[00:00:02]
BEFORE WE BEGIN IN ACCORDANCE WITH CDC, UH, UH, THAT'S OKAY.
PLEASE BE KIND ENOUGH TO SILENCE ALL MOBILE DEVICES.
THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS WILL COME TO ORDER.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU.
UNTIL EACH BEGIN THE, THE FIRST PART OF THE MEETING HERE.
PLEASE STAND AND JOIN US FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES.
I PGI TO FLAG FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
TWO, THREE FOLKS WHICH JUST STANDS.
ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL UNDER THE TEXAS FLAG, TEXAS FLAG.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE TEXAS ONE STATE UNDER GOD.
AT THIS TIME I'D ASK IF WE CAN HAVE THE SPANISH INTERPRETER COME OUT AND WE CAN MAKE A STATEMENT HERE.
[ Briefing and Possible Action on the following items ]
PROCEED WITH TODAY'S CASES, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A FEW WORDS OF EXPLANATION.THE BOARD FOLLOWS AN AGENDA, WHICH IS AVAILABLE ONLINE.
THE CASES ARE LISTED BY NUMBER WITH THE NAME AND THE APPLICANT AND STREET ADDRESS.
FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASES, THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING FOLLOWED BY A DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
LASTLY, AS CHAIR, I'LL MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS SUCH AS COMMUNITY CALENDAR EVENTS.
I ASK THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS SUBMIT THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO ME AS CHAIR AND I'LL READ THEM AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME OF THE MEETING.
WE ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS APPOINTED TO THIS BOARD BY CITY COUNCIL.
THE BOARD IS SUPPORTED BY MEMBERS OF THE CITY STAFF, COMPETENT IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CITY'S ZONING CODES, OTHER CODES AND ASPECTS PERTAINING TO THIS AREA.
THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND OUTTA COURT OF LAW, WE ONLY EXAMINE THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE RELEASE THOUGHT.
DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISPUTES OR LEGAL CLAIMS BETWEEN PARTIES.
SPECIFIC POWERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO US BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE AND SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL.
THEY'RE CLEARLY DEFINED IN CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE AND ORDINANCES PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE APPEALS FROM, FROM A DECISION OR DETERMINATION MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 32 TO HEAR AND DECIDE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED UNDER CHAPTER 35 AND TO AUTHORIZE VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRED IN CHAPTER 35.
WE ALSO SERVE AS AN ADVISORY APPELLATE CAPACITY TO THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REGARDING REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES FROM REGULATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 28.
ARTICLE ONE, SECTIONS 28 THROUGH FIVE.
IN ADDITION, WE HAVE THE POWERS TO HEAR CASES IN ANY OTHER MATTERS AUTHORIZED BY CITY COUNCIL UNDER CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
EVERY DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION TO THIS BOARD MUST MUST BE BASED UPON A FINDINGS OF FACT AND EVERY FINDING OF FACT MUST BE SUPPORTED IN THE RECORD OF THE BOARDINGS PROCEEDINGS.
THE APPLICANT OR, OR HIS OR HER REPRESENTATIVE WILL PRESENT THE PETITION AND THEY'LL BE QUESTIONED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
ANY OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST WILL BE PRESENTED IN A LIKE MANNER AFTER EVERYONE HAS BEEN HEARD IN THE CASE, IT'LL BE CLOSED AND A MEMBER OF THE BOARD WILL MAKE A MOTION.
EACH MEMBER WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION IN ORDER FOR A MOTION TO CARRY.
IT REQUIRES THE CONCURRING VOTE OF 75% OF THE TOTAL BOARD MEMBERS, WHETHER PRESIDENT OR NOT, WHICH IS NINE VOTES.
THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND GRANTING THE RELEASE SOUGHT ARREST WITH THE APPLICANT.
THE APPLICANT MUST PRESENT FACTS IN WHICH THE REQUEST RELIEF CAN REQUESTED RELIEF, CAN BE LEGALLY GRANTED AND SUPPORTED APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THIS BOARD REGARDING APPEALS FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL.
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OF VARIANCES ARE MADE TO THE DISTRICT OR COUNTY COURT AT LAW.
BASED ON THE RECORD OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, APPEALS FROM THE BOARD'S.
DECISIONS REGARDING CHAPTER 28 ARE MADE TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
PLEASE LIMIT YOUR PRESENTATION REMARKS TO THE PERTINENT FACTS IN YOUR CASE AND ASK, UH, CITY STAFF DO YOU HAVE, UH, COMMENTS OR PRESENTATION? THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
UM, STAFF WILL BEGIN EACH CASE WITH A SHORT PRESENTATION OF THE REQUEST.
PART OF THE PRESENTATION INCLUDES A MAP THAT SHOWS THE YEAR TO BE CONSIDERED FOR A VARIANCE, SPECIAL EXEMPTION OR APPEAL AND PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CHECK MARKS INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST X INDICATES THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS IN OPPOSITION FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION AND QUESTIONED BY THE BOARD, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THEIR REQUEST.
FOR THOSE THAT SIGN UP TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST PROPOSED VARIANCE, SPECIAL EXEMPTION OR APPEAL.
YOU'LL BE CALLED OUT IN THE ORDER THAT YOU SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
THOSE IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION WILL BE ALLOTTED MAXIMUM THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER AND YOU'RE NOT OBLIGATED TO UTILIZE THE MAXIMUM TIME LIMITATION.
FOR THOSE THAT'D LIKE TO GIVE UP THEIR TIME TO THE SPEAKER.
[00:05:01]
WILL BE ALLOT OF MAXIMUM TWO PEOPLE GIVEN 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 ADDRESS BOARD QUESTIONS.
AND, UH, REAL QUICK, UH, COMMISSIONER CRUZ, CAN YOU HEAR US? YES, I CAN.
COMMISSIONER VAZQUEZ, CAN YOU HEAR US? HELLO? I CAN HEAR YOU.
UM, AT THIS POINT IN POINT I'D LIKE, LIKE TO ASK IF, UH, WE HAVE A, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM EACH CASE.
UM, DO WE KNOW IF EVERYONE HEAR IS FOR THE CASES TO BE HEARD? UH, SO WE DO HAVE, UM, SOME OF THE APPLICANTS COMING IN AT THREE O'CLOCK, BUT I BELIEVE DO YOU WANT TO PROCEED? WE'RE GOOD TO PROCEED.
WELL, LET'S, UH, PROCEED WITH CASE NUMBER ONE PLEASE.
CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME OKAY? ALRIGHT.
UH, THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS, UH, CASE 2 74.
IT IS AN APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION.
I'LL GET INTO THE SPECIFICS OF THE CASE HERE IN A MOMENT.
CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT LOUDER? SURE.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG LOOP 1604, BETWEEN HAUSMAN ROAD TO THE SOUTH AND RED ROBIN DRIVE TO THE NORTH.
UH, IT ENCOMPASSES NEARLY 180 ACRES OF LAND, UM, AND IT IS SPLIT ZONED A COUPLE DIFFERENT DISTRICTS.
LIGHT COMMERCIAL, COMMERCIAL, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, AND A SMALL PORTION IS ZONED R SIX, UH, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT.
IT INCLUDES, UH, THE EDWARDS RECHARGE ZONE DISTRICT OVERLAY, AS WELL AS THE MILITARY LIGHTING, UH, OVERLAY DISTRICT UC, ONE THAT IS A SIGNAGE RELATED DISTRICT, UH, THAT ISN'T PARTICULARLY PERTINENT TO THIS CASE.
UM, TO START, WE MAILED 161 NOTICES.
UH, WE HAD SIX RETURNED IN FAVOR, 13 IN OPPOSITION OUTSIDE OF THE NOTIFICATION BOUNDARY.
AND ADDITIONAL SEVEN NOTICES WERE RECEIVED OPPOSED WITH NO FORMAL COMMENT FROM THE HILLS AND DALES NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
WE ALSO NOTIFIED SIX CITYWIDE GROUPS, BUT RECEIVED NO RESPONSE.
I'M GONNA START OFF WITH A COUPLE SLIDES OF BACKGROUND ON THIS ONE.
'CAUSE IT'S, IT'S PRETTY TECHNICAL IN NATURE.
THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE, UH, JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO IN ITS 89TH SESSION, UH, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THEY APPROVED HUNDREDS OF BILLS.
SEVERAL OF THOSE BILLS WERE RELATED TO LAND DEVELOPMENT.
SEVERAL OF THOSE BILLS THIS BOARD WAS BRIEFED ON AS THE CITY ENDEAVORED TO ENROLL THOSE MANDATES INTO OUR UDC.
UM, THE ONE THAT IS PERTINENT TO TODAY'S CASE IS SENATE BILL EIGHT 40, WHICH REQUIRES A NUMBER OF THINGS.
UH, BUT, UH, IT APPLIES ONLY TO A CITY WITH A POPULATION OF 150,000 OR MORE AND LOCATED IN A COUNTY WITH OVER 300,000 PEOPLE.
SO IT CERTAINLY APPLIES TO SAN ANTONIO.
UH, AND IT SAYS THROUGH, UH, SUBCHAPTER B THAT MIXED USE OR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT MUST BE ALLOWED ON ANY TRACK ZONED OFFICE, COMMERCIAL, RETAIL WAREHOUSE, OR MIXED USE, UH, FOUR PROJECTS THAT ARE STARTED ON OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THAT LAW.
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THAT LAW IS SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2025.
THAT'S THE DAY THAT IT BECAME EFFECTIVE.
IT ALSO ALLOWS THROUGH ITS SUB-CHAPTER C, UH, THAT A CITY MUST ALLOW THE CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING BUILDING INTO A MIXED USE OR MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT, AND IT WAIVES CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS LIKE A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, ET CETERA.
IT, AUSTIN DID NOT GIVE CITIES THE OPTION.
IT SAID THAT IF YOU QUALIFY BASED ON YOUR POPULATION, THIS IS THE LAW AND YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW IT.
SO WE ADOPTED THOSE INTO OUR UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE.
UM, IN ADDITION TO APPLYING, OR PARDON ME, COMPLYING WITH STATE LAW, PART OF THE REASON WE ADOPTED IT INTO OUR UDC WAS TO HAVE ONE CENTRALIZED, UH, SET OF REGULATIONS FOR PEOPLE SEEKING TO DEVELOP IN SAN ANTONIO.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO LOOKING IN MULTIPLE BOOKS TO FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU CAN USE YOUR LAND FOR TO FIGURE OUT HOW IT CAN BE DESIGNED, ET CETERA.
UM, THE ACT OF CODIFYING THESE AMENDMENTS INTO OUR UDC WAS MERELY TO APPLY WITH THE STATE LAW, AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY EVIDENCED BY THE
[00:10:01]
LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE ITSELF ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF YOUR SCREEN.WHEREAS THE LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS SAW THE PASSAGE OF OVER 300 BILLS, MANY OF WHICH WERE DEVELOPMENT RELATED, WHERE THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE STATES THAT THE GOVERNING BODY OF, OF A MUNICIPALITY MAY ADOPT, ENFORCE, OR MAINTAIN AN ORDINANCE ONLY IF IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE LAW.
WHEREAS PUBLIC HEARINGS WERE HELD, THERE'S NOWHERE AS IN THERE THAT SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, IT WAS OPTIONAL.
WE ADOPTED IT WITH LOCAL AMENDMENTS.
UH, ON SEPTEMBER 19TH OF LAST YEAR, WE RECEIVED AN APPLICATION, UH, FOR A RIGHTS DETERMINATION.
UH, RIGHTS DETERMINE APP APPLICATIONS.
THEY'RE GENERALLY, UH, SEEKING CITY RECOGNITION THAT A PROJECT WAS STARTED A WHILE BACK, THAT THEY'RE EFFECTIVELY GRANDFATHERED AND LOCKED INTO RULES THAT WERE IN PLACE AT THE TIME THEIR INITIAL PERMIT WAS SUBMITTED.
UH, IT SOUGHT AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FROM CITY STAFF THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION HAD RIGHTS.
WE AGREE THAT IT, DID WE HAVE A CONSENT AGREEMENT? UM, WE HAVE HAMMERED OUT AN AGREEMENT ON THOSE VESTED RIGHTS.
UH, IT ALSO ASKED IF THE PROPERTY WAS ELIGIBLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS NEW LAW.
AND, UH, RIGHTS WERE RECOGNIZED CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSENT AGREEMENT.
AGAIN, THAT CONSENT AGREEMENT IS VOLUNTARY.
IT IS A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE PROPERTY OWNER.
UM, CONSENT AGREEMENTS GENERALLY ARE USED TO AVOID LITIGATION.
YOU KNOW, WE DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE THAT THEY HAVE RIGHTS.
THEY ASCERTAIN THEY DO, WE COMPROMISE THROUGH A CONSENT AGREEMENT.
SO, HAVING REVIEWED THAT APP, UH, APPLICATION ON OCTOBER 8TH, CITY STAFF ISSUED AN APPROVAL LETTER THAT ACKNOWLEDGED THAT VESTED RIGHTS DO IN FACT EXIST, UH, AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SB EIGHT 40 SO LONG AS THEY COMPLY WITH THE FULL PROVISIONS OF THAT LAW.
CRITICALLY, THE VERY LAST BULLET ON THE SLIDE, SECTION FOUR A OF SB EIGHT 40 SAYS, APPLIES ONLY TO A MIXED USE OR MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIATED ON OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT.
THIS IS JOSEPH HARNEY CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
REAL QUICK, WE HAVE, UH, MS. CRUZ CAN, OH, WE NEED HER VIDEO FOR A FULL COMPLIMENT OF THE BOARD.
UM, THAT IS ITALICIZED AND UNDERLINED FOR A REASON BECAUSE IT SAYS THAT SB EIGHT 40 ONLY APPLIES TO A PROJECT THAT WAS STARTED ON OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS LAW BEING SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2025.
WHAT IS THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS THAT THE APPLICANT IN THEIR REQUEST FOR VESTED RIGHTS ASSERTS THAT THEIR PROJECT STARTED ON FEBRUARY 25TH, 1988.
THAT'S WHAT WE USED TO CALL AN MDP, UH, SUBMITTED ON THAT DATE.
THEY HAVE, UM, HAD RIGHTS RECOGNIZED OVER THE YEARS VESTED TO THAT DATE.
UH, THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE VESTING THIS PROJECT CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSENT AGREEMENT, BUT THEY ALSO WANT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SB EIGHT 40 THAT SAYS, YOUR PROJECT HAS TO START ON OR AFTER SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2025.
THEREFORE, OUR ISSUE, THE LAST BULLET IS YOU CAN'T HAVE A PROJECT THAT SIMULTANEOUSLY STARTS ON FEBRUARY 25TH, 1988 AND SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2025.
THE APPLICANT IN THE APPLICATION FOR AN APPEAL SAID THAT STAFF CONDITIONALLY APPROVED THEIR APPLICATION.
WE DID NOT, THE WORD CONDITIONAL DOESN'T APPEAR ANYWHERE IN THE LETTER.
WE RECOGNIZED RIGHTS CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSENT AGREEMENT, AND WE RECOGNIZE THE POTENTIAL APPLICABILITY OF SB EIGHT 40, BUT YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE WHICH ONE YOU WANT.
'CAUSE THE WAY THE LAW IS WRITTEN, YOU CANNOT HAVE BOTH.
UH, SO AGAIN, THE THE CHOICE PROVIDED TO THE APPLICANT WAS, TELL US HOW YOU WANT TO PROCEED.
YOU WANNA PROCEED WITH YOUR PROJECT WITH VESTED RIGHTS, OR DO YOU WANT TO PROCEED WITH YOUR PROJECT USING SB EIGHT 40? THE CHOICE IS YOURS.
UM, IN CONVERSATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT, WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT IN CONVERSATIONS OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY FROM THE BILL'S AUTHOR, IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT THAT WAS NEVER THE INTENT OF THE LAW.
[00:15:01]
WE DON'T ENFORCE LAWS BASED ON WHAT THE INTENT WAS.WE ENFORCE THE LAW BASED ON WHAT THE LEGISLATURE PASSED AND THE GOVERNOR SIGNED.
AND THE LANGUAGE IS, IS PRETTY PLAIN.
IN THIS EXAMPLE, IT'S ALSO BEEN ASSERTED THAT USING THE WORD PROJECT DOES NOT MEAN A ENDEAVOR TO DEVELOP SOMETHING OVER TIME.
IT MEANT A BUILDING PERMIT THAT THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT WOULD'VE COME IN AFTER SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2025.
BUT THE LAW ITSELF RATHER CONTRADICTS THAT ARGUMENT AS WELL.
IN, UH, SECTION FOUR A, SUBCHAPTER B, WHICH IS RELEVANT TO THIS CASE, IT SAYS, APPLIES ONLY TO A MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL OR MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIATED ON OR AFTER THE VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH CONTEMPLATES A BUILDING PERMIT.
IF THEY MEANT TO WRITE BUILDING PERMIT, THEY WOULD'VE WRITTEN BUILDING PERMIT AS THEY DID TWO SENTENCES LATER IN THE LAW.
UH, THEREFORE, UH, WE ARRIVE AT THE RECOMMENDATION IN A TYPICAL APPEAL.
AS YOU'RE WELL AWARE, YOU ARE ASKED TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE DIRECTOR MADE THE APPROPRIATE DECISION IN APPLYING THE LAW.
THIS CASE IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
UH, THE DIRECTOR APPLIED THE LAW AS IT'S PLAINLY WRITTEN, AS HE HAD NO ALTERNATIVE.
WE DON'T GET TO INVENT THE LAWS.
WE DON'T GET TO CHANGE THE LAWS.
WE READ THE LAW AND APPLIED IT.
UM, AS ACKNOWLEDGED AND STATED PREVIOUSLY, THE APPLICANT CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF VESTING.
WE ALSO RECOGNIZED THE POTENTIAL APPLICABILITY OF SB EIGHT 40 BECAUSE THE DIRECTOR MERELY APPLIED THE LAW AS IT MUST BE APPLIED.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TAKE NO ACTION.
TODAY, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DOES NOT HAVE PURVIEW TO ADJUDICATE STATE LAW.
THE, AT THE TOP OF THE MEETING, THE CHAIR READ THE BOARD'S POWERS, AND NOWHERE IN THAT LIST IS INCLUDED A JUDICIAL POSITION OVER THE INTERPRETATION OF STATE LAW.
THIS IS A MATTER IF THERE IS A DISPUTE, IT SHOULD BE RESOLVED IN A COURT OF LAW.
AND THAT'S STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
MS. BRAGMAN ORIAN, UH, MR. BRAGMAN DID MR. ORIAN, SO DID THEY APPLY FOR A BUILDING PERMIT AT ANY POINT? NO.
UM, I, I'M GOING TO READ SOMETHING THAT I WOULD LIKE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO THINK ABOUT AND ANSWER AT SOME POINT DURING THE COURSE OF THIS CASE.
AND I'M READING AN EXCERPT FROM, UH, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE RELATED TO VESTED RIGHTS, SPECIFICALLY, UH, SECTION 2 45 0.00 2D, WHERE IT SAYS, UH, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY PROVISION OF THIS CHAPTER TO THE CONTRARY, A PERMIT HOLDER MAY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF RECORDED SUBDIVISION S RECORDED RESTRICTED COVENANTS REQUIRED BY REGULATORY AGENCY OR A CHANGE TO THE LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS, OR ORDINANCES OF A REGULATORY AGENCY THAT ENHANCE OR PROTECT THE PROJECT WITHOUT FORFEITING ANY RIGHTS UNDER THIS CHAPTER.
SO IT LOOKS LIKE THE VESTED RIGHT RULES ALLOW AN APPLICANT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF CHANGES THAT WOULD ENHANCE THE PROJECT.
AND I WOULD JUST LIKE STAFF TO AT SOME POINT COMMENT ABOUT THAT.
I KNOW I'M JUST PUTTING THAT EXCERPT OUT THERE, BUT IF STAFF COULD PLEASE COMMENT AT THAT AT SOME POINT DURING THIS CASE, I'D APPRECIATE IT.
JUST, I, I BELIEVE, AND WE'LL LET THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WEIGH IN.
I BELIEVE THAT IF YOU CONTINUE READING THAT SECTION, IT GOES ON TO SAY SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT OTHERWISE.
AND IN THIS CASE, IT IS SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT OTHERWISE THAT IT ONLY APPLIES TO A PROJECT THAT STARTS ON OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE LAW.
NOT, NOT IN THE SECTION DI DIDN'T SEE THAT IN SECTION DI KNOW WHAT YOU, I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT, BUT I, I DIDN'T SEE, I WAS JUST READING SECTION D.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YEAH, I, HEARING NONE, I'D ASK THE, UH, APPLICANT, IF YOU COULD PLEASE COME FORWARD AND LET'S HEAR YOUR CASE PRESENTATION.
KEN BROWN, 100 NORTHEAST LOOP FOUR 10, SUITE 1365 OR 85.
UH, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.
I'LL WAIT FOR THE, CAN YOU SPEAK LOUDER? I'M SORRY.
IT'S VERY HARD TO HEAR YOUR BACK.
UH, WHAT DO I HIT TO MAKE IT MOVE? THIS ONE BLINK.
UM, HAVE TREMENDOUS RESPECT FOR LOGAN, AND I THINK VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING
[00:20:01]
HE SAID WAS TRUE.UM, I WILL GO OVER REAL QUICKLY, THE TIMELINE.
UH, IN FEBRUARY OF TWO, UH, 1988, THE SEAL FAMILY, UH, SUBMITTED A-P-O-D-P, WHICH IS AN MDP, UH, TO THE CITY FOR 1,325 ACRES.
UH, THEY'VE HAD THAT LAND IN THEIR FAMILY FOR, UH, ALMOST A HUNDRED YEARS, UH, WITH CITY'S ANNEXATION AND 1604 COMING OUT.
IN THAT WAY, THEY REALIZED THAT FARMING AND RANCHING WAS NOT GOING TO LAST VERY LONG.
UM, I, I THINK LOGAN DESCRIBED VESTED RIGHTS OR GRANDFATHERING, AND IT, IT BASICALLY IS YOU GET TO LOCK IN THE RULES WHEN YOU SUBMIT YOUR FIRST APPLICATION.
SO THIS WAS OUR FIRST APPLICATION.
UM, THERE'S COMMON LAW ABOUT, UH, VESTED RIGHTS, BUT THE FIRST STATUTE THAT WAS EVER ADOPTED BY THE LEGISLATURE WAS ADOPTED IN 1987.
IT'S NO COINCIDENCE THAT A-P-O-D-P WAS SUBMITTED IN 1988.
UH, THERE WAS 1300 ACRES THAT WERE GOING TO BE DEVELOPED.
AND SO THEY SUBMITTED A-P-O-D-P, UH, AND KNOWING THAT IT WAS GOING TO TAKE, WELL, IT'S BEEN 35 YEARS, I'M BAD AT MATH.
UH, PL I THINK CLOSE TO 40 YEARS, AND IT'S STILL NOT DONE YET.
UH, AS LOGAN STATED, THERE'S ABOUT 180 ACRES LEFT.
UH, IN DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR, UH, WE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY.
UH, LOGAN DESCRIBED IT AS A CONSENT AGREEMENT.
UH, AND THAT THAT AGREEMENT IS ONLY FOR THE REMAIN REMAINING 180 ACRES, I'M JUST GONNA SAY.
UM, AND, AND IT HAD OTHER PROVISIONS AND THE CITY SIGNED IT, AND THE SEAL FAMILY SIGNED IT.
UH, IT IS A BINDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES.
UH, IN SEPTEMBER OF THIS YEAR, AFTER THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION, THE, THE LEGISLATURE DID, UH, ADOPT SB EIGHT 40.
AS FAR AS WE'RE CONCERNED, UH, IT MEANS THAT AND IS CODIFIED IN THE CITY'S CODE.
IT MEANS THAT A DEVELOPER CAN DO MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, WHICH WASN'T ALLOWED BEFORE.
UH, WE HAVE EXCLUSIONARY ZONING.
SO IF YOU HAVE COMMERCIAL, YOU DO COMMERCIAL.
THIS INCLUDED THOSE DISTRICTS.
THIS ALLOWED MULTIFAMILY IN, IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS.
UM, SO WE WANTED TO KNOW THE IMPACT ON THE REMAINING BECAUSE THE 180 ACRES AS, AS, UH, LOGAN SUGGESTED, IT'S ALMOST ALL ZONE COMMERCIAL.
OKAY? SO WE WANTED TO KNOW IF WE TOOK ADVANTAGE OF SENATE BILL EIGHT 40, WOULD WE MAINTAIN OUR VESTED RIGHTS? THAT, THAT WAS THE QUESTION.
UM, THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL PODP.
UH, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE CROSS HATS.
EVERYTHING ELSE HAS BEEN DEVELOPED, AND IT'S ALL BEEN DEVELOPED FOR SINGLE FAMILY PURPOSES, OR 95% OF IT HAS, THIS IS AN AERIAL SAME PROPERTY.
EVERYTHING, IF YOU REMEMBER THE SHAPE OF THE DEAL ARE, ARE MOSTLY SINGLE FAMILY, UH, SUBDIVISION.
THERE'S ONE MULTIFAMILY, UH, FOR RENT, UH, TOWN HOME SORT OF PROJECT THAT'S UP ON HOUSEMAN NEAR 1604.
UH, SO THE CONSENT AGREEMENT, WHICH WE ADOPTED OR WE ENTERED INTO WITH THE CITY LAST YEAR, IT'S, IT'S ONLY FOR THE 180 ACRES.
IT SET OUT THE ORDINANCES THAT WE'D HAVE TO COMPLY WITH.
AND IT SAID THE OWNER MAY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF A CHANGE IN THE LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS WITHOUT FORFEITING ANY RIGHTS.
UNDER CHAPTER, CHAPTER 2 45, THAT IS THE STATE STATE CODE THAT SAYS THAT CODIFIES VESTING, I'LL SAY IT AGAIN.
IT SAYS, AND THERE IS NO OTHER LANGUAGE UNLESS IT SAYS SOMEWHERE ELSE.
IT SAYS, THE OWNER MAY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE CHANGES IN LAWS AND IT WOULD NOT FORFEIT OUR VESTED RIGHTS.
UM, SO THE LEGISLATURE ADOPTED IT, UH, AND CODIFIED IT INTO CHAPTER TWO 18 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
THERE WERE NO AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 2 45.
THERE WAS NO CROSS REFERENCE BETWEEN TWO 18 AND 2 45.
CHAPTER 2 45 STANDS ALONE AS A VESTING STATUTE.
THE CITY, AS THEY STATED, ADOPTED, UH, SENATE BILL EIGHT 40 INTO THE CODE.
UH, THERE WERE A LOT OF CHANGES, BUT ESSENTIALLY THIS IS THE PERMITTED USE TABLE.
AND IT SAYS MULTIFAMILY IS ALLOWED IN OH 1 0 2.
THEY WERE COMMERCIAL C ONE, C TWO, C3, UH, AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.
[00:25:01]
WEIRD.UM, NOTE TO NOTE, ALSO, WHEN THEY CODIFIED IT, UH, THE CITY HAS A SECTION IN INVESTED RIGHTS.
