Georgia schuttish versus the department of building inspection with Planning Department approval and paul sheard versus department of building inspection with Planning Department approval. The subject property is 461463 duncan street, protesting the issuance on april 8, 2019, to James Odriscoll of a site permit, add new residential unit at basement, side addition at second floor east and west elevation, horizontal addition at first floor, provide basement level, remodel interior. This is application 201708 15 4881 and we will hear from ms. Schuttish first. Thank you. Thank you. I have seven minutes. Thank you. And good evening, commissioners, president swig, fellow commissioners. I gave copies of what i am going to show on the over head to mr. Odriscoll and mr. Teague at the start of the hearing and would be happy to give those to you, too. Good evening, again. I am here to ask you to preserve the battle front facade of the mediterranean revival style house. This is a design issue, an
Foin. Just interesting where this project is going. And i think its important that your neighbors know at some point where this project is going. And probably make your life a lot more friendly with them. Did you have a second question . I want clarification on one thing. Thank you very much for volunteering that the privacy screen will be more elaborate with opaque windows. It was it was mentioned three property lines and one is scheduled to be opaque at this point. And the other two are not, but is there would you volunteer to make all three opaque and that would take that issue away . As an issue of the appellant. One second here. An i am trying to make issues go away for you. An appreciate that. Perhaps i could answer in rebuttal. Sure. Thank you. Give my client a chance to confirm. Sure. Thanks very much. Okay. Give them a moment, i guess. No, they will do in it rebuttal. They volunteered to address it in rebuttal. Lets let mr. Current speak first. Did you have questions you wante
Park. And theyll make a additional electrician to a community for a improvement of the project i dont know if it has tobacco spelled out where that is going to be and yes, sir. Did you want to comment on what the issue and exactly what you think they have to do with this. I think as we see there are multiply ideas and right now it is a promise of Million Dollars whether this money to the Parks Alliance or is dna to figure out ways to do this to keep the money local to allow the groups to use it in this process explicit exist right now we feel that could be done quickly and learned about this offer what 8 days ago that is the frustration we would like to have this ironed and a process that is clear and open everyone can participate the boosters we dont want to touch the money we want a public process dont want that money in our account but go to a parks personnel we feel that. Looks at very clear it is part of agreement and has been promised jack did you have something to say in regards
Complying that would add the dwelling units that may still require a variance but adding onto the existing buildings did not seem very practical when you have a through lot like this and would call for or encourage an exception to a lot development. In which case the lots dont qualify and the variance is required. A variance could be justified for this location however i have concern about the overall scope of the overall project and neighbor project proposed here would not be one granted a variance. Seeing there is willingness for everyone to get together and discuss alternatives and im happy there was some discussion and alternatives discussed and im disappointed it did not carry it through and not before the commission here today but removing that third story would be more acceptable in terms of the variance and what came to light at the hearing was the tree issue and that i did have questions and concerns about. I know the department of public works is very diligent in terms of rev
Variance is required. A variance could be justified for this location however i have concern about the overall scope of the overall project and neighbor project proposed here would not be one granted a variance. Seeing there is willingness for everyone to get together and discuss alternatives and im happy there was some discussion and alternatives discussed and im disappointed it did not carry it through and not before the commission here today but removing that third story would be more ceptable in terms of the variance and what came to light at the hearing was the tree issue and that i did have questions and concerns about. I know the department of public works is very diligent in terms of reviewing applications and they only remove trees when its been warranted and there has been a hearing on it and they may make a decision and that will be appealed to the board of appeals which gives me a little bit of pause honestly in having a decision right annoy. Now. I would be really hesitant