STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA                                                  BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

COUNTY OF HENDERSON                                                                                        FEBRUARY 9, 2005   


The Henderson County Board of Commissioners met for a special called meeting at 6:00 p.m. in the auditorium at West Henderson High School.


Those present were:  Chairman Bill Moyer, Vice-Chairman Charlie Messer, Commissioner Larry Young, Commissioner Shannon Baldwin, Commissioner Chuck McGrady, County Manager David E. Nicholson, Assistant County Manager Justin Hembree, Interim County Attorney Russell Burrell, and Clerk to the Board Elizabeth W. Corn.


Also present were: Planning Director Karen C. Smith, Planners Autumn Radcliff, Anthony Prinz, and Matt Cable, Planning Project Manager Lori Sand and Zoning Administrator Natalie Berry.



Chairman Moyer called the meeting to order at approx. 6:08 p.m. and welcomed all in attendance. He explained that the subject of this meeting was a rezoning application, R-04-04 as amended, submitted by Ingles Markets, Inc.  The application requests that the County amend its official zoning map by rezoning land at the intersection of NC Hwy. #191 and North Rugby Road from an R-30 low density residential zoning district to a C-2 neighborhood commercial zoning district. 



Due to the size of the audience, Chairman Moyer proposed that the Board consider establishing rules for the hearing as allowed by the Board of Commissioners’ Rules of Procedure.  The Rules of Procedure allow the Board to set rules regarding the length of time allocated to each speaker and designation of representatives to speak for large groups by motion duly made and adopted at the beginning of the public hearing.


Chairman Moyer offered the following procedure for the Board’s consideration.  He stated that he had received comments from many of the people present and the parties requesting that the Board establish a procedure to keep things moving in an orderly fashion.  This is the Board’s attempt to respond to that. 


1.                We will begin, by motion, to go into the public hearing

2.                We will adopt the following rules for the hearing


Rules/Procedure for Hearing:


  • We will have comments by representatives of the applicant.
  • We then will have comments by representatives of the Rugby Neighbors group.  They will at least be given a slightly additional amount of time.
  • Comments by other persons present who wish to comment and have signed up to speak.  Those comments will be limited to three minutes per person.
  • Follow-up and responsive comments from the Rugby Neighbors representatives.
  • Follow-up comments by the applicant’s representative.
  • Follow-up comments by staff.




Public Hearing on Rezoning Application #R-04-04 as amended – to rezone a 5.64-acre (approximate) portion (“Subject Area”) of a tract of land, located at the intersection of NC 191 and North Rugby Road, from an R-30 (Low-Density Residential) zoning district to a C-2 (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district.  Ingles Markets, Inc., applicant, William G. Lapsley and Charles L. Murdock, applicant’s agents.

Chairman Moyer made the motion for the Board to go into public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.


Commissioner McGrady made the motion for the Board to approve the rules for this meeting as previously set forth. All voted in favor and the motion carried.


Staff Presentation

Autumn Radcliff gave a summary of the application.  Rezoning application #R-04-04, which was submitted on November 19, 2004, requested that the County rezone a 5.64-acre (approximate) portion of parcel #00964079954255, located at the intersection of NC 191 and North Rugby Road, from an R-30 (Low-Density Residential) zoning district to a C-2 (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district. The original applicant and property owner was Conomo Properties, LLC., and the applicant’s agent was William G. Lapsley & Associates, P.A.  Staff was notified on Monday, December 20, 2004, that on Friday, December 17, 2004, the Subject Area parcel was sold to Ingles Markets, Inc. (“Ingles”) . The nature of the rezoning application did not change, and Ingles requested to continue with rezoning application #R-04-04 as amended to reflect the change in property ownership.  William G. Lapsley and Charles L. Murdock were appointed the agents for Ingles in all matters relating to this rezoning application.


The Henderson County Planning Board first considered rezoning application #R-04-04 at its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, December 21, 2004, at which time the Board took the following actions:


1.               Voted unanimously (6-0) on a motion to accept rezoning application #R-04-04 as amended to show the change in applicant and property owner name, and reappointing the Applicant’s agents.

2.               Voted five to one (5-1) on a motion to send the Board of Commissioners an unfavorable recommendation on rezoning the Subject Area to a C-2 district.

