the property is across 27 street to the south are located within the rh 3 zoning district and are three to four stories as well. the d.r. requesters concerns are outlined in their application in your packets, and they include their concerns with regard to negative impacts with the project's height, massing, and blocking of sun light to the surrounding adjacent downhill properties. the negative impacts they perceive with right side to privacy with regards to the dove deck on the adjacent property and lastly the regard to affordability that this project would with propose. to reconsider the project in relation to these concerns, upon further review, the department finds that the project as proposed does contain and create exceptional -- an extraordinary circumstances that warrant discretionary review to ensure the project's capability with the neighborhood scale and character. in particular, given the site's significant down slope of approximately 32%, coupled with the juxtaposition in the relation to the surrounding properties which features a broad site elevation which renders its west

this proposal is compliant with both existing zoning of rh-1 and 40x limit, and dwelling legislation. this should be a no brainer. not only add a much needed home, thanks to the a.d.u. on the first floor, but have the home they need for themselves thanks to the vertical addition. and also concerned, on behalf of the mid sunset neighborhood association, a shell community organization that only exists to initiate such appeals and has not had a meeting in years. what this means is that instead of paying the $597 fee to delay this project with the d.r. request, in this case it is free. indeed, this fee does not apply when a neighborhood organization files a d.r. by continuing the item or even considering taking the d.r., you would keep encouraging disnationalnary review requests like this for delay or extortion tactics. the sponsor already scaled down the proposal following the 311 notice, which is unacceptable. what transpires in the letters, and the opposition in general, a clear refusal in any change in their neighborhood and any new neighbors who do not live like them. immigrants welc

it is a vacant lot located in the rh one zoning district. quickly on the background, the variance application was originally filed in october 2009 for new single-family home on the lot. on april 8th 2010, the variance was granted, providing the rear yard front setback and curb with requirements. the subsequent building permit in 2009 was approved by the planning at approximately the same time that the variance decision letter was published. and then that permit was approved by d.b.i. on march 3rd, 2011, less than one year after the variance was granted. however, for reasons are the appellant indicated, the permit was not issued at that time and multiple extensions were granted for at the permit while it was approved, until it was eventually issued in march 2015, which was nearly five years after the variance had been granted. more recently, the planning department received a complaint from a neighbour on july 3rd of this year, concerning the permit and its current activity and a notice they received about the development occurring on the lot