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: Associate
County Attorney Sarah Zambon, Communications Officer
CALL TO ORDER/WELCOME
Chairman Moyer called
the meeting to order and welcomed all in attendance, stating that the purpose
of the meeting was a Planning Workshop.
An additional item was added to the agenda,
Chairman Moyer proposed
that staff go through all the information and get through everything and then go back
and see how much time was left and see which items they could deal with. Some items may require special sessions or
public hearings.
County Manager
Substantive Amendments: Proposed Amendments to the Henderson County
2020 Comprehensive Plan
Planning Director
Anthony Starr stated that the Land Development Code (LDC) which was adopted on
September 19, 2007 closely follows the recommendations of the Henderson County
2020 Comprehensive Plan (CCP). With the
adoption of the LDC, some of the new regulations, particularly the revisions to
the official zoning map which added new commercial and industrial nodes, are
not currently reflected in the CCP or on the Future Land Use Map. As required by county zoning enabling
statutes, zoning amendments should be in accordance with the comprehensive
plan. As a result of these new changes,
the CCP should be amended to incorporate any new policy changes set forth by
the adoption of the LDC.
Senior Planner Autumn
Radcliff discussed the substantive amendments to the CCP. Almost all of the changes were due to policy
changes that happened with the adoption of the LDC. The changes are as follows:
Section 1: Introduction
– No change
Section 2: Background
Information – No change
Section 3: 2020 Plan for
Economic Development Element – Recommendation E-04, Action
Strategy F
The LDC reserved a
section for an Airport Overlay District (AI) and to support this action the
following statement must be added to the bullet point list:
·
“e)
Consider establishing an airport overlay district to protect the airports from
development that may restrict airport operations and/or expansion, and address
public health, safety, and general welfare issues associated with developments
near airports.”
Agriculture Element – Other Action Strategies, Relationship
to Other Elements
The CCP stated that the
County should accommodate growth while reducing the pressure on outlying
farmland. To further support the LDC
regulations, add language that calls for the County to institute land
development regulations that mandate setbacks between newly created residential
developments and existing agricultural land uses.
·
“e)
The GMS (Growth Management Strategy) will recommend that
Natural Resource Element – Recommendation N-02
To reflect existing
regulations in the LDC including impervious surface restrictions, watershed
rules, and perennial stream buffers, the CCP should include language in the
first paragraph that offers additional support for stormwater management
standards and regulations.
·
Final
sentence – “The County should identify and consider incorporating standards to
promote or require low impact development.”
Natural Resource Element – Recommendation N-03
Include language in the
final paragraph that offers additional support for the slope development
regulations imposed by the Land Development Code.
·
Final
sentence – “Further, the Land Development Code will include standards that
address the public health, safety, and general welfare issues posed by the
development of steep slopes.”
Recreation Element – No change
Housing Element – No change
Transportation Element – Recommendation T-01, Action
Strategy C
To clarify the County’s
role as the public transit provider, replace the first paragraph to the
following:
·
“Western
Carolina Community Action, Inc. (WCCA) was appointed by
Water and Sewer Element – Recommendation SW-02
Add an additional Action
Strategy as follows to support recommendation SW-02:
·
“Action
Strategy I. Update the current sewer and
water master plan to reflect service areas or create a sewer and water service
area boundary plan.”
·
“The
County should have an active role in determining the boundaries of service
areas for sewer and water services.
These service areas should define where the County plans to extend sewer
and water services for the purpose of approving sewer and water extensions for
proposed developments.”
·
“Action
Strategy J. The County should study the
feasibility of establishing public sewer service in the Etowah area and other
areas in the County, especially those with private package plants, in light of
the growth management strategy plan.”
Anthony Starr stated
that Etowah was specifically singled out because there were at least six
individual private package plants there.
Public School Element – 2020 Growth Management Strategy,
Recommendation GMS-01, Action Strategy A, Rural Transition Area (RTA).
Add the following
statement to support the densities proposed by the LDC regulations:
·
“Land
development ordinances in the RTA should strive for a general, average density
of 5 or fewer acres per residential dwelling unit. Actual densities as defined by zoning
requirements should vary across the RTA according to constraints and community
characteristics. As infrastructure is
expanded and becomes available, the R2 and the R2MH zoning district (if both
water and sewer services are present) should have an average density no more
than 2 units per acre.”
Growth Management Strategy – Recommendation GMS-01, Action
Strategy A, Rural/Agricultural Area
To support the densities
proposed by the LDC regulations, remove reference to average density of 5 or
more acres and replace with the following statement to support the Land
Development regulations:
·
“Land
development ordinances in the RAA should strive for a general, average density
of 1.5 or more acres per residential dwelling unit, but due to topography and
land use constraints, some areas in the RAA should have densities of 1 unit per
5 or more acres.”
Commissioner Williams
stated that he did see a little inconsistency in the wording. The reality is that there will be situations
where there will be 1 unit per 5 or more acres.
The code itself as written would allow 1 unit per 3 acres as opposed to
1 unit per 5 acres. In cases where there
is steep slope it would be half of that so in those cases it would be 1 unit
per 6 acres.
Anthony Starr explained
that it was written in a way to keep them from being hamstrung too much in what
the Board wanted to do. Basically the
way it is written out most of the areas that are zone R3 and R4 (the
Comprehensive Plan says 1 unit per 5 acres or more) would be encompassed with
flexibility. They then would be able to
determine through the zoning map which areas should be at which end of the
range.
Community Service Centers
Include similar language
from the Land Development Code to better define the scale of local, community
and regional commercial areas as follows:
·
Local
Commercial areas are located within defined Community Service Centers. They serve small market areas and are intended
to be located within the residential uses.
