In the case of BA 806D, this is the appeal of Dr. Sarah Vaya at all relating to a failure or refusal to issue a violation notice by DPC. This is a continuation of hearings that commenced on March 6th, continued through November 20th, and now we're here again today. I think where we left off was the appellants had rested, and then we were getting ready for DPC's case. Yes. And I think there was only one small item that I had on the to-do list and that is the letter from Randy Mariner that was going to be provided by the county. We had an email exchange with staff and I believe that that is in the hand staff's hand now. You do have it up there. Yes, I have it. Yes, so it's been marked as exhibit one and entered, as exhibit one, DPC exhibit. Any other preliminary matters before we start? None for the citizens. Okay, and if there's anybody who hasn't yet signed up, who wishes to, you may go ahead and do that, but I think everybody has signed up. All right, Mr. Moore. Thank you. Once again, David Moore from the Harry County Office of Law on behalf of the Department of Planning and Zoning. I'd like to call Deputy Director Jessica Bella as a witness Which I like the Deputy Director on the witness stand or do you want her from here? I don't know what's more what's your preference? Whatever's more comfortable frankly. I'm fine with If it's possible stay here just because I'm all set up. Yeah, you may want to put your mic between yourself and the deputy director and the hearing examiner because you may tend to speak towards her and therefore. All right. Would you identify yourself with a record please? Oh, I'm sorry. I was waiting. I'm a name is state your name and spell your name for the record. My name is Jessica Bella that's spelled J-E-S-S-I-C-A-B-E-L-L-A-H. I am Deputy Director for Howard County's Department of Planning and Zoning and I oversee our zoning administration and our research divisions. And do you sound like promises to speak truthfully and have some of your bell to give? I do. All right. Thank you. Ms. Bella, were you the supervisor for an employee of the county department of planning and zoning, JJ Hartner, who was a zoning supervisor in the Division of Public Service and Zoning Administration in November of 2023? I was the direct supervisor of Mr. Hartner supervisor. I see. Obviously the entire division. He was under your, he was within the division that you supervised. Yes sir. Okay. And are you familiar with the letter that Mr. Hartner wrote on November the 20th, 2023 to Dr. Sarah Via of Manor Lane in reference to the manner lane operation? I am. Are you also familiar with the decision order issued by the hearing examiner in Board of Appeals case 794D? I am. Did you also review, have you had the opportunity to review, strike that, I'll read that in a moment. So in reference to the decision order issued by the hearing examiner, and you can feel free to address the hearing examiner. I know it's natural to look at me, but your mic is on that way. And if she's going to be easy for you. She's going to be easy for you to sit up here. Yeah, yeah, because I know it's hard to feel like you've got people on different sides of you. Thanks. I know. Yes. I got it. Better for everyone. And your mic's on. Yes'm sorry. I'm sorry. Better for everyone. You're Mike's on. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Deputy Director Bello, I'm sorry. You're familiar with the hearing examiner's decision in order in 794. I am. Are you familiar with what the hearing examiner directed the department to do as a result of that appeal? Yes. And were you involved in the department conducting the subsequent actions in reference to that appeal? Yes, I participate in our general oversight of how we're doing handling our co-enforcement cases. As an overview, how did the department conduct the follow-up activities in reference to the decision order issued by the hearing examiner? Well, primarily we looked at the specific request of the hearing examiner as she described in the decision order issued by the hearing examiner? Well, primarily we looked at the specific request of the hearing examiner as she described in the decision in order and we went point by point and made sure that our investigation addressed those issues. And are you able to identify some of the code enforcement staff activities that were taken to address those concerns? Yes, so primarily my understanding is that traffic was a major concern in the case. So we reached out to our police department as well as the Department of Public Works to ask if they had conducted any recent traffic studies on Manor Lane, and if they could share that data, because the most recent study was conducted in 2020, which with the pandemic and the length of time from the date that we were doing our investigation, we didn't think that that data would be representative. And so the police department offered to do another speed study and we asked them to, yes, please share the data if they did so. And so an additional study of traffic on Manor Lane was conducted as a result of DPCs follow up to the hearing examiner's decision order. Yes sir. And you described this as a speed study. Did the speed study also capture a count of the number of vehicles traveling on Manor Lane? Yes, that was our primary interest because when we're looking at uses were typically interested in the volume of traffic and the average daily traffic load. And you mentioned the involvement of Department of Public Works in that same subject matter of traffic. How did DPC make use of Department of Public Works assistance? Well, typically traffic concerns are referred to the Department of Public Works. So we also reached out to them to say, hey, have you had any requests to evaluate the road? And could you share your interpretations? They hadn't at that time. We first engaged with the chief division chief for our development engineering division, because they often look over road designs and access for development projects. We then asked engaged Chris Jargopoo with Department of Public Works and asked him to also look over the data and look over Mr. Edminson's evaluation to see if he confirmed, if he concurred with it and if he had any additional insights that he could provide. You just reference Mr. Edminson. Who's Mr. Edminson? He's the division chief for the development engineering division. That's Chad Edminson. Yes. Okay. And that's within the Department of Planning and Zoning. Yes, sir. Okay. So he, Mr. Edmondson, is an engineer within the Department of Planning and Zoning who has some degree of expertise with regard to roads. Yeah. Particularly looking at road classifications and the appropriateness of the roads. And then you mentioned a second individual who was with the Department of Public Works? Yes, exactly. Jager Poo. Okay, and do you know what his general responsibilities are? I think he's the beer chief for highways. Okay. So we work with him often on any complaints about traffic or road concerns. And did you ask those two engineers to make use of the data collected by the Howard County Police Department as a follow-up to DPCs request? Yes. And as a result of their analysis of that data, they provide you with any basis upon which to pursue a code enforcement action under the zoning code as to the property at $44.11 a. Well, typically when you use traffic itself to be the basis for issuing a zoning violation, traffic patterns change over time, popularity of certain uses change over time, but traffic studies can be indicative of potential changes in an operation. So we mostly wanted to look at that. By primarily, we wanted to do a traffic study to be responsive to the hearing examiner in her decision in order. That was the primary drive for doing that. And based upon that follow-up investigation based on the decision in order of the hearing examiner, including the police department's data collection, the analysis of DPC and Department of Public Works traffic engineering specialists, did DPC determine that it had any further actions as the Department of Planning and Zoning that it would be able to take to address any issues at Manor Lane? No. In general, we relied on their expertise that the manner lane should be able to handle the expected traffic and the measured traffic that was occurring on manner lane. As an employee, as a specialist in planning and zoning, does the ability of a road to handle traffic mean that traffic on that road will never exceed the rated capacity of the given road? No. Generally, roads are designed to handle sort of an average or an expected load. There can be spikes that occur with loads. I think we all live in or experience spikes around concerts that occur at Merry Weather, or if a particular restaurant becomes amazingly popular, it might be very difficult to find parking in the vicinity. But the basis for designing roads is based on the average and it's associated with generalized land uses. Did DPC conduct any other additional follow-up investigation in light of the hearing examiner's decision in order in 794D? Yes. A few different cases is we had substantial testimony that was put on as part of the original appeal case. So we had a pretty clear understanding about the concerns the community were. Specifically what the hearings they would have asked us to look at was the traffic, specifically to address the beverage itself and whether the produce that was being grown on the site is actually being used as a principal ingredient in the brewery We do not have the ability to test the beer and whether you know corn that's being grown on the site is actually the primary ingredient however the state agency That we reached out to does have that ability and so we reached out to them to ask them if they had done any recent inspections They actually did an unannounced inspection as a result of us reaching out to them and provided us a follow-up that said that there was no violations that occurred with the state brewery license. And I'm sorry, the state agency reference, would that be the Maryland alcohol tobacco and cannabis commissions field enforcement division? Yes, thank you. Who from the Department of Planning and Zoning reached out to them? Ms. Tamer, Frank, she was our primary inspector all this case. And you yourself from the DPC enforcement efforts in this matter are familiar with the results of that inspection? Yes. And you said that the inspector who performed it on behalf of the state at the request of Ms. Frank conducted an unannounced inspection. That is my understanding and based upon that inspection did DPC determine did DPC uncover any evidence upon which DPC would be able to bring any further enforcement action pursuant to the hearing examiner's decision in order in 794 D in In other words, did that inspection reveal any zoning enforcement actions you could take? I don't believe so. In the case of the Farmers Reuse that's on the site that has a requirement that the primary ingredient be grown on the farm itself. We felt that the inspection that was performed by the state agency did not demonstrate sufficient evidence of any violation. You also made reference to the extensive record developed by the hearing examiner in 794D, including of citizen testimony. Did the department review the testimony given by the citizens in that hearing? Yes, we reviewed the entire decision in order, both the transcript that was included in the decision or as well as watching and engaging with the actual case itself, the video evidence. So, did DPC take into account the eyewitness and other evidence that was provided by the citizens who testified in 794D as part of its decision-making process in the follow-up code enforcement investigation in light of 794D's decision order. In other words, did you take into account as you were making your decision what if anything to do in further enforcement? I mean, we were primarily when we engage with the complainants in a code enforcement case. It's to make sure that we fully understand their concerns. And then we conduct our investigation to determine if there's actually a violation of the zoning regulations that is occurring. So we had a pretty extensive understanding that the citizenry was concerned about the traffic that was being produced, about the events that were actually occurring on the site. So our fellow investigations, are those events, are the activities on the site, compliant with the approved special farm permits that had been issued? Did Department of Planning and Zoning also reach out to the property owner for the menor lane property that is the subject of 794D to gather whatever information it could from the property owner as to whether or not strike that is confusingly stated. Did DPC, I don't want to call it interrogate, but did DPC raise any questions with Randy Mariner regarding the use of the property? Yeah, a typical process on any of our co-enforcement cases is to actually ask questions of the subject of the complaint because you always want to solicit information that you can help in your investigation or that can be a basis for identifying if there is potentially a zoning violation. Was there any additional investigation I haven't already asked you about the DPC conducted as a follow-up to the hearing examiner's decision order in 794D? Let me recollect. So we reached out to the brewery, the traffic things. Now I think we covered the majority of it. We had had an extensive number of site visits over a series of different complaints to the site, so we felt we had a pretty firm understanding of what is occurring that we had witnessed. In general, I will say that our investigations do start online. We do tend to look at what is being advertised and associated with the site. So we do look at things like calendars, descriptions of events. And then we do follow up investigations of those events if it is warranted. Based upon the investigative efforts that you've described following the decision order in 794D, was DPC able to find a basis upon which to allege that the property owner at Manor Lane was engaged in any zoning violations that the county could bring an enforcement action successfully in your estimation. Now the Manor Hill Brewery property has both its base farming use. It has an agritourism special farm permit. It has a farm stand special farm permit, and has a farm brewery special farm permit. And those combinations of the uses and the activities that were occurring on the site were, we felt all the activities were compliant with one or more of those uses at any given time. And that we didn't reveal sufficient evidence to show that we could successfully bring a violation for any of those uses. Did you conduct any further evaluation as to whether or not the uses that were to be accessory for the property had in fact become the primary use as opposed to the designated primary use for the property? No, I think we believe in firmly established that farming is the primary use on that property site. In fact, the special farm permit uses are, if you look at the definition of farming in the Howard County zoning regulations, they are actually part of the definition of farming. So as long as the activities that are occurring under the special farm permits are compliant with the permits issued, then they themselves contribute to the farming use. But then we also looked in general at the amount of acreage that had been planted, the kind of intensity of uses. And we felt that farming still remained the primary use on the property. If you've reviewed the testimony in this matter, you're familiar with the public testimony regarding the the instance on which large number of traffic has been present on a given day. Yes, I'm familiar with having watched the other days on the hearing, I know that there are concerns that there is excessive traffic on certain days. On certain days. Now, the farm breweries permitted up to four events under its permit and up to eight days, I presume there are four events on weekends perhaps under its permit. Well, they're allowed to have daily events associated with their agritourism permit and also the farm brewery permit within certain conditions. And then they are allowed on the agritors and special farm permit up to four festival events spanning eight days of the calendar year. So they can either do one very lengthy large event or they can spread it out. Did you find any evidence that the matter to lane was in violation of any of those restrictions? No, I mean, that was actually one of the primary reasons we reached out to Mr. Mariner was to ask him specifically what events do you consider to be your festival events versus your non-festival events? So that was one of the reasons we reached out to him and then looking at the activities that occur for the day-to-day events, those fall within the agro-tourism special form permit uses. So when you say you reached out to him, you basically forced him to pick which events in that given period were the four events that he was permitted to conduct. Right, and then that way we could compare it against kind of the daily special events or average daily events that are advertised as part of the agro the agatorism. Did you in comparing the data that you had with the the from with the response from Mr. Mariner find any basis to contradict his designated events? Now that was approved that he was not being honest with you about how many events he was having that qualified for the four designated events? No, I think based on the advertising as well as what the investigators had actually witnessed when they had visited the site and were monitoring, is that there was significant difference between the designated vessel events that Mr. Mayor and I identified and the general daily events that occur on the site. Now, under one of his permits, he's permitted to have, is it 50 people in the brewery at a time? Maybe I'm mischaracterizing that. Yeah, so the farm brewery, special farm permit, it's a little bit more broadly defined. It basically just says, under the farm brewery, you may only have up to 50 visitors at any given time. There are no restriction to the number of visitors who can participate in the agritourism permit. That's what I was getting at, which is just the fact that he may be restricted to 50 at a time under one of his permits, mean that there can never be more than 50 people at the property at a time? No, in fact, there can be visitors to the site that occur under the base farming use. There can be visitors to the site under the farm stand, under the agritourism special farm permit, and under the Farm Brewery. Some of the testimony regarding traffic and the impact on manner lane from members of the public has included testimony that referenced periodic trips by apparently commercial trucking vehicles. Is that inconsistent with an agricultural use of the property? No, trucks, large trucks visit both farms in general, and they would be expected to also visit in concert with the farm brewery and the agritourism permit. Did you find any basis to, did you see any evidence of trucking traffic at a level that would exceed what would be consistent with the agricultural use of the property? In other words, were there, you know, 50 trucks a day coming and going? Not that we were able to identify now. Okay. Is there a specific threshold at which trucking traffic would be indicative of something other than agricultural use? It would very much be a case-by-case evaluation. You know, if it became suddenly a shipping depot, that would potentially be indicative. But primarily, when we're evaluating traffic, such as the amount of trucks that are visiting a property or the expected traffic load, that evaluation comes when we're issuing the actual permit and determining whether the access to the site and the use that's being established on the site is appropriate given the access road that it has. That's why there's special requirements for access for agritors and uses being established on local roads. So that evaluation is conducted as part of the process of determining whether a permit may be issued? Yes. When was the permit, when were the permits issued for the menorling property if you know, in general terms? Yeah, I think the, I think 2013 is the one that I most, I think that's when they established their farm brewery permit. They've actually had subsequent agritourism special farm permits issued. I think the most recent one was 2021. They had an expansion for a barn. And then it cannot quite recall when the farm stand was there, but I can check the notes if it's necessary. And the time for resolving any disputes about the issuance of a permit is the same 30 days that generally applies? Yes, I believe so. OK. Did anyone appeal the issuance of any of the permits to Matterlane that you know of? Not that I'm aware of. I think in reviewing the case file notes there were concerns and comments that were provided at the time that the permits were being evaluated. And I think those are included in the case file. But you're not familiar with, you didn't see any indication that anyone when DPC issued the permits that anyone had appeal had administratively appealed any of those permit issuances. Not that I recall in reviewing the file. I was not with the county at the time that those permits were issued. Right. Now Mr. Hartner has moved on to a job outside of Howard County, correct? Yes, he's no longer employed. Right. But are you are familiar with the letter he issued to Dr. Via, you said before, expressing that the county would not be issuing any notice of violation based upon the hearing examiner's decision order, correct? Yeah, there were actually two letters because we received as we were performing our secondary investigation as directed by the decision order of a hearing examiner. We also received a complaint about a specific event. And so we actually issued two closeout letters, one for that specific event and the other one was for the overarching reinvestigation that we were asked to do. And based upon your evaluation of the entire investigation conducted by the Department of Planning and Zoning, do you believe the Department of Planning and Zoning had substantial evidence upon which to make the decision that was stated in the letters that Mr. Hartner issued? Yes, I think we had a conclusive investigation that provided enough information for us to make a determination. When you issue those letters, is DPC definitively saying that no zoning violation could possibly be occurring at the property? No, we're saying do we have sufficient evidence to believe that a violation has occurred and then we have the discussion of issuing a notice violation if we believe they have and what is DPC's burden if it issues a notice of violation and believes that a violator has not complied with a notice of violation when it issues a citation what is DPC have to do to prevail in a citation issued following a notice of violation? Ultimately, we must go to court and have that order upheld and meet the burden for the threshold for the standard or proof in district court to demonstrate a zoning violation in a citation based on this investigation? No, I think our investigation is going to be. We have to ask the question. The question goes to. Sustained. Yeah. I don't believe this witness can testify as to whether a burden would have been met in district court. That would be up to the court. Correct, as to whether it was met, I was asking the question because it is very much an issue whether DPC believes it could meet the burden. Because DPC in order to take enforcement action, it self has to reach the conclusion that it can meet the burden that it has to meet. So the D.C. has really stated what the burden is or what kinds of evidence would be deemed to be admissible by the court, whether a judge would actually admit certain evidence or not, what witnesses would be called to the hearing. I mean, none of which is what I'm trying to show. I'm trying to show DPC's assessment of whether it would be able to prevail. No, I understand what you're trying to show, but there are different ways of prevailing at a court case. I mean, you can just go in and say, here's a piece of paper. This is all we have, or you can call witnesses. You know, you can attempt to have documents entered. So I think the real question should be, what type of, well, I don't think this witness can testify as to whether they feel they could have met the burden. I think the proper question would be, what is the analysis that DPC goes through to determine whether they are going to take a case to the district court and what types of evidence do they typically ask to have admitted into the court record? Because it all depends on what evidence is going to be admitted as to whether a burden is met. I respectfully disagree with the hearing examiner's analysis of the issue on this appeal. The challenge here is whether or not DPC aired when it did not issue an other violation in this matter. It is very much a part of that analysis that seems to me whether DPC reasonably concluded that it could not prevail on a code enforcement case. DPC, the government ought not be issuing notices of violation in cases in which it does not in good faith believe it can prevail. The purpose of notices violations is not to do anything other than to cure zoning violations and also to initiate if necessary a follow-up zoning enforcement action through citation. If DPC does not in good faith believe that it can succeed, whether someone else thinks it can succeed or not, DPC cannot as long as that decision is reasonable issue in the notice of violation. And in fact, this hearing examiner is required to sustain DPCs decision not to issue a notice of violation. If DPC reasonably concluded that it could not issue a notice of violation, this is not could someone else have decided something different. This is can DPC reasonably reach the decision it reached? understand