and responding to those concerns about the fencing and the blocking of the sidewalk and the fire
hydrant okay at the last um zoom meeting i think the property owner um stated um i think that
might have been around in march that they were going to take the fence down uh make sure that
that fence was taken down but that never happened it's still up okay um and
And were you yourself, so are you aware that there were contacts that were made, or were you involved in those contacts that were made between the neighbors and, again, either the contractor or the owner of the property?
I was aware of it, yes.
Okay. And as of now, those concerns still have not been addressed?
They have not.
They have not.
Do you think that goes to the applicant's credibility?
Yes, it does. It's been almost a year that that fence has been around that property.
Like I stated, you have to walk in the street. I'm elderly myself, but people that's more older than me has to try and go across the street or walk on the side of the fence.
uh people with strollers and other children coming out of school or trying to cross the street
you know it's very dangerous okay now uh leaving aside the current conditions of the site uh are
you opposed to uh the variants that would allow this uh site the to be used uh for as an event
space yes i am we we just don't um think that's a good idea for this neighborhood
how long have you lived in the neighborhood ms boggs i've been in this neighborhood since i was
seven years old okay and you have you have strong concerns about the direction of the neighbor that
the neighborhood's going yes indeed okay i have no further questions thank you boggs mr anastasia
Yeah, that's briefly this box. Thank you for your testimony. You would say that would you say that you're pretty involved in and connected to the immediate area? You know what's going on? Most mostly.
Yes, I do. Okay. And I see that the address that you put on the record was an address that was given to us by the planning commission to mail to mail our notice.
So were you given ample notice and opportunity to attend and weigh in to the not only the RCO meeting, but to the Zoning Board of Adjustment hearing two and a half months ago?
I was at the meeting. I was on the Zoom meeting at each one.
And you did not speak up or testify at that time?
Well, I wasn't asked. They just asked, did I oppose? And I just gave them the same name.
They just asked, did I oppose? And I just gave them the same answer. That was it.
Oh, so you were, in fact, on the record prior opposing. Is that right? Saying that you oppose?
Yes, I was.
Okay. So, Mr. Chair, this witness's testimony has to be completely stricken from the record.
as the rules dictate anyone who spoke and was sworn in at the previous hearing has to be
disqualified from testimony today okay so because she had her she had her notice listen listen listen
okay i understand what you're saying and i agree with you but it's clear that mrs boggs is against
the problem well we know that i mean i never got a chance to speak you said you were against it
last time and you said it again so it's redundant it's repetitive and it's prejudiced objection i've
got nothing else for the record excuse me for the record mr chair i do not have miss boggs listed as
testifying previously which is why she was permitted to testify this right the information i have is
she was going to be a backup that miss brown and miss brown testified oh mr chair she just
testified that she did testify in march so i don't know the record could be checked later
all right okay miss bobs thank you for your testimony we understand where you stand
leonard are you done uh yes again we have no further uh testimony again i would we would
however reiterate uh and we're not going to ask for any additional input from the city planning
commission um but the city planning commission previously did indicate uh its opposition to
uh to we don't we know that it's redundant okay veron please go proceed mr chair i
you you muted yourself you muted yourself my apologies i think i think someone did you do
that on purpose you can mute yourself no i think someone muted me because i was getting my my
italian was getting up a little bit so that's okay i'm going to bring it proceed proceed with
your presentation thank you mr chair i uh because the protestant nor mr clark is present to do so
i'm going to do it for them i want to apologize for this hearing uh there is absolutely nothing
absolutely nothing, material, different, material, relevant, that would have this board reconsider
its decision two and a half months ago. All of this is redundant, repetitive, and prejudicial.
And I understand, because you all extend your grace to city council, and I'm willing to go
along with that but let's all remember councilmanic prerogative starts and ends on the fourth floor
of city hall it has no place here in this hearing room and the fact of the matter verne do me a
favor could you please start with your witnesses we understand what you're saying okay uh well i
need to object to every to we hear you we hear you objection okay first i i need to uh object to
the fact that Mr. Reuter is representing City Council and, of course, the Planning Commission.
