begin. >> good morning today is tuesday, september 22, 2015. this is the this is the regularly scheduled meeting of the abatement appeals board i'd like to reminder everyone to turn off electronic devices the first item roll call commissioner president melgar commissioner mccarthy commissioner mar pr committee commissioner walker commissioner mccray is expected and the next item the oath

will all parties infesting testimony please stand your right hand do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? to the best of you're showing acknowledge okay. you maybe seated. >> the next item is item c approval of the draft minutes discussion and possible action to adopt the minutes for september 23, 2015, move to approve. >> second. >> there is a motion and a second all commissioners. >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> any opposed any public comment on the minutes seeing none, the minutes are approved unanimously item d new order of abatement

owner of record and appellant (calling names) 1938, 24 after the appellant claims that no violation exists. >> we'll hear in staff. >> good morning. >> good morning john from the department the address 3826 norway we go street the violation leads to unpermitted use of portion of the lot notice of violation of annie easement the permit was filed in 2013 at the document of easement of two endanger storage sheds at the private rear yard without

impeding the status of easement if that permit were issued it will abate the violation the staff asked for a order of abatement. >> commissioner walker. >> so you have a color photograph or black and white the black fwae white is not clear. >> i'll leave that. >> that's okay. >> the shortage shed. >> yes. this is what i want to see. >> that's better. >> commissioner mar did you

have a question. >> not at this point. >> you said the permit is filed but not issued because of timing or there's some issues that need some more investigation some more - and i on the appellant can speak maybe a change in that. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. thank you have the appellant come forward i wanted to state that the way that the procedures occur the department has 7 minutes and the appellant has 7 minutes to present and each has 3 minutes of rebuttal and public comment 3 minutes. >> good morning. >> hi. >> okay this is my bakery i live in the sunset, 4 kids love the sunset lived there 20 years invested heavy in it i

opened the barky i wanted it a breakfast place in the sunset two years ago we were awarded the mayor's chosen small business of the year 10 thousands to the school and many of my employees in the sunset i'm heavily invested not a corporation and no where to keep thigh trash having said that, it is an issue i don't have a power point this is where the bakery is the driveway behind that the concern i violated the easement by putting a shed one of the sheds is the other one is not mine. >> okay. okay thank you. >> this is mine so the definition of easement the right

to cross someone's land. >> sorry. >> so you can't have and then easement over our land easement is in the dictionary the right to cross someone's remand this easement is in the easement document the only purpose of the easement for people to get in and out of they're building people are abatements over their land only getting to front doors this the easement over a asa back driveway in c an easement over everyone else but no one needs to go here and assess their yard and my understanding you're allowed to erect a structure in our rear yard with no permit that's what we've done

it does say in the easement documents the commercial to use the driveway i have something signed i do do that. >> also in the easement documents that everyone is talking about at the last hearing the hearing officer kind of said this the timely i don't know if i have a copy document d the desire driveway is labeled easements the hearing officer concluded oh, check it out oh, cool in the hearing officer at the last hearing dbi the whole thing didn't need a definition of an

easement if it is a picture of a cow it has to be description indeed we are violating the non-existing easement section 3 of the easement document i have it says that we can't erect any questions inconsistent that is for the people in the buildings for not blocking doors there was not an easement we're still violating that's pretty much it i can't be in violation of something that didn't exist and can't to the status of permit to make everybody happen we started to get a permit and it fell apart yes, sir. >> yes. commissioner mar. >> so i guess this is a portion more directed at the staff it is my understanding is

that to erect as the appellant was saying a shed less than one hundred square feet you don't need a permit i believe the shed see meets that requirement not that large. >> so - >> so the main question i just want to get clarification under the san francisco aging & adult services commission the main question the question of the easement whether it blocks any doors is that why. >> the planning commission planning code it is clear you can't build. >> commissioner mccarthy. >> so who owns the second shed. >> it a 4 a story building and the other units share the other shed they dough that put it up. >> you can make the argument 4 units the planning code says one

shed per had been building unit. >> i see commissioner lee this is to the staff i believe the covenant and refresh my recollection agreement that is not what the violation is both we're not trying to enforce the covenant and restriction agreement on the document correct the shed shouldn't not have been put up without an agreement. >> the vision of the easement a i'm sorry are you done with you're showing presentation. >> i am. >> so we can go there. >> that's correct in the easement the easement was incorporated into a permit this

