MINUTES
STATE
OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY
OF HENDERSON SEPTEMBER 21, 2000
The Henderson County Board
of Commissioners met for a special called
meeting at 5:00 p.m. in the Commissioners' Conference Room of the
Henderson County Office Building.
Those present were: Chairman Grady Hawkins, Vice-Chair Bill
Moyer, Commissioner Renee Kumor, Commissioner Marilyn Gordon, County Manager
David E. Nicholson, County Attorney Angela S. Beeker, and Clerk to the Board
Elizabeth W. Corn. Commissioner Don
Ward arrived after Karen Smith had started her presentation.
Also present were: Planning
Director Karen C. Smith and Assistant County Attorney Jennifer O. Jackson.
Absent was: County Manager
David E. Nicholson.
CALL TO ORDER/WELCOME
Chairman Hawkins called the
meeting to order and welcomed all in attendance, stating that this is a
workshop on proposed amendments to the Henderson County Subdivision
Ordinance. He also stated that a Public
Hearing on this issue will be held today at 6:30.
Chairman Hawkins asked
Karen Smith to go through each of the sixteen (16) proposed amendments. If the
Commissioners have questions, they can stop Ms. Smith and ask them at any time.
Proposed Amendments
First of all, Karen Smith
distributed comments she had received from Luther Smith. Chairman Hawkins stated that Mr. Smith would
have a chance to address the Board if he wished during Public Comments at 6:30.
#1 deals with driveways - the reason for the
change was to reduce confusion about Adriveways@ and to provide standards for roads serving up to
three lots.
Following
much discussion - change Avehicular access@ to Ashared driveway@ and delete all
requirements except for right-of-way which will stay 30'. The Board also changed the number of
residential lots served to 2 - 24 for a local road and 2- 3 for a shared
driveway.
#2 deals
with shoulder width - the reason for the change was to provide flexibility in
the shoulder width requirements of private local residential roads.
Change
- private local residential road may have a shoulder width of 4-6 feet if
travelway width is 18 feet. The Board also added the language Aeach side@ to the shoulder width.
#3 deals
with site analysis, sketch scale - the reason for the change was to provide a
more reasonable scale for site analysis sketch (currently 1" = 50').
Change
to a scale that provides sufficient detail to describe the general location and
natural features of site.
#4 deals
with erosion control plan - the reason for the change was to streamline review
of subdivision disturbing less than 1 acre of land.
Change
to applicants must provide professional certification that they will disturb
less than 1 acre of land and change the word Averifying@ to Acertifying@ in section 170-19.
#5 deals
with lot area - the reason for the change was to clarify the terms Alot area@ and Alot size@ and make the terminology
the same in both the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance.
Change
to minimum lot square footage or lot size will be termed Alot area@. Lot area excluded
right-of-way.
#6 deals
with Subdivision Administrator - the reason for the change was to enable more
efficient review of subdivisions and provide better public service.
Change
to appointed staff members can carry out the official duties of the Subdivision
Administrator. The Board wanted it to
be Karen and one other person and name the other (person=s) job title.
Following
much Board discussion, Jennifer Jackson suggested an additional paragraph to be
added
to section 170-9 AUnless other provisions of
this Chapter or any other law, rules, or regulation expressly prohibits the
Subdivision Administrator may delegate duties under this Ordinance; however,
the Subdivision Administrator shall remain responsible for the overall
administration of the Chapter.@
#7 deals
with minor subdivisions - the reason for this change was to clarify the
conditions under which an approved minor subdivision may be expanded.
Change
to a minor subdivision may be expanded under minor procedure.
The
Board changed Section 120-13.A-2 as follows - add A#1 and >that is= and add a #2
Awhich has been in common
ownership with the original tract at any time within the said
three
year period.@
#8 deals
with road frontage and existing off-site access - the reason for the change was
to explicitly require that all lots have a right-of-way to a public road and
that lots with less than 30' of public road frontage and no off-site
right-of-way apply for a variance to the road standards.
Change
to all tracts to be subdivided must have frontage on, or a right-of-way to a
public road and tracts with less than 30' of public road frontage must meet the
same density restrictions as for limited off-site access. Additional change in Section 170-28 was to
change the word Amay@ to Ashall@ and in Table 2 change AIf existing off-site access@ to AIf road frontage on
existing off-site access@.
