they needs to include every single property owner on that block. commissioner garcia: we have suggested they come back with a proposal something of their choosing and not something we impose upon them. and i think it's pretty clear at least what i would hope they would do is that they decide among themselves and the legality of it can easily be worked out if we find out that all of them are willing and part of their proposal is that we will go through the processes necessary for us to take over these trees and the maintenance of sidewalks. . .commissioner garcia: they are

cell buehrle -- note severally -- they are severally doing this. this is something that can easily be worked out. mr. bartlett is capable of explaining it to the people who are not here. commissioner hwang: so, commissioners, would you like to set a limit, or will it be an oral presentation? vice president goh: i think what we're asking for mostly are the

exhibits. so we have heard that what we would like to see from ms. short, the benefits from the trees, given their trunks, or whatever your language is for that, and we have the will we would like to see from mr. bartlett is about the trees, and then i would like to see a drawing of what the streetscape is. was there anything else? ok. does someone want to move for a continuance? commissioner hwang: we need to set the page limits. vice president goh: 3 pages. vice president goh: why 3? -- commissioner garcia: why 3? vice president goh: i made it

up. you can change it. commissioner hwang: unlimited exhibits. i am sorry. i interrupted you, commissioner garcia. vice president goh: -- commissioner garcia: i move that we continue this for all of the reasons previously stated. commissioner hwang: and i would add that it be delivered to the board the thursday prior to the hearing. secretary pacheco: the motion is from commissioner garcia to continue this until october 20, to allow time for the dpw and the appellant to produce additional information. additional briefing is allowed at five pages per party, all due on the same day. on that motion, commissioner fung, vice president goh:,

commissioner hwang. it passes. commissioner hwang: you will not receive anything in the mail. vice president goh: we are going to take a short break.

commissioner hwang: welcome back to the board of appeals meeting on september 8, 2010. mr. pacheco, could you please call item eight, our last item? secretary pacheco: item number

eight, appeal number v10-075, anne kenney vs. the zoning and illustrator dealing with 48 newton street, protesting the granted on july 1, 2010, of pravin patel, rear yard vari ance. >> good evening. it should only be in extraordinary circumstances or when it would cause difficulties or unnecessary hardship. basically, this is a case where mr. patel created hardship for himself after blatant disregard of the building permit process.

mr. patel began addition on his house without seeking a permit in his first place, and when he did file for a permit, he requested a building permit for a two-unit permit, and under the code, the section that nms. kenney is in, you are only allowed a one-unit permit. there is still remarkable evidence to show that there is a two-unit plan proceeding. there are two mail slots. there are two dresses, two -- two addresses, two satellite

hookups. the building passed the setback requirements, and then she issued another complaint. despite receiving in order to cease and desist with construction, mr. patel continued, and this application for the zoning was after he violated the setback requirement. it is just a pattern of acting first and in complying with requirements later. the purpose of zoning requirements is to maintain the enjoyment of property, and although the setback has only been violated by 1.5 feet, it is a violation nonetheless. this has caused a huge eyesore in the backyard of ms. kenney,

creating a large shadow over her yard. plants have started to die, and there is a concern about the property value in relation to this violation. and i would like to turn it over to ms. kenney so she can make a statement. >> i wanted to point out, too, the 311 that was submitted falsified information. what he basically did was for the existing conditions, he put down the proposed conditions. and he said no change for the proposed, so when we first saw it, we did not think there are going to be any changes, and when we first realized there were going to be changes, we went to the dbi and told them about it. mr. rafael came out and measured

it. there was an instance where they had a truck outside his house for one month, using it as a dumpster, so it was not even 25 feet it was supposed to be, so i went out and measured it myself with a yardstick, and i felt that he did not meet the 25 feet your requirement. also, we had asked inspector rafael to measure the building, and with the proposed conditions, for the existing conditions, he said there'd be no change and that was 66 feet, when, in fact, the building is now over 76 feet and two inches. basically, the dbi let us down. i guess that mr. rafael decided on his own to grant the

variance, because if i did not go back, it it would not have been notice. he was giving new applications, and he split the back bedroom and the family room in order to make it into an independent unit downstairs. he has got separate entrances. he has got two satellite dishes. he has got to spaces and identical for a kitchen. at one time, he had a separate refrigerator down there, but he moved that out. he is continuously breaking the law, and that he is scrambling later to resolve the issues. thank you. that is all i have to say. commissioner hwang: