Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    December 15, 2014 10:00am-10:31am PST

10:00 am
scope of the permit the first over the counter permit was permitted for less than 50 percent dry rot on the rear deck i'll show you a photo while the offer the counter permit was in effective as you can see the edition that was built and approved in 2006 and built in 2007 has been mostly demolished and this is what it looks like what it was bought by the permit holders in 2010, the permit holders were cited confessor xooepd the escape of the first permit and recommend they go through the permit process within one week without communicating the permit submitted for other over he did counter permit the drawing
10:01 am
didn't fully disclose the work for example, a hero are the plans submitted and here is the area of work right here and they bubble just the edition the work being down user done on the edition not on the work on the southern balcony permits holder doesn't tell us they were working and we heard the noise it was at a time the edition was nearly demolished they were in new hampshire where their primary home was they've chosen not to disclose the modifications and throughout the time we were in touch with them refused to tells you how they were going to proceed relating to the balcony. >> i have more but.
10:02 am
>> use it in rebuttal. >> okay. >> okay. we'll hear from the permit holders now. >> good evening. i'm frank harden burger and my wife we're the permit of holders and our architect is here with if you have questions we purchased that prompt to be near our daughter and first grandchild now our children and grandchildren live in the city we maintain a home in new hampshire where we spend half our time i've put on the projector a
10:03 am
picture of ms. cripple put on previously as well that shows we we refer to as the patterson edition but i want to point out this is the small deck she's referring to she felt should have been a balcony and the reason i believe she misunderstood we're in violation of a variance nevertheless to say we don't believe that's at case we want to make clear at the outset we didn't want to make a change to the patterson edition rather detailed that in our belief the work that's been appealed stems from directly from the extensive
10:04 am
dry rot not edition that was unexpectedly found this summary once the extensive scope of the dry rot determined our focus to repair and rebuild the edition the fingertip in compliance with the building codes in a manner to insure we don't face that water intrusion again given the extent of the dry rot that was found we decided to make modest modification to the patterson edition first, we are illustrating this large window and the attached skylight which is found to be parolee constructed and contributed to the dry rot damage this will result in the large deck extending to the edge of the
10:05 am
roof but not outside the envelope we're replacing this combination window and skylight with a smaller somewhat smaller window facing the backyard and side window which is right about here facing the cripples and a skylight built into the deck near the house those changes are to mitigate from the loss of illicit from illumination finally adding a firewall along the neighbor to the north we understand this firewall is required by the building code. >> those modifications which are shown on the architect drawings a-1 in the brief are fully within the fingertip and
10:06 am
envelope of the patterson edition and are covered by the permit approved by both the building inspection and the planning department and none of those changes including the edition of a firewall requires section 311 notice and review leaving aside the cripples notice the cripples have impressed expressed two concerns with our modifications that he claim effect their privacy or sidelines how have we admit that is not the result of our permitted work one issue is that edition of the new skylight and the side window skylight is set in the deck near the house and covered by a
10:07 am
please state your name and address that will allow natural light into the sitting room but not allow visibility in and out and thank you this is a picture taken in front of the the side window in the sitting room this picture i think demonstrates the side window will not effect their privacy in a realistic sense it is epilepsy a 11 feet from a 6 foot fence that separates our backyard and liens 12 feet from the firewall that abuts our property it
10:08 am
simply cannot effect privacy unless they make a concerted effect to look over the firewall that leaves the 3 stories over the home at that distance the privacy concerns are ours not tailors the second irrational or issue the firewall we're alexander this because of the a building code and shouldn't significantly effect their sideline tha that's located on the far deck from the folks and their 16 firewalls between us and tare fire deck much of the argument is based on the belief of the original patterson
10:09 am
edition was illegal we should be required to provide section 311 notice to the neighbors as set ousted in detail if position is mistaken there's nothing in the building code d that suggests we need a rebuild it or be subjected to 311 where our repairs are within the envelope of the existing structures they august this is improperly provided i'll comment on rebuttal. >> thank you, mr. t. >> mr. duffy. >> commissioner joe duh dbi just on the i'll go through the permit application first, the permit was obtained to comply
10:10 am
