Map of proposed demolition moratorium shows the new areas as lined. Map courtesy of city of Boerne

The Boerne City Council voted Aug. 12 to hold public hearings on a proposed 90-day moratorium for issuing demolition and moving permits in an older part of the city that may contain historic structures.

On a 4-to-1 vote, with Councilman Ron Warden dissenting, the council decided the recommendation from the Historic Landmark Commission deserved a public airing.

The moratorium would apply to “the east boundary of the Historic District to Turner Street, from River Road to East San Antonio Street, to include 303 East James St., 512 East Blanco St.; 114 Oak Park, 122 Oak Park and 134 Oak Park.”

The suggested hearing schedule proposed by the city, in keeping with state law, called for a Planning and Zoning hearing on Tuesday, after the View had gone to press. Boerne City Council will hold a public hearing tonight in council chambers. The second reading of the moratorium ordinance will be at the City Council meeting next Tuesday.

Commissioners felt the moratorium is needed to prevent property owners in the study area “to move or demolish structures … prior to possible expansion of the (historic) district, to circumvent the city review process.”

UTSA students are conducting a historic structure inventory east of the current district that City Council authorized in June.

City Planning Director Chris Turk told council members a moratorium is the best way to protect historic buildings while the survey work is under way. A Regional Urban Design Assistance Team, RUDAT, had recommended earlier this summer that the city work to maintain its historic heritage, Turk told the council members.

According to Turk, Boerne residents currently seeking demolitions are required only to obtain a permit from code enforcement to make sure utilities are disconnected and the property is safe for demolition.

Ideally, some commission members would have liked a change in the Boerne city ordinance that would give the Historic Landmark Commission review authority over structures facing demolition. That’s a provision in a San Antonio ordinance some would like to see in Boerne.

In other council action:

Members debated a proposed ethics ordinance for more than an hour before deciding to table the matter until the Aug. 26 meeting while revisions to the ordinance are drafted.

Attorney Brad Bullock said the ordinance aims to “avoid the appearance of impropriety. The problem is, in smaller communities…there can be a perception that you wield more influence” when appearing before city boards and commissions.

Bullock said the new ordinance would avoid the appearance of undue influence. “If you have personal business before the council, then you have someone do it for you,” he said.

But Councilman Jeff Haberstroh argued the wording of the ordinance must be very precise in order to safeguard constitutional rights for future councils.

“I sure hope none of my recommendations are unconstitutional,” Bullock quipped.

He added that so long as due process is not impeded, there would be no constitutional problems because “having someone argue on their behalf gives (council members) the ability to redress the government.”

Council members also debated which city commission and board members would be subject to the ethics ordinance, what training should be offered and how the ordinance would be enforced. They decided those with final decision-making authority should be held to a stricter standard than those who serve on advisory panels such as the library advisory board.