The City of Austin Board of Adjustment voted 11–0 on Oct. 13 to grant an appeal that found the plan approval for a proposed multi‑unit development in the North University neighborhood did not comply with applicable rules, and remanded the permit for further review and redesign.

Board members said the approved plan set showed a design that the board concluded was "greater than three" dwelling units, failed to meet front‑yard averaging and the NCCD side‑yard separation requirements, and treated attic area in a way inconsistent with the gross‑floor‑area language in the HOME provisions. The vote was taken after roughly three hours of testimony from city staff, the appellant’s attorney and experts, neighbors and the permit holder; the motion to grant the appeal was made by Board Member Corey McClellan and seconded by Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne.

The ruling required staff and the permit holder to return with corrected plans. The board’s written findings, read into the record, said the approved plans: (1) did not demonstrate compliance with the NCCD front‑yard averaging and side‑yard separation rules; (2) should be interpreted as showing more than three units; and (3) did not treat attic area consistently with the HOME ordinance definition of gross floor area (the board further stated the subsection’s definition of "floor" is not limited by whether the floor is load‑bearing).

Why it matters: The case tested how the city’s neighborhood conservation combined district (NCCD) rules interact with the city’s HOME code provisions for multi‑unit development, and it underscored procedural problems the city staff acknowledged in the permit review. Neighbors and the North University Neighborhood Association argued the approval would alter the traditional scale of the block, increase parking pressure and sidestep design and documentation standards. The board’s decision sends the application back to staff for a full re‑review before any building may proceed.

What city staff and speakers said: Brett Lloyd, a Development Services Department (DSD) development officer, opened staff’s presentation by saying DSD "recognizes that there were errors made in the review process" and outlined the specific technical issues staff had identified, including incorrect front‑yard averaging and side‑yard separation in the approved plot plan. The appellants’ attorney, Bobby Levinsky, argued the plan set contained multiple procedural and technical defects: mismatched survey figures, alleged use of aliases and stamps on documents without the original architects’ authorization, and a miscalculation of floor‑area ratio (FAR). Levinsky told the board that, based on his calculations and the plans, the project’s FAR could be closer to about 0.92 rather than the 0.65 asserted by the applicant.

Architect and code expert Christopher Allen told the board the code language is "very clear" that any enclosed area with a clear height greater than 6 feet counts against gross floor area; he said elevations and details in the plans indicated the third‑level attic spaces included finished floors and egress windows. Several adjacent property owners and neighborhood leaders, including Pamela Bell, president of the North University Neighborhood Association, urged denial or remand, citing parking, scale, and process concerns.

The permit holder, Ketu Shinkha, addressed the board and said the plans were legitimate and that the owner trusted staff’s technical review; Shinkha denied fraud allegations and said any personal disputes would be addressed in separate legal proceedings. Multiple witnesses, including an engineer and the author of a company name that appeared on the plans (John Kaplan of Urban Services Texas), told the board in written correspondence or testimony that they had not authorized certain elements of the submitted documents.

Staff legal and technical position: DSD and the city law department told the board that HOME provisions can apply within an NCCD and that many questions in the case were matters of harmonizing overlapping regulations; they also confirmed staff had missed issues in the original approval and that addressing them would likely require substantial redesign. Staff said one discrete code question before the board was whether attic/third‑level spaces that are not load‑bearing should count as a floor under the HOME gross‑floor‑area language; staff’s position, as presented at the hearing, was that an unconditioned attic without a load‑bearing floor may not count as a floor, while appellants and their experts argued the plain HOME text counts all enclosed floors with clear height greater than 6 feet.

Board action and next steps: After deliberations, the board granted the appeal and instructed staff to require a revised plan set that complies with the NCCD front‑yard averaging (the board specified the average must be calculated using the four adjacent properties on the same side of the block) and the 10‑foot side‑yard separation, and to recalculate FAR consistent with the board’s reading of the HOME gross‑floor‑area definition. The board’s finding described the submitted design as showing more than three dwelling units and ordered staff to work with the permit holder on a resubmission. The board’s decision was entered on the record; the vote was unanimous (11 yes, 0 no).

What comes next: The permit is remanded to staff for re‑review. Staff told the board they will work with the applicant on revisions and that addressing setbacks and unit‑count issues will likely trigger substantial redesign. The board and staff noted the administrative timeline for finalizing written findings and next steps; staff must process any resubmission in accordance with the city’s procedures and the board’s findings.