Before we begin, in accordance with CDC.

Oh, that's the goal.

Okay.

Please be kind enough to silence all mobile devices.

The meeting of the Board of Adjustments will come to order.

Please call roll.

Commissioner Reed.

Present.

Commissioner Stevens.

Present.

Commissioner Ibanez.

Present.

Commissioner Dean.

Present.

Commissioner Cruz.

Commissioner Gomez.

Present.

Commissioner Mana.

Commissioner Bragman.

Present.

Commissioner Benavides.

Commissioner Bonias.

Here.

Commissioner Vasquez.

Commissioner Orion.

Here.

Chair Orion.

Chair Osina.

Yes, can you hear me?

Yes.

Yes.

We do have a quorum to at least begin the first part of the meeting here.

Please stand and join us for the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States.

One nation under God under God.

It's indivisible.

All under the Texas flags flag.

I pledge allegiance to the Texas.

One state.

Under God.

One and indivisible.

All right.

At this time I'd ask if we can have the Spanish interpreter come out and we can make a statement here.

Good afternoon.

Buenas tardes at all.

Thank you.

Before we proceed with today's cases, I would like to offer a few words of explanation.

The board follows an agenda which is available online.

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

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

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

I ask that the board members submit these announcements to me as chair, and I will read them at the appropriate time of the meeting.

We are private citizens appointed to this board by 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 release thought.

Do not get involved in disputes or legal claims between parties.

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

They are clearly defined in Chapter 211 of the Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 35 of the City Code, and ordinances passed by the City Council.

We also serve as an advisory appellate capacity to the Director of Development Services for Vences from regulations within Chapter 28, Article 1, Sections 28 through 5.

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

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

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

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

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

Each member will be asked to vote on the motion.

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

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

The applicant must present facts in which the request relief can requested relief can be legally granted and supported.

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

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

Please limit your presentation remarks to the pertinent facts in your case.

Do you have uh comments or presentation?

Thank you, Chairman.

Um staff will begin each case with a short presentation of the request.

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

Check marks indicates those property owners in favor of the request, X indicates those property owners and opposition following this presentation and questions by the board.

The applicant will present their request.

For those that sign up to speak for or against the proposed variance, special exemption or appeal, you'll be called out in order that you sign up to speak.

Those in support and opposition will be a lot of maximum three minutes per speaker, and you're not obligated to utilize a maximum time limitation.

For those that like to give up their time to speak, that speaker will be a lot of maximum two people.

Do you know what their time for a total of nine minutes?

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

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

And uh, real quick, uh Commissioner Cruz, can you hear us?

Yes, I can.

All right, Commissioner Vasquez, can you hear us?

Hello.

I can hear you.

Alrighty.

Thank you.

Chairman.

All right.

Um at this point I'll like to ask if uh we have a uh representative from each case.

Um do we know if everyone hears for the cases to be heard?

So we do have uh some of the applicants coming in uh at three o'clock, but I believe you want to.

We're good to proceed.

Okay.

Well, let's uh proceed with case number one, please.

Come on.

All right, good afternoon.

Can you all hear me okay?

All right, perfect.

Uh the first item on the agenda is uh case 274.

It is an appeal of the director's decision.

I'll get into the specifics of the case here in a moment.

Can you speak a little bit?

Sure.

The subject property is located along loop 1604 between Houseman Road to the south and Red Robin Drive to the north.

Uh it encompasses nearly 180 acres of land, um, and it is split-zoned a couple different districts light commercial, commercial, general commercial, and a small portion is zoned R6 uh residential single family district.

It includes uh the Edwards Recharge Zone District overlay as well as the military lighting uh overlay district.

UC one that is a signage related district uh that isn't particularly pertinent to this case.

Um to start, we mailed 161 notices.

Uh we had six returned in favor, thirteen in opposition outside of the notification boundary, an additional seven notices were received opposed with no formal comment from the Hills and Dales Neighborhood Association as we are required.

We also notified six citywide groups but received no response.

Uh unlike a typical case, I'm going to start off with a couple slides of background on this one because it's it's pretty technical in nature.

The Texas legislature uh just a few months ago in its 89th session, uh, as you can imagine, they approved hundreds of bills.

Several of those bills were related to land development.

Several of those bills this board was briefed on as the city endeavored to enroll those mandates into our UDC.

Um the one that is pertinent to today's case is Senate Bill 840, which requires a number of things, uh, but uh it applies only to a city with a population of 150,000 or more and located in a county with over 300,000 people.

So it certainly applies to San Antonio.

Uh and it says through uh subchapter B that mixed use or multifamily development must be allowed on any tract zoned office, commercial, retail, warehouse, or mixed use.

Uh for projects that are started on or after the effective date of that law.

The effective date of that law is September 1st, 2025.

That's the day that it became effective.

It also allows through its subchapter C that a city must allow the conversion of an existing building into a mixed use or multifamily project, and it waives certain development regulations like a traffic impact analysis, et cetera.

So it's a multi-pronged bill.

Um it is a mandate.

It is not a choice.

It Austin did not give cities the option.

It said that if you qualify based on your population, this is the law, and you have to follow it.

So we adopted those into our unified development code.

Um, in addition to applying or pardon me, complying with state law, part of the reason we adopted it into our UDC was to have one centralized uh set of regulations for people seeking to develop in San Antonio.

You don't have to go looking in multiple books to figure out what you can use your land for, to figure out how it can be designed, etc.

Um the act of codifying these amendments into our UDC was merely to apply with the state law.

And I think that's really evidenced by the language in the ordinance itself on the right side of your screen.

Whereas the legislative session saw the passage of over 300 bills, many of which were development related, where the Texas local government code states that the governing body of a municipality may adopt enforce or maintain an ordinance only if it is consistent with the state law.

Whereas public hearings were held, there's no whereas in there that said that you know it was optional, we felt like doing it, we adopted it with local amendments, we adopted the law.

We didn't have a choice.

Rights determine applications, they're generally uh seeking city recognition that a project was started a while back, that they are effectively grandfathered and locked into rules that were in place at the time their initial permit was submitted.

Uh it sought an acknowledgement from city staff that the property in question had rights.

We agree that it did.

We have a consent agreement.

Um we have hammered out an agreement on those vested rights.

Uh it also asked if the property was eligible to take advantage of this new law.

And uh rights were recognized consistent with the consent agreement.

Again, that consent agreement is voluntary, it is a contract between the city and the property owner.

Umrement generally are used to avoid litigation.

You know, we don't necessarily agree that they have rights, they ascertained they do.

We compromise through a consent agreement.

So, having reviewed that application, on October 8th, city staff issued an approval letter that acknowledged that vested rights do in fact exist, uh, and acknowledged that they can take advantage of SB 840 so long as they comply with the full provisions of that law.

Critically, the very last bullet on the slide, Section 4A of SB 840 says applies only to a mixed use or multifamily residential development project initiated on or after the effective date of this act.

Uh Logan, I'm sorry.

Logan, this is Joseph Harney, City Attorney's Office.

Real quick, we have uh Miss Cruz can we need her video for a full compliment of the board.

Um Thank you, Ms.

Cruz.

Okay.

Um that is italicized and underlined for a reason because it says that SB 840 only applies to a project that was started on or after the effective date of this law, being September 1, 2025.

What is the issue before us is that the applicant in their request for vested rights asserts that their project started on February 25, 1988, and we agree it did.

They have a POADP, it's what we used to call an MDP, uh, submitted on that date.

They have um had rights recognized over the years, vested to that date.

Uh they want to be able to continue vesting this project consistent with the consent agreement, but they also want to take advantage of SB 840 that says your project has to start on or after September 1, 2025.

Therefore, our issue, the last bullet is you can't have a project that simultaneously starts on February 25, 1988, and September 1, 2025.

The applicant in the application for an appeal said that staff conditionally approved their application.

That is simply not the case.

We did not, the word conditional doesn't appear anywhere in the letter.

We recognized rights consistent with the consent agreement, and we recognize the potential applicability of SB 840, but you have to choose which one you want because the way the law is written, you cannot have both.

So again, the the choice provided to the applicant was tell us how you want to proceed.

You want to proceed with your project with vested rights, or do you want to proceed with your project using SB 840?

The choice is yours.

In conversations with the applicant, we have been told that in conversations or written testimony from the bill's author, it was clarified that that was never the intent of the law.

We don't enforce laws based on what the intent was.

We enforce the law based on what the legislature passed and the governor signed.

And the language is pretty plain in this example.

It's also been asserted that using the word project does not mean a endeavor to develop something over time.

It meant a building permit.

That the building permit for this particular development would have come in after September 1, 2025.

But the law itself rather contradicts that argument as well.

In Section 4A, subchapter B, which is relevant to this case, it says applies only to a mixed use residential or multifamily residential development project initiated on or after.

The very next paragraph contemplates a building permit.

If they meant to write building permit, they would have written building permit as they did two sentences later in the law.

Therefore, uh we arrive at the recommendation.

In a typical appeal, as you're well aware, you're asked to determine whether or not the director made the appropriate decision in applying the law.

This case is a little bit different.

The director applied the law as it's plainly written, as he had no alternative.

We don't get to invent the laws, we don't get to change the laws.

We read the law and applied it.

As acknowledged and stated previously, the applicant can take advantage of vesting.

We recognized rights.

We also recognize the potential applicability of SB 840.

Because the director merely applied the law as it must be applied.

Staff's recommendation is that the Board of Adjustment take no action today.

The Board of Adjustment does not have purview to adjudicate state law.

At the top of the meeting, the chair read the board's powers, and nowhere in that list is included a judicial position over the interpretation of state law.

This is a matter, if there is a dispute, it should be resolved in a court of law.

That's staff's presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Let's see if we have any questions for staff.

Ragman?

Mr.

Braggman.

So did they apply for a building permit at any point?

No.

No.

Thank you.

Mr.

Oregon.

Yes.

I'm going to read something that I would like the city attorney to think about and answer at some point during the course of this case.

And I'm reading an excerpt from the local government code related to vested rights, specifically section 245.002D, where it says notwithstanding any provision of this chapter to the contrary, a permit holder may take advantage of recorded subdivision platinums, recorded and restrictive covenants required by regulatory agency, or a change to the laws, rules, regulations, or ordinances of a regulatory agency that enhance or protect the project without forfeiting any rights under this chapter.

So it looks like the vested right rules allow an applicant to take advantage of changes that would enhance the project.

And I would just like staff to at some point comment about that.

I know that I'm just putting that excerpt out there, but if staff could please comment at that at some point during this case, I'd appreciate.

Just I I believe, and we'll let the city attorney's office weigh in.

I believe that if you continue reading that section, it goes on to say something to the effect of unless specifically, unless specifically called out otherwise.

And in this case, it is specifically called out otherwise, that it only applies to a project that starts on or after the effective date of the law.

Yeah, not in the section B.

I didn't see that in Section D.

I know you I know what you're getting at, but I didn't see I was just reading Section D.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Orion.

Any other questions for staff?

Yeah.

Here and then I'd ask the uh applicant if you could please come forward and let's hear your case presentation.

Ken Brown, 100 Northeast Lou 410, suite 1365 or 85.

Uh San Antonio, Texas representing the applicant.

I'll wait for the very hard to hear you.

You bet.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh what do I hit to make it move?

This one?

Doink.

All right.

Um have tremendous respect for Logan, and I think virtually everything he said was true.

I will go over real quickly the timeline.

In February of two uh 1988, the SEAL family uh submitted a PODP, which is an MDP, uh, to the city for 1325 acres.

Uh they've had that land in their family for uh almost a hundred years uh with city's annexation and 1604 coming out in that way.

They realized that farming and ranching was not going to last very long.

Um I I think Logan describe vested rights or grandfathering, and it it basically is you get to lock in the rules when you submit your first application.

So this was our first application.

Um there's common law about uh vested rights, but the first statute that was ever adopted by the legislature was adopted in 1987.

It's no coincidence that a PODP was submitted in 1988.

Uh there was 1,300 acres that were going to be developed, and so they submitted a PODP.

Uh and knowing that it was going to take, well, it's been 35 years, I'm bad at math.

Uh I think close to 40 years, and it's still not done yet.

Uh as Logan stated, there's about 180 acres left.

Um in December of last year, uh we entered into an agreement with the city.

Uh Logan described it as a consent agreement.

Uh and that that agreement is only for the remain remaining 180 acres, I'm just gonna say.

Uh as you can see in the crosshatch, that's the 180 acres.

Everything else has been developed and it's all been developed for single family purposes, or 95% of it has.

This is an aerial, same property, the 180 acres, everything if you remember the shape of the deal, or mostly single family uh subdivisions.

There's one multifamily uh for rent uh townhome sort of project that's up on Houseman near 1604.

Uh so the consent agreement, which we adopted or we entered into with the city last year.

It's it's only for the 180 acres.

It set out the ordinances that we'd have to comply with, and it said the owner may take advantage of a change in the laws, rules, and regulations without forfeiting any rights under chap chapter 245.

That is the state state code that says that codifies dusting.

I'll say it again.

It says there is no other language unless it says somewhere else.

It says the owner may take advantage of the changes in laws, and it would not forfeit our vested rights.

Um the legislature adopted it uh and codified it into chapter 218 of the local government code.

There were no amendments to chapter 245.

There was no cross-reference between 218 and 245.

Chapter 245 stands alone as a vesting statute.

The city, as they stated, adopted uh Center Bill 840 into the code.

Uh there were a lot of changes, but essentially this is the permitted use table, and it says multifamily is allowed in 01, 02, neighborhood commercial, C1, C2, C3, uh, and light industrial, weird.

Note to note also when they codified it, the city has a section in vested rights.

That section stands alone as providing vested rights to applicants that have the permit and have gone through the process in our case a uh consent agreement.

So we did submit a um application for vested rights.

And to simplify and and Logan summarized it very well, they came back and said our PODP is valid, we do have vested rights.

Our project as described on that PODP includes multifamily.

And it hadn't lapsed.

Don't understand that one.

So our question though was if we utilize 840 uh under either the state statute or the code now and develop multifamily.

Do we maintain our vesting under what I'm gonna say is under our consent agreement?

Um this is this is the focus of the appeal, okay?

This isn't a John Grisham novel.

We don't have to we don't have to do a Supreme Court brief.

I I think if we have uh if we can read and comprehend what our consent says, I think it's pretty clear.

Uh our question is um can we take advantage of the new law and not forfeit our vest our vested rights?

There are three sections, the local government code, the UDC, and our consent agreement, and every one of them say the owner may take advantage of changes in laws without forfeiting any rights under 245.

It's it just I don't think could be any more clear.

Uh I'm not asking you, I'm not asking you to interpret state law.

I'm asking you to honor the consent agreement uh that the city uh executed and the and the SEAL family entered into with the city in good faith.

