ITEM04 C15-2025-0041 LATE BACKUP OPPOSITION — original pdf

Backup

December 5, 2025 Chair Jessica Cohen Members of the Board of Adjustment City of Austin P.O. Box 1088 Austin, Texas 78746 RE: C15-2025-0041 Dear Board of Adjustment Members, The purpose of this letter is to clearly explain how Section 25-2-963 (Modification and Maintenance of Noncomplying Structures) has long been understood and applied. Our firm has worked on hundreds of site plans, subdivisions, and rezoning cases over several decades, and we have used this section of the Code many times under consistent guidance from City staff. The main issue centers on two different actions: 1. Demolition – Removing a structure or area without replacement (building it back). 2. Remove and Replace – Removing a structure or area and replacing it (rebuilding it), in the same permit. Based on our extensive permitting experience, the long-standing application of 25-2-963 has always been as follows: 1. Demolition: If a structure or area does not meet today’s rules (for example, it is in a setback, exceeds current impervious cover limits, or sits within a compatibility setback), and the owner chooses to Demolish without replacing it, then that structure or area is gone permanently. P . O . B O X 4 1 9 5 7 , A U S T I N , T E X A S 7 8 7 0 4 1 5 0 7 I N G L E W O O D S T . , A U S T I N , T E X A S 7 8 7 4 1 ITEM04/1-LATE BACKUP -OPPOSITIONOnce demolition without replacement occurs under a permit, the owner cannot return later with a new permit and try to rebuild what was demolished. 2. Remove and Replace: If a noncomplying structure or area is Removed and Replaced under the same permit, it may be rebuilt as long as the situation does not become more noncompliant than it already was. This approach has always been allowed and continues to be allowed today. We have applied this exact method on numerous projects over many years. Impervious Cover: Noncomplying impervious cover may be shifted around on a site within a single permit, as long as the total amount does not increase. Impervious cover can be removed in one place and added in another. This practice is consistent with City staff guidance, including the attached email from Christopher Johnson. Structures in Setbacks: If a legally built structure sits inside a required setback, it may be removed and replaced under one permit, again as long as the replacement does not increase the degree of noncompliance. We are currently working on a project where this exact situation is occurring, and it is being processed as allowed. Compatibility Setbacks and Change of Use: If a structure or area (such as a vehicular drive) becomes noncomplying because of a change of use that triggers compatibility setbacks, it may still be maintained through a remove-and-replace approach. We—and many other consultants—have received approvals for this on several projects. For example, a drive within a compatibility setback can be removed and replaced (rebuilt) in the same location as long as it does not increase the noncompliance. We have current written confirmation from City staff that this interpretation continues to apply. These practices have been consistent for decades, going back at least to the 1984 Code. Finally, the matter in front of you is not a request for a new interpretation of the Code. It is an appeal of building permits, arguing that they were issued incorrectly. We assert that the permits were issued correctly because Section 25-2-963 has been applied to this project exactly as it has been applied to many others: ITEM04/2-LATE BACKUP -OPPOSITION • Remove and Replace is allowed under a single permit if noncompliance does not increase. • Demolition permanently eliminates the right to rebuild. The permits at issue were reviewed and approved consistently with this long-standing and well- established practice. I look forward to the hearing on this matter and welcome any questions the Board Members may have of me on this topic. Respectfully submitted, A. Ron Thrower ITEM04/3-LATE BACKUP -OPPOSITION Ron Thrower From: Sent: To: Subject: Hi Ron- Johnson, Christopher [DSD] <Christopher.Johnson@austintexas.gov> Thursday, April 24, 2025 8:52 AM Ron Thrower RE: SF IC There is nothing in the code specific to noncomplying zoning impervious cover, but this situation would be governed by the Noncomplying Structures regulations which begin in section 25-2-961: ARTICLE 8. - NONCOMPLYING STRUCTURES. Although the article refers to “structures” the actual definition includes “building, structure or area” which would cover noncomplying impervious cover. Section 25-2-963(C) allows for modification that does not increase the degree of noncompliance. However, once noncomplying impervious cover is removed, that would bring the site closer into compliance and one could not later increase IC back to what it was before the removal. Chris Christopher Johnson Environmental Policy Program Manager Development Services Department 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Dr., Austin, TX 78752 512-974-2769 Christopher.Johnson@austintexas.gov DevelopmentATX.com PER CITY ORDINANCE: All individuals scheduling or accepting a meeting invitation with a City Official are requested to provide responses to the