Board grants variance package for Schley Avenue home after neighbors raise fire and drainage concerns

The San Antonio Board of Adjustment on Wednesday approved a conditional package of setback variances for 1734 Schley Avenue after neighbors described drainage problems, foundation damage and fire‑risk concerns.

Planner and staff presentations documented years of unpermitted additions, an enclosed carport that converted an open structure into a garage and multiple side and rear encroachments into required setbacks. Staff recommended denial, citing fire hazards and loss of airflow between properties. Neighbors provided photos and testimony describing new foundation cracks, reduced maintenance access and repeated parking and police calls connected to transient renters at the address.

The property owner, Petra, told commissioners she had enclosed the carport for accessibility reasons related to diabetes and vision issues and expressed willingness to remediate drainage and meet neighbors’ concerns. Petra and others said the carport footprint matched the prior carport and that the work was done without intent to violate code.

After extended debate about fire‑department hose lays, electrical poles in the alley, and practical remedies that would balance safety with hardship, the board moved a three‑part compromise:

- Item 1 (carport): Allow either an open carport at a 1‑foot setback from the east property line or an enclosed structure at a 3‑foot setback; the applicant must choose which configuration to finalize and may not claim both. Existing gutters must be maintained and drainage improvements required during permit review. - Item 2 (side J‑shape additions): Authorize a reduced side setback to 3 feet (replacing earlier near‑property‑line conditions) for the “J” portion of the addition, consistent with keeping the addition in line with the main house. - Item 3 (rear setback): Reduce the rear setback to 5 feet (from the standard 20‑foot requirement for an attached primary structure) while keeping the structure attached; if the owner severs the structure and converts it to a detached accessory structure, different accessory‑structure setbacks and square‑footage limits would apply.

Board members conditioned approval on clarity about maintenance access, that any overhang impinging on adjoining properties must be adjusted, and that staff, code enforcement and applicants coordinate with CPS/Electrics if the construction implicates overhead electrical clearances. The board also required the applicant to work with staff to present a plan for drainage, gutters and any required small structural adjustments before final permitting.

Chair Orian emphasized that the board was balancing demonstrated hardship and existing built conditions against neighbor safety and access, and several commissioners said they expected follow‑up reviews during permitting and potential structural corrections. The final votes on the package found majority support for the compromise: the board approved side setbacks (9–2) and the 5‑foot rear setback (10–1) after a motion to reconsider and minor amendments.

Speakers quoted in this article are drawn from the hearing record and include the applicant (Petra) and neighbors Lisa O’Brien and Juan Gonzales.