Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Francisco appeals board upholds denial of rear‑yard garage variance at 47 Sussex Street
Summary
After weeks of filings and a packed public comment period, the Board of Appeals upheld the Zoning Administrator’s denial of a rear‑yard variance for 47 Sussex Street, rejecting the appellants’ request for additional briefing and finding insufficient hardship under the planning code.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Feb. 3 upheld the Zoning Administrator’s denial of a rear‑yard variance for the property at 47 Sussex Street, concluding the record did not demonstrate the exceptional hardship required for a variance.
Appellants Lisa Decker and Julie Sharma told the board they had prepared revised plans and supplemental briefing to address concerns raised at an earlier hearing and asked permission to submit additional materials. “We did prepare a longer brief ... and includes answers to many of the questions we heard,” Decker said while summarizing design changes she said would reduce height and address privacy and safety.
Planning Department staff opposed accepting late briefing, saying the matter had been extensively briefed and that the Zoning Administrator had reviewed the alternate designs and remained unconvinced. Scott Sanchez, Planning Department staff, told the board the subject property “still requires a variance” and that the appellant had not established sufficient hardship or shown the project would avoid adverse impacts to neighbors and the lane’s park‑like character.
Dozens of neighbors and nearby residents urged the board to deny the variance or at least refuse further continuances. Speakers cited safety concerns on the narrow Penny Lane access, privacy loss from a raised deck, and precedent for permitting garages off unimproved lanes. Residents said they had opposed the application at multiple earlier hearings and had not seen a sufficiently different plan.
After discussion the board first voted 3–1 to deny the appellants’ request for additional briefing. On the substantive appeal the board recorded a tie that left the Zoning Administrator’s decision in place and the denial upheld, consistent with the department’s earlier rulings. The board’s action means the applicant may reapply or pursue other remedies but did not overturn the denial.
The board’s decision concluded the planning code’s criteria for a variance—showing both extraordinary circumstances and no detriment to public welfare—had not been met in the record before it. The appellants and their architect said they might pursue further administrative or legal options; the neighborhood said it would continue monitoring any future filings.
