land use tool llall land justice community school & community powered atx land justic OurStorymaps History Austinislocatedonancestroallandsofdifferenttribes Whitesettlersarrivedinthe1820swhentheMexicangovernmentencourage colonizationforprofit StephenF.Austinbrought500settlerfamiles,establishedtheAustincolony andhelpedformtheTexanmilitia (latertheTexanRangers)whichviolently displacedindigenouspeople EarlyAustinreliedheavilyonlandspeculationandslavery The1928MasterPlanforcedBlackandMexican-AmericanresidentsintoEast Austin Federalredliningpolicies(1930s-1960s) EnvironmentalRacism Defining gentrification Steps to gentrification and displacement in working class communities of color A history of disinvestment Speculators or developers “flipping” properties Rezoning, subsidies, and other policies i CollectingStories Over 20 stories have been documented, highlighting the Ovevv r 20 stss ott ries havevv been documentett d, highlighting the gentrififf cation, histss ott ric displall cecc mnt and syss syy tss ett mic rarr cism in Austss in gentrification, historic displacemnt and systemic racism in Austin Rosewoods CoCC urtrr stt : Rosewoods Courts: Primarilyll AfAA rff ican American Living Primarily African American Living Private redevelopment and demolition along with no Privatett rerr devee evv loll pment and demolitii ion aloll ng witii h no tett netee stt rightstt caused displall cecc ment tenets rights caused displacement The Goodwin appartrr mentstt : The Goodwin apartments: AfAA tff ett r rerr devee evv loll pment, lell ss than 10% wererr ‘affff off rdrr ablell ’ After redevelopment, less than 10% were ‘affordable’ homes homes Displaced families and ⅓ of children at Govalle Displall cecc d faff milies and ⅓ ofoo childll rerr n at Govallell Elell mentatt ry Elementary Acacia Cliffff sff : Acacia Cliffs: DB90 prorr grarr m misrerr prerr sentett d as a tott ol tott increrr ase DB90 program misrepresented as a tool to increase affff off rdrr abilitii ytt living, rerr zozz ned itii stt unitii stt affordability living, rezoned its units Units that were 30-50% MFI now became luxury units – Unitii stt that wererr 30-50% MFI now became luxury unitii stt – fuff rtrr her displall cing rerr sidentstt further displacing residents Solutions People’sPlan CommunityLandTrust EquityOverlay andmore! OURASKS wewouldlikeyoutouse thistool AddmoreEastAustin stories Sharemoresolutions andideaswithus bit.ly/landjusticeatx
OUR APPROACH STRATEGY WORKING GROUP City of Austin Community Development Commission Members: Cmr. Tisha-Vonique (Lead), Chair Elias, Vice Chair Achilles, Cmr. Brewster, Cmr. Longoria, Cmr. Ortiz AIM: Community Development Commission (CDC) Strategy Working Group (SWG) aims to streamline the approach in which the CDC considers, contextualizes, and presents issues impacting communities of the poor and the community at large in Austin. CDC SWG as of 12-9-25 PURPOSE: SWG supports ongoing CDC efforts through effective and efficient feedback loops focused on prioritizing the priorities of communities of the poor in Austin. ● To shape thought process and decision making by City officials, employees, and staff affecting communities of the poor in Austin ● To expand on CDC discussions requiring further investigation ● To assess and deduce approaches to CDBG and CSBG grants ● To clarify narratives and priorities informed by communities of the ● To interpret and generate recommendations from CDC to City officials, departments, other Commissions, and City Council ● To inform and influence legislative considerations of City Council affecting communities of the poor in Austin OBJECTIVES: poor in Austin
OUR APPROACH AIM: Community Development Commission (CDC) Strategy Working Group (SWG) aims to streamline the approach in which the CDC considers, contextualizes, and presents issues impacting communities of the poor and the community at large in Austin. PURPOSE: SWG supports ongoing CDC efforts through effective and efficient feedback loops focused on prioritizing the priorities of communities of the poor in Austin. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION STRATEGY WORKING GROUP OBJECTIVES ● To clarify narratives and priorities informed by communities of the poor in Austin ● To expand on CDC discussions requiring further investigation ● To assess and deduce approaches to CDBG and CSBG grants affecting communities of the poor in Austin COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION STRATEGY WORKING GROUP OBJECTIVES ● To shape thought process and decision making by City officials, employees, and staff affecting communities of the poor in Austin ● To interpret and generate recommendations from CDC to City officials, departments, other Commissions, and City Council ● To inform and influence legislative considerations of City Council COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION STRATEGY WORKING GROUP OUTPUTS ● Discourse Workflow ● Codifying Importance ● Feedback Frameworks COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION STRATEGY WORKING GROUP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION STRATEGY WORKING GROUP (SWG) MEMBERS Cmr. Tisha-Vonique (SWG Lead) Chair Elias Vice Chair Achilles Cmr. Brewster Cmr. Longoria Cmr. Ortiz
