This meeting is being recorded. Good morning. Today is October 17th. This is scheduled meeting of Howard County Board of Peals. And I'm the chairperson, Gene Ryan. Before we get started, I want to do a few quick things. We have some virtual people and attendance in terms of board members. We have Miss you and myself here in person. Online we have Miss Phillips. Miss Phillips, can you hear us? Yes, I can. Okay, and then I believe we have somebody else right from the board online. Miss Harris, can you hear us? Yes. Okay, great. Yes, I can. So, Miss Phillips, Miss Harris, so we have a quorum. And then do we have the appellant virtually? Is that right? And Mr. Doney, can you hear us? Oh, I'm sorry, one second, you're being elevated. Mr. Donahue, you should be able to turn your camera on now and you have permission to unmute yourself. My name is Bernard, my name is Ed Donna here representing the appellant. Great, good morning Mr. Donna. Okay, so today's proceedings are already over. Video recorded, the sound equipment sensitive, so if anybody can silence personal devices and if they have a conversation if they're in the room, they could please take it outside. A full list of the rules and regulations for today's hearing can be found online at the Board of Appeals website. Before we introduce the case, we have a preliminary matter which is to approve the or to review the meeting minutes of September 26th, 2024. Board members have received those meeting minutes. Any questions or comments? Okay, seeing none, can I get a motion to approve the meeting minutes for September 24th? I move to approve. Move to approve by Ms. Yu. Can I get a second, please? Second. Second by Ms. Who is it? Phillips. Miss Phillips. Okay Matter of mystery. Can you please call the roll chair Ryan approve miss Harris approve miss Phillips approve miss you approve Great the motion carries and the minutes from September 26th 2024 work sessions of order appeals have been approved moving Moving on to our matter today, the case is BA808D, Cardone LLC. And Mr. Sanders, would you please like to call the case. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Hurricane Board of Appeals is convening today, October 17, 2024, to conduct a de novo hearing on the petition of Cardone, Capitol LLC in Board of Appeals 808D. The petition is filed from Section 16.302, Subsection A of the Harcanny Code. The petitioner is appealing the hearing examiner decision in order dated July 9th, 2024, to the Harcanny Board of Appeals. The appeal petition is from the rental housing licenses issued on March 1, 2024, March 4, 2024, and March 6, 2024 by the Department of Inspections, Licenses, and Permits. The subject property is located in the New Town Zoning District in T. On that land belonging to Cardone Capital LLC situated on the east side of Swift Stream Place approximately 270 feet southeast of Little Patuxon Parkway. Also known as 10310 Swift Stream Place as shown on tax map 36 grid to parcel 39 lot a one containing approximately 11.76 acres all shown on the file in this case in the Division of Public Service and zoning administration. the plan to be approved. The plan is to be approved to the record by reference, the Hara Kenny Code, the Hara Kenny Charter, the administrative appeal petition to the Hara County Hearing Authority dated April 1, 2024, and the petition of appeal of the hearing's zameter decision in order to the Hara Kenny Board of Appeals dated August 8, 2024. The burden of proof is set forth in Hara Kenny Code, section 2.210 subsection A4II. In this day, no will appeal. The burden of proof is upon the petitioner, also the appellant here, to show that the action taken by the administrative agency was clearly erroneous and or arbitrary and capricious and or contrary to law. I know for the record that Capitol Cardone LLC is represented by Edward El-Dana-Hue Esquire. He is here virtually in this hybrid hearing. The Howard County Department of Inspections' license and permits, affectionately known as DILP, is represented by David or more senior assistant county slister who is here in person. I have two premiering matters, Mr. Chair. One of our board members is absent today. Board member Lynn Fearcald. The second, we have a primary motion to dismiss in this case. The Howard County Department of Dispections, License and Improvings followed a motion to dismiss the appeal on September 19th, 2024. An opposition to the motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of Cardone Capital LLC on October 15th, 24 and the last one is the last one is the last one is the last one is the last one is the last one is the last one is the last one is the last one is the last one is the last one is the last one is the last one is the last one is the last one is the last one is the last one is the last one is the last one is the last one is the last one is the last one is the last one is the last one is the I guess we'll begin with the preliminary motion. So what I'll do is we'll give each side 10 minutes to any oral arguments and we'll begin with the representative from Dilp. Good morning Mr. Chair and members of the board. My name is David Moore. I'm from the County Office of Law representing the Department of the Spectative Licises and Permits. One, and there are essentially three reasons why this appellate petition should be dismissed as the hearing examiner below correctly did and that decision now is on appeal to this board. The first I will deal with because while it is in many ways the one that the petitioner can't get over, it's also relatively minor. That is Cardone Capital isn't the landlord doesn't own this property. In fact, the introductory remarks by Mr. Sanders which noted Cardone Capital LLC as the owner of the property, I think are based upon the appellate petition. Land records for this property, and in fact, I don't think there's any dispute by the petitioner in this, indicate that the property is actually owned by a different entity, Columbia 531 LLC. Now these business entities may be somewhat intertwined, but they are separately galentities. Under Mayor-owned law, an LLC would need to do business under its own name, or under a registered trade name. And Cardone Capital is not a registered trade name of, I don't think it in fact could be because it is a separate corporate entity or separate element of liability company entity for Columbia 531 LLC. So we have the wrong petitioner here. This is not an aggrieved party because Cardone Capital doesn't itself have any interest in this property. Before the hearing examiner, Columbia 531 LLC asked actually, Cardone asked to amend the petition so that they could proceed under Columbia 531 LLC to which the county raised no objection and the hearing examiner approved. If that were the status still I would not be raising this particular issue, but for some reason the appeal to the Board of Appeals was once again brought under the name Cardone a capital LLC. Cardone a capital LLC is not a proper party before this board asked of this property. It itself is not aggrieved. Columbia 531 LLC would be the proper party. For some reason, Columbia 531, even though they were amended into the proceeding before the hearing examiner, didn't appeal to this body. That said, even if the petitioner can get over that issue, the fundamental flaw in this petition is that it was not timely filed. While the petition, the appellate petition says that it is appealing licensing actions taken in March of 2024, the only licensing actions that occurred in March of 2024 are the issuance of licenses to these properties for the years 2023 to 2025. The licensing action that a petitioner is unhappy about occurred in 2021, which is too long ago for an appeal filed in April of 2024 to address. It wasn't timely filed. That licensing action was Dilp's determination that because of property maintenance issues including a sprinkler