| Author | Post |
|---|
S. Smith
Moderator
|
Posted: Apr 6th, 2007 06:53 pm |
|
macca wrote: I still think you could go to the nearest town hall and they could at least direct you. Or maybe you could go to the county seat, although I'm not sure what records you'd ask for.... Maybe you'd go to the Planning Dept?
As long as the roads where you live are under the jurisdiction of the DOT (at least for now, the local towns are not in charge of their roads), you can get this info from the DOT.
Now back to ballfields..... Does anybody know anything about the other two properties being considered? I haven't visited them.
|
DOGGETTJA
Member
| Joined: | Oct 24th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Apr 6th, 2007 10:15 pm |
|
Ok here is what I know. there are tentative plans for open house at hopefully 3 properties on April 21, and 28 for the citizens to tour the properties and see what they think. These tours will hopefully get people excited about the ball fields. There are will be drawings of placement of fields for each piece. There will be ads run in our favorite local newspaper when things are definite but this is what we discussed last night at the Parks meeting. The property will be marked so you can see what the acreage looks like and there will be volunteers at each site to hopefully answer questions.
There will be a comment box to allow people to make suggestions.
|
GRITS
Member
| Joined: | Mar 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 244 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Apr 7th, 2007 02:18 am |
|
S. Smith wrote: macca wrote: Now back to ballfields..... Does anybody know anything about the other two properties being considered? I haven't visited them.
From what I have heard regarding the property located on hwy 220N beside Gas Town, there is wetlands to considered on the property, and heavily growth of trees. More money would be spent preparing the land to be able to build ballfields. Also, I am personally not in favor of this particular piece of land due to location. It appears to be in a good location but I am more concerned with the traffic that would be generated, considering the school, nursery and gas station is all located here. Congestion on 220 is bad enough especially in this area during all times of the day. After reading the NWO today, we can not count on a 4 lane hwy coming through until 2010 or 2012 to relieve this problem (but it may make it worse).
Since the Friddle property is 1) more centrally located, 2) in the HEART of Summerfield, 3) is located near the new Summerfield Park and 4) is really out of the way of residential areas, I considered this to be the best place for the ballfields. I am also hearing rumors not to be concerned or fret over the redirection of hwy 150 that may interfere with this property. This is on the bottom of the DOT's list and probably will never happen. But, SRA and the town of Summerfield better protect themselves over this. Someday, maybe not in my life time, this may eventually happen. I have lived in Summerfield all my life, and personally have seen ALOT of change. Twenty years ago, my grandfather said the same regarding Painter Boulevard---go figure!
The only thing I know of the third piece of potential property is that it is located on the outskirts (or is in the outskirts) of Summerfield. I believe the name of the road is Hudson James but I am not for certain. This area is primarly in the Stokesdale school district. Being the location I feel this is going a little too far away from Summerfield. I my opinion, Summerfield is already giving the fine neighborhoods, nice walking trails (hense Armfield) that is supposedly intended for all citizens but would primarily be used by Armfield and Henson Farm residents, because if it is anything like the Vineyards--No trespassing signs will be displayed. If I am correct, the Town of Summerfield paid for trails and bridges in the Vineyards for Summerfield citizens to use, but are unable to because the Vineyards HOA posted no trespassing signs and only residents of the Vineyards are only permitted to use. Summerfield would only be giving Stokesdale another ballpark.
|
DOGGETTJA
Member
| Joined: | Oct 24th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Apr 7th, 2007 02:47 am |
|
| Grits-I think I am right on this. Summerfield required the walking trails in the developments but they are not public and the developments paid for them. A girl scout built the bridge off of Strawberry road for her eagle scout badge if that is what girls get and the trail connects to the Lake Brandt trail. But the Town did not build or spend any money on those trails I don't think.
|
GRITS
Member
| Joined: | Mar 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 244 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Apr 7th, 2007 03:17 am |
|
| you know how rumors start---especially with little towns like summerfield. I heard it from somebody so I can't say that it's correct. But-thanks for the correction Jane.
|
Shamu
Member
| Joined: | Feb 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 52 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Apr 7th, 2007 11:23 pm |
|
GRITS wrote: S. Smith wrote: macca wrote: Now back to ballfields..... Does anybody know anything about the other two properties being considered? I haven't visited them.
