[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6541255,"mediaKeyId","3626294-3bb94da3cfb2ea2c9a2243cfeab93112","parentId",3626294,"title","Board approves clear-vision variance but upholds 4-foot front-fence limit at Monte Vista property","audioSeconds",3891,"startMs",479000,"endMs",4370000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3626294-3bb94da3cfb2ea2c9a2243cfeab93112&start=479&end=4370","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3626294-3bb94da3cfb2ea2c9a2243cfeab93112/thumbnail_479000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6541255/San-Antonio/Bexar-County/Texas/Board-approves-clear-vision-variance-but-upholds-4-foot-front-fence-limit-at-Monte-Vista-property","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6541255-dc03fbf78bcca0e235a41a5b8f810060/orig.mp4?Expires=1771158055&Signature=UOIwswVwyWlFCtc0Te~A81NVTLWMW1pmp6zlL~PHrbq6gu1wT3Iuu39deHd-zbj-UErEAanr6vGHGYWbaCkmhjFRDdcrwlMVmI7wv2kwgozIpqEdxN7mdAA5KHMnV0cQ7aAMvU5e2kZal9LeIBjbnuh2YxMJeBMxD4o-plZ4LnILRspsuxOqYEYfBClR4qlmTsHFj0el5el70BfWTuh1KQasW~73ZRft3KifimLHjhLE9yrltzWJWbNq2SPfcVnbX1uOtW9xrU5zSKrVRBjZMJyfOfqOLwQ1mqTBXbuRdy6XFxCGb2vaujpsn9ZoWk139Arb~YE4tryh5pq6lZqo0w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","San Antonio","date","2025-06-02T00:00:00Z","article","The San Antonio Board of Adjustment on June 2 approved variances narrowing required corner and driveway clear-vision distances for 133 West Craig Place but declined to allow the property’s eight-foot wrought-iron perimeter fence to remain above the historic-district limit.

The board voted to grant a 15-foot-6-inch variance to allow a 9-foot-6-inch corner clear-vision and a 7-foot variance to allow an eight-foot driveway clear vision, finding the reduced sight triangles would not create a traffic hazard. But after separate votes the board rejected a motion to permit a taller front fence and also rejected an appeal of the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) and Historic and Design Review compliance board decision that the front fence be lowered to 4 feet.

Those twin outcomes leave the property with a permitted clear-vision variance but subject to the Office of Historic Preservation’s certificate-of-appropriateness limit on front-yard fences. OHP staff had told the board the fence exceeds the historic-guideline maximum and that the historic review body had approved the fence only with the stipulation that it not exceed 4 feet.

Why it matters: Residents and the historic-neighborhood association said a lower, predominantly open fence would preserve neighborhood character and sight lines at intersections; the property owner and his attorney said the taller wrought-iron fence is mostly open, matches the building’s scale and is needed for security for the multi-unit building.

What happened in the meeting
- Staff presentation: Joel Vela, senior zoning planner with Development Services, summarized the permit history and explained the case contained three requests: a special exception to exceed the 5-foot predominantly open front-fence limit, and two variances for corner and driveway clear-vision areas. OHP staff member Edward Hall explained the historic-guideline basis for a 4-foot front-fence limit in Monte Vista. Vela told the board staff recommended denial of the height and material requests and recommended denial of the clear-vision variances.

- Applicant’s argument: Attorney David E. Dilley, representing the property owner OSA Group, said the wrought-iron fence is “predominantly open” and that the building’s height and use (a 10-unit multifamily structure, he said) make the higher fence appropriate for security and compatible in materials. Dilley pointed commissioners to photographs and a survey of other properties in Monte Vista to show similar fences elsewhere in the district.

- Neighbors and association: The board played multiple voice messages and heard from Ryan Reed, chair of the Monte Vista Historical Association’s Architectural Review Committee, who said the association supports a 4-foot fence as a compromise and that the property owner did not consult the association or OHP before construction. Several voicemail speakers and an association president asked the board to deny requests. Other neighbors who live adjacent to the site testified the new fence improved safety and reduced disturbing behavior on the lot.

