All right, it's 105.

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

Let's have the Spanish interpreter come out, please.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Buenas tardes a those.

Las personas que prefieran escuchar la audiencia in espanhol.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you very much.

Staff you please call roll.

Commissioner Reed.

Commissioner Stevens.

Present.

Commissioner Ibanez.

Present.

Commissioner Dean.

Commissioner Cruz.

Here.

Commissioner Gomez.

Commissioner Mana.

Present.

Commissioner Bragman.

Commissioner Benavides.

Commissioner Ozuna.

Present.

Commissioner Bonias.

Commissioner Vasquez.

President.

Chair Orion.

And I am present.

So we have nine seated, so we can uh call them.

We have a quorum for the meeting.

If everyone could please join me in the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag.

United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

Undergone indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Honor the Texas flag.

I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state.

Undergone one revisible.

All right.

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

This board follows an agenda which is available online.

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

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

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

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

This board is supported by the members of the city staff competent in the rules and regulations governing the city's zoning codes and other codes and aspects pertaining to this area.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Each member will be asked to vote on the motion.

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

The burden approved in granting the release law rests with the applicant.

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

Appeals from the decision of this board regarding appeals from administrative officials, 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.

So let's please limit your presentation and remarks to the pertinent facts of your case.

Staff.

Thank you.

Real quick.

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

Part of the presentation includes a map that shows the area to be considered for the variance of special exemption and property within two hundred feet of the subject property.

Check marks indicates those property owners in favor of the request.

Following this presentation, and any questions about the board, the applicant will present their request.

For those that signed up to speak for or against the proposed variance of special exemption, you will be called in order that you sign up to speak.

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

For those who are like to give up their time to the speaker, that speaker will be allowed a maximum.

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

The applicant will then be given an opportunity for rebuttal.

Limited to one speaker with a three-minute time limit, along with the opportunity to address board questions.

Thank you, Chairman.

Yes, uh, I had it uh denoted, and I I just need to know if this is correct or not.

Is item number two postponed?

This first case being heard today.

Okay.

And as far as item number uh four or six, whether anybody sent it to speak or any voicemails.

Speak.

No voicemails.

All right.

Uh so the what we're gonna do at the beginning is uh we have two applicants who have requested a continuance.

Uh item number one has requested a continuance till April 6, if we could start with that.

And item number six.

Um sorry, item number one for uh 2751 for Spur Street requesting continuance to April 6.

No, no public comments for this one.

All right, is there a m member uh commissioner like to make a motion?

Move uh to continuance for uh case number uh one zero three zero zero zero one four to uh April six.

Second second second by Commissioner Stevens.

Uh all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any and any opposed.

Uh hearing none, motion passes.

Cases continue to April 6th.

The next item asking for a continuance was item three.

Correct.

This is uh 515 Belmont Street asking for a continuance to March 23rd, and we do have one speaker sign up to speak.

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

Mr.

Ben uh Shaderbaum.

Uh you don't have to speak, but you're more than happy to.

You can also come back uh in a few weeks uh and and participate at that time.

Okay.

I may not come back.

I don't know if I don't say your name and we do remember when we hear from people then.

I don't know this case you can state.

Uh you have to say your name for the record.

My name is Ben Schumanbaum.

Okay.

Uh neighbor.

Yeah, they have to record all this stuff.

Okay.

We ready?

Ben Schoenbaum, neighbor at 514 Belmont.

Okay.

Uh I don't know why the city wants to revoke uh this license to uh operate a uh Airbnb, I believe is what this is about.

But uh anyway, nonetheless, this neighbor has always been a good neighbor to me.

Uh I don't I don't know what the problem is.

He's got a huge investment in this property.

Uh near as I can tell he's improving the neighborhood, not hurting the neighborhood.

Uh he's completely at risk.

I think it's excessive uh uh excessive penalty to remove his ability to make a livelihood with this property.

Uh and it seems to me that it wouldn't be that difficult for the city to meet with him and find a way to bring him into compliance, whatever the problem is.

And just so you know, the a lot of this uh isn't discretionary.

The city actually has to do it and and the processes for that applicant to come here, but uh where we do have some discretion.

Uh but but the city in most instances does not.

And when certain um uh elements have been have been reached, they they actually have to revoke.

And so it's it's nothing personal, just so you know.

No, I I get that.

It's not personal, but it seems to me that uh if if there is a problem that the uh citizen should be given every opportunity possible to uh uh bring bring himself into compliance.

Well, thank you very much for speaking on on your neighbor's behalf, and um we we a lot of us uh we're the same people who will be here in a few weeks, probably a couple extra, so we'll keep that in mind when the case is heard.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Is there a member who would like to make a motion?

Uh motion for continuance for case number one zero three zero zero zero one nine to March 23rd.

All right, is there a second?

Second second by Commissioner Cruz, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed any opposed?

Hearing none, cases continue to March 23rd.

All right.

Um the first case is going to be item number two.

Good afternoon.

My name is Joseph Leos, uh senior planner with development services.

Item number two is the BOA-26-103017 at 2110 Chitam Trail Drive.

It's within council council district nine.

Applicant is Jeff Bryson, and they're requesting to uh for an appeal of the administrator's decision to revoke their short-term rental permit.

Um so again, the subject property is at 2110 Chitam Trail.

Surrounding land uses include residential single family.

Um as of March 10th, 2025, uh platforms that directly remit state hot and now remit the city hot to the city's finance department.

Uh this includes major platforms such as Airbnb and VRBO.

Um if the rental isn't advertised or rented through platform that does not remit the HOT, uh the operator must continue and uh manually report and remit the city and county hot.

Um all short-term rental operators are still required to continue file revenue reports and pay Berry County Hot through Avenue on a monthly basis.

Um so the city finance department uh they stated that revenue reports were missing from from February 2025 through April 2025.

Uh delinquency notices were mailed by Avenue between April 2025 and July 2025 with a final notice of delinquency emailed by us on January 5th.

Um section 16-110 D states that failure to timely report and pay hot taxes within 90 days, so I'll report in permit revocation.

Uh since no payment was made within that 90 days, the permit was revoked.

Um and the applicant is now current on their hot taxes.

Uh this is the type two density count.

Uh there are 18 units on this block face.

Uh we do have one active type two uh 2002 Chitam Trail.

Um and that one was approved back in November of 2025.

Uh so for the background history, uh there was an open investigation um in February of 2025.

Um it's now closed.

It was for operating without without a permit.

Uh the operator they had applied and they were issued one.

Um next slide.

And this is one of the active listings.

And this is just the communication history from uh both Avenue and Development Services outlining the notices of delinquencies and emails uh exchanged.

Uh the CIS a site plan, the subject property, and then the surrounding areas.

Okay, and then staff recommendation.

Uh we are going to recommend a denial.

And we sent out 39 notices, uh, received zero in favor, zero in opposition.

Uh the properties not within a neighbor association, and then the community groups were notified and didn't respond back.

Great.

And just to clarify, uh, if this were to get approved, it'd be two out of eighteen, which is less than the twelve twelve and a half percent.

Correct, yes, sir.

Okay.

And then and they are current on all taxes and paperwork and everything.

Uh yes, as of February 27th.

All right.

Yes, Commissioner Max.

So is so looked like there was a pretty big gap from one of I guess when it is at the started versus when it was revoked.

Is there I guess the logic or reasoning for that that that large delta there?

Between when the permit was uh revoked and when they had applied, or so when they started being out of compliance, I guess, and so they have uh whatever the time frame is versus you know the January.

So what look like from January to January almost a year?

I guess that this was of concern.

Yeah, as as soon as we had received the um list of of uh delinquent properties from Avenue, that's when we have we begin the revocation process.

So that consists of doing um just research just to make sure that uh notices were mailed out, so which is why you all see maybe uh some months in between.

Yeah, um, and as a follow-up commissioner, so like Joseph stated, we get this list at a later date, which takes us a couple months to confirm which properties are revocation, and once we do get the list, we kind of do it in batches.

So all right, so the applicant come forward.

Thank you.

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

Uh forgive me for my tar, but I'm working today, so I'm in construction.

There's my daughter justine, she's actually one of the owners of the property also.

My name is Jeff Bryson.

Just Steam Bryson.

And we're uh two of the owners of Chitham Trail.

Chitum, yeah, Chitham Trail.

211 Chitam Trail.

Um first of all, I'd like to just make a couple of notes.

When we got a case manager, we were talking outside.

I didn't realize that they make an uh uh a suggestion to y'all for denial or whatever.

So we're talking openly out there.

And I'll tell you the same thing we told we told him.

And I'll tell you the same thing we told we told him I did not receive any email from anybody but that could be because of our our mailboxes.

I wish I would have known that was the case because I could have brought up proof from the postal service or the back of our box has been taken off several times.

I've even offered for them to put a camera because my house is directly in front of it so they could actually keep track of it I've had credit cards stolen my identity was stolen last year.

Motorcycle was bought in my name so that would be the first concern about getting mailed my daughter received an email in January and so in January I said well I don't think that's the case because hot taxes are paid by uh Airbnb and VRBO I own two other ones and we've never had an issue.

So I was like no that's not that's not the case.

Then when I came back I was in Puerto Rico actually paying off our last payment on an Airbnb there.

And when I got back she said Dad you got to go down and get this done.

So the day that the revocation was happening I was actually in the the finance office which is where I thought I needed to go and I was there speaking with a lady and she said well these are showing zero I said I don't understand this because we've remitted all these taxes you know I've I've got proof on Airbnb.

So she said yeah it's kind of a quirky thing here they don't collect the county taxes.

I was never aware of the fact that the county taxes are weren't paid.

So once she made me made me aware of that I said okay so what do we do?

So we got in touch with Airbnb which if you've ever contacted it's not easy an easy transition to even to speak with them.

But I had them actually go back teach my daughter how to go back and figure out every single person that stayed there every single amount of money that we paid in taxes do the calculations and I said okay let's go down and get it paid before we get to the this this process because we don't want to be a noncompliance we've never had a complaint against our property we keep our property in great shape the exterior is in great shape we keep it up you know we we I I I talk with the neighbors if there's any problems you know I tell them please give me a call because I don't want to have an issue.

So we would respectfully ask that you know we are in compliance we've also figured out how to do it on the Airbnb platform and on the VRBO platform where the only two you rent to how to add that tax on there.

So now that tax is automatically going again though it's going to be collected sent to us and then we have to remit it to you manually and I don't even mind if I have to pay it months in advance to just keep our license this is really important to us.

And we weren't trying to be a noncompliance we just weren't weren't aware of that.

One other further note it was when she when she when we did call Airbnb and they told us that I called down here and talked to somebody in the city I didn't make note of it because I I was going to go ahead and come down and pay it.

But they were saying yes as long as your hotel taxes are being paid you're fine.

They never said that your county tax is different.

And if they would have told me that I would have come down there that day and taking care of whatever situation we needed to be in.

But I'm I made sure that we are in compliance we have everything else about the property is in compliance it's in good shape we have no no complaints of our neighbors ever registered against us so I would I would ask that you guys would you know look at that and take that into consideration.

