San Antonio Board of Adjustment Meeting Summary – March 23, 2026

All right.

It is 101.

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

If we can have the uh Spanish interpreter come out, I appreciate it.

Good morning, everyone.

Buenas tardes a those.

Las personas que prefieren escuchar la audiencia in espanhol.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Staff, if you could please call roll.

Commissioner Reed.

Present.

Commissioner Stevens.

Commissioner Ivanis.

Present.

Commissioner Dean.

Present.

Commissioner Cruz.

Here.

Commissioner Gomez.

Commissioner Bragman.

Present.

Commissioner Benavides.

Present.

Commissioner Mana.

Present.

Commissioner Ozuna.

Present.

Commissioner Bonias.

Commissioner Vasquez.

Present.

Chair Oyan.

And I am present.

We have a quorum of 11, it peers like.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God individual with liberty of justice for all.

Honor the Texas flag.

I pledge relations to the Texas one state under God.

One and individual.

All right.

So before we proceed 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 street address.

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

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

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

We are private citizens appointed to this board by the city council.

The city council is supported by members of the city staff competent in the rules and regulations governing the city codes and other codes and aspects pertaining to this area.

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

We only examine the facts pertaining to the release audit.

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

We have the authority to hear and decide appeals from a decision or determination made by an administrative official in the enforcement of Chapter 32 to hear and decide special exceptions allowed under Chapter 35 and to authorize variances from the zoning regulation 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 of proof and granting the relief slot 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 are regarding appeals from an administrative official, special exceptions or variances, are made to the district or county court at law based on the record of these proceedings.

Appeals from the board's decisions regarding Chapter 38, 28, I'm sorry, are made to the city council.

Please limit your presentation and remarks to the pertinent facts of your case.

Stafford Thank you.

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

Part of the presentation includes a map that shows the air to be considered for the variance for special exemption and the properties within 200 feet of the subject properties.

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

X indicates those property owners in opposition.

Following this presentation, any questions by the board, the applicant will present the request.

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

Those in support and opposition will be allowed a maximum of three minutes per speaker.

You are not obligated to utilize the maximum time limitation.

For those that would like to give up their time to the speaker, that speaker will be allowed a maximum of two people.

Give note their time for a total of nine minutes.

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

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

Yes, and we'll really quickly, how many people do we have signed up to speak today?

Not applicants, but we have uh six signed up to speak, two for item number four, uh one for item number five, one for item number eight, and two for item number nine.

All right, thank you very much.

Uh let's start with item one.

Hey, for the city staff, I need uh some computer assistance.

Uh good afternoon.

My name is Joseph Folez, Senior Planner with Development Services.

Item number one is BOA-25-1030269 at 8201 Meadow Post.

Um the applicant is JK and France guidance LOC, and they are requesting um an appeal of the administrator's decision to revoke their permit.

Um so this case uh it was continued from the February 23rd meeting to allow the applicant to contact the tenant to determine the number of stays that they had.

Um although the tenant did apply for the short-term rental application and received authorization from the property owner, it remains the property owner's sole responsibility to report on a monthly basis.

Uh the taxpayer IDs are registered to the property owner, not the tenant.

Um additionally, additionally, the applicant did confirm at the last meeting that the delinquency letters were received and acknowledged their contents.

Um between the previous meeting and now the applicant has since reported zero stays for all months.

Um however, um avenue does reflect some active stays for December 2024 and January 2025.

And this is the uh message that we send upon a permit approval.

Um it pretty much states that anyone who's operating a short-term rental needs to report hot.

And the red arrow points to the email address of the property owner.

And uh these two photos are just uh an activity timeline of um the listings that were that was active, and then the bottom photo are two reviews from uh December 2024 and January 2025.

Um and then as for the notification plan, uh we did mail out 24 notices.

Um since last meeting, we've received zero in favors or in opposition, uh, no response from the neighborhood association and no response from the other citywide groups.

All right, and as of today, he he may have done all his filing, but there's still potential monies due.

Correct, yes, sir.

All right.

Let's have the applicant come forward.

Uh bonus, real quick, City.

Can you go back to that to that notice uh of approval?

Email.

I just wanted to read something on there real quick.

Okay.

All right.

Questions?

No.

The applicant come forward.

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

My name is uh Francis Inhesiaba.

And um I'm the manager of of the LLC that owns the property at 2001 middle post.

Um I was there a month ago.

Um from uh from that time to now, what I've done is to contact the tenant.

What he told me was that he didn't make any money.

I tried to reach out to ABMB to send me any information they might have on their record.

They insisted that since my number was not on their ABMB, they cannot release any any information to me.

What I did was based on the um information I have, I'll find the missing reports and also pay the penalties associated with them.

Um you did pay penalties?

Yes, I did.

Okay.

Staff, do you have uh you had mentioned Avenue had had recorded some stays?

How many stays are we talking about?

So um on Avenue, it did state that there were two reviews for December 2024 and January 2025.

And those are the only two of reviews that we could find.

And in a review, you have to stay there to make a review.

You do?

Okay.

Yes.

So that so that so just this applicant might owe hot taxes on a handful of stays.

So that's that's where we're at right now, sir.

So that's that's what the concern was is that when we continue to this last time, we wanted to make sure you had the benefit appearing before the board uh with all your documentation order and any outstanding uh payments due.

Uh you may not have been aware of the handful of stays because they didn't want to disclose that to you.

Um staff, is there anything any assistance you can do to provide how many stays potentially happened or what kind of taxes are owed or anything?

Or at least get avenue to tell him what happened.

Yeah, but I didn't yeah, I didn't I didn't have control, nobody stays, and I don't have any assistant account.

I understand.

So when I spoke to ABMB, they say the city can actually reach out to them if you know.

Well, let's see what they can do.

Is it is there anything that you can do to possibly uh uh uh assist this applicant in getting up to date financially?

He would have to go through avenue.

So in this sort of a situation, so the item was considered by the board.

You can't I'm sorry, we can't hear you.

Sorry, thank you.

The item was considered by the board two weeks ago.

There seemed to be a discrepancy between whether or not there had been stays in associated payments, so the board continued it.

In that time, the applicant reported zero revenues for all of the months that were missing, but in several of those months we found reviews and documented stays.

What they are actually going to end up owing is going to be a conversation offline between them, the city's finance department, and Avenue, our third-party collection firm.

I can't comment on what they're actually going to end up owing.

All I can comment on is that reporting zero revenue for no stays appears to be inaccurate.

Okay.

All right.

And we're talking two months, right?

Two stays or two months?

We found stays two reviews for two separate months on their on their online listing.

Okay.

So we have to do that.

Yes.

Commissioner Manna?

So you're stating two stays, and that's simply reflected because there are feedback that there is feedback provided.

Could there be stays that don't have feedback provided that would have not been caught?

That's correct.

Not everybody leaves a review.

So the only so we know that two stays exist simply because there is reviews, but there certainly could have been non-stop every single period between then and then.

Could have been.

Right.

My I I just uh I'm bringing all this up because um if the applicant has paid a penalty and he's attempted to pay and he just doesn't know what else he's owed because Avenue won't tell him.

That might that just I don't know.

It sits funny with me.

Um Mr.

Chair, I do want to clarify when it comes to reporting through Avenue, it's at the discretion of the owner or operator to report their total revenue for the month.

Finance does have a separate department where they audit those or instances where people would report and are actually underreporting, and so some of those properties are audited by the finance department.

But the discretion is at the discretion of the owner to report their revenue for a given month.

Okay.

But in this case, there was he separated the relationship between the operator and the owner, so they're not talking at all.

So there is no way for him to get the opera the operator reports as the owner.

So that's the crux of the problem is I understand it.

I also have an issue with the operator being he he might want to maybe under-report because he ultimately may owe the applicant the money.

Well, it it and I just want to so confirm what is being stated that I guess there are two separate entities on this property, the the owner and um the manager, I guess, or whatever we're gonna call it.

And so and so one can block the other, or they both don't have access to the records?

That seems certainly.

He was renting the house to somebody and that person was renting it as an Airbnb.

So the owner didn't necessarily know the day-to-day, but he the owner is res ultimately responsible for the documentation and the payments of taxes.

And so if the tenant that he rented the house to who was then running the Airbnb was not being as truthful, then we I I don't know how the applicant is going to get to the number.

That's so could a city confirm that that the owner it does not necessarily have to be part of the um I guess the service itself when it's registered?

So when an owner comes in to it, when uh we got an ask our application.

Uh make all someone can the operator applicant has to get authorization from the owner to either submit the application or operate the applicant the short term rental on the behalf of the owner.

So the owner would would not be or the uh renter or the the the other party would not be able to do a rental without the owner's permission.

And that is captured where?

That's captured as part of the review competence review process.

We asked for authorization letter signed and notarized by the owner authorizing the applicant or operator that's someone that's not the owner.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, so what happens is that the he gave him the tenant he rented to permission to run the Airbnb, but once he started running the Airbnb, he his email was not listed with Avenue or anyone else.

So he didn't know how many times it was being rented out, and and they won't tell him, at least as far as we're hearing.

So that's so does that you know I want I just want to keep verifying again.

So is that a true statement there so that the owner could be left out of the loop out this entire time, or does the owner have a role in any of this, you know, I guess when it is that they have submitted?

I think that really depends on how the property owner intends to have the STR operated.

I think there is an inherent risk by authorizing someone else to use your property, knowing that you at the end of the day are responsible for it, but not really being involved in the operation, and maybe that's the situation that we're in here today.

So to the applicant, um is this tenant still involved in this STR in any way?

No, no.

Okay.

Our relationship has been separate since um December.

Uh since today, and I'm responsible for the taxes.

Um from that time a fight on time.

And my pledge is I didn't have these information before.

I didn't know that as an owner of the property, I am responsible for all the taxes, even if it doesn't pay.

And apparently he's aware about that.

And that's why he's not here.

But since the last time you were here, you were assessed to finding it and you did pay it to the city.

Yes, I paid, I paid uh one year pen outside, you know.

Okay.

Commissioner Braggman.

So are you still running the uh short term rental?

Yes.

Am I going you still run it by myself?

Since the taxes are paid and thus on time.

Okay.

And for staff, I mean, if if the application was done in the tenant's name, how can he run the short-term rental?

Yeah.

So he as the property owner, he can effectively update who is listed as the designated operator on the permit.

So the the permit is still tied to his name.

And to clarify, he the mail notice that we're sent out by avenue word mail to the property owner.

And he said last time that he did receive those letters, but he believed it was a tenants responsibly not his.

Can I say something?

Yes, sir.

So the uh the delay that's not received was actually faulty.

You didn't have my name correctly.

Because I didn't have any relationship with with Avenue at the time, I didn't even know they were actually right to mails.

Like my last note was spent as a different name.

I thought it was just a mail sent to receive information from me.

So I lenda my name was attached into the into the to the license at the time I didn't come here, it was a tenant I came here to apply for it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant or staff?

Manna?

Commissioner Manna.

So question for staff is you um this seems this seems like an error from my perspective on how we can set up contracts.

Is there some kind of state drive or something else that's providing the on that enables that we can have the owner not part of that contract in general?

Where is not, you know, so they can sublet it out, but the owner always being part of it?

Or it seemed like he was left out this time.

So I'm just you know, I I don't think it's a healthy thing if we're gonna hold owners accountable, we're you know, this scenario here.

So I'm just trying to see if that can be resolved or or is that really how we want to do things.

Yeah.

Um to clarify, like as uh uh Mr.

Sparrow stated, it's that most part we do get multiple owners that authorize have a different operator running the business for them, but they are still included and in the loop of the conversation, they're not surprised when this happens again.

There's some senses like how involved the owners are in the short-term rental, because in the day they are the property owners and responsible for the short-term rental.

Yeah, I I just want to clarify.

So we don't have a problem where people are obtaining permits on other people's property and operating a business without their knowledge.

We need their consent, signature, notary, we need it all to enable that permit to be issued.

So, you know, I I I don't know that we have the problem that you are alluding to where under existing rules, people are able to start operating these STRs without the full knowledge of the property owner.

Now, once the permit is issued, how that property owner chooses to be involved or not to be involved cannot be policed by the city.

I can't I can't put a code enforcement officer at every residence and ensure that they're checking in with their operators on a weekly basis.

That is going to be up to the property owner at that point in time.

So was there any differentiation for messaging going to the owner versus the person who is actually doing the renting?

Or was it 100% the same all the way through?

I guess that so I'm just trying to see what the difference is and understand that piece.

Um on the screen, you have what was mailed out email, sorry, emailed out to the applicant regarding when the permit was issued, they're responsibly reporting hot taxes, things of that nature how to report.

Um in that emails we have communication on file for both the operator and the owner.

Bonias for the Commissioner Bonias.

Yeah, for the city.

Um on the final notification email, uh it states somewhere there your next step will be permit revoked.

Is it is that right?

Because just on the first one, it just says, you know, if they don't pay online or pay hot, it will result in penalty and interest fees.

But on that first permit approval, there's no uh there's nothing there that states that they'll have it revoked if they don't pay, it just says they'll pay penalty and interest.

But on the final one, it it does though.

Correct.

And then to clarify, mail notices are sent through avenue.

So when a property is one month delinquent, they receive a notice that month and will continue to receive delinquency monthly delinquency notices that their hot account is linked.

And on that letter, it does specify that they were to revocate it.

I mean, we'll revote in re-STROCAM, and there is a 12-month penalty applied to the property owner.

Where was those notices?

What address were those notices mailed to?

Was it the 8201 Meadow Post?

Oh, Eagle Tree.

Okay.

And do you, sir, you live at Eagle Tree?

Yes, sir.

And did you get those notices in the mail?

Yes, I did.

However, if you look at the notices, you see the last name in there.

My name it was spelled incorrectly.

It wasn't it didn't look like a legal document.

I didn't even believe it was coming from the city.

I thought it was somebody somewhere trying to send an information to get something from me.

That was why I didn't act on those later.

Okay.

So when I realized that the guy was not paying taxes was when I came to the office uh to change the license under my name.

And that's when I realized that he didn't pay.

And it was an individual revocation.

Actually, it was on the last day to appeal, and that's how, you know, and then I'll Okay.

Any other questions?

All right.

Um is there any uh I know I already asked about sign up to speak and voicemails.

Uh, are there any on this one?

I didn't write down the first few cases.

No public comment.

All right.

And uh looking for a motion then.

Last question.

Uh Commissioner Beneath.

Uh for the city, um, this is the only permit on the block, yeah.

Correct, yes.

Okay, gotcha.

And no other is there a way to know if anybody is like on standby waiting to get a permit here or anything like that.

Staff, I don't see any active for pending applications.

Gotcha.

Okay.

Um thank you.

All right.

Looking for a motion.

Bonias.

Commissioner Bonis.

