MINUTES
HENDERSON
COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
May 21, 2002
The Henderson County Planning Board met for its regular meeting on Tuesday, May 21, 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, Roger Wolff, Paul Patterson, Todd Thompson, Jack Lynch, Kevin Keefe, Mike Cooper, and Leon Allison. Others present included Karen C. Smith, Planning Director, Melissa Peagler, Planner, Jennifer Jackson, Assistant County Attorney and Kathleen Scanlan, Secretary.
Approval of Minutes. Chairman Pearce presided over the meeting and called the meeting to order. He asked for the approval of the April 16, 2002 minutes. Jack Lynch made a motion to approve the minutes and Leon Allison seconded the motion. All members voted in favor.
Adjustment of Agenda. Chairman Pearce suggested that Item 7 be moved after Item 10 in the interest of time.
Staff Reports. Ms. Smith informed the Board that the Board of Commissioners voted on the variance for Oleta Falls. She stated that the Commissioners decided to grant the variance for Oleta Falls. She noted that when the Order is issued, it would be forwarded on to all Planning Board members. Ms. Smith inquired whether Chairman Pearce wants to introduce the two new members at this time. Chairman Pearce stated that later in the meeting when everyone on the Board has arrived he would give his introduction.
OLD BUSINESS:
Request for Extension of Development Plan Approval for Splitrail Subdivision - L. DeWayne Brown, Agent for The Prestige Group, Developer. (Roger Wolff and Todd Thompson arrived to the meeting). Ms. Peagler stated that on April 25, 2000 the Planning Board approved the Master and Development Plan for Splitrail Subdivision. She said as per Section 170-16 C (4), Development Plan approval is valid for two years, however the Planning Board may, for just cause, grant extensions of development plan approval for a maximum of one additional year. The Prestige Group, developers of Splitrail, have not completed the project and submitted a Final Plat prior to the passing of its two-year approval period. She said; The Prestige Group has, through the attached letter, asked for an extension of the Development Plan approval for a period of one year. She stated that their letter indicates that all grading and road construction is complete but the developers are waiting for a complete soil analysis before completing the layout of the parcels on the final plat. She stated that action by the Planning Board is
needed to either grant or deny this extension. Ms. Peagler showed photos of the Splitrail Subdivision. Mr. Lynch made a motion to grant a one-year extension for Splitrail Subdivision. Mike Cooper seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
Request for Extension of Development Plan Approval for Oleta Falls, Phase 3 - A.J. Ball Project Manager and Agent for Waterside Properties, LLC, Developer. (Walter Carpenter arrived to the meeting). Ms. Peagler stated that on April 25, 2000 the Planning Board approved the Master Plan and the Development Plans for Phases 1, 2, and 3 of the Oleta Falls Subdivision. Ms. Peagler said that as per Section 170-16C(4), Development Plan approval is valid for two years, however the Planning Board may, for just cause, grant extensions of development plan approval for a maximum of one additional year. She said that while the final plats of Phase 1 and 2 have been submitted and reviewed, Waterside Properties, the developers of Oleta Falls, have not completed Phase 3 and submitted the Final Plat prior to the passing of its two-year approval period, however, Waterside Properties have asked for an extension of the Development Plan approval of Phase 3 for a period of one year. Clearing for roads and the rough grading work are complete for Phase 3. She mentioned that she had included the Planning Board's Policy for extensions. She said action by the Planning Board is needed to either grant or deny this extension. Leon Allison made a motion to grant a one-year extension for Oleta Falls and Jack Lynch seconded the motion. All members voted in favor.
NEW BUSINESS:
Boyleston Ridge (File # 02-M07) - Combined Master Plan and Development Plan Review (16 lots off NC Highway 280) - William G. Lapsley, Agent for Asheville Equities, Inc., Property Owner. Ms. Peagler stated that Boyleston Ridge is a proposed residential subdivision consisting of 16 lots on approximately 26.2 acres of land off NC Highway 280. She said that a single entrance to the development will be provided off Highway 280 with two cul-de-sacs serving as the street network for the subdivision and that lot sizes vary throughout the development with the largest being 2.26 acres and the smallest being just over an acre at 1.15 acres. Each lot will be served by individual septic tanks and potable water will be obtained through individual wells. Ms. Peagler said that the property is located in the Open Use Zoning District and also is in a WS-IV District. Ms. Peagler stated that Staff has reviewed the combined Master and Development Plan for conformance with the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance and that all requirements of the Master Plan have been met. She stated that Staff has the following comments regarding the Development Plan:
on a revised Development Plan (HCSO 170-21).
roads need to be designed to NCDOT standards. Culvert locations, length diameter and type should be shown on a revised Development Plan (HCSO 170-21-D, 170-29-B and Appendix 5).
