MINUTES
STATE OF
The
Henderson County Board of Commissioners met for a regularly scheduled meeting
at
Those
present were: Chairman Bill Moyer,
Vice-Chairman Charlie Messer, Commissioner Larry Young, Commissioner Shannon
Baldwin, Commissioner Chuck McGrady, County Manager David E. Nicholson,
Assistant County Manager
Also
present were: Planning Director Karen C. Smith, Budget and Management Director
CALL TO ORDER/WELCOME
Chairman
Moyer called the meeting to order and welcomed all in attendance.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner
Baldwin led the Pledge of Allegiance
to the American Flag.
INVOCATION
CHAIRMAN COMMENTS
Chairman
Moyer stated that yesterday, July 4th, was a special day. We had a very nice ceremony at the historic
courthouse at
INFORMAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA
Chairman Moyer discussed the
need to add an item as “J” to the Discussion Items – Emergency Watershed
Protection Agreement.
Commissioner McGrady made the motion to approve the
revised agenda. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner McGrady made the motion
to approve the Consent Agenda. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
The
Consent Agenda items were:
Minutes
Draft minutes were presented of the
following meetings for the Board’s review and approval:
Tax Collector’s Report
No
report was received.
Surplus
Presented for the Board’s
consideration was a resolution declaring a list of vehicles and equipment no
longer used by the County as surplus property.
The resolution also authorizes staff to advertise for sale and dispose
of this surplus property by electronic public auction at www.govdeals.com.
The
NC FAST Project Position
NC FAST (North Carolina
Families Accessing Services through Technology) is a State project to automate
processes in county departments of Social Services. The goals are to 1) reduce manual and
repetitive tasks 2) increase time for
customers that are people rather than paper focused 3) reduce program
administrative costs.
It is imperative counties are
directly involved in development/design of NC FAST. Direct county involvement will help ensure
county level needs are met.
Since this employee is
relocating to
The
Petition for addition to
Staff recommended approval of
a petition to add
Record Disposition
The Inspections Department
recommends approval to dispose of bulky Industrial and Commercial Building
Plans from
Water Line Extension
The City of
Amendment of Upset Bid Procedure for
The current Board of
Commissioners policy was last amended
The Board was requested to
approve a modification of the present policy, allowing the payment to be in the
actual cost of the advertisement, as quoted to the Office of the
The County manager supports
this proposal.
If so inclined, the following
was proposed:
I move that the Board’s Policy regarding the sale of
real property owned by Henderson County as a result of a tax foreclosure sale
be modified such that all references to the amounts of payments to cover
advertising costs now require that the payment be in the amount of the full
cost of the advertising.
Awards
The following recognitions/awards had been
received by County Departments and/or employees. The Board of Commissioners had
asked that these be included on the agenda for special recognition of our
departments’ and employees’ achievements:
§
North Carolina Chapter of the American Planning Association’s 2005
Marvin Collins Outstanding Planning Award for the 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
§
National Association of Counties’ 2005 Achievement Award for the
Emergency Management Department’s Field Operations Guide.
NOMINATIONS
Nominations
Chairman Moyer reminded the Board of the following
vacancies and opened the floor to nominations:
1.
Commissioner
McGrady nominated Jackie Price to position #5. Commissioner Moyer made the motion to
accept Ms. Price by acclamation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner
Baldwin nominated Terry Hicks.
Commissioner McGrady nominated David Jones. Both these
nominees were
for position #9. The Clerk will poll the
Board at the next meeting.
2.
Commissioner
Baldwin nominated Matt Matteson. There were no other nominations at this time. Chairman
Moyer made the motion to accept Mr. Matteson
by acclamation. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
3.
Juvenile Crime Prevention Council – 9 vac.
Commissioner
McGrady nominated Jason Hayes to position #13. There were no other nominations
at this
time. Chairman Moyer made the motion to accept Mr.
Hayes by acclamation. All voted in favor
and the
motion
carried.
Commissioner McGrady stated that positions #21, #23,
and #25 are all at-large positions. Ms.
Brantley reminded the Board that Gwenn Rice is currently filling position #21
and is the Chairman of that committee and Ms. Rice is willing to continue to
serve.
Commissioner Baldwin nominated Gwenn Rice to position
# 21. Chairman Moyer made the motion to
accept Ms. Rice by acclamation. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner Baldwin nominated Jametta Walker to
position #23. Ms. Brantley mentioned that Ms. Walker is currently an employee
of the Spectrum Youth Home and questioned whether this might be a conflict of
interest. This was rolled to the next meeting so staff could check on the legal
question.
Commissioner Baldwin nominated Sanford Marx to
position #25. Commissioner McGrady
nominated Al Henry to position #25. The Clerk will poll the Board at the next
meeting for this vacancy.
4.
Land-of-Sky Regional Advisory Council on Aging – 1
vac.
There were no
nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
5.
Mountain Area Workforce Development Board – 1 vac.
There were no
nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
6.
Nursing/Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee –
2 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the
next meeting.
Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinance
Russ Burrell had provided the
Board with a proposed final ordinance incorporating the policy directions given
by the Board of Commissioners at its June 23 meeting.
Notable provisions, with
citations to the draft, included:
1.
Development in
the floodway only for water dependent structures, water and sewer lines where
no viable alternative exists, and stream bank restoration, and with “no-rise”
certification.
2.
Fill as of right
in the floodway fringe only on parcels which are recorded as of the date of
adoption, and then only on 20% of such parcels.
3.
A new section
allowing “special fill permits” in the floodway fringe, only if “full
compensatory flood storage” and only if the Board of Commissioners finds that
the project advances a public or community purpose.
The
Following discussion, Commissioner McGrady made the motion to
adopt the flood damage prevention ordinance as presented with the effective
date being
Flood Damage Prevention Fee
Schedule
A draft fee schedule was
provided by the Planning Staff for the Board’s consideration. There was some discussion as to justification
of the fee amounts.
Following discussion, Chairman Moyer made the motion to adopt the
“Proposed Fee Schedule for the Henderson County Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinance (FY 2005-2006)” without the additional $50 per acre set forth under
Flood Development Permit and that staff come back at the July 20 meeting with
figures with respect to what the jurisdictions around us are charging and any
justification on whether or not we should have the $50 per acre. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner McGrady made the motion to direct staff
to bring forward the application necessary to put in place the National Flood
Insurance (NFI). All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
Chairman Moyer mentioned the
need for staff to address where we stand and come back in July as to when we
can get started on the other piece of this and what staff’s recommendation is
concerning storm water run off and erosion control. Staff stated that this is calendared in the
Strategic Plan for 2006-07. There was some discussion that the Board would like
for it to be moved up if possible, out of fairness we should attack both sides
of the issue and not leave the people at the end of the line with an
unaddressed problem.
While Karen Smith was at the
podium, since she had just addressed the Board, Mr. Nicholson publicly made it
known that Ms. Smith had tendered her resignation. She will begin working at the
Ms. Smith stated that she had
enjoyed her time in
Presentation by the Cemetery
Advisory Board
Jay Jackson, a member of the
Cemetery Advisory Committee, presented the current list of Henderson County
Cemeteries. The list will be continually
updated. Not included in this list are the Cremated Remains Scattering/Burial
Gardens and Niches that are located at churches and other places so the list
does need refining.
