Board of Adjustment

Nov. 10, 2025

Play video — original link

Play video

Nov. 10, 2025

ITEM01 DRAFT MINUTES FOR OCT13, 2025 — original pdf

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF — Page 1 of 6 pages

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Monday, October 13, 2025 The BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT convened in a Regular meeting on Monday, October 13, 2025, at 301 West 2nd Street in Austin, Texas. Madam Chair Jessica Cohen called the Board of Adjustment Meeting to order at 5:45 PM. Board Members/Commissioners in Attendance in-Person: Jessica Cohen-Chair, Melissa Hawthorne-Vice Chair, Haseeb Abdullah, Jeffery Bowen, Brian Poteet, Maggie Shahrestani, Corry L Archer-Mcclellan (Alternate) Board Members/Commissioners in Attendance Remotely: Thomas Ates, Sameer S Birring, Yung-ju Kim, Bianca A. Medina-Leal Board Members absent: Michael Von Ohlen, Suzanne Valentine (unavailable) PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The first (4) four speakers signed up/register prior (no later than noon the day before the meeting) to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. NONE APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Board of Adjustment meetings on September 8, 2025. On-Line Link: Draft Minutes for September 8, 2025 The minutes from the meeting on September 8, 2025, were approved on Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne, Board member Brian Poteet second, on 10-0-1 Vote (Board member Haseeb Abdullah abstained). PUBLIC HEARINGS Discussion and action on the following cases. New Interpretation case: 2. C15-2025-0035 Bob Kaler and Carol Journeay (Appellant) Kateryna Luschchenko (Owner) 205 E. 34th Street On-Line Link: ITEM02 APPELLANT-ADV PACKET PART1, APPELLANT-PART2, ITEM02 PERMIT HOLDER- ADV PACKET, ITEM02 STAFF REPORT, APPELLANT PRESENTATION, PERMIT HOLDER PRESENTATION PART1, PART2, PART3, PART4 The appellant has filed an appeal challenging the approval of a building permit (BP No. 2025-072930) and related construction plans for proposed development of a three-unit residential use at 205 East 34th Street, Austin, TX 78705. The appeal alleges that City staff’s decision to approve the permit failed to comply with applicable zoning regulations, including requirements of the North University Neighborhood Conservation-Neighborhood Plan (NCCD-NP) Combining District (Ordinance No. 040826-58) and/or Chapter 25-2 relating to required setbacks, limits on gross floor area, and other site development standards, as well as requirements for development applications in Section 25-1-82 (Non- Subdivision Application Requirements and Expiration). Ordinance No. 040826-58 North University Neighborhood Conservation Combining District Section 3 - Street yard setbacks. Front yard setback. The minimum front yard setback equals the average of the front yard setbacks of the principal single- Note:  Part 6 General Provisions. Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance, the following provisions apply to all …

Nov. 10, 2025

ITEM02 C15-2025-0041 ADV PACKET APPELLANT — original pdf

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 ITEM02/1-APPELLANT ITEM02/2-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. proposal 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 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 …

Nov. 10, 2025

ITEM02 C15-2025-0041 ADV PACKET PERMIT HOLDER — original pdf

David Hartman ( 303 Colorado, Suite 2300 Austin, TX 78701 www.dbcllp.com October 24, 2025 Via E-Mail: Austin Board of Adjustment Elaine Ramirez Senior Planner, Austin Development Services Elaine.ramirez@autintexas.gov Re: Objection to Standing and Jurisdiction Board of Adjustment ID: C15-2025-0041 Date of Board Hearing: November 10, 2025 Property: 6706 Bridge Hill Cove To the Austin Board of Adjustment, Austin City Code § 25-1-183 sets forth mandatory requirements for a valid notice of appeal to the Board. The Code provides: 25-1-183 – Information Required in Notice of Appeal The notice of appeal must be on a form prescribed by the responsible director or building official and must include: the name, address, and telephone number of the appellant; the name of the applicant, if the appellant is not the applicant; the decision being appealed; the date of the decision; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. a description of the appellant's status as an interested party; and 6. the reasons the appellant believes the decision does not comply with the requirements of this title. The appellant’s filing fails to meet these jurisdictional prerequisites. Specifically, the appeal omits both (a) the decision being appealed and (b) the date of that decision. There are at least two administrative actions that could potentially be at issue relating to the approvals issued on September 24, 2025, in connection with two separate Building Permits 2022-093202 BP and 2022-093203 BP, however, neither the permit numbers nor the approval date are identified anywhere in the notice of appeal. It is not clear to the Property’s Owner which action or permit is the subject of the applicant’s challenge. Because compliance with § 25-1-183 is a mandatory condition precedent to the Board’s jurisdiction, an appeal that fails to include the required information is legally defective and cannot properly invoke the Board’s authority. The omission of the decision and decision date prevents both the City and affected parties from identifying the administrative action being challenged, undermining the procedural integrity of the appeal process. ITEM02/1-PERMIT HOLDER October 24, 2025 Page 2 Accordingly, we respectfully object and assert that: 1. The appellant’s notice of appeal is facially deficient under § 25-1-183; 2. The Board therefore lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal; 3. The appellant lacks standing to maintain this proceeding; and 4. Because the statutory window for filing a notice of appeal has expired, the deficiencies in the notice cannot be remedied or cured, and the appeal …

