San Antonio Board of Adjustment Meeting – June 15, 2026

The San Antonio Board of Adjustment met on June 15, 2026, to hear and decide on several variance requests, an appeal of a short-term rental permit revocation, and a continuance. The meeting began at approximately 1:10 PM and adjourned at 4:15 PM. A quorum of 9 of 11 commissioners was present, with two joining digitally later. All votes required a 75% supermajority (9 out of 11 votes). The board approved minutes from the previous meeting unanimously.

Consent Calendar

• None explicitly designated; however, several routine variance requests were approved unanimously and are detailed under Discussion Items.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Item #1 (Cactus Street): Elisa García, a resident from across the street (address not given, but she stated she lives near 117 Cactus Street), spoke in opposition to the short-term rental permit appeal. She alleged ongoing drug trafficking, prostitution, and underage girls entering and leaving the property at night, as well as trash and blocked driveways. She provided photos and stated she had not been able to contact the owner. She also mentioned issues with a neighboring property at 114 Cactus Street involving an armed confrontation. The board allowed her three minutes to speak. No other public comments were registered for this item; however, a voice mail was received before the meeting but not counted as official (received Friday at 4 PM). The board also heard a brief rebuttal from the applicant's attorney.

Discussion Items

Item #9 – 18 Chelsea Way (Variance)

• Request: Variance to reduce the required rear setback from 20 feet to 12 feet for a rear addition to accommodate an accessory dwelling for the applicant's disabled mother-in-law.
• Staff Recommendation: Approve, citing irregular lot shape, sufficient separation for maintenance and water runoff, and one letter of support with none in opposition. The Lincoln Heights Neighborhood Association provided support.
• Testimony: Applicant Michael Lamquist explained the need for the suite and the lot constraints. No public opposition.
• Outcome: Motion to grant the variance passed unanimously (11-0).

Item #1 – 117 Cactus Street (Appeal of Short-Term Rental Permit Revocation)

• Request: Appeal of the administrative decision to revoke a Type 2 short-term rental permit. Staff alleged the applicant submitted an altered photograph of the driveway (using AI or photo editing) to obtain the permit. The revocation was based on Section 16-111 of the city code (false information). The property had been initially approved in February 2026, renewed in April 2026, and revoked on April 21, 2026.
• Staff Recommendation: Deny the appeal.
• Testimony: Attorney for the applicant argued that the driveway existed (though unpaved, with caliche) and that the photo was an honest mistake or an attempt to show the driveway in better condition, not deceit. He noted that neighbors support the short-term rental. He requested time for an adjournment if needed, but the board proceeded to vote. Commissioner Ibáñez questioned whether the driveway material (gravel) meets code; staff noted gravel is acceptable if contained.
• Public Comment: Neighbor Elisa García spoke in opposition (see above). She stated she had not been contacted by the owner and alleged criminal activity at the property.
• Outcome: Motion to grant the appeal failed. Vote: 2 in favor (Commissioners Ibáñez and Brackman with findings) and 9 opposed. The appeal was denied. The applicant may reapply after 12 months.

Item #2 – 9102 Boxe Drive (Variance – Continuance)

• Request: Variance for a reduced setback for an accessory structure (gutter encroachment). The property owner requested a continuance because CPS Energy needed to evaluate the structure and the owner would be out of town until August 2026.
• Staff Recommendation: Staff had no objection to a reasonable continuance.
• Outcome: Motion to continue the case to August 17, 2026, passed unanimously.

Item #3 – 219 Palo Grande (Multiple Variances)

• Request: (1) Variance to exceed maximum accessory structure area by 1,215 sq ft (total 3,715 sq ft allowed by special exception), (2) variance to allow barbed wire on rear boundary, (3) special exception for a solid 6-foot front fence (3 ft maximum normally). Property is zoned RE. The applicant is a veteran ceramic artist who wants to build an ADU for grandchildren and has had existing structures and fencing for 13 years.
• Staff Recommendation: Deny barbed wire variance (prohibited material) and the front fence special exception (would undermine district character). Approve accessory structure area variance.
• Testimony: Applicant explained the need for the structures and fence. He noted no neighbor objections except one unreturned contact. He argued the fence with barbed wire is necessary for security and that the front solid fence is common in his neighborhood.
• Outcome:
  • Accessory structure area variance: Motion to grant passed unanimously (11-0).
  • Front fence special exception: Motion to grant passed 10-1 (Commissioner Brackman dissented, citing lack of security testimony and harm to neighborhood character). An amendment was made to limit the fence to the presented design.
  • Barbed wire variance: The board approved as part of the structure variance (implied, as the motion covered all three items). The final vote was 10-1.

Item #4 – 155 Kent Street (Variance for Corrugated Metal Fence and Clear Vision Area)

• Request: Variance to allow a corrugated metal fence (prohibited material) and a reduced clear vision area (1.5 ft instead of 15 ft) at a corner lot. The applicant’s son owns the property and is in the military; they installed the fence for security due to theft and vandalism in the neighborhood.
• Staff Recommendation: Deny, citing that the fence is prohibited and the reduced vision area would create a safety hazard.
• Testimony: Applicant Jack Hernandez explained the need for durable fencing, noted they installed a cap on the fence to prevent injuries, and offered to make the fence open at the corner to improve visibility.
• Outcome: Motion to grant the variance with conditions (metal fence with cap, clear vision area to be predominantly open) passed unanimously (11-0).

