Board declines appeal by 117 Cactus short‑term rental owner after debate over altered photos

The San Antonio Board of Adjustment on Tuesday rejected a motion to overturn the city’s revocation of a short‑term rental permit for 117 Cactus Street, leaving the revocation in place after a 4–7 vote.

Senior planner Juan Alvarez told the board staff revoked the permit on April 21, 2026, after code enforcement concluded the driveway photo submitted with the renewal application was incorrect and appeared to have been altered. Alvarez said staff’s investigation found a pattern of inaccurate photos from the same property manager and that six additional potential violations linked to that manager had been identified.

Attorney Eddie Brovnick, representing property owner Richard Gonzales, urged the board to treat the incorrect photo as an honest mistake. “People often make mistakes,” Brovnick said, arguing that both the original and replacement driveways would have been code‑compliant and that the error provided no advantage to his client. Brovnick said he would bring the owner to the next hearing if commissioners wanted to hear from him directly.

Neighbor Alyssa Garcia, who lives across from 117 Cactus, told the board she has documented what she described as ongoing nuisance and safety problems at nearby rentals and said she opposed allowing the permit to continue. “There has been a lot of drug trafficking coming in and out from that house,” Garcia said, adding she has video and photographs of behavior she described as dangerous.

Several commissioners questioned the evidence chain. One member cited historical online imagery showing no paved driveway at some points, and others asked staff whether police reports existed to support the neighbor’s safety claims; staff said they would need to coordinate with SAPD for that information and did not have it in the record.

Commissioners who supported the appeal said the property now has a permitted, code‑compliant driveway and that the staff’s revocation targeted a photo rather than the physical condition. Ultimately a motion to grant the appeal — which would have restored the permit — failed on a roll call vote, 4 in favor and 7 opposed. Because the motion failed, the city’s revocation of the short‑term rental permit stands; staff noted the applicant may reapply after the statutorily required waiting period.

The board’s decision leaves open whether the city will pursue any further enforcement related to the other properties staff cited. Alvarez told the board the revocation was based on an administrative finding that the renewal application included incorrect information, a ground for suspension or revocation under the city code. The board did not order additional fact‑finding at the hearing.