The latest on Hunter's Point
Residents sign petition to remove mobile homes
By NANCY GLASSCOCK/Staff Writer
SPRING HILL — A group of Hunters Pointe subdivision residents has compiled a petition with 80 signatures in opposition to allowing two single-wide mobile homes used for home sales and construction to remain on the property, Alderman Jonathan Duda said recently.
Duda asked aldermen to help formulate stricter regulations regarding how long mobile sales and construction trailers are allowed to remain during a Monday Board of Mayor and Aldermen work session. At a January Planning Commission work session, Duda said Hunters Pointe residents had complained about the mobile homes, which have remained near the subdivision’s entrance for eight or nine years.
Director of Codes and Zoning Ferrell White said at the January work session the mobile homes are allowed until building is complete, according to current zoning rules.
Spring Hill Codes Enforcement Officer Beau Herring said Monday he recently confronted Hunters Pointe builder Roger Moore, who said he had no knowledge of complaints from residents. Herring said though residents said they complained to Moore, he was unable to obtain proof of the complaints.
“I have to hear both sides of the story before I act,” Herring said.
The mobile homes are located side-by-side near the subdivision’s entrance. One is used for home sales while the other exists for construction purposes, Herring said.
City Administrator Ken York said during the past seven years, residents have never expressed concern about mobile homes used by builders, and complaints have not surfaced from residents in any other subdivision.
How many trailers are too many?
How many years until an eyesore becomes a meaningful eyesore?
How many concerned citizens does it take to ask for the city to do what is right?
How many businesses can you run out of a work trailer?
Is anyone familiar with a neighborhood called Hunter's Point? If you are, you know that there have been sales trailers placed at the front of this neighborhood for the last NINE (9) years! At what point would you think that the city would say enough is enough?
I have taken a few photos that I would like to share with everyone. 
First of all...How many different businesses are you allowed to have on a sales trailer lot? I know that one of the trailers in question is a sales office, but what is that other one used for? Let's just speculate for a moment that it is involved in another business not directly tied to lot sales or construction. Should it be allowed to stay at the front of the neighborhood creating an eyesore and safety issue for the residents and children of Hunter's Point. Should it have been allowed to stay for the past 9 years, and who knows how many more?
Speaking of children's' safety...Is it really the safest place for children to be playing next to a building with workmen of various types, and truck of various sizes coming and going? I wonder how many times a truck has almost backed up over that playhouse?
As for the lot in the back of the neighborhood...there is a nice large map at city hall with an aerial photo of this site from a couple of years ago and it has not changed one bit. None of this equipment has moved in ages. Tractors, trailers, garbage, etc. have been sitting in the back of this neighborhood for years with no plan to clean this up in the foreseeable future. Again, how many people have to get hurt playing on this? How long do residents have to look at this through their back windows? Would another 9 years or so be too much to ask?
Now really, does this type of thing need to be allowed to go on to the extent that it does? One instance of neglect by the developers in this city is enough. Maybe if this developer would take a little more pride in his neighborhood, there would not be a big problem selling houses in a timely manner?
When are we as a city going to stop allowing people (developers) to take advantage of us? When are we going to put our foot down and hold those accountable that treat their customers this way? Why does it take a petition of every single citizen in this neighborhood to have the Board of Mayor and Aldermen even look at this issue seriously? Even after the issue is brought to the attention of the board, several waive it off as inconsequential. A few quick comments from our BOMA work session...
* Mr. York stated that even a petition of 200 people is less than 1% of the population of the city. This petition of 80 something is really pretty inconsequential.
*Mr. York, Mr. McCulloch and Mr. Raines all seemed to think that since this is the only instance like this in their memory, it really was not worth writing an ordinance.
Other than Jonathan Duda and Mingo Gallardo, no one really seemed to show much interest in pursuing this topic since it is really far less than 1% of the city affected. What happened to doing what is right? Maybe in another 9 years they will take this seriously. (Sharon Cantrell and Eliot Mitchell were not present.)
This issue is coming up at the meeting on February 21st at 7:00. If you happen to be interested in the outcome you might want to stop by and speak up. The BOMA does not seem to think citizens care about issues until they show up in mass to speak on them. Even then there is a chance that the majority of this board still do not care to listen.
PS. I just found another photo that was taken several years ago. I think that you will find a very similar picture taken today?
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
How many is too many?
Posted by Gorilla in the Corner at 3:45 PM
Labels: Board of Mayor and Aldermen, Miscellaneous
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Post Ratings
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: The information on this website is a series of personal opinions and is not meant to reflect an official position by the City of Spring Hill.
15 comments:
Come on Gorilla... this time the speculation and "what if's" are actually laughable.
Are the trailers an eyesore? Not to me. And I see them DAILY, for the last 6 years. What criteria is used to determine "eyesore" anyway?
My parents and my mother in law live in Hunter's Point... none of them have a problem with the trailers either.
My children play in Hunter's point almost daily - they have not been injured, or threatened in any way because of those trailers or the people/vehicles coming and going from them.
