MINUTES
STATE OF
NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF
HENDERSON MARCH 28, 2002
The Henderson County Board of Commissioners met for a special-called
meeting on Thursday, March 28, 2002 at 5:00 pm in the Commissioners= Meeting Room of the Henderson County Office
Building at 100 North King Street, Hendersonville, NC. The purpose of the meeting was to: (1) discuss the Governor=s Highway Safety Grant Request from the
Village of Flat Rock; (2) conduct a workshop on the Henderson County Zoning
Ordinance Rewrite Review-Article III of the Draft-In-Progress dated 11/30/02;
(3) convene Closed Session in accordance with NCGS 143-318.11(a)(4): to discuss matters relating to the location
or expansion of industries or other businesses in the area served by the public
body.
Present were: Chairman William Moyer,
Vice-Chair Marilyn Gordon, Commissioner Grady Hawkins, Commissioner Charlie
Messer, Commissioner Don Ward, County Manager David E. Nicholson, County
Attorney Angela S. Beeker, and Clerk to the Board, Elizabeth W. Corn.
Staff present was Planning Director Karen C.
Smith and Public Information Officer Chris S. Coulson.
WELCOME\CALL
TO ORDER
Chairman Moyer
called the meeting to order.
GOVERNOR=S HIGHWAY SAFETY GRANT
Chairman Moyer
explained that the Board had been asked by the Village of Flat Rock to consider
either supporting or making application for a Governor=s Highway Program grant to accommodate having
a traffic enforcement officer for the Village.
Mr. Nicholson had spoken to Sheriff George
Erwin, Captain Rodney Raines of the Sheriff=s Department Traffic Enforcement and Officer Gary Mintz, Director of
Traffic Services of the Sheriff=s Department. He explained the
reason the Village of Flat Rock is interested in the Sheriff=s Department applying for the grant was
because a law enforcement agency has to apply for these funds. Sheriff Erwin had explained to Mr. Nicholson
if the Village=s request were granted, it not only would
require additional equipment but the creation of a staff person.
Officer Mintz explained the Village of Flat
Rock had recently decided they wanted to pursue applying for the Governor=s Highway Program. The deadline for filing the grant application was March 31,
2002. The Village of Flat Rock requested
one full-time person to do traffic enforcement within the Village of Flat
Rock. The grant would provide a person,
a vehicle, and some equipment for a three-year period. After three years, the County would be
responsible for the costs. During the
first year of operation the personnel would be completely paid for by the
State. The second year the Governor=s Highway Safety Program would pay
seventy-five percent of the personnel and fifty percent of any additional
equipment. In the third year, the Governor=s Highway Safety Program would pay fifty percent of the personnel and
the Village would pay the other fifty percent.
If the Governor=s
Highway Safety Program approves the pre-application, a more detailed final
application would be required. Although
the Village of Flat Rock had indicated to Officer Mintz they would match this
grant, the Board did not have an official letter of commitment from the Village
of Flat Rock to do so.
Mr. Nicholson suggested that if the Board
wished to approve this grant application, it should do so subject to receiving
a letter of commitment from the Village of Flat Rock. Also he suggested the Board consider what would happen after the
third year about the funding. Mr.
Nicholson reminded the Board that a few years ago when the Town of Fletcher
opted to establish their own police force that the County had to absorb the
costs of six staff people.
Chairman Moyer clarified with Officer Mintz
that if the Board opted to approve this pre-application and then the Village
opted not to pay the match or continue the program, the Board could back out of
the agreement. Officer Mintz stated
that was his understanding.
Commissioner Hawkins noted that the budget
showed the source of funds was from the Federal government, not the State. Officer Mintz explained these are
Federal-matching funds that are disbursed to the State for this Program. The Village would pay $19,632, but there is
a possibility that cost to the Village would be greater after the State has
reviewed the pre-application. There may
be some equipment, such as a duty weapon or shotgun, the State would not pay
for so the Village would be responsible for those costs. The State will pay for the uniform, shoes,
and jacket, but as far as weapons, mace or asp or all the tools that an officer
usually carries, the chances are the State will not pay for, but the State
wanted those items listed on the pre-application for their consideration.
