ITEM02 C15-2025-0041 PRESENTATION APPELLANT — original pdf

Backup

1 ITEM02/1-APPELLANT2 ITEM02/2-APPELLANT Fourth, the pool deck has expanded since the 1997 survey, including the portion of it within the side yard setback. A permit to, "repair, replace and enlarge existing pool deck" was secured in 2001(2001-013119 BP). However, no inspections were logged, and that permit is Expired. There is a note in our system associated with the permit which reads, "IC-15237=34%. The portion of the wood deck that is encroaching into the side yard must not be removed to maintain the non- complying status... 25-2-963(D}'� The plans approved as part of PR-2022-066047 for the current project show 15,697 square feet of impervious cover pre-development and 15,546 square feet post-development. – Steve Leitch letter to Warren Konkel, September 9, 2024 *LAST LEGAL NON-COMPLYING STATUS 3 ITEM02/3-APPELLANT EXPIRED PERMITS = LOSS OF GRANDFATHERED STATUS 2001 permit expired with no inspections and was never lawfully completed. Austin’s Land Development Code makes it clear that when a permit expires, the authorization ends and vesting tied to that permit/project does not continue. The 2022 Permit improperly assumed continued grandfathered status based upon expired 2001 permit and non-permitted improvements after 2001 4 ITEM02/4-APPELLANT 5 ITEM02/5-APPELLANT 6 ITEM02/6-APPELLANT ADDED SQUARE FOOTAGE IN THE SETBACK = LOSS OF GRANDFATHERED STATUS 2001 permit proposed “repair, replace, and enlarge pool deck.” But it did not approve extending the length of the patio in the setback to the zero (0) foot setback line (see Slide #4). What was built after the 2001 permit expired was never permitted by the City and was never legal non-complying. City code 25-2-963 (Modifying and Maintaining Non-Complying Structures) subsection (E)(1)(a) provides that modifications of a non-complying structure may not extend further into the required side yard setback than the existing non-complying portion of the building. City code 25-2-963 (Modifying and Maintaining Non-Complying Structures) subsection (c) “except as provided for in subsections E and F, a person my not modify or maintain and non-complying structure in a manner that increases the degree to which the structure violated a requirement that caused the structure to be non-complying.” The exceptions of subsection (F) do not apply to this permit because: a) The elevation of the patio deck changed more than one (1) foot vertically (LDC 25-2-963 B(2)) b) The encroachment of the pool deck extends further into the required setback than the last legal non- complying improvements in 1997. c) The additional length of the modified portion exceeds what is allowed by this subsection (See comments by Alyssa Mayfield’s comment on next slide) 7 ITEM02/7-APPELLANT 8 ITEM02/8-APPELLANTTHE CITY OF AUSTIN LDC 25-2-963 STATES “replacement of an original foundation may not change the finished floor elevation by more than one (1) foot in either direction.” QUOTE FROM STEVE LEITCH – SEPTEMBER 23, 2025 “The portion of the deck that exists today was a part of the original patio, so it maintained non-complying status” Photos from 2021 clearly show that the elevations have changed by greater than one (1) foot 9 ITEM02/9-APPELLANT EXPANSION OF LIVING SPACE WITHIN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK -Permit clearly shows a basement living space was added where crawl space existed previously under a single elevation pool deck. 10 ITEM02/10-APPELLANTA SECOND STORY WAS ADDED TO THE FIRST FLOOR ALREADY IN THE SETBACK INCREASING HEIGHT AND VISUAL IMPACT PORTIONS OF THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR PATIOS WERE ENCLOSED AND CONVERTED INTO HABITABLE LIVING SPACE 11 ITEM02/11-APPELLANT PER AUSTIN LDC 25-2-963 “MODIFICATIONS MAY NOT INCREASE THE NON-COMPLIANCE OR ITS IMPACT ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES” *This photo shows a multi-level patio deck with steel trellis and balcony on the third level (including basement workout room). All in the side yard setback. 12 ITEM02/12-APPELLANT REVISION PLAN INCREASES THE IMPACT ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES 13 ITEM02/13-APPELLANT 14 ITEM02/14-APPELLANT PROPOSED ABOVE GROUND POOL ENCROACHES INTO THE SETBACK. NO STRUCTURE EXISTED IN THIS LOCATION ON THE 1997 SURVEY; NOTHING IS GRANDFATHERED IN THIS LOCATION. THE DESCRIPTION ON THE CITY PORTAL STATES - “New pool over existing pool deck” *POOL COPING WILL EXCEED ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS COVER ON PROPERTY 15 ITEM02/15-APPELLANT THE ADDITION OF LARGE NEW WINDOWS WITHIN THE SETBACK (REVISION PLAN) – ABSENT FROM BOTH THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AND THE 2022 PERMIT – FURTHER INTENSIFIES THE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY BY INCREASING VISIBILITY AND REDUCING PRIVACY. -The City erred in not requiring an as-built survey on a major remodel addition of a legal non-complying structure, which would have caught that the site plan the permit holder submitted to the City inaccurately stated the entire house was 2-story, when a seventeen (17) foot length of the front portion of the home that encroached into the side yard setback was only one (1) story and is not allowed by LDC 25-2-963 F (1) (b). 