Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 5 Seymour Continuance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission continues 5 Seymour Street abatement matter for six months pending planning 'Doctor' hearing
Summary
The Abatement Appeals Board continued the 5 Seymour Street case for six months (or until the planning/ER/"Doctor" hearing concludes), instructing parties to notify the board in writing if the planning process completes earlier; staff reported plans are with planning and some permits were recently recorded.
The Abatement Appeals Board on June 16 continued the ongoing appeal for 5 Seymour Street for six months or until the pending planning "Doctor" hearing is resolved, voting unanimously to allow additional time for the owner to pursue permits and planning review.
DBI inspector John Henson summarized the case history: notices of violation in February and June 2008, a director's hearing that resulted in an order of abatement (Order No. 103364A), and outstanding requirements including filing a permanent permit application and compliance with plan-review comments. Henson told the board that plans had been filed and were with the planning department but that a final planning decision remained pending.
Appellant Winston Montgomery and neighbors addressed the board. Montgomery said his architect filed a planning "Doctor" request on June 9 and said planning's scheduling would control how quickly he can obtain permits. Neighbors said the submitted drawings were inaccurate or misleading, raised safety and code concerns about an unpermitted dormer and other work done without permits, and asked the board to ensure the property meets codes for safety and neighbor impacts.
Staff said recent inspections found progress and that a permit to revert certain framing in a light-well area was taken out and inspected; however, the permit-tracking system did not yet reflect completed sign-offs. Commissioners discussed options — upholding the order, upholding with a fixed advisement period, or continuing while the planning process plays out. They decided to continue the matter for six months (or until the ER/Doctor hearing occurs) and asked staff to report back; the motion included the parties’ obligation to notify the board in writing if planning completes sooner.
The board’s continuance preserves staff’s ability to require compliance while allowing the planning process to resolve disputes over plan accuracy and permit issuance.
