MINUTES

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

COUNTY OF HENDERSON MARCH 6, 2000

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, Planning Director Karen C. Smith, Project Manager Bill Blalock, and Public Information Officer Chris S. Coulson.

CALL TO ORDER/WELCOME

Chairman Hawkins called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance.

Chairman Hawkins asked for a minute of silence in memory of Malachi Goforth, a member of the Republican community who died this past week.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Commissioner Moyer was asked to lead the Pledge. He introduced a friend of his, Santos Hernandez. Santos came to our country from Mexico a little over nine years ago. He has a wife, a son, and three daughters. He has been studying English. He has worked with Habitat for Humanity and is a homeowner through their program. Last Thursday, February 24, he finished the Naturalization process and is now a U.S. Citizen. Commissioner Moyer stated that he was very proud of Santos and asked him to join him in leading the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag.

INVOCATION

David Nicholson gave the invocation.

DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA

Chairman Hawkins added one additional reason for the Board to go into Closed Session, NCGS 143-318.11(a)(3).

Commissioner Ward added one item under staff reports as C-3 - ASaluda/Raven Rock Fire District Contract@. He also added another item as C-4 - ALGCCA update@.

It was the consensus of the Board to accept the above additions to the agenda.

CONSENT AGENDA

Chairman Hawkins made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The CONSENT AGENDA included the following:

Minutes

Minutes were presented for the Board=s review and approval of the following meetings:

December 6, 1999, regular meeting

February 16, 2000, regular meeting

February 21, 2000, special called meeting

Henderson County Financial Report - January 2000

The monthly report for January 2000 was presented for the Board=s review and consent approval.

Henderson County Public Schools Financial Report - January 2000

The monthly report for January 2000 was presented for the Board=s review and consent approval.

Tax Collector=s Report

The Tax Collector=s Report was presented through February 28, 2000 for the Board=s review.

NOMINATIONS

Notification of Vacancies

The Board was notified of the following vacancies which will appear under ANominations@ on the next agenda:

1. Solid Waste Advisory Committee - 4 vac.

2. Henderson County Planning Board - 3 vac.

3. Library Board of Trustees - 2 vac.

4. Henderson County Juvenile Crime Prevention Council - 4 vac.

Commissioner Moyer asked for a clarification on the Library Board of Trustees. His understanding was that his status on that Board was that he was an ex-officio member, non-voting. He asked staff to review the newest Library By-laws to verify this.

Nominations

Chairman Hawkins reminded the Board of the following vacancies and opened the floor for nominations:

1. Hendersonville City Zoning Board of Adjustment - 1 vac. (alternate)

Applicant must live in Hendersonville=s ETJ.

There were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.

2. Nursing/Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee - 4 vac.

Four resignations, still unfilled. (positions #10, 11, 22, 23)

Additional 9 vac. For the year 2000, 3 are designated and 6 are not.

Commissioner Kumor nominated Nancy Mitchell, Calvin Titus, Joy Davenport, Barry Clemo, and Carol Shuffstall for reappointment. Commissioner Ward nominated James Ballard as a new appointment. All these members could be appointed except for Nancy Mitchell, who is a designated position and must now go through the process. Commissioner Kumor made the motion to suspend the rules and appoint Titus, Davenport, Clemo, Shuffstall, and Ballard. All voted in favor and the motion carried.

3. Mountain Area Workforce Development Board - 1 vac

This vacancy is for a Chamber of Commerce nominee. The Clerk was asked to notify the Chamber of the vacancy and get their recommendation.

4. Henderson County Board of Equalization & Review - 1 vac.

Chairman Hawkins nominated Cater Leland. Commissioner Ward made the motion to suspend the rules and appoint Mr. Leland. All voted in favor and the motion carried.

5. Henderson County Industrial Facilities & Pollution Control Authority - 1 vac.

The Board has not heard back from James Hutcherson to see if he is willing to continue to serve. Staff was asked to research to see if a staff member could serve on this authority. Chairman Hawkins was interested in seeing if Finance Director Carey McLelland could serve.