3.               Voted three to three (3-3) on a motion to recommend that if the Board of Commissioners decides that the 2020 CCP recommendation for a commercial node at the intersection of NC 191 and North Rugby Road is appropriate, then the size of the Subject Area should be reduced to five (5) acres and rezoned to a C-1 zoning district and also that the Board take into account the concerns of the community and the comments made by the applicant.


Before taking action on the applications, the Board of Commissioners must hold a public hearing.  In accordance with Section 200-76 of the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance and State Law, notices of the February 9, 2005 public hearing regarding rezoning application #R-04-04 were published in the Hendersonville Times-News on January 23, 2005 and January 30, 2005. The Planning Department sent notices of the hearing via first class mail to the applicants and owners of properties adjacent to the Subject Area on January 21, 2005.  Planning Staff posted signs advertising the hearing on the Subject Area on January 21, 2005.

Autumn Radcliff referred to the Site/Current Zoning Map (attachment 3) and Vicinity/Current Zoning Map (attachment 4). 

She explained that the applicant, (hereafter known as “Ingles”) has requested that a 5.64-acre approximate portion (hereafter “The Subject Area”) of a 10.93-acre parcel (according to the county tax map, which excludes right-of-way) to be rezoned to a C-2 Commercial Zoning District. The Subject area is located in a WS-IV water supply watershed.


R-30, the current zoning, is a low-density residential zoning district allowing site built and modular residential units while manufactured homes are not permitted. This district is intended to be a quiet, low-density neighborhood consisting of single family residences.  Commercial units are not allowed.


The C-2 zoning district is a general neighborhood commercial district allowing most commercial uses by right. Most by right uses must be located within an enclosed building or make products sold primarily at retail on the premises. Shopping centers and light industrial uses are permitted with a conditional use permit.  In additional a C-2 zoning district has no minimum lot size but has a maximum permissible lot coverage where the total ground area covered by the building in this district shall not exceed 40% of the total area. 


Autumn Radcliff referred to the Water supply watershed map (attachment 5).  The subject area is located in a WS-IV watershed in which all non-residential development is allowed at a maximum of 24% built-upon area or a maximum of 36% built-upon area upon qualification for a natural drainage and filtering system bonus.  A minimum 30 foot vegetative buffer for development activities and a minimum 100 foot vegetative buffer for development using a special intensity allocation provision is required along all perennial streams identified on the USGS topographical map.


Autumn Radcliff referred to the Current Land Use Map (attachment 6).  Uses within the vicinity of the subject area include single family residential, agriculture, undeveloped, and community cultural.  A number of residential subdivisions are adjacent or in close proximity to the subject area and the historic Johnson Farm, Rugby Middle School, and West Henderson High School are all located within one mile to the east of the subject area. There are a number of commercial activities located approx. 1.5 mile southeast of the subject area at the intersection of Mountain Road and NC 191. The subject area has direct access to public water yet public sewer is not available.  The subject area has approx. 550 feet of frontage along NC 191 and approx. 250 feet of frontage along North Rugby Road.  The 2004/2010 Transportation Improvement Plan recommends that the widening of NC 191 to a multilane road south of Mills River to Kingston Road and the Henderson County Board of Commissioners and the Henderson County Transportation Advisory Committee recommendations to NCDOT for the 2006/2012 draft TIP plan recommends that this project remain a TIP project and that no further planning nor design work be done on this project until after the County and City Transportation Plans have been completed and approved.


Previous rezoning requests have been submitted for this exact spot.  Attachment 2, the Staff Report, Section 6, refers to a brief history of these requests.  Although it is similar to the previous rezoning request, this is a new rezoning application and since then the Board of Commissioners has adopted the 2020 County Comprehensive Plan, our CCP.


