All right.

Who are we waiting on today?

We're not on Commissioner Benavidez and Commissioner Vas Vasquez.

And is anybody uh digital today?

Uh those two.

Oh, they're gonna be okay.

Oh, sorry, Bragman.

Well, we have we have nine here now.

No, I know, but um I'm just wondering, were we gonna have three?

Are you expecting three more then?

No, two more, sorry.

All right, well, we're gonna go ahead and get started.

Um, oh one I hereby call this meeting of the Board of Adjustments into session.

We have the Spanish interpreter come out, please.

Tenemos ahí una cabina donde les proportionaremos el equipo.

Gracias.

Thank you very much.

Staff could please call roll.

Commissioner Reed.

Present.

Commissioner Stevens?

Present.

Commissioner Ivanis?

Present.

Commissioner Dean.

Present.

Commissioner Cruz, here.

Commissioner Gomez.

Here.

Commissioner Mana?

Present.

Commissioner Bregman.

Commissioner Benavides.

Commissioner Osina.

Commissioner Bunnyas.

Commissioner Vasquez.

Chair Orion.

And I'm here.

So we have nine.

We're expecting two more, but we do have a quorum.

If everyone could please uh join me in the pledge.

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

Honorable excessive.

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

Uh this board follows an agenda, which is available online.

The cases are listed by 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 a director's report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We also serve in an advisory in appellate capacity, the Director of Public 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.

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 relief could be legally granted and supported.

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

Following this presentation and question by the board, the applicant will present their request.

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

Those in support and opposition will be a lot of massive three minutes.

Uh per speaker, and you are not obligated to utilize massive time limitation for those who would like to give their time to a speaker.

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

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

Thank you, Chairman.

Yes, uh, while we currently have nine uh people sitting, we're waiting on the tenth to uh join digitally.

Uh we we were going to entertain the minutes at this time.

Um does everyone have any uh revisions of the minutes.

No, we're looking for a motion to approve the minutes.

Motion to approve.

Is there a second?

Second, read.

Second by Commissioner Reed.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

Minutes are passed.

Uh what we usually do when we do have a limited board is we go through our agenda and we look for uh elements of where staff is has recommended a full approval, and we'll tackle those items first.

The first item on the agenda uh that's that's uh like that is item number nine at 18 Chelsea Way is the applicant for 18 Chelsea Way here.

We will be hearing your case uh first.

So um staff item number nine, good afternoon.

Mark Travis, senior general planner.

Item number nine is VOA 26 103 00106, applicant being Michael Amquis, located within district district one at 18 Chelsea Way.

Zoning is R6 PUD, request for a eight-foot variance from the minimum twenty-foot rear setback to allow an addition to be twelve feet from the rear property line.

Subject property is located within the greens at Lick and Heights plan unit of development.

But subdivision, the applicant proposes the construction of a new addition to the rear and south side of the existing home to encroach into the minimum required quad perimeter setback from the proper rear property.

The subject property is separated from the tree line park roadway by the subdivision's perimeter wall.

Approximately ten feet of pedestrian right away, including a sidewalk.

Okay, you see that?

We can we can hear you, Commissioner.

Thank you.

Bye.

109 Commissioner Vasquez has joined the meeting.

This is the uh side plan.

Let's visit the board, thank you.

My camera's over.

Please continue.

Yeah.

And that location at the rear.

Just the subject property.

That's the photo surrounding area.

Same thing surrounding area.

Staff's recommendation for the put perimeter setback variance.

Staff recommends approval and BOA twenty six one zero three zero zero one oh six based on the following uh finds its fact.

One, the regular lot shape present on this property case.

Property creates an inherent limitation for development where normal setbacks are enforced.

Two, the proposed setback would provide sufficient separation from the rear property line to support fire safety, water runoff mitigation, and to provide maintenance access.

That is our notification notification plan.

Send out 26 notices, one in favor, zero in opposition.

And the applicant is present.

All right, thank you.

So have the applicant to come forward.

Hi, please state your name and tell us about your garage.

Yes.

So what we're proposing is a uh essentially a mother-in-law suite above the garage for my disabled uh mother-in-law.

Um, the original property design along with other houses in the neighborhood are built on a 12 uh foot setback.

Um I think the uh setback changed somewhere between present day and 2003 when the neighborhood was built.

Uh what we're requesting is um the setback to be changed back to 12 feet for this variance so we can build in line with the existing structure of the home as well as the uh architectural setbacks of the neighboring properties so we can have sufficient room uh for the uh suite.

So some quick questions.

Your garage is currently already there.

Correct.

You're building on top of an existing footprint.

Uh so the existing footprint will expand um in order to fit on the uh triangular shaped lot, we're going to change the orientation of the garage.

Uh further towards the rear or further.

Uh it's going to move further to the right.

Um, so this is the existing garage currently.

Um, the new garage will expand this way to the uh building set back here, the five-foot boundary on the lot, and then the shaded area would be the difference between the 20 and 12 foot.

Okay, so you're you're staying out of the 12-foot easement in the back and the landscape wall easement, all that kind of correct.

Yeah, so we'd uh still be respecting the twelve foot easement.

Um, I showed here.

And staff did this was this was this an annexation where the or was it a zoning change where it went to a 20 foot setback from what apparently was a twelve at one point?

So it's been a PUD since 2000 R 93.

Um I don't believe that.

Don't believe it.

I don't believe that.

I don't believe they have different setbacks back then.

Should have just been the original.

Okay.

Alright.

Any uh commissioner questions.

Alright, hearing none.

Uh, thank you very much.

I'm looking for a motion.

And by the way, it's uh one thirteen and commissioner Brackman is uh joined the meeting.

Who would like to take this one?

Uh Bonias, I'll take it.

Commissioner Boone is what I number nine.

Regarding case number BOA two six one zero three zero zero one zero six.

I move that the board of adjustment.

Grant a request for an eight-foot variance from the minimum required twenty-foot rear setback to allow an addition to be twelve feet from the rear property line situated at 18 Chelsea Way.

Applicant being Michael Amquist.

Uh, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we have determined show that the physical character of this property is such a little enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code is amended, would result in an unnecessary hardship.

Specifically, we find that one, the variance is not contrary to public interest, the variance would not be contrary to the public interest as there is sufficient separation from the proposed development and the rear property line to support fire safety, water runoff mitigation, and provide maintenance access.

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

Given the irregular shape of a lot, a little enforcement of the ordinance would result in in the unnecessary hardship of reducing the buildable area of this lot to an area smaller than would otherwise be permitted in this neighborhood.

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

Granted, this variance would observe the spirit of the ordinance as the proposed setback would not create a crowded appearance on this slot and would provide adequate space in the rear to mitigate fire risk and water runoff concerns in this area.

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

The property adjacent to the proposed edition is a city right of way which would not be substantially impacted by the proposed setback.

Adequate space would remain between the structure and the rear property line to probably maintain the structure without requiring access to the adjacent uh property.

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

The plight of the owner for which the variance is solved is due to the regular lot shape present on this property, which creates an inherent limitation for development where normal setbacks are enforced.

Uh end of motion.

Second, second by Commissioner Manna, Commissioner Beniz.

Yeah, I'll be in support.

Uh this lot is oddly shaped.

Uh the city's behind it, so I will as well.

Thank you, Commissioner Manna.

I concur with my colleague.

Anyone else like to add?

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

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Mena.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stephen.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ivanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Braggman.

I concur with the finance of the Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I can care with the findings of fact.

Motion passes unanimously.

Congratulations.

Uh, we have now a full board.

We'll be back on item number one.

Good afternoon.

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

Item number one is requested by Richard Gonzalez and is requesting an appeal of the administrator's decision to revoke the applicant's short term rental permit due to incorrect information supplied, located at 117 Cactus Street, type two.

The subject property is located at 117 Caxer Street.

Surrounding uses include residential single family dwellings.

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

Section 16-111 states that the director is authorized to suspend or revoke a short-term rental permit under short term rental permit issued under the provisions of the article wherever the permit is issued in error or on the basis of incorrect information supplied, or where it is determined that the building structure, unit, or portion thereof is in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of this article.

This location was initially one of two in which STR permits were revoked shortly after the approval of renewal applications.

Both locations were revoked because shortly after approval, code enforcement visited each location and determined that AI was used to create photos of computer generated driveways to obtain short-term rental permit approvals.

Subsequently, staff launched proactive investigations of other STRs managed by this entity.

So far, six additional eight total violations have been identified from this entity.

The owner contends in their application that a mistake was made in supplying this information to staff, and staff contends that this constitutes a pattern of deception.

On April 4th, 2026, staff requested additional information from the applicant, specifically to provide a photo of the driveway to ensure that the parking space was code compliant.

The applicant followed up on April 10th, 2026 with a photo of the updated driveway.

The renewal application was then approved on April 14th, 2026.

Staff coordinated with code enforcement to visit the property to ensure the driveway matched the photos provided to staff for the application approval.

When code enforcement visited the property on April 16, 2026, they provided us with the correct with the current photo of the driveway.

It was clear that the photo provided by the applicant was an incorrect and altered photo.

The permit was revoked on April 21st, 2026, due to violation of Section 16-111 within the city code.

This is the active block face.

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

There is an open investigation for operating without a short term rental permit.

And a little bit of the permit history.

This was originally approved on February 21st, 2023, and it was renewed on April 14th, 2026, and then the revocation date followed on April 21st, 2026.

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

This is the driveway picture provided by the applicant to obtain the short-term rental permit on April 10th, 2026.

And this is the driveway picture provided by code enforcement six days later on April 16th.

This is the subject property and the driveway picture provided by staff during the site visit.

And the next few slides are the neighboring properties and surrounding areas.

Staff recommends denial of the applicant's appeal.

And there were a total of 46 male notices, zero in favor, zero in opposition, no voicemails, and no response from Denver Heights Neighborhood Association, and seven citywide groups are notified with no response.

This concludes staff presentation.

Applicant is here to answer any questions.

So the driveway is constructed as of today.

Yes.

Okay.

And these commissioner questions for staff?

Yeah, Bonias.

Yes, Commissioner Bene.

Was there ever a permit issued or was there a permit tried that was uh attempted to be pulled during this time time frame for the driveway?

Right now in Asella, there is one port in May.

There was one port in May.

In May.

And then okay, gotcha.

Alright, any other questions?

And just to just to be clear, they were given an SDR permit in 2023.

This is the renewal that it got called on.

Yes, that's correct.

Alright, I said that you come forward.

Thank you.

Alright, state your name and tell us about your project.

I was told to pass out things first, so I'm gonna do that if I can.

Please do.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Eddie Brovenick.

Mr.

Gonzalez has the joyous uh thing of welcoming the new child of the world.

He's in the hospital with his wife.

The child was born yesterday.

He apologizes for not being here.

Uh, he says his wife is in a fair amount of pain, and while this is extremely important to him, it's the first child.

He doesn't want to leave his wife alone.

Those of you who have kids, I think you get it.

Um, it's just the reality of of the situation he finds himself in today.

Uh, my name is Eddie Bravinek.

I'm a lawyer.

I don't appear here that often.

I can be an advantage or disadvantage.

When you're as good looking as Patrick Cushinson, you want to see everyone all the time.

When you're as bad looking as me, you don't want to see it very often.

So I want to start out by something.

People often make mistakes, and it happens because I make mistakes all the time.

And I'm asked Mr.

Bravanick, how did you mess this up?

And my answer to them is, well, I did this, I did this, I did this.

And the next question I get answered, well, how did that benefit you?

And I scratch my head and I say, Well, I can't see how that mistake benefited me at all.

I know the staff here feels that there's a pattern of some deception that's going on.

But what I've been told by Mr.

Caramillo is that the driveway that is currently at the location is code compliant.

And let me be clear about that.

In other words, there was no advantage to submitting a picture of an old driveway versus a new driveway.

And I say that because if there had been uh a drive not been a compliant driveway at the time, I would understand the staff's position that there was deception going on.

Um I went and did some research here, and I I got a picture that I want the staff to show you.

Oh gosh, where did I put it?

Oh.

The top picture, I'm gonna wait till they turn to it.

The top picture is the picture that was presented.

Mr.

Gonzalez would tell you that that was the driveway that was at the location.

The bottom picture is the one that was taken by the staff when they went to the location.

And you'll notice that it's caliche, but you'll also notice something else about the cliché.

You'll notice it's just a different color, right?

So the question becomes why did Mr.

Gonzalez do what he did.

Well, if you go by the property now, what you'll see is there is that caliche um from the fence back, but he put in a new driveway with a permit on the front.

So Mr.

Gonzalez's plan was very simple.

I have a house that has problems with drainage.

I'm gonna tear out the old driveway, put in Caliche to stop the drainage problems, and put a new portion of the driveway below that where you see that caliche.

And I mean, it doesn't really matter that that was his plan.

Both driveways were compliant according to staff and what they represented to me, but that's why he did what he did.

Uh I don't know how they're coming up with it being an AI created picture.

I just don't know that.

There's been no evidence of that.

I think if you went in the history of the property and you'd look, you'd see that that driveway used to be there.

Um, and you in fact, the picture at the bottom is also not current.

So uh it there is a uh only a concrete driveway going up to the sidewalk now, so that the house won't have issues with its foundation.

So what you see in front of you is um there are a bunch of neighbors that were asked what they thought, and full disclosure here.

I told Mr.

Gonzalez one of the big questions the board will probably have is what do your neighbors think about you.

Um this area is sort of a mixed area.

When If you pass that, there's a couple of different pictures.

This is like a new construction that's done.

I think this one is right across either two or three doors down.

In other words what I'm telling you, this isn't a new division area where every home is a cookie cutter home.

There are some rentals there.

Next picture, please.

Um, that's the I believe that's the old picture of the driveway, and and you can see that if they were doing AI, they also AI'd someone's car on the driveway, which probably wouldn't be that smart.

And I suppose I could look up the license plate.

But that's a picture of the the old driveway with a car on it.

Next one, please.

That's the lot next door that's not open by Mr.

Gonzalez, but we especially wanted the neighbors next door and what they thought about it, and then the next is a picture of the house for I think it's 119 cactus.

The owner of that property, which is right next door to Mr.

Gonzalez's, is in favor of him keeping the short term rental permit.

Um this owner actually owns two properties in the area.

I think 124.

I might have it incorrect, but that's a picture of 119, I believe.

And that's the photo that I already showed you about how it was removed.

So here's where we get into semantics, and I'm not a big semantics person, but the staff is saying that it's incorrect.

