rmit for job evaluation and scope of work and the fact it didn't have plans, it was a over the counter permit. mr. [inaudible] when he came into the process and at the time he indicated he worked with staff because a previous contractor tried to file permits and this one he filed is going through the process is a forum 3 permit i believe with the plans and it is 300 thousand dollar permit, but again that is mainly addressing things from the other notices of violation associated with the property. >> you are telling the 3 permits, the building electrical and plumbing are enacterate? >> the first permit chs inadequate all the other items we mentioned. >> commissioner mu carthy >> so rosemery to address the

counsels question why it are double fined we are talking about 2 separate violations >> 2 separate notices >> that doesn't hold water [inaudible] >> no it is the fact we had to spend the time because they know they should have looked at and seen ceiling collapses but hired a third party vendor and gave us a copoy of the report so they know thingerize going on with the building. the second notice of violation in early january we gave in february are things they could have done that wouldn't impact the other items. yes, that needs to be done but you have a situation where the flooring and strapping and windows, the mold and mildew and rodents those are things they could have done to develop a plan for the larger issues and nothing

was done and that is why we say this order should be recorded. >> just a follow up one of the things-can you explain to me at some point whether it is supervisors or organized they cant remove their personal items from the building? >> there wasa rangement made and will let the property owners explain that. we issued the notice of vacate we were not made aware the fact people had vacated until the hemth department let us know so there was an arrangement made to when the occupants would leave. at one point the tenant told us through attorney the property owner wasn't letting them in because he felt to do so is a violation of our notice so we signed a declaration saying they can go in in a safe matter to get their personal belong

ings. what happened since then is something they would have to tell you but we dopet prohibit that as long as it is done in a safe manner but the ability to do that is comicated by the fact additional work is done without permit. that is-the message isn't getting through. >> that is answered. one of the speakers testified there was 1 to 3 weeks-do you know who said that? was it-- >> thank you for raising that. at the time that the department of building inspection issued the notice of violationordsering the building to be vacated, i did have a conversation with the tenants attorney indicating the work was such that it was going to take longer than 3 weeks so people should not have a expectation they are getting back in their soon. that may be something that they-a conclusion they came to but that isn't the message dbi was

giving. i want to make that very clear. >> commissioner [inaudible] >> i wanted to clar fieify, we heard from a couple tenant that somebody from the owner team i guess-- >> i couldn't speak for that. >> commissioner mar. >> cheer inspector you may have answered this but want to be very clear on it, the contractor mentioned before he worked with planning to get a larger permit, so what you are saying is that a lot of the nov's could have been addressed by other permits, they could have done the work on the ceiling and plumbing violations and electrical violations, they could have done that and left the variance and the reissuing of inback permit. leave that with planning and moved ahead and done some of the other

things? >> no what i'm saying is that the notice of violation before you today has nothing to do with those items, those are in separate notices and have orders of abatement and a permit is necessary to [inaudible] and some of the items before you, most of these items having to do with flooring and strapping, having to do with mold and mildew and rodent infestation. making those repairs, most of that didn't require that permit and the main inhabitability issue that could have helped the quality of life of the people occupying. it wouldn't have solved all the problems but most of those things were doable before we had the directors hearing at the end of april. they could have done some of those things and when

we went out none of those things were done. they didn't call saying they are done now and come back out. in april 3, the building is vacated. that is what i'm saying, that is what is before you today. the other information is useful because you'll take it up in a few minutes, but now what is before you is a order dealing with that particular notice of violation. >> commissioner clint >> i do think it is germane the other violation because if both sets of stairs are decrepeed you don't want people going in through the stairs so a owner would want to repair them at the same time i would think. >> here is the dilemma and that is the property owner bought a occupied building and it is their responsibility to make sure their repairs are made and come up with a plan to deal with all the other items. when we looked at this in february

they had the ability to make repairs because people still lived in the building dealing with these issues so why not deal with the mold and mildew and rodent infestation-what does it take to screw on a number of the building so you don't put it on the piece of paper. this is what we confront and it is occupied building. the property owners knew it was a occupied building. that is what we are saying. >> commissioner lee. >> okay, so if commissioner clint is saying that the overall, the main-had permit mr. baus cuvich is trying to seek will solve everything and if we just correct-the property damage and correct the current notice of violation that are before us, that is okay, but nobody can occupy the building, right?

