| Author | Post |
|---|
summerfieldrd
Banned
| Joined: | Dec 15th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 81 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Feb 13th, 2007 02:57 pm |
|
Jim Flynt wrote: He reported that there was historic property on site. Staff recommends approval. He reported that the Zoning Board voted unanimously to deny.
Jim: What does this statment mean? Was there an historic property on the site? Was it removed?
____________________
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 13th, 2007 03:08 pm |
|
summerfieldrd wrote: Jim Flynt wrote: He reported that there was historic property on site. Staff recommends approval. He reported that the Zoning Board voted unanimously to deny.
Jim: What does this statment mean? Was there an historic property on the site? Was it removed?
Summerfieldrd: The comments which I posted were the direct quotes from the February 4, 2003 Summerfield Town Council Meeting minutes. I was not at that meeting and wondered the same thing as you asked. Perhaps Jane Doggett or one of the others who attended the 2003 Town Council meeting can shed some light on this comment and tell us what type of historic property was or is located there.
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
DOGGETTJA
Member
| Joined: | Oct 24th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 14th, 2007 11:49 am |
|
Well Armfield was voted down last night 3 to 2. I think the change in the laws on contract zoning has created a nightmare. Conditions were being thrown around like Valentines candy. Becky kept asking for support to send it back to the zoning to sort the conditions out but nothing came of that so instead it was worded as an up or down vote and got voted down. I think the new law is extremely dangerous and hope the council sticks to its guns and either votes the zoning down or probably even better sends it back to zoning when the conditions start changing. Zoning spends much more time looking at the property and they are the ones who should pass the conditions before it comes to Town Council.
This development and it density was much too important to put up for a bidding war at council. Were they doing away with the Twin Homes formerly known as duplexes if so what did that do to the density and open space? Were they offering to lower the density by 10 homes or 20 homes? At one point the developer offered to lower the density 10 houses. Was that in addition to the duplexes or the result of no duplexes? It was all much to complex to hurridly discuss at Town Council.
I hope the Town Council has gotten past the naive stance we use to have assuming the developer had the best interest of the Town and heart and we could trust them to do the right thing. The negotiations last night are something the zoning board should have been doing and they need to be understood before coming before the Council.
|
Baseball Buddy
Member
|
Posted: Feb 14th, 2007 02:30 pm |
|
| This should have gone back to the zoning board. This now opens up a whole new can of worms. I hope Summerfield is prepared for this one. It appeared to me (my opinion only) that Jim Brady was willing to do whatever was suggested or what anyone wanted out of Summerfield Properties to make something happen. To turn down the request was the wrong thing to do. It should have gone back to the zoning board and rectified to whatever was asked of them. Then brought back to council for a clear understanding and be voted on. Now this can not be brought back for a YEAR. What will happen with the property in bankruptcy? The bank will sell to the first buyer and that buyer will build minimum spec homes. Food for thought.
____________________
The views/opinions expressed in this post are personal and belong to Baseball Buddy. Please do not duplicate, distribute, BCC, or mass mail my comments without my written consent.
|
summerfieldrd
Banned
| Joined: | Dec 15th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 81 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 14th, 2007 02:42 pm |
|
Baseball Buddy wrote: The bank will sell to the first buyer and that buyer will build minimum spec homes. Food for thought.
I think the bankruptcy cry was a total bluff.
How can someone build minimum spec built homes if there are no lots left to build on? Isn't this why they were trying for a rezoning?
____________________
The only constant in the universe is change.
|
Hairbrush
Member
| Joined: | Jan 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 120 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 14th, 2007 02:45 pm |
|
| There are plenty lots left. They have only built out around 32 homes or so.
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 14th, 2007 02:57 pm |
|
summerfieldrd wrote: I think the bankruptcy cry was a total bluff.
I agree with you 100%. Pure Bluff. And shameless at that.