They are pedestrian-friendly areas that typically generate fairly low
traffic volumes and can be located along minor residential streets. Public utilities are strongly encouraged but
not necessarily required. The range of
uses permitted within a Local Commercial area should be compatible with
available utilities and infrastructure.
They include a variety of retail sales and services, public and private
administrations, offices and all other uses done primarily for sale or profit
on a local or neighborhood scale. They
should be compatible with adjacent development and the surrounding community
and should minimize congestion and sprawl.
·
Community
Commercial areas are located within defined Community Service Centers. Though still pedestrian-friendly, they are
larger centers serving larger market areas and are situated at logical
intersections along major roads. With
proper project design, residential uses can also be included with Community
Commercial areas. Public utilities are
generally required. They should include
a variety of retail sales and services, public and private administrations,
offices and all other uses done primarily for sale or profit on the local and community
level. They should be compatible with
adjacent development and the surrounding community and should minimize
congestion and sprawl.
·
Regional
Commercial areas are located within defined Community Service Centers. Regional Commercial areas can overlap with
Industrial areas given proper design.
While internally pedestrian-friendly on a project basis, they are
intended to service a regional market area.
As such, they generate high volumes of traffic and are located along
major roadways. Public utilities are
required. They should include a variety
of retail sales and services, public and private administrations, offices and
all other uses done primarily for sale or profit on the local, community, and
regional level. They should be
compatible with adjacent development and the surrounding community and should
minimize congestion and sprawl.
Section 4:
Implementation
Community Planning Framework
Figure CP.3
Implementation Schedule – Adjust implementation schedule (A copy of the
schedule is attached hereto and incorporated as a part of the minutes.
Section 5: Appendices
Appendix I: Maps
Map 8A – Appendix I:
Maps – Add a map depicting the Henderson County Industrial Study.
Map 20 – Appendix I:
Maps – Growth Management Strategy Map – Change the growth management boundaries
to reflect the decisions of the Land Development Code.
Map 24 – Appendix I:
Maps – Future Land Use Map – Add the community service centers resulting for
the adoption of the Land Development Code.
Map 33 – Appendix I:
Maps – Community Planning Areas – Update and regroup the community planning
areas and show projected completion year for each area plan. The timeline indicated for the community
plans assumes a 19 month process for each plan and completing 2 plans per year.
Appendix II: Public
Input – No change
Appendix III: Other
Documents – No change
Appendix IV: References
– No change
Anthony Starr stated
that the Board was interested in moving forward with the next Community
Planning. The current Comprehensive Plan
has several more (11 to 12) Community Planning Areas and some of the boundaries
probably don’t make the best sense in the way they were drawn up. They were drawn up in 2004 in conjunction
with a lot of other efforts. Planning
Staff went back and looked at the topography and the areas of the county where
people identified themselves in one community or another. What they came up with was 8 different
community planning areas that the Planning Board would propose to the Board of
Commissioners for consideration. The
schedule is based on Planning Staff conducting two planning processes at one
time. With existing staff and resources
that is probably their limit. They will
basically overlap and will not be exactly concurrent.
It was the consensus of
the Board that Edneyville, Hoopers Creek and Clear Creek along with East Flat
Rock and Dana, and finally
Anthony Starr shared
maps with the Commissioners showing recommendations for Industrial/Commercial Zoning,
the Growth Management Study, Future Land Use, and the Community Planning
Areas. Anthony Starr stated that their
plan was to update the Industrial/Commercial Study every 2 to 3 years working
with the Partnership and other organizations such as the Chamber to make sure
the information stays relevant.
Discussion followed with
suggestions from the Commissioners. The
Board felt that the Comprehensive Plan should be ahead of the Land Development
Code and not follow behind it.
Anthony Starr stated
that the way the Comprehensive Plan was structured refers to the three
different districts, Urban, Transitional and Agricultural. It doesn’t talk
about the specific areas. If the Board
desired Planning Staff would prepare some individual maps for each of the
expansion areas showing the reasons why and what’s on the ground, so to
speak.
Chairman Moyer stated
that if staff was requesting a change the area should be identified and they would
give the Board the rational for that change.
Chairman Moyer requested
that Anthony Starr get more detailed maps together for the Commissioners before
the meeting on the following Wednesday if possible.
Substantive Amendments: Proposed Text and Map Amendments to Chapter
200A, Land Development Code
LDC Text Amendment 1
Senior Planner Autumn
Radcliff stated that amendment 1 had to do with rezoning regulations.
Issue: R-O Residential Open
Space Development is allowed in the R-40 Residential zoning district upon the
approval of a special use permit. A
requirement of the R-O Development is the tract must consist of not less then
40 acres.
Recommended Solution:
Remove
the acreage requirement in Section 200A-37, D(9)b1 .
(9) R-O Residential Open Spaces Development.
a.
Any
use permitted in the R-40 District, with any conditions pertaining thereto,
shall be a permitted use.
b.
Establishment
of R-O Development. An R-O Development
shall be considered to conform to the requirements of such district when the
following circumstances exist:
1.
An
entire tract of land under one (1) ownership is being subdivided at one (1)
time pursuant to an overall plan of development which includes open spaces,
such as golf courses, lakes, recreational areas, meadows, parks, woods or other
open or green spaces. (Delete – The
tract shall consist of not less than 40 acres) All required open space shall be
dedicated to the public and accepted by the County or transferred to a property
owners’ association or transferred to a private club, subject to deed
restrictions forbidding its later subdivision or development for other than
residential open space purposes.