Uh, regarding case number B08 251030269, I move that the Board of Adjustment grant the appeal for the property situated at 8201 metal post, applicant being JK in France guidance LLC, because the information provided by the applicant shows the city staff made an error in enforcing Section 16-11 10 D when we're voking the short-term permit rental in a motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Zuna, Commissioner Benius.

Um, I don't, you know, I'm going to be in favor of this.

Uh I don't think this city made an error.

I think I think the city did everything right.

Um mainly I'm going to be in favor because there's no other pending um STR permits.

He is the only one on the block.

I think he had some issues with the tenant, you know, and that can be troublesome.

I think you learned a lesson here with subletting and and how that works, but you know, you're willing to take responsibility, pay interest, pay the fees, pay taxes going forward, run it the right way.

So that's why I'll be in favor.

Thank you, Commissioner Zuna.

Yes, well, I do not believe that the city staff made an error.

I do support the variance as read.

Um the the owner uh did the right thing, he paid the penalties.

We don't have any uh complaints on the operation of the short term.

Uh there's no other opposition against it.

But I will be support of the uh variants read.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to add?

Uh I just wanted to state I'll also be in support while the city did not make an error.

I think that uh hearing that the applicant made good on his penalty and is willing to uh figure out what he may or may not owe for those two months is uh good enough for me at this time.

So let's have a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ozuna.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibanez.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

No, I do not concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Mena.

I do not concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Braggman.

I concur.

Commissioner Benavides.

I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Oyan.

And I concur with the findings of fact.

Motion passes nine to two.

Um please be careful.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Item two.

Good afternoon.

My name is Joseph Lao, Senior Planner with Development Services.

Item number two is BOA-26-103017 at 2110 Chitam Trow Drive in Council District 9.

The applicant is Jeff Bryson, and the applicant is requesting an appeal of the administrator's decision to revoke their permit.

It's a type 2 permit, and the zoning is R5 for residential single family.

So this case, it was continued from the most recent hearing due to having only nine members of commissioners.

So this is the notification plan.

We mod 39 notices received zero in favors, you're in opposition.

This concludes staff's presentation and the applicant's present.

And there's no other no other SCRs in the block face.

Correct.

There's no other um short-term rentals in the block face.

Oh, wait, I'm so sorry.

There's one.

There is one at 2002 Chitametrell.

Uh, but this block face has allowed for two permits.

Okay, it can have up to two.

Correct, yes, sir.

And is this does the applicant owe any money or documentation at this time?

Uh the applicant is current on their hot taxes.

All right, thank you.

Is that the applicant come forward?

Good afternoon again.

Good afternoon, sir.

Please state your name.

Tell us about your STR.

Uh my name is Jeff Bryson.

I came um a couple of weeks ago.

And thank you for the people who said or agreed with me.

Um for the people who did not, I started thinking about why maybe they did not.

Maybe it sounds like too much of a story.

I had my mailbox broken into several times, didn't have my email, my identity was stolen.

So I went back and I started talking to my wife, and she said, Why don't you look and see if you can find something?

So I got documentation that I'm I'm supposed to, I guess, hand out here to y'all.

And uh in its pictures.

Who do I hand these to?

Give them to staff, you can give them to staff right uh to your right, and and if there's anything that you need projected, they can also do that.

There's a little camera.

Yeah, they asked me about a PowerPoint instead of my age.

I'm not alone.

Um Do I need the recap?

Uh there are some members here that were not present.

Okay, but uh feel free to make it as abbreviated or as long as you need.

I'll try to abbreviate it.

Um Airbnb tells us that our hot our hotel taxes are actually collected by them.

And I've got two other properties in Puerto Rico that we've never had an issue with.

Um my daughter is very proudly of her, she's a 10% owner in my Airbnb.

And um she reached out to me and told me that there was a problem, and I said, No, no.

I said I've already called down to the because I called down to code compliance, and somebody answered the phone.

They said, No, as long as your hotel taxes are paid, you're fine.

So I assume yeah, they're fine.

I called Airbnb.

They don't really jump through any hoops to try to tell you that hey, there's another tax that you have to pay, and we're not trying to escape paying that.

It was just something we weren't aware of.

So when I call down here, I got erroneous information on the phone also to tell me that that's you know that that's not the case.

Um let me just go through these pictures so it makes some sense to you all.

So I was talking about the my identity I stolen.

That is the gentleman.

You can I can show you my driver's license exactly the same, except it's his picture, and he and he misspelled my first name.

He bought a motorcycle in my name.

Um I went through my computer.

I would took it to a guy uh on 35.

He said, Mr.

Bryson, he goes, We've cleared this thing.

I think I don't know the word Trojan something.

He said, You really need to just get rid of your computer.

You need to get rid of that email for now.

Don't use it because we don't know how they've accessed your information.

And I don't either, because they had my social security, they have a driver's license, which I have my driver's license, so I don't know how they did that.

But it's cost me a lot of money.

It took a long time to get my credit even just re-established.

The second picture is a picture of the back of the mailbox, and you can see I'm the person who actually put the tape on there because it kept getting open so many times.

The bottom you can see is pushed in, the top you can see where it's been pried open.

Because I was explaining that I didn't get the mail.

I didn't have that that that part.

The third page that you can see on the 20th, I was already downtown and I was actually at the finance department's office.

I reached out today again.

I called him seven times, I couldn't get through, but I was trying to get the lady's name I spoke with.

Um, but I was actually down there and she said, Well, we don't actually handle this.

You need to go down to code compliance, but let me see if I can explain it to you.

So she said there were zero taxes paid.

I said, that's not possible.

I've got the I've got the record showing that it's been paid.

And she said, you we've had this problem.

This is not the city taxes, those are all paid.

It's your county taxes that are separate that you have to collect, which poses a new problem because I don't know how we would collect them.

We've since resolved that with Airbnb and VRBO.

But on that page, you can see uh because I said I didn't have access to my email.

I was actually kind of glad I went back.

So I'm sorry, it's on the next page, but you can just see the timeline.

Oh man, it doesn't show in here.

Probably one of y'all have the original, it shows January 20th on the top of the original.

Just it's blacked out, I guess on the copy, but somebody has the original.

Um but on the second page you can see or I say I said for the list from from them, and she I said from them, they sent it to Abris and ATT.net, and I immediately put I don't have access right now.

So I'm not sure who got the original, but on there it's on the top, it says January 20th.

And I put the I opened up all the time stamps on all the comments so you could see.

And then the last one is just to show you you can see in that conversation I was already downtown talking with somebody trying to resolve this.

And the last one is where you can see I took an Uber from there to here and updated my email address and asked what I needed to do, and that's how we got to this hearing.

Okay.

Did did you have you already changed your email uh with the city?

And I did.

Okay.

All right.

Any commissioner questions?

Okay, and this is your only STR in San Antonio.

Yes, sir.

And one other thing, I I have not had any complaints.

I work really well with my neighbors.

I constantly check with them to make sure that my tenants are not causing any problems.

And the next door neighbor actually he's a little mentally impaired, but I pay him to take care of my yard and my property to help him out too.

But we haven't had zero complaints against the property.

Thank you.

Uh is there any voicemails or and I apologize for keep asking this because I I only wrote down a handful of the ones you told me about earlier, but uh voicemails or anyone sent to speak?

No public comment.

Last chance for questions.

Looking for a motion.

Ragman.

Commissioner Braggman.

Regarding case number BOA-26-103017.

I move to the Board of Adjustment, grant the appeal for the property situated at 2110 Chitam Trail.

Applicant being Jeff Bryson, because the information provided by the applicant shows that city staff made an error in enforcing section 16-110 when revoking the short-term rental permit.

End of motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Manna, Commissioner Bragman.

Uh well, I don't think that the uh city made an error.

Um I do uh support the appeal um because it's obviously a lot of issues has happened that were out of his control, but he is now up to date on his hot taxes.

So I will be in support of the appeal.

Thank you, Commissioner Manor.

I concur with my colleague.

Anyone else like to add?

Commissioner Bregman.

I concur.

Commissioner Mama.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibanez.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

No, I do not concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Benavides.

I concur.

Commissioner Osana?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonnyas.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings.

The fact motion passes 10 to 1.

Uh please be careful.

Thank you, and y'all will not see me again.

Yes.

So have a great day.

Uh item three.

Good afternoon.

My name is Juan Alvaris, Planner with Development Services.

Item number three is requested by Damien Norris and is requesting an appeal of the administrator's decision to revoke the applicant's short-term rental permit due to hot collection located at five fifth 515 Belmont Street.

The subject property is located at 515 Belmont Street.

Surrounding uses include residential single family.

As of March 10th, 2025, platforms that directly remit state hot, also not directly remit city hot to the city's finance department.

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

Notices of delinquency were mailed by Avenue from August 2024 through July 2025, and a final notice of delinquency was emailed by development services on January 5th, 2026.

No payment was made within 90 days, and only partial payment was made after receiving the final notice of delinquency on January 5th.

Therefore, the permit was revoked on January 20th, 2026.

There is a total of 12 units on the block phase, one active type two being on 511 Belmont Street, issued on April 5th, 2023.

The subject property does not have any code violations.

And the permit was originally approved on April 7th, 2021, but it was revoked on January 20th due to hot delinquency.

This is the communication that was sent to the applicant from Avenue.

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

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

Staff recommends denial of the applicant's appeal.

And a total of 42 male notices, zero in favor, zero in opposition, no response from from Jefferson Heights Neighborhood Association, and six citywide groups are notified with no response.

This concludes that presentation.

Yes, um, quick question.

Other two applications that are on the block, was this the original one or is this the second one?

This is original.

Okay.

All right.

Uh Commissioner questions for staff.

Hearing Anside, the applicant come forward.

Thank you.

Hi, please state your name.

Tell us about your SDR.

Damien Norris.

Sorry.

Uh yes.

So as you've seen by the date, uh, I've had it for quite a long time.

I do a lot of upkeeps in the neighborhood.

I take care of that neighborhood's pretty run down.

Um all the neighbors I usually watch over their houses.

It definitely was a drop all because I've been told several times by Airbnb that taxes are already covered.

I shouldn't, I shouldn't be paying taxes.

And I even received documentation that they're gonna go basically that they're gonna start taking over the taxes.

Six months in of the delinquency, they said it was not approved, and you need to go back to the way that you were paying the taxes.

And I've had like voice calls with them stating that you need to pay the taxes and go back to the way you were.

So as soon as I paid all my taxes, my dropball was January.

I paid all all the way up to the year to be current, and January was the one month that I missed, and I thought I already had paid.

Okay.

What about your um filings?

Uh your monthly filings of of how many stays.

Uh I didn't I don't even know how to do that.

I just go by the amount that I make for the month.

Okay, Steph, um maybe I'm just using the wrong uh adjective here, but is uh has this applicant done his monthly reporting.

I can give my computer and show, and I believe I submitted in the up to date.

Uh as of today, it is showing that the applicant is current on their taxes.

Okay.

Yeah, it was a drop all because I've several times that I've called.

I've actually called uh avenue and for custody fall follow-up call.

I have not received anything to be able to even get a phone call back.

And I didn't know there was going to be a disconnect from the county and the city taxes because Airbnb is coaching or telling us not to make the payment taxes at all.

What I was trying to ask is uh so there's money that's owed, but isn't there also a monthly reporting?

Not necessarily the payment, but a reporting is that he's completing the reporting.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Any questions from the commission?

Um Commissioner Benius.

So you just missed a reporting in January.

Basically, I I actually thought I did January's and I just did the bulk amount, and I actually when I came down here, I didn't know that I had missed January, and I was like freaking out about it because I've been doing I've been doing this for almost five years.

And I was like freaking out about it because I've been doing I've been doing this for almost five years.

Staff, I I I kind of looks like I cut you all off.

Did please continue if you weren't done with your statements.

Okay.

So he paid for the month of um in 2024.

That year.

Okay.

From the from March 2024, he paid it on in 25.

So he's late for a whole year.

And then in January of 2025 for that period until December 2025, he paid it the 26th, um, January 26th.

Okay.

But he's covered as of right now.

Okay.

So were the appropriate reports filed?

That's why the appropriate reports are routinely filed extremely late.

Is he current now?

He is current now.

Okay.

Commissioner Manna.

So with regards to being current, so there was one filed for January, one for February.

Yes, at least two.

His last payment was for the period of December 2025.

So therefore the report was not filed in January nor February?

Yeah, we need it.

We need to turn staff's microphone up a little, it's getting a little tough to hear sometimes.

I have documentation to show you guys that I'm current.

I have the I know the other.

Well, there's so there's two things going on.

So one is current for financials, and the second is reporting, regardless if it's zero or not, you have to you have to file a report every month.

Oh, I didn't even know that.

Okay.

So that's part of the dialogue that we're we're we're kind of walking through right now.

Oh, okay, okay.

Just for clarification.

When um Airbnb operators are filing, they file according to the balance that Airbnb gives.

They do not file the number of guests that have stayed there.

They do not file any of that information other than the balance for that month of what they made.

From there, they pay the city tax or the hot tax and they pay the tax to the county.

What we're hearing from a lot of our applicants because of the change, and and even though the city is sending out information stating, hey, you you need to still go in and mark, do your application your form of how how much you made, and if you didn't make anything, you still have to go in and put a zero, not only to the city, but to the county as well.

So I think that there's uh we've we're seeing a continued pattern here of people being hearing from Airbnb, hey, we're paying your taxes, and they're assuming that all both taxes are being paid.

And so I just wanted to clarify that because we we've been seeing a lot of cases like this where uh I think there is a a very mis big misconception uh and and I don't know if it's totally the fault of the operator, but I think that maybe Airbnb is giving out the wrong information, or the operator is just misreading it.

Uh but I just wanted to clarify also that.

And I I I'd like a clarification.

So it's today, if you're air if you have a um an STR in the city limits, is do you have to do anything separate with the county as of right now, as of today?

Yes.

You're responsible to report your revenue to Avenue every month as well as pay for county hot taxes through Avenue every month.

Through Avenue.

Correct.

So it's one it's one portal for both.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Mana.

Commissioner Manna.

So maybe it's clarification on that on that, I guess on that workflow then.

And so um we you know, we do I and I do agree with that.

We are seeing a lot of things with regards to the county portion.

And so when it is that they go into avenue and they fill out the form, there's a lie item that says um how much was collected by um Airbnb that says here's your tax amount for there, and then here's amount that needs to be going into the state uh or yeah, for the county taxes, or you know, so are both those accounted for in that form as well?

Yeah.

So when you and the on avenue today, if you log into your taxpayer ID account, they ask a question do you list on Airbnb and Verbo?

If you select yes, that's Avenue knows that you only are responsible for paying the county hot taxes.

If you answered no, then that's when they know you report for both city and county hot taxes, and it does the math for you.

