Commission approves rectifying permit at 65 Normandy Terrace after narrow 4–3 vote amid code dispute

The Planning Commission on Jan. 6 considered a public‑initiated discretionary review of a building permit for 65 Normandy Terrace intended to rectify construction that exceeded the scope of a prior permit and to abate an enforcement case. Staff described the project as a complex enforcement and permitting matter involving a Category A historic resource and recommended not taking discretionary review and approving the rectifying permit because staff found no "exceptional or extraordinary" circumstances.

Petitioners, represented by Stephen Williams, argued that the project involved voluntary demolition of nonconforming structures above the height limit and cited photographic and DBI evidence and a notice of enforcement. Williams contended the planning code prevents voluntary demolition and subsequent reconstruction of nonconforming elements and requested the commission to take discretionary review or continue the matter to allow Cow Hollow Association review.

Project counsel and the sponsor countered that the work was an extensive remodel, that errors in the field had been corrected in coordination with planning and DBI enforcement staff, and that the revised permit actually reduced the degree of nonconformity. Mark Thomas, an architect for the sponsor, requested adherence to original approved plan heights in the permit correction. Zoning Administrator Corey Teague summarized the code framework: the planning code allows repair or replacement of nonconforming structures so long as nonconformity is not increased, but code language about voluntary demolition versus replacement is interpreted case by case.

Commissioner discussion included calls for more neighborhood outreach and some commissioner discomfort with adjudicating the complex enforcement history on the spot. Commissioner Imperial moved to continue the matter to Feb. 3, 2022 to allow the Cow Hollow Association an opportunity to be heard; that motion failed on a 3–4 vote. The prevailing motion to not take discretionary review and approve the project then passed 4–3 with Commissioners Chan, Imperial and Moore voting against approval (the transcript records the margin and who voted). The commission placed the matter on the final agenda.

What the decision means: staff and a majority of commissioners concluded the revised permit remedies the violations within the planning code framework and that remaining disagreements are best pursued through permit‑appeal procedures rather than discretionary review at the Planning Commission.