And also for future reference I'll be the one handling you know uh reporting our taxes as well as paying them so I'm pretty familiar with the system now with Avenue and uh from now on forward we'll have that um that tax remitted do you have your email address added to the uh platform so that you actually that was also another concern um because he had had issues with a security breach with his address so I went in and updated um a better address for him as well as me as a secondary person of contact email yeah y'all have a bryson at ht.net so I told them that I have a big problem with Abraham A Bryson that's where one of the things they found out was I was getting things stolen was under my email so I mean I I don't know if you all have ever had an identity stall I used to think that was not really real but they stole it had a lot of credit cards they bought a motorcycle and so I took it down and got um my my laptop gone through and and fixed and they said we actually suggest you get rid of the laptop like they couldn't fix it completely.

Wow okay is there any commissioner questions commissioner manner so question for the city you know so we have heard before with regards to the workflow as it gets started within they'll say the the the the whole um short term rentals and so you I know that there's a few things that we have and other we'll see workflows in the city where there's mandatory activities that have to happen.

And so could we work through a dialogue put potentially of as someone signs up that they meant they go through a mandatory training to identify you all the workflows and verify it you know by their second month in in the workflow.

Um yeah so clarification when we issue the permit when they are sending email identifying the permit has been issued we also sent a follow-up email indicating this is your taxpayer number and we also identified about reminder to report taxes only monthly basis and that platforms like Airbnb home we are not responsible for collecting hot taxes on behalf of the operators that email communication was sent to a Bryson at ATT.net Justine Bryson's email at Bryson at dot Justine at gmail dot com and their designated operator Lane Ogson and his email address.

So that was sent out February 18 2025 so they were properly notified about we're paying hot taxes on a monthly basis not Airbnb.

So they were properly notified about repaying hot taxes on a monthly basis, not Airbnb.

So I get yeah, I I get that we're doing a lot of good notification, and I know that we picked it up quite well, and so I'm really happy about that part.

But look at the elevate it to one more step as to provide you know a follow-up training, because I know that you have a letter or an email you may get missed or along that line, and would it be beneficial to have you know a Zoom call where we walk through each of the steps that everyone's gonna see, especially for that the first the first go round, so it's like okay, here's what we're expecting, so that there are no surprises, we'll say months down the road.

Uh so yeah, so for clarification, once Airbnb or once platforms were emitting hot taxes in March 2025, we started sending out em with along with these email communities a guide on how to report hot taxes.

Same thing for the mail notice is sent out identifying you have to report zero.

Again, that platforms are not response from it, city or county taxes on behalf of the city.

The knowing address this was sent to Bear County shows this as their homestead.

So they were sent to what again, what the city was given, proper communication was sent out regarding hot taxes and delinquency.

Thank you.

All right, anything, please.

Uh Commissioner Bonis.

Yeah, uh, how many um short-term rentals do you guys all together here and in every other place, I guess?

Manage the one here.

And I've got two in in Puerto Rico.

One is a family uh owned and one is on with another friend of mine.

Gotcha.

That one has its own separate manager.

Okay.

Um and are do taxes work different in Puerto Rico than they do here in Bear County?

Yes, when with Airbnb remitting them and all that stuff.

If you can speak into the I can second that's what I wanted to respond to is actually when it says that Airbnb is not responsible for the the uh submitting of the hot taxes, Airbnb's platform and VRBO's both tell us that they are responsible and they do it.

Um it's just one part of it that's not being done, it's a very small part that we if I would have done it, we would it would have been up in day one.

Yeah, it could it could be confusing.

And and then you said uh somewhere around this time frame where notices were being sent.

That's when you were having issues with your mailbox being vandalized?

Yes, sir.

Is that right?

Okay.

Uh and then for city, is he current now in all his taxes?

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

All right.

And there's uh no voicemail on the center to the speech.

No public comment.

Commissioner Zuna?

Mr.

Chair, I was just gonna be respectful of the nine members that we have in panel today and would take nine concurring votes of everybody on the panel to uh approve the variance request.

So uh if there's anybody in opposition, please uh let us know your thoughts.

All right.

Um with that, I'm looking for a motion.

Uh Bonia's Commissioner Benees.

Uh this item two, yeah.

Okay.

Regarding case number BOA 26103017, a move that the Board of Adjustment grant the appeal for the property situated at 2110 at Chitam Trail, applicant being Jeff Bryson, because the information provided by the applicant shows that the city staff uh made an error in enforcing section one six-1110 uh D when revoking the short-term uh rental permit.

End of motion.

Second.

Thank you by Commissioner Manor.

Commissioner Bonnie's.

Yeah, I'll be in favor of this.

I I think um, you know, some of these platforms and if you own multiple, they could they can be hard to keep track of these, but I think the applicant now has a way better understanding of it.

I think the fact that is his daughter is gonna help him.

Uh I think that uh they'll always be current.

They are current now.

I think you know, obviously, if you're your mailbox being vandalized and you're missing out on some mail, you know, that could probably delay some of those things.

But I think they have a really good understanding of how how to do it going forward, and I think they'll be good operators and they'll pay their taxes on time going forward.

Commissioner Manor.

So that um I I agree with my colleague, but yeah, the city, so we're supposed to be voting on whether or not the city made an error, and they did not.

But but I think outside of that, I think there's some extenuate extenuating circumstances uh why it is LB supporting this, so I'll be voting in favor.

All right, anyone else like that?

Uh hearing now is have a roll call vote.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Mana.

I can go with the findings of the fact.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibonis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I did not concur.

I'll deny the question.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Osuna?

I do not concur.

Commissioner Volfkith.

Commissioner Vavkith.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur the findings of fact.

Is there a motion?

Mr.

Chair, um, as the um I guess the party that denied, I make a motion to ask for a reconsideration.

Oh second.

The reconsideration would be for a continuance of the case.

Okay.

And uh let's have let's have a roll call vote for the uh reconsideration.

Commissioner Osina.

Yes, I concur.

Chair Orion.

Yes.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes.

Commissioner Ibanez.

Yes.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Mana.

I concur.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes.

Commissioner Vasquez.

Yes.

All right.

Motion to reconsider uh approved.

Uh I'm going to make a motion to uh continue this to March 23rd.

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing non motion.

We'll see you back on the 23rd.

All right.

All right.

But you might explain what that's for you.

Yeah, so you have to have nine votes, and this is going to everyone in the gallery.

You have to have nine votes, whether there's nine people here or eleven, which is a full board.

Okay.

We we rarely have nine people.

Today we do.

Okay.

So yeah.

So we'll see you back in two weeks.

Um essentially 100% concurrence of the nine that are present today.

So without that, we'll be fully impaneled at our next meeting, which would be on the 23rd, so that um would be an opportunity to reconsider the case.

We'll be here and if if it's in favor, you'll never see us again.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, item five.

This one is okay.

Good afternoon.

Item number five is BOA-25-1030255, located in District 7 on 154 Babcock Road.

The zoning is 02 and is a request for one, a 29-foot 11-inch variance from the minimum required 30-foot rear and 20-foot side setback to allow an accessory structure with a 15-foot rear setback and a barbed wire fence with a one-inch rear and side setback, and two, a variance from the UDC accessory structure regulations to allow an accessory structure within the rear setback of a non-residential district that abuts a residential district.

On the property, there's an existing real estate service office under renovation and a fire damage accessory structure which is slated for demolition.

The applicant proposes to construct a storage shed to house materials and tools used for minor home improvements on clients' homes listed for sale.

UDC standards prohibit accessory structures other than car ports within the rear inside setbacks of areas of non-residential properties, abutting residential properties.

The proposed accessory structures also within the required rear buffer yard.

Therefore, the applicant was requesting variance is to allow the storage shed to be located and used within the memory minimum required rear setback and buffer yard area.

This is the site plan.

This is an aerial view of the subject property.

The current view of the subject property.

And then this is the surrounding area.

Staff recommends denial in BOA-25-1030255 based on the following findings of fact.

One accessory structures except for carports are prohibited within the side and rear setback areas of non-residential districts adjacent to residential district.

Two, the reduced separation may adversely impact the adjacent lots, especially where a potentially harmful material such as barbed wire is utilized.

Staff mailed out 18 notices.

One was received in favor, zero received in opposition.

Maverick Neighborhood Association is opposed.

This is the letter received in support.

And this is Mavericks letter against the case.

This concludes staff's presentation.

All right.

The Commission's memory is uh this came before us.

What was the purpose of the reason for the continuous?

Was that to negotiate with neighbors or the neighbor association or was there some other aspect?

Um if I understand correctly, was this a part of the January restart case?

Oh, due to the cold weather day.

And there was another continuance in there to facilitate negotiation with the neighborhood association.

Um they did attend Maverick did attend uh the last time, but that was uh motion for continuance of that date.

The applicant was not present on that date.

All right, thank you very much.

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

Uh please state your name and tell us about your project.

Yes, um, my name is Gilbert Vargas.

I am managing this particular request.

If you if I can just go ahead and quickly just say what happened last time.

So there was some opposition from Bianca Montalobos.

She was representing the uh Maverick Neighborhood Association.

Her biggest concern, and I'm just recalling it, the biggest concern was some issues about what we were going to plan there, what did it look like?

So there was a variety of things.

So we we um we basically asked for a continuance.

So I met with Bianca back in end of January and we basically agreed to um reduce the the request for very a setback to you know basically at 15 feet.

You know, we went from five feet to 15 feet.

Do we have that exhibit that somewhere here that you would have uh which setback are you because you you have uh a 29 foot 11 inch uh variance from the required rear and then a 10-foot variance from the 15-foot buffer, and then um is is you talking about the rear.

It's only the rear.

Okay, and what are you what are you uh offering?

Well, so now offering it 15 feet versus five feet.

The last time we hear it was five feet.

So you you're you're amending your application to be a 15-foot variance as opposed to a 29-foot eleven inch variance?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

So it will still be the 29-11-foot variants to allow for the one-inch separation for the barbed wire along the rear property line.

Um but he is proposing to put the structure 15 feet away from the rear property line as opposed to five feet.

That was his original request back in December to have this structure five feet from the rear property line.

Uh in communication from what I'm hearing from the applicant with between them and the neighborhood association, um the applicant has since amended to place that building now 15 feet away from the rear property line.

That is how it was um advertised for this cycle, and that's how it is displayed on the uh the screen in front of you here.

There's no landscape buffer variants uh before you today.

Okay, so item number item number two is is striped.

Correct.

Correct.

There's sufficient space now for the rear buffer on this property.

Okay.

And then so item number one, uh the maker of the motion would read it as a dual motion of 15 foot for the structure and then a one-inch for a barbed wire fence.

That's correct.

Everybody catch that.

All right.

Please continue.

So the other thing that the owner, the other thing that the only agreed to do, this is the metal structure at the time.

They were asking, well, what's going to go there?

Because of the fire concern that was brought up, and you know it was a bit remote.

He he went ahead and said this is what the structure is going to look like.

It's all metal.

So if you had basically homeless or some variant uh vagrants in the back who tried to start the structure on fire, they would have a much harder time.

Okay.

Um so that that was another thing that he we did.

