Abatement Appeals Board upholds order for 428 Grove Street, grants three months for permits

The Abatement Appeals Board on Jan. 16 upheld an order of abatement for an unpermitted horizontal addition at 428 Grove Street and held enforcement in abeyance for three months to allow the property owner time to secure required permits. The board voted unanimously to assess the department's costs and instructed that if permits are not obtained the abatement order will be recorded against the property.

Maurice Hernandez, chief building inspector for code enforcement, told the board the case began in July 2017 after an inspection flagged construction of a permanent roof and enclosed area over an existing deck. Hernandez said Inspector Carl Weir visited the site on July 17 and that the department’s files include an application (Permit 201710231944), a final warning and referral to court enforcement; a director’s hearing was scheduled in February 2018. "This case has been going on since July of 2017," Hernandez said, and he recommended upholding the order of abatement and imposing assessment costs.

A representative for the property owner, identifying himself as Manature (last name Kenbury), described repeated interactions with the Planning Department and said an intake for a variance was routed to Elizabeth Gordon on Dec. 10, 2018. Kenbury said that planning later required a revised application form, that staff turnover and intake changes delayed progress, and that the owner considered removing the work but instead pursued legalization. "The intake portion of your variance application has been completed and routed to the new west quarter manager, Elizabeth Gordon, for review and planning," he said, citing an intake receipt dated Dec. 10, 2018.

Board members and staff discussed the available options. Staff told the board the existing deck had previously been approved but that the enclosure involved new framing and windows that were not rated, raising new-construction issues. Commissioners asked about cancelling the filed permit so the owner could either remove the illegal construction immediately or reapply to legalize a future addition; staff explained a cancellation requires a letter to the Department of Building Inspection (DBI).

The department argued that photographs submitted with the file show recent pressure-treated framing inconsistent with a claim the work dated to 1970, and that the owner had been offered extensions, including a 60-day extension. The appellant asked for a longer delay—Kenbury requested six months to allow planning to proceed; the board declined and settled on a three-month hold.

A commissioner moved to uphold the order of abatement, assess the department's costs and hold the order in abeyance for three months to permit the owner to obtain necessary approvals; the motion was seconded and clarified by a city attorney staff member. In the roll-call vote the commissioners present voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.

The board recorded that if the project sponsor does not obtain permits within the three-month period the abatement order will be recorded on the property and the owner will be required to remove the illegal construction. There were no public comments on the item. The Abatement Appeals Board adjourned at 09:48 a.m. and recessed briefly to reconvene as the Building Inspection Commission.

What happens next: the owner may pursue planning approvals while the abatement order remains on the books; if permits are not secured within the three-month hold the recorded abatement will trigger required removal and enforcement action.