- Enforcement history: OHP staff described stop-work notices and a certificate-of-appropriateness application submitted after construction began. OHP said staff had advised the owner of the need for a certificate and that work continued after a stop-work email and an enforcement notice from Development Services.

Board votes and outcome
- Clear-vision variances: The board found adequate sight lines would remain and approved reduced corner and driveway clear-vision distances (the motion and roll-call were recorded on the record). Chair Orian announced the clear-vision request was approved.

- Front-fence height: A motion to permit a 5.5-foot predominantly open fence (a 6-inch variance above the 5-foot code maximum) failed on a 6–5 roll call. Because that motion failed, the applicant retained the right to a 5-foot predominantly open fence by-right only if the subsequent appeal succeeded.

- Appeal of the OHP decision: The applicant separately appealed the OHP/HDRC action that limited the fence to 4 feet. The board rejected that appeal (motion failed 7–4), leaving the historic review body’s 4-foot limit in place.

What the record shows: Staff mailed 48 notices; the Monte Vista Historical Neighborhood Association submitted opposition, and the Office of Historic Preservation recommended upholding its earlier action limiting front-yard fences to 4 feet. Multiple neighbors left recorded messages opposing the taller fence; others supported the property owner on security grounds. OHP and code-enforcement records show stop-work notices and an application submitted after construction began.

Next steps: Because the OHP decision was upheld by the Board of Adjustment, the applicant must comply with the certificate-of-appropriateness limit and reduce the front-yard fence height to the 4-foot level required by the OHP decision, unless the applicant pursues further appeals in other forums.

Ending: The Monte Vista case combined technical zoning questions about visibility with preservation guidelines. The board’s split votes reflected competing municipal goals—traffic safety, visual continuity for a historic neighborhood and property owners’ security concerns—while leaving the OHP’s condition intact.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","San Antonio - Board of Adjustment Jun 02, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The San Antonio Board of Adjustment on June 2 approved narrow reductions to corner and driveway clear-vision requirements for 133 West Craig Place but declined to allow the property’s taller front-yard fence, letting a historic-preservation officer’s 4-foot limit stand.","taxTitle","San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas","taxId",2771,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6541244,"Board continues hearing on 125 Glass Avenue short-term rental permit after staff questions about residency",2297,7383000,9680000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3626294-3bb94da3cfb2ea2c9a2243cfeab93112&start=7383&end=9680","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3626294-3bb94da3cfb2ea2c9a2243cfeab93112/thumbnail_7383000.jpg","/articles/6541244/San-Antonio/Bexar-County/Texas/Board-continues-hearing-on-125-Glass-Avenue-short-term-rental-permit-after-staff-questions-about-residency","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6541244-abce9599ac700b097d7a78adbe0a746e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771158055&Signature=P4oJhIYNpQTZrh4eFat75B5UkTSA2rkPEviMLuUEXjPiMizwcuMvF85dihdHWRJHK5Ss878mubLlIc6~1GNI3mlR6Cpg2wPM22JbB4IeF~bIC3PkrGYDqOx4GqAllBPZ2nm1wtOPjMMNylyiR8H4Me9f-Y3FjcIMCYjxZiBB4IAbPWJsTNaiLvBl26MZLlVTaI~Gq7ZmQ8YvyAGABe8v9k5cvAmLIIGWyFFOrfUwTEuhJLesC-2jx1-k3psudWH5lecqOozAyHesTWqyPmisaDa4wNjt8jFkDgyf~KcE9lDgTYE1cTj4oG6~gxeku6725mScXGrrCAdFn6dmvBK8VA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Antonio Board of Adjustment on June 2 continued an appeal by an applicant seeking a Type 1 (owner-occupied) short-term rental permit for 125 Glass Avenue to the board’s next meeting on June 16, after staff and several commissioners said additional documentation was needed to verify the applicant’s residency and other outstanding items.

What staff said: Juan Alvarez, a planner with Development Services, told the board the property has a history of compliance problems going back to 2018, including investigations and unpaid hotel-occupancy taxes that were paid by a subsequent owner. Alvarez said staff received an application that claimed the operator would be generally present at the property but also noted conflicting information in the application and an online listing that appeared to promote the entire house for short-term rental use.

Applicant’s response: Alyssa Thomas, who filed the Type 1 application, said the property is her primary residence and that she had submitted a lease and updated driver’s license showing the Glass Avenue address. Thomas said she intends to live at the property “four to six nights a week” and that she had previously worked in STR operations for a management company. She said some application details were incomplete due to unfamiliarity with the Type 1 submittal requirements and requested additional time to provide documentation.

Why the board continued the matter: Commissioners asked for clearer proof of “generally present” residency (utility bills, lease details tied to occupancy, mail delivery, or other documents) and for staff to verify ownership and contact records. Several commissioners suggested a short continuance so staff and the applicant could reconcile the application materials and verify whether the right permit type (Type 1 vs. Type 2) had been requested.

Meeting action: The board voted to continue the case to the June 16 meeting and instructed staff to identify the specific documents the applicant should provide before the continued hearing. Alvarez and others noted staff would work with the applicant to confirm occupancy claims and outstanding code items.

Why it matters: Type 1 permits are intended for owner-occupied properties or where an operator actually lives on site. If the board ultimately finds the applicant is not generally present, the property may require a Type 2 permit (not allowed in some block faces without a special exception) or could be subject to enforcement action for prior unpermitted rental activity.

Ending: The applicant was given two weeks to work with staff to provide documentation. The board scheduled the case to return at the June 16 meeting.","A San Antonio Board of Adjustment hearing on an owner-occupied (Type 1) short-term rental permit at 125 Glass Avenue was continued to June 16 after staff raised questions about whether the applicant is generally present at the property and other documentation issues.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6541251,"Board of Adjustment: appointments, short-term rental exceptions and neighborhood variances — votes at a glance",7065,315000,7380000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3626294-3bb94da3cfb2ea2c9a2243cfeab93112&start=315&end=7380","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3626294-3bb94da3cfb2ea2c9a2243cfeab93112/thumbnail_315000.jpg","/articles/6541251/San-Antonio/Bexar-County/Texas/Board-of-Adjustment-appointments-short-term-rental-exceptions-and-neighborhood-variances-votes-at-a-glance","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6541251-67854f6883650801e1a33af8b643e6e3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771158055&Signature=m4OqUjE~juPR9KHIJ0w8USF8T5rbEgDlozSon7EvDtAKx4qkDOROLKaAuWRnn-CJzdqAatE4Za3NxWuoYuH8BYr55-GUNB5nYfAzsPBfwKgnCQI260JupSxMOGNK8eeFDrv1r7PtjTbL1yxX9NABxSZWeVhr4w5ev3MyNmLTh8VJeJW2Oj7H2yfPgRFgNpLeKMfVZZn6yBCVqeXG8RQ3VHh-JZa4QcC4Osk4EEQonEW25CftvHqe4fU6QDDBM0kqG8UuPJ7mrgTZBb7gBl0tHzSb5l3eqD3c7WmS3RS0luf153yT0QQh2aY~G3Mwxcs~c8KdVqoXPUP8T2Fzwbp85w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Antonio Board of Adjustment handled a full docket on June 2, voting on appointments, short-term rental density exceptions, multiple setback and fence requests, and historic-review appeals. The board took final action on most items and continued two cases for further review.

Key outcomes
- Planning Commission Technical Advisory Committee appointments: The board approved Commissioner Bragman as the primary representative and Commissioner Cruz as alternate to serve on the Planning Commission’s Technical Advisory Committee. The appointment was made by acclamation after nominations from the floor.

