Board denies parking‑variance appeal for 200 Naples St., upholds Planning denial 5–0

The Board of Appeals on Aug. 17 upheld Planning’s denial of a rear‑yard parking variance tied to an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at 200 Naples St., voting 5–0 to deny the property owner’s appeal.

Appellant Patrick Gallagher argued the lot historically had a driveway and that ordinance 95‑17 and state law support replacement parking when existing parking is demolished for an ADU. He said earlier improvements and a historical driveway location justify reinstating on‑site parking where his driveway once existed. "No parking is required for the ADU," he argued, citing the ordinance language, and said any replacement parking could be located in any configuration on the lot.

Planning Deputy Zoning Administrator Tina Tam told the board the property lacks legal, existing parking, has no approved curb cut and that the submitted proposal would place parking in a required rear yard — a condition that triggers a variance. Planning concluded the proposal did not meet any of the five findings of Planning Code section 305(c): the property is not exceptional in size or shape, the proposal would not preserve a substantial property right, it would remove on‑street parking with a new curb cut, and it is inconsistent with neighborhood character.

DBI confirmed multiple active permits and a notice of violation at the property; DBI said legalizing the ADU can proceed if the parking component is removed or revised so it does not trigger a variance.

Commissioners questioned whether restoration of an historic curb cut would, by itself, resolve the issue; Planning explained that curb‑cut restoration is a separate DPW matter and would not override the variance findings about use of the required rear yard and loss of public on‑street parking.

After deliberation Commissioner Tina Chang moved to deny the appeal and uphold the zoning administrator’s denial because the applicant had not proven the five findings. The motion carried 5–0. Planning told the appellant he may revise the permit to remove the parking component so the ADU portion of the project can proceed without triggering a variance.