with that being said, i will leave it for questions if you have any more about the nuisance activity. president garcia: these are things that are taking place while this project was going forward and i guess what i was interested in is some statement other than a nuisance, other than technical issues. as to why your client is opposed to allowing this project to happen. i am not necessarily clear. >> as i pointed out, there is the interest, egress problem. there is parking. president garcia: that has to do with the project that is going on. as opposed to what is wrong with the project, not anticipating those problems, or not having those problems. >> i am not understanding you treated -- i am not understanding you. president garcia: the ingress-

egress problems and paint falling are terrible problems. you would ask the board to overturn a permit based upon things that are a function of the process of doing the remodeling. why is your client opposed to the remodeling? >> it goes back to the common area. the one item being this hot issue. there is still the issue of the water heater and the furnace that are going to be part of the common area and placed there by the co-owner without my clients 's consent. it goes back to the first issuance when my client was not provided notice and the permit holder had this permit issued without the proper approvals. that is going to be a problem until saatchi sells the property -- until she sells the property. there is a problem with that,

area and that person does not have a notice that my client did not approve that and that cannot be a part of this permit. president garcia: it has been a while since i read this. we read it at a meeting was to take place march 14. in my notes, i do not have anything about the water heater being a problem. was that in some brief that i failed to make a note about? >> that was part of the new permit that came up in the interim period between the briefing and looking at what has been said today, there are items in the permit that are not covered. if the board were to revise this -- were not covered being removed with this revision permit. it will be an ongoing problem and it is not clear from mr. soriano or the briefing whether those will be removed. commissioner hillis: where is the water heater and phoenix

now? >> i am not sure. it is not on the roof. it would be placed there as part of this new permit. it was part of the roof deck, that whole arrangement. it is unclear whether that is going forward. >> thank you. mr. soriano, you have three minutes of rebuttal. >> thank you. i think that president garcia has hit the nail on the head with his questioning. there is no complaint about any aspect of this permitted work. they are looking for a way to dumb up this project. there have been a lot of misrepresentations on this. the revised plans do not show any water heater or furnace on the roof and there will not be anything on the roof. to clarify this whole thing, perhaps the easiest solution

from the board, what we would ask for is to modify the original permit to remove the roof deck. that way, we do not have to proceed with the revised en route deck, the notice issues or hearing issues on that. everybody knows what the scope of work is. these new items were not in the brief period that are less second items brought up to try to address the concern that there are no legitimate complaints being made here. mr. duffy said the revised permit was the same as the original permit without the roof deck. that is what we said we are going to do and that is what we are representing to you now. perhaps the easiest thing to do is to modify the original permit with the board saying the roof deck will not go forward. we have no common area issue and we do not have a single practical, articulate all complaint about any aspect of this permit. commissioner hillis: the skylight issue, i could not tell

where that was. where is that? >> i assume the skylights are from the revised permit because there is no reason? in a would allow for skylights to be there. there already are skylights. that issue could be solved by revising the original permit. commissioner hillis: it is not in your plan to put in a skylight. >> it may be in the revised plan, but it is not an important part of any job. commissioner hillis: what about the furnace? >> there is no furnace in the revised plans. that was part of the roof decking. the contractor is here if you want to ask him. commissioner fung: your original permit calls for a furnace. >> because there was going to be a significant roof deck. now there is not want to work on the roof. if you want an answer about the

furnace, i can invite brian shepherd of here to tell you about it. but we do not have an issue about common area work anymore. commissioner hillis: you have to revise that permit to move or push the furnace somewhere else. no longer going on the roof deck. >> possibly so. it has been approved. the revised plan was also approved. commissioner hillis: in the revised plan shows is someone else -- somewhere else. >> i would assume so. how do you approve it without a furnace? the plans show that there is nothing on the roof. commissioner hillis: can we hear from the contractor? >> the original permit does reference the skylight. it talks about resizing and reshaping the skylight. >> my name is brian shepherd. the furnace, as part of the

original scope of work, is located in the attic crawl space at the ceiling of the second unit. he was never in the plan to be on the roof and it is not located on the roof. it will be located between the ceiling and the roof rafters, in which there is a significant crawlspace. the water heater was originally scheduled to be where the roof deck is. that is relocated to within the unit of sanford specter. commissioner fung: in the revised permit. >> the scalise modifications are -- there were two skylights added to the revised because there is not going to be a roof deck. the permit holder wanted to utilize the space and provide more natural light. commissioner hillis: my question