He's a city solicitor. We also have a city solicitor representing Ms. Emerson,
who wonderfully represents the Zoning Board. There's a separation of powers issue that I
think would need to be reconciled at a higher court, number one. Excuse me, Mr. Anastasio,
for the record before this position was brought into the law department the position that i'm in
it was deliberately significantly walled off from the rest of the law department i am not even in
the same building as the law department i understand i do not appreciate the insinuations
that you are making on the record okay all right all right let's let was it insinuating any
impropriety i'm just thinking procedurally we have two city solicitors on both sides of this
That's that's my only point here. I want to object to Mr. Clark not being available.
I want to I think we covered that. I want to object to all the witnesses called had absolutely nothing material.
There is no mistaken fact. There's no evidence of a mistaken fact.
there's no evidence of mistaken law. The petition that was circulated in opposition
never stated even what the proposal, the application was for. And with that,
I want to call my first witness I'll Trina Nixon, who's the applicant.
And again, no, I've met no, just nothing disparagingly against counsel, I just need
against counsel i just need to be able to put that on the record please let's be clear your
to be able to put that on the record please let's be clear you're you're
your your witness has already testified the last time right well that's correct her testimony right
yeah but but they impued they uh uh mr reuter's testimony brought my clients
uh actions into question she has an opportunity to rebut
i want to i want to trust i want her to respond to something that didn't happen last time if
there's something that she wants to rebut i don't want her testimony to start over again of course
mr chair i just want to note for the record she was not on the list of witnesses that was
provided by mr anastasio in advance of this hearing and i wasn't planning on calling her
But they mentioned the petition that she circulated, so she has a right to rebut.
What's your caller again, please?
Altrina Nixon.
Miss Nixon.
Do we see her hand?
Do we see hand raised?
Yeah, she's unmuted now.
Miss Nixon, could you state your name, please?
My name is Altrina.
For the court reporter.
My name is Altrina Nixon. It is spelled A-L-T-R-E-N-A, last name Nixon, N-I-X-O-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Thank you. Ms. Nixon, you circulated the petition that was in question?
Yes, I did.
Okay. And you went door to door in your immediate area, immediate neighborhood. Is that right?
did you explain to them that this was an event space and the limitations that you were putting
on it not only did i explain that it was event space i had the petition and the actual zoning
notice with me so when they signed the petition they signed it knowing it said and i even
highlighted the date what it was for and the whole reasoning for it it's already
yeah so they know exactly what they were signing for and i even took pictures with them so they so
you guys can see. Yeah, and that's all part of the record already. And you actually circulated
a copy of the refusal as well. Is that right? That's correct. Okay. And you have no intention
of operating this as a nightclub. Is that right? Not at all. And the fence is because it's an
active construction site. Currently, we have a 10-foot hole with a curb trap. That is not there
to prevent any harm. It's there to protect people. I keep it clean and it's very neat.
I keep the weeds down. And the protection is there is an active construction site with a valid construction and build a permit and a valid plumbing permit.
So we have the right to do this and just wall it off for protection.
And the fence would have already been removed had you been able to secure your use permit and your building permits and get the property active. Is that right?
Absolutely.
And this appeal actually delayed that fence from being removed. Is that right?
Exactly.
Thank you. I have nothing further on Ms. Nixon, but Mr.
Leonard, do you have any follow-ups?
Sure. Ms. Nixon, with respect to this appeal,
you haven't been able to proceed with converting the space to an event space,
but isn't it true that you already have a zoning permit
for a vacant commercial space on the first floor of this property?
That's correct.
Is there any reason why you couldn't have completed that
what part is there any reason why you couldn't have obtained all the building permits
and all the necessary work to finish out the commercial space wasn't that approved a year ago
the actual building permit was uh approved a year ago but after you get the building permit then you
have to do construction then you need to get the mechanical permit so we were waiting on the last
permit so you can check atlas we just got the last mechanical permit so we can continue okay
Actually, I just had an inspector today, so we're moving along.