LDC Text Amendment 2:
Issue: The County has an area
that falls within the
Recommended Solution:
Add
the following language (provided by the State model Water Supply Watershed
Protection Ordinance) for the WP-WS-IV-CA to LDC §200A-53 and Table 2.14. The table shows that the critical area (CA)
would be the same as the protected area (PA) with the only stipulation that it
would not allow Special Intensity Allocation or Natural Drainage and Filtering
Bonus.
WSW Language (appropriate references to this section
included elsewhere but not shown herein).
LDC Text Amendment 3:
Issue: Singlewide
manufactured/mobile homes are not constructed with a 4:12 roof pitch as is
required in the LDC.
Recommended Solution:
Change
the 4:12 roof pitch requirement for singlewide manufactured/mobile homes in
§200A-63, SR 1.5 (pg.64), to a 3:12 roof pitch as requested by the manufactured
home industry which stated 3:12 as the typical roof pitch for singlewide
manufactured homes.
SR 1.5 Dwelling, Manufactured/Mobile Home (multi-section/singlewide)
(3)c. Have a roof pitch
with a minimum vertical rise of three (3) feet for each twelve (12) feet of
horizontal run. The roof shall be
finished with a type of shingle that is commonly used in standard residential
construction;
Commissioner Young felt
that the term shingle should not be used instead use a type of material that is
commonly used in standard residential construction.
LDC Text Amendment 4:
Issue: Singlewide manufactured
homes located in the County prior to the adoption of the LDC may not be moved
to another location in the County if the home did not meet the appearance
criteria found in §200A-63, SR 1.5, (3). This means that any home without lap
siding or the specified roofing materials, etc. would not be able to be moved
to another location within the County.
Recommended Solution:
Allow
existing single-wide homes to move to certain locations within the county. Add the following language to §200A-63, SR
1.5 Dwelling, Manufactured/Mobile Home (multi-section/singlewide), (3).
SR 1.5 Dwelling, Manufactured/Mobile Home
(multi-section/singlewide)
(3) Any singlewide
manufactured home which: (1) was manufactured after 1976 (HUD approved), (2)
has been located in Henderson County prior to the initial adoption of this Chapter
(September 19, 2007) and (3) do not meet the appearance criteria provided in
this SR 1.5 (Dwelling, Manufactured/Mobile Home) may be moved provided said
manufactured home is:
a.
Installed
to meet the criteria of Section (5) (subsections e, f, and g only), and
b.
Moved
to either of the following locations:
1.
A
space in an existing (as of September 19, 2007) manufactured home park;
2.
A
lot in a zoning district which permits the placement of manufactured homes.
LDC Text Amendment 5
Issue: Outdoor storage greater
than 5,000 square feet as an accessory use is not allowed to be placed in a
front yard or in any yard abutting a road.
The required screening standards appear to address aesthetic concerns
for side or rear yard areas if they abut a road.
Recommended Solution:
Change
the requirements in §299A-63, SR 2.9 (Outdoor Storage greater than 5,000 square
feet) to allow storage areas to abut a street, but keep the restriction
regarding placement in the front yard.
SR 2.9 Outdoor Storage greater then 5,000 square feet
(2) Locational
Requirements. Storage areas shall:
a.
Not
be placed in front yard
(3) Screening. Screen Class Three (3) or Four (4) shall be
provided consistent with the requirements of Section 2000A-150 (Screen
Classifications).
LDC Text Amendment 6
Issue: The road classification
restriction in the supplemental requirements determines if a permitted or
special use in a zoning district would be allowed on a property that abutted a
specific road type or classification. The
supplemental requirements provide design requirements which should be adequate
to provide protection to adjacent property owners. Road classification standards may be
unnecessarily restrictive given the other requirements provided for by the supplemental
requirements section of the LDC. Many of
the road class standards apply to industrial uses. With industrial zoning, an adequate road
system is implied in the decision to zone land industrial.
Anthony Starr stated
that by zoning something Industrial or Regional Commercial you are implying
that the road infrastructure network is in place. They felt that this was an unnecessary step
to have in the code and was difficult to match.
Recommended Solution:
Remove
the road classification restriction for all uses in the supplemental requirements. Below is a list of the current uses requiring
a specific road classification designation.
·
SR
4.1 Amusement Park
·
SR
4.12 Motor Sports Facilities, Major
·
SR
4.13 Motor Sports Facilities, Minor
·
SR
4.14 Motor Sports Facilities, Recreational
·
SR
4.18 Recreational
·
SR
5.8 Correctional Facilities
·
SR
5.9 Fire and Rescue Station
·
SR
5.10 Funeral Home or Crematorium
·
SR
5.11 Government Offices
·
SR
5.12 Homeless Shelter
·
SR
5.15 Place of Assembly, Large
·
SR
5.16 Place of Assembly, Small
·
SR
5.17 Police Station
·
SR
5.19 School (Public/Private/Charter)
·
SR
6.8 Motel/Hotel
·
SR
6.10 School (Technical, Trade and Business)
·
SR
6.12 Tire Recapping
·
SR
7.15 Retail Sales & Services Greater than 50,000 sq. ft. & less than or
equal to 100,000 sq. ft.
·
SR
7.16 Retail Sales and Services Greater than 100,000 sq. ft. & less than or
equal to 150,000 sq. ft.
