MINUTES
HENDERSON COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
February 19, 2002
The Henderson County Planning Board met for its regular meeting on
Tuesday, February 19, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Land Development Building, 101
East Allen Street, Hendersonville, NC.
Board members present were Tedd
Pearce, Chairman, Walter Carpenter, Vice Chairman, Todd Thompson, Roger Wolff,
Jack Lynch, Mike Cooper, Rebecca Nesbitt and Leon Allison. Others present included Karen C. Smith,
Planning Director, Jennifer Jackson, Assistant County Attorney, Melissa
Peagler, Planner, Josh Freeman, Planner, and Kathleen Scanlan Secretary. Also present was William Moyer, Chairman of
the Board of Commissioners and ex-officio, non-voting member of the Planning
Board. Board member Valerie Welbourn
was absent.
Approval of Minutes. Chairman Pearce presided over the meeting
and called the meeting to order. He
asked for the approval of the January 15, 2002 minutes. Chairman Pearce made a motion to approve the
minutes and Roger Wolff seconded the motion.
All members voted in favor.
Adjustment of Agenda.
There was no adjustment to the agenda.
Staff Reports. Ms.
Smith informed the Board members that were no Staff reports to discuss.
.
Chairman Pearce mentioned that
reviews of subdivisions would be conducted informally unless the applicant or
anyone qualified to participate in the proceeding requests that such review be
conducted as a formal quasi-judicial proceeding.
OLD BUSINESS:
Request
for Variances from the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance for Oleta Falls
(File 00-M08) – Waterside Properties, LLC, Applicant. Ms. Peagler stated that she had forwarded a
copy of the Development Plan approved by the Planning Board and the Final Plat
of the development as built to all Board members. She noted on the maps the area in which the slope is at a 22%
grade. She stated that this gives a
view as to how it was done and approved and how it was completely
finished. Chairman Pearce informed the
Board members that Mr. Roger Wolff had passed out his views regarding the grade
variance request. Chairman Pearce then
asked Jack Lynch to give a summary of the Subcommittee meeting. Mr. Lynch stated that the Subcommittee had
two meetings in January. The Subcommittee talked about the bridge
variance request, which has been withdrawn and was acknowledged by the
Subcommittee. The Subcommittee also
discussed the width of the shoulders and that they be reduced from the 6-foot
standard to the “as built” shoulders in place in Phase 2 and to 2-foot
shoulders in Phase 3. He stated that
the Subcommittee recommended denial of the request because of three
findings. (1) The Ordinance was in
existence at the time of the planning of the project; (2) it is a safety issue;
and (3) the developers clearly stated at the Board of Commissioner’s meeting on
bonding that they fully intended to comply with conditions of the
Ordinance. He stated that he had read
the minutes of the meeting in April 2000 and in that it stated that they would
meet the specifications on the shoulder requirements. They did intend to comply with the conditions of the
Ordinance. He mentioned that they
looked at the curve radius variance request.
He stated that the Subcommittee recommended that they hold it open until
more information is presented and to extend the variance request
indefinitely. Mr. Lynch stated that
regarding grade variance request, the developers requested that the grade be
allowed to remain at 22% instead of the required 18% in the Subdivision
Ordinance. He stated that there have
been some items that have come up since the original Subcommittee
recommendation and asked Mr. Wolff to review his memo regarding the grade
variance request. Mr. Wolff stated that
he had reviewed a lot of documents and stated that this is not a statement of
findings of the Subcommittee nor is it a statement of findings of the Board,
but it is what he wants the Board to consider as the findings for the grade
variance request. The following were
those findings:
1.
*The Subcommittee of the Planning
Board visited the site on January 8, 2002 and inspected the road where it is
not in compliance with the Ordinance.
2.
*At the January 22, 2002
Subcommittee meeting, “Mr. Ball reported that the rock outcroppings were part
of the reason” for the grade violation.
3.
*At the January 22, 2002
Subcommittee meeting, “Mr. Ball stated that the road was paved before the
surveyor shot the grade and found it did not meet the standard.”
4.
*The cost to make the road
compliant with the Ordinance does not appear to be significant in terms of the
total project.
5.
*The applicant has posted a bond
to assure funds are available to make the road grade compliant. Mr. Wolff stated that Mr. Lynch had
mentioned that the developer had said they would comply with the Ordinance.
6.
*The Subcommittee discussed at
length the cause of the non-compliance with the grade. He added, “was it the failure of consultants
to design and stake the road appropriately or was it results of the applicant’s
own actions?” The Subcommittee
determined it to be primarily not the applicant’s own actions. He said the applicant told them it was the
failure on the part of the surveyor and/or engineer.
7.
*The “as built” Exhibit 1 shows
about 200 feet of road at a 22% grade.
Lengthening the road by about 44.5 feet to 244.5 feet would then produce
a grade of 18%. Mr. Wolff stated how he
computed these figures and after talking about his computations, they agreed.
(Mr. Carpenter at this time arrived to the meeting).
8.
