Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing on historic and structural concerns continued; Board asks for permit history and allows limited life‑safety work
Summary
Neighbors alleged the permit for dormers and foundation work at 2512/2514 Third Avenue omitted critical existing conditions and historic‑resource review; owners said foundation failure and mold forced expedited action. The Board continued the contested appeal to Aug. 18 and directed Planning and DBI to supply full permit history and further documentation, while emphasizing life‑safety and foundation work as an immediate priority.
The Board of Appeals continued the contested permit hearing for a large alteration at 2512/2514 Third Avenue to Aug. 18 and instructed Planning and the Department of Building Inspection to provide a complete permit history and related documents. The continuation followed an extended hearing in which neighbors argued the application was inaccurate and required a fuller historic and technical review, and owners said immediate foundation work was necessary to make the house habitable.
Appellant Nancy Wuerfel told the Board the application contained inconsistent existing drawings, omitted engineering for excavation and underpinning, and failed to address unpermitted prior work such as a horizontal extension and dormer. “I request that the permit be revoked,” Wuerfel said. She and other neighbors asked for a higher level of review because the project involves excavation, retaining structures and potential changes to an apparently historic row.
Permission holder Mary Galvin and Damian Quinn described severe foundation settlement and mold that forced them to vacate the house; they said the work at issue includes foundation reinforcement they and engineers judged necessary to protect their family’s safety. DBI and Planning staff said the over‑the‑counter review pathway is available for dormer additions that meet the code and historic‑resource screening, and Planning staff said they had performed a historic checklist in the over‑the‑counter review and that the proposed dormers were set back to minimize visibility.
Commissioners pressed for clarity on two tracks: (1) life‑safety/foundation work that DBI said should proceed and (2) broader historic and plan‑accuracy questions that require further departmental review. Several commissioners said they were reluctant to delay immediate foundation repairs but wanted a complete administrative record (permit history, routing memos and the planning historic review file) before a final decision. The Board voted to continue the matter to Aug. 18 with a directive that Planning and DBI supply the requested permit history and related documents; the motion included no new public briefing and directed staff to provide the record for the Board’s next session.
