What DOB is alleging at this property
This October hearing page is not just a schedule entry. The supplied DOB extract contains 8 summons records for this property identifier. The charge mix is: 4 Site Safety / Safeguarding summonses; 2 Sidewalk Shed / Scaffold summonses; 2 Work Without a Permit summonses. The hearing dates are October 16, 2026, October 30, 2026; the source issue date(s) are August 10, 2026.
Important: The discussion below identifies correction paths, hearing issues and evidence worth investigating from the summons data. It does not state that a defense will succeed. OATH decides liability from the evidence and law presented in the case.
Site Safety / Safeguarding — Summons 39557747J
CLASS - 1 · Issued August 10, 2026; hearing October 16, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION OF A 8-STORY PROPOSED NEW BUILDING, ACTIVE SITE WITH ONGOING DRILLING OPERATION, UPON REQUESTING SITE SAFETY COORDINATOR ONSITE LC# 2451. FOR PRE-CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS, OPTICAL MONITORI
Cited provision(s): 1F2 — BC 3301.7 (2014 CODE) FAILURE TO MAINTAIN/DISPLAY ON SITE DOCUMENTS REQUIRED BY BC CHAPTER 3
How this type of condition is typically resolved
These charges focus on protection of workers, occupants, neighboring property or the public during construction. Correction normally requires fixing the specific unsafe condition, documenting required safety measures and keeping the required site records current.
Hearing issues to verify
- What precise safety measure does the summons say was missing or inadequate?
- Was the condition temporary and corrected before or during the inspection?
- Did an approved site-safety plan or required site document address the cited condition?
Evidence that may matter
- Site Safety Plan / logistics drawings
- Daily safety logs and competent-person/site-safety records
- Photographs taken around the inspection time
- Contractor or safety-manager statements and correction records
Site Safety / Safeguarding — Summons 39557751M
CLASS - 2 · Issued August 10, 2026; hearing October 16, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: RESPONDING TO AN INCIDENT, WORKERS WERE SETTING UP A DRILLING RIG FOR PILE OPERATIONS, THE RIG WAS POSITIONED EXP#4 WITH OVERHEAD UTILITY CABLE APPROX. 15FT IN AIR THE CABLE, CONNECTED TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY
Cited provision(s): 209 — BC 3301.2,27-1009(A) FAIL TO SAFEGUARD PERS/PROPERTY AFFECTED BY CONSTRUCTION OP
How this type of condition is typically resolved
These charges focus on protection of workers, occupants, neighboring property or the public during construction. Correction normally requires fixing the specific unsafe condition, documenting required safety measures and keeping the required site records current.
Hearing issues to verify
- What precise safety measure does the summons say was missing or inadequate?
- Was the condition temporary and corrected before or during the inspection?
- Did an approved site-safety plan or required site document address the cited condition?
Evidence that may matter
- Site Safety Plan / logistics drawings
- Daily safety logs and competent-person/site-safety records
- Photographs taken around the inspection time
- Contractor or safety-manager statements and correction records
Sidewalk Shed / Scaffold — Summons 39557746H
CLASS - 2 · Issued August 10, 2026; hearing October 16, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION OF 8-STORY PROPOSED NEW BUILDING, ACTIVE SITE I OBSERVED AT THE CONNER OF EXPOSURE #3 THE CONSTRUCTION WITH DEBRIS AND LOAD BRACING AND LEANING IN ADJACENT PROPERTIES, CREATING A IMMED
Cited provision(s): 211 — BC 3307.7,27-1021(C) JOB SITE FENCE NOT CONSTRUCTED PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION
How this type of condition is typically resolved
The issue is typically whether the shed/scaffold was permitted, properly installed and maintained, and whether the equipment matched the approved filing and current safety requirements. Correction can involve permit renewal, physical modification, inspection, or removal.
Hearing issues to verify
- Was the equipment covered by an active permit on the inspection date?
- Did the installed dimensions/protection match the approved design?
- Was a cited defect already corrected before the summons was issued or served?
Evidence that may matter
- DOB NOW equipment permit and approved drawings
- Engineer/contractor inspection logs
- Dated site photographs
- Renewal or removal records
Work Without a Permit — Summons 39557750K
CLASS - 1 · Issued August 10, 2026; hearing October 16, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: ACTIVE SITE I REVIEW THE APPROVED DEMOLITION PLAN I NOTICED AT EXPOSURE#3 EXITING FOUNDATION WALL TO BE REMAIN AS PER PLAN, DURING MY INSPECTION I OBSERVED WALL DAMAGE AND PARTIAL DEMOLITION OPERATION, UPON REV
Cited provision(s): 101 — 28-105.1 WORK WITHOUT A PERMIT
How this type of condition is typically resolved
The correction path usually starts by determining whether the observed work required a permit and whether the condition can legally remain. If it can remain, legalization may require plans, a filing, permit, inspections and closeout; if it cannot or the owner does not want to legalize it, restoration to a lawful condition may be required.
Hearing issues to verify
- Did a valid permit already cover the exact work described by the inspector on the issue date?
- Was the cited activity actually permit-required work, or was it maintenance / exempt work under the applicable facts?
- Do the approved drawings, permit scope and inspection history match the condition the inspector described?
- If a Stop Work Order was issued, was the work stopped and was any later work performed only after the required authorization?
