MINUTES
STATE
OF
The Henderson County
Board of Commissioners met for a special called meeting at
Those present were: Chairman Bill Moyer, Vice-Chairman
Also present were: Deputy
Clerk to the Board Terry Wilson, Associate County Attorney Sarah Zambon, and
Planners Matt Card, Parker Sloan, and Alexis Baker as well as Planning Director
Anthony Starr.
CALL TO ORDER/WELCOME
Chairman Moyer called
the meeting to order and welcomed all in attendance, explaining that the
purpose of this meeting was a Vested Rights Hearing.
VESTED RIGHTS HEARING #VR-2007-04 for a Proposed
Mini-Storage Facility on
Commissioner Messer made the motion for the Board to go into
public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
Chairman Moyer explained
that the petitioners are seeking vested rights under Chapter 189 of the
Henderson County Code, which allows a landowner to establish a vested right for
a development project through the approval of a site-specific development plan.
A vested rights
proceeding is a special hearing where the petitioner’s application is
determined under specific rules of procedure adopted by this Board. A vested rights proceeding is one where an
applicant seeks to lock in rights which they presently possess to develop
certain land. This Board cannot grant
the applicant rights greater than they have to presently develop land. However,
the Board can, if it sees fit, and upon certain conditions set by the Board,
grant the applicant the right to develop land under the zoning and subdivision
rules as they exist today, based upon what the law calls a “site specific
development plan”. If the Board grants such rights, the “site specific
development plan” cannot be modified without the approval of this Board, but
the applicant can move forward with the development even if zoning or
subdivision laws change.
Under
the
Chairman
Moyer explained what the order of the proceeding would be.
The
Clerk to the Board swore in the following:
Matthew
Cooke, one of the applicants
Matt
Card,
Anthony
Starr,
Staff Overview
Matt
Card entered the following exhibits into evidence:
Exhibit
A, request for Board Action and all of it’s attachments
Exhibit
B, staff’s memorandum and it’s attachments
Exhibit
C, a summary of staff’s recommended conditions
Exhibit
D, the supplemental requirements found in the land development code for
these types of uses- self storage,
mini warehouses
Matt
Card explained that Mr. Matthew Cooke and Mr. William Beckford are the
applicants and Mr. Walter Carpenter is the agent to the applicants. He stated
that in exhibit B there is a site specific development plan that outlines what
the applicant would like to do. It
consists of twelve mini storage warehouse buildings and an office building. The property is located off
Petitioner’s Evidence
Walter
Carpenter stated that the property immediately to the west shows a building on
it, the next parcel to the left of that is the Rusty Bucket which is a flea
market. The property to the east of this property is where the Family Dollar
Store is now. There’s another area
that’s set aside with a sign indicating it is for sale for another commercial
building and parking. Right behind that is where Mr. Kunce’s house is located.
You can see this house from the road. The 45-foot right of way is part of the
parking lot and drive going to the Kunce house.
“It does not benefit my client’s property, they don’t have the right to
use that 45-foot right of way.”
His
client’s proposal is to build twelve buildings.
His plan is to build these units over a period of several years. He asked that they be given the five years. Building permits have already been issued for
the first three buildings. He plans to build the office building and three of
the storage buildings initially. The
fence would be put up in that first phase also. He invited his client, Mr.
Matthew Cooke to come forward and answer any questions the Board might
have. Mr. Beckford was not present.
Matthew
Cooke explained that he wanted the occupancy to build up to determine what the
next building should be as far as unit mix, climate control, etc. Mr. Cooke
plans to keep the buildings out of the flood plain. A good bit of discussion followed concerning
the flood plain and the flood fringe and the new versus the old flood maps.
Walter
Carpenter stated that they would agree to have no buildings in the flood plain
area.
Anthony
Starr addressed a question about storing campers and motor homes, stating that
in the land development code it would fall under outdoor storage. There are two categories: one is less than
5,000 square feet and the only requirement is that it not be in the front yard
of the use and it have a screen class I or II and it is specific about what
those are in terms of plantings. Second
is over 5,000 square feet and it can’t be in the front yard or any yard
abutting a road and it requires a little more intensive screening requirements,
a class III or IV which involves either a six foot or eight foot fence along
with some vegetation plantings. What
staff recommended is less than what those screen requirements are in the land
development code. If the Board feels that is a concern, they could reflect in
the order what is in the land development code or they could stay with the
screen requirements generally mentioned in the staff report. Mr. Starr stated
that outdoor storage is an accessory use so it would fall under any accessory
use.
Mr.