with notice of violation add two windows of skylight door and replace the pop out deck fire roof and decade or deck as required there was an earlier permit to comply with the notice of violation it was from on the december 13th and issued on october 1st so it was over the counter approval it did get through the planning department over the current with the mechanical plan with a value of $12,000 a permit that was over the counter no drawings it was the main level of a flat duplex add new offices i'm sorry that
10:11 am
was a 2006 permit it was there are two many permits the 2014 was in august was for the second floor deck with the dry rot less than 50 percent construction that is typically when someone finds dry rot you can replace it and not need a permit it is limit on the scope of work they got ahead of themselves there was a complaint filed i have the detailed overview details it was on the 9th of september 2014 they were working outside of the building permit application the complainant said they ripped out the addition and ripped anti more than 50 force or percent of the dry rot and lester went out
10:12 am
there that 0 the 12th of september he issued a notice of violation and stated exceeding scope of permit work under the permit application repair the second floor deck and the first floor were 10 by 10 and stairway to second yard was removed a plagues for all work being performed associated deck the department of city planning approved the plans for the first floor and rear roof and horizontal expectation so notes when i was lvps to the speakers there. >> i actually tomorrow the 3630
10:13 am
webster the appellants property she suggested i go out there i saw the deck some stiff what a little bit confusing because the permit back in 2006 which got approved by itself building inspection and planning department and was the subject of the variance there was just a balcony shown on that coming out from a bay window we sue the photos we censured opening opening 0 off on the building permit actually on the last line it says per approved plans those are approved plans should have been the plans from the 2006 permit that shows that level balcony not a deck going all the way across i don't know if the inspector missed that or that was done after that and we when
10:14 am
that pilot came in appeal now the existing plans and would have shove reflected the last approved plans not can what is there 0 now if increase no permit it is illegal constructed we'll have contain that mandates to the firewall firewall indeed requires when i look at the 2006 permit there should have been a firewall on that it would have been required i did is definitely a requirement for the deck that goes to the property line not required at the 36 next to the 26 thirty webster it's more than thirty feet away from the
10:15 am
property line but the other questions how this deck cot connected from been a being a balcony done by the previous owner certainly but it certainly would if we were dealing with this as a complaint in dbi we would write something if someone made a complaint at last plans showed a balcony and deck we'll have to write it you will uh-huh up we would say it got approved in error that's no plans approved that i itself city or dbi or planning i'll let mr. t talk about the requirements the history of the structure is changing they're doing away with the angle glass skylight and their squaring that over so the
10:16 am
deck as well but i'll available for any questions. >> mr. duffy the 2006 drawings that you referenced does it show the depth of the balcony. >> can i put them on the overhead? >> let's see there we go. >> so it doesn't show the depth of the blatantly such as a it shows their coming out from a door and see the separation between the balcony and the new deck on the other side. >> the variance.
10:17 am
>> the variance give us the size of it but not on the plans. >> the photo didn't look like the slide. >> we see a lot of that people change things people decides some saturday do a project and we don't get a complaint we don't know but if we got a complaint we'd looked at that i have a exterior elevation you see the balcony of this is definitely a separation that to my knowledge is the last legal set of drawings you don't know you don't know i don't think there's anything else if you're coming in that that, yes you've got a existing condition but dbi will recognize that as the last
10:18 am
configuration off the rear yard. >> were there two novas. >> that's a good question so there was an earlier permit issued in august that was only for a limited scope of work so someone complaints and said hey they're going outside the scope of the permit that's a complaint dry rot is hard you hope it's not bad obviously you should come down and get app an architect you're not doing a little bit of dry rot but demolishing our doing a lot of
10:19 am
demolition i don't know if the structure gets completely demolished i'm not sure i wasn't able to contact the permit holder but i saw the photographs it was definitely demolished down to the - i believe planning will have the requirement for that hopefully api i've explained that. >> thank you commissioners corey t from staffer i think you did a good job of describing one of the issues p which is as mentioned 2006 variance grant for this pop out this rear extension is projects into the rear yard that
10:20 am
is the requirement for the variance those plans as mr. duffy showed matched what was approved in the variance one story pop out and the do everything we can above and separate small balcony to the south that's one issue that is clearly was not the case when at the filled the permit but some point the balcony merged with the deck and made into one deck and therefore increased in size and out of the scope it was the stand structure the other was the replacement versus the repair just to be clear on that there's lots of buildings and decks and stairs in the city it actually falls into the rear yard they wear out they need to be maintained and sometime