6. Transportation Advisory Committee - 1 vac.

Vacant position is from the City of Hendersonville.

The Board has not yet heard from the City of Hendersonville regarding their nominee. There were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.

UPDATE ON 2000 CENSUS

David Nicholson gave a brief update to the Commissioners on the importance of Census 2000 to Henderson County and it=s residents. As part of the census publicity in the county=s Complete County Committee:

Notes were enclosed with water bills

Media has written several stories about the importance of the census

Posters have been put up in government buildings, post offices, and not for profit organizations.

All public schools and private schools have been made aware of the census and the

importance of it.

WLOS will have some of their personalities do some public service announcements.

Times-News has offered a free ad space as part of the census. On April 1 - Census

Day - we will have some information in the newspaper.

WHKP has offered to do some public service announcements.

A phone call was made to BellSouth, asking them to do an insert with phone bills in our

community which led to inserts statewide going in with telephone bills.

A display will be at the Henderson County Public Library.

Several news articles have been done for industries and non profits.

Letters have been sent to Churches, Community Clubs, and Fire Departments

explaining the census.

The Miller=s Laundry Sign will have census reminders on it.

All these things, along with others have been done to make citizens aware that the census forms should be filled out and returned. If not, people will come knocking on your door asking you the details and filling out the form.

A draft proclamation declaring Saturday, April 1, 2000 as Census 2000 Day in Henderson County was presented for the Board=s consideration. Chairman Hawkins made the motion to approve the Proclamation as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.

ANNUAL CJPP CONTINUATION APPLICATION

Commissioner Kumor reminded the Board that the Application for Continuation of Implementation Funding for the Criminal Justice Partnership Program (CJPP) had been received and was presented at this time for the Board=s consideration and approval. This application was approved by the CJPP Advisory Board on February 24, 2000 and must also be approved by the Board of Commissioners in order for the County to continue to receive implementation funds for the Henderson County Community Corrections Resource Center from the State of North Carolina. She distributed copies of the budget for CJPP. This application needs Board approval so they can draw down state funds for the next year. There are no county dollars in this program.

Following much discussion, Chairman Hawkins made the motion to approve the CJPP program as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.

UPDATE ON PENDING ISSUES

Ad Hoc Committee on Readdressing

Chairman Hawkins reminded the Board that in December they began looking at an implementation plan for the property readdressing. Implementation is planned via ESNs, Emergency Service Numbers. ESNs are similar to zip codes or area codes. The parameters are primarily for emergency services, law enforcement, and fire as to what unit responds in that particular ESN. He discussed briefly the Bell match system which is a program to match up your telephone number with your old address and with the new distance based address.

Chairman Hawkins discussed the ability of the post office to handle the changes of address and/or new addresses. The post office says that they can do it if they are given some lead time, probably about 30 days. Some of the problems that the post office said they would run into would involve keying in the new addresses which would be time consuming.

Chairman Hawkins had sent letters to the various municipalities regarding readdressing. He has only received one letter back, from the Town of Fletcher. Mayor Parrish indicated that the Town of Fletcher is still interested in the readdressing. He still awaits correspondence from the other three municipalities.

Commissioner Moyer informed everyone that at the most recent LGCCA meeting, readdressing was discussed in great detail. Each of the municipalities will have a meeting to review their position and see if they wish to update it. The Board will be receiving reports from each of them.

Chairman Hawkins had recently visited two counties who have operational E-9-1-1 centers and talked briefly about both. The General Statute that deals with public safety telephone service and wireless telephone service is the statute that established the enhanced 9-1-1 service. In that statute the General Assembly made it clear that what you are looking for in an enhanced 9-1-1 system was the ability to automatically provide a location with a telephone number so that on one screen a telephone number comes in from where the emergency originated and on the other screen a map to that location comes in. Since we have completed the BellSouth match, we have information ready to put on the screen once we=re able to get the connectivity between the BellSouth database and the screen to put the information up on the screen. One of the first things Chairman Hawkins felt needed done was to find out when and how we can make that hook-up. We do not have the capability to show a map yet. We are seeking proposals for county wide mapping. We are ready with center line mapping but you would have to go with readdressing every address in the county for that to be serviceable. The interface is still not in place to be able to use that information.

