RFS 12157 assigned. If received outside of normal business hours, we will investigate this issue on the next business day.

Looks nice to me. One the pt dries and they paint it, you won't be able to tell. Better than a rotted porch.

It's done in the wrong area of town, This is very close to Downtown and is surrounded by some very nice old homes that have been preserved historically. The city works really hard to preserve what it can, as it should, its to all our benefit.

Is this what SCF has devolved to? Neighbors turning each other in for code violations? Shame.

Please don't publicly shame me, there is nothing wrong what I have reported. Im more interested in preserving our cities historic value rather then complaining about our under staffed public service workers, pot holes messing up my expensive car, or demanding personal phone calls because dig safe marked my lawn.

Issue acknowledged

A zoning nonapplicability permit and a building permit was issued for this project. pressure treated wood is permitted for exterior porches. All the work that was done as stated was permitted and the permits have been closed.

Issue closed

Thank you for getting involved in this. Neighbors are the ones that see violations and should report them when they think it is a violation. If you saw a crime taking place would you wait until a police cruiser went by. Now days you would have to wait for ever as it seems there is no more police patrolling in the neighbors. . I thank you..

Case closed.

Its very obviously they did not replace what was there, and has no historic value. The issue is not that it is pressure treated wood, its all simple square stock and doesn't match the previous porch. The previous porch had round detailed post with some detail in the corner, and the square lattice around the bottom was replaced with straight pieces of decking.
The non applicability permit was obviously not done right, they would have needed a zoning permit to make changes like that and it would not have been approved because it is considered historic.

Could a closer look be taken at the photos and a simple inquiry be done about how this was approved please. No one was given the chance to review the change because there was no zoning permit

Please leave me and this issue alone Powereli. It's harassment. If you don't like the issue and think it is not valid express your opinion, don't shame and throw in little negative comments. I am actually surprised you are not interested in preserving our cities historic value.

Gary,
Burlington's outdated permitting process is currently being evaluated. Part of this permit evaluation is to look at how preserving these older homes using outdated materials, windows, etc negatively effects the long term preservation and cost to maintain these homes. Gary have you considered what it would cost to restore this home to its former glory? If the historical regulations are too strict no one will purchase and maintain these older homes. If the cost is too much then the home will be torn down and replaced with multi-unit dwellings. I understand historic value and appreciate it, but what should someone do when the cost is too much? Let it rot or update it? Maybe there was a compromise between the homeowner and the City to keep the building, rebuild it similar to what it was while understanding the burden imposed on the owner to completely restore it.

Acknowledged

You bring up great points that I agree with. I have issues with window replacements, where historic homes are required to use more expensive clad covered wood windows for replacements but when you look at them from the outside they don't look any different then a cheaper vinyl option. I once had a issue where I was trying to vent a heating unit out the front of my building because it was 4" in diameter and I was denied for historic preservation.
I am not suggesting in anyway that this building be brought back to its former glory, that ship has sailed a long time ago. Preserving what is (or recently was) there is the issue. It would have been minimal cost and actual savings to salvage the post, and the detailing in the corners. If the correct information was given to zoning there is no way this would have been approved for a non applicability permit.
The post might have needed some repair on the bottoms but that is something that can be done very easily and is done all over the city. Those pieces were over a 100 yrs old and would have lasted another 100 yrs with no more care then anything else would need. Where did these items even go? Thrown away?
The square stock lattice (pressure treated) can be purchased at Curtis lumber for $26 for a 4' by 8', that is cheaper then what was spent on the lumber that was used in its place. It is already a multi unit dwelling located just blocks from downtown located on Buell ST surrounded by buildings that still have a lot of historic value.

Great points as well. Learned something in the process. I agree with you, seems like something at the Zoning department wasn't done correctly. Unfortunately I've found that there is little accountability in Burlington bureaucracy when someone fails to do their job correctly.

Anytime I've inquired the need for a zoning permit I'm always told the same thing, you ALWAYS need a zoning permit for any change outside a building, other than painting. They are happy to take the $80 even if the change is minor and the requirement of a zoning permit is excessive. Not sure how this was given a non applicability permit. To me this isn't as much a historic preservation issue, but a lack of Burlington applying codes and standards to all everyone equally. If Burlington held everyone to the same standard, this would not of happened.

This issue was closed by one of the Zoning inspectors who pointed out that permits were issued for the project from two city departments.
It was not clear why the issue was re-opened other than to say the police don't patrol any more.