16 ITEM02/16-APPELLANT KEY ISSUES Added unpermitted square footage within the setback from 1997 legal non-complying status prior to 2022 permit. Elevation changes increased structure mass and visual impact in the required setback. Approval of a Vertical Expansion – specifically, a second-story addition built atop an existing structure that already encroaches into the required setback, intensified the nonconformity. Living space created in the setback - basement under patio, enclosed covered patios on two levels and added second story in the front of the house City’s review erred in not requiring an as-built survey, and failed to review historical records Revision Plan – The injury to the neighboring property is compounded significantly with the approval of the steel roof structure, upper patio, outdoor kitchen with a solid wall and additional intrusive windows in the added second story bedroom and basement rooms within the setback. Violation of the intent of noncomplying structure code Unequal enforcement and fairness issues “A permit to expand the pool deck was approved in 2001; although no inspections were carried out, we can honor the approval of the additional impervious cover.” *Quote from Leitch to Konkel - October 22, 2024 17 ITEM02/17-APPELLANT CITY REVIEW ERRORS City’s failure to review Historical Records (2024 Discovery) When the City investigated the property in 2024 for code violations, they found internal notes referencing a note in the system regarding the approval of a 2001 permit (See Steve Leitch email from September 9, 2024). This note is directly relevant to the property and nonconforming status of the structure. It seems reasonable to expect that staff reviewing the 2022 permit should have examined existing records and notes related to the property. This demonstrates that the information was already in the city’s records and could have/should have been discovered during the 2022 process. The failure to do so constitutes a significant breach of due diligence that directly contributed to the improper approval of the permit. A site visit would have revealed the permit holder provided the City an inaccurate and incorrect site plan of the legal non- complying (grandfathered) structure. Instead of an As-Built survey, the Building Official relied on this drawing which was highly misleading. The absence of such a survey undermines the ability to determine whether the proposed modifications comply with code. Specifically, Residential Plan Review guidelines state that plans must be drawn to scale and include a sealed boundary survey showing all existing improvements, as well as a finished floor sealed elevation survey of the existing and proposed construction. The use of a drawing instead of required surveys indicates a failure to adhere to established permitting procedures. In a January 27, 2025, email to Christy May, Steve Leitch acknowledged that no floor elevations were depicted in the plans and that staff “did not ask for them” because they viewed the project as a reduction in noncompliance—while also admitting it was “impossible to know that the proposed elevations are different.” This reasoning is fundamentally flawed, as the 2022 plans clearly show two distinct patio elevations, more than a foot apart from each other, within the side yard setback where only one level previously existed. Approving multiple elevations where a single level had been grandfathered increased the degree of noncompliance, in direct violation of Section 25-2-963 of the Land Development Code. 18 ITEM02/18-APPELLANT 19 ITEM02/19-APPELLANT ERRORS IDENTIFIED Expired permit was relied upon. Expired permits cannot be cured by the passage of time. Added square footage in setback Changed elevation and mass Living space addition in setback Review and survey failures Misinterpretation of code intent Inconsistent enforcement and fairness This case is not about one patio. It is about maintaining integrity in the City’s enforcement of its own laws. This is a precedent setting enforcement failure. Allowing this violation to persist, not only undermines the City’s code enforcement system, but it unfairly burdens neighboring property owners who must live with the impacts of a structure that has no lawful basis. Appellant respectfully requests that the Board of Adjustment reverse the administrative decision re-instating Building Permit number 2022-083202 and require compliance with the current ten (10) foot zoning setback. 20 ITEM02/20-APPELLANT 21 EVOLUTION OF 6 06 BRIDGE HILL CVITEM02/21-APPELLANT EXCESSIVE ALLOWANCE FOR MODIFICATION OF A NON-COMPLYING STRUCTURE 22 ITEM02/22-APPELLANT