So looking at my general CV, I am a chemical engineer, graduate of a chemical engineering. I worked at a chemical plant for a small amount of time. Before I moved to Hula Packard, where became a systems engineer, working on all sorts of products and products design. I have found that I use engineering and my chemical engineering almost every day when I had an occupation. And that really, most of my occupation was really taking design concepts, something that an R&D facility or lab manager would bring to me. And we would that and productize it. So we went through a whole product life cycle of investigation to see if it was viable and after it was viable to then really develop the product and then really more to approve the product and approve more of the viability of the product. That means that we could actually sell it for a profit, that we could find a market for it, that we could produce it, and that would achieve the outcome that we wanted it to be. And I did that for about 40 years. Thank you, sir. I should probably not lean back. Thank you, sir. Are you opposed to this project or in support of this project? So this project itself, I would be opposed to the project. And more broadly, you don't have any particular issue with pilot plants as a concept, is that correct? No. a pilot plant is a perfectly good concept. This is something that I'm very accustomed to. Something that I'm accustomed to of having a lab. A person come to me and saying we've got a great new design. And how do we prove that this design is relevant or it can make money out of it, is taking it to the next step from the lab, actually to a pilot plant. So I've run multiple pilot plant types of operations. I understand that you have a general prepared statements to make, is that correct? That is correct. Could you make your general prepared statements and then we'll have a couple questions after that. Okay, thank you. The Maryland Department of Environment conducted a virtual information meeting on April 29th for an air quality permit received from WR Grace on September 21st, 2023 for the installation of a pilot plant to be located at the 7500 Grace Drive Columbia Maryland address. At which Grace defined themselves as a global specialty chemical company at the Columbia site and the Columbia site is a research center similar to a university research site. Grace also said the following, we're very excited about a better way to deal with plastic. We looked at other processes out there by other companies and we think we found a better way. Their small scale one gram testing pilot project looks good but it has to be scaled up to be sure that the testing results are correct. The next step is to see a small scale study is worth doing at a larger scale, basically to see if the process is technically feasible and commercially viable. The way to do this is with a pilot plant. This is a new type of process for WR grace and the overall industry. They will be building a set of reactors. The goal of this project is to develop technology to process real plastic waste, hard to recycle plastics type number one through seven, and the stated output is waste to plastic precursors or a liquid to gas fuel product Madam here, and Sam here at this point I am going to object This site is not being used for this purpose right now when DPC inspected the site It was not being used for that purpose I understand where the is going, but I do not see how this can be relevant to your decision in this case. I understand your argument, but I am gonna let him proceed. Overall, look strictly at advancing the project. WR Grace is following the proper process of scaling up a lab experiment to an R&D pilot operation. However, in their permit application, they have made a lot of assumptions. These need to be proven in their scale-up process. However, they don't appear to have any procedures in place to test and verify all their assumptions are correct. Also, if there are assumptions are wrong, they don't appear to have any procedures in place to test and verify all their assumptions are correct. Also, if their assumptions are wrong, they don't appear to have a shutdown plans and community notification plans of the possible dangers. Let's look at the possible issues. WRs grace has stated that the materials that are going to feed into the reactor are hard to recycle plastic, residents identified code 1 through 7. You may think that what's the big deal? We handle these plastic products all the time. However, making things out of plastic is like playing a game with molecules. The aim is to reorganize them into new shapes without changing their color, sticking to the mold or doing anything that could spoil the finished article. Additives help with these problems. In fact, processing plastics without additives is virtually impossible. Additives come in 19 different categories, defined by the purpose, and each category has as many as a hundred different compounds. By the way, I worked at the largest polyester plant where I saw additives being used for production from catalysts, lubricants, flame returns, and stabilizers. Most are added at the request of customers. By the way, most beverage containers are made from polyester. Plastics included in code one through seven have been found to include the following items which have been documented to be released in the incineration emissions. PFAS, Biffenols, Phalates, Chlorine, fluoride, lead cadmium, salineum, benzene, chromium, vinyl chloride, benzene, tene, tallulean, mercury, arsenic, dioxins, formaldehyde, hexane, and PM2.5. Please note this is not an inclusive list. There may be other compounds released depending on the plastic feedstock being used. Many of these compounds are known carcinogens. Others are known to cause brain damage, issuing, and issues, and items like PFAS are just beginning to understand their effects. It's a miracle. I understand testimony. We need to kind of get to where we're going. Yeah, I understand. Sir, give me a moment. Let's move down. I think that's sufficient for this. Move down to portion where you say that you they stated the research pilot scale That's at the bottom of the page WR Grace stated that research pilot scale is based off lab experiments However, they've not given any details of these lab experiments for example, how long did they operate it? How did they monitor their missions? Did they use version plastics or plastics found in real world? What plastic codes did they use? Unfortunately, we have found that self-regulation does not work, and this type of information is essential to see if their design is trustworthy. Let's move down again to make no mistake here. Make no mistake. This is an incineration process that will produce deadly compounds. Fires, explosions, accidents and leaks can happen. Unfortunately, we have seen that time and time again that self-regulation does not work unless the county or neighbors put up monitors. There is no way to know if any of this emission is benign or if it's cancerous. WR Grace claims that they have emission control systems and monitor air emissions that are if something goes wrong, they'll shut down their system. But what are they actually monitoring for? All the dangerous compounds that could be emitted from their incinerator. How long does this shut down process take? Remember that some of the possibly missions have no safe levels, especially for children. Will they allow public to review and adjust their procedures? Will they allow public to review and adjust their procedures? Will they notify the public that they needed to shut down? The answer is no. From MDE saying that. And depending on