A COMMUNITY GUIDE TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: Practical Tips for Zoning Variances, Special Exceptions and Administrative Appeals Approved by the Board of Adjustment, on April 13, 2015, and prepared in collaboration with the City Law Department and Development Services Department. Chair Vice Chair Boardmembers: Don Leighton-Burwell, Melissa Hawthorne, Brooke Bailey Jessica Cohen Ada Corral William Hodge Rahm McDDaniel Darryl Pruett Veronica Rivera Yasmine Smith Michael Von Ohlen Legal Advisors: Lee Simmons Steven Maddoux Staff Support: Elaine Ramirez Diana Ramirez - Common examples of hardship include restraints, unusually if they are wants to preserve topographical lot shapes. Trees may constitute required them. lots with steep slopes, small lot area, or irregular or if an applicant to be preserved a hardship, - Personal troubles hardship. focus primarily circumstances, with neighbors, An applicant cannot be the sole basis for finding a but should may mention on characteristics such factors, itself. such as financial of the property or difficulties A hardship cannot be self-created. - An applicant based on conditions for a permit or site plan cannot claim a hardship for creating. that he or she is responsible - For example, if a structure is designed in a manner that fails to comply with regulations, hardship. Or, if a landowner pieces, hardship. the structure's subdivides he or she can't rely on their irregular shape to prove a a lot into irregular non-compliance isn't a A hardship where it's located. must be unique to the property, not general to the area - If steep slopes then neither hardship by itself. or small lots are common to a particular condition is sufficiently unique to constitute area, a - If a lot is entitled automatically relaxes small lots, then of a hardship. evidence the understanding area, development regulations. certain lot amnesty," under city code to "small which regulations for development be relied on as lot size alone should not with was approved of minimum lot Small lot amnesty that, with the exception would meet other site development - The City's example, regulations alone cannot be the hardship. cannot request a height variance and For an applicant BOA Community Guidebook -10 variance, different "hardship." the criteria kinds of situation exception and don't necessarily can be tailored require to address of for a special a showing In 2011, the City of Austin adopted a special exception designed periods required summarize followed to address of time …
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RULES OF PROCEDURE Approved by the Board of Adjustment on February 11, 2019 ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS (A) Legal Authority & Jurisdiction. (1) The Board of Adjustment (“BOA” or “Board”) is a sovereign board established by the City Council pursuant to Subchapter A of Chapter 211 of the Texas Local Government Code (“Chapter 211”). The BOA derives its authority from state law, as well as City Code § 2-1-111 (Board of Adjustment) and Chapter 25-2 (Zoning). (2) As stated in Chapter 211 and the City Code, the BOA’s primary functions are to hear and decide: Requests for variances from site development regulations adopted under Chapter 25-2, Subchapter C (Use and Development Regulations) and from certain sign regulations under Chapter 25-10 (Sign Regulations); Requests for special exceptions from site development regulations, where expressly authorized by Code; and (c) Appeals of administrative decisions made in the enforcement and administration of City zoning regulations and decisions made in the enforcement of Chapter 211. (B) Rules of Procedure. (1) These Rules of Procedure (“Rules”) establish standards, guidelines, and requirements for: (a) the conduct of public hearings and the resolution of cases before the BOA; (b) applications for variances or administrative appeals; and processing of applications for variances and administrative appeals filed with the Development Services Department; and notification to the BOA of the filing of an application for a variance and administrative appeals. (a) (b) (c) (d) BOA Rules of Procedure – Page 1 of 16 (2) In the event of a conflict with City Code, Chapter 211 or other applicable law, the Code, Chapter 211 or other law supersedes these Rules. (3) Applicants should familiarize themselves with these Rules before filing an application or presenting a case to the BOA for decision. For more detailed information regarding Board and the rules for variances, special exceptions, and appeals, see the Board of Adjustment Community Guidebook, at: https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Planning/Applicati ons_Forms/Board_of_Adjustment_Guidebook__July_2015_.pdf ARTICLE II. REQUIREMENTS FOR REQUESTING BOARD ACTION (A) Complete Application Required. All requests to the BOA shall be filed on an application form provided by the staff liaison. The staff liaison shall determine if an application is complete before accepting it for filing. (B) Timing of Submittal & Other Application Requirements. (1) Variances & Special Exceptions. (a) Except as provided in Paragraph (B)(1)(b), below, an application for a variance or special exception may be filed at any time provided that the Development Services …