Again, the owner or operator enters in the revenue at their discretion, and then Avenue then calculates how much taxes that owner operator was based on what they entered as their revenue.

Just because I saw some confusion as that was being explained.

There are two platforms that collect city hotel occupancy tax for you.

Fortunately, it's the two biggest platforms, Airbnb and Verbo.

Those two websites account for almost 93 percent of listings in San Antonio.

So 93 percent of operators have their city tax remitted to the city by the platform that they rent on.

It has always been the case, back to 2018 when we first launched the ordinance, that you have to report to the city how much money you make on a monthly basis.

And it has always been the case that based upon what you report, the system calculates what you owe the county.

No platform collects the tax for the county.

If you are one of the seven percent of listings that are not on Airbnb or Verbo, then you on a monthly basis report to the city how much you earn and manually pay the city and the county tax.

So if somebody, if an applicant who is on Verbo, um if Verbo is sending the taxes they collect to the city, is there ever is it ever off?

And having that, does that ever cause an issue, like if it's off by a dollar or something?

I'm just trying to figure out if somebody's if anybody gets the calculation wrong as that happened.

This the city on a monthly basis receives one lump sum payment from each of those two operators for all of the taxes collected citywide.

So Bana.

So, the operator, it's the operator's responsibility to go to that platform, get the balance for that month, then go to the city's platform, open it up, put that number in, and then does the calculations.

Even though that the city the platform is paying the taxes to the city, that operator must still put that number in.

And they audit to make sure that those numbers match it.

So if I'm an operator and I don't want to tell the city how much I got, they're going to find out how much I I received.

And and they're audited quite regularly for that.

So if anybody is pocketing money that they didn't want to pay on, they're going to be found out about it.

Well, and and to be clear, the reason that the city shifted to that model, and we wanted to do it for county tax, but we weren't able to get it done.

But the reason we shifted to that model is because we knew that across the city, we were not collecting the amount of money that should be collected.

And when that model launched, we went from collecting a hundred thousand dollars a month in hotel occupancy tax to a million dollars a month.

We were we were receiving ten percent of what was owed to the city.

Commissioner Man.

So just following up because you're just going through the workflow here.

So the um the owner has to put in to um into the system avenue what it was that they collected for that month from uh that was that was automatically collected by VRBO or whoever.

So that line item appears, they marked that they receive that amount, and so that amount appears when they fill out the form that it was basically the Air V Airbnb and so much took so much tax, and then and then it gets zeroed out because it was paid by the other group, and then we calculate the tax that the county tax from that.

So do they have to put in that amount?

I guess I just try to.

You have to manually enter the revenue, how much money you earned, and based upon what you type into that box, it calculates what you owe the county.

So I guess I'm coming back then.

So what is it that was missed then?

So was it that the forms weren't filled out when you're filling out the taxes?

Yeah, I'm trying to figure out what the disconnect here with regards to the county, because it says you know, on the form, they have to put in that number, and if they don't put in the number, or if they put a number in, it should come back that a tax is due.

And so I'm trying to understand the disconnect here, you know, that's that's missing.

Because it seems to me if I'm filling out that form, it should tell me that I owe money.

Mr.

Norris.

So for the time you were that that this period of non-payment, you did did you ever at once go into the city site to look and see what that was about, or did you just assume that your platform was taking care of everything?

So, based off of Airbnb, the way that they were saying that they were actually getting approvals that they were going to collect all taxes.

That's where the disconnect was, and I got really confused by it because I even had to tell one of my aunts and uncles that's on East Houston to start paying their taxes because I'm dealing with this now.

But as a total, I thought they were collecting everything because they made it such a big deal that from city, state, and county, they were getting everything.

So when I found out that I needed to go back, I had to go all the way back and pay.

So that's where the I guess the disconnect was.

Commissioner Braggman.

Um so this is for staff.

How do we then get the county taxes to be part of the payment?

So because we're seeing this over and over again.

And I'm sure this is just scratching the surface.

I think the very short answer to that is it's going to take a change in state law.

Oh man.

There is a difference.

There is a difference in state law on the who is responsible for collecting city and county tax, and that is ultimately what it came down to.

We had tried to get them to remit both city and county, but they refuse to be the entity responsible for the collection and remittance of the county portion.

So you're saying that all the municipalities in Texas that deal with short-term rentals and collect taxes are going through this same issue.

I I I don't know that I'm prepared to speak for every other city.

What I can say with confidence is that we tried, and we were not able to get Airbnb and Verbo to do that.

Okay.

So there's a loophole in the state law is what it sounds like.

There's an issue with the state law.

There is an issue with the state law.

Commissioner Mayor.

So when it is that it so that so the first month that the applicant misses the report, regardless if it's zero or not, do they get a notice saying you're you're you will be terminated in three months?

I mean, are we that direct on day one?

They will receive a delinquency notice that failure to report zero or report any member is a is delinquent and failure to continue failure to continue not to report hot tax will result in permit relocation, and there's a 12-month penalty applied to that property.

So I would almost suggest that we say on day one, you will be terminated in 30 days unless you report, because that you know because it doesn't seem like we get the wake-up call until we reject it.

So to clarify that it's not a days delinquent.

I know.

That's I said so on 30 days saying you will be terminating in 30 days unless you bring it current.

You know, and and then they can go through this process and say, okay, you'll we're gonna bring you back in, but at that 90 days, you know, it's a lot more dialogue.

I I'll I'll just say this.

I I f I feel like every two weeks when we sit in this room, we're we're hearing feedback on what the ordinance should or should not say.

The ordinance says what it does.

That is what city council has approved, and that is what we have to enforce.

I understand.

Um I think that we've kind of heard a lot about this thing.

Um, there's no other questions.

Um anyone's time to speak on this voicemails?

No public comment.

All right.

Um just one last one bone yes for the applicant.

So you have an understanding now of how reporting is monthly and getting it in by the 10th of each month and doing that.

Okay, gotcha.

Yes, sir.

Yeah.

Uh like I said, I've been doing this a long time.

It was a drop all on me, and it will never happen again.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

All right.

I'm looking for a motion.

Bonus.

Commissioner Pennings.

Regarding case number BOA 26103019.

I move that the Board of Adjustment Grant the appeal for the property situated at 515 Belmont uh street.

Applicant being uh Damien Norris because the information provided by the applicant shows the city staff made an error in enforcing in enforcing 1611 10 D when revoking the short-term uh rental permit into motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Brackman, Commissioner Benefs.

Yeah, I'm gonna be in favor of it.

I don't believe the city is an error.

I do believe though that regulation and these ordinances just you know the they fall behind, you know.

Um it was being done one way for a long time, and as operators, you know, 15 percent is getting taken by the platform.

So you're assuming that hey, that's all of it, that's a big chunk of my change.

They must be taking it all.

Um and then, you know, we now we know that we got to go back and report that 1.75 to the county before the 10th of every month.

He knows that going forward.

Um I I don't think we have uh any you're he's the only one on the block.

There's two yeah, so we're good there.

So I I think he'll be good going forward, and I think we're gonna see a number of these cases, and it's just the way it is, because like I said, it it's just gonna it's gonna slip through the cracks like that.

But as long as these operators can catch up, they now have a good understanding of how they pay going forward, then then we can move on.

I'll be in support.

Thank you.

Commissioner Bragman?

I concur with my colleague, I'll be in support as well.

Anyone else like to add?

I would say in support as well.

I mean testimony from city staff just talked about the million dollar per month and revenue we're getting from these short-term rentals and taxes.

So the applicant's aware, I don't have any concern that he will pay on a timely basis, including the county and city taxes, and it's a revenue source for the city, and there's no other short-term rentals on this block.

Commissioner Bonnet.

And just to clarify, uh the site for the city uh is once you learn it, it's pretty easy.

Um you put in your your balance for the month for the city, then you put the bat same balance in for the county, and they calculate how much you have to pay.

Just have your debit card ready so you can pay it.

Okay.

All right.

Anyone else like that?

I'm just gonna add that I'm in favor solely because he's current, doesn't have any complaints.

He may have paid some fines.

Oh, yeah.

And um, and um, if you have to come back here, I may not be as gracious.

So several more vote, please.

Mana.

So there is one other SDR on this block already.

So so Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bagman.

I concur.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibanez?

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

No, I do not concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Manna?

I do not concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides.

Yes, I do concur.

Commissioner Ozuna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I can give the findings of Act.

Motion passes 92.

Uh they have any questions, get the staff.

Okay, thank you.

Good luck.

Item four.

Hey, for the city staff, I'm gonna need a computer again.

Uh yeah.

You too, maybe.

Oh, I just put out.

I was just gonna write on in for some.

Oh, okay.

You gotta log in.

I got a log.

Okay.

Oh, go ahead.

Uh good afternoon, Tyler Adam, uh development services.

Uh this is a special exception.

BOA-26-103-00018.

Address is 221 IRA Avenue, Council District 2.

Applicant and property owner Tim Hendricks.

This is a special exception to allow one additional type 2 short-term rental permit on the block face.

Zoning is multifamily.

Subject properties located at 221 IRA Avenue.

Surrounding uses include residential single family and multi-family.

Uh this is seeking a special exception to allow one additional type two short-term rental on the block face.

Uh per city code, type two short-term rentals shall be limited to no more than one-eighth or twelve and a half percent of the total number of single family duplex, triplex, or quadplex units on the block face.

This property is a corner lot, and so um I did want to include that per section 16-1103.

No property shall be eligible to obtain short-term rental permits by utilizing multiple block faces.

All units on a lot must be assessed as being solely on one block face.

There are nine units on this block face with one active type two already at 221 IRA Avenue in the unit one.

Uh block face is currently at 11%.

Uh if an additional uh type two is approved, the block face will be at 22% exceeding the 12 and a half percent density limit.

Uh the original permit was issued October 15th of 2020.

Again, that is for 221 IRA unit one.

Uh this permit was renewed and uh does not expire until October 15th, 2026.

Um application for unit two was submitted December of 2025.

The applicant submitted this as 201 Wesley, but uh the city does not have an approved address verification on record for this address, and again, no property shall be eligible to obtain short-term rental permits by utilizing multiple block faces.

There was a code investigation for operating without a permit opened in October of 2025.

Uh there was an administrative hearing, and on February 6th, 2026, the owner was held liable for operating a short-term rental permit without a permit.

Um this was a uh listing on that listing.

You can see it was addressed as 201 Wesley Place.

Uh site plan, and then the subject property with its surrounding um property.

Uh staff recommends denial.

Um staff did mail 33 notices.

Uh we've received one in favor, three in opposition.

Uh Menke Park Neighborhood Association did respond over the weekend, and I do have that if y'all would like to see it, but they responded in opposition.

Um six citywide groups were notified with no response.

Can you bring the letter up on the screen from the neighbor association?

All right.

It looks like they were in opposition because they haven't had a true meeting or okay.

All right.

If there's uh any other questions, any questions for staff before we have the applicant come forward?

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

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

Tim Hendricks.

Thank you for your uh time and attention today.

I appreciate it.

Keep this brief.

Uh I purchased this property in 2020.

Uh operated both sides of this property as a short-term rental since 2020.

Uh I was unaware that I needed separate permits for each unit.

We've been paying taxes consistently for five years.

We have great reviews from all of our tenants, and we've had no complaints from any neighbors.

Uh the first that I learned of this issue of needing a second permit was that code violation in October of 2025, and I then submitted an application for the second permit.

Uh the comment about 201 Wesley, uh, when I purchased the property, it had two addresses: my CPS and SAWS bills, post offices, everything is listed each side separately.

Uh one entrance, I don't know if we can I guess look here.

Uh the left side of the duplex faces IRA Avenue, and that's where the front door of that unit is.

The right side faces Wesley, uh, and that's where where that entrance is.

Um we've uh as I said, we've we've had no issues have renewed our existing permitted on on multiple times.

Uh there are no active short-term rental permits on Wesley.

Uh it is a very short block, so I understand the staff's concern about the the 12 and a half percent, but on that diagonal street, there are no other short-term rental uh units on that block face.

All right.

Any questions from the uh from the commission?

Commissioner's unit.

I'm just curious if you had a chance to talk with the neighborhood association that is an opposition of the permit.

I have not.

This uh the comment that they were in opposition was the first I learned about.

Okay.

It seems like they just haven't had a chance to listen to you, right?

So there's also two uh neighbors across across one across Wesley, one across IRA that are in opposition.

Have they ever expressed um you know any opposition to you running an SDR?

No, sir.

Okay.

You know, uh I don't live immediately around there, but uh you know my phone number is available, uh, but I've not heard anything, and again have not had any complaints from neighbors city staff, anything like that.

Well, we have uh we have some public comments.

Yes, Commissioner.

So um so you stated that you've been running both STRs for four years now or three years, whatever.

Um and so you're reporting it and so is it that you are reporting a single number for both of those and that your your your taxes have been paid for both units?

Yes, sir.

Using just the one address?

Uh the one permit number, yes.

Okay.

Your report taxes.

So is there a way to verify that from a city perspective that I guess both units were covered as a single address?

Um I can't say when they initially approved, but I know upon renewal staff did ask for clarification which unit they were reviewing for because they needed a separate permit for each unit.

To answer your question, we're not able to provide that information to you today.

That would have to be a result of a finance department audit.

Generally, what they would look at is what is the rate that the property is being listed for each night, how many nights was it rented for, and does that add up to the total that was reported or half of the total that was reported?

Commissioner Bragman.

My question was answered.

Okay.

Um I'd like to hear some of the public comment.

I think we have two signed up on this one.

So, sir, if you could take a seat and we'll uh hear for here for some people in the gallery.

Let's call the first name.

First one is Sandra Burge.

Hello.

Please uh state your name and tell us your thoughts.

I am Sandra Burge.

I live at oh Sandra Burge, and I live at 220 IRA Avenue, directly across the street from this property.

And it's not true that there have been no complaints about this to the owners.

Actually, the way I have contacted them is through the Airbnb site and contact a host there.

I have lived in my house for 35 years, and I my opposition has to do with I think one unit per block face is already too many.

Um I want a sense of community and I want neighbors, and when there is a non-owner occupied rental there, that's a business that's set in the middle of my block.

And there's more than one.

It is.

Okay.

So there's already uh one on the IRA block face and one on Wesley Blockface.

Anyway, my opinion is that that one per block face is already too many.

Um the business with an absentee owner, it it falls the responsibility for policing the area falls on the neighbors if there's violence, if there's a fire, if there's loud noise and so forth, the responsibility for correcting some of that falls on the neighbors and not on the person who should be supervising it.

So I just as a person I want neighbors in my neighborhood.

I want rather than businesses on my block, and especially a business where the owner just is not there.

For this particular property, it's a nuisance.

Um and I live directly across the street, and one nuisance is the garbage cans are parked on the street.

