MINUTES
STATE
OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY
OF HENDERSON JULY 25,
2001
The Henderson
County Board of Commissioners met for a regularly scheduled meeting at 9:00 a.m.
in the Commissioners= Conference Room of the Henderson County Office
Building at 100 North King Street, Hendersonville, North Carolina.
Those present
were: Chairman Bill Moyer, Vice-Chair
Marilyn Gordon, Commissioner Grady Hawkins, Commissioner Don Ward, Commissioner
Charlie Messer, County Manager David E. Nicholson, County Attorney Angela S.
Beeker, and Clerk to the Board Elizabeth W. Corn.
Also present
were: Public Information Officer Chris S. Coulson, Assistant County Attorney
Jennifer O. Jackson, Planning Director Karen C. Smith, and Finance Director J.
Carey McLelland. Amy Brantley, Volunteer Coordinator, was present through the
Nominations.
CALL TO
ORDER/WELCOME
Chairman Moyer
called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance.
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner
Gordon led the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag.
INVOCATION
Rev. Gus
Martschink, from the Hospital Chaplaincy Program, gave the invocation.
DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT
OF AGENDA
Chairman Moyer
asked for the following to be added to Discussion Items:
AC@ - Discussion
of RPOs, Transportation Planning, Vehicles.
AD@ -
Environmental Advisory Committee and Air Quality
AE@ - South Hwy.
#25 Study
AF@ - County
Comprehensive Plan
Chairman Moyer
also stated that he may have to move some of the items around for the courtesy
of some of the people who are coming to the meeting for specific items.
David Nicholson
asked that item AB@ - MSD Rate
Study be deleted from Cane Creek Water and Sewer District Agenda.
Chairman Moyer
made the motion for the Board to approve the adjusted agenda. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA
Chairman Moyer
made the motion to pull the June 13 minutes for comments, as well as the
following items:
AJ@ - Plaque
Presentation by the American Cancer Society
AK@ - Employee
Recognitions/Awards
AL@ - Trend
Resolution
Commissioner
Hawkins also wished to comment on the June 13 minutes. He made a minor correction to the July 2
minutes. He also asked that the
following items be pulled for some discussion:
AD@ - Detention
Facility Monthly Report
AG@ - Saluda Fire
and Rescue Tax-Exempt Loan
AI@ - Waterline
Extension Requests (2)
Discussion on
June 13 minutes
The June 13
minutes were formerly approved at the July 2, 2001 meeting. Since that time, Chairman Moyer suggested a
change to one of his motions. He also
directed the Clerk to the Board to submit her draft minutes to the County
Attorney for review of all motions. He
then asked the County Attorney to review all motions for legal implications as
well as to make sure the motions reflect the intent of the Board. Ms. Beeker had reviewed and rewritten the
motion in question. The revised June 13
minutes were distributed to the Board for review and approval at this meeting.
Chairman Moyer
stated that this set of minutes was prepared almost as a verbatim discussion of
the meeting. He expressed that wasn=t necessary or
appropriate. He stated that he felt the minutes should reflect the general
discussion of the salient issues and then should reflect the actions clearly
that are taken. Normally our minutes
are not verbatim unless they are quasi-judicial hearings. He felt that time could be saved by not
having verbatim minutes but clearly set out the actions that are taken at the
meeting. He also had a problem with the
Board getting draft minutes for approval without having a resolution attached
that is referred to in the minutes.
Commissioner
Hawkins took exception to the procedure rather than the intent. He reminded the Board that Ms. Corn has been
the Clerk to the Board going on 13 years now and in most cases she accomplishes
in the minutes what the Board is looking for.
There are occasions when there are disputes and the Clerk has been asked
to do a verbatim transcript of that section of the meeting. In his opinion that is the right way to
handle any disputes. His biggest
problem with the procedure was that after the minutes were approved, he didn=t think it was
the prerogative of the Chairman or the County Attorney to go back and rewrite
the minutes, in particular when it is already a verbatim account. He felt that this questions the integrity of
the Board if that is the policy.
Commissioner Hawkins felt that if corrections need to be made, they
should be made at the meeting with the full Board voting on the
correction.
There was much
discussion back and forth. Chairman
Moyer felt that all minutes should be approved by the County Attorney from a
legal standpoint. There was some
discussion regarding having a procedure/policy written to follow in
transcribing minutes.
Commissioner
Ward felt that both Commissioners made good points regarding the minutes. He did express a need for some detail in the
minutes.
The Clerk to
the Board asked to be allowed to speak and made the following points:
1.
As a rule a verbatim transcript is not
done of minutes. The June 13 meeting
was a very heated political discussion.
The Clerk did parts of the meeting verbatim in order to cover herself so
that no one individual could say that their words had been twisted.
2.
We do not have a written procedure for
minutes and never have had in the years the Clerk has been with Henderson
County (12+ years) and therefore each Board has wanted the minutes done a
little different from the previous Board.
The Clerk expressed that she felt it would be a good idea to have a
written procedure or policy for doing minutes.
3.
The Clerk expressed that she does not
know that the Board wants Aattachments@ when they receive their draft minutes
unless she is told that they do. The Aattachments@
get with the minutes as they are printed in the Minute Docket but they have not
been given out with draft minutes in the past.
Chairman
Moyer asked to move the meeting along and asked that the Clerk, the County
Manager, and the County Attorney work together on getting a procedure written.
Item
AD@ - Detention Facility Monthly Report
Commissioner
Hawkins wanted to confirm that the Jail Project was well on track and coming in
under budget. Mr. Nicholson confirmed
that was correct and will report back to the Board on the amount under budget
when the Finance Director gets back in town.
Chairman
Moyer had expressed earlier concern over some blacktop that was not curing that
was part of the detention center project.
Mr. Nicholson up-dated the Board, stating that a consulting engineer
examined the parking lot and drilled some holes and did some testing. Parts of the blacktop in the parking lot
were fine while others were not. A
section of the Avisitors@ parking lot on First Avenue had a problem. Next
Monday, a contractor will take up a section of the parking lot and resurface it
at no cost to the County.
Detention
Center Announcement
September
5 at 4:00 p.m. is the official opening of the Detention Center. Following the opening ceremony will be a
tour of the facility. Mr. Nicholson has
encouraged staff to offer a week-end opportunity tour for the public also. Mr. Nicholson has actually received the
Certificate of Substantial Completion for the facility. He stated the facility is under budget and
on time.
Mr.
Nicholson also informed those in attendance as well as those watching on
television, there will be an opportunity for persons to spend a night in the
new facility on August 25 with proceeds going to the Dare Camp. There is a $50.00 contribution fee for
finger-printing, eating, and sleeping over in the jail. This also gives staff a chance to work
through the process in the facility and make sure everything is working well.
Item
AG@ - Saluda Fire and Rescue Tax-Exempt Loan
Commissioner
Hawkins questioned the Resolution the Board was being asked to approve, the
Resolution indicates that the Board of Commissioners was approving a tax-exempt
loan to Saluda for $30,000. The Board
does not approve loans. He had asked
that the wording be changed in the Resolution to state that the Board consents
to the loan. A revised copy will be
given to the Clerk for execution.
Item
AI@ - Waterline Extension Requests (2)
Commissioner
Hawkins raised a question regarding the requests, stating that where sewer
and/or waterlines are extended, construction will follow. In one of these cases, the request is 7 2 miles outside of the City Limits.
Item
AJ@ - Plaque Presentation by the American Cancer Society
Lettie
Herbert, a volunteer with the American Cancer Society, presented a plaque on
behalf of the Committee for the Relay for Life to the Board of Commissioners
with pleasure and thanks in recognition of the Board=s continuing support of
the Relay that was held this year on June 8th and 9th.
Chairman
Moyer commented that several of the Commissioners were at the Relay for
Life. He acknowledged the work done by
Planning Director Karen Smith who was very involved [co-Chairman] in running
the project. Senator Bob Carpenter was
the speaker for the event and has been very active in situations involving
cancer and getting appropriate legislation done.
Item
AK@ - Employee Recognitions/Awards
David
congratulated two Cooperative Extension employees who have received
awards. Please see the following agenda
item for details. The employees were
not in attendance at this meeting.
Mr.
Nicholson was saddened to tell the Board that one of those employees, Bill
Skelton, has accepted a Director position in Haywood County and will be leaving
us. He has been a fine employee.
Item
AL@ - Trend Resolution
Chairman
Moyer asked Dr. Jeffery Grimm to come forward for this item. Dr. Grimm informed the Board that Trend
Mental Health received the 2001 Negley Award for excellence in Risk Management
which was accompanied by a cash prize for the agency. This is a National Award
used to recognize outstanding achievements in risk management by
Community Mental Health Centers.
They
received the award for their AViolence Abatement@ program which is designed to
limit workplace violence through personnel organization, law enforcement
consultation, environmental controls, and staff training. The principal result
of that program was a permanent reduction in staff injuries due to client
violence by 68%. They assisted seven
other area Mental Health Authorities and one Community Hospital in designing
similar programs.
Dr.
Grimm informed the Board that Trend had been accredited by an organization
called the Council on Accreditation for Children and Family Services, also
known as COA. The COA Accreditation
process involves a rigorous examination of Trend=s total operations and
Accreditation attests that Trend Community Mental Health Service is meeting the
highest national standards and is providing needed and quality services to
individuals, families, and it=s constituent communities. Previously Trend was accredited by the State
of North Carolina. The State=s
standards are substantially less rigorous than the COA national standards. COA maintains that Accreditation does three
separate things:
1.
Provides evidence to the community that
the organization providing service has met
accepted standards of operation.
2.
Identifies for public funders the
organizations that are worthy of financial support.
3.
It is a central means for assuring that
funds are spent in efficient and effective ways which are consistent with the
cannons of good practice and management.
Trend
was one of only ten area mental health authorities in the State with
performance that merited a special
category that is termed Aexpedited accreditation@. Trend was the only area mental health authority in Western North
Carolina that merited that distinction.
Chairman
Moyer offered congratulations on behalf of the Board and moved adoption of the
prepared resolution (reading the resolution
aloud) commending Trend for their service to the County=s citizens and their
achievement of national recognition. A
copy of the resolution is attached as a part of these minutes. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Chairman
Moyer made the motion to approve the Consent Agenda with the changes discussed:
July 2 minutes, make it Aregularly scheduled
meeting@ rather than Aspecial called meeting@ and the change discussed in the
resolution for Saluda Fire and Rescue changing the wording from Aapproves@ to Aconsents
to@.
All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
The CONSENT AGENDA consisted of the following:
Minutes
Minutes
were presented for the Board=s review and approval of the following meetings:
July 6, 1999, regular meeting
August 18, 1999, regular meeting
June 13, 2001, special called meeting (revised,
formerly approved on July 2)
June 14, 2001, special called meeting
June 21, 2001, special called meeting
July 2, 2001, regular meeting
July 10, 2001, special called meeting
July 11, 2001, special called meeting
Tax
Collector=s Report
Terry
F. Lyda, Tax Collector, had provided the Tax Collector=s Report for the Board=s
information, dated July 19, 2001.
Darlene
Burgess, Deputy Tax Collector also submitted her report for the Board=s
information, dated July 17, 2001.
