Abatement Appeals Board upholds orders for 938–940 Hampshire Street after testimony from tenants, staff and owner

The Abatement Appeals Board on July 15 unanimously upheld two orders of abatement for 938–940 Hampshire Street, concluding that multiple maintenance and habitability violations cited by the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) remained unresolved.

Rosemary Boskey, DBI chief housing inspector, told commissioners that a reinspection in mid‑February found only two of roughly 20 items on the principal notice of violation partially corrected. She cited broken windows, missing water‑heater strapping, flooring and rodent infestation among the outstanding items and said the department had ordered the building vacated on April 3 because the structure was not safe for occupancy. "The building was in such bad shape that the Department of Building Inspection had ordered the building to be vacated," Boskey said.

Appellant counsel Zachson Friedman acknowledged some inaccuracies in his brief but said the property’s new owner, Working Dirt R2 LLC, took title in mid‑January and has been trying to obtain permits and contractors to complete repairs. He described a "catch‑22" in which planning and permitting requirements have slowed progress and urged the board not to issue a fresh recorded order that he said would duplicate earlier abatement instruments.

Contractor Mr. Buskovich said he had been hired only days before the April hearing and was working to clear a path to rebuilding both front and back stairs, including locating 1994/95 plans and bringing in a structural engineer. He told the board he expected a major permit to move through the process soon and estimated construction costs at "a couple $100,000" and three to five months of work once fully permitted.

Tenants and tenant advocates described prolonged displacement and hazardous living conditions. Leticia, a tenant organizer with Casa Justa Just Cause, said roughly 20 to 22 people remained displaced after the vacate order and that some tenants were sleeping in cars or paying hundreds of dollars a week for hotel rooms. "You have 20 people without a home," she said. Tenant counsel (recorded as Lisa Jim Poeley) said liens and prior notices were listed on the property’s title and disputed the owner’s suggestion that the permits pulled in March addressed the major defects.

DBI staff and several commissioners emphasized that the two matters before the board were distinct: the 20‑item notice of violation that DBI said could have been cured without planning variances, and separate notices addressing structural failures such as collapsed ceilings and stair systems. Boskey told the board that many of the 20 items "did not require a permit" and could have been fixed earlier while the building remained occupied.

In discussion, commissioners asked whether recording the order would constitute double punishment for issues that appear in older abatement orders. DBI staff said the notices are separate and that recording the current order would ensure a clear, public checklist for future contractors and owners. Commissioners also pressed staff and the contractor on timing and on whether personal items remaining in the building would impede prompt completion of the listed repairs.

Commissioner Walker moved to uphold the hearing officer’s decision; the motion was seconded and taken in separate votes for the two appeals. The board voted unanimously to uphold the order for appeal 6812 and then unanimously to uphold the order for appeal 6813. The clerk recorded "yes" votes from President Melgar, Vice President Clinch/Clint, and Commissioners McCarthy, Marr, Lee, McCray and Walker. The board directed DBI to record the order of abatement and noted assessment of costs on the files.

The board adjourned at 10:46 a.m. and recessed to reconvene as the Building Inspection Commission.

What happens next: DBI will record the order of abatement for the 20‑item notice and proceed with enforcement; the record shows a $2,000 assessment of costs per case to date and that the larger permit the contractor said was filed has a valuation of roughly $300,000. Tenants and their counsel said relocation assistance and access to personal belongings remain outstanding issues.