Property Addressing Office for approval (HCSO 170-23 and Appendix 5).
covenants for the development or certification indicating none will be used to the
Planning Board (HCSO 170-36).
this should be noted by calling the plat as such. If not, then another plat titled "Development Plan" needs to be submitted for review (HCSO Appendix 5, Development Plan Requirements).
10. General Legend - A general legend with appropriate symbols for contours,
benchmarks, utilities, etc. should be included on a revised Development Plan.
(HCSO Appendix 5, General Legend).
11. Lot Lines - Approximate length of all lot lines for all lots within the
development need to be shown on a revised Development Plan.
12. Lot Design - Lot # 9 can be considered a flat lot.
13. Common Area - If the proposed pond will be under joint ownership of the all
property owners, it should also be labeled as common area on a revised Development Plan (HCSO 170-31(B).
Ms. Peagler stated that the submittal is for approval of the combined Master and Development Plan for the subdivision. Staff feels that with minor corrections the submittals would satisfactorily address the requirements of the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance. She said that Staff would recommend approval of the combined Master and Development Plan subject to the above listed comments being addressed and
revised plans being submitted prior to final plat approval. Regarding the flat lot # 9, Mr. Cooper asked what qualifies Lot # 9 as a flag lot and not Lot # 6? Ms. Peagler stated that Lot # 6 has more than 50 feet of frontage, which has the required 30 feet versus Lot # 9. She stated that the Ordinance is very vague regarding flag lots, but says if there is a small piece leading to a larger piece it can be considered a flag lot therefore the reason why Staff did not consider Lot # 6 a flag lot was due to the amount of road frontage. Ms. Smith stated that the narrowest width under the Ordinance is 30 feet for that connection and for any flag lot. Ms. Smith stated that Lot # 6 could be called a flag lot as well. Mr. Cooper asked whether Lot # 6 should be approved as a flag lot? Ms. Smith stated that it would not hurt to approve Lot # 6 along with Lot # 9 as flag lots. Chairman Pearce stated that with regard to Condition # 12, the Board is going to include Lot # 6 for approval as a flag lot. Mr. Lapsley discussed Condition # 13 regarding common area. He mentioned that the developer's intent is to build a pond in the common area. If the pond can be developed and it sustains itself, then a dry hydrant will be installed. This area will be labeled on the revised Development Plan as "common area." Chairman Pearce asked what about the wording for Condition # 2 because he feels it is a little "iffy" whether or not the area is useable. Ms. Smith stated that she would word it, "if they get approval to develop a pond, that the Planning Board would require a dry hydrant. Mr. Lapsley stated that there is no City water on site or nearby, nor any other water on the site, so we have no other way to create the pond. Ms. Smith said if the pond can be installed, can it be used for a dry hydrant? Mr. Lapsley stated that yes it will be used for a dry hydrant as along as there will be enough water to sustain the pond. Mr. Allison stated that the Planning Board couldn't require them except only on that property to put in a dry hydrant. Chairman Pearce agreed and said that he is concerned that the Planning Board will approve this development with a condition the developer cannot meet. Ms. Smith stated that the other condition is that the developer has to show on their Final Plat their nearest source of water. Ms. Peagler suggested that the Planning Board could approve this condition stipulating either showing the nearest water supply point or a dry fire hydrant if required by the Fire Marshal's Office. Mr. Allison stated that he would feel comfortable with this. Mr. Cooper inquired whether there will be a problem regarding grade in this subdivision. Mr. Lapsley stated that regarding Condition # 4, the road type, it will be public and NCDOT has reviewed the detailed plans. He said regarding Conditions # 5 and # 6 have all been approved by NCDOT and expect a letter soon. He mentioned that the grade is ok and in certain places there is a 13% grade. Roger Wolff made a motion that the Planning Board find and conclude that the combined Master and Development Plan submitted for Boyleston Ridges 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 specifically, Condition # 2. It is the intent of the developer to install a pond, with a dry fire hydrant but if a dry fire hydrant is not required by the Fire Marshal’s office the developer must show the nearest supply point. He stated that he further moves that such Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: The applicant satisfies Conditions # 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, and 12 which should be modified to include both Lots # 6 and # 9 as flag lots and condition 13. Leon Allison seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
Chairman Pearce at this time introduced the two new members of the Planning Board, Kevin Keefe and Paul Patterson.
