HENDERSON COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
July 15,
2003
The Henderson County Planning
Board met on July 15, 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, Leon Allison, Paul Patterson, Tommy Laughter, Cindy
Dabaibeh, Mike Cooper and Kevin
Keefe. Others present included Derrick
Cook, Planner; Josh Freeman, Planner, Brad Burton, Zoning Administrator; Karen
C. Smith, Planning Director; and Kathleen Scanlan, Secretary. Board members Walter Carpenter and Todd
Thompson were absent.
Approval of Minutes. Chairman Pearce called the meeting to order
and asked for the approval of the June 17, 2003 minutes. Mike Cooper 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 rezoning request by Bernie Mann was denied by the Board of Commissioners at
their July 7, 2003 meeting.
OLD BUSINESS:
Request
for Extension of Development Plan Approval for Richmore Estates (01-03) –
Richard
Phipps, Owner/Developer. Mr. Cook stated that on March 20, 2001 the Planning
Board approved the combined Master and Development Plan for Richmore
Estates. Mr. Cook stated that
Development Plan approval is valid for two years, however the Planning Board
may, for just cause, grant extensions of a development plan approval for a
maximum of one additional year. Mr. Cook said that on June 17, 2003, the
Planning Department received a letter from Richard Phipps, owner, requesting an
extension of the Development Plan approval for a period of one year with
environmental conditions and the real estate market being the primary
contributing factors for the extension request. Paul Patterson arrived at the meeting at this time. Chairman Pearce made a motion to approve the
extension of the Development Plan approval for Richmore Estates for one
year. Leon Allison seconded the motion
and all members voted in favor.
Request
for Extension of Development Plan Approval for Makayla’s Place (01-09) –,
William
Patterson, Agent for James Michael
Pack, Owner. Mr. Cook stated that in further checking, the applicant has
completed, platted and recorded for Phase 1 of the project. Mr. Cook stated that he did not have the
final plat on file, so he stated that when he reviewed it, he thought there was
an extension that was needed, but this is not the case. He stated that he has informed the developer
that the Development Plans for Phase 2 and Phase 3 will need approval when they
plan to proceed forward with these phases. Mr. Cook stated that at this time
there is no action required by the Planning Board.
Approval of Order for Amendments to Carriage Park, Section 10, The Ponds, Phase II – Planning Staff. Ms. Smith stated that at the June 17, 2003 Planning Board meeting there was a quasi-judicial hearing on an application for amendments to a portion of a development parcel within Carriage Park known as Section 10, The Ponds, Phase II. She said that following the hearing, the Planning Board asked that Staff prepare an order approving the project, subject to certain conditions. She stated that a draft Order with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions included was forwarded to each Planning Board member for approval in their packet. Chairman Pearce made a motion to approve the draft Order with amendments for Carriage Park, Section 10, The Ponds, Phase II. Mike Cooper seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
Shuey Knolls (03-M10) – Combined Master and Development Plan Review (103 Lots on
61.25
Acres off Chimney Rock Road (Highway 64 East)) - Jon Laughter, Agent for
Habitat for
Humanity, owner.
Mr. Cook stated that the proposed major subdivision is located off
Chimney Rock Road (Highway 64 East) and will have 103 single-family residential
lots on a 60-acre tract. Mr. Cook said
that the plan proposes 8.64 acres of open space along Lewis Creek. City of
Hendersonville water and individual septic will serve the development and
proposed public roads will serve the property. The property is not located in a
Water Supply Watershed district and it is in Open Use zoning district.
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 regarding the Master Plan.
Mr. Cook stated that regarding the
Development Plan; the following is a list of conditions for Planning Board
consideration:
Mr. Patterson stated that upon checking the Plan he finds that Lot 102 would be very hard to develop because of the size. Chairman Pearce stated that he doesn’t feel that the Planning Board is required to get involved with the marketability. Mr. Patterson does not feel that this is a marketing question, he said he is concerned with septic systems. Mr. Jon Laughter stated that the developer would probably not build on some of the smaller lots as indicated in the plan. Ms. Smith stated that in the Subdivision Ordinance there is a provision which states that “the lot area with depth, shape, orientation, building setback lines shall be reasonable for the location of the subdivision for the type of development and use contemplated and shall be sufficient to accommodate the proposed utilities and to also comply with zoning and water supply watershed regulations, if applicable.” Mike Cooper made a motion that the Planning Board find and conclude that the Master Plan and Development Plan submitted for the Shuey Knolls 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 conditions: The applicants satisfy Comment 1 before construction begins. Mr. Allison stated that when the developer goes to the Environmental Health Department they would decide whether a particular lot complies or does not comply for a septic system and if it perks or not. Mr. Allison seconded the motion. Chairman Pearce stated that unless the Planning Board has significant evidence to substantiate that a particular lot won’t work than the Board cannot disapprove it. Mr. Tommy Laughter asked, “How much of a flood area does this property encounter?” Mr. Jon Laughter stated that there is a flood hazard area along the creek and is shown on flood hazard maps, so therefore there will be no building in that area nor will there be any septic tanks in that area. All members voted in favor.
Peaceful View Estates
(03-M11) – Combined Master and Development Plan Review (15 Lots
on 10.36
Acres off Stepp Mill Road) - Cavanaugh & Associates, P.A., Agent for
Cavanaugh &
Associates, P.A.
Mr. Cook stated that the Peaceful View Estates is located off Stepp Mill
Road and will have 15 single-family residential lots on 10.36-acre tract of
land. Mr. Cook stated that the
development will be served by individual water and septic and private local
residential roads will serve the property. The property is not located in a
Water Supply Watershed district and is in the Open Use zoning district. Staff has reviewed the combined Master and
Development Plan for conformance with the Henderson County Subdivision
Ordinance and finds that all requirements have been satisfied regarding the
Master Plan.