Nov. 10, 2025

ITEM02 C15-2025-0041 AE REPORT — original pdf

October 22, 2025 Christy May 6708 Bridge Hill Cv Austin TX, 78746 Property Description: LOT 6 BRIDGE HILL SUBD Re: C15-2025-0041 Dear Christy, Austin Energy (AE) has reviewed your application for the above referenced property, requesting that the Board of Adjustment consider a variance request from LDC Section 25-2-2963 at 6706 Bridge Hill Cv. Austin Energy does not oppose the request, provided that any proposed or existing improvements follow Austin Energy’s Clearance & Safety Criteria, the National Electric Safety Code, and OSHA requirements. Any removal or relocation of existing facilities will be at the owner’s/applicant’s expense. Please use this link to be advised of our clearance and safety requirements which are additional conditions of the above review action: https://library.municode.com/tx/austin/codes/utilities_criteria_manual?nodeId=S1AUENDECR_1.10.0CL SARE If you require further information or have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact our office. Thank you for contacting Austin Energy. Ashleigh Woolf, MuniProg, Paraprofessional Austin Energy Public Involvement | Real Estate Services 2500 Montopolis Drive Austin, TX 78741 (512) 322-6050

Nov. 10, 2025

ITEM02 C15-2025-0041 PP DS TO 12-8-25 — original pdf

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: 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

Nov. 10, 2025

ITEM02 C15-2025-0041 PRESENTATION — original pdf

ITEM02/1-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER 6706 Bridge Hill Cove Permit Holder Presentation November 10, 2025 Board of Adjustment Appeal of Administrative Decision 2 ITEM02/2-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER ITEM02/3-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER ITEM02/4-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER ITEM02/5-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER ITEM02/6-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER ITEM02/7-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER Construction Remains Permissible Even If Nothing Had Existed For argument’s sake, set aside every claim about expired permits or the loss of noncomplying status, and assume something far more drastic: that there had never been improvements in this disputed area. Even under that assumption, all of the construction in this area remains permissible under Section 25- 2-963(F), which authorizes extension of a noncomplying structure along its original setback for up to 25 feet. ITEM02/8-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER 25-2-963(F) Allows Limited Extensions Matching the Original Setback Section 25-2-963 applies to structures legally built under earlier codes but not compliant with today’s restrictions. 25-2-963(F) A person may modify a building that is a noncomplying structure based on a yard setback requirement of this title if: 1. the modified portion of the building: Subsection (F) explicitly allows those structures to be extended 50% (up to 25 feet) along the original setback line. The City interprets “modified portion of the building” on a floor-by-floor basis and evaluates each level individually. a. does not extend further into the required yard setback than the existing noncomplying portion of the building, except for a vertical change in finished floor elevation allowed under Subsection (B)(2) of this section b. unless located in a street side yard, is not greater in height than the existing noncomplying portion of the building, except for a vertical change in finished floor elevation allowed under Subsection (B)(2) of this section; and c. complies with the height requirements of this title; and 2. the additional length of a modified portion of the building does not exceed the lesser of 50 percent of the length of the noncomplying portion of the building or 25 feet measured from the existing building and parallel to the lot line. ITEM02/9-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER ITEM02/10-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER Top Floor is Eligible for 21.5’ Extension The existing noncomplying top floor is 43 feet long and therefore allowed a 50% extension under the code, equal to 21.5’ of additional length. This extension was applied primarily to the front of the building and partly to a rear patio. All construction within the 10’ setback is expressly permitted under Section 25-2-963(F). ITEM02/11-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER ITEM02/12-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER ITEM02/13-PRESENTATION-PERMIT HOLDER Conclusion: Every Claim in the Appeal Fails Claim Response …

Nov. 10, 2025

ITEM02 C15-2025-0041 PRESENTATION APPELLANT — original pdf

1 ITEM02/1-APPELLANT 2 ITEM02/2-APPELLANT Fourth, the pool deck has expanded since the 1997 survey, including the portion of it within the side yard setback. A permit to, "repair, replace and enlarge existing pool deck" was secured in 2001(2001-013119 BP). However, no inspections were logged, and that permit is Expired. There is a note in our system associated with the permit which reads, "IC-15237=34%. The portion of the wood deck that is encroaching into the side yard must not be removed to maintain the non- complying status... 25-2-963(D}'� The plans approved as part of PR-2022-066047 for the current project show 15,697 square feet of impervious cover pre-development and 15,546 square feet post-development. – Steve Leitch letter to Warren Konkel, September 9, 2024 *LAST LEGAL NON-COMPLYING STATUS 3 ITEM02/3-APPELLANT EXPIRED PERMITS = LOSS OF GRANDFATHERED STATUS 2001 permit expired with no inspections and was never lawfully completed. Austin’s Land Development Code makes it clear that when a permit expires, the authorization ends and vesting tied to that permit/project does not continue. The 2022 Permit improperly assumed continued grandfathered status based upon expired 2001 permit and non-permitted improvements after 2001 4 ITEM02/4-APPELLANT 5 ITEM02/5-APPELLANT 6 ITEM02/6-APPELLANT ADDED SQUARE FOOTAGE IN THE SETBACK = LOSS OF GRANDFATHERED STATUS 2001 permit proposed “repair, replace, and enlarge pool deck.” But it did not approve extending the length of the patio in the setback to the zero (0) foot setback line (see Slide #4). What was built after the 2001 permit expired was never permitted by the City and was never legal non-complying. City code 25-2-963 (Modifying and Maintaining Non-Complying Structures) subsection (E)(1)(a) provides that modifications of a non-complying structure may not extend further into the required side yard setback than the existing non-complying portion of the building. City code 25-2-963 (Modifying and Maintaining Non-Complying Structures) subsection (c) “except as provided for in subsections E and F, a person my not modify or maintain and non-complying structure in a manner that increases the degree to which the structure violated a requirement that caused the structure to be non-complying.” The exceptions of subsection (F) do not apply to this permit because: a) The elevation of the patio deck changed more than one (1) foot vertically (LDC 25-2-963 B(2)) b) The encroachment of the pool deck extends further into the required setback than the last legal non- complying improvements in 1997. c) The additional length of the modified portion …