Carriage Park Planned Unit Development, Section 9 - Development Parcel Review (6 townhomes off Carriage Park Way) - Vic Knight, Land Planning Collaborative, Agent for Carriage Park Associates, LLC, Owner/Developer. Chairman Pearce stated that the development parcel review for Section 9 as well as Section 12 will be conducted as a formal quasi-judicial hearing and he mentioned that since Mr. Carpenter has had more exposure to quasi-judicial hearings, he would turn the proceedings over for him to conduct. Chairman Pearce mentioned that he has four houses under construction in Carriage Park and if the Board feels that he should recuse himself from the proceedings he stated that would be fine. He said he did not feel it would not change his opinion one way or the other in this matter. Mr. Paul Patterson stated that he would be recusing himself from the discussion and decision of this matter because of engineering matters dealing with Section 9 and Section 12. He stated that he will be testifying regarding the evidence of infrastructure. Mr. Carpenter stated that the Board will clearly allow Mr. Patterson to recuse himself, but as far as Mr. Pearce, because of his indirect dealings and his housing developments are not in either Section 9 or 12 he feels that should not be a problem for him to participate in this matter. Board members felt that there is no problem for Mr. Pearce to participate in the discussion and decision of the Carriage Park sections. Roger Wolff made a motion to allow Paul Patterson to recuse himself and to let Mr. Pearce stay as a member of the committee during the quasi-judicial hearings. Jack Lynch seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
Mr. Carpenter presided over the quasi-judicial proceeding and stated that a quasi-judicial proceeding is being held pertaining to Carriage Park to consider plans for a development parcel known as Section 9. He explained what a quasi-judicial proceeding is and stated that only persons who can demonstrate that they will be affected by the outcome of the decision are allowed to participate in the proceeding. He said testimony will be limited to only those issues concerning whether the plans for Section 9 should be approved under the Zoning Ordinance and the Special Use Permit # 93-13 as amended for the Carriage Park Planned Unit Development. Mr. Carpenter determined the parties for the hearing regarding Section 9 as follows:
Virginia Burke, resident of Carriage Park;
James Banelin, resident of Carriage Park and member/representative of the Carriage Park Architectural Committee;
Gerald Liedl, resident of Carriage Park and member/representative of the Carriage Park Architectural Committee;
Dale Hamlin, General Manager of Carriage Park Associates, LLC
Bob Grasso, Land Development Planner, Carriage Park Associates, LLC
Karen C. Smith, Planning Director, Henderson County Planning Dept.
Melissa Peagler, Planning Technician, Henderson County Planning Dept.
All parties were sworn in. Mr. Carpenter asked Ms. Peagler to give her opening remarks. Ms. Peagler stated that Section 9 is part of the Carriage Park Planned Unit Development located off of NC 191. The development is for 26 town homes located on approximately 11.36 acres. The development parcel will be served by a through neighborhood road and each unit will be provided public water and public sewer service. The property is located in the R-20 District. Ms. Peagler stated that a pre-planning conference was held between
Henderson County Planning Staff and the agent representing the development. She said
Staff has reviewed the layout and materials plans for Section 9 for conformance with the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance and Special Use Permit 93-13 (as amended) and stated that she would offer Staff’s comments later. There were no comments by any parties at this moment. Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Grasso to address Staff’s comments.
Mr. Grasso stated that he has brought three copies of the drawings of the plan to respond to Staff’s comments. He reviewed each comment as follows:
Open Space. He stated that the development parcel size is in fact 11.36 and have added the necessary open space on both plans and where we come up with the additional 2.6 plus acres is taken from Section 7, which is part of the property. He showed on the plan where the open space will be.
Site Information. He stated that there would be both detached and attached townhouses. There will be some that will be two together attached and some detached.
Road Names. He stated that road names have been submitted, selected and approved, (Spring Height Court, Carriage Springs Way, and Spring Side Court).
Erosion Control Plan. Mr. Grasso said that the Erosion Control Plan has been submitted and that it has been approved as per his conversation with DEHNR. He said a letter of approval will follow.
Owner Name. He stated that all necessary changes regarding owner name to reflect Carriage Park Associates, LLC have been made.
Development Parcel Setbacks. He stated that his has been clarified with the 25-foot buffer around adjoining sections and have a self-imposed buffer along the loop road of 25 feet in addition to the right-of-way and it has been delineated clearly on the Plan.
