My neighbor appealed my zoning approval the day after my contractor broke ground, using a parking argument that is directly contradicted by a Planning Department interpretation guide I had already submitted with the original application, which the ZBA decision didn’t mention once.

My neighbor appealed my zoning approval the day after my contractor broke ground, using a parking argument that is directly contradicted by a Planning Department interpretation guide I had already submitted with the original application, which the ZBA decision didn’t mention once.

My name is Norma Cisneros.

I am a licensed architect.

I have submitted six conditional use approvals in this city.

I know the Planning Department’s interpretation guide.

I submitted it with my application.

The ZBA appeal decision does not cite it.

The hearing officer who issued that decision had not read page forty-seven.

I run a small design-build firm out of a leased studio on the east side of the city.

I have been licensed by the state architectural board for nineteen years and have completed six commercial conditional use approvals in this city across the past eleven years.

I am the principal architect on the seventh — a mixed-use building I designed and was building for myself on a single lot at the corner of Mossbluff Avenue and Fifteenth Street.

The mixed-use building consists of a fifteen-hundred-square-foot architecture studio on the ground floor and four eight-hundred-square-foot residential rental units across the second and third floors.

The mixed-use building includes seven on-site parking spaces in a small surface lot on the north side of the parcel that meet the city’s standard parking calculation for the ground-floor commercial use.

The seven on-site parking spaces do not include separate parking allocations for the four residential units.

The four residential units do not require separate parking allocations under the city’s mixed-use parking interpretation guide, which the Planning Department published three years ago to clarify that the residential unit parking requirement is waived for mixed-use projects where the residential units are secondary to a commercial use and the commercial use meets the standard parking calculation.

I submitted the interpretation guide as supplemental documentation with the original conditional use approval application at page forty-seven.

The Planning Commission approved the conditional use application on a unanimous vote at a public hearing fourteen months ago.

I read the conditional use approval into the project record.

I closed out the pre-construction coordination phase across the following thirteen months.

I sat at my drafting table the Tuesday morning before construction was scheduled to begin and reviewed the construction documents the general contractor had assembled for the pre-construction site meeting that afternoon.

I noted two conflicts between the HVAC rough-in paths and the structural beam layout on the second floor — the supply trunk crossing the bottom flange of a steel beam below the finished ceiling line, and the return air duct intersecting a structural steel column at the southeast corner.

I sketched alternative routings on yellow tracing paper: the supply trunk offset fourteen inches to the north, the return air duct relocated three feet to the west.

I sent the coordination note to the mechanical engineer at ten forty-five Tuesday morning.

The mechanical engineer acknowledged the coordination note and issued revised mechanical drawings reflecting the two routing offsets the following day before the pre-construction site meeting.

I attended the pre-construction site meeting at three that afternoon at the project site, and the general contractor confirmed the project would break ground at seven the following morning.

I drove to the project site at six forty-five the following morning.

I took photographs of the site fencing being installed and the first piece of grading equipment moving across the site.

I drove back to the studio.

Two days after the site mobilization a ZBA appeal notice arrived in the studio’s mailbox.

The ZBA appeal notice was on city letterhead, dated Friday of that week, and stamped received by the studio receptionist on Monday at nine fifteen in the morning.

The ZBA appeal notice notified me that an appeal had been filed by a property owner named Todd Whitfield, of the property adjacent to mine on the east side at the corner of Mossbluff Avenue and Fourteenth Street, against the Planning Commission’s conditional use approval.

The ZBA appeal notice attached the appeal memorandum from Todd’s land-use attorney.

I read the appeal memorandum at my drafting table on Monday afternoon.

The appeal memorandum argued the conditional use approval had been improperly granted because the project’s parking calculation omitted required parking allocations for the four residential units.

The appeal memorandum cited the city’s standard parking calculation in the zoning code section ten-fourteen-A and argued that section ten-fourteen-A required separate parking allocations for residential units in any mixed-use building.

The appeal memorandum did not cite the Planning Department’s interpretation guide.