how the shut down is classified, they might not even have to notify MDE of the incurrence. Finally, W.R. Grace in a document written by them on September 9th, 2024 gives examples of R&D work done at their Columbia facility. These seem to be good projects. However, they are far different from the process of converting a hydro recycle waste product into a plastic precursor or liquid gas fuel product. I would view this as a different use and needs to be addressed as such through a zoning guidelines of this property. Let's speak as to the letter there. That's Exhibit 7, which I'll move into evidence at this time. No objection. Exhibit seven was a letter drafted to DPC from the Vice President of R&D at W.R. Grace, and they described the activities that they were conducting at the site. Ostensibly they did so to describe this as the same use that has been going on since 2013. Based on your review of this letter and your familiarity with pilot plans generally, do you believe that what was described here is the activity described in a pilot plant? The activity they describe was purely lap functions that it appeared to be. And what they describe is using a catalyst and not all catalysts are the same and some have a much different processes. And the type of equipment that they're going to be using is far different than they described. So they're going to be using incinerators, a new catalyst circulation system, regeneration system, and different monitors for different chemicals, which they didn't describe in their use that they presented. So grant, just real quick, just for the records. Tab seven, what exhibit is that? He entered in an evidence. I did not object. Well, it's September 9th. Yeah, no, I understand that. We've numbered all of these tabs. If they haven't been offered in evidence. If I may, if I may propose that we introduce them with the number that they are given and if that's out of order, then that's what it is. Otherwise, we'll, we'll renumber the number. No, I'm just so so we introduce it as exhibit level. It's a vacant exhibit. Yeah, everything else. If there's an objection that's sustained, we would just have it for identification purposes. Yeah, so it would be introduced as a seven. Were you asking whether seven was accepted? Yes, and then also just for my own record keeping whether or not seven is seven or seven is one. Okay, seven is seven and seven is accepted. Thank you. But I didn't get the answer yes or no, whether. This is my follow up. Is what is described in Exhibit Seven, the letter, the same as a pilot plant? I know it's not the same as a pilot plant. Why is it not the same as a pilot plant? Because the pilot plant is an expansion of this use. The pilot plant is really taking a lab project that they're kind of describing in their letter and scaling it up to find out if it's really commercially viable. And this is building a whole new process with a whole new equipment that they don't have on the site. And since we've used this word regularly and I made my own analogy to bad men in tennis, it would probably help everybody here. What is a pilot plant? So for me, a pilot plant is taking a lab experiment that just really small scale and really scaling it up that it's going to be much larger in nature. It's going to have much bigger input and much bigger output that you're going to be measuring more. You're going to have much more controls and it is a fully functioning operating unit. So, pilot in this case basically means initial, like a pilot of a flame. It's something that you're using to start a bigger process. It is something that you use to mimic a big process that you are starting that process. You're mimicking what huge production whole facility would look like and how it would operate. And when you say you're mimicking, does that imply that there's going to be a further expansion and if so, under what conditions? So there could be possibly further expansions to it to really see if the process is playing out. So let's run more stuff through it. Let's run more volume through it. Let's run different types of product through it. So you really want to play all the scenarios that you can have and some of that may be going beyond just the the pellets that you're using but actually real life recycled material that they can gather from the public Referring to exhibits 12 and 12.1. These are the EPA permits. You are familiar with these documents? Yes, I am. This is the EPA permits, one permit. I'd like to move exhibit 12 and 12.1 into evidence. I object. I don't think the permit application is relevant. I believe that it's relevant for the purposes of determining whether or not what is done as a matter of government regulation is. Let me refresh that because it's going to be a little bit complicated. Basically, the permit is there for the limited purpose of analyzing whether or not government officials believe that this project is scalable and whether or not they think that when it's introduced, it could become something larger later on, which is integral to our case of arguing that there is an enlargement of the use at this site and that allowing this initial pilot plant is the foot in the door to let it scale up to 2, 4, 6, 12, etc. So I would be asking some limited questions with regards to that permit as to or rather not even that permit with regards to his familiarity with permitting generally and how pilot plants operate. And the objection is that this appears to be all based off of a slippery slope logical fallacy. I mean, the fact that it's being called a pilot is being used against grace in the context of the special exception. But I guess if they were doing a full-scale use, it wouldn't be a pilot plan. Either way, the permit was not reviewed by DPC when they were issuing their letter of no violation. The basic terms of what's going on there, I think we've already discussed. I don't think we need to go through a, I mean, I don't have a copy of this permit because it is so large, this permit application is so large, and when I make these objections about a mirror examiner, I do it in the context of if this exhibit were referenced in a decision-in-order, would that be an error? And I think absolutely this permit application, if it were referenced in determining that DPC was an error, that would be an error in itself. Would you like a surrebuttal or? No, I'm good. Thank you very much. I miss the document prepared. By me or created by EPA? EPA. No, not when you talked about it. I thought you were talking about the permanent application. Oh, sorry, this is MDE, not EPA. MDE, right, MDE. The document, I believe, it was prepared over a period of time. This is a document produced and created over 2022, 2023. It's a series of dates. What was it issued? The permit has not been issued. It's an application. It's ongoing. Yeah. I don't think they intend to issue it until this matter is resolved. I think that's speculation the best. I think. Withdraw. The speculation is not necessary withdraw. But it is ongoing. I'm going to allow 12 and 12.1. I understand the argument as to relevancy and I will certainly take that into consideration. Thank you, Madam here, Assembly. We'll only have a few questions that I think will satisfy. You reviewed this permit. Is this a typical permit that you would- Would you mind referring to it as a permit application? Permanent application. Those are two legally distinct. No, I agree. And I think that I actually identified it as EPA air permit, which I shouldn't have done that's the digital copy, but it's an MDE permit. The permit application, I apologize. Have you reviewed permit applications like this in the