San Francisco Abatement Appeals Board upholds order for 1200 Indiana Street, holds it in abeyance 60 days

The San Francisco Abatement Appeals Board on the morning of the hearing considered an appeal by property owner Cesar Andre Batory of a January 29, 2021 order of abatement for unpermitted plumbing work at 1200 Indiana Street and voted to uphold the order while holding enforcement in abeyance for 60 days to allow the owner to pursue required permits.

DBI Chief Building Inspector Mauricio Hernandez summarized the department’s case, saying inspections documented multiple plumbing fixtures and a commercial water heater installed without permits and that the case had been active and on hold at times since 2017. "At this time, DBI staff recommendation is to hold the order of abatement and impose all the assessment of cost," Hernandez said.

Appellant Cesar Andre Batory, who told the board he purchased the property in foreclosure in 2014, said he was unaware of the violations until 2017 and that a consultant assisting him stopped working on the case in 2020. "I purchased a property and I also purchased a problem," Batory said, adding that he and his wife have since pulled a new plumbing permit and hired a contractor: "...the contractor is working as we speak this week and the following weeks to resolve the plumbing violations."

Batory’s spouse testified the couple repeatedly sought guidance from city departments and a consultant but experienced delayed responses and inconsistent instructions. The department countered that it had provided time for the owner to obtain permits and noted the case had been on hold at points since 2017; Hernandez said the owner had inspections since July and that some fees can be reduced under the permit-review process.

Commissioners pressed staff and the appellants about zoning, current occupancy and the ability to legalize existing fixtures through permits; DBI said planning must resolve change-of-use questions but that plumbing permits could be sought so the department could inspect and potentially legalize some work. Commissioners also discussed the assessed enforcement amount; DBI staff estimated the abatement assessment at roughly $1,500 and said certain penalty components could be reduced if permit work follows the usual review process.

Commissioner McCarthy moved that the board "uphold the order of abatement and to hold it in abeyance" while the appellant seeks permits. The city attorney advised the board that the maximum abeyance period under the building code is 60 days (not 90), and commissioners adjusted the motion accordingly. In a roll-call vote the board voted unanimously to approve the motion; Vice President Tam, Commissioners Beto, Jacobo, McCarthy, Moss and Summer all voted yes.

The board instructed DBI staff to work with the appellant to review assessed fees and reduce elements where permitted by code and available documentation. The board’s action leaves the formal order in place but suspends active enforcement for 60 days to allow the owner to begin permitting and corrections.

The meeting record shows variant spellings of the appellant’s surname in the transcript (e.g., "Batari", "Vittari", "Vatari"); the agenda lists the owner as "Cesar Andre Batory," which is used here for consistency with the board's case file entry. The transcript’s opening line reads "20 first 2021," which is ambiguous about the full meeting date; case materials and the hearing references in the record identify the underlying order date as January 29, 2021.

The board adjourned at 09:41 a.m. and noted the Building Inspection Commission would reconvene at 10:00 a.m. under a separate meeting invite.