The appeal memorandum did not mention the interpretation guide had been submitted with the original application.

The appeal memorandum did not mention the interpretation guide existed at all.

I pulled my original application packet from the project file cabinet.

I opened the supplemental documentation tab.

The interpretation guide was at page forty-seven of the supplemental documentation.

I read the interpretation guide.

The interpretation guide addressed the exact scenario presented by my project.

I read the appeal memorandum a second time.

The appeal argument was directly contradicted by the interpretation guide.

I requested the ZBA hearing record on the appeal from the city clerk’s office at four that afternoon.

The city clerk’s office returned the hearing record by email the following morning.

The hearing record was a single-page summary of the ZBA hearing, an exhibit list of three exhibits (the appeal memorandum, the Planning Commission’s original conditional use approval decision, and a copy of the relevant zoning code section), and the ZBA’s two-page decision.

The hearing record did not include the interpretation guide as an exhibit.

The ZBA decision did not cite the interpretation guide.

The ZBA decision had been issued by a single hearing officer named Russell Spiers.

Russell Spiers had read the appeal memorandum.

Russell Spiers had read the zoning code section ten-fourteen-A.

Russell Spiers had not read page forty-seven of the supplemental documentation in my original application.

Russell Spiers had not read the interpretation guide.

Russell Spiers had upheld the appeal.

I sat at my drafting table.

Todd Whitfield knocked on the studio door at eleven forty-five Wednesday morning.

Todd Whitfield walked in.

Todd Whitfield sat in the client chair across from my drafting table.

Todd Whitfield said, Norma.

Todd Whitfield said, I want you to know this is not personal.

Todd Whitfield said, I have concerns about the parking impact on the neighborhood and I have a right to use the process.

Todd Whitfield said, if you address the parking calculation I would be open to withdrawing the appeal.

Todd Whitfield smiled.

Todd Whitfield said the words “not personal” and “open to withdrawing” the way a person offers a favor for compliance with a demand the person knows the recipient does not owe.

Todd Whitfield waited.

I did not answer.

Todd Whitfield said, take your time.

Todd Whitfield walked out of the studio.

I did not call Todd Whitfield back.

I picked up the studio phone at four-fifteen Wednesday afternoon.

I called a land-use attorney I had worked with twice before on conditional use approval supplemental briefings, a woman named Joan Novak.

Joan ran a four-person land-use practice out of an office on the west side of the city.

I told Joan I had received a ZBA appeal decision upholding a procedural appeal of my own conditional use approval and that the appeal argument was directly contradicted by the Planning Department interpretation guide I had submitted with the original application.

I told Joan the ZBA hearing record showed the interpretation guide had not been entered into evidence, cited by the hearing officer, or referenced in the decision.

I told Joan the appellant had offered to withdraw the appeal in exchange for parking concessions.

Joan said, Norma.

Joan said, that is a clean rehearing petition.

Joan said, send me the appeal memorandum, the ZBA decision, the hearing record, and a copy of page forty-seven of your supplemental documentation by end of business today.

Joan said, I will draft the rehearing petition tonight and have a clean draft to you by tomorrow morning.

I told Joan I had not yet contacted the Planning Department director’s office.

Joan said, do that tomorrow.

Joan said, the director’s office will respond on the merits in three to five business days if the question is framed cleanly.

Joan said, I will draft the question for you to send.

Joan hung up.

I assembled the appeal memorandum, the ZBA decision, the hearing record, and a copy of page forty-seven of my supplemental documentation.

I sent the package to Joan by encrypted email at five oh-five Wednesday afternoon.

Joan sent the draft rehearing petition back at seven-thirty Thursday morning.

The draft rehearing petition was eleven pages.

The draft rehearing petition argued that the ZBA hearing officer had failed to consider the Planning Department interpretation guide that the petitioner (me) had submitted with the original conditional use approval application at page forty-seven of the supplemental documentation.