Nov. 10, 2025

ITEM02 C15-2025-0041 STAFF REPORT — original pdf

To: From: Chair Cohen Board of Adjustment Members Brent D. Lloyd, Development Officer, ADS Lyndi Garwood, Principal Planner, ADS Date: October 30, 2025 Subject: Appeal of Development Approval Issued for 6706 Bridge Hill Cove The appellant challenges an administrative revision approved on September 24, 2025, which modiﬁes construction plans initially approved in 2022 (Plan Review No. 2022- 0060407PR) as well as revisions to the following associated permits: • Building Permit No. 2022-093202BP (home remodel/additions); and • Building Permit no. 2022-093203BP (pool) The appeal alleges that the approved work violates applicable regulations of the Lake Austin (LA) zoning district and limitations on the modiﬁcation or expansion of a legally noncomplying structure under Land Development Code (“LDC”) Section 25-2-963 (Modiﬁcation and Maintenance of Noncomplying Structures). Summary of Issues & ADS’s Position As with many structures that were initially built along Lake Austin prior to annexation, portions of the residence at 6706 Bridge Hill Cove are legally “noncomplying” with site development standards applicable in the Lake Austin zoning district. This means, in essence, that the structure complied with the regulations in effect at the time it was initially built, but does not meet all currently applicable site development standards. Property owners are allowed to maintain noncomplying structures without bringing them into compliance with current site development standards. However, LDC Section 25-2-963 (Modiﬁcation and Maintenance of Noncomplying Structures) limits the degree to which noncomplying structures may be altered and generally prohibits expansions that “increase the degree of noncompliance” outside of the modiﬁcations speciﬁcally authorized in code. In this case, the pool deck and portions of the residence along the southern property line are noncomplying with the 10-foot side-yard setback that applies in the LA zoning district per LDC Sec. 25-2-492 (Site Development Regulations). The main issues in the appeal ITEM02/1-STAFF REPORT Case No. C15-2025-0041 BOA Appeal re: 6706 Bridge Hill Cove Staff Report hinge on whether recently approved revisions to a prior 2022 permit for a remodel/addition authorized development in excess of what is allowed under LDC Sec. 25-2-963. The parties to this appeal are Warren Konkel, the permit applicant and owner of the subject property, and the appellant, Christy May, who owns the adjacent property at 6708 Bridge Hill Cover. Both are represented by counsel, who have contrary views on the validity of the appeal and whether permit revisions approved by staff comply with LDC Sec. 25-2-963 and other applicable regulations. They will …

Nov. 10, 2025

ITEM03 C16-2025-0005 ADV PACKET PART1 — original pdf

CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM04 DATE: October 13, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C16-2025-0005 _______Thomas Ates (D1) _______Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) _______Jessica Cohen (D3) _______Yung-ju Kim (D4) _______Melissa Hawthorne (D5) _______Haseeb Abdullah (D6) _______Sameer S Birring (D7) _______Margaret Shahrestani (D8) _______Brian Poteet (D9) _______Michael Von Ohlen (D10) _______Jeffery L Bowen (M) _______Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) _______Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) _______VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPLICANT: Jonathan Perlstein OWNER: Elizabeth McFarland ADDRESS: 4700 WEIDEMAR LN VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a sign variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-10-127 (Multi-Family Residential Sign District Regulations):   (E) (2) (a) to exceed total sign area of 35 square feet (maximum allowed) to 192 square feet (requested) (facing south on building extension, not directly facing Weidemar Ln) (E) (2) (a) to exceed total sign area of 35 feet (maximum allowed) to 96 square feet (requested) for Halo signs in order to provide signage for Alexian St. Elmo in a “MF-6-CO-NP”, Multi- Family – Conditional Overlay - Neighborhood Plan zoning district. (East Congress Neighborhood Plan), Multi-Family Residential Sign District. This subsection applies to a multifamily residential sign district: For signs other than freestanding signs, the total sign area for a lot may not exceed the Land Development Code Section 25-10-127 Multi-Family Residential Sign District Regulations (A) (E) lesser of: (1) 0.5 square feet for each linear foot of street frontage; or ITEM03/1 35 square feet. (2) Source: Section 13-2-867; Ord. 990225-70; Ord. 031211-11; Ord. No. 20170817-072, Pt. 11, 8-28- 17. BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Madam Chair Jessica Cohen’s motion to Postpone to October 13, 2025; Board member Tommy Ates second on 9-0-1 votes (Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne abstained); POSTPONED TO October 13, 2025. October 13, 2025 APPLICANT REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 10, 2025; Madam Chair Cohen motions to approve postponement request, Board member Jeffery Bowen second, no objection; POSTPONED TO November 10, 2025. FINDING: 1. The variance is necessary because strict enforcement of the Article prohibits and reasonable opportunity to provide adequate signs on the site, considering the unique features of a site such as its dimensions, landscape, or topography, because: OR, 2. The granting of this variance will not have a substantially adverse impact upon neighboring properties, because: OR, 3. The granting of this variance will not substantially conflict with the stated purposes of this sign ordinance, because: AND, 4. Granting a variance …

