any questions. we ve 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 re-review 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 they re findings are supposed to be affirmed and that s 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 exempti
any questions. we ve 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 re-review 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 they re findings are supposed to be affirmed and that s 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 exempti
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
permit. that was work other work unrelated. and the drawings happened to show a garage door on those plans, but we don t have any record of it being created legally. supervisor tang: so you saw permit filed for the garage in 1997, but you don t 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, it s a little strange to me, the history of what happened here. i don t know if i m 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? i ve li