|

08-02-2009, 10:55 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northwest SA
1,729 posts, read 1,662,263 times
Reputation: 407
|
|
|
|
|

08-03-2009, 02:03 AM
|
|
Conservative Thinker
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: San Antonio North
4,132 posts, read 2,233,565 times
Reputation: 939
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgannaway89
|
Are you sure? For the Ranch portion it says approved and was signed on page 26.
|
|

08-03-2009, 03:44 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northwest SA
1,729 posts, read 1,662,263 times
Reputation: 407
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryneone
Are you sure? For the Ranch portion it says approved and was signed on page 26.
|
That is the recommendation from SAWS. On page 14 the zoning commission recommends denial.
|
|

08-03-2009, 08:05 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: 281 north of 1604 - otherwise known as traffic hell
403 posts, read 377,658 times
Reputation: 131
|
|
|
on page 14 it says the staff recommends denial - I am pretty sure they went against the staff and approved it.
|
|

08-03-2009, 08:10 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: San Antonio
211 posts, read 145,146 times
Reputation: 74
|
|
|
Shoot, I thought a main tenet of this plan was to get Hardy Oak and Huebner completed through the ranch to South Hardy Oak and 281 respectively. If that isn't included then I say deny all development of the ranch.
|
|

08-03-2009, 08:56 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2008
554 posts, read 283,465 times
Reputation: 321
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 713 to 210
Shoot, I thought a main tenet of this plan was to get Hardy Oak and Huebner completed through the ranch to South Hardy Oak and 281 respectively. If that isn't included then I say deny all development of the ranch.
|
Neither CoSA nor Bexar County has the authority to "deny all development of the ranch". They also can't force one developer/property owner to build regional road infrastructure that's disproportionate to the impact of the development.
This zoning case is just to determine land use. One way or the other, that property is going to be developed.
|
|

08-03-2009, 09:11 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: 281 north of 1604 - otherwise known as traffic hell
403 posts, read 377,658 times
Reputation: 131
|
|
actually - according to this - no decision has been made yet
Scrutiny tightens on Steubing Ranch plan in Stone Oak
|
|

08-03-2009, 09:21 AM
|
|
Moderator
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas
6,730 posts, read 4,338,007 times
Reputation: 2451
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dendox
|
This is the first big project Elisa Chan has had the opportunity to weigh in on since she was elected. It's encouraging to see that she is doing more than rubber-stamping development plans in District 9.
__________________
Moderator: El Paso, General US, Madison, Radio and San Antonio.
Temporarily Moderating: Texas
When I post a whole sentence in bold, that's moderator action. The TOS says you can discuss moderator action only via Direct Message.
Everything else I post is OK to discuss/question/disagree with in the forum.
|
|

08-03-2009, 10:22 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: San Antonio, Tx.
3,511 posts, read 2,331,051 times
Reputation: 1142
|
|
|
That was a good example of high quality newspaper reporting. Bravo.
|
|

08-03-2009, 12:51 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
1,049 posts, read 522,700 times
Reputation: 417
|
|
|
I agree, no approval by anyone until the infrastructure is in place. The city, developer and school district should all split the amount.
Also, why doesn't SA just let Stone Oak become its own little city.
Seriously, it'd be better off that way.
|
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
|
|