Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nonconforming Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board overrules Planning on 850 Greenwich, directs narrow findings for limited commercial use
Summary
The Board of Appeals overruled the zoning administrator’s determination that commercial use at 850 Greenwich had been terminated, directing the appellant to draft narrowly tailored findings and conditions (hours, operations) for adoption; the board voted 4–1 to overturn.
The Board of Appeals voted to overrule the zoning administrator’s determination that commercial use at 850 Greenwich had been terminated, directing that narrowly written findings and restrictive conditions be drafted for later adoption.
Gail Elston, the property owner and appellant, told the board she discovered a 1982 notice of termination recorded under a personal name that her title company could not easily locate; she urged the board to consider the possibility that the recorder’s filing practices obscured notice to a later purchaser. Planning Department staff, led by Scott Sanchez, presented archival evidence — assessor and ledger records and a notice of termination — and argued the planning record supports a finding of abandonment under Section 183 of the city code.
Neighbors testified the building had been used residentially for decades and urged the board to preserve the residential character of the block. Several commissioners acknowledged both the procedural confusion in the records and the neighborhood’s concerns and discussed limited remedies. Commissioner Holland moved to overturn the zoning administrator’s determination on the condition that the appellant prepare findings limiting any new use to a restricted category of neighborhood-serving retail (Section 186-type constraints), hours and operational limits; the board passed the motion 4–1.
The board instructed that findings and proposed conditions be drafted by the prevailing appellant, submitted to the City Attorney for review, and returned for adoption at the June 20 meeting. The planning department advised that while the department felt the evidence supported termination, the board may, consistent with its authority, impose narrowly tailored limitations if it finds the statutory prerequisites for limited commercial continuation are met.
Outcome and next steps: Motion to overturn passed 4–1; findings and restrictive conditions will be drafted and circulated for City Attorney review and return to the Board for adoption.