A COMMUNITY GUIDE TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: Practical Tips for Zoning Variances, Special Exceptions and Administrative Appeals Approved by the Board of Adjustment, on April 13, 2015, and prepared in collaboration with the City Law Department and Development Services Department. Chair Vice Chair Boardmembers: Don Leighton-Burwell, Melissa Hawthorne, Brooke Bailey Jessica Cohen Ada Corral William Hodge Rahm McDDaniel Darryl Pruett Veronica Rivera Yasmine Smith Michael Von Ohlen Legal Advisors: Lee Simmons Steven Maddoux Staff Support: Elaine Ramirez Diana Ramirez - Common examples of hardship include restraints, unusually if they are wants to preserve topographical lot shapes. Trees may constitute required them. lots with steep slopes, small lot area, or irregular or if an applicant to be preserved a hardship, - Personal troubles hardship. focus primarily circumstances, with neighbors, An applicant cannot be the sole basis for finding a but should may mention on characteristics such factors, itself. such as financial of the property or difficulties A hardship cannot be self-created. - An applicant based on conditions for a permit or site plan cannot claim a hardship for creating. that he or she is responsible - For example, if a structure is designed in a manner that fails to comply with regulations, hardship. Or, if a landowner pieces, hardship. the structure's subdivides he or she can't rely on their irregular shape to prove a a lot into irregular non-compliance isn't a A hardship where it's located. must be unique to the property, not general to the area - If steep slopes then neither hardship by itself. or small lots are common to a particular condition is sufficiently unique to constitute area, a - If a lot is entitled automatically relaxes small lots, then of a hardship. evidence the understanding area, development regulations. certain lot amnesty," under city code to "small which regulations for development be relied on as lot size alone should not with was approved of minimum lot Small lot amnesty that, with the exception would meet other site development - The City's example, regulations alone cannot be the hardship. cannot request a height variance and For an applicant BOA Community Guidebook -10 variance, different "hardship." the criteria kinds of situation exception and don't necessarily can be tailored require to address of for a special a showing In 2011, the City of Austin adopted a special exception designed periods required summarize followed to address of time …
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RULES OF PROCEDURE Approved by the Board of Adjustment on February 11, 2019 ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS (A) Legal Authority & Jurisdiction. (1) The Board of Adjustment (“BOA” or “Board”) is a sovereign board established by the City Council pursuant to Subchapter A of Chapter 211 of the Texas Local Government Code (“Chapter 211”). The BOA derives its authority from state law, as well as City Code § 2-1-111 (Board of Adjustment) and Chapter 25-2 (Zoning). (2) As stated in Chapter 211 and the City Code, the BOA’s primary functions are to hear and decide: Requests for variances from site development regulations adopted under Chapter 25-2, Subchapter C (Use and Development Regulations) and from certain sign regulations under Chapter 25-10 (Sign Regulations); Requests for special exceptions from site development regulations, where expressly authorized by Code; and (c) Appeals of administrative decisions made in the enforcement and administration of City zoning regulations and decisions made in the enforcement of Chapter 211. (B) Rules of Procedure. (1) These Rules of Procedure (“Rules”) establish standards, guidelines, and requirements for: (a) the conduct of public hearings and the resolution of cases before the BOA; (b) applications for variances or administrative appeals; and processing of applications for variances and administrative appeals filed with the Development Services Department; and notification to the BOA of the filing of an application