| Author | Post |
|---|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Jan 26th, 2007 02:12 pm |
|
onthefence wrote:
This entire project is a misrepresentation. Approved by two TC members (vote was 2-1) over the objections of many. Remember this project was turned down by the planning board.
Who were the two "rocket scientists" on Stokesdale town council who voted for the rezoning misrepresentation and the resulting unsightly mess? (They are obviously not the two sharpest knives in the drawer)
Stokesdale citizens should be reminded before the next election of those responsible.
Last edited on Jan 26th, 2007 02:33 pm by Jim Flynt
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
S. Smith
Moderator
|
Posted: Jan 27th, 2007 12:20 pm |
|
Jim Flynt wrote: Who were the two "rocket scientists" on Stokesdale town council who voted for the rezoning misrepresentation and the resulting unsightly mess? (They are obviously not the two sharpest knives in the drawer)
Stokesdale citizens should be reminded before the next election of those responsible.
I honestly don't remember who voted for or against this, but I'd assume that those who voted for it felt it met the ordinance. Do you think otherwise?
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 27th, 2007 01:22 pm |
|
S. Smith wrote: I honestly don't remember who voted for or against this, but I'd assume that those who voted for it felt it met the ordinance. Do you think otherwise?
Sandra, I'm not even sure the current development plan has met or is even meeting the conditions which were attached to the rezoning and included within the approved site plan. A site plan, which was attached to the rezoning approval and binding on the owner/developer, I might add.
I was not involved nor did I attend the rezoning hearings at the time, but I do recall that there were dozens of neighboring properties owners who were opposed to the rezoning of the property. If memory serves me correctly, some conditions were attached to both the rezoning and to the site plan to try and assuage some (though not all) of the neighbors concerns.
It is also seems that one of the council members later expressed regret that they had voted for this rezoning, and made the quite public comment that they would not have done so had they known at the time of the vote, that there were misreprensentations made by the petitioners at the town council rezoning hearing.
Perhaps Vicki can shed more light on the rezoning, or, we can go back and research the archives to recall the details of the case. In any event, I think what has transpired in the construction phase has actually turned out to be even worse that the worst case scenario that any of those opposing neighbors might have imagined.
Unfortunately, and all too often, when the Northwest town councils have rezoned properties, they have done so based on oral promises of the landowners, but those promises fall by the wayside once the property is rezoned, and the owner then sells the property to a buyer who could care less about the prior promises. Those oral promises by the way, aren't worth the paper they are not written down on. (Need I remind anyone of the 'pie in the sky' promises made in the original Armfield rezoning?)
What has been left behind on the Shields property is an absolute and total unisghtly mess, and the sad part is, it did not have to be this way. If only we had a town council out here who was not in the developer's pocket. And that is just one more thing we are going to talk about in the next town council election.
Last edited on Jan 27th, 2007 01:29 pm by Jim Flynt
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
macca
Member
|
Posted: Jan 28th, 2007 10:27 pm |
|
onthefence wrote:
There are many words to describe this project. The latest word is
Another is INCOMPLETE... at many levels besides the obvious. The building image that was presented to the various town approval bodies was incomplete. They never showed the overbearing awning attached to the building. Look at the building facade representation on their construction sign for proof.
It's like attaching a false nose & glasses to Mount Rushmore. 
This entire project is a misrepresentation. Approved by two TC members (vote was 2-1) over the objections of many. Remember this project was turned down by the planning board.
Beware the next impact from this project.
Jim Flynt wrote:
Sandra, I'm not even sure the current development plan has met or is even meeting the conditions which were attached to the rezoning and included within the approved site plan. A site plan, which was attached to the rezoning approval and binding on the owner/developer, I might add.
I was not involved nor did I attend the rezoning hearings at the time, but I do recall that there were dozens of neighboring properties owners who were opposed to the rezoning of the property. If memory serves me correctly, some conditions were attached to both the rezoning and to the site plan to try and assuage some (though not all) of the neighbors concerns.
