were built to allow the consistency of support for three structures that were built together. so that when that one retaining wall comes down, that places the neighboring buildings at risk. and what i am hearing, can you answer my question, which is, was that retaining wall part of any permit or was that just torn down? >> that misrepresented the retaining wall on the the original permit. it wasn't shown correctly of the height and what they wanted to do. it was like like the typical sort of shady detail that we see. that wasn't right. that was done wrong. >> they tore down a wall -- to put it in plain old english. they tore down a retaining wall

that shouldn't have been torn down. >> well, they probably did and they excavated deeper below neighbor's foundation what we typically see. >> is there an n.o.v. -- has the will been an n.o.v. filed directly related to that retaining wall or that action to tear down that retaining wall and overzealously excavate? >> the notice of violation that i read out in a way kind of covered it as well because it is part of the work and this is what they have done. we did note that and the drawings do show retaining walls. now, the appellant's engineer is saying the new retaining walls are not strong enough, and you heard the permit holder come up and say we agree with that now, and we want to strengthen the walls that are already in place, which i had noted anyway to speak about tonight that both the geoteches and the structural engineers need to meet to make sure they have got adequate support in there for those buildings.

in answer to your question, yes, they excavated. yes, they probably took out a retaining wall. >> therefore, should your point and should your point be more strongly made by filing a notice of violation directed at that retaining wall, which never should have -- probably never should have been touched in the context of the original scheme of the 1949 development? >> we're not going to issue another notice of violation, but we -- a new structure including the foundation -- >> commissioner swig, i am not sure i understand that you understand what has been happening here. the previous retaining wall reflective of the picture they show with the typical thing that was only in a crawl space-type

basement was removed and a new wall was in place. >> right. >> the argument is whether the new wall is structurally -- >> a right. >> sound enough to be able to not create issues for the foundation. >> i understand that. and with that if question, and with the admission from the developer or from the contractor that, oops, we might have screwed up here for the protection of all parties, should there not be a more official n.o.v. put forth just to make sure that retaining wall gets -- >> an i think it will get hammered out by tonight. >> -- returns to the integrity necessary to support both the house and also support the neighbor's house? >> that's going to happen. actually, there was -- the notice of violation got amended and the first notice of violation that i didn't read out and just noticed it there is

that we did say the rear excavated and pour newed rear retaining walls and site foundations without inspection. so then that notice of violation that i read out was actually amended, that one, but it's all incorporated. we know this. i get what you are saying. not officially, but we know that happened and commissioner fung is correct that there is a wall in its place now. it was done wrong. there is no doubt about it. the wrong was done. we kind of fixed the wrong, but we are aware of that and officially that is all why we have our notices are stop work orders. ruhr not going to write everything single thing down there. they probably could have mentioned it on the amended n.o.v., but it was documented on one that subsequently got amended so it is in the record. sorry. >> i am just trying to protect the nature of the neighbor is fully protected and that

admonition is very, very clear as a requirement to move forward whenever it moves forward or whether it returns to what it should be, which is probably what it was originally. >> these are not easy cases for us, believer you me. i have three or four and they are time consuming and wonder why people would try to do something like this. this thing we are into now is trying to fix it. when i read the brief and even before anyone spoke tonight, the two engineers here for the neighborhood and the permit holder need to figure out a design and that is imperative. and i have those notes down and surprised they said, oh, they contacted them on monday. the hearing is today. we have been dealing with this for two years. this should have happened a long time ago. i would like to hear why it didn't, to be honest with you. >> thanks.