Mr. Cook stated that regarding the Development Plan the
following are a list of conditions for Planning Board consideration:
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).
nearest 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. Project Summary - The
appropriate zoning should be noted in the project summary
area. The
applicant has shown “none” as the zoning on the Master and Development
Plans. The applicant’s property is
located in the Open Use zoning district and on a revised Master and Development
Plan, “Open Use” should be noted in the project summary area (Appendices 4 and
5).
Mr. Cook stated that regarding other comments, he stated that Staff had a question regarding access to the development parcel, which seems to come through another’s property. Mr. Cook stated that if this is the case, the applicant needs to show right-of-way access or provide evidence of permission to use the access. Mr. Cook stated that the developer just provided Staff with a deed indicating that they do have a 45-foot right-of-way access. Mr. Patterson asked whether the developer has changed his typical road section? He stated that he shows on the plan the ditch slope being 2 to 1 and the standard is 3 to 1. Mr. Cook stated that this should be added as a condition stating that the road design slope ditch should show 3 to 1 instead of 2 to 1 on a revised Development Plan.
Mr. Larry Bartholomew with Cavanaugh and Associates stated
that the road design ditch slope change will be made and some of the other
changes have already been made and the copy of the revised plans will be
forwarded to Staff. Mr. Patterson
stated that regarding the topographical map, it shows an existing wet ditch,
but it does not follow the topography.
Mr. Bartholomew said they obtained the topo from the USGS map and got
the wet ditch surveyed on the property, because on the west side of the
property, that ditch is the property line.
He added that it would have cost the developer several thousand dollars
to get a complete topo, so this is the way we were guided. Mr. Patterson asked whether this is a
perennial stream that is shown? Mr.
Bartholomew stated that it wasn’t. Mr.
Patterson said that the plan shows replacing a 12-inch pipe with a 24-inch
double wall plastic but yet it shows coming down further in the ditch 18-inch
pipe and he asked, “Why is that?” Mr.
Bartholomew stated that was existing.
Mr. Bartholomew said that they sized the pipe according to calculations
as to what could physically get into that size pipe and what the pipe could
carry. After doing the calculation,
they decided that the pipe needed to be upsized. Mike Cooper made a motion that the Planning Board find and
conclude that the Master Plan and Development Plan submitted for the Peaceful
View 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 moved that such Plan be approved subject to the
following Conditions: The applicants satisfy, comment 1 before construction
begins, and comments 2 and 3 on a revised Development Plan and, in addition,
that the revised Development Plan show the road design ditch slope as 3 to 1
instead of 2 to 1. Kevin Keefe seconded
the motion and all members voted in favor.
Cliffs
Valley North, Phase IV (03-M12) – Combined Master and Development Plan Review
(30
Lots on 43
Acres Off Mountain Summit Road) - Paul P. Foster, Agent for Cliffs of Glassy,
Inc.,
Owner. Chairman
Pearce stated that Mr. Keefe had indicated that he owns property adjacent to Cliffs Valley North and wanted to know
whether he needs to recuse himself from this subdivision discussion and
decision. Mr. Allison and Mr. Cooper
also mentioned whether they needed to recuse themselves because of working
relationships with Cliffs Valley organization.
Chairman Pearce asked Mr. Keefe, Mr. Allison and Mr. Cooper whether
their relationship to Cliffs Valley would have any bearing on the subdivision
the Board will be reviewing? They each
mentioned that it would have no bearing
on this subdivision review. Chairman
Pearce stated that there is no reason to recuse anyone on the Board. Mr. Cook stated that Cliffs Valley North,
Phase IV is located off Highway 25 South. The Phase IV section of the project
is located off of Mountain Summit Road within the development and will have 30
single-family residential lots on 43 acres of land. Mr. Cook said that the
development will have a community well system and individual sewer and is
located in an Open Use zoning district. The property is not located in a Water
Supply Watershed district. Mr. Cook said that private residential collector and
private local residential roads would serve the project.
Staff has reviewed the combined
Master and Development Plan for conformance with the Henderson County
Subdivision Ordinance and offered 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).
Mr. Cooper asked “Is the shoulder width because the applicants were approved with a wider shoulder width before?” Mr. Cook stated that 6-foot shoulders were previously approved by the Planning Board, so based on the consistency and precedence made by the Board, Staff felt that the applicants should provide 6-foot shoulders. Ms. Smith stated that the Ordinance is not explicit on how we deal with curb and gutter type systems. She stated that the Subcommittee has discussed this on several occasions and she stated the Board approved and allowed these 6 foot shoulders based on what the Ordinance quotes in Section 170-21C(4) “If not specifically listed under Table 1 above or elsewhere in this chapter, design and subsequent construction of private roads shall be reviewed by the Planning Board based on the standards and requirements of the NCDOT and with the local NCDOT District Engineer policy modifications.” Ms. Smith stated that she does not know whether they are continuing this method throughout the development, but this particular developer has been doing it this way. She stated that in the older sections of the development, there are two-foot shoulders.
Mr. Patterson asked whether the applicants have requested the Board to look at the variance on the shoulder width? Mr. Cook stated that they had not. He stated that he feels they have enough cross-slope to request the reduction. Mr. Patterson stated that in this instance, they could reduce the shoulder width. Mr. Cook stated that Staff has discussed this option, but did not hear from the applicant on this.
