So before we proceed with today's cases, I'd like to offer a few words of explanation.

Uh this board follows an agenda which is available online.

The cases are listed by a 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 director's report.

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

I asked 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, competent in the rules and regulations governing the city zoning codes and other codes and aspects pertaining to this area.

This is an administrative body and not a court of law.

We only examine the facts pertaining to the relief sought, 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're clearly defined in Chapter 211 of the Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 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 to determination made by an administrative official in the enforcement of Chapter 32 to hear and decide special exceptions allowed under Chapter 35 and to authorize 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 the city council under Chapter 21 of the Texas Local Government Code.

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

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

Each member will be asked to vote on the motion.

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

The burden of proof and granting the relief slot rests with the rest with the applicant.

Appeals from the decisions 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 to the pertinent facts of your case.

Staff.

Two people giving out their time for a total of nine minutes.

And just one additional request for uh four-week continuance is item number seven.

All right.

Thank you.

So let the record show that Commissioner Stevens has joined the meeting.

We now have ten seated commissioners seated.

The first is item number two, which is requesting a continuance to October 20th.

If I can read answer the record real quick, um item number two BOA 150, request by Mitchell Gonzalez for an appeal for the administrative decision to revoke an application permit located on 704 Coneyway.

Staff recommended denial requesting a four-week continuance to October 20th.

All right.

No public comment.

All right.

Is there a commissioner like to make a motion?

Motion for continuous to October 20th.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, motion passes.

The case is continued uh to uh October 20th.

The next one uh is item number eight.

They're asking for a four-week continuance till October 20th.

This is gonna be their third continuance or second.

This will be the third one.

Their third continuance.

And at this point, just staff would recommend this just be postponed and re-advertised due to the amount of time from our initial notice.

Um that's what staff would recommend.

Okay, is there any has staff received any additional information regarding this case uh since the last time it was brought up?

No additional public comments.

And has the applicant requested uh a specific reason for the additional time?

I believe he's all um or they're still working with the neighborhood association if I understand it correctly.

Okay.

So uh what that means is that staff is asking for us to postpone this, which means there's a readvertising fee.

Correct, 200.

Okay.

And um, because this is their third time.

So uh if there is uh do we need to make a motion to postpone?

No motion needs to be made.

Um, but just so the applicant is not having to wait around if your decision is to not hear the case so they can know.

Okay.

All right.

Well, then if there's no other uh commentary from the board, I guess we can just move on to the next uh request, unless somebody wants to make a motion for continuance.

All right, hearing none.

So the item has been postponed and will be readvertised.

Uh the next item is I believe it was item number seven seven, and they're requesting till when.

Um so October 20th also, and I'll read it in real quick.

BOA 25164 request by Kimberly De Vault for an appeal for the administrator's decision to revoke an applicant short-term rental on 1211 South Pine.

Staff recommend denial, recommend a four-week continuance to October 20th.

All right, is no voicemails or anyone's time to speak?

No public comment.

Manna.

Commissioner Manna.

So um so can the city read in um the record that was submitted online or or the in the support documentation.

Can we review that?

Because there are some questions with regards to that case and maybe few or some subsequent cases here that we're gonna talk about today.

So can we at least show um what was submitted in our in our docket in our packet?

You guys, and it was submitted uh, I guess in uh this afternoon, and it had the um the comments provided by the applicant.

You talk about the public comments, sir?

Um yeah, I guess it's public comments or is it yeah, I guess with public comments provided by the applicant.

There we go.

So um no, that's not it yet.

So I'm looking forward.

So in the in the document package that was sent to us, summary of events, STR permit revocation.

There we go.

So um so today we have a bunch of cases with regards to short-term rentals, and when I came across this, you know, the I guess I just had a question overall.

Um, you know, if the city has any comments to this particular letter, and and then would any of this apply to subsequent notes, because I thought they were kind of relevant between this case and maybe the other ones.

Yeah, I would like to address this case too.

Uh along with the others uh on our agenda today.

Uh the first case, not this one, but the first one case number 15 uh 59.

The uh supporting materials say the applicant failed to pay the hotel occupancy tax from August 24 through February 25.

Next case number 161.

The applicant failed to pay the hot from August 24 through February 25.

Next case, 162.

August 24 through February 25.

Last case, 164 or August 24, and then October 24 through February 25.

Now that is an amazing coincidence of the dates, if it is a coincidence.

And so it really causes me to wonder if there might not be some kind of glitch.

Uh what when was the system reset?

Was that July?

Uh regarding when we transition to Avenue?

Yeah.

Uh, we transition to Avenue in June of 2023.

Okay.

Um, it still strikes me as an amazing coincidence of the dates involved.

And I really think someone needs to look into that.

In terms of them not remitting hot taxes for those periods?

Yes.

Um, we can look into it, but again, as mentioned before, when a permit is issued, we do identif explain to them that they are responsible for reporting hot taxes on a monthly basis.

And we do provide them their taxpayer ID.

Additionally, all these properties have received notices of delinquency for these periods, and some have come in compliant and become current while others fail to report their hot taxes.

So you're not really addressing my my issue.

I I can explain nothing in our system.

Okay, we're I'm gonna stop this right now because we need to get back on track.

What I would like staff to do uh is um, you know, we have a commissioner is raised a concern about about some um things that look a little odd with the dates, um, and the staff could look into that because we're gonna they'll be brought up during the cases as they get brought up.

I just don't want to get off track for this continuance as before us right now.

Uh I know Commissioner Manna had a a question regarding.

Was there a specific question?

Right.

Well, just that the so my question was there are points brought up here, and are those could be subsequent points brought up in in the next cases.

And so I didn't want to lose this because I was actually hoping to move this to the first case so we can kind of whittle through some of the dialogue before we got to the subsequent cases, and just saw some notes here about we'll say some consistencies, you know, with regards to how things are reported, and just want to make sure that that's unique to this case versus something that's say maybe a little bit uh larger, I guess, with the other cases as well.

Okay.

So for uh for item seven, there there is a number of issues.

Uh is they require are is there a request for a continuance to specifically address any of these issues?

Chair.

Yes.

Uh this Ivineus.

Um I I understand our uh Commissioner's concern, but I think we should look at each one individually and just vote on the continuance.

So this so item seven is under continuance.

Uh the the what's on the screen right now are are items specific to this issue.

And so I think uh as Commissioner Mann, are you are you uh not in support of a continuance?

I'm fine with the continuance, but I just want to make sure that this wasn't lost in dialogue that may have been brought out, you know, given the other the other cases are coming forward.

And I would just want to make sure that we're consistent.

I do agree with uh um uh with um my fellow colleague down there with regards to each case is unique, but you know, I just saw this and then uh just want to make sure.

Okay.

Well, uh if there's no if there's no one against the continuance, I'm looking for a motion to continue item seven, October 20th.

So moved.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Bragman, all in favor?

Uh any opposed?

Hearing none, uh motion is continued to uh October 20th, uh which brings us And I'm sorry, one more uh continuance is brought up for item number three, the same date for October 20th.

Um we can read it in real quick.

B08 251030155 request by Jennifer Reese Hollinger for a special exemption to a law one additional type two short-term rental permit on the block base located at 3311 Warring Street, staff recommended denial, recommended four-week continues to October 20th.

This is a lot of continuances to October 20th.

Is there any specific reason on this one?

Um the applicant have some scheduling issues.

Is the applicant present?

They are not present.

Okay.

Uh next week.

Uh we can how how is our how's our uh agenda looking for the 20th versus uh next week on Tuesday?

Um so next week Tuesday is pretty full.

Um the 20th is actually a pretty good day because we're only got uh seven total new applications.

So three.

So we'll have eleven total if we have this one continued also.

Okay, and you're in you're just getting these, you know, right now by email or something.

Yes.

Jeez.

Okay.

Is is uh does anyone on the commission want to uh make a motion for continuance or do we want to look at this?

I motion.

All right, we have a motion by commissioner uh even as to October 20th is our second.

Second by Commissioner Bragman, all in favor.

Any opposed who was in A.

Okay, Commissioner.

So we have uh 104 uh 941 against motions continued.

Which brings us to item number one.

Cause uh this is uh BOA-25-1030135.

Address is 1031 South Giver Street, Council District 2.

Applicant is Shavani ready, and this is a request for a special exception to allow one additional type 2 short-term rental permit on the block face.

Subject properties located 10 31 South Gebber Street.

Surrounding uses include residential single family.

The applicant is seeking a special exception to allow one additional type two on the block face per section three five-three seven four point zero one.

Type two short-term rentals shall be limited to no more than one-eighth or twelve and a half percent of the total number of residential units on the block face block face has four units, one active type two short-term rental already existing at 1023 South GEVERS.

Block face density is currently at 25% with an additional type two.

Uh the this block face will be at 50% exceeding the 12 and a half percent limitation.

No investigation permitting or active listing history.

This is the site plan, subject property, and surrounding properties.

Uh staff recommends denial for the uh of the applicant's uh request for a special exception.

And this is the notification plan.

39 notices were mailed.

Uh zero in favor, zero in opposition.

Denver Heights Neighborhood Association has responded in opposition, um, which is the reason for the continuance.

Um three citywide groups were notified with no response.

All right.

Manna.

Commissioner Manna.

So I bel I seem to recall that um Denver Heights had provided a written statement in the last meeting, but I didn't see it in today's packet.

So was there a new position provided by the um by Denver Heights, or are we relying on the one for the prior meeting?

Uh they did provide a second one.

I can pull it up.

Okay, thank you.

All right, is the applicant present?

Uh why don't you come on up and while we're waiting for that to be brought up.

If you could state your name.

Hi everybody, this is Kushbusharma.

I'm representing for uh Shivani Redia and myself.

Okay.

And um, so we raised this application and we were there at the last meeting on the 18th, and we explained that um we weren't aware of the process where the city needs to have like a 12% volume, and this is the first time we were doing the Airbnb in the city area, so we just weren't aware of the rules of the 12%.

We also tried to explain that uh the 12% is calculated on the basis of just four houses, which we did not think at all.

And then the other house would in fact the one which is doing the Airbnb is uh the uh the driveway of that other house is on the other side.

So this was our application when we told the Denver Heights that um our houses facing like the three houses are facing one block phase, and the one which is doing the Airbnb is on the side, their driveways on the side.

So we we literally like set up the whole thing, and uh we spoken to some of the local cafes and everybody to promote the uh area, and we wanted to do better for the city, and honestly, like just for our new business and work that we wanted to do.

Me and my partner, we put in a lot of money, and then later on we came to know that these are the limits.

So first we checked with the HOA as well, and we knew that there was no HOA, and we took it as an investment property.

So we we were checking the boxes by the rules, is what we thought, but uh like only towards the end we came to know about this.

So we took out the loans and all of that from our 401k, and uh we also um did a lot of work on the house and like putting up together the for the rules and regulations and stuff.

We also have the Airbnb, which is not in the city, but we are following all the rules over there as well.

So this is just like a learning mistake, I would say that we didn't know about, but uh but we could take like full responsibility of like if it is approved and we take full responsibility that we live around here and we would be present for anything that goes wrong or goes south.

We also have approvals from our neighbors, and uh we have sent it to the city as well, um, stating that they are okay with us doing the Airbnb and it will not cause any problems to them.

Okay, uh so I'll let me start with some questions.

It looks like you purchased this home in May.

Yes.

Okay, and so the other uh the other uh short term was issued in January, four months prior.

That is correct.

And once it's issued, how's how soon before it shows up on your GIS pretty instantly?

Uh 24 hours after it's issued.

Okay.

And for the applicant, is this do you have any other uh Airbnbs or short-term rentals anywhere else?

Um so the one the my friend who's doing it, yes, she has, but it is not in the city, so we were not aware that there were city registrations that we need to in Bear County?

No, it's in Austin.

Austin it's in Georgetown, actually.

Okay.

And uh any questions from the commission.

Staff, is there another short-term rental that's that's facing the the street on the side, which is a point that was raised by the applicant?

Uh um Aranzis Avenue.

Chair, while we're waiting for that, may I ask a question?

Sure, of course.

Um did you get an opportunity to meet with the Denver Heights neighborhood association?

We did, yes.

We uh put up our case and we tried to explain to them that it's just the four houses that are calculated for the radius, but we submitted all the documentation and everything to them, but I'm not sure.

I think we were on a FaceTime call or like a Zoom call, so we were not able like there were some connection issues and stuff, and we were not able to probably put forth the idea to them to explain it better, but we sent out all the documents to them, yes, but they denied it.

Okay, so staff just brought up the map.

There is another one on Aranzas.

Uh was the address at the hard corner, was that ever changed to be off of uh GEVERS?

Or was it always off of uh GEVERS?

Do you know?

The reason why I'm asking is I'm wondering if they had the address changed so they couldn't have a different block phase so they could get it a short-term rental.

Yeah, we it looks like it was always addressed off of keepers.

All right, Commissioner Zuna.

Yeah, Mr.

Chair, can could we see the um the the neighbors um support for the project?

If we could see the and just to let you know, uh, we are also doing a lot of things with the neighbors together with the neighbors to uh keep the property clean and you know maintain it well, etc.

So we are we are constantly with them on that mana commissioner manna.

So um so one of the um so short-term rentals less than 30 days.

So have you had or tried any attempts to rent this property for more than 30 days?

Yeah, we put it up on Zillow and Craigslist and everywhere, but we haven't gotten anyone yet as yet, so we are paying from our pocket.

Okay.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Is there any voicemails or anyone sent up to speak on this?

No public comment?

Okay.

Okay.

While we're waiting on the uh documentation from the community, is there any other points you'd like to make or anything you want to?

No, sir.

Um I mean, we are we are really trying a lot to like build the community here and uh do a lot.

So I have spoken to a lot of small businesses around the city, and I am checking like a lot of meetup groups, etc.

to promote like whoever we could promote to the city, and like yeah, just that we're trying to make it work a lot more than just a business.

Um I mean we are we are really trying a lot to like build the community here and uh do a lot so I have spoken to a lot of small businesses around the city and I am checking like a lot of meetup groups etc to promote like whoever we could promote to the city and like yeah just that we're trying to make it work a lot more than just a business so it looks like there's four in support all right if there's no more questions I'm looking for a motion I'll take it commissioner Zuma regarding case number BOA-25-1030135 I move that the Board of Adjustment Grant a special exception to allow for one a type two short-term rental unit situated at 1031 South Giver Street applicant being Shavani already because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we determined show that the physical character of this property is such that a literal enforcement of provisions the UDC as amended would result in unnecessary hardship specifically we find that one that a the special exception will not materially endanger the public health or safety the board finds that the request to operate an additional short-term rental is unlikely to materially endanger the public health safety or welfare.

