| Author | Post |
|---|
SMHW
Member
| Joined: | Feb 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Mar 31st, 2006 03:16 am |
|
| It's been interesting to watch the new development take place at 150 and Lake Brandt Road. What I can't figure out is what is the deal with the old house they left there and built a wall around? That's is the oddest thing I've ever seen. Will it be used for something or just an eyesore in the middle of the new development?
|
Starcatchr
Member
| Joined: | Nov 3rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 205 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 31st, 2006 10:05 am |
|
| I've heard that they will renovate it and use it for a retail space. Don't know for sure. The people at the Brick Store had some interest in opening a gift shop.
|
StewartM
Member
| Joined: | Oct 31st, 2005 |
| Location: | Chicken Coop |
| Posts: | 1149 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Apr 1st, 2006 02:04 am |
|
Starcatchr wrote: I've heard that they will renovate it and use it for a retail space. Don't know for sure. That is their plan.......They wouldn't spend that much money and not do something with the house....
|
FatPappy
Member
| Joined: | Oct 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield, USA |
| Posts: | 3245 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Apr 1st, 2006 03:18 pm |
|
I'm glad they're fixin' up the old house. I'd hate to think ever'thing old gets tore down. Makes Pappy nervous.
Wonder what they'll do with the brick store.
____________________
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
|
dmauser
Member
| Joined: | Oct 14th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 125 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Apr 2nd, 2006 04:28 pm |
|
| I have heard the brick store is for rent,but with a steep price of around $2000/month. I would love to see something eccectic like antiques and crafts, but with that price there is no way that type of retail could be succesful. Maybe something like a lawyers office ?
|
Cracker Jax
Member
| Joined: | Oct 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield, USA |
| Posts: | 4722 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Apr 5th, 2006 02:36 am |
|
Dr. Matt DeVaney's request for rezoning the Matthews land (around the corner from this strip of offices mentioned in the topic) from AG to LO (Light Office) use was approved by council tonight.
Rich Schlobohm was present and had presented a petition signed by 46 local residents, However his argument that it went against one point on the long range plan did not stand up to DeVaney's many points where this rezoning would support the long range plan.
DeVaney plans to put a dentist office on the property. I can't help but think that this would be preferable to another residential community. Less impact on the infrastructure in my opinion.
Anyway the vote had to pass with a 4/5ths majority... 4 in favor, Strickland against.
____________________
Opinions in this post are mine. Do not copy, distribute, mass mail or quote out of context without my consent.
|
dmauser
Member
| Joined: | Oct 14th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 125 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Apr 5th, 2006 02:48 am |
|
| I didn't realize this was the zoning there, but I think that is a great use of the land and will benefit the community. I love going to Dr. Byrd in Summerfield, support the community, easy to get there and she kept the house and it looks nice from the street. In my mind, the best of all worlds.
|
Cracker Jax
Member
| Joined: | Oct 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield, USA |
| Posts: | 4722 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Apr 5th, 2006 03:52 am |
|
I agree debora. Much better than a shopping center or a large residential development. I think the council made a good decision on this one.
And I think it's great that SF resident Matt DeVaney can now practice in his own town!
Welcome Dr. DeVaney!! Last edited on Apr 5th, 2006 03:53 am by Cracker Jax
____________________
Opinions in this post are mine. Do not copy, distribute, mass mail or quote out of context without my consent.
|
happycamper
Member
| Joined: | May 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 23 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: May 4th, 2006 02:27 pm |
|
I am posting for the first time so please bear with me., I may have already sent one by mistake!
I live in this area that opposed the rezoning, and here are my reasons.
1) I do not belive that The Doctor will personally "man" the dentist office. He has built and works out of a new office in Oak Ridge., and he told me in person that he plans on building at least 2 offices for rental on this property. The re zoning has no restictions that hold him to it being a dentist office. It could possibly be held onto indefinetly until it is sold for a profit for another use. He came by our homes mos ago, asking our opinions, and said he would not pursue the land if we had any problems with it....We did and it got us no where. I was told there was simply no land more towards hwy 220, come to find out he has recently bought another lot on Shadyside.
If you notice the new sign out front states" additional space" available....
