MINUTES
STATE
OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY
OF HENDERSON NOVEMBER 1, 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/Interim County
Attorney Angela S. Beeker, and Clerk to
the Board Elizabeth W. Corn.
Also present were:
Finance Director J. Carey McLelland, Staff Attorney Jennifer O. Jackson, Public
Information Officer Chris S. Coulson, Planning Director Karen C. Smith, and
Planners Chris Timberlake and Jake Gilmer.
CALL TO ORDER/WELCOME
Chairman Hawkins called
the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Moyer led
the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag.
INVOCATION
David Nicholson gave the
invocation.
DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT OF
AGENDA
Commissioner Moyer
requested that the first two items under Staff Reports be added to the consent
agenda. They were A-Records Retention
and Disposition Schedule for the Sheriff=s Office and B- Pawnbroker=s License Renewal for
Etowah Pawnbrokers, Inc.
Commissioner Ward asked
that item AB@ be pulled from the
consent agenda and placed as item AA@ under Staff Reports. Workforce Investment Act -
Youth Council - he felt that it should be made public that the Board is
protecting the taxpayer=s dollars here and make
it public that the Board has some excellent people representing the county in
this process.
Commissioner Moyer asked
that one item be added as #2 under Pending Issues - Discussion of the Property
Addressing project.
Angela Beeker requested
that the Board delete closed session item #4.
It was the consensus of
the Board to approve the above changes to the agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA
Chairman Hawkins made
the motion to approve the consent agenda as amended. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The CONSENT AGENDA included the following:
Tax Collector=s Report
Terry F. Lyda, Tax
Collector, provided the Tax Collector=s Report as of October 25, 1999. Darlene Burgess, Deputy Tax Collector,
provided the AStatus Report regarding
Delinquent Taxes for years 1990-1998".
Release of State
Technical Assistance Funds to the Land-of-Sky Regional Council
The Board was presented
with a proposed Resolution to release State Technical Assistance funds to the
Land-of-Sky Regional Council. The State
appropriates a maximum of $55,000 annually to every regional council in the
form of Technical Assistance funds. The
appropriation is divided among its member local governments according to
population. Each local government must
consent to the release of its share before the Regional Council can access
those funds.
Henderson County was
asked to release its share of the $55,000, or $15,067.03, to Land-of-Sky. If the Board elects not to release the
funds, they will revert to the general fund of the State of North Carolina. The funds must be used by Land-of-Sky
Regional Council to assist the local governments in grant applications,
economic development, community development, support of local industrial
development activities, and other activities as deemed appropriate by the local
governments.
Referral of Proposed
Amendments to Special Use Permit #99-02, Creekside Residential
Open Space (R-O)
Development to the Planning Board
An application had been
submitted by Mr. Maxie Small to amend special use permit #99-02, which the
Board of Commissioners granted in August for a Residential Open Space (R-O)
Development called Creekside. Creekside
is located in the County=s R-20 zoning district
and a small portion of Hendersonville=s Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction. An application to amend a special use permit
must be submitted to the Board of Commissioners, which shall refer it to the
Planning Board for review and recommendation prior to a public hearing.
The R-O development is
located off NC Highway 191 (Haywood Road) between Long John Mountain Estates
and Carriage Park. The applicant is
proposing to amend the special use permit by adding 2.02 acres to the development
and an additional 7 lots. In doing so,
a portion of the road and some of the lots will be reconfigured. The purpose of the R-O Development section
(section 200-35 of the Henderson County Code) is to preserve open space. Approximately 30 percent of the acreage
would be preserved as open space.
It would be appropriate
for the Board to refer the application to the Planning Board for review and
recommendation at this time.
Henderson County Public
Schools Financial Report - September 1999
The Public Schools
Financial Report for September of 1999 was provided for the Board=s review.
Henderson County
Financial Report - September 1999
The County Financial
Report for September of 1999 was provided for the Board=s review.
RECORDS RETENTION AND
DISPOSITION SCHEDULE FOR THE SHERIFF=S OFFICE
The Sheriff=s Office has received a revised
Records Retention and Disposition Schedule which was prepared by the North
Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History,
and applies specifically to County Sheriff=s Offices.
Upon the recommendation of the Sheriff=s Staff Attorney, this Schedule has been
reviewed and approved by the Sheriff and is now forwarded to the Board of
Commissioners for approval.
Section 121-5(b) of the
North Carolina General Statutes requires approval of the Records Retention and
Disposition Schedule by the Board of Commissioners and the entry of such
approval into the Board=s minutes. The Schedule does not apply to the Sheriff=s Office until the Board
has indicated its approval. The Sheriff
requested such approval at this meeting.
PAWNBROKER=S LICENSE RENEWAL -
Etowah Pawnbrokers, Inc.
Bruce Gosnell, who
operates Etowah Pawnbrokers, Inc. has filed an application to continue
operating a pawnshop at the Etowah Shopping Center in Henderson County.
Mr. Gosnell first
applied for a Pawnbroker=s License in 1990 and
has renewed his application/petition every year since. The most current license expired on
September 30, 1999.
A complete renewal
application has been submitted and presented for the Board=s review. The only item that Mr. Gosnell submitted
that was not presented to the Board was his financial statement of capital assets. If the Board wishes to review this financial
statement it would be appropriate for the Board to go into closed session
pursuant to NCGS 143-318.11(a)(1).
The Staff Attorney has
reviewed the application/petition and the attachments and believes that
everything is in order. Staff
recommended that the Board consider renewing the Pawnbroker=s License for a term of
October 1, 1999 through September 30, 2000.
NOMINATIONS
Notification of
Vacancies
The Board was notified
of the following vacancies which will appear under ANominations@ on the next agenda:
1.
Apple
Country Greenways Steering Committee - new committee
2.
Transportation
Advisory Committee - new committee
3.
Henderson
County Juvenile Crime Prevention Council - 1 vac.
Due to
resignation (person under the age of 21).
