Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Easement Belgrave topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds permit for 1 Belgrave Avenue despite neighbor easement dispute
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals denied an appeal by neighbors who said prior construction extinguished a convenience easement; the board split 4–1 to uphold the permit and left questions about easement resolution for the courts.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on June 13 upheld a building permit for work at 1 Belgrave Avenue, rejecting an appeal from neighboring residents who argued prior construction had violated a convenience easement and rendered later permits invalid.
Steve Williams, representing neighbors at 15 Belgrave, told the board that work done by a previous owner had included concrete footings and a firewall and “was not replaced in kind,” creating what he called unpermitted structures that should preclude new permits. Williams asked the board to require a current survey and to condition or hold the permit until the survey and legal issues were resolved.
Richard Carrington, attorney for the permit holder, said earlier correspondence and inspections supported the property owners’ position. Architect Lindy Small showed permit drawings and said the new work would remain at least “3 feet and 1 inch” from the property line and would not intrude into the easement area as she interpreted it.
The Planning Department’s Tina Tam told the board that the Planning Commission had reviewed related matters and that interpretation of the easement itself was a legal question outside the department’s purview. Chief Building Inspector Lawrence Kornfield told commissioners he found record evidence of permits and inspections tied to the prior work and that some permits had been completed in conformance with the records.
Commissioners debated whether the board could resolve the broader easement dispute or whether the matter belonged in court. Commissioner Fung moved to uphold the permit; the motion passed 4–1, with Commissioner Holland dissenting. The board did not order the additional survey Williams requested and noted that remedies for alleged illegal construction could be pursued through administrative channels or the courts.
The decision leaves in place the permit for the house at 1 Belgrave but does not resolve the separate property-rights litigation the neighbors said they intend to pursue.
