HomeMy WebLinkAboutNO Drakes Landing-CefaxThank you for taking out so much of your valuable time and consideration for all parties involved for and against the Drake Landing activities.
I have previously written and included it below for your convenience should you desire to refresh yourself.
As an update it has been rather quiet in our neck of the neighborhood thus I am taking it that the sound attenuating booths and other recent measures have had a positive effect for those
of us at the two mile radius and I want to thank Mr. Andrews for finally taking these measures.
I find it most disconcerting however that it would take all of this time and expense to force Mr. Andrews to be more considerate of numerous other neighbors.
As such it is my request that if permitting for Drake Landing goes through, that it contain stringent and detailed requirements of Drake Landing as it relates to the noise factor. I
leave the safety factor out of my request as it is my understanding it is in their best interest to exercise explicit caution in this area of operations.
It is my further request that in these details the county purposely leave itself a loophole to further implement noise eradication features in the future at will. I would not be so
adamant if Mr. Andrews had voluntarily made such efforts at a simple request of fellow neighbors. Although it could be said they’ve made voluntary efforts in a technical sense, they
have not done so at neighborly request; only after utilizing great efforts on the parts of neighbors needing relief.
I also request that “expansion” of services not be allowed as it is my understanding that further ranges have been planned and I do not wish to have to continue the process but will
if necessary. Simply limit what is there and move on.
Now, this is based on someone at the two mile point who is now experiencing relief thus I do not feel I have the right to suggest permitting is acceptable. If I were next door, I would
still be adamantly opposed and as such cast my plea as a definite “NO” if others beyond the physical and audible range of the activities are allowed to influence you in your efforts.
On a separate note as I’m not certain of how the information or titled position was taken at your meeting last night. As it relates to the President of NCFPOA speaking, he only represents
himself and any specifically named from Neills Creek Farms as the NCFPOA has “NOT” taken any sort of vote in this matter as a community. Information has been circulated by individuals
but nothing of an official matter has crossed the neighborhood residents from the NCFPOA Officers. My apologies if this is specifically off target, simply wanted to be sure this was
clarified if it was missed last night.
Thank you again for your service,
Mr. Cefax
Harnett County, NC
_________________________________________________________
Prior Email:
Good Evening Honorable Harnett County Commissioners,
Please choose to “Uphold” Judge Gilchrest’s order regarding Drake Landing.
As a voter I carefully choose to support those I regard as worthy of those expressing wisdom and fairness.
I believe the Drake Landing facilities found a convenient loophole to conduct the activities which they have for a number of years.
I believe conditional permitting for their activities should be just that; “Conditional”.
I’ve heard it stated often that those who are opposed to their activities shouldn’t have moved to the country and that’s what we must put up with.
I have two brief points.
1. I take no issue with how one neighbor utilizes their personal property as long as it doesn’t bleed over into my ability to enjoy mine. I reciprocate. My peaceful Sunday afternoons
in a hammock are gone. Even with a well built extra insulated house I’m still woken often at the crack of dawn by their supported activities. Conditional in my opinion is required
safety measures to prevent any sort of damage to the peace, safety and financial measures of those outside the property lines of Drake Landing. In addition, to aid in fairness to those
who don’t see this as an issue and desire to utilize the facilities, planned dates for special events would be considered quite reasonable such as every first Saturday from 9am to 5pm
& July 4th same hours. For those that think I have a problem with gunfire and that I shouldn’t have moved into the area. Please understand, I don’t have an issue with a neighbor who
has a private plane and landing strip at their home but I would have the same objections if said neighbor decided to go commercial and have near non stop flights in and out from the
crack of dawn until dusk and sometimes beyond. I have no problem with the farmer that brings in a fertilizer topping of chicken manure for his crops yearly but I would object to a fertilizer
production facility being opened “after” I’ve moved nearby. I understand eminent domain for the good of all, but Drake Landing is NOT “for the good of all”. A small amount of taxable
revenue is lowering property tax values that you are sworn to uphold and protect.
2. In seeking limited conditional use, I believe Drake Landing, providing it meets proper safety standards, should be allowed to continue operations without having to shutdown as long
as they immediately seek the appropriate permitting and my belief is “Ample Time” would be whatever the average time to obtain similar permits over the course of the last 3 years plus
an additional 45 days grace period. As much as I dislike the current conditions of the facility, I’m not without understanding and respect of what they have currently invested.
Thank you for your cooperation,
Mr. Cefax
Harnett County, NC
icrosoft SMTP Server id 14.2.342.3; Thu, 28 Aug 2014
13:03:32 -0400
X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1409245349-0600644b213a07c0001-APUV3F
Received: from BAY004-OMC1S5.hotmail.com (bay004-omc1s5.hotmail.com
[65.54.190.16]) by smtp.harnett.org with ESMTP id olCoAZLuCbT4oxeK; Thu, 28
Aug 2014 13:02:31 -0400 (EDT)
X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: gracefax@hotmail.com
X-Barracuda-Apparent-Source-IP: 65.54.190.16
Received: from BAY172-DS14 ([65.54.190.60]) by BAY004-OMC1S5.hotmail.com over
TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.22724); Thu, 28 Aug 2014
10:02:29 -0700
X-TMN: [6tHbLt617tu1FsUMkDeeSr2a+Hwnq4PV]
X-Originating-Email: [gracefax@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BAY172-DS14FD873EAD4F5A0A8F268AC2DA0@phx.gbl>
From: Gra Cefax <gracefax@hotmail.com>
To: <tbyrd@harnett.org>
Subject: Drake Landing Conditional Use
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 13:01:39 -0400
X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Drake Landing Conditional Use
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0365_01CFC2C0.34D49490"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3555.308
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3555.308
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Aug 2014 17:02:29.0338 (UTC) FILETIME=[D9BB13A0:01CFC2E1]
X-Barracuda-Connect: bay004-omc1s5.hotmail.com[65.54.190.16]
X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1409245351
X-Barracuda-URL: http://172.16.72.11:8000/cgi-mod/mark.cgi
X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at harnett.org
X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1
X-Barracuda-Bayes: INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.5000 1.0000 0.0100
X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.01
X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.01 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=0.3 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=0.6 tests=BSF_SC0_MISMATCH_TO, HTML_MESSAGE
X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.3.8918
Rule breakdown below
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
0.00 BSF_SC0_MISMATCH_TO Envelope rcpt doesn't match header
0.00 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
Return-Path: gracefax@hotmail.com
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: HCEMAILCAS.int.harnett.org
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthAs: Anonymous