Mr. Wolff asked Mr. Grasso, "Staff is seeing this Plan for the first time and has not had time to review it, correct?" Mr. Grasso stated that that was correct. Mr. Carpenter asked any of the parties if they had comments. Ms. Burke stated that she has a comment to address Mr. Grasso. She asked Mr. Grasso, "what type of buffer and where will it be between the houses in Section 9 and the main approach to Carriage Park, near the entrance of the gate?" Mr. Grasso showed the area and explained that there will be 25 feet from the area that will not be disturbed as a buffer and in addition to that, there will be approximately 25 - 40 feet area that will not be disturbed. He said that the way the homes will be built, there will be a stone wall constructed to hide the homes. As far as what the buffer will be made up of, it will be whatever that is presently growing there, which is a mixture of hard woods. No comments from other parties were made. Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Patterson to testify regarding the evidence of infrastructure development.
Mr. Patterson showed the existing booster station, which he mentioned is new to Carriage Park. He also explained where they will be tying into the existing waterline, which will be above the existing booster station and will be feeding from the tank on top, coming along through the subdivision with individual dead lines in various areas and bringing the waterline all the way through the other side. He said with the existing sewer in Section 10, Phase 2, and will be tying into that, as it is close enough to be its own site. He said there is a lot of infrastructure behind the units in the roadway just simply due to the topography. He stated that it would be foolish to build these lots specifically for basement homes and if you develop them in the roadway, there is no reason for them to be 10 - 12 feet deep in the road. He said in addition as an added feature, they will be continuing the sewer up the road to remove the sewer lift station in the future. He said everything is adjacent to the site. Mr. Pearce asked Staff whether evidence from the City of Hendersonville Water System is required or is Mr. Patterson's testimony regarding the infrastructure adequate? Ms. Peagler said that they will need submission of a letter from City of Hendersonville Water saying that the plans have been approved. Mr. Patterson stated that currently the plans are being worked on and should receive a letter within a week. Mr. Wolff asked whether Mr. Patterson addressed the infrastructure for drainage. Mr. Patterson stated that he had not looked at that but that there is existing drainage already out there and that there is a forty-eight inch pipe with double wall plastic which is very unusual to see. Mr. Grasso stated that this is part of the erosion control plan that has been approved and that there are adequate facilities down stream to handle what is being done. Mr. Wolff asked for clarification. Mr. Grasso turned to the plan and stated that the ditches and the culverts coming across the road, this storm drainage system has been laid out to tie into the existing storm drainage system and the increase of this development will be handled by the existing storm drainage. Mr. Wolff wanted to know who certifies the adequacy of drainage. Mr. Grasso stated that he would be certifying that. Mr. Hamlin stated for clarification, the permit requires that water and sewer is available to the parcel, is this correct? Mr. Patterson stated that water is just on the other side of Carriage Park Way, the sewer is a little further away but is within 100 feet. Mr. Hamlin said that there is a pressure line that runs between the manhole and the development parcel. Mr. Patterson stated that there is sewer there. Mr. Lynch mentioned that the comment regarding the Final Plat states Section 12, it should read Section 9. Ms. Smith asked Mr. Patterson to repeat the part about taking out part of the buffer to put the sewer in. Mr. Patterson stated that if any buffer will be made, it will be on the topside in the back way to serve lots 4 and 5.
Mr. Carpenter asked if there were any comments.
Mr. Bandelin stated that he wanted to let the Planning Board know that he and Mr. Liedl were at the meeting representing the architectural committee, which is made up of both residents and members of the development group. He said their primary purpose is to review buildings and additions to buildings in Carriage Park, they also take time to go through the special use permit before they are submitted to the Planning Board.
Ms. Virginia Burke stated that the approach to Carriage Park is up a winding hill and thoroughly tree covered on both sides. She basically stated that developing Section 9
would spoil the approach and remove hundreds of trees lining Carriage Park Drive and will make it look like any other place. She stated that even if a buffer of trees between the houses and Carriage Park Drive could be left it would help. She feels that the development of those homes in Section 9 should be well hidden from the roadway. She stated that the approach to Carriage Park is one of its distinguishing features. She also indicated that the original developer promised the homeowners that he would never build on either side of the road. In closing, she stated that the major feature of enhancement to Carriage Park will be gone if Section 9 is developed as discussed. Mr. Wolff stated that to consider your plea for ambience, tranquility and beauty of the area, the Board has to know the specific violation of any special use permit requirements, otherwise the Board cannot consider opinions. He said to the best of his knowledge there is no violation of Special Use Permit 93-13. Ms. Burke stated that is true and she understands. There were no further comments.
