| Author | Post |
|---|
StewartM
Member
| Joined: | Oct 31st, 2005 |
| Location: | Chicken Coop |
| Posts: | 1149 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Feb 15th, 2007 11:47 am |
|
summerfieldrd wrote: I think they were planning to sell anyway. More lots would have meant more money.
If they have 320 open lots and can't manage to make money, how is 50 more going to save the day?
50 x $50,000 = $2500000.00
will $2500000.00 save your day
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 15th, 2007 12:12 pm |
|
StewartM wrote: summerfieldrd wrote: I think they were planning to sell anyway. More lots would have meant more money.
If they have 320 open lots and can't manage to make money, how is 50 more going to save the day?
50 x $50,000 = $2500000.00
will $2500000.00 save your day
I still suggest that the financial status of the developer or a development should have no bearing on land use policies and decisions. Nor should such conditions enter into discussions of the appropriateness of a particular use or zoning district.
Regulation of property uses by local government planning is innate to the specific property and not the property owner, who always has the choice to sell the zoned property before, during or after the rezoning process to another user who may elect a quite different use for the same property. That is why all focus should be on a specific property and not a specific property owner.
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
summerfieldrd
Banned
| Joined: | Dec 15th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 81 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 15th, 2007 12:48 pm |
|
StewartM wrote: summerfieldrd wrote: I think they were planning to sell anyway. More lots would have meant more money.
If they have 320 open lots and can't manage to make money, how is 50 more going to save the day?
50 x $50,000 = $2500000.00
will $2500000.00 save your day
Not when you already have 320 x 50,000 = $16,000,000 on the table left to develop. Sorry, consider that money saved from our 90 acre park we never got.
And while we are talking Armfield, thank GOD we have some TC members with some intelligence!
____________________
The only constant in the universe is change.
|
summerfieldrd
Banned
| Joined: | Dec 15th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 81 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 15th, 2007 12:56 pm |
|
Jim Flynt wrote: StewartM wrote: summerfieldrd wrote: I think they were planning to sell anyway. More lots would have meant more money.
If they have 320 open lots and can't manage to make money, how is 50 more going to save the day?
50 x $50,000 = $2500000.00
will $2500000.00 save your day
I still suggest that the financial status of the developer or a development should have no bearing on land use policies and decisions. Nor should such conditions enter into discussions of the appropriateness of a particular use or zoning district.
Regulation of property uses by local government planning is innate to the specific property and not the property owner, who always has the choice to sell the zoned property before, during or after the rezoning process to another user who may elect a quite different use for the same property. That is why all focus should be on a specific property and not a specific property owner.
Exactly! Just cause I jump up and scream I'm going bankrupt doesn't mean Summerfield is going to rezone my property so that I can line my pockets more. Summerfield would have been foolish to fall prey to such nonsense.
____________________
The only constant in the universe is change.
|
Hairbrush
Member
| Joined: | Jan 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 119 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 15th, 2007 01:53 pm |
|
I think under the original zoning there will only be around 290 lots (still a pretty penny). I have to say I applaud all the council members in their vote. It wasn't easy and there were definitely 2 sides to look at. The new re-zoning (had it passed) still met the ordinances of the OSRD. I think everyone on the council struggled with how they would vote. They happened to have a difference in opinion and that is why Summerfield has a council that hopefully represents all citizens of Summerfield. I think they all truly had the best interest of Summerfield in the fore front.
My concern, and my concern if I were a home owner in Armfield, is what happens now. What if they don't sell any more lots and the property sits empty? Who upkeeps it? It is not a working farm any more. Will it just be allowed to grow up into scrub brush? Have the roads been turned over to DOT yet? If not, then who upkeeps them? I do think the land will eventually sell, but what kind of homes will come in? I do think that Summerfield needs affordable housing but is this the area? You have Henson Farms and Henson Forest in this area. I don't know the answers to these questions but they are things to consider.