*Mr. Ball was asked if the road
could have been taken around and he stated that it would have taken out 2
lots.
9.
*The Subcommittee voted to
recommend to the Planning Board that the variance be granted “based on Mr.
Ball’s testimony that they were not aware of the existence of the grade
variation until the road was completed” and “that it was also because it was
not of their own doing but was likely due to topography and/or surveying
errors.”
10. *A review of the Development Plan IV approved by the Planning Board shows
six curves and five lots on the road in question.
11. *A review of the “as built” Exhibit 1 for the Grade Variance shows a
total of only five curves and five lots on the road in question.
12. *The actual construction of the road has had one curve removed. This is the exact area in which the grade is
in violation.
13. *Mr. Ball’s statement about the loss of lots is in conflict with the
facts as presented in the plans and drawings as listed above. Mr. Wolff said in looking at the Development
Plan and counting the number of lots that faces those streets, which is lot #
30, 31, 33, 34 and one more that has been cut-off. He added that in looking at the Final Plat there are also five
lots. He said that he concluded that the road straightening was not due the
loss of two lots.
14. *The loss of one curve is a loss of about 50 feet of roadway. Had the one curve been installed, the road
would likely have been in compliance.
Mr. Wolff said because he did not have the appropriate scales or the
technical expertise, he took a highlighter and used it as a gauge and rolled it
down and measured how far it went on both sets of plans and found that it was
about a 50 foot variation by straightening it out instead of leaving the curves
in.
15. *Changing the road grade from 22% to 18% may be a rather significant
effort to gain potentially modest results in safety. The Subcommittee discussed this in length that going from 22% to
18% might not grant a lot of additional safety on a slick frosty morning coming
down the hill.
16. *There is no evidence presented that would show constructing the road as
designed would be an unnecessary hardship.
17. *There is no evidence presented that would show that an increase from 18%
to 22%, or an increase of 4% in grade, is in harmony with the general purpose
and intent of the ordinance. Increasing
the grade by 22.22% (4% increase divided by the 18% allowable) is a significant
increase.
18. *Increasing the grade to 22% well may be a public hazard and a violation
of the public safety and welfare.
19. That for the Henderson County Board of Commissioners to grant a grade
variance they should reach three conclusions:
a. There are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the Ordinance.
b.
That the variance is in harmony
with the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance and preserves its spirit.
c.
That in granting the variance, the
public safety and welfare have been assured and substantial justice has been
done.
Mr. Wolff stated that in concluding, he would hope that the Planning
Board comes to a conclusion:
a.
That the applicant has not shown
any practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out
the strict letter of the Ordinance. It
would only be in developing the road in compliance with the approved
Preliminary Plan, not a field adjusted potentially grading contractor adjusted
road.
b.
That the variance request is not
in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance and does not
preserve its spirit. He said that 18%,
for some reason was established, and that is the maximum grade allowable for
safety and for the welfare of the residents and users of that road. He said that increasing the road by 25%, in
his opinion, it not in harmony with the general purpose or intent of the
Ordinance.
c.
That the applicant has not shown
that public safety and welfare have been assured and substantial justice has
been done.
Mr. Wolff stated that by increasing the grade a quarter, you couldn’t say
that safety and welfare has been maintained.
Justice would be following the appropriate guidelines and Ordinances as
they are delineated and as they were in existence at the time when the property
was required and when the development was planned. He stated that in his opinion, it would be an injustice to
approve the grade variation.
Ms. Smith stated that the minutes of the Subcommittee meeting have not
been approved as of yet and that the Subcommittee could take action on those
minutes here and in addition to that the Board could get Mr. Ball to formally
withdraw the bridge variance request.
At that time, Mr. Wolff made a motion to approve the Subcommittee
minutes of January 22, 2002. Leon
Allison seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
Mr. Ball presented a letter indicating the formal withdrawal of the
bridge width variance and curve radius variance request. He stated that they have had the
construction engineer back out to the property site and he has looked at the
shoulder widths and what needs to be done there. He said that at this time he feels that the bond improvement
guarantee should be the way to go and to review the shoulder widths. He said they will still voice their
compliant that the standards in the Ordinance are not for building roads in
mountain terrain, in fact, they are designed for standard subdivisions, not in
“open space” property and they are for thoroughfares that the developers of
Oleta Falls are not constructing.
Chairman Pearce stated that he does not understand that a surveyor can
put down stakes, as laid out by the developer and when you are grading them someone
did not notice that the stakes are not in the same place that you are grading,
without somebody giving them permission to change the stakes. Mr. Ball said that he did not have an answer
for that. The mistake was made on that
particular slope and was discovered after the fact. Chairman Pearce stated that if the development plan had been
followed and followed the surveyor’s staking, you probably would not be at this
meeting tonight. He added that someone
changed something, they would have had to get approval to change it and, that
approval could have only come from the developer. Chairman Pearce asked, were your surveyor, your developer, and/or
your grading contractor acting independently of your instructions? Mr. Ball stated that he has a debate between
the surveyor and the construction engineer.
