Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building And Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board affirms building superintendent, denies fee‑relief for 35 Woodhill permit dispute
Summary
An applicant argued that submitted plans described first‑floor alterations, not the demolition that occurred; the board reviewed drawings, building‑department findings and testimony, then voted to affirm the superintendent’s fee assessment and deny relief (fee difference cited at roughly $8,000).
The Board of Trustees reviewed an appeal at 35 Woodhill where the applicant disputed the building superintendent’s determination that recent work had exceeded the scope of a first‑floor alteration and therefore required additional permit fees. The applicant and his architect said plans and previous reviews had indicated certain design choices; building staff and trustees concluded the work had, in fact, been taken down to the deck in some areas and that the higher fee assessment was appropriate.
Building department staff explained the original application and drawings listed 60% first‑floor alteration; inspectors later observed the first floor taken down in places and applied the fee corresponding to more extensive construction. The board discussed whether the work constituted demolition, the accuracy of drawings and whether misunderstanding vs. misinterpretation occurred during construction. The superintendent indicated the difference in assessed fee was approximately $8,000.
After hearing testimony and debating the procedural history, a trustee moved not to grant relief and to affirm the building superintendent’s decision; the motion carried on a trustee roll call. The board directed the building department to proceed with the fee assessment consistent with its rules.
Direct phrasing from the meeting: the board’s motion was summarized as “not to grant relief” and to affirm the building superintendent’s determination.
Next steps: the building department will issue the final fee assessment; the applicant may pursue any statutory appeal routes available under village procedures, if desired.