There's nothing obvious that would distinguish the short-term rental versus a long-term rental at this facility.

B the special exemption does not create a public nuisance.

There's not does not appear to be a reason to believe a public nuisance would be created if additional short-term rental permit was approved.

See the neighboring property would not be substantially injured by such proposed use.

The neighboring properties consist of single family and multifamily structures.

Second by Commissioner Manna, Commissioner Azuna.

Right.

So I'm gonna be in support of the motion as read.

Um we did see testimony or uh uh testimony from the neighboring properties that would be most affected there on Giever Street for that were in support of the project.

Uh we did see Deborah Heights uh opposition, but it was a general opposition in my in my consideration it did not specifically address issues specific with this variance request.

And so I you know if I understand the the neighborhood uh just generally opposes short-term rentals.

I just didn't see how it was specific to this particular property.

And lastly, the existing short-term rental that is on the block, the driveway faces Aranzas Avenue and really could be addressed most likely on a Ranzas versus Gievers Street, and uh given the applicant the opportunity to have a short-term rental.

So with that said, I'm supporting the motion as read.

Commissioner Manna?

Um I am not gonna be in agree with my colleague here.

I apologize for that.

Um so for a couple of reasons.

Um is that that you know the community uh is in opposition, so so that's one.

And two, um every other house from this lot, um, you know, so basically within like three hundred feet, there's um five more um or or four more short-term rentals.

And so that's pretty dense for you know a pretty small area, and so uh for my perspective that's not um consistent with what I think the city of San Antonio is trying to accomplish here.

So I will not be voting in favor.

All right, any of the commissioners like to add uh I I'm gonna close by and I was you know, I normally am uh if if the neighbors are in support, I'm usually in support.

This one's a little different for me only because um, you know, you this wasn't like an accidental permit issued.

Uh it was something that was a purchase and and it and then pursued after afterwards from scratch, so I have a little trouble with that.

Uh and and the both block phases are also represented by short-term rental.

So I don't I don't think I'm gonna be in support of of this particular one.

Let's have roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Zena?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Mana.

I do not concur with the finance of fact.

Commissioner Barrington?

No, I do not concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

No, I do not concur.

Commissioner Ivaneth.

No, I do not concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I do not declare.

Commissioner Bregman.

No, I do not concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Bonieth.

No, I do not.

Chair Orion.

And I do not concur.

Motion fails one to nine.

If you have any questions, you can get with staff.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Looks like we're on item number four already.

All right.

This is BOA-25-1030159.

Address is 7630 Cascade Oak, Council District 7.

Applicant is Roberto Bogron.

And this is an appeal of the administrator's decision to revoke the short-term rental permit located at 7630 Cascade Oak, which is a type 2 short-term rental.

Subject properties located at 7630 Cascade Oak.

Surrounding uses include residential, single family.

As of March 10th, 2025, platforms that directly remit HOT also now directly remit City Hot to the city's Finance Department.

This includes major platforms such as Airbnb and Verbo.

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

All STR operators are still required to continue to file reports and pay Bear County HOT through Avenue on a monthly basis.

Commissioner Cruz, can you hear us?

And if you can turn on your camera.

Okay, and this and it wasn't a renewal of the initial issuance.

Correct.

Okay.

And do you it's is uh other than the initial permit?

And do you it's is uh other than the initial permit, does the staff have any any uh history of of having emails returned or communication with the applicant?

None that we have received, no.

Okay, because I I you know I from what I'm hearing from the from the rest of my fellow commissioners, you know, when we hear these sort of cases, I think it would be important to find out uh when it was issued originally, if it was a renewal, and then and then again, has there been any evidence of of actual correspondence with with the applicant?

Because a lot of these are all based on I didn't get a renewal notice or I didn't know what happened, you know, or there are there's some issue with the transition from a different system.

But if we um I'm really trying to find if you happen to have any evidence that that there was communication flowing back and forth uh just for our benefit.

So Commissioner Man.

And then maybe one more thing to add is you know, so I think having maybe a table with those dates kind of laid out, I think that would be relevant for me just so I can kind of reading lots of words versus just a short synopsis would be beneficial.

And maybe to include, and maybe it's not relevant, but but maybe kind of relevant is were they actually having short-term rentals during those monthly periods to know that you know it's uh because I think there's a difference for when it is truly not paying hop tax versus um just not filing um you know, and I think that would be a difference.

Is there any other commissioners have a question for staff before we have the applicant come forward?

We also have a presentation from the finance department regarding the hot as well.

Well, would you all like to hear that first?

Sure.

Let's hear that first, please.

Um, this is what we see in Avenue, and as you can see, the address is um the mailing address and the physical address of the applicant.

This is their filing.

Um their first filing was in April 2024 and it covered for three months.

And then it continues where they reported late, they keep reporting late and uh trying to catch up from previous months, and it's a pattern.

Go through.

Um right here it shows that they paid their bear county hots but didn't pay for the city of San Antonio.

They paid the taxes for bear county but not for the city.

Okay.

When an applicant pays their hot tab, sorry to interrupt you, but when they pay their hot tax, is it a separate completely separate between the city and the county, or do you all collect and then give to the county?

So the city has an interlocal agreement with Bear County to collect on their behalf.

So we do collect and then we do send them their money.

So any time that they're short on the city, they are short on the county.

Correct.

Okay.

And then does it does this show if there's been a change of email contact uh during the last year or whatever?

I have the letters that show what we have on file for them, and it stayed current the whole time.

Okay.

Because really the premise of a lot of these are I didn't get the email, so things could be like maybe I changed my email address or something or a new I signed it to a new person to help me with something.

I mean I'm that's fine.

Regarding the contact information, so whatever email address or mailing address they provided when they applied for the application, that's the information that we utilize for both the permitting side and the hot side.

Unless they're we received an email from the applicant or owner that that contact room has been changed or needs to be updated, that's the contact information that we utilize.

If an applicant, if if uh if an STR permit holder needed to update and for do they have to update it only with one source, or is it going to multiple people for an update?

Uh we updated on our side and we can also reach out to Avenue to update on that side as well.

Okay, I'm I'm just trying to figure out what it takes.

Like, do they have to notify multiple people or is it just you guys?

They can notify us because we communicate that to Avenue.

Um if they reach out to Avenue, we recommend they still reach out to DSD since we kind of oversee the permitting side of it.

All right.

And Commissioner Mann.

If I may kind of getting to your question, the email address that was used for the purpose of obtaining the permit, we do have multiple correspondences with the applicant.

Um additional information required, received.

So we have reason to believe that that is an appropriate email address.

All right.

And the last slide, Sean, is the actual email that goes out to the owners.

Um and if you look in the middle of the slide, it tells you the only way to change it or um stop getting the reminder emails, you actually have to go in and request that.

If an email ever gets kicked back, do you do you see that?

I don't think it would be someone from Avenue probably, but we don't see it.

Okay.

I'm just asking because I know the city has some security on their email, so I didn't know if if there was an issue, if you would even know there was one or not.

No, so again, the email that's on file is the email address they used to obtain the permit.

All right.

Any questions from staff regarding the presentation?

Could could we go back to the slide that shows their payment history?

Um that one.

Thank you.

So it looks like they ceased operations or uh since they got their revocation.

Seeing a bunch of zeros.

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

Any other questions?

Well, this has been most informative.

Thank you very much.

Um, let's have the applicant come forward.

A lot to take in.

You're the first one of the day to get to get all this good stuff.

So you could please state your name and tell us about your STR.

Yes.

Uh Roberto Bouran.

And uh, yeah, I'm the one in charge of the 70C 7630 Cascade Oak.

And uh yeah, and just to say off the uh the record, sir, I did have a lot of trouble with Avenue.

Their system is very hard to navigate at times.

And um with the city, um, I didn't even know I had to pay both, to be honest with you.

And uh that's just part of what I wanted to say.

But okay.

Thank you.

And uh so members of the commission I'm here respectfully to uh request that you reconsider your decision to revoke my short-term rental for the property at 7630 Cascade Oak.

Um basically uh I understand the importance of compliance with the regulations, right?

And community concerns, and I don't like this, I don't take the situation lightly.

Unfortunately, me and my wife were experiencing uh really significant financial hardship.

I lost my job back in uh November of 2023, and uh for a person my age, it's uh been extremely hard to land the job.

Now they have a new thing where they from what my wife was telling me, where artificial intelligence just if you don't do your resume a certain way, they just reject it and I'll send more than 200.

So I guess I have to get with somebody who's more knowledgeable about that.

But uh, you know, um I'm currently studying to get a health and life insurance license, and um I'll be ready for the test in October at the beginning.

So that should help me get back on my feet.

Meanwhile, my wife started a cleaning business for Airbnbs, and uh it's starting to slowly move, and uh that's gonna help us out a lot too, sir.

Um basically I'm up to date with all my payments again.

I the only time I I heard about the revoking of the license was when I got an email and I was like in shock, you know.

I didn't if I would have had something physical like a letter, yes.

I would have definitely taken steps like, but I never got that letter.

Um I don't know why.

Like I said, Avenue is kind of hard to deal with.

I called them the other day.

I'm not sure, correct me if I'm wrong, but uh I saw uh uh address in Alabama or I don't know if that's where they're located.

So it would have been easy if uh I would have got a letter, I wouldn't I would have acted a long time before that to be in compliance, because uh I mean I'm not the kind of person who takes anything like this lightly, sir.

So um, and then another thing without me having a job and my wife too, it's been a lot of maintenance issues, you know, big things and not little ones.

We had to replace two AC units.

We had to do two uh what do you call that when uh uh foundation repairs, which and they're not cheap at all, and other things that have before I put that property into the short-term rental, it was a rental, just a normal rental.

But uh they I had a lot of problems with my tenants, and I had to fix the house, putting a lot of money that basically that's where I'm at the same time.

So let me ask you, is this your only short-term rental property?

No, I have two other more.

Okay, but uh they're outside the city.

So you don't deal with avenue on those?

Yeah, I do.

But uh, I mean the taxes are not that expensive.

Then for this this only one for 7630.

Okay, and you've had this one since January 24th of 24.

Okay.

All right, any questions from the commission?

Uh Commissioner Braggman.

This is actually for staff.

Did we see copies of physical letters that had been sent out in in the presentation?

So there were letters that were physically sent out.

Yeah, we'll go ahead and pull up the presentation so you can see the letters.

And this shows letters that were sent to 323 Colin Colin Avenue.

Yes, ma'am, that's where I live.

That was mainly mainly avenue letters, yes.

Those are the only letters that I really get, and they're kind of like repetitive letters, and you know, balancing your expenses and what you have to pay, you know.

It's sometimes you just can't make it.

Are there so just are you you did receive the letters?

Yeah, I did receive the avenue letters, yes, sir.

Manna, Commissioner Manna?

For this city staff here.

Actually, two of them.

So one is um so as mentioned that it did say from Alabama, and so is it possible where we could talk to the uh this organization about getting like some local representation, so it is coming from the city of San Antonio, so it makes a little bit more sense.

Is that a possibility at all?

I mean, it it they are contracted with the city of San Antonio, and the letter includes the city of San Antonio's seal on it.

Okay, okay.

I see that, but you know, just trying to address you want a comments, given then the other uh question I had.

So currently um the city of San Antonio doesn't have any trainingslash certification courses that that we administer for people entering short-term rentals, correct?

So essentially it's through the online stuff, or do we actually have courses?

Yeah, so at the time that the system switched, uh, we did offer in-person and virtual training courses.

The finance department who was present.

I don't want to solely speak for y'all, so jump in if I say this wrong.

We continue to publish online training guides uh on how to register a hotel occupancy tax account, how to make the payments on a monthly basis.

We've created FAQ documents, video guides, and then staff is still available to assist people if they're struggling with that.

What I will say so as to avoid confusion and streamline the process as best as possible, when applications for short-term rentals are submitted to development services department, we'll confirm with the applicant the information, and then we'll actually create the hotel occupancy tax account for them, and we provide them alongside their permit their hot number as well as the directions on how to log in and pay and contact information if there are questions as they go to do that.

So when someone does take that training, is it documented with regards to their their name and their email that they actually took that that that training course or just so that might be a suggestion is just to document that so that way we kind of had that in the background to know that yes, you know, there was an attempt there, at least the city reached out, and maybe the applicant you know can give feedback then on that training itself.

Certainly noted.

I I I probably similar to my comments I made at last meeting.

We have a very small staff to manage many thousands of short-term rentals.

So that would be delegating.

So the the final letter of revocation, does that come from avenue or from the city?

So after these notices are mailed, my staff proactively reaches out to all of the the recipients that are subject to revocation.

We offer a final two-week that's emailed from city staff to say you receive notices for these months, and if you do not solve this in two weeks, we will revoke your permit.

And if you do not solve this in two weeks, we will revoke your permit.

So that final warning, and then the action of revocation comes from the city.

Via email, both of them.

Yes.

Via yeah, whatever email they have on file.

That's correct.

Commissioner Barriton?

Yeah.

Um the issue of email versus uh paper letter once again.

Uh did you not send him a paper letter?

We sent nine paper letters that he just acknowledged having received.

We emailed in this case, we emailed, I believe it's nine paper letters that he acknowledged as having received.

And then the final action for revocation, which he also received, came via email.

So Mr.

Zuna?

Yes.

And and if the applicant is facing some kind of financial problems, would that window, that two week be an opportunity for him to reach out to the city to be able to arrange for payment or something?

I'm gonna let Zabrine speak to payment plan opportunities.

Yes, the city does offer payment plans.

Uh we do offer either a three, six or a nine month payment plan to come current on their taxes.

And in this situation, did the applicant reach out for any kind of payment plan with the city to keep his did they reach out?

Yes.

No.

Thank you.

Bonias?

Yes, Commissioner Boone's.

On these avenue letters that are sent out, or payment plans on these avenue letters.

Or is there something there that says option for payment plans?

No, it's it's got a number to call to talk about paying payment generally.