what you're saying in the prior hearing, it was testified to by the county that the county did not even talk to Mr. Mariner and did not go online because that type of testimony and or information would not be admissible in a district court proceeding. Now, today, this witness has testified that they do ask the owner, or they did ask the owner in this case, and they did go online. And so the question, I think, you need to establish, or the information you need to establish is, what does DPC look at to determine whether they can take a case to district court or will take a case to district court? And whether they believe, I mean, I don't think a lay witness can, a lay witness meaning not a lawyer who litigates can really testify to whether or not they believe a burden would have been sustained. I think what she can testify to is all of the information that they had and what of that information would have been entered into a district court case or attempted to have been entered into a district court case. And based on that, do they think they could win? I mean, and maybe we're just talking semantics, but we need to know what they, what DPC believed could, what DPC based their opinion on and whether or not the information that they had before them would have been used to go to district court. If I may. I mean, I think you can say, okay, we're not going to win because all we're going to do is, well, issue the citation and all we're going to do is show up at the citation hearing and say, okay, here's a piece of paper, here's the citation, we rest our case. The question is, what evidence would be used at that district court hearing to determine whether a burden was met. Whether a burden is met all depends on the case and you haven't established what the case would be to have her opine whether or not she believes that would meet a burden. Let me ask you this Deputy Director Bella presenting all of the testimony presented at the hearing examiner and 794 D including by members of the public as well as presenting all of the evidence presented in today's in the hearing that we are here for today not just today's date but the other dates as well as the investigative efforts that you have described in your testimony today. Do you believe the DPC could have prevailed in a code enforcement action against the property had DPC elected to bring one. Objection. I'll let her answer that. No I do not believe we could have prevailed. Our investigations did not reveal that there is sufficient evidence of a zoning violation of the zoning regulations as they are written. I have no further questions for the deputy director. Good morning. I have a couple questions for you. So you are familiar with the decision in order. I remember that correctly, right? Yes. And you are familiar with the decision in order is remand order that DBC conduct the required investigation to determine whether a violation exists or has occurred consistent with the law, this decision and the bullet to directives in the decision in order. Is that correct? A clarification actually is that the specific order itself is references the explanation throughout the decision in order, but the specific order was to reopen our investigation, conduct an investigation, and then I think that terminology is a change or opinion if warranted. Yeah, I quoted verbatim from page 35 that, and I'm just trying to establish the scope of the investigation on Arrhenia, that the order required an evaluation of whether violations occurred or were occurring consistent with the law, meaning whether they were violating applicable regulations. And then as well as consistent with the decision to the extent that the zoning community examiner might have provided more specific details about what to investigate. Would you agree with that analysis of the decision in order, remand? Yeah. Yes. Okay. Thank you. So, you are familiar with the applicable regulations in the zoning ordinance like sections 100, which are the general provisions of the zoning regulation section 102, which cover violations enforcement penalties 103, which cover definitions 104, which are specific regulations for the rural conservation district 106.1, which relates the county preservation eas, section 128, which provide the supplementary zoning district regulations and then and of course the county code of ordinances section 16.1602 which relates to notice the violations. Are you familiar with those parts of the code? Okay, well just so that we all have the information in front of us, I don't want this to be a memory test. I'm going to show you what we have marked as citizen appellates exhibit 17, I believe you. Yep. Yeah. All right. This is our account again. All right, this is Arthur County and Zoning Regulatory. And I'll proper that exhibit 17 is copy and pasted from the zoning regulations. It's a collection of some of the provisions in the zoning regulations that have been mentioned by the Zoning Examiner and her decision in order and are otherwise relevant in this case. I'll note I don't can see that these are all relevant in particular. I note that for some reason, 131 related to conditional uses has been included. But I'm going to take Council's word that these are all accurate. Potations of the county code and regulations and I of course have no objection to the hearing examiner who already knows the county code and regulations and I of course have no objection to the hearing examiner who already knows the county code and regulations having a copy of them. So I'd like to offer that as evidence or admit that as an exhibit. So you said no objection. Other than the relevance concern. I'm not conceding relevance, but obviously the county coding regulations are properly part of the record in this case. You're not conceding relevance of the zoning regulations. I'm not conceding relevance of conditional uses. Okay, so we'll qualify that objection that you're not conceding relevance of the conditional use statute, but otherwise you do concede and agree that the zoning regulations are relevant. Well, generally, I mean, I will note in reference to 794D's decision in order and what's included here, for example, the section 100.0A, the legislative intent. Doesn't really lend anything informative to this particular case because the county can't enforce based upon intent per se. That's just a general opening statement of the zoning regulations that explains what the purposes are. So I'm going to admit the exhibit as excerpts from the zoning regulations, you can argue whatever you want about relevance of the general intent of the regulations if you'd like. Hi. Thank you. So I'm going to kind of categorize my questions in buckets of topics. So I want to start with the traffic topic. And I'm sorry, we'll admit that as a pellet, 17, thank you. How's it going? It's true, isn't that that one of the directives outlined in the decision in order was that DPC evaluate whether the current operations on the subject property quote, or sorry, whether the current operations exceed quote, the proposed uses set forth in the applications and relied on by DPC in issuing the permits. Would you agree that's in the decision in order? I believe that sounds familiar. And did you review the the Farm Brewery application and DPCs finding in this case? Sorry. Those are two separate things. Sorry. The Farm Brewery application and then DPCs evaluation of the application. Did you review the document? I reviewed the case file, the all special farm permits which have been issued to the Manor Health Brewery. And did that include the application documents for the Farm Brewery permit Yes. Okay I would flip to the next page. There is an email that's titled from Randy Mariner to Bob LaLouche. Is that was that email part of the record that you reviewed? It is in the record, yes. And then if you go to the fourth page, I guess, in the packet, there is the MD code, Farm Brewery Requirements, was that in the record that you reviewed? I'm sorry, it's not marked. Oh, yes. Yeah, that was also in the record. And then if the document you provided is a copy of the record of the documentation. OK, so you look through and you believe it's an accurate copy of what you've reviewed. Yeah, I don't record. Yeah, just to save time. I don't see anything in this that would indicate that it is not an accurate copy of the permit file. Thank you. I would like to move into evidence, Susan Appellant's 18. No objection. Thank you. Admitted? And before I get to more detailed questions, I'd also like to show you what we have marked as citizen appellants 19, which is the agro-terrorism permit and relevant documents as well. I'm sorry, council. When you say relevant documents, do you mean that it's a complete copy or do you mean that it's the ones that you decided you wanted to use and what that you felt were relevant? For my understanding, it's a complete copy of the application documents and the county is findings of it. It's what our clients were able to get from the county. That's fine. I just wanted to be clear whether you had whittled down a set to what you plan to use or whether it was the full thing. It was not my intention to do that. So this is what we had access to. Does this look out here? I think this is the most recent. I wrote tours at Miner-Prior Special Paralympics that's been issued. We don't have a copy of the application for that, but we'll stick with these too. I just wanted to make sure that they're in the record. But for the 2016 application, this is a fair and accurate copy of what was included in that record. It does appear to be so. Okay, I'd like to move into evidence, citizen of hell, 19. Object because this is not apparently the relevant record. If there's a 2021 2021 this one is outdated Maybe heard on that mountain. I'm here soon our clients got this from the county I can ask them of what year but this was what they were provided they were for the 2021 permit when they requested documents as far as I can tell they were only provided the Permit cover sheet and then they were provided these documents so I don't know what actions they took to develop their exhibits It doesn't matter if there's a 2021. This isn't the relevant permit If they want to lay a foundation that this is in fact the 2021 permit I don't know that there's a 21 permit So so that's just what somebody's saying at this point. Well, I'm going to lie again and you can argue relevance. I mean, I understand I understand your relevance arguments. If this is something that was provided to. Well, no one's actually testified to that under oath. There hasn't been a chain of custody from the production request to establish this is what was provided by the county in response to a request for the 2021 permit. What we know is the deputy director has said there is a 2021 permit and we've been proffered this as a 2016 permit and we have a proffered by council that someone, some unspecified person may have made a request for the 2021 and that this is what they say they got in response. May I be heard for a moment, Madam Hearing's am I? So I understand what you're saying. I'm going to allow it in and you can argue relevance to the extent that you deemed necessary. So this will be marked and admitted as 19. And if I may, since the remand order did request that DPC review all of the applicable application documents, if the witness or the county would like to provide the 2021 packet. We would not oppose to that as well if there is a packet for the 2021 application. I'm not going to do Council's job for them right now in the middle of the hearing. All right, well I'll move on to my questions about the exhibits we do have so far. So I'd like to turn to the Farm Brewery Permit. That's Exhibit 18. And if you count to the seventh page, it's titled, Evaluation of Farm Brewery Class 1A Application, Manor Hill Farm LLC, 41411 Manor Lane Tax Map 29, parcel 19, Lot 3, parentheses, the property, RCDO. Do you see that page? Is this the one? Yes, I mean, that's the first page of that report, correct? That's what you turned to. It's numbered one on the bottom corner. Yes. Okay yes thank you ma'am. Could you please read for us the last paragraph on that page that starts with Manor Lane or actually I'm going to go back I apologize. This document is accurate to say that this document is the county's findings regarding the application for the Farmbury permit. Yes this would be the evaluation that was conducted by the staff who reviewed the administrative permit application. Okay, great. And just to make sure that we all understand what's on this page, the bold parts are what the county found. That's the county's findings, correct? Yes, okay. Okay. Farm permits have. Thank you so much. Can you clarify what page you're looking at? Oh, yes, sorry Madam Haringson. I'm going to ask. Yes, if you count seven pages into the packet, and then it's, it has a number one on the bottom right hand corner. I'm sorry, we didn't date number these. I'm not just spec'd them, I'd probably be helpful, but these are the original page numberings. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Can you please read for us the last paragraph that starts with, Manor Lane is not a through road. Thank you. Manor Lane is not a through road and it ends adjacent to the property. It does not have much traffic because it is principally used to access the residential parcels located along the road at a maximum of 50 visitors to the property at any one time, the traffic potentially generated would be relatively low. The petitioner explains that the use would get approximately two truck visits per week, and these trucks would be 22-foot box trucks, not tractor trailers. Trucks at this side would not conflict with other uses of the road, while the vehicle trips on Manorling would increase, the level generated by the use would not excessively conflict with the other uses along the road. Thank you. So it's accurate to say isn't not that when DPC approved this Farm Brewery application, it did so based at least in part on a finding that quote, the use would get approximately two truck visits per week. And these trucks would be 22 foot box trucks not tractor trailers. When they were evaluating the specific special farm brewery permit. Yes. Okay, thank you. And is it accurate? It's accurate, isn't not to say that, again, just to clarify, the use for the farm brewery permit would generate 22 foot box truck trips, not tractor trailer trips. Is that correct? I believe that is what the evaluation was for the Farnbury program. OK. Thank you. And it's accurate to say that those trips, the 22-foot box trucks were estimated to visit the property when it was applied for about two times per week. Is that accurate? Yes. OK. Thank you. So did DPC send an inspector to Manor Lane to observe the type of trucks that visit the site? We send an inspector to perform investigations. I don't recall whether they observed any truck or affect at the time that they investigated. So you didn't review, for example, a report from your inspector that stated, I reviewed the number and the type of trucks that were on Manor Lane. You did not look at a report that said anything to that extent? It would have to depend on whether they witnessed that when they were performing their investigation. Do you know did they go to the site specifically to look for that? To look for truck traffic. Mm-hm. I think when the investigators go to the site, they are generally trying to assess all activities that are occurring on the site and use that for developing their investigation. So is it accurate to say that no one went specifically to the site to specifically review the number of trucks that were visiting and the type of trucks that were visiting? the question relevance. May I? The relevance is that the zoning hearing examiner remanded this case to DPC requiring that they review the compliance of the current operations on site with the specific proposed uses that were approved in the applications. And the specific proposed use for the Farm Brewery application said that there would be only 22-foot box trucks to that site for the Farm Brewery use and they would only be there two times a week. So it's our argument that DPC was required then to review how many trucks were visiting the site and what types of trucks were visiting the site to service the Farm Brewery permit. respectfully, Council either misunderstands or mischaracterizes the evaluation of Farm Brewery Class A application document that she had just been discussing with the witness. She mischaracterizes a description of DPC's assessment of what the local road access use would look like in its decision whether or not to issue a permit with some sort of restriction that applies to the use. She's suggesting that it seems to be suggesting that council seems to be suggesting that this therefore places a cap on the use because DPC in its assessment of whether or not to issue a permit reach the conclusion that that was what was likely to occur. It's not the same thing. When DPC reaches a value to determinations about whether a given permit should issue, that doesn't mean that that's the use is subsequently subject to additional regulatory requirements, not in the zoning regulations. May I have a hearing similar? Yes. Yes. Thank you. Respectively, based have heard Madam Hearing's emitter. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Respectively, based on the Madam Hearing's emitter's order and decision, it was, and based on the prior hearing, the 794 case, it was established that when an applicant applies for a special use permit, if the operations exceed what was specifically approved in that permit, in that permit that they would have to go back to DPC to get a new approval or have the use be reviewed by DPC. So it's DPC's obligation when there's an assertion that there's been a violation to ensure that there has not been any type of exceeding what was approved for on the site. And it's important to be site specific because how DPC evaluates some of these subjective requirements is particular to a specific site. So for example, because the applicant stated in its application that there would only be 22 foot box trucks and only two times per week, it was only because of that that DBC was able to establish that the use of the road would not unduly conflict with other uses of the road. Without, if you're exceeding that, then the findings that are the basis of this approval would inherently be different. And that is why it is most relevant in this case, particularly given the zoning hearing examiners previous decision. All right. So I think your argument is that despite what the application and the documents relating to the approval of the permit state that once the permit is issued that all that the owner has to comply with or the zoning regulations and not what specifically is in the permit. Is that pretty much what you're saying? That is not what I'm saying. I'm not saying that the permit cannot place restrictions on the use. I'm saying that the evidence upon which DPC reached its determination as to whether the permit ought to issue or actually was required to issue do not automatically become conditions on the permit. Okay, that's your argument. Yes. Okay. I'm going to sustain your objection. We'll let it in. You can certainly, there are clearly a lot of differences between the counties kind of interpretation of what DPC's duty is and what the appellants believe that duty is. I understand that difference. If you believe that the duty is much more narrow, you can certainly argue that and state that DPC wasn't required to look at certain things, but at this point, because this is part of the argument, and I don't necessarily agree with your legal interpretation, I'm going to allow this end. So the objection is sustained. I'm sorry. Overruled. I mean, I'm sorry. I'm sorry to allow this end, so the objection is sustained. I'm sorry. I'm overruled. I mean, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Sorry. I always give it. Yes, overruled. Okay. Thank you. So I'll repeat that question because it's been a little bit. So is it true that you did not see any evidence, you did not, you're not aware of DPC sending an inspector to MaterLine specifically to review the number and the type of trucks visiting the subject property for the farm brewery permit. The investigator visited the site to confirm whether all of the uses occurring in activity standards that was compatible with all of the issues special farm permit uses as well as the base zoning regulations. Respectfully, this is just a yes or no question. Did DPC send an inspector specifically to review just that criteria? Objection. Relevance and ask and answer. The witness answered the inspector went there to investigate the entire matter. And whether they weren't required to send an inspector there on one specific occasion simply to investigate that specific issue. It's, we have bad use of public resources to send an inspector out to ignore everything else and only look at the traffic. So I'm just going to have everybody kind of step back for a minute. As you know, this is a administer proceeding. The rules of evidence are relaxed. And generally, that is because it is deemed to, you know, the fact finder is able to make the determination as to what's relevant or not. Certainly, you know, testimony that is completely irrelevant to this matter will not be brought in. But if you want to get this case done, I just don't see that every single question needs to be objected to in this manner. You can run your case how you want to run it, but I feel like we're getting to the point where you're parsing words. I think it's best to allow the testimony to come in of your witness and as we did when she was testifying in response to your questions and not be so oppositional, I guess, with respect to the questions asked. Again, you can run your case how you want it, but I think we're wasting time. respect to the questions asked. Again, you can run your case how you want it, but I think we're wasting time and with constant objections. If you want, you know, continuing objection to relevance, you know, to state, you know, the DPC only looked at A, B, and C and not D, not DE&F, then I understand that. So that objection is sustained, excuse me, overruled. And I understand what the county's arguments are in terms of what's relevant and what's not, what the county believes DPC was supposed to look at and what the county believes DPC was not required to look at. And that can certainly be argued in a closing document. We don't need to argue, I don't think we need to argue every single question that really kind of pertains I think to the overall argument that the county has and the argument that the county is making is that its review of the potential violation was very limited. That is my understanding of what these objections are related to. Respectfully your misunderstanding my current objection. My current objection is because she's trying to pin the witness down to say, did you send an inspector there solely to look at traffic? And I don't see the relevance to whether they sent an inspector there solely to look at traffic. If she wants to ask the witness, and I think she has, and I think the witness answered, did you send an inspector there whose inspection was supposed to include traffic? That's fair. I think she's answered that already. That's why I said ask and answer. And if the witness doesn't can't answer that question, then she can just say I don't know. That's again not my point. I understand what your point is. And I'm respectfully, I'm not certain that hearing the examiner does as to the subjection, but we can move on. Proceed with your question. Thank you. I'll ask this just one more time. Did DPC send someone with a specific focus to the property to count the number of trucks visiting the site and observe the type of trucks visiting site? So I'm trying to answer it differently. I am not comfortable providing you a yes or no answer because my job is not to send an inspector and say in your inspection do this and this specifically. My job is to trust our inspectors to go to a site, to evaluate all the activities occurring on that site in conformance with all of the relevant regulations and approved permits and to then who assess all of the evidence that they collected in their investigation process. So no, I did not direct Inspector Frank to go look at trucks for truck purposes. I said you must consider all of the relevant things in your investigation. Okay, thank you. And did you review a report from Inspector Frank that described the number and type of trucks that visited the site? No, I don't have our inspectors write specific reports from the inspections. We have a discussion about that. So when you were discussing it with Inspector Frank, did she describe to you the number and type of trucks that visited the site? Honestly, I don't recall. Okay, thank you. I would like to show you what was marked as exhibit six in the previous case. I believe those are already in the record. But I have copies if anyone needs a copy of it in the case 794. Does anyone need a copy of that? What exhibit was it? Exhibit 6 from case 794. I don't know that I have exhibit 694 with me. If you could please turn to the fourth page. These aren't numbered, but. The fourth page has a fraction of a sentence that starts with brush comma, sometimes involving a drop off comma a hillside or an electric pole less than three feet from the roadway. Do you see? I don't. What paragraph is that? I'm just making sure on the same page. That's a very first sentence on the page. Do you see that? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Just to make sure we're all on the same page. So there on this page, and just so we're all familiar, have you reviewed this document before? Honestly, if I have, it has not been a recent review. I'm not exactly sure what this document is. So this was exhibit six in the prior zoning enforcement case. It was described as Mr. Mayor and the property owner's response to the previous, to the complaint issued by the citizen appellant. So it was used by DPC in the previous case. Is that sound familiar to you? I know I haven't reviewed this document. You've never reviewed this document before. Well, let's read if you can go to the second paragraph titled response. That would be the fourth paragraph down, I guess the second from the bottom. It says response colon as to truck traffic. Come, do you see that paragraph? Yes, ma'am. Okay, could you please read that for us? objection this document's not an evidence in this case. Yes it is. Sorry. SB 794D. The entire record from 794D. I apologize. I believe you're correct. With the rest. As at the request of the county. No, I said as I apologize. Sorry. Yeah, thank you very much. Response as to the trough traffic. We have one weekly schedule track to trail a pickup of our beer from our distributor. Legends LLT. Every Wednesday morning around 8 a.m. to ease the burden of trash pickup on the county. We have two dumpsters, one for trash and one for recycling. We have twice a week pickups. Generally by 7 a.m., our waste water is also picked up twice a week, generally by 6 a.m. Other deliveries are sporadic, grain every six weeks, and hops and hard goods quarterly. Again, all within road design guidelines. Sorry. I recall a line of questioning a few minutes ago about what type of truck traffic is normal for a farm use. Is importing grains every six week to a farm an average truck activity for a form? I'm not qualified to answer that question. Okay, and then what about I wanna compare this with what we read in citizen appellants exhibit 18, the application for the foreign brewery permit. This says doesn't not that they have a tractor trailer pick up their beer for their distributor every week on Wednesday morning. Is that correct? That is what the stocking says. And did DPC have an inspector present on any Wednesday morning at 8 a.m. to observe that tractor visit. I'm not the thy recall but I can't recall any of these specific inspection times. Thank you. And then in the application document that we just read, the paragraph, did that discuss having sporadic grains delivered every six weeks including hops and other hard goods? Quarterly? Yes. The application document discussed that? No, sorry, the application document. Yeah, did that discuss having grains delivered every six weeks? I don't believe so. Did that application document discuss having trash picked up twice a week and recycling picked up twice a week and recycling picked up twice a week and Wastewater picked up twice a week. I Do not believe so I think the evaluation itself was limited to two Two box trucks. Doors. Sorry, I'm swimming in paper, a string on the right one. Yeah, I think it was generalized to two truck visits per week. Okay, thank you. Do you have an understanding of what type of trucks come to pick up trash and recycling? Are they large trucks or are they small trucks? I mean, most trash recycling pickups occur in the standard dumpster truck up. So those are usually larger than 22 feet, right? You know, I don't actually know. Okay. And what about for waste water? Those usually large trucks that come to pick that up? Again, it depends on the actual facility. I don't run the operations, so I don't know what trucks they have come pick up their facilities. And just I want to make sure I'm clear on this. DPC, not I apologize. None of the inspectors from DPC observed or may notations about any of these pickups, correct? Not that I recall. I'm reviewing the inspection file. OK, thank you. I would like to touch briefly the traffic study that was conducted by the county or by the police department evaluated by DPC. Did that record the number of truck traffic on the property? I think it was just recording the number of trips period. So it didn't give specifics about the size or the number of trucks that were on that street when it was counting the number of vehicles. So it's typically just saying a large object moved past the counter and then that counts as a vehicle. Got it. Okay. Thank you. All right. I want to turn our attention to section 128. Are you familiar with that section of the zoning regulations? Yes, ma'am. And are you familiar with the fact that this section, whether you're talking about an agroterism use, whether you're talking about a farm, sand use, whether you're talking about a farm brewery, requires that the operations on the property quote, cannot, sorry, cannot quote, unduly conflict with other uses that access the local road. And in this case, that would be manor lane. Is that accurate? It is accurate to say that when the department is reviewing an application for a special farm permit, that is part of the criteria. They must assess if the access is occurring off a local road. And same with agro-terrism, correct? Yes, that is a special farm permit. Oh, oh, it fell, yes, yes. Thank you very much. And similarly, I know we touched on this briefly, but section 100.0A3, states that it's the intent of the zoning regulations to promote, quote, safe and convenient vehicular and pedestrian traffic movements appropriate to various uses of land and structures throughout the county. Is that correct? Yes, that's what it says. And then that is utilized in the detailed criteria and regulations that are developed for specific uses to ensure that that intent of the zoning regulations is carried forward. Like for example, the requirement that use not unduly conflict with other uses of a local road, right? When evaluating if you're allowed to legally establish a use that requires a special farm permit to occur on a specific property, yes. Would that not also be a relevant consideration when evaluating whether a current operation violates those requirements? Not always. What are you basing that off of? Because if a use that is occurring on a property is compliant with the activities that they are permitted to do under their special administrative permit, a change in traffic patterns does not itself constitute a violation of that use. What if the change in those traffic patterns does in fact unduly conflict with other uses that access the local road. The measure for deciding if a use unduly conflicts occurs at the time that a permit application is being evaluated and whether it is approved. Subsequent to that, a violation of the approved permit is based on the activities and the operations that are occurring on that side. So I just want to make sure I'm understanding correctly. Is it your testimony that DPC when they were investigating this complaint, they did not consider whether the traffic unduly conflicts, the traffic generated by the subject property unduly conflicts with other uses on Manor Lane? We evaluated the traffic and how the traffic was impacting the Manor Lane primarily because the hearing examiner asks us to do so in her decision and order. But because our investigation and the intent of our investigation is to determine whether a violation has occurred of the use provisions of the zoning regulations, saying that traffic may unduly burden manner lane itself, because there's been an increase in traffic or an increase in popularity or how people drive and use the road system have changed. That in and of itself would not be something that we could bring into evidence as a violation of the permitted uses for legally established use that has occurred on that property. But I just want to make sure we're focused on just what DPC did and its investigation, not what DPC might consider as necessary to bring a citation. I want to make sure in this case did DPC analyze whether the existing traffic on the site that was observed in the traffic study for example, unduelly conflicts with other uses of manor lane. Did it evaluate that? Not exactly because that would not be an appropriate measure of whether a use violation is occurring. And since the complaint that we received is that there was a use violation, saying the evaluation of whether manor lane is an appropriate road and whether the operations occurring there, and do we burn that evaluation occurs when an application is reviewed and approved. It's not a subject of the code enforcement itself. Okay, thank you. And I just want to make sure we're clear on what the other uses of Manor Lane are. It's true, isn't it not not that in the November 20, JJ Hartner letter, the county described Manor Lane as most similar to a residential access street. Is that correct? I believe that when we asked Mr. Edmondson to evaluate it, that was the closest classification he could find, and then that was reiterated in the close-out letter. Okay, thank you. And it's true is it not that in the Howard County Design Manual Appendix A, residential access streets are described as streets where quote, the residential environment is dominant and traffic is subservient pedestrian movement may share the roadway. Honestly, I've not read that design manual when prepping for this case, so I'm not a traffic engineer, that's why I defer to our experts. Okay, but would you say that pedestrian traffic, people walking up and down the rural road, is something that is appropriate for Manor Lane? I am not a traffic engineer, I cannot say whether it's appropriate or not. I would say when you don't have sidewalks and anything else pedestrians and bicyclists may use the road. Okay. And so did DPC evaluate how the traffic impacts people's ability to walk up and down the road? As part of this code enforcement? Yes, ma'am. No, because that would not be a relevant matter to whether there's a use violation. Okay, and so then just to make sure I'm clear on the scope of the review, DPC then didn't reach out, for example, to property owners along Manor Lane to see how the traffic impacts or ask how the traffic impacts their ability to walk them down the road or use it for recreational purposes. Is that correct? Because it's not part of what we're reviewing in terms of, is there a use violation occurring? It's not something we do. We were very familiar with the residence concerns about how traffic on the road is impacting their use of the road because that has been heavily testified to in the documents. OK. Thank you. And then I want to... Are you familiar with a manor lane in terms of its narrowness? Have you looked at pictures of it or visited the property? I have not actually been out to manor lane. I've seen the pictures that have been introduced as part of this case. Okay, so are you familiar with the fact that manor lane, for example, in some cases doesn't have a shoulder, it has ditches on both part of this case. Okay, so are you familiar with the fact that Manor Lane, for example, in some cases, doesn't have a shoulder, it has ditches on both sides of the road. That is my understanding, yes. Okay, and are you familiar also with the fact that, in some instances, there are objects within a handful of feet at most, for example, poles or houses that are one to five feet away from the edge of the pavement. I recall seeing pictures of that effect. Okay, thank you. And I would like to show you what we have, what we previously admitted as exhibits, citizen appellants exhibits 9 and 10. Yeah, thank you. I think we've got a lot of information that I have copying the phone. Yeah. It's the photo of the big rig leaving Manor Lane and then the work truck parked on Manor Lane. Thank you. Thank you. So as part of its investigation, did DPC evaluate whether two large trucks or large vehicles could safely pass each other on Manor Lane? For example, like the two depicted in these two exhibits. No, that's not part of our consideration of whether a use violation is occurring on the property. Okay. And did the DPC evaluate whether, for example, if you're looking at exhibit nine, whether a pedestrian would be safe walking along the road while a car was trying to enter Manor Lane at the same time that a large truck was trying to leave Manor Lane. Do they evaluate a situation like that? No, our evaluation is confined to the uses concerns about traffic safety are better appropriately handled by other departments within the county. Okay, thank you. And And so did you review the previous testimony in the hearing, last hearing and in the previous hearing in this case? I did not watch the testimony that occurred from the original decision for remand. I have watched the testimony for this case. Okay, so do you recall a video that we showed, it's Exhibit 7, that depicted a line of traffic trying to exit Manor Lane towards 108. Do you recall that video? I can play it again, just the quality is on this great, but I'm happy to play it again if you don't recall that. Not specifically, was this under the initial case or was this the last meeting? This was the last meeting. Yes, I've recently watched that then. Okay, so you recall that video? Yeah. So in that situation where you have, when you have vehicles lined up trying to exit Manor Lane, would an emergency vehicle trying to exit Manor Lane be able to avoid that traffic? I don't operate an emergency vehicle. I'm not the appropriate person to determine that. Did DPC evaluate the impact on emergency vehicles or emergency responses that might have been caused by any traffic generated by this site? At what time? During such events or at any time during the investigation, was that ever evaluated? Is it part of our use violation? Yes, ma'am. No, not as part of a use violation inspection. Okay. And what about residential vehicular traffic? I assume I know your answer, but just to make sure the record is clear, did DPC evaluate how residential vehicular traffic would be impacted by the traffic generated by the subject property? Only in so much that we had a traffic study performed and evaluated the data to understand the number of trips that might be occurring. Okay, thank you. And there's a perfect segue because I do want to talk about the traffic study a little bit. So it's accurate to say that the traffic study was conducted from Wednesday, August 30th at 7am to Friday, September 8th at 7am. Is that correct? I will believe that that is the accurate numbers. I would have to look at the actual file. to Friday, September 8th at 7am, is that correct? I will believe that that is the accurate numbers. I would have to look at the actual file. Do I, I'm happy to provide you a copy. I should have one. Okay. Oh, I'm not actually being like that. Yeah, so Wednesday, August 30th at 7.09 to Friday, September 8th at 7.15. Thank you. And so why is it that DPC had the study conducted on those days starting at a Wednesday and then concluding Friday morning, so then only including one weekend? DPC did not correct the timeframe where we asked us for the police department to perform a traffic study for us. And then that's what they determined based on their experience. So DPC didn't provide the police with, for example, a request for a specific date or time or specific events to be studied by the traffic study? Generally what we're trying to assess is if the typical traffic associated with this use essentially to get an information about that. Okay, and and when you say typical traffic Is it your understanding that most of the traffic generated by this site occurs on the weekend or during the week? I believe most of the traffic occurs on the weekend. And so would it not be helpful to evaluate two weekends, as opposed to two week days, two sets of week days in this traffic trip? As I said, what we do is reach out to the police department and ask if they have any traffic study information, and then they perform to another investigation. I can't speak to the length of time that they can in any traffic study information and then they perform to another investigation. I can't speak to, you know, the length of time that they can leave things or how much information is being entered. I can say that when we referred the information to our in-house experts, they felt that sufficient data had been collected to make an assessment. And does DPC have the ability to ask the police department to conduct studies on specific days? I assume we would, yes. Okay. And now, I want to, this is still in the same realm of topics, but I recall you saying previously that a lot of your investigations start online. So did DPC review the website for Manor Hill Brewing in the sophistication. My understanding is we did yes. And did you review the calendar of events in the investigation? I understand that the inspectors did yes. Okay, so I'd like to show you what we previously entered into evidence as exhibit two. We printed copies this time for everyone to review. And I'll just give you the 2023 calendar. So what we've done just to make things easier is we've put tabs for months, May through November, which is when DPC between when the remand order occurred and when DPC issued its decision not to issue a notice of violation and then on the side on the right hand side we have tabs because there are certain events I'd like to focus on in some of these questions. Those are numbered one through ten. Sorry, is there no exhibit? No, no, this is the clear. Do you have the exhibit number? It's already in on- Yes, yes This is exhibit two I believe it be part nine and what we sent electronically Obviously, there's no tabs in the original But we we provide those for your for ease of navigating the very large document So I'd like to turn to the September calendar if you could use the top tab Yeah, yeah. Oh, sorry. You're asking that. Thank you. Oh, okay. The hearing examiner might be and I'm and I'm. You're the month from the top page. Top page. The top tab. Oh, I see. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. September. Thank you. Oh, I see. Yeah. Actually, I'm going to find page number from the work monitor. Yeah. It's a conversation. And I'm sorry. Which month did you say September? Thank you. So do you see on this page there's a calendar. It's labeled September 23. It has Friday, September 1. It also just includes the last four days of August. That's the 28th through the 31st. So we said, do we not that the traffic study was conducted August 30th, which is shown on this calendar through September 8th at 8 a.m. Do you see on this calendar, on September 10th, just two days later, an event that says books and beers in the barn. Do you see that on the calendar? On September 10th. Okay. So if we could turn to tab five on the right-hand side. You will see a page that says books and beers in the barn. I do. Okay. And could you please read for us the description under the picture? Is it deprived in here? It starts with the farm and tasting room will be open from 12 to 7 pm on Sunday. Do you see that? Sure. Thank you. The farm and tasting room will be open from 12 to 7 pm on Sunday, September 10th. And from 12 to 4 pm, we are hosting a one-of-a-kind special event. We're excited to welcome backwater books to an event for all ages, books and beers in the barn, adults and children can browse the best selection of new books, fun gifts, and more as we transform our private event, barn into a bookstore with adult and children books. Adults can enjoy a farm-brood beer or a salto or a wild-day shop. Backwater books and then the pivot bookstore and old-elif, how long for our do you want to go? That's good, yeah, thank you. So could DPC have asked the police department to have their traffic study include this event? I mean we could have. I do know that the period of time under which the traffic center was the Labor Day weekend, which it would actually be an excellent time period to collect that data as you would have a lot of people who were potentially going to visit the event as part of their festivities for the vacation weekend. that data as you would have a lot of people who were potentially going to visit the event as part of their festivities for the vacation weekend. Well, okay. Let's turn back to the September calendar page then for a second. Sure. So we're talking about it. Are there any special events described on that weekend in this calendar? Do you see any similar to the books and beers in the barn? Other than the Homebite Goods by Diana, no. Okay. And are you where does the farm host other events throughout the year like the books and beers in the barn event? It is my understanding that they do that. Yes. So that would be something that would be, you know, part of the normal traffic generated by this use, isn't it? I believe so, yes. Okay. But that was in part of the traffic study that was conducted in this case. We, the traffic study was for a specific period of time that did not include an event. Not one of the general advertised special events. Okay, thank you. What about, are you familiar with the September 25th letter from the property owner to DPC in this case where he responded to, I believe, the decision in order? Are you familiar with that letter? Is this the letter that's part of the decision? Yes, I believe it was attached to the November 20th letter from J.G. Hartner. I'm sorry, there's two letters that have been received from Mr. Mayor. The September 25th, 2023 letter. And I have a copy if you do refresh your memory. If you have a copy of this one. Yes, that's separately marked as an exhibit. Or is it? Oh, I guess that's exhibit one. That's what we decided on the counties exhibit one the Mariner letter. Oh, yes Let me Find that for you. This is responded exhibit one. It's the September 25 2023 letter. Yes, ma'am Does anyone else need a printed copy? Thank you. Thank you. So have you reviewed that letter before? Yes. Okay. And do you recall in that letter that Mr. Mariner described to DPC that he was going to be hosting a corn fest? I believe on October 7th. Yes. Did DPC ask the police department to conduct a traffic study on that day? No. OK. Thank you. All right. I, the last little bucket on traffic that I want to cover is about section 128's requirement. That access to Manor Lane be safe based on road conditions and accident history. Are you familiar with that requirement? Yes. Did DPC ever review the accident history on Manor Lane? In this enforcement case? No, because those criteria are what are evaluated when we're issuing a permit deciding if that is a use that can be legally established on that site. Okay, and did DPC ever have anyone inspect the physical road itself on Maryland to see if there's any damage to the shoulder or to the road bed itself? I don't believe so, no. If there was damage, would that be relevant to your investigation? In what context? If there was damage caused by vehicle trips to and from the site, would that be relevant to evaluating whether access on this road is safe or whether the road has the capacity physically to handle that amount of traffic. Those evaluations would occur when we were approving a permit. They would not be part of the decision making for whether a use violation is occurring on the side. Okay, thank you. And I would like to you to look again at exhibits 9 and 10. I think they should still be before you. That citizen appellants 9 and 10. I want you to look at those and then I also want to ask, did you hear, do you recall testimony from citizen appellants that because of the location of the historic house right at the edge of Manor Lane and because of the shape of the turn into Manor Lane that it's very difficult to see outgoing traffic and incoming traffic when you're turning on to Manor Lane. Do you recall that testimony? I do not recall the specifics, but I believe you that that was their testimony. Okay. So, did GPC ever evaluate whether there's a safe turning radius for large trucks on to Manor Lane from Route 108? Not that I'm aware of. I don't remember saying that as the particular criteria that were evaluated when the permits were approved and issued. It was evaluated then or was not evaluated then either. I believe the requirement to evaluate whether there are safe site distance is a requirement of issuing the permits. I do believe that the whatever review or review this did have to evaluate that because I speak to it. I can't speak to what specific things they looked at. But again, just to make sure I'm clear, that occurred, if it occurred, that would have occurred at the time the permit was approved, but not during this investigation. Right, because the criteria for issuing a use permit and for allowing someone to legally establish a use are evaluated when you're issuing the permit and evaluating it, not when you're evaluating whether they are compliant with what they are legally allowed to do on their site. Okay, thank you. And so just to summarize for the traffic piece, the only action DPC took to review different elements of the traffic issues in this case is the traffic, the speed study that also counted the number of vehicle trips. Is that fair to say? Yes. Okay. Thank you. So I'm gonna switch our attention to the farm brewery permit. So if the property owner did not have the zoning permit, the special farm use permit for a farm brewery. Could they sell, and they had, I'm gonna repress that. If the property owner had all the same county permits, except for the farm brewery permit, could they sell alcohol on their property? My understanding is that farm brewery specifically because it's so heavily the production of alcohol beverages and the sale of alcohol beverages are so heavily regulated by the state. That is why there's a separate classification for breweries and wineries and that's why it would require different special farm permit. The farm stand and the agritourism permits allow for the sale of products produced on the site, but because the product being produced on the site is an alcoholic beverage, there is additional regulatory requirements. So in other words, if not for the farm brewery permit, they could not sell their beer on the site. I