Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setbacks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bulverde board denies variance to keep 65,000‑gallon water tank inside 40‑foot setback
Summary
After extensive testimony from neighbors and HOA representatives about process, visibility and property values, the Board of Adjustment denied a variance request to leave a 65,000‑gallon water catchment tank that encroaches roughly 32 feet into the required 40‑foot side setback.
Get email alerts on the Setbacks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Bulverde Board of Adjustment denied a request to allow a large water catchment tank to remain inside the city's required 40‑foot side setback, siding with neighbors and the homeowners association who urged enforcement of setback rules and raised concerns about process and visual impact.
Simon Stonecipher of Fullstone Homes, representing the property owner, told the board the tank is a 65,000‑gallon catchment system intended to supply two dwellings and argued that terrain, a wash and existing oaks limit alternative placement. Stonecipher said the tank was completed following a multi‑month construction and that the owner later applied for the required permit after an inspector noticed the encroachment.
Several neighbors and HOA representatives told the board the tank was built without ACC approval and that moving it over to avoid the setback would be feasible without greater harm than leaving it where it sits. Neighbors and the HOA warned that the tank's size and location would harm property values and called attention to missing notarized written testimony and outreach problems for some adjacent owners.
Board members examined technical points in the record — pad material, flood and wash constraints, topography and sight lines — and considered whether the three legal criteria for a variance were satisfied. After deliberation a board member moved to deny the variance, the motion was seconded, and the board voted to deny the request on the grounds that the applicants had not shown all three required criteria.
The denial requires the property owner to seek alternative compliance or relocate the tank to meet city setbacks and applicable building permits. The transcript shows the board relied on neighbor testimony and the lack of convincing evidence that relocation was infeasible to reach its decision.

