Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  May 17, 2019 5:00pm-6:01pm PDT

5:00 pm
the issue of the shoring. at this point the shores is not required, but at some point when the knowledge plans and permit is filed for, if indeed shores is required, then we can revisit this issue or the appellant can revisit this issue by potentially filing a further appeal if they get uncomfortable. at this point you are comfortable no shoring will be required, correct? >> based on the testimony we heard that they weren't going to need shoring, that is one area not near the property line. yes, i mean if you are putting in the mud slab there is no need for shoring. i am not an engineer but inspector. it works well in san francisco. in this case if things change because plans change and that is building.
5:01 pm
the appellant would have another bite at the apple as a result of the building permit and revised plans, correct? >> correct. any changes need a revision permit. the only problem if they submit ashoring plan under addenda it iitis not appealable. >> if the anticipated foundation changed in regards to below the neighbor's foundation it may be something to think about. >> we will ask the attorney if we happen to go in that direction. >> it is a safety net. he is welcome to come to d.b.i. on the plansis, i talked about
5:02 pm
these are what he built his project about. i printed it. he can view the plans at d.b.i. and look at them to write the review off the ad denda plans. what some people do is an added expense. he could get an engineer for himself, bring him to dbi, meet with the plan checker and ask questions about the review. that is available as well if he wants. >> as far as the monitoring, the monitoring if we wanted to insure there was monitoring, we could condition our finding tonight on creating a system for monitoring? >> good idea. they are getting it anyway. most developers are doing it. we see it all of the time.
5:03 pm
>> it seems to be the communication here. i don't know, the communication is the key here and outreach. if the contractor starts work they should have a contact number to get these people talking together and if they need to use dbi or planning commission staff they can call the city if they think we are needed. >> thank you very much, sir. >> any public comment on this item? we will move to rebuttal. mr. winnik. you have three minutes. >> very brief. as was noted, we only received a revised set of plans in april after we applied for the appeal. this is the first that i heard we are going to have the property surveyed. this has been the tone and tender of this. these are not someone with our
5:04 pm
best issues at heart. talking about the shoring which i am a lay person it feelings like a moving target when we discuss this. i hear things that the shoring can be in some way attached as an addendum and there will be a permit perhaps. again, we would ask that if we have the city oversight to help us through this. we do not trust the developers to be as forthcoming as they need to be. we think they would be as forthcoming as they are required to be. that would make it hard for us. we just want the safety of our house. thank you again. >> i want to make sure that, you know, we really try to work hard at hearing appellants and the public as well as we try hard to hear the project sponsor. we want to make sure everything
5:05 pm
is nicely buttoned up. i want to make sure that our list coincides here. the list that the project sponsor went down where the plans you now have plans and two, that there won't be any shoring. we just heard if there is a shoring change, we can make that a condition on this case. you can be protected on that. the third thing was the survey. they have done or are going to do a survey and that would be on your list as well. the underpinning is the same as the shoring. should there be a requirement for underpinning we can condition that and if things change we can make sure that, you know, that must be disclosed and reviewed as part of the plan. the monitoring as well.
5:06 pm
it is something we can choose to put a condition on. going down the list, is there anything that you see as omission to your list which you presented to us? >> nos, i don't. >> thank you. >> i would like to add that what he was expressing the city does have oversight. we have engineers the city's party. they review the plans on behalf of the public to make sure what is built is safe and will not cause the things you are talking about. i know hiring another engineer is your option to hire your own staff. your tax dollars are hard at work and the department of building inspection. that is your choice to do that. we have our staff review the plans as well. >> thank you, i appreciate it.
5:07 pm
>> mr. murphy. >> thank you. i will be brief. i have two points. we would not obi object to monitoring. that is something we want to do. that is not a problem. the second point there was a discussion about changes to the plans. we would ask -- we can say there won't be shoring or underpinning. we understand the concerns what if things change? we ask if any condition is imposed only if shoring or some kind of underpinning on the appellant's property line were required. it won't be so but if it would, it could come back for further review at this board. we ask the condition be drafted narrowly in that way. if there are any revisions to the plan there could be another
5:08 pm
board hearing that wouldn't beaconsibeconsistent. we ask it not be subject to that. >> my response. you understand we hear that all of the time. you are involved in a shotgun wedding. they don't know you, you don't know them. to help build trust we might build in a few conditions that, you know, allow the appellant a little more faith in the system and more trust. no disrespect intended to you all. it just helps move the process comfortably down the road. that is why it exists. >> shotgun wedding. everybody is upset. you don't know each other. thank you very much.
