MINUTES
STATE
OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY
OF HENDERSON NOVEMBER 7, 2000
The Henderson County
Board of Commissioners met for a special called meeting at 3:00 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, 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.
CALL TO ORDER/WELCOME
Chairman Hawkins called
the meeting to order and welcomed all in attendance.
Chairman Hawkins stated
that the first order of business was to approve the agenda. He made the motion to approve the
agenda. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. One item had been added
to the agenda that was not advertised - ANC DOT Unpaved Road Improvement Pilot
Program@.
NC DOT Unpaved Road
Improvement Pilot Program
Karen Smith had sent a
memo to David Nicholson on this item and David had shared it with the Board of
Commissioners.
Both Karen
Smith (Planning Dept.) and Lee Smith (Benchmark) had reviewed the program
description and the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance.
The Henderson County
Subdivision Ordinance allows for both public and private roads. If the roads are proposed to be public, they
must be constructed in accordance with NC DOT standards. Private roads, however, have minimum
construction standards that are not equivalent to NC DOT standards. Two
of the most obvious discrepancies between the private road standards in the
Subdivision Ordinance and NC DOT standards have to do with paving and with the
road travelway width. NC DOT standards
require that public subdivision roads be paved. The Subdivision Ordinance allows private roads to remain
unpaved. In addition, NC DOT standards
require that the travelway width of public subdivision roads be at least 18
feet. Under the Subdivision Ordinance,
private roads may have a travelway width of 16 feet if they serve less than 25
existing or proposed dwelling units.
Because of the
differences between our private road standards and NC DOT standards, Henderson
County would not be eligible to participate in the pilot program. If the County was interested in
participating, amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance to require that all
subdivision roads be constructed to NC DOT standards would be necessary.
NC DOT has requested
that counties respond by November 14, 2000 regarding whether they would be able
to comply with the requirements of the pilot program. While Henderson County would not be eligible at this time, if the
County was willing to amend the Subdivision Ordinance to require road
construction according to NC DOT standards, it could notify NC DOT of its
intentions prior to November 14, 2000.
It would take a minimum of 60 days to take any such amendments through
the review and hearing process.
Following discussion, it
was the consensus of the Board not to participate in the Pilot Program. The
Board did not wish to amend the Subdivision Ordinance to require private roads
to be built to NC DOT standards. The Board felt that there should be a lot of
public input if Henderson County was interested in making this change.
REVIEW OF REVISIONS TO
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
from September 21, 2000
Work Session
Staff had brought back
to the Board the results from the workshop on September 21.
Karen Smith stated that
out of the sixteen proposed amendments to the Henderson County Subdivision
Ordinance, the following needed to be discussed because of changes: #1, # 8,
#9, and # 10.
Amendment # 1 (Driveway)
Revisions: 1. Changed all
references to proposed new term for Adriveway@ from
Avehicular
access@ to Ashared driveway@.
2.
Added a vertical clearance standard for roads to
Table I
3.
Deleted all proposed requirements in Table I for
Ashared driveways@
except for right-of-way width and vertical
clearance.
Discussion
Item(s) 1. The definition of Ashared
driveway@ limits its length to 200 feet.
A
comment at the hearing questioned the length
limit.
Amendment
# 2 (Shoulder Width)
Revisions: 1. Added
Aeach side@ in Table I after AShoulder width@
The
Board was in agreement with this, no discussion needed.
Amendment
# 3 (Site Analysis Sketch)
Revisions: 1. None
The
Board was in agreement with this, no discussion needed.
Amendment
# 4 (Notice of Erosion & Sedimentation Control
Plan)
Revisions: 1. Changed
word Averifying@ to Acertifying@
The
Board was in agreement with this, no discussion needed.
Amendment
# 5 (Lot Area)
Revisions: 1. None
The
Board was in agreement with this, no discussion needed.
Amendment
# 6 (Subdivision Administrator)
Revisions: 1. Added
language to show who designates an AAssistant Subdivision
Administrator@
2.