Mr. Paul Foster, agent for the Cliffs of Glassy, Inc., stated with regard to the shoulders, the previous submissions have been for six foot shoulders and he stated that with this section, it was an omission on his part. He stated that it will be six feet and should have no problem complying. Mr. Allison asked whether the water system, which maintains all of this, is on the North Carolina side? Mr. Foster stated that it is a split system as it feeds both the Valley and Valley North sections. The tank is located just adjacent to this phase of the property and they will be using a series of pumps to get up to these lots. Mr. Allison said there was a controversy years ago regarding this development about taking community water over the State line and he asked what is the situation now? Mr. Foster stated that has been resolved. He added that they have abandoned the existing Panther Mountain water tank and installed a new tank that is larger which serves both sides. Chairman Pearce requested that evidence of the water system capacity should be provided for the files and a condition will be added regarding this matter. Chairman Pearce asked whether the water system capacity approval is based upon a certain amount of lots? Mr. Foster stated that it was and added that they also have reserved wells. Mr. Patterson stated that the radius appears to be inconsistent, regarding lot 1 and lot 2, why is that? Mr. Foster said that he was aware of this but the centerline is what is definitely correct. Mr. Tommy Laughter asked what about the matter regarding the fire hydrant? Mr. Foster stated that there is a dry hydrant near the pond and currently they are proposing to have a connection at the water tank to allow them to fill their pump trucks. He said that their engineers have met with the fire department and they are working on this. Chairman Pearce made a motion that the Planning Board find and conclude that the Master Plan and Development Plan submitted for the Cliff Valley North Phase IV 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 Conditions: The applicants satisfy, comment 1 under Master Plan and comments 1, 2, 3 and 4 under Development Plan before construction begins, and comment 2 on a revised Development Plan. In addition, comment 5, added by Staff, that the applicant needs to show a cross section of the cul-de-sac that they are proposing for the road system on a revised Development Plan to be submitted before any construction begins on the project site and an additional comment, 6, to require the applicant to provide certification of the water system’s capacity. Leon Allison seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
Carland Commercial Subdivision (03-M13) – Combined Master and Development Plan Review (4 Commercial Lots on 18.24 Acres off Boylston Highway (Highway 280)) - William G. Lapsley, Agent for Carland Farms Inc., Owner. Mr. Allison asked whether this is in the incorporated Town of Mills River? Ms. Smith stated that it was. Ms. Smith added that the County is maintaining the ability to enforce most of its Ordinances now that the Town of Mills River has incorporated. She said that the Town has been working with the County with some contracts in determining how long the County would continue to enforce our Ordinances and which ones they will want to take over. Ms. Smith said at present, the County’s Subdivision Ordinance has stayed in effect and the Town of Mills River has 60 days from the incorporation to allow the County’s land use ordinances to continue enforcement, unless they adopt something sooner. Ms. Smith stated that the County has police power ordinances such as the County’s stand alone Water Supply Watershed Ordinance, Communications Towers Ordinance and several others that went away upon the Town’s incorporation. However last Thursday night, the Town of Mills River adopted a resolution to continue those police power ordinances for that same 60-day period. She said that during these 60 days, they are working with the County to get these contracts set up so that when that 60 days has expired, everything should be back on track. Mr. Allison asked whether the entire Board has been created? Ms. Smith stated that also at last Thursday night’s meeting all five council people were appointed. Mr. Allison stated that he still feels that this Board is stepping out of bounds. Ms. Smith stated that the Town of Mills intends for the County to have jurisdiction at present. Mr. Laughter asked that after 60 days, would their Board appeal any of the County Planning Board’s decisions? Ms. Smith stated that she does not feel that they would appeal any decision of this Board. She said there could be some questions later on. If the County’s Ordinances were not to be in effect anymore, there maybe some questions on what they have vested rights for, but that would likely have to be for a court to decide. Mr. Cook stated this is a commercial subdivision located off Boylston Highway (Highway 280) in the new Town of Mills River. The proposed development will have four (4) commercial lots on 14.2 acres of land and that City of Hendersonville water and individual septic will serve the development. Mr. Cook said that since all the proposed lots front existing public roads and will be directly served by those roads, no new road construction is required for the property. The property is located in a Water Supply Watershed III district and it is in Open Use zoning district. A large portion of the property is located in a 100-year flood zone.
Staff has reviewed the combined Master and Development Plan for conformance with the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance and finds that all requirements have been satisfied regarding the Master Plan. Mr. Cook stated that regarding the Development Plan the following are a list of conditions for Planning Board consideration:
thirty-foot setback for buildings
or other structures from the perennial stream prior to the beginning of any
construction (170-37A).
Chairman Pearce asked what is the sewer system on this development? Mr. Cook stated that it will be a private
septic system.
Mr. Cook stated that the proposed development is located in
a Water Supply Watershed III (WS-III). In a WS-III area, nonresidential
development shall be allowed a maximum of 24% built-upon area on a
project-by-project basis except that the applicant may apply to the Watershed
Administrator for special intensity allocation (SIA) to develop at up to 70%
built-upon area (if acreage for such allocation is still available). Projects must minimize built-upon surface
area, direct stormwater away from surface waters and incorporate best
management practices to minimize any water quality impacts (see Section 192-13E
and G of the Water Supply Watershed Ordinance for more information). A minimum
30-foot vegetated buffer for development activities required along all
perennial streams (see Section 192-15 of the Water Supply Watershed Ordinance
for more information).
Ms. Smith stated that the applicants will need to apply for
a watershed permit from the County’s Watershed Administrator. The Planning Board needs to make sure the
applicants know what the standards are.
The Planning Board is just looking at the subdivision and whether it
complies with the Watershed Ordinance under the Subdivision Ordinance. She stated that when Staff does the permit
process they check to see that projects meet all of the watershed criteria.
Mr. Patterson said he knows that the report mentions WS-III
watershed, but is there a critical WS-III?
Ms. Smith stated that there is no WS-III critical area designated by the
State but then she stated that there may be a critical area, but it is near or
on the treatment plant property.
Chairman Pearce asked what is Staff’s recommendation for
buffers? Ms. Smith stated that Staff
likes buffers. Ms. Smith stated that
there is existing vegetation but the Board can request additional vegetation to
be planted. Chairman Pearce asked what
type of buffers was put into place where the Food Lion on NC 280 is
located? Ms. Smith stated that there
were none. Mr. Cook showed some photos
of the areas bordering the property as well as the surrounding area and the
various uses. Several Planning Board members
mentioned that they felt it would be a waste of money as the adjacent property
owners are the same owners that own this proposed development. Ms. Smith said that the piece of property
that is shown near the north arrow on the plan, is indicated on the Land Record
documents as Riverlane Farms. She is not certain whether that is owned by
the Carlands or whom.
