Back and we can look at this, under the 2001, Building Code. And it is going to be much easier for us. And that really for the plan check that was the biggest problem was the stairs. That seemed to have gone away, yesterday evening when scott agreed to go by the variance. I understand. That is good news. Any other questions for the department . Okay. And we could hear a rebuttal from the appellant now. I am not sure that i am rebutting. First of all extremely good news with the late night discovery. And i am sure who is tired of seeing me. But, of course, i am, and i want to keep my deck. And we want to keep our deck. And i mean, it was built and so it is very good news. And so the, the, the fact that the 2003 issue, you know, that it was perhaps issued in error by the department, well, are we being hung out to dry because the department is making errors. It seems that the department and i hate to point the fingers and the department has been helpful and nice and polite. I know that joe duffy works awfully hard and he is here on many different commissions and board and he has a huge work load, and every place is building in the city. And he has been generous with his time. But, i mean, we cant really, it is not fair to hold us responsible if the city tell us this is good. We have to go by the paperwork, what other choice do we have . And i am saying and i asked and i asked joe, you know, stand by your work. If you agree to do somebody to somebody else, you are doing your job and you agree to do it. And you say i will do it, and you stand behind that. And we are just, we are asking the city to do the same thing. And it is extremely good news that the variance have been carried forward. That is the solution that mark wal lace of dbi suggested and there is one wrinkle in it and that is that we have not sued the neighbor but the neighbor has sued us and this has caused my wife and i extraordinary emotional harm and damage. Now it is not your concern to worry about. We are being sued. But here is the point, they will stop at nothing. They have threatened president of the board of supervisors, with a lawsuit, with this permit going through. They will not let this permit go through. So that is you know, even though it appears now that dcp is on our side and dcp is going to allow it, you are going to hear from mark turnoff of the firm, and i am sure that you have heard of zacson free man who are going to fight, tooth and nail. And that is just one wrinkle and i am saying if there is any way to allow these oversights of the department the permits were pulled, by why didnt they tell us at the time in 2007. Hey guys, you forgot. You know you just didnt do, you missed this you skipped over planning. I am saying, our architect went in and said we missed this. And they showed them the plans and the dcp and shows it all abaited. Now i know this is a lot to swallow. But i am saying hey, it looks like it was clean to us at the time. Scrutinizing it, with a bunch of lawyers you find holes. What i am saying, hey, we should not be held accountable, i am saying if there is any way, certainly we will follow through with the 2015, permit that we put in to complete the process. But we have a major problem, an emotional emotional burden to face. Technical, and a financial burden to fight against this. Because the lawsuit has been schedule and so i am just saying if there is anything that you can do, to go back retroactively to say, look, the department made mistakes, but, in good faith it was all signed off, everything was signed off. All of the paperwork here says that everything was good. I would like to thank scott, and the rest of the staff. And i would like to thank tom, in this process. Because the city is busy. We tried to follow the rules and that is what we strive for and what i teach my children and my students. I think that there are questions for you. Commissioner lee. Could you talk more about your 2015, application, and what was the reason behind applying for that. We filed, and i filed that actually, i personally went in and filed that because it was directed to do that, it actually states that on the nov and filed the permit and then when it went to, i cant remember whatever stage it went to. Nechltd it will legalize the deck and stairs. Okay, commissioner walker, question . So again, apologies for the confusion on this. And i am looking at this and our interest is in making sure that everything is done correctly. So we what nt toe encourage of working toward the end and i think that the filing of the permit does that, are you willing to engage in the department with our department, and what time frame do you think that it will take to safety the permit . You know, the application, and the inspections . And working with our department to making sh you are that everything is safe . Yes, we are working with the department now. We are working with them right now, because that is where the permit is. And yes, we are, as to how long it will take, i cant tell how long that it will take all of the time that we will take with the variance, they have requested and there was an email last night, laying out what they had to do we have looked at it and ready to signoff off it as soon as building says that it is legal to put it there. Okay. You can get it over the counter from us. And at the same time, it is just a single inspection. The hold up will be planning. And they have work to do after they have decided to honor the variance . Yes, i believe that they, well, they sent a letter last night, outlining what they wanted. So there are documents that need to be filed. Planned. And change of the plans and some what. Okay. I couldnt tell you, i didnt look that deep in it other than their, and i was pretty happy when i saw that they were going to honor the 2001, because that was a stickler for us, the stairs. I got it. Do you have a question or a comment . Sure, just out to mr mr. Sweenys comment and the email said that the notification and it has already been performed, however no record of such notification exists, given these facts you must pursue, section eleven, and notification, for the building application, and so that is going to trigger the appeal for that to planning. And but, you know, that is the game that we are in here, it is just going to be a long time, and i feel that it is going to be a long time until we can signoff that permit. Based on the appeal