San Antonio Zoning Adjustment Board Meeting Summary - December 1, 2025
San Antonio Zoning Adjustment Board Meeting Summary - December 1, 2025
The San Antonio Zoning Adjustment Board convened on December 1, 2025, at 1:00 PM to review ten agenda items involving variances and special exceptions. The board addressed requests for Short-Term Rentals (STR), signage dimensions, multi-family development standards, setback reductions, sight distance exceptions, and fence materials. Most hearings resulted in unanimous approval after deliberation on safety, property rights, and community character, while one STR request and a fence height request required deferral or modification to ensure code compliance and community engagement.
Consent Calendar
- No explicit consent calendar items were listed; the board proceeded directly to agenda items 1 through 10 and concluded with minutes approval.
Public Comments & Testimony
- STR Request (Item 1): Rob McAllen, the property owner, expressed that he has been in the hospitality industry for 25 years, purchased the properties for long-term rentals which were unsuccessful due to tenant issues, and is requesting additional STR permissions to pay his mortgage. He stated he has 200 five-star reviews and employs locals. Comisionada Ibáñez expressed concern regarding the lack of affordable housing in District 2 due to the history of STRs in the area. McAllen noted he was unaware of the district designation and agreed to communicate with the Denver Heights Neighborhood Association.
- Signage Request (Item 2): Ten Dixon, representing the applicant, argued that the 18-foot sign height is necessary to prevent vandalism and graffiti, stating that lower signs are too accessible and are damaged by pedestrians. He acknowledged the aesthetic concerns but emphasized the security aspect. The Alta Vista and Beacon Hill neighborhood associations expressed opposition to the variance, citing concerns that the height would harm the existing character of the neighborhood and set a precedent.
- Multi-Family Development (Item 3): The applicant, R.D. Curtsy, expressed a commitment to working closely with the Beacon Hill Neighborhood Association and argued that building eight units (instead of the allowable twelve) provides necessary housing and open space. A resident, Cynthia Walker, expressed support for the project to increase density in a respectful manner, while Christian McColvan expressed concern about developers designing first and seeking variances later, urging the board to consider the financial motivation behind the request.
- Setback/Variation (Item 4): The applicant's engineer, Matthew Here, argued that the requested right-of-way reduction is necessary for the development's design and that coordination with CPS (electricity) and traffic departments confirmed the safety of the proposed configuration.
- Fence Variance (Item 5): Joe Araiza stated that the rear addition is necessary to accommodate grandchildren and that the rear property is vacated city land, posing no impact on neighbors.
- Sight Distance (Item 6): Stefan Engel argued that his property has suffered from code enforcement inconsistency, noted that the corner has historically been obstructed by vegetation, and stated that the city's Traffic Department suggested a stop sign could mitigate the sight distance issue. He expressed frustration that he is the only neighbor being forced to comply. Neighbors Cynthia Walker and Jeffrey Bookers expressed no opposition to the fence being built.
- Townhome Height (Item 7): Robert Broad argued that the variance is necessary to complete a planned "Howard Crossing" development and that he has been negotiating to purchase the vacated adjacent single-family home to eliminate the height restriction. Residents present indicated no opposition and willingness to sell.
- Remodel Invasions (Item 8): Margori González and Milton de León expressed that the home is deteriorating and that they needed to close the structure for safety due to homeless individuals entering the property. They apologized for lacking knowledge of the permit process.
- Garage Setbacks (Item 9): Daniel Medrano argued that financial constraints and hail damage to vehicles necessitated the garage expansion, noting that similar constructions exist in the neighborhood. He expressed concern that moving the carport posts would increase the covered area beyond the property line significantly.
- Fence Material/Height (Item 10): Amanda, representing Embassy Collision, argued that corrugated metal fencing is essential for security and privacy in a high-robbery area. Comisionado Bonilllas supported the material change for durability. Comisionado Mena expressed concern that an 8-foot height in the front yard would alter the streetscape dynamic, suggesting 6 feet as a compromise.
Discussion Items
- Item 1 (STR): The board noted the conflict between the applicant's economic need and the community's need for affordable housing. Comisionado Bonilla suggested a delay to allow the applicant to contact the Neighborhood Association. The board granted a deferral to January 12, 2025 (note: year likely 2026 based on context, but transcript says January 12).
- Item 2 (Signage): The board discussed the reduction of the sign height from 18 feet to 10 feet and area from 72 sq ft to 25 sq ft to meet NCD standards. Comisionado Mena and Comisionada Braggman supported the variance, noting the difficulty in preventing vandalism. The board approved the variance for the 10-foot height to ensure the sign's survival, while the area remains within limits.
