Last edited on Jan 5th, 2007 11:36 am by Jim Flynt

Last edited on Jan 9th, 2007 10:58 am by Jim Flynt

Last edited on Jan 9th, 2007 12:47 pm by Jim Flynt

I think Carolyn Collins summed this one up when she said "This is a mess!" 

Before I begin, let's make it clear that we are not dealing with the same people who made the original promise to Summerfield.  I don't really know what the legalities are when it comes to holding the new folks to the promises made by the original developers so I'll leave all of that to Jane.

I do want to say that from everything I've seen and heard from and about the new Armfield managers or whatever they are called, they seem to be pretty straightforward and on the up and up.  And for the record, I do not know, nor have I ever met any of them personally.

As for the meeting tonight, the land was deeded to Summerfield as Jim Flynt stated, and the Armfield folks admitted that it was done this way for tax reasons (so they wouldn't have to pay tax on the property) but it was also pretty clear to me that they did not do so for any reasons other than the tax reasons and that they didn't want the rezoning case to be misconstrued as being contingent on the park land donation.  

 After discussion and questions directed at the Armfield folks, the council voted to deed the property back to Armfield (with them paying all costs) until it is voted on to accept or not accept the donation.  (for liability reasons)

Armfield it appears was on the verge of bankruptcy before the current investors stepped forward and took over the reins to try to save it.  Now the average person might say "so what?"

However, if you think about it, do we really want a portion of our community to be in that kind of trouble?  First of all, if they go bankrupt, Summerfield gets NOTHING.  Also, though it is not the town's sole responsibility to swoop in and single handedly save Armfield or any other development, do we not have some type of obligation to our community as a whole and to the residents of the 33 homes already established in Armfield to do what we can to help?

Several residents of Armfield spoke up tonight in approval of the new rezoning.  They said that the new investors had bent over backward to do everything they could to make the residents happy and had always followed through on promises made since taking the reins. Residents of Armfield were notified 4 times of the proposed rezoning and several attended information sessions with the investors.  No Armfield residents spoke in opposition.

It was stated tonight that if they were to go bankrupt and the land was sold to the government (who'd love to have a large, attractive chunk of land such as this) then what's to stop them from putting slab homes or tract housing etc. there?

Anyway, evidently a lot of info (other than the surprise deed issue) came to the forefront AFTER the zoning board denied this rezoning so a lot of new info needed to be considered by council before making a decision. 

Council discussion:

Crawford asked to continue it so the zoning board could revisit it.  Robin Smith stated that it would have to be denied and taken back to the zoning board.

Dena restated the disadvantages of foreclosure and the threat of twin homes or worse.

Williams asked if there were any zoning board concerns that weren't addressed. Robin told him that she thought everything had been covered. (side note: wasn't there something about frogs?  Amphibians? Maybe someone who was there could clarify if that was noteworthy or not)

Strickland motioned to deny the rezoning, (she didn't state her reason, but I think it was so they could take the new info back to the zoning board) but the motion died for lack of a second.

Crawford motioned to continue it until next month and Carolyn seconded.

Motion carried and we'll be doing it all again next month.

Strickland did announce that she did not want to be "lobbied" by any contractors, developers or builders regarding this issue.

Last edited on Jan 10th, 2007 12:39 pm by Jim Flynt