Okay.

We are good.

It's 102.

Hereby call this meeting of the Board of Adjustments into session.

And we have the Spanish interpreter come out, please.

Good afternoon.

Buenas tardes at all those presentes.

Si alguno quiere seguir la reunion in Espanyol, por favor.

Al cubiculo y le damos el dispositivo para que siga la Junta in Español.

Gracias.

Thank you very much.

If everyone please join me in the pledge.

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

And to the requirement.

One nation.

I am in the change.

Honor the Texas flag.

I pledge allegiance to the Texas.

One minute.

Commissioner Reed.

Present.

Commissioner Stevens.

Commissioner Ivanis.

Commissioner Dean.

Present.

Commissioner Cruz.

Here.

Commissioner Gomez.

Present.

Commissioner Mana.

Present.

Commissioner Bregman.

Present.

Commissioner Benavides.

Commissioner Azuna.

Present.

Commissioner Bonias.

Here.

Commissioner Vasquez.

Here.

Chair Orion.

And I'm here.

That means 10, and we're expecting one more to join shortly, but we're going to go ahead and get started.

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

This board follows an agenda which is available online.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Each member will be asked to vote on the motion in order for a motion to carry.

It requires a concurring vote of 75% of the total board members, whether present or not, which is nine votes.

The burden approved in granting the release law at rest with the applicant.

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

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

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

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

Staff.

Thank you.

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

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

Check marks indicates those that signed up to speak for proposed variants for special exemption, you'll be called in order to sign up to speak.

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

For those that would like to give up their time to a speaker, that speaker will be allowed a maximum of two people giving up their time for a total of nine minutes.

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

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

Thank you, Chairman.

Yes.

So we'll begin with item number one, located at 112 Fairfax Street.

Good afternoon.

My name is Joseph Leo's senior planner with development services.

I don't number one is BoA-26-1030111 at 112 Fairfax in Council District 2.

The applicant is Malcolm Duncan, and they are requesting a special exception to allow for one additional type 2 short-term rental on the block face, and the current zoning is RM4.

Again, the subject properties located at 12 112 Fairfax.

Surrounding land uses include residential.

Again, they're seeking a special exception to allow for one additional type two on the block face.

At least one type two is allowed per block face, regardless of the number of units on that block face.

So this is the permitting history.

It was issued on December 1st, 2022, which subsequently lapsed uh three years later on the first of 2025.

Between the expiration of their initial permit and the submission the submission of a new application, the neighboring property in the block face was issued a type 2 permit.

And this is the type 2 density count.

There are five units on this block face from 102 to 114 Fairfax.

The one active type two is located at 106.

Uh the block face is currently at 20%.

And if this one is approved, it'll be at 40%.

There are no code enforcement history or active listings.

This is the site plan.

And the subject property and the surrounding areas.

Staff recommends a denial of the applicant's request.

And this is the notification plan.

We sent out 37 notices, one in favor, one in opposition.

There are no voicemails.

And this concludes staff's presentation.

The applicant is present.

Thank you.

And let the record show Commissioner Stevens joined at 104 p.m.

Uh, so a couple quick questions uh just to get this out there.

Were there any uh enforcement at all during the three years they did have a permit?

No, there was no code enforcement.

And when did the neighbor apply?

How soon after December?

The uh neighbor had applied on December 1st of 2025, and they were issued their type two permit on December 12th.

And and to your knowledge, was there any ownership?

There wouldn't have been any ownership changes, but contact changes, anything.

No, sir.

Alright, thanks.

Any questions from the commission?

Commissioner Bragman.

I'm looking at the density count.

I'm am I counting it wrong?

I'm seeing six units on the block face, not five.

So one sixteen Fairfax is a vacant lot.

So that one would not count towards the block face.

Um, and then 517 on the far east is addressed off of um hackberry on the right side.

Sure, no, I understand it.

Just there's an outline of a building on that lot, so it looked like it's understood.

All right, so the applicant come forward.

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

All right, thank you.

My name is Malcolm Duncan, and I'm here today to hopefully get a a special exception.

Um good afternoon to y'all.

Thank you so much.

Um I would like to begin by acknowledging that my permit lapsed due to unintentional oversight I am a very busy mental health provider taking care of an underserved population and that comes as my number one priority and I overlooked the the renewal notice.

I've had a I've had a um the SDR has been there for three years.

I've operated the SDR with no complaints or disturbances or violations after the permit expired I immediately began to process and to get it reinstated but shortly shortly after that I was notified that the 12.5 block based density cap was reached which made the property ineligible for administrative approval.

I fully understand the purpose of the density rule and I'm here today uh because the only one barrier reinstatement is the time of the lapse uh not any changes to the property uh has been done I would like to emphasize uh emphasize nothing about the request increases occupancy traffic noise or neighborhood impact uh there are no structural changes no expansions of use no alterations to the character of the area this is a simply request to continue the same quiet well managed operation that is has existed there for three years.

The intent of the STR ordinance is to ensure the properties are operated responsibly and not cause any negative impact of the community I also want to note that the request is not about creating a new SDR but just uh restoring a previously permitted use that has already shown consistent peaceful uh coexistence with the neighborhood I am also willing to accept any kind of reasonable conditions that the board may uh feel appropriate uh whether related to the occupancy and by the way whenever I did apply for the apparent I was notified that I needed a concrete drive or a a not a caliche drive and so I put in a new driveway about $7,000 which was somewhat of a financial burden um I I provided I provide a an affordable option for visitors visiting San Antonio 129 a night uh six guests uh access to the uh walking distance to the Alamo Dome Riverwalk Hemisphere Park and I originally bought the home when I when I go to visit family uh here in here in San Antonio and um and so I'm staying there quite often um I am a I'm not a big investment group I'm an individual who's lived in the area I know my neighbors I have a letter from my neighbor supporting the special exception and I'm wanting to keep the STR instead of trying to change it to a long term unit uh long-term rental um I've previously rented it long term in the past and when I did so it caused more problems there once somebody gets in on a long-term rental if they start doing things like when I had they were I was getting many complaints from my neighbors um saying that there was marijuana smoking going on there's people coming and going and then when I went to a victim it took several months which caused more impact for the neighborhood with the um with short term rental they are vetted so therefore I know who's going in there I know it's gonna be a short turnaround and I have somebody checking the place out to make sure everything's good.

Alright so quick question uh is do you have any other SDRs in San Antonio?

No and there's no professional management it's just it's you doing everything.

Yeah yeah okay I I have a housekeeping group thank you Commissioner Bray um you said that you also stay there when you're in town so do you live in town or I live in Austin.

You live in Austin okay so I'm here quite frequently.

Okay, and so the re one of the reasons do you need to stay as a SDR is so that you can utilize it when you're in town.

Yes.

Thank you.

Can you give a percentage about how uh during the year are you like 25% of the area you use in the facility, less or more.

Myself?

I'd say probably about twenty five.

All right.

Uh Commissioner Zunan.

Do you have a copy of that letter?

You said the neighbor was in support if he could provide that.

Uh yeah.

Which neighbor is this one to this?

This is one right adjacent to my house.

Do you know uh the neighbor that applied for the short-term rental after years lapse?

Do you know that neighborhood?

No, um, but I did look them up, and it looks like an investment group.

Okay.

Anyone else?

All right, hearing none.

Uh is there anyone sending to speak?

Voicemail?

No.

Thank you very much.

Well, looking for a motion.

All right, thank you.

Ragman, Commissioner Braggman.

Regarding case number BOA-26-103011, a move that the Board of Assessment grant a special exception to allow for one type two short-term rental situated at 112 Fairfax applicant being Malcolm Duncan because the testimony presented to us and the facts we have determined show the physical character of this property, such as the literal enforcement of the revisions of the unified development code as amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

Specifically, we find that a the special exception will not materially endanger the public health or safety.

The board finds that the request to operate an additional short-term rental is unlikely to materially endanger the public health safety or welfare.

There's nothing obvious that would distinguish a short-term rental versus a long-term rental at this facility.

B, the special exception does not create a public nuisance.

There does not appear to be a reason to believe a public nuisance would be created if an additional shortage.

Sorry, short-term rental permit was approved.

C, the neighbor neighboring property will not be subject fit.

Substantially injured by such proposed use.

The neighboring properties consist of single-family structures.

This scenario does not cause reason to believe it was substantially injured neighboring properties as a short type two short-term rental.

D adequate uh utilities access roads, uh, storm drainage, recreation, open space, and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided.

The subject property provides off-street parking and appears to have adequate utilities access and open space.

E.

The applicant or owner of the special exception does not have any previously revoked short-term rental licenses, confirmed citations or adjudicated offenses, convictions for violation of chapter sixteen article twenty-two of the city code within one year prior to the date of the application.

The applicant or owner does not have previously revoked licenses, confirmed citations or adjudicated offenses or convictions.

At the special exception would not alter the essential character of the district, and location in which the property for which the special exception is sought.

The subject properties located in close proximity to other residential uses.

With a property owner providing off-street parking and maintaining it from neighboring properties, the special exception does not appear to alter the essential character of the district and location in which the property is seeking the special exception end of motion.

Second second by Commissioner Zuna, Commissioner Braggman.

Um I ordinarily would not uh go above the density to this level, um, but I I understand the need for the special exception for this particular applicant because he does live out of town um and Conson stays here uh periodically, as he said, about 25% of the time.

So I can see why the long-term rental would not work um in this instance.

Um he hasn't had any um offenses uh that were noted or police calls that we've determined in the three years that he uh had the um uh permit, so I'll be in support of the motion.

Thank you, Commissioner Zuna.

Yeah, so I'll be in support as uh as well as my colleague.

Um the other thing I'd like to mention is you know there is a vacant lot, and then you have these four uh duplex units that are addressed off the adjoining street, but you know, if you were to include those in, I think it'd be pretty close on on the density.

Um so I I don't think that I mean obviously there's there's a need for this kind of uh short term rental in in the in the area with close proximity to the downtown amenities and and the applicant uses this uh this the the space for twenty-five percent of the time, so it does create somewhat of that neighborhood, you know, continuity with the unit.

So I'm supporting it.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Commissioner Manning?

Um unfortunately I won't be supporting this, and so within a half mile diameter there are 40 other short term rentals, and it's and it is pretty consistent that there is one per block face and so um you know so I didn't hear any dialogue with the cards to thirty day um you know extended rentals that uh being available and so um you know it is unfortunate that it lapsed but you know we have a dialogue or we have a you know the the the the ruling or the uh code states you know so basically someone come in and file a file for um a short term rental and they did so it's uh unfortunate for timing and unfortunately unfortunately it was missed but I will not be supporting this.

Alright anyone else I'm just gonna chime in on this one I also probably wouldn't support these sort of things but because he he's there twenty five percent of the time he he and these are only good for three years so if he ever sells it it automatically expires and it'll be revisited every three years seems like bunchman enough so let's have a roll call vote.

Commissioner Braggman I concur with the findings of fact Commissioner Zuna yes I concur.

Commissioner Reid?

Yes I concur.