past? Yes. Have you worked on permit applications like this on either the government or private sector stock? I worked on both sides of these site permits. When you worked on these permits for pilot plants, were these permits created under the pretense that there would never be any expansion of that use? I guess whenever we created, you know, as for a permit, we'd have some intended use, but we'd also be looking for future uses that we could have for that facility that we're doing this operation with. So would there be a contemplation that for specifically a pilot plant, they would be increasing in intensity if it was commercially feasible? And now I'm going to object. The evidence being solicited and has already been solicited is about WR graces. I'd. I'd like the year when he says just so I understand what the objection is. Okay. Sure. The objection pertains to WR graces intent to expand this. What has been applied for the permit that has been admitted into the record is what the permit is. I understand. I just wanted to make sure to hear the full sentence. Without considering expansions, your understanding is that this project as designed currently is going to be different in kind than what was existing as of 2013. That is correct. So when I look at this process itself, and what they're asking for in the permit, they're asking for a famous oxidizer, which they don't appear to have any place on their site, never been listed on their site. And this is inherently by definition an incineratorator and at no place are they really asking for any type of incinerator before MDE and EPA have determined that this is an incinerator by definition. Where did they determine that? So that was in I believe your exhibit 12-12-1 and and exhibit 20 that you have. Yeah, we'll, we, uh, you know, we referenced exhibit 20. So I'll note this as well. January 18th, sorry, 20-25th. Exhibit 20 is the letter from EPA, which I would move into evidence. No objection. So you reviewed exhibit 20 as well. Correct. And what was in exhibit 20 that caught your eye? So the really catch my eye is really the determination that this really is an incinerator. So this is something that when WR Grace first applied, they said that there was no incineration going on. And MDE with the EPA have looked at this type of device and said by definition it is an incineration incinerator. So they have to go through the proper procedures to get an incinerator approved. It actually, MDE did approve it by looking at this and going since the none of the product being produced during the application was going to be for sale. There wasn't any need for MDE to approve the incinerator. So regarding the incinerator, the fact that there's an permit application, the idea that there's going to be impacts in the air, I think lens credence to the notion that what's being incinerated is not staying inside the building. Is it being vented? Yes, the whole operation of an incinerator is to just cut out. I don't know why I cut out There you go. Thank you. The the whole operation of an incinerator Is this to to vent everything from it outside of the building itself? So everything that's being put through the incinerator is being vented to the outside which are going to be those, could be some of those compounds that I really described early into my testimony. Exhibit 10 was the commercial alteration permit that described the work from proposed to be done from the Department of Inspection slices as impermits. Did you review that document? That document I did not review. Okay. Then I'm gonna read the language from that. Description of work, building 30 slash lab 20, slash W. O'Grace slash the interior door at the rear of building 30 is to be removed. And the opening and large will accommodate a new roll-up overhead door. Inside Building 30 at the entrance of Lab No. 120. The entry doors are to be removed, openings enlarged, and new double doors installed. Inside Lab 120 and approximately 10 foot by 26 foot section of the existing six-inch concrete floor is to be removed and replaced with an eight-inch concrete floor to accommodate proposed new equipment for the space. There is proposed new equipment for the roof of building 30, which would require some structural modifications to the roof steel. With the description of the work proposed there, is that in line with your belief that there is an incinerator that would be installed at this building? Yes, so you would have to modify the roof to have the vent ports going out into the atmosphere. And what sort of equipment would need to come into the facility in order to make a pilot plant versus the initially described use that you say exists? So the type of equipment that has to be coming in is they actually described it as a new catalyst circulating regenerating system which is it's going to be a reactor and they actually describe two different reactors that they're going to be bringing in and the incinerator and there's going to be some other products that they're going to have to be bringing in like a steam generator and things like that that they talked about in their application. So when you've reviewed this project, I'm gonna go back to something you said at the beginning. You don't have an issue with pilot plants generally, correct? That is correct. And for me, the pilot plant is the next procedure that as an engineer, I'd be taking to take their lab project and developing it further. It is something inexorable in your mind. If there is a market for it, a person would move it. Objection form. I've tolerated a bunch of leading questions, but it's getting a bit much. Refraze a question. All right. How would you describe the process from the perspective of the market and market influences on a particular developer? Well, I would be looking at a lab, a group coming to me and going like this is a great design. We have something that's here that's something that we're excited about, which is something that WR Grace has said. And the next step would be to scale it up, to build a pilot plant, to make sure that it is indeed is a great groundbreaking thing that we want to bring to market. We can make money on it. We can sell this type of device to other people or we can scale it up and run this type of big equipment ourselves for the purpose of making money and really taking for this operation is taking these plastic resins 1 through 7 and turning them into a different type of recycled material that is going to be either a fuel type of operation or a precursor to certain polymers So you mentioned recycling there. I think that leads in well In your mind you could conceive of. Objection. What would you define this use as? So by definition, and even with WR Grace, this really is a type of recycling operation. This is something that other big companies have really tried to do and are still working on. For example, Exxon has a big facility in Houston that they're trying to do a similar type of operation with. So it is taking plastic and turning it instead of taking it to landfill is recycling it and putting it to another use. Do you consider this an industrial use? That is fully an industrial use. Do you consider the research and development use? I would, I guess part of it is this is the next step in research development. So it's taking something that is a lab model and taking it to the next step to find out its viability. So it's going the next step beyond research and development or research into true development at this point. So, you know, obviously you're not an attorney and there are specific terms of art for zoning ordinances. So in your mind, can something be multiple uses? Can