indicated he worked at the color scheme early morning to a certain time, worked his regular job in mthe mta and came back and drove at nights and weekends. that does not quite add up. president peterson: i concur. >> does he meet the requirements of section 1104? >> that is correct. >> think you. >> please call the roll. >> the motion is to uphold the denial. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> the denial is upheld. >> thank you. >> we can move on to item number 9. >> item number9 is mukulla and goodwin versus the department of building inspection, appeal number 10-60. the property is at 182 sagamore street protesting a permit to alter a building and at the start to be constructed at the second floor, adding a new window and door. >> the evening, commissioners. on may 28th, there was a neighboring property right next door and let me get every one oriented. this is the street, this is our neighbor's residence and the issue is a deck that will be constructed which is directly adjacent. we received notice on may 28th. when she was aware of the project, she thought it was a patio. she was made a

indicated he worked at the color scheme early morning to a certain time, worked his regular job in mthe mtaame back and drove at nights and weekends. that does not quite add up.

mta, it is an inherent conflict of interest. it is no allegation that he is doing anything. commissioner hwang: thank you. president peterson: mr. alexander? >> on mthensit matter, the first time i heard of this was in the opposition break. it is a distraction. between january 2010 and june 2010, what is at issue is mr. linus oha's driving performance in the years leading up to 2009 and the rules that apply to him or anyone else in his position. he is not claiming that this was a surprise. what we are claiming is that if you are going to make rules that impede experienced drivers from obtaining medallions because they have not met some arbitrary standard, you have to do it properly. you cannot just say, "let us make him do this," and not enact it in a proper way with respect toward the democratic initiative process. the other thing on this conflict is substantive [unintelligible] i did not see any authority for the proposition that only conflicting legislation -- you cannot substantively amend a voter regulation through legislation. you have to go back to the voters. the people who drafted proposition k came out in force. what happens when you impose