this was for their benefit. >> mr. gladstone. of course, we feel sorry for mr. horvers and his mother, but another has spoken for him before, and we knew from mr. butler that the appellate would be here. here is what this looks like. you try to make everybody happy, but there are people on both sides, and we did what the planning commission required us to do. this is one that does the very least amount of harm to the livability of the unit, and is one that was proposed, which we will show you with mr. butler, and he got what he wanted, the light will the we are doing right now. a huge amount of time during the relocation. the planning commission in its judgment thought it would be better to put the big light well opposite that today, and we have. there is no negative impact, and the condition that we have created here will give them more or less at the same light impact as to property line windows that face another building. it is an extremely typical condition. it has been done for generations and is still done today. by the way, the light well the we are doing

i say shame on mr. gladstone. however, we're going to continue with the process. i happen to also live in the neighborhood. all i am out1251 and 1249 lombard. -- i am at 1251. how did this new project get as far as it did in the approval process? it is seemingly far in excess of anything that as allowed in the code. there seems to be an assumption that a developer or project sponsor has a right to two units. and there seems to be an assumption that it is compatible with the neighborhood. talking about requiring of variance in the back of the yard.

i say shame on mr. gladstone. however, we're going to continue with the process. i happen to also live in the neighborhood. all i am out1251 and 1249 lombard. -- i am at 1251. how did this new project get as far as it did in the approval process? it is seemingly far in excess of anything that as allowed in the code. there seems to be an assumption that a developer or project sponsor has a right to two units. and there seems to be an assumption that it is compatible with the neighborhood. talking about requiring of variance in the back of the yard. you can put a two-family dwellings. that is a dwelling unit, not two units, not anything else. 2019-g says the in therh-2 zone, you need a conditional use district. it does not meet the code. you cannot put two units on this lot. you can only put one unit on the lot. when we talk about the neighborhood compatibility, there were all kinds of comments made by the zoning administrator that this is compatible with the neighborhood. it is not compatible with the neighborhood. there are seven lots in the east of this project,