Commissioner Kumor asked
that item #3 above be added as item #8 under Nominations as she had a
nomination for this vacancy. Chairman
Hawkins made the motion to make this change to the agenda. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
There was some discussion
regarding appointments to the Greenways Committee. It was requested that the Chairman write to each of the
municipalities and ask them to advise us when they approve the interlocal
agreement and to advise us who their nominees to the committee are. It was further suggested that the Chairman
also ask for the municipalities= appointments to the Transportation Advisory
Committee.
Nominations
Chairman Hawkins reminded
the Board of the following vacancies and opened the floor to nominations:
1. Hendersonville
City Zoning Board of Adjustment - 1 vac.
Applicant must live in the
City ETJ. The vacancy is for an
alternate position. There were no nominations at this time so this item was
rolled to the next meeting.
2.
Nursing/Adult
Care Home Community Advisory Committee - 5 vac.
#5, #9, and #14 cannot be
appointed at this time. Persons have
been nominated for the three positions and by the mid-month meeting the
appointments can be made.
#16 and #21 are not
designated positions and could be appointed without wait but we currently have
no appointment applications of interested persons for this committee. There
were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
Commissioner Kumor - remarks
Commissioner Kumor reminded
the Board that several years ago she and Angela Beeker developed a program on
what it requires to serve on a Board and developed the Boards and Committees
handbook. The handbook includes the
statutory designation as well as the purpose of each Board/Committee and where
and when they meet. She suggested that
a short tape be produced that could be run on channel #56 on cable either prior
to our meetings or at some other times.
This could be a 10-15 minute discussion on what it means to serve on a
Board, the goals the Board of Commissioners have, the issues of liability, and
then possibly highlight a Board at each meeting that has vacancies.
Chairman Hawkins asked the
County Manager and staff to investigate this and report back to the Board.
3.
Travel
& Tourism Committee - name Chairman
The Board made their four
appointments to T & T at the last meeting.
They are currently waiting for the Chamber of Commerce and the City of
Hendersonville to make their appointments before this Board appoints the
Chairman. This item was rolled to the next meeting.
4.
Henderson
County Hospital Corporation Board of Directors - 3 vac.
At the last Commissioners= Meeting four persons were
nominated to fill these three vacancies, they were: Dr. Albers, Howard Carl, Dr. Shuffstall, and Charles Waters.
The Clerk was asked to poll
the Board. The results were:
Dr.
Albers - 5 votes
Howard
Carl - 5 votes
Dr.
Shuffstall - 4 votes
Charles
Waters - 1 vote
Therefore, the appointees to
the Hospital Corporation Board of Directors were Dr. Albers, Howard Carl and
Dr. Shuffstall.
5.
Henderson
County Zoning Board of Adjustment - 1 vac.
This term expires 12/31/99
and the applicant must be from the Bearwallow area of the County. Dale Caldwell
is willing to serve as the alternate from Bearwallow even though he does not
wish to continue to serve as the regular member from Bearwallow. Mr. Clouse is the current alternate and he is
willing to be appointed as the regular member.
Commissioner Kumor made the
motion to appoint James Clouse as the Bearwallow representative to the
Henderson County Zoning Board of Adjustment and Dale Caldwell as the alternate
from the Bearwallow area. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
6.
Laurel
Park Board of Adjustment - 1 vac.
There is one county
vacancy. Applicant must live in the
Laurel Park ETJ. The current term
expires 12/31/99. Mr. Farrington is the
current alternate from the ETJ and he is willing to be appointed and serve as
the regular member from the ETJ.
Commissioner Kumor made the
motion to appoint Jeremiah Farrington to the Laurel Park Board of Adjustment as
a regular member. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. This leaves one
vacancy as an alternate from the ETJ.
7.
Downtown
Hendersonville, Inc. - 1 vac.
The term expired
11/1/99. The Clerk was asked to notify
Annette Owens to ask if she is willing to be reappointed to this position. The
Clerk will also request an updated roster of this board for the Commissioners= information.
8. Henderson County Juvenile Crime Prevention Council - 1 vac.
Commissioner Kumor nominated
Andrew Schultz to the position that must be filled with a person under the age
of 21. Chairman Hawkins made the motion
to suspend the rules and appoint Mr. Schultz.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Workforce Investment Act -
Youth Council
The Workforce Investment Act
requires the formation of a Youth Council to oversee the funding of youth employment
programs. The appointment of the
members of this Council are made by the Chief Elected Official in each of the
Counties. The membership of the Council must be members of the Workforce
Development Board or other eligible organizations.
Mr. Nicholson suggested the
following four nominees to the Youth Council.
The Chief Elected Official must make the appointments:
Jeffrey
S. Lily
Child
Care Director/College Student
Martha
G. Enevold, Juvenile Court Counselor
Office
of Juvenile Justice
Arthur
Marcello, Director of JTPA Program
Western
Carolina Community Action, Inc.
Ervin W.
Bazzle, Attorney
Bazzle,
Carr & Gasperson, P.A.
Chairman
of Henderson County Public School Board of Education
Chairman Hawkins made the
motion that the Board allow the Chairman to appoint these four persons to the
Youth Council as the Chief Elected Official of Henderson County.
REQUEST FOR IMPROVEMENT
GUARANTY FOR CLIFFS VALLEY NORTH, Phase II
An Application for
Subdivision Improvement Guarantee dated October 21, 1999 had been received as
submitted by Paul Foster, agent for James B. Anthony, the owner/developer of
Cliffs Valley North. By way of this
application, the developer requested permission to post a subdivision
improvement guarantee to cover the cost of the road and drainage improvements
for Phase III. Cliffs Valley North,
Phase III, formerly known as Panther Mountain, is a major subdivision located
off US 25 South (Greenville Highway). The Planning Board approved the development
plan at its August 30, 1999 meeting.
Pursuant to Section 170-38
of the Henderson County Code, a Developer may, in lieu of completing all of the
requirements within the subdivision (i.e. completion of the road and drainage
improvements) prior to Final Plat approval, post a performance guarantee to
secure the County=s interest in seeing that satisfactory construction
of the incomplete improvements are accomplished. One type of permitted guarantee is an irrevocable letter of
credit.
The Developer proposes to
submit an Irrevocable Letter of Credit for the purpose of providing the
improvement guarantee for the road and drainage improvements in Cliffs Valley
North, Phase III in the amount of $224,027.50.
