[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6511594,"mediaKeyId","5322204-3794d167fb83536ab259b7237e6dd19f","parentId",5322204,"title","Board of Adjustment: key continuances, variances and exceptions — votes at a glance","audioSeconds",534,"startMs",891000,"endMs",1425000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5322204-3794d167fb83536ab259b7237e6dd19f&start=891&end=1425","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5322204-3794d167fb83536ab259b7237e6dd19f/thumbnail_891000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6511594/San-Antonio/Bexar-County/Texas/Board-of-Adjustment-key-continuances-variances-and-exceptions-votes-at-a-glance","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6511594-b4ea2253719bb124d338d9de2dabef9f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771151749&Signature=KTTQoucDqnYGuLW9dNBj4nbBuPboYkLmzgHWQCYIGS-2URYcXclwHMN2~JG6omc~i4nU0zOHyXPEpld1i0y1AHQOjFb7C4rvLkB3jeKtn2PzwEdpnY3uPFXSqVKVOqGOah0QBtplv7jsFtf5fcB5vysqyjTMf~M3iWzDDYOLadbQ8sYx5RiYPljlyno7Lw~rYr64i5ESQWsCZ2tg-4t1lUSh4iJ-012Z-aatJkGnyEiST4yHNxNPji996fBX42ANfCn2D-zOu2fhwcLQlyHazfIxUC6M6mSmQamKrj22uWxPzL~GfqLVTabPXojkacTXr937AJcr~BckFlLmgPDHNA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","San Antonio","date","2025-07-07T00:00:00Z","article","The San Antonio Board of Adjustment heard more than a dozen cases on July 7, 2025, taking a mix of continuances and final actions on variances, fence and design standards, and short‑term rental requests. The board granted several site‑specific variances and special exceptions and continued items that remain pending. The most contested decision was a special‑exception request to allow a second “Type 2” short‑term rental on the 600 block of Mason Street; that motion failed by a 6–5 roll call and therefore did not receive the 9 votes the board requires for approval.

Votes at a glance (selected items and formal motions recorded during the meeting)

• BOA‑25‑10300104 — 414 Regina Street (Council District 3): Variances to allow primary access from an alley and to permit two driveways on a 50‑foot lot. Motion to grant as recommended by staff passed unanimously (11–0). Motion by Commissioner Bragman; second by Commissioner Benavides. The board found the existing alley was the only practical primary access and that the variances would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.

• BOA‑25‑10300090 — 607 Mason Street (Government Hill historic/NCD 6): Special exception to allow an additional Type 2 short‑term rental on the block face. After public comment and substantial discussion, the motion failed, 6 in favor, 5 opposed; the board chair noted a 9‑vote concurrence is required for approval, so the request was not granted. Yes: Barrington, Ybanez, Bragman, Benavides, Vasquez, Chair Orian. No: Manner, Stevens, Dean, Cruz, Brown.

• BOA‑25‑10300093 — 334 Sunisa Drive (Jefferson NCD): Request for front setback and NCD design variances for a detached front‑yard carport. After discussion and an opportunity to reopen, the board approved a variance to allow the carport’s location (noting remaining screening/fascia requirements to be resolved with staff); the final location variance passed 9–2. Applicant agreed on the record to add fascia/screening details; neighborhood groups remained opposed and staff and the neighborhood association asked the applicant to pursue additional clarifications with Development Services.

• BOA‑25‑10300097 — 6238 Randolph Boulevard (Council District 10): Fence‑material variance to permit corrugated metal on side and rear lot lines for an off‑site vehicle storage use. Motion approved with an amendment that corrugated panels be capped; vote 11–0. Motion by Commissioner Bragman; second by Commissioner Manner. Staff noted the material was not observed on surrounding parcels but the board accepted the applicant’s security rationale and limited the approval to the rear/side areas and required metal edging/capping.

• BOA‑25‑10300099 — 802 Sims Avenue (multiple variances and exceptions, Council District 5): The board considered multiple requests (setbacks, clear‑vision, front‑yard privacy fence special exception and limited corrugated‑metal along rear/alley). After discussion and negotiated conditions (predominantly open treatment on the front/side clear‑vision portions), the package of variances and the front‑yard fence special exception were approved (roll‑call concurrence recorded). The board instructed staff and the applicant to finalize precise screening/open‑fence details in the permit process.

• BOA‑25‑10300101 — 1310 Watkins Lane (mobile food court / C2 zoning): The board considered elimination/reduction of the 200‑foot separation that normally limits a mobile food court near residences, a reduction of a required 10‑foot Culebra buffer to 5 feet, and a front‑yard fence height special exception. After testimony by the applicant and neighborhood supporters, the board approved a reduction of the buffer to 5 feet and the reduction of the separation to allow the mobile food court project to proceed; the board also approved a predominantly‑open 6‑foot front fence special exception with conditions. (Motion and supporting roll calls recorded during the meeting.)

• BOA‑25‑10300103 — 3909 Tupelo Lane (R6): Special exception to allow a 6‑foot‑3 front privacy fence on a large‑lot frontage. The board granted the special exception unanimously, finding the fence design consistent with nearby properties and consistent with driveway‑clear‑vision conditions.

• BOA‑25‑10300105 — 442 Caton Avenue (R4): Two variances to allow a carport to remain at 1 inch from both the east side and the front property lines (owner proposes to reconstruct within existing footprint). The board approved the variances (final roll call recorded; applicant amended to add gutters on the east side to reduce runoff onto neighboring property).

• BOA‑25‑10300106 — 523 Eleanor Avenue (NCD‑6 / MF‑33): NCD design‑standard variance to permit a rear addition with a low‑slope/flat roof that would not match the existing front roof pitch. The board granted the NCD variance unanimously after the applicant, a licensed architect, explained the addition would be tucked beneath the existing roof and would preserve the visible street‑front roof character.

