HENDERSON COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
June 17,
2003
The
Henderson County Planning Board met on June 17, 2003, for its regular meeting
at 7:05 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,
Leon Allison, Paul Patterson, Tommy Laughter, Cindy Dabaibeh, and Kevin
Keefe. Others present included Derrick
Cook, Planner; Karen C. Smith, Planning Director; and Kathleen Scanlan,
Secretary. Board members Mike Cooper
and Todd Thompson were absent.
Chairman
Pearce called the meeting to order and presented a framed print of the historic
courthouse to former Planning Board member Jack Lynch in recognition of his
service on the Planning Board. All
Board members expressed thanks for his service and wished him well.
Approval of Minutes.
Chairman Pearce asked for the approval of the May 20, 2003 minutes. Walter Carpenter made a motion to approve
the minutes and Kevin Keefe seconded the motion. All members voted in favor.
Adjustment of Agenda.
There were no adjustments to the agenda.
Staff Reports.
Ms. Smith informed the Board members that the Board of Commissioners
will hold a public hearing on July 7, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. on the rezoning request
by Bernie Mann for the Philip Mann property.
Board members Paul Patterson and Tommy Laughter arrived at the meeting.
OLD BUSINESS:
Request for Extension of Development Plan Approval for
Silverstone, Phase II (01-M02) – Gary Corn, Agent for Grant Mountain
Properties, Inc., Owner and Developer.
Paul Patterson stated that he has worked on the engineering of this
project and wanted to be recused from any discussion or decision regarding this
matter. Leon Allison made a motion to
approve his recusal and Tommy Laughter seconded the motion. All members were in favor of the
motion. Mr. Cook stated that the
Planning Board approved the revised Master and Development Plan for
Silverstone, Phase II on February 27, 2001.
Mr. Cook stated that Gary Corn, Agent of the applicant, provided a
letter requesting an extension of the development plan approval because of
environmental conditions in completing the road construction of the
development. Mr. Cook stated that Mr.
Corn mentioned in his letter that 75% of the roads are completed for this
project at present. Mr. Cook presented
the Master Plan and the revised Development Plan that Mr. Corn has presented
that has been altered from the original Development Plan that was approved in
2001. Mr. Cook stated that with the
extension, the changes that the applicant has presented will become an
administrative approval by Staff. Mr.
Cook indicated that the same number of lots will remain. Mr. Corn explained the changes that have
been made on the revised Development Plan.
He stated that the change is in regard to a new local
residential/collector road. He stated
that NCDOT was not happy about the number of lots that US 64 East would serve
from Phase I section as they have a certain number that it can serve, so the
developer decided to change the lots and the design of the road and bring out
the entrance to Slick Rock Road so there would be less traffic entering US 64
East. Mr. Carpenter asked if there was
anything different in the statute between 2001 and today that if this would be
resubmitted, not the development parcel but the Plan, that it would violate the
statute? Mr. Cook stated there would
not be. Ms. Smith stated that they
might benefit from the changes regarding the curve radius, but there is nothing
that we need that is more restrictive.
Chairman Pearce asked if there was anything that would reason not to
grant an extension? Ms. Smith stated
no, and that under the Planning Board’s policy it meets the standards. Walter Carpenter made a motion to grant an
extension to Silverstone, Phase II, for one year. Leon Allison seconded the motion and all members voted in
favor.
Eagle’s View (00-M12) – Revised Master and Development Plan
Review (26 Lots in Two
Phases, 13 in Phase I and 13 in Phase II, Off Lamb Mountain
Road/Sugarloaf Road) - James
Mark and Dianne Lea Bishop, Owners. Paul Patterson recused himself from any
discussion or decision regarding this subdivision because of conflict of
interest with no objection from the Planning Board. Mr. Cook stated that the Planning Board approved a Master and
Development Plan for Eagle’s View on June 27, 2000 and approved an extension
for the Development Plan on June 18, 2002. This extension expires this month
and the Applicants have submitted a revised combined Master and Development for
review and approval by the Planning Board due to some changes in the property
and the design of the subdivision. The
property is a 22.10-acre tract located off Lamb Mountain Road/Sugarloaf Roads
and is proposed for 26 single-family lots in two phases (13 lots in Phase I and
13 lots in Phase II). He stated that
the development is located in an Open Use zoning district and will be served by
private water, individual sewer and public roads. He stated that the property is not located
in a Water Supply Watershed district.