>> and just to clarify, when the permit holders representative talked about another permit that they are applying for, that has not been submitted, correct? >> first i heard of it as well. that is probably something they're going to need. if one engineer is saying this wall isn't strong fluff, the neighbor's engineer, and they are acknowledging that and obviously that is the point we are at, that is why i think we need more time on this permit that is under appeal. >> an i an agree -- >> sorry. go ahead. >> well, the -- i see there is a contractor on the permit. is it owner done or a licensed contractor here? >> good question. the other thing is i think it will have to be continued for the fact that whether they agree with the neighbor or not, that work has not been permitted.

and at which point would need further process and may require 311. >> the existing deck is the issue as well and that is the planning and the construction and so with the licensed sponsor and that is the permit that is under appeal. >> so from 2016 and the property was bought and sold and there have been permits filed, revoked, and worked on.

>> as far as i am aware, this permit that they have that is under appeal was the permit to fix everything and apart from the issues that were brought up which there is no other permits and this would go away and take over. >> that was a previous one -- >> that was the wrong permit. that is the problem. this is still issued, but this permit will take over from it and only one notice of violation that got amended and read out the language and i should have read the first one, and commissioner swig's comments about the excavation. >> trying to get to one permit and one n.o.v. >> one good permit. this is on its way to being there. and i think the neighbor would

acknowledge that. and in answer to your -- i thought you were going to ask as well, no work taking place at the property that i am aware of. there is a stop work order. the building is sitting there. >> how long has that happened? >> that the work has stoped? >> since 2016. >> i would imagine. >> since the stop work order. >> mr. duffy, just to clarify, you think that we can go through a process of continuing this and making the appropriate changes to the existing permit as opposed to revoking the permit and starting all over again. >> and i think we have other neighbors that will speak under public comment as well. >> okay. >> would you like to come up, mr. sanchez? we will give you a minute. >> thank you. just one more and in response to the ownership question and

listed for 999,000 and sold for $1.1 million to the current owners but did go back on the market this last october for $1.5 million and hope that the current owners are disclosing all the issues that have been raised here. it does appear to be on the market now as a fixer upper. >> thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? okay. seeing none, we will move on to rebuttal. mr. kleinman, you have three minutes. >> overhead please. >> so that, just to clarify, that is the property when it was sold in 2015. that is dirt and concrete. my primary concern is that the retaining walls are sound. we did spend some money using the structural engineer. i don't want to spend anymore money. i think this is really something between the contractor and the

city, and what i have been trying to do unsuccessfully for over a year in terms of emails and phones is to get the city involved so that there is something up to code and get the department of building inspections to look at it. my only concern really is the retaining walls and what else they do with the property is secondary because if we have a shake right now, 575 and 571 is probably going to be 573. and that's going to spoil my whole day. if the modification to the current permit specifies the retaining walls be done according to code and if their civil engineer wants to talk to the city to come up with a solution to that, that is fine. but i don't see myself in that picture anymore because i have outlaid several thousand dollars for the structural engineer. that is my point. >> thank you. you are taking this pretty calm. can i ask you a question? a lot of times in this

particular situation when there is joint or close proximity foundations, usually there is monitoring done. but generally speaking, the neighbors home will have their person actually watch those monitors -- watch those numbers to make sure that they don't move. is that something that you possibly are interested in at all? that does probably entail you spending money as well. no? okay. never mind. thank you. >> thank you. >> getting the move over. >> we will now hear from the permit holder. >> you have three minutes. >> so in response to the appellant, so since the house is already and we know the

appellant's concern and 575 and like i said, we were willing to work with the engineers and come up with a better solution to minimize his concern and rebuild the structurally and strengthening the retaining wall and make sure it's safe and code complied. that's about it. >> are you done? >> yeah. >> so on the permit, are you peter chow? >> yes. >> so you are the engineer here. is there a licensed contractor doing the work or is the owner the licensed contractor here? >> the owner is the actual licensed contractor. he is both the owner and also he is also licensed contractor. [please stand by]

>> we could maybe continue this spirit i am trying to get something that will satisfy him in regards to that. i would suggest that they provide monitoring for the next