The draft rehearing petition argued that the failure to consider the interpretation guide constituted new evidence not available at the original hearing within the meaning of the city’s ZBA rehearing standard.

The draft rehearing petition argued that the Planning Department interpretation guide directly addressed the residential-unit parking waiver for projects matching the petitioner’s profile and that the appeal argument was inconsistent with departmental guidance.

The draft rehearing petition attached page forty-seven of the supplemental documentation as Exhibit A, the original conditional use approval application’s full table of contents as Exhibit B, and the city zoning code’s relevant section as Exhibit C.

Joan attached a separate cover note recommending I solicit a letter from the Planning Department director confirming the interpretation guide’s applicability and offering to appear at the rehearing as a city witness.

I drafted the letter request to the Planning Department director that morning using Joan’s recommended framing.

I sent the letter request by formal mail and by email to the Planning Department director’s office at ten that Thursday morning.

The Planning Department director was a woman named Margot Ellsbury who had been the director for the past seven years.

Margot Ellsbury had signed the original conditional use approval decision letter on my project fourteen months earlier.

Margot Ellsbury had also signed the publication letter for the interpretation guide three years ago.

Margot Ellsbury’s office responded by email at four-twenty the following Tuesday.

Margot Ellsbury’s response carried a signed letter from the director on department letterhead.

The signed letter read: “The interpretation guide was published to clarify exactly the scenario presented in this project. The residential-unit parking waiver applies. The appeal argument is inconsistent with departmental guidance.”

The signed letter offered the director’s appearance at the rehearing as a city witness.

I forwarded the signed letter to Joan within four minutes of receipt.

Joan incorporated the signed letter as Exhibit D in the rehearing petition that afternoon.

I authorized Joan to file the rehearing petition with the ZBA clerk’s office at five twenty-five Tuesday afternoon.

Joan filed the rehearing petition at the ZBA clerk’s window at four forty-five the following Wednesday afternoon during the clerk’s office’s filing window.

The ZBA scheduled the rehearing for the third Wednesday of the following month at three-thirty in the afternoon in the ZBA hearing chamber at the city hall.

I told the general contractor the construction hold was being addressed and that I expected the construction to resume within six to eight weeks of the ZBA’s calendar.

I did not tell the general contractor the specific procedural pathway.

I authorized the general contractor to continue site standby with the equipment staging and the site fencing in place.

The general contractor’s standby fees accrued at approximately forty-five hundred dollars per week.

The general contractor’s accrued standby fees crossed the twenty-eight-thousand-dollar mark at the end of the sixth week.

I sat at my drafting table on a Thursday evening with the ZBA decision on the right side of the table, the interpretation guide on the left side of the table, and the hearing transcript stacked on the center of the table.

I had confirmed that the interpretation guide was not entered into evidence in the original hearing.

I had the director’s letter incorporated into the rehearing petition.

I knew what a rehearing petition looked like because I had filed one for a client five years ago on a different conditional use approval challenge in a different jurisdiction.

I looked at the standby fee invoice from the general contractor at the bottom of the stack on the center of the table.

The invoice ran to twenty-eight thousand dollars at the end of the sixth week.

I put the invoice under the interpretation guide.

The interpretation guide was the document that was going to recover the standby fees.

The interpretation guide was the document that should have been read by the hearing officer in the original appeal.

The interpretation guide had not been read.

The interpretation guide was going to be read.

I drove to the project site at seven on a Saturday morning during the standby hold.

The site fencing was still in place.

The equipment staging was still in place.

The grading equipment sat at the south end of the staging area, idle.

The on-site temporary fence between the project site and Todd Whitfield’s property sat at the fence line three feet inside my property line.

Todd Whitfield’s car was in his driveway.

Todd Whitfield was sitting on his front porch with a cup of coffee.

Todd Whitfield watched me walk the site.

I did not look at him.

I walked the perimeter of the site once.

I drove back to the studio.

I worked on the construction documents at the drafting table for the rest of the morning.

The construction documents were the construction documents.

The standby hold was not a hold for the construction documents.

