For all parties giving testimony, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony youre about to give is the truth to the best of your knowledge . Thank you, you may be seated. There are two cases, case 6865 and 6866 for 1641 a to grove street have been withdrawn and were withdrawn in advance of the meeting and we apologize. We have item c, approval of minutes. Discussion to adopt minutes for a meeting on september 18, 2019. Move to approve. Second. There is a motion and a second and any Public Comment on the minutes . All commissioners in favour . And any opposed . The minutes are approved. Commissioner moss is present, as well. Thank you. Case number is 6867109113 peer street, llc, of ryan j. Patters. 188901, to be returned to staff and cancel the notice of abatement. And for the record, i just wanted to state the department will present their case first and then the appellant. Symptoms next, Public Comment and members have three minutes each to speak and rebuttal time of three minutes for department and the appellant. Would the department lining to come forward . My name is jose lopez and todays case at 109 peer street. We have received a complaint on august 29, 2018. Our inspector was assigned to the district, met with the complainant of the subject property and the result was notice of violation was issued on august 31st, 2018. One year, several inspections later and three hearings, finally in order of off boughtment waabatementwas issuen july 11, 2019. I go into call our inspector christina who has been assigned to the district for three years and we go show you some pictures of the conditions that existed and how they not only continue to exist but in our opinions have gotten worse. Im christina moi and ill show you a couple of photos regarding the matter of this and the firstphot photo is the rear door. Theres damage and warped on that door and this is the rear door to the rear exist stairway. So thats what it looks like at the bottom. The next photo i would like to show is in a bedroom. This bedroom is towards the front of the building facing pier street and as you can tell, theres mold at the bottom and on the right side, theres peeling paint. The next photo is also in the same bedroom and theres mold on the ceiling and also on the wall with peeling paint. Let me see if i can adjust this. Now, the next photo is in the bathroom and this is the ceiling of the bathroom and you can tell and see that theres mold on the ceiling and along the sued of thside ofthe wall. Thank you, jose. Next photo is mold on the ceiling where the pantry is in the culture above the sink. Here is a photo of the bottom of the roar stairway. This is the dryrotted wood thats holding up one side of the stairway. And the last photo is the heater and this is the only heating unit and i went back to this on october 4 to do a reinspection so i can give you an update because as you can tell some of the photos are dated awhile back since may, so i just wanted to give you a quick update that these violations have not been corrected and have not been fixed. The only item on this notice of violation have been fixed with a permit, is the rear stairway, which they have fixed some of the risers and some of the stringers and they have permits for that. Thank you. Commissioner walker . Thank you. Can you tell me how many tenants are in this building . How many us units. The property has to three units didnt threunits and thre. The upper unit and the only one occupied in these photos and in the notice of violation in relation to that unit. So have you seen the other units . The other units are under construction and there are permits open and we have seen some pictures i have seen pictures that theyre doing complete renovations of the unit. But this is not part of the renovation . Is there a permit polled for any of this . I dont know if for the renovation of the upper unit there is an active permit. In fact some of the violateses dont require a permit to address the peeling paint and address small issues. There are items, like the heater, we do require a permit to replace it and if there is a simple repair, they dont need a permit. The third case, we require a permit and they have a permit do temporary work, repairs, because my understanding is that they will be building a new set of stairs when the construction is finalled. Finished. We sent the case three times to a hearing and previous hearings, the cause was continued because they show they have permitted to do some other work and a second time, the case was sent back to the staff, but, again, over three years im sorry, over one year, the conditions of the occupy unit still the same or worse and that is why the staff has found that they have been violations an to the occupant of the building is the Department Recommends the order be upheld and all costs incurred by the department be accessed. And the the tenan tenant is l there. Yes. The pickets o pictures of thr stairs, is that part of the upper unit for egress. Yes, second means of egress for the upper unit. That was a big priority for us because the upper unit is still occupied. And they responded and i mean, i was satisfied i was happy to see they got a permit to do some repairs to that. Thank you. Would the appellant like to come forward. Good morning, president mccarthy and members of the board. Ryan patterson, attorney for the Property Owner. Thank you for your time this morning. This is an unusual case and a bad situation, as you can see. This is a Property Unit that purchased the property over a year ago and with the intent of repairing it and has taken every step possible to do that. On the overhead, this is a copy of the permit details report and if you wouldnt mind distributing a copy to the members, as well, so you can see. The owner obtained a permit to make repairs and abate the vay violations and has done as much work with the tenant in position possession. The problem is that the tenants refuse to leave. Anothethey are in litigation tro gain access to the unit to be able to do that. The contractor, as i understand it, is refusing to do more work. Theyve done as much as they can with tenants there. They will speak to the details about that and ill give you, if you like, a copy of the summons and complaints, the