title
Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a Material Amendment of the Housing Tax Credit (HTC) Application for Landmark on Cypress (HTC #25163)
end
RECOMMENDED ACTION
recommendation
WHEREAS, Landmark on Cypress (Development) received an award of 9% Housing Tax Credits (HTCs) in 2025 for the adaptive reuse of a seven-story historic building to contain 49 multifamily units for the general population on a 0.9704 acre site in Abilene, Taylor County;
WHEREAS, OPG Cypress Partners, LLC (Applicant) requests approval to reduce the unit count from 49 units to 47 units, eliminating two market-rate units, change the unit mix from 12 efficiencies, 22 one-bedroom units and 15 two-bedroom units, to 12 efficiencies, 20 one-bedroom units and 15 two-bedroom units, and reduce the net rentable area by 3.85%, from 34,733 square feet to 33,396 square feet;
WHEREAS, Board approval is required for a modification of the number of units or bedroom mix of units, a reduction of three percent or more in the square footage of the units or common areas, and a significant modification of the architectural design of the Development as directed in Tex. Gov’t Code §2306.6712(d)(2), (4), and (5), and 10 TAC §10.405(a)(4)(B), (D), and (E), and the Applicant has complied with the amendment requirements therein; and
WHEREAS, the requested change does not materially alter the Development in a negative manner, was not reasonably foreseeable or preventable at the time of Application, and would not have adversely affected the selection of the Application for an award of Housing Tax Credits;
NOW, therefore, it is hereby
RESOLVED, that the requested Material Amendment of the Application for Landmark on Cypress is approved as presented to this meeting, and the Executive Director and his designees are each authorized, directed, and empowered to take all necessary action to effectuate the foregoing.
end
BACKGROUND
Landmark on Cypress in Abilene, the only Application in Urban Region 2, received a 9% HTC award in 2025 for the adaptive reuse of a seven-story historic office building proposed to contain 40 HTC units and 9 market rate units. Two of the market rate units were proposed to occupy the space of an existing mechanical/electrical/plumbing (MEP) room that is the source of the building’s domestic water and fire suppression systems. After submission of the Application, the Applicant learned that the plan to repurpose the MEP room was not workable. Therefore, in a letter of September 22, 2025, Bronte Bejarano, as representative of the Development Owner, requested approval to eliminate these two market rate units.
The amendment will change the number of units and bedroom mix of units, reduce the NRA by more than three percent, and significantly change the architectural design of the Development. Each of these changes constitutes a material amendment that must be considered by the Board.
Regarding HTC units, their number and bedroom mix, NRA, and architectural design will not change, nor will their rent levels or income levels. Residential density will increase by 4.1%, from 50.5 to 48.4 units per acre, a change of less than the 5% that constitutes a Material Deficiency.
The changes requested were not reasonably foreseeable or preventable. Inspections by the Applicant’s MEP engineer and scope of work provider, and review of plans of the existing building were performed before the Application was submitted, but the full extent of the MEP facilities that required accommodation could not be discovered until historical plans of the building were tracked down and investigative demolition was permitted after Application submission. Although the site contained many MEP closets that were originally thought to be sufficient to contain all MEP facilities, information from the old plans and exploratory demolition revealed that the Development involved more extensive MEP facilities than the MEP closets could accommodate.
The Development was re-underwritten under the proposed amendment, using revised financial information. The analysis indicates that the Development remains financially feasible and supports no change in the funding amount. Staff reviewed the original Application scoring documentation against the amendment and found no change in the scoring or evidence of any effect on the selection of the Application for an award.
In staff’s judgement, the changes that are requested were not reasonably foreseeable at the time the Application was presented, nor were they preventable. The change would not have affected the selection of the Application for an award.
Staff recommends approval of the amendment request as presented herein.