San Antonio Board of Adjustment Meeting Summary - January 12, 2026

The Board of Adjustment (BOA) for the City of San Antonio convened on January 12, 2026, to hear appeals and variance requests regarding zoning, land use, and code enforcement issues. Key agenda items included complex appeals regarding the interaction between vested rights statutes and the newly enacted Senate Bill 840 (mandating mixed-use/multifamily allowance), appeals against Short-Term Rental (STR) permit revocations due to delinquency, and various property-specific variances for fences, setbacks, and lot sizes. The Board also handled continuances for items requiring further review or neighbor coordination.

Consent Calendar

• Approved minutes from the previous meeting upon motion and unanimous vote.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Case 274 & 275 (SB 840/Vested Rights):
  • Ahmed Baki (Voice Mail): Expressed opposition, citing concerns regarding property value decrease, traffic impact, and lack of privacy due to the proposed multifamily rezoning.
  • America Obdavaki (Voice Mail): Expressed opposition, noting privacy concerns as the backyard would be exposed to apartments and lack of buffering.
  • Mike Morlino (Voice Mail): Opposed the rezoning to mixed-use/multifamily, stating the community already has too many complexes and new construction would increase traffic congestion and strain public services.
  • Fatima Professor: Expressed a divided position; her household was split, with her personally leaning toward multifamily or parks, while her significant other preferred retaining commercial zoning.
  • Wacy Birschwal: Expressed opposition regarding privacy issues for properties directly adjacent to the multifamily concept and concern over traffic congestion.
  • Annette Brewster: Expressed strong opposition to the development, citing concerns over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone (fearing contamination from apartments), flood zones, wildlife protection (military lighting overlay), and property value depreciation.
  • Roxanne Strickland (Case 272): Opposed the height variance, expressing concern regarding loss of views of downtown/Pearl area, noise, and lack of parking validation.
  • Lulu Francois (Voice Mail, Case 276): Expressed opposition to the 10-foot front setback variance, the 9-foot fence height exemption, and the corner clear vision variant, stating the project was not presented to the Dignity Hill Neighborhood Association properly. She requested a continuance.

Discussion Items

• Senate Bill 840 & Vested Rights Appeals (Cases 274 & 275):

  • Staff Position: Stated that while applicants have vested rights from 1988 (Case 274) or 1984 (Case 275), Senate Bill 840 (effective Sept 1, 2025) only applies to projects initiated on or after that date. Staff recommended taking no action, as the applicants cannot simultaneously hold a 1984/1988 start date and a 2025 start date. Staff emphasized the Board lacks purview to interpret state law.
  • Applicant Position (Ken Brown & Applicant Rep): Argued that a consent agreement and state code (Chapter 245) allow them to take advantage of new laws without forfeiting vested rights. They asserted the City's interpretation contradicts the legislative intent and the specific language in their consent agreements.
  • Commissioner Orion: Queried if vested rights are merely an acknowledgement; argued that since the project started in the 80s, SB 840 should never apply, suggesting a need for an Attorney General opinion or clarification.
  • Result: Motion to grant appeals failed in both cases due to lack of 75% concurrence.

• Short-Term Rental Appeals (Cases 264, 266, 267, 260, 263):

  • Case 264 (314 Mission St.): Applicant Carl Silva argued permits were revoked due to management oversight and missed notices; taxes are now current. Staff noted the revocation was procedural due to delinquency. Motion Passed (9-1): Appeal granted, noting the permit was revoked for non-compliance but applicant is now current and no other STRs exist on the block.
  • Case 266 (3495 River Path): Applicant Daniel Guajardo admitted mistakes regarding platform remittance vs. manual filing; claims notices were lost. Applicant is now current. Motion Passed (10-1): Appeal granted.
  • Case 267 (917 Wyoming St.): Applicant Berta Rosales claimed confusion over payments and misunderstood platform notices. Staff indicated an administrative error occurred when the permit was renewed despite pending payments. Motion Passed (10-1): Appeal granted due to staff error in processing.
  • Cases 260 & 263: Continued to January 26, 2026, for short-term rental appeals (260) and administrative decision appeals (263) or variances. Correction: Case 267 was the Wyoming St case discussed above; Case 269 and 233 were continued.