Added language allowing Subdivision
Administrator to delegate duties
while maintaining ultimate responsibility under
the Ordinance
The
Board was comfortable with the new language.
Amendment
# 7 (Minor Subdivision Review)
Revisions: 1. Added
language to clarify that the three-year time frame regarding expansion
of minor subdivisions applies to tracts that
were once in common ownership
with a previously subdivided tract.
The
Board was in agreement with this, no discussion needed.
Amendment
# 8 (Road Frontage and Existing Off-Site Access)
Revisions: 1. Changed
Amay@ to Ashall@ in Section 170-28A
2.
Added ARoad Frontage or@ to column title in
Table 2
The
Board did wish to come back to this one for discussion.
Amendment
# 9 (Upgrading Existing Private Roads)
Revisions: 1. Added
two phrases to clarify that the upgrading of existing roads would be required
on portions of the road within the tract to be subdivided.
2.
The Planning Board discussed and sent a
favorable recommendation on Amendment # 9; however, in thinking further about
this amendment, current
Planning Staff has some concerns that not all of
the road standards required
by the Ordinance could be met on a portion of a
road within a tract to be subdivided without upgrading the entire road. Changing the road grade or drainage, for
example, on one portion of the road may affect the rest of the road. The issue may be more about how much
development should be permitted if the grade or level of improvements of
off-site access, for example, is not at the standards required by the
Ordinance. Currently, Section 170-28A
limits the number of lots that can be developed if off-site access consists of
a right-of-way of less than 30 feet in width.
Section 170-28B states that if 5 or more lots are to be created and the
grade at any point along an off-site access right-of-way exceeds 18 percent,
then the Planning Board will review the application on a case by case
basis. Perhaps Section 170-28 could be
expanded to address other standards for off-site access or the proposed
Amendment #9 (to Section 170-21) could be expanded to require the Planning
Board to look at improvements to existing roads on a case by case basis. The Board of Commissioners may want to
further discuss how to proceed with this amendment.
The
Board wanted to revisit this amendment.
Amendment
# 10 (Proposed Subdivision Notice Sign)
Revisions: None
Discussion
Item(s) 1. A majority of the
Commissioners indicated that they did not favor this amendment. The Board did not remove any amendments from
consideration at the workshop and hearing; therefore, the Board will need to
discuss how to proceed with this amendment.
The
Board wanted to revisit this amendment.
Amendment
# 11 (Plat Approval Required for Building Permit)
Revisions: 1. Rather
than delete the entire section as proposed by the Planning Board, the
Commissioners asked for language that would allow a developer to construct
model homes. Such language has been
added to the paragraph as it currently exists in the Subdivision
Ordinance. The section as now drafted
would allow one structure (be it a single-family dwelling, a duplex, etc.) to
be constructed for each approved development plan. In some subdivisions, this would allow one structure per phase as
each phase can have its own development plan.
The
Board was satisfied with the proposed new language.
Amendment
# 12 (Deadlines for Submission of Major Application)
Revisions: None
The
Board was in agreement with this, no discussion needed.
Amendment
# 13 (Review of Private Roads)
Revisions: None
The
Board was in agreement with this, no discussion needed.
Amendment
# 14 (Flag Lots)
Revisions: None
The
Board was in agreement with this, no discussion needed.
Amendment
# 15 (Administrative and Grammatical Amendments)
Revisions: None
The
Board was in agreement with this, no discussion needed.
Amendment
# 16 (Bridge Standards)
Revisions: 1. The
proposed travelway width standards for bridges on private roads in residential
subdivisions have been rewritten to require that the travelway width on bridges
be, at a minimum, equal to the travelway width of the road the bridge is on,
but in no case can it be less than 12 feet.
2.
The language regarding the Planning Board
reviewing private bridges in residential subdivisions on a case by case basis
has been removed.
3.
The previously proposed paragraph regarding the
Planning Board/Subdivision Administrator having the ability to hire an engineer
to review plans for private bridges in residential subdivisions has been
removed.
The
Board was happy with the revised language.
Amendments
for Discussion
#1,
#8, #9, and #10.
