desire the communities have more open space and mid block but also think this is a bit unfair to can one pertaining to bear the burn for or burden for the open space for the desire community that is a property that is code compliant and i find this is to a justable application than significance amount of progress with multiple his and her and the planning commission and we'll deal with the scope of the project this is just for the garage door entry and the rear yard improvement encroachment and the overhead project will have the building permit i'm available to answer any questions. >> how the accident calculate the height. >> so the allowable height it

is a jefferson down sloping lot from the center line of the building at the front of the property and carry it back to the rear so that's how it could be calculated. >> two questions looking at the drawing the picture that was posted on the overhead so their garage is where the additional starts. >> the condition on this approval has it is not 3 feats from the property line. >> since this property went inform discretionary review and it's been in the works for a while was the original bulk the same. >> the building has been reduced somewhat just for the penthouse and the 3 feet at the rear i mean otherwise, it is

basically, the same envelope that i've seen back in are 7 with the variance hearing this is the maximum envelope certainly their complying with the access planned provision that has the greatest impact and here again not a provision bull otherwise the envelope is essentially the same as initially proposed. >> thank you. >> public comment on this item. >> okay. seeing none then we will - okay. this is the time to hear it please step forward whoever wants to speak. >> honorable members the i

live at number 70 since the times i he was 70 years old this is a narrow block longs streets 10 feet wide from curve to curve i read the city is trying to protect the israel by expending certain circumstances to hayes valley and why has the zoning administrator decided no to do the same for the israel of russian hill this project will limit the existing sunshine why are we letting this mr. star developer build into the code which was enacted in 2007 why does the zoning administrator simply want to set the legislation aside i strongly believe that the legislation passes in 2007 by the board of

supervisors and the planning department and signed by mayor gavin newsom should be adhered to you ask you deny this variance thank >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> is there any additional public comment please step forward. >> good evening board members i live at lynch street directly across from the proposed project in my property i've been there 20 years i don't understand why were we required to go through this process we're being subjected to current legislation that requires a 5 percent setback in the neighborhood why is that not been forced the developers are building a structure that will be close to 6 feet high on lynch street

i left to understand it allows them to do so i'll live with the confidence but even though this will be taller than the small alley why should they can granted to build under the setback i think i don't understand how this can, allowed i still agree that something should be built but ask it have to be a building out of scale the large decks to this additional and the decks along the area i ask you to give me allen an opportunity to present this, please deny the variance priority by the zoning administrator and ask him to come up with a better plan and take the israel residents take into account thank you apply otherssrael residents take

into account thank you apply otherael residents take into account thank you apply otheael residents take into account thank you apply othe account thank you apply othersl account thank you apply others public comment. >> members thank you for your time i'm here in support of appeal that you overturn the variance for the project it is circling proposed will seriously and impact the quality of life from all the residents including mitchel and at entire neighborhood and will destroy that side of the street that charms i ask you overturn the variance thank you very much. >> any other speakers on this item. >> sir, your the appellant you can't speak under public comment but under rebuttal if you wish. >> my name is jim burns i'm speaking on behalf of the

proposed developer i own the property adjacent to the on the western side of the building on pacific pacific avenue for the last 15 years and my office is in there for the last 14 years as regards to the first part ever variance as they previous speakers noted his property is setback i had a window on the property line where the setback was in and about ten years ago, i a had a break in had it gone out the property line they wouldn't have gotten in i have iron gates over the window to prevent that from occurring again nun none of the people have noted the two

structures on that street bye bye far the worst things on that black blocking they're an eye sore in the owners are prepared to do something with that within proposition i'm in complete support because when i bought the building a number of years ago it was an eye sore i got used to it they're prepared to do something i'm all for that i know any neighbors are good people and whom i know i disagree but i replace their opinion thaim they'll agree with me it's an eye sore and something needs to be done thank you. >> is there any additional public comment on this item. >> hi, thank you my name is karen tom, i live on

pacific avenue a block and a half away from the family i ask you deny the appeal i support the development for 3 primarily reasons safety and community and reasonableness from safety from the prospective the planned as is will not allow a hole many in the lynch additional unfortunately, we have a lot of homeless in my building a secured garage we had a situation our secured garage was not working for about a week some homeless person set camp on the top gloor and across the street a commercial building that has a setback with a big hole that's been homelessness for a long time we end up having to call to get the homelessness removed the commercial building

