HENDERSON COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
January 21, 2003
The
Henderson County Planning Board met for its regular meeting on Tuesday, January
21, 2003, at 7:04 p.m. in the Land Development Building, 101 East Allen Street,
Hendersonville, NC. Board members
present were Tedd Pearce, Chairman, Leon Allison, Paul Patterson, Jack Lynch,
Todd Thompson, Walter Carpenter and Mike Cooper. Others present included Derrick Cook, Planner; Karen C. Smith,
Planning Director; Josh Freeman, Planner, Autumn Radcliff, Planner and Kathleen
Scanlan, Secretary. Board member Kevin
Keefe was absent.
Approval of Minutes.
Chairman Pearce presided over the meeting and called the meeting to
order. He introduced County Commissioner Shannon Baldwin, who will be serving
as liaison to the Planning Board. He
asked for the approval of the December 17, 2002, minutes. Mike Cooper made a motion to approve the
minutes and Jack Lynch seconded the motion.
All members voted in favor.
Adjustment of Agenda.
Chairman Pearce indicated that Item 5, Status Report on Subdivision
Plan Review Issues, would be moved after Item 11, in the interest of time.
Staff Reports.
There were no Staff Reports.
OLD BUSINESS:
Review of Conditional Use Permit Application # CU-02-15 for
Proposed Summer Camp at the Former Camp Riley at Lake Osceola (on South
Lakeside Drive in an R-20 Zoning District) – Richard Hallberg and Kathy
Harshman, Applicants. Ms. Smith
stated that since the Board’s last meeting, Daniel Gurley, Zoning Administrator
has resigned and has taken a job in Washington, D.C. and therefore she stated
that she would present this item. Ms.
Smith stated that this item was tabled at the last Planning Board meeting in
order for the applicants to be present to discuss any comments and issues that
arose. She stated that Richard Hallberg
and Kathy Harshman submitted this application for a conditional use permit to
operate a camp at Lake Osceola on a 12.31-acre parcel and that it is located on
Lakeside Drive and is surrounded by Bonner Street, Old South Carolina Avenue
and Wright Street. She stated that this
application is perhaps familiar to the Board as there have been at least two
prior conditional use permits for camp operators. She stated that the most recent one was Camp Riley. She indicated that she supplied copies of
the two prior conditional use permits as well as a letter from the Henderson
County Environmental Health Department for each Board member. Ms. Smith stated that the subject property
is in a R-20 district and she indicated that camps are a conditional use. She stated that the Board of Adjustment is
the approval authority, but that Board has asked for the Planning Board’s
recommendation as to what the applicants are allowed to do regarding the conditional
use permit. She stated that the
original application had initially requested a day and a summer camp and she
said that the applicants clarified this in their application form, which they
will discuss with Board members. Ms.
Smith indicated that what she could distinguish from the application was that
the applicants want to operate a day camp, which would be open for
approximately 10 weeks, between the hours of 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. She said that their narrative also refers to
summer campers, which will be organized groups that might be coming to the
Hendersonville area. In addition, she
stated that the application notes that the applicants wish to rent the camps to
groups or organizations for organized recreation. Ms. Smith indicated that she will need clarification on these
issues from the applicants. She said
that the applicant has supplied documents this evening regarding the
advertisement of their camp, Camp Nowhere, specifying the activities and
schedule of the camp. She said the
Zoning Ordinance defines a camp as including those “organized camp
establishments which provide food or lodging accommodations of tents or cabins
for groups of children or adults engaged in organized recreation or educational
programs.” The term “camp” shall include,
but shall not be limited to, camps with special program emphasis, such as
horseback riding, conservation, music and sports. The term “camp” shall not include manufactured home parks,
migrant labor camps or recreation vehicle parks. She stated that the R-20 district has certain setbacks that apply
and in this case they would apply to any new buildings or any of the
pre-existing buildings that might need to be replaced, if the applicants were
going to expand those buildings from what is already there. She stated that the Zoning Ordinance does not
contain any specific standards for camps, so anything that the Board of
Adjustment and that the Planning Board will have to look at, is governed by the
general requirements and specific requirements that will apply to all
conditional use permits. She stated
that the general requirements are that the use will not adversely affect the
health and safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the
proposed use and that the use will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to property or public improvements in the neighborhood. Ms. Smith stated that in addition to the
findings that the Board of Adjustment will need to make, there are also
specific requirements that the Board will have to evaluate as to whether the
applicants have provided sufficient information, where applicable, for the
following: Ingress/Egress Issues, Off
street parking, loading, utilities
buffering, playgrounds and open spaces, access ways,
lighting and buildings and structures.
She stated that Mr. Gurley had drafted the memo to the
Planning Board and supplied comments on those particular issues as well as some
others. Mr. Allison stated that what
the Board has received from the applicant, does not indicate that they have
applied for an on-site sewage system, so he feels that everything the Board
discusses at tonight’s meeting, if they can not get the on-site sewage
approved, the camp will not happen. Ms.
Smith stated that she expects that to be a condition that the Planning Board
might want to propose to the Board of Adjustment. Ms. Smith stated that the applicant might have something to say
regarding the letter from the Henderson County Environmental Health
Department.
At this time the applicants, Richard Hallberg and Kathy
Harshman spoke regarding the application.
Mr. Hallberg stated that with regard to the letter from the Health
Department, he said that he had just received this tonight and indicated that
he did not know anything about it. He
said that they have been down to the Health Department on several occasions and
that the Health Department indicated that the septic system would have to be
inspected. He said that what they
anticipate doing to the day camp is that they intend to contract with a
port-a-potty company to bring in port-a-potties and that they will be cleaning
them twice a week. He said that those
port-a-potties have sanitizer sinks on the sides of them with sanitizer soap
and paper towels, which he feels takes care of the issue regarding where the
sewage will be going for this summer.
Mr. Allison asked if the port-a-potty company will be pumping or
cleaning them twice a week? Mr.
Hallberg stated yes. Mr. Allison asked
how many port-a-potties they planned on having? Mr. Hallberg stated that at present, they plan on approximately
twenty, but as the enrollment of children increases closer to three hundred,
there will be more put in, if that is approved. Mr. Allison indicated that they will need to pump closer to at
least two times a day rather than twice a week. Mr. Hallberg stated that if that is needed, then that is what
they will do, but right now, the company estimates twice a week. Mr. Lynch asked whether the Board of Health
administers this issue? Mr. Hallberg
said he does not believe so, because it is self-contained. Ms. Smith stated that the Health Department
allows them for certain things, but she does not know the specifics. Chairman Pearce stated that anything the
Planning Board recommends to the Board of Adjustment needs to be contingent
upon the Department of Public Health’s approval of whatever is proposed and the
reason being is that there is an existing septic system which is inadequate and
outdated and there could be a potential problem. Mr. Hallberg then reviewed the list of conditions from the memo
that Mr. Gurley had provided.
1. Ingress/Egress Issues.
Mr. Hallberg stated that the number of cars entering the property was a
misprint, it should have read that if the camp were to accommodate 300
children, it would be estimated at 230-250 cars, based on a 18 to 23% of the
parents enrolling more than one child.
2. Off street parking, Loading and Unloading. & 3. Parking in Residential District. Mr. Hallberg addressed both of these issues
by stating that parking for the Staff will be up by cabins 1, 2, 3, and 4 and
parents that choose to park will park at the front of the property or to the
right of the drive. He stated that
there will be no off-street parking by the parents or staff and indicated the
path on a map that he showed to the Planning Board members. He indicated that no one will be parking on
the street of the camp’s property, they will park off the street.