Uh now I'll get back to the SEAL family and and this particular project.

They have been working on it for 35 plus years.

They've honored every agreement that they have ever entered into with the city.

They have spent, and this comes from Gene Dawson because Pape Dawson has uh worked on this project from the beginning in 1988.

They have spent between 80 and 100 million dollars on infrastructure, they've extended water and sewer, they have dedicated right-of-way, they have built major thoroughfares, uh, they have granted easements for saws, CPS, uh, for water and sewer.

Uh this is an ongoing project.

They have they have honored their commitments, they have honored their their contractual obligation obligations, and that's what we're asking you to do today.

That's what we're asking the Board of Adjustment to do.

Does that say what it says?

Does it say if I take advantage of a new rule, am I entitled to my rights under the consent agreement?

That's what we're asking.

There's nothing up our sleeve, there's there's nothing nuanced about this.

Uh we don't need a Supreme Court, you know, justice or a clerk to do to do uh a brief on this.

That's it.

It it really is right there.

Uh I I'm not asking for intent.

Uh I'm not asking what they meant, although I have talked to the author and and the senator, and I think I know what they meant, but it doesn't matter.

I've got a consent agreement that takes precedent over that law.

I have an agreement with the city that says I can utilize that and not forfeit my vested rights.

Um I don't want to forget anything, but we're asking the city to follow the agreement and and the rules and regulations.

They say, you know, we're bound by you know, to adhere to the rules and regulations.

As they said, if the intent was something different, they should have put it in the rule.

Well, if the intent was to change Chapter 245, then they should have changed that also.

And they didn't.

They didn't change it when they amended the UDC.

It didn't make it into the local government code either.

It's in the bill, but it didn't make it into the local government code.

And it's clear in our agreement with the city that we we have all agreed that we can take advantage of new rules and regulations if they benefit our project.

You know, this last part is going to sound a little paranoid, but I have actually been through this before.

And what happened to me last time, I don't want to happen to me again, but what happened to me last time was the city attorney asked to go into executive session and went in there and said, the skies falling, you're opening us up to all kinds of legal consequences.

I hope that doesn't happen.

I uh the I have represented the SEALs all three generations.

Um they thought they had a binding agreement.

Uh I don't think they're going to be shocked if they don't uh based upon the city's interpretation.

Uh but I I think at the very least they deserve their day in court.

And if you have questions, if that does happen, I would I would sincerely appreciate that vote out of the question.

Thank you, Mr.

Brown.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Um let's see for first.

Do we have any uh buddy signed up for uh community uh uh community speech or uh three voicemails and two speakers?

Okay.

Let's go ahead and hear those and then we'll start with Commissioner Questions.

Hi, um sorry, my name is Ahmed up in Baki.

And my house address is A007 Eagle Peak.

Uh according to regarding the rezoning of the land case number uh ending in 2004.

Uh the rezoning would impact the value of my house, the traffic, the privacy of my backyard.

Basically, my house would be called to any apartments uh specially to a historic apartment before uh bill.

The traffic is gonna impact like I said, and it would also we have not received any assurance of any buffering of any special designs or these restrictions that are gonna be put on on the uh on this uh piece of plan.

Uh my one that again, my number 210421195.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name is America Obdavaki.

My house address is 8007 Eagle Peak.

Hello to Texas, of course.

My phone number is 2107250637.

I am calling in opposition to the rezoning case BOA 251030274 for the impact on my house value, my privacy since my backyard will be fully exposed to the apartment, the traffic impact it will cause.

And we have not received any issuement of any buffer or dec restriction.

Thank you.

Sorry, one more voicemail.

Good morning.

This is Mike Morlino.

My address is 8734 Redwood Bend in Velotus.

I am calling in regard to agenda item BOA 251030274.

The applicant Brown and McDonald, PLLT on behalf of H.

Kyle CO property limited, submitted a request to change the zoning from commercial to mixed use or multifamily.

This request violates the terms of SB 840.

This community already has too many apartment complexes.

Building additional apartments will increase traffic congestion on parkway and the loop 60 to 4 service road, overcrowd our schools and place additional demand on water pressure, sewer capacity, and electric service.

The current commercial zoning is welcome.

Additional multifamily or mixed use is not.

Thank you.

Have a great day.

Alrighty.

First speaker.

Fatima.

Good afternoon.

I feel like I should have chosen a different uh New Year's resolution to be more instead of being more involved in city matters.

I'm here for this item.

Um little split uh at my household ma'am.

State your name, please for the record.

Oh, Fatima Professor.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Um anything else any state?

Your address would be.

13812 River Bank Pass, Helodies 78023.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Um we're splitting my household.

I wouldn't mind more multi-use family.

Uh my significant other is more we should just stick with commercial.

Um personally.

So it's it's hard to say for or against based on what I've heard from both sides.

Uh maybe we should just stick with commercial.

Um the traffic is already getting really bad nowadays on on the uh off ramp on 1604.

Um there are a lot of children.

I literally just saw a child playing soccer on the sidewalk on Houseman.

Um, but I would also kind of prefer perhaps, you know, instead of commercial, perhaps a rezoning to, I don't know, parks.

I hate having to cross the highway for a park nowadays.

I hate not having uh public transit in that area.

Um I think my fellow homeowners would disagree on that as well, um, given their previous comments, but uh I guess whatever the board decides or the director decides, I mean um it sounds like whatever the board decides essentially.

Thanks.

Thank you.

We see um, you can state your name and address, please.

Yes, sir.

It's Wacy Birschwal.

I live at 8410 Feather Trail with direct exposure to the whatever happens with this property.

Um privacy is gonna be an issue for sure uh with the multifamily uh concept.

Um I would definitely prefer commercial or you know the park thing sounds great, but I don't know that's not really in the cards, it looks like.

But um I traffic is gonna be a problem.

I agree with that.

Um it's been congested for a while.

Um anyways.

Um the value of my home, I mean, we're we're I'm directly impacted.

We're right next to the to the ranch.

So I mean they've enjoyed the ranch for a long time.

But um that's pretty much all I've got.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

That's all the public comments.

All right.

At this point, I'd ask uh, I guess the applicant to come back and we can see if we have any questions uh for you from the board.

Yep.

Ms.

Bragman.

Thank you.

Um so my question is if what are the consequences to the seals if this appeal is not approved?

It looks like because there are four different uses zones on this property, is does it become less viable in like a commercial context because of the the different zoning?

What what are the consequences if this appeal is not approved?

Um so and I Logan, I I I believe this is true.

So the vast majority of the 100 acres is zone commercial, okay.

Uh and look in doing a land plan for that area, we have identified about a hundred of those acres that will be will be commercial.

It's right on 1604.

It'll it'll be commercial.

That that's what it'll be, okay.

We think about 35 of the acres will be multifamily, okay.

So our understanding is the commercial is not uh under dispute today.

If we develop that hundred acres of commercial, it will be developed under the consent agreement.

Okay.

So we're really talking about the 30 to 35 acres of what might be multifamily, okay.

Uh and and really the the bottom line is if if we want to do multifamily, uh it's we're gonna do it whether the only question is whether it's vested or not.

Okay.

So uh because as they've stated, we can utilize it.

Uh we just have to comply with all the rules and regulations in effect today, all right?

Which is in contradiction of our consent agreement.

Okay.

So I knew you guys were going to be pragmatic.

So what happens is if you deny it, we'll go along our merry way.

The hundred acres will be developed as commercial with vesting.

The 35 to 40 acres will be developed as multifamily.

I believe, given the fact that we would if we have to comply with all the new rules and regulations.

As codified, if we use commercial, multifamily and commercial under the code, we can go up to 65 units per acre.

I'm getting to your answer.

I'm sorry, it's a little drawn out.

Nobody is going to do 65 units per acre out in that area.

I would I would suggest I'm horrible at math.

If someone wants to do the math, uh with vesting, we would probably do a multifamily at about 25, 26, 27 units per acre.

Without vesting, we would probably do it around 33.

So the difference is whatever 35 are you doing this?

No, I'm not.

I'm just saying.

Is anyone in my mind thinking though?

It it's going to throw out a number if no one is going to do it.

But it it's it's probably will increase the density by about three or four hundred units total over that.

Uh but it still gets built.

Um the trees uh we would probably deal with in a uh in a tree preservation plan.

We have a we have a lot of floodplain.

And so we would probably deal with trees uh through a tree preservation plan.

And uh it wouldn't really change anything.

I mean, I I'm sure my client is scratching his head right now.

Uh what it would change is that we honored every one of our our obligations under every agreement that we had, and we feel like the city is not not doing that.

And we don't see why.

Thank you, Mr.

Broken.

So I don't know why we're here.

I you know, I I thought this would go to planning commission because it was a vested rights deal.

I I'm not asking you to interpret state law.

I'm asking you to direct staff because they made a determination to honor the agreement they entered into the So Mr.

Brown, this is I Vineus.

I think Ms.

uh Donald had first of them, Mr.

Bunnings.

Um I have all day.

Okay, so my question is uh there's two things.

Number one, um the vested rights code, there's another subsection G where in 2005, when the legislator made some changes, they did say in there that that uh notwithstanding uh uh this a section 245 double zero.

So the change in law made to Section A and the addition of certain sections apply only to a project commence on or after a certain date.

So there's already like a it seems like an example of where they adjust made an adjustment to the vested rights code and they're and they and the codified what they wanted you to do about it.

So when the state passed this law and they didn't make any changes to the vested rights code, that kind of gears me in one direction of what their intent is.

Uh the second thing is that if the best if he moves forward with with doing the SB, wouldn't he also be allowed to go to the Planning Commission to appeal the denial of the vested rights because they're they're the appellate board for that, a point that the applicant brought up, it just seemed kind of like this is this is kind of new ground for us, but I think it's kind of interesting.

I like to hear your comment about that.

As I said, I don't know why we're here, right?

To tell you the truth.

I this what staffs are gonna say is they approved our consent uh our vested rights deal.

But they approved it saying that if I utilize the new law, I I don't have vesting anymore.

And that's not what the consent agreement says.

Uh Mr.

Modis?

Um Mr.

Brown, uh so just for clarification, uh we're looking to see of you using keeping your vested rights using the new law.

And uh City is saying that according to uh the new code by the State, uh you're not allowed to do that.

Yet you're showing us information that you said that there's no wording saying that you lose your your vested rights.

Yes.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

That is the consent agreement.

That is the agreement that the Casill family has with the city.

Yes, ma'am.

I have a quick question.

You mentioned that the you said at the Board of Adjustments, not the venue, that we have no authority of the case.

I'm not saying they're well, actually they're saying it too.

I chair, um at this point I would recommend uh we convene and executive session.

There are some concerns, some attorney client concerns we would uh discuss.

This is where my get pulled in.

All right.

Uh the time is 148.

The City of San Antonio Zoning Board of Adjustment Adjustment Commission in accordance with section 551 uh 071, the Texas government code shall now go into executive session for the purpose of a confidential attorney client discussion of the equal legal issues related uh to the uh case number BOA-25-1030274.

After such a liberation, the Commission will reconvene in open session.

And if if I may, for those that are joined virtually, uh we would ask that you leave the WebEx meeting and you will receive a phone call so that you can participate in that conversation.

Do we do we lock off or do you do we can we just keep it on and just answer the phone?

I would log off and then rejoin when you uh come to leave the exec session.

Real quick, um we'd have the number and the access code uh that you guys received on the chat.

So you guys should be able to join um on the phone.

No, you write this now.

Number of number code dial.

All right.

The time is now uh 304 on January 12, 2026, the Board of Adjustments of the City of San Antonio will now reconvene in open session.

No official action was taken in executive session.

Uh at this point, um we we heard testimony for the applicant.

We heard uh testimony uh from the city.

Um we close the public portion with uh with the public comments and voices to be heard, and I'd ask a member of the board to please make a motion.

Orion.

Mr.

Orion.

So regarding case number BOA-25-1030274, I move that the Board of Adjustment grant the appeal for the property generally located northwest of the intersection of Housing Road and West Loop 1604.

Applicant being Brown and McDonald PLLC because the information provided by the applicant shows that city staff made an error in enforcing this uh section 35 through 12 in accordance with state law, including Senate Bill 840 as passed by the Texas legislature.

End of motion.

Second.

Ms.

Bragman.

Yeah, so uh I'm gonna be in support of the appeal for two reasons.

One, I think that um uh the the use of certain terms and how they are applied by certain codes, whether they be a state code or a city code, just uh occasionally they're just different and this stuff is so new, but I think the intent was for for them to to uh to to not override each other.

And secondly, um because vested rights doesn't get into use, it gets into things like tree ordinance and and minuscule kind of stuff there.

I think they stand separately, and I I don't uh take issue with it, so all means.

Ms.

Bragman.

Um I'm not gonna be in support of the appeal.

I don't feel like the um the admin the um city made an error in um the decision that they made.

So uh I will not be supporting the appeal.

Any other members of the board would like to provide some comment?

All right.

Hearing none, uh let's take a roll call vote.

Commissioner Orion.

Uh I uh am in favor of the appeal, yes.

Commissioner Bragman?

No.

Commissioner Reed.

No.

Commissioner Stevens?

No.

Commissioner Ibanez?

No.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

No.

Commissioner Gomez.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Bonias?

I abstain.

Commissioner Vasquez.

Commissioner Vasquez.

Can hear you?

Could you give us what was the vote?

Vice Chair Ozana.

I'm I would vote for it.

Yeah.

So uh with uh seven against and three for the motion does not pass.

The motion does not pass.

Uh please sketch with staff and they can uh explain what you what the remedies here would be.

Thank you, sir.

Next case, please.

And um real quick if I can read off the two continuances.

Um oh three zero zero two three three request by Rob McLean for uh special exemption to allow one additional STR type two on block face, uh City Council District 2 requesting a two-week continuance and also Do we have any any vo uh voicemails or any uh public record to be read in on those in that case?

Not for that one.

Okay.

And also BOA 25103023.

I'm sorry.

Which item number?

That's item three.

Um that's the first one.

The other one has one voicemail that we need to play.

Um second one is BOA 251030267, request by Ricardo Navarro for a variance for RM4 development uh on two separate structures on each slot on 305-307-309 Porter Street, staff recommended now.

And we do have one voicemail on that one.

Um that's for item number 13.

The case number that I'm calling is last three figure is 267.

Once again, it's 267, and I received uh document saying that I have to leave a voicemail uh before 10 a.m.

today, January 12th, 2026.

I'm calling to both in favor and opposed if it is an apartment complex, there's already department complex, very close by what if it's a condominium that are similar to being built, or that have been built on the same street next to the D street property.

I am in favor.

It would definitely uh uh bring a lot of uh rejuvenation to the neighborhood.

My uh name is beside my phone number is 21020107.

Thank you.

