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 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 monitoring fee that accrues once the violation is more than thirty days old. >> commissioner melgar it's our fault it is bad the system what it is what it is the property gets recorded in san francisco for this particular case we could you know do what you are needing us to do to incentive intents the owners to reduce the fees in half and you know putting that on each owner we'll have the fairness we can making sure our fees get our costs get covered and incentivize them to work together in the future i'm thinking we should ask the staff

to come up with a better system for this seems like i understand too it doesn't also get that far but it seems to me we should have a better system in this situation how we record property i don't know if it's you it seems like an administration thing to come back to commission for the property owners. >> keep in mind there are two separate pertains and keep in mind also the other prove or disprove didn't appeal their case they've paid the fees. >> they've paid them. >> if you refuse the foes of this one your back to the refund. >> and refund that. >> we don't have that authority.

>> commissioner walker. >> i think that gets into a civil issue the owners need to work on our job to look at what is in front of us we know what the deal is so we can make our decision with that nickel and dimed based on that one and let them workout it out. >> we're going to allow you two minutes for renewal the we'll make sure to get our renewal. >> deputy director good morning, commissioners we're looking at that process and we'll report back to you next month for a better system. >> off the agenda thank you but i don't think we should have discussion on that right now but thank you. >> now we'll hear the renewal from the appellant. >> yeah. i appreciate how it is mapped out we have an hoa that

is for the exterior of the building it is a very clear the building we own separately but you absolutely on the property it is one property how it is looked at legally that's where i challenge keeping the total foes now we're not asking for a special compensation we're pay whatever the appropriate abatement fee is we're happy to pay one foe we do disagree we haven't gotten it together we're getting it together you know but if mr. hardy pays and he has no issue; right? because this is one property but if it should be split 3 ways yes, he should be refunded money is it one foe for all three of us or two fees based on two

property. >> the question before us there are two foes when there should be a third fee we're not discussing hard fees only in addition to the one that is sent to our partners unit. >> so she hadn't foiled an appeal but i respectfully request one foe and commissioner mccray and i say that not a bad way that we're acknowledging the meeting those monthly fees not be included because of the timeframe along this so - >> that be considered. >> the monitoring fees thank

you. >> okay. thank you if you have nothing else we'll go to public comment. any public comment on this item? >> seeing none commissioners? commissioner walker >> i would like to make to motion to uphold the order of abatement and reduce fees. >> either i mean, that's debatable if it's been paid it's been paid so eliminate fees on this one. >> thank you not to cut you off but i would echo what you said uphold the order of abatement but no assess fees for 530 rhode island arrest commissioner. >> a question of clarification so if we uphold the order of abatement that forces the owner

to this particular owner to comply; right? and let me amend it to give them 60 days to get the work scheduled and get the kr57k9d work done. >> uh-huh to me it seems unfair if it is water under the bridge that the property owner paid then gets to bear the full costs there's nothing we can do we can't force this pertaining to shire the costs of the guy that already paid. >> which is her partner. >> no, no. >> this is where i said it is a civil matter between - >> got it. >> can i just clarify it are we talking about karen hardy. >> she didn't pay. >> mined. >> she didn't pay.

>> we're a little bit confused nullify of the condo owners paid it was the rear yard neighborhood in the rear yard we seated both properties shows right. i still feel regardless thought how confusing the city is and noted just our department the assessors office that hoa has one lot in this city not multiple one lot just like an apartment building. >> well. >> i my motion was made assume the other person paid. >> i have it with me shows had the same thing the order of abatement shows noted paid it. >> she hadn't paid. >> we assessed it ones on the property once on this property

which we did you guys workout how you want to split it no assessment on that particular notice. >> we'll workout that. >> got it. >> i'm going to repeat we uphold the order of abatement with a request to have a 60 day. >> awe abstinence. >> right with no assessment of costs. >> or assessment of costs wavered. >> thank you reversing the assessment costs. >> at 530. >> okay 530. >> and the 532 we're doing differently. >> yeah. and have a monitoring fee. >> everything is great on this one. >> on this property before us. >> all right. thank you. >> just to be clear uphold the

order of abatement and hold it in abeyance for 60 days and hold the costs. >> second. >> on the motion we'll do a roll call vote commissioner clinch commissioner melgar commissioner mccarthy commissioner mar commissioner mccray and commissioner walker the motion carries unanimously i'd like to make a brief announcement we're still curling having your appeals abatement so there will be a bit of a delay green before the board of appeals starts. >> we're on the next case on delores street the appellant and record important baker and

action by appellant seeks an order of abatement or an opportunity for a rehearing on the ground he doesn't receive notice of the hearing and therefore is not here the department will go first and then the appellant. >> the address 2 delores street that is two family twelz the violation on delores street created an unsafe condition of this property no violations were filed and the order of abatement was issued on june 17th of last year therefore staff recommends i uphold the order of abatement and uphold the cost. >> fo