The current 9-1-1 service charge is 55 cents and it goes into a fund earmarked 9-1-1 services. The monies collected through BellSouth for this go directly to that fund. This fund could be available to buy technology as it becomes available. The service charge may have to be increased. The Macon County service charge is ninety-some cents.

Chairman Hawkins discussed some comparisons on the Ordinances in Haywood County, Franklin, and Macon County. In some of the Ordinances, there is a true distinction between the use of the distance based for emergency services and the use of distance based addressing on a county-wide basis for other services. The Macon County Ordinance states AIt is further designated to benefit the United States Postal Service, local business owners, and individual citizens by minimizing difficulty in locating properties and buildings.@ In their Ordinance, they address two separate purposes for addressing and/or readdressing, one of them being able to respond to emergencies and the other for general locating. Some of this is unclear in the Henderson County Ordinance and he felt that our Ordinance should be reviewed for clarity.

Chairman Hawkins stressed that the things we should be looking at are:

1. The status of the data interface with the display screens and find out where that is and

find out why we don=t have that up to speed yet.

2. Updating our G.I.S. system.

Following much discussion, Chairman Hawkins made the motion to proceed with the readdressing in ESN #435 in the Fletcher area and at such time that it is completed, that we evaluate the results and look at whether or not or to what extent we want to clarify our current ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion carried.

Chairman Hawkins stated that at the same time that we are proceeding with readdressing in ESN #435, he would also like the Board to consider continuing to provide unique addresses for all those places that don=t have unique addresses. He has talked to the property address coordinator and he is able to pull that information out of the BellSouth database so that you can in fact proceed on with getting addresses out to people who don=t have addresses.

Commissioner Moyer stated AI would request further that we ask the County Manager to develop a plan of implementation like Commissioner Kumor was talking about -.... do we hand deliver all the addresses. Do we add a person to handle complaints? How do we make sure this thing goes as smoothly as it can? And the second part of that would be to study the G.I.S. - I know he=s looked into it a lot. Do we need a separate committee? How do we make sure we use the right technology so that we make one change and implement it right and it=s in place for the future and obviously what it will cost, etc.@

The Board will need to set a Public Hearing on readdressing in ESN #435 in the Fletcher area. That will be done at the next Board meeting, March 15, 2000.

6:30 p.m. INFORMAL PUBLIC COMMENTS

1. Daniel J. Theron - Mr. Theron spoke about the addressing/readdressing project. He stated that 10 years is an awful long pregnancy. He stated that the Times-News estimates that Henderson County has already spent $700,000 on this project. He stated that the readdressing project is already obsolete and that we should be looking at global positioning and we should be looking at enhanced 9-1-1. We do need to address areas that do not have addresses or have duplicates. He stated that the whole thing about readdressing had become an embarrassment to him.

Chairman Hawkins commented that the dollar figure that the press has published has not been substantiated.

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)(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. 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:

County of Henderson v. Ronald and Betty Jackson

(File No. 99-CVS-526)

2. (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.

Commissioner Moyer made the motion for the Board to go out of Closed Session. All voted in favor and the motion carried.

Action following Closed Session

Commissioner Kumor made the motion to approve the settlement agreement between Ronald and Betty Jackson, Blue Ridge Savings Bank, and Henderson County. A vote was taken and the motion carried four to one with Commissioner Ward voting nay.

7:00 p.m. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING - Proposed Amendment to Special Use Permit #SP-99-01 for Charlestown Place Planned Unit Development

(Application # SP-99-01-A1)

Commissioner Kumor made the motion for the Board to go into Quasi-Judicial Hearing on the proposed amendment for Special Use Permit #SP-99-01 for Charlestown Place Planned Unit Development. All voted in favor and the motion carried.

