HENDERSON COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
April 15,
2003
The
Henderson County Planning Board met on April 15, 2003, for its regular meeting
at 7:04 p.m. in the Meeting Room of the Land Development Building, 101 East
Allen Street, Hendersonville, NC. Board
members present were Walter Carpenter, Vice-Chairman, Leon Allison, Paul
Patterson, Jack Lynch, Cindy Dabaibeh, Mike Cooper and Todd Thompson. Others present included Derrick Cook,
Planner; Karen C. Smith, Planning Director; and Kathleen Scanlan, Secretary. Chairman Tedd Pearce and Board member Kevin
Keefe were absent.
Approval of Minutes.
Vice-Chairman Walter Carpenter presided over the meeting and called the
meeting to order. He asked for the
approval of the March 18, 2003 minutes.
Jack Lynch made a motion to approve the minutes and Paul Patterson
seconded the motion. All members voted
in favor.
Adjustment of Agenda.
Vice-Chairman Carpenter suggested that Item 7 be moved after Item 5 as
Jon Laughter, agent for both items, had asked whether these items could be
discussed one after the other because of a previous scheduled engagement. Board members were in favor of the
adjustment as well as Grier Eargle, who represented Item 6.
Staff Reports.
Ms. Smith stated that the scheduled public hearing for the 191 rezoning
request for April 10, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. at the West Henderson High School
Auditorium was cancelled due to the inclement weather and the Commissioners
plan to reschedule the hearing at their April 16, 2003 meeting or, at the
latest, at their May 5, 2003 meeting.
OLD BUSINESS:
Mr. Cook stated that Staff has reviewed the combined Master
and Development Plan for conformance with the Henderson County Subdivision
Ordinance and stated that regarding the Master Plan, all requirements have been
satisfied.
Mr. Carpenter asked if the lot met the 30-foot frontage
requirement and Ms. Smith said it did.
Mike Cooper moved that the Planning Board find and conclude that the Master Plan and Development Plan submitted for the Bradford Farm Community 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 Condition: The applicant satisfies comment 1 on a revised Development Plan or Final Plat. Todd Thompson seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
NEW BUSINESS:
Laurel
Bell Estates (03-M06) – Combined Master and Development Plan Review (12 Single-
Family
Lots off Divide Street) - Grier Eargle, Agent for Saluda Realty &
Construction, LLC.,
Mr. Cook stated that Staff has reviewed the combined Master and Development Plan for conformance with the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance and stated that regarding the Master Plan, all requirements have been satisfied. With regard to the Development Plan, the following are the comments that are contingent on approval:
1. Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control – The Applicant should submit notice from NCDENR that a soil erosion and sedimentation control plan has been received or provide documentation that no plan is required prior to beginning construction (HCSO 170-19).
water
supply point for fire protection should be shown or stated since hydrants on a
public
water system will not be available (HCSO 170-20C and Appendix 5).
3. Culverts and Drainage Plans – Culverts and drainage structures along the proposed roads need to be designed to NCDOT standards. Culvert locations, length, diameter, and type should be shown on the revised Development Plan to be submitted prior to construction (HCSO 170-21-D, 170-29-B, and Appendix 5).
4. Restrictive Covenants – Prior to Final Plat approval, the applicant should present a copy of the restrictive covenants for the development or certification indicating none will be used (HCSO 170-30).
5. Road Name – Road names shall be pre-approved by Henderson County in accordance with the Henderson County Property Addressing Ordinance. The Henderson County Property Addressing Office has suggested Laurel Bell Estates Drive as a possible road name. Prior to Final Plat approval, the proposed road name must be approved by the Henderson County Property Addressing Coordinator (HCSO 170-23).
6. Farmland Preservation – Prior to the Final Plat approval, the developer needs to sign and submit an Affidavit of Understanding regarding Farmland Preservation Districts, and provide a notation on the Final Plat stating that the property lies within ½ mile of a farmland preservation district (HCSO 170-35).