Nov. 10, 2025

ITEM03 C16-2025-0005 ADV PACKET PART2 — original pdf

© 2024Main Building Signapartmentsapartments8 x 12 ft. Steel structure with dimensional logo sign, interior lit.ITEM03/32 Sign Type Illuminated Wall Sign - EAST ELEVATION Quantity 1 8" Deep cabinet 3" Halo-Lit Channel Letters Push thru Letters Soft white LED Material Colors PMS 1797 PMS 2311 96" 8 ft - 0 in 144" 12 ft - 0 in 9 7/8" 35 3/8" 4 1/4" ELECTRICAL BOX: Dead center 110, 5 AMPS 50' from bottom of sign to grade TRAMMELL CROW RESIDENTIAL VILLAGE AT LEXINGTON RANCH 4101 W. Green Oaks #305-405 Arlington, TX 76016 P 817.929.2553 ArchitecturalSignDesign.com FRISCO, TEXAS ITEM03/33 © 2024Main Building Signapartmentsapartments8 x 12 ft. Steel structure with dimensional logo sign, interior lit.ITEM03/34 © 2024Leasing Blade SignSide ViewMetal cabinet with raised letters, interior lit.leasingITEM03/35 46 3/4" 38" 8" 38" 7 1/2" Illuminated Leasing ID - EAST ELEVATION 1 PMS 1797 PMS 2311 8" Deep cabinet 3" Halo-Lit Channel Letters Push thru Letters Soft white LED 10" ELECTRICAL BOX: 110, 3 AMPS 9'-0" from bottom of sign to grade TRAMMELL CROW RESIDENTIALST ELMO4700 WEIDEMAR LANEAUSTIN, TX 78745ITEM03/36 ITEM03/37

Nov. 10, 2025

ITEM03 C16-2025-0005 ADV PACKET PART3 — original pdf

ITEM03/38 ITEM03/39 PropertyProfileReportPermittingandDevelopmentCenter|6310WilhelminaDelcoDrive,Austin,TX78752|(512)978-4000GeneralInformationZoningMapImageryMapVicinityMapLocation:4700WEIDEMARLNParcelID:0414030127Grid:MH17Planning&Zoning*Rightclickhyperlinkstoopeninanewwindow.FutureLandUse(FLUM):SingleFamily,Multi-familyRegulatingPlan:NoRegulatingPlanZoning:MF-6-CO-NPZoningCases:C14-05-0107C14-2021-0015NP-05-0020NPA-2021-0020.01ZoningOrdinances:19990225-070b20050818-Z00420220324-08920220324-090CompatibilityStandardsResidentialDesignStandards:LDC/25-2-SubchapterFZoningOverlays:NeighborhoodPlan:EASTCONGRESSInfillOptions:SmallLotAmnestyInfillOption,ParkingPlacement/ImpCoverDesignOptionNeighborhoodRestrictedParkingAreas:EastCongressNPAMobileFoodVendors:--HistoricLandmark:--UrbanRoadways:NoZoningGuideTheGuidetoZoningprovidesaquickexplanationoftheaboveZoningcodes,however,theLandDevelopmentInformationServicesprovidesgeneralzoningassistanceandcanadviseyouonthetypeofdevelopmentallowedonaproperty.VisitZoningforthedescriptionofeachBaseZoningDistrict.Forofficialverificationofthezoningofaproperty,pleaseorderaZoningVerificationLetter.GeneralinformationontheNeighborhoodPlanningAreasisavailablefromNeighborhoodPlanning.EnvironmentalNoFullyDevelopedFloodplain:NoFEMAFloodplain:SUBURBANAustinWatershedRegulationAreas:WilliamsonCreekWatershedBoundaries:NoCreekBuffers:EdwardsAquiferRechargeZone:NoNoEdwardsAquiferRechargeVerificationZone:ErosionHazardZoneReviewBuffer:NoPoliticalBoundariesJurisdiction:AUSTINFULLPURPOSECouncilDistrict:3County:TRAVISSchoolDistrict:AustinISDCommunityRegistry:AustinIndependentSchoolDistrict,AustinNeighborhoodsCouncil,FriendsofAustinNeighborhoods,GoAustinVamosAustin78745,HomelessNeighborhoodAssociation,OnionCreekHomeownersAssoc.,OvertonFamilyCommittee,PreservationAustin,SouthAustinNeighborhoodAlliance(SANA),SouthCongressCombinedNeighborhoodPlanContactTeamTheInformationonthisreporthasbeenproducedbytheCityofAustinasaworkingdocumentandisnotwarrantedforanyotheruse.NowarrantyismadebytheCityregardingitsaccuracyorcompleteness.Datecreated:5/28/2025ITEM03/40 ITEM03/41 □ ITEM03/42 Architectural Signage Design Group, LLC. 4101 W GREEN OAKS SUITE 405. ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76016 1 A halo-lit channel letter sign uses a lighting technique that creates a glow or halo effect around the letters. Instead of the letters being lit from the front, as in traditional channel letters, the light is emitted from behind the letters, illuminating the surrounding area. This results in a soft, radiant appearance. ITEM03/43 ITEM03/44 ITEM03/45 ITEM03/46 ITEM03/47

