All right, so we're reopening the hearing at 635 for the BCA and we are inviting the Inspection Committee to present its report. So the Inspection Committee was Jan, Chris, and John, okay. So I will give you the floor to present your report. Sarah, are we waiting for that to be printed out? Well, I just, I can't do everything. Sorry. She's just printing out the, and she's printing out the minutes for the last, in case I need to like look at something. What? People that. Mr. McCann is here. Do you guys have reports? John is here, but his lawyer isn't. This isn't complete though. You can print the one I just sent. John. John. All right. Are you waiting for your report? No. He wasn't available tonight, so I'm just going to do it by myself. Okay. This wasn't a close. The SBA wasn't a closed thing last time. No. The BCA? Okay. I mean, we can start. It wasn't what? Sorry. I thought it was a closed meeting last time. Oh, no. No. Part of it. Part of it was. I think, but yeah, not this part. Oh, there it is. There could be something with a link to a document that you should have from your computer. I didn't say, I could share with that address immediately, too. Yeah, can you do that? Yeah. Here's this. You're liking it, so far? Love it. You do? It cooperates better with the Gmail address. Yes. I need a job. I'm so bored. You don't have a job? I don't. What are you looking for? I've done sales and marketing for 30 years. I thought I was safe because I was like the star. So you lost your job? No, no. I gave it up to go to Port of Airea two years ago, like two years after COVID. Yeah. Like, Port of Airea, as in the love bill? Well, who gives you an eight-week vacation? I've been there for six years. I figured I'd take a year off. And you haven't had a year off? Or you're just not? No, I've been working for the last year and I'm not getting into this. I forgot. Absolutely. I'm going to do this. There is that, unfortunately. I'm finding that. Yeah. That's awful. Well, I mean, you have a salary. So people have printed copies or what do you want to do? Well, I really just wanted to, I have the minutes here. It's fine. So watch on. And yeah, why don't you guys keep your presentation? You can do it over there? Yeah. Does Sarah have to be here to take the notes? Oh. She just went down. Okay, sorry. Sarah just left. Yeah, she's gone. Yeah, you have a salary. You're not going to keep going down it. I'm done for 30 years. You don't have a salary? Well. You don't have a salary? No. You're not going to keep going down it. You're not going to keep going down it. You're not going to keep going down it. I'm done for 30 years. You don't have a salary? No. You're not doing anything. There's a lot of people who do technical career, making money for people. I'm just hoping to go to the profit sector and be fundraising for sales. But, well, there might be someone looking for grant writers. And go over to the table there. It's a better people. Like donor, like developer. Yeah, raising money, fine, yeah. Yeah, that's one of that. Except for me, the last two years. Where did Sarah come? We're downstairs to give a printout, so how... So we'll knock it until we leave. Okay. All right. We'll see you down front. Do you want to try and see that? That was the one I did. Is that what somebody else did? Yes. Early to mid-20s. That was a lot of fun. Some concerts, some bar promotions. I'm just going to remind them a word that no new information can be submitted, no new exhibits at this stage. Correct? Thank you. Thank you. You have it. You have it. You want to share with me? Okay. So, Sarah... I'll give it to you afterwards if you want. I'm going to do that. Sorry. I can give this to you afterwards. Oh, okay. I'll get it on my phone. Oh, you got it. All right. So when Sarah sits down and has her hands on the typewriter. Thank you. Typewriter. Keyboard. Great. All right. I'll leave it at that. Okay. You guys maybe can... Yeah. All right. Sure. So I'll start off. All right. So just for my clarification, who's on the Board of Civil Authority here, just so I know who is and who isn't? I guess... You guys are... Vic is. Yeah, we all are. Yeah. And yeah, and Sarah's recusing. Okay. And Peter, thanks. Okay. So, yeah, we went over to the property on Tuesday, March 26th in the evening. Some of the snow had gone away, but it was still pretty snow covered. So not knowing what these reports are supposed to look like, just kind of took some notes on what our observations were and noted because I at least had looked also on the town property map. So I had the overview of what the borders roughly looked like. It wasn't 100% clear where the borders actually were, but, you know, we had a like a very good general idea of it. And so, you know, we noted that the property is gently sloped from north to south. It's got like a nice southern exposure, kind of rectangular property. Slopes downhill from Portal Road, almost in a due southward direction. It's mostly planted with rows of grapevines that are wired up. There are some small areas of rock outcroppings, but it's mostly planted. Roughly about two thirds. We noticed a brook in running water, but don't know if that was on the property or on the other side of the property line, but it seemed about over there. It was almost entirely cleared, a couple standalone trees. And then there were some wooded areas around the border. But again, we don't know. It was pretty clear that the property didn't go too far into the woods. Whether it went into the woods at all were not positive. Maybe we could invite that information later on. And then the only access to the property that we observed was what appeared to be a shared driveway from the house that it was carved off of. And there was some basic farming equipment parked over there. It was a rough driveway there. And it was pretty clear that if the new owner wanted to put an access down off Portal, there'd be an amount of excavating and fill work needed, because