HENDERSON COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
November
18, 2003
The
Henderson County Planning Board met on November 18, 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, Chair, Walter Carpenter,
Vice Chair, Leon Allison, Todd Thompson, Tommy Laughter, and Mike Cooper. Others present included Derrick Cook,
Planner, Karen Smith, Planning Director, and Kathleen Scanlan, Secretary. Board members Cindy Dabaibeh and Paul
Patterson were absent.
Chairman
Pearce stated that Kevin Keefe resigned from the Planning Board because he felt
that the public would feel that there is a conflict of interest regarding his
relationship working with Tedd Pearce and being on the Planning Board with him.
Approval of Minutes. Chairman Pearce called the meeting to order and stated that Mr. Paul Patterson had indicated that there was one change to the minutes of the October 21, 2003 Planning Board meeting. Chairman Pearce referred to page 18 of the draft minutes, which referred to a statement Mr. Patterson made during Mr. Allison’s motion on the Homestead at Mills River. It stated: “Mr. Patterson felt that a requirement regarding an engineer’s or surveyor’s certification on the final plat as to road grades complying with Henderson County standards is needed to be added as an additional condition. Chairman Pearce stated that Mr. Patterson indicated that the sentence should read: Mr. Patterson felt that a requirement regarding an engineer’s or surveyor’s certification on the final plat as to roads complying with Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance road standards in all aspects is needed to be added as an additional condition.” After some discussion, Mr. Cook indicated that the letter sent to the owners of the Homestead at Mills River referenced similar language under the road standard condition. All members agreed on the change because of its similarity of what was sent in the letter to the owners of the Homestead. Tedd Pearce made a motion to approve the October 21, 2003 minutes with the change as discussed. Leon Allison seconded the motion. Ms. Smith said that Staff would check on the statement in the letter to the owner of The Homestead at Mills River to make sure it did indicate similar language. All members approved the minutes with the change indicated.
Adjustment
of Agenda. Ms. Smith stated
that she had received a request from Jeff Justus regarding a subdivision that
was initially approved last year on which needs some guidance from the
Board. Chairman Pearce stated that will
be addressed after Item 12, under New Business. All Board members agreed
on the addition to the agenda.
Staff Reports.
Ms. Smith informed the Board that at the Board of Commissioners meeting
for tomorrow, November 19, 2003, she will be bringing before the Board a
proposed amendment to the Water Supply Watershed Ordinance regarding the 100
foot buffer requirement for situations requiring Special Intensity Allocations.
She stated that this came up during the
Planning Board meeting regarding The Homestead at Mills River. She said that she had received a letter from
the State saying that Henderson County needs to amend its Water Supply
Watershed Ordinance and therefore that is the reason in bringing it to the
Commissioners. She stated that if there
is anything assigned to the Planning Board regarding this matter, the
Commissioners would advise her.
OLD BUSINESS:
Request for Extension of Development Plan for Morgan Business
Center (File # 01-M21) – William Lapsley, Agent for MSMM Enterprises, Inc. Mr. Cook stated that he received a
memorandum from William Lapsley’s office requesting that the Planning Board
withdraw this extension and let the approval from the Planning Board
expire. Mr. Lapsley and the owner
understand that the project will have to be resubmitted at a future date. Chairman Pearce made a motion to accept the
withdrawal for the request for extension of Development Plan approval for
Morgan Business Center. Mike Cooper
seconded the motion and all members voted in favor. (Walter Carpenter arrived to the meeting at this time).
Piney Oak Hills (File # 96-M20) – Resubmittal of Master and
Development Plan Review (46 Lots on 18.3 Acres) for Property Located off Stepp
Road – Jon Laughter, Agent for A & A Developers, Inc., Owner. Mr. Cook stated that this is a resubmittal
of the Master and Development Plan for Piney Oak Hills. He said that the Planning Board in 1993
approved the Stepp Road Subdivision, which was a 44.70-acre tract for 45 lots.
In October 1995, the Planning Board granted a six-month Development Plan
extension for the project. The extension expired without further action by the
Applicant. In January 1997, the Planning Board approved under a new name, Piney
Oak Hill subdivision, previously Stepp Road Subdivision under the former Land
Development Ordinance. He stated that
the Applicant has not completed the development of the property in the most
recent designated amount of time for the Development Plan and therefore, the
Applicant has re-submitted the combined Master and Development Plan for
Planning Board review. He stated that the applicant has proposed 45
single-family lots on 37.5 acres and that the County tax map shows 26 lots
already exist in the subdivision. The applicant is specifically proposing that
19 lots of the original proposed 45 lots on 17.1 acres be approved for
development. The 19 lots involve lots 3 through 6, lots 11 through 22, and lots
34 through 36. The property is located in an Open Use zoning district and it is
not in a Water Supply Watershed and private roads, individual wells and septic
tanks will serve the property.
Staff has reviewed the combined Master and Development Plan
for conformance with the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance and stated that
there were no comments under the Master Plan as all requirements had been
satisfied. Mr. Cook reviewed the
conditions under the Development Plan as follows:
Mr. Cook stated that regarding other comments, the Applicant
has a water supply point at the subdivision, but currently they are not on
public water. He stated that he has
spoke with Mr. Jon Laughter who indicated that just recently the water supply
point was brought to their location and there is not enough pressure to serve
the lots in this development at this time.
Mr. Cook stated that they are negotiating with an adjacent parcel to put
a pump station there so they can have public water serving them. Chairman Pearce asked whether this differs
from the last submittal, if so, in what way?
