Historic board denies request to paint masonry at 204 East Rosewood Avenue

The Historic Compliance and Technical Advisory Board on January 2026 voted to deny a request to paint three masonry buildings at 204 East Rosewood Avenue, siding with staff and preservation-minded commissioners who said painting would change character-defining features and risk long-term masonry damage.

Chairwoman Juanita Zapova opened the discussion and asked staff to present the application, saying the board’s role is to advise the city manager and relevant departments on certificates of appropriateness. Staff advised the board that it did not recommend approval of the paint proposal and reminded commissioners that the city’s guidelines generally discourage painting masonry in historic districts.

Eddie Brehelan, representing Roofsharks and the applicant, told the board the intent was not to alter the building’s layout or historical character but to preserve the structure. Brehelan said the team had identified mineral-based paints that are breathable and removable and pointed to a vendor permeability rating “70+” and a claimed 20-year warranty, arguing the products would limit moisture problems and could be removed later if necessary. “These paints are also highly breathable with excellent moisture vapor transmission,” he said.

Several commissioners and a neighborhood commenter disagreed. “For a historic district it is problematic to paint brick,” a commissioner said, urging repair and restoration instead of covering masonry. Another commissioner noted the visual contrast between mortar and brick would be lost if the upper masonry were painted, a change that would alter the building’s architectural character and place it at odds with the board’s preservation guidelines. A resident who spoke during the discussion recommended masonry repair vendors in San Antonio rather than a wholesale paint treatment.

Staff clarified that while mineral paints have been approved in some instances, the board’s default guidance is to avoid painting masonry because of unpredictable long-term effects. After questions about whether the work already had begun, timelines and enforcement, a motion to “approve with staff recommendations” — in this case, to follow staff’s recommendation to deny the request — was made, seconded and approved by roll call. Chairwoman Zapova asked the applicant to work with staff on alternative solutions.

The board instructed staff to email any certificates of appropriateness within 10 days where applicable and noted that if applicants seek to modify an opening later, staff would ensure the new window met standards. The denial leaves the applicant able to pursue maintenance, repair, or a revised proposal consistent with district guidelines.