Read off one more that is a two-week continuance with a voicemail is item number four, BOA 251030269, a request by JK France Gyans LLC for an administrative decision appeal for a short-term rental located 8201 meadow post.

Um and that one is one voicemail for item number four.

Yes, I'm calling about public hearing uh case number BOA-25-1030269.

It's about revoking a short-term rental agreement for property on 8201 metal post on the pro on my name is Ernest Guda.

And I live on 8202 metal post right across the street from that.

And I don't have a problem with them uh doing a short-term rent agreement.

They've been doing Airbnb all summer long.

We don't have a problem with that.

I already checked with the neighbors.

The R directly across from them.

Well, next door to them, and they don't have a problem with it either.

They said they were gonna call also.

So I'm in favor of leaving their uh rest to agreement as is the short-term rental agreement.

Again, my name is Ernest Guda.

I live in 8202 middle post across from 8201 middle post.

We'll do one separate one, but we'll do that one separate since there's two people sign up to speak on that one.

Okay, can we get a just a voice uh we have to make a motion motion for a continuance?

Or yeah, Ms.

Bregman.

These are both two weeks.

I mean all of them two weeks.

Two weeks.

So that would be what's the date.

January 26.

Okay.

I move that uh we continue case boa-25-1030 to uh January 26th.

All of favor say aye.

Aye.

So move.

Wait, what was the case number?

They just did on number three.

233.

But she said ending in 233.

Oh, there it is.

It is two three three.

It's case, yeah.

Okay, sorry.

I the voicemail said two six nine, that's why I was wondering.

That's the that's the next one.

Um I move that we continue cat case BOA-25-103-00269 to January 26.

I think what a second.

Well, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

So moved.

Who is the second on that one?

Stevenson.

Thank you.

Okay.

And regarding case number BOA-25-103-00267.

I move that the board of adjustment continue to January 26th.

Against second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

So moved.

Aye.

All righty.

And the last continuance.

Uh this one has two speakers.

Um BOA 251030261.

Request by Head Montgardo for a square foot variant for the maximum 2500 square feet.

Located at 1100 two Vance Jackson Road.

And they're requesting a two-week continuance, and we do have two sign up to speak for this one.

First one is Tammy Slater.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Mike Slater, you have six minutes.

And please state your name and address.

My name is Michael Slater.

A little bit.

Michael Slater.

I reside at 11006 Vance Jackson.

Aha.

We got that.

11006 Vance Jackson, which is directly west or north of the property that we're talking about.

And I certainly am not going to take six minutes.

First of all, I want to uh pass a big thank you to Miss Polimus for her communication with me.

I I am new at this, and she was just excellent in answering questions, giving me the procedures and whatever.

That being said, uh we're we're against uh Mr.

Garza building an 8,000 square foot garage next to our property.

Uh we're also opposed to any continuance on this.

The reason being uh both of these houses were constructed in the 30s.

Mine has two acres, the house next door, the Mr.

Gars's has uh one acre.

That property's been vacant for about 15 years.

The original owner passed away for the last year.

I believe Mr.

Garza bought it in 24, as I understand it.

Um for the past year, that vacant area where the garage is to be built has been full of landscape trucks and trailers and equipment and crews, and it's used it was some commercial landscape company that was using it that I believe is associated with Mr.

Garza.

Secondly, the size of this thing is 8,0200 plus square feet.

It's 60, it has a 60 by 90, which is 5400 square feet workshop, and it shows storage for uh looks like a 40-foot SUV and a boat and other stuff.

Uh the plan also shows the construction of two concrete driveways.

Um I would say that that area of Ants Jackson just west of Orzbach, that area is in a dip, and uh it also services St.

Matthew's Catholic School and Fire Station number 37.

So we're very concerned about is this property gonna be used for commercial landscaping, or is it gonna be a store an 8,000 foot storage unit?

Uh so the use is a concern.

Um I'd like to have that answered today if possible.

Um we're concerned about the traffic for the school and the fire station, the driveway, and let's see what else.

What'd you say, Tammy?

And we have children with our next door neighbor that are that are there.

So those are our concerns.

That it's primarily the size, you know.

My garage is is 20 by 24, which is 480 square feet, and I have two full-size trucks in it.

This garage is 8,000 square feet.

It's bigger than both our houses and both our garages combined.

So that is our primary uh concern.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, sir.

Any questions?

I see.

Does the board have any questions for thank you, sir?

All righty.

We're seeking a motion for continuance.

The applicant is requesting a two-week continuance.

Fragman.

Ms.

Braggman.

I move that the Board of Adjustments grant a continuance for case number BOA-25-1030261 to January 26th.

I have a second.

Second.

Ms.

Stevens?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

So moved.

No.

Okay.

Yep.

So moved.

Yep.

Next case, please.

Next meeting here.

Is that the final slide?

Okay.

Okay.

We're having obviously a little bit of technical difficulty here, but I'm going to go ahead and get started.

The second case that I'm presenting today, application ending in 275 is materially similar to the first item that you just considered.

Similarly, there is there was an application for vested rights.

That application sought uh for staff to clarify if the property had vested rights and if Senate Bill 840 applies.

Similar to the last case, uh staff issued a letter that acknowledged that rights do exist.

The material difference in this case is that the rights exist even in the absence of a consent agreement.

That was not a necessary step for city and the developer to determine that rights are applicable.

The property itself uh also similarly has a couple different zones, C one, two, three, also in the Edwards recharge zone district, as well as the military lighting overlay district.

Uh we mailed 83 notices, none were returned in favor, seven in opposition.

We received no formal responses from the Encino Park Homeowners Association or the Village at Encino Park Homeowner Association.

Uh again, uh pertinent to this case is the presence of Senate Bill 840 and its passing in the 89th Texas legislative session.

Uh it was a mandate.

I'll kind of reiterate that, and it only applies to projects that started on or after the effective date of that law.

The UDC amendments were codified to account for that requirement from state law.

Uh on October 13th, 2025, city staff issued an approval letter uh that said that you have vested rights that date the project back to November 13, 1984.

That was the underlying permit date, the POADP.

But again, you can only take advantage of SB 840 for projects that start on or after September 1 2025.

We have the same issue in play.

A project cannot simultaneously start in 1984 and 2025.

Uh and that is what is landed us before y'all today.

Um the assertions by and large remain the same.

Uh, that uh the uh the the property owner we provided a choice.

You can choose vested rights or SB 840, but not both.

Um we've already talked about the uh intentions of the bill's author, but we're going to enforce what was actually codified, not the unwritten intent of the bill.

And similarly, you are asked to determine if the director of development services made the correct decision or made an error in its letter approving and acknowledging vested rights and acknowledging that SB 840 may be uh utilized, but not both.

Actually, the full report is included for the record, but I want to respect everyone's time as well.

All right, thank you.

Let's see.

Any questions for staff?

Hearing none at ask the applicant, uh please come forward.

Okay.

Spanish interpreter.

English to Spanish, yes.

Thank you.

Appreciate the offer.

Gotcha.

Suite 1385.

So uh going over the timeline.

Uh we are present.

As with the last case, we have to do that.

That was approved in 1984.

Uh for 1849 acres.

Uh we submitted a vested rights application.

Presentamos la solicitud para derechos atos.

For 39.48 acrescentes.

39.48 acres is lo que estamos solicitando.

City confirmed those rights.

We appealed the city's confirmation.

Our question was do we still have rights if we use uh Senate Bill 840?

So per si tenemos derechos de uh si applicamos esta lay.

Uh like the first case um we had a PODP uh for eighteen hundred acres.

Excuse me.

Um this is what the area looks like today.

Ninety-five percent single family.

Single family.

Um much like the first case, the developer owned all the property and uh made all the improvements required by the city of San Antonio.

Uh Senate Bill 840 was approved by the legislature.

Um was codified in the UDC.

Uh and what that did was allow multifamily and commercial zoning based districts.

Uh once again we submitted uh a request to verify our rights.

In particular, our question was if we use Senate Bill 840.

Do we still have vested rights?

The city responded that we had rights but uh right to do multifamily, but we would forfeit our vested rights.

Without forfeiting our vested rights.

But words have no meaning, clearly.

I wish I could have taken more time.

But that is the end of my presentation.

So if we have have any questions for the applicant.

Please.

I voted against it because of the date of the law of the 804 saying that the project had to begin on or after September 1st of 2025.

That's why I voted for it.

Or the new code.

And so I that's why I voted against it.

Because of the specific date that's on the code.

Thank you, Mr.

Bonus.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Yes, Ms.

Yes.

Thank you very much.

I I really do appreciate that.

I agree with that also.

I just agree.

I just believe that the state statute, the 245 supers that I sobrepone.

But I do appreciate the response.

Bonias.

For the applicant, uh, what's the importance of keeping the vested rights?

I have two answers.

One, what is the importance of honoring a contract?

And you have chaos if people don't abide by the rules and regulations.

More specifically in this particular case, what are the what are the purposes in this particular case on why the what what benefits the applicant by using the vested rights in this particular case in the specific development?

What are you going to use?

Which won't be popular, but I get back to the contract.

Number one, if I do multifamily which is allowed, um I would have a category one piece of property, meaning I would have a hundred percent impervious cover, as opposed to fifty.

Sorry.

Yes, ma'am.

And if I could finish rents are only what rents what you can get, okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Bonia.

Uh any other questions for the applicant?

Yeah, Orion.

Yeah, I have I wanted to ask the applicant his thought on something.

Vested rights is an acknowledgement of something you already have.

True or not true.

That is absolutely true.

I I have vested rights.

So whether you applied for vested rights or not, your site is part of an MDP project.

So shouldn't the city how can they even offer you to give you vested rights if it's they're not giving you anything, they're just acknowledging something you already have.

So what I don't understand is I didn't hear any of that in the discussion.

I'm surprised they're even letting you have a choice to comply with 840, because I I mean, in theory, anybody who's part of an NDB prior to September 1st wouldn't be allowed to do invogue 840 anyway.

And I'm wondering why that didn't come up in anybody's discussion.

And the process of acknowledging them through the consent agreement for the vest rights permit, um puts the developer in a bad situation.

I the their acknowledging rights, and they are also the judge and the jury as to whether I can use how I can use them.

Is it if you uh what another question is if you if you decide to invoke 840, are you going to appeal the vested rights denial to the planning commission?

It's not a denial, so that's not appealable to the planning commission.

And that is the conundrum I'm in.

I if the code says any denial of vested rights is appealable to the planning commission.

But I can't get there.

I'm here.

Staff staff acknowledged and approved the vested rights.

So you could appeal the approval of vested rights to planning commission, but we were told that that was not what the applicant wanted.

They didn't want to approve or appeal the approval.

That's absolutely what I did.

I appealed your approval.

And you sent me here.

I sent you the caption that says an appeal of the decision to recognize vested rights, and you said that's not what you wanted.

You wanted to appeal what you called a conditional approval.

We didn't conditionally approve it.

We acknowledged rights and read the law.

So they're saying you want to appeal an approval to the to the planning commission.

I said no.

Does it looking for guidance here?

I mean, is this something that needs to be worked out between staff and the applicant where the uh even the purview for us to review it is under question, or is that something we can possibly look at a continuant so they can kind of work something out or looking for staff for some guidance here?

I'm asking the I just wanted to say I'm asking these questions because it seems like there is an interpretation of state code that needs to be requested, and people can't ask for an attorney general's opinion.

Don't you have to be like a political subdivision or uh you know a uh a state legislator or something?

I mean, is is this applicant even have the ability to get a formal interpretation from the attorney general on on this thing at all?

No, no, uh a governmental entity has to ask the attorney general for an opinion.

I mean, shouldn't I mean shouldn't at a minimum the c I mean if the city is the only person who can ask the attorney general one way or another?

I don't know how long that process takes, but I I just think that that's what should be done personally, but uh yeah, the we would recommend a continuous the the question has already been asked and answered, and that's the issue that's before the board.

Okay.

So I would present the applicant so a continuance is recommended here.

Would that what you're saying?

No, no, we do not recommend.

Okay, no continuance.

Okay.

Okay.

Any other I guess that's any other questions for the applicant.

I must put it on the spy that's okay.

Sorry.

Do we have any public comments to be read in, or did we we have two people sign up to speak?

Let's go and hear the public comment and then we'll ask the applicant uh to call up for a final rebuttal.

Of uh Mrs.

Annette Brewster?

Yes, and I'm a miss, not a misses.

First off, I want to thank Riley for taking the time.

I'm sorry, we didn't get your name and my name is Annette Brewster.

My address is 1941 Creek Mountain Street.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, and if you can put that map up of this.

Oops.

Yes.

Okay.

First off, um, I've lived in this property for 30 years now, almost 30 years.

And when I bought the home, it was zoned for commercial, but uh Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone owned it.

In other words, we couldn't put down pellets, we couldn't use liquid fertilizer.

There were things that we have to comply to make sure that the aquifer recharge zone stayed pure, which was fine with all of us.

In 84, it was zoned for commer commercial, and all that's ever been up on that property was for sale signs.

Nothing more for all of these years.

However, Mr.

Seal claimed or in 1984, November, he applied for the a commercial permit, and that's when he had gotten it.

Money, money, money.

And then Senate Bill 840 passed in September of 2005 or 2025.

And the investor wants to combine both old zoning and overlay it, as we've been discussing, or as y'all have been discussing.

That can't be done.

It's you you can't have two separate start dates on a project.

You know that, I know that, and I come from a family of builders, and they all know that.

We also have the military light protection, so we have dark nights, which is really cool.

We also have a lot of wildlife out there, from porcupines to skunk and everything in between.

And I've got all kinds of pictures, foxes, everything.

I mean, it's so cool to be sitting out at night watching all the the wildlife that we have.

And I did talk to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and if they need to be summonsed, they will.

We also have on that map 50 percent of that from where you see the ma'am.

Can you please speak into the microphone?

I'm sorry, where you see the T on mountain from that going eastbound is all flood zone.

And on the where all those Xs are, that's all flood zones also.

The attorney didn't know it, and I asked him this morning if he knew that this was partial flood zone.

He said no, he didn't know it.

So we have concerns about flooding as well in that area.

We also have concerns on a mixed use.

We don't we can't control tenants from putting stuff into the ground that will go into seep into the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone.

And because it's so moldy out in that area, which is a true statement because there's so much land.

Anybody that sprays their deck if it's uh uh apartment complex, are they gonna throw bleach down there to get it into the recharge zone as well?

Yeah, we we don't want anybody destroying that recharge zone.

We have to be good stewards to Mother Nature and to God and to the land that was given to us and to the animals.

We have to be good stewards to all of them and to the military because they support our city.

So there are plenty of lots along 281 north and south that are underdeveloped, that are coded.

Are you almost that's your time limit?

I'm almost done.

Okay, that that this guy can build on that that are not in flood zones that are commercial and are mixed property.