Revisions
to Fee Schedules
During
budget deliberations, the wrong Environmental Health Fee Schedule was provided
to the Board of Commissioners. Although
the budget reflected the correct fees, this schedule listed a previous year=s
fees, which were less than what were already being charged. The correct fee structure, with increases as
approved by the Board, was presented for the Board=s information. This has no influence on the budget as
approved and is for information purposes only.
The
Board approved the implementation of an Ain-county@ patient loaded mile fee of
$7.50 for the new fiscal year. After
the budget was adopted, our EMS staff was informed that Medicare will not
accept increase requests for Aout-of-county@ mileage after October 1,
2001. Therefore, EMS staff requested,
and the County Manager recommended, that the out-of-county patient loaded
mileage fee be increased from $4.00 per mile to $7.50 to match the recently
approved in-county mileage fee.
David
Nicholson recommended that the Board of Commissioners approve the increase from
$4.00 to $7.50 per out-of-county patient-loaded mile to be effective October 1,
2001, which is the date recommended by Medicare.
Detention
Facility Monthly Report
Bill
Byrnes had submitted the monthly detention facility report for June for the
Board=s review.
Tax
Releases
A
list of 34 tax release requests was submitted by the County Assessor for
approval by the Board.
Tax
Refunds
A
list of 2 tax refund requests was submitted by the County Assessor for approval
by the Board.
Saluda
Fire and Rescue Tax-Exempt Loan
The
Saluda Volunteer Fire & Rescue is planning to purchase 25 new sets of
turnout gear and 4 new Mintor III Pagers.
The turnout gear will be purchased from NAFECO of North Carolina in
Morganton, North Carolina and the Pagers from Kimball Communications in
Hendersonville, North Carolina. The
cost of the turnout gear will be $27,705.72 and the total for the pagers will
be $1,640.00 for a total cost of $29,345.72.
The
amount of the loan is $29,345.72 for a term of 5 years, with an annual interest
rate of 5.95%, an annual payment of $6,964.67 and a total payback of
$34,823.35.
The
Fire and Rescue Advisory Committee approved this request at its July 16, 2001
meeting.
David
Nicholson recommended Board approval of this request.
Request
for Improvement Guarantee for Meadow Woods, Phase II - The Housing Assistance
Corporation, Applicant
Mr.
Steve Bond, on behalf of The Housing Assistance Corporation (HAC) had submitted
an application for a subdivision improvement guarantee. HAC would like to post a surety performance
bond to cover the cost of remaining road improvements in Phase II of Meadow
Woods, a subdivision located off Brannon Road.
The Planning Department issued conditional approval of the Development
Plan for Phase II of Meadow Woods on June 27, 2001.
Pursuant
to Section 170-38 of the Henderson County Code, a developer may, in lieu of
completing all of the required improvements prior to Final Plat approval,
post a performance guarantee to secure the County=s interest in seeing that
satisfactory construction of incomplete improvements occurs. One type of permitted guarantee is a surety
performance bond. The applicant intends
to secure such a performance bond from CNA Surety in the amount of $23,500.00,
which includes the cost of the road improvements as well as the required
contingency amount of 25%. The minimum
amount that must be secured by the performance bond is $23,482.75 (cost estimate
of $18,786.20 multiplied by 1.25). The
proposed completion date for the improvements is September 30, 2001. HAC currently has a surety performance bond
posted with the County as an improvement guarantee for Phase I of Meadow
Woods. The Phase I performance bond is
in the amount of $25,000.00 and the completion date for the improvements in
that phase is also September 30, 2001.
A
draft Performance Guarantee Agreement was submitted for the Board=s
consideration. If the application is
approved, the applicant must submit a performance bond in accordance with the
terms of the Agreement. The Assistant
County Attorney must review the performance bond and certify the Agreement as
to form prior to its execution by the Chairman and the applicant.
Mr.
Nicholson recommended that the Board approve the application for an improvement
guarantee for Meadow Woods, Phase II, subject to the applicant submitting a
surety performance bond in accordance with the terms of the draft Performance
Guarantee Agreement and subject to the Assistance County Attorney reviewing the
performance bond.
Waterline
Extension Requests (2)
The
City of Hendersonville has requested any County comments on proposed waterline
extensions.
#1 Pack Mobile Home park extension
1,250
lineal feet of 6 inch pvc, C900, DR-18 water line to be installed along Clark
Road for a Pack Mobile Home Park extension.
This is a project to bring water service to a piece of property located
approx. 2.9 miles east of the Hendersonville Corporate Limits off Clark Road
near Edneyville Elementary School. The
owner has indicated that the Pack Mobile Home Park name may only be temporary
as the owner has not finalized his thoughts of how the property will be
developed. The owner may decide to
subdivide the property rather than to develop a mobile home park as indicated
by the design engineer, Mr. Jon H. Laughter of Laughter-Austin &
Associates, P.A.
Fire
protection will be provided via the installation of two fire hydrants located
on Clark Road.
Water
pressure and flow in this area is as follows:
Static pressure
= 60 psi.
Residual = 30 psi.
Flow = 740 GPM
The
entire cost of the proposed water line extension is to be paid for by the
owner/developer James M. Pack of Edneyville, North Carolina.
Based
on the above information, the City Water Department can support the additional
connections and recommended approval of the project contingent upon approval of
the final plans and specifications.
It
does not fully conform with the County Land Use Plan because the 1993 Land Use
Plan did not anticipate the extension of public water to the subject area (see
Figure 17, Urban Services Area, in the Land Use Plan), however it also did not
anticipate the extension of a waterline to the WNC Justice Academy, nor to Pace
Road (to serve other development activity).
The Manufactured Home Park and Subdivision Ordinances require
connections to a public water system if a project is located within a certain
distance of an existing waterline.
Based on the distance from the existing waterline (approx. 1,250 ft), it
is possible that connection would be required.
The subject area is designated as AAgriculture@ on the future land use
map in the Land Use Plan. A
manufactured home park or subdivision would not necessarily conflict with this
designation.
A
couple of unknowns were mentioned.
Staff
recommended eliminating the requirement for tamper proof tops on hydrants. Tamper proof tops require a special hydrant
wrench not normally carried by County fire departments.
#2 Shamrock Crossing - Etowah
This
is a project to bring water to a piece of property located approximately 7
miles west of the Hendersonville Corporate Limits off U.S. Highway #64 West in
Etowah.
The
project requires approximately 4,750 lineal feet of water lines sized as
follows:
2" PVC,
SDR-21= 800 feet
6" PVC, C900, DR18 = 2,750 feet
8" DIP,
CL-350= 1,200 feet
Fire
protection will be provided via the installation of three fire hydrants located
inside the subdivision.
Water
pressure and flow in this area is as follows:
Static pressure
= 70 psi.
Residual = 25 psi.
Flow = 740 GPM
The
intended use of this property is residential with 40 single-family lots
proposed.
The
entire cost of the proposed water line extension is to be paid for by the
owner/developer, Shamrock Ventures, Inc.
Based
on the above information, the City Water Department can support the additional
connections and recommended approval of the project contingent upon approval of
the final plan and specifications from the Water and Sewer Department.
Staff
reminded the Board that a Development Plan has not been approved for Phase II
of the project and Sections 170-6 and 170-16C(4) of the Subdivision Ordinance
prohibit land disturbing, improvement or construction activity in conjunction
with development of a subdivision until a Development Plan has been
approved. They also recommended
eliminating the requirement for tamper proof tops on hydrants; County fire
departments do not normally carry the special wrench for tamper proof tops.
Plaque
Presentation by the American Cancer Society
During
its Relay for Life on June 8 and 9 of 2001, the American Cancer Society
presented Chairman Moyer with a plaque to thank the citizens of Henderson
County for their support. Chairman
Moyer asked that the plaque be presented to the full Board of Commissioners
during a meeting and local representatives of the American Cancer Society be
present at the meeting to do so.
Employee
Recognitions/Awards
Two
Cooperative Extension employees have recently received awards from the North
Carolina Association of County Agricultural Agents as follows:
Bill
Skelton - Awarded the Distinguished Service Award (State winner)
Marvin
Owings - Awarded the Communications Award (Video/TV State winner)
Trend
Resolution
The
Board of Commissioners was requested to approve a draft resolution for Trend
Community Health Services concerning their accreditation. A copy of the resolution is attached as a
part of these minutes.
NOMINATIONS
Nominations
Chairman
Moyer reminded the Board of the following vacancies and opened the floor to
nominations:
1.
Nursing/Adult Care Home Community
Advisory Committee - 1 vac.
Upon
questioning, Amy Brantley informed the Board that Elaine Seiden has resigned
her position on this Board. Her
resignation was not received in time to make it to ANotification of Vacancies@
for this meeting. The Board had also
received a letter from Barbara Sherman, wishing to serve on this Board. Commissioner Hawkins placed Ms. Sherman=s
name in nomination and made the motion to suspend the rules and appoint her to
position #12. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
2.
Mountain Area Workforce Development Board
- 2 vac.
Chairman
Moyer placed Wanda McFadden=s name in nomination as a Chamber of Commerce
recommendation for position #1 (a Chamber of Commerce position). Chairman Moyer called for a vote and the
vote was unanimous for Ms. McFadden.
3.
Equalization & Review - 3 vac.
There
were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
There
was some discussion of the Board accelerating their efforts in getting
nominations for this Board. It was
suggested that letters be written to the Board of Realtors, Banks, Car
Dealerships and the Chamber of Commerce soliciting some qualified persons with
appraisal experience for this committee.
Chairman
Moyer has asked Ms. Brantley to contact Cater Leland who serves as an alternate
to see if he would be interested in moving up to a regular position.
4.
Retired Senior Volunteer Program Advisory
Council - 1 vac.
There
were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
5.
Juvenile Crime Prevention Council - 3
vac.
Commissioner
Messer stated that the Board currently has four applications for service on
this Council. Chairman Moyer nominated
Christine Smith and Alice Allen.
Chairman Moyer made the motion to suspend the rules and appoint both
nominees to the Council to positions #19 and # 21 respectively. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
6.
Henderson County Zoning Board of
Adjustment - 1 vac.
There
were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next
meeting.
7.
Community Child Protection Team - 1 vac.
Chairman
Moyer nominated Ms. Savie Underhill to this position. Commissioner Ward made the motion to suspend the rules and
appoint Ms. Underhill. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
8.
Western Carolina Community Action (WCCA)
- 1 vac.
There
were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
QUARTERLY
REPORT - Property Addressing
Rocky
Hyder informed the Board that his staff anticipates completing this project by
the end of this year. Installation of
Arc View in the 911 dispatch center on one station will take place within the
next 2 weeks for testing purposes. They
have completed Rural Route 2, 3, and 7 in Fletcher. The residents on Rural Route 2 and 3 have been notified, just
over 1,600 residents. Rural Route 7 is
at the Western District Office in Charlotte at this time going through the
approval process before the residents are notified.
Mr.
Hyder informed the Board of the Post Office Procedures (a lengthy process) for
changing Rural Routes:
$
Address and resolve road names along the
Rural Route.
$
Send new addresses and roads to Charlotte
for approval by Western NC Postal District.
$
Approved changes are sent to California
for entry into postal system database.
$
Residents are notified by the California
office.
$
Approximate elapsed time for above: 30
days.
This
will insure that the residents are getting the proper service and that they
will not be caused to change addresses again.
Mr.