was issued back in 1999 and the restrictions were concluded that that so that permit backing was issued on the condition that this easement agreement would be included as port ever documents and that could be abated by your right we're not saying is there are sheds being built but more focused on the breaching the easement that was part of an original part. >> commissioner walker. >> so just to clarify the definition of the easement does the easement conclude the backend of all 3 properties or two is there one easement there's one easement agreement i'm trying to see from the easement incorporates the

property that we're dealing with or just if we're being asked to look at a violation of two properties next door. >> in the declaration it refers to lot 53, 54 and 45 the appellants property is lot 45 at the bottom of that item 3 it says agrees not to use in any manner that will obstruct or interfere with either is relates all 3 equally and it is binding on all 3. >> commissioner mccarthy. >> john could you help me with this here this one shed to each lot

i'm seeing 3 different lots in block 6. >> the two sheds are entirely located on one lot. >> so the other shed is as much in violation as well; right? >> definition mentioned with the planning code you allow one shed not to exceed the one square feet. >> 3 different. >> i want you to focus on the 3 dependent lots. >> this is only one parcel where the yeah, the sheds is one parcel. >> so if we - >> for the record. >> commissioner president melgar. >> if you look at the overhead the additional is down here this is lot 43, the alleyway tends is

going through 43, 44 and 45 the two sheds are at the time rear of lot 45 commissioner walker yes. >> a clarification i think. >> and i do want to clarify are you saying that we knew about the first one and so we're going after the second one or are we assuming and just going after one of them i'm curious how we designated. >> one shed was installed there that shed was in breach of the agreement and the second shed installed that further kicked in the breach of the planning code where you only are allowed one shed. >> okay. okay commissioner mar. >> so i'm still a little bit

confused about the complaint so it's not the actual building of the shed because when i looked at the sheds they don't look like they're built something you bought at a box store someone police said that adopt on the site so in and of itself those structures are not in violation because of violation the nov was that is violating even though easement i'd like to focus i'd like to focus on the easement on that because what parts of easement is a in violation in terms of the passageway what they're saying blockade of the egress you usually have those kind of argument when someone complains

are the one upstairs complaining i understand commissioner walkers point one shed we've gotten in with that why not give me an nov and them not that's not my part this is another question i think what i'll bothered with also the question of who is complaining you can't get past. >> it appeared to me who sent in the complaint all complaints are received and we're obliged to investigate and any breach we say so commissioner lee has a question. >> these agreements were part

of approvals of a permit 9927327 solidity easement document was included with that permit because that permit couldn't be issued for those 3 buildings to be constructed without the rear garages able to exit though the easement area so outline 3 agreed. >> okay. if power enforcing the easement when will we be able to find the documents that says what the easement is. >> it's recorded. >> it refers to h-137459. >> we're not actual he will you shown what a an is. >> it does from the document is put on the overhead there it

is the appellant includes, included the easement document the easement document was recorded on march 29, of 2002 so this is the record easement document and if we go through to page to item 3 it as i read earlier these are the restrictions and equally bind on all you all 3 that easement document was issued in 1999 so if that document as excluded custody those 3 buildings wouldn't have been built no way to get out of

the garages at the rear end. >> commissioner mccarthy so you have is questions or comments. >> unless you want - >> commissioner walker i do still i mean so i understand what we're saying here what the department position is my question is how did you determine this building was the second one as opposed to the first one why not look at both of them if we are looking at the one of them you hear any question do you understand what i'm saying how did we determine to issue a notice of violation on the one on the right verse the left. >> on the overhead if you look at this picture this is the building closest to noriega that is lot 53 this one is lot 54

this is lot 45 these sheds are at the rear of 55 the lot - >> i'm not talking about those buildings but the sheds there is 2 sheds. >> yep. >> the owner of one shed where's the owner the on the shed. >> i'm not going to get into who owns the sheds one is on lot 55 at the rear of the 4 story condo building with a restaurant into noriega i don't know who owns the sheds if they're on one property 33 and that's the only property being site it only that sheds located on it. >> now if another owner put one of the sheds on that property it's between that the owner and the appellant commissioner mccarthy.

