« Condo Conversion at 219 Saint Johns Hits the Market Look, Ma, No Wheels »

September 25, 2009

DOB Posts Letter of Intent to Revoke on St. Marks Ave

Here's an update on the situation at 97 St. Marks Avenue that we wrote about two days ago: In response to complaints that were lodged, the Department of Buildings made two visits to the worksite, one on Wednesday and on one Thursday. Yesterday's visit resulted in the Borough Commissioner issuing a Stop Work Order as well as a 15-day Letter of Intent to Revoke. While the owner technically has 15 days to address the specific issues, a code consultant we just got off the phone with suggested that the fact that the letter was combined with a Stop Work Order means that the odds are now strongly against the owner. If anyone can clarify/expand on that reading of the situation, please do.
A Curb Cut on Landmarked St. Marks Avenue? [Brownstoner] GMAP

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/11605

Comments

good job stoner.

With great power comes great responsibility- Uncle Ben

Posted by: jack slade at September 25, 2009 10:07 AM

Success. I knew it would happen. No curb cuts allowed anymore!!!!

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 25, 2009 10:07 AM

Guess the DOB took a new looksie at the plans on file after such a buzz on b'stoner (they do read it every day, ya know).

And tisk-tisk, these plans are no good.
Ultimately they will allow the owner to refile, sans curb cut and keep going...as is the way.

Posted by: Action Jackson at September 25, 2009 10:11 AM

The DOB reads B'Stoner? How do you know this?

Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at September 25, 2009 10:14 AM

I would like an explanation of how architect/expiditer got this permit isued to begin with. (and please people - don't bring up landmarks because not allowed on non-landmarked blocks either )... what loophole were they using and/or who do they know?

Posted by: Petebklyn at September 25, 2009 10:14 AM

I wish her well with the renovations. I hope she doesn't ruin architectural detail (if it reamins) being a "decorative artist" but in the end, that's a private matter.

I just hope she wasn't bamboozled by the architects who should have known better given the zoning issue.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 25, 2009 10:14 AM

And what good is a garage without a curb cut? Can the owner just hop the car over the curb to get to it?

Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at September 25, 2009 10:14 AM

Snappy, they'll never be able to get to their garage without a curb cut, someone will be legally parked in front of it at almost all times of the day. Their lives will still be ruled by alternate side of the street parking.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at September 25, 2009 10:24 AM

Good point. So then her plans are effectively shot now. Other than the curb cut and garage, what remaining plans did she have that upset everyone?

Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at September 25, 2009 10:28 AM

Hey Brownstoner – do you ever check your web analytics to see how much of your traffic is from nyc.gov servers?

Posted by: wellheythere at September 25, 2009 10:33 AM

I think the garage was the big horror, even more than the curb cut. Plus the alleged booting out of an elderly tenant, and former building owner, in order to make a garage. All on a landmarked block.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at September 25, 2009 10:34 AM

"All on a landmarked block."

They tried to break the rules and got caught. While I personally don't have any problem with curb cuts, or garages, it's refreshing to see that (sometimes) some people don't get away with randomly breaking the law.

Posted by: East New York at September 25, 2009 10:39 AM

I do have a problem with curb cuts. The street and sidewalk are public property, and street parking is essential for many who live or work in Brooklyn. Cutting a curb effectively removes at least one street parking space. Unless the curb cut provides a public purpose, like providing six or more spaces for a multi-family building, I don't think that they should be allowed. If having private parking is important to you, you should buy a house or condo that has parking already, not try and take public land to provide yourself with private parking. The city has so far resisted requests for resident only parking because it believes that public land is for all of us.

Posted by: bohuma at September 25, 2009 10:50 AM

i am pretty SURE she can find someone who will work for a dollar an hour to sit in the space and hold it for her while she is out. perhaps put down some astroturf in the space like the city has done in many spots and call it a new urbanism parking spot park?!

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at September 25, 2009 10:50 AM

Well, I really don't mind curb cuts....they make it easier to get into the garage! Although with my Jeep, I can climb a sidewalk easily, curb cut or no curb cut.

