permitted. after the original allowed the posts based on the lie. 7 feet fence. not only did it have the permit but also went ahead and cut the posts and that agreed to be cut. additionally, it was about 7 feet that they didn't agree. the owner also lied on the permit application. this provided from the respondent's brief. you can see here. this is a grade and the landing is shown here. on april 15th. the respondent lied about the

fence of 7 feet being approved. in fact, the whole backyard was illegally. the late notice and lie on apri. the respondent made the foundation underneath the fence for their project. on may 2nd the respondent cut our fence and added a new post. on may 3rd there was cleaning the debris on the property caused by the construction. apology. on may 9th they sent a text to the respondent regarding parts of the fence exceeding the 7 feet. the respondent went silent. on may 10th a text again on the fence height. there was no response. on may 15th. they asked what can i do?

they don't have permit. they filed the complaint. ththe 1946 had the backyard without permit. retaining wall, increase grade. i complained was filed on may 28th. so far no progress has been made there was no appointment for inspection. the new fence is unreasonable. they have a functional fence. the rest of the neighbors also have fence around this height. there is only one way about that. their claim is in the brief. the height is for proof see reasons but the new construction shows no consideration for neighbor privacy. so you can see here the

respondent's built the fence illegally. you can see our whole yard from this position. also the platform is near the exit door. furthermore, from their respondent window they can see our whole yard. through this picture taken by respondent from their windows. i have the conclusion. respondent landscaped the yard in a irrational way without permit. respondent lied about the height. the respondent cut the fence and removed the posts without permission. there was no civil violation they filed the application with false information. it is the best outlook and privacy. therefore they request the fence permit should have been revoked

and the fence should be through the fence. thanks for your attention. >> thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder. >> i am just going to not do that for technical reasons. good afternoon. i am jonathan park the resident of 194 of 6 18th avenue. i am the tent. the landlord is my father-in-law. in addition to the brief there are three points i would like to raise. first the purpose and intent of the fence as described. second my own reflections given this is coming to the board.

third, safety and privacy concerns. on purpose and intent the main intent was what was stated in the application to re-enforce the information and add new posts. the side fence was in place when the 1946 person purchased the fence. updates to the fence coincided with the backyard renovation. the backyard was unsafe for our 2-year-old son in an unusable condition. we moved in 2015. the previous tenants had a sand box and the concrete and rebar were left behind. we submitted the plans to rebuild. we moved forward april 23rd t t ensure he was aware of the plans to work with his schedule.

the side fence is attached to our property and we were planning on fully paying for the updates. the purpose of reaching out was common courtesy to prevent surprises. to request permission for contractors to enter the property during the fence boast installation. this would have reduced the time he and his family may have been inconvenienced. he declined the request and we respected the decision. on reflections and learning, this is the first major project. i have been a resident for 15 years now. obviously based off the approval of the landlord. inhind site i would have consulted with planning and d.b.i. rather than with the neighbor. this was my first major

renovation project. i did not realize i was around the height of limitation of the fences requiring a permit and neighborhood notification. that was an error on my fault. when i realized that we filed the applique on 6/18, 19. both departments provide valuable insights to provide and guide clarity on these matters. safety and privacy. we were finding alte alternate solutions there was tension. there are two specific incidents where he became confrontation. on may 1st 2019 i received the phone call where he yelled at me for three or four moments straight. he was not calling to have a

reasonable conversation. i ended the call to call my contractor to resolve the matter on site. may 3, 2019 he showed up at 7:30 a.m. he was confrontational to my wife. i was rushed to the front door. when i realized the appellant was not ready for a conversation. i asked him to leave. we received the complained letter demanding the apology which would cause fault which we didn't feel would cause fault. that is why we are here today. his claim that the fence is one foot higher on his side affecting the view from his backyard. the only view is our back yard and clear line of site view to our basement door in exhibit 1-2