Unfortunately, and all too often, when the Northwest town councils have rezoned properties, they have done so based on oral promises of the landowners, but those promises fall by the wayside once the property is rezoned, and the owner then sells the property to a buyer who could care less about the prior promises. Those oral promises by the way, aren't worth the paper they are not written down on. (Need I remind anyone of the 'pie in the sky' promises made in the original Armfield rezoning?)
What has been left behind on the Shields property is an absolute and total unisghtly mess, and the sad part is, it did not have to be this way. If only we had a town council out here who was not in the developer's pocket. And that is just one more thing we are going to talk about in the next town council election.
Jim, seems like you and othefence are making some pretty serious charges here. How can they not follow what the original plan was? If they don't follow it, can't they be made to take out whatever it is and make it right?
____________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. Herm Albright
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 28th, 2007 10:33 pm |
|
macca wrote: Jim, seems like you and othefence are making some pretty serious charges here. How can they not follow what the original plan was? If they don't follow it, can't they be made to take out whatever it is and make it right?
IF, and IF is such a big word here Macca, IF Stokesdale ENFORCED their zoning ordinance, the answer is and would be YES. There are, as others have pointed out in this and other threads, numerous examples around here where the zoning and planning enforcement is not only unnoticed, it is non-existent.
Last edited on Jan 28th, 2007 10:35 pm by Jim Flynt
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
macca
Member
|
Posted: Jan 28th, 2007 10:38 pm |
|
| And what happens when people complain about it? Isn't the Council obligated to address the complaints? How do you make an official complaint? How do you make sure you are at least heard if you have a complaint? Surely any Town Council must follow some kind of protocol and respond to official complaints????
____________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. Herm Albright
|
macca
Member
|
Posted: Jan 28th, 2007 10:40 pm |
|
| Oops -- Forgot to ask in my prior post -- What zoning violations has the Stokesdale Town Council not enforced?
____________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. Herm Albright
|
S. Smith
Moderator
|
Posted: Jan 28th, 2007 10:43 pm |
|
onthefence wrote:
This entire project is a misrepresentation. Approved by two TC members (vote was 2-1) over the objections of many. Remember this project was turned down by the planning board.
Beware the next impact from this project.
Jim Flynt wrote:
Sandra, I'm not even sure the current development plan has met or is even meeting the conditions which were attached to the rezoning and included within the approved site plan. A site plan, which was attached to the rezoning approval and binding on the owner/developer, I might add.
I was not involved nor did I attend the rezoning hearings at the time, but I do recall that there were dozens of neighboring properties owners who were opposed to the rezoning of the property. If memory serves me correctly, some conditions were attached to both the rezoning and to the site plan to try and assuage some (though not all) of the neighbors concerns.
Unfortunately, and all too often, when the Northwest town councils have rezoned properties, they have done so based on oral promises of the landowners, but those promises fall by the wayside once the property is rezoned, and the owner then sells the property to a buyer who could care less about the prior promises. Those oral promises by the way, aren't worth the paper they are not written down on. (Need I remind anyone of the 'pie in the sky' promises made in the original Armfield rezoning?)
What has been left behind on the Shields property is an absolute and total unisghtly mess, and the sad part is, it did not have to be this way. If only we had a town council out here who was not in the developer's pocket. And that is just one more thing we are going to talk about in the next town council election.
onthefence, what do you mean by a misrepreentation? And what do you mean by "Beware the next impact from this project"? Jim, what were the conditions attached to this rezoning? Since I don't remember the specifics of this case, I can't really comment whether either written or oral promises were made. I do know that in the case of Armfield, the conditions, such as land for a park, were written. The town has been trying to "collect" for some time, and has even threatened to pull building permits until the conditions were met. Your accusation about the town council being in the developer's pockets is pretty strong.
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 28th, 2007 11:00 pm |
|
S. Smith wrote: Your accusation about the town council being in the developer's pockets is pretty strong.
Sandra, when certain of the town council members are riding around (literally) with some of the developers out here (literally) trying to find them land to develop, I would think that would meet the very definition of my statement.
When some of the Stokesdale farmers and large property owners have 'caught' (literally) these same town council members and developers riding on their property without the permission of the property owner, I would think that would again meet the very definition of my statement.