Mr. William Lapsley said he is the consulting engineer and
agent for Wayne Carland, of Carland
Farms and for Riverlane Farms, which is the next door neighbor. Mr. Lapsley indicated that the proposed
development is for a grocery store and shopping center with several out
parcels. Mr. Carland has a contract
with Ingles to purchase the property subject to a number of items, one of them
being that they can subdivide the property into the parcels that are shown on
the map, which was displayed to the Board.
The parties are aware of the limitations as far as impervious area of
the watershed and all of those requirements.
Mr. Lapsley stated that regarding the issue of the on-site septic
system, this project is designed to have an on-site septic system with a pump
in the back and the septic tanks in the back.
The effluent will be pumped up to one of the out parcels in the front
area and there will be soil testing under the State permit regulations for an
on-site septic system. He stated that
the septic system may go away if the Mills River sewer project is
constructed. He stated that timing is
the issue. If the sewer line is
contracted the out parcel would be used as a lot. Mr. Lapsley stated that regarding the buffers on the project
area, there will be a 30-foot buffer around the edge for the watershed
requirements. He said if this Board
requires an additional landscaped buffer on top of that, would that be beyond
the 30 feet? Ms. Smith stated that the
buffer requirements under the Watershed Ordinance are for a 30-foot vegetative
buffer, whether that is grass, etc. She
stated that the Subdivision Ordinance talks about a strip of no more
than ten feet and it could be within that same 30 feet. Mr. Lapsley stated that as far as the area,
if the buffer is recommended there is two sides that would be involved in a
potential buffer because there are two sides that front on the road, North
Mills River Road and NC 280. The other
two sides are corn fields and adjacent to Mills River floodplain area. Mr. Lapsley said he wonders whom the parties
are buffering against as he feels there is no future use of the area. He said if there is any potential use, it
would be in the upper area on North Mills River Road and they are not aware as
to what that would be in the future.
Mr. Allison asked whether the Board can make them buffer along the road
area? Ms. Smith stated that the Board
can, if it is adjacent to a major street and NC 280 is a major street, but it
is not required. Chairman Pearce stated
that because the applicant owns property on both sides of the proposed
development, he feels that the Board does not need to consider buffering as
most of the other applicants that have come before the Board and were required
to buffer and had to in order to protect adjacent property owners with
dissimilar uses. He stated that in this
case if the adjacent property owners are the ones making the application, if
they want buffering, it would seem their responsibility to provide any
buffering they would want and not the responsibility of the Board. Mr. Lapsley stated that the flood maps show
two distinct areas. There are areas of
detailed flood studies that have been done which sets have specific 100-year
flood elevations and that is what the regulatory people go by to determine
whether a structure is in or outside of a floodplain. He said that beyond those limits of study, the maps indicate
educated guesses as to where the flood zone may be, but there is no detailed
engineering study as to what that elevation is nor where it goes, but a
reasonable assumption is back water and high flood elevations would go beyond
the 100 year flood study area. He
stated that this particular site falls outside the detailed study area so there
is no defined 100-year flood elevation area.
He stated that they have done some preliminary studies on what the
elevations might be and they believe that 100-year flood line is back further
from the area indicated by Staff. Mr.
Lapsley indicated that if this development occurs, they will need to fill and
raise the land above the flood elevation and that would be up to the developer
to do when that is planned. He said the
back area is the area that will need to be raised the most. Ms. Smith stated that the County is talking
about a Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, but does not have anything in place
at the time. This Ordinance could
possibly be put into place within the next year. Mr. Lapsley stated that he has met with NCDOT regarding the
development and NCDOT has virtually cleared the proposed access points, so they
have basically agreed as to what has been shown on the plan. Mr. Cooper asked why does the drawing
presented to the Board differ from the drawing in the Board’s packets? Mr. Cook stated that the drawing in the
packets is the most recent plan, which is dated June 25, 2003. Mr. Lapsley stated that with changes that
Staff required, that is the reason the Board has the most up-to-date drawing to
reflect those changes and not this large one.
Ms. Smith stated that when the motion is made, it should also refer to
the date of the drawing the Board is approving. Mr. Paul Patterson asked regarding the flood plain information,
if Mr. Lapsley had any new calculations to prove what the elevation is? Mr. Lapsley stated that they had been doing
some calculations, but it is in an area where there are no detailed studies and
we cannot apply for a Letter of Map Amendment.
He added that because the County does not have a flood ordinance, there
is no one to apply to in order to request to build in that area. Mr. Patterson said it was mentioned that a
septic system was going to be constructed on out parcel 1, and he asked if it
is typical to put the system in a 100-year floodplain? Mr. Lapsley stated that if the soil is adequate,
it is fine. Mr. Lapsley said what needs
to happen, if the septic system is the route it needs to go, a State permit
will be required and in order to get a State permit, we will need to get some
soil studies, but we will need to get a permanent dedicated easement for that
septic system so that it can not be disturbed, as long as it is an active
system. He said that this septic system
would be designed and approved by the State, put in place and built. He said that ten years from now or so when the
sewer comes, the lift station would be converted to pump up to the public
sewer, but until then, the lot would not be available as an out parcel. Mr. Patterson stated that there are driveway
entrances shown for all the out parcels except for 2, and asked, why is that?
Mr. Lapsley stated that the development was too close to the
intersection, so therefore NCDOT would not let the developer access directly,
so we need to access off of the drive.
Mr. Patterson asked whether that would change the features of the
project? Chairman Pearce stated that
you have a lot without an access. Ms.
Smith stated that technically it has frontage.
Chairman Pearce stated that it has frontage but by our statutes, it does
not differentiate where NCDOT will give them approval for the access. Ms. Smith feels that the Ordinance does not
address this issue. Mr. Allison asked
that if our Board approves this project tonight, and when the 60 days is over,
could Mills River undo what we have approved?