of applelant's brief. the claim in his brief only facing the siding of case the staircase to our basement and line of site to our basement door. following the face-to-face confrontation my way was unstaff we installed security cameras. based on the hostility with previous fence design does pose a risk which is a major concern for me. in summary we filed the permit appropriately. the timing is one i admit an error to based on misunderstanding of the website. i will be as truthful as possible. we believe the on site visit to validate the assumption. maintaining privacy and security four or child and future children is utmost importance. reinforcement updated fence

accomplishes this. i respectfully ask the court to grant the permit. i am available for any questions. >> can you talk a little about the appellants claim you cut his fence and replaced the post. that alarming someone is doing something on his property if it was an accident or what happened there? >> the purpose of the fence itself given that it is shared the way it is designed. the posts what we believe it is on our property line the fence boards face his. the while point of the update was to give us design rather than looking at the back side of the fence. because of the concrete landing below 30 inches we wanted to insure there was the same height fence at that level which meant the post needed replaced. >> thank you. be seated.

mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez planning department. 134 and 136 fences in rear yard are required up to no more than 10 feet. permit is required for any fence more than 6 feet above grade. it does appear the permit was properly reviewed by planning department. the plans appear to show the plans appear to show a fence no more than 10 feet above grade. there is concern about the overall extent of work done in the rear yard. there was stair access new to the alley in the back with stairs and railings. i think the plans don't show all of that. some of the work may not require

a bermitt under the believe -- permit under the building code. the deck is above grade. some work may not require a building permit. it would be helpful to get a full understanding what is done. maybe not everything that needs a permit is shown. if the board were continue to at allow time for more accurate times to happen or simply deny the permit and have them file a new permit to more accurately show the work done looking at the materials and some of itsying the building inspector we are discovering tonight based on the testimony that was given so i think we need to get to the bottom of what is going on there. that is something d.b.i. can do with a site visit to determine in the highlight to the property under everything that needs a permit to come back for a permit that does that or whether it is done as revision to this permit. the cleaner thing might be to

deny the permit and have them go back and start over. the plans are somewhat lacking. what is at issue is where the fence is. we don't have a site plan with the plans that were submitted. there is with the permit holders they submitted plans approved by the city agencies. they don't have the plan showing property lines. that is missing. we don't require survey. the board knows this can be sensitive with regard to whose property line is it. usually it is a civil matter and the parties would hire surveyors and agree on what the surveyor says or have competing surveyors and they could go to court on that. i am a little birth concerned about the completeness what is provided in the plans and thoroughness of them. that probably doesn't help the board out much.

this is your last case. you can noodle on it for a while. >> your recommendation is to revoke the permit? >> i think that unless duffy has other ideas. i am looking at the rear yard and quality of the plans here. maybe the inspector has other ideas to resolve this. >> on the grounds they were properly issued? >> they are incomplete. they are new stairs that go to the alley in the back than is not shown as new condition on the plans. the plans are just the fence. >> how much time is this -- when can the current permit holder or permit applicant -- how long would he have t to wait to go through the exercises. >> they need more complete man

plans. it is up to them to prepare to review. it would remain as over-the-counter permit. >> which they would have to do anyway. >> yes. >> why should they come back here when they can handle it directly with you? >> the issue that it may still come back to this board if issues haven't been resolved between the two parties, but at least the board would have better materials to base -- better materials to make a decision. >> you are saying it is possible they did work that wasn't part of the issued permit. what i don't understand is our jurisdiction is to decide if this permit was properly issued if separately he also did something else that would have required a permit. isn't that just between him and building? >> that can be done. similar to noe if there is a

violation the permit should have included the complete scope of work. we don't want piece mealing of application. it would be better to come in for one pe permit. this is based on the appellants work and inspector's site visit? i am looking at the photos. you know there are stares there now? >> aerial photos of the property i see a change. >> got it. thank you. >> we will now hear from mr. duffy. >> commissioners, i will try not to take too long. on the permit itself, it was to comply with notice of violation. reinforced existing fence and

new boards on the 18th of june and suspended on the 21st of june because of appeal and filed on the 12th of june. it was reviewed. on the notice of violation dated the 23rd of may, 2019. it has been filed regarding the installation of the fence at rear elevation in exesion of 6 feet in height. corrective action reduced it to no greater than 6 feet. the permit was inspected to close the complaint. they got the permit, as i said. we also have an open complaint on the address that has not been resolved yet. that states that there was building concrete platform over 30 inches in the backyard,