on the skylight is, is that a modification of the common area since it is a modification of the roof? is the skylight in or out? >> and that is why i keep going back and suggest that you can modify the original permit to remove the roof deck and you would not have the skylight issue. commissioner hillis: i do not know if i agree with that. it is in the revised permit. >> i am saying to go back to the original permit with a modification from this board. go-ahead. commissioner fung: you made two changes. one is the location of the water heater and one is the skylight. >> he just said it is in the attic. the original was supposed to be on the roof. the revised permit is not on the roof but in a different location inside the unit. commissioner hillis: we could

revise the original permit to remove the roof deck, put the hot water heater in the unit, and make no rivet -- and take out any revisions. >> that is what my thought was. >> how would we address his desire to have skylights? >> that would require an application for a revised permit. >> mr. duffy. >> on the revision permit, i did not see the skylights. there was an existing skylight on the original permit and it was to be made bigger on the original permit. they did have an existing

skylight before this all started, just to point it out. it is really unfortunate that we do not have the revision permits or plans in front of lust. i do not know why they are not here. i have not a clue that was approved. we are talking about something without seeing a plan. that is difficult for everybody. commissioner fung: in your opinion, the relevancy of the revision permit -- are there elements of its that can be covered by conditions done by this board to the original permit? >> no, i think you are right in what you're saying. it could have been a simple board putting conditions on the

original current. the only thing that hasn't come into play about the revision permits is adding skylights. the roof deck was removed on the revision permit, but then they added scalise. i do not know what skylights they are. maybe the language to -- for the existing skylight to remain as original, that might be ok for them as well. and the water heater to remain not on the roof. president garcia: if we leave the water heater on the roof -- >> it would remain in original condition, inside the unit. were the work is being done. president garcia: and do we need to worry about where they put the furnace? it is not done properly, they do

not get a cfc? >> at long as it is inside the unit, i do not think it would be a problem. that should be ok. there may be something we might need a revision four. i am not sure. i would need to go back to the drawing to see it. that is normally where we see them. having it on the roof is a little bit unusual. inside units is normally where we see them. commissioner hillis: can we ask the appellant? if we modify the permit, to remove the water here from the roof, and eliminate any alterations to the skylight, the roof deck, would you agree there is no changes to the roof area? >> without seeing the plans -- commissioner hillis: this is the original permit so you have seen the plans for the original. >> correct. i have not seen the revision

plans at all. commissioner hillis: we are talking about the original. if you remove the roof deck, alterations to the skylight, and the roof deck -- >> meaning keep it in its unit, where it exists? commissioner hillis: are there any other modifications being done. >> the only other thing i am not aware of is any work in the garage area. i do not know how that comes into play with any of these existing items. that is common area, how that falls into play. i have not seen the new plans. commissioner hillis: what is before us is the old permit. >> ok. as long as, without modification, is that going to be appealable? commissioner hillis: no. this would be the result of your

appeal of the permit? -- this would be the result of your appeal of the permit. >> just so you know, the revision permit was issued on january 31. in my opinion, it should have -- it should not have been issued while this matter was still pending by the board. unless you have further questions for any of the parties, that is it. president garcia: president garcia: we have got to lead this out of the wilderness. commissioner hillis: normally, when there is a revision permits, is that appealable? >> normally. and this one would have been as well. normally, when a matter has been before the board, as you alluded to before --

president garcia: we created that complexity. when the parties came before us, they said they would remove the roof deck. we told them they need a revision. i will not add any comment. commissioner hillis: i would support of holding the original permit but removing the roof deck, the water heater from the roof, and any modifications to the skylight, which i do not think was part of the original permit. commissioner fung: it is. the original says replace and resize the skylights. commissioner hillis: i would say we remove that from the original permit. commissioner fung: i think there is some rationale for that. this could be a civil case given

some of their disagreements. if we remove the skylight, it removes one issue would be a deterrent -- which would be determined by the court of law as to what the roof is in terms of common area or not. i do not think we are going to decide that. and i concur with that. but i would ask the project sponsor that, if we did that, and modified the existing permit, that makes the revision permit moot. whether you would accept that. otherwise, we could all told this permit without certain things and let the revision

permits have a jurisdiction request. president garcia: do you have a question for mr. soriano? >> and you wanted me to respond to that? what we are saying is yes, we would be ok on giving up the revision permit, accepting your modifications to the original permit, which would say, only the existing skylight will remain, no modifications to anything on the roof. commissioner fung: and the deletion of the water heater from the roof. >> yes. everything that commissioner hillis has mentioned i think is reasonable. president garcia: i am not clear

on what we want to redo the replace and resize skylights from the original permit. commissioner fung: just keeping stuff away from the contentious area. commissioner hillis: it seems like the roof is common area. on the ccnr's, it would avoid us having to weigh in on whether that is common area. they are willing to give it up. president garcia: sure. do you want to make your comments a motion? commissioner hurtado? commissioner hurtado: i am in agreement with how it was stated. president garcia: do you want to make a motion? >> if you are going to modify the permit, you are going to

grant the appeal. commissioner hillis: with modifications that eliminates the roof deck, resizing or replacing the skylight, and the water heater on the roof. >> you are striking the scope of work in the permit that is before us that speaks to the skylight? commissioner hillis: correct. >> by removing all work in any potential, an area, the lot number on this permit before signing it, correct? commissioner hillis: hopefully we can put them on the internet.