There was a new family
cemetery created this weekend. It is the
He did not have anything to
report on legislative goals today. They
are still researching that and will discuss it further at their next meeting.
The committee members have
discussed the future role of the committee and came up with the following recommendations:
1.
Supervise the
2.
Oversee the
abandoned public cemetery process, monitor and update the ongoing written list
and GIS list of cemeteries.
3.
Investigate any
and all complaints or suggestions from citizens regarding cemeteries.
4.
Attempt to
identify unmarked/lost grave sites and mark with appropriate sign/marker.
Mr. Jackson stated that they
have had problems with attendance at their meeting and it is difficult to have
the required quorum of six members present to hold a meeting. This makes it hard on the ones that do show
up. He requested that the Board reduce
the number of members by one which would make them a nine member committee.
This would require five for a quorum. The committee would like to recommend
which person is to be released.
Mr. Jackson answered
questions from the Board.
Apparently legislators are
still working on drafting the “Adopt a Cemetery Program”. Commissioner Baldwin
asked that a letter go to our legislators from the Board of Commissioners and
the Cemetery Advisory Committee that this be introduced in this session
regarding legislation for “Adopt a Cemetery Program”.
Commissioner McGrady reminded
the Board that Mr. Jackson had made some recommendations regarding the future
role of the committee. The Board should
revisit that issue in the near future.
He suggested that the future role of the committee as well as the
recommendation to decrease the number of committee members be placed on the
next agenda for July 20 for Board action.
Mr. Nicholson stated that
staff would be happy to work with Mr. Jackson and the committee to re-do their
charter. There are some legal issues
that need to be addressed.
Proposed Franchise Agreements
for Emergency Medical Services: Henderson County Rescue Squad, Inc., Gerton
Volunteer Fire Department and Rescue, Inc.,
Terry Layne, EMS Director,
informed the Board that Henderson County Rescue Squad, Inc., Gerton Volunteer
Fire Department and Rescue, Inc., and Mills River Volunteer Fire and Rescue
Department, Inc. (together, “the Applicants”), have applied for franchises
under the Henderson County Emergency Medical Services Ordinance, Chapter 87 of
the Henderson County Code.
Each of these respond at the
request of Henderson County EMS on an emergency basis and answer calls when all
our units are busy with other emergencies and we don’t have the manpower or
units to respond to those emergencies. The Henderson County Rescue Squad
answered about 90 calls this year, Gerton answered 8-10 calls, while
Pursuant to
The franchises proposed to be
granted would be more limited in scope than a normal franchise under the EMS
Ordinance. Each of these three
applicants possess capabilities in terms of rough (or no) roads, and would
transport injured or sick persons in emergencies from difficult to reach
locations to a place where Henderson County EMS could continue the transport to
a medical facility. Section 87-2C(1) of
the EMS Ordinance seems to not require this (“No franchise shall be required
for: (1) Any entity rendering assistance to a franchised ambulance service in
the case of … emergency for which the services franchised by the County of Henderson
are insufficient or with which the services franchised by the County of
Henderson are unable to cope…”), but in the interest of caution these
applicants have sought a franchise from the County to clarify the lawful nature
of their actions.
To be effective, an ordinance
granting a franchise must be approved at two regular meetings of the Board of
Commissioners. Therefore, if approved
today by the Board, the ordinance granting a renewal of its franchise to the
applicant will be placed on the Board’s agenda for the second time for final
approval at the
1.
The public
convenience and necessity require the proposed ambulance service.
2.
Each such
ambulance of the applicant, his required equipment and the premises designated
in the application have been certified by the county and the State of
3.
Only duly
licensed ambulance attendants and emergency medical technicians are employed in
such capacities.
After initial approval, under
your ordinance “the county shall cause such investigation as it may deem
necessary to be made of the applicant and his proposed operations”.
Mr. Nicholson reminded the
Board that Emergency Medical Services Director, Terry Layne, is responsible for
administering the Ambulance Ordinance, and should be able to answer any of the
Board’s questions as well.
If the Board is so inclined after hearing the evidence, the following motion
was suggested:
“I move that the Board find
as fact all the matters required by Section 87-4D of the Henderson County Code,
and further move that the Board provisionally grant the franchise applications,
subject to further information discovered by County staff after appropriate
investigation, and that this matter come back before this Board on July 20,
2005.”
Commissioner McGrady made the motion with respect to
the Henderson County Rescue Squad, Inc., Gerton Volunteer Fire Department and
Rescue, Inc., and Mills River Volunteer Fire and Rescue Department, Inc., that
we find that public convenience and necessity require the proposed ambulance
services, that each such ambulance of
the applicants, their required equipment and the premises designated in the
applications have been certified by the county and the State of North Carolina,
and that only duly licensed ambulance attendants and emergency medical
technicians are employed in such capacities and that the Board provisionally
grant the franchise applications subject to further information that may be
discovered by the county staff after appropriate investigation, and that this
matter come back before this Board at our next meeting on July 20 of this
month. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously.
Ambulance Franchise renewal
Terry Layne again addressed
the Board. In the agenda packet was a
draft franchise agreement with Arc’Angel Trans’Support Services for the renewal
of its existing franchise for the provision of non-emergency ambulance
transport services.
Mr. Layne explained that
Arc’Angel has been in operation since 1995.
This will be the second time that they’ve renewed their franchise. It is
a 5-year contract. They respond to approximately 2,900 calls per year, basic
routine calls such as discharges from the hospital or Doctor’s office visits,
etc. They take a burden off the
emergency services shoulders. They work well with
Pursuant to Henderson County
Code 8704(C), the applicant must be given an opportunity to be heard by the
Board of Commissioners on the applications.
This is also the Board’s opportunity to ask the applicant any questions
concerning the application and proposed services to be offered by the
applicant.
To be effective, an ordinance
granting a franchise must be approved at two regular meetings of the Board of
Commissioners. Therefore, if approved
today by the Board, the ordinance granting a renewal of its franchise to the
applicant will be placed on the Board’s agenda for the second time for final
approval at the
1.
The public
convenience and necessity require the proposed ambulance service.
2.
Each such
ambulance of the applicant, his required equipment and the premises designated
in the application have been certified by the county and the State of
3.
Only duly
licensed ambulance attendants and emergency medical technicians are employed in
such capacities.
After initial approval, under
our ordinance “the county shall cause such investigation as it may deem
necessary to be made of the applicant and his proposed operations”.
Mr. Nicholson reminded the
Board that Emergency Medical Services Director, Terry Layne, is responsible for
administering the Ambulance Ordinance.
If the Board is so inclined after hearing the evidence, he suggested the
following motion:
I move that the Board find as
fact all the matters required by Section 87-4D of the Henderson County Code,
and further move that the Board provisionally grant the franchise application,
subject to further information discovered by County staff after appropriate
investigation, and that this matter come back before this Board on July 20,
2005.
Following discussion, Commissioner McGrady made the motion that
the Board find as a matter of fact that all the mattes required by Section
87-4D of the Henderson County Code, and further move that the Board
provisionally grant the franchise application, subject to further information
that may be discovered by County staff after appropriate investigation, and
that this matter also come back to this Board at its July 20, 2005
meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Preliminary Engineering
Report - Mud Creek Sanitary Sewer Interceptor
Gary
Tweed informed the Board that the Office of the
The
development of the preliminary engineering report was prompted by proposed
plans for a large residential subdivision and a proposed industrial park in the
area. The Plan is to develop a sanitary
sewer interceptor project on the east side of the
The
CCWSD Advisory Committee has reviewed the PER and has endorsed the
recommendation to begin the development of a sanitary sewer interceptor project
in the
The
Before
the project is put out to bid, the final design and a funding plan will be presented
to the Board for final approval.