Mr. Cook stated that as for the designs, there is no change and the
roads presently there will have to be upgraded according to the latest County
road standards. Ms. Smith added that
the County did not have the type of road standards in 1997 that we have
implemented currently, so Staff needed to make sure that the road in front of
the lots would meet current standards and it appears that it meets these
standards based on the plan that they have presented. Walter Carpenter asked if the Stepp Road Subdivision was a
different subdivision from the one we are looking at, or is it the same? Mr. Cook stated that when it was originally
presented in 1993 it was all one subdivision.
Mr. Cook stated that it was submitted and approved and there were some
lots sold with the road being there and then the extension expired. Mr. Cook said that in 1997 it came back to
the Planning Board and more lots were sold and the road standards were met with
the existing roads there at that time with the rules for roads at the time and
because it expired again, it has been resubmitted for the rest of the lots. Mr. Cook indicated that the lots the Board
is dealing with directly are the 19 lots, which specifically have not been
recorded and that the owner is looking for approval. Mr. Cook mentioned that the roads might need upgrading to meet the
present road standards and he mentioned that they have illustrated that on the
plan with new cross-sections. The
Applicant’s agent, Mr. Laughter, advised staff that the waterline was not
originally located there. It recently was extended to the property, but there
is not enough water pressure to serve the property. The Applicant is
negotiating to build a water pump station at the adjacent Habitat for Humanity
property to serve the Piney Oak Hills subdivision.
Walter Carpenter made a motion that the Planning Board find
and conclude that the combined Master and Development Plan submitted for Piney
Oak Hills 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 the combined Master and Development Plan be approved subject
to the following Conditions: the applicant satisfies comment 1 before
construction begins and comments 2-4 on the Final Plat. Tommy Laughter seconded the motion and all
members voted in favor.
Carriage
Park Planned Unit Development - Proposed Amendments to Common Area Related to
Clubhouse
Renovations - Carriage Park Homeowners’ Association and Carriage Park
Associates,
LLC, Applicants.
Chairman Pearce stated that Staff received a letter from Gerald Liedl
requesting that this item be withdrawn from the agenda, which means that this
application will not be carried forth, but that if they want to bring this
forth at a future meeting, they will have to start all over again. Mike Cooper made a motion to formally accept
the withdrawal of the item, Carriage Park Planned Unit Development, proposed
amendments to common area related to clubhouse renovations, from the
agenda. Walter Carpenter seconded the
motion and all members voted in favor.
Status Report on Planning Initiatives - Planning Staff. Ms. Smith briefly updated the Board on the
recent community meetings and mentioned that on December 2, 2003 at 6:30 p.m.
there will be a Latino community meeting held at El Centro on North Main
Street.
NEW BUSINESS:
Lots on 190.58 Acres) - Luther E. Smith, Agent for Patton
Seed Company, Owner. Mr. Cook stated
that the property is a 376.58 acre tract located off Brevard Road (Highway 64).
The development is for 16 proposed mini farm lots, 50 single-family lots, and
33 cottage lots totaling 99 lots on 190.58 acres. The remaining 186 acres of
land will be designated as common area. The development is located in an Open
Use zoning district, and is in a WS-IV Water Supply Watershed Protection
district. He stated that a notable portion
of he property seems to be in a 100-year flood plain and in the 1993
Comprehensive Land Use Plan this land was designated as “Rural Conservation”.
City of Hendersonville water, a community sewer system and private roads will
serve the property. Mr. Cook stated that the Applicant is only requesting
review of the Master Plan of the project at this time.
Mr. Cook stated that Staff has reviewed the Master Plan for
conformance with the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance and offers the
following comments:
1. Water
Supply Watershed Ordinance Requirement– Single Family Residential Uses: In
a WS-IV area, per Section 192-12F(2)(a) of the Henderson County Water Supply
Watershed Ordinance, “Single-family residential development shall not exceed
more than 1 dwelling unit per 20,000 square feet of lot size, as defined on a
project basis, unless such development qualifies for a natural drainage and
filtering system bonus in which case development shall not exceed three
dwellings units per acre of lot size. No residential lot shall be less than
20,000 square feet, excluding road right-of-way, except within an approved
cluster development, unless such lot qualifies for a natural drainage and
filtering system bonus in which case the lot shall not be less than 1/3 acre
(14,520 square feet).” Mr. Cook stated
that some of the lot sizes proposed in the “cottage” section do not meet the
minimum lot size requirements of the 20,000 square feet (or 14,520 square feet
if the project qualifies for a natural drainage and filtering system
bonus). Because the Applicant is
proposing 186 acres of open space for the project, it appears the project could
qualify as a “cluster development” under Section 192-14 of the Water Supply
Watershed Ordinance. He stated that the applicant must comply with the
requirements of the Water Supply Watershed Ordinance including those for
cluster development if the Applicant intends to proceed with the project as
shown on the Master Plan.
2. Water Supply Watershed Ordinance
Requirements- Nonresidential Uses: In addition to the perennial stream
setback in the Subdivision Ordinance, §192-15 of the Watershed Ordinance
requires a minimum 30-foot vegetative buffer along all perennial streams. He
stated that this is specifically stated this way because under the Subdivision
Ordinance you can have a 30-foot setback but it does not have to be the
original vegetative area but in the Watershed Ordinance it needs to be the
original vegetative area. Ms. Smith
clarified that it does not have to be the original vegetation, vegetation may
be removed and other vegetation may be planted. Mr. Cook further stated that regarding the built-upon surface
area, in the open space a special intensity allocation may need to be applied
for, and if so, under the State ordinance, there would need to be a 100-foot
vegetative buffer from perennial streams for the common area/special use
lots. He stated that Section
192-22 deals with watershed area with
regard to anything that would adversely affect the watershed area and the
Planning Board would have the option not to approve based on that reason
alone. Chairman Pearce added that it
gives the County Zoning and Watershed Administrator certain abilities for
certain things.
