Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Permit Scaffolding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff says scaffolding left on older building for safety; permit expires in one year
Summary
At a recent meeting, Tony, a meeting participant, asked how long scaffolding would remain on the Veil building. Ty, a city staff member, said staff had followed up on the building permit and determined the scaffolding is safer to leave in place than to remove.
At a recent meeting, Tony, a meeting participant, asked how long scaffolding would remain on the Veil building. Ty, a city staff member, said staff had followed up on the building permit, met with the owner and determined “because of where they’re at, it’s safer to leave the scaffolding than to remove it.”
The issue matters to nearby residents and businesses because the scaffolding is an “eyesore,” participants said, and because loose masonry or other material falling from the façade poses a public-safety concern. Ty told the meeting the city is balancing safety risks against the desire to have the building finished.
“So we followed up on the the building permit, met with them, to talk about you gotta make some movement or take it down. And in the process, it was determined because of where they're at, it's safer to leave the scaffolding than to remove it,” Ty said. He added that staff told the owner they would continue to work with them if the owner could “demonstrate some work or whatnot.”
Ty said owners have not shown meaningful progress and that the city did not feel comfortable ordering removal because of potential liability from creating a greater hazard. He said the building permit will expire if the owner “don't[es] anything within a year,” and that condemnation and demolition through the health department would be the likely next step if the structure becomes a health-and-safety hazard.
Ty also described the city's current enforcement approach as incentive-based: working with the owner to show progress rather than immediately pursuing removal. He noted the property was seeking investment but acknowledged that was not an immediate solution. A meeting participant suggested temporary covered walkways as an alternative to full scaffold removal, citing a similar approach on Wall Avenue.
No formal vote or enforcement action was reported at the meeting. Staff told attendees they will continue to monitor the site and work with the owner; the permit expiration timeline and involvement of the health department were presented as the primary enforceable milestones.
The meeting concluded without a formal decision on enforcement. Staff and meeting participants said they would revisit the matter if the owner fails to show progress before the permit expiration.