By the way, they didn't provide me before this hearing saying that there are eight other violations somewhere.

Don't know about them.

I can tell you that he was consistent with his mistake.

There was one other property that he gave the old photo, it also had another driveway that was also would have been compliant.

He didn't appeal that one in time, which is why that's not in front of you.

I have those pictures showing that he made the same mistake each time, but that driveway also would have been compliant.

So what's our situation we have here?

Well, we have someone whose neighbors are in favor of the short-term rental uh permit.

Why are they in favor of it?

Well, apparently they think he's a pretty good runner of a short-term rental place.

As the you probably are aware better than I am, if he loses his permit, it means someone else gets to apply for the short-term rental.

And I suspect, although I did not specifically ask each of them, that they're really concerned what will come after this.

You've got someone that's running a good short-term rental place, someone who uh has, as you can see from the different cliche, must have torn out the driveway and put a new one in someone who made a mistake that doesn't benefit his case whatsoever.

In other words, had he submitted the current photo, the staff wouldn't have a complaint.

So the staff says anytime you submit an incorrect photo, you're in violation.

Taking it to a lawyer's end, what if you're you submit a photo where you've painted it a different color?

What if you submit a photo that's six months earlier?

What if you submit a photo where you haven't made it in addition, but now you have my legal lawyer way of looking at this is that it must be incorrect for what it represents that we're here on today.

In other words, had Mr.

Gonzalez represented that there was a driveway there, but there was not a driveway there, that would be incorrect.

What I pointed out to them is that you could they could have used the word inaccurate, and I can go down a wording uh thing here if it makes a difference to you.

But this is currently and clearly an inaccurate photo, but it is correct in that it represents that there was a driveway there.

Now it's a little bit of a word game, but when you have the whole neighborhood that seems to think it's a good idea, and when there's no benefit for Mr.

Gonzalez supposedly misrepresenting someone that he would be in full compliance of otherwise, it seems to me that the equities here tend to were the way things should be, maybe, are on behalf of assuming that Mr.

Gonzalez made an honest mistake because his mistake did not benefit him.

In fact, the opposite, he had to hire a lawyer that charged him too much, he had to pay an appeal fee, and he has a chance of losing a short-term rental permit when he was in compliance.

I'm open for questions.

Stevens.

Commissioner Stevens.

Um you had mentioned the previous driveway being removed.

When when was that removed?

I can't answer that question, and I'm sorry, I didn't think ahead of time to answer that question.

Because I can go back nearly 20 years on Google Street View, and there's no paved driveway.

Okay.

We have a summary as well.

Staff has a summary.

Uh, if Juan wants to pull that up, but but this is Ivanus.

And I'm just making a statement.

Um, what I don't understand is there's a driveway.

Whether it's a cement driveway, whether it's a galiche driveway, there is a driveway.

Um for me it seems kind of um nitpicky about the photo.

Um again, I for me, my understanding is is that if there wasn't a driveway at all, and he turned in a picture showing that there was a driveway, um, then I there would be uh to me an argument.

But in this case, there there is a driveway there, whether it's made of caliche or whether it's a cement driveway, there's a driveway there.

Alright, thank you.

Uh one thing I'd like to ask, uh, so between 2019 and 2022, the city went in and widened uh and redid all the sidewalks on that side of the street.

I thought it was typical when the city did those sort of jobs to take the the improvement out to the paved section.

Maybe you know, not paved behind the sidewalk, but I I thought that they would have at least concrete aproned uh it up to the street, and I was just curious um if anybody likes to uh chime in about that.

That is correct.

That's not always the case.

The public works will be responsible.

Sorry, over here.

Oh, yeah.

Jeremy Commodore staff.

Um that's not always the case.

Public works uh typically will go in for one specific project.

They may not necessarily always go in for the drive approaches and aprons as well.

Okay, thank you.

Uh and also on some of the historic pictures, I noticed uh remnants of what appeared to be gap uh gravel or heavily raveled asphalt.

So I'm I'm curious to know uh what is considered a pervious versus pervious driveway is gravel an acceptable service to staff?

Yes, gravel is an acceptable um uh material, however, there are some additional requirements that come along with that.

Uh we do require that there is a curb placed around the gravel so that way it does not prevent runoff uh for rain and all of that.

All right.

Commissioner questions.

Commissioner Wendy.

Uh, this these are for city.

Uh, are there any other uh uh uh STR permit requests currently for this block face?

I'll confirm.

Uh okay.

Um any violations uh on this property since it's been an STR since 23.

No, sir.

Um are they current on all their hot?

Yes.

Why do we believe this was AI?

Judging by the photo, um, it is not what was a previous uh driveway, it was a completely different driveway from what is actually there.

And then in 23 when an STR permit was issued, um, was there a record of a driveway there?

Was there any issue with the driveway at that point?

Uh no, there was uh there's been changes in the ordinance to uh further require additional items for the driveway since then.

Okay, so in 23 when he first pulled it, whatever was there was okay.

Now he's trying to go for renewal, not it's now it's not okay.

Um this one's for the uh the applicant or the attorney.

Yes, sir.

Um you state that there was a driveway he had there before, and then he decided to tear it up and then pour a new one.

Do you know when he poured that first driveway?

So and this is the same answer I'll have to give Commissioner Stevens.

I am sorry.

I am not familiar because I did not own the property with all the details.

It is possible that I'm getting it wrong because I don't know.

And I want to make it real clear when I say I don't know something.

I don't know for sure.

I this I was told that there was a previous driveway on there.

That picture you see with a car was what he told me was the previous driveway.

I can't tell you when it was done and when it wasn't.

My experience with Google Orf is a little different, which is that it doesn't include each and every day, but I don't know that.

I I could be lying being lied to.

It just seems unusual.

And back to city.

Uh I know you guys said that there was violations, uh was it six other violations from different STRs or the applicant?

A total of eight, yes.

And what are those for?

Can we just go down the list of what those are?

Uh, the exact same thing.

Just photos that were not accurate with I guess what's really there?

Correct.

Yes, and we have those as well.

If you would like to see those.

Sure, yeah.

Let's let's take a look at those.

And then another question: are those other STRs by the applicant or are all of those current on hot?

I would have to verify.

Okay.

So I'm uh I'm a little disturbed here because I I was prepared for the one other, which I have the pictures for, which can show you the previous driveway.

And I asked for what evidence they were going to have, and I wasn't told that there were going to be six additional violations or seven.

Okay, we can't entertain the other.

We can only look at what's before us today.

We're just looking to see any history with the app.

Sure, but when I mean practically, when you're told your client is being accused of six other things that you haven't had a chance to look into, and the staff didn't tell you that and didn't mention it, so you can bring your own evidence here.

I I I'm this isn't an objection, this is just uh a plea that that seems gosh unfair at the last minute, and I wasn't provided any of that.

So, so this photo that you just put on the screen.

Can you go back to this one?

Uh, what is the difference between the top one and the that's the wrong house?

I have no idea what house that is or what that does.

Yeah, as an example, this looks the same.

The driveway just looks a little dirty, but it doesn't look any different to me.

You can see the water valve or meter that's there in the middle.

And maybe if it's that ticky tacky, uh, I should just let you go forward.

I just let me put it this out there.

If if it's things that I need to answer or I'd like a chance to answer, with that, I'll just shut up.

Stevens, Mr.

Stevens.

There is a reason that this this applicant altered images to be sent to the city of San Antonio, I would assume.

So my question is if we were to entertain a continuance, could we have the actual property owner here to explain themselves so that we can understand why he did what he did?

Uh I see no reason he couldn't literally I he sent me a picture.

I know that his wife was scheduled to be induced.

They had the kid yesterday.

If you want him to be here, I'll make him here.

I I guess it's possible he's doing an AI induction, but I was aware they were trying to get pregnant, and I will bring the hospital record so the city doesn't accuse us of that either.

So, yes, in short answer to your question, yeah.

If you continue it, I'll make sure he's here.

Give me at least two or three weeks.

Chair.

Um I would this is Ivan, yes.

Um, I would like to just point out that we are looking at this particular case.

We should be looking at the facts of this particular case.

If the city feels that they need to bring the other properties in, then they should make a case for that, separate from this.

Um, yeah, I mean, I'm gonna leave this up to the board.

I think that if uh a board member would like to make a motion on this today, that's perfectly fine.

That the if a board member feels a continuance isn't is necessary, that's fine too.

Um, we're fine with either on behalf of the applicant.

I I certainly appreciate I do appreciate Germanio Bania saying that, but I want to give a good presentation to the board, an honest presentation, and I want to answer the questions.

I always feel that things stand best when people are given full information.

So if you feel continuance is necessary, we'd like to give you that information.

Bonnie, yes, I just uh if I can just comment on something here.

You know, whenever we see houses get put up for sale or for rent or whatever, we see this done a lot.

They make the grass look way greener than it really is.

Um, you know, if if this guy's putting up stuff on Airbnb, maybe he just wants to make it appear a little nicer, so he puts these photos up there.

We see this done all the time in real estate.

You know, you you see these photos, you go look at the house for real, and you're like, Man, the grass isn't that green, or the driveway's not that nice.

They do these things just to you know make it appear better for the photos for for the you know marketing purposes, whatnot.

Um he's shown no history of not paying hot taxes, he's showed no other history of you know on any of them.

I I don't think we got the info on the other properties, but I mean there's no real violations on this one.

Um the driveways there now, he pulled the permit for it.

I I'm okay with moving on and moving forward with this one a day and voting on it.

If if everyone else is, I I am.

I am too.

And and and i say that because um, you know that it's if if what we're talking about is you know a picture i mean i i saw gra I saw enough gravel on this and stored pictures for it to be fine with me one way or another so we'd like to make a motion chair yes commissioner uh one more question regarding the earlier topic about the improvements for the driveway and gravel being accepted I was under the understanding that typically the tires have to be on a paved surface um not sure if that's a fact of this case but um is that is that well they have to be uh like like the uh like staff had mentioned gravel's acceptable as long as it has a curb border uh to contain it uh if you go up and down the street on Google Street View you'll see a good number of driveways that look exactly like the old picture right now and so that's something to put out there uh was there any other questions I thought yes Commissioner Bradman um so first of all I'd like to disagree with Commissioner Bunia because it violates our code of ethics to alter a photograph to make it um untrue so I'd just like to make that point um but I think we can move forward I mean if there's a driveway there now fine okay who'd like to make a motion I will commission I don't mind chair there's a hand up in the back in the gallery to speak on this nobody signed up to speak did you put your name on the list no I don't know if I it's my first time being here okay hold on is there a board member would like to hear from this applicant Anna please come forward hello good morning.

Please state your name and tell us your thoughts you got three minutes uh my name's Elisa Garcia and I live across this property from one seventeen I am the owner of one twelve cactus stream okay um I am here I do not oppose for that um application to keep going through there has been a lot of drug trafficking coming in and out from that house prostitution little girls coming in and out from that house especially during events there the trash cans have been outside from this property out in the public even in the street blocking driveways I have pictures I have cameras I have never seen or spoken to the owner which I have been trying to for the past months I have been trying to get even a hold of that rental property to let them know what's happening.

I have gotten a hold of the east side subdivision I have gotten a hold of the safe officer I have sent them pictures I have showed them videos of guys coming in and out of that house with handbags and I'm not saying I mean if somebody's coming in property they're renting it for the night for the next couple of days you ain't gonna keep coming out every single hour with luggage.

You just not okay and little girls I can say as young as 15 years old um coming out in a night from that property I can say from two three in the morning okay and I am not in favor either of the driveway I have documents okay I live in one twelve the same thing that happened with this property it happened to the property across the street which the one fourteen is a new built okay I'm the 112 there was one fence around these both properties when this owner bought that empty lot beside me I had a gravel I had gravel land okay the same way I had a driveway, a whole driveway, which was 13 point one feet.

Ever since that man decided to build, he billed onto my driveway and he encroached.

So it's very important for these people while they are asking for permits for them to comply with everything because they are encroaching into people's lands.

And because of that, this same man, and not not this one, okay, but the owner from one fourteen cactus street, he decided on February the 19th of 2026, okay, because of parking situations that keep going on.

I even made it on to the news, okay, because this man stepped onto my property once they told him not to talk to me, not to come into my property.

He had a gun, okay, and he loaded that gun in front of my kids, threatening my kids, threatening my family, all because of driveway problems.

Driveway issues, there's no parking.

I have never spoken to the owner, not even from 114.

Uh, for them to say, you know what, we've talked to the neighbors, they're all in favor.

Well, that's a lie.

I caught a little while ago.

I left the voicemail, you know.

Why isn't that voicemail right here being hurt?

Yeah, you see your three minutes up.

So let me ask you.

Yes, sir.

You're spending a lot of time talking about 114 cactus.

We're here about 117.

Yes, sir.

Well, the same thing that happened with 117 is the same issue that happened with 114.

The same thing with the gravel.

Okay, the that there was a gravel there.

On mine, I had gravel, okay.

But because of that, they weren't able to count as the thing the the gentleman in the behind he said well.

Well, it's not gravel anymore, it's a it's a concrete driveway.

Well, now it is.

Okay.

Now it is, but it wasn't.

And 2023, they never had a driveway either in 117.

They never had a driveway.

Okay, is there any uh commissioner manner?

So, so since you live across the street, so um, so it was gravel, and did they put in a driveway and then tear it up and then put another driveway in?

No, they just did that right now.

I have cameras and I can prove that to you.

Okay.

I'll be more than happy to provide that.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, so no other public comment.

Uh, we did get a voicemail, but it was right before the meeting.

Obviously, the cutoff was Friday at 4 p.m., all right.

And yes, go ahead.

And just to uh Commissioner Bonias, there is no other application on file for that whole block face.

All right.

Is there any other questions?

Looking for a motion.

So uh chair.

Yes, Commissioner Dean.

Can we hear the attorney's rebuttal to the sure you know?

About some of the deviant activity.

Over.

Well, you would think that the people that live next door, all the other four people would have a complaint of the deviant activity.

I guess I I it's difficult because I haven't seen what what picture she's showing.

Um she said there are people coming in and out on an everyday basis, but if it's a short-term rental, I I would find that difficult to believe.

Um, I'm somewhat familiar with this area, and the police are too.

I mean, this is I think a block away from the Alamo Dome.

I think if it was a drug house, I would I would expect to see more trash around it.

I drove it before the hearing, and I would also expect the there to be some police reports.

I mean, by her comment, it wasn't a one-time incident.

These are just my thoughts.

I mean, I'm not theirs.