The standby hold was a hold for the construction.

The construction documents continued to develop on the drafting table during the standby hold.

The ZBA rehearing was held in the ZBA hearing chamber on the fourth floor of the city hall at three-thirty on the third Wednesday of the following month.

The ZBA hearing chamber was a wood-paneled room with a raised semicircular bench for the three-member ZBA panel, a long witness table on the floor below the bench, and approximately forty folding chairs in the public gallery.

The public gallery was approximately one-third full.

The ZBA panel chair was a man named Calvin Drake who had served on the ZBA for nine years.

The other two ZBA panel members were Marian Lozeau and Hilliard Pemmel.

Russell Spiers, the hearing officer who had upheld the original appeal, was not present at the rehearing.

Joan Novak sat to my left at the witness table.

Todd Whitfield sat at the appellant’s witness table with his land-use attorney, a man named Christopher Tindall.

Margot Ellsbury, the Planning Department director, sat in the front row of the public gallery with a slim folder of her department’s interpretation guide and the related publication record.

The ZBA chair Calvin Drake gaveled the rehearing to order at three thirty-five.

Calvin Drake said, this rehearing has been scheduled on the petition of the applicant pursuant to the city ZBA rehearing standard for new evidence not available at the original hearing.

Calvin Drake recognized Joan Novak for the petitioner’s argument.

Joan Novak walked through the rehearing petition for approximately fourteen minutes.

Joan Novak introduced page forty-seven of the supplemental documentation from the original conditional use approval application as Exhibit A.

Joan Novak introduced the original conditional use approval application’s full table of contents as Exhibit B.

Joan Novak introduced the relevant section of the city zoning code as Exhibit C.

Joan Novak introduced the Planning Department director’s letter as Exhibit D.

Joan Novak said, the Planning Department director has provided a letter confirming that the interpretation guide applies to this project and that Mr. Whitfield’s appeal argument is inconsistent with departmental guidance.

Joan Novak said, the director is here today to confirm this interpretation if the board has questions.

Calvin Drake recognized Christopher Tindall for the appellant’s argument.

Christopher Tindall walked through the appeal argument for approximately seven minutes.

Christopher Tindall argued that the city zoning code’s parking calculation section ten-fourteen-A on its face required separate parking allocations for residential units in any mixed-use building.

Christopher Tindall argued that the Planning Department’s interpretation guide was advisory guidance and did not override the clear language of the zoning code’s parking calculation section.

Calvin Drake leaned forward toward Christopher Tindall.

Calvin Drake said, Mr. Tindall.

Calvin Drake said, the document published by the Planning Department to interpret the zoning code — is the Planning Department director’s letter about their own document advisory or binding on this board’s interpretation of the code.

Christopher Tindall paused.

Christopher Tindall said, I would ask the board to give weight to —

Calvin Drake said, that is not an answer to the question.

Christopher Tindall paused again.

Christopher Tindall said, I would defer to the board on the weight to be assigned.

Calvin Drake recognized Margot Ellsbury from the public gallery.

Margot Ellsbury walked to the witness table on the appellant’s side of the room because the petitioner’s witness table was occupied.

Margot Ellsbury was sworn by the ZBA clerk.

Calvin Drake asked Margot Ellsbury to walk the panel through the interpretation guide’s intended scope.

Margot Ellsbury walked the panel through the interpretation guide for approximately six minutes.

Margot Ellsbury cited three prior mixed-use projects in the city in which the interpretation guide had been applied in the same manner as the petitioner’s project and conditional use approvals had been granted.

Margot Ellsbury cited the publication record showing the guide had been published in the city’s official publication of record three years ago with a thirty-day public comment period and a final adoption by the Planning Department’s executive review committee.

Margot Ellsbury said the interpretation guide is the Planning Department’s official interpretation of the code provision it interprets.

Calvin Drake asked Margot Ellsbury whether the interpretation guide is binding on the Planning Department’s own application of the parking calculation.

