the exterior wall on the second floor. new construction that built out the bay window. building out over the sidewalk. that is an important point because the bay window permit is the one in question. that has already been started. a lot of the work is outside the scope and outside of the timing of the permit. my third point is about the removal of hazardous materials. neighbors have conversations with the contractors. we had questions about asbestos and lead. we were assured there was no asbestos in the building. subsequently, after this appeal was filed, there was asbestos testing and there is. there had not been any testing done before.

the house was netted with a black netting. if the homeowner ask me if i had any concerns and i pointed out that there was a 12-inch gap all the way up the side of the house. i was very concerned about lead, having gone through similar remodel in my house. he assured me that would be sealed the properly before any further work was done. i came home from work to days later, and half of that exterior wall was gone already. there was no lead testing done or notification done on that either. during the demolition process, the contractors dumped things into the backyard. it seemed like it was a very haphazard, it did not look like there was any effort to contain

the dust. it looked very amateurish. we talked with the homeowner several times. each time, we got a different answer. there seem to be a pattern of things not being consistent. for instance, the permit he applied for on february 3, that happened after two neighbors filed official complains. it was only then that he filed this permit. i also want to point out that in the three houses closest to the house in question, there are a total of five children living from the ages of 1 to 10. that is why i take the asbestos abatement very seriously. i wanted to bring this to the attention of the planning

department. we have confidence in the system, but there is no way you can monitor everything that goes out in the field. given our interactions with the homeowner, and the consistent pattern, that is why we filed this appeal. as a homeowner, we are wondering why he can do these things while the rest of us play by the rules. thank you. oh, i have pictures. this is the state of the house now. the only approved permits is forgotten -- active and kitchen remodel. this is the second floor.

it has been removed. this is new construction on the second floor. the february permit was asking to enlarge a bay window. it involves more than in march meant. it is going out over the perimeter -- enlargement. it is going out over the perimeter of the house, on to the sidewalk. there has been tremendous demolition. it does not coincide with the timing or the scope of the permits. thank you. >> what was the response? did you talk to building inspectors when you filed the complaints? number notices of violations issued? -- were there notices of violations issued?

>> i called the planning department and talk to stephen smith, i believe. i explained what was going on. my understanding is that on february 3, at the permit was filed for, but there was an appeals process. you cannot start construction until that appeal process has run its course. that is my understanding. all of this demolition has happened to clearly before the appeal process has ended. i talked to mr. smith about this and he said, that they have started construction? let me called the inspector that was on site for that. that was the end of the conversation. it gave me the feeling that, you know, construction had jumped

the gun. the asbestos issue is a big one to me as well. the house -- i feel very familiar with this process because i just did a major remodel. a 10-month project, got the permits, played by the rules. i do not understand -- there was no notification about this. it is a pretty significant project going on. all the asbestos had been removed without any net team or any kind of protection. -- netting and any kind of protection. we did talk to the building department. this at our best route was to appeal the permit. >> what is it that you're asking of this board? >> i am questioning the process. of applying for a permit to do a kitchen and bath remodeling.

what i am saying is a major remodel -- what i am seeing is a major model. and then applying for permits to do what has already been started. >> we want to put the brakes on the whole team -- whole thing for safety reasons. as the project moves forward, the homeowner will be compelled to take the appropriate safety steps for the remainder of the project. >> what was the last date that you saw construction taking place? >> it was the day before the appeal. february 21, i believe. >> i am confused on the facts. work should not have been happening? >> they applied for their permanent on february 3. there is a 15 or 18-day appeal

process. >> if you believed all of this construction. now i get it. and did you see the bay window being constructed and extended prior to the issuance of their permanent? that is what you stated? >> yes. >> thank you. it was only after you communicated to your neighbor that this was not work that should be happening? how was it that they ultimately -- >> there were two complaints filed. the permit was applied for an february 3. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the permit holder now.

