MINUTES
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF HENDERSON MAY 3, 1999
The Henderson County Board of Commissioners
met for a regularly scheduled meeting at 5:30 p.m. in the Commissioners= Conference Room of the Henderson County
Office Building at 100 North King Street, Hendersonville, North Carolina.
Those present were: Chairman Grady Hawkins, Vice-Chair Bill Moyer, Commissioner Renee
Kumor, Commissioner Don Ward, Commissioner Marilyn Gordon, County Manager David
E. Nicholson, Assistant County Manager Angela S. Beeker, County Attorney Don H.
Elkins, and Clerk to the Board Elizabeth W. Corn.
Also present were: Staff Attorney Jennifer O.
Jackson, Interim Planning Director Karen Smith, County Engineer Gary Tweed, and
Planner Suzanne Vernon.
CALL TO ORDER/WELCOME
Chairman Hawkins called the meeting to order
and welcomed all in attendance. He also welcomed those who will be watching
this meeting on cable television, since this will be the first meeting
televised.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Gordon led the Pledge of
Allegiance to the American Flag.
INVOCATION
Bryan Davis of First Baptist Church, East
Flat Rock gave the invocation.
DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA
Commissioner Kumor requested that one item be
added as Item #4 under Nominations - Juvenile Crime Prevention Council.
Chairman Hawkins requested one item be added
as Item #5 under Nominations - Cane Creek Water and Sewer Advisory Committee.
He requested that Staff Reports, Item AA@ be pulled, as Tax Assessor Robert Baird will
be unable to attend. He also requested that one item be added as Item #5 under
Pending Issues - Joint School Facilities Meeting update, the Hendersonville
Water/Flat Rock project, and jail financing.
Commissioner Moyer requested that one item be
added as Item #4 under Pending Issues - Cable Franchise.
Clerk to the Board Elizabeth Corn requested
that under Consent Agenda, Notification of Vacancies, Item AG3" - Youth Services Advisory Committee
be deleted, as it is now part of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council.
Commissioner Moyer requested that Consent Agenda Item #C, Henderson County Financial
Report be pulled for discussion. David Nicholson explained that the Budget
appeared to be in order, based on his experience with previous budgets. He also
noted that any money in a capitol project fund will roll into that fund for the
next fiscal year.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Hawkins made the motion to
approve the consent agenda. All voted
in favor and the motion carried. The CONSENT AGENDA consisted of the following:
Minutes
Minutes were presented for the Boards= review and approval of the following
meetings:
March 30, 1999, special called meeting
Henderson County Public Schools Financial
Report - March 1999
The March 1999 Public Schools Financial
Report was provided to the Board for information and consent approval.
Henderson County Financial Report - March
1999
The March 1999 Financial Report was provided
to the Board for information and consent approval.
Proclamation - EMS Week
A proclamation was submitted for the Board=s adoption designating the week of May 16-22,
1999, as Emergency Medical Services Week.
Tax Collector=s Report
Terry F. Lyda, Henderson County Tax
Collector, submitted the tax report for the period through April 26, 1999 for
the Board=s review.
Disposition of Lightbars
At the Board of Commissioners meeting on
April 5, 1999, the Board considered the disposition of ten (10) Federal Jetsonic Lightbars to
Madison County. Staff was directed to inquire as to whether any of the
volunteer fire departments could use the lights. There were two requests: one
from Bat Cave Fire Department for one (1) lightbar, and one from Gerton Fire
Department for two (2) lightbars.
A draft resolution had been prepared for the
Board=s consideration allowing the disposition of
the lightbars to Bat Cave Fire Department (1), Gerton Fire Department (2), and
Madison County (7).
Notifications of Vacancies:
The Board was notified of the following
vacancies which will appear under Anominations@ on
the next agenda:
1. Social Services Board Members - 1 vac.
2. Henderson County Regional Water Forum - 1 vac.
3. Youth Services Advisory Committee - 4 vac.
4. Blue Ridge Community College Board of
Trustees - 2 vac.
5. EMS Council - 1 vac.
6. Henderson County Board of Health - 2 vac.
7. Library Board of Trustees - 2 vac.
8. Mountain Area Workforce Development Board - 3 vac.
9. Jury Commission - 1 vac.
10. Henderson County Juvenile Crime
Prevention Council - 1 vac.