5:09 pm
>> thank you. >> mr. duffy, do you have anything further. >> commissioners this matter is submitted. >> you led the discussion and i think i know where you are going. i may have discussions i will listen to a motion. >> i haven't made that many motions. if we are conditioning it, are we upholding or denying the appeal. >> issuing the permit with conditions. >> i move grant appeal and issue permit with conditions there would be a survey preimposed construction along with monitoring throughout construction period and that if shoring or underpinning is required on the add jay send property line that would be done through revision permit subject to appeal.
5:10 pm
>> tell us what is legal and what is not. >> i would request that perhaps the project sponsor come forward and state whether they object to the condition you stated are with to the revision permit. >> . >> we prefer not to have the latter condition. the one objection the property line of the appellant's property. i understand at this point there is no shoring required on the other property line either. that is not something we were prepared to discuss tonight. since the other 1627 diamond street neighbor is not here. i ask that not be opened up. >> that would be with 1615 diamond street. >> thank you. >> mr. duffy.
5:11 pm
>> just to clarify something. when you mentioned underpinning. that would be under the the ap applelant's property. they would have to match the bottom of their foundation if they change it. they have to underpin his property. it is not underpinning is probably not the term. if there is any changes to the foundation, the intended foundation design, that would be done under revision permit. i think that would be the approved revision. the code covers anyway the building code says if you make changes to approved permit you have to get reversion. that is a stand alone permit which is appealable. the city attorney might be. >> if they were to change the design of the foundation to require shoring or underpinning
5:12 pm
they have to get a revision permit anyway. >> after the ad denda is issues, yes. >> only during the addenda process. once that is issued, that is what you are building. you make changes, you are doing a revision permit. it happens all of the time. >> can they change between now and that being issued? >> that is better. they are telling us they are not going to underpin. that is issued by d.b.i. as addenda. if they make changes to that a revision is required and building code covers that and they get revision to foundation. you may not need the condition if the building code covers it. >> i don't think we would. earlier you said the opposite. i want to make sure it is crystal clear that right now they have a site permission
5:13 pm
issued. that is appealed at this moment and the addenda will be issued which will include what is currently in the site permission foundation wise or could they change between the site permission and addenda issued can that change. >> they are on the addenda. >> after that point that is locked in if the foundation were to change from the addenda to something to adjust they need the permit which is appealable to this body? >> yes. >> i am sorry if i said the opposite. >> maybe i heard the opposite. >> the wording of the condition. i don't want us stumbling. we do struggle with the board if there is not proper wording. it is complicated. the minutes here tonight they are not going below the
5:14 pm
neighbor's foundation. they have taken that into account. that is going to be submitted as the ad denda. if approved there is no problem. after it is issued and they change that is revision permit. >> between now and issuing the addenda, they are planning to submit this but could they possibly change that between now and when it is issued? >> yes. >> that is the window we are trying to capture. the latter is covered once it is issued it is covered. we are speaking of this portion of time. >> to be honest, the chance of change is slim to none. they have done this. they know where the bottom of the foundation is. there was all sorts of determine mentions on the brief. i read them. 6 inches above it. if they have done the homework this is what they are going to
5:15 pm
do. >> help me with the language. we want to address this particular phase of the permitting process, and we want it to be focused on something if it were to happen to the foundation plan such that underpinning with 1615 or shore is required that adjacent to the property line then they have to, i guess, get revision permit or start over again? i am not sure the options. do you have any ideas i am open to it. >> i would like commissioner duffy to give us some condition language related to assuring the appellant making the appellant comfortable that he is walking out of here bulletproof with regard to the fact that under current testimony there will be
5:16 pm
no shoring and there will be no underpinning required. >> it is just, you know, i want the gentleman to go home and sleep tonight. >> any changes to the current foundation design it will be done under a revision permit. >> do you need the councilor to return? >> i would like him to come forward again. >> the term any change to the current foundation design might be broad enough to encompass any minor change to the trent plans. i o -- to the current plans. >> how about changes to the current design which would require shoring or underpinning to the appellant's property does
5:17 pm
that work for you? >> yes, thank you. >> can you read us back the motion? >> motion to grant be the appeal issue permit on the condition that it be revised to require monitoring throughout the construction process, survey pre and post construction, and if the permit holder anticipates any changes to the foundation design which would require shoring or underpinning on the adjacent property at 1650 diamond street that change would be done under revision permit not under ad under addenda. >> is that the motion? >> are you comfortable in that direction? >> i am. >> we have that motion from commissioner tanner which i am not going to repeat. (roll call). >> that motion carries 3-0.
