The Planning Commission on Oct. 2 voted not to take discretionary review of a neighbor’s complaint about an unpermitted one-story rear addition and a small accessory structure at 2 Dunsmuir Street and approved the underlying legalization request. Commissioners found the work generally consistent with scale and side-yard expectations; the acting zoning administrator said she will take the variance under advisement and noted Department of Building Inspection review for any retaining-wall or excavation work.

The neighbor filing the discretionary-review petition—an immediate rear neighbor at 1 Colby Street—raised concerns that work at 2 Dunsmuir had disturbed a shared retaining wall, removed trees and destabilized the adjacent yard and a utility pole. The neighbor said negotiations with the property owner over cost-sharing for wall repairs had failed. The project sponsor and designer said the additions predated current ownership and noted the addition appears in satellite imagery as early as 1995; the sponsor’s plans call for legalizing a roughly 360-square-foot rear addition and a small storage accessory building, and to provide usable roof-deck open space to meet open-space requirements.

Planning staff said the retaining-wall and excavation issues fall to the Department of Building Inspection and, if necessary, the Board of Appeals, and are outside the commission’s land-use purview for a CUA/VAR determination. The acting zoning administrator said she would take the variance under advisement to review revised plans and code changes that may affect portions of the addition. The commission’s motion not to take discretionary review and to approve the project passed unanimously, 7–0.

Votes at a glance
- Motion to decline discretionary review and approve legalization of the rear addition and accessory structure at 2 Dunsmuir: passed unanimously, 7–0.

Why it matters
The hearing clarified jurisdictional responsibilities: structural and retaining-wall safety and excavation are enforced through Building Inspection permits and appeals, while legalization of the addition was determined under the Planning Code’s variance and open-space rules.