San Antonio — The Board of Adjustment met and took action on a range of zoning and variance requests, denying one special‑exception short‑term rental request, approving fence, lot‑size and setback variances for several properties, and continuing two cases for further neighborhood outreach.

The board denied a request to allow an additional Type 2 short‑term rental at 2306 East Houston Street after finding the applicant did not meet the code’s density limits and the board did not concur with the findings of fact. Staff had recommended denial; the motion to grant the special exception failed on a 2‑to‑9 vote.

Why it matters: Short‑term rental density rules are intended to limit concentrations of non‑owner‑occupied short‑term rentals on a block face. The board’s decision preserves the existing block‑face caps in the neighborhood, and the applicant may pursue other lawful use options.

Most important actions and context

- 2306 East Houston Street (Type 2 short‑term rental request): Staff described the property and the block‑face count; there are 11 units on the block face and two active Type 2 permits at 2314 and 2344 East Houston Street. Staff said the current block face is roughly 18% Type 2; if approved it would rise to about 27%. Applicant representative Jessica Flores asked the board to approve the special exception, saying the owners planned to operate responsibly and that short‑term rentals support tourism and local tax revenue. The board voted against granting the special exception; the motion failed 2 to 9. “We’re trying to do a request for the special exception to obtain a short term rental for this property,” Jessica Flores told the board during her presentation.

- 6215 Via La Cantera, Unit 285 (appeal of revocation of short‑term rental permit): Staff reported the permit was revoked after a finding of delinquent hotel‑occupancy‑tax (HOT) filings and remittances, with notices mailed between November 2024 and March 2025 and a revocation on Aug. 12, 2025. Applicant Jitendra (Jatinder) Pal Singh said the account had been miscategorized, that some taxes had been handled by platforms and that, once he understood the filing requirements, he paid the outstanding balance and corrected the filings. He told the board, “We take the full responsibility for the misunderstanding related to our HOT payments.” The board debated whether the revocation represented a staff enforcement error or an applicant filing failure. A motion to grant the appeal was made and considered; the board’s final recorded action on that motion was that it failed. (Transcript: the chair said, “the motion does fail.”)

- 1206 & 1200 West Avenue (fence material and height variance request): The applicants asked to allow corrugated metal fence material and a 2‑foot height variance (10 feet total) along specified property lines for a commercial nonconforming tire shop. Staff recommended denial, noting the material is expressly prohibited and the height could affect light and airflow to adjacent property; the Los Angeles Heights Neighborhood Association registered opposition while the applicant provided eight signatures of neighbor support. The applicant asked for time to meet the neighborhood association; the board continued the case to Nov. 17 to allow the applicant to pursue that outreach.

- 203 West Buchanan Boulevard (corrugated metal fence, as built): Code enforcement found an as‑built corrugated metal fence in the rear yard of a future auto‑repair development. Applicant said the fence improves security for stored vehicles. After discussion and testimony, the board approved a variance to allow the as‑built corrugated metal fence (limited to the rear‑yard portion shown as built), with findings of fact adopted by the board.

- 519 West Highland Boulevard (lot width and lot‑size variances): The applicant requested a 400‑square‑foot variance from the 6,000‑square‑foot minimum and a 10‑foot variance from the 50‑foot minimum lot width to build a single‑family home on a long‑vacant lot in Roosevelt Park. Staff recommended approval; mailed notices showed neighborhood responses with several letters of support. The board approved both variances unanimously (11‑0).

- 3038 Eisenhower Road (front and rear setback variances for a new multifamily / supportive housing campus): The applicant, represented by Stephen G. Cook Engineering, requested a 145‑foot variance from the MF‑33 maximum front setback and a 30‑foot variance from the increased 40‑foot rear setback that applies where MF‑33 abuts a platted single‑family subdivision. The applicant said the lot’s irregular shape and a large drainage channel along Eisenhower Road make the requested relief necessary; Faye Hunter of the applicant’s engineering team described a plan for drainage easements and on‑site infrastructure. Staff recommended approval; the Oak Park Northwood Neighborhood Association and the Woodbridge Condominium Association both provided written support. The board approved the variances (recorded as passing with no votes in opposition).

Votes and formal actions at a glance

- Continued to Nov. 3: BOA case requesting continuance (case BLA25103001185 at 2119 San Pedro Ave.) — motion to continue carried.
- Added to Oct. 20 agenda: BOA case BOA‑25‑10300160 from last week — board voted to add the case to the Oct. 20 agenda.
- Case BOA‑25‑10300179 (2306 E. Houston): Motion to grant a special exception for one additional Type 2 short‑term rental — outcome: denied (motion failed 2–9). Staff recommended denial.
- Case BOA‑25‑10300180 (6215 Via La Cantera, Unit 285): Appeal of STR permit revocation for HOT delinquency — motion to grant the appeal was considered and the board chair stated “the motion does fail.” Outcome: appeal not granted (motion failed; transcript notes the chair’s statement that the motion did fail).
- Case BOA‑25‑10300157 (1206 & 1200 West Ave.): Fence material and height variance — continued to Nov. 17 at the applicant’s request to meet with the neighborhood association.
- Case BOA‑25‑10300178 (203 W. Buchanan Blvd.): Request to allow corrugated/rolled metal fence (as built) limited to the rear yard — board approved the variance; conditions include engineering for fences above 8 feet as required by code review.
- Case BOA‑25‑10300184 (519 W. Highland Blvd.): 400‑sq.‑ft lot‑size variance and 10‑ft lot‑width variance for a single‑family home — approved, unanimous 11‑0.
- Case BOA‑25‑10300187 (3038 Eisenhower Rd.): 145‑ft front‑setback variance and 30‑ft rear‑setback variance (preemptive relief given lot shape/drainage) — board approved (recorded as passing with no votes in opposition).

