ITEM05 C15-2024-0025 PRESENTATION APPELLANT/UPDATED — original pdf

Backup

6708 Bridge Hill Cove A History of Unpermitted Work and Permit Anomalies Appealed Permits: BP-2023-129658 and BP-2023-129659 Case Number: C15-2024-0025 Date: September 9, 2024 Presenter: Warren Konkel ITEM05/1-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATEDPart 1 Introduction ITEM05/2-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATEDBridge Hill Has Four Cliff-Edge “View” Homes The long, narrow lots feature front driveways, with homes built right at the cliff’s edge overlooking a steep drop-off. This design maximizes views for each home, enhancing property values. 6706 6708 6709 6707 ITEM05/3-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATED6708 Plans Massive Pool House Expansion This expansion sits directly on the setback line, just 15 feet from the neighboring pool and patio, towering over 6706’s backyard. The massive structure will block views enjoyed since these homes were built in the 80s, drastically reducing property value. ITEM05/4-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATEDSo Much Expansion That Cliff Infill Is Needed The expansion pushes so far beyond the natural cliff edge that an "Infill" permit is needed to create more buildable land. 2024-050005 EV ITEM05/5-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATEDFirepit and Trees Removed for New Construction This firepit and tree, along with a much larger oak, have already been removed to make way for this massive 24-foot-tall, 32-foot-long building. Previously open space is turning into a towering permanent structure. ITEM05/6-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATEDPart 2 History ITEM05/7-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATEDOriginal Construction 1987-1990 The original permit (BP-8717316) was issued in 1987, with the house, front walkway, and driveway completed by 1989. The swimming pool and back patio were added soon after, finishing in 1990 (BP-8912843). ITEM05/8-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATEDSurvey Conducted on June 29, 1989 by Michael McMinn Michael McMinn (RPLS #4267) surveyed the property in 1989, right after the house was completed and before the pool was added. Recently, using his original survey data and field notes, he conducted an IC Study and found the initial construction created 10,803 sqft of IC. Using satellite photos and historical records, he estimated the pool added 605 sq ft, concluding that the total Original IC was 11,408 sqft. Supporting documents: ITEM05/APPEAL1 143-162 ITEM05/9-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATEDMcMinn IC Study Concludes Original IC was 11,408 sqft ITEM05/10-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATEDNo Changes Until New Owners in 2014 The property saw no construction or alterations for the next 24 years. On June 26, 2014, the property was sold to new owners. McMinn IC Study determining 1990 Original Construction Google Earth - 2013/10/31 ITEM05/11-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATEDUnpermitted Expansions in 2014 In October 2014, shortly after the property changed ownership, unpermitted expansions were made to the driveway, front walkway, and pool patio. Other additions included a firepit area, an outdoor kitchen under the wooden deck, landscaping walls, and more. On January 13, 2021, a survey by Holt Carlson (RPLS #5166) revealed the property’s Total IC had grown to 14,860 sqft, an increase of 3,452 sq ft above the Original IC. Oct 2013 Oct 2014 Aug 2015 ITEM05/12-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATEDUnauthorized Construction in 2021 In March 2021, an application (PR-2021-050731) for a front porch and master closet expansion was submitted but not approved. Despite this, the additions were built anyways, adding 240 sq ft, bringing the Total IC up to 15,100 sq ft. PR-2021-050731 Before After After ITEM05/13-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATEDPart 3 2023 Permit Errors ITEM05/14-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATEDPlan Review in 2023 and Permits Issued in 2024 In June 2023, building plans were submitted for city review (PR-2023-069215). In March 2024, two permits were issued: ● BP-2023-129658 - Building ● BP-2023-129659 - Pool The submitted plans contained serious and substantial errors. ITEM05/15-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATEDNon-Existent Patios There are false claims of existing "Lower Paver Patios" and stairs. The new two-story building will be constructed over a non-original 2014 unpermitted patio expansion and a recently cleared firepit area. Survey included in the 2023 PR Photo taken April 17, 2024 ITEM05/16-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATEDUnpermitted Front Expansions Omitted The 2023 PR omits the unpermitted 2021 front addition, which should be classified as "new construction" and included in the current permit since it remains uninspected. This sets a precedent for unregulated construction without consequences. 2023 PR Actual ITEM05/17-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATEDInflated “Existing IC” Claims The IC Schedule from the 2023 PR asserts that 1,031 sqft of IC will be removed by this project, but this reduction is based on false information, including the removal of non-existent patios. Additionally, the schedule claims Existing IC is 14,678 sq ft, which includes numerous unpermitted additions. Original IC is 11,408 sqft. ITEM05/18-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATEDPermit Placed “On Hold” After Errors Were Reported On April 24, these errors were reported to the city. On May 1, the permits were placed “On Hold” pending further review. 