whatever right now and the advertising stops and move forward you can do whatever you want from here i mean, if we wanted to go through planning. >> if he is mark farrell doing that and not complicating the issue that should be able to go forward hose complicating it to remove and legalize get the one thing done that's the issue who the likelihood of getting this approved. >> mr. sweeney you have a question. >> the application has been approved by planning that was for the removal of residential rooms and not a valid permit and to restore it back to automobile

use and to remove the illegal dwelling both are $6,000 not enough minor permits. >> for the building code issues. >> removing the use. >> so this is easy for us to - >> the other part is. >> yeah. >> i think you've had our rebuttal we didn't formerly call this do you have any last words before we ask public comment and vote? >> the advertising i'm not sure it was there and if is there we want to remove it with the permit we'll have to wait for the issue we're godfather not going to do

anything else so basically waiting. >> is there any public comment? before a vote? seeing none, would anybody like to make a motion commissioner walker >> we've voted to uphold the order of abatement and held it in abeyance i'd like to stepped that for thirty days to allow the owner to get a permit and resolve our notice of violation i second that. >> there's a there is a motion and a second what are we extending. >> the holding in abeyance the holding of the order of abatement we've voted on the order of abatement. >> roll call vote. >> commissioner clinch

commissioner melgar i'm sorry you- i want to include you for this. >> commissioner mccarthy pr commissioner mondejar commissioner mccray commissioner walker motion carries unanimously. >> i'd like to acknowledge that commissioner melgar has joined us. >> i'll go to item f commissioner clinch would you like me to go to item f new appeals and order of abatement rhode island street owner of record christine and action requested by appellant appellant requests the ab reverse the fees or modify the order of abatement

for 5 slash 32 rhode island good morning first of all i'd like to say i'm happen. >> oh, we'll hear from the department first. >> sorry about that. >> i've not been here before. >> no problem for everyone in the audience i apologize the order is to have the department speak for their you have 7 minutes and the appellant court has 7 minutes and each of side minutes for renewal. >> the item on 530 thank you very much. >> you're welcome 530 rhode island street to the owner of the building violation relates to concrete and retaining walls along the property line this is collapsed and urban save the it happened

on may 20th of last year relating u resulting in an order of abatement and no permits filed to deal with the violation we ask you uphold the order of abatement that concludes my report. >> is the retaining wall in the rear yard or front. >> rear yard. >> okay sorry any other questions for - >> we don't seem to have photos or - was that in the looked at in may already of the retaining wall in the packet. >> what. >> there's not photos of anything about the retaining wall. >> you have photos. >> in the front of the building but not the back. >> no there are no photos of the condition itself those reason for those photos

are when we went by the building shortly before the evening and there were never any photos taken of the condition itself. >> how come. >> sometimes they take them and sometimes they don't sometimes assess can be limited. >> okay. >> do we know 31 how this case came before us was it a routine inspection or a collapse or neighbor calling. >> two other properties that are effected by this condition as well they got orders of abatement and this one was appealed so if your honor, were to you would this all the properties affected will have ordered and included to work together to resolve it. >> when were those orders

issued for the adjoining property. >> 531 kansas street issued in july of last year and 432 rhode island an order issued in november of labor so if you uphold this one. >> sorry to keep digging but 432 and 4 thirty are the same properties different buildings. >> right. >> physical structure. >> is it a condo. >> 431 is neighboring building. >> 5 one kansas. >> so regarding the rear

neighbor has it been assessed by the department of the property line issues like who's retaining wall is it that is a question in contention. >> they don't get into that their issues that need to be litigated our job is to notify one or more property that have an unsafe condition effecting the properties it is best we don't get into the middle of that. >> so it's possible either or both of the property owners. >> yes. >> yep. like once orders is sited they go from there. >> so. >> okay. >> you said you mentioned something earlier about the order of abatement to the two properties one of the property is the same physical space as the property before us so that means that as you said you

alluded to in the present year whether good or bad that retaining wall is a common to those two not common in sharing but common to both the properties; right? >> that's more incumbent to treat them city council and we've done the other two this is the only one. >> that's clear. >> we would have photos of that one. >> commissioners i'm a visual person i'm a terrible reader it is hard for me especially, when it is ultimate 3 properties involved we don't have a record. >> secretary screening i believe it went out in 2013 since the commission has made that request known to us we

