| Author | Post |
|---|
S. Smith
Moderator
|
Posted: Jan 15th, 2007 01:47 am |
|
Jim Flynt wrote: 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?
Jim, I think your information is incorrect, but I'll check on it. Nancy Hess does work for Yost & Little, who is now marketing Armfield. I know that at the zoning board meeting in November (where it was voted to recommend continuing the case), she recused herself and did not sit for this case.Last edited on Jan 15th, 2007 01:49 am by S. Smith
|
S. Smith
Moderator
|
Posted: Jan 16th, 2007 07:49 pm |
|
S. Smith wrote: Jim Flynt wrote: 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?
Jim, I think your information is incorrect, but I'll check on it. Nancy Hess does work for Yost & Little, who is now marketing Armfield. I know that at the zoning board meeting in November (where it was voted to recommend continuing the case), she recused herself and did not sit for this case.
I checked with Nancy Hess on this, who told me she recused herself from both the November and December Zoning Board meetings when the Armfield rezoning request was heard. Nancy says, "Although I receive no financial gain from Armfield, I thought the public might perceive it to be otherwise." She adds, "For the record, on the original Armfield rezoning, way back when, I voted against it."
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Jan 16th, 2007 09:54 pm |
|
S. Smith wrote:
I checked with Nancy Hess on this, who told me she recused herself from both the November and December Zoning Board meetings when the Armfield rezoning request was heard. Nancy says, "Although I receive no financial gain from Armfield, I thought the public might perceive it to be otherwise." She adds, "For the record, on the original Armfield rezoning, way back when, I voted against it."
Sandra, Thank-you for setting the record straight and I appreciate Nancy Hess's sensitivity to the public by recusing herself and her service on the Planning Board. It is a thankless job to say the least. Thanks again!
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
S. Smith
Moderator
|
Posted: Jan 31st, 2007 02:03 pm |
|
Armfield's rezoning request to add more lots to their development will come up again at the Feb. 13 town council meeting. The council continued the case at its January meeting (after about a 2-hour public hearing) to allow the members more time to consider this issue.
Any thoughts on this?
|
summerfieldrd
Banned
| Joined: | Dec 15th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 81 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 31st, 2007 11:09 pm |
|
S. Smith wrote: Armfield's rezoning request to add more lots to their development will come up again at the Feb. 13 town council meeting. The council continued the case at its January meeting (after about a 2-hour public hearing) to allow the members more time to consider this issue.
Any thoughts on this?
Summerfield does not have the infrastructure in place to support this continued growth. Until the master plan is complete, I sincerely hope our town council will vote against the requested rezoning.
____________________
The only constant in the universe is change.
|
DOGGETTJA
Member
| Joined: | Oct 24th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 1st, 2007 02:20 am |
|
Unfortunately or fortunately I guess depending on which side of the issue you stand the Town Council will be hard pressed to turn down the Armfield request. The Town has no control over most of its infrastructure issues except water and sewer. There is no demonstrable shortage of water and so far septic is not a problem. We have no control of the roads or the schools usage.
The request by the Armfield owners is within the ordinances of Summerfield. My objection to their request is the selling point 4 years ago was the low density and open space which was a condition they placed on themselves. Now they are coming back saying they can't afford to build it with all the open space. I hope the Master Plan and council will close that loop hole so that when a council approves something they do not have to worry that the developer will come back in a few years and increase the density.
|
summerfieldrd
Banned
| Joined: | Dec 15th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 81 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 1st, 2007 10:53 am |
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: We have no control of the roads or the schools usage.
Yes, but we do have control of the zoning and the building of additional housing when our schools, and roads, cannot currently sustain such continued growth.
There may be no water shortage yet, but is everyone in LA on wells? Speculation is: with four interstates converging in this area, not to mention the Fed Ex hub, this is going to be the LA of the east coast. If you'll look at property values to our north and south, everyone is starting to salivate over the extremely resonable real estate rates in this area, not to mention the moderate climate. The secret is getting out.
Also, is Summerfield in the business of saving businesses? Why is it our problem they didn't make as much money as they wanted to?
Let us not forget our 90 acre park! Yes, isn't it nice?
I ask, how can Summerfield possibly benefit from allowing this rezoning? I'm tired of our kids being schooled in trailers, constant traffic jams on Summerfield Rd., contaminated wells, disappearing spaces, energy hogs whipped up one after another....there's a better way.
Last edited on Feb 1st, 2007 09:07 pm by summerfieldrd
____________________
The only constant in the universe is change.
|
macca
Member
|
Posted: Feb 1st, 2007 11:22 am |
|
I like the way you think, summerfieldrd.... I wish we could get more folks of like mind together to help preserve our whole area before it's all paved over, with houses on top of each other....
