-- the exteriors stair to the roof? so we are striking the roof deck, and the exteriors stair. and all work on the skylight and water heater. so then, to reiterate, the motion is from commissioner hillis to grant this appeal. the permit is being upheld but is being condition, modified. the scope -- the following is being struck from the permit -- the roof deck is being struck, the exterior stair to the roof deck is being struck, all work on the skylight and water hero -- and water heater is also being struck. with the finding of the blocking lot number is correct. >> and for the benefit of the department of building inspection, we will withdraw the revised permit so it alleviates confusion. i want to point out that the roof deck will look as it is shown on the original plans. it will stay the same as what has been shown. president garcia: did you want to counterbalance remarks made and put some praise on dbi? [laughter] >> i do not go on the record contradicting pat buscovich whenever i can avoid it. i have nothing but praise for dbi. >> on the motion to grant the permit with a

to dining, reconfiguring bedroom closets new furnace and water heater, new gas fireplace, new exterior stair to the new roof deck. we will start with the appellant. >> i am representing the appellant in this case. first off, we think the board for continuing this matter at the last minute. we were in negotiations to settle this matter globally with the permit holder but never got a response. here we are, one week later, again going to the merits of this appeal. for the board members who were not here in january, the board granted a jurisdiction request in the mid-january based on improper notice to our client. this permit was originally called back in march of 2011. the permit holder waited eight months to have the permit finally issued and it was at that point that our client failed to get notice of the act will permit. we came to the board and now we are here for the mayor to be appealed. i and the appellant is believed -- i believe and the appellant believe it is a simple issue before us. it is invalid. the permit holder has admitted this in a prior testimony because, basically, the roof