ITEM04 C15-2025-0041 ADV PACKET NEW INFO PART1 APPELLANT — original pdf

Backup

APPEAL OF IMPROPERLY APPROVED PERMITS: 6706 BRIDGE HILL CV Christy May 6708 Bridge Hill Cv Austin, TX 78746 Case # C15-2025-0041 Board of Adjustment Hearing Date: December 8, 2025 ADVANCED PACKET SUBMISSION Submission Date: November 20, 2025 ITEM4/1-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANTTable of Contents 1. Title Page 2. Summary of Evidence 3. Letter from Appellant to the Building Official 4. Letter from attorney Terry Irion 5. Email showing additional flawed justifications ITEM4/2-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANT Summary of Evidence This Advanced Packet presents new survey data, photographic documentation, submitted plan sheets, public hearing testimony, and the City’s own written correspondence, all of which confirm that original, grandfathered structures located within the five-foot Lake Austin overlay setback were fully demolished, and that entirely new and expanded construction is now being built in their place. Because the structures that once held legal noncomplying status were removed down to bare ground, all grandfathered rights were extinguished as a matter of law. For this reason, and for the additional reasons detailed below, both the 2022 permit and the 2025 revision plan for 6706 Bridge Hill Cove were approved in error and cannot be justified under any provision of §25-2-963 or the Land Development Code. 1. Full Demolition Eliminated All Grandfathered Rights The new form survey and photographic evidence reveal that the original single-level patio along the five- foot setback was completely demolished, which alone would have eliminated all grandfathered rights. (See Exhibit A, B, C and D) The updated evidence shows the demolition was even more extensive: Not only was the entire single-level patio was demolished to bare earth, but the areas the permit holder claimed as “enclosed covered patios” were also fully demolished, including all slab, supports, and retaining elements. If any foundation had existed in these areas, as the permit holder claimed, it was completely removed, as shown by photos revealing: Excavation approximately 6–8 feet deep, deep enough that an adult human standing in the excavation is dwarfed by the height of the cut. (See Exhibit E) After this deep excavation was performed, a new, lower-elevation foundation was poured to create a new basement level (which never previously existed along the setback), and new first and second-level living space, all within the setback footprint. (See Exhibit F) In place of the former single-level patio, the permit holder constructed a new basement level with a 10- foot wall that looms over my property. Although the 2022 approved plans depict a basement level that is mostly subgrade, showing only a narrow sliver of wall exposed above existing grade, the actual construction is dramatically different. The deep 6-8 excavation resulted in a wall that is fully exposed along the setback, creating a far greater height, mass and visual impact than anything that ever existed before or that was approved in the 2022 plans. In addition, the permit holder installed four massive windows on this newly constructed exposed wall- windows that were not shown anywhere on the 2022 plans - and were later approved in the 2025 revision plan. These windows now face directly towards my home and significantly invade my privacy, creating impacts that did not exist under the original grandfathered condition and were never disclosed during the 2022 permit. Above the new basement level, the City’s 2025 revision plan approval authorized a multi-level patio with the upper tier elevated several feet higher than the single-level grandfathered patio and with the addition of a solid wall within the five-foot setback as part of a new outdoor kitchen. This wall now includes ITEM4/3-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANT electrical, gas, plumbing, and other utilities, increasing the depth, opacity, and mass of the construction within the setback. This addition compounds the already unlawful expansion by adding yet another permanent structure in a location where only an open to the sky, single-level patio once existed. Above this area, the permit holder added a large roof structure and a new upper patio, neither of which previously existed. (See exhibit G – Revision Plan Items) Additionally, in areas where covered patios existed before demolition, permit holder constructed heated and conditioned living space on two levels, again where no such interior living space previously existed. Under §25-2-963, once any portion of a noncomplying structure is demolished, the demolished portion loses its noncomplying status. Where the entire structure — and any foundation beneath it — was excavated, demolished, and replaced, all grandfathered rights are eliminated as a matter of law. 2. Separate Issue: Illegal Second Story Added Along ~17 Feet of the Front Setback Wall Separate from the basement, first and second level expansions