Board upholds abatement at 217 Virginia Ave but delays enforcement for four months

The Abatement Appeals Board on Feb. 20 upheld an order of abatement for the property at 217 Virginia Avenue, finding that recent work exceeded the scope of the building permits and altered setback and window configurations. The board voted unanimously to assess costs and hold enforcement in abeyance for four months to allow the owner to complete required planning and permit corrections.

Donald Duffy, deputizing for Chief Inspector Hernandez, told the board that a complaint investigation found a new one‑story rear addition and altered window openings that exceeded the permits tied to permit numbers cited in the staff report. "A new 1 story vertical and horizontal addition at the rear yard approximately 10 feet long 14 feet wide and 8 feet high," Duffy said, and the staff recommendation was "to uphold the order of abatement and impose assessment of costs."

Owner representative Kim Wynn said the unit at issue (188 Winfield Unit 1) was renovated with permits and sign-offs in March 2017 and that the team paid fees and applied for subsequent approvals. Wynn told the board she paid $7,695.71 when a permit was issued on Jan. 14, 2019, and described a sequence of re‑inspections and a revoked permit that she said caused delays. "We changed it back to wood," Wynn said when describing a corrected window, and she asked for more time because planning required a variance with an estimated five to six month timeline.

Board members focused on whether discrepancies stemmed from measurement or drawing errors or from intentional expansion. Commissioner McCarthy said the drawings "were incomplete, but they were not reflective of exactly what was out there," and Commissioner Walker said the violations were clear but the owner appeared to be working to resolve them.

Staff reported the assessment of costs at $1,205.46. Commissioner Walker moved to uphold the order, assess costs and hold enforcement in abeyance for four months; the motion was seconded and carried in a unanimous roll‑call vote.

The board’s action preserves the order of abatement while giving the property owner a limited period to secure planning clearance and correct permit discrepancies. The board did not reduce or waive the reported assessment of costs; they remain due as part of compliance.