It doesn't say the letter doesn't say you can enter into a payment plan, nor does it say you have to pay everything in one month.

Right.

It just describes the months you're missing and then contact information to make it.

Uh this one's for the applicant.

Sir, when you receive these letters, um and you and you read them and you saw it was on there, you know.

What was your course of action at that point when you did get the letters?

Yes, sir.

I only got those letters from Avenue.

Those are reminders, but as far as a letter from the city, no.

Okay, yeah, but when you got those and you read through that, what yeah, what was your quiz?

Well, I said maybe I can pay the some months, but I'm really I really have to pay CPS and SAWs first.

So, you know, it was just a juggling kind of thing.

Was revenue coming in from Cascade Oak at this time when you were getting the letters?

To be honest, sir, it was mostly going towards a mortgage payment.

Right.

If you knew that there was a payment plan in place somewhere on these letters, would that have maybe led you to reach out to the city and say, hey man, could I get on something that that would maybe help me out?

Definitely, sir.

I wouldn't, and I had no idea about that.

I'm sorry.

So okay, yeah, that's it.

I'm looking at the um any other commissioner questions?

Is there any voicemails or anyone sent to speak?

No, one uh speaker, uh Kyle Baker.

What we're gonna do is listen to uh someone sign up to speak and then we'll have you come back up.

Okay, thank you.

Hello, please state your name and tell us your thoughts.

Hi, uh, I'm Kyle Baker.

I am a resident that lives just down the street, actually next to the other short-term rental.

Um they're on Cascade Oak.

Uh and I just want to say, as part of this process, my wife and I actually went and spoke with a number of our neighbors and to see of the people living on the street along Cascade Oak who are directly affected by this property, what they had to say.

Three people did mail in letters for the or send in emails with statements, uh, but most of them that are on the street are actually renters, and these letters are only collecting comments from the property owners.

So in cases where you have a rental property, the people who actually have to live next door have no voice in this matter.

Uh and I think that that's something that maybe the city should look at addressing in the future.

Um but as far as this actual property goes, uh it actually operated as an Airbnb for a number of months prior to uh coming online with a permit.

Uh we we were monitoring it as soon as they started doing the renovations on the property for it.

Um and ever since that day, it has been constant problems with this property.

They have they have parking constantly on the sidewalks, uh, which block the sidewalks.

So my children um and other children in the neighborhood on their way of walking to uh Scobie Elementary would have to walk out into the street in the early mornings when there's low visibility because vehicles were parked there, uh including like a 30-foot gooseneck trailer with a bunch of uh ATVs one night.

I have pictures of that, I've submitted it to SAPD.

Um that trailer actually blocked the driveway for 7634 uh Cascade Oak.

That property is vacant, and for some reason the residents who rent at this particular Airbnb routinely park in that driveway.

The neighbors across the street have made comments about this, and somehow strains credulity that all of these guests are just spontaneously parking in the property next door that happens to be vacant over and over and over again without knowledge of the owner, I would presume.

Um trash is constantly left out on the curb.

We have our neighborhood rules state that the trash goes out on Mondays, it has to be rolled back within 24 hours.

That is not usually the case.

Trash cans get rolled out days in advance while they're overflowing, and all that trash that falls out onto the street blows into my yard ultimately because I live down the hill from them.

We've had multiple conversations with Gil who lives across the street from this property, and Gil has told me that he has spoken with the owner multiple times to let him know the problems that he's had with it.

There are constant large groups of church groups, business groups, like it's a it's a very active property with large numbers of people coming and going.

It's a loud property, there's lots of trash, there's lots of parking issues constantly.

Around this property, there's a number of vacant properties that have been listed as rentals for that have been vacant for a number of months now.

And I believe that part of the problem is nobody wants to live next to a short-term rental.

Um I do give credit to the woman that we heard earlier today who went and talked to her neighbors to get their feedback and make sure she was being a good host.

I believe that there are a number of good hosts that exist within this industry.

This is not one of them.

Like this is the first time I've met this owner.

We've we've reached out, we've talked with other neighbors.

No one like this this is not somebody who is being part of the community.

I understand the and appreciate the difficulties, the financial side of things, but if this property is a burden, you should just sell it and let it go back to being an actual rental, and maybe those other properties will fill in as well.

All right, thank you.

Uh, I have a question.

Is your age your HOA is not registered, but is it a mandatory HOA?

It is a mandatory HOA.

Um we have language in the uh deed restrictions that prohibit the operation of a business from the properties.

The state of Texas has clarified that if it does not explicitly say short-term rental, it doesn't count.

So but we have been in communication with the short with the Airbnb or with the uh I'm sorry, the HOA.

Um we most recently reached out because he has recently started advertising the neighborhood's amenities, the pools, tennis courts, things like that as amenities for his short-term rental, which is specifically not allowed by the um neighborhood and the neighborhood has been in communication with him about that.

All right.

Any com uh questions from the commission?

Actually, for staff.

Yes, Commissioner Bragman.

Um so who do the letters get not the letters for uh the approval or comment on a case?

Is it mailed to the addresses within 200 feet or the owners of the people within 200 feet?

The owners.

The owners.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Yes, Commissioner Benefits.

Are there any uh code compliance uh against this property?

Only code compliance invasion we had was back in June, uh January 2024 when they were operating out the permit.

It was substantially subsequently closed when they applied for a short-term rental permit at the property.

They're currently they are current on all taxes now, right?

He's caught up.

You can sit down.

No Dan.

How much is due?

Give us give us a couple minutes to calculate that one.

We can have the applicant come back forward.

Please chime in uh if I'm incorrect.

But it sounds like the issue is that they reported the revenue for the sake of the county tax, which is one point nine percent.

Um, but they reported for those same months that they reported revenue for the county taxes, they reported no income whatsoever for the city taxes.

So you okay.

I have a question about that.

So you can report revenue from one and not the other.

So, yeah, and in Avenue, you still have to report your revenues for city and county.

They're uh they're reported on the same screen, but it's a different kind of toggle for city and county.

So they had gone in and entered the revenue for the county taxes, but had entered no income for city taxes.

Okay.

Manna, sure, man.

Can you show that on the screen so I understand what is it, you know, visually, so I can kind of see that because I'm a little confused here.

Um so the app has to put data in two locations to calculate the tax city and county versus revenue and then two columns showing up, say here's your county tax versus city tax.

That's correct.

Well that's Tyler.

If we can put that on the That sounds like something that needs to be advanced, is that a well- I I will say it's something that works quite well for the vast majority of operators.

I I can appreciate that it's maybe not the most convenient, but that's the functionality for the contractor that we have.

If you see on the screen, you've got the same months reporting revenue for the county taxes, but reporting zero income for the city taxes.

So I was just looking for that line item that says here is my month here's the amount that I that I pay tax on or or that I had revenue and then subsequently you know I guess just trying to understand that part versus this part here.

So what the customer when they go online to the avenue portal they do have the option because we do service customers who are inside the city limits and who are only outside the city limits.

So what customers do is they click on the radio button that states I am outside the city limits and this bypasses them paying the San Antonio taxes.

Okay.

So if a property is inside the city limits and they miss correct they incorrectly click this box then that heads down this path here is correct.

So is that what the applicant did in this particular case is they selected the they selected the wrong radio button and therefore these line items did not come up.

So the system defaults to inside the city limits they need to click on the radio button that states I am outside the city limits okay so um the first month that an applicant inside the city limit um doesn't show shows zero revenue does the city um go and ask them did you click on the right radio button?

Yeah so I try to understand that miss here so that seems like a a a mission oh no the only time that the city will catch that they did not report correctly is when our compliance and resolution department goes out there and audits the account okay from a question for staff um prior to these delinquent months when he wasn't paying the city were there months before that where he was paying the city and county yeah prior him to him so at some point he knew city and county right he was paying city and county beforehand but then afterwards he just did nine months or however many months there of only county is that right yes sir did were you did you understand that beforehand because when you first started with Avenue you were paying city and county but then somehow just county only got paid yes sir that was when um I spoke to the Avenue people and they said yeah you have to do it this way they were not they were a little helpful but I mean they they could have done it in a more simple manner.

But what what I mean is beforehand I guess before these the city shows that you were paying both city and county through avenue when you first started right so but then at some point you stopped paying the city where was the confusion there?

If you do Airbnb and air and V RBO you have to you have to do something different there.

Manor Commissioner Manon so um if I heard correctly the applicant had correct had correctly clicked the right radio button in the beginning and then subsequently chose a different button so is that a button that you select every single month or or you know why would it why would it have been the case where in the beginning it wasn't and then later down the road it wasn't he selected the radio button every month.

So why is that an option?

So you know so it seems to me when the account is set up from the beginning it's not going to move inside the city or outside the movie that's already a done deal.

So it seems like once that's set, why would that be I guess an option never mind that was rhetorical question so yeah.

That's the way the software is designed.

Yeah I think I've messed with that avenue you know and it leaves a lot of responsibility on the the applicant or on the uh the operator a lot of it is uh on the operator understanding how to operate that system correctly what they're clicking what they're not clicking can I bypass something this month or you know but a lot of it is on the operator knowing that system very well it's not the friendliest system I agree with these guys but on there it's like okay I got I know I pay city I know I pay county like and I mean if it's was done at some point yeah so this this uh if this doesn't get passed today their their year starts in July it would start from when it was revoked which I believe was the end of July.

It would start from when it was revoked, which I believe was the end of July.

All right.

Did we get an update on on the total pest due?

It's $343 and eight things.

Three, I'm sorry.

I I didn't.

$34308.

$343?

Okay.

Sir, if could you get come up to date with with your Yes, sir.

Texas?

Okay.

I have uh the avenue where I pay.

And this is for August.

I went in this morning and I wanted to pay.

Can you give that receipt so we can project that up there?

So you're you're as they may not know this yet, but you're as far as you know that you're up to date.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

If I were not uh I'm uh I mean I'd I try to pay September, but it would not let me.

It would just show August 2025, and that's you can't go further than that.

Yeah, you kind of move that a little there you go.

So you paid $62, but you owe 348.

Yeah, I'm not sure where to get those figures, but I'm sure that's the one.

I'm I'm just I'm gonna we're we're not gonna calculate the outstanding tax payment here.

I I don't we we would need some time to look at that, and I don't want to put that on the record for what's in the past.

Well, I think that we've kind of talked about this enough.

Um if there's anything else you'd like to say in closing before we deliberate.

Yes, sir.

Um I really apologize to the gentleman who um who lives in Cascade Oak.

I had no idea that I mean I knew about the they have a shooting range closer there, and that's where he brought those ATVs.

That was a long time ago.

But um I called Gil and I said that's a neighbor who lives in front of me, and I said, Did those people bring a bunch of little, you know, those little things and and a big transporter, right?

And he says, yeah, and I said that you they have to move it immediately.

I I can't have that there.

I'm gonna get in trouble with the HOA and all the neighbors.

So I called him and I said you need to move that.

Then they moved it.

They said, no, this is just for right now, we're gonna move it immediately.

And they uh they moved it the next day, it was not and then never came back, right?

Yeah, I'm sorry about that.

Um I don't allow parties there, because it's in the rules.

Have you been cited by SAPD for blocking the sidewalk path across the driveway?

I have not, and I if I would, I mean I tell them you can park three cars in a driveway and one in front.

That's it.

Well, I'm I'm I'm just suggesting that since everyone knows that this is an occurrence that happens.

Yeah.

Phone calls can be made to SAPDs.

Yeah.

So you have to come if you I'll go ahead and ask you quite come on up here.

Excuse me.

Please state your name again and and uh you can address that question.

Kyle Baker, just as a note on SAPD.

Um we've been in contact with the PRU substation for this this uh one and the the other one on our street with issues with that one as well.

Um SAPD does not like to come out for these issues, and they do not like to leave file official incident reports and like it issue citations.

We have incident numbers that they will give us, but those are not the same thing as a citation.

They usually prefer to not cite them, and also um when we call those in, it's usually three to four hours before an officer comes out.

So if we are gonna wait to get that incident number from them, we're sometimes waiting until three o'clock in the morning to get the You should talk to your council's office and your safe officers.

But just there's there's not gonna be citations for this because it's just incident numbers and then they bugger off.

Commissioner Manner.

And then also I leverage 311 all the time, and so I so I recommend you know log it there.

And so because that way you can go back to your council person and say, here's you know, here's how many times this is occurring, and and they'll they'll run they they will run those reports, and so I work with the office regularly in district seven.

Yes.

All right.

So if there's nothing else, I'm looking for a motion on this.

Commissioner Manna.

Regarding case number BOA 251030159, and we did the board adjustment grant appeal for the property situated at 7630, Cascade Oak.

Applicant being uh Roberto uh Bogran, because the information provided by the applicant shows that the city staff made an error enforcing Section 16-1110D when revoking the short-term rental permit.

End of motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Bunny's Commissioner Manna.

So I've kind of gone back and forth with this case a little bit.

And um and but uh ultimately I'm gonna end up that I I do not think that the city made a mistake.

I think the city has some correcting to do, but I think ultimately it it comes down to um the applicant started in the right path but ended in the wrong path.

So so so that that path was known, and so because of that uh I'm not gonna be in support of the appeal.

Commissioner Bonias.

Agreement uh with Commissioner Manna, I don't think the city made an error here.

I think they sent plenty of notices out.

I think that was confirmed by the applicant.

And um, yeah, I mean that that's what we're here for whether the city made an error, and I don't think they did.

All right, is there anyone else like to add and since I'm just gonna say that at 5.8% on this block face in 12 months from the end of July, they'll be able to apply again.

So let's have roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Mana.

I do support the appeal.

Commissioner Bunnyath?

I do not.

Commissioner Barrington?

No, I do not.

Commissioner Stevens?

No, I do not.

Commissioner Yabanith?

No, I do not.

Commissioner Cruz.

Commissioner Gomez.

I do not.

Commissioner Bragman.

No.

Commissioner Ozina.

Uh no, I do not.

Commissioner Vafkith.

I do not.

Chair O'Reilly.

And I do not support.

Uh, did Commissioner Cruz vote?

Yeah, I don't think we could hear you, Commissioner Cruz.

He gives us a thumbs down or thumbs up.

Um I do not.

Okay.

Motion fails 11 to 0.

Um for the applicant.

