Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies request to legalize unpermitted rear deck at 324 Mississippi Street
Summary
The Board denied a variance request to legalize an unpermitted deck at 324 Mississippi Street, concluding it did not meet the five findings required for a rear‑yard variance and noting DBI had issued a notice of violation for a failing retaining wall affecting egress.
The Board of Appeals on April 5 denied a rear‑yard variance that would have legalized an unpermitted deck at 324 Mississippi Street, a structure the owner built after a neighbor’s failing retaining wall compromised the existing stairs.
Keith Curley, the architect for the property owner, said the deck and an associated design were meant to restore usable open space and a second means of egress after years of unsuccessful attempts to have the neighbor repair a retaining wall. “Each day that passes without access to the stair … perpetuates an unsafe condition,” Curley said.
DBI and Planning staff told the board the deck as constructed does not meet usable open‑space dimensions required under the planning code and that short‑term rental enforcement and other permitting history complicated the record. Senior Building Inspector Joe Duffy said DBI issued a notice of violation addressing a leaning retaining wall and that enforcement proceedings could require abatement or repair by the property owner where the wall sits.
Chief Building Inspector Patrick O’Reardon, who inspected the property, said inspectors found a leaning retaining wall and issued NOVs to involved properties. O’Reardon told the board the wall was “leaning” and that when a wall is out of plumb it can trigger an enforcement action.
Neighbors were divided in public comment: some urged approval to restore an egress and private open space, while others argued the deck intruded into the mid‑block open space and would harm privacy and property values. After deliberation the Board found the five variance findings under Planning Code §3.05C were not met, and the motion to deny the variance passed 5–0.
The board acknowledged the underlying neighbor dispute over the retaining wall may proceed as DBI enforcement or civil litigation; DBI staff said they would pursue compliance.