He said that the construction engineer came from South Carolina, but
that he couldn’t find who is at fault.
Mr. Ball said that what he is asking for the grade diggers to come in
and say that they made the mistake. Mr.
Wolff said that it troubles him that your company just unilaterally and
arbitrarily said, (not in so many words but in your action) that the
Subdivision Ordinance really does not apply to us. Mr. Ball stated that he does not feel that they have not done
that at all. Mr. Wolff said that Mr.
Ausburn had said, “Do the roads the way I want them done.” Mr. Wolff further said he feels that the
development plan was disregarded and the developers did the roads the way that
he wanted with limited shoulders and drainage ditch. He said that he perceives it as an intentional, blatant statement
that the developer’s references supersede the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Wolff said that other developers cannot
get away with this type of variance and does not understand how the developers
of Oleta Falls can take that position.
Mr. Wolff said he understands that there are a lot of subdivisions that
are non-compliant. Looking at the road
that goes up to Oleta Falls, which is a State road, it does not look like it is
compliant with the Subdivision Ordinance rules, but he added that this is not
the job of the Planning Board tonight as we are here to make a recommendation
based on three findings. Mr. Ball said
he does not feel you could go out and find a developer that could justify those
three findings. Mr. Ball admitted that
he is guilty and said that there is nothing he can do about it. He said he is taking a beating because of
that but that it never was the intent of his company or himself or the people
that work for the company to be unscrupulous or lie to do something that we
felt would create an unsafe environment or to create this type of controversy
with this Planning Board. Mr. Ball said
he wants to be a good company in Henderson County or they would not have come
here. He said that the history of the
company is outstanding and is well known in Beaufort County, South
Carolina. He mentioned that this is the
first mountain development and they obviously made some poor decisions and
mistakes. Chairman Pearce stated that
what he has seen of your development that it has been done beautifully. He
added that the entrance and other parts have been done in a very classy
manner. Mr. Wolff added that he too is
sympathetic and also mentioned that it is a beautiful development but his
personal preference cannot be swayed by what you have done. The Planning Board has very strict mandates
that we must follow and there are three findings that need to be satisfied, but
if we cannot, we will have no recourse but to deny the request. Mr. Lynch said that what bothered the Board
members was (1) regarding the shoulder (4 – 6 feet), the statements in the
minutes that state 70 – 80% for the entire development is less than 4 feet; and
(2) in Section 3 you are still requesting 2 feet. He said the Board members were out there and noticed that Phase
III had not been graded as of yet. He
said he does not understand why the development could not have come up to the 4
– 6 feet in Section 3 when you knew that this was the rule. Mr. Lynch added that he had talked with
NCDOT and said their rules are the same (4 – 6 feet). He said he agrees that there are a lot of roads in the County
that are too close to the road, but that is not the case tonight. Chairman Pearce stated that all the
developers that come before the Board are required to have the same
requirements and if the Board needs to look at making amendments to the
Subdivision Ordinance that would be a different story. Chairman Pearce feels that the Board has no
other option but to deny the entire request.
Mr. Wolff said that what he found problematic was in the request for the
shoulder variance you had said, “short sections on three roads that do not meet
the shoulder width requirements.” Mr.
Ball indicated that that was feedback from Ms. Smith and Ms. Peagler when they
inspected the roads. Mr. Allison stated
that when he was out there he noticed that if you change the grade, you are not
improving or taking away from the safety issue because it is a steep grade. Mr. Ball stated that the Subcommittee had
voted to approve the grade variance.
Mr. Cooper stated that was based on the information that you had
provided at that time and the statement that you made that you were not aware
of any changes made to the plan.
However, it was quit obvious in looking at the plan now, and the way it
was proposed and put in, that someone pretty drastically changed the plan. He said that he does not understand the
intent. When you stake a road that had
that big curve in it, and when it is graded then the curve is not in the road
anymore. Mr. Ball stated that they took
the curve out and worked with the elevation and they were given information
that with the curve being removed and the 18% grade could be met. He said that it was not until the road was
paved and the surveyor came back to say that it does not meet the 18% grade
that they were aware of a problem. Mr.
Ball stated that this is when he notified Ms. Smith that he was not in
compliance in that particular section.
Mr. Ball said it does not make any sense to wait for the Board to do
something on this and said that he would withdraw the shoulder width variance
request and said he had an improvement guarantee regarding the shoulders. Mr. Todd Thompson said that if that
percentage of road grade was 16%, which would be less than it is now, would
that make it any safer as he feels it is dangerous either way. Mr. Wolff stated that he agrees but it is
not the Board’s decision to make. He
said the Planning Board’s decision to make is if it goes from 18% to 22% are
there practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying
out the original 18% grade. Mr. Wolff
personally feels that it was not a hardship or practical difficulty they would
have just had to put in another 50 feet of road in there. He said in his opinion, “is it practically
difficult to correct it now, yes; am I sorry, yes; did they violate, yes; was
there a hardship to cause them to violate, no, so you can not find the hardship
rule. We as a Board have to find that
the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance
and preserves it spirit. He said he
assumes that the 18% grade has to do with the safety issue, because of this he
had talked with his surveyor and he was told to never let anyone ever go over
20%. Mr. Wolff feels that the Board
cannot recommend the variance. Mr.