Seriously, an urban garage is quite an amenity, and where they exist, I think they're OK. I certainly think there are bigger problems in NYC than curb cuts and/or garages. I don't think every home in Brooklyn needs to have a curb cut or a garage, but where they exist I don't begrudge them

FYI, my house doesn't have a curb cut or garage, but it's a quiet side street so parking is not an issue. I can see where it would be more of an issue in a parking-challenged place like Park Slope, B Heights, etc.

Posted by: East New York at September 25, 2009 10:57 AM

There are some beautiful places in Bed Stuy on corners with two-car garages. Envy is a terrible thing.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 25, 2009 11:06 AM

Oooh... decorative artist? Does that mean she's going to cover all of the walls with creepy faux finishes? Crackled walls, hand-painted ivy, fake marble...

This place should be a treat when it's done! :-)

Posted by: tybur6 at September 25, 2009 11:07 AM

re: side walk ownership. Technically it's not public property, when landlords are issued fines for: snow/ice , trash, cracks, and busted water mains from city trees.

Posted by: jack slade at September 25, 2009 11:11 AM

I don't know about this 'myob' thing as it pertains to parking, the use of public space, and potentially destroying the aesthetic appeal of an entire row of gorgeous old brownstones. Why on EARTH would this particular owner be allowed his/her own curb cut and parking space when no one else on the block has one? To follow the line of reasoning, how about EVERY owner do the same? And we end up with an 'historic' block of driveways, looking more like Bensonhurst then Prospect Heights or Park Slope?

There are plenty of garages at which one can pay to park their car in Brooklyn. That or alternate side parking rules that apply to everyone.

Posted by: Nokilissa at September 25, 2009 11:12 AM

While I completely agree with everyone about the aesthetic issues of curb cuts and the inherent selfishness of trying to appropriate a section of the street, jack slade is right that if somebody trips on a slate sidewalk outside your house, you get sued not the city. And the city certainly can fine you for the condition of the sidewalk outside your house so in that sense its not public. And I reiterate that I feel distinctly uneasy with the concept of sicking the DOB on somebody as it has happened to me.

Posted by: wasder at September 25, 2009 11:17 AM

"Why on EARTH would this particular owner be allowed his/her own curb cut and parking space when no one else on the block has one?"

Who said life was fair?

Posted by: East New York at September 25, 2009 11:18 AM

Well, I'm glad she can't put in the garage and all, but honestly we don't know who is actually at fault for the original paperwork- for all we know the architect or contractor misled her. We don't know the whole story about the tenant either- just from people who are obviously biased in her favor- but sorry- no tenant can be summarily kicked out and especially if she is elderly. There are laws so I would really like to know the other side. Meanwhile the owner has been raked over the coals of ignorance here and the snarking continues because she's a decorative artist. Yes- good job Jon. Not.

Posted by: bxgrl at September 25, 2009 11:23 AM

some of these old curbs cuts (which may or may not have had permits tobegin with) seem to live on in perpetuity even when not used for garage/parking. As example...on Butler off smith where at one time was a garage parking was enclosed with rest of bldg and used as part of restaurant now a clothing store. Yet they still post a big sign no parking. and by me - somehow they got a double cut - origin was 1 to a small lot for something like 5 cars...then somehow they got a double wide cut..built a 2 car garage...
and use 1 for restaurant storage and other to park 1 car.
But now they have their own reserved street parking in front of storage garage. So a double cut to for 1 off-street car.

Posted by: Petebklyn at September 25, 2009 11:31 AM

If you absolutely have to have a car (and I'm not convinced most people in Brownstone Brooklyn do, although some genuinely do, of course) - buy a house with a garage in Ditmas.

Posted by: Architerrorist at September 25, 2009 11:34 AM

Oh, right East New York.

Silly me. I forgot to simply invoke the fact that "life is not fair".

I guess we should all just refer to your truism rather than bother making attempts at improving circumstances or making life better/easier/fairer etc.

Posted by: Nokilissa at September 25, 2009 11:38 AM

i used to live at 94 St. Marks. This house is nice looking.