They are stored on the street and pushed out into the street on collection day.

Um, and I actually have to physically move them when I am returning to my home.

I have to physically move them out of the way so I can reach my driveway.

And the other thing is that uh people who are a guest in this place are parking at the end of my driveway, directly across the street, which doesn't sound like a big deal, except these are really narrow streets, and it's kind of hard to maneuver.

This is also true on Wesley Street.

They will sometimes park on Wesley Street, and the neighbors there have a very steep driveway, it's hard to maneuver.

And I know that this property has a carport in the back, and I don't know that I've ever seen any guest parking back under their covered parking that they provide.

So that's the nuisance that is bothering me personally.

But so for all these reasons, because I think we we want neighbors and not businesses, and also because this particular property is an issue.

Um that's why I oppose.

All right, thank you.

Uh Renee Ramirez.

Hello, please say it's your name.

Tell us your thoughts.

Uh my name is Renee Romitas, I live on Ira Avenue.

Um I have concerns about this property also.

Uh first of all, the the gentleman's name I do not know, but I looked it up on BCAD, and it says a different name is the owner, and it was an LLC that was listed.

So, but uh the concern that I have starts with the street on Wesley.

Uh this property has apparently claimed part of the street for its own property.

So it has moved railroad ties and cinder blocks out into the street and claimed, I don't know, maybe a foot or two of it, and it goes out into the street, and it's a real problem.

They have uh, like Sandra said, they have carved out a piece of the street to park their garbage cans on and they're recycling on.

And uh there is uh there's a problem with that also because the growth from the trees that are on Wesley's side of the street go out over Wesley.

They head out towards Wesley, and when you come to a stop on IRA and Wesley, you have to inch out even more before you can turn.

I I go that area all the time, and before I've had to come to a slamming stop, it's it's very much a danger.

I have called code compliance on them.

They went and checked it, and then after a while it was a case that was um I think it was called dismissed uh because it had to be passed on to a different thing.

I don't know what it was, but apparently some other issue came up.

Um so that whole thing is my is my concern.

Plus, there's already a rental next door to it on Wesley.

The pink there's a pink house there that is a rental.

So that that is those are two rentals right next door.

The other issue I have when I I researched the short-term rentals, and my research was really surprising.

I I did not realize this, but there is a high crime rate incidence that is demonstrable in police reports with short-term rentals like this.

The concern for that, of course, besides myself, is that my neighbors, the people right next to it, are elderly and they're vulnerable.

And I have a feeling that none of the short-term rentals do any kind of criminal background check on their renters or anything like that.

So that has me greatly concerned because of the people right across the street, right across Wesley.

So the street narrowing, the whole thing about renting short-term rentals makes me very worried about this.

The other thing is that I looked for a positive on it.

There is a positive for short-term rentals like this, but the positive isn't for the neighborhood.

The positive is for the businesses, the museums, all the things that are around the neighborhood.

There are no positives that are for the neighborhood.

This was a study that was done in the National Institute of Health.

I sent an email in with it.

And it was in June of let me get it here.

June of 20 July 14th, 2021.

But um just in for the positive, he does keep it up very nicely, except for that street part.

But um I I am standing in opposition to this property.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any voicemails?

That's all the public comments.

All right.

Uh have that we can come back forward.

Commissioner questions.

Commissioner Zood.

Yeah, I'm just I for one would like to have some kind of input from the uh neighborhood association.

Um he hasn't had the opportunity to talk with them to get any kind of input.

Any opposition from the uh commission, anyone like to support a motion for a continuance, yes, Commissioner Manna?

So I would support.

Okay.

How long would you need to s to uh talk to the neighborhood association?

I I really don't know how responsive they would be.

I would hope for you know by your your next meeting that you can fit me in on the agenda.

I can certainly make it my top priority if they're willing to engage.

All right.

Our next meeting is April 6th.

April 6th.

And then we have another meeting on the April 20th.

So in the uh from the neighbor association, they did express an interest in meeting with you.

Uh they didn't necessarily say how long you know often they meet or when they would meet, or I would recommend I would recommend a month, but I was I was gonna say Manke Park is a fairly active neighborhood association.

Typically they meet monthly.

I don't know how long it's gonna take to set their agenda.

Okay.

And Bonnie is real quick to the applicant.

Yes, you uh you say you pay just you report taxes on both of these.

Yes, sir.

You got something like uh broken down between the two units of the gross receipts on both of those that you could bring in before the next meeting.

I don't have it with me, but yes, I can say because you list them as two separate listings on Airbnb.

Correct.

Yeah, so maybe if you can bring in like three months of prior gross receipts for both the units separately.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

And and man has follow up and maybe so that the city can review that just to confirm the question I had had so that it's you know doubling or or half, so verify that.

And then also maybe um can the city follow up with regards to you.

So it looks this block is a little bit strange because there's a sidewalk and then sidewalk disappears, and then it's it's kind of looks like it's been taken over by center blocks and timbers.

So I want to make sure that there wasn't a let um or taking of the city property.

If we verify that to address one of the concerns those those listed chair, I wanted to just point out uh that as well about uh because the speakers did bring it up, the cinder blocks and the landscape timbers.

It looks like that neighborhood has um I forgot the term that because we saw a case like this where they put a wall to rate a retaining wall to keep the dirt from going into the street.

And it looks like that street on Westley has a slope where his the bushes are.

So this is something that is concerning um this people that spoke.

And it appears, I I can't tell if there's a a very narrow sidewalk there or not.

I see two pavers in front of the steps uh to the entry, but it looks like those were placed there to keep the dirt from sloping down into the street.

Um something you maybe you want to talk to the two people who spoke today.

Yep.

So I think uh April 6.

Is that enough time for you?

Uh I guess based on all of this, I'd request the 20th if that works.

Okay.

Looking for a motion to continue April 6.

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Bragman.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none.

We'll see you on the 20th.

And just so you know, we're looking, you've got two people that you need to talk to here, neighborhood association and the city regarding some of the finances.

All right.

Yes, sir.

Would you like me to address some of the comments on the railroad timbers or no?

We'll be ready for you in the 20th.

Okay.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

All right.

Item five.

Good morning.

My name is Juan Alvarez, Senior Planner with Development Services.

Item number five is requested by Jacob Garcia and is requesting an appeal of the administrator's decision to revoke the applicant's short-term rental permit due to Hawk Collection.

Located at 308 Keller Street.

The subject property is located at 308 Keller Street.

Surrounding uses include residential single family.

As of March 10th, 2025, platforms that directly remit state hot also now directly remit City Hot to the city's finance department.

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

Four notices of delinquency were mailed by Avenue from April 2025 through July 2025, and a final notice of delinquency was emailed by development services on February 2nd, 2026.

No payment was made within the 90 days, therefore the permit was revoked on February 17th, 2026.

There are a total of eight units on the block face, and there is no active type two on the block face.

This is the communication that was sent to the applicant from Avenue.

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

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

And they were there were a total of 45 mail notices, two in favor, one in opposition, no response from Collins Garden Neighborhood Association, and six citywide groups were notified with no response.

This concludes that presentation.

Applicant is here to answer any questions.

So the applicant come forward.

Thank you.

Please state your name and tell us about your SDR.

Yes, sir.

Good afternoon, members of the board.

My name is Alejandra Plata.

I want to start off by saying that I fully understand the importance of compliance with the city's requirements.

And I take the responsibility seriously.

The issue that led to the revocation was not intentional neglect, but rather breakdown in communication and administrative oversight on our end.

The property is legally owned by my husband, Jacob Garcia, who's listed as a primary point of contact on the permit.

While I manage the day-to-day operations and the reporting.

Because of the setup, important notices and official communications were being sent to him while I was the one actively managing the account.

Unfortunately, this caused us to miss key deadlines.

In addition, during that time, I was going through a particularly demanding period, both personally and professionally.

And there were months where filings were completed and others when they were unintentionally missed.

And I take full responsibility of that.

There were also instances where filings had already been made, but the system still showed them as processing, which added to the confusion when I was trying to verify compliance.

This is our first and only violation.

We have operated this property responsibly for nearly three years with no complaints from neighbors.

No prior violations.

In consistently positive guest experiences.

We've also received support from neighboring property owners who have submitted forms in favor of our appeal, confirming that our operation has not negatively impacted the community.

We intentionally invested in this neighborhood because we love it.

We believe in its potential.

We wanted to do so by contributing to its improvement by remodeling a severely neglected 1940s property that required over 100,000 in restoration.

Moving forward, we've taken steps to ensure this does not happen again, including consolidating communication under one point of contact and implementing stricter internal tracking to ensure all requirements are met consistently.

We respectfully ask the board to consider reinstating the permit as we are now fully compliant and committed to operating responsibly.

We're a small family run operation and this property is very important to our household.

Thank you so much for your time and your consideration.

Thank you.

Have you renewed the permit, or is this are you still in the original three years?

Uh we were on we're on the existing three years.

Our city was about to expire when our permit was revoked.

And staff do they so she uh the applicator mentioned that they have paid all uh payments.

Uh is there anything outstanding from this applicant as of today?

Um she's missing um February 2025 in um February 2026 one year apart she's missing April 2025.

And she's missing February 2026.

So you're missing two months.

Uh the the applicant provided that to me this morning of those payments made.

The April was already paid, just that it wasn't posting, it was presented as processing, but it finally posted and the February month was uh paid today.

And that would happen sometimes, uh that discrepancy what I would log in and I in my head I thought it I did because I went in there and I put in a month and I forgot about it, and when I would receive a notice, it would go in and sometimes it was too improper.

Have you been assessed a penalty of any kind?

Yes, sir, a lot.

And that's been paid?

Yes, sir, everything's been paid.

Any questions?

Manna?

Commissioner Manor?

So the the dialogue with regards to um so it like it's floating or or not quite completed.

So is there a reasoning why that happens or or any ideas of why it's something like that would happen?

So through avenue, it does take when you report online, it does take a couple of days or so for it to be posted on our end.

In those instances we have worked with applicants and owners to provide hot payment seas as proof they paid prior to relocation, and we would reinstate the permit at that time.

So if we were provided the information, we could verify that before revoking or reinstating the permit.

So for the April 2025, so was that paid back in uh closer to the April 2025 timeline, or was that also recently made current once it was found that those missed?

It was recently found out once I I knew it was as soon as I knew it was missed.

Okay, immediately filed and paid.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Any other questions?

A quick question.

So if this is approved, then she still would have the renewal coming up.

Is that just doesn't satisfy it would be date?

In the time that this was revoked to where we are today, the the permit's natural life has expired.

So if this is reinstated by the board, they will need to submit the appropriate application and we'll go through that.

But that 12-month penalty would not be assessed.

And at that point it would be an administrative approval for the renewal.

Correct.

Yeah, we basically the the permit that she had is expired today, even if it were not revoked.

So we would need a permit renewal application.

It would actually be processed as a new one because it has been revoked.

Did you understand that?

Yes, sir, I do.

It is very important because if you're the only SDR on the block, if someone else turns one in tomorrow, then you don't want them to beat you to it.

Absolutely.

If this gets approved at all.

Um if there's no other questions, any public comment?

Yes, we have Mr.

Hector Martinez signed up to speak.

All right.

Mr.

Martinez, if you can state your name for for the uh recording for the record and tell us your thoughts.

Greetings, everyone.

I'm Hector Martinez.

I live at 312 Keller Street.

And uh basically I grew up in that neighborhood.

And I've seen a lot of uh dramatic changes in my neighborhood through the past uh several years.

And uh the Excuse me, Mr.

Martinez, could you get a little closer so we can hear you listen?

Okay.

Uh the only concern I have is that uh uh I didn't first I didn't realize I thought that there was a family that purchased the house.

I didn't know if it was a rental or so I'm a little, you know, uh just wanted to know is it owned by a family or is it rented out?

And that's basic basically what I wanted to know.

And uh only my only concern is that uh the tenants are properly vetted uh for criminal background, like I really don't that that's a nice home.

You know, it's been I can see that a lot of money was put into it to renovate it.

And uh I just want to make sure that uh the tenants are properly vetted, not to uh to ask to not to uh invite any criminal activity or uh loud you know noises or uh anything that's uh disturbing the uh and uh only one time uh since I've been uh since that place has been remodeled.

There was one time that last year there was one birthday party thrown on Saturday night that lasted till about say two o'clock in the morning, but no big deal.

That was a one time most of the time it's been very quiet, and uh I don't hardly see the residents there, but uh uh other than that uh I just basically is it rented and uh are the attendants properly vetted vetted to make sure that they do not engage in activity that disturbs the peace, like this family disturbances like that.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, have the applicant come back uh if yeah, there you go.

Uh so you've heard some concerns from your neighbor.

Yes, Mr.

Martinez, right?

Uh yes, so the property is owned by legally owned by my husband.

I'm the one that manages it.

It's not we're not a large corporation.

It's me and him and our two young kids.

Um your other concern was betting uh our tenants.

So on our platform, we do our best to do that.

Um and we could do so by one, you know, having slightly higher rents or rates, which we've seen, you know, works by vetting out some of the uh um, you know, by by making it just a cheap property.

And uh secondly, there's a there's a a setting we can put on there where people can't instantly book.

We have to kind of review them first, and that's what we do.

So that's that's the that's what we can do on our part, and we're doing it so far.

Okay.

All right, thank you, sir.

All right, thank you.

Of course, thank you.

Any uh questions from the commission?

Uh Cruz.

Commissioner Cruz.

I'm just wondering, did you even talk to the Collins Garden neighborhood?

Because I know that even though you're considered district one, it's a split of one and five.

So I'm just trying to figure it out.

Um yes, I did reach out via email to the neighborhood.

I did not hear back from them.

All right, thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

All right.

If there's no other questions, all right.

I'm looking for a motion.

Ragman.

Commissioner Braggman.

Regarding case number BOA-26-103034, I move the board of adjustment, grant the appeal for the property situated at 308 Keller Street.

Applicant being Jacob Garcia, because the information provided by the applicant shows that city staff made an error in enforcing section 16-110 when revoking the short-term rental permit.

End of motion.

Second second by Commissioner Beneas, Commissioner Braggman.

Uh well, we keep seeing these same issues coming up and uh over and over again.

And so I I you know I'm gonna give the applicant the benefit of the doubt that because of the switch in um the platform that reports hot and and all of that to the city, um, that she'd be given uh an opportunity to uh continue.

Um she is up to date on all of our hot taxes, so I'll be in support.

Thank you, Commissioner Beneas.

Yeah, I'll too be in support for all the same reasons uh my colleague listed.

Also um there's no other pending STR permits.

Uh I feel the uh applicant uh admitted their errors and they're gonna stand by uh doing right going forward.

So I think we'll get those taxes paid on time going forward.

I mean support.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to add?

Mana?

Commissioner Manna.