Margot Ellsbury said yes.

Calvin Drake asked Margot Ellsbury whether the Planning Department applied the parking calculation as set forth in the interpretation guide in the original conditional use approval decision on the petitioner’s project.

Margot Ellsbury said yes.

Calvin Drake thanked Margot Ellsbury.

Margot Ellsbury returned to the front row of the public gallery.

Calvin Drake called for the panel’s deliberation.

The three panel members conferred at the bench for approximately four minutes.

Calvin Drake gaveled the deliberation back to order.

Calvin Drake said, the panel finds that the Planning Department interpretation guide constitutes the department’s official interpretation of the relevant zoning code section, was submitted with the original conditional use approval application at page forty-seven of the supplemental documentation, was not entered into evidence at the original appeal hearing, was not cited by the hearing officer in the original appeal decision, and constitutes new evidence not available at the original hearing within the meaning of the city ZBA rehearing standard.

Calvin Drake said, the panel finds that the residential-unit parking waiver in the interpretation guide applies to the petitioner’s project.

Calvin Drake said, the panel finds that the appeal argument is inconsistent with the Planning Department’s interpretation guide and the director’s letter confirming the guide’s applicability to this project.

Calvin Drake said, the panel reverses the prior ZBA decision and affirms the Planning Commission’s original conditional use approval.

Calvin Drake said, the rehearing decision is final on the date of issuance.

Calvin Drake gaveled the rehearing closed at four forty-two.

I stood up from the witness table.

I gathered the rehearing exhibits into a manila folder.

I walked out of the ZBA hearing chamber.

I did not look at Todd Whitfield on the way out.

I did not look at Christopher Tindall on the way out.

I rode the elevator down to the ground floor of the city hall.

I walked across the marble lobby of the city hall to the south entrance.

Joan Novak walked beside me.

Joan Novak said, Norma.

Joan Novak said, the construction can resume in the morning.

I said, thank you.

I drove back to the studio.

I called the general contractor.

I told the general contractor the rehearing decision had affirmed the original conditional use approval.

I told the general contractor the construction could resume the following morning.

The general contractor said the standby crew was ready to remobilize.

The general contractor said the grading equipment was ready to roll on the south end of the site at seven the following morning.

I called Margot Ellsbury’s office to thank the director for her appearance.

The director’s executive assistant said the director was unavailable and that she would pass along the message.

I sat at my drafting table at the studio at five forty-five Wednesday evening.

I closed the rehearing exhibit folder.

I locked the folder in the project file cabinet.

I drove home.

I cooked dinner.

I sat at the kitchen table with a glass of water.

The construction documents would resume the next morning.

The construction documents had not stopped during the standby hold.

The construction documents were the construction documents.

The work was the work.

The work held.

The general contractor remobilized the construction at seven the following Thursday morning.

The general contractor finished the site grading the following week.

The general contractor poured the foundation slab in the third week after the rehearing.

The general contractor framed the steel column grid in the fifth week.

The general contractor enclosed the building envelope in the eleventh week.

The general contractor completed the rough mechanical, electrical, and plumbing in the seventeenth week.

The general contractor completed the interior finishes in the twenty-eighth week.

The general contractor delivered the building for occupancy at the end of the thirty-fourth week.

The city certificate of occupancy was issued at the end of the thirty-fifth week.

The certificate of occupancy was issued eight months after the rehearing decision was gaveled closed.

The eight months from the rehearing decision to the certificate of occupancy was approximately three weeks longer than the original project schedule because of the standby hold during the appeal.

The twenty-eight thousand dollars of standby fees from the general contractor stayed in the project budget as a line-item carrying cost.

The twenty-eight thousand dollars of standby fees was not recoverable from Todd Whitfield.

Todd Whitfield’s appeal had been brought through the ZBA process which did not provide for fee-shifting to a losing appellant on a procedural rehearing decision.

I absorbed the twenty-eight thousand dollars into the project budget.

The project closed approximately three percent over the original construction budget.

