MINUTES
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF HENDERSON FEBRUARY 14, 2002
The Henderson County Board of
Commissioners met for a special called meeting at 3:00 p.m. in the
Commissioners' Conference Room of the Henderson County Office Building at 100
North King Street, Hendersonville, North Carolina.
Those present were: Chairman
Bill Moyer, Vice‑Chairman Marilyn Gordon, Commissioner Don Ward,
Commissioner Charlie Messer, Commissioner Grady Hawkins, County Manager David
E. Nicholson, County Attorney Angela S. Beeker, Planning Director Karen C.
Smith, Deputy Clerk to the Board Amy R. Brantley, and Public Information
Officer Chris S. Coulson.
CALL TO ORDER/WELCOME
Chairman Moyer called the
meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance. The purpose of this meeting
was a workshop on the proposed new zoning ordinance.
REVIEW OF ARTICLE III, USE
DISTRICTS
Karen Smith stated that
Article III is the Article that deals with Use Districts. Article III will deal
with both new and existing districts. Chairman Moyer stated that the Board
would like to keep as few of the old districts as possible. For the retained
districts, there will be very minimal changes.
Chairman Moyer questioned the
NAICS code that uses all zeros. Karen Smith answered that the NAICS code is an
industrial classification system, not designed for residential uses. Primarily,
a zero code is a residential use, and will have a specific definition in our
ordinance.
Commissioner Hawkins
questioned where the proposed Purpose Statements came from. Ms. Beeker stated
that those were a combined effort from Benchmark and the Planning Board.
Purpose Statements for the
New Districts
Karen Smith outlined the
Purpose Statements for the New Districts. She reminded the Board that it is
important that they actually reflect the uses in the district. Purpose
statements are used ultimately to guide the application of the district such as
in a rezoning action. She noted that they didn't alter statements for the Old
Districts except to make them fit with the new structure.
Ms. Smith answered several
questions from the Board regarding the Purpose Statements.
Ms. Beeker stated that the
Purpose Statements will be a powerful tool in the implementation of the County
Comprehensive Plan.
Chairman Moyer questioned why
there is still a differentiation between NR‑10 and NR‑20. He
believed the Board had requested to have those districts blended into one. Ms.
Smith stated that they could blend the two, because there was very little
difference between the two. Angela Beeker agreed that the differentiation
between when you would apply NR-20 and NR-10 would be very difficult.
Commissioner Hawkins
requested some elaboration on density. A lot of the districts are defined by
density, but density is never really talked about in terms of people or
numbers. Density should be considered by number of people rather than just lot
size. Ms. Smith stated that from a zoning standpoint, density usually refers to
units per acre. There are numbers available that articulate the density by
number of residential units per acre.
There was discussion on
getting rid of NR‑10 and NR‑20, and combining those two into one
district. Following additional discussion, it was decided to proceed with three
densities: Low Density or NR‑40, Medium Density or NR‑15, and High
Density or NR‑6.
Uses in Each District
Ms. Smith stated that the
goal in this process was to have the uses match with the purpose. Staff has
reviewed the purpose statements and has offered revised purpose statements for
most of the new districts. They tried not to "alter" board policy,
but merely tried to reflect a better description of what has been included in
the district. The Board was provided with a list of all allowed uses in the
districts. There are a few uses, such as retirement communities, that staff
will be adding to the districts.
Ms. Smith stated that the
Board may wish to change how each use is allowed. For example, should a use that is currently permitted by right be
permitted with special requirements, or as a conditional or special use? Conversely, should a use currently listed as
a conditional or special use be permitted with special requirements?
There was further
clarification regarding the use of the NAICS manual and the codes in the new
districts. The NAICS is a guide to assist with interpretation. Staff is
currently making the transition from solely relying on a table of uses, to a
use list for each district. Listing the allowable uses in each district will
require some clarification and clean‑up.
Some of the names and divisions of uses were used strictly because it
was a table listing all uses allowed in any district.
Ms. Smith stated that staff
had not changed any of the text for Planned Unit Developments. There are three
questions that need to be addressed by the Board. Staff will come back with a
proposed PUD district after receiving this information from the Board. The
three questions were:
1. Whether any type of PUD is appropriate within the district?
2. Whether
the PUD in a particular district should be limited to the uses allowed in that
district or not? In the previous draft,
PUDs were an overlay district that potentially allowed any use in any district.
3. Whether
the same definition and standards for PUDs can be used in both the old and the
new districts?
Ms. Smith also stated that a
topic which needed discussion revolved around communications towers. She stated
that the Board should decide whether it wished to standardize the terminology.
The Open Use district has a reference to the Communications Tower Ordinance.
The way we define towers in that ordinance is slightly different than the
Zoning Ordinance. The Tower Ordinance has more to do with the type of tower and
the height. The Zoning Ordinance is based more on where they are allowed and
how they are allowed.