·
SR
7.17 Retail Sales and Services Greater than 150,000 sq, ft.
·
SR
7.18 Shopping Mall
·
SR
7.19 Truck Stop
·
SR
9.2 Airport (Public)
·
SR
9.4 Hazardous Waster Disposal Facilities
·
SR
9.5 Land Clearing Debris and Inert Debris Storage or Disposal
·
SR
9.6 Rail Transportation Facilities and Support Activities
·
SR
9.7 Self Storage Warehousing, mini-Warehouses (for Commercial District)
·
SR
9.9 Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators
·
SR
9.11 Truck Terminals
·
SR
9.12 Utility Substations
·
SR
9.13 Warehousing and Storage (Excluding Warehousing of Hazardous Substances)
·
SR9.14
Waste Collection and Transfer Facility (Non-hazardous)
·
SR
10.1 Asphalt Plant
·
SR
10.2
·
SR
10.3 Chip Mill
·
SR
10.4 Concrete Batch Plant
·
SR
10.5 Junkyard
·
SR
10.6 Landfill (Public/Private)
·
SR
10.7 Machining and Assembly Operations
·
SR
10.8 Manufacturing and Production Operations
·
SR
10.9 Materials Recovery Facilities (Recycling)
·
SR
10.10 Mining and Extraction Operations
·
SR
10.11 Packaging and Labeling Services
·
SR
10.12 Pesticide, Fertilizer and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
·
SR
10.13 Product Processing and Storage Facilities
·
SR
10.14 Recycling Center, Drop-Off Facilities
·
SR
10.15 Research and Development Operations (Hazardous or biological materials)
·
SR
10.16 Research and Development Operations (Non-hazardous)
·
SR
10.17 Sawmill
·
SR
10.18 Slaughterhouse
·
SR
10.19
LDC Text Amendment 7
Issue: Staff has received a
request to add Motor Vehicle Sales as an allowed use in the Community
Commercial District.
Recommended Solution:
Add
the motor Vehicle Sales or Leasing as a special use in the CC district in
Subpart E.
LDC Text Amendment 8
Issue: The Zoning Administrator
has requested changes to the recreational and temporary use sections in the
Permitted and Special Uses Table.
Recommended Solution:
Make
the following adjustments to Subpart E.
Under the Recreation Usage it would bring in line Governmental
Facilities and the Sporting and Recreational Facilities with each other
changing where the Governmental Facilities are allowed in some areas to
actually be permitted by right without a special use permit and would continue
to allow the Sport and Recreational Facilities as a special use permit but also
allowing them in all the areas that the Governmental Recreational Facilities
are allowed. This would also allow for
the Swim and Tennis Clubs to be permitted in Community Commercial and the Model
Home Sales Office as a temporary use permitted in Community and Regional
Commercial.
LDC Text Amendment 9
Issue: All commercial
subdivisions are treated as major subdivisions and approved by the Planning
Board regardless of the number of lots proposed. There appears to be no justification for
requiring Planning Board review on small commercial or industrial
subdivisions. Few commercial or
industrial subdivisions are controversial compared to residential subdivisions.
Recommended Solution:
Commercial
subdivisions shall meet all requirements of a major subdivision, but will be
reviewed by the approving authority depending on the number of lots created as
are major residential subdivisions. The
proposed text changes follow:
Modifications to Commercial Subdivision Review Language
Make the following changes to §200A-306
§200A-306 Review for Major Residential Subdivisions and
Conservation Subdivisions of Eleven (11) to Thirty-Four (34) Lots (adding) and
any Commercial, Office Institutional, Industrial or Mixed-Use Subdivisions of
Thirty-Four (34) or Fewer Lots.
B1. Pre-application Conference. Each applicant shall meet with the
Subdivision Administrator in a pre-application conference at least 15 days
prior to the submission of any subdivision review in accordance with this
section.
B1c. Identify (for the entire tract) the following
features: streams, creeks, ponds,
reservoirs, floodplains, wetlands, steep slopes (those greater than 60
percent), unique natural areas, rock outcroppings, farmland, pastureland and
wooded/forested areas.
D. Formal Review. The Subdivision Administrator shall prepare a
recommendation on the application and supply a copy of the recommendation to
the applicant before review by the TRC.
All members of the TRC shall sign off on the application for approval. Any approval or denial of the request must be
in writing and be permanently filed in the office of the TRC as a public
record. The TRC shall take action within
30 days of reviewing the application.
The Subdivision Administrator shall notify the applicant (in writing) of
the decision by the TRC and any conditions imposed on the development within
ten (10) business days of the decision.
The TRC may refer any subdivision reviewed in accordance with this
section for review by the Planning Board in accordance with this Chapter. E and F were deleted.
Make the following changes to §200A-307. Review for Subdivisions and Conservation
Subdivisions of Thirty-Five (35) to Two Hundred Nine-Nine (299) Lots
B1c. Identify (for the
entire tract) the following features: streams,
creeks, ponds, reservoirs, floodplains, wetlands, steep slopes (those greater
than 60 percent), unique natural areas, rock outcroppings, farmland,
pastureland and wooded/forested areas.
D. Formal Review. The Subdivision Administrator shall prepare a
recommendation on the application and supply a copy of this recommendation and
the recommendation of the RC to the applicant before review by the Planning
Board. The Planning Board shall take
action within 90 days from the date of its first consideration of the
application.
Make the following changes to §200A-308
§200A-308. Review for
Major Subdivisions, and Conservation Subdivisions of Three Hundred (300) or
More lots
C1c. Identity (for the entire tract) the following
features: streams, creeks, ponds,
reservoirs, floodplains, wetlands, steep slopes (those greater then 60
percent), unique natural areas, rock outcroppings, farmland, pastureland and
wooded/forested areas.
LDC Text Amendment 9A
Issue: All major subdivisions
proposing 300 or more lots are approved by the Board of Commissioners, and the
LDC currently requires that the Commissioners review and approve all subsequent
development plans for projects that the Commissioners initially approve.
Recommended Solution:
Allow
the Planning Board to approve development plans for subdivisions with 300 or
more lots provided that the Board of Commissioners has approved the master plan
and the development plans satisfy any conditions imposed by the Board of
Commissioners.
