Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Notice Of Violation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board overrules notice of violation for 256 Moulton Street but orders removal of washer/dryer and adopts findings July 9
Summary
The Board overruled a planning notice of violation for the commercial use at 256 Moulton (Brothers by Choice) after the tenant quickly posted an open‑for‑business sign; the Board required removal of in‑unit washer/dryer and directed findings be written for adoption July 9.
Get email alerts on the Notice Of Violation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Tuesday overruled a planning notice of violation for the commercial tenant Brothers by Choice at 256 Moulton Street, finding that prompt corrective steps by the tenant (including installing an exterior business sign and committing to public hours) addressed the use issue. The planning department’s NOV also flagged a kitchen, laundry and bathing facilities within the commercial space as potential indicators of a dwelling‑unit conversion.
Planning staff told the Board that although the tenant had agreed to post a sign and operate during set hours — which would make the space a retail/general office use in the NC‑3 district — the presence of a full kitchen, washer/dryer and shower raised concerns that the space could function as a dwelling unit without proper approvals. The tenant and leaseholder representatives supplied a commercial lease and the tenant, Andrew Sims of Brothers by Choice, testified that the business serves walk‑in customers and hosts appointments.
After hearing both sides, the Board overruled the NOV as to the use, conditioned that the on‑site washer/dryer be removed, and ordered formal findings to be prepared and adopted at the July 9 meeting. Commissioners noted they would inspect or require verification that the condition had been satisfied prior to findings adoption.
The Board recorded the motion and set a short schedule for submission of written findings; the vote on the motion was 4–0.
