us and their particular home is to the south as i showed the photo before, it's blocking a lot of light even though my house is three homes down. the other apartment building he showed, that's to the no*frt of me it has no effect on my light because we live in a northern climate on the south so this issue -- so about the floor plan, let me just show here, let me project this, so this is the top floor that they're proposing, so this is all they're proposed to do is put this three foot deck in and here's the bathroom they say they can't move because i quote the next bathroom is two floors down, this is completely untrue two floors down is the garage, one floor down is the kitchen, living room and another bathroom so the house without this bathroom would already have three bathrooms,

this is the fourth bathroom so they don't need this bathroom. this is the stairwell, they could easily set this back all the way to the stairwell which would be ab6 or 7 feet, they're proposing two rooms up here, i mean they don't need two rooms the building already has three bedrooms plus a large kitchen, an open kitchen, living room area. the bottom line is this is a very small substandard lot none of us had any idea this was a vacant lot. an appraisal report, you can't really read it the appraisers said this was a fully developed neighborhood, so that's kind of part of why we're here, we had no idea there would be anything built here, it's okay to build something but this is a much smaller lot and something they want to build is larger than what is necessary and what seems appropriate for this size lot, so what i would request is

that you specifically make instructions for how far back they should have their terrace setback and it should be at least 6 f feet and it would not impede with overall structure of the build, you can see the stir well here ends at that point. thank you. >> and i would like to disagree with the point that the plans are fully in agreement with the neighborhood, i mean, clearly they're not, they're clearly -- st. francis, right and i would like to share the view on back, our primary concern here is the with the light coming from the southern area, and you can see there's a very large structure here which is blocking totally higher than nilgts, so a three foot partial reduction up here

does nothing for the mid block light and air, and that's a major problem. you can see, this does not match it, it completely disrupts the pattern of development and the d.a. has pointed out the pattern of development is a major concern. if you look at the mid block open space we discussed the last time, you can see it's completely disruptive to that area, the building doesn't extend the entire way in it extends a significance distance in and impacts this well established line of development here. so i want to just go back to touch on another point and that is that in the variance decision letter that the d.a. will be familiar with from 1991, that the heights of the building was limited to 40 feet and the current building is 54 feet, there was only 4 floors, they like to describe it as three floors over a basement but it's essentially four

floors so there's a massive difference here between what's being entertained here as a reduction compare today what was decided by the d.a. back in 1991, you can see a number of the floors here, 5, and we asked last time for a reduction of five feet across -- of the variance to bring us back in line here, and we're well aware of what the developer was asked to do bring it back here on the top floor and what is partially three feet. what i'm saying is that we're looking south here, so you can see this is the barrier to light and air, so i'm saying is we need a more significant reduction and the deeper the reduction goes, the better it is for the light -- well, for the mid block open space and here is from the actual variance decision letter back

in 1990, the height of the building at the rear will be 40 feet, and that's not what this building is today so i'm asking you to please reconsider this amount of relief. it's not sufficient in my perspective. we need significantly more relief for mid block space. >> okay, thank you. mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department, i'll be brief we argued at the previous hear, we believe the project is conformance with the residential guideline, the last point about the height of the build that is somewhat misleading because the height of the rear is lower as state ined that variance decision letter because it had a greater setback at the rear. it it's not as the the overall

building height was lower than 15 feet, this was taller than was authorize ined that previous variance decision and the top floor does carry out further but i wanted to clarify, that's where that note comes from about the 40 feet, it's because it did have a greater setback at the rear but the overall height was barely comparable to what's proposed today. thank you. >> mr. sanchez, did you run the scheme past your team? >> i did not run the revised plan by the residential design team but given that the previous project met the residential design guideline and is this project further reduces that envelope i don't ant pate that staff would have any differing opinion on that. >> thank you. >> okay, thank you, and mr. duffy's indicated he has nothing to add. is there any public comment? please step forward.

>> whoever would like to speak please step forward. >> you have two minutes. >> i brought some photographs as well. >> would you like to state your name. >> my name is yani hasalar and i brought some photograph that is i took of that particular lot basically. i was taking photographs basically just of the view over there but let me see here, okay, let me see if i can put it over here, okay. when you see a fence it's right above those words on the left and that is where that house is proposed to be built and it is supposed to be sticking out way above the roof

line of the other houses there so as you can see, they're pretty conformed, all of a sudden, there's no proposed residence is going to be way taller, so at any rate, i just want to reiterate to you that the lot on where this new house will be built very obviously is so tiny because it was supposed to remain open space. i cannot emphasize that enough and the new house is literally going to be crammed into that lot, and today i brought these photographs which were taken a few years a i took them myself and they show the profile of the roof line of these houses on the same side of the street as the proposed property so if you could see this white house with the plans drawn on it it is going to be built right next

to that house and as one of the speakers urged you last time when i was here, that would be really great if you were to see it and then you would see how much the proposed new property would be out of line with the current profile of the existing houses, and also this is why so many of the neighbors signed the protest, and i would hate to have to go to court over this, although obviously it might be our only hope if all of you ladies and gentlemen cannot persuade the developer to bring down the scale and the height of this proposed residence. >> excuse me, your time is up. thank you. next speaker, please.

