Owner says short‑term rental taxes are now current; Board reconsiders revocation and continues 2110 Chittum Trail appeal to March 23

The San Antonio Board of Adjustment on March 19 took up an appeal by the owners of a short‑term rental at 2110 Chittum Trail after city staff revoked the property’s short‑term rental permit for failing to timely report and remit hotel‑occupancy taxes.

Joseph, a senior planner with Development Services, told the board staff had documentation showing missing revenue reports for February through April 2025 and delinquency notices sent by Avenue between April and July 2025; staff cited section 16‑11‑10(d) of the code, which allows revocation when HOT taxes are not paid within 90 days, and recommended denying the appeal (uphold the revocation).

Applicant Jeff Bryson and co‑owner Justine Bryson said they had remedied the tax delinquency and described problems receiving mailed notices because their mailbox had been vandalized and because of identity‑theft issues. “We have everything in compliance now,” Jeff Bryson told the board, saying he had worked with Airbnb and VRBO to identify paid stays and had remitted the overdue taxes after staff notified them.

Commissioners questioned staff about the timing gap between the original noncompliance and the revocation, and about whether platforms like Airbnb remit city and county taxes automatically. Staff said the department receives batch lists from Avenue and verifies delinquencies before initiating enforcement, and that platform remittance can differ between city and county collections.

After hearing testimony and discussion, a commissioner moved to grant the appeal on the basis that staff erred in applying section 16‑11‑10(d); the motion was seconded and discussed. A different member then moved to reconsider that vote; the board approved the reconsideration and, following that, voted to continue the case to March 23 so the full record and any additional documentation can be reviewed. The chair noted that final action on this case will ultimately require the concurrence threshold the board follows for decisions of that kind.

The board did not make a final determination on the revocation at the March 19 meeting; instead it set a continuance to March 23 to allow time for additional information and written responses from involved parties.

What’s next: The case will return to the Board of Adjustment on March 23 for continued consideration. Any member of the public may submit new written materials to Development Services in advance of that hearing.