| Author | Post |
|---|
DOGGETTJA
Member
| Joined: | Oct 24th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Feb 1st, 2007 09:53 pm |
|
| Jim If you put the houses closer to gether then you increase open space as defined in the ordinance. That is what Armfiield is proposing. Twin homes and smaller lots so that there is more open space.
|
DOGGETTJA
Member
| Joined: | Oct 24th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 1st, 2007 09:59 pm |
|
The Master plan is at least 1.5 years off so I understand.
Summerfield put a moratorium on development when the planning department was being set up for 6 months which is about the length of time that a moratorium can run according to what the attorney told us.
All the environemental studies were done before the first rezoning. The developer pays for the studies required which are done by reputible companies in the area.
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 1st, 2007 10:31 pm |
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: Jim If you put the houses closer to gether then you increase open space as defined in the ordinance. That is what Armfiield is proposing. Twin homes and smaller lots so that there is more open space.
Jane, if the houses were clustered without an increase in total overall density, then I would agree with you that open space would increase.
Despite clustering, one cannot INCREASE density without DECREASING open space, save and except by high rise multi-story construction.
Assuming that density were constant, then yes, clustered (as opposed to non-clustered) development would in fact increase open space.
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
summerfieldrd
Banned
| Joined: | Dec 15th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 81 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 1st, 2007 11:01 pm |
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: All the environemental studies were done before the first rezoning. The developer pays for the studies required which are done by reputible companies in the area.
Yes, but the last enviornmental study was done according to the the last set of plans (which obviously meant nothing). A bunch more houses (energy hogs, at that) will have a greater impact on the enviornment, therefore, I would assume a new study, at the least, would be warranted. Our town council is all about studies on ballfields, but they're prepared to develop our open spaces without them? What gives?
____________________
The only constant in the universe is change.
|
summerfieldrd
Banned
| Joined: | Dec 15th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 81 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 1st, 2007 11:17 pm |
|
This is quite insane when you think of it...these people want to build an additional 400 homes (roughly). With 2-4 additional kids per home, where the heck are all those kids going to go to school?
As I said before, the infrastructure IS NOT in place to handle this! The Master Plan is not in place! We are playing with a loaded gun and we are about to blow our foot off.
Ballfields: We can't play the kids we have now in our burgeoning athletic teams, all these new kids will only add to the frustration.
I find it frustrating that this is even an issue that needs to be discussed. I think it's a 'no-brainer'.
Like I asked before, how does Summerfield gain from this impulsive rezoning? Please, someone give me one good reason?
It's a matter of the P's: Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance
____________________
The only constant in the universe is change.
|
DOGGETTJA
Member
| Joined: | Oct 24th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 2nd, 2007 12:05 am |
|
Armfield is asking for 50 houses.
But here again it is a matter of law. We have ordinances, very strict ordinances actually with a requirement of 1.6 acre per house which is the approximate amount of land need to recharge the aquafer per the guidelines that the Feds put out. We can not just decide we have all the people we want in our town and stop development. It is against the law. We would end up as a Town spending all our tax money defending ourselves in an undefendable lawsuit.
|
summerfieldrd
Banned
| Joined: | Dec 15th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 81 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 2nd, 2007 12:27 am |
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: Armfield is asking for 50 houses.
Yes, right, for a total of 400. Sorry, I had misread some previous material.
Anyway, in a time of global warming, since I am wasting precious oxygen, I will concede to support whatever Friends for Summerfield decide is best on this issue.
Last edited on Feb 2nd, 2007 12:49 am 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: Feb 2nd, 2007 01:04 am |
|
Four things you can count on if Armfield is approved:
(1) Armfield will sell this property to a national tract home builder (To anyone with even passing knowledge and experience in zoning, that is the only logical reason for this request to increase density)
(2) The property owners next door will be coming in and asking for the very same thing. Which the Town of Summerfield will not be able to turn down based on their own precedents. (They are literally waiting in the wings)
(3) The Town of Summerfield will be the laughing stock of every real estate developer and engineer in Guilford County if they kowtow to this developer's demands for increasing density to allow them to make a profit.
(4) If the Town of Summefield rezones this property to a higher density and allows the developer to welch on their promise to grant 90 acres to the Town of Summerfield, look for this to be Issue Number One in the next town council election for the opposition.
I honestly think Armfield has taken the whole town council and many citizens hostage and they have their heads buried so deep in the sand, the town and citizens can't even see it.
And for good measure I will throw in a 5th prediction: the Summerfield Town Council and the Summerfield citizens are in denial and delusion if they think they will ever get a park out of this developer. (That would be considered "CONTRACT ZONING" and that REALLY IS ILLEGAL under zoning and property law).
Last edited on Feb 2nd, 2007 01:23 am by Jim Flynt
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 2nd, 2007 01:10 am |
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: We have ordinances, very strict ordinances actually
Jane, quite frankly I don't see how you can even begin to make that claim when the Town of Summerfield either CAN'T or WON'T enforce the earlier rezoning requirements and conditions (which were attached to the initial Armfield rezoning).
