Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds notice of violation requiring parapet reduction at 763 University
Summary
After an extensive hearing with neighbors alleging concealment of records and loss of light and privacy, the Board of Appeals upheld a planning/code decision requiring reduction of parapets built without permit at 763 University Street on the ground that the zoning administrator did not abuse discretion.
The Board of Appeals on July 14 upheld a notice of violation and penalty for work at 763 University Street, concluding the zoning administrator did not err in enforcing a prior planning-commission decision that required parapets be lowered.
Neighbors and appellants argued the agency’s direction — expressed at planning commission level — had been ambiguously reinterpreted by staff and that compliance as written would require destructive and costly roof work. Appellants presented contractor estimates and said reducing parapets to the measurement staff required would force removal of insulation, crickets and other roof components and cost “hundreds of thousands” (they estimated roughly $120,000 to meet one interpretation). The appellants urged a more narrowly tailored remedy that preserved drainage (crickets) and avoided full roof reconstruction.
The Planning Department and the acting zoning administrator outlined the chronology: an initial building permit and subsequent revisions, a planning-commission discretionary hearing that required the parapet be reduced to six inches above the roofline, and subsequent revised plans. Build inspection and planning staff said the built parapet — described in the record as roughly 42 inches — exceeded the approved scope and required correction. Neighbors including Lisa Wong and Joel Lipsky testified about loss of light, view and privacy and asked the board to enforce the commission’s decision to preserve open space and light.
After deliberation, the board found the zoning administrator had not abused discretion in interpreting and enforcing the planning commission’s decision and upheld the notice of violation and penalty in a 5–0 vote. The findings and order will be issued consistent with that basis.