ended up doing multiple things they have lights snuffed a sprinkler system. >> notice to deal with the situation they placed usage dumpsters in that area so no homeless can be about so the plan as it is really important homeless is a problem in our neighborhood even the park department knows that the park in my backyard a block unlawful away so we definitely want to make sure we don't create another situation where the homeless can take camp community because it is our communities i live in that community i love being single-family homes i really tired of seeing multiply family being built on all blocks i want to make sure we keep the charm with the single-family homes here and reasonableness

the family has been working for the last 2 plus years really appreciate it be tooimentd at the last hearing it was said this should goes forward i'm sure why we're still appealing i'd like to ask for your support to meet this thank you. >> thank you any public comment? if you haven't filed out a speaker card anything else. >> you're out of order i'm sorry. >> any other public comment seen we'll start our rebuttal that starts with the appellant. >> so if we take the opposition position because go lynch additional is dark and crowded not worry about making it more dark that expends

extends to the property line those structures were created in an different time under different legislation we have different standards to adhere to we object to the creation of this exception to an exception both current legislation and the planning code that is unambiguous specifics a 23 percent setback to quality for a variance a and modification why would we allow this sxmgs to current law and the planning code what does it provide to the must not even though this area has no mid block area why not create one where will the greatest amount of community benefits the opposition claims they meet the criteria this is

false the new projects will impede light to the neighborhood that is a fact the new structures is consistent with lynch additional they're much much larger and an expressed two stories didn't make a 4 story building less than a 4 story building the codes and legislation clearly require the rear yard setbacks as well assessable uses distinct needs and constructing a fully built out lot make no sense the rear yard is distinct community need those plans you meanly ignore because the zoning administrator based his judgment on the property that predates the 2011 it should be used a standard it fails to meet any criteria for the variance or a

modification because the property as proposed will block light and crowd the block and introduce out of structures for the neighborhood the zoning administrator's error to should be fixed thank you. >> i got a question. >> yes. >> we're here on the variance of rear yard as spoken by the zoning administrator. >> yes. >> the height is not the question even if the rear yard variance the building structure itself would remain at the same height do you on the shadowing are the light you'll be losing is different. >> the shadowing might be a diversity topic and the point of argument we have with the planning code make an argument the building building. >> okay. >> other questions thank you

very much. >> thank you. >> thank you i'll keep it brief i don't have a grateful to add to reiterate this is the rear yard modification rather than is variance issue supported by the finding in the planning code well, the appellants disagree with the design they've not shown clear area or discretion with the zoning administrator discrepancy and therefore have not met the standards appellants concerns for getting loss of air quality to listen street are unfounded while those buildings in total will be turn around the structures they replace they're a maximize of 40 feet in height in keeping with the scale incorporate tiered setbacks on the screen the and unknown variable planning code

designed to retain life enrichment committee following the construction on the narrow israel for those reasons uphold the surveillance and i'm available to answer any questions you may have. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department a couple of points we all agree that lynch is a very narrow street to clarify the width i think 10 feet curb to curb 17 and a half feet from property line inform property line that's a narrow street the planning code does have protects for very narrow streets east and west very narrow streets and particular for the buildings logged on on the south side of the east west streets that cast shadow planning code section that is in effect since 2008 the project

complies with that requirement it is not a variable provisions nothing in here in modification they're seeking in any way violates the planning code that is monetary overview meant to protect the additional so it meets that requirement and those are the main points i want to reference one final point so, yes, the pacific avenue commercial district was created formally an m c-2 zoning district and it establishes a stringent rear yard requirement the legislation is not as well crafted and contains ininconsistent but that provide that that is not apple exception to an exception a rear yard modification it as a planning code provision that says you're in a commercial district you

meet concern criteria i think that is acknowledging that a one-size-fits-all solution for rear yards explicit necessary work that well, a lot of patterns a shorts mid block like this a through lot asking the neighboring properties that is not the thing that is made up a process that a process that is explicitly loud and therefore, i think complied with the legislation for pacific avenue and with that i'm available to answer any questions. >> the large building across the street is a very dark one is there commercial. >> on pacific. >> on the south side the street. >> think there maybe ground floor commercial that is in a higher height a 50 foot districts the bulk. >> the height of the district changes at the height of the

