i'm emery rogers, and i'm here to respond to the planning related issues raised by the appellant. first, i'd like to talk about the extensive review process, as well as approvals already granted by both the planning commission and zoning administrator. opportunity for public review occurred throughout those sets. there was no opposition to the project. no appeals of these past decisions by either the commission or the va were taken. the scale, density, rear yard dimensions of the project were considered at a join commission of those bodies. if the board wishes i can go through the specific s of those decisions. i will suffice it to say these decisions were reviewed at a public hearing when the project was approved unanimously on the consent calendar and they were considered nearly a year ago. as it could have been and the zoning straz tors rear yard variance was not appealed to the board of appeals so all those materials are provided in your packet. the appellant should have been addressed by the planning commission and the zoning administrator when they considered entitlements to