5:18 pm
>> thank you. let me check in with i believe commissioner honda is here. >> okay. we are ready.
5:19 pm
welcome, commissioner honda. we are now moving on to item number 4. this is a rehearing request for the subject property at 198 gar 198guerro street. rehearing of 19-015. as preliminary matter the parties indicated they would like to reschedule this matter. given this item is on the published calendar we need a vote from the commissioners to continue it. i want to ask commissioner lazarus if she reviewed the materials. >> yes. >> parties if you would like to approach.
5:20 pm
>> molly allerconfor dph. >> good evening. council for the cafe. >> we have a joint request for continuance until the next month and would share that we are close to reaching a settlement agreement and have agreed to share the fact it will include a payment plan by mission beach cafe. that is the reason we request the one month continuance. >> if i may a few facts the commissioners may like to hear. we filed today e-mailed a joint request for continuance. two points. one, we promised to make it $14,000 t$14,000 to buy 5:15. it was made on time and receipt acknowledged. number two we have in our hands meat and bones of a nearly final
5:21 pm
settlement agreement we agreed to talk about if necessary. the idea is to take the work off the desk of the board of appeals if we can finalize it. it is basically a payment structure. as long as the mission cafe is on track with the payments the city can speak for itself. it appears to be willing to continue the hearing to make sure that happens and they would agree to have it come off calendar. we don't want to unnecessarily involve the board if the board does not want to be involved we would welcome the board's insight if and when they would like to have a continuance and how much time and so on. >> you recognize that a continuance, a rehearing request would only be granted unless in the event there is material new evidence that would fly in the
5:22 pm
face of and cause us to reconsider what was, i believe, our unanimous vote. >> it was not unanimous. it won by default. >> all right our position. >> i realize that. you have stated correctly the law. that is the law. what we ask the board to do is not rule and postpone ruling on the request, put it aside to perform the internal agreement we have doing our own form. >> thank you and good luck. i am glad that is working out so far. >> thank you very much. >> we would need a motion to continue you that. now, you said june 19th? >> that was the city's idea. we would remember longer to
5:23 pm
involve everyone here. the city wants that close at hand. either one is find. >> we both stipulated in the request submitted today to june 19th with the idea we want to see the first monthly payment from mission beach cafe then go to the board to request a longer continuance to see the payments each month. >> we have six new appeals that night that should be okay that night? >> sure. >> i am looking to the city to drive this bus because you already have a result and if you are okay. i would look for you for leadership. the 19th would be the date? >> i have a question. by default the board upheld the
5:24 pm
removal of the permit so does the city have the right to reinstate that unilaterally by a payment plan? >> that is my question for the city attorney. is it your position the board would need to grant rehearing and reverse revocation of the permit to let the business continue in operation or would dph be granting separate permit? >> the fact of the pending rehearing request means their permit is in effect by virtue of a stay. one solution would be this board retain jurisdiction and hold it in an bayians and on a six month basis if mission bay makes the monthly payment they could continue for six months until the balance of the settlement amount is paid off.