2) I am afraid that this has opened a door to the remaining proprty that I personally consider to be one of the best parts about Summerfield. For some reason, I still like my drive home to be somewhat rural. The horse farm next to it is also up for sale for commercial, and the price just went up! I feel that development should have, at best, been limited to the corner. Traffic in this area, at certain times of the day is a mess. I look for the road to be widened to accomodate traffic, possibly all the way down to the church.
3) We had hoped that the landowner would consider or look into ( if he simply came to the conclusion that he had to sell) selling for Residential. This land is located inthe water shed, so no huge deveopment or shopping center would be allowed., simply 4-5 homes on appx 1 acre lots.
I hope I don't give the impression that I am against all rezonings. I just hope that when a neighborhood, such as in the case of ours, bands together and submits opposition, and the zoning board votes it down 5-0.,that it will have some bearing on the outcome. Maybe I am a little "wet behind the ears" , but the impression I get from this is that commercial development is coming and we can do nothing to stop it.
|
Cracker Jax
Member
| Joined: | Oct 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield, USA |
| Posts: | 4722 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: May 4th, 2006 05:15 pm |
|
Welcome to the forum Happy Camper! Glad you joined us here!
I appreciate your input and believe me, I know how you feel. I've been here since most of the roads were dirt, dogs ran freely and Lake Brandt had the kiss-me-quicks and lots more trees! None of us want more development, INCLUDING the council members.
Since that is not a possiblility, the citizens have charged the council with making the best possible decisions to control development and to assure that any growth is well thought out and the best decision for the whole town is made.
Now don't get mad at me, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here. 
I was at the council meeting where the petitioners and DeVaney spoke. I don't personally have a dog in this fight, so as an "impartial" observer, I must say that DeVaney made a better case. In addition, he quoted many aspects of the long range plan that his office would meet. The petitioners did not give the council any sound legal reasons to deny the rezoning request. They only expressed their DESIRES. You see, the zoning board and the council have a different set of criteria that they look at and must legally follow when making these decisions. That's why their rulings sometimes differ. The attorney even advised them about what they could consider when casting their votes. I'm still waiting to read Strickland's explanation as to why she voted the way she did. She did not voice any opposition that I remember.
I have heard complaints that there was no Council "discussion" after the speakers. If you attend TC meetings regularly, you'll see that is often the case. The town clerk prepares very detailed packets for the council members and they are pretty well versed on the issues at hand before the meeting is held. The fact that there was no discussion just says to me that neither side said anything that needed clarification.
I'd like to speak to the points that you made.....
happycamper wrote: 1) I do not belive that The Doctor will personally "man" the dentist office. He has built and works out of a new office in Oak Ridge., and he told me in person that he plans on building at least 2 offices for rental on this property. The re zoning has no restictions that hold him to it being a dentist office. It could possibly be held onto indefinetly until it is sold for a profit for another use. He came by our homes mos ago, asking our opinions, and said he would not pursue the land if we had any problems with it....We did and it got us no where. I was told there was simply no land more towards hwy 220, come to find out he has recently bought another lot on Shadyside.
#1. The site was re-zoned LO which I think stands for light office. That alone will protect you from some mega retailer coming in and if there were a change and a dentist office didn't go there, there could only be an office of the same sort placed on that site. And does it really matter what dentist is working in the office? If he chooses to hire another dentist to work for him while he's at another office, then I can't really see a problem with it. Maybe you could shed some light on why that's a problem. Maybe I'm not thinking of something.  The council couldn't legally make their decision based on whether or not DeVaney could or could not obtain property elsewhere so that's a moot point whether we like it or not.
happycamper wrote: If you notice the new sign out front states" additional space" available....
2) I am afraid that this has opened a door to the remaining proprty that I personally consider to be one of the best parts about Summerfield. For some reason, I still like my drive home to be somewhat rural. The horse farm next to it is also up for sale for commercial, and the price just went up! I feel that development should have, at best, been limited to the corner. Traffic in this area, at certain times of the day is a mess. I look for the road to be widened to accomodate traffic, possibly all the way down to the church.