THERE WAS NO AMENDMENT TO THAT SECTION.
THAT SECTION STANDS ALONE AS PROVIDING VESTED RIGHTS TO APPLICANTS THAT, THAT HAVE THE PERMIT AND HAVE, HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS, IN OUR CASE, A, UH, CONSENT AGREEMENT.
SO, UM, WE DID SUBMIT A, UM, APPLICATION FOR VESTED RIGHTS AND TO SIMPLIFY, AND, AND LOGAN SUMMARIZED IT VERY WELL, THEY CAME BACK AND SAID, OUR PODP IS VALID.
OUR PROJECT AS DESCRIBED ON THAT PODP INCLUDES MULTIFAMILY, UH, AND, UH, UM, IT HADN'T LAPSED.
IT, IT, UH, IT IS STILL AN ONGOING PROJECT.
THOSE ARE ALL THE THINGS THAT WE ASKED THEM TO ACKNOWLEDGE.
UM, THEY ALSO SAID THAT IF WE WENT THROUGH A ZONING CASE TO CHANGE THE COMMERCIAL TO MULTIFAMILY, WE WOULD MAINTAIN OUR VESTING.
UM, SO OUR QUESTION THOUGH WAS IF WE UTILIZE EIGHT 40, UH, UNDER EITHER THE STATE STATUTE OR THE CODE NOW AND DEVELOP MULTI-FAMILY, DO WE MAINTAIN OUR VESTING UNDER, WHAT I'M GONNA SAY IS UNDER OUR CONSENT AGREEMENT? UM, SO THIS IS, THIS IS THE FOCUS OF THE APPEAL.
OKAY? THIS ISN'T A JOHN GRISHAM NOVEL.
WE DON'T HAVE TO, WE DON'T HAVE TO DO A SUPREME COURT BRIEF.
I, I THINK IF WE HAVE, UH, IF WE CAN READ AND COMPREHEND WHAT OUR CONSENT SAYS, I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR.
UH, OUR QUESTION IS, UM, CAN WE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE NEW LAW AND NOT FORFEIT OUR VEST, OUR VESTED RIGHTS? THERE ARE THREE SECTIONS, THE LOW GOVERNMENT CODE, THE UDC AND OUR CONSENT AGREEMENT.
AND EVERY ONE OF 'EM SAY THE OWNER MAY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF CHANGES IN LAWS WITHOUT FORFEITING ANY RIGHTS UNDER 2 45.
IT'S, IT JUST, I DON'T THINK COULD BE ANY MORE CLEAR.
UH, I'M NOT ASKING YOU, I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO INTERPRET STATE LAW.
I'M ASKING YOU TO HONOR THE CONSENT AGREEMENT, UH, THAT THE CITY, UH, EXECUTED AND THE, AND THE SEAL FAMILY ENTERED INTO WITH THE CITY IN GOOD FAITH.
UH, NOW I'LL GET BACK TO THE SEAL FAMILY.
AND, AND THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, THEY HAVE BEEN WORKING ON IT FOR 35 PLUS YEARS.
THEY'VE HONORED EVERY AGREEMENT THAT THEY HAVE EVER, UH, ENTERED INTO WITH THE CITY.
AND THIS COMES FROM GENE DAWSON.
'CAUSE PAPE DAWSON HAS, UH, WORKED ON THIS PROJECT FROM THE BEGINNING IN 1988.
THEY HAVE SPENT BETWEEN 80 AND $100 MILLION ON INFRASTRUCTURE.
THEY HAVE EXTENDED WATER AND SEWER.
THEY HAVE DEDICATED RIGHT OF WAY.
THEY HAVE BUILT MAJOR THOROUGHFARES.
UH, THEY HAVE GRANTED EASEMENTS FOR SAWS, CPS, UH, FOR WATER AND SEWER.
UH, THIS IS AN ONGOING PROJECT.
THEY HAVE, THEY HAVE HONORED THEIR COMMITMENTS.
THEY HAVE HONORED THEIR, THEIR CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION OBLIGATIONS.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING YOU TO DO TODAY.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO DO.
DOES THAT SAY WHAT IT SAYS? DOES IT SAY, IF I TAKE ADVANTAGE OF A NEW RULE, AM I ENTITLED I TO MY RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSENT AGREEMENT? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING THERE.
THERE'S NOTHING UP OUR SLEEVE.
THERE'S, THERE'S NOTHING NUANCED ABOUT THIS.
UH, WE DON'T NEED A SUPREME COURT, YOU KNOW, JUSTICE OR A CLERK TO DO, TO DO, UH, A BRIEF ON THIS.
IT, IT, IT REALLY IS RIGHT THERE.
UH, I, I'M NOT ASKING FOR INTENT.
UH, I'M NOT ASKING WHAT THEY MEANT.
ALTHOUGH I HAVE TALKED TO THE AUTHOR AND, AND THE SENATOR, AND I THINK I KNOW WHAT THEY MEANT, BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER.
I'VE GOT A CONSENT AGREEMENT THAT TAKES PRECEDENT OVER THAT LAW.
I HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY THAT SAYS I CAN UTILIZE THAT AND NOT FORFEIT MY VESTED RIGHTS.
UM, I DON'T WANT TO FORGET ANYTHING.
BUT, UM, WE'RE ASKING THE CITY TO FOLLOW THE AGREEMENT AND, AND THE RULES AND REGULATIONS.
THEY, THEY SAY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE BOUND BY, YOU KNOW, TO ADHERE TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS.
[00:30:01]
IF THE INTENT WAS SOMETHING DIFFERENT, THEY SHOULD HAVE PUT IT IN THE RULE.WELL, IF THE INTENT WAS TO CHANGE CHAPTER 2 45, THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE CHANGED THAT ALSO.
AND THEY DIDN'T, THEY DIDN'T CHANGE IT WHEN THEY AMEND THE UDC, IT DIDN'T MAKE IT INTO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE EITHER.
IT, IT'S IN THE BILL, BUT IT DIDN'T MAKE IT INTO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
UH, AND IT'S CLEAR IN OUR AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY THAT WE, WE HAVE ALL AGREED, UM, THAT WE CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF NEW RULES AND REGULATIONS IF THEY BENEFIT OUR PROJECT.
UH, YOU KNOW, THIS LAST PART'S GONNA SOUND A LITTLE PARANOID, UH, BUT I HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE.
UH, AND WHAT HAPPENED TO ME LAST TIME, I DON'T WANT TO HAPPEN TO ME AGAIN, BUT WHAT HAPPENED TO ME LAST TIME WAS THE CITY ATTORNEY ASKED TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND WENT IN THERE AND SAID, THE SKY'S FALLING.
YOU'RE OPENING US UP TO ALL KINDS OF LEGAL CONSEQUENCES.
UH, I NEED YOU TO GO BACK OUT THERE AND VOTE AND DO IT.
I, I HOPE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN.
UH, I, I AM HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
I, I, THE, I HAVE REPRESENTED THE SEALS ALL THREE GENERATIONS.
UM, THEY THOUGHT THEY HAD A BINDING AGREEMENT.
UH, I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GONNA BE SHOCKED IF, IF THEY, THEY DON'T, UH, BASED UPON THE CITY'S INTERPRETATION.
UH, BUT I I, I THINK AT THE VERY LEAST, THEY DESERVE THEIR DAY IN COURT.
AND IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, IF THAT DOES HAPPEN, I WOULD, I WOULD SINCERELY APPRECIATE THAT.
FIRST, DO WE HAVE ANY BUDDY SIGNED UP FOR, UH, COMMUNITY, UH, COMMUNITY SPEECH, OR, YEP.
WE HAVE, UH, THREE VOICEMAILS AND TWO SPEAKERS.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND HEAR THOSE AND THEN WE'LL START WITH COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS.
MY NAME IS AHMED
MY PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 421-1195.
I'M CALLING YOU REGARDING THE REZONING OF THE LAND CASE NUMBER, UH, ENDING IN 2 7 4.
UH, THE REZONING WILL IMPACT THE VALUE OF MY HOUSE, THE TRAFFIC, THE PRIVACY OF MY BACKYARD.
BASICALLY, MY HOUSE WOULD BE PULLED, UH, TO ANY APARTMENTS, UH, ESPECIALLY TWO A THREE STORY APARTMENTS BEFORE, UH, BUILT.
THE TRAFFIC IS GONNA IMPACT, LIKE I SAID, AND IT WOULD ALSO, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY ASSURANCE OF ANY BUFFERING OR ANY SPECIAL DESIGNS OR THESE RESTRICTIONS THAT'S GONNA BE PUT ON, ON THE, UH, ON THIS, UH, PIECE OF PLAN.
UH, MY ONE, AGAIN, MY NUMBER IS 2 1 0 4 2 1 11 95.
MY HOUSE ADDRESS IS 8 0 0 7 EAGLE PEAK.
OF COURSE, MY PHONE NUMBER IS TWO ONE ZERO SEVEN TWO FIVE SIX THREE SEVEN.
I AM CALLING IN OPPOSITION TO THE REZONING IN CASE BOA 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 2 7 4 FOR ITS IMPACT ON MY HOUSE.
VALUE MY PRIVACY SINCE MY BACKYARD WILL BE FULLY EXPOSED TO THE APARTMENT, THE TRAFFIC IMPACT IT WILL CAUSE.
AND WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY ASSURANCE OF ANY BUFFER OR DUE RESTRICTIONS.
I'M SORRY, ONE MORE VOICEMAIL.
MY ADDRESS IS 8 7 3 4 REDWOOD BEND IN VELOTI.
I'M CALLING IN REGARD TO AGENDA ITEM BOA 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 2 7 4.
THE APPLICANT BROWN AND MCDONALD, PLLT, ON BEHALF OF H KYLE SEAL PROPERTY LIMITED, SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE OR MULTIFAMILY.
THIS REQUEST VIOLATES THE TERMS OF SB EIGHT 40.
THIS COMMUNITY ALREADY HAS TOO MANY APARTMENT COMPLEXES.
BUILDING ADDITIONAL APARTMENTS WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON PALEO PARKWAY AND THE LUBE SIX FOUR SERVICE ROAD OVERCROWD OUR SCHOOLS AND PLACE ADDITIONAL DEMAND ON WATER PRESSURE, SEWER CAPACITY, AND ELECTRIC SERVICE.
THE CURRENT COMMERCIAL ZONING IS
[00:35:01]
WELCOME.ADDITIONAL MULTIFAMILY OR MIXED USE IS NOT.
UH, FIRST SPEAKER, UH, FATIMA
I FEEL LIKE I SHOULD HAVE CHOSEN A DIFFERENT, UH, NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTION TO BE MORE, INSTEAD OF BEING MORE INVOLVED IN CITY MATTERS.
UH, UM, I'M HERE FOR THIS ITEM.
UM, LITTLE SPLIT, UH, MY HOUSEHOLD.
AND REAL QUICK, MA'AM, PLEASE SAY YOUR, CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME PLEASE FOR THE RECORD? OH, FATIMA.
UM, ANYTHING ELSE YOU NEED TO STATE YOUR ADDRESS WOULD AGREE? 1 3 8 1 2 RIVER BANK PASS, HELO 7 8 0 2 3.
UM, UM, WE'RE SPLITTING MY HOUSEHOLD.
I WOULDN'T MIND MORE MULTI-USE FAMILY.
UM, MY SIGNIFICANT OTHER IS MORE WE SHOULD JUST STICK WITH COMMERCIAL, UM, PERSONALLY, SO IT'S, IT'S HARD TO SAY FOR OR AGAINST, UM, BASED ON WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM BOTH SIDES, UH, MAYBE WE SHOULD JUST STICK WITH COMMERCIAL.
UM, THE TRAFFIC IS ALREADY GETTING REALLY BAD NOWADAYS ON, ON THE, UH, OFF RAMP ON 1604.
UM, THERE ARE A LOT OF CHILDREN.
I LITERALLY JUST SAW A CHILD PLAYING SOCCER ON THE SIDEWALK ON HOUSEMAN.
UM, BUT I WOULD ALSO KIND OF PREFER PERHAPS, YOU KNOW, INSTEAD OF COMMERCIAL, PERHAPS A REZONING TO, I DON'T KNOW, PARKS.
I HATE HAVING TO CROSS THE HIGHWAY FOR A PARK NOWADAYS.
I HATE NOT HAVING, UH, PUBLIC TRANSIT IN THAT AREA.
UM, I THINK MY FELLOW HOMEOWNERS WOULD DISAGREE ON THAT AS WELL, UM, GIVEN THEIR PREVIOUS COMMENTS.
BUT, UM, I GUESS WHATEVER THE BOARD DECIDES OR THE DIRECTOR DECIDES, I MEAN, UM, IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT WHATEVER THE BOARD DECIDES, ESSENTIALLY.
NEXT WE HAVE, UH, EY, UM, B YOU CAN STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.
I LIVE AT 84 10 FEATHER TRAIL, UH, WITH DIRECT EXPOSURE TO THE, WHATEVER HAPPENS WITH THIS, THIS PROPERTY.
UM, YOU KNOW, PRIVACY'S GONNA BE AN ISSUE FOR SURE, UH, WITH A MULTI-FAMILY, UH, CONCEPT.
UM, I WOULD DEFINITELY PREFER COMMERCIAL OR, YOU KNOW, THE PARK THINGS SOUND GREAT, BUT I DON'T KNOW.
THAT'S NOT REALLY IN THE CARDS LOOKS LIKE, BUT, UM, I, TRAFFIC IS GONNA BE A PROBLEM.
UM, IT'S BEEN CONGESTED FOR A WHILE.
UM, ANYWAYS, UM, BUT YEAH, AND THE VALUE OF MY HOME, I MEAN, WE'RE, WE'RE, I'M DIRECTLY IMPACTED, WE'RE RIGHT NEXT TO THE, TO THE RANCH.
SO, I MEAN, ENJOYED THE RANCH FOR A LONG TIME.
BUT, UM, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH ALL I'VE GOT.
THAT TIME, THE PUBLIC COMMENTS.
ALRIGHT, AT THIS POINT I'D ASK, UH, I GUESS THE APPLICANT TO COME BACK AND WE CAN SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, UH, FOR YOU FROM THE BOARD.
UM, SO MY QUESTION IS, IF, WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES TO THE SEALS IF THIS APPEAL IS NOT APPROVED? IT LOOKS LIKE BECAUSE THERE ARE FOUR DIFFERENT USES ZONES ON THIS PROPERTY, IT, DOES IT BECOME LESS VIABLE IN LIKE A COMMERCIAL CONTEXT BECAUSE OF THE, THE DIFFERENT ZONING? WHAT, WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES IF THIS APPEAL IS NOT APPROVED? UM, SO, AND I, LOGAN, I, I BELIEVE THIS IS TRUE.
SO THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE 100 ACRES IS ZONE COMMERCIAL.
OKAY? UH, IN LOOK, IN DOING A LAND PLAN FOR THAT AREA, WE HAVE IDENTIFIED ABOUT A HUNDRED OF THOSE ACRES THAT WILL BE, WILL BE COMMERCIAL.
THAT THAT'S WHAT IT, IT'LL BE.
WE THINK ABOUT 35 OF THE ACRES WILL BE MULTIFAMILY.
OKAY? SO OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THE COMMERCIAL IS NOT, UH, UNDER DISPUTE TODAY.
IF WE DEVELOP THAT A HUNDRED ACRES OF COMMERCIAL, IT WILL BE DEVELOPED UNDER THE CONSENT AGREEMENT.
OKAY? SO WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT THE 30 TO 35 ACRES OF WHAT MIGHT BE MULTIFAMILY.
OKAY? UH, AND, AND REALLY THE, THE BOTTOM LINE IS IF, IF WE WANNA DO MULTIFAMILY, UH, IT'S, WE'RE GONNA DO IT.
WHETHER THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER IT'S VESTED OR NOT.
OKAY? SO, UH, BECAUSE AS THEY'VE STATED, WE CAN UTILIZE IT.
UH, WE JUST HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE RULES AND REGULATIONS IN EFFECT TODAY.
ALRIGHT? WHICH IS IN CONTRADICTION OF OUR CONSENT AGREEMENT.
OKAY? SO I KNEW YOU GUYS WERE GONNA BE PRAGMATIC
[00:40:01]
SO WHAT HAPPENS IS, UH, IF YOU DENY IT, WE'LL GO ALONG OUR MERRY WAY.
A HUNDRED ACRES WILL BE DEVELOPED AS COMMERCIAL WITH VESTING.
THE 35 TO 40 ACRES WILL BE DEVELOPED AS A MULTIFAMILY, I BELIEVE, GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE WOULD, IF WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE NEW RULES AND REGULATIONS, UH, AS CODIFIED, IF WE USE COMMERCIAL, MULTIFAMILY AND COMMERCIAL UNDER THE CODE, WE CAN GO UP TO 65 UNITS ACRE.
I'M GETTING TO YOUR ANSWER, I'M SORRY.
UH, NOBODY'S GONNA DO 65 UNITS PER ACRE OUT IN THAT AREA.
I WOULD, I WOULD SUGGEST, I'M HORRIBLE AT MATH.
IF SOMEONE WANTS TO DO THE MATH, UH, WITH VESTING, WE WOULD PROBABLY DO A, A MULTIFAMILY AT ABOUT 25, 26, 27 UNITS PER ACRE WITHOUT VESTING, WE WOULD PROBABLY DO IT AROUND 33.
SO THE DIFFERENCE IS WHATEVER, 35.
ARE YOU DOING THIS? NO, I'M NOT.
I'M JUST, IS ANYONE
UM, THE, THE TREES, UH, WE WOULD PROBABLY DEAL WITH IN A, IN A TREE PRESERVATION PLAN, WE HAVE A, WE HAVE A LOT OF FLOOD PLAIN, AND SO WE WOULD PROBABLY DEAL WITH TREES THROUGH A TREE PRESERVATION PLAN.
AND, UH, IT WOULDN'T REALLY CHANGE ANYTHING.
I MEAN, I, I, I'M SURE MY CLIENT IS SCRATCHING HIS HEAD RIGHT NOW.
UH, WHAT IT WOULD CHANGE IS THAT WE HONORED EVERY ONE OF OUR, OUR OBLIGATIONS UNDER EVERY AGREEMENT THAT WE HAD.
AND WE FEEL LIKE THE CITY'S NOT NOT DOING THAT.
THANK YOU, MR. MORGAN AND I AND I, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE HERE.
I, YOU KNOW, I THOUGHT THIS WOULD GO TO PLANNING COMMISSION 'CAUSE IT WAS A VESTED RIGHTS DEAL.
I I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO INTERPRET STATE LAW.
I'M ASKING YOU TO DIRECT STAFF BECAUSE THEY MADE A DETERMINATION TO HONOR THE AGREEMENT THEY ENTERED INTO.
SO, SO, MR. BROWN, MR. NU YES MA'AM.
MS I THINK MS. UH, DONALD HAD FIRST, AND THEN MR. NU UM, I HAVE ALL DAY.
OKAY, SO, SO MY QUESTION IS, UH, THERE'S TWO THINGS.
NUMBER ONE, UM, THE VESTED RIGHTS CODE, THERE'S ANOTHER SUBSECTION G, WHERE IN 2005 WHEN THE LEGISLATOR MADE SOME CHANGES, THEY DID SAY IN THERE THAT THAT, UH, NOTWITHSTANDING, UH, UH, THIS A SECTION 2 45 DOUBLE ZERO TWO, THE CHANGE IN LAW MADE TO SECTION A AND THE ADDITION OF CERTAIN SECTIONS APPLY ONLY TO A PROJECT COMMENCE ON OR AFTER A CERTAIN DATE.
SO THERE, THERE'S ALREADY LIKE A, IT SEEMS LIKE AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE THEY'VE ADJUST, MADE AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE VESTED RIGHTS CODE.
AND THEY, AND THEY, AND THEY CODIFIED WHAT THEY WANTED YOU TO DO ABOUT IT.
SO WHEN THE STATE PASSED THIS LAW AND THEY DIDN'T MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THE VESTED RIGHTS CODE, THAT KIND OF GEARS ME IN ONE DIRECTION OF WHAT THEIR INTENT IS.
UH, THE SECOND THING IS, IS THAT IF THE VEST, IF, IF HE MOVES FORWARD WITH, WITH DOING THE SB, WOULDN'T HE ALSO BE ALLOWED TO GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPEAL THE DENIAL OF THE VESTED RIGHTS? 'CAUSE THEY'RE, THEY'RE THE APPELLATE BOARD FOR THAT A POINT THAT THE APPLICANT BROUGHT UP.
IT JUST SEEMED KIND OF LIKE, THIS IS, THIS IS KIND OF NEW GROUND FOR US, BUT I THINK IT'S KIND OF INTERESTING.
ALRIGHT, UM, I'D LIKE TO HEAR A COMMENT ABOUT THAT.
AS I SAID, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE HERE, RIGHT? TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH, I THIS, SO WHAT SAFS ARE GONNA SAY IS THEY APPROVED OUR CONSENT, OUR, OUR VEST RIGHTS DEAL, BUT THEY APPROVED IT SAYING THAT IF I UTILIZE THE NEW LAW, I, I DON'T HAVE VESTING ANYMORE.
AND THAT'S NOT WHAT THE CONSENT AGREEMENT SAYS.
CHAIR, UH, MR. IMAN, UM, MR. BROWN, SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, YES MA'AM.
UH, WE'RE LOOKING TO SEE OF YOU USING KEEPING YOUR VESTED RIGHTS YES MA'AM.
AND, UH, CITY IS SAYING THAT ACCORDING TO, UH, THE NEW CODE BY THE STATE, UH, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT YET, YOU'RE SHOWING US INFORMATION, UH, THAT YOU SAID THAT THERE'S NO WORDING SAYING THAT YOU LOSE YOUR, YOUR VEST RIGHTS.
I, THAT IS THE CONSENT AGREEMENT.
THAT IS THE AGREEMENT THAT THE CAST SEAL FAMILY HAS WITH THE
[00:45:01]
CITY.YOU MENTIONED THAT THE, UM, YOU SAID AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, NOT THE VENUE, THAT WE HAVE NO AUTHORITY OF THE CASE.
UM, I'M NOT SAYING THEY'RE, WELL, ACTUALLY THEY'RE SAYING IT TOO.
UM, AT, AT THIS POINT, I WOULD RECOMMEND, UH, WE CONVENE INTO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
THERE ARE SOME, SOME CONCERNS, SOME ATTORNEY CLIENT CONCERNS WE WOULD, UH, DISCUSS.
THIS IS WHERE MY PLANS GET PULLED IN.
ALRIGHT, UH, THE TIME IS 1 48, THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, UH, COM, UH, ADJUSTMENT COMMISSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 5 51, UH, 0 7 1.
A TEXAS GOVERNMENT COACH SHALL NOW GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF A CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT DISCUSSION OF THE EAGLE LEGAL ISSUES RELATED, UH, TO THE, UH, CASE NUMBER BOA DASH 25 DASH 3 0 2 74.
AFTER SUCH A DELIBERATION, THE COMMISSION WILL RECONVENE AN OPEN SESSION.
AND IF, IF I MAY, FOR THOSE THAT ARE JOINED VIRTUALLY, UH, WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU LEAVE THE WEBEX MEETING AND YOU WILL RECEIVE A PHONE CALL SO THAT YOU CAN PARTICIPATE IN THAT CONVERSATION.
DO WE, DO WE LOG OFF OR DO, DO WE, CAN WE JUST KEEP IT ON AND JUST ANSWER THE PHONE OR? I, I WOULD LOG OFF AND THEN REJOIN WHEN YOU, UH, COME TO LEAVE THE EXEC SESSION REAL QUICK.
UM, WE'D HAVE THE NUMBER AND THE ACCESS CODE THAT YOU GUYS RECEIVED ON THE CHAT.
SO YOU GUYS SHOULD BE ABLE TO JOIN, UM, ON THE PHONE.
UH, HOLD ON, LET ME WRITE THIS DOWN.
NUMBER ABOVE NUMBER CODE DIAL.
ALRIGHT, THE TIME IS NOW, UH, 3 0 4.
ON JANUARY 12TH, 2026, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO WILL NOW RECONVENE AN OPEN SESSION.
NO OFFICIAL ACTION WAS TAKEN IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT THIS POINT.
UM, WE'VE, WE HEARD TESTIMONY FOR THE APPLICANT.
WE HEARD, UH, TESTIMONY, UH, FROM THE CITY.
UM, WE CLO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION WITH, UH, WITH THE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND INVOICES TO BE HEARD.
AND I'D ASK A MEMBER OF THE BOARD TO PLEASE MAKE A MOTION ORIAN MR. ORIAN.
SO REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA DASH 25 DASH HUNDRED 3 0 0 2 7 4, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE APPEAL FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF HOUSING ROAD AND WEST LOOP 1604, APPLICANT BEING BROWN AND MCDONALD, PLLC, BECAUSE THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWS THAT CITY STAFF MADE AN ERROR IN ENFORCING US, UH, AT SECTION 35 THROUGH 12 IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW, INCLUDING SENATE BILL EIGHT 40 AS PASSED BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE.
YEAH, SO, YEAH, SO I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL FOR TWO REASONS.
ONE, I THINK THAT, UM, UH, THE, THE, THE USE OF CERTAIN TERMS AND HOW THEY'RE APPLIED BY CERTAIN CODES, WHETHER THEY BE A STATE CODE OR A CITY CODE, JUST, UH, OCCASIONALLY THEY'RE JUST DIFFERENT.
AND THIS STUFF'S SO NEW, BUT I THINK THE INTENT WAS FOR, FOR THEM TO, TO, UH, TO, TO NOT OVERRIDE EACH OTHER.
AND SECONDLY, UM, BECAUSE VESTED RIGHTS DOESN'T GET INTO USE, IT GETS INTO THINGS LIKE TREE ORDINANCE AND, AND MINUSCULE KIND OF STUFF THERE.
I THINK THEY STAND SEPARATELY AND I, I DON'T, UH, TAKE ISSUE WITH IT.
SO I'LL MEANS MS. BRAGMAN, UM, I'M NOT GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL.
I DON'T FEEL LIKE THE, UM, THE ADMIN, THE, UM, CITY MADE AN ERROR IN, UM, THE DECISION THAT THEY MADE.
SO, UH, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE APPEAL.
ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE SOME COMMENT.
ALRIGHT, HEARING NONE, UH, LET'S TAKE A ROLL CALL.
COMMISSIONER ORIAN, UH, I, UH, AM IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL.
COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? I DO NOT CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, MR. QUEZ? CAN'T HEAR YOU.
COULD YOU GIVE US, WHAT WAS THE VOTE? VICE CHAIR? ZINA? I'M, I WOULD VOTE FOR, YEAH, SO, UH, WITH, UH, SEVEN AGAINST AND THREE FOUR, THE MOTION DOES NOT PASS.
[00:50:01]
UH, PLEASE GET WITH STAFF AND THEY CAN, UH, EXPLAIN WHAT, WHAT THE REMEDIES HERE WOULD BE.AND, UM, REAL QUICK IF I CAN READ OFF THE TWO CONTINUANCES.
UM, ITEM NUMBER THREE, BO 8 25 DASH 3 2 3.