for a variance and administrative appeals. (a) (b) (c) (d) BOA Rules of Procedure – Page 1 of 16 (2) In the event of a conflict with City Code, Chapter 211 or other applicable law, the Code, Chapter 211 or other law supersedes these Rules. (3) Applicants should familiarize themselves with these Rules before filing an application or presenting a case to the BOA for decision. For more detailed information regarding Board and the rules for variances, special exceptions, and appeals, see the Board of Adjustment Community Guidebook, at: https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Planning/Applicati ons_Forms/Board_of_Adjustment_Guidebook__July_2015_.pdf ARTICLE II. REQUIREMENTS FOR REQUESTING BOARD ACTION (A) Complete Application Required. All requests to the BOA shall be filed on an application form provided by the staff liaison. The staff liaison shall determine if an application is complete before accepting it for filing. (B) Timing of Submittal & Other Application Requirements. (1) Variances & Special Exceptions. (a) Except as provided in Paragraph (B)(1)(b), below, an application for a variance or special exception may be filed at any time provided that the Development Services …
BOA MEETING DATES FOR 2025 301 W 2ND STREET, AUSTIN TEXAS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS-ROOM 1001 2ND MONDAY OF THE MONTH January 13, 2025 February 10, 2025 March 10, 2025 April 11, 2025 May 12, 2025 June 9, 2025 July 14, 2025 August 11, 2025 September 8, 2025 October 13, 2025 November 10, 2025 December 8, 2025
Case No. 24-000021 BA Motion to Reconsider C15-2024-0025 Property Address: 6708 Bridge Hill Cove Appealed Permits: BP-2023-129658 and BP-2023-129659 Presented By: Nicholl Wade, on behalf of Appellant ITEM02/1-PRESENTATION/APPELLANT Pending Questions from September Hearing Plat Date Were the Administrative Rules for Vested Rights posted on the City’s website? Application of LDC § 25-2-963(C) Reactivation of 2023-129658 BP prior to a vested rights determination ITEM02/2-PRESENTATION/APPELLANT 6708 Bridge Hill Cove Plate Date o Plate Date = June 29, 1982 o Different LA Zoning regulations apply if a property was platted after April 22, 1982 o Here, the stricter provisions apply o The application was executed April 30, 1982 ITEM02/3-PRESENTATION/APPELLANT DSD Did Not Post the Administrative Rules on the City’s Website § 25-1-545 - ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES (A) The director may adopt guidelines to assist in reviewing applications under Section 25-1-533 (Vested Rights Petition Required), Section 25-1-544 (Project Consent Agreements), and Section 25-1-553 (Managed Growth Agreements). (C) Guidelines adopted under this section shall be posted on the department's website and made available to the public, but need not be adopted by administrative rule under Section 1-2 (Adoption of Rules). ITEM02/4-PRESENTATION/APPELLANT Land Development Code § 25-2-963(C) o Noncomplying structure limitations on development o 2023 permits based on a plan review that had incorrect information on IC o No penalties associated with unpermitted construction in 2021, which added IC o No penalties associated with submitting a false plan review application o The Approved Plan adds a foundation for the Pool House and IC ITEM02/5-PRESENTATION/APPELLANT Land Development Code § 25-2-963(C) “(A)(2) Replacement or alteration of an original foundation may not change the finished floor elevation by more than one foot vertically, in either direction.” “(C) Except as provided in Subsections (E) and (F), a person may not modify or maintain a noncomplying structure in a manner that increases the degree to which the structure violates a requirement that caused the structure to be noncomplying.” The Approved Plan is adding foundation and increasing IC. ITEM02/6-PRESENTATION/APPELLANT Land Development Code § 25-2-963(C) “The Building Official has determined will necessitate removal of existing unpermitted impervious cover prior to final inspection.” DSD Findings on Reconsideration for Vested Rights at 6708 Bridge Hill Cove. No checks and balances in place to ensure compliance, i.e., where is the IC decreasing and what are the compliance mechanisms? BOA Findings: “An appeal of use provisions could clearly permit a use which is in …