>> you know john, don't you think that is the responsibility of the property to write things up we have a strong opinion this is a fact of the matter and to be honest what is the right to have one and not the other. >> one property owner was written up. >> was it a phone call. >> the complaint the two sheds were constructed at the rear of a property our inspector went out saw two sheds at the rear of a particular property one individual property and wrote it up. >> this year are sheds on one of the 3 property. >> due understand you come in front of this commission with a violation this is just mixing up

and send it up without any concern to the persons involved you seem so taken a position i don't know why we took a position without research i understand we have nov we don't write them for the sake of writing them. >> i read the context of the notice of violation and you'll know there are a lot of research done a complaint with that department the use of rear portion of the lots two shortage shed installed at the rear driveway and and the easement crossing to the declaration of easement they'll have gotten into the records office and reviewed that and covenants and restrictions are part of a 9927327 easement confusing for

the egress including the emergency lifts and for the premises. >> okay. i'm sorry. >> that's right there and shows that there was a lot of the guy explicit write this up seeing the conditions and reached and verified the easement was attached to that easement and studied it. >> i think commissioner walker and supervisor wiener and move on. >> can you tell me with the process would be for issuing this permit i mean is this something that goes to planning or something that dbi gets to look at and says yes. you can add a second one. >> it is possible you know you'll have to go to the review process but sorry go ahead. >> i am this is not in planning because you have two sheds and you're also changing the easement the easement has to

be changed that's done in planning not the building inspection. >> commissioner lee i think commissioner mccarthy is saying one thing and i'm trying to explain what commissioner mccarthy is saying the lot where the two sheds are more than one unit on that block the condos which meant why did you issue an nov for one condo owner and not the other if you didn't know who owns the property we're not talking about who owns the parcels next to. >> if we wished what we could have done was issue the notice of violation to all condo owners and make that matter worse i guarantee you the writer to the

inspection was not happy because it is an unusual case i acknowledge that. >> i follow-up and i'm still confused on why our department is enforcing an easement violation is this something we normally do even if it is i would expect an easement to be recorded on a map somewhere it will definitely begin with the easements are instead of by test. >> if there was only one shed and the second shed was not added it would have been more difficult for us but once the second shed was installed that kicked a planning requirement. >> commissioner mar. >> so this is why i'm having a problem with that case sorry to drag it on but what are we asking the appellant to do in

terms of abating this violation and to me the planning for a second shed is death i'm not willing to do that so to me is you know are we telling me them to fight amongst themselves and have one so fight it out and one shed will that abate the problem. >> first place the appellant and would do everything to encourage the individual two installed the second shed i ca would ask them to remove that shed then the planning department will not be involved and left with an issue. >> commissioner walker. >> so, i mean to the point of needing sort of a map of thuls where the easement is up against the wall not part of egress

situations for the other two buildings so this puts in a hard place because if you look at the few look at it once it comes to us we have to look at the facts of the case but you know this seems to be a situation everybody is okay that's it around there and trying to protect garbage from being strewn out a good thing for everything so this is one of those conundrums of what we have trying to figure out how to interpret this in a fairway it is death to go to the planning department on these types of things so i feel like without having information about the second unit we're dealing with one half of the situation it is

where i'm at right now. >> let me ask anyone else in the audience that wants to speak to this perhaps - >> perfect. >> before we call up public comment i would ask i have one question for the appellant in that, yes this is i thought when you made you're showing presentation you said you had gotten support from everyone - >> in my building and the other buildings no. >> i - the question about who is is that can plan is anyone can make a complaint a exert of our barky that makes an different for the quality of life that used that easement but it is. >> it is my eastbound neighbors and several of them

are here. >> i don't know but that was the map i showed you this is on see reported easement document it actually to be clear commissioner mccarthy didn't get the copy for the planning to review it the is easement document he's showing you has myself handwritten notes but the easement documents that i showed you it was scratched up u up i gave it to the building inspection but this is the map the recorded map of the easement if you were asking for the shed is back here my comment although it is in the map the reported area as being the easement just because they call it an easement didn't make it so and didn't

meet the legal definition of an agreement (inaudible) and the discussion is mute because none has the right to cross our lands and don't need it for inregress or egress the point to get to their door sorry. >> thank you. >> so the easements are actually - >> sorry. >> it's okay. go ahead commissioner walker. >> so the map the easements are actually on buildings ab property not c. >> the definition of an easement i copied it the right to cross someone else's property nor - >> okay. thank you. >> okay. >> sorry.

