the minutes? >> please call the roll. >> on the motion to adopt --

>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> the senate's are adopted. >> moving on, we can start with item number4. >> : numberfour -- calling number 4 a, the subject property is at 6090 douglas. this is a letter from jim stevens asking that the board take jurisdiction over a zoning administrator stop work order released october 15th, 2009. the request was received august 30th of this year. the property owners are bruce and joanne kapsack.

>> mr. stevens is not here. i'm here to speak in his behalf. first, i want to draw attention to the document for jurisdiction request, the one that was received at planning. it says here that your testimony should focus on the reasons he did not file on time and what the board should allow delayed filing. as we've heard from the onset, the notice was not received to august of this year. mr. stevenson not receive this on time.

-- mr. stevens did not receive this on time. that is pretty cut and dried. therefore, he did not respond on time and that is why he is asking for jurisdiction moving forward. >> are you finished? >> i don't know. i would like to be finished. there is another issue which would better be spoken to moving forward as part of the review. i asked whether in fact you have any questions. >> he mentioned planning costs alone it mission.

>> it was mentioned by this gentleman here. >> what i read was that the jurisdiction request was received august of this year. >> mr. stevens never received anything until august of this year. >> i thought that that was already represented by planning. never got it on time, it never arrived, therefore they could not react to it. >> i don't want to interrupt by asking you a question but let me know. >> i am finished. >> in our package we have a letter dated october 11th and this was amended october 13th.

do you have that in your papers? >> 2009. >> this was sent to mr. stevens. >> it seems to me that it is pretty well outlined what the steps are that the police will follow assuming the disagreement that is outlined on here is met and that this will be followed up by phone call. are you saying that this letter was received by mr. stevens. >> i am saying that the notice to remove the stopped work order was never received by mr.

stevens. >> i am asking about this letter. the implication is that this letter says that the stock release order is now in affect. >> the that i would say this agreement actually is closed one month even after the stop work order was to released in the first place. >> i might save some comments from when we discuss this. i don't know that the city has the authority or the ability to force the agreement. if the parties have reached an agreement between themselves, then the city based on that agreement and based upon the facts that are in item number 3 on the first page are saying

that, we will release the stop work order. we will rescind that. >> i guess i'm saying that i think that a sufficient notice and maybe the argument it's surrounded by whether or not this is the notice that is required. >> i will say that this letter amended october 13th, this is over one month. i don't really follow. i can tell you that he agreed to

set lowest bid. this is a token of good faith. >> the actual job itself that they don't have an agreement about. that is why i think that this is best continued until that they can hash out what it is they are green about. >> i have no more questions. >> i have a follow-up question. >> are you contending that the work does not comply with the codes?