the following are the bullets in the the broadcast email sent by kim (challenge the rezone)describing what happened:
''...Now, to the results of the case, as we listed in the last update we obtained the following things under our Restrictive Covenants signed with the Seale family:
* No apartments on Feather Trail - instead, there will be a row of R-6 houses, effectively ''sealing off'' the Arbor neighborhood, with C-2 commercial behind those houses. It has also been stated by the Seale family (although there is no way to confirm this) that Kyle Seale (who still lives on the ranch on the hill) intends to live the rest of his life on that ranch.
* A no access easement between Feather Trail and any future commercial development behind the houses to be built on Feather Trail.
* A 30' deep, planted, vegetative easement (UDC Type E buffer) along Sonoma Pkwy. near Hausman.
* A 100' deep section of C-1 along Sonoma Pkwy. near Hausman, as well as a 100' deep section of C-1 along the backs of houses behind Shuteye Peak & the existing houses on Feather Trail that back future commercial development. This amount of C-1 should act as a buffer between the existing houses' back fences and the future C-2 commercial development.
* A 30' deep, planted, vegetative buffer (UDC Type E buffer) behind any existing houses on Shuteye Peak and Feather Trail.
* A 40' deep vegetative easement along Kyle Seale Pkwy.
* A 100' deep section of C-1 along Kyle Seale Pkwy, and a 50' deep section of C-1 along the proposed Middle School property line.
* A no access easement to the Hills & Dales neighborhood, as well as a 40' deep section of vegetative buffer (UDC Type F Buffer) between the existing Hills & Dales houses and future commercial development.
* Waste collection restrictions as well as lighting restrictions that provide for cut-off type lighting in C-1 areas, so that lights will be directed toward parking lots and future commercial buildings, and not into homes.
* The following uses will be prohibited: sexually oriented businesses, fortune tellers, and on-site consumption of alcohol (except in restaurants)
These restrictions will ''run with the land'' even if the property is ''disannexed'' and falls back to Bexar County or Helotes. The zoning designations would become invalid, but the deed restrictions would stay. I believe the possibility of disannexation to be very small.
When the case was voted on last Thursday, Art Hall motioned for the case to pass with a less intense impervious cover percentage. He brought it down to 50% from 65%. This means that on the 85 acres rezoned in this case only half can be covered with concrete, the other half must remain ''green'' (the retention, detention ponds, culverts, medians, and any space with dirt count as pervious/green ground).
The case passed with 8 yes votes and three no votes. If anyone wishes to see a copy of the deed restrictions or needs further explanation let me know.
It has been a pleasure to represent our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Kim
...''
i would like to know what parts of the agreement can the sroa board of directors take credit for? they did afterall, give THEIR support to the rezoning.
By richard
''...Now, to the results of the case, as we listed in the last update we obtained the following things under our Restrictive Covenants signed with the Seale family:
* No apartments on Feather Trail - instead, there will be a row of R-6 houses, effectively ''sealing off'' the Arbor neighborhood, with C-2 commercial behind those houses. It has also been stated by the Seale family (although there is no way to confirm this) that Kyle Seale (who still lives on the ranch on the hill) intends to live the rest of his life on that ranch.
* A no access easement between Feather Trail and any future commercial development behind the houses to be built on Feather Trail.
* A 30' deep, planted, vegetative easement (UDC Type E buffer) along Sonoma Pkwy. near Hausman.
* A 100' deep section of C-1 along Sonoma Pkwy. near Hausman, as well as a 100' deep section of C-1 along the backs of houses behind Shuteye Peak & the existing houses on Feather Trail that back future commercial development. This amount of C-1 should act as a buffer between the existing houses' back fences and the future C-2 commercial development.
* A 30' deep, planted, vegetative buffer (UDC Type E buffer) behind any existing houses on Shuteye Peak and Feather Trail.
* A 40' deep vegetative easement along Kyle Seale Pkwy.
* A 100' deep section of C-1 along Kyle Seale Pkwy, and a 50' deep section of C-1 along the proposed Middle School property line.
* A no access easement to the Hills & Dales neighborhood, as well as a 40' deep section of vegetative buffer (UDC Type F Buffer) between the existing Hills & Dales houses and future commercial development.
* Waste collection restrictions as well as lighting restrictions that provide for cut-off type lighting in C-1 areas, so that lights will be directed toward parking lots and future commercial buildings, and not into homes.
* The following uses will be prohibited: sexually oriented businesses, fortune tellers, and on-site consumption of alcohol (except in restaurants)
These restrictions will ''run with the land'' even if the property is ''disannexed'' and falls back to Bexar County or Helotes. The zoning designations would become invalid, but the deed restrictions would stay. I believe the possibility of disannexation to be very small.
When the case was voted on last Thursday, Art Hall motioned for the case to pass with a less intense impervious cover percentage. He brought it down to 50% from 65%. This means that on the 85 acres rezoned in this case only half can be covered with concrete, the other half must remain ''green'' (the retention, detention ponds, culverts, medians, and any space with dirt count as pervious/green ground).
The case passed with 8 yes votes and three no votes. If anyone wishes to see a copy of the deed restrictions or needs further explanation let me know.
It has been a pleasure to represent our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Kim
...''
i would like to know what parts of the agreement can the sroa board of directors take credit for? they did afterall, give THEIR support to the rezoning.
By richard