>> thank you. >> so sonya do we have follow-up comment. >> do you have a comment. >> i want to point out commissioners on the first page photograph e the easement is reciprocal rights to the easement that's the way it is written. >> i see i think that's why the map it drawn that but. >> public comment each person has 3 minutes for public comment. >> good morning. >> good morning. i develop those properties. >> could you please speak into the - >> thank you. >> i'm stevie developed those properties i got the

entitlements and worked with the 0 both the planning and the department of building inspection and you've been mislead maybe not intentionally but give you a little bit of background and documents. >> yes. >> i need to keep one would you give me one of those and here there's 4 of these those are colored pictures then. >> go ahead you have 3 minutes. >> so you need to see the pictures what i'm referring to can we get them on the screen it shows the property itself and the point it we begin with the rear yard go ahead and if you turn that next page that shows the buildings if you turn the

next page that - >> okay. >> can i turn them. >> yes. you can. >> i'll work from that. >> you don't have a lot of time. >> i'll move through those i too two points a health and safety issue and also you've been mislead about the development and the easements the easements were reported before the the declaration of department of building inspection demanded the declaration with the city and the city attorney or the rear yard use of residential units, the commercial units they didn't want them there but planning wanted them there it is because in their small not enough commercial in the commercial district that's why there is commercial units they were upset

about the driveways being used so the plan we do needs egress and in regress but the backyard this was the residential backyards only no door no exit through the garage for the commercial unit this is totally separate but the architect there's a door so the commercial unit can assess it's it's water heart or blocked off from the front yard the declaration makes a point the commercial units are excluded in this area period so those can't be changed without the head of the department of building inspection and all 12 owners of each of all the others units that's the declaration so has to do with with backyards space

not easements we've recorded the deed of easement way before the declaration was demanded and the department of building inspection want to insure that was backyard open space for the residential units only moving on the health and safety issues this shows slikt this is shortly after they installed them if i notice the rear portions easterly and west low building that you saw on the for the west actually things are leaking out gradually it gets dirtier and dirtier this is still relating early - relatively early so the complaint was against

health and safety garbage being used for commercial unit not supposed to use the yard space unsanctuary that was into play little children that can't use this rear yard all gradually you see it gets dirtier and dirtier and animals come and interests possibility of rodent and less kids being bitten this is for kids to play off the streets without traffic okay. >> this is the picture where the lady. >> okay. thank you very much you're showing 3 minutes are up thank you. >> the commissions can review the documents. >> thank you very much. we appreciate it.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning. >> good morning, commissioners andy i'm a resident anothers norway we go in the end unit yellow building my wife and son will lived there for the past 11 years prior to the people coming in i'm here to request we deny any appeal those sheds are for commercial units as opposed to the benefit of residents their encroaching on the use of overall barngd the second unit in the building moving in right after the building had been built i raised any son who is a sophomore at washington taught him how to play catch if that backyard before the sheds were

present regardless of definition of an easement this is our backyard we literally live at norway we go and articles about the noriega street our neighborhood is growing one small space the kids can play we've thrown birthday parties now from the photographs that were submitted trash leaking down and commercial people walking back and forth in our backyard literally have to reason to be there the ingress and egress is there one shed serves the benefit of the residents and the she can for the commercial units not included in the easement i want to have may backyard back and

have friends over it is changed with trash leaking out it is different we need to go back to the way it was. >> thank you. any questions. >> yes. commissioner walker. >> maybe you can clarify the for the benefit the people living in the building first. >> they puncture at the same time well pretty much exactly at the same time the truck unloaded o sheds and pretty much installed one hours of each other are. >> were the owners of the units and those buildings notified about this year did it just happy. >> it was a collaboration between the residents as well as hillary's business hillary is part of the that condo association they have a vote i think they divided to violate

the easements i'm not the only one petitioning but everyone in the building is petitioning and always others 9 residential units 6 of us are against those sheds an easy one to me. >> any other questions? >> thank you. >> have a great day. >> next speaker, please. >> 340r7k everyone i'm andy's neighbor on the center building i'm the la jolla did care one

