[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6482810,"mediaKeyId","5811741-22eda1c61afe2d6a14c0253b8360b779","parentId",5811741,"title","Board approves lot‑size and accessory‑structure variances for two infill properties","audioSeconds",535,"startMs",4865000,"endMs",5400000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5811741-22eda1c61afe2d6a14c0253b8360b779&start=4865&end=5400","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5811741-22eda1c61afe2d6a14c0253b8360b779/thumbnail_4865000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6482810/San-Antonio/Bexar-County/Texas/Board-approves-lotsize-and-accessorystructure-variances-for-two-infill-properties","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6482810-e19cba73651b9636bc0e7f8caecfd187/orig.mp4?Expires=1770834547&Signature=WHrQYVaZ~ouCAQJzWSquaeWtl2FBM4e-UqnFQhJZvVqt4dq4YiQxSkAI0QfPZZWmaQlGO4bdxMoobRMCTBLfe-uzkIlOFCs8z8so5g8uUn4tP2SfDQkkLOjua9vjoYXSdk3UM2qGJAdou1JEhr5gmsvQf795sXYjPSDL-SyOS1l-7IFDoc8DyKDtqM~h-AfdiLEaTUCX4b-VYHIPh2pxT0yySgFVD7ITrbrzEwMVQGUw1-ZjEbSKFnXXJb1aw-FLqXWv9CBY3qKHmXx5cL0AKXHs53nxjEqVh6wauI7V5abNxkdq14KOqr4gUO7D0jrEZtQJK4TC1~X5G1leMgD6uA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","San Antonio","date","2025-09-22T00:00:00Z","article","The Board of Adjustment approved variances for two infill properties in San Antonio’s urban neighborhoods—one to allow a new single‑family home on a substandard lot and another to permit reconstruction of existing accessory buildings and narrow setbacks in an established conservation district.

546 Bundy (lot‑size variance)

- Case BOA‑25‑10300147 (546 Bundy Street / applicant Edgar Sanchez): Staff recommended approval. The lot was originally platted in 1950 and later split by deed. The board found the lot could accommodate a single‑family home without significantly altering the neighborhood character and granted a 225‑square‑foot variance from the 4,000‑square‑foot minimum for the R4 zoning district.

507 West Craig (NCD2 accessory structures and setbacks)

- Case BOA‑25‑10300153 (507 W. Craig Place / applicant Adam Ochoa): The applicant proposed to demolish and rebuild an existing rear‑yard garage in its current footprint and retain two other existing accessory structures. Staff recommended approval of the side‑setback and garage‑entry setbacks because similar configurations exist nearby; staff recommended denial of a requested increase to the NCD2 accessory‑structure size limit. The board found that reconstruction of historic accessory footprints and the presence of similarly placed garages in the immediate area justified variances granting the reduced setbacks and allowing reconstruction to the existing footprint; the board approved the requested variances.

Why it matters

These decisions affect infill redevelopment patterns in older neighborhoods and interpret how the NCD and UDC standards apply to existing conditions vs. new expansions. The board balanced proportionality aims in the conservation district against the hardship of rehabilitating historically configured accessory structures when full repair, rather than expansion, is the project’s purpose.

Next steps

- Applicants may proceed to record a plat (if required), obtain building permits and reconstruct the approved elements consistent with the board’s findings. Staff will record conditions in permit files.

Ending

Board members said similar garage placements in the surrounding blocks and the owner’s intent to rebuild rather than expand supported the variances. The motions carried with no recorded opposition.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","San Antonio - Zoning Board of Adjustment Sep 22, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Board approved a lot‑size variance for a 3,775‑square‑foot urban lot at 546 Bundy and approved a series of accessory‑structure/setback variances at 507 West Craig to allow reconstruction of an existing garage; staff recommended denial of a separate NCD2 accessory‑size increase but the board granted variances tied to existing footprints.","taxTitle","San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas","taxId",2771,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6482815,"Board allows 6‑foot perimeter chain‑link fence at Pecan Valley auto site for security",629,9835000,10464000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5811741-22eda1c61afe2d6a14c0253b8360b779&start=9835&end=10464","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5811741-22eda1c61afe2d6a14c0253b8360b779/thumbnail_9835000.jpg","/articles/6482815/San-Antonio/Bexar-County/Texas/Board-allows-6foot-perimeter-chainlink-fence-at-Pecan-Valley-auto-site-for-security","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6482815-df711a6448a314c282ec4f84f5a85859/orig.mp4?Expires=1770834547&Signature=MkbEkobXrs1O1WnDVFsmv8bSaKwrUGoCdmdi4DuDAzLkVN60FN9fbIWUwN6u8dKZ1zG1mfhnpgk40nza9dOSzvWdk2r2JRxRED0WU~luyKdA9l0jFBo7zdcbS8VgJhTH8yP3v2NRAduPgvEUcuW9aMflkAcHOIfAU3sUg6zGDOnBhtwUkvcaU-uBTOYslptATCyo0~8WTfW2i3LNGdz-uAYLo1BprUfbECK1NFEP9sYIj5YFII0aAYZ9ckh3ptKcKnLQf4tOiXywUMLFMnYyf9b6AnN5klsoZ6LdWKf5knCJSwn9O3cqAheH5etiLVV~fvdDMY04MmbxRJ5CV-RUmA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Board of Adjustment granted a special‑exception permit that allows a predominantly open chain‑link fence up to 6 feet 4 inches tall along the Pecan Valley Drive frontage at 6635 Pecan Valley Drive.

Why it matters: The owner said the property had been the target of vandalism and vagrancy after prior neglect; the owner is redeveloping the lot as a satellite site for recent‑model used vehicles and asked for additional perimeter security. Traffic staff confirmed the proposed fence design creates no sight‑distance problems.

Board action and rationale

- Case BOA‑25‑10300166 (6635 Pecan Valley Drive / applicant Robert Grant): The board granted a 3‑foot special exception to allow a predominantly open fence taller than the usual five‑foot front‑yard limit, conditioned on the fence remaining visually open (chain‑link) and with posted security lighting and cameras described in the applicant’s materials.

Applicant testimony and neighborhood input

Owner Robert Grant described ongoing redevelopment and said the site historically had a 6‑foot fence; he told the board he purchased the property, is investing in redevelopment and wants a full 6‑foot fence to deter theft and vandalism. A neighbor left recorded public support that staff read into the record, citing prior problems under the bridge and support for securing the lot.

Nut graf and context

The UDC normally limits predominantly open fences in front yards to five feet. The board weighed property security, neighborhood context and traffic sight‑distance; staff and traffic reviewers found the chain‑link fence would preserve visibility and would not create site‑distance hazards.

Next steps

- If the board’s exception is used to add barbed wire, the applicant must obtain an additional administrative exception for that feature per code.

Ending

Board members who supported the exception cited long‑standing site safety concerns and the applicant’s redevelopment plans; the motion passed with broad support.","After testimony about extensive prior property vandalism and an operator plan to sell recent repossessed vehicles, the board granted a 3‑foot special exception to permit a 6'4\" predominantly open (chain‑link) fence with 8‑foot posts at 6635 Pecan Valley Drive.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6482818,"Board approves mobile food‑court use near Zachary Middle School, waives 200‑foot separation",326,5174000,5500000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5811741-22eda1c61afe2d6a14c0253b8360b779&start=5174&end=5500","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5811741-22eda1c61afe2d6a14c0253b8360b779/thumbnail_5174000.jpg","/articles/6482818/San-Antonio/Bexar-County/Texas/Board-approves-mobile-foodcourt-use-near-Zachary-Middle-School-waives-200foot-separation","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6482818-b41ea1823cedb8bed8ba5a714decf844/orig.mp4?Expires=1770834547&Signature=HUhOYJUYjheT50NrXtc1FAiSN0vtpjBgGwTfmkT-MnzFuTzdCj1DOmEdNvlat2aaQFF8U8uZRq6OHzIb9oE-vRlQGQlysj2-paUDB~FRxbFx4hne197hIFsrtMgg48dnRF7aRScEpP3rCSFkKimjkZNAd8JKFtW6BoUrd7WNYB0vd7xUSM6m9A-E1yXIcUReAICp~53pEYIChuINMlNWzkNcx-ITP-WfcqjhQFrWIBzjoTwS~CyU0FPN6TimdLETyMroK13Se~t0AgRiVNeUzkEfAGOiKEZkvt8KRCo7AUvkWRxaLNXBSZiGtwrtPC25KQfOIp3sEIL0TIAeC9HVBg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Antonio Board of Adjustment voted to allow a proposed mobile food‑court development at 9823 Culebra Road to proceed within the Unified Development Code’s usual 200‑foot separation from single‑family zoning.