And all of my neighbors that I've talked to, we oppose, and I know that only seven have turned in, but we oppose any type of apartment complex or office buildings going behind our homes.

It's going to depreciate the value of our homes.

And if any one of you lived where we lived, you wouldn't want it either.

Okay.

Mr.

Robert.

All right.

What's our public comment?

All right.

So I'd ask the applicant to please come forward and uh I'd give you chance for rebuttal.

I've heard some of the comments I know that the development is kind of using Section 840.

I mean, it gives them the right to develop the multifamily.

So let's talk about raccoons and squirrels.

I mean, okay.

We're not going to follow the law, so I'd rather talk about something else.

Thank you for your time.

I assume we have no questions for the applicant.

Uh not for the applicant, but for for city.

Yep.

Boning us.

Well uh so you know he had talked about the applicant that talked about 50 percent impervious cover as opposed to 100 percent impervious cover.

What is the purpose of impervious cover?

Uh impervious cover regulations ensure that there is adequate um or limits to impervious cover, I should say.

Yeah, it's generally for the purpose of aquifer recharge.

Okay, maximum lot coverage to allow for recharge.

And then I think the applicant had also spoke about uh the the trees or something.

What is the purpose of having the the the tree ordinance in there?

The tree ordinance is intended to protect and mitigate for trees, so they you know every site just can't be clear cut.

So we have a tree ordinance have since 1997.

We've adopted four or five iterations of it over the years, the most current being the 2010 tree ordinance.

So then by like if we if we were to say, okay, we grant you know his appeal, then we allow him to do 100 percent impervious cover and then ignore the tree ordinance that we have set today.

Is that right?

Uh I on the spot, I only want to commit to so much, but I believe this project was vested to 1984, which would predate the nineteen ninety-seven tree ordinance.

Okay.

That's what I'm saying.

Well, thank you, Mr.

Bonnyas.

Commissioner Dean.

Mr.

Dean Uh What is uh what is the definition of you know vested rights from the city.

Vested rights is the assertion that your project started at a certain time and you're locked into the development standards at the time a required permit was initially submitted.

Is that a statutory right?

Yes.

Do statutory rights grow in having more benefits as the code changes.

But let the attorneys answer this one.

Yeah, it depends only to the extent that the state allows it since the originating statute is from the state, the state um would dictate that.

In this case, has the rights grown in favor of the applicant to do what he is asking of us to uh approve?

No, not under these circumstances.

And what evidence would you refer to?

Yeah, the state law was enacted.

And this is a statutory right?

Uh well, it is a state law, so yeah.

Both laws are emanating from the state statutes.

The the applicant has the ability to take advantage of the new state law, but they have to comply with all of the new state law, not only the portions that are beneficial.

So we can't ignore the part that says only applies to a project on or after September 1, 2025.

The state wrote that, not the city.

So they can take advantage of SB 840, but they have to take advantage of all of it.

Including vested rights, because that's a part of the statutory right.

SB 840 only applies to a project that started on or after September 1, 2025.

In their vesting application, they assert their project started in 1984.

So it c it cannot start in 1984 and start in 2025.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Dean.

Any other questions for staff?

Orion.

Mr.

Orion.

Okay, so please so my question is is that if vested rights are an acknowledgement and not a permit, then the fact that there's an MDP dated for to 1984, doesn't the city automatically have to not allow him to invoke 840.

I'm I'm sorry, Commissioner.

Can you clarify the question?

Yeah, so vested rights is a is an acknowledgement of something you have.

It's not a permit.

The fact that it's undisputed that there was an MDP that put this 1300 or 1800 acres in motion in the 80s.

The fact that the NDP is still floating around out there and hasn't been vacated, doesn't that preclude his ability to ever comply with Senate Bill 840 at all?

Because if the answer is no, well then it seems like the city isn't harping on that, you know, that that date isn't as important as the city uh is making it out to be vested vested rights is an acknowledgement that you started a project at a given date.

And we did acknowledge that they started their project in 1984.

We recognize that they approved it.

But if they don't if they decide to uh to if this applicant decides to invoke Senate Bill 840 and ignore the vested rights, how can the city ignore that the project still started in 1984?

We're not ignoring it.

We issued an approval letter acknowledging that they have vested.

Whether the project started in 84 or not has nothing to do with the vested rights application.

I'm saying that because there was an NDP file, the project started in 1984, regardless of whether there's a vested rights application or not, shouldn't you be denying Senate Bill 840 anyway?

Be no, because they're as they're asserting a new project to start in 2025 based on new rules that were approved in 2025.

Yeah, I know, but the MDP, but I'm just saying that this project, regardless of vested rights, just let's forget that they never applied, or the there was an MVP filed in 1984.

That started this 1800 acre development.

So therefore, shouldn't you be denying it anyway?

I mean, if is that that that's either the date or it isn't the date.

Do you understand what I'm getting at?

I see everybody talking, but I just want to make sure like my the question that I'm trying to pose, I'm trying to get to the to the to the to the answer of how this should be done moving forward, in addition to what should be done here, the fact that there's an MVP or a plat or anything that the city can recognize as a project start date, that alone, regardless of vested rights application, should control whether or not 840 applies.

True or false.

True.

It's messy by news.

I mean, I'm just this isn't that isn't that really the question at bay here?

I mean, if in fact that vested rights is an acknowledgement of something you have, and this thing did in fact start in 84, then we shouldn't even be here at all.

H40 should never apply to anybody.

SB 840 applies to anyone who starts their project on or after September 1, 2025.

They can use SB840.

So in August of 2025, if I've recorded a single lot, a single lot plat, are you gonna say that I can't invoke Senate Bill 840 because my plat was recorded before September 1st of 2025?

So this is Audrey Damore with the city attorney's office.

So you understand what I'm asking here.

No, honestly, that's that's part of why we're all back here talking because we have different interpretations of what we think that you're asking.

Um so I'm gonna make a statement and then you can restate your your question or your statement.

Yes, yes, when you have a again, 245 is vesting you to a project and you are locking in a particular start date for that project.

But you can lose your vested rights due to a variety of different circumstances.

When you change that project, then you can no longer come back to the city and say, but I had an MDP back in 1984.

When you tell us that you have a different start date because you are now doing multifamily in what used to be commercial, that is considered a change of project, and just like any other circumstance where you change your project, you lose your vested rights on that particular portion.

That is not a new concept.

Now I do agree with you on that.

However, this is one of those really odd MVPs that the city would never let you do today, where it says, I'm gonna I'm gonna do this one huge thing and I'm gonna do residential, commercial, or multifamily.

It's like anything goes kind of thing.

I'm not really changing anything because I'm not being specific like you would normally would want.

And so I'm not changing the project.

I'm I'm still honoring the project because I'm doing one of the three things that I'm allowed to do.

It just so happens that that you know they don't allow that anymore.

But nowadays, but back then they I guess they they did.

So in a in a way, I'm not canceling the job, it's still there.

I'd have to I would have to amend the MDP and and make it more specific, and then it would be a change.

I guess I just think with this particular this these particular cases, this one and the one before, because the MDP allowed you to do anything, there's no change of the project, and therefore 840 should never apply to begin with.

So again, yeah, and and I hear what you're saying, but at the same time, if the state says that you have to have a new project start date post-2025, you cannot have a project that starts both pre in 1984 and post-2025.

One is commercial, one is multifamily.

They are not the same thing because under the previous rules, commercial meant commercial.

It did not mean commercial and multifamily.

What were the allowed uses for the specific piece of land that's before us?

What did it allow?

Commercial.

Only that's not so yes, based on the application and the information, it's commercial.

And that's what was recognized.

The MDP didn't say residential, commercial, or multifamily.

No.

Because the previous one it did.

And that's that there are distinctions between this case and the previous case.

Okay, because you know I didn't see the MDP for this one.

That's why I was asking it because it was the if it's all done by the same person.

I assumed it was done the same way.

No, they're trying to do that.

So I was trying to see if the MDP was still being followed, then therefore 840 should never apply.

These are two completely different properties, two completely different owners, even though they're being represented by the same law firm.

Okay.

Okay.

Well then on the previous job, then it should have never been applied.

Then I should have just brought that up then.

I didn't think about it until right now.

Thank you, Mr.

Orion.

All right.

Mr.

Brown, would you did you have any other rebuttal or I mean I expected this.

I just want to be clear.

In 1984, commercial multifamily was considered commercial.

It's it's the same facts as the original.

I I understand I understand your distinction.

I just don't want to lose any more rights by standing up here.

Uh commercial multifamily was commercial in 1984.

So Mr.

Orion, it is allowed.

They're saying I can't start the project after 2025 and still maintain vesting.

Thank you, sir.

Okay.

All right.

I believe that closes both the public portion and the board's comments or questions to staff.

At this point, I'd ask a member of the board to please make a motion.

Ori and Stroria.

Regarding case number VOA-25103 00275.

I move that the Board of Adjustment Grant the appeal for the property, generally located south east of the intersection of U.S.

Highway 281 North and East Sevens Road.

Applicant being Brown and McDonald PLLC because the information provided by the applicant shows that city staff made an error in enforcing section 35312 in accordance with state law, including Senate Bill 840 as passed by the Texas legislature.

End of motion.

Second.

Mr.

Orion.

I'm going to be in support of this for the same reason as important of the other one.

The state law says that they can exist together.

And I don't I think that it's clear to me that the intent uh is to allow both to ride together.

I also don't uh and with regard to water quality, yes, you can do 100% of previous coverage, but you also got to do more filtration.

It's not like you give it a free pass from you're being treated like anyone else would anywhere else in the state of Texas.

And then thirdly, this um, you know, this these codes are are just so new if if there was a mechanism for the city to get clarification in a speedy way, I think that would be the appropriate angle.

But in this but for this, I think I'm just gonna be in support as from what I'm looking at.

Thank you, Ms.

Brackman.

Um so for the same reasons as I stated before, I don't feel like these uh city staff made an error in enforcing the code, so I will not be in support.

Thank you.

Let's take a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Orion.

Yes.

Commissioner Bragman, no.

Commissioner Reed?

No.

Commissioner Stevens?

No.

Commissioner Ibonis?

No.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

No.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Bonias.

I abstain.

Commissioner Vasquez.

No.

Yes, I concur.

Uh six against and four in favor of the motion does not pass.

Please get with staff and they'll explain what your rights are.

Thank you, sir.

Next case, please.

I think we're on number five.

Good afternoon.

Uh Tyler Adam, Planner Development Services.

This is BOA-25-103-00264.

Address is 314 Mission Street units 101 and 102 in Council District 1.

Applicant is Matthew Metros.

And this is an appeal of the administrator's decision to revoke the two short-term rental permits located at 314 Mission Street, units 101 and 102.

As stated, the subject property is located at 314 Mission Street.

Includes this includes reporting $0 if no revenue was collected.

All SDR operators are required to continue to file revenue reports and pay Bear County Hot through Avenue on a monthly basis.

Six notices for each un for each unit of delinquency were mailed by Avenue between February 2025 through July 2025.

A final notice of delinquency was emailed by uh development services on November 3rd, and the permit was revoked on November 18th, 2025.

This is the block face.

Both of the permits in question were type two permits.

There are currently zero active type two permits, fourteen total along the block face.

So that uh current density is zero percent.

Uh each unit had a prior code investigation, found no violation in July of 2023.

Um permitting history, unit 101 was initially issued as a type 2 permit in uh April of 2021, and unit 102 was issued as a type 2 permit in July of 2021.

Um this displays the um notifications sent out by Avenue um dated um as well as the address that it was sent to, and then the two email notices sent from DSD staff.

Uh they do have an active listing.

Uh this is the site plan submitted, and then the subject property as well as surrounding properties in the next couple slides.

Uh staff recommendation, um, staff recommends denial.

And staff uh mailed 36 notices.

We've received zero in favor, zero in opposition, no response from King William Neighborhood Association, and there were six citywide groups that were notified with no response.

Um and I do have a note from um the Office of Historic Preservation that did not make it into the staff report.

They wanted to note that this property is located within the King William Historic District.

Any exterior modifications or new construction will require approval of the Office of Historic Preservation, approval of a site plan site plan or materials submitted as part of a variance application, does not supersede any requirements for design review outlined in Article 6 of the UDC.

Um we do have um finance department here with the presentation as well.

Um and the applicant's representative is here.

All right, thank you.

Any questions for staff?

Yep.

Ms.

Bregan.

Um so uh just clerical item.

I noticed the address of the property is 314 Mission Street, Unit 101 and Unit 102, yet the notices were sent to 314 Mission Street Unit 1 and Unit 2.

Is there could that be the reason why there isn't a difference because I think when they submit for the application, the applicant put 101, but it's mailed to whatever address is in the is on the system on Avenue's end?

In the system through through Avenue, so when we when the applicant got their per back in 2021, they entered in their contact mailing address information into our old system.

And that's the address they put on file.

So the address was 101 or is unit one.

I believe it's the same address along the applicant port 101 on the portal inside, but then you put number unit one or two when you include the hot account back in 2021.

So it's the same property and units.

Okay.

Well, I guess we'll ask the applicant because if they're not getting mail, that could be why they didn't get the notice.

Any other questions for staff?

You're not using Mr.

Orion.

Yes, uh, did was there any uh software changes that happened after the 2024 since our last uh report that that would have caused any hiccup with reporting?

I can't remember when the date was when you all switched over.

We switched over into Avenue in June 2023.

Oh, so this is Avenue.

Okay, correct.

Thank you.

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

Hello, my name is Carl Silva.

Um representing Matthew Metros.

Okay, and your address, please?

This is for 314 mission street.

And and your address?

Your address, please?

Oh, 21 uh 215 at X Drive 78213.

Thank you, sir.

Uh so first, so I don't forget since it just came up as far as the address is concerned.

Uh it seems like there is a little bit of uncertainty numbers.

Um it may or may not correctly be listed with the U.S.

Postal Service as one or two.

Uh I believe that's probably just speculation at this point, unless we get um something final about that.

Um but the information I have here is uh just like they mentioned, um there were notices that were sent out.

That's what the uh the report shows when they print out and send me the report of their hot filings.

Um they claim that they do not did not receive these mails, but as soon as they received the email, they reached out um to the department, and I have phone records of those phone calls.

Uh they've mentioned to me that there were no responses other than by email, so they could not contact anyone by phone, or or they never received a response by phone.

Um that was November 5th and number November 6th.

I believe the notice went out on November 2nd or 3.

Um the first email to uh DSD was November 18th, and we did start getting replies from there.

Uh they helped tremendously in us figuring out what the appeals process was and that's where we are here.

Um hot filings and payments um have been made since April through October 2025.

Um so there was that gap of missed payments uh between November and March.

And as of today, all of the hot filing and payments are up to date, and that um was the sequent subsequent to the email conversations we finally had with DSD.