Ms. Smith stated that question would need to be referred to the legal
department. Chairman Pearce stated that
usually most jurisdictions are subject to previous jurisdiction decisions until
such time they take them over. Chairman
Pearce asked Ms. Smith does the Board need to worry about this issue? Ms. Smith quoted from the Ordinance, which
reads “all lots must abut either public or private right-of-way.” Chairman Pearce asked whether the road from
North Mills River to the parking lot of the project is considered a public
right-of-way? Board members agreed that
it does. Chairman Pearce asked should
the Board be concerned about this road becoming a private road as a subdivision
road? Chairman Pearce stated that
there is nothing in the Ordinance that states that they need to prove they have
access on a road other than they need to have frontage. Chairman Pearce stated that at present, the
developer has out parcel # 2 that cannot be accessed except through a driveway. Ms. Smith stated if the Planning wants the
drive to be built to Ordinance road standards, that the Master and Development
Plan needs to indicate that the private easement be built to State road
standards for public residential collector roads and show a cross section on a
revised Development Plan. Mr. Lapsley
stated that it would be no problem to do this.
Mr. Wayne Carland, applicant and interim Council member for
the Town of Mills River, stated that they will contract with the County’s
Planning Department because Mills River as of yet has no Planning Department or
person and won’t for at least three years.
He indicated that this will be their plan and this is in the
contract.
Chairman Pearce made a motion that the Planning Board find
and conclude that the Master
and Development Plan submitted for the Carland Commercial 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 Plans be approved subject to the following Conditions: The applicant satisfies comment 1 under Master Plan, and comments 1 through 6 under the Development Plan prior to the beginning of any construction. Regarding comment 7, it should be noted that the Planning Board while it has the authority to require a vegetated buffer, that no vegetated buffer is required under the Subdivision Ordinance either in the front or on the sides. Condition 8 should be that the June 25, 2003 Master and Development Plan is the official plan that the Board is making decisions upon. Condition 9 should indicate that the road dividing out parcels # 2 and # 3 to provide an easement to parcel # 2 should be a road built to State road standards for residential collector road and any applicable cross-sections, etc., required under the statutes should be provided on the revised Development Plan before construction. Kevin Keefe seconded the motion. All members voted in favor except for Paul Patterson who was opposed. Mr. Allison, did not vote, however under the Planning Board’s Rules of Procedure, his vote was counted as an affirmative vote. The motion passed 6 to 1.
Review of Amendment to Conditional Use Permit # CU-99-01 to Allow a Bed and Breakfast
Inn with Private Functions for Property at 2701 Kanuga Road
(Pursuant to Section 200-13.C-4) of the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance)
– Terry and Melanie Wetton, Applicants. Mr. Burton stated that he is before the
Planning Board to review amendments to a Conditional Use Permit already in
place, # CU-99-01, concerning a bed and breakfast inn at 2701 Kanuga Road. He said that the use of the property that
was permitted was contingent upon a site plan that was based upon a total of
7.23 acres of land. Mr. Burton stated
that post-issuance of the original permit, there was a subdivision of the
property by the previous owner that removed a 2.30-acre tract from the
northeastern corner of the parcel, reducing the parcel size to 4.93 acres. Terrence and Melanie Wetton are also
requesting as a permitted use the allowance of private functions such as weddings, receptions, small meetings,
etc., to occur on an occasional basis
on the premises where the bed and breakfast is located. Mr. Burton stated that “Bed and
Breakfast Inns” are defined in the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance
and working from this
definition, it does appear that the petitioners’ plans are very close to
complying with the Code.
The owners shall reside on the premises, and the primary structure,
designated as the
guesthouse, has historical significance in the community and is not
incompatible with adjacent
property uses in the area. The
dimensional requirement for lot area versus number of guest
rooms is easily met. Mr. Burton
stated that the main issue is the petitioners’ request for private
functions in relation to the sentence fragment in the definition
previously stated describing
usage as: “used primarily as overnight guest quarters and providing meals
only for such guests”
and this will be a topic of discussion by the Zoning Board of
Adjustment. Mr. Burton reviewed
the list of items the applicant needs to address with regard to the
application materials and site
development plan as follows as well as any other items required:
Mr.
Burton stated that regarding attachment 4, entitled “Wedding Scenario,” the
Wettons
provided
this information when they made their original application regarding wedding
functions, as to what they plan to do regarding this. Mr. Burton stated that he requests that the Wettons supply
further information on this to the Board.
Mr. Burton said that a couple of issues he had was that the place has
laid dormant for awhile, so therefore there is vegetation and overgrowth at the
driveway entrance for the property almost up to the fog line (painted on the
edge of Kanuga Road). Mr. Burton stated
that this (the limited site distance due to obstructions) could be an issue if
there are a number of cars trying to leave the property. He showed various views of the site and the
potential parking areas and overflow parking areas. He showed on the photos that there is a down slope toward the
rear of the parcel behind the house.
Mr. Laughter asked Mr. Burton about people leaving the property and
concerns about getting into traffic. He
wanted to know whose responsibility would it be to make that a safer
situation. Chairman Pearce stated that
since what they are proposing is basically a commercial usage and a change in
residential use, we might have some right to give suggestions. Ms. Smith stated that the Board of
Adjustment could address ingress and egress.
Chairman Pearce said all that the Planning Board is here to make
recommendations to the Board of Adjustment, but that the Planning Board has a
right to address those issues in our recommendations. Mr. Burton suggested that if anyone is turning left off Nelson
Drive onto Kanuga Road towards the city, they will have a similar issue with
these obstructions and the public would need to take a cautious approach
entering into that intersection, but the Wettons are aware of this situation
(the obstructions).
Chairman
Pearce asked Mr. Wetton to come before the Board to answer some of the items
that Staff needs addressed. He asked
Mr. Wetton whether the Turleys still own the property. Mr. Wetton stated that Turley is not the
owner, but he was not either. Mr.