Posted by: Santa at September 25, 2009 11:59 AM

Whilst I am well aware of the law that requires the property owner to maintain the sidewalk in front of their property, that they're liable for injuries caused by their failure to maintain, and that the city will fine them for failure to maintain, I still think that the sidewalk is public property. The city/state/whoever has passed a law that requires property owners to maintain that piece of public property, and has shifted liability to the property owner. The property owner cannot control the access of other people to the sidewalk, e.g. by fencing it off (at least not without a temporary sidewalk shed permit) or charging a fee to use the sidewalk. Nor can the property owner do whatever s/he likes with the sidewalk, e.g. store junk their (except on trash day).

So, while I think the city has delegated maintenance to adjacent property owners, the sidewalk is still public property.

Posted by: bohuma at September 25, 2009 12:11 PM

bohuma is right. The sidewalk is public property.

Posted by: bxgrl at September 25, 2009 12:12 PM

As a relatively anti-car person, I think this is great. The restriction against curb cuts maintains the street "facade'; parked cars are a mild deterrent to speeding (the "friction effect"), and a psychological and physical safety factor for peds on the sidewalk.

Posted by: cmu at September 25, 2009 12:22 PM

Anyone who’s worked with an architect, engineer, contractor or expediter to file for permits quickly comes to realize that good firms know how to file good paperwork, i.e., paperwork with the greatest chance of obtaining a permit in an expeditious fashion. Usually that means a thoroughly accurate filing, accompanied by all required items, and with everything dotted and crossed. Does that mean that ALL filings accurately reflect alterations? No, that’s why there have been self-certifying scandals.

Wasder, I know you’re a beloved poster on this site, but you’re NOT a victim of the DOB. You’re a victim of your own choices, including your own choice to post your work on this site. When you first started posting about your purchase, I sent you a private note of caution through a 3rd party. I was worried about retaliation by a now-gone poster. I could have made my point through the comments section, but that would have acted as an invitation to anyone with ill will. When you posted your rear facade photos, various comments (not mine) quickly and very publicly noted that your deck was not built to code. Your best bet now is NOT to represent yourself, but to hire a skilled professional to help you with the DOB.

I can appreciate from very personal experience how difficult it is for new owners to become familiar with and navigate the DOB/LPC learning curve. I’ve been there myself, and continue to this day. But it’s just plain hooey for owners or professionals who roll the dice concerning permits to claim their problems were caused by narks, snitches, squealers or blog owners.

Posted by: vinca at September 25, 2009 12:37 PM

"I guess we should all just refer to your truism rather than bother making attempts at improving circumstances or making life better/easier/fairer etc."

Hey look Nokilissa, if you want to start an anti-curb-cut action group to put an immediate end to this terrible scourge that's threatening the very survival of NYC, go right ahead. No one's stopping you. I'm just pointing out that just because some people are lucky enough to have (legal) curb cuts, doesn't mean everyone will have them. It just doesn't work that way. The sidewalk IS public property. That said, there is nothing wrong with LEGAL curb cuts.

Posted by: East New York at September 25, 2009 12:39 PM

Bohuma, Same way you cant set up shop and have a picknic on the sidewalk in front of my house. There's a very thin line here.

If you conducted a door to door survey involving row houses most owners would say private. If you did the same survey and rang every bell in 15 story condo/co-op, they would say public.

Posted by: jack slade at September 25, 2009 12:43 PM

When push comes to shove it doesn't matter what I think, or what anyone else thinks, it's what the statute says and what the Appellate Court rules. I'm pretty sure that both say that the sidewalk is public property. The stoop and that little bit of garden in front of the row house, that's private and the owner can kick anybody off that. The city code refers to the sidewalk that "abuts" the property. I think that if the majority of these row house owners who think they own the sidewalk that abuts their property examine the legal title to their row house, they'll find the description does not include the sidewalk, and may specifically exclude it.

Posted by: bohuma at September 25, 2009 12:56 PM

The city law also governs activities on public land, so if someone sets up their grill in front of your house and starts having a party, you absolutely should call the local precinct - you can't picnic any where you feel like it.

Posted by: bohuma at September 25, 2009 1:05 PM

But you can put a seat out on any sidewalk(as long as you don't block it) and eat.
It IS public property and while you have some limited obligation to keep it clean, you don't own it(and BTW the city is liable for any injury on it except if its a large apartment house I think the number is 5 and above but I know 1,2 and 3's are NOT liable for someone who is hurt on the sidewalk)

Posted by: smeyer418 at September 25, 2009 1:22 PM

I thought the sidewalk was a public easement across the property, not actually held in fee by the city.