Autumn Radcliff referred to the 2020 County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (attachment 8).  The 2020 CCP Future Land Use Map identifies the subject area as being located in an urban service area or USA.  The USA is identified as the area within which most urban services and urban scale development is currently concentrated and within which such development should generally be concentrated through the year 2020.  Development within the USA should be accessible by roads which are developed to urban standards and new development should be designed with pedestrian bicycle and vehicle access in mind.  The USA will also contain considerable commercial development and a mixture of scales, both local community and regional. A community service center node is located at the intersection of NC 191 and North Rugby Road and South Rugby Road.  Community service centers are intended to be intensive efficient defined concentrations of mixed services that meet the needs of the surrounding community and defined service area. The CCP calls for them to be located in unified development concentrations at intersections of selected thoroughfares and in central locations that are convenient to nearby residential development.  The subject area is located on a highly traveled street and can be fairly easily accessed. In addition, the subject area is located within an established neighborhood community and near a number of residential developments.  The most appropriate commercial for this site, in staff’s opinion, is local commercial.  Local commercial areas are located within defined community service centers and they serve small market areas that are intended to be located within the residential neighborhoods that they serve.  Public utilities are strongly encouraged but not necessarily required.  The 2020 CCP identifies the subject area as being in a priority II planning area, the NC 191 South Mills River East Planning Area within a community based planning framework.  The CCP assigned highest priority to the areas within the USA where it is anticipated that extensive growth will occur. According to the CCP, the implementation schedule for this small area plan is to be completed during the fiscal year 2005-06. The 2020 CCP states that the county will continue to accept rezoning applications from within the community planning area both prior to and after the development of the community plan. Although the county will refrain from accepting rezoning applications during the development of such plans, prior to the adoption of a community plan rezonings will be denied if they are inconsistent with the text of the future land use map.  The recommendations and action strategies presented should be founded upon key principles of growth including balanced sustainable growth and accessibility and the provision of services, facilities, and resources. As part of the balanced sustainable growth the plan identifies the county’s objective to establish a desirable balance between development and preservation that will allow the community to continue to grow.  It also notes that the county should understand the physical and economic limitations that may influence growth and factor these limitations into our plan as to avoid mistakes which would cause damage to our established community and the county should facilitate an overall approach to managing growth which will enhance our existing communities and foster rational decision making and enhance and protect property values and the rights of our citizens.  Under the key principles of accessibility and efficiency and equity and the provision of services, facilities, and resources, the plan states that the county’s objective is to ensure that all people have access to and use of community facilities and services and that as good stewards of the county’s resources we must plan for the efficient development of these services and facilities and direct our growth and economic development to areas that can be served efficiently while discouraging development in areas that cannot be efficiently served.



Staff comments and recommendations. 

Autumn Radcliff reviewed the following points.


Staff reports for the previous rezoning applications which was submitted prior

to this for the subject area have addressed the following questions to the Board:


Is commercial development appropriate and should it expanded at the intersection of NC 191 and North Rugby Road?


If the Board concludes it is and it should be expanded, then the question becomes is the scale of the commercial development permitted within a C-2 zoning district appropriate at this intersection or is there a more suitable commercial zoning district for this location?


Staff’s position on these previous rezoning requests was based on the 1993 Comprehensive Land Use Plan and concluded that commercial development at the intersection was appropriate.  Staff felt that the Board might want to consider a less intensive commercial node such as C-1 or C-2P. 


There is an existing C-2 zoning district adjacent to the subject area across NC 191.  Staff’s position at the time of the rezoning application R-23-95 which was in 1995 which created this district was that the intersection should be viewed as appropriate for local commercial development as defined by the 1993 Comprehensive Land Use Plan and therefore that C-1 Residential Commercial might be a more appropriate District.


In addition, the parcel in question is part of a rezoning application R-23-95 was granted a conditional use permit by the Board of Adjustment on July 31, 1996 for a convenience store with gas pumps. Both the text and the map of the 2020 CCP identify the subject area as being located in the USA and show the community service node encompassing the area around this intersection.  The plan states that the USA will contain considerable commercial development and a mixture of scale.  The subject area is also identified as an area where it is anticipated that extensive growth will occur. The plan states an objective of the county should be to provide for community facilities and services in areas that can be served efficiently and to manage this growth so it will enhance our existing communities without damaging the established communities. The close proximity of the subject area to establish residential usage should be considered when determining the size and scale of the commercial node including the type of uses that could be allowed for that zoning district.  A number of commercial uses exist within close proximity to the subject area.  She reminded the Board that the county rezoned multiple parcels totaling approx. 162.34 acres located at or near the intersection of Stoney Mountain Road and Mountain Road which is just 1.5 miles southeast of the subject area to a C-2 zoning district. Only the range of uses that could be developed in a proposed district can be considered and not a specific use or application. 