6708 Bridge Hill CV ITEM02/1-PRESENTATION/OWNER 6708 BRIDGE HILL CV • • The Development Officer and the Building Official have both confirmed the original single family principal and accessory structures completed in 1989 with a Certificate of Occupancy were not subject to “LA” zoning requirements because the plat was initiated before annexation. The only impervious cover added by me as current owner of 6708 Bridge Hill Drive is the 290 sq. ft. front entry/master closet addition in 2022. ITEM02/2-PRESENTATION/OWNER 6708 BRIDGE HILL CV • Neither the City, nor Appellant, nor me, as owner of 6708 Bridge Hill Drive, know exactly how much impervious cover was developed at the time of the Certificate of Occupancy. Official records were not kept at that time and Appellant relies on a survey done before pool and patio construction were added and before the C of O, leading to speculation and assumptions based upon what can be seen from old aerial photography. ITEM02/3-PRESENTATION/OWNER 6708 BRIDGE HILL CV • The Building Official has made no error in interpreting the applicable zoning requirements: what was there in 1989 is in 1984 on the grandfathered (as well as what was built Appellant’s lot). The Building Official has gathered the best available information as to how much impervious cover was on the site after the Certificate of Occupancy was issued and has stated that is allowed upon completion of the remodel project. A development plan has been presented that fulfills the stated maximum allowed Impervious Cover determined by the Building Official. is the maximum amount that ITEM02/4-PRESENTATION/OWNER 6708 BRIDGE HILL CV • • As the owner I accept that I must account for improvements made by my predecessors and limit the impervious cover on my lot based on what the Building Official has determined was grandfathered in 1989. This will likely require removing some or all of the circle drive added by my predecessor. The Building Official has determined from all the available surveys and aerial photography that 12,811 sq. ft. of impervious cover was the minimum amount developed at the Certificate of it was less, but Occupancy in 1989. Appellant speculates that concedes his argument is based upon assumptions of how much decking was added after the McMinn survey was completed and before the Certificate of Occupancy was issued. the time of ITEM02/5-PRESENTATION/OWNER 6708 BRIDGE HILL CV • The Holt Carson survey of 2021 shows there was 14,860 sq. …
Call to Action: Improve Learning Environment & Grow Knowledge! Rezoning Case – C14-2024-0051 Process: • • Neighborhood Meetings • • Board of Adjustment Case (this case) Conditional Use Permit – SP-2024-0379D • Rawson Saunders School for Dyslexics – C15-2024-0031 • City of Austin – Board of Adjustments – October 14, 2024 ITEM04/1-PRESENTATION • Rawson Saunders School for Dyslexics – C15-2024-0031 • City of Austin – Board of Adjustments – October 14, 2024 ITEM04/2-PRESENTATION Laura Rawson Saunders School for Dyslexics – C15-2024-0031 City of Austin – Board of Adjustments – October 14, 2024 ITEM04/3-PRESENTATION CONSTRAINTS Rawson Saunders School for Dyslexics – C15-2024-0031 City of Austin – Board of Adjustments – October 14, 2024 ITEM04/4-PRESENTATION REQUESTED RELIEF: IMPERVIOUS COVER (45% TO 60%) Rawson Saunders School for Dyslexics – C15-2024-0031 City of Austin – Board of Adjustments – October 14, 2024 ITEM04/5-PRESENTATION REQUESTED RELIEF: BUILDING COVER (40% TO 60%) Rawson Saunders School for Dyslexics – C15-2024-0031 City of Austin – Board of Adjustments – October 14, 2024 ITEM04/6-PRESENTATION REQUESTED RELIEF: SETBACKS Rawson Saunders School for Dyslexics – C15-2024-0031 City of Austin – Board of Adjustments – October 14, 2024 ITEM04/7-PRESENTATION REQUESTED RELIEF: HEIGHT Rawson Saunders School for Dyslexics – C15-2024-0031 City of Austin – Board of Adjustments – October 14, 2024 ITEM04/8-PRESENTATION Variance to 25-2-832 – Private Schools & pavement width Rawson Saunders School for Dyslexics – C15-2024-0031 City of Austin – Board of Adjustments – October 14, 2024 ITEM04/9-PRESENTATION ITEM04/10-PRESENTATION
3201 E SH-71 SVRD BOA - C15-2024-0032 Michele Rogerson Lynch Metcalfe Wolff Stuart & Williams ITEM05/1-PRESENTATION 25-2-814 – Service Station Use Must be screened from the street by a building or landscape buffer that includes shade tree. Compliant with buffer May not have more than 16 fuel dispensers Compliant with only 12 May not have more than eight vehicle queue lanes Proposing 12 ITEM05/2-PRESENTATION Transportation Criteria Manual Figure 9-10 Identifies outdated options for double stacking canopies and pumps More car conflicts vs pulling straight Not able to double stack due to site through constraints Intended for safe circulation and queuing with distance measurements Project compliant despite double stacking graphic example ITEM05/3-PRESENTATION TCM Figure 9-10 Purple = queue lanes ITEM05/4-PRESENTATION Purple = Queue lanes ITEM05/5-PRESENTATION Site Layout ITEM05/6-PRESENTATION ITEM05/7-PRESENTATION ITEM05/8-PRESENTATION ITEM05/9-PRESENTATION ITEM05/10-PRESENTATION ITEM05/11-PRESENTATION ITEM05/12-PRESENTATION ITEM05/13-PRESENTATION Hwy. 71 and Royster 10 pumps; 10 queue lanes ITEM05/14-PRESENTATION Summary Reasonable Use times Hardship and AE easement Area Character Outdated regulations Newer designs are more safe Newer designs allow for better air quality – less wait Limitations due to throat length, stormwater pond Not negatively altered by proposing safer design Site Plan in review with City BOA previously discussed revising criteria with CodeNext ITEM05/15-PRESENTATION
