and it is very difficult to get them to comply, but in this case, i think the process was at your to. i do not know what else you can do beyond the review of the departments, and therefore, i am leaning towards upholding the permit. commissioner hwang: could we ask to ensure that there is compliance with the permit? >> as required under any permit, and the board of appeals does not enforce those conditions, the department does, so that would be within the dpw jurisdiction to assure compliance with any permit conditions. vice president garcia: we can ask for a higher level. commissioner peterson: one thing

that i am looking at is that there have been some references to email, etc., about how that miscommunication, the briefing or documentation to support this. i think the compliance issue is really troubling to me given that it is so pervasive, and i would rather than make a decision today, continue it until we get that information. i do not know of anyone else would be so inclined. commissioner fung: commissioner hwang, what information are you looking for? commissioner hwang: the basis is some miscommunication in all of these cases. i have heard references to emails, references to the contractor got one thing but not another, but i have not seen documentation to support these claims, and they may well exist and could be put together in a packet for us. i would like to review it.

it would help me in terms of feeling there is some basis for this pervasive noncompliance. i think, commissioner fung, what you said about the process and it going back to the final review, it makes sense to me. and we have heard mr. sanchez state that there is a pattern here. i would like to see if there is actual evidence, not hearsay. vice president garcia: i feel somewhat differently, commissioner, because i think it would be entirely appropriate for us to look at whoever is responsible for making certain that nextg is responsible and to

extract whatever flesh. in terms of the correct levels of review, i believe they did go through the proper levels of review. i think it was unknown. i think that was taken into consideration. we certainly do not have anything from planning that would indicate otherwise. i think it would be a burden on the city and certainly a burden on nextg, and i do not know what would be accomplished from looking at emails so i would be

opposed to a continuance for that reason, and i would also move and see where that goes to uphold the department and to request again if fines are appropriate, that they be levied. director goldstein: any other commissioner comments? so we have a motion on the floor from the vice president to deny the appeal and uphold the department. on that motion, commissioner fung. commissioner fung: aye. director goldst commissioner peterson? commissioner peterson -- director goldstein: the motion is upheld. it 3-to-one. moving on then.

we move onto items 8a, 8b, 8c. vice president garcia: 5 minutes? director goldstein: we will take a short break then? ok.

[gavel] director goldstein: we are ready to resume the board of appeals meeting for march 16, 2012. we are ready to call the following items, 8a, 8b, 8c. 11-007 et isabelle mas all- terrain a building, replace skylights, new gutters and downspouts, replace broken windows -- 100 -- 11-007 is an

appeal protesting the issuance. 11-008, provus dissing the issuance -- protesting and issuance of a permit, and nancy wuerfel, you can go first. vice president garcia: within 10 minutes? >> if i can show photographs. good evening. the appellant protesting this -- my next-door neighbors.

this will affect repairs that were not legally constructed or inspected and for which there are unresolved notices of violation incomplete. the reason for my protests are the failure for the department of building inspection to live up to its name to oscillate -- to actually inspect this done over the years by the current and previous owners and to not follow through on abilities " to follow through. this is according to the following codes. neither the 1984 nor the 2010 business code that lists construction activities exempted as included in the work named in my complaint. specifically, the 12 by 14 foot position, the 198410 by 12 foot

addition of a dormer, the 1994 in light unit reduct -- the 1995 -- the 1994 in-lw -- in law unit. it states its show be unlawful for any person to conduct, altar, repair, or occupy any building regulated by this code in conflict with or in violation of any of the provisions of this code. the property owners applied for repairs to these illegal structures, which violates this section. owners were priced twice about the permits, first when they bought the house in 2002. they were provided with a report of residential building records

that listed the permits, and second, in 2010, the dbi produced copies of all permits for the property to this board and the parties but to my appeal last year. therefore, the owners were forewarned of the limited number of permits issued since 1914 for building improvements. since one owner is a contractor, he could easily detected that two editions, three extra bathrooms, skylights, paris -- two additions, three extra bathrooms, skylights, and the in-law unit -- the owners requested an emergency demolition of the building, which was denied. i spoke with the director to point out to him on permitted

improvements, including the horizontal addition of beat -- of the dormer. february 2009, with photographs. secondly, when this board asked dbi to produce copies, i assumed that dbi staff was also able to compare these permits with my complaints to determine that i am correct that it was done illegally. there were also the nov's. it allows side illegals i like to be replaced. if upheld, the dbi will be violating a code having to do with fire protection that states, quote, exterior walls are required.