students and that's my recollection i believe it goes up to a 50 foot district. >> was there a lot of opposition. >> i can't recall i think that is one the reasons that led to the development and in the similar communities members can speak to that. >> that building was built after. >> okay. >> i know that proposal that was generating a certain amount of angst. >> okay. >> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> commissioners. >> either the the issues of what is the rear yard modification and i'm on this going to address that i don't think the surveillance question

by either the appellants or anyone else in the room - the issue of the rear yards modificati modifications is tied to the scale of the building we agree i disagree are one of the comments made in the variance excuse me. in the das determinations that the setbacks of the structure will probably allow some additional lighted i don't think that is correct anytime you get the structure up this high with the subdivision no additional light no matter how you scope the north side of that building initially when i looked this project in the advisory committee of the setback and in

the advisory committee of it was being brought forgot the scale was about there i was almost going to irrac react to it not conceptual one in the since yes, a number of buildings just a few minutes to those four stories the question that came back as i further analyzed it was whether the da erred unfortunately, i can't say find any errors i may disagree but i don't find any errors. >> i lost agree with my fellow commissioners at the same time to the neighbors i i mean, if i lived on that block i much

prefer to have an in fill of a building than a vacant hole on my street to be honest and regarding the rear yard modification i don't believe that the zoning administrator erred in his decision. >> any comments? >> move to deny the appeal on the basis that the variance and the rear yard administrations were excuse me. that the va explicit error or abuse his discretion in issuing the surveillance and is rear yard modification. >> commissioner fung can i ask you to consider it met the 5 finding and the modification was not in error the standards were slightly different. >> that's fine. >> on the motion to deny the

appeal and uphold the determinations on the basis the surveillance have been mets and the zoning administrator didn't error in granting the rear yard modification commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda's commissioner wilson and commissioner swig okay. that that motion carries with a vote of 5 to zero. >> i have not received a response from our urban forestry so commissioner singh i can call the item and hear that without departmental presentation. >> so we're going back to item 7 appeal verse the department of public works all over the on the protest on cement 2015 of a tree removal permit if i can ask the audience to please be quiet thank you which is an approval

to roam one vigilant tree and that's on for hearing thank you for your patience you have 7 anybody's. >> good evening. i'm anton levine can you could you move the my case closer to you trying to get away from me there. >> yeah. we want to help our neighbors from our tree keeps on destroying his property we have this monitor cypress tree it invades his sewer lines and garage floor we replaced the whole garage floor and the sewer line and a few years ago later had to replace the sewer again, it is hard to go without a sewer during the holidays but they're

no tars for not doing in for being invasive this showdown shouldn't be planted next to a house they're a monster the way they invades it ends up up rooting the sidewalk and now the roots extends under his house and comes out into the backyards more thirty feet deep from the tree this 19 can disrupt the houses foundation he has to came out back the roots to stop the damage and pretty soon the tree all the roots on that side of the tree are going to be cut and that makes it unstable the tree is leaning already it is a very old large tree and inspector

from the bureau of urban forestry heard it was leaning i just hope you folks help the rise for the damaging roots ii hope that paul conroy and his wife are here to plead their case. >> you proposed to replace the cypress. >> yeah. with amassing anonymously 35 feet too. >> beautiful tree yeah. >> thank you i don't think the bureau of urban forestry allows people to plant montgomery cypress in our city and okay anyone here from

the departments seeing none, we'll take public comment on this item. >> good evening, commissioners my name is algz paul conroy live next door to the montgomery cypress tree lives there thirty years and put up with the tree so for a number of years as times goes on it is more and more invasive and more dangerous and the removal that was required from the public works code i cite in my brief that brief has the entries for the money we've spent to make the repairs and photographs to demonstrate the the damages and so i would ask you to look at that to my knowledge none has asked to remove this tree a

notice posted openly on the electricity for street light poles and postcards mailed out no one is opposed to the removal of this tree i want to go quickly some points if the brief the trees roots caused exchange damage we repaired did damage and the trees root grow and cause more damage a circle going for 20 years ago years over the past 34 years the costs of repair over $21,000 the roots are sdablgdz the driveway that was replaced one and needs to be replaced we had to replace the garage slab the roots went underneath and pushed with the daevenl cracks the roots as doctor levine mentions