I would expect if there's a long-standing criminal uh thing going on, that the police would do a drive-by and that there would be some reports that support that.

Um evidently the same thing is happening at 114.

I guess what I'm saying is I think the perception of what's going on may be incorrect from this particular neighbor.

So is there any staff?

Is there any police reports for 117 cactus?

We would have to.

Sorry, this is Jeremy.

We would have to partner with SAPD to verify that information.

Uh we don't have access to it.

Um, but I just want to um go back and say that this is for the providing false information, not for a code compliant driveway.

Okay.

All right.

Uh so is there any other questions?

Ready?

All right.

Let's go.

Regarding case number BOA 261030102.

I move that the Board of Adjustment grant the appeal for the property situated at 117 Cactus Street.

Applicant being Richard Gonzalez, because the information provided by the applicant shows that city staff made an error in enforcing section 1611 when revoking the short-term rental permit.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Bonias, Commissioner Ivanas.

On the basis that this case was focused on the driveway.

I don't think that the staff made an error in enforcing section 16, 111.

But I also think that there is there was a driveway there, it didn't look like what was in the picture.

For me, the driveway is uh placed in reality in this property, so I am going to be supporting it.

Thank you, Commissioner Bonnez.

Yeah.

Um, you know, for the reasons being there are no other permits out on this block face.

Uh they're up to date on hot.

There's no code violations now as far as SAPD and those cases.

We I don't know, but there's no code enforcement code code enforcement violations on the property.

Um when the applicant did first pull the permit in 23, his driveway was fine.

Things have changed since.

He now has a driveway that that is permitted.

Uh what his true intentions were with that photo, I don't know.

He's not here to speak on his behalf, but I also can't assume what his intentions were with the photo.

I do know that there's a driveway there now that's compliant, and for those reasons I'll be in support.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to add?

Mana?

Commissioner Manna?

So so I am I had I see some problems here.

And so you know, so I kind of agree with the city where if somebody comes through you and they start fabricating things on a property because you know I'm gonna believe the citizen that spoke um you know that that there was not a driveway.

That's not a real photo.

You know, the new the new driveway was put in, but that's fine, that's after the fact.

And then um, yeah, so I'm I'm not gonna be in favor.

All right, anyone else?

Uh I'm just gonna say I'm gonna be in support of this for two big reasons.

Number one, uh, in 2023 it was perfectly fine, and and uh if if the driveway is there now, and whatever was there before was in line with what's common in the area.

So I don't see any issue with this particular one if there's no code enforcement uh uh issues, violations other than this.

So let's have a roll call vote.

Commissioner Ivanis.

I support uh I concur with the findings and facts.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Reed.

I do not concur.

I'm sorry, sir.

Oh Commissioner Stevens, no, I do not concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I do not concur.

Commissioner Manna?

I do not concur.

Commissioner Braggman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I do not concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur, uh motion does fail four to seven.

So if you have any questions, you can get with staff and the applicant uh certainly can reapply after the 12-month uh since they were denied.

All right.

Item two.

Uh it is 154, Commissioner Manaz recusing from item two.

Good afternoon.

Item number two is BOA-26-103081 located in District 7 at 9102 Broxton Drive.

The zonings are five, and the request is for one, a four foot eleven inch variance from the minimum required five-foot side setback to allow an accessory structure with gutters to be one inch from the west side property line.

And two, a four foot eleven inch variants from the minimum required five-foot rear setback to allow an accessory structure with gutters to be one inch from the rear property line.

The subject property is located along Broxton Drive at the end of a cul-de-sac, which branches off Oglethorpe Drive to the north and has a rear property line abundant Oxford Trace to the south.

Starting properties are also zoned R5 single family residential district and RE and R20 across Oxford Trace.

The case originated from a code enforcement investigation of the property in October 2025.

An accessory structure was observed to encroach into the minimum required rear insides that back per stop site visit to the site in April 2026.

According to Street View evidence, the structure was constructed after February 2020.

The applicant may either move the accessory structure to conform with the unified development code standards, remove the accessory structure, or request a variance from the board of adjustment to allow reduced side and rear setbacks.

This is the subject property.

And this is the surrounding area.

Staff recommends denial in the side setback variants based on the following findings of fact.

The reduced setback variants would leave insufficient room to mitigate potential fire concerns and water runoff into abutting properties and an accessory structures are you permitted on the property as long as it abides by current UDC regulations such as setback requirements.

Staff recommends approval in the rear setback variants based on the following findings of fact.

The rear property line abuts a street to the south, which provides adequate room to limit its impact on nearby structures.

And there's limited room to place an accessory structure at the appropriate distance from the rear property line.

Staff mailed out 31 notices.

We receive zero in favor and zero in opposition.

We receive zero voicemails, and Alamo Farmstead's Babcock Road Neighborhood Association did not provide a response.

All right, thank you very much.

Is that the applicant come forward?

Hi, state your name and tell us about your project.

This is a continuance from uh May 18th.

And uh I did do some research that you requested, and you asked that I reach out to CPS or that the staff reach out to CPS to provide me with a contact uh to determine uh what the setback um uh limitations were.

So I did speak with their uh contact.

There was a ROW manager's name's Mark Bromba.

Uh he states that he would um like to have a um engineer come out and and assess the property um to satisfy your request.

Um however that's gonna take time on their part.

I don't know how long that's going to take.

So at this point I've requested a continuance with the staff.

I believe they supported that.

Uh the only caveat to that is I'm still in the military and I'm going to be on orders in a few weeks, and I won't be back until August.

So I would need at least that window of time to have them do their part on CPS and then have my my ability to come and do whatever needs to take place at that time.

Okay, so um I will tell you that CPS typically will need a month.

Uh, that's our discussion from last time.

Uh staff, what is the longest continuous we can do?

Can we do 60 days or do we have to limit it to a month?

We can do two months.

Okay.

Is two months going to be enough time for you to be back in town?

Okay.

Uh if uh that puts us to August August 3rd or 17th.

Third or August 3rd or 17th.

Can we do the 17th, and that way I can have some time to do what?

So the applicant is requesting August 17th.

Um, is there anyone centered to speak on this matter?

No public comment.

All right.

Well, I'm looking for a motion to continue to August 17th.

Approved.

I move that we um extend a request for uh extension to August 17th.

Is there is there a second?

Second, second by Commissioner Stevens.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

They trickle in a little slower.

Uh any uh anyone opposed.

Hearing none, we'll see you on August 17th.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Oh, and sir, uh, just so you know, in addition to CPS coming out, there is an encroachment application.

There's some documentation.

Just I would get that started.

All right, you made me aware.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

All right.

Commissioner Manna has returned.

It is two o'clock.

We are now on item number three.

Item number three is BOA-26-103088 located at 209 Palo Grande in District 9.

The zoning is RE.

Their request is for one, a 1,215 square foot variance from the maximum 2,500 square foot total floor access area of all accessory structures to allow for a combined 3,715 square feet of accessory structures, two, a fence metal variance, material variance to allow razor wire in the rear property line, and three, a three-foot fence height special exception from the maximum allowable three-foot front yard solid fence requirement to allow a six-foot front yard solid fence on the southeast portion of the property.

The subject property is located along Palo Grande in an established residential block with RE and R20 base zoning districts and with MH PUD to the east and R6 to the north.

The applicant applied for a variance to exceed the maximum allowable accessory structure square footage with the proposed addition of an accessory dwelling unit.

Staff visited the site in May of 2026 and did not see any construction started for the project.

There are other accessory structures existing on the property.

Staff also found conditions that require a fence height special exception for a portion of the front yard fence and a fence with razor wire bordering the rear property line.

The applicant may either modify the existing development to comply with unified development code standards and meet the maximum allowable square footage for accessory structures or request of variance from this standard from the board of adjustment.

Pictured here is the site plan.

This is the subject property.

This is one of the accessory structures.

The next couple of photos will be the accessory structures existing on the property.

This is the razor wire fence.

And this is the surrounding area.

Staff recommends denial for the razor wire footage variance based on the following findings of fact.

Due to the configuration of the lot, the existing structures and remaining yard space.

An accessory dwelling that exceeds the maximum permissible square footage would still observe the spirit of the ordinance, also maintaining adequate distance from other nearby structures and serving its purpose as intended by the code.

Two, in this instance, staff found there's adequate room on the subject property to construct an ADU that exceeds UDC standards and still provides adequate distance from surrounding existing structures.

So staff recommends approval for the square footage variance.

Um recommends denial on the fence height special exception based on the following findings of fact.

There's adequate room on the property, locate the fence in what would be considered the side yard, and the special exception will weaken the general purpose of the district and may lead to similar fences in front of residential properties in this area.

That's allowing a height that is inconsistent with what is typically observed of residential communities.

Staff mail out 23 notices.

Zero received in favor, one was received in opposition.

And that concludes staff's presentation.

Alright, just one quick question on the side plan for the razor wire.

Commissioner Braggman, go ahead.

What about the razor wire?

Staff recommends denial on the razor wire.

Okay.

I didn't hear the rationale.

Just for the motion to be read into the record.

You're wondering what what motivated staff to deny?

I apologize.

Yeah, I think I in the process of switching the slides, I skipped over that slide.

I can read it right now though.

Okay.

Staff recommends denial on their razor wire material variants based on the following findings of fact.

One, granting a prohibitive material variance for razor wire fence will not observe the spirit of the ordinance, as the fence would allow conditions for the installation of an unsafe and obtrusive material that is not normally observed of residential districts.

Two, there's the option to have an eight-foot fence in the side and rear yard, which is already taller allowance than normally permitted for residential properties.

All right.

So my question is is on the side plan preside presented on the southeast corner where they want the taller six-foot solid fence, it's 50 feet away from the property line.

But you have another dimension that's a little blurry.

I can't read it.

Did you uh do you have the original that can you tell me what that dimension is to the corner of the home?

How much further back behind the 50 is that?

Yeah, I can look at this on my computer, but just to be clear, which which to the left a little bit, uh the dimension from the front corner of the home to the property line.

Yeah, that one.

I when I didn't I couldn't I couldn't make it out.

Yeah, I can see if uh looking at it on my computer in the PDF, I can find that measurement.

Oh, the applicant might have that as well.

Okay, and uh, and I also wanted to ask is it because this is zone RE, uh, they are they were allowed a six-foot predominantly open fence in the front yard, correct?

But just not a solid fence.

So it had to meet the uh I think they meet the street um front edge, but they don't meet the size of the lot to have a uh it's 20,000 square feet.

I believe so.

This lot, I mean, I I can't remember this was two lots that that they own, or is it one lot?

But it sure looks like it's 20,000 square feet.

Yeah, how will how large is this property?

I'm sure the applicant might have that as well.

Well, so that they have been come forward, I'm sure they can answer those questions.

Yes, sir.

Please state your name, and well, you've heard two of my questions anyway.

If you can yes, sir.

My name is Dudley Harris.

I'm 83 years old.

I'm a Vietnam vet, and I've lived at 219 Palma Grande for 51 years.

Did my uh did the pictures that I sent in show up there?

But I also have pictures easier.

Yes, I have those also.

Yeah, I think they're I think they're there.

Okay.

So recently, uh my wife and I decided that we wanted to build a structure in our backyard for when our children and grandchildren came to visit.

So we applied for a building permit.

Yeah, and so the city came out, took a look around, and much to our surprise, it turns out we need three variances before we continue.

The first, uh, so those three variances were razor wire.

We have too much uh building on our property, and the front fence is the wrong place, the wrong shape, and the wrong size.

So, uh, first of all, uh we decided to take down the razor wire.

So uh if you look at exhibit A, uh there's the fence coming down.

Exhibit B will show that the razor wire is gone.

So we that's how we decided to deal with that variance.

We're not asking for a variance because the fence is clear now.

Then the uh issue is whether we have room for another building on our property.

I have a lot of square foot buildings on our property.

None of them are habitable, but they're workshops and storage sheds.

I'm a potter and potters need a lot of room, and that's what those buildings are.

The exhibit uh C will show a view of uh that's not the okay.

Use exhibit C from my pictures there, you don't mind terribly.

Can you shine that up?

Yes.

Okay, exhibit C shows the shows the the what we call the north lot.

Uh the shaded area shows where we want to put the house.

So you can see that and our property is three acres, so there's actually enough room for the house.

And I asked my neighbors, uh, and I'm sorry to say they didn't send in their paperwork like they said they would, but uh they no but no neighbor complained.

So it seems to be so that's where we want to put the building, 800 square feet.

Then the third issue is the fence.

Thirteen years ago, uh my wife died, and I decided to take the north lot and to build it was just weeds at the time, and I cleared it, and I wanted to build a space where I could have my workshop and in a way honor her memory.

So I cleared the north lot, and when when I was in the Navy, my wife and I like to go to Japan, and she loved these tall black fences that the Japanese put around their homes in especially in Kyoto.

So that's what I built, and the way I decided where to put it, I just took the back wall of our house and I drew a line out from the wall of the house, and uh that's how I laid out the fence.

So that's where the fence came from.

Then the next question is, what about the neighborhood?

Is this and would this stand out in the neighborhood as a blemish or a blot on the neighborhood?

Uh oh no, first of all, let's look at the fence.

So here's the view of the fence from the neighbor, neighbor on the north.

So you can the Palo Grande is there on the left, and my fence is on the right.

You can see it there.

Okay, exhibit uh exhibit next exhibit, exhibit G.

Okay, that's a view of the fence look from the south looking north, excuse me, looking north.

So the fence is there on the left.

Okay, exhibit H.

Okay, so the next question is, well, what about the neighborhood?

Is this a blemish on the neighborhood?

Our neighborhood has is kind of rural, it has no sidewalks, no curbs, it has a rural uh effect, and then the and the people who live around me are pretty free to do what they want to.

So this is my neighbor across the street.

Okay, next the neighbor down the street, that's his mailbox, and the next is uh a neighbor down the street who collects cars, so and I think some of them run.

Uh, but the exhibit K here, it's a little hard to see, but they're this is the next block, but that fence is six foot tall, it's about six, maybe seven feet from the street.

The reason this is within specs or specification is that his house points to the left.

But I was thinking, but if he turned his house 90 degrees to the right, the fence would be illegal, but the fence didn't move.

So it seems to me that my fence is not a blemish on the neighborhood.

There's a neighbor's fence that clearly is six foot from the street, it's a six foot tall, it's solid wood.

So I can't see how my fence is really would cause that much of a problem.

In uh in uh, and then there was a person who wrote in who complained about where uh for summary I tried to contact that person and did not get an answer.

