Abatement Appeals Board upholds order and cost assessment for property at 460 Valeo Street

The Abatement Appeals Board voted unanimously Jan. 17 to uphold an order of abatement and an assessment of costs for appeal no. 6912 concerning 460 Valeo Street, after hearing presentations from Department of Building Inspection staff and the property owner.

Department case: John Henshin, chief building inspector for code enforcement, described multiple alleged violations, including work exceeding the scope of prior permits, possible unit-merge concerns, relocated or removed property-line windows, a widened garage door, facade changes, removal of roof-deck barriers and stair changes. Henshin told the board that staff "recommends that you uphold the order of abatement and impose assessment of cost." (DBI presentation)

Owner and counsel: Counsel Tom Tunney and owner Peter Iskender said the structure is a two-unit building, not a single-family dwelling, and described a multi-year permitting and planning process. Tunney said the appellant filed permits in May 2022 to abate the notice of violation and asked the board to consider a short continuance to allow Planning to clarify the status of discretionary review. Owner Iskender said they have been "cooperative" and are "eager to resolve any discrepancy" and described prior inspections and a certificate of final completion issued in 2018.

DBI and safety: DBI secretary Matthew Green and staff said the 2018 permits do not match current conditions and that the January 2022 notice of violation lists items without issued permits. Green noted there are some unsafe conditions cited in the notice of violation, including missing separation from the garage and missing guardrails at a deck, and said DBI treats unpermitted conditions as potentially unsafe until a permit is issued and signed off.

Board deliberation and vote: Commissioners probed whether DBI erred in issuing the notice; several commissioners concluded no error was shown. Commissioner Alexander Toot moved to uphold the order of abatement and the assessment of costs; President Newman seconded. The board took the case under submission for deliberation and then voted on the motion; a roll call recorded six yes votes and the motion carried unanimously.

What this means: The order and assessment remain in effect and the property owner must pursue permit approvals and any required corrections; DBI said upholding the order does not prevent the owner from continuing with plan review and permit processes. The record shows the appeal is tied to complaint number 202286188 and an order dated April 26, 2022.