until we rode a notice of violation. that definitely has an effect on adjacent property owners. the photographs that you have show rat droppings and other things like that. if you want to extend the time frame, we would just like to see some finite closure. this has not been going on for a period of time. >> let us make a motion. >> i would like to make a motion to uphold staff recommendation and give the property owner an appropriate amount of time to do the work. 30 days to 60 days, before it goes into effect. >> and what additional cost?

>> i believe that we have a right to recover costs related to the violation. the place is kind of dilapidated. we have a right to carry the costs on that. it is not about any other civil issue that might be between the owner and the tenants. >> was there a figure on the cost? >> not at this time. probably at least five hours of inspector time and a bit less in inspector cost. hourly rates are 170 for the inspectors. 140 as the amount -- >> can we do this? make a motion to uphold the abatement order? if in 30 days the notice of

violation of fares are not completed, and if the property owner does not come to the department for reimbursement costs on the fees, can we do that? dwight s. bad as what we just did. the laying of issuance before 30 days pending. >> pending getting paid? >> i believe that the language indicated before is that you would of hold the hearing officer -- he would not hold the hearing officer for 30 days. >> -- you would uphold the hearing officer for 30 days. >> assuming that the work is done and the fees are paid, we will cover our costs. >> seconded. >> than the second?

>> we are clarifying the motion. >> is that 30 days from today's date? >> may i ask that point of clarification? is all work to be done as verified by site inspection for the finalization of the building permit? >> precisely. >> has the owner obtain all of the necessary permits? >> is their emotions in the second? >> the second. >> [roll call]

>> the motion is unanimous. >> thank you. next case, please. >> case #three, the owner of record and the appellant is evelyn y. it. the appellant is requesting that the metal gate at the exterior rears there's a remain on a temporary basis. >> good morning, commissioners. this is the case of 129 scott street. a three story fully occupied building. the department responded to complaints received -- >> what is the zoning? >> the zoning is right here. 3.

82 unit building. the department responded to complaints received on the 18th of september from the complainants. the district inspectors were not there. on the 21st they issued a notice of violation. basically seven items were listed in the notice of violation, completed with the exception of two. referred back on the seventh of may of this year. the directors hearing was held on the 20th of may. at that time the representative issued a continuance, giving the property owner additional time to comply with two items. the second being a notice of violation. item number 7 was verified to be completed on the 17th of june. but not item #2, dealing with

the gate on the rear stairways. the case was again referred to directors and was held on the first of july. at that point the representative director issued a 28th day of advisement and abatement. at the end of 28 days, it had not been cleared in a notice was issued. i would like to point that the picture if i can. -- point that the picture, if i can. -- . point hat the picture, if i can. you will see that the violation notice was 1005, which states

that has to be a landing on both sides of the metal gate. at this time i would like to request that the hearing officer's in the affirmed comply with the notice of proper permits and either remove the metal gate or provide proper lending support. at this time, the property owners' stated that it was a temporary fix only and intends to remove the gate, but we have no idea what that means at this point. >> could you let us know the number of the unit on the top floor? >> that would be 129. >> all right. >> any other questions? copp>> of all of the other

violations been taking care of except for the gate -- have all of the other violations been taken care of accept for the gate? >> yes. >> we will hear from the appellate. >> my name is evelyn y. it. i am the owner and i have a tenant that is causing problems for me. always at work and calling the police, very destructive. he lived downstairs, under the stairs. he would go upstairs. i had to install cameras because he was destroying my property. one time i was working with an electrician and i left a letter on the front landing so that he

could have access to the light fixture. when i got home a letter was not there. i asked him if he had seen the letter, he said that he did, it had disappeared. the reason that i hired the international game company to since i wrote -- install the gate for me, we knew what action had to be taken as far as permits. the gate is now situated, and there is one in the front also, it does not have a letter on both sides. you have to walk up the steps and it opens on for landing. the gate in the back is situated the same way. i do not like having it, to me it looks like a prison. it was installed because i was advised by the police to do that. they said that the way it was

situated, he felt like it was open and that he could walk, that i had no kind of restriction there. the police are the ones that suggest the but the gate of. i did not know what to do. i do have cameras there. he pulled down a tree that i had in front, a japanese maple. i caught him on camera. i got a call the other day. from the district attorney's office. it was definitely them. this is only temporary until i can do something about the tenant.

complaining initially that he did not have hot water, which was not true. he complained about the lights. he was taking the light bulbs out. i talked to the electrician and told him the problem. he suggested that i could sense our lives of their. now he turns the bulbs so that when you walked by, it does not turn on. he broke a light fixture, so i needed that replaced. when i come home i do not know what to expect. i am calling the police constantly. not as much now. >> we will stick to the subject for macmillan. let's talk about the stairs and the gate. -- we will stick to the subject for the moment. let's talk about the stairs and the gate.

but to install the gate? >> the international gate company. >> are they licensed? >> yes, they are. >> if they are installing gates that are not up to code, you are probably going to have recourse with them. the police are not responsible for advising on building issues. >> he advised me what to do to heed the tenet -- >> i understand that, but this issue was under the jurisdiction of building and housing. i think that what we are s to look at it is this gate that provides a health and safety issue according to our building code. i am concerned that a gate company would be putting it in a gate that is not to permit. i have an issue with that.

