| Moderated by: Steve Adkins | Topic closed | |
| Author | Post | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
SMHW Member
|
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 
|
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 
|
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 
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
dmauser Member
|
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 
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
dmauser Member
|
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
|
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 |
|||||||||||
|
happycamper Member 
|
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
|
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 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! |
|||||||||||
|
happycamper Member
|
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 
|
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?" |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member 
|
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
|
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
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
happycamper Member
|
"Lacka" ...One quick follow up... Do you feel you were intentionally left off? If so ,why? The land you mentioned close to the intersection, do you intend also to sell for commercial development? I have never approached anyone with a petition drive before., nor have I went to anyones home to ask for there support or signature. |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
You and your neighbors might consider drawing up another petition that asks the Town Council to pass a resolution to protect that side of the road from commercial development. It is not binding but has been used in the past to protect other places in Summerfield. The most notable is the resolution to protect part of 220 from commercial devleopment. I think considering the huge amount of residental development on that side it is a reasonable request at least for the time being. If it is something you think might work go talk to the Town planner or administrator about it. The resolution just reminds folks to stop and think about why the resolution was passed. Of course if somebody came along and most all sold your houses then that is another story. |
|||||||||||
|
Lacka Member
|
happycamper wrote: "Lacka" ...One quick follow up...I have no idea why I awas left off the petition. I do not have an intention of selling my property, but I certainly would if offered enough money. |
|||||||||||
|
happycamper Member
|
"lacka" wrote: I have no idea why I awas left off the petition. I do not have an intention of selling my property, but I certainly would if offered enough money. "Lacka" My neighbors and myself are as gulity as most for not being more involved in the town's planning. . Most folks at the meeting had never been to a meeting before, I would venture to say that this is true of 90% of the residents. I myself have only been to a few, once for our neighborhood., and a couple of times for friends over towards NW high school.. I guess I am, and most are, guilty of not being more involved unless it has a direct impact on our own lives., this is true in the local government, and in BIG government. Until something "stirs" us, we make the assumption that the folks elected feel the same way we do. I do not know who you are , but glad to know you are not intending to sell. You may want to contact Rich about being included on the petition drives in the future, he is the person the neighbors usually count on to make all the contacts.  |
|||||||||||
|
wepete Member
|
Cracker Jax wrote: 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.That's just wrong. |
|||||||||||
|
wepete Member
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: 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. Jane Please help me remember. I seem to remember that in the first meeting I attended after my surgery the council (Mike) referenced the CNA when he made the motion to rezone the land west of the nw corner of 150 and strawberry for one of the most intensive commercial zoning districts (I think Bob made the second and also cited the CNA). I was sitting next to a Zoning Board member who reminded me that particular corner was designated in the CNA as proper for LOW impact commercial zoning not high and the CNA was one major reason the ZB voted to deny the requested rezoning. Do I remember that corectly?... Didn't you vote against that rezoning?? |
|||||||||||
|
Cracker Jax Member
|
wepete wrote: Cracker Jax wrote: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.That's just wrong. So you agree with the petitioners that it is strictly a personal decision? That any zoning board member OR Town council member can just willy nilly make any ruling they desire, be it for personal gain or whatever? That it is not legal for the town council to go against the zoning board? Isn't the zoning board in place to make recommendations to the council? If they don't look at different aspects why even have a zoning board?? Why not just skip that step? You know I'll say I'm wrong if I am. Perhaps I didn't word that correctly. Perhaps you could better explain to Happy Camper (and me) why the Town Council CAN, and sometimes DOES rule differently than the zoning board. That's all I was trying to do. Feel free to take a crack at it. |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
wepete- I don't remember any development on the corner of 150 and Strawberry being approved for anything. I am trying to think and all I know is that big flat field at on the one corner. the Wincester develpment on the other corner, and houses of some sort on the other two corners. Who was asking to have it developed? I don't remember that intersection being appropriate for commercial in the CNA but I could be wrong. Refresh my memory. |
|||||||||||
|
happycamper Member
|