11. Hendersonville City Zoning Board of
Adjustment - 1 vac.
(alternate)
NOMINATIONS
Chairman Hawkins reminded the Board of the
following vacancies and opened the floor to nominations:
Nursing/Adult Care Home Community Advisory
Committee - 10 vac.
Chairman Hawkins nominated Aubrey Carruth.
Renee Kumor nominated Claire Boo, David Dennison, Alan Brown, Sarah Jones,
Bonnie Stewart, Lois Hoots, Calvin Titus, Carol Shuffstall and Jerry Chandler.
Following discussion, these names were left
as nominations, and rolled to the next meeting for a vote.
Henderson County Planning Board - 2 vac.
Commissioner Moyer nominated Bill Blalock and
Michael Case. There are no other nominations. Commissioner Ward called the
question on the motion. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) - 3
vac.
Commissioner Ward nominated Frank Drake.
Commissioner Kumor nominated Emily Anderson. Chairman Hawkins nominated Jim
Crafton. Commissioner Kumor made the motion to suspend the rules and appoint
Mr. Drake, Ms. Anderson and Mr. Crafton. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Juvenile Crime Prevention Council - 1 vac.
One of the members of this board must be an
individual who is under the age of 21. Commissioner Kumor has been in contact
with Blue Ridge Community College regarding this vacancy. They have recommended
April Bane. Commissioner Kumor nominated April Bane for the vacancy. Chairman
Hawkins made the motion that Ms. Bane be accepted by acclimation. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Cane Creek Water and Sewer Advisory Committee - 3 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so
this item was rolled to the next meeting.
Request to Present a Reappraisal Update
This item had been pulled from the agenda.
Henderson County Juvenile Crime Prevention
Council Annual Plan for FY 1999-2000
Larry Harmon was present to update the Board.
The Annual Plan for Juvenile Crime Prevention is required to be submitted to
the State Office of Juvenile Justice. The plan requires the approval of the
Board of Commissioners and the signature of the Chairman. This plan is required
in order to receive State funding for Juvenile Services.
Chairman Hawkins asked where some of the data
came from. There was concern that Henderson County=s rate for delinquent juveniles was higher
than the prior year, higher than the regional rate and higher than the state
rate. Mr. Harmon indicated that it was collected from the juvenile court
records. He also noted that while those
figures were higher, they were not alarmingly higher.
Commissioner Moyer made a motion to approve
the plan, and authorize the Chairman to sign it. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Extension for Improvement Guarantee for
Hearthstone, Phase II
As allowed by Section 170-39 of the Henderson
County Code, the Board of Commissioners on May 20, 1998, approved the posting
of a letter of credit as an improvement guarantee for Hearthstone, Phase II.
The Performance Agreement required that the road and water improvements be completed
by May 15, 1999. Some, but not all, of the road and water improvements were
completed by that date.
William G. Lapsley submitted a letter and an
amended application for a subdivision improvement guarantee requesting to
extend the project completion date. The application requested that the Board
extend the improvement completion date until December 31, 1999. A new letter of
credit would be posted in the amount of $145,000 to cover the cost estimate
plus 25%, and to reflect the change in
the completion date and the expiration date.
Chairman Hawkins made a motion to accept the
letter of credit as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Jackson Park Ballfield Lights
Angela Beeker was pleased to report to the
Board that their mission to address the Jackson Park ballfield lighting
project, was accomplished successfully. Following discussion with N.B. Haynes
at the April 20, 1999 meeting regarding concerns about the light poles on
ballfields in Jackson Park, the Board authorized the light fixtures be taken
down on all fields except #1 and #4.
On April 22nd, Haynes Electric had
removed fixtures on all fields except #4 and #8. Field #8 was not a high
priority because it is not used, and can be gated. Regarding field #4, lights
and crossbars from the fixtures that were taken down were used to rework those
fixtures. The current cost estimate was originally quoted at approximately
$7,000. A follow-up quote estimated the cost at between $9,000 and $10,000,
closer to $10,000.
Commissioner Ward commented that GE had some
volunteers come out and help aim the lights at no charge. GE has really helped
with this situation, and their assistance is appreciated. He also thanked the
Henderson County Maintenance Department, and Les Capps and Alvin Barnwell in
particular. He stated that it would be appropriate for Mr. Nicholson to write a
letter commending the Maintenance Department for their team effort on this
project.