they go under the house under the concrete slab of our house or under the ceded foundation they'll do the sanctions to our house as garage we've had to replace multiple sections of sewer line this is a serviceable sewer line had will or that will be damages the roots will continue to seek out opportunities for moisture also the tree we'll have a disclose if we sell our highway it is such a nuisance it will effect the value the tree is hazardous the representative of the dpw at the hearing stated that the limbs are in fair condition the structure is in fair condition i'll ask who would expect when winds that limb weigh a thousand

pounds over the bedrooms of our house would anyone want that to be to fair condition. >> as i said the removal is required betsd the public works code we have offered to have a replacement tree and add a tree and as i mentioned in the brief in 2000 i did a organization of tree planting with results of 20 mature strawberry trees in the vicinity of the trees we certainly have there that and of trees in our backyard including a 40 feet redwood tree and asked for a credit as a replacement tree in conclude. >> thank you, sir, your time

is up. >> thank you if the decision is made to keep the trees that's a message to san franciscans don't plant a tree near a sidewalk or street. >> i'm sorry you are over our time limit. >> thank you. any other speakers. >> my name is ms. silva johnson on the mathematics on this outcome reimbursement it should be on such the lowers you get on golden gate air force that's 6 and a half or for a large and this is more percentage on large signed

routine and mathematics is the adjustment of the for - and millions that is one hundred and 6 of adjustments it is more you without the 7 and a half leans it leans that put in set and alliance supports adjustments in public departments that this is if you're on the west south side that the lighting will be no more presentable are that would

cause not problems in the adjustments our repair and our damaging needs that the health department and the trees should be cut as neighbors money on repairing the trees that they should be reimbursed on this amount for the damages that repaired on the trees and the amount of pressure that is not been received challenged that has been over and over again, this has not an sufficient amount of you know in rem brans this is our famiembra

that we in the south west. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment. >> hi, i'm living at the pa lemon paul is my husband i want to express the importance. >> sorry. >> sure. >> you're mr. conway's wife. >> i'm the tree ladies we have been through quite a bit not

only a roller-coaster but an expensive one i hope you take this seriously and consider removing the tree >> thank you. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment seeing none, mr. levine 3 more minutes if you have anything else to say to the board commissioners unless questions commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> very old tree. >> i agree but the appellant and his neighbor have gone drove constitutional amount of efforts now time to get some renewal. >> motion. >> yeah. i want to add i'm sorry the department assisted not here the order was not addressing 9 and said get a

matter i don't feel that trees should cost money to the citizens i'm sure i'm on board. >> i'll move to grant the appeal and to grant the permit and overturn the department and grant the permit. >> on the base and. >> commissioner, i ask to settlement you're motion with the requirement that the requester the permit plant the trees as i've suggested. >> you want to condition it. >> i'd like to put the condition the replacement tree. >> it's accepted. >> okay. >> it's open is condition that a replacement tree be planned on the basis that -

>> normally when the department approves the removal of that tree the street tree or significant tree it should be replaced with a like kind tree not like but the replacement of that tree that supplements it consistent with the codes. >> normally when there is much debate about it we have the ability to put 24 and 36 and 48 but the minimal is not a substantial tree i did the all over the and put in one and 80 trees i think there is sufficient what was the minimum box size the department installs. >> the time is 15 gallons. >> i mean are you do you want to put specific conditions on

this? >> i think it should i'm not a person that is known for the green thumb but a tree that will ultimately be of similar size not necessarily the same type which would recreate the problem. >> i am not they said they'll be blossoming i believe magnolia but do we have to put a size on the tree or state the replacement. >> you can pick a size or species or let them decide, however, you want to do it. >> you're not really permitted to speak at this time we'll ask

a question would you like to ask him. >> i'm no years old but this volume. >> one moment please we need to ask you a question. >> are you sir, are you comfortable with that the species you recommend is appropriate as a replacement tree. >> oh, yes. the flowering of magnolias is beautiful we have a spot picked out. >> so my condition would be a flowering magnolia tree as a condition of taking the other tree down. >> how is that. >> commissioner fung. >> cemented. >> i'm hoping for a basis on the basis the current tree is causing damage to the neighboring prompt. >> substantial and potentially

