well will preserve all of the sunlight to the neighboring building but preserve some of the light it is indirect not the intent to have the balance when considering just the different aspects the way that properties face and the street runs in this situation the light well, was not considered a light well more of a light court more than three or four times larger than the light well and the main obstacle to area the 3 story portion at the front of the lot due south and how much light regardless the neighboring properties i want to talk about that we do p have guidelines for smaller light

wells but in a situation like this we'll not require them to do a matching light well, that's a huge chunk and f even though they do a smaller light well, it will have impact on the adjacent property if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them. >> okay. we've heard from the parties and the rebuttal the matter is submitted. >> you know let's discuss a few of the pertinent issues brought forth one is and i'm in

agreement with the comment that was made a number which times we need to be able to delineate between direct sunlight versus light in general neither sun shadow study was totally accurate. >> the issue of how much blockage occurs probably could be gentle listed we're primarily talking about mid morning sun from the east plain question here is how does this building which is got zero property line needs to be did

understand meritly by it's too neighbors i'm in agreement with the planning department staff that this is not a courtyard the question what impact by the suggestions of the appellant have by an that she talks about reversing the roof that reduce the a.d. you didn't know of the building she's in that does very live of this it's 3 stories high the early morning sun is on the horizon not doing anything the other issue whether you put a matching light well by definition the matching light wells might be there's one code issue to lights wells but in

general the matching light wells are narrow yes there would be a little bit more ambient light into the courtyard not direct light into the courtyard so the question then becomes how much do you cut to look at light the only way to get more light is one or two stories that's itself existing - in terms of where i'm going with this besides the discussion on light i think that the ability to create more light for the appellant is not going

to happen with any building in excess of two stories on that basis i'm deferring to up hold the permit the building permit holder has rights too. >> i concur. >> i also concur as well our assistant da mentioned the orientation of this only existing 3 story fingertip blocks out most the sunlight and my fellow commissioner indicated the only way it effectively effects the sunlight to get to the unit to reduce the math to one or two stories i don't see that happening. >> i have a question mr. t the subject has accompany from a

point of clarification shadow study shouldn't there obey perimeters such that the shadow study is a shadow study. >> that's atsz an interesting point the shadow studies are required for building more than 40 feet high and more to do with shadows 0 on open space in rec and park if you're shadowing a park you're required to do a detailed shadow analysis that does have to meet specific perimeters in this situation there's no planning code requirement or specific requirement or guidelines that says x amount of sunlight whether direct or ambivalent no perimeters given no shadow

studies because of the purpose of a matching light well, not to create perfect direct sunlight but to create and preserve ambient light oftentimes we require the matching light wells not making it to the light well itself to the purposes is different not as perspire active as a shadow controllers are on rec and park properties. >> but aren't there now or standard ways to simulate what's going to happen putting aside you're not requiring if someone is submitting a simulation it is scientifically accurate. >> 0 actually any consulate can put together a shadow study

using a methodology it will have to be checked again those are done for the ones that require when we have this for those this is general information we're not looking for the same type of provision obviously we've had renderings before that shows shadows at the wrong time of day when it is clearly not in the ball park we'll address that if we're talking about a half of degree and the 10:00 a.m. that level of provision co-we don't have the requirement to be that precise in this situation. >> thank you move to deny the appeal and to grant the permit. >> on the basis of. >> would you care to state a basis. >> on the basis it that conforms to the residential

design guidelines. >> we have a motion from commissioner fung to uphold the permit that it conforms with the residential guidelines. >> on that motion commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda commissioner wilson thank you. the vote is 4 to zero this permit is upheld open that basis. >> i'm going to recuse myself. >> we're going to call the last item lisa versus the department of building inspection protesting the issuance on october 30th to frank and wife notice to violation add two new

rear view windows and replacing deck as required i mean, i'll start with the appellant. >> good evening commissioner president lazarus and commissioners, thank you for your consideration of that appeal i am lisa i live next door to webster in the machinery we've owned our owning home for 10 years and condominium to raising our kids our kids attend public schools in the marina and my husband is not here he's with our kids 3 kids our family calibers about the marina i feel like the planning department and the building inspection have everything they need to make a proper determination in summary the work on webster street

shouldn't be allowed it was not properly permitted and it attempts to go beyond who was approved in the 02006 variance decision in summary that are 3 key problems the first, the permit holders are expanding beyond the envelope by expanding the southern side balcony and addressing a wall on the deck to seek to have a non-conforming rear edition and in violation of the variance and second the permits holders have demolished the edition yet they've over the counter permit didn't notice glossodisclose the details of the administration being made versus the 2006 variance and plan that are on record with the city this includes their permit