Amendment # 1 The Board
wanted to discuss the turn around and the 200 foot length requirement.
Option B Increase the length limit. Staff had proposed that the Commissioners
could consider increasing the length limit of a Ashared driveway@. For example, if the length limit was 0.1
mile (528 feet), then any private road serving 3 or fewer lots/dwelling units
that is less than 0.1 mile would have to meet the standards for Ashared
driveways@ and a private road serving 3 or fewer lots/dwellings that is greater
than 0.1 mile would have to meet the standards for a Private Local Residential
Subdivision Road (see ALocal@ column in Table I). Under this option, the number of lots listed as being served by a
ALocal@ road (A1 to 24" per Table I) should, therefore, be left as
written.
Note: Section 170-21H requires
turnarounds at the end of all dead-end roads that exceed 300 feet. Since a Ashared driveway@ would be
considered a Aroad@ by definition, the requirement for a turnaround would apply
if the driveway was greater than 300 feet.
Planning
staff recommended this option in order to maintain some standards for Ashared
driveways.@ After looking at several subdivisions where such Adriveways@ were
either proposed or used in the past, Staff found that all of them were greater
than 200 feet. For this reason and
because of a recent conversation between Planning Staff and Fire Marshal Rocky
Hyder about running hoses from water sources for certain distances, Planning
Staff suggested that the length limit be 0.1 mile. Finally, Staff suggested that the Board consider whether to
establish a maximum grade for Ashared driveways.@
There
was much discussion regarding the radius of turnarounds. It was discussed that turnarounds don=t
have to be a cul-de-sac, some are a T-turnaround. Some of the above language is
in other areas of the ordinance.
It
was the consensus of the Board to go with 0.1 mile in length or 528 feet but
the Board was quite concerned about a turnaround and wished to send this
amendment back to the Planning Board for work to make it compatible with 528
feet. Even more discussion followed and 1,000 feet was discussed. The board
suggested having three breakdowns of road length: 200 feet and under, 200 feet
to 500 feet and 500 feet to 1,000 feet, asking Planning to come back with some
sample diagrams showing the turnaround locations. Commissioner Moyer suggested that it might be wise to consider
whether the T or the turnaround should be within 50 feet of each house.
There
was then discussion about grade of the road.
The Board discussed adding 15% and 18% on the grade of the road with a
turn radius of 90 feet and 16 feet on the width of the road.
Chairman
Hawkins suggested asking the Planning Board to look at two lengths on the Ashared
driveway@, 528 feet and 1,000 feet and ask them to come up with language about
turnarounds and whether there should be any additional restrictions on 1,000
feet in length Ashared driveways@. It was the Board=s feeling that a road 1,000
feet in length should be more restrictive than a 200 foot road. It was finally
decided to offer the three options for roads: 200 feet and under, 200 feet to
500 feet, and 500 feet to 1,000 feet.
The Board would like to see the Planning Board=s comments regarding this
and pay particular attention to centerline radius, maximum grades, and shoulder
width.
The
Board talked with the Chairman of the Planning Board and the Board would just
like to see what the Planning Board recommends. The Board of Commissioners does not wish to restrict the Planning
Board=s imagination.
Amendment
# 8
There
was discussion concerning right-of-way. It was the consensus of the Board to
leave #8 as revised at the September 21 workshop.
Amendment
# 9 Roads
in General
The
Board agreed to send this back to the Planning Board. Karen Smith had a concern about this one.
Amendment
# 10 Proposed Subdivision Notice Sign
The
consensus of the Board was to delete this amendment.
ACTION
Commissioner
Hawkins made the motion to approve amendments as discussed, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6,
#7, #8, #9, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, and #16, effective immediately (all except
# 1 and #10) except for those subdivisions currently under construction. To send # 1 to the Planning Board per
discussion at this meeting and to delete #10.
A vote was taken and the motion carried four to one with Commissioner Kumor
voting nay.
There
being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
Attest:
_______________________________________ _______________________________________
Elizabeth W.
Corn, Clerk to the Board Grady
Hawkins, Chairman