I never thought the property should have been developed in the first place but then I never wanted Henson Farms developed either but I didn't have the money to pay for those pieces of properties and certainly can't blame the families for selling the land. I might be in their shoes one day. I would hope no one would hold it against me or my family if we sold the farm at market value. I do know that if Summerfield citizens are serious about stopping development then we need to set up a program where we can buy land at market value and afford to upkeep that land for the use of Summerfield. Orange County has a program and the Town of Troy (I think I have the right town) does also.
|
bama80
Member
|
Posted: Feb 15th, 2007 02:29 pm |
|
| I think an 18 hole golf course and swimming pool club would be nice over there. The Oak Ridge club has like 2-3 year waiting list now. Then I would jsut need to convince my wife that i need to join so they can go swimming while I hone my skills on the course.
____________________
Roll Tide and Go Pack. Maybe or maybe not in that order. [insert profound quote here]
This post will self destruct in 10.......9......8....
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 17th, 2007 08:26 am |
|
February 17, 2007
Editorial
Humpty-Dumpty Housing
There is no sugarcoating the latest news on the United States housing market. The slump in home prices from the end of 2005 to the end of 2006 was the biggest year-over-year drop since the National Association of Realtors started keeping track in 1982. There are no reasons to believe that’s the worst of it.
Prices fell in 73 of the nation’s 149 major markets in the last quarter of 2006, compared with 45 declining markets in the third quarter, revealing a downturn that is not only deep but wide.
At the same time, the number of existing-home sales declined in 40 states, with precipitous drops in previously red-hot markets like Arizona, Florida, Nevada, California and Virginia.
On top of that, a glut of unsold homes virtually ensures that prices will fall further before sales pick up. At the end of 2006, the vacancy rate for family homes was the highest it has been since the Commerce Department started keeping records in 1956.
Yet it came as a shock to many economists yesterday when the government reported that construction of new homes fell in January by 14.3 percent. The consensus forecast had been for a drop of less than 3 percent.
The bust will slow job growth this year in construction and related industries and with it, consumer spending. The severity of these economic side effects will depend on the strength of the overall job market and the stability of interest rates — both of which are anybody’s guess.
Squarely in harm’s way, however, are low- and middle-income homeowners, many of whom have mortgages with rates that are due to adjust upward this year and next. With delinquencies already surging, it is inevitable that a combination of higher mortgage payments and weakening home prices will cause many homeowners to default.
Lenders and regulators should prepare to do all they can to help. During the housing bubble, regulators stood by as mortgages were extended to borrowers with poor or no credit and little or no money for a down payment. Now that delinquencies and defaults are rising, lending standards are being tightened dramatically. That will make it harder for many existing homeowners to refinance their loans, thus hastening defaults. Lenders and regulators must use the utmost flexibility in applying the new standards. They got marginal buyers into the homes in the first place. They should now make every effort to keep them there.
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
DOGGETTJA
Member
| Joined: | Oct 24th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 17th, 2007 11:23 am |
|
Jim I heard some of this yesterday. Good editorial. Maybe it will take the pressure off us in the Northwest for awhile. I hear 3 years is what is being predicted for the slump.
Maybe we will be able to catch up on ball fields and put in place some of the things that will improve the Town before the next surge. Probably though the next surge will be in Rocking ham, Caswell and some of the surrounding counties.
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Feb 19th, 2007 02:39 pm |
|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MONDAY, FEB. 19, 2007
Contact:
Brian Long, director
NCDA&CS Public Affairs
(919) 733-4216, ext. 242
North Carolina leads nation in loss of farms … again
State lost 1,000 farms in 2005, USDA report says
RALEIGH – North Carolina lost 1,000 farms during 2005, tying Florida and Tennessee for first place in the nation, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
These latest numbers continue a trend in North Carolina, which lost 3,000 farms in 2004, also tops in the nation.
“North Carolina is a leading agricultural state, but losing farms is one category where I don’t want us to be No. 1,” said Agriculture Commissioner Steve Troxler. “Farm loss has become a chronic problem here. We’ve lost more than 6,000 farms and 300,000 acres of farmland since 2002.