system that was broken and has subsequently thankfully been fixed, it was not a renewable rental housing license for a whole series of properties. At that time Dilp did not renew the license. The license's expiration date is printed right on them. In fact, a copy of a license for one of these properties is attached to petitioners or original petition to the hearing, it was referred to the hearing examiner. They knew their license was expired. They knew they hadn't gotten a new one. They proceeded to work with DILP and took the monster actually even years to get all the property maintenance issues fixed so their rental housing license could be renewed. In the meantime, they were not a licensed property in Howard County. They're licensed. If you look at the license itself, their license had expired, and they knew it. They didn't challenge the director, that is the DILP director's decision to not renew them. Probably for the same reason they were working with DILP to remedy the property maintenance issues. They knew they had to fix their sprinkler of system along with other issues. What changed things that led to this appeal is that in November of 2023, they were sued by a number of their tenants in US District Court related to their collection of rent while not a licensed landlord. They then, in in 2024 in April appealed in an effort to get their license for the years 2021 through 2023, which was the subject of the federal litigation that they say is what their harm is. They say they were harmed because still labels them as unlicensed for 2021 through 2023. They're subject to this federal law suit by their tenants. They didn't appeal that decision until April of 2024. So at the very latest, despite their efforts to say, well, Dilp didn't issue us a letter saying they hadn't renewed us. Dilp didn't issue us a revocation letter. They knew by November of 2023 when they got sued in US District Court and had to file an answer that they were not licensed. Despite that, it was not until April of 2024 that they filed this appeal, which is more than the time allotted to challenge a decision of the director of DILP. Because they did not timely file this appeal, they deprived this board of jurisdiction, and deprived this board of the opportunity to review DILP's decision. A decision that would have been found to be correct. I mean, the fact is they worked with DILP to get their property maintenance issues remedied before they were licensed. And they worked with them because they knew their property maintenance issues needed to be remedied and Dillp under the county code can't issue them a renewal With that outstanding property maintenance issue so that this board would hardly reverse Dillp's decision not to issue a license for a New will to a property with a defective sprinkler system For all these reasons I would ask this board to dismiss this petition Because it is not filed by the proper party, the party who filed it is not agreed. And because of the timing generated by the appellant, this board doesn't have the jurisdiction to hear this appeal based upon when it was filed. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Moving on, Mr. Dutty, can you hear us? Yes, I can. Okay, so if you want to go ahead with your response and likely or likewise you'll have six minutes whenever you're ready. All right, I'm sorry, 10 minutes, 10 minutes, I'm sorry. Well, I can probably do it in six. He did it in six. That's why I was looking at my clock, I apologize. No problem. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the time and appreciate you hearing me remotely. This one has gone on now for several months. But we certainly appreciate the board taking its time to consider both the motion to dismiss in our opposition. And by the way, my opposition was late. My apologies for that. I did ask that the board accepted, and since we're talking about it, I assume that we have, but perhaps you may want to make a note of that. Couple of things, for talk, I certainly appreciate Mr. Moore's testimony, and I've enjoyed working with Mr. Moore's, we've proceeded through this, but there are a few things that the board should be aware of. One is that the DELope portrays the renewal process as a comprehensive, a copacetic process that deals with multi-unit properties such as this one, and the many, many multi-unit properties throughout the county. In fact, it's difficult. We went through a management change. We did experience some notices of violation. Those, of course, were addressed promptly. The sprinkler issue did prove to be somewhat problematic that we got that fixed. But in point of fact, many of the failure to renew, in order to things like rand delays or failures for inspector to show up on the property or failure on my clients part to produce a Tenor representative at the time some of which had to do with COVID there were folks that were unwilling to come out meet in person So while fire code and safety issues such as the sprinklers such as signage that kind of thing We take very very seriously when we are glad to see those have been remedied. Some of the failure to renew really were the more the mundane things that occurred over the two years as Mr. Moore portrays it. But let's get to the timing issue. When Mr. Moore suggests that when Cardone was sued in federal court in November of 23, it should have taken action and raised the issue with the hearing examiner and ultimately perhaps to the board. Well, there wasn't an action at that time other than that action pending in the federal court. We took advantage of the renewal that occurred in the spring of 2024, and that was the time that my firm was brought on. And we challenged the renewal because we said it really ought to have been backdated. And we wanted to get at the merits it really ought to have been backdated. We wanted to get at the merits of why these renewals had not taken place. Why the database seemed to reflect a valid license, what effect there was no license or there was no renewal having taken place. So we filed, but at that time, and that filing was April 1 of 2024, we said we want to continue to work with, we want to work with the Office of the County Attorney because we want to remedy these things and we want to have these licenses back dated. We think that's important and we think it's merited by the good faith efforts during the 2021-22 period and also with regards to the appeal. We continue those things. We met in the spring of 2024, Mr. Moore was present, and I alluded to that in my appeal. There's two things that I wanna add that I didn't put in my opposition. One is this, the federal court matter was dismissed over the summer. I don't handle that matter for Cardone, and so I can't tell you off the top of my head, but that matter was dismissed in the district court, promptly filed in the circuit court of Howard County. There are pending motions to dismiss those are going to be heard in November. So next month. So the allegations about pending litigation are not allegations. The assertions that there's pending litigation are true, however, we're no longer in the district court when the circuit court. The others this with regard to the naming, at that hearing before the hearing examiner, we said, yeah, 531 Columbia LLC ought to have been the petitioner in the haste to get this appeal filed before the Board of Appeals. We went with the shorthand, which is Cardone Capital. We note that in the original appeal filed before the Board of Appeals. We went with the shorthand, which was Cardone capital. We noted that in the original appeal filed April 1, 2024, we named both Cardone, capital LLC and 531 Columbia LLC in that original appeal. So using the shorthand, well we should have had 531 Columbia LLC and in this appeal to the board and I wish we had but we had not amended the actual appeal. So when using the shorthand we dropped one of those