| Moderated by: EditorPS | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
summerfieldrd Banned
|
How come no one cares that Armfield developers cheated the town out of 60 acres worth of park? Then, they have the audacity to ask us to rezone that property originally agreed to us, so they could line their pockets even more. I don't know about anyone else, but I am FURIOUS! If our TC allows them to build, I say WAR! They can have their additional lots when they fulfill their initial agreement. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
A promise made is a debt unpaid. From The Cremation of Sam McGee by Robert Service, Canadian Poet |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member 
|
I too think it is time that the Armfield issue is settled. What is happening is they want to swap the 90 acres of openspace/passive park for 20? acres of more useable land and then turn around and use the 90 acres for off site septic plus rezoning for a bunch more lots. In my opinion the park absolutely has to be settled before anything else is done. They have stalled for years now and it is time for Summerfield to say give us the deed to the 90 acres. I think the 20 acres backing up to the city of Greensboro land is possibly a good deal. We could have a situation like we have with the current Summerfield park where we lease the land from the city. But I feel the Armfields if that is a consideration should bring that option to the Town wrapped and a done deal. The Town should not be spending its time or taxpayers money on trying to help Armfield salvage their disaster. Then the issue of added lots comes up. Under no condition would I allow Armfield to lessen the amount of open space required under the ordinance for Osrd. They are asking for duplexes/twin houses and I am sure "affordable Housing" will be thrown around. I want the Town to establish a definition for affordable housing. I am sure the Feds have one and I bet it isn't 250 thousand +. The Armfield group has stalled long enough. It is time that they forfill their obligations before daring to ask for any other considerations. Oops off my soap box at least temporarily. |
|||||||||||
|
dmauser Member
|
Jane and others, I think that most of us want to believe what people say, but once rezoning is done promises go out the door. Remember I spoke in opposition of rezoning of the house (Hoskins)in front of Summerfield School, I was afraid of too much traffic. The developer said that it was for his company and only his wife, himself and son would be coming and going. Well know its a real estate office (extremely nice, but much more traffic) and I have heard that they want to build other offices. We need offices, but this is the problem with rezoning... people lie. No way shoud Armfield be allowed to pull the wool over our eyes. Give us the land! debora |
|||||||||||
|
ff12 Member 
|
As much as I hate to suggest this , maybe its time for a good old American lawsuit. |
|||||||||||
|
summerfieldrd Banned
|
Mama always said: "A snake is nowhere near as dangerous, as long as you know where it's layin'." At least we are aware of the ones that lie to us. I think it's time we show these blasted developers they can't roll in here and sling some money and walk all over the citizens of Summerfield. This is OUR town! Do what you say or get the the bleep out. We don't need your money that bad. And yes, it sounds like a good ole' American lawsuit. I would be happy to pay more taxes to support such an endeavor, should it become necessary. And for the next time: Sign over that deed BEFORE the rezoning goes down. |
|||||||||||
|
Hairbrush Member
|
Isn't the original 90 acres on the deed? I am not sure of that. At the November council meeting Summerfield Properties brought up how they planned to give the town 20 acres instead of the 90 acres. I do think the 20 acres will be much more useable for us, but they need to do something now. They also worked out that the Armfield Foundation would fund the park. How convenient for the developer. BS and DC were gushing all over the developer about what a great example he was setting. A great example would have been immediately handing over the original 90 acres or coming up with the 20 acres and having everything set to go so that construction could start. Not this stall tactic they are using. They think it will sweeten the deal for their re-zoning case. I sure hope not. Mary Doggett brought up the fact that BS and DC were being blinded by this so call good deed that Summerfield Properties was doing but all BS could say was that Armfield foundation was a non-profit. So what, the develper isn't and armfield foundation didn't promise the town the land, Summerfield Properties did. I think it is great that Armfield Foundation is going to get involved. I think they are a wonderful non-profit. I am just saddened to think they have to step to straighten out this mess. |
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member 
|
This whole situation makes me sick. They made a deal. Make 'em stick to it or come up with a better deal, but let's get it settled. They're takin' us fer idiots. Meanwhile the young'uns that could be usin' the ballfields are gettin' older. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
I am more than a little surprised that the whole town of Summerfield isn't covered with large white political type signs with huge bold letters outlined in red with the message to Town Council: SAY NO TO ARMFIELD. |
|||||||||||
|
summerfieldrd Banned
|
Jane: Do you know of anywhere I could access a map to see this "wonderful" 20 acres? I am having great difficulty trying to fathom how any 20 acres could be better than 90 acres. I personally know of several people who can work wonders with a track loader. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Try this online weblink to the Guilford County Mapping services/system: gisweb.co.guilford.nc.us/sdx/viewer.htm |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
Summerfieldrd The 90 acres is in flood plain, many gulleys, and far from the road. While any land undeveloped is good this land is very not suitable for anything other than walking trails. The 20 acres on the other hand is on Brookbank Rd close to the little short dirt road on the left as you go towards NW school before the bridge. Banning Rd. I couldn't remember the name. It is flat easily accessible and has the potential of the 50 acres of city land behind it. While track loaders can do wonderful things. Summerfield has a long range plan that forces developers to identify primary conservation land which includes flood plain, steep gulleys, contiguous tree stands things like that. The developer then is charged with protecting those things in open space. Would not be cool even if possible for Summerfield to go in and destroy the very areas we consider important. better to leave it with the developer if ballfields are what we need and take this more ballfield friendly land. |
|||||||||||
|
summerfieldrd Banned
|
Could this property, essentially, fill the ball field void that Summerfield so desperately needs filled? Is this the panacea that would save the town millions in land acquisition/development? It seems we have plenty of walking trails in the area. While it's hard to grasp giving up 70 acres, I can see your point. But if we were to take the 20 acres, will they still develop the other 90 acre tract, themselves? Why, exactly, is it that we don't already have the 90 acres in our possession, developed, etc.? Forgive me for not being completely up to speed as I am unable to make many of the meetings, but catch most of the minutes from the NW observer and this forum. |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
The 20 acres will provide 3 unlighted soccer fields which the Town has none of right now. There are meetings to be held with Mayor Holiday about the other 50 acres so I am not sure what else might be possible. The 90 acres will be used some for off sight septic but will basically be kept undeveloped per the ordinance and conditions of develpement. The Town has also identified 2 other pieces of land of 20 and 30 acres sizes that could serve as ball fields with lights. One is on 220 where the old car dump use to be and the other is on Summerfield RD down close to the old Food Lion shopping center. I personally of the 2 pieces identified think the piece on Summerfield Rd is the best. It has good location, low housing density, very flat but there are some significant issues which have to be worked out first. The Town is also doing a Master Plan and that plan should identify how much more park land and ballfields a Town out size would hope to have over the next 20 years. What we know right now is we don't have enough. Hope that helps put some of the pieces together Summerfieldrd. |
|||||||||||
|
summerfieldrd Banned
|
Yes, Jane, thank you! Whatever happens, Armfield needs to get in gear! They said 90 acres years ago. I think they should give us the 90 acres and the extra 20 for putting up with all their.... |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
Now that is a good idea. |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member 
|
YES SUMMERFIELD NEEDS BALLFIELDS! But at what price. 90 acres in trade for 3 soccer fields without lights? Not an even trade in my book but it is something. At least we are getting Armfield to progress towards something positive. Years have passed and still nothing like was promised by the developers. Yes I was at the big party and remember what was said how there would be Baseball fields and recreation for all of Summerfield, but I guess this was just some smooth talk and lies to get what they wanted. So lets look to the future. Lets make all developers keep their promise to what they said originally. Not let them do what they want to after the fact. All rezoning should be truthful and made to be upheld to what the developer said they would do with the property. For instance the realty office across from the school. That would have made a great library. |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
Unfortunately Baseball buddy when the Town investigated bringing the Hoskin's house up to code for a library it would have cost close to a million dollars not the mention the addition that would have had to be built because it was not big enough for a library. The neighbors are unhappy with it has a realty office I can just imagine how they would have felt with more parking, more lights, more traffic. When th Town investigated it for a sheriff substation the Hoskin Family with drew it. The house needed major renovations and no home owners were looking at it to salvage it as a single family rsidence. I think it would have been awfully sad to see that landmark of a house fall in to anymore disrepair and then ultmately be torn down. I think that the realty office while not the perfect solution was a good solution for that old house. The house is cared for and being used. |
|||||||||||
|
happycamper Member 
|
"Lets make all developers keep their promise to what they said originally. Not let them do what they want to after the fact. All rezoning should be truthful and made to be upheld to what the developer said they would do with the property" I agree totally with the above! Why let these guys off the hook, they made a promise that should be kept! To me the worst thing that can happen is that they are allowed to give Summerfield any less than promised, be it in land, or the equivalent in $$ towards the purchase of usable land! Why are developers allowed to stand before the council and local citizens and tell anything other than the truth about their intentions for the property? Once a buyer of property, either a developer, or a individual, has property re zoned for housing or commercial ( ie. Lake Brandt Road area). they should have to stick to what they told the zoning board,the town council, the citizens, and the local residents As it stands, once a piece of property gets rezoned for a different use, watch out..! What winds up on the property may be totally different than what was mentioned during the rezoning process! |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
Happy Camper you are exactly right about that. The only thing legally binding at a rezoning is the actual rezoning. Only the site plan showing the actual buildings, parking etc is legally binding as to what goes on the rezoned piece of property. I always found it difficult to rezone not having a site plan to follow up with because the devloper might get up and promise that if you rezoned their piece of property they were only going to put a particular building when in fact with out the site plan to approve after the rezoning anything that is legal with in that rezoning is permissable. That's how these misunderstandings happen. The developer is not legally bound until the actual site plan is approved. Most of these developers do not live in the area and they want to maximize their returns. |
|||||||||||
|
Hairbrush Member
|