Ms. Smith stated that they are submitting a revised Master and
Development Plan for Planning Board review, which would start their two-year
period. Mr. Carpenter added that this
would not be an extension but an entirely new approval. Ms. Smith said they had some substantial
changes, which were the reason for the revised plans. She added that Board members might remember that in the past they
had road issues. Mr. Cook stated that
this is an entirely new submittal and therefore they can receive another
two-year approval for their Development Plan.
He said regarding the revised Development Plan, approval is contingent
on the following comment:
Mr. Carpenter asked whether they could construct a road on 18% grade. Ms. Smith stated that because they are proposing public roads, the grade can be up to 18% and the developers will need to pave the road. Staff does not find this to be an issue. Walter Carpenter made a motion that the Planning Board find and conclude that the Master Plan and Development Plan submitted for the Eagle’s View 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 moved that such Plan be approved subject to the following Condition: the applicant satisfies Comment 1, regarding soil erosion and sedimentation control before construction begins. Kevin Keefe seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
Carriage Park Planned Unit Development, Section 10, The
Ponds, Phase II (98-01P) -Proposed Amendment To Approved
Development Parcel – (21 Single-Family Detached Units off Haywood Road)
- Dale Hamlin, Agent for Carriage Park Associates, LLC. Paul Patterson stated that he would recuse
himself, as he would be a witness for this quasi-judicial hearing and has been
involved in the project. Leon Allison
made a motion to approve his recusal and Kevin Keefe seconded the motion. All members voted in favor. Chairman Pearce stated that this will be
conducted as a quasi-judicial proceeding and the proceeding will consider a
revised Development Parcel Plan for Section 10, The Ponds, Phase II. Chairman Pearce then asked all parties to
the proceeding including Carriage Park Associates, LLC, Dale Hamlin, Manager
and Developer, Bob Grasso, Land Planner for the Carriage Park project, 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 it is a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) on Haywood Road approved by the Henderson County Board of
Commissioners under Special Use Permit #SP-93-13 and that it was approved for a
total of 695 units on 392.3 acres. He
said that through the Special Use Permit for Carriage Park, the Board of
Commissioners assigned to the Planning Board the responsibility to approve
individual Development Parcels within the project. He stated that Carriage Park has been having an ongoing issue
dealing with the gravel road that extends through Section 10, called “The
Ponds.” He stated that Carriage Park
has recently resolved this matter. With
that resolution they have proposed a new plan with the removal of that gravel
road and they have extended a portion of the project, which is what Carriage
Park, refers to as Lot 17, beyond the original boundary that was initially
approved. At this time Mr. Danny Ray
entered the meeting and asked whether he could be a party to the hearing. Ms. Smith stated that Chairman Pearce would
need to swear in Mr. Ray as a party to the hearing. He was sworn in and Mr. Cook continued his presentation. Mr. Cook stated that Phase II Section 10, is
supposed to have twenty-one (21) lots and he noted that they have had some lot
number changes within Phase II and the lot configuration is somewhat different
from the previous Plan. He indicated
that the lot sizes have been increased from what was initially approved by the
Planning Board. He said that this is
permissible because of the fact that they have not recorded a Final Plat and
doing such adjustments still falls within the Planning Board is review of the
previous lot sizes and does not pose any problems with the Special Use
Permit. Regarding the change in the
Section 10 boundary, Mr. Cook referred to a section of the Special Use Permit
indicating that these changes fall within changes Staff can approve and
constitutes a 1.8% difference in what was originally noted in the boundary of
the property. The Plan proposed a
residential street and changes the Golden Pond Court half -T-cul-de-sac to a
bulb cul-de-sac. The removal of the “existing gravel road” allowed the
cul-de-sac change. The plan shows the appropriate cross-section for the
residential road and the new cul-de-sac according to the Special Use Permit
standards. Mr. Cook stated that other
comments include:
1. Erosion Control Permit – The Applicant states the necessary erosion control permit (required by the May 4, 1999 Order Granting Approval of Section 10) has been acquired. Evidence of approval of an erosion and sedimentation control needs to be submitted to the Planning Department prior to Final Plat approval for Section 10, Phase II.