Nov. 10, 2025

ITEM03 C16-2025-0005 GRANTED DS — original pdf

CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM03 DATE: November 10, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C16-2025-0005 __Y_____Thomas Ates (D1) __Y_____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) __Y_____Jessica Cohen (D3) __Y_____Yung-ju Kim (D4) __-_____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) -- Abstained __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) APPLICANT: Jonathan Perlstein OWNER: Elizabeth McFarland ADDRESS: 4700 WEIDEMAR LN VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a sign variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-10-127 (Multi-Family Residential Sign District Regulations):   (E) (2) (a) to exceed total sign area of 35 square feet (maximum allowed) to 192 square feet (requested) (facing south on building extension, not directly facing Weidemar Ln) (E) (2) (a) to exceed total sign area of 35 feet (maximum allowed) to 96 square feet (requested) for Halo signs in order to provide signage for Alexian St. Elmo in a “MF-6-CO-NP”, Multi- Family – Conditional Overlay - Neighborhood Plan zoning district. (East Congress Neighborhood Plan), Multi-Family Residential Sign District. This subsection applies to a multifamily residential sign district: For signs other than freestanding signs, the total sign area for a lot may not exceed the Land Development Code Section 25-10-127 Multi-Family Residential Sign District Regulations (A) (E) lesser of: (1) 0.5 square feet for each linear foot of street frontage; or 35 square feet. (2) Source: Section 13-2-867; Ord. 990225-70; Ord. 031211-11; Ord. No. 20170817-072, Pt. 11, 8-28- 17. BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Madam Chair Jessica Cohen’s motion to Postpone to October 13, 2025; Board member Tommy Ates second on 9-0-1 votes (Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne abstained); POSTPONED TO October 13, 2025. October 13, 2025 APPLICANT REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 10, 2025; Madam Chair Cohen motions to approve postponement request, Board member Jeffery Bowen second, no objection; POSTPONED TO November 10, 2025. November 10, 2025 The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to Approve with the large sign south elevation limited to 100 sf shown on Advance packet Item 3/14 with the bottom edge starting at level three 677.31 feet and the sign for the east elevation shown in Advance packet Item 3/15 limited to 96 sf; Board member Maggie Shahrestani second on 10-0-1 votes (Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne abstain); GRANTED WITH THE LARGE …

Nov. 10, 2025

ITEM03 C16-2025-0005 PRESENTATION — original pdf

ITEM03/1-PRESENTATION ITEM03/2-PRESENTATION ITEM03/3-PRESENTATION ITEM03/4-PRESENTATION ITEM03/5-PRESENTATION Architectural Signage Design Group, LLC. 4101 W GREEN OAKS SUITE 405. ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76016 1 A halo-lit channel letter sign uses a lighting technique that creates a glow or halo effect around the letters. Instead of the letters being lit from the front, as in traditional channel letters, the light is emitted from behind the letters, illuminating the surrounding area. This results in a soft, radiant appearance. ITEM03/6-PRESENTATION SIGN LOCATIONS - SITE PLAN Sign TypeQuantityMaterialColors4101 W. Green Oaks #305-405 Arlington, TX 76016 P 817.929.2553 ArchitecturalSignDesign.comTRAMMELL CROW RESIDENTIALVILLAGE AT LEXINGTON RANCHFRISCO, TEXASWEIDEMAR LNSHELBY LNITEM03/7-PRESENTATION Illuminated Vertical Wall Sign - SOUTH ELEVATION 1 8" Deep cabinet 3" Halo-Lit Channel Letters Push thru Letters Soft white LED PMS 1797 PMS 2311 WHITE VINYL WINDOWS DARK BRICK WWWW3333 WWWW3333 WWWW3333 WWWW3333 WWWW3333 WWWW3333 WWWW3333 WWWW3333 S1 STOREFRONT A 0 0 1 A S2 " 3 - ' 7 . P Y T T.O. PARAPET 5 714.28 ft LEVEL 5 699.63 ft LEVEL 4 688.47 ft LEVEL 3 677.31 ft LEVEL 2 666.16 ft LEVEL 1 655.00 ft AVG. GRADE 654.20 ft 3 ENLARGED BUILDING ELEVATION - SOUTH 3/32" = 1'-0" ELECTRICAL BOX: Dead center 110, 5 AMPS Sign TypeQuantityMaterialColors4101 W. Green Oaks #305-405 Arlington, TX 76016 P 817.929.2553 ArchitecturalSignDesign.comTRAMMELL CROW RESIDENTIALVILLAGE AT LEXINGTON RANCHFRISCO, TEXASITEM03/8-PRESENTATION Illuminated Wall Sign - EAST ELEVATION 1 8" Deep cabinet 3" Halo-Lit Channel Letters Push thru Letters Soft white LED PMS 1797 PMS 2311 96" 8 ft - 0 in 144" 12 ft - 0 in 9 7/8" 35 3/8" 4 1/4" ELECTRICAL BOX: Dead center 110, 5 AMPS 50' from bottom of sign to grade Sign TypeQuantityMaterialColors4101 W. Green Oaks #305-405 Arlington, TX 76016 P 817.929.2553 ArchitecturalSignDesign.comTRAMMELL CROW RESIDENTIALVILLAGE AT LEXINGTON RANCHFRISCO, TEXASITEM03/9-PRESENTATION SIGN LOCATIONS - SITE PLAN Sign TypeQuantityMaterialColors4101 W. Green Oaks #305-405 Arlington, TX 76016 P 817.929.2553 ArchitecturalSignDesign.comTRAMMELL CROW RESIDENTIALVILLAGE AT LEXINGTON RANCHFRISCO, TEXASWEIDEMAR LNSHELBY LNITEM03/10-PRESENTATION Illuminated Vertical Wall Sign - SOUTH ELEVATION 1 8" Deep cabinet 3" Halo-Lit Channel Letters Push thru Letters Soft white LED PMS 1797 PMS 2311 WHITE VINYL WINDOWS DARK BRICK WWWW3333 WWWW3333 WWWW3333 WWWW3333 WWWW3333 WWWW3333 WWWW3333 WWWW3333 S1 STOREFRONT A 0 0 1 A S2 " 3 - ' 7 . P Y T T.O. PARAPET 5 714.28 ft LEVEL 5 699.63 ft LEVEL 4 688.47 ft LEVEL 3 677.31 ft LEVEL 2 666.16 ft LEVEL 1 655.00 ft AVG. GRADE 654.20 ft 3 …