Um all the payments have been made.

They're up to date.

Right now the owner has converted the listing to a long-term or midterm rental to abide by the the rules of the STR permit.

Um I also encouraged the owner to set up informed delivery with USPS.

They have done that and now should be getting uh scanned images of all the mail coming to the property or supposed to be mailed and delivered to the property so that they make sure not to miss any further communications or notices.

And that's it.

I have that's all I have.

All right.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Ms.

Bragman.

So this is for city staff.

So the permit was issued in 2021.

Is that correct?

Were they making were they filing hot taxes since 2021, up until uh whatever the date is on this chart?

Yes, they're reporting on time every month up until December 2024.

After that time they stopped making reports.

And that's when the notice mailed notices were sent out for no payments being made from um sorry, from November 2024 2024.

So payment stopped being made on a monthly basis from December 2024 through May 2025 was when we had the last letter that dated that date.

And so were there any changes in the processes that might have triggered the fact that they were not getting notices?

I'm just it it seems odd that all of a sudden if they had been religiously filing hot reports up until November 2025, that then all of a sudden something shifted.

Something changed.

In terms of our uh system processing, no, we still maintain and keep avenue.

The only change we've had that was in March 2025 was when platforms were emitting city hot tax on their behalf, but again, that didn't start until March 2025.

Payments were stopped being made monthly after starting December 2024.

So there was four months before of the platforms remitted on their behalf that no payments were being made anymore.

All right, thank you, Ms.

Bregman.

Any other questions for staff or for the applicant?

Uh Bonias for the applicant?

Mr.

Bonias.

Did you want to?

Yes, sir.

So it seems like your your client made a you know was paying taxes on time and doing all that.

What was the main reason why they they stopped paying the taxes?

Uh it's my understanding that he started having to travel for long periods of time.

He's using a non-local management company as well.

Um I'm not sure what his plans are with that management company now that this has come up.

Um that's all I really know.

But he agrees he he didn't pay them.

It was a good thing.

Yeah, it's minor on his traveling and just not receiving the mails, the management company not following up with uh cleaners or wherever they have checking the property and then just a lapse.

Yeah, because it seems like he made those payments in and he's up, he's current to them now.

Is that correct?

Is that right?

Okay.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Uh quick question also.

Do you know of any kind of violations or any notices that he would have had?

No others.

No.

Besides these uh in March or April or May.

Yeah.

And staff, do we know of any any code violations or any other?

Um there is one open investigation, but that was from a 311 calls, but it was submitted after the appeal was submitted.

Um as the for the permit restays rebo stays the decision of the BOA.

Gotcha.

Yes, read.

Sir.

Um when you mentioned the management company, were the HOT fees being paid directly by the management company or the one they're the ones who have been responsible for the payments.

Okay, thank you.

Effective when I believe it's from the beginning.

So from 2021?

Correct.

That's my knowledge.

And then all of a sudden it decides to do that.

I'm not sure if there was a sorry to cut you off.

So I'll all of a sudden 20 December 2024 they stopped doing that.

Yeah, I don't know if there was some kind of uh change in their management or change in their staff uh or whoever it was that was overseeing this and was making those timely payments.

Um but it seems to be kind of a management oversight on the payments.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant or for staff?

Uh Stevens.

Mr.

Stevens?

Just for city staff.

Are there other uh short-term rentals under this app applicant's name?

And if so, are they up to date?

Uh we could not find any in our system, no.

Thank you, Mr.

Stevens.

At this at this point, I'd close the public portion and ask a member of the board to please make a motion.

No public comment.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh yeah.

Uh if any uh if we have a member of the board would like to make a motion.

Fragman.

Ms.

Bragman.

Regarding case number BOA-25-1030264, I move the Board of Adjustment.

Grant the appeal for the property situated at 314 mission street units 101 and 102.

Applicant being Matthew Metros, because the information provided by the applicant shows the city staff made an error in forcing section 16-1110 when revoking the two short-term rental permits end of motion.

It was second.

Second.

Second.

Uh Ms.

Bragman.

I don't know that the uh city made an error.

Um I think that there were unfortunate circumstances, perhaps with the management company that stopped paying or stopped filing the hot taxes.

And um they have been caught up uh currently, so they are all paid up.

So I would grant the appeal, not based on the fact that I think the city made the step uh a mistake, uh, but that they are now in compliance and that the current type two density is zero.

Thank you.

Mr.

Bowden, yes?

Yeah, I'll also be in favor uh mainly because the applicant is up to date on everything, and because there are no other STRs on this block face.

Yeah, and I'll I'll be in favor as well.

There's no uh opposition, there's no uh you know from the neighbors that would be most affected.

Um it's opportunity to have a short-term rental in this neighborhood with those no other short-term rentals and hot taxes are current, so I'm supporting.

All right, let's take a roll call vote.

Commissioner Bragman?

Yes.

Commissioner Bonnyas.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens?

No, I do not concur.

Commissioner Ibanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean?

I do not concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Gomez?

I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Commissioner Orion.

Yes.

Yes, I concur.

With nine in favor to an opposition, the motion does pass.

Go look at the project.

Thank you, sir.

Next case, please.

Chair, can we have a break?

Uh yeah, this time is 412.

Let's take a five-minute break.

And uh see you back at 417.

Thank you, sir.

All right, guys.

Uh, if we can start getting uh reassembled.

Reassembled back on the dias here.

It is 419.

Um ask if staff if we can begin on the next presentation or as soon as we get a quorum here going.

Mr.

Orion, Ms.

Cruz, Mr.

Vasquez.

Hello.

I hear that.

There we go.

Okay, I'm back.

Okay, we got a quorum.

Okay.

It's 419, the Board of Adjustments back in session.

Okay.

Next case, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Juan Alvarez, planner with development services.

Item number six is requested by Daniel Guadardo and is requesting an appeal of the administrator's decision to revoke the applicant short-term mental permit due to hot collection located at 3495 River Path.

The subject property is located at 3495 River Path.

Surrounding uses include residential single family.

As of March 10th, 2025, platforms that directly remit State Hot also not directly remit City Hot to the City Finance Department.

All STR operators are required to continue to file revenues and pay Bear County Hot through Avenue on a monthly basis.

Five notices of delinquency were mailed by Avenue from March 2025 through July 2025.

And the final notice of delinquency was emailed by development services on November 3rd, 2025.

No payment was made within 90 days.

Therefore, the STR permit was revoked on November 18th, 2025.

There is a total of 23 units on the block face, no active STR type 2 permit currently on the block.

The subject property has an open investigation for operating without an active short term rental permit.

And this is the permitting history of the property.

This is the communication that was sent from Avenue to the applicant, and the last two were sent from DSD.

This is the active listing.

This is the side 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 a total of 49 mail notices were sent out.

Zero in favor, tenant opposition.

No response from Wells Springs Neighborhood Association, no response from Jackson Court Neighborhood Association, and six citywide groups were notified with no response.

This concludes that presentation.

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

Thank you.

Let's see if we have any questions for staff.

Thank you.

Oh, I have a question.

Ms.

Bragman.

Could you could you go back to the slide that shows the um timeline of things were issued?

It's not in our presentation.

Thank you.

And so when was when was their permit originally issued?

July 7, 2023.

Okay.

Uh again, can we go back to the um so they were paying the first year, but as of August 2024, they were not.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Thank you.

All right.

Any other questions for staff?

Here now I'd ask the applicant to please come forward.

Thank you.

Hello.

Well, uh name and address, please for the record.

My name is Daniel Guajardo.

And address for the the R B and B address or your address.

18206 mental.

So the permit was revoked due to miss monthly net revenue filings.

This occurred during the transition from manual HOT filings to automatic collection through platforms like Airbnb and VRBO.

At the time I mistakenly believed that beginning in January 2025, those platforms fully covered all applicable taxes, including the counties, and that the automatic remnants also satisfied the city and counties monthly reporting requirement.

Based on that understanding, I did not manually submit filings during that period.

And by the way, this morning we uh I got notified by by Juan that I was missing one filing during 2023, which I immediately uh covered, and it's right now in in in process because I didn't know I was missing in September 2023.

Everything else was filed.

Unfortunately, the mail notice was not received in time to prevent a revocation.

I've provided a signed letter letter from USPS explaining that the properties flag as a short-term rental and treated as a vacant, which caused mail to be returned.

Additionally, the warning email went to spam.

As soon as I became aware of the issue, I immediately filed all outstanding reports.

My account is now fully current and in good standing.

I've also submitted my complete filing history since 2023, which shows consistent timely compliance prior to the isolated incident, and obviously plus the one that I found out this morning, September 2023.

To ensure this never happens again, I've implemented multiple safeguards, including calendar reminders, routine checks of the reporting website.

And as and a USPS mail forwarding service, so all mail mail sent to the STR property is delivered to my current mailing address, as well as making sure my mailing address in my HOT profile is current.

I've also included the USPS change of address and mail forwarding confirmation for the board's reference.

I apologize for the oversight.

This will not happen again.

Thank you for your consideration.

Ms.

Bragg.

The document you provided could be enlarged.

I it it's too small to read.

Uh which document, sorry.

The document that's on the screen there.

Oh yeah, that's uh that's a history, and I actually I have a should have a copy here if you want to see it.

If we can just enlarge this, that would help.

Uh that's better.

It's just uh the filing history since 2023.

So I don't understand.

It looks like it was all received.

So why is that I'm confused.

So this is off of the website that uh Avenue A?

Correct.

And so it shows that you that they received.

I believe it's because uh September 2023 is not showing, and I think that's where the error is.

And I guess I did not um I didn't get notified that I was missing September 2023 in sp specifically.

Well, can we bring up the um spreadsheet from the from staff?

Because uh it that's showing a lot of yeah, and this shows multiple that were not or notices that were so uh uh so staff is is it being revoked for one missed no it's being revoked for that one missed payment and from January 2020 2025 through May 2025?

He made payments after the 14-day deadline, the day after.

So that we give them 14 days to bring their hot account current.

He made payment on the 15th day, right?

When I got notified that I was um I did not see the letter uh in time.

And I thought so I got confused.

Obviously, my my um my error of not checking the the website that I needed to manually submit every filing instead of Airbnb and BRBO paying those out automatically through the platform.

Because I would see that the guests were paying an additional property tax, and and obviously I um it was my understanding that that I didn't have to submit those manually.

So that's something that changed from when you initially started making the payments in 2023, it changed in January of 2025.

I I thought it did in 2025.

But then I found out it was March 2025 and that I still needed to manually submit uh those filings to pay the counties tax and also to pay a zero tax for the cities because it's already paid by the platforms.

And to clarify, staff did send out e-blast about the because about platforms remitting on their behalf back in January and before then stating that it was starting May 10th, 2025, and it was sent to all the permit STR permit holders in our system, received that e-blast.

That identified March 10th as the date platforms would be remitting city hot taxes on their behalf.

But we're still required to report and pay county taxes moving forward.

All right, thank you.

Um other questions for the applicant?

Stevens.

Mr.

Stevens.

Why do you think most of your neighbors are so against your short-term rental?

I think uh since we purchased my wife and I the property, there's been one neighbor in particular that's always been against STRs, uh, even before us operating it.

And again, I respect it.

I've reached out to the neighbor, gave my contact information to for them to have my phone number in case of any issues with guests or anything.

Um we've tried we've tried our best to have a good relationship with neighbors, which we actually have.

Uh I know it looks like we don't, but we actually have a good relationship.

Um, but I know that this neighbor really took time to get signatures around the neighborhood.

And again, this was an issue before even us operating the STR.

And again, I respect it and I'm still gonna try my best to win over any neighbor that is against it.

Thank you, Mr.

Stevens.

Any other questions for the applicant?

All right.

Thank you, sir.

We'll see if there's a question.

Orion, thank you.

Mr.

Orion.

Uh yes, uh, the payment that was made on the date on the 15th day, which is one day late, was it initiated before the 15th day, or was it received on the 15th day?

Is that to me?

Uh I think that's our staff.

It was posted on the 15th day.

Posted on the 15th.

So what I'm wondering is if the applicant did he pay by credit card, check, EFT, how did how was the payment made?

Sir.

It was online, but how the system works in Avenue, the post-it date is when you made the you've reported and made the payment, but that does not mean that it does take a couple weeks after the posted date for the actual track action to be processed.

Yeah, I was just trying to see if it was a day because of it.

You know, he initiated it and he didn't receive it until the next day.

That's all I was trying to get right.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

All right.

Let's see if we have any uh uh voicemails or public comment to be read in.

No public comment.

No public comment.

Okay.

Um any other questions for the applicant?

Do we see?

I have a question for the for the city.

You know, if if we were to um approve this here, when would the review when would the next review of his application be coming up?

Um is it a two-year or is it a if it will reinstate it to its initial date, which was July 7, 2023, so it would be up for renewal this coming July?

This coming July, yes.

And so if reinstated.

Okay.

And the staff is it administrative renewal or does this the board have a remote?

Um no, this one was approved by right.

There wasn't a density issue, so it would just go there.

So that would be the next checksum, right?

That you would have to be current on everything for the renewal.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

All righty.

Any other questions, sir?

All right.

Uh any last comments you'd like to make before we close the public portion?

Um, I guess just uh I again I take accountability that it was my mistake of not checking the portal and just want to assure the board that it's not going to happen again.

Thank you, sir.

Okay, that closes a public portion.

It ask a member of the board to please make a motion.

All right.

Can we get a motion ready?

Okay.

Bonnie is take sure I'm on the right one here.

Six.

Number six.

Regarding case number BOA 251030260.

I move that the Board of Adjustment grant the appeal for the property situated at 39 or 3495 River Path, applicant being Daniel Cohardo, because the information provided by the applicant shows the city staff made an error in enforcing section 16-1110.

Uh D when revoking the short-term rental permit.

All right.

Can I get a second?

Second.

Second.

I got a second for a Mr.

Reed.

All right, Mr.

Bonias.

Yeah, I'll be in favor of this.

I uh but you know, like the previous case, uh, I don't believe the city was an error here, but I do believe that there were there was some issues that happened with reporting this.

Uh I believe he's now current, and as long as he can remain current, uh I'm okay with it.

Uh and there's no other STRs on this city block face.

So I'll be in favor.

Mr.

Reed.

Uh no, I I I share that sentiment.

I think that um it seems to be an error uh that you've uh made an attempt to remedy, so hopefully it won't happen again.

Right.

And I'll be in support as well.

The the uh application renewal will be coming up.

That'll be a chance for uh him to be up be a good operator, be current on his taxes, and the city will have a chance to review the renewal.

And so uh let's go ahead and take a roll call vote.

Commissioner Bonias.

I concur.

Commissioner Reid.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ivanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bagman?

Yes.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Commissioner Orion.

Yes.

Vice Chair Osana.