Hyder=s staff are currently working on attention areas, attempting to maintain
current addresses in all cases. He and
his staff take that job very seriously.
On Rural Route 2 they changed 270 of 513 street addresses or 53% and on
Rural Route 3 they changed 267 of 515 street addresses or 52%. This does not include the rural routes in
either case. These are existing street
addresses and most of the changes are due to the fact that the road name
changed in front of their house.
Mr.
Hyder explained that the contractor, 3DI, has a very good approach to this
project. They not only drive down the
road and work out the address range but they stop along the way and talk to
residents, taking time to explain to people why the change is necessary. His
staff is still learning as they go, building a foundation for the GIS system
and coming up with a usable product that will work well for everyone
involved. His staff have to range some
roads segment by segment to maintain some addresses and as they go they also do
structure location cleanup.
His
staff continue to receive requests for addresses across the county at an
average of 30 per week. They still have to address new developments for the
engineers at Bell South and other utilities and they maintain the street
database for Intraldo (formerly SCC), and rectify addressing problems with them
as well as continuously update and correct the centerline database.
Mr.
Hyder thanked the Board for their understanding and support of this project,
stating that completion of this project requires change. A common reaction to change is to resist
that change. They have received about
30 phone calls in their office due to the changes in Rural Route 2 and 3 alone,
equating that to 1,600 address is about 2% and that tells him that they are
doing a pretty good job. This project
has many more elements to it than just simply assigning a property
address. They feel that they are
building a foundation that the 911 system will work with now and in the future. They are also building a foundation for the
GIS system and the foundation is important enough to take the time to make sure
the foundation is of quality and sound advice.
Rocky
Hyder answered some questions from the Board.
Chairman
Moyer thanked Rocky and his staff for their work on this project and stressed
that the Board wanted to see this project completed this year, stating that if
there are any problems to please get back to the Board before the next quarter
so problems can be addressed quickly.
Rocky
Hyder stated that his staff all know the importance of finishing this project
by the end of this year and they plan to sit down with the contractor soon and
evaluate whether any additional staff is necessary to expedite this.
David
Nicholson again stated that he pledges whatever resources Mr. Hyder needs to
get this project complete, stating that this project has been hanging around
too long.
David
Nicholson introduced Mike Gibbs, who was in the audience. Mr. Gibbs was Captain at the Sheriff=s
Department in communications for a number of years. He is now with our contractor on the property addressing
project. He is the primary person on
the property addressing project in our county, he is very familiar with our
community. Having worked in
communications previously he realizes the issues with trying to locate
people.
Commissioner
Gordon expressed appreciation for the quarterly report, stating that it clearly
shows the amount of detail that it takes to get these addresses in place. She
stated the Board has to be patient and let staff work through the process and
she feels comfortable with what staff is doing and appreciates it.
Mr.
Hyder stated AIf it=s physically possible for us to accomplish this by the end
of the year, we will do that, thank you.@
Hospital
Revenue Bonds
Chairman
Moyer asked to move this item up in the agenda, as Bill Dunn has been patiently
waiting for this item.
Chairman
Moyer mentioned a letter from Bill Dunn to himself, which was a part of the
agenda packet. The letter was in
respect to an issue that has arisen regarding the Articles of Incorporation.
The County=s Bond Council has expressed concern as to the certainty of the
revenue bonds and their tax-exempt status.
This arises because of a term in Article 9 of the Hospital=s Articles
regarding what happens to the Corporation=s assets upon dissolution. There are two alternatives in the present
Articles which gave them some pause for concern. The Executive Committee for the Hospital Board has approved a modification
to the Articles that would apparently satisfy the concern that was raised by
the IRS. The members of the Hospital
Board of Directors have not been notified of this request, other thanby the
members of the Executive Committee which had a meeting last Friday. Mr. Dunn expects to ask the Board of
Directors for the Hospital Corporation to approve the amendment at the meeting
which was scheduled for the afternoon of July 25.
Once
this amendment is approved and filed with the appropriate authority in Raleigh,
the hospital=s tax counsel will seek to obtain an expedited private letter
ruling pertaining to the hospital corporation=s tax status. They have been informed that this will
likely be forthcoming before the bond application is considered by the Local
Government Commission (LGC) in September.
This process and the timing are acceptable to the county=s bond counsel
and will enable the county and the hospital to move forward with the bond issue
on the timetable which has been established.
The
Executive Committee of the Hospital has asked the Board to approve an amendment
to Article 9 of the Articles of Amendment which basically say that the trustees
shall transfer, deliver, and convey all of the corporation=s monies,
properties, and other assets to the County of Henderson or a governmental
entity described under section 115 of the Code created by the County of
Henderson for exclusively public purposes.
Chairman
Moyer explained that this eliminates the option which said they could be
transferred to a successor corporation at the discretion of the hospital. He
felt this amendment would give the county better protection than we had before
upon any kind of dissolution. There is
a need to get this cleared up quickly so the hospital can get a clean opinion
with respect to the tax-exempt status of the bonds.
Chairman
Moyer made the motion that the Board approve the AResolution Approving
Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation of Henderson County Hospital
Corporation@ as set forth at this meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Chairman
Moyer stated that this issue actually arises from the set of June 14 minutes
which the Board approved earlier today.
When the Board had the presentation on June 14, comment was made by the
folks from BB&T and was picked up in the minutes that their choice was to
probably go with a variable rate for the reasons mentioned but then there was
discussion about the ability to fix a portion of that debt service. This led the Board to believe that was an
option that was cast in stone. The June 14 minutes clearly state APardee can
fix a portion of this if they wish.@
Chairman Moyer stated that the reality of the situation is that this is
an option, a possible option. There is
no guarantee that the hospital will get the permission to do this or that they
may even want to do it at a later date. He stated that this deal must be looked
at as a variable rate with a possibility, if the hospital elects and LGC clears
it and all the legal issues are worked out, a possibility to fix a portion of
the debt service in the future but there is no guarantee or assurance of that.
Update
from County Manager on LGC meeting
Mr.
Nicholson stated that he met Monday in Raleigh with the staff of the Local
Government Commission (LGC). Mr. Dunn,
Chairman of the Hospital Board, was at that meeting as was the hospital=s
attorney Sharon Alexander, Mr. Nicholson and Jennifer Jackson. At the end of the day they all came away
with the understanding that this is a county building. There may be some additional lease issues to
be dealt with regarding this. The
Commissioners have the ultimate authority to refund those bonds and issue fixed
rate bonds if they wish. He told the
Board that they could expect to see a lot of this hospital bond issue over the
next two months of meetings.
Bill
Dunn expressed that he too thought the meeting on Monday went very well. Mark Hyde, the representative from LGC, seemed very receptive to what Henderson
County wanted to do and very receptive to moving it along as quickly as
possible.
Commissioner
Hawkins stated that the bottom line of this issue is that we get to borrow
whatever the LGC says we can.
Eventually the LGC will give us some options and the Board will have to
choose from those.
INFORMAL
PUBLIC COMMENTS
1.
Robert Wilson - Mr. Wilson had attended the July 2
Commissioners= meeting and had brought a letter with him concerning a public
safety issue on Hwy. #25 North. He did
not get to the July 2 meeting in time to be recognized and speak under AInformal
Public Comments@ so he gave the Clerk to the Board a copy of his letter and
asked her to give a copy to each Commissioner, stating he would be at this
meeting to address his letter. Mr. Wilson is a Grimesdale resident.
Mr.
Wilson spoke about the asphalt plant being built on Hwy. #25 North and the mess
from the plant and the traffic that it would create along that stretch of
road. He asked the Board to request NC
DOT to erect three signs along that road approaching the asphalt plant from
each direction:
1.
AAsphalt Plant Ahead@
2.
ALoose Gravel Ahead@
3.
and a flashing sign reading ATrucks
Entering Highway@.
He
stated that the public needs to be forewarned of these hazardous
conditions.
Chairman
Moyer explained that the Board has a Transportation Advisory Committee which
has a Safety Subcommittee which looks at issues like this. He has referred Mr. Wilson=s letter to that
subcommittee for action. The
subcommittee has a number of such requests but will be taking a look at it in
due time.
UPDATE
REGARDING PROPOSED ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF MACEDONIA CHURCH ROAD
Bobby
Jones and L.D. Pace, Deacons of Macedonia Baptist Church, recently submitted a
petition requesting that the Henderson County Board of Commissioners request
the North Carolina Board of Transportation to abandon from the secondary road
system a portion of Macedonia Church Road (SR #1835), which is located north of
Saluda. A public input session
regarding the petition was held on Monday, July 2, 2001. Following the public input session the Board
tabled the petition until a number of issues could be resolved.
David
Nicholson reminded the Board that at
the Board of Commissioners= meeting on Monday, July 2, 2001, the Commissioners
addressed the matter of the proposed abandonment of the southernmost 365 feet
of the State-maintained portion of Macedonia Church Road, which was requested
by the Deacons of Macedonia Baptist Church.
Following public input and discussion among the Commissioners, it was determined
that there are a number of issues that must be addressed by Staff, the
Petitioners and adjacent owners before the Commissioners could make a
recommendation on the matter.
The
issues and their current resolution status follow:
1.
Have all adjacent landowners been notified of the proposed abandonment, and
what are their positions?
All
landowners potentially affected by the proposed abandonment as requested by the
Petitioners were contacted via mail prior to the public input session on
Monday, July 2, 2001. While such
landowners were not informed that an additional 210 feet (suggested by NC DOT
and Planning Staff) would be considered, adding 210 feet to the proposed
abandonment would impact on Mr. Douglas Marshall, who attended the input
session. Following the public input
session, Staff has worked to reach via telephone those landowners who did not
respond to the initial communication, and who did not submit comments at the
public input session. To date, Staff
had not heard from any other landowners.
2.
What concerns have Sheriff George Erwin and EMS Director Thomas Edmundson
regarding the proposed abandonment?
In
a telephone interview on Tuesday, July 17, 2001, EMS Director Thomas Edmundson
stated that while he A...generally opposes the abandonment of any road, but [he
has] absolutely no objections to this abandonment because it poses absolutely
no public safety or emergency vehicle concerns whatsoever.@ Sheriff Erwin has not yet responded to
follow-up inquiries.
3.
What implications would the proposed abandonment have upon Mr. Ronald Beach=s
access to his property, which is adjacent to Macedonia Baptist Church and which
is accessed via Macedonia Church Road?
At
the Monday, July 2, 2001 meeting, the Commissioners suggested that the
Macedonia Baptist Church take the leadership in developing a document that
would set forth an agreement among the parties with regard to this issue. Staff met with Mr. Beach, Mr. Marshall and
Deacon Bentley Thomas in the hallway following the public input session and
discussed this issue and the one that follows.
Based on that meeting and telephone conversations that have followed, it
was Staff=s understanding that such an agreement is currently being developed,
but does not exist at this time. Staff
had scheduled a meeting with the church Deacons, Mr. Beach and Mr. Marshall for
Thursday, July 19, 2001 to facilitate the Commissioners= information at such
time as one is finalized.
4.
What action should be taken upon the suggestion that an additional 210 feet be
recommended for abandonment, and what effect would this have on Mr. Doug
Marshall=s property, which is adjacent to Macedonia Baptist Church and which is
accessed via Macedonia Church road?
