department staff the case are a request for discretionary review filed against two project these broderick street the commission needs to take two acts it is a 3 story family house on the west side of broderick case 2014.1497 d a request for discretionary review of a building applications issued by the department of building inspection to look at a penthouse and to modify and add a par fit wall along the side of the property deck case next is a request for discretionary review of a building permit application filed in response to a notice of violation to novice the second story deck originally constructed under a 1985 building permit application at the rear of the house both requests for discretionary review were submitted by the owner of the apartment building open green street immediately downhill of the subject site the planning department mass not received any corresponds in opposition to the project the deck permit are as follows: the penthouse were critiqued without permit and the rooftop deck encroaches on the property it was look at by the design team they said it is consistent with the g

7 abc will be heard together versus the public works bureaucracy street uses and mapping on broderick street for the pamela to reconstruct a garage entrance that encroaches 9 inches for the subject property that matter was heard on february 5th and on for further consideration ante at the february 6th they voted to the call of the chair for the nicaragua permit 7 abc filed by tim vs. the zoning administrator and the urn vs. the zoning administrator is protesting the issuance on october 16, 2014, request for release of suspension requesting the department of building inspection released the inspection for vertical and horizon expansion at 28 to 57 broderick street start with the appellant. >> i'm sorry just wanted to state that i was not present at the hearing in february and have reviewed the tapes and prepared to hear the case today. >> i last was not present but reviewed the tapes arrest sir, i have 10 minutes to present our argument 3 minutes for the continued case and 7 for the new case. >> board members before you stature i'd like to have and get on the clocks clock and have a question

resolution was adopted and finally there was an appeal of an environmental termination for 2853 broderick street. this was an appeal of categorical exemption for a project that would remove a dwelling unit and in addition to alterations and other alterations. this commission heard this case as a dr on -- i'm sorry, september 18th of this year and voted unanimously to not take dr and approve the project as proposed. at the board of supervisors hearing, supervisor farrell said well he saw several issues with the project, the environmental termination was done correctly and with that he made a motion to uphold the department's environmentedal determination and the vote voted unanimousy this that. there was two introductions a off-street parking exemption that amends the planning code to admit certainly exceptions for lots that front on curbside transit lanes or bike paths for lots inrd yu yu and in order to bring buildings into greater conformance with the setback and other building requirements. the ordinance also includes parking in excess of what is principally permitted and located above ground

item no. 7 appeal versus the department of building inspection other property at 26 thethth broderick streetf on alteration permit to the violation revving of a planter box only we can give each party 3 minutes specifically on the issue of the rescheduling, sir you'll speak first and again is it it specifically on the issue of rescheduling. >> hi good evening, commissioners i'm i've viking on green street i'm requesting a rejerald of a hearing because this my preliminary engineer is out of town franklin and we've informed ms. goldstein we informed her as soon as i finding out figure out about that the issue is 3 permits by dbi to city planning marching wroodz woods is the checker at city planning he she sent back one it didn't need action the permit before you tonight the other two requires a city planning application and they're to be heard on december 18th and we had then asked that they all be combined since it's a comprehensive issue it was bifurcated because one it doesn't need city action and my engineers 3 of them and they've asked that we reschedule it so i believe mr. cox wrote ms.

problems for the historic building and the neighbors who have equally historic building and broderick streets are building over one hundred-year-old. >> okay sir, you have 3 minutes of rebuttal as well if you have anything to add. >> i would add that the ms. dick is trying to narrow the scope of the issue and i think that if you consider all of the factors that have been presented via this permit in beginning to the height issue there was a number of issues all interconnected it's simplistic and it does not represent the facts that the issue is narrow as what is prepared i would courage you to consider the dissimilar it of all the issues there's arrest a an attachment of the process that is wrongs thank you. >> thank you, ms. dick you have 6 minutes of rurltd rebuttal you and i think i want to clarify the permit is a consolidated permit is enclosing close to be loud i want to emphasize to the board and has already been a project that is 90 percent interior altercations so i take issue with the gentleman and i certifying inserting himself into the dbi routinely by suggesting percentage after b