lawsuit tkpwaeugslitigationto gain acce. Ill finish by saying, i think it would be very wrong for the city to penalize an owner for doing everything that they can do to abate the situation. Its not their fault that they cant go further. If an order of of of off abatems imposed, it will be hard to get Construction Financing to do the rest of the repairs. So i would appreciate your consideration of that. I think the right thing to happen here is that it be canceled or returned to staff so that the department can do whatever is possible to help with this. Iwe appreciate any help or ideas you may have. But an order of abatement will be counterproductive in getting this done. Thank you. Happy to answer any questions. Good morning. I want to give a brief history of our involvement with the building. So we purchased the building in may of 2018, immediately set out to figure out what was wrong with the building and develop a set of plans to start fixing it. We had reached out to the Housing Department to discuss how do work with the tenants in the building. So as you see, the entire building is in really bad shape and its a result of essentially 40 years of lack of maintenance. So the roof has fort lauderdale. The siding is coming off, substantial dryrot throughout and so for the rear stairs, the big issue, it a secondary means of egress and needs to be torn down completely. , along with most of the pantry attached to the rear stairs and i cannot do that with tenants in the building. Their second means of egress, however bad shape it is in right now, i cant remove that secondary means and ive looked at putting secondary scaffolding stairs at the front but its too close to powerlines so i cant get additional scaffolding in there. These are all symptoms of what is happening and i could put paint over that, but it will come right back until we can fix the dryrot and the siding thats pulling off. We want to. I want to do this work probably worse than you want me to do this work but i cant until i can get into the unit and do it. And the last part, all of the foundations need to be replaced. The building is lifting substantially to the left. The foundations are shot. I need to raze the building and theres a big sag in the center. As i do this, with plaster, if the unit is not gutted, plaster will fall off the walls and doors will be jammed shut as we straighten the building. So these are all reasons that my contractors will not proceed with the work while the unit is occupied. What is your time frame for the work that needs to be done where the tenants need to be relocated . The whole building will take 18 months. The building was purchased in may of 2018 and when you purchased it or when the purchaser, were the other units occupied at the time . No. So this was the only unit and you were aware there was a tenant who presented difficulties in relocating . Yes. So i had another followup . Sorry, commissioner. So have you tried to arrange a relocation plan with the tenant . I mean, what efforts did you go through for that . I think i can address that one. As i mentioned, the landlord tenant matters were handled by a different firm. Weve been in discussions with the tenants for quite some time and i would say attempted discussions because its been very, very difficult to try to get their attorney to the table and very frustrating. Did you engage our Code EnforcementOutreach Team at all . We have some folks that we use with our Housing Division to try to resolve issues between landlords and tenants. We have a whole program. No, not off water of that. Aware of that. I see folks from that program in the audience and might be something we discuss when we look at options. Great. And i do have copies of the plans for you, as well, just in case you want to see the extent of the work. I think its clear there needs to be work done. If i could just clarify. This is a permanent relocation, if thats what were calling it, correct . Yes. So an eviction . Yes. Its a substantial rehabilitation petition. Commissioner walker . So the tenants, are they seniors or disabled . Im just trying to figure out yes. To both . Yes. And how long have they been there . 35 years, a long time. So seniors have been there for 35 years. You said payments were made . Yes. Does that insinuate an agreement was made that they would move out wor out or whatg on with that . There are legal requirements paid for relocation and thats what was done. If we have finished, we might go to Public Comment, you believe. We have rebuttal. Public comment and then rebuttal. Any members for Public Comment . Yes. Thank you. My name is hal fisher and i live at 117 powers. 117 pierce. I have been the neighbor of the tenant, the master tenant, jackie long, for 26 years. I am also and she is here. Hes asked me to speak on her behalf and after that really interesting edited presentation, i would like to correct the record on any number of things that were said by mr. Patterson and mr. Marenoff. Because, first of all, you should also start that there were first permit that was opened was opened at mr. Marenoffs request and opened because he got he got the notice of violations and he went to miss long and baste basy waived it around and said you have to move out. Its not safe. I got involved, looked at it, showed it to people i know in the city and they said its ridiculous. So they initiated this because they have been attempting to ease them out as quickly and as Cost Effective as they could. One thing that miss long did mention right at the beginning, two obeginningis that the roof. If you stand on pierce street, you can see through the roof. The only thing shes requested since last august is that they stabilize the roof with something, a tarp, so that the water does not leak into his bedroom and on her bed. She has never filed a complaint. She has never asked for these things to be taken care of and they have been granted access to the unit. I actually wa, actually, was tht called the building inspectors in and asked them to look and thats how they discovered this. I also mr. Marenoff pulled three separate permits. On the third permit, it was cathed acanceled at the requestf mr. Marenoff and his attorney and the most interesting thing, is that mr. Duffy, a Senior Inspector