Okay, so it's correct, though, that you did have a buy-write permit to use the first floor for a commercial space that could be leased out for some other commercial purpose.
Isn't that right?
Well, it was before the event space.
I was told at L&I that you had to change the zoning on what it was, but it was always a CMX1 anyway, so we really didn't have to do it.
So we were just stating that for the rest of the building, because we have two apartments in there. So that was the reason for delineating the apartments to the commercial space on the plans, hence on the permit, that's where we are.
But again, with respect to the initial permit that you received by Wright to use the first floor for vacant commercial space, isn't it true that you never made any attempt to lease that, to finish that out as just a regular commercial space, like a retail store or something like that?
And it was later that you decided to seek a variance for it to be an event space.
It was later that you decided to seek a variance.
Well, I actually, when I signed up to get the permit, I signed up for it to be an event space and I let the permit expire and so on and so forth.
So this was always the intention. There was never any intention for it to be anything else.
However, I did look around when I realized that there was opposition.
I said, OK, let me take a look around. The doctor's office isn't going to be there.
And actually, I have an MBA. This is all on the record. But in my business assessment, an event space will do very well here. I don't want to, the chairman said not to redo testimony. So, continue.
Yeah, please, Ms. Nixon.
Well, I don't think this is repeating testimony. This is exactly the kind of testimony that was not presented before. So, again, Ms. Nixon, isn't it fair to say that you never made an attempt to seek a commercial tenant for that first floor?
That's not true, Mr. Chair.
She testified prior that she did look at alternatives.
Thank you.
Well, it's already been asked and answered.
Do you have any other questions, Leonard?
I have no further questions at this point.
All right, thank you.
Just to redirect, Ms. Nixon, as a matter of right,
you are aware that you could put in your building right now on the first floor
a bodega just like the one across the street.
Is that right?
That's correct.
And that's exactly that kind of place that resulted in the murder that was testified earlier today.
Is that right?
That's correct.
Thank you.
Nothing further on that one.
And who's your next witness?
David Seaborn, please.
Mr. Seaborn, please state your name and spell for the court reporter.
Mr. David Seaborn, raise your hand, please.
and i actually don't see mr seaborne in the audience oh wait a minute oh no that's not
he may have left i also have mr bj wiggins bj wiggins wiggins yes
okay uh it's been a few hours so i can imagine that they may not necessarily be here
Mr. Chair, there are two Altrina Nixons in the audience, so maybe one of them is one of the other witnesses.
Yeah, should I allow them to speak?
Please.
Thank you.
Can you unmute yourself?
All right, could you state your name, please?
I'll train the next thing. Can you please unmute yourself?
You're still muted here. Okay. Thank you.
Bernie, have anyone else? No, Mr. Chair. And, you know, I don't necessarily think
all that we're going to do is testify that they support this project. I do want to make
make sure that we clarify a couple things on the exhibits uh on item number c3
there uh a letter some sort of flyer from strawberry mansion there was no date on that
letter it was never dated but it does allude to some unfortunate events that happened two weeks
prior. It seems as though there was, at least it was intimated, that there was some sort of
criminal activity or a murder of a woman, unfortunately. And it happened on or about
Mother's Day of this year. The problem with that evidence is that it is two and a half months
after the hearing that happened on the in early march and the the entire idea of a reconsideration
hearing is to present evidence that either was known or should have been known at the time of
the hearing the fact of the matter is that they're presenting evidence that happened two and a half
months after the year uh so that i object to that not only for relevance but for timeliness
it just cannot be considered uh because if you give someone a permit and they build a building
and then two or three months later it catches fire we don't go back and and take back the permit
It just it's not what we do. So that would completely prejudice the applicant.
So I'm not quite sure the relevance of that. I will agree with that.
I will agree with that.
And anyway.
And anyway, as you can see, there is absolutely nothing different today than there was two and a half months ago as far as testimony or evidence.
And as such, I respectfully request that this board uphold its own reasonable granting of a temporary variance for an event space.
Thank you.
Leonard, do you want to?
Yeah, just a couple of things.