And then finally, um, Ms.

Bianca was also mentioning that there was the old shed that was there.

Um and he it the owner's since removed it.

I mean, we didn't send any pictures in, but I have them, and he he showed them to me, and so we removed him with the idea that another concern was hey, did you police that area up?

If there's trash and the homeless were there with baskets and things like that.

And it was just a work in progress.

But since then, um they cleaned up the back of the site.

And has staff received any update from the neighbor association regarding these recent conversations and uh potential uh uh acceptance?

Because all we saw in the presentation was they currently documented uh uh in opposition.

No.

Oh, okay.

All right.

Any commissioner questions?

Commissioner Cruz?

Um my biggest concern is that Bob wire fence is that's still gonna stay there and it's still far enough away from the property.

Or what you're gonna build there?

Yes.

It's already there.

We're just gonna leave it.

Okay, so you didn't put it in, it was already there, correct?

Um that's my understanding.

Thank you.

All right.

Now, what we're gonna be doing today for everybody that's pre uh in front of us, uh, when staff's recommending denial and a neighborhood association's recommending denial, I'm gonna off the bat ask if you are interested in requesting the commission pursue a continuance.

Right, because we haven't heard back from the neighborhood association.

Yeah.

Yes, then when would you uh the next next available?

Because I think it's only a matter of correcting.

I mean, if if I'm understanding what what we're trying to accomplish here, I it's why she's not here.

I don't I know I reminded her that it was today.

We need something from her to the city that says that she's in the well, there might be a member of the commission who who who uh would like to see that in writing.

Okay.

Or at least hear from them.

Right.

So if so if you're asking until March 23rd, we'll take that under consideration.

Sure.

Is there a member of the commission who would like to make a motion on this case?

Manna.

Commissioner Manna.

So uh yeah, I'd like to move to continuous March 23rd.

Second.

All right.

Second by Commissioner, I'll give that to Commissioner Stevens.

Uh all in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

All right.

Case is continue to March 23rd.

We'll see you then and please uh try to get something from the neighborhood association.

We'll do.

All right.

Uh item number seven.

Is the applicant here for Sherman Street?

See them earlier.

Is the applicant for 1038 Sherman Street here?

All right.

Um I understand this case in neighborhood association is in opposition to this one as well, and staff is recommending a deni uh uh an approval though.

They are in the they are up opposed to the um fence height gate entrance special exemption, but they are for the clear vision.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Please uh proceed.

All right.

Um BOA 251030276, uh located at 1038 Sherman Street.

Um requesting, so this one was two items have already been approved previously.

So the only two items here is the 12-foot variant from the minimum 25 foot corner clear vision to allow 13 foot corner clear vision and a four-foot special exemption from the maximum five foot fence height to allow nine foot fence slash entrance height.

Next slide, please.

The dwelling is proposed to be built with multiple containers converted into residential building and does not require altering paths abided by building codes.

The fence the fence height special exemption is limited to the gate entrance on the east side of the property.

Uh so the two blanked out uh requests has already been approved.

Just the two on the bottom is the nine-foot entrance and the 13-foot corner clear vision.

That's what it looks like right now.

That's the fence that is the fence height is limited to.

That's the one that has already been gone through.

Next slide.

All right.

So staff recommends um approval for the uh corner clear vision, the remaining 13-foot uh clear vision uh preserves functional visibility while balancing safety with reasonable use of the property, the combination of a corner loss of standard lot and adjacent railroad operations create a unique physical condition, not share about typical parcels in the district.

And staff recommends denial for defense height special exemption creates a dominant visual barrier that can adversely affect adjacent property through loss of open shadow and reduced visual continuity and a nine-foot fence or entrance element substantially exceeds the established standard and introduces a fortified or institutional appearance inconsistent with the chapter's purpose.

One in favor, one in opposition out of the 34 notices um sent.

Ignity hill is opposed to the fence height special exemption.

This is the letter in support, same from previous one.

This is the updated uh the ignority hill neighborhood association letter.

And this is the previously shown opposition.

Okay.

And the fence heiz is limited to a five-foot wide entry gate.

It looks like it's five feet wide.

I believe that's accurate.

Stevens.

Commissioner Stevens.

I'd also note that this property isn't actually located in Dignity Hill as noted by the neighborhood association.

All right.

That's correct.

Thank you.

Let's have the applicant come forward.

Not here, that's right.

All right.

So I mean, we can take this up or we can uh continue this.

I'll leave it up to a commissioner who would like to move forward with that.

Can we just move this to the back of the agenda in case they do show for is there any indication from the applicant that they were going to be here today?

They told us they they they after where I reminded them they didn't tell me that they weren't going to show up.

All right.

I am tabling item number seven.

Uh we will bring it up if they happen to show up prior to the end of the meeting.

Item number eight.

We do have one voicemail for that last item if we just want to play that now before moving on.

Uh sure, go ahead.

Hello, this is Lou Francois, Chairperson of the Degutelity Hill Historic Neighborhood Review Committee calling in on case 1038 in Sherman Street.

We would like to thank the applicant for presenting to the residents that attended the Ding of Witty Hill Neighborhood Association meeting in February.

But as a DHA Historic Neighborhood Review Committee, we must abide by City of San Antonio Coach to maintain a sense of neutrality and fairness to all residents, both within and outside the historic boundary.

It is for this reason that we agree with OHP's recommendation to deny the nine-foot entrance request.

Thank you.

All right, and there's no one signed to speak on that item.

No, sir.

All right.

Well, that is a so then we're tabling seven.

We will move on to item eight.

Good afternoon.

BOA-26-103015 is located in District 6 on 3402 Meadow Drive.

The zoning is R6, and the request is for an eight foot nine inch variance from the minimum 10-foot front setback to allow a carport with a one-foot-three-inch front setback with a three-inch overhang.

The subject properties located along Meadow Drive and northeast of the intersection of Meadow Drive and Pipers Lane.

The surrounding area is primarily developed with single family residences on lot zone R6.

The majority of the area was developed prior to annexation.

This case originated from a code enforcement investigation in response to a citizen call regarding the development of a carport.

The carport was completely constructed per staff's visit to the site in February of 2026.

Dablo?

Yeah.

Um next slide.

Staff observed other carports built recently but found no approved variants.

Similar requests in the surrounding area include the below addresses, um 7702 Pipers Creek denial of variants in 1993, 7722 Pipers Hill denial of the variance in 2008 and 7708 Pipers View, denial of the original quest, and an alternate variance approved.

Um there's going to be two addresses pictured in the pre-upcoming slides that have no variance requests for the carports.

This is the site plan.

Staff recommends denial NBOA-26-103015 based on the following findings of fact.

One, the request does not provide adequate spacing between the carport and the city right-of-way, which is contrary to the public interest.

And two, granting the variants would not observe the spirit of the ordinance as a purpose for minimum front setback is to maintain a uniform streetscape, especially in residential districts.

Staff mill dot 37 notices, 13 were received in favor within 200 feet, zero in opposition.

Outside 200 feet, seven were received in favor and zero in opposition.

Pipers Meadow Neighborhood Association is in support.

This is the response from Pipers Meadow Neighborhood Association.

And then the following slides will be the other letters received in support.

And this concludes staff's presentation.

All right, thank you very much.

All right, please state your name and tell us about your carport.

Good afternoon.

My name is John Marquis.

Um of the um reasons that I'm asking for the variance is because of the size of my uh driveway, my property in itself.

Uh doesn't give me adequate um space with a 10-foot setback.

I would barely be able to put a 10-foot carport.

And that's in my opinion, doesn't adequately cover my vehicle.

I have two more pictures that I presented to them of the sides of my vehicle under the carport were could you do the other one as well?

There.

So as you see, if the 10-foot setback would almost be at the middle post.

And so it really doesn't give me adequate um coverage.

And I've gone, I've been in the property for 30 years.

And for most of those years, I've noticed all sorts of other uh properties that have carports that go out about as far as mine does.

And so I wasn't really thinking that there would be an opposition to that.

Um, and and in those times, I I've um had plenty of times where the weather was pretty adverse and had hail damage and all that doesn't happen all that often, but I'm trying to prevent that from in the future, so I don't have to go through claims and all that.

So that's what I'm asking.

Um she was saying that 13 of the 200 feet residents were in favor.

Uh actually I had I think it was 17 or 18 of them that were within the 200 feet.

It's just that they were not the actual owners of the house.

But overall, I believe I have what is it?

21 or 22, I think, um, in in favor of what I've put up.

Okay.

Uh let's see if there's any questions.

Any commissioner questions for this applicant?

Hearing none, uh, is there any voicemails anyone sent to speak?

No public comment.

All right.

Um there's anything else I'd like to add before we move to a motion.

Um everybody's nobody's against it.

Everyone's in support.

Um I'm looking for a motion then.

Manna.

Commissioner Manna.

Regarding case number BOA 26103015.

I moved the board adjustment grantor variance for a eight-foot nine-inch variance from the minimum ten-foot front setback to allow a carport with a one-foot three-inch front setback with a three-inch overhang situated at the 3402 Meadow Drive.

Applicant B and John Marquise, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we determined showed that the physical character of this property is such a little enforcement of the provisions of the UDC as amendment would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

The request provides adequate spacing between the carport and the city right away, which aligns with the public interest.

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

A little enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship as there is inadequate room to decrease the square footage of the carport without compromising its intended use.

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

The proposed front setback appears to still observe the sphere of the ordinance as a proposed reduction in distance from the front property line to the carport would not impact the visual uniformity of the streetscape.

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

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

Five such variants will not substantially injured that the appropriate use of adjacent forming property or alter the essential character of the district, which is properties located.

If granted, the carport would not alter the essential character of the area or substantially obstruct the front yard space characteristic of a single family district as carports were observed in the surrounding area.

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

Circumstances that contribute to the plight of the owner of the property for which is variants are sought could be observed when considering the impacts of weather events and the process to remove the existing construction.

Expending time and resources to remove the existing carport combined with the impact uh that weather events could have on the property owner's vehicle would present an unnecessary hardship.

End of motion.

Second second Commissioner Penis, Commissioner Manna.

Um I always like it when the community is in support and also the neighborhood association, so that so those bode really well for me.

And then also just driving through the community.

It does look like this is kind of an improved standard from the neighborhood, so I'll be voting in favor.

Thank you, Commissioner Benice.

Yeah, I'll also be voting in favor.

Uh I take it you're a really good neighbor.

Uh you have overwhelming support of all your neighbors.

Uh these are all over your your neighborhood as well.

Uh a lot of these car ports.

So uh I'll be in support also.

I don't think it takes from the character.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to add?

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

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Ponias.

Yes, I can current Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibonis.

Commissioner Dean.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Zuna?

Yes, I can curve.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair O'Reilly.

And I can curve the findings of fact.

Motion passes uh nine to zero.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item number nine.

Item number nine is BOA-26-103-00016, located in District 2 on 1505 Wyoming Street.

The zoning is RM4.

The request is for one, a three-foot-eight inch variance from the minimum five-foot side setback to allow primary structure addition to be one foot four inches from the west property line with eight inches of overhang.