definitely take pictures and bring them i believe that far back is before we told the commission. >> commissioner walker do you have a comment. >> i agree it is helpful of we've seen it before to be reminded the situation is it so the case where we uphold the order of abatement on the other two parties involved that was just the remainder. >> so if there's another question. >> i'm uncomfortable answering all those questions without the appellant having their opportunity. >> we'll hear from them thank you. >> okay my turn are you done. >> go ahead. >> okay thanks and thank you actually because you asked questions that are important and let me see what i can clarify i have my

ipod. >> your name and christine. >> which property. >> i live in 4 thirty rhode island and my upstairs neighbor has not going to be here today, i have her information she's 432 and karen hardy is our neighbor in back at 431 we know about the wall excuse me. >> kansas sorry we have surveys done the wall that is there you can call it a we'll spans the property we've come to an agreement how to pay for it we have a final draft of final design and actually are ready to pull proprieties i wasn't certain this situation we can call permits even though the

abatement appeals board is where us role the question the co-owners that is one property we have one hoa and she went to her hearing she was told that we should only be sooitd kooitd sited once we're wanting to understand why we pay two abatement foes we don't dispute it but how much 0 should we pay i'm assume there should be some ordinance or i don't know the right word it is common in the city two condos on the same property one property is one fine or is it two fines? so that's what i'd like to get clear originally my concern was there reason inspections made is it wasn't done correctly which the inspectors have note when i have my hearing so i was sited

first on one date then karen at 531 kansas was sited on a different date why was i the only one showing up at the inspections hearing then the site was on 432 we're happy to do this to get the thing fixed we asked the city to come out because they were not welcoming the owners to work with us happy to pay what's the right and fair thing to do >> thank you commissioner walker. >> thank you i have a question and it is how long will it take to do the work. >> here's the good news if we can pull a permit i have a contractors that can start in may i've been told that you know 4 to 6 weeks depending on what the permit process i guess city

hat to come out and take core samples because we're going to do concrete so i'm optimistic and i'll do any exclusive. >> are you on the high or low side. >> low side. >> are are you out of curiosity using part of existing wall or the retaining is it going to be partial new. >> it is all new that was wasn't a retaining wall only a poach work you could see if you had pictures of the different types of stone it is not a retain wall but a a building 8 feet in one portion and 9 needed e feet in another. >> commissioner mccarthy. >> you said you might have a

picture on our ipad and if you give me a second. >> i don't want to hold up the commission. >> it will take a couple of minutes. >> it will take a minute? okay okay. >> can i ask our city attorney something what is the policy around subtracted lots and how we assess property lines you know shared property abatement fees. >> unfortunately i don't know the answer to that right now i'm not sure if the department massachusetts has information. >> i mean something specific to each unit that is different.

>> commissioners the building inspection comes cross as the this condition sometimes the retaining wall is on one portion not on one lot not the responsibility for any of the other parties, however we cite everyone and thinking behind this to give warning to the downhill owner that their property is hazardous it could fall on them and affect their property every once again there's a shared wall that goes without saying both parties get sited but at the end of the day this is a simple matter the building inspection has been broke out into because the parties themselves couldn't seek

resolution illustration. >> let's say it's an apartment or condo there's a fence of some sort of and the fence is inadequate we innovative everyone that is a minor thing but we innovative everyone do we charge fees for each occupant. >> if we get two notice of violations at the end of the day if they don't repair the fence or accident retaining wall both get sited. >> commissioner melgar that doesn't seem right. i understand about the notification for each property owner but there is a instruction that is uncommon used by all property owners it seems to me we'll charge fees separately and the notification process should

be in terms of equities to one entities nicole the hoa. >> if it is observes to the building inspector one party owns the events of retaining wall we'll give a notice of violation to everyone else we don't go to a director's hearing on the party that has the wall in this case it is harding to figure out who owns the wall. >> mr. sweeney the question is who owns is it win a lot 2 or 4 or 5 unit condominium units. >> this is where we're double dipping on the costs that is the situation. >> available that's why shows here. >> yeah. >> we should clarify that. >> just to clarify for the board the scope of the appeal

presents this file it is strictly shows asking for the order of abatement. >> right thank you. >> we get to decide; right? you'd we got sidetracked there she got the photo up. >> sorry i wasn't presented for that so. >> before you step down commissioner mar. >> i had another question related to the scene for example, our inspectors go out and do on inspection we charge a fee for that inspection that's one inspection that's one inspection so how could we charge 3 property owners that same fee it seems to me because that inspector went out once if we wanted the pertaining to share that fee