David Nicholson noted that the cost for the
repairs had been included in this years budget. He also thanked the Recreation and Maintenance
Departments, Mrs. Beeker, and the Youth Baseball programs for changing their
schedule.
DuPont State Forest
Commissioner Moyer reminded the Board that
there is an effort underway to try to preserve some additional land that is
adjacent to the Dupont State Forest. The State is considering purchasing the
land, and Commissioner Moyer felt it would be a nice addition to our
recreational area. If the State purchased the land it would serve Henderson and
Transylvania Counties. He requested that the Board go on record in support of
the State effort to maintain the land in its natural state. Chairman Hawkins
stated that a letter could be drafted to the Governor indicating the Board=s support, with copies being sent to our
Representatives. Commissioner Gordon agreed that it was important to go on
record in support of the State purchase because it will take a community show
of support to keep the State on track in securing this property.
Elimination of State Reimbursements
Mr. Nicholson commented that he had received
a memo from the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners regarding
the AElimination of State Reimbursements@. Over the last 20 years, the State has done
away with a lot of the taxing power of the Board of Commissioners, both in the
property tax, and intangibles tax areas. The State has always said they would
reimburse the Counties for the cutbacks on their taxing power. Since this is a
lean year, there has been discussion that the State may withhold the
reimbursement.
Mr. Nicholson stated that the Board may want
to go on record saying AGeneral Assembly, the deal was, you took it out of our tax base, but
you would reimburse us. And that should apply to good years and to lean years
at the State.@
Chairman Hawkins suggested that a letter be
drafted for Commissioner Kumor to take to our Representatives indicating our
concern over the possible loss of revenue.
Cable Franchise
Commissioner Moyer updated the Board on a
conversation he had with Mayor Niehoff concerning the Cable TV franchise. The
City of Hendersonville had scheduled a meeting with Mediacom. Commissioner
Moyer received a call from the City saying they would actually prefer to
negotiate with the county, and would like to have a consultant look into what
needs to be done. They would prefer to go ahead on a joint basis if we were
interested in doing that.
Angela Beeker stated that she had been in
contact with a firm that would do the consultation, and was anticipating receiving
their proposal at any time. She requested first that they cost out presenting
to the Board of Commissioners the advantages and disadvantages of renegotiating
a cable franchise. Secondly, a
compliance audit because the Board has indicated that they would wish to ensure
that they were in compliance with the
current franchise before they would be willing to discuss a renegotiation of
the franchise. Thirdly, a proposal on representing the Board through a renegotiation
process.
Chairman Hawkins stated that upon receipt on
that proposal, he would notify the other municipalities of the cost involved
and the particulars of what we have requested.
Joint School Facilities Meeting
Chairman Hawkins reminded the Board that at
their last meeting, a letter was drafted to the Board of Education. A response was received back from
Superintendent Yeager stating that they are interested in getting together as
soon as possible. A tentative date has been set for May 12, 1999, from
9:00am-12:00pm. The main area that should be looked at is the feasibility of
using a prototype school and the associated costs, particularly in light of the
pending Fletcher and Balfour school projects.
Following discussion, it was agreed that the
first meeting would deal with the cost savings prototypes, and the second
meeting would deal with the land purchase.
Hendersonville Water/Flat Rock project
Chairman Hawkins reminded the board that he
and Commissioner Moyer have been trying to collect the information necessary to
work on the Flat Rock Sewer Issue and the Hendersonville Water Agreement. The
information has now been received, and work will begin on it shortly.
Jail Financing
Chairman Hawkins noted that he will be
working with Staff in the next few days on Jail Financing, and will report back
to the Board on those meetings.
IMPORTANT DATES
The Board set a Secondary Road Public Hearing
for May 18, 1999 at 9:00am. This Public Hearing is at the request of the NC
Department of Transportation.
Chairman Hawkins informed the Board that a
Town Hall meeting will be held on May 12, 1999, and they would appreciate some
Board of Commissioner representation.
David Nicholson reminded the Board that dates
for budget workshops will need to be set soon. He requested that Board let him
know any dates that they will not be available from the middle of May, through
June. He will do the preliminary leg work for all meetings that need to held in
conjunction with other agencies.