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. – Brent Lloyd ITEM05/19-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATEDPart 4 Vested Rights ITEM05/20-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATEDVested Rights Application Submitted and Denied On June 4th, one month after the permits were placed On Hold, former City Attorney Terry Irion submitted a “Vested Rights” application (VR-2024-0037000) for the property. On June 12th, the application was DENIED by Chris Johnson: The project initiated with the submittal of the Bridge Hill Subdivision plat for this lot was completed with the construction of the residence authorized by building permit 1987-010020-BP and accessory swimming pool authorized by building permit 1989-006985-BP. The proposed application is redevelopment of existing permitting and unpermitted improvements and is considered a new project. ITEM05/21-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATEDPermit Reactivated After Private Meeting On June 17th, a private meeting took place between the property owner, Terry Irion, Brent Lloyd, and others, resulting in the following decisions: 1. Existing IC was set at 12,811 sqft based on “Attachment A” 2. A “Limited Redevelopment Exception” granted an additional 1,000 sqft 3. Existing IC could be redistributed anywhere on the property, allowing significant changes like removing a portion of driveway at the front to justify building a two-story structure on the back 4. All prior expansions plus the new pool house were approved 5. The permit was unchanged except for a “compliance at final inspection” condition, letting the owner build without a solid plan and potentially skip the final inspection The permit was reactivated on June 21st. ITEM05/22-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATEDMisleading Email From Brent Lloyd On June 21st, four days after the meeting where the vested rights were reconsidered and granted, and on the same day the permit was reactivated, Brent Lloyd responded to an inquiry about the vested rights determination stating: “The vested rights determination was denied.” On July 3rd, when asked for further clarification, Chris Johnson wrote: Although the applicant sent the email requesting a reconsideration meeting for the denied vested rights petition, when I called to schedule that meeting, the applicant already had a meeting scheduled with the Building Official to discuss the path forward on their building permit application. Since that meeting was scheduled, it was decided that a reconsideration meeting for the vested rights request would not be scheduled at that time, and if after meeting with the Building Official, they wished to pursue the reconsideration of the vested rights denial, they would contact me to set up that meeting. I received no subsequent request to schedule a reconsideration meeting. ITEM05/23-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATEDBrent Lloyd Issued Reconsideration A Week After The Appeal On July 11th, an appeal against BP-2023-129658 was filed. On July 19th, a week after the appeal and a month after the permit reactivation, Brent Lloyd issued a determination attempting to justify the permit reactivation. The determination references "SB 1704 Guideline" and a “Limited Redevelopment Exception” which allows an additional 1,000 sqft. He then claims this project has had “ongoing construction”, even though no permits were issued for 25 years. The guideline states the exception does not apply if "there has been no permit approval for the last ten years." ITEM05/24-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATEDBrent Lloyd Admits Applying This Exception is Not Common In an August 7th letter to The Board of Adjustments, Brent Lloyd's footnote states: The 1995 policy memo referenced in the determination is authorized under LDC Sec. 25-1-545 (Administrative Guidelines) as a tool for determining when projects begun under earlier regulations are complete. For the last 10-15 years, the “redevelopment exception” described in the memo has been used only in rare cases; the factors supporting its use in this case are not common. Staff decided to approve the exception for this project concurrent with lifting the administrative hold, with formal findings issued by the Development Officer on July 19, 2024. Given the statement “has been used only in rare cases”, can he provide any evidence that this Limited Redevelopment Exception has been used at all in the last 10-15 years? ITEM05/25-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATEDSB 1704 Guideline Does Not Apply The Senate Bill that this guideline references, SB 1704, was inadvertently repealed in 1997, and HB 1704 was adopted in 1999 to reinstate vested rights in Chapter 481 of the Government Code. This Guideline is irrelevant. Furthermore, LDC § 25-1-545(C) requires that “Guidelines adopted under this section shall be posted on the department's website and made available to the public.” This document is NOT publicly available. Who provided the SB 1704 Guideline to Brent Lloyd, and when was it formally adopted? ITEM05/26-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATED“Attachment A” Error: Driveway The 1989 Survey and IC Study by McMinn provide firsthand evidence that the correct number for the original driveway and turnaround is 5,759 sqft, not 6,030 sqft. ITEM05/27-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATED“Attachment A” Error: Wood Deck and Conc. Patio The 1989 Survey and IC Study by McMinn show that the original construction was just a wood deck that only counts as 50% IC. The concrete patio and outdoor kitchen under the wood deck was added in 2014 when the back patio was expanded. The correct number is 138 sqft. ITEM05/28-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATED“Attachment A” Error: Pool Deck McMinn estimates the pool deck at 605 sqft: Satellite photos do not provide evidence that the left side of the pool is original: ITEM05/29-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATED“Attachment A” Error: Flatwork The McMinn Survey shows that original utilitiy slabs only add up to 21 sqft. ITEM05/30-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATED“Attachment A” Error: Firepit and Landscaping According to the McMinn survey, none of this is original. ITEM05/31-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATEDRequests For The Board of Adjustments 1. Deny BP-2023-129658 and BP-2023-129659 2. Instruct DSD to forever disregard the July 19th Vested Rights Determination 3. Set the maximum IC allowed on this property to be 11,408 square feet 4. 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 The purpose of the Lake Austin (LA) overlay district is to protect the scenic, recreational, and environmental benefits of Lake Austin by restricting the scale and intensity of development near the lake. – LDC § 25-2-180(A) ITEM05/32-PRESENTATION-APPELLANT/UPDATED