Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Demolition Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Boerne historic commission approves demolition permit for 110 (street name variably recorded)
Summary
The Boerne Historical Landmark Commission approved a demolition permit for a single‑family house recorded in meeting materials under varying street-name spellings for 110, concluding staff found no historic value and adding a fencing‑removal stipulation.
The Boerne Historical Landmark Commission on July 1 approved a demolition permit for a single‑family house identified in the meeting record as 110 (street name spelled variously in the record as Yule Lana/Newellana/Eualana) Street.
Planning intern Foster Simonson told commissioners the applicant is Robert Thornton on behalf of owner James Brown. Simonson said the house was built about 1963, measures roughly 2,803 square feet, and is located outside the city’s historic district but is older than 50 years, which brought the request before the commission. Staff noted multiple accessory structures on the lot, heavy overgrowth and several boats on the property, visible foundation cracking and asbestos siding, and single‑pane windows.
The commission heard that two commissioners — Sally Pena and Lennyce Graves — participated in the site visit. Simonson said the city mailed 20 notices to properties within 200 feet and that staff received three written responses in favor of demolition and one written response in opposition; the opposition letter expressed concerns about privacy and neighborhood character related to future construction rather than the condition of the existing structure. Staff’s key finding was that the building is not a historic landmark and does not possess architectural, cultural or educational value under the Unified Development Code (UDC).
After discussion, Commissioner Myers moved to approve the demolition permit with the staff‑recommended stipulation that “all chain link, sheet metal, and etcetera type fencing” be removed as part of demolition; Commissioner Nichols seconded. The commission voted to approve the motion (meeting record does not specify a roll‑call tally).
Discussion vs. decision: commissioners and staff discussed site condition, visible asbestos siding and foundation damage, and the limitations of the commission’s role (the commission decides whether the structure should remain or be demolished; future development plans are reviewed through other city processes). The formal action approved the demolition permit with the fencing removal condition.
The commission adjourned the item and proceeded to the next agenda matter.