Allison stated that this Board needs to consider the safety issues. He said that when fire trucks get off on the
shoulders built like this, they will sink.
Roger Wolff made a motion to send an unfavorable recommendation to the
Board of County Commissioners that the Planning Board finds the 18 points as
discussed previously [* indicates the 18 points on the previous pages] in Mr.
Wolff’s memo and because of those findings the Planning Board denies the grade
variance request. Mr. Wolff suggested
sending the list of findings to the Commissioners. Mr. Allison stated that since we are all humans and subject to
faults, this is one time he would like to vote mercy. He said that the developer is asking for forgiveness. They have gone ahead and made the wrong
judgment, but he does not see any benefit in the road by doing this much
grading. Mr. Cooper stated that he
really wants to give the variance, but will the Board be setting a standard as
18% as a good cut-off point. If we
grant a 20% grade, what stops us from granting a 24%, etc. He said that he is very sympathetic because
it will be a major expense to the developer.
Before you graveled and stoned the road, you would have had a little
grading to redo but now you need to destroy a lot of pavement and lose a lot of
gravel, and you’ll need to move some rock and whatever else to make it work
out. Mr. Cooper said, “Is it a
hardship? It depends on what a person
wants to call a hardship. It’s a money
hardship in that it is money that has been spent and is wasted, and the
Subcommittee could not honestly see that he had consciously made a decision to
vary from it. Jack Lynch seconded the
motion. The following were in favor of
the motion: Roger Wolff, Walter
Carpenter, Tedd Pearce and Jack Lynch.
Those not in favor of the motion were:
Todd Thompson, Leon Allison and Rebecca Nesbitt. Mike Cooper did not vote. Mr. Cooper stated that he really has a hard
time in theory voting to recommend it and consciously, voting against it. Considering all things and based on all the
information we have, there was a conscious decision made somewhere to vary and
someone made it, whether the owner was involved in it or not, and he said that
he would vote against the request. The
vote was 5 to 3 in favor of denying the grade variance. Mr. Allison suggested that the Board at
another time needs to discuss variances in length and what part the Planning
Board plays regarding variances. Mr.
Wolff asked how this will be presented to the County Commissioners. He said that at the last County
Commissioners meeting that he went to, Planning Board’s recommendation on Gary
Barnwell’s rezoning request was presented as a major discussion about the
Staff’s position before the Planning Board voted on it and it was outlining
Staff’s position and then at the end there was a comment that said that the
Planning Board voted 5 to 3 to support the recommendation of rezoning. He said that what he came away from there
was that the primary presentation was what Staff had recommended to us and that
the Planning Board had voted to the contrary.
He thinks it was a well intended presentation but he would like to make
sure that the Board understands how this Planning Board recommendation, especially
when it is a split vote is presented.
Chairman Pearce said that Staff works for the County Manager and part of
their assignment is to provide information and aid and assist the Planning
Board in its decisions or recommendations that are made to the Board of
Commissioners. He stated that Staff is
very free to voice their own concerns about issues, but if there is someone on
a particular issue who would like to request the opposing side’s viewpoint or
findings and include that as part of the Board of Commissioner’s packet, Staff
would be more than glad to cooperate to send it forward. Ms. Smith stated regarding this particular
issue, we will be dealing with it at the Board of Commissioners meeting as a
quasi-judicial hearing, so the Planning Board’s recommendation is presented
differently there than it is in a rezoning.
She added that any time we have approved minutes of a meeting where the
Planning Board made a decision on an issue, they are included in the Board of
Commissioner’s packet so they have those available. She said that if Staff has a particular recommendation, they will
make that known to the Board of Commissioners and it is not to slight the
Planning Board in anyway. She added
that every effort would be made to bring the Planning Board’s points
across. She suggested she will make
every effort to make sure the Planning Board minutes as well as the
recommendation sent to the Board of Commissioners, has the points the Planning
Board wants to express. She said that
when this request goes before the Board of Commissioners, there will be a
formal memo with the Planning Board’s recommendation and it will be verbatim so
that all of your points and findings will be made as part of that record and
the minutes will as well. She stated
that Staff welcomes any Board member who wants to participate or be present on
behalf of the Planning Board. Ms.
Jennifer Jackson said that Staff has been the liaison between the Planning
Board and the Board of Commissioners in presenting your actions to the Board of
Commissioners. She said that if anyone
ever desires to designate one of the Board members for a particular item they
are welcomed to do that, whether the Chairman or another member of the Board.
Request for Variance from the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance for
October Ridge (File 01-M19) – Jon Laughter, Agent for John Free and Betty
Sizemore, Property Owners. Ms. Peagler stated that the developers requested the variance at
the January’s Planning Board meeting.
