ITEM04 C15-2025-0041 ADV PACKET APPELLANT — original pdf

Backup

CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM02 DATE: November 10, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C15-2025-0041 __Y_____Thomas Ates (D1) __Y_____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) __Y_____Jessica Cohen (D3) __Y_____Yung-ju Kim (D4) __Y_____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) __Y_____Haseeb Abdullah (D6) __Y_____Sameer S Birring (D7) __Y_____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) __Y_____Brian Poteet (D9) __Y_____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) __Y_____Jeffery L Bowen (M) ___-____Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) ___-____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPELLANT: Christy May OWNER: Warren Konkel ADDRESS: 6706 BRIDGE HILL CV VARIANCE REQUESTED: Appellant challenges approval of administrative revisions to Plan Review No. 2022-0060407PR and revisions to the following associated permits:   Building Permit No. 2022-093202BP (house remodel/additions) Building Permit no. 2022-093203BP (pool) on the grounds that the approved work violates the applicable regulations of the Lake Austin (LA) zoning district established under City Code Chapter 25-2 (Zoning), including limitations on the modification or expansion of a legally noncomplying structure under City Code Sec. 25-2-963 (Modification and Maintenance of Noncomplying Structures) and other applicable site development standards. BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to postpone appeal to December 8, 2025; Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 11-0 votes; POSTPONED TO December 8, 2025. FINDING: ITEM04/1-APPELLANT1. There is a reasonable doubt of difference of interpretation as to the specific intent of the regulations or map in that: 2. 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: 3. The interpretation will not grant a special privilege to one property inconsistent with other properties or uses similarly situated in that: Elaine Ramirez Executive Liaison Jessica Cohen Madam Chair forITEM04/2-APPELLANT BOA INTERPRETATION APPEAL COVERSHEET CASE: C15-2025-0041 BOA DATE: November 10th, 2025 ADDRESS: 6706 Bridge Hill Cv OWNER: Warren Konkel COUNCIL DISTRICT: 10 APPELLANT: Christy May ZONING: LA; I-SF-2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 6 BRIDGE HILL SUBD APPEAL REQUEST: Appellant challenges approval of administrative revisions to Plan Review No. 2022- 0060407PR and revisions to the following associated permits:  Building Permit No. 2022-093202BP (house remodel/additions)  Building Permit no. 2022-093203BP (pool) SUMMARY: the Revision does not comply with current applicable zoning regulations. ISSUES: illegally unpermitted non-complying structures- occupied basement building, overhead roof structure, trellis & covered patio ZONING LAND USES LA; I-SF-2 Site North LA; I-SF-2 South LA; I-SF-2 LA; I-SF-2 East LA West Single-Family Single-Family Single-Family Single-Family Lake Austin NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS: Austin Independent School District Aqua Verde Homeowners Association BRNA ASSOCIATION, INC. City of Rollingwood Friends of Austin Neighborhoods Save Our Springs Alliance TNR BCP – Travis County Natural Resources The Creek at Riverbend Neighborhood Association ITEM04/3-APPELLANT ITEM04/4-APPELLANTDevelopment Services Department interpretation is: The pool deck built to within the degree it reduces because drawn sketch that was submitted was not the last legal non-complying expansion required non-compliance 5' of the side lot line in the LA district of non-complying with the 2022 permit condition of the 1997 "Original 10' LA setback. the current to 5' and is justified from O' side yard setback Nevertheless, of the Property. side yard setback application. on that basis. of O' from the hand The sketch condition It was an illegal is grandfathered Project" grandfathered survey encroachments of into the degree decreases the proposal the second Likewise, runs approximately 17 lineal was approved into the setback. because story addition over the Original Project feet along the side yard, 5' into the 10' required on non-compliance the degree it did not increase by encroachment first story building which side yard I feel the correct interpretation is: The original the Building approved, was an illegal Project Original setback expansion further legal non-complying Official that what was built deck is what is shown on the 1997 survey. We agree with was 2022 permit the subject of the of