And I think this one's a little bit different simply because of you know that we'll say what's out of compliance, and it looked to be minimal with regards to what was missed versus prior ones where it was a long history where this one didn't appear to be that.

So I'll be voting in favor for that.

And I will as well.

Just I mean it's when there's no complaints and there's it's not exceeding the 12 and a half percent, and especially if they've already paid a fine, I think they've been reprimanded enough at this point.

So I'll be in favor.

Let's have a roll call vote.

Commissioner Braggman?

I concur.

Commissioner Bonnie.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibanneth.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

No, I do not concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Mana.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides.

I concur.

Commissioner Ozuna.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Oyan.

And I can cover the findings of fact.

Motion passes 10 to 1.

Congratulations.

And please be careful.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Item number six.

All right.

Good afternoon.

This is for BOA-26-103035, which is an appeal of the administrator's decision to revoke the short-term rental permit.

However, uh just as the meeting was starting, um, staff did receive additional information that we would like to review and are asking for a continuance until April 6th.

Okay, is there anyone centered to speak?

Voicemails.

There is no public comment.

All right.

And the applicant's obviously okay with that.

Um I haven't been able to speak with him just yet, but I did send him a message.

Is the applicant here for item six, 1828 Sacramento?

Uh you oppose uh please state your name.

Good afternoon.

My name is Diego Gomez.

And are you opposed to a continuance?

No.

All right.

How much time do you need staff?

Um just uh just until April 6th.

All right, April 6th.

Thanks, uh uh Tyler.

Is there a motion to continue on April 6th?

So moved.

Second.

Okay, we have uh all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, we will see everybody back on April 6th.

April, yeah, April 6th.

Uh item 7.

This is BOA 26-103011.

The applicant is Zega architecture.

The council district is two, and the location is 510 Booker Alley.

The zoning is R4.

Uh the request is for a variance for the lot layout standards to allow for primary access and frontage of a single family residential lot along an alley.

The subject property is situated in the middle of the block face along Booker Alley.

The applicant submitted residential building permits to the city of San Antonio in order to build new single-family residences.

Upon further review by COSA staff, it was noticed that the lot frontage would need to be along Booker Alley.

In order to continue with the project, uh variance is needed.

The fire marshal's office reviewed and approved an administrative variance, AEVR for the section 506 E7B requirement regarding minimum paved alley widths.

The AEVR was approved with the condition that the structure will have a wet pipe fire sprinkler system designed and installed in accordance with the National Fire Protection Act.

Uh National Fire Protection Association 13D standards.

The resident is also within 150 feet of a fire station, which strengthen strengthen the case.

This is the OHP summary.

The property is located within the Dignity Hills Historic District.

Any exterior modifications on new construction will require approval from the Office of Historical Preservation.

Approval of a site plan and materials submitted as part of a variance application does not supersede any requirements for design review outlined in Article VI of the unified development code.

On May 7th, 2025, the historic and design review commission approved the request for construction of a 2.5 story single family residential structure and a detached two-story accessory structure on site.

This is the site plan.

This is the subject property.

And this is the surrounding area along Booker Alley.

Staff recommends uh approval in BOA 26-103011 based on the following findings of fact.

The proposed single family residence is consistent with surrounding residential character.

And the request has been reviewed by the fire marshal's office and approved through an AEBR for uh substandard street access with the condition that the residents be equipped with a wet pipe fire sprinkler system in accordance with the NFPA 13D standards.

We mailed 28 notices.

Uh we got two in favor, and uh we got five from outside 200 feet and one in opposition.

Uh the neighbor the Dignity Hill Neighborhood Association responded in opposition, and I'd like to point out when we get to that, they put the wrong date on there.

So just to clear up any confusion.

This is the uh the applicant provided the support for the variants.

And this is the in opposition.

The they put the wrong date.

I went and double checked my email.

Okay.

And this concludes staff's presentation.

Is this property received a COD for a plat exception?

I don't.

I believe they did.

Let me double check.

And that would have come to us because it was under 4,000 square feet, right?

Okay.

So we've already seen this at one time.

May we see uh the opposition letter from Dignity again?

And uh, so how many properties are in this alley that that will be leveraging it?

Is this the only one?

Or are you facing the alley?

Facing the yeah, so how many properties are off the one other facing the alley so I'm um I'm gonna have to uh express my opposition to this case even being before the board today.

Um so I sent an email uh to a bunch of people on February 19th when this was first put on the agenda, and my issue with it is is that there are some parts of this code where if there's a a conflict, it comes to us first.

There's other parts of the code where it goes to you guys first, and then it comes to us as an appeal.

And so the section of code that I personally think uh that applies to this case for the benefit of the board is uh, and this is regarding sites that already exist.

So there are parts of the code that talk about sites that are you're trying to build or you're trying to subdivide or you're trying to do whatever.

The code that that applies to this is 35506 D9B1, which states where platted property or property meeting a plat exception, like one who has a COD under uh is adjacent to or contiguous to an existing publicly maintained street, this alley, and the pavement cross section of the existing street is less than the minimum required for the development accessing the existing street, no permit for the property shall be issued or any utility connected until this is you know been remedied.

That section of the code is supposed to is subject to an A V E R, which if got denied should then come to us.

Since staff is in approval of this, I'm curious why staff didn't just issue an AVER and not have this come here in the first place.

I'm also interested if there was a COD to build a home, why wasn't if if if they felt like staff felt like this should have come to us, they should have been grouped under that same application.

And thirdly, if they already receive an AVR for the width, doesn't that already make this issue go away?

And I don't want to get into the habit of things that shouldn't be coming here, coming here.

We already have enough to do.

So I'm just putting that out there.

I would love to hear somebody to tell me otherwise.

So I'm not sure I can tell the chairman otherwise.

Okay.

I can state that uh the recommendation to come to this body was due to the code section 35515 C4, which the code says must go to the BOA.

Right.

Does not give us administrative authority.

And um it was construed that because the lot does not have frontage on a public or private street or a platted irrevocable ingress egress easement, that it was not in conformance with that section.

The ABR that was approved was for the section 506 E7B uh not being in conformance with a fire access.

And the fire marshal waited on that one that they were so close to the fire station he said they didn't even have to roll a truck that could draw hose.

So that was the reason for the AVR to be approved, and that was the reason that that we brought forth the variance request to this body.

And I I understand.

Um my uh prime conflict with the use of any section of 515 is that it's entitled lot layout regulations.

It's supposed to apply when you're laying out a lot or creating a lot or modifying a lot.

It's not supposed to be for existing th uh elements that have existed prior to 2005 under the COD exception.

I I still don't agree that this should come here.

And this sounds like something we can possibly add to a UDC amendment in the next year when this comes up to avoid this sort of thing happening.

So if um I just wanted to put that out there.

And it did receive uh COD in 2023.

Okay.

Commissioner is so what is the chair's recommendation?

We're giving the legislative.

I have to tell you, it's uh I want to be fair to the applicant.

He's here.

Money has been spent.

Uh whether I agree whether they should be here or not.

Um I don't want to do any I personally wanted to just abstain because I don't feel comfortable with this even being before the board.

But on the other hand, um I don't think that there's going to be any harm to voting on this is to make this move along.

I personally think it should go back to staff for an AUVR under the section I read.

But um just to if if I think this is going to be addressed in the next year through a UDC clarification, uh I don't I don't mind moving forward just for the sake of the applicant at this point.

May I Dimitcher Manna?

Also I do have a question because Digwity Hill states here that the city was in opposition as their opening statement.

And so um was the city in opposition at one point or did they misunderstand?

We were originally in opposition um when it first came to us.

Um this is the updated after we reviewed the AVR done by the fire marshal and the traffic department input.

Did the city get back with Diggity Hill to explain uh that their position had changed?

Um so that they may have reviewed it differently.

Uh nothing besides the published uh staff report that we put online on the agenda.

Bonus for the city?

Commissioner Whitney?

Uh for 512 booker alley, was there variants requested for that building?

When I uh looked, I did not see one.

How did they go through about gentlemen wants to do what what process did they go through?

Was it just having a COD and kind of like what the commissioner was saying?

Well, the C a COD if it if it meets if it if it doesn't qualify for it is not platted, and this is not platted.

Um it was actually I take that back.

It was platted in the city clerk's record uh back in uh in civil uh engineering survey book number three, back in the 1800s, late 1800s, it was platted the way plattering occurred back then, uh which is there is recognition under the under the uh under the city code for those exemptions.

So it most likely would have qualified for a C COD if it met all the exemptions like this property had, uh if it was created before 05 and all that good stuff.

Um there there's some there's some issues that I think our board needs to look at under the UD, like for example, the the fire department variants that the section that was granted under actually the preamble of that says four developments greater than 125 lots.

There's not even 20 bloc 20 developments on this whole block.

And so there's there's parts of this code where staff is trying to do the right thing and trying to do what's good for the community, but maybe the code isn't as clear as to that mechanism and who looks at what what timing and all that good stuff.

So Chair, this is Ivan Yusuke.

Yes, Commissioner Bond.

Um I just want to clarify that the what we are voting on is that a primary access to this construction is allowed on this uh alley.

That's what we're that's what we would vote on today.

We're because it is substandard.

Right.

And that is and this is this happens in a lot of the crack.

And it is substandard because of why?

The width.

The width?

Yeah.

There's a there's a couple of reasons.

Like for example, you have to have uh like garbage pickup, they want 15 feet of width to do garbage pickup.

If you're gonna have two-way traffic, I believe it's 20, and maybe staff can correct me on this.

It's either 22 or 24 feet for two-way traffic minimum on an alley.

For the width of the of the alley.

Yes.

But this alley is 20 feet, right?

This alley is 15 feet.

13 feet paid.

Okay.

So one issue, a big issue is fire protection.

So for example, if a fire truck is going down an abbreviated entry, they want at least a 14-foot minimum, but this is an entire stretch.

That's why they negotiated a sprinkler system and and it's within 150 feet of hose lake because there's a hydrant and a fire station like right across the way there.

But um, you know, so there was some negotiation to make sure it's safe.

And the city for some cases would take meant.

Wouldn't they?

Well, they don't they don't have the full connection to the corner.

They're I'm an isolated piece.

And so that's why they wouldn't then.

And so that's why they wouldn't then this alley like I said in 1800s and then it was broken up further the the way they used to do that it used to go down and do it by hand.

You know this is old the early 1900 kind of stuff.

And so it's just where we're at today.

I'm ready to hear the applicant.

Is that the applicant come forward please state your name tell us about your project.

Adriana Zika with the Ziga Architecture Studio and we're the architect on the project.

So yes there's been a lot of back and forth between us and the city we got the ABR with fire.

We had been issued a COD in back in March of 2023 and as part of the plan review process the city determined that it had been issued an error because of this issue with the width of the alley so in order for the COD to become valid we need um we needed a variance to address the situation of the alley and like Commissioner Orion was saying it's the the property is in the middle of that the the block there's no access to it it's surrounded by houses it that is the only access to the property.

So we believe the variance is not contrary to the public interest because the if the variance is approved it will not impact the general well being of the public or any adjacent neighbors due to special conditions a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship.

The property existed in its current configuration before a client purchased the property it is the only property that faces Booker Alley on this block.

There is no other main access to the property besides through Booker Alley and it is surrounded by existing houses.

A literal enforcement of the ordinance would render the property unusable and unbuildable by granting the variance the spirit of the ordinance would will be observed and substantial justice will be done since Booker Alley is not wide enough to be improved to allow emergency access to the property all proposed structures will be equipped with a fire sprinkler system.

This is in addition to the proximity of the property to the fire station across the street which has been um negotiated with the fire department through the AAVR.

Such variants will not authorize the operation of a use other than those users uses specifically authorized for the district in which the subject property is located if approved the variants will not change the use of the property such variants will not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming property or alter the essential character of the district in which the property is located the variants will not create a negative impact on adjacent property owners it won't affect the use of their property or negatively change the surrounding built environment as having houses off of alleys is not uncommon within urban neighborhoods especially within the Dignoody Hill Historic District in which the property is located the plight of the owner of the property 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 to or the result of general conditions in the district in which the property is located the property has unique characteristics due to its location and its frontage on Booker Alley it is the only lot facing Booker alley and due to these characteristics which are innate to the property and from which the hardship arises we request the board to consider our case and approve our variance.

All right thank you any questions from the commission all right we'll see how this turns out I'm looking for a motion.

Thank you.

And there's no public comment oh thank you who would like to make a motion on this one we stay met Commissioner Reed.

Okay regarding case number BOA 26103011 I move that the Board of Adjustment grant a variance for the lot layout standards to allow for primary access and frontage of a single family residential lot on an alley situated at 510 Booker Alley applicant being Ziga architecture studio PLLC because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we have determined so that 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 unnecessary hardship.

Specifically we find that one the variance is not contrary to the public interest in this case the variance is not contrary to the public interest as the only access to this lot is through Booker Alley and there is currently another single family residence fronting Booker Alley.

Two due to special conditions a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in un hardship special condition of this property is the lack of access to this lot from any other street causing unnecessary hardship to be able to build on this lot.

Three, by granting the variance, 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 allowing access to the lot along Booker Alley will allow the development of the lot for single family residents.

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

No uses other than those allowed within the district will be allowed at 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.

Granting this variance would not substantially injure the adjacent property owners as the other single family residences also front Booker Alley.

Six, the play 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 the result of general conditions in the district in which the property is located.

The play of the property owner is due to the unique circumstances of the location, including the lack of access to any other right-of-way besides Booker Alley.

And a motion.

Second.

Thank you by Commissioner Manner.

Commissioner Reed.

Um I I'll be in support of this.

I think the applicant has received the AVR from FIRE, which is the biggest concern.

There's obviously another property facing Booker Alley directly next door.

I don't see any other potential solutions here that allow the owner to take full use of this property.

Commissioner Mann.

I I concur with my colleague.

And I find it incredible that the fire department across the street was okay with this in general, but you know, they gave it okay, and so if they're okay, I guess I'm going to be okay.

All right.

Anyone else like to add?

Uh yeah, I'll be in favor.

I think it's a better use of this um info lot than what's currently there now.

So with that, let's have a roll call vote.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Anna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Ibanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benabinus.

I concur.

Commissioner Ozuna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonnieas.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vaskith.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I can go with the findings of fact.

Motion passes.

11 to 0.

Congratulations.

We will be taking a seven-minute break.

See you all back at 301.

305, we're back in session.

Item number eight.

Good afternoon.

Item number eight is BOA-25-103-00255.

Located in District 7 on 154 Babcock Road.

The zoning is 02, and their request is for one, a 29-foot eleven-inch variance from the minimum 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 inside setback.

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 services offices 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.

Additionally, the property owner must be approved for an administrative variance to keep existing barbed wire along the rear inside property lines.