Chairman Hawkins - ALadies and Gentlemen, a Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing is being held today to consider an amendment to the Special Use Permit held by Joe Crowell Construction, Inc. for Charlestown Place, a Planned Unit Development in an R-10 District. The requested amendment is to all the petitioner, Joe Crowell Construction, to have the flexibility to offer single family and multiple family buildings within the planned unit development instead of strictly duplexes, provided that the total number of dwelling units does not exceed the 52 units previously approved. The petitioner has also requested a modification regarding the separation between single family dwellings within Charlestown Place. A Quasi-Judicial proceeding, much like a court proceeding, is a proceeding in which one=s individual rights are being determined. The proceedings will be conducted under the Henderson County Board of Commissioner=s Rules of Procedure for Quasi-Judicial Proceedings. Only persons who can demonstrate that they will be affected by the outcome of the decision are allowed to participate in the proceedings. I want to remind everyone that the proceedings will be held to consider the proposed amendment only and any impacts that it may have.

Just a brief overview of the procedure. All persons who speak and participate including any witnesses that will be called, will be placed under oath. Staff will give brief introductory remarks then the Board will ask the petitioner what evidence he wishes to present in support of his application for a special use permit. After the petitioner is finished anyone else who has expressed the desire to be a party and who the Board has recognized as a party will then be allowed to present their evidence. All parties will be given an opportunity to ask questions of all witnesses testifying in this proceeding. The Board will be given an opportunity to ask questions also. After the evidence is presented the Board will discuss the issues raised and will make a decision. The Board=s decision must be made in writing within 45 days of the hearing. The Board acknowledges the petitioner, Joe Crowell Construction, and the staff as parties to the proceedings. Are there any other persons present who can demonstrate that they will be affected by the outcome of this proceeding and who wish to be a party to the proceedings?@

There were none.

Chairman Hawkins - AIf there are anyone, and all witnesses they intend to call need to come forward to be sworn and I request that each person give their names and address to the Clerk, if there are any.@

Coming forward to be sworn in were: Joe Crowell and Karen C. Smith.

Clerk to the Board - AYou need to place your left hand on the Bible please and raise your right hand. Do you swear (or affirm) that the testimony you shall give to the Board of County Commissioners shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.@

In unison, they said AI do@.

Chairman Hawkins - AOK, I would remind you once again that if you=re not a party to the proceedings, then you will not be allowed to speak during the proceedings. And, Karen, can we have your introductory remarks please.@

Karen Smith - AGood evening Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. Joe Crowell Construction has submitted an application to amend the Special Use Permit (SP-99-01) for Charlestown Place, a planned unit development. This special use permit was approved by the Board of Commissioners on August 9, 1999. The planned unit development is located on 12.01 acres in an R-10 zoning district on property off U.S. #25 South, just south of Shepherd Street. As originally approved, the plan for Charlestown Place consists of a maximum of 26 buildings with two town homes each for a total of 52 dwelling units total within communally owned open space. The order granting the Special Use Permit (SP-99-01) which is contained in your agenda packet allows the applicant the flexibility to place the buildings according to the buyers needs, provided that there=s a minimum separation of twenty feet between buildings. Through the application before you tonight which includes a revised plan, the applicant is requesting to have the flexibility to offer a variety of single family and multifamily dwellings within the planned unit development instead of the strictly duplexes, as long as the number of units does not exceed 52. According to the applicant, the flexibility would allow for a diverse street scape within Charlestown Place. Dwellings in multi-unit buildings will be connected in order to be considered one building under the terms of the zoning ordinance. For multi-unit buildings the applicant intends to maintain the twenty foot separation; however, the applicant has asked that for single family dwellings, he be allowed to have a minimum building separation of 10 feet. No changes to the road layout or buffer strip are proposed. Since this new application constitutes an amendment to the Special Use Permit, you had to refer it to the Planning Board for review and a recommendation. The Planning Board met on January 25 and I will present their recommendation formally as evidence in a few minutes.

