Heuristic

Jim Burbank's early partner was Downie Saussy. They sold to St.Joe/Arvida. Jim Burbank, supported by local capital later bought the company back from the St. Joe Company.

Plat maps show six lots in the first phase, bounded by Avant, Main and Baxter. That parcel has been cleared, recently and is staked for footings. Saussy will build 3 homes initially, a model and two specs.

Looks like this will be 43 homes. 39 SF from the 400's to the 600's and 2 duplexes housing four affordable units priced well below $200K. Virgate 1, LLC is listed as the owner.

As I read the rezoning application, the requested SPA results in a reduction in density. Dropping from some 60 plus townhomes to 43 or so houses, of which two are duplexes. Seems like a good fit and spot on the requirements of the recently approved "Morehead/Midtown/Cherry Small Area Plan". As best I can tell, there are no single family homes being demolished as a part of this plan. Despite being a large area, it appears that nearly all of the land is vacant with the exception of some 1950's duplexes that are not in any way indicative of the period housing in the area; housing that some residents would like to see recognized as part of a Local Historic District currently being promoted as a possibility. Sadly, it seems that period bungalows are razed nearly every week by the builders already at work in the area where no rezoning is required.

Charlotte Pipe and Foundry has purchased the former Beazer Land....back in September or so. CP&F will seek to rezone it back to I-2 (industrial) from MUDD, maintaining a strip of green along West Morehead, but otherwise expanding their operations onto the site. How does this synch with the City's most recent long term planning efforts?

I looked at this and yes, the TRO was lifted, but the underlying case has not been resolved. I noticed that the Plaintiff's have never made a statement in their own defense in the media. If not resolved, it will next go to a jury. The onus is on the defendants to demonstrate that the land in question has been acquired by adverse possession, a feat that is so much more challenging than what the County Atty. has outlined in the Observer. Among other things the land in question must be held in an continuous, exclusive and notorious fashion. 20 years alone does not get the job done. http://www.newswiretoday.com/news/60494/

Article XIV, Section 5 of the Constitution of NC declares that "it is the policy of this State to conserve and protect its lands and waters for the benefit of all its citizenry, and to this end it shall be a proper function of the State of North Carolina and its political subdivisions to acquire and preserve park, recreations, and scenic areas ...... and so on Perhaps the deck is not the issue central to the Plaintiffs. Perhaps the deck is instead a symptom of the real issue(s).