don't believe so. Okay, so, and again to clarify, the agritourism permit and the farm stand permit They could not sell their beer on the site. I don't believe so. Okay. So. And again to clarify, the agritors and permit and the farm standard permit does not give the property owner the right to sell alcohol by themselves. Correct. I don't believe so. Okay. So then what steps a DPC takes to determine which events the property owner sold and served alcohol at? Sorry. What steps do we take? Yeah. Well, the activities that occur on a head mirror brewery are complex primarily because they are operating under multiple approved uses. So the fact that they have an approved brought from brewery permit and an agri-tourism permit and as far are farm-sand permit means that they can sell alcohol at their events and when they have operating hours. It's the visitation restrictions on the farm brewery that are the limiting factor for that particular use. But every time that they're selling alcohol on site, they're acting under the approval given by the farm brewery permit. Is that correct? I don't know if that is specifically correct because the definition of agritourism is very broad and it allows for the sale of products produced on the site. But we just went over, I thought, that if they did not have their farm brewery permit, they could not sell the alcohol through the agro tourism permit. That is true. So anytime they're selling alcohol, they're doing so under the farm brewery permit. Is that not correct? I would say that the production of alcoholic beverages under the farm brewery permit is how they are producing a product, produce on the site, I don't know that we have made a interpretation on whether the agritourism permit that allows them to sell products produced on the site would be limited to only non-alcoholic beverages if you have a farm that is producing an alcoholic beverage. So was that termination or legal interpretation not something that DPC came to a conclusion on in this investigation? We came to the conclusion that there was not sufficient evidence to suggest that there was a use violation of either the farm stand, agri-tourism enterprise, farm brewery, or farming uses. What did DPC, when you were made that determination, how did you interpret the fact that they are selling alcohol at their events? Was it your determination that you were doing so under the agri-tourism permit, or were they doing so under the farm brewery permit? I would say that they were selling alcohol under all of the applicable permits. And when you sell alcohol under all the applicable permits do you not have to comply with all of the regulations for those permits? I think so, yeah. Okay. So, and again, I don't think this question was answered. What steps did DPC take to determine which events at the property were selling or serving alcohol? I don't think we took specific steps. My understanding is that they are always in the business of selling alcohol as a farm brewery. So every event they host at the farm is an event where they sell alcohol. Unless they otherwise specify, I mean, I'm not familiar with every single event that has ever occurred at Menor Hill, but I can say in general, I believe that they sell alcohol on the basis, like as a just day-to-day operational basis. Well, let's just look, just to make sure we're clear. Let's just look at Exhibit Two again. Let's go back to the September calendar, just because we were already there. Can you remind us of this one? Yes, yes, sorry, the big one. OK. Yeah, back to September. If you see the September calendar, and then we'll flip to the next page. And I just want to go through maybe five or six events and see if any of them involve not selling alcohol. So does this first event, the Labor Day Weekend event on September 1 through September 4. Does that describe selling alcohol? It's a yes. What about the truck in it at Manor Hill? Does that describe that alcohol will be available? I mean, yes, because the tasting room will be open. OK, and what about the next one? The home baked goods by Diana. Yes. And the bullhead pit beef at Manor Hill? The next one? Yes. And the bullhead pit beef at Manor Hill. The next one? Yes. How about good karma creamery at Manor Hill? It does not appear. That one does not describe it. But it's on September 2, right? And these other ones are at the same date and home big good September first. And the blue bullhead peep is September second. Okay. I'm just going to, so all of these events describe so far. They all are describing alcohol being sold, right? Yes. Are you aware of any event held at the Manor Hill brewing or Manor Hill farm, whichever way you want to describe it, that did not include the sale of alcohol or the serving of alcohol? I'm not. OK, thank you. In his letter, Mr. Mayor and her invited DPC to look at the website for Manitel Brewing and Manitel Farm, correct? I believe so, yes. And did DPC look at that website? Not based on the invitation. We just generally looked at it when we open our investigations. Oh, that's typically how we start. But do we know for a fact that that occurred in this case? That we looked at the website? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Great. Thank you. Who in your, who at DBC looked at the website? I know the Inspector Frank reviewed it. I don't know if anyone else from the inspection team or the zoning division looked at it. Okay. Thank you. And now I want to go back to the regulations again for a second. So section 128 limits the amount of visitors to the site to 50 visitors at one time under the farm brewery permit. Correct? Under the farm brewery permit, yes. So what steps of DBC take to determine how many visitors were at the site when alcohol was being served? I think in general, the inspectors looked at the number of visitors who were accessing areas of the farm that were specifically tied to the fire permit, such as the tap room. My understanding is that Manor Hill used to allow tours of their actual brewing area, but they no longer allow that. So I think it's typically just the tap room and that they have opened up the entire farmed area for a visitation under their agritourism permits. So I recall in the previous case, Inspector Frank visited the site twice. On one I believe was a Wednesday, the other was early on a Sunday, just as the brewery opened. Did DPC have any other inspector or Inspector Frank visit the site again at any point? I don't think we, I think we determined not to send another site visit for this reopened case because there was a significant history of visiting the site to have a good understanding of the typical events that are occurring there. So did DPC visit the site, DPC did not visit the site during a special event to see how many people were in the tap room associated with the Farmbury Permanent. Is that correct? One of the advertisements like the bed and the next one's. Yeah, sure. Not that I recall now. Okay. And you said that DPC reviewed the website, correct? I believe so, yes. Okay, I'd like to show you what we, once I find it. Can we pause so I can get some water? I'm going to start coughing. I'm not sure. Why don't we take a five minute break? All right. Thank you. Actually, why don't we make that 10 minutes and get everybody a chance to use the restrooms and grab some water. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. It somewhat depends on what it depends on what it depends on what it depends on what activities are occurring in it. If they're serving alcohol from the brewery, would it be subject to the farm brewery permit? Again, it would depend somewhat on the activities that are occurring if they're serving alcohol. The agritourism permit does allow for special events and private events to be held. It does not prohibit the serving of alcohols part of those events. But the tap room was approved as part of the farm brewery permit. And you previously stated it was part of that permit, correct? I would say that all of the facilities that are at Menor Hill would say that all of the facilities that are at Manor Hill are subject to all of the approved uses and all of the special farm permits that have been used. Okay. So I could say that it's indicative but not like absolute. Okay. And so if you could please, so the the front page of this exhibit I've shown you, does it say the tap room at Manor Hill on the front of it? It does. And is it, you're understanding that the facility depicted on this image is the tap room approved via the Farm Brewery permit? You know, I, I couldn't specifically answer that now. Is there someone from DPC who would be able to answer that? I am not aware now. So when you were viewing this case, when DPC was reviewing this case, did you look at images of the property? Did I look at images of the property? Generally no. That's part of the investigative team's efforts. And did you just discuss the facilities with Inspector Frank? Only in terms of asking her to describe her investigations. Okay, so you did not receive, for example, a detailed description from Inspector Frank or anyone else from DPC of the facilities when you were describing, when you were having that discussion. I think Inspector Frank basically discusses when she performs a site visit, where did she go, what did she look at? Okay. And so for citizen appellants, well we have marked us as an appellants 20, could you please turn to the second page that's still this one. So you said if they were hosting an event in the tap room, that was greater than 50 people. Is that allowed under the Fember Reprimate? My understanding is that they also have their farm stand located in their tap room. And so there could be visitors who are participating in the 50 limited farm brewery permit and the farm stand use in this building. So I would not say if there's more than 50 people in this particular building at any given time that necessitates a violation of the farm brewery permit itself. And so what did DPC, what actions does DPC take to evaluate whether the property owner was hosting events in the tap room that exceeded 50 people that were under the farm brewery permit. If I'm recalling the investigation teams, I think they did generally look at the number of people that they saw at any given time in certain locations throughout the farm. But again, they have owned the D.B.Z. inspectors only visited the site the two times we previously discussed, right? The times that were that occurred in the initial investigation before the remand or no. My understanding is that the inspection team has visited the site. I think about five times in the official investigation of capacity. And were those five times ever described in DPCs, letters and decisions not to have issue of violation? I think the only ones that I'm aware of were in some of the initial closed out letters for the original appeal in this case. And that was just two visits described in that correct? I believe so. I think it was the weekday and the weekend of that. And it was my understanding that Inspector Frank previously testified that she only visited the site twice. Were there other inspectors who visited the site besides? Now I think we've had several complaints about this particular property. So I think those site visits were connected under other investigations. Were they connected by different inspectors? You know, I can't recall. And so just to be clear, in this specific case, under this specific violation, the site was only visited twice by DPC inspectors. Is that correct? In the original case that was appealed, and then we did not conduct an on-site visit for this reinvestigation. Okay, so that was correct. It's just been twice that it's been inspected by a DPC inspection. As part of this initial zone and complaint, yes. Okay, and again, those two visits did not include a special event or private event held in the tap room, did it? Not, I think one of the advertised ones that's called out as unique from the day to day. Okay, and did DBC not believe that such an investigation or an observation would be relevant to evaluating whether a violation has occurred? I don't think we made the determination of whether that would be relevant or not. I think what we tried to do was perform an investigation that provided us a good snapshot of what was occurring on the site to determine if there was indications that there us a good snapshot of what was occurring on the site to determine if there was indications that there was a use violation. Okay, thank you. May I have one moment now, here in the seminar? Yes. All right. All right. Before I switch topics, I'd like to move into evidence exhibit 20. We have March is exhibit 20. Jackson? Well, I understand you've got to admit because the loose rules of the evidence in the ministry are proceeding. I will note that they didn't really lay a foundation other than their own property. The peers have a website that they believe is the website. The witness doesn't know this way. Doesn't didn't print this out. And no witness said this is the website of the fan of the board. And so I don't think the foundation's been laid that I understand the loose purposes of this hearing that you're likely to have made it. I just agree that the printout of the website will be on this vision that it's the information for a website. The witness verified that Marihill Brewing's website is www.MannerHillbrewing.com and that website address was provided by the applicant and that the website was reviewed by DPC and was part of its determination in this case. So I believe we have established the foundation for this exhibit but if the Zoning Hearing Examiner just agrees I can have one of our clients verified up this is what the website looks like. Well, my concern is that the date on the top is this week and so this may not have been the website as it existed back when they did the investigation. So I do think that a better foundation is necessary. I mean, I think it's very appropriate to have asked the witness about her knowledge about Tap Room events and what, you know, the Barn events and and such are that in terms of this particular document I think a better foundation needs to be a scapula. Okay, I understand. Okay, sustain is that correct, Mr. B. objection? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. All right, we'll revisit it on rebuttal. Thank you, I'll be a member here in the same name. OK. I would like to talk about briefly the visit to the property by the state inspector for the state from Brewery license. What type of communication did the inspector provide to DPC about the content of its inspection? Did it write in writing or was it a verbal conversation? I'm trying to recall this was last year. So as I recall it, what the inspectors informed me of is they had reached out. I think they had actually called the department and I keep, I keep blinking on the name. I'm so sorry. They'd actually called the alcohol tobacco and cannabis, fire, and tend this department from Tendus Department and asked them if they had any indication that there were violations associated with the state's regulation for the brewing of the beverages and that we then learned that they had scheduled an unscathold investigation and said that they did not have any violations. I think that might have been conveyed either by phone or email or both. And what did their what did the state inspection include? Did they count the number of people in the tap room? I'm not aware. I don't believe that. I believe their investigation was limited to the actual production material and whether the crops that are grown on the farm are used in the beverages served on the farm. I think that's what they're investigating. And well, let me ask two questions about that. The first is there's a difference between what the county zoning regulation for the special farm use permit requires and what the state licensing permit requires. Correct? Yes. So for example, the 50 person limit is a county level requirement, not a state level requirement correct? That is my understanding. And the requirement that a product grown on site be a primary ingredient, that's only a county level requirement, is it not? I know that it's a county level requirement. My understanding is that the state? I would have to review the specific regulations for the state for brewery to speak to it. Well, if we return back to citizen appellance 18, which is the Farm Brewery Application Packet. That attached a copy of at that time the State Farm Brewery Requirements, correct? I believe so, yes. It's okay. And if you review that, that section 2-209, That's, I believe, the fourth physical page in that stapled packet. And if you turn to section A3, it states doesn't not that the beer to be sold and delivered under paragraph 2 of the subsection shall be manufactured with an ingredient from a Maryland agricultural product including hops, grains, and fruit produced on the licensed farm. Is that accurate? I'm sorry what page are you on? Oh I'm sorry the fourth page in the packet again I apologize that we did not face number these. It's titled MD code Farm Brewery Requirements. It says that embold on the top. Just under that, it says Section 2-209. Do you see that? And then if you go, there's A in Brent, there's 1. The next line says in Brent, there's 2. If you go 1, 2, 3, 4, five, six, seven lines down, there's the parentheses for the three. Do you see that? And then it says, does it not? That the beer to be sold and delivered under paragraph two of the subsection shall be manufactured with ingredient from a Maryland agricultural product, including hops, grain, and fruit produced on the licensed farm. Is that accurate for what that says? Yes. And so that does not require that the ingredient be a primary ingredient, correct? I don't think that does. If you will allow, I would like to review our close-out letter because I think we specifically addressed why we had contacted them. Sure. Yeah, so my understanding is that the ingredients had to be used based on an ingredient that is produced on the licensee's farm. So not just a license farm but the actual specific licensee's farm. So that's why we contacted them. But the state requirement is that it's just an ingredient, not that the product grown on the forum is a primary ingredient. Is that not correct? I think that is the specific verbage. And so when the state inspector evaluated this, the state inspector would not have had to or yeah, they would not have had to evaluate the amount of product grown on the site and compared to how much it's used in the beer. Let me rephrase that. That wasn't very clear. The state inspector did not evaluate whether the property owner was growing a primary ingredient did they? I can't speak to what they evaluated. I can only speak to what they conveyed to us, which is that they did not feel that there were any violations for the state license. And but the state license like we established is different, has different requirements than the county license correct or the county permit correct. I believe that to be the case. Okay. And so I was just to be clear because it wasn't described in the letter. Did the state test the beer contents? I can't answer that question. You don't know. I cannot recall if they conveyed what specifically they conducted. OK. And it's not described in the letter from November 20th, correct? What they specifically did in their investigation? Let me double check. I think the entirety of it is that the inspector who performed the state inspector who performed their unannounced inspection informed DPC's inspector misfrank that he did not observe any violations of man-hills class 8 Farm Bureau realising. So we don't know from that whether they or that does not describe whether they tested the contents of the beer, correct? No. I think the extent to it is that we actually shared the decision in order of the hearing examiner with them and said, hey, we have this zoning enforcement complaint. We're trying to conduct an investigation. There's a concern about whether the crops produced on the property are being utilized in the beer produced on the property. Do you have any information about prior investigations that you've done? And then they perform the investigation and said there were no violations. Okay. And two questions from that. Who was it that sent the state inspector, the decision in order requested? Inspector Frank. Okay. And again, you don't know and the decision from November 20th does not show whether the state tested the contents of the beer or what those contents were in the beer correct. Yeah, I am not aware. Okay. Thank you. And the state regulation does not require that the property owner grow a primary ingredient. Correct. It was just an ingredient. As far as the state regulations that I've actually read does, you've provided to me. Okay, okay, thank you. And did DPC review the website to see how the property on it described what was in the beers? I do not know if the inspectorpected it to that level of degree. If a description, if the descriptions of the beer do not include any mention of corn, would that indicate that this requirement has been violated? As I said, I don't believe that we looked at the descriptions of the beers. What about when you reviewed the calendar? Like for example, let's turn back to the large exhibit two, the calendar. And on the right hand side, if you could flip to tab four, which should be, again, September, Labor Day Weekend at the Farm. Do you see that? The tasty Maryland at Manor Hill. Oh, sorry. weekend at the farm. Do you see that? The Tasty Maryland that men are on tab four. It should be Labor Day weekend and first Friday at the farm September 1, 2023 through September 4, 2023, Labor Day weekend at the farm is in big. Font, do you see that? Yes. Okay. Could you please read the paragraph in italics? It starts with this limited release takes us on an adventure. Sure. This limited release takes us on an adventure halfway around the world to the Pacific Southwest. Well, NZ, IPA, maybe the simple name, the resulting brew is incredibly complex. Thanks to double dry hopping with four different native New Zealand hops, hop blend, and then a list series of different hop names, hazy and intensely tropical with mango papaya, pineapple guava, apricot, gooseberry, and plenty of citrus on the nose. All rounded out with low bitterness and the luscious mouthful from the soft carbon in this carbonization. So that description of the NZ IPA, that does not include any mention of corn being used in that, correct? I don't believe that's listed. Okay. NDPZ didn't look at any of the other descriptions of other beers on the calendar or the website to see what ingredients were used if described. I don't recall having a conversation with any of our inspectors that they did so now. Okay, great, thank you. I want to turn to the agro-tourism permit. Are you familiar with the definition of agro-tourism in section 103 of those own regulations? Yes. And are you familiar that the definition requires that agrotourism enterprise activities, quote, must be related to agriculture or natural resources. Is that correct? Well, it's OK. Oh, yeah. If you want to look at the citizen appellance 17, that definition appears on page 4. Yeah. Okay. Does that definition include the requirement that agrotrism activities quote must be related to agriculture or natural resources? Yes. Okay. And part of the definition it's not the full definition. And are you familiar with Inspector Frank's previous testimony that activities like political fundraisers, pictures with Santa visits from the Ravens, and acts throwing would not be activities she would assume would be related to agriculture or natural resources. If those activities were occurring in and of themselves, no, but if they were paired with any of the described uses of activities in the agritors, I'm enterprise, yes. So, it's DPC has interpreted that a visit from the Ravens is related to agriculture? If a visit from the Ravens, that is associated with any of the permitted activities under the farm where they are, agritourism permit or the farm stand permit is occurring, then they would be related. So for instance, if the Ravens were provided educational component about what was occurring on the farm, if they were offered a farm tour, then those would be, would meet the definition for the agri- tourism. But in the press. OK, so in that line, if they were not provided any of those things, they just came to the property. Would that be related to agriculture? Potentially under the farm brewery permit and not under the agritors of enterprise permit. Okay, so let's say that the Ravens visited the site. They were drinking beer and there was no other activities offered related to agriculture education. That type of activity would fall under the farm brewery permit. That's your answer. I believe it would. Okay. And so then that type of activity would that be limited to just 50 people? Yes. Okay. So let's turn to back to our big chunky exhibit exhibit two and let's go through some of these examples then. If you could turn to tab three, for example, on the right-hand side, it should bring you to Manor Hill celebrates its eight-year anniversary on Saturday, July 8th from 12 to 7. Celebrate the eight-year anniversary of Manor Hill. Do you see that page? So which I'm sorry. Exhibit two, if you go on the right-hand side tab three. Top three of. Yes. And there should be a black and red box kind of looks like an old fashioned video game. It says Manor Hill celebrates eight, Saturday, July 8, 2020. Yes. Yes. OK. Great. So does Axe throwing? Do you see on this page where it says Axe throwing with Axe guard mobile Axe throwing, do you see on this page where it says Axe throwing with Axe guard mobile Axe throwing? Do you see so do you see where it says live music for example in green? Yes, do you see next it says live music, for example, in