names. If Mr. Moore will allow it, will amend the petition allowing this to go forward at this time. It is a naming issue. It's important I understand that these are affiliated entities are known capital capital, and 571 Columbia, LLC, are in fact affiliates over a large holding company based in Florida, and many, many units throughout the country. And so one of the things we need to get straight here is the naming. So that's my answer on that, Mr. Chairman. And finally, we're pertains to fire code, we're pertains to sprinklers those types of things. I certainly agree with the officer of the county attorney and with Bill that that's got to be addressed in a residential unit, multi-units, such as this, of course, has got to be in compliance. But where the issue has to do with record keeping and where the issue is a renewable license that may or may not have been noticed to the owners, to the management company. I submit to you that we ought to be able to look at that and see whether that renewal shouldn't have occurred in the automatic course in which case we wouldn't be here challenging the renewal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your time. Thank you, sir. 534, by the way. You did good. 5 minutes 34 seconds. Thank you, sir. 534, by the way. You did good. 5 minutes, 34 seconds. Thank you. Thank you. Of course. So I imagine the board members have some questions that we're going to allow. Before we do that, Mr. Moore, Mr. Donnie, you just made a request to amend his petition to include Cordon, LLC. Is there any objection to that? I'll just I'll defer to the board as to that. So you but in your position you guys have no. I don't know we didn't object in front of the hearing examiner to amendment to the correct party. It's not just a naming issue they're separate people in effect. It would be like saying that I had filed something under Mr. Sanders name and I want now want to tell you no, no, it's actually under my name. I don't get to LLCs can't just file under other LLCs name, but since we didn't object in front of the hearing examiner, I don't know why they didn't appeal under the correct amended name, but I'm not going to raise an objection now that I didn't raise in front of the hearing examiner. Okay. All right, thank you. So with that, we will begin with board member questions for council. Miss you would like to. Sure. I have a few questions regarding the process of getting renewed. So the license was expired. Which month of 2021? I would have to look at the license itself, which I don't have in front of me. I think in the particular position one of the exhibits is one of the main license building was Sunday, August 1st, 2021. That's written on the bottom of the actual. Okay. Thanks, Mrs. Sanders. So before the license got expired, was there any notification to the owner or like a man had his issue addressed before the license got expired? The property owner would have filed your license expires if you do nothing. You have to renew. That's why there's an expiration date printed on the license because your license just ends if you don't renew it. This property owner had filed some renewals as to some of their properties. Those renewals had not yet been approved because of property maintenance issues. In other words, when you file your application for renewal, DILP goes through an inspection process to verify that the property meets the property maintenance code, because DILP's not going to renew you unless you pass property maintenance code inspection. Because these properties didn't pass property maintenance inspection. The renewal application on those applications wasn't actually approved, it wasn't actually approved until I think it was August of 2023. Because it took a couple of years for all of the property maintenance issues to be addressed. And when we talk about the sprinkler system, even though you will hear there's several buildings that issue here, these buildings make use of a connected sprinkler system. So when the sprinkler system fails, it's actually the sprinkler system from multiple buildings because it's an interconnected system. So it wasn't one, it wasn't that a sprinkler system failed on one building, but the other ones had working sprinkler systems. This was an interconnected sprinkler system. There were also other property maintenance issues. Just obviously a sprinkler system and a residential building is going to jump out as a primary safety concern for the tenants before the county can renew the license. So in answer to Board Member Juiz' question, the license had expired as the date on it notes. And until it was renewed, it remains expired. And while renewal had been filed, it had not yet been approved because of the property maintenance issues that the landlord was working through with DILP through a variety of back and forth where DILP would tell them, here's your issues and they would purportedly address them and notify the inspector that we've addressed them and then unfortunately in this case it took a lot of back and forth before the inspector actually was able to say, yep, you've addressed everything. There were a number of occasions when the inspector was told we're ready for inspection, where the inspector found, you called me a little early, you weren't ready to pass yet. And not everything had been addressed until 2023, before finally all, everything was in order, and the inspector was able to issue the renewal, sign off on the issuance of the renewals for all these properties. So from 2021 through 2023, these properties were operating under an expired license for which renewal had been applied for but had not yet been granted. So when was the inspection conducted? Was it before the expiration date? And was the owner notified of not the maintenance issues? The way this works for Dilpas that the inspections don't begin until basically the owner applies for renewal and tells us we're ready for inspection. Because there's no point in sending an inspector out if you're going to fail. And, and then your property maintenance managers typically, I mean, it could be the owner, but in property like this, you're typically going to have a property manager, an employee of the landlord who's going to meet the inspector out there. And what happens is the inspector and the property manager coordinate, meet out at the property and go through the inspection. The inspector doesn't just pop up and I mean they can on a typically that's on a violation complaint. Ten reports property maintenance issue, although even then the inspector will often contact the property manager because for access reasons for example you've got to have somebody who has control of the property to let the inspector in. The inspector is not going to go into the property on their, they don't have keys. So the inspection process is coordinated with the landlord. These inspections occurred on a number of occasions over that two year period. Because unfortunately this is not a property that operated as dope would prefer that properties operate, which is, you know, apply for renewal. Let us know you're ready for inspection, which you ought to be on the day you apply for renewal. I mean, these are all property maintenance issues. You don't only have to comply with the property maintenance code when you apply for renewal. You're supposed to comply with it all the time. If it's just every two years when we renew you, we may catch you even if no one has reported a violation. If someone reports a violation to the property maintenance code before renewal, an inspector may catch you with a property maintenance issue before that license expires. In this case, the landlord applied for renewal when their property wasn't ready to pass a property maintenance inspection. And so a series of inspections occurred after the expiration because, you know because think of it as your driver's license. If