Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Line Window topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board overturns permit for 339 Lexington property-line window, orders planning review
Summary
The board granted an appeal about a property‑line window at 339 Lexington Street after finding the Department of Building Inspection issued the permit without required Planning Department routing; the appeal was granted 4‑0.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on June 19 granted an appeal by neighbors of 339 Lexington Street and overturned a Department of Building Inspection (DBI) permit after determining the permit was issued without required Planning Department review.
Appellants William McLeod and Catherine Miller told the board that the side window at 339 Lexington opens into their breezeway and garden, exposes living areas, and poses privacy and safety problems. They said they had repeatedly tried to resolve the matter with the property owner and had filed complaints with DBI before the owner obtained an over‑the‑counter permit.
Permit holder Chea/Chae Lee told the board the opening had existed and that he had obtained a permit; he said he would consider modifications but disputed claims that the permit was invalid. DBI Senior Inspector Bernie Curran said the permit description was incorrect (it describes a sliding window but the installation is a double casement that opens into a neighbor’s airspace) and suggested the permit should have been turned down absent evidence the opening is original.
Planning Department zoning administrator Corey Teague told the board the property is within the Article 10 Liberty Hill Historic District and that the permit should have been routed to Planning for review. "The permit was improperly issued because it should have been routed to the Planning Department for review," Teague said, and recommended the appeal be granted so the proper review and notification could occur.
Neighbors, including Lisa Fromer of the Liberty Hill Neighborhood Association, described the window as a later addition without a permit and urged the board to uphold the appeal and require the correct review process.
After deliberation, Commissioner Daryl Honda moved to grant the appeal and overturn DBI’s issuance of the permit on the basis that it should have been reviewed by the Planning Department. The board voted 4‑0 to grant the appeal and the permit was revoked.
DBI staff explained that if the owner wishes to proceed with altering the window, the owner must resubmit a permit that will be routed to Planning and, if applicable, to the Historic Preservation Commission for a certificate of appropriateness. DBI also noted that, if the permit is revoked, the existing window as installed may remain unless and until code enforcement or other legal remedies are pursued.
