Responsive letter saying i approve if you look at the plans that were in 2002 the date of the letters im talking about ill see that the plans submitted then are do not interfere at all with the windows of she had antenna active ear window blockage would not have been a concern i want you to know collateral to this appeal other concerns are water leakage. The other question where this window exists is there a tenant. At this time it was a tenant and the tenant didnt have concerns. Thats correct thats my understanding. Okay. Well hear from the permit holders council now. Madam president and members of the board of panel im joseph i represent the residents in this action first, id like to respond there is no tenant in that window that is a hallway window a third year hallway with that said, window of a rental noted blocking any tenants verify whatsoever and ive been advised by the architect and contractors that Property Line windows dont have rights of use my clients chuck and carol live on pine street the appellants stated the neighboring rental building and in 2002, the clients another bathroom and deck they got approval from their neighbor and they got approval from the city and the work was regularly inspected we invading made exhibits to our brief that shows all those things to be true and the building was regularly inspected. 12 or 13 years later she complained to the city the city found the plans were not submitted for a window in the correct location i want to make a clear i think there is the city inspectors can tell you this weve had independent contractor and all the improvements are exactly in the plans that setback from the street the height setback from the neighbor everything is exactly in the plan the mistake was the location of the neighbors window but again, thats a Property Line window doesnt have any rights to view my clients contacted upon learning the nixon the tweblz were advised to seek a variance theyve been there 13 years when they showed the neighboring windows, however, wanting to be Good Neighbors they decided to go ahead and get a permit they immediately moved the planter box not an issue they hired architects and contractors got the permit immediately started the work, removed the roof of the bathroom to lower it so that it would be below the sill up to the edge the bottom of the sill thinking this satisfies the lady they preceded that didnt satisfy she filed a notice of appeal now the clients roof is covered with the tarp as far as the other matters raised by appellant theyre not before this panel today mr. Has green has filed a lawsuit and, in fact, theres leakage caused by my clients thats the proper place to litigate those matters not this permit appeal most of the allegations are speculation and we look forward to taking care of them in the courts rather than here at this point, id like to introduce chuck and carol i want to say there no good reason to reject the opinion of the department of building inspection thank you. Hi, im chuck. Im carol we lived added pine street for 27 years during that time weve worked diligently to maintain and upgrade our property one upgrade was the addition of the main floor bathroom and the deck completed in 2002 we hired the Structural Engineer and signed off by the city multiple times during the construction process with the on the job and including the final sign off for over a decade no complaint about your project. So as joe said at the end of last year, we received we were out of the country got back and received two unpleasant piece of the news one a notice of violation from the department of building inspection and we were glen eagle being sued by ms. Smith so our preliminary focus was dealing with the dbi we talked with them and introouf and preceded to work on a solution as joe said the only issue what the 2002 plans in the process the correct location of a thirdstory was shown in the wrong place so essentially we immediately reached out and hired an architect and contractor and hired a permit consultant was time was of the essence and they advised us essentially to apply for a variance thats the best course we look at the wording of the notice of violation there is room to do that we decided to bite the bullet and make our constriction consistent with what was shown on the 2002 in fwooth and got the permit and got a contractor we worked for one today efficiently i might add no coverage except for the tarp the parapet is begun we were toeflt nonflushed when we got the appeal of the permit we feel it is groundless and based on no facts and we strongly hope that you will uphold our Building Permit. Question this is guess nonsensical to the containment our neighbor is protesting the city issued a Building Permit based on the complaint so that in summary we would like to ask that the im sorry you uphold our permit and deny the appeal thank you for your time. We have the architect and contractor if you have questions. Is your permit deal with the Foundation Part of the planner that the theyre indicating with the wood siding. In the nov said the bathroom roof issue of the parapet the planter we moved immediately ourselves not the concrete portion; right . To answer your question prior to the concrete being poured there of the dirt and some bushes previous neighbor complained about the water going down into his wine incremental so the space between the houses was concrete taking out the concrete will expose the other side the ladies property open dirt again we dont understand why anyone wants to have dirt water gets in were not aware of any violation of butting the neighbors property. Your dish disputing that the concrete at the base of the planter going against siding it needs to be reamendment it is concrete between