retaining laws over 4 feet without permit. on the 20th of june, 2019, the building inspector dropped off the door happeninger with instruction -- hanger with instructions to contact him. it looks like they have some out standing issues. the photographs in the brief are i wouldn't say disturbing. you would have questions about some of the work that has been done and maybe everything needs to be on one permit. i can use the overhead. this is a fence. then i am looking at retaining walls, a guardrail which is fall protection, then a higher fence at the back. it looks like a deck here as well. you know, i think there is a lot

more going on than just the fence. the timeline may have been that they got the permit suspended for the fence, but they continued to work on landscaping. landscaping in itself doesn't need a permit or not need a permit. you can do a lot in the garden without a building permit. it is less than 30 inches above grade. we don't need people getting building permits for small gardening projects. retaining walls above 4 feet from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall there is some indication they may have put a stairway that certainly requires a building permit. maybe this permit isn't the proper mitt. i would agree the plans aren't of great quality. there is no site plan and no

property line. maybe there needs to be one new permit for everything when we figure out what everything is. and the gentleman brought up the property line dispute. there is going to need a survey. that would be something they would do independently. d.b.i. won't get involved in that. from the photographs that i see the fence looks to be connected to, you know, the permit holder's property. i may be wrong on that. they may need a survey. that is separate. sometimes people split the cost to get it done so they can figure out if everything is okay. in general, fences in rear and sidewalls we don't see permits for them. most of the time they are no more than 6 feet high and that doesn't require a permit.

d.b.i. doesn't have jurisdiction anything 6 feet or less not visible from the street. that is in the san francisco building code. this is bigger than 6 feet. we got involved and complaints came in. i am available for questions. >> when they are issued you say the fence is built everything is good or do you go out there on a complaint basis? >> every building permit issued by d.b.i. requires inspection and final sign off. >> do you have anything from the inspector or do you keep blinders on and get out of there? >> the inspector would be astute. when he wrote it i am not sure. i don't know what he saw or didn't see. if he did see something in addition to the fence i am pretty sure he would write it up. >> are you saying you think this

was done after that? >> possibly, yes, they might answer that in rebuttal. the timelines appears like the appeal was filed on the fence but that didn't stop the other work. maybe they thought they didn't need a permit. it was landscaping. i am happy to advise him on the the latest complaint is valid or not. from the photographs it looks like some of the stuff would require another permit or maybe we get everything on one. i would like a better quality of drawings. we did approve them, but mr. sanchez is correct, there is no site plan. they are done by a landscaper but there are details missing here, in my opinion. >> you would concur with

mr. sanchez that probably it is in everybody's best about to do housekeeping, my word, and insure that everything is done to code, everything is done properly so that the city is happy, the landowner is comfortable with the fact they have a legal installation, and there is justification even though the appellant might not be happy in the end at least everybody knows it was done appropriately and up to code? >> yes, i do think the height of the fence is going to come into question because of the appellant. he seems to be complaining it is too high. you know, that may not change. the fence is already there. that might be -- i think that is his concern. that may not change. you are right, it may not keep him happy.

i agree with you on what you said. >> thank you. any public comment on this item? public comment? okay. please come up to the microphone, sir. >> just wanted to comment on when the board asked respondent about cutting the fence without permission. that wasn't really answered. he explained why he wanted the fence higher. he didn't comment at all on cutting the post without permission. that is it. thanks. >> thank you. any other public comment? you are a party. you will have time in rebuttal, sir. we will move to rebuttal. we will hear from appellant first. >> no matter what, i didn't

agree to the respondent cut our fence and to build new fence. i did not agree to this. okay. then the respondent talked about safety something. he has no evidence. our fence we built on the foundation. you see this is our property. also, the other side on this foundation, not their property, on the foundation. here. the platform is really tall. it didn't affect the privacy. you can see here how tall that platform. the city said about 30 feet in the permit that is a high

platform. you can see here the high platform nearby the exit door is without permit. also, this is a new platform. here the different. like missing information. it is a lie here. from there something here. you can see this. this is like a new construction. i talk about dpi. they are not happy about this. i filed a complaint about the 3. this is may 28th. it ends june 20th. there is a door hanger with instructions to contact the inspector. no progress. this is on june 20th.

