MINUTES
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF HENDERSON MARCH 8, 2004
The Henderson County Board of
Commissioners met for a regularly scheduled meeting at 5:30 p.m. in the
Commissioners' Conference Room of the Henderson County Office Building.
Those present were: Chairman Grady Hawkins, Vice-Chairman Larry Young, Commissioner Bill Moyer, Commissioner Charlie Messer, Commissioner Shannon Baldwin, County Manager David E. Nicholson, County Attorney Angela S. Beeker, and Clerk to the Board Elizabeth W. Corn.
Also present were: Planning
Director Karen Smith, Budget and Management Director Selena Coffey, Finance
Director J. Carey McLelland, County Engineer Gary Tweed and Public Information Officer Chris Coulson. Deputy Clerk to the Board
Amy Brantley was present through Nominations.
CALL TO ORDER/WELCOME
Chairman Hawkins called the
meeting to order and welcomed all in attendance.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Young led the
Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag.
INVOCATION
Pastor Stanley Newton from
Faith Bible Church gave the invocation.
DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA
Commissioner Baldwin
requested the deletion of Update on Pending Issues – Item #1 Board
Communications. He requested the addition of Discussion Item C - Regional Water
Authority and Discussion Item D - County Government Communications and
Performance.
Chairman Hawkins made the motion to approve the
agenda. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA
Chairman Hawkins made the motion to accept the Consent
Agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
The
Consent Agenda consisted of the following:
Minutes
Draft
minutes were presented for the Board’s review and approval of the following
meeting(s):
§
December
17, 2003, regular meeting
§
January
21, 2004, regular meeting
§
February
2, 2004, regular meeting
Tax
Collector’s Report
Terry F. Lyda had submitted
the Tax Collector’s Report dated February 27, 2004, for the Board’s
information.
The Board was requested to
set a public hearing on the Rural Operating Assistance Program grant for April
5, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Annually, the Board holds this public hearing in order to
apply for transportation funding.
The City of Hendersonville
had requested County comments on a proposed water line extension for a project
known as Aspen Educational. The proposed project involved the use of the former
Rossmont property on North Rugby Road as a private boarding school for girls.
Chairman
Hawkins had requested the Board consider the following Resolution establishing
March 14-20 as Home Education Week:
RESOLUTION
DECLARING MARCH 14-20, 2004
AS HOME EDUCATION WEEK
WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina is committed to excellence in education and to public policy that strengthens the family; and
WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina
recognizes parental choice in pursuit of that excellence and the importance of
parental involvement in education; and
WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina
appropriately and statutorily recognizes home education as a viable educational
alternative; and
WHEREAS, home education provides children the
opportunity to receive a sound academic education integrated with high ethical
standards taught within a safe and secure environment; and
WHEREAS, parents have the ultimate authority
and responsibility for the care, upbringing and choice of education for their children;
and
WHEREAS, home education was a predominant
form of education in the first two centuries of America, and many of our
Nation’s leaders were primarily educated at home; and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate that Henderson
County home educators and home educated children be recognized and celebrated
for their contributions to the diversity and quality of education in this great
State;
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Henderson County Board of Commissioners, at
their meeting on March 8,
2004 does hereby declare March 14-20, 2004 as HOME EDUCATION WEEK, and does hereby call upon all citizens of this County to observe this week with appropriate ceremonies and honors in recognition of the continued growth and importance of home education in the State of North Carolina.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and
caused the seal of the County of Henderson to be affixed.
________________________________________ ________________________________________
Elizabeth
W. Corn, Clerk to the Board Grady
Hawkins, Chairman
Western Carolina Community
Action was applying for the continuation of the Community Service Block Grant.
They receive these funds annually based on a three-year application cycle from
the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Economic Opportunity.
The Board was requested to approve the filing of the continuation of WCCA’s
Community Services Block Grant.
Set Public Hearing on
Rezoning Application #R-04-01 (R-15 to C-2P) Charles Pace Applicant; Charlene
Rogers, Applicant’s Agent
Charles Pace had submitted
an application requesting that the County rezone one parcel totaling 0.31 acres
from an R-15 Medium-Density Residential zoning district to a C-2P Preservation
Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. The parcel proposed for rezoning is
located at the intersection of Resort Street and Shepherd Street.
The Henderson County
Planning Board reviewed the application at its meeting on Tuesday, February 17,
2004, and voted to send the Board of Commissioners a split recommendation (3
favorable – 3 unfavorable) on rezoning the Subject Parcel from R-15 to C-2P.
Before taking action on the application, the Board of Commissioners must hold a
Public Hearing. Staff proposed that the Hearing be scheduled for Monday, April
5, 2004 at 7:00 P.M.
Mr. James B. Anthony had
submitted an application for an improvement guarantee for a proposed
subdivision he was developing known as Cliffs Valley North, Phase IV. The
subdivision was being constructed off U.S. Highway 25 South near the North
Carolina/South Carolina border. Phase IV was located off Mountain Summit Road
and planned to contain 30 residential lots. The Planning Board granted
conditional approval of a revised Master Plan and Phase IV Development Plan for
the project on July 15, 2003. The improvement guarantee was proposed to cover
asphalt paving and shoulder stabilization for roads serving Lots 1 through 8,
water system improvements and maintenance of existing erosion control measures
of Phase IV of Cliffs Valley North.
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 the posting of an irrevocable letter of credit. Mr. Anthony (the developer)
intends to post with the County such funds in the amount of $200,050.01, which
includes the cost of the improvements ($160,040.01) as well as the required
twenty-five percent (25%) contingency ($40,010.00). The proposed completion
date for the project was March 1, 2006.
A draft performance
guarantee was presented for the Board’s consideration. If approved, the
developer must post with Henderson County an irrevocable letter of credit in
accordance with the terms of the Agreement. Once the County receives such
funds, the (Assistant) County Attorney must certify the Agreement as to form
prior to its execution by the Chairman and the developer.
The Public School System had provided their January financial
report for the Board’s consent approval.
Financial Report – January
2004
Cash Balance Report –
January 2004
These
two reports were submitted for Board information and consent approval.
The $5,956 YTD deficit in
the Travel & Tourism Fund was due to January being one of the lower
performing months for travel/tourism and associated occupancy tax collections.
This negative position will gradually change as tourists begin to travel from
March through the end of the fiscal year.
The $12,126 YTD deficit in
the 911 Emergency Communications Fund was temporary due to the BellSouth
telephone bill due in February being paid during the last week of January;
therefore, two months telephone bills were charged to January when normally
only one is charged. This fund should have a positive YTD net revenue position
beginning in February 2004.
The $4,052 YTD deficit in
the CDBG-Scattered Site Housing Project, the $3,469 YTD deficit reported in the
Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Project and the $16,034 YTD deficit reported in
the Mills River Sewer Project are all temporary due to timing differences in
the expenditure of funds and the subsequent requisition of funds to reimburse
those expenditures.
The County Services Building
Project deficit was due to architectural fees, demolition/abatement and utility
line relocation work performed at the former Carolina Apparel Building. It was
anticipated that those costs would be recouped from financing proceeds for the
project in 2004.
Staff had provided an issue
update which summarized the tasks related to the CCP and other major planning
initiatives that occurred over the past month.
The update also included anticipated actions for the coming month.
NOMINATIONS
Notification of Vacancies
The
Board was notified of the following vacancies which will appear on the next
agenda for nominations:
1. Recreation Advisory Board – 1 vac.
2. Equalization and Review – Appointment
of a Chairman
Nominations
Chairman Hawkins reminded the Board of the following vacancies and opened the floor to nominations:
1.
Downtown Hendersonville Inc. - 1 vac.
There were no nominations at
this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
2.
Equalization and Review – 2 vac.
There were no nominations at
this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
3.
Fletcher Zoning Board of Adjustment - 1 vac.
There were no nominations at
this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
4.
Historic Courthouse Corporation
- 1 vac.
Chairman Hawkins stated that
the nominations the Board had been taking for the membership would be
officially appointed after the Board of Commissioners convened for the initial
meeting of the Corporation. Following that meeting, the candidates would be
appointed.
Chairman Hawkins then stated
that there was still one vacancy on the Courthouse Committee candidates list.
Ruth Birge, who was nominated at a previous meeting, had withdrawn her
application. Commissioner Baldwin nominated Spence Campbell, however Mr.
Campbell had already been nominated at a previous meeting. Commissioner
Young made the motion to accept Mr. Campbell by acclamation. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
5.
Industrial Facilities and Pollution Control Financing Authority – 1
vac.
There were no nominations at this time so this item
was rolled to the next meeting.
6.
Juvenile Crime Prevention Council – 1 vac .
There were no nominations at this time so this item
was rolled to the next meeting.
7.
Nursing/Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee – 6 vac.
There were no nominations at
this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
8.
Planning for Older Adults Block Grant Advisory Committee – 4 vac.
Chairman Hawkins nominated Joan Phillips and Betty
Webber for appointment to Positions #3 & 4. Chairman Hawkins made the
motion to appoint them by acclamation. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
9.
Senior Volunteer Services Advisory Council – 1 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so this item
was rolled to the next meeting.
10.
Solid Waste Advisory Committee - 4 vac.
Chairman Hawkins nominated Charles Garrett and
William Farrell for reappointment. Chairman Hawkins made the motion to
accept them by acclamation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
11.
WCCA Board of Directors - 1 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so this item
was rolled to the next meeting.
Dr. Carl Mumpower,
Vice-Mayor of the City of Asheville, was present to explain the City’s efforts
for the renovation of the Historical Memorial Stadium. Memorial Stadium is a
facility that was purchased by the City of Asheville in 1925 and dedicated in
the early 1930’s to veterans lost in WWI. It was rebuilt in 1949 and dedicated
to those lost in WWI and WWII. The vision of a true memorial was never
completed and the memorial plaque eventually was dedicated and displayed at the
Memorial Mission Hospital. The grandstands were demolished in 1982 due to
structural concerns, and the brick archway is currently the only reminder of the
proposed memorial. Dr. Mumpower took the Board through a series of slides
depicting the site.
Dr. Mumpower then discussed
the new vision for Memorial Stadium. He stated that they are asking every
County and municipality in Western North Carolina to partner with Asheville,
not to pay for the facility, but to provide the story of one veteran who served
and died some time since the Spanish-American War. One section will be
dedicated to every County and municipality, all major branches of services will
be covered as will all conflicts. He stated that they are looking less for
money, and more for support, participation, the story, partnership, and the
opportunity for involvement. The City is going to try to make this project come
to life within the next year.
Chairman Hawkins reminded
the Board that each year the Board of Commissioners has a choice to make on how
they will go about distributing sales tax. For at least the past several years
Henderson County had always distributed it on a Per Capita basis, primarily
because that was most advantageous to the County. With the recent
incorporations in the County, that formula had begun to shift from the Per
Capita being most advantageous, to the Ad Valorem method. At a previous meeting
the Board had discussed the issue, and directed the County Manager to look at
some of the parameters involved in capitalizing on an idea brought forward by
Flat Rock.
Chairman Hawkins had some
meetings with the volunteer fire departments and some of the involved
municipalities. At the conclusion of those meetings, Chairman Hawkins had
expressed that it was his opinion, and his opinion only, that the County should
continue with the distribution on a Per Capita basis. He felt that was most
appropriate for several reasons:
§
There
were about 11 volunteer fire department’s that had contracts with
municipalities, and if the County shifted to the Ad Valorem basis it would
almost necessitate some kind of new understanding between those volunteer fire
departments and municipalities as to how they would be reimbursed for their
services rendered.
§
The
County had already adjusted the County-wide tax rate to compensate for the
incorporation of Mills River.
§
In
the case of Mills River, a drastic change in the method of distribution would
leave that new city flat as far as revenue to run their town.
§
One
interesting aspect of distribution in accordance with the State law is that you
don’t do it for the year you’re in, you have to go back to the year before. So
if you had no Ad Valorem tax the year before, then you would have no basis of
distribution for the coming year.
Chairman Hawkins stated
again that was his opinion, and what he would recommend to the Board, but that
it was up to the Board to decide which method to use. He discussed the option
of leaving the distribution method as Per Capita, and partnering with the
municipalities on services such as economic development.
Commissioner Baldwin stated
that he did not feel that deciding outside of the context of trying to assess
the County’s capital needs would be a wise thing to do. Chairman Hawkins
reminded the Board that they had planned to have a workshop, but then decided
to have some discussion at a mid-month meeting following review of some capital
projects. David Nicholson stated that Staff would have a draft of the Capital
Projects list available for the next meeting.
Commissioner Moyer stated
that he objected to the meeting Chairman Hawkins had, at which he put a
proposal on the table for everyone to consider, but then left it for the other
four Commissioners to decide. The Board had agreed to have meetings to discuss
what the policy would be, and his understanding was that the Chairman should
take Board views out for discussion. Chairman Hawkins disagreed, stating that
the meeting was held to come up with some alternative solutions to bring back
to the Board. There followed some additional discussion regarding this
disagreement.
Commissioner Messer stated
that he had received a lot of phone calls on this matter. He felt that this
decision had a big impact on the tax payers in Henderson County, and should be
decided by the whole Board. He requested a public input worksession so members
of the public could give their opinions. Commissioner Baldwin felt the needs of
the entire County should be considered, and the first thing the Board had to do
was assess what the County’s needs were, including capital needs.
Discussion followed about
whether this should occur at a workshop or during a regularly scheduled meeting,
the impact of this decision on the upcoming budget cycle, and the need for a
Capital Improvements Plan. The Board requested that David Nicholson compile a
list of capital improvements and bring this item back for discussion at the
mid-March meeting. There followed additional discussion regarding the
appropriateness of individual Commissioners meeting with municipal officials on
this matter.
