Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Suspension 126 Mullen topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds Planning suspension for 126 Mullen Ave. pending corrective permit review
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied an appeal and upheld Planning’s request to suspend a 2016 permit for 126 Mullen Ave., citing the need for formal corrective plans to resolve discrepancies in lot dimensions, basement conditions and potential removal of framing exceeding the original permit.
The Board of Appeals voted 5-0 to deny an appeal seeking to lift a Planning Department suspension of an alteration permit for 126 Mullen Ave. The suspension remains in place to allow Planning and DBI to review submitted corrective plans and demolition calculations.
Appellant counsel argued that framing work had been "sistered" (new studs installed alongside existing studs) rather than fully removed, and provided demolition calculations, photos, and testimony from the permit holder and their contractor to support that the work did not meet demolition thresholds in Planning Code §3.17. The permit holder’s team said unexpected conditions had required incremental repair and that structural shoring and engineered methods were used.
Planning Deputy Zoning Administrator Tina Tam told the board that site visits and historic research uncovered inconsistencies — including an incorrect lot width on the 2016 plans, unclear existing basement ceiling heights, and evidence suggesting more removal than shown — and that the department had not received a formal corrective permit or sufficiently legible plan set submitted through Planning’s intake. DBI said inspectors had closed several complaints after inspections but also noted that the approved plans did not accurately reflect current basement conditions and that a notice of violation may be required for foundation/basement work.
Commissioners focused on the purpose of a suspension — to give Planning and DBI the documentation they need to determine whether the work exceeded permit scope — and repeatedly urged submission of a corrective permit that accurately documents as-built and existing conditions. Vice President Lazarus moved to deny the appeal, finding the zoning administrator did not err or abuse discretion in requesting the suspension pending review; the motion carried 5-0.
Planning and DBI said any corrective-permit submission should include accurate existing-condition drawings, demolition calculations, and structural documentation; Planning will include basement excavation and retaining-wall information in its review process.
