Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Short Term Rental topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board does not approve special exception for short‑term rental at 203 Paschal Unit 106 after failing to reach nine‑vote threshold
Summary
The Board of Adjustment declined to grant a Type II short‑term rental special exception for 203 Paschal Unit 106 after a motion to approve received eight affirmative votes; staff had recommended denial citing block‑face density limits.
Get email alerts on the Short Term Rental topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The San Antonio Board of Adjustment on Feb. 24 did not grant a special exception that would have allowed Westerly Properties LLC to operate an additional Type II short‑term rental at 203 Paschal Unit 106.
City staff recommended denial, explaining that the Unified Development Code limits Type II short‑term rentals to no more than 12.5% of the total number of qualifying units on a block face. Staff reported that the block face currently contains multiple active Type II permits and that approving Unit 106 would raise the block‑face percentage above the UDC threshold. Staff also told the board that three earlier permits on the block were originally issued in 2022 but were not uploaded into the online system until 2023, creating confusion about the order of approvals.
Applicants Smita and Avinash Bhakta told the board they acquired Unit 106 in late December 2024 and immediately applied for a new permit, stressing the unit formerly operated under a permit that would have been valid through 2026. Smita Bhakta said, “we immediately applied for a new permit so that we could continue to operate it as a short term rental,” and argued the prior permitting record and the city’s data entry issues should factor into the board’s decision.
Commissioners debated the chronology and counting rules used for multifamily block faces. A motion to grant the special exception was made and seconded, and the roll call produced eight votes in favor and two opposed. The chair advised that the board requires 75% of the entire board (nine affirmative votes of 11) for such motions to carry; the motion therefore failed. The board did not adopt the special exception, and the unit remains subject to UDC density limits and standard permitting procedures.