3. Water Supply Watershed Ordinance Requirements- Special Intensity Allocation (SIA): Ten percent of the total acreage within the balance of a WS-IV Watershed outside of the critical area may be approved for special intensity allocation. Acreage approved as a special intensity allocation maybe developed with up to 70% built-upon area. If an SIA is granted, there is a 100-foot vegetated buffer requirement from perennial streams in nonresidential and common areas.
4. Development Plan- Before any construction within the project may begin the applicant must submit and obtain approval the Development Plan under the procedures and standards of the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Cook also stated that he suggests that before the
applicant submits the Development Plan for review and submittal to the Planning
Board that an appointment be arranged with Staff to review the plan before it
is officially submitted. Mr. Cook said
that the Master Plan was sent to Mr. William Eaker with Land of Sky Regional
Council for review. Ms. Smith noted
that Mr. Eaker is involved in a project that is looking at voluntary buffers
along the French Broad River.
Mr. Cook added that Henderson County is considering the
development of a flood damage prevention ordinance that could impact future
development of the subject property.
Ms. Smith stated that the Planning Board does not see many Master Plans
with Development plans.
Mr. Luther Smith, agent for Patton Seed Company, owner of
Horseshoe Bend Farm, stated that he is asking the Planning Board to give
approval for the Master Plan, because the Board will never see a Development
Plan on this project. Mr. Smith briefed
the Board on the location of the property.
He stated that coming before the Planning Board tonight is one step in
the process that the applicant is going through. He said in order to place the entire property under conservation
easements so that it will never be developed, the owner is giving up
development rights of 89 of the 99 homesites in exchange for placing a
conservation easement on the property.
There will actually be two easements, one is working with the program
that Mr. Bill Eaker has with Land-of-Sky through the Clean Water Management
Trust Fund to put a buffer all along the river that will be anywhere from about
100 feet to 200 feet back from the stream bank. The remainder of the property will be put under a farmland
conservation easement with the exception of the ten building sites. He said that if at some point in time they
decide to use the building sites, then they would have to come back into this
Board and go through the planning process to actually get a development Plan on
record for those ten sites He said at
the moment from the standpoint of the easement, those sites are simply located by
a stake in the ground or a point on the ground that will say some point in the
future if you decide to develop this, that point must be in the center of the
lot and basically they would develop the lots off of that and bring the plans
back for review to the Board. Mr. Smith
reiterated that this is just one step in the process that has been going on for
four months and they hope to have the whole process finished by the end of the
year so that the easements can be put into place and the farm can be protected
as farmland. Chairman Pearce stated
that they need the Board to approve this Plan to begin the process. Mr. Allison asked whether there might be a
possibility that the ten lots might be used in the future? Mr. Smith stated that he does not know that
the current owner would use those lots, but part of the reasoning for that is
if they sell the whole piece of property, those lots go with the property. He stated that the other reason is that
there are other existing homes on the property now and two of those existing
homes will be two of those ten lots.
Mr. Allison stated that on the common area, if the ten lots were sold
later on, if that common area is tied to that, would they have access to
that? Mr. Smith stated that the
conservation easement on the property will include the ten lots, so each of the
lots will be part of the easement, they will not be outside of the
easement. Mr. Allison said the common
area if it went along with those ten lots, they could use any part of that farm
that they wanted to. Mr. Allison asked,
“Do you think it would be better than putting it in common area to put it in
agriculture?” Mr. Smith said it will go
under an agriculture easement and the Development Plan with the ten lots would
be shown as common area. Chairman
Pearce noted that even though Mr. Smith has stated that they are not planning
on bringing a Development Plan and that he is making it a conservation
easement, when the Planning Board approves it on the merits that have been
presented to us, it could come forward as a full Master Plan. After some discussion on common area usage,
Mr. Carpenter clarified that the Master Plan does not approve common area, the
individual Development Plan would be when they approve that. He stated there is no dedication of common
area now.
Mike Cooper made a motion that the Planning Board find and conclude that the Master Plan submitted for the for the Horseshoe Bend Farm 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 that the
applicant address comments 1 and 2 at the time of submittal
of a Development Plan for the project.
Leon Allison seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
Sky Top Farm (File # 03-M20) – Master Plan Review for Property Located Off North Rugby Road
Mr. Cook stated that Staff has reviewed the Master Plan for
conformance with the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance and offers the
following comments:
1. Development Plan- Before any
construction within the project may begin the applicant must submit and obtain
approval the Development Plan under the procedures and standards of the
Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance (170-16[C]).
2.
Common Area – The applicant has designated an
11.8 -acre common area in the
project. There is an existing
house, 3 sheds, barn, and storage bin on the property. The plan notes that the
common area may include a clubhouse. Future structures in the common area must
meet the applicable zoning and/or watershed requirements. Such special use lots
must be clearly identified for their designated use on the Final Plat
(§170-31B). Non-residential development is subject to built-upon area
requirements of the Water Supply Watershed Protection Ordinance.
3. Compliance with other provisions-
The proposed subdivision must comply with other applicable County Ordinances
including, but not limited to, the Zoning Ordinance and the Water Supply
Watershed Protection Ordinance (HCSO §170-7).
4. Water Supply Watershed Ordinance
Requirement – Single Family Residential Uses: This is in a WS-IV area, and
per Section 192-12F(2)(a) of the Henderson County Water Supply Watershed
Ordinance, “Single-family residential development all not exceed more than 1
dwelling unit per 20,000 square feet of lot size, as defined on a project
basis, unless such development qualifies for a natural drainage and filtering
system bonus in which case development shall not exceed three dwellings units
per acre of lot size. No residential lot shall be less than 20,000 square feet,
excluding road right-of-way, except within an approved cluster development,
unless such lot qualifies for a natural drainage and filtering system bonus in
which case the lot shall not be less than 1/3 acre (14,520 square feet). Mr. Cook noted that since this is zoned
R-30, cluster developments are not allowed by right and therefore the applicant
would need to submit for a special use permit, if applicable, to do a cluster
development.