Posted by: Boerumresident at September 25, 2009 1:25 PM

the property owner is liable for injuries in places with 4 and above- I looked it up.

Posted by: smeyer418 at September 25, 2009 1:25 PM

Bohuma, I remain unmovable like the Mt Prospect. We're from 2 diffent worlds and we wont agree on this one.

Posted by: jack slade at September 25, 2009 1:28 PM

To hell with the sidewalk, you can't even have a drink on your own stoop.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 25, 2009 2:10 PM

the argument that you own the sidewalk in front of your brownstone because some people "think" you might or because you are required to keep it clean and may have other liabilities related to it is one of the most ridiculous and stupid contentions i've ever heard, even on brownstoner. your deed and survey will state exactly what you own and i am willing to bet that in most if not all of brownstone brooklyn you could not locate a single townhouse that actually owns the sidewalk or the land underneath it. that the city and other authorities can require property owners to do certain things as a condition of ownership does not actually alter what you own. and saying that the property "in that sense is not public" is totally meaningless. jack slade's ignorance will not changes hundreds of years of real property law. what a joke.

as for the DOB's action, i highly support it. as for this semi-public campaign to get the DOB to revisit their decision, i also support it. the personal stuff yesterday was and is out of bounds, but like it or not, the laws we all live by make some modifications of private property the business of the public, and are fair game. it's not a matter of jealousy regarding a curb cut. it's a matter of preserving for the public what the law says belongs to the public, which includes the curb, the sidewalk, and now, thanks to landmarking, certain aesthetic values related to the historical condition of homes in this neighborhood.

and hey, if she really wants a curb cut, the owner can just sell and buy up on park place where at least 4 or 5 houses have them.

Posted by: i disagree at September 25, 2009 2:29 PM

i disagree is correct. Look at any house survey.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 25, 2009 2:35 PM

For the record I'm against this curb cut out.

I disagree, I'm ignorant because of my comments? I said conduct a survey and there's a thin line. Check your self Tool!

DIBS- There's lot's of rules/traditions out there that are being challenged every day. Looking at ancient maps or reading the bible wont change or stop what you believe in. If you're hell bent on the "law" then you're right it's not included in survey. But, I still stand firm and would challenge all the way to the supreme court if I could. On the simple premise that I've paid my share of fines, replaced a couple of watermains and side walks because the city did not research properly and set up a tree that's costing me $$$.

I really wish a mofo would set up shop in front of my yard (minus the grill) with a checkered sheet with basket of jam/bread.

Posted by: jack slade at September 25, 2009 3:45 PM

May I ask - was the garden tenant/former owner still asked to leave? That's terrible.

Posted by: StuyHtshome at September 25, 2009 3:52 PM

It's one thing to post this on a website relating to law and agencies-such as ones where housing violations are listed. It's quite another to set up this as a personal vendetta on a blog with the intent of embarrassing, harrassing and acting as judge and jury in a situation where information comes from a disgruntled neighbor who remains anonymous. I can't wait til it happens to those of you who applauded it and ragged on an unknown woman whose motives and story we don't even know. You can't convict on circumstantial evidence in a court of law- yet some of you seem delighted to indulge in it here.

Posted by: bxgrl at September 25, 2009 4:03 PM

bxgrl - wrong all over. a) this site does relate to all things brownstone, including quite frequently things like the building code. we don't see you protesting about inappropriate content when the subject is the legalities and agencies involved in AY, do we? b) no one's acting as "judge and jury" here. the request was for the proper authorities to revisit (or visit for the first time, as it were) a decision that appeared to be against regulation. it's not as if people are conducting a sit-in in front of the bulldozers; c) i, personally, and i'm guessing most people here don't give a flying feather what her motives and story are, as they are totally and 100% irrelevant to the situation, and the things i care about. there's no intent to embarrass or harrass; the intent is solely to stop this person from doing something that flagrantly is against code and outside of the established procedure; and d) not that it matters, because this isn't a trial. but you can convict on circumstantial evidence in a court of law. absolutely, 100% permissible. "circumstantial evidence" is just as admissible as any other type of evidence in the eyes of the law.