REQUEST BY ROB MCLEAN FOR A SPECIAL EXEMPTION TO ALLOW ONE ADDITIONAL STR TYPE TWO ON BLOCK FACE, UH, CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO REQUESTING A TWO WEEK CONTINUANCE.
AND ALSO DO WE HAVE ANY, ANY VO UH, VOICEMAILS OR ANY PUBLIC RECORD TO BE READ IN ON THOSE IN THAT CASE? NOT FOR THAT ONE.
ALSO, AND ALSO BO A 25 1 0 3 0 0 2 3 3.
OR, I'M SORRY, WHICH ITEM NUMBER? THAT'S ITEM THREE.
THE OTHER ONE HAS ONE VOICEMAIL THAT WE NEED TO PLAY.
SECOND ONE IS BO A 25 1 0 3 0 0 2 6 7 REQUEST BY RICARDO NAVARRO FOR A VARIANCE FOR RRN FOUR DEVELOPMENT, UH, ON TWO SEPARATE STRUCTURES ON EACH LOT ON 3 0 5, 3 0 7.
AND WE DO HAVE ONE VOICEMAIL ON THAT ONE.
UM, THAT'S FOR ITEM NUMBER 13.
THE CASE NUMBER THAT I'M CALLING IS LAST THREE DIGIT IS 2 6 7.
ONCE AGAIN, IT'S 2 6 7 AND I RECEIVED A DOCUMENT SAYING THAT I HAVE TO LEAVE A VOICEMAIL, UH, BEFORE 10:00 AM TODAY JANUARY 12TH, 2026.
I'M CALLING TO BOTH IN FAVOR AND OPPOSED, IF IT IS AN APARTMENT COMPLEX, THERE'S ALREADY APARTMENT COMPLEX VERY CLOSE BY.
BUT IF IT IS A CONDOMINIUM THAT ARE SIMILAR TO BEING BUILT OR THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT ON THE SAME STREET NEXT TO THE, THESE THREE PROPERTIES, I AM IN FAVOR, IT WOULD DEFINITELY, UM, UH, BRING A LOT OF, UH, REJUVENATION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
MY PHONE NUMBER IS (210) 201-7077.
THAT IS A TWO WEEK CONTINUANCE WITH A VOICEMAILS.
ITEM NUMBER FOUR, BO 8 25 1 0 3 0 0 2 6 9.
REQUEST BY JK AND FRANCE GUIDANCE LLC FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION APPEAL FOR A SHORT TERM RENTAL LOCATED 82 0 1 MIDDLE POST.
UM, AND THAT ONE IS ONE VOICEMAIL ITEM NUMBER FOUR.
I'M CALLING ABOUT PUBLIC PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, CASE NUMBER BOA DASH 25 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 6 9.
IT'S ABOUT REVOKING A SHORT TERM RENTAL AGREEMENT FOR PROPERTY ON 82 0 1 MEADOW POST.
I'M THE PRO, MY NAME IS ERNEST GUTA AND I LIVE ON 82 0 2 MEADOW POST RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THAT.
AND I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THEM, UH, DOING A SHORT TERM RENTAL AGREEMENT.
THEY'VE BEEN DOING AIRBNB ALL SUMMER LONG.
WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
I ALREADY CHECKED WITH THE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THEM.
AND THEY DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT EITHER.
THEY SAID THEY WERE GONNA CALL ALSO.
SO I'M IN FAVOR OF LEAVING THEIR, UH, RISK AGREEMENT AS IS THE SHORT TERM RENTAL AGREEMENT.
I LIVE IN 82 0 2, MIDDLE POST ACROSS FROM 82 0 1.
WE'LL DO ONE SEPARATE ONE, BUT WE'LL DO THAT ONE SEPARATE SINCE THERE'S TWO PEOPLE SIGN UP TO SPEAK ON THAT ONE.
CAN WE GET A, JUST A VOICE? UH, WE HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION.
FIRST MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE OR? YEP.
I MEAN, ALL OF THEM TWO WEEKS.
SO THAT WOULD BE, WHAT'S THE DATE? THE 26TH? JANUARY 26TH.
CASE BOA DASH 25 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 3 3 TO, UH, JANUARY 26TH.
WAIT, WHAT WAS THE CASE NUMBER THEY JUST DID ON NUMBER THREE? 2 3 3.
I THOUGHT SHE SAID ENDING IN TWO.
DID I HEAR THAT? OH, THERE IT IS.
I, I THE VOICEMAIL SAID 2 6 9.
NO, THAT THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE NEXT ONE.
[00:55:01]
CONTINUE CA CASE BO A DASH 25 DASH 0 3 0 0 2 6 9 TO JANUARY 26.WHO WAS THE SECOND ON THAT ONE? STEVENS.
AND REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 25 DASH 0 3 0 0 2 67, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CONTINUED TO JANUARY 26TH.
THE LAST CONTINUANCE, UH, THIS ONE HAS TWO SPEAKERS.
UM, IT'S BO A 25 1 0 3 0 0 2 6 1 REQUEST BY HEADMAN GARRA FOR, UH, SQUARE FOOT VARI FROM THE MAXIMUM 2,500 SQUARE FEET, LOCATED AT 11 0 0 0 2 VANCE JACKSON ROAD.
AND THEY'RE REQUESTING A TWO WEEK CONTINUANCE.
AND WE DO HAVE TWO SIGN UP TO SPEAK FOR THIS ONE.
UH, MR. MIKE SLATER, YOU HAVE SIX MINUTES, AND PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
HEAR A LITTLE BIT CLOSER, RIGHT? GO.
MICHAEL SLATER, I RESIDE 11 0 6 VANCE JACKSON.
11 0 0 6 VANCE JACKSON, WHICH IS DIRECTLY WESTERN NORTH OF THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
AND I CERTAINLY AM NOT GONNA TAKE SIX MINUTES.
UH, FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO, UH, PASS A BIG THANK YOU TO MS. PALUS FOR HER COMMUNICATION WITH ME.
I, I, I'M NEW AT THIS AND SHE WAS JUST EXCELLENT IN ANSWERING QUESTIONS, GIVING ME THE PROCEDURES AND WHATEVER.
THAT BEING SAID, UH, WE'RE, WE'RE AGAINST, UH, MR. GARZA BUILDING AN 8,000 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE NEXT TO OUR PROPERTY.
UM, WE'RE ALSO OPPOSED ANY CONTINUANCE ON THIS.
UM, THE REASON BEING, UH, BOTH OF THESE HOUSES WERE CONSTRUCTED IN THE THIRTIES.
THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR THAT MR. GARZAS HAS, UH, ONE ACRE THAT PROPERTY'S BEEN VACANT FOR ABOUT 15 YEARS.
THE ORIGINAL OWNER PASSED AWAY FOR THE LAST YEAR.
I BELIEVE MR. GARZA BOUGHT IT IN 24, AS I UNDERSTAND IT.
UM, AND FOR THE PAST YEAR, THAT VACANT AREA WHERE THE GARAGE IS TO BE BUILT HAS BEEN FULL OF LANDSCAPE TRUCKS AND TRAILERS AND EQUIPMENT AND CREWS.
AND IT'S USED, IT WAS SOME COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPE COMPANY THAT WAS USING IT THAT I BELIEVE IS ASSOCIATED WITH MR. GARZA.
SECONDLY, THE SIZE OF THIS THING IS 8,200 PLUS SQUARE FEET.
IT HAS A 60 BY 90, WHICH IS 5,400 SQUARE FEET WORKSHOP, AND IT SHOWS STORAGE FOR, UH, LOOKS LIKE A 40 FOOT SUV AND A BOAT AND OTHER STUFF.
UH, THE PLAN ALSO SHOWS THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO CONCRETE DRIVEWAYS.
UM, I WOULD SAY THAT THAT AREA OF VANCE JACKSON, JUST WEST OF WBA, THAT AREA IS IN A DIP.
MATTHEWS CATHOLIC SCHOOL AND FIRE STATION NUMBER 37.
SO, WE'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT IS THIS PROPERTY GONNA BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPING OR IS IT GONNA BE A ST AN 8,000 FOOT STORAGE UNIT? UH, SO THE USE IS A CONCERN.
UM, I'D LIKE TO HAVE THAT ANSWERED TODAY IF POSSIBLE.
UM, WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC FOR THE SCHOOL, SCHOOL AND THE FIRE STATION, THE DRIVEWAY.
AND LET'S SEE, WHAT ELSE? WHAT'D YOU SAY, TAMMY? AND WE HAVE CHILDREN WITH OUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR THAT ARE, THAT ARE THERE.
YOU KNOW, MY GARAGE IS, IS 20 BY 24, WHICH IS 480 SQUARE FEET, AND I HAVE TWO FULL SIZED TRUCKS IN IT.
THIS GARAGE IS 8,000 SQUARE FEET.
IT'S BIGGER THAN BOTH OUR HOUSES IN BOTH OUR GARAGES COMBINED.
[01:00:01]
CONCERN.DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR NO.
ALRIGHTYY, WE'RE SEEKING A MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A TWO WEEK CONTINUANCE BRAGMAN MS. BRAGMAN, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTED A CONTINUANCE FOR CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 25 DASH 0 3 0 2 61 TO JANUARY 26 OF A SECOND OF SECOND.
MS. STEVENS, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
I, IS THAT OKAY? WE'RE HAVING OBVIOUSLY A LITTLE BIT OF TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY HERE, BUT I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.
UH, THE SECOND CASE, UH, THAT I'M PRESENTING TODAY, APPLICATION ENDING IN 2 7 5 IS MATERIALLY SIMILAR TO THE FIRST ITEM THAT YOU JUST CONSIDERED.
UH, SIMILARLY, UH, THERE IS, UH, THERE WAS AN APPLICATION FOR VESTED RIGHTS THAT APPLICATION SOUGHT, UH, FOR STAFF TO CLARIFY IF THE PROPERTY HAD VESTED RIGHTS AND IF SENATE BILL EIGHT 40 APPLIES SIMILAR TO THE LAST CASE, UH, STAFF ISSUED A LETTER THAT ACKNOWLEDGED THAT RIGHTS DO EXIST.
THE MATERIAL DIFFERENCE IN THIS CASE IS THAT THE RIGHTS EXIST EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF A CONSENT AGREEMENT.
THAT WAS NOT A NECESSARY STEP FOR CITY AND THE DEVELOPER TO DETERMINE THAT RIGHTS ARE APPLICABLE.
UM, THE PROPERTY ITSELF, UH, ALSO SIMILARLY HAS A COUPLE DIFFERENT ZONES.
C 1 2 3, ALSO IN THE EDWARDS RECHARGE ZONE DISTRICT, AS WELL AS THE MILITARY LIGHTING OVERLAY DISTRICT.
CAN WE DO THE NEXT SLIDE? UH, WE MAILED 83 NOTICES NONE WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR.
WE RECEIVED NO FORMAL RESPONSES FROM THE ENCINO PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, OR THE VILLAGE AT ENCINO PARK HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION.
UH, AGAIN, UH, PERTINENT TO THIS CASE IS THE PRESENCE OF SENATE BILL EIGHT 40 AND ITS PASSING IN THE 89TH TEXAS LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
UH, IT WAS A MANDATE KINDA REITERATE THAT, AND IT ONLY APPLIES TO PROJECTS THAT STARTED ON OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THAT LAW.
THE UDC AMENDMENTS WERE CODIFIED TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT REQUIREMENT FROM STATE LAW.
UH, ON OCTOBER 13TH, 2025, CITY STAFF ISSUED AN APPROVAL LETTER, UH, THAT SAID THAT YOU HAVE VESTED RIGHTS THAT DATE THE PROJECT BACK TO NOVEMBER 13TH, 1984.
THAT WAS THE UNDERLYING PERMIT DATE, THE P-O-A-D-P.
BUT AGAIN, YOU CAN ONLY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SB EIGHT 40 FOR PROJECTS THAT START ON OR AFTER SEPTEMBER ONE, UH, 2025.
WE HAVE THE SAME ISSUE IN PLAY.
A PROJECT CANNOT SIMULTANEOUSLY START IN 1984 AND 2025.
UH, AND THAT IS WHAT HAS LANDED US BEFORE Y'ALL TODAY.
UM, THE ASSERTIONS, BY AND LARGE, REMAIN THE SAME.
UH, THAT, UH, THE, UH, THE, THE PROPERTY OWNER, WE PROVIDED A CHOICE.
YOU CAN CHOOSE VESTED RIGHTS OR SB EIGHT 40, BUT NOT BOTH.
UM, WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE, UH, INTENTIONS OF THE BILL'S AUTHOR, BUT WE'RE GOING TO ENFORCE WHAT WAS ACTUALLY CODIFIED, NOT THE UNWRITTEN INTENT OF THE BILL.
AND SIMILARLY, YOU ARE ASKED TO DETERMINE IF THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MADE THE CORRECT DECISION OR MADE AN ERROR IN ITS LETTER APPROVING AND ACKNOWLEDGING VESTED RIGHTS AND ACKNOWLEDGING THAT SB EIGHT 40 MAY BE, UH, UTILIZED BUT NOT BOTH.
ACTUALLY, THE FULL REPORT IS INCLUDED FOR THE RECORD, BUT I WANNA RESPECT EVERYONE'S TIME AS WELL.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NONE.
HEARING NONE, I ASK THE APPLICANT TO PLEASE COME FORWARD.
[01:05:01]
SPANISH INTERPRETER, UH, ENGLISH TO SPANISH? YES.UM, 100 NORTHEAST LOOP FOUR 10.
UM, THOUGHT THAT WAS REALLY UNFAIR NOT TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND AFTER THE DEAL, SO I'M GLAD I HAVE THIS SECOND, UH, OPTION.
SO, UH, GOING OVER THE TIMELINE, UH, AS WITH THE LAST CASE, WE, UH, THAT WAS APPROVED IN 1984, UH, FOR 1,849 ACRES, UH, WE SUBMITTED A VESTED RIGHTS, A APPLICATION FOR 39.48 ACRES.
ORIGINAL AMOUNT, UH, FOUR EIGHT ACRES.
UH, WE APPEALED, UH, THE CITY'S, UH, CONFIRMATION.
OUR QUESTION WAS, DO WE STILL HAVE RIGHTS IF WE USE, UH, EIGHT 40? UH, LIKE THE FIRST CASE, UM, WE HAD A-P-O-D-P, UH, FOR 1800 ACRES, 18 POINT, EXCUSE ME, 1800 ACRES.
UM, THIS IS WHAT THE AREA LOOKS LIKE TODAY.
95% SINGLE FAMILY, SINGLE FAMILY, UH, MUCH LIKE THE FIRST CASE, THE DEVELOPER OWNED ALL THE PROPERTY AND, UH, MADE ALL THE IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
UH, SENATE BILL EIGHT 40 WAS APPROVED BY THE LEGISLATURE AND WAS CODIFIED IN THE UDC.
UH, AND WHAT THAT DID WAS ALLOW MULTIFAMILY AND COMMERCIAL ZONING BASED DISTRICTS.
UH, ONCE AGAIN, WE SUBMITTED, UH, A REQUEST TO VERIFY OUR RIGHTS.
IN PARTICULAR, OUR QUESTION WAS, IF WE USE SENATE BILL EIGHT 40, DO WE STILL HAVE VESTED RIGHTS? THAT SOUNDED GOOD, DIDN'T IT? UM, THE CITY RESPONDED THAT WE HAD RIGHTS, BUT, UH, RIGHT TO DO MULTIFAMILY, BUT WE WOULD FORFEIT OUR VESTED RIGHTS.
UM, I WOULD GO OVER THE PROVISIONS IN THE LAW, BUT THEY'RE MEANINGLESS.
EVIDENTLY, THE STATE AND CITY LAW SAYS WE CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF NEW RULES AND REGULATIONS WITHOUT FORFEITING OUR VESTED RIGHTS, BUT WORDS HAVE NO MEANING CLEARLY.
[01:10:01]
I WISHED I COULD HAVE TAKEN MORE TIME, UH, BUT THAT IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION.SO IF WE HAVE EV, HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, UH, I I WANT TO EXPLAIN WHY I VOTED AGAINST IT.
UM, I VOTED AGAINST IT BECAUSE OF THE DATE OF THE LAW OF THE 8 0 4 SAYING THAT THE PROJECT HAD TO BEGIN ON OR AFTER SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2025.
UM, I FELT THAT THE APPLICANT HAS MANY OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO STILL DO THEIR PROJECT.
UH, I ALSO UNDERSTAND THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE OF SAYING YOU HAVE A CHOICE OF WHICH ONE YOU WANNA USE FOR THOSE 35 ACRES, UM, VESTED RIGHTS OR THE, UM, THE NEW CODE.
UM, AND SO I, THAT'S WHY I VOTED AGAINST IT, 'CAUSE OF THIS SPECIFIC DATE THAT'S ON THE CODE.
UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. BROWN? YES.
I I REALLY DO APPRECIATE THAT.
ALSO, I JUST AGREE, I JUST BELIEVE THAT THE STATE STATUTE, THE 2 45 SUPERSEDES THAT, BUT I DO APPRECIATE THE RESPONSE.
UH, WHAT'S THE IMPORTANCE OF KEEPING THE VESTED RIGHTS FOR THIS PARTICULAR CASE? I HAVE TWO ANSWERS.
ONE, WHAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF HONORING A CONTRACT? AND YOU HAVE CHAOS IF, IF PEOPLE DON'T ABIDE BY THE RULES AND REGULATIONS MORE SPECIFICALLY IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WHAT ARE THE, WHAT ARE THE PURPOSES IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE ON WHY? THE WHAT, WHAT BENEFITS THE APPLICANT BY USING THE VESTED RIGHTS IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IN THIS SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT? WHAT ARE YOU GONNA USE? WHAT, WHAT PARTS OF THE VESTED RIGHTS ARE GONNA BE APPLIED IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE? THANK YOU.
UH, TWO VERY IMPORTANT, UH, WHICH WON'T BE POPULAR, BUT, AND I GET BACK TO THE CONTRACT.
NUMBER ONE, IF I DO MULTIFAMILY, UM, WHICH IS ALLOWED, UM, I WOULD HAVE A CATEGORY, ONE PIECE OF PROPERTY, MEANING I WOULD HAVE A HUNDRED PERCENT IMPERVIOUS COVER AS OPPOSED TO 50.
UH, AND NUMBER TWO, I WOULD BE UNDER THE 1997 TREE ORDINANCE INSTEAD OF THE 2010.
BOTH OF THOSE THINGS ON A PROJECT LIKE THIS COULD BE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
AND IF I COULD FINISH, RENTS ARE ONLY WHAT RENTS WHAT YOU CAN GET.
SO IF THE COST IS MORE AND THE RENTS STAY THE SAME, THEN I EITHER INCREASE DENSITY OR I DE QUALITY.
UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? YEAH, ORIAN, MR. ORIAN? YEAH, I HAVE, I WANTED TO ASK THE APPLICANT HIS THOUGHT ON SOMETHING VESTED RIGHTS IS AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SOMETHING YOU ALREADY HAVE.
TRUE OR NOT TRUE? THAT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE.
SO, SO WHETHER YOU APPLIED FOR VESTED RIGHTS OR NOT, YOUR SITE IS PART OF AN MVP PROJECT, SO SHOULDN'T THE CITY,
[01:15:01]
HOW CAN THEY EVEN OFFER YOU TO, TO GIVE YOU VESTED RIGHTS IF IT'S, THEY'RE NOT GIVING YOU ANYTHING, THEY'RE JUST ACKNOWLEDGING SOMETHING YOU ALREADY HAVE.SO WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS, I DIDN'T HEAR ANY OF THAT IN THE, IN THE DISCUSSION.
I'M SURPRISED THEY'RE EVEN LETTING YOU HAVE A CHOICE TO COMPLY WITH EIGHT 40.
'CAUSE I, I MEAN, IN THEORY, ANYBODY WHO'S PART OF AN MVP PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1ST WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO DO IN VOGUE EIGHT 40 ANYWAY.
AND I'M WONDERING WHY THAT DIDN'T COME UP IN ANYBODY'S DISCUSSION.
VESTED RIGHTS ARE, ARE A STATUTORY RIGHT AND CODIFIED.
AND THE PROCESS OF ACKNOWLEDGING 'EM THROUGH THE CONSENT AGREEMENT FOR THE VEST RIGHTS PERMIT, UM, PUTS THE DEVELOPER IN A BAD SITUATION.
I, THE, THERE'S ACKNOWLEDGING RIGHTS AND THEY'RE ALSO THE JUDGE AND THE JURY AS TO WHETHER I CAN U HOW I CAN USE THEM.
IS IT IF YOU, UH, WHAT ANOTHER QUESTION IS, IF YOU, IF YOU DECIDE TO, TO INVOKE EIGHT 40, ARE YOU GONNA APPEAL THE VESTED RIGHTS DENIAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION? IT'S NOT A DENIAL.
SO THAT'S NOT APPEALABLE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND THAT IS THE CONUNDRUM I'M IN.
I THE CODE SAYS ANY DENIAL OF VESTED RIGHTS IS APPEALABLE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT I CAN'T GET THERE.
I JUST WONDER, STAFF ACKNOWLEDGED AND APPROVED THE VESTED RIGHTS SO YOU COULD APPEAL THE APPROVAL OF VESTED RIGHTS TO PLANNING COMMISSION.
BUT WE WERE TOLD THAT THAT WAS NOT WHAT THE APPLICANT WANTED.
THEY DIDN'T WANT TO APPROVE OR APPEAL THE APPROVAL.
I APPEALED YOUR APPROVAL AND YOU SENT ME HERE, I SENT YOU THE CAPTION THAT SAYS, AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION TO RECOGNIZE VESTED RIGHTS.
AND YOU SAID THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU WANTED.
YOU WANTED TO APPEAL WHAT YOU CALLED A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL.
WE DIDN'T CONDITIONALLY APPROVE IT.
WE ACKNOWLEDGED RIGHTS AND READ THE LAW.
SO THEY'RE SAYING YOU WANT TO, TO APPEAL AN APPROVAL TO THE, TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
DOES IT
I MEAN, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE WORKED OUT BETWEEN STAFF AND THE APPLICANT WHERE THE, EVEN THE, THE PURVIEW FOR US TO REVIEW IT IS UNDER QUESTION? OR IS THAT SOMETHING WE CAN POSSIBLY LOOK AT A CONTINUANCE SO THEY CAN KIND OF WORK SOMETHING OUT OR LOOKING FOR STAFF FOR SOME GUIDANCE HERE? UH, THERE I'M ASKING THE, I JUST WANTED TO SAY, I'M ASKING THESE QUESTIONS BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS AN INTERPRETATION OF STATE CODE THAT NEEDS TO BE REQUESTED AND PEOPLE CAN'T ASK FOR AN ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION.
DON'T YOU HAVE TO BE LIKE A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OR A, YOU KNOW, A, UH, A STATE LEGISLATOR OR SOMETHING.
I MEAN, IS DOES THIS APPLICANT EVEN HAVE THE ABILITY TO GET A FORMAL INTERPRETATION FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ON, ON THIS THING AT ALL? NO.
UH, A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY HAS TO ASK THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR AN OPINION.
I MEAN, SHOULDN'T, I MEAN, SHOULDN'T AT, AT A MINIMUM THE, I MEAN, IF THE CITY'S THE ONLY PERSON WHO CAN ASK THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THAT PROCESS TAKES, BUT I, I JUST THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT SHOULD BE DONE PERSONALLY.
BUT, UH, YEAH, THE, WE WOULDN'T RECOMMEND A CONTINUOUS.
THE THE QUESTION HAS ALREADY BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED, AND THAT'S THE ISSUE THAT'S BEFORE THE BOARD.
SO I WOULD PRESENT THE APPLICANT.
SO A CONTINUANCE IS RECOMMENDED HERE WOULD, IS THAT, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? NO, NO, WE DO NOT RECOMMEND.
ANY OTHER, I GUESS THAT'S, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I MUST, SORRY.
DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS TO BE READ IN OR DID WE, WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE SIGN UP TO SPEAK.
LET'S GO HEAR THE PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN WE'LL ASK THE APPLICANT, UH, TO CALL UP FOR A FINAL REBUTTAL OF, UH, MRS. ANNETTE BREWSTER.
YES, AND I'M A MISS, NOT A MRS. FIRST OFF, I WANNA THANK RILEY FOR TAKING THE TIME.
I'M SORRY WE DIDN'T GET YOUR NAME.
AND MY NAME IS ANNETTE BREWSTER.
MY ADDRESS IS 1941 CREEK MOUNTAIN STREET.
AND IF YOU CAN PUT THAT MAP UP OF THIS.
OKAY, FIRST OFF, UM, I'VE LIVED IN THIS PROPERTY FOR 30 YEARS NOW, ALMOST 30 YEARS.
AND WHEN I BOUGHT THE HOME, IT WAS ZONED FOR COMMERCIAL, BUT, UH, EDWARDS AQUIFER RECHARGED ZONE OWNED IT.
AND WE WERE GIVEN CCRS WHEN WE MOVED INTO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ON HOW TO
[01:20:01]
PROTECT THE EDWARDS AQUIFER RECHARGE ZONE.IN OTHER WORDS, WE COULDN'T PUT DOWN PELLETS, WE COULDN'T USE LIQUID FERTILIZER.
THERE WAS THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO COMPLY TO TO MAKE SURE THAT THE AQUIFER RECHARGE ZONE STAYED PURE, WHICH WAS FINE WITH ALL OF US IN 84, IT WAS ZONED FOR COM COMMERCIAL, AND ALL THAT'S EVER BEEN UP ON THAT PROPERTY WAS FOR SALE SIGNS, NOTHING MORE FOR ALL OF THESE YEARS.
HOWEVER, MR. SEALE CLAIMED, OR IN 1984 NOVEMBER, HE APPLIED FOR THE, UH, COMMERCIAL PERMIT AND THAT'S WHEN HE HAD GOTTEN IT.
AND THEN SENATE BILL EIGHT 40 PASSED IN SEPTEMBER OF 2005 OR 2025.
AND THE, THE INVESTOR WANTS TO COMBINE BOTH OLD ZONING AND OVERLAY IT.
AS WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING OR AS Y'ALL HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING, THAT CAN'T BE DONE.
IT, YOU, YOU CAN'T HAVE TWO SEPARATE START DATES ON A PROJECT.
AND I COME FROM A FAMILY OF BUILDERS AND THEY ALL KNOW THAT.
WE ALSO HAVE THE MILITARY LIGHT PROTECTION.
SO WE HAVE DARK KNIGHTS, WHICH IS REALLY COOL.
WE ALSO HAVE A LOT OF WILDLIFE OUT THERE FROM PORCUPINES TO SKUNK AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN.
AND I'VE GOT ALL KINDS OF PICTURES, FOXES, EVERYTHING.
I MEAN, IT'S SO COOL TO BE SITTING OUT AT NIGHT WATCHING ALL THE, THE WILDLIFE THAT WE HAVE.
AND I DID TALK TO THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE, AND IF THEY NEED TO BE SUMMONED, THEY WILL.