skylights shall not be installed within 6 feet of an exterior wall. this was built right on the property line exterior wall. this guy light cannot exist in this place. the mold in the basement is likely caused by the faulty plumbing in the bathroom and the in-law unit. to abate the two 1994 nov's. it is listed as being, quote, complied with, without any mention that it would be referred to the planning department. nor was there a copy of the nov

or the permit. it was to replace plumbing fixtures that i just described. these fixtures empty into a sewer that was replaced without a permit, for which there is a four-year-old nov. it was never inspected, but dbi issued a permit any way to allow the illegal bathroom to continue. this authorizes re-roofing excluding the dormer, which was clearly done to avoid addressing the illegal nature of this structure, not that it makes any whether proofing cents. my complaint against this addition is that it is being legalized.

now is the time to legalize or remove both structures in conjunction with the repair work. even though the condition -- it did affect where the events were placed. my complaint about this remodel was open for 19 months, and nothing was ever happening. this past january, without ever taking place. mechanical code violations were visible on the exterior of the building along the side yard, and that passes illegally onto my property. appropriate things were not made because these would exit directly in front. located above the kitchen. therefore, the exhaust and the end system for a remodeled, also, also other things were

changed. the owners have moved back into the house. they have completed much of the work described in the permit that were supposed to be under suspension. therefore, there is no reason not to require the extending complaints to be resolved at this time. this has negatively impacted me. the dormer interest on my privacy, and the unit has been rented out in the past with unpleasant results. other neighbors have expressed concerns about the illegal work. the owners have made every effort to reveal dealing with these issues -- to avoid dealing with these issues. previous permits have been withdrawn. the building department as failed to enforce the rulings that i have described. it has allowed the owner-

contractor to cherry pick what to comply with, instead of requiring resolution about illegal work. it did not follow the rules. i would like to add least show you a few of the issues that i described. this is right next to this person's property line. it is illegal to have this guy like here. this is a picture.

underneath the door is a pipe event coming up through the kitchen remodel, and there is the exhaust pipe from the hood. it should be straight up through the roof, but because of the dormers here, they just did it on the side. and here is a picture of the contiguous roof. this is a picture of the world as is extended over the horizontal exposure. -- this is a picture of the roof. and there are the construction permits from dbi that identified the sky lights dot -- skylights, and they also need to go to planning. [bell]

we would see that there are prescriptions for how to do this. thank you. director goldstein: we can hear from the permit holder now. ms. gavin, you also have 10 minutes. >> good evening, commissioners and vice president garcia. i am the owner. our building is about 100 years old, and it is considered a potential historic resources. first and foremost though, it is our home. it is not a monument. it is a home that we have been struggling to maintain despite her. she has filed 17 complaints

against our property. she has contacted our lender to advise them that we have abandoned our home. she has called the fire department regarding both of our firelight's. reported our children's pets as abandoned to the spca. we had to ask the police department to intervene. she has appealed every permit that we have asked for. she has called the police three times in one evening -- so that we can move back in. this excess of, constant interference in our lives. -- dissed but incessant. -- this incessant, constant interference in our lives. it consisted of two bedrooms and two bathrooms on the main floor.

one had been added in the 1980's. the tactics space had been amended with a dormer. .-- the attic space. the basement area had a room and a bathroom that were completely uninhabitable and remain so. in fact, we did something before we moved into the house. we had a young family. in 2006, we did something to meet the needs of our growing family. i am sorry. these are the four houses. the person who lives next door had already added a large area