When a private company offered to buy William Varney’s sprawling property in Fredericksburg last year, the offer was too good to pass up — but that meant he needed to find a new home.
Varney, a botanist, wanted to continue making and selling herbal wellness products from home, so he had very specific needs for the new house. Having visited friends in the historic Monte Vista neighborhood north of downtown, he started and ended his search there.
“I knew that was the place for me,” he said of his home at 137 E. Woodlawn Ave. The house, built in 1914, had a small, attached space that at one point served as a doctor’s office. Varney’s shop, however, would require a zoning change in order for him to legally open his shop to the public.
At the time, he didn’t realize the political battle he was in for as the 2023 municipal election approached.
Varney ultimately contributed about $500 each to two District 1 candidates, incumbent Councilman Mario Bravo and challenger Sukh Kaur, for whom he also hosted a fundraiser ahead of the June 10 runoff between the two.
Kaur won the election — and more than three months later, on Sept. 21, City Council unanimously voted in favor of Varney’s zoning change request despite strong opposition from the Monte Vista Historical Association and two Zoning Commission votes recommending denial.
The matter has raised questions about the legality of Varney’s campaign donations, the balance between residential and commercial interests in a historic neighborhood and Kaur’s support of the zoning change.
Kaur was the only council member to speak on the matter from the dais ahead of the vote.
“It is not a change that is going to make a huge impact on the neighborhood in a negative way,” she said before the vote. Several community members spoke against the zoning change, but Kaur’s colleagues voted with her, a typical outcome for a district-specific issue.
Several neighbors suggested that the fundraiser Varney hosted for Kaur and his contributions totaling $450 to her runoff election campaign earlier this year led to her decision, an accusation she denied.
“No,” she responded by email when asked whether the contribution factored into her vote.
“I take property rights seriously, as well as the position of the immediate neighbors, and understand that while important, neighborhood associations don’t always speak for all residents, so it’s incumbent that my office take all input when making a recommendation to me,” Kaur said in an emailed response to questions from the San Antonio Report last week.
“The [shop] had previously been used as a doctor’s office, [there’s] minimal foot traffic likely to generate from a herbal shop, all immediate neighbors supported the zoning request, and the small business provides an asset for the community,” she wrote.
Kaur also noted that she has purchased teas and incense from the shop, which was open by appointment only.
The “conditional use” approval Varney received from council does not replace the underlying residential zoning designation for his home. The zoning change allows the shop to be open to walk-in customers.
Neighborhood leaders were disappointed with the outcome, which they said would exacerbate existing traffic and parking issues and allow for more commercial interests to creep into their historic neighborhood.
“We feel that City Council members have failed their responsibility in protecting our San Antonio legacy neighborhoods,” Antonio Garcia, who serves on the zoning and code compliance committee for the neighborhood association, said after the vote. “The fact that no discussion was held on the merits of our statements was a foregone conclusion that this case was already determined before stepping to the dais.”
Refunded donations
Varney had also previously contributed $500 to Kaur’s predecessor, Bravo, in February.
“I’m a businessman, I’m trying to get things done,“ Varney said. “I knew that I needed to support who I needed to have help me. So I supported the previous guy.”
Bravo confirmed last week that he informed Varney earlier this year that he could not support the zoning change unless the Monte Vista neighborhood association got on board.
“I thought, well, I’m at a dead-end street here,” Varney said. So he contacted Bravo’s opponent.
Before Varney contributed to her campaign, Kaur visited Varney’s home and shop before the election and said she could support the zoning change.
“When [Bravo] said that he was not going to support the rezoning … all of a sudden [Varney] threw a fundraiser for Sukh,” said Ryan Reed, who heads the Architectural Review Committee for the neighborhood association and had previously worked with Varney on a compromise that wouldn’t require a zoning change.
Varney waited to re-file a similar zoning change application “until she got into office,” Reed said.
In the wake of the controversy over the zoning change, both Bravo and Kaur have decided to return all of Varney’s contributions.
Prior to the council’s vote, Bravo said he received a notification from the city that Varney’s contribution to his campaign violated campaign finance rules because Varney’s original zoning case was still pending at the time.
“I don’t have the money to fight this with attorneys,” Bravo said. “I’m giving him the money back.”
The city’s Municipal Campaign Finance Code states that people applying for zoning changes “may not make a campaign contribution from the time the zoning application is submitted to the City until thirty (30) calendar days after final action is taken by the Zoning Commission or City Council.”
Varney ultimately withdrew his original application when he learned Bravo wouldn’t support the zoning change. But before he formally withdrew it on May 17, he contributed $150 to Kaur on May 8 while his case was technically still pending.