If you have any questions, you can get with staff and you'll be eligible to reapply in 12 months from the date of revocation.

Item five.

Good afternoon.

My name is Juan Alares, Planner with Development Services.

Item number five is requested by 145 East Aguarda Avenue LLC, and is requesting an appeal of the administrator's decision to revoke the applicant short-term rental permit due to hot collection located at 145 East Alguita Avenue.

The subject property is located at 145 East Aguarita Avenue.

Surrounding uses include residential single and multifamily as of March 10th, 2025.

To the city's finance department, all STR operators are still required to continue to file revenue reports and pay Bear County HOT through Avenue on a monthly basis.

Seven notices of delinquency were mailed by Avenue from September 2024 through March 2025, and a final notice of delinquency was emailed by development services on July 14th, 2025.

No payment was made within the 90 days.

Therefore, the permit was revoked on July 29th of 2025.

There is a total of seven units on the block face, zero active SCR type two permits on the block face currently.

And the property has had an investigation open but received no violation, and the subject property does not have any active listings as of today.

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

And this is the subject property, and the next few slides are the neighboring properties and surrounding areas.

Staff recommends denial of the applicant's appeal.

And there were a total of 26 mountain notices, zero in favor, zero in opposition, no response from Monte Vista Historical Neighborhood Association, and four citywide groups were notified with no response.

This concludes staff presentation.

Applicant is here to answer any questions.

Commissioner Bragman.

Okay, so I have a question about that.

Yeah, I I believe it was um due to no permit, but they shortly applied after to obtain that permit.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So have the applicant come forward.

All right.

Please state your name and tell us about your STR.

Hello, I'm uh Alex Cruz and I'm Lewis Sharp.

Um I know I submitted a presentation, but I'm not sure if it if it's something that uh that gets up there.

But um thank you all for your time.

Uh so there's been a lot of uh discussion today that I think rightfully is kind of asking, is there some procedural or process related issues going on with how things are mailed out?

And I'm hoping that I can bring a little bit of clarity to that.

Um we received uh no emails um basically regarding the 90-day notice, which is put in the ordinance for uh for good reason.

It's supposed to allow us a chance to uh to effectively correct any behavior um such as missing the hot tax.

And to be honest, this was my fault.

Um and I thought that Airbnb was remitting this on our behalf, and so uh which they eventually started doing, but the new ordinance got passed in July shortly after is when we applied, and I just thought that that was one of those things that uh that immediately went into effect, but it turned it out to go in effect in February of this year, which is why you're seeing a lot of February show up.

Um in February of this year, Airbnb started collecting uh city taxes on behalf of the uh uh of the hosts and then remitting directly to the city.

Um and the county for for whatever reason uh does not do that.

So I actually didn't know that either, but uh so you still need a report so that you can pay the county tax.

Um and uh I think the big issue here on this particular case uh is that when we applied uh for the permit, uh the the actual properties owned by an LLC.

Um and so uh you know there was uh an address for the LLC, but we have we had a designated operator, which would be Mr.

Sharp here, um, and he had an email uh his own mailing address input into the system, which is uh per the ordinance uh where notice is supposed to go should there be a violation uh and uh and a revocation process that would result in after 90 days revocation of the of the permit.

No email, no mail was sent there.

Uh this has been addressed directly by the um when we when we inquired, I was trying to figure out what was happening um about uh about not getting notice and uh and the city and I have in my presentation there.

Oh, I'm sorry.

But we do have a presentation.

Sorry, can you click forward?

Sorry, I have pictures.

Um so this is uh the application there, and you can see Alex Cruz there that I'm the the applicant, uh the owner uh is 145 East Tagory LLC, it's the only property that it owns uh and then the address for that is in Austin, and then uh the next one.

So my address is 2311 High Ledge.

Uh and then well it was at least it was not now.

Uh sorry, can I put it in the next slide?

Uh and then this is also in the in the details available online where it shows the designated operator information.

This is actually the most important component of this because it has a mailing address.

Um now the uh the reason why that's important is because in the ordinance uh literature there it says uh the the proper revocation uh process, the owner operator is mailed or notified of uh violation, they have 90 days to it, correct?

And uh we just didn't receive this and Mr.

Sharp didn't receive it.

Yeah, I did not receive it.

Okay, I'm gonna pause real quick.

So for staff, uh where do you all natively send information to?

The owner, the applicant, or the designated operator.

Uh for any um for any information regarding the permitting side of it, uh Bill to say will email any contact information provided for that record.

So if we have a different operator, owner, applicant, all emails are sent to those three contacts in the email.

Okay.

So that's the information we provide to Avenue.

Was the owner personally identified as the owner's contact information?

Thank you.

Please continue.

So at least is it applied?

And so all this information is captured within the access system.

And so is that is that is that the book of record for this information?

Okay.

Please continue.

So at least as it applies to this particular case, I think that might be an issue with the mailing that they only mail it to um, I forgot if she said the owner or the operator, whoever, but she doesn't mail it to everybody.

Um so I never got any of the mailed notices.

I only got an email notice, and the email notice does not come with uh 90 days notice.

They only start the emails, I believe.

They only start the emails, I I believe 14 days before things are actually due.

Um and if you flip to I think the second to last slide uh slide in our presentation.

Right?

Uh nope, go back right here.

This was the email notice that I received.

Um so if you if you look at this email notice, um you can tell there are formatting errors everywhere, uh question marks, it just comes through looking like uh kind of like some guy um from India or something like that sent me a notice and was trying to scam me.

Um I get emails like that all the time.

Uh and I get scam phone calls all the time, and so the idea is if this is the only notice that I receive, I get it 14 days before there's a problem.

And then the only other notice that I receive is just a a day of notification that hey, you didn't pay your hot taxes, your permits revoked.

Um and that one actually looked like a professional communication.

That's where the issue ended up.

Uh and I emailed immediately and I said, Hey, look, you know, wasn't aware this was an issue.

Uh can I have one hour or one day or whatever notice to to fix this?

Um and I wasn't given that.

So that I you know, I wanted to make this right, and I wanted to do what I needed to do in order to pay uh the proper amounts, the proper channels.

Um, but I just wasn't notified and and able to do that on time.

And I'd like to add to that because Mr.

Sharp, he as soon as he received this email, he messaged me.

He m he meant he mailed me, even though I was I was uh added on there, but he mailed me and said, Is this something?

And I will be honest with you, I looked at it, I said this looks like someone went on public records, found got our information, and I mean there's like things that are misspelled and question marks everywhere.

I was like, this can't be this can't be legitimate because it also says that we've been notified like for 90 days, and so I went to search through emails, couldn't find anything uh that was emailed for uh to us.

I didn't know the mailing address was going to 2311, but if it was going to the designated operator as um as the ordinance says it should, uh then he would have known about it.

He would have gone through the same procedure with me and and told me, hey, uh is this something?

And I obviously we would have we would address this.

This wasn't something that we intentionally were trying to do anything, um, like skirt taxes uh or anything of that nature, it's been caught up.

Um, and uh and again I want to take responsibility for that because that was my call on looking at this, and I was like, I don't see it.

Uh this this looks like something you don't want to click on any any links on.

Okay, so for the city do they uh does your record show that they uh currently owe money?

Yes, they have not reported for 2023 and 2024.

The entire year?

The entire no, we have I have it right here.

Uh please give that the staff so they can project it.

And has this address received any uh co-compliance complaints uh regarding the operation of the SDR?

Uh there was one investigation um opened on July 24 31st, 2023.

It was knocked as no violation as the property had an active um bed and breakfast permit on a file per the code officer.

All right, thank you.

Bonias shifted away from bed and breakfast because Commissioner Boone is uh good question for city.

Um those seven notices were mailed to what address it was mailed to 2311 high ledge street.

Okay, one more time for the applicant, who's at 2311 High Ledge Street?

That was that was my address when I I helped apply for the the permit, but it's not it was basically it was kind of confusing because it it's an LLC that owns it, which doesn't really have an address, so I put it the same as applicant, and then on operator is where we put the mailing address for the person who who's who lives at 2311 highly no, none of us nobody ever lived there?

No, I yeah, I had uh residence there at one point.

When did you live there?

Um years ago.

So my parents when you okay.

So you when you filed the application with the city, did you live there?

No, my parents, my parents did.

So your parents probably received these notices?

No, they would have told me the mailed notices and the you guys say you sent seven mailed notices though to that address.

Well, I don't know.

I mean, they I asked them for any like did you get anything after we got all this?

And they didn't say they didn't give me anything, they said no.

Gotcha, okay.

I mean I I might advise that if I'm operating something and and I want to make sure I get stuff on it, I send it to where I live.

No, you you know, like because this is important.

So I will I want to get this stuff just just recommending that so have you updated.

So you hold on.

Have you updated your address?

So I didn't want to look make it look like I was trying to retroactively change something before I got up here.

I want to go in there and change.

Okay.

The designated operator address has been fine.

Okay.

Um the commissioner questions?

Mana.

Commissioner Manna.

So right here on the sheet.

So is it that everything was brought through brought up to date like four days ago?

Because the dates show here uh filed it for the 19th or the 18th, I'm sorry.

Yes, so we were we were noted we were notified of the uh revocation um last month, and then I've been looking into it ever since to pull together all this stuff, and this was what we owed, and so I went ahead and made sure before we got here today to get that done.

Uh body is one more one more question for the city.

Can I confirm that you guys said there's been no taxes collected from what's that time frame again?

That is correct.

From 2023, they were operating without a permit, and in 2024 there were no taxes paid.

So for both.

For both years, they generated $98,000 in revenue.

What's that rough estimate again?

$98,000.

$98,000.

Okay, that sounds like a lot, right?

That's gonna roughly be the total due.

So total nine percent, not including penalties and interest is eight thousand eight twenty, again, not including penalties and interest.

Do you guys have that to bring current?

So I I've never received that number.

I'm happy to pay whatever I need to pay today.

I'm ready to do it.

So I would also want to make sure it's clear.

Um the this is what we were told we were supposed to pay when we go into uh when we when we saw the we had them send us uh a copy of the mail, the piece of mail or whatever.

I see that you you've made all these payments, but what does it come out to?

Uh it was so we paid so since then because since Airbnb started collecting on our behalf, it's I mean this represents that plus this was uh something in the in the range of five to like eight thousand dollars or something like that.

So I don't really know how much they give the city to notice.

So it's well, but all these payments that we're seeing on the screen right now is about five to eight thousand.

No, well, so if you look through February until uh until uh August.

And so that's when Airbnb is paying the city directly, and so that only is counting amount, and so that doesn't reflect all the amount all the amounts that were that were paid.

But yes, and so if you count how much was also paid to the city, but we don't get to track that, then it should be somewhere in the five to eight thousand.

Because we we just heard from the city that it's vastly more than that, and even if you deduct fines and penalties, it's still well this includes uh so vastly more than I don't really understand where the city is getting like we how much they say oh eight thousand.

I think the gross of g city, can we get uh uh confirmation here on what that that amount was for twenty three and twenty-four for the applicant?

So in twenty twenty-three he generated forty-seven thousand two fifty.

The nine percent on that was four thousand two fifty-250, again, not including penalties and interest.

Twenty twenty-four, he generated fifty thousand seven fifty.

Nine percent is four thousand five sixty-seven fifty, not including penalties and interest.

I have also worked with Mr.

Cruz on 14 other properties.

Seven of those permits were were revoked due to delinquent hot taxes.

Have uh uh on this on this uh concerning this property right here.

When they were operating as a bed and breakfast, there's are they still paying hot tax?

They should.

Okay, so but as far as so that's what I'm wondering, is like the amounts because they got their permit in what July of 23.

So from January to July it was bed and breakfast hot tax.

They received their permit August 2024.

Okay.

So but prior to August 2024, we're we're we're talking about non-STR but bed and breakfast hot tax.

I can't conf yeah, but again, there's a B and B permit issued for the property, but it's from the previous owner.

So if they chose to continue that operation as a beer BNB, they would have to get a DBA change for that.

And then and then when did um does Avenue handle B Airbnb as well?

Yes.

They did Avenue handles short-term rentals.

Do they handle bed and breakfast as well?

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, in fact, they like to be able to do that.

When did that when did you all come in?

So that we heard this was a bed and breakfast prior to you getting your STR.

Uh 2023.

Yeah.

So 2023 sounds about right.

Uh when I purchased it, it was originally being operated as a bed and breakfast.

And just anecdotally, um, I know the neighborhood has been pleased that we switched it over from that where there were individual rooms being rented out and lots of car traffic because of um people coming out and in and out of those individual rooms to now having it under an Airbnb where we only allow group bookings.

So you know that reduces the number of cars and people coming in and out at all hours and that sort of thing.

So it's been an improvement to the community.

Um yeah, it 2023.

So this one's different.

It's got hot tax from Airbnb.

Mana.

Interesting.

Commissioner Manna.

So in the prior case, um, you all showed a wonderful report that showed uh the radio button being clicked and the taxes being paid or the taxes being submitted.

So so were the taxes also not being paid to Bear County.

You know, were those also zeroed in this case?

So it would be zero for both sides?

Correct.

He didn't report at all for both city and county.

Right.

Commissioner Braggman.

Uh did they um report?

I mean, did they send in a report?

I mean, not just pay, but did they file reports?

No.

No reports, no reports.

So we thought so that's where this came in.

Speaking of the microphone.

It's okay.

Uh we thought this was being uh because of when the ordinance was um was changed.

Uh it was a big headline that Airbnb now pays the taxes, and that was again my mistake for thinking that.

But um, as soon as we were noticed of this, um I immediately looked into it and this was corrected.

So um so I uh did I hear the staff right that they have 14 other locations and they had seven delinquencies?

Seven of the properties and delinquencies?

Seven permits were revoked of the fourteen.

Okay, so are those yours?

No.

So to clarify on that, I only own one Airbnb property, it's this one.

And uh that that's it.

That's only Airbnb.

So the other the other ones for staff of the other ones are associated with with what with who?

Uh Alex Cruz.

I worked with Mr.

Cruz on all the other 14 properties.

Uh so I was helping another owner who had multiple properties and trying to help him rectify his situation.

I don't think I don't work with him anymore.

Um I don't think he ever got it resolved, but those weren't my properties or uh certainly not Mr.

Sharps.

He shouldn't he shouldn't be so is is Alex Cruz associated with this particular property in any way?