you had to pass a new driver, we don't in Maryland, of course, but if we had to pass a new driver's test to renew your driver's license, this would be like going to the MBA and saying, I want my new license and they said, well, have you passed your driver's test? Oh no, I haven't passed my driver's test. Well, then you can't get a new license. They couldn't get a renewed rental housing license until their property was in order. They applied for it before it was. And in fact, it took until 2023, before an inspector was able to say, OK, now everything's in order we can issue your renewal. If they disagreed with that inspector at any point in that process, during any of those meetings with the inspector at the property during any of those times with the inspector told them you don't pass property maintenance code, they could have appealed back then. They could have said you're wrong, we do pass property maintenance inspection. We don't know why you're telling us we don't. Instead what they did, because I presume that they knew that they weren't in compliance with the inspector until finally in 2023 they had passed inspection. So they knew that Dilp said they weren't in compliance with the rental housing code this whole time. Every time they met with the inspector out there, they knew the inspector didn't tell me I passed. Now whether their property manager had communicated that up to the chain of command, I have no idea that is not the case. the inspector out there, they knew the inspector didn't tell me I passed. Now whether their property manager had communicated that up to the chain of command, I have no idea that is on them. When you're a corporate landlord, obviously you are to some extent at the mercy of your employees, but those are their employees. It is not the county's job to make sure that your property manager is telling whoever owns the LLC that, oh, you know what? We didn't pass the property maintenance inspection again. They're still not going to renew us. Regardless, whoever owns that LLC, certainly is charged with knowledge that, you know what, our license expired back in 2021. When do we get the new piece of paper? Because they never got a new, I'm sorry, they never got a new piece of paper this whole time that says you're licensed in Howard County. All they had was a piece of paper that said you expired in 2021. And they didn't get a new piece of paper until 2023. So certainly during that whole time, any reasonable corporate landlord is gonna be saying, where's my piece of paper? I don't have a license. Don't we need a license to operate in Howard County? Of course you do. So do you do you inspect every renewal application or it's a random choose who to inspect or whenever you have an application? Can I call up the director? He's the director Francis is here. Should we wish to earn a win right or Mr. Sanders would you? Come on. Should we, we should swear him in, right? Or Mr. Sanders, what do you think? Well, we're doing, we're here on motion. This is a motion, so I mean, this is a proffer. Okay, okay, okay. Have a good, very good. Good, let's repeat the question. Do you inspect every property at the two-year renewal phase? Yes, everybody. And if you can still see your arm, sorry. I'm sorry. My name's Bob Francis. I'm the director of the inspections license permits located here at 3430 Courthouse Drive in Ellicott City. Yes, when every rental license we have, every two years, goes through a renewal process. And 90 days prior to the expiration date, we send this renewal notice out to the applicants. And on all multi-family properties, we do in fact do a property, an actual physical inspection of the property. So when they file renewal for each renewal application, you go on site using that as correct. Okay, thank you, that's all. That's all, have. Great. Any other board. Okay. Thank you. That's all. Great. Any other board miss? Miss Phillips. I see your hand up. I hear you telling them that you had these inspections and they didn't tell them or they could have said something or they could have filed something then. Is this was a failure of inspection mailed at Britain? Statement saying your property is not renewed because you failed the inspection. Was a formal notice sent to them? Yes, there's actually what we call a notice of violation and then OV. Once we go to do a renewal inspection if there are problems, we document what those particular issues are and we've sent a formal letter to the applicants notifying them, these are the issues that need to be resolved. Now, they applied on time for their license just that the inspection. So until they fit the inspection, does it mean that they, when they complete the inspection and complete all the requirements of the inspection, does that mean that, I guess it means that until those are met, does that renewal actually take place, even though they filed on time, right? If I would on time for renewal, but didn't meet the requirements of the renewal. I don't have the particular paperwork. I'm just trying to get what the process is, because you're saying that they have to pass an inspection in order to get the renewal. Is that like stated there? I'm not, you know, like I know you can buy a car, you car, you can go get your tag, but it's only for 45 days and you're 45 days to make all the repairs. Right? Yeah. What I'm saying is, is, is, huh? Excuse me? Maybe I can address this board member. Under Howard County Code 14901F, renewal of license, the authority of DILP is circumscribed. A rental license may be renewed if the dwelling unit continues to meet the requirements of the Howard County property maintenance code for rental housing, other requirements under this section of the Howard County code and has provided updated information in the rental license application. If the requirement section two of that F2, if the requirements of the rental license application as set out in this section are not met, the director shell issue will written denial that states what must be done to bring the that's the NOV that Mr. Francis addressed that what must be done to bring the dwelling unit and compliance with this section. Three, if the director is satisfied that the deficiency stated in the denial had been corrected, the director shall assure renewal for the dwelling unit. For the director shall not assure renewal license for any dwelling unit for which there are outstanding violation notices from any county agency. So until the renewal can't be issued, Mr. Francis can't assure renewal until the outstanding violation notices have been addressed. the report. So, the renewal can't be issued. Mr. Francis can't issue a renewal until the outstanding violation notices have been addressed. Under 1491. If you're renewing, if they, if I apply for renewal in 2021, yes, and you can't issue, is it that renewal that you're going to issue or you're're gonna issue a renewal because I applied in 2021 And it didn't meet all the criteria until 2023 but my my initial application was 2021 It doesn't go for that period of time or it just goes once they're satisfied What would license are you renewing? Because it seems like there was no license for a period of time until 2023. So they filed in 2021 what license got renewed? It was the license that applied to the 21-23 period. However, it wasn't actually renewed until August, basically until it was due to expire again. They were operating under an expired license during that time and Dilp approved the issuance of that license in 2023 because Dilp didn't have the authority under the code. She'll not issue a renewal license for any dwelling for its there and outstanding violation notice. The county doesn't give you two years from the renewal in 2023 because otherwise what you do is begin to incentivize a landlord to get four years out of a two-year license by taking a couple of years to get all their property maintenance