Would not a pud help with some of the confusion. Doesn't a developer have to actually show the site plan to get the pud zoning and then has to follow that plan? |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
I understand that is one of the advantages of PUD's is you get the whole picture all at the same time. I know my time on the council I certainly would have appreciated that instead of hoping for the best at the time of rezoning. |
|||||||||||
|
summerfieldrd Banned
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: I understand that is one of the advantages of PUD's is you get the whole picture all at the same time. I know my time on the council I certainly would have appreciated that instead of hoping for the best at the time of rezoning. I think the PUD is beginning to sound like a "must have." Off topic, but, Jane, thank you for the insight you bring to this forum. It is obvious to even the most casual observer that you have nothing but the best intentions for Summerfield and its citizens. We cannot stick our head in the sand and let the cards fall where they may. Decisions have to be made, and sometimes they will be wrong. As everyone knows, hindsight is 20/20; we cannot allow fear of a wrong decision keep us from indecision. Sometimes we need to think outside of ourselves and do what is best for the ENTIRE community (like those poor folks with contaminated wells who are also suffering from property depreciation). Sorry - soap box gone!  Last edited on Dec 29th, 2006 07:00 pm by summerfieldrd |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Perhaps Jane can shed some light on one more consideration which might provide some protection in rezoning cases. Guilford County allows what is known or called 'Conditional Use' rezonings wherein the zoning is subject to 'conditions' which the developer attaches to his rezoning request at the time of application for rezoning. These conditions are thus binding on the property being requested for rezoning if the planning board and county commissioners approve the rezoning request. No site plan is required at the time of the rezoning request submission to bind these conditions offered by the developer within his rezoning application. My question to Jane is whether or not Summerfield has the same provisions as Guilford County which would allow 'Conditional Use' rezoning requests? If not, they should be seriously considered as yet another tool to assist in land planning and managing growth. What a governmental body cannot do is force a developer into what is called "contract zoning" where in limiting conditions are forced on the developer without their permission. The governmental body can either approve or disapprove of the rezoning, but cannot make the rezoning conditional upon actions outside of those imposed by the zoning ordinance or land use plan requirements for all other similarly zoned properties. It seems to me, that in the Armfield rezoning case, the Town of Summerfield should have turned down the initial request for rezoning and advised the applicant that if they wanted to bring the request back as a 'conditional use' request with one of the conditions being that the applicant and or developer would donate and deed X number of acres to the Town of Summerfield. That would have been a legally binding condition of the rezoning which could have been enforced prior to the actual change in use and sale of housing units in the Armfield development. I spent two terms as a member of the Guilford County Planning Board back in the 1970's so I am pretty familiar with zoning and land use matters and ordinances. It should also be noted that our newest Town Councilman in Stokesdale, Powell Shelton also served as a member of the Guilford County Planning Board prior to my years of service, and I greatly respect Powell's perspective on land use matters. Last edited on Dec 29th, 2006 07:03 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
"whether or not Summerfield has the same provisions as Guilford County which would allow 'Conditional Use' rezoning requests? If not, they should be seriously considered as yet another tool to assist in land planning and managing growth." Summerfield does have conditional use and in fact Armfield is a conditional use rezoning in which 90 acres is to be deeded to Summerfield as a park. During the rezoning process there were grandiose pictures and maps of the Edward Armfield park which the developer was going to provide to the Town. The park itself was not part of the rezoning just the deeding of the land so once the rezoning happened all those plans and maps disappeared. One of the other conditions was that only so many houses would be built. Now we find out that Armfield developer is requesting 50 more lots and to swap the 90 acres which they need for off site septic for the 20 acres on the road with soccer fields. For ball fields and on the road the 20 acres is better deal for the Town. I think the issue is that something needs to happen. I feel that the developer should be delivering either the deed to the 90 acres or the deed to the 20 acres plus the money to develop the park or something. The Town should not be negotiated in good faith and certainly 5 years is long enough for the Armfield developer to do something. |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
Jim- I had not thought about your definition of contract zoning. What we were always warned about by the Town attorney was the never giving the implication that if you the developer will do this then we the council will do that. The developer was instructed to bring the rezoning and conditions and the council had to consider what was brought with out any bargaining. |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
Summerfieldrd Thanks for the kind words. I have lived here a long time and hope my time on the council I will be viewed as leaving the Town a little better than I found it. |
|||||||||||
|
ff12 Member
|
Let Armfield buy the other 20 acre sight to help compensate for their "mistake". Also keep the 20 acres they want to give now for daytime use only. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: Jim- I had not thought about your definition of contract zoning. What we were always warned about by the Town attorney was the never giving the implication that if you the developer will do this then we the council will do that. Jane, I think you are correct in your comments and understanding. The legal issues of 'contract zoning' with some comments regarding 'conditional rezoning' are better explained in an excellent article found on the UNC Institute of Government website for NC Planning Law issues regarding 'contract zoning' (including legal definitions) as follows: http://www.ncplan.unc.edu/keyissues/contr.htm Last edited on Dec 30th, 2006 01:48 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
summerfieldrd Banned
|
|
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
I also wonder how they can have that rezoning approved when they have not forfilled the conditions on the previous zoning. I am not sure that Jim does not have a good idea that some No to Armfield signs shouldn't go up in Summerfield. This is exactly what we worried about with the zoning ordinances and open space 10 years ago. Developers would come in promise all this open space to get their development and then come back years later and try to use the open space to develop. I hope there is a lot of oposition Tuesday to this. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: I am not sure that Jim does not have a good idea that some No to Armfield signs shouldn't go up in Summerfield. Jane please let me know if you need a contribution to the 'No To Armfield' sign fund. I would be more than happy to contribute. Last edited on Jan 5th, 2007 11:36 am by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
summerfieldrd Banned
|
Jim Flynt wrote: DOGGETTJA wrote:I am not sure that Jim does not have a good idea that some No to Armfield signs shouldn't go up in Summerfield. I second that! |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member 
|
summerfieldrd wrote:Jim Flynt wrote:DOGGETTJA wrote:I am not sure that Jim does not have a good idea that some No to Armfield signs shouldn't go up in Summerfield. Surely with all that wood Pappy has had Mammy choppin' there is enough scraps to make some darn good signs!!! I can help with the spellin'! |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
I was tipped off yesterday (and have confirmed) that Summerfield Properties, LLC. deeded 30 +/- acres to the Town of Summerfield on December 29, 2006 (the last business day of 2006) at 4:37 PM. The deed is recorded in Guilford County at Deed Book 6656, Pages 744-747. Obviously, by recording such a deed on the last day of the year, whomever recorded it, had to have been aware and probably desirous of the fact that this real estate transfer information would not be published in the local newspapers nor made public prior to tonight's Summerfield Town Council meeting. As a note, a 'grantor' cannot legally deed property to a grantee without the permission of a 'grantee', so the question arises as to whether or not the Town of Summerfield had adopted a resolution to accept this 30 acres, or whether this is simply an ill conceived yet shameless stunt to surprise the Summerfield Town Council with tonight in hopes of providing the developer with a bargaining chip. In any event, it would seem to certainly indicate that the Armfield developer is trying to force the Town of Summerfield into accepting what would be a good deal for the developer and a bad deal for the Town of Summerfield. Anyone can verify the information I have posted here about this real estate transfer by simply visiting the website for the Guilford County Register of Deeds and then doing a property transfer search. I plan on attending the Summerfield Town Council meeting tonight to see how this drama unfolds. My questions to all are: What's Up? What's the Inside Scoop? Is the 'fix' in? Has a 'deal' already been 'done' behind the scenes in some smoke filled backroom? Last edited on Jan 9th, 2007 10:58 am by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
Jim that is pretty interesting. I was not aware that the Town had finished negotiating the park issue with Armfield's but maybe they had. Again I hope the council will listen to the zoning board and turn down therequest to rezone 50 more houses? Was the number of houses requested the first time not part of the conditions of rezoning? Can a developer just come back in later years and say " Oh yeah we don't like those conditions so here are some different ones?" I hope the residents in Armfields come down and offer opinions tonight because I think they have the right to expect to live in a certain community with out it suddenly enlarging tremendously. Armfield's was sold as a community that open space was important and with lower density now suddenly its not so important. I feel like the Town has never been told the truth from the beginning on this project and that atitude continues. Look forward to seeing you tonight Jim and hope lots of others. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Jane, one other note that I might add. It is my understanding from the 'word on the street' in the real estate (development) community (from sources which have been reliable in the past), that the reason for this request for higher density for the Armfield project, is because the current developer has experienced less than expected financial returns and that a large (national) builder is waiting in the wings to buy this project or the project lots IF the Town of Summerfield ups the density and gives in to the current developer's demands. Should this occur, the promises made by the current developer would thus be passed along to the new buyer to fulfill. A second developer I might add, who may or may not elect to even follow what would amount to the first developer's new second agreement or set of conditions on developing this property. The same first developer, who I might also add, failed to keep his promises for his first set of zoning and development conditions. The plot thickens. Last edited on Jan 9th, 2007 12:47 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
summerfieldrd Banned
|
Thank you, Jim! |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member
|
Jim Flynt wrote:I plan on attending the Summerfield Town Council meeting tonight to see how this drama unfolds. So, Jimbo, I see that you're on the forum now.... Inquirin' minds want to know...... |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Macca, I will leave it to the Summerfield folks to give you all the details but will say that the Town Council voted (unanimously I think) to continue the Armfield rezoning hearing until their February meeting. I did happen to see Sandra, Cracker, Hairbrush and Jane and lots of others folks who I knew and it was good to see Jane out and about and looking a lot better than her words have described. Pappy was probably there too, but we missed each other amongst the large crowd of real estate developers and builders. Oh. And I did finally get to see this 'Mom' I keep hearing about. Since this was my first visit to a Summerfield Town Council meeting, I suppose it can be said that I have finally lost my innocence. |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member
