Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Easement Encroachment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board delays decision on Noriega Street sheds after residents and bakery owner clash over recorded easement
Summary
The Abatement Appeals Board continued a dispute over two storage sheds behind 3876 Noriega Street for 30 days, after DBI staff said the sheds violate a recorded easement tied to permit 9927327 while the appellant and neighbors argued over ownership, health concerns and who may use the rear yard.
At a Nov. 18 Abatement Appeals Board hearing, DBI staff told the board that two storage sheds installed in the rear driveway at 3876 Noriega Street are located within a recorded easement incorporated into permit approvals and recommended upholding an earlier order of abatement.
The appellant, identified in the record as owner Shanice Hillary, said the rear area is private yard and argued the cross-hatched area on the recorded map does not meet the legal definition of an easement. Hillary said only one of the two sheds belongs to her, that small sheds under 100 square feet may be installed without a permit, and that condominium owners in her building signed a document making her an invitee to the rear yard. “This is my bakery…if I don't have anywhere to keep my trash, I'm gonna have to close,” she told the board.
Neighbors and the developer countered that the rear yard was intended for residential use only and described sanitation and safety problems from commercial use. Developer Seth Samuels and multiple residents displayed photos and said trash had accumulated behind the buildings; resident Andy Warnette summarized the neighborhood view: “These sheds are for the use of a commercial unit, as opposed to the benefit of any residents…We just want our backyard back.”
DBI staff told the board the easement declaration was recorded March 29, 2002, was included with permit 9927327, and contains restrictions binding Lots 53–55. Staff said the inspector who visited the site documented two sheds on Lot 55 and issued the notice of violation after reviewing the recorded easement and related permit materials. DBI also acknowledged that the NOV cites the structures, not health-code violations, though commissioners heard public testimony about sanitation and late-night activity. The Health Department, the appellant said, inspected the site three times and reported no violation.
Several commissioners said the case raises overlapping issues—ownership of the second shed, the planning code limit of one shed per parcel, and whether the problem should be resolved by the condo association, Planning, or DBI. Without clear identification of the second shed's owner, several members were reluctant to impose an immediate remedy.
Commissioner Walker moved to continue the item for 30 days and encourage the parties to seek a single solution; Commissioner Marr seconded. The board voted unanimously to continue the matter, giving both sides time to attempt a negotiated resolution or to bring additional evidence, including ownership information for the second shed.
The matter will return to the Abatement Appeals Board after the 30-day continuance, at which point commissioners said they expect updates on whether the parties have reached an agreement, whether the Planning Department needs to be involved, or whether DBI will proceed with enforcement.