Upon discussing the comments for approval, Mr. Pearce made a motion that the Planning Board finds and concludes that the Development Plan submitted for Section 9 of the Carriage Park Planned Unit Development complies with the provisions of the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance and the Special Use Permits regulating the Planned Unit Development 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: # 1, That the open space will be reserved prior to or concurrent with the recordation of the lots in Section 9 and that all lands reserved as open space for this section needs to be clearly labeled on a revised plan; # 3, That evidence of infrastructure development for drainage, water, and sewer to the development parcel will need to be provided from the appropriate agency or the project engineer; # 4, That the road names will be submitted and approved by the Henderson County Property Addressing Office; # 5, that the Erosion Control Permit be submitted to the Planning Department and that # 8, the Final Plat for the Development Parcel Plan for Section 9, not Section 12 as indicated in Staff’s memo, be recorded and meet the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance requirements for a non-standard subdivision. Jack Lynch seconded the motion and all members voted in favor. Mr. Carpenter stated that an Order stating the findings and conclusions will be drawn up for the next meeting regarding Section 9 of Carriage Park. (Paul Patterson at this time left the meeting).
Carriage Park Planned Unit Development, Section 12, Carriage Mountain - Development Parcel Review (14 single-family lots off Carriage Park Way) - Vic Knight, Land Planning Collaborative, Agent for Carriage Park Associates, LLC, Owner/Developer. Mr. Carpenter stated that the quasi-judicial hearing is being continued in the review of Section 12. Mr. Carpenter determined that the same parties for the hearing regarding Section 12 will remain as:
Virginia Burke, resident of Carriage Park;
James Banelin, resident of Carriage Park and member/representative of the Carriage Park Architectural Committee;
Gerald Liedl, resident of Carriage Park and member/representative of the Carriage Park Architectural Committee;
Dale Hamlin, General Manager of Carriage Park Associates, LLC
Bob Grasso, Land Development Planner, Carriage Park Associates, LLC
Karen C. Smith, Planning Director, Henderson County Planning Dept.
Melissa Peagler, Planning Technician, Henderson County Planning Dept.
All parties were sworn in. Ms. Peagler gave her opening remarks and stated that Section 12 is part of the Carriage Park Planned Unit Development located off of NC191. The development is for 14 single family detached lots located on approximately 4.35 acres. The development parcel will be served by a cul-de-sac residential street system with one entrance, which splits into two smaller cul-de-sac streets. Public water and public sewer service will be provided to each of the dwelling units. The property is located in the R-20 District. She stated that Staff has reviewed the Layout and Materials Plans for Section 12 for conformance with the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance and Special Use Permit #93-13 (as amended) and offers the following comments:
1. Open Space - Based on density and development parcel size and the amount of open space that must be dedicated is 2.10 acres. .51 is dedicated in the development parcel therefore an additional 1.59 acres of dedicated open space will need to be reserved prior to or concurrent with the recordation of the lots in Section 12. All lands reserved as open space for this section needs to be clearly labeled on a revised plan.
2. Evidence of Infrastructure - Evidence of infrastructure development for drainage, water, and sewer to the development parcel will need to be provided from the appropriate agency.
3. Road Name - Road names will need to be submitted and approved by the Henderson County Property Addressing Office.
5. Erosion Control Permit - An approved erosion and sedimentation control needs to be submitted to the Planning Department.
6. Owner Name - The name of the Owner/Applicant on the Layout and Materials Plan needs to be corrected to reflect the current owner (Carriage Park Associates, LLC).
7. Development Parcel Setbacks - the submitted plans do not delineate very well the setbacks from the development parcel boundary or the location of the buffer area between development parcels. The applicant should clarify this on revised plans.
8. Final Plat - If the Development Parcel Plan for Section 12 is approved, the applicant must record a final plat for Section 12, which meets the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance requirements for a Non-Standard Subdivision.
Ms. Peagler stated that Staff would recommend approval of the Development Plans subject to the above listed comments being addressed and revised plans being submitted prior to final plat approval.
Mr. Carpenter asked each party for any comments. Mr. Grasso stated that as far as the
open space is concerned, if you were to add up the extra from Section 9 that will total what is required for the entire project. There were no other comments.