Make the following changes to §200A-308 to clarify the
approval process
H. Amendment
Validity. The amendment is effective
immediately following the decision of the Commissioners. The Commissioners shall issue a written
statement on all map amendment decisions (both adoptions and rejections)
addressing reasonableness, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, and public
interests furthered. Where the applicant
has submitted a master plan only, development plans shall be reviewed by the
Planning Board for approval, following the processes and procedures outlined in
§200A-307 (Review for Major Subdivisions and Conservation Subdivisions of
Thirty-Five (35) to Two Hundred Ninety-Nine (299) Lots) and §200A-310
(Development Plans). Development plans
shall meet all requirements of the Chapter and satisfy any conditions imposed
by the Board of Commissioners during its review.
Chairman Moyer stated
this topic must have more discussion.
LDC Text Amendment 10
Issue: Except for the county
acting on an improvement guarantee and constructing the necessary improvements,
there are no alternative actions and associated administrative fees if the
developer fails to complete the work within two years after the initial
improvement guarantee was approved.
Recommended Solution:
Add
the following language to Section 200A-88, Amount and Terms of Guarantee; Time
Limits.
§200A-88. Amount and
Terms of Guarantee; Time Limits
All guarantees shall be
accompanied by a written agreement (performance agreement) specifying the terms
and the amount of the guarantee.
Following receipt of an improvement guarantee application, the
Subdivision Administrator shall review all application materials taking into
consideration the amount and terms of the guarantees for improvements,
including time of initiation and completion of the work. The Planning Director shall have the
authority to approve all improvement guarantee applications. The Planning Director may also, upon proof of
difficulty, grant an extension of completion dates set forth on its approval
for a maximum of one (1) additional year, but the time between initiation and
the completion of the required improvements shall not exceed two (2)
years. If the improvements are not
completed within the two (2) years the applicant shall be in breach with the
requirements of this section and the improvements guarantee and any and all
monies and accrued interest shall be forfeited by the applicant. If the Planning Director has found that the
applicant has made a good faith effort in completing the required improvements
within the two (2) years, the County may allow the applicant to execute a
second improvement guarantee. Said
agreement must be in the form of cash on deposit equal to 125 percent of the
cost of the remaining improvements. The
County shall assess an administrative fee equal to ten percent of the new
improvement guarantee monies. The amount
of the guarantee shall be sufficient to provide adequate funds to the County to
ensure, in the case of default, the installation of all required improvements
uncompleted at the time of default. All
guarantees for improvements shall comply with applicable statutory requirements
and shall be satisfactory to the
Article IV. Adequate
Public Facilities Regulations – No change.
Article V. Landscaping Design Standards – No change.
Article VI.
Off-street Parking and Loading Standards – No change.
Article VII. Sign
Regulations
LDC Text Amendment 11
Issue: At its meeting on
Monday, February 4, 2008, the Board of Commissioners directed Staff to add
language in the Land Development Code (LDC) to allow Staff to remove signs
placed in the road right-of-way (ROW).
The LDC prohibits the placement of signs in the ROW, but does not
include a provision for the removal of signs inadvertently placed in these
locations.
Recommended Solution:
Add
language to §200A-176 (Sign Placement) that would allow
§200A-176 Sign Placement
Signs shall be placed a
minimum of 15 feet from edge of pavement or from back of curb (as applicable),
and shall be located out of the road right-of-way. Signs are not permitted in sight visibility
triangle. Signs that are placed in the
road right-of-way may be removed and disposed of, without notice, by authorized
County personnel.
Article VIII. Natural Resources – No change.
Article IX.
Nonconformities
LDC Text Amendment 12
Issue: There is no provision in
the LDC that would allow for a reduction of the front yard setback in
established neighborhoods other then through a variance request.
Recommended Solution:
Add
language to §200A-268 (Exceptions and Modifications) that would allow for new
buildings in established neighborhoods to meet the same front yard setbacks as
adjacent buildings provided that those adjacent buildings were within 100 feet of
either side of the proposed new building and approved by the Zoning
Administrator.
§200A-1. Exemptions
and Modifications from Regulations
A. Reduction of Front Yard Setbacks. The required front yard setbacks applied to any
lot shall be reduced by the Zoning Administrator, at the request of the
applicant, to the average front yard setbacks of lots which are: (1) located wholly or in part within 100 feet
of the lot, (2) within the same block and zoning district as the lot, and (3)
fronting on the same side of the road as the lot.
Article X. Decision Making, Administrative & Advisory
bodies – No
change.
Article XI. Review Processes and Procedures – No change.
Article XII. Enforcement, Violations, and Appeals – No change.
Article XIII. Legal Status – No change.
Article XIV. Definitions
– No
change.
Chairman Moyer felt that
the Board should hold a public hearing on the text amendment changes. The change to be noted was in Text Amendment
9A.
Residential Map Amendment 1
Subject Area
This property is located
on
Staff Recommendation
Staff’s position at this
time, under the guidelines of current plans, policies and studies, is it
supports the rezoning of the Subject Area to Residential Two Manufactured
Housing (R2MH), based on the following:
6.1. The 2020 CCP: The text and map of the 2020 CCP identify
the Subject Area as being within the “Urban Services Area”. Residential development with a wide range of
densities is encouraged in the
6.2. Adjacent Zoning: The Subject Area directly abuts an
existing R2MH zoning district.
Technical Review Committee (TRC) Recommendations
7.1. The TRC supports
Staff’s position, providing a favorable recommendation to rezone the Subject
Area from R1 (Residential One) to R2MH (Residential Two Manufactured Housing).