5. Water Supply Watershed Ordinance
Requirements- Nonresidential Uses: In addition to the perennial stream
setback in the Subdivision Ordinance, §192-15 of the Watershed Ordinance
requires a minimum 30-foot vegetative buffer along all perennial streams.
Desirable artificial stream bank or shoreline stabilization is permitted.
§192-15 also limits development in the buffer to “…water dependent structures,
other structures such as flag poles, signs and security lights which result in
only the minimal increases in impervious area and public projects such as road
crossings and greenways where no practical alternative exists.” Projects have
to minimize built-upon surface area, direct runoff away from surface waters and
maximize the use of stormwater best management practices. There are other applicable
sections in the Watershed Ordinance however §192-17A provides a general
statement worth noting:
No building or land shall
hereafter be used and no development shall take place except in conformity with
the regulations herein specified for the watershed area in which it is located.
All development must minimize built-upon surface area, direct stormwater away
from surface water and incorporate best management practices to minimize water
quality impacts.
In
addition §192-22 states that: No activity, situation, structure or land use
shall be allowed within the watershed which poses a threat to water quality and
the public health, safety and welfare. Such conditions may arise from
inadequate on-site sewage systems which utilize ground absorption; inadequate
sedimentation and erosion control measures; the improper storage or disposal of
junk, trash or other refuse within a buffer area; the improper management of
stormwater runoff; or any other situation found to pose a threat to water
quality.
Staff suggests that before the Applicant submits the
Development Plan for review to the Planning Board that an appointment is
arranged with Staff to review the plan before it is officially submitted. Mr. Cook also noted that this proposed
subdivision is in a 100-year floodplain and with the County considering a
Floodplain Ordinance, it could affect the subdivision. Chairman Pearce asked when we discuss a
clubhouse that is using an existing structure, does the Board need to include
that as a condition that it may not necessarily comply with building codes
because of State regulations that would apply with the change in use of the
building. He suggested that some type
of language should be added for existing buildings when they intend to be used
for public use or some language that the buildings may or may not comply with
the building codes. Ms. Smith
interjected and stated that that the Planning Board or Department does not have
any way to enforce those building codes to make them comply before they record
a plat, so there could be a general statement added. Chairman Pearce asked whether the Board would be causing any
problems for anyone without addressing that issue? Ms. Smith stated that it does not hurt to mention this but she is
not sure whether it is a condition relating to the subdivision plan. Chairman Pearce feels that the Board is
seeing these situations regularly. Ms.
Smith stated that this one of the first clubhouses in a zoned area, other than
the Open Use District. Mr. Allison
asked if a clubhouse was being built, what type of permit would be pulled, a
commercial or residential permit?
Chairman Pearce said that technically it would be a commercial
permit. Chairman Pearce feels that the
applicant should know up front that they might have a situation that needs to
be addressed. Mr. Allison asked whether
the Board would be approving that as a commercial use? Chairman Pearce stated that the Board would
not be approving it as a commercial use, but that these are substantial
modifications for a commercial building and they would need to have a
contractor with a commercial license to do the work. He stated that a general contractor’s license is acceptable. After some further discussion, Ms. Smith stated
that if there is some type of language that the Board wants to add with regard
to this matter that would be acceptable.
Chairman Pearce suggested that under other comments, the
following could be added: “The existing buildings in the common area may need
to be reviewed by the Henderson County Inspection Department for their proposed
use.” Chairman Pearce added that this
language might be looked at for other future developments.
Mr. Terry Weaver, agent for FRE, LLC, owner stated that they
have already had the Henderson County Inspection Department out at this site as
well as contractors so that they have been put on notice that the owners are
going to utilize this existing facility and that there will be requirements
that will need to be adhered to. He
noted that he wanted the Board to know that they were already looking into this
matter. Mr. Carpenter asked whether
there will be any of the lots in the subdivision of 20,000 square feet or less? Mr. Weaver stated that most of them are an
acre or more. Mr. Thompson wanted to
know if the future pond is going where the pond is at now? Mr. Weaver stated that what is shown is the
existing pond and that they have already been discussing this with the Corps of
Engineers and that it is a Corps regulated pond. He said that it can only get 75% bigger than what it already is
as it can not be doubled. He mentioned
that they may or may not expand the pond and if they decide to, it will
probably be only around the clubhouse area.
Mike Cooper made motion that the Planning Board find and conclude that
the Master Plan submitted for the Sky Top Farm 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 the applicant address
comments 3-5 at time of submittal of Development Plan and comment 2 by the
Final Plat and that comment 1 needs to be satisfied by the Applicant before he
can go forward with the project. In
addition, that the subdivision is subject to the following added language: “The
existing buildings in the common area may need to be reviewed by the Henderson
County Inspection Department for their proposed use.” Todd Thompson seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
Mountain Meadows (File # 03-M17) – Master Plan and Phase I
Development Plan Review for Property Located off Oleta Road – (42 Single-Family
Lots in Two Phases, 25 Lots in Phase I) -
Jeff Donaldson, Agent for William H. May, Jr., Owner. Mr. Cook stated that Mountain Meadows is a
proposed major subdivision on a 36.18-acre portion of a 92.94-acre tract
located off Oleta Road. He stated that the applicant is proposing 42
single-family lots in two Phases.
Phase I will encompass 22.88 acres and 25 single-family lots. The
development is located in an Open Use zoning district and is not in a Water
Supply Watershed Protection district. Individual wells, septic tanks and
private roads will serve the proposed development. The applicant also has proposed a 0.5-acre common area near the
entrance to the property.