two properties thank you regularly done all over the city. It is a faulty grade issue when the foundation is not where the ground level is you dont want water touching the baseline of the property. I dont believe this is the situation the situations water runs back to the back of the slopes. That was the question that commissioner fung asked concrete had directly to the joining side of the property thats the question. I dont know if it actually touches it were not aware of that we have pictures but there are slopes so any water runs off to the back and goes to the drainage at the back of the clients property. But the issue of the concrete is not part of nov not part of this appeal so why are we discussing this because this is not part of the appeal. It is partly of nov but no permit is riverside the nov only concerns our permit only concerns the issue of the bathroom roof. All right. As counselor mentions earlier it may come up later i want to make sure that were addressing the issues that are in the permit. Why not hear from the department that will help. Commissioners it is in the scope of the work of the permit. Okay. Thank you. Introouf. Good evening joseph dbi that Building Permit is a notice of violation focus to rove the parapet on the level of the became on the second floor to accommodate the neighbors in the thirdstory neighborhoods and the planter 6 inches from the Property Line the permit was taken around may 15 and went through the Planning Department over the review and in the plan checked by the building plan checked our structural and issued by the burton the 21st of may 2015 notice of violation that was issued was issued by senior Donald Duffey on january 2015 and ill read that it is probably pertinent to the case a complaint filed with 24 Department Regarding the property on pine street the wood planter box is close to pine street not permitted by the Building Code for the flashing when it is closer than 6 inches and the Building Permit out of window with the first floor with the deck and another permit is a revision to eliminate the skylights and recuse the bathroom showing the annexation below the window on pine street site and inspection revealed it was covered partially 3 feet by a parapet wall corrective action to have the flashing planter box or relocation 6 inches if the neighbor wall and two the approval of the defendant i cant guess from the permit the 2000 and 2003 permit that required the inspections that was issues or issues on january 2013 Building Permit as issued by dbi ill be asking it was upheld and find i believe the work started and was stopped because of of the permit but from the dbi point of view that was an complaint and ill have a nov permit to fix it i read the brief the flashing between the buildings needs to be resolved by Property Owners the gi didnt get in between the flashing they need to come up with the flashing weve discussed it many times on on the issues thats definitely anything to work on whether on the siding go with relations to the parapet we need to look at the code violates a newer complaint typically we see foundation to concrete paving and then the siding up a few inches maybe over the years the concrete and the planter box got put on it and the concrete contract that is probably needing to get looked at in my opinion im available to answer any questions. I have not seen a photograph of that. Thank you mr. Sanchez nothing any Public Comment on this item . Good evening my name is eric burke werts b e r k w it z i live on pine street and with relations to the tweerldz ill give an observation from the front my wife and i have been amazed at the way the twerlz maintain their house the house is in fact at a pointing point of humor they do everything twice as well necessary take care of their garden it is perfect those are people that are not only an asset to the neighborhood their house is the jewel of the neighborhoods everyone or everything is in the height of taste never over dub and they spare no expensive im astonished of all the neighbors chuck and carol are drawn to task for not up to snuff i dont know the details i am giving you angle example the building next to it is really the eye sore of the neighborhood we view the front and rear of the house pelosi paint not well minced garage and tree is not well done the attitude of the neighborhood the view of the neighborhood is twerlz heirs the jewel the one on the corner it is no a slum is going too far it is simply not tentatively maintained there is so again, im a little bit precipitated that the owner of that building would be the one calling the owner the twerlz to task on questions of maintenance i just wanted to give you a prospective from the neighborhood itself thank you. Thank you. Is there any additional Public Comment. Okay. Seeing none then we will have rebuttal starting with the appellant. Thank you madam president opposing coincidental when he addressed with rarpd to the location of relocated roof in the bathroom up to the evidently of the sill we were sensitive on this because first of all that is not what the condition says it says under the sill and if the roof edge goes up to the sill were going to have leakage problems you sound like a small item but my client has been living with leakages e lineations you can call her i dismiss those characterizations but leaks i urge the board to add to the condition has to do with with the location it is under the sill additional flashed second we have argued go ive heard fluff i said the name wrong sorry. Only the at that particular time box is involved i submit that the planter box sat on the concrete pa pad and concrete to wood content the existing direct content concrete to wood is unappropriated we like to have