Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Abatement board upholds order for 336 Spears Street, holds enforcement for one year to allow planning
Summary
The Abatement Appeals Board upheld an order of abatement for a dilapidated rear dwelling at 336 Spears Street but agreed to assess costs only to date, waive future fees where possible, and hold enforcement in abeyance for one year while the owner pursues planning approvals to restore the unit.
The Abatement Appeals Board on a unanimous vote upheld an order of abatement for a rear dwelling unit at 336 Spears Street but agreed to hold enforcement in abeyance for one year to allow the property owner time to complete required Planning approvals and construction work.
Morris Hernandez, a building inspector, told the board the case began with complaints going back to 2010 and that permits later obtained exceeded the scope of work and were not routed to Planning. "The building was rebuilt... those permits never went through planning," Hernandez said, telling commissioners staff recommended upholding the abatement and imposing assessment costs.
Ryan Patterson, representing the Levinson Family Revocable Trust, said the owner obtained permits and hired a contractor who later removed more of the structure than planned after discovering dry rot. Patterson said the owner has filed for a conditional use permit and a variance and has been working through Planning reviewer comments. "The goal here from the owner is to save what is a naturally affordable housing unit," Patterson said, asking the board to defer enforcement while permitting and construction finish.
Commissioners debated the tension between strict code enforcement and preserving an affordable unit. Commissioner McCarthy acknowledged outreach efforts and the need to align demolition and alteration rules with current standards. Commissioner Walker moved to "uphold the order of abatement, assess fees to current date, waive any fees and costs going forward as possible, and hold the order of abatement in abeyance for a period of one year from today's date." The motion carried unanimously on roll call.
The board did not remove the abatement; it directed that the assessment be applied to costs incurred to date and placed further enforcement on hold for one year so the owner can complete Planning reviews, obtain permits, and pursue restoration. The department indicated it will continue to work with the owner and monitor the property during the abeyance period.
Next steps: the owner will continue through Planning to schedule any required hearings and return to the board if the case status changes before the one-year abeyance expires.
