like i say, we have had a good relationship. there is something else i can't put my finger on, in any event. >> owned the property for many years -- sorry, we have owned the property for many years, and we are taking care of it diligently. we are not absentee landlords. >> 74 -- 94. >> sorry, i am christopher christ. >> thank you. >> you can take a seat and you will have time for rebuttal if there is anything else to add. >> good evening, corey teef, there are concerns with this permit, based on the plans approved. the first issue is that it doesn't appear that the plans

adequately show the neighbor's light well onsite plan. it's a small light well but it's set back and one that is not shown. that is somewhat relevant, as the appellant mentioned there is an interpretation from the zoning administrator. that is found in zoning bulletin no. 4 that covers many things and covers the filling of light wells, and there are provisions and 11-312 requires for the infilling of the envelope, but if you infilling in a blank wall we don't require 311 or 3-12 for that, and if there is a matching light well, depending the district, you may be required to match it. in this zoning i don't think

that it's required to match the light well. but as the appellant pointed out this expansion into the side court light area is visible to the properties to the rear on roff, the planner referenced the light wells. however it could be seen from a site that is off-site. i believe that the project should be required to do 3-12 neighbor notification. >> the 3-12? >> 3-11? >> 3-12 is for the neighborhood commercial district, this is 3-12, it's not a residential, it's 3-11 instead of 3-12 but the same requirement of who is notified.

>> mr. duffy. >> commissioners, the permit was a form 8 over the current permit. it was applied for by october 9 and issued october 10. it did get through the building department for the building code. aspects of the work. and just i wrote down notes, owner builder permit which is okay, the electrical and plumbing permits he could have applied for him. however i think he stated he didn't have that knowledge to do that and would need to use a licensed contractor. and those permits are not in place yet, as the work has not started. that's okay. the drainage from the property for 1150 and 1152 geneva. mostly taken care of the

property line and the exhibit line. and it shows at 11-52 light well and i assume that is going through the city sewer. it couldn't just run in the backyard or the public sidewalk or the neighbor's place. it would have to be tied into the sewer and that's what we expect. >> he shows a dotted sewer line across the property. >> that should be okay. during the work it would have on meet building and plumbing code and electrical. but the plumbing code would definitely require any water off the existing roof or any part of the new roof for this adaptation would have to be directed to the city, it couldn't run on the neighbor's property. we couldn't allow that.

and if you slope the roof towards the neighbor's property, that would have to be in a way and put up a curb. >> or diverter. >> yeah, you can't go on the neighbor's property with the drainage, that would not be allowed. >> it would be more likely to put a gutter across the eve of the entire new roof. and then have a drain line underneath that. >> yeah, or just a curb where the water and not go over that curb on to the neighbor's property. that is a way to do it. it has to be diverted. you have to have a roof drain and on the down spout and go through the city sewer system. that's how they have to do it. everything else from building code wise it looks okay. i think i read something in the brief about the odor from the

bathroom and stuff like that and the ventilation. that would have to be vented away from the neighbor's property. so that's plumbing code as well. and you vent it to the roof, a couple of feet away, three feet away from the neighbor's property and stuff like that. that's all covered under code as well and that would be inspected during the work. >> okay, is there any public comment on this item? seeing none. mrs. galves, there rebuttal if you care to use it. three minutes. >> i wanted to say that i do share a relationship with mr. christ, there is no alternative motive here, i want to be sure this is not detrimental to my

property. as it is now and the conditions of the state of the drain and etc., the way it is now and awnings, i feared that water would come between the houses. going down and affecting my foundation. or possibly with the lack of air flowing in from his backyard around to my light well. that there could be mold. and that really worries me a lot. that's it, thank you. >> mrs. galves. >> yes. >> if mr. christ was to put some type of curb on the two existing sloping awnings over windows so that the water is diverted off of his own roof and not splash across. would that take care of one