Commissioner Stevens I concur.

Commissioner Dean?

No, I do not concur Commissioner Cruz Commissioner Gomez I concur.

Commissioner Menna I do not concur with the findings of fact Commissioner Bonias.

Yes I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez I concur Chair Orion I concur with the findings of fact Commissioner Cruz um can you turn your camera on please come up with the Mm-hmm.

Commissioner Cruz can you please turn your video on the answer I want to see if she uh is anybody did she answer her phone.

I think what we do is we start polling the people on on online first just to make sure we get a vote.

She's logging back in the Is she trying to log back in?

Okay.

Yeah, we can table this and move on to another one unless she is in the process of signing on or something.

I'm I'm back on.

All right.

So how do you vote on the last one?

I concur.

All right.

Motion passes nine to two.

All right, item two.

And as a reminder to the gallery, you do need nine votes, no matter how many people are voting for something to pass, so it's very critical that we hear from everybody.

The subject properties located along Forest Rock Drive near the intersection of Forest Rock Drive with George Road.

Surrounding properties are also zoned R for single-family residential district and R five residential single family district.

Opposite of the zero lot line.

The addition was still constructed per staff's visit to the site in May of 2026.

The code of enforcement investigation resolution is pending board of adjustment outcome.

And this is the site plan.

This is the subject property.

This is the surrounding area.

Continued.

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

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

Two, the addition to the primary structure could have been planned to adhere to residential-based zoning district setback requirements.

Staff mail.

And yes, this case was continued in today.

And this concludes staff's presentation.

All right, thank you.

So have the applicant come forward.

Afternoon.

Yes, I'm Robert Weimer.

Um, the enclosure or the uh the deck was built by a contractor who did not get a permit.

And I've had it looked at by uh a engineer, and he's condemned it.

In other words, it cannot be brought to um compliance for a permit.

So I'm gonna tear it down.

And the BOA is withdrawn.

Okay.

As I found out, there's there's no way to correct it.

The question had to do with the setback.

Um I am gonna rebuild it, but the uh and of course I'll just comply then with with five foot setback.

So that's gonna be a problem.

Yes, sir.

So um I guess that's all there is to the way uh withdrawn.

So item two has been withdrawn.

I was just curious.

The name of the contractor that's building without permits, is that appropriate to ask?

Or if the applicant would like to feel comfortable to say it, you go ahead.

Yeah, you mean the one that's gonna build the new one?

No, the one that built the other one without the probe.

So just on the he's gonna tear it down.

I totally mean he could keep the wood.

Okay.

All right.

Well, have a good day, sir.

Thank you very much for letting us know.

Thank you.

Item three.

And real quick, is the applicant for item three here?

Yeah, I just want to make sure you were present as well.

Okay, thank you.

Good afternoon.

Item number three is BOA-26-1030114, located in district two at 3751 Belgium Lane.

The zoning is C2 CD, has a conditional use for construction trades contact contractors.

The request is for one, an eight foot six-inch variance from the minimum required ten foot side setback requirement to allow a one foot six inch side setback on the west property line and a three foot side setback on the east property line.

Two, a twenty nine foot and eleven inch variance from the minimum required thirty-foot rear setback to allow a three foot six inch rear setback for one structure in the west side of the rear property, a one-inch rear setback on the north property line for three structures in the rear of the property, and a three-foot rear setback for one structure in the east side of the rear property.

Three, air quest to eliminate the required type B buffer in the rear and sides of the property.

Four, a five-foot variance from the minimum required twenty-foot throat length to allow a 15-foot driveway throat length.

Five, a fence material variance to allow a corrugated metal fence, and six, a three foot six inch fence height special exception from the maximum allowable three-foot front yard solid fence requirement to allow a six-foot six-inch solid fence in the front yard.

The subject property is located along Belgium Lane, close to the intersections of Belgium Lane with Leon Thomas Way and Picardy Drive.

The subject property is a butting developed residential lots, is owned R5.

Base zoning districts, including IDZ2 with uses permitted in MF 25, and C2CD for manufactured home, oversized vehicle sales, service, and storage can be observed across the street.

The subject property has multiple code enforcement cases pending resolution.

The applicant submitted a request to preserve the existing conditions on the property.

First staff's visit to the site in May of 2026.

The current development warrants the request for reduced side and rear setbacks, the elimination of the type B buffer yard requirements, a reduction in driveway throat length distance, a variance to allow corrugated metal fencing, a fence height special exception for a solid fence in the front yard of the property.

The structures present on this property were added over time beginning in 2018.

Research conducted by staff found that no permits were obtained for any structures currently on site except for the structure located in the center of the lot.

However, the permit obtained for the structure expired in 2018 and inspections are not completed.

This is the site plan.

This is the subject property.

Staff recommendation for the side setback variances, rear setback variances, buffer yard variance, throat length variance, and fencement show variance is denial based on the following findings of fact.

One granting the side and rear setback variances would not observe the spirit of the ordinance as a purpose of minimum side and rear setback requirements for commercial properties abutting residential properties is to minimize the potential impacts of fire spread and water water runoff to the subject property and surrounding neighbors, along with providing space between higher intense commercial uses that will be within close proximity to residential lots.

Two, granting an elimination of the buffer requirements would not serve the intent of the ordinance, which is to provide separation between base zoning districts with differing levels of intensity and traffic and noise created by different uses.

The standard is especially important for residents who live within close proximity to commercial properties.

Three, the reduced throat length variance would leave insufficient room to mitigate traffic ingress, egress, and of the surrounding area.

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

Staff mailed out 29 notices, zero were received in favor, zero in opposition.

We received zero voicemails in favor and opposition.

And the United Homeowners Improvement Association neighborhood association did not provide a response.

And this concludes staff's presentation.

So some quick questions.

Um, you know, is this one of those parts of town where it was just I2 everywhere?

I know the other side of the street was I2, but it looks like there was a lot of change of residential.

Um I don't see remnants of I2 on this side of Belgium.

Yes, this actually did go through a large area rezoning last year where you did have a not the best of mix, where you had single-family residential established residences and a mix of the I2, and so the uh district office did request that the city uh propose a change of zoning for a lot of those industrial uses, which are now more of a commercial use, um, just that is better suited to be compatible with the existing uses on the property.

The question is is uh on the attachments, it still reflects I2 on the zoning map.

And so I'm just wondering: did the GIS not update to the left and to the right on that side of the street, or was it mostly residential?

This happened to be just a no, this should have been updated.

It does show us C2 CD on the um no not one stop map on that side of Belgium was it predominantly I2 like it is on the other side of Belgium and then it was changed or was it a lot of residential with this one lot being I2.

I'm wondering if the integrity of this I can I can answer that one yeah everything north of uh Belgium there besides this subject lot was always residential okay um so it's just this particular that's what I was trying to find out if this was an anomaly just it just happened to be this tract okay and then in 2018 they started the construction of everything it went to C2 with with a vastly reduced setbacks and buffer requirements uh in 2025 but from 2018 to 2025 these exterior buildings were constructed then I assume when we looked at aerial images within that time frame yes we started seeing more of the structures being constructed and what in the city this says mechanic shop how does the city it looks like it's storage or something what what is what is the actual classification of the use is it allowed in C2?

So the map originally provided did say mechanic shop I did reach out saying this is a the CD the conditional use and the use based on the application so the map should say metal fabrication now.

Okay.

It sounds like the map you're looking at was an older version that was previously provided before I reached out and use thank you.

I didn't know if it was nonconforming if it was I2 and then converted non conforming when it changed the C2 I was just trying to figure that out.

It was I mean it was I2 before the larger rezoning but the C D my understanding was allowed for contractor trades.

Yeah commission.

Okay so it was I it was like it was I2 I2 and then it and then when they did the rezoning it went back or did they downzoned it so that it fit closer to the neighborhood uh to the to the um c2 cd and the cd was what was cd specific to construction create construction trade contractors okay and then um and then you talked about being vastly reduced buffers so yeah so when when this was originally built if they're saying between 2018 and 2025 I2 commands a 30 foot setback and 30 foot land type F landscape buffers and then when it changed the C2 that's when it went to the the the type B 10 foot and so this thing was was gross.

I thought I thought we were looking at 20 foot here.

Well there's setbacks but the the buffer a type B buffer so to be with an I2 you actually have a 50 foot setback when you're abutting residential uses C2 does reduce that setback to 10 along the sides 30 in the rear yeah and the with a with a a buffer of varying between a type F is it a 30 or 40 foot on a type of so landscape buffer yeah okay okay I I I sorry I should have been more clear of what I was referring to but.

But yes also with the landscape buffer and I2 you're required a 40 foot F buffer F buffer 40 buffer 40 foot buffer and it reduces now to a 15 foot or I'm sorry yes a 15 foot type B type uh yes B.

Okay.

Isn't B a 10 foot B's not a 10?

I thought B was a 10 B is 15.

Okay great.

Any other questions?

But you're correct if the buildings were submitted at the time that there's no way most of that lot would not be developable with it being at an I2 zoning.

Well let's have the applicant come forward.

Please state your name and tell us about your project uh good afternoon members of the board uh my name is Renee uh Morales I'm the applicant for the variance for the property at 35 37 51 Belgium, the property.

Sorry about that.

The properties on C2 commercial, and the request is for the metal fabricator slash roofing company, permitted within this zoning you do the existing configuration of the structures.

This creates a hard a heart shape on the property that is otherwise appropriate uh for the use due to the structure where constructed in the different layouts which were constructed five or six years ago.

With the difference uh setbacks on it, uh it creates a problem.

And we're asking for for the variants to comply, try to comply.

We're trying to see we could do uh a fire rated walls to uh to protect the properties next to next to the the next to our property.

Uh uh this measurement will ensure the security of uh surrounding properties while maintaining this the commercial character of the property.

The heart the the hardship is due to the unique conditions of the bufferings required uh required by the city for this reason.

I request your your support.

Okay.

Uh so real quickly, um so in 2018 is when what was it before 2018?

It was the the metal, the metal company uh I just got the project uh going for the last year and a half while call companies came into play.

Uh it was just the center building, and then uh due to the nature of the of the company they needed uh storage and and places to to do welding and work.

So he's my got my client started building the the building right on the right hand side and the office other section of the office on the uh left hand side of the building.

Did the use change?

Was it always the same business?

It's always the same business.

He's been the longest.

When did the business start?

What year?

Uh that was 10 years ago, before the 18.

Uh, the the yeah, before Q well, he had the the the property since 2010, I think.

Okay, so I mean this isn't now it wasn't.

I'm trying to find out if you're a really old business that maybe was non-conforming to a different level than but you were built under this was all came up under the 2010 UDC or later.

So, yeah, okay.

Commissioner Manna.

So I do see that it was an empty lot in in 2017.

Yes, um, and then appears the structure of the initial structure is built, and so all the homes around it existed before then, and so it was inserted here into a community.

You know, so I I do have you know part of the dialogue um you know that I think about is you know, the buffers is where I'm I guess I'm having I'm struck a little bit, you know, and I think if we preserve the buffers, you know, that would give the community kind of that feel, but still allow for for him to leverage the rest of the space.