- intention to have a new window plan and add a skylight and install new electrical and third in submitting the plans the permit holders have absorbed from the city the nature of the work being done and do not have the approval and inspectors. >> we have brought all those issues to the attention the permit holders many months ago and have curled up them to seek the correct permit for the rebuild we've specifically told the permit holders they're not conforming with the variance and plans that are a matter of public record available to them and the incarcerating and they're architect to provide history on the rear yard edition that was build only webster street in a rear yard

variance granted in 2006 i'll show you the grant variance right now granted to construct approximately 10 and half deep one story edition that on the property line at the rear of the building with a roof-deck on behalf of with approximately one and a half deep by had to the balcony on the second floor the zoning administrator scott sanchez who is not here corey is representing him verified the work expends into the rear yard just to show you a picture of this this is what the 2006 variance approved it is a small one and a half by had foot balcony and it is the larger edition with 9

roof-deck on behalf of the permit holder received an over the counter permit and the smaller deck is much larger we live by the way right here since scott sanchez is out of town that week i'm going to read and put up on e-mail on december 4th he says bans our argument it appears are the reconstruction previously approved as much s such a new variance is a required and a new balcony variance is required what you say it is note in the variance decision permit holders claim in their entitled do build a rear deck that was illegal constructed,

however, it is permanently awe described subscribed to the building unless to conform to the variance is transferred from person to owner additionally it is exceeding the beyond the scope of the permit the first over the counter permit was permitted for less than 50 percent dry rot on the rear deck i'll show you a photo while the offer the counter permit was in effective as you can see the edition that was built and approved in 2006 and built in 2007 has been mostly demolished and this is what it looks like what it was bought by the permit holders in 2010 the permit

holders were cited confessor xooepd the escape of the first permit and recommend they go through the permit process within one week without communicating the permit submitted for other over he did counter permit the drawing didn't fully disclose the work for example, a hero are the plans submitted and here is the area of work right here and they bubble just the edition the work being down user done on the edition not on the work on the southern balcony permits holder doesn't tell us they were working and we heard the noise it was at a time the edition was nearly demolished they were in new hampshire where

their primary home was they've chosen not to disclose the modifications and throughout the time we were in touch with them refused to tells you how they were going to proceed relating to the balcony. >> i have more but. >> use it in rebuttal. >> okay. >> okay. we'll hear from the permit holders now. >> good evening. i'm frank harden burger and my wife we're the permit of holders and our architect is here with if you have questions we purchased that

prompt to be near our daughter and first grandchild now our children and grandchildren live in the city we maintain a home in new hampshire where we spend half our time i've put on the projector a picture of ms. cripple put on previously as well that shows we we refer to as the patterson edition but i want to point out this is the small deck she's referring to she felt should have been a balcony and the reason i believe she misunderstood we're in violation of a variance

nevertheless to say we don't believe that's at case we want to make clear at the outset we didn't want to make a change to the patterson edition rather detailed that in our belief the work that's been appealed stems from directly from the extensive dry rot not edition that was unexpectedly found this summary once the extensive scope of the dry rot determined our focus to repair and rebuild the edition the fingertip in compliance with the building codes in a manner to insure we don't face that water intrusion again given the extent of the dry rot that was found we decided to make modest modification to the

patterson edition first we are illustrating this large window and the attached skylight which is found to be parolee constructed and contributed to the dry rot damage this will result in the large deck extending to the edge of the roof but not outside the envelope we're replacing this combination window and skylight with a smaller somewhat smaller window facing the backyard and side window which is right about here facing the cripples and a skylight built into the deck near the house those changes are to mitigate from the loss of illicit from illumination