705 BROWNLEE CIRCLE VARIANCE REQUEST: IMPERVIOUS COVER & FAR Friday, September 20, 2024 BRWN 705 Brownlee Circle Austin, Texas 78703 COVER SHEET 1 ITEM6/1-PRESENTATION Friday, September 20, 2024 BRWN 705 Brownlee Circle Austin, Texas 78703 LOCATION MAP & SURVEY 2 ITEM6/2-PRESENTATION Required Findings Reasonable Use: Hardship: Area Character: The zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: The zoning regulations do permit a reasonable use via MF-3 Zoning, a zoning that the clients received via a many months-long arduous re-zoning process, against the preferences of the neighborhood, to accommodate what the newly enacted HOME ordinance now nearly fully accommodates. The owners, with the anticipated support of the neighborhood, wish to adhere to SF-3 use that reflects the lower impact build that was always their intent. The intended use's zoning does not allow for a reasonable use because: A: Impervious Cover: The impervious cover limit of the desired SF-3 use (.45) provides inadequate hardscape needed for one of the residents, confined to a wheelchair, to access the majority of the site. Note: The owners are committed to the use of pervious concrete for the driveway and parking areas which will lessen the impact of the variance request. B: Square Footage: The overall design of the home does comply with the gross square footage permissible under the new HOME ordinance, however, the FAR of the primary unit exceeds the single-unit limit due to the square footage required for a van-accessible 2-car garage, an elevator and associated landings on multiple floors. A) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: The clients are required to have a zoning they don't prefer, and that the neighborhood doesn't want, in order to comply with the basic accessibility clearances needed to accommodate the multi-generational home, with a unit for live-in medical help, that was always the intent and that is now accommodated by the new HOME ordinance. B) the hardships is not general to the area in which the property is located because: The only area on the site that accommodates the garage, its access, turning radii, the elevator, stair, and the required landings and their clearances, is behind the existing structure which necessitates more driveway coverage to access. The variance will not alter the character of the area adjacent to the property, will not impair the use of adjacent conforming property, and …
TO: FROM: Jessica Cohen, Chair Board of Adjustment Members Brent D. Lloyd Development Officer Development Services Department DATE: August 7, 2024 SUBJECT: Case No. C15-2024-0025 | 6708 Bridge Hill Cove The matter before the Board is an appeal of an administrative decision by the Development Services Department (“DSD”) to approve a building permit for residential development 6708 Bridge Hill Cove. The issues in the appeal concern the amount of impervious cover (“IC”) approved for the project in relation to applicable zoning regulations. To assist the Board in understanding the issues, this report is laid out as follows: (1) General background, including DSD’s decision approving the permit under appeal and the development history of the subject property, at pp. 1-2; (2) Procedural requirements for the appeal, at pp. 2-3; and (3) DSD’s recommended action on the appeal, at p. 3. 1. Background — Decision on Appeal On March 24, 2024, DSD approved a building permit (BP No. 2023-129658) for construction of a two-story addition and related improvements to the existing residential structure at 6708 Bridge Hill Cove. After the permit was approved, the Appellant (Mr. Warren Konkel) identified errors in the review process related to the calculation of impervious cover. In particular, Mr. Konkel correctly pointed out that some of the impervious cover shown as “existing” on the approved building plans was associated with development that had never received permits from the City. After reviewing Mr. Konkel’s concerns, DSD determined that the proposed plans submitted on behalf of the landowner, Ms. Christy May, incorrectly denoted unpermitted development as “existing” and that review staff had failed to catch the error. Consistent