>> i am the architect. i have some extensive background and the project. i will be representing the property owner. on the three points, there were a couple of timeline the things that happened. i would like to go through the timeline a little bit so i can try to clarify as to what happened. the permit for the kitchen and bath remodel was issued on 12/1. that was labeled a kitchen and bath remodel, but if you look at the plants, which i can set down

here, this is from that approved it said. you can see that the lines -- dashed lines represent the demolition. >> this is first floor? >> that floor is the ground floor. sorry. there is the second floor. that is also included. the demolition was part of that initial permanent. it was only for the interior, that is correct. we were going through an environmental assessment as to whether the property was an historic assets. what you can see is we began construction on phase one on 12/2. we were awaiting the response for the categorical exemption.

on the 20th, the exemption was complete and we understood that it was not historical. it allowed us to go forward with the balance of the work we had hoped to do. the contractor did receive -- and exceed the scope. we are not contesting that. they had some work that was tied to interior work and they jumped the gun. it is the dates that are -- you can see the historic classification was on the 20th. the contractor exceeded the scope on the 23rd. on the 25th, the complaint was filed. we completed the drawings in about five days. on the 26, we were down for intake. we were not granted permits until the second. we were already -- it was not

like there was any intention to do work without a permit. we were in the process of retaining a permit. -- obtaining a permit. the permit was issued, after that point, the complaints kept rolling in th. all the work being done now, the bay window, everything is in that current permit. i can go through those items in detail if you would like. with respect to the final item about removal of material, it was a licensed contractor. it was our understanding that everything was being done per standard. causes the contractor's responsibility when the issue was raised, we started to question the contractors

competence and went out and tested the material. it was a very low content of asbestos. it was not airborne. we have now removed that contractor. we sat down with the neighbors, we explain that to them, we told them we would hire a new contractor. that contractor -- we could all sit down again, what ever we needed to do to make sure everything was done right. >> i have a question. did you do any testing for lead? >> not to my knowledge. >> ok. that was not -- the asbestos testing was not our responsibility. it was the contractors

responsibility to handle the portion. >> there is no lead present? >> to my knowledge. >> did you go through the 311 process? >> no, we did not. we did contact the neighbors out of respect, but we are not required to. the deck was within the parameters. >> ok. >> when did you accede -- you exceeded the scope of the original permit. that is when you found out? >> that is when i found out. i saw that a beam -- that is what we started saying, we have to finish this up.

we went down for the permit. alarm bells were going off. at that point, even if they stopped, it was already there. >> do you have any sense of the chronology of the time when you were reaching out to neighbors? >> the neighborhood meeting that we had, we had several back and forth e-mails to run the end of february. the actual meeting, it was at the end of february, the first day of march. >> after work was done? after complaints had been filed? >> right around that time. >> that was the first time you met with neighbors? when was the first time he met with neighbors?

>> i am the homeowner. whenever i was contacted, we immediately called directly to them. the complaints were going to the city. the minute we realized something was wrong, we halted, tried to correct it, and i reached out. i have sent 15 e-mails to them, called several times. it has not been adversarial from our perspective. we have been trying to reach out. we recognized mistakes were made and tried to correct them. to answer your question, contact was made immediately after they reached out to us. >> for a complaint? >> yes. immediately. we immediately went to the city to address it because we were concerned. in two days -- i was in south

america. we found that about it, we immediately went to the city. it was in good faith. it was an accident. we pulled all the proper permits. >> ok. >> whoever wants to go first. >> thank you. we received the plans today. unfortunately, i did note to issues. in relation to the section 311 notification. it does appear that the deck

notice. it does not trigger a fire wall. >> does not exceed 10 feet? what is the other one? >> the firewall. there is no fire wall that is higher than 10 feet. that does appear to be code compliant. the shed roof they had at the back. it was demolished and rebuilt. it was built to the maximum. they are not subject to section 311 notification, but the change in the anklgle would technically trigger the 311 notice. the bay window does not comply with planning code requirements. it is a very large bay window.

it seems to exceed the planning code requirements. it is also difficult to discern between the two sets of plans. where the front property line is. it appears the building may have a setback, but the plans did not show a setback. the adjacent building has a setback. when you have a corner property, you take the average of the one adjacent property and you cut it in half to calculate the front setback. it is probably not complain because of the one adjacent property. -- non-complying because of the one adjacent property. even if it was at the same level, the width of the bay window is larger than what is allowed in the planning code. it does appear that the plans and permits were issued in error.