But here's the view uh is the mobile home park behind my house.

And you can just and you can excuse me, a little nervous.

You can just see a view of the mobile home there on the left.

Uh and then there was there one more.

Uh no, I no, I kept that.

But anyway, I couldn't contact the person.

Oh, there it is.

Exhibit M shows that space where I where I contact the mobile home park at two night from 219, and you can just see that there's about a 15 feet, 15-foot uh boundary where we contact.

So, the person in the mobile home can't see my lot.

I'm not, it's not clear to me why there was someone in opposition.

But in summary, I ask that I get a variance for building uh an 800 square foot building, and that my fence, which is by the way, has been there for 13 years, that I'll be allowed to keep my fence where it is.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

So, my outstanding question was the distance from the front of the corner of the house to the property.

It looks to be about 90 feet.

All right, that's all I need.

And any commission questions?

Commissioner.

So the property is situated or the the uh house is situated, I guess at the angle on the property, and we talk about front yard fences, you know, being from the front facade.

Um would that be that has to be parallel to the street?

Um for a fence.

Yeah, try to figure out what would have had to made this.

So the definition for a front yard is basically from the front property line to the nearest point of the primary structure.

So basically that first 90 feet would be considered his front yard as per UDC standards.

So anything that goes beyond that 90 feet would be considered his front yard fence.

And as y'all were saying, yes, uh, larger properties are permitted up to six feet, a predominantly open fence, just not a um solid.

We don't see a lot where the fence in question is 50 feet.

Well, to me, you know, so they did try to go from the back of the you know the back view of the property, and so and so because it is on such a large piece of property.

Well, it sounds like we're ready to move forward then.

If we don't have to read into the razor wire one, anybody has any other questions?

Let's look in for a motion.

Go ahead, Commissioner Man.

Oh, Commissioner Bragman.

Thank you.

Regarding case number BOA-26-10308, a movement of borrowing adjustment brand request for one uh 1,215 square foot variance from the maximum 2500 square foot total floor area of all accessory structures to allow for a combined 37-15 square feet of accessory structures, and uh situated at 219 Palace Grande.

Applicant being says here Fernando de Leon.

Because the testimony presented to us and the facts we have determined show the physical character of this property is such 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 instance, staff found there was adequate room on the subject property to construct an ADU that exceeds UDC standards and still provide adequate distance from the surrounding existing structure.

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

A little enforcement of the ordinance would necessitate the property to comply with UDC standards, which may be difficult and necessary due to the nature of the existing structure, safety concerns, and vegetation on the property.

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

An accessory dwelling that exceeds the maximum permitted permittable square footage would still observe the spirit of the ordinance while also meeting adequate distance from other nearby structures and serving its purpose and intended by the code.

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

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

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

If granted, the variance will not significantly impact adjacent property or alter the surrounding character given the size of the subject property.

And the location of all excessory behind 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 conditions in the district in which the property is located.

Due to unique circumstances on the property, including the configuration of the lot, the existence of structures that would be difficult to alter, the remaining developable land, and potential security concerns are all contribute to uh to the need for this variance approval in this case.

End of motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Manna.

Commissioner Bragman.

Yeah, I'll be in favor since the razor wire was taken down.

So this is a large enough lot that I think that it can handle those additional structures uh without being too crowded and certainly without creating a uh fire hazard or runoff hazard.

So I'll be in support.

Thank you, Commissioner Manna.

Um I concur with my colleague.

Uh I actually live in a similar community and it and see similar structures on those large acre lots, so I don't see an issue with this.

All right, anyone else like to add?

Hearing none, let's have roll call vote.

Commissioner Braggman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Manna.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ivanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Bonias.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I can curve the findings of fact.

Motion passes unanimously.

Now we're looking for a motion on the fence.

Bragman.

Commissioner Braggman.

Regarding case number VOA-26-103088.

I mean the Board of Adjustment grant a request for three-foot fence height special exception from the maximum allowable three-foot front yard solid fence requirement to allow a six-foot front yard solid fence on the southeast portion of the property situated at 219 Palo Grande.

Applicant being Fernando de Leon because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we've determined show the physical character of this property is such that a little enforcement of the provisions of a unified development code as amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

In this case, the special exception would be in harmony with the spirit of the chapter, as space limitations and configurations of the property present a challenge in locating the fence in what would be considered the side yard.

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

The fence height increases would still promote the public welfare of the community, as the fence height requested would protect the property owner while still promoting a sense of community.

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

The proposed increase in fence height for the front yard would not stray significantly from the standard characteristic of the neighboring and surrounding properties.

D.

The special exception will not alter the essential character of the district and location in which the property for the special exception is sought.

The proposed increase of the side fence is modest and not a total departure from the aesthetics of the surrounding area and character of the neighborhood.

E, the special exception will not weaken the general purpose of the district or the regulations herein established for the specific district, allowing a modesty increase in fence height in this unique location does not undermine these goals as it is based on site-specific conditions that do not apply to most lots.

End of motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Mammoth.

Commissioner Braggman.

Yeah, I'm afraid I'm not going to be in support of this variance.

I feel like the applicant hasn't really provided testimony that indicates that there's a security issue for the need for the additional fence height.

I do think that it's going to be a change in the character of the neighborhood.

There's a lot of large lots there.

It's a very country feeling.

Commissioner Manham.

I will be voting in favor of this.

And for a couple of reasons.

One is again because of the size of the lot, the yard.

And then, you know, with the location of the house, the way it's set up, you know, their backyard view basically is, you know, this fence is not is you know, basically defining that backyard view.

And the only thing I would add is for a friendly amendment would be that the scope be limited to the fence as presented in the um in the pro in the um proposal here.

And so that way, you know, it could move further than what was submitted.

And that would be my friendly amendments so that's to ensure that it doesn't grow any larger than what it currently is.

So is that accepted, Commissioner Braggman?

Yes.

Okay.

So we have a the motion has been amended for the fence to be as it lies, you know, in the present presentation package.

All right.

Any other commissioners like to add?

Let's have a roll call vote.

Commissioner Bragman.

I do not concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Mannap.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vosquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of fact.

Motion passes 10 to 1.

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

All right.

Item number four.

Item number four is BOA-26-103082 located in District 2 at 155 Canton Street.

The zoning is R4, and the request is for one, a fence material variance to allow corrugated metal fencing.

Two, a 22-foot variance from the minimum required 25-foot corner clear vision area to allow a three-foot corner clear vision area.

And three, a nine-foot variance from the minimum required 15-foot clear vision area to allow a six-foot clear vision area for both the subject property and adjacent properties driveways.

The subject property is located along Canton Street at the corner of Canton Street and St.

James Street.

Surrounding properties are zoned R4 to the west and south, and C3 and C3R to the north and east.

The case originated from an application submitted to the city for a variance to allow corrugated metal as a fence material for the subject property in April 2026.

Staff's visit to the site in April 2026 confirmed a corrugated metal fence was existing at the time.

Staff also found conditions to necessitate two requests for a reduced clear vision area.

The applicant may either replace the fence with permitted fence materials and move the existing fence to conform to clear vision standards or request the variance from the board of adjustment to allow corrugated metal fencing and reduced clear vision areas.

Up here is the site plan.

This is the subject property.

This is the surrounding area.

Staff recommends denial for the fence material variants based on the following findings of fact.

One, corrugated metal material is not intended to be utilized as a fence and therefore prohibited within the city to be used as such.

And two, upon inquiry and applying for a permit, the applicant would have been notified of the city's permitted fence materials.

Staff recommends it now for the clear vision variances based on the following findings of fact.

Granting the variants would not observe the spirit of the ordinance as the purpose of the minimum clear vision requirements is to provide a safer streetscape for drivers and pedestrians, and the reduced clear vision variances if granted would reduce the visible space for drivers navigating the nearby intersection and drivers utilizing the subject property and adjacent property driveways.

Staff mail.28 notices.

Zero received in favor, zero in opposition.

We received zero voicemails.

Jefferson Heights Neighborhood Association and Dignoty Hill Neighbor Association did not provide a response.

This concludes staff's presentation.

Uh, can you comment on the material for the sidewalk prior to the concrete?

Is that is that stone or is um that picture?

This picture?

That one or the next one, I mean the one the other direction that between the fence and the the street.

Is that is that like a flagstone?

What is that?

It's just old concrete.

The concrete that's kind of uh the way the cracking looks, I thought it was some sort of no, it's just uh old concrete, okay.

And it looked like the corrugated metal does have a cap except for that little side piece, and in the back, all right.

Thank you.

Let's have the applicant come forward.

Hello, state your name and tell us about your your fence and I'm Jack Hernandez from Carlsbad, New Mexico.

I'm here representing my son.

He's in the army right now, so he he can't be here.

Okay, so the reason behind this story on this house.

Um, if we would have known what he was buying, we would have never bought it.

This is a crack house.

The neighborhood's a crackhead house.

I mean, if you're there at 10 o'clock at night, you'll see what I'm talking about.

You'll see all the traffic rucking up and down that sidewalk right there.

They throw all their junk over the fence.

When we were cleaning this lot up, there was two other houses up there.

The city made us take them down because they were just junk.

They made them take three inches of dirt out because of all the contamination.

There was eight foot of weeds on that property when we bought it when he bought it.

So off and on, coming back and forth.

He lives in San Diego.

So every time we come to work on this property, we gotta stay a week or so.

Um, just all the work we put into it.

Um, they they were still in, they stole his unit, his uh air conditioning unit, they ripped all the copper out.

Anything you leave in that yard, they'll steal it.

That was the reason behind that tin fence.

Um I'm a builder, I'm a welder by trade, so I know what's gonna last longer wood or tin.

And the whole neighborhood was saying they're gonna break the wood, they're gonna break in, they're gonna burn yours.

They're just gonna destroy it.

You know what I mean?

So just taking it from the father's part of view.

I put the tin fence up.

Um, the front fence, they told him they had to space it.

I guess so when you're driving around the corner, you gotta be able to see the little piece of sidewalk, it's all it's no good.

So we replaced that little piece because there's where we were getting all the dirt out but from the backyard.

Um the trouble he's gone through.

We should have known about the house.

They didn't tell us somebody got shot there.

There was bullet holes all through that house.

Um he's had to replace all the wind two weeks prior.

I mean two days prior, before he rented the house, they broke the two front windows out.

So that that neighborhood is bad.

I mean, this is the reason we did this.

We're gonna come back, we gotta finish putting the caps.

We put the cap on that one side because they said the city was concerned about somebody jumping in to steal, they're gonna cut their fingers.

That's the reason we we put the caps.

We're gonna finish it up when we get time to get back over here.

Um, so I'm just pleading that y'all who a lack to keep the fence.

So, a couple questions.

So, you're are you amending your application for the corrugated metal to include a top cap?

No, I don't know.

Yeah, we're just I'm trying to say let us keep the fence.

Well, you'd mentioned you were gonna put a cap on.

Yeah, we got a cap on your application.

On the whole one side, so yeah.

But your application will include a cap on all the corrugated metal.

All right.

And then I notice on the back of the property is where your natural driveway is cut.

It looks like there's a driveway.

I don't know what was there.

Are you going to provide a driveway to this house?

You know, I don't know what his plan is eventually.

Um I know he's got it rented out.

Oh, there is a driveway on the front.

Okay, that's what I was trying to.

Yeah, so there's a gate right over here on this far end.

So he the there it is.

Yeah, the people, and like I said, we're still cleaning this property up.

There's it's a lot of work.

Okay.

So there's a style there's a stop sign coming up.

Uh, okay.

That whole sidewalk is no good along the front.

He's going to replace it little by little.

And I don't see why he should replace it.

I mean, his city property.

But we're doing it because he wants it to look good.

All right.

And is it is it it's not your intent to continue the corrugated metal any further?

No, that's it.

We just did that to keep all the junkies out.

All righty.

Any other questions?

Anyone who's going to be able to do it just because of the neighborhood or the neighborhood.

I understand.

Anyone sign to speak?

Nobody's time to speak.

Would someone like to make a motion on this case?

Stevens.

Commissioner Stevens.

Regarding case number BOA-26-1030082.

I move that the Board of Adjustment grant a request for one offense material variants to allow corrugated metal fence.

Two, a 22-foot variance from the minimum required 25-foot corner clear vision area to allow a three-foot corner clear vision area, and three, a nine-foot variance from the minimum required 15-foot clear vision area to allow a six-foot rear vision area for both the subject property and the adjacent adjacent properties driveways situated at 155 Canton Street, applicant being Jose Hernandez.

Because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we've determined show the physical character of the property is such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the UDC as amended would result in an unnecessary hardship.

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

In this case, the fence material is not contrary to the public interest as the material utilized could appropriately operate as a fence.

As the reduced distance from the fence to the road could still provide adequate space for both drivers backing out of the driveway and drivers navigating the intersection.

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

A literal enforcement of the ordinance would require the applicant to use a permitted fence material and adhere to clear vision standards, which would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

Such variants would not would be in the spirit of the ordinance as the corrugated metal fencing would act appropriately as the fence material in this instance, and the reduced clear vision would still provide adequate visible space for drivers navigating the nearby intersection and drivers utilizing the subject property and adjacent property driveways.

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 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 the corrugated metal fence and reduced clear vision standards would not alter the essential character of the district.

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

The plight of the property owner is due to the unique circumstances on the property, such as the limited space available to adhere to clear vision standards and the corrugated metal fence being the most ideal material to operate as a fence on the property.

And I just want to go back and um clarify that this does include a cap on the corrugated metal fence and a motion.

Second, second by Commissioner Manna.

And actually, can we can we go back just for a second?

I apologize.

So one question I have is: um, you know, I do see uh several homes with six-foot chain link fences along the front.

And so is there a reason for half wood versus a six-foot tall chain link?

Do you see a difference for security slash what you're trying to get to?

Well, due to the neighborhood, and what the people in the front corner, there's a bus stop there, right?

They got an eight-foot chain link fence.

Um the whole neighborhood has different types of fences.

Just what we heard from the people when we were working on the house.

To me, that was the safest thing to do.

Because they were going to break in, they were breaking into that house, even while we were there.

We were taking the old fence down, the old chain link fence, and at night when we would go to the hotel, they would steal the fence.

So, you know, so it was my idea, because since I'm a welder, I said let's just go with metal fence.

It'll be there.

So not talk about the metal fence on the back.

I'm talking about in the front yard.

No, the front yards would.

I know, but it's so the question I have that I'm asking, you know, because we're talking about clear vision, and so clear vision is kind of this whole dialogue for safety, and it is on a corner.