The potential approval for such barbed wire is conditional on their barbed wire, complying with minimum building setback standards.

For this reason, the applicant requests a reduction of the rear inside setback standards to keep the barbed wire in its current location.

This is the site plan.

This is an aerial view of the subject property.

This is the current view of the subject property.

And this is surrounding area.

Staff Ferkum is denial in BOA-25-1030255.

Based on the following findings of fact one, accessory structures except for carports are prohibited within the site 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.

No response from the Montesillo Park Neighborhood Association.

And Maverick Neighborhood Association is opposed.

This is the response received in support.

And this is the response from Maverick Neighborhood Association received in opposition.

This concludes staff's presentation.

All right, thank you very much.

The advocate come forward.

Tell us your name and tell us about your project.

Hello.

Hello, my name is Gustavo Samanielo.

Um Gilbert wasn't able to make it.

He was the applicant, but I'm the owner of the property.

Um we are looking for the the 15-foot variants.

Originally we wanted 10, but when we came, um we um y'all wanted us to get with the Maverick Association to see if we would agree, which we did.

We were able to have a meeting, like a successful meeting with them, and um we were able to come to an agreement at 15.

And we're looking for the variance just because it would help us out a lot with the if we were to put it at a 30, it would just take so much space back there, and then we'll have that that whole back side of it, you know, empty.

So we're looking for it at a at a 15.

Do you have anything from from Maverick?

Is the only documentation I'm seeing in the file?

They're actually present.

Oh, okay.

That'll be speaking.

All right.

Ma.

Yes, Commissioner Manon.

And so we um why was this postponed last or that?

This we had this last week and was postponed or or continued.

Yes, I believe is to provide more time to speak with the neighborhood associations.

Okay, okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Well, I'd love to hear from the neighborhood association.

Thank you.

Appreciate you.

Is uh did they sign up to speak?

We have one uh speaker, Ms.

Maldonado.

All right.

Please state your name for the record and tell us what happened.

Bianca Maldonado, president of the Monticello Park Neighborhood Association.

So you have a letter from Maverick, and the applicant met with Monticello Park.

So he met with us.

Um, and no, thank you for allowing time for the applicant to meet with us to discuss these um revised setback requests per the site plan that's being provided to you before you.

Um, he's also removed the uh fire damaged accessory structure that was on the property that you saw that huge amount of debris that was behind there.

We had a lot of conversations about maintenance and being good neighbors, and we feel like we're at a better place now.

I don't know that Maverick had that same opportunity to engage with the property owner.

I did reach out to Mr.

Fonseca and didn't hear back from him.

Um, but we did meet with him because we have properties that are two parcels down from this property homes that back up to the structure.

So it was important based on the history of that there had been fires on this property, there had been a new owner, um, and then of course a lot of trespassing activity.

So we're hopefully that those conditions have resolved themselves with being a more proactive owner and engagement in the community.

So thank you for the extra time.

I also want to make sure that I point out that it's important that as you move forward with no longer having voicemails that you ensure Board of Adjustment staff is adequately engaging with folks within a 200 foot radius, because I indicated back in January when we met, I had reached out to the new case manager of record and did not receive a reply.

And so I know the case manager of record, since you continued the case two weeks ago, reached out to Maverick but did not reach out to us.

So there's just an inconsistency, and if staff changes their recommendations, just like happened in the last case and actually happened in this case, the number of items that they need variances for, you know, to defer back to go look at essay speak up to everybody.

That's not engagement.

If you're a registered neighborhood association within 200 feet, so if you could just ask staff, I know you have the ability to do that for cases when there are individuals who engage with them, and the case continues on to ensure that they're engaging and communicating with those registered neighborhood associations within 200 feet.

We would greatly appreciate it for all the neighborhoods that are out there, and thank you for your service and thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mana.

So one of the questions here is a barbed wire.

So we talked about the placement.

You're okay with the barbed wire as well.

We didn't discuss the barbed wire, to be honest, and I will tell you I'm not really in favor of the barbed wire.

Just because there is an apartment complex on the back, and there are children in the area.

There is a parking lot that abuts the entire back side of this property and the properties around this adjacent property.

So I apologize, sir, that we did not discuss that.

Um I forgot that that was requested, and I don't know if that changed from the original notification.

So we originally there were three variants requests on this one.

It was initially noticed, and it did change.

So once again, the communication on how that evolves.

So just we were at two and then it went to three, and now we're back at two.

But I would say no barbed wire, with all due respect.

Just because there's a multifamily unit with children, and there's a basketball setup on the next property next door, the bakery next door to you that fronts Babcock.

So in the pictures on the file, the the picture with the basketball court that is that on the subject property.

Is that on yours?

Okay, where is the where is the barbed wire in relation to this picture?

See it right there.

It's against that back fence where that uh trash can thing is.

That's the apartment complex.

It used to be an affordable housing tax credit development, but it still would qualify as an affordable housing based on their rental rates that are there.

It's probably um parking auto, it's been operational for about 45 years.

Okay.

So there are a lot of kids that just play back there, and that because there's not a lot of people that park up against.

If you go back to the aerial overview, you'll see there's head end parking all along that rear property line.

And nobody really parks there.

Am I seeing this right?

It looks like the barbed wire was created not by typical metal post, but it's just something that was bolted onto the top of the wood post.

Yes.

Okay.

All righty.

So the applicant come back up.

Is there any questions for the applicant from the commission?

How important is the bar park?

It's to me, it's not.

I was trying to be a a good neighbor to our the law firm that's on the side of us because of all the homeless activity.

And she's she really asked, like, oh, it would be really great, like to help us out with the activity that we would um on this picture.

The barbed wire on the left side is backing the nape the apartment.

Yeah, on the left side does just like about but that backs of the apartment.

But the barbed wire that's that's behind that reddish uh building that's abutting the law firm.

Okay.

Is it is uh is any part of this motion for staff, is any part of this motion regarding the barbed wire um next to that red building, or is it solely dealing with the barbed wire line that runs along the apartment complex?

I think it's just the apartment complex, right?

For the rear uh the property.

Um I believe Broncy, is that the only uh portion that we're so if we left off the barbed wire portion of the motion, it's not gonna have any impact on the status of the one next to the red building next to the law firm.

For the the one on the right.

It'd be on the left side on the picture that's up right now.

Yeah, that's um against uh commercial, not residential, so there wouldn't be any setback requirements on that one.

Okay.

So that's yeah.

Just to let everyone know whoever reads a motion.

Well, alrighty.

If there's anything nothing else, is there any voicemails?

No voicemails.

All right, looking for a motion.

Oh Zuna.

Commissioner Zuna.

Regarding case number BOA-25-1030255.

I move that the Board of Adjustment grant a request for one a 29-foot eleven-inch variance for the minimum required 30-foot rear and 20-foot side stepback to allow an accessory structure with the 15-foot rear setback, and to 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 situated at 154 Babcock Road.

Applicant being Bill Gilbert uh vodka, because of testimony presented to us and the facts that we determine show that the physical character of this property is such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the UDC has amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

Specifically find that one, the variance is not contrary to the public interest, the proposed setback would not would provide adequate spacing for the adjacent multifamily residential use.

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

A literal enforcement of the setback standards would result in unnecessary hardship as it would prevent the reasonable and functional use of the rear yard for any purpose.

Uh three by granting the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed, substantial justice will be done.

The spirit of the ordinance will be observed with the reduction of the rear setback as there would be adequate separation between the accessory structure and the residential lot lies to protect neighbors from negative impacts, such as visual obstruction noise or loss of privacy.

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

No uses other than those allowed within the district will be allowed with its variants.

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.

Uh granting this variants would not substantially injure the appropriate use of the conforming property to the rear, as there is adequate separation between commercial and residential uses.

And six, the plot 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, not merely financial, not due to the result of general conditions of the district in which the property is located.

Limited rear yard space is to accommodate the proposed structure and support adequate parking for the proposed use.

Such a condition is not really financial, was not created by the owner, and is not the result of general conditions within the district in the motion.

Second I just wanted to confirm.

Did you say 29 feet 11 inches?

Or did you mean because you're not really you didn't read the barbed wire section, it should be just 15 feet.

Okay, it should be 15.

Okay.

Uh except the So there's a motion for a 15-foot uh setback uh to uh um and with no reference to barbed wire at all in the motion.

Second, second by Commissioner Manna, Commissioner Zuna.

Yeah, yeah.

So I will be in support.

We've seen this this case um had a continuance at the last meeting for the applicant to see concurrence on the Monticello uh association, which he did, and uh we had testimony from Ms.

Maldonado that supported the request.

The the barbed wire which was the most contentious was taken off of the variants.

Um I think it provides a space uh separation for fire safety that the neighborhood was concerned about, and so I think it meets all other conditions uh that the association was seeking.

So uh supported.

Great.

Thank you, Commissioner Manna.

I concur with my colleague.

Uh anyone else like to add?

Here now's have a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Osina?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner A.

Bonus.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

I concur.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of facts.

Commissioner Benavides.

I concur.

Commissioner Bonnyas?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

The fact motion passes eleven to zero.

Uh, if you have any questions, you can get with staff.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Item nine.

Good afternoon.

Item nine is BOA-26-103027, located in District 1 at 702 West Hollywood Avenue.

The zoning is R6 with an N C D 5 overlay.

And the request is for an 8 foot 6-inch variance from the N C D 5 minimum 20-foot front yard setback design standard to allow an eight-foot six-inch front setback.

The subject property is located along West Hollywood Avenue, southwest of the intersection of West Hollywood Avenue and Beacon Avenue.

The surrounding areas primarily developed with single-family residences on lot zoned R6 with some lots zoned R M4 in the surrounding area.

A residential improvements permit application was submitted in November of 2025.

The Beacon Hill Area Neighborhood Conservation District was adopted in 2005 and later reinstated and amended in 2017.

The requested variants would have been required even prior to the 2017 amendment.

The standards specified for this district are intended to preserve and perpetuate the character of the historical buildings in the area while promoting an increase in the amount of quality of spaces designed for neighbor interaction.

Any new development proposed after 2017 must adhere to the latest design standards imposed by the zoning overlay district.

This is the site plan.

This is the subject property.

And this is the surrounding area.

Staff recommends denial in BOA-26-103-00027 based on the following findings of fact.

One, the NCD 5 Beacon Hill Area Neighborhood Conservation District provides guidelines for development so that historically common site and building configurations are perpetuated in the future.

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

Staff mailed out for 44 notices.

We received two in favor inside 200 feet.

Is there an opposition outside 200 feet?

We received one in favor.

And Beacon Hill Area Neighborhood Association is in support.

This is the Beacon Hill Area Neighborhood Association letter.

And then these are the responses received in support.

Thank you.

It's another quick question.

The NCD, does it cover porches?

I mean, is what they're I'm trying to ask if what they're attempting to do is in line with what the NCD would want.

Except for the setback.

I would have to look up, I would have to go back and look and see if they address porches specifically.

Uh but when it comes to front setbacks, that's why experience is here for the 20 foot minimum.

I can look up I can answer that.

Um so any new construction or any uh renovation over 50 percent is required a porch.

This is not required to have a porch, they're voluntarily putting on porches.

Okay.

I'm just curious because you know sometimes you have one thing that promotes something and something else it might not and then the uh setback is in the front setback language, not in the front facade language, which would be you know, the front facade would be the principal wall, so a porch if it would have said that it would have counted, but since this is a setback, we have to count the porch as a front setback.

All right, thank you.

Commissioner May.

So is the city's position then they would be in opposition even if this was not in an NCD?

Or is it simply because it's in the N C D is why it is a cities and opposition?

If it's if it was not in the N C D it would be the regular 10 foot front setback, so it wouldn't have to be here.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

And let's have the applicant come forward.

All right, state your name and tell us about your porch.

Good afternoon.

My name is Jose Yamas.

I am the general contractor for Mr.

and Mrs.

Guevara.

They are looking to uh build a front porch for two reasons functionality and for curb appeal.

As you look at the pictures that were on the slide before, um they've owned this house for over 20 years, and I think back then that wall is well now it's now a um converted um closet, so there's no window that can be put there or anything.

Oh, okay, thank you.

Um but uh so we ran other options as far as putting trees or anything like that, and there's no way to do it.

You got a power line on one side, then there's just it's impossible on the other.

Um but uh as you can see there, there's an existing um deck that's a dilapidated, and we would like to move that.

So what we're asking is 11 foot six would end right about here.

So it's not gonna extend much more than what is existing now.

Um the design had been turned in with uh it has been drawn by an architect, and uh the design is to follow the uh the rules and designs of the surrounding houses.

Um yeah, it's just to bring some curb appeal and functionality to to the home.

All right.

Uh is there any uh commissioner questions?

Hearing none, is there any of uh uh when it's time to speak voicemails?

We have uh two voicemails and two speakers.

All right, let's start with the voicemails.

Yes, my name is Cynthia Walker.

I live at 1038 West Summit Avenue.

Phone number is area code 8184892599.

I'm calling a reference to BOA 26103027 in regards to 702 West Hollywood.

Um, do your board of adjustment member at the Bahana resident decoded on February 9, 2026 to support the applicant's request for the variance of the NCD five or the front setback variance of eight feet four inches for 702 West Hollywood.

The NCD requirement of front setback minimum is 20 feet.

The minimum the meeting included in the presentation and a common question and answer period to the neighbors.

So the neighbors could make an informed decision.

The residents voted to support for the following reasons.

The request is compatible with the spirit of the NCD five focus on front porches.

The porch will help disguise the blank wall that faces the street.

The change will improve not only the home but the surrounding properties.

The NCD five standards are community standards that help create a more stable neighborhood as we embrace change while preserving what residents choose the most important elements of our built environment, and we take them very seriously.

But this is a case that honors the spirit of the standard instead of exactly the letter two letter of the lock.

Thank you so much, Cynthia Walker, chair of the zoning urban design committee for the Beacon Hill Neighborhood Association.

Thank you.

Hello, I am Colin on the page number BOA 26103.

00027 regarding 702 West Hollywood Avenue.

My name is Sally Feeker.

I'm a resident of the Beacon Hill neighborhood and reside at 601 West Lowwood Avenue, San Antonio, Texas, 78212.

My phone number is 2104161723.

I'm calling in support of the request.

Yeah, 702 West Hollywood.

I support this for as a two-block away neighbor for the safety of the resident and the aesthetical improvement the resident without significantly impacting the spirit of the NCD that support portrait.

I support this project.

Thank you.

Um Henry Krauss.

All right, please state your name, tell us your thoughts.

My name is Henry Crausey.

I live at 812 West Mistletoe.

I've lived in Beacon Hill for 22 years.

Only became involved in the neighborhood of association a year ago, but I am apparently protocol prevents me from speaking for the neighborhood association, so I'm here as a private citizen.