opportunities for the neighbor and etc. And the one thing that i will say, if they get the permit over the counter, it gets issued and i personally will be happy to do the inspections and work with mr. Ryan to get him to a good place and whatever we can do in the meantime with the violations, they are still open, and i would apoll guy as well. When you file an appeal to a notice of violation, and you get a letter saying that it is cleared, you must have thought that you won the lotto, that is not the right letter to get, that should have just said that you filed an appeal. And it will be heard. And i think that that is the crux in the 2003 case. But it is still open, the 2014, is still open, but there is a permit to file it. And where that permit was issued and when they get through the final inspection that is a good question, and then the final inspection will signoff and obviously clear the violations. I will tell them that they will get there, how long it takes . It is hard to say. So, there is another question and comments that we should have the Public Comment and then we will discuss and make a decision. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, i was introduced earlier, my name is mark and i do represent one of actually two of the appellants neighbors the ryans blame everyone except themselves, the contractor, and dbi and have blamed the fact that their project was not flagged. They have blamed the lack of inspection on the part of dbi and blamed, the Planning Department for all of this going through, and i think what has happened so far and, i have brief hand out that summarizes some of my thoughts right here. What the ryans have been doing is confusing the board for almost, ten years, and trying to advance an illegal structure that they knew when it was constructed was being done illegally, the contractor told them this is questionable, you even heard them say, this is questionable. They blame the fact that dbi did not flag their questionable construction . The blame, falls entirely on them and i think that there are a couple of things that are significant that i want to point out before i get into the back details here that completely dispute their reported reliance on their contractor at the time. First of all, i had handed out a declaration yesterday, that you might have in front of you. If you look at exhibit d, which is the actual permit. That is from may 4th, and it is for a quoted price of 11,400 and that is to remove the tar and the gravel and the roofing that they were talking about. And this is the alleged permit that they believed was going to be to build the tech. If you move forward to exhibit g that i provided, that is an exhibit from the appellant to standard roofing that says, at the end, the last paragraph, first of all, it says as discussed today, here is the contract for the roof and stairs for 11,400 which is consistent for the permit that was applied for, and the third thing says please quote us for a wood deck to place on top of the garage, so the garage was not going to be built to the contract that they had entered into, and not to the permit that had just been applied for, they were negotiating the terms of building the deck. If you move forward to the exhibit that i have which is exhibit h. From july 9th, standard roofing again, at your request, i measured the deck over the garage, you are correct that is less than 800 skwa square feet, i will need shths 600 materials to install the decking enclosed is a new contract and date for construction. And now we are in july and they have not started the did he can yet, they are negotiating the determinterms of the deck, negotiating with the contractor for a deck that has not been built yet, pursuant to permits that have already been issued. That is three or six . Three. You want six . Only fair, since we are hearing both. And i will speed it up and then you have both of those permits are signed off on august first of 2007. Both of permits of the appellants argue were the ones that is dbis fault that they didnt catch this deck. If you look at the next exhibit that i have. Which is exhibit i, it is the actual contract to construct the deck and that whats not signed until august 13th. They did not sign the contract until the permits had already been signed off on and i spoke to the contractor, when they were there at his deposition, and the contractor said, i refused to build this deck with representations that everything was legal and permits made. And they specifically included in the contract it says, Standard Roofing Company assumes no and they under underlined it, no responsibility for Building Code compliance of deck. A building inspector may require you to obtain separate permits to this deck. They tried to get that removed, not the decking contractor or a roofing contractor, was the only person that they could find to do this work said that i am not taking that out. I will do the work for you, it is questionable. But you are on your own. They have been on their own for ten years. They have been confusing dbi all along, they have been blaming everybody and the architect and blaming the department of building inspection, my client has not even moved in yet and there are already problems with mr. Ryan, you can see for 15 years, there is no less than ten complaints that have been filed against him, recently it is for september, when he merged his multiunity building into a Single Family residents. And that investigation was opened up in september. That has nothing to do with my client. That has nothing to do with anybody of the neighbors, that has to do ben illegal merger, and you cant merge things on your own, the history of complaints and violations by the ryans goes back ten years. My client has not moved in yet, and he has had the problems with them. When the architect was hired, to apply for the variance, and right after the variance was granted with the preliminary plans, it is not a licensed architect, and they got the variance she was discharged and let her go and left her paying a balance. She owed her money, and ignored her for months and months, and it was not until they paid the bill a year and a half ago when they needed her cooperation for this specific matter and she refused to cooperate, ten years later they paid the bill and the money that they owed her, but she refused to cooperate. And then they took the plans, knowing full well that hadded to