24 months or something. i have seen that a few times. >> you would be able to do that asap, write class b. market would be done the next couple of years to see if there's any future movements. that would be -- that does happen a lot on zero lot line excavations. >> so you are recommending we continue it, and d.b.i. take control. so what would you -- what would you envision discontinuation to sound like, sorry if you don't mind me asking. >> it needs to be continued to evaluate the design of the retaining walls and foundations at the adjacent properties. >> without also decide whether additional permitting is required, or notification is required,? >> that would be planning. there be no notification on the issuance of the permit. >> whatever changes are entailed

would require permitting. >> that is what i am thinking. >> we may want to clean up the language on the deck. >> there is a lot of cleaning up here. >> we would like to say that the deck is the legalization without the benefit of a building permit to. something like that language would be better to saying that you are reverting back to a deck it was never there. that is not reverting a deck. >> mr duffy, if you look at what the specs are for the installed retainer, it is not too far off. you are talking about 10-inch thick, and the number 5, which is 10 inches. the question is, what got installed? >> to be honest with you, if it was my case, and i have been handling it for the last couple of years, we would ask for a scan on that.

is not beyond us to ask about that through the process of all this and have it scanned to see what size of rebar there is. i don't know how expensive it is , but it is doable. >> it is not that bad. >> thank you. >> i think it is the department that will have to do a lot of this as our representatives. you know what needs to be done. >> i do. you can bring it back to the chief building inspector. >> we need to work harder. >> we need to involve an engineer. we need visits of when we can meet with the engineer out there and their neighbor and get everyone together. i have dealt with these before and it takes a bit of cooperation and people working together, and then the monitoring is big because it will allay the fears, since building will be in the future, and they can monitor and pay for that. >> thank you. do you have any recommendations in regards to -- it looks like

this board will probably continue. do you have any suggestions. >> i think the applicant needs to prepare accurate plans. i would suggest they look at aerial photos and more clearly show what the previous conditions were like. they are, from what i can tell, completely misrepresenting the grade that existed previously at the rear of the property. >> that was my next question. because you guys have the ability to look back 20 or 30 years. >> they can do it from the comfort of their own living room they can access the application and they can go back and see what it was. they should also know because they did the work themselves. there's probably no one better to be there when they did all the digging. thank you. >> commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> this is a president fung special with inspections. >> i think we are probably in

agreement that further homework needs to be done. resolution on a final permit set needs to be brought forth, and then determine whether we are in concurrence with that or not, and whether the department is in conference are not. how much time do we think we need, mr chow? how much do we need for you to resolve some of these issues. >> you might -- you might want to come to the microphone. >> both with the appellant and the building department? >> in response to a question, you are asking us how -- >> we will continue this case to allow you to redo, as whatever you need to do, to work with the building department to resolve these issues. >> i think the first thing we need have to do, we would have to really do a visit altogether.

>> my question is, how much time before we bring this case back? >> i would say at least 3.0 weeks for us to be able to -- >> one month, roughly. >> and we have three dates in february. the sixth, the 20th, or the 27 th. >> and mr chow, i am sure this board will require that monitoring for the foundation be put on relatively quickly. how would -- how soon would you be able to get that done? >> what happens is because you have exposed your neighbor's foundation, the concern is especially over a rainy season, that that will collapse. we would like some type of monitoring on there as soon as possible. >> by a structural engineer? >> by a surveyor?

okay. >> yes, we can do that. >> i will let frank make that. >> i wanted to add that i believe president fung wants an accurate set of plans for what the previous conditions one -- where. is not correct? >> yes. >> i wanted to make sure he knows that. >> we are looking at, why don't we continue this to february 20 th, and at that point in time, what the commission is looking for is an accurate drawing of of the what was existing preconstruction, and what has been proposed by you and the owner in terms of mitigating the n.o.v., and the issues that the building department are bringing up with respect to the structural design and possibly planning issues

