Meeting Information

At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items.  With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar.   Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes.   If it is demonstrated that comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another time during the meeting.

Correction of findings issued for Appeal No(s). 02-122, subject property at 122 Earl Street, by withdrawing notice of decision and findings issued on June 5, 2003, and ordering a new notice of decision and findings that accurately reflects the Board’s action at its May 14, 2003 hearing.

Explanatory Document: Memorandum dated June 2, 2004 to President Harrington and Board Members from Deputy City Attorney Catharine Barnes.

Letter from Joel Yodowitz, attorney for All City Construction Co., appellant(s), requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 03-197, decided May 12, 2004.  At that time, upon motion by Commissioner Chin, the Board voted 2-3 to overrule DBI’s notice of decision with a finding that a demolition took place which exceeded the scope of the permit, but which did not constitute an unlawful demolition, with additional findings as stated into the record by Commissioner Chin.  Four votes being required to overturn a departmental action, the motion failed, and the decision by DBI was upheld.        Departmental Action:  Notice of Decision by Frank Chiu, Director of the Dept. of Building Inspection, dated Dec. 3, 2003, that an unlawful residential demolition has taken place at the subject property under Building Code §§ 103.3, 103.3.1 & 103.3.2, that BPA No. 2002/09/09/5995 is hereby revoked, and that a 5 year moratorium on the issuance of building permits is hereby imposed pursuant to Building Code § 103.3.1.

MAX LIMITED, LLC, Appellant(s)

                        vs.

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent

292 Ivy Street, a.k.a. 393-399 Grove Street, & 450 Gough Street, a.k.a. the “wood building.”

Appealing a determination dated December 18, 2001, issued to Peer Logic/Critical Path & Max Limited LLC, regarding uses of the subject building in the Hayes-Gough District.

Note: Pursuant to Superior Court Judgment, discussion and possible action to (1) set aside the Board's February 20, 2002 decision in Max Limited, LLC vs. Zoning Administrator, Appeal No. 02-001 as ordered by the Court, and (2) accept withdrawal of Appeal No.     02-001 or, alternatively, set the matter for rehearing in light of the Court's findings.

KEN PAGE, VINCENT LEGER,

& BUENA VISTA PARK LLC, Appellant(s)

                        vs.

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent

21 Buena Vista East Avenue.

Appealing the determination dated March 19, 2003, addressed to Andrew Zacks, that the subject property has a legal authorized use of 14 residential guest rooms and 1 dwelling unit, that residential guest rooms constitute “group housing” under § 209.2 of the Planning Code, that this group housing constitutes a permitted conditional use since it was established prior to the enactment of Conditional Use (CU) requirements for said use, and that this permitted conditional use shall be considered abandoned 3 years from the last legal date of residency of the last resident of said guest rooms. 

PUBLIC HEARING HELD SEPT. 24, 2003.

FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TODAY.

KEN PAGE, VINCENT LEGER,

& BUENA VISTA PARK LLC, Appellant(s)

                        vs.

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent          

21 Buena Vista East Avenue.

Appealing a determination dated April 24, 2003, addressed to Andrew Zacks, that the proposed physical modifications to various residential guest rooms at the subject property would result in less viable guest rooms and would constitute a partial conversion of the structure to single family-use from its current legal authorized use of 14 residential guest rooms and 1 dwelling unit, in violation of Planning Code.

PUBLIC HEARING HELD SEPT. 24, 2003.

FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TODAY.

FRANCIS DAVID RYAN, Appellant(s)

                        vs.

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent

PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL

1018 Clayton Street.

Protesting the issuance on Sept. 22, 2003, to Gunther Dertz, Permit to Alter a Building (on single-family house: construct 7’ X 36” high one-hour fire rated parapet on roof at south side).

APPLICATION NO. 2003/09/22/5414.

JURISDICTION GRANTED 11/12/03.

Note: On March 24, 2004, the Board voted 3-2 to uphold the subject permit.  On April 28, 2004, the Board voted 4-1 to grant the appellant’s rehearing request, and to set the rehearing for June 9, 2004.

FOR REHEARING TODAY.

MARTIN BARTOLAC

& MICHAEL WIELAND, Appellant(s)

                        vs.

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent

53 States Street.

Protesting the granting on February 17, 2004, to Jack Byars, Rear Yard Variance (construction of a new 3-story plus penthouse addition to the rear of the existing one-story over basement single-family dwelling).

VARIANCE CASE NO. 2003.0848V.

FOR HEARING TODAY.

SARA SHAPIRO, Appellant(s)

                        vs.

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent

62 Eastwood Drive.

Appealing the denial on March 18, 2004, of a Rear Yard Variance (proposal is to legalize a one-story rear addition to a one-story, single-family dwelling).

VARIANCE CASE NO. 2003.1023V.

FOR HEARING TODAY.

JOHN ATWATER

& DIANA NELSON, Appellant(s)

                        vs.

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent

3746 Jackson Street.

Appealing a determination dated March 16, 2004, addressed to David Cincotta, that the proposed expansion, which is not within the front portion of the property where a height increase is permitted, and which, in any case, extends above the 35 foot absolute height limit, would not be allowed under Planning Code §§ 261(b)(1), 261(c), 261(c)(1), and 261(c)(2). 

FOR HEARING TODAY.

AT&T WIRELESS, Appellant(s)

                        vs.

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent

350 – 8^th Street.

Appealing a determination dated April 6, 2004, addressed to Liz Johnson at AT&T Wireless, that the proposed antennas are not considered either necessary to the operation or enjoyment of a lawful principal use or appropriate, incidental and subordinate to any such use, and that therefore the proposed installation of a maximum of four (two pairs) of antennas at the proposed locations would require Conditional Use (CU) authorization per Planning Code § 816.73.

FOR HEARING TODAY.