• Fence and Setback Variances:

  • Case 259 (710 South Brownleaf Dr.): Applicant Ricardo Gonzalez requested setbacks for a carport. Neighbor at 714 South Brownleaf supported the request. Motion Passed (11-0): Variances granted for side setback, front setback, and clear vision area, citing unnecessary hardship and similarity to approved adjacent property.
  • Case 262 (123 Faye Ave.): Applicant Diana Campos requested variances for a 10-foot metal fence and sheet roll material due to security concerns and trash dumping. Motion Passed (11-0 for Material): Material variance granted with requirement to add a cap. Motion Passed (11-0 for Height): Height variance granted, noting consistency with surrounding industrial character.
  • Case 265 (2522 Tombry St.): Applicant Matthew Jones requested a height variance for a gate and clear vision variance. Motion Passed (9-0): Both variances granted, limited to the gate and noting the applicant committed to reducing the side solid fence for safety.
  • Case 268 (315 Refugio St.): Applicant Victor Vieda requested rear setback and lot size variances for a historic district renovation. Motion Passed (10-0): Variances granted for the rear setback (limited to a metal staircase) and lot size, citing unique circumstances of historic subdivision and prior investments.
  • Case 276 (1038 Sherman St.): Applicant Stephen Lucky requested front/side setback variances to protect a pecan tree and an entrance gate height exemption. The Dignity Hill Neighborhood Association opposed the height and setback variances due to lack of prior outreach. Motion Passed (10-0 for Setbacks): Front and side setback variances granted to accommodate the tree. Continued to February 9, 2026: Items 3 (Corner Clear Vision) and 4 (Fence Height) continued to allow the applicant to meet with the Neighborhood Association.

• Height and Density Variance (Case 272: 811-815 East Park Ave.):

  • Applicant Position: Requested 4-story/51 ft height variance (or 56 ft as initially advertised) for a multifamily infill development approved by City Council in 2024. Applicant clarified the 51 ft height applies only to the elevator shaft, with the main structure at 48 ft, arguing the Council approval supersedes standard limits.
  • Staff Position: Noted the IDZ3 zoning has specific height limitations when abutting single-family residences (2.5 stories/35 ft). Discussed parking ratios, confirming the applicant reduced units to 18 to meet the 1.5 spaces/unit requirement (reducible to 0.75 under IDZ rules).
  • Commissioner Orion: Questioned the consistency of the Council-approved site plan with current code and the parking calculation.
  • Outcome: Motion Passed (9-1): Variances for stories and height granted, recognizing the property's rezoning approval and the need to execute the approved site plan.

Key Outcomes

• Senate Bill 840 Appeals (Cases 274 & 275): Motion to grant appeals failed (7-2 and 6-4 tallies respectively). Board declined to override the explicit text of SB 840 regarding project start dates.
• Short-Term Rental Revocations (Cases 264, 266, 267, 260, 263): Appeals largely granted based on applicants becoming current on payments and/or staff administrative errors.
• Variances Granted:
  • Carport setback variances (Case 259).
  • Metal fence material and height variances (Case 262).
  • Fence/gate height and clear vision variances (Case 265).
  • Historic district lot size and rear setback variances (Case 268).
  • East Park Ave. height and story variances (Case 272).
  • Sherman St. front and side setback variances (Part of Case 276).
• Continuances Granted:
  • Case 233 (STR exemption) to January 26, 2026.
  • Case 267 (Variance) to January 26, 2026.
  • Case 269 (STR appeal) to January 26, 2026.
  • Case 261 (Garage variance) to January 26, 2026.
  • Case 276 Items 3 & 4 (Clear vision/Fence) to February 9, 2026, contingent on applicant coordination with Dignity Hill Neighborhood Association.
• Voting Standards: All motions required a concurring vote of 75% of the total board (9 votes) to pass. The Board met the required quorum of 9 members for most votes.