This amount includes the amount listed on the cost quote plus the
required additional amount of 25%. A
Performance Guarantee Agreement had been drafted and presented for the Board=s review. The Staff Attorney reviewed the original
Letter of Credit and Statement and certified them as to form.
Planning Staff had reviewed
the request and recommended approval in accordance with Section 170-38 of the
Henderson County Code. The effect of
the approval of this improvement guaranty is to allow Planning Staff to approve
the Final Plat for Phase III of Cliffs Valley North subdivision prior to
completion of the improvements.
Paul Foster was present and
answered some questions regarding the slope and grade of the roads.
Chris Timberlake also
answered some questions from the Board.
Commissioner Kumor made the
motion to approve the application for improvement guaranty. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
UPDATE ON PENDING ISSUES
This is an effort to keep
the lines of communication open. It
gives the Chairman an opportunity to bring the Board up to date on issues that
occur between meetings. It will also be
the time he will ask for direction so as to develop a public position on current
and upcoming topics.
This is also an opportunity
for Commissioners to report on related committee work and assignments.
The topics to discuss during
this meeting are as follows:
1. Detention Center - Bids
and Financing
David Nicholson informed the
Board that staff opened the bids on October 19 for the Detention Center. The
low bids were as follows:
General
- Beam $6,989,600
Electrical
- Hayes & Lunsford
849,300
Plumbing
- Bolton 643,400
Mechanical
- Price and Price 509,000
Total $8,991,300
This is $1,038,063 over the
latest estimate and about one half million dollars over budget.
Staff met with the
architects to discuss ways to bring the contracts into line with the budget.
The initial results of these meetings and discussions created a savings of over
$515,000 which included some value engineering. Mr. Nicholson felt that the
savings could be more when the final numbers are run.
There was much
discussion.
Mr. Nicholson plans to
deliver the draft contracts to the Board of Commissioners on November 2 as well
as the third draft of the official statement.
He plans to deliver the final packet on construction and financing on
the morning of November 5. He suggested
the Board set a special called meeting next Monday or Tuesday to approve these
documents. He then reviewed the
budget revenues and costs for this project.
Detention
Center Project Budget
Project Revenues:
Certificates
of Participation $9,100,000
County
Contribution 371,624*
Net
Project Revenues $9,471,624
Project Costs:
Construction
Contracts $8,476,300
Financing
Costs 200,000
A &
E Cost 795,324
Total
Project Costs $9,471,624
Other County Costs:
Contingencies
(4%) $ 339,052
Fixtures,
Furniture, & Equipment 270,160
Total
Other Costs $ 609,212*
Note:
* Available County Funds $ 980,836
2. Letter from Mayor Sitnik
- Chairman Hawkins
Chairman Hawkins informed
the Board of a letter he received from the Mayor of Asheville today in response
to a letter he sent to her inquiring about the racetrack. Mayor Sitnik=s letter stated that
representatives from a group desiring to maintain a racing presence in the City
of Asheville had asked the City for a listing of property owned in the vicinity
of the Asheville Airport. This is
public record and was provided. Beyond
providing the information requested, the City Council has not authorized any
further action with regard to the Asheville Motor Speedway.
3. Property Addressing -
add-on by Commissioner Moyer
Commissioner Moyer raised
some questions regarding the property addressing project and how it is planned
to be implemented. There was some
confusion and it was the consensus of the Board to have an additional workshop
on this issue and have Robert Baird present to answer Board questions. The
Board would like to have a written plan with dates.
There was much discussion.
INFORMAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Timothy Lyda - Mr. Lyda spoke on the
subject of zoning in general. He
requested that the Board put the issue of zoning on a ballot for a vote by the
citizenry of Henderson County.
Chairman Hawkins explained
to Mr. Lyda that counties in the State of North Carolina operate under Dillon=s Law which means that
County Boards of Commissioners are only empowered to do things that the
Legislature in Raleigh allows them to do.
One of the things allowed is put items on referendums. There is a list of items that can be put on
a referendum and zoning is not one of them.
Buncombe County has zoning on the ballot because at the eleventh hour of
the last General Assembly their Representatives were able to get a Special Act
enacted that enabled them to put that on a referendum.; however, it is a non-binding
referendum.
CLOSED SESSION
Commissioner Kumor made the
motion for the Board to go into closed session as allowed pursuant to NCGS
143-318.11 for the following reasons:
1.(a)(1) To
prevent disclosure of information that is privileged or confidential pursuant
to
the law
of this State or of the United States, or not considered a public record within
the meaning of Chapter 132 of the General Statues as allowed by and pursuant to
NCGS 53B-3 concerning the confidentiality of financial records.
2.(a)(1) To
prevent disclosure of information that is privileged or confidential pursuant
to the law of this State or of the United States, or not considered a public
record within the meaning of Chapter 132 of the General Statutes, in accordance
with and pursuant to NCGS 143-318.10(e) and Article II of Chapter 11 of the
Henderson County Code.
3.(a)(3) To
consult with an attorney employed or retained by the public body in order to
preserve the attorney-client privilege between attorney and the public body,
which privilege is hereby acknowledged.
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 claims:
Henderson
County v. Crosby (File No.99-CVS-527)
Henderson
County v. Jackson (File No. 99-CVS-526)
All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Commissioner Gordon made the
motion for the Board to go out of Closed Session.
ACTION FOLLOWING CLOSED
SESSION
Commissioner Kumor made the
motion to approve the September 28 closed session minutes. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Old
Spartanburg Road Rezoning - Application R-02-99
Chairman Hawkins made the
motion for the Board to go into Public Hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Eugene and Epatia Albertson
had submitted an application requesting that the County rezone two parcels of
land, which they own, as well as three parcels, owned by others, from R-10
High-Density Residential to C-2 Neighborhood Commercial. The five parcels of land are located at the
intersection of Mount Airy Street and Old Spartanburg Road and they
collectively occupy 2.28 acres of land.