Posted by: i disagree at September 25, 2009 4:42 PM

jack slade: yes. ignorant. there's no "thin line." the survey IS the line. in this situation, your property ends where the survey says it does. plain and simple. challenge it all the way to the supreme court if you can - you will make a bunch a lawyers rich and annoy a lot of judges and that's about it.

Posted by: i disagree at September 25, 2009 4:44 PM

Jackslade...you say there was no intent to embarass. Wrong! Did you read the original forum post that started this whole thing?

Well, we can at least try public embarrassment. Send us a photo of the front of the house and the address...
Posted by: brownstoner at September 22, 2009 7:46 PM

That's what I was hoping. I will take and send a photo tomorrow morning.Other ideas appreciated!
Posted by: prospect heights renovator at September 22, 2009 9:30 PM

Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at September 25, 2009 5:02 PM

Tool get back in pants I dont remember teaching you how to type.

You want plain and simple? Next time I'll post in "sheep" for you.

"you will make a bunch a lawyers rich and annoy a lot of judges and that's about it."

So? The fact is if I do win, most homeowners except you will be thankful to the new property line law due to Slade vs NYS.

Posted by: jack slade at September 25, 2009 5:07 PM

Insert, you're thinking about me. Thank you very little, but get clue why dont you? Those words never came out me.

Go back and read my comments on that day.

Posted by: jack slade at September 25, 2009 5:12 PM

Jack, my point is simply in response to your statement about a lack of desire to embarrass. Maybe you personally didn't have such intent, but that was the purpose behind the whole thread from Mr. B. - wag his finger at the owner and invite others to wag their fingers in unison.

Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at September 25, 2009 5:15 PM

"The fact is if I do win, most homeowners except you will be thankful to the new property line law due to Slade vs NYS."

oh yeah, it would be terrific if every few steps of sidewalk were owned by a different person! just imagine the fun of walking to the subway and navigating a gauntlet of "no trespassing" signs and fenced-in sidewalk patios. i can't think of anything better for the city than handing over our pedestrian thoroughfares to private property owners.

Posted by: z at September 25, 2009 5:25 PM

Snappy dont be thick. I just said I made no such statement!

Is the pulsa massive gunnin for Jack Slade?????

Oh no!!! dont they know he just jumped out of an airplane Navy SEAL style texting with one hand and blasting with the other. BooYA!! Hold that! Blakatah, blakatah!! Hold 2!

Have a good weekend =) Wont you be my neighbor?

Posted by: jack slade at September 25, 2009 5:28 PM

i disagree- I suggest you read the initial forum post (see snappy's post above)and Mr. B's response. If it were you I highly doubt you'd be quite so cavalier. But if you are ever in the same position I will hold you to your word that this was perfectly ok.

AY is a public issue of major proportions. My tax money and my neighborhood are being affectedAnd there is plenty of documented proof about what the deal is with AY,soomething you seem unable to admit. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and dogs.

This woman's neighbors called the proper agencies and obviously the matter is being corrected. But her neighbors went further and posted it here- with Mr. B's blessing to personally embarrass the woman because they don't like what she was doing. Seems a little Salem witch hunt for my taste. And her motives, etc certainly are relevant. If she was told by her architect there was no problem, it was legal, why assume ( and you know what assuming does) that she was behaving maliciously.) Posting her address and the situation (from the neighbors point of view only) let people post all manner of personal attacks, including dissing her profession.

And finally, brownstoner is not a law enforcement agency, LPC, DOB or anything else with a postion of authority. It's a damn blog. The only thing this blog could do is post it to embarrass the owner. Any other interpretation on your part is disingenuous. And if this is the way you want to see life conducted, have at it.

Posted by: bxgrl at September 25, 2009 5:38 PM

Jack, my apologies...I see now that I attributed a statement from idisagree to you. And no, the PLUSAs aren't gunnin' for you :) (we are far too lazy a bunch to gun for anything other than cold beer)

Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at September 25, 2009 6:13 PM

Seems to me, bxgrl, that idisagree made some valid points and rather than admitting it with good grace (and then perhaps raising valid points of your own) you took the road of belittling him/her and finding fault with his/her opinion. I see from the past that this the road you always take when someone takes a position that conflicts with yours.

