Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Jurisdiction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board deadlocks on 171 Lee Avenue jurisdiction request after dispute over notice and property line
Summary
The Board of Appeals was split 2–2 on whether to take jurisdiction over original 2009 permits for work at 171 Lee Avenue after neighbors said they received insufficient notice and DBI reported survey discrepancies; without a majority the jurisdiction request was denied by operation of law.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals deadlocked on May 11 over a jurisdiction request tied to permits for work at 171 Lee Avenue, leaving the matter to Department of Building Inspection review rather than Board adjudication. The split vote followed competing claims about notice, surveys and whether the permits were issued on incorrect plan information.
Appellant counsel John Chow said neighbors did not receive adequate notice because a job card had been posted on a second-floor window and was not visible to those who used the ground-level entrance. "We respectfully request jurisdiction in this matter," Chow said, arguing that the property at 171 Lee lacked proper zoning for the permits and that the building encroached on 179 Lee Avenue.
Senior Building Inspector Joseph Duffy told the Board his on-site review found surveys showing the party wall only 2 feet 3 inches from the adjacent property, not the 3 feet 1 inch shown on permit plans. "Had that been originally told to DBI, we certainly would not have approved the windows and doors on the property line," Duffy said, and he recommended revocation or revision of the permits because the plans contained incorrect information.
By contrast, Scott Sanchez of the Planning Department said the approved plans comply with planning-code requirements for the zoning district and that, from a planning point of view, the ground-floor layout met the rooms-down matrix. He noted that planning issues about creating legal units differ from building-code concerns about egress and bedroom definitions.
Commissioners explored options including revocation, revision and negotiation between neighbors. Vice President Michael Garcia moved to deny jurisdiction; after roll call produced a 2–2 split, the Board did not reach a majority on a jurisdictional grant. Because no majority voted to accept jurisdiction, the request was denied by operation of law and DBI was left to pursue any corrective action.
The Board left open administrative remedies at DBI — including permit revision or revocation — and encouraged parties to negotiate access arrangements. The Board did not issue an order on the merits; any changes to permits or construction will require follow-up actions by DBI and potential subsequent appeals.
The Board then moved on to other calendar items.