At its August 31, 1999
meeting, the Planning Board first considered the application and directed the
Special Issues Subcommittee to further study the application and to consider
such issues as land use compatibility and alternative zoning districts. At its September 15, 1999 meeting, the
Special Issues Subcommittee met and discussed various factors related to the
Old Spartanburg Road rezoning application and voted to recommend to the full
Planning Board that the study area remain in the R-10 High-Density Residential
district. At its September 28, 1999
meeting, the Planning Board discussed the recommendations of the Subcommittee
and voted (5 to 1) to send the Board of Commissioners an unfavorable
recommendation on rezoning the Old Spartanburg Road study area from R-10 to
C-2.
In accordance with Section
200.76 of the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance and State law, a notice
of the public hearing was published in the October 15 and October 22, 1999
editions of the Times-News. On
October 15, 1999 the Planning Department mailed notices of the hearing to all
property owners within the study area as well as the owners of adjacent or
nearby properties. On October 20, 1999,
the Planning Department posted two signs advertising the public hearing in the
study area.
Jake Gilmer discussed the
request with the Board and showed the site on maps.
Public Input
1. Epatia Albertson - Ms. Albertson distributed
some photographs of surrounding properties showing their use. She stated that the neighborhood is changing
and they have no way to sell their property as a residential property. Due to the commercial uses on that side of
Old Spartanburg Road, they would have a better chance at selling their property
for a commercial use. Ms. Albertson explained that she has no intention at this
time of selling her property but rather is trying to look to the future.
2. Terrie Garren - Ms. Garren stated that
she has lived at this location for more than 20 years. She had intentions of selling her property
fairly recently but found that her resale property value was so low, this
changed her mind. She stated that the
neighborhood has changed and she has been negatively impacted by all the
businesses around her.
Commissioner Kumor made the
motion for the Board to go out of Public Hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Chairman Hawkins made the
motion to approve the zoning request.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - Rezoning
Request by Gary Sanders - Application R-03-99
Chairman Hawkins made the
motion for the Board to go into Public Hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mr. Gary M. Sanders had
submitted an application requesting that the County rezone approximately 30
acres of his property located off Green Mountain Road, near Fruitland, from an
RM-2 Rural Mixed Use 2 District to an unzoned status. At its September 28, 1999 meeting, the Planning Board voted (6 to
0) to send the Board of Commissioners an unfavorable recommendation on
the request to rezone the Sanders property from RM-2 to an unzoned status. In 1998 Mr. Sanders applied for a zoning
change for the present subject property but he withdrew the application at the
public hearing.
Jake Gilmer informed the
Board that this property is in the Bearwallow area of the county and showed the
subject property on a map.
In accordance with Section
200.76 of the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance and State law, a notice
of the public hearing was published in the October 15 and October 22, 1999
editions of the Times-News. On October 15, 1999 the Planning
Department mailed notices of the hearing to all property owners within the study
area as well as the owners of adjacent or nearby properties. On October 21, 1999, the Planning Department
posted two signs advertising the public hearing in the study area.
Jake Gilmer asked if the
Board had any questions of him.
Don Ward - AYeh, I would like to ask you
something. It=s under staff comments - the
first item - said it would be setting a precedence that would compromise the
integrity of all county zoning districts.
Can you explain that comment to me, Jake, or whoever wrote it.@
Jake Gilmer - AI wrote that with Karen=s approval and what we meant
by saying that was that if you unzone this property, it really is kind of a
policy decision to some extent. I think
you could look back in the history of how this district was formed and I guess
you could maybe come up with a justification for taking it out, since it was a
voluntary effort of the community - but when you unzone a piece of property,
you have to come up with some type of possibly a policy as to what properties
can you or will you rezone or unzone and what does that mean for future zoning
efforts, does that compromise other zoning districts, can people come in the
Hooper=s Creek district or in Mountain Home - can they come
in and also ask to be unzoned if they=re along the border of the
zoning district - to an unzoned area - so it really opens up a policy issue
about future applications of this - similar to this.@
Commissioner Kumor - AI think you also pointed out
what this would do to unzone if we=re in the process of zoning
the total county to some degree with our safety net.@
Jake Gilmer - AYes, I mean it=s certainly a consideration
- I mean if you - if it is unzoned then you may zone it with say Asafety net@ and that is a
consideration.@
Commissioner Kumor - AWhat I - one of the
interesting things I thought you might have been referring was - even if we
would unzone now a designation and we then theoretically zone the county with a
safety net, can someone come in and ask to be unzoned even from that?@
Jake Gilmer - AThat=s right and it does further
extend itself to that - in that way since you are moving towards county-wide
zoning possibly. The idea of unzoning
property - how do you address that, when the entire county is zoned. But we just put those in just to - just to
think of some ideas of what this - the
implications of unzoning a property may be.@
Chairman Hawkins - AI guess the question I would
ponder is - you know - its really a question are you changing zoning, not so
much what you=re changing to and we change zoning all the
time. We just changed one. And so there=s that aspect of the
question and then there=s another aspect of you=re changing it to an area that=s not zoned or - but it=s still a zoning change
which has always been a perogative of the zoning ordinance as well as the Board
of Commissioners so that - I just - its a thought I have on that - certainly
you - we change zoning all the time without necessarily looking at - you=re looking at what you=re changing it to but the
philosophy of being able to change is inherent in the zoning regulation itself.@
Jake Gilmer - AThat=s right.@
Commissioner Kumor - AThe other issue that Jake
pointed out in his introduction and I don=t recall if Don was here or
if I=m the only Commissioner that=s still left - had to do
with this was not initiated anyplace else but in the neighborhood and it was a
group of citizens who wanted to protect the integrity of where they live based
on the fact that high density was something they thought would be inappropriate
for their neighborhood because of lack of infrastructure and it was all done
with the understanding that this was something that the community wanted, not something
that was pushed from the top down and I think historically in my memory other
than the long machinations with East Flat Rock zoning. This was one of the bigger units of property
that came as a real grass roots movement to ask for a designation.@
Commissioner Ward - AWell, I came in right on the
tail end of it, it was already happened before I come in >cause I didn=t have any input >cause they would have still
been trying to zone that area out there if I had a lot of input on it >cause there=s a lot of things about the
RM=s I do not like. The R - 40
regulation, basically you=re zoning it R-40 but what it does - it all
stems - that zoning classification because there was a trailer park coming to
that area. They wanted to tell another
neighbor that you cannot build a trailer park in there >cause we=re going to zone it that way
and that=s the way it stopped. And the man had vested rights and built his trailer park anyway
and he=s only got two trailers in it so the neighborhood
won out but if I recall right because I attended some of those meetings, a lot
of the border people that at the first configuration of the zone, they let them
come out of the zoning since they was on the border. There was four or five if I recall that was inside the zoning area,
lots deep in the zone and they had to stay even though they didn=t want to be zoned. I think - you know - with our views on
safety net zoning that=s coming up and we=re gonna zone - try to zone
the whole county after public hearings and everything - I feel favorable to let
Mr. Sanders get unzoned because of what we=ve done with the Board - the
previous Board set a precedence then to let the border people opt out of their
zoning regulations.@
Commissioner Kumor - AAnd I think you are correct@
Commissioner Moyer - AMr. Chairman, I think we
should hear from the other people that have to speak before we start making
decisions as to which way we want to go.