Wetton stated that they plan to close on the property at the end of this week,
and added that the reason for the delay is that the property is in foreclosure
and is being held by the bank in trust.
Chairman Pearce said that the conditional use permit application is
incorrect by default. He said that he
knows that the Wettons are contractually set for closing, but will this cause
any problems for the Board of Adjustment?
Ms. Smith stated that they would get this corrected. Ms. Smith stated that there is nothing in
the Ordinance that states that the owner needs to apply, but it might not have
been a bad idea to have a co-signer for this application. She stated she was not aware that the
Wettons were not the owners of the property.
Chairman Pearce stated that the Board would need to get, as one of the
recommendations, verification of ownership of the property. Mr. Wetton stated that the property closing
was supposed to be on June 30, 2003, but Mr. Turley needed more time to get his
property off of the premises. Mr.
Burton added that everything has been done in good faith. Chairman Pearce asked Mr. Wetton to address
the items indicated in Staff’s memo.
Mr.
Wetton said that he hopes with the reduction of acreage, it will still fall
within the guidelines to allow a bed and breakfast. Chairman Pearce asked Staff whether there was any reason why it
would not fall within the guidelines for a bed and breakfast? Staff stated that they were not aware of
anything and that they would just be amending their prior permit.
Ingress/Egress
and Parking: Mr. Wetton said this will be a normal bed and breakfast situation
and the ingress and egress should not be a problem. He stated that in terms of the wedding scenario, he feels that at
the maximum there would be no more than 60 guests at one time. Board members felt that this was a large
amount and discussed this issue and said perhaps 90 spaces would be a
reasonable number to set aside for guests for weddings. Mr. Allison asked whether they intend to
build a parking lot or mow the grass and have parking in the grass area? Mr. Wetton stated that they have allocated
areas for parking and said they may not pave the parking lot, but that it will
be designated for that purpose. He
mentioned that the overgrown issue would be taken care of as it will be cut
back and landscaped so that the visibility will be greatly improved. Mr. Wetton mentioned that when they have an
event, such as a wedding, which will be occasional, they would have a dedicated
person from their Staff directing traffic.
The plan would be that the person would direct people up to the drive
and direct them where the house sits, which he showed on a plan. They will then have valet parking accessible
to park the cars in the designated spots.
Mr. Allison asked whether there is a problem going from a bed and
breakfast situation to a wedding scenario?
Ms. Smith stated the Board of Adjustment will need to deal with whether
it fits into the definition of a bed and breakfast.
Inclement
Weather:
Mr. Wetton stated that regarding inclement weather, they plan to set up
a marquee in the back area of the property for any event that is taking place
(where the pool is presently now near the home). Mr. Wetton stated that the home has a very large ballroom and
they could bring the wedding inside.
Mr. Allison asked whether there would be room to handle around 250
guests if weather became inclement? Mr.
Wetton said that the home in general could handle a very large number of
people, the downstairs area is approximately 3,000 square feet, but doesn’t
feel any weddings there would be that great in number.
Noise/Function
hours & Frequency of Events: Mr. Wetton said the weddings would take
place in the afternoon or evening hours and take place no later than 10 p.m.
and said that there might be some non-wedding events such as corporate
meetings, conferences, etc., that they will plan at the facility. Mr. Allison did not feel comfortable with
having these type of meetings at the facility and felt that they were getting
into something different from what is defined for a bed and breakfast. Mr. Burton said the Zoning Ordinance does
define a conference facility. Chairman
Pearce feels that the Board needs to know how often they plan on having other
events such as weddings and conferences at the bed and breakfast facility? Mr. Wetton stated that basically they are
looking at having one per month and probably expect it to be less than
that. He stated that weddings is not
their primary business, but it is quite normal to come to a property like this and
want to have a wedding ceremony.
Sanitation: Mr. Wetton stated
that what facilities it has for the bed and breakfast (four and one-half baths)
would be sufficient. If they have any
weddings that would require more facilities, they would hire some mobile
port-a-potties.
Food
Service:
Mr. Wetton said besides the normal preparation of food for the bed and
breakfast customers, there would be no preparation of food on-site for
weddings. The food for weddings would
be catered in and served in the pavilion area.
Lighting: Mr. Wetton said
they have no intensions for any elaborate lighting and intend on having low
voltage and decorative lighting (garden-type) and during Christmas would have
Christmas lights up. There would
possibly be light posts on the driveway, which he felt would be a safety
feature. Chairman Pearce asked about
lighting in the parking areas? Mr.
Wetton said there would be adequate low-voltage lighting for the parking areas,
however there will be valet parking. He
added that there will be security lighting and at present, there is already
installed security lighting on the building and on the pavilion.
Other
Buildings on the Property: Mr. Wetton said that there would be the
owner’s quarters where they would live.
He said the pavilion contains a barbeque, toilet facility and lavatory
and they would use that for any outside events.
Signage: Mr. Wetton said
that whatever the rules are for the County on signage, they would adhere to
them.
Chairman
Pearce asked whether uses outside of a bed and breakfast, such as weddings and
private gatherings, would fall under the definition of a bed and
breakfast? Mr. Burton stated that he
had talked with Mr. McHugh from Environmental Health Department and he
mentioned that there was a distinction between a bed and breakfast inn and bed
and breakfast home. He said that the
difference is based upon the number of bedrooms. He said that six bedrooms or less with a conventional home
kitchen is classified with the Environmental Health Department as a bed and
breakfast home. If it is more than six
bedrooms, it is classified as a bed and breakfast inn. Mr. Allison had a problem with bringing
another function into this bed and breakfast place and having that other
function cater meals for it. Chairman
Pearce stated that if the primary use is for a bed and breakfast, then there is
not a problem. Mr. Burton stated that
the primary function in this case is for a bed and breakfast. Mr. Allison stated that his primary concern
is bringing food in and feeding these additional guests. Ms. Smith stated that this is one of the
reasons it is going back to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Cooper stated what is the difference with a church having a
wedding, which caters food in for the function? Mr. Burton stated that because this is not addressed
specifically, we need to get the Zoning Board of Adjustment to make a ruling on
it, but where do we stop regulating.