be fun legally pursuant to the Building Permits and hired the architect and gave him the plans and said that i want you to build this for me, they hired a roofing contractor, and the roofing contractor says that i will reroof this. They built the two story tower, and they raised the wall as well, this is not just a staircase and a deck. They had it raised three inches and a firewall to be compliant to the deck and built to the plans. Could i make one more comment. No i am sorry. We have to be strict. We have blamed everybody xep. We need to hear from the next public speaker, thank you. My name is pat and i will try to do it in 3, i am not going to speak about the 2003, permit, i think that there are a lot of issues with that, i want to talk about the 2007 deck, they got a variance and there is a language and it is a letter and two pages long, it is not third and it is straight forward and you need to get a Building Permit, you need to submit plans and you need to do it 311 notice, and pretty clear and they hire a contractor, and a good contractor and a roofing contractor. They pull two permits neither of them with plans, one a roof membrane permit, and one a dry rot permit. And no plans. No 311. No signature on the drawings which you got to go, wait a second, something is wrong here, how are you doing this when planning said submit the drawings and do a 311 notice. The contractor does the work and Building Department does not climb up to look on roof they dont want to get hurt. So the building inspector signs off on the job and then they start the deck. After the inspector has left. And so that is not an accidental mistake, that was a pretty genius, i will not say what i think that what they did, but they got it signed off and then they built the deck. With a dry rot and a roofing permit. 2014. They got caught. And for a year they went to the Building Department hearing and for the last eleven months they have fought the variance. And maybe it is good news that planning is going to use the old variance. There is a time line. But, i want to make sure that the commission is aware of a couple of things. Not only did they do this roof deck with no permit, the back of the building where the stair tower is, there is another story underneath the garage. And the stairs start below that story. So they have a stair tower that is two and a half stories tall. Nowhere in any permit is there any language to build something that big. So the idea of my contractor getting a roofing permit and everything was covered is ridiculous. And the contractor i have read what the information. He told them you dont have the right permit. You need to go and get another permit. He was not going to do this job. So, the issue to you guys have is they obviously knew what they were doing, they got caught, planning has agreed to work with them. But if you abait this decision, there is no motivation for them to move forward. And when the last one got abaited in 2003, accidentally, they walked away. Now i am not expert on that 2003 permit. But, they are saying that there is problems with it. And if you abait this, you are going to see them again . Thank you, next speaker. Seeing none. Commissioners . Commissioner walker . I have, and i mean that this is confusing. But the violations are not as confusings our communications are to me. I think that it i think that the process that has been laid out by our staff of making sure that all of the violations under both notices are included in the permit that is going to ward. And they all need to be cured and including reviewing the plan for the original construction, of the deck and the stairs, because that has not been done. So, and the 311 notice and all that is required when you do this. It seems, that part seems clearer to me than our communication about it. I am leaning towards up holding the order of abatement and providing some unlimited time while the planning process works out. I think that we have to name a time. B but i dont see any reason not to personally. Mr. Lee . I think that it is clear to me that the stairs were never permitted. And i still am i little confused on whether the plans that were submitted or if there are plans or application that was submitd for 2015, included a correcting those stairs. The question about the deck whether it was approved and permitted previously, i think there is a little bit of confusing to me. I am still not too clear on that. And so if the 2015, application, also corrects that or addresses that, i think that that would be a fair thing. But, i cant tell based on what the department has said, whether that application addresses those items. So that is what i am really hung up on, i would really like to know. The current application. Yeah, the permit, the with unthat is fwoeg through supposedly going through planning. When the applicant applied for the permit it said to comply with the 2014, notice of violation, it never referenced the 2003. So without no s plans being present, and looking at the violation and the plans you cant tell that. And that is really, you know, i dont have that information. Sorry there are plans for the 2015, there would be, and you could not get the permit without the plans, for the permit to comply with the 2014, notice of violation, there are plans with that. And did they include the work for the 2003, permit. I dont know that. I dont know that. And i am not sure. Commissioners . I have not looked at the plans but i know that there have been conversations between mark walls and the ryans, and planning concerning the stairs. So it is my opinion that the stairs and the deck are both on the 2015 permit application. With plans. Commissioner walker . I would think on some level in order to substantiate the variance going back to the old variance, it would probably behoove us to include that in mt solution i mean that the permit that they have under application includes referencing the earlier violation. And to have a code compliance during the deck. Yes. Based on whatever the variance. Yes. It has agreed on between the vie anses and the planning. And yes, and that way, that is covers the plannings decision to do that and it also resolves the issue. Let me ask you this question, if the 2015, decisions somehow gets approved, or planning approves it, is there a way that the department can review it and make sure that that permit covered the violation from 2014, and 2004 before y