WE ALSO HAVE ON THAT MAP, 50% OF THAT FROM WHERE YOU SEE THE, MA'AM, CAN YOU PLEASE SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE? I'M SORRY.
WHERE YOU SEE THE T ON MOUNTAIN FROM THAT GOING EASTBOUND IS ALL FLOOD ZONE AND ON WHERE ALL THOSE X'S ARE.
ALSO, THE ATTORNEY DIDN'T KNOW IT AND I ASKED HIM THIS MORNING IF HE KNEW THIS WAS PARTIAL FLOOD ZONE.
HE SAID NO, HE DIDN'T KNOW IT.
SO WE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT FLOODING AS WELL IN THAT AREA.
WE ALSO HAVE CONCERNS ON A MIXED USED.
WE DON'T, WE CAN'T CONTROL TENANTS FROM PUTTING STUFF INTO THE GROUND THAT WILL GO INTO SEEP INTO THE EDWARDS AQUIFER RECHARGE ZONE.
AND BECAUSE IT'S SO MOLDY OUT IN THAT AREA, WHICH IS A TRUE STATEMENT BECAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH LAND, ANYBODY THAT SPRAYS THEIR DECK, IF IT'S A APARTMENT COMPLEX, ARE THEY GONNA THROW BLEACH DOWN THERE TO GET IT INTO THE RECHARGE ZONE AS WELL? AH, WE, WE DON'T WANT ANYBODY DESTROYING THAT RECHARGE ZONE.
WE HAVE TO BE GOOD STEWARDS TO MOTHER NATURE AND TO GOD AND TO THE LAND THAT WAS GIVEN TO US AND TO THE ANIMALS.
WE HAVE TO BE GOOD STEWARDS TO ALL OF THEM AND TO THE MILITARY BECAUSE THEY SUPPORT OUR CITY.
SO THERE ARE PLENTY OF LOTS ALONG 2 81 NORTH AND SOUTH THAT ARE UNDERDEVELOPED, THAT ARE CODED.
ARE YOU ALMOST, THAT'S YOUR TIME LIMIT.
THAT, THAT THIS GUY CAN BUILD ON THAT, THAT ARE NOT IN FLOOD ZONES, THAT ARE COMMERCIAL AND ARE MIXED PROPERTY.
AND ALL OF MY NEIGHBORS THAT I'VE TALKED TO, WE OPPOSE.
AND I KNOW THAT ONLY SEVEN HAVE TURNED IN, BUT WE OPPOSE ANY TYPE OF APARTMENT COMPLEX OR OFFICE BUILDINGS GOING BEHIND OUR HOMES IS GOING TO DEPRECIATE THE VALUE OF OUR HOMES.
AND IF ANY ONE OF YOU LIVED WHERE WE LIVED, YOU WOULDN'T WANT IT EITHER.
SO I'D ASK THE APPLICANT TO PLEASE COME FORWARD AND I, I GIVE YOU A CHANCE FOR REBUTTAL.
I'VE HEARD SOME OF THE COMMENTS.
I KNOW THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS KIND OF USING SECTION EIGHT 40.
I MEAN, IT GIVES 'EM THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP A MULTIFAMILY.
SO NO, LET'S TALK ABOUT RACCOONS AND SQUIRRELS.
WE WE'RE NOT GONNA FOLLOW THE LAW, SO, OKAY.
I'D RATHER TALK ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE.
I ASSUME WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? UH, NOT FOR THE APPLICANT, BUT FOR, FOR CITY.
BUT
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF IMPERVIOUS COVER? WHY, UH, IMPERVIOUS COVER REGULATIONS ENSURE THAT THERE IS ADEQUATE, UM, OR LIMITS TO IMPERVIOUS COVER, I SHOULD SAY? YEAH, IT'S GENERALLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF AQUIFER RECHARGE.
AND MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE TO ALLOW FOR RECHARGE.
AND THEN I THINK THE APPLICANT HAD ALSO SPOKE ABOUT, UM, THE, THE, THE TREES OR, OR SOMETHING.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF HAVING THE, THE, THE, THE TREE ORDINANCE IN THERE? THE TREE ORDINANCE IS INTENDED TO PROTECT AND MITIGATE FOR TREES.
SO THEY, YOU KNOW, EVERY SITE JUST CAN'T BE CLEAR CUT.
[01:25:01]
HAVE A TREE ORDINANCE HAVE, SINCE 1997, WE'VE ADOPTED FOUR OR FIVE ITERATIONS OF IT OVER THE YEARS.THE MOST CURRENT BEING THE 2010 TREE ORDINANCE.
SO THEN BY, LIKE, IF WE, IF WE WERE TO SAY, OKAY, WE GRANT, YOU KNOW, HIS APPEAL, THEN WE ALLOW HIM TO DO A HUNDRED PERCENT IMPERVIOUS COVER AND THEN IGNORE THE TREE ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE SET TODAY.
IS THAT RIGHT? UH, I ON THE SPOT I ONLY WANT TO COMMIT TO SO MUCH, BUT I BELIEVE THIS PROJECT WAS VESTED TO 1984, WHICH WOULD PREDATE THE 1997 TREE ORDINANCE.
MR. DEAN, UH, WHAT IS THE, WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF, YOU KNOW, VESTED RIGHTS FROM THE CITY? VESTED RIGHTS IS THE ASSERTION THAT YOUR PROJECT STARTED AT A CERTAIN TIME AND YOU'RE LOCKED INTO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AT THE TIME A REQUIRED PERMIT WAS INITIALLY SUBMITTED.
IS THAT A STATUTORY RIGHT? YES.
DO STATUTORY RIGHTS GROW IN HAVING MORE BENEFITS AS THE CODE CHANGES? BUT LET THE ATTORNEYS ANSWER THIS ONE.
IT DEPENDS ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THE STATE ALLOWS US.
SINCE THE ORIGINATING STATUTE IS FROM THE STATE, THE STATE, UH, WOULD DICTATE THAT IN THIS CASE, HAS THE RIGHTS GROWN IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT TO DO WHAT HE IS ASKING OF US TO, UH, PROVE NO, NOT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.
IN WHAT EVIDENCE WOULD YOU REFER TO? YEAH, THE STATE LAW WAS ENACTED.
AND THIS IS A STATUTORY RIGHT? UH, WELL IT IS A STATE LAW.
SO YEAH, IT'S BOTH LAWS ARE EMANATING FROM THE STATE STATUTES.
THE, THE APPLICANT HAS THE ABILITY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE NEW STATE LAW, BUT THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE NEW STATE LAW, NOT ONLY THE PORTIONS THAT ARE BENEFICIAL.
SO WE CAN'T IGNORE THE PART THAT SAYS ONLY APPLIES TO A PROJECT ON OR AFTER SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2025.
THE STATE WROTE THAT, NOT THE CITY.
SO THEY CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SB EIGHT 40, BUT THEY HAVE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ALL OF IT, INCLUDING VESTED RIGHTS.
'CAUSE THAT'S A PART OF THE STATUTORY RIGHT.
SB SB EIGHT 40 ONLY APPLIES TO A PROJECT THAT STARTED ON OR AFTER SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2025 IN THEIR VESTING APPLICATION.
THEY ASSERT THEIR PROJECT STARTED IN 1984.
SO IT, IT CANNOT START IN 1984 AND START IN 2025.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ORIAN, MR. ORIAN? OKAY, SO PLEASE, UH, SO MY QUESTION IS, IS THAT IF VESTED RIGHTS OR AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND NOT A PERMIT, THEN THE FACT THAT THERE'S AN MDP DATED FOR TO 1984, DOESN'T THE CITY AUTOMATICALLY HAVE TO NOT ALLOW HIM TO INVOKE EIGHT 40? I'M, I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER, CAN YOU CLARIFY THE QUESTION? YEAH.
SO VESTED RIGHTS IS, IS AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SOMETHING YOU HAVE.
THE FACT THAT IT'S INDISPUTED, THAT THERE WAS AN MVP THAT PUT THIS 1300 OR 1800 ACRES IN MOTION IN THE EIGHTIES.
THE FACT THAT THE MVP IS STILL FLOATING AROUND OUT THERE AND HASN'T BEEN VACATED, DOESN'T THAT, DOESN'T THAT PRECLUDE HIS ABILITY TO EVER COMPLY WITH SENATE BILL EIGHT 40 AT ALL? BECAUSE IF THE ANSWER IS NO, WELL THEN IT SEEMS LIKE THE CITY ISN'T HARPING ON THAT.
YOU KNOW, THAT DATE ISN'T AS IMPORTANT AS THE CITY, UH, IS MAKING IT OUT TO BE VESTED.
VESTED RIGHTS IS AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT YOU STARTED A PROJECT AT A GIVEN DATE AND WE DID ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY STARTED THEIR PROJECT IN 1984.
WE RECOGNIZED THAT THEY APPROVED IT.
BUT IF THEY DON'T, BUT IF THEY DON'T, IF THEY DECIDE TO, TO, UH, TO, IF THIS APPLICANT DECIDES TO, TO INVOKE SENATE BILL EIGHT 40 AND IGNORE THE VESTED RIGHTS, HOW CAN THE CITY IGNORE THAT? THE PROJECT STILL STARTED IN 1984.
WE ISSUED AN APPROVAL LETTER ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THEY HAVE VESTING.
IT, WHETHER THE PROJECT STARTED IN 84 OR NOT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE VESTED RIGHTS APPLICATION.
I'M SAYING THAT BECAUSE THERE WAS AN MDP FILE, THE PROJECT STARTED IN 1984, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THERE'S A VESTED RIGHTS APPLICATION OR NOT, SHOULDN'T YOU BE DENYING SENATE BILL EIGHT 40 ANYWAY BE NO, BECAUSE THEY'RE, AS
[01:30:01]
THEY'RE ASSERTING A NEW PROJECT TO START IN 2025 BASED ON NEW RULES THAT WERE APPROVED IN 2025.BUT THE MDP, BUT I'M JUST SAYING THAT THIS PROJECT, REGARDLESS OF VESTED RIGHTS, JUST LET'S FORGET THAT THEY EVER APPLIED OR THERE, THERE WAS AN MVP FILED IN 1984 THAT STARTED THIS 1800 ACRE DEVELOPMENT.
SO THEREFORE, SHOULDN'T YOU BE DENYING IT ANYWAY? I MEAN, IF THAT, THAT, THAT'S EITHER THE DATE OR IT ISN'T THE DATE.
YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M GETTING AT? I I SEE EVERYBODY TALKING, BUT I, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, LIKE MY, THE QUESTION THAT I'M TRYING TO POSE, I'M TRYING TO GET TO THE, TO THE, TO THE, TO THE ANSWER OF HOW THIS SHOULD BE DONE MOVING FORWARD.
IN ADDITION TO WHAT SHOULD BE DONE HERE.
THE FACT THAT THERE'S AN MVP OR A PLAT OR ANYTHING THAT THE CITY CAN RECOGNIZE AS A PROJECT START DATE, THAT ALONE, REGARDLESS OF VESTED RIGHTS APPLICATION, SHOULD CONTROL WHETHER OR NOT EIGHT 40 APPLIES TRUE OR FALSE.
I MEAN, I'M JUST, 'CAUSE THIS ISN'T, THAT, ISN'T THAT REALLY THE QUESTION AT BAY HERE? I MEAN, IF IN FACT THAT VEST ADVICE IS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IS SOMETHING YOU HAVE AND THIS THING DID IN FACT START IN 84, THEN WE SHOULDN'T EVEN BE HERE AT ALL.
THE H 40 SHOULD NEVER APPLY TO ANYBODY.
SB EIGHT 40 APPLIES TO ANYONE WHO STARTS THEIR PROJECT ON OR AFTER SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2025.
OKAY, SO, SO IN, IN AUGUST OF 2025, IF I'VE RECORDED A SINGLE LOT, A SINGLE LOT PLAT, ARE YOU GONNA SAY THAT I CAN'T INVOKE SENATE BILL EIGHT 40 BECAUSE MY PLAT WAS RECORDED BEFORE SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2025.
SO THIS IS AUDREY DEMAR WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
SO DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M ASKING? EITHER? NO, HONESTLY, THAT'S, THAT'S PART OF WHY WE'RE ALL BACK HERE TALKING.
'CAUSE WE HAVE DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF WHAT WE THINK THAT YOU'RE ASKING.
UM, YEAH, SO, SO I'M GONNA MAKE A STATEMENT AND THEN YOU CAN RESTATE YOUR, YOUR QUESTION OR YOUR STATEMENT.
WHEN YOU HAVE A, AGAIN, 2 45 IS VESTING YOU TO A PROJECT AND YOU ARE LOCKING IN A PARTICULAR START DATE FOR THAT PROJECT, BUT YOU CAN LOSE YOUR VESTED RIGHTS DUE TO A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES.
WHEN YOU CHANGE THAT PROJECT, THEN YOU CAN NO LONGER COME BACK TO THE CITY AND SAY, BUT I HAD AN MDP BACK IN 1984 WHEN YOU TELL US THAT YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT START DATE BECAUSE YOU ARE NOW DOING MULTIFAMILY IN WHAT USED TO BE COMMERCIAL, THAT IS CONSIDERED A CHANGE OF PROJECT.
AND JUST LIKE ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE YOU CHANGE YOUR PROJECT, YOU LOSE YOUR VESTED RIGHTS ON THAT PARTICULAR PORTION.
NOW I DO AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT.
HOWEVER, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE REALLY ODD MVPS THAT THE CITY WOULD NEVER LET YOU DO TODAY WHERE IT SAYS, I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA DO THIS ONE HUGE THING AND I'M GONNA DO RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL OR MULTIFAMILY.
IT'S LIKE ANYTHING GOES KIND OF THING.
I'M NOT REALLY CHANGING ANYTHING BECAUSE I'M NOT BEING SPECIFIC LIKE YOU WOULD NORMALLY WOULD WANT.
AND SO I'M NOT CHANGING THE PROJECT, I'M, I'M STILL HONORING THE PROJECT 'CAUSE I'M DOING ONE OF THE THREE THINGS THAT I'M ALLOWED TO DO.
IT JUST SO HAPPENS THAT THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T ALLOW THAT ANYMORE.
BUT NOWADAYS, BUT BACK THEN THEY, I GUESS THEY, THEY DID SO IN A, AND IN A WAY I'M NOT CANCELING THE JOB, IT'S STILL THERE.
I'D HAVE TO, I WOULD HAVE TO AMEND THE MVP AND, AND MAKE IT MORE SPECIFIC AND THEN IT WOULD BE A CHANGE.
I GUESS I JUST THINK WITH THIS PARTICULAR, THIS, THESE PARTICULAR CASES, THIS ONE AND THE ONE BEFORE, BECAUSE THE MVP ALLOWED YOU TO DO ANYTHING, THERE'S NO CHANGE OF THE PROJECT AND THEREFORE 8, 8 40 SHOULD NEVER APPLY TO BEGIN WITH.
SO AGAIN, ABSOLUTELY, AND, AND, AND I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IF THE STATE SAYS THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A NEW PROJECT START DATE POST 2025, YOU CANNOT HAVE A PROJECT THAT STARTS BOTH PRE IN 1984 AND POST 2025.
ONE IS COMMERCIAL, ONE IS MULTIFAMILY, THEY'RE NOT THE SAME THING BECAUSE UNDER THE PREVIOUS RULES, COMMERCIAL MEANT COMMERCIAL.
IT DID NOT MEAN COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY.
WHAT DID, WHAT WERE THE ALLOWED USES FOR THE SPECIFIC PIECE OF LAND THAT'S BEFORE US? WHAT DID IT ALLOW? COMMERCIAL ONLY MM-HMM
SO YES, BASED ON THE APPLICATION AND THE INFORMATION, IT'S COMMERCIAL.
AND THAT'S WHAT WAS RECOGNIZED.
THE MDP DIDN'T SAY RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL OR MULTIFAMILY? NO, BECAUSE
[01:35:01]
THE PREVIOUS ONE IT DID.AND THAT'S THE, THERE ARE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THIS CASE AND THE PREVIOUS CASE.
OKAY, BECAUSE YOU, I DIDN'T SEE THE MVP FOR THIS ONE.
THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING IF, BECAUSE IT WAS, IF IT'S ALL DONE BY THE SAME PERSON, I ASSUMED IT WAS DONE THE SAME WAY.
NO, WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET AT IS, SO I WAS TRYING TO SEE IF THE MDP WAS STILL BEING FOLLOWED THEN THEREFORE EIGHT 40 SHOULD NEVER APPLY.
THESE ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PROPERTIES, TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT OWNERS, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE BEING REPRESENTED BY THE SAME LAW FIRM.
WELL THEN ON THE PREVIOUS JOB THEN IT SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN APPLIED THEN.
I SHOULD HAVE JUST BROUGHT UP THAT UP THEN.
I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT IT TILL RIGHT NOW.
ALL RIGHT, MR. BROWN, WOULD YOU, DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER REBUTTAL OR, I MEAN, I EXPECTED THIS.
IN 1984, COMMERCIAL MULTIFAMILY WAS CONSIDERED COMMERCIAL.
IT'S, IT'S THE SAME FACTS AS THE ORIGINAL.
I I UNDERSTAND, I UNDERSTAND YOUR DISTINCTION.
I JUST DON'T WANNA LOSE ANY MORE RIGHTS MM-HMM
UH, COMMERCIAL MULTIFAMILY WAS COMMERCIAL IN 1984.
SO MR. ORIAN, IT IS ALLOWED, THEY'RE SAYING I CAN'T START THE PROJECT AFTER 2025, UH, AND STILL MAINTAIN VESTING.
I BELIEVE THAT CLOSES BOTH THE PUBLIC PORTION AND THE BOARD'S COMMENTS ARE QUESTIONS TO STAFF AT THIS POINT, I'D ASK A MEMBER OF THE BOARD TO PLEASE MAKE A MOTION ORIAN IAN REGARDING CASE NUMBER VO OA DASH 25 103 DOUBLE 0 2 7 5.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE APPEAL FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF US HIGHWAY 2 81, NORTH AND EAST EVANS ROAD, APPLICANT BEING BROWN AND, AND MCDONALD, PLLC BECAUSE THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWS THAT CITY STAFF MADE AN ERROR IN ENFORCING SECTION 35 3 12 IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW, INCLUDING SENATE BILL EIGHT 40 AS PASSED BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE.
MR. ORIAN, I'M GONNA BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS FOR THE SAME REASON AS IMPORTANT OF THE OTHER ONE.
THE STATE LAW THAT SAYS THAT, THAT THEY CAN EXIST TOGETHER.
I THINK THAT, THAT THE PERMIT DATE IS BE, IS, IS HAS DIFFERENT MEANINGS DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU'RE READING AND WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
AND I DON'T, I THINK THAT IT'S CLEAR TO ME THAT THE INTENT, UH, IS, IS TO ALLOW BOTH TO RIDE TOGETHER.
I ALSO DON'T, UH, AND WITH REGARDS TO WATER QUALITY, YES YOU CAN DO A HUNDRED PERCENT IN PRAIRIE COVER, BUT YOU ALSO GOTTA DO MORE FILTRATION.
IT'S NOT LIKE YOU'RE GETTING A FREE PASS FROM, YOU'RE BEING TREATED LIKE ANYONE ELSE WOULD ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.
AND THEN THIRDLY, THIS, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS, THESE CODES ARE, ARE JUST SO NEW.
IF, IF, IF THERE WAS A, A MECHANISM FOR THE CITY TO GET CLARIFICATION IN A SPEEDY WAY, I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE ANGLE.
BUT IN THIS, BUT FOR THIS, I THINK I'M JUST GONNA BE IN SUPPORT AS FROM WHAT I'M LOOKING AT.
UM, SO FOR THE SAME REASONS, AS I STATED BEFORE, I DON'T FEEL LIKE THE, UH, CITY STAFF MADE AN ERROR IN ENFORCING THE CODE.
UH, IT'S SIX AGAINST AND FOUR IN FAVOR.
PLEASE GET WITH STAFF AND EXPLAIN WHAT YOUR RIGHTS ARE.
UH, TYLER ADAM PLANNER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
THIS IS BO OA DASH TWO FIVE DASH 1 0 3 0 2 64.
ADDRESS IS THREE 14 MISSION STREET UNITS 1 0 1 AND 1 0 2 IN COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE APPLICANT IS MATTHEW METROS AND THIS IS AN APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO REVOKE THE TWO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMITS LOCATED
[01:40:01]
AT 3 1 4 MISSION STREET UNITS 1 0 1 AND 1 0 2.UM, AS STATED, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED 3 1 4 MISSION STREET, UM, PERMITS FOR BOTH 1 0 1 AND 1 0 2.
UM, SDR OPERATORS ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX.
THE CITY'S FINANCE DEPARTMENT ON A MONTHLY BASIS INCLUDES THIS INCLUDES REPORTING $0 IF NO REVENUE WAS COLLECTED.
ALL STR OPERATORS ARE, UM, ARE REQUIRED TO CONTINUE TO FILE REVENUE REPORTS AND PAY BEXAR COUNTY HOT THROUGH AVENUE ON A MONTHLY BASIS.
UH, THE CITY'S FINANCE DEPARTMENT WHO MANAGE REPORTING AND COLLECTIONS SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO STATES THAT REVENUE REPORTS WERE MISSING FOR BOTH UNITS FROM DECEMBER, 2024 THROUGH FEBRUARY 20, 25.
SIX NOTICES FOR EACH U FOR EACH UNIT, UM, OF DELINQUENCY WERE MAILED BY AVENUE BETWEEN FEBRUARY, 2025 THROUGH JULY, 2025.
A FINAL NOTICE OF DELINQUENCY WAS EMAILED BY, UH, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ON NOVEMBER 3RD AND THE PERMIT WAS REVOKED ON NOVEMBER 18TH, 2025.
UM, BOTH OF THE PERMITS IN QUESTION WERE TYPE TWO PERMITS.
THERE ARE CURRENTLY ZERO ACTIVE TYPE TWO PERMITS, 14 TOTAL ALONG THE BLOCK FACE SO THAT, UH, CURRENT DENSITY IS 0%.
UH, EACH UNIT HAD A PRIOR CODE INVESTIGATION FOUND NO VIOLATION IN JULY OF 2023.
UM, PERMITTING HISTORY UNIT 1 0 1 WAS INITIALLY ISSUED AS A TYPE TWO PERMIT IN UH, APRIL OF 2021 AND UNIT 1 0 2 WAS ISSUED AS A TYPE TWO PERMIT IN JULY OF 2021.
UM, THIS DISPLAYS THE, UM, NOTIFICATIONS SENT OUT BY AVENUE, UM, DATED, UM, AS WELL AS THE ADDRESS THAT IT WAS SENT TO.
AND THEN THE TWO EMAIL NOTICES SENT FROM DSD STAFF, UH, THEY DO HAVE AN ACTIVE LISTING.
UH, THIS IS THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTED AND THEN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS WELL AS SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
IN THE NEXT COUPLE SLIDES, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION, UM, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL AND STAFF, UH, MAILED 36 NOTICES.
WE'VE RECEIVED ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION, NO RESPONSE FROM KING WILLIAM NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
AND THERE WERE SIX CITYWIDE GROUPS THAT WERE NOTIFIED WITH NO RESPONSE.
UM, AND I DO HAVE A NOTE FROM, UM, THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION THAT DID NOT MAKE IT INTO THE STAFF REPORT.
THEY WANTED TO NOTE THAT THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE KING WILLIAM HISTORIC DISTRICT.
ANY EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS OR NEW CONSTRUCTION WILL REQUIRE APPROVAL OF THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
SITE PLAN OR MATERIAL SUBMITTED AS PART OF A VARIANCE APPLICATION DOES NOT SUPERSEDE ANY REQUIREMENTS FOR DESIGN REVIEW OUTLINED IN ARTICLE SIX OF THE UDC.
UM, AND WE DO HAVE, UM, FINANCE DEPARTMENT HERE WITH THE PRESENTATION AS WELL.
UM, AND THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE.
MS. BREGMAN, UM, SO JUST CLERICAL ITEM, I NOTICED THE ADDRESS OF THE PROPERTY IS 3 1 4 MISSION STREET, UNIT 1 0 1 AND UNIT 1 0 2, YET THE NOTICES WERE SENT TO 3 1 4 MISSION STREET, UNIT ONE AND UNIT TWO IS THERE, COULD THAT BE THE REASON WHY THERE ISN'T A DIFFERENCE? BECAUSE I THINK WHEN THEY SUBMIT FOR THE APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT PUT 1 0 1 BUT IT'S MAILED TO WHATEVER ADDRESS IS IN, IS IN THE SYSTEM ON AVENUES INN IN THE SYSTEM THROUGH, UM, THROUGH AVENUE.
SO WHEN THE, WHEN THE APPLICANT REMOVED, SHE GOT THEIR PERMIT BACK IN 2021, THEY ENTERED IN THEIR CONTACT MAILING ADDRESS INFORMATION INTO OUR OLD SYSTEM AND THAT'S THE ADDRESS THEY PUT ON FILE.
SO THE ADDRESS WAS 1 0 1 OR IT'S UNIT ONE? I BELIEVE IT'S THE SAME ADDRESS AGAIN.
THE APPLICANT PUT 1 0 1 ON THE PROB SIDE, BUT THEN HE PUT NUMBER UNIT ONE OR TWO WHEN HE CLEARED THE HOT ACCOUNT BACK IN 2021.
SO IT'S THE SAME PROPERTY AND UNITS.
WELL I GUESS WE'LL ASK THE APPLICANT BECAUSE IF THEY'RE NOT GETTING MAIL THAT COULD BE WHY THEY DIDN'T GET THE NOTICE.
ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF HEARING NOT ASKED? ORIAN? OH, MR. ORIAN? YES.
UH, DID, WAS THERE ANY, UH, SOFTWARE CHANGES THAT HAPPENED AFTER THE 2024 SINCE OUR LAST, UH, REPORT THAT THAT WOULD'VE CAUSED ANY HICCUP WITH REPORTING? I CAN'T REMEMBER WHEN THE DATE WAS WHEN Y'ALL SWITCHED OVER.
WE SWITCHED OVER INTO TO AVENUE IN JUNE, 2023.
ALRIGHT, LET'S, UH, LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT PLEASE COME FORWARD.
[01:45:07]
HELLO, MY NAME IS CARL SOZA.I'M REPRESENTING MATTHEW METROS.
AND YOUR ADDRESS PLEASE? THIS IS FOR 3 1 4 MISSION STREET.
AND, AND YOUR ADDRESS? YOUR ADDRESS PLEASE? OH TWO ONE, UH, 2 1 5 AAX DRIVE.
UH, SO FIRST, SO I DON'T FORGET, SINCE IT JUST CAME UP, AS FAR AS THE ADDRESS IS CONCERNED, UH, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF UNCERTAINTY ON THE UNIT NUMBERS.
UM, IT MAY OR MAY NOT CORRECTLY BE LISTED WITH THE US POSTAL SERVICES ONE OR TWO.
UH, I BELIEVE THAT'S PROBABLY JUST SPECULATION AT THIS POINT UNLESS WE GET, UM, SOMETHING FINAL ABOUT THAT.
UM, BUT THE INFORMATION I HAVE HERE IS JUST LIKE THEY MENTIONED, UM, THERE WERE NOTICES THAT WERE SENT OUT.