On January 22, 2002 the Short Term
Issues Subcommittee of the Henderson County Planning Board met to discuss the
variance request. She briefly reviewed
the Subcommittee’s recommendation. She
said the developers requested that the width of the shoulders be reduced from
the 6 ft. standard to 2 ft. shoulders.
The Subcommittee recommends approval of the request based on the
following findings:
1.
It was a pre-existing road.
2.
It was a pre-approved subdivision
without qualifications. She noted that
on the map, all the lots color designated in green were approved as two
separate Minor Subdivisions.
3.
The developers were planning
additional road enhancements. Ms.
Peagler stated that they are planning to go ahead and make the width, but they
will be short on the shoulder width, which is why they are coming before you
tonight for the shoulder request.
4.
It is a residential use.
5.
No more traffic will be added
because the land is fully utilized.
6.
There would be significant
economic hardship if they tried to correct it.
7.
It would cut access off to
existing residences.
Mr. Lynch stated that the Subcommittee members made a trip out to the
site and looked at the road and the entire development. He said in particular they looked at this
section of the road, which is the portion for which they are asking for a shoulder
width variance, and recommends approval based on the seven findings that Ms.
Peagler just mentioned. Mr. Wolff
stated that in 1994 or 1995 a minor subdivision was completed with 9 lots. He asked if they had approved all 18 or 20
lots, would the roads they built then have met the standards of the Ordinance
at that time. Ms. Smith stated that
regarding road construction, they did not have to build the road at that time
it was approved as a Minor Subdivision.
She said the way it is built now is how it was built then and the only
issues they had to deal with in a Minor Subdivision for a private road was the
width of the right-of-way, the grade and vertical curve. She said they could propose a standard to
the Planning Board for a Major Subdivision on width back then and then it was
up to the Planning Board if the developer was doing private roads, but there
was no required width on shoulders at that time. Mr. Wolff stated that after the Subcommittee meeting he reviewed
this request further and found some things that troubled him. He said if, when they put in the nine lots,
they knew they were not going to develop the twenty lots because they did not
want a Major Subdivision because it would require a bigger road with a full
intention of later developing the other ten lots later, then he said he would
have to vote against it. It does not
appear to be the case. Ms. Smith stated
that there was no difference in standards from Minor to Major Subdivision. After some further discussion, Walter
Carpenter moved that the Planning Board find as facts that there are
impractical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in carrying out the strict
letter of the Ordinance regarding this road because of the topographical
situation of this road. He added that
the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance
and preserves its spirit in that it is not going to be used as access to any of
the lots that are being added to the Subdivision and so essentially it is an
access to the Minor Subdivision that has already been approved and given the
way it has been constructed, it is safe and is 16 feet wide. He said that in granting the variance, the
public safety and welfare has been assured and substantial justice has been
done. Based on those findings, the
Planning Board recommends to the Board of Commissioners that they grant the
variance. Jack Lynch seconded the
motion. All members voted in favor.
Meadow View – Minor Subdivision
Review (9 lots off Brickyard Road) – Jon Laughter, Agent for Lloyd and Marjorie
Ducote, Applicants. Ms. Peagler
said that Meadow View is a
6-lot minor subdivision located in the Mills River Township off of Brickyard
Road. Staff typically reviews minor
Subdivisions, however, Staff does not have the authority to approve alternate
cul-de-sac designs as proposed for Meadow View. The lots will be served by an existing road previously built to
access a duplex, which currently is located on the parcel. Existing private right-of-ways are required
by the Subdivision Ordinance to upgrade to the standards in the Subdivision
Ordinance. The road appears to meet and
exceed standards. The subdivision is in an Open Use zoning district. Ms. Peagler stated that Staff has reviewed
the Plan for conformance with the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance but
Staff cannot approve these cul-de-sac designs.
Ms. Smith stated that this is no different from previous approvals on
the “t” type design. She added that
this is one of the amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance that the Board of Commissioners
are having a hearing on to allow the Planning Staff to have some authority on
cul-de-sac design approvals. Mr. Wolff
asked Mr. Laughter whether he feels that the cul-de-sac design is adequate. Mr. Laughter said it was. Mr. Wolff made a motion that the Planning
Board finds and concludes that the Minor Subdivision Plan submitted for Meadow
View Subdivision complies with the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance and
further move that such Plan be approved with specific approval of the alternate
cul-de-sac design being a cross section of the turnaround design. Mike Cooper seconded the motion and all
members voted in favor.
High Vista Falls, Phase V (File
01-M06) – Revised Master Plan and Revised Development Plan (24 lots off Country
Club Road) – Bob Duffy, Agent for NC Four C’s, LLC, Applicants. Ms. Peagler stated that the application is
for a revised Master Plan and Development Plan for High Vista Falls, Phase
V. She said that this phase will
consist of 24 residential lots and was previously approved with 23 residential
lots. She said because of the
reconfiguration of the road system in Phase V and the addition of a residential
lot has caused the subdivision to come back before the Planning Board for
revised approval. The water will be provided
through a municipal system and the sewage disposal will be provided through a
community sewer system. The property is
located in the Open Use zoning district.
