Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning commission continues vote on land‑use change for Cross Mountain event venue after heavy neighborhood opposition

5689800 · August 27, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The San Antonio Planning Commission on Aug. 27 voted to continue consideration to its Sept. 24 meeting of a request to amend the Camp Bullis extraterritorial jurisdiction military protection land use plan from low‑density residential to community commercial for property at 8860 Cross Mountain Trail.

The San Antonio Planning Commission on Aug. 27 voted to continue consideration to its Sept. 24 meeting of a request to amend the Camp Bullis extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) military protection land use plan from low‑density residential to community commercial for property at 8860 Cross Mountain Trail.

Clayton Wallace, interim principal planner with Development Services, told the commission the application would allow a property owner to continue operating an existing outdoor event venue but that staff recommended denial because “the proposed community commercial is not compatible with other land uses in the area” and the designation allows uses the department judged potentially detrimental to the neighborhood. Wallace also reported that 15 notices were mailed: 7 responses in support and 2 opposed within 200 feet; outside that radius there were 46 opposed and 1 in support.

The applicant, attorney Emily Weisler of Killing Griffin & Fairman, said the request covers an 8.5‑acre parcel that the owners use as a micro wedding venue and that the venue has operated “for over a year without issue.” Weisler and co‑owner Genevieve Zayas told commissioners they live on the property, do not seek expansion and are willing to negotiate private restrictive covenants to limit uses allowed by community commercial.

Numerous residents urged denial or a delay to let the owners and neighbors negotiate. Sheila Gomez Mira, a Cross Mountain resident, said she moved to the area for its “quietness, the beauty of the landscapes” and warned that commercial uses would bring more traffic and noise. George Richmond, a long‑time resident and former HOA president, said the community is primarily 1–3‑acre residential lots and objected to potential commercial uses such as “oil change, lubes, tire sales, liquor stores” being allowed by the requested designation. Multiple speakers cited safety concerns from winding, single‑lane stretches of Cross Mountain Trail and described recent crashes near the parcel.

Speakers also raised resource and fiscal concerns: several residents said many homes in the area rely on private wells and reported well failures and water trucking; one resident contrasted the parcel’s roughly $5,000 in annual property taxes with neighboring homes paying much more. Owner Genevieve Zayas described the property as her family’s home and said event guests have parked within the site walls and that events “have never hosted any minors … and most of our events have stopped at 10:00 PM.”

Commissioners questioned legal and procedural points: staff said the city’s role in this case is to issue a certificate of compatibility under the Camp Bullis ETJ military protection area, and the Bexar County Fire Marshal’s permitting for commercial activity typically requires that certificate. Commissioners asked whether private restrictive covenants could be recorded to limit future uses, whether the parcel is subject to Cross Mountain deed restrictions, and how residential development under the current low‑density designation might compare with commercial impacts. The applicant said the 8.5‑acre parcel is platted separately from the applicants’ residence and that the owners are willing to pursue covenants and further neighbor engagement.

After public comment and questioning, Commissioner Bustamante moved to continue the item to Sept. 24; the motion passed on a roll call vote with all commissioners present voting yes. The commission did not approve the land‑use change at the Aug. 27 meeting.

The continuation means the commission will revisit the plan amendment on Sept. 24, and staff and applicants indicated they expect to return with additional information about platting, deed restrictions/HOA boundaries, and any negotiated restrictive covenants.

Details: notices mailed (15), responses within 200 feet (7 support, 2 opposed), responses outside 200 feet (1 support, 46 opposed); parcel size 8.5 acres; owner‑stated venue capacity: under 100 indoors, 120 total; outdoor area about 2,600 sq ft and 1,500 sq ft covered; applicant reports roughly 1–1.5 events per month.