I think that=s premature until we=ve heard from all the public
and the other comments that are to offer.@
Chairman Hawkins - AWe=re certainly going to hear
from those. I think Don=s comment was back to the
presentation that Jake had made and I don=t know, we=ll probably come back to
that in a minute. Mrs. Corn, do we have
anybody else signed up?@
Elizabeth Corn - AYes sir, we have one. Gary Sanders.@
Gary Sanders - Mr. Sanders
handed copies of his statement to the Clerk for distribution. AThere should be a copy there
for each of the Commissioners and anybody else, I think there=s seven copies. This is in a
letter form. I=ll try to read it as much as
I can. I sorta get perturbed every time
this issue comes up because I have lost in the deal. But, I=ll do the best I can. To the Henderson County Board of
Commissioners. Last year I wrote a
letter to this Commission telling the reasons why I sought rezoning of my property
located in the Fruitland area of the county.
At the meeting we withdrew our request to rezone hoping to give more
time for this property to sell under the present RM-2 zoning. That was a courtesy to the county. By the way, we wanted to see if it would
sell because we felt possibly there were customers out there that would buy it
under the RM-2 zoning. It has now been
a year and we=re renewing our effort to rezone. May I repeat to the Commissioners some of
the comments from my previous letter.
During September of 1993, I received a letter from the Henderson County
Board of Commissioners stating that a public hearing was to held to consider a
new zoning district. Prior to this
letter, I had no knowledge of any attempt to zone the property in the
Bearwallow area. I had not been
contacted by the petitioners in the community nor had I been contacted by the
members of the County Planning Board.
Due to a fellow employee being disabled, I was required to work from
3:00 p.m. till 11:00 p.m. and was not able to attend the hearing on September
27, that was the year 1993 by the way, to oppose zoning of my property. The next letter that I received from the
Commissioners was to notify me that the petition to zone this area had indeed
been approved. Last year, the decision
was made to sell this property. We had
several inquiries but once it was heard that the restrictions the RM-2 zoning
placed on the property, all interest was lost.
At this time we sought to have the zoning changed back to an unzoned
status. Because of lack of time I asked
my broker if he would check into the procedure to have the land unzoned. Acting in my stead, he asked the lady at the
Planning Board about having my land unzoned.
Her reply and this is according to him - her reply was that once
property was zoned that it was virtually impossible to have it unzoned. Her recommendation was that that RM-1 would
be easier to get and would be less restrictive. We considered this and decided we would try this option but it
failed during the meetings with the Planning Board. During these meetings we were told that the petitioners during
the initial bid to zone this area were suppose to contact all the property
owners about their intentions to apply for zoning. I was never contacted by them and this is what makes me angry
about the whole situation. I was also
told that I should have received notice from the Planning Board of hearings that were held on zoning
of this area. I never received a notice
or any other communication from the Planning Board or anyone from the County
telling me of any meetings. My first
knowledge was the letter from the Commissioners stating their intentions to
consider zoning the area that included by property. For some reason I was not given the same opportunity as others in
the community in the decision that included my property. All I ask of this Commission is to do what
it feels is fair. I know you=ve got legal obligations but
there is a certain amount of fairness in government or there should be, in my
opinion. All I want is to be able to
sell at a fair and reasonable price. I=m not asking anything
else. Or to be able to use this
property for a fair and reasonable use.
I do not want to subdivide this property. I don=t want to cut it up into lots and sell it off
or I don=t want to cut it up into lots to maintain it myself
in lots. I want to keep it as one
parcel, either to sell or whatever which I could have done under the unzoned
status. I=ll read that last sentence
over again. All I want to do is to be
able to sell at a fair and reasonable price or to be able to use this property
for a fair and reasonable use. I feel
this is not too much to ask. Thank you
for your time and consideration.@
Chairman Hawkins - AThank you, Mr. Sanders. Any questions for Mr. Sanders? Mr. Sanders, I had I guess one that I would - I would just comment on - you indicate
that - that you felt you weren=t given the same opportunity as others in the
community in the decision that included your property but on up in the letter
you did indicate that in September you=d received a letter from the
Board of County Commissioners, did you make - were you able to call the County
on the phone or to send them a letter or@
Mr. Sanders - AI did not send them a
letter, I should have but I was unable to attend because there was an emergency
- a man was disabled at work. I was not
able to.@
Chairman Hawkins - AYeh, I understand that.@
Mr. Sanders - AI know that I had a one shot
deal but what I=m saying is the whole community had several - I say
the whole community - there=s been one or two told me that they had no
knowledge of it either. In particular,
I=ll use Mr. Joe Hensley=s name.