green? Yes. Do you see nexus as beer releases in green? Yes. How about limited cask releases? Yes, I see the accident. Okay. Scarred mobile accident. So is that act throwing, is this event in relation to agricultural education? No, I think it's actually related to the recreational allowances on their agri-tourism enterprise permit? So is a DPG's testimony that the applicant can host any type of recreational event under the agritourism permit regardless of whether it's related to agriculture or natural resources? No, I would say that the purpose of the agritourism enterprise special farm permit is to attract visitation to farms and that it is a very broad definition of the uses that can occur under that. So, it allows for events, it allows for recreational type uses, and it allows for educational components and the combined use or intent and design of all of those particular events or activities that might be occurring on the farm are supposed to reflect the overall allowed uses under the agritors and enterprise permit. So if people are coming primarily to participate in a recreational activity to partake of products that are produced on the farm, and through those processes also gleam an understanding of what is occurring on the farm, the agricultural use is occurring on the farm, how agricultural activities occur, then I believe that they would be consistent with the agraterism enterprise use. Okay, well let's turn to the Raven's description, the Raven's situation that we were talking about a few minutes ago. If you could turn to tab 9 on exhibit 2. Ms. Potel, may I just go back for a second. A few questions ago, you read an excerpt that referred to X-throwing. Yes. Where is that again? Yes. So if on tab three, I apologize that the font is a little small. No, I got that. Yeah. But is there anything I thought you were reading an excerpt from the permit itself? Oh, no man. I was reading an excerpt from the description of the event, Acts throwing with Acts guard, mobile Acts throwing. Okay, thank you. Yeah. Okay, so if we can turn to tab nine on exhibit two, it should say first Friday and purple Friday and there's a picture of the Ravens mascot. Do you see that page? So is this a type of event that would be limited to 50 people like we discussed before? I mean that completely depends on if they are pairing it with activities that are permitted on the agritors enterprise permit or if they're not pairing it with any of those uses. Well, let's just read the description together. So I'm reading, do you see? This is what it says, correct. This first Friday, we will release a new beer from our renowned European series of traditional styles, Manor Hill, Abby Ale, available in cans and in draft. Yes. Okay. And then, does the next paragraph describe the beer being released? The Abby Ale with 9% alcohol? It does. Okay. And then, can you please read us the paragraph after you have the third paragraph? And we have even more exciting news to add. The Baltimore Ravens, yes, those Ravens, will be coming to the farm for an official purple Friday Care Van event. Their bus will be arriving at approximately 4 p.m. with a marching band, mascot cheerleaders, and more. We're told that they won't be staying the whole night so get here early if you don't want to miss out. So did that description provide any, did that provide a description of any agritourism related events or activities? Well, the picture itself that's advertised is clearly evocative of the farm stand products and then I would say that this is paired with all of the activities that typically occur on the site that would be compliant with the agritors and the farm-booty permit. Like what? Could you give me an example? Yeah, so the sale of alcohol, the visitation to the farm, those are all elements that are permitted on the permit. Okay, so just want to make sure I'm clear on this. It's DPC's interpretation that anytime anyone's visiting the site and the applicant is selling alcohol, that that is regardless of anything else, that is an activity that's approved under the agri-terrace agreement. I would say that it is an element that can be approved because the agri-terrism allows for the sale of products produced on the side, but that what typically occurs in agri-terrism enterprises in the county is that the farmer provides a smorgasbord of farming-related activities for people to participate in. I understand. So what is farming related about? Should I let them finish? Yes, let her finish that answer. So it's generally, it's a smorgasbord of farming related activities. We see this when people set up slides for children to go on associated with the activities. Is a slide in agricultural use? No, but the activity of visiting the farm and seeing all of the other elements of the farm activities allows the slide to fall into the recreational component of the agritors and enterprise things. So having a specific draw, a popular draw such such as the Ravens visiting, it's not that we take that and isolate that specific person being invited to event as a clear indication of a violation because it matters how is the invitation of this sports team to the site paired with all of the other uses that are permitted on the framerate or the agritourism enterprise use. How do those as they are combined match what is permissible on the site? And so, okay, so let's just take that. Did DPC visit the site during one of these events like the Ravens visiting to determine whether or not other activities were occurring that would put it within the scope of the agritourism permit. Frankly, we do not have the staff and capacity to attend every event that is occurring at our agritourism or from Blue Reprimates to establish if they are compliant in every single event. But DPC only visited the property twice, correct, before the remand order? In relation to this specific violation. I believe yes, Inspector Frank visited the twice, yes. And is it not true that the remand order required the county to evaluate whether the use is on the site. We're exceeding what's approved under the permits. Is that correct? I believe that the decision order asks us to reopen the investigation and make a determination of a use violation. And is it true that in the decision and order, the zoning hearings am now outlined several parts of the inspector Frank's testimony that describe certain activities that she would not believe are related to agriculture like visits from the Ravens, acts throwing pictures with Santa, political fundraisers. Is that correct? That's included in the decision in order? I would like to reference this specific decision in order for that. Yeah, I'm giving the page numbers if that's helpful. This testimony occurs at page pages 20, the end of 20 to 21. I'm going to add some salt. So this is the back and forth from Dr. Via and Inspector Frank. And I believe Dr. Via is bringing up certain kinds of defense like political fundraiser or pictures with Santa, yoga classes, both more of the way than exploring. Okay, great. And so and is your testimony that DPC did eventually review the calendar to see what types of events were occurring at the site? Correct. I think we were primarily reviewing the calendar to make a distinction between the ongoing events that occur on the site and the large festival events that occur on the site. Primarily in response to the complainants concern that there are large scale events occurring on such a frequent basis that it was a violation of the limited number of festivals events they could occur. And we'll get to that in a second to be sure. But so DBZ did not look to see whether events that were similar to the ones described and that back and forth between Dr. Vaya to see if those were occurring or scheduled on the calendar. I mean, we are aware that those kind of events are being scheduled, but we maintain that if those events are paired with permitted uses, activities that are allowed on the agri-tourism enterprise permit and on the farm-bury permit, then they would be deemed permissible. But DPC did not visit the site when the Ravens were visiting, ax throwing was occurring, pictures with Santa were occurring, or political fundraisers were being held correct. I don't believe that we've been to the site during this specific events. So D.P.C. doesn't have knowledge from the inspector's observation about what activities were paired, in fact, on site with the Ravens visiting the acts throwing the Santa's pictures, the political fundraisers, is that correct? Yeah, I think the investigation is typically focused on the setup and whether there are educational components being kind of provided. My understanding from the report from the inspectors is that the property owner does maintain a series of kind of infot kiosks about their operations and what they do on the farm that has been determined throughout a lot of our agritors and enterprise permits to be an element and a way of conveying educational components about the farm for passive engagement for people who are visiting. But at DPC, DPC didn't visit during any of the events. For example, the Ravens event hosted at 4 p.m. to 9 p.m. in the middle of the winter to see whether those placards would be readily visible by attendance of the event. Correct? No, I don't believe the inspector was there for the Ravens event. Okay. Thank you. And then I want to turn to the requirement in the zoning ordinance, specifically section 103 about agritors and enterprise activity. Is that requires that the activities hosted on the subject property be, quote, incidental to the primary operation on the site? So what is the primary operation on this site? The primary principle use on the site is farming. Okay. And is there a definition of incidental in the Howard County regulations? The definition of incidental is the term that's used to describe an accessory use. So you would, I believe you would defer to the dictionary definition of the term incidental. Well, great. I happen to have that dictionary definition with me. So I would like to show you what we have marked as citizen appellance. I Do you need one more? You need one more? You're an excellent pair of people. Do you need one more? I haven't. I don't know. Cal needs two or just one. Okay. So do you see in the bottom left hand corner where it provides a website address of the document, the bottom left hand corner. Yes. And do you see where it says HTTPS colon slash slash www.murionwebster.com slash dictionary slash incidental? Do you see that? Yes. And do you see the top where it says incidental and then provides a definition? And do you see at the top in the middle where it says incidental definition and meaning Maryam Webster? Do you see that? I do, yes. Could you please read the definition provided? Being likely to ensure as a chance or minor consequence, minor occur merely by chance or without intentional calculation. Yeah, that's fine because we're talking about adjective here. I'd like to move into evidence exhibit 21. I have no objection to this demonstrating the Mary and Webster definition of incidental. So admitted. So it's true is it not that the activities occurring from agro-tourism must meet this definition of incidental as it relates to the primary operation on the site. They have to meet the definition of being customarily incidental. So that is applied in the context of land use, law, and practice. Okay, well, let's again, let's just go through a couple of the activities occurring at the site. See if they meet this definition. We're going to go back to our big exhibit too. Let's start with tab five. On the right hand side. We're back at the books in beer and the Barnes September 10th. Do you recall looking at this a few minutes ago? Yes. So does turning the Barnes space into a private book event or a public bookstore, is that occurring merely by chance or without intention or calculation on forms? I'm going to say that the dictionary definition that you're using and the parsing of incidental is not necessarily an appropriate use of, in a land use context of defining and accessory uses, customer-lancidizental to the primary use. And so how does, what was DPC's definition of incidental, what it evaluated, this violation request? Typically when we're looking at something, if whether it's an accessory use we're saying is in the practice of land uses, is the activity that's occurring minor, is it of appropriate, smaller scale, is the scope, and the degree of the activities, is that minor and incidental compared to a primary farming use. So we're not looking at it as by chance. I mean, agritors and enterprises and farm breweries are very intentional uses. The events that are created are intentionally designed to attract visitation within the bounds of the use that are described under the agritors and enterprise. So it's not like you're trying to do it by chance. I don't think that's an accurate description of how you're assessing whether something's a customer at the incidental and therefore an excess reuse. OK, so just to make sure I'm clear on where DPC's head was at in this case. So when DPC was evaluating whether the uses at this site were in fact incidental to the primary operation on the site. They were not interpreting incidental to mean occurring merely by chance or without intention or calculation. Correct? Yeah, I think we're typically thinking of it in terms of it is minor in nature and scale to the primary use because that's Typically what you're applying as a planning professional when you're considering whether something is an excess reuse From a land use perspective, but it's true Isn't not that the zoning ordinances plain language requires that The activities associated with agro tourism enterprises be incidental to the primary operation on site. Yes, customer landsadil. OK. And let's just turn to, for example, tab seven on exhibit two. And it should say, barks in the bar adoption event October 15, 2023. Do you see that page? I do. Is an adoption event incidental to a farming activity for cats and dogs? It depends on what accessory farming uses it as paired with. So in this case, DPC determined it is paired with. So in this case, DPC determined it is incidental. I would say that DPC's review of all of the kinds of events that are being scheduled and designed at Menor Hill, we could not find sufficient evidence to suggest that they are acting outside of the bounds of what is permitted under the agritors and menoprise or the farm-brooming permit uses. Did DPC review the description of this event? The adoption event? I did not review the description because I did not perform the investigation. My understanding of speaking with our inspectors is that their review did not demonstrate that they believe that there were events occurring that could indicate and be substantial for showing evidence of a violation. And is it your understanding that the inspection of the website and the calendar of scheduled events that did occur? It included a review of this activity, the specific activities review. Do you know which specific activities were reviewed by the inspector? I don't know. I believe they looked through the calendar and browse through many of the events. In the November 20th, notice of violation letter, DPC did not describe which events were reviewed by the inspector correct? No, the close out letter is a summary of our investigation. It's not like an all-encussive list of, we did this on this day, we did this, we did this. It's providing evidence of really trying to allow our complainants to understand that we took it seriously and did a thorough investigation. What does the letter describe looking at the website at all? No, I don't think it does. All right. I'm going to turn to the number of events occurring at this site. So I think you mentioned this previously, but you agree that the agri-courism permit allows festivals or other similar events held for the purpose of either marketing products grown on the farm or for the purpose of farm-related education or recreation no more than four times a year and no more than eight days total correct for festival events. Yeah. Professorable or similar events correct? Correct. Yes. Okay. And again, does the zoning regulation define festival? It does not. And would it be would it comply with the zoning regulations to then look at the dictionary definition of festival? Yes, okay. Well again, I happen to have that definition with us. So I'd like to show you What we have marked as is in protestants or says an appellants exhibit 22 So again, if we look at the bottom left-hand corner of this document, do you see where it says the website, Marywebster.com dictionary slash dictionary slash festival? Do you see them in the bottom left-hand corner? I do. And do you see on the top it says festival definition and meaning, Maryam Webster. Yes. And then it says Festival, it's an adjective or a festival noun, which is the second definition provided. Do you see that? Yes. Okay. I'd like to move into evidence, Susan Appell and exhibit 22. No objection. So I'd like to. Thank you. Could you please read the definition of Festival noun for us please? It's a time of celebration marked by special observances and often periodic celebration or program of events or entertainment having a specified focus. Okay, thank you. And so DPC reviewed the calendar correct? Yes. Okay, so we're going to go back to our calendar. If you could please start a tab one on the right hand side. It should read, meow at the Manor Adoption Event with Barks. Do you see that? I do. If you want to take a moment just to read the brief description, I have a question about it. So, does this event have a specific focus? Yes, it appears to have a specific draw and what's that specific draw? believes that they're doing a adoption activity associated with the event and is there also a beer released in relation to that adoption event? Peers that they are knowing knowing specifically are the barn cats meow. And is it true that a portion of the proceeds from this beer go directly to Barks? Is that correct? I believe that's what's been advertised. Okay and so this has a specific focus. Do you recall I asked you to look at tab seven a few minutes ago, which was a different adoption event. Do you recall that? Yes. So do the adoption events happen on a periodic basis at this property? I would say by this calendar, there are at least two occurrences. And is there a set of programs or events happening at this event that be out in the other adoption event? I think there's a list of things that will be occurring such as certain food trucks and kid activities, and an adoption event. Okay, thank you. Let's turn to tab two. Okay. It should say craft fair and makers market at the top. Do you see that? I do, yes. Okay, and if you want to take a moment just to read the description. Jonas at the Farm on Saturday, June 24th from 12 to 4 for our annual spring craft fair and market makers market. I'm inviting some of the best artists and local artisans, agricultural producers and craft crafters in the area for a special day at the farm. Grab a beer in the tap room or a field bar or a field bar in Browsearm Market can you locate behind our tap room? No tickets needed. All seating is based on the farm is first come for serve. So bring your blanket, portable chairs and make a day of it. Thank you. So does this event have a specific focus? Yeah. Does it have entertainment or events occurring. I see that they will have their form and tasting room open. They will have the tracks and they will have dessert. Okay, and if this happens more than once ever, so this happens again would it be considered periodic? I'm sorry, I'm not really I'm sorry. If this craftsman, this crafts fair and meekers market, if this happens again, would that be considered a periodic event? I would say that there are multiple occurrences of that periodically, correct? Sure. Okay, thank you. Let's turn to tab three. It should say, Manor Hill celebrates eight years. Is this anniversary event? Is that a periodic event? I mean, I assume that you can only have an eighth year anniversary once. Okay, it does say that anniversary events would be periodic. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Do does this event have a specific focus? It appears to be doing the typical live music, release activities and food trucks. And does it have entertainment? Yeah. Okay. Let's turn to tab four. Oh, sorry, tab five, tab five. This one should say books and beers in the barn September 10th, 2023, do you see that? So is that the same books and beers event we discussed earlier? Honestly, I'm losing track of all the apps. That's fair. the same books and beers event we discussed earlier. Honestly, I'm losing track of all the apps. That's fair. Do you need a break? No. It's only gonna get worse, carry on. So does this event have a specific focus? I believe that they're doing a specific advertised draw. Okay. And is there entertainment or programmed events? Yeah. In general, it appears that Miner Hill typically has a food truck, some dessert visitation, and then some recreational activities associated with their events. Okay. Thank you. Let's go to tab 6. This should say the corn fest, October 7th. Mr. Mayor and I discussed this in his letter on September 25th, correct? So does this have a specific focus? Yeah, this is his full festival event. So it's a large corn based theme. Okay, and does it happen periodically once a year? I believe Mr. Mariner says that he does this annually, yes. Okay, and does it provide entertainment or a set of events or programs? Yes. Okay, thank you. What about, let's go to tab seven. I apologize. Tab, because we talked about that already, let's skip to tab nine. So we discussed this previously. The first Friday and Purple Friday with the Ravens. Do you see that? Does this have a specified focus? I think yet they have a specified focus? I think yet they have a special invited guess. And does it have entertainment? It does. And do you know if this happens more than one time? I don't. Okay. And let's end with tab 10. Should say draft horses, draft beers. Does this event have a specified focus? It appears that they are focusing on bringing a specific attraction for that event. And does it have a program of events and entertainment. It does appear to be yes. OK, so did DPC review these events in its evaluation? As I stated previously, I believe the inspectors look at the calendar events and the listed events. And I'm sorry, Ms. Bella, they're having trouble hearing you on the website. I'm so sorry. I know you're talking. It's fine. So, those, I believe, we went through about eight events. Those qualify it for the definition of festival. Do they not? No, I don't believe so. And why is that? Typically when we're looking at festival in the land use context and applying the dictionary definition of it, you're talking about the scale of that. So you're looking at what is its anticipated draw, is it likely to draw visitors and traffic well above and beyond the typical. So that is typically what we mean by festival. Okay. So I have two questions for that. From that, the first is, DPC did not send an inspector during any of these events, correct? Not that I'm aware of now. So DPC does not know how many people or what the scale of that event ended up being, does it? No. Okay, and the traffic study again, that was not during one of these special events, correct? I think it was during the Labor Day, but I don't think there was a specific, advertised, unique, advertised event occurring on that weekend. Okay, and so last question I have on the festival piece. So DPC does not necessarily follow the dictionary definition of festival when it evaluates whether in a festival is occurring. Is that correct? I would say that the professional staff at DPC apply a land use context and lands to when we're evaluating land uses. So we use the definition of festival as provided in the dictionary as it applies to typical land use situations. Okay, so in this case, for example, so you said in the land use context, that's dependent on the number of people who are coming to the event. I would say the anticipated visitation and how widely it's advertised, and that being really in excess of a standard daily or weekend event is typically what's considered a festival. Festivals can often be correlated with carnivals or anticipated activities that really alter the operations, the daily operations in a significant manner outside of what can be anticipated and approved to occur on the daily basis. And how would DPC, aside from looking at advertisements, how would DPC know whether that extent of an event is occurring. Well, advertisements are big draw. You know, traffic can be a factor in looking at those. You look back at history and then matters if you actually are able to attend that specific event. Okay, and so in this case, did DPC look at the traffic for any of these events? I think the only traffic that's been performed is the speed study and then the prior speed studies. And did DPC look at photographs or any documentation from previous events similar to the ones described in 2023? I think it would be the documents that the inspectors produced upon their inspections. Okay. And again, DBZ wasn't able to attend one of these events to see how well attended they are. Correct. I don't think that there were any festival events that were occurring during our primary investigation period. Not the corn festering October 7th. No. I think that we had wrapped up most of our investigation by that time period and we're producing our close out letter at that time. Between October 7th and November 20th. If I'm recalling correctly, yes. So it's DPC's testimony that DPC was not able to visit a festival occurring more than a month before it issued its close out letter. I don't think we had planned to attend the fall festival. We had not identified it as an event to