| Author | Post |
|---|
DOGGETTJA
Member
| Joined: | Oct 24th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Dec 20th, 2006 11:42 pm |
|
| Now that is a good idea.
|
Baseball Buddy
Member
|
Posted: Dec 28th, 2006 02:18 am |
|
YES SUMMERFIELD NEEDS BALLFIELDS! But at what price.
90 acres in trade for 3 soccer fields without lights? Not an even trade in my book but it is something. At least we are getting Armfield to progress towards something positive. Years have passed and still nothing like was promised by the developers. Yes I was at the big party and remember what was said how there would be Baseball fields and recreation for all of Summerfield, but I guess this was just some smooth talk and lies to get what they wanted. So lets look to the future. Lets make all developers keep their promise to what they said originally. Not let them do what they want to after the fact. All rezoning should be truthful and made to be upheld to what the developer said they would do with the property. For instance the realty office across from the school. That would have made a great library.
____________________
The views/opinions expressed in this post are personal and belong to Baseball Buddy. Please do not duplicate, distribute, BCC, or mass mail my comments without my written consent.
|
DOGGETTJA
Member
| Joined: | Oct 24th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Dec 28th, 2006 07:04 pm |
|
| Unfortunately Baseball buddy when the Town investigated bringing the Hoskin's house up to code for a library it would have cost close to a million dollars not the mention the addition that would have had to be built because it was not big enough for a library. The neighbors are unhappy with it has a realty office I can just imagine how they would have felt with more parking, more lights, more traffic. When th Town investigated it for a sheriff substation the Hoskin Family with drew it. The house needed major renovations and no home owners were looking at it to salvage it as a single family rsidence. I think it would have been awfully sad to see that landmark of a house fall in to anymore disrepair and then ultmately be torn down. I think that the realty office while not the perfect solution was a good solution for that old house. The house is cared for and being used.
|
happycamper
Member
| Joined: | May 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 23 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Dec 29th, 2006 12:55 pm |
|
"Lets make all developers keep their promise to what they said originally. Not let them do what they want to after the fact. All rezoning should be truthful and made to be upheld to what the developer said they would do with the property"
I agree totally with the above!
Why let these guys off the hook, they made a promise that should be kept! To me the worst thing that can happen is that they are allowed to give Summerfield any less than promised, be it in land, or the equivalent in $$ towards the purchase of usable land!
Why are developers allowed to stand before the council and local citizens and tell anything other than the truth about their intentions for the property? Once a buyer of property, either a developer, or a individual, has property re zoned
for housing or commercial ( ie. Lake Brandt Road area).
they should have to stick to what they told the zoning board,the town council, the citizens, and the local residents
As it stands, once a piece of property gets rezoned for a different use, watch out..! What winds up on the property may be totally different than what was mentioned during the rezoning process!
|
DOGGETTJA
Member
| Joined: | Oct 24th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Dec 29th, 2006 05:32 pm |
|
Happy Camper you are exactly right about that. The only thing legally binding at a rezoning is the actual rezoning. Only the site plan showing the actual buildings, parking etc is legally binding as to what goes on the rezoned piece of property.
I always found it difficult to rezone not having a site plan to follow up with because the devloper might get up and promise that if you rezoned their piece of property they were only going to put a particular building when in fact with out the site plan to approve after the rezoning anything that is legal with in that rezoning is permissable. That's how these misunderstandings happen. The developer is not legally bound until the actual site plan is approved. Most of these developers do not live in the area and they want to maximize their returns.
|
Hairbrush
Member
| Joined: | Jan 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 119 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Dec 29th, 2006 05:42 pm |
|
| Would not a pud help with some of the confusion. Doesn't a developer have to actually show the site plan to get the pud zoning and then has to follow that plan?
|
DOGGETTJA
Member
| Joined: | Oct 24th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Dec 29th, 2006 06:13 pm |
|
| I understand that is one of the advantages of PUD's is you get the whole picture all at the same time. I know my time on the council I certainly would have appreciated that instead of hoping for the best at the time of rezoning.
|
summerfieldrd
Banned
| Joined: | Dec 15th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 81 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Dec 29th, 2006 06:59 pm |
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: I understand that is one of the advantages of PUD's is you get the whole picture all at the same time. I know my time on the council I certainly would have appreciated that instead of hoping for the best at the time of rezoning.
I think the PUD is beginning to sound like a "must have."
Off topic, but, Jane, thank you for the insight you bring to this forum. It is obvious to even the most casual observer that you have nothing but the best intentions for Summerfield and its citizens. We cannot stick our head in the sand and let the cards fall where they may. Decisions have to be made, and sometimes they will be wrong. As everyone knows, hindsight is 20/20; we cannot allow fear of a wrong decision keep us from indecision. Sometimes we need to think outside of ourselves and do what is best for the ENTIRE community (like those poor folks with contaminated wells who are also suffering from property depreciation).
Sorry - soap box gone!
Last edited on Dec 29th, 2006 07:00 pm by summerfieldrd
____________________
The only constant in the universe is change.
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Dec 29th, 2006 07:01 pm |
|
Perhaps Jane can shed some light on one more consideration which might provide some protection in rezoning cases.