I don=t know - he told me he had no fore knowledge of this
thing but I was told by the Planning Board that there was a citizen=s committee to zone this
thing, that they were suppose to contact all the property owners. I was not contacted. Why was I - I don=t think this was a
discrimination thing - it was either oversight or something but I was never
contacted. The Planning Board never
contacted me. The only - the only
letter I got from the Planning Board was from - with your letterhead from the
Commissioners - County Commissioners and it was from the Planning Board I
assume, that it was going to go up for consideration I believe the next
week. Well the man came either with
pneumonia or a back injury and I=ll have to ask him which
because I=ve covered for him twice long term. But I could not come to that meeting, I was
intending to come and - and state my opposition to it but I did not and that=s the reason I did not. But what I=m saying is for five million
years or so according to some experts God left it unzoned and why all of a
sudden we=ve got to have - you know - we=ve got to have it zoned is
beyond me. I prefer it to be
unzoned. The land right next to me is
unzoned. On the west side is unzoned. Somebody at the Planning Board made a comment
- who told you you couldn=t have more than three dwellings on 30 acres,
you can subdivide. I don=t want to subdivide it. What if I want to build a residence and
three or four rental - summer cottages there - I have to subdivide my
land. And you know when you subdivide
anything, automatically from a financial standpoint, the county comes in and
zip, zip, zip, the smaller the parcel the higher acreage - the price per acre.
Now that=s a fact. >Cause I=ve got a real estate license
and I know how it works.@
Chairman Hawkins - AYou have a real estate
license?@
Mr. Sanders - AYes sir, I do.@
Chairman Hawkins - AWhat would you consider a
fair and reasonable use and price as indicated in your last paragraph?@
Mr. Sanders - ASir, I put it on the market
for $179,000, thirty acres of land. I
have on that a $50,000 building and I put most of the labor in myself, that=s the price that I gave the
Federal Government, that doesn=t include my labor. There are two trailer spaces, one good trailer, one needs to be
haulded off to the junkyard, now I=ll admit that. There=s waterlines all across the
property, there=s electricity to the property, there are phone lines
to the property. So basically, all your
utilities are there. I=m asking $179,000 for
it. I dropped the price this year to
$159,000 for it. My broker said if it
was unzoned he could very easily sell it for - I had an inquiry at $179,000
that was ready money but because it was zoned RM-2 they wouldn=t buy it. Now what their intentions - I=ve been asked this by the
Planning Board - was there a mobile home park going in. I do not know what the man=s intentions were but I know
that he wouldn=t buy it for RM-2.@
Chairman Hawkins - AThank you.@
Mr. Sanders - ABut it has financially hurt
me and - and if I came into your home and started taking stuff out of your home
and it was valuable, I=d be carted off as a thief. I=m not calling this
Commission a thief but it has hurt me financially and you can understand why I=m bitter about the whole
thing.@
Chairman Hawkins - AAnybody else or anyone have
any questions of Mr. Sanders? Thank
you. Mrs. Corn, do we have anyone else
signed up?@
Elizabeth Corn - ANo sir, that=s all.@
Chairman Hawkins - AOK, I make a motion that we
go out of Public Hearing. All those in
favor of that motion, say aye.@
Unanimous Aye.
Chairman Hawkins - AMarilyn, do you have any
discussion on this?@
Commissioner Gordon - AI recall during the zoning
that took place in Hoopers Creek, that there was considerable amount of
adjustment of boundaries at the - at the twelfth hour - midnight hour - before
the area was defined and that change of boundary lines was based on whether or
not the people - property owners in question wanted their property to be zoned
and I remember at the time I questioned the lack of natural boundaries for the
zoning designation - that it was just based on really very arbitrary
considerations. I was not present when
the discussions took place on the Bearwallow zoning, I didn=t follow all of that but I
would imagine that there=s probably a similar situation with that
one. I really - to get right down to
it, I can=t see that changing the boundary is a - should be
considered a precedent that whether or not it=s the right thing to do, we
don=t do. I think if we just look
at the rezoning we just approved there
was thinking that you had to stop things somewhere so stop it with this whether
or not it was appropriate to do and I just don=t take that track. I think we do have to look at what is the
fair and right thing to do with this particular piece of property and I don=t know what - that there is
considerable benefit to anyone with leaving it the way it is.@
Chairman Hawkins - AThank you. Bill, do you have thoughts?@
Chairman Moyer - AWell, I would definitely
support leaving it as it is and support the Planning Board=s recommendation. I think a
lot of work and planning - if Mr. Sander=s wasn=t notified when the Planning
Board did this, there was months and months of discussion and publicity to this
and as Marilyn said people had a chance to opt out. If we are going to try to have integrity in the zoning and let
somebody come in and say I can get a better price if it=s unzoned, then zoning doesn=t mean anything and you
might as well just scrap the whole thing.
I think this is entirely different than the one on the Spartanburg
Highway, people came in and showed that the nature of change in the community
and what had happened around them and the commercial development around them
made it more appropriate for that use to be changed to C-2 or C-4 and made a
compelling case for this. This is not a
compelling case that there is a better use for this property at all. It=s a compelling case that I can get more money for it if you
unzone it and adversely affect - possibly adversely affect my neighbors and I
don=t think unzoning should be done on that basis under any circumstances.@
Chairman Hawkins - AThank you. Renee@
Commissioner Kumor - AWell, I also - I agree with
what Bill is saying - that there was - there=s been six years has passed
and there was a lot of emotional activity going on at the time of the
zoning. Don is correct that at the time
of the zoning, for those who requested it, depending on their location, being
on the fringes - the Board did selectively say those on the edges could be
unzoned - would be taken out of the proposal but here as we look at the issue
this many more years into the future, with all the neighbors around having made
a pledge to one another that they would keep a certain standard of development
among themselves - to have one parcel opt out and get all the advantages of
keeping growth contained and keeping the quality of the neighborhood intact,
getting all those advantages, they then put all their neighbors at risk to have
to accept whatever would go into an unzoned piece of property and I really do
think the issues that Jake raises are very important. We have to think long term about what does this mean for other
zoned areas in the community and what does it mean to the future of zoning our community and taking more
proactive advantage of the land use options that we have. And I think to
start pulling pieces of property out starts to suggest that we will have a
piece of swiss cheese instead of an integral process for our county to go
through as we progress to safety net
zoning.@
Chairman Hawkins - ADon, do you have any
comments?@
Commissioner Ward - AWell, I tell you what. You get in your car or your trucks and you
can drive up right now and go by Keith Moss=s and Morris Edney=s and the Roger=s and you couldn=t tell which side of the
road was zoned or which parcel was zoned or which was unzoned or anything. It=s just good open country
land. I think we=ve - this Board especially
has took precedence of setting
ordinances in place to protect the quality of life in the rural settings
with our manufactured home park ordinance.
