peterson: i concur. >> does he meet the requirements of section 1104? >> that is correct. >> think you. >> please call the roll. >> the motion is to uphold the denial. >> aye. >> aye.

>> aye. >> aye. >> the denial is upheld. >> thank you. >> we can move on to item number 9. >> item number9 is mukulla and goodwin versus the department of building inspection, appeal number 10-60. the property is at 182 sagamore street protesting a permit to alter a building and at the start to be constructed at the

second floor, adding a new window and door. >> the evening, commissioners. on may 28th, there was a neighboring property right next door and let me get every one oriented. this is the street, this is our neighbor's residence and the issue is a deck that will be constructed which is directly adjacent.

we received notice on may 28th. when she was aware of the project, she thought it was a patio. she was made aware that this was a tax that was directly adjacent. we did meet with the neighbors and trying to work out an agreement on this and we have seen the exhibits which are about to show the commission. this is the debt -- deck. this is now looking this way, this is the back of 182. this is at her bedroom.

the issue that we have this that mr. godwin has a light well in the fact that is the primary source of light into our bedroom as well as her dining room. if you look at the photograph, this is pretty much off of her dining room window. this is different than an enclosed edition. they said that this was to provide place face for the family. this would be about 3 feet from the bedroom. she's concerned about the loss of natural light from the windows. we are working at a couple of solutions in order to give the neighbors what they wanted.

we wanted to see if he could keep the same area but it just oriented it a little bit different. in this case, about 8 feet or so. we even tried to play around with this their configurations. we have to go up and go to the planning process. this was completed, that was a valid concern. here is the compromise that we were trying to work out. we are keeping the deck as it is. we are hoping that they can remove about 10 square feet from the deck and get a stand back. this is the solution they offered. they won to make the portion

transparent with blazing in order to minimize the light impact. this is what we look like from the bedroom. this will help to preserve the natural light. this would help to cover from the noise of. we can get an agreement. we are close and the neighbors backed away from the solution for if you reasons. they would have to amend the building permit and they would have to come up with some additional costs. this would be a minor amendment to the permit and the difference would be about $200. this would be one thing if she was aware of these changes before hand but this was all discovered after the fact.

we're hoping that the solution we are proposing is a reasonable compromise. >> you said it would require some amendment to the permit. what process would be involved? >> i think they would have to modify the structural shrines because they would have to change how this is working out. >> thank you. >> this board made those changes. the plans would come here. we would order the changes to this permanent and a new permit would be made but this would not be able to be appealed. >> you did not submit any briefing?

>> no, we did not. >> did you see this a mission by the project's sponsor? >> we did have a chance to review this. >> i'm trying to understand. is your client's bedroom in the structure? >> correct. >> there are no other windows off the side? >> correct. if you go to the side, that is a light rail. >> this is an extension? >> yes, it was built in the

early 1990's. >> this is the gap that provides a natural light. >> thank you. can we hear from the permit holder or your agent? >> good evening, i am representing my client, the property owner. we will answer any questions

that you have. before that, maybe i can take some time to explain this project. basically, the gap is the side that faces according to the building and planning code. we are looking to preserve privacy, light and ventilation. that is set back 3 feet from the properties. we are trying to minimize any questions raised by our neighbors and we try to respect their privacy and everything. we do believe that a 35 -- 3 feet setback is quite enough to our neighbor, especially they

have a three story building at much higher than ours. our debt is only 8 feet tall. you are looking about 11 feet or 12 feet, this is not even the middle of the building. i don't see how this will impact the light, the installation, or vision. basically, we are facing the property wall. this is what i'm trying to explain. if you have any information, i'm happy to discuss this. >> is the compromise off the table? >> no, we tried to compromise something with them except it

seems that this is too much for us. we tried to offer a class which they asked for. we are willing to spend extra money to install the glass to compromise. they have only the light well which you can see in the pictures and we tried to set this back two feet more to make them happy but unfortunately, this will change the shape and then we have changed the structure as well so it will cost my client something and we will have to submit the plans back to the city because of the changing structure. we have to spend extra money to

install the safety glass we tried to compromise something. this is not really fair to my client, that is all i can say. >> you are willing to install the safety glass but not necessarily a compromise the space. you want to maintain the square. >> we to understand this. >> you feel that this will dressed alike issue, is that correct? >> yes, we agree with that. >> you are not willing to cut into the space? >> that will change the shape. you can see the offset. would you say that the

additional cut has no impact on the light? >> i doubt it. this is slightly over the fence a little bit. this is 6 feet and 7 feet. i don't see if this is necessary to do that. this would create a lot of things for us to do. >> i and stand. thank you. >> are there any comments from the department? >> just a few notes about the

process, the debt is less than 10 feet high and set back from the property lines and it is not located within the required rearguard and this can be done without any additional notification. on the residential guidelines, we would have a setback of 3 feet. this is already set back 3 feet as noted by the project sponsor. this is about 8 feet high. we approved a permit, we would be pleased to work with the project sponsor to develop some kind of alternative if the board desires and they could do that, they could cut back provided that they don't move it any closer to the property on the other side. >> they need to amend the permit

