Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bay Restoration 25 27 Seventeenth topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds permit tied to restoration of three‑story bay after heated neighborhood testimony; planning staff to withdraw a superseded demolition filing
Summary
After extensive public comment and testimony that developers removed a three‑story bay without restoring it, the Board of Appeals denied the appeal and upheld an administrative permit that planning and DBI said documents restoration consistent with a prior planning commission decision; staff acknowledged a 2019 demolition permit had been approved in error and arranged to withdraw it. Vote 4–0.
The Board of Appeals on March 3 rejected an appeal urging the board to suspend permits and force restoration of a three‑story bay allegedly demolished in 2016, after heated public testimony from dozens of neighbors demanding restoration and transparency.
Neighborhood appellants, led by Jerry Drattler, said the project sponsors had repeatedly tried to legalize a demolition, had not rebuilt the bay and had filed inconsistent or misleading permit packets. “The administrative permit the developer submitted falsely claims the project sponsors comply with the planning department's NOE and the 2 notices of violation,” Drattler said, urging the board to suspend permits until the bay is rebuilt and the NOVs are closed.
Project counsel John Kevlin and planning staff said the planning commission subsequently required restoration of the bay and that the administrative permit before the board documents that restoration; the administrative permit was needed because the restored bay encroaches onto an adjacent lot. Planning staff acknowledged a 2019 demolition permit and a staff approval were issued in error and said the permit holder had been asked to withdraw that older filing; DBI confirmed it would withdraw the superseded permit.
Commissioners pressed planning and DBI staff to confirm that the earlier board and commission findings would be honored and that plans to rebuild the bay consistent with the board’s prior directions exist. Planning and DBI said the administrative permit ties back to the approved plans from the board’s earlier proceeding and that the permit is intended to bring the project into compliance with required restoration.
After discussion, the board denied the appeal and upheld the administrative permit 4–0. DBI said outstanding NOVs will remain in the record and that penalties or corrective‑action requirements may be assessed during permitting before final sign‑off.
Next steps: DBI will withdraw the superseded 2019 demolition permit; the project sponsor will proceed with permits tied to the approved restoration plans and DBI will coordinate penalty assessment and inspections tied to NOVs before final permit closure.