When
Staff, the Petitioners, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Beach met in the hallway
immediately following the July 2, 2001 public input session, the Petitioners
stated that abandonment of this additional area would not serve their interests
in any way, and Mr. Marshall expressly requested that it not be abandoned. Staff will encourage both parties to
communicate their respective positions to the Commissioners in writing. Therefore, it was Staff=s position that this
additional 210 feet be dropped from consideration for abandonment altogether,
and that the Board of Commissioners consider only the original petition for
abandonment (southernmost 365 feet of the State-maintained portion of Macedonia
Church Road).
5.
Finally, the Commissioners sought further consideration of the question as to
whether or not it is in the good of the community to abandon the portion of
Macedonia Church Road as proposed by the Petitioners.
The
purpose of the proposed abandonment is to avoid the grading and paving, by NC
DOT, of the majority of the area into which Macedonia Baptist Church plans to
expand its cemetery. It is the position
of the Planning Department Staff that, pending resolution of the aforementioned
access issues, the proposed abandonment should in no way harm the good of the
community. Rather, Staff feels that the
proposed abandonment will in fact be of benefit to the community. Churches and their cemeteries are an
important spiritual, social, cultural and historical element of life in
Henderson County. Church cemeteries in
particular provide an important cultural and historical link between Henderson
County=s past, present and future, and offer a point of geographic continuity
in a time when families and communities are increasingly spatially
fragmented. The proposed abandonment
would protect the Church=s ability to expand its cemetery, thereby insuring
that the community and families that utilize Macedonia Baptist Church and its
cemetery can continue to utilize that property as a gathering place both in
life and in death.
Staff
will keep the Board of Commissioners informed as this matter continues to
evolve. Staff suggested that the
Commissioners continue to withhold a recommendation on the proposed abandonment
until such time as the remaining issues and concerns can be resolved to the
Board=s satisfaction, including the presentation of a document clarifying the
access to Mr. Beach=s property.
Mr.
Nicholson recommended that the Board of Commissioners wait to make a
recommendation to the North Carolina Board of Transportation on the proposed
abandonment of a portion of Macedonia Church Road until the Board of
Commissioners is satisfied that the issues have been resolved and that the
Board of Commissioners directed staff to bring the matter back when it is ready
for action.
Planner
Josh Freeman had spoken to the Sheriff who said there were no concerns from his
standpoint.
No
action was requested, this was just an update for the Board.
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 is also the time to ask for direction so that the Board can develop a
public position on current and upcoming topics.
This
will also be an opportunity for Commissioners to report on related committee
work and assignments.
The
topics for discussion at this meeting are as follows:
State
Reimbursements
Based
on accounting rules and the opinion of Mr. Greg Allison with the Institute of
Government, the release of the Inventory Tax Reimbursement held by the Governor
would be considered a Fiscal Year 2002 budgetary event. Therefore, this revenue is considered
available for appropriation in the current fiscal year. Since the State=s budget is on a cash basis
and its Fiscal Year 2001 Budget was completed on June 30th, this
additional revenue would not be recorded as a receivable on the County=s books
at June 30, 2001.
Mr.
Nicholson informed the Board that we have received the $608,660 that was due
Henderson County from the loss of inventory reimbursements from this past
April. This was part of the attempt of
the State of North Carolina to balance their budget this year. Mr. Nicholson stated that to keep last
year=s budget in balance, they actually didn=t pay the reimbursements out of
last year=s State Budget. They paid
them out of this year=s budget. They
are on an interim budget process in Raleigh until they finally adopt the
budget. The $93 million from across the
entire state, that deficit will show from last year=s state budget to this year=s
state budget which increases the amount of revenues that are available. Based on the information Carey McLelland has
received from the Local Government Commission as well as the Institute of
Government, these funds are actually Fiscal Year 2001-2002 revenue. He reminded the Board that the House and the
Senate have both passed a budget, both of which included our reimbursements,
however last week when the budget conferees met for the first time to start
working on trying to put the budget together they were told they were an
additional $176 million in the hole, over and above their original
request. The idea was discussed of
taking the reimbursements out with a 2 cent sales tax and the Board may wish to
take a position on that issue.
Mr.
Nicholson stated that the latest Legislative Bulletin from the County Commissioners=
Association has the headlines AWindow of Opportunity Closing@ and that=s on the
2 cent sales tax.
Mr.
Nicholson posed to the Board that they start the process of looking at the
animal shelter. That was a discussion
the Board had during the budget process, some monies were put aside toward the
building of a new animal shelter. He
asked the Board=s approval to start the engineering and architectural
work. He would like to start
discussions for some consulting assistance.
Mr. Tweed has been running that project and working with the staff at
the Health Department and the Animal Shelter.
Commissioner Hawkins felt that we shouldn=t act until the State adopts
their budget.
Chairman
Moyer asked the County Manager to get some preliminary data for the Board on
building of a new animal shelter, funds needed, etc. He also felt the Board should have a good discussion of the
reimbursements and the 2 cent sales tax, a public discussion and take a
position as a Board. He asked the County Manager to have these two topics ready
for the August 6 meeting.
Hospital
Revenue Bonds
As
discussed above. This item had been
moved out of sequence.
NACo
Conference
Three
of our Commissioners attended the NACo Conference in Philadelphia and were
given an opportunity to update the Board regarding that conference.
Commissioner
Hawkins stated that it was quite educational to go to Philadelphia, the Cradle
of Freedom and see some of the historic sites there. He brought back some information regarding a couple of sessions
he attended and had supplied some of the information in the agenda packet. He discussed briefly ADebt Collection@ and a
NACo sponsored collection program from a company called Lockheed Martin. This is a company that has been contracted
by NACo to deal specifically in collecting governmental debts. A couple of areas he found to be
particularly interesting dealt with child support, court fines, and emergency
medical services, library fees, tax collection and hospital fees. Property tax is an on-going debt collection
program. What they offer to counties
is a program of no up-front expense and a percentage of whatever bad debt they
collect.
Our
Tax Collector=s Office has contracted with an independent firm to try to locate
people who owe taxes.
Commissioner
Hawkins requested that the County Manager research this and bring back a
recommendation to the Board.
Break
Chairman
Moyer called a 10 minute technical recess at 10:50 a.m.
Chairman
Moyer reconvened the meeting at 11:00 a.m.
QUASI-JUDICIAL
PUBLIC HEARING - Application for a Special Use Permit for a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) for Highland Golf Villas
Application
#SP-01-03 by Glade Holdings, Inc.
Commissioner
Ward made the motion for the Board to go into the Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing
(as above). All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Chairman
Moyer stated that this is an application for a special use permit for a planned
unit development for Highland Golf Villas.
It is a quasi-judicial proceeding and is much like a court proceeding.
Chairman Moyer explained AWe will have testimony
by the applicant petitioner and any other party that has an interest in this
can ask to become a party. Only people
that have an interest in this will be recognized as a party. So first we=ll identify all parties to the
proceeding and the Board acknowledges the petitioner, Mr. Campano ... and
Luther Smith. Are there any other
persons present who can demonstrate that they will be affected by the
outcome and would like to be a party to this proceeding?@
Karen C. Smith, Planning Director asked to be a
party to the proceeding as county staff.
L.C. James Kingsberry, owns property adjacent to
the golf course, just across the creek from the fourth green. He asked to be a party to the proceeding. He lives at 319 Mockingbird Drive.
Kerry Lindsey, adjoining property owner, asked
to be a party to the proceeding.
All parties to the proceeding came forward and
were sworn in by the Clerk to the Board (above five parties listed).
Chairman Moyer asked Karen Smith to begin with
staff=s overview of the project.
Karen
Smith - AGood morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. Today=s hearing is on Highland Golf Villas
Planned Unit Development. The project
is proposed for property located on the north side of Highland Lake Road
between the Northfolk Southern Railroad Line and Highland Lake Golf Club. The subject property contains approximately
20.31 acres and is comprised of parcels owned by Course Doctors Incorporated,
Split Rail Investments, and Home & Golf Builders, L.L.C. which all together
those properties encompass approx. 81 acres.
The property is currently zoned R-20 by the county, on the monitor right
now. The large blue area in the center
of the light blue is the R-20 district and this property would be along the
railroad line on the east - let me try to point that out on the monitor. The planned unit development as proposed
consists of 44 single family dwellings, detached units on individual lots and
the lots are approximately 6,000 square feet in size. The applicant is using a zero lot line or >patio home= concept
for the development. There will be
approx. 13.47 acres of open space provided.
This open space does include roadways.
A private road will serve the project.
The project will also be served by public water and public sewer from
the City of Hendersonville systems. The
Board of Commissioners referred this application to the Planning Board on June
4, 2001 for review and the Planning Board met on June 26, 2001 and voted to
send the Board of Commissioners a favorable recommendation which I=ll present
later as evidence. The Planning Staff
followed the procedures for public notice for this hearing. We published legal ads in the Times News on
July 10 and July 17, 2001. We sent
notices of the hearing via certified mail to the applicant, the owners of the
subject properties, the owners of adjacent properties and then also to several
other owners in the vicinity. We also posted the property with signs
advertising the hearing on July 10, 2001 and as I said I will raise the
Planning Board comments a little later.
And I am gonna give Mr. Kingsberry and Mr. Lindsey a copy of this packet
that you have for reference.@
Chairman
Moyer - AThank you, Karen, we will now - the way this will work in the
quasi-judicial we will now receive evidence starting with the petitioner, then
we=ll go to staff as Karen indicated where she=ll put additional evidence on
the record and then we=ll go to the additional parties, in this case Mr.
Kingsberry, to put any evidence on that he would like to present. After the petitioner, staff and Mr.
Kingsberry in each case gives their evidence the other parties - first the
Board then the other parties have the right to ask them questions. That=s not the time to make statements, that=s
only the time to ask questions of the other party with respect to things they=ve
said. When you give your evidence that=s
the time to make your statements and your arguments with respect to the
issues. We will start with the
petitioner and that=s Mr. Campano from Glade Holdings and Luther Smith, their
agent. So who=s gonna start, Gus or
Luther?@
Luther
Smith - AMy name is Luther Smith, I=m a landscape architect and planner here in
Hendersonville and we represent Glade Holdings and Development of Highland Golf
Villas. If I could instead of the
blueprint@ C he placed a Master Plan on
the easel for the Board to see. AWhat the applicant has requested is a planned
unit development or special use permit for a planned unit development on
approximately 20.3 acres. This land is
a portion, as Karen indicated, of approximately 80 acres that is currently
known as Highland Lake Golf Club. For
those of you that are familiar with the area, you=re coming from 176/Upward
Road intersection down this way, crossing the railroad tracts and the entrance
to the golf club there is right as you cross the tracts. A wooded area as you can see to the north of
the golf course, bounded by the golf course and the railroad tracks is the
proposed development area. We=re requesting
approval for 44 single family lots, approximately 6,000 square feet, zero lot
line concept and that allows us to leave about 13 acres of the property or
roughly 55 or 60% as undisturbed open area.
