Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Neighborhood Building Dispute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds permits for 23 Belmont deck and retaining wall after neighbor appeals
Summary
After a neighbor appealed construction of a backyard retaining wall and a roof deck/parapet at 23 Belmont Avenue, the Board of Appeals upheld DBI and Planning approvals, finding that engineered reports and required inspections address safety concerns; neighbor's privacy complaints were noted.
The Board of Appeals upheld Department of Building Inspection and Planning approvals for a retaining wall and a roof deck/parapet at a single‑family property on Belmont Avenue after an appeal from the downhill neighbor, Susan Scanlon.
Scanlon told the board she found an excavation deeper than she expected and expressed concern the contractor used untreated redwood for portions of the retaining wall and that the excavation put her property at risk. She said she spent roughly $51,000 on a remedial subterranean catenary wall to protect her lot and asked the board to require corrected materials, third‑party testing of concrete pours and to void the permit.
Counsel for the permit holder presented structural and soils reports by Holmes Cully and said DBI reviewed and approved the work with special inspection conditions. Chief Building Inspector Lawrence Kornfield told the board DBI required special inspection for drilled piers and concrete and that the engineering reports support the work; he said the wall is not expected to cause the neighbor’s lot to slide.
Planning staff noted the roof deck was issued as a deck on a non‑complying portion of the structure; such decks are permitted by past interpretations but an open railing — not a solid privacy wall — is typically required under zoning rules. The board considered privacy concerns and the available mitigation; it concluded DBI and planning review addressed safety and code requirements and voted to uphold both permits.
The board recorded the 4–0 vote to affirm the department approvals. The decision left in place DBI’s special‑inspection requirements and noted that materials and inspection records should be verified in the permit file.
