brother. basically, we are obtaining to the issuance of the permit for various reasons but one of our main concern is that the permit holder has a propensity to try to circumvent the city's building code. he purchased this property in june of 2012 at the time he purchased the property it was a rental property. the renters moved out of the property on december 2012. when we purchased the property the property what as two bedroom one bathroom property on january 31st of 2014 he submitted plans to the city and on the plans he indicated the property was a 3 bedroom, two

bathroom property that was existing. also, we have notice with the plans that is kitchen has been moved from the north side of the property to the south side of the property. and basically, we're saying is that the major question here is what happened to the property how did it get frormd if a 2 bedroom property with an outdated kitchen to a 3 bedroom property with a 2 bathroom and updated kitchen. the renters moved out in december envelope he submitted his plans january 2014 he had 60 days to make the alterations to

the property there's no indication he applied for a permit all the official documents it also as a two-bedroom property with one bathroom and the fact in the court filling off not related to this the renters indicated this was only a 2 bedroom house with one bathroom and had not an updated kitchen. my mother prior to this property was in the home she's been through many times it only had two bedrooms and the kitchen was also only the north side of the house. so basically, what i'm requesting the board as now because we've exclaimed to the city about this about the noise. so we suspect happened no

construction prior to january 31st it was only afterwards for the permit when it was pending we were hearing jack hammering and other construction noises other than this time no permit basically, we're trying to say the permit holder knowingly submitted false documents. we all the discretionary review and in that discretionary review little permit are holder indicated that he had the home had 3 bedrooms. that is not correct. unfortunately, we claimed to the city and they've not being able to enter the residence so we're requesting i kwd request to move this body to prior to renda final decision it have small

business from the city enter the property to see exactly know what's going on because alterations to the property have been made without permits and that's all i have to say >> okay. we can hear from the permit holder is the gentleman here? >> hi good afternoon, commissioners. my name is bill i'm the architect for this project. just listen to what the neighbors said i'm speaking on

behalf of my client base he didn't speak english at all. and bylaw regarding to the neighbors concerns about the room the number of room in the house. or the rear of the kitchen locations. personally, i have ran inside the house and saw 3 rooms i'm not sure if bedroom but stre they have 3 rooms upstairs and the kitchen is on the east side and does not - i don't see any kind of modification based on my observations the day i was there. so a flag on the existing plans. and let's see going to the

appeal the reason for the appeal my client it has been a long and painful experience for them for his family he taken much of his time. it also is a heavy financial burden for his family he paid more than $30,000 since he applied for the payment for the engineering and school fees and other architecture fees and he's been suffering a lot, a lot he lost sleep and american people, it's because his neighbor claims. everyone in the city has to divide up their property the family has been following the

city building code and trying to get a permit he submitted plans to the building inspection as requested and participated in the required fees to the city. unfortunately, the family has champed their permit a number of times with unreasonable excuse they filed a dr during the process and failed and again, the side permit is an issue they appealed the permit again. in the statement they stated health issue. as a fair statement this is more a personal issue under my clients. and my client as concerning

about, you know, his health and will do whatever the city required during the construction he will try to limit the noise and reduce the dust during construction and bring down the negative impact to the gentleman's health to a minimum. also there's - the neighbor filed a complaint accused my neighbor of doing modifications before the permit is issued. actually it's not correct the wall is repairing the rear fence both parties agreed on and the neighbor paid part of the fee for the materials.

again, the neighbor also saying that the apartment but the desire has been mrieltd to the building code and is supported bye and approved by the commissioners so the desire only extend 20 feet that originally was thirty feet we reduced from a 2 to 3 story appendix now we have a set back on the existing well, so to protect the privacy. and my client once he put you a lot of effort tried to avoid the further conflict with the neighbor but unfortunately is failed. and i believe as my client he paid the property tax like

everyone and should be able to develop his property. >> okay. >> thank you. thank you >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez planning staff. the subject property is within an rh1 zoning district a single-family district it was submitted in january of 2013 it underwent the notification of neighbors of 2013 during the discretionary review request was filed it was harder on january 16th and unanimously upheld the project. after the filing 69 discretionary review request the subject application the project sponsor rice the proposal and tied to address the concerns raised by i dr requester it was