go to because primarily in our secondary investigation, we did not feel we would glean additional information outside of what the inspector said previously attained from their prior visits. Even though Mr. Mariner gave a heads up about the event in his letter on September 25th. I do believe Mr. Mariner described the fall festival event in his response. Okay. All right. Thank you. I'm going to talk about private events thesis. So previously you stated that the agritors impairment allows private events. Where does it say that in the zoning regulation? Sure. So the full definition of agritors and enterprises activities conducted on a farm and offered to the public or to invited groups for the purpose of recreation, education, or active involvement in the farm operation. These activities must be related to agriculture or natural resource and the individual incidental to the primary operation of the site. This term includes farm tourist farm sites, hay rides, corn mases, classes related to agricultural skills, picnic or party facilities offered in conjunction with the above and similar uses. So I would say within that definition, both the term invited groups and the picnic and party facilities imply the allowance of private events and then the farm brewery permit itself, if I'm calling correctly, I think that specifically allows for private events. But only for 50 people at a time, correct? With the primary permit? Yeah, there's a limitation on the primary permit, yes. So is your testimony that if the applicant was advertising an event space for over 100 people, that would be permitted under a private event space at night for over 100 people. That would be permitted under its applications. I would say that the agritors in enterprise definition is very broad. It allows for recreational activities to invite groups and it allows for party facilities. And there is no cap on the number of visitors who can visit the site and engage in activities under the agritors in enterprise permit. But there is a cap on the number of events that they can host at the site and engage in activities under the agritors and enterprise permit. But there is a cap on the number of events that they can host at the site that are festival or festival like. Yes. And that's only four per year. Four per year or eight days total. Or eight days total. Okay. And I want to go to the applicable law for a second. If you turn to page 16 that conditional uses. So that's the pickable law. That's citizen of Helen 17 and we're going to look at page 16 of that document. And do you see this section applies to limited social assemblies and conditional use? Could you please read section E? The petitioner shall, sorry, the limited social assemblies are the following private functions. Picnic's weddings, anniversary retirement parties, bridal or baby showers, not for profit organization, fundraisers, bankwits, rehearsal dinners, philanthropic events or other events. So, the answer. Did DPC evaluate whether any of the activities advertised or hosted on the site fall into this category as opposed to the agritory and permit? I would say that the limited social assimilates conditionally use is not exclusive to other evocuses. There can be many different use types that are permitted under several different categories of permitted uses. So the fact that private parties or events are occurring under the agritors and enterprise or the front brewery permit does not necessitate that those activities must be limited social assemblies activities. And that's based on what? The application of land use, like you'll have a list of activities under specific uses, and they can describe certain events, but you don't say what I have described to indicate what is a limited social assembly can only occur under the limited social assembly use. Even though limited social assemblies state that limited social assembly activities are and then provides a discrete list of activities. Yeah, these are the activities that are described for someone who's trying to establish a limited social assembly use. So an agro-terrorism permit can effectively app operate as a limited social assembly as long as it's on the farm. Now, I would say that limited social assembly use and the agrotour enterprise use are distinct uses from each other and that the legislative body who wrote the code listed what activities they want to allow under limited social assembly and what other conditions they want to put on that use. And then they list the activities they want to allow under agritourism, enterprise and farm brewery permits and list the restrictions for establishing those uses and those are distinct processes. And so, okay, so let me see if I'm understanding this correctly. It seems like, and please correct me if I'm wrong. DPC would only evaluate whether an activity should be categorized as a limited social looks assembly versus agrotorism at the application phase. You wouldn't look at that during your investigation as to whether there's a violation of her. Our investigation would be limited to saying are the activities. Ms. Bella, would you speak up to me? I'm sorry. Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm notorious for it and I'm sorry. I just want to make sure that when anybody listens back, we'll be able to appreciate that. I'm sorry when I raise my voice. Oh. I would say that, I'm sorry, I'm losing my train of thought. Can you repeat the question? Yeah, absolutely. So, am I understanding correctly that DPC evaluates whether described activities would fall into the limited social assembly category as opposed to the agro-terrism category at the permitting stage, meaning when you're applying for the permit, you didn't necessarily look at that during this investigation. No, so what I would say is that when we're evaluating a zone and complaint and a use complaint, what we're evaluating is what is occurring on the site, what activities or events are occurring on the site, and how does that comply with the permitted uses that the falls into? So when we're looking at these events, we're looking at what is allowed to occur under the agritors and enterprise, special farm permit, the farmberry permit, the farm sand permit, and the farming use. We're not then saying, okay, when how would this compare to a separate conditional use that has never been illegally established on that site? Okay, so you're not evaluating whether the use is that are being observed are closer to limited social assembly than they are to agritors. I mean, you're just looking at the agritors. Well, they're very distinct uses. So what you're looking at is are the events that are occurring? Are they recreational events? Are they related to all of the activities of similar uses described broadly in the agritors and enterprise use specifically related to agricultural uses. And I think just from a practical point of view, the primary difference is when you're talking about living in socialist and they're really talking about very large events and gathering such as weddings, typically. So I wouldn't consider like a wedding to be a typical event allowed under agri-ritorism enterprise use. But when you're talking about parties and like unique private events, those are permitted under both of these use categories. So you can't say just because you're having a party or a private event under the agritorism enterprise or the primary permit, you therefore must be really a social, limited social assembly operation. Okay, so there are certain events that overlap between the two, it was what I'm hearing, and there are other events that would not generally are so in the limited social assembly category, like weddings that they would not be allowed under the agri-terres impairment, is that correct? I think what you'd be evaluating is like, what is a customary accessory event associated with agri-tourism for evaluating if that is typically loud? And the way that Howard County's growth set up is that we don't think of a wedding event itself being customarily incidental to the farming use under the agritors and the agritors. And did DPC ever ask that property owner what specific events they were hosting in their private events? Yeah, I think our letter to Mr. Mariner was specifically to ask him to describe his events and to determine which one of his events was he was considering a festival versus regular event. But what about his private events that he was hosting? I think we generally ask him to describe his events. So he did not ask specifically what type of private events are you hosting? For example, have you ever hosted a wedding or a rehearsal dinner? I don't think we asked that specific question now. OK. Thank you. So there was no specific question about private versus public events. It was just generally describe your events and then that's the extent of the investigation. Not the extent of our investigation. The element with which we were asking questions of Mr. Mayor or we're really trying to get at generally when you're doing an investigation, you kind of ask open ended questions of the subject of the investigation when you're doing an investigation, you kind of ask open-ended questions of the subject of the investigation because you're really just on a fact-finding mission of trying to glean as much evidence as you can. And then we were specifically interested from him in the difference between what he considers his festival versus his regular activities. And not to ask the same question over and over again, but slightly different question. Did DPC ever ask Mr. Mayor and to provide specific details about specific events described in the calendar like the Ravens visit, like the books in the barn event? Were there any specific asks for descriptions of the activities occurring with those events? I don't think we ask questions to that level, specificity. OK, thank you. I'm going to turn very briefly to the farm stand. Did DPC review all of the products being sold at the farm stand. I can't recall. Okay. And do you recall any conversation about verifying where those products were produced or manufactured? No, if I'm recalling correctly, I believe the specific farm stand use allows for the sale of products produced on the farm. And then it actually in the definition allows for the sale from the sinneal farms. But did DPC ever do you recall any evaluation of whether the products were from the farm or other local farms? Yeah, I can't recall in the investigation if the inspector highlighted the farm's stand products. And was that any determination about that described in the November 20th letter from J.G. Hurtner? No, I think we were primarily responding to those zoning use complaints related to the farm brewery and the agritors and enterprise permits. I don't believe that the complaints were focused on the farm stand use. Okay, thank you. I'm going to turn, I'm going to switch gears and end talking about the accessory use piece. We touched on it a little bit but I want to nail down some details. Do you know how many square feet is the tap room? I don't. Did anyone review that or evaluate that in the inspection? I don't know if they did. I just don't know the specific square footage off the top of my head. What about the barn? I don't know the specific square footage of any buildings on the property. Do you recall any conversations about the square footage of any building on the property? Do you recall any conversations about the square footage of any building on the property? I don't believe so, no. OK. And what about a review of the amount of space used by the parking lot or the picnic area or any other outdoor areas used specifically for these accessory uses? Do you recall any conversations about that? I don't think their conversations were focused on the size of those facilities, other than reviewing to ensure that they matched the submitted and approved plan. So you want to sure, special farm permits require a plan to be submitted showing what improvements are going to be made associated with the permit. So the investigation review does involve making sure that what they actually built and constructed out there match what was approved to be built. Okay. So you are aware you know that section 128.0A12A1C, that was the long citation, provides that a maximum cumulative lot coverage permitted for all of the accessory structures located on any given residential lot developed with a single family detached dwelling is 2,200 square feet for a lot in the R.C. zone. Are you familiar with that? That does sound familiar. And I can give you a page number. The applicable law if you go to page eight. And this property is developed with a single family detached dwelling, is it not? I believe it is, yes. Okay. But you can recall any conversation about any evaluation of the square footage of the accessory uses, correct? Well, the accessory uses to the site are considered accessory to the and an accessory farm structures. They're not required to follow that same block coverage restriction as long as they are remaining unsundant to the prime being used. Incidental, right? They have to be incidental regardless, correct? Okay, so I remember previously we talked about that. Would you say yes or no rather than mm-hmm? I'm sorry, what was the specific one? I'm sorry, you answered just with a mm and I couldn't tell whether that was a mm-hmm or a no. Yes, accessory. Yes. In order to qualify to be exempt, farm structures must be subordinate and incidental to the primary use, which is farming. So, again, perfect segue. So we talked about that previously and we looked at the definition of incidental. Did we not a few minutes ago? Yes, you raised that, yes. And I, we looked at the definition which says, occurring merely by chance or without intention or calculation, and I recall you to say that the definition used by DPC looks more at the size and the scale and the intensity of the use to determine whether or not it's incidental, is that correct? Yeah, that's a typical process for a planner in evaluating whether use is accessory. So what steps of DPC take in this case to determine the scale of the accessory uses versus the farming use? Well, we look at a number of factors. We look at the amount of acreage. So the crop production, the goats, the chickens, those uses which are permitted under the definition of farming and Then we compare that to the scale and intensity of the accessory uses which are permitted as the special farm permits But I I recall just a few minutes ago you said did you not that you don't recall any conversations about the square footage used by the barn, the tap room, and other agro-terrorism farm brewery, accessory structures, correct? You didn't look at those in this investigation. I would say that there is no standard proportional ratio that we would evaluate again. So we're not sitting there and drawing and saying, this is the specific acreage dedicated to a farming use. This is the specific square footage dedicated to an accessory use. There is a requirement that DPC exercise its professional judgment in evaluating whether a specific accessory use is remaining subordinate and incidental to a specific principal use. So in this case, what specifically did DPC compare? I believe you just said you did not look at square footage acreage. Did you look at the number of employees employed by the accessory uses versus the farm? Let me qualify. We did look at the amount of land that's being dedicated to the uses, but that looking at does not involve us taking a measurement and coming up with a specific square footage. So it's generally evaluated, but you'd ask me specifically what the square footage of the buildings were, and I said, I do not know that. Okay, so how many acres are used for farming versus the accessory uses? I knew that number when I prepped for this meeting, but it is not coming to my right. I can check the file. Is it provided in the decision in order? Or the decision from November 20th? I mean the close out letter? Yes, yes. No, I don't think we evaluated that. Okay, like specifically, to note at how much acreage we consider to be in use for farming activities. And in this case, if you don't recall a specific number, do you recall a proportion? Was there only half the site use for accessory uses? Was more than half used? What was the proportion? With not proportion is an appropriate mechanism for determining what is a principle or is the accessory use particularly in the case of farming because the active activities for like a better word change the significantly season to season performing so I would say what we do is we look at the combined uses that fall under the definition of farming in the county. That's the production of crops, the livestock management that they have. And we compare that to the scale and intensity of the accessory uses of the farm permits, the tap rohons, the barn, the parking lot. And then just from a purely technical point of view, now that they have approvals to undertake the special farm permits under the definition of farming and Howard County says those special farm permits as long as they're operating consistent with their approvals for the special farm permits, they are also a contributing element in the farming use. If you actually look at the way that farming is defined in the Howard County zoning regulations. Well, let's look at those for a second. So let's turn back to the applicable law document, and let's turn to page, sorry, let me give you a specific page there we go. Let's turn to page 5. One second, I might have meant. You mean 4 and 5? Yeah, page four and five. Are you in the applicable law? Yes. Okay. Yes So in the forming definition section H of this, it includes other uses related to or as an accessory use of the premises for agricultural purposes, including special form uses permitted under section 128.0I, correct? But that still says they have to remain accessory to the principal formi, correct? But that still says they have to remain accessory to the principal form use, correct? Yes. So it could not be a situation where the accessory use has surpassed the primary use, but that's all right because it's all forming. Is that DPCs argument? To be clear, the excess releases cannot surpass the primary farming use. So that is why it particularly under the Farm Brewery Permit, which requires a certain amount of acreage to be in production, to still be compliant with the Farm Brewery Permit. So what I am saying is the crop production, the livestock, those are the primary farming use that's on the site. DPC deemed that those were the principal use on this site and that the special farm permits were all acting as accessory. Yes, but I'm still trying to establish what we're basing that assessment on. So it's not proportions. We said that correct. That's not an appropriate way to evaluate it. Yeah, you wouldn't use a specific proportion unless the regulations themselves say this is the proportion that you must use. We're not out there saying there's a standard 50% of the acreage must always be in production in order to qualify for this. Well, I'm asking specifically about this case. Approximately what proportion of the site is used for primary farming activities versus the accessory uses? Do you know? I do not know off the top of my head. I understand that the investigation team did compare that when they were performing their investigation and developing their recommendations. But that wasn't provided in the close out letter to November 20th. I don't think it was specifically identified in the close-out letter. And DPC did not ask how many employees were employed for one the primary use for the accessory use is correct? No I don't think we would typically use the number of employees as a measure. Did you ask about the revenues generated for the primary use for the accessories? Oh no that would be a very bad use for farming use because farming as a principle use is typically either revenue neutral or net loss revenues. That's one of the reasons that agritors and uses and other revenue generating uses are developed as accessory uses to support the farm because the farms typically cannot function as the primary revenue generating source and be successful. Did DBZ look at the amount of traffic generated from the primary use versus the accessory use? That is evaluated when you're deciding if you will allow a accessory special farm permit used to be established on a specific site based on the conditions of the road that access that site. And so it seems like the only factor that DPC looked at to determine whether the use is accessory is just the amount of land used for one, the primary use versus the accessory use, correct? And the activities associated with that land, yes. Okay. And who was it that evaluated that in the NPZ? I think it's the inspection team as well as the zoning staff. And you know for a fact that that evaluation occurred in this case? Yes, because because we were asked to evaluate whether the special farm permits, whether there was a use violation and because the special farm permits must be accessory to the principal use we had to in the course of investigation establish that farming was the principal use. And I understand that statement, I want to be very specific. Were you personally part of any conversation about the extent of the use of the property for the primary use for the accessories? Yes, I sat in conversations with the team as we were discussing the code enforcement case and that was as the underlying basis. I want to be specific. Did you specifically have a conversation about the extent of the use of the property for the primary use versus the extent of the use of the property for the accessory use? Yes, I think I was in part of conversations where that was a topic that was covered. So you think you're a part of that? I just want to be sure you're certain that you are part of a conversation about that. Let me rephrase. We meet weekly to discuss all code enforcement cases. So during the tenure of the month's long investigation and the weekly meetings, I am provided status updates about how the investigation is occurring. And I know that within one of those weekly meetings, this was a topic of discussion. So that's why I could not tell you what the meeting was because we didn't host a special meeting to discuss this particular case. And can you recall what specific factors, what specific areas were considered in that conversation? I remember the team discussing the amount of acreage that was dedicated to crop production, particularly in context of the Farm Brew Permit, which requires a minimum of two acres, as well as what other aspects of the site had farming activities occurring on them. And did that conversation include a comparison on the number of acres used for crop production versus the number of acres used for the accessory uses? We weren't really using a scale of acres for the accessory uses. What we were looking at is what are the farming activities? Okay, how large are the farming activities? That's when we brought in the acreage, thanks. And then you're looking at the special permits and you're looking at the tap room and the barn and the parking and you're looking at all the elements of that and saying are those activities their scale in intensity as compared to the scale in intensity of the farming uses. So what factors did you use to evaluate the scale in intensity of the accessory uses and if not the acreage? We are not always using the acreage. You are looking at, okay, what are the number of buildings that are open? Which of these buildings are dedicated to visitation, which is occurring under agritors in Mara, for a May versus which number of these buildings are used to the production of the product that's been processed on this farm site. So you're kind of looking at what is the area that's open for the visitation, how does that interact and fall under the agritors enterprise and the farm-very apartment and the farm stand. And so at what point would an accessory use in this case exceed or surpass the primary use? I can't speculate at what point the tipping point would potentially occur. So if the farm, for example, was only growing two acres of corn and not doing any other farm production, would that be all right? That would meet the bare minimum requirements of the farm-brainery permit. We would have to evaluate the scale and intensity of activities that were occurring under the ecotourism enterprise compared to the farming activities and make a judgment call on whether that scale tipping point had been reached. And you can provide any specifics on when that scale would be tipped over to a point in which an accessory use has become no longer incidental and in its effects the primary use of the property. For lack of a better answer, I think it's more of a, you have to make that evaluation at a specific moment in time, looking at the activities that are occurring and what has changed over. I can say that we're not, when we're evaluating a specific complaint, we're not going into hypotheticals of, well, if they were doing this or if they had a different situation, then this would be our determination. What we're saying is, this is what they're doing. This is what the code says they are allowed to do. Do they or do they not comply? Is there sufficient evidence to say they don't comply? So we don't run an exercise of speculation for the tipping points. Okay. And just to make sure I have this nailed down, this evaluation again is not, in determining whether an accessory use is incidental, DPC does not follow the strict definition of that incidental provided in the dictionary, correct, about whether these accessory uses occur merely by chance or without intention or calculation. I would say that we are not automatons in terms of just taking a strict dictionary dictionary definition and saying, does this strict dictionary definition apply to this