the legal non-complying status after 2001 and before unpermitted encroachment. expansion Whether the 2001 permit is irrelevant encroachment of the setback for two reasons: that was issued allowed 1.No inspections acknowledged were ever called that it has expired. on that permit, and the Building Official has 2.Aerial photography shows, between built actually permit. Furthermore, decking non-complying improvements non-complying without encroachments and the Building 2001 and 2021 exceeded all original Official has admitted what was in the 2001 what was permitted legal non-complying decking Decreasing is not justification the degree for approving and all illegal of illegal setback has been demolished. a variance. there is no justification I trellis that encroaches for approving into the required the second setback Likewise, structure more than the last legal is removed complying structure non-complying patio structure. it may not be replaced because The Code is clear, [Section and roof­ any if a legal non­ story patio balcony it does not encroach 25-2-963D(4)]. over the Original Project one story legal non­ Official erred in determining Section 25-2-963E( it does not increase the degree Building story addition to the second structure, pliancy With regards complying of non-com modified existing the second landowner building. that described and is therefore portion portion non-complying is not. This provision allowed. in a required of the building, of the building story portion from a substantial increase The City may have been misled in the massing by the permit the entire 1 )(b ), does not allow the than the in height was specifically side yard if it is greater in a street located unless added to protect of the non-conforming who provided an adjacent portion of the a 1997 survey when an approximate side yard, which holder house as a "two story brick and wood house" City of Austin I Board of Adjustment Interpretations Application Page 3(a) of 5 ITEM04/5-APPELLANTSection 2: Findings The Board must determine the findings below. statements rejected Therefore, as part of your application. Failure Please attach as incomplete. the existence described of, sufficiency you must complete of and weight any additional to do so may result supporting documents. in your application being of evidence supporting each of the applicable findings of interpretation as to the specific of intent the elevated patio, by contractor the degree Jon Kaplan as a worst­ occupied of non-complying basement The city has an an obligation they were claiming The current have been required. side yard setback a new building structure of the former legal non-complying under the patio deck patio. 2022 encroachment were at the time because status patio. a survey expands Official therefore overhead and covered is proposing to improve doubt of difference on a hand drawn sketch should feet of non-complying approving / trellis roof-structure what existing improvements 1.There is a reasonable or map in that: the regulations Building is relying that the Permit case scenario Holder This logic does not justify status. building, to understand legal non-complying the lineal building permit Project from the 1997 Original by creating with an impermissible change in elevation Appellant is the aggrieved party Official is wrongfully allowing with a finished grandfathered Original Project are not allowed maintain illegal does not restore legal noncomplying deck to make room for the basement under 25-2-963B, on all new improvements. as shown on the 2021 survey floor at a new elevation deck encroachment workout Holder Merely a 10' LA setback decking living the Permit to the decking in next door to the permit replacement H. Permit F, G, and status Holder to build a new basement holder. The Building room workout space under the original many feet below the crawl which the deck is now some 2.5' higher than the room. These modifications be required should to the degree decreasing that was never legally permitted, of the setback. zones and with objectives could clearly permit a use which is in character with the patio deck status legal non-complying and replaced Building into the required Official erred in allowing 10' side yard setback with illegal unpermitted of the zone in question was as shown in the 1997 survey. decking non-complying new patio and pool decking 2.5' in the decking under the raised patio with building encroachment and on a level approximately Official also allowed encroaching as shown Building 1997 deck. The building than the original higher structure