5:25 pm
if they miss a monthly payment, then we go back to the rehearing request and you can choose t to deny it or grant it as you think the me merry christmas its warr. >> -- o on the merits. >> it is stayed. not a full reinstatement of the permit, right? >> it is stayed because of the appeal. it is going to stay until the appeal is resolved. >> that is fine. for saving a restaurant, they made the effort, city is working with them. >> how long do you anticipate this will take? >> the balance is now about $120,000, and they are only able to make payments of $5,000 a month. first few months less. it will be awhile. >> call of the chair.
5:26 pm
continue to the call of the chair? >> they can advise us. >> or if they don't make a payment. >> we could do that if the board wants to retain jurisdiction. >> sure. i think the wisest is call of the chair. here is what i see happening or not. first we revoked the permit. that is where it stands right now. in a rehearing we would have to have new evidence that we haven't heard before that makes usury consider our -- us to reconsider our position. where we are going is a sleep of faith as requested -- leap of faith as requested by the city department the change of behavior will be there and based on that change of behavior we should review the situation. that is where we are.
5:27 pm
en. [please stand by]
5:28 pm
we would come back and talk about longer term. >> looking at this, do we call the chair and revisit this june 19th? as subsequently there might be another call of the chair to revisit this arbitrarily september 19th? >> down the line. >> it's call of the chair or a set date. >> exactly. >> not both. >> we can put it on call of the chair and request a status report and then move it back on calender if there's not compliance. >> i have a procedural thought. not an advocacy thought. the city is driving this, i agree, and it could be -- >> can you speak in the mic, sir. >> the city is driving it. it could be continued and if there's a procedural mechanism to allow the city to put it back on calender on seven day's notice, if there's a default or
5:29 pm
non compliance it could come back and not have it need to be set. that also might work? >> well, we're hearing requests that might be moot at that point. >> we can just make it to the call of chair at which point, if there's an issue, the department will indicate so and then the chair will call a date, right. >> we haven't signed a settlement agreement yet. we have agreed today to ask for this one-month continuance in the hopes that we can in do you time fine a settlement agreement. so for now it's just one. >> so i think we'll start with a continuance and then, you know, if we're in the same status a month from now on june 19th, then we will go one way or another based on behavior -- the agreement and the behavior of both parties. >> ok. >> i'll make that motion. >> ok.
5:30 pm
>> motion from commissioner honda to continue this matter to june 19th. >> to give the parties more time to figure this out. >> reach a settlement. >> ok. on that motion -- that motion carries and the items continue to june 19th. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we will now move on to item number five. this is appeal 19-021. peter lynn versus department plan inspection subject property is 8 lorenzo way, protesting the issuance on march 12th. construction of a new two-storey one basement type 5 single family resident building. this is application 201612215604. >> good evening. welcome. >> good evening. my name is sarah hoffman. i've been assisting the
5:31 pm
appellant on this matter. i'm pleased with the written materials we've submitted the parties have reached an agreement. i am here, along with the project architect tonight and we're here to secretary board of appeals to approve a special conditions permit that reflects that agreement. to give you content, this was filed due to my client's concerns about the privacy impact of the project and the potential impact of excavation work quite close to his property line. our agreement had addressed these concerns by revising the plans to depict a fence along the property line and requiring the side to be fenced during construction so that the construction workers don't use my client's driveway to get onto the vacant lot. that's the only adjacent curb catch. we've submitted revised plans to the board. i believe they should be before you but i have copies if not. i understand the planning department has reviewed those
5:32 pm
plans. so, we're asking the board of appeals to approve a special conditions permit approving those plans and i would very much like to thank the planning department, particularly scott sanchez and director rosenberg for their assistance in resolving this matter and i'm happy to take any questions. >> councilor, when did you guys reach a resolution? was it prior to submitting briefs? we didn't get a brief from the permit holder? >> no. the attachment to my declaration was a joint letter we had both signed stating out the terms of the agreement. i believe that was exhibit a. so it was dated may second, 2019. that was exhibit a to the