>> hello my name is [inaudible] and i own property at 1002 clayton street that's next to mr. dans, we are very close to the construction and we are down the hill, so we are definitely going to be affected. we would like to express our opposition to the project as currently is conceived [inaudible] we are also concerned the variance allowed 7 feet additional construction at 1055 ashbury, it will significantly block the light along the alleyway shared by homes to the north and west of

1055 ashbury and requested the city to reduce the variance to a smaller distance in the interest of preserving the sunlight and resisting the impact of xwalt of life to the neighbors. it is, i mean, i am five feet and they're proposing three feet, i think they can do better than that to preserve the quality of life when their children we have two little children the dans have two little children i think they said at the beginning they also have children and they all want to play outside, and they should have the right to light and air and i think they can do better than that, even for their own [inaudible]. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is hew diamond, i'm a neighbor on ashbury, i signed the petition opposing the

project, and i was at the previous planning commission meetings i would have liked to prepare a couple of weeks ago but i was out of town, i was encouraged to hear the members of the board of appeal, this was always about the size of the project and it's why 50 neighbors, over 50 neighbors like myself are opposed to it. i would like to remind the board if i could put this up just remind the board again as mr. sanchez just mentioned as well, the 1991 variance. there is a long history of neighborhood participation and opposition to very large scale potashes for this particular site. if you look on this here, if

you can read that previously what they were saying that the total height of the building not exceeds 26.5 feet at the property line, and this proposed project is a lot higher than that, basically you're looking from the street, it's three levels plus this roof deck, it's more than just a couple of feet. all the properties on the west side of ashbury on this block are essentially two stories over street level. it's grossly larger than any of them and the current project is out of scale and character for its neighborhood. i would really appeal to the board of appeals that you should therefore reduce the height and the scale of this project. thank you for your consideration. >> next speaker, please.

>> hello my name is [inaudible] i live at 1040 ashbury street across the street from the building in question. i attended one hearing and this is the next one that i'm here today. you have all the numbers already so i won't go through them, really i am here to strongly oppose the size and height of the building. if you look at all the other buildings on ashbury street, they're all at a certain level they're two stories above the ground street, this would tower over them and it's a single family home and it seems to me to speak plainly what is at issue is to let wen one home and one developer make a sizable, expensive residence at the expense of the character and the wishes of the neighborhood around it. thank you. >> thank you.

any other public comment? okay, seeing none then commissioners, the matter is yours. >> i have another question for the permit holder. when i looked at what you had submitted, yes, you had a 3 foot setback in the creation of a deck, but you also filled in the little notch on the other side of the bathroom. >> i'm not sure what you're

referring to. >> unless i'm looking at a different set of plans. >> where was it? >> what you had before was a different configuration for the bathroom and you had some sort of a vertical shaft there. i didn't look at the note tos see exactly what the purpose of it was. and it was set in -- set back from the -- that would be the south property line, now you filled that in. >> i'll let mr. durkin explain na that. >> i can comment on that, there was a closet there before and the reason that the wall is

thicker than a typical wall thickness that tha* a multistorey moment frame that's stacked on the rear of the building and that column cannot move, it's fixed, and it goes all the way down to the foundation on the rear facade, that's why that's shown that way. >> well, i see your indication for the frame but if you look at the -- your column line a, there used to be a little set back there like a notch in that floor plate. >> i really don't recall having a setback there, the rear of the building is not -- >> perhaps you should look at your drawing a1.2 of the original set that was given to us. >> mr. sanchez, did you want to

comment? >> so, what is the vertical shaft you removed or something for some reason. >> if i can explain, at the previous hearing, the plans that were submitted by the permit holder were the original plans that were heard by the planning commission and those plans had the elevator at the rear, so that's something i can put on the overhead. >> we submitted revised plans that were done after what you're looking at now and what

you're looking at shows this elevator shaft which has been removed, so this corner has been kept the same. >> okay, so the elevator and the deck was removed previously? >> that's right so they were going in another three feet. >> alright. >> three feet ain't much. i mean, it helps a little bit. i think it's a little hard to tell how they're treating that elevation. i'm guessing that if they -- is it a glass rail? >> come to the mic., please.

>> yes, we're proposing a glass. >> a glass rail? >> yes exactly. >> some setback there helps. is it enough? it's a subjective point of view, you know. i would have liked to have seen a little more differentiation between that top floor is this enough, because the living room then becomes, it's relatively small in terms of floor. >> [inaudible]. >> yeah. >> i think if we went back as one of the appellants indicated, six feet is probably going to make that room small.