And for the record, I wanted to add that in accordance with State Law and the Zoning Ordinance, the property was posted advertising the hearing. Notice of the hearing were published in the February 14 and February 21 editions of the Times News and we sent certified mail notices to the adjacent property owners and to the applicant.

I have - the map right now that is up on the screen is the map of the planned unit development as it was approved back in August and I=ll switch it out and put the new one up there for the course of the hearing but if you need to see either one, just let me know.@

Chairman Hawkins - AKaren, this is the new proposed map, that you just put up?@

Karen Smith - AYes, this is the map that accompanied the request for the amendment.@

Chairman Hawkins - ADoes anyone have any questions for Karen at this point? OK, Mr. Crowell, do you have any information you want to present?@

Joe Crowell - AWell, I just wanted to say the purpose of this is we=re trying to change the look of this development somewhat from what is achieved when you build duplex units. We=re just finishing up a project, Saddlebrook, where those were predominantly duplex units joined at the garage. They were joined at the garage so that - you know the common wall was not a living space area which is very popular but then it ends up that all the units look the same and they share a common driveway. We have researched ways of adjoining these buildings so that they wouldn=t be carbon copies of each other and we=ve come up with this new plan where the units are almost detached but only detached by a small roof section which could be a screened porch or a courtyard between the buildings. Now this takes that space between the buildings which ordinarily is lost and that becomes habitable. You might walk out of the side of one house at the dining room and that will be joined to the master bedroom of the adjacent house with no windows and that would create a little space between the buildings. That would enable all the driveways to be separate instead of joined. So, as Karen said we=re just trying to come up with ways to make a more diverse street scape.@

Chairman Hawkins - AAnybody have any questions for Mr. Crowell?@

Commissioned Moyer - AWill the open space design or the amount of open space be changed at all by the result of the plan here?@

Joe Crowell - AUh, no, no the number of units and the size of the units remains the same so I think the open space will remain the same.@

Chairman Hawkins - AMr. Crowell, was this difference in the layout more of a attempt on the part of your company to make some diversity there or is it more market driven, people want more of a single dwelling or?@

Joe Crowell - AWell, its probably some of each. You know, I just was trying to come up with something where - you know - every unit would not look the same. Uh, you know these four plexes could be any combination of buildings in any configuration. They could be joined at the garage, they could be joined at the bedrooms, the garage could be joined to the bedroom so every building in there can look totally different than the others but still carry on a continuity of design.@

Chairman Hawkins - AOK, any other questions for Mr. Crowell? Thank you. Karen, do you have additional - some additional information?@

Karen Smith - AI=m going to pass out the Planning Board=s recommendation. --- distributing --- The - as I stated before the Planning Board met on January 25 to consider the application for the amendment to the Special Use Permit and voted unanimously on that date to send the Commissioners a favorable recommendation on the amendment subject to the following conditions:@

1. Modification of Condition Ab@ of the Order Granting the Special Use Permit

As permitted by Section 200-33A(6)[2]{c} of the Zoning Ordinance (p. 2 of attached excerpt), condition Ab@ of the Order that granted Special Use Permit #SP-99-01 (p. 7 of attached Order) should be amended to allow the minimum separation between single-family detached units to be no less than 10 feet, provided that the construction of adjacent walls conforms with the North Carolina Building Codes and that the area between such buildings remains open and unobstructed.

2. New Condition for the Order Regarding Number of Units in Buildings

A specific condition should be added to the Order that granted Special Use Permit #SP-99-01 which allows the developer to have the flexibility to determine how many units will be within each building in the Planned Unit Development, provided that the applicant meets the other conditions specified in the Order granting approval of Special Use Permit #SP-99-01 (and as amended), the standards of the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance and any applicable standards of the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance.

