Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 21, 2010 8:30am-9:00am PST

9:30 am
july 5. i should have gotten this in the mail. i do not know what else to say about that. in regard to the timeline, i do not disagree with that, but the work has been completed. i do not think there is any question about the permit. >> thank you. any questions? >> so you are not contesting that you did the work, since 2002. i appreciate -- >> in 2002, it was my issue
9:31 am
because we thought that we were correct. in 2004, we found out that was not the case. >> our department has been putting in a lot of work. >> my question is how much of that -- the way i understood what was said earlier this that all of this was put into getting this hearing. if there is a partial payment, i do not disagree that i did not get it done by a certain time line, but more hours were put in in the past three month that it now need to happen. my question is, it is it's still going to be $1 and dollars or will it be a portion thereof? -- $1,000 or will it be a portion thereof? i bought the building in 1999. there was an existing structure.
9:32 am
i came from a small town in new york, with a different permit process, so it is my fault. we got permission to keep it with the understanding that we had to make a few changes. i bought the property in the september 1999, sold the property april 2010. >> these violations were on there? >> there were no violations. if you read through the time line, someone in 1975 had cut the property back. when i took care of that structure, -- the property used to be longer -- so it did not take up all the property. because of the way that they cut back the property in the 1970's, when we fixed it, the complaint from the neighbor stated that we filled up 100% of the lot but i was replacing the
9:33 am
existing structure. >> you got a permit in 2006 but never finalized the inspection? >> yes, because of money costs. >> any other questions from commissioners before we hear public comment? >> i have a couple of questions in my head but i think they were perfectly into a -- partially answered. ok, i do have a question. why did you take so long to respond initially? you said you were in violation beginning in 2004. >> to be perfectly honest, this is the first building i have own, so it comes down to the ignorance. i thought i would have time.
9:34 am
between 2006 and 2009, it came down to cost. it cost $22,000 to get it up to code. i did not have not sitting around at the time. >> have no more comments. -- no more questions. public comment? no public comment? staff and a bottle. >> members of the board, i would like you to focus on a couple of things. i want to applaud the honesty of the property owner, knowing that our property -- process can be confusing. on the issue of sending the directors notification, the
9:35 am
property owner can make arrangements with the post office but we are obligated, regardless of what the arrangement is, to send the information to who is on file with the assessor, and we post it on the building. the matter what interracial and she may have made with them, we still would have sent it to that particular address. the amount of time that has accrued on this is not because of the hearing -- it is the time from 2002 to the present. it is not as if we loaded these fees from the last few months. since this is not the current owner, we have an issue. if she does not pay within a certain amount of time, and then we would have to send a notice to the new owner. we would not like to do that.
9:36 am
if this is a decision from the board, we will have to take that position. we will need to be reimbursed for the amount of time the amount would be up to the pleasure of the deputy director or director. she would like us to look at that again. that is what we feel good faith the amount is accrued, and that is a conservative amount, given the time that has occurred. >> questions? >> appellants, you have three minutes. no? ok. commissioners, discussion? >> i think it is clear to me the department acted, as far as our
9:37 am
policy and handling these things, it has been since 2002. i would personally like to recommend -- support staff's recommendation that we uphold this to get the fees and defer it for 15 days to accommodate -- whenever the record is from staff. maybe we could get some input from the other parties so that this is resolvable without filing. >> i appreciate that. the actual condition of the building has been fixed. is there a way where we can mention that we would like these to be recovered but overturn abatement?
9:38 am
>> can you hear me? the board could move to say, if the appellant had ex-number of days, then the appellate board would not support this. if it was a failure to pay the fees -- >> or in this case, we would have to renotice the new owner. perfect. >> just for the record, i will make that payment today so that we do not drag this out. >> 15 days? >> that is what staff requested and this sound like a resolvable
9:39 am
situation. that would be my motion. >> before we take a vote, does anyone want to say anything? inspector green? ok, sorry. >> that would be my motion to support staff recommendation that we pulled --upho uphold --y don't you read it to me. >> [inaudible] >> okay, great. that is the motion. >> second. do we need a roll-call vote? >> [roll call]
9:40 am
the vote is unanimous. >> thank you. we can now move on to item d. this is public comment relating to the abatement appeals board. >> are there any public members that would like to say something to the abatement appeals board now? >> seeing none can i have a motion for adjournment? we are now adjourned. we will take a short recess and be back with the regular meeting of the building inspections commission.
9:41 am
9:42 am
9:43 am
9:44 am
9:45 am
9:46 am
9:47 am
9:48 am
9:49 am
9:50 am
9:51 am
9:52 am
9:53 am
9:54 am
9:55 am
9:56 am
9:57 am
9:58 am
9:59 am