issues in line and then get their two-year renewal. So even though the renewal wasn't issued until 2023, their two-year period was expiring that same year which is why they applied for in March. The March dates in this petition are the renewals for the 2023 through 25 period. That's the license that they're currently operating under that was issued on March, I think it's one, two, and four of 2024. I'm sorry, could you repeat that? So, I'm sorry Miss Phillips, I just want to make sure I was clear on what you just said. You said that the license, they applied in 21 where it's shooting 23 and the term of that license was what? There's a two year, the licenses are two year periods, but that one was expiring almost as soon as their renewal was issued. So but I just want to make sure I understand the answer to the question. So, what term, so was granted a... It was the license for the 2020, 21-23 period. Okay, I just want to... Okay. The fact is that for the bulk of that period, DILP's records reflect the fact that it was actually, the license was actually expired. So if, what the petitioner wanted in this case was for DILP to say that they had a license for 21 through 23, it's true that as of 23 they had a license for 21 through 23. What DILP can't say and what I think the petitioner wants DILP's records to suggest is that they weren't expired from 21 until the renewal was issued. The fact is DILP's records accurately reflect history, which is that they didn't fix all their property maintenance issue and the renewal pursuant to the county code couldn't actually issue until 23. And so they were operating under an expired license and the renewal license wasn't actually issued until 23. Okay. But can I have a follow-up? The renewal license wasn't actually issued until 23. So the honest thing you renewed in March of 2023, but the renewal license was it from 2021 to 2023 or 2023 after? It was a license applicable to the 21 through 23 period, but the license was issued in 23 and expired to expire 23 or 24. And expired in 23 as well. Different month of different month. Yeah. Go ahead, Miss Phillips. And they then they reapplied for the license again. They apply for the next period. Okay. The license has been issued. Yes, it did fix all the things, right? The dates in this petition, the March 24 dates that are actually identified as the Licensing issues that are being appealed the events that occurred on those dates were actually the issuance of the renewal license for the 23 through 25 period those the 23 through 25 period licenses were issued They were issued in March of 24 on the dates That are the subject of this appellate petition. And I don't think that whether it's Columbia or Codone, I don't think that they're contesting Dilpe's issuance of the 23 through 25 licenses. I don't think they're unhappy that Dilpe issued their 23 through 25 license. They just picked the date. I'm just trying to see the dates and just confirm the dates. Yes. Thanks. OK. OK, I think I'm good. Thank you. We can come back to you if you have more. Miss Harris. Hi. Good morning. This is one of two questions just for my education to understand the timing of everything. When was the actual sprinkler system fixed? What date was that? Can someone just want to have that information? All I know is that I don't have that date in front of me and I don't think Mr. Francis does either. The all I know is that the all of the property maintenance issues were not fully remedied until the summer of 2023. Shortly before the list license was issued. Okay. And the reason I'm asking is because I know that the master report reflected one building did pass in 2021. Let's see which one was that building 13 actually passed in 2021. Is that correct? One one building 6, 7, 21. This is is building 13 pass in the master inspection. One building did pass inspection in 2021, however, you have to keep in mind that there wasn't the inspection, the successful inspection of one building does not mean that the others meet the property maintenance code. The master label was- I understand. Right. I just wanted to explain the master label was a filing system, DILP use so that they knew that that was the master file for all these properties, but each of them had their own individual rental housing license. I understand that my question was related to my next question, which is, does the sprinkler system affect building 13? Yes. Yes, it does. So it passed without a proper sprinkler system at that time. I suppose technically you could say that yes but the sprinkler system does affect all of the individual buildings. That's my only question. I think. Okay, we can come back. Here you go more. Thank you. So, Mr. Donnie, are you still there? Yes, I am. Okay, so I know you've heard a lot. So, and I have some questions that I'd like to start with you if I could. So, well, in response to everything, Mr. Moore and Mr. Francis just said, do you specifically respond to what they just said? Do you have any counterpoints before I ask my question? Well, I'd like to call your attention to the opposition that we filed. And if Mr. Francis is still there, perhaps someone can put a copy in front of him. He has it, yeah. It's all it. At the outset, there are 14 buildings that are part of this complex. So there's a lot going on and a lot of inspections, I suppose, and a lot of things that perhaps should have happened. But specifically, in, well, a couple of buildings never had their licenses expired. And I'll call your attention to paragraph two where Mr. Francis, this is in January of 2024, Mr. Francis stated an email, buildings 11 to 13 months from relatively normal renewal cycle and never expired. Following paragraph, we're at the Francis stated that the licenses for buildings once or ten, 12 and 13 were unable to renew because of outstanding items. We're not seeing any inspections that took place during that time period. So the buildings were marked on the database as up for renewal, eligible for renewal, and then they were not renewed. I understand the issue of the sprinkler system, and I understand that that was problematic, and it's's a little troubling particularly for a large and residential complex. But as I said at the outset, many of the things here, many of the renewals or failure to renew really go to a more mundane failure to inspect or failure to follow up. Perhaps some of that is on our part. Perhaps Cardone failed to return emails or calls from DILP. But I think some of the falls on DILP too in the database that we found less than comprehensive and less than informative when we sort of dig into it. Okay, so I have a question for you. So I'm trying to because I know we're going back forth, but the two matters before us in this motion, right? We're not talking about the merit of the case per se, but this motion are, you know, the, are they a grave party? And I think we've kind of, we're gonna discuss that, but moving the timeliness, and that's where I'm getting stuck. So I'm trying to isolate the argument here to what is, when did the actual agreement occur, right, or perceived agreement? So are you aware or is your client aware, I should say, of any kind of regulation or rule or have you been informed that because they applied for a renewal, their license did not expire. Is there anything that would suggest that to be the case on your client's part? That I'm trying to understand your argument that they didn't know it expired. So you heard Mr. Moore and Mr. Francis state that these are automatic renewals, automatic but, and the but would be if the inspection didn't take place or if full compliance, if notice violations were outstanding. I apologize, I have to interject. I don't think I said that or that Mr. Francis said that. Right. Yeah, I believe, right, I believe he, I think you, I don't know who said that, the notice of renewal went out, requesting them to be