All right.

Are we uh uh Commissioner Benavides is running a little late?

Is there another commissioner who's also running a little late?

Uh Commissioner Bonia should be here any minute.

Okay, we're gonna go ahead and get started.

It's uh 101.

I hereby call this meeting of the uh Board of Adjustments into session.

Can we have the Spanish interpreter come out, please?

Good afternoon, everyone.

Buenas tardes a those.

Las personas que requieran escuchar esta audiencia in espanhol, por favor passen a la cabina de atrás del lado derecho para que les proportionemos un apparato de interpretación.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

If everyone could please uh join me in the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which one nation under God and the visible Honor of the Texas flag.

I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God, one and indivisible.

Okay.

Commissioner Barrington.

Here.

Commissioner Stevens.

Present.

Commissioner Ivanis.

Present.

Commissioner Dean.

Present.

Commissioner Cruz.

Here.

Commissioner Gomez.

Commissioner Mana.

Present.

Commissioner Bragman.

Present.

Commissioner Benavides.

Commissioner Ozuna.

Present.

Commissioner Monias.

Chair Orion.

And I am present.

So we have nine.

We have a quorum.

We'll be expecting a couple more momentarily.

But we're going to go ahead and get started.

So before we uh proceed with today's cases, uh, I'm going to offer some words of explanation.

Uh this board follows an agenda which is available online.

The cases are listed by number with the name of the applicant and street address.

Following the conclusion of the cases, the board will consider the minutes from the previous meeting, followed by a director's report.

Lastly, as chair will make announcements such as community calendar events.

I ask that the board member submit these announcements to me as a chair, and I'll read them at the appropriate time in the meeting.

We are private citizens appointed to this board by the city council.

The board is supported by members of the city staff, combat in the rules and regulations governing the city codes and other codes and aspects pertaining to the city zoning codes.

Uh this is an administrative body and not a court of law.

We only examine the facts pertaining to the relief saw, and we do not get involved in disputes or legal claims between parties.

Specific powers have been granted to us by the Texas legislature and the San Antonio City Council.

They are clearly defined in Chapter 21 of the Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 2 35 of the City Code, and other ordinances passed by the City Council.

We have the authority to hear and decide appeals from a decision or determination made by the administrative official in the enforcement of Chapter 32 to hear and decide special exceptions allowed under Chapter 35 and authorized variances from the zoning regulations required in Chapter 35.

We also serve in an advisory and appellate capacity to the Director of Development Services regarding requests for variances from regulations within Chapter 28, Article 1, Section 28-5.

In addition, we have powers to hear cases and other matters authorized by City Council under Chapter 211 of the Texas Local Government Code.

Every decision or recommendation to the board must be based upon findings of fact, and every finding of fact must be supported in the record of the board's proceedings.

The applicant or his representative will present the petition and they will be questioned by the members of the board.

Any opposition to the request will be presented in a like manner.

After everyone has heard the case, it will be closed and a member of the board will make a motion.

Each member will be asked to vote on the motion.

In order for a motion to carry, it requires a concurring vote of 75% of the total board board members, whether present or not, which is nine votes.

The burden of proof and granting the release sought rests with the applicant.

Appeals from the decision of this board regarding appeals from an administrative official, special exceptions or variances, are made to the district or county court at law based on the record of these proceedings.

Appeals from the board's decisions regarding chapter 28 are made to the city council.

Please limit your presentation and remarks of the pertinent facts of your case.

Stafford Thank you.

Staff will begin each case in the short presentation request.

Part of the presentation includes a map that shows the area to be considered for the variance, special exemption or appeal and the properties within 200 feet of the subject property.

Check marks indicate that the property owners are in favor of the request, and X indicates those property owners in opposition.

Following this presentation and any questions by the board, the applicant will present the request for those that signed up to speak for or against the proposed variant special exception or appeal.

You will be called in the order to sign up to speak.

Those in support and opposition will be allowed a maximum three minutes per speaker.

You are not obligated to utilize a maximum time limitation.

For those who would like to give up their time to the speaker, a speaker will be allowed a maximum of two people giving up their time for a total of nine minutes.

Those given up their time must be present and sign up to speak.

The applicant will then be given an opportunity for a rebuttal limited to one speaker with a three-minute time limit along with the opportunity to a board questions to address board questions.

Thank you, Chairman.

Yes.

Sorry.

So if we can hear a brief uh presentation on that.

Yes.

Um quickly read it in.

BOA 251030114 is a request by Sergio de la Montra for a variance for the NCD two principal structure building footprint to allow 1800 square foot accessory structure, a variance from the NCD2 principal structure height to allow a 35-foot tall accessory structure and dwelling, and a variance from the NCD 2 and UDC standards to allow 1800 square foot accessory dwelling located at 626 Fulton Avenue.

Staff recommended denial in District 1.

And applicant is requesting a continuance to September 8th.

No public comment on this.

All right.

So with that, if there's a commissioner like to make a motion.

Motion for continuance to September 8th.

Second.

Uh one one moment.

Uh sir, please approach the podium.

Did you intend to sign up to speak on this?

Yeah, please state your name for so they can document your name.

I do want to remove it to December 18th.

Sir, can you turn the microphone on?

Thank you.

Uh, if I can move it to the December 18th, a couple more months.

I'm still working with my engineer to get everything situated to get some sites.

Okay, we are leading on the 18th.

Yeah, so this board meets the first and third uh Monday.

So that would put you at the 22nd, I believe.

So the 22nd, is that acceptable?

December?

Does that work?

September.

I can't move it a little bit later than September, maybe October.

If you need to move it that late, we really are talking about withdrawing the request or postponing it and re-advertising.

We typically don't do continuances for longer than 30 to 60 days.

Okay.

Uh then whatever the latest I can get it, that works.

Okay, well, the latest you can get it would be uh uh September uh 22nd.

So we'll we'll start there.

All right, and hopefully you'll accomplish what you need to do, and then if not, we'll see what happens.

That works for me.

So we have a is there a motion amended to submit.

Okay, real quick.

Um, Commissioner Bonnez, can I get an audio check, please?

We cannot hear you.

Can you hear us?

Okay.

All right.

So we have a motion until September 22nd by Commissioner Ozuna.

And the second by Commissioner Bragman.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none.

Items continued.

We'll see you back on the 22nd.

Thank you.

Have a great day.

Yep.

Do we need to do another uh sound check with Commissioner Boninus?

Do you hear us, Commissioner Bonias?

Can you hear you can hear us?

Yes.

Oh, we heard we heard you.

All right, item two.

Good afternoon.

My name is Joseph Laos, senior planner with development services.

Item number two is BOA-25-1030128.

The address is 5454 Vista Trail in Council District 10.

The applicant is Anthony Zool, and the they are requesting an appeal of the administrator's decision to revoke a short-term rental permit due to hot collection.

Uh the current type is a type two, and the zoning is for our six.

Um again, the subject property is located at 5454 Vista Trail.

Surrounding land uses include residential single family.

Um again, they are requesting an appeal of the administrator's decision to revoke the short-term rental permit at this property.

Um the applicant is current on their HA as of August of 2025.

Um STR operators are required to report hotel occupancy tax to the city's finance department on a monthly basis.

Um, this includes reporting zero dollars if no revenue is collected.

As of March 10th, 2025, platforms that directly remit state hot also now directly remit City Hot to the city's finance department.

This includes major platforms such as Airbnb and VRBO.

If the STR is rented through a platform that does not remit the HOT directly to the state, the operator must continue to must continue to report and remit city and county hot directly to the city through Avenue on a monthly basis.

State's revenue reports were missing from April 2024 through February 2025.

Delinquency notices were mailed by Avenue between July 2024 and March 2025.

And a final notice of delinquency was emailed by DSD on June 16th of this year.

Lastly, section 16-1110D states that failure to timely report and pay hot within 90 days shall report shall result in permit revocation.

No payment was made within that 90 days.

Staff recommendation for the denial.

Two, the owner of the short-term rental permit violated the STR ordinance by failing to timely report revenues and pay the associated hot tax payments.

And three, the owner failed to comply with the ordinance even after attempts were made to inform of their delinquent status.

And this is the notification plan.

We mailed out 37 notices.

One was received neither in favor or in opposition, so neutral.

And this concludes staff's presentation.

It would be one year from July 1st.

From July 1st, okay.

And then you in March when Avenue uh started getting hot tax payments from the main.

Did they did the city receive any payments after March?

Were they using one of the major uh uh online reservation?

Um there were no monthly payments made until um July 1st, which was after the revocation.

Okay.

Any of the questions of the commission, Commissioner Bragman.

Uh, when were they issued the um SDR permit in the initially they were issued the permit in um April on April 11th of 2024.

All right.

Let's have the applicant come forward.

Yes, if if you're here for for this case, come on.

All right, please state your name.

And my name is uh Abu Zule.

I'm Anthony Zulli's uh father.

Um Anthony Zuly is out of state, so he was not able to come in.

Okay, well, tell us tell us about the STR.

Okay, the STR.

Yeah, we have to we're recording all the so it's yeah.

My name is Alan Zuly, and I'm um Anthony's mother.

And uh we have a letter that he sent over to Joseph uh Leo.

And in regards what happened.

Can you move the mic a little closer?

Yeah, I'm sorry, it's very sensitive.

Anyway, he was saying that he did uh it was on his part that he overlooked this, and the emails that were being sent to him were sent to his uh span box.

And he was not able to didn't realize it until I think we got the letter.

We were uh getting his letters out of the mailbox, so he never received them.

He resides in Maryland.

the mic a little closer to yeah I'm sorry it's very sensitive anyway he was saying that um he did uh it was on his part that he overlooked this and the the emails that were being sent to him were sent to his uh span box and he was not able to didn't realize it until I think we got the letter we were uh getting his letters out of the mailbox so he never received them he resides in Maryland and so um excuse my voice is very scratchy and so he's looking for a partner in that and Joseph uh sh uh and Jennifer Oates were the ones that were dealing with him and uh and we brought this paper what he says and if you have any questions or anything that he needs to verify you can uh he put the phone number and everything in there so that we could call you get him on the phone now if you like that's not necessary unless the commissioner insists but uh and then we brought all the uh the tax forms that were paid okay so everything was paid in full after you got that notice okay so in in March when this SDR was created uh it the I'm understanding that there were no hot tax uh did y'all were you all actively renting it out since March of last year place ready no tenants we were getting the place ready no tenants were there that we were getting the place ready yes okay uh when did you all start renting it out not until December not until December can you speak into the mic please not until December Okay so you got the permit in March uh you were getting it ready for March and then you didn't rent it out until December of 2024.

Correct.

Okay any other questions in the commission?

Um so how did they how did he receive the notice that he was that his permit was being revoked if if the other emails were going to his spam how did he find out about the revocation uh voters I noticed that revolt came in so then I was like oh what is this revoke then that's when I noticed the situation okay uh because this he's not present can you please state repeat that into the mic uh the the the the crux of of what is being explained he said he was getting he said he was getting it ready and it uh and in that process uh he uh looked into spam folder that's when I noticed it when he looked into the spam folder that is when he noticed that okay and do you have any idea when uh he attempted to contact the city and inquire about what he needed to do right away uh right after that correct Anthony Correct correct okay what when was that what month what month was January first uh sadly but yes it was uh I mean January first of twenty twenty five correct okay so this to the city did you have any record of any attempt to contact in January of twenty twenty-five regarding this site are you are you asking a record that the applicant reached out to staff or that staff notified them of delinquency that the applicant reached out to staff we we don't have any record I I will also say I know it's been a while since the board has considered one of these uh appeals the email that goes out with the notice of delinquency kind of that final you know fix it quick or else it's gonna get revoked comes from the same system to the same email address that the permit was sent to and the permit appears to have been received just fine.

All right uh well commissioner uh barrenton and then the commissioner zoom yeah a question for staff did we not about a year or so ago suggest that these final notices and notices of revocation be sent not only by email but the old fashioned way by U.S.

certified mail yeah so actually the system that we have in place today takes advantage of both so the monthly notices of delinquency are sent uh through regular mail we as a policy to try to keep this as robust a notification as possible implemented a final emailed notice to the same email that the permit was sent to and that email includes a warning this is your final opportunity get this account current or we will revoke the permit in 20 days so we actually do both now you send a a paper letter certified mail it's I don't know that it's sent certified but it's mailed a regular letter anyway.

Yes.

And was that sent to Anthony's address?

The address that he has on the file for his mailing address is 545 for a visa trails and that's the email that's the address that was mailed to all right any other questions oh commission right so I have a question.

