Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Neighborhood Planning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Neighbor dispute over exposed plywood at 530 Liberty continued to Oct. 6 after heated public comments

San Francisco Board of Appeals · September 15, 2010
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Board continued an appeal by neighbor Larissa Belsky challenging a permit revision that allowed pressure-treated plywood as an exposed finish on a party-wall at 530 Liberty Street; the board asked parties to negotiate and return Oct. 6 with up to 3 pages of proposals if no settlement is reached.

On Sept. 15 the Board of Appeals continued a disputed permit revision at 530 Liberty Street after neighbors and the permit holders made opposing claims about whether the neighbor had denied access and whether planning and DBI followed proper notice procedures.

Appellant Larissa Belsky said she purchased a block-book notification and that the planning department failed to notify her of a permit revision that replaced painted siding with exposed pressure-treated plywood. She said she never refused access for contractors but had requested proof of insurance and a timeline before allowing work in her yard. "I will allow the permit holder access to my property as long as they provide me proof of insurance and give me a timeline," she told the board.

Permit holders’ counsel Conrad Donner presented a contractor letter saying the crew was instructed not to enter Belsky’s property and argued the building inspector was not misled; the Planning and DBI staff explained the permit was approved because it was represented the permit holder lacked access and that siding would normally be required on exposed party walls. Several neighbors testified they could see the plywood wall from public places and urged revocation. After substantial public comment the board directed parties to try to settle and continued the matter to Oct. 6; if no agreement is reached, each side may submit up to a three-page brief before the hearing.