Ms. Smith stated that she
would prefer to consolidate the Tower Ordinance into the Zoning Ordinance.
Chairman Moyer agreed they would like to consolidate the two if it is possible,
feasible and understandable. Ms. Smith will bring this back to the Board at a
future meeting for discussion.
Ms. Smith informed the Board
that the Ordinance has been drafted so that some type of PUD will be allowed in
all districts. However, all stipulations of the district will apply. One
exception is in the office/institutional district. That district does not allow
residential uses, however the exception will allow for residential development
on up to 50% of the gross land area. In NR‑40 all PUD's are permitted by
special use, so they would come to the Board on a case by case basis. It was
the consensus of the Board to have Ms. Smith use this concept as a guideline
for the new districts.
There was much discussion
regarding how the standards in pre-existing PUDs should be administered.
Chairman Moyer stressed that when making this determination, simplicity and
consistency will be the key.
Ms. Smith reminded the Board
that they had asked for Convalescent Homes to be added to residential
districts. She stated that staff will propose that Convalescent Homes be a use
by right with standards in all residential districts. Chairman Moyer asked if
there would be a differentiation between Convalescent Homes and other types of
continuing care. Ms. Smith noted that such a distinction would be made in the
use listing.
Ms. Smith then reviewed the
Proposed Revised Purpose Statements. The Planning Board had proposed the
original Purpose Statements, and staff had made observations and changes to
those statements. Ms. Smith began with the NR-40 Low Density Residential
District. She informed the Board that the words Anon-farm@ should be stricken in every district. In the NR‑40
District, the Proposed Revised Purpose Statements states: The purpose of the NR‑40
Low Density Residential District is to provide for primarily large‑lot,
single‑family residential development, including both site‑built
and manufactured housing, (and complementary land uses) in areas designated
residential on County land use plan maps where low density development is
preferred for reasons including but not limited to: lack of transportation,
water and/or sewer facilities, presence of steep topography or sensitive
natural areas, existing or anticipated development trends and patterns, and/or
implementation of the County comprehensive plan.
Commissioner Gordon had some
concerns about the use of the word Apreferred@ in the definition. Following discussion, it was
decided to change Apreferred@ to
Aappropriate@.
Commissioner Hawkins
questioned whether there was a specific reason why the Planning Board arrived
at the statement they had versus the staff proposed statement. Ms. Smith stated
that the Planning Board had not seen the staff proposed statement.
Chairman Moyer stated that
the board has to have the flexibility to allow developers to do what is right
for the market and appropriate for the area, as long as it is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan. Angela Beeker stated that if the Board has consensus on
the Purpose Statements, it will make the review of uses much easier.
There was much discussion on
what input the Planning Board should have on staff recommendations prior to the
Board making their comments. The Planning Board has not seen the revised
Purpose Statements. Commissioner Hawkins questioned what the Purpose Statement
for NR‑15 would look like. Ms. Beeker stated that was a good question,
and that she and Ms. Smith would begin drafting that statement.
Following discussion, it was
the consensus of the Board to change the word "preferred" to "appropriate"
in the NR‑40 statement. It was also the consensus to accept NR‑15
Medium Density Residential, with the NR‑10 Purpose Statement with a
wording change from High Density to Medium Density.
Commissioner Hawkins
questioned the use of the term ACounty Land Use
Map@. The ACounty Land Use
Map@ and ACounty
Comprehensive Plan@ are two different things. Ms. Beeker explained that
the statutes state that zoning has to be done in accordance with a
comprehensive plan. Traditionally, for zoning purposes, there is a Land Use Map
included for zoning purposes. That map is used as a guide in the comprehensive
plan.
Ms. Smith asked if the Board
would like to change the word "preferred" to "appropriate"
in the NR‑6 statement. Commissioner Gordon stated that she felt
consistency was very important, and that the change should be made. It was
decided that "appropriate" would be used in each statement.
Angela Beeker offered a
comment that will be generally applicable for all the districts. She proposed
that Uses #1, 3 and 4, which deal with farming, have the following wording
attached: No Zoning Compliance Permit shall be required for this use.
Commissioner Gordon stated that perhaps another category of uses by right with
no permit could be developed, rather than having such cases be a permitted use.
Commissioner Gordon clarified
that the new Zoning Ordinance would have the following uses: uses by right,
permitted uses, permitted uses with special requirements that staff approves,
and conditional uses that go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Ms. Beeker
reminded the Board that if a use is listed as a conditional use, if a
petitioner meets those standards they cannot be denied. From a legal
standpoint, the less discretion the better.
There being no further business
to come before the Board, Commissioner Hawkins made the motion to adjourn the
meeting at 4:34 p.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Attest:
______________________________________ ______ ____________________________
Amy R. Brantley, Deputy Clerk
to the Board William L. Moyer, Chairman