7. Right-of-way Access – All subdivision lots must abut on a private or public right-of-way. The right-of-way must meet or exceed the minimum width specified in the state road standards or, for private roads, the minimum width specified in Table 1 of Section 170-21 of the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance. A portion of Divide Street has a 60-foot right-of-way abutting the proposed development, but the right-of-way falls to what seems to be a 30-foot right-of-way. at a section of Lot 1. The 30-foot right-of-way abutting Lot 1 must be at least a 45-foot right-of-way to meet Henderson County road standards. On a revised Development Plan, the Applicant must show a 22.5-foot right-of-way from the road centerline to the property (HCSO 170-27).
Regarding comment # 7, Mr. Cooper asked, “Is that regardless of how many lots that piece of the road serves and which way does the road feed?” Ms. Smith stated that the Ordinance does not address that. Mr. Cooper stated that could be the last lot on that road for that subdivision and he added that there could be a cul-de-sac that would adjoin that property. He also asked, why 22.5-foot? Ms. Smith stated that the Ordinance states to provide up to one-half of the right-of-way. Mr. Cooper also asked, “if his road stopped where it is connected to the last lot, would he need a cul-de-sac? Ms. Smith stated that as long as he had 30 feet of frontage on the existing right-of-way. Mr. Carpenter asked whether the traffic comes from the north or is it the south? Mr. Jon Laughter stated that it comes in the northwest direction. Mr. Laughter stated that in that area it is indicated by “future development” and eventually there will be a road going through that area.
Mr. Carpenter reviewed the conditions with Mr. Eargle, owner and agent for the
development and asked if Mr. Eargle had any issues with
comments 1 through 6. Mr. Eargle said
he did not. Mr. Carpenter stated that
the only issue is condition # 7, regarding the right-of-way, particularly on
the southern part of Lot # 1. Mr.
Eargle stated that he would take it out of Lot # 1, whatever is needed. Ms. Smith stated that the statute does not
require it because since they do not own on both sides of the road, they will
not need to upgrade the road itself, but will need to provide the
right-of-way. Mr. Carpenter stated that
they should draw the right-of-way line straight essentially on down through lot
# 1, so then there would be approximately 17 feet of right-of-way. Mr. Laughter added that it is not in the
Town of Saluda because the town could not provide water to that area so the
property owner opted to get out. Jack
Lynch moved that the Planning Board find and conclude that the Master Plan and
Development Plan submitted for the Laurel Bell Estates 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 2, 3, and 7 on a revised Development Plan, comment 1 should be
satisfied before construction begins, and comments 4, 5, and 6 by the Final
Plat. Leon Allison seconded the
motion. Mike Cooper asked what
intervals are the contours for this project?
Mr. Laughter stated that they are ten-foot contours. All members voted in favor of the motion.
Hoblestik
Ridge (03-M03) – Master Plan and Development Plan Review (20 Single-Family Lots
off
Greenville Street) - Grier Eargle, Saluda Realty & Construction, LLC.,
Agent for Harold
Bennett, Owner.
Mr. Cook stated that the major subdivision is located off of Pacolet
Street south of Saluda. The proposed development will be completed in one phase
containing twenty (20) single-family detached dwellings on 33 acres of
land. He stated that the land is
located in the Open Use zoning district and has individual water and sewer as
well as private roads and one public road, Pacolet Street, will serve project.
He stated that a portion of the property is located in Polk County. He and Board members classified that parts of
lots 9, 10, 12, 13, 18, and 19 and all of lots 11 and 21 are in Polk
County. The property is not located in
a Water Supply Watershed district.
Mr. Cook stated that Staff has reviewed the Master Plan and Development Plan for conformance with the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance and stated that regarding the Master Plan, there are no comments. Regarding the Development Plan, the following comments are contingent upon approval:
1. Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control – The Applicant should submit notice from NCDENR that a soil erosion and sedimentation control plan has been received or provide documentation that no plan is required prior to beginning construction (HCSO 170-19).