“It didn’t affect whether or not it was getting passed because [the case] was ultimately withdrawn,” said James McKnight, a real estate attorney who represented Varney in the zoning case.
City staff interpreted the code to apply the 30-day period to the date of withdrawal, which means Varney’s $300 donation to Kaur on May 21 was also in violation. McKnight disagrees with that interpretation.
Kaur is returning $450 to Varney, her office said Monday.
Varney filed a slightly different zoning change application — the one that City Council approved — in late June, soon after Kaur won the runoff election. None of the three campaign finance violations apply to the approved zoning case.
“The implication that somehow it’s a quid pro quo for what, $450 — that she would take on a neighborhood for him?” McKnight said. “That’s just absurd.”
Eight days before the runoff election, Kaur’s campaign finance report she had raised nearly $60,000 in monetary contributions from late April to late May.
It’s unclear how much she raised as a result of Varney’s fundraiser, but the report indicates $725 was received by her campaign the day of the event — $300 of that was from Varney — and $100 the day after, on May 22.
Most of the time, Council members do not have to recuse themselves from voting on cases that involve individuals who have previously donated to their campaigns — as long as they don’t have any other direct financial interests or conflicts outlined in the city’s Ethics Code.
Commercial creep versus ‘quaint little store’
On Aug. 1, the Zoning Commission heard from more than 30 people who left voice messages in opposition to Varney’s request. Most said they lived in the neighborhood and cited concerns about traffic and the “domino” effect that allowing commercial uses on a residential block could have on the city’s housing stock.
Former Zoning Commissioner Summer Greathouse, who represented District 1 at the time, also cited those concerns.
In addition to the gift shop, Varney also operates a short-term rental in a backyard, detached unit.
“That’s essentially three different uses” on a residential lot, Greathouse said. This “creates an adverse impact” on the neighborhood by attracting even more cars to the area, she added. This section of Woodlawn Avenue is already packed with the cars of teachers and staff from Keystone School during school hours, she said.
While this particular case doesn’t remove housing stock, it’s possible that someone who owns a fourplex could point to this case as a precedent to convert a housing unit into an office or shop, she said.
“That’s the domino effect,” said Greathouse, who served on the zoning commission for four years until Kaur appointed Dr. Daniel Hansford Kellum Jr. to the position earlier this year.
But the “slippery slope” argument doesn’t apply in this case, McKnight told the San Antonio Report.
“There is no such thing as a precedent in zoning cases, each one of them is individual and you have to go before the Zoning Commission and the City Council every single time,” he said.
Varney’s case didn’t remove any residential zoning, as has been the case in other places where commercial zoning has taken over a street, McKnight said. “This one is still a home and has a business attached to it.”
Still, during his presentation to City Council, McKnight cited the other commercial uses on Varney’s block and in the area to further justify the zoning change. The west end of the block is commercial and includes a cafe, restaurant and pet groomer. Behind Varney’s property on Mistletoe Avenue is another cafe and dance studio.
David Cantu, who lives two doors east of Varney, submitted a letter expressing his “full support” of the shop.
“All along McCullough, Main and Mistletoe there are many businesses including: 2 coffee shops, ad agencies, a hair salon, restaurants, a dog wash, a bikini shop, spa, art gallery, law firm, and a school,” Cantu wrote. “I don’t see how opening up a gift shop will alter an already heavily commercialized block.”
Varney’s shop, which is just 328 square feet, “is not a traffic generator,” McKnight said, noting that the property will have four off-street parking spaces for the homeowner, rental guests and customers.
“We are not the ones creating the traffic on this street,” he added, it’s the school and existing components of the neighborhood.
But the shop will be nestled along a string of residential lots, save for the west end, and it could one day become something else, Reed noted.
“The issue is that zoning change carries with the property for perpetuity,” he said. “As far as the best uses for a gift shop in the neighborhood go, I think this is probably a great one. But who knows whoever buys that property wants to do?”
Kaur asked pointed questions of city staff regarding the change ahead of the vote.
City staff confirmed that the conditional use was restricted to the 328 square feet of the shop and it can be only a gift shop. Any changes would have to be approved by council.
Once he receives his certificate of occupancy and puts some finishing touches on the shop, Varney said he’ll be open for business. He’ll continue to support Kaur and the Monte Vista Historical Association; in August, he purchased a five-year, $450 membership to the organization.
“I’m really happy with the fact that this is a small, quaint little store,” Varney said. “Good things come in small packages.”
