| Author | Post |
|---|
macca
Member
|
Posted: Jan 10th, 2007 12:26 pm |
|
Jim Flynt wrote:
Cracker Jax wrote:
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?
Which government? Local? State? Federal?
When was the last time that any 'government' stepped in and bought land at foreclosure?
The argument is specious.
From dictionary.com: Specious: (adjective) apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing or plausible: specious arguments.
____________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. Herm Albright
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Jan 10th, 2007 12:31 pm |
|
Cracker Jax wrote:
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)
Robin noted that one of the concerns of the Planning Board was with an area of this property North of the lake (or pond as she later clarified) where there was an 'amphibian' (her words) breeding ground. The developers have come back since the Planning Board denial with a condition that they will insure some type of 'amphibian crossing' under the road so that the amphibian breeding grounds will not be destroyed and that frogs and other amphibians can continue to do whatever frogs and amphibians do, unobstructed by the land instrusions of mankind.
I thought this whole line of commentary last night was a 'red herring' designed to move the discussions away from more central issues, such as why the developers have not followed through on the promise of 90 acres to be deeded to the Town of Summerfield and why they can't live with the initial rezoning density from 2003 (which was never really discussed).
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
Cracker Jax
Member
| Joined: | Oct 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield, USA |
| Posts: | 4722 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 10th, 2007 12:32 pm |
|
Jim Flynt wrote: Cracker Jax wrote:
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?
Which government? Local? State? Federal?
When was the last time that any 'government' stepped in and bought land at foreclosure?
The argument is specious.
I don't really think that matters Jim. You know that if there is a foreclosure then someone is going to buy the land (whether or not it is a government entity) and that someone will not be obligated to follow the "vision" of the Armfield builders/residents.
____________________
Opinions in this post are mine. Do not copy, distribute, mass mail or quote out of context without my consent.
|
macca
Member
|
Posted: Jan 10th, 2007 12:34 pm |
|
| OOOOPPPPSSS! Posted on wrong thread.... moved it! Sorry! Last edited on Jan 10th, 2007 12:38 pm by macca
____________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. Herm Albright
|
Cracker Jax
Member
| Joined: | Oct 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield, USA |
| Posts: | 4722 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 10th, 2007 12:43 pm |
|
Jim Flynt wrote: Robin noted that one of the concerns of the Planning Board was with an area of this property North of the lake (or pond as she later clarified) where there was an 'amphibian' (her words) breeding ground. The developers have come back since the Planning Board denial with a condition that they will insure some type of 'amphibian crossing' under the road so that the amphibian breeding grounds will not be destroyed and that frogs and other amphibians can continue to do whatever frogs and amphibians do, unobstructed by the land instrusions of mankind.
I thought this whole line of commentary last night was a 'red herring' designed to move the discussions away from more central issues, such as why the developers have not followed through on the promise of 90 acres to be deeded to the Town of Summerfield and why they can't live with the initial rezoning density from 2003 (which was never really discussed).
Thanks for the clarification on the Frogs Jim. 
I think they did discuss why they can't live with the initial rezoning. They talked about the average home price being in the 590,000 range and that changing market conditions, (meaning that they don't think they can sell houses that cost that much because of the economy) are forcing them to look at building smaller homes. I doubt these homes will be affordable by my standards, but at least they would be more affordable than 590,000.
I don't know. I feel strange arguing this side because I am usually not "pro development" or "pro builder" for that matter. It's just that I think I see where they're coming from this time and it makes sense to me to do what we can for the neighborhood.
____________________
Opinions in this post are mine. Do not copy, distribute, mass mail or quote out of context without my consent.
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 10th, 2007 12:48 pm |
|
Cracker Jax wrote:
I don't really think that matters Jim. You know that if there is a foreclosure then someone is going to buy the land (whether or not it is a government entity) and that someone will not be obligated to follow the "vision" of the Armfield builders/residents.
Crackah, even if there is a foreclosure, the zoning district follows the land so that would not change even given a foreclosure situation.
Further, recorded plats do not change even with a foreclosure. And whatever original or subsequent recorded Covenants of Deed Restrictions are binding on and flow with the property even if there is a foreclosure.
If you think about it, a foreclosure really should not be taken into consideration in rezoning and land use planning requests. Land use conditions will and do attach with the property and not with the owner, whether original or subsequent.
I have sympathy for anyone undergoing financial stress, but zoning and land use policy was never intended nor should it be used to address possible foreclosures or properties foreclosed upon.
If one takes the longer view, the ultimate resolution of financial crisis will be resolved by the real estate marketplace, and ultimately, if the underlying project makes economic sense, it will be completed by someone. The 'who' is or might ultimately be the developer is not relevant to a planning or land use discussion under law.
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 10th, 2007 12:54 pm |
|
Cracker Jax wrote:
I think they did discuss why they can't live with the initial rezoning. They talked about the average home price being in the 590,000 range and that changing market conditions, (meaning that they don't think they can sell houses that cost that much because of the economy) are forcing them to look at building smaller homes. I doubt these homes will be affordable by my standards, but at least they would be more affordable than 590,000.
I don't know. I feel strange arguing this side because I am usually not "pro development" or "pro builder" for that matter. It's just that I think I see where they're coming from this time and it makes sense to me to do what we can for the neighborhood.
Crackah, later today, I will address your concerns and your argument in a more detailed and well thought out response. I do not think those arguing for change last night laid their cards on the table nor did they make the case for change with respect to the argument you have shared, and later, I will explain my reasoning why I believe this to be so. There was so much that had to be read between the lines last night given the presentation made, and unfortunately, the council did not follow up with the right questions which would have uncovered that information. I'll suggest several questions that SHOULD be asked by council or anyone else for that matter if clarity is to serve any purpose.
Last edited on Jan 10th, 2007 12:55 pm by Jim Flynt
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
macca
Member
|
Posted: Jan 10th, 2007 12:56 pm |
|
Jim Flynt wrote:
Cracker Jax wrote:
I don't really think that matters Jim. You know that if there is a foreclosure then someone is going to buy the land (whether or not it is a government entity) and that someone will not be obligated to follow the "vision" of the Armfield builders/residents.
Crackah, even if there is a foreclosure, the zoning district follows the land so that would not change even given a foreclosure situation.
Further, recorded plats do not change even with a foreclosure. And whatever original or subsequent recorded Covenants of Deed Restrictions are binding on and flow with the property even if there is a foreclosure.
If you think about it, a foreclosure really should not be taken into consideration in rezoning and land use planning requests. Land use conditions will and do attach with the property and not with the owner, whether original or subsequent.
I have sympathy for anyone undergoing financial stress, but zoning and land use policy was never intended nor should it be used to address possible foreclosures or properties foreclosed upon.
If one takes the longer view, the ultimate resolution of financial crisis will be resolved by the real estate marketplace, and ultimately, if the underlying project makes economic sense, it will be completed by someone. The 'who' is or might ultimately be the developer is not relevant to a planning or land use discussion under law.
Thanks for addressing this, Jim. I wanted to ask why a foreclosure would change what had been originally agreed to for this property, but thought I must be wrong to question it.....
____________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. Herm Albright
|
summerfieldrd
Banned
| Joined: | Dec 15th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 81 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 10th, 2007 03:38 pm |
|
I can't believe you folks are falling for the 'we're going bankrupt' line. Why don't you take a ride through Armfield. I can promise you somebody made a killing on that property.
While we are crying: I live on Summerfield road. I am going to go bankrupt if you don't rezone my property commercial. You all aren't going to let me go bankrupt, are you? The guy that owned the property before me didn't manage the property very well. Please, you gotta believe me! This is my last chance at financial success! Trust me, it's best for Summerfield if I win.
Wake up folks! Summerfield is built on good people, willing to help another out at a moments notice, and they are PLAYING YOU on it. Stop letting high dollar developers WALK ALL OVER YOU. Are we going to bail out PTI when they lose money? Forestry Systems? Yost and Little? It's not our job to correct their mistakes. I am sorry that they didn't know how to sail that ship ( which I still believe to be bull ), but it IS NOT OUR responsibility.
Anyway, I think we could use some Section 8 housing over there!
Last edited on Jan 10th, 2007 03:47 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: Jan 10th, 2007 04:16 pm |
|
One part of the discussions last night somehow centered on the Armfield Foundation and some questions were posed regarding this foundation.
Enclosed is a web link to The Edward M. Armfield, Sr. Foundation Inc. which shows their financial resources and grants made. It is an interesting read and might answer whatever questions some may have had.
http://foundationcenter.org/cgi-bin/ffindershow.cgi?id=ARMF004
Once you arrive at the Armfield Foundation page, if you will click on the following you will be able to see their last tax return filed (as required by law to be made public):
Most Recent IRS Filing: View Form(s) 990
Please note that the assets of this Foundation are reported to be $53,240,402.
Last edited on Jan 10th, 2007 04:19 pm by Jim Flynt
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
Hairbrush
Member
| Joined: | Jan 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 119 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 10th, 2007 07:10 pm |
|
I don't think we should even look at the armfield foundation money. I think it would be great for them to grant the town of summerfield some money but I don't see where it has any play on the actual re-zoning. I realize it is hard to separate but the re-zoning needs to be looked at on the merits of the re-zoning. I also don't think it should matter that the Armfield foundation seems to have tons of money. As stated before they have already sold the land and we should expect the foundation to bail out Summerfield Properties.
Scuba Jane or Mike correct me if I am wrong but there is nothing that says that Summerfield Properties can't come back before the council and ask to have this property re-zoned. Now I am not saying I am for this re-zoning. I didn't think the property should have been zoned the first time but it was and now the council has to make decisions on existing zoning ordinances. The property is zoned OSRD and it seems that it will still meet those specifications if the new re-zoning goes through. If they are meeting the ordinance then the town of summerfield needs to be careful in denying it so that if it does end up in court the town can win.
Now I can certainly see the 90 acre park being a reason to turn down the re-zoning as the town hasn't gotten it, but do we really need a 90 acre passive park. Would we be better served by a 30 acre park that connects to Greensboro trail systems? Of course, I would think we could settle the park issue by refusing to allow any more occupancy permits from being approved for armfield until we settle the 90 acres.
It is a tough call and it is hard not to take emotions into account. Even with the re-zoning, Summerfield Properties could still sell the piece of land and some other developer could come in with his own builders and change the character of the development, not the density but he certainly could build different type houses that might still pull down the neighbors property values. That is a chance anyone takes when they buy a lot in a subdivision and in a growing town. Unless you are willing to buy all the land around you then you have to hope that your town's ordinances are strong enough to protect you.
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 10th, 2007 09:40 pm |
|
Hairbrush wrote:
It is a tough call and it is hard not to take emotions into account.
Even with the re-zoning, Summerfield Properties could still sell the piece of land and some other developer could come in with his own builders and change the character of the development, not the density but he certainly could build different type houses that might still pull down the neighbors property values. That is a chance anyone takes when they buy a lot in a subdivision and in a growing town. Unless you are willing to buy all the land around you then you have to hope that your town's ordinances are strong enough to protect you.
My perception of last night's rezoning hearing was that the developer was pushing or trying to push every emotional hot button that they could find and chose to ignore logical objective reasoning, doubtless because there is little or none to justify a change in the status quo. Unfortunately, it seemed to me that too much emotion and sympathy clouded the views of those who should maintain a logical presence of mind in making decisions which should be based on laws and not men.
One must take into account that regardless of whether the current owner maintains ownership, sells this property to another national builder or developer, or loses the project to foreclosure, that the current homeowners in Armfield still have several layers of protection, at least equal to what they have now. A substitution to a more highly capitalized developer would actually enhance the probabilities of greater protection for the Armfield homeowners over the current weaker struggling developer.
First of all, the Armfield property is still zoned with the same rights and requirements which were granted and imposed bv the 2003 rezoning. A denial of the current zoning request does not diminish the current rights of the property developer nor the homeowners.
Further, as affirmed last night by the developer, the Armfield subdivision is further protected by Covenants of Restriction (which attached to each lot when the original plat was recorded) which are binding on every lot previously sold as well as lots to be sold. Restrictive covenants regulate square foot minimums, construction materials, usage, landscaping, exterior buildings, and other items pertinent to controlling quality of construction and liveability.
The developer last night, also stated that there is an Architectural Reivew Process and Committee (which I would add is almost always the case in a high end residential development such as this) which requires their approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Therefore the size of any home proposed to be built in Armfield by this developer/builder or ANY developer/builder would be required to meet the exact same design and construction elements as the existing homeowners. Using just one example, it was mentioned last night, that one restriction is that vinyl siding is prohibited on the exterior of Armfield homes, therefore, under any change in ownership (sale or foreclosure) scenario, that restriction would not be lifted or modified.
I just don't see where or how any homeowner currently in Armfield can be harmed by a denial of this case, but I do see where the developer can certainly be enriched by an increase in density and a council endorsed and enabled absolution of earlier promises broken.
Last edited on Jan 10th, 2007 10:02 pm by Jim Flynt
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
DOGGETTJA
Member
| Joined: | Oct 24th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 10th, 2007 10:20 pm |
|
Goodness you all have been busy little beavers today. I am late weighing in on this. I think there are several issues. One is ordinance that says that an Orsd can not be any denser than .73 houses per acre.
We have a development that rightly or wrongly requested a rezoning that is.5 houses per acre 3 or 4 years ago.
While I assume the town could require them to deed the 90 acres it does seem we are in much more need of ball fields then another passive park so 30 acres that is easily accessible with the potential of 50+ acres to lease from the city and $250,000 seems like a fair trade for the unaccessible,rough 90 acres.
So I don't know Summerfield Properties or whoever they are and objectively don't give a flip whether they go belly up or are the most sucessful developer in the US.
What they have done is find what I have always considered a loophole in our ordinances and that is conditions can always be changed as long as they keep with in the ordinance. They have a section of land they want to take the density from .5 to .59 and as far as I can see it would be very difficult to stop them as long as the added homes meet the ordinances. It is as I constantly harp on, we are a property rights state and it has become even harder to stop someone from developing land if it meets the ordinances.
Summerfield needs to look long and hard during this master plan stage at closing that loophold by not allowing a developer to bring a development in at a very low density and then years later as has happened with Armfields come back and say "oops we were only kidding we really want this many houses." I suppose in a couple of years they could do this again until they got the density up to .73.
I have a very bad taste in my mouth over this. I do not see where the current home owners have much to lose what ever happens unless they have bought these houses only planning to live in them the two years required for the tax break and then moving on. In that case they sould be hurt financially in a forclosure for a short period of time. But I do think who ever said lst night that this seemed like a shell game was pretty accurate.
|
DOGGETTJA
Member
| Joined: | Oct 24th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 10th, 2007 10:23 pm |
|
| The dreaded double post. Last edited on Jan 10th, 2007 10:26 pm by DOGGETTJA
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 10th, 2007 10:44 pm |
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: We have a development that rightly or wrongly requested a rezoning that is.5 houses per acre 3 or 4 years ago.
While I assume the town could require them to deed the 90 acres
Jane, please help me to understand whether or not this was a 'conditional use' rezoning when it was initially rezoned back in 2003.
If so, whatever conditions offered by the petitioner at the time of the 2003 rezoning would be development restrictions which would be BINDING on this property and the zoning district which was created by the 2003 rezoning decision, is that not correct?
On the other hand, if the 2003 rezoning petition and rezoning to Orsd was not a 'conditional use' request, then (and only then, in my opinion) would the property owner now have the right to expect and demand an expansion of higher density rights up to whatever the limits of density are provided for the Orsd district on an unrestricted (by conditional use) basis.
Last edited on Jan 10th, 2007 10:45 pm by Jim Flynt
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
Current time is 01:00 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ...   |
|