Regarding the Master Plan, the following are contingent on approval:
revised Master Plan. (HCSO Appendix 4)
Ms. Peagler stated that regarding the Development Plan, the following
items are
contingent on approval:
Mr. Wolff asked, “The roads that serve this
section and outside this section that lead into this section in compliance
regarding the grade of 18%, etc.?” Mr.
Duffy, agent for the developer said the roads that they have designed are
fortunately [or unfortunately] are already installed in this phase do comply
with those standards, but the existing roads that are adjacent to this phase of
the project is preexisting before we started this part of the community and
they, by in large, do not comply with the existing standards. He stated that they were originally
developed in the late 70’s through the 80’s.
Todd Thompson asked how much do they not comply? Mr. Duffy said he does not know. He said there is no data on that and added
that they were not the developers at that time. Mr. Duffy feels that regarding road grade, they comply, but not
with the width of the road. Mr. Wolff
says that it poses a problem to him that the Board continues to have interior
mini sections of the plan that are compliant with the new road and the roads
leading into the development are not compliant. Mr. Carpenter stated that it will not be noticed driving around
the development. The right-of-way is
still 45 feet wide and that it is the same road and same shoulder, so it looks
all the same when you are into the development. Ms. Smith stated that the only solution we have now in the
Ordinance is if you own the property on both sides of the road, but in this
case they did not, particularly on this section. It was approved before we had this provision to upgrade. Mr.
Carpenter stated that one of the reasons that this provision went into the
Ordinance was so that if the roads were ever turned over to the State that they
could go ahead and accept it, otherwise, you cannot get there. That was the reasoning for having that
45-foot right-of-ways because the State would require that, if they ever took
them over. Mr. Duffy said pending those
corrections that Ms. Peagler mentioned, would this plat be considered a Final
Plat and recordable once those comments have been satisfied and would the Board
have to approve the Final Plat. Ms.
Smith said that Staff would approve the Final Plat and check that each comment
has been satisfied and that there would be no more Board approvals. Chairman Pearce made a motion that the
Planning Board find and conclude that the Master Plan and the Development Plan
submitted for High Vista Falls, Phase V Revised Subdivision complies with the
provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance except for those matters addressed in
the Technical Comment section of Staff’s memo that have not been satisfied by
the applicant and further move that such Plan be approved subject to the
following Conditions: The applicant satisfies comments 1 through 3 under the
Master Plan Technical comments in the Staff’s memo and comments 1 through 5
under the Development Plan Technical comments in the Staff’s memo. Leon Allison seconded the motion and all
members voted in favor.
High Vista Country Club – Revised
Master Plan and Revised Development Plan (2 lots off Country Club Road) – Bob
Duffy, Agent for Lon Pierce, Applicant.
Ms. Peagler stated that this plan is a revised Master Plan and a revised
Development Plan for High Vista Country Club for a re-division of a previously
recorded lot. Recently the division of
lot CC-3 within High Vista Country Club came to the attention of Staff. She
stated that it was recorded at the Register of Deeds Office without the
Subdivision Administrator’s signature on the plat nor the Plat Review Officer’s
signature. Ms. Peagler contacted Mr.
Lon Pierce, Owner of High Vista Country Club about the situation and he agreed
to come in and correct the issue. She
stated that Staff required that the subdivision follow the process of a major
subdivision because it lies within an approved Major Subdivision and will add
an additional lot to High Vista Country Club.
She said water will be provided through a municipal public system and
the sewer system will be on a community sewer system. The property is located in the Open Use zoning district. Staff has reviewed the revised Master Plan
and revised Development Plan for conformance with the Henderson County
Subdivision Ordinance. With regard to
the Master Plan, the following items are contingent on approval:
Ms. Peagler stated
that regarding the Development Plan, the following items are contingent on
approval:
Ms. Peagler stated that the
submittal is for approval of the Revised Master Plan and Revised Development
Plan for the subdivision and that Staff feels that the submittals
satisfactorily address the requirements of the Henderson County Subdivision
Ordinance. Staff would recommend
approval of the Revised Master Plan and approval of the Revised Development
Plan subject to the above listed comments being addressed and revised plans
addressing the above comments being submitted prior to Final Plat
approval.
Chairman Pearce said that
regarding the request by the Homeowners Association, if the Board takes those
setbacks there then it basically becomes legated and would still be their issue
to deal with. He said even if the Board
would want to put notes on the Final Plat that it is a legal matter but he
feels that in this particular case, any reference we make is to something that
would be off the Final Plat that will be recorded. Ms. Smith stated that if the County had setbacks in that
district, we would ask that they be shown on the Final Plat, but for their
Homeowner’s Association, we do not require them. Mr. Carpenter stated that he would like to here from one of the
homeowners regarding this issue.
Chairman Pearce opened public input.