Yeah, so that's that's where I what I'm thinking right now.

Is in and this could be to the city of the applicant.

Uh the the site at 1207 uh Picarde, is that residential use or is that a business?

I'm only asking because it looks like there's more stuff going on in the backyard than everywhere else.

Oh, yes, all of it residential.

Okay, all right.

So then you're completely surrounded by a true residential zoning.

We're in a situation where I mean, we have our hands tied down.

And you know that and just so you know, um, if all this would have come about more than a couple years ago, you you would have in really huge setbacks and buffers.

Oh, what's crazy?

What you're being asked to do today is vastly less.

Yes.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Yes.

Um, so first one is Oscar Vicks.

Sir, we're gonna hear from the community and we'll have you come back up afterwards.

Hello, sir.

State your name and tell us your thoughts.

My name is Oscar Vicks.

I live at 1214 Picard.

That's like a block over.

We see 1207 for Carter.

I live at 1214 Picard.

This month I've been living now 51 years, and I think this is just highly embarrassing for us to be down here again.

Sir, can you have it?

I think this is highly embarrassing for us to be down here again.

You all know we've been down here fighting for portal parties, trucks, dust, environment, and we have done everything in the world to get the neighbors to support us.

Now, why they can't come and ask us to sit down and talk to them.

This place is outgrown itself.

And if you heard the complaints that we have gotten about working late at night, people can't sleep, you know.

Why not come talk to us about our neighborhood that we've been living in over 50 years?

Why should you want to increase something in our neighborhood that don't even relate to us?

But at least come and talk to us before bringing it down here.

And and y'all could, if y'all just look at the pictures that don't go with our neighborhood.

And we have a track record of preserving our neighborhood for over 50 years.

And we have to come down here and spend our time to talk about what should be and what shouldn't be in our neighborhood, that's embarrassing.

I mean, we've been paying our taxes for all of these years.

And then we gotta come down here and waste our time to tell people what we don't want in our neighborhood, come talk to us.

Let us know.

We've been there, 350 homes.

I've served as president for six different terms.

I've been down here for everything you can think of.

So why you can't why we can't communicate?

Why we can't talk to one another?

Really, when they moved out there, we thought it was gonna be just a little or a little business.

It is outgrown itself.

You know what I mean?

So I really think it's something that we can solve, but we ain't going for this.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Manna, so sorry, um, so the neighbor you talked about neighborhood association, is it a formal neighborhood association or an informal one that you have in the in your community?

United homeowners improved.

Okay, you get it.

Okay, speaking through the microphone, please.

And so the home the United Homeowners approvement, um, so they didn't provide a written response, but are are you representing the neighborhood association?

This is a neighborhood president.

Perfect, okay.

I just want to make sure, okay, and then um, and then maybe um the question is, you know, you talked about reaching out to the community and and getting the lots of opposition, and so is that documented with regards to the opposition, and maybe that will be provided in the next uh presentation.

Let me tell you the only reason we haven't gotten around to it, the the the complaints are there, but we've been down here fighting for the port of party, we've been fighting down here for dust, we've been fighting for pollution.

Yeah.

And if they would come to us and look at what we've been fighting for, they wouldn't be asking for this.

Sir, you you're referring to the honeypot across the street, that port-a-party one where you went to the planning commission.

Okay, yes.

Yeah, I rem I recall that case.

Right.

And and all we asking is that you if you support us, if you're gonna live in a neighborhood, that's all we're asking.

We ain't trying to make people do things.

All we said is we've been there over 50 years and communicate with us.

Why?

I don't even know these people, not done served six times as president.

I've been down here for everything the neighborhood has done in the last 50 years.

Mr.

Thomas died last week.

He's been down here for everything.

So why our neighborhood gotta come down here and fight all the time?

When somebody ought to just say leave these people alone.

That's all we ask you.

I understand.

I also want to say that we I did receive opposition for this case, however, it was past the deadline to be presented in staff's presentation, which is why it was not in the presentation today.

But I did receive opposition on paper this morning.

So from that from the community or or letters, multiple letters from lots of people, or so just I didn't I didn't have time to verify what it was the addresses, but to my understanding it is from the community, the shank.

And it looks like the letters that were sent in the mail.

Perfect.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Oh, I had a question for Commissioner Zuna.

Yeah, my question is is there so there the applicant is requesting certain uh variances from the minimum setback, side setbacks and rear setbacks.

Is there a setback limit that you would be okay with if the applicant were to set the building back a certain footage from either side or rear, is there something that you would be okay with?

I'm going to not tell you like I told the president.

I ain't but nothing, okay.

If you ain't got a residential place in our neighborhood, I ain't for you.

Okay, we got three hundred and twenty five residential housing.

And if you ain't putting no residents out there, I can pull.

Now I'll go along with the program if with the community if I have to, but I'm telling you, we don't want nothing in our neighborhood but residential.

And we got a track record of taking care of we have a over 60 year track record of taking care of our residents neighborhood.

So anything you put out there that don't relate to the neighborhood, we don't want it.

It's just that simple.

Understood.

That's why I asked the question.

Okay.

Thank you, thank you.

Thank you.

All righty.

Um that's uh Plumber.

Hello.

Hi, good afternoon, everyone.

Uh my name is Shirlita Plummer.

I live at 3452 Chateau Drive.

So I'm in 3400 block of Belgium Lane.

I'm the secretary for our neighborhood association, United Homeowners Improvement Association, and I stand in opposition to the zoning changes or requests uh by the property owner.

Uh for the simple reason um the homes on the other side of the property have dealt with, you know, noise issues.

I think uh there was one time I think the dogs that are there on the property for security got out.

Um it's just that as Mr.

Bix said, we just like to our area to be a residential area, and it just seems like anything and everything.

I remember the first um time when I saw some development on their property, it was a residence.

It was a house.

I said, Oh, someone's building a house.

And then the next thing I know, that you know was theirs, which you passed by as you headed to the the park, past Bacardian to the park, and it's just not uh a good look for the neighborhood.

Um the zoning, I mean the city has put in, you know, zoning things that I think are appropriate for residential areas, and I just hope that you will take all that into consideration as you make your decision.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, manna Commissioner Manor.

Sir, excuse me, ma'am, ma'am.

So, um, so there's a there's a bunch of items on this list here, and um, and so one of the questions, you know, so some things are permitted by right that this person's gonna be able to do.

Um, and and so part of the dialogue is um we have regards to fencing material, um, you know, is a fencing material okay from y'all's perspective, um, being that it's metal, you know, um, just trying to figure out where it is that you are on each of things.

Buffers know is what I'm gathering.

Well, let me let me tell you this.

Um, we've had a change in leadership, and Miss Ali really didn't get information about all this, you know, until like I'm gonna say two weeks ago, or when we were in the midst of doing a lot of uh sadly a lot of funerals and it's been the last month or so.

So it's just uh it it really has caught us, you know, off guard.

If you know, I don't know why anybody would want to put corrugated anything.

Um I know there's one property and I think it's affiliated.

I may be wrong with 30, you know, that 3741 uh Belgium Lane, and they have put these six foot uh corrugated uh fence.

Uh and you can see that right off the 3400 block of Belgium Lane, and I don't think that's appropriate either.

I matter of fact, it's against city code.

Well, while you're here, um you don't have to speak on behalf of the neighborhood association, but what do you think?

I mean, is there anything we just want to hear from you because we don't get a lot of people signing up to speak?

I I know, and and being a government history major and educator for 38 years, uh, I appreciate that comment.

But it's it's just hard, you know, for a lot of people to get away.

There are a lot of people that work, but those of us that are retired, and I'm one of those retired people, I'm able to come down uh for something like this in the middle of the day.

So corrugated metal is not something you're fancy.

No, I mean, no.

I just wanted to ask is um we have we do hear different things for different people, but it's cheap and it it's ugly, but no.

Thank you very much.

Is there any other questions from the commission?

All right.

Is there anyone else time to speaker?

This is uh Jacqueline Arlie.

Hello.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the board.

My name is Jacqueline Ali, and I'm president of the United Homeowners Improvement Association.

We go by UHIA.

We've been down here as Mr.

Vicks has said several times.

We represent the neighborhoods of Willowwood at State, Metal View Park, and Metal View North.

We appreciate this opportunity regarding this case about 3751 Belgium Lane.

I myself live on Belgium Lane, which is the main thoroughfare and to get getting into our neighborhood from Frostbank Center Drive all the way to the end, heading into uh Plints Park.

UHIA supports responsible investment and redevelopment within our community.

We recognize that businesses are important partners in strengthening our local economy.

We actually have sent out business letters to every business in our community.

This particular one was sent one also.

We got responses back from businesses.

This one we did not, and uh, like Mr.

Vicks said it'd be nice if you know people would, you know, communicate with us because this is what we're here for.

Uh however, we are concerned about the number and the scope of the requested variances uh by the applicant, many which exceed the city limits and standards.

Excuse me.

Our concerns are there will be a loss of landscape buffering.

Neighbors on the back end or rear end along Tuscany, they have had several complaints because they get most of the noise, and uh to lose some of that or get them closer to their property has been an issue.

And as you all, I know you don't have those opposition notices, but those were some of the complaints when you do get those.

And I apologize because that was on me and getting those turned in late.

In addition, uh reducing that separation between the properties, that's a concern also, and then the increased visibility of industrial activity.

Uh, the closer they get to the rear and the sides of the um uh properties, then you get a chance to see all the industrial activity, and that's one thing that we've been kind of fighting against throughout the years when we did the large area rezoning.

Potential traffic uh impact.

How would that impact traffic coming in if they're wanting to shorten their driveway?

And is there going to be traffic uh heading from the street of Belgium into the property?

Pedestrians cross there on the sidewalk, so we want to make sure those apartments across the street have a lot of the kids that have the cross there and the school is right up the street, Bella Cameron.

So all of these we're wanting to take into consideration.

Also, just the mere fact of community appearance.

I don't know if you've ever been in our neighborhood, but it's a neighborhood that is over 60 years old.

It's a beautiful neighborhood.

Manna, I'd like to go ahead and give some more time.

Oh, I wasn't gonna stop.

Okay, well we had the alarm gloves.

Okay, okay.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate that.

Uh the community appearance is very important to us, and that's why we try to work with the businesses, those that are to the south of Belgium.

We try to work with them in that we maintain the upkeep.

We have a beautiful project going on now, and we are encouraging the businesses to work with us on this here, and we have a good relationship with most of them.

And then the long-term compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods, including the ones that are cross-gamble and so forth.

So again, we're not opposed to redevelopment, but we support standards that help provide separation between properties, improve safety, reduce visual uh impacts, control the noise and the dust, and promote compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods, while each request should be uh evaluated individually, and I'm referring to the variances that he's uh requesting.

We respectfully ask the board to also consider the cumulative effect that this will have on our neighborhood.

