Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appeal 1456 9th topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds permit for 1456 Ninth Avenue with railing and siding conditions
Summary
After testimony from neighbors and department staff, the Board of Appeals voted 5-0 to deny an appeal against the permit for 1456 Ninth Avenue but required the permit holder to replace a solid front railing with open spindles and paint the siding a light color; rear-yard encroachment issues were treated as a separate matter.
The Board of Appeals considered an appeal of a September 8, 2006 permit for 1456 Ninth Avenue that had been challenged over guardrail detail and possible encroachment in the rear yard.
Tina Tam of the Planning Department told the board that under planning code rules, when a deck is placed on top of a legal nonconforming structure the railing must be an open design; she said the permit holder had agreed to convert the railing back to an open spindle design. Department of Building Inspection inspector Lawrence Kornfield told commissioners he saw no clear evidence of encroachment from a front inspection and said work to the rear was covered by a separate permit to cure earlier unpermitted work.
Appellant Sufen Choo and other neighbors described measurements and photos they said documented an encroachment and urged the board to deny the permit. The permit holder’s representative said the work had been fully vetted, that prior designs had been reduced and that the neighbors were engaged in a process over time.
Commissioners discussed whether the permit under appeal cured the earlier notice of violation and whether the rear-yard changes were properly before the board; they were advised that the front-rail/guardrail matter was the issue on the appeal record and that rear-deck work had a separate permit. Commissioner Knox moved to deny the appeal and uphold the permit subject to conditions that the front rail be replaced with original open spindles and painted a light color. The motion carried 5-0.
The board noted the permit holder will need to comply with the separate requirements addressing the rear-yard work and encouraged the parties to resolve access issues for completing the siding work.