Please clarify if you intended to keep this issue active; what action are you asking the city to take?

Could a closer look be taken at the photos and a simple inquiry be done about how this was approved please. No one was given the chance to review the change because there was no zoning permit.

I think you might have issues mixed up, there is nothing to do with police patrol.

When this porch was rebuilt it was not put back to look like the original porch which should have required a zoning permit.

Please look at the above comments and photos.

May I suggest that a city official find all the relevant permits, take photos and post them here to clarify the situation. It seems Mr. Blake believes this did not have all the needed permits for an historic structure. If that is not the case, please simply show the proof, and we can be done with this issue. If Mr. Blake is correct, and permits were not proper or complete, then further actions are necessary.

I agree. Simply stating that permits were obtained and closed does not indicate that things were done correctly. Maybe the Zoning department can explain how a non applicability permit was issued?

I would just like to say that this is the best discussion I have read in a long time with regards to preserving historic value vs affordable maintenance and upkeep. The clad window rule is by far the most ridiculous! The city leaves few options for those who don't have money to burn. Defer maintenance or do un permitted work under the radar.

To read more about folks having issues with historic preservation and updating 20th century homes to be lived in comfortably in the 21st century, read some of the latest archives of the five sisters front porch forum.

My question is: If CKF is not the forum to discuss these issues while officials are paying attention, what is?

I, too have found this discussion to be fascinating. There is little opportunity these days for engaged citizens to exercise oversight over and engagement with their government. The institutions we have used for these discussions for generations--newspapers, town meetings, bowling leagues, neighborhood encounters, and other human interactions--are in decline and their near-replacements--the web-based FPF, S,C,F-- have yet to be fully integrated into the body politic as were those former institutions.

Also, our city employees are justifiably and carefully feeling their way through this new (electronic) landscape as are we. I for one, would ask our "Verified Officials" to walk us through the decision process for this case. I believe this will help all of us, no matter which side of the porch we live on, understand the system in which we and they, our public employees, operate.

Thanks to the original poster for flagging this and for posting the before photo. It is extremely easy to strip off historical details but it usually turns out to be a bad decision in the long run. I have been told that this sort of "remuddling" would not be permitted on Decatur St so I'm surprised it was allowed so close to downtown. Some clarification from the city would be helpful. Since "Code Enforcement" asked and people have answered I think it is "Code's" responsibility to give us some useful information.

The city records appear to show the work was completed three years ago in 2013. The department of Planning and Zoning determined the work did not require a Zoning Permit. The associated Building Permit for the porch shows the projecte was inspected by the building official and was closed Jun 20, 2013.

Code Enforcement would normally handle porch replacement without permits by stopping the work. In this case, permits were issued and closed by city officials 3 years ago. There is no work going on that we need to stop.

We have forwarded the complaint information to the Department of Planning and Zoning/Historic Preservation expert along with archived photos and current photos to see if their determination is different after reviewing the details.

Bill Ward, thank you for your work on this and for your informative reply. SeeClickFix is a great tool for allowing us to understand and engage in City policy. I hope you appreciate that it ultimately makes your job easier and more effective even if it means spending a lot of time responding to inquiries. Now let's see what Planning and Zoning has to say.

Has the Planning and Zoning Department had a chance to review this issue?

This content is currently blocked. The content is either under review by SeeClickFix or has been confirmed by SeeClickFix for violation(s) of SeeClickFix Terms of Use (https://www.civicplus.com/terms-of-service). Content that aligns with SeeClickFix Terms of Use will be posted, and content that does not align with our Terms of Use will not be permitted for public viewing.

Power Eli Lessor-Goldsmith some people are interested in how the City has allowed this to occur, it goes against City policy. A non-applicability permit should not of been issued. You may find it to be a waste of resources but their are a number of individuals who have commented and want answers. Thank you.

and the city gave answers.

We have not heard from the Zoning Department, who issued the non-applicability permit. Code Enforcement has forwarded this issue to Zoning. Thank you.

I would ask Powereli to respect the discussion and contributions of your neighbors. Their questions and Code's responses have been very productive. This is what SCF is designed for. Thanks to Code and to the other participants for your involvement.

Mr Ward,
It has been 2 months since this issue was originally brought up. Can you please follow up with Zoning and ask that they respond.
Thank you.

