Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission moves to intent to disapprove after unpermitted demolition at 79 Craigmont Avenue; parties told to return Feb. 23
Summary
Planning staff presented a conditional use application filed after a site was found to be demolished beyond the original alteration permit. Commissioners criticized inconsistent enforcement, debated penalties and alternatives (restore original building vs. deny and bar reapplication), and voted to calendar an intent‑to‑disapprove and continue the matter to Feb. 23 to allow the sponsor to revise the proposal.
The commission reviewed a conditional‑use application for 79 Craigmont Avenue after the Department of Building Inspection found that a permit to alter the building had been exceeded and a demolition had taken place without approval. Project sponsor Stacy Lin explained that the structural need for seismic upgrades revealed substandard framing that led to full demolition during construction.
Commissioners sharply questioned how the demolition happened without DBI intervention and whether the planning and building departments’ rules and enforcement are aligned. Several commissioners said the case illustrated the need for clearer code language and stronger enforcement: Commissioner Johnson called the episode “deeply troubling” and urged section 317 reform; Commissioner Richards said the commission could send a strong message that the process must be followed.
As enforcement options, staff explained existing penalties: daily fines, administrative enforcement fees and an unlawful demolition remedy that can require restoration of the original building (and bar new entitlements for a period). The zoning administrator suggested restoring the prior building as one possible alternative to deny the current expanded proposal.
After extensive deliberation, the commission made a motion of intent to disapprove the application and continued the matter to Feb. 23, giving the applicant time to submit a revised proposal; the motion to continue with an intent to disapprove passed unanimously. Commissioners asked the applicant to consider a rightsizing or a restoration alternative and directed staff to coordinate with DBI on enforcement options and lessons learned.
