Had nothing to do with the rear addition itself.
Thank you.
This is Leonard Reuter for my part.
First, I did indicate to the board that we were joining in the brief of Messrs. Anastasio and Cook.
I want to clarify that we were joining the brief only with respect to the issue of the legitimacy of the underlying zoning permit, the 2013 permit, that is, and the 2019 building permits.
We're not taking any position whatsoever on any of the settlement agreements or anything like that.
As the board may or may not recall, it was back in, some of the board members may recall back in 2017,
there was a separate, there was another appeal against L&I that was filed.
There were about 235 different continuances that were granted while people were trying to work that out.
eventually it did get worked out to the best of our knowledge by virtue of some kind of
settlement agreement which the city itself didn't enter into by the way because the settlement
agreement that was reached did not require L&I to do anything and what's particularly I think
important about that is that 2017 appeal was basically withdrawn ultimately is my understanding
ultimately is my understanding uh is that it was ultimately withdrawn um and the settlement was a
is that it was
ultimately withdrawn
private agreement between uh who was mr bonnie's client i believe at the time and mr anastasia's
client at the time so the the 2017 the 2017 the 2017 appeal was the same issue it was whether or
not the 2013 zoning permit had expired so because that was resolved without any outcome
the 2013 permit was certainly still alive by that time in 2017 because the city had taken a position
that the permit had not expired um and more more importantly we do agree with mr anastasio
uh that the key isn't really whether it could or should have been deemed expired the fact is the
only really critical issue here is was it ever revoked and the permit clearly was not revoked
And, you know, the revocation of a permit because there's been some violation of a condition is, I guess, what you call a condition subsequent.
It's something that the department has to do in order to invalidate the permit.
So, in other words, let's say if the city had believed, again, that the zoning permit were no good, the city would have denied the building permit, and then we would have been compelled to revoke it.
we didn't either the city deemed that the permit was still good um because again there had been
work that was done this is a lot of evidence in a non-evidentiary hearing well i know but you don't
know that well actually see this is kind of part of the problem that i've had with this entire case
in that uh the parties agreed to go forward on stipulation on on briefs but you can't do that
unless you have stipulation of facts and the facts as i'm relating them or what's in the record and
what's in the record is the fact that this permit was never revoked by l and i and that is the only
critical fact in terms of whether or not the building permits were legitimate i'm not saying
that a reasonable person or a plans examiner might not have made a determination that the
perm that the zoning permit was expired but the plans examiner really wouldn't be the one to do
that that would be an inspector uh and or somebody in in that capacity somebody who does the
enforcement side of things who would say this permit is needs to be revoked because it's now
been expired uh so the plans examiner sees the fact that there is a part this is argument right
isn't it so the plans examiner sees that there is a permit that exists and again i think that at
least there's a stipulated fact that the permit exists isn't there you told me you just said that
the planning examiner saw that the permit exists and i would like you to know how in god's green
earth you know that and you know you know how do we even have this argument unless we're stipulating
to that if you're if you're assuming if if we're having a legal argument here you have that the
argument has to begin with the fact that a building permit was issued which a building
permit cannot be issued unless there's a valid zoning permit so i think we have to assume that
the plans examiner believed the zoning permit was valid if you think the plans examiner didn't think
the zoning permit was valid then we can't even be having this argument because that's got to be a
that seems to me that has to be uh an assumed fact here but again let's get beyond that and
just simply say I think everybody agrees the zoning permit in fact was not revoked right
I see a couple heads shaking I'm not agreeing to that you're not agreeing there's nothing in the
record there's nothing in Mr. Boney's exhibit to indicate in the atlas record that the permit was
ever revoked I can I'll speak to this after Len is finished okay well again there is certainly
nothing in the record to indicate that the zoning permit from 2013 was ever revoked again whether
or not somebody could argue that it could have been deemed expired at some point since 2015 I
guess that didn't happen it didn't happen in 2017 when the when this when the original appeal was
filed it didn't happen in 2019 when this new appeal on essentially the same issue that was
brought in 2017 was filed uh so as long as that permit was not in fact revoked the building
permit itself is good and i don't believe that i mean if this there isn't any basis to revoke
the to revoke that zoning permit at this point so any any of the other issues that have to deal
with like what what result you know could be reached here by that board i'm not gonna i mean
you know could be reached here by that board i'm not gonna i mean i tend i certainly i think i
i tend i certainly i think
agree with miss aleta that the board can't grant a condition on a buy right permit uh i'm not even
sure that the zoning board can grant any kind of condition one way or the other on a building permit
which is technically the only thing that's really before you now uh i mean again it you're being
asked to uh to invalidate a building permit on the basis that the zoning permit was not valid
but again the zoning permit is valid simply by virtue of the fact that it was still out there
and had not been revoked by lni and again i do believe the non-revocation of that permit has to
be a an assumed fact here and you know if it's not i'm not sure what we do because it seems to
me that's got to be one of the basic you know abc facts that the parties would have certainly i would
have understood that as being one of the stipulated facts that would allow us to go forward on on
argument rather than introducing witnesses i mean if had i known this was going to be an issue i
certainly could have called somebody at LNI and say hey can I just can can you come over here and
just testify this permit was not revoked and they would have said you know presumably sure
popped up popped open atlas or equipped and said yep there it is still there not revoked
I mean if you need that testimony I guess I can bring it but I don't see the point because I'm
pretty sure that we wouldn't be here if that permit had been revoked that's not not to interrupt
No, but that's not our burden. The burden is for the appellant to produce evidence or testimony that the permit was revoked. None exists.