that will be coming up. we are looking at a resolution of all these issues by the hearing on february 20th. is that doable? >> i would say so. and also, with that work for you folks? >> i just want to reiterate, the 27th. february 27th. okay. winner winner. >> i just want to -- i get a sense, i really want to make it clear to the project sponsor that we really expect a very tight, clear set of plans that would be suitable, and up to the terms and conditions necessary for the building department and planning and that everything

that we are requesting, this is not a casual request, this is a very definite request, before you -- it is very nice you are being so deferential, and accommodating to say yes to february 27th, or 20th, or whatever date we come up with, we give yourself a break and make sure that you are saying yes to something that you can absolutely bring in because if you bring in something that is not up to par, or you present something to planning or buildings that are not acceptable, you are just have to do it ultimately. you have no wiggle room on this. >> there is no brief supply here we expect that if your company or the people are not able to do it, that you provide someone or hire someone to get that done. >> okay. >> and that the monitoring

device, there is a high sense of urgency on getting that monitoring device in when we get to that point in making the motion. this is for the protection of the neighbors and as far as i'm concerned, that is the project sponsor who has the significant risk right now. there is an admission that what was replaced is not suitable. i just want to let you know the seriousness of this, and that what your commitment is is you are expected to perform. >> absolutely. thank you very much. >> let's move to the motion. >> okay. who is making that motion? >> we have a motion from president fung to continue this matter to february 27th, 2019 for a number of reasons. d.b.i. will be making a site a

visit to evaluate the design of the retaining walls and foundations. the permit holder needs to prepare an accurate set of plans which show the previous conditions, preconstruction, and the permit holder also needs to explain what is being proposed to mitigate the n.o.v. and address the other issues on the property, and part of that motion is we want to require -- >> the other one is to provide and pay for monitoring. >> monitoring by a survey immediately to monitor the conditions on the property and on that motion -- [roll call] >> we would like to have those plans, the thursday prior to the hearing. february 21st. you need to supply them to the appellant, and as well as to the board office.

>> okay. >> okay. >> we will take a five minute break. >> thank you. >> thank you. thank you for your patience. >> before we get started, did anyone lose a parking ticket in the elevator? if they parked in the garage? i found it in the elevator. okay. >> are we ready. >> okay. welcome back to the january 9th , 2019 hearing for the board of appeals. we are now on item number 8. this is a jurisdiction request. the subject property at 235 portland avenue. the requester is asking the board to take jurisdiction over a building permit 2018, 10112928 , which was issued on

october 12, 2018 by the department of building inspection. the appeal period ended on october 29th 2018 in -- and the jurisdiction request was filed on november 28th, 2018. add one full bath, and nonbearing partition walls. we will hear from the requester first. is miss fogarty here? okay. you have three minutes. thank you. >> and his responding brief,, the permit holder's lawyer stated that no justifiable excuse has been presented for the delay in appealing the permit. i'm here because had i known about the permits, i would have filed a formal protest within the 15 day period following the issuance. it is a building owner's responsibility to notify the tenant in this period, and that didn't happen. the permit gave me until the 29 th to request a hearing.

i received a notice to vacate with the permits on november 9 th, 13 days. i guess that is 11 days pass the time to appeal. there is no showing as to why my request wasn't filed until the 28th of november. [please stand by]

. . . . making both the kitchen and the living room much smaller. and he is turning the one bedroom, one path occupied spo a two bedroom, two bath and this is not a capital improvement eviction. and the contractors said this doesn't look like a three month job but more like five or six and work on the other units is three months and down to studs and heating and plumbing didn't done. i get moving expenses for three months but beyond that i pay a much higher rent out of pocket and that is the hardship. i don't have there are 30,000 to sue for a wrongful eviction and it is going to start. i am here because i am concerned about this eviction that is not for capital improvements or