Nov. 10, 2025

ITEM04 C15-2025-0026 ADV PACKET PART1 — original pdf

CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM05 DATE: Monday October 13, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C15-2025-0026 _______Thomas Ates (D1) _______Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) _______Jessica Cohen (D3) _______Yung-ju Kim (D4) _______Melissa Hawthorne (D5) _______Haseeb Abdullah (D6) _______Sameer S Birring (D7) _______Margaret Shahrestani (D8) _______Brian Poteet (D9) _______Michael Von Ohlen (D10) _______Jeffery L Bowen (M) _______Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) _______Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) _______VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPLICANT: Stephen Hawkins OWNER: Red Bud Partners, LP ADDRESS: 1750 CHANNEL RD VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant has requested variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-1176 (Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses) (A) (1) to increase the dock length from 30 feet (required) to thirty- seven feet and three inches (37’ 3”) (requested), in order to erect a boat dock in a “SF-2” Single-Family zoning district. Note: Land Development Code, 25-2-1176 Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses (A) A dock or similar structure must comply with the requirements of this subsection. (1) A dock may extend up to 30 feet from the shoreline, except that the director may require a dock to extend a lesser or greater distance from the shoreline if deemed necessary to ensure navigation safety. BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to Postpone to September 8, 2025; Vice-Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 9-0 votes; POSTPONED TO September 8, 2025. September 8, 2025 Applicant requested postponement to October 13,2025; Madam Chair Jessica Cohen’s motion to Postpone to October 13, 2025; Board member Corry Archer-Mcclellan second on 10-0 votes; POSTPONED TO October 13, 2025. October 13, 2025 APPLICANT REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 10, 2025; BOARD MEMBERS APPROVED POSTPONEMENT TO November 10, 2025, NO OBJECTIONS ITEM04/1 FINDING: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: (b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: 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: Elaine Ramirez Executive Liaison Jessica Cohen Madam Chair forITEM04/2 1752 Channel Road Dredge Exhibit: To …

Nov. 10, 2025

ITEM04 C15-2025-0026 ADV PACKET PART2 — original pdf

ITEM04/46 ITEM04/47 ITEM04/48 ITEM04/49 ITEM04/50 ITEM04/51 ITEM04/52 ITEM04/53 Exhibit A: Image from 09/24/2025 showing the lake depth is 2’9.5” 30 ft from shore 33.5 inches 2 feet 9.5 inches ITEM04/54 Exhibit B: Image from 10/09/2025 showing the lake depth measure 2’1.5” where the hull of a boat would sit with a 30ft long boat dock 25.5 inches 2 feet 1.5 inches ITEM04/55 Exhibit C: Images showing existing structures extend less into the lake than the downstream neighboring dock which is 30ft in length. 1748 dock (downstream) 1748 dock extends much further into the lake Existing 1750 dock Current structure which is 6 inches longer than the proposed is further from the middle of the lake than the adjacent downstream neighbors 30 foot dock. ITEM04/56 Exhibit D: Downstream shoreline curves into the in front of the dock creating several feet of length into the lake. Closeup of neighboring shoreline shows that it protrudes into the lake several feet where the boat dock is. ITEM04/57 Opposition to Variance 2 CASES C15-2025-0026 and C15-2025-0027 1 Site Plan SP-2025-0119D 1750 Channel Rd. & 1752 Channel Rd. By: Bruce & Nellie Slayden, Conforming dock at 1744 Channel Rd. 1 ITEM04/58 1750 Channel Rd - Nonconforming 37’ Existing nonconforming: Never Permitted 1 story Uncovered fishing pier NO watercraft slips 2 ITEM04/59 1752 Channel Rd - Nonconforming 47’ or 46’ 1” Existing nonconforming structure: Never permitted 1-story 1-watercraft slip 47’ Length Proposed nonconforming: • 3 stories across entire structure • 2 watercraft slips • 46’1’ shoreline L is 16’1” (154% of) over statutory 30’ • 22’ W vs. 14’W Existing • 2 flights of stairs • Proposed dimensions and location different than existing 3 ITEM04/60 Applicants Proposed Docks vs. Existing 4 ITEM04/61 NO HARDSHIP Applicants False/Misleading Assumptions for Alleged Hardship Applicant FALSE assumption “‘a modern watercraft’ requires water depth of 4 feet” True: Numerous modern watercraft require much less than 4. “Modern watercraft” operate in 2.5’depths: • Inboard/Outboard Watercraft • Pontoon Watercraft • Tritoon Watercraft • Outboard Watercraft • Jet Watercraft 5 ITEM04/62 Applicants state “‘modern watercraft’ require 4’ water depth; See Aqua Permit, Item 05/8 Presentation, p. 8 True: Modern lifts designed specifically to protect “modern watercraft” in shallow waters only need 2.5’ depth; no excess dredging • Cantilever Lifts extend and retract 3’ to 6’ into lake for launching and docking Modern Watercraft ; e.g. HydroHoist Ultralift for 6500 lbs watercraft, extends 4.5’ into lake, …

