Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Tenant Protections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues hearing on contested Sixth Avenue permit amid UDU and tenant‑protection concerns
Summary
After lengthy testimony from a tenant who said removal of an upstairs kitchenette would threaten her tenancy and from permit-holders and city staff who said the third floor lacks independent access, the board continued the appeal to June 3 so Planning staff can verify whether a removed door changes the unauthorized-dwelling-unit determination.
The Board of Appeals on May 13 paused and continued an appeal involving a contested permit at 137446 Sixth Avenue after a detailed exchange over whether a third‑floor space qualifies as an unauthorized dwelling unit (UDU).
Tenant Laura Decoraba told the board she leases a Third Floor apartment and that the permit at issue would remove a sink and related fixtures she uses as a kitchenette, which she said would "constructively evict" her by removing essential housing entitlements. "I am an essential worker," she said, asking the board to preserve her tenancy and questioning whether the department properly classified the unit.
Permit-holder counsel Ryan Patterson said Planning determined the Third Floor is not a UDU because there is no independent access — occupants must pass through lower-level space to reach the Third Floor — and that the permit is intended to remove an illegal sink that planning enforcement had identified. He said photos in the record show the sink is inside a bathroom area and must be removed for health and code reasons.
Planning staff (Scott Sanchez) told the board the zoning administrator had relied on a staff site visit and observed no independent access for the Third Floor; DBI (Joe Duffy) and planning staff both raised concerns about prior modifications at the property, including a vent hood and other alterations that complicate the record.
Crucially, commissioners heard testimony that a previously existing interior door at the top of the stairs might have provided independent access in the past but was removed. Planning staff said that this new account constituted new factual material the zoning administrator should review before the board makes a final decision.
Commissioner Swig moved — and the board agreed — to continue the item to the June 3 meeting so staff can confirm the historical door/access evidence with both parties and have the zoning administrator re-evaluate whether the Third Floor should be treated as a UDU or not. Planning committed to submit findings in advance of the next hearing. The motion carried by voice vote of commissioners present.
What happens next: Planning staff will confirm the door/access facts in writing, the zoning administrator will review the revised factual record, and the item will return to the Board of Appeals on June 3 with updated findings.
