owner promoting submitted the variance application this item was scheduled in december acting corey teague heard the item and the testimony that was presented and felt that the 5 finding were not justified to granted the variance that is an existing local non-compliant at the time of the hearing that has stairs that provide open space in the remainder that was said by the appellant that was not safe there were ongoing issues before you nothing in the department of building inspection stating that was unsafe means of access we understand new information from the department of building inspection has issued an nova the correct response for that retaining wall to be fixed that allows for the stairs to be reconstructed in that area maintained in that area and provide open space to the rear yard i concur with the finding of mr. teague and denying the application noted the building is extends 19 feet into the required rear yard the appellant constructed and a deck one story in height and steendz 5 more feet and not characteristic of the neighborhood was stated by the appellant that was somehow a

owner promoting submitted the variance application this item was scheduled in december acting corey teague heard the item and the testimony that was presented and felt that the 5 finding were not justified to granted the variance that is an existing local non-compliant at the time of the hearing that has stairs that provide open space in the remainder that was said by the appellant that was not safe there were ongoing issues before you nothing in the department of building inspection stating that was unsafe means of access we understand new information from the department of building inspection has issued an nova the correct response for that retaining wall to be fixed that allows for the stairs to be reconstructed in that area maintained in that area and provide open space to the rear yard i concur with the finding of mr. teague and denying the application noted the building is extends 19 feet into the required rear yard the appellant constructed and a deck one story in height and steendz 5 more feet and not characteristic of the neighborhood was stated by the appellant that was somehow a