Now I lose my zoning permit.
I've got to go back and start over the whole process.
That's not how it works.
That's never how it works.
The clock doesn't run out.
The clock doesn't run out as long as – so, again, I don't think – and, again, I don't know, but I don't think the allegation is everything that the property owner did here was wrong and illegal.
So, again, some of it was, clearly, because L&I issued violations.
But there was work that was done that was consistent with the zoning permit.
So the three-year clock gets told every time there's work that's being done that's legal, at least.
And actually, even if it's not legal, again, unless L&I believes that it has to be revoked because now he's doing something completely different.
Like he gets a zoning permit to build a deck, and he goes and puts in a garage or something completely different.
So, you know, exceeding footprints, things like that, you know, again, I'm not going to get into like what are the different things that might warrant a revocation or some other action.
But again, that's not the case here.
So we're not talking about 100 years of somebody doing nothing.
I'm not arguing that.
I'm saying in this case, the three-year rule didn't really – it certainly was – let's put it this way.
Again, it is self-evident that L&I made a determination that the three-year rule didn't apply because, in fact, they didn't revoke the permit.
and if you're saying they shouldn't revoke the record well again we're making argument here to
And if you're saying they shouldn't revoke the –
That's not a record.
me that's just that is that is that is a logical conclusion if you can say that but it's certainly
not in evidence that the building argument of course it's not evidence okay all right
thank you the violations i don't really have anything else to say here so all right thank you
i just want to say very briefly mr chairman the violations dated 2015 are uh prima facie evidence
that work had commenced.
In fact, work commenced in 2013
and there was work in 2014
and then there was an unintentional build-out.
So then there were violations issued 2015
and then there was improvements
to comply with the violations in 2015 and 2016.
And then 2017, he came back for more relief
through the zoning process.
So at no point was there not work being done.
um so and that's that's the rule as len knows better than anybody can i make a final statement
or questions quickly please okay well first of all mr anastasia you represented to this board
two years ago that it was an intentional um overbuild and so you can't say now that it was
an unintentional overbill but um that's that's not the point the point is whether it was intentional
or unintentional the point is does that permit survive and it does right i believe that thank
thank you members of the board and opposing counsel and board solicitor i believe that the
that the record is clear and that the evidence in front of the board is clear that the 2013 zoning
permit expired. And the evidence is that in 2017, when additional refusal was generated,
L&I listed all those original variances again. At that hearing, the Planning Commission agreed
with us and said on the record, legal permits have expired. At that hearing, this board denied
All of those variances. So I think the board is bound by its 2017 decision. I believe that this board in 2017 and denying all of those variances
um concluded and and uh uh resolved that there's no zoning in place for this matter
and i i believe that the point being made by the other side that we cannot put before this board
a piece of paper that says that that permit was affirmatively revoked by the city is not
the end-all and be-all of this case. I believe we all know how to count three years, and if
this was a matter that went in a straight line where someone just needed more time,
that would be a different case. I'm not asking this board to make a sweeping conclusion
that three years after the date, you know, everything evaporates. I'm not saying that,
but in this case, given the facts that I just laid out and the term determination that this
board made in 2017 that Mr. Holloman said testimony in 17 and the fact that this is now the third
building permit in six years I believe makes our case and thank you very much for your time.
not to be closing thank you again this is that that's a lot of uh words but the bottom line is
very simple did lni issue improperly the 2019 permit uh and the appellant i'm sorry the appellant
did not meet its burden they had to provide some sort of evidence either documented or in testimony
that in fact the 2013 permit either expired or was revoked and they could do neither they've done
if they thought that the examiner made a mistake the building examiner that he needed to be here
and the fact of the matter is that three-year rule as I said a little earlier as did Len that
that three-year rule applies to projects that there's never any work done. There was work done
in 13, 14, 15, violations complied with in 15 and 16, and then a new application in 17. There was
constant work. And for that reason, I don't think, in fact, I know that permit wasn't expired.
Mr. Bonney says he believes it was. Well, we can believe a lot of things, but we need evidence in a legal proceeding. And unless or until he could produce that, I'm asking this board to deny his appeal.
Mr. Bonnie says he believes it was. Well, we can believe a lot of things, but we need
thank you then just just very briefly again just so the board understands it was my
my understanding uh that between the private parties private council in this case that we
were going forward on our on briefs and argument only uh this was a case where i think
the facts that existed were pretty much um i did agree that the facts were pretty much understood
And the fact was, Plans Examiner reviewed the 2019 building permit application, saw that there was a live zoning permit, i.e. one that had not been revoked, and issued the building permit.
Those are the basic facts that I was assuming would be stipulated to by everybody.