- Item 3 (Multi-Family): Comisionado Suna proposed an amendment to include the site plan in the motion to ensure the development matches the proposed design. The board unanimously approved the five variances requested for the Four-Structure Multifamily Development, noting the support of the Beacon Hill Association and the reduced density (8 units vs 12 allowed).
- Item 4 (Setbacks): Compton Stevens questioned the safety of reducing the right-of-way to 40 feet. The board discussed the coordination with CPS and traffic engineers. Comisionado Mena and others supported the option to reduce the right-of-way (Items 1 & 2) over the reduced setbacks alone, citing safety and utility access. The board authorized the reduction of the right-of-way to 48 feet and associated setbacks.
- Item 5 (Rear Addition): The board discussed the lack of impact due to the vacant city land behind the property. The board approved the 15-foot rear setback reduction.
- Item 6 (Sight Distance): The board deliberated on the request to reduce sight distance due to an existing privacy fence. Comisionado Mena and Comisionado Stevens supported the variance, emphasizing the historical nature of the obstruction and the work with the city to potentially add stop signs. The board approved the variance for the fence intrusion.
- Item 7 (Townhome Height): The board discussed the conflict with the adjacent single-family home. Comisionado Mena noted the lack of opposition from the neighbor and the ongoing sale negotiation. The board unanimously approved the height variance to allow the three-story development.
- Item 8 (Remodel): The board discussed the unique historical configuration of the home and the lack of financial motivation. Comisionado Braggman and others supported the variance for safety and repair. The board unanimously approved the lateral setback variance.
- Item 9 (Garage): Comisionado Braggman moved to approve the garage variance. The board discussed the consistency with the neighborhood and the financial hardship of moving the carport. The board unanimously approved the variance for the garage placement.
- Item 10 (Fence): The board debated the material (corrugated metal vs. wood) and the height (8 feet vs. 6 feet). Comisionado Bonillas moved to approve the material variance. Comisionado Bonillas then moved for the 8-foot height, but Comisionado Mena opposed the extra two feet, suggesting a compromise. An amendment was made to approve the 6-foot height for the front yard while allowing the 8-foot height for the sides/rear. The board approved the material variance and the 6-foot height amendment.
Key Outcomes
- Item 1 (STR): Motion to defer application to January 12, 2025, conditional on communication with the Denver Heights Neighborhood Association. (Voted: Approved, Deferral Granted)
- Item 2 (Signage): Variance approved for 10-foot height (up from 8) and 25 sq ft area. (Voted: Approved unanimously)
- Item 3 (Multi-Family): Five variances approved for the development of four multi-family structures on one lot. (Voted: Approved unanimously)
- Item 4 (Setbacks): Right-of-way reduced to 48 feet with corresponding setback reductions approved. (Voted: Approved unanimously)
- Item 5 (Rear Addition): Variances for rear setbacks approved. (Voted: Approved unanimously)
- Item 6 (Fence/Sight Distance): Variance approved for fence intrusion in the sight distance triangle. (Voted: Approved 11-0)
- Item 7 (Townhome Height): Variance approved for 3-story height. (Voted: Approved unanimously)
- Item 8 (Remodel): Lateral setback variance approved for home renovation. (Voted: Approved unanimously)
- Item 9 (Garage): Variances approved for garage setback due to unique site conditions. (Voted: Approved unanimously)
- Item 10 (Fence): Material variance approved for corrugated metal. Height exception approved for 6 feet in the front yard (amendment from 8 feet). (Voted: Approved unanimously)
- Minutes: Minutes of the previous meeting were approved.
- Next Steps: Next meeting scheduled for January 15, 2025. Board noted a need for better community education regarding building codes and variances.
