Building Inspection Commission delays jurisdiction decision on 214 State Street appeal after agent cites defective notice

The Building Inspection Commission voted unanimously to continue consideration of jurisdiction in an abatement appeal for 214 State Street (Case 6884), after the property agent said defects in prior notice and a complex history of special-assessment liens required additional review.

The appellant, listed as 214 State Street LLC, asked the board to accept an appeal filed after the 15-day appeal period on the grounds that the order had been improperly noticed. Deputy City Attorney Zach told the panel the jurisdiction question was preliminary and should be resolved first.

Chief building inspector Mauricio Hernandez told commissioners staff had reposted and reissued the order after the owner claimed they never received the original notice. Hernandez said staff had mailed and posted the notices “according to our code” and that staff’s recommendation was to postpone the hearing to allow the owner to review the file. “The original permits were actually revoked as the work exceeded… the value of the work also was actually undervalued,” Hernandez said in summarizing the underlying permit and violation history.

Agent Kevin Chang said the matter was first heard in May 2019 and that he had protested defective notice then. He said email exchanges with staff in August 2019 and January 2021 prompted staff to reissue the order so he could file a timely protest in 2021. Chang pointed to certified-mail records in the staff packet and said they showed items “redirected and returned to sender” and, in his view, were not stamped by the post office as typical certified mail receipts are. “So the protest back in May of 2019 was that the notice was defective and the protest remains to be defective,” Chang said.

Commissioners asked whether mailings were sent to the same address in 2019 and 2021, whether Chang had submitted documentary evidence with his appeal, and whether staff had the email communications he described. Chang said the mailing address on file had not changed and that the emails were in the case file; he offered to work with staff to ensure the same documents were shared with the commission.

Given outstanding documentary questions, an unidentified commissioner moved to continue the case to the next hearing and to place it on the next board calendar so both the department and the appellant could provide all pertinent information. The motion carried on a roll-call vote with unanimous support.

The commission did not rule on jurisdiction at this meeting; the item is set to return on the board’s next calendar so staff can produce the email and certified-mail record Chang cited and the appellant can review the case file.