Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Spite Wall topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds permit for firewall; neighbors call it a 'spite wall'
Summary
A neighbor dispute over a permitted ‘firewall’ at 1018 Clayton—described by the appellant as a spite wall that blocks light and uses surveillance cameras—ended with the Board upholding the permit, with commissioners noting limited remedies under existing code for preexisting windows and recommending community-level mediation.
The Board of Appeals on March 14 upheld a building-permit for a firewall at 1018 Clayton Street after an extended hearing in which appellant Francis D. Ryan called the structure a 'spite wall' that blocks his kitchen windows, causes runoff and trespass problems, and subjects his household to 24‑hour video surveillance.
Ryan showed photographs and a timeline of complaints, alleging the permit holder’s work destroyed a curb without permission, installed a host of surveillance cameras and intentionally built the wall to harass neighbors. He said the Superior Court had described the structure as a spite wall but lacked authority to order removal.
Permit holder Mr. Dertz (permit applicant) defended the structure as a safety and fire-protection measure, said he obtained a permit and structural advice before construction, and told the board he had moved or reoriented cameras after police inspection. Dertz also offered to pay for glass bricks to preserve some light to the neighbor’s windows and proposed binding arbitration to resolve the broader dispute.
Inspector Lawrence Kornfeld of the Department of Building Inspection reported on-site observations: the windows on the affected property predate current code and are nonconforming; DBI does not typically require removal of such existing windows when neighboring property is altered. Kornfeld and other staff said the presented firewall does not clearly meet modern parapet or firewall construction standards for a new building, but they lacked detailed construction records in the hearing to overturn the permit.
Commissioners expressed sympathy for the appellant’s situation and frustration at the intractable neighbor dispute but repeatedly noted limits of the Board’s authority where construction complies with code and existing windows are preexisting and nonconforming. After deliberation the board voted to uphold the permit (vote recorded as unanimous in the transcript of this hearing).
What happens next: the permit remains upheld. Several commissioners encouraged the parties to pursue community-board mediation or binding arbitration; building-department follow-up on code compliance and remaining citations may continue.
