Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds 765 Sanchez permit after neighbors’ privacy complaint
Summary
After a contested hearing over a rear deck and a decades‑old variance, the Board of Appeals found the 1958 variance/1967 decision authorized the existing deck footprint and voted 4–0 to uphold the current permit; the appellant asked for screening or a setback to protect privacy but the board declined to impose new conditions.
Neighbors appealed the planning and DBI approval of interior renovations and a structural upgrade at 765 Sanchez Street that included work on a rear deck. The appellant, Michael Kurtz, argued a 1959 permit limited a rear deck to a projection of no more than 7 feet beyond "required windows" and asked the board either to require the deck be reduced or to require a new variance to allow the existing depth and associated roof porch.
The homeowners and counsel for the permit holders presented a 1958 planning‑commission variance (referenced as resolution 48 40) that established the building envelope and plans from 1958–1967. They argued the deck was built according to those approved plans and that a 1967 Board of Appeals decision allowed the roofed porch that the appellant cited. DBI and planning staff reviewed the archival record, site photos and the approved plans; DBI said repair work is permitted and replacement becomes a trigger only when more than half of the structure is replaced.
After hearing competing presentations, the board found the historical variance and the subsequent board decision supported the existing building envelope and that the current work did not change the envelope or footprint in a way that would require a new variance. The board voted 4–0 to deny the appeal and uphold issuance of the permit without additional conditions. Commissioners encouraged neighbors and property owners to seek negotiated, on‑site accommodations—landscaping or privacy screening—where feasible, but declined to impose new permit conditions in this case.
The permit holders offered to plant privacy landscaping on a narrow portion of the deck to reduce direct sightlines; the appellant said that would be an acceptable mitigation if it did not unduly block the permit holder’s principal view. The board noted the relevance of 1958 and 1967 actions as binding elements of the property’s permit history and declined to order removal or reduction of the deck.