5:33 pm
declaration from myself that was submitted with our brief and the board of appeals did give us an indulgent with an extra week while we were finalizing the details of the agreement. >> thank you. >> maybe we should hear from the permit holder to confirm they agree. >> so, my name is charles. >> can you speak into the middle microphone. thank you. >> so, my name is charles, the owner representative. we're very happy to see the solution that we come up. we agree to have the fence. over all, i think we're happy to
5:34 pm
settle in this agreement with the terms that the neighbors come up with. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> does the planning department have anything to add? how about the department of building inspections? is there any public comment on this item? seeing none. commissioners this matter is submitted. >> i guess a motion is to grant the appeal and condition the permit on the revised plans submitted and dated. >> i didn't see -- i saw an old date on them. submitted for the hearing. >> there was no plans earlier. 9/27/2016. >> right. >> can someone confirm the plans
5:35 pm
we have in front of us are the plans you would like to be conditioned? >> yes, those are the plans. it looks like the date hasn't been updated but this sheet with the fence on it as far as is a completely new sheet. the previous plans didn't have a fence so this is new. i think mr. chan might be able to confirm that more than i can. >> we can date it may 15th? >> but the stamp. the appeal number and the -- >> that works. >> ok. >> that works. so, we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the condition that it be revised to require the adoption of the plans submitted to the board of appeals on may 15th, 2019. on that motion, commissioner honda aye. >> tanner. >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye.
5:36 pm
>> thank you. so, we will now move on to item number 7. this is appeal number 19-023. h solomon versus department building inspection with planning department approval subject property is 440malomo drive, march 29th, 2019 to sharp share main curtis remove the fireplace in the second floor living room, add powder room, a third flor for master bedroom. we will hear from the appellant first. >> good evening. welcome. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is heather. i am the neighbor next door.
5:37 pm
the appeal number one was pretty similar to mine. i have the same concern about the foundation. i have owned my property for 20 years. i spend all my money on my work for my home to make sure everything is safe. i believe strongly about the appeal. i will summarize my concern. there's crack in the foundations and in the permit application and the permit business additions as slope protection act. the house has high elevation over 700 feet next to mount davis son which is the highest elevation of 928 feet in san francisco. the complaint or the inspector says it's inaccurate square footage and it needs to be analyzed. they are edging more weight to
5:38 pm
the cracked foundation. our house are attached by a common wall therefore -- so this is where it is saying that they are edging 1,117 new square footage required much more analyzing. those are the cracks in the foundation. this is from far away. also, the houses, the six houses right across from us, it's hazard zone reports and it's addressing the landslide zone. this is the second floor in the d.b.i. you can see this is my home, their home and all of the six houses on the landslide and mount davidson is right behind
5:39 pm
it. so it's a systemic hazard zone that reports the landslide zone. i was told that page 54 of the appeal that they might excavate next to the property and if they do, i would like to get notice about that also if they do any under pinning or any shortings. slope protection ordinance number 121-18, which amended may eighth, 2018, it says 1.4 is the
5:40 pm
slope and systemic hazard zone protection should apply to all property within san francisco that exceed an average slope of four horizontal to one vertical or fall within certain map area of the city. i believe this was exhibit 5 page 17. in this case they are edging 1,117 new square feet, not 198. also, i was really concerned about the safety of my home. in the g.r., december 2018 i presented the settlement crack and i asked to be investigated. i was told by the architect that he never saw the picture of the crack before which really made me nervous. he will speak with the engineer about it. i did e-mailed him the crack. i tried to communicate.