2. Open
Space – The Construction Plan states 9.01 acres of the Phase II project is
dedicated as open space with only 5.19 acres required. Based on the proposed 21
lots, 10.10 acres of land is necessary to meet the R-20 density requirement.
The development parcel size is 13.46 acres, which surpasses the density
requirement by 3.36 acres.
Mr. Cook
stated that he wants to know what is this open space that they are allotting,
is it for all of The Ponds or is it just specifically for Phase II? He added
that if it is just for Phase II, he does not know how this could be possible.
He said he would like clarification of this.
Also, Carriage Park must dedicate the required open space prior to Final Plat approval by Planning Staff for Phase II.
3. Final Plat – If the Development Parcel Plan for Section 10, Phase II is approved, the applicant must record a Final Plat for Section 10, Phase II that meets the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance requirements for a Non-Standard Subdivision.
4. Since the “existing gravel road” issue appears to have been resolved with the adjoining and nearby property owners, and condition “a” of the November 15, 2000 Order Amending the May 4, 1999 Order, to provide an at-grade intersection of the “existing gravel road” and Mill Pond Road, is no longer required.
5. Carriage Park Associates, LLC, has reduced the proposed lake (now pond) to 8,500 square feet. The square footage reduction alleviates the need for Carriage Park to get a State Permit for dam construction therefore, condition “b” of the November 15, 2000 Order Amending the May 4, 1999 Order regarding submitting DENR or other agency approval for the lake is no longer needed with the Applicant providing appropriate documentation of this conclusion from DENR or other agency.
6. Lot 1042 (referred to as lot 17 in the Descriptive Narrative) existed in what was previously outside of the Section 10, Phase II, boundary. As the Applicant stated in the Narrative, the lot constitutes a 1.8% increase in the Section size. According to Special Use Permit Amendment SP-93-13-A3-f (b)(1) on page 7, if a Development Parcel Boundary Line increases or decreases by more than 10%, the adjustment must be reviewed and approved by the Board of Commissioners. Since the boundary line change for the Development Parcel represents 1.8%, the Zoning Administrator can technically review the adjustment for approval, however the Planning Board can include the adjustment in its review and approval.
Mr. Cook stated that this was discussed previously.
7. Stream Setbacks – Section 10, The Ponds, Phase II has perennial streams indicated on it per the most recent USGS Topographic map. A minimum thirty-foot setback for buildings or other structures, excluding bridges and culverts, is required.
Chairman Pearce asked whether something should be noted on the Final Plat
indicating this? Mr. Cook stated that normally this is noted on the Final Plat.
8. Private Roads – When private roads are shown, the plat should include a note stating: “The private roads indicated on this Final Plat may not meet requirements of the North Carolina Department of Transportation for acceptance into the state road system.”
Mr. Cook noted that the entire packet given to each Planning
Board member should be entered as evidence.
Chairman Pearce asked each party whether they had questions
of Mr. Cook. Ms. Smith stated that she
has no specific testimony, but is mainly present to answer any questions,
particularly on the history of Carriage Park.
Mr. Bob Grasso, Land Planner for the project, gave some clarifications regarding the comments mentioned by Mr. Cook. Mr. Grasso noted the following comments:
Comment 1. Erosion Control Permit. He stated that a revised plan has been
submitted under the original permits, so it should be considered a revision and
that the erosion control measures are already in place on the project.
Comment 2. Open Space. Mr. Grasso stated that the excess acreage Carriage Park has would
be applied to future phases and that 3.82 acres of open space will be applied
to the overall of the open space. Mr.
Cook asked if 9.01 acres is the total and if they only needed 5.19 acres. Mr. Grasso said “yes.”
Comment 3. Final Plat. Mr. Grasso stated that Mr. Steve Waggoner will prepare the Final
Plat.
Comment 4. Existing Gravel Road. Mr. Grasso mentioned that this issue has
been taken care of. Mr. Carpenter
stated that there have been two or three Orders relevant to Section 10. He wanted clarification that the Planning
Board is going to amend the last order.