This comment is intended to summarize what we have learned:
2 years ago the property owner received a non-applicability zoning permit to replace the railings on the porch with the expectation that the replacement railings would be the same as the previous railings. The building permit was issued 2 years ago to replace the railings but the current building code requires replacement railings to be at a higher 42 inch height. The railings were installed to the building code which put them in conflict with what zoning approved. I have attached a photo showing the current code height requirements from the VT Department of Public Safety which shows the requirements according to the VT Fire and Building Safety Code. It shows that new guards shall not be less than 42 inches high.

The Zoning Administrator reviewed the complaint details and the property owner was refereed back to the Department of Planning and Zoning at their request. Ultimately the Department of Planning and Zoning will determine if the project needs a new permit or if they can agree on approved changes to the current configuration to allow it to meet with Zoning approval.

We will post an update when the permitting is resolved.

Thank you for the update. Can one assume that the Zoning and Building permits were not followed? Materials in kind were not used.

Very frustrating that city departments can't work together to come up with a consistent set of requirements.

06/19/2016 - Zoning issued a non-applicability permit, "Repairs, maintenance and replacement in-kind of front porch elements, replacement in-kind of soffits at rear"

06/20/2016 - Building permit was issued to "Repair/replace rotten water damaged materials on existing front porch and rear sofit with approved materials in kind and with no change in use of area being repaired."

It appears that the property owner/contractor did not follow the permits they were issued by Zoning or Building. Is it a safe assumption that the Building permit should not have been closed because materials in kind were not used? If this was the case, how was the permit closed? This is very similar to the 142 North Union front porch railings that were recently replaced, not in kind as the building permit required, without a zoning permit.

Mr. Ward,
Did CE, Zoning, and DPW ever figure out how the building permit was closed even though construction didn't follow what was permitted? Any follow-up to this?
Thank you.

Issue 3087119 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue.

The Zoning Administrator notified me that the property owner applied for a new zoning permit for changes to the porch last Monday. I went by the property to confirm the red Z was posted in the front of the property.

Neighbors may have seen this last week when the application was submitted. For others watching on SCF the red Z means that an application for a permit was submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department and appeals are taken for 15 days.

The permit application document was not loaded electronically in the system for me to review and post here.

Well its progress in the right direction. Can we expect that this will not be approved by zoning since it was a historic porch to be kept the same? Have we been able to find out how a building permit was closed if construction didn't follow the building permit? Thank you.

It's possible they thought it was close enough to meet their guidelines. Historic porches don't need to be exactly the same. There's flexibility in the language of the code:

https://www.codepublishing.com/VT/Burlington/mobile/index.pl?pg=BurlingtonAxA/BurlingtonAxA05.html

5.4.8 Historic buildings and sites.
(b) Standards and Guidelines: The following development standards, following the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, shall be used in the review of all applications involving historic buildings and sites subject to the provisions of this section and the requirements for Design Review in Art. 3, Part 4. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards are basic principles created to help preserve the distinctive character of a historic building and its site. They are a series of concepts about maintaining, repairing and replacing historic features, as well as designing new additions or making alterations. These Standards are intended to be applied in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility.

The distinctive character of the porch is gone. The original Non-applicable Zoning Permit implies that things were to stay historically the same.

Can the Senior Building Official or Director of Public Works comment on how this permit was closed?

Any updates? I posted two comments and haven't heard back from you. I really need a response now.

History has been destroyed and you have done nothing! I will not let this happen. This issue is of vital importance to the community and the our building officials must spend their limited time and resources enforcing this very important issue.

I think someone owes Burlingtonian a response.. Also I AGREE WITH HIS FEELINGS .

Burlington/Code Enforcement, please shut this thread down. It's a giant waste of everyone's time, especially the City.

Get a lawyer burlingtonian if you think you really have a case. This app isn't going to help you. Most of buell street is a decaying student ghetto that needs to be razed.

SeeClickFix should really require users to have unique usernames. Silly threads like this are far too tempting...

Per the Senior Building Inspector: "All permits are closed in reverse order as they are secured. Building permits following zoning and being a discipline of structural and life safety was closed first and independent of zoning. The new Zoning Permit (ZP) currently in process is in place to resolve the type of materials used, hence, has reopened both permitting processes; meaning new ZP will deliver the decision to the owner directly to the use of materials that will require a new BP for changes effected by the decision."

This issue is closed.

It appears that SCF has a Troll. I've changed my name, which wont prevent them from doing the same.

Thank you for answering, this was brought up 6 months ago.