Well, again, I don't disagree with it. What I'm saying is that it was our understanding, my understanding at least, that going forward on briefs meant that there was a stipulation of facts.
the most basic one of which, to me, is there was a zoning permit that Mr. Bonnie's client believes
should have been revoked because it had expired, but wasn't. So, I don't, you know, but that being
said, anyway, the point is, is that, you know, any, whatever the board wants to do with respect
to the other stuff, I mean, we'll just simply take a position that I think it would be problematic
to issue a condition a decision that conditioned a building permit but you know certainly if the
parties want to spend time and see if they could work something like that out i have nothing to say
about it but um again the the the building permit is good again it's our position the building
permit is good solely by virtue of the fact that the the zoning permit had not been revoked uh and
I can say that there are reasons why that wasn't revoked, but because, again, it was my understanding
that that was a precondition of even having this argument go forward, that it was understood that
it wasn't revoked, I didn't bring anybody to testify about why it wasn't revoked, and I didn't
brief on why it wasn't revoked, but there are, in fact, reasons why it wasn't revoked. I mean,
that much I will represent that this issue came up in 2017. Again, there were at least three or
four continuances of the case in 2017 the plans examiner that was available at the time uh he and
i and ms baldwin went over this matter i'm familiar with what happened in that time and
you know anyway so you can't say there's evidence to support your position but you're
but since you can't bring in the evidence just you said we were doing this just trust you that
the evidence is out there that's not fair game but excuse me i'm sorry this is i've been asking
that for two months what facts were you guys stipulating to and nobody responded so it seems
to me the only reasonable fact that i would stipulate to was that was the existence of
a zoning permit that hadn't been revoked nothing else really matters to me that's the only fact
that i'm stipulating to because it's the only one that matters when you're finished i'll go
Okay, let me interrupt for one minute to, excuse me.
Sharon, yes.
Yes, Mr. Bonney, isn't it your burden of proof to show that these permits were issued in error?
And if you believe they were revoked, weren't you required to submit evidence to that effect?
And if you believe that any L&I employee acted improperly, I mean, you understand that there is a presumption that L&I employees perform
their job properly, and that their decisions are correct, unless you are able to rebut that with evidence.
I understand that, and I'm making a slightly different point.
We're talking about two different, there's two different
we're talking about two different,
there's two different terms being mentioned here
in this argument.
One is that the permit expired
and is void because it expired.
That's what I am arguing.
And I am arguing that how can it be
that a 2013 zoning permit that lasts for three years
didn't expire by six years later, by six years later.
Now, this is not a case where somebody is proceeding
with the same work, that it's the building permit
that's just taking more time to build out,
that it's the same.
No, this is a different building permit.
In fact, it's the third building permit that has been obtained.
First, a building permit in 2013, then a building permit in 2017, and now a third building permit in 2019.
And I would also remind the board that when the applicant came before you, when the owner came before you in 2017 to do what he only thought was the legalization of the eight additional square feet of overbuild, he came to you with a refusal that was issued by L&I at that time.
And that refusal listed all the old variances as still needing to be obtained by the board.
It did not say that all he needed was a variance for the eight additional square feet.
It said that all those original dimensional variances that we believe had expired,
it seems to me that L&I by issuing the refusal and listing all those things as still being
needed as variants agreed with us or else why would they have listed the need to get
all those variances that had already been obtained but let me contrast that with what is being
argued by my learned counsel and in the question from the ZBA solicitor, was in fact the zoning
permit revoked? I don't know whether it was revoked, and I'm not here to say that it was revoked.