Edneyville Fire and Rescue
had demolished the main station on Chimney Rock Highway as part of a capital
improvements program to improve their physical facilities throughout the fire
district. As part of the demolition process the fire department had several
truckloads of debris consisting of brick, block and concrete with imbedded
rebar. The fire department was requesting a waiver or reduction of landfill
fees (tipping fees) for disposal of this material, which they projected to be
about $30,000.
David Nicholson stated that
in the past, Boards had not approved the waiving of tipping fees even for their
own projects because the Solid Waste Department is not tax supported but is
self supported. Mr. Nicholson also noted that the landfill will accept clean
materials such as bricks or cement at no charge, but they do charge for mixed
waste. Robert Griffin, Chief of Edneyville Fire and Rescue stated that they had
initially been told they could bury this material on site, but had since
learned that they would be unable to dispose of it in that matter causing some
financial concerns. Gary Tweed stated that if the materials could be separated
they would be accepted at no charge, but they could not use anything that had
any steel in it. Mr. Griffin and Mr. Nicholson answered several questions from
the Board regarding the request.
Commissioner Young made a motion that the Board stay with the current policy. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
1.
Ray Shaw – Mr. Shaw stated that regarding sales tax
distribution, he felt it was important that the Board remember that time was
moving quickly, and the municipalities as well as the Board need to understand
what the financial picture looks like. He referenced a letter he had written to
the Board in January requesting a meeting to discuss an interlocal agreement on
the tax distribution.
2.
Don Henderson – Mr. Henderson stated that he is a
member of the Edneyville community, and that a group in that area had proposed
building a community center. He wished to get on public record that they would
like the Board’s input, assistance and guidance. They hope that this center
will be a benefit to the community and a place to be used for a large variety
of groups. Mr. Henderson stated that they are trying to invest in the future,
and hoped the Board would consider helping through their guidance and possible
financially.
3.
Jim Mosakowski – Mr. Mosakowski spoke to the sales
tax distribution issue. He lives in Flat Rock, but understood that the issue is
broader than just a municipality issue. However, he felt that changing to the
ad valorem method would be unfair to Flat Rock for three reasons: they have
build their budget around a per capita method, a change cuts their budget by
100%, and a change would require very rapid action on the part of Flat Rock.
Mr. Mosakowski stated that Flat Rock residents are 3% of the population, but
pay 8% of the property tax. He felt that some services should come from the
county, but some should come from municipalities, but that an open dialogue on
that subject should be held.
4.
Wayne Barlow – Mr. Barlow, a resident of Flat Rock,
spoke to the sales tax distribution issue, stating that he had sent a letter to
the Board and the Times-News on the matter. He read a copy of that letter,
which essentially stated that the sales tax distribution method selected should
be based on fairness, not need, and the fair method is to stay with the per
capita distribution.
5.
Mike Cervini – Mr. Cervini stated that it was nice
to hear dialogue from the Board earlier indicating that they were going to look
at the County’s overall budget, and see what was advantageous to the County.
Municipal residents are members of the County as well, and for those 9,000
citizens to make up the $1.8 million budgetary difference would not be as fair
as distributing that burden out to all 90,000.
6.
Jack Day – Mr. Day stated that historically, there
had been a gentleman’s agreement between the County and Flat Rock that sales
taxes would be distributed on a per capita basis. He felt it was incumbent upon
the Board to live up to that agreement.
7.
Al Gonzalez – Mr. Gonzales urged the Board to
reread a letter he had mailed earlier.
8.
Walden Jones – Mr. Jones did not come forward when
his name was called.
9.
Martha Sachs – Ms. Sachs stated that she was
concerned about the dismissive nature of the CCP Board and Planning Board with
regards to the public input received on the CCP. She felt that to be dismissive
of that input was unconscionable, and felt members of those Board’s should be
more diverse to represent the opinions of the entire county.
Commissioner Baldwin responded to Ms. Sachs, stating that if in the final plan the input for the citizens has been ignored, the citizens will be able to have their say.
10. Terry Hicks – Mr. Hicks thanked the Board for their serious consideration of all the issues surrounding sales tax distribution. He stated that he hopes the Board would establish a meeting at which all the issues could be discussed after they received the information they needed on capital budgets as well as regular budgets.
11.
Dick Baird – Mr. Baird stated that actions have
consequences. Some municipalities found it was to their advantage to
incorporate to avoid annexation, and there is a cost associated with that. He
felt that they should pick up that cost, rather than spreading it out to
everyone else. Mr. Baird stated that the bus system would be coming to the
Board with a request for $16,000 and a commitment to the future of that system.
In the past year their return on investment was negative 92%, and he felt that
was a bad investment. He then spoke to decision making within the County
regarding schools. He felt there were other alternatives to building more
schools and they should be considered.