4 & 7. Hours of Operation
& Camp Programming. Mr. Hallberg
addressed both of these issues and referred to the pamphlet they provided which
indicated the daily activity schedule and the activity list. It states that day camp will be for this
year, from May 26th to August 1st from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. and summer camp, this
year, will be from March 31 to May 23 and from August 2 to September 28. He reviewed the activity schedule from 6
a.m. until they prepare to go home, which is indicated on the pamphlet provided
8. Lighting. Mr. Hallberg stated that the lighting is
already in place and that they are not a high glare lighting and are for
security purposes only. He stated that
it is not intended for anyone or any groups of individuals to play ball or for
any other activity except for security.
He indicated that they had problems with the front lights, which glared
into nearby neighbor’s windows and indicated that they had Duke Power to turn
them. He said all the lights on the
property are low intensity street lights.
9. Facilities Siting. Mr. Hallberg stated that the new cabins are
activity buildings and are small and not intended to house anyone to sleep
in. He said that they will be used for
arts and crafts projects only.
Mr. Hallberg indicated some other
issues. He stated that there is a
resident who lives on Bonner Street, who was concerned that the camp had a
cabin proposed near Bonner Street. They asked the applicant to remove it from
that site because they felt it would be a hindrance and Mr. Hallberg indicated
that they would comply with that and had removed it on the revised site plan,
which he showed the Board.
6. Buffering. Mr. Hallberg indicated that regarding the
noise levels, they do not intend on having a rifle range or ski boats on the
lake. Mr. Lynch stated that the County
does have a Noise Ordinance. Ms. Smith
stated that it does not apply to all camp activities such as ringing a bell for
activities or meals or for any type of normal camp sounds.
Mr. Allison asked how many horses they intended to have and
where they planned on riding
them? Mr. Hallberg
replied by stating they hope to get 15 horses and that they will be ridden
around the camp’s property only. He stated that they plan on renting the horses from an
individual that has rented horses to other camps and that
the owner of the horses said that the
camp’s property and road areas are sufficient to ride
them. Mr. Lynch stated that swimming is
indicated as one of the activities, but asked where will
they swim, if they do not swim at the
lake? Mr. Hallberg
stated that they intend on putting in a swimming pool, but that will not be one
of the activities they will provide this year. Chairman Pearce stated that traffic is a
concern of the neighbors especially the route coming into the camp. He stated that he would encourage the applicants
that the traffic flow on their brochure maps shows everything coming off of
Kanuga and the access coming from that direction which would encourage people
at least to travel that way. Mr.
Hallberg showed a map, which would indicate how to get to the camp. Mr. Lynch asked whether there are any
building codes for the cabins? Ms.
Smith stated that there are building codes for the new cabins and certain
things for the upgrade of the other cabins such as electrical and
plumbing. Mr. Allison asked that
regarding buildings # 1, 2, 3 and 5, will they hold approximately 30 to 35 people? Mr. Hallberg stated that they had made
amendments to that application because they first were going to make the camp
an overnight camp, but then changed it to a day and summer camp. He stated that Mr. Gurley had an amendment
to that conditional use permit application.
He said that those buildings at present will be used for storage and
eventually be upgraded for crafts buildings or for rain days. Mr. Allison reviewed each building and their
purpose, reading from the applicant’s memo, and which ones would be burned down
by the fire department and he stated that if buildings #1, 2, 3, 5 could house
a total of 140 children, where will the rest be in a electrical storm? Mr. Hallberg stated that is the reason for the
two large pavilion tents being erected.
Mr. Allison stated that would depend on how severe the electrical storm
would be, because you would not want them under a tent until the parents
came. Mr. Hallberg said that if they
knew there could be a potential storm coming through, they would cancel camp or
arrange for buses to take them to a safe place until the parents would come for
the children. Ms. Smith asked the
applicants whether the new tents have been shown on the new plan in relation to
the future dining hall? Mr. Hallberg
stated that they are shown on the new plan and showed the tents in relation to
where they will be on the property. He
stated that they presently have four tennis courts and will take two of the
tennis courts that are in the back part out and put a large tent in that area
and another tent would go in the front of the property near the proposed dining
hall (he showed this on their new plan) which will house approximately 500
children. Chairman Pearce asked about
meals. Mr. Hallberg stated that the
children will pack their own lunches each day except on Fridays, when the camp
will provide pizza by an outside restaurant.
He stated that when the dining hall is erected, there will be prepared
meals given to the children. Mr.
Allison stated that you will not be allowed to prepare meals unless you have
City Sewer. Mr. Hallberg stated that he
was told that because it is a temporary eating facility they would not need a
City Sewer System hook-up. Ms. Smith
asked whether the swimming pool is indicated on the new plan? Mr. Hallberg stated that the swimming pool
will go where the tennis court tent will be.
Ms. Smith asked whether you are asking for approval of the swimming pool
at this time? Mr. Hallberg said “yes, ”
because next year we would like to install the pool. He said that nothing is going in this year. Chairman Pearce opened public input at this
time.
Judy Sloan. She
stated that she lives on Bonner Street and is very concerned about the traffic
going into and out of the camp because of their location near the Camp. She stated that the residents of Bonner
Street oppose the use of Bonner Street for the purpose of access to the camp
for children being dropped off and picked up, as well as deliveries and any
other traffic of a commercial nature or pertaining to the operation of the
camp, retreats, events and other similar activities of the camp. Chairman Pearce stated that the Board can
ask or suggest to the applicant keeping down the traffic, but if some stray
parents of the camp children go down Bonner Street, it would be hard to control
that as it is a public road. She added
that her main concern is that they do not use their back driveway as a camp
entrance. She distributed a petition
from residents of Bonner Street stating the concern about traffic.
Diane Simpson. She
stated that some of the issues that she was concerned about have been
addressed. She stated that her main
concern also is dealing with traffic.
She is concerned that the road will not accommodate the traffic that
will be occurring. She stated that a
consideration of three-way stops, which would discourage using the drives
nearby and force them to use Kanuga Street would be advised.
Laurence Holmes. He
stated that he is a resident of Bonner Street and lives directly behind the
camp. He stated that he is in favor of
the Camp but was concerned about the flies that the horses would produce.
Walter Carpenter stated that YMCA had a camp at this
location for a number of years, and asked how many campers did they have? Ms. Smith stated that Camp Riley was limited
to 200 people, but they housed the children.
As far as the YMCA, she stated that she was unsure of the amount of
campers and could not supply that information at this time. Chairman Pearce stated that this is an issue
that needs some limitations and the Board should make a condition on the amount
of campers. Ms. Smith brought up some
items for clarification regarding the Staff comments: (1) Access from Old South Carolina Avenue was meant for directing
traffic; (2) for Off-street parking and loading, there is a minimum dimension
for off-street loading which is 12 X 40 feet, and she feels that the applicants
will be able to accommodate that on the property; (3) a buffer strip along
North Lakeside is suggested regarding the parking area in a residential
district; (6) regarding the perimeter buffering, the applicant plans on using
what is there, but if the buffering became diseased or affected by a storm, it
would need to be replaced; (7) Ms. Smith stated that she interprets what the
applicants mean regarding the camp programming is summer campers would come
before day camp session starts in May and after day camp session ended, but
this needs better clarification.