Staff has reviewed the Master Plan and Phase I Development
Plan for conformance with the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance and found
that all technical requirements have been satisfied regarding the Master
Plan. With regard to the Development
Plan, the following are the comments:
1.
Road Grade – The applicant is proposing private
paved local residential roads to serve the development. However the portion of
the road from the entrance to Scenic Ridge Drive must meet private collector
road standards. The Development Plan shows road grades of 17.5% in the road
section from the entrance of the proposed subdivision to the Scenic Ridge Road
intersection. The County Subdivision Ordinance maximum grade allowed for paved
private collector roads is 16%. The applicant, on a revised Development Plan,
will need to propose roads as public, or the applicant will need to
indicate road grades at or below 16% that will need to be certified on the
Final Plat (HCSO 170-21 Table 1). Staff
also suggests that the Applicant show two separate cross-sections for proposed
private local residential roads and the private local collector roads.
2.
Common Area - The applicant has designated a
0.5-acre common area at the entrance of Phase I. If applicable, future
structures on the common area must meet the applicable zoning or other
ordinance requirements. Such special use lots must be clearly identified for
their designated use on the Final Plat (§170-31B).
3.
Perennial Stream and Buffer Area – The
applicant has acknowledged on the Development Plan the 30-foot building setback
from perennial streams required by §170-37A of the Subdivision Ordinance. Such
setback must be noted on the Final Plat (HCSO Appendix 7).
4.
Private Roads – Private roads are shown,
the final 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 (Appendix 7).
5.
Farmland Preservation – The
applicant provided the Affidavit of Understanding of Farmland Preservation
District. On the final plat, a statement should be noted saying the subdivision
lies with ½ mile of the Blue Ridge Farmland Preservation District (HCSO 170-35
and Appendix 7).
6.
Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control – The
applicant should submit notice from NCDENR that a soil erosion and
sedimentation control plan has been received or provide documentation that no plan
is required prior to beginning construction (HCSO 170-19).
Lot Designs - The applicant has a notable remaining portion of the property not involved in the proposed subdivision that has not been flagged as future development. If the Applicant desires to develop the remaining area of land, then areas for which no future phases are known or disclosed should be labeled as “future development” on the Master Plan and Development Plan for major subdivisions. When any “future development” areas of major subdivisions are to be subdivided, the development must comply with this chapter, including review by Planning Board under Section 170-16 (HCSO 170-31). Ms. Smith asked Mr. Cook to clarify whether he is requiring the applicants to put “future development” on the Master and Development Plans or if he is asking them to address any future development? Mr. Cook stated that he was giving it as a point of information since they have not placed that on the plan. He said that any future development indicated would require them to go through the application procedure. Mr. Carpenter stated that it would be a whole new subdivision if they subdivide anything west of this development. He added that it is obviously not going to get access from any of the existing roads because they do not go over in that direction. Mr. Carpenter inquired about the odd-shaped common area. Mr. Cook stated that it is where the sign is proposed. Mr. Steve Waggoner, agent for the owner stated that it is along the creek, so they wanted that area to be left natural as there is a waterfall there. Chairman Pearce asked regarding road grade, it stated that if they are private roads they need to have less than 16%, but if they are public roads, they don’t? Mr. Cook stated that this is correct. Mr. Waggoner stated that this was his conflict in trying to design the roads in this subdivision. Ms. Smith stated that this has come up before where the owner proposed public roads because they get a higher grade. Mike Cooper added that basically the County’s requirements are more stringent than the requirements of the State. Ms. Smith stated that is correct. She added that the State standards for residential collector roads are defined differently than the County’s and that the maximum grade is 12%. Mr. Waggoner stated that he has a problem with a small stretch of this road. Mr. Waggoner stated that on the Master Plan, this strip of the road would serve the whole subdivision so it will be approximately 25 lots or more, but a true collector for the State is less than 2500 feet and this is around 2100 feet. He stated that what Mr. Jeff Donaldson wants is to build the roads to State specifications and leave them graveled until the development gets finished and top it off with pavement and then turn it over to the State. Mr. Waggoner stated that the roads will stay private until that time and he will maintain them. Mr. Waggoner stated that if they call the roads public, then we will need to show detail of a paved street and that locks us in with paving the road before they can sell lots. He described a portion of the property and said that technically it could be approved as not being a Henderson County collector road at this point. Chairman Pearce stated that the Board needs to look at the project as a whole and the developer would need to upgrade the road and comply to County standards or get a variance and prove that you meet the conditions of the variance and add this with the conditions stated. Mr. Allison asked what the Board can do tonight regarding this subdivision, can the Board approve it? Chairman Pearce stated that this subdivision can be approved with conditions as stated, but it makes it more difficult to come back to the Board afterwards with a variance request. Mr. Allison asked if the developer got a variance on this and then it came back with the Phase II development to be approved what would happen? Mr. Carpenter stated that he feels the variance request would count for both phases. Mr. Allison said that as long as the first section of the road had the approval, then the second phase would have no problem. Ms. Smith stated that the issue that they need to demonstrate is if they can comply. Mr. Carpenter stated that they can meet it tonight because they can build roads to State specifications. Ms. Smith stated that the Commissioners make the findings of fact and the Planning Board usually recommends some on variances. Mr. Allison added that on a variance the applicant needs to show just cause because of some type of hardship. Ms. Smith stated that is correct. Mr. Cooper clarified that if the Board approves the subdivisions with the conditions, the developer would either need to meet the County’s 16% or build the roads to State standards. Mike Cooper made a motion that the Planning Board find and conclude that the Master Plan and Phase I Development Plan submitted for Mountain Meadows 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 the Master Plan and Phase I Development Plan be approved subject to the following Conditions: The Applicant satisfies comments 1 and 6 before construction begins, comments 2, 3, 4 and 5 on the Final Plat. Leon Allison seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
Rock Water
Estates (File # 03-M18) – Master and Development Plan Review for Property
Located
off
Sugarloaf Road (66 Lots on 43.6 Acres)
- Jon Laughter, Agent for J. Beth
Williams and Dream
1. Perennial Stream and Setbacks – The
applicant has acknowledged on the Development Plan the 30-foot building setback
from perennial streams required by §170-37A of the Subdivision Ordinance. Such
setback must be noted on the Final Plat (HCSO Appendix 7).
