Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Contentious Ashbury Street addition upheld by default after split vote
Summary
The Board of Appeals left intact a large code‑complying addition at 1110 Ashbury Street after a divided vote left the permit upheld by default; neighbors had argued the project was too large and would cause shadow and privacy impacts while the owners cited code compliance and accessibility needs related to the owner’s disability.
A highly disputed addition at 1110 Ashbury that drew lengthy public comment was effectively upheld Oct. 8 after the Board of Appeals failed to reach the four‑vote threshold needed to overturn or modify the departments’ approvals. Because the board was split and no further motion passed, the permit remains in place by procedural default.
Appellants Michelle Meyer and Suchi Pandey argued the proposed horizontal and vertical addition — which increases buildable area and would result in roughly 80% lot coverage as presented — would overwhelm adjacent small yards, reduce sun and privacy and encourage demolition or redevelopment of rear‑yard cottages across the city. Counsel Mary Gallagher also highlighted alleged unpermitted earlier construction on the site and urged the board to require a substantial central light well or other design changes to preserve adjacent open space.
Permit holders Ty Bash and Molly Mroca and their counsel said the design had undergone extensive Residential Design Team and Planning Commission review; they described voluntary design concessions (setbacks, reorientation of windows and notching) and emphasized that the addition meets applicable code limits. Ty Bash spoke to the board about his diagnosis of a degenerative neuromuscular condition and the need for accessible design features, saying the addition is intended to make the home livable for him.
Planning Department staff and DBI confirmed the project’s code compliance after multiple reviews; the Planning Commission held multiple discretionary hearings but did not adopt a uniform modification, leaving the department determination in place. The board considered alternative designs proposed by appellants but did not adopt them.
Commissioner Fung moved to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis of code compliance; the motion resulted in a 2–2 tie, and because Board rules require four votes to overturn or modify departmental action, the permit was upheld by default and will proceed as permitted. The record reflects extensive neighborhood input, technical and historical claims and lingering disagreements about scale and the correct application of lot‑coverage interpretations.