#2. I was under the impression that the property in question, DeVaney's and the horse farm back up to commercial property. The council stated that was one of the reasons that it was approved and they would like to see any commercial zoning stop there. Problem is, they are not fortune tellers and you can never tell what ammunition someone will find to bring before the zoning board and the council that may force them to change their minds. If that happened, I think it would be for some legal reason beyond their control though.
happycamper wrote: 3) We had hoped that the landowner would consider or look into ( if he simply came to the conclusion that he had to sell) selling for Residential. This land is located inthe water shed, so no huge deveopment or shopping center would be allowed., simply 4-5 homes on appx 1 acre lots.
#3. First of all, you can't blame the property owner for selling who he wants to or for trying to get as much money as he can for a piece of land. I know I'd hope for the best sale price if I took a notion to move, and you probably would too. As for traffic (and schools) Don't you think a subdivision (even a small one) would have MUCH more of an impact on our infrastructure than a dentist office would?
So in my opinion, 4 of the council members made the best decision they could. Ok now I have a question for you.... I saw the petition. I once heard that there were 46 petitioners, however it looked like more to me. The problem I saw was that for at least one household,(I think maybe it was the man who started the petition in the first place) there were six names signed to the petition. There were other households similarly represented on the petition as well. Do you know how many actual households were represented on this petition??? I have heard that a lot of folks in Ridgewood were asked to sign but refused... What's the straight skinny there, do you know??
Again, welcome to the forum and I hope you'll come back soon!
____________________
Opinions in this post are mine. Do not copy, distribute, mass mail or quote out of context without my consent.
|
happycamper
Member
| Joined: | May 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 23 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: May 4th, 2006 06:32 pm |
|
Thank you Cracker Jax, I value your comments
I reference :
#1. The site was re-zoned LO which I think stands for light office. That alone will protect you from some mega retailer coming in and if there were a change and a dentist office didn't go there, there could only be an office of the same sort placed on that site. And does it really matter what dentist is working in the office? If he chooses to hire another dentist to work for him while he's at another office, then I can't really see a problem with it. Maybe you could shed some light on why that's a problem. Maybe I'm not thinking of something. The council couldn't legally make their decision based on whether or not DeVaney could or could not obtain property elsewhere so that's a moot point whether we like it or not.
I do agree with most of the above. Keep in mind , even though it sounds like it, a dentist office is not my biggest concern, I just feel that it will set up much more property in the area for something we will not be able to live with. I am also concerned about how it was represented to the public, as many as two or three buildings can go up on this land. Dentist office or not, My feelings.. it is much further away from the intersection than most had invisioned. when we built our homes.
#2. I was under the impression that the property in question, DeVaney's and the horse farm back up to commercial property. The council stated that was one of the reasons that it was approved and they would like to see any commercial zoning stop there. Problem is, they are not fortune tellers and you can never tell what ammunition someone will find to bring before the zoning board and the council that may force them to change their minds. If that happened, I think it would be for some legal reason beyond their control though.
The property actually only meets in the corner, it is behind the horse farm however. And it was,as I am sure you know, a large chunk of land, all of which had to be purchased just to allow the shopping center to be built on the corner. I would like to think this is where it will stop, but there is much more land, land that now adjoins commercial, and money talks.
#3. First of all, you can't blame the property owner for selling who he wants to or for trying to get as much money as he can for a piece of land. I know I'd hope for the best sale price if I took a notion to move, and you probably would too. As for traffic (and schools) Don't you think a subdivision (even a small one) would have MUCH more of an impact on our infrastructure than a dentist office would?
No I can't blame the property owner, nor can I say 100% that I would not have done the same thing. I may have to decide sooner than I think! Everyone has personal reasons. Yes, the impact on the infrastructure is probably close to zero, with a dentist office,maybe even 2 or 3 offices. I just see it as a begining to more and worse commercial development. Rumor has it, and a little more, that the corner where the group home is ,is next for development . It is a large lot, and it is not limited to the amount of size, as it is outside the watershed., it is on my side.I have also heard that a possiblity of a bank on the corner where an addition shopping strip was planned could be in the making. (the original plans called for 3 not 2 like you are seeing)I just never wanted to be put in a position where I had to be forced to make a descision to sell, I guess none of us do.
