Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fringe Financial Service topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds notice of violation for Lucky Group but gives two-month window to seek conditional-use authorization
Summary
The Board declined to overturn a Planning Department notice of violation that found Lucky Group’s check-cashing operation a prohibited new fringe financial service in the special-use district, but it continued the matter to June 19 to allow the operator to file a conditional-use application to legalize the location.
The Board of Appeals on April 24 left in place a Planning Department notice of violation that found Lucky Group Investments’ check-cashing business at 4871–4873 Mission Street to be a prohibited fringe financial service in the Fringe Financial Special Use District, while giving the business time to pursue a conditional-use (CU) authorization.
Appellant counsel Charles Smith argued the Lucky Group’s business had operated continuously in the same Mission Street neighborhood since 1994 and therefore should not be treated as a 'new' fringe financial service subject to the district prohibition. Smith said the business moved within a roughly half-mile stretch of Mission Street over years and that the legislative text governing fringe financial services did not add an explicit change-of-location restriction for this use the way it did for an adjacent alcohol-restricted ordinance.
Planning Department staff (Scott Sanchez) said the ordinance explicitly restricts new fringe financial businesses and cross-referenced Planning Code Sections 180–186.2, which treat relocation of an existing nonconforming use as requiring a conditional-use authorization. Planning explained that existing legal nonconforming uses may be relocated only upon approval of a CU and that staff had offered the appellant the opportunity to suspend enforcement while pursuing legalization; the appellant declined at the time and asked for a board hearing.
After deliberation, a majority of the Board did not meet the four-vote threshold required to overturn the ZA; a motion to overrule the NOV failed 3–2. The Board then voted 3–2 to continue the matter to June 19 to allow the appellant an opportunity to file and begin pursuing a conditional-use application; Planning staff indicated they would suspend penalties if the CU application is filed and actively pursued within the scheduling window.
What happens next: The business must decide whether to file a CU application; penalties can be suspended if the business files the CU and pursues it diligently within the agreed timetable. If the applicant does not file, enforcement and penalties remain in effect.