Ms. Smith stated that she feels that would be the easiest thing to do
because the second Order refers back to the first Order on some issues and it
would be prudent to go ahead an amendment the last Order. Mr. Carpenter stated that seems to be the
method we should use and deal with just the approvals dealing with Phase II of
the project and not consider Phase I.
Ms. Smith agreed.
Comment 5. Proposed Reduction of the Pond. Mr. Grasso stated that the major changes to
Phase II of this project was that there is no dam with the pond and what
Carriage Park is doing instead of a dam, is building a plate arch bridge that
will span the stream and putting a pond off to the side that is going to be
excavated and will be outside of the thirty-foot buffer. He said this will take them out of any
permits by NCDENR.
Comment 6. Lot
1042. Mr. Grasso had no comments.
Comment 7. Stream Setbacks. Mr. Grasso said that there are two perennial streams going
through the property and they have finally received a Corps permit for the big
dam. A lot of mitigation that is taking
place for that dam is happening on these two perennial streams. He stated that there will be some
enhancement and restoration projects.
He noted on the project map the areas of these projects and noted that
all the permits have been received. He
also stated that he has no objection to having the stream setbacks noted on the
Final Plat.
Comment 8. Private Roads. Mr. Grasso said that all their roads are being constructed to
NCDOT standards. Ms. Smith stated that
Staff requires a separate note on the Final Plat if they are not going to be
turned over to the State as this is a new requirement of the Subdivision
Ordinance recently approved. Mr. Grasso
stated that this will show up on the Final Plat and be noted.
Chairman Pearce asked all parties whether they had any
questions for Mr. Grasso. Mr. Cook
stated that Mr. Grasso referred to a construction of a bridge and Staff has not
received any cross-section or diagram regarding the bridge. Mr. Grasso stated that borings were denied
last week and that they are waiting for the soils report from the geo-technical
engineer and after they receive that, they will have the bridge design. He again mentioned that it will be a plate
arch bridge that will span the stream.
He stated that that particular bridge had to be put into place with the
Army Corp. of Engineers, so there will be no impact on the stream with that
bridge. Ms. Smith stated that there are
bridge standards that have been added to the Subdivision Ordinance but she said
she needs to find out whether those standards apply to a non-standard
subdivision.
Mr. Danny Ray, adjacent property owner to Carriage Park,
stated that with regard to the gravel road settlement, Carriage Park has built
a road to State standards, but he has not received a right-of-way deed as of
yet. He said that as far as the road,
the ditches have not been cleaned up thoroughly because when it rains it fills
up with leaves, etc., and should be cleaned and the drainage needs to be
filled. He added that there has been
nothing planted on the banks to hold the soil, so when it rains there is more
silt that goes into the ditch and stops up the drain. Chairman Pearce asked Mr. Ray whether he has signed a release
regarding the existing gravel road? Mr.
Ray stated that with all the paperwork, he is not sure. Mr. Carpenter stated that the Planning Board
is not here to enforce the agreement and that the Board cannot deal with the
agreement as it is not pertinent to the matter. Mr. Carpenter added that Mr. Ray needs to discuss this matter
with Carriage Park. Mr. Ray stated that
these matters were more directed at Mr. Hamlin of Carriage Park. Chairman Pearce stated that this needs to be
discussed between he and Mr. Hamlin outside of this meeting. Chairman Pearce stated that unless it
effects this approval, the Board can only go so far in their involvement. Mr. Tommy Laughter asked, “Where is Lodge
Road?” Mr. Cook described on the
subject parcel map the location of Lodge Road.
Mr. Cook added that from his understanding of the agreement, the
settlement of this gravel road is that Carriage Park has removed it and
presented a new road for the property owners that are adjacent and bordering
the property and has paved the road. He
said that Carriage Park has put up a gate where the adjacent property owners
are on that road going out and believe that is what Mr. Ray is referring to.
Chairman Pearce asked Mr. Hamlin, “What is the situation on
the existing gravel road right-of-way?”