Planning Board Recommendations
8.1. The Planning Board
supports Staff’s position, providing a favorable recommendation to rezone the
Subject Area from R1 (Residential One) to R2MH (Residential Two Manufactured
Housing) with a 7 to 0 vote.
Residential Map Amendment 2
Subject Area
This property is located
next to Hidden Hills Subdivision. The
subject Area is currently zoned R3 which is 1 unit per 1.5 acres. The property owner is requesting R2 Zoning
which is 1 unit per 1 acre average. The
site is 32.68 acres and is adjacent to both districts. R3 is located to the east. R2 is located to the west.
Staff Recommendation
Staff’s position at this
time, under the guidelines of current plans, policies and studies, is it does
not support the rezoning of the Subject Area to Residential Two (R2), based on
the following:
6.1. The 2020 CCP: The text and map of the 2020 CCP identify
the Subject Area as being within the “Rural Agricultural Area” and “Conservation
Area”. Residential development at low
densities is encouraged in the RAA and the conservation area designation
indicates the presence of steep slopes on the subject property.
Technical Review Committee (TRC) Recommendations
7.1. The TRC supports
Staff’s position, providing an unfavorable recommendation regarding rezoning
the Subject Area from R3 (Residential Three) to R2 (Residential Two).
Planning Board Recommendation
8.1. The Planning Board
does not support Staff’s position, providing a favorable recommendation to
rezone the Subject Area from R3 (Residential Three) to R2 (Residential Two)
with a 7 to 0 vote.
Industrial Map Amendment 1
Subject Area
This property is located
off
Staff Recommendation
Staff’s position at this
time, under the guidelines of current plans, policies and studies, is it
supports the rezoning of the Subject Area to Industrial (I), based on the
following:
6.1. The 2020 CCP: The text and map of the 2020 CCP identify
the Subject Area as being located in the “Urban Services Area” classification. While the text and map of the 2020 CCP do not
apply an “Industrial” designation to the Subject Area, the application of
6.2. Existing Uses: Sunset Hill Distribution and the Warm Company
indicate that the property is suited for industrial uses given current
uses. The Industrial (I) zoning district
would allow for these uses. The Lazy Boy
RV Park would not be an allowed use and would become nonconforming.
Technical Review Committee (TRC) Recommendations
7.1. The TRC supports
Staff’s position, providing a favorable recommendation to rezone the Subject
Area from LC (Local Commercial) & R2MH (Residential Two Manufacturing) to I
(Industrial).
Planning Board Recommendations
8.1. The Planning Board
supports Staff’s position, providing a favorable recommendation to rezone the
Subject Area from LC (Local Commercial) and R2MH (Residential Two Manufactured
Housing) to I (Industrial) with a 7 to 0 vote.
Commercial Map Amendment 1
Subject Area
The subject Area is
currently zoned R2MH and is located just past
Staff Recommendations
Staff’s position at this
time, under the guidelines of current plans, policies and studies, is it
supports the rezoning of the Subject Area to Local Commercial (LC), based on
the following:
6.1. The 2020 CCP: The text and map of the 2020 CCP identify
the Subject Area as suitable for commercial development. The CCP Future Land Use Map places the
Subject Area in the “Urban Services Area” classification and applies a “
Technical Review Committee (TRC) Recommendations
7.1. The TRC supports
Staff’s position, providing a favorable recommendation to rezone the Subject
Area from R2MH (Residential Two Manufactured Housing) to LC (Local Commercial).
Planning Board Recommendations
8.1. The Planning Board
supports Staff’s position, providing a favorable recommendation to rezone the
Subject Area from R2MH (Residential Two Manufactured Housing) to LC (Local
Commercial) with a 7 to 0 vote.
Commercial Map Amendment 2
Subject Area
The Subject Area is
currently zoned R2MH on Highway 64 adjacent to the Shuey Knolls
Subdivision. R2MH zoning is applied to
properties to the west, south and east.
Local Commercial (LC) zoning is applied to properties to the north.
Staff Recommendations
Staff’s position at this
time, under the guidelines of current plans, policies and studies, is it does
not support the rezoning of the Subject Area to Community Commercial (CC) due
to a spot rezoning concern; however, Staff supports the rezoning of the Subject
Area to Local Commercial (LC), based on the following:
6.1. The 2020 CCP: The text and map of the 2020 CCP Identify
the Subject Area as suitable for commercial development. The CCP Future Land Use Map places the
Subject Area in the “Rural/Urban Transition Area” classification and applies a
“
6.2. Adjacent Zoning: The Subject Area directly abuts an
existing LC zoning district.
Technical Review Committee (TRC) Recommendations
7.1. The TRC recognizes
the spot zoning concern that would result from rezoning the Subject Area to CC
(Community Commercial). The TRC supports
Staff’s position, providing a favorable recommendation to rezone the Subject
Area from R2MH (Residential Two Manufactured Housing) to LC (Local Commercial). Should the Board of Commissioners wish to apply
CC (Community Commercial) zoning to the Subject Area, other adjacent properties
should also be rezoned.
Planning Board Recommendation
8.1. The Planning Board
supports Staff’s position, providing a favorable recommendation to rezone the
Subject Area from R2MH (Residential Two Manufactured Housing) to LC (Local
Commercial). The Planning Board does not
support the Applicant’s request for CC (Community Commercial).
Commercial Map Amendment 3
Subject Area
The Subject Area is
located on Highway 64 east, approximately 1,680 feet (0.31 miles) northeast of
the intersection of US Highway 64 east and
Staff Recommendations
Staff’s position at this
time, under the guidelines of current plans, policies and studies, is it
supports the rezoning of the Subject Area to Local Commercial (LC), based on
the following:
6.1. The 2020 CCP: The text and map of the 2020 CCP identify
the Subject Area as suitable for commercial development. The CCP Future Land Use Map places the
Subject Area in the “Rural/Urban Transition Area” classification and applies a
“
6.2. Adjacent Zoning: The Subject Area directly abuts an
existing LC zoning district.