at the rear of the home where full demolition occurred, the permit holder constructed a new second-story roof/patio structure along approximately 17 linear feet of the front portion of the home that encroaches into the five-foot setback. Section 25-2-963(F)(1)(B) explicitly prohibits increasing the height of the existing noncomplying structure: “The modified portion of a structure may not exceed the height of the existing noncomplying structure.” The original noncomplying portion of the house was one story in height. The permit holder constructed a new second story directly above this one-story noncomplying section, extending the vertical mass of this portion of the home within the setback. This is a direct increase in height in the setback and it is expressly prohibited by 25-2-963(F)(1)(B) (Exhibit H)- 2nd Story added on top of one-story portion In his September 29, 2025 email, the Building Official attempted to justify the second story by asserting that the modified portion of the building “Is not greater in height than the existing noncomplying portion of the building” (Exhibit I) September 29 Email - Flawed Interpretation This is a plainly flawed interpretation of 25-2-963(F) because the portion of the structure located within the protected setback was unquestionably one story, and a second story was added. There is no conceivable reading of the Code under which converting a one-story portion of a structure into a two- story portion of a structure does not constitute an increase in height. This violation alone independently invalidates both the 2022 permit and the 2025 revision plan. ITEM4/4-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANT 3. Dimensional Claims Used to Approve the 2025 Revision Plan Were False The permit holder repeatedly asserted that the west-facing wall of the home was a 60’8” legally noncomplying wall. The 1997 sealed survey - the last legally recognized documentation of home's noncomplying footprint - establishes that the true measurement is 48'5", not 60'8". The ~ 60-foot claim was directly incorporated into the City’s analysis for the 2025 revision plan and improperly inflated the allowable extension calculations under §25-2-963(F). Due to the complete demolition of the outdoor patios, the grandfathered length became 48.5 feet per the existing surveys. When the correct 48.5-foot measurement is applied, the structure does not qualify for the extensions approved. Even if (F) could override the demolition rules and height restrictions in the Code, which it cannot, the math just doesn't work and the structure simply does not qualify for the extensions approved. In addition, the City’s extension calculations used in the 2025 revision treated the edge of the previously demolished covered patio as the point from which the extension was measured rather than starting the extension at the original exterior wall and foundation due to the demolition of the covered patios. This is the only lawful starting point for determining any extension under §25-2-963(F). This error means that not only were the extensions larger than the Code allows, but the starting point for measuring those extensions was legally incorrect, rendering the entire extension analysis invalid. Taken together, these errors mean that even under the permit holder’s own theory, and even using the flawed logic of §25-2-963(F) as applied by the City, the extensions approved in the 2025 revision plan cannot be justified. The required dimensional baseline never existed, and the extensions were calculated from structures that had been fully demolished and therefore could not serve as a lawful reference point. (See Exhibit J – Flawed Extension Calculations 4. Permit Holder Misrepresentations Materially Influenced the City’s Decisions At the November 10 BOA hearing, the Building Official has acknowledged that the plans submitted by the permit holder in 2022 were misleading and deceptive, and that they did not disclose the full extent of demolition. These omissions and inaccuracies materially impacted the City’s analysis and led directly to approval of construction that violates the Land Development Code. Compounding the impact of these misrepresentations, the permit holder and his representative continued to misrepresent key facts in their sworn, statements under oath at the November 10 BOA hearing, including falsely claiming that the original foundations remained intact; asserting that there was a 60’8” legal noncomplying wall when the 1997 sealed survey shows the true measurement is 48’5”; and mischaracterizing the outdoor covered patios as “enclosed” areas, when in fact these patios were fully demolished, and were replaced with entirely new conditioned living space within the setback. While under oath at the BOA hearing permit holder also stated that the “wine room/storage” area previously existed. It did not. Aerial photographs show bare ground in that exact location following demolition, and there is no corresponding form survey or inspection record for any foundation associated with this area, making this construction illegal for multiple reasons. ITEM4/5-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANT (EXHIBIT K) Photo of new foundation for wine/storage area (EXHIBIT L) Photo of formwork for the patio above wine room/storage area that extends into the required 10-foot setback. 