it was a pretty rough drop off from Portal Road onto the property. So then, Jen, do you want to add? That was kind of my observations, just as neutral as possible. The grade on the land is 1.0, which is low considering the open area, the gentle slope, the access and view. If increased appropriately, the property value would rise. So I wonder if you want to give a little context on that, because I had never heard of the grade of land in this context before. So middle sex grades, as the listeners know and do, they grade the value of the land depending on those priorities there. The access, the view, the accessibility. And so the entire town's land is graded from, it really starts at 1.0, but nobody's there, and goes all the way up to 2. And so this land is graded at 1.0, which is kind of considered average. And we concluded that we thought it was above average. Overall, we feel this property was bought at below value. And if it went on the market today, it would sell at a substantially higher price. And then, Chris can go. And we also, since the listeners used the CLA formula that they were given, and it applies to all the properties for the middle sex, that we were recommending that we don't upset that particular methodology for valuing the fair market value of the land in this instance, or probably in any instance, but this was okay. So we were recommending that we do not upset that methodology, which the, there's no dispute that the, that I'm aware of, that the listeners faithfully applied that calculation. So, but they just still dispute whether they should have applied that calculation for that methodology. So we're recommending that the listeners conclusions be upheld. Okay. Let me just support their conclusions. Okay. So the listeners have supported their conclusion, and we now invite final questions from the BCA members about this, to the listeners. This has to be to the listeners, not to. I think, yes, because the appellant still gets a chance to talk. Right. But could I ask the appellant questions? Could ask general questions and see if anyone knows the answers. Yes. Invite final, yeah, you're on the BCA. Right. So yes, I would say you could ask some questions. I'll allow you to ask questions. All right. Thanks. So I just had, and I think those will be directed to the appellant, but if anyone, you know, knows the answers with certainty, please chime in. So my understanding is here that the property was carved off. It was in current use, like fully, right? Yes. And was that application from the old dairy farming days, or did you have to apply for current use under the lease that you had when you established the vines? So first of all, I never applied for current lease. So what happened was when we leased this property from originally Eugene Jocelyn, the son Randy Jocelyn came in and said, how can I save my father some property taxes? Can I list your land in current use? And because I was a farmer who was making more than $2,000 at revenue from the farming operation, that was feasible. So I submitted to him my income tax for the current year. He put it into current use and he reaped the benefits of the property reduction while I still paid the full value of the lease. So that answers that one if I could move on. So then it's by operation of law that that's subdivided out. It's automatically withdrawn or removed from the program. So let me just follow up with that. That seems odd, but it wouldn't surprise me because there's a lot of odd things in state law that if you're using the property for the exact same purpose, then it's automatically kicked out. And then you would have to reapply, which I imagine you've planned on doing or have already done. So then my further question, if you've researched this or looked into it or your attorney has, is there for these circumstances, which I got to imagine is not unique. If you're the first Vermonter who's ever bought a property, are you serious? No. They've never bought land that you were leasing for the exact same agricultural use. Does the state in statute or regulation creatively have a process for abating that land use change tax or refunding it when they see that in good faith it's coming? Is there a process for that? Have you researched that? I have all the answers for you. Awesome. It's long. It's drawn out. And we actually are appealing to the state of Vermont as well. So the answer is, first of all, point one, the land was subdivided by Randy Jocelyn a year prior to me buying it. So it got kicked out of current use at that point. He reapplied to put it back into current use. So the subdivision was done. So did he pay the penalty or is that being passed to you? Because he is the same family, this is what the Vermont law is so messed up on. Because he's family, he does not get a penalty on this transition. So now a year has gone by. We are finally in the process of buying the property. And I will go back first of all. So we had a contract, a lease contract with Eugene Jocelyn that said that they shall sell the property to us in 2020 for unimproved farmland. We appraised that value at $26,000. When Eugene Jocelyn passed away, the son came back and said, I'm not selling you that land for $26,000. So we had to unfortunately get our attorneys involved because in front of unimproved farmland was the word's fair market value, which by statue in Vermont, and my original attorney didn't understand this when we wrote the contract, that supersedes any other terms. So we had to purchase this value at $116,500, which at that time was what was considered fair market value of the land. When we purchased it from them, it got kicked out of current use again. And I had 30 days to reapply. We reapplied within that 30 days. And this was now almost a year ago. I did come in and speak to someone here at the town perks, and I want to say it was one of the illustrators, but I can't quite remember. I said, I haven't seen a tax bill yet. What's