DISPLACEMENT PREVENTION: Home Repair & Construction Services DISPLACEMENT PREVENTION: Home Repair & Construction Services Program Activities, Outcomes, Cadence & Report Format Program Activities, Outcomes, Cadence & Report Format Austin Housing | December 9, 2025 Contents Contents FY25 Households Served Demographic Information Geographic Impact Challenges & Opportunities Households Served ACTIVITY Home Repair Loan Program Minor Home Repair Program Private Lateral (PLAT) Plumbing Architectural Barrier Removal (Homeowner) Architectural Barrier Removal (Renter) GO! Repair TOTAL GOAL 6 HOUSEHOLDS SERVED 5 82 15 15 60 7 292 477 56 7 23 66 0 204 361 FUNDING CDBG CDBG Austin Water Austin Water CDBG Housing Trust Fund GO Bonds 2024 Annual Inquiries: 1,354 2025 Annual Inquiries: 1,379 For calendar year 2025, we served approximately 26% of households that submitted an initial application/inquiry. 3 Households Served ▪ While onboarding new nonprofit partners and HUD-required Environmental Reviews extended project timelines, these investments build long-term capacity. Repairs addressed critical health and safety risks such as faulty wiring, unsafe flooring, and inadequate heating, directly reducing emergency repair needs and improving household stability. ▪ Together, these programs served more than 361 households citywide, improving accessibility, safety, and quality of life. The ABR program’s overperformance highlights the strength of established systems, while the MHR program’s transitional challenges lay the groundwork for expanded reach in future years. Both programs underscore the City’s commitment to equity, independence, and community well-being, ensuring residents can thrive in safe, accessible homes. 4 Demographic Impact Home Loan Rehabilitation Program Ethnicity 20% 20% 60% African American Caucasian Hispanic Female Head of Household 40% 60% Yes No Age of Home 20% 20% 40% 20% 75 Years > 55 Years 45 Years 20 Years < 5 Geographic Impact ▪ This map shows the demographic dispersion of where households were served. ▪ This information is consistent with much of the existing data which show the socio-economic disparities with a large percentage of households receiving services throughout Austin’s Eastern Crescent. 6 Geographic Impact Key 0 Households 1 – 2 Households 3 – 5 Households 6 – 8 Households 7 Challenges & Opportunities Challenges ▪ Long waiting lists ▪ Increasing Construction Costs ▪ Staff Capacity ▪ Unpaid Taxes ▪ Federal Funding Opportunities ▪ Increase program efficiencies ▪ Multiple Funding Sources ▪ Expand the pool of contractors providing services ▪ Update Data Collection and Reporting Systems ▪ Outdated Data Collection and Reporting ▪ Update application process(es) Systems ▪ Targeted marketing of programs and home …
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Monday, November 10, 2025 The BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT convened in a Regular meeting on Monday, November 10, 2025, at 301 West 2nd Street in Austin, Texas. Madam Chair Jessica Cohen called the Board of Adjustment Meeting to order at 5:56 PM. Board Members/Commissioners in Attendance in-Person: Jessica Cohen-Chair, Haseeb Abdullah, Sameer S Birring, Jeffery Bowen, Bianca A. Medina-Leal, Brian Poteet, Maggie Shahrestani, Michael Von Ohlen Board Members/Commissioners in Attendance Remotely: Melissa Hawthorne-Vice Chair, Thomas Ates, Yung-ju Kim Board Members absent: Corry L Archer-Mcclellan (Alternate) 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. NONE APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Board of Adjustment Regular meeting on October 13, 2025. On-Line Link: Oct 13, 2025 draft minutes The minutes from the meeting on October 13, 2025, were approved on Board member Michael Von Ohlen, Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne second, on 11-0 Vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS Discussion and action on the following cases New Interpretation case: 2. C15-2025-0041 Christ May (Appellant) Warren Konkel (Owner) 6706 Bridge Hill Cove On-Line Link: ADV PACKET APPELLANT; ADV