5. The City Has Acknowledged Errors but Has Not Required Compliance Over the last two years, the City has repeatedly asserted that the structure existing today may legally remain because it is simply a “modified patio.” Under the City’s own interpretation of §25-2-963, any modified portion of a noncomplying structure that is demolished loses its noncomplying status and must be rebuilt in full compliance with current Code. The City has relied on this definition many times to justify its decisions. (Exhibit M – Steve Leitch Email) In his September 29 email (Exhibit I) Building Official Steve Leitch stated, “absent new information, staff believes these issues have been addressed as fully as possible.” That condition is no longer met. The new photographic evidence, form survey, and construction documentation provide undeniable proof that the original patio and covered areas were completely demolished, including the foundation, supports, slab, and retaining elements. What exists today is not a “modified patio” — it is a new, expanded, and significantly more massive structure built within the five-foot setback. Given the City’s own stated interpretation, this evidence raises the fundamental question: What justification remains for allowing this illegal structure to stay in the setback? The illegal structure now standing is not a modification of a noncomplying structure — it is entirely new construction within a protected setback, and it imposes a massive negative and material impact on my property, including loss of privacy, increased height and massing, a dramatically changed visual condition, and a significant reduction in the value and enjoyment of my own property. Precedent Concerns Allowing this illegal structure to remain would also set a dangerous and far-reaching precedent: Other applicants will cite this case as justification to increase their own encroachments into protected setbacks. It effectively conveys that full demolition is permissible as long as the rebuilt structure is later described as a “modification.” It invites a pattern where permit holders can build first and legalize later, even when the construction is highly illegal. It undermines the integrity of the Land Development Code by showing that violations will be excused rather than corrected. And it signals to the public that the City will tolerate significant noncompliance, eroding confidence in the consistency and fairness of Code enforcement. Once such a precedent is set, it will be cited repeatedly and will be almost impossible to unwind. ITEM4/6-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANTFor these reasons, allowing this illegal structure to remain is not only contrary to the Code — it undermines the entire regulatory framework that protects neighborhoods throughout Austin. 6. Relief Requested Given the magnitude and number of errors — factual, dimensional, procedural, and legal — I respectfully request that the City: Suspend the 2022 permit and 2025 revision plan immediately; Conduct a full compliance review using accurate surveys and demolition evidence; Require removal of all construction within the setback that does not meet current Code. ITEM4/7-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANT LIST OF EXHIBITS, Summary of Evidence Exhibit A: Form Survey for basement new foundation pour Exhibit B: May 2022 Aerial – Pre-demolition Exhibit C: September, 2022 Aerial – Post-demolition, bare ground exposed all the way to the original foundation Exhibit D: January, 2023 Aerial – New foundation poured in back and 2nd story added in front. Exhibit E: Forms for foundation showing approximate 6-8‘excavation Exhibit F: New foundation Exhibit G: Revision Plan Items Exhibit H: Second Story added on top of one-story Portion Exhibit I: September 29 Steve Leitch email Exhibit J: Flawed Extension Calculations Exhibit K: Photo of new foundation for wine/storage room – no form survey or inspections Exhibit L: Photo of formwork for patio that encroaches the required setback Exhibit M: Steve Leitch Email ITEM4/8-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANT EXHIBIT A ITEM4/9-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANT ITEM4/10-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANT EXHIBIT B ITEM4/11-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANT Oldest Image: ITEM4/12-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANT EXHIBIT C ITEM4/13-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANT Demo initiated for new project: ITEM4/14-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANT EXHIBIT D ITEM4/15-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANT New pour at rear and new story with roof at front: ITEM4/16-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANT EXHIBIT E ITEM4/17-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANT Showing cuts from excavation of 6’ to 8’ below existing foundation ITEM4/18-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANT EXHIBIT F ITEM4/19-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANT ITEM4/20-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANT EXHIBIT G ITEM4/21-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANT Revision Plan submission clearly shows the numerous changes that were allowed to compound the mistakes in the 2022 approval. - Basement changes including windows, size and depth in the required setback - Steel trellis structure and patio in the required setback - 2nd story window in the required setback which looks directly into neighboring property - Wine/Storage room and additional foundation in the required setback - Solid wall and outdoor kitchen above the basement room in the required setback after complete demolition of the previous patio which negated grandfathered status of structure in that location ITEM4/22-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANT EXHIBIT H ITEM4/23-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANT As is shown by the GREEN section at the front of the house in the top picture, a second story was added to a one-story structure inside the required setback line. The 2 photos show the change in the roofline at the front of the house showing the addition of the second story. Modification of noncomplying structures is expressly prohibited by the Code if the modification is greater in height than the existing noncomplying structure. ITEM4/24-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANT EXHIBIT I ITEM4/25-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANT From: Leitch, Steve <Steve.Leitch@austintexas.gov> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 9:59 AM To: Christy May < Cc: Sandoval, Marie <Marie.Sandoval@austintexas.gov>; Lloyd, Brent <brent.lloyd@austintexas.gov> Subject: Bridge Hill Cove questions Ms. May – Thank you for your patience as staff has worked to address your questions and concerns. The attached document includes detailed responses to issues raised in your September 8 email, many of which you have previously discussed with staff. In his September 11 email, Mr. Scott Bryant raised questions about the provisions of 25-2-963 (E ) as they relate to the Konkel residence. Though of a similar nature to the questions raised in your email, we felt that Mr. Bryant’s inquiry warranted the separate reply below: The provisions of 25-2-963( E ) describe the conditions and limitations for increasing the height of a structure which is noncomplying based on a height requirement of the code. The Konkel residence is not noncomplying based on a height requirement, so these provisions were not considered during the review. The 2nd-story addition within the setback complies with Subsection F because the modified portion of the building: 1. does not extend further into the setback - 2. Is not greater in height than the existing noncomplying portion of the building, and - 3. Complies with the height limitation of the code. We understand that this process has been difficult and that you disagree with staff’s decisions on certain issues. However, absent new information, staff believes that these issues have been addressed as fully as possible. Should you wish to consider appealing this matter to the BOA, please contact Elaine Ramirez at (512) 974-2202 or by email at Elaine.Ramirez@austintexas.gov, cc-ing Brent Lloyd and Steve Leitch. Thank you, Steve Leitch Deputy Building Official Development Services Department 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Dr., Austin, TX 78752 512-978-1676 | cell: 512-439-9934 Steve.leitch@austintexas.gov DevelopmentATX.com ITEM4/26-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANT EXHIBIT J ITEM4/27-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANT FLAWED EXTENSION CALCULATIONS The central argument presented by Konkel and his team on November 10 is that §25-2-963(F) allows for a 25-foot extension of a noncomplying structure. This new evidence eliminates that argument entirely. Below is the level-by-level analysis showing why: Exhibit A — Konkel’s Basement-Level Diagram (Used Nov. 10 BOA Meeting) This slide shows Konkel’s claim that the basement level qualifies for a 25’ extension under §963(F). The diagram labels the “Existing structure" at 60'8", despite the fact that no basement existed along the setback prior to construction. This exhibit helps demonstrate that Konkel misrepresented the grandfathered baseline from which any extension could legally begin. ITEM4/28-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANT A. Level 0 (Basement Level) • There was no basement along the setback or property line prior to construction. • Therefore, there was nothing to extend under §25-2-963(F). • The basement is entirely new construction and must comply with the 10- foot setback. This alone defeats their extension