ITEM04 C15-2025-0041 DENIED DS — original pdf

Backup

CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM04 DATE: December 8, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C15-2025-0041 ___Y____Thomas Ates (D1) ___Y____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) ___N____Jessica Cohen (D3) ___N____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) ___N____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) ___N____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. December 8, 2025 The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Maggie Shahrestani’s motion to uphold staff’s decision and reject appeal; Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 7-4 votes (Chair Jessica Cohen, Board members Yung-ju Kim, Michael Von Ohlen, Jeffery Bowen nay); UPHOLD STAFF’S DECISION AND REJECT APPEAL. FINDING: 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 for