#9 deals
with upgrading existing roads - the reason for the change was to require some
existing private roads within a development tract be upgraded when a
subdivision is proposed.
Change
to certain existing private roads must be upgraded to meet the private road
standards in the Ordinance. Jennifer
Jackson suggested adding a couple additional words to Section 170-21 and the
Board was in agreement.
#10 deals
with subdivision notice sign - the reason for the change was to better inform
the public regarding the location and nature of proposed major
subdivisions.
The
suggested change was to require a notice sign to be posted on the property of a
proposed major subdivision. The
majority of the Board was in disagreement with this requirement.
Angela Beeker reminded the
Board that the Public Information Session was noticed for 6:30 p.m., stating it
might be prudent to take a break and give those folks who came for that a
chance to ask staff some questions.
Chairman Hawkins called a
recess.
7:00 p.m. Chairman Hawkins called the meeting back to
order.
PUBLIC HEARING - on
Proposed Amendments to the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance
Chairman Hawkins made the
motion for the Board to go into public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Chairman Hawkins asked
Karen Smith to continue with the review of the sixteen amendment changes, the
Board had earlier gotten through # 10.
# 11 deals
with building permit requirement - the reason for the change was to remove a
section that may be unnecessary.
Change
to developers intending to sell lots must build improvements or bond them. Allows model homes.
#12 deals
with major subdivision application - the reason for the change was to clarify
the procedure for reviewing major subdivisions.
Change
to reduce wait between preapplication
conference and submission of application.
Specifies deadline for Master Plan.
Allows joint Master/Development Plan for single-section projects.
#13 deals
with review of private roads - the reason for the change was to clarify who has
approval authority for private roads in minor subdivisions.
Change
to allows Subdivision Administrator to approve private roads for proposed minor
subdivisions.
#14 deals
with flag lots - the reason for the change was to clarify who has approved
authority for flag lots in minor subdivisions.
Change
to allows Subdivision Administrator to approve flag lots for proposed minor
subdivisions.
#15 deals
with administrative and grammatical changes - the reason for the change was to
correct various administrative inconsistencies and grammatical errors.
Change
to Ordinance is more consistent and easier to interpret.
#16 deals
with bridge standards - the reason for the change was to allow for flexibility
in bridge design on private roads while maintaining safety of the
structures.
Change
to bridges on private roads must meet state road standards for drainage,
hydraulics and load but the Planning Board may approve reduced travelway widths
under certain conditions. An additional change was suggested to Table I of a
minimum vertical clearance for a proposed private bridge shall be 13 ft. 6
inches.
There
was much discussion regarding bridges - the Board wanted to provide liability
for the county and allow flexibility for the developer.
Prior to accepting public
input, Karen Smith was asked to review the changes to the proposed amendments:
Amendment #1 - There was
discussion of what term should be used to define these shorter roads that would
not have to meet the same standards as the private local residential roads,
page #1. Vehicular access and shared driveway were the suggested terms.
On page #2 the Board
proposed putting Anot applicable@ under the Vehicular Access
column on all the standards except for the 30' right-of-way width requirement
and putting Avertical clearance of
13'6" all the way across the table for bridges. Anywhere the term driveway or vehicular access was used, it will
be changed to be consistent. On number
of residential lots served, the first entry in the table - number of
residential lots served was changed to 2 - 24 under local road and 2 - 3 under
vehicular access and will be changed likewise anywhere else it is
discussed. Commissioner Moyer
questioned whether it should not remain 1-24 under local roads. He asked staff to research the definition of
local road.
Amendment # 2 - The Board
did add on shoulder width in Table I Aeach side@.
Amendment # 4 - The Board
changed the word Averifying@ to Acertifying@.
Amendment # 6 - The Board
changed the definition of Subdivision Administrator to read AThe official responsible
for the overall administration of this Chapter, such individual shall be the
Henderson County Planning Director and (name the particular position). Unless other provisions of this Chapter or
any other applicable law, rule, or regulation expressly prohibits, the
Subdivision Administrator may delegate duties under this Chapter; however, the
Subdivision Administrator shall remain responsible for the overall
administration of this chapter.
