San Antonio Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting – July 21, 2025

The San Antonio Zoning Board of Adjustment convened on July 21, 2025, at 1:00 PM to hear several variance requests, special exceptions, and appeals. The board reviewed 11 agenda items, including cases involving parking reductions, fence materials, setbacks, accessory structures, and nonconforming use appeals. The meeting lasted until approximately 5:24 PM. Below is a summary of the actions taken.

Consent Calendar

• The board approved the minutes from the previous meeting by unanimous voice vote.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Case 10 (626 West Fulton Avenue): Multiple public comments were received. The Alta Vista Neighborhood Association and Beacon Hill Area Neighborhood Association opposed the request due to the proposed structure's height and size, stating it would set a bad precedent and alter the neighborhood character. Several individuals also spoke in opposition, citing concerns about mass and compatibility. A few neighbors, including one adjacent property owner, spoke in support, noting the need for parking and the applicant's good character. The applicant's daughter also spoke in support, citing safety concerns for her elderly mother.
• Case 11 (3130 Morning Creek): The adjacent property owner left a voicemail opposing the variance, claiming that the proposed pergola exacerbates drainage issues. The applicant's representative presented letters of support from other neighbors and an engineering report stating the pergola is not the cause. The applicant herself explained that the structure has been in place since 2024 without flooding problems and that she would install gutters and a French drain.
• Case 5 (7038 UTSA Boulevard): No public comments were recorded.
• Case 13 (5400 Interstate 10 West): No public comments were recorded, but the applicant's representative and the tenant spoke about the property's long history of vehicle sales and the city's previous issuance of certificates of occupancy.

Discussion Items

Case 1: 1120 Buena Vista Street (BOA-25-103089)

• Request: Variances for three parking spaces (from 12 to 9), elimination of a 10-foot side setback, and a 4-foot reduction in clear vision distance to allow a one-car driveway.
• Discussion: The applicant, Janel Patrick, represented a law office needing additional space. The current building has 9 parking spaces, and the proposed addition would add offices and a conference room. The applicant noted that not all employees drive and that they have an informal agreement to share parking with a neighboring property. Staff recommended denial due to potential congestion, but the board found that strict enforcement would cause unnecessary hardship given the existing lot configuration.
• Outcome: Approved 10-0.

Case 2: 2434 Southwest Loop 14 (BOA-25-103089?)

• Request: Variances to allow a corrugated metal fence with caps and to reduce the front fence height from 6 feet to 3 feet (the applicant withdrew the height variance and agreed to trim the fence to 3 feet).
• Discussion: The applicant, Tegnos Buckner, purchased the property and found that the existing fence used prohibited corrugated metal. He agreed to install caps on the top edges for safety. Staff recommended denial, but the board noted that similar material had been approved nearby and that the fence would not alter the essential character of the area.
• Outcome: Approved 10-0.

Case 3: 241 East French Place (BOA-25-103092)

• Request: Variances for a 5-foot setback reduction (from 20 to 15 feet), a 5-foot front fence opening, a 7-foot clear vision area, use of corrugated metal in the rear, and a 7-foot fence height. The property is in a historic district.
• Discussion: The applicant, Canet, explained that the current owner inherited the property with existing nonconforming structures. The proposal includes a two-story addition in the rear. Staff recommended approval for the setback variance but denial for the metal fence material. The board allowed the metal fence in the rear, citing privacy and unique lot conditions, and required the applicant to go through the Historic Design and Review Commission.
• Outcome: Approved 11-0 (both main motion and special exception).

Case 4: 114 Duberry Street (BOA-25-103107)

• Request: Variance of 5 feet from the 20-foot rear setback to allow a 15-foot setback for a new single-family home.
• Discussion: The applicant, Stephanie Piña, wants to build a home on a lot that shares a fence with a neighbor. The lot is not officially irregular, but the board found that the lot configuration is unusual. The River Road Neighborhood Association supported the request. Staff recommended approval.
• Outcome: Approved 11-0.

Case 5: 7038 UTSA Boulevard (BOA-25-103108)

• Request: Appeal of the administrator's denial of a nonconforming use status for a mobile food court (six food trucks) on a property zoned for single-family residential.
• Discussion: The applicant, representing CQMARC, argued that the city's error in not catching the zoning issue earlier caused them to invest heavily. They had operated for four years with permits from the health department. Staff noted that the property is not zoned for such use and that the use would require a rezoning. The board debated whether the city's miscommunication constituted an error. Several commissioners expressed sympathy but felt the proper remedy was rezoning, not an appeal.
• Outcome: Denied 4-7. The board advised the applicant to pursue a rezoning.