I am sort of begining to understand a little better as to where we went wrong as a group when we petioned the rezoning for the dentist office. . I do think the adopted Long Term Plan,although not a legal binding document( I don't think) is awful Grey in some areas. For Instance both The Doctor And I could pick a certain part out and make it pertain to us. for instance...Town Council will take special note that any new zoning requests are in harmony with existing uses and the desire of surrounding property owners. Commercial, industrial, institutional, or retail uses will require natural screening to limit visibility of buildings and provide a buffer from other categories of land use for instance..Scenic corridors are designated along streets and highways that are major gateways to Summerfield and which provide an important first impression of the Town and...Pedestrian safety and traffic volume along roadways will be considered in every proposed land use change The Town Core District strives to preserve and enhance the small-town character of central Summerfield. The diversity of the district is an important consideration in meeting the overall goal. By permitting a mix of low impact office, commercial, and institutional uses, the area( not Lake Brandt Road) will gain recognition as the center of social activities and commerce typical of many small towns. I made the mistake of only voicing my personal opinions, with the assumption that the council felt the same way I did . We(neighbors and I) thought that all we needed to do was sign up and show up., and leave it to the commission to sort out the details that could make it pass or fail.,and thought that the zoning boards decsion not to recomend played a larger role. The Doctor pulled out specifics that could have easily been used in our arguments as well. So Although it looks like it was all simply a "personal decision" I think that many of the goals in the long term plan could have also been applied. I just ( we just) presented this in the only fashion we new how, I don't have a Lawer in my family to advise me to stick to the specifics and leave the personal issue at home .. So how do you decide, what documents or parts of documents are more important than others. When the majority of the neighbors are against something, how much does this factor in? When the zoning board fails to give approval, what weight does that carry in the final decision.. And hey, when it comes to the Commercial needs assesment.. What is the difference in a major and a minor node>? Where, in terms of distance does a node fit in. I looked up the definition of a node: the best I could could come up with was a place in space where two or more lines cross, or possibly a tree where the branches start to form., or a collection of tissue in the body. |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
What good questions? I got involved in the Town politics over a rezoning issue not even in my neighborhood because I had very personal feelings about my vision that the property should remain a horse farm because it was so beautiful. It was and is Henson Farms. What I learned was the Council is charged with maintaining first off the safety of the Town but after that some sort of rational plan that the Town generally agrees on. That is what the Long range plan is and the commercial needs assessment and hopefully some sort of master plan to give guidance to the officials. But North Carolina is a huge property rights state. It is your property and you have the right to develop it as you see fit. So there is this huge balancing act to allow people their property rights but yet the feedom to develop their property as they see fit and maintain a vision for the collective town. It is not possible or practical to contain all the commercial develpment in the Town core so then the commercial needs assessment looked at where else it made sense to allow the growth. Lake Brandt Road of course was one of the places since it was already growing that way. So the next step was what and how much growth to allow since it was already there where did it need to stop. now I say stop but somebody else might say let the market drive the need. In my opinion the commercial needs assessment gave the council guide lines that protect you also. It prevents your next doorneighbor from deciding to put in a business because they want to or some big box store from buying up the neighborhood. As I remember Lake Brandt is a minor node which determines what kind of commercial development can go in on the corners. Low density which is what the dentist office will be. No big box stores or high traffic businesses, manufacturing etc will be allowed. As to our responsibility as citizens of Summerfield, we need to be involved in directing the vision. It is to late if the vision has already been arrived at to have much impact. I am a great believer in the Town having a vision so we know where we are going and the council knows what to do. This hopefully gives some protection to the Town. Unfortunately development is king in our current culture. Our economy will only survive is we buy more. But on the other hand I would be very unhappy if I had property that I could not sell for top dollar because my neighbors wanted to look at my horse farm. There in lies the dilemma. Sorry to be so long winded. It is a very very complicated subject trying to to be fair and balancing the scales between the individual and the groupl |
|||||||||||
|
wepete Member
|
Cracker Jax wrote:
I sometimes wonder about why we take that step too. But, believe it or not, we have one ordinance and one set of rules for both board and council. They have exactly the same legal requirements for approval or denying. My best guesses why they differ.... sometimes the ZB gets tied up in not-so-pertinent issues. Sometimes the council does. You'd not know from the way they do things it but only in the case of conditional zoning are the plans actually something to consider in a rezoning. When they view the plans in association with a rezoning they are doing so wrongly. (yep Pappy in know wrongly I learnt better in schol ) Many times the applicant changes the plans to compensate for the ZB concerns. In my experience it was frequently number of butts for or against in the chairs. One board is appointed and doesn't care so much, the other is elected and plays to the crowd. Also we tend to train our board members but think an election makes council members inherently smarter. I think the vote should be to uphold the ZB recommendations or not (and why)... I think that would make the dual step process a lot more meaningful |
|||||||||||
|
wepete Member
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: wepete- I don't remember any development on the corner of 150 and Strawberry being approved for anythingMy Mistake... 150 and lake Brandt was what I was thinking you know where the vet hospital was planed for a while... sorry |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
Wepete I voted against the vets office going in behind the gas station but then the fire department hopscotched over several property's and pretty much doomed the properties in between to commercial. There was also a zoning on 150 just past the brick store that allowed for a higher density development in order to get the cabinet shop in as I remember. I was against that also because if and when the cabinet shop leaves then it would open up the property around for a higher commercial density use. As I remember I thought they should come in as CU and get the cabinet shop in that way. I think the vet office next door is correctly zoned to keep the area a minor node. |