Chairman Pearce stated that this would call for a different sewer
requirement because if you make people have extended stays overnight, there are
such things as showers, etc. that are required. Mr. Hallberg stated that when the Boy Scouts would come, such as
a Friday night and stay until Sunday morning, usually they would not take
showers there, but go home and take a shower.
He added that they still will maintain the same port-a-potty system
until they can get with the Health Department and find out what type of system
they want the Camp to have. Ms. Smith
also suggested that the dates of the Camp will differ each year, so instead of
using specific dates, they might use mid-May to late summer and specify
possibly a 10-week camp. Ms. Smith
stated that regarding overnight campers, these would exceed the hours of
operation and would make it a 24-hour operation. Ms. Smith said that the applicants would need to stay within the
bounds of that district (R-20) as far as whom the camp rents to and what type
of activities takes place. (8) Lighting
should be clarified so that outdoor lighting will be directed on the subject
property and be shielded from adjoining properties; (9) Ms. Smith stated that the applicants have
clarified that they wish the Board to approve the potential structures plus the
tents and the swimming pool and eliminate one building. Ms. Smith stated that Staff would suggest a
condition that both the new and the existing buildings would comply with all
applicable building code/zoning ordinance conditions and other state, local and
federal requirements. She also indicated
that the applicants will need to talk with the Inspection Department regarding
the tents and the process of permitting them and that the applicant should not
exceed the number of buildings shown on the plan. They also need to specify that the buildings which were shown as
cabins are now activity buildings, and indicate that they not be used for
overnight accommodations. She also
indicated that another condition should be that the conditional use permit for
Service Works would no longer be in effect and that the new conditional use
permit is specific to the applicant and cannot be assigned to another
entity.
Georgina Holmes. She
stated that she is in favor of the Camp but has concerns about the trees along
Bonner Street and that she does not want to see them brought down, but rather
used as a buffer. Her other concern was
relating to the number of dogs on the property and controlling them especially
where there will be horses as well.
Chairman Pearce indicated that when he was on the Camp property earlier
in the day, he noticed that the dogs were confined in a fenced area and assumed
that that will be the case.
Mr. Carpenter stated that regarding the issues of access on
Old South Carolina Avenue versus Lakeside Drive versus Wright Street, is there anything
in the statute that the Board of Adjustment can regulate regarding those
issues? Ms. Smith stated that the Board
of Adjustment has to deal with access and review the plan, but NCDOT will
control it. She stated that she does
not feel that there is a way that the Board can make them come a certain way
into or out of the Camp, it can only be a recommendation.
Dorothy Paramore.
She is a resident of Lakeside Drive.
She basically stated that in the past from previous Camps being there,
that the traffic was a mess and wanted everyone to know the traffic problem.
Chairman Pearce made a motion to send a recommendation to
the Board of Adjustment in the matter of the Conditional Use Permit application
submitted by Richard Hallberg and Kathy Harshman for a summer camp and its
related uses (CU-02-15), as amended, and that by granting this permit, the
former conditional use permit will no longer be in effect and that the camp
usage for this year will be as noted on the applicant’s form: For the day camp, activities shall be
limited to those specified in the application (as amended) and operation shall
occur in accordance with the approximate dates (May 26 – August 1) specified in
the application (as amended) and in accordance with the hours of operation (6:00
A.M. until 6:00 P.M.) specified in the application (as amended). For the summer camp (also known as the use
of the camp property by other groups for daily or overnight use), activities
shall be limited to those specified in the application (as amended) and
operation shall occur in accordance with the approximate dates (March 31 – May
23 and August 2 – September 28) specified in the application (as amended). Hours of operation for the summer camp may
be for daily or overnight use, in accordance with the application (as
amended). He added that the Board of
Adjustment should ascertain that the
facilities in place at this time are adequate to handle up to 300 day campers
and that the tents that they propose to use will be adequate to meet those
requirements. If not, then the existing
buildings on the property need to be further addressed. That the perimeter buffering must remain and
must not be removed unless diseased and then must be replaced. That the use of the port-a-potties, and the
issue of the use of sewer and septic needs to be approved by the Henderson
County Health Department and whether the use of the port-a-potties are an
acceptable method of handling the camp’s facilities, if it is applicable. The Planning Board also notes that a
swimming pool is planned to be built in the future and that the applicants
intend to eliminate two tennis courts.
That the intent is that Bonner Street not be used as a main access to
and from the Camp for commercial camp activities. It would also be appropriate that the applicant provide a copy of
the revised map that was presented at the Planning Board meeting by the
applicants to Planning Staff. That any
additional buildings be approved by the Zoning Administrator. That the day camp and summer camp must obtain
any necessary federal, state and local permits as required. That they are limited to the buildings as
described and shown on the map that was presented at the Planning Board meeting
by the applicants. That the applicant
must comply with Section 200-69.C(6)(b) by handling the off-street parking and
loading and unloading areas and that the glare from on-site lighting will be
controlled and adjoining property owners will be protected. Leon Allison seconded the motion and all
members voted in favor.
NEW BUSINESS:
Family
Lots off Gilreath Loop Road). Mike
Taylor, Agent for LAM Investments, LLC, Owner.
Mr. Cook stated that the Major
Subdivision, Taylor Forest, is located off Gilreath Loop Road. The proposed
development will be completed in one phase containing 23 single-family detached
dwellings on 18.8 acres. The land is located in an Open Use zoning district and
Water Supply Watershed IV and the lots will be served by individual wells and
septic tanks.
Staff has reviewed the Master Plan and Development Plan for
conformance with the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Cook stated that regarding the Master
Plan; there are no comments since the applicant provided plans at a more
detailed, yet legible scale.
3. Road Design – The
developer has proposed public roads. The Final Plat(s) should be presented to
NCDOT for approval of road designs prior to Planning Department approval.
4. Flag
Lot – Lots 8, 16, and 17 are flag lots that require specific
approval from the Planning Board (HCSO 170-31-D). The lots have the required
30-feet road frontage and the width of each lot is 30-feet as required by the
Subdivision Ordinance (HCSO 170-31D)
Mr. Patterson regarding the front lot toward the north side,
which is also owned by the applicant, why is that not a lot? Mr. Cook stated that what transpired in that
situation is before they had submitted this proposal to Staff; they had come to
Staff and had submitted a Minor Subdivision for that specific lot. Normally we would not permit that to take
place, but since the applicant had given us full disclosure about the intent of
the property, Staff allowed it to take place, but that this is unusual and
normally we do not allow it. But based
on the disclosure and we knew what the intent was of the property, Staff
permitted it, and allowed them to create a smaller Minor Subdivision. Ms. Smith added that this lot will not be
part of this project as far as restrictive covenants, etc. and they were trying
to get that sold off. Mr. Patterson
added that in addition regarding drainage, there is no notation about size or
length and he stated that that is a requirement. He also added that he feels the applicants are running their
drain ways a long distance, from basically from the middle of lot 7 all the way
to the front and also on typical lot setbacks, it is 35 feet from the
centerline of the road, which means a 45 foot right-of-way, the house being
approximately 12 ˝ feet back from the right-of-way, which he feels is very
close. He asked the applicant to
address these items, if possible. Staff
stated that they noticed the setbacks, but also notes that this project is in
the Open Use District, which has no setback requirements. Mr. Luther Smith, who spoke on behalf of the
applicant, addressed the questions
Mr. Patterson asked, but addressing the drainage
question. He stated that the Ordinance
requires to show pipe crossings and the grading plan has been turned in with
the erosion control people and addresses the drain ways. He stated that the water comes down and is
turned off in several places as level spreaders in the drainage areas between
the lots, so there is no need for pipe where you mentioned to the
cul-de-sac. Ms. Smith stated as far as
a requirement, the Board can make it a condition as far as size and length on a
revised Development Plan. Mr. Smith
stated that with regard to the setback, he feels it is sufficient from the
standpoint in giving the developer leeway he needs for the units. He added that they wanted to allow if a
situation would arise that he would need to be closer, they could accommodate
specific topographical or septic situations that create an undo hardship. Mr. Smith stated that the Restrictive
Covenants have already been submitted.
