Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Neighborhood Compatibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds Third Avenue alter/ addition permit after dispute over notice and demolition thresholds
Summary
The Board upheld a permit for a rear addition and partial third story at a Third Avenue property after the appellant questioned whether neighborhood notice met Section 3.11 and whether the work constituted a demolition; the board voted 3–2 to uphold the permit with no new conditions.
The Board of Appeals on Nov. 2 denied an appeal from Diane Martin challenging an approved alteration permit (application 200811247213) for a property on Third Avenue, finding that the planning and building departments had reviewed the proposal and that the project did not meet the planning-code definition of demolition.
Martin said the mailed Section 3.11 notice lacked legible dimensions, that plans did not show adjacent-property heights or measurable scales, and that the project—she estimated a change from about 1,075 square feet to roughly 2,625 square feet on a 2,900-square-foot lot—would deeply change neighborhood character. ‘‘There are no dimensions on any of these plans,’’ she told the board and said neighbors who primarily speak Chinese had insufficient information to give informed consent.
Project architect Peter Zapponi and owner Ryan Sheedy said they conducted pre-application outreach, that planning staff reviewed the project and that floor-to-floor dimensions were shown on the sections; they noted the third story is stepped back 28 feet from the front property line and that structural side walls and floors would remain, arguing the project does not meet the §3.17 demolition thresholds. Planning staff summarized the project review steps, the 30-day Section 3.11 notification period, and the department’s twice-performed review that concluded the project is an alteration, not a demolition.
Commissioners debated the competing definitions: Planning Code §3.17 (planning-code demolition criteria) versus DBI’s building-code definitions. Several commissioners urged the parties to negotiate a landscaping plan to mitigate privacy concerns. The board voted 3–2 to uphold the permit with no new conditions.
The board’s action preserves the department approval as issued; commissioners encouraged permit holders to pursue landscaping and to consult Urban Forestry and nonprofit programs that can supply trees and screening.