the inspector surprising on june property and the final inspectors approved the permit. you will see the complaint there. so this i seen a lot of texts to the owner, you cut our fence, i am not happy. especially so this fence is 12 feet. the posts are a lie. i sent a text to them. they didn't respond. that is why i called dpi. it is about the permit. so this is my conclusion. our fence is here on the foundation not on their property, although the edges of

our fence attach to their property. the respondent shouldn't have this without a permit. they didn't apply for the perm permit. she shouldn't lie to the neighbor. they should keep the promise and the fence should be 7 feet high instead of cutting off communication. this is due to violation of the law. he complains that they were notified. the respondent shouldn't lie. they shouldn't cut the fence without permission. it shouldn't be so high of a platform. >> thank you, sir. >> i have a question, sir. >> can you come to the microphone? >> i have a question.

so you attached a letter dayed may 3rd to your brief you gave to the respondent. in the letter you wrote i have not got enough respect and appreciation to you due to my compromise to allow you to cut our fence around remove the old post. the rest of the letter has complaints how the construction was carried out. the letter says you agreed the respondent could cut your fence and remove old posts. is that true? >> that is true. that is based on a lie. i asked them to get a permit for 7 feet. later they cut out the fence. i didn't agree without permission. it was very high. i am not happy. later they lie to me. that is based on their lie. >> i understand. thanks. >> thank you.

we will hear from the permit holder. >> so there are a couple topics to cover. in terms of process for the public comment that is a resident of 1942. i don't know if that is considered public or not. >> it is not. it is done. >> in terms of the government audit and oversight committee. . when inspector o'leary measured the staircases and landings and covered everything according toe violations. he did spend considerable time in our back hard. yard. the stairs to the backyard are a question. the concrete landing itself

previously was a stone planter box and it was uneven. we are not green thumbs. we wanted to get rid of it. there were shoddy staircases. we have a house without any other fire escape. the staircase was providing a safer staircase to lead to the fire exit. we are willing to go back to file a permit to that. in terms no response to text. after i got yelled at multiple times and my wife got yelled at with my wife present. i felt unsafe. i directed him to communicator to the property owner directly. i felt unsafe and i wanted the property owner involved inchted. -- involved instead.

with regard to the fence on both sides that was not granted to us. unfortunately as part of any construction you can imagine there is dirt or dust. we worked to the best of our abilities to clean that as quickly as possible. beyond that, with the district building inspection door tag. i believe that notice of violation was covered in terms of the site visit. i will go back to reconfirm that. i am open to any questions. >> work that concerns the building department was that done at the time of the site building. >> everything was completed at the time of the site visit. >> and the stairs? >> everything was completed. >> was there any discussion that you needed a permit or those were improvements that needed improvements. >> inspector o'leary said that should be find and he measured

the landing and it is below 30 inches in grade. >> other than the fence, the other improvements you did not seek a permit for those improvements? >> correct. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you. i will put on the overhead the aerial photos. this is showing the rear of the subject property as here. this is from 2018. then here in 2019 you can see the stairs are new. as the appellant noted it is concrete landing not shown as new. the permit holder testified previously that there was a

brick planter there before. now it is new. it is not what was hope on the plans. these are the concerns we have about this. in terms of planning's perspective. fences up to 10 feet in height. they can go taller within the buildable area. you need neighborhood notice for that. we want everything done that needs a permit has the appropriate permit. that is why we think having this permit denied and having new plans that clearly show the scope of all work that show the fence is on the subject property because even looking at the plans they have submitted and raised a question for me, they show the overhead again in dark the fence. they have the building wall here shown as the house.