12. Jimmy Cowan – Mr. Cowan stated that switching from per capita to ad valorem does not promote lean, efficient government. He stated that if municipalities have to raise their taxes to make up the difference, it will cause the county to have to raise taxes to make up the difference, creating an ongoing situation.
Angela Beeker reminded the
Board that at the February 2, 2004 meeting, the Board received a request for a
tax release for sixteen (16) parcels comprising the common areas for the St.
Johns Commons and Livingston Farms subdivisions. At that meeting, attorney Mike
Edney appeared to request that the Board exercise the discretion they have to
approve a late application for a property tax exemption for these properties,
and to thereafter approve the release of taxes for these properties.
Generally, property owned by
a nonprofit homeowner’s association is tax exempt if an application for the
exemption is timely filed. N.C.G.S. 282.1 allows the Board to approve a late
application upon a showing of good cause by the applicant. However, at that
February 2nd meeting Mr. Edney raised the issue of whether in fact
the association really owned the property based upon the fact that the deeds
conveying the property were retained by the developer after they were recorded.
The Board asked that the County research this issue and report back to the
Board. Mr. Edney had since verbally withdrawn the argument that the association
did not own the property as of January 1, 2003, and would like the application
for tax release and approval of the late application to proceed as submitted.
Chairman Hawkins questioned
Tax Assessor Stan Duncan regarding when the “Notice of Reappraisal Value” was
mailed. He asked whether that mailing would have given them time to file for
their exemption. Mr. Duncan noted that the notice was mailed on February 7,
2003. No appeal of the value or taxability of the property was received either
informally or formally to the Board of Equalization and Review which was
advertised for 30 days. The tax payer in fact did not come forward until after
receiving the Town of Fletcher tax bill. Application was then made to Mr.
Duncan’s office on September 19th.
Mr. Edney stated that the
Notice was mailed to him, but at a point in time where he had no legal
connection to the associations, so they didn’t have notice of the reappraisal
at that time because he was not their agent. Chairman Hawkins questioned the
dates during which the tax payers had the ability to appeal. Mr. Duncan stated
that there were thirty (30) days after the mailing of the first notice for an
informal appeal on valuation or taxability, which ran from February 7th
until March 7th. There was an additional thirty (30) day window of
opportunity for appeal that was advertised in the Times-News as being between
April 23, 2003 and May 23, 2003.
Mr. Edney stated that the
bottom line was that there were about 1,000 people who would have to pay it,
and then try to get their money back from the developer. While that might
happen, it would be a long shot and it would cost as much as they are paying in
taxes to hire an attorney to go after the developer.
Mr. Duncan stated that an
entity that might be held to be exempt, unless they make application will be
taxed. He used the example of a church, stating that a church can acquire
property but if they do not come forward and make application for exemption on
a timely basis, that property will be taxed for that calendar year. Mr. Duncan
stated that this is no different, the issue is purely about timeliness – did
the tax payer make application for exemption that they are entitled to on a
timely basis. The answer in this case is no, and the statute does not allow for
all the reasons why someone may not be timely, though it does speak to good
cause. Mr. Duncan stated that in his opinion, the reasons put forward in this
case do not justify good cause.
Chairman Hawkins asked
Angela Beeker if she had any advise for the Board on N.C.G.S. 105.380. Ms.
Beeker felt there were several questions present. If the Board approves the
late application, that makes the property tax exempt for the 2003 tax year. At
that point, a release would be in order. She realized that there were three
specific reasons under N.C.G.S. 105.381 for release of a tax, but it is illegal
to tax tax exempt property, so she believed that could be their basis for a
release. Therefore there are two decisions: approve or deny the late
application, if it is approved then the Board would be okay to approve the
release.
Mr. Edney and Mr. Duncan
answered several questions from the Board on the appropriateness of approving
or denying the late application, with Mr. Duncan stating that this was a very
important decision about policy that the county will go forward on. Following
additional discussion, Commissioner Baldwin made the motion to deny the
request for tax release. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Chairman Hawkins made the motion for the
Board to go into public hearing. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Autumn
Radcliff informed the Board that Mr. Leon Allison had submitted an application
requesting that the County rezone a 7.76-acre portion of land from an R-15
Medium-Density Residential zoning district to a C-4 Highway Commercial zoning district.
The parcel proposed for rezoning was located off Old Spartanburg Road, about
350 feet east of where Old Spartanburg Road intersects with Shepherd Street.
Ms. Radcliff discussed several previous rezoning applications, adjacent zoning
designations, the various uses allowed in the R-15 and C-4 districts, and
relevant plans and actions such as the 1993 Land Use Plan.