And so we're asking you to determine whether each of these variances will satisfy the legal standards under the UN DC or the UDC and whether or not reasonable alternatives could accomplish the applicant's goals while better protecting our neighborhoods.

So at this time we ask that you consider each of those uh variances, and we want to thank you for your time and your thoughtful consideration.

Thank you very much.

Uh and this if is there anyone else?

No, no more.

We're gonna have the applicant come back up and offer a rebuttal.

Uh before that happens, I just noticed across the street for on Belgium.

It looks like there was a uh right-of-way uh conveyance.

Did this does is Belgium Road?

I'm just looking at one of the imageries, it looks like a thin strip that looks like the city had acquired right away.

Is Belgium Road an arterial or a collector?

Do you happen to know?

Okay, and the reason why I asked.

So a local road.

Go ahead.

Local road.

Uh it looks kind of wide, unless it's a local C, but um I'm just curious.

Um, when this when this does go through permitting, whatever happens today, are they going to be able to keep both driveways because we had one issue come up about uh driveway throat?

I didn't know if that was something that was uh on the table here during the permit review.

Not the amount of driveways, it's just the uh the width of it.

Yeah, I was just curious because I'm just looking at the street, and then if it was a collector, I didn't know if there would be a limit of one driveway during the permit review, uh, just because there's so much site work associated with it.

So I didn't, I was just curious how traffic did review the uh driveways, but that's the only issue that they gave us.

All right, thank you.

Commissioner Mann.

So is a driveway allowed in a buffer uh buffer space?

Yes, yes, it is.

Yes, it's just not driveways, not like drives or if y'all want to look at the uh at the uh presentation, and if you go if you go back, or I'm sorry, the attachments that's available on the on the website.

Uh what you'll see is that there's a little piece of property that looks like it was take that was a conveyance to the city.

It's it's on the attachment that's available online.

I didn't see it on the PowerPoint.

But um, yeah, right there.

So the large truck across the street.

You see how there's a thin strip along Belgium that kind of make that kind of makes the right-of-way wider.

That's why I was just wondering if if that part of Belgium was in intent to be uh a collector or a local C.

That's that's all.

It's not it's if traffic's looked at it, that's fine.

I was just curious.

All right.

Is that the applicant board?

So we've heard uh from your neighbors, uh, and you've heard questions from the commission, and we offer you time uh to provide any sort of rebuttal or uh any extra thoughts before we move to a motion.

Definitely, thank you.

Uh hopefully we're not getting blamed for the excessive noise that is across the street, and uh we're construction workers and uh we know we start working at six in the morning, but most of the time by five, six, most of the people wants to go home.

But uh I know I understand their concern.

And uh, like I said, we're here to try to comply and make my client comply if there's we need to change it to wood fans.

I would uh we we're able to do that, and uh uh first I guess if uh it's not approved, we just need to comply with the new regulations and of our C2, which uh probably we just need to move the structures a little bit in or uh but we're willing to work with uh our neighbors and and and your uh your opinions.

I mean they're more than welcome, and that we can uh bring those to real quick.

Uh Commissioner Dean, can you turn your camera back on, please?

Uh sir, the camera is on, you just stepped away.

Okay.

While we're waiting for that, and uh a question about the um uh the fence in the front um for you uh you're asking for a height increase along the front edge front in the back, I mean, for the privacy of the front, it's uh if they have a concern, I guess we can just do an open uh just a regular iron.

It's so what I'm curious about, so this board has the ability to look at your requests and to grant what you're asking or not grant or somewhere in between, and so you're uh the along the front edge, you're asking for a uh a six and a half foot tall solid fence.

Um is there anything about a six and a half foot to foot foot tall solid fence that you can wiggle on?

It could it be a predominantly open.

At this point, it we're willing to work with that.

Uh they had it at one point because of uh I'm assuming it's for security.

Exactly.

They were broken into several times, and uh uh the wood fence wouldn't keep up the dog they got and uh they did metal and uh and now they got rid of the dog and coal company start coming in and so they clear all that out.

But if we need to put it back to wood, I mean, we can do this uh so the applicant is expressing to us a willingness to listen to the homeowners association and then have you reached out to them?

Have you had any communication with them?

My the homeowner's been there for a long time.

I mean the property owner's been there for a long time, and he knows people in there, and he knows most of the people that is probably from the board, and uh what he told me he had some uh some support and uh he he couldn't pick up the letters and the quality they came back.

Daniel Daniel uh well he uh my my client Daniel uh Bongora, he's the one that talked to the people in the and he he said he he has those in here already uh I don't know who he talked to.

It's tough when you have the officers of the neighborhood association, and and I think I don't know if he knows them or not, but uh he talked to some neighbors around uh his business and he has support.

Okay, so here's here's what we're gonna do.

We're gonna this commission's gonna entertain a motion uh at any time.

Uh the commission could also entertain a continuance for you to deal with the uh and meet with and coordinate with the neighbor association.

It's really up to a majority of the board members.

We're willing to work with that.

I had a question for the application.

Yes, Commissioner Bunny.

Before we do that, um what uh you said construction workers uh work out of here?

Well, uh there's a roofing, it's a a metal welding company and and roofing company.

So of course that's the main hub.

So they fabricate the metal, receive metal, and take it to the site, and if it's forging or or welding, it's done there and it's taken to the site.

Okay.

So you said like roofing stuff like that.

So are they familiar with the permit process?

Permit process of uh building?

Yeah, pulling permits in general.

When they for regular build for roof, yeah, they do they they they only do for roofing, not not for any other thing.

Because was were any permits pulled for any of the structures on this this property?

Only for the main structure, not for the site, not not for the one of the medaling.

Gotcha, and then that expired that didn't go through final or anything.

Uh at the at this point when I took over, uh, I started working on that and closed most of them out, and I got a temporary certificate on.

Uh we pass all the uh all the inspections, but the electrical due to the uh uh additional buildings.

So we had to uh upgrade the uh the meter loop.

So we still we're working on that.

Yeah, that's my biggest thing is you know you said this are construction workers that work out here, whether they're roofing or fabricators.

Some kind of permit permitting process.

So why wouldn't they do it for their own property?

It's kind of what we're um why wouldn't they do it for their own property?

So I I I I don't know, uh they they fabricate I mean they get they they get hired to do a uh a roof, they they they free cut, they cut, and they're gonna be able to do that.

But then train permits, but they understand.

I get it, I understand what they do.

Okay, but they understand what that there is a permit process, that there's a one-stop center for them to go get permits or build this.

I mean, oh yes, but they didn't do it for their own building.

And at this point, that's all I can do.

Commissioner Cruz, did you have a question?

No, sir.

Okay.

So I'm gonna put something out there for the commission to think about.

After hearing from the community and and reviewing this case, um personally, I think the change of zoning was a gift to them.

Uh previously they had huge setbacks, huge landscape buffers that were vastly reduced by it becoming C2.

So I'm not going to be in support of any sort of buffer or setback issue dealing with this property.

What I would be in support of is the uh the throat on the driveway.

Um and then I would also be in support of the front fence being uh up to six feet tall if it was predominantly open only.

Uh so I'm just putting that out there.

I don't know what anyone else thinks about that, but that's what I would support today.

Um love to hear from other people.

I concur with that position.

Um and so the yes, I concur with that position.

Is there anyone else that uh would like to chime in on that?

Because if nobody minds, I'd like to make a motion for that and see how it bears out.

Thank you.

All right, let's see here.

Regarding case, regarding case number BOA-26-103-00114.

I move that the board of adjustment grant a request for.

I don't think anything on this one.

Uh number four.

Yeah, a five-foot variance from the minimum required 20-foot throat length to allow a 15-foot driveway throat length.

So, uh, situated at 3751 Belgium Lane, applicant being uh Renee Morales, because the testimony presented us and the facts that we have determined show that the physical character of this property is such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code is amended would result in an unnecessary hardship.

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

In this case, it would be um in this in this case there's adequate throat length provided for customers entering and exiting the property to do special conditions, a little enforcement of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship.

A little enforcement of the or of the ordinance would um necess would necessitate uh the alteration of a driveway throat length of the property, which may prove difficult in development.

Number three by graining the variance, the spirit of the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice would be done.

Uh such variants would be in the spirit of the ordinance, specifically the throat length, uh, which would still allow the property to operate without impacting the surrounding area.

Number 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 other uses uh other than those allowed within the district will be allowed with this variance.

Five, such variants should not substantially injure the appropriate use of adjacent Cabornal property or alter the central character of the district in which the property is located.

Uh if granted, wouldn't the variant uh the variance would not significantly impact adjacent properties or alter the surrounding neighborhood character?

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

Apply to the owners due to the unique circumstances of the size and location of subject property as it relates to the existing use.

End of motion.

Second, second by commissioner manna.

Uh, I'm in support uh as read, limiting it to only uh the throat length.

Yes, Commissioner Brown.

Regarding the six-foot predominantly open fence in the front, uh that's a uh that would be the second place.

Okay, all right.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with my colleague.

Anyone else like to add?

Is that a roll call vote?

Chair Orion.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Manna.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes, I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Stevens.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz, we need your camera on, please.

I concur.

Yeah, let's go.

Let's go back to her.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the funding.

It's a fact.

Commissioner Zuna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonias?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

All right.

It's a it's 10 uh to zero.

We can count Commissioner Cruz as an abstention since it doesn't affect the outcome.

Uh next item is going to be the motion regarding the uh height exception.

Uh regarding case number BOA-26-1030114.

I move that the Board of Adjustment going to request for a three-foot six-inch fent fence height special exception from the maximum allowed, I'm sorry, a one-foot six-height fence height special exception from the maximum allowed five foot uh front yard predominantly open fence requirement to allow a six foot six six foot six-inch predominantly open fence in the front yard situated at 3751 Belgium Lane.

Appan being renamed Morales because the test when we presented us and the facts that we would not have determined show the physical character of this property such that a liberal enforcement of the provisions of the unified development code as amended would result in an unnecessary hardship.

So if we find that a special exception will be harmony with the spirit and purpose of the chapter.

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

B, the public welfare and be substantially served, the fence height increase will still promote the public welfare as a community as a fence height requested would protect the property owner being predominantly open while still promoting a sense of community.

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

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

D, the special exception would not alter the central character of the district and location in which the property for which the special exception is sought.

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

E.

The special exception that weaken the general purpose of the district of regulations here herein established for the special district.

The general purpose of the district regulations is to protect the neighborhood character, promote safe safety, and ensure uh consistent development patterns, allowing a modest increase in fence fence height in this unique location to not undermine these goals that is based on site-specific conditions that do not apply to most lots.

And I wanted to clarify that this motion is for the um front yard fence only.

I know it it it it mentioned side in the uh findings, but it's for front yard only.

End of motion, second second by Commissioner Braggman.

Uh I'm being in support as red for predominantly open fence only along the street, and that's it.

Commissioner Braggman.

I concur with my colleague.

Alright, anyone's like to add?

Mana.

Commissioner Manna.

So as read, um streetscape versus front yard.

Is there a difference between those two?

So there's a structure, so I'm just a lot of clear.