Case 6: 5050 East Houston Street (BOA-25-103109)

• Request: Special exception to allow an 8-foot-high fence along the side (instead of the 3-foot maximum) for a VIA Transit Center.
• Discussion: The applicant, Ever Peña, proposed a prefabricated concrete fence to shield neighbors from bus headlights and noise. Staff recommended approval. No opposition was received.
• Outcome: Approved 11-0.

Case 7: 415 Saddlebrook Drive (BOA-25-103-011)

• Request: Variance of 11 inches from the 10-foot front setback to allow a carport to be 1 inch from the front property line (the carport was built without a permit).
• Discussion: The applicant, Harry Oliver, stated that he built the carport after hail damage to protect his vehicles. The carport is 9 feet from the sidewalk, and the board noted that similar carports exist in the neighborhood. Staff recommended denial, but the board found the variance would not harm the area.
• Outcome: Approved 11-0.

Case 8: 322 Mayfield Boulevard (BOA-25-103-012)

• Request: Variance of 2 feet 6 inches from the 5-foot side setback to allow a structure to be 2 feet 6 inches from the side line (including a 1-foot 4-inch eave overhang). The house is being renovated, and the new foundation is on the original footprint.
• Discussion: The applicant, Carlos Quesada, has lived in the home for 42 years and is renovating due to health issues. The new foundation is slightly different, but the structure remains within the original setback. Staff recommended denial, but the board accepted the variance because the unique lot conditions and the applicant's efforts to preserve the original structure.
• Outcome: Approved 11-0.

Case 9: 10818 Gaylord Drive (BOA-25-103-013)

• Request: Variances for a carport that was built without a permit: a 1-foot reduction in front setback (from 10 to 9 feet), a 6-inch reduction in side setback, and a 5-foot reduction in clear vision area (to 10 feet).
• Discussion: The applicant, Margarita Flores, an elderly nurse, wanted a carport for protection from rain. She agreed to install gutters and trim the carport to reduce the front encroachment. Staff recommended denial for the front setback, but the board approved with conditions.
• Outcome: Approved 11-0.

Case 10: 626 West Fulton Avenue (BOA-25-103-014)

• Request: Variances for an accessory structure (garage with apartment above) of 1,800 square feet per floor (total 3,600 square feet), a height of 35 feet, and a deviation from NS-2 standards. The property is in a conservation district.
• Discussion: The applicant, Sergio de la Mora, wants to build a two-story garage with an apartment for his elderly mother and sister. The property is large (11,000 sq ft) and adjacent to railroad tracks. The Alta Vista and Beacon Hill neighborhood associations opposed the size and height, arguing it would set a bad precedent. The board expressed concerns about the mass and scale but suggested the applicant work with the associations to revise the design. The applicant was open to modifications.
• Outcome: Postponed to August 18, 2025, to allow the applicant to meet with the neighborhood associations and revise the proposal.

Case 11: 3130 Morning Creek (BOA-25-103-015)

• Request: Variance of 4 feet 6 inches from the 5-foot side setback to allow a pergola to be 6 inches from the property line.
• Discussion: The applicant, the homeowner, had a pergola built without a permit. She agreed to cut the roof back to the posts and install gutters and a French drain. The adjacent neighbor complained about drainage issues. The board discussed the private restrictive covenants that require a 5-foot maintenance access, but the variance was reduced to 3 feet (allowing 2 feet from the line) to address access concerns.
• Outcome: Approved 10-1 (Commissioner Mena dissented).

Case 12: Approval of Minutes

• The board approved the minutes from the previous meeting.

Case 13: 5400 Interstate 10 West (BOA-25-103-117)

• Request: Appeal of the administrator's denial of a nonconforming use certificate for a motor vehicle sales lot. The property has been used for vehicle sales since 1998-1999, and the city erroneously issued certificates of occupancy in 1998, 2001, and 2009.
• Discussion: The applicant argued that the city's error created a legitimate nonconforming use. The board found that the city made a mistake and that the applicant had relied on the city's approvals. The property has operated continuously for over 25 years. Staff recommended denial, but the board allowed the appeal.
• Outcome: Approved 10-0.

Key Outcomes

• Votes: All cases except Case 5 (denied 4-7) and Case 11 (approved 10-1) were approved unanimously or nearly unanimously.
• Postponement: Case 10 was postponed to August 18, 2025, to allow the applicant to negotiate with neighborhood associations.
• Conditions: Several variances were approved with conditions, including installation of gutters, caps on fence tops, and trimming of structures to reduce encroachments.
• Next Steps: Applicants for approved variances should contact staff for next steps. The board reminded the applicant in Case 5 to pursue a rezoning.