it be both R&D and objection basis? I'm going to allow it. Can it be both R&D and recycling or in solid waste production and incineration, et cetera? Can you can you can see those things as being distinct or kind of a continuum. I would look at you're building a facility to do a certain application. So I guess I'm having a little problems with trying to make a distinction there between you're taking a lab project that has been known to work in a certain situation and expanding it to a real production type of environment that you can know that you can make a decision to go forward on. You said at the beginning of your prepared statements that and from several questions that you don't have an issue with pilot plants generally. Do you have an issue with this specific pilot plant? Why do you have an issue with this specific pilot plant? So the issue I have with this pilot plant is it really being so close to a residential area. This is the type of thing where there are a whole lot of unknowns here. If this was in an area that was out in the open, this would be a great type of operation to be having, but since it's so close to people, I don't really think that it's really viable for the health of the people that live around the facility. So you think that the existence of this facility would necessarily create negative impacts out? On the Jackson. It's another leading question. All right. It is a leading question. Okay. Do you rephrase what sort of impacts would you expect to occur to neighboring properties? Well, I would expect all the neighboring properties that live close to this facility to really go down in price because if somebody would try to sell me one of these houses that there's a known incinerator by. And I know that it could be possibly pumping out some dangerous chemicals without a whole lot of monitoring going on. That would be very detrimental to the area and I can see families not allowing their kids to play outside and that would be very detrimental also. Do you think that there would be any health impacts? There's a whole lot of possibility of health impacts that would happen with this. Unfortunately with most things like this with the care synergians, it takes years to really find out those health impacts. So there could be possible asthma and other things related to that. But other health impacts would may take 5, 10, 15 years before we'd really understand the full impact. Thank you. I think that concludes my question. Mr. Cole. Thank you. Mr. Arnab, you visited the site? No, I have not visited the site. Do you even know the site address? I do know the site address. I have driven by the site, but I've never have taken a tour of the site. Do you have any opinion as to whether or not the Department of Planning and Zoning September 2024 letter was clearly erroneous, contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious? I have. Calls for legal conclusions. That's why we're here, Madam Hearing, is there? You can use the question. I have no idea on that. No idea on that. OK, thank you. And you were talking about vents. Do you know if W.R. Grace has any existing vents for research and development operations on site? I know they have other vents at the location. Other people have described other vents to me. So venting is going to be something that you have at any type of facility like this. It is really are the events really attached to an incinerator or not. And what are those vents like what activities are happening at Grace right now? What are the vents used for? I would believe that they're venting out air to the atmosphere. Air from any of the research and development uses? I would look at air in the facility themselves. I don't really think that I don't know if they're venting any specific things from a hooded environment or not. Most, most of the time, a hooded environment is going to go through a scrubber and things like that and then could possibly be vented to the outside. We reviewed and let me see if I can find it. Exhibit 7. Do you have any objection to the uses that were listed in exhibit 7, having happening on site? I don't have any objection to those. So all of those uses are appropriate for proximity to residential property. I don't know the details of those things to know if they're proximity. I would have to really research to find out and say, oh, I'd have a real problem with that. I look at those as R&D type of lab experiments that I would be working on at an R&D facility. That's interesting because you asked to come in and testify about the existing uses of the property. Why didn't you evaluate whether or not these uses that are ongoing on site were problematic? I did not view that is something that I should be really talking about. I felt that I should be talking about the new facility and not really look at the past and really the viability of the proper uses of the past. So you didn't do any evaluation of the use of the property as of September 2024, correct? I did not look at any of the use of the property itself at that point. Are the existing uses legal? That I do not know. Now, these uses, there's been some back and forth between you and Mr. Giel about what is a pilot plan? And there was sort of a discussion of a pilot light and that's all very interesting. It's the beginning of a use is a pilot, correct? A beginning of the first time the use exists on the side, it's a pilot. Well, no, I'd say first time a use exists, it's a lab experiment. And then what makes it go from a lab experiment to a pilot? What makes it go from a lab experiment to the pilot is really size, the type of operation that it is, the type of equipment that it uses. So it goes from a bench type of operation to a much bigger type of operation of equipment, the type of equipment that you use and the type of venting equipment that you have to use and the type of processes that you have to use with it. Are there some uses that require venting no matter how small they are? Yes. And wouldn't it be correct that paralysis, one of the processes we're talking about, that requires event no matter what, correct? I would look at if you're doing this type of operation that would require event, yes. So there's no lab version of paralysis. It has the footprint of event with event right from the start, correct? So I guess when you look at that and go paralysis on a bench top, you're doing in a hood. And a hood is going to be vented just like you would in a chemistry class. When you go up to the next step, you're adding this flameless oxidizer, which is a different piece of equipment, a much bigger piece of equipment that has to be vented a whole lot differently than just a, but you know, vents, you know, vents events, you know, that you're going to go to the outside. And I'm glad you highlighted the Flameless Oxidizer because I think, and the involvement in this matter overall, the word incineration has been highlighted. The flameless oxidizer is the paralysis process, right? Pyrrhosis process. No, no. The flameless oxidizers, what they're using at the end of the process. To do what? To scrub the vapors that they have coming out of their catalyst mechanism to prepare for the outside environment. And the flameless oxidizer is actually what the MDE permit is for, correct? That is one of the items that the MDE permit is for, yes. And do flameless oxidizers work? Flameless oxidizers, they are sold on the open market. When you say they work, I would have to look at the definition of what you mean by work. OK. Because we're talking about emissions and you would talk about property values going down in asthma and all of those things. And I was just curious, why