Regarding the fire protection issue, Mr. Smith stated that he would
provide that information to Staff and that regarding the erosion control; a
letter has been submitted to Staff. Mr.
Smith stated that regarding the flag lots 8, 16 and 17, they have been provided
with 30-foot access to the lot, which was done principally to eliminate the
significant length of the road to basically serve one lot. Mr. Patterson stated that on the quad map it
shows a blue line coming in, where does the water stop and is there any water
on the property? Mr. Smith stated that
he believes it is coming in just off of the property edge. Chairman Pearce made a motion that the
Planning Board finds and concludes that the Master Plan and Development Plan
submitted for the Taylor Forest Subdivision complies with the provisions of the
Subdivision Ordinance except for those matters addressed in the Technical and
Procedural Comments section of the Staff’s memo that have not been satisfied by
the applicant; and
further moves that such Plans be approved subject to the
following Conditions: The applicant satisfies comment 2 before any construction
occurs, the applicant satisfies comment 3 prior to Final Plat approval, and the
Planning Board grants specific approval of Flag Lots 8, 16, and 17 and that an
additional provision be completed and notated on the Final Development Plan regarding
the drainage size and length. Walter
Carpenter seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
Carriage Park Planned Unit Development, Section 15, Carriage
Crest – Development Parcel
Review (48
town homes and 7 single-family lots off Carriage Park Way) – Vic Knight, Land \
Planning Collaborative,
Agent for Carriage Park Associates, LLC, Owner/Developer. Paul Patterson stated that he would recuse
himself, as he would be a witness for this quasi-judicial hearing for this
project. Chairman Pearce stated that
this will be conducted as a quasi-judicial proceeding and the proceeding will
consider plans for a development parcel known as Section 15, Carriage
Crest. Chairman Pearce also explained
what a quasi-judicial proceeding is and asked all persons who speak and
participate, including any witnesses that will be called, to be placed under
oath. Chairman Pearce then asked all
parties to the proceeding including Carriage Park Associates, LLC, Dale Hamlin,
Manager and Developer, Gerald Liedl, Resident & Architectural Committee for
Carriage Park, James Bandelin, Resident & Architectural Committee for
Carriage Park, Vic Knight, Land Planner for Carriage Park, and Paul Patterson,
Civil Engineer for the project) and the Planning Department Staff, (Derrick
Cook, Planner, and Planning Director Karen Smith) to be sworn in. Mr. Cook stated that Section 15 is 35-acre
area of the Carriage Park Planned Unit Development located off Highway 191
(Haywood Road). The development is for 7 proposed singe-family detached units
and 48 town homes. The lot sizes range from 0.52 acres to 1.03 acres and this
section is located in an R-30 zoning district and in Water Supply Watershed
IV. Mr. Cook stated that Section 15 is
part of the Carriage Park Planned Unit Development which was approved under
Special Use Permit #SP-93-13 (as amended).
Mr. Vic Knight stated that in
Section 15 there were some slopes that were 40% or greater, so they tried to
concentrate the developed areas on the flatter slopes and laid the roads in where
they were easier to build and this would have less impact to the site, so
therefore, the reason way the roads were laid out. He stated that they preserved a natural site for community space
within the section. Mr. Carpenter
stated that there are no calls (no meets and bounds) on the outside of this
parcel. Mr. Knight showed on a drawing
the perimeter buffer to the Carriage Park Development and buffers that were
shown between the parcel sections. He
also noted the area where the single-family lots and the townhouse units would
be located and added that all the roads would be private and designed to NCDOT
standards. Mr. Knight stated that a
submittal of evidence regarding erosion and sedimentation control plan has been
given to NCDENR. Chairman Pearce asked
each party whether they had any comments or questions of Mr. Knight. Mr. Bandelin stated that the information
that Mr. Knight supplied has been reviewed by the Architectural Committee for
Carriage Park and that the committee totally endorses all plans submitted. Ms. Smith asked whether the cross-section to
illustrate the cul-de-sac design have been submitted to NCDOT to confirm they
will meet State standards? Mr. Knight
stated that they had submitted this.
Mr. Knight stated that the typical cross-section that was provided on
the cul-de-sacs is 18 feet of paving with a 24 inch gutter on each side and the
NCDOT standard for that cross-section of road is a 29 foot diameter paving
section at the cul-de-sac with a 40-foot radius right-of-way, which was
provided on the two locations where the project has cul-de-sacs. No other evidence was made by any of the
parties. Mr. Cook stated that Staff has
reviewed the Layout and Materials Plan for Section 15 for conformance with the
Henderson County Zoning Ordinance and Special Use Permit #SP-93-13 (as amended)
and reviewed the technical and procedural comments:
1. Open Space – Based on
the proposed 55 units, 37.88 acres of land is necessary to meet the R-30
density requirements. The Development Parcel size is 35.0 acres. The difference
constitutes a 2.88-acre of land shortage. The 2.88 acres of land should be
dedicated as open space somewhere else in Carriage Park to meet requirements.
The additional open space will need to be put on record prior to or concurrent
with the recordation of the lots in Section 15.
2. Evidence of Infrastructure – Required
road access, drainage, water, and sewer improvements must be extended to the
boundary of Section 15, or the developer must post a guarantee for such
improvements prior to the Final Plat approval for the lots in Section 15.
3. Road Names – Road names
will need to be submitted and approved by the Henderson County Property
Addressing Office.
4. Erosion
Control Permit - Evidence of approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control
needs to
be submitted to the Planning Department prior to Final Plat approval of Section
15.
5. Final Plat – If the
Development Parcel Plan for Section 15 is approved, the applicant must record a
Final Plat for Section 15 that meets the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance
requirements for a Non-Standard Subdivision.
Mr. Cook then asked the Board to
consider these conditions to be addressed in a revised Development Plan. Ms. Smith stated that she would like to
enter Staff’s Memo as presented as evidence.
Chairman Pearce asked whether we need to make a condition regarding the
specifics of the parcel boundaries, and how should the Board consider this. Ms. Smith stated that the Board could ask
for a revised construction plans defining the project boundaries. There were no questions or comments directed
to Staff by the parties. Ms. Smith
indicated she wishes to note the applicant’s plans and other materials
submitted as evidence. No other
questions or comments from any parties at this time.
Mike Cooper moved that the
Planning Board find and conclude that the Development Plan submitted for
Section 15 of carriage Park Planned Unit Development complies with the
provisions of the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance and the Special Use Permit
regulating the Planned Unit Development (#SP-93-13, as amended) except for
those matters addressed in the Technical and Procedural Comments 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: Comments 1, 2,
3, 4, 5 being satisfied prior to the
approval of the Final Plat for Section 15.