>> what about the exteriors there to the roof? -- the exteriors stair to the roof? so we are striking the roof deck, and the exteriors stair. and all work on the skylight and water heater. so then, to reiterate, the motion is from commissioner hillis to grant this appeal. the permit is being upheld but is being condition, modified.

the scope -- the following is being struck from the permit -- the roof deck is being struck, the exterior stair to the roof deck is being struck, all work on the skylight and water hero -- and water heater is also being struck. with the finding of the blocking lot number is correct. >> and for the benefit of the department of building inspection, we will withdraw the revised permit so it alleviates confusion. i want to point out that the roof deck will look as it is shown on the original plans. it will stay the same as what has been shown. president garcia: did you want to counterbalance remarks made and put some praise on dbi? [laughter] >> i do not go on the record contradicting pat buscovich

whenever i can avoid it. i have nothing but praise for dbi. >> on the motion to grant the permit with all the changes being struck -- commissioner fung: aye. president garcia: aye. commissioner hurtado: aye. >> the permit is upheld with all those conditions and that finding. thank you. >> we can move on to item eight, appealed number 12-005. the property is at 2754 through 2756 beckers street, protesting the issuance to kevin robinson and jake vink a permit to alter a building -- wide in a garage

door, reconfigure walls at back of a garage, electrical upgrade for condo conversion, new insulated windows at sides and rear, remodeled kitchen and bath, add new bath, and refurbish existing penthouse. we'll start with the appellant. you have seven minutes. >> good evening, members of the board. my name is jeff -- is geoff wood. hopefully, we have an easier appealed to figure out here. the permit holder wants to do mostly a lot of interior work, which we do not have any real objection to. "we are concerned about is the -- what we are concerned about is the plan for the roof deck. by way of introduction, we did

try to meet with the permit holder before finding the appeal to resolve our issues. we got close, but i guess were unable to reach agreement. we have three main concerns. most of them involve loss of privacy, air, and sunlight. to start with, this is a copy of the permit holder's plan for the roof deck. i would just point out a couple of things on this plan. the first concern involves the north part of the roof deck. you can see a dotted line at the lower bottom of this picture.

the roof rail baekeland is a 30 inch solid wood rail -- the roof rail they planned is a 30 inch solid wood rail. it has been changed to 32 inches from 36, another 6 inches. my objection is i am the property owner on that side of the roof of their property. i have a back down below. sunlight, air, and white will be blocked by the roof rail. it is right at the edge of the light. what i have asked them to do --

the simplest way would be to move it back about a foot and a half, so it is 5 feet from the property line. they can keep the same configuration and want to have on the rest of the roof rail. that would give me the sunlight the roof rail would cut out. this is a north facing back, so sunlight is very important. the deckhouse right now blocks a big part of the sunlight we get on the deck. we are really concerned about adding more features that would block the sun. i think that is asolution. it does not really reduce the size of their deck much, and it is cheaper than reconfiguring it at the location it was, because that is within a 5 foot

fire zone and would have to be safety glass. second concern involves a skylight on the south side. that a concerned their privacy is disturbed. the bedroom is right there at the top of the third floor, right there in their building. the roof deck -- people on the roof deck can look at the dressing room. the bedroom is on one side. there is a bathroom there. they are concerned about privacy. the plan shows the barbecue up against the light will. they are not sure they want to smell the barbecue sauce and so forth while they are in their house.

that will also affect anybody else on that. it is going to be a condo. there is another unit down below, and on top of the building. our suggestion is to move the roof rails back about 2 feet, so it is even with the deckhouse, as shown on the dotted line on this plan. our third concern is the roof on the east side of the deckhouse -- the plans show very little improvement to take place. they really are not going to use that portion of the deck, but they want access to it. they show a new door and stair going from the deckhouse to that portion of the roof.

i am concerned that use their -- there will cause the same problems in lack of privacy and so forth on my deck down below. and the same with the people on the other side of this property. their bedroom privacy will be invaded, if that part of the deck is used. we would like no use of the deck. i think that is what the permit holders intend, but they show this new door astaire. the access could be provided by a little gate like they have shown on their plan. this line is an existing date they have proposed. we would like to have them put another date of their -- another gate there,