Board grants variances for Atlas Street property, approves eight-foot fence and allows existing shed due to hardship
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The Board approved a set of variances for a property at 183 Atlas Street filed by applicant Cherry (Terry) Frey, allowing an existing shed close to the side property line and approving an eight-foot fence in limited locations after consideration of neighbor input.
The San Antonio Board of Adjustment approved multiple variances for a property at 183 Atlas Street (case BOA-2510300001), allowing an accessory structure to remain near the side property line and approving increased fence heights in limited locations.
Staff presented photographs showing the accessory structure (an 8-by-12 shed) and said the work was done without a permit; staff recommended denial of the accessory-structure variance but recommended approval of other requested fence exceptions that staff found would not alter the character of the district. The staff presentation indicated two notices were mailed and one respondent opposed the request.
The homeowner, Cherry Fry, told the board she had built the shed in 2022 to store belongings and that she had not understood the permitting requirements. Fry described personal hardship following the recent death of her mother and said the structure was necessary for storage. The board asked for clarification about the shed foundations (staff said it sits on concrete blocks). Commissioners discussed whether the shed was movable and whether a reduced fence height would preserve sight lines for neighbors.
After discussion the board voted to allow the accessory structure to remain with a reduced setback (the motion specified a one-inch lateral setback and one-and-a-half feet in the rear, incorporating a clarifying amendment about an overhang), and to approve a special exception for fence height allowing up to eight feet in certain lateral portions while excluding the far rear line; the board attached spatial limits (an exclusion of more than 14 feet along the north property line was discussed and included in the motion). The roll call showed the motion passed with 10–1 in favor.
Commissioners noted the owner’s unfamiliarity with permitting systems and the emotional nature of the applicant’s testimony; several commissioners said they were sympathetic but reiterated that the board’s approval was narrowly tailored to the specific property and did not change code requirements generally.