THAT'S WHAT THE, UH, THE REPORT SHOWS WHEN THEY PRINT OUT AND SEND ME THE REPORT OF THEIR HOT FILINGS.
UM, THEY CLAIM THAT THEY DO NOT, DID NOT RECEIVE THESE MAILS, BUT AS SOON AS THEY RECEIVED THE EMAIL, THEY REACHED OUT, UM, TO THE DEPARTMENT.
AND I HAVE PHONE RECORDS OF THOSE PHONE CALLS.
UH, THEY'VE MENTIONED TO ME THAT THERE WERE NO RESPONSES OTHER THAN BY EMAIL.
SO THEY COULD NOT CONTACT ANYONE BY PHONE OR, OR THEY NEVER RECEIVED A RESPONSE BY PHONE.
UM, THAT WAS NOVEMBER 5TH AND NOVEMBER, NOVEMBER 6TH.
I BELIEVE THE NOTICE WENT OUT ON NOVEMBER 2ND OR THIRD.
UM, THE FIRST EMAIL TO UH, DSD WAS NOVEMBER 18TH AND WE DID START GETTING REPLIES FROM THERE.
UH, THEY HELD TREMENDOUSLY AND US FIGURING OUT WHAT THE APPEALS PROCESS WAS.
UM, AND THAT'S WHERE WE ARE HERE.
UM, HOT FILINGS AND PAYMENTS, UM, HAVE BEEN MADE SINCE APRIL THROUGH OCTOBER, 2025.
UM, SO THERE WAS THAT GAP OF MISSED PAYMENTS, UH, BETWEEN NOVEMBER AND MARCH.
AND AS OF TODAY ALL OF THE HOT FILING AND PAYMENTS ARE UP TO DATE.
AND THAT, UM, WAS THE SEQUENCE SUBSEQUENT TO THE EMAIL CONVERSATIONS WE FINALLY HAD WITH DSD.
UM, ALL THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE.
THE OWNER HAS CONVERTED THE LISTING TO A LONG-TERM OR MIDTERM RENTAL TO ABIDE BY THE, THE RULES OF THE STR PERMIT.
UM, I ALSO ENCOURAGED THE OWNER TO SET UP INFORMED DELIVERY WITH USPS.
THEY HAVE DONE THAT AND NOW SHOULD BE GETTING, UH, SCANNED IMAGES OF ALL THE MAIL COMING TO THE PROPERTY OR SUPPOSED TO BE MAILED AND DELIVERED TO THE PROPERTY SO THAT THEY MAKE SURE NOT TO MISS ANY FURTHER COMMUNICATIONS OR NOTICES.
SO THIS IS FOR CITY STAFF, SO, UM, THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED IN 2021, IS THAT CORRECT? WERE THEY MAKING, WERE THEY FILING HOT TAXES SINCE 2021 UP UNTIL UH, WHATEVER THE DATE IS ON THIS CHART? YES, THEY'RE REPORTING ON TIME EVERY MONTH UP UNTIL DECEMBER, 2024.
AFTER THAT TIME, THEY STOPPED MAKING REPORTS AND THAT'S WHEN THE NOTICE MAILED NOTICES WERE SENT OUT FOR NO PAYMENTS BEING MADE FROM, UM, SORRY, FROM NOVEMBER, 2020, 2024.
SO PAYMENTS STOPPED BEING MADE ON A MONTHLY BASIS FROM DECEMBER, 2024, UM, THROUGH MAY, 2025 WAS WHEN WE HAD THE LAST LETTER.
AND SO WERE THERE ANY CHANGES IN THE PROCESSES THAT MIGHT HAVE TRIGGERED THE FACT THAT THEY WERE NOT GETTING NOTICES? I'M JUST, IT SEEMS ODD THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN IF THEY HAD BEEN RELIGIOUSLY FILING HOT REPORTS UP UNTIL NOVEMBER, JANUARY, 2025, THAT THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN SOMETHING SHIFTED, SOMETHING CHANGED IN TERMS OF OUR, UH, SYSTEM PROCESSING.
NO, WE STILL MAINTAIN AND KEEP AVENUE.
THE ONLY CHANGE WE'VE HAD THAT WAS IN MARCH, 2025 WAS WHEN PLATFORM REMITTING CITY HOT TAX ON LIBERTY BEHALF.
BUT AGAIN, THAT DIDN'T START UNTIL MARCH, 2025.
PAYMENTS WERE STOPPED BEING MADE MONTHLY AFTER STARTING DECEMBER, 2024.
SO THERE WAS FOUR MONTHS BEFORE OF THE PLATFORMS PERMITTED ON THEIR BEHALF THAT NO PAYMENTS WERE BEING MADE ANYMORE.
ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MR. BRAGMAN.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR FOR THE APPLICANT? UH, BON FOR THE APPLICANT.
SO IT SEEMS LIKE YOUR, YOUR CLIENT MADE A, YOU KNOW, WAS, WAS PAYING TAXES ON TIME AND DOING ALL THAT.
WHAT WAS THE MAIN REASON WHY THEY THEY STOPPED PAYING THE TAXES? UH, IT, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT HE STARTED HAVING TO TRAVEL FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME.
HE'S USING A NON-LOCAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY AS WELL.
UM, I'M NOT SURE WHAT HIS PLANS ARE WITH THAT MANAGEMENT COMPANY NOW THAT THIS HAS COME UP.
BUT HE AGREES HE, HE DIDN'T PAY HIM.
IT MADE JUST HIS TRAVELING AND JUST NOT RECEIVING THE MAILS, THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY NOT FOLLOWING UP WITH THE CLEANERS OR WHEREVER THEY HAVE CHECKING THE PROPERTY.
'CAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE HE MADE THOSE PAYMENTS AND, AND HE, HE'S UP, HE'S CURRENT TO THEM
[01:50:01]
NOW.IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT RIGHT? YES.
DO YOU KNOW OF ANY KIND OF VIOLATIONS OR ANY NOTICES THAT HE WOULD'VE HAD NO OTHERS? NO.
UH, BESIDES THESE, UH, IN MARCH OR APRIL AND MAY.
AND STAFF, DO WE KNOW OF ANY, ANY CODE VIOLATIONS OR ANY, UM, THERE IS ONE OPEN INVESTIGATION, BUT THAT WAS FROM A 3 1 1 CALL, BUT IT WAS SUBMITTED AFTER THE APPEAL WAS SUBMITTED.
UM, AND AS THE, FOR THE PERMANENT REST STAYS, REBO STAYS THE DECISION OF THE BO OA GOTCHA.
UM, WHEN YOU MENTIONED THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, WERE THE HOT UM, FEES BEING PAID DIRECTLY BY THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY? YES OR YES.
SO THEY'RE THE ONE, THEY'RE THE ONES WHO HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PAYMENTS.
EFFECTIVE WHEN, I BELIEVE IT'S FROM THE BEGINNING.
AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN IT, THIS 24, I'M NOT SURE IF THERE WAS A SORRY TO CUT YOU OFF, SO I'LL ALL OF A SUDDEN IN 20 DECEMBER, 2024, THEY STOPPED DOING THAT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS SOME KIND OF A CHANGE IN THEIR MANAGEMENT OR CHANGE IN THEIR STAFF, UH, OR WHOEVER IT WAS THAT WAS OVERSEEING THIS AND WAS MAKING THOSE TIMELY PAYMENTS.
UM, BUT IT SEEMS TO BE KIND OF A MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT ON THE PAYMENTS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR FOR STAFF? UH, STEVENS.
MR. STEVENS, JUST FOR CITY STAFF, ARE THERE OTHER, UH, SHORT-TERM RENTALS UNDER THIS A APPLICANT'S NAME AND IF SO, ARE THEY UP TO DATE? UH, WE COULD NOT FIND ANY IN OUR SYSTEM.
THANK YOU MR. STEVENS AT THIS, AT THIS POINT I'D CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION AND ASK A MEMBER OF THE BOARD TO PLEASE MAKE A MOTION.
I'M ASSUMING WE HAVE NO VOICEMAILS OR PUBLIC COMMENT? NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
UH, YEAH, UH, IF ANY, UH, IF WE HAVE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION RAGMAN MS. BRAGMAN REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A DASH 25 DASH 1 0 3 0 0 2 64.
I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE APPEAL FOR THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT 3 1 4 O MISSION STREET UNITS 1 0 1 AND 1 0 2, APPLICANT BEING MATTHEW METROS BECAUSE THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWS THE CITY STAFF MADE AN ERROR ENFORCING SECTION 16 DASH ONE 10 D WHEN REVOKING THE TWO SHORT TERM RENTAL PERMITS END OF MOTION.
SECOND, UH, MS. BRAGMAN, I DON'T KNOW THAT THE, UH, CITY MADE AN ERROR.
UM, I THINK THAT THERE WERE UNFORTUNATE CIRCUMSTANCES PERHAPS WITH A MANAGEMENT COMPANY, UM, THAT STOPPED PAYING OR STOPPED FILING THE, THE HOT TAXES.
AND UM, THEY HAVE BEEN CAUGHT UP, UH, CURRENTLY SO THEY ARE ALL PAID UP.
SO, UM, I WOULD GRANT THE APPEAL NOT BASED ON THE FACT THAT I THINK THE CITY MADE, UH, A MISTAKE, UH, BUT THAT THEY ARE NOW IN COMPLIANCE AND THAT THE CURRENT TYPE TWO DENSITY IS ZERO.
YEAH, I'LL ALSO BE IN FAVOR, UH, MAINLY BECAUSE THE APPLICANT IS UP TO DATE ON EVERYTHING AND BECAUSE THERE ARE NO OTHER STR ON THIS BLOCK FACE.
YEAH, AND I I I'LL BE IN FAVOR AS WELL.
THERE'S NO, UH, OPPOSITION, THERE'S NO UH, YOU KNOW, FROM THE NEIGHBORS THAT'D BE MOST EFFECTIVE.
UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT THERE'S NO OTHER SHORT TERM RENTALS AND HOT TAXES ARE CURRENT, SO I'M SUPPORTING.
ALRIGHT, LET'S TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE.
COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER STEVENS? NO, I DO NOT.
COMMISSIONER DEAN? I DO NOT CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR.
CHAIR, CAN WE HAVE A BREAK? UH, YEAH, THIS TIME IS FOUR 12.
LET'S TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK AND I'LL SEE YOU BACK AT FOUR 17.
UH, IF WE CAN START GETTING, UH, REASSEMBLED, REASSEMBLED BACK IN THE DAAS.
UM, ASK IF STAFF IF WE CAN BEGIN ON THE NEXT PRESENTATION OR AS SOON AS WE GET A QUORUM HERE GOING MR. ORIAN, MS. CRUZ, MR. VASQUEZ.
OKAY, THERE'S, OKAY, I'M BACK.
[01:55:04]
BACK IN SESSION.IT'S FOUR 19, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS BACK IN SESSION.
MY NAME IS JUAN ALVAREZ, PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
ITEM NUMBER SIX IS REQUESTED BY DANIEL WA WADO AND IS REQUESTING AN APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO REVOKE THE APPLICANT'S SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT DUE TO HOT COLLECTION LOCATED AT 34 95 RIVER PATH.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 34 95.
RIVER PATH SURROUNDING USES INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AS OF MARCH 10TH, 2025.
PLATFORMS THAT DIRECTLY REMIT STATE HOT, ALSO NOT DIRECTLY REMIT CITY HOT TO THE CITY FINANCE DEPARTMENT.
ALL STR OPERATORS ARE REQUIRED TO CONTINUE TO FILE REVENUES AND PAY BEXAR COUNTY HOT THROUGH AVENUE ON A MONTHLY BASIS.
FIVE NOTICES OF DELINQUENCY WERE MAILED BY AVENUE FROM MARCH, 2025 THROUGH JULY, 2025.
AND THE FINAL NOTICE OF DELINQUENCY WAS EMAILED BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ON NOVEMBER 3RD, 2025.
NO PAYMENT WAS MADE WITHIN 90 DAYS, THEREFORE THE STR PERMIT WAS REVOKED ON NOVEMBER 18TH, 2025.
THERE IS A TOTAL OF 23 UNITS ON THE BLOCK FACE.
NO ACTIVE STR TYPE TWO PERMIT CURRENTLY ON THE BLOCK.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS AN OPEN INVESTIGATION FOR OPERATING WITHOUT AN ACTIVE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT.
AND THIS IS THE PERMITTING HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY.
THIS IS THE COMMUNICATION THAT WAS SENT FROM AVENUE TO THE APPLICANT AND THE LAST TWO WERE SENT FROM DSD.
THIS IS THE SIDE PLAN OF THE PROPERTY SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION.
AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
AND THE NEXT FEW SLIDES ARE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND SURROUNDING AREAS.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL AND A TOTAL OF 49 MAIL NOTICES WERE SENT OUT.
ZERO IN FAVOR OF TENANT OPPOSITION, NO RESPONSE FROM WELL SPRINGS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, NO RESPONSE FROM JACKSON COURT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND SIX CITYWIDE GROUPS FOR NOTIFIED WITH NO RESPONSE.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION.
APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND FINANCE IS ALSO HERE TO ANSWER ANY HOT ACCOUNT QUESTIONS.
LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
MS. BRIGMAN, COULD YOU, COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE THAT SHOWS THE, UM, TIMELINE OF THINGS WERE ISSUED? IT IS NOT IN OUR PRESENTATION.
AND SO WHEN WAS, WHEN WAS THEIR PERMIT ORIGINALLY ISSUED? LEMME SEE.
UH, AGAIN, CAN WE GO BACK TO THE, UM, SO THEY WERE PAYING THE FIRST YEAR BUT AS OF AUGUST, 2024, THEY WERE NOT, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.
ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YOU NONE I'D ASK THE APPLICANT TO PLEASE COME FORWARD.
UH, NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE FOR THE RECORD.
MY NAME IS DANIEL RO AND ADDRESS FOR THE, THE AIRBNB ADDRESS OR, UH, YOUR ADDRESS? 1 8 2 0 6 MAN DRIVE.
SO THE PERMIT WAS REVOKED DUE TO MISSED MONTHLY NET REVENUE FILINGS.
THIS OCCURRED DURING THE TRANSITION FROM MANUAL HOT FILINGS TO AUTOMATIC COLLECTION THROUGH PLATFORMS LIKE AIRBNB AND VRBO AT THE TIME.
I MISTAKENLY BELIEVED THAT BEGINNING IN JANUARY, 2025, THOSE PLATFORMS FULLY COVERED ALL APPLICABLE TAXES INCLUDING THE COUNTIES AND THAT THE AUTOMATIC REMNANTS ALSO SATISFIED THE CITY AND COUNTY'S MONTHLY RE REPORTING REQUIREMENT.
BASED ON THAT UNDERSTANDING, I DID NOT MANUALLY SUBMIT FILINGS DURING THAT PERIOD.
UM, AND BY THE WAY, THIS MORNING WE UH, I GOT NOTIFIED BY, BY JUAN THAT I WAS MISSING ONE FILING DURING 2023, WHICH I IMMEDIATELY, UH, COVERED AND IT'S RIGHT NOW IN, IN IN PROCESS.
'CAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW I WAS MISSING IN SEPTEMBER, 2023, EVERYTHING ELSE WAS FILED.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE MAIL NOTICE WAS NOT RECEIVED IN TIME TO PREVENT THE REVOCATION.
I'VE PROVIDED A SIGNED LETTER LETTER FROM USPS EXPLAINING THAT THE PROPERTY FLAG AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL AND TREATED AS A VACANT, WHICH CAUSED MAIL TO BE RETURNED.
ADDITIONALLY, THE WARNING EMAIL WENT TO SPAM.
AS SOON AS I BECAME AWARE OF THE ISSUE, I AM IMMEDIATELY FILED ALL OUTSTANDING REPORTS.
MY ACCOUNT IS NOW FULLY CURRENT AND IN GOOD STANDING.
I'VE ALSO SUBMITTED MY COMPLETE FILING HISTORY SINCE 2023, WHICH SHOWS CONSISTENT
[02:00:01]
TIMELY COMPLIANCE PRIOR TO THE ISOLATED INCIDENT.AND OBVIOUSLY PLUS THE ONE THAT I FOUND OUT THIS MORNING, SEPTEMBER, 2023.
TO ENSURE THIS NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN.
I'VE IMPLEMENTED MULTIPLE SAFEGUARDS INCLUDING CALENDAR REMINDERS, ROUTINE CHECKS OF THE REPORTING WEBSITE AND A AND A-U-S-P-S MAIL FORWARDING SERVICE.
SO ALL MAIL MAILS SENT TO THE STR PROPERTY IS DELIVERED TO MY CURRENT MAILING ADDRESS.
AS WELL AS MAKING SURE MY MAILING ADDRESS IN MY HOT PROFILE IS CURRENT.
I'VE ALSO INCLUDED THE USPS CHANGE OF ADDRESS AND MAIL FORWARDING CONFIRMATION FOR THE BOARD'S REFERENCE.
I APOLOGIZE FOR THE OVERSIGHT AND I WANNA ASSURE THE BOARD THAT THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
BRAGMAN MS. BRAGMAN, UM, THE DOCUMENT YOU PROVIDED COULD BE ENLARGED.
UH, WHICH DOCUMENT? SORRY? THE DOCUMENT ON THE SCREEN THAT'S ON THE SCREEN THERE.
OH YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S A HISTORY AND I ACTUALLY, I HAVE A, SHOULD HAVE A COPY HERE IF YOU WANT TO SEE IT.
IF WE CAN JUST ENLARGE THIS, THAT WOULD HELP.
IT'S JUST THE, THE FILING HISTORY SINCE 2023.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS ALL RECEIVED.
SO THIS IS OFF OF THE WEBSITE THAT, UH, AVENUE A CORRECT.
AND SO IT SHOWS THAT YOU, THAT THEY RECEIVED, I BELIEVE IT'S 'CAUSE UH, SEPTEMBER, 2023 IS NOT SHOWING AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE ERROR IS.
AND I GUESS I DID NOT, UM, I DIDN'T GET NOTIFIED THAT I WAS MISSING SEPTEMBER, 2023 IN SPECIFICALLY.
WELL, CAN WE BRING UP THE, UM, SPREADSHEET FROM THE, FROM STAFF? 'CAUSE THAT'S SHOWING A LOT.
AND THIS SHOWS MULTIPLE, BUT WE'RE NOT OR NOTICES THAT WERE SO, SO STAFF IT'S, IS IT BEING REVOKED FOR ONE MISSED? NO, IT'S BEING REVOKED FOR THAT ONE MISSED PAYMENT.
AND FROM JANUARY 20TH, 2025 THROUGH MAY, 2025, HE MADE PAYMENTS AFTER THE 14 DAY DEADLINE, THE DAY AFTER.
SO THE, WE GAVE THEM 14 DAYS TO, FOR, TO BRING THEIR HOT ACCOUNT CURRENT.
HE MADE PAYMENT ONLY 15TH DAY.
RIGHT WHEN I GOT NOTIFIED THAT I WAS, UM, I DID NOT SEE THE LETTER IN TIME AND I THOUGHT, SO I GOT CONFUSED.
OBVIOUSLY MY, MY UM, MY ERROR OF NOT CHECKING THE, THE WEBSITE THAT I NEEDED TO MANUALLY SUBMIT EVERY FILING INSTEAD OF AIRBNB AND VRBO PAYING THOSE OUT AUTOMATICALLY THROUGH THE PLATFORM.
'CAUSE I WOULD SEE THAT THE GUESTS WERE PAYING AN ADDITIONAL PROPERTY TAX AND, AND OBVIOUSLY I, UM, IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT, THAT I DIDN'T HAVE TO SUBMIT THOSE MANUALLY.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CHANGED FROM WHEN YOU INITIALLY STARTED MAKING THE PAYMENTS IN 2023.
THAT CHANGED IN JANUARY OF 2025? I, I THOUGHT IT DID IN 2025, BUT THEN I FOUND OUT IT WAS MARCH, 2025 AND THAT I STILL NEEDED TO MANUALLY SUBMIT, UH, THOSE FILINGS TO PAY THE COUNTY'S TAX AND ALSO TO PAY A ZERO TAX FOR THE CITIES.
'CAUSE IT'S ALREADY PAID BY THE PLATFORMS. YES.
AND TO CLARIFY, STAFF DID SEND OUT E-BLAST ABOUT THE 'CAUSE ABOUT PLATFORMS REMITTING ON THEIR BEHALF, UM, BACK IN JANUARY AND BEFORE THEN STATING THAT IT WAS STARTING MAY 10TH, 2025 AND IT WAS SENT TO ALL THE PERMIT SCR PERMIT HOLDERS IN OUR SYSTEM RECEIVED THAT E-BLAST THAT IDENTIFIED MARCH 10TH AS THE DATE PLATFORMS WOULD BE REMITTING CITY HOT TAXES ON THEIR BEHALF.
BUT WE'RE STILL REQUIRED TO REPORT AND PAY COUNTY TAXES MOVING FORWARD.
UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? STEVENS? MR. STEVENS, WHY DO YOU THINK MOST OF YOUR NEIGHBORS ARE SO AGAINST YOUR SHORT-TERM RENTAL? I THINK, UH, SINCE WE PURCHASED MY WIFE AND I THE PROPERTY, THERE'S BEEN ONE NEIGHBOR IN PARTICULAR THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN AGAINST ST UH, EVEN BEFORE US OPERATING IT.
I'VE REACHED OUT TO THE NEIGHBOR, GAVE MY CONTACT INFORMATION TO, FOR THEM TO HAVE MY PHONE NUMBER IN CASE OF ANY ISSUES WITH GUESTS OR ANYTHING.
UM, WE'VE TRIED, WE'VE TRIED OUR BEST TO HAVE A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH NEIGHBORS, WHICH WE ACTUALLY HAVE.
UH, I KNOW IT LOOKS LIKE WE DON'T, BUT WE ACTUALLY HAVE A GOOD RELATIONSHIP.
UM, BUT I KNOW THAT THIS NEIGHBOR REALLY TOOK TIME TO GET SIGNATURES AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND AGAIN, THIS WAS AN ISSUE BEFORE EVEN US OPERATING THE STR.
AND AGAIN, I RESPECT IT AND I'M STILL GONNA
[02:05:01]
TRY MY BEST TO WIN OVER ANY NEIGHBOR THAT IS AGAINST IT.ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU SIR.
UH, THE PAYMENT THAT WAS MADE ON THE DATE ON THE 15TH DAY, WHICH IS ONE DAY LATE, WAS IT INITIATED BEFORE THE 15TH DAY OR WAS IT RECEIVED ON THE 15TH DAY QUESTION? IS THAT TO ME? UH, I THINK THAT'S HER STAFF.
IT WAS POSTED ON THE 15TH DAY, POSTED ON THE 15TH.
WHAT I'M WONDERING IS, IS IF THE APPLICANT, DID HE PAY BY CREDIT CARD CHECK EFT? HOW DID, HOW WAS THE PAYMENT MADE, SIR? IT WAS ONLINE, BUT HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS IN AVENUE, THE POST-IT DATE IS WHEN YOU MADE THE, YOU'VE REPORTED AND MADE THE PAYMENT, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT DOES TAKE A COUPLE WEEKS AFTER THE POST-IT DATE FOR THE ACTUAL TRANSACTION TO BE PROCESSED.
YEAH, I I WAS JUST TRYING TO SEE IF IT WAS A DAY BECAUSE OF, YOU KNOW, HE INITIATED IT BUT HE DIDN'T RECEIVE IT UNTIL THE NEXT DAY.
I'M NOT, THAT'S ALL I WAS TRYING TO GET.
ALRIGHT, LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY, UH, UH, VOICEMAILS OR PUBLIC COMMENT TO BE READ IN.
UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? DO WE SEE
SO IT WOULD BE UP FOR RENEWAL THIS COMING JULY.
AND THE STAFF, IS IT ADMINISTRATIVE RE RENEWAL OR DOES THIS THE BOARD HAVE A REVIEW? UM, NO, THIS ONE WAS APPROVED BY, RIGHT, THERE WASN'T A DENSITY ISSUE.
SO IT WOULD JUST GO THROUGH ITS RENEWAL REVIEW, WHICH WOULD BE VERIFYING THEY'RE STILL CURRENT AND NOTHING HAS CHANGED FROM THE PERMIT THREE YEARS AGO.
SO THAT WOULD BE THE NEXT CHECK SUM, RIGHT? THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO BE CURRENT ON EVERYTHING FOR THE RENEWAL? CORRECT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, SIR? ALRIGHT.
UH, ANY LAST COMMENTS YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE BEFORE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION? UM, NO, LIKE I JUST, UH, I AGAIN, I TAKE ACCOUNTABILITY THAT IT WAS MY MISTAKE OF NOT CHECKING THE PORTAL AND JUST WANNA ASSURE THE BOARD THAT IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN AGAIN.
THAT CLOSES THE PUBLIC PORTION.
I'D ASK A MEMBER OF THE BOARD TO PLEASE MAKE A MOTION.
CAN WE GET A MOTION READ BON? YES, I'LL DO IT.
BONOUS, JUST MAKE SURE I'M ON THE RIGHT ONE HERE.
REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A TWO 500 HUNDRED 3 0 2 6, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE APPEAL FOR THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT 39 OR 34 95 RIVER PATH APPLICANT BEING DANIEL GUDO BECAUSE THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWS THE CITY STAFF MADE AN ERROR IN ENFORCING SECTION 1 16 1 10, UH, D WHEN REVOKING THE SHORT TERM RENTAL PERMIT.
ALRIGHT, CAN I GET A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND.
I GOT A SECOND FOR, UH, MR. REED.
YEAH, I I'LL BE IN FAVOR OF THIS.
I, BUT YOU KNOW, LIKE THE PREVIOUS CASE, UH, I DON'T BELIEVE THE CITY WAS AN ERROR HERE, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE, THERE WAS SOME, SOME ISSUES THAT HAPPENED WITH REPORTING THIS.
UH, I BELIEVE HE'S NOW CURRENT AND AS LONG AS HE CAN REMAIN CURRENT, UH, I'M OKAY WITH IT.
UH, AND THERE'S NO OTHER ST ON THIS CITY BLOCK FACE, SO I'LL BE IN FAVOR.
UH, NO, I, I I SHARE THAT SENTIMENT.
I THINK THAT, UM, IT, IT SEEMS TO BE AN ERROR, UH, THAT YOU'VE, UH, MADE AN ATTEMPT TO REMEDY.
SO HOPEFULLY IT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN.
AND I'LL BE IN SUPPORT AS WELL.
THE, THE, UH, APPLICATION RENEWAL WILL BE COMING UP.
THAT'D BE A CHANCE FOR, UH, HIM TO BE OP, BE A GOOD OPERATOR, BE CURRENT ON HIS TAXES, AND CITY WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE RENEWAL.
AND SO, UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE.
COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER RE, BARNES? I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER DEAN? I DO NOT CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER GOMEZ? YES, I CONCUR.
I CONCUR WITH TENANT IN FAVOR.
WHEN IN OPPOSITION THE MOTION DOES PASS.