Is that what you're looking at, Entity?

Yes.

Just i it it went to the spam folder.

The only reason that it went to there after I I had cleared my cookies, and once I cleared my cookies, I was no longer uh connected.

I I didn't approve of the coder.

You can have to explain that to them.

Okay, you also said it he's also asking did you get a uh physical letter?

And they're saying that they sent it to your 5454 address.

I've I haven't received it in in that mailbox because I I you check my mailbox and I I've never you always show me what has came in, and I've never seen that.

Okay.

Um so we'll understand to understand again what what is your statement in terms of the city error and and their process in revoking?

The lack of communication.

Um it went through the spam folder and I didn't I didn't get the okay.

We're uh let's be careful about holding the phone up to the case.

It went to my spam folder.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh any other questions?

All right.

And staff, uh lastly, uh Bill this A, uh is any information available?

Like if the applicant goes on to build essay, they can see that there's probab perhaps a notice.

Um is it possible to download any notices from build essay?

I don't know how that works personally.

Uh you you cannot download the the copies of the delinquency notices that were mailed, but the record uh build essay does document all email communications, so there would be record from uh the cella email account, including the email that said this is your final notice.

So so any any any applicant, any permit holder can log into their account on build essay, look at like a processing status and see that there's an issue of some sort.

I I don't know that the public facing portal allows members of the public, whether you're the property owner or not, to view all the emailed communication between staff and the property owner.

Um but certainly it is documented, you know, if we ever got something like an open records request.

Again, not not to imply that people have to do an open records request to get that information.

We emailed the notice that it was delinquent.

Okay.

One last question.

Yes, Commissioner Zuna.

If if this appeal were to be granted today, it would be for a three-year renewal and that would be before us again for a renewal.

Or is this the one there are no other within one year that was issued again?

If yeah, if this were to be overturned, then the permit would be reactivated and it would retain the original expiration date.

Okay.

That will be which is the three is that the three-year hours?

It would be April 11th, 2027.

So three years from the initial case the board will review their application again.

I don't I don't believe the board would have a chance to review it because this is the only type two on the block face.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Uh let the record show Commissioner Benavitas has joined the meeting virtually 124.

All right.

If there's no other questions, as anyone sent to speak, any uh public uh comment.

No public comment.

All right.

Uh what we're gonna do is we've heard all this and we're gonna look for a motion and see how this turns out.

Okay.

I'm looking for a motion.

I'll take it.

Thank you.

Commissioner Azuna.

Regarding case number B08-25-1030128, I move to the Board of Adjustment, grant the appeal for the property situated at 5454 Vista Trail.

Applicant being Anthony Zule, because of information provided provided by the applicant show the city staff made an error enforcing section 16-1110 when revoking the short-term rental permit.

Second.

Commissioner uh Commissioner Man is a second.

Commissioner Azuma.

Yeah, so I'm going to uh actually uh support the uh the appeal here.

Um so I think you know there is a communication error, but there is no um there was no opposition from the neighboring properties.

Um this is kind of a learning lesson for the applicant and keeping his you know administrative contact information good, but I don't see I see an opportunity for the city to continue to collect hot taxes.

I think he learned his lesson here.

Um I think there was no um you know impact to the neighbors and uh we don't have any uh revocation issues other than his failure to remit hot taxes as being an issue to revoke the short-term license.

So thank you, Commissioner Manning.

Um I won't be will not be in support of the appeal.

Um yeah as as the motion is being I guess the notice with regards to the the appeal, I do not see that the city made an error.

Um and there are other remedies for the applicant uh with regards to the property because I believe I understood that it was longer term rented out before he started this process, so I will not be in support of the appeal.

All right, anyone else like to add uh hearing none, let's have a roll call vote Commissioner Elzuna?

Yes, I support.

Commissioner Mana.

I do not Commissioner Barrington.

No, I do not.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes.

Commissioner Ibannis.

I support it.

Commissioner Dean.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Bragman.

Yes, I support it.

Commissioner Benavides.

I abstain.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I support it.

Chair Orion.

And yes, I support it, but the motion uh did not pass.

Uh it was a f it was a six to four with one abstention.

So uh you can get with staff and and see where you need to do from here.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

All right.

Uh any one of the individuals uh on the left side over there.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item number three.

Good afternoon.

My name is Tyler Adam, uh planner for City of San Antonio.

This is uh BOA-25-1030135, um, which is a special exception for an additional type one or type two short-term rental on the block face.

Uh subject properties located uh 1031 South Givers Street in Council District 2.

Applicant Shavani Reddy is uh present.

Uh subject properties located at 1031 South Gebber Street.

Surrounding uses include residential single family.

The applicant is seeking a special exception to allow one additional type two short-term rental on the block face per city code type two short-term rental should be limited to no more than one-eighth or twelve and a half percent of the total number of units on a block face.

Uh the block face currently has four units.

There is one active type two short-term rental um that exists at 1023 South Givers.

It was issued in January of this year.

Uh that property is current on their hot taxes.

Uh Blockface uh is currently at 25%.

If an additional type 2 is approved, block face will be at 50%.

Uh January 7th of 2025, uh, the application for this short-term rental was received.

Status was changed to pending BOA decision on June or July 10th of 2025.

Uh no investigation or permitting history and no active listings uh were found.

This is the site plan submitted with the application.

And then this is the subject property, and then the surrounding uh properties.

Staff recommends denial of the applicant's request for special exception to allow one additional type two short-term rental permit on the block face.

Uh 39 notices were mailed out, zero in favor, zero in opposition.

Uh Denver Heights Neighborhood Association did respond in opposition, and we did not receive any responses from the three citywide groups.

This concludes staff's presentation.

All right, thank you.

Uh so the applicant come forward.

All right, state your name and tell us about your SDR.

Um yeah, my name is Shavani Reddy, and I am on the application.

And this is Kushku Sharma, and I am the person who bought the property.

Um so yeah, we have purchased the property, my we're friends, and so we she purposed purchased the property.

I currently house different Airbnbs on the site, and so she basically reached out to me and she was like, Hey, I would love to host my house and be with you.

And so we by s we went through the whole process of setting up the whole home, um, you know, put everything on the app, and when we did that, then obviously it came back and triggered us that we need to submit an STR.

And so then we realized that there was an STR process that we have to go through, and then we filed the a coordinate um you know application, and then we came back that it was a denial because of the city ordinance essentially, and because of yeah, it there was a percentage essentially that it couldn't exceed.

And because it the per capita is so less that essentially the one overseeds the percentage.

So it even though there's only what five properties, four properties, so one basically takes away all of the other Airbnbs, um, or that there are the option to have other Airbnbs.

Also, um we've reached out to the neighbors and the other Airbnb, and we've gotten some letters of you know, that they don't mind that there is an Airbnb in that area, that we if we would to g get guaranteed that exception.

Yeah.

So when we purchased the property, we checked with the HOA and everything to know that there is no HOA and we'll be able to do the Airbnb.

Um secondly, we also took it out as an investment loan, thinking that because we had putting it as an Airbnb.

We didn't like we did the whole setup like she said, and then we came to know that there's a 12% volume.

And uh we were not we were aware of this could be it, but then we were not aware of only four houses comprising the volume of the homes.

So we have done like I we have houses in um North Carolina and Austin, but we have never come across a place where we have to put a registration number.

So we were just unaware of the city, the process of it at all.

So we totally didn't the entire thing and we were stuck at the last point.

So that's why we checked everything and we went back to our neighbors again, and then they um so one person is already hosting the Airbnb in that area, and they are totally fine with it because it's working well and everything is organized well.

So they were totally on board with us if we wanted to do the Airbnb.

And um, so we have like supporting letters from both our neighbors on the sites, and uh they are on board with us.

We have like their phone numbers, and also we live in the area, like we live like 30 minutes away from here, so we'll always be available to uh take care of it.

And also it is it is a property that me and my partner we bought together to um you know start something new and see how it goes, etc.

So this was really a bummer for us that we did were not aware of the system and we probably will be like taking care of it the next time, but it was just like a mistake that we were not aware of at all, and we couldn't have known because all the other BNB Airbnbs we've put for so far have never asked us the registration number just because of this is in the city, that's why we got stuck here.

So we have like the neighbors thing, and when we have like we were putting it out there and we've like taken out a 401k loan and everything for this, and we wanted to really make it work, and like with me and my partner, we want started wanted to really start a venture together and see how it goes.

So we were like probably like building a life with it, not it's so it's just not an Airbnb for us.

It's so much more than that.

So we put in like the um the interiors and everything, we put in everything, and then we set up the rules, etc.

That you know, we we're not going to have it as a party house, and we're going to promote the people who are going to come to San Antonio.

And we've contacted all our friends and uh family, whoever we know that you know we have this thing and you should come to San Antonio, and there are so many things here.

Other than that, we also try to reach out to some local businesses, like we have friends in Hot Joy and Kikis and Merit.

So I reached out to those people so that we could support local, so we had a whole plan, but it just got Okay.

Uh so a few questions.

One, do you own any of the other properties in this IDZ development?

This is the only.

Okay.

And staff, um uh you when I'm looking at at a Google Street View, I know that this the corner house, the existing STR is is addressed off of Gavers, and that's what's causing the conflict.

But it's driveway and public and sidewalk route to the entry door is actually located on a Ramses.

That is correct.

Should it have been addressed off of a Rantis because of that?

I always thought it was access and uh is what dictated the the address.

Uh I don't think that we have a rule that would preclude them being addressed off of Givers, that was the address that was assigned when the address plat was in for consideration.

Okay.

All right.

Uh and are there any other STRs uh nearby?

I'm having trouble getting onto the one stop on my computer, so I'm trying to see w what's okay, there we go.

All right.

Well, that's what I needed to know.

Any other questions from the commission?

Yeah.

Commissioner Zuna.

Yeah, just two two simple questions.

Um one, did you ever did you try to reach out to Denver Heights neighborhood association?

They're in opposition, and I was wondering if you We did.

We tried calling them a couple of times, but nobody answered the call, so we sent out an email to them, but we never got a but we never got a response.

So we did try to contact them.

So the second question is um a long-term rental.

Did you try to do a long-term rental?

I mean, we reached out to a lot of people, but that didn't work either.

So um, because it's probably like more of the people want to go to UTSA and that kind of an area, and because it's the more if if it's more tourists or somebody coming, they usually want to stay in the downtown, and that's what we were aiming at.

So yeah, we did not.

Thank you.

All right.

Any other questions from the commission?

Is anyone signed up to speak?

Any voicemails?

No public comment.

Is there anyone on the commission who uh would would need to see uh some interaction with uh with nearby neighbors or the neighborhood association before they're ready to render decision?

Manna.

Commissioner Manna.

I would prefer um so I I encourage dialogue with regards to neighborhood associations and and and I regularly side with them with regards to you know how they want to see their community developed.

And so my recommendation would be to reach out to them and and have a dialogue and you know and and talk about your plans and everything, and then and then gain their support, and then it probably would do it would bow well from my perspective.

Okay.

Um is is um uh yeah me personally I I don't like it when there's no no nobody know uh responds, you know, except for the the neighbor association.

So I would I would be geared towards getting a continuance so you can garner like actual documented support from the neighbors and actual documented support from the neighbor association.

Is that something you'd be interested in?

In the neighborhood association.

Oh no, we don't have the Denver Heights Neighbor Association.

You have to email them, you set up a virtual meeting.

They usually meet I think once a month.

Uh the and uh I think if a memory serves me right, so we mean and is that association because like when we first found out about the property, we like inquired about HOA.

So is it different?

Like we were told that there was no HOAs.

You don't have a mandatory HOA, you have a uh non-mandatory neighborhood associate neighborhood association, but they're you know, they pay attention to what's going on in their community.

So uh is there anyone on the commission be opposed to asking for a continuance?

Okay.

Um because they usually take at least a month, I think it would be appropriate to go to to uh September 22nd.

So if that's that's all right.

Um you'd have a month and you we're expecting you know some interaction.

You gotta get on it.

Okay.

So if we do the same type of communication and we still don't hear anything back, though they'll come back.

They they've been pretty good about meeting with people.

So you skate with staff and make sure you have the right email address.

Is there a motion for continuous to September 2022?

Is there a second?

Second.

All right, all in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

Nay.

We have one opposed uh Commissioner Dean.

Uh motion passes.

We'll see you in about a month, and please have them something for us.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

All right, item four.

Uh good afternoon.

My name is Juan Alvarez, senior planner with development services.

