Megan Navarro
WIMBERLEY — After a months-long process, Wimberley City Council adopted an ordinance at its Thursday, Aug. 20, meeting, related to how the city zones and manages short-term rental (STR) properties.
Property owners who wish to operate an STR — properties used for transient lodging for stays of 30 consecutive days or less — must apply with the city through the current conditional use permit (CUP) process established in the zoning ordinance. This includes neighbor notifications and a public hearing before both the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) and city council, which ultimately makes the decision on the issuance of the permit, as previously reported by the News-Dispatch.
However, a review of the current process began when a committee was created last year to research the current STR situation in Wimberley and, at the same time, a temporary moratorium was enacted in November 2025 and extended multiple times on STR applications.
Now, an ordinance was brought forward to Wimberley City Council at its Aug. 20 meeting, based on recommendations by the committee, proposing the following changes to the STR regulations, according to a presentation by director of Development Services Nathan Glaiser.
• Removing the ability for property owners to obtain an STR2, which is a non-owner occupied CUP, within the Single-Family Residential 2 (R-2) and Single-Family Residential 3 (R-3) zoning districts.
• Make changes to allow STR1, which are occupied by the owner, within accessory dwelling units; this was previously limited to just the primary dwelling.
• Allowing short-term lodging facilities with up to 30 units as a permitted use by right within the Commercial Low Impact (C-1), Commercial Moderate Impact (C-2) and Commercial High Impact (C-3) zoning districts.
“Also, if you have an existing conditional use permit, the way the ordinance is drafted is that the conditional use permit would still stay in effect, conditioned on the terms that it was originally granted,” Glaiser said.
This also follows a public hearing held at the Aug. 14 P&Z meeting, where the commission voted 5-0 to not recommend changing the draft ordinance as it pertains to the removal of STR2s in R-2 and R-3 zoning districts, but to move Lodging Low Impact and Lodging Moderate Impact to a conditional use in C-1, C-2 and C-3, as well as keep STR1 as a permitted use in the three commercial zoning districts.
The commission did this because it feels that having the CUP in place allows for the proper notifications and public hearings, as well as opportunities for the city to negotiate with developers that would result in more desirable developments that are more in line with Wimberley's character and limited infrastructure, Glaiser explained.
Several members of the community spoke in favor of the proposed zoning changes at the council meeting.
The common consensus amongst the residents, including Candy Fore, was maintaining the character of Wimberley — something that P&Z also fought for in its recommendations.
“It would be a wonderful relief for our neighbors to know that we would never have to come before you again to battle someone in our neighborhood about an STR. So, I do support permitting STRs in commercial zones; placing them in commercial zones would help preserve the community’s charm, while keeping tourism balanced with the residents’ way of life,” she said.
“The thought of allowing lodging facilities with up to 30 units as permitted use by right within these zones alarms me,” Fore continued. “Without CUP requirements, how can we protect the charm of our city? What authority would the city need to have to prevent a Holiday Inn & Express or a similar hotel from being built within our city limits? And wouldn’t it be better to allow only lodging that enhances our community and preserves its character, like the attractive lodging facilities that we now have?”
Kate Quisenberry, a local graduate who moved back to the city of Wimberley with her family in 2022, recalled living in the town when there was just one stoplight and, while things have changed significantly since then, “they changed with the character of Wimberley in mind. I think that the changes that were originally proposed and have since been proposed to be amended by planning & zoning would allow for growth within the city, but with boundaries or guardrails on those changes.”
Others, like Cody Truss, who resides in Houston, but has a half-acre R-3-zoned property in Wimberley, questioned having the STRs “being taken out of play.”
“ … It is kind of like the city council’s creating a citywide [homeowners association (HOA)] and I prefer not to do that. [I] also feel like it devalues my property if I were going to sell it because of its location to the square and Market Days; it’s in a location where somebody may want to buy it, even somebody who lives up here, turn it into a short-term rental. That’s being taken away from me,” Truss said.
Council member Rebecca Minnick, who also served on the STR committee, shared some of the reasons as to why these changes are being considered. She noted the following:
• Permitting does not align with the zoning in R-3: “If you are buying a property in R-3, you technically cannot have multiple [accessory dwelling units (ADU)] there because you don’t have enough impervious cover for parking … It’s very small for a septic and we have pretty much all septic here.”
• Adding the commercial part was due to keeping the lodging out of the neighborhoods and focusing that in commercial areas.
• Streamline processes in areas where needed.
“It wasn’t a solution in search of a problem. There were some reasons to do those things that way,” Minnick said.
Council member Anne Ulfelder asked if there was a cap for STRs suggested in the report that was submitted by the committee.
It can be arbitrary and there was not any hard data that showed how a certain number of STRs could impact the city, the Development Services director explained. Therefore, there was more of a focus on zoning districts and geographic reasons — lot size and density issues, for example — that can be referenced.
“I am in absolute agreement that R-3s do not need to have short-term rentals and can’t sustain them, but an R-2 lot is big enough to have a short-term rental and protect the privacy of the neighbors in many cases,” Ulfelder said.
The council member continued to emphasize that she would like to see those people’s rights retained to do with their property as they see fit because they still have to apply for a CUP.
Allowing individuals to exercise their rights on their property was also echoed by council member David Cohen.
“... you have a situation where you’ve got multiple properties on a lot and that's when you end up with concerns about septic and water. I’m perfectly happy with regulating that, if you will, [and say], ‘You can’t have seven houses on a one-acre lot. You can’t have seven families in separate homes with a little tiny house,’” he said. “I have a hard time understanding why someone who purchases a piece of property where some individual or a group of individuals will stay in that piece of property for a specified amount of time, whether it’s a week or a month or six months or a year, shouldn’t be permitted to do so. It shouldn’t make a difference to me how you categorize it.”
“I am sensitive to the property right issue, but I think the city takes away plenty of property rights in the name of creating community and keeping things livable and this is one thing that a lot of residents have talked to us about livability,” council member Chris Sheffield debated.
Sheffield said that he is a little more open to STRs, but he has heard plenty more input from residents who are against them and wanting the city to control them than he has in support of them.
The proposed changes feels like the city is categorizing anybody who is a short-term renter as an undesirable person that nobody wants to live next to, which is kind of a “subtle form of redlining,” Cohen said.
He later stated that he would be more concerned if a neighbor was noisy or kept an unclean area, but achieving that regulation goal would be a challenge by simply prohibiting STRs: “That just seems like it’s overkill.”
Council member Sam Werner explained that his family may not have been able to move to Wimberley from Houston approximately three years ago because of increased housing costs and limited availability at the time. As rights have been mentioned, Werner emphasized that money and resources can also be considered in that conversation.
“Anything that we can do, any extra measure that just allows more opportunity for someone who doesn’t have those other rights to live in this community and a living participant of the community … rather than just having someone come for the weekend,” he said.
The city of Fredericksburg is having a difficult time with this issue, as there is a high percentage of vacation rentals in its downtown area, Minnick noted, instead of having more people who are rooted in the community. However, what solves that is giving the neighbors a say with the caveat that city council still makes the final decision.
Following further discussion, council voted 4-1 — with Werner dissenting — to adopt the ordinance as amended, incorporating P&Z’s recommendation of moving the low and moderate impact lodging to conditional uses in C-1, C-2 and C-3, as well as retain the STR2 CUP process in the R-2 zoning district, rather than eliminating it outright.
Council also unanimously voted to approve a resolution to terminate the moratorium. The city will resume accepting and processing applications Sept. 3.
To listen to the full meeting, visit www.wimberleytx.portal.civicclerk.com.
