envelope it is two ways it is not the expanded deck at roofline is out into the planted part permit holders were not transparent and after step of the way we tried to tell them we were concerned about their permits were exceeding scope and we very repoint out they've never fully disclosed the work and if the permit holders tried to understand their terms of variance they would have seen it violates the permit we want a new permit issued when the plans conform with the code thank you. >> mr. cripple.

>> how does that firewall effect our view. >> the one on the opposite side. >> from the other property line and well, they showed us the wall between our property actually, it's not a firewall and required by 3 owners they built that wall at that height but to answer our question we sat on the deck we see out over the cut out part of the wall and see their wall instead of green trees up on our master bedroom we say a tiny view of the bay a view the bay a green and giant wall if it is up to code we're entirely okay with that.

>> we can hear from the permit holder now. >> thank you frank again hopefully, the record is now clear from mr. perez comments there never was a separate deck small deck as they entire certainly when we purchased the property the 3 r report from the building inspection indicated the patterson edition was properly built we had inform reason to think audits what we are repairing and rebuilding was approved if 23407 as the patterson son addition as we

know that now the she - mrs. cripple said this small deck was demolished it has not been demolished we tried to point out part of the decking was removed from the die rot. >> and that exists and it is the shape and size it was in the drawing and please a perry showed it before the cripples bought their property nothing has changed and i don't see how it can be considered a variance issue if it was never built that way it was in the plans it if exist before the plans and not built no longer or in accordance with the plans the balcony was

never there i guess a couple of other comments they argue our proposed work is not fully permitted that was approved by the building inspection and the planning department also certainly the dbi inspectors will assure that both to us and he cripples the work is in compliance with the building code a comment they made previously now there never was an existing stairway to the ground never anything we panned pa planned to do i'm not sure where that came

from yes, we were issued an n o v and in behind site clearly the work was getting ahead was it was dry rot investigation was getting ahead of what was expressing said in the permit but it was being addressed thank you and we request the appeal be denied and the permit upheld. >> mr. duffy anything further. >> commissioners joe duffey dbi again i don't have too much to add one thing if this hadn't been appealed and we dealt with the complaints from the lady we

in all likelihood this permit would have been suspended we would have said hey your plans are not showing you properly what our doing i which is looking at the plans there's no existing sections to show where the angle window is not scared off this triggers something i imagine that is something even though it's small they'd consider is additional square feet so i think we'd stop them and say hey, get a proper set of plans and employ for your permit you have to go drove the process that would be fair to say looking at that is how we would probably deal with that we can do that good work of mr. larkin

on those types of cases the stair a way, way confusing it was a violation, however, the plans don't should a stairway there was stairway that was fine but it was on a notice of violation i noticed that i was confused a little bit about that. >> good evening corey t for planning a couple of quick notes and we didn't point out this out before but prior to the under oath variance an existing shallower deck but widower the proposal in the variance was to demolish it deck through the ground floor but no deck on the south side with the conditions

the variance the plans were approved with about consistent with the plans with the variance you can't simply choose after the variance not to demolish a portion of the 0 structure that was non-conforming and be it that by itself will trigger a new variance that will not be consistent or approved by the variance even though they didn't build the small balcony it was - the other thing i want to be clear that our position on o this project is in 0 no way a judgment on the current owners everything with the prior owner it appears that you know whatever work that was done or

not done in violation of the variance and the issued building permits before they bought the prompt and the work that was done was not done well, the issue of them going progressively from a repair to 0 proorment situation probably was a dry rot situation that wouldn't go away unfortunately you know bans the facts we have the project will require a new permit and variance i'm available for that other questions. >> what action will you take then. >> well, what we recommend here is the current permit is not adequate the permit that is before you should be denied and they need to file a new variance

and permit the exact scope of the variance depended on what the project sponsor wants to move forward it if they want to do a project to the scope of what is proposed on the permit they need to file a new variance request and have a new permit. >> they're not pressured on timing come back with another permit. >> if the board denies it. >> no, it will be changed. >> or they have a choice of conforming to the original variance which is entirely cyst situation but requires a new permit. >> right either way at this point, because of the repair project has essentially gone to a basement project of they build back what was the same variance they trigger the variance by

replacing it technically it is required. >> the variance and new permit application in my opinion. >> i think see. >> i believe the building inspection believes that also. >> so okay commissioners the matter is submitted. >> action and motion i think it's clear. >> unfortunately, the permit holders argument that so it was signed off but signed off based on the documents it didn't conform to the variance give him a change of scope that is allowed the condo map substantially does not necessarily provide any further entitlement beyond what is the fact it was filed for that the

representation itself so i think we have no choice but to revoke the permit. >> okay. you want to move. >> do i have a suggestion? commissioners, i would agree but is there a plan for the new permit and we'll add to it he needs to be able to close that off if in some manner >> yes. >> the one year bar in the status didn't prohibit someone from getting a new permits the reason for the permit is to correct. >> that would not bar them from being able to apply within the one year. >> what about protecting them against the manual storm coming

tonight. >> it probably we work closely with the board of appeals certainly with the cynthia 2k3w08d at the scene if someone needs to bmi up their knowledge we allow them to temporarily waterproof it. >> i want to make it clear can i unusually it's a day or two to close it up. >> but it needs to be in conjunction with our office. >> we need to meet with the contractor and clearly state what that entiles not finishing the project. >> misunderstood. >> so is that a motion commissioners and is the basis that the existing 0 permit doesn't conform. >> mr. pacheco call the roll

please. the motion from commissioner fung to deny this permit with the finding that this permit didn't conform to the existing variance. >> that's right. >> on that motion to deny this permit commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda is absent commissioner wilson thank you vote 3 to zero given the boards vacancy this permit a rerecognized with that finding there's no more business commissioner president lazarus. >> we're adjournedzzçó