in order to do the class? >> i would believe so, yes? that has been noted for the record. >> what is the zoning? >> this is re -- rh1. they are well within a buildable area. >> is there any public comment? seeing none, we will move into rebuttal >> our understanding is that things can be filed and son in code but the review is still providing notification in case there is some condition that was not addressed by code that might still be an issue and it gives the appellant a chance to address that. we understand that you can come

within 3 feet, the issue is that if you look at the house, this is a natural light well. what we're asking for is quite reasonable. the original configuring of the deck, and now we are looking at pulling this. we have engineers on staff to look at the cost and i have billed decks myself. this is not that big a deal. this is basically 2 feet by 5 feet and this is very easy to frame and this is quite doable. what i want to point out is that miss doblin did try to work with the neighbors and contact them to find out what the plans were. she was confused. the only way she could get a copy was when this notice was filed and she discovered that she had a right to appeal. the appeal was filed and that is when the neighbors began to negotiate. i want to point out the it is that we had in terms as the

deck, where these for offered by our neighbors. i'm not sure why these were pulled out, we are pretty close to getting this. the reason we would like to see this is that is not interfering with the issues but if is not taken out, it would be very for a subsequent owner to have this in the back. this would insure on whatever terms that we would have with their neighbors. >> the reason we would like to see this is that the release was stay in place. this would be very easy for someone to modify the railing back to where was as opposed to staying in the back. >> i'm not following your rationale. i don't see much benefit. with love to hear a little bit

more. >> what we're trying to do is to stand this in the back >> we have this one, the concern that we have, we are using this as a children's play space. what we're trying to do is to keep that as far away from the window as we can. that is why we proposed 5 feet and this was back to 5 feet and that is why we said ok. they originally proposed to the amount will that was there. we would like to of a platform to push that back in the future. >> i would like to see the picture underneath. if you don't have the bite, you

are concerned that a subsequent fire would do what? >> what they're saying is that of their grain and they're pulling this back. if this portion existed, it would very easy for someone to move this back. >> i thought they wanted to keep this is where. >> there are two separate issues. there is a platform deck, then there is where the railing as that. >> the permit holder offered to move the rail and keep the edge of the deck. >> the only thing on the table is the glass. >> as i understand it now. >> thank you.

>> i am very willing to work with my neighbors and they did not notify me after i saw that there was a construction going on. i thought this was a patio. i had to leave town and when i returned i was very shocked to see this deck outside my window on the same level as my bedroom. i have just recently besides having to take care of the two 89-year-old parents whiskey's the way for my house, i need to get extra rest because i've been diagnosed with heart disease and i'm very concerned about children playing in the area when my schedule is so hectic and the need to rest at times during the day. i thought we could settle this

before coming as the original plan proposed which was to remove this 8 feet off of my home but instead we have been very willing to compromise and allow a five-foot total from my window. right now, i'm kind of said, i'm having chest pains. i really do need to have as much of an area possible that would allow quiet and allow me to rest when i need to during the day as well as come up with what i felt was as a very reasoned a compromise.

>> we fully understand our neighbors' concerns except the work we have done this completely following the instruction, rules, codes. we understand that we need to be in compliance with the neighborhood. what i'm saying is that there are too many things, we would just draw a line. we did try to solve the problem with them and even willing to

spend extra money to make it work. this will break down the shape of our debt. we need to do a lot of extra work. then the construction costs are not as simple. as far as i know, safety glass cost 200 per piece. that cost at least $600. we will have to revise our plan. that is another $300. if we do everything correctly, why do we have to do things like this. that is my question.

that does not mean that we denying things, we tried to work done something with them, we tried to set direction this. >> would this be unsightly or impractical to have the class only at the portion of the deck or the like well is? >> they raised this concern. we set back two feet when you see outside, you don't see anything blocking. >> was the question clear? it portion of her light well that lines up with the debt, you put this only in that section would that be impractical? >> i think that that is

something they're willing to do. >> we're talking about three pieces of glass. >> when you mention three pieces of glass, is that the entire length of the railing or is that just for the abortion? >> this is the light well and then another piece, says they have created this -- to align >> forget that. the portion of the deck that lines up with the opening to create the light well, would this be impractical or unsightly to put a glass of their and their only? >> i don't think so. >> for i don't think that this would impact the light well at all. >> the question is do you think it would look bad from your

client's perspective? >> the commissioner was interested in hearing the perspective of your client, what do you think that putting the glass in that space that has been discussed will look bad >> you mentioned three pieces of glass, do you need 341 space or three for the entire length. >> can you put this on the overhead?

someone had a picture of the proposal with the glass. if you can show that, maybe i can ask a semi-intelligent question. >> look at what is on the overhead. >> that is the first piece. they have one piece and then another piece. >> in other words, it runs the entire length of the deck. >> there are only three pieces. >> is there another picture we can see the side? yes, there it is. do you understand? >> these are three equal pieces. >> that is because of the --

>> yes. >> you would only probably need one. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> there is no for the department of comments. >> the matter submitted. >> what is issue here is what is equitable for both parties and this is not just one side or the other several things -- or the other. several things come out in this discussion, some of it seems to be a little bit contradictory. starting from the existing configuration, it is clear that based upon the zoning that both parties have some capability of extending full height b