In addition, that the revised construction drawings to show defined
project boundaries. Jack Lynch seconded
the motion and all members voted in favor.
Chairman Pearce asked Staff to execute an Order to be completed and
presented at the next Planning Board meeting.
Chairman Pearce asked Ms. Smith to introduce the new
Planning Department Staff member. Ms.
Smith introduced Autumn Radcliff, who is the new Planner with the Planning
Department. Chairman Pearce indicated
that Board member Roger Wolff has resigned from the Planning Board due to
out-of-town business obligations that would keep him from attending Planning
Board meetings.
Zoning Map
Amendment Application # R-02-05, to Rezone Three Parcels Totaling 329.97 Acres
at the
Northeast Corner of the Intersection of the French Broad River and Butler
Bridge Road
From OU
(Open Use) to I-2 (General Industrial).
William M. Alexander, Attorney, Agent for
Tap Root
Dairy, LLC; Big J Small J Partnership; and Juanita Johnston and Mary Louise
Corn,
Co-Trustees of the Estate of S.E. Johnston, Jr., Owners. Josh Freeman stated that the applicants are
requesting that three parcels be rezoned from Open Use to I-2 (General
Industrial District). He stated that
the total from all three parcels is 329.97 acres and is located at the
northeast corner of the intersection of the French Broad River and Butler
Bridge Road and is adjacent to the Town of Fletcher and borders Interstate
26. He stated that the subject property
includes ap0proximately 3,000 feet of frontage along the French Broad River and
distance from key points such as .80 miles south of the Asheville Regional
Airport; .60 miles east of Glenn Marlow Elementary; .35 miles east of the Glens
of Aberdeen residential subdivision and approximately .85 highway miles
northwest of the intersection of I-26 and Us Highway 25 at Naples. He stated that it is currently in the Open
Use District on the east and west boundaries and bounded on the north by the
Town of Fletcher Highway Commercial zoning and on the northeast by the Town of
Fletcher Residential zoning, and bounded on the south by 220 acre I-2
(industrial district). He stated that
the OU (Open Use District) and I-2 District are relatively similar. He stated that Open Use allows a variety of
uses by right, but a number of uses must satisfy a series of standards and
requirements. He stated that I-2 by
comparison, allows virtually all non-residential uses permitted under the Open
Use District, however, whereas all uses permitted by right under I-2 must meet
site standards such as parking, by right uses under Open Use must satisfy no
similar requirements. Mr. Freeman added
that mining and extraction operations require a Conditional Use Permit under
I-2, and a Special Use Permit under Open Use.
The list of uses requiring Special Use Permits is much longer under Open
Use, covering a list of 11 uses, while I-2 requires such permits for only three
uses, including adult establishments and motor sports facilities. He stated that virtually all uses requiring
a Special Use Permit under OU (Open Use) must satisfy a number of site requirements,
most notably including ˝ mile separation requirements from schools and, in some
cases health care facilities as well as the satisfaction of residential density
requirements. In contrast, only adult
establishments, motor sports facilities, and junkyards must satisfy separation
requirements from schools and/or health care facilities, and in the case of
adult establishments, churches day cares, etc.
Most other uses that must satisfy separation requirements under Open Use
are allowed by right in I-2 and therefore do not have to meet such requirements. Mr. Freeman stated that the subject property
is adjacent to undeveloped (agricultural) uses to the north, south and west;
and to a mixture of industrial, commercial and residential uses on the south and
east along Butler Bridge Road to its intersection with US 25. He stated that the NCDOT traffic count for
Butler Bridge Road is 2,700 vehicles per day.
The environmental considerations are substantial as they were for the
I-2 District across the road. The
subject project has approximately 3,000 feet of frontage along the French Broad
River and approximately 6,000 feet of frontage along Cane Creek. He noted that the Henderson County
Subdivision Ordinance requires a 30-foot setback from all streams for all
structures constructed within an approved industrial subdivision and other than
that, the County has no other environmental regulations. He stated that approximately 95.19 acres or
29% of the total property is located within the 100-year floodplain, but at
present, Henderson County does not impose any flood hazard prevention
regulations in the floodplain. There is
no difference between the two districts (Open Use and I-2) regarding the
floodplain. Mr. Freeman stated that in
his opinion, the application at the very least does not worsen any consistencies
with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
It is specifically consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as far as the
location of the proposed industrial zoning and its industrial uses. The goals and objectives and recommendations
of the Comprehensive Plan that are inconsistent with this application relate to
environmental issues, which are equally inconsistent under the current
zoning. Mr. Freeman stated that there
is no improvement under this application from that standpoint, but is
consistent with a number of economic developments and industrial siting
location recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Freeman stated that the Mills River/Fletcher Area Land Use
Study recommends industrial for this property with the exception of the
floodplain and also the Comprehensive Land Use Plan recommends the floodplain
being used as agricultural uses. The
Mills River Study recommends that the portion of the subject property lying
within the 100-year flood plain be utilized for agriculture, conservation, and
other open space uses. The proposed
rezoning is inconsistent with this recommendation. Under the proposed Mills River Incorporation the subject property
lies adjacent to, but not within, the boundary of the proposed Town of Mills
River. The Committee of 100
recommendations is that the subject property lies within an area identified by
the Committee of 100 in October 2001 as a potential industrial site. The proposed rezoning is consistent with
this recommendation. Mr. Freeman stated
that Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning as submitted based on
two major reasons: Consistency with the
1993 Comprehensive Land Use Plan map with regard to the general placement of
industrial uses and industrial sites in the County are rare especially the size
of this proposed industrial site which provide a rare opportunity for the
promotion of industrial employment and economic growth in Henderson
County. Mr. Freeman stated that from
Staff’s standpoint, he does not feel any reason to deny this application. Mr. Allison stated that he feels it would be
a poor area for residential houses because of the direct flight path of the
airport. Mr. Freeman agreed. Mr. Carpenter asked, “what would be the
results if the recommendation would be to rezone the portion that’s not within
the 100 year flood zone?” Mr. Freeman
stated that ultimately there would be no difference between Open Use and I-2
District, as the applicants can develop virtually anything under Open Use that
they could under I-2. He said that the
only difference under I-2. He added
that there is a greater likelihood of residences in the floodplain and
manufactured home parks under Open Use.
Staff has debated whether it is better to promote industrial in the
floodplain or residential in the floodplain, but from a loss of life standpoint
it would be hard to determine. He
stated that he feels there would be more encouragement of urban run-off by
encouraging industrial in the floodplain, but it must be weighed against
property owners residing there. Mr.
Carpenter said he has been trying to weigh the difference and said he is not
too pleased in recommending industrial in a flood zone. Mr. Freeman asked whether we would cause any
improvement in the conditions by leaving that portion in the Open Use District,
but he does not feel that we would. He
added that should the applicant ever choose to dig into the conservation
easement, they might benefit from being industrially zoned from a tax
standpoint. Mr. Lynch was concerned
about road problems concerning this application especially if it is rezoned
industrial and that this matter should be considered. Mr. Freeman stated that the County cannot require that the
applicant address these concerns as a condition of rezoning. Mr. Allison stated that he supports the
application. William Alexander, agent
and attorney representing the owners stated that in reference to the utilities
and infrastructure which states in Staff’s memo that the subject property has
no direct access to sewer and water service, he said that this is true but
showed on a map where his clients own a two close-proximity properties where
the water main runs, so in actual fact the subject property does have access to
water service, because it can be tapped on their own property. He added that the Mills River sewer line
proposes to access through these two properties so there might as well be sewer
access to the subject parcel. He also
stated that the sewer is located on the same side as I-26, not opposite side of
I-26 as mentioned in Staff’s memo. Mr.