The Board posed several questions about this
request. Had the Village of Flat Rock indicated
that it would at some point want to establish its own police force? Chairman Moyer commented that all
discussions with the Village of Flat Rock had been for one or less officer
either part-time or possibly a full-time officer.
Commissioner Ward stated that if the Board
grants this request, the Board would be setting a precedence. If Mills River incorporates, would the Board
do the same thing for them? Chairman
Moyer commented he felt the Board was just facilitating the Village because it
would be no cost to the County if the Village submits a transmittal letter
stating its intent about the match for the personnel, the equipment and what
happens at the end of the 3-year term.
Commissioner Ward thought there would be a
need for a long-term contract or a 3-year contract. He remembered when the Town of Fletcher was granted such a
request and everything went well for a while and suddenly the Town of Fletcher
decided to establish its own police force and the County inherited six people
at a cost of approximately $600,000 that was absorbed in that year=s budget which equated to a penny on the
property tax rate.
Commissioner Gordon commented that the Board
was actually making it easier for a municipality not to perform municipal
functions when the Board agrees to do this.
She too agreed the Board is setting a precedence and with other areas of
the county talking about incorporation, this type of Board approval just makes
it easier for that to happen.
Mr. Nicholson further suggested another thing
that would have to be worked out with the Village is if an officer were hired,
that officer would work five days a week and an eight-hour shift. So all the remaining hours of enforcement
for twenty-four hours, seven days a week would have to be absorbed and what was
Flat Rock=s intent for that additional coverage. Would the Village expect the Sheriff to
provide a higher level of service in those other hours when the officer is
off-duty?
Chairman Moyer made a motion that the Board
authorize the grant pre-application be filed with a cover letter as suggested
by Mr. Nicholson stipulating the conditions for the Village of Flat Rock
subject to the Board=s
satisfaction. Commissioner Hawkins
wanted clarification that what Chairman Moyer was filing a motion on was the
pre-application and the Board would still have the latitude of withdrawing that
request if the other terms were not met.
Chairman Moyer affirmed that was the intent of his motion.
Commissioner Ward inquired of Officer Mintz
how the Sheriff anticipated handling vacation time with the officer? Sergeant Dunn of NC Highway Patrol had
informed Officer Mintz that during the absence of an officer, the Highway
Patrol would do coverage of traffic accidents and Sheriff=s Patrol Division would answer the
calls. Sergeant Dunn had stated that
the Highway Patrol was not in a position to provide the coverage that an
officer assigned exclusively to the Village could provide. The Highway Patrol could occasionally assist
when there is a special need but they cannot afford to have someone there
remotely the same amount of time the Village officer could provide.
Chairman Moyer called for a vote on the
motion that the pre-application be submitted with the conditions as suggested
earlier. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
General
Electric Retained Jobs Proposal
Chairman Moyer
received a phone call from Tony Hartman, Human Resources Director for General
Electric in Hendersonville, who indicated that the joint-venture in Mexico of
the lighting fixtures and the roadway product lines that was moved from the
local facility about two years ago would be dissolved, pending working out
incentives and other arrangements with local and State. Approximately seventy-five jobs at the local
facility would be saved and there would be approximately two million dollars in
additional plant investment. However,
G.E. would also be evaluating possibly moving their coil winding operation from
this local facility, which would result in the loss of forty-two jobs.
CLOSED
SESSION
Chairman Moyer
made a motion for the Board to go into Closed Session pursuant to North
Carolina General Statute 143-318.11(a)(4) to discuss matters relating to the
location or expansion of industries or other businesses in the area served by
the public body. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
Commissioner Gordon made a motion for the
Board to adjourn Closed Session. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
ZONING ORDINANCE REWRITE REVIEW-ARTICLE III
OF THE DRAFT-IN-PROGRESS DATED 11/30/02
Planning Director Karen Smith reminded the
Board that at the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite workshop on 2/14/02, the Board gave
specific direction to staff concerning formatting changes to be made to the
Zoning Ordinance Draft-In-Progress dated November 30, 2002 for Article
III. Staff had made those changes and
provided the Board with the revisions.
