Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ferry Lane Bridge topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design Review Board denies variances for Ferry Lane air‑rights bridge; applicants must revise plan or drop bridge
Summary
After a lengthy public and board debate about precedent and the sale of city air rights, the board denied the variances needed for a bridge/sky‑walk connecting two separate Ferry Lane properties; board also denied the project in its present form.
The Design Review Board voted Sept. 11 to deny the variances requested to permit a private SkyBridge connecting two Ferry Lane properties (DRB 2510956 & 2510957) and then denied the design application, after extended testimony about process, precedent and neighborhood impacts.
The project proposed habitable occupiable space spanning above the public right-of-way to connect a waterfront lot and a non-waterfront lot. The applicant presented the architectural program (a multi-level residence with bridge occupancy, interior columns and plantings) and the procedural history: the city commission previously approved an economic agreement for an air-rights easement and recommended public-benefit allocations; the applicant argued the easement and the design were the result of negotiated commission and finance-committee actions.
Board debate focused on whether granting variances in this case would create an undesirable precedent — permitting private habitable space above a public street that effectively aggregates two lots separated by a public right-of-way. Several board members emphasized that the DRB’s purview is design but also that the board routinely evaluates variances against hardship criteria. Multiple members said the “hardship” claimed arose from the applicants’ decision to acquire separate lots and pursue an air-rights easement, a condition the board considered self-created and therefore not a qualifying hardship under the code. After discussion, a motion to deny the requested variances passed; the board then recorded a subsequent motion to deny the design application as moot without the variances.
Why it matters: Board members warned that approving private habitable bridges over public streets in residential neighborhoods could trigger a wave of similar projects and alter neighborhood character. Members asked the Planning Department to review policy implications for future easements over public rights-of-way.
Speakers included project proponents (attorney Joseph Pardo, designer James McDonald), and many board members; board member Scott delivered an extended statement about neighborhood precedent and the commission’s prior approvals. The board’s denial was recorded by motion; staff will prepare the written order.
Provenance: The topic runs from the applicant presentation through a lengthy public-policy and legal-policy discussion and finishes with recorded motions denying the variances and the design application.