Mr.
Tweed explained the proposed project in much detail, showing it on a map and
answering questions from the Board. The estimated cost for Phase One is $2.1
million. Windsor Aughtry would have to install their own facility if this
project is not done and so they have offered to contribute $200,000 toward this
project.
Following
much discussion, Chairman Moyer made the
motion that Gary Tweed draft a letter and send to
Recess
Chairman Moyer called a brief
recess to change videotapes and explained that we would start our public
hearings a little late when we return from break.
PUBLIC HEARING – Road Names
Commissioner McGrady made the motion for the Board to
go into public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Toby Linville reminded the
Board that staff had requested that this public hearing be held for new road
names. The Henderson County Board of
Commissioners approved this public hearing date at their
Road names to be heard:
Dancing Ridge
Public Input
There was none.
Commissioner Messer made the motion for the Board to
go out of public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner Messer made the motion to approve the
four road names as presented. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING – To consider the reorganization of the
Commissioner Messer made the motion for the Board to
go into public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Chairman Moyer reminded the
Board that this is part of the Comprehensive Plan, it is goal #2 in the
Strategic Plan. Terry Lyda, our Tax Collector and Stan Duncan, our Assessor
have been part of the discussions regarding this issue. They both spoke briefly and were available to
answer any questions. Chairman Moyer
stressed that both offices/departments are functioning very well. This is no
attempt to find any criticism with either department but there may be ways that
we can improve service and therefore we need to at least study the issue.
This hearing was to consider
the merits of the reorganization of the County’s tax offices (Assessor and
Collector), possibly into a single, combined office. Such reorganization, if approved, could
result in the Tax Collector’s position no longer being an elected office in
In
Any change in this position
would ultimately have to be accomplished by State government.
At the conclusion of the
public hearing, the Board may choose to take action regarding any
recommendation the Board may make in this regard, delay action to a subsequent
meeting, or take no action.
Public Input
There was none.
Commissioner McGrady made the motion for the Board to
go out of public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
The Board thanked both
gentlemen for their work for
Commissioner McGrady made the motion to support the
reorganization of the Henderson County Tax Offices which would combine the
Assessor’s and Collection’s offices and request the Chairman to communicate to
the Henderson County Legislators that we support authorizing legislation to
accomplish this consolidation this session. A vote was taken and the motion
passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING – Rezoning Action #R-2005-02 (O-U to
C-1, C-2, or C-4) Parcels owned by the City of Asheville and Murphy-Wilson
Investment Co.
Commissioner Messer made the motion for the Board to
go into public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Autumn Radcliff reminded the
Board that on April 20, 2005, the Henderson County Board of Commissioners (the
“Commissioners”) directed the Henderson County Planning Staff to study three
parcels (the “Subject Area”), currently zoned OU (Open Use), and determine what
commercial zoning district could be applied that would be consistent with
adjacent commercial zoning by the Town of Fletcher. The Subject Area is located off NC Highway
280 (
PIN 00964362687755 (0.05 acres, owned by the City of
PIN 00964362972515 (0.59 acres, owned by the City of
PIN 00964362963855 (0.36 acres, owned by the
Murphy-Wilson Investment Co.)
The Henderson County Planning
Board first considered rezoning action #R-2005-02 at its regularly scheduled
meeting on Tuesday, May 17, 2005, at which time the Board voted unanimously
(7-0) on a motion to send the Board of Commissioners a favorable recommendation
on rezoning the Subject Area to a C-4 (Highway Commercial) zoning district.
Before taking action on the
application, the Board of Commissioners must hold a public hearing. In accordance with Section 200-76 of the
Henderson County Zoning Ordinance and State Law, notices of the
The
Staff Recommendation
Based on the following, Staff
recommended a C-4 Highway Commercial zoning district for the subject area:
Both
the text and map of the CCP identify the Subject Area as being located in the
Urban Services Area (USA) and stated that the USA “will contain considerable commercial
development at a mixture of scales: local, community, and regional”.
The
Subject Area is located in close proximity to the I-26 interchange, and based
upon the CCP and the recommendations of the U.S. Highway 25 North Zoning Study,
a regional commercial node should generally be located along major roads. The
Subject Area is located on N.C. Highway 280, has direct access to I-26 and is
currently surrounded by commercial development that is typical of a highway
commercial district.
The
Town of
The
Subject Area has access to existing public sewer lines owned by the Buncombe
County Metropolitan Sewer District and the Cane Creek Water and Sewage
District. In addition, the Regional
Water Authority has an existing public water line that runs along N.C. 280 that
would serve this area.
The
Subject Area is also located adjacent to the
Planning Board Recommendation
The Henderson County Planning
Board first considered rezoning action #R-2005 002 at its regularly scheduled
meeting on Tuesday, May 17, 2005, at which time the Board voted unanimously
(7-0) on a motion to send the Board of Commissioners a favorable recommendation
on rezoning the Subject Area to a C-4 (Highway Commercial) zoning district. This was based on the following:
Based
on recommendations in the U.S. Highway 25 North Zoning Study, if the Subject
Area had been located on U.S. Highway 25 North in a similar location as the
The
Planning Board has not attempted in other rezoning cases to match identical or
recommend language changes to the Board of Commissioners so that our Ordinances
would exactly match surrounding municipalities.
Disclosure
Commissioner McGrady made all
aware that he had attended the Planning Board meeting where this issue was
heard. He stated that his understanding of the facts may be somewhat broader or
different because he was in attendance at the meeting.
Public Input
There was none.
Commissioner McGrady made the motion for the Board to
go out of public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner McGrady made the motion to approve C-4
zoning for the three parcels as recommended.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING – On Application
#SP-93-13-A5 to Amend Special Use Permit #SP-93-13 (as amended) for the
This will be a quasi-judicial
proceeding on application #SP-93-13A5 to amend special use permit #SP-93-13 as
has been previously amended for Carriage Park Planned Unit Development.
Commissioner McGrady made the motion for the Board to
go into public hearing with respect to the special use permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Chairman Moyer – “OK, now let
me be very very clear on this matter.
This is a quasi-judicial proceeding. It’s being held today on the uh
special use permit that I mentioned where
Commissioner McGrady – “Mr.
Chairman, before we get there let me just again as a matter of disclosure uh my
uh – a family member of mine does live in the Carriage Park Development. I have personally have no financial interest
in the – that property on there but I think I needed to opt to disclose that
fact and again I did attend the Planning Board Hearing on this matter and I
don’t know exactly what the set of witnesses that may come forward as part of
the quasi-judicial hearing but if they are in any way different, I would have
heard what came before the Planning Board.
Again, I think that’s just a matter of disclosure and does not.”
Chairman Moyer – “Do you feel
you’re in a position to give an impartial decision in this matter?”
Commissioner McGrady – “I do,
I believe I can.”
Commissioner
Commissioner McGrady – “No, I
haven’t.”
Commissioner
Commissioner McGrady – “No.”
Commissioner
Chairman Moyer – “Any further
questions? Anybody wish Mr. McGrady to recuse himself. Alright he stands.