Evidence that may matter
- Permit and DOB NOW/BIS job records that predate the inspection
- Approved plans and amendments showing the cited work
- Dated photographs of the condition and construction stage
- Contracts, invoices and contractor statements establishing what work was actually performed
- Inspection / sign-off records if the work was subsequently legalized
Site Safety / Safeguarding — Summons 39557939Y
CLASS - 1 · Issued August 10, 2026; hearing October 30, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION OF A 8-STORY PROPOSED NEW BUILDING, ACTIVE SITE WITH ONGOING DRILLING OPERATION, UPON REQUESTING SITE SAFETY COORDINATOR ONSITE LC# 2451. FOR PRE-CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS, OPTICAL MONITORI
Cited provision(s): 1F2 — BC 3301.7 (2014 CODE) FAILURE TO MAINTAIN/DISPLAY ON SITE DOCUMENTS REQUIRED BY BC CHAPTER 3
How this type of condition is typically resolved
These charges focus on protection of workers, occupants, neighboring property or the public during construction. Correction normally requires fixing the specific unsafe condition, documenting required safety measures and keeping the required site records current.
Hearing issues to verify
- What precise safety measure does the summons say was missing or inadequate?
- Was the condition temporary and corrected before or during the inspection?
- Did an approved site-safety plan or required site document address the cited condition?
Evidence that may matter
- Site Safety Plan / logistics drawings
- Daily safety logs and competent-person/site-safety records
- Photographs taken around the inspection time
- Contractor or safety-manager statements and correction records
Sidewalk Shed / Scaffold — Summons 39557940L
CLASS - 2 · Issued August 10, 2026; hearing October 30, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION OF 8-STORY PROPOSED NEW BUILDING, ACTIVE SITE I OBSERVED AT THE CONNER OF EXPOSURE #3 THE CONSTRUCTION WITH DEBRIS AND LOAD BRACING AND LEANING IN ADJACENT PROPERTIES CREATING A IMMEDI
Cited provision(s): 211 — BC 3307.7,27-1021(C) JOB SITE FENCE NOT CONSTRUCTED PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION
How this type of condition is typically resolved
The issue is typically whether the shed/scaffold was permitted, properly installed and maintained, and whether the equipment matched the approved filing and current safety requirements. Correction can involve permit renewal, physical modification, inspection, or removal.
Hearing issues to verify
- Was the equipment covered by an active permit on the inspection date?
- Did the installed dimensions/protection match the approved design?
- Was a cited defect already corrected before the summons was issued or served?
Evidence that may matter
- DOB NOW equipment permit and approved drawings
- Engineer/contractor inspection logs
- Dated site photographs
- Renewal or removal records
Work Without a Permit — Summons 39557942P
CLASS - 1 · Issued August 10, 2026; hearing October 30, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: ACTIVE SITE, I REVIEW THE APPROVED DEMOLITION PLAN I NOTICED AT EXP#3 EXITING FOUNDATION WALL TO BE REMAIN AS PER PLAN, DURING MY INSPECTION I OBSERVED WALL DAMAGE AND PARTIAL DEMOLITION OPERATION, UPON REVIEW
Cited provision(s): 101 — 28-105.1 WORK WITHOUT A PERMIT
How this type of condition is typically resolved
The correction path usually starts by determining whether the observed work required a permit and whether the condition can legally remain. If it can remain, legalization may require plans, a filing, permit, inspections and closeout; if it cannot or the owner does not want to legalize it, restoration to a lawful condition may be required.
Hearing issues to verify
- Did a valid permit already cover the exact work described by the inspector on the issue date?
- Was the cited activity actually permit-required work, or was it maintenance / exempt work under the applicable facts?
- Do the approved drawings, permit scope and inspection history match the condition the inspector described?
- If a Stop Work Order was issued, was the work stopped and was any later work performed only after the required authorization?
Evidence that may matter
- Permit and DOB NOW/BIS job records that predate the inspection
- Approved plans and amendments showing the cited work
- Dated photographs of the condition and construction stage
- Contracts, invoices and contractor statements establishing what work was actually performed
- Inspection / sign-off records if the work was subsequently legalized
Site Safety / Safeguarding — Summons 39557941N
CLASS - 2 · Issued August 10, 2026; hearing October 30, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: RESPONDING TO AN INCIDENT, WORKERS WERE SETTING UP A DRILLING RIG FOR PILE OPERATION, THE RIG WAS POSITIONED EXP#4 WITH OVERHEAD UTILITY CABLES APPROX. 15FT IN THE AIR, CONNECTED TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY 315 E
Cited provision(s): 209 — BC 3301.2,27-1009(A) FAIL TO SAFEGUARD PERS/PROPERTY AFFECTED BY CONSTRUCTION OP
How this type of condition is typically resolved
These charges focus on protection of workers, occupants, neighboring property or the public during construction. Correction normally requires fixing the specific unsafe condition, documenting required safety measures and keeping the required site records current.
Hearing issues to verify
- What precise safety measure does the summons say was missing or inadequate?
- Was the condition temporary and corrected before or during the inspection?
- Did an approved site-safety plan or required site document address the cited condition?
Evidence that may matter
- Site Safety Plan / logistics drawings
- Daily safety logs and competent-person/site-safety records
- Photographs taken around the inspection time
- Contractor or safety-manager statements and correction records
Case-specific next step
For this property, the first paid review should reconcile the 8 October summons records against the current OATH/DOB record, identify which alleged conditions remain open, and separate the hearing defense from the DOB correction / certification work. That prevents paying for correction work that does not address the actual charge—or appearing at OATH without the documents needed for the cited condition.
Submit These Summonses for Review