3301 SHORE AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

Specifically, a) During trial,the builder alluded ro pmjects in which he extcnded the roof eves of a nonconforming slructure such that it became more non- conforming, and implicated the Planning Department in approving this caie violation despite no record of any such approval existing. This un- permitted project caused contlict with the builder's neighbor on his other property line, which, like the current project of the builder,also necessitated the involvement of lawyers. Additionally,the builder admitted to altering a roof from a flat to a pitched structure, again with no permits. Recent survey maps show the extension of this roof viol2tes the side setback reyuirements given by the builder himself on his curcent project's permit application. b) The current project violates side setback requirements. Statements by the builder at trial, as well as actions scen in the construction and the obscc ing of the grade within the requireJ setback, indicate that this violation of the law was committed with intent. These actions sho�Ning intent to violate thc law have precluded the Planning Department from the ability to detennine the full extent of thc violation. The Planning Department has acknowledged that the project is in violation of these sctback rcyuirements, stating that this "cexle violation will not be enfbrced". No permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the EMC is valid or lawful. 3. 7'he 30-inch Section of Ueck is a Safety Concern. Thc I'lanning Department originally erred in approving the project with the 30-inch section of deck as the only mcans of egress. Thc addition of another exit does not climinate the safety hazards associated with this section of deck. The intendcd use of this section of deck most closely resembles that of a hallway by connecting two larger scctions resulting in tlow along this 30-inch section to and from the othcr sections. The Uniform [3uilding Code, which was the controlling code at the time of the permit application, contains wording requiring a minimum width of 3G-inches for this type of use. The recently adopted Intcmationxl Residential Codc also requires a minimum width of 36 inches for sections of a structure in which the use is that of a hallway. The Plnnning Department, while origin�lly indicating the use of this section as a means of egress, has not made any designation of the n�wre of the use or the proposed use of this 30-inch sectiun now that an exit meeting minimum codc rcyuircments has bcen added. The Hearing Examiner should determine the use of this 30-inch wide section. It is our belief the use of this section most closely resembles th�t of a halhvay,and lalls below the minimum width reyuirements of such a use thereby resulting in healUi,safety,and welfare concerns. .'r I