The San Antonio Board of Adjustment on Oct. 6 considered 10 cases and took final action on several, denying one short‑term rental request, declining to overturn a staff revocation of another STR permit, approving multiple fence and lot variances, and advancing a multi‑parcel supportive‑housing plan subject to future approvals.

The most consequential votes came on short‑term rentals. On the request for a Type‑2 short‑term rental permit at 2306 East Houston Street (case B.A.25‑103‑000179), staff recommended denial and the applicant, represented by Jessica Flores, said the property would be well‑managed and could generate tourism taxes. Commissioners repeatedly cited saturation in the block and opposition from several commissioners. The motion to grant the special exception failed; the transcript records the motion did not pass and the applicant’s request was not approved.

On an appeal of a staff revocation of a short‑term rental permit at 6215 Via La Cantera, unit 285 (case B.A.25‑103‑000180), staff reported the permit had been revoked after the owner failed to make required monthly remittances and did not respond to final notices. The appellant, Remandep Cosinck, apologized and said the failure stemmed from filing and tax‑code categorization errors and that he had since brought records current. Board members debated whether the city or the applicant bore responsibility. The board did not find that staff erred in revoking the permit; the transcript notes the motion to overturn staff’s revocation “falló.” The board discussion shows a majority of members recorded “yes” votes to overturn, but commissioners noted a 75% threshold is required for some actions; the motion ultimately did not meet the board’s required threshold and therefore failed.

The board also considered several variance requests involving fences and building‑site dimensions.
- Calvin and Isela Medrano asked to keep corrugated metal fencing and a 10‑foot rear/side fence on a property on West Avenue (case B.A.25‑103‑000157). After discussion of existing nonconforming use and security concerns brought by the applicants, the Medranos requested a postponement to consult with the neighborhood association; the case was initially set for postponement, and later in the meeting a related variance (listed in the agenda as case B.A.25‑103‑000057 / West Avenue addresses) was heard and a motion to grant a fence/material variance passed with multiple commissioners concurring. Commissioners who supported the variance cited security needs and existing fence conditions; opponents had raised code and material concerns during the staff presentation.
- At 203 West Buchanan Boulevard (case B.A.25‑103‑000178), applicant Jesús Torres Day sought to allow corrugated metal fencing at a commercial vehicle/auto sales property. Staff recommended denial; the applicant said the metal fence was to hide stored vehicles and deter theft. Commissioners noted that commercial districts may allow fences up to 8 feet and, after discussion, the board approved relief that effectively permitted the metal fence as presented (the applicant stated the constructed fence is about 7 feet with a cap), and the motion passed.

The board approved a lot‑size and dimensional variance at 519 West ___ Boulevard (case B.A.25‑103‑000184) to allow development on a 5,600‑square‑foot lot where the ordinance requires a 6,000‑square‑foot minimum. Staff recommended approval; the applicant, Gino Pérez, said the previous structure burned in 2023 and the proposal would return a vacant lot to use as a single‑family residence. The board found the variance consistent with the surrounding pattern and approved the request.

Finally, the board granted setback variances for a proposed lotting and development at 3038 Eisenhower Road (case B.A.25‑103‑000187), a project presented by Steven G. Cook Engineering proposing to replat and use the site for supportive housing. Staff recommended approval of variances to increase the front setback and decrease the rear setback to accommodate the site’s irregular shape. Multiple neighborhood associations submitted letters of support for the concept, while callers and neighbors raised concerns about stormwater drainage, lighting and privacy. Commissioners approved the setback variances as a first step, with several members stressing that future approvals (drainage, lighting, fences and the rezoning/use‑specific approvals) remain necessary and that engineering and stormwater review will be required before construction.

Across the agenda the board repeatedly cited the governing procedural and statutory authorities it referenced at the start of the meeting: the board’s powers under “capítulo 211” and local code chapters the staff presenter named during opening remarks; staff repeatedly noted mailed notice counts for each case (for example, 41 notices sent for the East Houston STR case; 85 notices for the Eisenhower case) and whether neighborhood associations responded.

What’s next: applicants denied or whose appeals were unsuccessful were told to consult staff for next steps; several approvals were conditioned on later technical reviews (drainage, fencing, lighting, building permits) and, for the Eisenhower supportive‑housing proposal, additional zoning and site‑plan approvals will be required.