So is this uh I my intent was to be along Belgium and uh because they can do a six-foot privacy fence down the sides, can't can they not only to the front of the uh primary structure?

Gotcha.

Okay, so while we're deliberating, not delivery, but while we're discussing this, um does anybody is anybody opposed to it being predominantly open in the front yard, or should I just restrict it to a long Belgium street?

What do you mean?

I wouldn't mind asking the community for their perspective here because you know that's that is you know they've talked a whole lot with regards to.

I'm gonna reopen the public hearing.

I'd like one member of the community who would like to uh approach the podium.

All right, let's state your name, please for the record.

Uh Jacqueline Ali.

So what we're talking about is um a predominantly open fence.

A predominantly open fence is allowed to be five feet tall.

We're uh offering a variance up to six foot six inches tall.

But the issue is is that would it would you do you uh feel as representative of the community uh would it be across just the street because the front also runs down the sides up to the front facade of the building?

Right.

So would or would you be opposed uh to having to be predominantly open up to the front facade of the building?

Yeah, let's do that.

If staff could use a laser pointer, perhaps or yeah, let's so we're looking at where the number six is.

It goes across the front and then up the side a little bit, just to the front facade of that center building.

Do you think it would be a big deal for it to be predominantly open?

Uh six foot six inches tall up to it's about 30% up.

And what is the material?

Predominantly open means that it has to be at least 70% open.

It could be wrought iron, theoretically, it could be chain link, uh, but it would have to be at least 70% open.

And it would be have to be a material that is permitted by the city.

Yeah, they could not use well core cage and metal with a bunch of holes in it.

Have to be.

I think we'd be open to that.

All right.

We just wanted your thoughts.

All right.

So uh just to be clear, my motion is uh six foot six inches predominantly open in the front yard.

Predominantly open in the front yard.

All right.

Anyone else like to add to the uh commentary?

We're back in a in closing in the closed session here.

Close meeting.

All right.

If there's nothing else, I have a roll call vote.

Chair Orion.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Anna.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Azuna?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

All right, motion passes.

Uh did we hear from Commissioner Cruz?

Okay, I just wanted to make sure.

11 to 0.

All right.

If for the applicant, if you still if you have any questions, you can get with staff about what just happened.

All right.

Item four.

Good afternoon, board members.

My name is Joel Villas, and you're a planner with the city of San Antonio.

Uh item four is BOA-26-1030116.

The applicant being Mary Cynthia Trevino and District 5 at 1223 West Theo Avenue.

This is a request for one, a four foot six inch variance from the minimum required five-foot side setback to allow a carport with a six-inch west side setback.

Two a seven-foot variance from the minimum required 15-foot driveway clear vision to allow an eight-foot driveway clear vision area for two driveways and three uh one foot two inch special exception from the maximum allowable five foot predominantly open front yard fence to allow a six foot two inch predominantly open fence in the front yard.

The subject property is located uh west of the intersection of West Theo Avenue and Nogolito Street surrounded by lots zoned R5.

Code enforcements investigation of the subject property in response to a citizen report found a fence recently constructed without a permit taller than the maximum allowable height and within the minimum required driveway clear vision area of the subject properties driveway and the driveway of the adjacent property uh to the east.

Google street View imagery indicates the existing carport was built within the set side setback sometime after 2017, but staff could not locate a permit for its construction.

Uh the property owner was directed to obtain permits for the fence and the carport, but first must obtain variances for the fence height uh and to address the setback and clear vision issues.

Shown here is a site plan uh showing that front yard fence proposed.

That's number three, the two driveway clear vision areas shown by number two in orange there, and the uh side setback for that carport running along the side of the home.

Shown here as a subject property, showing the front yard fence and the carport there to the left.

Better look at the carport there and the surrounding area.

Staff recommendation for the carport setback and driveway clear vision variants.

Staff recommends denial for the following findings of fact.

One, the carport is situated without adequate space to maintain the western roof line of the carport without accessing adjacent property.

And two, there's insufficient separation between the street and this open fence to allow motorists to view and safely maneuver a vehicle into the right-of-way.

Staff recommendation for the fence height special inception.

Staff recommends denial based on the following findings of fact.

One, the increased fence height would limit visibility across the front yard of the property, thereby detracting from the sense of community that is typical of a single family residential neighborhood.

And two, no similar fences were observed within the immediate surrounding area.

Staff mailed 44 notices, three were returned in favor, one uh zero in opposition, one neutral, uh, no voicemails, and the Palm Heights neighborhood association did not respond.

This concludes staff's presentation.

The applicant is present.

Two quick questions.

Uh this we we've I don't think I've seen a driveway on someone else's property that's part of an application.

Do they enjoy in the application?

No, it's not enjoyed in this particular application, but it is prohibited for a fence to be placed within clear vision area.

Okay.

So the question is is that uh for the six foot two height.

I noticed that there's a slight retaining uh wall that occurred that on the back of the sidewalk that grows maybe up to a foot tall.

Uh and thereabouts, uh the retining wall is not included in that measurement.

And did the six foot two, is that for posts, or is that for a gate, or is that for most of the actual fence?

That should be most of the fence.

If I pulled this picture here, so the tallest portion, which I think are those posts that were not there.

Much taller, though.

Okay.

Yeah.

Any questions from the commission to staff?

All right.

Thank you.

Let's have the applicant come forward.

Thank you.

Hello.

Tell us your name and tell us about your project.

Oh, my name is Mary C.

Travino, and uh this is Renee Ruiz.

We both reside at 1223 West CO since 1999.

Um before that, I am from the neighborhood.

I grew up there for 60 years.

I've been in From Heights.

Um, recently we uh we well, we've rescued uh a Labrador, and um she after we had really got her off the street because we have a problem with a lot of strays in the neighborhood.

So we rescued her because she was hurt.

Um we took her to the veterinarian, she had a broken leg and because she was hit by a car.

She had several pellets in her body from someone shooting her with a bead gun.

So we took her in, we did the we paid for all the medical expenses to get her healed, and then to find out she was pregnant.

So she ended up delivering 13 labs.

Oh jeez.

So we honed as many as we could, as many as we could, and we ended up with her and five babies.

So we did that, we we vaccinated them, we did our neuter spade, we did everything we could and chipping, and then the mother who was the stray, she started getting out.

And so we were once she started climbing the fence, then her babies followed.

So we were doing this weeks in at four o'clock in the morning, trying to get her back in, and we had to do something really quick.

So that's what happened is I I ended up asking, you know, for a fence to block them in so they couldn't get out something they couldn't climb.

And when they stand, I mean they're face, they're pretty much tall enough that we're face-to-face.

They're tall dogs, and they climb microphone trees.

So they are climbers.

And so when we put the fence in, it was my fault.

I didn't realize that I needed a permit in my neighborhood.

Because we have maybe not on my immediate block, but we have several people in Palm Heights and further down who have the same type of fencing.

It's either iron fencing or it's chaining.

All in the same area, all within the curb.

All everybody is pretty much the same.

So I didn't know I was doing anything wrong.

Okay.

So uh when I found out, that's when I said we better do something about it because I I didn't realize I needed a permit.

Um and then, you know, it just I got really nervous because I've never done this before.

So I just wanted all I was trying to do was protect my animals, um, protect the public.

I live on a uh a really busy street.

It's a one-way street.

I there's lots of pedestrian traffic because we have Palm Heights Park right down the street.

So I was worried that with my dogs getting out, even though they're they are friendly, but a dog's defense is to bite, and I was worried it it could fit someone, I don't want to go to jail, I don't want to put them down.

I'm I was just trying to do what I thought was best to protect them, myself, my liability, and the neighborhood.

And I got I mean, after I did it, I my neighbors I got compliments from them.

No one, there wasn't anyone that really was upset with with what I had done.

And the neighbor that lives next to me, right next to me where that carport is, he's a truck driver, so when you guys mailed out the letter, he was on the road.

So he didn't come in till Saturday, which he filled out the form, but we tried to get all our forms in before the due date, but on Friday y'all are closed, so we were only able to submit what we had on Thursday, and then I have his, which he's go ahead and give that to staff, they can project that up for us.

I have a question about your carport.

How how deep is it?

Uh the carport, I think it's an actual it's uh please state your name, sir.

Renee Ruiz, I'm sorry.

Um so the carport, I believe approximately it's uh 50 feet long, two cars, two cars, yeah.

And then it's and it's in the backyard, I mean predominantly in the backyard.

The slopes uh to your neighbors, it's actually a slight roof.

Are there gutters?

Not at the moment, not at the moment.

Um, you know, while you're up there, you're more than welcome to amend your application to include gutters.

Oh, I mean it it we would be glad to do it.

I just I just said you know what we come and do this before we got any kind of feedback to say exactly what we would recommend.

Well, it's it's completely up to you.

We can't put conditions on anything, but uh it is common uh for us to hear gutters, it's a popular word.

Uh if you would like to amend your application to include gutters regarding the side of the carport, you're more than welcome to do so at this time.

I'd be glad to do it, yes.

We would like to amend it.

All right.

So the applicant has amended their application to include gutters on the carport.

All right.

Just to be clear, it is a thoroughfare, it's a one-way thoroughfare.

So so that way the the visual impairment for the vision for the people that are backing out of the driveway would only be to the people to that would be the west of us, not to the east of us.

Right.

So that's just well the city came in and added the four-foot bike lanes some years back.

Well, they did.

It was in 2014, I think, that when they actually it looks like they lowered the street so it elevated us.

And you had very in at Theo Maloney had this very interesting 10-foot-wide bicycle thing going on.

I think that's bike lanes on both sides exactly.

The street came closer to our property, and then the retaining wall as well because they came down.

So the and just to be clear, the panels that we bought for installation were they're actually listed at 70 inches.

They're not they're under they're under six foot.

So the variants we were asking for was you know the additional 10 inches and not over six feet.

Okay, that's what we get that and I have the I have the actual invoice here that discloses the size of that.

Well, we have a what's before us today is for uh uh one foot two inch variants, and as since the city measured it, I think that we should probably keep that, but that's fine.

All right.

Any questions from the commission?

Measurement.

So so regarding the clear vision, so, so and it's talk about there's two driveways and the neighboring driveway.

So, so what would be the the resolution to uh prevent or to resolve the clear vision?

Would it be an angled view across that corner?

Basically, yeah, doing the angled view where you're keeping it out.

I think it's fifteen feet from the uh driveway, or pulling the fence back that it's out of the front yard.

Or reducing the height to three feet or less.

But it is predominantly open, so and so that's where you know, as long as it remains predominantly open, that kind of resolves one of the questions we have.

However, it is still within that distance, right?

So, yeah, they don't traffic doesn't consider predominantly open.

Anything that's over three feet is considered within the site view.

I think the board kind of does a lot though.

Yeah, and this one's a little different because it does have a four-foot bike lane next to the curb.

We don't see that too often.

Right.

So that's kind of like a little extra buffer where for the vehicles would or should be driving.

Can you can you park a car on a on a bike lane like this?

No, right?