case? We have to exercise professional judgment in what custom-mentary incidental, and that custom-mentally, sorry, customarily incidental term is an important planning term, because what you're evaluating is how does this use customarily remain incidental to the principal use? So you have to take it in context of the entire history of land use practice and law when applying it. So we're looking at what's farming, what are typically and acceptance activities that occur under farming, what is agri-tourism, what is farmberry, how have those been understood to Exist and then are they remaining accessory? So that's what we're looking at. Okay, I Hear you keep saying customarily. Yes, where is that in the definitions of agritourism or accessory uses? So it's the definition of accessory use or accessory structure. It's the first sentence. A use of structure which is customarily incidental. That's a pretty important planning term for how accessory uses are established. And so it's customarily incidental to the principal use, right? Yes. Not to the use, the accessory use that's been approved. Yes. So an agro-tourism activity based on this definition, if it's an accessory, you should be customarily incidental to the principal farming use, correct? Yes. OK. And so in that sense, agrochlorism activities that are not related to farming are those customarily incidental to farming? If they're by themselves occurring, then they would not be customarily incidental under our definition for how agritors and enterprises defined. I think there has been established throughout this case a fundamental disagreement about whether the advertised weekly events occurring at Menor Hill, whether those have been sufficiently paired with agritourism enterprise uses, such that they fall within the realm of what is allowed on their agritourism enterprise. And because agritourism enterprise is such a broadly defined use in Howard County, we have determined that parties and recreational activities are considered to be allowable as agri-tourism enterprise uses. Even if that party or recreation is not customarily incidental to farming. So the agri-tourism enterprise accessory use must remain customarily incidental to farming. So the agritourism enterprise accessory use must remain customarily incidental to the principle farming use. And then you look at the activities occurring and say, are those activities allowed as agritourism enterprise uses? OK, so if they're allowed in theory based on DPC's policy as agri-terrism use, it doesn't matter if the event is customarily incidental to farming activities or agri- To be clear, it's not a policy. DPC's role is to interpret the zoning code as it has written. So we look at the definition of agri-terrism enterprise. We look at the list of uses that are described there and we say in comparing to any particular activity, does this activity align with this definition for agritourism enterprise? Okay. Now the agritourism enterprise uses must be accessory to the principle farming use. So then you look at is the scale of that event or that activity that you just said is an agritourism enterprise is that still in its scale and intensity customarily incidental to the primary farming use. So it's a I'm not trying to create a logic problem it's just a it's just a matter of I think you're trying to parse it to a degree that's not appropriate when evaluating these events. I'll just say one last last thing on. It does say in the agri-terrorism definition, right, that these activities must be related to agriculture or natural resources. Correct? Yes. So all of the activities, whether they're picnics, whether they're parties, whether they're any other activity, they have to be related to agriculture or natural resources. Correct? Yes. OK. Thank you. And the last thing I want to ask is the analysis about the size intensity of the accessory use, that's not described in the November 20th letter, right? I think we touched that, but I want to make sure I have that. Now, it's just a foundational element of any time we're performing, a zoning use violation investigation. So I'm sorry, I didn't understand that answer. So it's not part of the written decision. We didn't specify and say we have determined that this is a principal farming use in the decision. And that's just part of the inherent investigation. And the letter didn't evaluate, for example, the conversation that you described about the extent and the scale of the accessory uses versus the acres used for the farming use, correct? I think what the letter denotes is that we did not think there was sufficient evidence to say that there was a zoning violation. And if the accessory uses had grown such that they were no longer considered accessory and customary lands. And then all, then that would constitute a violation. So then we would have found that there was a violation. So it's not spelled out, but it is implied. Okay, thank you. Can I have a moment, Madam Union, you see? Yeah. That's all. Thank you so much for answering all those questions. Appreciate it. Sorry, I will have to follow up some. You're going to apologize on that. So I have some questions too. Do you want to do your follow up first? No, you can, because mine may be driven partly by what questions you may have. Okay. Do you need to take another break? No, you can, because mine may be driven partly by what questions you may have. OK. Do you need to take another break? No, I'm sorry. I'm recovering from pneumonia. So I'm just going to be in pain and coughing. But let's go. Oh, I know. I'm even where to start. So, back when you were questioned initially by Mr. Moore, you talked about how DPC conducted this, the subject inspection or examination based upon the review of the decision orders. Do you call that? Yes. And so there was a speed study conducted? Yes. Or traffic study, I should say. The Mr. Mariner was questioned about certain items related to the complaint. Is that correct? Yeah, we submitted specific questions. I believe in the decision in order, not a hearing examiner had specifically asked us to contact the property owners, we wanted to make sure we were doing that. Okay, so he was contacted and he submitted information, is that correct? Yes, that is. In the form of oral responses? No, it was a written response. Okay, so you submitted a written response, and that was a response that was attached to the letter that Jeji Hartner wrote. I don't think we attached it. I think we submitted the close-out letter, and then the complainants had asked for the other documents to be sent to them, and those were subsequently forwarded. I think it was referred to in Jesuit. It was definitely referred to the close-up letter. I don't know if it was specifically attached at the time that we first conveyed it. Okay, but it was referred to in the letter. Yes, absolutely. Okay, so you're not disputing that letter would somehow be relevant to J.J. Hartner's. Yeah, no, the letter was J. Let me just finish to J.J. Hartner's letter that the you're not disputing that Mr. Marenner's responses would not be relevant to J.J. Hartner's letter which provided the ultimate conclusion, merely as a result of the fact that it just wasn't attached. Yeah, so the close out letter summarized our investigation and our findings and our determination. The letter that we received in Miss America as part of our investigation went into the entire file of the investigation. But it was also referred to in Mr. Hartner's letter. Yes. As we were summarizing the entirety of our investigation. Okay. Which one would assume, I think, that if it was attached and referred to in that letter, it was reviewed. Yeah. It was absolutely reviewed. Okay. Part of our investigation. So did you, I'm having some trouble aligning the testimony of the county folks during the first hearing and with your testimony. During the first hearing, the county lawyer argued and the witnesses basically testified that they didn't ask Mr. Marenor specific questions or ask him for specific information and they did not go to the website because that information would not be admissible in a district court proceeding. Do you recall that? I joined the county in April 2023. So I came in and then your decision is ordered. So I was hired in in between when the hearing closed out and when your decision was ordered. So I evaluated this in a kind of retrospective element. I can generally answer the question that I think you're asking me, which is that while we do use online information as part of our investigations as a starting point, because it is often not admissible in a court of law in a way that we could have it contribute to meeting a clear and convincing evidence threshold, it's not typically sufficient for us to make a basis of our investigation on. So we give it the merit it is due as we're performing our overall investigation if that makes more sense. So is it fair to say then that the investigation more recently was broader in scope because of the fact that you weren say my role as supervising the zoning division was that I wanted to ensure that we were being responsive to the hearing standards decision in order and that the specific points that you had asked us to look at in our investigation were fully addressed in our subsequent investigation. I understand that, but the position during the initial inspection, well, and that was the subject of the first hearing. My recollection was that it was, the county was adamant that it did not ask certain questions or request information from the owner and did not go to the website, did not even look at the website because that would not be admissible information. That is not the case with in this part with regard to the investigation that you oversaw is that correct? So I would say that in our investigation we did look at those elements and that's partly in this investigation but not in the first. I can't speak to all the elements that occurred before in investigation for which I'm not aware of the details of. What I can say is that had we in our investigation determined that there was sufficient evidence to constitute a zoning violation in this case, in this investigation that we just performed, we would still not find that our review of the events as listed on the calendar would be a primary piece of evidence that we would bring in issuing that notice of violation and bringing to the court. It's still not sufficient typically to meet the threshold for clear and convincing evidence because we have to base it solely on what is described online and not what you went as to be occurring. So under that analysis or under that interpretation of what the county's responsibility is, it seems to me that unless you have an inspector go out to the events that are listed on the site, because that's really the only way to figure out what the events are, unless you're given a private invitation. for any of these permits because the inspector just didn't go out to those specific events. I would say that we typically are greatest piece of Inspector Frank back out to the site, we did not feel that she would glean additional information beyond what she had already gleaned. And then quite frankly, what we were dealing with at the time is that we had a single inspector for the entire county for all open code enforcement cases. So part of my job is the management of staff resources and personnel and whether we felt that we would be able to collect data that was useful in making our dissemination. I understand. The agotura, the various permits under which the activities at this location are being conducted, put limits on a number of things, the number of people. And there are a number with, I think with the foreign brewery, there is a limit on the number of special events, correct? Agri-Tourism Enterprise has a limit to the number of festival events. Okay. The fru- breweries, the number of pieces. So it's limited to the number of festival events. Okay. The number of festivities. There's limited to the number of festival events. Yeah. So if there is a complaint that the number of festival events are being exceeded and a person can go onto the website and see that there are festival events listed. But DPC chooses for whatever reason, I totally understand that you may be short of staff, but DPC doesn't send a person out to each of those events. Then there is no way that DPC is ever going to find a violation under this policy that you're not going to find a violation or issue a citation unless the evidence is going to be deemed to be admissible in court. I'm not sure I'm fully following or agreeing with that thing. I would say we have a duty to investigate. We perform our investigations collecting certain evidence and the kind of evidence that we're trying to collect. We're typically collecting that because we know we have a track where it's in the history of succeeding in a court with that as the evidence that we collect. So we're focusing our investigation on trying to make sure that we can build a successful case. And then we're evaluating overall if all the information we're gathering in our investigation lends itself towards suggesting that there's sufficient evidence for zoning violation. I believe in this particular case, based on the many subsequent investigations that occurred on this site, and the specific additional investigations that we did in response to your decision order collectively, we do not believe that the evidence suggested that there was a use violation specific to a manner. We have had other complaints for other agri-tors and enterprise uses and have found that there were violations. So we do have a history of evaluating this particular issue. On this site, you've not on this site. Okay, we don't wear the one-off. I understand. But I don't think I understand you did the investigation and you determined that there wasn't going to be sufficient evidence to initially to basically issue a citation because because of the fact that you didn't think the evidence that you had would be successful in court, right? So my question is in a situation where DPC determines that the only way to ensure that the evidence of an event taking place at a particular period in time would be admissible in a court is to have a person on site to personally view it. Is that correct? I don't think it's the only way. What is another way? But it's the most successful. It would be kind of the collective, for lack of a better term, more minor evidence that would indicate, and what would that be? So I would say that when we were performing this investigation, and we were trying to be responsive to the hearings, Haminer's decision order, we were using the traffic study, the review of the descriptions of the calendar events, and our discussions with Mr. Mariner and the testimony that had been gleamed from the original complainants in the original case to all point towards whether it would be useful to have staff attend multiple events to collect that first-hand information. And we would say all those minor elements that we described, those did not lend themselves towards suggesting that there was a violation occurring that we could go witness in person that would be useful for us to expense that resources in collecting that information. I understand what you're saying, but it also sounds like what you're saying is that you have to have a DPC, DPC person have eyes on a particular event or a particular festival or a particular use at a specific time in order for DPC to go take that next step and issue a notice of violation. In order to determine if that specific event constituted a violation, we were very much approaching the manor hill from the perspective of the complainant's feeling that the collective events and the collective activities occurring at this site, that those collective events and the collective activities occurring at the site that those collective events and activities constituted as owning violation and I think we fundamentally disagree with them that some of the listed events and the thematic advertising that is used to attract visitation must constitute a violation of or be inconsistent with the agritors in an enterprise permit, if that makes sense. It does not make sense, frankly, but let me ask another question. So you have a couple of times stated during this hearing that there were multiple site visits to this location, correct? Yes, I believe that is what the regulation inspection team had conveyed to me. Okay. And but there were two. I think correct. There were two under this specific zoning complaint. My understanding is that we have conducted several investigations of this particular site for several different zoning complaints that have come in throughout the years. Throughout the years. At the same time, the zoning complaint was being reviewed. Who's zoning complaints. So there was the remand order for us to open investigation. And then we received a specific zoning complaint. It came in for an event literally the day before. So we were not able to conduct that on site investigation. And then my understanding from the inspection staff at there had been other zoning complaints that come in that had generated site inspections. For this site. Yes. During the time that this complaint has been outstanding. Not during the time of this complaint. Yes. So, too during the time of this complaint, others before that. I'm really just trying to find out how many site inspections were conducted by Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning in connection with this complaint. Oh okay. Sorry I'm finally understanding what you're asking. We did not perform a site investigation as part of the remanded and reopen investigation. We felt that the information we gleaned from the on site inspections from the original zoning complaint that was appealed that you remanded were sufficient. And how many times did an inspector visit the site for this complaint? That's all I'm asking. For the remanded complaint or for the entire complaint? I'm sorry. The complaint is the complaint. The remand was basically just, then fill the complaint to. Do it over. Yes. For the complaint, it was two side visits. Two, OK, thank you. A couple times you have been, you've You've referred to the purpose of the inspection, or the purpose of the inspection, it was to determine whether there is a use violation. Is that correct? Yes. Can you explain what you mean by use violation as opposed to any other type of violation that there could potentially be? So it was specifically responding to in the decision in order the hearing examiner specifically pulled out information about roads and making sure that the uses, you know, are compatible. The roads are able to support the uses that they're having on. And the reason I'm making the distinction is that the appropriate time period for which we would determine whether man or lane as a road was able to support the special farm permit uses is when those were, when those applications were submitted. Once those special farm permit uses have been approved and those uses have been legally established, the property notice obligation is to remain compliant with the approved uses. So if they become very popular and there's a surge in traffic associated with their popularity, it is not the property's own responsibility to cease their operations as a result of increased traffic on the road. Their obligation is to adhere to the approved use that they have legally established. It's why I'm making that distinction. So I understand. The Farmers Reparmate, which is Appellant's 18, the very first page. It says once a permit is approved and issued, the permit shall be valid indefinitely, provided that the operation of the approved use remains in full conformance with all aspects of the use as it was approved. Yes. You see that correct? Yes, ma'am. The aspects of the use as approved was based upon Mr. Mariner's assertion as to what would be taking place, correct? Yes. That's an aspect of use, because correct? Yeah. The operations and the way that he conducts his uses are an aspect of the use as approved by the program. Well, how about the use of the local road? Yes, that is an aspect of the use. Okay. It is, I think the issue that comes up when we're evaluating the special farm permit for the farm brewery is it has pretty distinct visitation limitations. The agritors and enterprise permit does not have visitation limitations for the number of visitors. I'm referring to the farm brewer aspect of the use, correct? Because that was considered by DPC in determining whether to issue the permit. An evaluation of the road was something that was required as a criteria for issuing the permit. Okay. And it's clear from the evidence that the planner who reviewed it didn't review the operations and the expected use of the road. Now, if you look at Appellance 18, there is a page with the Manor Hill Farm LLC logo at the top. I'm so sorry. Mine are not numbered. I don't know which one is 18. It's the fifth from the bottom fifth page from the bottom. Okay we're still in the farm brewery permit. Yes. Thank you. And if you look at the very bottom paragraph it says the farm currently plants 17 acres of corn. Are you? This is on the actual application. This is part of the application packet, which is a Palant's 18. It's the one, two. I'm sorry, you're referring to the actual application for a February permit. I'm just trying to get to the right page in the exhibit. I'm sorry. It's the fifth page from the bottom of I am. Thank you. Sorry. OK. And it's got the logo at the top. Yes. OK. At the very bottom paragraph, it says the farm currently plants 17 acres of corn. Then it says we will at a minimum plant two acres of a primary ingredient used in the brewing process. That planting will be initiated upon approval and successfully established within one year. What is the primary ingredient used in the brewing process? My understanding is that they had originally planted hops and that the hops had failed and that their current recipe for their beers uses corn as a primary ingredient. Your understanding is that it uses corn as a primary ingredient. That is my understanding. Okay and where did you get that understanding from? I believe that is a description from the property owner of his beer. Yes. Okay. There have been a number of, there's been a lot of discussion about the barn on the property. Do you recall that? Yes. Okay. What is that barn used for? On the property. This is the barn that was approved in the 2021 agritors and enterprise permit. I believe Mr. Mariner describes that as a special events or party facility barn. Okay. describes that as a special events or a party facility barn. Okay. So that barn isn't used for farming purposes. I don't think it's directly related to the farming activities. So if you go in that barn, you don't see tractors, you don't see bills of hay. I have not been to the barn, I don't know what's in there, but I don't believe that it is used for that. Okay. But your understanding is that farming is the primary activity on the site. Is that correct? Yes. My understanding is that the barn was specifically built in support of the special farm permits? Understand, but the barn itself is not used for farming. Is that correct? Other than if you accept that the definition of farming also includes the special farm permits. I think that, OK. And the tap room isn't used to store farm equipment, veils of hay, that sort of thing, either correct. I believe the tap room is primary to dispensary for the farm room. I don't know if there are elements of the tap room for storing the products that are used on the farm or in creating the farm. How about the equipment used on the farm or in creating the farm? How about the equipment used on the farm? I do not have an inventory of the equipment used on the farm or where it is stored. And so the farming activity on the farm consists of what? So my understanding the farming activity is the planting of crops primarily corn. And do you know how many acres of corn are on the farm or planted active? Not off the top of my head. I could check the file to fully answer your question. There are also livestock being kept on the farm. And do you know what kind of livestock? My understanding is that they have goats, chickens, and they do bring in seasonal cattle. And seasonal cattle, what does that mean? Typically, if you are hosting cattle for meat production, you don't bring them onto your farm year round. You bring them onto your farm for a grazing period, and then they are processed. OK, so they just basically allow the whoever owns the livestock to eat their grass basically. Yeah, I mean, that's a typical farming operation for the production of meat cattle is leasing or direct farming. And do you know how many months a year that's done? I do not. Do you know how many heads of livestock are usually on this? I don't have specific numbers. And how about the goats? What are those goats used for? My understanding of the goats is that they're the primary animal with which visitors to the agritourism can interact with livestock farming livestock. So my understanding is they're used in sort of a petting zoo operation and sort of an interact other events that interact with livestock animals. So those goats themselves aren't used for farming purposes they're used for petting zoo. Well, the definition of farming is the keeping of livestock animals. So the, I can double check, but the specific activity of keeping goats would constitute a farming activity. It doesn't say that they have to produce milk. It doesn't say that they have to produce meat. It's the definition of farming in Howard County is the keeping of. Okay. Okay. Yeah. And the same with chickens. That would be the same. I believe so. Yeah. I consider I think there are in context of a farming use because obviously residential chicken keeping is its own. Right. But