going on? And I explained to them that I had applied for current use and I still today don't have a tax bill for this property. So I don't know where we stand. But you have received the assessment from the state for land use change tax? Correct. So here's the crazy part of Vermont law. And it's very ambiguous, and this is why we're appealing it. And there are three Supreme Court cases that support our theory. Because the land is under 25 acres, even though you're continuing to farm it, it is automatically considered developed. And that word is used loosely. Developed means a piece of land that can or will be built as a single family residence. Never was our intention, which is why we've been working for almost a year and a half now with Vermont Land Trust to conserve this land as agricultural land. With that said, being conserved with Vermont Land Trust and ag business, we could still put up a winery and tasting room because that is what we consider an accessory on farm business. So it still doesn't fall under the word development. If that property was 25 acres and above, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. So there's this weird 25-acre number. And I've actually approached the State Tax Department, I've approached the legislators about it, and they don't even understand why the 25-acre is in there. If it's farming, it's farming. If it's not, it's not. So this is why we are appealing with the State of Vermont. However, the fact is that we purchased it for 116,500. It was reassessed by Middlesex and then by the State as 147. That puts us at a higher tax bracket for this penalty. So if I was to have to pay this penalty at $116,500, we're talking about $11,000. At this value of $147,000, I'm talking $15,000. So for a small farmer who's just trying to get going, this is a substantial amount of money that I have to pay out. I also believe that because I did not reap the benefits of the current use with the reduced property tax, it shouldn't be on the new owner. It should be on the person who sold the property, which again is another state law issue that is out there. And so my memory from last week and from reading the documents you submitted is that your appeal is the grievance is really on the land use change tax. It's not so much on the ongoing value of the property because when you get that into current use within a year or maybe less, that'll be reduced and you'll be paying a reasonable unfair. Yeah, it's not about what I'm going to be paying a year from now to the town of Middlesex. It's about what I'm being asked to pay now because of the penalty under the state statute. And so that appeal is pending. It's been filed with the department. It has. And it sounds, is it going to court, do you know? Is it going to a formal hearing? As of right now, the state is still reviewing it and my understanding is that could take up to six months. I do know also that there is a land use change going through the legislative right now that's redefining the word development. If that passes before the appeal is finished, then this could all be a moot point. And if the appeal is found in your favor, it's a moot point as well. Because that would be just like, you know, the end finding would be this has been farmland the whole time, nothing's changed. It's only because of the wording of the statutes. The yearly property tax between $165,000 and $147,000 is minor compared to the penalty that I'm going to have to pay if I have to pay this fee. Understood. That answers all my questions. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, John. John, the reason you haven't gotten a tax bill is because that property changed hands in June of 2023. It's what exists on April 1st of any year. So you can look forward to a tax bill this July. Thanks, Sarah. Yeah, so you have a question? Well, after the last week, and I actually reached out to Ken Brown, who's now the head one that runs current use, just on Mr. McCain's behalf. And he said that whenever land is subdivided, regardless of acreage, a penalty exists. So even if, because I had asked, would the state waive it? Because he's putting it back. It's agriculture. And they said, still appears to be a developed property when it's subdivided. So regardless, the penalty would still exist. But if it was over 25 acres, that wouldn't have happened. That wouldn't trigger. And if you were related, it wouldn't trigger. And if I was related, it wouldn't trigger. Right. So again, the person who is trying to create a piece of farmland to maintain Vermont's agricultural commodity is being penalized heavily on this. But you also have this, potentially, as you're going through this appeal, you also have the support of the Vermont Land Trust that maybe other places don't have that would be in your situation. Like from what Shelley's saying. So yeah, so, well, two things, right? Vermont Land Trust is helping with paying the portion of the value of the 116.5. But now I'm also locked into an easement. So there are certain things that we had to put into a contract prior to signing with the Vermont Land Trust. So nothing can change at that point forward. So no house could ever be put on it. It can only have farm-related buildings. And certainly there are other stipulations that Vermont Land Trust. So we are literally getting in bed with the devil to save on 116,000 where we thought we were going to pay 26,000. Got you. Okay. Are there any final questions from the BCA for the inspection committee right now? Because we, John can still have a moment to talk if he needs to. I do have other things I'd like to mention as well. I mean, we can't do anything about a state-imposed penalty here, can we? Except for lowering the price so that he pays less on the penalty. That's what's asked of us. Okay, that's it. So the difference between the 11,000 and the 15,000 is what you're looking at right now. He still knows he has to pay 11,000. You guys just follow the procedure. Yes. So