of a new basement this new basement setback. backyard into Appellant's impact B(4) and has negative Allowing 2.An appeal of use provisions uses enumerated for the various because:The last It was demolished on the 2021 survey. extending 5' elevation creation into the required windows looking 25-2-963B(2), of improvements allow Permit excessive Holder increase and occupied in massing space in a required a reasonable use of the Property. of the Original Project to Section and contrary property is unjustified on Appellant's yard setback. Holder It is not necessary Permit an is seeking at the Appellant's expense. to by excessive massing ITEM04/6-APPELLANTto on property inconsistent with 3.The interpretation privilege will not grant a special in that: situated not enjoyed else similarly Official will grant a special or uses similarly given by the Building by anyone other properties The interpretation Holder 2-963 B, F, G, and H. Other property owners yard setback occupied placed new improvements on Appellant's adjacent Building replacement patio, without to Permit 25- with Section a side have been denied a new Official has erred by allowing to be trellis even requiring having yard create excessive and a clear conflict in the subdivision multilevel 10' side yard setback basement within the in a required property. structure, by this Board. privilege variance required situated massing, and roof-structure/ a variance. These a negative impact City of Austin I Board of Adjustment Interpretations Application Page 3(c) of 5 ITEM04/7-APPELLANTITEM04/8-APPELLANTAdditional Space (continued) status its legal non-complyin '-'--. ______________ Section 25-2-2963B�_) and im rovements under current ermit must be built code to current _ _ _ ___ _ Official has admitted was not le al non-com Building Permit non-compliance cannot The last legal non-complying be permitted im rovement the patio decking rior to the issuance ming. Accordingly of the current the de ree of new deckin that reduces 2022 Buildin as it was never legal non-complyin is as shown on the 1997 surve . status and was demolished. City of Austin I Board of Adjustment Interpretations Application 6/24/20 I Page 5 of 5 ITEM04/9-APPELLANTITEM04/10-APPELLANTITEM04/11-APPELLANTITEM04/12-APPELLANTCase Number: C15-2025-0041 6706 Bridge Hill Cove Appellant: Christy May ITEM04/13-APPELLANT ITEM04/14-APPELLANTFurthermore, the 2022 current building permit approved a second story over a legal non-complying one story portion of the original home. By adding a second story over the legal non-complying first story at the 5-foot setback line, the modified second story portion of the building violates the requirements of Section 25- 2-963F(1)(b). Also, Staff correctly determined the additional length of the modified portion of the building exceeded the allowed length for a modification to a legal non-complying building per Section 25-2-963F(2), but approved the 17-foot modified portion of the building which added a second story, ignoring the condition that it be “no greater in height than the existing non-complying portion of the building.” By adding an entire second story with windows looking directly into Appellant’s utility room, this addition is clearly not a permitted modification to a legal non-complying building. Additionally, the revision plan approved a large steel roof structure within the setback. Permit Holder claims it is a “trellis” but a portion of this structure supports a patio, providing access from the second story, creating a completely new and higher level than the original grandfathered patio. The Staff correctly determined on March 18, 2025, that “steel canopy cannot be in setback.” What changed? This is not a surface improvement like a fence or an at-grade swimming pool that is allowed in a setback, which must remain open and unobstructed to the sky. This steel canopy/trellis/roof-structure is a major encroachment into the required yard setback. Grounds for Appeal: The reinstatement was based on incorrect information regarding prior permits, grandfathered status, and allowable modifications. The expired 2001 permit and uninspected work eliminate any claim of grandfathering, especially since actual improvements built after 2001 and later demolished greatly exceed what was approved in the expired and void 2001 permit. The current construction includes significant structural expansion and added illegal square footage within the setback, contrary to the intent of the Land Development Code provisions governing modification of noncomplying structures. Allowing this permit to stand undermines the purpose of the LA Zoning setbacks which is to protect environmental quality and to maintain consistent setbacks and neighborhood character for the benefit of impacted neighbors. Impact on Appellant: The appellant’s property at 6708 Bridge Hill Cove directly adjoins the subject property and complies with the 10-foot Lake Austin setback. The adjacent construction encroaching within the setback negatively affects the appellant’s privacy, light, air, and neighborhood aesthetics, and is inconsistent with the intent of zoning and overlay restrictions. Exhibits: 1. September 9, 2024 letter from Building Official Steve Leitch to Warren Konkel. 