inspected. I mean, it's intuitive to think, okay, well, if they need to be inspected, it's not automatic, right? Because why is it expected it was automatic? But why, I'm trying to understand why, what's the logic behind Cardone LLC's belief that their license had not expired. I understand that there's some debate about who was responsible for inspection, verse, repairs, but why did they not, at the end of the day, there was ongoing issues. Why did they not think their license had expired? So for example, if Mr. Francis was a email from JANP at the 2024, he says that buildings 11 and 13 went through a normal renewal cycle and never expired. Okay, so those three buildings did it right. What about the rest? Yeah, talking about the rest. You know, we're talking about 14 buildings and a database that is a little questionable. I don't doubt anyone's integrity, but I do think the record keeping is a little questionable. At least for two buildings, we know, according to the director, those licenses never should have expired. Okay, so let me ask you another question then based on what I just heard. So you said you met with Officer Law and this is where I get confused. If this was a straight, listen, you're not renewed because you haven't met the standards. Why would Council for the agreed going meet with the Office of Law? We asked to meet with Dilt actually. I'm sorry, sorry I apologize that's what I meant. I'm sorry. That's all right. We asked to meet with Dilt one to understand better what the process was so that we could try to work things out but two to try to dig down on this renewal issue right. As I said at the outset it's purported to be a comprehensive and online system that would renew and provide all inspections were in place. We wanted to understand that, we wanted to dig down and see whether, for example, there were buildings that had in fact valid licenses that ought to have been renewed during the period. As I said, for at least two of those, you know that to be true because the director told us. Okay, so Mr. Mjorn representing Bill, but the original request was to meet with Seth. Okay, and two more questions that I'm done. So you mentioned circuit court, and I, Mr. Sanders might want to weigh in on this. So the many, my ears perked up when you said that. But I, this is not substantially the same. What we're considering right now is not substantially the same as is being litigated in circuit court, correct? No, sir. No matter the circuit court is the same as Mr. Moore said, at the outset. The challenge to the elected grant during the period when there was no valid rental license at the assertion. But the Mr. Sanders correct me from wrong. But you're not arguing in court that you're agreed by the decision of DPC, correct? Or I'm sorry, I apologize. I apologize. I'm not representing Cardone in that other matter. This appeal was filed on April 1 of 2024. Okay. So April 1, 24. So can you tell me what action occurred in the 30 days preceding that precipitated this complaint? Because really we're only allowed to file a appeal for the 30 day period. So what occurred within 30 days of April 2024 that brings us here today? Because it sounds like we're talking about a lot of things that have occurred prior to that. Yeah, no. The county issued renewal licenses on three separate dates, 30 days prior to April 1. We were brought on as part of the team to try to address the exposure that Cardone had to the litigation and we sought relief. Challenging that renewal and saying that that really should have been back dated to June of 2021. But the actions answer question the actions that occurred prior to April 1, 2024 were the renewal on those three dates in March of 2020. So the agreement is the three particular building licenses that were renewed, and you alleged that the decision to renew those on April or on the 30th prior to April is the wrong date and that's the agreement. Just those three licenses. We urge that they be back dated to June 2021. So the agreement is the incorrect dating of the license? Yes. Of three licenses. Mr. Moore, do you have any thoughts on that? Yeah. I have two thoughts. First of all, the 2021 through 2023 licenses had already been issued prior to that date. As we discussed previously, they were issued in 2023. So anything related to the 21 through 23 licenses was more than 30 days before April 1st of 2024. They had already been renewed. If Cardone or Columbia was unhappy in 2023 with guilt issuing those licenses or something about guilt's issuance of those licenses, they should have appealed that in 2023, not waited until April 1 of 2024. The licenses issued in March of 2024 were for the period of 23 through 25. In other words, they were the licenses they then, they they needed. And in fact, under county code 14901G, a rental housing license is valid for a period of two years. So, you know, a license was issued in March of 2024. We will tell you, it was the license for 23 through 25. If they want the March 24 licenses to say 21 through 23, well, first of all, it makes no sense because those licenses were issued in 23 But second of all, they then don't have a license for 23 through 25 Dill can't issue a License for a four-year period. Dill can only issue a license for a two-year period Dill issued the 21 through 23 license in 23, the license that they, that is timely was the 23 through 25 license, which I presume they don't want dope to take away. Yeah, so to be clear, the 21 through 23, I understand it was issued, we'll say late, I know it's not late, but it was issued. And can you tell me when that was roughly issued that one? I believe it was roughly August of 23. So August 23. And then now we come to the 23 through 25 renewal period. And that is issued when? Sorry, March, three dates in March of 24. OK. So even with that one, there was a check that they sent that I don't remember the issue with the check. But there were some issues with their renewal for the 23-25 period. They were cleared up and the licenses were issued on March. I think it's first, second and fourth of 2024. I understand. So, okay, so the license that was issued, okay, I understand. Okay, we'll go one more round. Miss you. I just need a stamp clarification. So you said August of 2023, you issued a license I just need a sum of clarification. So you said August of 2023, you issued a license from 2021 to 2023? We issued the license that applied to that period. So technically they do have a license from 2021 to 2023? As of August of 2023. Yes. Okay. So the lawsuit was in November of 2023. Correct. So from August of 2023 to November of 2023, did they have a license? Yes. All right. Let's accept it. Except the extent that that license itself might have expired in that window. I don't know when their renewal cycle triggered right then. And by the way, I should note, I don't know if the board thinks otherwise. The county is not a party to this lawsuit. This is a lawsuit between their tenants and the landlord. I think what's going on, I don't know, because I'm not a party to that lawsuit, is that there's a state law that says a landlord basically can't be a landlord without a license and therefore can't do things like collect rent. And they would like Dilps records to support their position in that litigation. Dilps has no, and it's problematic for them in their litigation with their tenant to the extent that Dilps records reflect a period of time when their license was expired. But in August of 2023, you did issue a license to cover year of 2021 to 2020. And we have no problem accurately stating that. I don't know whether that helps them in their litigation, but the fact is, all dope can say is that in all, in when we issued it in 2023, it applied to that period, but we issued it then. And then applied to that period, but we issued it then. And then prior to that, their license was expired. We can't say that