Alright as I was indicating before, the Board acknowledged as the pet – the
petitioner which is Carriage Park Associates, L.L.C. and I assume – Mr. Hamlin
you will be the spokesman for that?
Dale Hamlin – “Yes sir.”
Chairman Moyer – “You are a
party. The Planning Staff as parties to
this proceeding so Karen are you gonna be or – handling this? Alright. Now, are there any other persons present who
can demonstrate that they will be affected by the outcome of this proceeding
and who wish to be a party to this proceeding? Mam, will you please come to the
phone, give your name, address, and how you – why you believe you should be a
party.”
A lady from the audience -
“My name is Kathleen Byrne. My address
is
Chairman Moyer – “OK. How
does the Board feel with respect to that?”
Commissioner McGrady – “I
have no objection to her being a party.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “I
don’t either.”
Chairman Moyer – “Alright.
You will be a party, thank you. Your
name again please.”
Kathleen Byrne – “Kathleen
Byrne – B-y-r-n-e.”
Chairman Moyer – “Thank you.
Next.”
A man from the audience – “My
name is Richard Krupp – K-r-u-p-p. I’m President of the Carriage Park
Homeowners Association.”
Chairman Moyer – “How – will
you please state why you think you should be a party.”
Richard Krupp – “As uh
President of the Homeowners Association it would affect everyone in the
community as far as the change of the definition of the townhouses and I’d just
like to uh indicate as such when we’re ready to do that.”
Chairman Moyer – “Anybody
have any objection to Mr. Krupp.”
In unison – “No”
Chairman Moyer – “Alright,
you’re admitted as a party.”
Richard Krupp – “That’s
Krupp, not Krump, no m.”
Chairman Moyer – “No m,
Krupp.”
Richard Krupp – “Yeah,
K-r-u-p-p, just like the German.”
Chairman Moyer – “OK, thank
you.”
Richard Krupp – “Just for the
record.”
Chairman Moyer – “Uh huh.
Next.”
A man from the audience – “My
name is Bob Grasso. Uh my firm is Land Planning Collaborative. We’re the land planners uh for
Chairman Moyer – “Are you
going to be speaking on behalf of
Bob Grasso – “Yes.”
Chairman Moyer – “So you will
be basically a witness for you, Mr. Hamlin, is that correct?”
Commissioner McGrady – “Yeah,
that’s what I was gonna say. I don’t think uh he’s appropriately a party, he’s
going to be one of Mr. Hamlin’s witnesses which is fine.”
Chairman Moyer – “Right.
Cause then he will not have the right to ask other people questions. I assume Mr. Hamlin, you will do that if
appropriate?”
Commissioner McGrady – “Mr.
Hamlin will do that.”
Chairman Moyer – “OK. We’ll swear you in but you’ll be sworn as a
witness, not as a party.”
Bob Grasso – “Thank you.”
Chairman Moyer – “Thank you,
Mr. Grasso. Is there anyone else in
attendance that would – feels they should be a party to this proceeding. OK,
then I think what we do – we need the people to come forth and uh – and be
sworn in. Come to the Clerk of the
Board.”
Elizabeth Corn – “I need each
of you to put your left hand on the Bible, touch it, raise your right hand. Do
you swear or affirm that the testimony you shall give to the Board of County
Commissioners shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God.”
In unison – “I will/yes.”
Elizabeth Corn – “Thank you.”
Chairman Moyer – “Do you have
everyone’s name and address, Mrs. Corn? Do you need anything further?”
Elizabeth Corn – “I don’t
have an address for Mr. Grasso.”
Chairman Moyer – “He’s just a
witness. Do you need it for the witness or – yeah I guess you do.”
Commissioner McGrady – “We
can get it when he comes up.”
Chairman Moyer – “Remind me
when he comes up, we’ll get it, Mrs. Corn. We will begin now with the
presentation of the staff overview of the matter. Karen Smith, Planning Director.”
Karen Smith – “Thank
you. The Board of Commissioners approved
special use permit 93-13 back in October of 1993 and it was the first uh permit
followed by four amendments for Carriage Park Planned Unit Development. On April 8th in 2005, Dale Hamlin
who’s the manager of Carriage Park Associates, L.L.C. which is the developer of
Carriage Park, submitted an application to amend special use permit 93-13 in
order to change the definition of townhouse uh and that definition of townhouse
is found in the original permit conditions and included in your packet you have
both a staff report where we spell out the definitions as well as an attachment
4 where it is basically taken right out of the special use permit and the
definitions are there. The proposed amendment
evolved from some applications that had been presented to the Planning
Board for various sections of
Chairman Moyer – “Thank you
Karen. Now we’ll have the uh presentation of petitioners evidence. Mr. Hamlin proceed any way you wish.”
Dale Hamlin – “Mr. Chairman,
members of the Board uh I believe that in 1993 we made an error when we
presented a – a description of a townhouse.
What we really want tonight is to make the description of a townhouse a
real estate ownership description and not a building and I think what we put in
1993 we set it as a building with an attached party wall. What we would like to do is detach that party
wall and create single family free-standing townhouses. We found that the townhouse concept is
extremely popular. Uh families can move
in and have a manicured and tailored neighborhood that’s taken care of by
association dues uh and they don’t have to take care of their own yards so they
can live in very tailored good-looking neighborhoods and that’s – that’s very
popular. We also uh think that by separa
– by having the opportunity to separate these townhouses and create single
family homes instead of duplexes, we get one more wall of windows and that
helps the owner have a happier brighter home and I think that’s good for – good
for the resident. It also gives our
planners and architects an opportunity to create very very good-looking
streetscapes. They can place the houses exactly where they want them. They can
put the landscaping in that’s pre uh predetermined and make these uh these
units look very well so basically what we’re asking tonight is to change the
definition to allow us to have townhouse neighborhoods with free-standing
buildings. It will just, actually it
will be better looking than duplexes. We
have steep ground in
Chairman Moyer – “Are you
gonna call Mr. Grasso at this time?”
Dale Hamlin – “Uh yes. Mr.
Grasso.”
Chairman Moyer – “Mr. Grasso,
I didn’t get your address before. Will
you state your name and address for the Clerk please?”
Bob Grasso – “It’s Robert
Grasso,
Chairman Moyer – “Did you get
that, Mrs. Corn? Alright.”
Bob Grasso – “My firm is Land
Planning Collaborative. Go through the
planning process with our steep slopes, what we’re trying to do is tread real
lightly on the property, reduce the amount of land disturbance, and also have
the flexibility of layout that sometimes the subdivision ordinance uh is too
restrictive whereas a PUD where more layout duplexes gives us more flexibility. Because of the demand that sales has seen for
a single family we’d like to have the same flexibility in layout with uh – with
a PUD arrangement by clustering houses and and have that flexibility that the
subdivision ordinance does not allow so we’re not lessening the road standards
and uh we’re not – we’re not asking for any kind of reduction on any kind of
safety or hazards with uh narrowing roads, what we’d like to do is just have
flexibility with how you place those houses uh without asking for any uh – uh reduction
in uh setbacks from the standpoint of uh from house to house but we – the
definition of townhouse from real estate law is uh the land that is deeded
underneath the drip-line of the – of the building and pleasantly the way
Carriage Park’s definition - it only applies to multifamily as opposed to
single family and so uh in many projects that we’ve done … planning for across
western North Carolina we – we’ve gone with the also the single family
townhouse and that’s what kind of spurred this whole discussion and – and uh –
and dialogue with revising the definition for Carriage Park.”