Dale Hamlin, Agent for Carriage Park Associates clarified Condition 4 in
reference to Mr. Ray’s comments. Mr. Hamlin
stated that the existing gravel right-of-way has been shut down and a new 18-foot
paved roadway going from Leverette Road has been set in place. He said roadway agreements have been signed
by the Johnson and the Ray parties, there were three different parties and all
of the payments have been made, and the land has been purchased from McMinn (at
the intersection with Leverette Road) to give the road enough right-of-way to
meet State standards. The right-of-way
agreements have been signed and executed as well as the deeds. These deeds are for allowing the new
right-of-way and giving back to Carriage Park Associates the old
right-of-way. He added that the deeds
are being held by Mr. Ray’s attorney, pending some final approval from the
County to agree to the 50-foot right-of-way, which is all in process, but are
held in trust. Mr. Hamlin stated that
all the agreements have been met. He
stated that the monies that were required from Carriage Park have all been paid
out, so Carriage Park has met the roadway agreement in its entirety. He stated that the last item for closure is
that Carriage Park is to write their lawyer a letter that states “the 18-foot
pavement is in place” and then their lawyer is to record all of these
documents. Mr. Hamlin said they have no
disagreement as everything required has been done and both parties have done
everything they agreed to do. Chairman
Pearce asked whether Staff needs to have a copy on file of the agreement
showing that there has been a release of the right-of-way? Mr. Hamlin submitted two copies of the
agreement as evidence. There was some
discussion by the Board about the agreement.
Chairman Pearce stated that what has been brought up between Mr. Ray and
Carriage Park Associates would remain outside of this Board and between both
legal counsels to settle. Mr. Hamlin
added that it is a private driveway but has been built with 18 feet of
pavement.
Ms. Smith stated that regarding the bridge question and the
procedure for review of nonstandard subdivisions, according to Section 170-15
of the Subdivision Ordinance, it mainly deals with public utility use, special
use lots and cemetery lots, which are some types of nonstandard subdivisions
and the other type mentioned is the procedure for review of townhouse
developments. It states that “in cases
where townhouse development review is not superseded by other regulations, such
as zoning, such townhouse developments as defined herein shall be reviewed by
the Planning Board. Application for
review shall be made to the Subdivision Administrator. Plans for such development shall be prepared
in conformance with Section 170-16 and with Articles IV, V, and VI of this
chapter, except that the following sections upon request, may be modified by
the Planning Board: minimum curve radius; intersections; right-of-way access;
lot dimensions and lot configuration and frontage. In such cases, the Planning Board may use discretion in applying
subdivision standards.” Ms. Smith
stated that she feels if it is superseded by zoning, and in this case it is,
that the standards of the Subdivision Ordinance may not directly apply. Chairman Pearce stated that he feels there
is also a requirement, even though the roads are private, that they meet NCDOT
standards. Ms. Smith stated that is in
their specific Special Use Permit.
Chairman Pearce said, “ wouldn’t the bridge would be covered under NCDOT
standards?” Ms. Smith stated that there
are NCDOT standards for bridges, but they were too excessive, so the County has
their own standards on bridges for private roads. Ms. Smith stated that according to their Order, Carriage Park
needs to build their roads to NCDOT standards.
Chairman Pearce asked Mr. Bob Grasso, “was it your anticipation
regarding the bridge that it would be designed to NCDOT standards?” Mr. Grasso stated, “yes.” Chairman Pearce feels that the bridge issue
is a non-issue and is covered under NCDOT standards. Chairman Pearce reviewed conditions for the present Order,
beginning with the Staff comments:
Comment 1: Erosion
Control Permit – this is a technical comment and something that needs to be
done as a condition.
Comment 2: Open
Space – Carriage Park Associates, LLC must dedicate the required open space
prior to Final Plat approval by Planning Staff for Phase II. This is a condition of the prior Order.
Comment 3: Final
Plat – Recordation of a Final Plat for Section 10, Phase II that meets the
requirements of a non-standard subdivision is required. This is a condition of the prior order.
Comment 4: Regarding
the “existing gravel road,” the Order should state that the condition in Paragraph 1a. of the November 15, 2000 Order
is rescinded. Mr. Carpenter added that
the Findings of Fact for the prior Order were correct at that time.
