ITEM02 C15-2024-0025 PRESENTATION/APPELLANT — original pdf

Backup

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 character with the uses enumerated for the various zones and with the objectives of the zone in question because”:  “The interpretation will not grant a special privilege to one property inconsistent with other properties or uses similarly situated in that:” ____________________  What is the rationale? ITEM02/7-PRESENTATION/APPELLANTPlan Review 2023-069215 Approved Plans = 9/1/2023 No Updated Plans for IC Compliance 2023 PR Application has Incorrect IC ITEM02/8-PRESENTATION/APPELLANTVariations in Property Owner’s Reported IC 2021 PR APPLICATION (CLOSET EXPANSION) 2023 PR APPLICATION (POOL HOUSE + POOL) ITEM02/9-PRESENTATION/APPELLANTLower paver patio is a firepit area with gravel Lower paver patio is dirt and greenery There is no stairway Master closet expansion not shown ITEM02/10-PRESENTATION/APPELLANTHow Much IC is Actually on the Property? o 427 sqft difference of reported IC between 2021 and 2023 o Even though square footage/IC added, somehow the lower number was accepted o No dispute that the 2021 closet expansion occurred without a permit o The driveway was clearly modified and adds IC o Development is approved/moving forward as though the Property’s existing IC is only 14,678.5 ITEM02/11-PRESENTATION/APPELLANTWas DSD’s decision to reactivate 2023-129658 BP prior to a vested rights determination erroneous? April/May 2024 June 12, 2024 June 21, 2024 July 11, 2024 July 19, 2024 August 1, 2024 Permits Placed on Hold Vested Rights Denied Pool House Permit Re-Activated Appeal re: Pool House Re-activation Vested Rights Granted Appeal re: Pool Permit ITEM02/12-PRESENTATION/APPELLANTNo permitted plans showing how the Property owner will bring IC into compliance o The BOA has jurisdiction to enforce § 25-2-963(C) related to modifications to non- complying structures. oThe BOA also has jurisdiction to determine whether the Property owner violated the LDC. o “The record owner of property is presumed to be responsible for a violation of this chapter that occurs at a facility on the property.” LDC § 6-7-41. o “A person commits a criminal offense if the person performs an act prohibited by this chapter or fails to perform an act required by this chapter. Each instance of a violation of this chapter is a separate offense.” LDC § 6-7-42(A). ITEM02/13-PRESENTATION/APPELLANTConclusion Underlying goals for the LDC, LA Zoning, and LA Overlay LDC requirements and enforcement should apply equally Is the decisions to apply and enforce LDC provisions differently erroneous? ITEM02/14-PRESENTATION/APPELLANTConclusion Continued Appellant recognizes the BOA does not have jurisdiction to modify the Vested Rights The BOA does have jurisdiction to decide: 1) Whether the “plan” to bring the Property within allowable IC limits is sufficient to comply with LDC § 25-2-963(C) 2) Whether the Property owner violated LDC § 25-2-963(C) a) Adding Foundation for the 2021 Closet Expansion 3) Whether DSD’s decisions to re-activate the Pool House permit, without vested rights, was erroneous 4) Whether the Property owner violated the LDC a) 2021 Unpermitted Expansion b) 2023 Inaccurate/False Plan Review Application ITEM02/15-PRESENTATION/APPELLANT