repairs and once the receipts are turned into the rent board, costs will be bury and presented or misrepresented as capital improvement pass throughs and the rent will be going way up. i needed these concerns to be on the record. thank you. >> thank you. >> we will now hear from the agent attorney for the permit holder. >> thank you. i am an attorney for the respondent to 235 courtland. i will address the brand-new argument brought up right here. if the petitioner had a concern and anything in the scope of work exceeds the timing and three months or five months, it is an entirely different forum to address that and that is addressed through the petition

of the recommend board, and not only not timely done and to my awareness it was not done. i was never served with any petition now, so this argument was not made at the proper forum. as to the timing to make that appeal, i understand that the general calculation just says 15 days from the filing, but as i analyzed in the brief, i took it upon myself to go a step further for the -- let's assume the timing starts from the service of the notice and with the timing not from the day the terments were issue and was with the petition and that notice informs her about the appellants popular, and not just one

permit, it's plural, and this idea of taking one permit out of the timing and not addressing the rest kind of nullifies the grounds and this request or any request was not done within 15 days from the receipt, excuse me, of the notice. that is to the timing. as to the scope, the important part that the work will cut off for the time and purpose that will cut off the access to the utilities. it will remove the surfaces. it just makes premises not habitable for the duration of the work. so that is how it's done. the notice attached to the portion of the notice attached to the petition and the complete notice with the response indicates a temporary allocation not just for the purposes of work and i have not heard today

or in petition to this itself and the acknowledges the receipt of the statement. thank you. >> sir, i have a few questions. so regarding the work that's going to be completed, is any of the work required for seismic or safety? or is it as the appellant said, is it just for remodelling? >> i'm sorry, i didn't hear. it requires what? >> is any of the work that has to be performed, is that required for safety or seismic? >> i am not the contractor to render an opinion. i am only here for -- >> the other question, is your client in the room this evening? >> no, commissioner, he is not. we did submit the permits with the existing and proposed plan that will be on page 2a2 of the plans. >> i saw that. >> what i heard from the petitioner is she understands that there is mixed scope and

some remodelling and entitled to the opinion of a mixed scope. >> okay. and the other question, counselor, if the work is to exceed three months s your client willing to cover that until the work is done? >> of course. if the work to exceed three months, there is a very standardized procedure through the rent board and a special procedure and petition form and to petition to board to extend time to present everyday supporting that and there -- and to present evidence and the hearing with the notice to the tenant. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. duffy. >> the permit itself just looks like a remodel kitchen on the

dining and one full embassy and nonbearing petition walls and looks like it was properly review and issued. there is nothing on it for d.b.i. apart from the building and electrical and plumbing, but from our end it looks like it was properly properly issue and more of a tenant-landlord dispute and i appreciate that from both sides as well, but from a d.b.i. point of view, there is nothing really there that would say would be against the permit apart from, you know, just figuring out that the tenant and land board. >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioners, this matter is submitted -- i'm sorry. is there any public comment on this item? jumping the gun here. okay. seeing none -- >> i have a question since we are not landlord experts t appellant has indicated in her brief that she was not served properly as per tenant law. does our city attorney have a comment on that?

because specifically she says that there was faulty service in the fact that after she received it, there was not enough time for her after. >> whether the city has caused the -- is late in filing the appeal. >> and let me make that clear is in her statement she indicated that as per tenant law, any work done to her property, she is supposed to be notified x amount of days prior to happening. >> correct. and according to what her statement says is that that process never happened or did not happen on a timely basis. >> just looking at the rent ordinance to see if the time period specified in here. >> we are being asked about it but this is a jurisdiction request. the standard for the board is whether or not the city caused the appellant to be late on the appellee. i don't know whether it's really relevant to your decision here if the landlord didn't give the

proper notice. >> an it smells like a duck and looks like a duck, it's usually a duck. okay. i get it. >> so what you are saying, counselor, is that hate to see people get kicked out of their homes for purposes like this. this is the board standard for a jurisdiction request to remind you all and the public. and the building department is required to notify the issues of permits. >> the d.b.i. or landlord? >> d.b.i. has certain notification requirements.