Comment 5: Reduction
of the Proposed Lake (pond): There is
no approval necessary because of how it
has been modified, therefore there is no need to rescind the condition from the
November 15, 2000 Order. The Findings
of Fact and Conclusions should state that the lake/pond will be less than the
size required to obtain a State permit.
No new condition is needed. If
the lake (pond) becomes larger then Carriage Park must submit evidence that
plans for the proposed lake (pond) has been approved by NCDENR and any other
agencies having such authority prior to approval of any final plats for Section
10, Phase II.
Comment 6: Lot 1042 (referred to as lot 17 in the Descriptive Narrative) existed in what was previously outside of the Section 10, Phase II, boundary. The lot constitutes a 1.8% increase in the Section size. Since the boundary line change for the Development Parcel represents 1.8%, the Zoning Administrator can technically review the adjustment for approval, however this can be included in the Order as an informational item. No condition is needed.
Comment 7: Stream Setbacks – A condition should be added that states that the 30-foot setback from perennial streams must be notated on the Final Plat.
Comment 8 – Private Roads – A condition should state that the Final Plat must include a note stating: “The private roads indicated on this Final Plat may not meet requirements of the North Carolina Department of Transportation for acceptance into the State road system.”
Other: Bridge Standards – The Order should note that the applicant has stated that any bridge(s) constructed over Mill Pond Creek will meet NCDOT standards. This should also be a condition.
Walter Carpenter made a motion that the Planning Board find and conclude that the revised Construction Plan submitted for Section 10, The Ponds, Phase II, of the Carriage Park Planned Unit Development complies with the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance, Henderson County Water Supply Watershed Ordinance and the Special Use Permit regulating the Planned Unit Development (# SP-93-13, as amended) except for the items addressed on the Technical and procedural comments section of the Staff memo that have not been satisfied by the applicant and further moved that the revised Construction Plan for Carriage Park, Section 10, The Ponds, Phase II, be approved and the November 15, 2000 Order be amended subject to conditions previously reviewed by the Chairman being entered into the Order. The packet submitted by Staff will be entered as evidence. Chairman Pearce directed Staff to draft an Order based upon the information and conditions stated, including the presented adjustments to Staff’s presentation with the addition to the bridge standards and that this Order be set forth to approve the request for amendments on Section 10, The Ponds, Phase II. Kevin Keefe seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
Chairman Pearce stated that the quasi-judicial hearing is over.
NEW BUSINESS:
Lone Laurel (03-M09) – Master and Development Plan Review
(24 Lots Off Lamb Mountain Road/Sugarloaf Road) – Stacy Rhodes, Agent for Wayne
Nix & Wife; Jeffrey W. Nix & Wife, and Dale L. Nix, Owners. Paul Patterson recused himself from any
discussion or decision because of a conflict in interest. Leon Allison made a motion to approve Mr.
Patterson’s recusal and Tommy Laughter seconded the motion. All members voted
in favor. Mr. Cook stated that the
property is an 18.96 acres tract located off Lamb Mountain Road/Sugarloaf Road
and is proposed for 24 single-family lots and the development will be completed
in one phase. He said that the development
is located in an Open Use zoning district and will be served by private water,
individual sewer and private roads and that the property is not located in a
Water Supply Watershed district. Mr.
Cook stated that Staff has reviewed the combined Master and Development Plan
for conformance with the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance and that the
Master Plan requirements have been satisfied.
Regarding the Development Plan approval is contingent on the following
comments:
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).
2. Road Grade - The
applicant has proposed private gravel roads to serve the project.
The grade requirement for private
gravel local residential subdivision roads is that they not exceed 15%. The
grade for a portion of the proposed Bent Laurel Court around the entrance of
the cul-de-sac and fronting lots 20, 22, 23, and 24 grade is shown on the plan
as 17.9%. The portion of the proposed road that exceeds 15% grade must be paved
according to the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance (HCSO 170-21E). The
Ordinance also requires that portions of the road that are within 50-feet of
the parts of the road section exceeding 15% must be paved on each side.
Mr. Cook stated that a revised Development Plan with a cross-section showing the required paving standards for the portion of the road that must be paved should be submitted to the Planning Department prior to construction.