That's not my case. That's not my argument. And if you believe, if the board believes that a zoning
permit that is not revoked is therefore still valid, period, well, then you have to rule against
me. But I would say that you can't make that determination because that's not the law. That's
not the code as I read it. The permit is valid for a certain period of time. After that period
of time comes, you can't continue to use it. Now, I would lay out the following hypothetical because
I think six years is enough, because six is more than three, but let's make it even more
outlandish. Let's say a zoning permit was issued in 2013, as in this case, and 100 years goes by,
and in 100 years, the applicant goes for a third building permit on reliance on that 100-year-old
zoning permit now no one at lni in my hypothetical affirmatively revoked it so it doesn't you can't
see on the computer that it says revoked because i don't think they go around and say i don't think
that's l we don't know for a fact that that's their job i would kind of doubt that that's their
job to monitor all zoning permits issued and after three years check to see if there's still
workmen on site and blah, blah, blah, and if not to go ahead and revoke it, my guess is it just
sits there on the computer. But we don't know that. But I would say that in that case,
I think everybody would readily agree, and I'm hoping you readily agree about six years,
but you'd equally agree after 100 years that that permit has expired. It expires on its own terms.
it evaporates um too i don't even know if it's worth mentioning that the uh american with
disabilities act doesn't apply in this situation that's not relevant i guess i'll just leave it at
that mr chairman if i could just respond very briefly i don't want to break i don't want to
break the rhythm but i guess that's fine is the sonographer does you do you need a break
okay so i would just mention that what is missing from mr reuter's what is missing from mr reuter's
recitation is the possibility that i think is pretty clear that the zoning that the zoning examiner
that I think is pretty clear that the zoning that the zoning examiner made a mistake. And I think
it's that the buildings that the building plans examiner made a mistake that that that to me is
obviously what happened. But I can't, I can't explain what was going through that person's
mind. But I can explain that when you look at a permit, and it's six years old. Now, Mr. Chairman,
there are ways to extend permits in this city. There's a state law, if you need an extension on
a permit. There's a state law that allows you to extend it, I believe, a number of years. You can
fill out a form and pay a fee and get an extension. That wasn't done in this case. Excuse me, let me
ask one more question. Mr. Bonney, if you believe that, that the examiner made a mistake, weren't
you required to call him as a witness? No, because I believe there's already evidence in the case that
the zoning permit had expired um if i could again respond um
i i'm not denying that mr bonnie has the authority has the ability and the right to
argue that the plans examiner expired again my understanding of going forward on a stipulate on
on briefs is and a stipulation what the facts are is that the plans examiner did what the plans
examiner did in other words why the plans examiner did what they did is not you know if we accept
like say as an offer of proof that the plans examiner were he called to testify would say
i looked at it i saw the zoning permit i believed it was still accurate i issued uh i issued the
building permit i don't need to bring in a witness to do that because i think that's something
everybody would stipulate and agree to that's in fact what happened mr bonnie wants to argue the
plans examiner made a mistake that's fine he can he can argue that i'm not saying he doesn't have
right to argue that but uh what i'm saying is that again the with respect to what the plans
examiner did the plans examiner looked and saw that there was not an expired uh that there was
not a revoke there was still there was still a live zoning permit i do want to also point out
that the the three-year rule the three-year rule the a zoning permit uh expires in three years
if the construction or operation that was pursuant to the permit
had not begun within the three years.
So again, it's not like, yes, Mr. Bonney is 100% correct.
If you don't do anything for more than three years,
it should be deemed expired.
I don't have a problem with that.
What we have in this case, though, is a series of building permits
that were, in fact, issued over the years,
some of which were exceeded.
There were violations that were issued.
that's that's between you know uh the the private parties here you know to deal with that's mr
anastasia's problem that's his client's problem but the fact is is that there were permits that
were issued over the year in 2017 when we came here there was a permit that ultimately got issued
and whether again mr bonnie thinks or mr anastasia think or they both agree that the you know the
agreement wasn't followed again it doesn't really matter that's an agreement between them the fact
is is that there were permits that were issued so once those building permits are issued and work
takes place the three-year rule disappears anyway the three-year rule is only if you have
like three years of inactivity or three years of of doing nothing so even so again
what mr bonnie's arguing is that if i if i get a zoning permit and then i get a building permit
And let's say just out of a pure, honest error, there's mistakes in what I've done on the building permit, and now it's in violation, and I'm down to the third year.