and it will make it very problematic to make it one project with a n.o.v. with a half million dollars. i'm happy to talk with planning to see if they are okay with stairs off the deck so they can get in the backyard, come back in 30 days and tell you what planning really wants. is that okay? >> my only issue is by containing this as a single project, we're not opening the door to endless process. i understand that our interests align in providing access to the rear yard and access to the roof deck. our interests definitely do not align in terms of providing additional process and additional appeal opportunity ad infinitum. >> thank you very much. commissioner? >> i think, to your suggestion, whatever time frame you think, commissioner walker, would be suitable. but i think you could figure out those details at the commission. but one thing that will come from us is a calendar date. when we get the calendar date we could put a time schedule on that. good luck and maybe you could work it out in between there. >> can i entertain a motion from a commissioner? re

with first notice of violation sent 83. complaints received and abated without n.o.v.197. abated complaints with notice of violations, 41. second notice of violation refer to code enforcement, 33. house unit inspection services, performed 1,049. complaints received 440. response 24-72 hours, 431. complaints with notice of violation issued, 153. abated complaints with n.o.v., 360. number of cases sent to director's hearing, 64. routine inspections, 180. code enforcement number of cases sent to director's hearing, 104. number of order of abatements issued, 26. number of cases under advisement 5. number of cases abated, 67. code enforcement inspections performed 362. number of cases referred to b.i.c. litigation committee, 2. and the number of cases referred to city attorney, 0. any questions? >> nope. seeing none. thank you, deputy director. >> thank you. is there any public comment on the director's report items 9a-d? seeing none, item 10. review and approval of the minutes of the joint building inspection and planning commission special meeting of april 12th, 2018. is there a motion to approve the minutes? >> so moved. >

i'm happy to work with you on some way to resolve access to the yard with a clean n.o.v. permit and i'm sure planning would be happy to do that too. if you have any questions i'm happy to answer. >> so in the back unit, what's happening there? is there somebody in there? >> it's a garage, i believe, with a roof deck on top. haven't said a word about the roof deck. we are leaving that alone. >> you are suggesting you are planning on -- is that an agreement from the -- >> well i'm suggesting to them they don't really want to move forward on a notice of violation for removing this cat walk with a main building permit. it will be a mess. when they are in front of the planning commission on this, this issue should be resolved, but at the same time they do need to have access to the backyard, so my suggestion is get a permit to remove just this with stairs to the backyard. >> thank you. >> this is for staff. mr. sweeney, if you could, please. the corrective notice that could be given, with the intent to add stairs, so they still could have accessibility to the deck, would that

. >> and that the protection of the neighbor is going to happen with the department going through the n.o.v. process, and more than likely, this property is going to be before us again, but not for a tree. >> okay. that's why i brought it up, and i want to have discussion on it rather than having something on the -- thank you. i'm happy. >> okay. would you like me to read the motion again -- >> no. >> -- and take a vote. so we have that motion on the table from commissioner lazarus. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. that motion carries, 5-0. thank you. we will now move onto item number 6. this is appeal number 18-002, consideration of adoption of written findings. this is lydia w 0 ytak versus department of building inspection with planning department approval for the subject property at 1033 to 1037 washington street protesting the issue wednesday on december 15, 2017 to 1033 to 1037 washington street, l.l.c., of a site permit of fourth floor residential addition to building. [please stand by] . >> clerk: we'll start out with the appellant, miss woytak. >> good afternoon, and i

n.o.v. based on the terms of that agreement. that concludes my report, thanks. >> commissioners, finally, the historic commission held yesterday with the arts commission. the first time they've done this. and specifically to review the j.c. duco toilets that they're rolling out new designs for throughout the city. they were specifically looking at the toilets that would be placed within the landmark districts as well as arts commission while looking at the whole program holistically. >> thank you. >> okay, so moving on to general public comments. at too them the members of the public may address on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items your opportunity to address the commission with the item is when the item is reached in the meeting and each member may address the commission for up to three minutes. i have one speaker card. >> okay, we have a speaker card for georgia schutus but anyone else who wants to speak line up by the wall on my left. miss clark. >> laura clark, n.b. action. so one of the things that wasn't announced

n.o.v. was to submit drawings to the building department which accurately reflect the existing condition of the building, and we did that, and we worked with senior inspector joe duffy and submitted drawings that he looked at and reviewed and said, as well, yes, i agree, these drawings do reflect the existing condition of the building, and those are the ones that are in your packet. >> president hillis: well, tell me. i mean, you -- what about the garage? we haven't seen a case quite like this where it was so blatantly obvious that the plans were misdrawn, that plans were submitted that weren't what the condition was. and i think those happened during your time of ownership, so, like, the garage issue, all right? i mean, i think that's what troubles us the most or really troubles me the most is that somebody submitted plans that showed a garage that didn't exist, right? i mean, so it was blatantly incorrect and -- and done in a way, i think, to mislead the building department or planning department and get things approved. that one's new to us, that level kind of -- of incorrect plans and deception. so that's the line, and we're -- we can'