Mr. Nicholson noted for the Board that May
21, 1999 at 2:30 will be the Grand Opening and ribbon cutting of the EMS
Station at Mills River. He also reminded the Board that there is a tentative
Joint Facilities Meeting scheduled for May 12, 1999 between 9:00 am and 11:00
am.
French Board River Regulations
Mr. Nicholson informed the Board per their
direction from the previous meeting, Staff had done some research on defining
the rules and regulations for the French Broad River. NCGS 75A-15 states that AAny subdivision of this State may, but only
after public notice, make formal application to the Wildlife Resources
Commission for rules on waters within the subdivision=s territorial limits as to the matters listed
in subsection (a) of this section.@ There are currently
a number of administrative rules that the Wild Life Commission has put into
effect across the entire State.
Following discussion, Chairman Hawkins
suggested having the Commission investigate the recreation and safety needs on
the water in question. They would be in a position to see what rules are required,
and if a public hearing is needed, one can be set at that time. He recommended
taking care of the safety issues first, and then look at the noise issues.
Staff was directed to give public notice that
the Board will request to have the Wildlife Resources Commission begin their
investigation on safety rules. Mr. Nicholson will be in touch with Buncombe
County to inform them of this action.
Petition to Abandon Portion of Old Asheville
Road (SR #1533)
The County had received a petition from Dawjoncourt,
Inc. asking that the County request NCDOT to abandon and remove from the State
maintenance system a portion of Old Asheville Road (SR 1533). NCGS 136-63 requires that the Board find that
with the abandonment of the road, Athe best interest of the citizens of the County will be served thereby.@ The Planning Department had conducted an
impact study which indicated that the portion of the road which is subject to
the petition is entirely contained on property owned by Dawjoncourt, Inc. and
access to the remaining portion of the road would not be impeded.
Following discussion, the Board decided to
hold a public input session on May 19, 1999 at 9:00am.
PUBLIC HEARING - Proposed Zoning Districts for The Hoopers
Creek Community
Commissioner Kumor made the motion for the
Board to go into Public Hearing. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Jake Gilmer reminded the Board that they had
scheduled for this date a public hearing on proposed zoning districts for the
Hoopers Creek Community. In October of 1998, citizens from the Hoopers Creek
area formed the Hoopers Creek Planning Committee in order to organize an effort
to establish zoning in their community. On December 7, 1998 the Committee
submitted an application to the Planning Department for new zoning in Hoopers
Creek.
At their January 5, 1999 meeting, the
Henderson County Planning Board considered the zoning application and appointed
a subcommittee to (1) conduct a zoning study of the proposed area and (2) make
a zoning recommendation to the full Planning Board. The study area size is
approximately 6.7 square miles, the number of properties in the area are about
734. There are about 550 property owners in the area. The land use
characteristics show approximately 39% residential land use, 35% open space or
undeveloped, and 26% agricultural. These comprise the three major land use
categories. Two drop-in sessions were also held to meet with the public on the
basics of zoning.
The Subcommittee presented the results of the
study and their zoning recommendations at the March 30, 1999 regular Planning
Board meeting and the Board voted unanimously (8-0) to recommend three main
zoning districts for the area. RC Rural Conservation District, R-30 Low-Density
Residential District, and R-20 Low-Density Residential District. These
recommendations were based on environmental constraints, land use
characteristics, and individual requests of property owners.
Chairman Hawkins requested that Karen Smith
respond to some questions that the Board had received regarding the zoning
proposal. The questions had been generated by James Russell and others who had
submitted a counter petition. Ms. Smith defined the differences between R-20,
R-30 and RC districts, and how these districts would affect property uses, but
stressed that any existing uses would be grandfathered. She noted that the
zoning ordinance does exempt agricultural uses, and bonafide farm uses. She
also noted that the zoning ordinance does not restrict noise, though certain
uses may have a condition listed.
Public Input
1. Jack Bonner - Mr. Bonner stated that he runs a low key
auto dealership, and was concerned that he would be able to continue the
business that he has built. He was guaranteed by the Planning Department that
his business would be grandfathered in to any proposed zoning district.
2. Amy Case - Ms. Case was concerned that she had signed the petition which stated
she was undecided about the proposed zoning. She signed the petition without
realizing what it really was, and wished to have her name removed, and added to
the petition which is against zoning.
3. Francis Wilder - Mr. Wilder stated that he and his
immediate neighbors were in favor of the proposed zoning.