Item number four is requested by Alejandra Ceballos and is requesting an appeal of the administrator's decision to revoke the applicant's short-term rental permit due to hot collection located at 13, 223, Lost Lake Drive.

The subject property is located at 1323 Lost Lake Drive.

Surrounding uses include residential single family.

As of March 10th, 2025, platforms that directly remit state hot also not directly remit city hot to the city's finance department.

And also all STR owners are still required to continue to file revenue reports and pay Bexart County HOT through Avenue on a monthly basis.

And the applicant is current on their HOT as of August 2025.

Notices of delinquency were mailed by Avenue between July 2024 through March 2025, and a final notice of delinquency was emailed by Development Services on June 16, 2025.

No payment was made within the 90 days and only partial payment was made after receiving the final notice of delinquency on June 16, 2025.

Therefore, the permit was revoked on July 1st, 2025.

There are a total of 22 units on the block face.

One formerly active STR type 2 permit was on the block phase being the subject property on 13223 Lost Lake Drive.

The property has no code enforcement history or active listings.

This is the site plan of the property submitted at the time of the application.

This is the subject property, and the next slides are the neighboring properties and surrounding areas.

Staff recommends the now of the applicant's appeal.

And there were a total of 31 male notices, two in favor, zero in opposition.

The subject property is not located within the boundary of a registered neighborhood association, and four citywide groups were notified with no response.

This concludes staff presentation.

Applicant is here to answer any questions and finance is also here to answer any hot related questions.

Ragman.

Commissioner Brangman.

So if this were to get approved, it would only extend for another 15 months.

Yes.

Okay.

Manna.

Commissioner Manna?

Um does the city had record um that it actually was rented out in that period and hot tax not paid.

Yeah, so the the permit was being rented out.

However, when it got revoked, it was missing from February to June 2025.

Okay.

All right, let's have the applicant come forward.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, one last question.

Yes, Commissioner Brent.

Did you say they are current now on their hot taxes?

Oh, yeah, they're they're all current on their hot taxes as of today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, please state your name.

Tell us about your STR.

Hi, my name is Alejandra Ceballos.

Um let me read this.

Thank you for taking the time to hear me today.

This was my first year operating my short-term rental through Airbnb, also the only property I own.

Um unfortunately I made a mistake regarding the payments of my occupancy taxes, and I respectfully ask the city to consider reinstating my permit.

I was under the impression that Airbnb was handling tax payments on my behalf.

I did receive a couple of letters from Avenue regarding tax payments, but I thought they were paying them.

And I even brought the letters to my accountant at the beginning of the year when I was filing my taxes.

But he advised me to verify with Airbnb before paying Avenue because they they are a third party and it was potentially a scam.

So I follow up with Airbnb and they confirmed they were collecting and remitting my taxes.

So I didn't take further action at that time.

In June, when I received a notice from the city that my taxes were passed due, I paid all the outstanding 2024 taxes right away.

I did, however, make an error by selecting the wrong month in the payment portal, we which caused additional delays.

And then on top of that, my account was incorrectly listed.

It was a hotel instead of short-term rental.

Um which also I worked to correct.

Um at this time I was under the impression that there was a change in the tax structure in 2025.

And this time Airbnb was fully taking care of my taxes.

When I later received the revocation notice, I was very confused because I thought I was fully caught up.

So I went online and I paid the remainder in full that day.

This has been a learning experience for me, and I take full responsibility for the confusion.

All right.

Thank you.

Um staff, is there any co-compliance uh other than uh this mispayment and filings associated with this address?

Yeah, the applicant has no code enforcement history.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner questions?

Commissioner Manna?

So a question for staff.

Um I guess you know, uh responding to the dialogue with regards to potential confusion, um, spam, we'll say, or um or the I guess just with regards to communication that comes out for the city um fr from Avenue versus City of San Antonio.

How is that communicated really all along to help applicants recognize that there is a partnership between San Antonio and and Avenue?

Uh to answer your question, when we issue the permit um to the applicant in our email of approval, we do indicate um to report your hot your revenue your report your revenue every month on 20th day, and we do provide um avenues contact information, and then we send out a second email the same day, giving their taxpayer ID, reminding them you need to report zero if you have no revenue, and we also provide um avenues contact information to contact.

If they have any questions regarding hot so from the city, um so so while it is that we have a dialogue from the city saying that this partnership exists outside of we'll say a note saying expect something from Avenue.

Is there any other um guidelines or guidebooks or anything kind of says here's what you're gonna receive and and pictures of it to say you'll try to help them along the way, I guess, and just try to understand that relationship.

I mean on our STRL website, it does provide if you go to a short-term rentals website, it provides hot finances information, all the fine all the contact information for finance is Avenue insight.

We also provide our city email as well and quote number to call.

And again, when you the the same only they receive the permit certificate from the city, it provides them to report their hot taxes and gives Avenue's contact information as who to contact for any questions regarding hot taxes, and that they are response report hot taxes on a monthly basis to the city of San Antonio through Avenue.

And then uh the applicant stated that there was dialogue with regards to confusion with being listed as a hotel.

Can do you have any uh insider cotton uh I guess additional information with regards to that.

We would have to look into that uh information.

Bragman?

Commissioner Braggman?

Um this is for staff, and so you said I am assuming that with this she would have received letters like the last case that we were addressing letters to an address.

Do you know what address they were sent to Banus?

Um this this Commissioner Bynus.

Commissioner Ivanis.

Um is this the only STR currently on that block face?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

Commissioner Braggman.

It was the mailing hours on file with 7683 Pecos Ridge.

And again, those are the letters that they are mailed to of that on the screen above.

That does address avenue insights on there as well as stating the city of San Antonio information.

And I believe the applicant said that she did receive a couple of those notices in the mail.

Uh this is for the applicant.

Did you receive any of these letters?

Yes, those are the ones I took to my accountant, but I thought Airbnb was paying that for me.

Staff, when did the Airbnb start doing the uh collections again?

I know you tell us it started March 1st, 2025.

Okay, March 1st.

Which and the delinquency from this applicant started in February-ish.

So they they've been receiving um delinquencies since April of 2024.

However, when it was revoked, they were missing those months from February 2nd, 2025 to June of 2025.

So when they got revoked, they did make some payments, but they just made partial payments.

Okay.

So there was uh this originally started in 2024, they made an attempt to to make good on it, and then it started up again.

Yes.

In February, March when Avenue, I mean when Airbnb started making the the deposits for the applicant.

Okay.

Yes, that's correct.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Uh is there anyone sent to speak?

Any voicemails?

No public comment.

All right.

So what we're gonna do is we're gonna look for a motion and see how this turns out.

Um looking for a motion.

Commissioner Cruz.

Regarding case number BOA 251030132, I move that the Board of Adjustment grant the appeal for the property situated at 13223 Lost Lake Drive.

Applicant being Alejandra Caballos, because the information provided by the applicant shows that city staff made an error in enforcing section 16110 when revoking the short-term rental permit and a motion.

All right, is there a second?

Second.

Uh second by Commissioner Stevens.

Commissioner Cruz.

Sorry, I didn't hear you, sir.

Um I will go ahead and support this.

I don't see any problems with it, especially since she's the only one in the whole two or three blocks.

And of course, there's always issues with uh late notices and what can and they can't do, so I don't see a problem with it.

All right, Commissioner Stevens.

Um Yeah, I don't I don't think that this city staff made an error, but I think what's important is the outcome of this vote.

So this is very similar to one that we just took a vote on, and I was in favor of that one.

I'll be in favor of this since there aren't any other Airbnbs on the block and your your abutting neighbors are in favor of it.

Thank you.

Any other commissioners like to add?

Uh I'm gonna go ahead and and chime in on this one.

I'm gonna be in support uh for a few reasons.

One, this is the only STR this applicant has.

They haven't had it for that long.

And if we approve this um in 15 months, they'll either get their act together or or not.

So this one doesn't bother me.

Um let's have a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Barrington.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibani.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Mana?

I do not concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur.

Commissioner Benavides.

I concur.

Commissioner Ozuna.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonnez.

Yes, I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur the findings of fact.

Motion passes nine to two.

Um congratulations.

Uh hope not to see you back here in 15 minutes.

You're welcome.

All right.

Item five.

All righty.

Good afternoon.

Item five is BOA-25-1030122.

The address being 1139 New Laredo Highway in Council District 4, the applicant being Carlos Jimenez.

This is a request for an appeal of an administrator's decision for a non-conforming use denial to permit the use of motor vehicle sales with full service.

The zoning on this property is C2 and C3.

Research conducted by staff determined that the subject property does not qualify for legal nonconforming use rights.

The subject property is currently dual zone C3 and C2, in which motor vehicle sales with full service is permitted by right on the C3 portion of the property and does not require the issuance of a non-conforming use.

However, the use was not permitted on any portion of the property, zone C2 or within any structure therein.

A certificate of occupancy was issued by the City of San Antonio in January 2023 for motor vehicle sales with full service.

However, the applicant noted that the use would be conducted out of a 12 by 12 building on the site.

Additionally, notes made by staff on the COO application indicate that the intent was to restrict operations to only that C3 zoned portion of the property.

Separate from this appeal, the new structures do not have the proper setback and buffer against residential properties to the rear, and that would have to be considered under a separate case.

Shown here is the NCU denial letter that was forwarded to the applicant.

And you can note here uh it was provided the difference between the C2 and C3 zone properties on that page two.

Shown here is that application for certificate of occupancy for motor vehicle sales on this property.

This was from 2023.

Uh just highlighting some notes made by that staff member.

Uh again, that C3 uh column there on the use matrix was highlighted as the reason for approval uh for this C3 portion of the property.

On the left hand side there towards the bottom, you can see the facilities that were proposed and the general information for a 12 by 12 office.

And shown here is the actual structure that exists on the property at uh something like 25 by 50 feet.

Uh you can see clearly it exists on the C2 portion of the property.

Though limited in size, uh that C3 portion is roughly uh 3,720 square feet.

And just again highlighting that structure that was built without review or permitting uh does technically violate the required setback and buffer area against that residential property to the north.

Shown here is the subject property.

And this is a historical view of that same property uh as a vacant lot in 2022.

Again, just highlighting uh when the use was established.

And the surrounding area.

Staff concludes that the use of motor vehicle sales with full service on any portion of the property currently zone C2 will require a change of zoning approval based on section 35-702A, and based on the following findings of fact.

The use of motor vehicle sales with full service was not permitted on the portion of the property zone C2 at the time that the use was established.

Staff mailed out 22 notices, 31 uh were received in favor.

Uh nine are from outside of the notification area, zero in opposition, and the Quintana Community Neighborhood Association did not respond.

And shown here is the petition and signatures gathered by the applicant uh for support.

Those clouded in red are just outside of that notification area.

And this concludes staff's presentation.

That was for uh auto sales and full service.

And again, uh just highlighting the note there for for the C3 portion of the property.

Okay.

Commissioner Manna.

So so when a citizen uh community um is it supposed to include kind of like the whole language of what it is that they're partitioning versus let me continue to do what I'm doing without really saying why it is that they're coming before them.

So the applicant can proactively go out to the community and get those signatures.

Um however they word it, the board's gonna have to make that determination since they did word it.

You go back to the notices received.

Uh so this is how they worded it.

Uh obviously we're here for an appeal of the administrative decision.

Um so you're gonna have to take that into context.

Okay.

Is that is that what's happening?

So the option is to rezone to C3.

Um staff determined that the portion of zone C2 was never permitted a lot to have auto sales, and that's what they're specifically appealing.

So just kind of foundationally non-conforming use registration protects the operation of a use that was lawfully established if the rules changed after it was lawfully established.

In this case, we found that it was not lawfully established, so they are ineligible for non conforming use rights.

They are appealing that denial.

Thank you.

Stevens.

Commissioner Stevens.

Can can they is parking and storage of vehicles allowed on a C2 lot?

Parking by itself, yes, but this use is clearly established on the C2 lot of auto sales.

And and I would add that like long-term parking is not a C2 use.

You know, certainly a pharmacy is allowed to have parking, but just standalone long-term use of parking is not uh a C2 use.

All right.

If there's nothing else, is it have the applicant come forward?

Hello, uh please state your name and tell us about your sign.

In February 2022, Mirel Opportunity in Once 39 in New Laredo.

Um in February 2022, I had the opportunity to buy that property in New Laredo, 1139 New Larry.

Um at that time, I came to the city to make sure that I could use that to buy that property and uh make sure that I could use it for my business.

