Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues 48 Newton rear‑yard variance protest after neighbors allege unpermitted construction
Summary
Neighbors protesting a rear-yard variance for 48 Newton argued the owner built without permits and that Planning’s notice misstated existing conditions; the board continued the case to Oct. 20 and ordered parties to submit photographs and documentation to clarify where the original rear wall stood.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals continued to Oct. 20 the protest of a zoning variance granted for a rear-yard addition at 48 Newton Street after neighbors and appellants raised factual disputes about the building footprint, the 3/11 public notice and whether the permit holder created the hardship.
Appellant counsel Tim O'Donnell said the owner began construction without permits and later sought a variance after work exceeded the 25-foot rear-yard requirement; he argued a variance finding of undue hardship may not be made if the hardship was self-created. Anne Kenny, the appellant, said a 3/11 notice sent to neighbors misrepresented existing conditions and that when she measured the property she found the permitted rear-yard dimension was incorrect.
Contractor Michael McGee, speaking for the permit holder, said the team corrected earlier paperwork mistakes, obtained planning and structural approvals, and passed building inspections; he stated the actual encroachment was roughly 14 inches and disputed claims that the lower floor constitutes a separate unit. Planning staff (Ben Fu, Kate Connor) said the plans met the department’s 'rooms down' bulletin for accessory ground‑floor alterations, acknowledged some typographical and notice oversights in forms, but maintained the rear-yard dimension central to the variance was correct. DBI staff said inspectors visited the site multiple times and did not find a second unit.
Commissioners repeatedly asked for documentary evidence that would show the location of the original rear wall (old plans, photos, Sanborn maps) and for clarity on whether the 3/11 notice materially misled neighbors. Commissioner Fung moved to continue the item to Oct. 20 and limited submissions to plans, photos and other documentation to be due one Thursday before the hearing; the board voted 4-0 to continue.
The board did not decide the variance itself and asked the parties to return with documentary proof of the pre-existing footprint and any evidence relevant to the hardship finding.