Why it matters: The site is adjacent to Zachary Middle School (a public education campus on land zoned R6). The board concluded the adjacent school campus and the existing commercial context along Culebra make future residential development on the abutting lot unlikely; commissioners also cited planned landscaping and buffering in the project materials.

What the board decided

- Case BOA‑25‑10300151 (9823 Culebra Road / applicant Ibrahim Tamer): The board approved a request to eliminate the 200‑foot separation requirement that would otherwise prohibit mobile food courts inside that buffer. Staff had recommended approval based on the property’s context (commercial corridor and school use on adjacent lot) and a traffic review that found no sight‑distance issues.

Why the board approved it

Staff presented the site plan, explained the R6 zoning of the adjacent school parcel and noted the closest single‑family residence was approximately 240 feet away when measured property line to property line. The traffic reviewer reported no site‑distance concerns. Commissioners said a well‑managed, well‑landscaped mobile food court would be compatible with the corridor and would not threaten sight lines to the school.

Quotes and testimony

Applicant Ibrahim Tamer described a small‑scale, mixed‑menu mobile food court and emphasized design and hours would fit neighborhood patterns: he said he wanted the site to be “really nice…clean” and planned hours to avoid late‑night disturbance.

Nut graf and context

San Antonio’s UDC requires a 200‑foot separation between mobile food courts and single‑family zoning or uses; the variance was evaluated on whether the adjacent land’s use (a school) and the commercial nature of Culebra Road justified an exception. The board treated the nearby school as a nonresidential use for purposes of this relief and approved the elimination of the required separation.

Next steps

- Applicant to follow other city permitting steps (site plan and business permits). Staff noted landscaping and buffering conditions in the record.

Ending

Commissioners said they were comfortable with the waiver because of the school’s presence, the commercial frontage along Culebra and planned site improvements; the motion carried by voice vote.","The board granted an exception to the Unified Development Code to allow a proposed mobile food court on Culebra Road within 200 feet of a residentially zoned lot occupied by a middle school property, finding the adjacent school reduces likelihood of future residential development.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6482823,"Board of Adjustment rules on short-term rental appeals, continues multiple STR cases",3995,315000,4310000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5811741-22eda1c61afe2d6a14c0253b8360b779&start=315&end=4310","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5811741-22eda1c61afe2d6a14c0253b8360b779/thumbnail_315000.jpg","/articles/6482823/San-Antonio/Bexar-County/Texas/Board-of-Adjustment-rules-on-short-term-rental-appeals-continues-multiple-STR-cases","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6482823-07b70e91a2b57bbb36a09ea9ce859afc/orig.mp4?Expires=1770834547&Signature=TLGDZ2hDBeRiPGWRErGlju2ZO20jjBbY4I5vc46O6FzP~8FMavp-4WsaWXZFi7UTWZj56JiQqWiJyXK2qTKPidNGa8TbElRjT8Ty2dALornhfj2y2Wz7eLwtINRwpsbRN8HBM-byfo79O0wMtPXlUo4khvnnMeXW5BZk~Z3Hvn90aw-t1gtuj6xWo20LCHqBClMtk-bMOGm06HyQ3UmNhwJPTF0-T8fjJ-S7Q9e1pujzcMGEZKABxrF7gQyq0JKxcgOO3Dwrs95P8Xr6eBsxNE5BZsu4JRhz4D03uFxqgnF6coyDWv-mk-yE1kL~li9zjqYO1y6Az2Aewi2SSjWkCg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Antonio Board of Adjustment reviewed a cluster of short‑term rental appeals and continuance requests at its Sept. 1, 2025 meeting, continuing multiple cases to Oct. 20 and issuing decisions on four appeals brought after the city revoked STR permits for alleged nonpayment or nonfiling of hotel occupancy tax (HOT).

Why it matters: The board’s decisions affect operators’ ability to keep STR permits in neighborhoods across San Antonio and touch on recurring problems staff and some commissioners flagged with the city’s online HOT reporting portal, Avenue, and with how the city and platforms remit HOT.