- Short-term rental block exceptions: The board granted special exceptions to allow additional Type 2 short-term rentals on two block faces after finding the applicants had operated without recent complaints and staff supported renewal in both cases.
- 311 East Evergreen, Unit 5 — special exception approved (motion passed, roll call 10–1). Staff had recommended denial but the board found evidence of prior lawful operation and limited neighborhood opposition.
- 2152 Hayes Street — special exception approved (motion passed, roll call recorded as approval). The applicant had previously held a license and the board found no active complaints.

- Other variances and approvals: The board approved a range of variances for residential and commercial properties across the city, including side- and front-setback variances, fence-material and height variances, and driveway clear-vision variances. Notable approvals: 9419 Poteet/Jordanton (corrugated metal fence material variance), 507 East Whittier (side-setback variances), and 1118 Dawson (6-foot front-yard privacy fence limited to 17 feet past the facade on the east side). Most of these passed on motions after staff presentations and roll-call votes.

- Brownleaf carport and impervious cover (714 South Brownleaf Drive): The board approved reduced front- and side-setbacks and a reduced driveway clear vision for a carport structure, but members could not reach the nine votes needed to allow the applicant’s requested 60% front-yard impervious cover. After limited follow-up the board authorized the front and side setback relief and the clear-vision relief; the impervious-cover request failed and may require the applicant to remove or change paving to meet the UDC’s limits.

- Continued cases: Two items were continued to the board’s June 16 meeting for additional fact-finding: 125 Glass Avenue (appeal/Type-1 short-term rental permit) and 2512 Southwest Loop 410 (fence height and materials at a commercial lumber/yard property).

Context and next steps
Staff presentations typically included site plans, aerial imagery and mailed-notice results. In several cases staff recommended denial and the board either agreed or—after hearing applicant testimony and neighbors—approved partial relief. Where the board approved variances or exceptions, the relevant permits and inspections will remain subject to code compliance checks. For items continued to June 16 the board set deadlines for applicants and staff to produce additional documentation.

Votes at a glance (selected items)
- Planning commission TAC appointment — Bragman (primary) / Cruz (alternate): approved by acclamation.
- 133 W. Craig (clear vision variances): approved.
- 133 W. Craig (fence height / COA appeal): fence-height special-exception motion failed; appeal of OHP/HDRC decision failed (COA decision, 4-foot limit, upheld).
- 311 E. Evergreen, Unit 5 (Type 2 SR exception): approved, 10–1.
- 2152 Hayes St. (Type 2 SR exception): approved (roll call recorded in minutes).
- 9419 Poteet/Jordanton (fence material variance): approved unanimously.
- 507 E. Whittier (carport/addition side-setback variances): approved unanimously.
- 1118 Dawson St. (6-foot front privacy fence limited to 17 feet past the facade on east): approved, unanimous.
- 714 S. Brownleaf Dr. (carport setbacks and driveway clear vision): front- and side-setback variances and reduced clear vision approved; impervious-cover request denied.

Why this matters: The board’s decisions affect property owners’ immediate ability to keep or modify fences, install carports and operate short-term rentals. For contested historic-district decisions, OHP conditions remain enforceable unless reversed by the board — as with the Monte Vista case where the board upheld the OHP’s 4-foot front-fence limitation.

Ending: Many approvals were conditional on permit and inspection follow-up; applicants denied relief may pursue further administrative remedies or revise proposals for future hearings.","At its June 2 meeting the San Antonio Board of Adjustment approved an appointment to the Planning Commission Technical Advisory Committee, granted several short-term rental block exceptions and multiple setback and fence variances; one high-profile historic-district fence appeal failed.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board approves clear-vision variance but upholds 4-foot front-fence limit at Monte Vista property

Board continues hearing on 125 Glass Avenue short-term rental permit after staff questions about residency

Board of Adjustment: appointments, short-term rental exceptions and neighborhood variances — votes at a glance