Cooke plans to use an eight foot tall chain-link fence that is dipped black
(around the perimeter of the project) and a three foot area of mulch and
shrubbery, something to grow dense enough. He will use shrubbery that will grow
6 or 8 foot tall. He wants to have the top-shelf nicest storage units. Their
facility will close at
Staff Recommendations
Matt
Card stated that if the Board of Commissioners grants the development vested
rights, Staff recommends that this approval be subject to the conditions listed
below, in addition to any other conditions that have been discussed during the
hearing and any conditions that the Board of Commissioners may impose.
Staff’s
Recommended Conditions:
A.
Significant Topographical/Other Natural Features of
the Site. The applicant shall not be
allowed to place any structures inside the floodplain as indicated by the
addendum and on the site specific development plan.
B.
Lighting. Adequate
lighting shall be placed in areas used for vehicular/pedestrian access
including but not limited to any stairs, sidewalks, crosswalks,
intersections. The applicant should also
be required to mitigate the impact of
outdoor lighting fixtures in order to protect neighboring properties and
roads from direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind. Exterior lighting should be installed so as
not to exceed 10 feet in height.
C.
Screening.
The applicant shall be required to provide plants that will mature to a height
of at least 8 feet. Said plants should be of an appropriate species and spaced
at a distance to provide adequate screening along adjacent property lines. The applicant should provide a site plan to
the Planning Department for approval, showing the arrangement and type of
planting material used for screening. The proposed chain link fence shall be
located on the inside of the planting material.
D.
Adjacent Land Uses. The Board may find that a greater buffer or screening is needed along
Mr. Kunce’s property line to mitigate the impacts of this development on the existing
residence.
E.
Street Trees.
The applicant shall provide street trees in accordance with Section 200A-122
(Plant Material) of the LDC. Section 200A-122 says that one (1) large deciduous
tree shall be required per 50 linear feet of property abutting a road.
Public Input
There
was none.
Chairman
Moyer asked if there was anyone who was not a party in attendance that would
like to speak. There were none.
Petitioner’s Comment on Staff
Recommendations
Commissioner
McGrady asked if the Board could hear the petitioner’s comments on the staff
recommendations.
Walter
Carpenter commented that the petitioner was fine with “A, B, and E”. On recommendation “C” there was some
discussion regarding having the fence on the inside and the plantings on the
outside and being able to maintain and water the plantings. The petitioner had envisioned having the
plantings on the inside of the fence. If there is some good reason to have the
fence on the inside and the plantings on the outside, Mr. Carpenter said that
they would consider it but they felt it would be difficult to maintain.
Staff
stated that the reasoning was to provide screening for adjacent
properties. They are flexible with that
provision so on the inside or the outside is fine with staff.
Walter
Carpenter then commented on “D” – the adjacent land uses. The petitioner and
Mr. Carpenter believe that what they have provided for is adequate and will be
good for the neighbors. Mr. Carpenter
stated that his client had talked with Mr. Kunce and it appears that Mr. Kunce
is fine with it.
Mr.
Kunce was called upon but stated he was fine with it.
There
was some discussion regarding lighting.
Mr. Cooke stated that the lights would be incorporated into the sides of
the buildings and would be 8’ 4” high and the lights would be pointed down
toward the asphalt.
Closing
Comments
Walter
Carpenter stated he had none. He did say that they would like to have vested
rights for five years.
Chairman
Moyer asked Mr. Carpenter to state once again, for the record, why they need
five years. Mr. Carpenter stated that
the timing of this project, in terms of building twelve different buildings. The client will begin with about three
buildings that he already has permits for.
The building size is set but how big the unit is inside it is not and
whether they’re climate controlled or not.
He felt that what the applicants would like to do is get their feet wet,
figure out what the market desires and build the remaining buildings accordingly. That will likely take several years. He’s not
sure that it would take five years but is sure that it would take more than two
years.
Mr.
Cooke explained that financially they might not be able to build all twelve
buildings in two years. It is his plan to do the project in three phases. He will plan on the revenue for building
additional buildings.
There
were no closing remarks by staff.
Close the Public Hearing
Commissioner McGrady made the motion to
close the public hearing at
Action
Commissioner McGrady made the motion to
grant the vested rights application (for five years) and incorporating an order
with the appropriate findings and including staff recommendations A, B, C but
without the chain link fence located on the inside of the planting materials,
and E. He didn’t believe that there was
a need to worry about additional screening in regards to D.
Following
discussion, Chairman Moyer and
Commissioner McGrady restated the motion – to direct staff to draw up the order
consistent with the comments incorporating those portions of the staff
recommendations identified. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Adjourn
Commissioner McGrady made the motion to adjourn the
meeting at
Attest
Elizabeth W. Corn, Clerk to
the Board William L. Moyer, Chairman