Alexander addressed the floodplain issue by stating that the high grounds
accentually isolates those lands from the road frontage and in terms of future
sales, the owners would be looking in terms of selling those lands with the
other two parcels. Therefore, the
industry applying the high grounds for industrial purpose could make uses of
those consistent with their industry and would not need industrial approval to
use those lands as part of their industrial application. Mr. Alexander wanted to note to the Board
members that on behalf of the owners of this subject parcel, there is no
current plan to sell the property to any individual to dispel any rumors as
they are presently using the land for farm use.
Mr. Carpenter asked whether this rezoning application has
been sent to the school board for comment?
Mr. Freeman stated that he had requested input from a variety of
agencies and forwarded this to Mr. Tom Burnham, Superintendent of Schools, but
Staff did not receive any comment back.
Mr. Carpenter stated that had Staff not sent any material out to the
school board he would have been inclined to table this application to get
something from them, but since they have been notified he is not in that
position to do such. Mr. Carpenter then
made a motion to send a favorable recommendation to the Board of Commissioners
on application # R-02-05 to rezone three parcels totaling approximately 329.97
acres at the northeast corner of the intersection of the French Broad River and
Butler Bridge Road from Open Use to I-2.
Leon Allison seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
Zoning Map Amendments Application # R-02-06 to Rezone
2.32-Acre Parcel Adjacent to King’s Grocery in East Flat Rock, Northwest of the
Intersection of Old Spartanburg Highway
and Fairground Avenue, from R-20 (Low-Density Residential)
to C-4 (Highway Commercial). Gordon McAuliffe, Owner/Applicant. Mr. Freeman
stated that the applicant’s requests that the County rezone a 2.32-acre parcel
of land located behind King’s Grocery in East Flat Rock, north west of the
intersection of Old Spartanburg Highway and Fairground Avenue. He stated that they wish to change the
zoning from R-20, low density residential to C-4, Highway Commercial district. Mr. Freeman stated that the property is
currently being used as an RV park with approximately 26 spaces. He said there are three manufactured homes
on the property that make it pre-existing, non-conforming manufactured home
park as well as a pre-existing, non-conforming commercial use. The subject property was zoned R-20 in
October of 1990 as part of Phase I of the East Flat Rock Zoning Study. On the north and west side of the property,
it is zoned R-20, on the south and southeastern side by C-4 zoning, on the east
by one R-20 zoning and on the northeastern side by O & I zoning. Mr. Freeman gave the purpose statements of
R-20 and C-4 districts and stated that the main difference between these two
districts is that R-20 allows residential structures on 20,000 square foot lots
and C-4 does not allow any residential uses and has no minimum lot sizes and
allows a very broad range of commercial uses with a narrower range of
industrial uses with a conditional use permit.
He said that motor sports facilities and adult establishments are
allowed with a Special Use Permit. He
did point out that the size and proximity of the subject parcel to East
Henderson High School makes it virtually impossible to develop either use on
the subject parcel. He stated that the
C-4 district was established in 1990 and stated that the subject parcel is
located at an important intersection that could reasonably be considered a
commercial node, is adjacent to long-established commercial and institutional
uses (King’s Grocery and East Henderson High School) and has itself been
utilized for commercial purposes since prior to the establishment of zoning in
this area. Mr. Freeman stated that the
subject property has direct access to public water and has septic services. Mr. Freeman said that the Henderson
County Comprehensive Land Use Plan generally supports this application from
the standpoint that the Plan generally encourages commercial uses to exist at
“key nodes” and historical intersections, but should also be utilized in a
less-intensive commercial scale uses than what C-4 allows. He said that the Plan map however,
recommends residential uses only on the subject property. Mr. Freeman stated that Staff’s biggest
concern regarding this application, is not with the presence of commercial on
this property, it is the range of uses that are allowed in the C-4 district and
the subject property is just big enough that some of the uses that could go in
under C-4, makes Staff very nervous, given that this is not a main thoroughfare
district. Mr. Freeman stated that the
Board needs to consider what will happen in the future when this property is no
longer around and has sold the property to someone else. Mr. Allison asked what would be the main
objective that the property owner could bring in, should it be rezoned
C-4? Mr. Freeman said some of the items
that could develop in C-4 would be a McDonald’s-type restaurant, used car lot,
repair garage, welding shop, just to name a few. Mr. Allison feels that this area is going to C-4 tendencies as
well as the C-4 district is across the road.
He said he knows there is quite a bit of residential in and around the
area, but he feels that the residential tendencies will go away sometime in the
future. Mr. Freeman stated that the
Comprehensive Plan establishes a plan for the community and to deviate from
that plan needs to be well justified by a number of criteria, and he said that
Staff did not find any criteria in justifying or deviating from the Plan. Overall, the proposed rezoning is inconsistent
with the 1993 Plan. Chairman Pearce asked
Staff; by the definition of C-4 he wanted Staff to identify the road frontage
of the subject property as meeting the definition of C-4? Mr. Freeman said it is not along a major
thoroughfare and is inconsistent with the purpose statement of C-4.
Mr. Gordon
McAuliffe, owner/applicant of the subject property stated that his property is
a non-conforming use at present, but it was in existence prior to it being
zoned. Chairman Pearce stated that
usually when something like that is done the intent is at the time is even
though it is a different use, it would be the Board’s intention in the future
that it reverts back, and in this case, R-20.
He said at the time the Board’s thinking would have been to knowingly take
a piece of property that was a non-conforming use and the future plan would be
if the use ever changes it would eventually conform again with R-20 in this
case. Mr. McAuliffe said that the park
was built in the 1950’s, so it has been long established. Mr. McAuliffe said that their intention for
the property is to sell park models. He said the other campgrounds that are in
the County that are not zoned with restrictive ways, also sell park models in
addition to allowing overnight camping.
He said that when they purchased the park they had spent considerable
money upgrading the facilities, but they were not aware of the short camping
season in the area. He explained that
if they could sell park models, it could extend their season. Chairman Pearce stated that as an applicant,
the Board really does not need to know the specific use of the property,
because you are not bound to that specific use nor any future owners of the
property while it is under that particular zoning. Mr. McAuliffe stated that the effects of adding the sale of park
models would be minimal, if any from the neighborhood. Ms. Smith stated that from she understands
the subject property is not hooked up permanently to sewer. There was a brief discussion of the nearby
uses among Board members. Mr. Freeman
stated that there are four points how Staff determines the validity of a
rezoning: (1) is it consistent with an
existing plant; (2) can we demonstrate a change of conditions that necessitates
a rezoning; (3) is there a community interest that justifies a rezoning or (4)
would denying an application impose detriments upon the applicant that outweigh
the benefits of denying the application to the community. Mr. Freeman stated that the fourth point is
the hardest one to answer. He stated
that the fourth point is the one that Staff has always trouble with. Ms. Smith added that these are the points
that the courts use for determining spot zoning and generally applicable to any
rezoning. Ms. McAuliffe stated that the
reason they purchased the property is because they have a child with
disabilities and needed to have a home-based business. Mr. McAuliffe added that the park at present
is not making the money that it could make if they had the options that the
other parks have. Mr. McAuliffe stated
that they have seen the opportunities through park models, which they could
make something on the sale from them that could establish longer-term
tenants. Chairman Pearce stated that
the Board has a choice of sending the application to Subcommittee or making a
recommendation to the Board of Commissioners.