Chairman Moyer – “Mr. Hamlin,
do you have anything else you’d like to add at this time?”
Dale Hamlin – “Uh just one
other item in the Henderson County Zoning document which describes the planned
unit development, one of the sentences says the purpose of this section is to
afford substantial advantages for greater flexibility and improved
marketability through the benefits of efficiency which permit flexibility in
building siting, mixtures of housing types, and land use. That’s just – it’s in
the zoning document. Thank you.”
Chairman Moyer – “Well if
you’ll just step aside a minute, we’ll now go to cross-examination by the other
parties and I’m going to ask whether any of the other parties wish to ask the
witnesses any questions. Obviously the
other parties are Mrs. Byrne, Mr. Krupp, and staff. Please limit your input at this point in time
to questions. This is not – you’ll get a
chance later to give your testimony. The
thing is whether you have any questions now for Mr. Hamlin or Mr. Grasso, based
on the evidence they’ve put on the record so far. I’m gonna start with Mrs. Smith, Karen do you
have any questions at this time?
Alright, then I’ll go to Mrs. Byrne, do you have any questions?”
Mrs. Byrne – from the
audience – “Uh”
Chairman Moyer – “Wait a
minute. Please come to the microphone if you have a question.”
Mrs. Byrne – “Yes. Uh I
really don’t understand why the definition should be changed from townhouse to
a single family house. The only reason I
can see it being changed is that less land will be needed for building these
single family houses.”
Chairman Moyer – “Mrs. Byrne,
do you have a question for Mr. Hamlin.”
Mrs. Byrne – “Yes, is that
the reason we’re changing it that it be less land required to build a single
family house?
Chairman Moyer – “Mr. Hamlin,
do you want to.”
Mrs. Byrne – “Single family houses now have a setback and
other things. Will it be different now
that they are townhouses?”
Dale Hamlin – “I think if I
understand the question you’re asking if by separating a duplex into two
individual houses with setbacks whether that will be less and that will
actually take up more land so the density will be less.”
Mrs. Byrne – “Take up more
land. Uh huh, OK. That’s what I wanted.”
Chairman Moyer – “Thank you
Mrs. Byrne. Mr. Krupp, do you have a
question at this time.”
Mr. Krupp – from the audience
– “No questions sir.”
Chairman Moyer – “Alright
thank you. Does the Board have any
questions for Mr. Hamlin or Mr. Grasso?”
Commissioner Baldwin – “Yeah,
just, what would you like one or two? Either one.”
Chairman Moyer – “Mr. Hamlin,
why don’t you take the mic then.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “This
in no way alters your density.”
Dale Hamlin – “Pardon me.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “How
does impact the density of the overall site?”
Dale Hamlin – “The density is
– is a factor of uh – the PUD allows 695 units to be used in multiple different
methods. You can have – you could have
an apartment building if you wanted.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “Yes.”
Dale Hamlin – “Or you can
have single family lots.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “Yes.”
Dale Hamlin – “We are
actually reducing density by asking to split up duplexes, it’ll feel like a
little more open. It will be not quite
as tight.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “If
we’re talking about units per acre, that’s – that’s my question. Are we
changing the units per acre ratio in the development and if so which direction,
more units or less units per acre?”
Dale Hamlin – “Uh –
technically uh we don’t – we can’t – we can’t violate units per acre that’s
been preset.”
Commissioner Baldwin –
“Gotcha. I understand.”
Chairman Moyer – “But if you
spread them out in theory you’re gonna have to end up with less units per acre
because you’re taking more land per each unit.”
Dale Hamlin – “That’s
correct.”
Chairman Moyer – “That’s what
I thought I understood you to say before.”
Commissioner
Dale Hamlin – “No sir, the
ratio has to stay the same.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “Stays
the same. OK.”
Chairman Moyer – “Any other
questions? Thank you Mr. Hamlin.”
Dale Hamlin – “Thank you.”
Chairman Moyer – “Karen, you
have no more questions at this time, right?
Alright now we’ll move into evidence by the other parties and this will
be your chance Mrs. Byrnes or Mr. Krupp to come in and put in evidence that’s
relevant to the subject that we have here and I’ll start with you, Mrs. Bryne
do you wish to make a statement at this time relevant to the definition of
townhouse?”
Kathleen Byrne – “OK uh at
this time, no uh I still don’t get the – he’s gonna be taking more land away,
right, am I correct at that? More of the
common land is being taken away to build single family houses instead of
townhouses, am I correct in that?”
Chairman Moyer – “Well, we’ll
get Mr. Hamlin back. I think when you
add the word common land to land, I think that changes the question. Mr. Hamlin. We’ll deal with this as a continual
question, cross examination rather than statement.”
Dale Hamlin – “The uh common
land has everything to do with the size of lots that are deeded and I don’t
know if I can give you a good description, I’m not much of a teacher. If we have a R-40, excuse me an R-30 designation
in one section of Carriage Park, that means that no more than that number of
units can be put in that R-30 district, that’s – Carriage Park is made up of
R-20 and R-30 that’s how the 695 came up.
Had we done a mid rise or a series of mid rise buildings, if we could
have gotten past the height limitation we could have stuck all 695 units on
three acres and then we would have been required by the PUD to put 692 acres
into open space. We are – we have every
single time we bring a neighborhood to the Planning Board the first requirement
is have you designated the open space based on how much acreage your
development parcel is taking up? We are
required to do that before they’ll even hear us so all of that open space for
every single neighborhood that’s gone on record and I think it’s 14 so far uh
has been recorded at the county as permanent open space so we can’t violate the
open space requirements of the PUD directive.”
Chairman Moyer – “We’ll be –
I think the question Mrs. Byrne’s asking is by virtue of changing this
definition will this in any way reduce the amount of common open space you’re
required to set aside in accordance with your permit?”
Dale Hamlin – “No.”
Chairman Moyer – “It can’t,
right?”
Dale Hamlin – “No, it can’t.”
Chairman Moyer – “OK.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “So
there was a ratio established from the git-go as – as to potential built upon
versus common area or open space and that ratio has not changed as a result of
the request.”
Dale Hamlin – “That ratio is
inviolate, yes sir.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “OK.”
Chairman Moyer – “Thank
you. Karen, would you from staff’s
standpoint agree that that’s uh – we’ve been through this many times
(laughing).”
Karen Smith – “Right, when
Mr. Hamlin was referring to the open space that has to be put on record to
offset the density, as he stated there is – the special use permit just sets a
number of units, maximum number of units.
There is no acreage to be devoted to open space. It’s strictly – if your property is in a lot
that has a 30,000 sq. ft. lot size, you meet the R-30 zoning. If you happen to
be on a townhouse lot that wouldn’t meet it there’s open space somewhere in the
project to offset that remainder of lot size.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “So
there’s no open space requirement being violated.”
Karen Smith – “Right, you have
a certain number of units only that you’re restricted to, right.”
Chairman Moyer – “But they
are dedicating a certain.”
Karen Smith – “What they are
doing is and this has sorta been a practice of the Planning Board, is that as
they do a development parcel – these sections 21 and 22 for example, if they
are not going to have 30,000 sq. ft. lots, if they’re gonna have something less
than that, we have asked the developer to keep track and show us where they are
going to offset that so that there is almost a – a ratio there.”