The three percent over the original construction budget was within the contingency reserve I had carried on the project from the start.

The contingency reserve had been planned at five percent.

The three percent overrun was within the planned contingency.

The five percent contingency reserve was the contingency reserve.

The contingency reserve was the contingency reserve because projects had standby holds.

Projects always had standby holds for one reason or another.

The standby hold on this project had been the appeal.

The standby holds on prior projects had been other things — weather, supplier delays, change orders.

The contingency reserve absorbed standby holds.

The contingency reserve was the work.

The work held.

I moved my studio from the leased space on the east side of the city to the ground floor of the new building on the morning of the certificate of occupancy.

The studio move took two trips with a rented box truck and the help of my brother and his son.

The studio settled into the new ground floor space across the following weekend.

The studio’s drafting table sat at the south end of the new ground floor, facing the window onto Mossbluff Avenue.

The studio’s project file cabinets sat along the north wall.

The studio’s reference library sat along the west wall.

The studio’s client meeting table sat in the center of the ground floor with four chairs around it.

The four residential units on the second and third floors were leased to four tenants within six weeks of the certificate of occupancy.

The four tenants had been selected from a pool of fourteen applicants through the regional rental application service that I had retained for the leasing.

The four tenants were a graduate student in microbiology at the regional research university, a junior engineer at a structural engineering firm two blocks east of the new building, a school librarian at the elementary school three blocks south, and a graphic designer running a small freelance practice.

The four tenants paid rent on time.

The four tenants did not call me about emergencies.

The four tenants were the tenants.

The building was the building.

The studio was the studio.

The construction documents that had developed at the drafting table during the standby hold were closed out into the project archive.

The interpretation guide was filed in the project archive at the same page forty-seven of the supplemental documentation tab.

The director’s letter was filed beside the interpretation guide.

The rehearing decision was filed beside the director’s letter.

The original ZBA appeal decision was filed beside the rehearing decision as the record of what had been reversed.

I keep the legislative ID badge — no, the architectural license certificate — in a frame on the south wall of the studio above the drafting table.

The architectural license certificate is the architectural license certificate that I have renewed each year for the past nineteen years.

The architectural license certificate is not the temporal object of this story.

The temporal object of this story is the on-site temporary fence between the project site and Todd Whitfield’s property.

The on-site temporary fence sat at the fence line three feet inside my property line during the standby hold.

The on-site temporary fence came down when the general contractor remobilized after the rehearing.

The on-site temporary fence was replaced with the final permanent property-line fence that the project plans called for at the close of the project.

The final permanent property-line fence is a five-foot wood privacy fence with a metal cap that runs from the front property line on Mossbluff Avenue to the rear property line at the alley.

The final permanent property-line fence sits on the surveyed property line as confirmed by the surveyor’s stake-out plan during the site mobilization phase.

The final permanent property-line fence is the fence between my building and Todd Whitfield’s property.

The final permanent property-line fence is the fence.

The on-site temporary fence is gone.

The final permanent property-line fence is the only fence on that side now.

The final permanent property-line fence is the work.

The work held.

I do not know Todd Whitfield’s current status on the appeal costs that his land-use attorney charged for the original appeal.

I do not know whether Todd Whitfield paid the appeal costs in full or whether he negotiated a reduction with Christopher Tindall.

I do not need to know.

The appeal costs are not my business.

The construction documents are my business.

The construction documents are the construction documents.

The construction documents continue.

The next set of construction documents on the drafting table is a client project on a commercial conditional use approval for a small daycare facility three neighborhoods to the south.

The daycare facility’s conditional use approval application is in the pre-application phase.

The pre-application phase includes a review of the Planning Department’s interpretation guides for any applicable interpretation that should be entered into the application supplemental documentation.

I cite the interpretation guides by section number and page number in the pre-application checklist.

I attach the relevant interpretation guides as supplemental documentation in the formal application.

I confirm with the Planning Department staff that the relevant interpretation guides are reflected in the formal review.

