Abatement Appeals Board upholds abatements in three cases, grants short stays to allow repairs

The Abatement Appeals Board unanimously upheld Department of Building Inspection recommendations in three contested cases on Wednesday, but in two instances stayed enforcement briefly to allow property owners time to complete repairs.

The board affirmed an order of abatement for 32 Peralta Ave. and approved assessments to recover investigation and staff costs. Steve Pinelli, DBI chief plumbing inspector, told commissioners the complaint dated to 07/12/2007 and that repairs were ultimately completed and permitted in February 2010 with final corrections signed off 09/22/2010. Pinelli described repeated stoppages and work by sewer operations and requested recovery of $2,018 in investigation fees. The appellant’s agent, William Wasco, argued the continuing nuisance was caused by a break in the city lateral, not the private house line, and submitted a letter and recent photographs showing sewage at the curb after the permitted repairs. After discussion about unpermitted prior work and the need for a house trap, the board voted to uphold the order and assessments by unanimous roll call.

Votes at a glance - Case 6740 (32 Peralta Ave.): Motion to uphold DBI’s order of abatement and impose assessment of costs. Board action: upheld; vote unanimous. - Case 6741585 (Ellsworth St.): DBI asked the board to affirm a notice of violation for a dilapidated, occupied single-family dwelling with roughly 16 required corrections. Owner Henry Lucero said tenant interference had limited access; staff offered a conditional stay if work is completed and reinspection occurs. Board action: upheld the order but stayed enforcement for 30 days (from the meeting date) provided permits are pulled, work is completed and inspection/reimbursement costs are paid; vote unanimous. - Case 6742127 (129 Scott St.): Department cited building code 1008.10.5 for a rear metal gate that lacks required landings and creates an obstruction. Owner Evelyn Wyatt said she installed the gate on police advice for personal safety and will relocate or modify it. Board action: upheld the director’s order and gave the owner 60 days to obtain permits, relocate or modify the gate and secure final sign-off; vote unanimous.

Why it matters The board’s actions illustrate how DBI enforcement seeks to balance public-safety and code compliance aims (sanitary conditions, safe egress) with opportunities for property owners to cure violations. Where staff documented ongoing public-health or safety risks, commissioners pressed for tangible closure—completed permits, inspections and reimbursement for staff time—while allowing short, conditional stays to avoid immediate recording of abatements when progress is demonstrable.

What happens next For the two cases with stays, the orders will not be recorded as abatements if the work is finished and final inspections issued within the conditional timeframes. In all three cases commissioners asked staff to follow up with sewer operations (when applicable) or to ensure permit sign-offs are documented. The board’s actions were recorded by unanimous roll call.