the fence looks like it goes over across the property line. these plans are inadequate. in line with what the permit holder showed with the photos which do appear to show the fence on their property running to their rear building wall that is not shown in great detail here. putting everyone at some peace with having complete accurate and correct plans. i am available for any questions. >> what type of fence requires neighborhood notice? >> fences that are more than 10 feet in high are allow understand the buildable area. this would be the last 25% that worry choired there -- would be required. they are limited to 10 feet. you can have fences more than 1a notice. on the plans they show the plans

to say the fence will be no higher than 10 feet. >> that would not require no? >> no. >> thank you. >> the 2018 photo. can i see that again? >> sure. >> this is the rear of the subject property. the permit holder indicated there was an existing stair in that location. it is hard to tell because it is overgrown. there is no reason to disbelieve them. i assume there could have been something there. reconstruction of that as in the previous case. >> requires a permit? >> it is a condition that the ad adjacent property has one. it is a somewhat common condition on the block. thank you. >> if we accept your

recommendation of denying every vehicling the permit and asking the current permit holder to refile, give me a sense of time. it would seem to me that the time relates to drawing a proper set of plans that comply with proper lot lines and representing everything which is newly constructed at this moment, right? >> yes. >> that would be about the time. if he got those plans drawn in a week, then shortly there after, you are going to look at them and make comment and d.b.i. is going to verify with another inspection that everything is okay and you move on. it is not a huge -- it is not a huge issue. the risk would be that now we have a neighbor dispute, and if

you did issue the permit as it was up to code and compliant, then the next door neighbor could still file an appeal, but the odds are they would come in here and you would say we had new plans. we okayed it, everything is kosher and we would deny that appeal. >> it would give certainty that everything that needs done under the law has been done and it is code compliant. assuming we could review this over-the-counter as we did the previous permit and it is code compliant. >> if we followed your direction and advice, there would not be a significant problem created for the permit -- current permit

holder other than he gets all of the ducks in line properly, and the only thing that is at risk is another appeal, but you would probably advice the potential applicant that they were appealing something that was just newly reviewed and newly hatched. >> i think the board could in this hearing tonight also give feedback to the appellant about issues raised in the brief and whether the board has concerns about the fence. that would be important for any revised project that comes back. in the board had concern about the height of the fence, if you could let the parties know that they could take that into consideration and the project may or may not come back before you. >> along those lines, should we be concerned about lot lines? it is very clear to me and i

agree with the appellant that there is a strong probability that this fence was built right on his property, and should that weigh into any of our thinking, and should we recommend a review of a lot line or maybe a review of the design that has him build the fence on his side of the property and therefore there is no? >> we don't have any plans before the board right now that show where the lot line is so i think it is hard to dispute where the lot line is when the plans don't show that. >> i am talking about our advisory in making a decision tonight, you are very wise in asking us to address certain things that made us potentially go in that direction so i am

asking what would your advice be on something like a lot line and the fence as it is currently built right now? >> we lie on the accuracy of -- rely on the accuracy of the plans. there is a cost to surveys. i think the board could add vice the parties if there is an ongoing dispute about that as good neighbors they could come to an agreement where they split the cost of the survey and agree on the results of that survey and maybe the fence can be moved as necessary. i don't think that is a requirement that we would make, just giving advice to the party how to resolve. >> hypothetically, if the appellant is not happy with the current height of the fence as was rebuilt, hypothetically

could the current permit holder build the fence clearly on their property up to 10 feet. >> that would be allowed. >> what a waste, in my view. cool. thank you. any other questions? >> mr. duffy, you have an opportunity. >> may i have the overhead, please. i think i heard in rebuttal, the appellant made some and the permit holder about the district inspector doing inspection. i have questions regarding what was said. there is going to be a building permit required for the stairway, the guardrail. i don't know about the deck. there are not enough details on the drawings.