2. Private Roads – Because private
roads are shown, the final 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
(Appendix 7).
3. Farmland Preservation – The
applicant provided the Affidavit of Understanding of
Farmland Preservation
District. On the Final Plat, a
statement should be noted saying the subdivision lies with ½ mile of the Blue
Ridge Farmland Preservation District (HCSO 170-35 and Appendix 7).
4. Common Area - The Applicant has designated a
ten-foot walk path along the western
border of the proposed development. Such special use
lots must be clearly identified for
their designated use on the Final Plat (§170-31B).
5. Water
Supply – The Applicant checked that individual water systems will be used
on
the application, however, on the
Development Plan, the Applicant notes that public water will be used. If the
Applicant is proposing individual wells, a reason must be provided for why the
property will not be served by City water since a water supply line exists at
the property. If no appropriate
explanation is presented for why wells will be used, the applicant must submit
a letter from the City of Hendersonville Water and Sewer Department that states
there is sufficient capacity to make connection to the utility. The applicant
must provide evidence that the City of Hendersonville Water and Sewer
Department have approved water supply plans. The applicant must meet the City
of Hendersonville’s minimum requirements for fire hydrant installation (HCSO
170-20). Final approval of water supply system must be provided and such system
must be
installed (or an improvement
guarantee for such system must be posted) prior to the
Final Plat approval, if
applicable.
6. Road Grade – The applicant
proposed paved private collector residential roads and
paved private local residential roads to serve the property. The road grades are not to
exceed 16% and 18% respectively. On the Final Plat, the roads grades will need to be
certified (170-21 Table 1). Staff also suggests that the Applicant show two separate
cross-sections for the proposed private local residential roads and the private local
collector roads.
7. Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control
– The applicant should submit notice from
NCDENR that a soil erosion and
sedimentation control plan has been received or
provide documentation that no plan is
required prior to beginning construction (HCSO
170-19).
8. Lot Designs - The applicant has a
portion of the property not involved in the proposed subdivision that has not
been flagged as future development. If the applicant desires to develop the
remaining area of land, then areas for which no future phases are known or
disclosed should be labeled as “future development” on the Master Plan and Development
Plan for major subdivisions. When any “future development” areas of major
subdivisions are to be subdivided, the development must comply with this
chapter, including review by Planning Board under Section 170-16 (HCSO 170-31).
Chairman Pearce asked Mr. Jon Laughter to explain the water
supply situation. Mr. Laughter stated
that there is a City water main, but there are some questions as to whether it
will meet the requirements for fire flow.
He said that there should be plenty of water there for residential use.
He stated that the property across the street has been subdivided and it has
water. Chairman Pearce inquired that if
there is City water, there needs to be fire hydrants? Mr. Laughter stated yes.
Chairman Pearce said that if they don’t have City water nor if they have
the capacity for fire hydrants, they are forced into individual wells. Mr. Laughter said they are not forced into
it, but you can’t force them to use the water either. Chairman Pearce asked if a booster pump was installed, would it
meet the flow? Mr. Laughter said that
it could if there is money available for that.
Chairman Pearce asked if in the Ordinance, unusual expense be a reason? Chairman Pearce stated that it seems they
have adequate flow to serve the lots, but there is not adequate protection to
provide fire protection. Mr. Laughter
stated at this time it is only a possibility and needs to be checked out by the
City of Hendersonville Water Department.
Chairman Pearce stated that the Board’s approval will be that they can
use City of Hendersonville Water unless there is not adequate flow. Ms. Smith stated that the Subdivision
Ordinance states that If the Subdivision Administrator determines that it
would not be economically feasible for a subdivision to be connected to a
public water or sewer system, another system may be used, subject to approval
by the appropriate agencies. Mr.
Carpenter said what it states is that the Board needs to approve the water
supply condition so that the applicant can submit a request for exception to
the Subdivision Administrator who may require that such requests be supported
by a professional engineer’s review of the subdivision plans. Ms. Smith stated that whatever is approved
tonight, they will have to build it but if the Board wants to allow either/or,
that needs to be specified. Chairman
Pearce stated that the Board does not have at this time enough information to
allow wells. He added that the Board
will need to approve it as public water until it can be demonstrated otherwise
that it is infeasible and at that point in time the Subdivision Administrator
can allow individual wells. After some
further discussion, Chairman Pearce stated that the language regarding water
supply should say that the Board is approving it as public water supply and
take out all the rest of the language because the applicant at this point in
time is proposing that it is public.
Chairman Pearce made a motion that the Planning Board find and conclude
that the combined Master and Development Plan submitted for Rock Water 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 the combined Master and Development Plan be approved subject to the
following conditions: The Applicant satisfies comment 7 before construction
begins and comments 1- 6 by the Final Plat.
Regarding comment 5, dealing with Water Supply, he proposed removing
language so it would read: This
application will be approved with public water as a source of water supply
until they demonstrate the exception delineated in Section 170-20 B(3) of the
Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance.