Blogs can sometimes be more than blogs, by the way. The written word has an effect, whether it comes in the form of a newspaper or someone's personal musings. And, I'm not sure how we can embarrass someone when we don't know his or her name or what she looks like. At least I don't.

I could go on, but there is already an outcome.

Posted by: tiptoe at September 25, 2009 6:16 PM

tiptoe- number 1- if I agreed with her points, I would say so. Obviously I don't. She has her opinion and I have mine. You side with her- that's your perogative. I didn't belittle idisagree. Idisagree chose to use another disagreement we've had in the past to, in fact, belittle me. And idisagree has done so in the past as well. Since this has been a contentious thread for everyone- and yesterday's was no different, I can only assume you didn't read all of the posts here, nor yesterday's, nor the forum post that started the whole thing.

In fact yesterday someone found out the homeowner's name and posted the link to her facebook page, which we asked Mr. B to remove. The point is with her address part of the post, it was easy for that poster to find the information. Yes indeed, a blog can be more than a blog- in this case it was used as a means of embarrassing someone based on information from a questionable source- questionable in that it was a biased viewpoint. And as I said to idisagree, I don't think it was a good way to handle it. It obviously was not necessary as the DOB had been contacted and the proper agencies were already looking into it.

A blog is for discussion. I don't have to agree with idisagree (and the log in name should tell you something). But like I always say- I give as good as I get. Next time, take the time to read the whole thread.

Posted by: bxgrl at September 25, 2009 6:34 PM

one last thing- when I believe in something i defend my point of view. When someone makes a point that I can agree with, I will change my point of view and I have done so many times on brownstoner. Your comment, while taking me to task over idisagree, was to condemn my character, doing to me exactly what you claim I was doing to her.

Posted by: bxgrl at September 25, 2009 6:43 PM

ok since Idisagree is a girl, I'll swap Tool for a filthy wrench. Minus the "r" of course.

Snappy, it's all good.. you have beef within your own camp. Idisagree is salty because I called her out a few post ago. She moved into my neck of the woods and stated that she had an issue with a 70 year old hole. The dumbass didn't check before moving in.

Posted by: jack slade at September 25, 2009 7:24 PM

Bxgrl - while I disagree with the owner trying to install a garage in place of the garden apartment, I love your tenacity. If you are not a lawyer, you should be studying for the LSATs :)

Posted by: StuyHtshome at September 25, 2009 8:08 PM

Thank god this woman can't ruin a perfectly good block that I walk down all the time. Curb cuts in this neighborhood are illegal for a reason. They make the sidewalk, the one refuge from automobile chaos, dangerous. When there's a curb cut, I have to tell my 3 yr old to stop, and look both ways on the sidewalk. Ridiculous!

Posted by: carfreenation at September 25, 2009 8:52 PM

Curb cuts in brownstone neighborhoods are an abomination, pure evil, an irredeemable crime against civility, truth, honor, and anything remotely decent or human. They symbolize the prevailing Republican ethos of "I've got mine, eff all of you. I can take something beautiful, rare, and historic, and twist it into some horrifying mess to suit my own selfish whims, just because I bought it and it belongs to me," while ignoring the fact that if it weren't for the community around it your pile of bricks wouldn't be worth squat.

But for the original post, this thing would have gone through, and there would be one more blow against civilization. Bravo, Brownstoner.

Posted by: likes2lurk at September 25, 2009 11:49 PM

Easy, East New York. You're sort of sounding like an ass with a propensity to dramatization in order to justify or buttress your relatively weak points. (My, but what a great idea you have! I must start a GROUP to curb the SCOURGE of curb cutting, because clearly, since I made a comment protesting its practice in this case, it is for me, Nokilissa, the MOST important problem in all of NYC...)

And likess2lurk, you get a big fat smiley face. I liked that.

Posted by: Nokilissa at September 26, 2009 5:53 PM

« Condo Conversion at 219 Saint Johns Hits the Market Look, Ma, No Wheels »

September 25, 2009

DOB Posts Letter of Intent to Revoke on St. Marks Ave

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions