San Antonio board upholds notice of violation for fence at 2781 West Jet Road; owner appealed on grounds it is art and outside his property

The City of San Antonio hearing body ruled that a notice of violation for a deteriorated fence at 2781 West Jet Road was issued and served properly, denying the owner’s appeal that the notice was inadequate. The board voted 5-0.

Staff account and service history Joshua Martínez, supervisor for Code Implementation, summarized inspections and the city’s service attempts: an initial inspection on Jan. 16, 2025, a reinspection on Jan. 24, continued observations through late February and photographic documentation dated Jan. 24 and Feb. 28, 2025. Martinez said staff posted a notice at the property on Jan. 24, sent certified mail on Feb. 14 and emailed the owner; the case record shows a follow-up posting and additional notices as staff pursued compliance.

Owner’s appeal and claims Property owner (Mr.) Ross appeared and presented historical and documentary material, arguing the feature is an expression of art and that portions of the structure or materials in dispute sit in a city right-of-way, not on his private property. Ross said he had relied on the location and longstanding character of the feature since before annexation and described the display as artwork and not a standard fence.

Staff and procedural focus City staff and the board repeatedly limited the hearing to its narrow question: whether the notice of violation had been issued and served in accordance with city procedure. Staff witnesses, including Judith Crum (case contact), testified that the appeal was filed in writing (Feb. 12, 2025) and that certified mail and email notices were sent and posting was completed before the appeal timeline expired.

Board decision and reasoning Board member Anne Wayner moved to find the notice properly issued under the cited fence code provision; Robert Tapia seconded. On a 5-0 roll call, the board determined the notice met the city’s procedural requirements. The board did not make a substantive ruling on whether the work qualified as protected art or on property-line disputes; it explicitly limited the decision to the adequacy of notice and the appeal procedure.

Next steps and appeals Staff explained to the owner how to pursue further administrative or judicial remedies, including the right to appeal the board’s decision under the city’s procedures and to present additional documentary evidence in subsequent processes.

Ending The board’s unanimous ruling brought this particular appeal to a close on the procedural question of notice. Any substantive questions about the fence’s location or artistic character would require separate hearings or litigation.