The problem I see here is the automatic assumption that Spring Hill has to "allow" us to do everything. Talk about approaching this from a socialist-state mindset. How about the trailers should stay unless there is a REASON to remove them. And so far, I don't see reasons, I see speculation and arbitrary guidelines of "eyesore" being tossed around.
Could the trailers and lot be cleaned up, maybe some landscaping added or maintained? Sure... Those sound like reasonable things to ask or require. But this nonsense about "not safe for children" and other baseless speculation just makes this look like petty whining.
This city has REAL issues for the citizens to get active about, and this is NOT one of them.
Eyesore...
Over 80 people have signed a petition citing these concerns. It is possible that even your family and inlaws are on that petition. You might want to take this issue up with them.
Safety...
This issue was raised by the people of Hunter's point when a truck almost destroyed that child's playhouse. I don't really think that it it too far fetched to believe that someone can in fact be hurt around this.
Allowing us to do what...
How is adding landscaping to an existing trailer, or developing a model home allowing us as citizens to do anything? I have seen many sales trailers with landscaping in this city that really look quite good and probably add to the sales potential of the property. Really DRM, how does this negatively affect you?
We were asked several days ago by the citizens in this area to post an article regarding this matter. I went out and looked into the situation and agreed with their assesment.
FYI, my name is not on that petition so you might ask some of those in the neighborhood what they think.
drm said:
"This city has REAL issues for the citizens to get active about, and this is NOT one of them."
You totally missed the pointe :p.
Hunters Pointe has 68 homes in them. According to the Daily Herald article, over 80 people have signed a petition requesting some sort of action. I'd be willing to bet that some of your family are on that petition.
How many is enough?
After these residents were told by the builder to bark up another tree, they came to the city as citizens seeking relief, only to be told that their problem was not important enough. What?!
My logical question is:
Why have land use zonings if you are not going to enforce them? If this area is zoned for R-2 Residential (single family homes), how is it that permanent trailers (which are allowed under a separate zoning) are allowed to remain?
It seems to me that DRM thinks that land use zoning is socialism.
I do have to agree with DRM on one issue of common sense; don't put a play house within 20 feet of construction trailers.
Oh Gorilla, it's not about "punishment", it's about accountability. In a perfect world, the developer would recognize the value of keeping up his property.
However, isn't this the same developer who proposed a commercial strip mall on property shared by a cemetery - only to balk at the Planning Commission's requirement to provide private access to the cemetery. It seems this developer actually thought that a funeral procession should use the general access parking lot to his shopping center to access the cemetery.
Now, that is what is laughable.
Anonymous @ 9:21 is right -
When asked by the Planning Commission to provide a dedicated easement to the cemetery, his response was:
"If the families wanted to have private access to the cemetery, they shouldn't have sold me all the land around it."
I heard it myself.
Oh wait DRM, does the M stand for 'Moore', as in kin to Roger Moore, said developer?
lol... where to start?
I discussed the petition this morning in fact with both of my parents, and have talked about it with my wife's mother. None of them have signed or seen a petition, and all disagree with the trailers being an eyesore.
I honestly do not see them as an eyesore. Never have. When the landscaping gets run down - yes, I see that as a problem. But the trailers themselves - as long as the development is actively being worked - should have every right to remain.
I have a feeling some of the people in the neighborhood have a personal beef with the builders over other issues, and this seems to be their way of trying to stick it to them. I prefer to see things tried on their own merit, not as weapons over other issues. I may be wrong on this, but I just have a hunch I'm not.
Yes, the "M" does stand for Moore. No, we are not related. The first I knew of their family was when I mistakenly received some of their mail probably 5 years ago. Sorry to disappoint on that one, but my family tree is not their family tree - lol.
As for the playhouse, I'd not put it beside a parking lot with construction equipment coming and going, but maybe that's just me.
Bringing up some unrelated issue about a cemetery - that's part of the problem I pointed out... You have a beef with some other issue, and you muddy the water of THIS issue with it. Take each case on it's own merits, stop mixing them up. It helps nobody, and it unfair to everyone.
I don't have a problem with zoning issues, I just see no problem with a builder having a trailer at a site that is still under development. Obviously - the builders and the city agree.
So instead of complaining about multiple secondary and unrelated issues - stick to one at a time.
If you have a problem with these trailers, how do you fix it? Are you suggesting that a builder cannot have a presence on a site still being actively developed?
Seriously folks... What are your *exact* complaints, and what are your *exact* solutions for those complaints? THAT would be getting us somewhere in a discussion.
From the Daily Herald article:
City Administrator Ken York said during the past seven years, residents have never expressed concern about mobile homes used by builders, and complaints have not surfaced from residents in any other subdivision.
Is this an issue about construction trailers being on site?
Is this an issue about landscaping, maintenance, or appearance?
The city has no records of these things being "issues" anywhere else.
So I ask you again - consider that this may be about something besides that you are being told it is about.