questions at the following link: DSD Visitor Log. Please note that all information provided is subject to public disclosure via DSD’s open data portal. For more information please visit: City of Austin Ordinance 2016-0922-005 | City Clerk’s website | City Clerk’s FAQ’s From: Ron Thrower Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2025 4:49 PM To: Johnson, Christopher [DSD] <Christopher.Johnson@austintexas.gov> Subject: SF IC External Email - Exercise Caution Chris, 1 ITEM04/4-LATE BACKUP -OPPOSITION Trying to find a code provision. Where does it state that if a house was constructed in 1950 and the impervious cover on the property exceeds 45%, yet all that IC existed prior to 1984 adoption of IC limits, can that IC number allow to remain with minor site tweaks? Site is 50% and they want to do a small addition and are willing to take up some IC to oEset, but not increase, the IC onsite beyond the amount that existed prior to 1984. Where is this in the code? Be smart. Be safe. Be kind. Ron Thrower www.throwerdesign.com Mail: P.O. Box 41957 Austin, Texas 78704 Physical: 1507 Inglewood Street Austin, Texas 78741-1141 CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 2 ITEM04/5-LATE BACKUP -OPPOSITION Case: C15-2025-0041 Date: December 8, 2025 Property: 6706 Bridge Hill Cove Re: Letter Opposing Appeal C15-2025-0041 Dear Members of the Board of Adjustment, We oppose the administrative appeal regarding the 2025 revision for the permit issued for our house at 6706 Bridge Hill Cove, and object to the Appellant’s efforts to challenge the elements of our project that were specifically permitted in 2022, which are central to the appellant’s newly submitted presentation and claims. In reviewing the appellant’s latest submissions, we found that their presentation relies heavily on photographs taken by a former subcontractor. He informed me that these were produced only after the appellant’s attorney threatened legal action. The appellant uses these photos to support new claims about work performed under the 2022 permit, which, as noted above, is not part of the 2025 revision under appeal. Even so, the photos show that the work performed matches what the 2022 permit allowed and is fully compliant with all provisions of the LDC. As outlined in our prior backup, “demolished” in 25-2-963(B)(4) has a specific meaning tied to whether a project is classified as a remodel or a full demolition. We modified the existing structure rather than demolishing it. Materials at the rear patios and pool were removed and replaced, but this does not constitute demolition under 25-2-963(B)(4). The noncomplying portion of the structure is the entire house and pool patios within the required yard. There is only one noncomplying portion, and the appellant’s claim that the patios constitute a separate demolished portion is incorrect. Attached on the next page is a photo showing the deteriorated and unsafe condition of the covered patios. The roof structure, trusses, and framing above these patios remained intact throughout construction and remain in place today. While the patios themselves required replacement, the roof structure above them was never removed. Even if the Board were to treat different areas as separate noncomplying portions, the appellant’s claim that the covered patios were demolished from ground to sky is incorrect. The roof structure remained in place at all times and is the same roof that exists there today. Sincerely, Warren Konkel ITEM04/6-LATE BACKUP -OPPOSITION ITEM04/7-LATE BACKUP -OPPOSITION § 25-2-963 - MODIFICATION AND MAINTENANCE OF NONCOMPLYING STRUCTURES (B) The following requirements must be met in order to modify, maintain, or alter a non-complying residential structure: (1) Demolition or removal of walls must comply with the following requirements: (a) No more than fifty percent of exterior walls and supporting structural elements of the existing structure may be demolished or removed, including load bearing masonry walls, and in wood construction, studs, sole plate, and top plate. For purposes of this subsection, exterior walls and supporting structural elements are measured in linear feet and do not include the roof of the structure or interior or exterior finishes. (b) Replacement or repair of structural elements, including framing, is permitted if required by the building official to meet minimum health and safety requirements. (2) Replacement or alteration of an original foundation may not change the finished floor elevation by more than one foot vertically, in either direction. (3) For any residential use other than a single-family use in an SF-3 or more restrictive zoning district, the following requirements must be met in order to add square footage or convert accessory space into conditioned or habitable space: (a) If the lot is non-complying with current lot size or lot width requirements, the cost of improvements may not exceed 20 percent of the value of the structure before the improvements. (b) Compliance with current parking and occupancy regulations is required. (4) If a noncomplying portion of a structure is demolished, it loses its noncomplying status and may only be rebuilt in compliance with current code. ITEM04/8-LATE BACKUP -OPPOSITION