I buy uh fixed cars and then sell them.

And I've been doing that for 25 years.

Um I came to the city, I bought the property, I fixed it, and uh in December 2022, I came to the city to get the certificate of occupancy.

Ever since then I've been using that certificate.

So I could um use my I use my property for autosales, but this year they declined the permit, so that I I I couldn't keep on using it to sale m to for the sale of my vehicles.

Um so I came to the city.

Um I mean this has been really hard for me because I invested all my life savings in this uh business.

Uh then I came to the to this um place and the department told me that I needed to get signatures from the neighbors.

Um so I got uh 34 31 signatures.

Um they all agree that I can keep on my business there because um they are happy, they even are happy uh that I have the business there because uh they say that before I was there there were a lot of drug addicts and uh homeless people getting in there.

But yo le salicito is la forma con la cyo uh uh uh aliments permissos and regla y Luke Media Noya no ya so dulce loselo quitas.

Well um now I really don't know exactly what to say, but uh I was feeling that I was well supported with my business um and uh I could keep on having my business, running my business business, and um I really am here to heal for you to help me because I need to keep on working.

This is the way that I that I uh support my family.

I thought I was well established with that building with that business.

I thought all the permits were right, but um I really need now for you to support me if you can please.

Thank you.

Um so staff, uh, can you bring up that C of O again?

Yeah, this was occupant load one.

Is is that is that just I've never I don't think I've ever seen it with a one on it.

I was just wondering like you know.

I got a clarification on that.

Yeah I'm just curious, you know, like how this how this got issued, like did was this was the building in place when this was requested.

The uh application for certificate of occupancy was submitted as a COO with no construction.

Uh it was not an association with any sort of building permit for a new structure.

Okay.

So for the applicant, did you get your certificate of occupancy before that building was placed there?

I had to fix the plumbing and the electricity so that it could pass.

No, but what I'm wondering is um when you got the C of O, the building was physically on the property.

If you don't have a building, you cannot get a certificate of occupancy.

Well, that's what I was wondering.

If if the building was on the was on the land, and this is this is back to staff.

If the building was on the land and and someone uh submits an application for a C of O, don't they do like a site review or something to see if there's a conflict.

So when this building was turned in for a permit, uh one of the things I was caught was the zoning, and that's why the building um permit wasn't uh fully issued.

But the C of O was issued after the building was in place.

I'll have to check that timeline.

Yeah, that's what I was wondering.

So if if if the building was in place and then he shows up to get a C of O I just uh uh on something that was otherwise vacant.

I didn't I'm trying to figure out the process.

Like did the city check to see if there was a building placed or what?

So in my research of the subject property here, uh this is kind of the timeline of events at this property.

Uh in 2019 there was some structure there that uh was presumably demolished again, kind of jumping back over to uh slides here.

2022, that property was completely vacant.

Right.

Um that they got a demo permit.

I'd have to verify that.

I I don't have that information right in front of me.

Uh so but sometime between and again the historical imagery is just not present on this one, but sometime between 2022 and 2024, that service garage that we're discussing here was put on the property.

Um presumably that was the structure that was inspected when this construction of the C of O application for no construction was.

Yeah, and I mean I I guess what I'm confused about is is that if if it was vacant and then a new building gets put in and the building doesn't meet the setbacks is the residential directly behind it, there's no buffers.

Uh I I'm just completely confused how C of O was was issued at all.

I mean, I can understand like when there's a C3 and a C2 line, and maybe you know that's that might be something that happens, but this building it's not like it's an old building that was there.

It's the place is vacant, a new building went up.

I think in the 2022 um certificate of auguracy they mentioned a 12 by 12 office, which I believe might be the one in the C3 portion.

Again, as kind of that's what we think happened.

Okay.

So there's so he could theoretically still sell cars, he just can't work on cars until he changes the zoning.

He can sell cars, fix cars in the C3 portion.

Um so there's a facility right now on the back of the piece of the property.

Um so what is it that can what is it that can reside inside that building uh by right?

He can do well, auto-related, he could do all changes.

Um obviously that building still needs to go to Board of Adjustment separately for the setbacks and um buffer, but it can do something like all changes.

Um I believe tires can also be done in the C2.

So would not necessarily um he still be able to leverage or utilize the building, just not necessarily uh once the setbacks are resolved.

Um just couldn't use it for the for everything that he was currently trying to do with it, is that correct?

The sell of alcohol or the sell of automobiles.

Correct.

The selling of automobiles.

Correct.

But but automobiles could be sold at the front of the property.

As long as it uh it stays in the C3 section, that would be permitted, correct.

All right.

Anyone sign up to speak?

Any uh voicemails?

No public comment.

All right.

Any other questions?

Hearing none.

Uh we're going to uh look for a motion and see how it turns out.

Looking for a motion.

Oh, I have one more question.

Uh Commissioner Man?

Sorry, sorry.

Um so if this is um if this is denied with regard uh we'll say that there it's decided that an error wasn't made, the applicant uh still has the ability to apply for a zoning change to correct this and and move it to the other direction, correct?

That's correct.

As well as run the business um as we just kind of outlined with regards to what he can do in the front versus the back, correct?

Yeah, correct.

As long as I stay within that three C3 portion as we stated earlier.

But we'd still have to discuss the whole um I guess there will be a zoning case with regards to or uh or a uh BOA case with regards to the adjustment for the setbacks simply because we're the building is?

Correct.

So real quick, I'm sorry, can we do a uh combo check with uh Commissioner Bonias?

Oh, okay.

And I think Commissioner Um Benevites dropped out um trying to get her back on.

Sorry.

For the I do, if if I may as well.

Should this uh motion fail and they proceed to try to rezone the property through the actual zoning process, not the BOA.

It is also possible that they could entertain conditional use in a site plan that grants relief to those uh setbacks and buffer yards in one fell swoop, so to speak.

So just put it out there for consideration.

Stevens?

Commissioner Stevens.

If if this was to fail today and he had to go to rezoning, could he still operate on his own?

We would work with the applicant should he submit a change of zoning application while he went through that process.

All right.

Commissioner Manna.

Are we waiting for um Commissioner Benavides?

Oh that's right.

Sound check.

Does the sound check happen?

Uh she's not back on currently.

We're not quite sure how much of the case she heard, so you may want to try to proceed.

I don't know that she's back on.

Okay.

I I think we should proceed.

Regarding case number BOA 25103-00122, I moved to the board adjustment, grant the appeal for the property situated at 1139 New Laredo Highway, applicant being Carlos Jimenez.

Because the testimony or because the information provided by the applicant shows that the city staff made an error in a decision for a non-conforming use denial to permit the use of a motor vehicle sales with full service.

End emotion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Stevens.

Commissioner Mann.

Um, so I I I won't be supporting this simply because I think uh this is probably not the avenue for resolving this this particular dialogue, and there are other avenues uh to resolve this, uh, which would be going through the appropriate place of the zoning commission to have this zone correctly.

Um I'm I'm gonna be in support of it just because it seems that it's kind of strange to have this island of C3 that's connected to his rest of his property, and um maybe there could have been some sort of administrative way to take care of this, but if it doesn't pass, I feel good about it being able to still potentially operate while he has to go through rezoning.

But I will be in support of this.

All right.

Anyone else like to add?

Yeah.

Commissioner Barrington.

I'm sympathetic up to a point.

And I'm impressed by the support of all the uh surrounding property owners.

But clearly, uh in my view, it's clearly the staff did not make an error, and the proper way to resolve this issue is to get a zoning change.

All right.

Anyone else like to add?

Mr.

Ivanies.

I agree um with Stevens that if he could still uh continue with his business, because this would be a hardship on him.

Um if he could continue with that while they they're working out the rezoning uh process.

All right.

Anyone else like to add?

I'm gonna chime in too.

I I think that um the the fact that he went and applied for a C of O, I know that it there was some confusion and and maybe he didn't express what his full intent was by the location of the service building in the back, but there was an attempt to be compliant.

Um I also think that if we approve this today, he has to come back for for a buffer setback issue uh to us, or he can go through the zoning process and take care of it all in one soup anyway.

So I think that uh I'll be in support just to allow him to operate his business while he's figuring out what to do about the noncompliance of the uh rear structure.

Commissioner Zuna.

No, I just was asking for clarification on your position.

Are you I'll be in support.

Support of the motion of the Because I I know he has to come back either to us or to the zoning commission.

And and if we don't approve the setback of the buffers, he is not gonna use what I think is the main issue is that large building in the back.

All right.

Let's have a roll call vote.

Commissioner Manna?

I do not support the appeal.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes.

Commissioner Barrington?

No, I do not concur.

Commissioner Ibanez?

No, I do not concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Braggman.

I concur.

Commissioner Benavides.

I concur.

Commissioner Alzuna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Boniath.

Yes, I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur, but the motion did not pass.

It was a eight to three against.

Were there any commissioners that I thought you were in support of this?

No, I think that is what I want.

I don't think it would be I think it would be more beneficial for him to go through the rezoning.

Is that when he could get it all?

I think he would get it faster.

Okay.

Everything in one.

Thank you.

A motion fails.

You can get with staff and and uh see what your next steps are.

All right.

Item number six.

Sorry, Joe.

Item number six is BoA-25-1030125, located at 800 East Gunther Street.

The applicant is Jason Gallardo.

So the address is located at 800 East Gunther Street in Council District 1, the applicant being Jason Gallardo in count.

Sorry.

A request for a two-foot five-inch variance from the minimum five-foot side setback to allow a swimming pool with a two-foot-seven-inch side setback on the west property line.

Two, a thirteen foot five-inch variance from the minimum twenty-foot garage entry setback to allow a six-foot-seven-inch got garage entry setback, and third, a three-foot-six-inch variance from the minimum 15-foot driveway clear vision area to allow a 11 foot six-inch driveway clear vision area.

Zon in his arm four located in the King William Historic District.

However, during a build-in inspection on June 16, 2025, it was found that the pool did not comply with the required minimum five-foot side setback and therefore failed inspection.

As a result, the project was placed on hold, prompting the need for variance to address the swimming pool setback.

During a visit to the site, um the staff observed the pool site setback encroachment as well as a recently constructed garage with a reduced entry setback and driveway clear vision.

No previously approved variances were identified for this accessory structure, which was built sometime between 2018 and 2019.

Please summarize the Office of Historic Preservation comments.

Approval of a site plan or material submitted as part of a variance application does not supersede any requirements for design review outlined in Article 6 of the Unified Development Code.

On April 21st, 2025, OHP staff administratively approved the request to install an in-ground swimming pool on the north side of the property behind the front porch and rear fencing as represented in the site the submitted site plan.

In the site plan highlights the three um proposed variances.

The pool located two approximately two feet seven inch um to the water line, the location of the existing garage and the clear vision affected.

Currently this is the subject property and the location of the pool in the side yard.

This highlights the driveway clear vision area.

And the garage entry.

This is the surrounding area at the intersection of Barb and Gunther.

Gunther Street.

Across the subject property.

And the rest of Gunther.

Staff's recommendation for the pool site setback, the garage entry setback, and the driveway clear vision.

Staff recommends approval in BOE-25-103, Series 0125, based on the following findings of fact.

One, the requested variances do not impact driveway clear vision or public right-of-way safety.

And two, the requested variances will not alter the essential characteristics of the district in which the property is located.

Staff mail 32 notices, two are received in favor.

And no response received from the San Antonio, Texas District One Resident Association.

These are from the property owners within the 200 feet in support.

And the response submitted from the King William Neighborhood Association.

This concludes staff's presentation and the applicant is present.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Uh just one quick question.

Didn't the UDC at some point allow pools to be three feet?

I don't know why I thought it was three feet.

It was always five.

It was always five.

Um you're probably thinking about the overhang for accessory dwelling structures.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

All right.

Please state your name.

Tell us about your project.

Yes, sir.

Uh my name is Jason Galardo.

I'm representing Kathleen and Ralph Labordi.

Um, you know, I I work for Cody Pools, I submit all of our permits.

I I work with uh you know all the various cities that we do business in.

Um each time we submit a permit, we submit the plans, the setbacks, the construction, um, where the equipment's gonna go.

We got the uh historic preservation districts approval.

We got the city's approval.

Um nothing came about.

We started construction, we we gun-eyed the pool, got it to that first point of of inspection, got a call from the inspector said hey it didn't pass.

He had mentioned, hey, you just need to uh we don't have the the city of an or historic preservations approval yet.

I said it's it's there, you know, I'll re-lo upload it again, re-uploaded it, have the inspector come back out.

