3301 SHORE AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

Specifically, a) During trial, the builder alluded to projects in which he extended the roof eves of a nonconforming swcture such that it became more non- confonning, and implicated the Planning Department in approving this cale violation despite no record of any such approval existing. This un- pemiittcd project caused conflict with the builder's neighbor on his other property line, which, like the curtent project of the builder,also necessitated the involvement of lawyers. Additionally, the builder admitted to altcring a roof from a flat to a pitched strucmre,again with no permits. Recent survey maps show the extension of this roof violates the sidc setback requirements given by the builder himself on his current project's pennit application. b) The currcnt project violales side setback requirements. Statements by the buildcr at trial,as well as actions seen in the construction and the obscuring of the grade within the reyuired setback, indicate that this violation of the law was committed with intent. These actions showing intent to violatc the law have precluded the Planning Department from the ability to detcrminc the full extent of the violation. The Planning Department has acknowledged that the pmject is in violation of these setback rcyuirements, stating Ihat this"cocle violation will not be enforced". No pemiit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the BMC is valid or lawful. 3. 7'he 30-inch Section of Ikck is a Safety Conccrn. 'I'he Pl:mning Department originally erred in approving the project with the 30-inch section of deck as thc only means of'egress. The addition of anothcr exit dces not eliminate thc safety hazards associated with this section of deck. The intended use of this section of deck most dosely resembles that of a hallway by connecting two larger scctions resulting in tlow along this 30-inch section to and from the other sections. Thc Uniform Building Code, which was the controlling codc at thc timc of thc pcnnit application, contains wording reyuiring a minimum width of 3G-inches for this type of usc. The recenNy adopted International Rcsidential C<x1e also reyuires a minimwn width of 36 inches for scctions of a structurc in which thc usc is that of a hallway. The Planning Departtnen�, while originally indicnting the use of this section as a means of egress, has not made �ny dcsignation of the nawre of the use or the proposcd use of this 30-inch scction now that an exit meeting minimum codc reyuircmenls has becn added. The Ilcaring I:xaminer should determine the use of thi� .i0-inch wide seclion. It is our belief thc use of this section most closcly resembles that of a hallw;ry, amd (alls bclow the minimum width rcyuirements of such a use thereby resultim, in hcadth, safety, and welfare concems. ExHiBiT # -� PAGE,��F