I once heard that there were 46 petitioners, however it looked like more to me. The problem I saw was that for at least one household,(I think maybe it was the man who started the petition in the first place) there were six names signed to the petition. There were other households similarly represented on the petition as well. Do you know how many actual households were represented on this petition??? I have heard that a lot of folks in Ridgewood were asked to sign but refused... What's the straight skinny there, do you know??
Every household on the opposite side of the road facing this signed when contacted,none refused that were in close proximity. Not sure if the group home was contacted., not sure if they can sign unless they own property or not? Others were contacted in the close proximity. I do know some folks that Rich had contact with in Ridgewood said they did not see the big deal. They also mentioned, that a Wal Mart would be welcomed as they have to drive a few miles to get their. I know some great families in Ridgewood, most are, they told me that they did not come out here for this type deveopment either. By the way Isnt most of Ridgwood out of Summerfield city limits? Most households that have folks 18 and older are allowed to sign, if I am not mistaken. So to answer I feel that the households directly effected signed on.
The doctor did make a much better case. In hind sight, we became complacent when we got the 5-0 vote from Zoning, most of thought it was much a done deal. our mistake. Most, if all of us, have not had to deal with this issue. We were pretty much unaware of the "laws" or the zoning types, conditions, long term plans, etc.. But hey were getting there!
|
Lacka
Member
| Joined: | Dec 27th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 664 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: May 4th, 2006 11:41 pm |
|
| Happy camper, I own property very close to this intersection and I was never approached about this petition. I am much closer than most Ridgewood neighbors. I was not aware of the petition at all until I saw your group at the SF TC meeting. I know three out of the four that were in your group, so certainly someone could have contacted me. If I am not mistaken you have conted me on a different matter in the past, which would make four out of four. My question to you happy camper is "Is there a screening process of who is allowed to sign a petition in that area?"
____________________
The views/opinions in this post are mine.Do not copy,or distribute without my consent.
Copied with Crackah's consent.
|
DOGGETTJA
Member
| Joined: | Oct 24th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: May 5th, 2006 02:05 am |
|
I also think another issue with the property is that 4 or 5 houses couldn't be put on it because of it watershed designation. Only one acre can be disturbed with house and parking is the way I understand it. That is the problem with the horse farm also. I love the horse farm also but can certainly understand as many horses as they have on that 5 acres that they desperately need more space.
Also the Town paid a fair sum of money for a commercial needs assessment several years ago and up to 1500 feet from the corner at major intersections is considered prime commercial land. As gas prices continue to go up the Town will need to try to provide opportunties so that we don't have to drive somewhere for everything.
I too have heard the home on the corner is slated to be sold but I haven't heard for what.
There are ordinances in Summerfield to stop big box stores from coming in so Walmart would not be a consideration anywhere.
I also understand your upset over the change. I have lived here since before dirt or off and on for about 60 years. The change in this area is just unbelievable.
The important thing for everybody is to stay involved. We can't stop growth but we can control what it looks like.
|
happycamper
Member
| Joined: | May 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 23 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: May 5th, 2006 11:27 am |
|
I appreciate your comments. I personally did not start the petition drive.,or go around to obtain signatures. To the best of my knowledge, no one was intentionally left out. . I was told, when I asked If everyone signed it, that there were some households that were not home when he went around the neighborhood that afternoon. I trust this was the case.
Take Care
|
happycamper
Member
| Joined: | May 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 23 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: May 5th, 2006 11:40 am |
|
Thank you for your comments.
I was told, and maybe incorrectly, that the property could be divided into 1 acre tracts with proper rezoning, and as long as the homes,drives, etc still fell under the guidlines of the watershed ( impurvious? surface area) it could work? Maybe not?
Also, I know that the 1500 feet is as good as gone(horse farm)., I just felt like this property was beyond what most would like to see. I have talked with so many people who saw this scenerio. I just think it is a matter of time until our homes on the opposite side are approched one by one..You can,if allowed, build much more on our side., I do not want to be forced to sell out, niether do the folks I have talked with.
|
Current time is 02:27 pm | Page: 1 2 3   |
|
|
|