Mr. Tom Saylor stated that he
would also be speaking on behalf of the other homeowner who signed up for
public input, Mr. William Nestler. Mr.
Saylor stated that he lives at 12 Vista Villa Drive in the condominium section,
which adjoins this project. He objects
to having this lot (owned by Lon Pierce) split in two because it presents a
problem for the condominiums in this area.
Mr. Saylor stated that Vista Drive was built exclusively as the entrance
and exit to the condominiums and is the only access to and from those
condominiums. He stated that there is
no other way in there. This road is not
only sharply curved, but is very steep and narrow. He stated that if this
proposal is accepted and someone is allowed to build on this lot there would be
a curb cut in this area (which he indicated on the map), for this home. Mr. Saylor said that is the major basis of
my objection. He feels that this road
presents a safety problem for those condominiums. He said that their condominiums have bylaws that preclude street
parking because of the width of the road.
He said those restrictions clearly would not affect these lots because
they are outside the condominium development, which means that this road could
be further blocked because anyone in that particular lot (which is indicated on
the map) could park in the roadway and we would have no recourse in that
regard. He added that there is a sign
made of concrete which also makes it hard to get around and with street parking
would make it very impossible to move.
Chairman Pearce said that if that was one lot and people who owned that
other lot chose to use that road or to put their driveway to a house site, they
would have the right now to build anywhere they want to on that particular
site. Mr. Saylor stated that the party
should choose, like everyone else chose on Country Club Road and their entrance
and exit would be off Country Club Road.
Chairman Pearce stated that they are not required to. Chairman Pearce asked whether there should
be a correction on the plat indicating the traffic island that is splitting the
road, which separates ingress and egress.
Mr. Allison asked whether the road is deeded to condominium association. Mr. Saylor said that there is an easement
privileges for entrance and exit to the condominiums. Mr. Duffy stated that the Homeowners Association owns and maintains
the road. He stated that the lot owns
to the center of the road, which gives it full right-of-way to use that
road. Mr. Thompson asked whether Mr.
Saylor has a problem with all of the lots.
Mr. Saylor stated that he only has problems with the two lots. He does not have any problem with any of the
other residences because they have their entrances and exits off Country Club
Road. Mr. Wolff said he understands
that that street be used exclusively for homeowners of the condominiums but
there is nothing in our Ordinance that we vote on tonight that would keep that
road being used by the person that could be located at the lower lot. He said he knows of no Ordinance violation
that this Board can vote on that says they cannot do it. Mr. Saylor said that it is a safety hazard
for the people living in the Vista Villa Condominiums. Mr. Wolff asked Mr. Duffy what the
percentage of grade was on this road.
Mr. Duffy stated that it is approximately 15%. Todd Thompson asked what the lot size of the two lots in question
compared to the other ones up the road.
Mr. Duffy said the only reason why these lots were available to be split
was because they are going to be accessible for our community sewer
system. He added that prior to that,
they would have had to be permitted for septic and the lot size would have been
restricted to one home site. Mr.
Allison stated that if it was originally deeded as one lot and the condominium
complex was aware of it being one lot.
If it is as steep as what has been mentioned, he said he has
reservations on dividing the lot there.
Mr. Wolff asked Mr. Allison, “What is your reservation?” Mr. Allison said his reservations are if it
was deeded as one lot. Ms. Nesbitt
asked Mr. Duffy whether the restrictive covenants addresses dividing lots? Mr. Duffy stated that the homeowners
association came in and approved that lot to be subdivided and it was done
during a special resolution and was approved as such. Mr. Wolff stated to Mr. Duffy that your restrictive covenants has
nothing to do with the Planning Board, so what you do internally is external to
this Board. Chairman Pearce stated that
the condominium association is entirely separate from the homeowners
association. Chairman Pearce asked
whether these lots have been sold to a third party. Mr. Duffy stated that they have been marketed, but presently,
have not been sold. Mr. Allison stated
that inside a subdivision when there is one lot, he has concerns that that lot
could be divided and then instead of one lot with one house, you have two lots
and two homes, which could present a safety issue. Mr. Carpenter stated that he could not find anything in the
Ordinance that this project does not meet.
Ms. Smith stated that the only thing we have in the Ordinance is
regarding the thirty-foot rights-of-ways and how many lots they can subdivide,
but this is not pertinent to that issue.
Mr. Allison wanted to know how steep the driveway would be. Mr. Duffy stated that depending on the
height of the foundation, it could be as level as the street, and so coming in
laterally along the topography lines it could be a level driveway. Chairman Pearce made a motion that the
Planning Board finds and concludes that the Master Plan and the Development
Plan submitted for High Vista Country Club Revised Subdivision complies with
the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance except for those matters addressed
in the technical comment section of Staff’s memo that have not been satisfied
by the applicant; and I further move that such plan be approved subject to the
following conditions: (1) that the name and address of the owner need to be
placed on a revised master plan; (2) that the title of the plan must state
“Master Plan” on a revised Master Plan; and (3) a project summary stating total project area, number of lots, and
types of water and sewer systems must be shown on a revised Master Plan. Regarding the Development Plan comments to
be satisfied: (1) a project summary
must be shown on the Final Plat stating the number of lots, minimum &
maximum lot size, type of water & sewer system, and the current zoning,
which is Open Use; (2) the applicant needs to submit an Affidavit of
Understanding of Farmland Preservation District since it is located in a
Farmland Preservation District. The
Final Plat should include a notation that the property is within ½ mile of land
in a Farmland Preservation District; and (3) the proposed houses should be
removed from the Final Plat and the Final Plat should have a note stating that
it supercedes the plat previously recorded.