Board actions and outcomes

- BOA25103135 (1031 South Ghevers / applicant Shivani Reddy): The board considered a staff‑recommended denial of a special exception to allow one additional Type 2 STR on the block face. Commissioner Zeman moved to grant the exception; Commissioner Manner seconded. After discussion and a roll‑call vote the motion failed (yes: 1; no: 9). Outcome: denied.

- BOA25103159 (7630 Cascade Oak / applicant Roberto Bogran): The owner appealed an administrative revocation tied to missed HOT reporting. Finance staff presented Avenue records showing missing city filings from August 2024 through February 2025 and mailed delinquency notices; staff recommended denial of the appeal. The board voted to deny the appeal (motion failed). Outcome: appeal denied.

- BOA25103161 (145 E. Algarita Ave / applicant 145 East Algarita Ave, LLC): City records reported missing HOT filings; staff recommended denial. The board voted against the motion to grant the appeal (roll call: majority opposed). Outcome: appeal denied.

- BOA25103162 (12115 Stoney Falls / applicant Alejandro Benavides): The owner appealed revocation for missing HOT filings. Staff showed Avenue records and explained that some accounts had reporting issues; the applicant said he had not received the full 90‑day mailed notice he expected. The board granted the appeal (unanimous vote). Outcome: appeal granted; owner eligible to reapply or retain permit per board action.

Continuances and procedural matters

Several STR cases were continued by board motion to Oct. 20 so applicants and neighborhood groups could confer or so staff could re‑advertise after multiple continuances. Staff repeatedly advised applicants that re‑advertisement carries a fee and explained that continuances beyond a certain number invite re‑advertising.

What board members and speakers said

City finance staff explained how Avenue displays separate city and county HOT reporting fields and said some operators had entered revenue only for the county or selected an outside‑city radio button, resulting in zero city revenue reported. Staff also said they send mailed delinquency notices (often to the owner’s mailing address on file) and follow up with emails and a final two‑week warning before revocation.

Resident Kyle Baker, who lives near 7630 Cascade Oak, told the board he and neighbors had documented recurring problems he attributed to operation of the STR there: “Trash is constantly left out on the curb,” he said, and described parking and noise problems he said persisted while the property was operating.

Operator testimony varied: Roberto Bogran told the board he had lost his job, had trouble navigating Avenue and did not realize separate city filings were required: “I did have a lot of trouble with Avenue,” he said. In another appeal the applicant argued she did not receive the mailed 90‑day notice and believed platforms had been remitting taxes for hosts after a recent policy change.

Nut graf and context

Multiple commissioners said the record showed mailed notices and email reminders had been issued; several also urged staff to pursue clearer outreach about Avenue and to consider additional or different notification channels. Commissioners split on whether the violations reflected city process problems, operator error, or both. When appeals were denied, board members noted the city’s obligation to revoke under the city code when HOT reporting is missing; when an appeal was granted, the board cited notice and account‑setup issues in the record.

What’s next

- Owners whose appeals were denied were told they could consult staff about amounts due, payment plans and reapplication timelines (often 12 months from revocation). City staff said payment plans are available (three‑, six‑ or nine‑month plans) and that they will continue outreach to address duplicate accounts or misfiled reports.

- Multiple items continued to Oct. 20 so applicants and neighborhood groups can refine documentation or resolve outstanding procedural issues.

Ending

The Board of Adjustment’s actions underscore recurring implementation issues around STR HOT reporting and the narrow grounds on which the board can reverse a revocation under the city code. Several commissioners asked that staff return with clearer timelines and better evidence in the docket when an appeal turns on Avenue reporting vs. willful nonpayment.","The San Antonio Board of Adjustment heard appeals and continuance requests tied to short‑term rental (STR) permits, continuing several cases and issuing mixed rulings: some appeals were denied and one was granted after staff said owners failed to timely report hotel occupancy tax (HOT) revenue.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board approves lot‑size and accessory‑structure variances for two infill properties

Board allows 6‑foot perimeter chain‑link fence at Pecan Valley auto site for security

Board approves mobile food‑court use near Zachary Middle School, waives 200‑foot separation

Board of Adjustment rules on short-term rental appeals, continues multiple STR cases