|
Jim Flynt wrote:Oh. And I did finally get to see this 'Mom' I keep hearing about. To quote a wise man: "Tee Hee"! Thanks for the update! Looking forward to more details!! ♥♥♥ |
|||||||||||
|
Cracker Jax Member 
|
I think Carolyn Collins summed this one up when she said "This is a mess!" Before I begin, let's make it clear that we are not dealing with the same people who made the original promise to Summerfield. I don't really know what the legalities are when it comes to holding the new folks to the promises made by the original developers so I'll leave all of that to Jane. I do want to say that from everything I've seen and heard from and about the new Armfield managers or whatever they are called, they seem to be pretty straightforward and on the up and up. And for the record, I do not know, nor have I ever met any of them personally. As for the meeting tonight, the land was deeded to Summerfield as Jim Flynt stated, and the Armfield folks admitted that it was done this way for tax reasons (so they wouldn't have to pay tax on the property) but it was also pretty clear to me that they did not do so for any reasons other than the tax reasons and that they didn't want the rezoning case to be misconstrued as being contingent on the park land donation. After discussion and questions directed at the Armfield folks, the council voted to deed the property back to Armfield (with them paying all costs) until it is voted on to accept or not accept the donation. (for liability reasons) Armfield it appears was on the verge of bankruptcy before the current investors stepped forward and took over the reins to try to save it. Now the average person might say "so what?" However, if you think about it, do we really want a portion of our community to be in that kind of trouble? First of all, if they go bankrupt, Summerfield gets NOTHING. Also, though it is not the town's sole responsibility to swoop in and single handedly save Armfield or any other development, do we not have some type of obligation to our community as a whole and to the residents of the 33 homes already established in Armfield to do what we can to help? Several residents of Armfield spoke up tonight in approval of the new rezoning. They said that the new investors had bent over backward to do everything they could to make the residents happy and had always followed through on promises made since taking the reins. Residents of Armfield were notified 4 times of the proposed rezoning and several attended information sessions with the investors. No Armfield residents spoke in opposition. It was stated tonight that if they were to go bankrupt and the land was sold to the government (who'd love to have a large, attractive chunk of land such as this) then what's to stop them from putting slab homes or tract housing etc. there? Anyway, evidently a lot of info (other than the surprise deed issue) came to the forefront AFTER the zoning board denied this rezoning so a lot of new info needed to be considered by council before making a decision. Council discussion: Crawford asked to continue it so the zoning board could revisit it. Robin Smith stated that it would have to be denied and taken back to the zoning board. Dena restated the disadvantages of foreclosure and the threat of twin homes or worse. Williams asked if there were any zoning board concerns that weren't addressed. Robin told him that she thought everything had been covered. (side note: wasn't there something about frogs? Amphibians? Maybe someone who was there could clarify if that was noteworthy or not) Strickland motioned to deny the rezoning, (she didn't state her reason, but I think it was so they could take the new info back to the zoning board) but the motion died for lack of a second. Crawford motioned to continue it until next month and Carolyn seconded. Motion carried and we'll be doing it all again next month. Strickland did announce that she did not want to be "lobbied" by any contractors, developers or builders regarding this issue. |
|||||||||||
|
StewartM Member 
|
Cracker Jax wrote:
|
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Cracker Jax wrote:
Which government? Local? State? Federal? When was the last time that any 'government' stepped in and bought land at foreclosure? The argument is specious. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Cracker Jax wrote:
Zoning laws are such that zoning and zoning conditions attach to a property and not to the individual. When a government body rezones a property, that rezoning and whatever uses are allowed in the particular zoning district, attach to the property, and those conditions neither expand nor contract under any new or different ownership. I do not think that the Summerfield Town Council was clear on this concept last night, and I hope they will wake up to an understanding that there is never any guarantee that once a property is rezoned it will be developed by the owner requesting the change. It happens all the time that developers do not purchase a property until after the property is rezoned for a higher use. (The 'Shields family' land at the intersection of Highway 68 and Haw River (Bethel Church) Road) in Stokesdale is a perfect example of this. Our governments should be of laws and not men. Zoning laws follow that same precept in that land use laws and regulations regulate the use of a property without regard to person so long as the person meets the requirements of that zoning district and they do not vary from man to man given the same zoning district. (I do think the Summerfield Town Council missed this point last night and probably does in general as well). Last edited on Jan 10th, 2007 12:39 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member
|
Jim Flynt wrote:Cracker Jax wrote: From dictionary.com: Specious: (adjective) apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing or plausible: specious arguments. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Cracker Jax wrote:
Robin noted that one of the concerns of the Planning Board was with an area of this property North of the lake (or pond as she later clarified) where there was an 'amphibian' (her words) breeding ground. The developers have come back since the Planning Board denial with a condition that they will insure some type of 'amphibian crossing' under the road so that the amphibian breeding grounds will not be destroyed and that frogs and other amphibians can continue to do whatever frogs and amphibians do, unobstructed by the land instrusions of mankind. I thought this whole line of commentary last night was a 'red herring' designed to move the discussions away from more central issues, such as why the developers have not followed through on the promise of 90 acres to be deeded to the Town of Summerfield and why they can't live with the initial rezoning density from 2003 (which was never really discussed). |
|||||||||||
|
Cracker Jax Member
|
Jim Flynt wrote: Cracker Jax wrote:Which government? Local? State? Federal? I don't really think that matters Jim. You know that if there is a foreclosure then someone is going to buy the land (whether or not it is a government entity) and that someone will not be obligated to follow the "vision" of the Armfield builders/residents. |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member
|
OOOOPPPPSSS! Posted on wrong thread.... moved it! Sorry! Last edited on Jan 10th, 2007 12:38 pm by macca |
|||||||||||
|
Cracker Jax Member
|
Jim Flynt wrote: Robin noted that one of the concerns of the Planning Board was with an area of this property North of the lake (or pond as she later clarified) where there was an 'amphibian' (her words) breeding ground. The developers have come back since the Planning Board denial with a condition that they will insure some type of 'amphibian crossing' under the road so that the amphibian breeding grounds will not be destroyed and that frogs and other amphibians can continue to do whatever frogs and amphibians do, unobstructed by the land instrusions of mankind. Thanks for the clarification on the Frogs Jim. I think they did discuss why they can't live with the initial rezoning. They talked about the average home price being in the 590,000 range and that changing market conditions, (meaning that they don't think they can sell houses that cost that much because of the economy) are forcing them to look at building smaller homes. I doubt these homes will be affordable by my standards, but at least they would be more affordable than 590,000. I don't know. I feel strange arguing this side because I am usually not "pro development" or "pro builder" for that matter. It's just that I think I see where they're coming from this time and it makes sense to me to do what we can for the neighborhood. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Cracker Jax wrote:
Crackah, even if there is a foreclosure, the zoning district follows the land so that would not change even given a foreclosure situation. Further, recorded plats do not change even with a foreclosure. And whatever original or subsequent recorded Covenants of Deed Restrictions are binding on and flow with the property even if there is a foreclosure. If you think about it, a foreclosure really should not be taken into consideration in rezoning and land use planning requests. Land use conditions will and do attach with the property and not with the owner, whether original or subsequent. I have sympathy for anyone undergoing financial stress, but zoning and land use policy was never intended nor should it be used to address possible foreclosures or properties foreclosed upon. If one takes the longer view, the ultimate resolution of financial crisis will be resolved by the real estate marketplace, and ultimately, if the underlying project makes economic sense, it will be completed by someone. The 'who' is or might ultimately be the developer is not relevant to a planning or land use discussion under law. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Cracker Jax wrote:
Crackah, later today, I will address your concerns and your argument in a more detailed and well thought out response. I do not think those arguing for change last night laid their cards on the table nor did they make the case for change with respect to the argument you have shared, and later, I will explain my reasoning why I believe this to be so. There was so much that had to be read between the lines last night given the presentation made, and unfortunately, the council did not follow up with the right questions which would have uncovered that information. I'll suggest several questions that SHOULD be asked by council or anyone else for that matter if clarity is to serve any purpose. Last edited on Jan 10th, 2007 12:55 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member
|
Jim Flynt wrote:Cracker Jax wrote: Thanks for addressing this, Jim. I wanted to ask why a foreclosure would change what had been originally agreed to for this property, but thought I must be wrong to question it..... |
|||||||||||
|
summerfieldrd Banned
|
I can't believe you folks are falling for the 'we're going bankrupt' line. Why don't you take a ride through Armfield. I can promise you somebody made a killing on that property. While we are crying: I live on Summerfield road. I am going to go bankrupt if you don't rezone my property commercial. You all aren't going to let me go bankrupt, are you? The guy that owned the property before me didn't manage the property very well. Please, you gotta believe me! This is my last chance at financial success! Trust me, it's best for Summerfield if I win. Wake up folks! Summerfield is built on good people, willing to help another out at a moments notice, and they are PLAYING YOU on it. Stop letting high dollar developers WALK ALL OVER YOU. Are we going to bail out PTI when they lose money? Forestry Systems? Yost and Little? It's not our job to correct their mistakes. I am sorry that they didn't know how to sail that ship ( which I still believe to be bull ), but it IS NOT OUR responsibility. Anyway, I think we could use some Section 8 housing over there!  Last edited on Jan 10th, 2007 03:47 pm by summerfieldrd |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
One part of the discussions last night somehow centered on the Armfield Foundation and some questions were posed regarding this foundation. Enclosed is a web link to The Edward M. Armfield, Sr. Foundation Inc. which shows their financial resources and grants made. It is an interesting read and might answer whatever questions some may have had. http://foundationcenter.org/cgi-bin/ffindershow.cgi?id=ARMF004 Once you arrive at the Armfield Foundation page, if you will click on the following you will be able to see their last tax return filed (as required by law to be made public): Most Recent IRS Filing: View Form(s) 990 Please note that the assets of this Foundation are reported to be $53,240,402. Last edited on Jan 10th, 2007 04:19 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