Staff suggested if the Board supports the rezoning request that it vote in favor of the rezoning application R-04-04 with modification for the subject area to be rezoned to the center line of NC 191 and North Rugby Road.  It would bring the approximate acreage up to 6.45 acres.  Staff’s position on the rezoning request is that the 2020 CCP supports a commercial node at the intersection of NC 191 and North Rugby Road although no size or use limitations are indicated. The Board should give careful consideration to the types of uses allowed in the C-2 zoning district and their impact on surrounding residential development.  Staff suggests that the Board may want to consider C-1 if the size of the area to be rezoned is reduced to no more than 5 acres as required for a C-1 zoning district or a C-2P zoning district.  The Commissioners had received attachments of both of these zoning district texts in their packets.


The Planning Board recommendation for this subject area = the Planning Board first considered this application at it’s regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 at which time the Board took the following motions:


  • Voted unanimously (6-0) on a motion to accept the rezoning reapplication as amended to show the change in applicant and property owner name and reappointing the applicant’s agent.
  • Voted 5-1 on a motion to send the Board of Commissioners an unfavorable recommendation on rezoning the subject area to a C-2 district.
  • Voted 3-3 on a motion to recommend that if the Board of Commissioners decide that the 2020 CCP recommendation for a commercial node at the intersection of NC 191 and North Rugby Road is appropriate, then the size of the subject area should be reduced to five acres and rezoned to a C-1 zoning district and also that the Board take into account the concerns of the community and the comments made by the applicant. 


Comments from Applicant’s Representative

Mr. Charles Murdock, speaking on behalf of Ingles Markets, first thanked staff for their work in working with them and in presenting this issue.  He stated that commercial development is appropriate and should be expanded at the intersection of NC 191 and North Rugby Road, stating that if you look at the traffic counts in the area they support a commercially zoned property.  Mr. Murdock stated that in 1993 the County Land Use Plan foresaw the need for commercial development.


Why C-2?  C-2 already exists across the street.  C-2 provides the opportunity to provide the services to this area. There is water but there is no sewer.  They have done extensive testing behind the site for placement of a septic system.


Mr. Murdock stated that Ingles is willing to make a $5 million investment (land and building) with the creation of 138 new jobs for a minimum of $1.5 million payroll. Ingles has been receptive and listened to the comments of the neighbors.  Initially the rezoning request was for the full 12.4 acres but finally downsized  to 6.45 acres.


Comments from Rugby Neighbors Group

Ron Swartzel stated they are opposed to this rezoning and they want to be heard because the result of this issue will shape the future of this community. They want a fair and balanced debate. He stated that the real issue is the future and the question is who decides.  This group is made up of neighbors from communities on North Rugby, South Rugby, and NC 191 who are joined in one common cause of protecting the community and opposing commercial development.


Mr. Swartzel stated that they have presented more than ample evidence that supports their views:


  • A petition of 1300 signatures
  • An opposition report
  • 2020 CCP
  • Zoning Ordinance
  • Previous action of the Planning Board


He stated that the 2020 CCP strongly protects the Rugby nature and character of subdivisions, citizens’ rights, property values, and growth for our neighborhoods but the CCP warns against damaging subdivisions and discouraging residential development. Commercial rezoning produces a drastic change and that is a big mistake.


He stated that the zoning ordinance insists on maintaining orderly residential growth and it warns against extensive strip commercial development.


He stated that the record of the Planning Board speaks for itself, three times recommending unfavorable action on the application.  The Planning staff suggests that each of the previous rezoning requests were supported by facts, conditions, and considerations that were basically the same but this time they say it’s different.  It’s different for two reasons:  the size of the area is smaller and drastic site changes.  Drastic site changes will damage the surroundings by the following: clear-cutting, excavation, dangerous blasting for bedrock removal, traffic and roadway hazards, stormwater run-off, excessive blacktop pavement, reduced property values, night-time lighting, and noise levels.


Mr. Swartzel asked if there was a way to bring this to a close without repeating this process over and over again. They need a final solution.  Is it a zoning ordinance change?