would someone go to the expense of a flameless oxidizer? So they're going to the expense of a flameless oxidizer to at least get some of the chemicals out. Flameless oxidizers may not get all the chemicals out and we know that. So some chemicals and it depends on the temperature of the flameless oxidizer, the operating conditions, what is being put into the reactor itself, and some chemicals will process through a flameous oxidizer, which is an incinerator and go to the outside. And even in the WR Grace statements, they really talked about VOC's going to the outside atmosphere through the Flameless Oxidizer. But going back to the word incineration, you would agree with me that includes chemical separation of molecules, right? That incineration is not setting a piece of plastic on fire, necessarily. Yeah, and I don't view this as they're setting up piece of plastic on fire that a famous oxidizer, it by definition is an incinerator. Right, so at least we're on the same page there. Now, the research, and we talked about pilot versus lab experiment, you would agree with me that even a pilot is still a research and development use, correct? It could be. Sometimes it is, sometimes it's not. It really is your scaling up a lab bench product into the next step. Now, I can't find it here, oh wait, here I have it. The permit from April 2024. You expressed before that you don't really know that much about what's going on inside the Grace Research Facility, correct? Correct. What makes you so certain that this permit was pertaining to the MDE permit? Which permit? This was its exhibit 10, the Howard County Department of Inspections Licenses and Permits. May I approach? I would review that with Mr. Giel. Now, you had said you weren't that familiar with what was going on on the Grace site. This was submitted in April of 2024. Could that have been for any of the existing uses of research development on site? This could have been for existing uses. I guess this is associated with building 30, which I believe is the building that the WR-GRACE put in for their MDE permits to have modified. Oh, well, Mr. Arn. I mean, I hope you did your research on this site. Building 30 is the only research development building. That's where they conduct all their current research in development uses. You know that, right? Adjacent. I'm just, are you aware of that? I don't know the building numbers at WR grace. OK, well, if I were to tell you that building 30 is where the research and development uses have been conducted and are conducted presently. You would agree with me that this permit could just as likely have been for one of those existing uses. I would, yes, I would have to say that I don't know the specific use of this permit there. And any of the permits for modifications of building 30, you wouldn't have the knowledge to differentiate that modification of the building from existing uses versus proposed uses. That is correct. No further questions. Thank you. I have a follow-up question regarding the two permits. We understand you did not look at the commercial alteration permit regularly. You understood that the commercial alteration permit that's Exhibits 10 described installations of new features of the site. Is that correct? That is correct. And by virtue of that, those features previously did not exist. I guess I'd have to look at features when you say. Well, whenever it describes a six inch concrete floor, and removes it to put in an eight inch concrete floor, an eight inch concrete floor previously was not there. If it's being installed at that point in time, is that correct? That is correct. So when you have an installation as the type described in exhibit 10, in your professional experience, is the type of used described in exhibit 10 and increase in what was previously there. I would say it's an increase. There's something that is driving them to want a ticker concrete floor, most likely heavier pieces of equipment. And you said, I think I understood you just said in response to Mr. Coles' testimony that you weren't aware of whether or not the EPA air permit was in relation to the pilot plant. Did you say that or did I misunderstand your own testimony? I didn't hear that and I won't argue it. Okay, then I might have misunderstood it. The EPA, not EPA, keeps saying EPA because it's on my computer. The MDE permit in exhibit 12 and exhibit 12.1 is an air permit dealing with a pilot plant. Installation, is that correct? That is correct. Permit application. I'm sorry. Permit application and I apologize if I say permit. I mean permit application. It's not done yet. But how are you aware that that permit is describing, permit application is describing the pilot plan? Because in the permit application, it talks about the pilot plan. They have that stated in the preamble of that permit that that's what it's for. Exactly. I don't have any further questions. And no redirect based off of that. I mean, no recross. I do want to at this time move exhibits 10 and 20 into evidence because I don't believe that I asked to move them in at previous lectures. No objection. And it's basically the same thing as exhibit 10, but just for the sake of it, exhibit 11, WR Grace Building 30 permits. I would also move into evidence. All right, so accepted. At this time, can we have a five minute recess? Yes. We might have an issue with regards to one of our witnesses having to leave. Yeah, all right. Let's take a five minute break. 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 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 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 have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. 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 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 sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. We are back on the record. So, Mr. Gail, it is your witness next. All right. At this time before we call anybody, I would like to move exhibits one through five into the record just to get them out of the way. This is the series of the special exception documents. Okay. Go ahead. Go ahead. I was going to say that I do have an objection as to relevance for the record. I can take notice of them too. It's just easier for me to have them here. Yeah. I mean, also their public documents. Right. Exactly. Okay. So just for our record keeping to date, one through eight are accepted. through 12.1 are accepted and 20 and 21 thus far are accepted. I don't believe I formally introduced or moved exhibit 11 in, although it is similar to 10. I think I only asked for 10, so I would move to have 11 in as well. I think that's exactly what you said when you moved it in. Yeah, well, I moved maybe I did. Then it's, you know, it's late at night. Yeah. What one through eight and then 10 through 12. 10 through 12. That is my understanding as well. Right. And 20 and 21. Yes. OK. All right. That's where we are. All right. And I don't intend to introduce any more to that. I don't think. Well, you don't intend to. You know what? Just just to move this along because some of their testimony might be relevant to this exhibits 16 through 19. These are the documents related to the residential development. It's approval in circa 2014 to the extent that any testimony covers those. I would move those into evidence. And similar to your prior ruling, they could be taken notice of without being entered into evidence. I have objection to the relevance of such testimony and and I don't wanna waive that, but understanding your prior rulings, I just wanted to note that for the record. Thank you very much. All right, 16 through 21, then, are also accepted. Well, I'm sorry. No? 14 through 21. Sorry, 14 through 19, those are the petitions petitions but yes I would move 14 to 15 in as well. Okay 14 and 15. And of course same continuing objection that I understand. All right. Well that being said let's see here. We'll have. Wellmo come to the stand first. Would you spell that name please? R-A-J-A-P-A-D-M-A. Oh, oh, I'm sorry. Ramadass, Podge. That's Sarah's fault. She sent me a list. Could you spell your name for the record, sir? My name is Roger Ramadas. And I can't hear you. Oh. Nope. I was going to say Padma is. It is the first name. Yeah, no, it's going to say Padja's a female name. It's that, that too. My name is Raja Ramadas, R-A-J-A-R-A-M-A-T-A-S. R-A-J-A-New word, R-A-M-A-T-A-S. D-A-S, D.S. and David. D. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, I need to swear you in, sir. Yes. Yes. G. Solomon is where I refer him under the penalties of purgeary that the response is given and statements made shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the Yes. Yes. Do you solemnly swear or affirm unto the penalties of purgeary that the responses given and statements made shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. Please state your name and address for the record. My name is Roger Ramadas. My address is 79920, Laundale Circle in Columbia, Maryland. Thank you. What would you like to say tonight? Actually, it's your witness. Yeah, let's go ask. Are you opposed to or supportive of this project? I'm opposed to this project. What would you like to say tonight. Well, actually, it's your witness. Yeah. Let's go ahead and ask. Are you opposed to or supportive of this project? I'm opposed to this project. What would you like to say tonight regarding your opposition? Before I start, I want to be conscious of time. Is there a limit I should stick to? There is no specific limit. We have available time tonight, but obviously make your statements focused. I will do my best. So my real concern here is that we're missing the forest for the trees. And I say this as a layperson. I'm not a lawyer. And this is actually my first time hearing such as set of legal arguments. But I am an engineer. And I am very familiar with what it means to both write down rules. We do this all the time in terms of specifications and interpret rules and take corrective action. And it is anyone that does this. The first thing we learn is that if all you go by is a checklist or the words on paper with no consideration as to the outcome it will have for the people who ultimately care, then you're essentially doing nothing. right and my concern here is that in leading up to here, leading up to where we are right now, that is what has happened. I find both the fact of this proposed development and how we got here to be entirely unacceptable to tell you the truth. I did have some predestimony, but listening to the arguments here tonight, there was a mention of zoning codes in a window and whether an approval is given for that particular window at a particular time. So I'd like to pause it on hypothetical here. Say you are looking at someone's residence and they want to build a bigger window. And if all you do is go and take a measurement and leave, you could say, well, I've done my job, that window looks to be bigger, but that's allowed and I'm going to prove it. But if you don't notice that window seems to be suspiciously enlarged to accommodate let's say a machine gun nest, right? And you don't notice that things that look an awful lot like ammunition and machine gun parts are kind of piling up in this person's home. All you do is take the measurement of the window and walk away. I would call it incompetence fundamentally. And furthermore, if let's say someone makes an argument that, hey, no, no, in fact, that was okay because you don't know what that person's going to use that for, right? That looks like ammunition, but it's not ammunition. That looks like maybe, you know, turrets, you know, it could be anything. You don't know. You're not in their home. And that's true. But if you knew that that person was facing legal trouble for other deeply anti-social things that they've done elsewhere. And you still say, well, I don't know what they're going to do with it. So I didn't ask any more questions. I just took the measurement of the window and left. That is just, that cannot be the standard by which we conduct the business of this county. It just simply cannot. That is so far from what we expect as citizens of this county. Not just in the crafting of the law, but in interpretation, its application, its enforcement, the public interest, the overall public interest has to come first, especially when it comes to health and safety of us. And in our neighborhood, particularly children who are growing up and we expect that a level of competence a level of competence and there is a curiosity or insight into what's happening in our neighborhood by the people that we trust to see that job through is expected. And I don't think in this case that is what that has happened. I just don't see it because we are hearing that, well, this is a pilot plan. What exactly is a pilot plan? Well, it's research. What exactly is research? And at no point did Grace, to at least in my knowledge, come to her neighborhood and say, this is what we're trying to do here. At no point did we, we didn't even find out about this until much later, until you know, it seems like the plans were already in place to go acquire this pilot plant and put it into operation. How did you find out about it? So I found out about it from a neighbor, believe it or not, and who incidentally found out about it. I'm not entirely sure exactly how, but there was no public hearing, there was a community meeting. As far as I know, our HOLA wasn't the first to be contact, but I don't want to speak for them either. So this has sort of got this information, trickle in, second and third hand. So I just, I know you have a very challenging job here, We have a very challenging job here and I don't envy you for it but I respect you for it and thank you for it. But I just want to make sure that whatever decision you come to you keep in mind that if ultimately the legislative process doesn't provide a remedy for this and the legal process doesn't provide a remedy for this the citizens of this county will not be served and That matters to us, and that's what we're looking for us what we expect All right, thank you sir. Thank you. Do you have any questions? I'm sure you'll know cross examination Thank you, sir. Thank you. Do you have any questions, Emily? No cross examination. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you very much. Ah, see here. Well, I have Mike Ruddock come to the stand next. Would you spell your name, sir? Sure. It's Mike, Michael, and then Ruddock, are you DD OCK? Are you DD OCK? Right, thank you. I need to swear you, sir. Do you solemnly swear a firm unto the penalty? Is it perjury that the response is given in statements made? Shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. What do you do? Please state your name and address for the record. Sure, it's a microdic. I'm on it. 76, 68 cross Creek Drive in Columbia, Maryland, 2144. Thank you. Sir, are you a support of a little bit of a post of this project? I'm a post of the project. Could you explain why you're opposed to this project? Sure, so I'm a resident of Cedar Creek. And I love the community and you can obviously see that we won the tier well-dark community also. I want to interrupt you for a brief moment because we talked about this. Cedar Creek is the residential community directly beside WL. So you're having some difficulty hearing you? Cedar Creek is the residential community directly beside WR Grace. Cedar Creek is the residential community directly beside WR Grace. Is that correct? Please continue. WR Grace from my house. So I'm here to talk a little bit about the communications of WR grace or from the community's perspective the lack there of communications to the community. First I think it's not worthy to note that W. Grace previously owned the land that our community is built on. Can I ask you to pause right there? And Adam here in Xamena, I was taking instruction by your rulings up until this point in time. You are not you are not aware. As a side bar I asked Mr. Cole whether there was privity of title between the grace property and the development, the home development and he indicated that he did not believe that to be so. But sir, what you're testifying today is that all of the property there was in one ownership at one point in time. Grace got part of it. The home development got part of it. Is that what you're telling me? Madam hearings, I'm just because I don't want to be perceived as misrepresenting. But I said you did it. Yeah, they did know. They did not have privity when it was re-zoned. They, there was privity of title two steps removed before it was re-zoned. So they did own it as of 19. I don't even know the exact date. but as I know, exactly either either. The late 90s they held it and they sold it to a commercial developer who then sold it to a residential developer who had it re-zoned before the county council. And that was the exhibits 14 through 19. So I apologize if I'm misunderstood. I apologize if I misunderstood your question. Thank you. I appreciate your clarification. I'm sorry sir. What did you say? It's a great place to dig deeper. It's just okay. Thank you. So the company sold this land for residential development despite the proximity to their operations. If there were any plans in the foreseeable future for possibilities of the expansion and the decision to sell this land, you'd think that would have been part of their corporate planning. This is especially relevant if the proposed expansion includes new processes that were not previously disclosed when zoning decisions were made for Cedar Creek in the neighborhood. Was there any disclosure to home buyers or county officials such an expansion was possible at the time of the land sale? I have reread my home's closing documents numerous times. And the only disclosure was the land contamination that WRA's created on the site that limits the use of groundwater wells on our properties and the installation of vapor barriers during the construction of our homes. The contamination occurred on the current grace property and as a result of that you you have certain covenants that say you need to protect the ground where you can't, this groundwater issues. Correct, depending on where you were sitting in the neighbor. Okay, thank you. Thank you. We almost did not purchase our home because of this. Okay. Our County Zoning regulations outline requirements for public notification, including legal notices and community engagement, did WR Grace make any proactive effort beyond the minimum legal requirements to engage presidents who will be most affected by the expansion? And were alternative outreach methods, such as town halls, mailed notices or direct engagement considered, given the potential impact on serousing residential areas. Interestingly, I've done some research when the property was developed, there was actually quite a bit of public collaboration with the different neighborhoods. This is with the county and the neighborhoods of River Hill, and the community has existed to see what that land would, how our neighborhood would be developed. And so there was really great dialogue from the development of the land for the homes, but we have not experienced that same type of dialogue. As an engaged resident, I did not receive any direct communication from W.R. Grace. I did not receive any notification or communications from the builder Envy Homes or from the developer, Chesapeake Realty Partners, about anything on the Grace property. And in fact, continue reports from neighbors is that the Envy Homes representatives stated that the Grace headquarters was only housed corporate administrative services when we asked, and what about their activities. Something we have not been able to confirm completely, but we do see that there is executive connections between NV homes and former executives of WR Grace. So, communications experts often say that the single biggest problem in communication is that there's an illusion that has taken place. And we think that might be why this happened here with WR grace. They feel like they have fulfilled their legal obligation, but true community engagement requires more than a legal check box. It demands proactive, accessible, and transparent dialogue beyond regulatory compliance. The zoning board has a duty to ensure that new developments align with the community interest safety and the zoning principles. We ask the board to critically assess whether this expansion is truly consistent with the original intent of the zoning designation and takes in consideration a residential neighbor who which is now to the property that the WR Grace sold for residential use. We support responsible progress in innovation. It's very clear by the neighbors in our community. We have scientists, we have doctors, we have lots of experts in their field. Again, we do not, we support responsible progress in innovation, but we think that it needs to happen, it should not have been at the expense of public safety or community, informed community participation. I do have one follow-up question for this because you talked about the zoning board. Are you speaking about that in a general sense? Or did you mean to say that the zoning hearing examiner in this case has this responsibility? Excuse me, that's a zoning hearing. Okay, so all right. So, one of the clarity on that. Thank you. You're saying I have a perspective response. You have the responsibility, yes, he just meant the accidently sits on in board. Mr. Colony questions. No cross examination. All right thank you sir. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Next we will have Sarah Dwyer. We're abundant pair for the HOA so. Well it's going to have Neil talk after you. Oh, we- we- we- we- we- we- we- we- we- we- we- we- we Neil speak first. But two witnesses at one stand is going to be a bit chaotic. So we'll have Neil speak as peace first. All right, could you spell your name, please, sir? And EIL, TIL, VA. All right, thank you, sir. I need to spray you in. Thank you. Do you sell me swear or firm under the penalties of perjury that the response is given in statements may it shall be the truth, or the truth, or nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you, please state your name and address for the record. My name is, excuse me, my name is Neil Tilva. My address is 7659. I'll truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you, please state your name and address for the record. My name is, excuse me, my name is Neil Tillva. My address is 7659 cross Creek Drive, Columbia, Maryland. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Do you support or oppose this project? I oppose this project. Can you please explain why you oppose this project? Sure. Good evening. My name is Neil Tilva and I live in Cedar Creek, just a short distance from the WR Grace property. I serve on the Cedar Creek Board of Directors. