Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permit Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board Revokes Dormer Permit at Second Avenue After Finding Misrepresentation, Suspends Work Pending Corrected Application
Summary
The Board of Appeals revoked an owner‑taken permit to add dormers and a bathroom at 715 30 Second Avenue after DBI found the work exceeded the scope of the approved dormer exemption, the roof had been raised and the application misstated the number of occupancy floors. The board directed DBI to work the permit holder on corrective actions and suspended application of the one‑year re‑application bar.
The Board of Appeals on April 9 revoked a building permit for work at 715 30 Second Avenue after finding that the permit application misrepresented the existing building condition and that construction went beyond the dormer‑exemption scope the permit relied on.
Appellants Kenneth Kung and neighbors said the application inaccurately listed existing and proposed occupancy floors (the permit cover listed the building as an existing four‑story structure) and that newly framed work had raised the roofline and enlarged dormers beyond what the plans showed. Multiple photographs and DBI field inspection documentation were entered into the record showing new framing that exceeded the approved dormer dimensions and a raised roof ridge.
DBI issued a notice of violation, documenting that dormers were oversized, the main roof had been altered and raised by approximately 18 inches, and a northeast corner of the roof had been raised above the approved line to provide headroom for a new stair. Planning staff said the original dormer exemption applies only where dormers do not exceed certain size limits, remain three feet from property lines, and do not exceed the roof peak; the department concluded the on‑site work had fallen outside that exemption and would normally trigger neighbor notification requirements.
After deliberation the board found the application contained material misstatements and that constructed work exceeded the permitted scope. The board voted unanimously to revoke the permit, directed DBI to work with the permit holder through the notice‑of‑violation process and specified that the one‑year re‑application bar not apply in this case so the permit holder can address defects and reapply as appropriate.