a vertical addition and it was reduced the impacts as noted in the appeal during the comments by the appellant there are no issues related to the project itself but rather the status of existing building and what work may have been define to make the exterior modifications based on on the psychologically of work raised by the appellant no one would have triggered the report to reconfigure the existing kitchens and bedroom that would not have been an issue but we wouldn't want to see not having a permit they've received complaints but unable to make

entry if you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer them >> mr. duffy. >> commissioners on the building permit the said permit has been issued on june 9, 2014, and the addenda is going through the process in hold with the building at the minute. and obviously on hold because of the suspension we did receive a complaint on may 8, 2014, and the complaint was the complainant was unanimous and it was during the passing past week and created a lot of enjoys the permit application approved not issued yet the permit under

appeal. we tried to we received it and tried to get into the property and there was a site invest by donald duffey on the 9th of june the same day the permit was issued and no access so we've been unable to get in there after the work started we'll write a notice of violation for a permit that's notice issued and a penalty but we've not been able to get both into the property that's where we are if you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer them >> and resolve the complaint you'll have to do a site visit. >> yes. >> and are the efforts to gain access a call to the permit. >> we normally go to the the

site and knock on the door see if anyone is home we leave a phone number but surprisingly people don't respond. >> but you don't call. >> sorry. >> you don't call the permit holder. >> some of us do not all of us do there's workload and other things we expect the person to respond to the note on the door we do a followup invest and send a letter. i don't know what we have not sent a letter yet but certainly i've heard the appellant asking he wants dbi to get in there. if there's work done i didn't notice other building permit history before i came to the meeting so that goes back to

1982 open the computer there may have been work done but we'll have to notice of violation because they started the work without a permit >> okay. thank you any public comment on that item? seeing none, we'll take 3 minutes of rebuttal if you have any. >> we are we could bring the previous owner of this property to the board or she can write an affidavit awe testing to the dimensions of the house this is a major alteration permit yet it didn't request the alteration to the kitchen and the areas of the house that were spooipz in the plan. what's happened we believe that

they misrepresented the floor plan of the existing property to the city and also, they commenceed their work without the permit i pulled off dismissal 0 it says 5 room will home featuring tile with fireplace and built in kitchen one bathroom with separate stalls and shores two car garage. now they get this information from the real estate service. so this is which is also, they get it from public record and so what the permit holder has done again as misrepresented the

building and at the same time has commenced major work to that building and has caused great distress to my parent especially my father thank you for your time >> excuse me. you're not saying that the envelope of the building has expanded you're saying the composition of the spaces inside the buildings are different. >> in the floor plan they are representing the existing floor plan of the current structure has 3 bedrooms and two bathrooms and the kitchen is on the south side of the property. that's not the case when we were last in the property which was basically maybe 15 months ago. where it was only two bedrooms,

one bathroom and the kitchen was on the south side i'm sorry on the north side of the property >> i understand that but you're not indicating that your opinion is the building grow on the exterior are you. >> no. >> no. >> keeping you informed we can take rebuttal from the permit holder in you have any. >> this one thing i want to reassure the the neighbors assumption just an assumption he never see what is the inside and i would although i to consider that and it is an assumption so that's all i have goodbye.

>> why have you not rented to the department of building inspection. >> have you seen the notice attached to the building. >> my client didn't tell me anything about that. thank you >> anything further for inform the department okay commissioners the matter is submitted. >> you know there's two different issues one is the appellant is bringing forgot the interior arrangement of the existing building was different represented nonprofit drawings and planning has indicated that probably would have little impact on their review of it.