>> the building cannot be reoccupied until all the notices of violation are complied with. now we say we can have the property owner abate the deficiency and notice of violation before us today and that is acceptable to remove the abatement order for that one, right? for that one issue? >> the one with 3 items or 20 items? because he is going to do the overall repair we don't need a order on this one? >> no no no-what i'm asking is, if we uphold the order of abatement we compel the property owner tooz fix the 20 items on the notice of violation for that appeal, right? or that order of abatement? but that means there is still no stairs in front or back, is that correct

>> absolutely. my opening comments is the reason we feel strongly about the order being recorded is because it is list of a component of what has to be done. the stairs and plumbing and collapsed seal areering are on other notices of violation. there is a overall amount of work that's needs to be done, my concern is as they do it i want to make sure we get all this done because my understanding is we are deal wg the same contractors. mr. [inaudible] isn't doing the work, somebody else will be. that is my concern there is a order in place saying while you do this work, make sure this is done and think given the history and record and testimony that is a legitimate request. >> you feel resolving the 20

issues won't take 3 or 4 months? >> to deal with the building overall? >> no >> these issues would have taken 2 or 3 weeks to do most of them, yes. >> i just want to clarify, it is a follow up to commissioner lee's question. if we uphold the order how much time does the [inaudible] feel is reasonable to get all the work done on the 20 items before us? >> my recommendation is uphold the hearing which means it would be-what you are doing is ratifying the orders the hearing officer indicated they wanted at the end of april and you don't have to modify t. you can say we believe it should be enforced and effect and that would direct us to report it.

>> i just want to follow up that even though this sounds like 30 days or a month or 2, we want to make it clear, even if they resolve these sitting 20 nov's which is part of commissioner lee's question, it doesn't mean the building is habitable? because they don't have front steps or rear steps. >> we have a notice in place that deals with that. you can modify that order my recommendation is upholds the hearing and we would record the order with you notice of decision saying that and nothing changes as far as that is concerned. that is my recommendation. >> because people are miss led and don't know by who but want to make sure they don't get further misled by a decision we make here. >> thank you >> the appellate needs rebutal

>> okay. >> thank you. we share in a lot of the sentiments you heard from the tenants and from misbosky and want to get the property fixed. we believe it should be fixed and diligently working to get it fixed. we don't deny there are issues and we have knowledge of them. what we think is inappropriate is for us to be penalized for taking missteps if we in tentionally disregarded others. i think the approach by mrs. bosky is given someone with a broken leg a band aid saying here, fix it. there is no point to a order of abatement to put a new window or a number on the door when the building remains uninhabitable. the efforts of the property owner are focused on getting the property habitable again and that is what the commission

should be focused on, a approach that gets the property habitable. doing all these things as xhengzer mar noted and a couple others as well, the order of abatement doesn't make the order habitable. it is unfortunate situation and if is a 20 year history the defarmt is dealing with. it is beyond me why this remains after 20 years that we are still dealing with the same issues and have to really question is the property owner the one who should be punished for this or does the department not share responsibility for allowing these condition to perpersist for these individuals saying they have lived here 5, 10, 15 years with conditions. i don't think it is appropriate to punish the person [inaudible] gets the permit from the department starts doing work and told you need to fix this and need to

fix that and every step of the way the property owner attempted to do that and continued to get permits and spend 10s of thousands of dollars to get permits to fix this property and make it habitable and have to deal with thereare 24 occupants living there before who may not be able to come back but that isn't a situation we created. [inaudible] i don't argue, the tenants are preventing from doing the irk with, but there are belongings that remain in the property and we offered to pay to relocate those belongings so we can move forward with the work. we offered to do that without obligation and as far as i know that remains out standing and not responded to. we are willing to move forward but there are imp pediments to be able to do these things and think the commission should focus on the big issues as we