PACKET PERMIT HOLDER; PRESENTATION APPELLANT; PRESENTATION PERMIT HOLDER; AE REPORT Appellant challenges approval of administrative revisions to Plan Review No. 2022- 0060407PR and revisions to the following associated permits: Building Permit No. 2022-093202BP (house remodel/additions) Building Permit no. 2022-093203BP (pool) on the grounds that the approved work violates the applicable regulations of the Lake Austin (LA) zoning district established under City Code Chapter 25-2 (Zoning), including limitations on the modification or expansion of a legally noncomplying structure under City Code Sec. 25-2-963 (Modification and Maintenance of Noncomplying Structures) and other applicable site development standards. The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to postpone appeal to December 8, 2025; Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 11-0 votes; POSTPONED TO December 8, 2025. Previous Postponed Sign cases: 3. C16-2025-0005 Jonathan Perlstein for Elizabeth McFarland 4700 Weidemar Lane On-Line Link: ITEM03 ADV PACKET PART1, PART2, PART3, PRESENTATION The applicant is requesting a sign variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-10-127 (Multi-Family Residential Sign District Regulations): (E) (2) (a) to exceed total sign area of …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM04 DATE: Monday November 10, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C15-2025-0026 ___Y____Thomas Ates (D1) ___Y____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) ___Y____Jessica Cohen (D3) ___Y____Yung-ju Kim (D4) ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) ___Y____Haseeb Abdullah (D6) ___Y____Sameer S Birring (D7) ___Y____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) ___Y____Brian Poteet (D9) ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) ___Y____Jeffery L Bowen (M) ___-____Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) ___-____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPLICANT: Stephen Hawkins OWNER: Red Bud Partners, LP ADDRESS: 1750 CHANNEL RD VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant has requested variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-1176 (Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses) (A) (1) to increase the dock length from 30 feet (required) to thirty- seven feet and three inches (37’ 3”) (requested), in order to erect a boat dock in a “SF-2” Single-Family zoning district. Note: Land Development Code, 25-2-1176 Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses (A) A dock or similar structure must comply with the requirements of this subsection. (1) A dock may extend up to 30 feet from the shoreline, except that the director may require a dock to extend a lesser or greater distance from the shoreline if deemed necessary to ensure navigation safety. BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to Postpone to September 8, 2025; Vice-Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 9-0 votes; POSTPONED TO September 8, 2025. September 8, 2025 Applicant requested postponement to October 13,2025; Madam Chair Jessica Cohen’s motion to Postpone to October 13, 2025; Board member Corry Archer-Mcclellan second on 10-0 votes; POSTPONED TO October 13, 2025. October 13, 2025 APPLICANT REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 10, 2025; BOARD MEMBERS APPROVED POSTPONEMENT TO November 10, 2025, NO OBJECTIONS; November 10, 2025 The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica ITEM02/1 Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to postpone to December 8, 2025; Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 11-0 votes; POSTPONED TO December 8, 2025. FINDING: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: (b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: 3. The variance will not alter the character of the area adjacent to the property, will not impair the use of adjacent …
ITEM02/49 ITEM02/50 ITEM02/51 ITEM02/52 ITEM02/53 ITEM02/54 ITEM02/55 ITEM02/56 Exhibit A: Image from 09/24/2025 showing the lake depth is 2’9.5” 30 ft from shore 33.5 inches 2 feet 9.5 inches ITEM02/57 Exhibit B: Image from 10/09/2025 showing the lake depth measure 2’1.5” where the hull of a boat would sit with a 30ft long boat dock 25.5 inches 2 feet 1.5 inches ITEM02/58 Exhibit C: Images showing existing structures extend less into the lake than the downstream neighboring dock which is 30ft in length. 