however, the fact that their is a complaint and there that needs to be an investigation on it we should allow to clear up the issue and therefore i would be leaning for continuing this case to be investigated by itself building department >> that's my feeling as well. okay >> madam director. >> i would say next week is probably that, too soon so perhaps the september meeting. >> i'm going to continue this or make a motion to continue to september 10th is that okay for both parties. >> would you step forward to the microphone please. >> i don't not live in the area

possibly a 3 week continuance. >> the 17th. >> you want to mr. duffy can you do it quirkiness. we can have an inspector out there brenda e by the end of the week but it wouldn't take that long to document something to work without a permit or close caseload >> that's okay with me. >> all right. so it's august 27th. >> okay. i'm leaving tomorrow. >> is it possible for your brother or someone else to represent you. >> yeah. that's fine. >> then i'm going to move to

continue to ugly 27. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. pacheco when you're ready. >> we have a motion then from commissioner fung to continue this matter to august 27th one week the public hearing has been held to allow the dbi to conduct their site of the property and the public hearing is closed unless you call for additional testimony. >> no, it's closed. on that motion commissioner hurtado your commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda is absent the vote is 3 to zero continued to august 27th >> thank you. the next item is item 7 appeal laura thomas castro upper market in the triangle association vs. the administrator the subject owner

and the project sponsor is the aids health care foundation on castro street protesting a release of a suspension addressed to the department of building inspection tom huey asking the suspension be listed for the purpose that the promoted pharmacy would be changed to a non-formula retail it was changed from the commercial to a medical office and pharmacy. the public hearing was held on june 11th and for consideration today it was continued to submit additional evidence regarding it's status in the formula retail regulation and commissioner president lazarus you said to comment on the video >> i watched the video of that

hearing he feel i understand the issues. if i may i want to ask mr. sanchez to address the board regarding some of the changes that occurred in the laws on formula retail use please. certainly thank you. scott sanchez planning staff so since the time of the last hearing on it the board of supervisors has introduced new internal controls adapted in 2014 for the interim zoning controls in the castro neighborhood commercial district for discretionary review for my formula retail eye even if the project sponsor removes one or more formula retail features. on july 18th the mayor signed the controls and per the

controls any proposed use within the scope of these interim controls that has not received a decision by any agency shall be covered by the interim controls based on the interim controls it requires a conditional use authorization because the pharmacy formula retail were changed before the effective date of the controls but the final action which this hearing has not taken the project is subject to the controls and requires a conditional use authorization and this was outlined in the brief if you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer them >> i think you should also clarify the extent of the release. >> so some of the history the

permit was suspended in january the entire permit we have an appeal hearing the board found a portion of it could move forward the medical service use. currently under the definition of the medical services are not included but pharmacies and other retail uses are and we determined the pharmacy was, in fact, a formula retail control. so the suspension the action of the board to release the suspension on the medical use but not other than the pharmacy. after the time of the boards decision that's when the project sponsor so you get to remove the formula retail features and at this point, i restated the entire permit that was appealed and the appeal before you now.

so, yeah that certainly is before you now is the entire permit. so i think based on the boards previous decision to release the suspension of the medical service but not to the formula retail use that q's requires a conditional use authorization. that was related to the size requirement >> correct. >> so, so also my memory was a little bit different. in that it was not determined that was a formula retail but potential a formula retail use that required further analysis either way is that not - >> that's my recollection. >> it was, in fact, a formula retail use. >> did we discuss all the

factors. >> i had part of our presentation included the evidence of the signage the fact they had more than 11 locations in the conditional use authorization. >> and we distinguished it. >> there was a lot of discussion about the formula retail i remember one commissioner saying that was formula retail but for myself you don't believe i don't recall that i made that determination right then but we were looking for further analysis. >> do our minutes show anything in that regard? i don't know if we have them available or not >> i don't believe the minutes speak to that. >> my determination at the time of that appeal hearing the initial appeal hearing that was, in fact, a formula retail use.

>> we remember that. >> commissioner that's an important distinction and what we may need to clarify whether this action could be moved given the change and i'll call it law i'm not sure that is the right term. so i think we need to listen but that could be an issue for us as well >> i mean certainly i think this is a fairly unique case. but the interim controls are now in effect and they apply to this use because we have certainly made a determination nephews a formula retail use. >> well excuse me for interrupting but you had to make

that determination; right? >> yes. >> one would hope. >> so commissioner president lazarus are you president the parties to come to speak to the board on the question of the internal zoning applies and i feel a that's part of the matter roadway. >> not for me. >> no? i think we should hear them out in response to what we have requested from last time and precede rather than looking at to the it as a new issue i it would be helpful to find out whether it's formula retail >> we'll start with the permit holder for the first response. >> he requested a second swearing in he was not heret