ITEM04 C15-2025-0041 PRESENTATION APPELLANT — original pdf

Backup

Appeal of Improperly Approved Permits: 6706 Bridge Hill Cove Demonstra(cid:415)ng Errors in the 2022 Permit and the 2025 Revision Plan Case Number: C15-2025-0041 Appealed Permit Number: 2022-083202 Board of Adjustment Hearing Date: December 8, 2025 Presenter: Terry Irion Prepared for the City of Aus(cid:415)n Board of Adjustment 1 ITEM04/1-APPELLANT PRESENTATION Excavation is greater in height than person standing in the photo. 2 ITEM04/2-APPELLANT PRESENTATION 3 ITEM04/3-APPELLANT PRESENTATION 4 ITEM04/4-APPELLANT PRESENTATION  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 pa(cid:415)o in the required setback 2nd story window in the required setback which looks directly into neighboring property - - - - Wine/Storage room and addi(cid:415)onal founda(cid:415)on in the required setback - Solid wall and outdoor kitchen above the basement room in the required setback a(cid:332)er complete demoli(cid:415)on of the previous pa(cid:415)o which negated grandfathered status of structure in that loca(cid:415)on Basement level with new windows added in the area where covered pa(cid:415)os previously existed even though no basement previously existed and the covered pa(cid:415)os were completely demolished, resul(cid:415)ng in three levels of new living space (Basement, 1st Floor, 2nd Floor constructed in the required in setback). - 5 ITEM04/5-APPELLANT PRESENTATION 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. 6 ITEM04/6-APPELLANT PRESENTATION 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. 7 ITEM04/7-APPELLANT PRESENTATION B. Level 1 (Main Level) 1. The Actual Grandfathered Length, according to the 1997 survey, Is 48.5 ft — Not 60 ft *Photos show complete demolition down to bare ground and the construction of a new foundation. 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). 8 ITEM04/8-APPELLANT PRESENTATION 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 starting point for any extension would have to be the grandfathered wall, not the edge of the covered patios that were completely demolished.  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. 9 ITEM04/9-APPELLANT PRESENTATION C. Level 2 (Second Floor) Exhibit B - This slide that was also included in the permit holder's presentation on November 10, claims the second-floor “existing/grandfathered” length was 43 ft. 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. 10 ITEM04/10-APPELLANT PRESENTATION 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. 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 covered 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.  Second story extensions were approved the front 17 feet of the house and over the area where the covered patios previously existed in the back of the house (but were completely demolished, nearly doubling the length of the floor along the setback – from 31 feet to 60 feet – and dramatically the height, massing, visual intrusion and loss of light and privacy on my property) There is no level for which Konkel’s interpretation produces a legal outcome. 11 ITEM04/11-APPELLANT PRESENTATION 2024 Texas Statutes Local Government Code Title 7 - Regulation of Land Use, Structures, Businesses, and Related Activities Subtitle A - Municipal Regulatory Authority Chapter 21- Municipal Zoning Authority Subchapter A. General Zoning Regulations Section 211.010. Appeal to Board Universal Citation: TX Loe Govt Code § 211.010 (2024) Sec. 211.010. APPEAL TO BOARD. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (e), any of the following persons may appeal to the board of adjustment a decision made by an administrative official that is not related to a specific application, address, or project: (1) a person aggrieved by the decision; or (2) any officer, department, board, or bureau of the municipality affected by the decision. (a-1) Except as provided by Subsection (e), any of the following persons may appeal to the board of adjustment a decision made 12 ITEM04/12-APPELLANT PRESENTATION by an administrative official that is related to a specific application, address, or project: (1) a person who: (A) filed the application that is the subject of the decision; (B) is the owner or representative of the owner of the property that is the subject of the decision; or (C) is aggrieved by the decision and is the owner of real property within 200 feet of the property that is the subject of the decision; or (2) any officer, department, board, or bureau of the municipality affected by the decision. (b) The appellant must file with the board and the official from whom the appeal is taken a notice of appeal specifying the grounds for the appeal. The appeal must be filed not later than the 20th day after the date the decision is made. On receiving the notice, the official from whom the appeal is taken shall immediately transmit to the board all the papers constituting the record of the action that is appealed. (c) An appeal stays all proceedings in furtherance of the action that is appealed unless the official from whom the appeal is taken certifies in writing to the board facts supporting the official's opinion that a stay would cause imminent peril to life or property. In that case, the proceedings may be stayed only by a restraining order granted by the board or a court of record on application, after notice to the official, if due cause is shown. (d) The board shall set a reasonable time for the appeal hearing and shall give public notice of the hearing and due notice to the parties in interest. A party may appear at the appeal hearing in person or by agent or attorney. The board shall decide the appeal at the next meeting for which notice can be provided following the hearing and not later than the 60th day after the date the appeal is filed. (e) A member of the governing body of the municipality who serves on the board of adjustment under Section 211.008(g) may not bring an appeal under this section. 13 ITEM04/13-APPELLANT PRESENTATION Height Violation on the 17-foot One-Story Portion 1. The 1997 survey shows a 48.5ft non-complying wall Of that, 17 feet at the front was one-story; 31.5 feet at the rear was two- 2. stories. The 2022/2025 permits added a second story to the one-story 17 foot 3. portion. 4. Under LDC 25-2-963 (F)(1)(b), the height of the modified portion, that is noncomplying due to setback requirements must not be greater in height of the existing noncomplying portion. Because the existing portion in that location was one-story, a second story 5. is categorically prohibited. 6. Subsection (F) is therefore unavailable for this portion of the structure. In the email included here, Mr. Leitch referenced 25-2-963 (E)(1)(a) which refers to structures that are noncomplying due to height. LDC 25-2-963 (F)(1)(b) refers to structures that are noncomplying due to setback requirements. Mr. Leitch cited the incorrect subsection of the Code when referring to the structure in question. 14 ITEM04/14-APPELLANT PRESENTATION At the November 10, 2025 Board of Adjustment hearing, the permit holder testified under oath that: • “The height of the patio was 10 feet above the actual foundation” • “The foundations didn’t change” • “The finished floor foundations remained the same at ground level” *Photographic evidence now proves these statements false. 15 ITEM04/15-APPELLANT PRESENTATION 16 ITEM04/16-APPELLANT PRESENTATION 17 ITEM04/17-APPELLANT PRESENTATION