has been done. that is new since the last time and i provided a copy in this package, which you got which showed the radius notifications were done 4 separate times in 06 and 07. the planning e-mail, item number 1, which gives the go ahead and reinstate the variance which is key item that allows us to proceed. with patrick reerden and joe duffy on site we are work wg them and believe we can close the matter, we just need to redraw the plaj plans. the plans were done in twnt 06 and have to redo them so need time to dathat and fulfill the requirements that have dcp have put in, that should hopefully then continue the permit process and hopefully close the

matter. that's what we are asking for now is additional time in order to redraw the plans and provide this radius notification i just showed you here, give to planning and execute through on the permit process. >> any questions? commissioner walker. >> do you have a estimate of time? >> as you know, the city a very busy, architect squz so on are hard to get a hold of-we will do it- >> i will rely on the department to tell us. >> yes. >> that's fine. >> any other questions? >> can be get verification on the fee amounts? >> how much they paid? >> the penalties. >> joe could probably help with that. most thof work that has

to be done here isn't building department, it is city planning. they have to go through a variance. i would suggest we can give them some time-as much time as you can comfortable with but at the end of the day most will reside at city planning t. is just a small deck and set of stairs. >> you haven't been granted the variance? >> we were granted the variance aprivilegeinally in 2006 and now reinstated. >> and don't believe it is reinstated, i believe they said they will honor it. >> what does that mean >> planning will honor it and fut it forth to the commission with approval. that could take time and a two year point that is out of your

control. [inaudible] which is quite backed up now. but what is also in front is the fees so maybe mr. duffy can talk about the penalties are there based around the notification that wnt out and misled and so on. thank you. >> thank you. >> no other questions? >> good morning. joe deafy, dbi. just on the fees first i thing there is $1668 paid on one noits of violation and another of $312.80 on one of the other cases that hasn't been paid yet so about $2 thousand total. and then obviously at your discretion.

>> so, to that point, go to situation from memory, forgive me- >> that's alright. >> has it been your experience and know you have gone through a lot of this where everybody puts their hands up and thrfs a lot of misinformation that caused the situation regardless who is pointing fingers have you in the past given complete fee forgiveness before? >> building inspection division if we issue a notice of violation, there is like a 9 times penalty or reduce to 2 times. if someone comes in fairly quickly there is reasons to drop the penalty. if the work was done by a previous owner there is a exception in the code that we can eliminate the penalty. in this case, the

fees that they are talking about i believe are code enforcement fees for staff time that is for the time spnt on the case to date. these are not penalties associate would the building permit sothey are looking for relief on abatement cost for staff time and setting up hearings and that. i would say those costs are fairly accurate and would be warranted to be honest and given the fact that we have two outstanding notices here, i do understand mr. ryan got a letter from dbi to say the violation are cleared. knowing he didn't do anything to warrant the notice violation chs a mistake of the department and did address that and the issue was fixed and clarical error so i think he would would still known he need today do something in regards

to building permit squz taking care of this because if you get a letter to say your violations are cleared but haven't done anything, it is not really-you still need to take care of it. i came back because of the twnt 14 case when code enforcement looked back and said hold on we shouldn't have sent this letter in 2006 so that reopened the case. i feel sorry for them for that fact. he will deal with it now or they will deal with it and the site visit we had out there was pretty helpful and it gave me a better understanding of what we are deal wg. there is a roof deck and stair, which was noted in the 2014 violation. there is a connection-if i can show photographs maybe it will help understand better. if i can have the overhead, please. so,

this is the picture of the front of the building at clayton street. the residential portion of the property. the property extends back to ashbury street and have a garage in the rear of the property. so, this photo here would show you a stair walkway leading from the rear the front building to the back garage so look ing at the bake wall of the garage. it is nice property. there would have needed to be a connection between the frunth and rear property because of the elevation so there are a series oof walk ways and deck stairs that go across from his

property-i'll put up another picture here and let you see. again, just the doorway leading from the residential at the back. the reason i'm doing this is give you hopefully a better understanding of what we are dealing with. in this picture you have a stairway that goes from a lower area up to the main area at the rear between the buildings. it would be our understanding that this is part of the earlier notice of violation and not relate today the 2014 violation for roof deck and stair. i'll show you that as well. so, then we have a stairway leading from the main level up to the roof deck on the top of the garage. this is the area on

the roof deck. so, we have two separate issues but we think what he needs to do is pop everything together on one permit. the notification that got sent out maybe only addressing the roof deck and stair. he will probably need to get another set of plans to show the stairway as a landing i showed as well. i think historically there was a connection between the front and rear, there would have had to have been. there were permits for repair and roofing, but there is never a permit to rebuild all these between the buildings and apart from the permit we file frd the roof deck and stair-he needs to show more on plan jz he acknowledged that and think we can get there. he is dealing with a good planner, mary woods and i also have been in contact with

planning as well. i think at this point, we are dealing with time. how much time to give them to get through the process. what complicates it more is the neighbor if you can see on the picture thrrks is a new building going in next door and mr. ryan and mr. durkin the developer fought for a couple years over this project and now mr. durkin is fighting with mr. ryan so we expect appeals and objections and think there may be a attorney here for the neighbor. there is a neighborhood dispute so dont know how long it will take. if it was in the normal scheme of things maybe 6 months but this could take a couple years given the-what is going on between the neighbors here. >> i think probably have question for you. >> can i get clarification?