Hairbrush Member
|
I don't think we should even look at the armfield foundation money. I think it would be great for them to grant the town of summerfield some money but I don't see where it has any play on the actual re-zoning. I realize it is hard to separate but the re-zoning needs to be looked at on the merits of the re-zoning. I also don't think it should matter that the Armfield foundation seems to have tons of money. As stated before they have already sold the land and we should expect the foundation to bail out Summerfield Properties. Scuba Jane or Mike correct me if I am wrong but there is nothing that says that Summerfield Properties can't come back before the council and ask to have this property re-zoned. Now I am not saying I am for this re-zoning. I didn't think the property should have been zoned the first time but it was and now the council has to make decisions on existing zoning ordinances. The property is zoned OSRD and it seems that it will still meet those specifications if the new re-zoning goes through. If they are meeting the ordinance then the town of summerfield needs to be careful in denying it so that if it does end up in court the town can win. Now I can certainly see the 90 acre park being a reason to turn down the re-zoning as the town hasn't gotten it, but do we really need a 90 acre passive park. Would we be better served by a 30 acre park that connects to Greensboro trail systems? Of course, I would think we could settle the park issue by refusing to allow any more occupancy permits from being approved for armfield until we settle the 90 acres. It is a tough call and it is hard not to take emotions into account. Even with the re-zoning, Summerfield Properties could still sell the piece of land and some other developer could come in with his own builders and change the character of the development, not the density but he certainly could build different type houses that might still pull down the neighbors property values. That is a chance anyone takes when they buy a lot in a subdivision and in a growing town. Unless you are willing to buy all the land around you then you have to hope that your town's ordinances are strong enough to protect you. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Hairbrush wrote:
Even with the re-zoning, Summerfield Properties could still sell the piece of land and some other developer could come in with his own builders and change the character of the development, not the density but he certainly could build different type houses that might still pull down the neighbors property values. That is a chance anyone takes when they buy a lot in a subdivision and in a growing town. Unless you are willing to buy all the land around you then you have to hope that your town's ordinances are strong enough to protect you. My perception of last night's rezoning hearing was that the developer was pushing or trying to push every emotional hot button that they could find and chose to ignore logical objective reasoning, doubtless because there is little or none to justify a change in the status quo. Unfortunately, it seemed to me that too much emotion and sympathy clouded the views of those who should maintain a logical presence of mind in making decisions which should be based on laws and not men. One must take into account that regardless of whether the current owner maintains ownership, sells this property to another national builder or developer, or loses the project to foreclosure, that the current homeowners in Armfield still have several layers of protection, at least equal to what they have now. A substitution to a more highly capitalized developer would actually enhance the probabilities of greater protection for the Armfield homeowners over the current weaker struggling developer. First of all, the Armfield property is still zoned with the same rights and requirements which were granted and imposed bv the 2003 rezoning. A denial of the current zoning request does not diminish the current rights of the property developer nor the homeowners. Further, as affirmed last night by the developer, the Armfield subdivision is further protected by Covenants of Restriction (which attached to each lot when the original plat was recorded) which are binding on every lot previously sold as well as lots to be sold. Restrictive covenants regulate square foot minimums, construction materials, usage, landscaping, exterior buildings, and other items pertinent to controlling quality of construction and liveability. The developer last night, also stated that there is an Architectural Reivew Process and Committee (which I would add is almost always the case in a high end residential development such as this) which requires their approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Therefore the size of any home proposed to be built in Armfield by this developer/builder or ANY developer/builder would be required to meet the exact same design and construction elements as the existing homeowners. Using just one example, it was mentioned last night, that one restriction is that vinyl siding is prohibited on the exterior of Armfield homes, therefore, under any change in ownership (sale or foreclosure) scenario, that restriction would not be lifted or modified. I just don't see where or how any homeowner currently in Armfield can be harmed by a denial of this case, but I do see where the developer can certainly be enriched by an increase in density and a council endorsed and enabled absolution of earlier promises broken. Last edited on Jan 10th, 2007 10:02 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
Goodness you all have been busy little beavers today. I am late weighing in on this. I think there are several issues. One is ordinance that says that an Orsd can not be any denser than .73 houses per acre. We have a development that rightly or wrongly requested a rezoning that is.5 houses per acre 3 or 4 years ago. While I assume the town could require them to deed the 90 acres it does seem we are in much more need of ball fields then another passive park so 30 acres that is easily accessible with the potential of 50+ acres to lease from the city and $250,000 seems like a fair trade for the unaccessible,rough 90 acres. So I don't know Summerfield Properties or whoever they are and objectively don't give a flip whether they go belly up or are the most sucessful developer in the US. What they have done is find what I have always considered a loophole in our ordinances and that is conditions can always be changed as long as they keep with in the ordinance. They have a section of land they want to take the density from .5 to .59 and as far as I can see it would be very difficult to stop them as long as the added homes meet the ordinances. It is as I constantly harp on, we are a property rights state and it has become even harder to stop someone from developing land if it meets the ordinances. Summerfield needs to look long and hard during this master plan stage at closing that loophold by not allowing a developer to bring a development in at a very low density and then years later as has happened with Armfields come back and say "oops we were only kidding we really want this many houses." I suppose in a couple of years they could do this again until they got the density up to .73. I have a very bad taste in my mouth over this. I do not see where the current home owners have much to lose what ever happens unless they have bought these houses only planning to live in them the two years required for the tax break and then moving on. In that case they sould be hurt financially in a forclosure for a short period of time. But I do think who ever said lst night that this seemed like a shell game was pretty accurate. |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
The dreaded double post. Last edited on Jan 10th, 2007 10:26 pm by DOGGETTJA |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: We have a development that rightly or wrongly requested a rezoning that is.5 houses per acre 3 or 4 years ago. Jane, please help me to understand whether or not this was a 'conditional use' rezoning when it was initially rezoned back in 2003. If so, whatever conditions offered by the petitioner at the time of the 2003 rezoning would be development restrictions which would be BINDING on this property and the zoning district which was created by the 2003 rezoning decision, is that not correct? On the other hand, if the 2003 rezoning petition and rezoning to Orsd was not a 'conditional use' request, then (and only then, in my opinion) would the property owner now have the right to expect and demand an expansion of higher density rights up to whatever the limits of density are provided for the Orsd district on an unrestricted (by conditional use) basis. Last edited on Jan 10th, 2007 10:45 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
I think what was requested was an ORSD not a conditional use zoning with a 90 acre park which was one of the conditions the develper put in. My understanding is that the park can be negotiated. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: I think what was requested was an ORSD not a conditional use zoning Jane, if there was no conditional use request in 2003, then how were the earlier density limits (which they are now trying to increase) established and from where did those lower limits (which are lower than the ORSD district permissible limits) arise? |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
The developer put those restrictions on themselves. The Town ordinance required .73 or less density. They came in less. |
|||||||||||
|
S. Smith Moderator
|
Jim Flynt wrote: DOGGETTJA wrote:Both the rezoning in 2003 and the most recent request were for Conditional Use OSRD.I think what was requested was an ORSD not a conditional use zoning |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
Why thank you Sandra. So jim here is the thing. The developer can bring the development in with more conditions but must utimately not exceed the ordinance. Did I explain that? |
|||||||||||
|
Hairbrush Member
|
I have another question. Would the covenants have to be followed if the property was sold, could they not amend those covenants? Don't HOA all the time disband? I am just curious as I have no experience with these matters. Even when I lived in downtown Raleigh I didn't live in an area that had actual subdivision restricted. Now the city of Raleigh certainly had certain ordinances about what I could do to my house. Now that I live on the farm I have no restrictions except worrying if the family won't talk to me if I get too out of line. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Hairbrush wrote: I have another question. Would the covenants have to be followed if the property was sold, could they not amend those covenants? Don't HOA all the time disband? I am just curious as I have no experience with these matters. Hairbrush, I am going to give you a 'generic' answer as I have not read the specific Covenants of Restriction for the Armfield Subdivision, although I do promise to do that in the next few days. Generally speaking, Deeds or Covenants of Restriction will be for a time certain, such as for 25 years. They generally will provide provisions which will allow their continuous effect or options to continue continuous effect after the initial time certain period, and they generally will provide language and provisions wherein the Covenants can be amended by a vote of the property owners. Generally the provisions to amend Covenants of Restriction will require some 'super majority' of the property owners such as 75% or 80%, rather than a simply majority. The existing Covenants of Restriction would apply to those portions of the subdivision and property which have been plated and recorded as well as to those lots which have previously been sold. A sale of the Armfield Property would still have to be followed by all existing lot and home owners, as well as any owner or future owner, builder or developer of any lot already platted and recorded, whether currently or presently sold or owned by the current developer. I would point out that I have seen the 3 recorded lot section plats and there are conditions imposed and recorded on those plats which specify that 90 acres will be provided to the Town of Summerfield for park land. So honestly, the developer has not following their very own restrictions which they imposed on the plat by their very own hands. (More about that later after I do more research). Last edited on Jan 11th, 2007 05:41 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
Hairbrush Member
|
