The Board of Adjustments convened on December 15, 2025, with nine commissioners present to hear ten cases involving variance requests, special exceptions, and appeals regarding zoning regulations. The meeting addressed issues including fence heights, setback variances for carports and accessory structures, and the elimination of separation distances for mobile food courts. Key outcomes included the approval of fence and carport variances for several properties due to unique site constraints and safety concerns, the postponement of a mobile food court request pending further neighborhood discussion, and the denial or continued postponement of cases involving significant buffer yard reductions near residential properties.
The applicant, Iskander Sakhel, requested the elimination of the required 200-foot separation to locate a mobile food court near a residential lot. Staff recommended denial, citing potential noise, light pollution, and the inability to provide sufficient distance between uses. The applicant proposed reducing the number of trucks from 10 to 4 and discussed potential rezoning. Commissioners discussed the logistical impossibility of the applicant's platting plan versus the neighborhood association's desire for a phased approach. Due to unresolved questions regarding hours of operation, waste management, and the potential for the number of trucks to increase, the board voted to continue the case to January 26, 2026, to allow the applicant to meet with the neighborhood association.
The applicant, Richard Ruby (representing Lift Fund), requested a one-foot variance to increase a fence height from five to six feet in the front yard. The applicant argued that increased security was necessary due to vandalism and loitering, especially with a school nearby. Staff found no opposition, and neighborhood associations supported the request. Commissioners found the variance to be necessary for safety without altering the district's character.
Don B. McDonald Architects requested a 19-foot 11-inch variance from the 20-foot rear setback to build an attached carport with a one-inch setback for a second-floor bedroom addition in the Monte Vista Historic District. The applicant explained that building up was prohibited by neighbors and tree limbs, making the rear extension the only viable option. While the Office of Historic Preservation had approved the design, the applicant's unique constraints created an unnecessary hardship. Commissioners noted the neighbor's agreement and the buffer provided by the alley, though one commissioner dissented.
A request for a 3-foot 6-inch variance to allow a carport with a 1-foot 6-inch side setback was postponed. Staff denied the request because the applicant intended to attach the carport to an existing CMU wall, which would technically reduce the setback to less than the advertised amount (6 inches vs. the advertised 18 inches). Commissioners directed the applicant to re-advertise the case with the correct setbacks or detach the structure before a vote could occur.
Cold Smith requested variances for setbacks (10 ft side, 30 ft rear) and design standards for shipping containers used for storage at a commercial restaurant. The applicant stated the containers and fences were pre-existing and purchased with the property. Staff recommended denial due to insufficient separation from adjacent residences and prohibited fencing. However, the applicant presented neighbor testimony that no complaints had been received and that the containers provided necessary privacy screening. The board granted the variances, citing the pre-existing nature of the structures and the unique circumstances of the property's history.
Ivan Rubalcaba requested variances for a 5-foot 6-inch solid freestanding wall (exceeding the 3-foot limit) and reduced corner clear vision. The applicant's representative argued she relied on city staff email correspondence regarding landscape walls and had 50 neighbor signatures in support. Staff recommended denial of the wall height and corner clear vision, citing traffic hazards and visual obstruction. Commissioners noted the confusion stemming from city advice and the strong community support, ultimately approving the fence height and the driveway clear vision variance (with an amendment to limit the wall as built) and the corner clear vision variance (with an amendment regarding the side fence as built), resulting in a 9-1 vote with one abstention.
New Look LLC requested variances for a 6-foot solid fence on the east side and reduced clear vision at a driveway for a multifamily residence. The applicant cited safety and protection from vagrants. The El Charo Neighborhood Association opposed the request due to the solid fence and clear vision obstructions. The board approved the fence height special exception (limiting the solid fence to 15 feet from the curb) and the driveway clear vision variance, with commissioners emphasizing the safety concerns balanced against the clear vision requirements.
Elizabeth Valenzuela requested a 9-foot 11-inch front setback variance and a 3-foot 6-inch side setback variance for a carport in a zero-lot-line subdivision. The applicant and neighbors expressed no opposition. Staff recommended approval for the side setback (due to the zero-lot-line context) but denial for the front setback. The board ultimately granted both variances, noting the unique constraints of the zero-lot-line design and the lack of neighborhood opposition.
Gilbert Vargas requested a 25-foot variance for the rear setback and a 10-foot variance for the buffer yard for a storage shed near a multifamily complex. The applicant argued the 30-foot setback prevented the efficient maneuvering of trucks and allowed loitering. The Monticello Park Neighborhood Association opposed the request, citing fire safety risks, previous fires on the property, and the unknown nature of the structure. Due to the serious safety concerns regarding fire risk and the lack of detailed design plans, the board voted to continue the case to February 3, 2026, to allow for further discussion and design clarification.
Carl Lampkin requested a 5-foot variance for a carport in a narrow yard. The applicant argued that the depth of the lot left insufficient space for a carport to meet the standard 10-foot setback without encroaching on the garage. Staff recommended denial, but commissioners noted similar pre-existing conditions in the neighborhood and the lack of adverse impact. The board granted the variance unanimously.
Continued (Pending Further Action):
Approved (Variances/Special Exceptions Granted):
Denied:
All right. It is 102. I hereby call this meeting of the Board of Adjustments into session. Can we have the Spanish interpreter come out, please? Good afternoon, everybody. Gracias. Thank you very much. Staff, if you could please call roll. Commissioner Reed. Present. Commissioner Stevens. Commissioner Ibanez. Present. Commissioner Dean? Present. Commissioner Cruz. Here. Commissioner Gomez. Commissioner Mena. Present. Commissioner Bragman. Present. Commissioner Benavides. Commissioner Ozuna. Present. Commissioner Vasquez. Present. Commissioner Bonieth. Chair Orion. And I'm present. We currently have nine, but we're expecting two more to join momentarily. But in the meantime, if anyone could please stand and join me in the pledge. A pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic or stand under individual liberty addresses for all. Honor of the Texas flag. Texas one state. All right. So before we proceed with today's cases, I'd like to offer a few words of explanation. This board follows an agenda which is available online. The cases are listed by number with the name of the applicant and the street address. Following the conclusion of the cases, the board will consider the minutes from the previous meeting followed by a director's report. Lastly, as chair will make announcements such as community calendar events. I ask that the board members submit these announcements to me as a chair, and I will 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's zoning codes and other codes and aspects pertaining to this area. This is an administrative body, not a court of law. We only examine the facts pertaining to the relief sought and do not get involved in disputes or legal claims between parties. Specific powers have been granted to us by the Texas legislature and the San Antonio City Council. They are clearly defined in Chapter 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 or 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 Element Services regarding requests for variances from the regulations within Chapter 28, Article 1, Section 28-5.