Mr. Allison asked whether Staff would feel better putting a limit on the
frontage? Mr. Freeman stated that Staff
did consider this, but ended up not recommended that issue, but it could be
considered. After some discussion
concerning this, Mr. Freeman pointed out on a map that the subject parcel is
located beside King’s Grocery, northwest of the intersection of Old Spartanburg
Highway and Fairground Avenue and suggested to the Board members that perhaps
only the front portion of the subject parcel be rezoned from R-20 to C-4 and
that the remaining portion of the parcel remain as R-20. Mr. Cooper stated that if the front portion
is only zoned C-4, all the applicant needs the C-4 is the means of selling park
models as the Board can not stop putting a park model in at present. Mr. Freeman stated that any commercial
activity would have to take place in the C-4 District portion, which would be
in the front portion of the property, if proposed. Chairman Pearce asked whether putting a commercial designation on
that portion of the property produce an undo burden on the manufactured home
park property owners nearby. Mr.
Freeman stated that the Board should not view a manufactured home park any
different than single-family structures.
Mr. Carpenter stated that the idea was that anything north of Old
Spartanburg Highway would be residential, except King’s Grocery Store that
obviously was never going to change.
After more discussion, Chairman Pearce made a motion to recommend denial
of the rezoning application. Walter
Carpenter seconded the motion. Chairman
Pearce stated that the major reason for denial is because of the nature of the
properties adjacent are residential and does not believe that the road is
properly designed for C-4 commercial area and the reasons as mentioned in
Staff’s memo that was presented to the Planning Board members. There were three members in favor of the
denial: Jack Lynch, Tedd Pearce and Walter Carpenter. There was four members opposed of the motion to deny the application: Leon Allison, Todd Thompson, Paul Patterson
and Mike Cooper. The motion
failed. Mr. Allison made a motion to
send to the Board of Commissioners a favorable recommendation to approve the
entire subject parcel to C-4, Highway Commercial. Todd Thompson seconded the motion. Mr. Allison stated that the reason to approve this application is
that the subject parcel is adjacent, across the street and next to the school
is C-4 district and eventually all the homes will disappear and become commercial,
which will be a small business district.
Mr. Cooper stated that this property is non-conforming at this time in
relation to the other commercial areas surrounding the subject parcel. Paul Patterson, Todd Thompson and Leon
Allison voted in favor of the motion.
Tedd Pearce, Walter Carpenter, Mike Cooper and Jack Lynch opposed the
motion. The motion failed. Mr. Cooper made a motion to recommend to the
Board of Commissioners that only the front portion of the subject parcel be
rezoned from R-20 to C-4 and that the remaining portion of the subject parcel
remain as R-20. Mr. Cooper stated that
this motion is based on the previous reasons from what he had mentioned and
what Mr. Allison had said. Leon Allison
seconded the motion. The applicant, Mr.
McAuliffe agreed on this motion of splitting the property. Paul Patterson, Todd Thompson, Leon Allison
and Mike Cooper were in favor of the motion.
Jack Lynch, Tedd Pearce and Walter Carpenter opposed the motion. The motion carried.
Zoning Map Amendment Application # R-02-07 to Rezone
Portions of a 180-Acre Parcel at
the Intersection of NC 191 and North Rugby Road, from R-30
(Low-Density Residential) to
acres). Conomo Properties, LLC, Property
Owner/Applicant. Mr. Freeman
stated that this application is requesting that the County rezone a 180-acre
parcel of land. They wish to rezone an
85.19-acre portion to R-20 Low-Density Residential District; a 82.71-acre
portion, which lies within the 100-year flood plain to remain R-30, and a
12.39-acre portion, located at the intersection of NC 191 and North Rugby Road
to C-2 Neighborhood Commercial District.
Mr. Freeman reviewed R-20, R-30, and C-2 districts and their purpose. He mentioned that the property is also
located in the WS-IV watershed, which imposes a minimum lot size restriction of
20,000 square feet for residential uses.
Commercial uses may make impervious up to 24% of the lot by right, 36%
if natural filtration and drainage measures are utilized and 70% upon receipt
of a special intensity allocation.
However, the C-2 district text requires that no more than 40% of the
total tract can be covered by a structure.
The subject parcel is slightly less than .30 miles south of the WS-IV
critical area. He stated that the
subject parcel is located in a largely rural, agricultural and low-density
residential area of the county. For the
most part, the 100-year flood plain is undeveloped and contributes to the rural
and agricultural character of the area.
He mentioned that the 1998 annual average daily traffic count for NC 191
in the vicinity of the subject parcel is 10,900 cars per day, and according to
the 1997 annual average daily traffic count for North Rugby Road in the
vicinity of the subject parcel is 4,700 cars per day. Mr. Freeman stated that according to Ed Green, District Engineer
with NCDOT, any commercial activities taken place on the commercially rezoned
portion would need to install turn lanes, depending upon the scale of any
proposed development. Again Mr. Freeman
mentioned that approximately 46% of the subject parcel is located within the
100-year flood plain. He said at present
the entire parcel is zoned R-30 and the application proposes no zoning changes
within the floodplain at this time.
Though development within the floodplain is unlikely given insurance and
financing limitation. Mr. Freeman said
that the proposed rezoning is consistent with or actively furthers the
following goals, objectives, recommendations and actions of the 1993 Comprehensive
Land Use Plan for Henderson County.
He added that Staff’s biggest concern with the proposed C-2 portion
is not so much the range of uses but the size of the C-2 district that is being
proposed. He feels that the
Comprehensive Plan would probably recommend a smaller size, but there is no
definitive number suggested. C-2
district does allow some industrial uses with a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Freeman stated that Staff opposes the
R-20 portion because, based on the calculations found in the provided text
information, R-20 is not necessary to realistically achieve what could also be
achieved under R-20 standard development practices. He said that both R-30 and R-20 have planned unit development
available, which would involve setting the flood-prone portion of the property
aside and shifting that development potential to the upland portion of the
property and enable the applicant to develop at least as many lots under
current zoning as would be possible if developed to its maximum p9tential under
the standard lot design requirements of the proposed R-20 zoning district. Chairman Pearce stated that previously you
mentioned that the R-20 district and had a higher density up above that it
could have an adverse effect on the watershed, but by the same token, if they
have R-30 and are able to get a higher density trade-off with the conservation
district, what has been changed? Mr.
Freeman stated probably nothing. The
density, realistically speaking, given the absence of sewer and the relative
inability to develop in the floodplain, the total density by granting R-20 or
not granting it would probably not increase, as you can achieve the same thing
under either district. The benefit to
the County in maintaining this portion under R-20, is that the applicant must
have some development objective in mind.
If it is reasonable to assume that under the current zoning, but those
conservational alternatives give Staff some leverage to encourage conservation
in the floodplain. He encourages that
that proposed portion for R-20 will be rather kept in the R-30 district. Granting R-20 district would increase the
storm water run-off. Mr. Freeman stated
that Staff recommends rezoning the portion of the subject parcel proposed for
C-2 to an appropriate commercial district.