Chairman Moyer – “There is a
ratio.”
Karen Smith – “That we
created so that when the development is completed, we know that we have all the
open space that would be needed.”
Chairman Moyer – “Right.”
Karen Smith – “If they did a
regular single family development so – what- if I could speak – you had asked
about the density. It’s possible that
certain sections have a higher density but again it’s – throughout the project
the overall density would not change.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “What
we’re getting confused on density is one ratio is the number of dwelling units
per land area. Another way of looking at
density is the built upon area versus the open space area or the total area. Those are two different densities that we’re
confusing here.”
Karen Smith – “And the built
upon area is not addressed through the special use permit. It would strictly be
through the water supply watershed regulation.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “So
the number of dwelling units per acre or land area is not being violated, is
that what I hear?”
Karen Smith – “Correct “
Commissioner Baldwin – “OK.”
Chairman Moyer – “Thank you
Karen.”
Commissioner Young – “Karen,
let me ask a question about – on the uh road or the streets uh am I right in
saying that he’s asking for a 30 foot right-of-way which is for a
townhome. Is that right?”
Karen Smith – “Uh huh.”
Commissioner Young – “And a
45 foot right-of-way is for a single dwelling?”
Karen Smith – “A single
family detached dwelling is how the definitions work currently, yes.”
Commissioner Young – “So he’s
asking for a 15 foot variance of right-of-way?”
Karen Smith – “It – it really
depends on – on the project. I mean if they were doing duplexes they would
already have that quote variance as you – as you described it. They can do multifamily buildings right now
on a 30 foot right-of-way and they’re asking to be able to do single family
developments with a 30 foot right-of-way.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “And
normally single family is required to have ?”
Karen Smith – “45.”
Commissioner Young – “45, and
he’s wanting to go 30, right?”
Karen Smith – “30, right.”
Commissioner Young – “And
then there was a difference in the uh – in the uh shoulders or something, I was
reading.”
Karen Smith – “The – the road
standards themselves are the – are identical.
You’re allowed to do or you can do additional parking in the
right-of-way for the neighborhood drive but it’s not a requirement.”
Chairman Moyer – “Any other
questions? Alright we’ll move to testimony and evidence by Mr. Krupp. Mr. Krupp, do you wish to?”
Richard Krupp – “OK I failed
to give you my address also. The address
is
Chairman Moyer – “Well, the
other parties will have a chance. We’ll
start with Mr. Hamlin, do you have any questions for Mr. Krupp?
Dale Hamlin (from the
audience) – “No sir.”
Chairman Moyer – “Alright,
stated. Mr. - Mrs. Byrne, do you have any questions?”
Kathleen Byrne (from the
audience) – “No.”
Chairman Moyer – “OK.”
Richard Krupp – “Thank you.”
Chairman Moyer – “Staff, do
you have any. Wait a minute. The
Board. Does the Board have any
questions. OK, thank you Mr. Krupp.”
Richard Krupp – “Thank you.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “I do
of staff.”
Chairman Moyer – “Alright,
well we’ll get to. Alright now we’ll go
to evidence by the Planning Staff.
Karen, do you want to present your evidence please.”
Karen Smith – “As is typical
in these, it’s probably more recommendations and comments than – than true
evidence but uh I did want to review the Planning Board’s recommendations just
briefly. We had seven members of the
Planning Board present at the
Chairman Moyer – “Thank you
Karen. Questions for uh Mrs. Smith?”
Commissioner McGrady – “The
parties first?”
Chairman Moyer – “No, I want
to start with the Board.
Commissioner Baldwin – “Yeah,
this may be a Karen/Russ question but uh can – in amending this permit, can we
attach conditions?”
Russell Burrell – “I think in
a quasi-judicial, you’re gonna be able – you’re just making findings of fact
and then either find it to be in the interest of – of whatever is the
underlying interest compelling the PUD or not so I don’t think you can addition
– add additional conditions beyond what’s already in the PUD, other than
changing the definition.”
Karen Smith – “There have
been conditions in the past but the past amendments haven’t been definitional,
they’ve been more related to additions of property uh, construction of a fire
station, and some other things so I – that – that does definitely leave a
question at this point Mr. Baldwin.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “But”
Russell Burrell – “If I
understand, the previous amendments had to do with really changing the entire
scope of the PUD.”
Chairman Moyer – “Alright,
much broader than this question.”
Russell Burrell – “As opposed
to – it’s hard to see their application here as really changing the scope.”
Commissioner
Russell Burrell – “In terms
of changing – of how you define a townhome? Certainly, I think you could do –
include that in your definition of a townhome.
If I understand exactly what.”
Commissioner Baldwin –
“That’s the question.”
Russell Burrell – “OK.”
Chairman Moyer – “Any of the
other Commissioners have questions for Mrs. Smith at this time. Well then we’ll
go to the other parties.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “I
do.”
Chairman Moyer – “OK.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “Uh
Karen as far uh the right-of-way being reduced from uh 45 to 30, really as a
result of the 45 foot right-of-way, there’s almost this and this is something
that I may ask the land planner in just a moment. There’s almost this automatic dedication of
open space. You look at the
right-of-way, you subtract out the built upon area of the road and there’s open
space that cannot be constructed within and so by reducing the right-of-way or
actually allowing for more potential area to be built upon, technically.”
Karen Smith – “You could look
at it but their rights-of-way are allowed to be considered open space so in the
sense of reducing the right-of-way you could be reducing open space there but
you are probably making up for that somewhere else. It really again depends on
the section, the particular development parcel.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “OK.
That – that’s my thought Russell.”
Chairman Moyer – “Well the
road and the right-of-way are – is considered open space under their definition
of this permit now so.”
Karen Smith – “Or it’s not
prohibited I should probably say.”
Chairman Moyer – “Yeah so
it’s no change.”
Commissioner
Chairman Moyer – “Yeah, the
road is considered open space.”
Karen Smith – “Yeah. It’s –
its (lots of laughing here and I couldn’t make out what was being said).”
Commissioner Baldwin – “You
just shot my plotting and planning.”
Chairman Moyer – “Now you
wouldn’t have expected that one, that’s for sure. OK, let’s go to – to cross examination by the
other parties. We’ll start with you, Mr.
Hamlin, do you have any questions for Mrs. Smith? Mrs. Byrne, do you have any questions?”
Kathleen Byrne – “Yes I do.”
Chairman Moyer – “Well would
you come up.”
Kathleen Byrne – “How – how
is this covered. If I have a problem or
anybody else has a problem, where do we go? And you can’t say Homeowners
Association because that’s nothing to do with it. I’m talking about the government, you know
under their PUD?”
Karen Smith – “Are you
talking about?”
Chairman Moyer – “I think
you’re asking if there is a violation of the permit in some way?”
Kathleen Byrne – “Yes
violation of the permit.”
Chairman Moyer – “Alright,
Karen.”
Karen Smith – “Right and uh
those get reported to the Zoning Administrator who is responsible for
administering the and we talked about that.”
Kathleen Byrne – “Yeah we
talked about that.”
Karen Smith – “Friday. It’s – right – it’s been part of my
department but that will be.”
Kathleen Byrne – “But there’s
a new person, right, OK.”
Chairman Moyer – “Thank you
Mrs. Byrne.”
Kathleen Byrne – “Thank you.”