you may as well. international game company -- is that the name? >> i did not realize that was a problem until the inspector came. >> the gate is not the issue. it might be ok and has been installed. there is no landing in front. >> which is a violation. >> is there a way for this game to be relocated to where there is a landing? >> i could put it in the middle, but someone would have to come and cut it. >> can we talk to the inspector about that? >> in your opinion, could a gate

be installed legally of location? >> i believe that it can. i will show you another picture of. -- picture. but would not be the one to sign off on this, but i believe that it can be right in this area and. >> rate in this area. >> this easy solution -- >> right in this area of. >> that is an easy solution. taking care of the other violations? >> correct. >> we need to make sure that the gate swings out. >> again, we have been in touch

with the cover the owner and have given a continuance the first time with an additional 28 days. >> this is the proper dealer right here. >> correct. -- this is the property owner right here. >> correct. >> any public comment? seeing no one, rebuttal from the department? many more inspectors? >> did you have any final words? >> thank you. >> are you willing to relocate the gate? >> put in the center? that is what i will have to do. >> in that case i would move to uphold the staff recommendation and give 30 days to complete the

work. if it is not, it has to be signed off and all of the appropriate fees paid. >> she does still need to apply for the permit. complying with building code requirements. >> 30 days. >> that was heard twice, it has been over one year and we have been dealing with this for 14 months. let's maybe 60 days. >> she has been showing -- >> maybe 60 days. >> she has been showing plenty of activity. she is not a licensed architect or contractor. >> i am off for work, that will

give me time. >> amended to 60 days. >> moved by the commissioner. seconded by commissioner walker. [roll call vote] >> the motion carried unanimously. >> moving on to the next item, continued appeal an order of abatement, 6733. five see more street. margaret nelson and winston montgomery. >> can i ask francesca what we

should do on a continued base? >> it is your discretion as to what another time you want to give the party. traditionally, they each get three minutes. then public comment. you have not yet taken action. >> good morning. my name is donald duffy. violation is the dormitory constructed for permit from december 14 through 2009. 2008, 0612346, stopping the legality of the existing dorm found in 2008 without issuance

today. >> questions? >> what happened between the first hearing and this one? >> the building permit applications with at the planning department was approved on the 25th of october this year. what if there are no other questions? >> how long will it be in that department? >> [unintelligible] >> border from the palate? >> good morning, commissioners.

as i said before, i think i have made reasonable attempts to make this ferment finalized m. lee bloodiest -- finalized and legalized. requiring orders of abatement are unrealistic in slow-moving procedures to get a building permits through planning. recently i went through a d r request a hearing -- the art request a hearing -- dr request during -- hearing for a building permit.

sorry. but since i m going of a reasonable speed and i do not think i should be fined or have an assessment of cost. the procedure itself is slow. there is a policy statement that says that the process should be fair and understandable. i think it is a matter of fairness that i would have tried to legalize. if i have followed all the steps. that is all but 1/2 to say. thank you. >> any questions? >> did you start to work before

the work was executed? >> this was billed 25 years ago. as a result, disputing with my neighbors, i was turned in to the building department. yes, it was built before. the permit in applying for is for legalization. >> i make a motion to extend additional troops at this time. >> any public comment? seeing no one, ok. >> go ahead with the motion? >> and make a motion fox's to extend -- >> i make a motion to extend of the permit.

-- motion to extend the permit. >> stayed and coming back if there is an issue? >> you want that? >> you want to give 90 days? >> ok, 90 days. >> second. the upholding of the staff and staying of the action for 90 days, pending the permit work to be done. >> i think that what you're saying is to pick a final action today and if all of the work is completed, the order of abatement would not issue. the alternative would be to do continuance for 90 days to come back and report what is happening. i just wanted to clarify.

>> 90 days sounds like a permit issued. >> whichever comes first. >> let's clarify. holding the staff's recommendation for 90 days, within which time the permit has been issued and the work will be done? if there is an issue, you can come back to us. >> this is a final decision. >> does the national apartment expect to have this done in 90 days? pop >> the case is fairly contentious.

there were probably have to be some exploratory work done. 90 days would be very optimistic. >> dr is back in our department, i think. >> the 25th of october? >> it was. >> once it is issued it can be sent to board of appeals. >> why not do this -- continue it for 90 days? >> alright, let's continue it. i have to say that i would probably be willing to uphold this when it comes back.

>> and ending is needed, but we have to be fair. >> second. >> continued for 90 days. >> can be put in a condition of one clear reports? we need to find out that there is progress. ride a a report and issue will find against her, it is not against. is a violation that occurred

because of inappropriate but be a violation is really not for working through with a permit. the attorney is shaking her head. it has nothing to but i will certainly do. >> we are not asking you do it.

the through the commission secretary? >> yes. >> think your ranch. on that motion? whappin[roll call vote] the motion carried unanimously. what's next item? >> item #6 -- >> next item? >> item #6.

address opposite 135 adelphia del mar. >> is this three minutes for each side to provide an update on discussion only items? >> the department first. >> case #6725 and you currently have documents complying with compliance related to orders of issuance of 2008 and to those nine.