4. Restrictive Covenant – Prior to
Final Plat approval, the applicant should present a copy of the restrictive
covenants for the development or certification indicating none will be used
(HCSO 170-30).
7. Lot Numbers – On a revised Development Plan
lot numbers should be shown in a chronological sequence (Appendix 5)
8. Project Summary – The project summary does
not have the current zoning district shown. On a revised Development Plan the
Open Use zoning district should be shown in the project summary section
(Appendix 5).
9. Road Design – In the cross section of the road
design is shown 16-foot travelway,
but in the cross section of the cul-de-sac
is shown an 18-foot travelway. On a revised Development Plan the cross section
travelways should match for the road design and the cul-de-sac design (HCSO
170-21B).
Mr. Cook stated that the Applicant recombined lots 4 and 9
to make one lot on the Development Plan. Staff suggests that a revised Master
Plan be provided showing the same recombination of the lots with the
appropriate chronological lot numbers sequence. Mr. Cook stated that regarding the matter of Pacolet Road, he
said that he had talked with Mr. Eargle and he had mentioned that this road is
maintained by the State. Mr. Cook
stated upon checking and based on what Mr. Ed Green, District Engineer for
NCDOT said, it is not a State supported
road and that it is not built to State standards. He stated that the travelway measured approximately 10 or 12
feet wide, and that the State does support some roads such as that but there
was no indication of any State signs out there. Mr. Cook said that Ed Green had indicated that a portion of the
road is State supported, approximately 0.2 of a mile, which is the area coming
into the property. Staff showed on a
State road map the area indicated by Ed Green.
Mr. Cook said that he is bringing this to the Board’s attention as the
portion of the road that is not State supported does not meet the County’s
curve radius requirements. Mr. Cooper
asked whether the owner of this development has a right-of-way to use this road
to serve those back lots, if it is not a State road? Mr. Eargle stated that he is still under the impression that the
road is State supported. Mr. Lynch
stated that the issue is if Pacolet Street is not a State road, there is no
agreement. Mr. Cooper asked
Vice-Chairman Carpenter, “What would be your legal interpretation as to whether
this road should serve these two lots and would they not need a legal
right-of-way to the property to use that road, if it is a private road?” Mr. Carpenter stated, “Yes, because it is
one of those roads that has been there forever and as a practical matter they
would have to confront all of the rest of the homes further up the road and if
it has been opened for a long time and been used by all of those property
owners, there is not too much that can be done.” He said that is different from granting someone a right-of-way
and standing behind it because you have a right-of-way to grant them. He added that there are practical issues
that arise especially on these little roads on a fairly frequent basis, and in
this instance, where does that 0.2 of a mile end? If it gets to the property, you can go on through, but if the 0.2
ends on the lower area that is a different issue. Mr. Lynch asked, “who maintains this road especially if it is not
maintained by the State?” Mr. Carpenter
stated that the State maintains approximately 0.2 of a mile of the road – give
or take the length. Mr. Cooper asked
Mr. Eargle, “How far away are you from the line of your property?” Mr. Eargle stated that it is approximately
within 2,000 feet. Mr. Carpenter stated
that there seems to be two issues: (1)
Is there a right-of-way? Mr. Carpenter
feels that the Planning Board should not be involved in this issue. (2) If that is not a State maintained road
at that curve, the owners would have to bring that road into conformance with
the County’s Subdivision Ordinance (the portion that lies on their
property). Ms. Smith stated that the
only source that Staff and the Board can go by is from the State Map and Ed
Green’s office. Mr. Carpenter said in
order to get to the bottom of this issue, there should be easement in the chain
of title that shows a right-of-way granted to the State for that road from some
prior owner of that portion of Pacolet Street. Mr. Eargle stated that according to the survey it was noted
that Pacolet Street was a State maintained road. After more discussion concerning this issue, Ms. Smith stated
