Any questions. Weve tried to be transparent with the department of dbi and planning to move this forward. I think the issue before you is actually a very, very simple issue. As i understand it, this is an appeal from the categorical exemption of seekwa, it is not a rereview of everything that went on before the board of appeals and Planning Department. There is a lot that has gone on that you are not privy to. I will address the two questions by the supervisors just recently as i go through this, but the log does not support the appellant, the law says if they have done proper analysis and there is substantial evidence that supports them, and there is no new construction or major changed condition, then theyre findings are supposed to be affirmed and thats what the law says. The facts of this case actually support irving that the planning everything that the Planning Department has said and that this is categorically exempt. This hearing is about the categorical exemption, not everythi
Any questions. Weve tried to be transparent with the department of dbi and planning to move this forward. I think the issue before you is actually a very, very simple issue. As i understand it, this is an appeal from the categorical exemption of seekwa, it is not a rereview of everything that went on before the board of appeals and Planning Department. There is a lot that has gone on that you are not privy to. I will address the two questions by the supervisors just recently as i go through this, but the log does not support the appellant, the law says if they have done proper analysis and there is substantial evidence that supports them, and there is no new construction or major changed condition, then theyre findings are supposed to be affirmed and thats what the law says. The facts of this case actually support irving that the planning everything that the Planning Department has said and that this is categorically exempt. This hearing is about the categorical exemption, not everythi
1985, you brought forth the original notice of violation . The reason is, nobody was able to use the garages. As roger was talking about the back door and photographs here prove, it was impossible to use the garages. They were built in 1997. There is no proof they were built at separate moments in time. Do you have something on the projector . I apologize. Can you show tv what is on the projector. And can you step back, please, thank you. Thank you, president breed. So basically, the people who built the garage just after the yes sold it, talked to about the permit. What year was this . Fall of 1997 approximately. And they were building them together. They were not built separately, they were built together. Yeah. And when they finished them, i asked them if they had a permit, nothing ever came through, nothing was done. And then it was clear to them, the owners themselves, it was impossible to use the garages. Like all of us in small spaces, we go on with our lives when nothing is bot
Permit. That was work other work unrelated. And the drawings happened to show a garage door on those plans, but we dont have any record of it being created legally. Supervisor tang so you saw permit filed for the garage in 1997, but you dont know if it was actually constructed . We have photographs also in the records. Supervisor tang the packet . Yes, and they do show, they date to the time frame, or soon thereafter. So it would it would seem that that one garage door was constructed after that time. Supervisor tang ok. And just i mean, its a little strange to me, the history of what happened here. I dont know if im allowed to ask mr. Bruno a question, president breed, or if i have to wait until later . President breed for the . Supervisor tang for the appellant . President breed no, you can ask him now. Supervisor tang ok, i have a for the appellant. Supervisor tang just one question. How long have you lived in your current house . Ive lived in nobles alley since 1985 with travels to