You can see by the plan that the, of course all the lots are pushed
towards the golf course to take advantage of the golf course view. The first tier of lots against the golf
course are for the most part low and relatively flat. The second tier - there are several, two or three ridges that go
up towards the railroad track so in order for those homes to be able to view
the golf course what we=ve done in terms of - or what we=re proposing in terms
of parking - you see a second street that sorta parallels the main street, that=s
an alley. So cars will be able to come
up there, park in their garages from the back side basically of the house so
when you come out the living space still looks out over the golf course. The main road is set up as a collector road
under the county=s subdivision ordinance, the alley is set up to be about 16
feet wide and it does have, of course, emergency turn-arounds at the end. The project will be served by city water and
city sewer and the blow up that you see in the upper part of the drawing - when
we were talking to the Planning Board there was some question about our request
for set backs - the lots. We=re
requesting two foot on the front, two foot on the rears, zero on one side, and
ten foot on the other side. That
allows, as you can see in the little blow up there, for the units to be pushed
all the way to one side and have a yard space to the other side that=s a
minimum of ten feet in width. These
units represent what would occur on the downhill side of the street so the
garages do come off the main street whereas off the alley you can see all the
garages coming from the back of the unit.
The other thing in addition to the parking that=s associated with the
garages and the driveways, along the main road we=ve allowed for on-street
parking as well, parallel on-street parking for guests and so forth. One of the questions that again was of
interest to the Planning Board and that we began to address early on with the
Department of Transportation is the entrance.
I know if any of you are real familiar with the area you know that the
existing entrance is a little difficult, particularly as you come across the
tracks, it sorta drops off to the right.
I was out there again this morning as a matter of fact with Ed Green,
D.O.T., looking at exactly what we need to do to get good visibility so - of
the entire entrance. What is planned at
this point is we=re going to split the entrance so that you have an incoming
lane or inbound lane close to the railroad in approximately the same area that
the existing road is except the grade will be brought up level with the - with
Highland Lake Road and then tapered down so you won=t have that drop-off and
then further down towards the #1 tee as you start around the curve, there=s a
clump of large trees there, the exit lane will come between those large oak
trees in the road. That gives us fairly
good visibility. One of the other
issues that they suggested we try to address is how to cut down the sumac and
stuff that=s growing up on the railroad track way on the other side to
obviously increase the visibility but they feel that at this point until we get
the working drawings that this particular entrance layout will create a much
better situation than what we currently have there. I=ll be happy to answer any specific questions members of the
Board have. Mr. Campano is here as well
and he can address any particular questions you may have.@
Chairman
Moyer - AMr. Hawkins@
Commissioner
Hawkins - AI had just a couple as I was trying to go through all your paperwork
here. The first one was I had a
difficulty determining what lot 44 looked like. It looked like it kinda got chopped off on the end down in - what
does that look like and does it meet the 6,000.@
Luther
Smith - AIt meets the 6,000 square feet.
The line that=s the back of lot 44 - you can also see lot 28 I guess it
is also kinda cut off - that=s railroad right-of-way coming through there. So we don=t want to extend ... into their
right-of-way. Yes that lot does meet
the 6,000 square feet - it goes into this wooded area up near the creek. It will take in a little - I mean - they
have several different kinds of house plans for different lots and it may take
a little variation on one plan to get it to work on that particular lot but.@
Commissioner
Hawkins - AThe other question I had dealt with really your entrance over the
railroad track and I know we have a lot of trouble with - not trouble but a lot
of conversation with the railroad in the Naples area for crossing. Is there a plan to be lights, signals, what
is going to occur there? Is it just
everybody will come across the railroad track or?@
Luther
Smith - AWell now, we don=t - our entrance doesn=t actually cross the railroad
track.@
Commissioner
Hawkins - AIt doesn=t actually cross it?@
Luther
Smith - ANo, the railroad track is coming along here as you come from the
Spartanburg Highway you cross the railroad track and right as you cross it the
entrance to the golf course and this development would be on your right.@
Commissioner
Hawkins - ASo that would be just right on the top of the hill there where
Highland Lake crosses the railroad track.@
Luther
Smith - ARight@
Commissioner
Hawkins - AAnd, then you won=t be crossing it any at all?@
Luther
Smith - AWe won=t be crossing the tracks or modifying that area at all.@
Commissioner
Hawkins - AThank you.@
Commissioner
Messer - AYou have approximately 13 2
acres of open space that=s pretty much around the proposed
development. Is this open space going
to be public access? Is it going to be
walking trails or is it gonna be - you know how=s it gonna be pertaining to
these people living in here.@
Luther
Smith - ANow Mr. Campano will be able to address that in more detail but
generally I can say it probably won=t be for public access if you mean the
general public. It will be available to
the people that live here, live in the development. Generally, their developments do include some trail systems and
so forth through the property. In
addition to the perimeter, we=ve tried to break the lots up into some groups so
that you have little park areas, you know, between blocks of lots as well. In terms of specific amenities, I don=t
believe there are any planned at this point simply because it=s in association
with the golf course amenity. I think
they have some long-term plans but Mr. Campano can answer that probably in a
little more detail.@
Commissioner
Hawkins - AI had one other question.@
Commissioner
Messer - AWhat kind of a, I guess ballpark price range are these, is this
development going to be?@
Luther
Smith - AI=ll defer that because ...@
Chairman
Moyer - AMr. Hawkins@
Commissioner
Hawkins - AAnd I, Luther you may have this or someone else but I went through
here and I tried to find out just because of our recent experiences with PUDs
on the parameters that were set up for transferring common areas to
Homeowners. I was unclear when I
finished here. Is somebody going to
cover that or can you cover it as to how that or what that lashup is.@
Luther
Smith - AWell I believe the draft of the homeowners documents cover that but
again I=d defer that to Mr. Campano.@
Commissioner
Hawkins - AIf he would cover that, I read through them and I wasn=t sure when I
finished reading them what I had read.@
Luther
Smith - AGenerally they are transferred towards the end of the project but I=m
sure he can address that in more detail.
Commissioner
Hawkins - AOK@
Chairman
Moyer - AAre there any of the charts that=s you=ve used that are now part of
the record that have not be made available to everybody else. Is this part of the - these are different
than the package?@
Luther
Smith - ANo these are the same - this one the blow up you have in your package,
the 11" x 17" and I believe you have an 11" x 17" of the
blow up of@
Chairman
Moyer - AAlright, so they=re the same.
There=s no change in them.@
Luther
Smith - AYes, and this one should have been a part of the information.@
Chairman
Moyer - ASo the road entrance as shown there is what we have?@
Luther
Smith - AYes, we sent a package over a week or two ago that had additional
plans in it that represent these three plans.@
Chairman
Moyer - AAlright, Mr. Kingsberry or Mr. Lindsey, do you have any questions for
Mr. Smith? Come up and direct your
questions to Mr. Smith.@
Mr.
Kingsberry - AI had a couple of questions.
I noticed in your project conditions you state that there=s no set back
on the side of the house. Does this
mean that if I own a house here and I have windows on that side, I have to
stand on my neighbor=s property to wash my windows or do any service on that
side of the house, number one question.
Number two question, I notice in your open space you=ve included land
that goes to the center of the railroad tracks. Does your company own that land?
Do you have rights to the land?
And do you consider it safe for people to use that as open space? Those are the first two questions that I
have.@
Luther
Smith - AI=ll try to address those.
With regards to the house, the side of the house that sits on the
property line doesn=t have any windows in it at all. That=s part of the building code requirements that it has to be
without windows because it is right on the property line.@
Mr.
Kingsberry - ABut it still requires painting and service, correct.@
Luther
Smith - AThat=s correct and they generally and Mr. Campano can probably address
this specifically in the documents but generally there=s an easement that you
have the right to maintain your house and that sort of stuff on that lot.@
Mr.
Kingsberry - AWill that be written in every contract?@
Luther
Smith - AWell, I=ll let you defer your question to him when he comes up. With regard to your question on the open
space. The property goes to the center
of the railroad track and the way the county zoning ordinance looks at open
space its basically land that=s not sold to somebody is considered open
space. No the center of the railroad
track is probably not going to be a good walking - you know walking path and
place for people but it is part of the general open space of the property that
homes are not being built on. Any other questions?@
Chairman
Moyer - AMr. Lindsey, do you have any questions at this time?@
Mr.
Lindsey - ANo thank you.
Chairman
Moyer - AAny other questions from any of the Board, if not we=ll hear from Mr.
Campano.@
Luther
Smith - AThank you@
Mr.
Campano - AHello, thank you, I=m Gus Campano, President of Glade Holdings and I=m
not going to - I think Luther did a good job of explaining it so I=m not going
to repeat any of it. What I=m going to
do is just kinda sum up what some of the - try to answer some of the questions
that came up. A common area, we do
allow - the way this property is situated you actually have golf course around
all the sides except where the railroad track is at and then at the entrance so
all the common areas are accessible to everybody in the community. They are not public areas but they are
accessible to the entire community. The
common areas as far as it being turned over, we do deed the property, all the
common areas over to the homeowners association. There is a legal homeowners association that is set up similar to
our other communities and at a certain number of sales the entire property does
get deeded over the common areas and is owned by the homeowners association so
it=s not a case where the developer - you know- tries to keep it and deals with
lease holds or anything else of the sort.
It=s owned by them, they will take care of it, they have the access to
it. They=ll actually put together their
own rules and regulations as to how it=s used.
And to give you a feel for the pricing, it=s gonna be a price similar to
Duncraggon, if you=re familiar with one of our other projects. They=ll generally start off in the $120s and
the standard units will go from the $120s into the low $150s and then basically
options and upgrades will vary a little bit obviously and depending on the
location, golf frontage and views, and everything else. But that=s the general price range of the
standard homes out there. Regarding the
windows on the sides of the house.
Again it=s zero lot line concept, it=s not a new concept, it=s been in
use for a couple of decades now in a lot of other communities and has been in
use in Hendersonville and Henderson County quite a bit as well. We have several other projects with it and
it functions very well. You do have a -
property on the zero lot line side is a solid wall. You have windows on the other house opening to it so that you do
have privacy between the units to a very large degree despite the small lot
concept. There are easements which are
put in place, they are part of the association documents and they are part of
the deed that goes over as refers to them that gives access in maintenance and
drainage easement for the house next door to be able to maintain their unit and
to have drainage on that side and everything else. So it=s all covered in the legalities of it again. It=s a very tested and proven concept and
then regarding the land. Yes we do own
to the center of the tract, obviously it=s included in that area. No we don=t expect to put anything on the
center of the tract but we do own to that property line and the common area
nonetheless I think with or without it is we have an extensive amount of common
area that were included with this concept.
One of the nice things about this small lot concept that we have used is
that you are able to preserve a lot of green open common area and in fact - you
know- this property does follow through with that. If you=ve got any other questions for me?@
Chairman
Moyer - AJust stay there for a minute. Does the Board have questions for Mr. Campano? Mr. Kingsberry, do
you have any questions? Mr. Lindsey, do
you have any questions for Mr. Campano at this time? We can always address something later if something comes up. Thank you Mr. Campano.@
Mr.
Campano - AThank you.@
Chairman
Moyer - AWe=ll now move to staff=s presentation of their evidence.@
Karen
Smith distributed copies of the Planning Board=s recommendation from it=s June
26, 2001 meeting. Karen Smith - AWhile
this seems like it=s a long list of conditions that are being proposed, a lot
of these are very standard conditions that would be in our subdivision . . .
ordinance. The Planning Board met on
June 26, 2001 as I said and reviewed the plans for Highland Golf Villas and
heard from myself as well as the representatives of the applicants and voted
eight to zero to send the Board of Commissioners a favorable recommendation
subject to certain recommended conditions.