issue for you? >> yeah. >> and if his new roof has a curb at the property line, which is higher than of the rest of the roof. so the water cannot go over it, and he runs a gutter across the entire face of that so that it catches all the water off the roof, will that help you? >> yes. yes, it will. thank you. >> mr. christ. anything further? >> (inaudible) looks like we are settling on the issue of the water. the water comes from her light well, comes on to my roof, which is okay. drains down. and then it goes down by a down spout which the photo indicates. and no way to go over to her property. because where it hits the

grounds that's about four feet lower. than the rest of my backyard. where it's cemented. it's lower. so no way it can go over to her place. now admittedly, well, you look at the photograph and it looks like maybe there should be a gutter there. if you look at it, the roof is just directs the water into the down spout. it's been that way since they built the house. and i have not had any complaints. and my neighbor hasn't made and complaints to me. i just -- i am at a loss here. but look, i am willing to, whatever it takes to satisfy my neighbor, okay. as i said, we have had no problems until now. so. >> here's the issue, mr. christ.

if you have to do 3-12 notice, you have to have a 300-foot radius map and mailing labels for notice, that will cost you $240. if you can keep the water from your two existing slopped roof and your new roof and somehow provide a cover at her light well, because there is no drain on that light well, i am assuming. >> no, no drain. >> but your new roof is higher and then you are creating a trough there. >> sir, it's not going to be higher. the roof is going to be actually lower by a couple of inches. >> than the bottom of her light well? >> yes. >> that works then.

>> her light well, it will drip on to the roof of my half-bathroom. and it will come down through a down spout and drain down on that slope. the rest of the roof and down do that (inaudible) part. >> okay. >> the water from her light well. >> now is the time to fix it. >> well -- yeah. right. >> okay. >> i am not being sarcastic. >> i understand. okay. >> thank you. mr. teef. >> i wanted to provide a little bit of clarification. the project does appearing to subject to 3-12 interpretation. and if the light well is just

visible from adjacent parcels. the sponsor can have a reduced portion of the plan signed. it would be the appellant and the one property to the rear, they could sign and then they wouldn't require a 3-12 notification. and or if they couldn't get those signatures they could do a 10-day notice. it wouldn't require a full 3-12 notice. but they have to get the signatures the two neighbors. >> you are saying that it was not properly noticed. >> in order to be at the counter, the plan should be from the appellant and the owner occupant from the building from

the rear. saying they were notified and fine with that. and without that it should be subject to a 10-day notice. >> anything further, mr. duffy? no. >> okay. >> commissioners, the matter is yours. >> well, we could let them work it out. but i am willing to take a shot. conditions to the permit to see if we can resolve this so they don't have to come back here. >> what about the adjacent, the rear? i think it's an improperly issued permit. i don't think we can fix it without proper notice or having the rear, like we have one of the two affected neighbors. that potentially could work a resoluti resolution. i think we still need the rear. i think there is no way around that. >> i think we put this to january 15, and he gets the signatures and then we can do that? >> i don't think so, i don't

think that the board can reban. >> we can't without the permit. >> we can continue? >> no, it wasn't properly issued. >> any thoughts? >> this is no different from providing notification and that takes care of the permit. >> the problem is that the people behind are not getting noticed. >> the people behind have to have an opportunity to be aware. and if they have the choice to sign off and provide their signature or within a 10-day notice that can have a review. >> mr. beard, you have something to say too? >> would it be possible that

sometimes staff gets more time to go back and look at it again. and that the planning department send letters to the property owners informing them of the work. you want -- i don't know if that will work or not. it seems like the permit is almost 90% okay. this is just one thing. so it is at the rear of the property, usually didn't impact things too much. >> is that possible, mr. teague? >> that essentially what would happen with the 10-day notice. they would provide us materials and we would do the notice. i don't know if a continuation would work. that would allow them to obtain the signature from the rear neighbor. and if that's -- >> yeah, that's satisfactory. the only issue i don't know how