So if the developer sold the rest of the property with unrecorded lots then the new developer could decide what restrictions to be on those lots correct? |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Hairbrush wrote: So if the developer sold the rest of the property with unrecorded lots then the new developer could decide what restrictions to be on those lots correct? I don't want to parse words here, but it is important to understand what you mean when you say "unrecorded lots." Lots which are "platted" AND recorded would be subject to the existing Covenants of Restriction. By this I mean: IF THE PLAT IS RECORDED (showing a 'platted' lot) the Covenants APPLY to that platted lot, irrespective of ownership. Lots which are 'platted' or are not 'platted' BUT NOT recorded might not be subject to the existing Covenants of Restriction. The current or any future Covenants of Restriction do not and cannot enlarge, expand or change any restrictions which are imposed by the zoning provisions (existing) under the Town Of Summerfield ordinances or zoning district for the subject property. Last edited on Jan 11th, 2007 06:26 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
For anyone who will like to read or review the Armfield Subdivision Restrictive Covenants, you can do so online by following this link to the Guilford County Register of Deeds SEARCH service and then follow the directions which I continue below: http://66.162.203.229/guilfordNameSearch.php On the left in the middle of the page, now find the section labeled: Book-Page (OR) File # Search Now Type in Book # 6021 and Page # 713 When the next page appears, in the Upper Right Hand Corner, Now CLICK the section which says Click To View Image There are some amendments to the Restricted Covenants which are located at Deed Book 6451 at Page 1265. Last edited on Jan 11th, 2007 06:21 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
Isabella Member 
|
What is it about this reaoning that makes y'all so nervous?? |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
1- 50 more houses 2- The whole park issue 3-4 years ago when they came for the rezoning, they came with 2 or 3 people who did nothing but discuss the park they were going to build for the Town. Brought site maps showing the park along with a park architect. Going to be a grand park with the Airfield's name on etc. Now understand at a rezoning that kind of information is not legally binding and I knew that when I voted for the rezoning, which at the time was the largest in Guilford County I think. Adams Farm's total is larger as is the one over on 29 but they were developed in smaller chunks, but now years later, no fine park, infact we have gone from 90 acres to 30 acres with $250,000 throw in. They showed lots of open space, walking trails etc. Now they are asking for 50 more houses which is a large number of houses to add to the infrastructure. I think the citizens have a right to be very skeptical of anything these people propose. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Isabella wrote: What is it about this reaoning that makes y'all so nervous?? MINUTES OF THE SUMMERFIELD TOWN COUNCIL NOTE: The official minutes are a tape recording of the meeting. The following is a summary of the events of the meeting. REZONING CASE #2-03: AG and RS-40 to CU-OSRD. Located on the north an south sides of Brookbank Road at Banning Road. Consisting of approximately 556.11 owned by Edward M. Armfield, Sr. Trust. Greensboro Watershed. Michael Brandt presented the case. He stated that there were nine conditions proposed and they are as follows: 1. A 25-foot wide Type “B” landscape yard shall be planted along the right-of-way of Brookbank Road and its re-alignment. No plantings shall be required where open space is located along Brookbank Road. 2. No building lots shall have access to Brookbank Road. 3. Lots adjacent to Henson Farms and Chrisman Extension shall be 40,000 square feet or larger. 4. The developer will design emergency services access to the lake on the southeast portion of the property. The Homeowner’s Association will maintain this access and the design shall be completed prior to final approvals. 5. The lake on the southeast portion of the property shall be surrounded with common area owned and maintained by the HOA such that no building lot directly adjoins the water’s edge. 6. The maximum number of residential lots shall be limited to 290. 7. Development of the property located westerly of the proposed Highway 220/68 connector shall be limited to a maximum of 60 residential lots until a second point of access is available. 8. No more than 75 lots shall be platted within any twelve-month period. 9. A public park of at least 90 acres will be dedicated to the Town of Summerfield. He reported that there was historic property on site. Staff recommends approval. He reported that the Zoning Board voted unanimously to deny. There was discussion about the percentage of open space and Michael Brandt stated that it was 49 percent. In Favor: Derrick Allen, Attorney, 230 N. Elm Street, stated that Steve Joyce, administer of the estate, decided to sell approximately eight months ago. He reported that the proceeds of the sale would go into the Armfield Foundation for Scholarships to those with financial needs and other charitable organizations. He stated that they had followed the Summerfield OSRD. He reported that they had spoken with E.J. Deering of the Guilford County Schools and had offered a site of over 50 acres for a middle school. He stated that they had also set aside land for a 99.6 acres park with ballfields, amphitheater, picnic area and 2 miles of trail systems. He introduced Terry Snow, a traffic engineer, Ralph Heath, Hydrogeologist, Jim Beeson, Soil & Environment, and Betsy Ellington, Park Designer. Opposed: Fred Brown, Mike Adams, Paul Milam, John Bates, Elizabeth Edmonds, Mark Mortenson, Gerald Kroth, Wade Edmonds, Billy Tesh, Trudy Whitacre, David Couch, Bruce McGirk and Renee Wiedel, all Summerfield residents, spoke to Open Space, overcrowded schools, traffic issues, water concerns, growth rate, and property values as concerns to opposition. Rebuttal: Derrick Allen stated that they have tried to address all the concerns that they have heard, stating that this is not a volume building tract, and that the School Board must accept the land. He also stated that the developers are held to the Ordinance. Jim Brady, developer, stated that he lives in Armfield house and that he works with the School Board and that the property was offered to them in good faith. He stated that he thinks the plan is in compliance. Break from 9:50 until 9:59. After some discussion about OSRD, a motion was made to approve Re-Zoning Case #2-03. Motion: Bob Williams Sec: Mark Brown Passed 4 to 1 (Carolyn Collins voted no) Last edited on Jan 12th, 2007 01:29 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
summerfieldrd Banned
|
Isabella wrote: What is it about this reaoning that makes y'all so nervous?? It all starts with being lied to, for me - kind of a zero tolerance thing. But hey, some people like being lied to. To each his/her own. I could spend hours discussing it, but I think the last five pages of this topic sum it up pretty good. BTW, I'm not nervous; I'm down right [furious].(edited by S. Smith) Last edited on Jan 13th, 2007 11:14 pm by summerfieldrd |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Someone from Summerfield told me yesterday, that one of the Summerfield Planning Board members works for a real estate company, and that this person actually voted FOR the Armfield rezoning at the Planning Board meeting, despite the fact that the planning board member's real estate company has the Armfield property listed and for sale. It would seem to me that if this is true, this would be an ethical breach as well as a very severe conflict of interest. Why wouldn't a Planning Board member in such a position simply recuse themselves from voting where there was a real or perceived conflict of interest? Can someone from Summerfield shed some light on this and clear this matter up for us? Even more generally, isn't this sort of like having the fox guarding the hen house? Last edited on Jan 14th, 2007 03:22 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
S. Smith Moderator
|
Jim Flynt wrote: Someone from Summerfield told me yesterday, that one of the Summerfield Planning Board members works for a real estate company, and that this person actually voted FOR the Armfield rezoning at the Planning Board meeting, despite the fact that the planning board member's real estate company has the Armfield property listed and for sale. It would seem to me that if this is true, this would be an ethical breach as well as a very severe conflict of interest. Why wouldn't a Planning Board member in such a position simply recuse themselves from voting where there was a real or perceived conflict of interest?Jim, I think your information is incorrect, but I'll check on it. Nancy Hess does work for Yost & Little, who is now marketing Armfield. I know that at the zoning board meeting in November (where it was voted to recommend continuing the case), she recused herself and did not sit for this case. Last edited on Jan 15th, 2007 01:49 am by S. Smith |
|||||||||||
|
S. Smith Moderator
|
S. Smith wrote: Jim Flynt wrote:Someone from Summerfield told me yesterday, that one of the Summerfield Planning Board members works for a real estate company, and that this person actually voted FOR the Armfield rezoning at the Planning Board meeting, despite the fact that the planning board member's real estate company has the Armfield property listed and for sale. It would seem to me that if this is true, this would be an ethical breach as well as a very severe conflict of interest. Why wouldn't a Planning Board member in such a position simply recuse themselves from voting where there was a real or perceived conflict of interest?Jim, I think your information is incorrect, but I'll check on it. Nancy Hess does work for Yost & Little, who is now marketing Armfield. I know that at the zoning board meeting in November (where it was voted to recommend continuing the case), she recused herself and did not sit for this case. I checked with Nancy Hess on this, who told me she recused herself from both the November and December Zoning Board meetings when the Armfield rezoning request was heard. Nancy says, "Although I receive no financial gain from Armfield, I thought the public might perceive it to be otherwise." She adds, "For the record, on the original Armfield rezoning, way back when, I voted against it." |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
S. Smith wrote: I checked with Nancy Hess on this, who told me she recused herself from both the November and December Zoning Board meetings when the Armfield rezoning request was heard. Nancy says, "Although I receive no financial gain from Armfield, I thought the public might perceive it to be otherwise." She adds, "For the record, on the original Armfield rezoning, way back when, I voted against it." Sandra, Thank-you for setting the record straight and I appreciate Nancy Hess's sensitivity to the public by recusing herself and her service on the Planning Board. It is a thankless job to say the least. Thanks again! |
|||||||||||
|
S. Smith Moderator
|
Armfield's rezoning request to add more lots to their development will come up again at the Feb. 13 town council meeting. The council continued the case at its January meeting (after about a 2-hour public hearing) to allow the members more time to consider this issue. Any thoughts on this? |
|||||||||||
|
summerfieldrd Banned
|
S. Smith wrote: Armfield's rezoning request to add more lots to their development will come up again at the Feb. 13 town council meeting. The council continued the case at its January meeting (after about a 2-hour public hearing) to allow the members more time to consider this issue. Summerfield does not have the infrastructure in place to support this continued growth. Until the master plan is complete, I sincerely hope our town council will vote against the requested rezoning. |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
Unfortunately or fortunately I guess depending on which side of the issue you stand the Town Council will be hard pressed to turn down the Armfield request. The Town has no control over most of its infrastructure issues except water and sewer. There is no demonstrable shortage of water and so far septic is not a problem. We have no control of the roads or the schools usage. The request by the Armfield owners is within the ordinances of Summerfield. My objection to their request is the selling point 4 years ago was the low density and open space which was a condition they placed on themselves. Now they are coming back saying they can't afford to build it with all the open space. I hope the Master Plan and council will close that loop hole so that when a council approves something they do not have to worry that the developer will come back in a few years and increase the density. |
|||||||||||
|
summerfieldrd Banned
