The Eagle Pass Zoning Board of Adjustments and Appeals on June 4 voted to table a variance request from property owner Maribel Rodriguez that would allow an event hall at a corner lot near Luis (transcript also lists Lee/Louis) and Wilson streets, after city staff reported the site lacks the required number of off‑street parking spaces and that some proposed spaces appear to fall in public right‑of‑way.

The board voted to table the item 3-0 after a staff presentation recommending denial. Board member Toby Valero moved to table the application; the motion passed with a recorded tally of three in favor and no recorded opposition in the meeting transcript.

City staff told the board the parcel—described in staff materials as South Heights Addition, Block 3, Lots 7 and 8—measures about 18,564 square feet, is zoned B-1 (neighborhood business), and is shown as residential on the city master plan. Staff said the property currently contains a two‑family duplex and an unoccupied commercial structure and that the applicant seeks a variance from the City of Eagle Pass Code of Ordinances (Appendix A, Zoning Ordinance) to allow operation of an event hall on the site.

Staff said the zoning ordinance requires one parking space per 100 gross square feet for uses closest to a restaurant/nightclub/assembly classification, and that the building’s gross floor area—described in the meeting as about 3,100 square feet—yields a high parking requirement (staff and the board discussed a requirement of 32 spaces). The applicant’s original site plan included nine striped spaces along Wilson Street; during the hearing the applicant notified staff that she had identified additional spaces along Louis/Luis Street and that she was seeking a reduction to 19 spaces, but staff said it had not received a revised layout showing those spaces.

City staff explained that parking located in the public right‑of‑way generally cannot be counted to meet off‑street parking requirements and that some of the striped spaces visible in street photos appear to be partly within the right‑of‑way. Staff also told the board the duplex’s parking area is required for that dwelling use and cannot be counted toward the venue’s parking requirement. Staff recommended denying the variance because, as presented, the proposal does not conform to sections 12.1.c.1 and 12.1.c.3.a of the zoning ordinance.

Araceli Gonzales, who identified herself during public comment and said she was representing the applicant, told the board the venue was used previously and that, historically, the site had capacity for about 120 people. “We can either lower it down to a 100 or 80. It's just for birthday parties, small birthday parties, or baby showers. Nothing big,” Gonzales said. The applicant and staff discussed the possibility of reducing the interior gross floor area used as the hall (for example, partitioning portions of the building) to lower the ordinance parking requirement because the parking formula is based on gross square footage.

Board members and staff noted other options the applicant could pursue before the matter returns: securing an off‑premise parking agreement within 500 feet of the venue entrance (a provision in the zoning code), reducing the hall’s usable square footage so the required parking drops, or providing a revised site plan that documents usable parking is entirely on private property. The board also discussed that the fire marshal determines occupancy limits and that staff could consult the fire marshal to clarify maximum allowed occupancy for any proposed layout.

No letters in favor or opposition were reported; staff said 28 notices were mailed to adjoining property owners on May 22 and a legal notice ran in the local paper on May 21, 2025. Staff also noted a January 2024 variance related to the duplex circulation/drive aisle on the same property.

With those issues unresolved, Board member Toby Valero moved to table the hearing to allow staff time to research the right‑of‑way and parking layout and to allow the applicant to provide a revised plan. The motion passed. The board directed staff to return the item to a future meeting with additional information, including a clearer site layout showing which parking spaces are on private property, any off‑site parking agreements the applicant can secure, and background research about prior uses or variances.

The board closed the item for public hearing at about 6:08 p.m.; the meeting adjourned shortly thereafter.