Board of Adjustment splits on short‑term rental appeals, denying two and restoring permits for others

The San Antonio Board of Adjustment on Wednesday considered a string of appeals from short‑term rental (STR) operators whose permits had been revoked for unpaid hotel‑occupancy tax (HOT) obligations and related code citations. The board denied two appeals where members found repeated noncompliance or prior citations, and granted or restored permits in three cases where owners paid back taxes and showed corrective steps.

Senior planner Juan Alvarez told the board staff recommended denial in multiple cases after reviewing mail and electronic notices and a staggered transition in remittance processes used by booking platforms. Alvarez said third‑party processor Avenue mailed multiple delinquency notices to addresses on file and the city issued final notices before revocation in early 2026.

In the hearing for 27514 Spur Street, owner Mario Lamru said he and his management company did not receive delinquency notices because they were sent to an outdated Florida address. Lamru told the board he had since worked with a new manager, paid late fees and put processes in place to avoid repeats. Commissioners acknowledged sympathetic circumstances but were divided on whether the city made an enforcement error; a motion to reinstate the permit failed by a narrow margin.

At 7823 Pine Brook Drive, the applicant faced additional negative history: staff recited two administrative hearing‑officer citations for operating without a permit and an ongoing pattern of nonpayment. The board voted unanimously to deny that appeal.

By contrast, owners at 12231 Madrigal presented proof they paid all back taxes within days of revocation and removed active listings; after neighbors and staff weighed operations and buffer concerns, the board voted to grant the appeal and restore the permit.

Several commissioners pressed staff on the transition in remittance responsibilities after platforms began remitting city HOT directly and on the city’s review timing. Staff said the city receives a rolling list from the third‑party processor and revocations have sometimes followed a multi‑step review process.

The board continued one separate STR matter — a special‑exception request for a historic property on East Park Avenue — to allow the applicant to supply additional documentation showing economic hardship and historic‑preservation justification.

Next steps: applicants whose appeals were denied were told how to contact staff about administrative details; those whose permits were restored must comply with any outstanding code corrections and maintain timely HOT reporting.

Speakers quoted in this article are identified from the hearing record and include Juan Alvarez (senior planner) and Mario Lamru (applicant).