things don't go back in time. Yeah, gotcha. Okay. So any other questions from the BCA? Okay. So now, John, you can pick. Well, yes. Yep, sorry. Peter. So this isn't a question. This is more of a comment. But I am very concerned that, and I regret this situation. We're not responsible for the state laws. We're not responsible for penalties. We're not responsible for any of that. And what we're being asked to do is violate our normal appraisal process, which we use for all land and middle sex, just because of this particular situation. I think that's a bad precedent for us to do. I think that's something that- I feel like we need for the landowners all that. Yeah, that's for the deliberation, Peter. We can talk about that in the deliberation. I'm sorry. That's okay. So, John, you may have some final comments. I do. As far as the brook, the brook is not on our property. That is on Ethan, Elijah Huck's property. We do have, and so, as far as two things, as far as your grading calculations, so the town of middle sex decided that they wanted to put a culvert right into the middle of our top of our vineyard. So, the water now from the runoff drains onto our vineyard and saturates the top. So, we ended up having to pay the card, John Picard, to come in and dig a ditch from that culvert to divert the water down through. So, you may have seen what you thought was a brook, but that is actually a ditch that was put in by us to divert water away from our grapevines. Second of all, we do... It's in the deed that we have the right, as an easement, to use the driveway that you currently saw. When and if we put a new driveway in, that gets removed from the deed. I have gotten an estimate from contractors at the cost of putting in a new driveway from Border Road because of the steepness in everything. It's $140,000. Okay, so, again, I know you grade this property based on what you see, but there's a lot of underlying issues that you cannot see, and I'm happy to submit that estimate at some point if this is how the procedure works. But there are a lot of expenses that have to come out of my pocket in order to make this property work the way we want it to work. May I see? Yeah, I just wanted to... Is there anything more that you want to add? I just wanted to reiterate about the brook that or whatever you saw is not on our property and the cost of installing a new driveway onto the property. Good. Okay, so now invite final comments from the listeners. That's you. I'm not a listener. No, you're not a listener.  There you go. Okay. I can't say anything. Well, we had some questions up above. What else would you like to say, Jen? Well, my one comment is everybody has to put in a driveway and driveways are very expensive. Okay. But I have a question in terms of taxes for the town.  You still get some taxes. I still get taxes. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You still get taxes. On the full 147 or whatever it's appraised at. I don't know about that. But when the current use, no. Until the townwide reappraisal is done, it would be at what we had estimated on our cost sheet. Shelly, I think what she's asking is, would a BLT thing goes through? Yeah. Well, how will that affect the price of the land, the listeners' value of the land? When the what goes through? The Vermont land trust, if you sell the deliveries. Well, that would be part of the deed. And I think I'd have to check with our district advisor, but I think at that time we would revisit the cost sheet. Right. But we still get tax money for it. It's not like it's tax exempt. It may be a reduced value. Yeah. They said it would reduce the value because it's more restricted than it would otherwise be. But it's also going to go into current use, so it's going to be reduced sooner or later. But again, it's after April 1st, so this would be like next year. Right. And when I did talk to current use, they said, like Peter said, we have a formula that we go by, that we have to go by, otherwise we'd have a land at our door. And after that part, the list of parts down, then it's up to the state to decide, depending on what the CLA is, to come up with a cost that they think has been marked a value. Gotcha. And if I may have another comment? Yeah, sure. Okay. So when we began this, the town of Middlesex offers this opportunity for agreements. Which, under our, Nick Lowe's and my attorney and my understanding is that, a grievance can produce a change by the BCA, by the Listers. Even though you have had protocols in the past, and Peter's comment about, we're opening up basically, Pandora's box, by doing this for me. I mean, what is the point of the grievance if we're never going to be able to change a process? Okay. Thank you for that comment. I just want to remind everyone that us Listers have it listed as 106. He bought it at 116. And the state is saying it's 146. Yes. So you guys actually can make final comments now if you want to talk more. 106 is what we have. Well, yeah. And I'd like to also comment that when we have a grievance is again to either see if there's something that can be done or explain to the resident why we came up with the figure that we did. And I think that's what we tried to do to both Mr. McCain and Ms. Royer is how we came up with that figure and how we came up with the cost of what that property would be worth. Any other comments from the Listers? Okay. So hearing none, we're actually now going to close the hearing and we will, the BC is going to enter deliberative session. The last time we did this, did we have it? Yeah, we did, but we did it without the public. That public portion is closed now. So the public portion is closed. Okay. And we will issue a written decision in writing within 15 days. Okay. So thank you for coming, Mr. McCain, and everybody leaves. Everybody can you turn off them? Yeah. Everybody goes with the BCA. Bye. Peter stays. Arka has to go. Thank you guys so much for all your work. I appreciate it.