Tommy Laughter seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
Hyder & Justus Subdivision (File # 02-M13). Ms. Smith stated that a year ago, on
November 19, 2002, the Planning Board approved a subdivision for Jeff Justus,
which was referred as the “Hyder & Justus Subdivision off Upward Road,
which is basically where the hotel is located.
Ms. Smith stated that at that time they were proposing to do Lot 1 for
the Waffle House and Lot 2 for the hotel, however, they had disclosed to the
Planning Board that they were also thinking about making it up to six
lots. There was a small plan submitted
along with this single lot plan that showed the six lots. She stated that the Board considered at that
time a commercial subdivision and in some cases in the past allowed
commercial/industrial subdivision. She
stated that at the time, you approved one lot as one phase so the Staff could
do the development plans for additional lots as separate phases. She said that when it was approved a year
ago, there was an issue at that time about a lot that had been cut out for the
hotel. She said prior to this ever
coming to the Planning Board, as shown on the top portion of the Master and
Development Plan map, there is an easement that had been transferred by Hyder
and Justus to Mountain Inn and Suites, LLC prior to the Waffle House Lot, but
the transfer by deed basically resulted in a subdivision that had not gone
through the process. She stated that
Staff made the Board members aware of this when it came in and we wanted to try
to address that and typically in obtaining compliance, Staff asked them to go
back and go through the process. She
said that that lot is being considered as part of this commercial subdivision. She said that when the Planning Board issued
approval for this, it was for the combined Master and Development Plan knowing
the limitation of six lots. She stated
that the Board also put a condition on the hotel lot and under the motion for
approval, it stated: that a lot containing a hotel was transferred by deed
and that they did not receive approval under the Henderson County Subdivision
Ordinance. The Planning Board requires that the Development Plan for the hotel
site be received by the Planning Department and approved within 60 days of
November 19,2002 and that the Planning Board further directs that no future
Master and Development Plans on this site can be approved either by the
Planning Board or administratively until this matter is cleared. Ms. Smith stated that this tied their
hands to do any other lots until they cleared anything regarding the hotel site
lot and they had sixty days to do that and she added that she had contacted Mr.
Justus at the time the sixty days was to expire and Mr. Justus had responded
indicating that they were having problems meeting some standards and that Staff
would have a plan within thirty days.
She said that subsequent discussions with Mr. Justus had indicated that
the road that was built to the hotel site long before this ever was conceived
to be a subdivision, does not comply with the County’s standards. She said the right-of-way is a little
smaller, which Staff could deal with, but the road construction shows a 22.5
foot wide paved area with concrete curb and gutter and a rolled down sidewalk
on the other side. Ms. Smith stated
that what Mr. Justus’ issue was, in order to submit a development plan for the
hotel lot, he would have needed to show the Board a development plan which
showed a road that would meet the County’s standards. She stated that he knows that this can not happen right now
because if he shows it and he was to propose a development plan for the hotel
lot and show the road, he would either have to build the road or bond it or
look for a variance. She said that he has
been aware that the Planning Board has been thinking about amending the
standards for commercial/industrial subdivisions. She said the rules right now is that he would need to comply with
the State road standards for collector roads, which is approximately 34 feet
pavement gutter-to-gutter, if they do curb and gutter. She said that Mr. Justus mentioned that
there is a lot that they are looking to sell that is on Upward Road, but Staff
told him that there is nothing he can do until he deals with the hotel
lot. She stated that there are a couple
of issues to resolve. The sixty days
have already gone by, but the motion did not say that that meant his approval
was gone. She said one of the things
she is asking the Board, what does Staff do about the sixty days that has gone
by and that he hasn’t dealt with the hotel lot? She said the other issue is, she has discussed with Mr. Justus
whether or not recombining the property, the hotel lot back with the balance of
property, would eliminate violation of the illegal lot and would give Mr.
Justus a clean slate in cutting out those other six lots. Mr. Cooper clarified that the Board at that
time approved the Waffle House Lot because it adjoined a State road. Ms. Smith stated that Mr. Justus did not
have to show a road for that lot, but if goes to do the next lot, he can not do
anything as per the Board’s motion because he has not dealt with the hotel
lot. Ms. Smith stated that Staff cannot
approve anything else, so what does that mean.
Mr. Allison stated that another motion is in order. Chairman Pearce stated that it means that he
would like to see subdividers to try to comply with the County’s regulations
before they transfer property. Mr.
Justus stated that the transfer in essence was not a transfer because it was
Jeff Justus and Bub Hyder individually to Mountain Inn and Suites, LLC, which
is owned by Jeff Justus. Chairman
Pearce stated that legal that is a transfer.
Mr. Carpenter stated that it is a different legal entity. Chairman Pearce said that from a legal
standpoint, it is a sale of property and you subdivided that property and you
do not meet the subdivision requirements.
Mr. Cooper asked, “Whatever happened to the Waffle House Lot?” Mr. Justus said that they are suppose to
start in January and is sold and the lot got recorded. Ms. Smith stated that if he were to show a
right-of-way where the easement is, he would need to build what he shows,
whether or not he uses it because it will need to meet the Ordinance standards
or obtain a variance or something else, but she said she can not get to that
step until the Board deals with the hotel lot.
Chairman Pearce asked Mr. Justus whether he has thought about obtaining
a variance? Mr. Justus stated that for
34 feet and he is at 22 feet. Ms. Smith
stated that he is thinking if the Planning Board ends up proposing amendments
to the Ordinance that would reduce the variance he might need. Chairman Pearce
asked Mr. Justus, “Since you are a developer, weren’t you planning on selling
these lots?” Mr. Justus stated that he
was. Chairman Pearce asked Mr. Justus,
“Why didn’t you look at the County’s Ordinance to see what the requirements
were for the road?” Mr. Justus stated
that he wasn’t sure what he looked at when he was building, but the road, even
though it does not meet County standards, is curb and gutter, stormwater
drainage on one side, sewer in the middle of a five-foot sidewalk that we did
not need to build, it’s tree-lined and lighted from one end to the other with
light poles. Mr. Cooper asked what is
the width of Upward Road? Mr. Justus
stated that Upward Road is 25 feet wide.
