1994 to 2000 i'm familiar with the stoops to the neighbors i conducted the investigation of the vast built on the deck edition on pine when i first saw the addition i couldn't believe the construction in san francisco i reviewed the file and royals it didn't match the approved drawings that avoided the required planning department notifications for the windows the building inspection has asked the residents to lower the top of the roof to blow the existing roof sill on bye can i have a few minutes we think that should be lowered to accommodate the sheet metal

flashing along the edge the new drawings to the notice of violation doesn't have a demolition plan no nailing schedule formal the roof sheet or no mention of the flashing between the buildings i think that all of those should be included in the drawings for the project as if they intend to lower the roof. >> thank you. your time is up. >> so if you could fill out a speaking they're on the podium and commissioner vice president honda. >> navy maybe the architect or counselor can answer one of the briefs when the most of the work occurred in 2000. >> 2002. >> is there a reason it took until 2015 for this - >> i didn't conduct my investigation until 2014.

>> maybe the counselor can answer the question and i'm sorry speak into the microphone. >> my client was not tentative point one and two a copy of the letter to her asking her to consent a further of a copy of a responsive letter saying i approve if you look at the plans that were in 2002 the date of the letters i'm talking about i'll see that the plans submitted then are do not interfere at all with the windows of she had antenna active ear window blockage would not have been a concern i want you to know collateral to this appeal other concerns are water leakage. >> the other question where

this window exists is there a tenant. >> at this time it was a tenant and the tenant didn't have concerns. >> that's correct that's my understanding. >> okay. we'll hear from the permit holders council now. >> madam president and members of the board of panel i'm joseph i represent the residents in this action first, i'd like to respond there is no tenant in that window that is a hallway window a third year hallway with that said, window of a rental noted blocking any tenants verify whatsoever and i've been advised by the architect and contractors that property line windows don't have rights of use my clients chuck and carol live

on pine street the appellants stated the neighboring rental building and in 2002, the clients another bathroom and deck they got approval from their neighbor and they got approval from the city and the work was regularly inspected we invading made exhibits to our brief that shows all those things to be true and the building was regularly inspected. >> 12 or 13 years later she complained to the city the city found the plans were not submitted for a window in the correct location i want to make a clear i think there is the city inspectors can tell you this we've had independent contractor and all the improvements are exactly in the

plans that setback from the street the height setback from the neighbor everything is exactly in the plan the mistake was the location of the neighbors window but again, that's a property line window doesn't have any rights to view my clients contacted upon learning the nixon the tweblz were advised to seek a variance they've been there 13 years when they showed the neighboring windows, however, wanting to be good neighbors they decided to go ahead and get a permit they immediately moved the planter box not an issue they hired architects and contractors got the permit

immediately started the work, removed the roof of the bathroom to lower it so that it would be below the sill up to the edge the bottom of the sill thinking this satisfies the lady they preceded that didn't satisfy she filed a notice of appeal now the clients roof is covered with the tarp as far as the other matters raised by appellant they're not before this panel today mr. has green has filed a lawsuit and, in fact, there's leakage caused by my clients that's the proper place to litigate those matters not this permit appeal most of the allegations are speculation

and we look forward to taking care of them in the courts rather than here at this point, i'd like to introduce chuck and carol i want to say there no good reason to reject the opinion of the department of building inspection thank you. >> hi, i'm chuck. >> i'm carol we lived added pine street for 27 years during that time we've worked diligently to maintain and upgrade our property one upgrade was the addition of the main floor bathroom and the deck completed in 2002 we hired the structural engineer and signed off by the city multiple times during the construction process with the on the job and including the final sign off for over a decade no complaint about

your project. >> so as joe said at the end of last year, we received we were out of the country got back and received two unpleasant piece of the news one a notice of violation from the department of building inspection and we were glen eagle being sued by ms. smith so our preliminary focus was dealing with the dbi we talked with them and introouf and preceded to work on a solution as joe said the only issue what the 2002 plans in the process the correct location of a third-story was shown in the wrong place so essentially we

immediately reached out and hired an architect and contractor and hired a permit consultant was time was of the essence and they advised us essentially to apply for a variance that's the best course we look at the wording of the notice of violation there is room to do that we decided to bite the bullet and make our constriction consistent with what was shown on the 2002 in fwooth and got the permit and got a contractor we worked for one today efficiently i might add no coverage except for the tarp the parapet is begun we were toeflt non-flushed when we got the appeal of the permit we feel it is groundless and based on no facts and we strongly hope

