Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Antonio Board of Adjustment denies short‑term rental appeal, grants multiple setback and fence variances
Summary
At its May meeting the Board of Adjustment denied an appeal to reinstate a short‑term rental permit after staff said the applicant submitted an inaccurate driveway photo, and approved a series of property variances — including setbacks, accessory‑structure sizes and fence exceptions — after staff presentations and public testimony.
The City of San Antonio Board of Adjustment on May 18 heard 12 agenda items, declined to reinstate a short‑term rental permit and approved multiple variances for rear additions, garages and fences across the city.
The most contested item was an administrative appeal by Richard González seeking to reverse the April 21 revocation of a short‑term rental permit for a unit at 117 Cactus Street. Juan Álvarez, the city planner presenting the case, told the board staff concluded the applicant had submitted an incorrect driveway photograph and that a later site visit and a photograph taken by police showed the earlier image was altered. Álvarez said the permit was revoked under Section 16.111 of the City Code, which authorizes the director to suspend or revoke permits when information provided is incorrect.
Erik Boranica, an attorney speaking for González, said the property historically had a vehicle access and presented photographs he said showed a driveway; he asked the board to consider whether staff had erred in applying the revocation standard. During public comment Elisa García, who said she lives at 117, described repeated late‑night activity at the property and urged the board not to restore the permit: “Hay mucho tráfico... niñas jóvenes…hasta de 15 años…que entran en la noche,” she said, alleging criminal activity and urging enforcement. Staff responded that police records would need to be checked to corroborate criminal complaints; a city staff member told commissioners they did not have immediate access to police reports.
On a motion to grant the appeal the board failed to reach the required affirmative vote; the motion to reinstate the short‑term rental permit did not pass and the revocation stands. Staff advised the appellant on follow‑up steps and the 12‑month reapplication timeframe noted in the municipal code.
Beyond the appeal the board considered a slate of variance requests. Highlights and formal outcomes included:
• 18 Chelsea Way (BVA‑26‑103‑00106): Staff recommended and the board granted a variance to reduce a 20‑foot minimum perimeter setback to allow a rear addition the applicant described as a suite for an incapacitated relative. The board found irregular lot shape and access/maintenance needs supported the variance; vote recorded as unanimous.
• 219 Palo Grande (BVA‑26‑103‑00088): The board approved variances allowing an accessory dwelling unit to exceed maximum accessory area, and granted a special‑exception for a predominantly solid fence in certain locations, finding the lot’s configuration created practical difficulties.
• 155 Kemp Street (BVA‑26‑103‑00082): An applicant asked to keep corrugated metal fence material and a reduced view‑clear area for an intersection; applicant’s representative described repeated thefts and security concerns. Commissioners required the fence be predominantly open for clear‑view purposes and approved a capped corrugated panel where needed; the motion passed unanimously.
• 631 Cincinnati Avenue (BVA‑26‑103‑00100): The board granted a narrow setback variance to allow a new garage after the owner described drainage mitigation (gutters) and neighborhood precedents.
• 124 East (BVA‑26‑103‑00101): The board approved an impermeable coverage exception and a predominantly open 6‑foot‑6‑inch front‑fence special‑exception, with conditions addressing view clear and a fence cap.
• 285 Post Avenue (BVA‑26‑103‑00110): A developer seeking multiple variances for a three‑unit project in a conservation district presented prior community negotiations from 2023. Commissioners discussed fire‑department spacing and design standards and approved the requested exceptions with conditions; one commissioner abstained on the roll call.
In each case the board’s formal motions referenced findings that literal compliance would cause unnecessary difficulty due to the parcel’s physical characteristics and that the variances would not be contrary to the public interest. Commissioners repeatedly directed applicants to meet with staff for final conditions and to obtain required permits.
What happened next: Staff told applicants to coordinate follow‑up with city reviewers, and the board closed the meeting with no director’s report and procedural reminders about appeal rights and reapplication windows. The board recessed for a short break during the meeting and adjourned at about 4:15 p.m.
Quotes that illustrate the meeting’s tone:
“Las fotografías que proporcionó el solicitante era incorrecta y una fotografía alterada,” Juan Álvarez, city planner, on staff’s basis for revoking a short‑term rental permit.
“Hay mucho tráfico… niñas jóvenes…hasta de 15 años…que entran en la noche,” Elisa García, nearby resident, during public comment about 117 Cactus Street.
The board recorded motions and vote results in the minutes for each agenda item. Applicants were advised to follow staff guidance for permits and to return to the board if they seek further relief.
