Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board orders revised deck permit after neighbor privacy concerns; requires 3‑ft setback on northern side (or equivalent firewall)
Summary
After neighbors appealed work replacing a rear deck at 678 Vermont, the Board of Appeals directed the permit be revised to require maintenance of fire separation distances and a 3‑foot setback on the northern property line (permit holder may instead install an approved firewall on the southern side). The motion passed 3–1.
Get email alerts on the Building Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Board of Appeals on Jan. 28 revised a building permit for a rear‑yard deck at 678 Vermont Street after neighbors appealed, citing demolition and reconstruction that they said exceeded an in‑kind repair and raised privacy and fire‑safety concerns.
Appellants, represented by counsel, presented photos showing complete demolition and a new deck constructed before the November 26 revision permit was approved; they said the result eliminates privacy for an upstairs bedroom and increases the deck’s massing and fire risk. The permit holders said the existing deck predated their ownership, that the replacement improved safety (using Class A‑rated Ipe decking and repaired structure), and that DBI inspectors approved the work at multiple stages. Planning and DBI staff told the board that an updated planning code provision (adopted in 2025) allows replacement/legalization of long‑standing rear‑yard structures in some cases but that residential design guidelines generally call for a 3‑ft setback at the northern property line to maintain light, air and privacy.
To reconcile privacy and code compliance, the board voted to uphold the appeal in part and require the permit be revised to: legalize the deck under Planning Code §188.1 while maintaining required fire‑separation distances from property lines; require a 3‑ft setback on the northern property line to address the neighbor’s privacy concerns; and allow the southern side to be made code‑compliant by installing a firewall if the permit holder elects not to set back on that side. The motion passed 3–1. Commissioners emphasized the competing equities — the permit holders’ reliance on over‑the‑counter approvals and the neighbors’ privacy and safety concerns — and asked DBI and Planning to work with the parties to implement a code‑compliant remedy.
