mr. kornfield? >> i have only to add that in exhibit a, where it is talking about the location on property in the description of property, this is not the assessment for the reported property description. this is a property description put together and signed by the property owners. it may or may not reflect the actual property line of these buildings. president peterson: thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is before you. commissioner garcia: just to clarify the last remarks made by mr kornfield on exhibit a? it is the one in the july 15 submission? >> i am looking at the one that says june 24. that is a party agreement. commissioner garcia: thank you. commissionger fung: the convoluted nature of this particular case is actually quite complex. if you start with the original property descriptions, what is mentioned in those in terms of what is common is fairly limited. if you then go through both sides' briefs, there is a lot of issues there. this board has always tried to find a rational resolut

mr. kornfield make have further -- might have further

mr. kornfield described. i do not think it is appropriate for us to solve all of the problems these people bought into with one decision. commissioner garcia: let me ask a question and see if you agree with this statement or tell me what you disagree with. you have represented people before this board with things that are beyond the scope of the permit that are unresolved so as to resolve those in a court of law. would you agree with that? >> i would agree. commissioner garcia: have you urge your client to try to satisfy some of these things? you keep bringing up the specter of a lawsuit as though that is an agreeable place to resolve the issue. >> i would agree with you, except for the fact that this is well advanced. it is a fact of the matter that this lawsuit was filed a couple of months ago. commissioner garcia: ms. dick stated that was to gain access. tonight, all of the people involved in this, those of us up here, mr. kornfield, and this party for the first time saw a list of what was going to happen.

mr. kornfield for walking me through the plans. to give the neighbors some comfort we must know what is missing in these plans. i do not want to cause undue delay. i hear you that you are under financial distress. i am sure the appellate does not want you under more financial distress. but there does seem to be ambiguity as to what this looks like any impact on the roof. i do not know if a permit history solves this. i do not know if it will provide any clarity. -- president peterson: i am not sure if that is a solution entirely. commissioner fung: madam president, i traditionally do not reflect on aesthetics of many of the projects in front of us. the way these dormers fit within the existing building is esthetically not very desirable. it does not create the space they need for it to be habitable, but it is not a very sensitive solution architecturally. president peterson: just looking through the photos, it did appear that the addition next door would just create a larger house. it might have been more -- i do not know how to pu

mr. kornfield. commissioner garcia: sure. >> laurence kornfield. we don't usually get a chance to give a second rebuttal. i don't want to miss that opportunity. [laughter] i have a little too bad. i'm just here to answer questions. i have to say that the list from march 26, the attachment, exhibit b, we have a hard time dealing with it. it says "your siding is running on to our property, you're water is running on to --" if we were to deal with this list, we would have to say give us a survey to deal. with it commissioner hwang: is there anything on the list you could deal with? >> there are some things, and some of them might even overlap the notice of violation, remembering the notice of violation was issued at the request of the adjoining property owner to deal with their problems. it is just a mess. sorry. thank you. commissioner garcia: thank you, mr. kornfield. commissioner hwang: with the appellant be willing to provide a survey? yes? ok. i was just curious. vice president goh: i think that looking at these items on exhibit b with the result

mr. kornfield? >> laurence kornfield with the department of building inspection. we are pleased we're finally going to get some action to resolve these many notices of violation complaints, many of which have validity, hazardous material, hazardous building, unsafe conditions, open to the weather, and drainage issues. the settlement of the foundation. all of these are in fact a series of problems that have been brought to our attention by the permit holder and the appellant, and we believe the permit as reviewed and issued actually addresses those violations. with regard to some of the concerns that were expressed that the plans may not reflect the accuracy of the actual permit building conditions on the job site, we leave that to the district building inspector who goes out during the course of an -- during the course of construction and if there is some discrepancy they can try to just what is being done. if those discrepancies rise to a certain level, then the building code defines when additional permits are required. we don't do a field inspection to ascertai

mr. kornfield. we saw a photo of the deck. one question is whether the deck that was built or is built is in fact 163% larger than the plan. >> hold on one second. i will put something on the overhead here. >> thank you. >> i am with the department of building inspection. i am not personally familiar with this property, but i did make a request for a copy of the plan, which i understand the appellant was able to view. we don't make copies of these plans for the public because of copyright laws, but we allow them to view them. this plan -- i am going to try to zoom in a little bit. it says to me, in the absence of any personal knowledge, shows me that there is a dashed or dotted line that shows the existing balcony, and then there is a solid dashed line showing the proposed balcony. the proposed is significantly smaller than the existing. that is what the plan shows me. i can't tell you anything more than that. >> and so the proposed deck has not yet been built? >> i can't answer that actually. >> and the appellant talked about

mr. kornfield, the other is a same size. this is where this provides the appropriate "-- . angle within the limits of its capabilities. but it took me a little while to figure out that this was the case. what happened is that they added all of the roof drains, and that is a long way to drape across. the roof framing -- a long way to drain across. the gable. the problem is is if you go back into the actual definition of what either party said, the appellant wants to do, and first but indicated it wanted to do 6 inches above. therefore, their appeal was incorrect initially because they're drawing reflects something different. that problem also is exacerbated by the department, because the department says it is 6 inches above the roof, then the length of drainage from one end of the other then gets a exacerbated, and it creates a problem, which is why they were saying they were going to reduce it to 21 inches, because they wanted a certain amount of parapet above. and so, that is what created this, but it has also created other problems, but i just want to verify that. and tha

mr. kornfield. >> lawrence cornfikornfield with the department of building inspection. i agree with everyone. i think the appellant is right. i think the permit holder is right. let me give you a little bit of history and tell you where the building department seems like it fits into this. actually, we are being dragged into this in some ways. it is a private dispute about the property line. this was a single building that had three town house structures or units in it. sometime, i think in 1953, the owner of the building, or the owners, chose to subdivide the building. they subdivided into these three separate buildings. if he were to subdivide such a building today, we would say you have to meet the code section.

mr. kornfield. >> lawrence cornfikornfield with the department of building inspection. i agree with everyone. i think the appellant is right. i think the permit holder is right. let me give you a little bit of history and tell you where the building department seems like it fits into this. actually, we are being dragged into this in some ways. it is