appeal at the pull of the permit. we're happy to respond to any questions you might have. >> if you were to stand on that landing and assume that fire wall is approximately 42 inches as a guard rail, based upon the depiction, it looks like you can look into the other windows with the they were stainless or not, just from a high point of view. >> based on geometry, that seems accurate. >> home that accuracy, back to your view that because it would encroach on the privacy of the neighbor? >> planning code speaks to the maximum permissible height of the firewall rather than to use the sideline at related to that of a person standing on the stairway, the proposal complies with the planning cut and does not require notice based on the high. i hope that is responsive to your question. >> not really. wouldn't it be a concern to the planning department if you build a building appendage such as these stairs created that a person can you directly into another person's bedroom? >> that privacy issue is not something that is addressed in the planning code, no. >> is it something addressed in building design or residential design? dodge the guidelines to speak to imagine light wells and other similar gestures. but not privacy. or we were aware when the permit was approved and with health we acted correctly in approving the permit. >> anything? >> good evening again, commissioners. the department of building inspection. let me touch on a couple of code issues that were raised. under the co, the rooms used for sleeping purposes are also required to have an emergency and escape rescue opening located below the fourth story of buildings. that opening needs to lead to the public way. in addition, the location of the stairs or any structure is the requirement for the one hour fire resistive walls. the series of permits issued we reviewed in the department and feel they are valid permits. the permit under question is one that should reflect the total of valuation of all the work. i read the description on the scope of work and the value does appear low. in discussions with the applicant, they validated this $5,000 valuation. what will happen is that there'll be a requirement for addendums of metal for the actual construction at that time. the second check will be upon field inspection once the permit is issued. a field inspector will require a revision or correction of this that will require a revised permit to reflect the actual construction that occurs on a regular basis. they were involved with the $350,000 valuation and there was a previous permit for fire damage. on monday expecting the lot line it was or was not part of the original construction. my question was, to the appellant, as would be the case, can you still show us how improved documents, the area that the bay occupied. and a series of construction projects that would show that this they existed. the particular windows are not as illustrated, but that is not unusual. we have many site plans that don't show all the projections. the building frontage is facing east. there are two windows on the north side, and a traditional day which may have a window inside. the paint matches, there is hiding there. again, it appears it has been there for some time. again, that is the other issue. the other issue i can think of as the follow up. >> can you ballpark that? dodge not without the details. there is a written description of the permit application. until you see the actual plan and do the proper plan review, we have a, schedule that we need to follow and that will be the review. i do not know with the early discussions with the entire scope of work has reflected in this discussion. >> when you said considerably low, i know you're not giving a specific number. >> it will be a square footage basis and we have a cost schedule that is very detailed and how much concrete might be removed. i would say that this is certainly -- at least $150,000. but taking the entire scope of the work, that is what we would look at. >> this issue about the transferability of the permit, can you address that? >> one second. under the building code, under section one of 6.4 0.1 0.1, transfer of permit. permits are transferable without payment of fees when the new owners of mets a letter to the department of agreeing to all conditions of approval, stipulations, and agreements. that is pretty typical. on the particular documents, violations, those issues related to property. and a simple action of the transfer of the agreement would be subject to the same conditions and the work will continue. >> any public comment on this item? we have some. >> i live right behind this one, did not know it was here today. this is quite a case, but i have a question to ask you. why do they needy steps when the planning department has already said he second means of egress can be done with those letters that said against the back of the building that you can just flat out. why do they need the steps between the two buildings when they can possibly use of alternative form of latter for the second means of egress? thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. i personally visited the site commissioner on monday evening. >> are you connected? it is not time for rebuttal. it is not your turn. is there any other member of the public that would like to speak? >> will star with rebuttal and you have three minutes. >> i apologize if i offend people when i correct them, but i will transfer permits from owner to owner it is perfectly fine. the director of the building department saying you can't transfer another builder because the contractor cannot be transferred. in terms of the drawings, i told planning full-size drawings are available on microfilm because i got them. they are impossible. you can clearly see that window is not shown when you are standing on deck, and this photograph is this line right here. look at that yellow line where somebody is going to be when they are standing on that back. they are looking into someone's bedroom. it is 6. all they have to do is drop the landing out and there is no one standing there and this tears go down. this is in front of the window, you can go out and physically see it. in terms of valuation, this is mind-boggling. it is about a quarter of a million dollars they have not paid in fees. it is not my job to point out, but that is the valuation that is off. all the work is in the original permit for 320. the key here is the original permit for 320. there are no square foot addition. the valuation is wrong. just got the back off. we are just surprised at having a death that is not needed. lilith the full-size drawings and i told them they are there. they concede that the window they are talking about. i