3. Maintenance of Other Conditions in the Order

All of the other conditions imposed by the Order granting approval of Special Use Permit #SP-99-01, except those which may be modified as noted above, should be maintained.

Chairman Hawkins - AKaren, I didn=t quite I guess follow your second condition. The - when you talk about the flexibility to determine how many units but not to exceed the - the 20 or 52 that you mentioned.@

Karen Smith - ARight, the number of units within each series of connected units. Right now the order states they will be duplexes and so this - this condition that we would have to draft would allow the developer to do single, the duplexes, triplexes, etc. But we need to put that flexibility in the order.@

Chairman Hawkins - ABut it still wouldn=t exceed 52.@

Karen Smith - AWould not exceed 52.@

Chairman Hawkins - AI missed that. Anybody have any questions for Karen on the Planning Board=s report and recommendation.@

Angela Beeker - AKaren is it your opinion that um - have you reviewed the plan and the application?@

Karen Smith - AI have@

Angela Beeker - AUm, is it your opinion that with this amendment the plan would still be in compliance with the requirements of the zoning ordinance?@

Karen Smith - AYes.@

Commissioner Moyer - AI move we approve the amendment to the Special Use Permit in accordance with the Planning Board=s recommendation.@

Karen Smith - AMr. Chairman, do you want to probably make the findings that you need to make on Special Use Permits.@

David Nicholson - AAnd direct staff.@

Angela Beeker - AWell uh, the Board needs to be able to - let me remind the Board of what you have to be able to find. Just for information - the amendment or the Special Use Permit as amended will not adversely affect the health and safety of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood and will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or public improvements in the neighborhood. I think that if Commissioner Moyer wants to make his motion that he can - the Board can - or he can include in his motion that staff bring back findings consistent with the decision that the Board would like to make. We can do that.@

Commissioner Kumor - AOne, I think when you bring up the issue of findings the - since - as I understand Mr. Moyer=s motion - most of the findings stay intact except for the recommendations of the Planning Board to modify one of the conditions and to add a new condition.@

Angela Beeker - ABy and large those would be the findings. There might be some other minor things that we have to tweak in there just to make it consistent with the amendment but it wouldn=t change any of the standards or conditions. It would just be - you know - maybe changing the wording a little bit to make it flow better or something like that.@

Commissioner Moyer - AWell, I amend the motion to include that the staff be directed to develop findings of fact consistent with the decision of the Planning Board.@

Chairman Hawkins - AAny discussion on that motion?@

Commissioner Gordon - AI have a question.@

Chairman Hawkins - AMarilyn.@

Commissioner Gordon - AWas this reviewed by the Fire Marshal? Is this ten foot adequate for fire protection?@

Karen Smith - AI don=t know that the revised plan was sent to the Fire Marshal. I kinda took it over right as Chris left. I=m not sure. The ten foot is in our zoning ordinance and I - Joe might be able to address that a little better.@

Commissioner Gordon - AIt does meet code requirements for separation?@

Karen Smith - AIt does have to meet N.C. Building Code so.@

Angela Beeker - AThat will be put in the order. That would be put in the order that the only way it could go down to ten feet is if that meets the State Building Code Requirements.@

Commissioner Gordon - AOK@

Chairman Hawkins - AAny other comments with the motion on the floor?@

Commissioner Gordon - AYeh, one more comment before we vote. I think this is a very interesting concept and this is an editorial. With all the discussion about better use of - of properties and the need for denser development in certain areas, I think it will be very interesting to see how this comes out because I think it is - it is good to see that developers attempting to get outside the box and do something different. We should try to encourage that if we can.@

Chairman Hawkins - AAny other discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye.@

In unison AAye. Unanimous vote.

Commissioner Kumor - AMr. Chairman, I make a motion that we come out of the quasi-judicial public hearing.@

Chairman Hawkins - AAll those in favor of that motion, say aye.@

In unison AAye.@ Unanimous vote.