they'll pay 1/3rd each for that inspection nonetheless that inspector went out 3 times it would be different if the inspections were internal if the problem is inside a particular unit in a condo and they went inside that's very clear which property owners is responsible we're talking about on outdoor perimeter like a retaining wall that inspector looked at i assumed if they went out once we're charging by the hour; right? >> i'm not sure mr. sweeney wants to respond. >> i believe those series of compliances are all different parties they have a different point of view who owns e.r. shires the cost i believe what

happened then the first time we sited 530 there was subsequent complaints i was the director hearing officer i felt the adjoining neighbor should be brought in at who owned what lot so a survey was done to figure out who owns it and who shall may for it. >> correction i was sited first and mr. hardy was not sited mr. hardy was sited right after i was and the inspector coming out came out and that was mr. hardy it was done at the same time my understanding the piecework was noted submitted at the same time so it was seen at the same time but the paperwork in the

citation was not so i appreciate inspector mars point we're sharing the offer will you explain walls and mr. hardy has paid his abatement but the question of the double or triple dipping he has to pay a separate fee or one foe for all three of us involved. >> i think there's another question for now we'll hear rebuttals from the department and go to public comment. >> okay. thank you. >> to answer our questions about the fees per if you have an apartment with two unit two apartment units that is one building one lot number so if

we issue a notice of violation on that building it will be one case one complaint number first second and go through and the fees associated will be whichever staff times we incur you have to owners and two separate lots each separate lot was cited and they have a case no. and therefore there were two sets of foes relate to two separate activities at two separate amounts of staff time. >> two or three. >> we're talking about the condo at 530 and 532 the reason for two separate fees two separate cases because they're two separate lot numbers two

separate condos. >> commissioner walker. >> how many inspection of the wall were there. >> see when it comes to inspections we have to be clear are we talking about the inspections of the department it is taking care of by the department fees. >> right. >> with regard to the complaints and there is usually one inspection initially for the notice of violation and the second notice you don't have to go to the property it can be mailed and then when it goes to hearing we go by the property it is- if we don't get assess at the violation in our packets still stands and post a notice of heavily so at the trial there is one inspection for the first nov and one for the hearing and

one after. >> and where those inspections for 530 and 532 together? well, the when a one of the cases was broushgs we scheduled that for a meagerly we become aware there was another condo owner also cited so we retrieved that and scheduled for a hearing as quickly as possible >> was there another inspection. >> no, because the noikts in the file is what we're confined to we can't cite others violations one case went to hearing and got an order address one case went to the board of appeals you're hearing today. >> commissioner mar. >> yeah. i had a question i'm not sure the scope for the

attorney or someplace from the staff but let's focus on the rhode island property not the rear yard neighbor i don't it is clear for example the multi unit property if there's a violation in the general vicinity is it goes to the property owner no matter if it's two or one hundred units so in the same sense for the condo owners because we have many in the city or tic owners how would we accredit the individual owners if it is a common area question why it didn't go to the hoa why didn't it not go if it's a yard problem that are condos that is a simple condo two unit there would be condo with 50

units are we saying we are going to accredit those 50 different owners? because of the rear yard problem? >> we've a very unusual situation in n 24 city if you own a condominium this each with separate ownership and condo association the condo association didn't own any property we can't cite a condo association no lot number for the condo association in other cities when condos are built a lot number and an additional lot number this is in this city we got a complaint that was followed up and notice issued

there was another condo owner a complaint was called in with a separate lot number and separate address they were accredited also. >> certainly a persistent there is how resides condos downtown and when there's a sidewalks problem you don't go and approach you'll condo owners there must be some - >> when the complaint comes in there's one lot number that pops up we'll issue the notice on that and if because there is no clean way to do this and if the other condo owners felt that you know this condo owner was treated unfairly technically in the past we have have a -

usually they won't want to incur all the costs they'll usually work through the condo association with that one condo owner to keep the costs for the whole building adopt it's not clean but in that situation it is klein two condo owners and two notice these of abatement one appealed and one didn't if this appeal is rejected and this order is i would like by you we'll have two condo owners in one buildings o building and two orders of abatement and two sets of fees they'll have to work together to solve the problem. >> commissioner walker and commissioner mccray. >> i wanted to say that totally appropriate for everyone to be noticed and cite the question whether all of them should pay the fees and we're only hearing

one appeal again that is the point you brought up ideally 1/3rd 1/3rd 1/3rd what do we do at that juncture. >> in the packet there is a june 27, 2004, indication that a payable amount due is 15 hundred plus and on 16 7 another $312 what's the total amount you owe in terms of - >> two sets of fees. >> there was another fee introduced wall a monitor foe a monthly foe for each month the violation is so one is the separate monitor