If it is about something else - then by all means let's get that out in the open and address it on it's own merit.
But if this is about other issues, and these trailers are the Trojan horse being used to get through the gate, how can we have a legitimate discussion on making positive change?
I think we should all try to keep an open mind, separate the issues from non-issues, and attempt to rationally and calmly approach each one and work towards a solution, not just jump on the bandwagon.
Alderman Duda presented a proposal to change the open ended permit for temporary trailers to an annual renewable permit.
His argument was that when a permit expires, prior to issuing a renewal, the city could inspect the site to ensure that it was being upkept.
Makes sense to me.
OK, DRM....you say real issues. Maybe there are more important issue out there right now, but if you dont see this as a issue, you might want to pack up and move to Lewisburg. Have you ever heard of expectations and citizen concern. I know the citizens of Franklin have serious expectations. Can you believe they are looking in to passing a law that will keep residents from parking cars on thier lawn....BRILLIANT. So I was driving through Crowne Pointe the other day and this guy decided it would be a great idea to park his car on his front lawn. Funny thing is that there was not even one car in driveway. Yes, DRM...I would label that an eyesore. You think that throwing some flowers and tiny trees around a trailor is going to solve the problem? What happened to expectations. Maybe I should tell the guy with his car in the front lawn to throw it up on some cinder blocks and grow his grass or weeds really tall and cover it. That is a great idea. Why is it that Franklin residents expect nothing but the best, yet Spring Hill residents are fine with a snap together aka trailor as the entyway to a neighborhood. I moved to Spring Hill and had high expectation that the residents would also expect nothing but the best. It seems like there are a handful like Gorilla that are on the same page with me, keep up the good work Gorilla.
On 16 February, 2006 13:20 Anonymous said...
Alderman Duda presented a proposal to change the open ended permit for temporary trailers to an annual renewable permit.
His argument was that when a permit expires, prior to issuing a renewal, the city could inspect the site to ensure that it was being upkept.
Makes sense to me.
Now there's what I consider a reasonable solution to the trailer issue. As long as it is in use for a still-deveoping and being maintained to reasonable established standards, it should stay.
Development stops, not kept up - they gots-to-go.
In reference to Anonymous post on 16 February, 2006 14:11 about parking on the lawn...
If you want to discuss secondary issues, feel free to post them over on the forums at www.dospringhill.com so we can keep Gorilla's blogs and replies a little more focused. I think it would help us all keep this on topic and be more beneficial to the cause I think we all share (After all, I think everyone here is genuinely interested in making Spring Hill better, right?). Thanks!
DRM,
We are in agreement here!
All the residents want is for the area to be cleaned up. They understand the need for a sales site of some sort.
Secondary? Obviously Franklin does not view this secondary if they are bringing this issue in front of city officials. Yeah...most people are interested in making Spring Hill a better place, however, that does include these "secondary" issues. So sorry you do not feel it is an important part of making Spring Hill a better place, but I do and whether I post it on this blog or dospringhill.com, I have a feeling there are people out there that agree that the beautification of Spring Hill is extremely important.
Per Gorilla:
How many trailers are too many?
How many years until an eyesore becomes a meaningful eyesore?
How many concerned citizens does it take to ask for the city to do what is right?
Gorilla is the one who asked. I am writing as a concerned citizen and I WILL post on this blog as a VERY concerned citizen who will ask the city to do the right thing.
Back to the original question:
How many concerned citizens does it take to ask for the city to do what is right?
10?
100?
1000?
10000?
Why isn't it just 1?
I live in Haynes Crossing. About a year ago, I asked the mayor why a business park was being built in my back yard with no screening. I was told that my concern should end at my property line and that nobody else was complaining.
Well, guess what? The business looks terrible, and there's still no screening. Now the whole neighborhood is talking about it and we are being told that there's nothing that we can do now.
It sounds like the folks at Hunter's Point are getting that same attitude that I got.
I am all for taking personal responsibility, but don't throw out my very real concern just because I'm the only one who brought it forward.
On 16 February, 2006 15:18 Gorilla in the Corner said...
DRM, We are in agreement here! All the residents want is for the area to be cleaned up. They understand the need for a sales site of some sort.
I am fine with that. But you can see why I had a concern when you say now the issue is "clean them up" but the lead story brings up child safety issues, length of time the trailers have been there, speculation on businesses in the trailers, etc.
If the issue is unkempt trailers - let's talk about unkempt trailers, and not mix in the other stuff. You know as well as I do that if we want to make this city better, we need FOCUSED discussion, and WORKABLE solutions, not just complaints and vents tossed out on a whim.
And to Anonymous who didn't understand what I meant by "secondary" - this post by Gorilla was about trailers, not about parking in yards. To discuss parking in yards here does a dis-service to a discussion about the trailers. Maybe tomorrow Gorilla will post about parking in yards, and that would be a great time and forum to discuss parking in yards. In the mean time, I'll start a thread on DoSpringHill.com just for you to express your concerns.
Post a Comment