And he says, No, it's not that, it's actually it's a within the setback.

Um noted that we have the approval already through the permitting process as well as the historic.

He said no, you're not gonna have to go through the variance process.

So that's what that's what brought us to here.

So at this point, you know, it's there, so it it it would it would be um it would it would be.

Did your pool design uh propose an excavation depth of more than three feet?

The depth of the actual pool.

Uh yes, sir.

It's it's four feet deep, though the actual that was on your permit application.

Yes, sir.

So yeah, our construction plans outlines the depths of the pool as well as you know the renderings of the house, the the setback, the where the equipment's gonna go in relation to the house, the distances from the pool to the house.

Um I I've submitted probably 300 applications to San Antonio over the past five years, and this is this is my first day here.

And as far as uh did y'all get a chance to look at the building permit application to see if there was anything out of order or missing or something.

I and the reason why I ask is uh this house is on a corner lot.

I always thought the city was a little more they scrutinize corner lots a little more.

Maybe I'm confused, but if if he put four foot on the depth, um did was the permit actually issued for the pool?

Yeah, it was it was messed under review process uh because it was submitted.

Or I mean it was um given the permit.

If the excavation depth was not three feet, what would the setback be?

It would not have a setback if it's oh okay.

All right.

Manna Commissioner Manor.

So looking at uh King Williams position, uh part of the dialogue here is that there's not a mention of a privacy fence.

So uh on that side property.

So is is there going to be a privacy fence uh here with the pool?

Yeah, you know, I went to the customer and and asked them like, hey, you know, in the event that there's any rebuttals, would you all be willing to maybe change the fence style?

Um they they didn't give me much.

I even suggested there's about seven inches to the sidewalk.

I said we could maybe do that.

She was pretty adamant about the fence.

I don't know if how what King Williams stance on the design of fence and what the process would be to make it more private or maybe you know a cedar style fence.

If I think if that's the deal maker, then I'm I'm sure they would be willing to comply.

Stevens?

Commissioner Stevens?

I saw a survey with a markup on it, and then I also saw a plan that looked like y'all submitted.

Did you call out this two foot seven on your location?

Those are both of those documents are the documents that I submitted to the historic district as well as the city.

I and I suspect that if you were to try and change this fence, it'd probably be a bigger kerfuffle than the water line of this pool.

Oh, yeah, because we're right up against the sidewalk.

So I I don't know the process on building on the sidewalk.

But currently the fence is an open fence.

That open fence has been there for a while, right?

Yes, ma'am.

And so um the privacy fence that is being pointed out is in the back by the driveway of the garage, correct?

Yes, ma'am.

It's on the rear.

So it's kind of moot about the fence right now because it hasn't been dealt with.

There permits haven't been gotten for a change of the fence.

No, ma'am.

Just want clarification.

Gotcha.

Commissioner Zoon?

Um, just the thought about just using landscaping or some kind of ivy or something to provide that screening buffer, but still have a predominantly open fence is something that probably the owner would consider.

Yeah.

Uh is is the pool depth solid four foot the whole way, or does it go from three to four?

It it transitions.

So for every seven feet of distance, we can slope it a foot.

So it goes from 3.5, so 3.5 feet to 4, and then right at the very end it it touches 5, but it's it's not much.

Okay.

All right.

Any other questions?

All right.

Anybody uh sign up to speak?

Any uh voicemails?

No public comment.

All right.

We're gonna go for a motion and see how this turns out.

Thank you.

Commissioner Zuna.

Regarding case number B08-25-1030125, I move that the Board of Adjustment grant one a two-foot five-inch variance from the minimum five-foot side setback to allow a swimming pool.

Water line with a two-foot seven-inch side setback on the west property line.

Two, a thirteen foot five-inch variance from the minimum twenty-foot garage entry setback to allow six foot seven-inch garage entry setback, and three, a three-foot-six-inch variance from the minimum fifteen foot driveway clearance vision area to allow eleven-foot six-inch driveway, clear vision area situated at 800 East Gunther Street.

Applicant being a Jason Galardo, because the testimony presented to us, the facts that we determined show that the fiscal character of this property is such that a literal enforcement provisions of the UDCS amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

Specifically, we find that one, the variance is not contrary to the public interest.

The pool side setback, but a ride-of-way in the garage setback and clear vision is sufficiently set back from the property line and public ride of way to retain the ability of safe for safe ingress and egress from and onto Barb Street.

Two, due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship because there is no driveway along East Gunther Street and a limited development area exists on the lot for a garage and a swimming pool.

The fence along the clear vision area would reduce the already limited area in the side yard without the variance.

Three, by granting the variance of spirit of the order to be observed as substantial justice will be done.

As there is no significant significant encroachment into the right-of-way that would impede traffic or pedestrian safety or hinder or if the variance is not authorize the operation of use, other than those uses specifically authorized in the zoning district in which the variance is located.

No uses other than those allowed within the district will be allowed with this variance.

Five such variants would not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming property or alter the essential character of the district in which the property is located.

Because a the area is in which the pool is located is not about any shared property line.

Additionally, the fence and garage distances from the side property line and the slide right-away curb were historically established without substantially alter the character of the surrounding area.

And six, the plight of the owner of the property for which the variance is solved is due to the unique circumstances existing on the property.

And the initial circumstances were not created by the owner of the property, not merely financial, not due to other resultant general conditions of the district in which the property is located.

The garage and fence did not obstruct clear vision for traffic flow on Barp Street or hinder uh safe ingress egress for the property.

Likewise, the speed pool is narrow in width and maintains an adequate distance from the public right-of-way.

Any motion?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Braggman.

Commissioner Zuna.

Yeah, so I'm going to be supporting the motion as red.

I'm not clear the applicant supported or had on its submittals the setback line that that was kind of an oversight of the city.

I think there's an extreme hardship here if they were uh required to comply with the five foot side setback.

Uh the real opposition here was kind of the fence, and I think that they could provide that opaque with some kind of uh landscaping or something, growing on the fence to create that uh buffer uh opaque that that the uh historic district was seeking.

Um and then of course that we had support with the uh uh driveway and the clear vision, so I'm supporting the motion of thread.

Commissioner McMahon.

Yeah, I agree with my colleague.

I mean, if you look at the picture of the pool that's been provided in the um case, you can see that they've already started growing what looks to be some sort of ivy or jasmine on the fence anyway.

So I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to uh further that or either that or you know, put some sort of solid privacy fence to uh address the uh issues for the neighborhood association.

So I'll be in support.

All right, anyone else like to add?

Hearing none, let's have a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Othuna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bagman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Barrington.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens, yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibannis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Menach.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonieth.

Yes, I concur.

Chair Warren.

Yes, I concur.

Motion passes unanimously.

Uh congratulations.

You have any questions you can get with staff.

All right.

Uh item seven.

Item seven is BOA-25-103-00129, located at 508 Elk Drive in Consul District 5.

The applicant is Vanessa Rubio.

She is requesting a three-foot-four inch variance from the minimum five-foot side setback to allow for primary structure with a one foot eight inch setback from the west side property line to include a one foot six inch overhang.

The zone is R4.

The subject property is located east of South Sarzomara Street on Elk's Drive.

A complete ground up reconstruction of the home with a new addition to the rear is currently in progress according to strike team investigation notes.

No permits have yet been authorized for this development.

The project is currently being reviewed for a new residential home permit and must comply with the minimum required side setback of five feet.

The applicant is seeking a variance to preserve the historically established side setback and build this new home in the footprint of the original structure.

The request includes a one-foot-six-inch overhang, which prevents the wall of the structure to be any closer to three feet two inches from the property line.

Grant in this request would allow for the continuation of a historically reduced side setback and the reconstruction of this home at a distance of one foot eight inch from the west side property line.

This highlights the location of the requested variance with the one six oh one foot six inch overhang in the picture on the right side.

This um historical photo is from January 2008, and you can see uh reduced setback from that age from 2008.

And this as well from 2022, and its current view.

This highlights the different measurements, the overhang and the overall site setback with the wall to remain three feet two inch from the property line.

This is uh extension of the original home with the addition being 10 feet by 26 feet three inch.

And this is the surrounding area.

Staff's recommendation for the size setback variant.

Staff recommends approval in BOA-25-1030129 based on the following findings of fact.

One, sufficient space will remain for the purposes of water runoff, fire safety, and the maintenance of the structure.

And two, the requested variants will allow the residents to remain consistent with the historical character and setback of the property.

36 notices were mailed, and one received in favor from the affected um adjacent property owner.

And Tierra Linda neighborhood association is in opposition.

And this is the response in favor.

And the notice received from the Tierra Linden neighborhood association saying it creates a risk to neighborhood and permanent inconvenience to the adjacent homeowners.

And this concludes that's presentation.

Based on the scope of the work, instead of it being an inline um addition, the review process deemed it as a new build.

Because it will from the photos we have as well, we saw changes to the bottom or the foundation going up.

All right, thank you very much.

Let's have the applicant come forward.

Hello, please state your name and tell us about your project.

Hello, good afternoon.

My name is Vanessa Rubio.

Um I purchased this property with my father in Oh, can you hear me?

No, you can move it up.

Oh, up to the I purchased this property as an investment property with my father in December of 2020 uh 23.

Um so this is the very first time we've ever run into uh this entire process of uh remodeling a home.

It was can we just wanted to flip it and sell it and uh we've learned many new things along the way.

Um we've been here once already for the replatting of the property and and now for this variance request.

Um but we've been doing everything that we possibly can to do it the proper way.

We've hired architect and got plans approved and uh permits trying to get you know next step in process.

All right.

Um are you reusing the foundation?

We are okay yes, all right.

And that was a peer and beam or a correct it was okay.

And I noticed you platted uh you're like the only one on the block that platted and had to give up right away.

Yes, we were that building's been there since 19 uh 63.

Yeah, that's pretty old.

Uh any commissioner questions?

Cruz, Mr.

Cruz?

Do you know why the neighborhood association is opposing this?

Do you know why a neighborhood association is opposing you?

Oh, do I know?

No, that was the first time I saw that letter.

Um, the response to the variants.

Okay, but it said that it it created a um can you pull up the letter?

And then convenience to adjacent homeowners, but the adjacent homeowner was in the okay.

So the property that you're using.

Yes, is it and I know it uh that you're fixing it up.

So was it there how long did your father own it before?

Or you just recently just purchased it?

We recently just purchased it in December.

Okay, and so you have no you had had no contact with the neighborhood association?

No, never.

Okay, thank you.

Oh, this I'm sorry, I'm wanting to be a little more specific.

Um I've not been uh as involved as my father has.

I'm just a property owner, uh, but he's the one who's that has his like contractor and architect and everybody working with and he's working closer with those people, so I'm unsure if the architect or the engineer of anybody else who's had any contact with them.

Okay, well maybe even my father.

Yeah, normally it's the homeowner that reaches out to the neighborhood association, yeah, especially since I'm sure that when you apply for the permit, that's what they told you one of the recommendations that they give you.

Okay, so I'm wondering if maybe the contractor because he's the one that applied for the permit, maybe he reached out, but I'm not sure.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Zuna.

Do you know the distance between the um front of the the side of the house and the neighboring property?

Is there more than the the side that's affected by the one foot eight inch side setback?

It's currently three feet four inches.

It's a driveway, yeah.

That's what I'm saying.

Oh, from the on the like for fire break um there's it's three feet two inches from the property line.

No, the when you're facing your property, uh, the property on the right, do you know how far away their home is from your property?

You can see the picture right here.

I'm just the other picture you just had.

Yeah, that one.

How far is the oh from their property?

Um it looks like a good it's a driveway, so it looks like a good 1215 feet.

1215, right?

And I'm just consideration for for like fire break and yeah, the architect um did plan for a firewall on that.

So it would be firewall.

Yes, it would.

And then just in terms of maintaining that side uh going forward is one foot, eight inch um adequate.

Well, I guess it's three foot two inch from the wall.

Is that adequate to maintain that side of the house for you know painting?

Oh, yes.

Okay, yeah.

Thank you.

All right.

Any other questions?

Manna.

Commissioner Manna.

So um in the staff presentation, um, it shows the um I guess on the first page the the floor the the print and it um and it does show that the front of the house was at three foot two inch and the back of the house is three foot five.

So it it does look like um and and it appears that the only change uh with regards to the house is the extension of the back by additional addition, correct?

Correct.

So um and so um if the house had been built on the same exact footprint with no changes at all, would would they have been through this process as well, or simply because there was so much work being done, it didn't matter, they were still gonna have to come through and and get the board adjustment adjustment for this?