>> i don't believe so, but calling you to the podium. >> what was that question? >> so this case comes down to notification and if the tenant was properly notified. is there a requirement from the department of notification? >> not when the permit is issued, but on a three unit building to do the lead paint and the paint disturbing work. so i am not 100% sure the department has to notify on that. but i know that the building owner has to do the notification before they do any of that work. is that before the permit is issued? >> maybe i can clarify a little bit. the rent ordinance says on or before the date upon which notice to vacate is given. the landlord should notify that

they are on permit with d.b.i. and arrangements for viewing such plans can be made. they need to tell the tenant the plans are on review and available to be reviewed at d.b.i. on the date the notice is given and that the eviction will occur. the temporary eviction will occur. >> that is what i am confused about in reading the thing and it felt like that is the reason why she missed the appeal period because the notification was faulty, but subject to what we can do, but i don't think if that is the case, that that is correct. >> i think some of us understand what is the desired procedure is she should have a bbn on her own property so if anything happens, she is notified of work happening. what is the idea of how she would be notified besides you have to move out in 60 days?

if the city, building, rent board, has any requirements of how those notifications should go for this type of work. >> that is a good question. i don't know this type of building permit, d.b.i. do not do notification and b.b.n. would come if the permit is reviewed by planning inform the case it wouldn't be because it is interior. and the bbn would be no good to her. i think if the landlord was supposed to inform her of plans for the d.b.i. for the review, and that didn't happen, that is an issue. is that what i am hearing? >> that is between the rent board, i guess. >> any response. >> i'm sorry. the time is over. >> we don't allow further response, sir. >> thank you.

i am going to move to deny the jurisdiction request on the basis that the city neither intentionally or inadvertently caused the appellant to miss the deadline. >> okay. we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to deny the request on the basis that the city did not intentionally or inadvertently cause the requester to be late in filing the appeal. or the request. on that motion, president fung. >> aye. >> commissioner honda. >> no. >> commissioner tanner. >> no. >> vice president swig. >> no. >> okay. that motion fails. >> have to make another motion or else it sticks. >> do you want to make a motion to grant jurisdiction?

>> need a moment. >> it seems like part of the issue is that it is unclear that the city has proper notification requirements for tenants on such matters. and in that way, perhaps city did inadvertently cause the tenant to not be able to file a timely appeal because we do not require her to be notified of such plans in a time which she could be able to file the appeal. i don't know. does that sound like something? >> sure. >> i would move that we -- see how it goes. i would move we grant the appeal on the basis that the city does not have proper notification requirements for tenants in such matters and thus, caused the appellant to inadvertently be unable to file a timely appeal. >> so we have a motion from commissioner tanner to grant the request on the basis that the

city does not have proper notification procedures -- >> in this instance. >> nobody here seems to know that we do. >> which caused the requester to be late in filing the appeal? okay. >> can i ask a question, please? if we pass this motion, which i am not opposing necessarily, what happens? >> she can file an appeal within five days, but i don't believe -- we can defer to the city attorney, but i don't think there is an obligation on the part of the d.b.i. to provide notice. >> whether it's proper or not is a judgment issue. >> what are we doing by doing this? whether we feel it is just and

right and what is the broad power. and if she files and if this board grants jurisdiction and she files per appeal, within the five days, then her temporary eviction is stayed until that hearing. >> i notice in the midst of our vote, there may have been the assumption by the appellant that she was about to lose and she walked out. and so i hope that if we pass this, she gets properly noticed. >> on the move right now. >> and may have the opportunity to appeal. who is going to take care of that? >> our director would. >> that is good. thank you. >> the comment time is over,

sir. please stop talking. >> shall we call the sheriff? >> shall we call the sheriff? >> we have an outstanding motion from commissioner tanner on that motion, president fung. >> aye. >> commissioner lazarus. >> no. >> commissioner honda. >> aye. >> vice president swig. >> aye. >> so that motion passes, and the request is granted. the requester has five days to file an appeal and i will contact her tomorrow. item nine is withdrawn. we are moving to item 10. this is appeal 18-142 and paula peters versus department of building inspection and subject property is 1945 clay street protesting issuance on october