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: We have no control of the roads or the schools usage. Yes, but we do have control of the zoning and the building of additional housing when our schools, and roads, cannot currently sustain such continued growth. There may be no water shortage yet, but is everyone in LA on wells? Speculation is: with four interstates converging in this area, not to mention the Fed Ex hub, this is going to be the LA of the east coast. If you'll look at property values to our north and south, everyone is starting to salivate over the extremely resonable real estate rates in this area, not to mention the moderate climate. The secret is getting out. Also, is Summerfield in the business of saving businesses? Why is it our problem they didn't make as much money as they wanted to? Let us not forget our 90 acre park! Yes, isn't it nice? I ask, how can Summerfield possibly benefit from allowing this rezoning? I'm tired of our kids being schooled in trailers, constant traffic jams on Summerfield Rd., contaminated wells, disappearing spaces, energy hogs whipped up one after another....there's a better way. Last edited on Feb 1st, 2007 09:07 pm by summerfieldrd |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member
|
I like the way you think, summerfieldrd.... I wish we could get more folks of like mind together to help preserve our whole area before it's all paved over, with houses on top of each other.... |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
Well you know it has been a number of years since we reviewed the long range plan and maybe we need to look at that as a community. But here are some givens: We can not stop development. We are a property rights state. A person has the right to do what he wants with his property with in the law of course and to develop it to its highest potential. Unforturnately highest potential in our country is not open space. The laws in our state and the country support development. If we don't buy more including houses our ecconomy collapses. So the only thing a community can do is control the growth but not stop it. Summerfield already requires 1.5 acres of land per each house in a devlopment which is one of the most restrictive policies anywhere around. North Carolina has some of the worst urban sprawl in the US. One of the things that contributes to urban sprawl is that we keep moving further and further away from the cities which requires more roads, more infrastructure. Another problem with limiting growth is you absolutely increase the cost of living in the area and I think Summerfield certainly bears that out and you limit the ability of lower income people moving in. So here is what I want the Master Plan and our community to do. Identify areas of preservation and then our council and community makes a commitment to buy those areas and hold them so that the seller maintains the right to sell but the community decides the out come. Develop areas of moderate income housing so people starting out will have a place to move that doesn't require $500,000. And most of all this community stop expecting the developers to do the right thing and the community take on the responsiblity of directing our community. Developers are in a business. |
|||||||||||
|
Hairbrush Member
|
Unfortunately, I think that the new armfield plan might actually include more open space just tighter density. I am on the fence about the 90 acre park. It would be nice to have but the town needs ballfields and active parks and am not sure that a land trade wouldn't be in the best interest in that area. Don't think for a minute I am for the development because I am not and have never had been but it looks like to me that they are following the ordinances. I think that Summerfield needs to follow the example of the town of Troy and Orange County. Both actively look to conserve land. They do it through clean water grants and other grants but Orange county actually sets aside money in their budget each year to pay for land they think is important to save at market value. They buy wetlands, flood plains and they also buy farmland. They have a funded department that goes out and looks at land and then buys it for the county. They seem to be doing a pretty good job of it and it may be why development has moved over to Chatham County. We as a town can't just say we don't want your land developed, we need to develop the infrastructure to buy that land and hold that land. |
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member
|
summerfieldrd wrote:Also, is Summerfield in the business of saving businesses? Why is it our problem they didn't make as much money as they wanted to. I ask, how can Summerfield possibly benefit from allowing this rezoning? I'm tired of our kids being schooled in trailers, constant traffic jams on Summerfield Rd., contaminated wells, disappearing spaces, energy hogs whipped up one after another....there's a better way. You make some good points, sfrd, an' I agree up to a point. There has always been a tenuous symbiotic relationship betwixt bidness an' government. They cain't live with each other but they cain't live without each other, neither. (Well, mebbe they can...) I don't think the town should go out of its way to prop up bidness, but it also ought not to ignore what might happen if this particular bidness makes a mess in our town. I think we need to work with 'em without givin' ever'thang away, however that can be done. I also think Mr Jim raised some good issues somewhere about puttin' some o' the burden o' buildin' up the infrastructure on the developers. Why shouldn't they be required to assume some extra portion o' the burden? |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
In pondering the Armfield rezoning, the words of Jesus might be instructive for us: Holy Bible KJV St. Luke 14 28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? 29 Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, 30 Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish. Last edited on Feb 1st, 2007 04:04 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: One of the things that contributes to urban sprawl is that we keep moving further and further away from the cities which requires more roads, more infrastructure. Wouldn't that actually be the very definition of urban sprawl? |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Hairbrush wrote: Unfortunately, I think that the new armfield plan might actually include more open space just tighter density. Hairbrush, if you think about your statement, it would be an absolute impossibility to increase density without reducing open space unless Armfield was increasing density by building high rise apartments or condominiums. Last edited on Feb 1st, 2007 08:37 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
summerfieldrd Banned
|
Has Friends for Summerfield made an official stance on this subject? Will someone be at the next TC meeting representing their viewpoint? Also, does anyone know when the Master Plan is expected to be complete? I feel like growth is good, but rezoning before the Master Plan is complete is like putting the cart before the horse. Shouldn't there should be a moratorium on ALL zoning until the Master Plan is official? Should our town council elect to approve this rezoning request, have all the enviornmental studies been completed? Who paid for the studies? |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
Jim If you put the houses closer to gether then you increase open space as defined in the ordinance. That is what Armfiield is proposing. Twin homes and smaller lots so that there is more open space. |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
The Master plan is at least 1.5 years off so I understand. Summerfield put a moratorium on development when the planning department was being set up for 6 months which is about the length of time that a moratorium can run according to what the attorney told us. All the environemental studies were done before the first rezoning. The developer pays for the studies required which are done by reputible companies in the area. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: Jim If you put the houses closer to gether then you increase open space as defined in the ordinance. That is what Armfiield is proposing. Twin homes and smaller lots so that there is more open space. Jane, if the houses were clustered without an increase in total overall density, then I would agree with you that open space would increase. Despite clustering, one cannot INCREASE density without DECREASING open space, save and except by high rise multi-story construction. Assuming that density were constant, then yes, clustered (as opposed to non-clustered) development would in fact increase open space. |
|||||||||||
|
summerfieldrd Banned
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: All the environemental studies were done before the first rezoning. The developer pays for the studies required which are done by reputible companies in the area. Yes, but the last enviornmental study was done according to the the last set of plans (which obviously meant nothing). A bunch more houses (energy hogs, at that) will have a greater impact on the enviornment, therefore, I would assume a new study, at the least, would be warranted. Our town council is all about studies on ballfields, but they're prepared to develop our open spaces without them? What gives? |
|||||||||||
|
summerfieldrd Banned
|
This is quite insane when you think of it...these people want to build an additional 400 homes (roughly). With 2-4 additional kids per home, where the heck are all those kids going to go to school? As I said before, the infrastructure IS NOT in place to handle this! The Master Plan is not in place! We are playing with a loaded gun and we are about to blow our foot off. Ballfields: We can't play the kids we have now in our burgeoning athletic teams, all these new kids will only add to the frustration. I find it frustrating that this is even an issue that needs to be discussed. I think it's a 'no-brainer'. Like I asked before, how does Summerfield gain from this impulsive rezoning? Please, someone give me one good reason? It's a matter of the P's: Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
Armfield is asking for 50 houses. But here again it is a matter of law. We have ordinances, very strict ordinances actually with a requirement of 1.6 acre per house which is the approximate amount of land need to recharge the aquafer per the guidelines that the Feds put out. We can not just decide we have all the people we want in our town and stop development. It is against the law. We would end up as a Town spending all our tax money defending ourselves in an undefendable lawsuit. |
|||||||||||
|
summerfieldrd Banned
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: Armfield is asking for 50 houses. Yes, right, for a total of 400. Sorry, I had misread some previous material. Anyway, in a time of global warming, since I am wasting precious oxygen, I will concede to support whatever Friends for Summerfield decide is best on this issue. Last edited on Feb 2nd, 2007 12:49 am by summerfieldrd |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Four things you can count on if Armfield is approved: (1) Armfield will sell this property to a national tract home builder (To anyone with even passing knowledge and experience in zoning, that is the only logical reason for this request to increase density) (2) The property owners next door will be coming in and asking for the very same thing. Which the Town of Summerfield will not be able to turn down based on their own precedents. (They are literally waiting in the wings) (3) The Town of Summerfield will be the laughing stock of every real estate developer and engineer in Guilford County if they kowtow to this developer's demands for increasing density to allow them to make a profit. (4) If the Town of Summefield rezones this property to a higher density and allows the developer to welch on their promise to grant 90 acres to the Town of Summerfield, look for this to be Issue Number One in the next town council election for the opposition. I honestly think Armfield has taken the whole town council and many citizens hostage and they have their heads buried so deep in the sand, the town and citizens can't even see it. And for good measure I will throw in a 5th prediction: the Summerfield Town Council and the Summerfield citizens are in denial and delusion if they think they will ever get a park out of this developer. (That would be considered "CONTRACT ZONING" and that REALLY IS ILLEGAL under zoning and property law). Last edited on Feb 2nd, 2007 01:23 am by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: We have ordinances, very strict ordinances actually Jane, quite frankly I don't see how you can even begin to make that claim when the Town of Summerfield either CAN'T or WON'T enforce the earlier rezoning requirements and conditions (which were attached to the initial Armfield rezoning). If you couldn't enforce those initial conditions, how in the world do you expect to enforce these new conditions? Last edited on Feb 2nd, 2007 11:28 am by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
