Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lead Paint topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Abatement Appeals Board upholds abatement at 757 North Pointe; holds order in abeyance for 60 days
Summary
The Abatement Appeals Board upheld a notice of violation for 757 North Pointe Street and voted 5–2 to hold enforcement in abeyance for 60 days to allow a preferred contractor to produce a detailed estimate and complete required work, amid disputed claims about lead paint and access to an adjacent property.
The Abatement Appeals Board on Wednesday upheld a notice of violation for Case No. 6776 (757 North Pointe Street) and voted 5–2 to hold the order in abeyance for 60 days to allow remediation work to proceed under proper permitting.
The board’s decision followed a presentation by Rosemarie Boske, the department’s chief housing inspector, who said staff had attempted to inspect the adjacent property and had provided contractor certification documents to the adjacent owner, but that inspectors were refused entry for up-to-date photos. Boske told the board that remediation obligations are governed by state and EPA rules and that city code requires licensed contractors to follow those standards.
Appellant counsel David May, speaking for property owner Dr. Engelberg, said his client had tried to meet the adjacent owner’s contractor preference and had asked Doherty Reconstruction Company to prepare a written estimate. "If we could put this over to the next hearing, I'd appreciate it," May told the board, asking for time to obtain a detailed, reasonable estimate from the contractor the adjacent owner wanted.
Public commenters pushed back on the appellant. Joseph John, who said he resides at the adjacent property, accused the contractor hired by the property owner of unsafe practices and told the board the paint chips on his yard showed evidence of lead-based paint contamination: "He intentionally dumped on it on hers," John said, alleging the chips originated from the appellant’s work.
Commissioner Walker moved to uphold the order of abatement and to hold enforcement in abeyance to allow the work to proceed; the motion was amended on the floor to allow 60 days for completion under proper permits. The board adopted the amended motion by roll call, 5–2. The order remains in force; the abeyance gives the parties time to secure a certified contractor and a detailed scope of work so that remediation can proceed consistent with state and federal lead-safe practices.
The board did not adopt an exemption for remediation requirements and left in place staff’s authority to require compliance with applicable permitting and lead-safe procedures. The department and the appellant were directed to exchange the contractor scope and timeline; staff also recorded that the adjacent owner had received copies of contractor certification documents earlier in the process.
The next Abatement Appeals Board hearing will be the moment for the parties to report back if the Doherty estimate and access arrangements have been completed. The board’s action leaves the violation intact while providing a clear, time-limited path for the appellant to comply.