What I was going to do is just read you what the proposed condition is -
below each of those stated conditions is some additional information that may
have explained why the Planning Board got to that point or that refers to some
information that was included in the application materials. Attached to this document is a set of minutes
and they are draft minutes because the Planning Board meeting isn=t until next
Tuesday so I have included the draft set of minutes with the memo that the
Planning Board had in hand, if you need to refer to that.
The
first recommended condition has to do with ownership - The Planning Board
recommends that the subject parcel should be under single ownership or
management by the applicant before project construction begins or proper
assurances such as legal title or execution of a binding sales agreement should
be provided to the Henderson County Planning Department that the developer can
successfully complete the project. And
this is a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance.@
The
second condition has to do with density - There was a question about the preliminary
survey that was included with the
application materials and the amount of acreage shown for the project compared
to other application materials. The
application requests 44 units and depending on which materials you=re looking
at it could be 43 or 44. The applicant
has asked that we allow this to await a final survey of the property and so the
Planning Board recommended a maximum number of units allowed 43 or 44 be based on the acreage of the
property as determined by final survey.
The
next condition has to do with the distance between buildings - The Planning
Board recommended that the minimum separation between buildings be reduced to
ten feet as long as the construction of adjacent walls conforms with the N.C.
Building Codes and that the area between buildings remains open and
unobstructed. This is also a condition
that the developer requested and the ordinance gives the Planning Board the
authority to recommend that it be reduced to ten feet.
Condition
number four has to do with perimeter requirements - The Planning Board
recommended that all residential units, accessory structures and property
owners association primary amenity and service structures be no closer than
twenty feet from the outside boundary of the property. In addition, all structures shall meet the
thirty foot setback from . . . streams required by the subdivision ordinance.
Fifth
is a standard condition that the applicant submit documentation regarding water
and sewer systems, that they have been designed by a professional engineer and
that such systems have been approved by the appropriate local and state
authorities.
Parking
is also something the Planning Board raised and I think this comes up in
another condition a little later - if there is going to be a temporary sales
office and or a temporary construction office built, sufficient parking in
accordance with section 200-40 of the Zoning Ordinance would need to be
provided and the same would apply for any future structures for recreation,
they would have to also comply with section 200-40 and I believe at the
Planning Board level the applicant did indicate that they would like to do a temporary sales office and a construction
office.
The
entrance/exit should be designed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning
Board and explained by Luther Smith at the June 26, 2001 Planning Board
meeting. That is the same plan that Mr.
Smith presented to you a few moments ago, the blow-up of the entrance.
Regarding
maintenance - and this is right out of the Zoning Ordinance - the County
Attorney or Assistant County Attorney must approve the Declaration of Covenants
and Restrictions for Highland Golf Villas, the Articles of Incorporation of
Highland Golf Villas and Homeowners Association Inc. and the By-laws of
Highland Golf Villas Homeowners Association as to form and the Board of
Commissioners also under the Zoning Ordinance has to approve those same
documents. You did have those included
in your packet.
Number
nine is emergency services - The HUD section of the Zoning Ordinance requires
that the applicant provide documentation from Henderson County Emergency
Medical Services Department and the Fire Chief of Blue Ridge Fire and Rescue
regarding the adequacy of the proposed facilities for emergency medical and
fire services.
Pertaining
to erosion control - The applicant must submit documentation of approval of the
erosion control plans for the project.
Number
eleven is listed as a condition but it was really something that the Planning
Board had authority over because this project was also reviewed as a
subdivision before the Planning Board on June 26 and the condition is that as a
planned unit development the project shall be reviewed as a non-standard
subdivision.
Number
twelve has to do with the setbacks and those are the setbacks that were
requested by the applicant and so the Planning Board recommends that the
setbacks for the project be established at 27 feet from the center of the
right-of-way for front, 2 feet for the rear, 10 feet for the side and zero feet
for the side.
The
applicant did request the ability to construct model homes and the Planning
Board discussed this issue with the applicant in order to learn what different
types of homes - the applicant wanted to do six and the Planning Board asked
them to confirm that there would be six different styles. The applicant said that there would be so
the Planning Board recommended a condition that construction of up to six
different model homes is allowed on unplatted lots concurrent with the
development of project infrastructure provided that the applicant informs the
Planning Department of the locations of the model homes, demonstrates that the
infrastructure to serve each model has been completed or bonded in accordance
with the plans for the special use permit, and obtains zoning permits for each
model from the Zoning Administrator prior to obtaining building permits for the
units.
Number
fourteen regarding a sales office and number fifteen regarding a construction
office are very similar to number thirteen.
Applicant requested the ability to do a sales office and the Planning
Board recommended that a sales office be allowed until 95% of all units in the
project have been sold and again provided that we know where the location is
and that they get their zoning permit and that they provide temporary parking
spaces for such sales office.
Construction
office - again if the applicant intends to do a temporary construction office
the Planning Board recommended that be allowed again for the same conditions
that the Planning Department be notified of the location and that they obtain
zoning permits and they provide necessary temporary parking.
And
the final condition recommended by the Planning Board has to do with
recreational structures and I think that this is something that Mr. Smith kind
of addressed a moment ago that they don=t necessarily know if they=re going to
do any specific recreational amenities but if they do plan such amenities the
Planning Board recommended that the location and construction of the structures
to be owned by the Property Owners Association be approved by the Planning
Department, provided the applicant notifies us of the location of the
structures and obtains the appropriate zoning permits.
Staff
did just have a few additional comments to add to that - the Planning Board did
not indicate and I failed to ask them to indicate a timeframe for when some of
these conditions should be satisfied and we have or I have provided you with a
suggested condition if you would like to consider it that they satisfy the
conditions on: 1. ownership,
2.
density requirements
9. emergency services, and
10. erosion control
prior
to beginning construction of the project and that any improvements related to
the project before they construct and shall satisfy conditions:
5.
water and sewer plans and
8.
maintenance
prior
to recording the final plats for lots in the project.
And
some of these relate to their subdivision approval and when they would be
allowed to record a final plat anyway but this basically ties the sets of plans
together. And finally, this is just a reminder as a result of the amendments to
the Zoning Ordinance that were adopted on May 16, 2001 related to Open Use,
there were some additional general site standards added to the special use
permit review, they=re in your packet on those green pages but I just wanted to
make sure that you were aware of them because your order will have to address
those. And finally, I would just add
that if - while there seem to be a number of outstanding issues the applicant
should be able to satisfy most of these through their subdivision application
as well for their special use permit.
Any
questions of me?@
Chairman
Moyer - AIn the staff comment # 1- the timeframes, have you discussed those
with the petitioner. Are they
satisfactory?@
Karen
Smith - AI have not, I have not discussed.
This is the first time - I=m presenting them as evidence so. That would be something that the applicant
would agree to them or . . . A
Chairman
Moyer - AWell, I=ll say to the petitioner we=ll be asking or I=ll be asking you
to respond to those in a few moments.
Do we have any additional comments for Karen?@
Angela
Beeker - AKaren, on your review of the application, except as stated in this
memo, does the application meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance?@
Karen
Smith - AI believe it does, yes.@
Chairman
Moyer - ADoes the petitioner have any questions for staff at this time?@
Petitioner
- Indicated that they did not.
Chairman
Moyer - AMr. Kingsberry, do you have any questions for staff?@
Mr.
Kingsberry - AYes. I guess the only
other concern I have, has anybody done an impact study about the traffic on
Highland Lake Road. I understand there=s
been talk of widening it because of excess traffic already and now we=re adding
44 more families in this area. Has
there been any kind of impact study concerning the use of that road?@
Chairman
Moyer - AI=ll let Karen respond and then I=ll respond.@
Karen
Smith - AThe Planning Department has not done any impact study. We do ask the NC Department of
Transportation for comments whenever we do special use permits in subdivisions
and at the time the only comments we received and I do have a copy of that
letter if you=d like it or the memo from DOT is that they need to apply to DOT
for a driveway permit and the other is also a standard condition . . . but they
did not address traffic or any type of traffic analysis. I was told by DOT, this was verbally and you
can consider this or not, that at one time when the Highland Lakes project was
under development or at the beginning of the Highland Lakes project that there
was some discussion about a need for a turn lane on Highland Lake Road but I
believe there was a traffic engineer who was brought in who was able to demonstrate
that there was not a need for one and so DOT did not raise that in this
instance.@
Chairman
Moyer - AI will also add that a specific traffic impact study was not done on
this road but the county now is in the midst of a thoroughfare plan study for
all of its roads which involve traffic counts and a study of which roads are
overcrowded, which ones are not, and we will be in the process of the remainder
of this year of evaluating that data and working with the state to come up with
the thoroughfare plan to see where our problems are and where they are not and
what we should do about that but the answer to your question on this particular
application, no specific study to my knowledge has been done. I would note I asked the County Attorney for
- I believe Mr. Lindsey has left. I don=t
see him so I - do I need to show for the record that as a party I believe he
left at the beginning of staff=s testimony and is not now here to ask questions
or respond or to present additional evidence so I=ll ask that the record so
indicate.@
One
of the parties to the proceeding - Mr. Kerry Lindsey had left the meeting (see
above).
Chairman
Moyer - AThe next, the only other party remaining then is Mr. Kingsberry. Mr. Kingsberry you=ve had an opportunity to
ask questions. Do you have any
evidence, now this is, do you have any evidence that you want to put on the
record, not ask questions but present evidence?@
Mr.
Kingsberry - ANo sir.@
Chairman
Moyer - AOK. I=ll go back to the. You can have rebuttal evidence by petitioner
and I would like the petitioner to specifically address any of these comments
from staff that were made if they so desire and the time table if that would
work. Mr. Campano.@
Mr.
Campano - AThe only comment I have is looking at the time table, we have no
objections to the times that staff has placed on here or for us to meet those
time table requirements.@
Chairman
Moyer - AOK. Do you have any other
evidence that you would like to put on now based on anything you=ve heard at
this hearing?@
Mr.
Campano - ANo, I have no new evidence.@
Chairman
Moyer - AAlright. Does the Board have
any, before we go to closing comments, does the Board have any additional
questions for anybody? County Attorney,
do you have any?@
Angela
Beeker - ANo sir, I don=t have any questions.@
Chairman
Moyer - AAlright. Then appropriate to
move and as part of again the quasi-judicial proceeding all parties now have a
petition, have an opportunity to make closing remarks. It is not necessary if you=re satisfied with
the record, everything can sit as it stands right now and I=ll ask each of the
parties. Petitioner, do you have any
closing remarks that you would like to make, either you or Luther at this time?@
The
petitioner indicated that he did not.
Chairman
Moyer - AStaff, do you have any closing remarks?@
Staff
indicated that they did not.
Chairman
Moyer - AMr. Kingsberry, the only additional party that remains, do you have
any closing remarks that you would like to make at this time?@
Mr.
Kingsberry started to speak.
Chairman
Moyer - APlease come to the microphone.@
Mr.
Kingsberry - AAre these just personal comments that I can make concerning this?@
Chairman
Moyer - AYou go ahead and I=ll see, I=ll give you as much liberty as I can.@
Mr.
