Five Aces/SA, Ltd. v. River Road Neighborhood Ass'n
534 S.W.3d 598
| Tex. App. | 2017Background
- Property at 112 Lindell Place in San Antonio’s River Road Historic District: existing circa-1950 residence with subsequent additions and an undeveloped front lot. Reilly purchased in 2009.
- Reilly first sought full demolition (May 2011) to build a six-unit apartment; HPO denied, BOA upheld denial, trial court granted summary judgment for Reilly, and this Court later reversed and affirmed BOA’s denial in City of San Antonio Bd. of Adjustment v. Reilly.
- In Jan. 2015 Reilly filed a new application to renovate/rehabilitate the existing rear residence (remove later non‑contributing additions) and construct a new two‑story six‑unit building on the lot (Project).
- HPO recommended approval as a rehabilitation/alteration (finding some parts were non‑contributing); HDRC granted a Certificate of Appropriateness (Nov. 18, 2015). BOA affirmed HDRC’s approval after appeal.
- River Road Neighborhood Association (RRNA) challenged the BOA decision in district court arguing the work amounted to a partial demolition and required separate demolition and noncontributing‑status applications; the trial court granted summary judgment for RRNA and withdrew the Certificate.
- On appeal, this Court reviews de novo whether BOA abused its discretion by misapplying the UDC; the Court reverses the trial court and orders BOA to re‑issue the Certificate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (RRNA) | Defendant's Argument (Reilly/BOA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal of substantial later additions is a "demolition" requiring separate demolition application under UDC | Removal of ~one‑third of structure is partial demolition; UDC requires separate demolition application and economic‑hardship/loss‑of‑significance showing | The removal targets non‑contributing later additions as part of a rehabilitation/restoration; UDC definitions allow removal of later work within a rehabilitation application, so no separate demolition filing required | Held for Reilly/BOA: removal of non‑contributing additions may be authorized as part of rehabilitation/alteration; not a demolition requiring separate application |
| Whether a separate application was required to obtain a "non‑contributing" determination under UDC §35‑619 | HPO could not declare parts non‑contributing without a formal §35‑619 application | HPO may make non‑contributing determinations in the course of reviewing a rehabilitation/alteration application; no separate application mandatory | Held for Reilly/BOA: separate non‑contributing application not required; HPO properly made substantive non‑contributing finding in project review |
| Whether HPO/BOA misapplied §35‑614(f) (exception for minor outbuildings) when approving removal | HPO mistakenly relied on §35‑614(f), which applies only to minor outbuildings, undermining validity of approval | Any single stray sentence invoking §35‑614(f) does not negate the HPO’s substantive findings; approval rests on §35‑610/35‑611 authority for removing non‑historic additions | Held for Reilly/BOA: isolated reference to §35‑614(f) irrelevant; §35‑611 provides authority to approve removal of non‑historic additions within project review |
| Standard of review: whether BOA abused discretion / misapplied law | BOA misapplied UDC; trial court correctly found illegality | BOA applied UDC reasonably; its interpretation entitled to deference if reasonable and consistent with text | Held for Reilly/BOA: no abuse of discretion; BOA’s construction reasonable and consistent with UDC; trial court erred in granting summary judgment for RRNA |
Key Cases Cited
- City of San Antonio Bd. of Adjustment v. Reilly, 429 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014) (prior appeal resolving Reilly’s first demolition challenge)
- City of Dallas v. Vanesko, 189 S.W.3d 769 (Tex. 2006) (standard: board order presumed legal; challenger must show abuse of discretion)
- City of Alamo Heights v. Boyar, 158 S.W.3d 545 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2005) (board abuse of discretion standard)
- Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2003) (summary judgment standard for appellate review)
- Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. 1985) (traditional summary judgment principles)
- R.R. Comm’n of Tex. v. Tex. Citizens for a Safe Future & Clean Water, 336 S.W.3d 619 (Tex. 2011) (statutory construction principles; give text its plain meaning)
- Greater Houston P’ship v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51 (Tex. 2015) (statutory interpretation rules)