we have the open complaint. at this point i would say we should have a completely new permit addressing the future notice of violation they are probably going to get for work without a permit in addition too the fence without a permit. a proper set of drawings showing property details. we have north and south elevations. it seems like we should also have east elevation on the back wall. we don't have enough on these plans to say that there are a properly issued set of drawings in my opinion. we need better and we need to follow up with the outstanding issues of the complained regarding the stairway. if that is what the building inspector told them. he heard those requiring the building permit and engineered

drawings there worry enforcing steel and all sorts of requirements for that. i am not sure how they managed to do that without a permit. they did but they are going to get probably a notice from us on that. just wanted to add that. i did borrow the photograph from the appellant, by the way. thanks. >> in your view the permit was improperly issued? >> i think so. there is not enough on those drawings. thithis is a backyard project tt cost a lot of money. it took a bit of time and it should have been permitted properly. this fence permit does not do that. fence part is under appeal. there is a whole lot more going on here that needs addressed. >> would you say it was typical the inspector would go out and then remove the nov, resolve that seeing the work not part of

the permit? what is going through your mind in terms how this interaction happened the following day. 6/21, the door hanger. then they are there. >> i will follow up with it. i am annoyed. i have to ask what happened as well. i would have happened with the permit. we have an open complaint around that time as well. the building inspectors are told if you are going out for a final inspection for like a bathroom inspection check the open complaints. you are in the property you can bring up the other issues. i couldn't see what the sign-off was for on the permit. i thought i checked the permit history. it may have been inside the property. if he was not rear yarded you don't sign off with the open

complaint. that is common sense. i don't know what happened. i am going to look into it. they are not finished by a long shot. >> as far as your opinion regarding the pathway forward, new permit, continue this permit? what would be your recommendation? >> i would recommend starting over again. that means denying the permit to try to get a proper. we could put everything on one permit which is appealable again. i would say definitely they need to do better. >> thank you. >> mr. duffy is there anything about the fence itself which is permit was issued for that you think it was issued improperly or are your concerns related to other work on the property. >> my concerns are the quality of the drawing. it doesn't show the proper height elevations, connection details. there is a lot on those drawings that i didn't see that you would

need. >> all of that was subject to inspection. that is a harmless error? >> yeah, but that is why people appeal permits. also no property lines on the plans as well, the site plan. the property issue was brought up. we can deal with it at d.b.i. if the permit was upheld, or the appeal upheld, the permit was issued again, we could still deal with it at d.b.i. because of the open complaint. >> you are telling us you don't like piecemeal permits, piecemeal appeals are a problem. if the fence is fine and the height is fine, i don't see any evidence in the record the fence is on the appellant's property. there is a photo showing the fence is flush with the permit

holder's house. the permit holder is entitle to finality on the fence. i understand you don't like piecemeal permits, but you guys signed off on the plans, somebody inspected it. it is six of one and half dozen of the other except we have to hear the appeal on the fence again which in my opinion i don't see why the appellant should get two bites of the apple. >> fencings in rear yards are important as anything. at the same time a lot of these projects, people if there are fencings that we are not involved in it doesn't require a building permit. a fence is a fence. this person has a right to appeal. i am not belittling the permit. i just don't like the way -- you are right the permit did get

signed off for the fence. we can deal request it -- we can deal with the open complaint. we can do that as well. >> i don't know who to look to, the foreign or mr. sanchez -- the attorney or mr. sanchez or duffy. can we find for -- uphold the appeal and issue the permit with a laundry list of conditions which would include that the permit b be conditioned on the issuance of a permit to assure that all other elements within that backyard area including and we can talk about the stairs,

platform and whatever else we talked about tonight be subject to a proper mission? can we go in that direction. >> the appellant is losing on the appeal there. is no appeal on that condition outright. >> we would continue it on that. >> the height of the fence goes away and the other issues go away with that. that is the only fear i have with that. >> once you issue the permit for the stairs he has a separate right of appeal. >> not if it i if it is in the l permit. >> the fence would be out of the question. >> it would be for now. even with the issuance and signing off i am going to revisit that, to be honest with you. >> thank you.