The
Henderson County Planning Board had reviewed the application at its meeting on
Tuesday, January 20, 2004 and voted 5 to 1 to send an unfavorable
recommendation to the Board of Commissioners.
Staff
also recommended that Rezoning Application #R-03-04, as submitted, be denied.
Ms. Radcliff discussed the basis of that recommendation citing reasons such as
inconsistencies with the 1993 Land Use Plan, that C-4 is generally located on
major highways, and it’s location within the 100-Year floodplain.
In
accordance with Section 200-76 of the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance and
State Law, a Notice of Public Hearing regarding Rezoning Application #R-03-04
was published in the Hendersonville Times-News on February 16, 2004 and
February 23, 2004. The Planning Department sent notices of the hearing via
first class mail to the applicant and the owners of properties adjacent to the
Subject Property on February 18, 2004. Planning Staff posted signs advertising
the hearing on the Subject Property on February 25, 2004.
Ms. Radcliff answered several questions from the
Board, and explained several maps and pictures.
Public Input
There
was none.
Leon
Allison produced three photographs showing different views of the subject and
adjacent property. He stated that the adjoining property owners had no problem
with the request to complete the commercial zoning on the property, and in fact
preferred commercial to high-density residential. He discussed his plans for
the back part of the property which involved taking in leaves to compost and
creating topsoil, and the creation of a farmer’s market on the front part of
the property. Mr. Allison and Karen Smith answered several questions from the
Board.
Chairman Hawkins made the motion for the
Board to close the public hearing. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Angela Beeker reminded the Board that legally, they
cannot zone for a particular use, but must consider all of the uses that can go
in a district. That is a court ruling, and why the Planning Board does not
allow owners to talk about particular uses they wish to make of a property.
Zoning is to be done in accordance with a comprehensive plan unless there were
circumstances that had changed that would justify an amendment to that plan
through a zoning action. Comments from the applicant and community are not
really a legal basis for zoning, the decision must be based on what is
reasonable and what fits in with that community.
Following some discussion among the Commissioners, Chairman Hawkins made the motion to accept the rezoning application. The motion carried 3 – 2 with Chairman Hawkins, Commissioner Young and Commissioner Messer voting in favor.
Chairman Hawkins made the motion for the Board to go into public hearing for the CDBG Grant. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
The Public Hearing was being held in accordance with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) regulations. The CDBG process involves two public hearings, the first of which was being held on this date to allow staff or citizens the opportunity to express views and proposals prior to formulation of an application. David Nicholson noted that the second public hearing was the opportunity for the Board and public to see the application and be able to make comments on that actual application.
The project being presented to the Board by Mr. Nicholson at this hearing was for assistance in putting a water line to the Brookside Camp/Howard Gap Road area that was having contaminated well issues. He explained that Henderson County had been notified that $400,000 of CDBG funds had been set aside that came through the rural center. Mr. Nicholson and county staff had met with the City of Hendersonville and Kate O’Hara from Land-of-Sky to discuss how they could put this project together. The money can only be used in the areas where the contamination primarily is, and has to benefit low and moderate-income individuals. At that meeting Mr. Nicholson had learned that there are really two projects: one is for the waterline that will come from Park Ridge Hospital down Howard Gap Road, and the second project would be for the affected area where homes need public water. He suggested to the City that they phase the program to make it clear where the CDBG monies were spent.
If the Board approves the project, an interlocal agreement would be developed between the County and the City where the City would act as the County’s agent in administering the CDBG Grant. Kate O’Hara, with Land-of-Sky, would assist in that process and would actually be the grant administrator. The City of Hendersonville had already drawn the plans, completed a lot of the bid documents, and were ready to begin advertising for bids. In order to proceed further with this project, the Board would need to grant approval to proceed with the application and set a public hearing on that application.
Public Input
There
was none.
Chairman Hawkins asked Kate O’Hara, as administrator of the grant, what the next step would be, wondering if the Board would need to have another public hearing before Ms. O’Hara could do anything. Ms. O’Hara answered that in the next step Land-of-Sky staff would do a 100% survey to verify income in the project area, and had been working with the Health Department to identify the properties that do have contamination. She stated it is a two part process: income verification and designation by the Board of Health that there is a severe water problem in the particular area. She discussed a preliminary drawing which identified the potential project area using the highest density of contaminated properties. She stated that they would have to go out and do an income survey and then verify that 51% of the occupied residential homes have a severe need. There has to be enough of a moderate need in the remaining part of them to have an overall 75% severity. The benefit then has to be a 70% benefit to all of the property owners.
