Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues ADA‑ramp appeal on Clement Street to March 21 for more options and costs
Summary
Neighbors and the applicant clashed over a proposed raised sidewalk/ramp at 1211 Clement Street; the board continued the appeal to March 21 to allow permit holder to return with cost estimates and alternatives, including sidewalk warping or interior modifications.
The Board of Appeals continued an appeal over a proposed ADA access ramp at 1211 Clement Street to March 21, 2012, to allow the permit holder to provide additional cost information and alternative designs.
Ruth Levy, who owns adjacent property, said the proposed 60‑foot, 8.5‑foot wide raised sidewalk would consume most of the sidewalk and create safety problems on a busy stretch of Clement Street with diagonal parking. "I don't understand how a 60 foot long ramp is a minor encroachment," Levy said, describing pedestrian flow, loading and concerns about strollers, schoolchildren and graffiti.
Applicant Zachary Nathan said owners face a pending federal ADA lawsuit and that interior solutions are expensive or infeasible; he presented options the team considered, including a raised sidewalk that provides uniform landings, a narrower 5‑foot ramp and interior remodels that could cost in the tens of thousands. "We request that you deny the appeal and allow the construction work to proceed so that we can provide disabled access to the building," Nathan said in his closing.
Department of Public Works staff (John Kwong) explained that ADA rules require 4'x4' landings at thresholds and that warping the sidewalk (adjusting slope) can create intermittent dips and valleys that may be worse for pedestrians. DPW proposed a departmental condition to shorten the ramp footprint to about 5 feet and provide a courtesy strip to let people exit vehicles onto the sidewalk.
Commissioners debated whether warping the sidewalk, a partial interior modification, or a reduced‑footprint ramp best met accessibility, pedestrian flow and neighborhood impacts, and asked the applicant to return with contractor estimates for interior alterations and ramping options. The board voted 3–1 to continue the matter to March 21 and permitted additional briefing: six pages per party (permit holder due two Thursdays prior; appellant and DPW due one Thursday prior).
What happens next: The permit holder must submit additional briefing and cost estimates; the board will resume the hearing March 21 to decide whether to uphold, deny or further condition the permit.