Ms. Smith stated that she has had discussion with Mr. Justus regarding
re-submitting Master Plans and Development Plans, but she said she is trying to
determine after a year has gone by, where are we with this matter? Mr. Carpenter said, “what is the result of
this approval, when it says that the Planning Board requires the Development
Plan be received by the Planning Department within sixty days and further
directs that no Master and Development Plan on this site can be approved by
either the Planning Board or administratively until the matter is
cleared.” He said that it seems that
the sixty days was not a “drop-dead” date, but instead the result of not having
that in is that nothing else can be approved.
He also feels that the sixty days would not nullify this
subdivision. Ms. Smith asked whether
recombining the property would clear it for now? Mr. Carpenter added that if it was transferred back to one name,
either the LLC owns it all or they would individually own it all it would clear
the matter. Ms. Smith stated that it
couldn’t clear it until he decides to show a right-of-way and once he shows a
right-of-way, he is bond by the Ordinance.
Mr. Justus stated that although it has been a year ago, he said that he
has been in the Planning Department to discuss this and we saw that if it does
not meet the standards, what can be done and Mr. Justus did not feel that a
variance would work. Mr. Allison asked
whether a new motion could be made on this matter? Ms. Smith stated that the Board does not have a Master and
Development Plan before you and this item was for Staff’s direction. Chairman Pearce clarified by stating that
the Board is not in a position to approve this, and was only asked for
direction. Mr. Carpenter said that if
this was recombined, then that issue would be gone and that everything meets
the statute at that point and there would be no necessity for this and you
couldn’t have a requirement that someone would bring a Development Plan on something
that is only one lot. He said that at
that point, there would be one lot on which there is a road and an Inn and that
could stay the same or at some later time, the property could be subdivided but
would be subject to right-of-way issues, depending on what the statute said at
that time, or if a variance had been granted.
Mr. Carpenter feels that you would not have a non-conforming lot at the
point where it is all recombined. Once
the lot conforms to all the rules, then there is no way to bring something else
back in. Chairman Pearce asked Ms.
Smith whether this matter has been addressed to the County Attorney? Ms. Smith stated that it was only discussed
with the County Attorney in terms whether that lot was actually transferred or
not. Chairman Pearce said that he feels
if the Planning Board does give Staff direction on this, that it should be
passed over to the County Attorney because once something has been transferred
and subdivided, do we legally un-subdivide by changing the transfer? Ms. Smith stated that Staff has had a
situation where there was a recombination fee but they also filed another
document on record that makes people aware that that prior subdivision has been
undone and something of that nature might want to be filed in this matter. Mr. Carpenter stated that there is nothing
on record showing this. Ms. Smith
stated that there is no plat on record; it would be another deed to recombine
this. Mr. Carpenter stated that Staff
would need a new plat or deed, which would state that it is a recombination and
would get them out of non-conformance with the Subdivision Ordinance. He said they would then start from the
beginning with what they do from there with any of property. Chairman Pearce asked, “At this point in
time, we’ve undone anything the Board has done before and is no longer a
subdivision and the Board does what he is saying, are we reversing any of the
approval for six lots? Ms. Smith stated
that it would not undo any actions made by the Board, but she is asking, will
he be able to go up to six lots? She
added a recombination does not change the Board’s decision; it just changes a
part of it. Chairman Pearce said that
at that point in time, we approved up to six lots in a subdivision because we
had a subdivision and now we no longer have a subdivision. Ms. Smith said that you still do have a
subdivision because you have one lot that has gone out and future development,
as that is how it was shown. Mr.
Carpenter stated that there wasn’t a submittal on a six-lot subdivision, it was
just that apparently the Board looked at it and generally said it was ok. Chairman Pearce asked Mr. Justus, where is
the piece of property that they are wanting to sell at present? Mr. Justus showed the lot, which he
described fronts McMurray and Upward Road.
Chairman Pearce asked, “At this point in time, if the Board were to
approve that and we gave permission to Staff to consider that, would the Board
also need to state that the access to it would need to be off public road? Ms. Smith stated that if Mr. Justus
recombines the property that he is going away also and again, if he shows a
right-of-way, it will need to be to County’s standards. Mr. Carpenter stated that if there is a
right-of-way into this one it will need to be this way, as this can be all one
lot. Chairman Pearce stated that in
review of what has been said and as an advisory for Staff’s direction on this matter, he stated that if one entity
owns all the remaining land as titled as one parcel, that the requirement about
the road change would be, for the time being, resolved regarding the road
meeting County standards and that issue would no longer be applicable, but that
there would be frontage issues on McMurray Road. He added that Staff can still proceed under the six lots and
would not need to come back to the Planning Board unless it exceeds the six
lots. Chairman Pearce said that any new
roads need to meet private road standards and also that the sixty days
mentioned in the previous motion does not nullify all other decisions. Leon Allison seconded the advisory that
Chairman Pearce mentioned and all members were in favor.
Subcommittee Assignments and Meeting Dates. There were no meetings scheduled. Chairman Pearce suggested that the
Subdivision Issues Subcommittee arrange a meeting and co-ordinate the date with
Walter Carpenter, Chairman of the subcommittee.
Adjournment. There being no further business, Mike Cooper
made a motion to adjourn
and Todd Thompson seconded the
motion. All members voted in
favor. The meeting adjourned
at 9:00 p.m.
___________________
Tedd Pearce, Chairman Kathleen
Scanlan, Secretary