Adequately show the neighbors light well onsite plan. Its a small light well but its set back and one that is not shown. That is somewhat relevant, as the appellant mentioned there is an interpretation from the zoning administrator. That is found in zoning bulletin no. 4 that covers many things and covers the filling of light wells, and there are provisions and 11312 requires for the infilling of the envelope, but if you infilling in a blank wall we dont require 311 or 312 for that, and if there is a matching light well, depending the district, you may be required to match it. In this zoning i dont think that its required to match the light well. But as the appellant pointed out this expansion into the side court light area is visible to the properties to the rear on roff, the planner referenced the light wells. However it could be seen from a site that is offsite. I believe that the project should be required to do 312 neighbor notification. The 312 . 311 . 312 is for the neighborhood
Significant. Okay. What was on the roof, on the second floor deck . The second point was to create a planter as a buffer on the side of the second floor roof deck. Adjacent to the marsh. Okay. And then in respect with the conditions. Mr. Teague, you dont like that . Please come forward. I actually, its for the previous condition. I just wanted to add something for thought in case you wanted to address it further. I think there is a recognition that a loss of space may result in a loss in number of units, and this could impact how much Affordable Housing is required or if Affordable Housing is required when this project began. The trigger was five or more dwelling units. But prop c which passed november, 2012 changed that trigger to 10 units. A 12unit building having one of its four residential floors removed its not crazy to think that wouldnt come in under 10 units. And then no Affordable Housing is required at all. Potentially there is a procedure ago through to get to that point. I
I think there is a recognition that a loss of space may result in a loss in number of units, and this could impact how much Affordable Housing is required or if Affordable Housing is required when this project began. The trigger was five or more dwelling units. But prop c which passed november, 2012 changed that trigger to 10 units. A 12unit building having one of its four residential floors removed its not crazy to think that wouldnt come in under 10 units. And then no Affordable Housing is required at all. Potentially there is a procedure ago through to get to that point. I dont know if you want to qualify your conditions with that in mind. Because the Affordable Housing issue was brought up so much, i want to keep that in context of the massing and that goes back to the comment of mass and dwelling units. I wanted to be sure that context was raised again. I wonder if that can be addressed with a determination that the dwelling unit number must be sufficient to include at least one a
For thought in case you wanted to address it further. I think there is a recognition that a loss of space may result in a loss in number of units, and this could impact how much Affordable Housing is required or if Affordable Housing is required when this project began. The trigger was five or more dwelling units. But prop c which passed november, 2012 changed that trigger to 10 units. A 12unit building having one of its four residential floors removed its not crazy to think that wouldnt come in under 10 units. And then no Affordable Housing is required at all. Potentially there is a procedure ago through to get to that point. I dont know if you want to qualify your conditions with that in mind. Because the Affordable Housing issue was brought up so much, i want to keep that in context of the massing and that goes back to the comment of mass and dwelling units. I wanted to be sure that context was raised again. I wonder if that can be addressed with a determination that the dwelling un
Affordable housing is required or if Affordable Housing is required when this project began. The trigger was five or more dwelling units. But prop c which passed november, 2012 changed that trigger to 10 units. A 12unit building having one of its four residential floors removed its not crazy to think that wouldnt come in under 10 units. And then no Affordable Housing is required at all. Potentially there is a procedure ago through to get to that point. I dont know if you want to qualify your conditions with that in mind. Because the Affordable Housing issue was brought up so much, i want to keep that in context of the massing and that goes back to the comment of mass and dwelling units. I wanted to be sure that context was raised again. I wonder if that can be addressed with a determination that the dwelling unit number must be sufficient to include at least one affordable unit. Is that something that we can do . Robert . Well, i think the Affordable Housing unit is something that with