with LDC Sec. 25-11-66 (Errors in Permit Support Documents), DSD placed an administrative hold on the permit halting further inspections pending resolution of the impervious cover issues. ITEM02/1-PRESENTATION While the hold remained in place, DSD reviewed the site’s development history using available plans, aerial photography, and an IC analysis provided by the applicant (see Attachment A) to determine the amount of impervious cover associated with the original construction permitted in 1987 and 1989. Based on that review, DSD determined that approximately 12,811 square feet of impervious cover was associated with the original development and that an additional 1,000 square feet is permissible based on an established policy allowing limited modifications to projects initiated before currently applicable regulations took effect.1 (See Attachment B.) On June 21, 2024, DSD lifted the administrative hold …
REGULAR MEETING of the BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT October 14, 2024 AT 5:30PM Austin City Hall, Council Chambers, Room 1001 301 West 2nd Street, Austin, Texas 78701 Some members of the BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT may be participating by videoconference. The meeting may be viewed online at: http://www.austintexas.gov/page/watch-atxn-live Public comment will be allowed in-person or remotely via telephone. Speakers may only register to speak on an item once either in-person or remotely and will be allowed up to three minutes to provide their comments. Registration no later than noon the day before the meeting is required email for elaine.ramirez@austintexas.gov or call 512-974-2202. remote participation by telephone. To remotely, register speak to ___ Bianca A Medina-Leal ___ Brian Poteet ___ Margaret Shahrestani ___ Janel Venzant ___ Michael Von Ohlen ___ Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS: ___Jessica Cohen (Chair) ___Melissa Hawthorne (Vice-Chair)) ___Thomas Ates ___Jeffery Bowen ___Marcel Gutierrez-Garza ___Yung-ju Kim The Board of Adjustment may go into closed session to receive advice from legal counsel regarding any item on this agenda (Private consultation with legal counsel – Section 551.071 of the Texas Government Code). AGENDA CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The first (4) four speakers signed up/register prior (no later than noon the day before the meeting) to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. Approve the minutes of the Board of Adjustment Regular meeting on September 9, 2024. On-Line Link: Draft Minutes for September 9, 2024 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. PUBLIC HEARINGS Discussion and action on the following cases. Reconsideration Appeal case: 2. C15-2024-0025 Appellant’s Agent: Nicholl Wade - Appellant: Warren Konkel Owner: Christy May 6708 Bridge Hill Cove Building Permit 2023-129658 BP On-Line Link: ITEM02 ADV PACKET APPEAL1 PART1, PART2, PART3 and APPEAL2 PART 1, PART2, PART3, PART4 PRESENTATION by appellant; PRESENTATION by owner; PRESENTATION by staff Summary of Appeal: Appellant challenges issuance of: and on the grounds that the City of Austin incorrectly approved impervious cover (IC) of approximately 12,811 square feet, which exceeds IC limitations applicable within the Lake Austin (LA) zoning district. Building Permit 2023-129659BP Previous Postponed cases: 3. C15-2024-0028 Peterson 1406 S 3rd Street Haim Joseph Mahlof (Green Bay Remodeling, Inc.) for Wendy Jo On-Line Link: ITEM03 ADV PACKET; NO PRESENTATION The applicant is requesting the following variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-779 (Small Lot …
BOA MEETING DATES FOR 2025 301 W 2ND STREET, AUSTIN TEXAS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS-ROOM 1001 2ND MONDAY OF THE MONTH January 13, 2025 February 10, 2025 March 10, 2025 April 14, 2025 May 12, 2025 June 9, 2025 July 14, 2025 August 11, 2025 September 8, 2025 October 13, 2025 November 10, 2025 December 8, 2025
REGULAR MEETING of the ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION October 14, 2024, 6 p.m. Austin City Hall, Room 1101 301 W. 2nd St Austin, Texas 78701 Some members of the Animal Advisory Commission may be participating by videoconference. The meeting may be viewed online at: http://www.austintexas.gov/page/watch-atxn-live Public comment will be allowed in-person or remotely via telephone. Speakers may only register to speak on an item once either in-person or remotely and will be allowed up to three minutes to provide their comments. Registration no later than noon the day before the meeting is required for remote participation by telephone. To register to speak remotely, contact Eric Anderson at eric.anderson@austintexas.gov or (512) 974-2562. CURRENT COMMISSIONERS: Ryan Clinton, Chair, Travis County Nancy Nemer, Parliamentarian, Travis County Lotta Smagula, D1 Beatriz Dulzaides, D2 Ann Linder, Vice Chair, D3 Dr. Paige Nilson, D4 Whitney Holt, D5 Luis Herrera, D6 Larry Tucker, D7 Sarah Huddleston, D9 Dr. Amanda Bruce, D10 Laura Hoke, Mayor CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL AGENDA The first 10 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Animal Advisory Commission Regular Meeting on August 12, 2024. Approve the minutes of the Animal Advisory Commission Regular Meeting on September 9, 2024. 