Nov. 10, 2025

ITEM04 C15-2025-0026 LATE BACKUP NOV10 — original pdf

November 10, 2025 Nellie Slayden, University of Texas, Austin, B.S. Petroleum Engineering, EIT Adversely Impacted Neighbor 1744 Channel Road, Austin, Texas 78746 5 The Honorable Members of the Board of Adjustment City of Austin, Texas P.O. Box 1088 Austin, Texas 78767 Re: Opposition to Variance Requests for 1750 & 1752 Channel Road; Case Nos. C15-2025-0026 & 0027 Dear Madam Chair and Honorable Board Members: I am a Petroleum Engineer (B.S. Petroleum Engineering, University of Texas at Austin) and professionally trained in the analytical methods used to determine dredge volumes. (See Section VII for details.) These are standard engineering techniques used across petroleum, civil, and architectural engineering disciplines. Because these calculations are fundamental to engineering design, my education and experience directly qualify me to evaluate dredge-volume analyses and identify when they deviate from accepted engineering standards or employ misleading assumptions. I. VOLUNTARY RELINQUISHMENT OF GRANDFATHERED RIGHTS AND ARBITRARY RE-EXPANSION Unlike upstream neighbors —also represented by Applicants' Agent— Applicants are voluntarily demolishing and relinquishing two grandfathered dock footprints. They now seek to recapture and enlarge those relinquished footprints by presenting manipulated dredge data to inflate calculated dredge volumes beyond the statutory 25 cubic-yard limit. This is an attempt to make an end-run around LDC § 25-2-1176. We urge the Board to follow Board precedent that requires credible engineering evidence to determine the minimum lengths of the docks that respect the public’s navigation safety. See, e.g., the Board’s precedent relying upon the Professional Engineering Analysis of Professional Engineer Janice Smith in Variance C15-2019-0047 and in Variance C15-2019-0010. ITEM04/1 LATE BACKUP OPP II. ADMISSIONS UNDERMINE CLAIMED HARDSHIP Applicants concede that a dredge volume of 24 to 25 cubic yards provides navigation safety and eliminates any alleged hardship under § 30-5-652: “In most cases where the lake is shallow and a new boat dock is proposed, the allowable 25 cubic yards of dredge per LDC 25-2-1176(A)(1) is sufficient to allow navigational safety.” — Applicants’ Letter to the Board, Aug. 18, 2025 (Exhibit B). This admission directly contradicts Applicants’ asserted hardship. III. APPLICANTS FAIL TO CALCULATE MINIMUM DOCK LENGTHS CONSISTENT WITH 25 CUBIC-YARD DREDGE LIMIT AS REQUIRED FOR LDC 25-2-1176 VARIANCES This Board has properly balanced competing interests before, and granted variances when licensed professional engineers offered credible, trustworthy documentation that the dock length (greater than 30’) is minimized to yield a dredge volume just less than 25 cubic yards. This Board has endorsed 24 cubic …

Nov. 10, 2025

ITEM04 C15-2025-0026 PP DS TO 12-8-25 — original pdf

CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM04 DATE: Monday November 10, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C15-2025-0026 ___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) APPLICANT: Stephen Hawkins OWNER: Red Bud Partners, LP ADDRESS: 1750 CHANNEL RD VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant has requested variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-1176 (Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses) (A) (1) to increase the dock length from 30 feet (required) to thirty- seven feet and three inches (37’ 3”) (requested), in order to erect a boat dock in a “SF-2” Single-Family zoning district. Note: Land Development Code, 25-2-1176 Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses (A) A dock or similar structure must comply with the requirements of this subsection. (1) A dock may extend up to 30 feet from the shoreline, except that the director may require a dock to extend a lesser or greater distance from the shoreline if deemed necessary to ensure navigation safety. BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to Postpone to September 8, 2025; Vice-Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 9-0 votes; POSTPONED TO September 8, 2025. September 8, 2025 Applicant requested postponement to October 13,2025; Madam Chair Jessica Cohen’s motion to Postpone to October 13, 2025; Board member Corry Archer-Mcclellan second on 10-0 votes; POSTPONED TO October 13, 2025. October 13, 2025 APPLICANT REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 10, 2025; BOARD MEMBERS APPROVED POSTPONEMENT TO November 10, 2025, NO OBJECTIONS; November 10, 2025 The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to postpone to December 8, 2025; Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 11-0 votes; POSTPONED TO December 8, 2025. FINDING: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: (b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: 3. The variance will not alter the character of the area adjacent to the property, will not impair the use of adjacent conforming …

