Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds rear‑yard variance at 132 Corbett Avenue to allow a rear infill dwelling
Summary
After hearing objections from an adjacent owner and testimony from Planning staff and the architect, the Board of Appeals upheld a zoning administrator’s grant of a rear‑yard variance at 132 Corbett Avenue, finding the through‑lot constraints and proposed split‑site solution met variance criteria and preserved mid‑block open space.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Sept. 10 upheld a zoning administrator’s grant of a rear‑yard variance for 132 Corbett Avenue, allowing a new rear dwelling on a through lot where standard rear‑yard rules otherwise would apply.
Appellant Joseph Foster, owner of an adjacent property, argued the variance application was premature and that the variance decision should await the Planning Commission’s discretionary ("DR") review of building‑permit details; he also raised concerns about impacts on light wells and whether the proposed massing unduly burdens his property. Foster asked the Board to deny the variance on the merits outlined in his written brief.
The project architect and owner explained the lot is a long through lot with unusual constraints and that the proposed approach splits the unit locations (front and rear) to preserve mid‑block open space and the character of the existing 1915 cottage. Planning Department staff said the residence is a 3,057‑square‑foot lot in an RH‑2 zone; staff and the residential design team concluded the proposed massing and a mirrored light well respond to design guidelines and mitigate sunlight and privacy impacts.
Board members considered both the unique lot configuration and the planning staff’s recommendation. After discussion they concluded the zoning administrator did not abuse discretion, that extraordinary circumstances of the lot support a variance, and that conditions and subsequent discretionary review (if filed) allow further refinements. The board voted 4–0 to uphold the variance.
The decision allows the project to proceed to building‑permit submission and any subsequent Planning Commission discretionary review (if filed by parties).