hazardous. >> commissioner fung how would you like it worst causing substantial damage. >> causing substantial damage a motion by commissioner fung to grant the appeal and overturn the department and issue the permit onion the condition that a flowering magnolia replacement tree be planted on that motion commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig okay that that motion carries. >> my memory the flowering is the tree we planted to replace it a very beautiful tree and not

a flowering magnolia. >> it's in the brief. >> comparable. >> okay. >> a stands corrected stand corrected so moved. >> this is a joint venture. >> this is how you get from magnolia to the duius. >> got it okay. okay that's it you're done thank you. >> okay. we'll move on commissioner president lazarus and call the last item number 9 allen verse the department of building inspection with the planning department approval the property on 20th avenue and this is protesting the ordinances to the person of an alteration permit with the single-family dwelling living room and dining room and two car garage you have

7 minutes to present. >> i'm allen living adjacent to the proposed project on 20th avenue in the sunset district i received a notification on october 22nd, and many blue prints we immediately examined the blue prints and promptly submitted a request on appeal i'm here to present to the honorable panel our reasons for the construction of this proposed three-story structure i live in a two single single dwelling built in 1950 this three-story structure will block our lightwell on the south side of the building and the lightwell and rooftop receiving

natural sunlight the significant reduction will low any houses temperature throb leading to increased energy in your heating system without the skylights the needs for daytimes energy use will result in an increase in electrical will have a negative impact on the sustainability we'll no longer be able to confer energy and higher costs and this is the direction of the potential size of the shadows casted during a bright sunlight it brooks significant amounts of light sources hitting our rooftop and the south side of our building we currently have in structure next to the

lightwell that blocks the permit holder mentions in his briefing the additional lightwell on the three-story structure will add more light to the building can any one of you say compared to a 3 story lightwells can provide more light in addition to light source the three-story structure blocks outs significant airflow without of airglow through the program it will promote mold and mildew and a potential health hazard if the air is only a fraction and the promoted structure exceeds the original height and size of two-story home own is 20th block has 322 homes

additionally some are 2 story we only have a 3 story might want unit phleblee used this in his briefing to the proposed single story comparison not a fair comparison it is a stand alone structure zip codes as a multi family apartment built in 1925 the three story has a single-family home and the single-family homes on the 20th block are no turn around 3 stories the proposed story dwelling unit will be analyze and will not fit the characteristic the exist 2 story single-family homes on the 20th block in his briefly he said this was a last minute no merit to do so the jurisdiction of the

city and county of san francisco i'm within my legal right and following instruction to file this appeal and to my point myself and other neighbors have not received the blueprint until late and we didn't know what the details of the proposed structure therefore to assert the appeal it last minute the proposed project located in the rh1 the planning code session eastbound states the rear yard in rh1 is straightforward 25 percent have lost - the blue prints this 3 story the depth of the building is at 85 feet and he rear yards remains with no change at 20 feats that means that the total lot is one and 5 feet and the backyard is 19 percent of lot

this didn't appear to meet the rear yard requirements stated in the planning code section mr. lee stated to demolish the rear structure and replace it with a two-story structure that plan was rejected by the planning department staff but a remodel instead of a two-story now it is 3 story why didn't we have a 2 story over the garage when the city is trying in every way to increase ava 3 story single-family home with 6 becomes and a give him can be in a medium household budget navigate over the private existing homes in the neighborhood driving up home prices making san francisco less

affordable i implore the office of the board of appeals to enhancing the way of living for the residents in the sunset district open 20th avenue i'm accept an amendment to the proposed plan by a reduction of a health to a 2 story with the matching lightwells matching the current jefferson facade and maintaining a clear 25 percent open space in the rear yard thank you. >> thank you we can hear from the permit holder now, mr. williams. >> good afternoon steve williams on above the lee family

for if this attention the building on the west side of 20 after the mid sunset not the outer sunset. >> the central sunset there we go. >> may i have the overhead please. it is a regular rectangle square scared off lot in the grid it is unusually developed an historic place that exists it was developed with a very small cottage on the rear of the lot and even smaller garage on the front of the lot but it is the lee family owned it for 15 years have proposed projects the cottage is in poor condition i went through the history the