So they told him to space it.

Right.

So that's when the cars going around the corner.

They can see across there, and it's only so tall.

Um, and I guess what I'm questioning or or asking is you know, chain link is generally more durable.

Um, and if it was six foot tall in the front, would that give you the same level of security that you're looking for versus the wood slats, you know, just in general?

I would I was gonna go right iron, a three-foot right iron fence in the front, or a five-foot or six foot rod iron.

I mean, if you also allow us, he wanted to do that.

So you do a five-foot rod iron, you could do a five-foot rod iron.

I um I build right iron fencing, I would go with a rod iron fence just so my son would be more secure, so we don't have to be coming back every two months to fix some.

Right, and that's where and that's kind of where I was going.

You know, is this and so I don't know if any of the so the clear vision is really the what's up, and that would be resolved by that, or or wouldn't need to be read in.

So what I meant for the location of that front fence, he would still need the clear vision because it's where it's located in contact with the intersections.

So staff, do you qualify the the gapping?

Does this meet predominantly open?

No.

Well, yeah, the existing the existing wood fence is considered predominantly open because you can see more than 70 or it's we can all update the I'd like to make a friendly um uh amendment to include that the uh fencing associated with the clear vision is predominantly open.

Yeah, it's existing predominantly open.

It's just basically the location of it in congruence with the and I'd also like to ask if we could um specify that the corrugated metal would be on the north and east side, which is where it lies now.

I'd be happy to accept those amendments, commissioner manna.

Okay, so that we have an amended motion to specify corrugated metal with a cap that it's on the north and east side, and that the uh clear vision concerns with the with the front fencing is uh for predominantly open related to the clear vision.

So okay.

Any other questions?

Any other comments?

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Yameth.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Pragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I can curve the findings of fact motion passes unanimously.

If you haven't had any questions, uh you can get with staff.

No question.

Thank you.

Item five.

Item number five is BOA-26-1030100 located in District 1 at 6316 Cincinnati Avenue.

The zoning is R4, and the request is for a four foot eight inch variance from the minimum required five foot side setback to allow a carport to be four inches from the side property line.

The subject property is located along Cincinnati Avenue amidst an established residential block with properties primarily zoned R4 and a nearby water quality protection area overlay.

The case originated from an application for a variance to the Board of Adjustment by the property owner to construct a carport to the side of the existing primary structure.

The applicant may either amend their proposed development to conform with the unified development code standards or request the variance from the Board of Adjustment to allow a reduced side setback.

This is the site plan.

This is the subject property, this is the surrounding area.

Staff recommends denial for the side setback variants based on the following findings of fact.

One, the reduced setback variants would leave insufficient room to mitigate potential fire concerns and water runoff onto abutting properties.

And two, the carport has not been constructed yet and can still be planned to adhere to residential based zoning district setback requirements.

Staff mail at 35 notices.

We received two in favor and zero in opposition.

Outside of 200 feet, we received one in favor and zero in opposition.

We received no voicemails.

And the Martinez Creek Neighborhood Association and West and Hope and Action Neighborhood Associations did not provide a response.

So is there is there an application that it that has any any information about what they're proposing, whether it's attached to the side or if it's gonna have gutters or if the roof is gonna be slant a certain way?

I can check if there are plans submitted in our system.

Well that's the applicant.

Okay.

And um we did receive one voicemail in favor.

Um before uh after a deadline.

Okay.

So have the applicant come forward.

All right.

Please state your name and tell us about your carport.

Uh did you get to hear the questions that I was asking about some of the construction?

Thank you.

Yes, my name is Henry M.

Gonzalez Jr., and I'm the owner of the that home.

Um the carport, um, I know with the paperwork I sent, I sent a photo of what I want it.

And uh basically those houses all on that area, the driveways are real narrow.

That's why I'm asking for the variance that big.

Um it's gonna be made out of uh metal, metal, uh like four by four metal.

I'm not too familiar with that stuff, but uh it's gonna have a roof pitch toward the front.

Uh the main house is gonna be under the main house overhang.

That's got a gutter all metal new about a year old gutters with bounce about.

So that water's not gonna run on the roof.

It's gonna run the gutter.

It's gonna have a pitch.

We're gonna put a gutter in the front, gutter down, and then we're gonna it's made of caliche, we'll probably uh add a little bit more on the side of the fence line.

So it won't be falling over the next door neighbor's house.

Okay.

I already talked to her.

I'm not sure if she's the one who sent that letter in, but she's fine with it.

Okay, so for the parameters of of what we have before us, we don't get uh ironically we don't get a lot of people applying who haven't already built it.

So uh so for your for your particular carport, what is the size?

Is it it's gonna be um twelve feet?

Mm-hmm.

And that's basically it's gonna be a little less because the that's how much area I got.

It'll be like 11 feet something.

What about the length?

40.

That's enough for two cars.

So you're looking for a uh uh twelve by forty foot carport that's predominantly sloped towards the front.

Yes.

With gutters on the front.

Yes.

And you'll be four inches away from the side property.

Yes, I will.

Okay.

I have a photo of the and it's gonna be made out of metal beams and just like metal roof.

I don't know if you can show that's exactly what I want.

I already talked to that.

Okay.

Like that, but it's gonna be a little longer.

The slope towards the front.

Well, that's yeah, they slope that toward the house, I guess, but you can see gutters on the how they did that, but mine's gonna be to the front.

And yours will be above the roof line so that it's or below the well be under underneath the overhead of the of the roof.

It's about nine and a half feet tall.

Okay.

And I need that length because uh I am retired now and uh I have a large truck uh tundra and another car, so I that's why I need the length.

And um uh I needed to because uh I you can still see the weather today, horrible, you know, and the hail and stuff, and a little protection for my vehicles for the summer.

And then I have a bunch of medical stuff going on and uh it's hard to get in the hot car hot stuff, you know, and that would help me too.

So just to be clear, your your application before us is for a 12 by 40 car port slope to the front, yes, predominantly constructed of metal material, yes.

Uh all right, yeah.

So wanted to make sure that that was acceptable that that would be right into the motion.

Yeah, all right.

Is there anyone sign up to speak?

Nobody's on us to speak.

Is there any questions from any commissioners?

All right, I guess I'm looking for a motion.

Reed, Commissioner Reed.

Regarding case number BOA 26103 00100, I move that the board of adjustment grant the request for a four foot eight variance from the minimum required five foot side setback to allow a 12 foot by 40 foot uh metal carport sloped to the front with gutters to be four inches from the side property line situated at 631 Cincinnati Avenue.

Applicant being Henry Gonzalez, because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we determined show the physical character of this property is such that the literal enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code as amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

In this case, there would be adequate space from the side property line as a carport lease official space to mitigate fire spread and water runoff.

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

Special condition of this property is location of the existing home in the driveway, leaving limited room to construct a carport that abides by current setback requirements, current side setback requirements.

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

Such variants would be in the spirit of the ordinance as reduction of the setback is minimal and will cause no hardship to either property abutting this lot.

Four, the variants will not authorize the operation or 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 can be allowed with this variance.

Five, such variants will not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent property, 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 to mitigate fire spread and water runoff.

Furthermore, variance would not reduce visibility.

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 this district in which the property is located.

Play of the property owner is due to the unique circumstances on the property, such as the width of the side yard, which limits the available space for the establishment of carport.

And a motion.

Second, second by Commissioner Stevens.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I'll I'll be in support of this variance.

I think um I appreciate you coming to us first, uh asking for permission.

Um, and I I think because you've done so you've you've heard the recommendations of this board.

Um you're going about the right way by putting gutters, and you've spoken to the neighbor, so uh I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be approved.

Thank you, Commissioner Stevens.

Yeah, I'll be in support as well.

I think this is kind of as good as it gets given the the narrowness that you're working with, and um it's refreshing that somebody would apply for a variance prior to building this thing, so I appreciate that.

So I'll be in support.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to add?

All right, so that's a roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Reed.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Clamez.

I concur.

Commissioner Menna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bregman.

I concur with the findings of the act.

Commissioner Bunnyas?

Yes, I concurrent?

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And that can go with the findings of fact.

Motion, passes unanimously.

If you happen to have any questions, you can get with staff, but okay.

I do have some questions, but not about this.

Uh like my next step.

Well, staff will can walk you through that.

Okay.

But uh you have a good afternoon.

I want to thank y'all.

I appreciate it.

Yes, sir.

And thank you for coming here first.

Okay.

All right, item number six.

It's it.

It's going to be update right now.

Maybe just prevent it out like this.

Item number six is BOA- Oh, sorry, not number six.

Wait, yes.

Item number six is BOA-26-1030101 located in District 5 at 124 East Savio Street.

The zoning is IDZ1 with uses permitted for one dwelling unit.

The request is for one, a 50% variance from the maximum allowable 50% front yard impervious cover to allow 100% impervious cover in the front yard.

Two, an eight foot two inch driveway clear vision variance from the minimum 15 foot driveway clear vision to allow a six foot 10 inch clear vision area for the front driveway.

Three, a two foot six inch fence height special exception from the maximum allowable five foot predominantly open front yard fence height maximum to allow a seven foot six inch overhead rail for a motorized sliding gate limited to the front property line and a six foot open front yard fence.

There we go.

The subject property is located along East Savaio Street and is within proximity of the intersection of East Civil Street with Nogolito Street and South Florida Street to the west.

Surrounding properties are variety of base zoning districts, including IDZ HS to the west, NCIDZ and C2NA IDZ to the east, and R4 directly to the south, and I2 across the street to the north.

Other IDZ and commercial base zoning districts can be observed in the surrounding area.

The case originated from the applicant applying for a variance to allow a six-foot tall predominantly open front yard fence and a seven foot six-inch overhead rail for a motorized sliding gate.

Upon visiting the site in May of 2026, staff also found conditions to necessitate a variance for an impervious cover variance and a reduced clear vision area variance.

The subject property recently went through a change of zoning in 2024 and was granted a variance to allow development for three-story structure using a pitched roof as submitted in application at a previous board of adjustment hearing on November 4th, 2024.

This is the site plan.

This is the subject property.

This is the surrounding area.

Staff recommends denial for the impervious cover and clear vision variances in BOA-26-1030101 based on the following findings of fact.

One, installing excessive impervious cover to a lot that is already permitted 50% impervious cover in the front contributes to the difficulty in mitigating stormwater and can intensify flood events.

Two, there is the option to utilize pervious materials for parking areas to meet UDC standards.

Three, granting the variants would not observe the spirit of the ordinance as a purpose of the minimum clear vision requirements is to attempt to provide a safer streetscape for drivers and pedestrians.

For the reduced clear vision variants, if granted, would reduce the visible space for drivers navigating the nearby intersection and roadways.

Drivers use utilizing the subject property driveway and pedestrians using the sidewalks in the area.

Staff recommends approval for the fence height special exception based on the following findings of fact.

One, the predominantly open fence would contribute to the safety of the residents of the property while also promoting a sense of community to the surrounding area.

Two, their proposed increase in fence height for the front yard would be limited to the front yard, and the property would still be required to adhere to all other Fed's development standards.

Staff mailed out 31 notices, zero were received in favor, zero received in opposition.

We received no voicemails, and Lone Star Neighborhood Association do not provide a response.

And this concludes staff's presentation.

Alright, thank you very much.

Let's have the applicant come forward.

Hello, please state your name, tell us about your project.

Hi, my name is Juani Nahosa.

I'm here as uh representative of the contractor for and for the client, Mrs.

Lucy Noorosco.

Okay.

Uh so first of all, thank you everybody for listening to the case, and thank you for the city for being a great help throughout the whole process.

It was it was amazing.

Um I would like to address the impervious cover first.

Uh as you saw from the pictures, uh, when we submitted, we actually submitted the uh change of the driveway.

Uh originally we had a driveway to the left of the house.

Uh then the owner switched it from a garage to just uh a flex room in the front.

So we changed the driveway and submitted it.

Uh as you can see, so the driveway is 40 or the the front lot is 40 feet across, the pavers are exactly 20 feet.

So the lot is a little over 40 feet, so and then when you consider that there's river rocking between the pavers, you go below the 50%.

Um so our question was, and this maybe maybe it was just uh so we don't understand the UDC uh clearly enough on the impervious cover, but we thought river rock was pervious cover.

Well, it is if staff is saying that they didn't deem it as such, that's what's before us today.

Do you know if there's a plastic line underneath it?

There's no plastic liner.

The the river rock was put on top of the soil that was already there.

And can you verify the size of your lot?

Is it about 0.08 acres?

I believe so, yes.

Yeah, so that so around 4,000 square feet, less than 4,000 square feet.

When you're less than 10,000 square feet, you're fully exempt from the entire stormwater manual.

So, you know, I'm not that the impervious cover thing doesn't really bug me because of the intent of the IDZ, they could have a house five feet on all four sides if they want to and and I think that you know that we've had ongoing dialogue with regards to rock versus you know, all of that, and and to me, this looks previous enough from my perspective.

But yeah, yeah.

And staff, um, the another exemption that follows IDZ if you're under 20,000 square feet is an exempt exemption from the street standards.

Is clear vision part of the street standards or is that something else?

That's that's part of 514.

Um, so it's not part of street standards.

I just wanted to ask.

But so I do have a so going back, so we're talking about impervious cover.

Um and impervious cover.

And so, so if you took a look what was here before, it was a solid driveway to basically 50% of the property, and then the rest of it was open.

And so, um, is there any way that this could we could read it so that it looks and you know like this so it doesn't become a hundred percent concrete across the front?

You know, if we allow for 100% um non-pervious cover, uh you know, for what it is that they've intended here versus what it is that we're seeing.

Yeah, outside of saying as submitted, I guess is that the same.

I'm not saying is the way that we verify consisting of river rock without a bottom liner.

Okay, yeah, something very specific.

Okay, all right.

I would just like to add that um on that one, the impervious cover.

We wouldn't submit that that was a recommendation from the city, but we were unsure if we were out of uh compliance, that's why we left it in there just so we could have it heard today.

Well, sometimes sometimes people come here just to be safe on the safety.

Yes, sir, yes, sir.

Um, and then uh speaking on the fence, then thank you for the recommendation to prove the height.

Uh yeah, the owner's concern about safety in the area of security, uh, mainly because it's mostly commercial in the area.

There's a lot of apartments, a lot of restaurants, a lot of uh commercial property there.

Um, as far as the clear view, so one of the things that if you look at one of the pictures from the city on the property right next door, right?