Two, a variance from the UDC accessory structure regulations to allow two accessory structures in the front yard.

Three, a three-foot variance from the minimum five-foot side setback to allow carport to be two feet from the west side property line with one foot of overhang.

Four, a four-foot eleven inch variance from the minimum five-foot rear setback to allow a carport to be one inch from the rear property line with three feet of overhang.

The subject property is located along Wyoming Street near the corner of Wyoming Street and Piedmont Avenue and is primarily surrounded by residential uses.

This case originated from a code enforcement investigation for building in addition to the house.

The addition was constructed without a permit for which a stop work order was unissued.

The addition still stands and is not an extension of the existing primary structure, which already encroaches into the side setback, thus prompting a variance request.

The applicant is all also requesting a side and rear setback variance for a carport in the backyard and a variance to the accessory structure regulations to allow two dog houses in the front of the property.

The primary structure addition, carport in the rear, and the front yard accessory structures are all existing.

This is the site plan depicting all four of the variants.

This is the subject property.

This is the car the subject property of the car port in the back.

And then this is the surrounding area.

Staff recommends an aisle in BOA-26-103016 based on the following findings of fact.

One, the reduced setbacks could potentially impede measures taken to slow or stop the spread of fire and what a runoff to nearby structures.

Two, the subject property has sufficient space to place accessory structures in the side or rear while also adhering to property setbacks.

Staff mailed out 37 notices.

We received one in favor, um, zero in opposition, and then Denver Heights Neighborhood Association is opposed.

This is the notice received in favor.

And this is the Denver Heights Neighborhood Association letter.

This concludes staff's presentation.

You had mentioned those two structures were dog houses.

Is there a point where a doghouse is not considered an accessory structure?

Is it because it's on those those concrete uh stones at the I believe it has to do with the height and the size of the accessory structure once it exceeds the 36 inches?

Then it becomes an accessory structure.

Okay, just curious.

All right.

So the applicant come forward.

All right, please state your name and tell us about your uh project.

Um talking on behalf of my dad.

My name is Priscilla Catalan.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

Yeah, we have to record this.

Uh my name is Priscilla de la Sada, I'm talking behalf of Armando Romero, it's my dad.

Uh we got a petition, and all of the neighbors are he's lived there for past what, 36 years.

Okay.

He I I believe he could be grandfathered in.

He's pays taxes.

You know, how long has the carport been there?

30 years.

30 years.

Okay.

Staff, does that change anything?

Is it considered not conforming?

And then also their measure, I'm sorry.

The measurements they took, they weren't accurate.

There were stuff in front of it, and then we took more measurements, and we tap I have pictures.

Okay.

But I I was curious.

So what does that do?

So uh at no point in the last 30 years has the city had the setbacks that allow this structure to be as close to the property line as it is.

It constitutes a zoning violation and a zoning violation.

You can't grandfather your out yourself out of the violation itself.

Yeah, I just want to ask that I know that 2001 was a year, 87 was another year.

I didn't know uh if there was any adjustments to that.

Okay.

And now you had mentioned that there was uh, you know, staff will do their best to to run uh dimensions, but uh this board can uh entertain something less.

Okay.

We can't go more, but we can entertain something less if it's if you wanted to make those uh statements from the podium.

Um is there commissioner questions for this applicant regarding the the four different uh elements seems pretty cut and dry.

So please talk about the uh adjustments to the measurements.

Oh um, the adjustments they said it's eight inches.

That does not know eight inches.

My father fit is because he he put plywoods there and they couldn't go through it, and so they only measured whatever they could.

So my father and my mother went back there, they moved everything around to get the precise measurements.

Okay.

What is a correct measurement?

Um they're on my phone.

You can see the numbers on there.

You can zoom in.

Yeah, just zoom in.

Just one that we're for the benefit of the board's understanding.

So when the gate.

When the applicant initially came to us.

Sorry, can you hear me now?

All right.

When the applicant initially came to DSD, it was because of the unpermitted addition to the structure.

Staff, when they did the site visit notice, there were other elements of the property that were noncompliant, but there is no active code enforcement case against the carport, just to make sure you all understand that.

Okay.

All right.

Well, that thank you for clarifying.

Commissioner Zuna.

If this variance were to be approved for the uh setback on the property structure, would the applicant have to meet current building codes and fire code with the structure including uh fire?

Okay.

And are you aware of that?

So if this variance is to be approved, the structure that's built would have to meet current building code, including fire code, and all of the electrical code, all the other codes that are in the building uh departments purview.

So just want to make you aware of that.

That's fine.

Manna.

Commissioner Manor.

So looking at the um one picture, so subject property with the addition.

So it looks like there's a so next picture, it was there you go, perfect.

Um so it looks like there is a structure that's in the back.

That's a walk-in closet.

So uh but was part of the so an older part of the structure that's not an addition, correct?

And then the shower, the shower.

And that one we did get a permit for that years ago.

So the back structure, and so this the new structure that was added is basically at the same uh line um along that property.

And then the question I have here is uh uh for the butting house, how much of uh you know it looks pushed uh you know it's not at the front of the property, which is great.

So how far is I guess is it um abutting the adjacent property or the budding property?

How how much of that is covered?

You know, the the back property is is is in the backyard, so not truly a butting it.

So how much how much of that backspace is covered by that?

I guess it's sharing it we'll say the distance there.

Is it it looks like about five feet there?

Is that not?

Uh what's the distance that from there?

I'm just looking to see how much overlap and uh I have a risk about I always have an aversion for fire spread, and that's really where the dialogue is coming from.

And so trying to figure out how much of that property is at risk.

Three inches eight.

Uh ma'am, you can come to the podium and state your name if that's my mom.

Are you asking for the distance between the structure on the adjacent property?

So I'm looking so it's pushed back, and and so I'm looking to resolve how much of the neighbor's house, how much of that for the back wall to we'll say midway, how much of that is basically abutting that that extended structure.

You're asking for the depth of the part of the structure.

Yeah, that depth compared to the side property.

And it looks like you know on uh half of the property or or half of the house next to it, and I'm just trying to you know just kind of visualize how much of that is at risk there.

Yes.

My name is Virginia Romero.

Um in the closet from the closet to the fence.

It's three inches three feet eight inches.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Okay, you're welcome.

And it you don't have a driveway onto your property.

You use the alley for access.

Yes.

And so it we share that with the neighbor can too.

And they use that for vehicular access as well.

Yeah, he gets to there.

And my hut my dad, I don't know if you can see on the driveway.

My father always cuts down the bamboos and everything.

Like right here?

All that right here in the back.

My father maintenance is that and also the back here, my father maintenance is all that.

The next door neighbor doesn't do nothing.

All the trees, branches that fall over, my father does everything.

He doesn't help.

Okay.

And I also notice you have a no parking sign on Wyoming.

Yes.

So in reality, I mean, I know you're addressed off Wyoming, and that's the front of your property.

Okay.

But it kind of operates as a side property line.

Oh, okay.

That's what it appears.

Oh, no, it's the in the front.

No, no, I know that.

I'm just saying that.

Hold on.

We anybody's going to talk, we gotta have you say your name.

Yeah, it's a lot of people.

Please uh state your name.

Okay.

A lot of people parking in Maali, right?

The neighborhoods.

So if you have to go, I got it part on the site.

I have to knock the windows on the doors or whatever, you know.

You know what I mean?

I was I was uh making a remark that it it appears that that the house seems like Wyoming is kind of like a side property line because you're using the alley as your access, your carports facing the alley.

It just I was just making an observation.

Yeah, it's we've been like that for years.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh any commissioner questions?

Commissioner Man?

So is there a reason why the dog house is so big?

They're huskies.

The house keys.

Um they have called the Okay, one at a time, please.

He told me you have it like a blacky house, right?

So you don't need to make it one big one.

What big dogs?

Okay, I'll make it big one.

So not after that somebody complaining about it, right?

Okay.

So you have to put it in a chase.

So put it onto the tree.

So they still somebody complain.

So how much is it?

How how big are these dogs?

They're huge, right?

Okay.

All right.

So displayed here on the road.

So the question goes.

Displayed here on the screen is I think that measurement that you were looking for, it's on the big screen.

I'm not sure if it's on perfect mother.

Okay.

Thank you for that.

And then so assuming the motion gets read, can a motion be read so that uh you know, I guess a doghouse can have a max height.

Um, versus just a you know so kind of instead of an open variance.

Can we specify the height of the structure you know there on that we're kind of approving?

Because I'd be hard.

I wouldn't want to approve something where it's basically becomes a giant structure.

You know, the board previously approved as currently developed.

Okay.

Something like that language.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Do you know the size of the donkey?

Uh five feet by five feet.

That's outer to outer, outer wall to outer wall.

Yeah, they're big.

No, they I thought they might might even be six feet, as well as asking.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Anyone send them to speak?

Any voicemails.

No public comment.

All right.

Is there anyone that would like to make a motion?

Stevens.

Commissioner Stevens.

Regarding case number BOA-26-103016.

I moved to the Board of Adjustment Grant a request for one, a three-foot-eight-inch variance from the minimum five-foot side setback to allow a primary structure.

Addition to be one foot four inches from the west property line with an eight-inch overhang.

Two a variance from the UDC accessory structure regulations to allow two accessory structures as currently built in the front yard.

Three, a three-foot variance from the minimum five foot side setback to allow carport to be two feet from the west side property line with a one-foot with one foot of overhang, and four a four foot eleven inch variance from the minimum five-foot rear setback to allow a carport to be one inch from the rear property line with a three-foot overhang.

Situated at 1505 Wyoming Street applicant being Armando Romero, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we've determined show that the physical character of this property is such that the literal enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code as amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

The variance request for reduced setbacks would still provide provide adequate space in between the subject property structure and surrounding structures to mitigate potential hazards such as fire spread and water runoff.

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

The existing primary structure already leaves limited space to build additions that extend to the west.

Furthermore, the carport appears to have existed and is not a result of new construction.

Thus a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship.

Thus a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship.

The placement of the accessory structures in the side or rear yard would impede the existing layout of the property, thus making the placement of the accessory structures in the front yard the most ideal layout.

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

The setback reductions still appear to observe the spirit of the ordinance as the requests are due to limited space left in the west area of the property to enhance the existing primary structure and to support the carport that appears to have already existed on the property.

The spirit of the ordinance would still be observed, but the placement of the accessory structures in the front yard as the placement would not interrupt the cohesive look or character of the neighborhood.

Four, the variants will not authorize their 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.

If granted, the primary structure addition in the car port would maintain a reduced distance from the rear property line and the side property line to the west, which would not interrupt the resid the residential character of the immediate surrounding area.

Granting the variants will not alter the essential character of the district as the accessory structures do not interrupt interrupt the character of the surrounding surrounding neighborhood, nor do they provide a visual obstruction to drivers or pedestrians.

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

The play of the property owner for which the variance is sought can be seen in the limited space available for improvements between the primary structure and the property line.

Furthermore, the existing carport is not new construction, thus enforcing it a modified placement or removal of said car for would provide unnecessary hardship to the applicant.