On that one-way street, you can only park on the actual south part.

The southern part lane, the not on your side.

Not on my side, no, sir.

Okay.

Fabulous.

Any other questions?

All right.

Anyone sign to speak?

No public comment.

All right.

Well, what we're gonna do is we're gonna look for a motion to see how this turns out.

Thank you.

Who would like to make a motion on this?

Ragman.

Commissioner Bragman.

Regarding case number BOA-26-1030116.

I move the border adjustment grant a request for one, a four-foot-six-inch variance from the minimum required five-foot side setback to allow a carport uh with a six-inch west side setback with gutters, to a seven-foot variance from the minimum required 15-foot driveway, clear vision area to allow an eight-foot driveway, clear vision area for two driveways situated at one two two-three West Theo Avenue.

Applicant being Mary Cynthia Travino.

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

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

The carport is situated with adequate separation to maintain the western roof line of the carport without a jet accessing adjacent property.

There is sufficient separation between the street and this open fence to allow motorists to view and safely maneuver a vehicle into the right-of-way.

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

Space constraints on this lot make the side yard the ideal location for the proposed carport, and there is sufficient separation from the property line.

A literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship, as modification to the existing fence would not substantially improve visibility and safety around the existing driveway.

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 for sufficient maintenance access space.

The existing separation between the fence and the street is does provide adequate space to view oncoming traffic and manure a vehicle into the right-of-way.

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

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

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

The variance would not substantially injure the appropriate use of the adjacent conforming property as there is an adequate clear vision area to support the safe use of the driveway.

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

Uh the plight of the owner of the property for which the variance is sought is due to unique circumstances existing on the property.

The construction of the carport in the side yard is uh result of spatial constraints existing on this lot.

The plight of the owner of the property is due to unique circumstances present on this property.

Properties within the immediate surrounding area would not be significantly impacted by the proposed fence.

End of motion.

Second by Commissioner Manna, Commissioner Bregman.

Um yeah, I I think that given the uh four foot bike lane uh and the other considerations uh regarding the gutter on the carport.

Um I'll be in support of this motion.

Thank you, Commissioner Manna.

So that just a small question for the city.

So there's this an accessory structure in the back.

Is that part of this motion as well with regards to the setback side setback requirement?

No, it is not.

It's not okay, and then um so friendly amendment to uh limit it to the size of the uh carport as defined or the 50 foot whatever um so that way, yeah.

Accepted.

So the motion has been amended to to incorporate the the length of the carport as built approximately 50 feet long.

And then we did and I may miss it with gutters, so is it so?

Okay, perfect.

Okay, didn't mention that.

Great, thank you.

So approved.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to add?

Hearing none, so I'll 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 Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Ozuna.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Bonias.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

And I concur with the findings of fact.

Motion passes.

Uh now motion on the fence height.

Fragman.

Commissioner Braggman.

Regarding case number BOA-26-1030116.

I move the Board of Adjustment and grant a request for a one-foot two-inch special exception from the maximum allowable five-foot predominantly open uh front yard fence to allow six foot two-inch predominantly open front yard fence situated at 1223 West Theo Avenue.

Applicant being Mary Cynthia Travino, because the testimony presented to us and the facts we've determined show the physical character of this property, such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the unit by development code as amended would result in unnecessary hardship.

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

The cost would be in harmony with the spirit and purpose of the ordinance, as the increased fence height would not substantially limit visibility across the front yard of the property.

B the public welfare and convenience will be substantially served.

The proposed fence does not appear to serve the public welfare as there are similar fences observed in the immediate surrounding area.

C.

The neighboring property will not substantially be injured by such proposed use.

The neighboring property will not be substantially injured by the proposed special exception as the fence will not diminish the visual openness of the adjacent property's front yard space.

D.

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

The special exception would not alter the essential character of the district in which the properties located as special as similar front yard fences were observed in the immediate surrounding area.

E.

The special exception will not weaken the general purpose of the district or the regulations herein established for the specific district.

The requested special exception will not weaken the general purpose of the district as it will introduce a front yard fence that supports the sense of community while providing enhanced security on the lot.

End of motion.

Second.

Say goodbye, Commissioner Manna.

Commissioner Bregman.

Yeah, I'll be in support of the motion.

Um again, this is predominantly open.

Uh I understand certainly the need uh to keep the dogs in, and I applaud you for taking on that responsibility.

So I'll be in support.

Thank you, Commissioner Manna.

Um I concur with my colleague, and and looking down the subsequent neighboring block, there's similar fencing, so there's not uncharacteristic of that community.

All right.

Anyone else like to add?

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

Commissioner Bregman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Menna.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed.

I concur the fines of fact.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

I concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Zuna.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Blinias.

Yes.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

And I concur with the findings of fact.

Motion passes unanimously.

Congratulations.

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

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

All right.

Item five.

Joel Vella, Senior Planner with the City of San Antonio.

Item five is BOA-26-1030117.

The applicant being Booth Civil LLC in District 1 at 338 Wolf Road.

This is a request for one, a five-foot special exception from the maximum allowable three-foot privacy fence to allow an eight-foot privacy fence in the front yard, and two, a two-foot special exception from the maximum allowable six-foot privacy fence to allow an eight-foot privacy fence in the side and rear yard.

Subject property is located west of the intersection of Wolf Road and Highway 281, and surrounded by property zones C3 and I1.

The property is occupied by an existing parking lot, and the applicant proposes to use the property for a taxi dispatch service and the installation of electric vehicle chargers on the property with an eight-foot perimeter fence for security.

Prior to obtaining a permit for the proposed security fencing, the applicant must obtain a special exception from the BOA.

Shown here is a site plan and the delineation between the front and side and rear yards.

Applicant is proposing eight foot all around, and this is the subject property.

And this is the rear of the subject property, just showing that behind there is a existing stormwater drainage easement, and the surrounding area.

Staff recommendation for the front yard fence height special exception.

Staff recommends denial based on the following findings of fact.

One, the eight-foot privacy fence would create a significant visual barrier in the front yard, and two, such a visual barrier was not observed on surrounding property and does not support an appealing streetscape or promote the sense of community for this area.

Staff recommendation for the side and rear yard fence height special exception.

Staff recommends approval based on the following findings of fact.

One, the proposed fence height in the side and rear yard would not substantially impact the sense of community in this area as the property does not abut any properties with an active use.

And two, the special exception would not alter the essential character of the immediate surrounding area as the eight-foot privacy fence in the side and rear yard is intended only for enhanced security of the premises.

Staff mailed 14 notices, zero zero were returned, uh no voicemails.

The Crown Hill Park Neighborhood Association is not opposed, and the San Antonio, Texas District One Resident Association did not respond.

This concludes staff's presentation.

All right, thank you very much.

Commercial.

But it looks like there's a structure there.

I'm looking at 406 Wolf Road.

Based on our um site visit, there did not seem to be a tenant in that structure.

There's a structure there, but uh it itself is vacant.

All right.

So have the applicant come forward.

Thank you.

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

Uh hi there, I'm Tamson Drew with Tarawa Infrastructure.

I'm just gonna hand these out if that's alright.

Sure, staff can even help you with that.

And thank you.

Go ahead and get started here.

Thank you so much.

Uh good afternoon, uh members of the board.

Uh as I mentioned, I'm Tamson Drew with Terrawatt uh infrastructure.

I'm joined here today by my uh colleague Stefan Dietchen, as well as Nat Ho and Maggie Carrion, who are with our civil engineering firm uh boot Civil.

Uh, we're here today, as you've already heard from staff to request uh variants for uh fence height on our project at 338 Wolf Road.

Thank you.

To just provide a little bit of background on the project, the site is a one-acre parcel zone C3 general commercial on Wolf Road.

On the site, we will be installing 46 EV fast chargers to serve commercial light duty fleet vehicles.

The site will operate 24 hours a day.

Importantly, as you've already heard, there's no residential adjacency, the neighbors are a hotel, automotive services, office, and light industrial uses.

So this is a commercial neighborhood.

As shown, the site plan provides a full perimeter fence outlined in red along with the interior layout of our site.

The purpose of the fence is to provide a property boundary that will integrate with our guard house and gate to provide control access to the site, and we are will be providing landscaping along Wolf Road to help soften the street-facing view.

The fence we're proposing is steel with a black finish.

It's a one-inch vertical members with eight inch on center, and then we're going to be covering that with perforated panels, which are 20% open.

The intent is to be semi-transparent here, not a solid screen wall to help maintain that visual connection with the landscaping.

And additionally, the site lines are compliant with the driveway access visibility requirements.

So we are seeking the exception for fence height in the front yard.

The code sets the maximum height of three feet.

We are requesting eight feet, which would be a five-foot variance.

As you've heard, staff has recommended denial.

That said, I would like to point the board to a couple things.

First is that the UDC's ceiling for commercial and industrial uses is an overall is a maximum height of nine feet, so we are falling within that overall maximum.

And second is that the purpose of the fence isn't decorative.

Rather, it's an integral part of our site security perimeter, protecting our high value charging equipment, as well as our overnight technicians.

In the side yard, we are requesting at we are trying to create a continuous eight-foot perimeter, so similarly seeking increase of two feet from the six feet allowed, which staff has recommended approval of.

Submitted a letter stating that they are not opposed to the fencing and finding that it will provide increased buffering between the proposed development and the surrounding properties.

The adjacent properties to ours are also C3, and we believe that the fence is compatible with and common to the district's existing character.

The property will remain subject to all other zoning requirements, and nothing about this exception weakens the general purpose of the district.

We are requesting this eight-foot fence around the entirety of the property.

First and foremost is worker safety.

We're also looking to protect and securitize our infrastructure, control access to the site, and to have visual compatibility with the neighborhood.

As I mentioned, our technicians and security staff work around the clock.

An eight-foot perimeter is a meaningful way to deter unauthorized entry to the site.

And we are also installing very high-value fast charging equipment.

The industry standard for these types of fence is a seven to eight-foot norm around the property.

We believe this is bolstered by uh the crime data for the 78216 zip code.

Property crime in this area is an active concern, and the fence is a reasonably protective measure.

Again, we are looking to do a perforated steel fence on the property as a less intrusive option, and we're hoping this uh is visually appealing while also helping with our security objectives.

Thank you so much for your time.

Uh Terrawat's committed to being a good neighbor here and wants to be a responsible operator in San Antonio.

Uh we believe that our proposal does meet the conditions for an exception.

Uh I would like to say thank Joel uh for helping assist us through this project, and uh we are uh respectfully requesting the board's approval.

Thank you.

So before you go, um I noticed that on your plan you're showing uh the fence that runs along Wolf Road to be it it to be within uh the 14 foot.

Is there a CPS easement along your frontage?

There is uh for the um for the light poles.

No, no, I mean uh it's it's common when when lands platted that there's a 14 foot CPS easement on commercial tracks, and so you have a dimension on your plan that says 14 foot six inches what appears to be going to the unless I'm just reading this incorrectly.

There's that's going to the red line or is that going to the front of the parking?

Uh so the intent is for the fence to run along the red line.