Chairman Hawkins asked Mr. Nicholson if anyone could provide an estimate of a timeline when water would become available in the area. Mr. Nicholson stated they would need to set another public hearing, and asked Ms. O’Hara if setting that for April 5, 2004 would give her enough time to do the surveys and complete the applications. Ms. O’Hara confirmed that she believed she would be able to meet that date. Ms. O’Hara stated that what also had to happen once the information was compiled, was a meeting with DCA (Division of Community Assistance), though DCA had indicated they were willing to work as hard as they could to make this project work.
Mr. Nicholson spoke again about the two-phase nature of the project. Doing it in two phases would allow the City to begin the longest part of the project, which would be running the water line down Howard Gap Road. Beginning construction of that line would help speed up the process by several months.
Chairman Hawkins made the motion for the Board to
close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Jim
Crafton, representative from the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC),
updated the Board on their recent work regarding the Transportation Plan. He
stated that the City of Hendersonville had contracted with the Department of
Transportation (DOT) some time in the year 2000, to develop a transportation
plan for them. He believed that in that same year, the County had also
contracted with DOT to develop a transportation plan.
In
2000, the DOT had taken traffic counts around the County and had plotted
traffic counts on the major roadways i.e. I-26, Four Seasons Blvd, Hwy 25, Hwy
191, Hwy 64 West and East, Spartanburg Highway, Greenville Highway and so on.
They placed the traffic counts to establish a base point of what the traffic
burden is presently on different roadways. They then “took that traffic
information and graphically plotted another map depicting what the effect of
that traffic is on the capacity of our current roadways to handle that
traffic.” On that map, green indicated adequate capacity for the measured
traffic, yellow indicated a marginal area and red indicated critical points in
the traffic area that is present today. He felt it would come as no surprise
that red areas existed on Four Seasons Blvd., Hwy. 64 West and Hwy 25 North.
That data was DOT’s base point.
The
next step was to obtain projected growth data for the region. To do that they
contracted with an economist to research and develop socio-economic data for
the community to determine the projected growth going to the year 2030. They
provided that data to the Planning Department for both the City and County,
along with a grid of a portion of the County and asked those departments to
plat on that grid the areas where they believed that growth would happen. Mr.
Crafton then discussed several maps which outlined current and projected
household and employment densities, and projections indicating that between now
and 2030, households will grow by 91% and employment will grow by 67%. Using
these figures they projected a 97% increase in vehicle miles traveled in
Henderson County by 2030. The projects currently on the TIP will create an 11%
increase in lane miles.
Having
looked at this problem, the DOT was prepared to develop a plan. They had
prepared a summary graphic showing what our roadways would look like in the
year 2030 assuming the existing circumstances along with the completion of all
the items presently on the TIP. That plan indicated that I-26 from Four Season
Blvd. north would be a marginal area. Additional marginal or critical areas
also appeared in the northern part of the county. The DOT has now requested
that before preparing a plan, the community indicate the issues they want the
DOT to take into consideration as they draft the plan.
To
accomplish that, the TAC had developed a public input session for which they
held two sessions for the public and one session for elected officials and
staff. They had compiled the information received, and presented a document
that showed all comments received at those sessions. The TAC also proposed to
include information from the City of Hendersonville from their adopted
recommendation, and transportation comments received from the Highway 25 South
corridor study and the Designing Our Future study.
Mr.
Crafton proposed to the Board the recommendation from the TAC, that those
comments, along with any additions or deletions made by the Board, be sent on
to the DOT as being representative of what the community has had to say about
what is important. He briefly discussed the nature and similarities of those
comments. After receiving comments, the DOT will draft a plan, which they hope
to bring back to the County by the spring. That draft would be reviewed, there
would be a need for public hearings and finally adoption of a plan.
Mr.
Crafton then answered several questions from the Board, and David Nicholson
updated them on a recent MPO meeting. Following some discussion among the
Board, Chairman Hawkins made the motion to send the received comments on as
an approval of the materials presented. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
David
Nicholson reminded the Board that about a year ago, staff had requested
permission to consider joining the Early Action Compact because it appeared
that Henderson County was out of attainment for air quality. Staff had now been
informed that most of Western North Carolina was “in attainment” for air quality
for 2003. Attainment is evaluated on a 3-year rolling average. It is not
likely, based on the latest averages, that WNC would be re-evaluated until
2007. The North Carolina Division of Environment and Natural Resources expects
that by 2007, due to cleaner fuels, new automobiles with less emissions, and
increased industrial compliance, we will continue to be in attainment though
there are no guarantees.
Commissioner
Baldwin informed the Board that he had learned that the demand for water from
the Authority had dropped because of some of the manufacturing facilities which
had gone off line. Also, they had brought on-line some of the systems that they
had refurbished. So there had been a drop in demand and an increase in water
supply. That had put the Authority in a position by which the Mills River Water
Plant is being taken off-line and will not be used except as a backup. The
chance of needing that plant in the next ten years was minimal, so the cost at
that plant would be to just maintain it at a level where it could be brought
back on line if needed.
The
Authority is also being faced with a lot of infrastructure improvements because
they had never developed a comprehensive CIP. They have hired a firm to do a
CIP, which has led to identification and prioritization of improvements that
need to be made to the system. Commissioner Baldwin believed that would mean a
need for additional funds for the system.
Commissioner
Baldwin felt it would behoove the Board to have a discussion about our
relationship with the Authority and where we would like to go in the future
since circumstances had changed. He suggested having Bill Lapsley come in to
address the Board to assist in coming up with a sense of direction on where the
Board might want to go.
Chairman
Hawkins felt that having Mr. Lapsley address the Board was a good idea. He also
thought the change in circumstances made it a good time for the County to look
at whatever options were available from not only the County’s perspective but
from the perspective of other municipalities in the County. Hendersonville,
especially at some point in the future, would probably need to address some
additional water supply.
Commissioner
Messer questioned whether there had been discussion about having a
representative from Mills River on the Authority. Commissioner Baldwin stated
he felt that would be a good idea, especially since the plant is in Mills
River’s jurisdiction.
It
was the pleasure of the Board to have Chairman Hawkins invite Bill Lapsley to
attend a future meeting for some discussion on what opportunities and options
were available.
Commissioner
Moyer stated that in his opinion, the Board would have to set specific goals
and objectives in order to be measured against them, and the Board had not done
that. He felt he was unable to answer the question, since those goals and
objectives had not been established. Chairman Hawkins felt that the Board had
been working toward a number of items that to a large extent were measurable,
such as improvement of school facilities, libraries and parks and recreation
facilities. Commissioner Moyer agreed that the Board had accomplished some
things, but that was very different from setting measurable goals and then
measuring against them.
Commissioner
Messer pointed out that he had been on the Board three years, and the big
issues when he came on the Board were still the big issues. He discussed why
plans to move those issues along had stalled. Commissioner Moyer spoke to the
structure of the election cycle as it related, stating that it’s often hard to
proceed when new Board members with new ideas come onto the Board every two
years. Chairman Hawkins agreed stating that just looking back over the time
period that the Historic Courthouse/County Complex had been an issue, there had
been about twelve different County Commissioners looking at the project and
offering a variety of different opinions. There followed much additional
discussion on problems within the County such as the demolition of the Carolina
Apparel Building, the animal shelter, the Sheriff’s vehicles, and in general
the time it takes for approved project to happen.
Board Communications
This
item was previously deleted from the agenda.
IMPORTANT DATES
Chairman Hawkins suggested
setting the Organizational Meeting for Historic Courthouse Corporation for the
March 17th meeting. Angela Beeker stated that she would prepare a
notice that at least three Board members would have to sign.
Chairman
Hawkins noted the need to set a Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing on Special Use
Permit Application #SU-03-01 (as Amended) and Related Variance Application #BOCV-03-01 (as Amended) for a Motocross
Racing Facility – Mr. J. Michael Edney, on behalf of Mr. George Andrew Bennett,
Applicant. He asked the Board to look at the special rules of procedure for
that meeting that will help retain the focus of the purpose of the
quasi-judicial hearing. He asked that the Board adopt that set of rules in
conjunction with setting the date. Chairman Hawkins made the motion to set
the Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing for Thursday, April 1, 2004 at 6:00pm at West
Henderson High School, and that part of that meeting incorporate the special
rules of procedure. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Chairman
Hawkins also noted that a Road Abandonment Petition had been received, for
which the Board usually holds a public input session. David Nicholson suggested
that the Board hold that input session at their meeting on April 5th
at about 7:00. It was the consensus of the Board to accept that date for the
public input session.
Chairman
Hawkins stated that regarding a joint session with the other municipalities to
work on the sales tax distribution, there was an LGCCA meeting scheduled for
the next week. Angela Beeker stated that the Board was on a tight time frame,
especially if an agreement is reached on an interlocal agreement. Chairman
Hawkins made the motion to set a Special Called Meeting for March 16th
at 3:00. All voted in favor and the motion carried. This meeting would be
in conjunction with the LGCCA meeting.
David
Nicholson requested the Board set a Public Hearing on the CDBG application for
April 5th at 7:00. Commissioner Moyer made the motion. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
Staff
requested the Board schedule a special called meeting on several budget issues.
It was the consensus of the Board to schedule that meeting at their March 17th
meeting.
ADJOURN
Commissioner Messer made the motion for the Board to adjourn. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Attest:
Elizabeth W. Corn, Clerk to
the Board Grady Hawkins, Chairman