Mr. Burton stated that he talked with a counter-part in the city of
Whiteville that had the same questions come up. He said their ordinance did not address the use of weddings or
private functions and yet they obviously considered it as an ancillary use to
the bed and breakfast by not taking a position on this function. He said that it seems that there are quite a
number of bed and breakfast facilities used for these other functions. He said that most of the municipalities with
regard to this matter have chosen either to remain silent on this issue or
adamantly refused to allow these separate functions. Ms. Smith stated that their original permit did not consider this
issue, so therefore we need to bring this issue forward. Chairman Pearce mentioned about the
caretaker’s cottage being near and the possibility of buffering for any
functions that the bed and breakfast would have. Mr. Wetton added that the caretaker’s cottage next door is owned
by a Mr. Chisholm Leonard and they have been in communication with him. He said he has a copy of a letter where Mr.
Leonard expresses support of the Wettons to renovate their property at 2701
Kanuga Road and use it as a bed and breakfast and for visitors to the
area. Mr. Leonard further states in his
letter that he has no objections to the Wettons’ plans to host an occasional
wedding at the property. Mr. Burton indicated
that it was not included in the packet.
Mr. Wetton also mentioned that there is an association of innkeepers
called the Professional Association of Innkeepers, Inc., which is a national
organization and they have a definition of a bed and breakfast inn. Their definition states, “Generally small
owner/operated business providing the primary financial support of the owner,
usually the owner lives on the premises and the buildings’ primary usage is for
business. Inns advertised have business
license and produce their own brochures, comply with government ordinances, pay
appropriate taxes and post signs and that the only meals served are ones only
to overnight guests. The inn may host
events such as weddings, small business meetings, etc. Room numbers range from four to twenty with
a small but increasing number up to thirty.
Reservations may be made directly with the property.” Mr. Allison said that in his opinion he
interprets the zoning in the Ordinance for bed and breakfast that weddings and
other functions are not allowed. He
feels that when you start having weddings and conventions, “it flips to
something commercially.” Mr. Wetton
stated that in no way do they intend to make it a convention center. Mr. Cooper said that the Kellogg Center that
UNCA has, is a conference center with catered meals, and asked what is the
difference? Ms. Smith stated that they
have a conditional use permit. Mr. Patterson asked that if there would be small
meetings, where would these people use the bathroom? Mr. Wetton stated that the plan would be that the meetings would
be held in the dining room of the house where there would be a conference table
and there is a downstairs bathroom for the use of those people. Mr. Patterson added that when you do that,
you are changing the septic system permit, which you need to be careful. Chairman Pearce stated that those Health
Department issues are outside of our department and even the Board of
Adjustment issues. Ms. Smith stated not
necessarily as the Board of Adjustment can impose some health conditions such
as the ones they imposed for Camp Nowhere, regarding port-a-johns but said that
neither the Planning Board or the Board of Adjustment could override state
rules. Mr. Wetton said that they would
need to get a permit through the Health Department, so they intend on complying
with any regulations. Mr. Burton had
called the Health Department and they
were aware that there had been a previous conditional use permit for a bed and
breakfast and wondered what had happened, so they are aware that something is
brewing regarding this facility. Mr.
Cooper asked, “What are current bed and breakfast facilities doing now when
they have a wedding, just having it?”
Ms. Smith stated she wasn’t sure how many fall in the County’s jurisdiction. Mr. Cooper stated that there are some. Ms. Smith stated that when we had Flat
Rock’s jurisdiction, she didn’t feel that any of them specifically proposed
having weddings, etc. Mr. Burton stated
this brings us to where we are today because the Wettons specifically came in
wanting to also hold weddings and other private functions at the bed and
breakfast. Mr. Burton said he had
sought the advice of the County Attorney and discussed the idea of him (Burton)
denying the request and that way the owners could appeal his decision to the
Board of Adjustment and let the Board make their determination that way. The County Attorney’s recommendation was to
this isolate this permit, containing this parcel with this
particular conditional use, that use being to allow weddings and
private functions in addition to the principal use as a bed and
breakfast—therefore, we are not giving the whole County (bed and breakfasts)
carte blanche for these uses. The
Zoning Board of Adjustment can determine that they will comply with any
requirements that the Environmental Health Department might have. Mr. Burton said that he is requesting that
the Board of Adjustment handle all interpretations dealing with this
residence, on this parcel with these owners in this capacity. After some further discussion, Chairman
Pearce polled the Board members on each condition and their comments were as
follows:
1.
Parking/Ingress/Egress: The applicants
said there will be valet parking and the Planning Board proposed a condition
that they provide adequate parking.
2.
Inclement Weather: No comments.
3.
Noise/Function Hours: Applicant stated
that the hours would run no later than 10 p.m. and the Planning had no
comments. Regarding noise, the Planning
Board had no comments.
4.
Frequency of Events: As requested by
the applicant, basically 1 per month for weddings. The Planning Board had no comments.
5.
Sanitation: The Planning Board
proposed a condition that adequate sanitation required by the Health
Department.
6.
Food Service: The Planning Board
proposed a condition that food service be as per Health Department
requirements.
7.
Lighting: The Planning Board
proposed that no lighting be installed to be a nuisance to adjacent property
owners.
8.
Signage: The Planning Board
requested that the applicant provide proposal as to size, location and type of
sign intended to be used.
9.
Other Buildings on the
Property:
No comments.
10. Verification of ownership. The Planning Board
proposed that the applicants verify ownership of the property for the
application.
Chairman
Pearce made a motion to send a favorable recommendation regarding the proposal
as set forth by the applicant with the suggestions and recommendations as
indicated above to be considered by the Board of Adjustment. Mike Cooper seconded the motion and all
members voted in favor.