Nov. 10, 2025

ITEM04 C15-2025-0026 PRESENTATION — original pdf

BOA Variance Presentation: Property Address: 1750 Channel Road, Austin, TX 78746 Case Number: C15-2025-0026 Site Plan #: SP-2025-0119D Presenter: Jon Fichter, Aqua Permits ITEM04/1-PRESENTATION 1750 Channel Road: ITEM04/2-PRESENTATION Seeking Variance From: LDC 25-2-1176(A)(1): "A dock may extend up to 30 feet from the shoreline [into the lake], except that the director may require a dock to extend a lesser or greater distance from the shoreline if deemed necessary to ensure navigation safety" To Allow For: -The permitting and construction of a NEW boat dock 37' 3" from the shoreline into the lake. ITEM04/3-PRESENTATION 1750 Channel Road ITEM04/4-PRESENTATION 1750 Channel Road ITEM04/5-PRESENTATION 1750 Channel Road ● ● ● ● Shown here is the site as seen today in an image taken from City of Austin GIS. The existing boat dock was constructed in the early 1980’s and is a grandfathered structure. The existing boat dock extends 37’ 9” from the shoreline. The existing boat dock is being removed and replaced with a new boat dock in the same general location. This new boat dock design conforms to all current code requirements, including height allowances, in regards to boat docks on Lake Austin. ITEM04/6-PRESENTATION 1750 Channel Road ● This image shows the neighboring dock to the east of the existing dock at 1750 Channel Road. ● Most of the neighboring boat docks have all existed in a non-compliant, but grandfathered form, for at least 40 years or more. ● These docks historically have been constructed to extend greater than 30’ from the shoreline due to shallow conditions ● Modern watercraft requires at least 4 ft. of water depth to operate - in this area the water depth is too shallow inside of the 30’ setback. ITEM04/7-PRESENTATION 1750 Channel Road The maximum length from shoreline allowed for a boat dock in Land Development Code 25-2-1176(A)(6) is insufficient in its application for this property. Due to the existing shallow lake conditions along this stretch of Lake Austin, the dock will need to be constructed at a greater length than the allowable 30’ from shoreline. Dredging of the lake bed is restricted to 25 cubic yards per address by code - in this location the amount of dredge needed to create basic navigability would exceed that amount (see below exhibit). Therefore, building deeper into the lake is required. ITEM04/8-PRESENTATION 1750 Channel Road ● Our proposed site plan (SP-2025-0119D, currently in review) proposes a new boat …

Nov. 10, 2025

ITEM04 C15-2025-0026 PRESENTATION OPPOSITION — original pdf

Opposition to Variance Cases 2 Variances, 2 Applicants 2 Addresses C15-2025-0026 Red Bud LP 1750 Channel Rd. C15-2025-0027 Tom Davis III 1752 Channel Rd. 1 Site Plan SP-2025-0119D By: Bruce* & Nellie*+ Slayden, Conforming neighboring dock Date: October 30, 2025 * Licensed Intellectual Property Attorney in good standing with State Bar of Texas and US Patent & Trademark Office + B.S. Petroleum Engineering, Univ. of Texas at Austin + Engineering experience involving geology, navigable waterways, depositional systems. Core UT Courses and On-Site Studies involving Edwards Plateau 1 ITEM04/1-PRESENTATION OPPOSITION Reasonable Use Summary Board Inquiry Reasonable Use: The zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: Applicants’ Response The maximum length from shoreline allowed for a boat dock is a navigational hazard, due to the naturally existing shallow conditions of Lake Austin in this area. Similar neighboring properties have addressed this unique environmental feature for decades by building their boat docks further into the lake Objections The proposed maximum length from shoreline for a new LDC 25-2-1172 new construction, unreasonably interferes with a preferred travel path in the highest congested area of a public navigable waterway and thus unreasonably impedes Texas’ laws that protect navigation safety. Local zoning regulations do allow for a reasonable use. Numerous watercraft and lift options are readily available and would enable Applicant to comply with 30 foot zoning regulation limits. ITEM04/2-PRESENTATION OPPOSITION Hardship (a) Summary Board Inquiry Hardship: a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: Applicants’ Response The bathymetry of Lake Austin in this area is uniquely shallow, due to annual sedimentary deposits caused by neighboring property’s runoff. Objections The bathymetry of Lake Austin in this area is NOT uniquely shallow. Numerous conforming docks in this and many other areas of Lake Austin are similarly situated vis-a-vis same or similar depth contours, as shown on Austin’s ArcGis. The LDC anticipates and alleviates this hardship. LDC allows applicants to repair and modify grandfathered structures in deeper water. The Board should not grant a variance that would provide the applicant with a special privilege not enjoyed by others similarly situated or potentially similarly situated. ITEM04/3-PRESENTATION OPPOSITION Hardship (b) Summary Board Inquiry Hardship: b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: Applicants’ Response The homeowners are seeking no special privilege to shoreline use not already given …