Board denies appeal of planning notice of violation at 33 Norfolk; planning says use violation remains until abated

The Board of Appeals on May 7 denied an appeal of a planning notice of violation (NOV) issued to the owner of 33 Norfolk Street for an unauthorized change of use when Enzyme Community Center SF operated nighttime entertainment at the property.

Property owner Andrés Fung told the board he leased the vacant building pending future development but that a lessee operated uses inconsistent with the lease and the property’s permitted low‑intensity art‑studio use. Fung said his tenant vacated in late December 2024 and he submitted photo documentation to the planning department to abate the NOV. He asked the board to declare the NOV abated and to nullify any time‑and‑materials penalties on account‑of delays he attributed to mixed messaging and slow departmental responses.

Zoning Administrator Corey Teague and planning staff explained the planning NOV documents an unauthorized change of use (planning code section 171). Teague told the board that planning’s code requires time‑and‑materials recovery for enforcement work (planning code section 350(g)) and that those administrative billing charges are processed as part of the enforcement file; Teague also said penalties (up to $1,000 per day for failure to abate) are discretionary and had not been assessed because the NOV remains in process. Teague said staff will work with property owners to document abatement (photos or a site visit) and finalize time‑and‑materials accounting.

DBI told the board it had a separate open NOV alleging unlawful construction (a bathroom) and that DBI enforcement procedures remain outstanding for that issue. Planning and DBI witnesses explained the matters are parallel enforcement tracks — a use violation and a construction/permit violation — and may involve separate abatement steps.

President Trezvino said the planning NOV itself was properly issued and that planning’s process should be used to confirm abatement and finalize any fees. The board denied the appeal 4–0, leaving the NOV in place so planning may document abatement and complete its accounting; the board noted it has limited ability to disturb certain administrative fee provisions that are set by code but may reduce daily penalty levels within statutory limits if asked later.

Ending: The denial leaves planning enforcement in place; the property owner and staff were directed to work to confirm abatement through the department’s usual procedures (photographic proof or site visit) and to settle time‑and‑materials charges per planning code.