The plight of the property owner for which the variance is sought would be observed in the measures that would be required to be taken to move the accessory structures to a different area of the property.

End of motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Manna.

Uh Commissioner Stevens.

I'll be in favor of uh these variances.

I think uh the addition on the west side of your house is uh aligned with the pre-existing addition, and it appears that there's adequate space to still maintain your property.

Um I think that these types of setbacks are are quite common in this area.

Um the carport, as you said, has been there for decades, and it appears that there's actually more space than originally measured.

Um I just maintained the dimensions that the city identified just to be safe.

And I think that the dog houses in the front yard is just fine from my perspective and better probably taking pretty good care of those dogs.

So uh I'll be in favor.

Commissioner Manna?

So I I I uh I did have a concern about the the doghouse piece, and and I apologize.

You know, just because those are pretty huge structures in the front yards, and we don't see accessory structures, you know, in front yards.

And and they seem to have plenty of yard space there to move it around elsewhere.

And so would you consider a friendly amendment to pull that part out?

Um and then we can vote on that separately, or do you want to go for the for the for the whole thing?

Do you all have on that?

Um, kept complaining we had to give them that they're barking that so we had to separate them.

If you look, there's a gate in between both dog houses.

So we literally had to separate the dogs, give them melaton, what's that medicine to not let them bark?

They're old.

They've already gotten broke into.

Oh, I don't live there, they're by themselves already.

They've gotten broken into, they even cut the gate just to take a dog.

You know, it's that neighbor just keeps reporting, and they they they're up to from what the dog pounds said, they're up to code.

And are all the dogs are vaccinated, have their shots, they have chip, everything.

So is this are there is there another location that you could put these dog out?

You don't you don't need to convince me.

I think you need to convince Commissioner Manna down there really.

Um the dog houses are really heavy to move.

And when the dog pound came back, they said they were fine because there was a gate in between them, and they're both sheltered.

They had everything they're under shade.

Because in the back I have another dog.

Chair, this is the same thing.

So there's a friendly so there's a friendly amendment to pull item three from consideration of this particular motion.

Uh we can vote on that separately, but would you are you uh in favor of the friendly amendment?

I I'm in favor of the amendment to pull it and and vote separately.

Okay, Commissioner Manna, you accept concur.

Commissioner Ivanis, do you have a uh remark?

I just wanted to comment that I agree with uh Commissioner Manna about number two about the um accessory structures that I okay.

So we have an amended motion that's pulled the accessory structure, which is actually item number two uh from the motion.

So we we have a motion for items one, three, and four uh before the commission today.

Uh is there any discussion, Commissioner Stevens?

Uh again, I'll I'll be in favor of these these variances and we'll vote on two separately.

And Commissioner Manna, any any other uh with my colleague.

Okay, any other commissioners like to add?

Yeah, just regarding number one.

I mean uh the applicant uh provided testimony that they would uh bring that building up to current building code and finish out the building.

So my comfort is that it would meet current uh fire code and building code uh once that improvement is completed, and then it does align with the existing structure in a back.

So you know that I think that precedent had already been set on that kind of step slide setback.

So all right, thank you.

Anyone else like to add?

Hearing none, let's have a roll call vote on items uh one, two, and four.

I mean one, three, and four.

I'll attend it.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Manna.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Ivanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Zenna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonnie?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings and facts.

So that motion passes.

Uh is there a commissioner like to make a motion uh regarding item three?

Two.

I'm never gonna get that right today.

Item two, going once, going twice.

All right.

Uh so we have approved items one, three, and four with regard to the doghouse that does not get uh a motion for consideration today.

If you have any questions, uh what you can do, you can talk to staff uh about what your next steps are.

Thank you.

All right, item number 10.

BOA-26-103020 is located in District 4 at 224 Canogue Park Avenue.

The zoning is R6, and the request is for one, a nine foot eleven-inch variance from the minimum ten foot front setback to allow a carport with a one-inch front setback, and two a four foot eleven inch variants from the minimum five-foot side setback to allow a car port with a one-inch side setback on the southwest property line.

The subject property is located along Canoe Park Drive, close to the intersection of Canooga Park Drive and Saddleburgh Drive.

The surrounding area is developed with single family residences on lots zoned R6 and abutz another area developed with single family residences zoned R4.

This case originated from a code enforcement investigation in response to a citizen call regarding the development of our carport.

A notice of violation was issued after it was determined that the car port was constructed without a permit.

This is the site plan.

This is the subject property aerial view.

This is the subject property visit.

And this is the surrounding area.

Staff recommends denial in BOA-26-103020 based on the following findings of fact.

One, the reduced front inside setback variances could impact fire mitigation measures to surrounding structures and may increase water runoff into the abutting properties.

Two, the carport was in addition to the existing development on the property and could have been planned to adhere to residential based zoning district setback requirements.

Staff mailed out 38 notices.

One was received in favor and zero received in opposition.

SF neighborhood association did not provide a response.

So looking at the picture of the subject property, uh uh it it's hard to imagine the carport is one inch away from the side property line.

I might yes, we determined that measurement using the closest point to where the carport could have been to the side.

The properties shaped a little bit odd, so not all of it's gonna be one inch, but we want the most uh Oh, I see the measure that was gonna be the I understand.

Thank you.

All right.

So the applicant come forward.

All right.

State your name and tell us about your carport.

Joel Rodriguez.

My wife, Marina.

Marina Rodriguez.

All right.

Yeah, so the um same exact thing I'm going through with uh the gentleman that was here before the carport.

Um the reason why I built it was for the we had two um bad hail storms last year.

And ours actually we had almost 20,000 worth of damage of our vehicles.

So that's the reason why I built it.

And and I I built it the the length of my driveway to cover, you can see um barely covers my my truck.

Uh and I stayed on on like my property on on the site away from the approach is what you know.

I I just thought as long as you stayed away from the approach, that was the cities, it would be okay.

Um what happens is on a typical street, the the city right-of-way is fifty feet.

Your street will be 30.

So from the face of curve, the the right-of-way actually goes back 10 feet.

That's it's a misconception.

But right, and and so yeah, so it would be it would be like half a carport according to like what you know, if I were to build it, uh it would be half half of the driveway.

Okay.

Uh right.

Um any commissioner questions?

Commissioner Manna.

So um so one of the things, so the way this is uh carport is is uh built, the angle basically brings the runoff onto your neighbor's property, and one thing that we discourage or yeah, discourage, is water runoff to the budding properties.

And so is there anything that you've done to mitigate the water runoff from your roof onto your neighbor property?

Uh no, I mean I could put um gutters, but uh that the letter that that you all got was from that gentleman right next door.

There's no like water in his driveway or right on the grass where it drops.

But still it's basically dumping water into your neighbor's property, and so um and so um I think that I personally would like to hear you know dialogue with regards to gutters, but you know, one of the questions if it's one inch um away, then how do we get gutters onto that system?

And so that would be you see where the gate is at?

I mean because where where where the where my the carport is at, I uh you know my part of it where the gate is at is quite a quite a bit to where his you see where it's it's five feet away and then it goes down to an inch, so he could probably put gutters on most of it.

Where his um where the green bin is at, that's his property there?

Correct.

And that was staff's best estimation for where the property line may be.

Um that is my like line right there.

So the water that runs off runs off right here.

There's nothing that goes into his property.

No water.

But but the applicant is correct.

Yeah, it kind of um the one inch is really the best estimation for where the property line may be um at the closest point at the front of the carport from there as you go back, the that distance kind of increases as you can see on the site plan.

So one inch would be the closest point.

Yeah, I I I just wanted to add, I know this is not typical for us, but normally uh when they build driveways on a public road, they require the flares to be in front in the plane of the frontage of the residents that they serve.

I know sometimes they can't do it that way.

Uh but if that has a standard two-foot flare on it, it may be it might be more than it might be six inches away from that without having it surveyed, you know.

So and the only reason I went there was because I know that if we so the the applicant may be amending their their to include gutters, but I just want to make sure that we aren't building over the property line because we would never permit that.

Correct.

And the applicant would be responsible when they construct for estimating that.

So what we're talking about is it is very common when these carp sort of car ports come before the commission that they either have gutters or the design includes gutters, or the applicant amends their application to provide gutters to their best of their ability on their property line uh within their property.

Is that something that you wouldn't like to do at this time?

Yes.

Okay, so are you amending your application to include gutters on the east side of your of your carport?

Um does it have anything to do with what we're doing now with the friends joined correctly, or just want to add the language to if they're interested in adding it uh to their if they would like to amend their application while you while you're at the podium uh to include gutters, it's something that this commission would would take into consideration.

Okay, yes, yes, sir.

We can't make you do anything.

If you but if you would like to.

Yeah, on the east side of your car port.

Okay.

So we have an amended application to include gutters on the east side of the carport.

All right, is there any additional questions from the commission?

Anyone center to speak?

Voicemails?

Want a voicemail?

All right, let's see the voicemail.

Uh three can all compart right.

Uh my uh I'm calling in the board of uh number uh DOA 23103 of um drive.

They're requesting a variant for the car port.

And uh I'm calling in the portal wrong the requested variance.

Uh my telephone number is two one zero four.

Again, I am calling in report of the requested variance by the homeowner can all the park or uh and just to clarify and I had gotten the direction wrong, it's actually the west side that's neighboring to the property line.

Okay.

Uh is there any additional com uh questions from the commission?

All right, hearing none, um looking for a motion.

Ma'am.

Commissioner Manning.

Regarding case number BO826103020, with the board adjustment grant to request for one, a nine foot eleven-inch variance from the minimum ten-foot front setback to allow a car port uh with gutters with a one-inch front setback, and two, a four-foot eleven-inch variants from the minimum five-foot side setback to allow a car port with a one-inch side setback on the southwest property line situated at 224 Canoga Park Drive.

Apkin being Joe Rodriguez, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we determined show that the physical character is property such a little enforcement of the provisions of the UDC as amendment would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

The one-inch front setback and one-inch side setback with a for a car port with gutters would still leave adequate conditions to address fire and water runoff mitigation to surrounding structures and abutting properties, thus serving the public interest.

Due to special conditions or little enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship.

A little enforcement of the orders would result in unnecessary hardship as the carport was constructed to protect the properties owners' vehicles.

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

Grant the variants would still observe the spirit of the ordinance as adequate space still exist to address potential hazards that would impact the subject property and nearby properties.

Four, the variants will not authorize the operation of a use other than those uses specifically authorized and the zoning district in which is variants 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 for a property or alter the essential character of the district in which his property is located.

Granting variants would uh be consistent with the essential character of the district as other car ports were observed in this area.

Thus granting the variants would not introduce a structure that is new to the neighborhood and would simply provide reduced setback requirements.

Six apply to the owner of 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 their property and are not merely financial and not due to the result of general conditions and district in which this property is located.

Staff finds apply to the owner property for which the variance is sought is due to unique circumstances existing on the property, such as the front and side setbacks in relation to the existing primary structure.

And one slight adjustment was uh the gutters on the we s uh west side.

So thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Cruz, Commissioner Manett.

Yeah, I think that you know we see these kind of things regularly, really strange shape lot.