theory under subsection (F) for the trellis, patio, and upper levels. B. Level 1 (Main Level) 1. The Actual Grandfathered Length, according to the 1997 survey, Is 48.5 ft — Not 60 ft ITEM4/29-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANT Exhibit A also asserts that the first level qualifies for a 25’ extension, again using 60'8" as the grandfathered length. The newly obtained photos and updated survey show that the patios counted in that 60'8" were demolished and replaced with new living space, meaning the 60 ft figure is factually impossible. Konkel’s team and Alyssa Mayfield used 60 ft as the “existing grandfathered wall,” but the survey shows the true grandfathered portion is 48.5 ft. • Half of 48.5 ft = 23.75 ft of possible extension (if subsection (F) applied at all — which it does not). 2. The Patios Were Demolished — So F Cannot Apply Even if subsection (F) theoretically allowed extension of a noncomplying structure, it cannot apply where that structure: • No longer exists, and • Was replaced with new living space on a new foundation. 3. Even Under Konkel’s Incorrect Theory, the Numbers Don’t Work If the trellis is considered an extension of the first floor, then: • The 9 ft of new living space built where the patio used to be must count against the 23.75 ft maximum. • 23.75 ft – 9 ft = 14.75 ft, not 25 ft. Therefore: • Much of the trellis is illegal even under Konkel’s own theory. ITEM4/30-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANT C. Level 2 (Second Floor) Exhibit B - This slide that was also included in the permit holder's second-floor presentation “existing/grandfathered” length was 43 ft. on November claims 10, the Although the second-story addition was approved under the 2022 permit, that approval was itself a violation of §25-2-963(F)(1)(B), which prohibits increasing the height of a noncomplying one-story structure. Because subsection (F)(2) is conditioned on compliance with subsection (F)(1), the permit holder cannot rely on subsection (F)(2) to justify the extension in the revision plan. This violation alone requires immediate suspension and review of the revision plan. Additionally, the updated survey and prior construction photos show the actual noncomplying second-floor length was closer to 31 ft. This exhibit demonstrates the mathematical impossibility of Konkel’s claimed 25’ extensions—their analysis begins from an inflated and inaccurate baseline. ITEM4/31-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANT 1. The Actual Grandfathered Length Is ~31 ft • Half of 31 ft = 15.5 ft maximum extension. 2. Konkel’s Plans Used 17 ft for the Front Extension • This already exceeds the legal maximum by itself. 3. Additional New Second-Floor Living Space The new living area constructed where the upper patio used to be extends: • Another 8.5 ft beyond the old footprint. 4. Total Extension Claim = 25.5 ft • 17 ft (front) + 8.5 ft (new second-floor living space) = 25.5 ft, • Which is 10 ft more than §25-2-963(F) would ever allow, even if it could be legally applied. There is no level for which Konkel’s interpretation produces a legal outcome. ITEM4/32-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANT EXHIBIT K ITEM4/33-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANT ITEM4/34-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANT EXHIBIT L ITEM4/35-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANT ITEM4/36-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANTEXHIBIT M ITEM4/37-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANT From: Leitch, Steve <Steve.Leitch@austintexas.gov> Sent: Monday, December 9, 2024 9:53 AM To: Terry Irion Cc: Christy May ( Subject: RE: 6706 Bridge Hill Cove >; Lloyd, Brent <brent.lloyd@austintexas.gov> ) <christysmay@hotmail.com> I will try to explain our reasoning with respect to the setback encroachment. From the perspective of the Plan Review division, the patio/deck presents as a noncomplying structure undergoing modifications and becoming less noncompliant with respect to its side setback. 25-2-963, B(4) states that portions of a residential structure lose their noncomplying status when demolished. Yet 25-2-963, B(2) contemplates replacement of an original foundation and altering the finished floor elevation. In addition, 25-2-963, B(1) contains requirements for demolition with respect to noncomplying structures which are more nuanced than the simple declaration in section B(4). Since LA zoning does not regulate either, Maximum Building Coverage, or Maximum Floor-to-Area ratio, it is not evident that the presence of habitable space in the basement of the patio structure constitutes a violation of code. Again, what we see in Plan Review is a noncompliant structure becoming less so with respect to its setback. Steve Leitch Division Manager, Expedited Plan Review Development Services Department 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Dr., Austin, TX 78752 512-978-1676 | cell: 512-439-9934 Steve.leitch@austintexas.gov DevelopmentATX.com ITEM4/38-NEW INFO PART1-APPELLANT