Summerfield's Future Development?

PRESENT & FUTURE SUMMERFIELD THE COUNCIL HAS DECIDED FOR YOU

JUNE 8, 2021

NO PUBLIC HEARING after significant changes were made to the town adopted UDO (Unified Development Ordinance), including radical increased overall density, much less open space, and quadplex apartment buildings. Teresa Perryman only no vote.

DECEMBER 1, 2021

Land Use Plan (LUP) meeting. After their election and before taking the oath of office, they gave developers the “Keys to the Town”, and the whole town will be impacted. Land use planning is the process of regulating the use of land by a central authority, government.

JANUARY 5, 2022

(Eight town working days after taking oath of office.)

Four page detailed contract, $29,470, for engineering to move forward “Water Feasibility Study” as “Town would like water supply alternatives for municipal water source for residential, commercial, feasibility, routings, and more.” Contract to be completed within 60 days.

CONTINUED FROM COVER PAGESEPTEMBER 22, 2020

David Couch presented his “Summerfield Future Development Opportunities” and council members agreed “This is a logical step to move forward.” Town officials had been pushing hard for high density development, and discussed commercial water and sewer from Greensboro.

It was clear that BJ Barnes and council had been working quietly, and expensive decisions were made outside of the Open Meetings Laws, for higher density, commercial water, and a PD=Planned Development/Text Amendment.

“With the availability of water (and sewer), higher density development such as the Summerfield Farms project would be viable. The Hazen Study projected a build-out ADD of 0.48 MGD and MDD of 0.8 for the Summerfield Farms project. This type of project could happen on a relatively fast track and would tend to skew projections.”

JANUARY 29, 2022

Town Council Retreat promoting the January 5th contract for water infrastructure for Couch property--$26 - $29 million to bring one water line from another municipality, uphill, to Summerfield border.

Town stated, “Be sure the study includes

4 SUMMERFIELD SCOOP

LEARN MORE ABOUT LUP https://summerfieldnews.com /f/summerfield-land-use-planlup-raises-questions

the proposed water loops proposed by Summerfield Farms Village.” The infrastructure “loops” through part of the town to the Couch development could be $50 to $100 million bond debt, paid by all property owners, as too large a debt for a small area to pay.

MARCH 28, 2022

Planning Board Text Amendment #2 to benefit David Couch property passed 3 2. Kathy Rooney made the motion. Clark Doggett second and Trudy Whitacre voted Yes. Feulner and Jeff Davis voted No.

MARCH 29, 2022

“Land Use Plan Public Input Session” High vote getter from the citizens was low density, however, public input NOT included, and only consultants “interpretations.” Requests from citizens rejected. Their 5 member LUP Steering Committee was chosen to be decision-makers, 100% supportive of “Dave Couch plan, and no minutes of their meetings.

APRIL 12, 2022

Town council voted No to Couch #2 Text Amendment 4 – 1 and said concerns with apartment buildings. John Doggett voted Yes.

However, since January 2022 council actions were pushing ahead on many fronts for municipal water/possible sewer with the Engineering Study contract for high density development.

AUGUST 9, 2022

Guilford County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to approve $5.5 million to Town of Summerfield using federal ARPA money (American Rescue Plan Act), to “Create, authorize and fund municipal water in Summerfield and to fund multifamily, commercial and other development.”

SUMMERFIELD SCOOP

SEPTEMBER 26, 2022

Consultants presented Land Use Plan to mayor, council and planning board. Those 11 people were allowed to ask questions. Their mission and the Steering Committee is “to plan for future development and designate future growth strategy areas.” After almost two years and spending $65,000 of taxpayer money, this was the first that the Public was allowed to listen, but no questions or comments.

The 11 did not ask one question about the “Couch” property on the maps, (BLUE) and (RED) on “growth strategy” with no density. Babcock asked about infrastructure and schools; but they showed no concern of schools or two lane roads. The numbers for their focus groups do not reflect public participation and overwhelmingly public has been excluded from their Land Use Plan process.

WERE THEY TRUTHFUL ABOUT THE IMPACT ON YOUR HOME, YOUR PROPERTY, AND THE COMMUNITY THAT WE LOVE?

5