Mr. Grasso presented the revised drawings based on the technical comments that were made in Staff’s memo. Mr. Grasso then reviewed each comments as follows:
Open Space. We combined what was extra in Section 9 and in Section 12 with the additional open space and showed it on the previous site plan, which comes to the total.
Evidence of Infrastructure. He stated that he will obtain a letter from the City regarding the availability of water and sewer from the standpoint of storm drainage. We designed the system so that it will be accommodating by the existing storm drainage system on site.
Road Name. Mr. Grasso stated that they are proposing to change the name of Section 12 to “The Highlands of Carriage Park” and is reflected on the newly submitted drawings and with that have requested new names for the roads. Highlands Court will be the road coming into the Section and off from that will be the road named, High Mountain Trail. He stated that he will be getting approval from the Property Addressing Office and submit a letter accordingly.
Erosion Control Permit. Mr. Grasso stated that he is awaiting a letter for approval regarding the erosion and sedimentation control.
Owner Name. He stated that all necessary changes regarding owner name to reflect Carriage Park Associates, LLC have been made.
Final Plat. He indicated that the final plat for this section will be recorded when all conditions have been met.
Development Parcel Setbacks. Mr. Grasso again stated that they have added the 25-foot buffer around the property and have a self-imposed 25-foot buffer outside of the 60-foot right-of-way to preserve the existing vegetation. He said they have tried to maintain the ambiance of the area.
Mr. Carpenter asked whether there were any comments for Mr. Grasso. There were no comments. Ms. Burke reiterated that she would like to see the ambience, tranquility and beauty of the area maintained in this Section as well.
Ms. Peagler reviewed the comments that were satisfied and the ones also that were not satisfied. She stated that as far as open space, she would like that comment left open to make sure it gets recorded. She stated that they need a letter regarding evidence of infrastructure, a letter from the Property Addressing office that the road names have been approve and a letter indicating that the erosion and sedimentation control has been approved for this section. She stated that item 6 regarding owner name and item 7, development parcel setbacks both have been satisfied. She stated that submission of a final plat is required when the development parcel plan for this section has been approved.
Roger Wolff moved that the Planning Board find and conclude that the Development Plan submitted for Section 12 of the Carriage Park Planned Unit Development complies with the provisions of the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance and the Special Use
Permits regulating the Planned Unit Development 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: # 1, that the Staff confirm that the open space does meet the requirements and be recorded prior to or simultaneous with the Plan; # 2 that there be confirmation in writing of evidence of infrastructures for drainage, water and sewer from the appropriate agency or project engineer; # 3 that Staff confirm road names; # 4 that the subdivision name be changed as requested to “The Highlands of Carriage Park;” #5 that the developer confirms receipt of an erosion control permit; and # 8 that the Final Plat must be recorded meeting the requirements. Leon Allison seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
Update on Revising Procedure for Zoning Map Amendments - Planning Staff. Ms. Smith stated because of other obligations that Planning Staff has had to encounter since the last Planning Board meeting, Staff is still compiling information for updating the procedure for zoning map amendments. She stated Staff has found that it has become more of a project and she suggested that it might be practical to have a subcommittee to work on this project. She views this matter as having some short term decisions that could be made and also some long range items that could be taken care perhaps when the Zoning Rewrite is completed or when the Comprehensive Plan has been completed. She feels that since some of the Planning Board members have had some specific comments regarding this matter, a subcommittee could be formed to work with Staff in more detail. Ms. Smith said that Josh has formed a draft regarding modification to the Henderson County rezoning policies and procedures that we have distributed to each Board member, but she mentioned that they are still trying to work out some of the ideas and it does not cover everything as of yet. Mr. Freeman stated that the draft is just a preliminary brainstorm of some of the issues we have identified regarding rezoning process or procedure policy. There are some notes on specific points that we have mentioned and some possible solutions to them, but by no means all the possible solutions regarding these individual problems and issues.
Chairman Pearce felt rather than get into an extensive discussion of this issue at the moment, a subcommittee should study this draft in detail and identify the sections. Mr. Freeman then summarized the information contained in the table below, concentrating primarily upon the information contained in column 1, “IDENTIFIED ISSUES”:
IDENTIFIED ISSUE
|
NOTES |
POSSIBLE SOLUTION |
|
1.
Fees
not commensurate with costs of rezonings. |
Hollabrook
and Janis Moore applications are both cases in point. Both cost the County somewhat more than
the $200 application fee. |
·
Increase
the basic rezoning fee. ·
Institute
an additional fee per parcel for any application involving two or more
parcels. |
|
2.
