this was received in the office on october 18, 2010, and the permit holder is sam ball. president peterson: before you begin, how to make sure that everybody who needs to be here is here? is everyone okay to go forward? ok. you have three minutes. >> madam chair, members of the board, the project sponsor informed us that the preliminary planning department was code compliant and such and the scope that 311 notice was not required. they recommended an over-the- counter permit, with unofficial notification to the neighbors. there were no major errors. the extension was not legal, and the permit was revoked. also, the approved basis plans cannot agree with the matrix and have building code issues. the fire safety rescue window, like ventilation, stairs, and sidewalk encroachment. the second unit avoid it 311 on the alterations permit. now it is in limbo and needs of variances. the project got its over-the- counter permit without 311 notification of variances, dying community notification and appeal rights. -- denying that community notification and appeal rights. not notify

. >> i am the permit holder, sam ball, at want to introduce my family. -- and i want to introduce my family. this is my wife, my son, my daughter. these are my parents, who are the co-owners of the house. and this is our attorney. >> good evening. the appellants have waited until $130,000 in hard and soft costs, 40% of the way through to completion before filing this appeal. at the could've been filed when they file their appeal of the revision for the. what appealed. that have provided no good reason as to why they did not do this at the same time. my clients did not have to do neighborhood notification for their first permit but they did anyway and handed mr. soto behind us, who was a carpenter, a full 11 by 18 planned months before the issuance of the first permit. we believe that mr. soto, a carpenter, should have been able to read those plants. you do not need to have the permit before you tonight, the permit their request, to render the decision that the appellants 6 from you tonight, which would be a decision to require a variance for rear yard additions at the previous owners