Correct.

Um if they didn't need as much work with the redo um renovation of the walls, existing walls, and they were just doing an extension, they would have been permitted up to three like as close as three feet to stay aligned with the existing wall.

And it's it's because there it's more than 50 percent of the home that's existing home, that's what's triggering this.

Yes, the plan review team when they reviewed this felt that it was significant enough to be considered a new construction.

All right.

Any other questions?

Is anyone sent to speak?

Any voicemails?

No public comment.

All right.

Uh we're gonna go for a motion and see how this turns out.

Braggman.

Commissioner Braggman.

Regarding case number BOA-25-103-00129.

I move the Board of Adjustment Grant a three foot, four-inch variants from the minimum five-foot side setback to allow for primary structure with a one-foot-eight-inch setback from the west side property line to include a one-foot six-inch overhang situated at 508 Elk's Drive.

Applicant being Vanessa Rubio, because the testimony presented to us and the facts we have determined show the physical character of this property, such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code as amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

Specifically, we find that one, the variance is not contrary to the public interest because the redevelopment of the residential structure maintains adequate spacing between the neighboring structure for the purpose of fire safety, water runoff, and maintenance acts as due to the driveway on the neighboring property and due to the front-to-back slope of the subject structure's roof line.

Two, due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship because the property owner would have to redesign the structure to meet the western side setback.

This would impede on the inability to reuse the existing foundation footprint.

This would also result in reduction of the eastern side yard and thus limit the width of the subject properties driveway for off-street parking.

Three, by granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be absurd and substantial justice will be done.

Sufficient spacing between the property remains for maintenance, water runoff, and fire safety.

Four of the variants will not authorize the operation of use other than those uses specifically authorized in the district in the zoning district in which the variance is located.

No uses other than those allowed within the district will be allowed with this variance.

Five, such variants will not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming property or alter the central character of the district in which the property is located, because there is sufficient spacing between structures provided by the driveway separation of the adjacent property.

Six applied to the owner of the property, which there is saw it as due to unique circumstances existing on the property and the unique circumstance circumstances were not created by the owner of the property and are not merely financial or not due to or the result of general conditions in the district in which the property is located.

The original home constructed in 1965 was established with the reduced side setback, removing the existing foundation and framework to build a new structure to compliment with the current site setback standards would cause the discontinuation of the original home's footprint and impede on the property owners' intent to improve upon their existing property under motion second second by Commissioner Stevens.

Commissioner Braggman?

Uh yeah, I'll be in support of the motion.

Um since they're building on the same foundation footprint and only extending uh back a new addition within the line of the original site setback.

I don't see an issue with this.

There's plenty of space between the neighboring properties with the the driveway on the other side, and there's sufficient space to get in there for uh maintenance.

So I'll be in support.

All right, Commissioner Stevens.

I too will be in support and agree with everything uh Ms.

Bragman uh had brought up and I think this is like a critical path to get this project done, which would probably satisfy most of the neighborhood complaints.

So I'll be in support.

All right.

Anyone else like to add?

Manna.

Commissioner Manna.

So I I'll also be in favor, but yeah, I just wanted to address that you know with regards to the neighborhood association.

And so you know, as I look at this community, it it appears that almost you know, a significant portion of the houses have the same feature of being right on the property lines.

And so I I think this is you know, in good faith of uh keeping the houses up in the community, and so therefore I don't see anything wrong with this, so I'll be voting in favor.

All right.

If there's nothing else, let's have a voice uh roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of facts.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Barrington.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibonis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Manna.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ozuna.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I can curve with the findings.

In fact, motion passes unanimously.

Congratulations.

If you haven't had any questions, you can ask staff.

All right, thank you.

All right.

Item number eight.

All righty.

Item number eight is case number BOA-25-1030130, the address being 150 storywood drive in Council District 1, the applicant being Kim C.

Jones.

This is a request for a three-foot-six-inch variance from the minimum five-foot side setback to allow a one-foot-six-inch carport side setback in the rear of the property.

The zoning is R4.

The subject property is generally located between Vance Jackson Road and West Avenue along Storywood Drive.

Historical imagery indicates a carport has existed in the rear yard of the subject property since at least 2007.

The property owner began a project to convert that existing carport into a garage, which was subsequently placed on hold following the issuance of a perm uh issuance of a notice of violation by code enforcement staff for building without a permit on July 1st, 2025.

The property owner has stated their intention to abandon the pursuit of converting this structure into a garage and remove the recently added exterior walls, which currently enclose the structure on each side.

The structure may be considered a carport and not a garage, so long as it is not enclosed on any more than uh two sides uh by any wall.

Uh the property owner still intends to improve upon the existing carport frame by increasing the height of the original structure, uh which would require the issuance of a residential improvement permit for that work.

Prior to the issuance of a new permit, a variance approval must be obtained for the reduced side setback of the structure.

Enlarging the structure would prevent a non-conforming structure registration issuance.

Shown here is the site plan provided uh by the property owner in context of an aerial view of that property.

Uh that carport is in the on the right side of the of the lot there.

That's the rear yard, uh, with the closest distance of one foot six inches from the prop side property line there.

Uh this is the sub subject property from the front yard.

Uh you can see the construction there in the rear yard.

And on the following photo is a better image of that car port.

Again, it's got that enclosure on two side walls.

Those have been uh stated by the property owner to be removed.

Uh in the surrounding area, you can see that there is an alley uh towards the rear yard, uh, which gives them that allowance for the rear setback and causing there to be no rear setback issue for this particular structure and the rest of the surrounding area to follow.

Staff recommendation for the carport side setback variant.

Staff recommends approval in BOA-25-1030130 based on the following findings.

A fact, the reduced setback would be limited to the corner of the structure closest to the rear of the property, and two, the carport is separated from structures on neighboring lots by a right-of-way and an adjoining alleyway, thereby minimizing any increased fire safety or water runoff concerns.

Staff mailed out 32 notices, zero were returned in favor, zero in opposition.

The Delvue Area Neighborhood Association did not respond, and the San Antonio District One resident association did not respond.

This concludes staff's presentation.

The applicant is present.

All right.

So the applicant come forward.

Please state your name.

Tell us about your carport.

Yeah, I'm KC Jones.

We lived here about 30 years, and I waited for about 20 to do this project.

So hoping it gets passed.

I I just assumed that it had been there since probably 1965 or so.

That it was built.

I want to use that same structure that I'm building on the same footprint that was there already.

So that's about it.

Okay.

Um I'll jump right in.

Is the alley next to you uh use for vehicular traffic?

A lot of guys coming in out of the alley that live uh I guess they use it for access to their backyards or whatever.

And is the guard does garbage vehicles go down there for pickup?

No, okay.

So the real reason why you're here is because it looks like when you make this into a carport and get rid of the exterior walls, you're gonna have a post that's located closer than five feet from the Saxon right there.

Those walls will be the exterior walls of the carport.

But you're not getting are you aren't you removing at least one of the exterior walls?

Uh I was hoping I could leave them.

I was gonna open up uh like some large windows or or screened in areas, maybe.

I could leave them open, whatever would be allowed.

So this is coming before us as a carport.

Staff if he leaves the walls up and it's uh as a garage, how does that change any of the setbacks?

So it doesn't change the setbacks.

Um when you read the motion, you have to eliminate the mention of a carport because at that point a carport would make him take out at least two of those walls, which we believe he indicated to us, but if that's not his intention, and that's the way you want to read the motion.

Do not mention carport.

Okay, and and we're here because uh it's the corner post closed the corn portion of the of the wall closest to the alley is within the five feet.

The opposite side is acceptable.

Correct.

And then is there a clear vision issue with that being an enclosed wall on the alley side?

No, sir.

Uh clear vision is only for fences.

All right.

Any commissioner questions?

Manna.

Commissioner Manor.

So uh there's some substantial work being done on the roofing as well.

So is a roofing getting ready to change with regards to the structure itself?

I was hoping to raise the roof uh to a ceiling height of nine feet.

Okay, but as far as uh then uh and then roof clad on top of that, so it's not gonna be a second story or no any kind of structure like that.

Just high ceilings.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Any other questions?

All right, is there any voicemails any senator to speak?

No public comment.

Man, none at all today, huh?

All right.

Uh I'm looking for a motion then if there's nothing else.

Ragman.

Commissioner Bragman.

Okay.

Oh, yeah.

Take a carport.

Do one in your rock.

Yeah, it would say garage.

Okay.

Regarding case number BOA-25-103-00130.

I move the board of adjustment grant a request for a three-foot-six-inch variance from the minimum five-foot side setback to allow one foot six-inch garage side setback to the rear of the property situated at 150 story wood drive applicant being Casey Jones.

Because the testimony presented to us and the facts we have determined so the physical character of this property is such that a literal enforcement of the revisions of the unified development code as amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

Specifically, we find that one, the variance is not contrary to the public interest, as a reduced setback would be limited to the corner structure closest to the rear of the property, abundant a right-of-way, minimizing any increased fire safety or water runoff concerns.

Two to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship as the car as the garage's longstanding location on the property has been a well-established feature of this neighborhood.

A variance would only be required to authorize the issuance of a permit to increase the height of the garage, and no further encroachment into the minimum required setback is proposed.

Three, by granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed, and substantial justice will be done as the structure would remain adequately separated from neighboring properties by the adjoining right-of-ways.

Four of the variants will not authorize the operation of use other than those uses specifically authorized in the zoning district and with the variants located.

No uses other than those allowed within the district will be allowed with this variance.

Five, such variants will not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming property or alter the essential character of the district in which the property is located, as the garage would remain in its existing location, which is sufficiently separated from adjacent property when accounting for the width of the adjacent right of way and alleyway.

Six the plight of the owner of the property which the sought is due to unique circumstances existing on the property, and the unique circumstances were not created by the owner of the property and are not merely financial owner, not due to or the result of general conditions in the district in which the property is located.

The plight of the owner of the property for which the sought is due to the unique circumstances of the garage's location, which appears to have been established before in 2001.

Sorry, I just I wanted to interrupt.

I apologize, uh Commissioner Braggman, but there are different setbacks for a garage versus a car port.

It does say a garage must be 20 feet set back from a public right-of-way.

Um, so we would have to be re-advertised and everything if he wants to keep the wall, like if he wants to keep the walls, but if he was to remove the walls and make it a carport, then could proceed.

What if the what if there was no garage door?

It would still be considered a garage.

Anything a carport, um a garage is anything that's more than two sides.

All right.

So if the applicant come back up, please.

So what what happens is when you put in a a garage as opposed to a car port, the face of the garage has there's another requirement where it has to be 20 feet away from the face occurred.

Uh or you know, so is that we're we'll have to re-advertise because we can't have walls then?

Well, we're we're only allowed to vote what with what's on our agenda, and because that that portion is a separate independent code, it's not included on the agenda, we would have to have it re-advertised so that we could entertain uh that.

For the enclosed garage.

For the garage, right.

Okay, well, I was I was trying to get it approved as a carport.

So if we approve it as a carport, you have to get rid of the walls.

I can do that.

Okay.

It's easy enough.

Okay, so then what we'll do is read the motion then.

So well, so just a so explaining again.

So so we're getting ready to vote on a garage, but we found out the distance are we kind of off.

If you re-advertise it, basically delays your project, but you get to keep your garage.

I thought we were talking about a carport.

If we vote on this on a carport, you will have to remove those walls.

Right.

Okay.

If you want to wait and come back here, what in two weeks or I know it can't be a garage.

I already know that.

That's what we we had talked about already.

But it can't be but it can be if you want to this to be re-advertised.

There's well, there's no way I can get 20 feet.

It's impossible.

Well, that's why you would come back to here.

We you would ask for a word.

Yes.

Oh, okay.

So do you would you like this re-advertise as a garage?

I would love to, honestly.

Okay.

Yeah.

All right.

So re-advertise.

Yeah.

All right.

So I rescind the motion.

So we no longer have a motion on the table.

We should see you back here in two to four weeks.

Just so you're aware, there will be a postponement fee.

So are you sure you're still wanting to do this?

What is a postponement fee?

200.

Okay.

If you pay 200, you can come back to us.

Okay.

There you go.

We will see you back here in about a month.

Thank you.

One quick question for for before we leave, just if we vote on this now as a carport.

If he were to come back as a garage, what is the fee as for a residential to come back as a garage?

400.

400 if he has a home house.

Or 600 if he doesn't.

So one one last thing.

