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