Yes, I concur.

With ten in favor, one in opposition, the motion does pass.

Make sure you stay current on your taxes and and uh reports and and reach out to your neighbors.

Well, thank you.

Thank you.

Next case, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Juan Alvarez, Planner with Development Services.

Item number seven is requested by Berta Rosales and is requesting an appeal of the administrator's decision to revoke the applicant's short term rental permit due to hot collection located at 917 Wyoming Street.

The subject property is located at 917 Wyoming Street.

Surrounding uses include residential single family as of March 10th, 2025, platform that directly remit state hot, also not direct directly remit city hot to the city's finance department.

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

Four notices of delinquency were mailed from Avenue from April 2025 through July 2025, and a final notice of delinquency was emailed by development services on November 3rd, 2025.

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

Therefore, the permit was revoked on November 18, 2025.

There are a total of five units on the block phase.

No active STR type 2 permit is currently on the block.

The subject property does not have any code violations, and the subject property also does not have any active listings.

And this is the permitting history of the short-term rental permit.

This is the communication that was sent from Avenue to the applicant, and the last two are from development services.

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

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 lastly, there are a total of 46 male notices, zero in favor, zero in opposition, no response from historic gardens neighborhood association, and five citywide groups are notified with no response.

This concludes that presentation.

Could we go back to the permitting history?

It's not in our presentation.

So 2019.

And then the next slide that has the so was the applicant current between 2019 and 2024.

Yes.

But the finance department can clarify on that.

They were late paying about five payments.

Can you hear me?

They were late paying five payments.

In what time frame?

In November 2023, no, the paid period.

The period 923, they paid in November.

The period of 2025 2nd, 2024, they paid in December 2025.

So it varied.

Okay.

Are they current now?

Yes, they are current.

Right, thank you, Ms.

Bradley.

Was that okay?

Any other questions for staff?

Okay.

At this point, I would ask the applicant to please come forward.

Thank you.

My name is Berta Rosales.

My name is Berta Rosales.

And my address 112 Essential Drive.

I am from Laredo, Texas, and I vote this property with an inheritance.

My father let me.

I have been renting my property approximately for the last five years.

I also use my property, have the time to visit my sons and grandchildren who live here in San Antonio.

Recently, in this last year, I had some technical problems processing my hot payments online.

I personally came to these offices in March 2025 to renew my permit, which will expire April 30.

It was here that I was informed that I had some pending payments.

Some pain pending payments.

I was informed that I owe three old and random payments November 2023 and two payments for 2024.

I had received a letter on January 14 2025 informing informing me of these three payments due.

I made this these three payments online in February 2025.

When I was personally informed that I owe this payment I was surprised but proceeded to pay them again online.

I took a screenshot of my payments and sent it via email as proof of payment.

As time went by I continue receiving letters from Avenue informing me that I still owed the same three payments which I had already paid.

I ignored these letters which were several this because I had the permit which constituted everything was in place.

And if if I had been informed of these mistakes before they had renewed my permit I would not make them again that's see if there's any questions for the applicant Ms.

Rosales any questions.

I have a question for staff I I'm not sure I understand about those payments if she was if she her short term rental permit was reissued in 2025 why would she be getting these letters and she's saying that she paid them can you clear up the confusion yes so the um images that she sent for this application it showed that they were in progress which means it's almost like a temp record staff mistook that as it was process but in progress is not mean it was accepted and that's why she kept receiving letters she also even she even after she got the permit issued we do send a renewal reminder saying please make sure you work tax on the monthly basis and our record show she stopped paying stop did not pay taxes on a monthly basis from May 2025 until now also when she was notified to pay monthly she still kind of stopped making payments after April 2025.

Why it was renewed because they just saw the screenshots and didn't realize in progress did not mean it was posted.

We had to reach out to Avenue for clarification on the on the three their three different statuses.

And yeah, I pay any no no pago.

No pago porque Airbnb nos informal que yo si van a collectar y remitir las taxes.

I don't.

Oh you know what?

I don't think she understood the question because she's saying that she uh didn't pay because Airb uh Airbnb she thought was going to be paying for them.

I think I don't think this is the answer you're looking for.

Maybe we could uh yes I B and Both because they will the taxes.

And then I stop thinking of that.

I guess I'll be able to do that.

But but the but you're still I think you'll let you say Ale.

Ah is sorry.

Okay.

So but uh but the you still required to pay the county taxes yourself.

Yeah, I know.

They they they send us another letter explaining oh no, everything is everybody's confused.

We are gonna collect and you are gonna remit.

Then I updated my two payments I didn't pay.

I I paid by I pay later, but all those payments were in progress because I I I don't know.

I I I just say I just read failed and thought it was already end.

No, what the city is saying is that after May of 2025, they didn't receive so to clarify when the permit was renewed in March March of this year, we sent out a notification that did explain the difference that yes, everybody is reporting city hot taxes for you, but you are still responsible to report and remit county hall taxes through avenue.

Um and then I saw online that payments from May 2025 through t to now were not paid until after till the end till November of December of last year after she received the final notice and her print was revoked due to hot.

All right, thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Staff, do we have any voicemail or public comments to be read in?

No public comment.

All righty.

All right.

Any other questions for the applicant and at this point ask a member of the board to please make a motion?

No, Ms.

Bragman.

Uh I don't know if I asked this because we've got three of these in a row.

Is she current now?

Yeah, she is now current.

And and I'll I'll throw this into any uh current uh violations or anything on the record or uh no in code enforcement history for this property.

All right, thank you.

At this moment I close the public portion and ask a member of the board to please make a motion.

Mr.

Bonillas.

Yeah, regarding case number BOA two five one zero three zero zero two six six.

I move that the board of adjustment grant the appeal for the property situated at 917 Wyoming Street, applicant being Bertha Rosales.

Uh because the information provided by the applicant shows that the city staff made an error in enforcing section 16-1110 D when revoking the short-term rental permit.

All right, can I have a second second?

All right, uh Ms.

Bonias.

I'll be in uh I'll be in approval of this.

Um, you know, on on the other ones, I don't feel like the city made an error, but I do feel they made an error in this one with granting her the permit.

And they showed some confusion there with it reading in progress and them having to reach out to having you.

So I I think that uh alone shows the error there, but then also the applicant has called up on all her payments.

Uh there's no other STRs on this block phase, so I think uh we should grant the appeal.

All right, Mr.

Reed.

Oh, I I feel the same way.

All righty.

All right, let's take a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Bonias?

I concur.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean?

No, I did not concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Bregman?

Yes.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Commissioner Orion.

Yes.

Yes, I concur with uh ten in favor, one in opposition, the uh uh appeal does pass.

Uh please get with staff and make sure you get current on taxes and such.

All right.

Next case, please.

Item number eight is case BOA-25-1030259, the address being 710 South Brownleaf Drive in Council District 6.

The applicant is Ricardo Gonzalez Leja.

This is a request for a three-foot variance from the minimum five-foot side setback to allow a carport with a two-foot side setback, including a six-inch overhang.

Two, an eight foot six inch variance from the minimum ten-foot front setback to allow carport with a one-foot six-inch setback.

And three, a five-foot variance from the minimum required 15-foot driveway clear vision area to allow a ten-foot driveway clear vision area.

The zoning is R6.

The subject property is located along Brownleaf Drive in a subdivision south of Texas State Highway 151 and east of Military Drive West.

A code enforcement investigation of the property was conducted in November 2025 in response to a citizen report of building without a permit.

Code enforcement staff observed a new carport with no building permit on file and issued a notice of violation.

The carport was constructed within the minimum required front and side setback area on the property.

Staff also observed a chain link fence fence which encroaches into the minimum required driveway clear vision area.

The Board of Adjustment approved variances for similar violations on a carport on the adjacent property at 714 South Brownleaf Drive in June 2025.

Shown here is a site plan of the carport and the subject property.

And the subject property in February 2025.

And the surrounding area.

Staff recommendation for the driveway clear vision area variants.

Staff recommends approval based on the following findings.

Findings of fact one, vehicular traffic will not be obstructed by the reduced clear vision area due to the fence being predominantly open, and two, the reduced clear vision area will not alter the essential character of the district.

Staff mailed out 21 notices, zero returned in favor, zero in opposite uh actually one was returned in favor, zero in opposition.

There's no neighborhood association within the two hundred foot area.

Uh we did receive the following support, this letter here at the start of the meeting uh from the property owner at 714 South Brownleaf, that is the property uh with that carport that was also approved by the board.

This concludes staff's presentation.

The applicant is present.

All right, thank you.

Let's see if we have any questions for the staff.

Uh so that that's that appears to be like a fabric uh fabric cover.

So that's the historical view.

That's what was in February 2025.

Uh if we go one slide back, that is the current.

I thought that was the neighbor's one there.

Okay, so that is there's no sir.

All right, thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Hear now, I'd ask the applicant to please come forward.

Ricardo Gonzalez Siete Brownlee Street.

Uh Gonzalez 710 Brownleaf Street.

Uh he's trying to explain that he uh uh built his a carport and he imitated his uh neighbor.

And he thought it would be okay.

All right.

Do we have any uh any questions for the applicant?

I I have one on the gutters, uh does the rainfall on the neighbor side on the uh right side of the house if you're looking at it.

He says he doesn't have gutters.

Yeah, it doesn't look good.

Where does the rain fall from the in unlady caya la vecina?

And does the does the lot slope to the street or to back, or which way does the correct thing?

See, poquito.

He says he falls a little bit on the sides and a little bit on the front.

In front of the cardboard.

Okay.

Let's see.

Any questions from for the applicant?

Orion.

Historian.

It looks like because of the way this is configured as you move further into the property.

Am I looking at that?

Sure, and that would be correct.

The uh side setback that is posted uh on the advertisement is closest uh towards the front of the property on the side of there.

You're correct.

Back into the carboard.

Do you know how far it is there?

We did not grab that measurement, just the closest measurement.

Um I can't imagine it's more than a foot and a half difference.

Um it's not a substantial widening.

All right.

He says it's one point nine.

Oh nine.

One foot nine inches.

All right.

Any other any questions for the applicant?

Or any uh public comments to be read into the comment?

Or any other questions?

If not, we'll close the public portion.

All right, let's go ahead and get a motion right here.

You can sit down, right?

Yeah, you're okay.

Ms.

Braggan Regarding case number BOA dash two five-103, 00259.

I move to the Board of Adjustment grant a request for one, a three-foot variance from a minimum five foot setback side setback to allow carport with a two-foot side setback including a six-inch overhang.

Two, an eight foot six inch variance from the minimum ten foot front setback to allow a carport with a one foot six inch setback, and three, a five-foot variance from the minimum required fifteen foot driveway, clear vision area to allow a ten foot driveway, clear vision area situated at 710 South Brownleaf Street, applicant being uh Ricardo uh Gonzalez uh Leha, because the testimony presented to us and the facts we have determined show the physical character of this property is such the literal enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code as amended would result in an unnecessary hardship.

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

The request is not contrary to the public interest as there is sufficient distance to maintain the structure and prevent damage to adjacent property from water runoff.

Uh the request is not contrary to the public interest as there is sufficient clear vision to safely observe oncoming traffic and ex uh exit the driveway onto the local street.

Two, due to special conditions, a little enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship.

A literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship as a relocation of the carport to meet the setback requirements is unfeasible.

A literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship as there are already similar fences on adjacent property and throughout this area.

Three, by granted the variance the spirit of the errors will be observed and substantial justice will be done.

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 conformity property or alter the essential character of the district in which uh the property is located.

The request would not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent properties, as sufficient space will remain for the maintenance of the carport and purposes of water runoff and fire safety concerns.

The reduced clear vision will not alter the essential character of the district as it appears aligned with established fences in the area.

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

The plight of the owner of the property which the variance to side is due to unique circumstances as the location of the carport cannot be altered to fit the minimum required setbacks while still protecting vehicles within the established front yard.

The plight of the owner of the property for which the variants is sawed is due to unique unique circumstances existing on the property, such as the shallow front yard depth end of motion.

Can I get a second?

Uh second from Mr.

Stevens.

Ms.

Bragman?

Um I'll be in support of this.

Um obviously there was a precedent set with the neighbor at 714 Brownleaf.

Um and he was the only one who he is the one that would be most impacted by uh the water runoff from the carport, and he was in support of the carport.

Um so I will be supporting the motion as well.

Thank you.

Mr.

Stevens.

I concur with my colleague.

I think there's adequate space to the front and the side of this carport.

So uh I'll be in support.

All right.

All right, let's take a roll call vote.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Yabanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I can cur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Gomez?

I concur.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Commissioner Orion.

Yes.

Yes, I concur.

With 11 in favor, zero and opposition.

Uh the motion has read uh passes.

Thank you.

All right.

Um case number 10.

Item number 10 is BOA-25-1030262, the address being 123 Faye Avenue in Council District 5.

The applicant is Deanna Campos, and this is a request for one, a fence material variance to allow the use of sheet roll or corrugated metal fencing, and two, a seven-foot special exception from the maximum allowable three-foot front yard uh fence height to allow a ten-foot tall front yard fence.

The zoning is C2P commercial pedestrian.

The subject property is located between New Laredo Highway and Somerset Road along Faye Avenue.

According to historical imagery, corrugated metal fencing appears to have originally been established on the property sometime between 2006 and 2008.

Since 2024, multiple code enforcement investigations have taken place on the property in response to reports of illegal outside storage of vehicles.

Those violations have been resolved and the property is currently vacant.

However, the illegal fence material and excessive height in the front yard were observed during these investigations, and notices of violation were issued accordingly.

An eight-foot fence is permitted by right in the side and rear yard as the lot is being developed as a commercial lot that abuts a single family use.

However, uh that is not the case in the front yard for this property.

Shown here is a site plan.

Again, the federal uh the metal fencing is all around the property perimeter, and the front yard fence is uh seven feet over the maximum allowable height.

And here's another aerial view of the property.

And the subject property from the street.

This is what that fence looks like off of Faye Avenue.

And this is the surrounding area.

You can see across the street, uh similar fencing on the lot directly across and the surrounding area.

And here's a look at that fence uh from the residential use on the west side.

Uh that's the kind of side property line that that residential property shares with this lot.

And the residential lot to the east side.

Staff recommendation for the fence material variants.

Staff recommends denial based on the following findings of fact.

One, corrugated metal fencing is prohibited within the city unless it is uh an existing used auto parts recycler or metal recycling entity.

And two, the corrugated metal fencing detracts from the overall streetscape appearance and appeal of the immediate surrounding area.

Staff recommendation for the fence height special exception.

Staff recommends denial based on the following findings of fact.

One, the fence isolates the property from the wider community, and two, the visual obstruction created by this fence blocks the free and open view of the wider area from the front yard of adjacent properties.

Staff mailed 12 notices, eight were returned in favor, zero in opposition.