And so you know my only concern was you know making sure that we don't impact the neighbor, and by adding the gutters, that's resolved.

So uh with that I'll be voting in favor.

Thank you, Commissioner Cruz.

I agree with Mr.

Mann.

I I guess with the uh addition of the gutter said does will improve the the cut the cardboard, and I think uh I'm sure the neighbors will be even happier.

Thank you.

All right, any other commissioners like to add?

Hearing us a roll call vote, please Commissioner Minner?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Cruz?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibani.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Ozina?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonieth?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Valfas.

I'll concur.

Chair Orion.

And I can curve with the fines and fact motion passes.

Uh congratulations.

Do you have any questions you can get with staff?

Okay.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

All right.

Item 11.

This is BOAK BOKS 26-103021.

The council district is three.

The location is 1027 Southwest Military Drive.

The zoning is C2.

And the request is for a nine-foot variance from the required 15-foot variant buffer to allow for a six-foot landscape on the south and north side of the property.

The applicant scheduled a pre-eliminary plan review meeting with DSDA staff for a new oil change and tune-up location on the set on the subject property.

During this pre-plan review, it was determined that to continue with the current plans, it would be necessary for buffer reduction variants from the Board of Adjustment.

The applicant has not submitted permits of the state and is waiting on the Board of Adjustment Decision before proceeding.

This is the site plan.

And as you can see, it's called out where the buffers are needed to be reduced.

This is the subject property.

And the surrounding area.

Staff recommends denial and BOA 26-103021 based on the following findings of fact.

There's adequate space on the property to install the minimum required buffers.

And the proposed reduction would not provide adequate protection to surrounding residential uses from any from increased nuisances such as noise pollution created by the commercial use.

This is the one that was in opposition.

This concludes staff's presentation.

So the previous use was a restaurant.

Did the restaurant have a drive-thru?

I believe it did have a drive-thru.

Okay.

And uh towards the side there.

And it looks like that uh the intended plan uh is is to put there isn't any buffers at all there today.

There are no buffers at all today.

Okay, so this would be an increase of the space.

It would be an increase of buffer space.

All right.

Any commissioner questions for staff before we move on to the applicant?

Hearing now, so the applicant come forward.

All right, please state your name and tell us about your project.

Go afternoon, Chair of Commissioners.

Josh Lieberman, Velocity Auto Care, 210 Barton Springs Road, Austin, Texas.

Also with me, is our head of operations.

All right, my name is Spencer Mason.

I'm the VP of operations for Velocity Auto Care.

Um, just so there's no confusion too.

I know it says velocity autocare there, but we build Valve lanes, so we are a franchisee of Valvain.

Okay.

Just wanted to make a uh just handed those out just so everybody can see it a little more clearer and kind of what we're working on here.

So this is uh we're under contract to acquire this vacant, abandoned, not abandoned, still owned, but vacant, out of operation, um old restaurants.

Um proposing to increase pervia surface, as you can see right now, the entire site is almost completely impervious.

So you know, tearing down the buildings, going through environmental remediation on the building and putting in a brand new facility, uh 1800 square foot valveing instant oil change center.

We've built several in the market.

We have the back here in a couple more weeks for a property over in Thousand Oaks that we're also proposing redevelopment.

So we've got about seven projects we're trying to get built here in the next nine to twelve months.

And um as you can see, you know, the the driveway spacing and currently the property has four driveways.

We're eliminating two of those driveways.

We're still working with TechSot right now on the spacing requirements.

One spacing requirement on Mango Avenue is driveways have to be 125 feet on the side streets, and then I think it's even more than that on the main arterials.

But on the side street, that was kind of one of the issues on trying to meet the buffer as well as you know, proper circulation and meeting parking requirements on these smaller parcels.

So as we proposed in the back is more new landscaping, six-foot high white vinyl fencing that needs no maintenance.

So you know, everything that's out there now is wooden fences and things falling down.

So you know that you can provide images or anything else you need.

So I just uh a couple questions.

So one, uh yeah, there's that 125 foot rule on a mango.

But it but if recollection serves me that if you don't even have the 125 feet, is there it isn't the code allow for you to have at least one driveway as far back as possible or 90 percent or something.

There was something I recall about some language in there, but yeah, that's outside of my expertise, but I can try to find that answer.

Yeah, and the rule I'm going with it is is that uh with textile roads, um you know they they they're gonna want at least one driveway remove, but once you have an access point, there's only so many instances where text dot by code can take them away.

You know, if they do an improvement project, they deem it to be a danger to traffic or drainage, which hasn't happened.

Uh you're not you're actually reducing counts because a restaurant with a drive-thru has more trips in then than this thing.

And and you're not are you plating this?

Okay, so that's another trigger.

So you don't even you know I think that um from what I'm seeing here is that you will most likely be required to put that driveway in the rear, which which then forces that buffer to at least partially exist where the driveway throat is where the minimum 20 feet that they require for that throat to be in off the street like Mango.

So I think that's what I'm observing.

Um I don't know if anybody would like to chime in if I'm missing something here, but that's what I think.

I guess that kind of speaks to the hardship here, right?

If they have to meet the uh setback requirements, they couldn't meet it with the buffer that's required within city UDC.

Yeah, they what would happen is they would be forced to put that driveway in the back, and they'd have to they have to hold 20 feet of throat, and then they'd have to bump the they'd have to bump that out.

I I also noticed that the current restaurant has a a dumpster in the back corner.

Your plan is to move the dumpster away, which I think is probably a lot better for the community back there anyway.

As you discussed on the traffic, you know, our traffic is usually 50 cars a day, and our max per hour is six to eight.

Yeah.

Vehicles and turning movements, you know, we're not a 24-hour use, so that's another good thing for the neighborhood if Spencer can speak.

I promise I won't open past 7 p.m.

That's what we do at all of my stores here in San Antonio.

Um so and just this is uh honestly this is kind of cool for me because I live in San Antonio for 10 years.

This is where I started my military career, and uh it's cool to be now in front of this doing stuff like this to help improve the city.

So thank you guys for the opportunity.

Um but um the big thing is yes, and I want to address the noise thing too.

So a lot of people I know get so worried because of the noise, right?

Um I will tell you that the biggest and noise thing we have, right?

Is a compressor that sits inside a closed door, right?

Or when we do tire rotations.

I would like to say we're great at everything, but I do less than one percent tire rotations on cars um in the stores throughout our 48 stores throughout Texas.

So um when considering the noise piece again, we're not open crazy early.

The earliest my stores open is 7 a.m.

The latest they close is seven p.m.

Usually on a new site like this, we're looking more at the uh um you know eight to s to six, and then cutting it down on Saturday, and then maybe ten to four on a Sunday.

All right.

Uh any other commissioner questions.

Just curious.

Yes, Commissioner's United.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, Ms.

Cruz?

I was just curious how many how many employees would you have at a location typical of this?

Yeah, that's a great great question.

So it really depends.

So usually when I go to staff a store in the very beginning, it's gonna be six, five to six employees plus the manager.

And as we continue to grow, obviously that increases with volume, and when we can uh you know handle the margin.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

All right, Commissioner Cruz.

Okay, I see the fence there now.

Uh were you stating you're gonna put up a newer fence and it's still gonna be at 6 feet, correct?

Yes.

Okay, that's what I wanted to make sure.

Thank you.

We also show it on the east side of the property line continuing south to an end fence point, so at least to give that privacy going kind of more towards the northeast as well.

Manna.

Commissioner Manna.

So first question for the city.

Um so is there a zoning change with this that required a difference with regards to the buffers where we had zero buffer before versus now, or was it the previous building was just kind of built that way?

I don't believe there's any recent change of zoning on this property that's taken place.

Um I can find out when that restaurant was built.

And uh, but yeah, more than likely an issue.

So the buffer would have been required regardless of the may have based on when it was built.

I can find that out.

And then I will reserve my second question for after I guess the person speaks for the public.

All right.

Is uh any other questions?

Nothing?

All right.

Anyone sign to speak?

Any voicemails?

All right.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

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

Hi, good afternoon.

My name is Becky Ruiz.

I'm the president of the Harland El McCullum Neighborhood Association.

Um I'm coming on behalf of the association to ask for your approval of this buffer.

Uh as uh Mr.

Lieberman stated, uh this is a vacant building.

It has created a space for homeless encampments overnight, overgrown weeds, lots of illegal activity that I have witnessed myself.

And so bringing it back to the committee, we've decided to support this initiative and have a new building come in and have the investment um in our community to make it a better, safer place with lighting and the back line of the property.

There are houses back there, so it's you know, pose a risks for safety of those families that um currently are dealing with the homeless issue back there.

All right.

I really appreciate you coming down.

We don't have a lot of neighborhood associations coming.

Commissioner Manna.

Thank you for coming in.

And that's you know uh it's wonderful that you get to um participate within you know helping us make these decisions.

So thank you very much.

It's a pleasure.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And just to note, the uh existing structure was built in 1975 as near as I can tell landscaping and buffering requirements were not uh a deal back then.

Yeah, I think asphalt 1990 and then the concrete in 1990.

All right.

Well, with that, if there's uh no other questions, looking for a motion.

Commissioner Zuna.

Regarding case number BOA-26-103021, I move that the Board of Adjustment grant a nine-foot variance from the required 15-foot uh to allow a for a six-foot landscape buffer on the south and north side of the property, situated at 1027 southwest military drive, the applicant being velocity auto care.

Because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we determine show that the physical character of this property is such that a little literal enforcement of the provisions of the UDC has amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

In this case, this would be an improvement of the current buffers that exist on the property.

It would be an adequate amount of buffer space between the commercial and residential uses.

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

The special condition of this property is is the uh location of the abutting residential properties and the amount of the develop developable space.

A literal enforcement of the ordinance would cause unnecessary unnecessary hardship as it would limit the amount of space for construction and vehicle circulation.

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

Such variants would not be in the spirit of the ordinance as the reduction of the buffer would be modest and improvement to current conditions on the property.

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

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

Five such variants will not be substantially will 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.

Granting this variance would not substantially injure the adjacent property owners as there is sufficient separation even with the reduced buffers, and the proposed buffer would be an improvement to the property.

And six, the plot of the owner of the property for which the variance of sought is due to the unique circumstances existing on the property, and the unique circumstances were not created by the owner of the property, are not merely financial, not to two of the result of general condition of the district which the property is located.

The plight of the property owner is due to the existing residential property, abutting this lot.

It was not created by the owners of the property.

End of motion.

Second by Commissioner Bunnyas.

Commissioner Zuna.

Yes, so I'm going to be in full support of the motion.

I mean, it's clearly an improvement to the existing conditions that exist today.

Uh we're providing the buffers, the landscape buffers on the sides.

Uh the impervious cover will be improved, and the uh, you know, the building itself will create a value to the tax rolls, although not that's not a consideration, but it is uh in my mind improvement to the current condition and obviously no opposition and then full support of the neighborhood association that the property is located within.

Thank you, Commissioner Benes.

Yeah, I'm gonna agree with uh Commissioner Ozuna and all those reasons.

Uh also don't think it really takes from the character.

There's so many properties on military that don't have this buffer.

