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

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.