summerfieldrd Banned
|
Jim Flynt wrote: Four things you can count on if Armfield is approved: YES! YES! YES! YES and YES! BTW, quite eloquently spoken, Jim! |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
Summerfieldrd I hope if you aren't that you will get involved in the Friends of Summerfield. Jim You and I will just have to agree to disagree. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: Jim You and I will just have to agree to disagree. The shame of the Armfield rezoning case is that the voters of Summerfield can't weigh in on this matter before the next election, after which, the damages will already be done and some very bad precedents established. I honestly believe the Summerfield voters would get it right even if the Summerfield Town Council doesn't or can't or won't. Summerfield voters are a whole lot smarter than many folks might give them credit for being. Every resident and citizen in Summerfield should be asking themselves one question: Who's minding the planning store in Summerfield? The Town Council or the Real Estate Developers? The answer to that one question will set the tone for everything else that comes down the pike and happens on the planning and development front for Summerfield. And with so many heads buried in the sand, way too many folks just can't see it coming. The political repercussions from this one rezoning case are almost too mind boggling to contemplate. Just think of Armfield as the first Domino which will fall and try and imagine where all the rest might land......... Last edited on Feb 2nd, 2007 11:59 am by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
Hairbrush Member
|
Jim, I am confused on why demanding the park is contract zoning. The developer offered it and it is written on the deed. If the town decides to negotiate a land swap I don't see a problem in that. I also am not sure I see a problem with a national home builder coming and buying the property. Maybe they can put in homes that aren't quite as expensive to the buyer (noticed I didn't say affordable, because I don't think anything in summerfield is affordable right now). As I said again I was never for this development but it has happened and the change in the number of houses and open space is still within the guidelines of the ordinances as well as the town homes they want to build. I don't see where the council can say no and not have this case end up in court and I am not sure I want my tax money spent on a case that can't be won. I also think we have to be careful what we wish for. I know when the people in white blossom were fighting the subdivision in their area they used protection of the wetlands as reason. The developer was going to go beyond the law in buffering those wetlands. Some one said they would rather have a horse farm on that land. Well horse farmers cut and stump fields and a lot of times will fence right up and into the wetlands. A lot of damage that is done to creeks and streams is done by livestock. So how do we solve this problem. It goes back to if Summerfield feels the land is important and sensitive enough to be protected then Summerfield needs to buy and hold the land. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Hairbrush wrote: Jim, I am confused on why demanding the park is contract zoning. The developer offered it and it is written on the deed. If the town decides to negotiate a land swap I don't see a problem in that. Hairbrush, I think the answer to your question and specifically to the two points highlighted above can be found in an excellent article on 'Contract Zoning' from the NC Institute of Government down in Chapel Hill. Here is that article at the following weblink: http://www.ncplan.unc.edu/keyissues/contr.htm Last edited on Feb 2nd, 2007 08:28 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
rasin Guest
|
Some recent changes in the law have made it easier to "suggest" things that would make the rezoning more palatable without coming flat out and saying “if you do this I will vote for the rezoning”. The developer has to voluntarily offer them so that technically it isn't Contract Zoning. It is a game of semantics. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
rasin wrote: Some recent changes in the law have made it easier to "suggest" things that would make the rezoning more palatable without coming flat out and saying “if you do this I will vote for the rezoning”. The developer has to voluntarily offer them so that technically it isn't Contract Zoning. It is a game of semantics. I would ask that you point out references to the specific changes which you mention. Which laws or court cases are you referring to? I have a fairly comprehensive zoning law library here at home as well as access to Westlaw so any legal cites you can provide would be helpful in discovering any new North Carolina law or cases. I am not aware of the changes which you suggest but welcome reviewing such. I do agree with you that the whole matter is using great care with semantics, but as you point out above (which I have highlighted), the developer has to VOLUNTARILY OFFER them, and acting on or reacting to SUGGESTIONS from agents or representatives of a municipality is not seen by the courts as voluntary. Courts would see through that veil without much diligence or effort in discovery. Your concept or understanding of "suggestions" by a municipality in quid pro quo rezoning is what gets these rezonings overturned by the courts. Mere 'suggestion' of quid pro quo is what makes it illegal. A violation of law in spirit is a violation of law in principle. I dare say, that IF the Town of Summerfield now rezones Armfield with ANY discussion of or negotiation for the developer deeding over a park to the Town, that the rezoning would be overturned by the courts as contract zoning. The distinction is that in the initial rezoning hearing back in 2003, the developer truly volunteered without suggestion to offer the parkland (what would be a unilateral agreement) whereas now, any discussion of deeding a park and/or contributing funds to a park would be seen (by the courts at least) as being a bilateral agreement (and quid pro quo 'trade'). Perhaps what folks in Summerfield opposed to this rezoning should do, is to bring a legal action against the Town of Summerfield to overturn any new rezoning should the town council increase the density or seek to change any of the original conditions imposed by the 2003 rezoning approval. Such revision now would likely constitute contract zoning as defined by the law and courts. Last edited on Feb 2nd, 2007 11:15 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
Cracker Jax Member
|
Jim Flynt wrote: I dare say, that IF the Town of Summerfield now rezones Armfield with ANY discussion of or negotiation for the developer deeding over a park to the Town, that the rezoning would be overturned by the courts as contract zoning. Isn't this one of the reasons the town is paying a licensed attorney (Bill Hill) the big bucks.....To keep them from doing something illegal? |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Cracker Jax wrote: Jim Flynt wrote:I dare say, that IF the Town of Summerfield now rezones Armfield with ANY discussion of or negotiation for the developer deeding over a park to the Town, that the rezoning would be overturned by the courts as contract zoning. That's a really good question. The answer will come after we see what they do. |
|||||||||||
|
rasin Guest
|
I believe NC 814 is the basis for the increased/implied flexibility. I am not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV) and may have interpreted/heard it incorrectly but the explanation came from the discussion of it at the Oak Ridge Town Meeting. They had to change some of their ordinance to be in line with the changes. Last edited on Feb 3rd, 2007 02:15 pm by |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
rasin wrote: I believe NC 814 is the basis for the increased/implied flexibility. Thank-you for your response. The North Carolina General Statutes run from Chapter 1 through Chapter 168-A. Chapter 81 concerns nothing but 'weights and measures" so that could not be it. I can find no (new) reference within the General Statutes to any definition or heading for "contract zoning." I'll check with one of the zoning lawyers on Monday morning to see if he knows of any changes to NC law regarding contract zoning. |
|||||||||||
|
Isabella Member
|
http://www.nc-apa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=35&Itemid=29 this may help answer some questions regarding the recent legislative changes |
|||||||||||
|
S. Smith Moderator
|
Jim Flynt wrote:
Jim, I gotta disagree on this one. Say (just for simplicity's sake) there is a development of 20 acres. The developer agrees to put 8 houses on 1.5-acre lots and leave the other 8 acres as open space. Later on, the developer comes back and wants to make development more dense because they've only sold 1 lot. Now they want to put in 10 more houses on 1-acre lots. If this is allowed, they now have a total of 11 houses on 11.5 acres and they have 8.5 acres of open space. They've increased density AND open space without any multi-story or multi-family construction. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
S. Smith wrote: Jim, I gotta disagree on this one. Gosh Sandra Houdini, I feel like I just got hit by Weapons of Math Construction. Now can you do the same math on Armfield and add 50 more houses with the same result? Last edited on Feb 3rd, 2007 10:39 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
S. Smith Moderator
|
Jim Flynt wrote: S. Smith wrote:Jim, I gotta disagree on this one. Thanks, Jim. From you I'll consider that a compliment. I don't have the paperwork from the Armfield proposal at home with me, but I can. I'll admit that I also found it hard to believe, but they showed that it can be done. That's primarily because their density was so low anyway -- as I recall, an average of .5 units per acre, which is only one house for every two acres. Their proposal would only increase the density to .59 units per acre, and I think the ordinance allows for up to .73 units per acre (which is about one house for every 1 1/2 acres). Technically, they could be asking for a lot more and still meet the ordinance requirements. The original condition that they only have 290 houses was self-imposed, but primarily because it is such a huge development. I think they knew that would make it more palatable to the council in the first place. I'm not taking sides here either way. If I were on the council, I believe this would be a hard decision to make. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
S. Smith wrote:
Sandra, I MEANT it as a compliment! Being challenged by differing viewpoints and perspectives helps us stay on our toes intellectually. Thanks again for showing me the other way! |
|||||||||||
|
Gonefornow Member
|
I recently read the conditions of first zoning and they seem important to the town and certainly persuaded Council to approve this project. Are they binding? If not, why were they allowed to be a part of the presentation and apparently, part of the plats? If so, why are they not being enforced? |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Here are some questions which I think Summerfield Town Council should ask and which the Summerfield Town Council and Summerfield citizens are entitled to have answered before a decision is made on the Armfield rezoning: Questions which deserve an answer prior to any Armfield changes: 1. Are the nine current conditions binding and enforceable? 2. Exactly where is the ninety acres proposed for the Park? 3. How and when was it offered to the Town? 4. Is it still an option? 5. At the November 2006 Council meeting, the Armfield developers presented an alternative to the 90 acres of promised park land. They described this land as 6 acres of floodplain on the north side of Brookbank and 24 acres on the south side adjacent to City of Greensboro watershed. They were told that this would have to go through a public hearing. In the last hour of the last filing day of 2006 they secretly deeded a vastly inferior 16.36 acres of floodplain on the north side of Brookbank and 13.61 acres on the south side adjacent to City of Greensboro watershed. Why the difference and why was this done when they were told it had to go through a public hearing? 6. The current builders and residents were promised that the extra density (72 units on 52 lots) would insure the continuation of the current custom builder program. This was also mentioned at the January council meeting. Given this, why are they demanding removal of the critically important condition limiting the number of annual platted lots to 75? 7. One of the original conditions limited the number of lots on the west side of the 220/68 Connector to 60 until if and when the developer obtained an additional access point. This was not accomplished. These 60 lots along with all of the land on the west side of the Connector have been platted. Over 60 acres of platted unattached open space west of the Connector is included in this rezoning. Why? 8. Is the town prepared to address the many developments which will surely follow demanding at least equal treatment? What about re-submittals of prior developments which under the ordinance are not at the maximum possible number of lots? Last edited on Feb 12th, 2007 11:10 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