5:41 pm
i tried to ask them to respond to me. i mean, i e-mailed them more than once. i never had any response. with no response and since december 2018, he promised that they will look into it but there was no response. and i spoke about my concern in the planning hearing. i don't understand -- i feel like it's very time-consuming for me and the previous neighborhood did excavation with no permit and now they are adding more weight to the house. you can see how the houses usually are. -- usually it's a steep house. so it's really concerning me because we are in a very steep
5:42 pm
hill too, over 700 feet. so, i told them about the concern and it never happened. and, the engineer report dated may eighth that they in the brief from did not explain the
5:43 pm
second crack which is below the deck and far from the corner. i was told it's the second crack has been fixed or repaired more than once and the crack keeps coming back. the engineer only talks about the first crack in the report and he says this could be due to again, they are adding more weight and more square feet to the crack foundation of the house and we do know how far our cracks are. because they are hiding by the siding and the ground. will the house be able to hold during a big earthquake? like 8.0 or long drought followed by long rain and a very hilly location? i also received instruction notice. on may seventh after i called mr. duffy to ask if there was a notice from the adjacent neighbor. it was sent with an old permit and house about throw or four miles away from me and the same day that permit issue may 29th fora for adjacent neighbor. i believe they should give two week's notice for the neighbor and i do ask that i had a pre
5:44 pm
construction survey to monitor. >> you can continue in rebuttal. >> i have a question, ma'am. your conversations and your requests they were with the permit holder or a representative of -- when you were asking questions in regards to your foundation and they were cracked, who were you asking these questions to? >> i have asked -- i presented it for review. i asked to take care of the cracks this is this is only one side. >> was it the public sponsor or the engineer? >> it was the project sponsor or the owners. the developers. and architect. i asked them about it. i have asked the structural engineer about this and they told me it needs to be investigated and fixed before they do anything and i'm
5:45 pm
concerned. >> you used the word common wall. i don't see a common wall between the two so i mean we call them attached homes but they're not really attached. >> so this is my wall and our house is attached. >> that strip is holding up a gap but they're not physically foundations are they? >> maybe i'll ask the project sponsor. >> it's a different foundation. thank you. >> thank you. >> we will hear from the permit holder. >> good evening and welcome. >> thank you, commissioners. my name is troy and i'm the project architect. i've been working with the homeowners starting early in 2018. they wanted to expand their home to create another bedroom on the
5:46 pm
top floor. to be clear, the bedroom is built out over a portion of existing roof areas. early in the project, we had this structural engineer evaluate if the existing foundation would be adequate to support an additional story. it's one story at the rare of the property over a basement. with the addition, it will be two-storeys over basement. in answer to some of the questions raised. the homes are not connected. that piece of vertical piece of trim that you see is a piece of trim. the foundations are completely independent. the cracks that she was showing were not actually on her foundation but are on the permit holders foundation at 440molimo and the cracks per the structural engineer are
5:47 pm
setelment cracks that occurred likely shortly after the foundation was poured and they have been there a long time. there's no evidence inside the home of additional settlement or movement. the foundations as existing are adequate per code to support the additional story. we know something about the existing foundations because there's an existing crawl space where we have ak sessio access n inspect the existing foundation and throughout the home, they have the same design. they didn't have a lot of variation. they were at the same time or one after the other. all of these home plans are very similar. the protect was designed with
5:48 pm
appropriate engineers and architects. it was reviewed appropriately at the department of building inspection. this includes the seismic hazard zone protection checklist and you maven countered this in previous cases but this building in an ex element categories and meaning that with no significant improvements that would trigger. those are not on the property line property line and those
5:49 pm
will have foundations associated with it about two feet deep. no excavation along the property line walls. so this case is dissimilar from the previous one you heard. the owners are here. i think they wanted to say a couple of words. i'm available to answer questions. >> good evening, commissioners. we bought this house about a year and a half ago and you know, we have two little girls who are almost 11-years-old, they're twins. and, you know, we would like for them to have their own bedroom and space where we can have some space away from them. what we're proposing is really a pretty modest addition. this is not touching the
5:50 pm
foundation or her house in anyway. we can respond to rational things but not irrational things. we haven't heard anything rational yet. frankly, we have just been kind of subjected to a lot of harassment in different forms. we have two little kids who are also being subjected to it. it's been really difficult to have to be subjected to all of what's been happening. so, not in the brief necessarily but several of our neighbors sent e-mails of support, which i think should be somewhere in your packet. we have a lot of good relationships on our block with really nice folks who, including our piano teacher and other people who we have dinner with and good relationships with.
