Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rear Yard Variance 945 Minnesota topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds variance for 945 Minnesota Street after neighbor appeal
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied an appeal of a rear‑yard variance for a renovation at 945 Minnesota St., concluding the variance met required findings. Commissioners said the building is in poor condition and the proposed work would restore a family home; the vote to deny the appeal was 4–0.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals denied an appeal of a rear‑yard variance for 945 Minnesota Street, a property in the Dogpatch historic district, after hearing objections from a neighbor who argued that illegal additions occupied mid‑block open space and that the permit history was incomplete.
Appellant Spencer Gosch argued the rear additions and porches were illegal, dilapidated and should be removed and rebuilt as code‑compliant structures. He said the mid‑block open space had been reduced and that the variance application omitted illegal construction.
Project representatives, including architect and counsel, said the owners had bought a blighted building, that some rear features predated modern records and that the planned work would stabilize and rehabilitate the property. Planning Department staff (Scott Sanchez) presented aerial photos and a 1962 permit referencing rear stairs and porches, and told commissioners the variance and certificate of appropriateness had previously been reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission.
Deputy Director Joseph Duffy of DBI said his office had an order of abatement open and that DBI would continue to work through permit and enforcement matters; he advised the commission that corrective permit work should be consolidated and documented.
Commissioner Rick Swigg moved to deny the appeal and approve the variance on the basis that it met the five findings required by Planning Code section 305(c). The motion carried 4–0 and the appeal was denied.
What happens next: The variance stands and the permit holder may proceed with the approved rehabilitation subject to DBI inspection and any required follow‑up permits.