have been and do think if you look that order of abatement that exists that was recorded as--let me see here--order number 2015-11822. you find some of the very ixues we are dealing with, the plumbing paint and general nuisance and we are considering a order of abatement and that is inappropriate to punish the owner [inaudible] >> i just want to make something clear. if someone took out the front steps to keep the tenants out, that would be despicable and i quit the job. that isn't what happened. the property owner thought and i told him that didvent the right permit. they

thought the notice of violation permit that referenced the condition of the front stairs was to rebuild the front stairs in wood. you can't build back in wood. conversations with planning said they have to go in [inaudible] i'm dealing with trying to find tur ozo steps because that is what have to go back but they thought they could rebuild them in wood. it wasn't to make it difficult for the tenet, this is the property owner trying to do something too fax and fix something simple like wood steps they could do right there and that was a bad decision but that was not a attempt to keep the tenants out. that was a attempt by the owner to do things too fast and it didn't work out. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner walker. >> so this is been before us

for a while now and i think we sort of discussed our herd a lot of the explanation about the comicated set of violations and i just want to say that when you buy a piece of property, you buy a piece of property and all of those things attached to it including tenant and notice of violation problems and i feel like we have probably taken too long to get these issues resolved and left people living in conditions that are totally unacceptable. i actually would like to make a motion to uphold the department decision, the hearing officer decision and not hold an abatement. the issues related to the permits going forward can be dealt with accordingly. i think we are on track to make

this, a place people can live in again. hopefully that happens sooner rather than later. i feel like we have done all we can to try and move this forward. >> i just want to remind you you is 2 separate orders of abatement so recommend you take 2 separate votes and consider separate motions for each order of abatement. one is the 20 item ortder and the other is the 3 item order. >> you are making a motion >> i'm making the motion for the first and the second, exactly the sameordser. can i do it that way or do it verbally? we heard them together so- >> it is appeal numbers 6812 and 6813 but the commissioners may want to take separate votes. >> i think we may want to take separate votes because the department said the second is

taken care of. >> i agree >> we need to uphold and [inaudible] >> i think from the first one, i want to address the appellates comment about being punishing the owner. i don't think we are going to make a decision because it is a new owner or previous owner or multiple owners. i think we are basing or decision on the property itself regardless of how money meno owners were. the solution the current owner is proposing to take right now addresses a overall issue, but it is [inaudible] they could have chose to address this abatement order with a superate permit and then the stairs and the other items with a second permit. i'm not agreeing that we should give them time because their intent is to

correct the problem with the overall permit. i am in favor of upholding the abatement order and supporting the department. >> are you seconding the motion? >> yes. commissioner mar. >> we are dealing with this separately and this is regarding the first order. >> just for the record, the order of abatement are 2015-20761. commissioner walker, that order has 7 days to complete all work provisions. it wasn't clear if you were modifying that or upholding that >> upholding that >> just as a point of clarification, i see conditions here that are going to prevent them from getting that done for example the personal items in the building and we haven't

seemed to address-for example if they say we can't get x and y done because of the personal items in there skn i'm hearing both parties are agreed to remove the items. i believe he wants to cooperate. are we doing that or not? maybe counsel if you can come up-and could we tie this as a part of the condition? >> just to address what mr. freedman said btd the offer to fray moving personal items out we are still discussing that. there isn't enough detail tooz make a decision and present it to the tenants for them to decide because the money is still an issue. but we do-the tenants do want their stuff out and do hope to come to something soon. just for the record that offer was only made to us last week. >> i'm glad the offer is there but you do understand that will

possibly be a road block as to why they can't move in sooner because of [inaudible] we are trying to be smart about this. >> wree looking to get this issue resolved as soon as possible. >> okay. we reflective of-some is done within 7 days and how do they do that in 7 days when the issues are still outstanding? i am not trying to camp icating and want to uphold the decision here--yeah. >> one of the things that i think needs to be taken into consideration is the notice of violation was written in january. the hearing officer looked at this in april and what is essentially means if the city sues for simple penalties that can be taken into consideration the amount of time. at this stage as far