5:51 pm
we hope to have good relationships with everybody. life is too short for anything else. we just hope that you will not accept this appeal and not condition our pretty simple permit. that's all we're asking. thank you. >> are you finished? >> i am. >> i have a question. so, the appellant said that she's made requests on certain questions and she made those to you or to the architect? >> she has e-mailed troy a couple times -- right after the d.r. which delayed us, we're a five-month delay at this point. she sent troy an e-mail with photographs of the cracks that you have in your packets. so troy put it to the structural engineer and the structural engineer said that he didn't see any issue with those cracks and they were really cosmetic or minor and not indicative of any
5:52 pm
significant problems with our foundation -- [ please stand by ]
5:53 pm
>> the capacity of the foundation because the foundation itself is bearing on the underlining sediments and structures. that has a certain ability to withstand the loads imposed on it, and if the structure or the sediment below it is adequate, the code allows a assumed value for what a foundation of a given size can support. that is what was used. the engineer didn't feel this
5:54 pm
particular crack was an issue. >> thank you. that was an excellent explanation. >> mr. sanchez. >> i like how you are pointing at joe. nice. >> d.b.i. building before planning. >> this permit remove fireplace in living room, new master bedroom, bathroom and home office. the permit looks like it was approved correctly. it went through planning and building. structural before issued on the 29th of march suspended third of april. i did see -- i did read the
5:55 pm
brief, as always. i think all of the concerns were addressed in the brief by the architect and the testimony as well. in my opinion i don't have any issue with the issuance of the permit. there was one issue with the notice, and the appellant did bring it up to me and i immediately contacted the permit borough. it was corrected and redone about a week ago. that might be confusing. there was notice it wasn't that the neighbors got a notice with the wrong application number. it was number 8 with a 1981 permit. you won't get notice on 1981 permit in 2018. we corrected it immediately. there is no foundation work,
5:56 pm
unlike the previous appeal. there is i think some concrete work in the middle of the building, and some sheer walls as you heard. i did see a letter from the structural engineer on the crack and foundation. that is typical. if d.b.i. were aware we would instruct the homeowner to provide an evaluation from a structural year. -- structural engineer. in the last month we received seven complaints. we still have two open. the rest were closed. it was about the ground floor rooms where i believe the people brought the property. there was a ground floor that was put in many, many years ago. they got another permit to legalize the media room and den.
5:57 pm
that is something already done. we are not concerned with that at all, and we will probably close the complaint. the inspectors only kept them open because of the appeal and issues with this. i don't think there are any issues. there won't be a notice of violation issued, if they think they can close the complaints. i am available for questions. >> i have one since we lost our resident architect. are there special inspections required for the work done in the center? i see notations, i think there probably are, correct. >> i will let the architect address this. i assume there is but i can't tell you definite. i never checked that today. i think there typically would be for structural work, walls. >> for the record.
5:58 pm
>> one more item brought up in the brief about the seismic hazard zone. certain properties are in it but it is on the other side of the street. this was not part of it. ththe check listing was on the drawings. i did check with one of the supervisors and he confirmed the property is not under the seismic hazard zone. >> he is tough, actually. >> i learned something. >> on that plan for the appellant's benefit can you explain in the zone. the architect referenced that it does not require the report. can you clarify what needs to be in the zone and not? >> it is a different level every view. i couldn't begin to tell you what it would do.
5:59 pm
i believe you have to get your peers to approve the design. that checklist on the front of the drawings, that is answered correctly and it was in this case, that exempts it. that is what the architect said. it triggers third-party review. >> peer review is no joke. >> . >> we are concerned about it. i respect the opinions. they have been in touch with inspectors and responded. i just ask that sometimes we get used here as a harassment tool. we don't want that. if there are genuine concerns we investigate. seven concerns and none before hand. concerns are concerns.
6:00 pm
just don't abuse it. >> thank you, inspector duffy. >> thank you. >> we will now let planning speak since they are after building from now on. >> welcome, planning. >> the issues raised are related to construction and to the foundation issues. with regard to planning issues, there was a discretionary review. we did not take discretionary review as compliant. one of the issues in the brief regarding square footage of building was noted they did obtain the permit to legalize the ground floor space that was review and approved by planning. the size of the building and square footage is not expressed. with that i think it does