don't think we are asking for a lot. we are lifting this of 3 ft. to get a brought in if you drop off the landing. the stairs come out immediately. there is no reason to stand the set of stairs looking into the next door neighbor. and it is right there, a very simple solution. just ask them to drop the death. >>dawson 42 inches required fora landing. the reason there is a deck, they want a gay. you don't need a day. nobody else has a gay. they can have the stairs for the very first meeting. >> let me make sure i got the terminology right. >> it is a horizontal platform. this window is going to become a door. the other buildings don't even have a gate on the front. no one has a date. >> we can take rebuttals from the permit holder. >> just for a point of clarification, i made a physical site visit on monday evening and what is being referred to as a window is to fix pieces of opaque glass, you cannot see through them. i think you were trying to get that out of one of the earlier speakers and wanted to clarify that i saw that with my own eyes and that is the condition on the site. >> are those windows non- comparable? thank you. >> all of these pre-existing windows, both houses have windows facing each other and they have for 100 years, actually. this is not a deck, it is the minimum lending to have been there through the ground. the owners don't want to have a step where there is going to be a door. they don't really believe that it will be providing any benefit at all to the neighbor and providing a hazard to them. that is all i have to say. we indicate the windows in question and as such, the permit was approved directly by the planning and building department. >> go ahead and put it on. >> they are certainly not easy to see, but let me use a different employment here. right there is the lower left- hand corner of the first day window. right there is the lower left- hand corner of the second day window. >> thank you. >> anything further? >> i guess i just want to clarify the issue of the transfer of power that. the last sentence of that is agreeing to all conditions of approval, stipulations and agreement contained on the applications. there is a series of questions and information. the lower corner is the contractors state license law regarding the note -- building owners that need to carry workers' compensation and insurance. the issue there is if somebody is subsequently a contractor, it would need to be in conflict with that application. the code is providing a transfer providing that you agree with the conditions and stipulations on the application. that transfer and been to violate your application. >> the matter is submitted. >> can i ask one clarifying question? the window in question, is that a fixed opaque window? >> it is fixed, but it is not transparent glass. but you can see through it. it is not clear, but you can stand there and see someone on the other side. and the location shown on the drawings as far as i can tell is the windows on the side of being turned, not in the right location. >> just so i can understand, if these are not in the right location, where are they? it >> it shows not this window, but turned. >> give me an idea on the actual drawing. i need to see you point to it on the drawing, please. >> this window right there is what the art -- but let me draw. that is what they are claiming is this window that clearly you can see is right in front of the fire wall. that window, i think, is shown in the wrong spot or they are showing the window that is perpendicular. but they are not showing the window in the right spot. >> i see the window on the subjects property. are you saying the window on the day is directly in front of that small window? that picture doesn't help me in terms of alignment. >> from the respondents a brief period of that picture with the red outline of the building. >> you just fill than one of the windows on the drawing. >> can you put up the exhibit c? is that the correct location of the windows? >> i don't believe it shows it in the right spot. >> if you were to tell us on the picture, not that one, but it is a bit -- exhibit c. you used yoru red -- your red pen and shaded to decide that is east facing, i think. the north facing window, where would you draw it is more accurate? thank you. >> if you come out and look physically where it is -- >> thank you. got you have a picture of the window looking out onto the subject property? that might be helpful if you have that perspective. >> i am sorry, i did not think of the -- you can see that post which is the edge of the firewall. >> you have one interior picture where you were arguing that the day was in existence, can i look at that picture? >> a photo showing the original -- >> i want to look at it from the perspective of the window. >> that is the east window. >> the token, thanks. >> actually, that as the opaque windows that they are complaining about. if this is the right window, that is the edge. that is a great picture. you are looking out the window that they just told us you can't see through. >> thank you. that is the wall that they are building right in front of this. >> that is helpful, thank you. >> heart of what made it confusing is because there were some many things thrown at the wall to see what stuck. that is what made it difficult and there were inaccuracies on both sides. the presentation is not on the inaccuracies, but it was utilized as part of the discussion will address it i am sure, proper documentation and the real issue here is the relationship of the stairs to those windows. when i looked at the first photo that was used, it appeared that the depiction of the windows and the elevation done by the project sponsors architect was not too far off. the second photo that was recently shown, if that is the same wall where the door is going to be coming through, it shows a slightly different relationship between that window. and what is before us is a code requirement from the building department verses a privacy issue related to those stairs. given that is a semi-detached -- it is actually a detached home, which is very unusual. there is some expectation that the protection of the windows is there. whether it is on the property line or over the property line is not before us into something they will need to deal with in their own discussions. i find it difficult to contravene the requirement of the code. i would be prepared to uphold the permit. >> i would agree, it is hard to figure out what the exact issue is. we don't really know where the window is, we have arguments as to where the window is, at a landing makes a better fare case. we were not given a lot to overturn the permit. overturn the permit. i would agree to a pool