Chairman Pearce stated that in addition to these conditions, the traffic
island should be included on the Final Development Plan. Roger Wolff seconded the motion. All members voted in favor.
Proposed Zoning Map Amendment #
R-01-02 to Rezone Land on Souther Road from RC to R-20 – Planning Staff. Mr. Freeman stated that Staff is requesting
that the Planning Board include for consideration in the rezoning application
R-06-01, which was submitted by Mr. Samuel R. Garland, Parcel # 19 which is
owned by Tracy L. & Gregory A. Garland, which was erroneously excluded from
consideration with the rezoning application R-06-01. Mr. Freeman stated that Staff recommends that the Henderson
County Planning Board submit to the Henderson County Board of Commissioners a
request and recommendation that Parcel # 19 be rezoned from RC to R-20. Staff feels that it is in keeping with your
recommendation on R-06-01 and that this is just a correction to a Staff
error. Roger Wolff made a motion to
recommend to the Board of Commissioners a request to add Parcel # 19 to the
rezoning application R-06-01 to rezone from RC to R-20. Mike Cooper seconded the motion. Mr. Moyer asked whether Staff is sure that
there are no other property owners wanting to be included. Mr. Freeman stated that he has been in
contact with all the property owners, except for one, whose telephone number
has been disconnected. Walter Carpenter
suggested that Staff check with the Tax Assessor’s office in case they might
have some information that could be of help in this issue. Mr. Freeman stated that he has already done
that, but he plans on going out to the address. Chairman Pearce feels that it would be appropriate for Staff to
write to the people involved on those particular lots and give them a timetable
for responding to you, and if you do not receive a response, then forward the
request to the Commissioners. He said
thirty days would be more than adequate or whatever the time frame you feel
comfortable with. Mr. Freeman stated
that he would look into Parcel 21, owned by James R. Suttles, but he asked that
the Board approve the motion made regarding Parcel # 19 addition, because he
feels obligated to carry this request through as soon as possible. All members voted in favor of the motion to
include Parcel # 19 to the request, R-06-01.
Subcommittee
Assignments and Meeting Dates.
Ms. Smith reminded the Board members that there would be a subcommittee
meeting regarding the Brookside Camp Road/Howard Gap Road zoning request on
Thursday, February 28, 2002 at 5:00 p.m.
Board members decided in order to officially approve the draft minutes
of the Short Term Issues Subcommittee meeting on January 22, 2002; they would
start the next regular scheduled Planning Board meeting at 6:55 p.m. and have
it as the first item of the agenda.
Other Business. Mr. Wolff stated that in the memo that the
County Engineer, Gary Tweed wrote to Ms. Smith regarding Oleta Falls he made a
recommendation (which was enclosed in the Board members’ packets) stating,
“that certifications by boring tests as to stone and pavement depths should be
provided.” Board members agreed that
because it is a private road, they feel that they do not have any jurisdiction,
only with State Roads. Ms. Smith stated
that there are certain things the Board can ask for. Mr. Carpenter stated that the road has to be built before they
can sell or bond it. Mr. Carpenter
stated in the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 170-21 E, in the last
sentence it states, “the Subdivision Administrator may require that a
professional engineer or surveyor certify on the final plat that no portion of
the road(s) have grades that exceed maximum allowable grade as defined herein
or submit a final as-built graded center line profile showing grade and
alignment for all roads.” Mr. Carpenter
said that really does not say anything pertinent to this issue. Chairman Pearce stated that Staff would look
further into this issue. Mr. Wolff
stated that his concern was that he found a multitude of field adjustments
being made and was concerned that one of the adjustments might have been to the
depth of the gravel and asphalt. Some
Board members commented that this happens all the time. Chairman Pearce feels that it will become
more of a homeowners association issue at this point, since it is a totally
private road.
Mr. Moyer feels that the Planning
Board needs to know the updates regarding the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning
Rewrite. He said that there is so many
people on this Board that were not involved in either issue that he feels all
Planning Board members need to be updated and would like to have some time set
aside at one of the Planning Board meetings to discuss these issues. Chairman Pearce requested that this be on
next month’s agenda under Staff Reports.
Adjournment. There being
no further business, Roger Wolff made a motion to adjourn and Chairman Pearce
seconded the motion. All members voted
in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9:08
PM.
Tedd M. Pearce, Chairman Kathleen Scanlan,
Secretary