Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Certificate Of Appropriateness topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission declines rehearing on Union Street rooftop decks; denies neighbor request
Summary
After hearing arguments from tenants, owners and neighbors, the commission voted unanimously not to rehear the administrative Certificate of Appropriateness for rooftop deck work at 280-284 Union St., finding the department's administrative review and delegation appropriate.
The Historic Preservation Commission voted unanimously to deny a request for a rehearing of an administrative Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for rooftop work at 280-284 Union Street.
Tim Frey of the Planning Department said the administrative COA (No. 13.0092) was issued Dec. 18 for the installation of two roof decks and associated work and that the department's review found no error warranting commission rehearing. Cherry Votrue, representing tenants and owners who abut the subject property, argued the work included unpermitted changes and visibility impacts, recounting a prior 2010 parapet removal and alleged unauthorized rooftop structures.
The project sponsor's representative, Melinda Rubin, said the current proposal is a limited, in-kind replacement of previously existing rooftop decks; she said the work qualifies for an administrative COA under the department's delegation and that prior DBI investigations addressed earlier permit disputes. Several owners and an HOA representative said they supported moving forward to comply with an abatement order requiring guardrails.
Neighbor John Viltruba urged a full hearing, saying unresolved questions about building height, buildable area and view impacts warranted further review. Commissioners who commented noted that the matter before them was limited to whether the department exceeded its delegated authority in issuing the administrative COA. Several commissioners said the long-running neighbor dispute did not change the nature of the application before the commission. One commissioner moved "to not hold a hearing" and the motion passed 7-0.
What the commission decided: The panel declined to rehear the department's administrative certificate, allowing staff to approve the permit as consistent with the administrative approval.
Context: The dispute centers on whether earlier unpermitted work and complex site conditions (e.g., a parapet removed in 02/2010, rooftop structures reportedly above legal limits, and a building located 14 feet above grade with no rear yard) should be revisited in a rehearing. Staff told commissioners that past code-enforcement activity had been investigated and closed by the Department of Building Inspection and that the current proposal is limited to in-kind replacement.
Next steps: Staff will proceed with the administrative approval process and keep the commission posted on outcomes and any related permit applications.