If you couldn't enforce those initial conditions, how in the world do you expect to enforce these new conditions?
Last edited on Feb 2nd, 2007 11:28 am by Jim Flynt
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
summerfieldrd
Banned
| Joined: | Dec 15th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 81 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 2nd, 2007 03:44 am |
|
Jim Flynt wrote: Four things you can count on if Armfield is approved:
(1) Armfield will sell this property to a national tract home builder (To anyone with even passing knowledge and experience in zoning, that is the only logical reason for this request to increase density)
(2) The property owners next door will be coming in and asking for the very same thing. Which the Town of Summerfield will not be able to turn down based on their own precedents. (They are literally waiting in the wings)
(3) The Town of Summerfield will be the laughing stock of every real estate developer and engineer in Guilford County if they kowtow to this developer's demands for increasing density to allow them to make a profit.
(4) If the Town of Summefield rezones this property to a higher density and allows the developer to welch on their promise to grant 90 acres to the Town of Summerfield, look for this to be Issue Number One in the next town council election for the opposition.
I honestly think Armfield has taken the whole town council and many citizens hostage and they have their heads buried so deep in the sand, the town and citizens can't even see it.
And for good measure I will throw in a 5th prediction: the Summerfield Town Council and the Summerfield citizens are in denial and delusion if they think they will ever get a park out of this developer. (That would be considered "CONTRACT ZONING" and that REALLY IS ILLEGAL under zoning and property law).
YES! YES! YES! YES and YES! BTW, quite eloquently spoken, Jim!
____________________
The only constant in the universe is change.
|
DOGGETTJA
Member
| Joined: | Oct 24th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 2nd, 2007 11:29 am |
|
Summerfieldrd I hope if you aren't that you will get involved in the Friends of Summerfield.
Jim You and I will just have to agree to disagree.
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 2nd, 2007 11:46 am |
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: Jim You and I will just have to agree to disagree.
The shame of the Armfield rezoning case is that the voters of Summerfield can't weigh in on this matter before the next election, after which, the damages will already be done and some very bad precedents established.
I honestly believe the Summerfield voters would get it right even if the Summerfield Town Council doesn't or can't or won't. Summerfield voters are a whole lot smarter than many folks might give them credit for being.
Every resident and citizen in Summerfield should be asking themselves one question: Who's minding the planning store in Summerfield? The Town Council or the Real Estate Developers?
The answer to that one question will set the tone for everything else that comes down the pike and happens on the planning and development front for Summerfield.
And with so many heads buried in the sand, way too many folks just can't see it coming.
The political repercussions from this one rezoning case are almost too mind boggling to contemplate. Just think of Armfield as the first Domino which will fall and try and imagine where all the rest might land.........
Last edited on Feb 2nd, 2007 11:59 am by Jim Flynt
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
Hairbrush
Member
| Joined: | Jan 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 120 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 2nd, 2007 03:14 pm |
|
Jim, I am confused on why demanding the park is contract zoning. The developer offered it and it is written on the deed. If the town decides to negotiate a land swap I don't see a problem in that. I also am not sure I see a problem with a national home builder coming and buying the property. Maybe they can put in homes that aren't quite as expensive to the buyer (noticed I didn't say affordable, because I don't think anything in summerfield is affordable right now).
As I said again I was never for this development but it has happened and the change in the number of houses and open space is still within the guidelines of the ordinances as well as the town homes they want to build. I don't see where the council can say no and not have this case end up in court and I am not sure I want my tax money spent on a case that can't be won.
I also think we have to be careful what we wish for. I know when the people in white blossom were fighting the subdivision in their area they used protection of the wetlands as reason. The developer was going to go beyond the law in buffering those wetlands. Some one said they would rather have a horse farm on that land. Well horse farmers cut and stump fields and a lot of times will fence right up and into the wetlands. A lot of damage that is done to creeks and streams is done by livestock. So how do we solve this problem. It goes back to if Summerfield feels the land is important and sensitive enough to be protected then Summerfield needs to buy and hold the land.
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 2nd, 2007 08:23 pm |
|
Hairbrush wrote: Jim, I am confused on why demanding the park is contract zoning. The developer offered it and it is written on the deed. If the town decides to negotiate a land swap I don't see a problem in that.
Hairbrush, I think the answer to your question and specifically to the two points highlighted above can be found in an excellent article on 'Contract Zoning' from the NC Institute of Government down in Chapel Hill. Here is that article at the following weblink:
http://www.ncplan.unc.edu/keyissues/contr.htm
Last edited on Feb 2nd, 2007 08:28 pm by Jim Flynt
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
rasin
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 2nd, 2007 09:43 pm |
|
Some recent changes in the law have made it easier to "suggest" things that would make the rezoning more palatable without coming flat out and saying “if you do this I will vote for the rezoning”. The developer has to voluntarily offer them so that technically it isn't Contract Zoning. It is a game of semantics.
|
Current time is 02:59 pm | Page:   ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   |
|