4. Jim Clayton - Mr. Clayton thanked the Planning Department
and staff for the work they have put into the project. He stated that of the
people surveyed, 70% are in favor of zoning. He discussed how the project has
been publicized, and stated that it should have come as no surprise to anyone
living in the area. He explained that there were two petitions that were
circulated, one dealt with a moratorium, and one was a zoning petition
5. Suzanne Tiller - Ms. Tiller noted that the process of
zoning came about because of the threat of large mobile home parks. The
committee was organized so citizens could take a proactive approach to further
development, as well as to put the Planning Department application together.
She too explained how the project has been publicized. She emphasized how much
time and effort has gone into the application, and urged the Commissioners to
take action on it at tonight=s meeting.
6. James Russell - Mr. Russell had submitted the questions
which were answered by Karen Smith at the beginning of the Public Hearing. He
spoke in opposition to the proposed zoning. He stated that he had only seen one
petition, and that petition was for the zoning. He spoke about how mobile homes
could be integrated into zoning in such a way that restricts mobile home parks,
but allows people more uses for their land.
7. Lane Godsey - Mr. Godsey spoke in favor of zoning. He
stressed that there is no perfect solution, but that the proposed zoning is the
best proactive answer.
8. Richard Stennett - Mr. Stennett spoke in favor of zoning. He
stated that the property restrictions do not outweigh the protection they would
be given. He hopes to maintain the rural character of the community, and stated
that zoning in other areas has proven to be a positive when it has been used
properly.
9. Doug Lassiter - Mr. Lassiter wished to go on record as
being in favor of the zoning application. He was in favor of a long term plan,
rather than acting on each problem as it arises.
10. John Davis - Mr. Davis echoed the previous sentiments,
stating that he too is in favor of zoning. Long range planning is essential to
maintain the rural community.
11. Sara Weary - Ms. Weary is not against zoning, but is
against spot zoning. She felt that she would only be protected from herself,
but not anyone else.
12. Gerald Stevenson - Mr. Stephenson stated that he owned five
acres, and was in favor of zoning to a certain extent. He was concerned that
his children would not be able to live in affordable housing.
13. James Rohn - Mr. Rohn lives in Hooper=s Creek and operates a mobile home park. Many
people in the park have lived there for many years. He stated that it is hard
for people on limited incomes to find affordable housing, and the tenants in
his park are model citizens.
14. Louise Crook - Ms. Crook questioned why land on one side
of the road is zoned, while land on the other side is not. She also stated that
her name appeared on a petition, but that she had never signed any petition.
After hearing the concerns about the lot
sizes, Suzanne Tiller asked the people who are concerned to take into account
the opinions of the people who own the other 93% of the area.
Commissioner Gordon stated that she
appreciated the input that had been given. There were very valid points made,
and there were a lot of considerations to be taken in. She recommended that a
workshop be set to take a good look at all the possibilities.
Commissioner Moyer also requested that they
hold a workshop.
Commissioner Ward expressed his preference
for county wide safety net zoning, as opposed to zoning certain areas requested
by citizens. He stated that the Commissioners should take the leadership role,
and not have zoning put in place as a reaction to a specific event.
Following discussion, Commissioner Kumor made
the motion that the Board go out of Public Hearing to consider the proposed
zoning districts for Hooper=s Creek. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - To Consider Adoption of the Proposed
Subdivision Ordinance
Commissioner Kumor made the motion for the
Board to go into Public Hearing on the consideration for the adoption of a
proposed subdivision ordinance. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Jennifer Jackson reminded the Board that at
their April 5th meeting, a public hearing was scheduled for this
evening concerning the proposed subdivision ordinance and amendments to the
land development ordinance that this subdivision ordinance will encompass.
Luther Smith has done some work for the Board developing figures that
correspond with the ordinance. The first figure is a sample site analysis
sketch. Figures two and three portray minimum curve radius and site triangles.
Figure four is not referenced in the ordinance, but it takes the site analysis
sketch (Figure 1), and overlays a proposed subdivision onto that site analysis
sketch. Staff believes this will be a great tool in explaining certain
provisions of the ordinance to the public.