These guys are gonna put one in at least it's gonna look good.

And uh they're providing a service for the the local community there.

All right, thank you.

Anyone else like to add?

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

Commissioner Osina?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonnie?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I can concur.

Commissioner Ibanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Vafkith.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I can curve with the findings of fact motion passes uh nine to zero.

Uh thank you very much.

Item number twelve.

Oh, staff did I the applicant for item 7 ever make it back?

No, yeah, they did not respond to the question.

Well, we still got a couple more before we uh potentially have to think about what we're going to do about it.

Wait till midnight is that.

Did you want me to go forward or did you want to do that?

Yes, item 12, please.

Okay.

This is BOA-26-103022.

It's in Council District 5.

It's located at 2026 Beachhaven.

The zoning is MF33.

And the request is for a four foot eleven inch variance from the minimum five foot side setback to allow a carport with a one-inch side setback.

Applicant replaced an existing uh metal carport with a new wooden carport.

A code enforcement investigation found the applicant was building without a permit.

The applicant placed the new carport within the footprint of the original carport.

However, since it is considered a new structure, a setback variance is needed to keep the carport where it currently stands.

The majority of the area was established while the standard side setback was feet three feet.

A similar request was denied by the Board of Adjustment in 1974 for 2102 Beachhaven Drive.

The applicant intends to apply for a permit pending the outcome of the Board of Adjustment Hearing.

This is the site plan donating where the carport currently is.

This is the subject property.

And there's a better view of the carport.

This is the surrounding area.

Staff recommends denial and BOA 26-103022, based on the following findings of fact.

There would be an increased risk of fire spread and damage from and damage from water runoff to the adjacent property, and a carport may be established elsewhere on the property to abide by the setback standard.

We mailed 45 notices.

We had two in favor, uh zero in opposition, and both neighborhood associations provided comments to the applicant.

And they provided it to us.

These are the two letters in support.

And these are the neighborhood association comments that appear generally in support, but they were provided to the applicant.

So I put in uh comments.

And that concludes staff's presentation.

Did I read that clearly?

Yes.

Okay.

Mana?

Commissioner Manna?

So in 74, was what was applied for and then what was rejected?

Do you know if I read that correctly?

Or it was a uh similar request for the side setback.

The notes uh stated it was for a reduced setback.

Um it didn't really give the details that we give nowadays.

But it was built anyways, I guess, or so because there's uh existing structure there, or try to understand.

Uh I'm not certain.

Um just it's a different address.

Oh, is it a different address?

Sorry, I didn't catch that.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Um other questions from the commission?

Let's have the applicant come forward.

My name is John Anthony Diaz de Leon, part owner of uh 2026 Beach Haven.

Uh the structure that you're looking at that was put up was actually just a replacement of an existing footprint that was there prior to I think the new roof slopes that are there now forced the water to come to the front of the house and to the back of the house versus to the prior, made it go to the side that went to the neighbor's property.

Okay.

That was the old roof that it was do you know when the carport was originally constructed?

I have no idea.

We bought the house with that carport in place.

It looks like the building was built in 1955.

Yeah.

So the the original structure that was there was pretty dilapidated and kind of falling apart.

So as a for a safety measure for my son that's gonna be moving into that house, hopefully.

Uh that we could rebuild it and questions from the commission.

And then getting letters from the associations, they approved it.

They uh actually liked the fact that we're trying to beautify the neighborhood, which we are.

Uh so from staff, if there was an existing carport, do they consider that a separate structure or if it's tied to the house, is it considered part of the house when you're looking at the 50 percent rule or whatever that percentage rule is?

If we're looking at the uh complete um remodeling or replacement, uh we're looking at just the area that's being affected by us.

So that's okay.

Just wanted to check.

And was in the previous car port was it less or closer to the side property line?

It's the exact same thing.

Exactly.

No difference.

All right.

Fantastic.

Any questions?

Anyone's time to speak, any voicemails?

No public comment.

Well, all right.

Let's see if we have a motion.

Commissioner.

Commissioner Bonis.

Regarding case number BOA 26103022.

I moved that the board adjustment, grant a four-foot eleven-inch variance from the minimum five-foot side setback to allow for a carport with a one-inch side setback situated at 2026 Beach Haven Drive.

Applicant being Diane Diaz de Leon, because the testimony presented to us and the facts we have determined show that the physical character of this property is such that a little enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code as amended will result in an unnecessary hardship.

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

In this case, there would be adequate space for the carport or the uh from the carport to the structure on the abutting property.

There is no increased risk risk of fire spread or water runoff damage as a carport is being built along the original footprint of the former carport two.

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

The special condition of the proper on this property is the location of the existing home and driveway, leaving little room with uh wise for a carport.

Three, by granting the variants, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done.

Such variants would be in the spirit of the ordinance as the reduction of the setback would cause no hardship, increased risk risk of fire or spread of water runoff to the property abutting the slot.

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

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

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

Granting this variance would not substantially injure the adjacent property owners as there is sufficient separation between the carport and the structure on the abutting lot.

Six, the plight of the owner of the property for which the variance assault is due 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 the general conditions in this district in which the property is located.

The plight of the property owner is due to unique circumstances circumstances of the width of the driveway along the side of the house, which limits the available space for the establishment of a carport.

End of motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Manna.

Commissioner Bunny is Yeah, I'll be in support.

Uh the you know, this was the original footprint that he laid out before the water runoff is being pushed away.

Um I think it's your neighbors actually, the one his is built pushes towards yours.

It's exactly right.

I saw that they do drive.

It's nice, but it doesn't look like you have gutters.

So at least you ran yours the other way, so water runoff will go towards front and back.

Um and if you look in this area, there's a lot of carports that are built like that.

So I don't think it really alters the character.

I'll be in favor.

Commissioner Manna?

Concur with my colleague.

Anyone else like to add?

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

Commissioner Bonnez.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibanez.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean?

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner's enough?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Gothis.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings in fact motion passes nine to zero.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item 13.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Item 13 is BOA-26-103023.

The applicant being Stephen Martin and Council District 3.

The uh property addresses 124 Parkview Drive.

And this is a request for a 492 square foot variance from the minimum required 5,000 square foot lot.

Uh to allow development on a 4508 square foot lot.

Uh two, uh an eleven-foot variance from the minimum required 45-foot lot width to allow development on a 34-foot wide lot.

The property is surrounded by single family dwellings on all sides except to the north where SAWS facility is located in 2023.

An initial assessment done by the DST strike team found work being done on the property with expired permits and a consultation was completed with the general contractor to establish a pathway towards project completion.

In 2024, the property transferred ownership, and then again in April 2025 to the current owner.

In May 2025, the strike team reassessed the case with the new owner and determined that the work that had been done up to that point required a new home permit for the construction.

The lot is 4,508 square feet in size and 34 feet wide, which is less than the 5,000 square foot minimum and required lots uh and 45 foot minimum required lot width to develop within the R5 base zoning district.

Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the complete remodel in addition to an existing single family home on the property.

Alternatively, the applicant may request a change of zoning to the R4 base zoning district.

Shown here is a site plan of the construction ongoing on the property, uh kind of designating where the existing structure was and the proposed addition to the rear.

And here's uh survey of the property, just kind of notating um that the uh 34-foot wide lot width is at the rear of the property, that's where it's narrowest.

It's a bit wider and the front, um, just but not my much.

But that's where that 34 foot wide comes from.

Uh and here's the subject property and the surrounding area.

Staff recommendation for the lot size and width variances.

Staff recommends approval in BOA-26-103-00023 based on the following findings of fact.

One, the request will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood as a neighborhood block face is predominantly comprised of substandard lot sizes, and two, the property will remain uh will maintain all other dimension regulations and setback requirements of the R5 zoning district.

And just another uh thing to add for context, uh the board did recently approve just a couple weeks ago, uh similar requests for a property, just I think two houses over.

Uh staff mailed 31 notices, zero returned in favor, zero in opposition.

The Roosevelt Park Neighborhood Association is in support.

And shown here is that support received by staff.

And this concludes staff's presentation.

The applicant is present.

I just wanted to ask, it looks like the six parcels to the to the uh west and the six parcels to the east are all in the same condition.

That is correct.

Um all those lots are currently developed.

Uh, if and when the time arises where you know this magnitude of um construction is taking place on any of those properties, this issue would become sounds like the city needs to go R4 on this area town.

Okay.

Uh any other questions for staff?

Hearing on the side of the applicant come forward.

Thank you.

Hello, state your name.

Tell us about your project.

All right, good afternoon to everyone.

My name is Stephen Martin with 1718 Partners.

Good afternoon to the board and to city staff.

So I am representing ASC Ventures, which is the uh property owner at 124 Parkview.

So as Mr.

Vela had mentioned, the owner purchased a property that had construction that had taken place without the proper permits.

They are looking to uh advance that construction.

Uh back in February of uh 2025, they had submitted a brand new application for a residential addition and remodel.

During the course of the review process, as you can see here on the screen, there were two comments that uh that were made by Mr.

Joe Pardo, senior plans examiner.

Uh those comments pertaining to the fact that the stated zoning for this property did not match with the dimensions of the property, nor with the square footage of this property.

So therefore, at this moment in time, unfortunately, my client cannot advance this review process any further until we have the issue of the discrepancy between the lot size and the zoning resolved.

It's the reason why we had submitted uh to this board uh and in the request for the 492 square foot variants.

Uh did you mention that there was a zoning case in play or previous zoning case?

Did I see that on your presentation?

There was no so that was pertaining to the zoning case that basically was a blanket R5 zoning for the entirety of the city.

So they changed that to R5.

Correct.

So in and that was changed according to my discussions with city staff.

It was changed to maintain the character of the neighborhood.

So a question for staff is if council goes through and does a blanket rezoning and and creates nonconforming uses, there's there's not an automatic pass or existing parcels like that.

So if it doesn't qualify for a non-conforming lot of record, um that would that would be only nonconforming that would be available.

Yeah, that's what I was I'm curious because if they uh if if council wouldn't buy and and and put R5, there's like 12 lots.

I mean, I can just see that are non-conforming.

I'm just curious if there was any relief for this applicant without coming to this board.

Would that was that entertained or not, but we can reach out to council to see if they want to do a large area rezoning on that strip.

Um but the non-conforming lots of record, I thought there was a clause about um due to a government action, there there shouldn't be any sort of like what was the zone before?

Let me ask that.

Before it converted to R5, what was the zone before?

It was a B residence district in 1985.

It was when it was when the rezoning took place for this area to R5.

And and B, what did B convert to?

R4.

Okay.

So it really should have so when in effect it was R4.

Council took R 4, which that still requires a 35-foot lot, doesn't it?

Yes, 35 feet width.

So it was our it was non-conforming before you for council changes to R5.

Okay.

I just want to put out the history to the Commission what's happening.

All right.

Any questions for the applicant?

Any voicemails?

Anyone send to speak?

I don't see anybody out there.

No public comment.

All right.

Um I'm looking for a motion.

Stevens.

Commissioner Cruz.

Okay.

Regarding case number BOA 26103023.

