Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Notice Of Violation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Abatement board upholds notice of violation for 242 Moscow Street, denies appeal
Summary
The Abatement Appeals Board unanimously upheld a July 10, 2023 notice of violation for 242 Moscow Street and denied the appellant's request for relief on Feb. 18, 2026, citing lack of proof that access obstructions prevented compliance.
The Abatement Appeals Board on Feb. 18 upheld a notice of violation for 242 Moscow Street and denied the appellant's appeal after reviewing staff findings and testimony. The board voted unanimously to uphold the notice and the assessment of enforcement costs.
Mauricio Hernandez of the Department of Court Enforcement described multiple visible, unpermitted exterior alterations at the property, including infill of a garage door with a new entry door, a trash enclosure exceeding 36 inches in height, replacement of three windows, a stair handrail replacement, an awning, and the addition of a vent on the front of the structure. Hernandez said a notice of violation was issued July 10, 2023, a permit application followed on July 18, 2023 but showed no inspection history, a final warning was issued Nov. 5, 2024, and a director's hearing in May 2025 required completion of permits; continued noncompliance led to an order of abatement on July 8, 2025.
An appellant or representative told the board they had been unable to obtain access to the unit because tenants prevented entry and that an eviction process was underway. "We are currently still on the eviction process," the appellant said, adding that attempts to serve statutory notice and to coordinate repairs were resisted and that litigation was pending. An agent for the owner described efforts to obtain permits and stated that temporary relocation during the school year was difficult because the tenants had children; the agent said legal challenges and tenant resistance delayed access.
Several commissioners said they were sympathetic but not persuaded by the appellant's oral account without documentary proof of access attempts and statutory notices. Board members emphasized unresolved safety concerns and the absence of inspection history for the permit application. Vice President Newman moved to uphold the notice of violation and the cost assessment and to deny the appeal; Commissioner Kalamucci seconded. The motion carried in a unanimous roll-call vote.
The board directed the appellant to follow up with department staff for guidance on possible legalization options if and when access becomes available. The notice, enforcement-cost assessment and order remain in effect.