Ms. Jackson discussed staff recommended
changes to other sections of the ordinance. Appendix 9 and 10 pertain to
improvement guarantees. Staff is requesting that these items be removed as they
are now outdated. Appendix 9 is a sample letter of credit, and appendix 10
which is a improvement performance guarantee agreement. If these changes are
approved, the existing figure and appendix numbers will be updated to reflect
changes.
Appendix 12 deals with degrees of kinship in
a family subdivision. The Board previously requested this number be reduced to
three degrees of kinship. Currently, Appendix 12 contains a typographical error
noting this as four degrees of kinship.
Chairman Hawkins requested that any
additional changes in text or changes to typographical errors be communicated to the Board.
The definitions of sewage disposal system and
water system were discussed. The most current set of definitions came out of
the Manufactured Home Park Ordinance. For consistency, staff requested they be
allowed to mimic those definitions from the Manufactured Home Park Ordinance.
It was the consensus of the Board that that would be the best idea.
There was discussion concerning phasing of a
minor subdivision. Staff requested clarification for the issue of when an
applicant is approved for a minor subdivision, and has a residual lot that is
not large enough to kick them into a major review. The question is how the
Board wishes to treat a subsequent application for a second phase when that
phase was not originally outlined. Following discussion, it was decided that a
subdivision is considered minor as long as additional phases do not cause it to
equal or exceed ten lots.
In major applications, a master plan and a
development plan are required. The master plan requirement was intended to have
the developer map out a rough plan of the entire subdivision, while the
development plan is very detail specific. All the information contained on the
master plan is included in the development plan. The Board wished to keep the
requirement that both of these plans be submitted.
Commissioner Moyer questioned the
requirements for private roads in a family subdivision. The intent in the
original draft was that driveways or private roads in a family subdivision
would not be subject to the regulations for private roads. It was the consensus
of the Board to add a provision that would specifically exclude family
subdivisions to ensure that this item was clear.
The fee schedule was discussed. Commissioner
Ward stated that he had been in communication with other counties and
municipalities that have growth problems similar to ours. He proposed the
following fees: Minor subdivision - $100 per plan plus $10 per lot, Major
subdivision - $200 per plan plus $15 per lot. Commissioner Gordon was concerned
that this was higher than our current
fee, and much higher than any surrounding County or municipality. Commissioner
Ward further suggested flat fees of $25 for plat review, $200 for Improvement
Guarantees, $100 for variances, $100 for
reinspection, and $250 for extension fees. Following discussion, it was
decided that this fee schedule should be considered at the upcoming budget
hearings. Commissioner Kumor made the
motion that the Board go out of Public Hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Commissioner Moyer made the motion to adopt
the Proposed Subdivision Ordinance with the amendments that were suggested and
agreed upon by the Board, and make the effective date of it midnight on May 20,
1999. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
INFORMAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Sarah Bumgarner - Ms. Bumgarner thanked the Board for their
decision to consult with the Wildlife Commission regarding the ordinances on
the French Broad River. She has three concerns as a resident on the French
Broad. First, the wildlife and their personal quiet that is being affected by
the noise of the air boats. Second is the environmental concern. The air boats
are causing waves and therefore erosion. Third is the concern of safety. She
stated that the river is rather narrow, the air boat is rather wide, and other
boats and canoes use the river as well.
2. David Donnell - Mr. Donnell stated that the safety issues
are a real concern, and will be compounded if the river is used by additional
air boats, jets skis, or other personal water craft. He questioned who would be
liable if there was an accident on the river.
In regards to the noise, Mr. Donnell stated
that this is a real problem. Mr. Bumgarner has been trying to quiet the noise,
however the noise is still very loud. He reminded the Board that the Noise
Ordinance has a sound level limit of 80 decibels. They have monitored the level
of noise the boat emits based on 10 minutes before you can see the boat, and
when it passes in front of you. Those readings are 98 and 104 respectively.
OSHA standards states that at 90 decibels individuals start to incur hearing
loss.
He reminded the Board that approximately
40,000 people per year use the French Broad River, and that many of them are
concerned about safety, noise and pollution. He hopes that a solution can be
found which will be to the good of everyone involved, and for the future of the
river.
3. Jack Bonner - Mr. Bonner was not present when his name
was called.
4. Mike Bumgarner - Mr. Bumgarner is the owner and president
of Airboat Express. He stated that his boat has been inspected by North Carolina
Wildlife, and it passed every requirement. He takes every precaution for his
passengers, most of whom can not access the river by canoe or raft. He is
working on quieting the propellor and the engine noise. He stated that the
Noise Ordinance exempts commercial businesses, and he fits that criteria.