i'll echo most of his thoughts we purchased our property in 2011, 2012 timeframe and it was a nice you know backyard and no liquid trash residue leaking the sheds were not there when we bought the place we read the cc&rs it was great a back space assess no traffic you know walk outside and at this point those sheds arrived off loaded we discovered i wasn't aware they're for commercial you saw in the photos large stacks of trash bags sitting out of garbage receptive always to match the pickup date

down the street there is an organic produce store with their trash picked up routinely but it is sort of stored i don't know some kind of safety terrible idea it just sits there that is a health and safety issue i'd like to echo from andy's comments and the second thing the commercial unit was not intended to have that's what they told us we understood interest the cc&r my wife and i that the commercial unit has to backyard assess yet the employees daily and evenings and night time back and forth or trash bags that break and things fall off the binds and their

loitering the backyard all to see you know the backyard cleaner and go back to the way it was that would be novice and also the idea of as you mentioned sir, the access to the back of the building that's great for the residents why are the employees walk past are we to give them assess it this place i'm not sure you'll decide thank you. >> any questions for me. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please oh, okay. >> is that it for public comment. >> any is there any additional public comment. >> run we're in the middle building i have to times ones we used to play but now a trail of

trash who want my daughter if she should fall diseases and other things this is nuisance at one amy hear garbage dragging down the driveway and they are hanging out we have employees eat their lunch in our backyard who knows who what other kind of people are hahn out if you come out homeless person or someone you know trying to go into our garage to steal something safety is a huge issue for any kid's do you have any questions. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> just we still are in public comment thank you. >> i'm laurie represent a

couple of the homeownership's norway we go homeownership's association i'll a resident of the city and county of san francisco not in that building i was sort of asked to come here to address. >> few of the more technical arguments that ms. hillary is making you know you've heard from the residents no one is attacking her business not to close her down but responsible dispose of her trash not in violation of their easement this was their rear yard fully but itself city that's why you're involved the parking garage commissioner walker why are you getting involved in this issue because that issue happens to have a lot of significance to the recipe and they made a complaint what

will it take getting bit by a rat when you're out back for the city to take action when a public health and safety issue that's part of the 5 a requires you to act on the risks to public welfare we ask i take some action now i really don't have much to add other than that hillary stated no easement her legal conclusion holes as much water as anger a strainer for me i have read that document and i believe this is a legal easements in section 2 specifically grants the cross easements to 53, 54 and 45 section 3 clearly limits her use and section 11 expressly prohibits the units from legal

assess does anyone have any questions for me. >> thank you. >> is there any additional public comment before we close public comment? >> rebuttal. >> rebuttal. >> commissioner mccarthy has a question. >> john, please. >> the violation you read out to me. >> what part of that garbage and health issues. >> what part? >> as a violation. >> that you read. >> it you clearly read out to me why you wrote this. >> the violation well, the storage of sheds being installed in the easement area. >> the whole testimony we're hearing about garbage and health issues you know the impact on the easement of the open yard those people are residential i'm

asking what part of dbis violation talks to that? as it didn't talk to it because we can only kites the structure. >> 90 now there is testimony that even as more weight to the concerns because the testimony is saying what is put into that structure which is trash i wasn't aware of if you look at on one of the photographs her you can see that this particular structure is directly underneath the balcony now if there is trash inside of it and it is flammable and on fire and kids near that railing i wouldn't want to be that kid. >> what's in the other. >> when we saw in. >> yeah. but what is in the one

not discussed. >> i don't know but we saw earlier trash stored in one of them. >> do you know if there is trash in the other one. >> i don't know i'm commenting on one of the neighbors provides on it photo we don't get into that in the violation. >> but that's my points john, i really feel we're being this seems like is a homeowners association we're dealing with that as a violation you know. >> well, we get a complaint and act like any other complaint this is a difficult case i'd like to be in our position we did our job and anger. >> well, i would make the argument we didn't do our job i would be interested to find out

if under those endanger in the other if this is about madam president then both of these are the same issue. >> supervisor mar. >> (laughter). >> you kn >> you know fast forward. >> i feel like this is a health issue or has to do with with garbage this should be the health department there is a lot of restaurants and eateries that have violations of health code and i'd like city attorney if you have a chance to look at the easement is it true that the commercial tenant should have not access to that easement it is what one of the residential

