AgdaPkt 2010-11-22 clsd and regular

Browse Search

8.A P ge 57 Mr. Carroll to start his project until the winter is over. In fact, in Paragraph 22 o�the NOA, for example, the City expressly states concern about "stormwater detention" on the site. As it is, both of our adjoining backyards are prone to flooding and pooling; if construction were to start this winter, there would certainly be a much greater risk of erosion, soil slippage, and resultant damage to our property and to that of our neighbors. Since continuing the Hearing date to next year apparently will not slow down the construction project, I believe there is no reasonable basis for denying us a continuance. o Finally, with respect to equity and fair play, no one in the City administration was able to provide us with any fact in support of conducting the Hearing on November 22nd -- except for stating that Mr. Carroll "wished to have the Hearing immediately." Consequently, as Ms. Thompson said last evening, "We split the difference." (I requested 120 days when I filed my appeal, knowing full well the magnitude of the task ahead of ine.) If I may respectfully observe, King Soloinon rejected the idea of "splitting the difference" because he knew that "solution" would kill the infant! In our case, "splitting the difference" will almost certain kill any realistic opportunity we have to prepare adequately for the Hearing. Moreover, Solomon actually did a factual inquiry regarding the claims and circumstances of the two mothers before rendering his decision -- something that seems to have been regrettably absent in our case. • Third, I was just informed this morning by attorneys representing me as Plaintiff in a seemingly large and complex lawsuit being conducted in the Federal District Court in Connecticut that depositions have been scheduled in Connecticut for the end of November. Since very substantial sutns are involved, I must direct all iny attention to reviewing over 12,000 pages of documents submitted in the earlier phase of discovery, and I must make myself available in Connecticut as of November 22nd or 23rd to review and prepare for as many as six depositions, including my own. I believe if this were a matter before a court, a continuance would be granted due to such a conflict. In any event, it's clear that without a continuance being granted, I will not be able to adequately prepare for this Hearing, and, indeed, may not even be able to attend! • Finally, I have referred to this Appeal procedure as a"Hearing" to underscore the fact that your decision will impact the value of our property and the property of our neighbors, and that an adverse decision will almost certainly cause the value of our property to decline. I base this conclusion on statements of neighbors living adjacent to or across from the "Pink Palace" on Ruby, the "Barn Bunker" at 260 Myrtle, and the "Flying Dutchman" at the crest of the hill on Quartz -- and these are examples only from our direct neighborhood of decreased property values resulting from similarly flawed Planning Department decisions! I consider this Appeal to be analogous to our court case in Connecticut; and, therefore, we need sufficient ti�ne to be able to fully prepare a case in support of modifying those three items -- tree, curved metal roof, invasive deck -- that constitute the entirety of our Appeal. It would be very unfortunate for all concerned if we were to be denied our "day in court" because of a rigid stance on scheduling this matter, which, as I believe I have demonstrat�ed above, has no reasonable basis in fact, law, or equity. Therefore, I respectfully request that a continuance be granted in the Hearing of our Appeal until February 21, 2011, or as soon thereafter as possible. Respectfully Submitted, 3 I