That said, I would urge you to listen to the neighborhood association.

I got sucked into service on the ZUD committee a year ago, and I can tell you they take things extremely seriously.

They're very fair-minded.

I went into it thinking it was an engine for not in my backyard.

I've been pleasantly surprised.

Uh and the desirability of a uniform streetscape is obvious, but but it is not central.

Front porches are central to this conservation district.

The design and and people remarked on it at the general monthly meeting when they signed off on supporting this variance.

The design for this porch looks beautiful, and what you have right now is just kind of oddball.

There's no window there, it was just a historical accident that somebody boarded up a former front porch.

I would really urge you to support this variance, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you.

Thank you very much.

That's all the public comments.

All right.

Well, is there any other commissioner questions?

I think I'm ready for a motion.

Fragment.

Commissioner Bragman.

Regarding case number BOA-26-103027.

I move to the Board of Adjustment Grant a request for an eight foot six-inch variants from the NCD 5 minimum, 20-foot front yard setback design standard to allow 11-foot six-inch front setback situated at 702 West Hollywood Avenue applicant being Joe Yamas, because the testimony presented to us and the facts we have determined show that the physical character of this property is such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code as amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

A variance from the NCD 5 standard for the front setback would not allow the applicant a variance from other development standards adopted by the Beacon Hill Area NCD or within the UCD, thus serving the public interest.

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

A literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship as there are there is insufficient space to expand the porch area and still comply with the current NCD 5 standards.

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

Substantial justice would be served in granting the variants as the reduced front setback would still provide adequate space to contribute to uniform neighborhood streetscape, while also permitting the development of a porch that enhances neighborhood character, both of which observe the spirit of the ordinance.

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

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

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

Granting the variance would be consistent with the essential character of the district, as the variants would not introduce a structure that is new to the property and would simply provide reduced setback requirements to allow for the improvement of the existing porch.

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

Staff finds the plight of the owner of the property, which the variance is sought is due to unique circumstances existing on the property, such as the front setback in relation to the existing primary structure, end of motion.

Second second by Commissioner Reed.

Was it Reed or Mana?

Mana, okay.

Commissioner Braggman.

Um I'll be in support of this motion.

Obviously, um they've put a lot of thought into making sure it stays within the NCD guidelines.

Um they've got a lot of support from the neighbors, they've got support from the neighborhood associations, so I'll be in support.

Thank you, Commissioner Manna.

I'm gonna pass the reef.

Uh yes, uh you know, generally I would be um against reducing the front setback, but I think in this particular situation, since there is sort of um abnormal enclosure of the original front porch, and especially the fact that Beacon Hill supports this.

Uh I'm gonna be in support of the variance.

Great, thank you.

Anyone else like to add?

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

Commissioner Bragman.

I can concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibannis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Mana.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides.

I concur.

Commissioner Ozuna.

Yes, I can curve.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I can curve.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of fact.

Motion passes 11 to 00.

Congratulations.

Item 10.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

Thank you.

Item number 10 is BOA-26-103028, located in District 1 on 619 Barb Street.

The zoning is RM4, and the request is for a four foot 11 inch variance from the minimum five foot side setback to allow corporate with gutters to be one inch from the western side property line.

The subject property is located along Barb Street between Cedar Street and South St.

Mary Street.

The surrounding area is a mixture of residential and commercial based zoning districts consisting of RM4, C2, C2 CD with the conditional use for auto sales, motor suitors, scooter sales, and C3NA.

The case originated from a request from the city's Office of Historic Preservation.

The OHP has provided a certificate of appropriateness dated November 21st, 2025, and has stated that staff recommends approval to construct a carport along the western facade behind the front wall plane with the stipulation that the applicant obtain a variance from the Board of Adjustment.

The applicant was requesting a four foot eleven inch variance from the minimum five-foot side setback to allow carport with guiders to be one inch from the western side property line.

The carport was constructed without gutters per staff's site visit to the site in February of 2026.

This is the site plan.

This is the subject property.

And this is the surrounding area.

Staff recommends denial in BOA-26-103-00028 based on the following findings.

In fact, one, the granting of the reduced side setback variants will not observe the spirit of the ordinance as a carport would be too close to the side property line and water runoff may be imposed onto the abundant property.

Two, if granted, the carport would maintain a one-inch distance from the property to the southwest, would which which would alter the essential character of the district as this reduced standard was not observed in other properties in the immediate surrounding area, nor is it characteristic of residential districts developed in the compliance with UDC regulations.

Staff mailed out 34 notices.

One was received in favor in one was received in favor inside 200 feet, one was received in favor outside 200 feet.

Zero were received in opposition.

King William Neighborhood Association is in opposition.

This is the letter, these are the letters received in support.

And the King William Neighborhood Association response is over voicemail.

This concludes staff's presentation.

All right, thank you very much.

Uh let's have the applicant come forward.

All right, state your name and tell us your thoughts.

My name is Deborah Rain.

I'm the owner of 619 Barb Street.

So the carport is placed along the existing structure.

There was a wooden fence there in a way that reduces the visual impact and maintains the overall streetscape.

So regarding the side setback, because of the layout of my lot and the location of the existing driveway and the way the house sits.

So given this can these constraints, this is really the only place where I can put covered parking where it's going to be used effectively.

Regarding the fire hazard concern for the abutting property, before this, that entire side yard was lined with wooden fence, which is combustible and made that space more enclosed along the property line.

The carport, it's constructed of steel and open and design, so it improves the visibility and accessibility while removing that flammable barrier for both their home and mine.

Regarding the character of the district, this project has already already been reviewed and approved by the historic and design review commission, confirming that design is appropriate for and consistent with the character of the King William Historic District.

For drainage, I will be adding the gutters to properly direct the water runoff so it doesn't impact the adjacent property.

In addition, the adjacent neighbor has reviewed the project, signed an agreement, and does not feel it negatively affects her property.

These properties are part of an older historic neighborhood where lots are narrower and layouts are more constrained than typical modern development.

So applying a standard setback in this context creates limitations that don't always match how these properties were originally designed to function.

And I found out today at noon that the neighborhood association had expressed opposition, so I didn't really get to deal with that yet.

But um I worked with the historic commission to make sure that it had aligned with the with their guidelines and spoken directly with my neighbor who it affects the most.

Yes, that part where I said staff is in support.

That was yeah, oh I took language from OHP's letter, which they also used the verbiage staff.

Okay.

And you haven't had any dialogue at all with King William.

I because I don't pay HOA fees, so I didn't think it was like the normal HOA, so I know I did not.

I thought because of the historic when we went up for the historic review, I thought they would have so they they didn't have a presence at the at the HDRC meeting.

They didn't show there when there were no nays then.

So that's why I thought, and that didn't come in till noon, or I didn't see it till noon today.

Uh do you do you happen to know if uh OHP during the HDRC um H E R C meeting if uh King William submitted any documentation?

I can I can double check.

Um I know they should have been notified if I understand the process correctly.

It seemed like they seem like one of those neighbor's associations that would chime in.

So is there any voicemails or anyone centered to speak on this case?

We do have one voicemail.

Okay, let's hear the voicemail.

Good afternoon.

Uh my name is Sean Campbell.

I revive at 524 King Williams Street.

My phone number is 210288 7854, and I'm calling in regard to the case number 103028.

I am currently serving on the King William Association Board of Directors as Vice President, and then the committee chair of our architectural advisory committee.

The King William Association reviewed agenda item number 10 for 619 Barbie Street regarding a request for the reduced size setback variant and want to register our agreement with the staff recommendation to deny the request.

Thank you for serving on the board of direction adjustments.

Thank you.

Bye.

And that was the only public comment.

And the last voicemail.

Okay.

Um I'm just gonna put this out there.

I'd like to give this out again and continuance.

I don't I think that she should have an opportunity to at least provide something in writing from the neighbor and maybe get some kind of a dialogue from King William, but that's just what I think.

Is there any commission?

I did get the assigned um from your next door neighbor.

Uh-huh.

Okay.

You can give that to staff for the record.

Uh do you know how often King William meets or when their next meeting is?

Okay.

I would concur with my colleague.

You know, and and um, and I think you know, would I when I drive Google drive around the around that community?

I do not see that many car ports identified.

You know, there are there are a few, but there but there aren't that many.

And and and the ones I did see did have the setbacks uh observed.

And so you know, I guess I would have concerns with that and removing the fence.

So is that a going to be a long-term removal of the fence that separates you in the neighborhood?

I couldn't use the driveway.

It's nine feet wide at the back and ten at the front.

So if I pull in my SUE, I can't open the doors.

Right.

And my son escaped out the front gate because they only opened out.

So I put the gate in the back and I took out the wood fence.

So now even when I have them in the car seat, I still have to reverse in because it's just so tight.

And and I do agree that it did improve the the streetscape, I guess, from that perspective of removing the fence because it did make it look a lot more open.

So I I think that part's good.

And so I think just getting with the community, just to you know, go through the dialogue and and you know, have them, you know, you may be able to find that you as you talk about what it is that you're looking to do.

Um, you know, and and going through reiterating some of those points, they may come back in agreement with that.

And so I would I would think that that would be beneficial.

And did I hear that you were adding gutters to your application?

Okay.

All right.

So how much I mean, I'm assuming a month, two weeks.

What are we talking about?

Yeah, I would I would move it out a month personally.

Okay, April 20th.

So April 20th.

Okay.

Okay.

That would be my would love to hear from them.

Motion.

King.

Two.

They called the last minute.

Okay.

So motion to continue April 20th.

Is there a second?

Any uh all in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, uh, motion passes.

We'll see you on the 20th.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh, who is the second?

Uh the second was uh Commissioner Bragman.

I thought I'd am I wrong on that?

Oh, I'm all right.

I'll give it to I'll put Bunia then.

Good afternoon, Joel Villas and your planner board uh with the board of adjustment.

Um item number 11 is case BOA-26-103-00032, the applicant being Robert Gonzalez in District 7 at 5818 Gillis Drive.

Um, the zoning is R6 for this property, and this is a request for a four-foot variance from the minimum required 10-foot front setback to allow a carport to be six feet from the front property line.

Uh the subject property is located within a subdivision north of the intersection of Wardsbach Road and Everest Road along the boundary of the city of San Antonio with the city of Leon Valley.

Property surrounded by established single family residential uses on all sides.

And in November 2025, code enforcement staff visited the site in response to a citizen report and found a carport built without permits and within the minimum required front setback area.

Uh the applicant has requested a variance to the setback standard to obtain a permit and keep the carport in its current location.

Uh, there was a new carport observed to be similarly encroaching into the front setback area at 5826 Gillis Drive.

Uh, that's just about two houses over.

Uh records indicate the permit was obtained for that structure.

However, inspections on that permit have not been completed to verify compliance in the field.

Uh shown here is a quick site plan of that carport in the front yard.

We move on to the photos.

Uh, and this is the subject property and the surrounding area.

And to look at that other carport in the area.

Uh staff recommendation for the carport front setback variant.

Staff recommends denial in BOA-26-103032 based on the following findings of fact.

One, enforcing the standard would not result in an unnecessary hardship as the carport may still function to protect the owner's vehicles without interrupting the open space preserved by the minimum required setback area.

And two, granting this variance would impede the adjacent residents' open view to of the neighborhood from their own front yards, and no other authorized carports were observed within the immediate surrounding area.

Staff mailed 18 notices, seven were returned in favor, zero and opposition, and there is no neighborhood association within two hundred feet of the subject property.

And here we have the support received by staff from the various neighbors.

And this concludes staff's presentation.

The applicant is present.

All right, thank you.

So the applicant come forward.

Thank you.

Hi, state your name and tell us about your carport.

Uh good afternoon.

Um Robert Gonzalez, uh the owner of that property.

Um kind of nervous.

Sorry.

Uh so I'm requesting approval for a four-foot setback variance for for the carport, which has already been built.

Um it was built pretty much just to protect my my vehicles.

Um it's just my son and I that live there.

Um Caribbean honest.

Uh, when the builder came to me, uh, I didn't know there was uh requirement for permit or setbacks.

I didn't know any of that.

Um the carboard has already been there for about two years.

Um it doesn't cause any safety issues, obstruct anyone's view, and uh it helps protect my my vehicles.

Um the reason that I built it was because uh about two years ago uh we had held damage to the to the roof and to my vehicles.

Um that was the point of me building the carport.

Uh so I respectfully ask for your approval and thank you for your time and consideration.

Okay.

Uh uh one question I have is that look like uh there's no variance for the uh side setback, uh, but the carport does look like you widened uh you widen the uh the side a little bit.

And I just want to make sure that are you is that carport five feet away from your side property line?

Does it look like you widened it at five feet?

Yes, sir.

And I did measure and it should be five feet, and I think uh when the team went out there to go measure, they measured that uh side two.

Correct.

During our staff site visit, we did verify compliance with the side setback.

All right, great.

Uh any commissioner questions.

Um also I noticed uh you're there's a sidewalk on the opposite side of the street, but your side of the street doesn't have any sidewalks.

Correct, yeah.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

All right.

Any voicemails and anyone send us no public comment.

All right.

If no questions looking for a motion, Mana.

Commissioner Manna.

Regarding case error BOA 26103032.

I moved that the board adjustment grant to request for a four-foot variance for a minimum required ten-foot front setback to allow a carport to be six feet from the front property line situated at 5818 Gillis Drive.

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

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

The requested variance would not be contrary to the public interest as the encroachment of the carport into the front setback does not create a significant visual obstruction within the front yard area of the subject property.

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

A little enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship, as the carport posts would need to be relocated from the current location to comply with the ordinance.

In their current location, the carport posts do not create a significant visual obstruction within the front yard.

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

Granting variants would observe the spirit of the ordinance as the carport does not substantially deviate from the existing character of the streetscape.

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

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

Five such variants will not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent property or alter the central character of the district in which is property is located.

Granting this variance would not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent corner property as the carport does not obstruct the open view of the neighborhood from adjacent property.

Six applied to another property for which property for which this variance is sought is due to unique circumstances existing on this property.

The plight of the owner of the property is due to unique circumstances existing on this lot, including the width of the right of way, which provides adequate separation between the carport and the street.

End of motion.

Second.

All right, second by Commissioner Bunis.

Commissioner Manna.

So um I'll be voting in favor.

Um I have I did Google drive around.

There are a few others besides the one that was uh provided by the city.

Um and then having all of the neighbors, which is very good.

Thank you for you know having your s your neighbors say that they're okay with this type of development.

Um I'll be voting in favor.

Thank you, Commissioner Bounce.

Yeah, I'll also be in favor uh for the neighbors' support.

Uh there's no NA to um to speak against it.

I'll be in favor.

All right.

Is there anyone else like to add?

Hearing none of us have a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Mana.

I concur with the final fact.

Commissioner Bunnyas.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibannis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Bagman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides.

