HENDERSON COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
March 18,
2003
The
Henderson County Planning Board met on March 18, 2003, for its regular meeting
at 7:00 p.m. in the Meeting Room of the Land Development Building, 101 East
Allen Street, Hendersonville, NC. Board
members present were Tedd Pearce, Chairman, Walter Carpenter, Vice-Chairman,
Paul Patterson, Jack Lynch, Cindy Dabaibeh, Kevin Keefe, and Todd
Thompson. Others present included
Derrick Cook, Planner; Karen C. Smith, Planning Director; and Kathleen Scanlan,
Secretary. Board members Leon Allison
and Mike Cooper were absent.
Approval of Minutes.
Chairman Pearce presided over the meeting and called the meeting to
order. He asked for the approval of the
February 18, 2003 minutes. Kevin Keefe
noted one change to the minutes. He
referred to page 11 of the draft minutes, which showed a typographical error
(Tedd Patterson should read Tedd Pearce). Jack Lynch made a motion to approve the minutes with the change
and Walter Carpenter seconded the motion.
All members voted in favor.
Adjustment of Agenda.
Ms. Smith suggested that Item 5 be moved after Item 7 in the interest of
time. All Board members agreed on the
adjustment.
Staff Reports.
Ms. Smith stated that the Board of Commissioners scheduled a public
hearing for the 191 rezoning request for April 10, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. at the
West Henderson High School Auditorium.
OLD BUSINESS:
Revised Order for Carriage Park, Section 15, Carriage Crest
– Planning Staff. Ms. Smith
stated that the Applicant notified the Planning Department of an error in
Finding of Fact # 3, of the order regarding the number of units proposed. She stated that after Staff checked, they
found that Finding of Fact # 3 is in need of correction to reflect the 48
townhomes instead of 55 townhomes as previously indicated and adding the
statement (a total of 55 dwelling units).
Ms. Smith asked that the Planning Board approve the revised
order. Mr. Carpenter made a motion that
Finding of Fact # 3 for Carriage Park, Section 15, Carriage Crest, be revised
to show 48 townhomes for a total of 55 dwelling units instead of the 55
townhomes as previously shown. Kevin
Keefe seconded the motion and all Board members voted in favor.
Chairman Pearce welcomed to the Planning Board the new Board
member, Cindy Dabaibeh, and introduced her to all the Planning Board
members.
NEW BUSINESS:
David and Rebecca Nabers Industrial Subdivision
– Combined Master and Development Plan
Review (3 Lots off Egerton Road, Mountain Home Industrial Park) – Steve Waggoner, Agent.
Mr. Cook stated that the Nabers Industrial Subdivision is a 4.76-acre tract located off North Edgerton Road and Carolina Industrial Court. Mr. Cook distributed some photos regarding this subdivision to the Board members. The development is for 3 commercial/industrial lots and the property currently contains a storage facility on lot 1. The lots will gain access from an existing State Road. The property will be developed in one phase. The development is located in an I-2
General Industrial zoning district and some of the property appears to be within the 100-year and 500-year flood plain. The site is not located in a Water Supply Watershed District and municipal water and sewer will serve the property.
Mr. Cook stated that Staff has reviewed the combined Master
and Development Plan for conformance with the Henderson County Subdivision
Ordinance and found that all the requirements have been satisfied concerning
the Master Plan. He stated that with
regard to the Development Plan, he asked Steve Waggoner, agent for the
owner/developer, to review and address the following comments:
3. Water Supply and Sewer System - Mr. Waggoner stated that presently
there is water available. Regarding
sewer systems, the owners do not plan on hooking up. Chairman Pearce stated that the Board needs some proof from the
City of Hendersonville Water and Sewer Department to substantiate that the
other two properties can get water and sewer service or that there is a way to
resolve the sewer issue. Mr. Waggoner
stated that the plans are for just a parking lot. Mr. Patterson stated that technically this commercial subdivision
might be able to hook up to the existing sewer system from Bradford Wire, but
he feels that until something is done at the site they would not need to have
sewer. He stated that they could change
what they have to individual sewer and Mr. Waggoner agreed to do so. He also indicated that the owner could build
the property up in the floodplain and put his unit on the property and the
septic system outside of the floodplain.