that you will uphold our building permit. >> question this is guess nonsensical to the containment our neighbor is protesting the city issued a building permit based on the complaint so that in summary we would like to ask that the i'm sorry - you uphold our permit and deny the appeal thank you for your time. >> we have the architect and contractor if you have questions. >> is your permit deal with the foundation part of the planner that the they're indicating with the wood siding. >> in the nov said the bathroom

roof issue of the parapet the planter we moved immediately ourselves not the concrete portion; right? >> to answer your question prior to the concrete being poured there of the dirt and some bushes previous neighbor complained about the water going down into his wine incremental so the space between the houses was concrete taking out the concrete will expose the other side the ladies property open dirt again we don't understand why anyone wants to have dirt water gets in we're not aware of any violation of butting the neighbors property. >> your dish disputing that the

concrete at the base of the planter going against siding it needs to be reamendment it is concrete between two properties thank you regularly done all over the city. >> it is a faulty grade issue when the foundation is not where the ground level is you don't want water touching the baseline of the property. >> i don't believe this is the situation the situations water runs back to the back of the slopes. >> that was the question that commissioner fung asked concrete had directly to the joining side of the property that's the question. >> i don't know if it actually touches it we're not aware of

that we have pictures but there are slopes so any water runs off to the back and goes to the drainage at the back of the clients property. >> but the issue of the concrete is not part of nov not part of this appeal so why are we discussing this because this is not part of the appeal. >> it is partly of nov but no permit is riverside the nov only concerns our permit only concerns the issue of the bathroom roof. >> all right. as counselor mentions earlier it may come up later >> i want to make sure that we're addressing the issues that are in the permit. >> why not hear from the department that will help. >> commissioners it is in the

scope of the work of the permit. >> okay. thank you. >> introouf. >> good evening joseph dbi that building permit is a notice of violation focus to rove the parapet on the level of the became on the second floor to accommodate the neighbors in the third-story neighborhoods and the planter 6 inches from the property line the permit was taken around may 15 and went through the planning department over the review and in the plan checked by the building plan checked our structural and issued by the burton the 21st of may 2015 notice of violation that was

issued was issued by senior donald duffey on january 2015 and i'll read that it is probably pertinent to the case a complaint filed with 24 department regarding the property on pine street the wood planter box is close to pine street not permitted by the building code for the flashing when it is closer than 6 inches and the building permit out of window with the first floor with the deck and another permit is a revision to eliminate the skylights and recuse the bathroom showing the annexation below the window on pine street site and inspection revealed it

was covered partially 3 feet by a parapet wall corrective action to have the flashing planter box or relocation 6 inches if the neighbor wall and two the approval of the defendant i can't guess from the permit the 2000 and 2003 permit that required the inspections that was issues or issues on january 2013 building permit as issued by dbi i'll be asking it was upheld and find i believe the work started and was stopped because of of the permit but from the dbi point of view that was an complaint and i'll have a nov permit to fix it i read the brief the flashing between the

buildings needs to be resolved by property owners the gi didn't get in between the flashing they need to come up with the flashing we've discussed it many times on on the issues that's definitely anything to work on whether on the siding go with relations to the parapet we need to look at the code violates a newer complaint typically we see foundation to concrete paving and then the siding up a few inches maybe over the years the concrete and the planter box got put on it and the concrete contract that is probably needing to get looked at in my opinion i'm available to answer any questions. >> i have not seen a photograph

of that. >> thank you mr. sanchez nothing any public comment on this item? >> good evening my name is eric burke werts b e r k w it z i live on pine street and with relations to the tweerldz i'll give an observation from the front my wife and i have been amazed at the way the twerlz maintain their house the house is in fact at a pointing point of humor they do everything twice as well necessary take care of their garden it is perfect those are people that are not only an asset to the neighborhood their house is the jewel of the neighborhoods everyone or everything is in the

height of taste never over dub and they spare no expensive i'm astonished of all the neighbors chuck and carol are drawn to task for not up to snuff i don't know the details i am giving you angle example the building next to it is really the eye sore of the neighborhood we view the front and rear of the house pelosi paint not well minced garage and tree is not well done the attitude of the neighborhood the view of the neighborhood is twerlz heirs the jewel the one on the corner it is no a slum is going too far it is simply not tentatively maintained there is so again, i'm a little bit

precipitated that the owner of that building would be the one calling the owner the twerlz to task on questions of maintenance i just wanted to give you a prospective from the neighborhood itself thank you. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment. >> okay. seeing none then we will have rebuttal starting with the appellant. >> thank you madam president opposing coincidental when he addressed with rarpd to the location of relocated roof in the bathroom up to the evidently of the sill we were sensitive on this because first of all that is not what the condition says it