I concur.

Commissioner Ozuna.

Yes, I can go.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of fact.

Motion passes 11 to 0.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

I really appreciate it.

You're welcome.

Item number 12.

This is BOAK 26103 00033.

The applicant is velocity autocare.

It's in Council District 10.

It is 10515 Jones Maltzburger Road.

It is zoned C2, and the variance is an 11-foot variance from the minimum required 15 feet to allow for a four-foot landscape buffer on the northeast side of the property.

It's similar to the one we heard last meeting.

The subject property is located north of the airport near the intersection of Jones Maltzburger Road and Thousand Oaks Drive.

The applicant scheduled a PPR meeting with DSD staff for a new oil change and tune-up location on the subject property.

During this PPR, it was determined that to continue with the current plans, it'd be necessary for a buffer reduction variance from the Board of Adjustment.

UDC requires a minimum 15-foot landscape buffer to be installed where new development of a lot zone C2 abuts a lot zoned R6.

The subject property abuts a series of established single family residential properties on R6 to the northeast.

The applicant has not filed a permanent application as of the state and is waiting on board of adjustment decision before proceeding.

This is the site plan, and that up north is where the uh subject property abuts the residential.

This is the aerial view of the current conditions of the lot.

Here is the subject property.

This is the subject property along the fence line where the variance is needed.

In the surrounding area.

Staff recommends denial and BOA 26-103-00033, based on the following findings of fact.

There is adequate space on the property, provide the minimum required landscape buffers.

The request would not provide for adequate transitioning between the proposed commercial use and the existing residentials, residential use to the northeast.

This is the NA no objection email, and we got it at about 10 o'clock.

So it wasn't able to be put to y'all through PDF.

This concludes Staff's presentation.

All right, thank you very much.

All right, great.

Um, is there any commissioner questions for staff?

Hearing now, let's have the applicant come forward.

Great.

Good afternoon, Mr.

Chairman, fellow commissioners.

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

Um here a couple weeks ago and got another one kind of doing the same thing.

We're got a vacant pizza hut with uh homeless, and we're under contract.

We've been through all of our due diligence.

This is our next step in being able to uh submit for permits.

So um we're able to it's more or less a variable buffer on here.

So as you can see um on this plan, we kind of we're we're saving a tree.

Uh oh, thank you.

So as you can see here on your plans, um, this is a very large historic oak tree that we are saving.

Hence, we're having to kind of bend the driveway in here for more of a variable variance request.

So, you know, we're very close to meeting almost all of it, but you know, we've got kind of these two sections to bring the driveway and then the connection out to the rear with the rest of the commercial properties.

Um as a couple weeks ago, you know, we're greatly increasing pervious surface, adding more buffers, adding more landscaping, and tearing down a vacant property and bringing in jobs and increase and commercial taxes, everything that we all want to keep seeing in these pockets of abandoned properties.

Um here to answer any additional questions.

I don't think we have anything else coming up in two weeks, but we've got seven properties in San Antonio going right now.

All right, Commissioner Cruz.

Um just uh who currently the fence that's there now.

Is that something that was there before that they had just put in, and you're trying to improve it?

The wooden fence is owned by all the other uh property owners.

Uh, we're fully on board if we need to put up an additional privacy white vinyl fence to clean that up like we do on all of our properties.

Um I think it was on one of the drawings that just had a vinyl privacy fence, zero maintenance goes up and cleans everything up as well.

So we're more than happy to put that up as additional.

Yeah, I see that beautiful tree.

I was wondering what y'all were going to do with that.

That's good thing, saving it.

I mean absolutely.

I'd like to save trees for uh we would know.

We've got another property down on Hubner, so we've got several that were saving trees and trying to modify our site plans and add pervious surface to help with all the drainage in these areas as well.

All right, thank you.

Yeah.

Uh my quick question is uh there's an existing uh parking lot light there that's right on the side.

Is that gonna stay as well?

I am unaware.

It's uh that you can see the concrete post for it and that picture of the staff the previous one.

Yeah.

So one right there.

Yeah.

I I just I was just curious.

I'd as a neighboring resident, I'd probably be more concerned about a big light.

We typically scrape everything on site and start completely over.

So I would fully anticipate that everything is coming out.

We put all new LED lighting down cast zero, zero cast for many property lines.

So I would expect all new lighting and everything to come out.

Yeah, you're creasing landscaping all the way around, it looks like and and your hours aren't too late or anything.

You didn't go through a zoning change for this, right?

No zoning change, same as a couple weeks ago on the military site.

We're not a 24-hour use.

Um, our longest hours of operation during the week are 7 a.m.

to 7 p.m.

Great.

Staff any voicemails, any uh anyone signed up?

No public comment.

Manna Commission uh Commissioner Manna.

And so um then also you're saving the trees on the front.

Um I guess yeah, front part there as well, right?

So they aren't quite as big, but they're uh plentiful right there, right as well.

Okay, yeah, great.

Thank you.

Just to clarify their use is permitted by right.

Okay.

I was just curious if there's any other public hearings that maybe there could have been engagement through, but all right.

Awesome.

So no other questions.

All right, I'm looking for a motion.

Fragman.

Commissioner Braggman.

I'm making up for less time regarding case number VOA-26-1030.

I move the board of adjustment grant a request for 11 foot variants from the minimum required 15 foot to allow for a four-foot landscape buffer on the northeast side of the property, situated at 15015 Jones Maltzburger Road, applicant being velocity auto care, because the testimony presented to us and the facts we have determined show the physical character of this property, such the literal enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code as amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

In this case, this would be an improvement of the current buffers that exist on the property, would be 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 on this property is the location of the abutting residential properties and the amount of developable space.

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

Three, by granting the variance suspicion, 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 buffer would be modest, and improvement to current conditions on the property.

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

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

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

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

Six, the plight of the owner of the property, which the bear is saw it is due to unique circumstances existing on the property, and the unique circumstances were not created by the owner of the property, and they're not merely financial or not due to or the result of general conditions in the district in which the property is located.

The plant of the property owners due to the existing and abutting residential properties, existing lot construction configuration, existing site, and access conditions to this lot on this lot, which were not created by the current owner.

End of motion.

Second by Commissioner Cruz.

Commissioner Bragman.

Yeah, I think that the uh applicant has done their due diligence and it's actually creating more green space.

Um saving a heritage tree, uh, and there's no opposition from the immediate neighbors who'd be most impacted.

So I'll be in support of the motion.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, I concur with uh my colleague in I don't see a problem with especially since it's uh gonna be a brand new building, so it will improve the neighborhood a lot.

Thank you.

Great.

Anyone else like to add?

Hearing none, so I've roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Cruz, I concur.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibannis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Mana.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides.

I concur.

Commissioner Osuna.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonnie.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I can cover the findings of fact.

Motion passes 11 to 0.

Uh congratulations.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Fellow Commissioners.

Have a good day.

Yes, sir.

All right.

Last number last case, item 13.

This is case BOA 26-103-00036.

The applicant is Ricardo Sanchez.

It is located on 1204 Delaware Street.

The zoning is RM4, and the request is for a seven-foot variance from the minimum 10 foot rear setback to allow for a structure to have a three-foot rear setback.

The subject property is located along Delaware Street, north of Rands Avenue, located within the Denver Heights Neighborhood Association.

The applicant is seeking to remodel and expand any existing existing structure on the lot.

The existing structure was billed as a shed according to Bear County records.

The subject property has appeared in front of the Board of Adjustment with a prior application, and it was approved for a variance for the lot size and side setback, but was denied for the rear setback on August 8th, 2024.

This was with a different applicant.

The current applicant submitted plans for the renovation of the same structure, and plan review team informed them that they must seek a variance for the rear setback.

This is the current site plan.

And this is the subject property.

That's the rear of the subject property.

And this is the surrounding area.

Staff recommends approval in BOA 26-1030 based on the following findings.

And the property abutting the rear property line is currently vacant.

We mailed 38 uh notices, we got zero in favor and zero in opposition, and the Denver Heights Neighborhood Association did not respond.

And that concludes staff's presentation.

All right, thank you.

And you had mentioned that there was a structure there before.

Yes.

So when we looked at previous satellite images of this property, there was a structure in that exact same footprint dating back over 10 years.

And he's and then so you have a three-foot rear, seven foot.

Okay.

So the sides are five feet.

All right.

Well, all right.

We uh he submitted a survey to, but this was after the writing of the staff report.

Uh it's actually a five-foot rear setback according to the survey.

I just I I I just wanted to make sure it it had uh three uh five foot side setbacks as well because this just a lot so narrow.

I just wanted to make sure that all we're talking about is a rear.

All right.

Um any questions for staff?

Let's have the applicant come forward.

Hello, board.

Uh my name's Ricardo Sanchez.

I purchased this property without knowing that the previous owner uh that the previous owner had built this too close to the uh to the property line.

Uh at the beginning we thought we were only uh three feet from the setback, but we're actually after the survey came back, we're actually five feet away from the from the setback.

So uh we're trying to build towards the front a bit, and uh we submitted some of the plans.

Um I did speak to the neighbor to the left and uh they were in favor.

I was trying to get them to email, but I I never got an email, but I was on the phone with them.

Um spoke to the wife who is the owner.

Both sides of of me, their rentals, uh, were building a home to sell not as a rental, hopefully as a single family home.

Okay.

And do you now we hear testimony that there was a structure there before?

Uh are you getting any closer to the rear setback than it was prior?

Do you know no?

No.

Um when we bought the structure was already there.

Okay.

And then um do you have uh the the per the individual behind you it's it's vacant land?

And if you have you had a chance to reach out to that person.

I tried to find information on them and uh and I did not.

Okay.

And then where is your air conditioning unit gonna go?

Is it gonna go in the rear or on the side?

Uh we would probably uh place it on the rear.

All right.

All right.

Any questions from the commission?

Manna.

Commissioner Manna?

Um, does the city have any notes for what was I guess what were their challenges on the previous review to kind of warrant why it was that um not granted in the prior dialogue so the previous owner or the first request for the rear setback um didn't have kind of a detailed plan of what was going to be done.

Um this one gave us a little bit more information on what the proposed uh development was going to be.

Um in consideration with the previous uh variance is approved on the lot, that's why staff recommended approval for this one.

As far as specific dialogue from the board, um I I don't uh on why they denied it.

Um I'm not sure uh uh those details off top of my head.

So I might so um on the prior review was the same exact structure presented to us, and we said no.

Correct.

Um it was approved for the loss size and the uh other setback, but the rear setback was denied by the board of adjustment in 2024.

And they asked for a three-foot back then?

Yeah, for uh four foot rear setback.

And so this gentleman is asking for five.

Right?

It is five feet away from the setback.

Right.

We had only advertised three, and you're saying three on the presentation materials before you because when we went on our site visits, the uh fence was about three feet away.

The fence is actually not on the property line as we later found from the survey.

Okay.

And maybe again, I'm just trying to understand why we rejected last time and if the building didn't change at all, because I'm uh if I understood that correctly.

Uh no, the building didn't change.

I think the person who presented it before thought that maybe the property line was then the house was closer.

Right.

So I was wondering if that was it.

So I mean a three feet is a little too close.

Yeah, so I was just trying to figure out why it was before that we projected it.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Is there another questions?

Okay.

Can I sure and and we're adding uh a one-hour fire rated wall to the back of the the structure?

Wonderful.

Yeah.

And you have um it's it's single, it'll be a single story?

Yes, single story.

That makes me even feel better.

All right.

Is any voicemails anyone sent it to speak?

No public comment?

All right.

All right, looking for a motion.

Manna.

Commissioner Manna.

Regarding case number BOA 26103036, I moved to the board of adjustment grant to request for a seven-foot variance from the minimum ten foot rear setback to allow a structure to have a three-foot rear setback situated at 1204 Delaware Street, applicant being Ricardo Sanchez, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we determined show that the physical character of this property is such that a little enforcement of the provisions of the UDC as amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

The rear setback reduction is not contrary to the public interest as the adjacent property to the rear is currently vacant and the subject structure has existed with the current setbacks for over a decade.

Two, due to special conditions or little enforcement of the orders, it would result in unnecessary hardship.

Staff finds that due to the property already having been partially developed in its current location, moving the structure would result in unnecessary hardship as a client would need to relocate the structure from its current location.

Doing this would be a costly endeavor, and due to the size of the overall lot, impractical.

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

By granting this variance, the spirit of the ordinance uh would be observed as the risk of fire spread is minimal due to the fire mitigation requirements and the rear property being currently vacant.

Currently, yeah, vacant.

Uh four of the variants will not authorize the operation of use other than those uses specifically authorized in the zoning district, which is variance was 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 property or alter the central character of the district in which is property is located.

The variants will not injure uh adjacent conforming property or alter the character of the district because it uh structure for which has been present in the same location for a decade without impacting surrounding development patterns.

Furthermore, the rear property is currently vacant, reducing likelihood of any adverse effects.

Six applied to the owner for uh the property for which the variance is sought is due to unique circumstances existing as property and unique circumstances not created by the owner of the property and are not merely financial and not due to the result of general conditions in district, which is property is located.

Uh the plight of the owner is due to the unique circumstances surrounding the development of his lot, having less overall space to place a structure on, and the structure being partially built when the applicant bought the property leading to the unique circumstances on this lot.

End of motion seconds by Commissioner Cruz.

Question about the setback.

Yeah, it's doing five and five.

Yeah, uh friendly amendment to uh change it to a five-foot setback.

Um I uh accept the change.

Sorry, thank you.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, I concur.

All right, Commissioner Manna.

Thank you for that colour clarification.

Maybe that's why it was the first time it was rejected.

So um so I'm gonna make the assumption that's why it was rejected.

The first time was three foot would be uh a little bit too close, but at five foot um I'm okay with that.

So I'll be voting in favor.

Great.

Commissioner Cruz?

Yes, I concur with Mr.

Manna.

I don't see a problem with it being five feet away.

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 Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Reid?

I concur.

Commissioner Ivanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bregman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Benavides.

I concur.

Commissioner Zuna.

Yes, I can curl.

Commissioner Bonnie.

You have a second curve.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of fact.

Motion passes.

Congratulations.

Have any questions?

Give the staff.

Thank you so much.

All right.

Now we have the minutes.

Anyone, everyone have a chance to look at them?

Any amendments.

Motion looking for a motion.

Motion to approve the minutes, Bonias.

Second.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Cruz.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, motion minutes are approved.

Is there a director's report?

Uh nope.

Uh just uh from a reminder that was the last voicemail we heard today.

That would be the last voicemail is what we'll hear.

Okay.

And then uh financial reports, this due April 1st.

Getting close.

If you all haven't done them yet.

Just check.

Just check it.

All right.

Well, it is 416.

I can't believe it, but we are out of here.

Adjourn.