MAKE SURE YOU STAY CURRENT ON YOUR TAXES AND, AND, UH, REPORTS.
REPORTS AND, AND REACH OUT TO YOUR NEIGHBORS.
[02:10:07]
GOOD AFTERNOON.MY NAME IS JUAN ALVAREZ, PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS REQUESTED BY BERTHA ROSALES AND IS REQUESTING AN APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO REVOKE THE APPLICANT'S SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT DUE TO HAWK COLLECTION LOCATED AT NINE 17 WYOMING STREET.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT NINE 17 WYOMING STREET.
SURROUNDING USES INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AS OF MARCH 10TH, 2025.
PLATFORM THAT DIRECTLY REMIT STATE HOT, ALSO NOT DI DIRECTLY REMIT CITY HOT TO THE CITY'S FINANCE DEPARTMENT.
ALL STR OPERATORS ARE STILL REQUIRED TO CONTINUE TO FILE REVENUE REPORTS AND PAY BEAR COUNTY HOT THROUGH AVENUE ON A MONTHLY BASIS.
FORWARD NOTICES OF DELINQUENCY WERE MAILED FROM AVENUE FROM APRIL, 2025 THROUGH JULY, 2025.
AND A FINAL NOTICE OF DELINQUENCY WAS EMAILED BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ON NOVEMBER 3RD, 2025.
NO PAYMENT WAS MADE WITHIN THE 90 DAYS AND ONLY PARTIAL PAYMENT WAS MADE AFTER RECEIVING THE FINAL NOTICE OF DELINQUENCY.
IT'S POPPING UP THEREFORE THE PERMIT WAS REVOKED ON NOVEMBER 18TH, 2025.
THERE ARE A TOTAL OF FIVE UNITS ON THE BLOCK PHASE.
NO ACTIVE STR TYPE TWO PERMIT IS CURRENTLY ON THE BLOCK.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE ANY CODE OF VIOLATIONS AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ALSO DOES NOT HAVE ANY ACTIVE LISTINGS.
AND THIS IS THE PERMITTING HISTORY OF THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT.
THIS IS THE COMMUNICATION THAT WAS SENT FROM AVENUE TO APPLICANT AND THE LAST TWO ARE FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
THIS IS THE SIDE PLAN OF THE PROPERTY SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE NEXT FEW SLIDES OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND SURROUNDING AREAS.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL.
AND LASTLY, THERE ARE A TOTAL OF 46 MALE NOTICES.
ZERO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION.
NO RESPONSE FROM HISTORIC GARDENS NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION AND FIVE CITYWIDE GROUPS WERE NOTIFIED WITH NO RESPONSE.
THIS CONCLUDES THAT PRESENTATION.
THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND SO IS THE CITY HOT DEPARTMENT.
ALRIGHT, BRAGMAN? UH, YEAH, MS. BRAGMAN, COULD WE GO BACK TO THE PERMITTING HISTORY? IT'S NOT IN OUR PRESENTATION.
SO 2019 AND THEN THE NEXT SLIDE THAT HAS THE, SO WAS THE APPLICANT CURRENT BETWEEN 2019 AND 2024? YES.
I BELIEVE THEY WERE ONLY MISSING A ONE OR TWO MONTHS, BUT THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT CAN CLARIFY ON THAT THEY WERE LATE PAYING BY FIVE PAYMENTS.
THEY WERE LATE PAYING FIVE PAYMENTS.
I DON'T THINK YOUR MICROPHONE'S ON.
THEY WERE LATE PAYING FIVE PAYMENTS IN WHAT TIMEFRAME? UM, IN NOVEMBER, 2023.
NO, THE PAY PERIOD, THE PERIOD 9 23.
THEY PAID IN NOVEMBER THE PERIOD OF 2020 SECOND.
AND ARE THEY CURRENT NOW? YES, THEY'RE CURRENT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR, OKAY.
UH, WE WILL, AT THIS POINT I WOULD ASK THE APPLICANT TO PLEASE COME FORWARD.
2019 ALREADY BEEN RENEWED ONCE.
MY NAME IS BERTA ROSALES AND MY ADDRESS ONE 12 S IN DRIVE.
UH, I AM FROM LAREDO, TEXAS AND I BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY WITH AN INHERITANCE.
I HAVE BEEN RENTING MY PROPERTY APPROXIMATELY FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS.
I ALSO USE MY PROPERTY, HAVE THE TIME TO VISIT MY SONS AND GRANDCHILDREN WHO LIVE HERE IN SAN ANTONIO.
RECENTLY IN THIS LAST YEAR, I HAD SOME TECHNICAL PROBLEMS PROCESSING MY HOT PAYMENTS ONLINE.
I PERSONALLY CAME TO THESE OFFICES IN MARCH, 2025 TO RENEW MY PERMIT, WHICH WILL EXPIRE APRIL 30.
IT WAS HERE THAT I WAS INFORMED THAT I HAD SOME PENDING PAYMENTS, SOME PEN PENDING PAYMENTS.
I WAS INFORMED THAT I OWED THREE OLD AND RANDOM PAYMENTS.
[02:15:02]
AND TWO PAYMENTS FOR 2024.I HAVE RECEIVED A LETTER ON JANUARY 14TH, 2025 INFORMING, INFORMING ME OF THESE THREE PAYMENTS DUE.
I MADE THESE, THESE THREE PAYMENTS ONLINE IN FEBRUARY, 2025 WHEN I WAS PERSONALLY INFORMED THAT I OWE THESE PAYMENTS.
I WAS SURPRISED, BUT PROCEEDED TO PAY THEM AGAIN ONLINE.
I TOOK A SCREENSHOT OF MY PAYMENTS AND SENT IT VIA EMAIL AS PROOF OF PAYMENT.
I WAS INFORMED PERSONALLY THAT NOTHING WAS PENDING AND THAT EVERYTHING WAS GOOD.
I RECEIVED MY NEW PERMIT FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS, VALID UP TO APRIL, 2028.
I LEFT THESE OFFICES WITH THE, CERTAINLY THAT EVERYTHING WAS PERFECT.
AS TIME WENT BY, I CONTINUED RECEIVING LETTERS FROM AVENUE INFORMING ME THAT I STILL OWED THE SAME THREE PAYMENTS, WHICH I HAD ALREADY PAID.
I IGNORED THESE LETTERS, WHICH WERE SEVERAL.
THIS BECAUSE I HAD THE PERMIT, WHICH CONSTITUTED EVERYTHING WAS IN PLACE.
I ALSO TOLD I WAS RECEIVING THESE LETTERS IN ERROR AS MAYBE AVENUE HAD NOT UPDATED THE PAYMENTS TO MA.
TO MY SURPRISE, I CONTINUED TO RECEIVE THESE LETTERS LETTING ME KNOW THAT NOT ONLY I STILL OWE THESE THREE PAYMENTS, BUT NOW NEW ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS.
I WAS IN SHOCK WHEN, IN NOVEMBER 18, I RECEIVED A LETTER LETTING ME KNOW MY PERMIT HAD BEEN REVOKED.
I IMMEDIATELY CAME BACK OF THESE OFFICES, OFFICES TO PROVE THAT I HAD MADE ALL THE PAYMENTS, I HAD ALL THE, MY SCREENSHOTS TO PROVE THIS.
I RECEIVED HELP FROM AN EMPLOYEE AND AN INTERPRETER TRYING TO FI FIGURE OUT WHAT THE PROBLEM WAS.
THEY HAD TO CALL A THIRD EMPLOYEE FOR HELP.
IT WAS THIS THIRD PERSON THAT FOUND THE PROBLEM.
THE PAYMENTS, WHICH WERE THE REASON OF REVOKING MY PERMIT WERE ALL IN PROGRESS.
THIS INCLUDE THE FOUR PAYMENTS THAT WERE ISSUED BEFORE MY NEW PERMIT WAS GIVEN TO ME.
I APOLOGIZE FOR THESE MISTAKES AND I AM NOT VERY GOOD IN COMPUTERS AND IF, IF I HAVE BEEN INFORMED OF THESE MISTAKES BEFORE THEY HAVE RENEWED MY PERMIT, I WILL NOT MAKE THEM AGAIN.
LET, UH, SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
MS. ROSALES, ANY QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, I GUESS I'M CONFUSED.
UH, I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND ABOUT THOSE PAYMENTS.
IF SHE WAS, IF SHE, HER SHORT TERM RENTAL PERMIT WAS REISSUED IN 2025, WHY WOULD SHE BE GETTING THESE LETTERS? AND SHE'S SAYING THAT SHE PAID THEM.
CAN YOU CLEAR UP THE CONFUSION? YES.
SO THE, UM, IMAGES THAT SHE SENT FOR THIS APPLICATION, IT SHOWED THAT THEY WERE IN PROGRESS, WHICH MEANS IT'S ALMOST LIKE A TEMP RECORD.
STAFF MISTOOK THAT AS IT WAS PROCESSED, BUT IN PROGRESS DOES NOT MEAN IT WAS ACCEPTED AND THAT'S WHY SHE KEPT RECEIVING LETTERS.
UM, SHE ALSO, EVEN, SHE, EVEN AFTER SHE GOT THE PERMIT ISSUED, WE DO SEND A RENEWAL REMINDER SAYING, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU REPORT TAX ON A MONTHLY BASIS.
AND OUR RECORDS SHOW SHE, UH, STOPPED PAYING, DID NOT PAY TAXES ON A MONTHLY BASIS FROM MAY, 2025 UNTIL NOW.
SO EVEN WHEN SHE WAS NOTIFIED TO PAY MONTHLY, SHE STILL KIND OF STOPPED MAKING PAYMENTS AFTER APRIL, 2025.
UM, BUT YEAH, SO THEN WHAT SHE SHOWED US, IT WAS SAYING THAT IN PROGRESS DOES NOT MEAN IT WAS RECEIVED.
UM, RECEIVED IS A STATUS THAT IT WAS FILED.
SO THAT WAS THE ERROR THAT WE MADE IN TERMS OF WHY IT WAS RENEWED, BECAUSE THEY JUST SAW THE SCREENSHOTS.
THEY DIDN'T REALIZE IN PROGRESS, DID NOT MEAN IT WAS POSTED.
WE HAD TO REACH OUT TO AVENUE FOR CLARIFICATION ON THE, ON THE, THEIR THREE DIFFERENT STATUSES.
SO FOR THE APPLICANT, DO YOU AGREE THAT YOU DID NOT PAY TAXES AFTER MAY OF 2025?
[02:20:03]
YEAH.I PAY, I DON'T, OH, YOU KNOW WHAT? I DON'T THINK SHE UNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION.
'CAUSE SHE'S SAYING THAT SHE, UH, DIDN'T PAY BECAUSE AIR, UH, AIRBNB SHE THOUGHT WAS GOING TO BE PAYING FOR THEM.
I THINK, I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE ANSWER YOU'RE LOOKING FOR.
MAYBE WE COULD, UH, YES, AIRBNB, THEY, THEY'LL COLLECT AND REMIT THE TAXES AND THEN I START THINKING OF THAT.
CAN YOU TALK INTO THE MICROPHONE PLEASE? BUT, BUT THE BUT YOU'RE STILL I LATE FEE, AH,
OKAY, SO, BUT, BUT THE, YOU'RE STILL REQUIRED TO PAY THE COUNTY TAXES YOURSELF? YEAH, I KNOW.
THEY, THEY, THEY SEND US ANOTHER LETTER EXPLAINING, OH NO, EVERYTHING IS, EVERYBODY'S CONFUSED.
WE ARE GONNA COLLECT AND YOU ARE GONNA REMIT.
THEN I UPDATED MY TWO PAYMENTS.
BUT ALL THOSE PAYMENTS WERE IN PROGRESS BECAUSE I, I, I DON'T KNOW.
I I I JUST SAY I JUST READ FAIL IT AND THOUGHT IT WAS ALREADY END.
NO, WHAT, WHAT THE CITY IS SAYING IS THAT AFTER MAY OF 2025, THEY DIDN'T RECEIVE, UH, CORRECT.
SO TO CLARIFY, WHEN THE PERMIT WAS RENEWED IN MARCH, MARCH OF THIS YEAR, WE SENT OUT A NOTIFICATION THAT DID EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE THAT YES, A AIRBNB IS REPORTING CITY HOT TAXES FOR YOU, BUT YOU ARE STILL RESPONSIBLE TO REPORT AND REMIT COUNTY HOT TAXES THROUGH AVENUE.
UM, AND THEN I SAW ONLINE THAT PAYMENTS FROM MAY, 2025 THROUGH TO, TO NOW WERE NOT PAID UNTIL AFTER, UNTIL THE END, TILL NOVEMBER OF DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR AFTER SHE RECEIVED THE FINAL NOTICE AND HER PRINT WAS REVOKED DUE TO HOT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT STAFF? DO WE HAVE ANY VOICEMAIL OR PUBLIC COMMENTS TO BE READ IN? NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? AND AT THIS POINT I'D ASK A MEMBER OF THE BOARD TO PLEASE MAKE A MOTION.
OH, MS. BRAGMAN, I DUNNO IF I ASKED THIS BECAUSE WE'VE GOT THREE OF THESE IN A ROW.
AND, AND I'LL, I'LL THROW THIS INTO ANY CURRENT, UH, VIOLATIONS OR ANYTHING ON RECORD OR, UH, THERE ARE NO ENFORCEMENT HISTORY FOR THIS PROPERTY.
THIS MOMENT I CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION AND ASK A MEMBER OF THE BOARD TO PLEASE MAKE A MOTION EZ MR. EZ? YEAH, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO 8 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 2 6 6, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, THE APPEAL FOR THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT NINE 17 WYOMING STREET, APPLICANT BEAN BIRTH AT ROSALES.
UH, BECAUSE THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWS THAT THE CITY STAFF MADE AN ERROR IN ENFORCING SECTION 16 DASH D WHEN REVOKING THE SHORT TERM RENTAL PERMIT.
ALRIGHT, A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND, MR. REED.
ALRIGHT, UH, MR. EZ, I'LL BE IN A, I'LL BE IN APPROVAL OF THIS.
UM, YOU KNOW, ON, ON THE OTHER ONES, I, I DON'T FEEL LIKE THE CITY MADE AN ERROR, BUT I DO FEEL THEY MADE AN ERROR IN THIS ONE WITH GRANTING HER THE PERMIT E AND THEY SHOWED SOME CONFUSION THERE WITH IT, READING IN PROGRESS, THEM HAVING TO REACH OUT TO HAVING YOU.
SO, SO I, I THINK THAT, UH, ALONE SHOWS THE ERROR THERE, BUT THEN ALSO THE APPLICANT HAS CAUGHT UP ON ALL THEIR PAYMENTS.
UH, THERE'S NO OTHER STR ON THIS BLOCK PHASE, SO I THINK, UH, WE SHOULD GRANT THE APPEAL.
ALRIGHT, MR. REED? UH, I, I FEEL THE SAME WAY.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S TAKE A ROLL CALL.
COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER DEAN? NO, I DO NOT.
COMMISSIONER CRUZ? YES, I CONCUR.
I CONCUR WITH, UH, TENANT FAVOR.
THE, UH, UH, APPEAL DOES PASS.
UH, PLEASE GET WITH STAFF AND MAKE SURE YOU GET CURRENT ON TAXES AND SUCH.
[02:25:06]
GRAB A SLICE OF ITEM NUMBER EIGHT.IS CASE BO A DASH 25 DASH 0 3 2 59.
THE ADDRESS BEING SEVEN 10 SOUTH BROWN LEAF DRIVE IN COUNCIL DISTRICT SIX.
THE APPLICANT IS RICARDO GONZALEZ LECHA.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A THREE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH A TWO FOOT SIDE SETBACK, INCLUDING A SIX INCH OVERHANG TO AN EIGHT FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW CARPORT WITH A ONE FOOT SIX INCH SETBACK AND THREE A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 15 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AREA TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AREA.
THIS, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG BROWN LEAF DRIVE IN A SUBDIVISION SOUTH OF TEXAS STATE HIGHWAY 1 51 AND EAST OF MILITARY DRIVE WEST.
A CODE ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPERTY WAS CONDUCTED IN NOVEMBER, 2025 IN RESPONSE TO A CITIZEN REPORT OF BUILDING WITHOUT A PERMIT.
CODE ENFORCEMENT STAFF OBSERVED A NEW CARPORT WITH NO BUILDING PERMIT ON FILE AND ISSUED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
THE CARPORT WAS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK AREA ON THE PROPERTY.
STAFF ALSO OBSERVED A CHAIN LINK FENCE FENCE, WHICH ENCROACHES INTO THE MINIMUM REQUIRED DRIVEWAY.
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPROVED VARIANCES FOR SIMILAR, UH, VIOLATIONS ON A CARPORT ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY AT 7 1 4 SOUTH BROWN LEAF DRIVE IN JUNE, 2025.
SHOWN HERE IS A SITE PLAN OF THE CARPORT AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN FEBRUARY, 2025.
THIS IS THE ADJACENT PROPERTY WHICH, UM, THE BOARD APPROVED VARIANCES FOR IN JUNE AND THE REMAINDER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CARPORT SETBACK VARIANCES.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL, UH, BASED ON, UH, INSUFFICIENT SPACE WILL REMAIN FOR WATER RUNOFF, FIRE SAFETY AND MAINTENANCE OF THIS STRUCTURE.
AND TWO, THE CARPORT IS TOO CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE AND DOES NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT SEPARATION FROM THE STRUCTURE AND RIGHT OF WAY.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AREA VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS.
FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, VEHICULAR TRAFFIC WILL NOT BE OBSTRUCTED BY THE REDUCED CLEAR VISION AREA DUE TO THE FENCE BEING PREDOMINANTLY OPEN.
AND TWO, THE REDUCED CLEAR VISION AREA WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT.
AND OPPO, UH, ACTUALLY ONE WAS RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION.
THERE'S NO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHIN THE 200 FOOT AREA.
UH, WE DID RECEIVE THE FOLLOWING SUPPORT.
THIS LETTER HERE AT THE START OF THE MEETING, UH, FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER AT 7 1 4 SOUTH BROWN LEAF.
THAT IS THE PROPERTY, UH, WITH THAT CARPORT THAT WAS ALSO APPROVED BY THE BOARD.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF.
SO THAT'S, THAT APPEARS TO BE LIKE A FABRIC, A FABRIC COVER.
SO THAT'S THE HISTORICAL VIEW.
THAT'S WHAT WAS IN FEBRUARY, 2025.
UH, IF WE GO ONE SLIDE BACK, THAT IS THE, THE CURRENT
I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE NEIGHBOR'S ONE THERE.
OKAY, SO THAT IS THEIRS NOW? YES, SIR.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YOU'RE NOT, I'D ASK THE APPLICANT TO PLEASE COME FORWARD WHEN THIS, UH, RICARDO GONZALEZ BROWNLEY STREET.
UH, RICARDO GONZALEZ, SEVEN 10 BROWN LEAF STREET.
UH, UH, HE'S TRYING TO EXPLAIN THAT HE, UH, UH, BUILT HIS, UH, CARPORT AND HE IMITATED HIS NEIGHBOR.
AND HE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE OKAY.
DO YOU HAVE ANY, UH, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I, I HAVE ONE ON THE, THE, THE GUTTERS.
UH, THERE'S A RAINFALL ON THE NEIGHBOR'S SIDE ON THE, UH, RIGHT SIDE OF THE HOUSE IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT.
HE SAYS HE DOESN'T HAVE GUTTERS.
WHERE DOES THE RAIN FALL FROM? THE, OKAY.
IT DOES NOT FALL IN THE NEIGHBOR'S YARD.
[02:30:02]
AND DOES IT, DOES A LOT SLOPE TO THE STREET OR TO BACK OR WHICH WAY DOES IT? HE FALLS A LITTLE BIT ON THE SIDES AND A LITTLE BIT ON THE FRONT.ANY QUESTIONS FROM, FOR THE APPLICANT STORY? IT LOOKS LIKE BECAUSE OF THE, THE WAY THIS IS CONFIGURED, AS YOU MOVE FURTHER INTO THE PROPERTY, IT GETS WIDER AND WIDER.
IS THAT WHAT I'M SEEING? AM I LOOKING AT THE CHAIR ORIAN? THAT WOULD BE CORRECT.
UM, THE, UH, SIDE SETBACK THAT IS POSTED, UH, ON THE ADVERTISEMENT IS CLOSEST, UH, TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY ON THE SIDE OF THERE.
WHAT DOES IT GET TO AT THE BACK END OF THE CARDBOARD? HOW FAR, DO YOU KNOW HOW FAR IT IS BACK THERE? UH, WE, WE DID NOT GRAB THAT MEASUREMENT, JUST THE CLOSEST MEASUREMENT.
UM, I CAN'T IMAGINE IT'S MORE THAN A FOOT AND A HALF DIS DIFFERENCE.
UM, IT'S NOT A SUBSTANTIAL WIDENING.
ANY OTHER, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALRIGHT, ANY, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTS TO BE READ INTO MY PUBLIC COMMENT OR VOICEMAIL OKAY.
OR ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IF NOT, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET A MOTION READ HERE.
YOU CAN SIT DOWN, RIGHT? YEAH.
OKAY, MS. BREGGAN, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA DASH 25 DASH 0 3 0 0 2 5 9, I MOVE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT, A REQUEST FOR ONE A THREE FOOT VARIANCE FROM A MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SETBACK SIDE SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH A TWO FOOT SIDE SETBACK, INCLUDING A SIX INCH OVERHANG.
TWO, AN EIGHT FOOT SIX INCH VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 10 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITH A ONE FOOT SIX INCH SETBACK AND THREE A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED 15 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AREA TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AREA SITUATED.
SEVEN 10 SOUTH BROWN LEAF STREET.
APPLICANT THEME, UH, RICARDO, UH, GONZALEZ, UH, LAHA, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE REQUEST IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THERE IS SUFFICIENT DISTANCE TO MAINTAIN THE STRUCTURE AND PREVENT DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY FROM WATER RUNOFF.
UH, THE REQUEST IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THERE IS SUFFICIENT CLEAR VISION TO SAFELY OBSERVE ONCOMING TRAFFIC AND EXIT THE DRIVEWAY ONTO THE LOCAL STREET.
TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS A RELOCATION OF THE CARPORT TO MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS UNFEASIBLE, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THERE ARE ALREADY SIMILAR FENCES ON ADJACENT PROPERTY AND THROUGHOUT THIS AREA.
THREE, BY GRANTED THE VARIANCE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.
THE REQUEST WOULD OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS SUFFICIENT SPACE WILL REMAIN FOR THE PURPOSES OF WATER RUNOFF AND FIRE SAFETY CONCERNS, AS WELL AS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE STRUCTURE.
THE CLEAR VISION AREA MAINTAINS SUFFICIENT SPACE BACK INTO THE STREET AND WILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE FOR THE VARIANCE, WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED.
NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE.
SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH, UH, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE REQUEST WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES AS SUFFICIENT SPACE WILL REMAIN FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE CARPORT AND PURPOSES OF WATER RUNOFF AND FIRE SAFETY CONCERNS.
THE REDUCED CLEAR VISION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS IT APPEARS ALIGNED WITH ESTABLISHED FENCES IN THE AREA.
THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE VARIANCE TO SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT MERELY FINANCIAL, ARE NOT DUE TO OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, OF WHICH THE VARIANCE TO SOUGHT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES AS THE LOCATION OF THE CARPORT CANNOT BE ALTERED TO FIT THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACKS WHILE STILL PROTECTING
[02:35:01]
VEHICLES WITHIN THE ESTABLISHED FRONT YARD.THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT, IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE SHALLOW FRONT YARD DEPTH END OF MOTION.
CAN I GET A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND, UH, SECOND FROM MR. STEVENS.
UH, MR. BRAGMAN, UM, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS.
UM, OBVIOUSLY THERE WAS A PRECEDENT SET WITH THE NEIGHBOR AT 7 1 4 BROWN LEAF.
UM, AND HE WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO, HE'S THE ONE THAT WOULD BE MOST IMPACTED BY, UH, THE WATER RUNOFF FROM THE CARPORT AND HE WAS IN SUPPORT OF THE CARPORT.
UM, SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION AS WELL.
I THINK THERE'S ADEQUATE SPACE TO THE FRONT AND THE SIDE OF THIS CARPORT, SO, UH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT.
ALRIGHT, LET'S TAKE A ROLL CALL.
I CONCUR THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER BON? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR.
ALL RIGHT, UM, ON CASE NUMBER 10, ITEM NUMBER 10 IS BO OA DASH 25 DASH 1 0 3 0 2 6 2.
THE ADDRESS BEING 1 23 FAY AVENUE IN COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE.
THE APPLICANT IS DEION COMPOST AND THIS IS A REQUEST FOR ONE, A FENCE MATERIAL VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE USE OF SHEET ROLL OR CORRUGATED METAL FENCING.
AND TWO, A SEVEN FOOT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE THREE FOOT FRONT YARD, UH, FENCE HEIGHT TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT TALL FRONT YARD FENCE.
THE ZONING IS C TWO P COMMERCIAL PEDESTRIAN PEDESTRIAN.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED BETWEEN NEW LAREDO HIGHWAY AND SOMERSET ROAD ALONG FAY AVENUE.
ACCORDING TO HISTORICAL IMAGERY, CORRUGATED METAL FENCING APPEARS TO HAVE ORIGINALLY BEEN ESTABLISHED ON THE PROPERTY SOMETIME BETWEEN 2006 AND 2008.
SINCE 2024, MULTIPLE CODE EN ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS HAVE TAKEN PLACE ON THE PROPERTY IN RESPONSE TO REPORTS OF ILLEGAL OUTSIDE STORAGE OF VEHICLES.
THOSE VIOLATIONS HAVE BEEN RESOLVED AND THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY VACANT.
HOWEVER, THE ILLEGAL OFFENSE MATERIAL AND EXCESSIVE HEIGHT IN THE FRONT YARD WERE OBSERVED DURING THESE INVESTIGATIONS AND NOTICES OF VIOLATION WERE ISSUED.
ACCORDINGLY, AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN THE SIDE AND REAR YARD, AS THE LOT IS BEING DEVELOPED AS A COMMERCIAL LOT THAT ABUTS A SINGLE FAMILY USE.
HOWEVER, UH, THAT IS NOT THE CASE IN THE FRONT YARD FOR THIS PROPERTY.
UH, AND TO RESOLVE THESE VIOLATIONS, THE APPLICANT MUST COMPLY WITH THE FENCING STANDARDS FOR THE DISTRICT TO OBTAIN A VARIANCE APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
UH, SHOWN HERE IS A SITE PLAN.
UH, AGAIN, THE FEDERAL, UH, THE, THE METAL FENCING IS ALL AROUND THE PROPERTY PERIMETER AND THE FRONT YARD FENCE IS, UH, SEVEN FEET OVER THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT.
AND HERE'S ANOTHER AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE STREET.
THIS IS WHAT THAT FENCE LOOKS LIKE OFF OF FAY AVENUE.
AND THIS IS THE SURROUNDING AREA.
YOU CAN SEE ACROSS THE STREET A SIMILAR FENCING ON THE LOT DIRECTLY ACROSS AND THE SURROUNDING AREA.
AND HERE'S A LOOK AT THAT FENCE, UH, FROM THE RESIDENTIAL USE ON THE WEST SIDE.
UH, THAT'S THE KIND OF SIDE PROPERTY LINE THAT THAT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SHARES WITH THIS LOT, THAT, AND THE RESIDENTIAL LOT TO THE EAST SIDE.
RECOMMENDATION FOR THE FENCE MATERIAL VARIANCE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, ONE, CORRUGATED METAL FENCING IS PROHIBITED WITHIN THE CITY UNLESS IT IS, UH, AN EXISTING USED AUTO PARTS RECYCLER OR METAL RECYCLING ENTITY.
AND TWO, THE CORRUGATED METAL FENCING DETRACTS FROM THE OVERALL STREET SCAPE APPEARANCE AND APPEAL OF THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING AREA.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE FENCE HEIGHT SPECIAL EXCEPTION STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT.
ONE, THE FENCE ISOLATES THE PROPERTY FROM THE WIDER COMMUNITY.
AND TWO, THE VISUAL OBSTRUCTION CREATED BY THIS FENCE BLOCKS THE FREE AND OPEN VIEW OF THE WIDER AREA FROM THE FRONT YARD OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
EIGHT WERE RETURNED IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION.
THE QUINTANA COMMUNITY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DID NOT RESPOND.
UH, THREE OF THOSE RESPONSES IN FAVOR ARE PICTURED HERE.
THE REST, UH, WERE RECEIVED FROM OUTSIDE THE 200 FOOT NOTIFICATION AREA.
UH, AS SHOWN ON THIS SLIDE HERE, THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
ALRIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BRAGMAN, MR. BRAGMAN? UH, TRYING TO FIND THE RIGHT PICTURE.
[02:40:02]
SLIDE NUMBER 1 22, WHICH SHOWS CORRUGATED METAL FENCE ON THE LEFT AND ON THE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET, IS THAT ALSO CORRUGATED METAL THAT IS IN THAT PROPERTY? UH, THERE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET I THINK IS, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH, BUT IT'S ONE OF THOSE TWO USES, EITHER USED AUTO PARTS RECYCLER OR A METAL RECYCLING ENTITY.SO IT'S A PERMITTED OH, SO THAT'S, THAT'S PERMITTED.
UNDER THE ORDINANCE OF, OF THE, ONE OF THOSE TWO USES.
I CANNOT REMEMBER WHICH AT THIS TIME.
AND YOU SAID THAT THE FENCE ON THE LEFT THERE, THAT'S 10 FOOT ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS A 10 FOOT FENCE? CORRECT.
AND NO CAP, IT LOOKS LIKE? UM, ACTUALLY I DID, DID NOT OBSERVE A CAP.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF HEARING NOT ASK THE APPLICANT TO PLEASE COME FORWARD? HELLO, MY NAME IS IANNA CAMPOS AND MY PROPERTY IS 1 2 3 FA AVENUE.
AND, AND I WILL, YOU KNOW, UH, MY DAD GAVE ME THIS PROPERTY AND HE BUILD A FENCE LIKE, UH, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE MORE THAN 10 YEARS AGO.
AND, UH, AND THEY NEVER TELL HIM ANYTHING ABOUT THE FENCE AND HE BUILD THE FENCE BECAUSE A LOT OF, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THE RIGHT WORD TO USE, THESE PEOPLE THROW FURNITURE AND THEY THROW, UM, A LOT OF TRASH, EVEN THOUGH, UH, PEOPLE WHO LIKE TO STEAL, THEY JUMP THE FENCE.
SO HE, THAT'S, THAT'S WHY THE REASON THAT HE, I THINK HE BUILT THE, THE FENCE, THE FENCE THAT HIGH.
BUT LIKE I SAY BEFORE, HE NEVER HAVE, UM, PROBLEMS WITH THE CITY.
THEY ABOUT THE FENCE, THE HIGH OF THE MATERIAL.
AND I WENT TO AROUND THE NEIGHBOR AND I ASKED IF THEY HAVE ANY PROBLEMS, ANY ISSUES ABOUT THE FENCE.
AND THEY TOLD ME THEY WAS, THEY, THEY DON'T HAVE NO PROBLEM.
THEY FEEL SAFE BECAUSE THEY USED TO JUMP, LIKE I SAY BEFORE, UH, PEOPLE WHO LIKE TO STEAL AND, YOU KNOW, THROWING FURNITURE IN TRASH.
LET'S SEE, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? AND ONE CLARIFICATION.
THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH IS, UH, HAS A NON-CONFORMING FOR A METAL RECYCLING ENTITY.
ORIAN IAN? YEAH, SO THE, THE, THE, THE, MY QUESTION IS ABOUT THE, THE, THE SHEER NEED FOR A 10 FOOT TALL FENCE.
I MEAN, IS, IS, IS SEVEN, IS SEVEN OR EIGHT FOOT TALL? DO DO THE JOB OR I MEAN, WHY DO YOU NEED 10? I DON'T KNOW.
WELL, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, LIKE THEY GIVE YOU THIS, UH, PROPERTY, SO HE, HE BUILD THE FENCE LIKE MANY YEARS AGO, SIR.
AND I THINK THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE, UM, A LOT OF THI AND PEOPLE WHO USED TO STEAL AROUND THE NEIGHBOR, AND ESPECIALLY TO THE PLACE TOO WHEN MY DAD WAS, UM, IN USING THE PROPERTY.
HOW TALL IS THE FENCE? UH, AND WHEN, HOW TALL IS THE FENCE? UH, UH, AWAY FROM THE FRONT ON THE SIDE AND THE REAR.
HOW TALL IS THAT FENCE? I THINK, UH, IT'S, UH, NINE FEET FRONT AND ON THE SIZES IS A AND HALF AND A HALF.
SO, UH, AND THE FRONT IS ANOTHER JOINT YARD.
SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND MS. GAN.
SO WHAT IS THE PROPERTY BEING USED FOR? UH, WELL MY DAY HE USED TO, UH, I THINK SELL CARDS.
ANY OTHER QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT? STEVENS CRUZ, MS. STEVENS, AND THEN MS. CRUZ, HOW TALL OF A FENCE DO YOU THINK YOU NEED TO SECURE YOUR PROPERTY? TO BE HONEST, I THINK SINCE HE, MY DAD BUILT THAT PROPERTY, THAT TILE IN THE FRONT AND AROUND, UM, IT'S SAFE LIKE THAT.
THE ONLY THING THAT I, I THINK IS PROBLEM IS OUTSIDE THEY THROW A LOT OF FURNITURE, TIRES, ENGINES AND A LOT OF STUFF.
THAT'S WHY I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT SIZE TO, TO HAVE THE, THE FENCE AFTER SO MANY YEARS, LIKE, I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY BARELY TELL ME THAT IT'S NOT THE RIGHT SIZE, THE RIGHT HIGH, I'M SORRY.
MM-HMM
SO, SO, SO DO YOU THINK A SEVEN FOOT FENCE WOULDN'T PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY ADEQUATELY? NO.
I'VE BEEN PAYING FOR ONLY THE TRASH THEY TAKE, THEY THROW A OUTSIDE, I'VE BEEN PAYING LIKE 500,
[02:45:01]
600 TO THROW THAT, MOVE IT FROM THERE.THEY SAID, WELL, WHY DON'T YOU CALL? I SAID, BECAUSE I DON'T, I DON'T SEE WHEN THEY THROW IT JUST TO, THEY, MOST OF THE TIME THEY GO AT NIGHT AND THROW IT.
SO IF I IS SHOULDER, THEY'RE GONNA THROW IT INSIDE A LOT, SIR, THAT'S WHY.
SO PLEASE TAKE MY CONSIDERATION WHAT I SAY, PLEASE.
ARE YOU PLANNING TO DO ANYTHING ELSE WITH THE PROPERTY SINCE IT'S BEEN EMPTY FOR A WHILE NOW? I DON'T KNOW YET.
FIRST OF ALL, I HAVE TO HAVE, UM, MONEY TO DO SOMETHING WITH THE PROPERTY, SO NO, NO FOR NOW.
MR. BONIA, AS FOR THE CITY, ARE THERE ANY, UH, CODE VIOLATIONS OR ANYTHING ON THIS PROPERTY FOR LIKE, TRASH, DEBRIS, ANYTHING LIKE THAT IN THE PAST OR CURRENT? NOTHING BESIDES THE, UH, VIOLATION OF OFFENSE MATERIAL.
MS. BRAGMAN, THIS IS FOR STAFF.
SO THE ZONING THAT, UM, IS CURRENTLY ON THIS PROPERTY, WHAT DOES THAT ALLOW FOR? WHAT, WHAT USES DOES THAT ALLOW FOR? UH, SO THE MEDIUM INTENSITY, UH, COMMERCIAL, UH, THE MOST INTENSIVE ONE WOULD BE OIL CHANGES.
UM, OBVIOUSLY REGULAR RETAIL AND UH, UM, FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS.
UM, MAYBE SOME MOBILE FOOD COURT.
AND AND IT'S ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ON TWO SIDES? CORRECT.
ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MS. BREGMAN.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALRIGHT, UH, YES, I, I ASK ONE MORE BEFORE WE MOVE ON HERE.
UH, IF YOU HAD TO SHORTEN DOWN THIS FENCE AND, AND BRING IT DOWN TO A LOWER, LOWER HEIGHT, UH, CAN YOU AFFORD THAT? NO, RIGHT NOW, SIR.
NO, RIGHT NOW IT'S TOO MUCH MONEY.
CAP? YEAH, AND ALSO THE CAP, RIGHT? IF WE WERE TO APPROVE SOMETHING, WE'D AT LEAST WANT A CAP ON THE TOP.
SO A CAP WOULD BE JUST SO THE SHARP EDGES WOULDN'T BE EXPOSED IF SOMEONE WERE TRYING TO CLIMB THE FENCE, THEY WOULDN'T CUT THEMSELVES ON THE OH, NO, NO, NO.
IF IT'S ANY, UM, I FORGOT HOW YOU SAY
CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? IF IT'S ANYBODY CAN BE IN DANGER TO JUMP THE FENCE, THAT'S YOU? YEAH, YEAH.
BECAUSE IT'S HIGH, BUT THERE'S NO SHARPING LIKE THEY CAN GET HURT.
IF WE WERE EDGE THAT WHAT, THAT'S WHAT YOUR QUESTION I, I THINK IS WHAT HE, WHAT HE'S SAYING IS IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THE FENCE AND THE HEIGHT OF IT RIGHT NOW, THERE'S NOT A CAP ON IT.
WOULD YOU PUT A CAP ON IT AT LEAST? OH YEAH, YEAH.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
UM, STAFF, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT OR VOICEMAILS TO BE READ INTO THE RECORD? NO.
ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THIS APPLICANT? DOES SHE HAVE, UH, MS. CAMPOS, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD BEFORE WE CLOSE? NO SIR.
UH, LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE A MOTION FROM THE BOARD.
YEAH, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 2 6 2.
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT OFFENSE MATERIAL VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE USE OF A SHEET ROLL OR CORRUGATED METAL FENCING SITUATED AT 1 23 FA AVENUE.
UM, I, I IF, UH, AS LONG AS WE CAN PUT A CAP ON THE TOP OF THAT FENCE, APPLICANT BEING DIANA CAMPOS, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SO THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH A LIT THAT A LETTER ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE IS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN AN UNN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRA CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT, WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE CORRUGATED METAL FENCE PROVIDES ADDITIONAL SECURITY THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE PROPERTY.
UH, TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDI DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THE FENCE MATERIAL MAY BE REPLACED WITH A PERMITTED, WITH A PERMITTED MATERIAL, BUT WOULD NOT PROVIDE THE NECESSARY LEVEL OF SECURITY FOR THE PROPERTY.
THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.
THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD BE OBSERVED BY GRANTING THIS VARIANCE AS THE FENCE MATERIAL UTILIZED WOULD PROVIDE THE NECESSARY SECURITY TO THIS PROPERTY.
NUMBER FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED.
NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE.
SUCH VARIANCE 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.
SUCH VARIANCE WOULD NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS SIMILAR FENCES ARE PRESENT IN THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING AREA.
THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE ASSAULT IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER
[02:50:01]
OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE NOT DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SECURITY AND THE PRESENCE OF SIMILAR FENCING IN THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING AREA.
MR. STEVENS? UH, MR. EZ? YEAH, I'LL BE IN FAVOR OF, UH, OF THE MOTION.
UH, I DO BELIEVE IT'S A FINANCIAL BURDEN TO HER TO HAVE TO REMOVE THIS FENCE.
UH, PUT A LOWER FENCE ON THERE.
SHE DIDN'T PUT IT UP, HER FATHER DID MANY, MANY YEARS AGO.
SHE STATED THAT THE PROPERTY IS VACANT.
UH, IT SEEMS THAT THEY DO DUMP A BUNCH OF TRASH HERE.
YOU CAN GO LOOK ON GOOGLE PHOTOS AND, AND THEY DO DUMP IN THIS PROPERTY OFTEN.
UM, AS LONG AS SHE CAN PUT A CAP ON IT, I'M IN FAVOR.
ALRIGHT, MR. STEVENS? UH, I'LL, I'LL ALSO BE IN FAVOR WITH THIS ONE.
TYPICALLY, I, I DON'T THINK I WOULD BE SO HOT ON A 10 FOOT WALL FENCE, BUT CONSIDERING THERE'S A MATCHING FENCE ACROSS THE STREET, I DON'T THINK THAT GOING THROUGH THE COST AND THE TIME TO LOWER THIS THING, A COUPLE OF FEET IS REALLY GOING TO ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT ALL THAT MUCH.
WELL, THIS IS FOR THE MATERIAL, RIGHT? FOR THE SHEET ROLL MATERIAL.
YEAH, PRETTY RED WOULD BE FOR THE HEIGHT.
SO JUST EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS IS FOR THE MATERIAL, RIGHT? SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL.
COMMISSIONER EZ? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR.
VICE CHAIR ZINA? YES, I CONCUR.
11 IN FAVOR? ZERO IN OPPOSITION.
NOW LET'S GET THE MOTION GOING FOR DEFENSE HEIGHT FOR STAFF.
WAS IT NOT ALL INCLUDED IN THAT ONE? NO, IT WAS A SEPARATE MOTION.
I GUESS, IS THAT 10? YES, THAT WAS 10.
YEAH, IT'S THE SECOND PAGE ON 10.
UH, REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO A 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 2 62, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT A REQUEST FOR A SEVEN FOOT SPECIAL EXEMPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE THREE FOOT FRONT YARD HEIGHT TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT FRONT YARD FENCE SITUATED AT 1 23 FAY AVENUE APPLICANT BEING DIANA CAMPOS.
UH, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THAT THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WILL RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION WILL WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE, WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER.
THIS SPECIAL EXEMPTION WOULD NOT BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE CHAPTER AS THE FENCE HEIGHT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING AREA.
B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED.
THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WOULD BE SERVED BY THIS SPECIAL EXEMPTION AS THE FRONT YARD FENCE MAINTAINS THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING AREA.
C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WOULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE.
NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WOULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION AS THE FENCE HEIGHTS IS THE FENCE HEIGHT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE AREA AND DOES NOT SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
D THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND THE LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION ASSAULT.
THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION EXCEPTION WOULD NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS THE FENCE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING CHARACTER AND THE APPEARANCE OF THE STREETSCAPE.
E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT WEAKEN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEREON ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIAL DISTRICT.
THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD ALLOW FOR THE FENCE FOR A FENCE THAT IS TYPICALLY OF ESTABLISHED INDUSTRIAL USES, WHICH ARE TYPICALLY SCREENED FROM PUBLIC VIEW.
ALTHOUGH THIS PARCEL IS NOT CURRENTLY ZONED FOR THIS TYPE OF USE, MULTIPLE PARCELS IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA ARE ZONED FOUR AND OCCUPIED BY INDUSTRIAL USES.
ALRIGHT, MR. EZ? UH, YEAH, PRETTY MUCH.
I I THINK IT'S SELF-EXPLANATORY WITHIN THE MOTION.
YOU KNOW WHY WE'RE GONNA DO THIS? UH, NEIGHBORS ACROSS FROM IT HAVE DEFENSE HEIGHT SIMILAR.
I DON'T THINK IT TAKES FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
ALRIGHT, MR. STEVENS? UH, SAME.
I'LL ALSO BE IN FAVOR OF THIS FOR THE SAME REASONS I GAVE INADVERTENTLY DURING THE LAST MOTION.
ALRIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL.
COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACTS.
COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR.
SO 11 IN FAVOR IS ZERO OPPOSITION.
REMIND THE APPLICANT THAT THE, THE CAP WOULD NEED
[02:55:01]
TO BE PLACED AROUND THE TOP OF THE FENCING TO PROTECT, UH, SOMEBODY FROM GETTING CUT.THANK YOU SO MUCH TO EVERYBODY.
ALRIGHT, WE'RE GOOD WITH NEXT CASE FOR THIS ONE, MR. CHAIR.
UH, THE TIME IS FIVE 20 AND COMMISSIONER REED WOULD BE STEPPING OUT FOR THIS CASE AND WE WILL HOPEFULLY GET HIM OUT IN THE NEXT CASE.
MS. CRUZ, I NEED TO LOG OFF ALREADY.
SO WE'RE DOWN TO, THAT'D BE NINE.
SO WITH NINE BEING THE CASE I'D, I'D ASK FOR THE SITTING MEMBERS TO LIKE, UH, PLEASE EXPRESS YOUR, UM, OPINIONS HERE AS THE VOTES ARE BEING TAKEN AS A COURTESY TO THE APPLICANT.
AND SO ALRIGHTYY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND ROLL WITH GOOD AFTERNOON Y'ALL.
THIS IS BOA CASE 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 2 6 3.
THE APPLICANT IS NELLY FARGO, IT'S COUNCIL DISTRICT THREE.
THE LOCATION IS TWO 10 TASMAN ROAD.
UH, THE ZONING IS R FOUR AND I'M THE CASE MANAGER.
THE REQUEST IS FOR A ONE FOOT SIX INCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE THREE FOOT SOLID FOOT, ONE FRONT YARD.
I WOULD ASK IF WE CAN GO AHEAD AND HEAR THE CASES THAT HAVE STAFF APPROVAL FIRST.
YEAH, IT'S JUST, WE'RE ONLY DOWN TO NINE.
UM, SO THAT'S ITEM NUMBER 12? YES.
BUT ISN'T REED ONLY OUT FOR THIS CASE OR IS HE OUT FOR, HE'S ONLY OUT FOR THIS CASE.
SO YOU'LL BE BACK TO 10 FOR THE REMAINING CASES.
WELL, YEAH, SO COMMISSIONER REED HAD A CALL THAT HE HAD TO TAKE AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S RECUSAL OF THIS SPECIFIC CASE OR HE'S GONNA BE OUT HERE.
I THOUGHT HE WAS S REFUSING FROM THIS ITEM.
THAT'S PROBABLY PROMPTED IT THAT WAY, BUT I APOLOGIZE.
ALRIGHT, SO IF WE CAN GO WITH, UH, 2 65 CASE NUMBER 12.
ALRIGHT, BO OA 25 BO O 8 25 1 0 3 0 0 2 6 5.
THIS IS FOR A 10 SPECIAL EXEMPTION FOR A FIVE FOOT 10 INCH, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE LIMITED TO THE GATE AS CONSTRUCTED.
AND A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINERAL 15 FOOT DRIVEWAY.
CLEAR VISION, UH, TO ALLOW 10 FOOT CLEAR VISION IS ZONE R SIX.
ALL THIS STEMS FROM A CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE.
UM, THIS IS LIMITED TO THE FENCE, UM, KIND OF DECORATIVE THAT GOES UP ON THE FRONT YARD.
AND THEN THE, UH, THE, UH, ENCROACHMENT OF THE CLEAR VISION.
THIS IS, UH, SHOWING THE FRONT YARD AREA AND THE CLEAR VISION AREA.
NEXT PHOTO, SO THAT, UM, GATE WHERE IT GOES UP.
THAT'S THE ONLY AREA THAT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE FENCE HEIGHT.
SURROUNDING AREA STAFF RECOMMENDS FOR DEFENSE HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXEMPTION APPROVAL, UH, SPECIALIZATION WILL BE LIMITED TO ONLY THE ARCH GATE OVER THE DRIVEWAY AND REMAINS THE FRONT YARD FENCE WILL COMPLY WITH DEFENSE CODE AND DEFENSE AS CONSTRUCTED.
DOES NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE RESIDENTIAL STREETSCAPE.
AND ALSO APPROVAL FOR THE, UH, VARIANCE.
THERE'S SUFFICIENT CLEAR VISION AREA ALONG THE DRIVEWAY AND THE ENCROACHMENT FENCE IS PREDOMINANTLY OPEN.
THE STREET SCAPE OF THE RESIDENTIAL AREA IS NOW SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGED BY THE FENCE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE CLEAR VISION AREA.
FIVE IN FAVOR, NONE IN OPPOSITION.
AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, THUNDERBIRD HILLS IS IN SUPPORT.
THERE IS THE, UH, SUPPORT LETTERS I SENT EARLIER AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
ALRIGHT, LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
DON'T HEAR ANY, UH, IS THE APPLICANT HERE FOR? YES.
UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND BRING THE APPLICANT UP.
THANK YOU FOR, UH, YOUR PATIENCE AND YOUR TIME AND NO, NO, NO.
APOLOGIZE FOR THE, YOU GUYS HAD A LOT OF WORK TO DO TODAY,
UM, HOPEFULLY WE DON'T REALLY HAVE MUCH TO SAY.
I MEAN, YOU GUYS HAVE SEEN THE FENCE.
UH, WE DON'T FEEL THAT IT'S REALLY AFFECTING ANYTHING MAJORLY AND, UH, REALLY JUST LIKE TO HEAR IF YOU GUYS ARE IN APPROVAL.
UH, NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE FOR THE RECORD.
MY ADDRESS IS 96 0 2 DIAMOND GAP, UH, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 5 4.
UM, LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
UH, STAFF, DO WE HAVE ANY VOICEMAILS OR ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS TO BE READ IN MR. MR. ES? OH, OKAY.
[03:00:01]
UP AND THEN I'LL GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO OKAY.I'M THE OWNER AT 25 22 TOM BRI STREET.
HELLO, MY NAME'S BERTO ES I LIVE IN 25 30 TOM BRIAR STREET.
UH, I LIVE IN THE CUL-DE-SAC WHERE MR. JOEL IS BUILD THIS FENCE.
UH, I'M OPPOSING THE FENCE BECAUSE ON THE SIDE IS A PRIVATE FENCE AND IT'S TOO HIGH AND IT BLOCKS THE VIEW OF THE ONCOMING TRAFFIC.
WHEN I'M COMING OUT OF THE CUL-DE-SAC, I CAN'T SEE THE TRAFFIC COMING.
I HAVE TO LITERALLY GO INTO THE, THE STREET BEFORE I EVEN SEE TRAFFIC COMING ONTO THE, ONTO THE STREET.
AND I THINK IT'S A DANGEROUS FENCE.
UH, IT SHOULD BE CUT DOWN TO THE CODE VIOLATIONS, UH, THE CODE SIZE.
SO, UH, I WOULDN'T HAVE NO PROBLEMS LOOKING OUT TO MY LEFT TO SEE THE TRAFFIC COMING DOWN THE STREET.
THERE'S ALSO NO, THERE'S ALSO NO SIDEWALKS THERE.
THERE'S NO SIDEWALK, SO HE HAS TO BE ON, I HAVE TO CROSS THE STREET.
TO GO TO THE YES, THE SIDEWALK.
SO WHEN HE'S COMING, IF THERE'S CAR GONNA TURN, THERE'S GONNA HIT HIM BEFORE ANYTHING HAPPENED.
CAN, CAN WE GET YOUR NAME ALSO FOR THE RECORD? YVANNA LEMAN.
IS MY WIFE YOUR ADDRESS? 25 30 TOM BRIER.
UH, ANY, ANY QUESTIONS FOR BRAGMAN MS. BRAGMAN? SO WHAT PORTION OF THE FENCE, UH, OBSTRUCTS YOUR VISION WHEN YOU'RE PULLING OUT? IT'S THE, THE PRIVATE FENCE.
SO NOT ONE THAT HE BUILT THERE, NOT THE ROD IRON THERE.
BEFORE ALL OF THAT WASN'T THERE BEFORE HE BUILT, HE BUILT A WOODEN FENCE.
THE PRIVATE FENCE WHEN HE BUILT THE, THE ROD IRON FENCE IS, IS THERE A PORTION? SO I, UH, LET'S SEE IF THERE'S A, IF THE APPLICANT IS, KNOWS THE ISSUE HERE, HAVE Y'ALL TALKED AT ALL ABOUT NO.
THIS FENCE OR MAYBE THERE'S SOME KIND OF A CONCURRENCE IF Y'ALL TALK AND THERE'S MAYBE A SECTION OF THAT FENCE THAT COULD BE BROUGHT DOWN TO MAKE WAIT FOR THAT CLEAR VISION.
WE'LL DROP IT DOWN BECAUSE THIS, THE SITE IS CONSIDERED LIKE THE FRONT OF HIS HOUSE, BUT HE BUILT THE FENCE FROM THERE ALL THE WAY TO THE BACK.
AND WHEN YOU'RE COMING, YOU CAN'T SEE THAT THAT FENCE WASN'T THERE BEFORE.
SO IT'S JUST SLIDE 1 47, IT LOOKS LIKE IT SHOWS THE SOLID WOOD FENCE ON THE, IN THE CUL-DE-SAC.
JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, UH, THAT WOODEN FENCE ISN'T PART OF THIS APPLICANT'S, UH, THING.
IT'S JUST THE, THE FRONT OF THE FENCE.
THIS REQUEST ONLY CONCERNS THE WROUGHT IRON FENCE.
THE REASON BEING, UH, AS PICTURED HERE, THAT WOODEN FENCE ACTUALLY DOES ENCROACH SLIGHTLY INTO THE FRONT YARD.
BUT I'M SPEAKING WITH THE APPLICANT ABOUT THIS REQUEST.
THEIR INTENT IS TO COMPLY WITH THE CODE AND CUT THAT WOODEN FENCE DOWN TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE THREE FEET.
FOR A SOLID FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD.
FOR THAT REASON, WE DID NOT INCLUDE THE SOLID FENCE AS PART OF THIS REQUEST.
SO AS THANK YOU AS PICTURED HERE, IT WILL BE CHANGED.
AND SO HOW DO WE ENFORCE THAT? I MEAN THE STANDARD CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS.
NO ONE INFORMED US ABOUT THAT.
I THOUGHT WE WERE HERE BECAUSE OF THE WOODEN FENCE.
WELL IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE, THERE WOULD BE SOME COMPLIANCE WITH THAT.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S GONNA BE CUT DOWN.
YEAH, BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN CALLED THE CITY AND THEY TOLD US THAT IN TWO YEARS THEY'RE GONNA BUILD A SIDEWALK.
IT'LL BE IN FRONT OF HIS HOUSE, BUT IN THE CUL-DE-SAC WE WILL NEVER GET A SIDEWALK.
