Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues 49 Drum Street appeal to Aug. 12, sets plan deadlines
Summary
The board continued the permit appeal for 49 Drum Street to Aug. 12 and required the permit holder to submit an initial plan to Planning by July 30 and a final set to the board by Aug. 6; commissioners cited incomplete plans, conflicting engineering reports and lengthy delays.
The Board of Appeals voted 4-0 to continue an appeal over the permit for work at 49 Drum Street to Aug. 12, setting firm document deadlines intended to allow staff and parties time to review revised plans. Commissioner Rachel Tanner moved the continuance after planning and building-inspection staff reported outstanding discrepancies in submitted plans and requested a short continuance to allow corrections.
Permit-holder counsel Jody Knight said the team has been working on a "cleanup" permit and expected to have a revised permit on file with the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) by the July 29 date originally discussed, and suggested August 12 would give staff time to review. Knight described the 2018 permit as legal and said no life-safety issues were identified during city site visits; she asked for time to submit corrected plan sets.
Appellants and tenants' counsel disputed the permit holder's timeline and questioned continuing to give more time. Appellant counsel Andrew Weigel called the permit "completely fraudulent with regard to the description of the work," saying the submitted plans do not accurately show the built conditions and office use. The restaurant tenant's attorney, Dana Andreoli, echoed concerns about long-standing misrepresentations and structural problems.
Planning Department staff Scott Sanchez advised that the department and DBI had conducted site visits, found plan discrepancies, and recommended a continuance to allow the permit holder to provide a revised plan set to all parties at least one week before the hearing. DBI Chief Building Inspector Joe Duffy said the site inspections did not find immediate life-safety issues but noted conflicting engineering reports; Duffy said denying the permit now would restart a lengthy process and could postpone resolution by up to two years.
Under the board's order, the permit holder must provide an initial draft plan to Planning no later than two weeks before the hearing, and a version that Planning has reviewed must be submitted to the board by Aug. 6. The continuance carried 4-0. Commissioners warned that further delays would not be tolerated and urged the permit holder to present complete materials at the next hearing.