Proposed
Amendments to the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance – Subdivision
Issues
Subcommittee.
After some brief discussion, since the majority of the Planning Board
members felt that it was not necessary for Staff to review the proposed
amendments, Mike Cooper made a motion to send the Board of County Commissioners
a favorable recommendation on the proposed Subdivision Ordinance
amendments. Kevin Keefe seconded the
motion and all members voted in favor.
Ms. Smith stated that these amendments would not be forwarded to the
Commissioners until their August 4, 2003 meeting, because of the way their
deadline has hit for their meeting next Wednesday, July 23, 2003.
Mr. Allison mentioned that Jeff Justus had him come to his property about putting a buffer in and getting it done. He stated that Mr. Justus has a lot of existing trees that are already there and there is one manufactured home that about a foot on his line. Mr. Allison stated that there is also a utility building that is fifteen feet over and the ten foot buffer that is required to be put in there, he feels will not work there. Ms. Smith stated that Mr. Justus would need to come back to the Board of Adjustment and ask them to amend his permit. He had initially been told that, and that is the only recourse he has now. Mr. Allison stated that the letter Mr. Justus received stated a certain time he had to get the buffer in and to put it in the bottom at the toe of the slope or cut the trees above and put the buffer in.
Status Report on Planning Initiatives – Planning Staff. Ms. Smith stated that this is the monthly
report that goes to the Board of Commissioners and to the Comprehensive
Advisory Committee and there has been a lot more activity in the last month due
to Mr. Josh Freeman becoming the Project Manager and also with the public
participation phase of the Comprehensive Plan getting into high gear in July
and August. She stated that it has
required Staff to move ahead on the survey and also planning for the community
meetings. Chairman Pearce suggested
that unless the report is extensive, we could move the future status reports
under old business.
Mr. Freeman said that the survey
went out on July 10, 2003 to about two thousand residents and he is hoping we
get a good response rate. He said that
Staff hired a company that has done a Spanish version of the survey. He mentioned that the community meetings
would begin on August 28, 2003. Mr.
Freeman passed around to all the Board members the schedule of the public
meeting dates and locations. He said
they are doing meetings according to the fire districts and attached to the
schedule is a map showing the fire districts boundaries. Mr. Freeman said that Gerton and Bat Cave
have been combined for the purposes of the meetings. He said the last column of the schedule is for Planning Board or
Advisory Committee members to help cover the meetings. He said that he would like to request help
from the Board members on several tasks and invited the Board members to attend
any of the meetings, but particularly the ones that are happening in their
community. He asked the Board members
to get the word out to as many people in their community to attend. He requested help from the Board members in
putting posters up about the meetings around the community and in places they
feel would be convenient. Each Board
member then volunteered for a certain fire district as follows:
Fire
District (listed by Population) |
Scheduled Meeting Date |
Location |
Planning Board or Advisory Committee Memberto Cover
Meeting |
|
1.
Gerton / Bat Cave |
Aug. 28 |
Upper
Hickory Nut Gorge Community Club |
|
|
2.
Raven Rock |
Sept. 4 |
Saluda
Fire Station |
Leon
Allison |
|
3.
Valley Hill #2 |
Sept. 11 |
Valley
Hill Fire Dept. (Main Station) |
Mike
Cooper, Tommy Laughter |
|
4.
Green River |
Sept. 18 |
Tuxedo
Extended Day School |
Leon
Allison |
|
5.
Dana |
Sept. 25 |
Dana
Elementary School |
Cindy
Dabaibeh, Todd Thompson |
|
6.
Mills River |
Oct 2 |
Mills
River Elementary School |
Wayne
Carland |
|
7.
Edneyville |
Oct 9 |
NC
Justice Academy |
Tommy
Laughter |
|
8.
Etowah/Horse Shoe |
Oct. 16 |
Etowah
Elementary School |
Wayne
Carland |
|
9.
Fletcher |
Oct. 23 |
Fletcher
Elementary School |
Tedd
Pearce |
|
10. Mountain Home |
Oct. 30 |
Rugby Jr.
High School |
Kevin
Keefe |
|
11. Valley Hill |
Nov.6 |
Valley
Hill Fire Dept. (Main Station) |
Mike
Cooper, Tommy Laughter |
|
12. Blue
Ridge |
Nov. 13 |
Blue
Ridge Fire Dept. |
Cindy
Dabaibeh |
|
13. Hendersonville |
Nov. 20 |
Whitmire
Building |
Paul
Patterson |
|
14.
Make-Up Meeting |
Dec. 4 |
To be
determined |
|
Mr. Freeman stated that they have not decided what the
complete contents of the meetings will be as of yet. He said that the County has contracted with the Dispute
Settlement Center to run the meetings.
Staff will have a presentation and then they will ask the questions to
the public and gather the information.
He said the questions will probably follow the general flow of the
survey in terms of the major subjects that were addresses and looking at some
of the problems in each community as well as some of the positive developments
in each community and trying to get the general consensus as to what the people
want to preserve and protect. He stated
that it would cover a much broader issue than zoning. He said there would be an agenda before the meetings begin. Chairman Pearce asked what is the timetable
on the Comprehensive Plan? Ms. Smith
stated that the Board of Commissioners approved a timetable of up to a year
from March, 2003.
OTHER
BUSINESS:
Ms. Smith indicated that Tommy Laughter went to the training session for Planning Board members at Western Carolina University. She said that he brought back some literature that Staff will copy for all the Board members.
Ms. Smith announced to the Board members that Josh Freeman
passed his American Institute of Certified Planners exam. The Board members offered their congratulations.
Subcommittee
Assignments and Meeting Dates.
No meetings were assigned.
Adjournment. There being no further business, Tommy
Laughter made a motion to adjourn
and Mike Cooper seconded the motion. All members voted in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9:46 p.m.
____________________
Tedd Pearce, Chairman Kathleen
Scanlan, Secretary