tenants said that is unifying believable how could you have a commercial space let's say it was not a bakery but how about a tech place would the tenants be opposed to tech people texting and parking their bicycles so why is it okay for one commercial type of - i want to get clarification their equal condo owner is it true that the commercial tenants have no access to that area commissioners. >> i would refer to you to easement document in section 11. >> okay. >> which specifically states that any commercial structure erected on the ground floor will be excluded in the easement contained. >> commissioner walker did you

have a future question. >> we're at public comment we're in discussion now; right? >> don't we have 3 minutes of rebuttal time. >> let's do rebuttal and then. >> thank you come on up. >> the issues i think that was commissioner mar they've complained to the health department said it is clean it is rod dent and fire or flame retenant or whatever the pictures they show of any employee cleaning their throwing away garbage that is not how it looks anyone said it was messy the health department said you're good not an issue also i have this signed by all of the owners in any condo i'm an amnesty he to their easement space that is allowed in the

restrictions yes. the commercial condos yes, they canned use it, it is a residential unit in writing. >> okay commissioner walker. >> so we're in deliberation i appreciate this came to us so we can look at this issue it's a a extracted issue that begs the question of why there weren't garbage areas built both this building first place so that the easement and backyard could be used as required or hoped for by the people living in it i feel like there is a violation i've seen a lot of circumstances

where commercial entities don't anticipate the needs for garbage storage and impose on the sidewalk and others instances this being one i feel like there has to be a solution i'm concerned we don't have both of these sheds represented here per say i think in order for us to make a decision we need to do none or both so i'm reluctant to deal with that. >> commissioner mccarthy. >> commissioner walker i have no problem seeing the violation we're talking to the actually violation this is a health and

garbage that's where why i asked the member of the dbi to read back the violation i'm glad to concur to continue this i don't have the answer i would be also in a position that this stage to continue this. >> commissioner lee. >> i was hoping that someone in the audience what come up and own it they're the owner of the second shed but i'm with my fellow commissioners that is hard to make a decision without knowing who the other owner is. >> any future comments. >> coming in late i want to apologize for being late i hear two discussions going on one discussion of easement on or about and the second discussion

which on the cover sheet there are two sheds supposed to be one shed the revolution one shed has to go. >> it is clear to me who owns it in that building they've worked out the easement responsibilities and sharing they had to work that out one has to go. >> okay. >> commissioner walker. >> yeah. i think that ultimate will will be a great solution without having everyone hear we can continue it with a encouragement there is a resolution worked out trying to be supportive of the business as well as the people trying to enjoy the area and come to us with a solution. >> commissioner mar did you have a comment. >> i'll concur with the fellow

commissioners that we can't deal with that right now and questions it is a building issue the other things especially with the last testimony i'm a guy that comes out of restaurant work and all the mechanics and motorcycles everyone wants to use it this guy used to own a bar he was worse this was a big problem for certain types of businesses everyone wants to live on top of an accountant or bank everyone of everything closes at 5 but know what we want diverse businesses we have to some people have to live on top of restaurants and on top of banks that's the way it is so, yeah i do not want adjudicate

it. >> you feel like this is a classic urban planning issue that you know multiple uses, and you know this is exactly why the planning department gets involved in those issues the neighbors are going through the process you know in the process is working the way it is spotted to you actually think that you know, i would vote to have this go to planning that is to me an issue where the developer purposely didn't give the commercial space and in the urging of those documents to the commercial spaces it is become an issue and to me a planning on or about the relationship that exists between the commercial

space and the residential uses so i am not i feel like i'm the only one that feels this way i see why the department took this position perhaps written better i do so it so - >> that's for what it is it is worth. >> in responding to you i don't disagree any question us taking an action would it be better to have them account and propose something different or go to planning. >> i'm okay if we give them thirty days to try to resolve this and you know. >> i think - >> take an action at the next appeals meeting but i see the logic from a planning prospective. >> i do, too.