You can see that one right there.

That's a fence for the neighbors right next door.

It's already at seven and a half feet, uh, and it already impedes a clear view from that side.

We're not proposing to put a fence on that side anyways, but just uh as as uh as a note, we already have an impediment impediment uh on that side.

On the other side, um, we do want to put that seven and a half or six foot high on that side, and it's gonna be transparent.

Um, but the as we said the driver was moving out to the center.

So when it comes to pedestrians, uh we still have some clear view of the pedestrians.

When it comes to the road, uh the only uh road that's gonna be affected by that side will be the opposing road.

So we'd be able to have uh clear view from cars coming from the opposite side of the street.

Okay.

Okay.

Any questions from the commission?

Anyone sign to speak?

Nobody's on the speak.

So mana, so with regards to the fencing, it's gonna be predominantly open fencing.

Okay.

All right.

If there's no more questions, I'm looking for a motion.

Manna.

Commissioner Manna.

Um regarding case number BOA two six one zero three zero zero one zero one.

I move that the board of addressing grant a request for um an impervious cover front yard uh can uh um as submitted uh which is contains uh river walk uh without uh a plastic liner below.

Um and two, an eight foot two inch driveway clear vision variance for a predominantly open fence from the minimum 15-foot driveway clear vision to allow a six-foot 10-inch clear vision area for the front driveway situated at 124 east of Savala Street.

Applicant B and Jose Sepulveda because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we determined show that the physical character of this property such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code as amendment would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

The impervious cover requested would still provide adequate conditions to mitigate stormwater runoff from this property.

The clear vision variance is not contrary to the public interest, as reduced distance from the fence to the road could still provide adequate space for both drivers navigating the intersection and drivers backing out of the driveway.

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

A little enforcement of the ordinance would result in removal of previously installed impervious cover, which presents an unnecessary hardship as the lot is already developed and these conditions do not produce substantial inverse adverse impacts.

The reduced distance from the fence to the road would still provide adequate circumstances for both drivers backing out of the driveway and drivers navigating the roads surrounding the property.

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

An impervious cover variance would still observe the spirit of the ordinance, as the variance would not have a substantially inverse impact to stormwater drainage in this area.

A reduced clear vision area would still provide adequate circumstances for drivers.

Navigating the nearby intersection and roadways, drivers utilizing the subject property driveway and pedestrians using sidewalks in this area.

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

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

Five such uh variances will not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent corner property or although the essential character of the district, which is properties located.

The request does not injure the appropriate use of adjacent properties or alter the essential character of the district as the remaining amount of permeable surface or permeable area is sufficient to mitigate stormwater runoff, and there still would be adequate room for drivers to navigate the surrounding streetscape.

Six applied to the owner of property for which the variance sought is due to unique circumstances uh existing on this property and the unique circumstances were not created uh as a by the property are not merely financial and are not due to or resulted general conditions in the district, which is properties located.

Staff finds apply to the owner of the property for a severe in the side is due to unique circumstances existing on this property.

The variance is not granted.

The property owner would be required to remove their previously installed impervious cover and move the proposed fence location further back on the property with already limited front yard space and the motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Cruz, Commissioner Manna.

So I'll be voting in favor of this.

I think the dialogue with regards to uh pervious versus impervious cover.

I think I think this type of development here you know probably does meet it, but it's uh I guess kind of per the dialogue on how we look at it, uh the types of covers.

So um, and then with regards to promptly open fence, I think that uh this is appropriate on this particular street so I'll be voting in favor.

Commissioner Cruz yes I concur with Mr.

Manna I I do know the area and because of the construction and with all the other properties in the area it is um pretty hard sell but uh the fancy should be appropriate for the apartment the uh complex that they're making thank you all right anyone else like to add hearing none is I have a roll call vote commissioner manna I concur with the findings of fact commissioner crews yes I concur commissioner reed yes I concur commissioner Stevens yes I concur Ibonis I concur commissioner dean yes I concur commissioner gomez I concur commissioner bragman I I concur with the findings of fact commissioner bonias yes I concur commissioner Vasquez I concur chair or in and I concur with the findings of fact motion passes uh now we're gonna hear a motion on the fence height manna commissioner manna regarding case number BOA two six one zero three zero zero one zero one I moved that to board adjustment grant the request for a two foot six inch fence height special exception for the maximum allowable five foot predominantly open front yard fence height maximum um limited to uh the seven foot six inch overhead rail for a motorized siding gate limited to the front property line and a six foot open front yard fence uh situated at one two four east sovalos applicant being joseped because the testimony presented 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 a the special exception will be in harmony with the spirit and purpose of the chapter this case the special exception will be in harmony with the spirit of the chapter as the fence would provide it an extra sense of security for its residents and there is adequate room on the property to locate the fence in what would be considered front yard b the public welfare and convenience will be substantially served the fence height increase would still promote the public welfare of the community their predominantly open fence would contribute to the safety of the residents of the property while also promoting a sense of community to surrounding area C the neighboring property will not be substantially injured by such proposed use the proposed increase in fence heights for the front yard would be limited to the front yard and the property would still be required to adhere to all our fence all other fence development standards.

D the special exception will not alter the the central character of the district and location in which this property for which the special exception is sought the special exception would not alter the central character of the district and location of the property for which the special exception is sought as the front yard fence is proposed to be promptly open which would still contribute to the sense of community in the area while also providing some separation from the surrounding area which consists of a variety of base zoning districts and existing uses either special exception will not weaken the general purpose of the district or the regulations here in established within the specific district the special special exception would not weaken the general purposes of the district as the proposed fence height exception is a modest departure from the current standard and the property would still be required to adhere to all other development standards for building a fence and emotion.

Second second by Commissioner Cruz Commissioner Manna I don't see any issues with this looking at the district and uh and uh particularly where this is located I did limit the seven foot six inch uh maximum heights just to that to the gate area and so I think with that then I'm okay with greatness as is thank you commissioner crews uh yes I concur with uh commissioner manner I don't see a problem with that all right anyone else like to add hearing none let's have roll call vote commissioner manna I concur with the findings of fact commissioner crews yes I concur commissioner reed yes I concur commissioner Stevens yes I concur commissioner Ibandis.

I concur.

Commissioner dean.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes I concur commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of fact.

Motion passes.

If you haven't had any questions, get with Seth.

We'll do so.

Thank you, everyone.

Thank you.

I think we can take a little seven-minute break.

We'll see y'all in seven minutes.

Alright, 316.

We're back in session.

Item number seven.

Afternoon item number seven.

Uh BOA 26103 00103.

Located at 551 Griggs Avenue.

Uh current zoning of R6.

And this being a request for a five foot eight inch variance from the minimum required 10-foot front setback to a lot of carport with a four foot four-inch front setback to a four-foot four-inch variance from the minimum required five-foot side setback to a lot of carport with an eight-inch north side setback.

The subject property is located south of the intersection of Griggs Avenue and Kaliba Road.

The property surrounded by properties zoned R6, R5 and C2.

Code enforcement staff initiated an investigation of the subject property in April 2026 and found a carport was built in the front yard without a permit.

Before a permit can be issued for the carport, the owner must demonstrate compliance with the minimum required setback standards or obtain a variance from these standards from the Board of Adjustments.

This is the side plan, indicating uh where those two are.

This is the subject property, photos of the surrounding area.

Staff's recommendation uh for the carport setback variance is uh staff recommends denial and BOA 26103-00103 based on the following findings.

The fact one, the proposed site setback does not provide adequate space to maintain the structure without accessing adjacent property or to mitigate against potential damage from water runoff, two, the proposed front setback would not observe the spirit of the ordinance, which is to promote orderly development and the preservation of open front yard space in a single family uh in single family residential districts.

Mailed out 24 notices, received two in favor, zero in opposition, no voicemails were received.

Uh, the Culliver Park Neighborhood Association did not respond.

That concludes staff's presentation and applicant as present.

Just a quick question.

One of the responses was from the fire station.

Does that mean the city wrote back in?

Or the the people who live at the fire station did.

Yeah, I don't have any.

We're looking up the responses real quick.

Hold on.

Kind of contradicts your recommendation denial.

Okay, let's have the advocate come forward while we're looking into that.

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

Hi, good afternoon.

My name is Valerie Tobias.

I'm here representing my mother.

She is the owner of the home.

Adrianica Steele.

First and most, we want to apologize for building the carport beforehand, only because she spoke with a lot of the neighbors down the street that have other car ports, and they had let her know, you know, we've never had to build it, we never had to ask for permission from the city.

We had come before whenever we had to build the side um driveway for uh to allow another vehicle on the property, and when we asked them the permission, they stayed uh up in the front.

They're like, oh no, you don't have to get nothing out as long as it's not affecting the city.

Um what do you call it?

The curve.

It doesn't, it doesn't damage anything.

So that's why she went ahead and contacted somebody to build a report.

The reason why we build the port is because um we're at the intersection of where the fire department enters in, and when we park our vehicles on the side, we have she has uh five niece uh nieces and nephews that are all under the age of 10, so it's kind of hard for us to park on the side and load them up and unload them from the vehicles without the vehicles running into them.

So, a long long time ago, one of my side mirrors got broken because my car was parked on the street, and we had to replace that.

And then this allows us to put the vehicles, both of the vehicles that we have.

They're uh it's two trucks, so it allows the vehicles to be in there and have them not be damaged, and then it also allows us when we w uh go over to her house for her grandkids to be loaded and loaded without having to run into the street.

So your car part is wide enough to allow two cars side by side.

Exactly, yes.

Okay, and then um we had also requested because uh when it rains, a lot of dirt and mud accumulates on that area.

So she wanted to remove the driveway and expand it to the size of the carport, just so that way it's not allowing a lot of mud to run on there.

Um we did spoke with the neighbors, the neighbors were okay with it.

We spoke with the fire department, which is what they were stating, um, and then we also spoke with other neighbors down the street.

The carport is um isn't connected to the house, so uh we did uh it is six foot from where the sidewalk is inwards towards the house, and it's about a foot in from where our property ends.

So the post for that car port is six feet away from the back of the sidewalk.

Uh, yes.

And then is it sloped predominantly towards the front?

I believe so.

From what the the they had.

And staff, there's nothing nothing before us uh or implied about widening the driveway, or is there is widening the driveway gonna cause us to have to come back to us?

Because we did request that to uh do remove the driveway and put it back on there as well.

Only the carport.

Yeah, the widening would be only come back to y'all in case it went beyond the 50% rule, which it looks like it wouldn't be the case.

It's not yeah, it's only 400 square foot uh because we did the measurements and it's under underneath the 50 percentage.

Okay, because she wanted to remove uh where it if you show the other picture afterwards.

Yes, that one, that one right there.

She wanted to remove where the entrance is towards the house.

She was gonna remove that part of there so it doesn't go over the 50 percentage and just widen a little bit where the um front porch is.

Okay, any commissioner questions?

Cruise.

Commissioner Cruz.

Um, the only thing I don't see is um drainage.

Uh where does when the when it rains, where does the water run up to?

To the side of the home or to the front of the yard?

It runs both ways.

When the water falls both ways, whenever it rains, like this past time that it rains, it both runs both ways, but right there where we had it, um, we it runs right there in the towards the front and the side.

From when it hits the, are you talking about when it hits on the carport?

Yeah.

Yeah, it runs to the sides.

Okay, the corrugation implies that it drains to the front.

Like the way it's yeah, because it's slanted, so it pretty much runs both ways towards the front and the side.

Well, no.

Oh, she says it runs just towards the front.

Sorry.

She's more familiar with the case than I am.

I'm just translating her.

Yeah, I'm looking at the sensors.

Yeah, I just in the picture.

Yeah, I'm sorry, I do apologize.

All right.

Commissioner Reed.

Uh yes, would you be willing to install uh rain gutter?

Does he get us installed?

Yeah, this is what is losing, and then see if it's a good yes.

So you're making your application to include gutters along the front?

Yes.

Okay.

Any other questions?

And would this include also the removing of the driveway and installing the well if you don't exceed the 50% um staff has commented that it's it's you wouldn't need to come before us for that.

Okay.

Okay.

Does that still require a permit though, right?

Yeah.

Okay.

Correct.

Just making sure if it was under a thousand square feet or can't remember where that exception is anymore.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Anyone signed it to speak?

Uh nobody's signed up to speak.

Um, that was the firehouse.

Uh looks like a lieutenant that works in a firehouse that made that response.

All right.

Sounds awesome.

Let's looking for a motion.

Monius.

Commissioner Bunny is ready.

According to case number BOA 261030103, I move that the board of adjustment granite requests for one, a five-foot-inch variance from the minimum required ten foot front setback to allow a carport with a four-foot four-inch front setback.

Uh to include gutters along the front, uh to a four foot four-inch variance from the minimum required five-foot side setback to allow carport with an eight-inch north side setback situated at 551 Griggs Avenue, applicant being Adriana Castillo because the testimony presented us and the facts that we have determined shows the physical character of this property is such that literal enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code as amended would result in an unnecessary hardship.

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

This variance would not be contrary to the public interests as there is adequate space to maintain the carport without accessing adjacent property.

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

A literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship as the effort to relocate or modify the carport would not yield proportional benefits to adjacent property or the wider uh or the wider neighborhood.

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

Granting the variants would observe the spirit of the ordinance as the proposed setback allows sufficient space for maintenance access and sufficiently preserves open front yard space on the property.

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

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

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

The variants would not substantially injure the appropriate use of the adjacent conforming property as the proposed setback allows for sufficient space to maintain the carport without accessing adjacent property.

The plight of the owner of the property for which the variant is salt 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 and are not due to or the result of general conditions in the district in which property is located.

The plight of the owner of the property for which the variance is solved is due to the limited existing width and depth of the property, which constrains the placement of the proposed carport.

End of motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Cruz.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yeah, I'll be in support.

They agree that they would uh put a gutter along the front.

And um there's a couple other carports very similar to this in the area, so I don't think it uh diminishes the character of the area.

Alright, Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, I can um concur with Commissioner Bonnie and I don't see uh any big issues coming out of it, especially since like you said, there is more properties around the area that have similar carports.

Thank you.

All right.

Anyone else like to add?

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

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ivanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Gomez?

I concur.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of fact.

Motion passes.

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

Yes.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item number eight.

Item number eight is BOA-26-1030104.

Located in district one at 1431 West Grammarcy Place.

The zonings are four.

And the request is for a three foot six inch variance from the minimum five-foot side setback to allow carport to be one foot six inches from the east side property line.