1748 dock (downstream) 1748 dock extends much further into the lake Existing 1750 dock Current structure which is 6 inches longer than the proposed is further from the middle of the lake than the adjacent downstream neighbors 30 foot dock. ITEM02/59 Exhibit D: Downstream shoreline curves into the in front of the dock creating several feet of length into the lake. Closeup of neighboring shoreline shows that it protrudes into the lake several feet where the boat dock is. ITEM02/60 Opposition to Variance 2 CASES C15-2025-0026 and C15-2025-0027 1 Site Plan SP-2025-0119D 1750 Channel Rd. & 1752 Channel Rd. By: Bruce & Nellie Slayden, Conforming dock at 1744 Channel Rd. 1 ITEM02/61 1750 Channel Rd - Nonconforming 37’ Existing nonconforming: Never Permitted 1 story Uncovered fishing pier NO watercraft slips 2 ITEM02/62 1752 Channel Rd - Nonconforming 47’ or 46’ 1” Existing nonconforming structure: Never permitted 1-story 1-watercraft slip 47’ Length Proposed nonconforming: • 3 stories across entire structure • 2 watercraft slips • 46’1’ shoreline L is 16’1” (154% of) over statutory 30’ • 22’ W vs. 14’W Existing • 2 flights of stairs • Proposed dimensions and location different than existing 3 ITEM02/63 Applicants Proposed Docks vs. Existing 4 ITEM02/64 NO HARDSHIP Applicants False/Misleading Assumptions for Alleged Hardship Applicant FALSE assumption “‘a modern watercraft’ requires water depth of 4 feet” True: Numerous modern watercraft require much less than 4. “Modern watercraft” operate in 2.5’depths: • Inboard/Outboard Watercraft • Pontoon Watercraft • Tritoon Watercraft • Outboard Watercraft • Jet Watercraft 5 ITEM02/65 Applicants state “‘modern watercraft’ require 4’ water depth; See Aqua Permit, Item 05/8 Presentation, p. 8 True: Modern lifts designed specifically to protect “modern watercraft” in shallow waters only need 2.5’ depth; no excess dredging • Cantilever Lifts extend and retract 3’ to 6’ into lake for launching and docking Modern Watercraft ; e.g. HydroHoist Ultralift for 6500 lbs watercraft, extends 4.5’ into lake, …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM05 DATE: Monday November 10, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C15-2025-0027 ___Y____Thomas Ates (D1) ___Y____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) ___Y____Jessica Cohen (D3) ___Y____Yung-ju Kim (D4) ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) ___Y____Haseeb Abdullah (D6) ___Y____Sameer S Birring (D7) ___Y____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) ___Y____Brian Poteet (D9) ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) ___Y____Jeffery L Bowen (M) ___-____Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) ___-____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPLICANT: Stephen Hawkins OWNER: Tom Davis Jr. ADDRESS: 1752 CHANNEL RD VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant has requested variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-1176 (Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses) (A) (1) to increase the dock length from 30 feet (required) to forty-six feet and one inch (46’ 1”) (requested), in order to erect a boat dock in a “SF-2” Single-Family zoning district. Note: Land Development Code, 25-2-1176 Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses (A) A dock or similar structure must comply with the requirements of this subsection. (1) A dock may extend up to 30 feet from the shoreline, except that the director may require a dock to extend a lesser or greater distance from the shoreline if deemed necessary to ensure navigation safety. BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to Postpone to September 8, 2025; Vice-Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 9-0 votes; POSTPONED TO September 8, 2025; September 8, 2025 Applicant requested postponement to October 13,2025; Madam Chair Jessica Cohen’s motion to Postpone to October 13, 2025; Board member Corry Archer-Mcclellan second on 10-0 votes; POSTPONED TO October 13, 2025. October 13, 2025 APPLICANT REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 10, 2025; BOARD MEMBERS APPROVED POSTPONEMENT TO November 10, 2025, NO OBJECTIONS, November 10, 2025 The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to postpone to December 8, 2025; Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 11-0 votes; POSTPONED TO December 8, 2025. ITEM03/1 FINDING: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: (b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: 3. The variance will not alter the character of the area adjacent to the property, will not impair the use of adjacent conforming property, …