|||||||||||
|
wepete Member
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: There was also a zoning on 150 just past the brick store that allowed for a higher density development in order to get the cabinet shop in as I remember. I was against that alsoYep that was the one I was talking about. It was told to me by a member of the ZB that You voted with the zoning board who had cited the reference that area should stay low impact. I remember being very proud of you doing your homework.... thought you were taking my place (grin) Think my original point was you were the only member that voted the development should go the way the CNA said it should DESPITE the member making the motion to approve cited the CNA as the reason for the motion. (Darn near confuzzed myself Pappy) |
|||||||||||
|
wepete Member
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: I voted against the vets office going in behind the gas station but then the fire department hopscotched over several property's and pretty much doomed the properties in between to commercial.that was exactly my point on the mixed use planned for the town core...hmmmmm |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
The Town had no say so over the fire department as you know. As to the Town Core I understand there were to be areas that would not be mixed. But the truth of the matter is there is way less commercial on Old Summerfield road then there was 50 years ago. |
|||||||||||
|
writingrider Member
|
This is my first post so I apologise if this is out of order. I hear that they are to tear down that wonderful house because of "structural damage" but, was that reported before or after the removed the roof and let it rain inside? I hate to see our buildings go. I'm the only teen my age I know that feels this way. The Brick Store was my favorite place to go after school. Now that it's empty, all I can do is drive by and wonder who will buy or rent it. I would love that to be a historical museum for what used to be Hillsdale or an antique shop. |
|||||||||||
|
EditorPS Administrator 
|
Welcome to the Forum writingrider! Your comments are not at all out of order, and we look forward to having your input. As to the order of reporting on the structural damage, I can't say. I did speak to the agent for NAI Maxwell about the house and she said that they had intended to restore it until they started work on it, at which time they discovered the structure "had been compromised." As for the Hillsdale Brick Store, yes an antique store or museum would be wonderful there. Let's hope an antique dealer will contact the owner and pursue that before someone else makes a move! |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
Welcome Writingrider. Cracker or Macca aren't around and they are the official welcomers after our Leader Patti that is. No order here. Jump in when ever. I too was disapointed to hear that they couldn't save the old house on the Stratton development. I hope something good goes into the brick store. I enjoyed the gifts upstairs at the hardware store so much. Got the neatest presents for people. |
|||||||||||
|
happycamper Member
|
I too thought when they pulled off the roof, which had protected it for years and years, and replaced it with a $ 50.00 blue tarp.,something was strange! I have also heard, only thru the grapevine, that now a bank will be put on the corner. This area is in the Watershed so only a certain percentage can be structure,parking lot, etc..Hmmm...very interesting... also the dirt that has been moved around in a manner up to the corner that looks very much like a nice place to erect a building of some sort..just about the same size as the old home place., imagine that.. |
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member
|
Pappy thought savin' the old house was one of the best parts o' that deal. It's a real shame it didn't work out. I hope the brick store still has some life in it. That intersection needs some work 'fore they do any more! |
|||||||||||
|
writingrider Member
|
I agree Pappy, and happycamper- that it strangly ironic huh? They tore off thf roof just to have the stupid tarp blow off and let it rain all inside. I've always wanted to see the inside of that house but I guess I acted too late. they tore it down this afternoon. Last edited on May 12th, 2006 01:15 am by writingrider |
|||||||||||
|
happycamper Member
|
Yep, I saw the old house go as well. It's a shame...This was originally part of the deal in the development, or so I thought...Probably a "loophole" in the fine print. To me, it is a little sad to see some of the old buildings, homes, and farms fall by the wayside, particularly to commercial buildings, no matter how small. These things brought me to Summerfield 20 years ago...and I kinda wanted the children to have the same opportunity to see these things as they grow up. Anyone can drive a short drive and see offices,stores,and resturants..."writingrider" you say you are a "teen", I hope you have a good memory, please take plenty of mental pictures.  things they are a changin'...Last edited on May 12th, 2006 04:29 pm by happycamper |
|||||||||||
|
writingrider Member
|
oh, I assure you, this history will not be forgotten, I doubt there is a day in which I don't make note of everything. |
|||||||||||
|
Bubba Guest
|
Hated to see the house go too, BUT I went in years ago when the family had the auction and it was in bad shape back then. The ceilings were only about 6 ,no more than 7 feet. I could touch it. happycamper: farmers can't afford to life here anymore, and the kids don't want that life style. I do give credit to the family that owned the corner. They did keep it going for a long time. Don't know them personally, but I do know the developers call the eldery farmers weekly and you know all the headaches that go along with large amount of land......big new neighborhoods that think it's their own personally woods. The land is not worth losing over a lawsuit. Sell |
|||||||||||
|
writingrider Member
|
Bubba: Actually my family farms, and we have enough money to get along fine right now. As for the house, were the ceilings low from sagging or just low? If they were simply low that's due to the architecture of the time period. Why do you say "sell? at the bottom of your previous post? The farm my family owns right now, I admit is slightly run down, but that's due to other issues. We just hate to see all of our history of the 'farming community' go. |
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member
|
Pappy knows about slightly run down. I'm glad you're making notes of all the changes, writingrider. That'll mean a lot one day. |
|||||||||||