that Staff suggests that the Board allow Staff to have administrative approval,
whether it is to approve the whole project or to approve everything but Lots 6,
7, and 16 tonight, but that the owner needs to receive a letter from Ed Green,
District Engineer with NCDOT, indicating that it is a State maintained road
through lot 16. Mr. Carpenter stated
that if they run into a problem with this, they could have the project approved
in phases, approving the project without Lots 6, 7, and 16. Ms. Smith asked whether the Planning Board
wants to approve Lots 6, 7, and 16 in the event they would need to come back
for a variance. She stated that if it
was found that Pacolet Street was not a State maintained road and the owner
wants to apply for a variance, does the Planning Board want to have approved in
principle, as far as the subdivision itself and then have it come back for the
variance at a later date? Mr. Carpenter
feels that the Board could approve everything except those three lots and that
if he can get a letter from NCDOT, Ed Green, that indicates a State road
through Lot 16, then Staff can administratively approve those lots, but if the
owner could not get this, he would have to come back before the Planning Board,
so that the owners would have the most flexibility. Mr. Cooper stated, if it turns out not to be a State road and he
has to approve that road and straighten the curve radius out, it will put the
road off the right-of-way which it is on now.
Legally what does that do about everyone up the street further that now
has a legal right-of-way? Mr. Carpenter
stated he does not have an answer for that, but would need to be
researched. Mr. Carpenter stated that
the Board has several options: (1) Table it pending more information, (2) Approve everything but Lots 6, 7, and
16, with a proviso that if the road is public all the way through then Staff
can administratively approve the last 3 lots and if it is not, then the
applicant can come back with a new plan, variance request, etc., or (3) Approve all but the last 3 and come back
as a separate approval on Lots 6, 7, and 16, later. Ms. Smith stated that there is also a small portion of road on
Lot 1 that would need to be upgraded.
Mr. Carpenter explained to Mr. Eargle that there is a part of Pacolet
Street that runs across Lot 1, and if Lot 1 were approved, you would need to
upgrade that small portion of Lot 1 just because it is on a lot or part of a
lot that has been approved. Mr. Eargle
decided he would revise Lot 1 to make it easier for himself, the Planning Board
and Staff to approve this subdivision.
Mr. Patterson asked, “what about the other road on Saluda Drive, part of
that is not on his property, is there a right-of-way on that?” Ms. Smith stated that if it is less than 30
feet, the size of the lots is limited to one acre, which could another issue as
he does not know what the width of that would be. Mr. Lynch stated that the approval really boils down whether
Pacolet Street is a State road or not.
Ms. Smith stated that the Board could approve this, but make a condition
that if a portion of the offset right-of-way is less than 30 feet, then the
lots need to be an acre. Ms. Smith
noted that the average lot size had to be 1 acre. Mr. Cooper stated that it looks like the owner meets that
condition, as he has 20 lots on 30 acres, so the Board is still just looking at
Lots 6, 7 and 16 and a small portion of Lot 1.
Mr. Carpenter made a motion to approve lots 1 – 5, (noting lot 4 is
gone), 8 – 15 and 17 – 21 subject to the conditions in Staff’s memo, comments 1
– 9. In addition, the Planning Board
gives conditional approval for lots 6, 7 and 16 subject to a letter from NCDOT
or other evidence sufficient to Planning Staff to show that Pacolet Street as
it runs through this property is a State maintained right-of-way and if it is
not a State maintained right-of-way, then lots 6, 7 and 16 would need to come
back before the Planning Board. The
Board would also condition approval on the submittal of a revised Master Plan
indicating these changes in the “other comments” section of the Staff
memo.. Mike Cooper seconded the
motion. Mr. Patterson asked what
happens if the right-of-way is zero, he should have to furnish something. Mr. Eargle stated that he is approving that
road that is on the plan. Ms. Smith
stated that the portion north of Huddy’s property is the one that is not marked
as a right-of-way on the Plan. Mr.