>> [inaudible]. >> well, i mean, the alternative would have been to cut a floor off which then would definitely reduce the scale. i think the board felt -- preferred to go in this direction in terms of looking at something that would partially offset the scale of that rear wall. i'm not sure any further setback will make that setback look any better. so i'm prepared to accept this. i will move to grant the appeal and condition the site permit, isn't it madam director? >> it is. >> and condition the site

permit on the revised drawings which shows a 3 feet setback to a new deck with a glass rail as per the drawings dated may 6, 2015. >> do you care to state a basis commissioner? >> on the basis that the scale of the rear wall was not inappropriate to the balance of the neighborhood. >> there's a motion on the

floor from commissioner fung to uphold this permit with adoption of revised plans dated may 6, 2015, it has our board stamp may 8th and this is on the basis that the scale of the rear wall was not appropriate to the balance of the neighborhood. on that motion to uphold with revised plans, president lazarus? >> aye. >> vice-president honda? >> aye. >> commissioner wilson? >> aye. >> and commissioner swig is recused. the vote is 4-0. this permit is upheld with those revised plans. thank you. >> okay, thank you. >> next item is item number 9, appeal number 15-052, carl ernst versus department of building inspection with planning department approval the property is at 867 vermont street protesting the issuance

march 19 2015 to justin raade of an al ration permit for the installation of alside prod di insul elated vinyl siding on the right side of the building and we'll start with the appellant, mr. ernst, you have 7 minutes to present your case. >> good evening, commissioners, i'm carl ernst, the rear yard is at a level that is a peak point an eye point of a radius of 700 feet in all directions. the pivotal issues of this appeal are whether the vinyl siding will prevent rainwater to leaking into 867. it would subject the south side units and the neighbors to the south of increasing rattling noise from high winds to the side.

the answer is two-fold it will likely not stop the water leaking into 867, the plan won't work because the leaks appear to be elsewhere and yes, there will be increasing noise growing louder over time from the loosely mounted final siding because the styrofoam or polystyrene backing with not reshape itself once compressed by movement caused by the high wind at the location creating an increasing rattling noise over time. the facts that, one, the forces of the high winds and two, the nature of poll lie sty raoen will produce noise over time are not debatable this is -- this siding must be loosely mounted and the reason is that

2700 square feet of loosely mounted vinyl siding is impacted by high winds in excess of 60 miles an hour, it means there will be movement if there's movement, there's going to be noise, 2700 square feet is 35% greater than a wing area of a b29 or a bowan727 so there will be a total force on that sufficient to lift a b29 or a 437 wang more than 100 thousand pounds. that's what happens to the damaged wall siding on the 18th street building shown with the initial appeal and the pictures presented at that time. and it's also why i protest against the siding being on the south wall of my home.

the assertion without any facts that my concerns in this regard are unwarranted is ridiculous. the manufacturer knows that the sda*s results results if the siding is loosely mounted, the manufacturers comments regarding sound then they have to do with ambient noise and the environment mention is not made of the rattling which the loose siding produces in high winds. this rattling far exceeds any noises that might otherwise diminish. with respect to the source of the rainwater leaks, i remain convinced that the source is the inexpressive repairs portion of the south wall between the two buildings because that is the area where the water appears and if we can go to this drawing here, the

area of the surface where the leaks are occurring below the red roof line there is where the rooms of the occupants of 867 live and i live above. you'll notice the roof line slopes from left to right down from west to east down and this nonconforming house has a peaked roof that also convects water into a trough just a few feet east of where there's a space between the two buildings. there is also a large amount of foliage there and that is jasmine, it's been growing real well, it's covered the side of my other home there and when it rains that fills with water and when the rain comes from

the east, all of that rainwater that collects and pools in this area here, and in the bushes there gets blown into this area between the two buildings and that's about -- you see, about 4-6 inches wide, probably closer to 4, there's two foundations and a run downhill and the retaining wall on the building to the left is algt bit higher than the retaining wall from the building to the right so there basically is a pool that fills up with water you can't get in there because the two houses are built you can't service that area, you can't paint it you can't put it or caulk it the only thing you can do is block it off and the water going in there is

where it's coming from, it's not leaking anywhere else. i made a lot of repairs in other places, it is ameliorated the situation because the leaks weren't really coming from there they were coming from this direction. the winds generally come from west to east but on some occasions, blow the other way and that's where the leak is coming from. the walls inside the unit have been contaminated with mold and should be removed. the tenants want -- or the owners there don't want to remove them, they want to keep them and put this vinyl wall up that won't stop the water from coming in and it's not going to get rid of the mold. what you need to do is go in and take all that contaminated sheet rock out, seal that wall, reframe it because it's