they were in good standing with the county under the rental housing license until that renewal was issued. Because the director doesn't have the authority to issue you a renewal while your property maintenance issues remain outstanding. He can't. He can't decide, well, I know you're going to fix it, so I'll go ahead and license you on the work on the property maintenance issues. The code circumscribes his authority to issue you a renewal until the outstanding violations are resolved. So, I have this question. So say you have not a days to renew, right? And I'm not talking about this particular building permit. In general, you have 90 days to renew and I would I would expand some problems, wouldn't fix within that 90 days issue, right? So technically there will be other buildings that expire before they got renew. Say, even you have 10 days, that 10 days gap between the expiration date and the date that all the issues got addressed and you finally renew the application. So technically, say that's 10 days. Have a fact, have a fact, they cannot collect a rent for those 10 days, is that? That's a matter of state law. Dope does not, and Dope doesn't have a, Dope's role is assuring the property maintenance status of rental properties in Howard County. We don't get in the middle, the county doesn't get in the middle of landlord tenant relationships. That's governed by state law. It is possible that if their license was expired during that period they would have a rent problem. We don't enforce the state law. I don't know specifically. I will tell you most landlords in Howard County don't wait to fix their property maintenance issues until after their license expires. We check the county checks at your renewal that you're in good standing with your property maintenance issues, but the fact is you're supposed to be in good standing with your property maintenance issues all the time. And if a tenant complains that there's a property maintenance problem, or any time during that license period, the county will go out and inspect and see if there's a violation. And if so, will issue you a citation and a notice of violation. If you don't fix it after the and if so, will issue you a citation and a notice of violation. If you don't fix it after the notice of violation, will issue and we give you time, will issue you a citation and then we'll take you to court and then there'll be a court order potentially ordering you to fix it all while you're still licensed. So nothing puts a landlord in the position where they should be where they would be precluded from getting their renewal because of property maintenance issues, except that they let their property go out. It's not that every property that comes up for renewal has property maintenance issues. We do check for it then. We do find some. But you're not supposed to have any. And so you should never be in a position where you're, of good landlord is never going to be in expired status and unable to collect rent Because of property maintenance issues all they have to do is maintain their property as the code requires it I mean every time your property is not in good property maintenance standing you're in violation of the law We just may not have caught you yet And we work with you and we you you know, we're not, it's not onerous. I mean, there's a third, there's typically a 30-day period on a notice of violation to fix it. We warn you. Here's some things, which frankly, any proper landlord ought to catch on their own, because they've got staff who should be maintaining the property. But we warn you and then we cite you and then there's a court date and then the court probably orders you and gives you 30 days, all of which would fix it. So if you come up to your renewal with property maintenance issues, it's because you're not maintaining your property. And even then, we warn you 90 days in advance. I mean, I would think a large corporate landlord with multiple LLCs would be actively monitoring their properties and wouldn't need Howard County to remind them 90 days in advance your licenses about to expire. I mean, it's printed right on the bottom of the license. But we do. We warn you 90 days in advance, by the way, here's a reminder, your license is about to expire. You might want to make sure everything's in good order so that you can be renewed. So it should never be a problem that someone encounters a renewal that they can't meet because of property maintenance issues. Not if they're doing their due diligence. So basically you issued two license in March of 2023, or was it March 23 or August 2023? I believe the 23 renewals were roughly the summer, I think they were roughly August. Let's say August 2023, you issued license covering 2021 to 2023. And then in March of 2024, you issued a license covering 2023 to 2024. Am I correct? 23 through 25. 25. They're two-year periods. Okay. So the 23, 25 period license was issued in March of 24. As I said, I think there may have been other issues, but I think the one that comes to mind for me was there was an issue with a check that had to be cleared before the renewal code issue. And that was all clarified and it was issued in March of 24. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Yes, ma'am. I just had some questions from Mr. Donna Hill. Mr. Donna here is there. Yes. When you and your arguing that you discuss Dilbe's portrayal of the renewal process, but then you did acknowledge to the board that we did undergo a management change. Could you elaborate on that? It sounds like your entities were undergoing something who they were using for their renewal. Well, it's more than just renewal. It's a property management change and that's fairly common in the industry. You can change over but there was a change and I think perhaps during that time period there were some records that were well it could have been a better transition. Okay. On our not the campus. Thank you. Yes sir. Miss Filps, you heard your hand up. You're no volume, Miss Filps, you're muted. Sorry, Phil. You're muted. Sorry, I just wanted to clarify. The renewals for 2021 didn't get approved till 2023 and you the renewals for 23 to 25 were sent out in 2024. Is that correct? Right, the renewal notices for 23 through 25 were sent out in 23. This light, these renewals weren't issued until all the little issues had been fixed. I think like I said, I think it's 20 in 24. Yeah, Mark 24 is when these actually issued, but the renewal notices were sent out in 23. They could have renewed the 23 25 in 23. They didn't, but they could have. Let me, I'm trying to, I think I got a little confused on the dates. You issued the renewals for 21 to 23, and I mean from in 23 or in 24. The renewals, the renewal for 21 through 23 was issued in 23. That same year, the notice that they needed to renew for 23, 25 was sent out. They didn't actually complete their renewal for 23 through 25 until 24, March of 24. And they got the renewal in March of 24, but that is for 23 to 25. Correct. That's the current license that they're operating under. Okay. All right. I just wanted to clarify those dates. So there they are here protesting that you should have, I don't know, back date. The renewals are 21 to 23 right not. The renewals of 20. 23 to 25 right. I'll have to defer to Mr. Okay. All right. Thank you. Miss Harris. Okay. She just brought up a I'm sorry. So it's just brought up a point that made me think about. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. So it's just brought up a point that made me think about. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. So it's just brought up a point that made me think about, trying to lose my chance of thought. I think I'm good, but the fact that we've got 23 through 25, the issue, 23 is a 25 or 24, the 25 issued. 