Those changes included:
1. Added a new subsection for
those uses which are permitted, but no zoning compliance permit is
required. This had been done in each
new district as subsection AA@.
2. Reverse the order of Special
Use Permits and Conditional use Permits in each new district. Conditional Use Permits were Subsection AC@ and Special Use Permits were Subsection AD@.
3. Changed the name of ALandscaping/Buffering Standards@ in each district to ABuffering and Parking Lot Landscaping@.
4. Divided the lists of uses by
type, in accordance with the use table categories. Primarily the order of the uses was not changed but broken into
groups.
5. Deleted NR-20 and changed
NR-10 to NR-15. At the Board=s direction, multi-family as allowed in NR-10
was allowed in NR-15.
Additionally, draft purpose statements were
amended as directed by the Board.
Nursing and convalescent home, and continuing care retirement facilities
had been inserted in the residential districts as directed by the Board.
The Board posed several questions.
Q. Under NR-40 schools and
homes were included as educational and institutional uses. Does that include churches? Is that considered a school under the
permitted uses, no zoning compliance permit required?
A. Those
are schools within a person=s home, or home schools, but not a church school. Those would be under the church definition,
which still had to be finalized with the Board, or under a regular educational
facility with the schools, public and private.
Q. Under Planned Developments, Other Uses, what=s the difference between that and planned
unit developments?
A. This
was added at the Board=s
direction to allow some flexibility in commercial uses in residential
developments, such as subdivisions, without them having to go through the
special permit process. The planned
development concept was developed where someone could propose a certain percentage
of their subdivision with a use that would be compatible with that subdivision
and have that reviewed at a staff level rather than going through the full-blow
special use permit, quasi-judicial process.
Q. Under
NR-40, Conditional Uses, Residential Uses, Accessory Dwellings-What are the
standards for accessory dwellings?
A. There
is a new definition for accessory dwellings.
This was introduced into the ordinance to provide more flexibility for
additional residential units, i.e. for a family member or extra income, but the
standards regulate how they are allowed in certain districts. They are currently reflected in all
residential districts including the pre-existing districts. Currently, the only
way an accessory dwelling can be included is on a temporary basis. In the new districts, staff had added
accessory dwellings as conditional uses which would have to go the Board of
Adjustment in the pre-existing districts.
Currently, accessory dwellings are allowed only in hardship cases as a
temporary use. This new concept on
accessory dwellings would be more permanent.
The Board expressed
concern about attempting to change standards or conditions for the pre-existing
districts. The Board was in agreement
not to change anything in the pre-existing districts. Any changes would apply only to the new districts. The old districts would be grandfathered in
as is.
Ms. Smith reminded
the Board it would have to decide which districts to allow manufactured home
parks in. Staff had proposed allowing
them in the new higher density districts with certain standards and perhaps in
other districts with a different set of standards. In the higher density districts, there would be requirements for
water and sewer and such amenities.
Manufactured homes on individual lots are allowed in the new districts. The definition of manufactured home park in
the new districts is three or more units.
The Board wanted to
discuss manufactured home parks standards and guidelines at a later date.
Ms. Smith advised the
Board that produce stands were allowed in all new R districts. She further reminded the Board that another
new use was manufactured homes as storage units. The Board directed staff to submit its recommendations on those uses
at its next workshop.
The Board gave staff direction on other
changes it desired to see at the next workshop scheduled for Thursday, April
11, 2002 at 4:00 pm in the Commissioners= Meeting Room.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman
Moyer made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:00 pm. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVED BY:
WILLIAM L. MOYER,
CHAIRMAN
HENDERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Attest:
Elizabeth W. Corn,
Clerk to the Board