Mr. Patterson said if they decide to later tie onto the public system it
would not matter. He feels that it is
not reasonable to put in a well for an industrial site. Mr. Waggoner stated regarding the fire
hydrant, there is one located across the street from the proposed
development. Chairman Pearce stated
that this item will need to be amended to indicate that public water supply is
proposed and a letter from the City of Hendersonville Water and Sewer
Department must be submitted which states that there is sufficient capacity to
make connection to the utility. The
applicant also needs to provide evidence that the City of Hendersonville Water
and Sewer Department have approved the water supply system plan. Final approval
of water supply must be provided and such system must be installed prior to the
Final Plat approval. With regard to the
sewer system, Chairman Pearce said the applicant agreed to change the proposed
sewer system from public to individual, on a revised Development Plan and
Subdivision Application. Chairman
Pearce indicated that the applicant must meet the City of Hendersonville’s
minimum requirements for fire hydrant installation and on a revised Development
Plan the nearest fire hydrant must be shown on the plat.
Mr. Carpenter made a motion that the Planning Board find and conclude that the Master Plan and Development Plan submitted for the David and Rebecca Nabers Industrial 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 move that such Plans be approved subject to the following Conditions: The applicant satisfies Comments #1, #2, and comment #3 (showing the change to individual sewer system), #4, #5 and #6 on a revised Development Plan and that those plans be approved subject to those conditions. Paul Patterson seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
on Work of
Subdivision Issues Subcommittee – Planning Staff. Mr. Cook distributed revised
appendices
since more changes had been made after the Planning Board packets went out.
Mr. Cook
stated that the Subdivision Issues Subcommittee combined with the Planning Staff
has
constructed a final draft of the revised Appendices for implementation. He stated that the
Committee
and Staff hope that it will bring about alignment between the Subdivision
Ordinance
and the
Appendices and clients will bring in more concise Master and Development Plans
to
expedite
review and approval of the subdivision when it comes before the Planning
Board. He
stated
that he feels this is just one step that has been implemented to hopefully take
place for
Staff. Chairman Pearce asked Ms. Smith what were
the changes that were made and what
changes do
you need to discuss with the Board. Ms.
Smith reviewed the changes as follows:
Ms. Smith stated that the last
sentence in the paragraph regarding the Master Plan Requirements and
Development Plan Requirements, formerly read: Please check Yes or No each
column or NA where the items will not apply to your plan. She stated that it was not grammatically
correct and changed it to read: For
each item below, please check Yes or No or write NA where
the items will not apply to your Plan.
She said further regarding the change in this sentence, she asked if
someone writes in “NA,” formerly we have not asked the applicant to explain the
reason for NA, and she stated she does not know whether they should be the ones
to determine whether it is NA or not.
After some discussion about this sentence, Board members agreed that the
sentence should read: For each item
below, please indicate whether the requested information has been provided.
Another change Ms. Smith mentioned was under the Development
Plan Requirements, on the second page which read: “Size of lots to .1 acres
given (not including road right-of-way).
She felt that the word “given” should be removed. She also mentioned other typographical errors
that Staff would clean up.
Ms. Smith felt that although Appendix 6 is not used for the
time being, she felt that it should be noted “reserved” for future use.
She indicated that regarding under Final Plat Requirements,
she stated that this will apply to minor, family, and major subdivisions and
asked whether the Board would want citizens coming in and filling this form out
or whether this should be with each Final Plat when it comes in or whether this
should be a Staff check list to make sure these items listed are there? Chairman Pearce stated that this was meant
to be for both, that way people would know what they are required to have. He added that when they come in for their
pre-application conference, there would be certain things based on the size
that Staff can say they will not be needed.
Ms. Smith said that minor and family subdivisions do not have
pre-application conferences, so therefore this form will be filled out when
they bring the plat in. She stated that
the applicants would need some assistance with this form especially regarding
the required certificates section. Ms.
Smith stated with regard to the amendments that are necessary to make some of
these items applicable in the text, did the Board intend to adopt the
appendices at tonight’s meeting?
Chairman Pearce stated that the Board has looked at everything and there
is nothing that is more stringent that would be a violation of the
Ordinance. He said that the only thing
that is more stringent is when we expect to have it and that is not
particularly covered in the Ordinance, but it seems that it is in the Board’s
jurisdiction to ascertain when we have a completed application and when to
reasonably expect that information to be provided. He feels that there are a couple of things of a lesser
requirement than what is in the Ordinance and he does not feel that it would
pose any problem for anyone. Chairman
Pearce stated that the Committee was under the impression that the Board would
go ahead and approve the appendices and then they the very earliest possible
time, the revisions to the Ordinance would be brought to the Subcommittee and
then they would be voted on to be forwarded to the full Planning Board for
their recommendation and forwarded to the Board of Commissioners at that
time.
Mr. Patterson noted several minor changes. He stated that regarding Appendix 7, Final
Plat Requirements, he feels that the word “licensed” should be removed in
any sentence referring to “a professional/licensed land surveyor….” He also indicated that regarding the Development Plan Requirements, the sentence that Ms. Smith referred to
concerning removing the word “given”, should include a more precise size of
lots to read “0.1” instead of “.1”.