Meeting Transcript
Vamos a estar grabando. Es la una de la tarde y iniciamos la sesión. Empecemos la sesión de la Junta de Zonificación. Junta de ajuste de sonificación. Y pase el intérprete. Buenas tardes a todos. Las personas que prefieran escuchar esta audiencia en español, por favor, pasen a la cabina de atrás a mano derecho para que le proporcionemos un aparato de interpretación. Muchísimas gracias. Por favor, pasemos lista. Comisionado Reid. Presente. Comisionado Estevens, presente. Comisar Ibáñez, presente. Comisionado Díaz. Comisionada Cruz. Aquí. Comisionado Gómez. Comisionado Mana, presente. Comisionada Beckman, presente. Comisionada Benavides, presente. Comisionado Suna presente. Comisionada Vázquez, presente. Comisionado Bonillas, presente. El presidente Oren, tenemos once, diez presentes y uno por Webex. Por favor, levántense para que hagamos el juramento de lealtad. Vamos antes de que iniciemos, me gustaría ofrecer unas palabras de explicación. Esta Junta sigue una agenda que está disponible en línea y empieza con el número del solicitante con su dirección y se consideran los actas de la Junta Previa. Y le pido que les vamos a leer estos puntos de la agenda. Nosotros somos ciudadanos privados, asignados por el ayuntamiento y están apoyados por el personal de la ciudad competente en las reglas y regulaciones del gobierno de la ciudad. Este es un cuerpo iniciativo y no un tribunal de justicia. Solamente examinamos los hechos pertenecientes y buscamos no involucrarse en disputas o en reclamos legales. Y estos poderes nos los da la legislatura de Texas en la ciudad de San Antonio y claramente definidas en el capítulo 211 del gobierno de Texas. Y esta autoridad es para escuchar y decidir apelaciones en la decisión y determinaciones hechas por los oficiales de acuerdo al capítulo treinta y cinco. También servimos como nuestra capacidad de consultivos para apelar de acuerdo a los servicios del director de desarrollos con respecto a las variancias y regulaciones del capítulo veintiocho, el artículo uno de la sección veintiocho. Toda decisión está basado en los hechos encontrados y cada y apoyado en los procedimientos de la Junta. El solicitante o su representante presentará la petición y se les preguntará por los miembros de la Junta. Cualquier oposición a la solicitud se presenta, se presentará y después cada uno va a escuchar su caso y al final tendremos una moción por parte de la Junta. Cada miembro puede votar en la moción y se necesita el setenta y cinco por ciento del total de los miembros, ya sea que estén presentes o no, los cuales son nueve votos. Y en cuanto a se busca en cuanto a esa aplicación, esta solicitud, el solicitante pueda presentar y va a tener usted que presentarlo a la Junta. El personal iniciará cada cosa, cada caso, con una presentación corta y en la presentación incluye el mapa que muestra las variancias o excepciones especiales dentro de los 200 pies de la propiedad, y aquellos que van a hablar a favor o en contra de esta varianza o una especial excepción, tienen tres minutos para hablar y no están obligados a usar todo el tiempo. Veo que el punto de la agenda once ya salió, alguien de la audiencia está aquí para el punto de la agenda número once, se ha salido de la agenda, hay alguna y el punto de la gente 12 también se está posponiendo que está el punto de la agenda 12, North Sar Zamora va a posponerse para enero. Empezamos con el primer punto de la agenda, buenas tardes, soy Juan Álvarez, es el planeador de desarrollo de servicios. El punto número uno es por solicitando, Rob Maglean solicita una excepción especial para permitir número uno, permiso adicional para alquiler a corto plazo tipo 2 en la fachada de la manzana, está localizado en la 626 del Mar Street, unidad 202, y está solicitando una excepción para que se pueda darle una excepción especial para permitir un permiso adicional de alquiler a corto plazo tipo 2, y localizado en seiscientos veintidós del Mar Street, unidad 201, y es el mismo dueño, el 11 de agosto se le aprobó, y este código cuando se tienen permisos de renta de corto plazo tipo 2 está limitado para un octavo, hay un total de 15 unidades en la en la cuadra, y se tiene tipo 2, hay uno en 626 del Mar Street, unidad 201, y del tipo 2 está aprobado, se aprobaría, sería trece por ciento, lo que excedería el 12.5% de limitación de la densidad. Esta propiedad no tiene lista, no está activamente listado y no hay un código que ese es el sitio del plan al momento en que hizo la solicitud, y esta es la propiedad, y las siguientes diapositivas son las áreas aledañas, se recomienda que se le niegue a la solicitud por la excepción especial, se enviaron un total de treinta y siete notificaciones ni a favor ni a oposición, y no se responde, no se recibió ninguna respuesta de las dos asociaciones de colonas, y aquí está el solicitante para responder. Por favor, que pase el solicitante, por favor, diga su nombre y díganos sobre su caso de renta de corto tiempo, gracias. Soy Rob McAllen y está muy bien, soy Rob McAllen, tengo esta renta de corto plazo, y para explicarlo, yo he estado en este tipo de industria de hotelería por veinticinco años, y al moverme a esta ciudad quisiera incrementar el aspecto de renta, dado que ha sido difícil que sea a largo plazo, entonces estoy tratando de hacerlo, extenderlo para esa última propiedad que tengo, y tengo calificaciones de cinco estrellas y quiero agregarlo, y esta es la primera vez que lo estoy haciéndolo. Agradezco su tiempo aquí, estoy nervioso, no sé si tengan alguna pregunta. Con mucho gusto las respondo alguna pregunta de los comisionados, comisionado Mena, la pregunta es: ¿cuántas unidades? Hay cuatro unidades en total, yo vivo en una de ellas. La manera en que ustedes tienen sus leyes, entonces tengo uno, es STR2, y la otra van a ser dos, tiene dos tipo uno, tiene dos de tipo uno.
openpublica.com