Kingsberry - AOK. Well obviously the
concern that I have is owning property near this area. I=m concerned about my property value but
beyond that I also moved here from California because I wanted property that
had surrounding area and I have lived in places where the distance between
houses was ten feet and fortunately in California I think they were smart
enough to have ten feet on both sides but I find - certainly I would ask that
when you build the model homes you space them ten feet so the people looking at
the models get an idea of what they=re really going to live in instead of
having a model on a half acre and the house that they buy ten foot from their
neighbor and no easement or no property on one side of the house. To me that means the neighbor can put
anything that he wants to on that property basically up against your house
almost, plant any kind of plants or shrubs or whatever and I=ve been through
that in California where I had my neighbors trees dropping olives and all kinds
of stuff on my property which plainly I had to clean up and there=s nothing I
could do about it except chop off half of his tree and make it look ridiculous
so. My only concern is the value of
these properties, I haven=t heard what size they=re going to be, if they=re
going to have basements, if there=s any construction facilitation for the
vibration that=s gonna take place because of the tracks. I=m also aware of cracked concrete and
things like that. In California we have
these problems and I don=t know if there=s any onus on the builder to do any
compacting of the soil or slab protection, extra reinforcement to protect
against the vibration that=s gonna happen but I guess that=s a caveat loop
door for whoever buys the property,
certainly it would be a concern if I were gonna buy a property there. But my main concern is I think you are
deluding the property values of all the people who have homes on .08 and .09
acres in that area to see a tract go in like this with homes sitting so close
to each other you can almost reach out the window and touch your neighbor. That was my concern when I came and I
understand that obviously I=m a minority in my residential area >cause none
of my neighbors are here but it=s still
a concern that I have and if anything can be done to not make this look like a
bunch of tract homes that are stacked on top of each other like a deck of
cards, then I=m all for it and I realize legally that I probably don=t have any
leg to stand on but I=ve had my day in court and I thank you for that.@
Chairman
Moyer - AWell we appreciate having you here.
Mr. Kingsberry, we have a question for you from Commissioner Messer.@
Commissioner
Messer - AIn location to where you=re at, I know you know about the golf course
and everything because I have played it quite a few times. You say you live on the fourth hole, you=re
across the creek, am I right?@
Mr.
Kingsberry - ARight across the creek from the fourth green.@
Commissioner
Messer - ASo all those houses on that borderline have the creek, then the golf
course, then the housing development that they=re proposing to build, am I
right. In other words you have the
houses, the creek, then the golf course, then their property?@
Mr.
Kingsberry - ABut I=m buying the lot next to me which backs up to the creek and
if I look out the back of that lot, I=m gonna look right straight across the
golf course at a whole row of houses, the back end of a whole row of houses so
all I=ve got is whatever is the fifth hole and the sixth hole greens or
fairways and then I=m gonna see rows of houses that I call them stacked like
cordwood so.@
Chairman
Moyer - AAlright, thank you. Mr.
Campano or Mr. Smith, do you wish to make any comments in response to that or
not?@
Mr.
Campano - AYeh. I=ll try to make it
real quick for the sake of brevity. We=ve
done very similar products in the community.
The market has responded very well to them. They have not dropped any values anywhere, in fact, most of the
neighborhoods have actually gotten better as we do these products. It works well. It=s not a lifestyle for everybody but not everybody wants to own
an acre on their property. There are
those people who like the community and who like having a small lot that they
can use but at the same time have a maintenance-free lifestyle and this is what
this is targeted for. Like I said, I think you just need to take a look at our
past history and our past record and see the other things we=ve done in the
community to recognize the fact that this will become a positive and not a
negative in the neighborhood. That=s basically
it, thank you.@
Chairman
Moyer - AThank you.@
Commissioner
Messer - AI=ve got one question.@
Chairman
Moyer - AAlright, Mr. Campano.@
Commissioner
Messer - AFrom number two all the way down to number six green I guess it is,
there is a lot of big trees and vegetation.
Those things, none of that stuff will be interfered with will it? You know, down that creek side between the
golf course and these people=s homes?@
Mr.
Campano - AWe are not gonna be touching anything that is not on this property
and there is golf course around the entire property except where the railroad
track is at and where Highland Lake Boulevard is at so anything on the golf
course we=re not doing, I mean the golf course, we=re working this in
cooperation with the golf course, they=re involved with us. You know, it=s a community, it=s a golf
front community. We=re doing the
entrance together and everything else but we=re not actually involved with doing anything else out of the
golf course at all, that=s strictly Golf Course Doctors, you know and as far as
I=m aware of they have no intent to touch any large trees on the golf course,
quite to the contrary. I think they=ve
been adding a whole lot of trees on the golf course and have been doing a lot
of improvements on the golf course and this is really intended to spur
that. Again, it=s related in many
ways. It=s two separate deals but it is
related. They are involved with us and
they=re gonna be doing a lot of improvements in the front area with us. I think they were here recently for some of
those improvements in the front end with us as part of this whole concept of
what we=re trying to do to improve the community with the golf course.@
There
was some informal discussion concerning the golf course and how it plays, etc.
Chairman
Moyer - AAlright, County Attorney, do you have anything that we need to get on
the record before we close the record?@
Angela
Beeker - AI was just going to say if you have any questions, Mr. Nicholson is
very familiar with the golf course and with the creeks and with taking a dip in
the creek.@
Chairman
Moyer - AI=m sure he is. Alright, now that the evidence has been presented and
closing remarks concluded, it would be appropriate for the Commissioners to
discuss the issues that have been presented.
We can either vote today and direct staff to bring back findings of fact
and conclusions consistent with a decision and the Board=s discussion or we can
continue our discussion and decision until a later day; however, the Board must
make a written decision within 45 days of the conclusion of this hearing. So I=ll open it for discussion among the
Commissioners.@
Commissioner
Ward - AMr. Chair, the only thing I have to say on this is it=s pretty
clearcut. I think the petitioner has
met all the legal requirements of the County Ordinances. I think he=s also met the requirements of
public health and safety on the State and County level and he=s also consented
to the Planning Board=s time table of construction so I=ll yield my time to the
rest of the Commissioners.@
Chairman
Moyer - AMr. Messer.@
Commissioner
Messer - AI also agree with Commissioner Ward.
Personally I think that I really can=t see why this property hasn=t been
in some kind of development like this a long time ago >cause this, I mean it=s
been a valuable piece of property for a long time. I know the lawyers and stuff can go back and I really think you
know the set backs and so forth but I also understand that that=s the way a lot
of development is done in certain situations such as golf courses etc. and just
like you said you present it to the Planning Board, they made a unanimous
decision and like Mr. Ward stated everything is up and I think it would be just
another step for Henderson County.@
Chairman
Moyer - ACommissioner Gordon, do you have any comments at this time?@
Commissioner
Gordon - AWell, interestingly enough I lived at, I believe the address was 310
Mockingbird Drive once upon a time so I=m very familiar with the area and the
way the subdivision sits in relationship to this and I truly think with the
vegetation that=s there, I don=t see this as being a problem. I think we have to note that water and sewer
now is available where it had not previously been available and I think in
order to get the benefit of that sewer we have to look at developments such as
this. I think it=s consistent with what
is being done around there. So I see
this as really a cut and dry kind of decision and I think we should follow the
Planning Board=s recommendation.@
Chairman
Moyer - AMr. Hawkins, do you have any additional comments?@
Commissioner
Hawkins - AReally just a couple. I
think one of the - certainly one of the things that was part of the Zoning
Ordinance in the PUD part of it was the intent by the Board was to allow some
flexibility in how you go about developing land and I think that - I think that
this application is doing some of that, a little different than the normal
cookie cutter and so that part=s fine.
I guess the only area that I really had any concern about and I don=t
know if the County Attorney picks this up in form approval but having had the
difficulty that we had with a previous PUD on the open area, I would hope that
that=s adequately addressed in here. I
looked for it in laymen=s term and I came up a little short but aside from that
aspect of it and I don=t know if that=s part of your review process and uh
because we got into Register of Deeds and a whole bunch of legal recording that
caused us some trouble and I hope that=s been adequately addressed in
here. Again, I couldn=t find it.@
Angela
Beeker - AI have not reviewed them yet but.@
Commissioner
Hawkins - AThat would be something and that is part of the conditions here so I
think that would be my only concern.@
Chairman
Moyer - AAlright, then I would move that we approve the special use permit
application for Highland Golf Villas Planned Unit Development and that we have
findings of fact consistent therewith brought back by the County Attorney and
conclu - findings and conclusions that incorporate the recommendations
suggested by staff and approved by the Planning Board and in addition that we
add the time frame and the general site standards, particularly the time frames
that were suggested by staff and approved by the petitioner. Do you need anything else in there, County
Attorney?@
Angela
Beeker - AI don=t think so.@
Chairman
Moyer - AAny further discussion? All in
favor of that motion say aye. Alright,
it passes unanimously. And I will move
that we go out of the quasi-judicial public hearing. All in favor say aye. OK,
we=re out of.@
Mr.
Nicholson requested the Board go into Cane Creek at this time.
CANE
CREEK WATER & SEWER DISTRICT (CCWSD)
Commissioner
Hawkins made the motion for the Board to adjourn as Henderson County Board of
Commissioners and convene as Cane Creek Water & Sewer District Board. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Chairman Moyer
made the motion for the Board to adjourn as Cane Creek Water & Sewer
District Board and to reconvene as the Henderson County Board of Commissioners. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
HUMAN
SERVICES BUILDING - Architect=s Contract
As directed by
the Board, the County Manager and County Attorney have been working with
Freeman-White Architects in negotiating a contract for the work that is to be
done on the Human Services Building.
That contract is currently under final revision with the draft to be
available prior to the Board=s meeting on July 25, 2001.
Angela Beeker
has been working on a new AIA contract.
We assumed that Freeman-White would just accept our old contract with
everything that had been worked out before but they took this as an opportunity
to renegotiate this whole agreement.
Hours have been spent renegotiating this contract that is about ten
years old. Staff will continue with the
project and hopefully give the Board an update at the next meeting.
Angela Beeker
distributed the contract to the Board, stating that she literally got the last
draft off the fax machine about an hour ago.
She did not ask for Board action at this meeting. Even though it is a complete renegotiation,
it is based on the contract that we have had with Freeman-White. The contract we originally had with them had
been changed so that it was very one-sided pro Henderson County and they wanted
to equalize the balance some to make it more fair to both sides. She particularly asked the Board to look at
the description of the project on the first page that is based on a facilities
plan that was prepared in December of 2000 that is quite specific. She asked the Board to review that between
now and the next meeting to make sure the Board is comfortable with it. Another item concerns budget. They wanted to state what the owner=s budget
for the project is currently because what happens is in a typical architect=s
agreement the fee is based on the cost of the construction and until you get
the bids, billing occurs based on the owner=s budget and then appropriate
adjustments are made later. The number
is what she wanted the Board to be comfortable with and it is stated in 4.2 of
the contract. The budget that has been
presented to them thus far, again in that December report is $5,400,000. They do feel that the work that the county
wants to be done can be done within that budget figure at this time. It reflects the $65 per square foot and $40
per square foot figures that were used previously. The last thing Ms.
