Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the ADU Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds accessory dwelling permit at 50 Sussex after contested appeal
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied an appeal challenging an ADU permit at 50 Sussex Street, finding planning and building departments had reviewed the application and inspections did not show disqualifying demolition; motion carried 4–0.
The Board of Appeals on Aug. 28 denied an appeal to overturn an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) permit for a rear structure at 50 Sussex Street, concluding city Planning and Building Inspection staff had appropriately reviewed the project and that existing records supported legalization.
Appellant Guy Burdick argued the rear structure had historically been restricted by a Notice of Special Restrictions (NSR) and that foundation work and other changes in 2016–2018 amounted to demolition that should bar an ADU. The permit holders, Deborah Salva Burton and John Burton, said they followed city requirements, produced permits and inspection records, and spent significant time and money to legalize the dwelling. Planning staff (Scott Sanchez) and DBI (Chief Inspector Mauricio Hernandez and Senior Inspector Bernie Curran) described inspection history, permit corrections and the department review that led to the ADU approval. Planning staff said the rear building appears on historical records (Sanborn maps) and that replacement of foundation and ordinary repairs do not automatically disqualify a structure from ADU legalization.
Commissioners noted the matter overlapped with private civil disputes (HOA/neighbor claims) and that removing an existing illegal unit now requires conditional‑use authorization under recent legislation. After deliberation the board voted 4–0 to deny the appeal and uphold the permit. The board encouraged parties to pursue civil remedies where appropriate and suggested communication among neighbors to avoid extended litigation.