10:21 am
replaced and generally, if you're doing repaired there's 50 persons calculation more than 50 percent of the material is being replaced if your repairing a structure if it's to the conforming it is allowed to sty if you it rove a structure to replace it in kind in a non-conforming manner within the rear yard we so to review it as if it's brand new you have to go through the process again based on the information it's clear at some point mr. duffy said we don't know if it was simply done
10:22 am
after the fact clearly the rear deck and plague was expanded to be one larger technical at some point that requires a new variance and a new building permit and additionally slightly more minor but the pop out was approved at american people angle of part of the professional to move the deck over that portion of pop out is an enlargement after a inner conforming structure needs a variance there is a surveillance of technically needs a new building permit and variance if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them. >> mr. ti thought i read somewhere the extent it went
10:23 am
into the rear yard was 2 feet something or is that incorrect. >> i have the variance. >> you thought it wasn't a variance. >> the variance could explain i can get it. >> why don't you take a look at that. >> i have a question too but i'll wait in response to your question as to how far the required rear yard the variance decision would have noted a hundred foot lot you can't go into the last 25 feet you need a minimum of 25 foot rear yard and the proposed
10:24 am
addition went into the balcony was to extend basically 6 inches into the rear yard. >> okay and she made reference to an e-mail about an e-mail or letter i didn't catch the drift. >> it's not uncommon before an pillow case comes before the hearing there's back and forth communication brown the parties i think that e-mail is based on the information he received at that time, what i said would be true which is it is an combaeshth and replacement and those are issues combined which trigger a new permit and variance. >> okay. we'll took public comment how many people are
10:25 am
prepared to speak about this okay step forward thank you can you speak into the microphone. >> thank you. good evening commissioner president lazarus and commissioners my name is david perry i'm a real estate broker with the maguire releasing and been acquainted with the building since 1988 when i bought it with a partner it is two condominiums i live below so i'll be brief it could be said i'm for effected i prepared a few package brief in this appeal and i'll give you a copy of that
10:26 am
i'm going to display that is a photograph from the last system that shows the existing deck when the prior owner bought that and so as you can see the deck at that time, expands across both bedrooms and both bedrooms had a door you could walk out into two rooms and come out into the float roof this is prior to the house being built a gap next door this next shows the condominium map from 1989 when we had before the conversion you see the dimensions of prior deck and i can read those off if you wish this is a photograph from the last listing when the harden
10:27 am
beggars bought the property i didn't represent them on that purchase i have to vesting interest but you can see what is important this post here is the same post i've looked it from top down is a four 4 post it is clear when this extension the pop out was built they used the same deck as the same post to support the exterior of the deck this is a current condominium that change was done after the extension was built so i've highlighted the old deck so you
10:28 am
you can see the new extension didn't go out further but i think this is a - this appeal should be rejected and it should be able to repair analytical what they've discovered thank you. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment seeing none, we'll take rebuttal starting with the lady 3 minutes. >> so we from our very first e-mail to the permit holders we intended to be good neighbors and not cause them harm or trouble, in fact, that's why we contacted them the side balcony was ripped out we want to share our living of the experience and the deck being built illegal we
10:29 am
did that at that time, it was nothing for them to lose we only wanted them to do research and get the building back into code just a brief note about their condo owner i've been in touch with him and have an e-mail he said he was unhappy with the extension that radish extension but worked it out with the prior owner to get like a benefit from that the prior owner did a bunch of earth retrofitting kind of work to convince the gentleman i want to say that i think that the planning department has spoken and the building inspection has spoken a lot of things wrong with the permit particularly it's outside the
10:30 am
envelope it is two ways it is not the expanded deck at roofline is out into the planted part permit holders were not transparent and after step of the way we tried to tell them we were concerned about their permits were exceeding scope and we very repoint out they've never fully disclosed the work and if the permit holders tried to understand their terms of variance they would have seen it violates the permit we want a new permit issued when the plans conform with the code