We=re working hard on the safety net zoning and the zoning
classification changes. I=d be in favor to changing
this ordinance and - I mean changing this to an unzoned area just to let and
show the community that we=re willing to work with them. I think our major resentment to zoning is in
the Edneyville area because we do not listen to the common working people. Mr. Lyda was just here and our comment -
blue collar people seem like they get pushed aside. You go with R-40, me and
David a year ago or two year ago has had people come to us wanting to do things
with their property and to come to find out I didn=t know we was in a zoned
area. And you know this is six years
afterwards. And you know me and David
went back and got the ordinance down and we sat and read it and we called the
man and said well you cannot do this with your property and its happening more
and more again and I think this is why we=re looking at the whole
zoning classification and I don=t think it would affect that neighborhood at
all to unzone that area. If it was on
the inside, I would say there would be no way that I=d change it >cause you do affect
everybody involved but being on the outside edge, I don=t think its - to do it now
would be any different than doing it at the twelfth - at the midnight hour that
they did it before. My personal
opinion.@
Chairman Hawkins - AThank you. We=re going to take about a 5
minute break and then we=ll be back, actually it=s a TV break.@
Chairman Hawkins - AI=d like to call the meeting
back to order. Was there any other
comments, Don, did you have time to finish your comments?@
Commissioner Ward - AYes sir, thank the Board for
listening.@
Chairman Hawkins - AOK. Well, the request poses
several interesting questions and I guess as I look at it, the first question
that - and I started addressing a minute ago is - you know - as far as the
perogative of the Board to readdress changing in zoning, whether it be to
unzone or not zone, I think needs to - certainly needs to remain an integral
part of our - our land use plan and
that extention of it of course being in zoning. Commissioner Moyer makes a good
point as far as considerations for zoning either changes or initiation is
certainly not necessarily predicated on resale value or what you=re going to use the land
for. It=s in a consideration that
doesn=t consider those factors when you look at it. Commissioner Kumor made a point of the kind of thing is looking
like a piece of swiss cheese. If you
look at the Bearwallow, it=s really out there by itself anyway. I don=t think there is any other zoning in any other very close
proximity to it. Karen, I was going to
ask if you had a map that really showed its situation - its already a very small
portion of the county that=s zoned to the northeast section without a
whole lot of other things being zoned around it. I think that would be the blue in the upper right hand
corner. So, its kind off an isolated
area to begin with as far as being zoned and in fact I think that certainly the
area that=s - I guess that would be called kind of a light
light gray, certainly not the dark blue - is still all unzoned area in the
county, is that not correct, Karen? So,
its kind of a little isolated area out there.
I think most of the Board members are familiar with the history of the
zoning that occurred out there. I
certainly am because I was on the Zoning Board of Adjustments when - when the
discussion and some of the zoning parameters were made. So, I kind of look at it in that context. Is
if the Board chooses to redraw the line on the periphery, it is certainly no
different than what we=ve considered in the Hoopers Creek area. I don=t think it negates our - our
efforts to have compatible land use that=s in conjunction with the
land use plan - certainly as I pointed out that area is already most of it
unzoned and we are well underway to making safety net zoning which is going to
cover the whole county in hopefully a very short amount of time anyway. So, I wouldn=t feel uncomfortable at all
with redrawing that boundary to exclude this piece of land since you have a
property owner out there that=s very interested in not having that portion
of his property in a zoned area, not that it may not be zoned in safety net
zoning in the very near future but those are just - just some of the
considerations that I have looking at it.
So, Marilyn, do you have@
Commissioner Gordon - ACan I make a - just a couple
more - other comments? Don touched on
something that I think does need to be pointed out - at the time this property
was zoned there was quite a bit of discussion about manufactured home parks and
there was no manufactured home park ordinance in place. There is now an
ordinance in place that covers all unzoned areas of the county and I think it
is a good ordinance that does offer some fair guidelines for what can be done
on any piece of property and the other thing I would like to comment on is I
think we should be very careful in characterizing requests for changes in
zoning or to be removed from zoning classifications as being something that is
entirely based on dollars and cents. I
think there is some much deeper issues that go to zoning and land use
regulation and I think we just need to be very aware of those. I think
one of the things that has bothered a lot of people is the finality that
seems to be associated with zoning and zoning designations and I think Chairman
Hawkins is very right in pointing out that the ability to change is essential
and fundamental to any land use regulation.@
Commissioner Kumor - AI don=t think though at this
change that we=ve given any consideration to the neighbors and I think I always go back
to my understanding of a zoning - is that it=s a pledge neighbors make to
themselves which I think is a clear distinction of what happened in Bearwallow
- the majority of the property owners there came together and promised one
another that this was the level of development they wanted to see and I think
we - we=ve kind of ignored those wishes and the attitude that was apparent back in 1993.@
Commissioner Moyer - AI think the - you=ve got to look at the record
and what are we going to set forth as a reason for the rezoning. The only things put forth have been that I
can get more money for it or maybe I wasn=t given adequate
notice. And six years later, we=re going to let everybody in
the whole county come in and say - on that basis - as Renee said without
considering the effect on the neighbors, without considering the impact of the
other zoning areas, to say well if all of a sudden six years or ten years later
you say I can get more money or maybe I didn=t get enough notice, I=ll come in and we=ll rezone without any
further reasons, that=s a heck of a precedent that we=re going to have to live
with and apply on this Board and certainly one I=m never going to be
comfortable doing >cause I don=t think its a fair standard
to the rest of the people in the community and as I said before its entirely
different than the situation on the Spartanburg Highway and all the others that
we have applied rezoning, many of which I have supported.@
Chairman Hawkins - ADon, do you have any other
follow up comments?@
Commissioner Ward - ANo sir. I would, I=ll put it to the test at
first. I=ll make the motion to
approve the request to rezoning this Sander=s property to an unzoned
area.@
Chairman Hawkins - AMotion is on the floor, is
there any other discussion? All those
in favor of the motion, say aye.@
The vote was as follows: Aye - Chairman
Hawkins
Commissioner
Ward
Commissioner
Gordon
Nay - Commissioner
Kumor
Commissioner
Moyer
The motion carried three to
two.