Staff recommends that the Board also consider C-1 (residential
commercial) as a possible alternative.
Mr. Freeman stated that Staff is concerned with the scale of development
permitted under C-2. He stated that
some of the problems with C-2 are the allowance of light industrial uses with a
Conditional Use Permit. He said it may
be inappropriate given the character of the surrounding community and the
location of the subject parcel. Mr.
Carpenter asked, “Why would light industrial be bad?” Mr. Freeman said it may not be, but he is just pointing it out
all the potential uses under C-2, which allows light industry and are some of
the uses found in the C-4 district, which includes manufacturing, etc. Mr. Freeman stated in relation to the size
of the tract at this intersection, he said there is no answer as to what size
would be most appropriate. He feels
that a small-scale commercial site is more appropriate as referenced in the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan. As mentioned, C-2
also allows “big-box” type commercial uses that may be more appropriate in more
urban settings. He said as far as the
advantages of the C-2 district, it offers more flexibility to the applicant,
particularly with regard to lot size, lot coverage and the range of uses.
Arthur Cleveland. He stated that he is the owner and applicant of the property and stated that his relatives have developed a number of subdivisions in the area and stated that his intent of the property is for the best use of the land and the area. He felt that since the property across the street was designated C-2, his 12.39-acre tract could be rezoned to C-2 in keeping with the area. He stated that he has hired Mark Byington, Land Planner for the project and William Lapsley, engineer for the project. Mr. Cleveland stated that his only intent for this project is to do a nice development. He feels it has a lot of potential in particular because of the location and because of the nearby subdivisions and wants to maintain the beauty of the area in keeping with the nearby residential developments.
Mark Byington. He stated that he is the land planner for the project and stated that because of his business relations with Mr. Cleveland, he does not feel that there will be anything developed light industrial or anything of that nature in the 12.39-acre tract. He stated that the intention here is to do quality work. Regarding the proposed R-20 district, he stated that they are trying to keep as much flexibility in their development plan. He said that they propose to do on the upper portion of the property with R-20, approximately 20 – 30 lots after the utilities and roads are put in. Regarding the proposed C-2 District, he stated that they just want to be able to develop commercially there that they could not in a C-1 District. They are looking at a neighborhood-commercial development with a C-2 District. Chairman Pearce asked, “Have you considered what Mr. Freeman had mentioned about keeping with the R-30 district and taking your conservation credits and change your development plans up above? Mr. Byington stated that with regard to a PUD or RO, they feel like without getting restrictive they can do the same thing with R-20 district and that there will probably not be any development in the floodway. He said that they have already done some engineering analysis regarding the sewer and may have the opportunity in bringing sewer into the property. Mr. Patterson asked whether there will be any development in the floodway?
Mr. Lapsley. He
stated that he is the consulting engineer for the project and replied to Mr.
Patterson’s question. He stated that
they would not recommend developing in the floodway and have no intent to do
such. Mr. Patterson asked, “Where will
the sewer come from?” Mr. Lapsley
stated that right now everyone out there is on septic tank and that is one of
the reasons why the proposed commercial tract needs to be so large. He said that grading is an issue and septic
systems are an issue and those two reasons take up land. He said that they are investigating a number
of alternatives but at the moment the only option is to go with the septic
tanks. He said the nearest public sewer
is approximately 3 miles away. He added
that the stormwater run-off from the R-20, the natural topography would be to
go toward the French Broad from the proposed R-20. From where the proposed C-2 district, it would be at the break
point of the topography and drainage as he sees it, to go back towards West
Henderson High School to a tributary, which he showed on a map. Mr. Lynch said that under the road system
that NCDOT will try to enforce, NC 191 is on the Transportation Improvement
Program, which potentially plans to be widened and the transportation plan
will not be done until the end of the year.
He has discussed amongst the County Commissioners that they do not allow
potentially expansion roads where they have been designated to be widened. He said that he is concerned with the NC
191, and wants to know what effect will that have with the change in zoning on
NC 191, should it take effect? Mr.
Lapsley said that he does not know that the change in zoning in its own right,
would have an effect on zoning. Mr.
Lapsley said that whatever is done there from a commercial standpoint, NCDOT
will have input as to where the ingress and egress will be and will require a
widening turn lanes.
Chairman Pearce opened public input at this time.
Robert Campbell. He stated that he represents Sweetwater Hills Subdivision and said that they are not in favor of the project for the following reasons: it upsets the rural atmosphere; 12 acres is a huge amount of land to be devoted to commercial (he brought up the proposed Ingles Store several years ago); traffic problems; and both Rugby Roads (North and South Rugby) are narrow, two-lane roads that would need much improvement especially for some industry or stores that would require heavier trucks to travel on those roads. He feels that if the County is going to give a permit or reclassification of property, it should be for a specific purpose. Mr. Campbell stated that classifying that portion of the property C-2 will snowball into additional strips because it was mentioned that there is already a C-2 area driving the decision to make an additional C-2 area. He feels that with a proposal of an R-20 District, it would not be consistent with the surrounding area and would make an impact to the existing subdivisions regarding property value.
Ron Swartzel. He stated he is representing the property owners of Merriwood Development, and said that in particular there are a few problems about this rezoning proposal he would like to point out. He said that the proposed commercial property would back into one of the properties of Merriwood Development. There are seven properties in the Merriwood Development and all of them are at least 1˝ acres or more and well kept, this commercial development would sit at the rear of some of the homes in Merriwood. He believes that if commercial were designated for that 12 acres that we are opening “Pandora’s box” for all of that area at that intersection. He mentioned that with a high school and a middle school out in the same area, there will be additional traffic congestion with a commercial site. He opposes the change from R-30 to R-20 because he feels that R-30 is adequate and would like to see all of the property remain R-30. He added that he would ask the Board to deny this change as well as the access for C-2 district development.
John Marshall. He stated that he lives in Merriwood Development and said that he is opposed to a commercial development and wants to keep it as residential.
Status Report on Subdivision Plan Review Issues –
Subdivision Issues Subcommittee.
Ms. Smith stated that Subcommittee met and went over the appendices in
back of the Subdivision Ordinance and talked about some of the subdivision
review issues. She said that the
Subcommittee did not get into the commercial and industrial subdivisions
because the review issues took up most of the time. She stated that they scheduled another subcommittee meeting for
February 11, 2003 at 4:00 p.m. and that there will be a revised draft of the
appendices. This will be sent out to
all Planning Board members as well as to the surveyors and engineers before the
subcommittee meeting so that Staff can get some feed back and be able to
present to the subcommittee members at their meeting and then bring it to the
full Board at the February 18, 2003 Planning Board meeting. Mr. Carpenter added that the subcommittee
has the subdivision plan review issues divided between text and non-text
issues.
Subcommittee Assignments and Meeting Dates. Ms. Smith informed the Board members that
the Subdivision Issues Subcommittee scheduled a meeting for February 11, 2003
at 4:00 p.m. at their last meeting.
Adjournment. There being no further business, Mike Cooper
made a motion to adjourn and
Leon
Allison seconded the motion. All
members voted in favor. The meeting
adjourned at
11:00 PM.
________________________ ______________________
Tedd M. Pearce,
Chairman Kathleen
Scanlan, Secretary