years since it was constructed in 1925 only one roofing permit in 199 six the house was built in 1925 they've or more planned to demolish the building completely and then build on the front of the lot in line with the rest of the buildings and match the existing paper of development but that plan was rejected by the planning department in 2003, this permit was filed in 2008, the lee family have discussed that continuing with the neighbors been aware of the project that was going to be built at this time after the fire the permit languished for a long time a change in the architect and engineer now pushed forward the community outreach, etc. was done in april of 2014 the 311

notifications issued october 17, 2014, and expired more a year ago in 2014 and on no appeal was filed to the planning commission no objection has ever been raised with the lee family and no objections that i know of where sent into the department whether this permit issued in august of this year it was appealed to this board the project is i think relatively restrained and modest for what the planning code allows in rh1 neighborhoods the fourth floor matches the neighborhood of the appellant matches his rear wall and the remaining portions of this building is held to two stories

the rear yard is made larger by a resolve of part of existing building and it is an exist non-common use supposed to be thirty feet of rear yard 25 a foot of rear yard and then the massive development up front all the other buildings radio developed the third story that would under the code be built to the full extent of the lot as two doors up instead it is setback 15 feet at the third story and the third story is more of a penthouse only 8 hundred and 50 square feet in total they've called it a mansion a number of windows along here that have had a view over a vacant lot for a long period of time things will definitely kansas change with

the inseries of this building that is the source of appeal the architect and engineer are here here will questions other than that we have nothing everything else to add. >> the lightwells on the appellants house are being matched a very small let that exists at the upper floor anyway, thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> scott sanchez planning department. >> the thing that mr. williams has summarized the issues i wanted to address just a couple of points to enforce it is within an rh1 zoning districts the exist building a legal non-compliant the proposal will reduce the volume slightly at

the rear a porch entryway that will be removed otherwise the building is largely intact with the in front with a third story this 2 and in front yard and the 3 setback 50 feet from the main building wall the block is 2 story building. >> third story is come out to the setback when we have those kinds of situations we allow a third story priority the setback as provided there was a case from 2014 that found this not to be a resource which is allowed the project to move forward there was a section 311 notice last year around this time from october 17th to november 16th no discretionary review filed at

that time the project is code compliant i'll put up an aerial photograph on the overhead zoom in and so showing here outlined in blue with the structure that is located at the rear and patched garage that is the subject property the property behind it that's the appellants property so that's very small lightwell which is being reflect on the subject project they're arguing the lightwell excuse me. and you can see the skylights the appellant mentioned that require not adding a story because the adjacent property has a skylight you know we are looking at the main light through the front and rear of the building as well as

through the lightwells at the side and this we on the project complies with the deadlines and plus the neighborhood character and code compliant i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> why does planning not allow them to demolish the old structure and build something that is code compliant. >> well, part of it is under the planning code section 317 to to demolish that we have that to where the dwelling are predicament. >> back in 2004. >> at a point i think we have section 317 and demolitions policies at this point maybe under the demolition policies i don't know all the details of

the history of that from 10 years ago but maybe there were perhaps preservation concerns maybe. >> not a resource with no preservation concerns when was the last night are you finished commissioner. >> what was the last time to have the home demolished. >> it looks like the back, in fact, there was the demo permit simulated in 2003 and cancelled in september of 2004 to 5 beyond that an application filed this one was in 2008, and not moving forward until 2014 that was when the parties were involved. >> the other question what's

the cutters square footage of the you current home. >> based on it is on the plans based upon the assessors record of square feet and the project sponsor the tights showing as 16 hundred plus on the empowering. >> the council says they have the opportunities to expand the levels to the street is if true. >> you're correct a front setback with the adjacent properties that needs to be replied they could do more at the rear. >> you have a reduced height limit on this not the full

envelope they could bring out the top floor closer to the fronts. >> what's the top front the square footage. >> the just a few minutes properties is fully dimensions. >> i'll need different glasses about 10 feet one and 4 the front setback requirements. >> and this is the block i drive down evidences. >> they could side up more because of rear they have a 25 percent rear yard requirement they're building kind of minorly non-compliant they encroach 57 feet. >> so a rear yard surveillance. >> no, not been expanded within the rear yard areao so no

variance is required but further out within the rear yard but that is one of the greatest areas of mr. williams researched not building out most at the rear when they're not building above the existing structure. >> thank you for explaining that. >> thank you. >> any inspector duffy we can take public comment then. >> i'm my english i think i'm okay i try to do the best i have a teacher that help me okay. >> overhead please.