Despite being a discipline of Structural and Life Safety, is it not the Building Inspectors job to ensure that permits are followed? Is it a safe assumption that the Building Inspector did not do an inspection and if inspected should of informed zoning of the violation?

This content is currently blocked. The content is either under review by SeeClickFix or has been confirmed by SeeClickFix for violation(s) of SeeClickFix Terms of Use (https://www.civicplus.com/terms-of-service). Content that aligns with SeeClickFix Terms of Use will be posted, and content that does not align with our Terms of Use will not be permitted for public viewing.

This content is currently blocked. The content is either under review by SeeClickFix or has been confirmed by SeeClickFix for violation(s) of SeeClickFix Terms of Use (https://www.civicplus.com/terms-of-service). Content that aligns with SeeClickFix Terms of Use will be posted, and content that does not align with our Terms of Use will not be permitted for public viewing.

This content is currently blocked. The content is either under review by SeeClickFix or has been confirmed by SeeClickFix for violation(s) of SeeClickFix Terms of Use (https://www.civicplus.com/terms-of-service). Content that aligns with SeeClickFix Terms of Use will be posted, and content that does not align with our Terms of Use will not be permitted for public viewing.

This content is currently blocked. The content is either under review by SeeClickFix or has been confirmed by SeeClickFix for violation(s) of SeeClickFix Terms of Use (https://www.civicplus.com/terms-of-service). Content that aligns with SeeClickFix Terms of Use will be posted, and content that does not align with our Terms of Use will not be permitted for public viewing.

We have asked that personal attacks be removed from the issue comments. The folks at SeeClickFix have blocked specific content.

Users of the system should do so respectfully to comply with the terms of use for SeeClickFix.

Thank-you to all the constructive commentators and our city employees for helping peel back the layers of of this onion (and apparently bringing tears to some eyes). I think there appears to still be enough interest in this process that many of us would like to keep this issue's status as "open" until the logical conclusion--the decision regarding the zoning permit (ZP).

This would allow us to arrive at some sort of outline of administrative actions needed (or not) and allow interested citizens to act through their city representatives (Public Works Commission and City Council) or the ballot box if so indicated.

I believe as well that keeping this issue open is the intent of the 9/23 comment by the Director of Code Enforcement. Thanks all (including owner, fellow citizens, and those in between). If the owner cares to weigh in, we might very well profit from any insights you'd care to share with us.

The 9/23/2016 comment was not intended to supersede the decision of the Planning and Zoning department.

We will keep this in acknowledged until there is a zoning permit issued to correct this. The application is pending review by Zoning staff at this time.

Reopening this complaint is not a substitute for a zoning permit appeal. If a zoning permit is issued and not appealed, the permit will be finalized.

OldVtr, the system of checks and balances definitely broke down in this instance. I hope that this is investigated thoroughly and changes implemented to the system for the better.

If it is not the Building Inspector's job to ensure Building permits are properly followed, then who's job is it? Stating that they only look at Structural and Life Safety disciplines seems to undermine the integrity of permits and inspections.

Gary Blake - do you have a minute to discuss this issue? - Joel Baird/Burlington Free Press- (802) 660-1843

The zoning permit requested by the property owner was denied by the Department of Planning and Zoning. The property owner has appealed that decision and there will be a public hearing on February 21, 2017. The agenda can be found at the link below.

https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/sites/default/files/Agendas/2017%20022117%20-%20DRB%20Agenda.pdf

Thanks for the timely update on this process.

Any update from the Appeal?

The DRB has not met in deliberative session yet. So no determination has been made.

Here's a link to the DRAFT minutes of the meeting:

https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/sites/default/files/Agendas/2017%20022117%20-%20DRB%20Minutes.pdf

Thanks.

Any new updates?

The public hearing was held on February 21, 2017. The Development Review Board issued a decision to the property owner on March 8, 2017. The letter to the property owner reads as follows:

This is to inform you that the Development Review Board denied your appeal of the administrative decision on your proposal for 62-64 Buell Street on March 8, 2017.

Decisions of the Development Review Board may be appealed to the Vermont Superior Court Environmental Division within 30 days of the decision. You must submit a notice of appeal to the Vermont Superior Court Environmental Division by April 7, 2017.

Do we know the outcome?

Since the City will not respond, the owner is being forced to replace the porch.

Owner has applied for a new zoning permit and has been approved for such. So I would say the city HAS been working with him

New zoning permit to replace the porch. Was there ever another alternative?

Can we close this issue?

Issue closed