and on that basis i didn't see any reason uh i i believe that the the brief that was filed by
miss mr anastasia mr cook was fine it covered all the points i didn't need to brief separately
and it because again it was this it was my assumption maybe it was my mistake to assume
this but it was my assumption that the fact of the thing that el and i did that triggered the
appeal would at least be the one thing that everybody agreed had happened i.e that the
plans examiner issued a permit based upon the plans examiner's apparent assumption that their
that the the zoning permit was live and and again let me put let me put it this way had i believed
if if if in my discussions with ellen i ellen i told me oh the plans examiner made a mistake i
would have just told everybody the plans examiner made a mistake and we would have reacted in that
way. So, I mean, you have to accept my explanation as an officer of the court that the L&I, if the
L&I inspector were called to testify, the L&I inspector would say that he believed that the
permit was validly issued because the zoning permit was live. I would not go so far as to say
whether the plans examiner would answer, well, the permit should or should not have been considered
expired because that's not a plans examiner's role that is an inspector's role to determine
whether or not a zoning permit is expired so i don't even think that a plans examiner had a plans
examiner been present we would have had an answer from a plans examiner about the expiration the
issue of the expiration of the underlying zoning permit because that's not the role of a plans
examiner that because that's an enforcement issue but again that being the case it
it's simply our position that the 2019 building permit is correct that the zoning permit in fact
was still valid it had not been revoked and that it had not expired because there had been
enough of a continuation of work uh that the three-year rule didn't kick in i mean there's
plenty of construction projects that take far longer than three years and there's stops and
starts and even without intervention by the government like of course we're doing right now
due to covid even without that we don't go requiring people to go get new zoning permits
every time there's a delay in construction because they might be hitting up against the three-year
rule and again whether or not l and i should have done that whether or not that might be better
governance somebody can argue that but we didn't do that you're giving a ton of testimony and it's
i just want to state for the record that it's highly inappropriate for you to help his board
and what they would do if they were i think it's i think he's mr rooters going to the point of the
argument that you're making here there's a question of of the people act appropriately
down on L&I or inappropriately and I think he's addressing that. Yeah I mean I'm making an
argument based upon what I believe are the basic facts of the case that really are not denied by
anybody. So you know again so anyway I think you know there's no point in belaboring the issue
with respect to whether or not the board can split the baby as it were in the way that Mr.
Bonnie has suggested. Again, I'm not going to take a firm position on that one way or the other.
I do think it's problematic, although for the city, I would say that it would be difficult.
I can't say whether or not if a decision like that came out, I don't know what Ellen and I
what l and i would say with respect to that uh that possible outcome i mean if the board issues
would say with respect to that possible outcome.
a decision and says this is what we want to happen then i guess it's just a question of
whether the city would appeal that kind of a decision um and you know so so i'm not gonna
i i just have not been able to get a response from l and i in terms of that kind of a condition i do
agree that you generally can't impose conditions on buy right permits although we have had
settlement agreements where we have done something similar to that by adding additional language that
maybe explain we did that with the um we reached agreements on a couple other cases where we added
some additional language to buy right permits but generally that additional language was consistent
with the actual original approval mr reuter can i interrupt you to say that those were
settlements that were reached between the party who held the permit and the law department or the
city the zoning board was not involved no that's right and we actually wound up breaching those
decisions in common please court and then we went back and essentially asked for kind of a
stipulated decision so again it's a little bit different here but again i i would well i would
I just don't, I don't know how Ellen and I would react to something like that.
That's fair enough.
If I may, Harry, come here.
If that were to happen, if one of these suggestions by Mr. Boni were to take place after the permit's been issued, after everything's been built and relied upon, it becomes a vested rights issue in addition to anything else.
Thank you.
We're going to, at this time, going to ask the board if they have any questions.
no no mr chairman may i mention i'm going to go down this yes paul okay i i just want to thank
mr reuter for touching upon what it what it is we're actually seeking which is you know a slight
modification so that the uh door becomes a window and that is what we're asking for and if and if
reuter has any idea about i'm gonna i'm gonna throw something at you i'm gonna throw something
at you just as a hypothetical the balcony is okay as long as it's not somewhat they don't
have the sliding glass doors suppose they put a double hung window a hung window in place of the
sliding doors somebody opens the bottom half of that and decides to climb out onto the balcony
nothing's been accomplished you're still gonna have use of it i'm not trying to be sarcastic
Like it just, either you put a solid window that is not able to, you can't open it, it
stays shut all the time.
But to say we don't like the sliding glass doors, the owner of the property can decide,
you know what, I don't want to fight this anymore.
I'm going to put a double-hung window in.
Well, I have a better idea, which is actually goes with something that Mr. Anastasia spoke
to which is for 200 years including in my house um we'll have a window uh that um for 200 years
could pop out just like many windows in philadelphia so that when you're moving in a couch
or a refrigerator you can your candy man can pop out we would be fine with that type of window they
can pop it out and then decide to stand out there and have a smoke or something i mean it's just they
want to pop it out like that god bless them but i'm saying that that would be okay under the
language that we're suggesting to you. I hear you. I hear you. I don't think the double hung would be,
but anyway, we leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you. Chairman, that pop-out window might be good
for me. Yeah, something. Anyway, I'm not making light of it. I'm just... I understand, no. I can't
believe that all these years, you're still arguing this case, but everybody's entitled to their day.
Well, I think part of it is that we reached a deal and the deal was broke. And if that's,
if that's the case we we there's a venue for that this is not the venue right well exactly this is
but if it's not so you know that's fine okay maybe maybe there's still an opportunity with that i
will ask if there's anyone out there who wishes to testify please raise your hand spell your name
i will swear you in and i'm asking you to be as brief as possible uh chair i really believe
everybody is going everybody has left okay thank you thank you very much all right planning
commission they don't weigh in on this right right now cleaning doesn't weigh in calendar number
yep somebody's going to say something i'm sorry no they're going as well yeah okay calendar number
three eight eight one seven two two one pine street my vote is to deny the appeal appeal denied
appeal denied appeal denied appeal denied thank you gentlemen thank you mr chair and madam chair
thank you gentlemen thank you mr chair and madam chair and members of the board thank you thanks
and members of the board thank you thanks everybody
everybody good to see everybody take care thank you so much take care i'll see you walking past
my house one day okay bye-bye all right i think that concludes everything or tanya we're done
oh yes jaren everything is all right see you all tomorrow morning have a good night stay safe
Bye-bye.
Take care.
Be safe.
Good night.
Take care, everybody.
Good night.
Thank you.
Bye, Sharon.
Get some sleep.
I have tomorrow's summaries to do.
Oh, my God.
Say hi to the dog, Sharon.
I will.
Thank you.