you don't know how many goats, how many chickens, or how much space the goats and chickens take up. I believe it would be in the investigation file, but I will tell you that off the top of my head, I'm going to go back to your comments about looking at activity to determine whether there's a use violation. If the use was permitted either by permit, well, let's say by permit, because that's what's applicable on this case. As a result of there having been a determination that certain activities would be conducting, let me strike that. Going back to the traffic issues, if the use of men are ill for either agraterism or farm brewery or even farmstan. If those uses, if in determining whether those uses would be approved, DPC looked at traffic, the use of the road, et cetera. Wouldn't those aspects of that approval be looked at when determining whether the use is in compliance with those permits? Not as I think you are suggesting, because the equivalent thing I would give is that, if a particular restaurant became incredibly popular and so many people were interested in visiting that restaurant that they were backingable uses that are permitted in that zoning district. What about a situation where part of the approval for that restaurant depended on the road usage itself? I would say the onus is on the reviewing agency at the time the permit is issued to evaluate the road and say given the traffic that we expect these kinds of special farm permits to generate and this road conditions is this inappropriate use to allow to be legally established here. That is the timeframe where you evaluate the road. I do not think it would be appropriate to go back and say, there is now a lot of traffic occurring on this road and therefore you are in violation of your use. The traffic, an increase in traffic could indicate that there has been a change in operations or a change in activity on a particular particularly legally established use site. And that's what we, so we look at traffic as an indicator. But I would not say an increase in traffic itself would qualify as constituting a zoning violation in context of these special form permits. Like if they're not also violating the uses they're allowed to do and the activities they're allowed to do. We would not issue a notice of a violation saying you have become too popular, you're generating too much traffic, therefore we're issuing you a notice of violation and telling you to cease your operations. Because what we're evaluating is what you are doing is something we said you can do in the hours that we're permitting you to do it. That's part of the reason why when a property owner who has special farm permits changes their operations, they have to come back and reapply for the special farm permit so that we DPC as the administrators of those can evaluate to say, okay, well, you're changing what you said you're going to do. And when you change it, we actually think based now on the traffic that we know is going here that it might not be appropriate. But I would say that once we have granted them permission to legally establish a use, we cannot then use traffic as the determining factor in issuing a violation. But it is an indicator that there could be of the type of use on the property. I would say a fairly low level indicator that would trigger us to do further investigation to determine a violation of a use. Okay. All right, I was just looking. I had a lot of notes, but I think there were, I think all my questions that I had written down for myself were actually covered. So that's all I have at this point. Just a more. Thanks, right? I think that was too long. I'm hopeful waiting. I think that helps narrow the scope of my redirect. Deputy Director Bella, talking to you about the questions you've been asked regarding agritors and enterprise, there are a number of questions about an event involving the Ravens as if whether the Ravens themselves or whose present defines the zoning use. If the Ravens attended an agritourism enterprise for purposes of engaging in a farm tour or farm stay, would that be within the definition of agritourism enterprise in Howard County? I believe so. So whether the Ravens or not isn't what's determinative, it's whether they engage in farm tour or farm stay. I would say that, I would consider the Ravens to be an invited group, which is what is allowed to occur under agritors and enterprise. And then they or the guests who are being attracted by their presence, can participate in one of the outline uses in agri-tours and enterprise of recreation, education, active involvement in farm operation, and then the list of series of other uses and similar uses. So that is why I would say that it would be fall within the category of agri-tours and enterprise. And that can even include participation in picnic or party facilities in conjunction with those uses? That, and also when I say that this is pretty broadly defined and similar uses, which means that DPC has the role of interpreting is the thing that is occurring, is it a similar use under the descriptive uses that are used to describe what this is supposed to look like? So let's take out whether somebody even participated in the farm brewery and if someone simply visits an agritur, what is permitted as an agriturism enterprise? Simply purposes of I want to see a farm. They literally just want to be a tourist of a farm. That's all they want. Would that be an accreteurism enterprise use? I think as a basic description of the avatoresan prize use, yes. Similar to saying if one goes to Italy to see Italy, one is a tourist of Italy. Yes, I mean the entire purpose of the Irotoresan Enterprise Swiss Reformed permit is to generate visitation to the farms as a revenue producing element. And in fact, under the definition of agrotorism enterprise that purpose of visit can purely be for recreation, can it not? Yes, that is what's been described. It doesn't have to be for education or even active involvement in the farm operation itself. You don't have to go there to pick anything or plant anything. Now, it just has to be related to agricultural resources and incidental to the primary operation. Now, the county council and enacting zoning regulations could choose to define agri-terrism enterprise differently, correct? Yes. But this is the definition that has been adopted in the code and the DPC is then charged to apply. Yes. Similarly as to the definition of farming under section one of three point zero of the Howard County zoning regulations. You were asked questions by her honor, the hearing examiner regarding animals that might be kept for purposes other than meat or milk or fleece or fur. Does not items see under the farming definition specify that the breeding, raising, training, boarding, and even general care of livestock for uses other than food, such as sport or show purposes, as pets or for recreation. Yes. Are all farming uses? Yes. So even if you just keep goats because you like to look at goats, that's a farming operation. Under Howard County's zoning definition, yes. Provided their livestock? Yes. Not all animals count as livestock. Yes, and we have been asked to make that determination to pass so But goats and chickens Do both qualifies livestock? Yeah, we actually define what's considered an animal unit And so we kind of list those and that provides a really good understanding of what's considered a livestock animal? You were asked a number of questions on cross examination by a council for a pellet regarding whole litany of events and whether you had attended them. Is it practical in the conduct of zoning investigations to attend every single event at a single alleged violator property? No. It's simply not practical. How in this case did you determine that you had conducted as many onsite visits as would be practically useful for the investigation? In working with the entirety of the zoning visit as would be practically useful for the investigation. In working with the entirety of the zoning administration code enforcement staff, as well as the legal council, we determine what information would be able to be able to claim from sending Inspector Frank out for an additional visit, and we did not feel we would be able to glean additional information beyond what we have previously been able to collect as evidence. Let me ask this. What if you sent an inspector out to a event on their calendar and found that there were 100 people at the event, plainly more than the 50 that their farm brewery permit authorizes. Would it not be useful to have an inspector see 100 people at the farm? In the case for a man or a brewery the difficulty there is that they have other special farm permits that do not have a cap of 50 people and so we would need to discern what activities are people to participating in and how do we attribute them to each particular special farm permit? So the mere presence of 100 people to property does not mean a violation of the 50% cap? Over the front-end. No, I think that is specifically why the property owner saw an agritorous in permit here was for the ability to have a larger scale event and to expand the types of activities that they were conducting. Is the consumption of alcohol generated by the farm brewery permissible outside of the farm brewery use? In other words, can it be permissible as part of the agritors in use? I think under the definition of agritors in it could be where alcohol can be consumed is not a zoning violation. I don't think we looked at that. Right, so who actually regulates the sale or distribution of alcoholic beverages in Maryland, if you know? I think it's the alcohol tobacco, where I'm in Canvas administration, although I do understand that there is also some local controls for alcohol consumption, but it doesn't fall under my purview. The Howard County Alcoholic Beverage Hearing Board and the liquor board. That sounds right. So if someone else has an agritourism operation without an agricultural brewery operation, so they're permitted to conduct events at their agritourism, maybe they can even conduct events. I mean, you actually had some questions earlier about weddings and form operations. Don't we actually have in Howard County agricultural uses involving barns that partly serve to actually conduct weddings? Not at this property. No, at this property. I think those are typically limited social civil rights. Right. Cond, okay. Conditional uses. Yeah. Okay. But if you were going to have a farm related event but didn't have a farm brewery permit, if you were, as long as you were licensed by the appropriate regulatory agency for alcoholic beverages, could you serve alcoholic beverages at a agri-terrism-zoned property? I believe you could, yes. So you don't have to have the, properties don't have, farm properties don't have to have the farm brewery permit specifically to sell or serve alcoholic beverages. I don't believe they do. I don't, I don't think I would always have enterprise prohibits the sale of alcoholic beverages. Is it fair to say that a farm brewery class 1A permit is specifically tailored to farming uses for which the accessory use may be focused on the farm brewery and they themselves may not in fact have an agro tourism permit. One could have a farm brewery class 1A permit, and you would then be focused on the farm brewery, which may include the sailors, as well as the production. Yeah, I would say that agriptorism enterprise, because it doesn't have a visitation, is kind of considered a more intensive accessory use. And so there's a reason we have different classifications for what people want to do. Someone could open a much more soil sale and only want to do farm brewery. And the agrotourism is a broader use. Very broad use, yes. You asked a number of questions by a pellets Council on cross-examination regarding the dictionary definition of what is incidental. While you were asked regarding the Merriam Webster definition of incidental, were you aware that the Maryland courts in the context of accessory uses have themselves specifically defined incidental uses? I'm generally aware and stay abreast of land use case law and how those are applied. I would not be able to tell you the specific case or how they've defined that. So would you be surprised to learn that it sounds almost exactly like your description of the land use definition of incident use? Objection. Objection that legal question. We can brief this. Sure. I can address it in closing. So you would draw the question? Sure. I would draw that question. You were also asking a number of questions regarding what qualifies as a festival under the Howard County zoning regulations. And you were asked questions about a number of the events from the alleged Manor Hill brewing calendar and whether they met those criteria. Let me ask you this. If one were to conduct an event periodically, it would be consistent with the definition of a festival that you are being asked about by on cross-examination correct. Sorry, can you repeat that? If an event occurs periodically, that would be consistent with the definition of festival as put to you by on cross examination. Yeah, I mean, I think you could have both a periodic day-to-day event and you can have a periodic festival event. Okay. Sure. It's just there's a limitation on the number and length of time that you can post the festival events. Right. So if this, if this periodic event also was for a specific purpose, such as a communal celebration of a cultural matter. Would that be consistent with the festival definition that was being put to you on cross examination? I think that would be consistent with the festival definition. With the service of alcohol at this periodic specific event focused event, be consistent with the festival definition that you were being asked to agree with on cross examination. Yes, I think food activities. So a feast as well. Yes. What about participation in sporting activities as part of the event? Would that be consistent with the festival? Yes. How about observance of a parade? Would that be consistent with the festival definition you were being asked to agree with? festival. Yes. How about observance of a parade? Would that be consistent with the festival definition you were being asked to agree with? Yes. What about participation in communal prayer? Would that be consistent with the festival event? It depending on the festival, yes. Okay. Let me ask you this. Are residentially-zone properties can permit to conduct festivals? I would need to double check the zoning regulations. Okay. It depending on the event that's being focused on what's allowed it could fall under a temporary use permit. Okay. There's a generally allowed. So you might need a temporary use permit if you were going to do it at a residential zone property. Let me ask you this, without your qualification of the professional estimation as to the size of the event, making a difference, just using the definition that you were being asked to address on cross examination, this specifically purposed event in which alcohol is served, a feast is conducted, sports participated in parades are watched for a specific focus, including communal prayer. Would seem to meet the definition of a festival. Are you saying that my home Thanksgiving is a festival? No, I would not describe your home Thanksgiving as a festival. Would that be because despite the definition that you were being asked to agree with on cross-examination, the relative scale of the event likely doesn't reach what you consider a festival? Yes. So despite the dictionary definition of festival, not every gathering that involved these individual elements is necessarily a festival. Yes. So if one is conducting regular pet adoption events, if you have any experience with it, to the extent that you have experience, do pet adoption events typically end up in large gatherings of people all at one moment? No. Would it be fair to say that they typically involve a series of individuals coming in over time to perhaps meet a pet, perhaps adopt one? Yes, depending on what it is. And it tends to be fairly small scale. You were also asked questions regarding the conditional use criteria for limited social assembly, but you were also talking in that same conversation about uses permitted under these farm permits. Yes. Are there uses that can be lawful under more than one zoning classification? Yes. I think that was the point I was trying to make, but I was eloquently as you just said. So the fact that a particular use might be permissible under a limited social assembly does not mean that it actually is also authorized under a different use such as a farming permit. It may be authorized, that's the description for this special report. But the fact that, and I think you said this on cross-examination, which is the fact that on a given incident, someone might say if I had to guess blindly, that looks like a limited social conditional use. Doesn't mean that, oh well, they don't have that conditional use, but they're still lawful because it also looks like an agri-terrism of that. Yeah, it's important to evaluate what's occurring against what is permitted to occur by the description of what the uses are allowed to be there. Right, so if DPC were to bring a code enforcement action against a property for lack of a conditional use for limited social occasion. Would DPC expect to prevail if their defense was, I don't know what you're talking about, conditional use, we don't need that. We are conducting a festival under our under our agraterism enterprise. Yeah, that's why we wouldn't issue a violation of that. I don't have any other questions for the Deputy Director at this time. Thank you. Any follow-up? I have one brief one. What steps of DPC take to determine whether the activities happening on the subject property were supporting the agricultural use without significant adverse impacts on neighboring properties were one second and were consistent with the support of the farm and were compatible with a real character of the farm. Are you assuming you're referencing some of the criteria that have to be evaluated when you're approving one of these permits. Yes. So what we're looking at is the operations and the activities that are occurring are this consistent with what the applicant was approved to do. So we don't look at every single of that and say, does this reflect the criteria for evaluating and deciding whether we're gonna issue this permit or not? Okay, thank you. Okay, is that all? It is, I'd like to excuse the deputy director director's witness and the county would rest his defense. All right. Thank you very much. Hope you feel better. I think they give this to you. You can make them. So with both sides resting, I want to make sure that all of the exhibits that were intended to be admitted were I think that they were. We'll do that. Magistrate is one point. We had the issue about exhibit 20, which was the tap room printout. The examiner noted that on the upper left hand corner was the date December 4, 2024, which was the date we printed it. We can call a witness to say that she looked at that this has been on the website for a period of time or I think we can just proper that it is. But if we don't have a proper we'd like to call Joan Pony as just for a few seconds to ever identify this document. But the date December 4 to then 24 was the date that we printed it at 3.44 pm. There's no dispute about the authenticity of this document. Well, I don't know. I think the county is disputing or at least objecting on that basis. I did. Yeah. So if Miss Pontius is here. What? I may. This is, to extent they want to call a witness, this is not within, you have fair discretion. It wouldn't be reversed on appeal, but it's not really proper rebuttal. Rebuttal is supposed to respond to something newly raised. Totally understand that. And this is not newly raised. This is something they didn't do up front. I understand that. May I address that, Madam Hearing? This is something newly raised because for the first time in this hearing we heard that DPC reviewed the website. That was not in the decision in order. There was no evidence that that occurred previously so there's no way we could have anticipated that during our first, our initial case in chief. So it is new evidence. They did review the website. It was testified to, and this is part of the website. They didn't say they had reviewed this, and website evidence was something that was part of the case in chief of the appellate. So it plainly wasn't newly introduced by the defense case. This isn't an effort to contradict defense case. I listen, I understand what true rebuttal is and I will tell you that in my years of practice, I have never seen true rebuttal being the limitation for administration proceedings. So I think in this case, just so we can make the record clear if Ms. Pontius is here. I'll stipulate that Ms. Pontius will testify consistently with a council of Profford. I don't think they're making up what Ms. Pontius would say. Okay, if we stipulate that then we don't have to call her. And I think we can then have what appellance 20 will admit appellance 20. Yes. Okay, thank you, Mr. Moore. I and after you are beginning to address the exhibits. Yes I just want to make sure that all of the exhibits that have been referred to, number one, have been marked and admitted. I keep a pretty good list and I believe Ms. Berg does too and I think that they have. Also want to make sure that we have and that council for the county has all the exhibits. All right. May I address that point? Yes. Last year and we introduced an electronic copy of the calendar, we at Great Effort printed a copy. So I've given a portion of the exhibit to Mr. Moore. Here are the portions of the other years and the digital versions are already in evidence. And I have a copy of the first. Okay, so these are just printouts of the digital versions. Do we give you the full copy count? These are events from 2015 and 2016. Yes. Yes. We introduced on day one for what I think of as day one. Yeah. We introduced on our day one. An electronic copy of the calendar. Correct. For the years, 2050. This came in order, Dr. B. As testimony. No. All right, I'm just trying to articulate what we did. Ms. Waltoni on our first night in this hearing introduced an electronic copy of the calendar, electronically. And that exhibit, electronic copy has a years, 2015, 16, 17, 18, all the way through 24. I'm mindful of the examiners ruling about the video from 2024. But this exhibit for these years was admitted and is in evidence. This is a hard copy of what was in evidence and and I'm mindful of So now I think Miss Berg has a complete set. Mr. Moore has a complete set. We have a complete set was are there any exhibits that have been either referenced but never actually marked existed marked just within electronic form? This is just out of it. And also have there any exhibits either unmarked or not? I'm sorry. Have you been in exhibits either unmarked or marked that haven't been formally moved in but within the context of the hearing plainly were offered and accepted? Correct. Correct. And I believe that everything has been properly admitted. Yes, ma'am. Good. So I have a stack of documents that were just provided, which are the printouts from the electronic. We have two sets because Ms. Berg printed out her own set. So I have a set. You have a set there. And Ms. Berg has her own set that she printed out. So I think we have enough sets of this large exhibit and all of the other exhibits. And the only exhibit that the county offered was Respondent 1, which was the September 25th 23 letter from Mr. Mayor. Okay. All right. So let's go over the briefing schedule. What I said is, and thank you all, preferred that we do, written closings. Obviously, the appellants will go first, file their filing first. As we are getting to the holiday time, I don't want to make sure of is that even if the appellants say, well we can get ours in by let's say you know December 20th. They wouldn't do that to me. Right, so then you get it and you've got a holiday. So my thinking is that we all, I know that everybody wants to get this case over with, but that will have the initial due date for the appellance closing after the holiday. Is that okay? And so that will be why don't we... I'm going to go to the library. January 10th. And Mr. Moore, what would be, I would say two weeks. Time for you to respond? Let me double check what that adds up to in terms of the end date. It would be right, the 24th of January. Could I have any date the following week? I've got yet another matter involving a particular administrative appellant Miss Khan that continues to file things That's fine if it's if there's no objection you want to say the third let's say that January 31st Thank you. Could you do the 30th? Yeah, okay? Okay, okay Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. And then I don't think we're going to have time built in for responsive for reply. For. So at that point, then I'll have both submissions. And at that point, we will deem the record closed. I mean, technically, the record is closed in the sense that we're not admitting any more testimony. The schedule at the Examiner Justice outline is acceptable to the citizens. It's part of the county as well. Okay, all right. So January 10th, the appellants written closing will be due and the 31st, excuse me, the 30th, the counties opposition or, well, wouldn't be it. The counties closing, written closing will be due. Okay, and with regard to any exhibits, you don't need to separately attach exhibits to your closing if you refer to those exhibits as they were marked. I think that'll make things easier, especially for dealing with these larger exhibits. Okay. Well, thank you all. And I hope everybody has a good holiday season. Thank you. Appreciate the examiner's help. Thank you. We'll go off the record.