“Development pressure and economic uncertainty make a deadly duo for family farms,” Troxler said. “And fewer farms mean fewer jobs.”
North Carolina had 48,000 farms at the beginning of 2006, down from 49,000 a year earlier, according to USDA’s annual report on farm numbers and acreage.
Aside from Tennessee, North Carolina’s neighboring states fared better. South Carolina gained 100 farms during 2005, Georgia saw no change and Virginia lost only 200 farms. Nationally, the number of farms declined by 8,900 during 2005, the report said.
Troxler said his top priority during the 2007 legislative session is to obtain funding for the Agricultural Development and Farmland Preservation Trust Fund.
The General Assembly created the trust fund in 2005 to provide money for programs that preserve working farms and protect farmland from development. Unlike some state trust funds, the ADFP Trust Fund does not have a dedicated source of funding and must rely on the legislature for appropriations. The fund received $50,000 in 2005 and nothing last year.
“Agriculture employs 17 percent of our state’s workforce and contributes $68 billion to the economy,” Troxler said. “As global demand for food increases, we can’t afford for farmland to be taken out of production. We must put more resources into preserving our family farms.”
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
S. Smith
Moderator
|
Posted: Feb 19th, 2007 04:01 pm |
|
I just wanted to respond to the earlier post about if and when the Armfield developers could bring this issue back up. I checked with Michael Brandt, Summerfield Town Administrator, who told me this:
"Sandra- Here is the development ordinance regarding the rezoning requirements. A Conditional Use zoning is a specific type of zoning and an applicant can file a second rezoning for the same parcel or portion thereof if the change to the conditions are determined to be enough to equal a different zoning district. I can not say what that would take it make it different until an application is filed.
"Armfield has only filed one rezoning in the past 12 months so they are eligible to apply for a new rezoning if they choose. In addition, they may submit a new master sketch and subdivision as long as it meets the original zoning conditions. Approval will be by the zoning board, with appeal to council if denied.
Armfield is also scheduled to be on the next Town Council agenda to discuss the offer of dedication of the 90 acres for a public park. I do not know what to expect from this public hearing."
Here is the section of the ordinance:
Filing of Application:
No application for rezoning to the same district shall be filed within a one (1) year period from the date of final action on the previous rezoning request (other than a withdrawal, subject to the provisions of Section 3-12.2(F) Application Withdrawal, prior to the public hearing) on a given parcel of land or portion thereof unless the Zoning Board determines that evidence submitted to them merits consideration for a public hearing at their next meeting.
]A second request for the same parcel of land or portion thereof for a different zoning district may occur within a one (1) year period from final action on the initial request.
Under no circumstances may more than two (2) zoning map amendments be filed for rezoning a given parcel of land or any portion thereof within any one (1) year period.
Last edited on Feb 19th, 2007 04:03 pm by S. Smith
|
FatPappy
Member
| Joined: | Oct 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield, USA |
| Posts: | 3245 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: May 6th, 2007 12:10 pm |
|
| Looks like Armfield park is back on the agenda fer the next meetin'. Sounds like they're talkin' 'bout enough land fer mebbe 3 soccer fields with no lights. I reckon they're hopin' there'll be people livin' around it one day that might be bothered by the lights.
____________________
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
|
DOGGETTJA
Member
| Joined: | Oct 24th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: May 9th, 2007 11:37 am |
|
| the council voted last night to accept the 30 acre proposed soccer fields from the Armifields along with $250,000 paid over the next 5 years. They also get to name the park. Seems like a fair solution to an issue that has gone on for years.
|
ff12
Member
| Joined: | Oct 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 310 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: May 10th, 2007 02:55 am |
|
why no lights, i always enjoyed playing under the lights. Kind of gave it that big time professional tv feel.
|
DOGGETTJA
Member
| Joined: | Oct 24th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: May 10th, 2007 10:10 am |
|
| neighborhood concerns. That was just part of the settlement.
|
Current time is 01:00 pm | Page:   ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|