that works for the due process to allow that rear neighbor to file a discretionary review, if they chose. maybe that is addressed at the continuation hearing. >> if they continue and decide the dr, then the permit is revoked. but at least it gives an opportunity that the permit fees that the permit holder has put forward don't get lost. >> i am comfortable with that, if that's your motion. >> what the motion? >> commissioner honda. >> the motion is to continue this to january 15th in time for the permit holder to give materials to the planning department so they can give notification to the adjoining properties. and at some point no problem we can go forward. >> both parties can talk to planning and building department

staff if not clear. >> may i make a suggestion that this is continued to the 29th instead because of the volume of cases. >> okay. >> is there anything else, did you have something? >> no, i was going to comment that the irony of our own appeal language mirrors 3-12 and we have sent out notices. >> okay, that helps. >> that makes us feel better, if they haven't complained we won't have a problem with them. >> we want the citizens to have resolution so they never have to come back. >> this is an alternative to revoking your permit. this is a way we are trying to address the fact that the permit was not properly issued and trying resolve. you can talk to these guys afterwards. >> they will explain in full

detail. and mrs. galves, if you have questions of that process. >> so then the motion is from commission commissioner honda to condition this hearing to january 29, 2014, and to allow time for the permit holder to hear from adjacent owners. >> i think it's for the planning department to send out the proper notice. >> for the permit holder to obtain the required signatures from adjacent owners or for planning to send out the notice. on that motion to continue to january 29. commissioner fung. >> aye. >> vice president. >> aye. >> aye. >> the vote is 5-0, this matter is continued to january 29.

thank you. >> last item is 8, item 7 was continued. item 8, robert daves and department of building inspection at 3547-20th street, protesting the issuance to dimon horace alteration permit. either of you the appellant in this case? you representing the permit holder?

>> mr. daves isn't here. >> mr. horace, can you step forward or who is going to represent the permit holder, please step forward. >> for the record, i am looking at the file, the appeal was filed on october 24, signed by mr. daves and he walked out with a permit. >> and he submitted a brief. >> so it has not been rescheduled. >> okay. >> do you have anything you want to say to the board about the appeal? or any contact you have had with the appellant? >> still want to uphold the permit that was issued. only way to improve the

property. >> okay. >> mr. duffy. >> commissioners, the permit was issued to address a notice of violation that was issued by dbi on 20th of september, 2013. an unpermitted event has been installed on the property, and the watershed drains water on the neighbor's property. a building permit was planned to reduce the garden shed to 1 foot or less and to be at least three

feet from the property lane. the permit was not in compliance with dbi. so they did apply for a permit. they filed the permit in july, oddly enough but only got it issued in october. and it was project comprised of removing existing shed at rear yard built illegally at a 36 inch from dry well and wanted to do property line and they wanted store bicycles on the light well. and i explained to the property holder tonight that can't be

allowed. it's for purposes of light and not storage and he understands that. and why he wants to put a power light that is not required by code. and he spoke of taking that away. and the appellant didn't show up and the light of the 36 inch wall at the well, it's okay to have it but not approved by code. the only clarification i want to make that you can't use light well but to provide for light and ventilalation. >> we can condition that permit and remove. >> he said that he didn't want it. >> that's a good -- that's exactly what i hoped would happen. and other side is not here and

should be happy even though not here. >> i will make the motion to grant the appeal. >> could you -- >> this is compliant with the planning code. >> perfect. any public comment? there is a member of the public here. no, that's fine, i would be delighted to hear your motion. >> i will move to grant the appeal. and condition the permit with the removal of the 36-inch high parapet wall constructed at the property line of the light well. >> is that on the basis that both parties would like that? >> that's not code required. >> okay.

>> okay, so we have a motion from commissioner fung to grant this appeal, uphold the permit with a condition that the 36-inch high parapet be deleted from the scope of work, and this is on the basis that parapet is not required by code. >> right. >> on that motion, president fung. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. thank you, the vote is 5-0. the permit is upheld with that condition. thank you. >> if nothing further, this meeting is adjourned. [gavel]