Mr. Stacy Rhodes, agent for the project, stated that the developer plans on paving the road when the project is complete. He stated that the developer did not want to pave the road until all of the development was complete because of the construction trucks that are continually passing on the road at present that could break up the pavement. Ms. Smith stated that the developer could ask for an improvement guarantee for that section but still submit the revised plan. Mr. Carpenter asked whether the developer could get well and septic on 0.37 of an acre of land? Mr. Rhodes stated that they can but the house size will be quite small. Mr. Rhodes stated that there is no written recorded right-of-way and on Lamb Mountain Road they have reserved back from the edge of the pavement, twenty-five (25) feet, which on up the mountain, the new section, there is a 50-foot right-of-way, so they have tried to line it up and will be reserved on the developer’s side, 25 feet. Mr. Carpenter asked, “Can they get up to 23 with the width they have?” Mr. Rhodes stated they could and showed on the map and described that the grade on Bent Laurel Court is less than the other area he pointed to and that is the reason why they are developing larger lots in that area to ease the grade situation. Ms. Smith stated that the developer could submit a revised Development Plan to show where they will pave and then he can post a bond for that section to cover that until they want to pave the whole thing.
Mr. Allison made a motion to move that the Planning Board
find and conclude that the Master Plan and Development Plan submitted for the
Lone Laurel 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 1and 2 before
construction begins. Walter Carpenter
seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
Ms. Smith wanted some feedback by Stacy Rhodes about the new checklist system, since his subdivisions were the first ones to use the new Appendices. Mr. Rhodes stated that he liked the new checklist and stated that he found it very helpful and feels that it is necessary for the Planning Board to move the item along when it is on the agenda for approval. Mr. Rhodes suggested that a submittal of the maps possibly in layers, showing overlays could be helpful to the Planning Board members. Chairman Pearce stated that this could be discussed and considered at the next subcommittee meeting.
Status
Report on Planning Initiatives – Planning Staff. Ms. Smith stated that the position of
Project
Manager has been filled with a current Staff member, Josh Freeman, and that we
will
be looking
to hire someone to replace his old position.
Ms. Smith stated that the
Comprehensive
Land Use Plan, US 25 North Study and the transportation plan would be Mr.
Freeman’s
main focus. Chairman Pearce asked what
will be Mr. Freeman’s future after all of
these
studies are finished? Ms. Smith stated
that the implementation of the Comprehensive
Land Use
Plan will take a lot of Mr. Freeman’s time, which will mean
small area plans similar
to the
Mills River Study and that Mr. Freeman will still remain a full-time County
employee.
Ms. Smith
stated that since Mr. Freeman’s appointment there has been a lot going on. There
will be a
schedule to meet on getting the survey done and the community meetings will be
planned. She stated that there will be a number of
items listed on the update for next month .
Mr.
Allison inquired as to how fast will the meetings proceed? Ms. Smith stated that the
meetings
are scheduled to get started mid to late August and at that time there will be
one a
week until
the end of November. She said that the
meetings will be held in the fire districts at
7:00 p.m.
on Thursday evenings. She stated that
they will probably merge Bat Cave and
Gerton
into two meetings and there will be a make-up meeting in the daytime for those
who could
not attend the meetings in the
evening. Should there be any inclement
weather at
the time
of the meetings, they will be made up.
Chairman Pearce stated that he feels it would
be
advisable for each Board member to participate in some way as it will be coming
back to
the
Planning Board eventually for study.
Proposed
Amendments to the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance – Planning Staff. Ms.
Smith said that she does not have anything to submit. She said the County Manager was not ready to submit any material and was not sure if they will be proposing something regarding a group-development issue. This matter could come up at next month’s meeting and stated that there is a bit of urgency regarding this matter, so if the County Manager does get material for this matter, there might be a special called meeting scheduled to discuss this issue, but she mentioned she is not anticipating that at this time, but that she wanted to make the Board members aware.
Adjournment. There being no further business, Paul
Patterson made a motion to adjourn and
Tommy Laughter seconded the motion. All members voted in favor. The meeting adjourned at 8:36 P.M.
____________________
Tedd
Pearce, Chairman Kathleen
Scanlan, Secretary