Beeker wanted to point out to the Board was the method of calculation
for the fee. This is really one of the
issues that took so long to arrive at something that was mutually
acceptable. One of her main goals with
respect to the contract is to avoid having the same thing happen on this
project that happened on the jail and that is with the bids coming in
substantially over what the budget was and therefore the architect basically
getting a bonus, based on market, because they get 8.5% of the cost of the
construction. She was trying to avoid that happening with this project so what
is proposed and is totally up to the Board=s discretion is that something
called a construction document estimate be prepared and that is where right
before you put the project out to bid, after the construction documents have
been finalized and approved by the owner, that they would be sent to a professional
estimator and that professional estimate would serve as the basis for the fee.
That should represent the truest anticipated costs before going out to
bid. If the bids then come in over that
amount, the fee would not go up, it would still be based on that estimate. She
asked the Board to think about that also between now and the next meeting.
Ms. Beeker
presented the documents for the Board=s review. This will be back on the agenda for the August 6 meeting for
Board action. Bill Byrnes will be the owner=s liaison with the architectural
firm. However, his presence on site does not relieve the architect of any of
their obligations and it states that in the agreement.
REGIONAL
WATER AUTHORITY ISSUES
There were
several issues that the Board wanted to discuss concerning the Regional Water
Authority of Asheville, Buncombe and Henderson. Those issues include the following:
1.
Water Policies
2.
The Authority=s desire to contract with
Henderson County for the design, construction, and administration of a regional
water line to serve American Freightways
3.
The engineering proposals for that work.
Because of the
resistance of Asheville to build a waterline to American Freightways, even at
the direction of the Water Authority Board, the Water Authority Board, based on
advice of Council, has decided that they will enter into a contract with
someone else to construct that waterline.
They have agreed to enter into a contract with Henderson County to
engineer, construct, administer, do the accounting work for and everything
associated with the development of the line and the construction of the line to
American Freightways.
At the last
Board meeting when this was done their meeting was continued to August 7 at
8:45 at which time they want to be able to sign an agreement with Henderson
County with respect to construction of that line. This was over the objection of the Asheville staff people who
were there but it was a unanimous decision of the Board to move ahead in that
direction.
When he
returned from the meeting, Chairman Moyer met with Angela Beeker, Gary Tweed
and Jim Erwin and asked that Angela develop a contract that would serve this
purpose.
Angela Beeker
distributed a draft agreement for the Board=s review and discussion. Chairman Moyer stressed that time is of the
essence. He didn=t expect approval of
the agreement today but at the end of this meeting he would like to continue
the meeting until the Solid Waste meeting tomorrow and try to take action at
that time. It is extremely important that
Angela get the agreement to Council for the Authority and that the Authority
Board be ready to move on this at the continued meeting on August 7.
She reviewed
the five page agreement as follows. The
agreement:
$
Provides that Henderson County will
contract for engineering services.
$
Provides that Henderson County will cause
the line to be constructed.
$
Provides that Henderson County will
secure all required permits.
$
The County has the discretion to install
the Line in up to 3 phases.
$
At completion of the construction of the
line, Henderson County will deed the line to the City of Asheville for the
benefit of the Authority.
$
The Authority must take any and all
action necessary to cause connection to the transmission line to occur, up to
and including legal action.
$
For so long as Asheville maintains title
to the line (under the terms of the Regional Water Agreement) the County will
maintain the line.
$
Upon request of the Authority, the County
will provide billing and collection services.
The
County will keep the billing charge as payment for billing services. The Authority will reimburse the County for
anything associated with providing collection services.
$
Upon request of the Authority, the County
will track expenses associated with the construction, and track expenses associated
with the operation and maintenance of the line. There is no charge to the Authority for these services.
$
The Authority will reimburse the County
for all expenses associated with the construction of the line in an amount of
their required contribution.
$
The Authority will reimburse the County
for all expenses associated with the maintenance of the line.
$
The Agreement lasts until 9 years passes,
or the Authority has been reimbursed for its contribution through the net
revenues, whichever occurs first. The
Agreement may be terminated by either party after completion of the line with
30 days advanced notice.
She pointed out
a couple of changes to the draft agreement to the Board, one on page 2 and one
on page 3 of the agreement. Angela stated that neither Jennifer nor herself
will be available for the meeting tomorrow.
She can send the draft agreement to Craig Justus, Council for the
Authority, today to get his comments.
It was the consensus of the Board to authorize the County Attorney to
send the draft agreement to Craig Justus for comments before tomorrow=s
meeting. Mr. Justus can contact
Chairman Moyer if he has any comments on this draft agreement.
Chairman Moyer
stated that he could not stress enough how much the Authority Board, the
Council is working with us in a cooperative fashion on this project.
Ms. Beeker
stated that there was a related issue with respect to the engineering services
the Board also needs to consider. She
distributed a proposal from Bill Lapsley and Associates to do the engineering
for this as well as some other services that would be in the Board=s
discretion. Under the General Statutes,
the Board can exempt themselves from having to go out for request for
qualification on engineering services for a couple of reasons, one of which is
that the engineering fee is less than $30,000, which in this case is clearly
substantially less than $30,000 so staff had prepared a resolution that would
exempt the Board from the requirement of having to out for request for
qualifications for engineers. Tomorrow
the Board would need to consider adopting the resolution and then consider
which pieces of Lapsley=s proposal the Board would want to accept.
Chairman Moyer
stated that one thing he committed to the Authority Board was that with us
taking over this project, the cost to the Authority would not exceed in any
case the quotes that we were given by McGill Associates as to what it would
cost to do this line.
Gary Tweed
briefly reviewed the engineering proposal with the Board. He had asked Bill Lapsley to give us
proposals on three things:
1.
The regional waterline.
2.
This short section to get them temporary
service.
3.
The installation of a well. If we run into difficulty in tapping that
existing 24" line for whatever reason, the only way we can get quick
service to American Freightways is to install a well so we want to be prepared
to do that.
If we put the
well down and get them service that way then this temporary piece is not
necessary. We just wait until we get
the line approved, get authorization to connect, and we go put the line
in. If we get permission to do the tap
and the temporary piece then the well becomes moot. We don=t need to do the
well. Mr. Tweed stated that he needed
all three of those covered to make sure that we=ve got a way to get water to
American Freightways.
Chairman Moyer
stated that he has had several discussions with the person at American
Freightways with respect to this line.
They obviously will have probably $2 million invested in this project
and are very concerned with getting water.
They were very interested in hearing about the action taken by the
Authority Board and will wait and see whether that=s resolved before they take
any further action. They are starting
to run out of patience. They definitely feel a need to get water to their
project.
WORLD
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS
The Board has
discussed this before on a number of issues.
It is an area that the State is trying to stress the importance of
various counties working together in rural transportation planning
organizations. We have expressed an
interest when Mr. Hawkins was Chairman to participate in these. What always happened was that there was no funding
available. The State now has allocated
funding for six RPOs. Jack Lynch has
done a lot of work for Chairman Moyer and the Board in this area which has been
very helpful.
Chairman Moyer
suggested that the Board pursue looking in the RPO concept and that we contact
Buncombe, Transylvania and ourselves, you need at least three counties to be
involved, to see if the counties want to work with us and possibly form an RPO,
weigh the advantages and disadvantages and see whether it makes sense to use
from that standpoint. Chairman Moyer felt there had been some discussion in the
paper about Land of Sky serving as the RPO.
He expressed concerns about that and felt Henderson County should talk
to the other counties first and see what their interests are. He will bring back all the information to
this Board and then the Board can make a decision as to what way to go.
Chairman Moyer
requested permission to talk to Buncombe and Transylvania counties to see
whether they have an interest. It was
the consensus of the Board for him to pursue this issue.
ENVIRONMENTAL
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Chairman Moyer
stated that the Committee has had their first meeting directed toward air
quality. Chairman Moyer had given them the Board of Health resolution, the
Canary Coalition resolution, and the Clean Smokestacks Bill and asked them to
come back to this Board with a recommendation.
SOUTH
Hwy # 25
Chairman Moyer
stated that he had a letter from Mayor Nieoff indicating their support of the
concept of working together and will work with Henderson County. They are
looking to Henderson County to head this so we will need to set up a meeting to
get this issue of the South Hwy. # 25 and the working with Hendersonville and
Flat Rock resolved as quickly as possible.
COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (CCP)
Chairman Moyer
stated that we are not ready to make a recommendation today with respect to the
consultant. It is being worked on and
information gathered. He felt that by
the next meeting they will be able to make a recommendation to the full Board
with respect to that.
IMPORTANT
DATES
Set
Worksession on Zoning Ordinance Rewrite
On July 11,
2001, the Board of Commissioners held its second worksession on the rewrite of
the Zoning Ordinance. During that
meeting, the Board directed Staff to work on several issues in order to bring
material and suggestions back for another worksession. In order to give adequate time for Staff to
research the items discussed by the Board, staff requested the Commissioners to
consider setting the date for the next worksession for sometime not earlier
than the first part of September. In the meantime, Staff will be researching
those various items and looks forward to discussing those matters with the
Board in the future.
Chairman Moyer
asked that this be put off until the next meeting.
Set
Public Hearing on Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments
On July 10,
2001, the Board of Commissioners held a worksession at which time the Board was
asked whether it wished to consider certain text amendments related to the
recent adoption of Open Use Zoning.
Those proposed amendments were submitted to the Board and involve
amendments to the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance: Zoning Board of
Adjustment (S 200-65), Temporary Use (S 200-57), Expansion and Alteration of
Certain Uses in the Open Use District (S 200-32.1(H)), and Subsequent Events (S
200-32.1(l)). It is necessary for the Board to set a public hearing on these
proposed amendments and to receive Planning Board comments prior to taking any
action to approve them.
In order to
expedite the Planning Board review process, Staff has forwarded a copy of this
agenda item to the Planning Board. It
is expected that the Planning Board will be placing the items on their next
available agenda so that their comments and recommendation can be received by
the Board of Commissioners in a timely fashion.
In order to
meet the required notice procedures, Staff recommended that the Board schedule
the public hearing of these proposed amendments for Wednesday, August 15, 2001
at 11:00 a.m.
Commissioner
Ward made the motion to set the public hearing on the proposed text amendments
to the Zoning Ordinance for August 15 at 11:00 a.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Annual
Volunteer Appreciation Banquet
Chairman Moyer
explained to the Board that he and Ms. Corn have been working on the Banquet
plans and have secured a date of October 4.
This is the first Thursday in October.
He asked the Board to check their calendars as we would like to go ahead
and book The Chariot and get the date set.
It was the consensus of the Board to go with the date of October 4.
CLOSED
SESSION
Chairman Moyer
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 Statutes, in accordance with and pursuant to NCGS
143-318.10(e) and Article II of Chapter 11 of the Henderson County Code.
2.(a)(3) To consult with an attorney employed
or retained by the public body in order to preserve the attorney-client
privilege between the attorney and the public body, which privilege is hereby
acknowledged. 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 a claim.
3.(a)(6) To consider the qualifications,
competence, performance, character, fitness, conditions of appointment, or
conditions of initial employment of an individual public officer or employee or
prospective public officer or employee; or to hear or investigate a complaint,
charge, or grievance by or against an individual public officer or employee.
All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner
Hawkins made the motion for the Board to go out of closed session and to
adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
Attest:
Elizabeth W. Corn,
Clerk to the Board William
L. Moyer, Chairman