I was an applicant.

I was an applicant.

Okay.

Um and that was given permission to apply on behalf of but you're not the owner.

I'm not the owner, that would be Mr.

Sharper.

Oh, aggregate L45 of aggregate LC.

But your name is listed as associated with other properties, but not as the right.

I think that's where they're pulling that from.

Is my name's associated with other ones that I own.

No financial interest.

Yeah, no financial interest.

I mean, you you were okay.

You weren't an owner of the other 14.

No.

Okay.

Just want to make sure.

Stephen Commissioner were you an operator?

Uh yes, on uh well, not on the seven that she uh that was being spoken to there.

I did uh help I like I have my own rental, and so I'm an operator on that one.

My mom has one, so I helped them operate on that one.

Um I don't think I'm listed on operator on any other ones that are active anymore.

Okay, so for staff uh for the other properties that he says he's associated with, what's the status of those?

So again, seven of those permits were revoked.

He is the management company for the other properties.

So on all those, he manages them, and the taxes were not reported or paid.

So we revoked the permits.

Okay, and the other seven that he's associated with, those are current?

No, the permits were revoked.

Well, well, you said there was 14.

So on the other seven where the permits were revoked, those went to another the owner on those, he did not fulfill the payment plan that we established for them.

Commissioner Stevens.

Oh, I'm just hoping that the applicant can point to what your specific hardship is.

I mean, we talk a lot about this software being somewhat clunky, but it's not the city's obligation to hold your hand with your business endeavors, and thousands of people figure this out.

So that's that doesn't hold water for me personally.

Yeah, no, um, I I think the specific hardship is just uh in the city code, it requires you to give 90 days notice to the owner operator.

And um I only received notice 14 days in advance of uh the permit being revoked, so per the city code.

Um it just wasn't followed to the letter.

Uh as far as uh a hardship is concerned, um, it I uh I I wouldn't say that there's anything specific as far as like a financial hardship or anything like that.

Um not intending that.

Uh it you know, all I'm saying is I'm coming to this with an intention of hey uh I got this kind of like scam looking like email 14 days before, and then I immediately got shut off.

That was the only notification that I was given.

Um I have the intention of paying and want to pay immediately if you gave me a pay now button, you know, I click it and I'm ready to do it.

Um and I just want to continue operating the Airbnb.

So uh I think coming to this meeting, I was very encouraged to hear some of the questions that uh board men member Mana and board member uh Dr.

Barrington were asking about um you know the process here, and what I would say is I would encourage uh more email notifications.

I think those are ones that uh it seems like have a higher response rate.

Um you know, it sounds like from some of the other folks that some of these mail notifications are people are changing addresses or they're not getting them for whatever reason.

And it it also looks like from the applicant uh portal that you guys have here, you're collecting phone numbers of individuals.

So another thing that I've seen successful is text messages.

Um just something to think about as uh you're thinking about notifications for these.

Because what you have in my instance is somebody that uh has the ability to pay these taxes, wants to pay them, um, and still did not pay them according to the uh you know what I was supposed to.

Um in that uh that really shouldn't happen from the system, right?

Um if if if you have somebody that's willing to pay and wants to pay, uh you would imagine that those people uh shouldn't be coming to hearings and you know talking to you guys about uh administrative decisions because they should just be able to pay um by the procedures.

So um it did it did look like there were some some uh you know that August to February period where maybe some people are getting mixed up.

Uh and I I can't I can't say exactly how to resolve some of those things.

I think Alex was saying some some ways for why that happened, but uh in any event, um I'm hoping that some of those can get resolved coming out of this meeting.

Um for clarification, I do want to say when the permit was issued in August of 2024, emails were sent to both the operator, owner, and applicant on file for their tax parity and also identifying that they were responsible at hot taxes only monthly basis and Airbnb and short-term uh and Airbnbs and others were not collecting hot taxes for them.

All right, Commissioner Manna and then Braggman.

So um regardless of who pays the taxes when you applied for the permit as per the staff, were you not aware that you had to report even if it was zero income?

That you still had to file a report.

So um that I I didn't have an understanding of that.

My understanding was that Alex was going to um report that and um and he's understanding.

Yeah, that's where I was confused uh because I had seen the um that the new ordinance had passed and that now we didn't have to worry about this anymore.

And um and that was foolish to to maybe not look into when that actually I figured it was in effect immediately whenever something gets passed like that, I guess not.

Took a few months, but um uh but my understanding was Airbnb now pays this on your behalf uh to directly to the city, which they do now, only to the city, but not to the county.

Yeah, well they they pay it, but you still have to do the reporting.

Right, which I didn't know I didn't know that at the time.

Um and obviously as soon as I found out uh that that was the case, which is where we're at now, because this isn't uh uh an instance of me trying to not do something.

Um it's it was a misunderstanding, and I and if I were if we were noticed, I think on it in a way that um that the owner operator would have been able to see it, uh I I'm very confident this wouldn't have happened, and I really do think that I mean we we try to do everything the right way.

We um you know we work with our neighbors on making sure they tell us if there's any issues at all uh with the with the thing.

This is a historic house, uh Mary Bonner, who if any of you are art enthusiasts, is one of the first um uh female kind of international superstars that come out of San Antonio, she uh uh she's a well renowned artist.

Um and we we celebrate that with this property by letting people stay in this place that was also designed by the same individual who architected the the Woody Museum, and uh and we advertise it as this is a chance to experience some San Antonio culture.

We put Mary Bonner paintings everywhere and things like that.

It's called the Bonner Home.

Um we tried to really celebrate I'm from San Antonio, so we try to celebrate San Antonio's heritage here, and and in doing that, we don't try to do things the wrong way because that would obviously have the opposite effect of what we're trying to go for.

Like showing people how this should work.

So I'll just ask you.

I'll just add to that that part of the reason for switching from kind of like a bed and breakfast to more of an Airbnb type situation was also to try to reduce the wear and tear on the property.

Yeah, that that was that was kind of mentioned, Commissioner Braggman.

Yeah, just a follow-up to Mr.

Cruz.

Um are you a property manager?

I manage um yes, yes, ma'am.

Uh professional, so you're licensed.

Uh no, no, I'm not a professional uh property manager, no.

You're required to be licensed.

To oh, no, I don't rent long-term uh leases or to manage properties, you're required to have a license.

Uh to uh to be, I believe it's a long-term um uh rental agent or whatever you need to have a real estate license, I believe.

Uh, but that uh doesn't apply to uh helping with short-term rentals, is what I understand from the uh taxes all because I did look into this and I've asked about it to make sure that I didn't need a license, but uh that's what I understand, ma'am.

I'm I could certainly look into that more.

Yes, ma'am.

Yeah, yeah, I I checked that's where I uh I looked into it whenever I was starting to do this sort of thing, and my understanding is this is not this is not a uh situation where you need a real estate license to um uh to manage, and so that's I'll look into it more though because that's obviously concerning if it's something that I um I'm doing illegally, but uh as far as I understood.

Okay, thank you.

I got I got one question uh for the commission.

For the applicant.

So uh at the time when you thought Airbnb was taking over city and county payments, uh you figured they were just taking them out and doing that.

That was in tw early 24.

Is that right?

Uh mid-2024.

Mid-24.

Okay, before that happened, how would you pay your city and county though?

Well, so it was basically I don't deal with all my properties of any property that I manage.

That's only like the owner sort of does it.

I was helping with this one.

Um, but uh you would go on to it was a different site than this, I can't remember what it was.

Uh but you go into that and then you input the uh total revenue earned, and then it just tells you how much, and you would click pay and you pay.

So before you knew that that I guess verbo and Airbnb Airbnb were doing it themselves, prior to that, the owner who was ever I guess operating it would go and take care of the the city and the county taxes, not you.

Right.

Is that right?

That's correct.

Gotcha.

So that would have been the responsibility of you, Mr.

Sharp?

Um that would sound correct, yeah.

Okay, gotcha.

And did did you know that or you did not know that?

I I did not know that.

So I previously operated an Airbnb in Austin, and the way that it worked in Austin was that Airbnb would automatically collect any HOT taxes, property taxes, and remit them to the city.

Um my understanding is that that was happening uh here as well.

Um if if there are any delinquent uh taxes as a result of that, then that would be my issue with not knowing how to operate things in San Antonio.

And part of the reason that I contacted and brought on a property manager from San Antonio was because I wasn't aware of all of the individual um regulations and how to do things and uh different permits and everything else that you guys have going on here.

Um and I wanted to do it correctly, and so that was a good thing.

So then so then you're you were hoping or relying on the help of Mr.

Cruz Cruz here for that advice?

That was yeah, that was right.

And then you know, Mr.

Cruz, you know, before it transferred over, you said you know you would go to this site, you'd do it this way before you you knew Airbnb was good.

Did you relay that over to Mr.

Sharp?

Like, hey man, make sure you do this, you gotta go here, you gotta do this, you gotta.

No, we we were taking care of uh for this particular house.

Um I you know, I apply hope I apply for the permit, and so I figured I had some responsibility there, and so I was taking care of it.

He's one of the only ones who uh who I've ever worked with that actually doesn't live in San Antonio, so it was just one of those things that we did.

And I want to make sure it's clear the the notices that uh that were mailed and everything else represent the money that we put what we've paid.

So um we haven't I I have to look, I guess, at what we're talking about on owning outside of that, but that's what the relocation was based on.

Okay, yeah, I'll clarify that any of the money that uh was brought up earlier um from I guess 2023 or 2024, I've received no notice of that.

Uh this is within this meeting that is the first time that I've heard of any of that.

We got it.

Commissioner Man.

So um question for city staff.

And so do we have so so that thank you for showing me the list earlier with regards to access system that shows the names of the contacts and where they're identified.

And do we have a schedule that shows what the communication is?

We'll say T minus 14 days or or whatever it is, and who is notified in that list or how we go through that notification.

Do we do we have kind of like a that you know a work plan for that that could be shared or maybe subsequently in another dialogue so that way we have a really good understanding of that workflow?

And I think that would be beneficial for me.

You know, because the names or or you know different accounts are being called out for things being sent to, and I'm just trying to make sure in my head which ones there are being sent to and the and the timings of those.

And so I just want to be consistent because the applicant here said that there was a 14-day revocation notice that was mailed basically the same time that was being revocated.

And so trying to understand, I'm sure there was a notice before then, who is it sent to, etc.

etc.

etc.

So just trying to work backwards.

What we can do for the board, and we'll we'll need to get it to you moving forward.

We won't be able to do it today, is we can put together a kind of generic timeline of what has to happen before an item ends up before you.

What I will say is that on a monthly basis, we receive a report from AVENU that says, hey, these are properties that are at least 90 days delinquent.

Before my staff reach out to those permit holders, we go back and verify.

Do I see at least 90 days worth of notices?

Uh we also check to see if duplicate hot accounts have been created.

Sometimes there is confusion, people create a duplicate.

They're delinquent on this one, but they're legitimately paying on that, and we work with Avenue to solve those issues.

So in a given month, we usually can eliminate between 35 and 45 percent of the items that Avenue just sends us based on their report.

So there is an extensive amount of work that goes into it before we mail that notice that says, hey, email that notice that says, hey, two final weeks, we mean it and then um you know so we have so we have a team here that are addressing this issue.

Does the county because I heard a second ago the county you know basically may not have been paid on this particular count.

Um and so do they have a similar team addressing these kind of things?

You know, you all and us all you know, uh how do those get addressed?

You know, just trying to think.

So the county does not send reminders we collect on their behalf via an interlocal agreement.

So so you are working on behalf of the county for in the slide as well.

Okay, correct.

I'm glad to hear that.

So thank you.

Correct.

And on the monthly notices, we would send them to Lewis Sharp ever on the 15th of each month, he did receive a monthly reminder that taxes had not been paid for the month.

What address did you send those to?

Reservations at welcomehomeclub.com.

That's not Lewis Sharp.

And uh that is the email address that was used when you obtained the permit.

Okay.

So I don't know.

Yeah, so what happens is I I remember from the I saw that email on there, so that you know it's very important to check your contacts and get those updated.

That doesn't sound like no, I I can guarantee you that they were not sent.

Emails were not sent, and in fact, Avenue expressly said that all they did was send they mailed them.

And that's why we didn't have emails.

And that's freshly stated.

So I looked for the emails.

That's what that's the first thing I did when I got the question.

I don't know if any other commissioners have questions.

I've I've heard uh all I need to hear.

Is there any other questions?

I presume the city has receipts for those emails sent if you're guaranteeing that they didn't but if I was receiving those emails, then there's no excuse.

I I would totally I would say that this we can save we could save some money here.

Um, but we did not receive those emails, and they've even admitted as much in the email set followed up.

I don't really understand where where that confusion was.

Well the emails are sent to three email addresses.

We see proof that one of them at least went through with all the question marks.

So somebody's getting something.

That's right.

So the 14-day notice, I did get that email.

Okay.

Um and uh so that was the email you thought it was spam.

And that's right.

All right.

All right.

Is there any other questions?

And again, that was the only notification that I received.

All right.

So what we're gonna do is since there's no voicemails or anyone signed up to speak on this one, we're gonna go to a motion.

We'll see how this turns out.

Who would like to make a motion on this?

Commissioner Bragman.

Regarding case number BOA-25-1030161.

I move to the Board of Adjustment, grant the appeal for the property situated at 145 East Agarita Avenue.

Applicant being 145 East Agarita Avenue LLC, because the information provided by the applicant shows the city staff made an error in enforcing section 16-1110 when revoking the short-term rental permit ended motion.

Because the information provided by the applicant shows the city staff made an error in enforcing section 16-1110 when revoking the short-term rental permit ended motion.

So I second by Commissioner Bernis.

Commissioner Brackman.

Um I I'm just afraid I'm not gonna be able to support this motion because I think that there were a lot of opportunities given.

Um the the not just the applicant, but the applicant assistant um in working with short-term rentals, both personally and family related.

Um, and that the the city is very clear when you sign up when you request a permit or apply for a permit, these are the requirements of you, and that they put in the correct information, and if you move, you change the information.

And so uh I really think that it's on the onus of the operator and owner to make sure that that is done correctly.

So I will not be supporting the motion.

Commissioner Bunice.

So once again, I'm gonna agree with uh with my colleague there.

Uh, you know, I think a lot of this is on the operators themselves.