2. STAFF BRIEFING 3. DISCUSSION ITEMS 4. 5. 6. Staff briefing regarding monthly reports provided by the Animal Service Center. Presentation by Austin Pets Alive! regarding license agreement reports Discussion of the Animal Services strategic plan and planning process. Discussion of the first Austin Animal Center/Good Fix spay and neuter clinic held at the Travis County Expo Center from 9/24 to 9/28. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS 7. 8. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Approve a recommendation to Council to ban glue traps at City of Austin owned and/or managed facilities. Approve the Animal Advisory Commission 2025 meeting schedule. ADJOURNMENT The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give notice at least 2 days (48 hours) before the meeting date. (512) 974-2562 or Please contact Eric Anderson, Office of eric.anderson@austintexas.gov for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. For …
Information is from October 1, 2023 – September 30, 2024 Information compiled via ASO Power BI dashboards. Difference of outcomes - intakes Outcome Year (fiscal) Intake Year (fiscal) Dog totals Cat totals Totals Dog totals Cat totals Totals Dog totals Cat totals Totals Cats Adoption Transfer Euthanasia Died Missing Total Dog Adoption Transfer Euthanasia Died Missing Total RTO/RTO Adopt SNR (former SCRP) RTO/RTO Adopt 2024 5211 5859 11070 2024 5205 5727 10932 2024 -6 -132 -138 2024 3362 139 1146 100 67 4 415 5727 2024 3210 715 763 81 26 3 5205
September 2024 AUSTIN ANIMAL SERVICES REPORT 1 Animal Services News • The live outcome rate for September was 97.59%. • A total of 1,002 animals were brought to the shelter which included 568 cats, 399 dogs, 27 wild animals, 3 chickens, 2 guinea pigs, 2 pigeons, and 1 pig. • A total of 578 animals were adopted (142 adult dogs, 111 puppies, 1 neonatal puppy, 252 kittens, and 72 adult cats). • A total of 97 dogs and cats were returned to their owners (RTOs and RTO-Adopt). • On September 1, there were 892 dogs and cats within the ASO inventory (524 onsite, 364 in foster, 1 at a vet clinic, and 2 at TLAC). • On October 1, there were 936 dogs and cats within the ASO inventory (550 onsite, 384 in foster, 1 at a vet clinic, and 1 at TLAC). Animal Protection • Animal Protection Officers (APOs) returned 55 animals to their owners in the field. • Officers handed out 24 fencing assistance applications and implanted 8 microchip(s). • Officers impounded 136 injured animals and delivered approximately 74 wildlife animals to • Officers entered 196 rabies exposure reports and submitted specimens for rabies testing. We had Austin Wildlife Rescue. 12 positive bats and 4 decomposed bats. • From September 1 to September 191, there were 53 total coyote related activities (Behavior types include Sighting, Encounter, Incident, and Observation. “Observation” is defined as hearing coyotes howling and finding scat or footprints.) o 31 Wild Sick o 18 Sightings o 2 o 2 Encounters Incidents • Out of 53 coyote related activities, 22 (42%) reports fell within the reported behavior types (sighting, encounter, incident, and observation) o Encounters: Pets were a factor in 2/2 (100%) of encounters reported. ▪ An encounter involved a coyote with mange “trying to go after dog” ▪ An encounter involved 3 coyotes following resident and dog o Incidents: Pets were a factor in 2/2 (100%) of incidents reported ▪ An incident involved a coyote killing an outside unsupervised cat ▪ An incident involved two coyotes injuring an outside unsupervised cat 1 Dataset incomplete for the month of September due to reporting staff on personal leave. Data will be added to next month’s report. • Out of 53 coyote related reports, 33 (62%) reports were updated to the correct behavior types. 2 o 14 sightings updated to wild sick (Due to mange) o Residents are …