The subject property is located along West Gramercy Place amidst an established residential block with properties primarily zoned R4 residential single family district.

The case originated from applicants for a variance of the board of adjustment by the property owner to construct a carport in their rear yard of the property in between an existing accessory structure and the side property line.

The property is abutting an alley to the north, thus negating the need for a rear setback variance.

The proposed carport would be one foot six inches from the east side property line.

Per staff's visit to the site in May of 2026, the carport had not been constructed yet.

The applicant made there amend the proposed development to conform with the unified development standards or requested variants from the Board of Adjustment to allow a reduced side setback.

This is the site plan.

This is the subject property.

This is the surrounding area.

Staff recommends deny for the side setback variants in BOA-2 6-1030104.

Based on the following findings of fact one, there is setback variants would leave insufficient room to mitigate potential fire concerns and water runoff onto abutting properties.

Two, the carport has not been constructed and could still be planned to adhere to UDC development requirements.

Staff mail that 45 notices.

Alright, thank you very much.

Let's have the advocate come forward.

Yeah, Cecil uh Lenny St.

Clair.

And I do have uh from the neighborhood association president uh support.

All right.

I can tell from your application it's gonna be a 25 foot deep carport along the east side property line.

Yes, sir.

Okay, and how would the uh the carport be attached to your that roof structure?

No, sir.

The poles will be in front of it.

The roof will overlap it, so water will run off not onto my garage but toward the alley.

And uh the main reason for the request and the setback is I have two classic Thunderbirds that I keep in the garage.

So as you come down, turning the car into the garage is kind of a chore.

So that that would allow me to turn the vehicle into the garage, and furthermore, having the poles like if we were to go with the five foot or the three foot uh as it were for accessory structure that didn't have any hills or eaves, the poles would be so close together.

My Dodge is 7.5 feet wide and my Chevy's uh twelve uh six point five feet wide.

That'd be crammed together in there.

You wouldn't be able to get the doors open.

Okay.

Uh one concern that this board, you well, if you've been here to this whole meeting, uh is regarding carports as you know, drainage.

Uh so you're mentioning that it's gonna uniformly slope to the alley.

Yes, sir.

Um, okay.

Are you interested in putting gutters on that?

Oh, absolutely.

Okay.

And then um, any other questions?

Manna, Commissioner Manor.

And maybe the city could help here.

So the abutting property, so they have that the rear back.

It looks familiar.

So did we talk about the abutting property at some point?

And was uh for the applicant here, what's the distance um at that back space to um for that for that back structure?

Do you know?

Uh, how far it is away from the fence?

Uh it'd be a foot my structure.

Oh, the the the neighbors yes, the neighbors.

I want to say it's all in maybe two, three feet.

Yeah, so I said you I seem to recall the a dialogue about that structure.

And and so was what what is it that you're gonna construct your um carport out of?

Is it gonna be metal or yeah?

It's gonna be uh four by four uh minimum, uh, eleven gauge thickness, uh maybe three sixteenths.

There's gonna be I beams along the side.

Uh we're gonna be dealing with 11 gauge minimum uh C channel purlins with 22 gauge corrugated roofing.

And do you plan to have a side on it?

No.

So it's gonna be completely open for okay.

Yeah, yeah.

Um always around open.

Because there is there is dialogue.

Yeah, you so part of the dialogue is for safe and and fire spread, and so fire spread from your property isn't gonna be an issue.

The budding property uh has some challenges potentially there, but if yours is completely metal, then then you aren't there.

Then the second is for access for fire or or you know on the sides, but since yours is open, then that continues to maintain that.

So I think so just just to be clear.

Your your application uh just if you can verify is for um a carport that is predominantly sloped to the rear alley, predominantly constructed of metal that will have gutters on that north side uh and is open on all four sides.

Yes, sir.

Okay, is there any other questions?

Anyone sign up to speak?

No, sir.

Alright.

Well, I'm looking for motion, manna.

Commissioner Manna.

Regarding case number BOA two six one zero three zero zero one zero four.

I moved that the board of adjustment grant to request for a three foot six inch variance from the minimum five foot side setback to allow a carport uh that is predominantly metal, open on all four sides, sloped to the alley with gutters to be one foot six inch from the east side property line, situated at 1431 West Grammar City Place, Appkin being Cecil St.

Clair Jr.

Because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we had determined show that the physical character of this property is such that a little enforcement, other provisions that UDC as amendment would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

In this case, there would be adequate space from the side property line as a carport leaves sufficient space to mitigate fire spread and water runoff.

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

The special conditions on this property is the location of the existing home and driveway, leaving limited room to construct a carport that abides by current side setback requirements.

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

Such variants would not be in this would be in the spirit of the ordinance as the reduction of the setback is minimal and will cause no hardship to either property butting this property.

Four, the variants will not authorize the 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 conforming property or alter the essential character of the district in which is properties located.

Granting this request would not substantially injure the appropriate the the adjacent property owners as there is sufficient separation to mitigate fire spread and water run-on.

Furthermore, the variants will not uh reduce visibility.

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

The ply to the owner of the property is due to the unique circumstances on this property, such as the width of the side yard, which limits the available space for the establishment of a carport and a motion.

Second second by Commissioner Stevens.

Commissioner Manna.

So I'll be voting in favor of this.

Um I think you know any of the concerns that that I normally have with regards to the safety of the community were were uh were answered appropriately with regards to metal predominantly open, so so allows for or would minimize the uh fire spread and allow for um emergency access.

And um as described, I think it's appropriate here on this property.

So I'll be voting in favor.

Thank you, Commissioner Stevens.

I agree with everything Commissioner Manna said, and uh again appreciate you coming before building the structure.

So I'll be in favor.

So they say permission and forgiveness.

Well, we do appreciate it.

Uh all right.

Anyone else like that?

Hear none, so have a roll call vote.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Punish I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of act.

Commissioner Bunnyas.

I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

I can curve the findings of fact.

Motion passes unanimously.

Congratulations.

All right, thank you.

You got it.

Item number 10.

Oh, there you go.

Item number 10 is BOA 26103 00108, located within City Council District 2, located at 517 Nevada Street, current zoning of RM4.

This being a request for one, a 450 square foot variant from the minimum required 4,000 square foot lot size to allow development on a 3,550 square foot lot to a 4 foot 11 inch variance from the minimum required 5-foot side setback to allow a home with a one-inch side setback, including a 24-inch overhang.

The subject property is located within the original 36 square miles of the city of San Antonio and Bear County.

Records indicate a home was first established on the property in 1928 prior to the adoption of a local zoning code in 1936.

The applicant proposes a complete renovation and rear yard addition to the existing home.

A stop work order was posted on this property in February 2023 after investigations found work done without permits, and the contractor was directed to submit plans for review and permit issuance.

The ensuing plan review for a residential building permit required compliance with all development standards for new construction, including minimum required setback setbacks and lot dimensions.

Currently, this property does not meet the minimum required lot size of a property zone RM4, and the west side setback does not meet the minimum requirement of five foot separation of five feet.

Photos of the surrounding area.

Staff's recommendation on the lot size and setback variance.

Staff recommends approval and BOA 261030108 based on the following finds of fact.

One, the west side of the subject home is adjacent to the neighboring properties driveway, which would alleviate any concern of exacerbating fire hazards.

Two, the subject home and lot boundaries were established prior to the adoption of a local zoning code, which has created a situation where the property cannot meet certain development standards for new construction.

Three, these variances would allow for the home to be rehabilitated and improved in its current historical footprint.

42 notices were sent, one received in favor, zero in opposition, no voicemails were received, there's no registered neighbor association within 200 feet of the subject property.

And that concludes staff's presentation.

Alright, thank you very much.

There was a home on this prior.

Correct.

And this what they're proposing is in the same place as the previous structure.

So the work that they're having done is significant enough that according to like our plan review team that it's considered a new build.

Okay.

But they're renovating the existing structure.

Okay.

It's just enough work to be considered new.

Got it.

Alright.

Let's have the applicant come forward.

Hello.

Please state your name.

Tell us about your project.

I'm Dan Gonzalez.

I'm the current owner of the property.

We bought this property several years ago and uh we started pretty quickly.

We did get a permit for the foundation for the existing house.

And uh we pretty much stopped there just because of finances.

Uh, up until recently, we're able to uh acquire some financing.

So we submitted for permitting and uh it came back that we had uh that's when we realized that the we're too close to the property line.

So we went through the process of uh trying to get a variance.

So our our our project is keeping the existing house pretty much the way it is.

We're you know, we're getting the interior, um, and then the addition that we're doing in the back, that one does step back five feet to uh to correspond to the current code.

I can see that on the picture.

So you're uh where your encroachment is what's before us today, it's existing house lies, you're not increasing.

No.

Okay.

Okay.

So that's one issue.

The other issue is that uh it's a uh RM4.

The lot is uh I think it was 3600 square feet, so it doesn't allow us to do an addition.

So that was the other thing that we're looking at we're asking for.

Okay.

You hear have you applied for a COD?

Is that no?

C O E.

C O D, the certificate of determination.

Oh, we're we're in that we're in that whole process, so okay that C O D you mean?

Correct, that's what he was asking.

Yeah, okay.

So they just he just needs uh us to entertain that to move forward with that.

Yeah, again, with the renovation uh um and how extensive it is, it would have to comply with current code, even though it's an existing structure, so that is why he's here before you all today.

Yeah, the initial confusion that we had submitted one permit and then it came back, so we had to do a new a new uh uh permit for new construction.

Okay, which is a little confusing, but any questions from the commission?

Manna?

Commissioner Manning.

So there is a valley roof line there that is looks like it's would be channeling water directly onto the budding property, and if we're one inch from it, um I guess how do we mitigate that?

So we we could put gutters on that end.

I mean that's that's pretty much gonna stay the same.

So that's the existing structure.

Right.

If we get beyond the existing structure, we're actually going five feet in, but on that side we could definitely uh put in some gutters.

The other issue that we're talking about because it's it's an issue issue for fire uh fire issues is something that we'll be discussing with the permit office in terms of uh, you know, maybe we cut the uh the overhang back a little bit.

We've already uh started talking about creating a uh using uh cement uh what do you call it uh like a a fiber board uh on that wall?

We're gonna have the soffit enclosed with uh like hardy board cement cement tissues, a board.

So we'll make that all fireproof, that whole wall.

Okay, yeah, so I did that's really the only thing I saw was just that one corner drop in water, and so are you mending it to include gutters then for that corner?

We could uh include gutters on the uh on the west side.

Yeah, or really just at one point as far as I see.

Yeah, it's oh well maybe that look along that whole front.

Oh, I guess really from that valley forward probably is where you would need to have it then.

Yeah, it's only about six feet.

Yeah, six feet.

So it should be small gutters, so okay.

So there's an application amendment to include gutters on that six approximate six foot section.

Okay.

Stevens.

Commissioner Stevens.

Is that is adding a gutter on that side gonna create issues if they're an inch from the property line?

We did talk about cutting the back that line altogether though.

So but yeah, I do worry about that a little bit.

So trying to figure that piece out.

I'll I'll say that this this is like this is not an atypical condition in this neighborhood.

Like this is just about every house in the area.

I live in the area, so I'm very familiar with this, and um I mean we s we see this all the time where the the driveway is the thing that's buffering, so I don't I don't know that that gutters are critical if it means having to cut back the roof from my perspective.

So suggested but not necessarily required is what you what I'm hearing.

So we'll recant that from the application then suggestion.

So we have what's before us as applied.

Alright, is there anybody sent to speak on this?

Nobody's on us to speak.

Commissioner Brackman, did you?

Yes, yes, I had a question.

So is the standing seam metal roof staying, or is it gonna be replaced with anything else?

It's gonna be a new new standing seam roof.

It's cool it's gonna stay in metal, but thank you.

It's in such bad repair, we're just gonna redo it.

All right, if there's no other questions?

Okay.

Okay, we'll go for a motion.

Commissioner Braggman.

Yes, Commissioner Breckman.

Did you have a question?

No, I was gonna read a motion.

Okay.

Would you like that?

All right.

Yeah, go ahead, please.

Please proceed.

Regarding page number BOA-26-1030108.

I moved the borough adjustment grant or request for a one-a-450 square foot variance from the minimum required 4,000 square foot lot size to allow development on a 3550 square foot lot and two of four foot eleven inch variants from the minimum required five foot side setback to allow a home with a one-inch side setback, including a 24-inch overhang situated at 517 Nevada Street, applicant being Chira next real estate LLC.

I'm sorry, I'm hearing a lot of noise in the background.

You hear you because the testimony presented to us.

Sorry, I'm just hearing a lot of noise.

I don't know where it's coming from.

Okay, um, because the testimony presented to us, and the facts we have determined show the physical character of this property, such as a little enforcement of the provisions of unified development code as amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

These variances would not be contrary to the public interest, as they would allow for the home to be rehabilitated and improved in its current historical footprint.

Two, due to special conditions, a little enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship due to the lot size and established setbacks, which predate the adoption of a local zoning code, a little enforcement of the standards of new development would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

Granting these variances would support the spirit of the ordinance, as the existing home, which is an integral component of the established neighborhood, would be allowed to renovate in its historical footprint.

For the variants will not authorize the operation of a use.

All of 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 altered the essential character of the district in which the property is located.

The west side of the subject home is adjacent to uh the neighboring property's driveway, which would alleviate any concern of exacerbating fire condition hazards that is typically present in requests for reduced setbacks.

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

The plight of the owner of the property is due to the unique circumstances of the subject home and lot boundaries having been established prior to the adoption of a local zoning code, which has created a situation where this property cannot meet certain development standards for new development.

End of motion.

Yeah, I'll be in support of the motion.

Uh obviously we've got a regular lots all over town, and this is a minor uh variance request for the square footage.

Uh and again with the um standing seam metal roof and the fact that the driveway is on the up the side that might uh present runoff issues.

Um, I'll be in support.

Commissioner Stevens.

I agree with Commissioner Bragman.

Um I think again, like this is pretty typical in the area, and I'm excited to see some traction on this property.

So uh I'll be in support.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to add?

Hearing down, I've roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Braggman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes, I can current.

Commissioner Ivanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

I concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Menna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the five.

The fact.

Motion passes.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

Item 11.

Item number 11 is BOA-26-1030109 located in District 10 at 3614 Shallow Brook Drive.

The zoning is R5, and the request is for a six foot variance from the minimum 20-foot rear setback to allow 14-foot setback from the rear property line.

The subject property is located near the end of a cul-de-sac along Shallow Brook Drive.