____________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. Herm Albright
|
DOGGETTJA
Member
| Joined: | Oct 24th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 1st, 2007 11:45 am |
|
Well you know it has been a number of years since we reviewed the long range plan and maybe we need to look at that as a community. But here are some givens:
We can not stop development. We are a property rights state. A person has the right to do what he wants with his property with in the law of course and to develop it to its highest potential. Unforturnately highest potential in our country is not open space.
The laws in our state and the country support development. If we don't buy more including houses our ecconomy collapses.
So the only thing a community can do is control the growth but not stop it. Summerfield already requires 1.5 acres of land per each house in a devlopment which is one of the most restrictive policies anywhere around.
North Carolina has some of the worst urban sprawl in the US. One of the things that contributes to urban sprawl is that we keep moving further and further away from the cities which requires more roads, more infrastructure.
Another problem with limiting growth is you absolutely increase the cost of living in the area and I think Summerfield certainly bears that out and you limit the ability of lower income people moving in.
So here is what I want the Master Plan and our community to do. Identify areas of preservation and then our council and community makes a commitment to buy those areas and hold them so that the seller maintains the right to sell but the community decides the out come. Develop areas of moderate income housing so people starting out will have a place to move that doesn't require $500,000.
And most of all this community stop expecting the developers to do the right thing and the community take on the responsiblity of directing our community. Developers are in a business.
|
Hairbrush
Member
| Joined: | Jan 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 119 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 1st, 2007 12:00 pm |
|
Unfortunately, I think that the new armfield plan might actually include more open space just tighter density. I am on the fence about the 90 acre park. It would be nice to have but the town needs ballfields and active parks and am not sure that a land trade wouldn't be in the best interest in that area.
Don't think for a minute I am for the development because I am not and have never had been but it looks like to me that they are following the ordinances. I think that Summerfield needs to follow the example of the town of Troy and Orange County. Both actively look to conserve land. They do it through clean water grants and other grants but Orange county actually sets aside money in their budget each year to pay for land they think is important to save at market value. They buy wetlands, flood plains and they also buy farmland. They have a funded department that goes out and looks at land and then buys it for the county. They seem to be doing a pretty good job of it and it may be why development has moved over to Chatham County.
We as a town can't just say we don't want your land developed, we need to develop the infrastructure to buy that land and hold that land.
|
FatPappy
Member
| Joined: | Oct 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield, USA |
| Posts: | 3245 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 1st, 2007 12:52 pm |
|
summerfieldrd wrote:
Also, is Summerfield in the business of saving businesses? Why is it our problem they didn't make as much money as they wanted to.
I ask, how can Summerfield possibly benefit from allowing this rezoning? I'm tired of our kids being schooled in trailers, constant traffic jams on Summerfield Rd., contaminated wells, disappearing spaces, energy hogs whipped up one after another....there's a better way.
You make some good points, sfrd, an' I agree up to a point. There has always been a tenuous symbiotic relationship betwixt bidness an' government. They cain't live with each other but they cain't live without each other, neither. (Well, mebbe they can...) I don't think the town should go out of its way to prop up bidness, but it also ought not to ignore what might happen if this particular bidness makes a mess in our town. I think we need to work with 'em without givin' ever'thang away, however that can be done.
I also think Mr Jim raised some good issues somewhere about puttin' some o' the burden o' buildin' up the infrastructure on the developers. Why shouldn't they be required to assume some extra portion o' the burden?
____________________
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
--Abraham Lincoln
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 1st, 2007 04:00 pm |
|
In pondering the Armfield rezoning, the words of Jesus might be instructive for us:
Holy Bible KJV
St. Luke 14
28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?
29 Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,
30 Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.
Last edited on Feb 1st, 2007 04:04 pm by Jim Flynt
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 1st, 2007 06:50 pm |
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: One of the things that contributes to urban sprawl is that we keep moving further and further away from the cities which requires more roads, more infrastructure.
Wouldn't that actually be the very definition of urban sprawl?
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 1st, 2007 07:11 pm |
|
Hairbrush wrote: Unfortunately, I think that the new armfield plan might actually include more open space just tighter density.
Hairbrush, if you think about your statement, it would be an absolute impossibility to increase density without reducing open space unless Armfield was increasing density by building high rise apartments or condominiums.
Last edited on Feb 1st, 2007 08:37 pm by Jim Flynt
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
summerfieldrd
Banned
| Joined: | Dec 15th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 81 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 1st, 2007 09:19 pm |
|
Has Friends for Summerfield made an official stance on this subject? Will someone be at the next TC meeting representing their viewpoint?
Also, does anyone know when the Master Plan is expected to be complete? I feel like growth is good, but rezoning before the Master Plan is complete is like putting the cart before the horse. Shouldn't there should be a moratorium on ALL zoning until the Master Plan is official?
Should our town council elect to approve this rezoning request, have all the enviornmental studies been completed? Who paid for the studies?
____________________
The only constant in the universe is change.
|
Current time is 01:00 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   |
|