. >> i am steve atkinson on behalf of the appellants. these are all within the required guard. we request the board to return a permit for the following reasons. these are on the rear yard and should have required a variance contrary to the interpretation relied upon. even if for some reason this is not required, the appellant should have been given a 30 day notice as is typical for those which are subject to d.r.. we would request that the hearing be continued because of the fact that the permit t failed. just a few minutes ago to provide a the plans which would have allowed you to consider the impact. such a continuance would be an opportunity for the appellant and the permit holder to try to reach resolution on this matter. the permit the has refused to discuss this. both of the proposed are indisputably in the rear yard. part of the third level is outsiders the rear yard and about 2/3 requires the rear yard. this will be seen on the plans and i have details here. >> he mentioned a continuance. the one to address an issue of continuance now on the merits or hear from the oth