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 14th, 2007 03:01 pm |
|
Baseball Buddy wrote: It appeared to me (my opinion only) that Jim Brady was willing to do whatever was suggested or what anyone wanted out of Summerfield Properties to make something happen.
Perhaps Jim Brady and Summerfield Properties could have "done whatever" by simply doing what they agreed to do at the 2003 rezoning hearing: Honor and follow the previous 9 conditions attached to and made part of the 2003 rezoning.
If they wouldn't follow the 2003 rezoning conditions what makes you think they would follow rezoning conditions imposed in 2007?
Last edited on Feb 14th, 2007 03:01 pm by Jim Flynt
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
summerfieldrd
Banned
| Joined: | Dec 15th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 81 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 14th, 2007 04:04 pm |
|
Hairbrush wrote: There are plenty lots left. They have only built out around 32 homes or so.
Sorry, I don't make it over there often.
So, they are allowed 350, they have built 32, and they're already crying foul? I can see why they need the additional lots. How could they make any money with only 320 lots left open? It's a real shame.
I've got ten bucks says the bankruptcy never goes down.
____________________
The only constant in the universe is change.
|
Baseball Buddy
Member
|
Posted: Feb 14th, 2007 04:31 pm |
|
| The process has already began. Please remember Summerfield properties does not build homes. Builders buy lots in a sub division and build homes. Jim Brady is trying to salvage this development. That's a fact. Right now he is doing everything possible to keep it out of bankruptcy. That's a fact. 2 banks are breathing down his neck right now on this issue. That's a fact. Is he bluffing? I hope you guys are correct in thinking it will not happen.
____________________
The views/opinions expressed in this post are personal and belong to Baseball Buddy. Please do not duplicate, distribute, BCC, or mass mail my comments without my written consent.
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 14th, 2007 04:54 pm |
|
Baseball Buddy wrote: The process has already began. Please remember Summerfield properties does not build homes. Builders buy lots in a sub division and build homes. Jim Brady is trying to salvage this development. That's a fact. Right now he is doing everything possible to keep it out of bankruptcy. That's a fact. 2 banks are breathing down his neck right now on this issue. That's a fact. Is he bluffing? I hope you guys are correct in thinking it will not happen.
Seriously, what does the financial condition of a developer or development have to do with sound zoning and planning practices and governmental land use decisions?
Given that this developer paid around $13,000 per acre for the raw land, and that land now is generally selling for around $20,000 per acre for raw land, why in the world would this developer have to file bankruptcy? Surely several buyers would be more than happy to take out the current developer's remaining land for what he paid for it and consider that purchase quite the bargain.
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
Baseball Buddy
Member
|
Posted: Feb 14th, 2007 05:18 pm |
|
| Like I said I hope you are correct in thinking this for the sake of all involved. Plus when was the last time you heard of someone saving the day by assuming the debt of a developer? NEVER. It goes to bankruptcy then the vultures pick through it. I know I purchase bankruptcy property all the time.
____________________
The views/opinions expressed in this post are personal and belong to Baseball Buddy. Please do not duplicate, distribute, BCC, or mass mail my comments without my written consent.
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 14th, 2007 05:35 pm |
|
Baseball Buddy wrote: It goes to bankruptcy then the vultures pick through it. I know I purchase bankruptcy property all the time.
Gosh. Wouldn't that make you a vulture by definition? (Just kidding) 
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
Baseball Buddy
Member
|
Posted: Feb 14th, 2007 05:44 pm |
|
| Sometimes I seize the opportunity.
____________________
The views/opinions expressed in this post are personal and belong to Baseball Buddy. Please do not duplicate, distribute, BCC, or mass mail my comments without my written consent.
|
summerfieldrd
Banned
| Joined: | Dec 15th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 81 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 14th, 2007 07:21 pm |
|
I think they were planning to sell anyway. More lots would have meant more money.
If they have 320 open lots and can't manage to make money, how is 50 more going to save the day?
____________________
The only constant in the universe is change.
|
Current time is 02:59 pm | Page:   ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   |
|