Chairman Moyer – “Mr. Krupp,
do you have any questions for Mrs. Smith? Thank you. Alright now we have a chance, if anybody
feels it’s appropriate to have rebuttal evidence uh, we’ll start with the
petitioner, Mr. Hamlin, do you want to put on any more evidence or rebuttal evidence.”
Dale Hamlin – (from the
audience) “No sir.”
Chairman Moyer –
“Alright. Do any of the other parties
wish to put on rebuttal evidence? OK, Karen, you OK? Alright. I’d ask the
same . . . have any closing remarks that any of the
parties would like to make, starting again with Mr. Hamlin. Do you have any
further closing remarks?”
Dale Hamlin – (from the
audience) “No sir.”
Chairman Moyer – “Any of the
parties have any closing remarks? Karen? OK. Good. Now the evidence has been
presented and the closing remarks concluded it would be appropriate for the
Commissioners to discuss the issues presented today. We can either vote today, direct staff to
bring back findings of fact and conclusions consistent with the decision to a
future meeting of the Board for our review, or we can continue our discussion
and decision until a later date. I remind the Board however that we have to
issue a written decision within 45 days of the conclusion of this hearing. Do we have a motion to go out of public
hearing?”
Commissioner Messer – “So
moved.”
Chairman Moyer – “All in
favor, say aye.”
In unison – “Aye.”
Chairman Moyer – “We are out
of public hearing and open for Board discussion.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “I
don’t have a problem with supporting the petition.”
Commissioner McGrady – “I too
support the change in the definition of a townhouse and the special use permit
as requested by the applicant and I think the appropriate way to handle this
would be to uh vote to do that and direct staff to come back with the appropriate
findings of fact and conclusions consistent with it. Presumably it will be on a consent agenda
when all of that is in order.”
Chairman Moyer – “Alright, I
think if everybody understands again just clarify the motion again or you’ll
put this in the form of a motion?”
Commissioner McGrady – “I will make it in the form of a motion that
we approve the amendment to change the definition of a townhouse in section –
in the special use permit 93-13 as requested by the applicant and direct staff
to come back with uh an appropriate set of findings of fact and conclusions of
law consistent with the decision we’re making now and the evidence presented to
us.”
Chairman Moyer – “Any further
discussion by the Board? Russell, is
that clear enough for you? All in favor
of that motion, say aye.”
In unison – “Aye.”
Chairman Moyer – “Alright, it
passes unanimously. Thank you all very much for your attendance.”
Commissioner McGrady – “Mr.
Chairman, I’d ask one other thing. I
brought this up in other context but there’s gotta be a way to get this Board
out of what was not a great decision that each – anything having to do with
special – Carriage Park ends up coming to the Board of Commissioners. Using a quasi-judicial proceeding to deal
with the definition of a townhouse is an awful use of our time. It’s a waste of the public’s time and I’d
just like to find, I mean some way to get us out of this morass. Maybe back in
1993 – you know – this was good planning but in 19 – you know 2005 this is not
where we ought to be.”
Commissioner Baldwin –
“Yeah.”
Commissioner McGrady – “Uh
and I would – I don’t know – I raised this with the Planning Board. Shannon and I have talked about it in the
past and I would love to figure out a way not to have this happen. We don’t handle any other subdivision of – in
this process – in this way and the Planning Board got stuck here. They had this whole discussion where they
were dealing with a very specific thing, they backed into a definitional
decision and all of a sudden, now it’s gotta go to the Board of
Commissioners. Uh anyway I – I shot off
here and.”
David Nicholson – “Do you
feel better?”
Commissioner McGrady – “I
feel better but I don’t know where we can go.
I really do think we – we’ve got to figure out a way out of this – this
special use permit.”
Chairman Moyer – “Well maybe
Karen can make a note in her new assignment to give this lots of thought. I
think I heard that same speech when we were on the Planning Board?”
Commissioner McGrady – “Yeah,
I think you may have given it then, Mr. Chairman. Is there a way Russell?”
Russell Burrell – “I . .
. thought that would be an amendment of
the PUD which would require another quasi-judicial.”
Commissioner McGrady – “If we
only had one more uh uh hearing on this
at which point we dissolved the PUD and somehow.”
Chairman Moyer – “No, you
amend it.”
Russell Burrell – “You modify
the PUD to say that the uh.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “Board
of Adjustment.”
Russell Burrell – “Board of
Adjustment could hear these.”
Chairman Moyer – “Would you
like to have a quasi-judicial on that?”
Commissioner McGrady – “I
would love to get there.”
David Nicholson – “I think
staff would be more than happy to work on that issue. Now I’m not sure about
the Planning staff or the people who support the Board of Adjustments but I
guess they have to deal with it anyway, don’t they?”
Chairman Moyer – “Karen, if
you make a note and uh maybe Lori would like to tackle this and see how she
could uh.”
Commissioner McGrady – “I
suspect the Homeowners Association and Carriage Park would love to be there uh,
just – we’ve been through this – anybody that has anything to do with Carriage
Park knows there is a massive amount of time spent on it. We don’t do that with other subdivisions of
its – of the same size. We just don’t do
that anymore.”
Chairman Moyer – “Well let’s
not set any time limit. Let’s take a
look at what – how we can do it to amend the permit to resolve this and
simplify it for everybody involved and at the appropriate time in the future
come back and let’s have a hearing and see what the Board would like to
do. Not a hearing, let’s have a
discussion among the Board and let the Board decide which way they want to go.
OK.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “Just
- well since Chuck went there, I just want to say that I think that uh if it’s
a waste of our time as policymakers to – to jump into the detail of these
special use permits, when we think about rewriting our new ordinance I think we
ought to give some real thought to taking these public hearings and giving them
to the Board of Adjustment, like the other 900 or so – or 99 counties do in the
state of North Carolina.”
Commissioner McGrady –
“Amen.”
Commissioner Baldwin –
“Rather than us try to take our time to do this. I – I think I have a comrade on the issue.”
Commissioner McGrady – “It’s
painful to agree with you but uh I agree with you.”
Chairman Moyer – “Well I’ll
remind you.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “. . .
I called you comrade.”
Chairman Moyer – “I’ll remind
you you both set up the procedure in the flood prevention ordinance where you
wanted the variance to come to the Board of Commissioners.”
Commissioner McGrady – “I
know, I know, I know.”
Chairman Moyer – “And uh.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “I
voted against that ordinance.”
Chairman Moyer – “Not against
the variance though.”
Commissioner Baldwin – “I
voted against the ordinance.”
Chairman Moyer – “Alright,
moving right along. I think it’s only
David Nicholson – “We have 15
minutes on the tape, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Moyer – “15
minutes. Good, well I think we have uh
some very good news and we’re gonna move to uh the uh public transportation
funding and have Justin bring us up to date on what’s happened and tell you where
we stand. Justin.”
Justin
Hembree presented this information relating to the issues surrounding funding
for the County’s public transportation system.
The 2000 Census expanded the Asheville Urbanized Area to include the
majority of
In
2004, the Public Transportation Division of NCDOT agreed to fund the County’s
public transportation operations through the State’s “rural” transportation
program for the 2004/05 fiscal year.
However, as part of this funding agreement, NCDOT required that the
County submit, prior to January 1, 2005, a plan detailing how the County would
fund public transportation services for the 2005/06 fiscal year and beyond.