commissioners this matter is submitted. >> where do you want to go? >> i think the permit holder is entitle to finality on the question of the fence. the appellant has a right to appeal the other half. building is aware, there is a complaint and they will issue notice of violation. on this record the appellant had a chance to prove there is a problem with the fence. no evidence in the record the fence is on his property. i am looking at exhibit 2-2. it is flush with the house. it is on the property. we would need more evidence before we could say it is improperly issued. the inspector measured the height and it is fine. i think we should take the fence off the table. we will see them again when we get to the rest of the yard. >> i would agree. >> commissioner lazarus any

thoughts? >> this work is all complete? i don't think you are the proper respondent. inspector duffy, they are done everything they want to do, right? >> that's correct, yes. it has been done, yes. the work is complete. not properly documented. >> right. including the fence as far as you are concerned? >> i am going to look at that again. definitely. >> the fence technically has been signed off on. >> we can rescind that. >> when you say for example on the platform or one of the areas where you said there should be rebar reinforcement, that is an illegal installation or noncode

compliant installation. on that based on the notice of violation in place you would require the permit holder or owner of the backyard, installer of that improper cement construction to yank. to do it again. >> we certainly want to see evidence it was constructed properly to code and engineered properly. it is a struggle, but we have ways of doing it without making them break it out and open it up. the one thing where i am coming from. we de see the google earth picture before the work. it is a lot different now. we just had an old dirt yard there. this changes in grade. there is a lot done to that project. that is where we were coming from. we looked at the google earth

photos. there are big changes there. i think that should be on the permit. i do agree with some of the comments that this permit in itself, you know, the issues aren't finished with the appeal if it is denied they are still dealing with it. >> if we deny the appeal anal allow the permit -- and then allow the permit are we under mining your leverage to cure problems which you are clearly uncomfortable with or would it be better for d.b.i. if we uphold the appeal and enforce the current permit holder to go

back to do the proper -- do things in the way mr. sanchez and yourself suggested? >> that or continue for a month to give us time to get to the nitty-gritty to get to the bottom of it. that might be an option as well. >> i appreciate the notion on the fence. part of where i am coming from is that the work is all done so he is not being held up in terms of trying to finish the project. >> yes. >> having heard there are potential issues with the fence, my instinct is to continue it and to get everything inspected, get everything together as to what needs to happen then bring it back because it is not going to impact the permit holder as far as i can tell, and i think that to me is the cleaner way to have everything looked at. i am nervous about approving the

permit for the fence. you are suggesting there could be an issue there. i would rather continue it. >> do you know, inspector, if a survey would be required to answer all of the questions you are seeking to answer and would a month be enough time for that to occur? >> it is up to the -- i saw the photographs as well. i said on the record the the fence does look to be on the permit holders property. if there is any indication is not. sometimes it is really obvious. if this gentleman wants to provide a survey we arecle womt en-- welcome to do that. we are reluctant to require surveys they are expensive. if there was a reason for us to do it, we would. i am not as concerned about the property line. if he is talking about the fence

under 6 feet that is a civil issue. we are not going there. the damage to his property. if he thinks his property is damaged he can go civil with that. >> i think that is the point made earlier what is the subject of this appeal? what would be the purview of the continuance so the appellant can understand the proper hitting of the work and landscaping in the rear yard. we think the fence meets the rules. we are not addressing some of the issues in the appeal but the unpermitted work that occurred in the rear yard. >> that is correct. the height of the fence might be the issue for the appellant. >> that i think was the only thing that code wise this

probably will get approved at some point but there are other issues. >> i know the height was not an issue for me or the other commissioners. it is good to get that out. >> i think the potential cost is stringing the appeal out on the fence alone could result and maybe there is no sympathy on the board for this. i don't want people submitting extra evidence to resolve a question they already had a chance to resolve that was my primary concern. >>

>> the fence isn't going anywhere, so it is all fine. i would suggest that we follow

commissioner lazarus' lead, do a continuance for 30 days or thereabouts, based on the availability of the appellant and the permit holder, and then give the departments a chance to clean up some very clear messes. >> i support that. >> i was looking at september 18 th. >> that would be fine. >> i believe so, if it is not on there. >> it is one of the latest on the calendar going forward. >> it is a late calendar. >> for now. >> are the parties available on september 18th to come back? >> okay. he is checking his calendar. >> i will move to continue the item to september 18th to allow d.b.i. and planning to do inspections and determine