The Quintana Community Neighborhood Association did not respond.

Uh three of those responses in favor are pictured here.

The rest uh were received from outside the two hundred foot notification area as shown on this slide here.

This concludes staff's presentation.

The applicant is present.

All right.

Any questions for staff?

Bragman?

Ms.

Bragman.

Uh trying to find the right picture.

So slide number 122, which shows corrugated metal fence on the left and on the right across the street.

Is that also corrugated metal?

That is, and that property uh there on the other side of the street, I think is uh I can't remember which, but it's one of those two uses, either use auto parts recycler or a metal recycling entity.

So it's a permitted so that's that's permitted.

They that's correct under the ordinance of of the one of those two uses.

I cannot remember which at the same time.

Okay.

And you said that the fence on the left there, that's 10 foot.

On the subject property is a 10 foot fence, correct?

Okay.

And no cap, it looks like actually I did not observe a cap.

I'm not I'm not too sure.

Couldn't get up that high.

A ladder.

Right.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Braggman.

Any other questions for staff?

Here not and ask the applicant to please come forward.

Hello.

My name is Diana Campos, and my property is one, two, three, Faye Avenue.

And I will you know uh my dad gave me this property.

And he built the fence like uh I don't know, maybe more than ten years ago.

And uh and he they never tell him anything about the fence and him build the fence because a lot of I don't know if it's the right word to use this people throw furniture and they throw um a lot of trash, even though uh people who like to steal, they jump the fence.

So he that's that's what the reason that he I think he built the the fence the fence that high.

But like I say before, he never have um problems with uh city they about uh fence, the high of the material.

And I went to a roundup neighbor and I asked if they have any problems, any issues about the fence, and they told me they was they they don't have no problem.

They feel safe because they used to jump, like I say before, uh people who like to steal and you know throwing furniture and trash.

So that's all I can say it.

Thank you.

Let's see.

Any questions for the applicant?

And one clarification the property to the south is uh has a non-conformity for a metal recycling entity.

Orion.

Story.

Yeah, so the the the my question is about the the sheer need for a ten foot tall fence.

I mean, is it is is seven seven or eight foot tall do the job or I mean why do you need ten?

I don't know.

Well, like I said before, my they give you this uh property, so he he built a fence like many years ago, sir.

And I think the reason why is because a lot of thief and people who just do steal around at the neighbor, and especially to the place too, when my dad was um in using the property.

How tall is the fence?

Uh and one how tall is the fence uh uh away from the front on the side and the rear, how tall is that?

I think uh it's uh nine feet front and on the sizes is A and a and a half.

All right, thank you.

And behind the property they have a lot of uh another joint yard.

So uh in the front is another joint yard, so I don't understand.

Ms.

Bragman?

So what is the property being used for?

Uh well my dad he used to uh I think sell cards?

No now.

No, now it's empty.

It's empty, the property is empty.

Okay.

All right.

Any other question for the applicant?

Stevens.

Uh Ms.

Stevens and then Ms.

Cruz.

Uh uh how tall of a fence do you think you need to secure your property?

To be honest, I think since he might build that property that tall in the front in around.

Um it's safe like that.

The only thing that uh I think this problem is outside they throw a lot of furniture, tigers, engines, and a lot of stuff.

That's why I think it's the right sides to to have that fence after so many years, like I don't know why they barely tell me that it's not the right size.

That right high, I'm sorry.

And even though, like I said before, I asked our neighbors if they have any use issues, and they say they feel safe like that.

So do you think a seven-foot fence wouldn't protect your property adequately?

No.

No.

Believe me, no.

I've been paying for only the trash they take they throw outside.

I've been paying like 500, 600 to draw that move it from there.

They said, Well, why don't you call?

I said, because I don't I don't see when they throw it.

You still they most of the time they go at night and throw it.

So if I it's shorter, they will not throw it inside a lot third.

That's why.

So please take up my consideration what I say, please.

Thank you, Mr.

Stevens.

Ms.

Cruz.

Uh yes.

Are you planning to do anything else with the property since it's been empty for a while now?

I don't know yet.

First of all, you have to have money to do something with the property.

So no for now.

Bonias.

Mr.

Bonias.

As for the city, are there any uh code violations or anything on this property for like trash, debris, anything like that in the past or current?

Nothing besides the uh violation of the fence material.

Thank you, Mr.

Bonias.

Ms.

Bragman.

This is for staff.

So the zoning that is currently on this property, what does that allow for?

What what uses does that allow for?

Uh so the medium intensity uh commercial, uh the most intensive one would be all changes.

Um obviously regular retail and uh um food service establishments, um maybe some mobile food court.

Okay.

And and it's adjacent to residential on two sides.

Correct.

All right, thank you, Ms.

Bragman.

Any other questions for the applicant?

All right, uh, yes.

Oh, it's one more before we move on here.

Uh if you had to shorten down this fence and and bring it down to a low lower height, uh can you afford that?

No, right now, sir.

I'm sorry, no right now.

It's too much money.

Yes, thank you.

And also the cap, right?

If we were to approve something, we'd at least want the cap on the top.

So the cap would be just so the sharp edges wouldn't be exposed if someone were trying to climb the fence, they wouldn't cut themselves on the Oh no, no, no.

If it's any um I forgot how do you say can you repeat that question?

If it's anybody can be in danger to jump that fence, that's no, no, no.

No, because it's high, but it's not sharping, like they can go hurt, no.

If we were that that what that's what you question?

Uh I think is what he's what he's saying is if we were to approve the fence and the height of it, right now there's not a cap on it.

Would you put a cap on it at least?

Oh, yeah, yeah.

I'm sorry.

Yes, I don't understand the question.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Yes.

Thank you.

I'm sorry.

Um staff, do we have any public comment or voicemails to be read into the record?

No public, right?

All right.

Any other questions for this applicant?

Does she have any questions?

Uh Ms.

Compost, do you have anything else you'd like to add before we close?

No, sir.

All right.

Thank you.

Uh let's see if we have a motion from the board.

Bonias.

Mr.

Bonias.

Yeah, regarding case number BOA 251030262.

I move that the Board of Adjustment Grant offense material variants to allow the use of a sheet, roll or corrugated metal fencing situated at 123 Faye Avenue.

Um if uh as long as we can put a cap on the top of that fence.

Applicant being Diana Campos, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we have determined so that the physical character of this property is such a literal that a little enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code is amended would result in an unnecessary unnecessary hardship.

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

The variance would not would not be contrary to the public interest as the corrugated metal fence provides additional security that is necessary for the property.

Uh two, due to special condition due to special conditions, a little enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship.

A little enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship as the fence material may be replaced with a permitted with a permitted material, but would not provide the necessary level of security for the property.

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

The spirit of the ordinance would be observed by granting this variance as the fence material utilized would provide the necessary security to this property.

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

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

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

Such variants would not alter the essential character of the district as similar fences are present in the immediate surrounding area.

Six, the plight of the owner of the property for 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 and not merely financial and are not due to or the result of general conditions in the district in which the property is located.

The plight of the owner of the property is due to unique circumstances existing on the property, including the need for additional security and the presence of similar fencing in the immediate surrounding area.

End of motion.

Second.

Second, Mr.

Stevens.

Yeah, I'll be in favor of uh of the motion um adding the cap on there.

Uh I do believe it's a financial burden to her to have to remove this fence, uh, put a lower fence on there.

She didn't put it up, her father did many, many years ago.

She stated that the property is vacant.

Uh it seems that they do dump a bunch of trash here.

You can go look on Google Photos and they do dump in this property often.

Um as long as she can put a cap on it, I'm in favor.

All right.

Mr.

Stevens.

Uh I'll also be in favor with this one.

Typically, I I don't think I would be so hot on a ten-foot wall fence, but considering there's a matching fence across the street.

I don't think that going through the cost and the time to lower this thing a couple of feet is really going to alter the character of the district all that much.

So I'll be in favor.

Well, this is for the material right for the uh sheet roll material.

The second motion red would be for the height, so we can address that.

So just everybody knows this is for the material, right?

So let's go ahead and take a roll call vote.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibonis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Commissioner Orion.

Yes.

Vice Chair Ozina.

Yes, I concur.

Eleven in favor, zero opposition.

The material does pass.

Now let's get the motion going for the fence height.

For staff, was it not all included in that one?

It's separate.

Oh man.

Okay.

I guess.

Is that 10?

Yes.

That was 10.

The second page on 10.

Yeah, no, no, no, I'm okay.

Here we go.

Fun stuff.

Uh regarding case number BOA 251030262.

I move that the Board of Adjustment grant a request for a seven-foot special exemption from the maximum allowable three-foot front yard height to allow a ten-foot front yard fence situated at 123 Faye Avenue.

Applicant being Diana Campos.

Uh because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we have determined show that the physical character of this property is such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code as amended will result in an unnecessary hardship.

Specifically, we find that A, the special exemption will be in harmony with the with the spirit and purpose of this chapter.

This special exemption would not be in harmony with the spirit of the chapter as the fence height is consistent with the immediate surrounding area.

B, the public welfare and convenience will be substantially served.

The public welfare and convenience would be served by this special exemption as the front yard fence maintains the existing character of the immediate surrounding area.

C.

The neighboring property will not be substantially injured by such proposed use.

Neighboring property would not be substantially injured by the special exemption as the fent heights is the fence height is consistent with the existing character of the area and is not significantly impact neighboring property.

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 salt.

The special exemption exception would not alter the essential character of the district as the fence is consistent with the existing character and the appearance of the streetscape.

E.

The special except exception will not weaken the general purpose of the district or the regulations hereon established for the special district.

The special exception would allow for the fence for a fence that is typically of established industrial uses, which are typically screened from public view.

Although this parcel is not currently zoned for this type of use, multiple parcels in the immediate area are zoned for and occupied by industrial uses.

In a motion.

Second.

Second.

All right.

Mr.

Bonias?

Uh yeah, pretty much I think it's self-explanatory within the motion, you know, why we're going to do this.

Uh neighbors across from it have the fence height similar.

I don't think it takes from the neighborhood.

Uh I'll be in favor.

All right, Mr.

Stevens uh same.

Yep.

I'll also be in favor of this for the same reasons I gave inadvertently during the last motion.

All right.

Let's go ahead and take a roll call vote.

Commissioner Bonias?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ivanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Vaskith.

I concur.

Commissioner Orion.

Uh yes.

Vice Chair Elsina.

Yes, I concur.

So eleven in favor of zero opposition.

Remind the applicant that uh the cap would need to be placed around the top of the fencing to protect uh somebody from getting cut.

So thank you.

Thank you so much to everybody.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

We're good with next case.

Mr.

Chair.

Take a call.

Oh.

Okay.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

Uh the time is 520, and Commissioner Reed would be stepping out for this case, and we'll hopefully get him out in the next case.

Chair.

Yes.

Ms.

Cruz.

I need to log off already.

Okay, so we're down to that'd be nine.

So we still have a quorum.

So with nine being the case, I'd ask for the sitting members to like uh please express your um opinions here as the votes are being taken as a courtesy to the applicant.

So all righty, let's go ahead and roll with any name of the working on the good afternoon, y'all.

This is BOA case 251030263.

The applicant is Nelly Farga.

It's council district three.

The location is 210 Townsman Road.

Uh the zoning is R4, and I am the case manager.

The request is for a one-foot six-inch special exception to the maximum allowable three-foot solidation.

So down to nine.

I would ask if we can go ahead and hear the cases that have staff approval first, uh, which will have yeah, since we're only down to nine.

Uh so that's item number twelve.

Yes.

All right.

Apologies for that.

Uh, good.

Yeah.

But isn't Reed only out for this case or is he out?

Well, instead of the case, he'll be back.

So you'll be back to 10 for the remaining cases.

Well, yeah.

So Commissioner Reed had a call that he had to take.

And so I don't know if it's recusal of this specific case or he's gonna be out.

I understand.

Sorry.

I thought he was recusing from this item.

My apologies.

All right, so if we can go with uh 265, case number 12.

All right, BOA 25 BOA 251030265.

Um located 2522 town Briar.

This is for a 10-inch special exemption for a 5 foot 10 inch predominantly open fence limited to the gate as constructed, and a five-foot variant from the minimum 15-foot driveway clear vision uh to allow 10 foot clear vision zone R6.

This stems from a code enforcement case.

Um this is limited to the fence um kind of decorative that goes up on the front yard, and then the uh the uh encroachment of the clear vision.

Next slide.

This is uh showing the front yard area and the clear vision area.

Next photo.

So that um gate where it goes up.

That's the only area that is in violation of the fence height.

Next slide, please.

Surrounding area.

Staff recommends for defense side special exemption approval.

Uh specialization will be limited to only the arch gate over the driveway and remains the front yard fence will comply with defense code and the fence as constructed does not substantially alter the character of the residential streetscape.

And also uh approval for the uh variance.

There's sufficient clear vision area along the driveway, and the encroachment fence is predominantly open.

The streetscape of the residential area is now substantially changed by the fence constructed within the clear vision area.

Uh 34 notices mailed out, five in favor, none in opposition, and the neighborhood association Thunderbird Hills is in support.

There is the uh support letters as sent earlier.

And that concludes staff's presentation.

All right, let's see if we have any questions for staff.

Right.

Don't hear any?

Uh is the applicant here for yes.

Okay.

Uh let's go ahead and bring the applicant up.

Thank you for uh your patience and your time and no no.

This is apologize for the you guys had a lot of work to do today.

Um really have much to say.

I mean, you guys have seen the fence.

Uh we don't feel that it's really affecting anything majorly, and uh really just like to hear if you guys are in approval.

Okay.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

Uh name and address please for the record.

Matthew Jones, my address is 9602, Diamond Gap uh center in Tech 7254.

Okay.

Um let's see if we have any questions for the applicant.

All right.

Uh staff, do we have any voicemails or any other public comments to be ready?

Mr.

Guiones.

Oh, okay.

Uh so Mr.

Kionis is going to come up and then I'll give you a chance to rebuttal.

Okay.

My name is Stefan Rabeno.

I'm the owner at 2522 Tombraya Street.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Umberto Kinones.

I live in 2530 Tombry Street.

Uh I live in the cul-de-sac where Mr.

Joel's is built his fence.

Uh I'm opposing the fence because on the side is a private fence and it's too high, and it blocks the view of the oncoming traffic when I'm coming out of the cul-de-sac, I can't see the traffic coming.

I have to literally go into the street before I even see traffic coming onto the on to the street.

And I think it's a dangerous fence.

Uh it should be cut down to the cold by late uh the cold size.

So uh I wouldn't have no problems looking out to my left, you see the traffic coming down the street.

There's also no there's also no sidewalks there.

We give on the cul-de-sac, there's no sidewalk, so he has to be a good thing.

I have to cross the street.