SO HE STILL HAS TO BE ON THE STREET.
AND IF YOU SEE THE SIDE PLAN WHERE IT SAYS FRONT YARD AREA, ANYWHERE THAT THE, THE PRIVACY FENCE IS ON THE SIDE, IT'S GONNA BE CUT DOWN.
AND WE DO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A PORTION OF A FEW FEET THAT IS IN THAT'S ENCROACHING ON THERE, ON THAT WOOD FENCE.
AND, AND AS FAR AS UH, YOUR CONCERNED ABOUT THE SIDEWALKS KEEP BUGGING YOUR CITY COUNCIL PERSON TO GET A SIDEWALK THERE AND ESPECIALLY BECAUSE OF YOUR USE OF YOUR WHEELCHAIR, UH, THEY, THEY SHOULD PUSH IT REALLY QUICKLY BUT THE CITY NEEDS TO GET THAT SIDEWALK IN THERE.
YEAH, WHEN WE CALLED, THEY SAID IN 2028 THEY'RE GONNA BUILD A SIDEWALK BUT IT'S ONLY GONNA GO IN FRONT OF HIS HOUSE THE OTHER WAY.
BUT THEY WON'T, THEY WILL NOT DO IT ON THE CUL-DE-SAC.
AND AT THIS POINT THE APPLICANT I'D ASK YOU TO PLEASE COME FORWARD, I MEAN YOU HEARD UH, THE STAFF PRESENTATION AND UH, THE CONVERSATIONS YOU HAD WITH THEM ABOUT COMPLYING WITH THAT SIR CLEAR VISION AREA IN THE FRONT YARD AREA? YEAH, WE DID COMPLY WITH, UH, WHAT JOEL REQUESTED.
WE HAVE A PHOTO OF WHAT WE'VE STARTED WORKING ON ON THAT AREA THERE ON THE SIDE WHERE IT KIND OF ENCROACHES.
IF YOU NOTICE HERE THERE'S A LINE WHICH SHOWS WE'RE KIND OF THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE AND THAT'S THE AREA THAT WE'RE REDUCING DOWN TO MAKE SURE IT MEETS THAT THREE FOOT FRONT FENCE REQUIREMENT.
[03:05:01]
GONNA STAY A SOLID WOOD FENCE, IT'S JUST GONNA REDUCE DOWN TO THREE FEET AT THAT AREA THERE AT THE FRONT.AT THAT END OF THAT FRONT OF THERE.
IT, YEAH, IT'LL BE REDUCED FOR CLEAR VISION.
WE ALREADY REDUCED IT LIKE SIX FOOT DEEPER FOR CLEAR VISION AND WE CAME BACK A LITTLE MORE THAN WHAT WAS REQUESTED JUST TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THAT CORNER CLEAR THROUGH THE PERFECT, THANK YOU.
AND THAT'S THE MOST WE CAN ENFORCE WITHIN BOARD ANYWAY, SO.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT HEARING UNITED? ASK A MEMBER OF THE BOARD TO PLEASE MAKE A MOTION BRAGMAN MS. BRAGMAN REGARDING CASE NUMBER BOA DASH 25 DASH 0 3 0 0 2 65.
I MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANDER REQUEST FOR A 10 INCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FIVE FOOT, PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FRONT YARD FENCE TO ALLOW FIVE FOOT 10 INCH PREDOMINANTLY OPEN FENCE, OPEN FRONT YARD FENCE LIMITED TO THE GATE AS CONSTRUCTED, SITUATED AT 2 5 2 2 TOWN BRIAR STREET, APPLICANT BEING MATTHEW JONES.
BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT A, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER.
THE FENCE HEIGHT, SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL BE IN HARMONY OF THE SPIRIT OF THE CHAPTER AS THE EXCEPTION WILL BE LIMITED ONLY TO THE ARCH GATE OVER THE DRIVEWAY.
AND THE REMAINING FRONT YARD FENCE WOULD COMPLY WITH THE FENCE CODE B, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND CONVENIENCE WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED.
THE PUBLIC WELFARE SHOULD BE SERVED AS THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL ALLOW FOR AN AESTHETIC FEATURE ALONG THE FRONT YARD FENCE.
AND THE MAJORITY OF THE REMAINING FENCE WOULD BE CODE COMPLIANT.
C THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WILL NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED BY SUCH PROPOSED USE.
NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WOULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED AS THE FENCE AS CONSTRUCTED DOES NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THIS RESIDENTIAL SEAT STREET SCAPE.
D THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AND LOCATION IN WHICH THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SOUGHT.
THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS THE ADDITIONAL FENCE HEIGHT WOULD BE LIMITED TO THE GATE OVER THE DRIVEWAY.
E THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL NOT ALTER THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT OR THE REGULATIONS HEREIN ESTABLISHED FOR THE SPECIFIC DISTRICT.
THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD NOT WEAKEN THE PURPOSE OF THE DISTRICT AS DEFENSE WOULD LARGELY REMAIN CODE COMPLIANT AND ADHERE TO A TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL FENCE APPEARANCE.
THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD BE LIMITED IN SCOPE AND ONLY APPLY TO THE GATE OVER THE DRIVEWAY.
ALRIGHT, MS. BRAGMAN? UH, YEAH, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION.
IT'S VERY LIMITED SCOPE IN TERMS OF THE, UM, HEIGHT OVER THE, THE GATE.
UH, AND SO, AND BEING THAT IT'S UM, A WROUGHT IRON FENCE, UM, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION.
ALRIGHT, MR. STEVENS, I'LL CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE AND I APPRECIATE YOUR PROACTIVENESS ON THAT SIDE FENCE, SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT.
ALRIGHT, LET'S TAKE A ROLL CALL.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER BOEZ? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? I CONCUR.
SO NINE IN FAVOR, ZERO OPPOSITION.
THE PROJECT, THERE'S MORE MOTION, CLEAR VISION.
THERE'S A SEPARATE CL CLEAR VISION MOTION.
YOU CAN SIT DOWN BUT THERE'S MORE
REGARDING CASE NUMBER BO OA DASH 25 DASH 0 3 0 0 2 6 5 MOVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT OR REQUEST FOR A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AREA TO ALLOW 10 FOOT DRIVEWAY CLEAR VISION AREA FOR A DRIVEWAY IN THE FRONT YARD SITUATED AT 2 5 2 2 TOWN BRIAR STREET.
APPLICANT BEING MATTHEW JONES.
BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE'VE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERS PROPERTY IS SUCH THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY WE FIND THAT ONE THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
UH, THE REQUEST IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THERE IS SUFFICIENT CLEAR VISION TO SAFELY OBSERVE ONCOMING TRAFFIC AND EXIT THE DRIVEWAY ONTO THE LOCAL STREET.
TWO, DUE TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, A LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AS THERE IS SUFFICIENT CLEAR VISION AREA ALONG THE DRIVEWAY AND THE ENCROACHING FENCE IS PREDOMINANTLY OPEN.
BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.
[03:10:01]
OF 10 FEET LEAVES SUFFICIENT ROOM TO BACK INTO THE STREET AND WILL OBSERVE THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE.THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED.
NO USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE.
FIVE SUCH VARIANCES WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE FENCE WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS THE STREET SCAPE OF THIS RESIDENTIAL AREA IS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGED BY THE FENCE HAS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THIS CLEAR VISION AREA.
SIXTH PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WHICH 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.
THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SAW, IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ASSISTING ON THE PROPERTY SUCH AS THE SHALLOW FRONT YARD DEPTH, THE END OF MOTION.
UM, THE APPLICANT HAS ALREADY STATED THAT THEY ARE GONNA, UH, REDUCE DOWN THAT SIDE SOLID FENCE TO COMPLY WITH THE CLEAR VISION.
UM, SO I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION AND I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE AND I'LL ALSO BE IN SUPPORT.
ALRIGHT, LET'S TAKE A ROLL CALL.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER BOEZ? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ? YES, I CONCUR.
VICE CHAIR LUNA? YES, I CONCUR.
ALRIGHT, SO NOW, ALRIGHT, LET'S SEE IF MR. RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, BUT I THINK WE CAN DO ITEM NUMBER 16.
YOU GET A 16, UH, 2 73 PLEASE.
IS MR. REED OUT THERE OR IS HE, IS THE APPLICANT HERE FOR I THINK SO.
UH, THIS IS FOR EIGHT 11 SPRINGFIELD ROAD, UH, ZONE I ONE.
SO THIS IS FOR A 12 FOOT VARI FROM THE REQUIRED 30 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW A 18 FOOT FRONT SETBACK.
SUBJECT'S LOCATED JUST OFF THE, UH, BOUNDARY OF KIRBY.
THE LAW HAS AN EXISTING BUILDING WITHOUT, UH, PLACED WITHOUT A PERMIT.
HOWEVER, ONCE THE PERMIT WAS APPLIED FOR, IT WAS FOUND THAT NOT ABIDE BY THE FRONT SETBACK PROPERTY OF THE CDL DRIVING, UH, DRIVER'S TRAINING AND THE BUILDING WAS PLACED FORWARD TO ACCOMMODATE THE REAR FOR THAT PURPOSE.
THIS IS A SITE PLAN SHOWING THE 18 FOOT, UH, SETBACK IN THE FRONT.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SURROUNDING AREA STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL REDUCING THE SETBACK BY 40%.
UH, SHIFTS THE BUILDING MASS CLOSER TO THE STREET, POTENTIALLY AFFECTING TRAFFIC SAFETY SITE DISTANCE, STREET SCAPE, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST.
AND THE REQUEST PLACES THE INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURE AND ACTIVITIES VISIBLY CLOSER TO THE STREET, INCREASING THEIR PERCEPTION OF INTENSITY OF POTENTIALLY IMPACT THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES THROUGH VISUAL INTRUSION AND REDUCED BUFFERING.
NONE IN FAVOR OR OPPOSITION AND THERE'S NO REGISTERED NEIGHBOR ASSOCIATION OR COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION WITH A 200 FEET.
AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
ALRIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF HERE, STEVENS? I'M JUST CURIOUS, IS THIS CONSIDERED A PERMANENT STRUCTURE AND IT IS, IT IS CONSIDERED A PERMANENT STRUCTURE EVEN THOUGH IT'S UH, UM, OBVIOUSLY IT CAN BE MOVED EASIER THAN SOMETHING BUILT ON THE GROUND.
BUT BECAUSE, UM, BECAUSE IT'S THERE ON UH, ON BLOCKS LIKE THAT, IT'S CONSIDERED A PERMANENT STRUCTURE.
AND IF IT, IF IT WASN'T CONSIDERED A PERMANENT STRUCTURE, WOULD THOSE, WOULD IT BE IN VIOLATION OF SETBACK REQUIREMENTS? UM, SO THEY WOULDN'T NEED A BUILDING PERMIT.
UH, ZONING, UH, ZONING SETBACKS WOULD NOT, UH, BE IN EFFECT AT THAT POINT.
UM, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH WHATEVER PERMIT THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE FOR TEMPORARY STRUCTURE.
UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALRIGHT, LET'S GET THE APPLICANT FORWARD IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME FORWARD.
AND HELLO, JUST NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD PLEASE.
[03:15:01]
BERNICE.UM, THE ADDRESS IS EIGHT 11 SPRINGFIELD ROAD, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 1 9.
UM, THE APPLICANT, MICHAEL VILLALOBOS, IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 30 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW THE EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN AT ITS CURRENT 18 FOOT FRONT SETBACK.
THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED BASED ON PROFESSIONAL GUIDANCE FROM A PREVIOUSLY HIRED ENGINEER AT THE TIME OF THE CONSTRUCTION.
UM, THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE 30 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT BY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
AS A RESULT, THE BUILDING WAS PLACED ACCORDING TO THE ENGINEERED PLANS PROVIDED AT THE TIME, AND ALL UTILITIES WERE INSTALLED TO SUPPORT THIS LOCATION.
THE BUILDING HAS BEEN FULLY OPERATIONAL WITH NO NEGATIVE IMPACT TO, UM, TO PROPERTIES PUBLIC SAFETY, TRAFFIC VISIBILITY, OR THEIR SURROUNDING DISTRICT.
THE CURRENT PLACEMENT HAS FUNCTIONED SAFELY AND CONSISTENTLY WITH THE NEARBY DEVELOPMENT REQUIRING THE BUILDING TO BE RELOCATED 12 FEET.
TO MEET THE 30 FOOT SETBACK WOULD RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT HARDSHIP INCLUDING DEMOLITION OF, I'M SORRY, OF THE SIGNIFICANT HARD, UH, EXISTING STRUCTURE, DISRUPTION OF ONGOING BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND REMOVAL, RELOCATION OF ALL EXISTING WATER, SEWER, AND ELECTRICAL UTILITIES.
THESE IMPACTS ARE DISPROPORTIONATE AND WE NOT CREATED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER.
THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT, I MEAN, UM, I DID SUBMIT ADDITIONAL PHOTOS, UM, THAT WAY YOU GUYS CAN SEE ON THE RIGHT SIDE WE DO NEED THAT SPACE 'CAUSE WE HAVE, UM, PRE-UP INSPECTIONS, YOU KNOW, SO IT IS GONNA BE, UH, FINANCIALLY HARDSHIP JUST TO HIRE OTHER ADDITIONAL, UH, MOVERS AND PLUMBING, ELECTRICITY, YOU KNOW, TO DO THAT MOVE.
SO RIGHT THERE, THERE'S NO OTHER SPACE THAT WE CAN DO TO PUSH THAT FURTHER OUT.
ON THE RIGHT SIDE, WE JUST DO LITTLE MOVEMENTS OF OFFSETS AND IT IS, UM, ACROSS THE STREET, IT IS, UH, MOBILE UNITS, BUT THAT'S BEHIND, YOU KNOW, BACK AND IT'S NOT AS MUCH TRAFFIC.
IT'S THE SAME TRUCKING INDUSTRY IS NEXT DOOR IS, UH, AUTO PARTS.
UM, BUT IT IS IN EMPTY, LOTS IN BETWEEN.
UM, LET'S SEE IF HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
MS. B, HOW LONG HAS THAT BUILDING BEEN IN PLACE? I WOULD SAY ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF I WOULD SAY.
I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT, UM, BUT IT'S FAIRLY RECENT.
AND YOU HAVE AN ENGINEER'S REPORT THAT SHOWED, IT WAS SUBMITTED ACTUALLY, THEY, BEFORE THE PLACEMENT, UM, THE ENGINEER, THE PRIOR ENGINEER DID SUBMIT A APPLICATION, BUT UNDER MANUFACTURED HOME.
SO IT GOT WITHDRAWN TO BE UNDER COMMERCIAL, BUT IT WAS SET IN STONE WITH HIM.
HE DID SUBMIT THAT THERE FOR THE PERMIT FOR STAFF.
DID THEY, THEY REQUIRE IT IS ANCHORED DOWN ON THE POST PIERCE? YEAH.
SO THEY CURRENTLY HAVE, UH, PENDING COMMERCIAL BUILDING PERMIT.
UM, OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN'T GET IT APPROVED UNTIL THE BO IF THE BO OA APPROVES THIS.
BUT I BELIEVE THEY, UH, APPLIED FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PERMIT FIRST UNDER, UH, REGULAR MANUFACTURED HOME.
BUT THEN IT WAS CORRECTLY CHANGED TO A COMMERCIAL BUILDING.
BUT THAT, SO THE, THE BUILDING'S BEEN IN PLACE FOR OVER A YEAR.
WHEN WAS THE REQUEST SUBMITTED? UH, COMMERCIAL BUILDING WAS SEPTEMBER OF THIS YEAR OR LAST YEAR? 2025.
AND WHAT ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL? OH, ONE SECOND.
MY POINT IS DID THEY GET ANY SORT OF PERMIT BEFORE THE BUILDING WAS PUT IN PLACE? NO, UM, THAT THEY, UH, INITIATED THAT ONCE THE, UH, ONCE CO COMPLIANCE, UM, NOTIFIED THEM THAT THEY NEEDED A PERMIT.
WHAT ELSE? UM, IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS SEPTEMBER, UM, SO ABOUT A MONTH BEFORE THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING PERMIT.
SO THERE WAS NO PERMIT ISSUED BEFORE THE BUILDING WAS PUT IN PLACE.
UM, THIS WAS BETWEEN THE ENGINEER THAT WAS HIRED ON, UH, WE WERE LOOKING DEEP INTO IT BECAUSE, UM, HE DID WITHDRAW HIMSELF DUE TO ILL BEING ILL.
SO WE STARTED MOVING BACKWARDS.
WE DO UNDERSTAND THAT WE NEED TO DEAL WITH A LOT OF PERMITS IN THE CITY TO GET APPROVAL.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE CURRENTLY DOING.
WE ARE TRYING OUR BEST TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH, YOU KNOW, WITH YOU ALL.
WE CREATED THE SITE PLANS ALREADY TO BE SUBMITTED.
I HAVE EVERYTHING ELSE TO BE SUBMITTED, BUT I ONLY, THIS IS A MAJOR ONE THAT WE DO NEED TO RESOLVE TO CONTINUE WITH THE APPLICATION.
AND WELL, CORRECTION, SORRY FOR THE ORIGINAL, THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION WAS AUGUST 20, 24.
SO A LITTLE BIT OVER A YEAR BEFORE THE COMMERCIAL ONE.
SO THAT COULD HAVE COINCIDED WITH WHEN THE BUILDING WAS PUT IN PLACE? CORRECT.
YEAH, IT LOOKS LIKE ONE, IT LOOKS LIKE VERY QUICKLY AFTER THE BUILDING WAS PUT IN PLACE, THEY WERE
[03:20:01]
NOTIFIED AND THEN THEY APPLIED.IT WAS JUST APPLIED IN THE WRONG APPLICATION, THEN THEY WENT TO THE CORRECT APPLICATION.
PO PO YOU GUYS HAVE ELECTRICAL THROUGH CPS? YES.
SO FOR C, HOW DOES CPS HOOK THIS UP? DO, DO THEY JUST HOOK IT UP TO ANY STRUCTURE OR DO THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH YOU GUYS FIRST BEFORE THEY HOOK UP THIS, THIS MAIN LINE AND METER? I BELIEVE THEY DID IT BASED OFF THE PERMIT APPLICATION.
OBVIOUSLY NOT THE, THE PERMIT APPROVED, I BELIEVE.
UM, BUT YEAH, THEY DO HAVE TO FOLLOW THE, THE NORMAL PERMITTING GUIDELINES.
I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE HOW, UM, CPS APPROVED IT.
UM, UM, WE DID DO THAT WITH CPS.
WE, I STAYED ON TOP OF THE PHONE CALLS AND PERMIT.
THEY SAID THEY HAD TO GET CITY APPROVAL, SO THAT'S HOW WE STAYED IN THINKING THAT IT WAS GONNA BE APPROVED, BUT WE MADE SURE THAT IT WAS.
YEAH, NO, 'CAUSE I'VE GONE THROUGH THAT PROCESS TOO, WHERE I COULDN'T GET IT ELECTRICAL HOOKED UP TO YOU GUYS APPROVED IT ONCE APPROVED BY YOU GUYS, THEN CPS CAME OUT AND HOOKED UP OUR METER.
SO I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE METER, HOW THEY GOT A LINEUP WITHOUT IT BEING APPROVED BY CITY.
YEAH, I'M SEEING THERE WAS AN ELECTRICAL PERMIT ISSUED, UM, HAS SINCE BEEN WITHDRAWN.
SO THIS WAS IN NOVEMBER OF 2024.
I THINK THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME, PERHAPS A CLERICAL ISSUE AT THE FRONT COUNTERS, UM, REVIEWING THAT, THAT PORTION OF THE, OF THE WORKFLOW.
SO WHEN YOU GUYS STARTED, OR I GUESS MAYBE IF YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS, WHEN THE STRUCTURE PUT UP, WAS THE OWNER, WAS HE TRYING TO GET A PERMIT? WAS HE GOING THROUGH THE RIGHT PROCESS, WHICH HE THOUGHT WAS 'CAUSE YOU CONTACTED CPS SO HE KNEW HE NEEDED.
YEAH, SO HIRING THE ENGINEER, WE, IN GOOD FAITH, WE LEFT IT TO HIM, YOU KNOW, TO TAKE CARE OF EVERYTHING.
SO ONCE, UM, WE, HE DID WITHDRAW HIMSELF BECAUSE HE GOT VERY ILL.
THERE'S, WE HAD TO DIG DEEP IN THERE.
OKAY, LET'S PICK UP WHERE HE LEFT OFF.
WE NEED TO HIRE ANOTHER PERSON TO COME, YOU KNOW, FIX THIS.
SO ONCE WE LOOKED INTO IT, WE SAW THE APPLICATION WITH HIS WITHDRAWN.
SO HE, WHEN HIS, YOU KNOW, RESPONSIBILITIES, THAT'S WHY WE FIGURED, OKAY, EVERYTHING'S GOOD.
STAYED IN CONTACT WITH CPS WITH THE WATER.
WE SAWS OTHER CONTRACTORS TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING'S OKAY.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE STARTED APPROACHING OURSELVES PERSONALLY TO GET FURTHER INFORMATION AND CLARITY ON THIS, UM, SITUATION.
AND REAL QUICK FOR CITI, THE 30 FOOT SETBACK, IS THAT, IT IT, IT'S REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S A MANUFACTURED HOME OR A BUSINESS, RIGHT? CORRECT.
AND WE DO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT PAST THAT, UM, SETBACK, THEY DO HAVE AN EASEMENT ON THERE, BUT WE CAN'T USE THAT EASEMENT AS PART OF THE SETBACK, BUT IT DOES EXIST.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALRIGHT, STAFF, ANY VOICEMAIL OR PUBLIC COMMENT TO BE READ INTO THE PUBLIC? NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
ANY OTHER LAST QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ANY OTHER COMMENTS YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE BEFORE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION? UM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? THIS IS THE LAST THING FOR THAT WHOLE PROCESS WE DOING RIGHT NOW MM-HMM
SO YEAH, WE ARE TRYING TO GET THIS, UH, THE LAST STEP, THE LAST STEP TO BE, UM, COMPLETED COMPLETE SO WE CAN PROCEED WITH WHATEVER YOU GUYS ARE REQUIRING TO, YOU KNOW, FIX.
LET'S, UH, CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION.
I'D ASK A MEMBER OF THE BOARD TO PLEASE MAKE A MOTION.
UH, REGARDING, UH, REGARDING CASE NUMBER B 8 2 5 0 3 2 7 3, I MOVED THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTED REQUEST FOR A 12 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 30 FOOT FRONT SETBACK TO ALLOW FOR AN 18 FOOT FRONT SETBACK SITUATION SITUATED AT EIGHT 11 SPRINGFIELD ROAD, APPLICANT BEING, UH, STAR CDL TRAINING LLC BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO US AND THE FACTS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED SHOW THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED WILL RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
SPECIFICALLY, WE FIND THAT ONE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS REDUCED FRONT SETBACK DOES NOT DECREASE THE EXISTING SEPARATION FROM RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ACROSS THE STREET AND ALLOWS INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY TO BE POSITIONED FAR FARTHER FROM THOSE RESIDENTIAL REAR YARDS.
TWO, DUE TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS, THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE OR ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.
A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE OR ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP BY RESTRICTING THE ABILITY TO LOCATE INDUSTRIAL USE SPACE TOWARD THE REAR OF THE LOT WHERE POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO NEARBY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES CAN BE BETTER MANAGED.
THREE, BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE.
THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD BE OBSERVED BY GRANTING THIS VARIANCE BY SUPPORTING FUNCTIONAL SITE DESIGN AND APPROPRIATE LAND USE TRANSITIONS.
AND BY PROVIDING SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, BY ALLOWING REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIALLY ZONED PROPERTY.
FOUR, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A USE OTHER THAN THOSE, THOSE USES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE VARIANCE IS LOCATED.
NO OTHER USES OTHER THAN THOSE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT WILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS VARIANCE.
FIVE SUCH VARIANCE WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY OR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH PROPERTY LOCATED SUCH VARIANCE WOULD
[03:25:01]
NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT AS IT DOES NOT INCREASE DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY AND RELOCATES INDUSTRIAL USE FAR FROM THE RESIDENTIAL REAR YARDS FACING THE SITE.SIX, THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE SOLD IS DUE TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CREATED BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT MERELY FINANCIAL AND ARE DUE TO, OR THE RESULT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
THE PLIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS DUE TO A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE EXISTING ON THIS PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE ORIENTATION OF RESIDENTIAL REAR YARDS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE INDUSTRIAL LOT, WHICH WAS NOT SELF, WHICH WAS NOT SELF-CREATED AND IS NOT MERELY FINANCIAL OR THE, OR AS THE RESULT OF A GENERAL DISTRICT CONDITIONS END OF MOTION.
ALRIGHT, CAN I GET A SECOND? SECOND? ALRIGHT.
UH, MR. EZ, WOULD YOU LIKE TO PROVIDE SOME? SURE, YEAH, NO, I, I'LL BE IN FAVOR OF THIS.
UH, MAINLY BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I I I, THERE'S A LOT OF COMPLICATIONS WE HAVE WHEN IT COMES ACROSS, YOU KNOW, CPS HOOKING UP, UH, METERS AND HOOKING UP POWER LINES AND HAVING TO GET CITY APPROVAL.
YOU KNOW, WHEN ALL THIS IS DONE, AND I'VE PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED THIS WHERE, UM, I'VE HAD CPS DENY ME GETTING A LINE HOOKED UP BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE CITY APPROVAL UNTIL WE GOT CITY APPROVAL IS WHEN WE FINALLY WERE ABLE TO GET OUR LINES HOOKED UP.
SO THE FACT THAT THESE GUYS HAVE CPS HOOK HOOKED UP THEIR LINES, THEY GOT SOME TYPE OF APPROVAL FROM THE CITY ON A STRUCTURE THAT'S THERE.
UM, I'M, I'M, I'LL BE FINE WITH THAT.
I DON'T THINK 18 TO 30 FEET IS GONNA GREATLY HINDER ANY OF THIS WITH THOSE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES BEING TO THE REAR.
UM, IT'S PROBABLY BEST THAT IT IS CLOSER TO THE FRONT.
MR. BREVIN, UM, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT AS WELL.
I, I DON'T FEEL LIKE THE, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE FRONT SETBACK IS GONNA REALLY MEAN VERY MUCH.
AND, UH, THE APPLICANT IS TRYING VERY HARD TO REMEDY ISSUES WITH THE PREVIOUS ENGINEER.
UM, SO I APPLAUD THEM FOR THAT.
UM, THE TIME IS LIKE FIVE 50 AND, UH, COMMISSIONER REED, UH, JOINED THE BOARD BACK AGAIN.
SO ARE YOU GONNA BE ABLE TO VOTE ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE? YES.
SO, UH, LET, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE THEN.
COMMISSIONER EZ? YES, I CONCUR.
I CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
COMMISSIONER REED? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER STEVENS? YES, I CONCUR.
COMMISSIONER IBANEZ? I CONCUR.