MINUTES
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF HENDERSON JANUARY 11, 2002
The Henderson County
Board of Commissioners met for a special called 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 Don Ward,
Commissioner Charlie Messer, County Manager David E. Nicholson, County Attorney
Angela S. Beeker, and Deputy Clerk to the Board Amy Brantley.
Also present were:
Assistant to the County Manager Selena D. Coffey, Planning Director Karen C.
Smith, Public Information Officer Chris S. Coulson.
Absent was:
Commissioner Grady Hawkins.
CALL TO
ORDER/WELCOME
Chairman Moyer
called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance. The purpose of
this meeting was a workshop for discussion on the Comprehensive County Plan,
and the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite.
COMPREHENSIVE
COUNTY PLAN
Chairman Moyer gave
some background on the plan. In July, 1999 the Board adopted the Countywide
Land Use Regulation Guide which contained several key strategies or goals.
Those goals were:
1.
Adopt Open-Use
Zoning on a Countywide basis, and to proceed with the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite.
Open-Use Zoning has been accomplished, and the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite is
moving along.
2.
Study of areas
adjacent to municipalities, and ETJ boundaries. The LGCCA recently recommended
a policy statement with respect to reviewing all annexations, all zoning
changes and all similar matters that are on boundaries of the various
municipalities. The Board of Commissioners has adopted that policy statement.
This is a significant part of the plan.
3.
The study of
growth areas and major corriders. This has been accomplished for Highway 25
South, and is underway for Highway 64 East. Highway 25 North in the Fletcher is
now under discussion.
4.
Study in
conjunction with the Committee of 100 and the Chamber of Commerce, industrial
area identification. This has been done, and will be integrated into the plan.
5.
A three year
goal was to revise and adopt a Comprehensive Land-Use Plan to reflect balance
between quality of life and standard of living.
6.
An additional
three year goal was to integrate all aspects of planning (schools, roads,
water, sewer, housing, industrial and commercial services) into a comprehensive
growth management plan.
Selena Coffey
updated the Board on the current status of the Comprehensive County Plan. She
has been in the process of gathering data on demographics such as population
trends and projections, and economic trends. She has worked with Karen Smith on
gathering data on land use factors such as mapping and physiographic factors
that will be used in the assessment of factors influencing growth.
Denny Martin stated
that he has moved ahead into Phase II of the work plan, and is a little ahead
of schedule. A loose end from the end of Phase I was the draft statement of the
AGeneral Purpose of the Plan@ and ACounty Growth Objectives@. The Board has had a chance to review those statements, and will give
input on changes at this meeting.
There was discussion
on the importance of having compatible land uses in areas where Henderson
County is adjacent to other counties. Examples of issues where communication
will be important were transportation, water and sewer access, and economic
development. Mr. Martin will work with the groups involved to have that
communication. Chairman Moyer stated that it will be equally important to do
this within the county, and that the LGCCA will be a very helpful group to use
toward this end.
Chairman Moyer began
discussion on the AGeneral
Purpose of the Plan@statement.
He stated that the goal is really to preserve community tradition, the quality
of life and the environment. We know we are getting growth, the task is how to
manage that growth to preserve what we want the county to be.
Commissioner Ward
stated that we have a lot of growth because of the good balance in the county.
He also stated that growth is due to our prime agricultural lands, but that we
are losing that land at a rapid rate. He felt it is important to figure out
what can be done to reverse that trend.
Commissioner Gordon
stated that she takes a different tract on what a plan should do, and wants to
be cautious about trying to make it too much about preserving what we have now.
She felt that a community needs to be more of a living organism, requiring the
ability for change. She would like the focus to be on how to facilitate changes
which are a natural process within a community. The community is different than
it was 100 years ago, and much of that change has been good. Growth is
beneficial in many ways, including educational and recreational
opportunities.