ITEM03/35 ITEM03/36 ITEM03/37 ITEM03/38 ITEM03/39 ITEM03/40 From: To: Subject: Date: Ramirez, Diana FW: Strong Objection to Variance Request; Case No. C15-2025-0026; 1750 Channel Road Monday, August 11, 2025 12:34:59 PM External Email - Exercise Caution Strong Objection to Variance Request; Case No. C15-2025-0026; 1750 Channel Road Please add these pictures to my email ITEM03/41 ITEM03/42 ITEM03/43 ITEM03/44 Re: Strong Objection to Variance Request; Case No. C15-2025-0026; 1750 Channel Road Dear Members of the Board of Adjustments, We, Bruce and Niloofar Slayden, representing the SLAYDEN BRUCE & NELLIE REVOCABLE TRUST at 1744 Channel Road, respectfully submit this letter to express our strong and unequivocal opposition to the variance request submitted by Red Bud Partners LP for the property located at 1750 Channel Road. The request seeks approval to construct a new dock extending 37 feet and 3 inches from the shoreline—substantially exceeding the 30-foot maximum length permitted under the Land Development Code (LDC 25-2-1176). We urge the Board to deny this request. This request is not only excessive and unjustified, but also poses a threat to navigation safety, neighborhood consistency, and surrounding property values. Critically, this variance request is inconsistent with both the letter and the intent of the applicable regulations. 1. Undermining Code’s Intent The variance request proposes a dock length that is 124% of the maximum allowable by code—exceeding the 30-foot limit by a more than 7 feet. The applicant has not provided evidence demonstrating that this increased length is necessary for navigation safety, as required under LDC 25-2-1176. In the absence of such justification, approval would set a troubling precedent and undermine the intent and the integrity of the Code. 2. Navigation Hazard and Community Consistency The proposed 37+ feet, multi-level dock would constitute a significant navigational hazard. It would be the only residential multi-level dock in the area extending nearly 125% of the standard shoreline distance. This outlier configuration deviates dramatically from the existing character of surrounding docks along Lake Austin, which are predominantly conform to code. A new multi-level dock of up to a 30’ height and 37+’ length would obstruct sight lines around the shoreline curve, increasing the risk of boating accidents. The Board must not approve any new structure that compromises boater safety on Lake Austin. ITEM03/45 3. Adverse Impact on Neighboring Properties and the Lake Community Approval of this variance would result in immediate and measurable harm to neighboring properties, including ours. A …
Applicants state “‘modern watercraft’ require 4’ water depth; See Aqua Permit, Item 05/8 Presentation, p. 8 True: Modern lifts designed specifically to protect “modern watercraft” in shallow waters only need 2.5’ depth; no excess dredging • Cantilever Lifts extend and retract 3’ to 6’ into lake for launching and docking Modern Watercraft ; e.g. HydroHoist Ultralift for 6500 lbs watercraft, extends 4.5’ into lake, min depth 2.5’ • Articulating Lifts • Extending Lifts 6 ITEM03/66 7 ITEM03/67 Cantilever Lifts prevalent on Lake Austin HydroHoist Ultra Cantilever Lift; 6500 lbs watercraft, travels 54”, 2.5’ depth Only 8.17 Cu Yds Dredge Volume Less than 25 Cu Yds No dredging needed past ~17.5’ from shoreline Methodology: 2.5’ Depth (Red Line at 490.3’ ) applied to Applicant Data; Intersects “Existing Profile of Lake Bed” at 17.5’ shoreline L, eliminating dredging from 17.5’ to 30’ Using above data for Average End Area Calculation, Dredge Volume = (Ave Height 0.9’ x 14’W x 17.5’ L ) = 220.5 Cu Ft = 8.17 Cu Yds 2.5 requires only 8.17 Cu. Yds of dredge across 17.5’ from shoreline 8 ITEM03/68 Cantilever Lifts prevalent on Lake Austin HydroHoist Ultra Cantilever Lift; 6500 lbs watercraft, travels 54”, 2.5’ depth Only 9.72 Cu Yds Dredge Volume Less than 25 Cu Yds No dredging needed past ~17.5’ from shoreline Methodology: 2.5’ Depth (Red Line at 490.3’) applied to Applicant Data; Intersects “Existing Profile of Lake Bed” at 15’ shoreline L, eliminating dredging from 15’ to 30’ Using above data for Average End Area Calculation, Dredge Volume = (Ave Height, Bulkhead & 15’) 1.25’ x 14’W x 15’ L = 9.72 Cu Yds 2.5’ Depth requires only 9.72 Cu. Yds of dredge across 15.0’ from shoreline 9 ITEM03/69 NO HARDSHIP (1750) Applicants Apply False/Misleading Data FALSE TRUE ‘Modern Watercraft’ require water depth of 4 ft” Forces excessive dredging greater than 25 Cu Yds Dredge Volume: 31.01 Cu Yds Modern lifts specifically designed to store, launch and dock 6500 lbs modern watercraft in shallow waters; 2.5’ depths ; Cradle travels 4.5’ Cantilever Lift Significantly Reduce Dredging Dredge Volume: 8.17 Cu Yds Average End Area Calculation using Applicants’ Data at 2.5’ Depth 10 ITEM03/70 NO HARDSHIP (1752) Applicants Apply False/Misleading Data FALSE TRUE ‘Modern Watercraft’ require water depth of 4 ft” Forces excessive dredging greater than 25 Cu Yds Dredge Volume: 42.18 Cu Yds Modern lifts specifically designed to store, launch and dock 6500 lbs …