Surrounding properties are also zoned R5 with C2 and O2 base zoning districts also observable in the surrounding area.

The case originated from the applicant submitting a residential improve.

It's permit application in April 2026 for an addition to the primary structure in which it was placed on a hold due to the indicated reduced setbacks.

Per staff's visit to the site in May of 2026, construction has started but is not yet complete.

Move the addition to conform with UDC standards or request a variance from the Board of Adjustment to lower reduced rear setback.

And this is the site plan.

This is the subject property.

This is the addition to the right.

This is in the backyard.

Staff recommends now for the rear setback variants and BOA-26-1030109 based on the following findings of fact.

One, granting the variants would not observe the spirit of the ordinance as the purpose of the minimum rear setback requirement is to provide adequate space between structures and residential districts for adequate airflow to minus to minimize the potential impacts of fire spread and to mitigate the impacts of stormwater runoff to the subject property and surrounding neighbors.

Two, the addition to the primary structure has not yet been completed.

Thus the proposed plan could be modified to adhere to residential-based zoning district setback requirements.

And three, the expansion of the primary structures permitted so long as it abides by current UTC regulations, such as setback requirements.

Staff build out 34 notices.

Four were received in favor, zero received in opposition.

Outside of 200 feet, there is one received in favor in zero in opposition.

There are zero voicemails received, and there's no registered neighborhood association within 200 feet.

This concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you.

Did the application include the size of this apparent porch addition?

I can check.

Okay.

Just curious.

Well I'll ask the applicant.

Um the applicant come forward.

Hello, please state your name.

Tell us about it.

Adam Ortiz, I represent the Montoyas.

12 by 10.

12 by 12 by 12 wide, 10 extending from the helm.

12 wide.

I think it's actually 10 by 12 with a little bay went to 2 foot bay window.

So it's about 626 square feet, I believe.

I was just curious to see how much how what's the width that it was actually proposing.

Coming back from the house, it's uh about 12 feet less than the bay window.

How how wide is the encroachment?

14 foot wide.

Okay.

Great.

And it's for an open porch.

It's it's in addition to the kitchen.

Oh, okay.

So it is going to be fully enclosed.

Fully enclosed.

It used to used to be a porch and a I saw the pictures.

I thought you were building a porch right.

Any commissioner questions?

All right.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Is there uh anyone signed up to speak on this matter?

Nope.

Okay.

Um questions?

All right.

So we're looking for a motion then for uh uh a 12 foot uh deep by 14 foot wide addition that's encroaching uh six feet into the rear setback.

I'll do it.

I haven't read one yet.

Alright, here it goes.

Let's see.

Uh right.

Regarding case number BOA-26-1030109.

I move that the Board of Adjustment grant a request for a six-foot variance from the minimum twenty-foot rear setback to allow a 14-foot um uh setback from rear property line for uh uh for a 12 by 14-foot wide addition, rear addition to the existing home situated at 3614 Shallow Book Drive, out of it being uh blazem Ortiz because the testimony presented to us and the facts that we've determined show that the physical character of this property is such that a literal enforcement of the provision of the unified development code as amended as amended would result in an unnecessary hardship.

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

In this case, it would be adequate space from the rear property line, and they proposed primary structure addition to mitigate fire spread and water runoff onto a budding properties.

Due to two, due to special conditions, a little enforcement of the ordinance, which resulted in an unnecessary hardship.

A literal enforcement of the ordinance results in the applic applicant having limited space to expand their primary structure into the backyard, which prevents an unnecessary hardship.

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

The requested variance would be in the spirit of the ordinance as a reduction of the setback is minimal and will cause no hardship to the abutting properties and provide the property owner more space to improve their home.

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

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

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

Granting this variance will not substantially enter the adjacent property owners as there is efficient separation to mitigate rent, rainwater runoff, and fire spread.

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

The plight of the owners due to the unique circumstances of the depth of the rear yard, which limits the available space for the expansion of the primary structure.

End of motion.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Beneas.

Uh I'll just say I'll be in favor of this.

Seems uh it's pretty minimal, and um one's opposed to it.

So Commissioner Beneas.

Yep, I concur.

Uh, the two neighbors to the back uh in the rear support it and uh it's only six feet.

So I'll be in support as well.

All righty.

Anyone else like to add?

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

Chair Orion.

Uh, I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Winias.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I can current.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibannis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

Yes, I concur.

Cruz?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Mena.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bregman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Vasquez.

Commissioner Vasquez.

You I concur.

All right.

Motion passes 11 to 0.

Uh congratulations.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

All right.

Last item, item number 12.

Item number 12, uh BOA-261030110.

Uh located within City Council District 2, located at 285 Post Avenue.

Uh current zoning of R6 CD with a conditional use for three dwelling units.

This being a request for one, a 10-foot variance from the minimum required 20-foot rear setback to allow a principal structure 10 feet from the rear property line.

Two, a variance from the NCD9 standards to allow a 15-foot wide driveway in the front yard and a 25-foot seven-inch wide driveway in the side yard.

Three, a variance from the NCD 9 standards to allow carports in the West Fort Neighborhood Conservation District along Post Avenue.

Based on historical imagery, a home was which previously occupied this lot was demolished sometime between 2016 and 2018 and has since remained vacant.

The applicant successfully petitioned a change of zoning for the property in 2023 to allow the condition of use of three dwelling units and now proposes the construction of two primary structures to house these three units.

Currently, the proposed design does not mean certain base zoning district and neighborhood conservation district standards.

Before a permit may be issued, the applicant must modify the proposed design to comply with all applicable code standards or obtain variances from the board of adjustments from these standards.

This is the proposed side plan.

Photo the subject property.

Photos of the surrounding area.

Staff recommends approval on the rear satback variants in BOA 26103 00110 based on the following findings of fact.

One reducing the setback to 10 feet along the shared property line would not contribute to overcrowding or otherwise inappropriate matching on the subject property.

Two, the variants would not substantially injure adjacent property as a proposed 10-foot rear setback, would provide sufficient space to mitigate any fire safety, water runoff, or maintenance concerns.

Staff recommends denial on the NCD design variances.

One, a later enforcement of this ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship.

Rather strict adherence to these standards would encourage more thoughtful design and a greater creativity to balance project intent with existing neighborhood character.

Two, these variances would injure the surrounding property by deviating from the applicable design standards of the neighborhood conservation district, which would create a lack of aesthetic cohesion within the district.

No doubt 17 notices.

So really quick, did you get a response from the military?

I don't believe it is.

When this went through zoning, do you recall if they had anything?

It did go to JBSA when it went through the rezoning and they definitely did their standard comment of no objections for the use per se.

Okay, and did in the site plan that we're seeing before here is that the uh conditional site plan that was approved by zoning or during zoning.

I think Patrick could answer that.

All right.

You want to come on that manna?

Commissioner Manor.

So the um that's for the city's recommended approval for number one and two and three is simply because it's in the NCD.

Um, and if it had not been, would those even be in discussion for two and three?

Would those have been in correct?

Those are NCD regulate design regulations.

That's not an issue with the city from the city's perspective.

And then um if you go back to the screens that showed who was in favor, so so the NCD, is it sponsored by this group here?

So the West Alliance neighborhood.

That is the name of the NCD.

I'm assuming that they were involved in the design regulation.

Alright, state your name, and you heard my question.

I wanted to hear about that site plan to see if it was part of a public hearing.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Patrick Christensen 315 East Commerce.

I'll explain how we got here.

So I did the rezoning back in 2023.

We originally went in for four units with an IDZ designation and a larger structure.

Um that pretty much set the neighborhood's hair on fire.

They did not want the IDZ.

They did not want four units, so we agreed to do three units.

And as part of that, we we was there a pointer that I had.

As part of that negotiation with the neighborhood, who's very active, was that we would have a smaller structure up front and then a rear structure.

Of course, at the rear.

Um, and I have a depiction of that I'll show you here in a second, but but this was the side plan that was approved through the we ended up going with uh the uh I believe it was R6 C D for the conditional district to allow for the three units, and as part of that, and we have and so that happened in 2023.

We got support from the neighborhood, no opposition from JBSA, and we were approved by the zoning commission.

Well, the intervening three years, the developer I've got Lolly Gerleen, she's the architect and the developer here with me.

Um, you know, interest rates, things like that.

There were some delays.

So if she goes in to submit all the building plans, and we find out okay, we've got these other issues.

And I think what happened was we were we weren't worried about the rear setbacks, we were asking for IDZ, but then when we amended that to CD, of course, the setback has to apply.

Um, and I'll go through these one by one so you can understand uh how we how we got here again.

Um so for the 10 foot variants, that is this right here.

And I'm gonna have to apologize if you can go back and forth.

Can you show my little exhibit?

I think I can do this.

Oh, okay.

So if you look right here, this is sort of an aerial, you know, as you saw with the notification map.

We're surrounded by Fort Sam.

There's a big parking lot back here.

There will be nothing, you know, within the 10 feet variants that we're asking for from the rear.

And then on the driveway, what happened was we weren't really too concerned about the width of the driveway when we went through zoning, but as we got talked to the fire department, they wanted a 20-foot wide driveway to comply with fire regulations.

We got the fire department to agree to 15 feet, so we designed a 15-foot driveway, but then lo and behold, the NCD only allows a 10-foot wide driveway.

And again, before this variance, I met with um Joe Bravo with the West Ford Alliance, and they gave his non non-objection to the 15-foot driveway.

And this is the where they're talking about 25 feet, is where we have the cars come in here for the two units up here and of course the one unit back there.

To get the neighborhood support for the wider driveway, we we've agreed to do either gravel or pervious pavers, gravel with the hexagon material that keeps the gravel from from going everywhere, so we don't have some giant parking lot back there.

And then the last variance, of course, is the I apologize.

Let me read this, make sure I get it correct.

Um, to allow the car ports in the side yard.

Well, these are the two car ports.

Again, I'll read what West 4 Alliance wrote.

The car port, although it violates the NCD as being in front of a house, it is hidden by the front structure and therefore poses less of a concern to the association.

So that was kind of part of our goal was to hide the cars back there, and then you know what you end up with seeing from the street, a nice sort of cottage structure.

So we would respectfully request your support.

Um we would also just ask for your support because if we don't get these variances, we have to go back and rezone again because it's going to be a major amendment to our site plan.

So we would respectfully request your support.

Thank you.

Okay.

I just I have a question.

So when you do a rezoning and it has the NCD, does council have the authority to make adjustments to the through conditions towards an NCD?

No, sir.

They don't, okay.

Yeah, just for all rezonings, it does have to come with a stipulation that owners are aware that it has to comply with UDC.

And yeah.

And uh I'm just you know, when it comes to fire and then wanting a certain width, or I mean there might I just think there might should have some.

Understandable.

So you're putting in you're putting in these three units, you're next to Fort Sam, and and when you went through the zoning process, the the neighbor association didn't have meetings and numerous meetings, and we were able to get their support for the three units in the site plan we have, and we found out we had to go back for a board of adjustment variants.

I immediately reached out to Joe Bravo, the president, who's still the president, he was three years ago as well, to explain what we're doing, and he was kind of the opinion okay.

We already approved this through zoning, just you know, we'll give you support.

Okay.

Well, any questions from the commission?

No.

Anyone's having to speak?

No.

All right, great.

I'm looking for a motion.

Read Commissioner Reed.

Okay, regarding case number BOA 26103 00110.

I move that the Board of Adjustment grant a request for one, a 10-foot variance from the minimum required 20-foot rear setback to allow a principal structure 10 feet from the rear property line, two, a variants from the NCD 9 design standards to allow a 15-foot wide driveway in the front yard, a 25-foot seven-inch wide driveway in the side yard, and three, the variance from the NCD 9 design standards to allow carports in the side yard situated at 285 Post Avenue.

Applicate being Patrick Christensen.

Because the testimony presented to us and the facts we determined show the physical character of this property is such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the not unified development code as amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

Setback variance.

This variance would not be contrary to the public interest, as the adjacent property to the rear is Army Base Fort Sam Houston.

Facility parking lot and reducing the setback to 10 feet along the shared property line would not contribute to overcrowding or otherwise inappropriate massing on the subject property.

NCD design variances.

These variances would not be contrary to the public interest, as they would not introduce architectural and design features that directly conflict with the NCD aesthetic.

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

Setback variance, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship.

As similarly situated lots along this north side of Post Avenue would be permitted the requested 10 foot rear setback by right.

NCD design variance says literal enforcement of this ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship as the proposed variances would not represent a conspicuous uh departure from the existing neighborhood character.

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

Setback variants granting this variance would observe the spirit of the ordinance, as every other lot on this block face would already be permitted a 10 foot setback in the rear.

NCD design variances, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed by granting these variances as they would not create a noticeable lack of consistency with the existing surrounding neighborhood character.

Four, the variance will not authorize operation of 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 would be allowed with this variance.

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

Setback variants.

This variance would not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming property as the proposed 10-foot rear setback would not would provide sufficient space to mitigate and fire safety, water runoff, or maintenance concerns.

NCD design variances, these variances will not substantially injure the surrounding property.

As no substantial change to the existing character of the neighborhood would be introduced by this project.

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

Setback variance, the play of the owner of the property is due to the unique condition existing on this property regarding the abutting parking lot.

This condition would present prevent the appearance of overcrowded structures in the area as there are no other structures on the adjacent property.

NCD design variances play the owners due to the unique condition of the limited rear yards space for this placement of the carport structures and of variance.

Second.

Second.

Alright, Commissioner Reed.

I'll be in support of this.

Alright, thank you, Commissioner Manna.

Yeah, I concur with my colleague.

And so once a president, always a president.

Um so I can see why it is the same person's in there.

And then also, you know, NCDs are, you know, I was told in communities it's a pro and a con.

And you know, here is a good example where I think it's a pro, being that it there was engagement, you know, kind of bringing that engagement in so that the community can continue to preserve how they want their community to look.

And so we're being able to work with developers, and I think this is where it is a good example of that.

So thank you for that participation.

Alright.

Anyone else like that?

Hearing none of the roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Reed.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Mena.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Ibanis.

I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

Abstain.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Bagman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bonias?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of fact.

Uh motion passes uh 10 with one abstention.

Congratulations.

All right.

Is there a director's report?

No director's report.

Anything going on this summer we need to know.

Uh we did advertise for the uh vacant positions for the at-large uh BOAs.

Hopefully we got some applicants in.

Great.

Well, there's nothing else.

It is 4 15 and we are adjourned.