as 7 days, i know there is a problem with that, but it is basically sending a message to the property owner at the time it was occupied you should have done the work. the fact that there are other issues the building is degigated to another level is separate. you is the ability to based on the testimony here and based on the testimony at the directors hearing to merely uphold the directors representative and that order would be issued and still center the ability to go ahead is and deal with these issues. it isn't penalizing them again, that is the process and we don't assess more assessment of cost. there is basically for the amount of time. it only comes into play if the city then sued them for failing to respond in a timely manner the courts can take that into consideration regarding civil penalties for section 2 of 4 of the housing

code. i don't believe 30 days will put them in any better situation with respect to what you heard. that is why i say if you feel more comfortable fine, but i do believe the hearing officer should be upheld. thank you. >> commissioner mar did you have one other question? >> yeah. to be clear on the construction process, the 7 days-we can deal with all the nov's-even if they get people in there they need a temporary stair to go in and out of the front to work on the windows and do the flooring, and i think that is possible, they can put in a temporary for people only to have access to the property. i just want to make sure that 7 days is realistic. i'm not sympathetic to the new owner for the

problems they face because they knew what they were buying which includes the tenants, i feel we moved-it would have been better if they addressed these issues while the tenants were in place, but that isn't what we are getting right now because the department didn't move on some of the original nov's fast enough. i would have liked to have sat a year ago with the previous owner sitting in front of us with all the tenant but that isn't what wree given, we are given today with all the tenants out. what we are given today is the new owner. i feel like while i'm not sympathetic to the problems the new owner faces because i agree with commissioner walker, they should have known what they are buying including the physical problems and the tenants in place, but at the

same time these nov's are not new. i don't feel they are new and go back a ways. >> may i-one thing i think that one should understand as far as the hearing officer looking at this as, the department doesn't-when the hearing officer is exercising the power of chapter 1 a of the building code to issue a order, when they give a 7 day order they are saying we don't want to give more time. we'll put a timeframe on it but believe you had sufficient time and you can appeal it. there is a time on there, but it doesn't mean if you didn't start the work when you receivered the notice of violation that we'll add more and more time. the city was sued a long time ago with respect of issues 30 and 60 and

90 days. when the commission was created is much different. most of the notice of violation don't go beyond 30 days. we work with the individual if we are working with them and making progress. as i said that isn't what happened here. if you feel comfortable as far as a 30 day order that is your prerogative but so you understand when a representative of the director of hearing officer is giving that they are basically saying, i don't think giving anymore time is going to really do anything because they didn't start that when they were supposed to. they didn't do that process so that is the reasoning beyond that. while some issues may have gone a while, this is a r 3 occupancy so we have to be invited in. when we were invited in we were rigorous in our response. this isn't a apartment building doing a routine inspection, we have to be invited in. maybe

penal in the past didn't feel comfortable making complaints but i tell you with the 20 thousand billings we have the district inspector spent a lot of time trying to deal with the issues at this location and went above and beyond to try to address those. >> right now we have a motion on the floor and seconded. commissioner mar did you want to make a amendment to this motion? did you want to amend it? >> no. i feel the same way as our chief housing inspector does that it is a statement the departments we have that i would like to reinforce. >> uphold theordser of abatement in 6812 at written? >> yes. >> there is a motion and second. is there public comment on the motion? sorry, we'll do a roll call vote.

president [inaudible] yes. vice president [inaudible] commissioner mu carthy yes, commissioner mar, yes. commissioner lee, yes. commissioner mu cray, yes, commissioner walker, yes. the motion carries unanimously to item 6813. >> again, i move we uphold the director-the hearing directors decisions on appeal number 6813 and uphold the order of abatement. >> second. >> there is a motion and a second. roll call vote. president malgar yes. vice president clint, yes. commissioner mu carthy, yes. commissioner mar, yes. commissioner [inaudible]

commissioner walker, yes. the motion carries unanimously. item 3, general public comments not on the abatement appeals agenda? seeing none item f motion to adjourn. >> we are journed. we'll take a 5 minute resess and return for the building inspection commission.