David Hartman ( 303 Colorado, Suite 2300 Austin, TX 78701 www.dbcllp.com October 24, 2025 Via E-Mail: Austin Board of Adjustment Elaine Ramirez Senior Planner, Austin Development Services Elaine.ramirez@autintexas.gov Re: Objection to Standing and Jurisdiction Board of Adjustment ID: C15-2025-0041 Date of Board Hearing: November 10, 2025 Property: 6706 Bridge Hill Cove To the Austin Board of Adjustment, Austin City Code § 25-1-183 sets forth mandatory requirements for a valid notice of appeal to the Board. The Code provides: 25-1-183 – Information Required in Notice of Appeal The notice of appeal must be on a form prescribed by the responsible director or building official and must include: the name, address, and telephone number of the appellant; the name of the applicant, if the appellant is not the applicant; the decision being appealed; the date of the decision; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. a description of the appellant's status as an interested party; and 6. the reasons the appellant believes the decision does not comply with the requirements of this title. The appellant’s filing fails to meet these jurisdictional prerequisites. Specifically, the appeal omits both (a) the decision being appealed and (b) the date of that decision. There are at least two administrative actions that could potentially be at issue relating to the approvals issued on September 24, 2025, in connection with two separate Building Permits 2022-093202 BP and 2022-093203 BP, however, neither the permit numbers nor the approval date are identified anywhere in the notice of appeal. It is not clear to the Property’s Owner which action or permit is the subject of the applicant’s challenge. Because compliance with § 25-1-183 is a mandatory condition precedent to the Board’s jurisdiction, an appeal that fails to include the required information is legally defective and cannot properly invoke the Board’s authority. The omission of the decision and decision date prevents both the City and affected parties from identifying the administrative action being challenged, undermining the procedural integrity of the appeal process. ITEM04/1-AGENT FOR PERMIT HOLDER October 24, 2025 Page 2 Accordingly, we respectfully object and assert that: 1. The appellant’s notice of appeal is facially deficient under § 25-1-183; 2. The Board therefore lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal; 3. The appellant lacks standing to maintain this proceeding; and 4. Because the statutory window for filing a notice of appeal has expired, the deficiencies in the notice cannot be remedied or cured, and …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM02 DATE: November 10, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C15-2025-0041 __Y_____Thomas Ates (D1) __Y_____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) __Y_____Jessica Cohen (D3) __Y_____Yung-ju Kim (D4) __Y_____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) __Y_____Haseeb Abdullah (D6) __Y_____Sameer S Birring (D7) __Y_____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) __Y_____Brian Poteet (D9) __Y_____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) __Y_____Jeffery L Bowen (M) ___-____Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) ___-____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPELLANT: Christy May OWNER: Warren Konkel ADDRESS: 6706 BRIDGE HILL CV VARIANCE REQUESTED: Appellant challenges approval of administrative revisions to Plan Review No. 2022-0060407PR and revisions to the following associated permits: Building Permit No. 2022-093202BP (house remodel/additions) Building Permit no. 2022-093203BP (pool) on the grounds that the approved work violates the applicable regulations of the Lake Austin (LA) zoning district established under City Code Chapter 25-2 (Zoning), including limitations on the modification or expansion of a legally noncomplying structure under City Code Sec. 25-2-963 (Modification and Maintenance of Noncomplying Structures) and other applicable site development standards. BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to postpone appeal to December 8, 2025; Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 11-0 votes; POSTPONED TO December 8, 2025. FINDING: ITEM04/1-APPELLANT 1. There is a reasonable doubt of difference of interpretation as to the specific intent of the regulations or map in that: 2. An appeal of use provisions