There is this whole issue whether due process was served and there is a question as my client pointed out, he didnt, but it was no fault of his own. Radio service may have missed two addresses. Two addresses. And those addresses [pwopblgs ] got notice of your first board of appeals hearing. This is not different than when you had your hearing on grumpis and off the grid, when grumpies said we didnt get notice because dpw didnt renotice when they switched locations. You took jurisdiction and heard it up uphold the permit with modifications. This is the same thing, a de novo hearing. Starbucks hasnt been around in 15 months. They sent one email in november of 2011, saying they were concerned about ingress and egress. At this point they are nowhere to be found. I spoke with the regional Vice President of starbuckss, a guy name david chu who said we dont want to be involved of we want to be neutral. We dont want to do anything more. Were neutral. Were staying out of it. Doesnt sound like s
Have always done in all of these situations. If for some reason the board of appeals feels Going Forward a different radius should be used that would be great, but we were going on what Radius Service has always done. I find it interesting that the apants would like you to see it says radius, radius every where else, but doesnt say radius when it comes to the walking distance, but take notice of the fact it says assessors block, assessors block and that is one issue for me. Another there w were questions about the truck issue, and i would like to talk about the fact that expresso subito does have a second truck operating in another location that hasnt offered so far, but if you feel it would be appropriate and wish to substitute it in. It has the barista inside the truck and dpw has said that they would be amenable to amending the order to specify the other truck, if that is something that you would like to do. And we have pictures, if you would like to see them. The findings that have
Before you sit down, one thing that you are speaking very quickly and i recognize that you are short on time here . Im sorry. The first argument set out by counsel for the appellants relates to the language in the code regarding assessors block and block face. And you ran through that. Your response very quickly. Can you rearticulate your argument and his response slowly please. I think his argument is that because it does not specifically say assessors block, and therefore. The code section that is relevant . This is not the code actually. This is a guideline from dpw. Thank you. And because i believe his argument is because the code i mean, im sorry, the guideline does not say assessors block, that should not be how its interpreted. It says block face, right . Yes. My position its open for interpretation by dpw. It does not say that you cannot use assessors parcel number, just as the 300 distance has no quantitification on it. Its up to dpw to decide how to administer its parents and
You can do a 300 walking distance which is, in fact, exactly what Police Department did in past times. Regarding the restroom issue, i think we have the owner of the facility that is going to provide the restroom here tonight to speak with you. But i think its suffice to say that you dont need ada accessible. We have been through this with department of sanitation and the appellant want to the department of sanitation to get this revoked and it didnt work. So i dont know what their issue is. The issue with Sidewalk Services i would like to use the overhead for one minute to show you the two truck locations. This is the truck location on 2nd street. As you can see the truck location is here. There is a clear path of travel. There are few tables out here, outside of the path of travel. Similarly on front street, this is the truck location. There is a 16 wide sidewalk. And no tables and chairs along here. So those are big deals and they are arguing that there is all of this construction.