Board denies request for second Type 2 short‑term rental on Mason Street after lengthy public comment

The San Antonio Board of Adjustment voted on July 7 to deny a special exception that would have allowed an additional Type 2 short‑term rental at 607 Mason Street in the Government Hill historic area. The motion failed 6–5; the board requires nine concurring votes for that category of approval, so the request did not pass.

What the request was

The applicant, Lisa Hendrickson, sought a special exception to exceed the UDC block‑face limit that restricts Type 2 short‑term rental density to no more than 12.5% of single‑family/duplex/triplex/quad units on a street face. There already was 1 approved Type 2 on the subject block face; the applicant asked the board to allow a second.

Why it drew extended comment

Neighbors and neighborhood groups provided mixed testimony. The applicant presented a packet of exhibits intended to document homeowner status, management practices and tax compliance, including letters of support from nearby residents and a letter from a third‑party tax/permitting company that the applicant said had mishandled an earlier filing. The applicant acknowledged a complex permitting history: a 2022 Type 2 submission had been placed on hold because the block face density limit had already been reached; later, ownership and permit changes on adjacent properties affected the block‑face tally.

Opponents and several recorded voicemail statements said the property had operated as an unpermitted short‑term rental and cited parking, trash, noise and neighborhood disruption. Multiple neighborhood speakers and voicemails urged denial, citing ongoing impacts and the block’s character; a neighborhood association voicemail asked the board to deny the application on behalf of area residents.

Board focus in deliberations

Board members pressed staff and the applicant on specific points the record showed mattered: whether the property had outstanding or revoked permits, the city’s short‑term rental tax records (staff said the applicant was current in the city’s newer system from June 2023 onward), and whether the applicant had been informed by staff about required off‑street parking and other conditions prior to investing in concrete work. The applicant said she had hired professional management and a compliance firm and described paying more than $4,300 for a concrete parking pad that was later part of the enforcement review; she said she would have appreciated clearer direction from staff earlier in the process.

Vote and reasoning

On roll call the motion failed 6–5. Yes votes in favor were recorded from Commissioners Barrington, Ybanez, Bragman, Benavides, Vasquez and Chair Orian. Commissioners Manner, Stevens, Dean, Cruz and Brown voted no. Chair Orian reminded the chamber that a 9‑vote concurrence is required for approval of this kind of special exception; the board therefore could not grant the request with a 6–5 majority.

What happens next

Because the motion failed, the applicant cannot proceed with a Type 2 permit that relies on this exception. The applicant and her representatives were advised on the record to follow up with Development Services staff about the pathway forward, which may include reapplication, administrative remedies, or addressing outstanding code/permit items identified by staff.