could clearly permit a use which is in character with the uses enumerated for the various zones and with the objectives of the zone in question because: 3. The interpretation will not grant a special privilege to one property inconsistent with other properties or uses similarly situated in that: Elaine Ramirez Executive Liaison Jessica Cohen Madam Chair forITEM04/2-APPELLANT BOA INTERPRETATION APPEAL COVERSHEET CASE: C15-2025-0041 BOA DATE: November 10th, 2025 ADDRESS: 6706 Bridge Hill Cv OWNER: Warren Konkel COUNCIL DISTRICT: 10 APPELLANT: Christy May ZONING: LA; I-SF-2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 6 BRIDGE HILL SUBD APPEAL REQUEST: Appellant challenges approval of administrative revisions to Plan Review No. 2022- 0060407PR and revisions to the following associated permits: Building Permit No. 2022-093202BP (house remodel/additions) Building Permit no. 2022-093203BP (pool) SUMMARY: the Revision does not comply with current applicable zoning regulations. ISSUES: illegally unpermitted non-complying structures- occupied basement building, overhead roof structure, trellis & covered patio ZONING LAND USES LA; I-SF-2 Site North LA; I-SF-2 South LA; I-SF-2 LA; I-SF-2 East LA West …
APPEAL OF IMPROPERLY APPROVED PERMITS: 6706 BRIDGE HILL CV Christy May 6708 Bridge Hill Cv Austin, TX 78746 Case # C15-2025-0041 Board of Adjustment Hearing Date: December 8, 2025 ADVANCED PACKET SUBMISSION Submission Date: November 20, 2025 ITEM4/1-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANT Table of Contents 1. Title Page 2. Summary of Evidence 3. Letter from Appellant to the Building Official 4. Letter from attorney Terry Irion 5. Email showing additional flawed justifications ITEM4/2-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANT Summary of Evidence This Advanced Packet presents new survey data, photographic documentation, submitted plan sheets, public hearing testimony, and the City’s own written correspondence, all of which confirm that original, grandfathered structures located within the five-foot Lake Austin overlay setback were fully demolished, and that entirely new and expanded construction is now being built in their place. Because the structures that once held legal noncomplying status were removed down to bare ground, all grandfathered rights were extinguished as a matter of law. For this reason, and for the additional reasons detailed below, both the 2022 permit and the 2025 revision plan for 6706 Bridge Hill Cove were approved in error and cannot be justified under any provision of §25-2-963 or the Land Development Code. 1. Full Demolition Eliminated All Grandfathered Rights The new form survey and photographic evidence reveal that the original single-level patio along the five- foot setback was completely demolished, which alone would have eliminated all grandfathered rights. (See Exhibit A, B, C and D) The updated evidence shows the demolition was even more extensive: Not only was the entire single-level patio was demolished to bare earth, but the areas the permit holder claimed as “enclosed covered patios” were also fully demolished, including all slab, supports, and retaining elements. If any foundation had existed in these areas, as the permit holder claimed, it was completely removed, as shown by photos revealing: Excavation approximately 6–8 feet deep, deep enough that an adult human standing in the excavation is dwarfed by the height of the cut. (See Exhibit E) After this deep excavation was performed, a new, lower-elevation foundation was poured to create a new basement level (which never previously existed along the setback), and new first and second-level living space, all within the setback footprint. (See Exhibit F) In place of the former single-level patio, the permit holder constructed a new basement level with a 10- foot wall that looms over my property. Although the 2022 …
Steve Leitch, Deputy Building Official Brent Lloyd, Development Officer, Development Services Department Keith Mars, Director of Development Services Dear Austin City Officials, I am writing to request that the City of Austin immediately address the significant and well‑documented code violations at 6706 Bridge Hill Cove. After nearly two years of correspondence, public testimony, photographic documentation, and admissions from City officials, it is now indisputable that the 2022 permit and 2025 revision plan for this project were issued in error under the Land Development Code and that the City has not taken the corrective action required by law. The purpose of this letter is to present the full factual and legal basis for revoking the 2022 permit and 2025 revision