Austin Board of Adjustment upholds staff finding in dispute over Bridgehill Cove remodel

The Austin Board of Adjustment on Dec. 8 rejected an appeal of building‑permit revisions for 6706 Bridgehill Cove, upholding city staff and the acting building official by a 7–4 vote.

The appeal, filed by neighbor Christie May, challenged changes approved in 2025 to a 2022 permit for renovations to the Conkle property. Board member Maggie Sherastani moved to uphold staff’s interpretation of the code; Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne seconded the motion. The board voted to reject the appeal and leave the 2025 permit in place.

Why it mattered: the pair of neighbors are in a longstanding dispute about how much new construction may be treated as a limited modification of a legally nonconforming structure. The appellant argued the project demolished a previously nonconforming patio, added a basement and a second‑story element that increased height, and therefore lost its nonconforming status under the city’s code. The permit holder and his counsel said staff followed established rules and that the 2025 revisions fall within the limited‑modification allowances under code section 25‑2‑963(f).

Staff summary and evidence: Steve Leach, acting building official, told the board that staff compared the 2025 plans to aerial imagery and the property’s permit history and concluded the revisions met the technical limits in the code after a seven‑month, multi‑department review. Leach said his review and subsequent follow‑up work reduced the permitted impervious cover by roughly 150–200 square feet before reinstating the permit.

Appellant’s case: Terry Erian, attorney for Christie May, said photographic and site evidence show the prior patio was removed and replaced on a new foundation and that the project increased height and massing along the 5‑foot setback line. "The second story addition is not authorized by 25‑2‑963," Erian told the board, urging it to correct what he called errors in the 2022 approvals.

Respondent’s case: David Hartman, attorney for the permit holder Warren Conkle, said the 2022 permit reduced noncompliance and that the 2025 revisions — including a second‑floor patio extension, trellis and outdoor kitchen — were reviewed and authorized under the 25‑foot/50‑percent lineal extension provisions in 25‑2‑963(f). "The 2025 revisions comply with all the requirements of the code, including the 25‑foot cap and the 50% expansion," Hartman said.

Scope limit and legal guidance: Assistant City Attorney Erica Lopez advised the board that the appeal before them was filed under a 20‑day appeal provision and therefore the board’s review is limited to the 2025 revisions; she said any challenge to the 2022 permit would have had to be filed in a different, timely manner. Multiple board members expressed frustration that the limited scope constrained their ability to consider earlier permitting actions and older records that staff acknowledged existed only in scanned imaging files.

Board action and vote: After deliberation the board voted to uphold staff’s decision and deny the appeal by a recorded vote of 7 in favor of upholding staff and 4 against. Chair Jessica Cohen announced the result. Board members who spoke in opposition to the motion said they were troubled by some of the evidence but felt limited by legal guidance about the appeal’s scope.

What happens next: The decision leaves the 2025 permit in effect. The appellant and the permit holder retain other administrative and judicial remedies; several board members suggested district court is the next forum if either party pursues further action.

Authorities cited in the hearing included city code section 25‑2‑963(f) (limited modifications to nonconforming structures) and related provisions cited by counsel and staff during presentations. The board’s written findings and the staff memo are part of the record and will be available with the formal minutes.