Adjustment Board Meeting - January 12, 2026

The San Antonio Adjustment Board convened on January 12, 2026, to hear appeals and variance requests, primarily focusing on complex statutory interpretations regarding SB 840 and rights by acquisition, as well as routine zoning violations involving short-term rentals, fences, and setbacks.

Consent Calendar

• Minutes Approval: The minutes from the previous meeting were approved without objection.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Case 274 (1604 Houseman Rd) & Case 275: Several residents expressed opposition to the potential change from commercial to mixed-use multifamily development. Specific concerns included traffic congestion, loss of privacy due to apartment exposure, and decreased property values. One resident noted the area currently has significant school traffic and unsafe sidewalk conditions. Conversely, neighbors of another property expressed full support for a new development, citing neighborhood revitalization benefits.
• Case 269 & 267: Two homeowners voiced support for approving revocations of short-term rental permits for nearby properties, having experienced no negative impacts from the operators.
• Case 261: A resident strongly opposed a variance request for a large parking lot (8,000 sq ft), expressing concerns about its oversized nature compared to residential structures and potential impacts on a nearby Catholic school's traffic and safety.
• Case 276: The President of the Dignity Hill Neighborhood Association urged denial of height and setback variances for a new development, stating a 9-foot fence is inappropriate for a residential zone and citing a lack of prior consultation with the association.
• Case 262: A resident expressed support for a 10-foot fence variance, emphasizing security concerns due to prior thefts and illegal dumping in the area.

Discussion Items

State Law Interpretation (Cases 274 & 275):

• Staff Position: Staff stated that under the codification of SB 840, a project cannot simultaneously be classified as initiated in 1984/1988 (for rights by acquisition) and initiated on or after September 1, 2025 (for SB 840 benefits). They clarified that the law is clear and mandatory; applicants must choose either rights by acquisition OR SB 840, not both.
• Appellant Position (Brown & McDonald PLLC): The applicant's representative argued that an agreement of consent signed with the city in 2024 explicitly allows the developer to take advantage of new regulations and codes without abandoning rights by acquisition. They stated, "We have an agreement with the city that says I can utilize... without abandoning my accrued rights," and requested the board honor this contract rather than interpret state law.
• Commissioner Debate: Commissioner Reed and others questioned the ability to apply new laws without forfeiting old rights, while the applicant maintained the issue was a contract interpretation, not a state statute dispute. Commissioner Ibañez and others noted the statutory language regarding project start dates was definitive.

Short-Term Rental Appeal (Cases 264, 260, 266):

• Case 264 (Mission St): The Board discussed a property where the operator claimed the failure to pay HOT taxes was due to an administrative company's oversight, noting they were now current. Staff recommended denial due to non-compliance, but the Board voted to grant the appeal.
• Case 260 (River Pad) & 266 (Wyoming St): Applicants for these cases admitted to late payments or confusion regarding the Avenue software platform but confirmed all taxes and reports were now current. The Board voted to grant these appeals, noting the errors were administrative and have been corrected.

Variance & Exception Requests (Cases 261, 265, 267, 262, 263, 268):

• Case 261 (Barnsdall): The applicant requested a 9-foot fence variance citing security. The Board granted a variance for the fence material (corrugated metal) with a condition to install safety caps, but the height variance was discussed.
• Case 265 (Town Briar): A resident opposed a 10-inch exception for a solid front fence due to visibility concerns for an elderly neighbor. The Board granted the 10-inch exception after the applicant promised to reduce the solid portion further, and granted a vision clearance variance.
• Case 267 (Springfield Rd): An industrial prefabricated building was found to violate setback requirements due to engineering confusion. The Board granted a 12-foot setback variance, citing technical difficulties and lack of fault by the owner.
• Case 262 (Faye Ave): The Board granted a variance for corrugated metal fence material and a 10-foot height exception, citing safety needs and neighborhood consistency.
• Case 263 (Talisman Rd): Despite initial staff recommendation for denial, the Board granted a 4.5-foot fence variance after neighbors expressed support and the area has high pedestrian traffic.
• Case 268 (Refugio): The Board granted a rear setback variance for a metal staircase and a lot size variance, citing the historic nature of the neighborhood and the owner's significant financial investment in the property.
• Case 272 (East Park): An appeal for a 51-56 foot height variance for a 4-story multifamily building was granted after the Board clarified the height limits via the elevator tower. Commissioner Dean expressed full support, while Commissioner Dean voted against it; the motion passed due to other votes.

Key Outcomes

• Cases 274 & 275 (State Law Appeals): The appeal by Brown & McDonald PLLC was denied. The vote was 6 in favor, 4 against, 1 abstention. The Board upheld the staff's position that the applicant cannot combine rights by acquisition with SB 840 due to conflicting project start date definitions in the statute.
• Case 264 (314 Mission St): The appeal for short-term rental permit reinstatement was granted. Vote: 9 in favor, 2 against.
• Case 260 (3495 River Pad): The appeal for short-term rental permit reinstatement was granted. Vote: 10 in favor, 1 against.
• Case 266 (917 Wyoming St): The appeal for short-term rental permit reinstatement was granted. Vote: 10 in favor, 1 against.
• Case 268 (710 Sub-Brownleaf): The variance request for rear setbacks and lot size was granted. Vote: 11 in favor, 0 opposed.
• Case 262 (123 Faye Ave): The variance for fence material and height was granted. Vote: 11 in favor, 0 opposed. Condition: Install safety caps.
• Case 265 (2522 Town Briar): The exception for fence height and vision clearance was granted. Vote: 11 in favor, 0 opposed.
• Case 263 (210 Talisman Rd): The variance for fence height and setback was granted. Vote: 10 in favor, 0 opposed.
• Case 272 (811 & 815 East Park): The height variance was granted with specific limitations on height dimensions (48 ft, with 51 ft for elevator tower). Vote: 9 in favor, 1 against (Commissioner Dean against).
• Case 276 (1038 Sherman St): The Board granted the first two items regarding front and side setbacks. The remaining three items (fence height and vision clearance) were continued/adjourned to February 26, 2026, pending further review and a meeting with the Dignity Hill Neighborhood Association.

Note: The Board took a brief executive session during the meeting to discuss legal matters related to Case 274.