Oh, I go up to the sidewalk.

So when he's coming, if there's a car gonna turn, it's gonna hit him before anything.

Can I can we get your name also for the record?

Okay.

Your address?

2530 Town Bryant.

Okay, thank you.

So that's why we're here.

Okay, understood.

Uh any other any questions for Braggman?

Ms.

Braggman.

Uh so what portion of the fence uh obstructs your vision when you're pulling out.

Wooden fence.

Okay, not the wrought iron there before.

Although that wasn't there before.

He built he built the wooden fence, the private fence when he built the uh right iron fence.

Is is there a portion?

So I uh let's see if there's uh if the applicant is knows the issue here.

Have you all talked at all about this fence or maybe there's some kind of uh concurrence if you all talk and there's maybe a section of that fence that could be brought down to make way for that clear vision?

Because this the site is considered like the front of his house.

But he built the fence from there all the way to the back.

And when you're coming, you can see that that fence wasn't there before.

Right.

So it's just slide 147.

It looks like it shows the solid wood fence on the in the cul-de-sac.

Right.

Correct.

Just for clarification.

Uh that wooden fence isn't part of this applicant's uh thing.

Is it just the the front of the fence?

That's that's correct.

This request only concerns the wrought iron fence.

The reason being uh as pictured here, that wooden fence actually does encroach slightly into the front yard, but uh, in speaking with the applicant about this request, their intent is to comply with the code and cut that wooden fence down to the maximum allowable three feet for a solid fence in the front yard.

For that reason, we did not include the solid fence as part of this request.

So as pictured here, it will be changed.

And so how do we enforce that?

I mean the standard code enforcement process.

Okay.

I thought we were here because of the wooden fence.

Well, it sounds like there there would be some compliance with that, so it sounds like it's gonna be cut down to the design is gonna be cut down.

Yeah.

Because we've been called the city and they told us that in two years they're gonna build a sidewalk.

It'll be in front of his house, but in the cul-de-sac, we will never get a sidewalk.

So he still has to be on the street.

Yeah, and if you see the site plan where it says front yard area, anywhere that the privacy fence is on the side, it's gonna be cut down.

And we do understand that there's a portion of a few feet that is in that's encroaching on their on that wood fence.

Correct.

And as far as uh your concern about the sidewalks, keep bugging your city council person to get a sidewalk there, and especially because of your use of your wheelchair.

Uh they they should push it really quickly, but the city needs to get that sidewalk in there.

Yeah, we called, they said in 2028 they're gonna build a sidewalk, but it's only gonna go in front of his house the other way, but they won't they will not do it on the cul-de-sac.

Keep bugging them.

All right, thank you.

All right, thank you, sir.

Yep.

And I at this point uh the applicant I'd ask you to please come forward.

I mean you heard uh the staff presentation and uh the conversations you had with them about complying with that uh clear visionary in the front yard area.

Yeah, we did comply with uh what Joel requested.

We have a photo uh what we've started working on on that area there on the side where it kind of encroaches.

If you notice here there's a line which shows we're kind of the front of the house.

And that's the area that we're reducing down to make sure it meets that three-foot front fence requirement.

So it's gonna stay a solid wood fence, it's just gonna reduce down to three feet.

At that area there, at the front of the case.

It will be a reduced bulk of us.

Okay, understood.

We already reduced it like six foot deeper vision.

We came back a little more than what was requested just to make sure we have that corner clear.

Perfect.

Thank you.

And that's the most we can enforce within Spored anyway.

So all right.

Any questions for the applicant?

Harry nodded ask a member of the board to please make a motion.

Bragman.

Ms.

Bragman.

Regarding case number BOA-25-103-00265.

I move the Board of Adjustment grant a request for a 10-inch special exception to the maximum allowable five-foot predominantly open front yard fence to allow 5-foot-10-inch predominantly open fence open front yard fence limited to the gate as constructed, situated at 2522 town Briar Street, applicant being Matthew Jones, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we have determined show the physical character of this property is such the literal enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code as amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

Specifically, we find that A, the special exception will be in harmony with the spirit and purpose of the chapter.

The fence height special exception will be in harmony with the spirit of the chapter, as the exception will be limited only to the arch gate over the driveway, and the remaining front yard fence would comply with the fence code.

B, the public welfare and convenience will be substantially served.

The public welfare should be served as the special exception will allow for an aesthetic feature along the front yard fence, and the majority of the remaining fence would be code compliant.

C, the neighboring property will not be substantially injured by such proposed use.

Neighboring property would not be substantially injured as the fence as constructed does not substantially alter the character of this residential seat streetscape.

D, the special exception will not alter the essential character of the district and location in which the property for which the special exception is sought.

The special exception would not substantially alter the essential character of the district, as the additional fence height would be limited to the gate over the driveway.

E.

The special exception will not alter the general purpose of the district or the regulations herein established for the specific district.

The special exception would not weaken the purpose of the district, as the fence would largely remain code compliant and adhere to a typical residential fence appearance.

The special exception would be limited in scope and only apply to the gate over the driveway end of motion.

Second.

All right.

Ms.

Bragman.

Yeah, I'll be in support of the motion.

It's very limited scope in terms of the height over the gate.

And so, and being that it's a wrought iron fence, I'll be in support of the motion.

All right.

Stevens.

I'll concur with my colleague, and I appreciate your proactiveness on that side fence, so I'll be in support.

All right, let's take a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Bragman?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez?

I concur.

Commissioner Orion.

Yes.

Vice Chair is an up.

Yes, I concur.

So nine in favor, zero opposition.

The motion does pass.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Oh well, well, there's a separate clear clear vision motion.

Yeah, wait, there's there's more.

Oh, okay.

Sorry about that.

You can sit down, but there's more.

I'll do it.

Oh, there it is.

Yeah.

Regarding case number BOA-25-103, 00265.

A move the Board of Adjustment grant a request for a five-foot variance from the minimum 15-foot driveway clear vision area to allow 10-foot driveway clear vision area for a driveway in the front yard situated at 2522 Town Briar Street, applicant being Matthew Jones, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we have determined show the physical character of this property as such the literal enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code as amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

The request is not contrary to the public interest.

Two, due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship.

A literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship as there is sufficient clear vision area along the driveway and the encroaching fence is predominantly open.

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

The current clear vision area of ten feet leaves sufficient room to back into the street and will observe the spirit of the ordinance.

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

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

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

The fence will not alter the essential character of the district as the streetscape of this residential area is not substantially changed by the fence as constructed within this clear vision area.

Six 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 and are not merely financial and are not due to or the result of general conditions in the district in which the property is located.

The plight of the owner of the property for which the variance is sought is due to unique circumstances existing on the properties, such as the shallow front yard depth end of motion.

All right.

Second.

Mr.

Bragman?

Um the applicant has already stated that they are going to uh reduce down that side solid fence to comply with the clear vision.

Um so I'll be in support of the motion.

And I concur with my colleague and I'll also be in support.

All right, let's take a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Bagman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibonis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Orion.

Yes.

Vice Chair Zena.

Yes, I concur.

All right.

So now let's see if Mr.

Reed.

Recommending approval, but I think we can do it number 16.

Okay.

We get 16 uh 273, please.

Is Mr.

Reed out there?

Is he the applicant here for it?

I think so.

All right, good afternoon.

BOA 251030273.

Uh this is for 811 Springfield Road.

Uh zone I-1.

So this is for a 12-foot variant from the required 30-foot front setback to allow an 18-foot front setback.

Subjects located just off the uh boundary of Kirby.

The law has an existing building without uh place without permit.

However, once the permit was applied for, it was found they had not abide by the front setback.

Property of the CDL driving uh driver's training, and the building was placed forward to accommodate the rear for that purpose.

This is a site plan showing the 18-foot uh setback in the front.

The subject property surrounding area.

Staff recommends denial reducing the setback by 40 percent, uh shifts the building mass closer to the street, potentially affecting traffic safety, site distance, streetscape, which is contrary to public interest, and the request places the industrial structure and activities visibly closer to the street, increasing their perception of intensity of potentially impact the adjacent properties through visual intrusion and reduce buffering.

Uh sixteen notices were mailed, none in favor or opposition, and there's no registered neighbor association or committee organization within 200 feet.

And that concludes staff's presentation.

All right.

Any questions for staff here?

Stevens.

I'm just curious, is this considered a permanent structure?

And it is it is considered a permanent structure, even though it's uh obviously it can be moved easier than something built on the ground, but because it's there on uh on blocks like that, it's considered a permanent structure.

And if it if it wasn't considered a permanent structure, would those would it be in violation of setback requirements?

Um so they wouldn't need a building permit.

Uh zoning uh zoning setbacks would not uh be in effect at that point.

Um they would still have to comply with whatever permit they would have to have for a temporary structure.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Stevens.

Uh any other questions for staff.

All right, let's get the applicant uh forward if he'd like to come forward and just need your name and address for the record, please.

Good evening, my name is Cassandra Bernice.

Um the address is 811 Springfield Road, San Antonio, Texas 78219.

All right.

Okay.

Um the applicant, Michael Villa Lobos is requesting a variance from the required 30-foot front setback to allow the existing building to remain at its current 18-foot front setback.

The building was constructed based on professional guidance from a previously hired engineer at the time of the construction.

Um the property owner was not informed of the 30-foot setback requirement by the city of San Antonio.

As a result, the building was placed according to the engineered plans provided at the time.

And all utilities were installed to support this location.

The building has been fully operational with no negative impact to um to properties, public safety, traffic, visibility, or the surrounding district.

The current placement has functioned safely and consistently with the nearby development.

Requiring the building to be relocated 12 feet to meet the 30-foot setback would result in significant hardship, including demolition of the significant hard uh existing structure disruption of ongoing business.

Operations and removal, relocation of our existing water sewer and electrical utilities.

These impacts are disproportionate and were not created by the property owner.

That's pretty much it.

I mean, um I did submit additional photos.

Um that way you guys can see on the right side.

We do need that space because we have um preach up inspections.

You know, so it is going to be uh financially hardship just to hire other additional uh movers and plumbing electricity, you know, to do that move.

So right there, there's no other space that we can do to push that further out.

On the right side, we just do little movements of offsets.

And it is um across the street, it is uh mobile units, but that's behind, you know.

Fragment?

And it's not as much traffic.

Um they drive by slow.

It's uh the same trucking industry's next door uh auto parts, um, but it is in empty lots in between.

All right, thank you.

Um have any questions, Ms.

Markman?

How long is that building been in place?

I would say about a year and a half, I would say.

I don't have the exact um But it's fairly recent.

It's yeah.

Okay.

And you have an engineer's report that showed it was submitted.

Actually, they before the placement um of the engineer, the prior engineer did submit uh application, but under manufactured home.

So it got withdrawn to be under commercial.

But it was set in stone with him.

He did submit that there for the permit.

For staff, did they they require it is anchored down on the post and peers?

Yeah, so they currently have uh pending commercial building permit.

Um obviously you can't get it approved until the BO if the BOA approves this, but I believe they uh applied for the residential permit first under uh regular manufactured home, but then it was correctly changed to a commercial building.

Okay, but that so but the building has been in place for over a year.

When was the request submitted?

Uh commercial building was September of this year or last year, 2025.

And what about the residential?

Oh, one second.

My point is did they get any sort of permit before the building was put in place?

No.

Um that they uh initiated that once the uh once co-compliance uh notified them that they needed a permit.

Okay.

It looks like it was September.

Um so about a month before the commercial building permit.

So there was no permit issued before the building was put in place?

Um, this was between the engineer that was hired on.

Um we were looking deep into it because um he did withdraw himself due to ill being ill, and um we accepted that, so we started moving backwards.

We do understand that we need to deal with a lot of permits in the city to get approval, so that's what we're currently doing.

We are trying our best to be in compliance with you know with you all.

So we are submitting permits.

We created the site plans already to be submitted.

I have everything else to be submitted, but I don't think this is a major one that we do need to resolve to continue with the application.

And one correction, sorry, for the original the original application was August 2024.

So a little bit over a year before the commercial one.

Okay.

So that could have coincided with when the building was put in place?

Correct.

Yeah, it looks like one it looks like very quickly after the building was put in place, they were notified and then they applied.

They were notified and then they applied.

It was just applied in the wrong application.

Then they went to the correct application.

Now they need this variance.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Agatha.

Bonias, um yes.

You guys have electrical through CPS?

Yes.

So for city, how does CPS hook this up?

Do they just hook it up to any structure or do they have to go through you guys first before they hook up this this main line and metered?

I believe they did it based off the permit application.

Obviously, not the permit approved, I believe.

Um yeah, they do have to follow the normal permitting guidelines.

I'm not a hundred percent sure how um CPS approved it.

Um we did do that with CPS.

We I stayed on top of the phone calls and permit.

They say they had to get city approval.

So that's how we stayed in thinking that it was going to be approved.

Yeah, no, because I've gone through that process too, where I couldn't get it electrical hooked up to you guys approved it.

Once approved by you guys, then CPS came out and hooked up our meter.

So I'm just trying to figure out a meter, how they got a lineup without it being approved by city.

Yeah, I'm seeing there was an electrical permit issued.

Um since been withdrawn.

So this was in November of 2024.

I think there may have been some perhaps a clerical issue at the front counters um reviewing that that portion of the of the workflow.

Okay, so when you guys started, or I guess maybe if you know the answer to this, when the structure put up, was the owner was he trying to get a permit?

Was he going through the right process, which he thought was because you contacted CPS, so he knew he needed Yeah.

So Hari, the engineer, we in good faith we left it to him, you know, to take care of everything.

So once um we he did withdraw himself because he got very ill, there's we had to dig deep in there.

Okay, let's pick up where he left off.

We need to hire another person to come, you know, fix this.

So once we looked into it, we saw the application with withdrawn.

Okay.

So he when his you know responsibilities.

That's why we figured, okay, everything's good, stayed in contact with CPS, with the water saws, other contractors to make sure everything's okay.

So that's how we started approaching ourselves personally to get further information and clarity on this um situation.

Right, gotcha.

And real quick for city, the thirty-foot setback, is that i i it it's regardless of whether it's a manufactured home or a business, right?

Correct.

Okay.

And we do acknowledge uh past that um setback.

They do have an easement on there, but we can't use that easement as part of the setback.

But it does exist.

I see.

Thank you, Mr.

Bonias.

Any other question for the applicant?

All right.

Staff, any voicemail or public comment to be read into the public.

No public comment.

All right.

Any other last questions for the applicant?

Any other comments you'd like to make before we close the public portion?

Um would you like to add additional comments?

This is the last thing like that whole process we're doing here right now.

Mm-hmm.

So, yeah, we are trying to get this uh the last step to be um completed.

So we can proceed with whatever you guys are requiring to, you know, fix.

Understood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Let's uh close the public portion.