Item #5 – 631 Cincinnati Avenue (Variance for Carport Setback)

• Request: Variance to reduce the required side setback from 5 ft to 4 inches from the property line for a proposed carport. The lot is narrow and the driveway is limited.
• Staff Recommendation: Deny, citing insufficient space for fire safety and water runoff mitigation.
• Testimony: Applicant Henry M. González Jr. stated the carport would be open metal with gutters directing water to the front, and that neighbors are in favor. He brought photos showing similar carports in the area.
• Outcome: Motion to grant the variance passed unanimously (11-0).

Item #6 – 124 Ceballos Street (Multiple Variances)

• Request: Variances for impermeable cover (to allow river rock and no plastic liner), fence height (6 ft instead of 3 ft, open design), and clear vision area (reduced from 8 ft to 2″). Property is a triplex in a commercial/residential area.
• Staff Recommendation: Deny impermeable cover variance (excessive coverage) and clear vision variance (safety); approve fence height (open design promotes community).
• Testimony: Applicant’s contractor explained that the impermeable cover is necessary due to limited lot width and that the river rock is permeable. The fence is for security; the driveway was moved to the center to improve sight lines.
• Outcome: Motion to grant all variances passed unanimously (11-0).

Item #7 – 551 Greeks Avenue (Variance for Carport Setbacks)

• Request: Variance to reduce front setback from 10 ft to 4 ft 4 in and side setback from 5 ft to 4 ft 4 in for an already-built carport (no permit initially). The property is near a fire station; the owner has disabled relatives and needs covered parking.
• Staff Recommendation: Deny, stating insufficient space for maintenance and that the reduced front setback violates the open space spirit.
• Testimony: Representative for owner apologized for building without a permit. The carport is open with gutters. The owner is willing to add gutters to control runoff.
• Outcome: Motion to grant the variance passed unanimously (11-0).

Item #8 – 1471 West Gramma C Place (Variance for Carport Setback)

• Request: Variance to reduce side setback from 5 ft to 1 ft 6 in for an open metal carport for classic cars. The lot is narrow; the carport is necessary for access and security.
• Staff Recommendation: Deny, citing fire and water concerns.
• Testimony: Applicant Lenny Sinclair is the HOA president and has support from the neighborhood. The carport will be open metal, slope toward the alley, and include gutters.
• Outcome: Motion to grant the variance passed unanimously (11-0).

Item #10 – 5017 Nevada Street (Variances for Lot Size and Side Setback)

• Request: Variance to reduce minimum lot area from 4,000 sq ft to 3,550 sq ft and side setback from 5 ft to 4 ft 11 in (including a 24-inch overhang) for a home reconstruction. The house predates zoning (built 1928) and is in a historic area. The applicant wants to renovate without triggering full zoning compliance.
• Staff Recommendation: Approve, citing the lot’s age and that the encroachment is minor and adjacent to a neighbor’s driveway.
• Testimony: Applicant Donald Donalds (?) explained the property was bought five years ago; foundations were laid but delayed. The renovation will keep existing footprint. He agreed to add gutters on the west side to address water runoff.
• Outcome: Motion to grant the variances passed unanimously (11-0).

Item #11 – 3614 Charlotte Brook Drive (Variance for Rear Setback)

• Request: Variance to reduce the required rear setback from 20 ft to 14 ft for a 10 ft x 12 ft kitchen addition (enclosing an existing porch). The addition is 26 sq ft.
• Staff Recommendation: Deny, citing lack of air circulation and fire mitigation, though noting no opposition from neighbors and some support.
• Testimony: Applicant explained the small size of the addition and that neighbors support it (4 letters of support).
• Outcome: Motion to grant the variance passed unanimously (11-0).

Item #12 – 285 Post Avenue (Variance for Rear Setback and NSD Design Standards)

• Request: Variances for a triplex project in the Westfort Conservation District (RCD zoning). Requested: reduce rear setback from 20 ft to 10 ft, allow 25 ft wide driveway (NSD requires narrower), and allow carports in the side yard (NSD prohibits). The project was negotiated with the neighborhood association in 2023 and has support from the Westfort Alliance and Joint Base San Antonio (no objection).
• Staff Recommendation: Approve the rear setback variance; deny the NSD variances (strict compliance would encourage creative design).
• Testimony: Applicant Patrick Christensen explained the history: rezoning in 2023 for three units with neighborhood support. The fire department agreed to a 15 ft access width, but NSD requires 10 ft. The driveway width proposal is 25 ft (15 ft measured). Carports are to hide vehicles. He argued the strict NSD standards would cause unnecessary hardship.
• Outcome: Motion to grant all three variances passed 10-1 (Commissioner Dean abstained). The board found that the NSD variances would not harm the neighborhood character and were necessary due to unique site conditions.

Key Outcomes

• Item #9 (Chelsea Way): Variance granted (11-0).
• Item #1 (Cactus Street): Appeal denied (2-9). The short-term rental permit revocation stands.
• Item #2 (Boxe Drive): Continued to August 17, 2026 (unanimous).
• Item #3 (Palo Grande): Accessory structure variance granted (11-0). Front fence special exception granted (10-1). Barbed wire variance implicitly granted as part of the package.
• Item #4 (Kent Street): Variance granted with conditions (unanimous).
• Item #5 (Cincinnati Avenue): Variance granted (unanimous).
• Item #6 (Ceballos Street): All variances granted (unanimous).
• Item #7 (Greeks Avenue): Variance granted (unanimous).
• Item #8 (West Gramma C Place): Variance granted (unanimous).
• Item #10 (Nevada Street): Variances granted (unanimous).
• Item #11 (Charlotte Brook Drive): Variance granted (unanimous).
• Item #12 (Post Avenue): Variances granted (10-1, one abstention).

The meeting adjourned at 4:15 PM. Commissioners were reminded to speak with staff regarding any questions. No director's report was given.