Uh we're currently in discussions with CPS about whether we could uh encroach on their easement area.

That 14 foot dimension right there, is that is that going to the red line or is that 14 feet going to the front of the parking?

Oh sorry, sorry, I misunderstood.

Yeah.

It looks like you might have five feet there.

I'm just checking.

Yes.

Uh please state your name.

Hello, my name's Maggie Carrion, and I'm with Boot Civil, the engineering team.

So as you mentioned, the CPS easement.

Um it's not existing on site yet, but we are talking with CPS.

The 14 and a half foot is to um the beginning of the pavement.

Okay, so you so from the property line, you're gonna go 14 and a half feet to that face of curb area.

Your fence will lie within that.

Yes.

And is this is this a platted lot or are you plating it now?

It's uh in the platting process.

Okay, so you will have a 14-foot easement there by the time you're done.

Because you have three phase running on that side of the road, so that's what's gonna end up happening.

I'm just curious because a really tall fence is something that I just was wondering if you had that discussion with CPS or the term encroachment agreement came into play or anything.

Yes, we are in discussions with CPS, and we are um looking to dedicate that easement via a separate instrument so it will not be um on the plot, but it will come into play during the site permitting process.

Oh that will be quite amazing because they never let me do that.

Okay, so um right.

Any questions from the commission?

Oh, Commissioner Zuna.

So who who are the customers that will be using the electric charging stations here?

Yeah, thanks for the question.

So these will primarily be for fleet vehicles, so there'll be a single customer that will own uh the entire will that will have access rights to the entire site.

Uh these are for TNCs or uh ride share vehicles.

Okay, gotcha.

And so we do have on-site amenities like restrooms and a break room and things to ensure that.

So no like industrial, so I was thinking of your like big 18 wheeler's kind of charging here or anything.

It's more of like supporting the infrastructure of the airport and pedestrian pickups and stuff.

That's exactly right.

Yeah, yeah, these are all passenger cars.

Gotcha, thank you.

Hannah, Mr.

Manna?

So you talked about um I guess a metal fabric as the solid structure.

Um so um, you know, I guess when we when we talk about um providing permitting, um anything less than predominantly open is or anything, yeah, anything more than predominantly open is basically outside of our territorial um say, I believe.

And so we can't really say any kind of number.

But the question I'm trying to get to is so you're putting up cloth um with that has holes in it, or or metal that has holes in it, and so it is what are the size of those holes and how you know I guess.

Yeah, it's about 20% open is what we're currently proposing.

Um if the board is interested in a more transparent uh look uh we'd be op open to uh increasing the visibility of that screening clock.

And so they do they make different numbers for that?

Yeah, so and so is there an industry guideline that says you know where the where the sweet spot is?

Are you are you past it or are you being extra conservative or where are you sitting right now?

Yeah, so we're proposing uh the uh we use this type of material on a lot of our uh sites, uh, but we would be uh open to uh 50% uh transparency on the screening material.

So I don't know that we can put any so I guess they can state that's what they're what they're doing as part of the perming process, right?

You know, so I'm so I am trying to think of the you know, open discrete uh streetscapes and you know the um have a an eight foot wall along a street um a corridor is is a little bit imposing and so trying to minimize that um so anyways just thinking about that.

Yeah, thank you.

Fragment Commissioner Brangman.

So on Wolf Road, is there gonna be a landscape buffer between the the fence and the mesh and uh Wolf Road?

Uh yes, there will be.

Do you want to?

Um so I believe it's not a requirement um because we are a budding uh commercial and industrial.

However, we will be providing landscaping and um I actually believe we're providing it's not shown on this plan, but the green space is the landscaping and we're providing uh more trees than required.

So eventually over time as those trees grow and mature, they would be covering the fence, and that would be um within that 14-ish foot area.

And that'll be the entire length of the property.

Yes, okay.

Thank you.

All right, any other questions?

Cruise.

Commissioner Cruz.

Uh my thing is okay.

Does it have to be eight feet?

Can we go down to seven and it would still be appropriate?

Uh we are looking for a consistent uh height.

We do think eight feet is the best deterrent.

Uh we do see some uh bad behavior on some of our other uh sites with folks trying to get uh access to uh help themselves to some of our on site equipment.

Uh so we would uh appreciate uh an eight foot height here, okay.

So you have another facility with the we with a different uh fence height.

Uh yes, ma'am, that's correct.

We have a other facility uh and our standard is an eight-foot height in order to provide that secure perimeter.

Okay.

And uh just to clarify about the steel fence um that we heard in the applicant's presentation, corrugated metal will be part of a steel fence.

So if the intent is to put corrugated metal, that is a separate variance that has to be um presented to the board and approved, just uh FYI.

Uh yeah, um I do not believe we will have um corrugated metal uh just want to make sure you're aware.

Okay.

So Commissioner Man?

I guess going down that path.

So um what is the definition of corrugated metal versus you know a metal fencing with 50%?

So so how does that differ?

So is it would it be through um ribs, you know, at 50% coverage or once they kind of flatten out the the steel or metal and make it kind of flat.

Um obviously we'd have to look at it during the permitting process.

But that's kind of what we look for, the sheet rolled or corrugated metal.

The sheet rolled is permitted, but corrugated is not no sheet sheet roll is not and corrugated is of a similar deal of sheet.

Roll.

The definition that's defined as sheet rolled or corrugated metal.

So that's the non-permitted.

So the what what the UDC says is that all fences shall be constructed of wood, chain link, stone, rock, concrete block, precast concrete panels, masonry brick, brick, decorative wrought iron or other materials which are similar and durability.

So that's an interpretive issue for the city, and I'm sure if they deem it as something other than that, it'll have to come to the board.

Okay.

So, sorry to Jack.

Natho, uh boot civil.

I just wanna say for the discussion here, it is one request, two separate items.

One is the fence height, which is very critical to security.

Uh I would love to settle the issue with the material here now within this request to avoid any confusion.

It is our intention of the request in order to provide that opening area.

Yeah, so what happens is uh we're only allowed to entertain what was advertised and what's before us.

Right.

And what's before us today is is a fence that isn't that that is uh more than the 70 percent, and so that way it's not considered predominantly open.

Uh and so it changes you know how the variance is read and what heights are allowed or not allowed or whatever.

If when you turn this in, because this is apparently going to be a relatively new product, the city will then determine whether or not it's considered acceptable or whether it has to come back to us as a material variant.

But as of today, we have we're not we're not none none of that is part of our discussion.

Well, I understand the advertising for a solid uh eight-foot tall fence.

Because it's not 70 percent predominantly open, it has to be considered solid.

Right, and I think for this discussion, I just want to make sure it's clear is we certainly can amend the amount of open on the here to reduce it to meet the 70 percent open, so that is not a solid fence.

And I understand that the advertise is more strict as a solid, so we can reduce the request here, but we just want to settle the conversation here so that there's no ambiguity if we can.

So the way that works is uh with us, um, if there's a commissioner that would be more uh amicable to a predominantly open and that's the thing you're asking for all four sides.

So, for example, I'll just tell you what I think.

Next to the drainage easement, that doesn't bother me that much along the actual sidewalk because there's a hotel across the street, um, it's I probably wouldn't want it to look eight-foot tall solid vent.

You know, so some sort of predominantly open would be more amicable to me on that respect.

So thinking of that, um, is there anything you'd like to express to the board what you could live with uh on the sides of the front uh just for us to have in the back of our minds when we're making a motion because you still need nine of us.

Right.

So and I appreciate the consideration on on the dietas here.

So I just want to confirm we are looking to uh uh get supportive to amend the request to predominantly open.

Well, we can certainly do that.

That certainly makes things easier.

Uh is it possible for the board to entertain something more or less than the 70 percent?

I know that we're not supposed to impose conditions, but we can't we can't say sixty percent predominantly open or that's restricting the open fence standard at that point.

Just wanted to ask.

Great.

So um, thank you.

Thank you.

Fantastic.

Uh any other questions?

Hearing now.

I'm looking for a motion.

Azuna, Commissioner Zuna.

Regarding case number BOA-26-1030117.

I move that the Board of Adjustment Grant a request for one, a five-foot special exception for the maximum allowable three-foot private privacy fence to allow an eight-foot predominantly open privacy fence in the front yard, and two, a two-foot special exception for the maximum allowable six-foot uh predominantly open privacy fence to allow an eight-foot predominantly open uh privacy fence on the side and rear, situated at 338 Wolf Road, applicant being boot civil, LLC because the testimony presented to us, the facts that we determine show that the physical character of this property is such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the UDC has amended would result in unnecessary hardships.

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

Uh regarding the front yard, the proposed height of the front yard fence would promote a uniform and appealing streetscaping commercial districts.

We go on the side and rear yard, the property abuts the stormwater drainage usement to the rear and the increased allowable fence heights would provide greater protection of the site without significantly impacting visibility from the streetscape or adjacent property.

B the public welfare and convenience will be substantially served regarding the front yard and eight-foot privacy predominantly open privacy privacy fence in the front yard would not diminish the sense of community in this area by creating a significant visual barrier along the streetscape.

Regarding the side and rear yard, the proposed predominantly open fence height, and the side and rear would substantially impact the sense of community this area as pro as the property uh does not abut any properties with an active use.

Uh C, the neighboring property will not be substantially injured by such proposed use, and the regarding the front yard neighboring property would not be injured by the proposed predominantly open fence height as an eight-foot privacy fence in this front yard would not significantly disrupt the appeal of the existing streetscape for this area regarding the side and rear yard, the neighboring property would not be substantially injured by the increased front height.

Increased fence height as the eight-foot predominantly open fence would provide the enhanced security to the premises without disrupting the appeal of the streetscape for this area.

Excuse me.

The special exception would not alter the essential character of the immediate surrounding area as a proposed predominantly open front height provides appropriate protection for proposed use.

We got in the side and rear yard, the special exception would not alter the central character of this immediate essential character of the immediate surrounding area as the eight foot predominantly open privacy fence in the side or rear yard is attended only for enhanced security of the premises.

And either the special exception will not weaken the general purpose of the district.

Are the regulations herein established for the specific district?

Regarding the front yard, the special exception will not weaken the purpose of the district, which is to allow general commercial activities designed to serve the community along the commercial corridors developed with appealing streetscapes.

And regarding the side and rear yard, the special exception will not weaken the purpose of the district as the increased fence heights would allow for enhanced security of the premises without creating a significant change in the character of the surrounding area.

And a motion.

Yeah, so I'm gonna support the motion as read.

Uh please note uh predominantly open was uh uh the adjustment that I made to the variance request.

Um the applicant provided testimony to us that only the eight foot fence provides the needed security.

They've had seven foot and some other properties which have not provide the security they need.

Um I think promoting, you know, electrical vehicle usage, uh, especially around the airport is a is a uh community benefit uh for uh for the project, and um I'm supporting the motion as read here.

Thank you, Commissioner Mann.

So just uh a little bit of dialogue here.

