Board continues abatement appeal for 5 Seymour Street 30 days, orders short-term life-safety mitigation

The Abatement Appeals Board voted unanimously May 19 to continue the order of abatement for 5 Seymour Street for 30 days, setting the matter for the board's June 16 meeting and directing the owner to take short-term mitigation steps for any life-safety hazards.

Bill Inspector John Hynchon summarized staff'reported history, including a first notice of violation in February 2008, a second notice on June 4, 2008, a director's hearing that produced order of abatement No. 103364-A and a pending permit application (Permanent Activity Building Permit 200806124326) that has not yet been issued. Hynchon told the board that the property remains in noncompliance and recommended holding the abatement and imposing assessment of costs if the work is not completed.

The appellant, Winston Montgomery, told commissioners he has lived in San Francisco for 30 years and that he filed permit applications and is working to legalize a dormer that he said was constructed more than 20 years ago. Montgomery said planning had taken "a long time" and that neighborhood access issues have blocked some repairs. "I think it's unfair because I hired an architect... we've been working with planning," Montgomery said, arguing he had acted in good faith and asking for more time.

Commissioners questioned the timeline of notices and the pace of planning review. One commissioner raised a potential life-safety concern because the dormer openings are roughly three feet from the property line, below the five'foot setback required by current code; staff and a commissioner discussed temporary mitigation such as closing openings or installing barriers while formal approvals proceed. Ed Sweeney, deputy director for inspection services, noted that certain code responses (sprinklers, fire barriers) could address safety concerns but that details would depend on plan review.

After discussing options, Commissioner Walker moved to continue the matter 30 days to June 16 with an instruction to pursue short-term mitigation to address any life-safety risks; Commissioner Romero seconded. The roll-call vote was unanimous. The board recorded that the continuance is intended to allow planning to advance the permit review and for the owner and staff to return with an update at the next meeting.

The board did not change the underlying abatement order; it retained the order while giving the owner time to show progress through the planning and permitting process. The hearing was continued to the June 16 Abatement Appeals Board meeting.