Carpenter made an additional condition by amending the motion by stating the
subdivision is also subject to the owner presenting evidence to the Staff
indicating that there is a legal access from Pacolet Street to Old Saluda
Drive, such as title insurance. Mike
Cooper again seconded the amended motion and all members voted in favor of the
conditions as mentioned in the amended motion.
Status Report on Planning Initiatives – Planning Staff. Ms. Smith updated the Board on the Advisory
Committee for the County Comprehensive Plan discussion on the best way to do
community-based planning meetings, be it townships, fire districts, school
districts and any number of ways. The
Committee determined that fire districts would be the most suitable, because
most people know what fire district they live in. There is data for each population though it is not evenly
distributed and there are schools or fire stations that the meetings could be
held. She stated that there are 15 fire
districts in the County. She added that
the Committee encourages any input that the Planning Board might have dealing
with this issue. Mr. Allison asked,
“how long will that take?” Ms. Smith
stated that it might take up to 15 weeks, one meeting a week. She added that they plan to hire a project
manager and facilitators and will then know how the schedule will be. Mr. Lynch stated that the biggest concern is
how do you get the people out to the meetings.
Mr. Lynch also mentioned whether there was a new schedule for the new
Transportation Plan available for the Board members. Ms. Smith distributed the schedule of the new transportation
plan, which Board members inquired about at the last Planning Board
meeting. Mr. Cooper asked with the new
amendments that the Board has made dealing with the Development Plan
requirements, will that mean if they don’t have everything that is required,
Staff will refuse the plan? Ms. Smith
stated that is what Planning Board wanted.
Mr. Cooper said that is what he was hoping, because it will eliminate
the problems that the Board is presently encountering. Mr. Lynch said he does not feel that the
form will work for every situation because there will be some problems with
some people who will not understand, but that should be worked through.
Ms. Smith stated this brings up a situation that Staff has
been discussing. Mr. Cook presented a
hypothetical situation regarding a development, which has already been recorded
and approved by the Planning Board, and it has come back wanting to extend a
road in that development. He said in
the Subdivision Ordinance it states, if a significant change takes place within
the development, it should come before the Planning Board. Staff’s questions are, do we consider this a
significant change in extending the road?
He said in some aspect, the road is going through two lots and would be
a 400-foot extension into a current road that exists in the subdivision; this
would provide further access and maneuverability within the development. Ms. Smith stated that it is still just one
subdivision with two roads and a short cul-de-sac and they just want to make
the road loop around rather than just the cul-de-sac. The Board asked whether they were eliminating any lots or adding
any lots, or are they just moving the road?
Mr. Carpenter stated that he didn’t feel that it was a problem for Staff
to approve unless there is something out of the ordinary or strange. Ms. Smith stated that she just wanted
verification since there has been times when Staff has brought something back
to the Planning Board dealing with peculiar situations, but on the other hand
do not want to waste Planning Board’s time.
Board members felt that Staff is confident enough to make a decision,
especially regarding this situation, but if at any time Staff is uncomfortable
with a particular circumstance, then Staff should bring it to the Planning
Board. Ms. Smith stated that regarding
the checklist requirements of the Master Plan; it does not specify a particular
size just legibility of the plan. She
asked the Board whether they have a preference? Mr. Allison stated that if a developer does not have the means to
present a bigger plan to Staff, how could they develop the property? Ms. Smith stated that in the case of one of
the applications this evening, they did provide a bigger plan, but a reduced copy
is what the Board received. The Board
members agreed that having the plans legible is more of a concern than the
size.
Adjournment.
There being no further business, Jack Lynch made a motion to adjourn and
Todd Thompson seconded the motion. All
members voted in favor. The meeting
adjourned at 8:32 PM.
______________________
Walter
Carpenter, Acting Chairman Kathleen
Scanlan, Secretary