From what I have heard regarding the property located on hwy 220N beside Gas Town, there is wetlands to considered on the property, and heavily growth of trees. More money would be spent preparing the land to be able to build ballfields. Also, I am personally not in favor of this particular piece of land due to location. It appears to be in a good location but I am more concerned with the traffic that would be generated, considering the school, nursery and gas station is all located here. Congestion on 220 is bad enough especially in this area during all times of the day. After reading the NWO today, we can not count on a 4 lane hwy coming through until 2010 or 2012 to relieve this problem (but it may make it worse).
Since the Friddle property is 1) more centrally located, 2) in the HEART of Summerfield, 3) is located near the new Summerfield Park and 4) is really out of the way of residential areas, I considered this to be the best place for the ballfields. I am also hearing rumors not to be concerned or fret over the redirection of hwy 150 that may interfere with this property. This is on the bottom of the DOT's list and probably will never happen. But, SRA and the town of Summerfield better protect themselves over this. Someday, maybe not in my life time, this may eventually happen. I have lived in Summerfield all my life, and personally have seen ALOT of change. Twenty years ago, my grandfather said the same regarding Painter Boulevard---go figure!
The only thing I know of the third piece of potential property is that it is located on the outskirts (or is in the outskirts) of Summerfield. I believe the name of the road is Hudson James but I am not for certain. This area is primarly in the Stokesdale school district. Being the location I feel this is going a little too far away from Summerfield. I my opinion, Summerfield is already giving the fine neighborhoods, nice walking trails (hense Armfield) that is supposedly intended for all citizens but would primarily be used by Armfield and Henson Farm residents, because if it is anything like the Vineyards--No trespassing signs will be displayed. If I am correct, the Town of Summerfield paid for trails and bridges in the Vineyards for Summerfield citizens to use, but are unable to because the Vineyards HOA posted no trespassing signs and only residents of the Vineyards are only permitted to use. Summerfield would only be giving Stokesdale another ballpark.
|
Shamu
Member
| Joined: | Feb 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 52 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Apr 7th, 2007 11:33 pm |
|
Shamu wrote: GRITS wrote: S. Smith wrote: macca wrote: Now back to ballfields..... Does anybody know anything about the other two properties being considered? I haven't visited them.
From what I have heard regarding the property located on hwy 220N beside Gas Town, there is wetlands to considered on the property, and heavily growth of trees. More money would be spent preparing the land to be able to build ballfields. I am quoting GRTIS here, even though it looks like I'm quoting myself. GRITS, I am sure there are wetlands to be considered on the 220 property. Have you looked at a map of the 'Friddle-Holland-whoever else has to be involved' property? There are two streams that flow directly into the Watershed. I mean DIRECTLY. And there are some really big trees on the 'Friddle-Holland-whoever else has to be involved' property. I have no idea where you are getting your information from. Can you post your resources?
|
Shamu
Member
| Joined: | Feb 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 52 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Apr 9th, 2007 10:32 pm |
|
Hmm,
Sorry. Please don't let my facts get in the way of your opinions.
|
GRITS
Member
| Joined: | Mar 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 244 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Apr 10th, 2007 09:12 am |
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: Ok here is what I know. there are tentative plans for open house at hopefully 3 properties on April 21, and 28 for the citizens to tour the properties and see what they think. These tours will hopefully get people excited about the ball fields. There are will be drawings of placement of fields for each piece. There will be ads run in our favorite local newspaper when things are definite but this is what we discussed last night at the Parks meeting. The property will be marked so you can see what the acreage looks like and there will be volunteers at each site to hopefully answer questions.
There will be a comment box to allow people to make suggestions. Shamu, please mark your calender and plan to attend. I am sure when it comes to building ballfields, any potential land will be problematic. Let me just say this, I do not oppose any of these 3 sites--I WANT THE BALLFIELDS TO BE BUILT. As you said-I am entitled to my opionion as well as you.
|
GRITS
Member
| Joined: | Mar 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 244 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Apr 10th, 2007 09:12 am |
|
DOGGETTJA wrote:
edited d/t duplication
Last edited on Apr 10th, 2007 09:14 am by GRITS
|
Shamu
Member
| Joined: | Feb 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 52 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Apr 10th, 2007 10:42 pm |
|
GRITS wrote: Shamu, please mark your calender and plan to attend. I am sure when it comes to building ballfields, any potential land will be problematic. Let me just say this, I do not oppose any of these 3 sites--I WANT THE BALLFIELDS TO BE BUILT. As you said-I am entitled to my opionion as well as you.
