ITEM05 C15-2024-0025 APPELLANT PRESENTATION — original pdf

Backup

Case Number: 2024-000021 BA D-10/1 6708 Bridge Hill Cove A History of Unpermitted Work and Permit Anomalies Appealed Permits: BP-2023-129658 and BP-2023-129659 August 12, 2024 Presenter: Warren Konkel ITEM05/1-PRESENTATION-APPELLANTD-10/2 Original Construction in 1989 1989 Original house and driveway completed (BP-8717316) June 29, 1989 Original survey performed by Michael McMinn. He still has his field notes. July 11, 2024 McMinn performs an IC Study based on his original survey and determines: Total IC at that time was 10,803 sqft. ITEM05/2-PRESENTATION-APPELLANTD-10/3 Pool Addition in 1990 Original swimming pool and patio finished construction in March 1990 (BP-8912843). July 11, 2024 McMinn used historical photos and documents to estimate that the pool deck added 605 sqft. Total IC is now 11,408 sqft. ITEM05/3-PRESENTATION-APPELLANTD-10/4 Annexation and Ordinances Changes Annexation (2000): ● City Ordinance: 001214-34 ● Exception for Existing IC: LDC § 25-2-532 Lake Austin Overlay District Ordinance (2014): ● Ordinance: 20140626-114 ● Effective Date: July 7, 2014 ● IC Requirement: Must comply with LDC § 25-2-551 Total IC at Time of Annexation: 11,408 sqft ITEM05/4-PRESENTATION-APPELLANTUnpermitted Expansions (2014) In October 2014, there were unpermitted expansions to the driveway, front walkway, and pool patio. According to a 2021 survey, this increased impervious coverage by 3,457 sqft. Total IC is now 14,865 IC. D-10/5 Oct 2013 Oct 2014 Aug 2015 ITEM05/5-PRESENTATION-APPELLANTD-10/6 Unauthorized Construction (2021) In March 2021, an application was submitted for addition of front porch and master closet expansion. (PR-2021-050731) This permit was not approved, yet the additions were constructed, adding an estimated 240 sqft. PR-2021-050731 Total IC is now 15,105 IC. Before After After ITEM05/6-PRESENTATION-APPELLANTPool House and Cabana Application Errors (2023) In June 2023, an application containing numerous errors was submitted to replace the pool and back patio with a 707 sqft pool house and covered terrace. (PR-2023-069215) D-10/7 ITEM05/7-PRESENTATION-APPELLANTWood Deck Reclassified as “Existing Conc Patio” Here are the unapproved 2021 PR and the 2023 PR side-by-side: 2021 2023 D-10/8 The 359 sqft of “Uncovered wood decks” is no longer present on the 2023 application. Instead this is represented as “Existing Conc Patio”. The McMinn survey shows that the original construction was a “wood deck” and only counts 50% towards IC. ITEM05/8-PRESENTATION-APPELLANTUnapproved Additions Not Included D-10/9 The 2023 PR does NOT include the unpermitted 2021 front additions: This addition should be considered “new construction” and included on this permit. It still has not been inspected. ITEM05/9-PRESENTATION-APPELLANTNon-Existant “Lower Paver Patios” The 2023 PR survey shows patios and stairways which never existed. Survey included in the 2021 PR: Photo taken April 17, 2024: D-10/10 Survey included in the 2023 PR: ITEM05/10-PRESENTATION-APPELLANTD-10/11 Misleading IC Schedule The IC Schedule from the 2023 PR claims that 1,031 sqft of IC is being removed as a result of this project, however this reduction is based on false information, including removing patios that didn’t exist in the first place. Further, this IC Schedule claims that Existing IC is 14,678. However, this number includes many unpermitted additions. The allowable amount of grandfathered IC is 11,408 sqft. ITEM05/11-PRESENTATION-APPELLANTD-10/12 Timeline of 2024 Permits and Appeals ● Mar 27 - City issues Building Permit 2023-129658 and 2023-129659 ● April 24 - Appealant sends letter to the City alerting them to material errors ● May 1 - City places 658 and 659 permits “On Hold” pending investigation ● June 4 - Property owner submits a Vested Rights application claiming additional IC due to annexation dates (VR-2024-0037000) ● June 12 - The Vested Rights application was denied ● June 17 - A meeting occurred between the property owner, their attorney, and the City where the amount of allowable IC was negotiated in private ● June 22 - The 658 permit was re-activated without any modifications ● July 11 - Appealant files an appeal against the building permit ● July 17 - The 658 permit was placed back “On Hold” ● July 19 - Development Officer Lloyd issues Vested Rights Redetermination ● Aug 2 - The 659 permit was re-activated without any modifications ● Aug 6 - Appealant files an appeal against permit 659. ITEM05/12-PRESENTATION-APPELLANTVested Rights Redetermination D-10/13 On July 19th, one week after the appeal was filed, and one month after the permit was re-activated, DSD Development Officer Brent Lloyd issued a formal “Reconsideration of Vested Rights”, explaining the rationale behind the permit's IC allowance. This document establishes that “original construction” should be set at 12,811 sqft, despite having no documentation to back this up. The McMinn survey shows that original construction was 11,408 sqft. Where did the additional 1,400 sqft of IC come from? Furthermore, this determination grants a “limited redevelopment exception” which inexplicably adds a bonus 1000 sqft of IC, bringing the allowed amount of IC for this property to 13,811 instead of 11,408. ITEM05/13-PRESENTATION-APPELLANTLimited Redevelopment Exception? D-10/14 This exception is based on a 1995 “Guideline” for interpreting SB 1704 (which was repealed in 1997). Assuming this Guideline has any legal standing, the Guideline itself has the following requirements: Does not otherwise meet any of the tests for “Beginning Of A Project”. The third test is: There has been no permit approval within the last ten years. And in Mr. Lloyd’s reconsideration, he states the reason this applies is: Construction associated with the project has remained ongoing over time This statement is clearly false as no permits were issued between 1990 and 2015. This guideline does not apply and the 1000 sqft bonus does not apply. ITEM05/14-PRESENTATION-APPELLANTD-10/15 In Summary 6708 Bridge Hill Cove. ● There has been a history of unpermitted construction and permitting errors at ● The 2023 permit application contains substantial errors and omissions. ● The City has ignored these errors and attempted to justify the increased IC with a dubious "redetermination". ● This determination is based on inapplicable guidelines and false statements. ● The City must enforce its laws and require the property owner to comply. The actions surrounding this property demonstrate a clear disregard for both the letter and the spirit of the law. ITEM05/15-PRESENTATION-APPELLANTRequests ● Revoke BP-2023-129658 and BP-2023-129659. D-10/16 ● Require any new permits to be truthful and accurate, to include all previously unpermitted construction, and to have a clear plan to meet IC restrictions. ● Void the Vested Rights Determination as it makes non-factual claims. ● Set the maximum IC allowed on this property to be 11,408 square feet. ITEM05/16-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT