| Author | Post |
|---|
DOGGETTJA
Member
| Joined: | Oct 24th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Jan 10th, 2007 11:07 pm |
|
| I think what was requested was an ORSD not a conditional use zoning with a 90 acre park which was one of the conditions the develper put in. My understanding is that the park can be negotiated.
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 10th, 2007 11:13 pm |
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: I think what was requested was an ORSD not a conditional use zoning
Jane, if there was no conditional use request in 2003, then how were the earlier density limits (which they are now trying to increase) established and from where did those lower limits (which are lower than the ORSD district permissible limits) arise?
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
DOGGETTJA
Member
| Joined: | Oct 24th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 10th, 2007 11:38 pm |
|
| The developer put those restrictions on themselves. The Town ordinance required .73 or less density. They came in less.
|
S. Smith
Moderator
|
Posted: Jan 11th, 2007 12:14 am |
|
Jim Flynt wrote: DOGGETTJA wrote: I think what was requested was an ORSD not a conditional use zoning
Jane, if there was no conditional use request in 2003, then how were the earlier density limits (which they are now trying to increase) established and from where did those lower limits (which are lower than the ORSD district permissible limits) arise?
Both the rezoning in 2003 and the most recent request were for Conditional Use OSRD.
|
DOGGETTJA
Member
| Joined: | Oct 24th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 11th, 2007 12:17 am |
|
| Why thank you Sandra. So jim here is the thing. The developer can bring the development in with more conditions but must utimately not exceed the ordinance. Did I explain that?
|
Hairbrush
Member
| Joined: | Jan 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 119 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 11th, 2007 05:06 pm |
|
| I have another question. Would the covenants have to be followed if the property was sold, could they not amend those covenants? Don't HOA all the time disband? I am just curious as I have no experience with these matters. Even when I lived in downtown Raleigh I didn't live in an area that had actual subdivision restricted. Now the city of Raleigh certainly had certain ordinances about what I could do to my house. Now that I live on the farm I have no restrictions except worrying if the family won't talk to me if I get too out of line.
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 11th, 2007 05:39 pm |
|
Hairbrush wrote: I have another question. Would the covenants have to be followed if the property was sold, could they not amend those covenants? Don't HOA all the time disband? I am just curious as I have no experience with these matters.
Hairbrush, I am going to give you a 'generic' answer as I have not read the specific Covenants of Restriction for the Armfield Subdivision, although I do promise to do that in the next few days.
Generally speaking, Deeds or Covenants of Restriction will be for a time certain, such as for 25 years. They generally will provide provisions which will allow their continuous effect or options to continue continuous effect after the initial time certain period, and they generally will provide language and provisions wherein the Covenants can be amended by a vote of the property owners. Generally the provisions to amend Covenants of Restriction will require some 'super majority' of the property owners such as 75% or 80%, rather than a simply majority.
The existing Covenants of Restriction would apply to those portions of the subdivision and property which have been plated and recorded as well as to those lots which have previously been sold.
A sale of the Armfield Property would still have to be followed by all existing lot and home owners, as well as any owner or future owner, builder or developer of any lot already platted and recorded, whether currently or presently sold or owned by the current developer.
I would point out that I have seen the 3 recorded lot section plats and there are conditions imposed and recorded on those plats which specify that 90 acres will be provided to the Town of Summerfield for park land. So honestly, the developer has not following their very own restrictions which they imposed on the plat by their very own hands. (More about that later after I do more research).
Last edited on Jan 11th, 2007 05:41 pm by Jim Flynt
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
Hairbrush
Member
| Joined: | Jan 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 119 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 11th, 2007 05:48 pm |
|
| So if the developer sold the rest of the property with unrecorded lots then the new developer could decide what restrictions to be on those lots correct?
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 11th, 2007 06:11 pm |
|
Hairbrush wrote: So if the developer sold the rest of the property with unrecorded lots then the new developer could decide what restrictions to be on those lots correct?
I don't want to parse words here, but it is important to understand what you mean when you say "unrecorded lots."
Lots which are "platted" AND recorded would be subject to the existing Covenants of Restriction. By this I mean: IF THE PLAT IS RECORDED (showing a 'platted' lot) the Covenants APPLY to that platted lot, irrespective of ownership.
Lots which are 'platted' or are not 'platted' BUT NOT recorded might not be subject to the existing Covenants of Restriction.
The current or any future Covenants of Restriction do not and cannot enlarge, expand or change any restrictions which are imposed by the zoning provisions (existing) under the Town Of Summerfield ordinances or zoning district for the subject property.
Last edited on Jan 11th, 2007 06:26 pm by Jim Flynt
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 11th, 2007 06:20 pm |
|
For anyone who will like to read or review the Armfield Subdivision Restrictive Covenants, you can do so online by following this link to the Guilford County Register of Deeds SEARCH service and then follow the directions which I continue below:
http://66.162.203.229/guilfordNameSearch.php
On the left in the middle of the page, now find the section labeled:
Book-Page (OR) File # Search
Now Type in Book # 6021 and Page # 713
When the next page appears, in the Upper Right Hand Corner,
Now CLICK the section which says Click To View Image
There are some amendments to the Restricted Covenants which are located at Deed Book 6451 at Page 1265.
Last edited on Jan 11th, 2007 06:21 pm by Jim Flynt
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
Isabella
Member
|
Posted: Jan 12th, 2007 02:55 am |
|
| What is it about this reaoning that makes y'all so nervous??
____________________
"There is nothing noble in being superior to some other man. The true nobility is in being superior to your previous self." Hindu proverb
|
DOGGETTJA
Member
| Joined: | Oct 24th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 12th, 2007 10:27 am |
|
1- 50 more houses
2- The whole park issue
3-4 years ago when they came for the rezoning, they came with 2 or 3 people who did nothing but discuss the park they were going to build for the Town. Brought site maps showing the park along with a park architect. Going to be a grand park with the Airfield's name on etc. Now understand at a rezoning that kind of information is not legally binding and I knew that when I voted for the rezoning, which at the time was the largest in Guilford County I think. Adams Farm's total is larger as is the one over on 29 but they were developed in smaller chunks, but now years later, no fine park, infact we have gone from 90 acres to 30 acres with $250,000 throw in. They showed lots of open space, walking trails etc. Now they are asking for 50 more houses which is a large number of houses to add to the infrastructure. I think the citizens have a right to be very skeptical of anything these people propose.
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 12th, 2007 01:28 pm |
|
Isabella wrote: What is it about this reaoning that makes y'all so nervous??
MINUTES OF THE
SUMMERFIELD TOWN COUNCIL
FEBRUARY 4, 2003
NOTE: The official minutes are a tape recording of the meeting. The following is a summary of the events of the meeting.
REZONING CASE #2-03: AG and RS-40 to CU-OSRD. Located on the north an south sides of Brookbank Road at Banning Road. Consisting of approximately 556.11 owned by Edward M. Armfield, Sr. Trust. Greensboro Watershed.
Michael Brandt presented the case. He stated that there were nine conditions proposed and they are as follows:
1. A 25-foot wide Type “B” landscape yard shall be planted along the right-of-way of Brookbank Road and its re-alignment. No plantings shall be required where open space is located along Brookbank Road.
2. No building lots shall have access to Brookbank Road.
3. Lots adjacent to Henson Farms and Chrisman Extension shall be 40,000 square feet or larger.
4. The developer will design emergency services access to the lake on the southeast portion of the property. The Homeowner’s Association will maintain this access and the design shall be completed prior to final approvals.
5. The lake on the southeast portion of the property shall be surrounded with common area owned and maintained by the HOA such that no building lot directly adjoins the water’s edge.
6. The maximum number of residential lots shall be limited to 290.
7. Development of the property located westerly of the proposed Highway 220/68 connector shall be limited to a maximum of 60 residential lots until a second point of access is available.
8. No more than 75 lots shall be platted within any twelve-month period.
9. A public park of at least 90 acres will be dedicated to the Town of Summerfield.
He reported that there was historic property on site. Staff recommends approval. He reported that the Zoning Board voted unanimously to deny.
There was discussion about the percentage of open space and Michael Brandt stated that it was 49 percent.
In Favor: Derrick Allen, Attorney, 230 N. Elm Street, stated that Steve Joyce, administer of the estate, decided to sell approximately eight months ago. He reported that the proceeds of the sale would go into the Armfield Foundation for Scholarships to those with financial needs and other charitable organizations. He stated that they had followed the Summerfield OSRD. He reported that they had spoken with E.J. Deering of the Guilford County Schools and had offered a site of over 50 acres for a middle school. He stated that they had also set aside land for a 99.6 acres park with ballfields, amphitheater, picnic area and 2 miles of trail systems. He introduced Terry Snow, a traffic engineer, Ralph Heath, Hydrogeologist, Jim Beeson, Soil & Environment, and Betsy Ellington, Park Designer.
Opposed: Fred Brown, Mike Adams, Paul Milam, John Bates, Elizabeth Edmonds, Mark Mortenson, Gerald Kroth, Wade Edmonds, Billy Tesh, Trudy Whitacre, David Couch, Bruce McGirk and Renee Wiedel, all Summerfield residents, spoke to Open Space, overcrowded schools, traffic issues, water concerns, growth rate, and property values as concerns to opposition.
Rebuttal: Derrick Allen stated that they have tried to address all the concerns that they have heard, stating that this is not a volume building tract, and that the School Board must accept the land. He also stated that the developers are held to the Ordinance. Jim Brady, developer, stated that he lives in Armfield house and that he works with the School Board and that the property was offered to them in good faith. He stated that he thinks the plan is in compliance.
Break from 9:50 until 9:59.
After some discussion about OSRD, a motion was made to approve Re-Zoning Case #2-03.
Motion: Bob Williams Sec: Mark Brown
Passed 4 to 1 (Carolyn Collins voted no)
Last edited on Jan 12th, 2007 01:29 pm by Jim Flynt
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
summerfieldrd
Banned
| Joined: | Dec 15th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 81 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 13th, 2007 09:04 am |
|
Isabella wrote: What is it about this reaoning that makes y'all so nervous??
It all starts with being lied to, for me - kind of a zero tolerance thing. But hey, some people like being lied to. To each his/her own.
I could spend hours discussing it, but I think the last five pages of this topic sum it up pretty good.
BTW, I'm not nervous; I'm down right [furious].(edited by S. Smith)
Last edited on Jan 13th, 2007 11:14 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 14th, 2007 03:17 pm |
|
Someone from Summerfield told me yesterday, that one of the Summerfield Planning Board members works for a real estate company, and that this person actually voted FOR the Armfield rezoning at the Planning Board meeting, despite the fact that the planning board member's real estate company has the Armfield property listed and for sale. It would seem to me that if this is true, this would be an ethical breach as well as a very severe conflict of interest. Why wouldn't a Planning Board member in such a position simply recuse themselves from voting where there was a real or perceived conflict of interest?
Can someone from Summerfield shed some light on this and clear this matter up for us?
Even more generally, isn't this sort of like having the fox guarding the hen house?
Last edited on Jan 14th, 2007 03:22 pm by Jim Flynt
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
Current time is 01:00 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   |
|