finally adding a firewall along the neighbor to the north we understand this firewall is required by the building code. >> those modifications which are shown on the architect drawings a-1 in the brief are fully within the fingertip and envelope of the patterson edition and are covered by the permit approved by both the building inspection and the planning department and none of those changes including the edition of a firewall requires section 311 notice and review leaving aside the cripples notice the cripples have impressed expressed two concerns with our modifications that he

claim effect their privacy or sidelines how have we admit that is not the result of our permitted work one issue is that edition of the new skylight and the side window skylight is set in the deck near the house and covered by a please state your name and address that will allow natural light into the sitting room but not allow visibility in and out and thank you this is a picture taken in front of the the side window in the sitting room this picture i think

demonstrates the side window will not effect their privacy in a realistic sense it is epilepsy a 11 feet from a 6 foot fence that separates our backyard and liens 12 feet from the firewall that abuts our property it simply cannot effect privacy unless they make a concerted effect to look over the firewall that leaves the 3 stories over the home at that distance the privacy concerns are ours not tailors the second irrational or issue the firewall we're alexander this because of the a building code and shouldn't

significantly effect their sideline tha that's located on the far deck from the folks and their 16 firewalls between us and tare fire deck much of the argument is based on the belief of the original patterson edition was illegal we should be required to provide section 311 notice to the neighbors as set ousted in detail if position is mistaken there's nothing in the building code d that suggests we need a rebuild it or be subjected to 311 where our repairs are within the envelope of the existing structures they august this is improperly provided i'll comment on rebuttal. >> thank you, mr. t.

>> mr. duffy. >> commissioner joe duh dbi just on the i'll go through the permit application first, the permit was obtained to comply with notice of violation add two windows of skylight door and replace the pop out deck fire roof and decade or deck as required there was an earlier permit to comply with the notice of violation it was from on the december 13th and issued on october 1st so it was over the counter approval it did get through the planning department over the current with the

mechanical plan with a value of $12,000 a permit that was over the counter no drawings it was the main level of a flat duplex add new offices i'm sorry that was a 2006 permit it was there are two many permits the 2014 was in august was for the second floor deck with the dry rot less than 50 percent construction that is typically when someone finds dry rot you can replace it and not need a permit it is limit on the scope of work they got ahead of themselves there was a complaint filed i have the detailed overview details it was

on the 9th of september 2014 they were working outside of the building permit application the complainant said they ripped out the addition and ripped anti more than 50 force or percent of the dry rot and lester went out there that 0 the 12th of september he issued a notice of violation and stated exceeding scope of permit work under the permit application repair the second floor deck and the first floor were 10 by 10 and stairway to second yard was removed a plagues for all work being performed associated deck the department of city planning

approved the plans for the first floor and rear roof and horizontal expectation so notes when i was lvps to the speakers there. >> i actually tomorrow the 3630 webster the appellants property she suggested i go out there i saw the deck some stiff what a little bit confusing because the permit back in 2006 which got approved by itself building inspection and planning department and was the subject of the variance there was just a balcony shown on that coming out from a bay window we sue the photos we censured opening opening 0 off on the building

permit actually on the last line it says per approved plans those are approved plans should have been the plans from the 2006 permit that shows that level balcony not a deck going all the way across i don't know if the inspector missed that or that was done after that and we when that pilot came in appeal now the existing plans and would have shove reflected the last approved plans not can what is there 0 now if increase no permit it is illegal constructed we'll have contain that mandates to the firewall firewall indeed requires when i look at the 2006 permit there should have been a firewall on

that it would have been required i did is definitely a requirement for the deck that goes to the property line not required at the 36 next to the 26 thirty webster it's more than thirty feet away from the property line but the other questions how this deck cot connected from been a being a balcony done by the previous owner certainly but it certainly would if we were dealing with this as a complaint in dbi we would write something if someone made a complaint at last plans showed a balcony and deck we'll have to write it you will uh-huh up we