Site plan appeal reveals city tech failings at ZAP

Though an appeal to a site plan extension failed at the Zoning and Platting Commission’s most recent meeting Aug. 15, the case exposed what happened after mayoral declaration to help development held up by the pandemic went into effect.

In this case, Cindy Barron was contesting the extension for a storage unit project at 9718 Anderson Mill Road. Barron argued that the site plan had lapsed and an extension should never have been granted.

The mayoral declaration was issued in December 2021 and delayed all permitting deadlines and expiration dates until March 1, 2022. A letter from Development Officer Brent Lloyd explained that, since this impacted thousands of applications that could potentially all arrive on the same day, the city’s Development Services Department attempted to stagger the onslaught of requests through “short form” extension requests that effectively stretched that deadline to the end of May. 

“This process eased the return to normal operations for applicants and staff, while maintaining operability of essential IT infrastructure,” wrote Lloyd. “However, the web portal that was used to process these requests in 2022 is no longer active, and staff has so far been unable to confirm with certainty the submittal of any shortform requests. Since the applicants are not the appealing party, we believe they are entitled to the benefit of the doubt on this issue.”

Though neither the applicant nor staff could produce a copy of a completed “short form” in this case, city staff supported the denial, saying it fell within the city’s right to administratively extend a site development plan for one year, despite the discrepancy in dates.

Barron appealed the extension on the grounds that developers had missed the window to apply for an extension and had let their plans lapse. She relayed a history of problems with the project and questioned the inability of anyone to produce a short form and the need for one to begin with. 

“(It) kind of blows my mind. Here we are, in the supreme hub of the nation, other than Silicon Valley, (and) they would be worried about crashing their website,” said Barron, who questioned how the two-month delay was approved without a public process. “How can you do that without approval or going through land use posting rule(s)?” 

“To me, it sounded a little bogus,” she said.

In addition, Barron explained this was not the first issue they had had with the project, claiming work had started without an approved site plan, near sensitive environmental features.

“The list is endless,” said Barron. “You can’t just go in there willy-nilly with your little machines and mess around these sinkholes and environmental features.”

Richard Mathias, who is now representing the owner of the property, told commissioners that the applicant had submitted his extension request in the time required by staff and had met all code requirements.

He explained he had signed on to help with the case after the owners had filed the extension request. 

“They were getting some terrible advice,” he said. “I think they just weren’t knowledgeable about the process. It is true; the applicant began construction while the extension was being considered. … That’s wrong.”

Since then, he said, they had “corrected all the problems that were created out there immediately” after the project was found in violation by environmental inspectors.

Mathias said the critical environmental features were at high risk even without development, due to “a lot” of unauthorized camping on the site. 

“There’s trash and debris all over the place. That’s not healthy for this critical environmental feature. The best thing we can do is develop the site as it was designed to be done and protect the environment that way,” he said.

“Granting this appeal is not going to solve the problem, it’s not going to prevent the project from being built,” said Mathias, who explained it would only delay the project by two years when a new site plan permit could be obtained as the site plan met all requirements under code and current zoning. “Granting the appeal really doesn’t serve a purpose.”

In the end, commissioners sided with the applicant, despite an assertion from Commissioner Betsy Greenberg that, without proof, the body could “reasonably conclude that there was no short form submitted on time.”

Commissioner Alejandra Flores summed up her feelings on her vote to deny by saying, “It just seems like a big punishment for something they don’t have control over.” 

Commissioners also took a moment to brace themselves for future issues around tech and permitting, with a look forward to a planned replacement of the city’s current permitting database, which is known as “AMANDA.”

“There’s a whole new program coming to replace AMANDA,” said Chair Hank Smith. “That’s going to be a nightmare when that happens, but that’s going to be a whole different issue.” 

“If AMANDA is replaced, I hope they don’t just throw away all the data that is stored,” said Greenberg.

Commissioners denied the appeal in a vote of 7-1-1 with Greenberg voting in opposition of the denial and Commissioner Scott Boone abstaining from the vote. 

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.

Posted In: City Hall, District 6