Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Encroachment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds plumbing permit at 2828 Octavia after review; advises survey to resolve property-line dispute
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied an appeal by Scott Mosser challenging plumbing work at 2828 Octavia, concluding the permit was properly issued and that messy lot-split/title questions require a survey or civil process. Vote: 3-0.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals denied an appeal on Jan. 15, 2020 by Scott Mosser contesting plumbing work and alleged encroachment at 2828 Octavia Street, voting 3-0 to uphold the Department of Building Inspection's permit. Commissioners found insufficient new evidence on title or an updated survey to support overturning the permit.
Mosser and counsel argued the permit had allowed installation of new plumbing that extended onto his adjacent driveway and that the work included pipes and fixtures not described as "repipe" under the earlier permit. He presented photographs dated in October 2019 showing new piping along the building face and said the pipes increased risk over his only driveway entrance.
Permit holders Jamie and Andrew Patton and their counsel disputed any encroachment, presented mapping and record evidence that the pipes lie within their lot boundaries, and noted the site's complex lot-split history. Planning Department staff said a 1997 variance and assessor parcel maps show a front/rear lot configuration that places the driveway within the permit holder's parcel; however, staff also acknowledged the lot split appears "sloppy" and recommended a survey if parties continue to dispute property lines.
DBI Senior Inspector Joe Duffy said the bathroom permit in question was reviewed and issued properly, that multiple inspections had occurred and that plumbing permit records can be corrected if survey or remedial work shows a need. He recommended the parties consult the City Surveyor and noted DBI's typical practice is to close code complaints after a survey or remediation plan is provided.
The board's denial of the appeal leaves open administrative and civil remedies: commissioners and staff urged the parties to obtain a survey and work with city survey and permitting staff to correct any record errors, but said the Board of Appeals should not resolve a contested property-title dispute on this administrative record.
Decision: Motion by Commissioner Rachel Tanner to deny the appeal and uphold the permit as properly issued; motion carried 3-0.
