Abatement Appeals Board upholds order for Hill Street property, pauses enforcement for 90 days after June 28 Planning hearing

The Abatement Appeals Board on June 21, 2017 denied an appeal by the owner of 683273 Hill Street and upheld an order of abatement for work done without permits, while agreeing to hold enforcement in abeyance for 90 days following the Planning Commission hearing scheduled for June 28.

Joe Duffy, a representative of the Department of Building Inspection (DBI), told the board the case began with a complaint received March 24, 2016 and that a Notice of Violation was issued that same day for work “beyond the scope of the approved permits.” He said DBI’s corrective-action schedule required filing a building permit within 30 days, obtaining a permit within 60 days and completing the work within 90 days, and recommended that the board uphold the order of abatement.

Henry Kanelowitz, speaking for the appellant, asked the board to reverse the order while the property proceeds through preservation review with Planning. “They’re taking forever to even look at it,” Kanelowitz said, describing lengthy preservation reviews on other projects and asking for more time to resolve Planning and preservation requirements.

Commissioners questioned why the work proceeded without permits. Commissioner Walker said the board needed to send a clear message that unpermitted work has consequences and moved to deny the appeal, uphold the abatement order, oppose assessment of costs and hold the order in abeyance for 90 days from June 28, 2017. Commissioner Warshall seconded the motion.

At roll call, Vice President Gilman, Commissioner Constan, Commissioner Lee, Commissioner McCarthy, Commissioner Walker and Commissioner Warshall all voted yes and the motion carried unanimously.

Board members and DBI staff noted the building is in a historic district and that some items require Planning and preservation review before final issuance of building permits. DBI told the board it had two permit applications on file (one filed April 20, 2016 for rear windows and another filed August 11, 2016 for roof/deck changes) and that the latter was assigned to a planner in April 2017. DBI staff said if Planning approves the necessary variances or certificates of appropriateness, DBI could proceed more quickly on permit issuance.

The board recorded no public rebuttal comments and then adjourned at 9:37 a.m., indicating it would reconvene as the Building Inspection Commission in roughly 10 minutes. The order remains in effect; enforcement is paused under the board’s conditional 90-day abeyance tied to the June 28 Planning Commission hearing.