ITEM04 C15-2026-0027 GRANTED DS W APPVD DRAWING — original pdf
Backup
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM04 DATE: Monday August 10, 2026 CASE NUMBER: C15-2026-0027 ___-____Thomas Ates (D1) OUT ___Y____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) ___-____Jessica Cohen (D3) RESIGNED ___Y____Yung-ju Kim (D4) ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) ___-____Haseeb Abdullah (D6) OUT ___Y____Sameer S Birring (D7) ___Y____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) ___Y____Brian Poteet (D9) ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) ___Y____Jeffery L Bowen (M) ___Y____Corry L Archer-MccClellan (Alternate) (M) ___Y____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPLICANT: Jacob Rogers OWNER: Paul & Heather Fink ADDRESS: 6302 SHADOW VALLEY DR VARIANCE REQUESTED: The property contains an existing residential swimming pool and decking that have served the site for many years. The pool and deck are deteriorated, leaking, and failing. Strict application of the current impervious cover regulations would prevent replacement of this established improvement. The requested variance allows continued reasonable residential use without increasing the property's development intensity. The project does not add impervious cover. The property currently contains approximately 7,280 square feet of impervious cover, and the replacement pool and decking will remain within the existing footprint. BOARD’S DECISION: Board Member Melissa Hawthorne’s motion to postpone to August 10, 2026, due to lack of quorum for voting purposes (only 9 board members), Board member Haseeb Abdullah second on 9-0 votes; POSTPONED TO AUGUST 10, 2026. AUGUST 10, 2026 The public hearing was closed by Chair Jeffery Bowen, Board Member Melissa Hawthorne’s motion to approve tie to Advanced Packet page 04/11, Board member Michael Von Ohlen second on 10-0 votes; GRANTED TIE TO ADVANCED PACKET PAGE 04/11. FINDING: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: structure built 1978, at the time allowed 55% impervious coverage, property contains existing residential swimming pool and decking that served this site for many years, and as it has deteriorated the ordinance does not allow for reasonable use. 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: shared driveway with its adjacent neighbors, large trees and topography towards rear of this site, there isn’t a reasonable alternative. (b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: it’s already built and is existing house pool, the topography in back utility easements and tree make it very difficult to have different configurations. 3. The variance will not alter the character of the area adjacent to the property, will not impair the use of adjacent conforming property, and will not impair the purpose of the regulations of the zoning district in which the property is located because: improvements are to the rear of property not visible from roadway and replace existing residential decking and same location footprint. Elaine Ramirez Executive Liaison Jeffery Bowen Chairman Diana Ramirez for ITEM04/11