7:00 p.m. PUBLIC INPUT SESSION - Proposed BMX - Bicycle Dirt Track for Jackson Park

Chairman Hawkins asked the Clerk to call the names of those who had signed up to speak to this issue.

1. Wayne K. Forsyth - Mr. Forsyth voiced his concerns about placing the BMX track in Jackson Park stating that he felt Jackson Park is currently being maxed out as to use.

2. Richard Donovan - Mr. Donovan was in agreement with Mr. Forsyth=s comments. He asked whether the sponsors of the BMX track were non-profit or a for profit group. He felt that there is other land where this could be put.

3. Jason Morgan - Mr. Morgan spoke in favor of the BMX track.

4. Hampton Hudson - Mr. Hudson spoke in favor of the BMX track. He is a bicycle shop owner. He spoke of the growing interest in BMX bicycles in the past couple of years.

5. Raymond LeStrange - Mr. LeStrange had signed up to speak but had left before this time in the agenda.

6. Jim Neal - Mr. Neal spoke in favor of a BMX track but felt that Jackson Park was not the place for it. He felt that we are currently getting the maximum use out of Jackson Park with tennis, soccer, softball, baseball, bird watching and serving nature in general.

7. Michael Watt - Mr. Watt spoke in favor of the BMX track. When he lived in California, he rode and raced BMX bicycles.

This Public Input Session was held pursuant to the Board=s request to consider a proposal concerning the operation of a dirt track for BMX bicycle racing in Jackson Park in the area formerly known as Field #8. Pursuant to this proposal, Henderson County would lease the former field #8 directly to the National Bicycle League, who would then construct and operate a BMX bicycle dirt track at their cost. The National Bicycle League (NBL) would conduct workshops, practices, and racing events, all made available to the children and youth of Henderson County. A nominal fee would be charged to cover track expenses and insurance expenses. However, in order to participate children and youth would have to become members of the NBL in order for their insurance coverage to be effective. An investment in excess of $20,000 would be made by the NBL and volunteers to build the BMX track and related facilities.

The North Carolina General Statutes authorize Henderson County to lease property upon such terms and conditions as may be desired if the Board determines that the property will not be needed by the county for the term of the lease. The lease must be approved by resolution adopted at a regular board meeting upon 10 days= public notice. Notice must be given by publication and must describe the property to be leased, the annual rental or lease payments, and must state the Board=s intention to authorize the lease at its next regular meeting. The Board had previously authorized staff to proceed with advertising the Board=s intent to adopt a resolution to approve the lease at this meeting. ANotice of Intent@ was published in the local Times-News on February 22, 2000.

Rick Harris, Parks and Recreation Director and Tim Hopkin, Senior Athletic Program Supervisor, both came forward to answer some questions.

Commissioner Moyer questioned whether there were any restrictive covenants in the chain of title. There is no room for expansion on this piece of property. Commissioner Moyer asked for a couple of revisions to the Lease Agreement.

There was some discussion that the closest BMX track to us is a track in Spartanburg. It also has a 20' x 20' shed on the property for storage.

Commissioner Kumor expressed her opposition to the track in Jackson Park. She felt that there could be another piece of property found somewhere in the county for a BMX track.

Two representatives from the National Bicycle League (NBL) came forward to answer some questions, Malcolm Hadley and Jim Tedesca. They are a non-profit organization. They explained that basically a BMX track is much like a swimming pool. It is locked until the track director unlocks the gate. Then the kids are allowed to practice. They don=t have races each time the gate is opened.

Following much discussion, Commissioner Moyer made the motion that this hearing be continued to Friday at 10:00 a.m. and review the lease with changes brought back by the County Attorney. All voted in favor and the motion carried.

New Facility Goals

The Board had received a two page document of Development Goals. Commissioner Kumor asked that the Board review these goals at this time and decide if they are actually goals of the Board of Commissioners.

David Nicholson stated that the goals were developed by staff. After the last Board meeting on February 16, he called a staff meeting to determine how to address the issue on the upcoming March 15 meeting. Staff brainstormed to see what they felt the major issues were in looking at a new facility. Some of the ideas came from Commissioners from workshops.

