Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Jurisdiction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board weighs jurisdiction request over disputed Union Street permit; continues to Oct. 13 for more records
Summary
The Board of Appeals heard competing claims that an over‑the‑counter permit for 905–911 Union Street omitted major work and relied on misleading plans. After extended testimony from the requester, neighbors and department staff, the board denied a last‑minute challenge for lack of immediate grounds but agreed to continue the jurisdiction request to Oct. 13 so the relevant revised plans and permit records can be placed in the record.
President Tanya Peterson presided as the Board of Appeals heard a jurisdiction request from Thomas Kravis challenging a 2009 over‑the‑counter permit for 905 and 911 Union Street. Kravis told the board the original application “did not describe all the work to be performed,” alleging kitchens, gas lines and other fixed elements were installed without disclosure and that later revisions obscured the true scope.
Planning staff Scott Sanchez told commissioners the Environmental Review Officer rescinded a categorical exemption for related matters elsewhere and explained that the June revision Kravis referenced was registered in the permit tracking system but was never processed or issued. DBI Deputy Director Lawrence Kornfield said a permit may be withdrawn only if no work was performed under it, which raised questions about what was done on site and whether DBI inspections should verify built work matched approved plans.
Kravis summarized seven specific concerns, including allegedly missing descriptions of kitchens and gas lines, work visible from public rights of way, and a June application for gas lines that post‑dated the installations. The permit holders and their architect said the kitchens and gas lines appear on the original approved plans and that a later June revision was started but withdrawn before issuance. The permit holders added they have a final certificate of completion for the valid permit.
Commissioners debated whether the jurisdiction request was timely and whether the board should substitute its oversight for an enforcement inspection by DBI. Commissioner Frank Fung said he was inclined to hear the jurisdiction matter tonight because the parties were present; others said an administrative inspection might better resolve whether work exceeded the permit. No motion to grant late jurisdiction reached the four‑vote threshold. The board then voted 3–2 to continue the item to Oct. 13 and asked that any subsequent permit documents, revisions and the June submission be provided to the board and shared with the requester prior to that date.
The board’s action did not suspend the underlying permit. Kornfield and staff advised that interested parties may ask DBI for an inspection to verify built conditions against approved plans while the matter is pending before the board.
What’s next: The item is continued to Oct. 13. The board asked staff to assemble the revised plans and permit documents and directed that they be included in commissioners’ packets and provided to Mr. Kravis in advance of the continued hearing.