Continued items

• Item 4 (Eduardo Garcia, Buena Vista) — applicant requested a continuance to July 21; motion granted.
• Item 9 (Joel Ferdin, 3406 Roosevelt nonconforming use appeal) — continued to August 5 at the applicant’s request; neighborhood callers and voicemails were taken on the record and the continuance was granted.

What the board emphasized

Board members repeatedly asked applicants to coordinate with neighborhood associations and staff before construction so permit requirements and clear‑vision/fencing details could be resolved administratively. Where the board approved materials or setbacks that depart from code, it generally imposed narrow geographic limits (e.g., corrugated metal limited to rear/alley), required fabrication details (caps, fascia), or required the applicant to work with staff to finalize screening plans before permit issuance.

The board’s required supermajority (9 votes) for many types of variances influenced outcomes: several close votes failed because they reached a simple majority only.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","San Antonio - Board of Adjustment Jul 07, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The San Antonio Board of Adjustment on July 7 took votes on variances, fence exceptions and a high‑profile short‑term rental appeal, approving multiple site‑specific variances while denying a request to add a second Type 2 short‑term rental on Mason Street.","taxTitle","San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas","taxId",2771,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6511589,"Board denies request for second Type 2 short‑term rental on Mason Street after lengthy public comment",2457,1633000,4090000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5322204-3794d167fb83536ab259b7237e6dd19f&start=1633&end=4090","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5322204-3794d167fb83536ab259b7237e6dd19f/thumbnail_1633000.jpg","/articles/6511589/San-Antonio/Bexar-County/Texas/Board-denies-request-for-second-Type-2-shortterm-rental-on-Mason-Street-after-lengthy-public-comment","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6511589-df7066de5ae6f849d1a4eaaf615db0e1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771151749&Signature=KkPQevQ4YROyyvpsxQSKcKzFlqGPTwepRvbhNub1FIvmSQ1qhFqnUdLxUSJKx5mJFC2isZQ9ImCCaJHWAdJ4sihNqRjFdkJZe3fedSEXYY1xVoOjNmb-ILXrd8d79Q8YPR3TeYdmb25WLk4OiXbA7a55uycZ8UhgDdYOXYTGzBQuZ2aGTHmS8Oy1qv0OG5iMqPPnUdAK-mjTI0imXSC2AwFaP76uQz5CUwwiXf~OHF-Vmj40OYEliZMkMfTyBlIWiSN0lRCE9UcD0BeiJ-uVy9Wqk~TKThJkNpODN7pq0eMVDumb2aYwMkhZyUDUXWRq4OKdFcgJxjysIQ8blWT6eQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Antonio Board of Adjustment voted on July 7 to deny a special exception that would have allowed an additional Type 2 short‑term rental at 607 Mason Street in the Government Hill historic area. The motion failed 6–5; the board requires nine concurring votes for that category of approval, so the request did not pass.

What the request was

The applicant, Lisa Hendrickson, sought a special exception to exceed the UDC block‑face limit that restricts Type 2 short‑term rental density to no more than 12.5% of single‑family/duplex/triplex/quad units on a street face. There already was 1 approved Type 2 on the subject block face; the applicant asked the board to allow a second.

Why it drew extended comment

Neighbors and neighborhood groups provided mixed testimony. The applicant presented a packet of exhibits intended to document homeowner status, management practices and tax compliance, including letters of support from nearby residents and a letter from a third‑party tax/permitting company that the applicant said had mishandled an earlier filing. The applicant acknowledged a complex permitting history: a 2022 Type 2 submission had been placed on hold because the block face density limit had already been reached; later, ownership and permit changes on adjacent properties affected the block‑face tally.

Opponents and several recorded voicemail statements said the property had operated as an unpermitted short‑term rental and cited parking, trash, noise and neighborhood disruption. Multiple neighborhood speakers and voicemails urged denial, citing ongoing impacts and the block’s character; a neighborhood association voicemail asked the board to deny the application on behalf of area residents.

Board focus in deliberations

Board members pressed staff and the applicant on specific points the record showed mattered: whether the property had outstanding or revoked permits, the city’s short‑term rental tax records (staff said the applicant was current in the city’s newer system from June 2023 onward), and whether the applicant had been informed by staff about required off‑street parking and other conditions prior to investing in concrete work. The applicant said she had hired professional management and a compliance firm and described paying more than $4,300 for a concrete parking pad that was later part of the enforcement review; she said she would have appreciated clearer direction from staff earlier in the process.

Vote and reasoning

On roll call the motion failed 6–5. Yes votes in favor were recorded from Commissioners Barrington, Ybanez, Bragman, Benavides, Vasquez and Chair Orian. Commissioners Manner, Stevens, Dean, Cruz and Brown voted no. Chair Orian reminded the chamber that a 9‑vote concurrence is required for approval of this kind of special exception; the board therefore could not grant the request with a 6–5 majority.

What happens next

Because the motion failed, the applicant cannot proceed with a Type 2 permit that relies on this exception. The applicant and her representatives were advised on the record to follow up with Development Services staff about the pathway forward, which may include reapplication, administrative remedies, or addressing outstanding code/permit items identified by staff.","The Board of Adjustment voted 6–5 to deny a special exception that would have allowed an additional Type 2 short‑term rental at 607 Mason Street. The decision followed neighborhood complaints, voicemail testimony, and evidence about permitting history and tax compliance.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board of Adjustment: key continuances, variances and exceptions — votes at a glance

Board denies request for second Type 2 short‑term rental on Mason Street after lengthy public comment