We can vote on this right now, and you can get approval potentially for a car port.

You can instead of 200, you can pay 400, and as a completely independent question, you can ask for a carport.

I mean a garage.

Right.

Okay.

Do you want to have a vote today, or do you want to just pay the 200 and do it all in one?

Or really want a garage.

So if there's a lot of things.

Okay, so that's just I'm just asking.

Okay.

Yeah, I I would recommend the postponement fee.

We get an advertised as a few.

I just wanted to ask you could potentially have two approvals.

Commissioner May.

So if we come in for a garage and we decide that that is uh is doesn't work, it could be reduced back to a carport because it is less than what is advertised and we can so you will have the option if they come back to actually approve what's here.

Right or approved uh full.

We we we will advertise it such that you have the capacity to approve either.

Yes.

And when when could you come back?

Is it on the 22nd or on the eighth?

You can come back on the first uh meeting of September.

We will see you on September 8th.

Awesome.

Okay.

But please get with staff in case they need you to sign something or something.

All right.

We need a motion fores anybody need a break?

Okay.

We are going to take a seven minute break.

We will see you all back in seven minutes.

We are on item number nine.

Item number nine is BOA-25-1030131, located at 207 Helena Street in Council District 5.

The applicant is Armander Armando's or Tuche.

A request for a 2,000 130 square foot variance from the minimum 6,000 square foot lot size to a lot development on a 3,870 foot square foot lot.

The zone is R6.

The subject property is located east of South Florida Street on Helena Street.

The property is currently developed with a single family residence constructed in 1930.

The property owner intends to tear down and rebuild a new single family home on this lot.

One second, Jewel.

Commissioner Burnias, can you turn your camera back on at 3,870 square feet, the lot size is below the 6,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement for the R6 base zoning district.

As a result, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow for the construction of a new single family home on the property.

As an alternative to seek and review by the Board of Adjustment, the applicant may pursue rezoning to the R3 district, which aligns with the current lot size of the property.

They're going to be meeting the current R6 zoning side and rear and front setbacks.

And the current view of the subject property?

And the surrounding area.

Okay, so quick question.

The existing home that's there, uh this was built in 1930, according to BCAD records.

What are they attempting to do?

The fact that they want to demolish and rebuild it prompts them to be treated as a new um application for the manna?

Commissioner Manna.

Um will all setbacks be observed with regards to the with this current set um site plan at R6, yes.

And then uh one more so the entire it looks like a large portion of this community has similar um configurations.

And so would this same requirement from that the city is laying out here be required for any of the other lots that would also want to say go down this path as well?

Including the three others that are substandard, that would be an option for them to pursue or the rezoning.

I will I will state um if you look at this the legal description, it you know it calls out the south 86 feet of the 40 of the east 40 feet of lot 18.

That means that this was subdivided, not through um a recorded means, but most likely sold off in portions, and so it wasn't part of the original design.

But if I look at this block, it appears that you know a lot of the lot, it would looks appears to be substandard smaller lots, and I'm just observing really that whole block face kind of looks or that whole block kind of has similar construction.

So again, if you were to go two doors down, that is typically the size of the lot that was designated for this area when it was designed.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, and I just wanted to add uh add on that.

So, yes, those lots were long rectangular, but at this hard corner where these four were created, you know, these things were were constructed so long ago.

I mean, you're talking about you know, 1950 or earlier.

And so it's it's just so long ago.

Commissioner Barrenton.

I have a similar problem uh with so many lots around this particular lot.

Uh uh obviously smaller than R six requires.

It looks to me like the whole area was inappropriately zoned R6.

Nothing we can do about that right now.

But it seems to me the alternative of applying for a zoning change is problematic too, because that would appear to be spot zoning on that lot.

So uh I don't know how to deal with that except perhaps to grant the variance as as requested, so the property owner can make use of his property.

Commissioner Braggman.

Um so my question is how much does it cost in terms of application fees to rezone as opposed to getting the variants through Board of Adjustment?

So the cost of rezoning is approximately eight hundred and fifty dollars, I believe, and then this was going to I believe this application is six hundred dollars.

Manna.

Commissioner Manor?

So d so back in ninety seven, I guess before the last UDC component kind of came out and they defined R1 and R6, I believe is when it happened because they did in my neighborhood.

So we had a lot of homes that were previously R1, um, and then they got automatically changed to R sixes.

And so um and so uh and I think one assumption was by default that's what happened, but there was also some zoning by um by right sizing, and so there was not necessarily it wasn't necessarily consisted of one for one, and I know that some changed to other zonings, and so was this just missed um with regards to all those properties and were you know just by Carte Blanc just made R sixes just simply because that was just where the city's path was so it does look like that it was originally C apartment district when it was when zoning in 1938 was established.

Um and then it was rezoned in 2006.

I'm just double checking to see um if this was one of the large area rezonings.

Um as per the zoning history, it does show that it was done in 2006.

So I can't say for certain how that was completed.

But yes, this was part of a large area rezoning.

So there's a tech possibility that it was seen as single family and just to give it a consistent um zoning.

And a large rezoning is still a viable option that we that could be pursued by city council to come back into this area, correct?

It's always a possibility.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

So the album can come forward.

Good afternoon.

Hi, State United.

Tell us about your project.

Abraham Morales.

Uh my father's the builder for the new property, and I'm here with uh the property owner's daughter.

Yes.

Hi, my name is Tracy Myers.

Yeah, can you speak into the microphone?

I'm sorry.

My name is Tracy Myers, and I am the daughter of the property owner.

I'm the one who's gonna be building there.

All right.

Uh yes, I came earlier uh last month to rezone the property so we could be able to build a house because I came for an application to build the house.

But they told me to rezone, and then I came later to uh because I had a couple questions on the application, and they recommended me to get the variants.

So uh they said everything was okay to go with the variants and it would be the same process basically.

Yeah, it's a little quicker.

Yeah, they said it was it would be because uh they gave us the timeline and they said it uh it'll be done by by August, how they said.

But uh they said that uh since it was all in the same area that to keep it everything consistent that we should just go with the variants.

So we there was a question posed to staff uh if if if this were to get approved today, you're not you're not in in any way desiring to violate any of the required setbacks.

No, sir.

The the plans that we have right now uh stay within the setbacks that are approved, uh roughly the same size as the building right now until the only difference would be that the the carport that's there right now.

Um there would be uh probably converted to a garage.

But like not as far out.

Okay.

But you were gonna fully demo the house that we're seeing on the screen.

Yes.

Okay.

Commissioner Zuna.

No, I was just saying if you can close the garage, obviously you'd have this picture we're seeing right now does not comply with the side setback requirement.

So any garage you would have to do would be five feet off, yeah.

Yes, the garage would be five feet off.

Uh we were gonna stay.

Can you tell me the setbacks real quick?

Remind me of them?

Five feet, yes, it was going to be.

That's what the plans were for is to keep within the setbacks.

We don't want to change those at all.

Um I'm glad that you brought up the rezoning because that was my question in the beginning.

I think when I spoke to um Joel Joel, Joel, it's I don't know who um that but anyway, he called me.

And so I asked, why is there why is this an uh six when it's so tiny compared to the others?

And um he said it must have been done like a long time ago.

We're not sure.

I I'm not sure how that ever happened because um my mom used to live in that house when she was a kid while we were up there, and the yard it was the lot was always that size.

It was never bigger.

She was like, we never sold it off, it was just always a small lot that we lived on.

Um so I don't know how it got zoned at at a six in the first place, because the other lots are way bigger.

Um but then we had also asked about the rezoning um when I spoke to someone on the phone and said, is that the route I need to go?

Because um if I need to, then we can go that route or but they said no, it's fine, just you can go through this one.

If you ever want if you want to change the setbacks, then you would have to go through rezoning.

So that's why we went this route instead.

So just to clarify, um, we give every applicant the different options as they can go through.

We're very careful never to tell them what we prefer or kind of what we think is better.

Um we always present um every applicant the option, you can either rezone, this is the process for rezoning, but you can go through board of adjustment.

This is the process for board of adjustment.

Man.

Commissioner Manor?

So if this um state does get at some point rezoned to start three, um does the uh side setbacks or or any of the setbacks change with regards to that as well?

The rear setback is gonna be I believe ten feet, everything else stays the same.

Okay.

So and so one thing you know the that I did in my community was went to my council person and said, Hey, you know, my whole neighborhood is messed up with regards to the zoning.

Can you help me?

And you would help all your neighbors.

So you unfortunately are the first ones here, so you're the kind of the the first run through.

But you can do a service to the rest of your community by making that request to your council member.

It it does appear that the the various uh if you look through the different blocks in your neighborhood at the corners is where the lots get uh parceled out really small.

Right.

So that might be something to bring up.

And since it happened so long ago.

But um, yeah, if you're not violating any of the setbacks, and it was if you do put in a garage, the face would have to be 20 feet from the from the front.

20 feet from the garage.

From the property line?

Or from the back of sidewalk or property line, whichever is uh is that true?

Is it face a curb or and or back and side?

It could be the back of the sidewalk or the property line, whichever's furthest.

Yeah, whichever is better for you.

Twenty feet from the garage.

From from the do you have a public sidewalk along the your street there?

Yes.

Okay, so you'd have to go twenty feet behind the back of that sidewalk is where your garage would have to be.

Start.

Start.

So your home is shown to be ten foot setback from the front based on your your application.

If you were to construct a garage, you might have to shift that portion of it to the garage portion of it back a little bit.

And would that be the same if it was an R3?

Yes.

That's a that's a requirement for garages.

So if you did want it a if you desired to put the garage closer, you'd have to come back here and ask that question.

Or you could put a carport.

Okay.

A lot to think about, but but we're here today about the square footage.

Is there any other commissioner questions?

Anyone's time to speak?

Any voicemails?

Do you have uh two speakers?

Oh, all right.

Let's hear.

Uh Leonardo Limon.

All right, please state your name and tell us your thoughts.

I'm Vanessa, this is my mother.

Oh, I'm Vanessa, and this is my mother.

I'm Rachel Mother Nano.

I live in the house next door.

Okay.

Well, what do you think?

Well, I I think the biggest the biggest concern was the structure of the building itself, current not creating any privacy for them living there now.

There's currently a structure on the right side, it's an 8,000 foot lot.

They just build on that one.

It's a huge two-story, probably over 2500 square feet.

Um, but they have the lot for it.

This lot is only what, 3,000 and some change of square feet.

So depending on how big of the structure is, that's the concern to feel completely boxed in, no privacy.

If any emergency vehicles need to come in, my grandfather's 95 years old.

We'd hate to have cars up and down the street where emergency vehicles can't get there.

And so just thinking about that, and then of course property values as well, you know, with two huge houses encompassing a small house, how that affects the property values too.

So just a few concerns there.

Um because the uh the home next to it has built our home right a still up by the sidewalk.

Yeah.

So if I want to go out there, I literally have to walk to the sidewalk to I can see if you know where I'm coming.

Or if you pull out of the driveway, you really can't see on the on the right side.

So you you you reside at 211, Helena?

Yeah.

Okay.

And the other home that you're talking about that that's a large two-story, which is that right next door.

On the opposite side, or those are the one we're talking about today.

215.

Right.

215, okay.

All right.

Okay.

And is there any uh uh parking restrictions on your street?

Any no parking signs or anything?

No.

Okay.

No.

Again, the biggest concern is just if it's within the setbacks, I mean, of course, build, you know.

Um we we want to improve the the community, of course, seeing it from that perspective.

But uh depending on how large that structure is, I mean that's just gonna swallow the house and give no privacy.

Okay, the the currently there are six setbacks.

It's 10 feet in the front minimum, 20 in the rear, five on each side.

That is already a carport there.

There's already a carport there, and we're not able to open the window because uh the apparently the gutters fell down.

So the water runs into inside the house.

Well, the the applicant stated they were gonna demolish that home and reconstruct it.

And and under the new getting new permits, they would most likely well not most likely, they would be reviewed and scrutinized and all that good stuff.

Uh is there any questions for the speakers?

So and so looking at the picture, you'll drive by uh it does appear that the current carport that is there is not compliant.

And um and so that would be removed and given five feet away uh um which is by right from with regards to code compliance.

And so that should mitigate the one question with regard or we always look for that much space when we're trying to mitigate the you know uh drainage onto a budding properties, and so so that sounds like that may address the problem or the question that you had.

Are there any restrictions as far as the size of the home to be built on that plot?

It can't exceed the setbacks, and is there a 50 percent rule and the front, right?