Amendment # 7 - The Board
made a change to page 11 under #2 to read AExcept in cases of expansions of approved minor
subdivisions allowed in (1), above, the minor subdivision procedure may not be
used a second time within three years on property (1) that is less than 1,500
feet from the original property boundaries of the original tract which was the
subject of a previously approved minor subdivision application and (2) which
has been in common ownership with the original tract at any time within the
said three year period.@
Amendment # 8 - The Board
changed the word may to Ashall@ and in Table 2 changed the
title of the left column to read AIf road frontage or existing off-side access ROW at
the narrowest point is@.
Amendment # 9 - The Board
made a change on page 13 AIf the tract to be
subdivided is located on both sides of an existing, recorded private right-of-way
that contains an existing private road, the applicant shall be required to
upgrade such portions of the existing private road which are contained on the
tract that is being subdivided to meet the road standards found in this chapter@.
The other changes had been
covered after the Board went into public hearing.
Public Input
1. Ed Hernando - Mr. Hernando was not
present when his name was called.
2. William Patterson - Mr. Patterson spoke
regarding the 200 ft. length driveways. He spoke about cul-de-sacs, stating
that you have to clear 1.5 acres of trees just to put in a cul-de-sac. He asked
the Board to strike 200 ft. driveways and not have a limit on length of
driveway. He also stated that a 30 ft.
deeded right-of-way is sufficient, its main use is to serve the utility
companies at the expense of the property owners.
He spoke to Building
Permits - asking the Board to leave amendment # 11 as originally proposed, not
to strike it.
3. Tom McHugh - Mr. McHugh spoke to
bridges - he asked why not put bridges in the road disclosure and require that
the developer indicate whether or not it was engineered, who the engineer was,
etc. and leave it up to the developer.
He also addressed roads and
driveways. He is not pleased with what
has been suggested as far as road widths.
He felt the Board should definitely drop the 200 ft. requirement on
driveways, you can=t get across a one acre lot
to access a lot you have behind it with a 200 ft. driveway. He stated that driveways often have to be
longer than 200 feet.
Mr. McHugh stated that
developers are having to build superhighways to get into developments. He=s got to build 18 ft. roads
and pave them so his lot sizes are getting smaller and smaller - out in the
country. These are private roads that will
never be taken over by the state. He
asked the Board to take into consideration topography and density of
housing. Shoulder widths become a major
problem along with topography.
Mr. McHugh stated that the
Board of Commissioners is encouraging developers to make lot sizes smaller and
the Board is increasing development costs.
He said this is zoning in a subtle way! Board of Commissioner control is
zoning!
Much Board discussion
followed. There was discussion that the
Board would like to offer more flexibility to developers but it is very hard to
write this flexibility into an ordinance, you almost have to get a
variance.
Bill Patterson - Mr. Patterson came
forward again and said he would like to see the Board ask the Planning Board to
take a new look at Table I , particularly turning radius and amount of gravel.
A copy of Luther Smith=s comments was given to all
attendees so they could be considered a part of this public hearing.
Commissioner Ward made the
motion for the Board to go out of public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Chairman Hawkins stated
that the Board had a good workshop and a lot of interesting things came up in
the public input of the public hearing.
The Planning Staff has some rewriting to do and bring it back to the
Board.
Commissioner Gordon stated
that these public comments warrant serious consideration by the Board of
Commissioners and by the Planning Board.
There was some discussion that we=re asking developers to build roads like they are
building them in big cities, Charlotte and Raleigh, where they have no
mountains, no grades to deal with.
Commissioner Moyer felt that the Fire Advisory Committee should be asked
to look at the turn around radius and talk with developers at the same
time.
The issue of building
permits was discussed again, stating the impact on that could be significant
(amendment # 11). Staff will make the
discussed changes and bring this back to the Board for review at another Commission
meeting. At this point, nothing will
be dropped or stricken. These items
will be voted on separately at another meeting. The only wording changes staff
will make are those they have been directed to make by the Board of
Commissioners. Staff will put changes in Aitalics@.
Commissioner Moyer stated that with respect to amendment # 11, the
flexibility to build one spec. house might be something we would be willing to
consider but beyond that he has serious problems with.
There being no further
business to come before the Board, Chairman Hawkins adjourned the meeting.
______________________________________ ________________________________________
Elizabeth W. Corn, Clerk to the Board Grady
Hawkins, Chairman