There was discussion
on how these factors play into the overall goal. Mr. Martin stated that he
would make revisions to the AGeneral Purpose of the Plan@ based on today=s comments and would bring it back to the Board.
Chairman Moyer then
asked if the Board had any changes to the ACounty Growth Objectives@. Commissioner Gordon mentioned several semantical changes. There was
discussion on those proposed changes. Mr. Martin will make the changes agreed
upon by the Board.
Chairman Moyer
informed the Board that Dixie Blumer has resigned from the Comprehensive County
Plan Steering Committee. He proposed that since we are so far along, we
continue with the steering committee that we have. This proposal was acceptable
to Mr. Martin and the Board.
The current schedule
calls for a joint workshop between the Board, Mr. Martin and the Comprehensive
County Plan Steering Committee at the end of January. Chairman Moyer stated
that the Board does wish to keep moving on this project, and will try to
schedule that workshop at their January mid-month meeting.
Chairman Moyer
stated that there are a lot of pieces underway with respect to the thoroughfare
plan, and economic development. The Steering Committee and Ms. Coffey have a
task ahead of them pulling all these pieces together.
Recess
Chairman Moyer
called a 5 minute break.
Zoning
Ordinance Rewrite
Chairman Moyer
called the meeting back to order, stating that this portion of the meeting
would deal with Articles V and VI of the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite. He had
requested that Karen Smith just give the Board an overview of the issues.
Ms. Smith began with
Article V - General Development, Site and Performance Standards. Section 200-71
starts with Paragraph A, General Standards, the first part of that dealing with
ANumber of Principal Buildings Per Lot@. Currently the zoning ordinance requires
that you have one building per lot. The new ordinance would allow zoning lots.
That would require a larger piece of property under one ownership. Rather than
going through the subdivision process, a permit could be issued based on the
estimated zoning lot boundary lines, and where the structure would be within
those lines. The exception to this would be single family dwellings. Those
still require one dwelling per lot, but there would be the ability to add an
accessory dwelling.
Ms. Smith clarified
several questions from the Board on the wording. Angela Beeker answered several
questions regarding the use of the zoning charts.
Paragraph B deals
with Required Yards. This covers required yard setbacks, and how setbacks are
measured. The main change in this section is the method of measuring. Under the
current zoning ordinance, you measure from the centerline of the street or
right-of-way for the front yard, and from the property line for the sides and
rear. The new ordinance would call for front yard measurement from the edge of
the travelway. This solves many questions that used to revolve around
unopened rights-of-way.
Chairman Moyer had
several concerns about this area, especially in light of the number of
travelways currently being widened by DOT. This will make these measurements
vary, creating a floating standard. There should be discussion with DOT
concerning their opinion on this topic.
Paragraph B4 of the
Required Yards section deals with Adjusting Building Lines based on the lots
that are near you. This allows the front yard setback of a building to be
reduced to the average of the setbacks of the two buildings closest to the lot
if at least 50% of the lots on the same side of the block have a setback that
is less than the setback required by the zoning district. This is intended to
allow new development to Ablend@ in with existing development and reduces the
number of variances that may otherwise be required.
Paragraph B5 deals
with the Reduction of Front Yard Requirements for Single-Family Dwellings on
Steep Slopes. This helps to reduce the number of variances necessary for steep
lots to be developed.
Paragraph B6 is
titled Reduction of Yard Setbacks for Residential Additions. This section
allows for the expansion of non-conforming uses, provided that the expansion
itself does not increase the nonconformity.
Paragraph B7 is
titled Projection into Required Yards. This section clarifies the things that
can be placed within a setback. It basically includes eaves, canopies, porches
or things that are ornamental to the property.
Paragraph A (which
should have been numbered AC@) deals with height restrictions. This
clarifies how the height of a building is measured. It is the lowest point on
the foundation, to the highest point on the top of the house.
Paragraph B (which
should have been numbered AD@) deals with Visibility at Intersections.