Front yard.

Uh 50 percent.

Well, again, as um Commissioner Orion stated, it has to be within the setbacks, which is five on the sides, ten in the front, twenty in the rear.

Um, for the existing R6.

There it has for the individual building size, there's not a stipulation there, but anything in front of the house.

As uh Commissioner Orion was saying, fifth only fifty percent of it can be impervious coverage, meaning uh driveways and sidewalks.

But the house itself could be um two and a half stories, correct?

Correct.

So they could put in a two and a half story home there.

There's nothing that we can but you know that's but yes.

Yeah.

We can't stop them from building a two-story.

As long as it's within the setbacks, we're fine.

All right.

Well, thank you very much.

Okay, appreciate y'all.

Thank you.

Uh is there any uh uh the other speaker?

Vanessa Maldonado?

No, not really.

That's all right.

No voicemails?

That's all public comment.

Yes, Commissioner Dean.

Is the house historical?

Like uh they had to keep like the facade or the roof structure or it's not a historical district, but OHP we'll have to review as part of the demolition permit.

Okay.

It's what anything older than 25 years, it gets tagged or 30 years or something.

I believe it's all of them.

I was under the impression any demolition, yes, oh it's involved.

Okay.

So thanks for that clarity.

All right, if if there's nothing else, I'm looking for a motion.

Well, could I ask a question?

Yes, Commissioner Bracken.

Could the applicant come back up?

Come back up, sir.

And we do also have some uh last minute public comment that the applicant just provided them to get it on the projector right now.

Okay.

I I thought I heard you say that the building was gonna be on the same footprint of the existing house.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Uh we included the carport in as part of the existing footprint.

To be changed because that sort of answers the questions from the neighbor.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

And there's uh late notice.

The first one is within 200 feet.

Can you show it on the on our monitors here?

And the second one is also within 200 feet.

Can you bring that there you go?

Both of them indicating well, a third one.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Third one also within 200 feet.

All right, looking for a motion.

Stevens.

Commissioner Stevens.

Regarding case number BOA-25-1030131.

I move that the Board of Adjustment Grant 2,130 square foot variance from the minimum 6,000 square foot lot size to allow for a development of 3,870 square foot lots situated 207 Helena Street applicant being Armondo Zurzer 2.

Because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we have determined show that the physical character of this property is such that the literal enforcement of the provision of the unified development code as amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

Specifically, we find that one, the variance is not contrary to the public interest because open space is preserved and maintains adequate light and air circulation.

Two, due to the special conditions, the literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship because the substandard lot size present prevents any redevelopment opportunities under the current zoning, regardless of compliance with the UDC standards with other other UDC standards.

Three, by granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done as the redevelopment of the home will meet the minimum required front side and rear setbacks.

Four, the variants will not authorize the operation of a use other than those uses specifically authorized in the zoning district in which the variance is located.

No uses other than those allowed within the district will be allowed with this variance.

Five such variants will not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming property or alter the essential character of the district in which the property is located because the existing home is situated on one of four substandard lots in the intermediate area in the immediate area.

Six, the plate of the owner of the property for which the variance is sought is due to the unique circumstances existing on the property, and the unique circumstances were not created by the owner of the property and are not merely financial and are not due to the result of general conditions in the district in which the property is located.

The property was subdivided into a s into a substandard lot and the home has been historically established since 1930.

End of motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Bagman.

Commissioner Stevens.

I'll be in favor of this.

So I'll be in favor.

Commissioner Bragman.

I agree with my colleague.

In addition to that, uh it'll be a nice brand new building.

Um improved property value.

So I think it's a win-win for the neighborhood and the city, so I'll be in support.

All right.

Any of the commissioners like to add?

Hearing Ann is a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Barrington.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibonnet.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

I concur.

Commissioner Manna.

I can I concur with the findings of facts.

Commissioner Benavides.

I concur.

Commissioner Azuna.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of fact.

Motion passes unanimously.

Congratulations.

Happen to have any questions you get with staff.

Last item.

Item 10.

Alrighty.

Item number 10 is case number BOA-25-103-00133.

The address being 11926 Rail Drive in Council District 10.

The applicant is Mark Hill, and this is a request for a 4 foot 6 inch variance from the minimum required 30-foot front setback to allow for a 25-foot 6-inch front setback limited to the 100 feet width of the southernmost building.

The zoning is I 1.

The subject property is located just west of the intersection of North Wiener Road and Wurzbach Parkway.

The building received a commercial building permit in October of 2023, and the setback standard was not caught during zoning technical review.

Side and rear setbacks are eliminated when abutting a non-residential use or zoned lot.

However, that does not apply to the front setback, which is a minimum 30 feet.

The property is in the middle of an industrial cul-de-sac surrounded by industrial uses and a railroad right-of-way to the rear.

Approximately six to eight feet of driveway exists past the property line prior to the street.

And so that kind of uh is exhibited here by that site plan.

Again, we're talking about the southernmost building, building number three.

Uh this was submitted as you can see by the red watermark in the top right corner of that site plan.

This was reviewed and approved by city staff.

Unfortunately, that front setback was not identified as noncompliant at the time of review.

Uh and this is just a closer look here, just to show again that site uh that front setback uh and the existing distance between the property line and the front of the sidewalk and the width of that right of way.

And here's the subject property, that building three that we're discussing here.

So that property line would exist somewhere within that uh hopefully soon to be green space uh before getting to that sidewalk there.

And the surrounding area, again, this is an industrial cul de sac.

Staff recommendation for the front setback variant.

Staff recommends approval in BOA-25-1030133 based on the following findings of fact.

One additional space exists past the front property line prior to the street to visually increase the front setback and not alter the essential character of the district.

Two, the irregularly shaped lot limits the space in the rear to properly abide by the front setback.

Staff mailed out 12 notices.

One was received in favor, that's the property immediately to the north.

Uh zero in opposition, and there is no registered neighborhood association within the notification area.

And here is the notice of favor that we uh received.

This concludes staff's presentation.

The applicant is present.

All right, thank you.

Let's have the applicant come forward.

All right, please state your name and tell us about your setback.

Uh, my name is Mark Hill.

I'm representing uh Mr.

Mullins on the property.

Uh we went through several rounds of uh plating.

It was an old plat with a 25-foot setback on it.

We re-platted it, maintained everything, just took away the interior lots into one big lot.

Uh 25-foot setback still on the plat, just wasn't caught during the replat, and that just propagated through the site plan review and then the building permit review.

Our our intent was to comply as much as possible with the 25-foot.

We still move the building back so we wouldn't encroach the setback line, and it wasn't until uh, you know, a potential buyer slash leaser, hey, uh you're you're not meeting the zoning requirement.

It was when it was brought to our attention.

That's why we're here today.

Um we we appreciate your your uh consideration on this matter as uh it's we're we're kind of it's done, the building's there.

Uh they're they're doing the they're scheduled to do their landscaping and and their build out on the the electrical, so uh kind of in a rough spot here with a building that's fairly large.

It would be uh very difficult at this point to make any kind of remedy.

Okay.

Any questions?

All right.

Is there any voicemails anyone sent to speak?

No public comment.

All right.

Well, thank you very much.

I'm looking for a motion.

Ozuna.

Commissioner Zuna.

Regarding case number B08-25-1030133.

I hope that the Board of Adjustment Grant requests for a four-foot-six-inch variance from the minimum required 30-foot front setback to allow a 25-foot-six-inch front setback limited to the hundred-foot width of the south southernmost building situated at 11926 rail drive.

Applicant being marked hill because the testimony presented to us.

And the facts that we determine show that the physical character of the property such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the UDC has amended would result in an unnecessary hardship.

Specifically, we find that one of the variants is not contrary to the public interest.

A sufficient space will remain for the proper front setback.

Two, due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship.

Uh, the space in the rear is limited due to the shape of the lot, and I would add that the uh improvements have already been constructed under the uh error that was not caught in the original uh submittals that were presented to the city.

Three, by granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done as only a limited fraction of the required front setback would be reduced.

Four, the variance would not authorize the operation of a use or then those use specifically authorized to the zoning district which the variance is located.

No uses other than those allowed within the district will be allowed with this variance.

Five such variants would not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent forming property or alter the essential character of the district in which the property is located.

A space exists past the property line prior to the street that would appear to increase the front setback.

And six, the plight of the owner of property with the variance of saw it is due to the unique circumstances existing on the property, and the unique circumstances were not created by the owner of the property.

They're not merely financial, not due to the result of general conditions of the district in which the property is located.

Staff lines with the plight of the owner of the property for its variance of salt due to the unique circumstances existing on the property, such as a space that exists past the property prior to the street and the regular irregular shape of the law and a motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Bragman.

Commissioner Zuna.

Yep.

So I am going to be in full support of the variants.

And he uh they testimony to us today that they submitted uh the plan in Platts that uh unfortunately carried through this error.

There was no um mal will and on the applicant's intent.

And the I think the hardship here is that the improvements are already completed and to uh kind of correct this uh setback would be a uh very costly hardship for the applicant.

Commissioner Bragman.

I agree with my colleague.

In addition to that, the applicant stated that they were the ones that brought forth the uh the variants that needed to be uh sought.

So I'll be in support.

All right.

Is it anyone else like to add?

I'm gonna go on a limb and ask for a voice vote.

All in favor on this, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing on.

Motion passes unanimously.

Congratulations.

If you happen to have any questions.

Okay.

All right.

Uh last item is the minutes.

Um I didn't see any corrections needed uh on my review.

So vote for approval.

I have a motion by Commissioner Maz or a second.

Second, second by Commissioner Barrington.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed any opposed?

Hearing none, motion passes.

That brings us to director's report.

Mr.

Chair, I do have an update.

Uh I wanted to make everyone aware that um over the next several weeks there's going to be some transitioning.

I'm not sure if you have heard, but Michael Shannon will be moving to Capital Delivery Department, which will be a new department specifically associated with bond projects for horizontal and vertical projects.

So he will be the new director over that department.

With that shift, um Amin Tamez will be our director for development services.

I'm going to be the deputy director, which means we are all shifting, and Logan Sparrow is the assistant director.

So unfortunately, Logan had to leave uh this afternoon, but I stuck around here to help deliver the message.

I want to thank you all for your opportunity of working with me and um sharing your experiences.

This has been a very long journey being on the land development side.

So now I will be shifting over to the code enforcement and field services division.

And this is this isn't not an interim one like you did with the uh animal department.

This is that is correct.

This is a permanent appointment that occurred um officially will take effect October 1st, but we're already transitioning responsibilities.

Did that did that used to be done by public works or TCI or right?

Um I don't know if many of you recall, but there used to be a capital improvement management services department along with that ran parallel with public works.

At some point in time, they became one, and now we're um I guess separating the departments into two.

I still call it TCI sometimes, though.

TCI uh transportation and capital improvement.

So yes, it many different names.

The departments are splitting again, and there will be a public works director that they are advertising.

Um Eric did mention that it's been advertised, and I think they're looking to fill that position for the public works director, but Michael Shannon will be the director of capital delivery department.

Well, that's good, that's good.

Um I hope wish y'all luck, and I know you've been doing this for so long, you're gonna be fine.

Um is there any other changes with the staff?

Anybody else?

Uh at this point, I think that's all that is changing.

Um if there are any additional changes, we will be sure to make any announcements um on that.

But I'm still here in the department.

If you need anything, several of you still have my contact information.

I'm still available.

Of course, Logan Sparrow is um well versed in land development, so he'll be right fit right in.

How are we doing on reappointments?

Uh reappointments, I believe though there's some out there that are still circulating.

Um I know there's has been many for zoning commission.

I haven't seen any coming out for the Board of Adjustments, but we can definitely reach out to the council office to follow up.

Yeah, because we some there's only one zoning.

One zoning the last uh council meeting, I think.

So one person in zoning, everybody else is somebody else.

So this is uh there are several I think on the um this Thursday's agenda to be appointed or reappointed for zoning.

I got reappointed on Thursday last week, so I I guess uh I get love these five-hour meetings.

They called and asked if I wanted to go to the meeting and I don't know.

The clerk's office typically leads those conversations um as the council office is the one who appoints planning commission.

We do get a little bit more involved because those are at-large appointments, uh, but these you're appointed by the council office.

So the council office would take the lead and then of course the clerk's office.

So if you haven't already, contact your council office and touch base.

All right.

Well, that's I think that's it.

If there's nothing else, no, sir.

That would be all for me.

It is still a three in front of it.

346.

We're adjourned.