Time
between first Planning Board consideration and Planning Board recommendation
(as defined by Zoning Ordinance) too short. |
Staff,
the Planning Board, and the BOC all need more time to consider large or
complicated rezonings. |
·
Expand
the minimum time for Staff to develop a report at least 2 months. ·
Expand
the minimum time for Planning Board consideration to 3 months, with the
option of extending up to 6 months. ·
Spend
more time discussing the rezoning at the meeting at which the BOC sets a
hearing. |
|
3.
The
Zoning Ordinance does not contain an explicitly stated linkage between the
Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Map, and the Land Use Plan. |
The
Zoning Ordinance and Map are nothing more than tools designed to implement
the Land Use Plan. Therefore, the
Zoning Ordinance should make this relationship clear, and should explicitly
mandate that zoning decisions be based upon the Land Use Plan, except in
cases where it is shown that the Land Use Plan was somehow in error. |
·
A
text amendment to the current Zoning Ordinance, OR ·
Including
appropriate language in the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite. ·
Develop
a specific set of questions or criteria that must be satisfied before an
application can be approved. ·
Others
to be determined. |
|
4.
The
justification for rezoning decisions that deviate from the Land Use Plan is
often unclear. |
As
was stated above, any zoning decision should derive its justification from
the Land Use Plan. Rezonings, in
particular, should be used first and foremost to remedy elements of the
Zoning Map that are inconsistent with the Land Use Plan. In other cases, rezonings may be used to
address situations where the Land Use Plan was itself in error. In all cases, however, the Land Use Plan
should be a primary deciding factor, and any deviations should be explicitly
justified. |
·
Develop
a specific set of questions or criteria that must be satisfied before an
application can be approved. ·
Others
to be determined. |
|
5.
Applicant
does not bear “burden of proof”…not required to demonstrate that request is
in interests of County / consistent with Land Use Plan, or that Zoning Map
and / or Land Use Plan were erroneous. |
As
was mentioned above, a zoning map should be a direct implementation of the
Land Use Plan. Therefore, any
application should be adequately scrutinized for its relationship to the Land
Use Plan. Applicants should bear much
of the responsibility for demonstrating how his or her application furthers
the implementation of the Land Use Plan by remedying erroneous or inadequate
zoning or, conversely, how the Land Use Plan itself was erroneous in some
way, and how the application addresses that error. |
·
Modifications
to the application, such as requiring the applicant to fill out a
questionnaire designed to elicit consideration of and a direct response to
the Land Use Plan. |
|
6.
The
“Agent-System” is sloppy. |
Situations
have arisen where… ·
…the
Agent’s own personal interests come into conflict with those of the other
applicants. ·
…where
other applicants are not fully aware of the certain aspects of the
application process (steps, implications of success, etc.). ·
…where
the application petitions themselves are not clear, legible, etc. ·
…where
signatures are outdated. ·
…where
the signatory differs from the owner of record. ·
…other
issues. |
·
Educate
the Agent more fully as to his or her responsibilities…clarify those
responsibilities, and require Agent to sign a form stating that they
understand and accept their responsibility. ·
Include
language on the application that explicitly states that the co-applicants are
giving decision-making authority to the Agent by signing the application
form. ·
Send
all co-applicants letter immediately after receipt of the application
reiterating process, various responsibilities, nature of request, etc. ·
Copy
all co-applicants on any correspondence with the Agent. ·
Establish
an expiration date for applications. ·
Require
documentation proving signatory authority in cases where the signatory
differs from the owner of record. ·
Minimize
the information required from applicants…Staff provides more information to
the applicant. ·
All
large rezonings should include a meeting, to be attended by a majority of the
co-applicants. ·
Others. |
|
7.
There
are problems regarding when, how, and why applicants pull their names from
applications, pull applications altogether, or apply for future
rezonings. |
Applicants
may not have made up their minds about the rezoning; yet submit an
application anyway with the idea that they can withdraw at any time. Or, an applicant may decide that the
outcome is not looking favorable, and may choose to withdraw an application
in order to maintain the option of resubmitting later. Many other reasons may exist. Whatever they may be, such actions cost
taxpayers dollars and Staff, Planning Board, and BOC time that could be
applied elsewhere. |
·
Establish
deadlines for the revocation of applications. One possible deadline might be the day prior meeting at which
the BOC sets a public hearing on the matter. ·
Establish
a deadline and / or test for the revocation of a particular signature on an
application, after which / the
failure of which would mean…..what???