Gonefornow Member
|
Hope someone will come by and say what condition the conditions are in. GREAT QUESTIONS that deserve an answer. My question....who will ask them? |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Gonefornow wrote: Hope someone will come by and say what condition the conditions are in. GREAT QUESTIONS that deserve an answer. My question....who will ask them? One of the interesting questions to me, is the one you allude to and alluded to in your earlier post Gonefornow: that is, are the current conditions binding? (Current conditions being defined as those imposed by the 2003 rezoning). Obviously, if they are binding then the conditions being proposed would be at odds with the prior ones. If the current conditions are not binding, then why would there be any expectation that any new conditions would be binding? And given the fluidity and instability of unenforceable conditions, doesn't this simply beg the question of why Summerfield would ever even allow or require any conditions from any developer. (That is why I suggested in a much earlier post, that the outcome of this new Armfield rezoning hearing may likely leave other real estate developers thinking of Summerfield as the laughing stock of zoning authorities. (Simply go in and promise the Town of Summerfield anything to get your foot in the door, and then once rezoned, then go back for another rezoning to get what you really wanted to start with. After all, the precedent would be there after a new Armfield rezoning with new conditions replacing the older more restricted ones). Last edited on Feb 13th, 2007 12:46 am by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Just to refresh everyone's memory, here are the 9 original conditions imposed on the 2003 Armfield rezoning as reflected in the February 4, 2003 Summerfield Town Council meeting minutes: REZONING CASE #2-03: AG and RS-40 to CU-OSRD. Located on the north an south sides of Brookbank Road at Banning Road. Consisting of approximately 556.11 owned by Edward M. Armfield, Sr. Trust. Greensboro Watershed. Michael Brandt presented the case. He stated that there were nine conditions proposed and they are as follows: 1. A 25-foot wide Type “B” landscape yard shall be planted along the right-of-way of Brookbank Road and its re-alignment. No plantings shall be required where open space is located along Brookbank Road. 2. No building lots shall have access to Brookbank Road. 3. Lots adjacent to Henson Farms and Chrisman Extension shall be 40,000 square feet or larger. 4. The developer will design emergency services access to the lake on the southeast portion of the property. The Homeowner’s Association will maintain this access and the design shall be completed prior to final approvals. 5. The lake on the southeast portion of the property shall be surrounded with common area owned and maintained by the HOA such that no building lot directly adjoins the water’s edge. 6. The maximum number of residential lots shall be limited to 290. 7. Development of the property located westerly of the proposed Highway 220/68 connector shall be limited to a maximum of 60 residential lots until a second point of access is available. 8. No more than 75 lots shall be platted within any twelve-month period. 9. A public park of at least 90 acres will be dedicated to the Town of Summerfield. He reported that there was historic property on site. Staff recommends approval. He reported that the Zoning Board voted unanimously to deny. |
|||||||||||
|
summerfieldrd Banned
|
Jim Flynt wrote: He reported that there was historic property on site. Staff recommends approval. He reported that the Zoning Board voted unanimously to deny. Jim: What does this statment mean? Was there an historic property on the site? Was it removed? |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
summerfieldrd wrote: Jim Flynt wrote:He reported that there was historic property on site. Staff recommends approval. He reported that the Zoning Board voted unanimously to deny. Summerfieldrd: The comments which I posted were the direct quotes from the February 4, 2003 Summerfield Town Council Meeting minutes. I was not at that meeting and wondered the same thing as you asked. Perhaps Jane Doggett or one of the others who attended the 2003 Town Council meeting can shed some light on this comment and tell us what type of historic property was or is located there. |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
Well Armfield was voted down last night 3 to 2. I think the change in the laws on contract zoning has created a nightmare. Conditions were being thrown around like Valentines candy. Becky kept asking for support to send it back to the zoning to sort the conditions out but nothing came of that so instead it was worded as an up or down vote and got voted down. I think the new law is extremely dangerous and hope the council sticks to its guns and either votes the zoning down or probably even better sends it back to zoning when the conditions start changing. Zoning spends much more time looking at the property and they are the ones who should pass the conditions before it comes to Town Council. This development and it density was much too important to put up for a bidding war at council. Were they doing away with the Twin Homes formerly known as duplexes if so what did that do to the density and open space? Were they offering to lower the density by 10 homes or 20 homes? At one point the developer offered to lower the density 10 houses. Was that in addition to the duplexes or the result of no duplexes? It was all much to complex to hurridly discuss at Town Council. I hope the Town Council has gotten past the naive stance we use to have assuming the developer had the best interest of the Town and heart and we could trust them to do the right thing. The negotiations last night are something the zoning board should have been doing and they need to be understood before coming before the Council. |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
This should have gone back to the zoning board. This now opens up a whole new can of worms. I hope Summerfield is prepared for this one. It appeared to me (my opinion only) that Jim Brady was willing to do whatever was suggested or what anyone wanted out of Summerfield Properties to make something happen. To turn down the request was the wrong thing to do. It should have gone back to the zoning board and rectified to whatever was asked of them. Then brought back to council for a clear understanding and be voted on. Now this can not be brought back for a YEAR. What will happen with the property in bankruptcy? The bank will sell to the first buyer and that buyer will build minimum spec homes. Food for thought. |
|||||||||||
|
summerfieldrd Banned
|
Baseball Buddy wrote: The bank will sell to the first buyer and that buyer will build minimum spec homes. Food for thought. I think the bankruptcy cry was a total bluff. How can someone build minimum spec built homes if there are no lots left to build on? Isn't this why they were trying for a rezoning? |
|||||||||||
|
Hairbrush Member
|
There are plenty lots left. They have only built out around 32 homes or so. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
summerfieldrd wrote: I think the bankruptcy cry was a total bluff. I agree with you 100%. Pure Bluff. And shameless at that. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Baseball Buddy wrote: It appeared to me (my opinion only) that Jim Brady was willing to do whatever was suggested or what anyone wanted out of Summerfield Properties to make something happen. Perhaps Jim Brady and Summerfield Properties could have "done whatever" by simply doing what they agreed to do at the 2003 rezoning hearing: Honor and follow the previous 9 conditions attached to and made part of the 2003 rezoning. If they wouldn't follow the 2003 rezoning conditions what makes you think they would follow rezoning conditions imposed in 2007? Last edited on Feb 14th, 2007 03:01 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
summerfieldrd Banned
|
Hairbrush wrote: There are plenty lots left. They have only built out around 32 homes or so. Sorry, I don't make it over there often. So, they are allowed 350, they have built 32, and they're already crying foul? I can see why they need the additional lots. How could they make any money with only 320 lots left open? It's a real shame. I've got ten bucks says the bankruptcy never goes down. |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
The process has already began. Please remember Summerfield properties does not build homes. Builders buy lots in a sub division and build homes. Jim Brady is trying to salvage this development. That's a fact. Right now he is doing everything possible to keep it out of bankruptcy. That's a fact. 2 banks are breathing down his neck right now on this issue. That's a fact. Is he bluffing? I hope you guys are correct in thinking it will not happen. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Baseball Buddy wrote: The process has already began. Please remember Summerfield properties does not build homes. Builders buy lots in a sub division and build homes. Jim Brady is trying to salvage this development. That's a fact. Right now he is doing everything possible to keep it out of bankruptcy. That's a fact. 2 banks are breathing down his neck right now on this issue. That's a fact. Is he bluffing? I hope you guys are correct in thinking it will not happen. Seriously, what does the financial condition of a developer or development have to do with sound zoning and planning practices and governmental land use decisions? Given that this developer paid around $13,000 per acre for the raw land, and that land now is generally selling for around $20,000 per acre for raw land, why in the world would this developer have to file bankruptcy? Surely several buyers would be more than happy to take out the current developer's remaining land for what he paid for it and consider that purchase quite the bargain. |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
Like I said I hope you are correct in thinking this for the sake of all involved. Plus when was the last time you heard of someone saving the day by assuming the debt of a developer? NEVER. It goes to bankruptcy then the vultures pick through it. I know I purchase bankruptcy property all the time. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Baseball Buddy wrote: It goes to bankruptcy then the vultures pick through it. I know I purchase bankruptcy property all the time. Gosh. Wouldn't that make you a vulture by definition? (Just kidding)  |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
Sometimes I seize the opportunity. |
|||||||||||
|
summerfieldrd Banned
|
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? |
|||||||||||
|
StewartM Member
|
summerfieldrd wrote: I think they were planning to sell anyway. More lots would have meant more money. 50 x $50,000 = $2500000.00 will $2500000.00 save your day |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
StewartM wrote: summerfieldrd wrote:I think they were planning to sell anyway. More lots would have meant more money. 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. |
|||||||||||
|
summerfieldrd Banned
|
StewartM wrote: summerfieldrd wrote:I think they were planning to sell anyway. More lots would have meant more money. 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! |
|||||||||||
|
summerfieldrd Banned
|
Jim Flynt wrote: StewartM wrote:summerfieldrd wrote:I think they were planning to sell anyway. More lots would have meant more money. 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. |
|||||||||||
|
Hairbrush Member
|
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 
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
 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. |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
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
|
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.” |
|||||||||||
|
S. Smith Moderator
|
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
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
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
|
why no lights, i always enjoyed playing under the lights. Kind of gave it that big time professional tv feel. |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
neighborhood concerns. That was just part of the settlement. |
|||||||||||
