Abatement Appeals Board postpones decision on 2195 Green Street rooftop deck to review exhibits

The Abatement Appeals Board on Feb. 16 agreed to continue the appeal of an abatement order concerning a rooftop deck at 2195 Green Street to allow commissioners time to review exhibits and briefs submitted by the appellant.

The department’s senior billing inspector, Johnny Inshin, told the board the notice of violation (NOV 202174624) relates to an unpermitted roof deck on a four‑story building that lacks code‑compliant guardrails and has no permit to comply; staff recommended upholding the order of abatement and imposing an assessment of costs. Staff also confirmed the outstanding assessment amount of $2,116.26.

Attorney Jim Quadra, representing owner Pamela Wiggett, urged the board to reverse the abatement, arguing the roof deck has been in continuous use for more than 40 years and citing historical permits and an expert report. "You have the power to reverse the order of abatement, and we are asking you to exercise that power," Quadra said. Wiggett testified she has used the deck for almost 40 years and described inspections and family use dating back decades: "I have used my roof deck continuously throughout those 40 years."

The original complainant, Scott Maines, countered that the appellant’s brief contains factual errors and that the property presents safety hazards, citing noncompliant railings and compromised parapets. Maines urged the board not to delay enforcement of established code violations.

Staff noted a permit application filed Dec. 26, 2013, for roof pavers and a pedestal system that was taken in at intake but never issued or signed off. Appellant counsel said the 2013 filing expired because of concurrent litigation and that other permits in the record show long‑standing roof‑deck use; counsel also offered to re‑submit the appellant’s exhibits to the department.

Commissioners said they did not have the full set of exhibits (eight exhibits, roughly 380 pages) available for review and moved to continue the item to the next month so the board could examine the materials. A motion to continue was seconded and carried by unanimous roll call.

The board did not rule on the merits at this meeting. The appeal will be rescheduled so commissioners can review the submitted briefs and exhibits before further deliberation or decision.