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today regarding the Department of Planning and Zoning's decision to approve WR Grace's proposed pilot project as a non-conforming use. I believe that decision was incorrect and inconsistent, both in facts and the applicable zoning framework. At the center of this issue is a flawed assumption that all research and development activities are inherently the same. I don't believe that to be true. Maryland courts, including the McKemmi case, have made clear that zoning decisions must be based on the specific nature of the use, not its general classification. Grace's new project is not a continuation of prior research. It is a fundamentally different type of activity that introduces a new set of risks, infrastructure, and impacts. This is a novel process, a first of its kind technology involving the recycling of plastic, using rubber pellets and an incineration device that seems to be a departure from the bench scale research previously conducted on the site. The project now requires new air permits, newly designated equipment, structural modifications, including smoke stacks and reinforced concrete, and presents a higher intensity of use. These changes go well beyond the scope of any past activity on the site. DPC's decision to rely on a vague one-page summary of previous research without requesting emissions data or conducting a more meaningful review of operational history seems wholly inadequate. And adequate, thank you for your time. I want to ask specifically when you say Board of Directors, is this the Home Owners Association? Yes, yes, as, that's what she said. It's not an office joke. Anyway, do you have a specific position on the Board of Directors? I'm the president of the HOA Board. So are you speaking generally on behalf of the HOA and your capacity here? Yes. As you can see behind me and also about previous hearings we've had close to 50 plus members and constantly as we are in our neighborhood walking and talk to each other this is definitely something that is probably one of the biggest concerns we have at the moment. So I need to ask you a couple questions about that. So did you have a HOA meeting about this? We've had plenty. This has been an agenda item on plenty of our meetings. Okay. Did the HOA take a vote to oppose the project? We did. And was a majority of the HO. members present? It was all three members were present. No, the H.O.A. members, the voting members. Correct. There's only three people belonging to your H.O.A. On the board or, sorry, the entire H.O.A. Are you voting members? You're voting members. My apologies. We did not take a vote on that. Okay. So just the board met. Yes. But I will say that when we have our quarterly meetings with our neighborhood, we since this project has come on our radar, the engagement we've seen at our H.O.A. meetings has been triple or more, and this is the largest point of discussion and contention that we have every time. And how do we work together as a community? Okay. But your membership did not vote to oppose this project. Not officially, no. And your membership did not vote to have you come here tonight on their behalf and oppose the project. Not an unofficial manner. Okay. There's certain rules on how you can testify on behalf of an HOA, so that does not mean you can't testify here. So you're testifying on your own behalf, and I'm accepting it as such, and I'm allowing you to testify as to sort of a matter of hearsay about what other members may have said or done, okay? But your testimony here today has got to be limited to your personal testimony, not on behalf of the H.O.A. to see you understand that. Okay. I have no issue with that, ma'am. The question that I forward make as a proffer that we tried to select a handful of people to testify simply to not make the hearing voluminous because I don't want to call up 50 people to say the same thing, just that the people who are testifying are exemplars of the community's concerns generally. Right, and that's why I'm letting him speak in general on behalf of members that he's discussed with. Yep. Okay. No cross examination. Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you very much. All right. Ma'am, your name is? Sarah Dwyer. K-A-R-E-N. Sorry, what? Sarah S-A-R-A. And then Dwyer is DWY-E-R. Thank you. That area is kind of a dead zone as far as my here. Yes ma'am. How many to swear you in? G. Salami swear a referment to the penalties of perjury that the responses given in statements made shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes. Thank you. Please say your name and address through the record. Sarah Dwyer and I live at 7616 Cross Creek Drive, Columbia, Maryland. I too am also on the HOA board. And this is our number one concern in our community. And it's something we constantly talk about. I can't walk my dog without someone coming up and saying, hey, what's the latest? What are we doing? How are we going to, what information do you have? And I think the biggest issue we have is that WR Grace failed to engage our community in any meaningful way. There is no outreach, no explanation of the project, no transparency, despite the fact that the operation will be located just yards from our family homes. If they were to try to contact us, it likely would have been through our H.O.A. And I've asked our reality company if they've ever been contacted and they have not. The zoning history of the site is also relevant. Pilot plants were explicitly prohibited in the 1955 special exemption. And while the site has undergone zoning changes since then, those changes were based on conditions that no longer exist, such as the lack of nearby residential development and an isolated location. Today the site is directly adjacent to the built out community. It's my belief that because of this the rationale behind any prior non-conforming use should no longer apply. Lastly this project introduces a significant shift in scale and intensity which raises legitimate concerns about precedent. If this operation is allowed under the current interpretation of non-conforming use it opens the door for future industrial scale projects in zones, all without proper public review or safeguards. This is not a minor extension of password, it's a different kind of operation with different implications. The law does not allow to use a morph into something entirely new under the guise of continuity. I respectfully request that you ask DPC to review this proposal to go through the appropriate conditional use or special exemption review process as it should have from the start. Thank you. Thank you. I don't have any further questions. No cross examination. Thank you. Thank you. At this time was it previous discussion? We have time if anybody else wants to test it. I understand, but we don't have any more lay witnesses available to testify. And as we previously discussed off the record, and I'm just noting here, our expert witnesses, so-called experts witnesses, are, I've let them go for the evening. So we will continue this our next hearing date, which we'll talk about. All right. Then the evidentiary hearing this matter at this point in time will be continued to April 29th at 10 a.m. I verify that April 29th at 10 a.m. At this location, no further notice will be issued. At that point in timeth at 10 a.m. At this location, no further notice will be issued. At that point in time, we will continue the evidentiary hearing in this regard. Is there anything else you gentlemen want to say? Nothing further from me. All right. Thank you everybody for participating. And some of you I will see back on the 29th. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much.