in dbi, got up and addressed that the dbi handled this incorrectly and mr. Walsh wrote a whole letter saying that the building on a scale of, i think, 1110, was a 9 in terms f damage. Mr. Duffy got up and said this inspector had to right to write that letter and they canceled the whole thing. Mr. Duffy said the building was safe. So we have that. And the third permit that they requested was to add a roof deck and three rooms in the garage so that they could turn eightroom flat into an 11room flat. The building does not have to be lifted for a seismic retrofit. It has to be lifted because its going to be luxury flats out of this. So as for relocation, they have continued to send checks, of which none have been cashed. I have lost count how many times theyve sent checks. And basically, we have proposed to them a solution to this. The two vacant units were famil im sorry, your time is up. We only allow three minutes. Can i just say one thing . This is a 73yearold africanamerican woman who has her own disabilities. Her daughter, barbara is schizophrenic and she has to provide primary care. You all know how many Mental Services there are for people. The soninlaw has had significancsixoperations since d theres a 9yearold. Ok, thank you very much. We appreciate you coming. Any additional Public Comment . Seeing none, rebuttal by the department. The roof which is the source of leaks, we would like to see you need permission to get inside the unit to fix the roof. You would love to see that and fix the exterior wall and insecure access to that unit but we have not seen that and thats again, just over a year and the conditions still exist. Commissioner walker, please. So there seems to be a differing opinion about i mean, were looking at what the violations are and they are really habitability issues. To this reflects a total rebuild and strengthening and whatnot, way beyond what were looking at. So im assuming that this is a lot of this is by choice rather than by code. Because what were looking at are just violations around the back stairs, mold, habitability issues, things that dont require esrubgtin evicting peop. Thats what were looking at, right . I want to be clear. Yes. We can see the extent of the work proposed. We can see it on the two vacant units where the walls have been clear and then new construction and then plumbing, electrical and whatever else and im sure that its the plan for the third unit, but however, we still have an occupied unit. Its been over a year. And we feel that theres no necessary its not necessary to move the tenant out completely in order to go skph d fix building paint and mold issues. The department would not be serving the department in moving the cause through the process. Thank you. Rebuttal for the appellant . This is certainly a tough case. I think were in agreement on that. Displacement of tenants is not something we like to see but this is a building with real problems and if the neighbor who spoke thinks this is a safe situation and a good spwaeugs fosituationfor people to give l, im happy to invite Board Members to see the property and you can see what condition its in and what kind of work, more importantly, has to be done there. Were happy to the owners have happy to tarp the roof if theres a leak situation that can be done. I would think it could be done expeditiously. And if there are other individual items that cosmetically the department thinks can be done without moving tenants out, thats the conversation we should have. But th mold doesnt occur on its own. Theres an underlying problem and that has to be solved and thats not something that you can just walk in and have the tents gtenants go to the other m over. This is a much larger undertaking. Again, the order of abatement, we agreed there are Serious Problems in the building that must be addressed, putting the order of abatement on the building when the owner is doing everything possible, including litigating to abate the violations, its wrong and will interfere with the ability to do that. As im sure you know, theres an order of off baitmen abatement e building. Lenders dont want that. Theyre lending on a project. Anything else you would like to add . So just reiterating one last time that the items that we see are the symptoms of the problem, not the problem and in order to fix the problem, i have to get into the walls and i have to get into the walls everywhere. So its not i need to get in everywhere skpe and i cannot dot with tent tenants in the buildi. The right thing to do is return this to staff, not issue an order of abatement that will interfere with the project being completed. Thank you. Happy to answer my other questions. Commissioner. So im going to ask the same question that this reflects way more what were looking at and so you can choose to do that, but i think that sets up a whole different legal situation for you that we dont deal with here. And i think were being asked to look at the mold and the habitability issues in this building and only that. So thats what were going to probably talk about. If there there theres an io talk the walls apart to solve the mold issue while people are living there, i doubt that the department would be comfortable telling us do that, but well, the 18month project is not about replacing drywall but about changing the structure of the building and thats what seems to be happening here and i dont want to conflux the issues. Thats probably not a word. Were able to deal with severe habitability issues and i dont know that requires this. There are ways to make temporary walls and wall off sections of a wall to deal with mold. Its not preferable. I want to second commissioner walker. Were conflating two separate things here and i want to focus on the actual habitability of the 75yearold tenant. Commissioners, we always do right by our tenants here and i think weve done a good job and im having trouble with this one. I think we need to face as a contractor and in the contractors seat, i have to disagree with the level of impact thats going to be on this building to anybody occupying it. Its going to be huge and as i look at it and im putting on my contractors hat here, i dont see how anybody could be in this building. , join this construction. I dont think i