Zoning board approves variances to keep pergola at 103 Park Place

The Zoning Board of Adjustment approved two variances to allow an existing pergola at 103 Park Place to remain in its current location, voting 5-0 to permit a 16.5-foot encroachment into the front-yard setback and a 15-foot encroachment into the street-facing side-yard setback.

Joanne Marie Andrade, a member of the Planning Department, told the board the accessory structure was installed in August 2025 and city review found it encroaches on required setbacks. Andrade said the required front-yard setback for the property is 49.5 feet (calculated as 1.5 times the front building line) while the pergola sits about 33 feet from the property line, and the street-facing side-yard requirement is 25 feet while the pergola sits about 10 feet from the side property line. She said notice was mailed to 54 property owners within 500 feet, the request was published in the Boerne Star, and as of March 17 the city had received six responses split three in favor and three opposed.

The variance requests were presented as two separate motions so the board could consider each finding individually. Andrade reviewed the required variance findings under the Unified Development Code (UDC), noting the principal structure predates the current UDC and that corner-lot geometry limits placement of accessory structures.

Lee Campbell, the property owner, testified the pergola was an "afternoon project" and said he paid about $3,000 for the cedar structure. Campbell told the board he had neighbors who liked the pergola and that he believed he had been given an indication his earlier fence permit was "closed," which he interpreted as clearance to proceed. "Had I known it would have encroached on anything, of course I wouldn't have put up a $3,000 pergola," Campbell said.

Frankie Linder of the Planning Department clarified that the email marked "closed" referenced a prior fence permit and that the city switched permit systems last July from SmartGov to MGO, creating confusion for some applicants. Linder said a building permit for the pergola is currently in review and that code enforcement had flagged construction without a permit; Linder added that the permit cannot be issued until the variances are granted.

Several nearby residents spoke in support. Jeff Joseph said he could see the pergola from his house and described it as attractive and well-made; he urged the board to approve the variance. Brian Nichols, another nearby property owner, said he had not noticed a problem and thought the pergola fit the house.

During deliberations board members noted the nonconforming placement of the principal structure on the corner lot and the limited buildable area under current standards. One member observed that the pergola did not create a visibility hazard and that many older lots in the neighborhood do not meet contemporary setback standards.

A motion to approve variance 26-03 (front-yard encroachment) was moved and seconded and passed 5-0. The board then considered variance 26-04 (street-facing side-yard encroachment) and approved that motion 5-0 as well.

Because the variances were approved, city staff may proceed with building-permit review; Planning staff reiterated that the building permit cannot be issued until both variances are final and any outstanding code-enforcement matters are resolved.

The board took no further action on this item.