Thanks for being positive. You are definitely entitled to your opinion. What I would like to see are some comparisons of the three areas. So that if wetlands was something we wanted to talk about, then we could address wetlands for each of the areas, not just say the 220 area may have wetlands.
I'll say that the 'Friddle-Holland-whoever else needs to get involved' (a joke about the complexity of the area ownership) area seems to have some life of its own. I think that just because it is near the old Food Lion, and some commercial property, people think it isn't a nice area, and there aren't a lot of residents, but the trees, streams and landscape are really nice there and there appear to be more residents within a 1/4 to 1/2 mile radius than any of the other areas - based on some air photos and maps. I will try to verify this by walking the areas.
So my request is that we try to back up our opinions, or there isn't much point in this website.
|
Gestalt
Member
| Joined: | Apr 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 34 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Apr 16th, 2007 02:04 am |
|
Shamu wrote: I'll say that the 'Friddle-Holland-whoever else needs to get involved' (a joke about the complexity of the area ownership) area seems to have some life of its own. I think that just because it is near the old Food Lion, and some commercial property, people think it isn't a nice area, and there aren't a lot of residents, but the trees, streams and landscape are really nice there and there appear to be more residents within a 1/4 to 1/2 mile radius than any of the other areas - based on some air photos and maps. I will try to verify this by walking the areas.
I stumbled onto the Friddle property this week thanks to taking a wrong turn........oh well.
Will be interested in hearing your comments Shamu
|
Baseball Buddy
Member
|
Posted: Apr 17th, 2007 12:44 am |
|
OK, one more time. Shamu, this is not my opinion, this is the hard work of many hours put into researching the properties (facts), walking the properties (facts), bringing information to board and council (fact), process of elimination (fact), decision to move forward on the Friddle/Holland property was made by the PARKS committee as it was the best site for this that was available after all were considered,once again (fact). Now that all this has been done you criticize the chosen piece as if you have a higher knowledge. Please enlighten all of us who have spent many hours doing this as you Monday morning quarterback and tell us we are wrong or have not done the homework. Yes this is a touchy subject with me, this process started 10 years ago for me and longer than that with the first elected council. The last year has been tough with the CC's spreading lies and hate propaganda about the SRA volunteers and ballfields we have at this time. They are outdated and inadequate. NOT DILAPIDATED! We need 4 additional ball fields to accommodate the children we are now serving. But, we will soon loose the fields owned by Guilford County Schools if they need to put more trailers there to accommodate more children due to Laughlin School closing. So in fact we need at least 10 to 12 ball fields for the best service at this time. Who knows what the future brings but growth will happen. In 6 years I have witnessed the children almost triple in numbers.
Now you have criticized me for not knowing where I was going and not knowing how to drive. I have personally walked and driven all of Summerfield and know where I am going. I know how to use a turn signal and they are working fine. I also know how to drive properly as it is my profession. I own and operate an expedited transportation company. If I don't know an area I have GPS in all my vehicles that tell me where I am or where to go. So let's just say I have spent some time behind the wheel over the last 25 years.
Now that I have that behind us, All the properties have some type of creek or water on them. The Friddle/Holland piece has a creek at toward the front close to Summerfield Rd. This is not part of the proposed area that Mr. Friddle is offering. He is keeping the property with the road frontage. He had that rezoned to build a restaurant. The piece on 220 next to Gas town has a creek on the North side running East/West. Though the first thing seen is the cleared off section over half the property appears to be wooded. The Hudson James property has a pond on it. This could be useful for a picnic area.
Just a few facts not to get in the way of opinion.
____________________
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.
|
Steve Adkins
Member
| Joined: | Oct 14th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1669 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Apr 17th, 2007 03:25 am |
|
All
Please ensure as this discussion continues that the comments focus on the ballfields and the related decision making processes.
Remember the "flame ideas, not people" thing........let's not personalize it.
Thanks
|
StewartM
Member
| Joined: | Oct 31st, 2005 |
| Location: | Chicken Coop |
| Posts: | 1149 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Apr 17th, 2007 03:25 pm |
|
We need a public hearing at the May council meeting.....Its time to throw out the 1st pitch.......The Council needs to say........
"PLAY BALL"
|
|
|