18 to herman wendel and alteration permit with the seismic retrofit of a soft story and this is application 2018/03/22/4341 and note on december 12 the board voted 4-0-1, president fung absent, to continue to january 9, to allow time for a revised plan set after consults with dbi and appellant in getting dbi's approval of the plans. so president fung, did you have the opportunity to review the video and materials for the hearing which took place on december 12, 2018? >> i did review the video and materials and am prepared to hear the case tonight. >> okay. so we will start with department of building inspection. mr. duffy, we did not receive a

revised plan set from the permit holder. >> commissioners, mr. duffy, and i have not received any plans as of yet. i was contacted by the tenant ms. peters and went to the building and apartment and looked at the apartment and the area that i was concerned about at the year of the building, i did note that, but it would be tough to go from the that would be to have the clips they were talking about in the ceiling and with the wall finishes and ceiling finishes will be a mess and again, i haven't been contacted by the permit holder. >> i didn't get a voicemail or

email and no one told me they were there to see me. haven't been contacted by them. >> thank you, mr. duffy. you made one comment in the last hearing, the element cans be applied on the exterior of a building, but they have to connect to the floors to act as a diaphragm. i don't know how you are going to do that. >> i think i said to the engineer to come up with the code client and i have seen sheer wall on the exterior, but that would be up to the engineer. >> a didn't you say he could open up the ceiling and tie it in supposedly? >> that is what he said. okay. >> let's hear it. >> so let's hear what -- >> we will hear from the permit holder. we have mr. mack or mr. law.

agents for the permit holder. >> good evening, president fung, members of the board. a lot has happened since we last met. in fact, we're not going to submit a revised plan set. we're going to go with the original plan set and in discussions between our attorneys, our attorney and ms. peters attorney, he advised us that he was going to advise her to withdraw the appeal of the permit and we will comply with the law and give her the proper 60-day notice and pay her expenses to move. temporarily move. >> if she needs a little more time, then we're definitely open

to that. >> and as you heard -- sorry to interrupt, that the previous hearing which is very similar, you expect your work to exceed 90 days? >> no, we do not. >> just to clarify, your intention is to offer her to relocate and to pay expenses for the relocation during the time of the work happening so that you can proceed with the original -- >> correct. yes. >> thank you. >> and to follow on that, as i recall from the testimony, there is plenty of room in the existing building and a lot vacancy in the building and rather than making the tenant relocate and find a new apartment, move the furniture out, and up and into a new location, was there a consideration of common sense which would say, well, we got a place upstairs that you can have

for three months and therefore, minimize everybody's stress by just relocating her to another apartment of the building for that three-month period? >> there was a consideration, and there was a conversation between attorneys, as i indicated. and our attorney has advised us not to do that. legal ramifications if ms. peters decides she doesn't want to move out of that apartment, so we decided to comply with the law. i believe it's rental board -- the rental board rules, law. >> thank you. >> did you have anything further to add? >> nope. >> thank you. we will now hear from ms. peters.

>> hello again board of appeals members with speech out of context, but referring to what mr. dan mack mentioned about their attorney contacting my attorney, she did. they had spoken. i am not certain of the full conversation, but the lawyer did reach out to me and told me the thought was passed by about pulling the appeal, withdrawing it, but decided -- we decided that we should move forward just in case so that all bases are covered. so here we are. and also, pertaining to the five vacant units that i mentioned in the previous in december of the previous hearing, it will be six vacant units come february 1. so this was something that my attorney had gone to their attorney to request, and she said that my landlady did not want that to happen.