Chairman Pearce said that subject to the items that were
changed, he asked for a motion. Mr.
Lynch made a motion to approve the amended Appendices 4 – 7 (Master Plan,
Development Plan and Final Plan Requirements) of the Subdivision Ordinance
with the changes discussed. Kevin Keefe
seconded the motion and all members voted in favor. Chairman Pearce stated that any new applicants should be given
this data and any ones before this information will be covered under the older
methods. Ms. Smith suggested that
Staff would have another mailing to all Land Development Professionals
regarding this amended appendices. She
suggested that another subcommittee meeting could be scheduled before May, to
insure that all information is prepared for the subcommittee members.
Status Report on Planning Initiatives – Planning Staff. Ms. Smith stated that at the last Planning
Board meeting, she had mentioned that the Commissioners had asked Staff to
bring back proposals for getting some of these projects done and since then the
proposed schedule was presented to them and during that meeting the
Commissioners asked about what was to be done about the Mills River Study and
the US 25 North Corridor studies. Staff
went back to the schedule to see how both of these studies would fit in. She stated that Staff brought a new schedule
to the Commissioners at their March 3, 2003 meeting. The Board asked about Mills River and the land use study that was
completed in 2001 and with the sewer project which is finally starting to get
closer to the point where the County will have the money in hand along with the
grants. The Commissioners now would
like to see some of the land use planning done in that area. She stated with the incorporation effort in
Mills River that is complicating things a bit, but Staff has talked with the
leaders of the incorporation effort and they are willing to work with Staff on
trying to get planning done in the area where Staff’s study area is overlapping
their incorporation area. She said that
Staff told the Board of Commissioners that a zoning plan could be started with
current staff within current time frames and the Board of Commissioners agreed
and told Staff to go forward. Ms. Smith
stated that she and the County Manager plan to meet on March 20, 2003 with the
Land Use Committee of the Mills River Incorporation to show them what Staff has
put on paper regarding future zoning and in turn we will be looking at some of
their proposals. She stated that the
complicating factor in this is that Staff is working under the current Zoning
Ordinance. She stated that the Land Use
Map that the Planning Board did for the Mills River area had some mixed-use
items, which are not found in the current Ordinance. Chairman Pearce asked what was the decision factor in tabling the
Zoning Ordinance Rewrite? Ms. Smith stated
that it was because of Staff and time.
She stated that the old 1993 Comprehensive Land Use Plan recommended
that the Zoning Ordinance amendments, but the project was not started until
1999, and it started to bump into the new Comprehensive Plan. She stated that at the Board of
Commissioners’ Retreat, it was discussed that if we are going to change the
Zoning Ordinance and work on a plan and the plan would have some
recommendations for changes to the Zoning Ordinance, we might end up rezoning
people several times, which is one of the reasons it was put on hold for
awhile. She stated that the districts
they came up with for the Zoning Rewrite may not be ultimately what the County
wants after the County does the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the other factor is time, which has been spent
doing two diverse projects and not being able to get either done. She stated that it was a hard
recommendation to see the Zoning Rewrite tabled at this time because of the
many hours that had already been spent revising it.
She stated that regarding the US 25 North study, Staff had
discussed two alternatives. The first
was to add a minimum of one month to each of the phases shown on the original
CCP project schedule adding about six months to the overall project and the
second suggestion was to hire an outside consultant to assist with the US 25
North project, which the Commissioners did not have a problem with. She said there is going to be a long public
input process for the CCP and staff figured that it could tie into the US 25
North Project at the same time. She
stated that the Planning Board will be involved in the Study and that it would
take approximately 8 to 12 months to complete the project. She stated that the Mills River Study and
the US 25 North Project were the two items that influenced the changes in the
time frame and the budgets. Mr. Lynch
added that the transportation plan has been updated by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, so it falls in the same scope of this CCP project. He stated that the implementation will be
done by April 2004 and public involvement will not be until February 2004, but
they will be back to us every month on the transportation plan from NCDOT. He also informed the Board that there will
be a MPO meeting on March 20, 2003 and hopefully there will be more information
provided at that time.
Meeting Date for April Planning Board Meeting. After conferring with all the
Planning Board
members, and knowing that at this time Tedd Pearce and Kevin Keefe would
be the only
Board members to be absent from
the April 15th Planning Board meeting, it was decided among all
Board members that the regular scheduled Planning Board meeting set for April
15th would remain on that date and not be changed.
Adjournment.
There being no further business, Walter Carpenter made a motion to
adjourn and
Todd
Thompson seconded the motion. All
members voted in favor. The meeting
adjourned at
7:58 PM.
________________________ ______________________
Tedd M.
Pearce, Chairman Kathleen Scanlan, Secretary