Abatement Appeals Board upholds two abatement orders, gives owners deadlines and affirms cost assessments

The Abatement Appeals Board on May 18 upheld two orders of abatement and affirmed assessments of costs after hearing testimony from Department of Building Inspection staff and property owners.

Anthony Amable, a plumbing and boiler mechanical inspector for DBI, told the board he inspected one property in April 2004 and found multiple code violations, including missing backflow protection and an uncertified boiler. Amable said the department sent notices and did not receive the required inspections or documentation and therefore recommended upholding the order of abatement and the assessment of costs.

Stephen Hu, speaking for the owner, said a fire in 2005 resulted in demolition of the boiler and a prolonged vacancy of the building. “There’s nothing to abate because it’s been gone,” Hu said, explaining he believed the removal negated the violation and that he had assumed required plumbing work was covered by a building permit pulled earlier in the reconstruction.

DBI staff responded that removal of a boiler requires a specific permit and a physical inspection to verify safety items, such as proper gas connections and elimination of cross-connections. Staff said records showed a plumbing permit had been filed at one point but that it had expired and lacked inspection history.

After discussion, the board voted unanimously to uphold the abatement and the assessment of costs and to grant the appellant 30 days to pull the required permit and arrange inspections. President Lee announced the motion carried on a roll call vote with five affirmative votes.

In a second continued appeal (5 Seymour Street, case 6733), Acting Senior Building Inspector John Hinchon summarized a long case history: notices issued in 2008, permit application filed June 12, 2008, and a permit issued January 27 of the current year. Hinchon said the department sought to uphold the abatement and recover staff time invested.

Owner Winston Montgomery told the board he filed for a permit in June 2008 and that planning review and neighbor design review delayed issuance; he said progress had been made and asked that the board not impose a punitive timeline. “I’m willing to pay the assessment of costs and then go back into the regular permit process,” Montgomery said.

Commissioners noted the violation stemmed from earlier work done without permit. The board voted to uphold the order of abatement, approve the assessment of costs to date (recorded at $1,050 as of the hearing), and give the owner 90 days from today to complete required work and obtain final inspection. The motion carried on a roll call vote.

Both decisions require the property owners to pull the specific permits and obtain inspections; the board recorded the assessed costs to-date and left any additional costs incurred after the hearing to be addressed through DBI’s follow-up procedures.

The Abatement Appeals portion of the meeting adjourned and the commissioners reconvened as the Building Inspection Commission.