There are more stories and more to tell, but for the time being, I am going to keep a little of the powder dry for another day.
Open your eyes folks to what is going on over here!
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 28th, 2007 11:05 pm |
|
macca wrote: Oops -- Forgot to ask in my prior post -- What zoning violations has the Stokesdale Town Council not enforced?
Macca, I have not done an exhaustive study of that, but I can tell you that there are literally dozens of violations of the Stokesdale town ordinances for planning and development which are going unenforced. To single out one or two here publicly would not be fair to those one or two without naming names of them all. Just familiarize yourself with the Stokesdale ordinance, consult with the Stokesdale Comprehensive Land Use map and the zoning maps for the area, and then drive around. The evidence as they say, is all over the map.
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 28th, 2007 11:20 pm |
|
S. Smith wrote: Jim, what were the conditions attached to this rezoning? Since I don't remember the specifics of this case, I can't really comment whether either written or oral promises were made.
Sandra, my recollection is that there were written conditions attached to the rezoning request which would be binding on the developer.
Further, as the site plan was attached to the rezoning request, (and required if I remember correctly for this particular zoning district), the site plan (and details contained within that site plan) would be binding on the developer as well.
Both would assume of course, that the Town of Stokesdale actually enforces the ordinances. Which to many is a stretch of the imagination.
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
onthefence
Member
| Joined: | Nov 7th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 33 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 30th, 2007 03:04 am |
|
Hello Sandra...
My statement : "This entire project was a misrepresentation" refers to the various presentations that were made to Stokesdale in the rezoning and site plan process.
My last "misrepresentation" statement refers to the picture of the building facade that was presented to Stokesdale. The picture is on their construction sign. Does it show a Honk'in huge awning connected to the top, center of the facade?
NO... It does not. Therefore a misrepresentation by omission.
"Beware the next impact" I fear is an environmental one... polluted run-off, fuel and oil spills, trash and litter from their drive through, etc. Take your pick and take your chances.
Since the site isn't in a declared public watershed, it doesn't have to follow the watershed rules. But it is in MY watershed, flowing to MY well.
Last edited on Jan 30th, 2007 03:07 am by onthefence
|
S. Smith
Moderator
|
Posted: Feb 1st, 2007 01:52 pm |
|
Thanks for the explanation, onthefence. (By the way, sounds like you're not on the fence on this issue.)
So is what they've done here out of compliance or against the ordinance? If so, it seems like it could be remedied.
If things like the big awning are a misrepresentation by omission, is that the developer's fault? Unfortunately, I think sometimes it is up to the zoning board and town council not only to accept what a developer shows on a site plan or says at a rezoning, but rather what's not said or shown. In other words, the zoning board and town council members have to be pretty astute and make sure they read between the lines and ask all the right questions. It's a pretty difficult job.
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 1st, 2007 03:02 pm |
|
S. Smith wrote: So is what they've done here out of compliance or against the ordinance?
If the developer is out of 'compliance', wouldn't it go without saying that they are out of compliance with the zoning ordinance? Wouldn't compliance directly relate to whether or not the developer is following the requirements of the zoning ordinance?
(Where a 'site plan' is required by an ordinance or zoning district, then site plan compliance still relates back directly to following the requirements of the zoning district ordinance which required it).
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 1st, 2007 03:09 pm |
|
S. Smith wrote: In other words, the zoning board and town council members have to be pretty astute and make sure they read between the lines and ask all the right questions. It's a pretty difficult job.
I see a lot of parallels between what has happened to this proposed gas station in Stokesdale with the rezoning case before the Summerfield Town Council on the Armfield rezoning.
What absolutely amazed me at the last Summerfield Town Council meeting was how only one town council member seemed to be asking any questions of the Armfield developers. The rest of the TC members seemed to be sitting there not knowing what to say or the questions to ask. And they are getting ready to have the wool pulled over their eyes again. By the very same developer who has already pulled it over their eyes before. Unless, they start asking questions. And start asking them fast.
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
Current time is 12:50 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7   |
|