Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission orders setback and drainage remedies after years‑long 55/59 Montana dispute
Summary
After five years of neighbor complaints and allegations of unlawful construction, the commission required the 55 Montana sponsor to set back the as‑built rear addition 7.5 feet from the property line and ordered remediation steps for drainage and foundation concerns.
The Planning Commission on May 7 directed the owner of 55 Montana Street to revise an as‑built rear addition and set it back 7.5 feet from the main property line after neighbors described five years of health, drainage and privacy harms caused by the structure.
Staff told the commission the case arose when permits originally issued as over‑the‑counter approvals for a deck were later found to have been misrepresented; photographs and field checks showed the structure exceeded the 10‑foot height allowed for an exempt deck and parts of the work were enclosed, triggering DBI enforcement and Notices of Violation. The Department required a discretionary review so the commission could evaluate the project against the residential design guidelines and neighborhood impacts.
Isabelle Paredes, the Doctor requester and long‑time occupant of adjacent 59 Montana, testified that the addition had, she said, blocked two south‑facing windows, diverted drainage, reduced ventilation, and created mold and respiratory problems for family members. Several neighbors and community advocates (including members of ACE) provided multiple photographs and medical concerns, and called the building a public‑health hazard. They also said the project was constructed without the required Section 311 neighborhood review for work over 10 feet.
The property owner and project sponsor said they had sought to cooperate with City departments and had revised the proposal during the enforcement process, noting they had adjusted setbacks in response to staff requests and disputed some neighbor claims. The sponsor also presented police reports alleging trespass by neighbors and said they were willing to accommodate a setback to address neighbor concerns.
Commissioners and staff examined historic permits and plans to determine which windows were legally protected property‑line windows and which were installed without permits; that review informed a negotiated compromise. After extended deliberations about access for maintenance, drainage redirection to prevent undermining foundations, and whether to pursue full demolition versus a remedial setback, the commission approved a motion requiring a straight 7.5‑foot setback from the main property line for all elements of the addition (decks, stairs and enclosed work). The motion passed unanimously among commissioners voting on the item.
Staff emphasized that the commission’s action relates to planning approval and does not by itself grant maintenance access across private property; any maintenance access would need separate authorization. The zoning administrator will incorporate the required setback and drainage remedies into final conditions and revised plans.