i don't know if it was actually her or if it was the landlady. and per the rent board policy 65a, it does say that a tenant can be moved into adequate housing and then the landlord does not need to pay anything to that tenant, and i would be paying them rent on top it to move into that unit. that is the case. and i just want to be certain, though, that in regards to whatever happens with all of this from the outcome or the turnout, that everything is followed. this whole hearing process we have gone from originally doing the work while you haves living in my unit to coming up with a revised plans which were never submitted, to now giving me a capital gains eviction notice. so i just kind of want to be sure that everything is held up

to par during this process. and that i am allowed to move back into my unit after the three months is up. their lawyer also mentioned that the work should take no longer than two months, but technically the cap on the designated payment from the rent board is three months. >> ms. peter, have you reached an agreement between your attorneys and their attorneys? sounds like conversation but not come down to being finalized what the arrangement is. >> correct. nothing was given over in writing or anything. >> and based on what you heard today and what you talked about where your lawyer, would that be something that you would awe degree to be located to another place and let them proceed with the work as planned. >> yes, i would be. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you.

is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioner, this mater is submitted. >> commissioners? >> i hate to suggest this and i don't know if we can make a decision. shouldn't we continue it until they have made their peace? and we have no drawings and nothing to look forward to except they might offer this to do this so the continuance if i was in the tenant's position, i like to deal with fact instead of fiction and written word instead of hearsay and we can give that opportunity by, i believe, extending the term of this conversation and with the continuance and with the advisory to the -- >> maybe we should ask the project sponsor to put your money where your mouth is o your words where your mouth is.

>> it looks like the board is leaning towards a continuance to resolve this or whatever. since we don't have the plans and you are changing direction, we are -- how much time do you need? >> we are not changing direction. we are staying with the original. >> how much time are you going to need? >> for the sake of getting the retrofit done. >> how much time do you need? we are going to have to continue this and you will have to come to us. >> how much time will we need for what? >> reach an agreement with the tenant. >> we don't -- as far as we're concerned, we need to have the permit reinstated so we can -- >> then you should negotiate with them quickly because while at the board of appeals, it cannot be reinstated. how much time do you need before you come back to us? >> i have stated our position. we have decided to stay within the parameters of the law and she will received 60 days notice and the expenses --

>> i think you are not understanding, for example, in the brief, it is a one-page letter that says she doesn't need to move out and that is different what you are saying here. it is difficult for us to make a decision given that things are changing but we don't have it in writing and not certain. all we have is an unchanged situation from the previous hearing. so -- >> as i tried to explain before, we did that to try and accommodate ms. peters so she would haven't to move. we revised the plans and we did and went to great lengths to revise the plans and submit them on time, which we could not. [please stand by]

>> yes. sorry. sometimes i think what ms. miss does what people miss here is that if lawyers come up with an agreement with the two lawyers, ms. miss peters will withdraw the appeal, and there will be no need for the hearing. i don't know if you understand that are not. >> i do. >> i thought you were missing that point. >> this is going to go to the

rent board anyway. they both have attorneys. the temporary eviction notice will come through, attorneys will review it to, and they will go from there. i think it is now beyond the purview of this board. >> good point. >> is there a motion? >> i will agree with it. >> all right. >> i am going to move to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit was properly issued. >> okay. we have a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued on that motion, commissioner lazarus -- [roll call] >> okay. the appeal is denied. we will now move on to item

number 11. thank you very much for your patience. this is appeal number 18-154. for rules, versus the department of building inspection. subject property is 1889-18191 green street. protesting the issue is on november 5th, 2018 of the site permit. horizontal addition of a first and second floor, vertical expansion to allow 30 times the zoning envelope. this is application 2015, 0713, 1338. and we will hear from the appellant first. >> at prior to the hearing starting, i will disclose i am a partner in a project that hired them as their council. their appearance before this body will have no effect on my decision. >> thank you. my name is scott. i represent the appellant