ITEM05 C15-2024-0025 PRESENTATION OWNER — original pdf

Backup

6708 Bridge Hill CV ITEM05/1-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. ITEM05/2-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. ITEM05/3-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 ITEM05/4-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 ITEM05/5-PRESENTATION-OWNER6708 BRIDGE HILL CV • The Holt Carson survey of 2021 shows there was 14,860 sq. ft. of impervious cover before the 290 sq. ft. front entry addition was done in 2022 on my lot. The Building Official has determined this will need to be reduced before a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the work under the current permits. I am aware of this determination and have prepared a plan to reduce or remove altogether the circular drive and the additional square footage to needed comply with the Building Official’s determination. ITEM05/6-PRESENTATION-OWNER6708 BRIDGE HILL CV • The Building Official has not erred in its determination as to how the Code should apply the LA zoning requirements to the remodel of an existing grandfathered home and Appellant has not raised any error in the Building Official’s determination of the proper application of “LA” zoning rules to this existing residential property. Appellant’s only point of error is the Building Official’s determination of how much impervious cover was existing in 1989. Appellant has conceded that no one knows that answer exactly and that it is a matter for speculation based upon assumptions of what one is seeing on 35 year old aerial photos. ITEM05/7-PRESENTATION-OWNER6708 BRIDGE HILL CV • Appellant claims “excessive impervious cover” on my lot is harming the value of his property. Appellant’s lot is virtually the same size as mine and he admits to current impervious cover of 15,546 sq. ft. Under the Building Official’s determination, my lot will have several less at completion. Appellant has suffered no injury. thousand square feet ITEM05/8-PRESENTATION-OWNERAppellant – Ulterior motive • Please see content of email from July 11, 2024 on the next slide: • Appellant is not truly concerned with the amount of impervious cover on my lot, only with a very specific part of the impervious cover. Since my project began, he has tried to stop my construction in order to gain a view angle from his back patio that he is not entitled to and that was never afforded his property. Since the time that these houses were constructed there have been two trees on my property between our homes, These trees were removed to facilitate the obstructing the view angles from both of our properties. demolition of my previous pool and patio and their removal allowed for a greater angle of view. My renovation will lead to a less obstructed view for both properties as the new construction will be within the previously existing tree canopies. Appellant is using the ruse of “excessive impervious cover” and wasting City of Austin resources in an effort to obtain something to which he has no right. • I would also like to point out that, while both parties involved readily admit that the total of existing impervious cover are just estimates as no definitive record exits, the City of Austin has no motive to arrive at their total allowable impervious cover square footage. However, the Appellant and their team have an ulterior and definite motive as explained above. ITEM05/9-PRESENTATION-OWNERContent of email July 11, 2024: ITEM05/10-PRESENTATION-OWNERTrees between the properties showing historical obstruction of view ITEM05/11-PRESENTATION-OWNERAppellant’s submitted information differences • On several occasions, the Appellant has submitted differing versions of drawings or sketches in order to support his argument. The first picture is the original 1989 survey with the estimated pool and decking plan included showing the deck completely surrounding the pool. This survey was in the possession of the Appellant but was not submitted. The surveyor admits that it is only an estimate based upon what he believed was going to be the submitted plan for the pool and deck as well as old aerial photographs, but the actual plan does not exist. Appellant instead submitted a survey without the estimated pool and deck plan included (second picture) allowing for interpretation on what may have existed. The next photo is a sketch submitted by the Appellant showing a different version of the pool and deck with a much smaller footprint than is shown on the original survey. Next to that, we see a third version of the same area, also submitted by the Appellant, with a different footprint for the estimated decking around the pool. I do not believe that anyone would build a pool deck in the manner proposed in this drawing and I believe that it is an adjustment made by the Appellant to account for the decking seen in the aerial photo from 2013. It is also clear in this aerial photo that there is a large tree canopy and the decking around the pool is completely obscured. I would also like to point out that during a conversation with the previous owners, they stated that the decking completely surrounded the pool when it was demolished in 2014 to build the new pool deck. ITEM05/12-PRESENTATION-OWNERAppellant’s submitted information differences ITEM05/13-PRESENTATION-OWNERAppellant’s submitted information differences ITEM05/14-PRESENTATION-OWNERAppellant’s submitted information differences ITEM05/15-PRESENTATION-OWNER