One test may be that no signature will be removed unless some
percentage of the other co-applicants also removes their signatures…perhaps
25% or more. |
|
8.
Large
area rezonings can be very problematic from a planning standpoint. |
Large
area rezonings are often unexpected, and therefore hard to budget for. Furthermore, such rezonings are often
conducted in somewhat of a vacuum, disconnected from the surrounding
area. They are often too large to be
treated as a simple rezoning, yet too small to qualify as a proper sub-county
plan. Furthermore, they are often a
response to a “LULU*”, and occur in a politically charged climate that
distorts the final outcome. |
·
Segment
the County into planning jurisdictions (based upon townships, fire districts,
school districts, etc.). ·
Develop
specific plans for each area. ·
The
BOC would insure that these plans are linked back to the broader, countywide
Land Use Plan by developing a series of “mandatory” requirements for each
planning jurisdiction. ·
Base
the zoning in each planning jurisdiction upon its respective plan. ·
Review
each planning jurisdiction plan on a regular basis (x-number per year), such
that each planning jurisdiction’s plan is revised every 2 to 5 years. ·
Prohibit
or deny any “off-schedule” large area rezonings on the basis that the
relevant issues will be addressed during the regular plan review period. The
benefits of such a system would include the following: ·
The
County would be able to integrate such planning efforts into its long-term
budgeting process, thus saving taxpayers dollars. ·
Staff,
the Planning Board and the BOC would have time to truly “get to know” the
subject areas, have time to develop an appropriate plan, and to insure that
this plan is consistent with the countywide Land Use Plan. ·
The
politically charged climate surrounding applications associated with “LULUs”
would have time to dissipate. ·
Others. |
|
9.
Others? |
|
|
|
Note: “LULU”
= Locally Unwanted Land Use. This
refers to proposed or existing land uses which, regardless of the legality or
value of such land uses, cause significant opposition among vicinity
landowners and residents. The Grimesdale asphalt plant and the Howard Gap
mini-storage units are examples of such. Rezonings
are ultimately a legislative decision.
Therefore, anyone from the area proposed for rezoning can
request such rezoning. The issue at
hand is, how, within the confines of the constitution and state enabling
legislation, do we manage the rezoning process such that it is orderly,
efficient, comprehensive, cost-effective, and fair? It is not possible to totally prohibit unwanted or frivolous
applications, or to entirely control the timing of any rezoning. |
||
OTHER BUSINESS:
Subcommittee Assignments and Meeting Dates. Chairman Pearce stated that the subcommittee assignment list has been revised as well as the subcommittee names. The revised subcommittee assignments are as follows:
Board members Tedd Pearce, Chair, Todd Thompson and Jack Lynch will be members of the Land Use/Zoning Study Subcommittee dealing with land use studies, large-scale zoning studies.
Board members Jack Lynch, Chair, Leon Allison, Kevin Keefe and Roger Wolff will be members of the Short Term Zoning Subcommittee, which will deal with rezoning applications, special use permits, and other issues.
Board members Walter Carpenter, Chair, Paul Patterson, Mike Cooper and Tedd Pearce will be members of the Subdivision Issues Subcommittee, which will deal with subdivision matters, ordinance amendments, and other related issues.
Chairman Pearce stated that an Ad Hoc Subcommittee has also been established on an “as needed” basis. Chairman Pearce stated that the Short Term Zoning Subcommittee meeting should be scheduled regarding updating the procedure for zoning map amendments as earlier discussed. Because Mr. Freeman was not available, they will set the meeting when they can determine a date that will be in agreement with everyone. The Land Use/Zoning Study Subcommittee was scheduled for June 11, 2002 at 4:00 p.m. regarding the Howard Gap Road/Brookside Camp Road Zoning Study. The Subcommittee on Subdivision Issues was going to schedule a meeting dealing with Subdivision Ordinance amendments, but delayed the scheduling to coordinate with Walter Carpenter, Chair of the subcommittee.
Ms. Smith stated that Jennifer Jackson, Assistant County Attorney, would be leaving her job at the County on June 30, 2002. Ms. Jackson explained that her husband had taken a job in Madison County and was commuting back and forth since October 2001 and it was time that the family moved nearer to his job. All Board members wished Ms. Jackson well.
Adjournment. There being no further business, Roger Wolff made a motion to adjourn and Leon Allison seconded the motion. All members voted in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9:02 PM.
________________________ _______________________
Tedd M. Pearce, Chairman Kathleen Scanlan, Secretary