that removed to 6 inches and nothing further. Counselor are you finished im sorry. Yes. You said prior to coming to this hearing you were close to com to an agreement with the next door and opposing council and i have an incredible we had a deposition with a sweet spirit and in my view is time i suggested this is put offer into the next meeting if youre agenda permits the clients cant stand the leak of the present condition of their roof being exposed and coasted are tarps i know this was put together in 2 3, 4 or 4 days thats the reason im here arguing right now. Thank you. We can have rebuttal from the permit holders. We have a little bit of time left. Do they. They say it was built according to the plans if you look at the final submittal increase no parapet and the roof comes into the drawings blow the windowsill but the final product as a parent so i wonder when they say it is built to plan what are they talking about the plan shows the parapet and the he finally plan in 2000, 2002 no parapet thank you. Now well hear if the permit holders rebuttal first of all, im not council for the twooerlz for the litigation i could have settlement decide ive a maid that clear settlement discussions shouldnt be revealed, and, secondly, the twerlz plans shows the bottom edge of the roof goes to the bottom them of the sill this is exactly where it is supposed to be again, all the other issues the concrete blow the planter box the planter box was moved and didnt rise above the ground those are red home sharers not before the board put the roof back on and get their house no order. Are you finished. Yeah. Do you know where building inspector duffey said of thats not before us of the appellants call a notice of violation will be issued for that and well be here all over again. It is a fact that exists you have a lot of shuktdz if you look at the brief youll see what really occurred mr. Herself green contract put a hole in the parapet roof and didnt flash it that calls for leaks and thats because of the roof in fact, if you want to get into the discussions even one hell take out it so shell not have leaks. That was a slightly different issue you have a photo of where the concrete underneath the at that particular time a closeup photo where it rests against the wall. We didnt thinks that to be an issue at any time and. Thank you thank you mr. Duffy anything further. Joe duffy dbi commissioners the concrete was not part of original complaint is if it comes up in the future well deal with that and donald duh iowas i didnt was there not me an experienced inspector hell resolve it theres another complaint on 1949 were dealing with and weve issued a notice of violation to deal with the fence coming through walls and stuff like this i wanted to make you aware of if it is not green before us but nov issued. Just a clarify mr. Duffy the planter location is part of the nov and the permitted that issue of the concrete against wood is not . It wasnt brought in the notice of violation and the planter box got moved and the inspector noted some reference but the completely removed and i dont have any current photos but it was mr. Sanchez had a photo of the planter box sitting beside the garage on a concrete pad it has been moved youll have to ask them who moved it was too close to the wall for the purposes and i think they said they moved is 6 inches. Thats fine. You know the base of the planter. We see that condition all over the city it meets the intersection and want a concrete foundation or the pathway whatever concrete to concrete is better so it would be simply a matter of hopefully concrete behind that theyll have to raise the ceiling we see it all the time it is pretty common common fixes an easy fix too. Commissioners the matter is submitted. Im not persuaded theirs issues with that particular permit. This case is predominantly a single case the question of the Property Line windows is really the issue and im in agreement that per the code Property Line windows the other issue related to similarly the smooth process beyond the Property Line as a result the planter open either side is i have no further question on the concrete issue im not prepared to over turn that permit. I concur unfortunately this is a condition that existed since 2001 and 2 i think that at one point contractors have to build to plan at the same time this is gone on 13 years with people feel living in the property with no issues i hope you folks come to an agreement prior to litigation that gets pricey i see no problem with the permit as issued. Ill move to deny huh . Deny the appeal and uphold the appeal it was properly issued. Thank you. Theres a motion it on the floor to uphold this permit it was properly issued on that motion commissioner fung commissioner Vice President honda commissioner wilson is absent commissioner swig thank you the vote is 4 to zero this prosecute permit is you would on that base. Item 7 is appeal north versus the department of building inspection with the Planning Department approval on 30th street protesting the issuance on may 26th to Michael Cramer and alex and others of an alteration permit of totally remold 72 hour about the laundry room and configures the second floor plan and adds a decadent this is for the notice of violation well start with the appellant you have 7 minutes. Good evening. Im tom north i along with my wife sarah own the property on 30th street first of all thank you for taking the time my wife and i have worked hard to realize a dream and future raise a fame we appreciate the opportunity to have our concerns heard by the board i have 4 points i want to talk about today first, the concern of privacy of our interior living space and those of our neighborhoods as a result two the concern