You know, you can go to the San Antonio website right now, look up STRs.

You can see what your percentages that you have to pay every month.

So if I'm making revenue every month, I know okay, 16% of this or whatever it is is coming out every month.

If I'm not paying that, I know I'm in the wrong somewhere, regardless of whether I'm getting notices or not.

I know every single month a percentage of my revenue has to go to these guys.

Whether I'm whether they're sending me notices or not, I know I'm obligated to this.

It's right here on the website.

We can Google it right now and find it.

Like we know that a percentage of my revenue every month is going to them.

Whether they send me a notice or they don't, it's on me, the operator, the applicant, the owner, however, you guys want to do it, it's on you guys to pay that percentage every month.

All right.

Anyone else like to add?

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

Commissioner Bragman.

No, do not concur.

Commissioner Bonet.

I do not.

Commissioner Barrington.

No, I do not.

Commissioner Stevens.

No, I do not concur.

Commissioner Ibannet.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

No, I do not concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Mana.

I do not concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner is there now?

Yeah, I concur.

Commissioner Vafcat.

I do not.

Chair Orion.

And I do not concur.

So if any questions, please get with staff.

Thank you very much for your time.

It's 254.

Does anybody need a break?

Yeah, all right.

See y'all back in about seven or eight minutes.

All right.

This one is BOA-25-1030162.

Address is 12115 Stony Falls in Council District 10.

Applicant is Alejandro Benavides, and this is an appeal of the administrator's decision to revoke the short-term rental permit.

It is a type 2 permit, and the zoning is R6 residential.

Subject properties located at 12115 Stony Falls.

Surrounding uses include residential single family.

This is an appeal of the administrator's decision to revoke the short-term rental permit.

SDR operators are required to report hot taxes to the city's finance department on the monthly basis.

This includes reporting zero dollars if no revenue is collected.

All SCR all STR operators are still required to continue to file revenue reports and pay Bear County hot through Avenue on a monthly basis.

City's finance department states that revenue reports are missing from August 2024 through February 2025.

Seven notices of delinquency were mailed by AVNU between September 2024 through March 2025.

And a final notice of delinquency was emailed by development services on July 14th, 2025.

So if this one remains, it's it'll remain at a 14.3% density.

Two past investigations for operating without short-term rental permits.

Uh one in uh that one was one that was closed in November of 2023, and another one closed in September of 2024.

No active listings.

And then subject property and the surrounding properties to follow.

Staff recommends denial of the applicant's appeal.

And this is the notification plan.

Forty-five notices were mailed.

Um we received two responses in favor for in opposition.

Stone Ridge HOA Homeowners Association has been notified and has not responded, and the three citywide groups were not notified or were notified with no response.

And uh Finance has a presentation on this one as well.

Thank you very much.

Commissioner Manna?

And you said that there are two notices of uh citations um for running short term and so two previous ones, yes.

Okay, and so between the two was were they brought back in?

So I was noticed that they didn't, and then they then they did apply and then they let it expire something, or how did they have I guess two of them go by?

Uh for clarification.

So the first investigation was um in 2023.

That was closed as the listing was removed, and then it came on our list again as being operating without a permit back in 2024, and it was eventually closed out once the applicant applied for an S year application and it was approved.

Uh follow-up question, did that go to the same person or were they different owners?

Let me verify that real quick.

Okay.

Well, the applicant, if there's no other questions, the applicant come forward.

Staff was going to do a presentation on the question.

The finance presentation.

Okay, this is what we see in Avenue.

The address is the account um 8015 2 didn't have anything reported.

So it's under 808257.

And that's the 804152.

So 808257.

Um they reported, but they reported like a year later.

728, 2025.

Um they had two list two listings.

And is it the income that's in Hamari that they got on the Airbnb?

What is Hamari?

That's what it where the revenue is collected when they do Airbnb, they have that.

Oh, that's what they okay.

Yeah, Harmari is kind of a subset of avenue, but it's all collectively the same contract to collect.

Okay.

Just a real quick point of clarification.

My understanding of this one is that after the permit was revoked, they did pay fully.

However, at the time they paid, rather than paying on the delinquent account, they paid on a new account that they created.

So we can resolve the discrepancy, but they are paid up at this time.

Yes, thank you.

All right, thank you.

And these are the letters letters that were sent out.

Bonio's Commissioner Bonese.

Who's Brent Coleman?

Uh he's listed as the property owner on BCAT, and I can confirm both investigations were for the same property owner.

Okay, and all those all those mailed ones went to Brent Coleman.

They went to Brett Coleman, or they were addressed to Brett Coleman, but the mailing address was the STR property 12115 Stony Falls.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Just have the applicant come forward.

All right.

Please state your name and tell us about USTR.

Yes, sir.

Thank you, Pure Top.

My name is Alejandro Benavides, my wife uh Jessica Benavis.

Um got the Airbnb back in 2000.

What was it?

It was in it was in 2023.

We're on a rent-to-own agreement with Mr.

Coleman, and he wrote us a letter giving us the approval to operate it as a short-term rental, which we had the letter whenever we filled out the application for the permit.

So to make sure this I'm clear, so Mr.

Coleman owns a property, you're on a rent-to-own agreement.

Um but Brent Coleman still has to be the signatory and listed in the system because he is the owner.

Are you listed as an operator or another contact in the system?

The operators.

The operator.

Did you receive the emails uh or letters?

We did, so you did.

Okay.

And so what was the reason for the delinquency?

Just this is our first time trying this.

Okay.

We're I'm still learning, we're still learning.

Got a little overwhelming as we do own two other we're self-employed as well.

So we have recently hired uh an accountant who also does bookkeeping who is helping me get things organized and straightened out so that this doesn't happen again.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner questions.

Hearing none.

Um voicemails, anyone sent it to speed.

No public comment.

Is there anything else you'd like to add?

And anything?

We've uh we've been part of the community uh for I'd say about eight years now.

We've we we used to rent another house on the uh one two one two seven Stony Falls.

Uh my wife and I and daughter live there for five years.

So we're we're very well known in that neighborhood.

We we obviously speak with everyone.

Um neighbors that I've spoken with, uh I've asked them if there's ever been a situation.

They all have our contact number, my wife and I uh just in case there's ever i anything, any s any any any issue, anything brought up.

Uh there they're they can contact us, let us know the issue and obviously we rent right across the street from that from that property.

So no, we're able to keep obviously an eye on everything that goes on.

Uh what's what's what address do you reside at then?

Oh, yeah.

Okay.

Is there because the neighboring the person to the to the east of you and the person directly across the street are both in opposition?

Can you provide some clarification on what they're opposed to or if you talk to them?

It's one two one one four.

That house is vacant.

It was a rental and she moved out.

Uh right next to you.

Veronica's old house.

So that house has been vacant for months.

Okay.

And the one directly to the east?

That is also a rental, and we've been on good terms with them.

They haven't had a single complaint to us.

The one two one one rental, great relationship with that family as well.

Okay.

But that the the opposition could have come from the property owner, not the tenant, right?

Possibly.

All right.

This is one of those cases where there's a discrepancy between the ownership and the uh the most impacted party, which would have been the renter.

Right.

Right.

All right.

Any other questions?

Uh Bonnie, I got one for the city real quick.

Um those applic are those those mailed letters sent to Brent Coleman.

Did uh do the operators get a mailed letter too or only the owner for in avenue we provide the owner information on there.

Um again the mailing address, even though it was addressed to Brent Coleman, the mailing address was the SRET property, which is 1211 5 Stony Falls.

Still that one over the mana.

Can you bring up the the listing within access so we can see that to s and then walk through who received what?

Because uh again, I'm trying to keep up with a lot of mails going on and emails and stuff.

And so just to clarify who received and who didn't receive emails, that would be beneficial for me to apologize.

Uh for clarification, although they do identify Brett Coleman as a property owner, the emailing and email address is the same for all for both the applicant and operator.

So they provide the same mailing address for Alex Benavides as 1211 5 Sony Falls, as well as the same email address as the owner.

So it's the same it's just it's just a two email and mailing address.

So for for the applicant, did you guys get emails and letters in the mailboxes at this address?

Uh we did receive some emails and again like sometimes they go into different folder and you got the letters that were mailed there.

You check the mail.

There was a few letters, but if they're mailed to Brent Coleman, the mailman knows us and he won't put something that belongs to him into that into that mailbox.

It says Benevita on it, they don't ever deliver something that doesn't belong to somebody else.

If I Bonia, so if I get uh go back to the city on on okay, so if the property owner, regardless of who applies or who's the operator, the avenue letters are always gonna go to the property owner's address?

To the to the address they have provided to the staff, correct.

The applicant.

The owner.

So whoever is listed as the owner, that's the information we provide to Avenue.

And whatever the mailing address and emails provided, that's what we provide.

Yeah, it looks uh it looks like the uh the system mailed it to Brent Coleman, and we just heard testimony that the the postman may not put leave it in the box.

Mana.

Commissioner Manner.

So the city provide, I know that sometimes I'll get mail that said if not delivered, returned back to the sender.

So would that occur for these?

Do we know?

No, it doesn't.

I mean it would go back to Avenue, right?

Well, so whoever, so so does it get does it get rejected to say that the applicant doesn't live here or something?

So excuse me, but even is that Mrs.

Benavides did say that she did get the mail.

And so she and she gets the mail at the owner at the rental that they're renting for.

What's on the screen right now?

Have you ever received one of these letters?

We've heard we I guess yes, we have, but it's been in his name.

Okay.

Not under Frank Holman's name.

I I do just want to clarify one thing.

The reason that the hot account is tied to the property owner is legal in nature, that the property owner is ultimately responsible for the tax.

But to uh Commissioner Bañas' point, it does sound like there were uh they did receive the notice, whether it was emailed or mailed.

Yeah, I'm just trying to see if we just because we're getting we get a lot of these with confused mail going out.

Does so there can never be an option for Avenue to send two mailed notices to two different addresses?

It's only going to be one always to that property owner.

So when staff creates the hot account, we provide the property owner's mailing address.

However, anyone associated with those SGR properties can reach out to Avenue and add their contact information.

The owner.

Which in this case would be Mr.

Coleman, right?

Which would be Mr.

Coleman.

Uh this is to staff.

I just want clarification.

Um are they up to date and their payments for their hot taxes right now?

Yes.

Yes.

All right.

No other questions.

Well, we're gonna look for a motion to see how this turns out, but thank you very much.

Who would like to make a motion on this?

Oh, I'll do it.

These are short.

Uh regarding case number BOA-25-1030162.

I move that the Board of Adjustment grant the appeal for the property situated at 12115 Stony Falls.

Applicant being Alejandro Benavides, because the information provided by the applicant shows that the city staff made an error in enforcing section 16-1110 when revoking the short-term rental permit.

End of motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Ozuna.

Um we see a lot of these, and as time goes by, you know, it's it's just you get a notice and you either respond to it or you don't.

Um but if y'all are new at this, um and you don't have any code violations.

There are some people supporting you, and the two main ones that are in opposition are, you know, they're not the ones that actually live there.

I'm gonna go ahead and be in support of this particular one today.

Uh so I also find comfort in knowing that you live your residence is right across the street from this the operation, so any issues you're right on top of it.

And so there's no violations, there's no code issues, you're current on the taxes, there was a mistake.

You're gonna catch up with that.

And you uh appears you are good operators here, so it wouldn't hold that against you guys, and so I'll be in support of the appeal.

Anyone else like to add?

Um Mr.

and Mrs.

Benavides, I I hope that you take some time to come to the city so they can show you exactly how to use the app the the app the website to pay your taxes because it is a little complicated.

Um but after you learn it, it gets easier.

And so uh that way you maybe you don't need to do your accountant and save yourself some money.

Because once you know the process, it does get a little easier.

The most important thing is that you have to stay on top of it every month and and hit that deadline date, I think the 29th or 28th of each month that you have to pay those taxes in so that you don't run into this problem again.

Okay, yes, ma'am.

All right, anyone else?

Hear notes have roll call vote, please.

Chair Orion?

Yes.

Commissioner Othuna?

Yes.

Commissioner Barrington?

I agree.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibneth?

Yes.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Gomez?

Yes.

Commissioner Mana.

Um I do not think the city made a mistake, but I will uh vote in favor of the applicant's request.

Commissioner Braggman?

Yes.

Commissioner Vafkith?

Oh, I don't I don't think the city made a mistake, but I'll be voting yes.

Commissioner Boniath.

Yes.

Motion passes 11 to 0.

Uh I do recommend you you take this and make sure you don't come back here ever again.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um next item is item number nine.

Good afternoon.

Item number nine is case BOA-25-1030147, located at 546 Bundy Street in Council District 2, the applicant being Edgar Sanchez.

And this is a request for a 225 square foot variance from the minimum 4,000 square foot lot size to allow development on a 3,775 square foot lot.

The zoning is R 4.

The subject property is generally bounded by Martin Luther King Drive, Interstate Highway 10 and uh the Salado Creek.

The property is currently vacant with no evidence of prior development.

Uh the applicant is proposing the development of a new single family home on this lot, and currently the lot size did not meet the minimum square footage required of the R 4 base zoning district.

The property was originally platted in 1950 and later split by deed in 1969 to establish the current lot size.

And with the adoption of the 2001 unified development code, the property zoning designation converted to this current R4, despite the lot not meeting the minimum required lot size for that district.

Uh recordation of a new plat will be required prior to any new development on the subject property.

Shown here is a site plan of the proposed development on that lot on 546 Bundy.

Um highlighted is the existing square footage of that lot there.

And this is the subject property again, uh currently vacant.

And uh this is just to depict uh the full depth of that lot.

There is a currently, from this view, it looks a lot more shallow than it actually is.

There's a fence there that kind of cuts off uh or runs through the middle of the property.

So that true depth is to that newer um cedar fence to the back there.

And this is the surrounding area.

Staff recommends approval in BOA dash two five-1030147 based on the following findings of fact.

Uh one, the lot is reasonably large enough to support a new single family home without significantly altering the character of the immediate surrounding area, and two, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed as the applicant intends to adhere to all other lot development standards of the R 4 district.

Staff mailed out 26 notices, two were returned in favor, zero in opposition, and there is no registered neighborhood association within two hundred feet of the subject property, and shown here is the support received from the neighboring property owners.

