The Boerne Zoning Board of Adjustments and Appeals denied three variance requests for a proposed office at 902 River Road (Sunrise Addition, Lot 3) by votes of 5-0. The applicant, represented by Redwood Architects and developer Arman Meravza, sought exceptions to the River Road overlay and the City of Boerne Unified Development Code (UDC) to reduce required tree canopy and to shrink rear and side yard setbacks to accommodate a 1,060-square-foot office building on a small corner parcel.

Joanne Marie Andrade of the City of Boerne planning department presented the application and staff analysis. She said the parcel measures about 4,269 square feet and, after required right-of-way dedication, has roughly 3,743 square feet of buildable area. Under the River Road overlay, the project faces a 50% tree canopy requirement measured at maturity (1,873 square feet for this parcel). "The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the tree canopy coverage to 10%," Andrade said; she added the applicant later submitted an amended plan showing approximately 14% canopy (about 530 square feet).

Planning staff also explained the rear-yard standard: a 20-foot rear setback is required by the overlay and the applicant requested reduction to 5 feet. The applicant argued the lot is small and that the required right-of-way corner cut and overlay rules constrain buildable area. Dustin Buckley, project manager for Redwood Architects, described the corner cut and the interplay of overlay and C-2 base zoning in how setbacks are calculated.

Neighbors and nearby property owners raised objections at the public hearing, citing drainage and traffic safety. Martha Baez said the area already experiences strain on drainage from heavy rains and the nearby Cibolo Creek, arguing that reduced setbacks and lower canopy would "worsen runoff, overwhelm drainage systems, and endanger both property and public safety." Jack Short, who owns several adjacent properties, said reduced setbacks would diminish his tenants' visibility from River Road and increase traffic and turn-safety risks. A local resident who identified herself as an attorney argued the variance would adversely affect public health, safety and welfare and noted the lot and development restrictions were known when the property was purchased.

The applicant said the parcel has been vacant for many years and the owner has worked with staff over a multi-year process to amend plans and mitigate concerns. The applicant pledged to comply with city drainage requirements and told the board they would "add 0 drainage runoff to the surrounding developments" by using detention/underdrain systems and other accepted techniques.

Board members focused on the UDC's overlay purpose, fire separation and traffic/visibility concerns. Staff advised that some of the corner and front-yard setback questions were already addressed by the overlay and right-of-way corner cut, but the rear setback reduction and canopy variance still required board action. Commissioners said they were unconvinced that the hardship tests for variances were met — finding the constraints tied to design preference rather than a property-specific uniqueness that the UDC's variance standards require.

Motions to deny each variance — rear setback (25-03), side setback (25-04) and tree canopy reduction (25-05) — were made and seconded; each motion carried 5-0.

Actions at a glance: Variance 25-03 (rear yard setback 20 ft → 5 ft) — denied 5-0; Variance 25-04 (side yard setback 10 ft → 5 ft) — denied 5-0; Variance 25-05 (tree canopy 50% → ~10–14%) — denied 5-0.

The board closed the related public hearings and continued its agenda.