INC NEWS - Developers Report Card (info regarding Bill Ripley)

[Melissa Rooney]

Hi again. The following information was provided to me
by Mrs. Carol Reeves, my primary contact person
regarding opposition to the Scott Mill rezoning. 

With her permission, I just wanted to pass this
information on to the INC, so that all neighborhoods
know to be wary of development by this Ripley guy.

[The mediation between Bill Ripley and the community
regarding the Scott Mill development] “was not
binding.”
 
“I don't know if you have any knowledge of Bill Ripley
but when you drive out of Fairfield and see what looks
like an open pit mining operation across the street,
that is Ripley's handiwork. His usual method is to
obtain property and get it rezoned under the radar
screen so committed elements are not attached. He then
turns it around and sells it (flips it) to a developer
who then only needs to meet the bare minimum of our
ordinances for site plan approval. The only chance for
citizen input with the attachment of legally binding
committed elements (which are above what is required
by ordinance) is during the petition for rezoning. As
an aside, the project across the street from Fairfield
has been in violation of sedimentation and erosion
standards multiple times, spewing silt filled water
from the site and ultimately into Northeast Creek.

Bill Ripley has a history with Indigo Corners as well.
He met with the New Hope Creek Advisory Committee and
made a number of promises, showed them plans and then
turned around and presented elected officials with a
different set of plans. Bill is a managing member of
Indigo Corners LLC yet when the project was underway
and they were ignoring their own erosion control
plans, amassing fines of $38,000+, Bill lied to the
press about his involvement with Indigo Corners LLC.
He was a named party in the action against Indigo
Corners LLC which is contesting the fine.
 
So as you can see, there is a real credibility problem
where Mr. Ripley is concerned. In the last couple of
days I have received an email from Ripley's
representative wanting to meet to be sure the
committed element meet the outcome of our mediation.
They do not and Ripley knows it. I suspect the real
reason is Ripley just found out that the Planning
Dept. is recommending denial and they are trying to
gage where we stand so they can counter it. I just
received another email from Ripley's representative
late tonight wondering why I haven't responded and
cc'd the Commissioners...a tactic to make us look
uncooperative, yet they have failed to answer my
questions regarding the committed elements that I
posed to them in early November. It is a tag team con
job.”


More information regarding the Scott King Development:

“The Scott King zoning went from rural to R-20 which
would normally dictate lot size minimum of 20,000 sq.
ft., however they are doing an R-20 cluster zoning
which allows for much smaller lots. All of their tree
save requirements are being met by the trees left on
the west and north perimeter. The erosion control
measures so far have failed to stem the flow of silt
despite what appear to be an upgraded retention pond
fitted with skimmers. Separately I will forward you
the report I received from Joe Pearce, Durham County's
Div. Mgr. of Soil and Erosion Division. Should you see
excessively muddy water flowing off-site from the
project (or for that matter any project), he is the
person to contact.

The interior lots are the ones not abutting adjacent
property which has a different zoning designation and
different setback requirements. Specifically, the
development notes state that the eight feet refers to
the setback or distance of the house from the rear lot
line. It appears that most of the lot will be consumed
by the house, offering little in the way of 
protection for this environmentally sensitive piece of
property and visually out of character with the
surrounding area. Homes directly across the street are
a minimum of one third of an acre and homes to the
east on Scott King Road are on lots in excess of one
acre. This is just one of the serious problems we have
with this project.
 
The applicant (person requesting the rezoning) has
been particularly unwilling to work honestly with the
community and prior to the last County Commissioners
meeting substituted his original plan ( the one that
the Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny) for
the plan we agreed upon at mediation. He has refused
to make the changes requested by the Planning Dept.
and as a result this department is also recommending
denial. In spite of these two bodies denial
recommendation, we need community support to ensure
that this plan will not receive a favorable vote by
the County Commissioners. This land requires a better
development.”

And yet more information:

"Our experience with him has shown him to be a person
with an aversion to telling the truth. In February
Ripley scheduled a meeting at his office and didn't
show. The next day he showed up in our neighborhood,
uninvited at dinner time, knocking on doors soliciting
support. When we met with him last March, we had
agreed to a list of committed elements after some
heated discussion when he abruptly threw a tantrum,
storming out of the meeting yelling, "No committed
elements, no committed elements!" Regarding Scott
Mill, it is our suspicion that he has made promises to
a developer (he won't tell us who it is) and therefore
has no intention of honoring the outcome of our mediation."


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for earth-friendly autos? 
Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/