This concludes staff's presentation.

The applicant is present.

Thank you very much.

Come on up.

Is the applicant here?

Mr.

Sanchez or Mr.

Sanchez did let me know he was gonna be on the way.

I guess he's not.

Okay.

I have I'm just gonna say I have no issue approving this today.

Right.

And I did have one question.

So Mana.

Can I ask my question?

Yes.

So uh so I just um there's another property that's even smaller on this lot that's uh two houses down, I guess.

And so I guess this will open up for that other lot, which is even smaller to have another similar dialogue.

And that was the only comment I had.

Yeah.

So with that, um anyone would like to make a motion.

Oh, Zuna.

Commissioner Zuna.

Regarding case number B08-25-1030147, I move that the board of adjustment grants request for 225 square foot variants for the minimum four thousand square foot lot size to allow development at 3,775 square foot and situated at 546 Bundy Street.

Applicant being Edward Edgar Sanchez, because the testimony is printed to us and the facts that we determine so that the physical characters properly assessed the literal enforcement provision provisions of the UDC as amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

That's sufficient space exists on the property to build a new home while maintaining the existing character of the area by adhering to all of the lot development standards to due to special conditions, the little enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship.

As you would perpetuate the underutilized space with an established residential area three by granting the variance of spirit of the ordinance will be observed.

Sixth applied to the owner of the property for its variance assault is due to unique circumstances.

Existing on the property in the unique circumstances were not created by the owner of the property, not merely financial, not due to the result of general conditions.

In the district which the property is located.

The lot size was established when the property was split by deed, which established the current lot size requirement.

Had a motion.

Second by Commissioner Brangman.

Any discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none.

Motion passes.

Item number 10.

Okay.

Item number 10 is case number BOA-25-1030151, the address being 9823 Colebra Road in Council District 6.

The applicant is Ibrahim Tamer.

The request is for an elimination of the required 200 foot separation to allow a mobile food court use within 200 feet of a residential zoned or use lot.

The zoning is C3R.

The subject property is located between Highway Loop 1604 and Tesla Road along Calibra Road and just south of Zachary Middle School, a public education institution in the North Side Independent School District.

The applicant is proposing the development of a new mobile food court on the currently vacant one-acre tract.

The Unified Development Code requires the mobile food courts are established no closer than 200 feet of any single family residential use or single family zoning district.

The public school to the north of the subject property currently occupies a lot zoned R6, residential single family district.

And the closest distance to a property occupied by a single family residential use is approximately 240 feet away, measured property line to property line.

Shown here is a site plan of the proposed development.

This just exhibits the shared property line between the subject property and the school property.

And shown here is the subject property again, currently vacant, approximately one acre in size.

And the surrounding area.

Already established commercial in nature along Calibra Road.

Staff recommends approval in BOA-25-1030151 based on the following findings of fact.

One, the property is adjacent to a property zone for residential single family use that is occupied by a non-residential use.

And two, the nearest residences are adequately separated from the subject property.

Staff mailed eight notices, zero were returned in favor, zero in opposition, and there is no registered neighborhood association within two hundred feet of the subject property.

And this concludes staff's presentation.

All right, so the applicant come forward.

All right, state your name and tell us about your food court.

Yes, uh, it's excellent.

My name is Abraham Tamer, and it's my uh first business that I want to do.

And uh yeah, so I'm gonna be honest.

Like I want to make it look really nice, you know, clean.

I really care about how it's gonna look and everything.

It's not gonna be like any.

I'll I'll make sure like anybody who's gonna rent that, you know, food is gonna be has to be really good.

Is there any questions for the applicant?

Ma'am.

Commissioner Mirrors.

I'll let Cruz go first.

Commissioner Cruz.

I guess I'm just checking.

Uh, how many trucks are you thinking of having in there?

I mean, honestly, for now, I don't know.

It's uh, you know, I don't I didn't even like I didn't do like um I'm just thinking of probably like six to seven, you know.

Okay.

I'm assuming for for different different types of uh food.

Yeah, uh you know, it depends like on the demand, but obviously, like you know, I want to have a mixture of everything on type of food, you know.

Um what are your uh what are your plans?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Commissioner Go ahead, Commissioner Beneath.

Um what are your your your planned days of uh opening and operation hours?

So um it's not gonna like I'm thinking it's it's going to be like morning and then not during school hours, you know.

Um because there is no business.

Uh at night, you know, I always go at night in that area.

There is a lot of neighborhoods, and it's that you know, and there is only one really down this street, a food court inside.

But uh this one is gonna be not even close to what that one is looking like.

You know, this one is gonna be really nice.

It's for those neighborhoods like behind.

I think it's gonna be really good.

It's gonna look really nice over there.

Commissioner Manna?

So question for city staff.

And so it is a middle school behind it, and so so it is on a residential lot, but but it uh there are no requirements with regards to food courts uh budding um a school at school period um uh on on the code, correct?

So there's nothing.

There's no exemption.

Uh we do have a pending UDC amendment to say if it's zoned residential but's used as a school or park.

But again, that's just a proposal.

And what is the so there's proposal and what is what is it that is being proposed?

Oh, so it's a 200 foot separation rule.

Um if it's zoned residential, but if the use is a school or park, um we're gonna see if city council wants to entertain that to not require the two hundred foot separation.

So to so in this case it would it it wouldn't have been the case where it's being a school, regardless of the zoning, it would have asked for the two hundred foot.

Correct, yeah.

There's no exemption.

Are you all including church with that?

Just or just school and part.

No.

Yeah, that's nothing we can look at.

It is just in our proposals.

Okay, thanks.

I'm just wondering because that's the other one that can be on different zoning.

All right.

Well, I guess uh thank you very much.

Um is there any voicemails or anybody's understanding?

No public comment.

All right.

Um I would like to say that I grew up in that neighborhood behind there and not far from here.

In fact, I used to play where Zachary Middle School was.

And a lot of kids.

Yes.

We used to go hit the stop and go.

And I'm telling you, that'll be very popular.

Yeah.

So I really hope so.

Anyway.

All right, let's looking for a motion.

Ragman.

Commissioner Braggman.

I don't think I can do it as fast as you have.

Regarding case number BOA-25-1030151.

I moved the board of adjustment grant a request for an elimination of the required two hundred foot separation to allow mobile food court use within two hundred feet of a residential zoned or use lot situated at 9823 Cala Road.

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

Specifically, we find the one the variance is not contrary to the public interest as a residential zoning district within the minimum separation distance is occupied by a public school.

Two to special due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship as the applicants proposed to use of the property would be halted, despite the nearest residence being adequately separated from the subject property.

Three, by granting the variants, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done as the existing school campus on the adjacent property makes future development of residences on such property unlikely.

Four, the variants will not authorize the operation of the 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, as the applicant intends to adhere to all other development standards, including the addition of landscaping buffering along the resident or along the rear property line.

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

Second.

Second by Commissioner Manna, Commissioner Bragman.

Uh yeah, I don't have any uh issues with this, it sounds like uh due to the school being there that again it's not gonna be developed into single family residential.

Uh so it sounds like this is a good use of a vacant property, so I'll be in support.

Thank you, Commissioner Manna.

Yeah, the only thing that I would have you know um looked at maybe differently is had it been that the school had fronted more closer to the front to this uh to this particular property.

And so um being that it is the back we'll say open space uh for the school, I don't have an issue with that.

All right.

Anyone else like to add?

I'm gonna go on a limb and ask for a voice vote.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion passes.

Congratulations.

Thank you so much.

Item 11.

Item 11 is case BOA-25-1030153.

The address is 507 West Crick Place in Council District 1, the applicant being Adam Ochoa.

This is a request for an 818 square foot variance from the NCD 2 design standard, maximum allowable accessory structure size to allow for a combined 1403 square feet of accessory structures, two, a four-foot eleven variants from the minimum five-foot side setback to allow for a garage in the rear yard to be one inch from the east side property line, and three, a 19-foot-six-inch variance from the minimum required 20-foot garage entry setback to allow a six-inch garage entry setback.

Uh the zoning is R6.

Okay.

The subject property is located one block west of San Pedro Avenue along West Corrig Place in the Alta Vista neighborhood conservation district.

The property owner is currently renovating the existing structures on the site.

The property owner originally intended to remodel and repair the garage.

However, upon further consideration of the associated repairs, the property owner's intent is now to demolish and rebuild the existing garage in its current configuration.

According to county records, the existing garage was established on the property in 1985.

A variance is required for the reduced side setback, reduced garage entry setback, and the increase beyond the maximum permitted accessory structure square footage in the NCD.

The current maximum allowable accessory structure size in the NCD being 40% of the principal structure size is 585 square feet.

The existing accessory structures on this property, including the garage, represent an 818 square foot increase to this maximum for a total of 1,403 square feet of accessory structures.

The proposed development does meet the unified development standards for accessory structures total area.

So that will not be an issue for this case.

Shown here is a site plan.

Everything uh sort of highlighted there in that orange ish-yellow color are the existing accessory structures.

Um remain, and the subject structure is that one-story garage there on the on the far right there.

Um that's going to be or proposed for demolish and rebuild.

Uh and you can also see item number two is the reduced setback to that property line, and item number three being the reduced garage entry setback, which is measured to the back of the sidewalk rather than to the property line.

Shown here is the subject property and that garage on the side off of the side street in the rear yard of the property and the surrounding area.

This is down an alley that abuts the rear of the property.

This is directly across the street, across that side street from that garage we were just looking at.

And this is on the other corner.

Again, right across the street, and there's that alley again running through the rear of these properties on that block.

And this is the surrounding area from the front yard in that Alta Vista neighborhood.

Staff recommendation for the side setback and garage entry setback variances.

Staff recommends approval in BOA-25-1030153 based on the following findings of fact.

One, the garage would be rebuilt with adequate separation from neighboring properties to support maintenance of the structure and to mitigate the risk of fire spread and potential damage from water runoff.

Two, the variance would be in the spirit of the ordinance as there are several instances of similarly placed garages in the immediate surrounding area.

Staff recommendation for the NCD two accessory structure size variants.

Staff recommends denial in BOA-25-1030153 based on the following findings of fact.

The proposed overall accessory structure square footage represents a roughly 40 percent increase beyond the maximum allowable accessory structure size as prescribed by the NCD.

And two, granting the variance would not support the spirit of the ordinance, which aims to ensure proportionality between accessory structures and their respective principal structures.

Staff mailed out 35 notices.

One was returned in favor, zero in opposition.

The Alta Vista Neighborhood Association did not respond.

The San Antonio, Texas District 1 resident association did not respond.

Shown here is the support received by staff for this request.

And this concludes staff's uh presentation.

The applicant is present.

Manna.

Commissioner Manna.

So because this is an N C D, so any home that had we'll say an existing structure on it that was over the limit would also receive the same position from the city because it's not because it's larger than what is the NCD's supports.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Because it's existing, um that that would be fine to remain as is, it's the wreck and rebuild that that makes the variance required.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you for that clarification.

Commissioner Barrington.

Uh what is the use of those other two structures along the alley.

So I might turn to the applicant for that.

I know the two-story structure is uh an art studio, I believe, but uh believe the applicant could probably um give us some more clarity on that.

All right.

Thank you.

Please state your name.

Tell us about your project.

Thank you.

My name is Adano Joe.

I'm the designer and contractor on the property at 507 West Craig.

Uh to answer the doctor's uh question, the garage right uh in back of the garage is a studio um an art studio.

The lady paints and that's basically what it's going to be used for.

And then further back is uh labeled as the one story wood.

Uh right now it's pretty much a condemned um carriage house, if you will.

It was I I'm thinking that it was the original garage, because that that actually used to be two properties.

The one on the right hand side, the house burnt down, and the um owners went ahead and purchased it, and then I guess replatted it to uh combined to one.

All right.

So let me on the side plan right here.

It says pool pump on it.

Um where is the pool at?

Uh right there where it says pool with the wavy little lines.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Uh-huh.

Apologize.

No words.

I saw the rock wall, I'm trying to figure out like okay.

And then uh on the R studios are going to be uh what's on the second floor?

Is there no second floor?

It's just an open loft.

It's uh 20 I want to say it's about 20 feet tall.

No, okay.

So it's completely so it isn't a two-story, it's just a it's gonna be a single story.

Yes, sir.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

They actually do have a storage loft though, but it doesn't cover the whole property.

Okay.

And then um the garage currently was it that you're gonna demo and rebuild the we wanted to go ahead and deconstruct and uh uh do basically do a wreck and build.

Because one thing about this, this lot is a little bigger than some of the ones around it.

Yes, sir.

Um, you know, when you start throwing in all this extra stuff, to the first thing that comes to my mind is the need for parking.

Correct.

So currently, uh, if you're off west craig, it looks like you can get a couple cars stacked in on that driveway.

But other than that, is there any other off-street parking aside from the garage?

Um no, sir.

Um the uh tenants, well not tenants, but the owners uh only have two vehicles.

So the wife is parking in the in the uh garage carefully or uh securely while the husband will park in the front and get wet while it rains.

Okay, but when you're your design right.

Uh visitors would be um off the street the way everyone else is.

But your design on the one-story garage is not to use it for storage, it's actually going to be finished like it would house vehicles.

Yes, sir.

A garage a vehicle, yes, sir.

All right.

Any questions from the commission?

Hearing none, is there any voicemails or no public comment?

All right.

Well, I guess we're ready for a motion then.

I can do it.

Regarding case number BOA 25103 00153, I moved that the board of adjustment grant the request for one and eighteen or eight hundred and eighteen foot or eight hundred and eighteen square foot variants from the NCD2 design center and maximum allowable accessory structure size to allow for a combined 143 square feet of accessory structures, two, a four-foot eleven inch variants from the minimum required five-foot side setback to allow a garage in the rear yard to be one inch from the east side property line, and three a nineteen-foot six-inch variants from the minimum required twenty-foot garage entry setback to allow a six-foot garage entry setback situated at 507 West Craig Place, Abigail being uh Aiden Ochoa because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we determined show that the physical character of this property is such that a little enforcement of the provisions of the EDC as amendment would result in unnecessary hardship.

Specifically, we find that one, the variance is not contrary to the public interest as the side and entry setback, the garage would be rebuilt to its existing configuration, maintaining acceptable separation from the right-of-way, approximately 12 feet from the back of the sidewalk to the local street.

