Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Neighbor Dispute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues heated dispute over roof-mounted fence at 72 Kissling Street to Feb. 24
Summary
After extended testimony from neighbors, tenants and the permit holder, the Board of Appeals continued the contentious dispute over a fence installed above a parapet at 72 Kissling St. to Feb. 24 to allow parties to negotiate alternatives.
A lengthy and at times contentious hearing over a fence installed on a parapet at 72 Kissling Street ended with the Board of Appeals continuing the matter to Feb. 24 to give neighbors and the permit holder time to explore alternatives.
Appellant Mark Disler, the adjacent landlord and tenant representative, said the fence blocks a bay-window bedroom’s egress and light, prevents maintenance and is an eyesore. Tenants described the fence as touching window sills and potentially blocking escape in a kitchen fire. Permit holder Charles Warenberg (spelled in the transcript variously) said he has endured repeated intrusions, trashing and incendiary activity on his roof and installed a temporary barrier and seeks a metal (expanded-metal/chain-link style) fence to stop hazardous intrusions. DBI staff (Lawrence Kornfield) told the board the notice of violation was for an unpermitted fence but that, in DBI’s view, the fence as proposed did not block required egress and that owners have no legal right to perform maintenance on an adjoining roof without permission.
Planning staff noted the property sits in an SLR (service light industrial/residential) district, so residential-design Section 3.11 guidelines do not directly apply; staff said the proposed fence would not necessarily be prohibited by the planning code. Commissioners proposed a range of compromise options — locking devices, sealing or limiting operation of one window, bars on a single window, insertion of lease provisions, or mediation led by DBI staff — and expressed sympathy for both the permit holder’s safety concerns and the tenants’ egress and livability concerns.
Given unresolved neighbor concerns and the possibility of mediated alternatives, the board voted 5-0 to continue the hearing to Feb. 24 and closed briefing to allow parties to negotiate and return with proposals.