Discussion highlights and staff clarifications

- Short‑term rentals: Staff explained the Type 2 density counting method (Type 2s limited to 12.5% of single‑family/duplex/triplex/quadplex units on a block face; at least one Type 2 allowed per block face regardless of size). For 2306 E. Houston the block face had 11 units and two active Type 2s; staff found no code violations at the subject property but recommended denial based on density.

- HOT (hotel occupancy tax) and permit revocation: Staff explained platform remittance changes that took effect in Spring 2025 and said platforms (Airbnb/VRBO) began remitting city HOT directly; however hosts remain responsible for monthly filings and any local portions not automatically collected by platforms. Staff reported seven mail notices and a final revocation notice date; the applicant said he corrected the account and paid outstanding taxes once he understood the required filings.

- Fences and materials: Staff noted the Unified Development Code prohibits certain industrial‑looking fence materials in residential contexts and that any fence above 8 feet requires structural engineering submittal and review. In two fence cases the board weighed property security and neighborhood character; one corrugated‑metal fence (as built) was approved limited to the rear yard shown, and another fence case was continued to allow applicant–neighborhood discussion.

- Drainage concerns: In the Eisenhower Road case multiple neighbors and an area property committee left voicemails and spoke about potential runoff into a natural channel; the applicant’s engineering team told the board the site plan reserves a drainage easement for the channel and will include inlet drains and other measures reviewed in plat/grading and stormwater plan review.

Who spoke (selected)

- Joseph Leos, Senior Planner, Development Services (staff presenter on multiple cases) — government, Development Services.
- Jessica Flores, applicant representative (2306 East Houston short‑term rental) — applicant/representative.
- Jitendra (Jatinder) Pal Singh, appellant (6215 Via La Cantera Unit 285) — appellant; stated he flew from California and asked for reinstatement after resolving HOT delinquencies.
- Calvin Medrano, property owner (1206 & 1200 West Ave. fence request) — applicant/owner.
- Jesus Jose (Jesus Torres Day), applicant (203 W. Buchanan fence case) — applicant/business owner.
- Faye Hunter, representative, Stephen G. Cook Engineering (3038 Eisenhower Rd.) — applicant representative/engineer.
- Multiple Board members (identified in the record by seat): Chair Ryan (chair), Vice Chair Ozuna and other commissioners (several voiced concurrence or non‑concurrence during roll calls).

Authorities and code references (as stated in the meeting record)

- Unified Development Code (UDC) short‑term rental provisions: Type 2 density limit (12.5% per block face) and related permit rules (counting method described by staff).
- City HOT (hotel occupancy tax) remittance and filing rules; changes to platform remittances effective March 2025 were discussed.
- MF‑33 base zoning setbacks; R‑6 minimum lot size/width standards; provisions governing fence materials, height and engineering submittals (code sections cited in staff presentations and findings of fact).

Clarifying details extracted from the record

- 2306 East Houston: Block face has 11 units; two active Type 2 short‑term rentals (2314 and 2344 East Houston); staff reported 0 neighborhood notices in favor or opposition and recommended denial.
- 6215 Via La Cantera, Unit 285: Staff said seven mailed notices of delinquency were sent (Nov 2024–Mar 2025) and the permit revocation date was Aug. 12, 2025. Staff recorded limited monthly reporting by the host (roughly 4 reports reported across ~14 months) prior to the revocation; applicant later paid outstanding amounts.
- 1206 & 1200 West Ave.: Staff mailed 37 notices; applicant produced a community petition listing eight supporters; Los Angeles Heights Neighborhood Association opposed the material.
- 203 W. Buchanan: Staff mailed 23 notices and received three letters of support; staff recommended denial but the board ultimately approved a variance for the as‑built rear yard corrugated metal fencing.
- 519 W. Highland: Staff mailed 30 notices and received eight letters of support; staff recommended approval; board approved unanimously.
- 3038 Eisenhower: Staff mailed 85 notices, three returned in favor and one returned no position; two neighborhood groups (Oak Park Northwood NA and Woodbridge Condominium Association) filed letters of support; drainage concerns were raised by multiple neighbors and will be addressed in plan review.

Meeting context and next steps

- Engagement: The board heard testimony from applicants, staff and several neighbors; public comment included voicemails and in‑person speakers about drainage, privacy and light spill concerns on the Eisenhower Road project.
- Implementation risk: Medium for larger projects; several approvals are contingent on subsequent plan, plat and stormwater review, and—where applicable—future rezoning or change‑of‑use proceedings (for the Eisenhower supportive housing project).
- Follow up: The applicants with continued cases (notably the West Avenue fence matter) were directed to engage neighborhood associations and return for the next hearing. Larger approvals (Eisenhower, lot variances) still require detailed design and infrastructure approvals through planning and stormwater review.

Ending note: The Board of Adjustment’s decisions preserved the short‑term rental density limit on one block, advanced redevelopment and variance requests on multiple parcels, and signaled that drainage, fence design and neighbor outreach will be key elements as several approved projects proceed through subsequent planning and permitting stages.