Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fence Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board OKs several fence and material variances, including corrugated‑metal screening in industrial area
Summary
The Board granted multiple fence‑height, clear‑vision and material variances (including an approved corrugated‑metal fence with cap) for properties across San Antonio after reviewing code‑enforcement origins, neighborhood notification and site history.
The Board of Adjustment approved multiple fence height and material variances Tuesday, including an exception that allows corrugated‑metal perimeter fencing at 103 Connolly Street with a required capped top.
At 1419 West Malone Avenue, the owner sought permission for a 4‑ft‑1‑in front‑yard solid fence and a reduced driveway clear‑vision area. Applicant counsel Elizabeth Russell told the commission the fence had stood in place since at least 2015 and that replacing it would be a financial hardship. The board granted the special exception for the fence as built (the motion referenced the existing configuration) and separately approved a reduced clear‑vision area, while noting that full replacement beyond a threshold would require compliance with the code.
For 1023 North Pine Street, a city project applying wrought‑iron fencing around a community facility received board approval after staff and applicants explained construction staging and temporary screening. Commissioners supported higher, predominantly open fencing for the city project on public‑use grounds.
At 103 Connolly Street (an industrial parcel), applicant Jarvis Moore described repeated theft of equipment and argued corrugated metal provides the best available security. Staff said corrugated metal is not listed among permitted fence materials; the board examined the surrounding area, found similar materials present nearby and approved a material variance with conditions (including a capped top and the understanding that replacement beyond defined thresholds would trigger full compliance).
The board recorded findings of fact in each motion tying the relief to site history, public interest and the narrow scope of relief requested. Approvals generally included plan‑review and permitting follow‑ups.
What happens next: Applicants may modify fences within the parameters of their variances but replacing more than 50% of a nonconforming fence or rebuilding after the variance term may require full compliance; staff will monitor code‑enforcement follow‑ups and plan review.