I do this on every conditional use approval I file from this project forward.

I do this because the interpretation guides are the interpretation guides.

I do this because the interpretation guides are not advisory.

I do this because the interpretation guides are the Planning Department’s interpretation of the zoning code section that the interpretation guides interpret.

I do this because the interpretation guides are binding on the Planning Department’s own application of the zoning code section.

I do this because the interpretation guides cost me twenty-eight thousand dollars in standby fees the one time I did not confirm that the hearing officer had read page forty-seven.

The next hearing officer will read page forty-seven.

The next hearing officer will read every page in the supplemental documentation.

The next hearing officer will read the application.

The application is the application.

The work is the work.

The work held.

I sit at my drafting table on the south end of the new ground floor studio in the morning.

The studio’s drafting table faces the window onto Mossbluff Avenue.

The morning sun comes through the window at a low angle in the winter and at a high angle in the summer.

The morning sun lights the drafting paper on the table.

The construction documents on the table are the daycare facility’s construction documents.

The construction documents are in the schematic design phase.

The schematic design phase is the first phase of the project.

The first phase of the project is the easy phase.

The easy phase is the easy phase because the first phase has no construction holds, no standby fees, and no rehearing petitions.

The first phase has only the drafting paper and the pencil and the eraser and the scale rule and the architectural license certificate framed on the south wall above the drafting table.

I look up from the drafting table sometimes in the morning when the sun is at a low angle in the winter and look across Mossbluff Avenue at Todd Whitfield’s house.

Todd Whitfield’s house is the same house it was three years ago when I purchased the lot at the corner of Mossbluff and Fifteenth.

Todd Whitfield’s car is in his driveway in the morning before he leaves for work.

Todd Whitfield’s car is not in his driveway in the late morning.

I do not look at Todd Whitfield’s house for long.

I look at the construction documents.

The construction documents are the work.

The work is the work.

I have not had a coffee with Todd Whitfield since the rehearing.

I have not spoken to Todd Whitfield since the rehearing.

Todd Whitfield has not knocked on the studio door since the rehearing.

Todd Whitfield mows his lawn on Saturday mornings.

Todd Whitfield washes his car on Sunday afternoons.

The fence between his property and mine is the final permanent property-line fence.

The fence is five feet tall.

The fence is wood.

The fence has a metal cap.

The fence is on the surveyed property line.

The fence is the fence.

The fence is the boundary.

The boundary is the boundary.

The boundary is the work.

The work held.

I think about the ZBA hearing officer Russell Spiers sometimes.

I do not know whether Russell Spiers still works for the city.

I do not know whether Russell Spiers reads page forty-seven of any supplemental documentation that is submitted with any conditional use approval application that arrives on his desk now.

I do not need to know.

The interpretation guide is on file with the Planning Department.

The interpretation guide is the Planning Department’s interpretation of the zoning code section that the interpretation guide interprets.

The interpretation guide is binding on the Planning Department’s own application of the zoning code section.

The interpretation guide will be applied by the Planning Department staff on every mixed-use conditional use approval application that matches the project profile that the interpretation guide addresses.

The interpretation guide will be on file with the Planning Department after I retire.

The interpretation guide will be on file with the Planning Department after Margot Ellsbury retires.

The interpretation guide will be on file with the Planning Department after Todd Whitfield sells his house and moves out of the neighborhood.

The interpretation guide will be on file with the Planning Department after the new ground floor studio is no longer the new ground floor studio.

The interpretation guide is the work.

The work is the work.

The work held.

I close the drafting paper at five forty-five in the afternoon.

I lock the project file cabinets.

I lock the studio.

I walk up the back stairs to the second floor.

I walk down the corridor to the door of my own residential unit on the second floor.

I unlock the door.

I close the door behind me.

I cook dinner.

I sit at the kitchen table with a glass of water.

The building is the building.

The studio is the studio.

The residential unit is the residential unit.

The fence is the fence.

The interpretation guide is the interpretation guide.

The work is the work.

The work held.