Commissioner Kumor - AI wonder how long it will
take everybody else in Bearwallow to start running in and saying they want to
be unzoned.@
Commissioner Gordon - AI think that if they do,
then we should realize that there will be a reason that they ask for it.@
Commissioner Moyer - AYeh, there=s a reason. The way this has been handled.@
Commissioner Kumor - AThere will be people all -
all little parcels that we=ll end up with - losing the integrity of the neighborhood that the community out
there said they wanted.@
Mr. Sanders - AMr. Chair, is it too late
for me to comment?@
Chairman Hawkins - AWell, the Public Hearing is
over and the vote has been taken. But
if you=ve got a comment, we=ll listen to it.@
Mr. Sanders - AOK. To Mr. Moyer, I=d like to say I appreciate
that >cause he=s sat on the Planning Board during some of these
meetings. I appreciate that, appreciate
your stand but the fact is I was not given notice and I feel like the
government - whether its county or whether its state or whether its local -
needs to provide - and I=m not criticizing you sir, I=m just - the system failed
someplace - not to notify me - why I was not notified by the citizen=s committee. I do not know why I was not notified by the Planning Board. Now there are people here that do know my
character and I=m not up here to lie or try to make a dollar but I
am very perturbed with the way it was handled to start with.@
Chairman Hawkins - AOK.@
Mr. Sanders - AI=m also perturbed with the
circumstances that I couldn=t attend the meeting but I=ve got a job. I=m working class. I=m just like the kid up here,
I=m blue collar and maybe some of you up there are, I don=t know. But I work for a living. I=ve sweated over this land,
trying to buy this land and then to say my rights have been taken away from me
by the County - I should have been more responsible maybe and maybe I can -
could have made a better effort in explaining to them the circumstances of why
I need to be off but at the time it was an emergency at work and I needed to be
there. My job depends on me keeping the machinery running. And I=m not here to criticize
anybody but that=s the reason that I was so upset about the whole situation. I do appreciate the Commission. The jobs they do, all of you do a wonderful
job and you keep - it keeps the county going.
But this is not a personal vendetta against anybody, this is something
that is mine and money as far as I=m concerned was taken out of
my pocket. I do appreciate it, thank
you.@
Chairman Hawkins - AThank you, Mr. Sanders.@
Commissioner Moyer - AAnd I have nothing at you
Mr. Sanders either but I think as a Commission we=ve taken a major step back
in land use regulation and in controlling growth and dealing with the growth
issues we=re getting in this community and again it=s nothing with disrespect to
you but the policy we=ve set, I think is very very detrimental to
the future of the county.@
Mr. Sanders - AI understand that, sir.@
Chairman Hawkins - AThank you. Let=s move on to important
dates.@
IMPORTANT DATES
Some of the Commissioners
were going to be out of town next Monday and Tuesday and after some discussion
and looking at the calendar, it was the consensus of the Board to dismiss this
meeting and continue it to 10:30 a.m. tomorrow, Tuesday, November 2, 1999 for
the consideration of the detention center documents.
Staff had presented two
items for the Board to set dates:
1. Adopt Special Order
Setting a Public Hearing on Proposed Amendment to section 200-26 of the
Henderson County Zoning Ordinance to Allow Garden Nurseries as a Permitted Use
in the O&I District (Application #TX-04-99).
Chairman Hawkins made the
motion to set the Public Hearing for December 6, 1999 @ 7:00 p.m. by adopting a
special order setting the public hearing.
The Commissioners felt there was no need to set time limits on this
one. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
2. Adopt Special Order
Setting a Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to section 200-69 and section
200-70 of the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance to Allow the Board of
Adjustment to Review Certain Special Use Permits - (Application #TX-05-99).
Commissioner Kumor made the
motion to set the Public Hearing for November 17 @ 11:00 a.m. by adopting the
special order setting the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Due to the fact that Ms.
Beeker needed some additional time to work on the workshop concerning the
implementation of a county legal department, it was the Board=s consensus to cancel that
workshop. The Board scheduled a
workshop for the same date, November 12 @ 11:00 on the Zoning Ordinance
rewrite.
SUGGESTED OBJECTIVES FOR
ZONING ORDINANCE REWRITE AND ADOPTION OF COUNTYWIDE LAND USE REGULATION GUIDE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, PHASE I
Karen Smith reviewed with
the Board a list of suggested objectives for the Zoning Ordinance rewrite. The
objectives were based upon the discussions which occurred between the Board of
Commissioners and the Planning Board at the recent joint meeting. The objectives will be used to provide
direction to the Planning Board, Staff and the Consultant in preparing a draft
of the Zoning Ordinance rewrite. The
objectives will also be useful in educating the public on what the rewrite
might accomplish.
There are seven overall
objectives each with a subset of objectives.
It was the consensus of the Board to review those in more detail at the
scheduled workshop on November 12.
At the recent joint meeting,
Staff reviewed Phase I of the Implementation Plan for the Countywide Land Use
Regulation Guide with the Board. At
that time, the Board suggested that Staff bring it back to the Board for
discussion, modification and adoption.
This will also be reviewed
in more detail at the up-coming workshop on November 12.
PROPOSED ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE GUIDELINES
The Board had been given
proposed revised economic development guidelines for review and
consideration.
Ms. Beeker reviewed the
guidelines with the Board. There was much discussion and several changes were made.
Following discussion,
Commissioner Moyer made the motion to adopt the Proposed Economic Development
Incentive Guidelines as amended at this meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
There being no further business
to come before the Board, the meeting was recessed to reconvene tomorrow
morning at 10:30 a.m.
ATTEST:
Elizabeth W. Corn, Clerk
to the Board Grady
Hawkins, Chairman