Uh the N C D two accessory structure size, the property is adequately sized to support the proposed overall accessory structure square footage as has historically been present present on the subject property.

Two, due to special conditions, a little enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship as the side and entry setback.

Um the variance would allow for the continuation of this yard, this rear yard garage configuration, which is characteristic of this immediate surrounding area.

And the NCD two accessory structure size, the conservation district's limitations would not allow the proposed reconstruction of the existing structure as part of the overall effort to rehabilitate existing property.

Three, by granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done as the side and garage entry setback.

There are several instances of similarly placed garages in the immediate surrounding area.

Further, there is adequate separation of the structure from structure on structures on neighboring properties.

And with regards to NCD two, accessory structure size, the variance would allow for the reconstruction of dilapidated buildings where rehab is not feasible.

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

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

Uh five, uh substantial such such variants will not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent permanent property or alter the essential um character of the district in which this property is located.

Um with regards to the side and entry uh setback, this applicant is not proposing to alter the existing configuration of the garage.

Um and there are similarly located garages in the immediate surrounding area.

And two, uh the NCD uh two accessory structures, the variants would allow for the continuation of historical conditions and structured configurations rather than further increases beyond the maximum allowable square footage.

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

The side and entry setback, the garage is in its current configuration, has existed on the property since 1985, and reduced setback is characteristic of properties in the immediate surrounding area.

And with regards to the accessory structure size, this uh structure proposed would be a reconstruction of existing garage in its current footprint and would not include any further expansion and emotion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Brackman, Commissioner Manna.

So looking at the historical pictures, um this it is correct in the the uh in the read as the property that's right behind this property is built almost exactly uh the same footprint.

So I think it is consistent with the community.

I think building on the same footprint um without changing that uh is also um you know recognized here, as well as in a prior case, this particular community was an objection, so they they do participate um and because they didn't participate in this, I'm gonna assume that they're okay with this as read.

Thank you.

Commissioner Brackman.

I concur with my colleague, I'll be in support.

Any other commissioners like to add?

Hearing none, uh is that a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Barrington.

I concur.

Commissioner Steven.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibanneth.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Ozina.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Commissioner Bonieth.

Yes, I concur.

Chair Orient.

Congratulations.

Awesome.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

And just one little note, y'all are like way easier than HDRC, because had I not been here and y'all were to vote, they would have said, like, no, you can't get a vote because he's not here.

So we hang, please.

Yeah.

So thank you.

Item 12, please.

Well, there's no one else in the room.

Is the applicant for 12 here?

He was present.

Um he said he's on his way back.

Okay.

Man.

Well, I'll what we're going to do is a minutes first.

Um just to delay a minute or so.

So is there any comments, the minutes?

I had a few.

They've been updated.

Anyone else?

Yeah, and just uh just as a comment on the minutes, so since we have some time here.

So I did get a notice from the city with regards to updates to the minutes, and another PDF was sent.

And so now we have two books of record.

Um so we had the PDF that was sent in the email versus what was posted online.

And so my recommendation would be that whenever there is uh an update, reference the source where that data is, and if it's online, which is where it probably should be, say that the updates have been made to the one online because I read it just before or while it was that the email is going out, and I didn't know which one was the correct one.

So my preference would be that reference the the posted one and make the changes to it, you know, as we go through.

And so but that said I didn't see any changes.

Yeah, the the the one that was posted with the agenda.

Did my stuff get caught in there already?

Uh you sent your email after the agenda was posted.

Because now we have that three full days, but if we ever get that um and we resend it out, we'll make sure we tell you what was changed and it's clearly stated.

Well, so uh why so why would it be that we wouldn't change that one because you as people make their changes?

So is that we're waiting for everybody to agree to those changes, or that's what this is.

Yeah, usually we get any adjustments before we post the agenda.

It just happened that this one we received a day after we posted.

So obviously we couldn't change what was online.

And why is that?

Uh we can't repo we can't repost within three business days now.

Three full business days.

Yeah, that becomes the record that part of the agenda.

So technically any any changes I submitted it we have to adopt as amended, but y'all don't know what I changed.

Can you summarize um so it was the case that was denied?

Um we didn't the it was a for a one-inch variance, but the way the motion was read it was for a three-foot variance for a two-foot setback.

Yeah.

We didn't change it because it was denied.

Um we messed up.

So one of the things I mentioned at the last meeting was having a working directory, you know, where maybe it is at you know, we have the official posting, but also something that we're working with, so that way we can go back and take a look at that to see as we're working through that.

Would that like a red line?

Like a yeah, red line or or whatever.

So basically it's something that we can work through as we're seeing those documents being made, um, you know, to recognize that that is being caught.

So we'll we'll make it clear, uh, especially if it's after the posting.

So basically the draft minutes were posted, and we will five have a final version of the minutes posted after you guys have made your vote.

So that's so so you do go back and change whatever whatever was posted through the case.

We don't take the original draft out because again it's the draft version, but we do put up a final version.

Oh, I guess I've never seen I guess I've never gone back to see.

We actually do post two.

A sign copy, like the one that's uh signed by the uh chair and uh I think the assistant director or the director.

But is that changed online?

Or is it just or worse case?

Because it okay, so there is there do a second um uh a second minutes does get attached to the existing meetings record.

Okay, that's good to know.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

So is if uh if there's any other amendments to the minutes, uh looking for a motion to uh to adopt as amended by whatever they got between they were posted and today.

So moved.

All right.

Second, second by Commissioner Bragman.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Uh hearing none, motion passes.

Uh we're gonna go I think we should hear item number twelve.

Uh Chair.

Yes.

Uh I need to uh leave the meeting.

Okay.

So it it is three fifty-six.

Commissioner Cruz is leaving the meeting.

We're down to ten people.

Did you think it was later or earlier?

Oh.

So item twelve.

You've got three minutes.

Item 12 is B08-25-1030166 located at 6635 PCAM Valley Drive.

In console district three, the applicant is Robert Grant, and he's requesting a three-foot special exception from the maximum five-foot predominant predominantly open fence to allow a six foot four-inch predominantly open fence with eight-foot supporting beams.

The zone is C3.

The subject property is located along the IH 37 south access route at the intersection with PCAMP Valley Drive.

The existing structure is currently being remodeled from its former full service automotive garage use.

The proposed new use is for used motor vehicle sales and a detailing and make ready service.

According to the applicant, the predominant predominantly open chain link fence was recently installed after approximately 80 feet of fencing was damaged from a vehicle accident.

However, the height of the fence exceeds the maximum allowable height required for the front yard for the commercial zone and district, necessitating the request before the board for review.

The property is permitted an eight-foot fence on the side and rear, as it abuts an arterial street on the side.

If the variance is approved, the applicant will be required to submit an administrative exception variance request to allow the use of barbed wire.

The traffic section reviewed the request and concluded concluded there is no site vision issue.

And in the site plan, we're highlighted the front yard area due to the fact that the eight-foot fence is permitted on the side and rear due to the arterial.

This is a historical view of the property.

Um the front yard fencing isn't in place as yet, but there are views in the following slide from 2022 that shows um existing fence.

And the fence height measurements.

Three are in favor, and the remaining three are just outside that 200 feet radius.

Highland Hills Neighborhood Association is also in support.

And this is the um petition that the applicant provided, and in green start would be those located just outside the 200 feet, and the others are within.

This concludes Task Presentation, and the applicant is present.

All right, thank you.

The applicant come forward.

Sorry, I need to catch my breath.

Anyway, uh be brief bit of background on the property itself.

Sorry, uh Robert Grant, 13 and 907 Bluff Lane, San Antonio.

Uh I purchased the property back in uh February.

Uh a friend of mine had owned it for decades, and I was the first person uh he thought of uh to take on a rather odd odd project like this.

I do a lot of inner city uh redevelopment all over the uh south and west sides of town, been doing it for 42 years total, and I own multiple buildings just across the uh across the highway there.

Uh the fence project is part of a a complete redevelopment uh of the corner that I'm doing.

Uh the fence itself, uh there was a f there was a fence on the property at six foot for approximately 35 years, uh back to going back even to the 50s.

Uh there was this business on there.

And um everything had fallen out of repair.

I'm sure uh that Jewel showed you guys some uh photos just before I arrived.

Everything was very overgrown, and uh it was a haven for uh for the homeless and vagrants to to be hanging out much much to the uh detriment of the uh surrounding neighborhood there.

So uh after I after I uh finished my property purchase, I wasn't sure exactly what I was gonna do with it.

Uh a lot of my purchase had to do with the fact that it had a large uh pile on uh billboard, highway billboard on the property.

And uh the building was kind of an afterthought.

Uh I wasn't sure what I was going to do to it, so I decided to put a for information sign on it.

Uh wound up uh finding a guy who is aligned with uh doing Guevara Chevrolet.

And there's so many cars apparently coming back to Domingo Vara on uh that have been repossessed.

They have they have struck an agreement that this will be uh basically a satellite location for uh re you know, fairly recent uh cars.

Most of the cars I'm told are going to be anywhere between uh three to one year old that they're gonna be selling.

It's not gonna be some junked up use car lot.

The rest of my portfolio properties around San Antonio is commercial shopping centers.

I have a national company in every single lease space in every single building.

I'm just used to things being at a quite nice standard.

All my tenants, whether it be Walgreens, uh Auto Zone, Domino's Pizza, everybody expects it to be at a high standard, and it's the only way I operate.

So uh we uh I wound up uh completely renovating the property.

It's gonna be basically finished, I would say in about 30 days time, but with the nature of the use being car lot and being in this area, it needed more security.

Part of that security will be provided by uh some proper directional security lighting all around the perimeter.

I'm gonna be very sensitive to my security lighting, particularly on the uh residential side.

I've gotten to know everyone over there.

They see me working and on the shovel and whatever I need to do.

We wave as they go by.

So uh it's uh it's it's it's quite workable at this point, and I appreciate them watching out uh for the property also, because if there was anybody coming over there, they call me immediately.

So, but by virtue of the nature being rather new cars, we just need more security, and that's really where the fence came in.

When I originally applied for the fence permit, and particularly since there was a six-foot perimeter fence around two-thirds of the property in the beginning time, I never even never imagined that uh that there would be a limitation on on five feet.

So that came as a bit of a surprise uh when I went through the uh the fence uh permit process.

So that's basically the that that's what precipitated the the case today.

It's the the need to add that that one more foot of fence line to it just to make it harder for people to get over.

There'll be other security and cameras on the property anyway, but the uh the uh man who's gonna be operating the business uh who's been in business uh doing what he does for 16 years, very experienced operator.

Uh he just felt safer with a full six-foot set fence on the complete parameter.

All right.

If you have any questions, be happy to try to answer.

Well, we do have a voicemail on this one, I believe.

So we'll hear that and then we'll see if there's any questions.

All right, thank you.

Yes, this is Ernest Ronchers at 205 across street.

The uh property we're talking about is six big three by Pecon Valley Drive, and the case number the last three is one thing.

And I do approve.

I did support um defense due to the fact that we do have a lot of homeless underneath that bridge.

And before it was uh renovated, we need to uh I used to call in to the police department uh about the home that's going to that property.

I understand where he's coming from.

Thank you.

Bye-bye.

All right.

All right.

Is there any questions for the applicant?

Yeah.

Commissioner Manor.

Sir So is the um so you're looking for the six-foot wrap around.

Is there gonna be barbed wire by that or is it yes?

We would like, and that's gonna be by uh by a separate uh uh piece of paperwork with the city of San Antonio for it.

That's already been understood, and uh we have plans to do that uh shortly.

So from a uh motion perspective, we don't need to consider it because that will be provided by um admin rights.

Correct.

Okay.

All right.

Any other questions?

Commissioner is in just a question on clear vision.

I I guess there's no issues with clear vision with the uh fencing up the case.

Correct.

Uh the traffic department reviewed this.

They determined no side distance issues with this.

Thank you.

All right.

Anyone else?

It is cyclone fence.

It's not as if it's a solid wood fence.

I've studied it.

If it was a problem, I wouldn't be building it anyway.

All right.

So I'm looking for a motion.

Commissioner Brack.

Is there a question?

Yes, commission Commissioner Beneas.

Regarding case number BOA 251030166, I move that the Board of Adjustment grant uh a request for a three-foot special exception from the five-foot uh from the maximum five-foot predominantly open fence to allow a six-foot, four-inch predominantly open fence with a uh with eight-foot supporting beams situated at 6635 Pecon Valley Drive.

Applicant being Robert Grant, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we have uh determined so that the physical characteristic of this property is such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code as amended would result in an unnecessary unnecessary unnecessary hardship.

Specifically, we find that A, the specific special exemption will be in harmony with the spirit and the purpose of the chapter as the property is located off an interior arterial and highway granting this special exemption would enhance security and safety against theft and vandalism for the proposed business and would not create a site distance issue.

B the public welfare and convenience will be substantially substantially served as the fence is predominant predominantly open and maintains visual openness to welcome patrons of the proposed business.

C.

The neighboring property will be substantially uh will not be substantially injured by such proposed use as the fence maintains the required site distance and would not obstruct visibility onto Pecon Valley Drive and Pile Street D.

The special exemption will not alter the essential character of the district and the location in which the property for which the special exemption is sought, as the fence preserves visual openness of the property while enhancing security and maintaining the overall aesthetic of the area.

E, the special exemption will not weaken the general purpose of the district or the regulations hereon established for the the specific district as the predominant predominantly open design maintains uh visibility of the property, complies with the site distance requirements, and preserves the essential character of the district in motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Braggman.

Commissioner Bonis.

Yeah, I'll be in support of this.

Um the gentleman seems like he has a vast knowledge and expertise of these type of developments.

Uh I'm familiar with this exact uh property, and it has been it has been very distressed for a number of years.

A lot of there's a lot, a lot of just just a lot of vagrance in this area.

So I think that would be good for it to have a good establishment like Vada Severlay there and um and kind of kind of clean this area up.

So I'm in support.

Commissioner Bragman.

Um I concur with my colleagues for all the same reasons, so I'll be in support.

All right.

If there's no one else like that, hearing none.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, motion passes.

Uh congratulations.

So is there a director's report?

Nothing from the no report.

Okay.

So we'll see all of y'all on Tuesday next week for our extra meeting.

It is four oh nine.

We're adjourned.