This applies not only to subdivisions, but to commercial developments as well,
ensuring that you have a clear line of sight when entering and exiting
properties.
There was some
discussion on whether or not pre-existing vegetation should be given an
exemption. For public safety purposes however, pre-existing may not matter.
Section 200-72 is
Off-Street Parking. This section is intended to lessen the congestion in the
streets caused by persons parking in the street. It requires that for the uses
listed, parking must be provided. The number of spaces required is related to
the maximum anticipated number of people to be located at the use at any given
point in time. Parking for multiple uses in a single building, or for more than
one principal building on a lot, needs to be addressed.
Section 200-73
covers Off-Street Loading. This section requires that certain retail
businesses, offices, institutions, hotels, wholesale trade, and industrial
operations have spaces on site for unloading to protect the public safety in
the streets. There is no one number that applies to everyone, allowing a few
more options on number of spaces.
Section 200-74 is
Landscaping. This section is intended to (1) protect residential uses from
adjacent non-residential or dissimilar uses by requiring buffering for such
adjacent non-residential uses or dissimilar uses; and (2) to provide
landscaping requirements for parking lots.
This is really
intended to buffer commercial uses from residential uses. Where buffering is
required, a 10 foot wide strip is required, which must contain either a 6-8
foot high fence, an earthen berm with shrubs, or a planted buffer of trees and
shrubs. Ms. Smith stated that she believes this section would be more
appropriately labeled ABuffering
and Landscaping@. Following discussion, it was decided to
rename the section ABuffering
and Parking Lot Landscaping@.
Commissioner Ward
questioned who would be responsible for creating the buffer. Ms. Smith stated
that if a new residential community moved in next to a commercial use, the
residential community would have to create the buffer if they wish to have one.
If the commercial use moves in next to a residential community, it is the
responsibility of the commercial use to build the buffer. Commissioner Ward
inquired whether an apple orchard is considered a commercial use. Ms. Beeker
stated that it is considered an agriculture use.
Following discussion
on buffering for agriculture uses, it was decided that this question would be
taken to the Agriculture Advisory Committee for their opinion.
The next portion of
this section deals with parking lot landscaping. If a parking lot is going to
contain more than 50 spaces, plantings will be required. Provisions are also
contained for maintaining existing vegetation, giving some credit for those who
do so. The Board requested more information on this, stating that it should be
reasonable with respect to the size of the lot.
Section 200-75 deals
with signs. The sign ordinance regulates only off-premise signs greater than 15
square feet in size. There are four categories of signs:
1. Those that do not
require a permit
2. Prohibited signs
a. Signs in the public right-of-way
b. Signs that would look like or obscure traffic signals
c. Moving or flashing signs
d. Signs on surface water
3. On-premise signs
4. Off-premise signs
The off-premise sign
standards have been taken from the current ordinance. On-premise signs have
been broken into residential, neighborhood business, and commercial/industrial
districts. Ms. Smith had pictures available for the Board if they would like to
see examples of signs.
Section 200-76 is
Open Space Requirements. The Board has already directed that any open space
requirements should be incentives based by granting density bonuses or
reduction in dimensional requirements. Staff requested to postpone review of
this section until standards for Planned Unit Developments have been written as
there are typically open space requirements associated with PUD=s.
Section 200-77 deals
with Protected Mountain Ridges. This section simply informs the public of the
requirements already existing in State laws and the County ordinances for
protected mountain ridges.
It was decided to
postpone discussion of Article VI.
Chairman Moyer asked
Karen where she would like to go next. Ms. Smith stated that before the Board
talks about Article IV, she would be more comfortable if they could first talk
about Article III. For the next session, the Board will begin with Article III,
and move on to Article IV.
There being no
further business to come before the Board, Commissioner Messer made the motion
to adjourn the meeting at 11:05 a.m.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Attest:
Amy R. Brantley,
Deputy Clerk to the Board
William L. Moyer,
Chairman