says under the sill and if the roof edge goes up to the sill we're going to have leakage problems you sound like a small item but my client has been living with leakages e lineations you can call her i dismiss those characterizations but leaks i urge the board to add to the condition has to do with with the location it is under the sill additional flashed second we have argued go i've heard fluff i said the name wrong sorry. >> only the at that particular time box is involved i submit that the planter box sat on the

concrete pa pad and concrete to wood content the existing direct content concrete to wood is unappropriated we like to have that removed to 6 inches and nothing further. >> counselor are you finished i'm sorry. >> yes. >> you said prior to coming to this hearing you were close to com to an agreement with the next door and opposing council and i have an incredible we had a deposition with a sweet spirit and in my view is time i suggested this is put offer into the next meeting if you're agenda permits the clients can't stand the leak of the present condition of their roof being exposed and coasted are tarps i

know this was put together in 2 3, 4 or 4 days that's the reason i'm here arguing right now. >> thank you. >> we can have rebuttal from the permit holders. >> we have a little bit of time left. >> do they. >> they say it was built according to the plans if you look at the final submittal increase no parapet and the roof comes into the drawings blow the windowsill but the final product as a parent so i wonder when they say it is built to plan what are they talking about the plan shows the parapet and the he finally plan in 2000, 2002 no parapet thank you. >> now we'll hear if the permit

holders rebuttal first of all, i'm not council for the twooerlz for the litigation i could have settlement decide i've a maid that clear settlement discussions shouldn't be revealed, and, secondly, the twerlz plans shows the bottom edge of the roof goes to the bottom them of the sill this is exactly where it is supposed to be again, all the other issues the concrete blow the planter box the planter box was moved and didn't rise above the ground those are red home sharers not before the board put the roof back on and get their house no

order. >> are you finished. >> yeah. >> do you know where building inspector duffey said of that's not before us of the appellants call a notice of violation will be issued for that and we'll be here all over again. >> it is a fact that exists you have a lot of shuktdz if you look at the brief you'll see what really occurred mr. herself green contract put a hole in the parapet roof and didn't flash it that calls for leaks and that's because of the roof in fact, if you want to get into the discussions even one he'll take out it so she'll not have leaks. >> that was a slightly different issue you have a photo of where the

concrete underneath the at that particular time a close-up photo where it rests against the wall. >> we didn't thinks that to be an issue at any time and. >> thank you thank you mr. duffy anything further. >> joe duffy dbi commissioners the concrete was not part of original complaint is if it comes up in the future we'll deal with that and donald duh iowa's i didn't was there not me an experienced inspector he'll resolve it there's another complaint on 1949 we're dealing with and we've issued a notice of violation to deal with the

fence coming through walls and stuff like this i wanted to make you aware of if it is not green before us but nov issued. >> just a clarify mr. duffy the planter location is part of the nov and the permitted that issue of the concrete against wood is not? >> it wasn't brought in the notice of violation and the planter box got moved and the inspector noted some reference but the completely removed and i don't have any current photos but it was mr. sanchez had a photo of the planter box sitting beside the garage on a concrete pad it has been moved you'll have to ask them who moved it

was too close to the wall for the purposes and i think they said they moved is 6 inches. >> that's fine. >> you know the base of the planter. >> we see that condition all over the city it meets the intersection and want a concrete foundation or the pathway whatever concrete to concrete is better so it would be simply a matter of hopefully concrete behind that they'll have to raise the ceiling we see it all the time it is pretty common common fixes an easy fix too. >> commissioners the matter is submitted. >> i'm not persuaded theirs issues with that particular

permit. >> this case is predominantly a single case the question of the property line windows is really the issue and i'm in agreement that per the code property line windows - the other issue related to similarly the smooth process beyond the property line as a result the planter open either side is i have no further question on the concrete issue i'm not prepared to over turn that permit. >> i concur unfortunately this is a condition that existed since 2001 and 2 i think that at one point

contractors have to build to plan at the same time this is gone on 13 years with people feel living in the property with no issues i hope you folks come to an agreement prior to litigation that gets pricey i see no problem with the permit as issued. >> i'll move to deny - >> huh? >> deny the appeal and uphold the appeal it was properly issued. >> thank you. >> there's a motion it on the floor to uphold this permit it was properly issued on that motion commissioner fung commissioner vice president honda commissioner wilson is absent commissioner swig thank you the vote i