Based
on input from the
On
This is wonderful
news. The Public Transportation Division
of NCDOT has been a pleasure to work with in dealing with this complex
issue. NCDOT, in essence, is rewarding
the County’s commitment to public transportation by granting an additional year
for the “urban” transition. This
additional year will allow a more accurate funding plan to be developed and
will also allow adequate time for the required procurement process. County staff recommended acceptance of
NCDOT’s proposal for fiscal year 2005/06 public transportation funding.
Commissioner McGrady made the motion to accept NCDOT’s
proposal for funding for FY 2005-06 Public Transportation and direct staff to
work on the proposal for future years.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Animal Shelter Bid
David Nicholson stated that the
Board of Commissioners awarded the construction bid to Cooper Construction
Company for the new Animal Shelter on
He was happy to inform the Board
that we have now processed a change order in the amount of $77,247 reducing the
base bid to $1,280,382. As requested at
the
Staff has been developing a fund
raising effort for the new Shelter. We have already received $54,000 in
donations or commitments for this project. We have also received in-kind commitments
for items such as landscaping. These commitments have happened by word-of-mouth
without any formal fund raising effort. Mr. Nicholson believes that we can work
with the community to pay for these runs and for other projects around the
shelter.
The Board was requested to
confirm the base bid of $1,280,382 and authorize staff to negotiate with the
contractor to add 7 additional runs in association with a fund raising effort.
Commissioner Young made the motion to confirm the base
bid of $1,280,382 and to authorize staff to negotiate with the contractor to
add 7 additional runs. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Ground Breaking Announcement
David Nicholson invited the
Board and announced the ground breaking ceremony for the Animal Shelter, to be
held at
Update on Pending Issues
1.
Historic Courthouse 100th Anniversary
Proclamation
David
Nicholson reminded the Board of the pending 100th birthday
celebration. July 15th will
honor the
date that the
keys were handed from the builder to the Board of Commissioners. The day will
begin with
some music
and special guests and dignitaries will be present. The renovation plans will
be displayed. There
will be a
formal presentation to the Board of Commissioners from the Great Grandson of the
builder that
reflects what
we’re getting ready to do – the renovation of the building. There will be cake
and lemonade.
The
celebration will go into the afternoon and evening with more events planned for
Saturday, July 16th.
David
Nicholson requested that the Board adopt a Proclamation entitled “Henderson
County Historic
Courthouse –
A Proclamation by the
Laurel Park,
Fletcher, and Flat Rock have already adopted this. A large proclamation will be at the
celebration
and will be formally signed as part of the celebration.
Commissioner McGrady made the motion to adopt the
Proclamation as presented. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Justin Hembree stated that we
are still researching this issue.
Russell Burrell and Justin Hembree actually visited the site last
Friday. After walking the property, they
were of the opinion that we need a survey of the property done by a
professional surveyor. Once we receive
that information, staff will bring the item back to the Board of Commissioners.
EMERGENCY WATERSHED PROTECTION AGREEMENT
Justin Hembree informed the
Board that this issue was brought to County staff’s attention on the morning of
Friday, July 1, after the Board’s agenda packets were prepared. Therefore, staff had requested that this item
be added to the agenda of this meeting.
Presented for Board review
were two documents: Amendment # 1 and Amendment #1 Attachment D to the
Emergency Watershed Protection Agreement between
Staff recommended that the
Emergency Watershed Protection Agreement (69-4532-016) Amendment #1 be approved
as presented so that it can be sent to
Commissioner McGrady asked to
be recused from voting. Falling Creek Camp,
of which he is the majority owner is to be the recipient of some of these
funds. That may create a conflict of
interest. Chairman Moyer made the motion to recuse Commissioner McGrady from
participation and voting in this matter.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Chairman Moyer made the motion to approve Amendment 1
and get it sent off to
IMPORTANT DATES
Chairman Moyer informed the
Board of a letter from Jack Lynch concerning the Comprehensive County
Transportation Plan that asked for the Board’s endorsement. He requested that it be on the Board’s next
agenda for action.
Set Public Hearing – Economic Development
The Board was requested to set
a public hearing for Wednesday, July 20 at 11:00 a.m. for the purpose of
considering economic development incentives for C.L. Henderson Produce
Company.
Commissioner McGrady made the motion to set the public
hearing for economic development consideration for C.L. Henderson Produce
Company for Wednesday, July 20 at
Designation of Voting Delegate to NCACC Annual
Conference
We have three Commissioners planning to attend the NCACC Conference in
NCDOT
The Board had received a note
from the Clerk to the Board as follows:
“Ann Tate called this morning
from NCDOT. In lieu of the meeting we
normally have each spring (secondary road public hearing) with NCDOT, they
would like to come to a Board meeting and discuss with the Commissioners (not a
meeting for public input as usual about secondary roads) about what roads will
be funded and what roads will be deferred, since they don’t have a budget this
year.
She’s open on dates but she
and I did discuss the fact that your next BOC meeting will be Wednesday, July
20 and she suggested about
It was the consensus of the
Board to have them at the July 20 meeting at
Set Public Hearing on Rezoning
Application #R-2005-04
Rezoning Application
#R-2005-04, which was submitted on
The Henderson County Planning
Board first considered rezoning application #R-2005-04 at its regularly
scheduled meeting on Tuesday, June 21, 2005, at which time the Board voted
unanimously (9-0) on a motion to send the Board of Commissioners a favorable
recommendation on rezoning the Subject Area to a C-1 zoning district.
Before taking action on the
rezoning action, the Board of Commissioners must hold a public hearing. Staff proposed that the hearing be scheduled
for
The
Chairman Moyer made the motion to schedule a public
hearing on the rezoning application #R-2005-04 for Tuesday, August 2 at
CANE CREEK WATER & SEWER DISTRICT
- no business
CLOSED SESSION
Commissioner McGrady made the motion for the
Board to go into closed session as allowed pursuant to NCGS 143-318.11 for the
following reasons:
1.
(a)(1) To
prevent disclosure of information that is privileged or confidential pursuant
to the law of this State or of the United States, or not considered a public
record within the meaning of Chapter 132 of the General Statutes, in accordance
with and pursuant to NCGS 143-318.10(e) and Article II of Chapter 11 of the
Henderson County Code.
The Board is requested to go into Closed Session,
pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-318.11(a)(1), to prevent disclosure of
information that is privileged or confidential pursuant to the law of this
State or of the United States, or not considered a public record within the
meaning of Chapter 132 of the General Statutes.
Draft minutes from the following dates have been
previously distributed to the Board.
Staff recommends approval of these minutes:
2 May 2005
25 May 2004
3 May 2004
Certain of these minutes can likely be immediately
unsealed as “public inspection” would no longer “frustrate the purpose of a
closed session”. According to §11-5 of
the
Using criteria of whether the information contained in
the minutes is generally known or available from
3 May 2004
2.
(a)(3) To
consult with an attorney employed or retained by the public body in order to
consider and give instructions to the attorney with respect to the following
pending litigation before the
In the Matter
of Morgan, 05 PTC 192
In the Matter
of Black, 05 PTC 152
In the Matter
of Anderson, 05 PTC 30
In the Matter
of Levi, 05 PTC 13
In the Matter of T. Redmond Mowing, 05
PTC 12
ADJOURN
Chairman Moyer adjourned the meeting at
Attest:
Elizabeth W. Corn, Clerk to the Board William
L. Moyer, Chairman