>> mr. sanchez, i will withdraw that question. >> before you go away, as we stand right now, is it safe to say the only problem we need to deal with going forward would be the bay windows? all asbestos materials have already been removed. >> the day when those are the primary cause of concern for our department. -- the bay windows are the primary cause of concern for our department. it would technically require an neighborhood notification because it does increase the envelope of the building. if they would have replaced it as it was, that would have been exempted from the requirements of section 311.

>> thank you. >> had the permit holder done both phases in one, had been submitted drawings and all of that -- i am understanding what you are saying about the bay window on its own. had they been consolidated come up with that have required a neighborhood noticed? >> the second permit itself has the issues. >> planning reviewed it. they did not require the notice in error? >> that is correct. it appears that we approved it in error with regards to the neighborhood notification. the bigger concern is the size of the bay window. they did not appear to comply with planning code requirements. >> it would not be a 311 notice.

>> it would have required a variance. >> those were with those same -- those plans were in hand? >> it was done by one of our preservation specialist. founded it was not a resource and there was no further work done on it. it did not require any additional environmental review. the plans for this addition, there were held by staff over the counter. it was an over-the-counter art review. staff did consult to make sure to make clear that the environmental review had been completed. >> how pour off is the bay window from being compliant? >> it is difficult to tell based on the plants. if the building wall is at the

front property line, and the adjacent building is set back, they could not do any expansion of the previous day window. -- bay window. the entire addition would be in the required front setback. >> any more questions? >> i have one more. the abatement of lead and the addressing of the asbestos, those are not within your jurisdiction? >> that is correct. >> i am not confused. i thought you said you did not know how far back to the building next door was. how can we know that the bay window is exceeding what should be allowed for setback? >> there are two issues. the witdth does not comply. can even have a bay window that

is expanded from what was their previously? we need to determine whether front setback, based upon the plants, it appears they could nt have any additional bay window at all. >> even if it were to go back to what the old bay window was, it would not matter. it would still be allowed to redo what had been there. >> at this point, we would allow them to go back and restore the previous a window given the facts of this case. >> mr. duffy? >> good evening, commissioners. as you have heard, the timeline back in november 2011 for the

interior. that work obviously started. on the 20th of january, 2012, we received a complaint acceding scope of the permit. their first of january, notice of violation issued. -- 31st of january, notice of violation issued. we stopped all the work that had been exceeded under the original prints -- original kermit and ask them to obtain a building permit to show the full scope of work. that is pretty standard procedure. in between the complaint been filed and the notice of violation issued, they began the process of applying for that proper permits. they did get a permit showing

the bay window and the exterior work than not been on the original permit. i would have concerns about the second permit. i have seen some demolition in the photographs. new framing. structural plans and architectural plans, a little bit of a difference. i spoke to the architect about but already this evening. i'm available for any questions if you have them. i know lead has been mentioned. >> based on what you have heard from the zoning administrator and what you have heard in terms of testimony, the permit holder has to do certain things to rectify the record and in terms of what their scope is. what did they have to do? >> now or once we issued the

notice of violation? i think there is a revised permit required to show the full extent of the work and probably to go through whatever planning department requirements are required for the exterior work. we definitely need something to clarify exactly what they have done. i am not sure the second comment that properly. -- permanent did that properly. i think there are some issues that need to be addressed. >> one interpretation would be that whatever problems existed, they will not be solved here tonight. >> know. they have agreed on that with me. my first action would be to go out there and figure out what is going on and to make sure that everything being done is covered under the scope of the permits. when i looked at the brief, i

saw photographs of newly framed exterior walls. those walls are showing as existing. there are a lot of new windows. maybe they decided to take the whole ball down. that is fine, but you have to get total -- you have to get approval for that. it is a fair size exterior work. i can see why the neighbors were upset. a lot of people have to take months to get through this process. this one seemed to go fairly quickly. >> could you address the concerns raised relating to the asbestos and lead abatement? >> the lead, i saw the netting. i am not sure about the notification. i know our code has some stuff on that.

>> blood testing is required? >> and not -- lead testing is required? >> not all the time. knowing they are dealing with it and taking the measures. it is only if they do not take the measures that we come down hard on them. we even go out and educate them on that before we issue any signs on that. the asbestos complains that we did, we do refer them to air quality management. they have people in the field as well. i did see the report. i think it is mostly a shingles that they were taking down. that happened a lot. it means that they're pretty hard. the particles are not as dangerous.