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, correct are you still speaking this belief. I suppose the first part of that question is a question from Mr. Moore. I'm sorry. I'm not even clear with the question is I'm sorry. So can you just rephrase that, Miss Harris? And just directed to whoever you're asking to. Thank you. Okay. I'm talking to the representative for DIOP. And my question is not apologize I didn't write your name down. My question is you mentioned that if you were to back date the renewal that passed in 2024 to go through 2021, you were unable to do that. First of all, you couldn't backdate anything. But if you were to be able to backdate it, you would be not in compliance with the current licensing years, that correct? Yeah, and I apologize, maybe I didn't say it. My name is David Moore. I'm attorney from the county office of law. The county issues rental housing licenses, pursuant to the county code for two year periods. Only one license was issued in March of 24 for each of these properties. The county says that license issued in March of 24 was for 23 through 25. If somehow the county were ordered to alter that record and change the dates it applied to, to 21 through 23, there wouldn't be a license for 23 through 25 anymore, because every license the county issues can only be for a two year period. The county actually issued the license applicable to 21 through 23 in 23 after they completed all of their remedies. The license issued in March of 24 was for the next two year period because the county can only issue two year licenses. And you also stated that the county can't go back and change and expired license that the back dated for the 21 to 23 period. Is that correct? If the county were to, the county issued a license in 23 that applied to the 21 through 23 period. They did get, so the county did and would stand by the fact without this board being involved that it issued in 23 a license applicable to the 21 through 2023 period. What the county can't say is that that license issued before the data issued. Because that's not true. The fact is that from 21 until the license issued in 23, the license for this property was in expired status. And the renewal for that period didn't issue until the property maintenance issue were license for that period. If the county did issue the license for that period, if the county did issue the license for that period, if how that plays out with their tenants, I don't know. If you can collect rent under a license that is an expired status, then they can collect rent. If you can't collect rent, even though you later did remedy your problems and got your license for the optical period issued, even though you were actually expired because of property maintenance issues during the period of the rent, that's on them. All the counties just trying to be accurate to what actually happened. And that is that in the summer of 23, the county issued the renewal for the 21 through 23 period. Thank you, I appreciate that Mr. Moore. And I understand that. So then the second part of my question was to Mr. Dineho about if that is the case, do you still want to pursue what you're trying to pursue? Because it's impossible for you all to get what you want. It seems from the ILP. So my question is, well, first off, Mr. Chair, we've got a time period where we are out of compliance. It seems because we're not talking about 21 through 23 activities because we're inside about jurisdiction, correct? So I think that is the crux of this motion. So and interrupt me, but this is how I was going to follow up with your point. So there's a term of a license is two years. And in this case, we're talking about, and we'll call it license A, which is the term, and there's multiple licenses from multiple buildings, but just for the sake of this argument. There's license A, which is 21 through 23, and in license term B, which is 23 through 25. This board by law is only allowed to consider activities that occurred 30 days prior to the filing of this petition, which was found in April of 24. So this petition is claiming an agreement for actions occurring 30 days prior, which would be the license term B. License term B is 23 through 25, which was properly issued. Nobody's disagreeing with that. Cardona isn't disagreed with that. Dilpas is saying that. So to your point, Miss Harris, there's no actions for this board to take in following the timeliness argument, in my opinion. The 21-23 license term needs to have been appealed within 30 days of that license being issued. Nobody disagreed that license was issued in 2023 Does that make sense? Yes, it does That was a question. I'm sorry. That was my So do you have anything further Yeah, I do not okay, so what I'd like to do board if everybody's on the same page with that we move to deliberate on this on this motion, right? There are two points to consider in the motion, essentially. Let me get back to my note. The first is do we have an agree of party, right? Or do we have a party that can claim agree of status? And what we're hearing is that there's some issues about whether Credone is or isn't the party involved, but the Office of Law is willing to stay neutral, not object to having them amend the petition. I would recommend that we do the same, that we don't take a position on it and allow them to amend their petition to include Credone LLC, which out getting into the nuances. Does any board member object to that? include Cardone LLC, which out getting into the nuances. Does any board member object to that? Okay. Okay, so we'll allow them to amend it so that could own. Next becomes the timeliness. I think we just said it, but we need to consider this petition was filed April. Mr. Senator. First April 2020. Mr. Senator. First. April 21st. April 20th, 2021. So was there an administrative agency decision within the 30 days preceding April for its 2024 that the party can claim they were agreed by. So did the administrative agency issue a decision within 30 days prior to that? And if we find yes, then we should move forward. If we find no, then we should grant the motion. Is that correct, Mr. Seniors? Yes. Okay. So more members, do you have any thoughts on a way in last? This is. It seems very clear that one that they want to fight is the 2021, which was issued in 23, which is a year later that they're filing their petition. So it wasn't within the 30 days. I don't think they filed in the timely manner. Okay. Miss you? I agree with Mr. Phillips that the time, the license under upstation or under appeal was from 1991 to 2003, which was already issued in the summer of 2023. So that obviously passed 30 days. Miss Harris? Nothing further from me. I agree with both of my partners here. Right. So, Mr. Senes, do we need a motion to deny our grant the motion, right? Yes, okay. That's what's before you today is a pending motion. But we need a motion. That'd be the proper format here to get a motion to deny or grant the motion, right? Yes, that's what's before you today is a pending motion. But we need a motion, that'd be the proper format here to get a motion to approve or how do we do that? I can pull the board on the pending motion before you. Okay, so Mr. Sanders, what am I doing that? Yes, on the, you would either, your ruling would be to grant the motion, that would mean you would grant what Dilpa's saying Or you would deny what Dilpa's saying so by granting we're dismissing the matter now correct Before you as the harrow county Department of inspections licenses and permits Their primary motion to dismiss the appeal which was followed on September 19, 2024. I'm going to ask you to grant that motion or deny that motion. The motion to dismiss the appeal. I'll start with you, Ms. Schew. Grant. Ms. Harris. Grant. Ms. Phillips. Grant. Ms. Phillips. Grant. And Chair Ryan. A grant based on timeliness. So the motion is granted and this motion is dismissed. Thank you. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Thanks, Chair. Thank you.