Following much discussion, the Board agreed on a list of AMust haves@ and a list of ANice, but not essential@.

Essential:

C Must have water & sewer

C Ability to consolidate related departments in one center for convenience to citizens

C Access to a major road for convenient access or in the core area of Hendersonville

C Offer at least five year growth space for departments and the capability for future growth

Preferred, but not essential:

C Access to two state roads

C At least one Commissioner preferred to keep the Commissioners downtown but felt

it was not essential

Financial goals:

C The financing approach must be consistent with the County=s overall financing plan

and timing

C Timing on how to implement the sale of the buildings we will vacate

C Restart the Historic Courthouse Rehabilitation project

It was the consensus of the Board to have more than one option to review at the March 15 meeting along with financial plans and timing projections.

Raven Rock/Saluda Fire Department

This was an add-on per Commissioner Ward.

David Nicholson had a conversation with some people who used to be volunteers with the Saluda Fire Department. In researching, staff found that we do not have a contract with the Saluda Fire & Rescue Department. We originally had a contract for a year with the Town of Saluda. The Town of Saluda divested itself of the Fire Department and it became a not for profit corporation.

Rocky Hyder met with the folks from the Town of Saluda last week. Some of the issues that were raised were how many of the firemen were still from Henderson County. Still a large number of the fire personnel are from Henderson County. Service is being provided, there is no issue there. A contract has been sent to them so that we can get a contract in place with the Saluda Fire Department, at least for a year. There is a similar issue going on now with the Fletcher Fire Department and into Buncombe County. David felt that one of the issues that needs to be considered when the Fire Advisory Committee is established is whether or not you want this district to contract with the Saluda Fire Department or with a Henderson County Fire Department, for example Blue Ridge. David felt that the Fire Advisory Committee could give a recommendation to the Board on this, when established. A contract will be on the agenda in the near future between the County and that Fire District.

LGCCA Update (Local Government Committee on Cooperative Action)

Commissioner Moyer deferred as the minutes will be made available soon and will be detailed. He will provide copies for the Commissioners. Once the Board has had time to review the minutes, he will discuss and it will make more sense.

IMPORTANT DATES

The Board set a budget workshop for Tuesday, April 11 at 5:00 p.m.(here)

Special Order Setting a Public Hearing - Proposed Extension of the Corporate Limits of the Cane Creek Water and Sewer District of Henderson County, North Carolina

The Board mentioned having this on April 4 at 7:00 p.m. and David Nicholson was going to check with the Town of Fletcher to see if their meeting room was available. This was not set yet.

FLETCHER ZONING REQUEST

The Town of Fletcher had scheduled a Public Hearing for March 13 on the zoning of three parcels of property owned by Henderson County, Tract I being the Westfeld Park property and Tracts 2 & 3 being in the Broadpointe Center. The Planning Board had recommended that this property be zoned C-2.

Staff suggested that the Board might wish to make comments to the Fletcher Council on the proposed zoning at the March 13 meeting.

C-1 allows parks as well as other public buildings on land. David Nicholson stated that with these two properties there are deed restrictions associated with the property about using it for park purposes. David stated that the one issue he sees is that the Fletcher Zoning Ordinance does not talk about agriculture. Currently Henderson County has some of that property leased to a farmer. Counties have an exemption for agriculture as a use. Cities do not have that as an automatic exemption. Council informed the Board that any existing use would be grandfathered.

It was suggested that the Chairman send a letter to the Mayor of the Town of Fletcher for their March 13 Public Hearing, indicating that we don=t see an issue with C-1 but they are designated for parks under deed restrictions and as long as that is an allowable use in C-2 and also inform them that we would like to keep it under agriculture use and we realize that we are currently grandfathered.

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was continued to Friday, March 10 at 10:00 a.m.

Attest:

Elizabeth W. Corn, Clerk to the Board Grady Hawkins, Chairman