Guilford County allows what is known or called 'Conditional Use' rezonings wherein the zoning is subject to 'conditions' which the developer attaches to his rezoning request at the time of application for rezoning. These conditions are thus binding on the property being requested for rezoning if the planning board and county commissioners approve the rezoning request. No site plan is required at the time of the rezoning request submission to bind these conditions offered by the developer within his rezoning application.
My question to Jane is whether or not Summerfield has the same provisions as Guilford County which would allow 'Conditional Use' rezoning requests? If not, they should be seriously considered as yet another tool to assist in land planning and managing growth.
What a governmental body cannot do is force a developer into what is called "contract zoning" where in limiting conditions are forced on the developer without their permission. The governmental body can either approve or disapprove of the rezoning, but cannot make the rezoning conditional upon actions outside of those imposed by the zoning ordinance or land use plan requirements for all other similarly zoned properties.
It seems to me, that in the Armfield rezoning case, the Town of Summerfield should have turned down the initial request for rezoning and advised the applicant that if they wanted to bring the request back as a 'conditional use' request with one of the conditions being that the applicant and or developer would donate and deed X number of acres to the Town of Summerfield. That would have been a legally binding condition of the rezoning which could have been enforced prior to the actual change in use and sale of housing units in the Armfield development.
I spent two terms as a member of the Guilford County Planning Board back in the 1970's so I am pretty familiar with zoning and land use matters and ordinances. It should also be noted that our newest Town Councilman in Stokesdale, Powell Shelton also served as a member of the Guilford County Planning Board prior to my years of service, and I greatly respect Powell's perspective on land use matters.
Last edited on Dec 29th, 2006 07:03 pm by Jim Flynt
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
DOGGETTJA
Member
| Joined: | Oct 24th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Dec 30th, 2006 02:51 am |
|
"whether or not Summerfield has the same provisions as Guilford County which would allow 'Conditional Use' rezoning requests? If not, they should be seriously considered as yet another tool to assist in land planning and managing growth."
Summerfield does have conditional use and in fact Armfield is a conditional use rezoning in which 90 acres is to be deeded to Summerfield as a park. During the rezoning process there were grandiose pictures and maps of the Edward Armfield park which the developer was going to provide to the Town. The park itself was not part of the rezoning just the deeding of the land so once the rezoning happened all those plans and maps disappeared.
One of the other conditions was that only so many houses would be built. Now we find out that Armfield developer is requesting 50 more lots and to swap the 90 acres which they need for off site septic for the 20 acres on the road with soccer fields. For ball fields and on the road the 20 acres is better deal for the Town. I think the issue is that something needs to happen. I feel that the developer should be delivering either the deed to the 90 acres or the deed to the 20 acres plus the money to develop the park or something. The Town should not be negotiated in good faith and certainly 5 years is long enough for the Armfield developer to do something.
|
DOGGETTJA
Member
| Joined: | Oct 24th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Dec 30th, 2006 02:56 am |
|
Jim- I had not thought about your definition of contract zoning. What we were always warned about by the Town attorney was the never giving the implication that if you the developer will do this then we the council will do that.
The developer was instructed to bring the rezoning and conditions and the council had to consider what was brought with out any bargaining.
|
DOGGETTJA
Member
| Joined: | Oct 24th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Dec 30th, 2006 03:00 am |
|
| Summerfieldrd Thanks for the kind words. I have lived here a long time and hope my time on the council I will be viewed as leaving the Town a little better than I found it.
|
ff12
Member
| Joined: | Oct 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 310 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Dec 30th, 2006 03:02 am |
|
Let Armfield buy the other 20 acre sight to help compensate for their "mistake". Also keep the 20 acres they want to give now for daytime use only.
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Dec 30th, 2006 03:43 am |
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: Jim- I had not thought about your definition of contract zoning. What we were always warned about by the Town attorney was the never giving the implication that if you the developer will do this then we the council will do that.
The developer was instructed to bring the rezoning and conditions and the council had to consider what was brought with out any bargaining.
Jane, I think you are correct in your comments and understanding.
The legal issues of 'contract zoning' with some comments regarding 'conditional rezoning' are better explained in an excellent article found on the UNC Institute of Government website for NC Planning Law issues regarding 'contract zoning' (including legal definitions) as follows:
http://www.ncplan.unc.edu/keyissues/contr.htm
Last edited on Dec 30th, 2006 01:48 pm by Jim Flynt
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
summerfieldrd
Banned
| Joined: | Dec 15th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 81 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 5th, 2007 03:29 am |
|
Zoning Board Hears Cases
SUMMERFIELD – The Summerfield Zoning Board made recommendations on several cases at their Dec. 20 meeting. Among the most notable, the board voted 4-1 to recommend denial of allowing the Armfield subdivision developers to rezone about 370 acres of the property. If approved, the rezoning would allow 52 more lots in the subdivision for a total of 342 homes in the 577-acre development, and could create up to 20 twin homes in one section of the development. The Town Council will make the final decision on Jan. 9.
YEAH BABY!!!!
My question is: Who voted in favor?
____________________
The only constant in the universe is change.
|
Current time is 12:59 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...   |
|