2. Survey of the 1997 grandfathered pool deck. 3. 2021 survey showing unpermitted pool decking extended to side lot line (0-foot setback). 4. Photographs showing elevation of old and new decking (2.5-foot increase and continued encroachment). 5. Email dated October 25, 2024 from Steve Leitch to Warren Konkel noting that newly constructed portions must comply with the 10-foot setback. 6. Master Comment Report dated 3/18/2025 noting that the steel canopy, outdoor kitchen, and pool cannot be in the setback. Description of Appellant Status: The appellant is an interested party under Land Development Code 25-1-131(A) and has previously communicated her interest. She is the record owner of property within 500 feet of the site of the proposed development (6708 Bridge Hill Cove). Appellant respectfully requests that the Board of Adjustment reverse the administrative decision reinstating Building Permit Number 2022-083202 and require that all construction at 6706 Bridge Hill Cove comply ITEM04/15-APPELLANT ITEM04/16-APPELLANTITEM04/17-APPELLANTITEM04/18-APPELLANTITEM04/19-APPELLANTITEM04/20-APPELLANTSIGNED SY: ~"""".,,-'#-?...,....,&1-,1-~- "~'TE: - - - - - - - - t4o.581 140. 7&· LO T 7 SIX /GI llOCJt NO. TRAVIS AUSTIN l'H.lS( $TAU or TCI.AS 11[((11:[HC.( HAU( t.OT HO $CC.HOH """ cou,n, en, II Dewey H. Burtis & Associates lond Sulvoy\ng servk:o• SUBJ£CT TO CAS£~£N T RIGH TS IN varo, P c,1 S/JBJ£CT TO RCSTRICTIONS IN v,,a, P.3.J7 i IN ve,o, /#4j.t i IN VIITJ P•UB. i i~ BRIOG£ HILL SUBDIVISION 82 ~cl = suoc StRCtT AOOIUSS &706 8R/OG£ H ILL COV£ JffFR£Y OLA TT oM wll• n IZABHH BLATT 200 ,ut IICCOltOS .... _ ;_1•_;7_•;:.9:.7 __ " . t t1. CMMNWL TH 1 :: :~1:L ,- • 40' 10 1M( U[NHOlO(lt AHO COMMONW£AL TH LANO T/TL£ /NSURANC£ COMPANY EMiSO-fuflYE-Yto-AN~"TIJ ' I do htrtbJ urllly . lhol Udl ,wrv•'t •o• 11\la doy ITIOdt ·" lht ::~:: ~wi:;.~'~r"•:~~!f1f~:!, d::::~~~t::~;:".,,•,~!~~:;:9 •~~,. itnp(O¥tm1nh, or ,ood• In ploco, uupl 01 shown h•r••"• ond urtillu only lo lh• 1,001 duc,lpllon ond ooumtnll 1hown •" lht relottl'lc td 1111• comm,lmtrll. ITEM04/21-APPELLANTITEM04/22-APPELLANT { t /1 I e u f r u a rt thi nt updat ubr i al . lnvoic s wilt us h • ti for ii r ult in a,1 autom tic I u d m pli an ' AB+ c un for h upd t will t . for ny c I . r q i h yo i 11 do , e ts r e ed f he - NO XC PTIONS. Remaining commen 1 not completely j ction n incur r submit I fee &/or appfication processing f e ii ling informa ion ob cc pt . in d during In ake. The fee must be paid o line vi L f h applicant or his/her agent o upda e this application. The final update to clear a f co ments must e • I plic tio , he ne t c·ty of Austin workday wi l be the deadline. pi a ion date. Otherwise, the application will automatically expire. If this da e falls on a weekend or o a r C n ormat o • I e rder o e e ite the approval process of the building permit once the permit app,lication has been approved, it is highly incl de the GC's contact information on the application so that the permit can be linked to his/her account. u a e e e e ence: T es us h· ps.//ab .aust1ntexas.gov/web/permit/public-search-other?reset=true f your project and project information is available on line via the City's Austin Build+ Connect website: si e t·a Zoning Review - Alyssa Mayfie :d - RZO . issing dimensions on floor plans. Provide dimensions on all floor plans. RZ03. Ou door ki chen cannot be in setback. RZ04. Additions look to extend further than the existing impervious cover. Plea e ver·fy t e ~:.:i ting area o impe ious cover that are proposed to be built over. RZ . ool 1s no ver existing impervious cover so it is not able to be appro d a i . RZ . ome of the heet have the existing a proval tamp. Please submit p a ithout th approv l tan . r ·mpervious cover. Can reduce areas of e isting IC but cannot add . ew I it ot er ar • ITEM04/23-APPELLANTITEM04/24-APPELLANTITEM04/25-APPELLANTITEM04/26-APPELLANTITEM04/27-APPELLANT