He ensured the Board that he respects the
river, and everyone who uses it. He asked that everyone respect his right to
operate his business on public waters, as others are allowed to operate their
business. He thanked the Commissioners for their time and invited them to come
take a ride and see the operation.
Chairman Hawkins asked what type of engine is
used on the boat. Mr. Bumgarner stated that it is a 454, the smallest engine
available for a boat that size. It is carbureted, with one four barrel. He runs
headers on it, as well as using collector baffles in the collector, and uses
mufflers. The propellor is a fixed
pitch, with eight blades, and the gear reduction is 2.08:1.
Issues Regarding the Manufactured Home Park
Ordinance
Jennifer Jackson stated that several
questions have arisen with the administration of the Manufactured Home Park
Ordinance. One concern regards the definition of space and what permits must be
in place to qualify as a connection in the definition. Another concern is about
the phasing of units. Parks are defined as five or more units, and there is the
issue of the initial park requesting to develop four units, but then applying
for additional phases. Finally, Appendix A lists contour intervals which were
to have been based on USGS maps. Information has come to light which states
that these might not be the most appropriate maps to refer to, as they are old
and the scale is very small.
Commissioner Ward stated concern that the
small park owners were being hurt by the regulations. Examples of this are the
park owner who has six units down a mile long drive, who must now put a stone
drive down to the park, or an owner who would have to widen an existing road
from 12' to 18' to add a second phase. He stated that there is no gray area in
the ordinance to allow for common sense exemptions.
Following much discussion about the
provisions in the ordinance, it was decided that the Planning Board has an
adequate amount of authority to address variances for any special
considerations. The problems Commissioner Ward addressed are transitional
problems for any new ordinance. If the Planning Board sees that they are
receiving variance requests for the same issue many times, they can request
from the Board an ordinance amendment.
Landfill Gas Recovery Projects
Jeff Knapp, Facilities Manager with Enerdyne
Power Systems, Inc. was present to request the Board=s support for some legislation exempting
counties and municipalities that are engaged in landfill gas recovery projects
from regulation by the North Carolina Utilities Commission. Currently, they are
limited to one end user, and that one user only uses approximately 50% of that
gas. If they could use two users, the gas could be used rather than being
flared.
Enerdyne, by virtue of an agreement with
Henderson County, has the right to any gas generated by the Henderson County
Landfill. They are currently pumping gas to Northland and have had requests
from other companies such as Printpack. The legislation that Enerdyne is
requesting the Board to support will better enable such projects to be
accomplished by essentially excluding such activity from being considered a Apublic utility@. A proposed Resolution had been drafted for the meeting if the Board
wished to consider it.
Angela Beeker explained that in 1995 the
County had authorized Enerdyne to harvest all landfill gas (methane) which can
be used for beneficial purposes. The contract with Enerdyne has saved the
county a substantial amount of money, in that they harvest the gas at no cost
to the county.
Following discussion, Chairman Hawkins made a
motion to accept the resolution. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
CLOSED SESSION
Commissioner Kumor made the motion for the Board to go into Closed Session 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
143-3218.10(e) and Article II of Chapter 11 of the Henderson County Code.
2. (a)(3) To consult with
an attorney employed or retained by the public body in order to preserve the
attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the public body, which
privilege is hereby acknowledged.
3.
(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 claim:
Multimedia Publishing of
North Carolina v. Henderson County and
Henderson County Board of
Commissioners Henderson County File
No. 98-CVS-1630
4. (a)(4) To discuss
matters relating to the location or expansion of industries or other
businesses in the area
served by the public body.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Following Closed Session, Commissioner Kumor
made the motion to approve the Closed Session minutes from March 17, 1999 and
April 5, 1999. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner Kumor made the motion to unseal
Item #4 from the Closed Session minutes for March 17, which is the Partners for
Health Condominium discussion, and to unseal Item #1 from the Closed Session
minutes for April 5, which discussed personnel issues for Cooperative
Extension. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
There being no further business to come
before the Board, Chairman Hawkins adjourned the meeting at approximately 10:16
p.m..
ATTEST:
Elizabeth W. Corn, Clerk Grady
Hawkins, Chairman