there is a passage way between the main house and the garage? >> correct >> you are saying that we don't if that is permitted but figured it must have been somehow? >> yes, there is always something there but it is rebuilt and see it is new construction and well built. i have no problem with it strucktually but don't think it is shown correctly on plan and think yee need shown on a proper set of architectural plans >> is that walkway elevated about the grade? >> yes. >> how far sfwh ? >> it could be 10 or 12 feet. >> really? >> uh-huh. because you have a main level and then the garage-the street is at a slope. ashbury is higher than clayton. if it had been a building permit-he has probably

taken out repair permits but that isn't in the proper permit. if you rebuild or add it has to show existing and proposed and that is what he needs to get to of everything done on one permit and set of plan jz one notification. where it inch brings you to-i would put everything together and don't think he is hat a place. i think he is deal wg the roof deck and stair on the 2014 violation but need to consolidate everything together and needs a architect to do that. >> did you have a question? >> no, i think i'm clear about what is happening. >> okay. i think if we could we should have public comment because with this rehearing or continuation we don't have to back and forth. we can go to public comment. or do we want to- >> yes. >> okay, public comment?

>> just one thing i like to thank the commission for the opportunity because it gave a better understanding where we are. we can present better and more accurately. >> my name is mark [inaudible] and work for mr. durkin who is the neighbor. this isn't as much a neighbor dispute as much as it is mr. durkin investigated what had happened with the ryans and this deck and the more you dig into it you realize it is not misinformation. it is not a misunderstanding it is very simple. it is just that when the ryan's represent things they are not supported by what the truth is. for example, mrs. ryan just said that they had e-mails say thg architect told them they did everything correct. that is 100 percent not true. if you look at the e-mail that i provided in the

packet on july 17, a month after the work was started the architect e-mails the ryans. neither of these permits are for the scope of work i had been working on. neither are their for the exterior stair tooz the garage roof that are now built. the architect specifically told them that what was being done was not being done per sunt to the permit they have. the deck you saw and stair structure you saw that was being built in pursuant to a roofing permit. this isn't installing a vanity or ceiling fan where there were misunderstanding this is construction done to a roofing permit and reason it was done persunts to a roofing permit to sneak it under and hopefully get signed off on. when the permit was signed off august 1, 2007, after the roofing permit was signed off on and the dry

rot permit that is supposed to justify raising the power pit and installing a railjug stair structure, after both of those permits were signed off on august 1, then they entered a contract that they had been negotiating all along with to construct a rooftop deck it san self. it wasn't a improper or mistake in permit, it was done with no permit what so ever. to bree more significant the ryans worked with the contractor and the contractor said i'm putting in this bid proposal imet rr not bearing responsibility for the legalty or permitting of this deck you want to build and that is in the exhibit that i showed you. is included in exhibits g. the contractor wanted a full waver and assumed no responsibility. the ryans and that be removed and the contractor said no. i'll build this but you are on

your own. they assume the risk and know this was built with no permits at all because they had been signed off on 13 days earlier and said you know what, we'll figure it out down the road and see what happens. that is what they are trying to do now. the variance expired and violated the varerance is done legally. they took the preliminary plans- >> since we are hearing two cases at once is it fair to make this 6 minutes? want this to be fair. >> this is really simple, there isn't misinformation or confuseing things. they applied for a variance with a architect and got approval for the variance, they fired the architect with outstanding bill and took the prelim thaer plans to raise a power pit to add a two story stair structure to add a railing to the structure

and add a rooftop deck, they had the contractor get a roofing permit they that twice asked for and mr. ryan was aware of. he is very familiar with permitting procedures of dbi. he created resistference my client and well aware what happened and the fact they have no less than 10 complaints in the past evidence they know what is going on. he asked the contractor for the permit and had the permit and know it was just a roofing permit but had the power pit raised, he had the stair structure-all this work built. then the architect says all this stuff you are doing none complies with the permits that you got. the roofb permit doesn't authorize this deck and it doesn't authorize the stair tower, it doesn't authorize any of this stuff. then they got another dry rot permit and tried to justify the work in the

photographs, both of those are signed off on and while the ryans are still negotiating with the contractor to build the final deck, the contractor says fine, i'll build it for you but washing my hands of any responsibility because i gonet the legalty or permitting: these are not final plans, these are preliminary plans used on a variance. contractor says i will do this but want a full waver and they asked him to take it out and the contractor said absolutely not. you are on your own rchlt they agreed to have it done after the permits were done and they are on their own now and what have they done? they try to get this done and work with somebody else and may fault my client saying this is a neighbor disbutte but everything that i'm telling you is backed by the facts. this is what they did. you may not applaud ply client for bringing this to your attention but none

the less, the ryans constructed to have a deck built without the benefit of any permit squz know about it and said i'll deal with it down the road. they are deal wg it down the road. the variance is expire squd still not approved and asking you to turn a blind eye and let it go. wave the fees, revoke the variance. what that does is sends a horrible message to the people that comply with the rule jz people considering complying with the rules. it says is you don't have to follow the rules or get a permit, you can do what you want and figure it out down the road and not the message we should send. >> thank you. any other public comment? seeing none,--we are going to have rebuttal >> 6 minutes? >> 6 minute rebuttal from the department and appellate which

would be the appellate is first. 6 minutes because we are hearing two cases mpt >> let me first address [inaudible] it is dirty liting secret and a number of you know how this operates already. christopher durkin told me himself he didn't care about my deck but he found administrative errors in the system. i said there can't be. he said i dont care about your deck. i don't care about what is up there, i'm going have my own huge house, you keep quiet and don't feel against my project, don't object my project and everything will be fine, just keep your mouth closed. that is what is really going on here. he said to me, you object to my project, i will get lawyers on your case and file