So um part of the motion was or just dialogue was side and back being not necessarily predominantly open, um, and so um by right six foot, they could have six-foot solid fence, um, and then you're allowing two foot to be predominantly open above that, or or how is that your yeah?

What are you thinking about from that perspective?

I was just thinking that it was all going to be uniform an eight-foot um predominantly open around the entire perimeter, whether it's the front, side, rear.

So a question for staff, I mean, is is there a way to word this so that we're we're ensuring that it's going to be a complete predominantly open eight foot tall and not a six-foot with a two-foot predominantly open cap on top of it?

You can't re you can't take away their right to have a six-foot privacy fence in the rear.

Or three foot.

But to grant a variance, the variance would wouldn't the variance be just for an eight-foot predominantly open fence.

So if they so they go above um the six-foot, you're only granting the special exemption for two the of those two feet.

You're not granting special exemption for the first six feet.

So could couldn't the motion be read that we're granting a variance from a five, uh six foot predominantly open fence to an eight-foot predominantly.

There's no way to lock that in.

I guess if the applicant wants to um amend their request.

Uh, I'm fine with that.

I was just wondering, you know, and so we had dialogue with regard to that.

Well, that's a great point because I I wasn't in the impression that when you read it, it weigh the entire fence, because that I don't I don't know if I would be in support of some on the back side, or you are on the back side doesn't bother me as much.

I I'm more concerned about the hotel side.

Right.

The front side, I think predominantly open that that's stands, but by and they don't have they have a two foot or three foot by right on the front.

Um, but on the I don't want I I don't know if I'd want to see a three-foot solid and then five feet on top of it.

I don't think that's the applicant's intent.

Right, that's not their intent, but uh, but that was really the dialogue was truly about the backside, and you had mentioned that you were going to reopen the public hearing.

Come back up here, please.

Can you please state what fully do you understand what we're talking about?

Okay, so please amend your application so that we could vote on whatever your proposal.

Oh, I'm pushing the button.

Uh yes, thank you so much for the dialogue.

Uh understood we would also like a consistent uh deal around the site.

Uh so happy to amend our application for a eight-foot open fence around the full perimeter.

Uh, completely fully predominantly open fence.

Predominantly open fence of eight-foot height.

Okay.

Do I need to front side and yeah, thank you very much.

Uh, we're going, we're closing the public hearing.

Commissioner Zuna, did you?

So I'm kind of just enhancing my motion to incorporate the applicant's testimony that they are supporting the um eight-foot predominantly open fence around the perimeter of the property.

Accepted.

Okay.

And before we vote on this, that was there anyone set up to speak on this.

No public comments, just wanted to check.

Okay.

Anyone else like to add?

Let's have a roll call vote.

Commissioner Zena.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Menna.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Reed.

Yes, I can current the findings of fact.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Cruz.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Backman.

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.

Congratulations.

You have any questions you can get with staff.

Thank you.

All right.

Is anyone need a break?

We are going to take a short break.

See you all back in seven minutes.

316.

We're back in session.

Item six.

Good afternoon.

Joel Delas and your planner with the city of San Antonio.

Item six is BOA-26-1030118.

The applicant being Andrés Garcia in district four.

The address is 6027 C Comer Place.

And this is a request for a 5'6 inch variance from the minimum required 10-foot front setback to allow a carport with a four-foot six-inch front setback.

The subject property is generally located in the subdivision between Lackland Air Force Base to the north and Mendena Base Road to the south along Seacomer Place.

On April 15th, 2026, a code enforcement investigation of this property found a carport being built without a permit and a notice of violation was issued.

The property owner obtained a permit on April 16th and submitted a site plan indicating a 10-foot front setback for construction.

Building inspection staff failed the framing inspection for this carport permit on May 14th, 2026 for various construction related related issues, including a front setback encroachment.

The property owner requests a variance from the setback standards to keep their carport in its current configuration.

And within the immediate surrounding area, carports at 6047 and 6046 C comer appear to have carports with similar front setback encroachments.

However, no evidence of permits or variance approvals were identified for those structures.

Shown here is a site plan of the carport location and the subject property shown here, and a better view of that carport.

And that's looking across the front yard plane to show that front setback encroachment and the surrounding area.

And this is a carport down the street to the west at 6046 C comer and across the street from that at 6047 C.

Comer, again west from the subject property.

Staff recommendation for the carport setback variant.

Staff recommends denial based on the following findings of fact.

One, enforcing this standard would not result in an unnecessary hardship as the carport may still function to protect owners' vehicles without interrupt uh interrupting the open space preserved by the minimum required setback area.

And two, granting this variance would impede the adjacent residents' open view of the neighborhood from their own front yards, and no other authorized carports were observed within the immediate surrounding area.

Staff mailed 31 notices, one was returned in favor, zero in opposition, no voicemails, and there's no neighborhood association within this area this concludes that's presentation the applicant is present all right thank you so two pictures you showed are those compliant or not in compliance these shown are shown a similar uh encroachment so they're non-compliant okay just want to make sure no permits for these all right so definitely come forward my nombre is Andres Garcia the proprietario de la casa good afternoon my name is Andres Garcia I'm the owner of the property renovar la casa ponerle the carrote nostros coches in el permiso porque el donos iba a ser los codigos de la ciudad que lo que iba llevar my wife and I wife my wife and I wanted to renew the home and we wanted to protect the vehicles so when we started we did it without permits because we thought the person that was going to do it was knowledgeable about the codes of the city and lo mejor para nuestros autos in it so que después de que lo comenzamos el permiso a cierta distancia del vecindario como numero de telefone de las personas para que les hagan el mismo trabajo que nosotros isemos my name is Maria Walupe Garcia and we wanted to do this to protect our vehicles as you know is really very hot outside and you can see here I have a special special uh child that we wanted to protect originally we didn't get the permits we wanted you we left the person to to do and I was guiding the person to do it at certain distance of the home and my understanding is that it's not up to the uh the up to the edge where the city um is is is the is the city property.

I want to let you know that it's really very nice.

The length, the wide, everything, uh several people have come to us and they have asked us for the person that built it because they like it as well, and they ask us for the telephone number of the person that built it to do it.

Well with the crew que is possible, but I varios mass del tamaño del mismo del mio, y eso sí están a la orilla de la ciudad y el mio.

I like I like it very much.

And if it's possible to ask you if we can keep it as is.

And if the back post was back within permit and it was five foot out, this would be permitted, correct?

Correct.

The measurement is based off of the posts, um, and then past the 10 foot setback, you are allowed a five foot cantilever, correct?

Um at any point if you know their posts were any closer or the overhang was any closer than three feet, then you know we would go by the absolute closest point.

Um this you know, was identified it during our research.

Without doing any measurements on it, we deemed that it was more or less compliant because of the location of the posts here.

Yeah, that and that's another question.

So what do you consider can I thought cantilever meant there's nothing underneath of it.

I mean could they angle it all the way down to the ground or so an overhang in this case I'm I'm maybe I'm misusing the word cantilever just because it was the one that was used prior.

But yeah, just the if there's an overhang there it's allowed to be five feet projecting into any yard.

That that angled post is really angled.

Right, I know but but well to me that's what cantilever means is you know the supported post or supported you know from a structure.

Can well when we when when we use cantilever it means nothing underneath.

Like it's it's simply just covering but uh but of course I don't know I guess the city can chime in on what how they look at that if it's if it's less it doesn't go more than half or 45 degrees or yeah the section of code that talks about these projections just talks about them as that architectural projections.

It doesn't make any distinction between overhang or cantilever or the way it's constructed.

Okay it's just any architectural projection.

Okay sorry for that aside but I you know this is one of the first time I've seen something as grand as this and I know that we talk about it regularly and so here was an example of some that I envisioned you know in prior dialogues.

And so and so as an option you know so for the for the person here this is an option here where they wouldn't have had the probably or it was still six inches within so uh the one post so it was still not in compliance.

Okay, sorry thank you.

All right so any other questions all right anyone send to speed no public car.

So I think we're done unless there's something else you'd like to add.

No check if you have the scandals cambios the the lo que es la altura de lo que es el techo también.

I would like to ask you if some of the changes could be also the height or yours de length.

It's we're solely dealing with the length the height is not nothing to do with the height.

Okay.

So I'm looking for a motion.

Commissioner regarding case number BOA two six one zero three zero zero one one eight I moved to the board adjustment grant the request for a five foot six inch variance from the minimum required 10 foot front setback to allow a carport with a four foot six inch front setback situated at six zero two seven C commer place.

Applicant B in Andreas uh Garcia because the testimony presented to us the facts that we determined show that the physical character of this property is such a little enforcement of provisions of the UDC as amendment would result in unnecessary hardship.

Specifically find that one the variance is not contrary to public interest the requested variance would not be contrary to public interest as the car port is adequately separated from the front setback to preserve front yard open space.

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

A little enforcement would result in unnecessary hardship as a carport would not function to protect the owner's property if established within the prescribed setbacks.

Three by granting the variance the spare the ordinance will be observed and substantial justice will be done.

The variants would observe the spirit of the ordinance as this car port is situated such that open front space is adequately preserved on this property.

For the variance is not uh will not authorize the operational 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 would be allowed with this variance.

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

The car port would adequately preserve open front yard space and would not impede on an adjacent residents open view of the neighborhood from their own front yards.

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

The plight of the owner of the property for which the variant is sought is not due to limited front yard depth for the construction of a functional carport.

End of motion.

Second by Commissioner Beniz.

So looking at the community, this uh looks actually consistent with several of the existing car parts that are there.

Um it is it is actually further from the street than some of the others.

Um I may have some issues with with others that are there, and there's some other structures on the street that I do question considerably, but within regards to this particular uh carport, I don't have an issue with it all.

So I'll be voting in favor.

Thank you, Commissioner Beniz.

Uh, disagree with my colleague, I'll be in full support.

Great.

Anyone else like to add?

Very nano.

Commissioner Manna?

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner Bunnyas?

Yes, I can concur.

Commissioner Reed?

Yes, I concur with the fundings of fact.

Commissioner Stevens?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Dean.

I concur.

Commissioner Cruz?

One more time, ma'am.

I concur.

Commissioner Gomez.

I concur.

Commissioner Bragman.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Commissioner is in that?

Yes, I concur.

Commissioner Vasquez.

I concur.

Chair Orion.

I concur with the findings of fact.

Motion passes 11 to 0.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

On to the minutes.

Anybody uh have any last minute changes or looking for a motion?

Motion to approve the minutes.

All right.

Second by Commissioner Zuna.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none.

Uh minutes are approved.

Is there a director's report today?

No director's report today.

All right.

Is there anything coming up?

Uh schedule changes.

Labor Day holiday kind of stuff that changes.

No uh upcoming changes that we're seeing right now.

Um the city clerk's office did advertise positions for BOA commissioners.

Um, not sure y'all saw that or not, so hopefully we get some more commissioners here in the near future.

Oh, for the uh alternates.

Okay, yeah.

Awesome.

Well, um, I'm glad everyone had a great time today.

I know I did.

So it is 3 35 and we're adjourned.

Okay.