plan, to address the City’s shifting rationales for declining enforcement, and to formally request written action from the Building Official. ----------------------------------------- 1. The Pool, Single-Level Patio and Covered Patios on Two Levels Were Completely Demolished, and a Second Story was Added on Top of a First Story in the Required Setback ----------------------------------------- For more than a year, I have attempted to explain that the original patio the permit holder claims to be “modifying” was fully demolished. I now possess irrefutable photographic evidence that the patio and all supporting elements were removed in their entirety. In obtaining these photos and reviewing the subsequent form survey of the newly poured foundation, it became clear that the demolition was even more extensive than I originally understood. Not only were the single level patio and pool demolished, but the covered patios along the back of the house on both the first and second levels were also fully removed and replaced with new living space constructed inside the required setback on three levels (Basement, 1st floor, second floor). 25-2-963 (B)(2) - Replacement or alteration of an original foundation may not change the finished floor elevation by more than one foot vertically, in either direction. (EXHIBIT A) – Photo showing a man standing on the foundation forms. The image clearly shows that the surrounding earth had been excavated to a depth approximately equal or greater than the full height of the individual, and that the retaining wall forms were being prepared at the base of the excavation. The scale provided by the man’s height makes evident the significant depth of the excavation and confirms that it exceeds the allowable one-foot limit under Code. ITEM04/1-NEW INFO PART2-APPELLANT (EXHIBIT …
ITEM04/1-NEW INFO PART3-APPELLANT ITEM04/2-NEW INFO PART3-APPELLANT ITEM04/3-NEW INFO PART3-APPELLANT ITEM04/4-NEW INFO PART3-APPELLANT ITEM04/5-NEW INFO PART3-APPELLANT
From: Leitch, Steve <Steve.Leitch@austintexas.gov> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2025 4:08 PM To: Terry Irion Cc: Wilcox, Todd <Todd.Wilcox@austintexas.gov>; Lloyd, Brent <brent.lloyd@austintexas.gov> Subject: RE: >; Christy May < Following our meeting on January 6, 2025, I re-reviewed the decision to approve Plan Review case PR-22-066047 with Brent Lloyd and Todd Wilcox. We considered your contention regarding location of the modified patio, as well as your position that the proposed development violates limits on modifications to noncomplying structures under LDC Sections 25-2-963(b)(2) & (4). This email explains my decision to approve the plans and addresses the main points you made at our meeting and in email communications on this topic. Location of Patio You have asserted on several occasions, most recently in an email from Tuesday, January 7, that the new patio extends further towards the rear (westward) than the previous patio: (“the entire pool deck was extended above finished grade additional lineal feet towards the rear of the property “) However, this claim is contradicted by the two images below from the approved plan set. The first image depicts the existing conditions, while the second image depicts the proposed conditions. As you can see, the reconstructed patio occupies the same footprint as the existing one except for the portion of the existing patio between 0’-5’ from the (south) side property line which was removed (the 3.25” difference in the measured dimensions is due to inaccuracy of the measurement method). The reconstructed patio which was approved does not extend further towards the rear of the property. ITEM04/1- NEW INFO PART4-APPELLANT Limits on Alteration of Noncomplying Structures ITEM04/2- NEW INFO PART4-APPELLANT You have stated that proposed modification of the patio violates LDC Sec. 25-2-963(B)(2), which provides that: “Replacement or alteration of an original foundation may not change the finished floor elevation by more than one foot vertically, in either direction.” However, there is no indication in the approved plans that the finished-floor elevation of the existing patio would change as part of the renovations. Further, this code section only limits changes in floor elevation that are caused by a foundation replacement/alteration. It is not apparent that the replacement/alteration of the foundation is what caused the change in the finished floor elevation of the patio. Rather, it appears as though the two conditions are merely coincidental. You have also stated that the proposed construction violates LDC Sec. 25-2-963(B)(4), which provides that: “If a noncomplying …