Technical Review Committee (TRC) Recommendations
7.1. The TRC supports
Staff’s position, providing a favorable recommendation to rezone the Subject
Area from R2MH (Residential Two Manufactured Housing) to LC (Local Commercial).
Planning Board Recommendations
8.1. The Planning Board
supports Staff’s position, providing a favorable recommendation to rezone the
Subject Area from R2MH (Residential Two Manufactured Housing) to LC (Local
Commercial) with a 7 to 0 vote.
Commercial Map Amendment 4
Subject Area
The Subject Area is
located on
Staff Recommendations
Staff’s position at this
time, under the guidelines of current plans, policies and studies, is it does
not support the rezoning of the Subject Area to Local Commercial (LC), based on
the following:
6.1. The 2020 CCP: The text and map of the 2020 CCP identify
the Subject Area as being located within the “Urban Services Area”
classification. While commercial
development is encouraged in the
6.2. Adjacent Zoning: The Subject Area is not adjacent to any existing
commercial zoning. Although the Subject
Area may be suitable for commercial development, Staff notes that reducing the
area of the request to only those parcels along and near
Technical Review Committee (TRC) Recommendations
7.1. The TRC supports
Staff’s position, providing an unfavorable recommendation regarding rezoning
the Subject Area from R2MH (Residential Two Manufactured Housing) to LC (Local
Commercial). The TRC further recommends
that the request be submitted as a separate rezoning application due to the
need for further study.
Planning Board Recommendations
8.1. The Planning Board
supports Staff’s position, providing an unfavorable recommendation regarding
rezoning the Subject Area from R2MH (Residential Two Manufactured Housing) to
LC (Local Commercial) with a 5 to 2 vote.
Commercial Map Amendment 5
Subject Area
The Subject Area is
located on
Staff Recommendations
Staff’s position at this
time, under the guidelines of current plans, policies and studies, is it does
not support the rezoning of the Subject Area to Local Commercial (LC), based on
the following:
6.1. The 2020 CCP: The text and map of the 2020 CCP identify
the Subject Area as being located with the “Urban Services Area”
classification. While commercial
development is encouraged in the
6.2. Adjacent Zoning: The Subject Area is not adjacent to any
existing commercial zoning.
6.3. Existing Uses: The property owner indicated that the
property is suited for commercial use given its current uses as a Golf
Course. The R2MH zoning district
currently applied to the property allows for its use as a Golf Course.
Although the Subject
Area may be suitable for commercial development, Staff recommends further study
be undertaken with a separate public hearing and notification to adjacent
property owners before amending the official zoning map.
Technical Review Committee (TRC) Recommendations
7.1. The TRC supports
Staff’s position, providing an unfavorable recommendation regarding rezoning
the Subject Area from R2MH (Residential Two Manufactured Housing) to LC (Local
Commercial). The TRC further recommends
that the request be submitted as a separate rezoning application due to the
need for further study.
Planning Board Recommendations
8.1. The Planning Board
does not support Staff’s position, providing a favorable recommendation to
rezone the Subject Area from R2MH (Residential Two Manufactured Housing) to LC
(Local Commercial) with a 6 to 1 vote.
Commercial Map Amendment 6
Subject Area
The Subject Area is 9.44
acres. It is a portion of a 23.92 acre
tract. The Subject Area is located on
Staff Recommendations
Staff’s position at this
time, under the guidelines of current plans, policies and studies, is it
supports the rezoning of the Subject Area to Community Commercial (CC), based
on the following:
6.1. The 2020 CCP: The text and map of the 2020 CCP identify
the Subject Area as suitable for commercial development. The CCP Future Land Use Map places the
Subject Area in the “Urban Services Area” classification and applies a “
6.2.
Technical Review Committee (TRC) Recommendations
7.1. The TRC supports
Staff’s position, providing a favorable recommendation to rezone the Subject
Area from R2MH (Residential Two Manufactured Housing) to CC (Community
Commercial).
Planning Board Recommendations
8.1. The Planning Board
supports Staff’s position, providing a favorable recommendation to rezone the
Subject Area from R2MH (Residential Two Manufactured Housing) to CC (Community
Commercial) with a 7 to 0 vote.
Commercial Map Amendment 7
Subject Area
The Subject Area is
located at the Intersection of Brookside Camp Rd and Interstate 26. The approximate size is 63.26 acres.
Staff Recommendations
Staff’s position at this
time, under the guidelines of current plans, policies and studies, is it does
not support the rezoning of the Subject Area to Local Commercial (LC), based on
the following:
6.1. The 2020 CCP: The text and map of the 2020 CCP identify
the Subject Area as being located within the “Urban Services Area”
classification. While commercial
development is encouraged in the
6.2. The
6.3. Adjacent Zoning: The Subject Area is not adjacent to any
existing commercial zoning. Although the
Subject Area (or a portion thereof) may be suitable for commercial development,
Staff recommends further study be undertaken with a separate public hearing and
notification to adjacent property owners before amending the official zoning
map. A conditional rezoning may also be
appropriate.
Technical Review Committee (TEC) Recommendations
7.1. The TRC supports
Staff’s position, providing an unfavorable recommendation regarding rezoning
the Subject Area from R1 (Residential One) to LC (Local Commercial). The TRC further recommends that the request
be submitted as a separate rezoning application due to the need for further
study. The reconfiguration of the
proposed zoning district or conditional rezoning request may be
appropriate.
