San Antonio Planning Commission Meeting - August 27, 2025

The San Antonio Planning Commission convened on August 27, 2025, at 2:00 PM with a quorum present. The meeting covered the consent agenda and a single contested individual hearing item (Item 13) regarding a plan amendment for a micro wedding venue in the Camp Bullis Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ).

Consent Calendar

• The consent agenda was approved unanimously (8-0). Commissioners Orion and Bustamante recused themselves from consent items 6 and 11, respectively, and left the room during that portion of the meeting.

Public Comments & Testimony

This section covers Item 13, which received extensive public testimony.

• Staff Presentation (Clayton Wallace): Staff recommended denial of a request to amend the Camp Bullis ETJ military protection plan from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial for an 8.5-acre property at 8860 Cross Mountain Trail. Staff cited concerns that community commercial allows detrimental uses (e.g., oil change shops, liquor stores, tire sales) that cannot be controlled through zoning. Of the notices mailed to nearby properties, 48 opposed the request and 8 supported it. Joint Base San Antonio (JBSA) reviewed the plan and had no objection.
• Applicant (Emily Weissler, representing owners Rico & Genevieve Zayas): The applicant argued the amendment is a limited scope change tied to the military protection plan, distinct from traditional zoning. The property operates a micro wedding venue (Vineyo 88) with a capacity of 120 people and has operated for over a year without complaints or incidents. They emphasized the low traffic (1-1.5 weddings/month), low water usage (property is not irrigated), and a willingness to enter restrictive covenants to permanently limit future commercial uses. The owners stated they were initially told by the county the use was allowed because they resided on the property.
• Public Speakers (All Opposed):
  • Sheila Gomez Mira (22626 East Range): 22-23 year resident. Opposed, citing the loss of the area's quietness, nature, and dark skies. Raised concerns about noise, lighting, and traffic.
  • George Richmond (22830 Central Prairie): 37-year resident. Strongly objected, citing water well drought impacts, traffic increases, and the incompatibility of commercial use with the one-to-three-acre lot community. Argued commercial use would destroy the community environment.
  • Edward Butler (8830 Cross Mountain Trail): Adjacent neighbor. Described the area as a high-value wooded retreat where homes range from $500,000 to $2 million. Called a commercial enterprise "anathema" and highlighted road safety issues on the single-lane road.
  • Robin Butler (8830 Cross Mountain Trail): 27-year resident. Testified to hearing loud music from the venue and witnessing frequent vehicle accidents on the dangerous curves.
  • Mary Massey (23724 Up Mountain Trail): 32-year resident. Opposed for safety (reporting drunk drivers leaving the venue), infrastructure overload, reduced property values ($5,000 vs. $11,000 property tax), and loss of aesthetics.
  • Richard Camaro (23137 Adams Crossing): Raised safety concerns about limited sight distance on the two-lane, winding road with no shoulders.
  • Natalie Nathan (23225 Eagle Gap): 13-year resident. Emotional testimony opposing the disruption of a family-oriented, animal-friendly sanctuary. Concerned about the potential expansion of commercial activities and marketing of glamping.
  • Lee Ryle (9015 Cross Mountain Trail): 34-year resident. Cited a dramatic increase in traffic and a major accident involving a rebar truck. Warned against the 'slippery slope' of allowing commercial zoning in the residential area.
• Applicant Rebuttal: Reiterated the venue is low-traffic and low-water usage. The owner (Genevieve Zayas) stated events stop at 10 PM, there have been no noise complaints, and it is their forever home. They requested support for the amendment.

Discussion Items

• Item 13: Camp Bullis ETJ Military Protection Plan Amendment (8860 Cross Mountain Trail) The commission extensively debated the request. Key points included:
  • Conflict between Existing Use and Potential Uses: Commissioners expressed concern that approving 'Community Commercial' could allow intensive commercial uses (gas stations, liquor stores) in the future if the property is sold. The applicant offered to enter restrictive covenants to limit uses, but commissioners noted this is not a binding zoning tool under the city's purview.
  • Jurisdictional Complexity: The property is in the ETJ, outside city limits. The city's authority derives solely from the military installation protection plan. The county fire marshal is the primary permitting authority.
  • Deed Restrictions / HOA: Commissioner Orion noted the property might be subject to deed restrictions from the Cross Mountain subdivision HOA, given a prior replat from Unit 1. The applicant asserted the 8.5-acre venue lot is not subject to those HOA restrictions. Commissioner Orion requested this be thoroughly clarified if the item returned.
  • Continuance Proposed: Commissioners Mylam and Bustamante suggested the item be continued to allow the applicant time to work with the community and the HOA on restrictive covenants.

Key Outcomes

• Item 13 (Plan Amendment): The Planning Commission voted unanimously (9-0) to continue this item to the September 24, 2025 meeting. The continuance was intended to allow the applicant additional time to work with the HOA and neighboring property owners to establish restrictive covenants addressing community concerns and to clarify deed restriction issues raised by the commission.