I move that the Board of Adjustment Grant to request for a 492 square foot variance from the minimum required five foot square foot lot size to allow development on a 4,508 square foot lot and two 11-foot variants from the minimum required 45-foot lot width to allow development on a 30-foot wide lot situated at 124 Park View Drive applicant being Stephen Martin, 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 l literal enforcement of the provisions of the UDC as amended will result in unnecessary hardship.

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

A little enforcement would prevent reasonable development that is consistent with the character of the surrounding area, despite the proposed home complying with the minimum setback requirements and other lot development standards.

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

Granting the variance would support the spirit of the ordinance, which is to provide sufficient separation between properties with minimum lot size, waste and setback requirements.

The applicant intends to observe all requirements of the R5 zoning district.

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

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

Five such variants will not substantially ignore the appropriate use of adjacent conforming property or alter the essential character of the district in which the properties located.

The lot size and width are recently sized to develop the proposed single family home while maintaining adequate separation from adjacent properties for the purposes of maintenance access, water runoff, and fire safety.

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 are not merely financial and are not due to or result of general conditions in the district in which the property is located.

Staff finds the plate of the owner of the property for which the variance are sought is due to unique circumstances except existing on the property as a narrow width of the lot, limits the ability to meet the minimum square footage required by the I5 zoning district, end of motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Stevens.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, I will support this.

I I like that at least we're improving the neighborhood, and I think the new homes would be a great asset to that area.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Stevens.

I agree with my colleague.

I'll be in support.

I love infill development, especially in this neighborhood, so I'll be in support.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to add?

Hearing now, so vocal call vote, please.

Commissioner Cruz?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibaneth I concur.

Commissioner Dean?

I concur.

Commissioner Mena?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Ozina.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Boniath.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Valfith.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of fact motion passes nine to zero.

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

Everyone have a chance to look at the minutes.

Thank you.

Item seven.

Oh, yeah.

I was going to give him another minute to uh show, but he's not going to be here.

I'm assuming.

We can hit item seven.

Uh so item seven is um.

And real quick, this um I forgot who made the comment.

This property is indignity hill.

Um it is?

Correct.

It's at the northern edge of it, but stops at the railroad tracks.

And then qu second question I had on that is that um it's listed as a front entrance.

And this is uh so it's not currently addressed, and the fence that they're talking about is on the side the side entrance.

Um so does that change the listing at all?

No, it's just the entrance.

Essentially, it's a fence special exemption.

We just added that for uh kind of uh showcase of it.

Yeah, I just wanted to remark it's 306.

I'm bringing ID item seven back to from the table.

Um we y'all are recommending approval on item one, which is the uh corner clearance and denial for the height of the fence.

Correct.

Okay.

And we already heard the voicemail.

Is there any commissioner questions for staff or someone would like to make a motion?

The applicant is not present.

Uh we could certainly take this up if we wanted to, or we can do a continuance for a couple weeks.

I'll leave that up to whoever would like to make a motion.

Just note we do have 17 cases with all the continuances next meeting and in the uh first April meeting, because we have a large amount of applications that came in.

Wow.

Okay.

So you're saying city is gonna buy the dinner, right?

Bill Middle's it is.

I would like to move that we go ahead and vote on this.

Uh he's been here a couple of times already.

Um That's perfectly fine with me too.

Um who would like to make a motion on this case?

Stevens.

Commissioner Stevens.

This is number seven, right?

Uh-huh.

All right, give me one second.

Two motions, one for the special exemption and one for the variance.

Regarding case number BOA-25-1030276.

I move to the Board of Adjustment Grant or requests for a 12-foot variance from the minimum 25 foot corner clear vision to allow a 13-foot corner clear vision situated at 1038 Sherman Street.

Applicant being Gardopia Gardens, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we have determined show that the fiscal character of the property is such that a 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 intersection fronts are roadway influenced by railroad railroad operations where traffic part patterns, speeds, and visibility conditions differ from those of typical residential intersections.

As a result, the variance does not compromise public safety and is not contrary to the public interest.

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

Strict enforcement of the full 25-foot clear vision triangle would unreasonably constrain site layout and reduce the ability to develop the property in a manner otherwise permitted by zoning.

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

Granting this variance would observe the spirit of the ordinance as the proposed 13-foot clear vision area continues to meet the ordinance's safety intent by preserving adequate visibility at the intersection.

Four, the variance 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 also the essential character of the district in which the property is located.

The variance would not substantially injure the appropriate use of the adjacent property is the surrounding context, including the railroad corridor and existing roadway conditions already define the character of the area.

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

The plate of the owner of the property is is not due to any unique circumstances existing on the property.

The combination of corner lot substandard substandard size and adjacent railroad railroad operations creates unique physical care conditions not shared by typical parcels of the district.

End of motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Manor, Commissioner Stevens.

I'll be in support uh of this particular variance.

It appears that uh there's still adequate uh clear vision, so I'll be in support.

Commissioner Manor?

I concur with my colleague that they will have to whack that one bush at that corner because that's uh that is causing a hazard, but but outside of that, I agree with my colleague.

All right.

Uh any other one any other commissioner would like to add?

Here now, the sound roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Manna?

I can cover the findings of fact.

Commissioner Ibanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Ozana.

Yes, I can go.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez?

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of fact.

Uh motion passes.

Uh next motion would be for the uh special exception.

Chair, may we have uh some discussion on on this before we we vote?

Oh, yeah, yeah, absolutely.

Um I know that the applicant is not here.

Right now, I would not vote for the nine foot gate, but I would vote for the five-foot fence and a five-foot gate.

Is it kosher for us to move on that if the applicant is not here to say otherwise?

The the a five-foot predominantly open fence is already allowed.

We're just voting on the gate.

It's only the gate.

So the gate would be could we move the We could do anything with the Can it be shortened down to five foot?

Well, five foot is what's allowed.

Or six foot, maybe.

Or six foot.

So why not why don't uh someone make a motion for six feet and then we'll uh I think the problem with the six foot gate is I'd knock my head on it walking through, right?

Oh, that's right.

It's a bar over the top, right?

Yeah, I was trying to think of what why the structure was required and what was it you know that I didn't see really that much architectural feature perspective on it.

I'll say I I do recall um we approved an entry similar to this, but maybe it was more architecturally pleasant in the Monta Vista area, if I recall correctly.

Um I do recall the this particular applicant stating that they were planning to plant it and that there would be a lot of like growies on it.

Um I don't personally have an issue with it.

I love Gardopia.

I think that they they do great work in the in the community, so I'm in support of this, but am open to other suggestions.

I mean, we um I'm I would say that whoever uh whoever would be opposed to nine foot make a motion for whatever they can live with, because there's only nine of us.

And then my only other comment, you know, again was the reading of way it sits, and so there's not the front, and it would be as built, you know, if we go through the structure, because I wouldn't want to see any taller anywhere else if you know.

Regardless of the height, but also that this is considered a size, so they can actually do can go up to six feet if they by right.

Yeah, so they can go up to six, or asking for nine.

Um I just let everyone know I I'm fine with with seven, I'm fine with eight, but I don't know, nine is really tall.

Cruz.

Commissioner Cruz.

Well, I was proposing seven feet.

I think that would be perfect.

Uh seven feet.

I I'm I'm like you, the nine feet just does not go.

All right.

Let's get a motion out there.

We can do something about it.

Okay.

Okay.

I move.

I move that we recommend the fence height at seven feet.

Oh, you've got to read the whole page.

I can do it.

I'm happy to do it.

Commissioner Stevens will volunteer if you wanted to.

Yeah.

Commissioner Stevens.

Okay.

Uh man, I hope I don't mess it up.

Regarding case number BOA-25-1030276.

I move to the Board of Adjustment Grant request for a four-foot sp uh a two-foot special exception from the maximum five-foot fence height to allow seven foot fence entrance height situated at 10 as b well.

Is it a two-foot ex one-foot exception?

Because six is allowed.

Yeah.

So it would be a one-foot variance.

Okay.

Or one foot special exception from the maximum six foot.

Okay.

Grant a request for a one-foot special exception from the maximum six-foot fence height to allow a seven-foot fence entrance height.

Situated at 1038 Sherman Street applicant being Gardopia Gardens, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we have determined show the physical character of this property is such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code as amended would result in an unnecessary hardship.

Specifically, we find that a, the special exception will be in harmony with the spirit and purpose of the chapter.

The special acceptance exception is in harmony with the spirit of the purpose of the chapter because the increased height is limited only to the entrance opening and does not expand fence height along the property frontage.

B, the public welfare and convenience will be substantially served.

The special acception exception substantially serves the public welfare and convenience by allowing the clearly defined functional entrance and improves site access security and operational efficiency.

C, the neighboring property will not be substantially injured by such proposed use.

The proposed entrance height will not substantially injure neighboring properties because it is limited in scope, does not create continuous visual obstruction, and does not increase overall fencing along the property.

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 will not will not alter the essential character of the district as the increased height is confined to a single entrance area entrance feature and is consistent with the typical access and security elements in the area.

E, the special exception will not weaken the general purpose of the district or the regulations here and established for this specific district.

The special exception will not weaken the general purpose of the district for its regulation because it applies only to an entrance opening that must be classified as offense and does not establish the precedent for increased fence heights elsewhere on the property.

End of motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Cruz, Commissioner Stevens.

I think that this is a wonderful compromise, and I will be in support.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cruz?

I agree with Mr.

Stevens.

I think this whoa really uh help the property owner.

All right.

Thank you.

Yes, Commissioner Manna.

So just to just for you know I'm trying to resolve the picture here.

Um so the picture as it's shown on the one shows the person measuring to a subsurface of it of the ground here.

And are they gonna it looks like they're gonna be putting in a curb um slash sidewalk potentially?

And so is a distance, does that change the distance for what's where is being measured to maybe allow for it a little bit taller in that dialogue or just trying to figure out the seven-foot perspective.

We're gonna so nothing in the UDC allows us to measure anything but to the highest point.

Um I know sometimes.

But to the bottom.

And so the bottom right now is mulch slash whatever, and the picture looks like a potential sidewalk in front of this as well as a walkway on the back side of it.

And so it either it looks like there's a two-foot step up.

You know, it I guess depending on what the level of the it would be measured from grade.

From a butting grade.

So if he finishes it to raise the grade up and it has to be a retaining wall kind of development.

So it's possible for him to keep it if he raises the grade up and puts it.

That's where I was going.

So thank you.

Okay.

Let's have a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibanez.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Mena.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Ozina.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bunnyas.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I can go with the findings of fact.

Motion passes uh nine to zero.

All right.

We are at the minutes.

Everybody has a chance to review, comment, or not comment.

If so, I'm looking for a motion.

Motion to approve the minutes, Bunnyas.

All right, second.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Cruz.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right, hearing none of the minutes are approved.

Uh is there a director's report?

Just a uh update again that we will no longer be accepting voicemails starting April 1st.

So we have one more meeting after this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And uh financial disclosure reports due April 1st.

Correct.

So please get those done by the end of the month.

We're in March.

All right.

So if there's nothing else, we are adjourned.

It is 319.

And then also the number of the first thing.