Recommendation The Animal Advisory Commission recommends that City of Austin ban the purchase of and usage of all glue traps at City owned and/or managed facilities. Description of Recommendation to Council The Austin Animal Advisory Commission recommends that the Austin City Council and the Austin City Manager’s Office update City building management practices to ban the purchase and usage of all glue traps at City owned and/or managed facilities due to the ineffective, unsanitary, and gruesome outcomes of glue traps. Basis for Recommendation killed in these traps. 1. Glue traps are indiscriminate. As a result, wildlife and pets can and do get caught, maimed, and 2. Glue traps are inefficient and are not a long-term solution for pest control. When rodents are killed, the survivors and newcomers breed faster, which causes an increase in the population. Proper facilities maintained to plug holes, cut grass, and usage of more humane traps are significantly more effective in the short and long term. The only long-term way to control rodent populations is to eliminate the conditions that attract and sustain them. Without addressing the underlying factors and humanely removing and preventing animals from returning, infestations will persist. Identifying and sealing entry points, removing food and water sources, maintaining clean environments, and usage of more humane traps are the most effective in the short and long term. 3. Glue traps are a health hazard. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warns the public not to use glue traps because they increase people’s exposure to disease. Animals stuck in the glue continue to produce urine and feces, through which pathogens, including hantavirus, salmonella, and the bacteria that cause leptospirosis, are transmitted. 4. Glue Traps are inhumane and cause prolonged suffering. Animal trapped in the glue panic and struggle, which causes them to become even more ensnarled. Often, the glue tears off their fur, feathers, or skin. Some break bones or even chew off their own limbs in a desperate attempt to escape. The screaming of ensnared wildlife is extremely upsetting to people who don’t know how to “dispose” of these sentient beings. Left alone, the terrified, injured animals die, sometimes days later, of blood loss, shock, suffocation, or thirst. Or they die from being crushed in the garbage, which is where the instructions on the traps advise consumers to put them.
ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 12, 2024 The Animal Advisory Commission convened in a regular meeting on August 12, 2024, at 301 W. 2nd St in Austin, Texas. Chair Clinton called the Animal Advisory Commission Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners in Attendance: Ryan Clinton, Chair, Travis County Sarah Huddleston, D9 Larry Tucker, D7 Commissioners in Attendance Remotely: Ann Linder, Vice Chair, D3 Nancy Nemer, Parliamentarian, Travis County Luis Herrera, D6 Laura Hoke, Mayor’s Appointee Whitney Holt, D5 Lotta Smagula, D1 Commissioners Absent: Amanda Bruce, D10 Beatriz Dulzaides, D2 Paige Nilson, D4 PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL Tracey B – Foster/TNR Rochelle Vickery – Spay and Neuter Kristyn Williams – TNR/Rescue/Medical Vouchers APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Animal Advisory Commission Regular Meeting on July 8, 2024. 1 The minutes from the meeting of July 8, 2024, were approved on Commissioner Nemer’s motion, Vice Chair Linder’s second on a 7-0 vote. Chair Clinton and Commissioner Holt abstained. Commissioners Bruce, Dulzaides, and Nilson were absent. STAFF BRIEFING 2. Staff briefing regarding monthly reports provided by the Animal Service Center. The presentation was made by Don Bland, Chief Animal Services Officer, Austin Animal Services. Commissioner Smagula requested that Animal Services staff provide additional information related to the July 2024 Animal Deaths at AAC/Foster charts in the Austin Animal Center July 2024 Data Report. Vice Chair Linder requested that Animal Services staff provide information on the number of clinics accepting medical vouchers and the average wait times for intake of sick/injured and healthy animals. DISCUSSION ITEMS 3. Discussion of the Animal Services strategic plan and planning process. A presentation was made by Stephanie Hayden-Howard, Assistant City Manager; Audrey Muntz, Budget and Performance Manager, Financial Services; Dr. Larry Schooler, Consultant. Commissioner Holt recused herself from the discussion. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS None. A motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:51 p.m. was approved on Commissioner Huddleston’s motion, Commissioner Hoke’s second on a 9-0 vote. Commissioners Bruce, Dulzaides, and Nilson were absent. The minutes were approved at the XX, meeting on Commissioner XX’s motion, Commissioner XX’s second on a X-X vote. 2