>> if anyone ready to make a motion. >> i move to continue for thirty days. >> second. >> okay. >> there is a motion and a second to continue the item for thirty days is that - is there any other - >> encourage the all parties to come forward with a solution. >> uh-huh. >> both parties one solution yeah. >> okay. i'll take a roll call vote on the motion. >> commissioner president melgar commissioner mccarthy commissioner mar commissioner lee commissioner mccray commissioner walker that motion carries unanimously.

>> very good. >> okay case owner of residents of appellant living trust action by appellant to allow more time for the notice of violation. >> good morning. i think mine is shorter i'm the owner of 2246 greenwich and we need to hear if the staff first sorry. >> if there is a staff (multiple voices). >> sorry about that we will have you up in a moment. >> thank you. the address greenwich street two be residential buildings it is a violation really two a roof deck structure without permit. >> the order of abatement was issued as a result of the

hearing may have 2014. >> a permit was issued to remove the urban permitted roof deck and this permit is valid it hadn't been inspected and signed off from the work was completed and the sign off it would clear the violation 19 it has not happened we propose you uphold the order of abatement that concludes my report. >> thank you now thank you. >> actually, the deck has been removed. >> state your name. >> ray even though crawl the owner the condo we did get the permit in last march and the you need to see the permit? >> we've removed the deck he brought the pictures to show

that before that to we spent over 3 years trying to legalize this deck and thousands of dollars i had bob as a consultant and an architect should the building inspection multiple rearbitrations trying to approve and comply with the requests it became so onerous and so cost will i we feinstein decided to demolish we put a up a firewall from the top of the deck roof all the way down to the bottom unit i own the top unit and an owner in the bottom unit the entire stall was enclosed by the firewall i couldn't request the other owner to have this ugly

thing put up we decided to demolish it we have a final inspection monday to should the deck was removed do i need to see the pictures the deck is completely gone another brief comment there had been one of the drying decks on the roof when i bought the building so when we put up the deck we felt he remember with approving it we waited 19 years i needed to check the roof anyone in the neighborhood complained this the end of the story it's been a nightmare trying to get to comply but it is gone so my request that the order of abatement not be recorded i'm willing to pay some fees i've been paying

thousands ofs fees over the last years to comply. >> okay. thank you. >> so the inspection is when. >> monday. >> okay. >> okay thank you very much is there a rebuttal? >> if the permit was signed off with the inspection that totally clears the violation i don't know would you be continuing it and we could take direction regarding the fees. >> commissioner walker. >> if we uphold the order of abatement and low a week for the inspection it essential collects the fees so if it is upheld and the work is done then it is closed we don't file it we only collect the fees. >> commissioner mar did you have a question. >> what's the fees right now

george. >> the fees right now are one thousand $314 it is initial fee. >> that was for the violation when they filed the permit through planning he assume to legalize that which took 3 years and couldn't get legal we put our work in the nov in abeyance the fees were not didn't continue to occur while it was 2, 3, 4 planning did it. >> is condition fee is the cost up to the order of abatement issued. >> okay. so it was put in abeyance when they put filed. >> when they filed the appeal everything stopped. >> okay. >> thank you.

>> any public comment? regarding this item? okay future commissioners comments. >> do you have rebuttal. >> anything to add? >> yeah. about the fees you know because i am willing to pay a fee not sure since i spent so much money on trying to legalize that is that a reasonable fee $500 seems reasonable but over 7 thousand so - >> that's my only question. >> do you have a question commissioner walker. >> no i'd like to make a motion. >> please i move to uphold the order of abatement and cut the fees in half. >> a second. >> second. >> okay. that motion to

uphold the order of abatement and to reduce the fees by half. >> and just a brief amendment we're allowing thirty days for the inspection to take place; correct? >> the justification for the reduction of fees is the "x" bandit amount of time the complainant tried to fix this held up in the planning code. >> yeah. we're going to - >> go ahead. >> go ahead. >> roll call vote. >> commissioner president melgar commissioner mccarthy commissioner mar commissioner lee commissioner walker that motion carries carries unanimously any general public comment for

items not on the agenda a motion to adjourn. >> move to adjourn. >> second. >> second. >> all commissioners in favor 's we're adjourned it is 1017 action committee for women in prison we'll take i'm sorry 10 minutes. >> 5 minutes we'll have 5 minutes recess between the meetings and we will come back as at department of building inspection commission thank you.

>> is the monitor not on?