Planning Board Recommendations
8.1. The Planning Board
provides a favorable recommendation (with a vote of 7 to 0) regarding rezoning
the Reduced Subject Area (that area bounded by Brookside Camp Road, I-26 and
Featherstone Creek) from R1 (Residential One) to LC (Local Commercial) and
recommends leaving the back portion of the property that is located in the
floodway and floodplain as R1. Staff
supports the Planning Board recommendation.
Commissioner McGrady
felt that a public hearing should be held on this matter.
Commercial Map Amendment 8
Subject Area
The Subject Area is
located at the intersection of NC Highway 225 and Interstate 26 and is a 15.70
acre portion of the 45.41 acre tract.
Staff Recommendations
Staff’s position at this
time, under the guidelines of current plans, policies and studies, is it
supports the rezoning of the Subject Area to Regional Commercial (RC), based on
the following:
6.1. The 2020 CCP: The text and map of the 2020 CCP identify
the Subject Area as being located within the “Rural Agricultural Area”
classification. While regional
commercial development is discouraged in the RAA and no “
6.2. Adjacent Zoning: The Subject Area adjacent to an existing
RC zoning district.
Technical Review Committee (TRC) Recommendations
7.1. The TRC supports
Staff’s position, providing a favorable recommendation to rezone the Subject
Area from R2MH (Residential Two Manufactured Housing) to RC (Regional
Commercial).
Planning Board Recommendations
8.1. The Planning Board
supports Staff’s position, providing a favorable recommendation to rezone the
Expanded Subject Area from R2MH (Residential Two Manufactured Housing) to RC
(Regional Commercial). The expanded
Subject Area would include the original Subject Area and addition of property
to the south of the Subject Area, located west of Beck Creek.
A table of technical
amendments to the Henderson County 2020 Comprehensive Plan and
Commissioner McGrady
recommended that the technical amendments be placed on a future consent agenda
giving the Board time to look over the changes.
The four Map Amendments that he felt should be open for public comment
were Residential Map Amendment 2, Commercial Map Amendment 4, Commercial Map
Amendment 5 and Commercial Map Amendment 7.
Chairman Moyer felt that
a public hearing should be scheduled for all Text and Map Amendments. He recommended that the Board set a date for
a public hearing on the Text and Map Amendments and that this be placed on the
agenda of the February 20 meeting.
Chairman Moyer elected to have discussion at this time on the LDC Text
Amendment 9A.
LDC Text Amendment 9A
Chairman Moyer felt that
clearly the Board had indicated that they wanted to be involved in larger
subdivisions. The Board had wrestled
with the size of subdivisions but there was no disagreement that the Board felt
the public was looking to them to control and have a say and make sure the
large subdivisions are right for
Anthony Starr questioned
if the Board’s preference was for the development plans to come to him to
approve them administratively or to hold public hearings on each development
plan. Obviously the Master Plan requires
a hearing because it is a conditional use zoning.
Chairman Moyer responded
that he felt the plans should come to the Board of Commissioners and after reviewing
them the Board of Commissioners would determine if the plans would go directly
back to the Planning Board or if issues would need to be resolved by the Board
of Commissioners prior to going back to the Planning Board.
It was the consensus of
the Board that this would be the manner in which plans would be dealt with.
The Board discussed Text
Amendment 4 and felt that they needed more information before making a
decision.
Anthony Starr stated
that the standards apply county wide.
There are some districts where Manufactured Homes are not allowed at
all. R1, R2 and R40 do not allow
manufactured homes. R2MH, R3 and R4 do
allow manufactured home with those appearance criteria. He feels that there is certainly merit to
making sure that the restrictions are not too great. However, if the restrictions are too weak you
begin getting resistance from existing neighborhoods or communities that view
them as bad and don’t want them at all.
Chairman Moyer stated
that additional items could be covered in the February 20 agenda.
SEVEN FALLS
Chairman Moyer suggested
that the Board bring up issues for discussion and this item would also be
brought back at the February 20 meeting if the Board is ready. The developer came in through his agent Mr.
Lapsley, and was talking about 20 year vested rights and the Board of
Commissioners turned it down for valid reasons.
They have come back again and asked if there are other options that the
Board of Commissioners might be willing to consider. Based on informal discussion Chairman Moyer
had said to them that he thought because of the size of the development,
economic times, that he would take to the Board of Commissioners a proposal
where there would be 5 year vested rights and if they met certain criteria with
respect to how the project was coming along, with respect to infrastructure and
with respect to the number of units being constructed etc., then there was a
possibility to renew it for another 5 years with a maximum of 10 if the
benchmarks were developed. The
agreements were submitted and all Commissioners, Anthony Starr and the
Commissioner McGrady
asked if Chairman Moyer knew specifically why
Chairman Moyer stated
that they would like the criteria, benchmarks, laws developed concerning the
guidelines on developing the project to stay the same for the length of the
development.
Anthony Starr stated
that the developer wanted to tie together the new road approval and the old
road abandonment. They did want to
construct the new road without approval to remove the old road. The issue of the road and the 5 year vested
rights are not tied together.
Chairman Moyer felt both
the road issue and the vested rights issue should be placed on the February 20
agenda. He stated that the city says
they won’t run water to the development.
The developer is still trying to work something out. The procedure would be set up for abandonment
of the road and the new road at the public hearing and whatever process is
necessary to follow. Staff was directed
to negotiate with the developer and bring back to the Board a development agreement
consistent with what has been presented.
Commissioner Messer made the motion to adjourn the meeting
at 6:20 p.m. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Attest:
Teresa L. Wilson, Deputy Clerk to the Board William L. Moyer,
Chairman