Mr. Swartzel stated that they would appreciate the Board’s vote to deny this application in it’s every single form of commercial intent.


Other comments – Chairman Moyer explained that the Clerk would call the names in the order persons had signed up.  Each person will be given up to three minutes to speak.  He stated that we must be out of this auditorium by 8:45 p.m.


  1. Mary Borowski – Ms. Borowski thanked the Board for having the meeting in this convenient location and thanked everyone who was in attendance.  She and her husband live in Haywood Knolls (10 years), a subdivision of 321 homes within a few hundred feet from the intersection under discussion. One of their primary reasons for selecting a home in Haywood Knolls was that the area was zoned residential.  In the past 9 ½ years they have had to fight four times against requests for rezoning a part of 191 and Rugby from residential to commercial. They neither want nor need another Ingles or any commercial development on the corner of 191 and  Rugby. There is an existing Ingles Store on 25 North that is only six minutes away on a five lane road already zoned commercial.  There is an Ingles Store under construction in Mills River that is five minutes away on another five lane road zoned commercial.


  1. Martha Sachs – Ms. Sachs spoke in opposition to the rezoning request, not wanting commercial development in the Rugby neighborhood.  Forty years ago the area was actually zoned R-30 and was one of the few areas in the county that was zoned.  Some people who moved into the area did so thinking that the R-30 zoning would protect  the residential area from commercial  development. Any commercial development in this area would be a betrayal.


  1. Wil Irvine – Mr. Irvine lives in the Sedgewood Subdivision. He spoke in opposition and asked how many times would the residents have to fight commercial development in their neighborhood. 


  1. Carol Kaiser- Ms. Kaiser lives on Surry Lane.  She is the current President of Haywood Knolls Homeowners Association.  Haywood Knolls is less than ½ mile from the proposed rezoning.  Approx. 520 adults reside in that subdivision.  She spoke about traffic in the area and the over-crowding of the roads. She asked the Board to please not rezone this area in question.


  1. Jack Oechslin – Mr. Oechslin has lived on North Hills Drive since 1957. He has a bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering, 32 years of industrial experience as an engineer and manager of engineers, and many hours of field observation and taking measurements on Mill Pond Creek watershed.  He applied this knowledge and experience to the USDA publication “Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds”.


A neighbor, Mr. Walters, had prepared a study which Mr. Oechslin read. He opposes the rezoning request.


  1. Gregg Condon – Mr. Condon lives in Sweetwater Hills and is President of the Sweetwater Hills Homeowners Association.  143 homeowners reside in Sweetwater Hills. The majority of homeowners have expressed opposition to the rezoning request.


  1. William Cutler – Mr. Cutler also lives in Sweetwater Hills.  He addressed the Henderson County Comprehensive Plan Citizen’s Survey Findings. 


  1. Gail Nash – Ms. Nash stated that her biggest concern was that Ingles already has four stores located within 10 minutes of where she lives in Mountain Home.  She opposes the rezoning request.


  1. Dale Heeman – Mr. Heeman lives at the end of Long John Mountain, right next to Rugby Road. His large glass windows will look out right at a big Ingles sign. He is opposed to the rezoning.


  1. Matt Matteson – Mr. Matteson stated that he was heavily involved in the development of the 1993 Land Use Plan and stated that the intentions for the commercial node at 191 and North/South Rugby were small, commercial, C-1, neighborhood low impact  zoning. He suggested that the Board deny the application and get staff to work on tough site standards for all commercial development, not just here on 191 but throughout the county.
  2. Celia Hinds Engelman – Ms. Engelman is opposed to the rezoning request.


  1. Ron Marshall – Mr. Marshall lives in Haywood Knolls.  He spoke in opposition to the rezoning request.


  1. Richard Swart – Mr. Swart lives in Haywood Knolls.  He spoke in opposition to the rezoning request.


  1. Bill B. – The gentleman declined to speak, saying his comments had already been expressed.


  1. Nanc Marshall – Ms. Marshall lives in Haywood Knolls.  She spoke in opposition to the rezoning request. She read an original poem to stress her point.


  1. Dorothy Simpson – Ms. Simpson had already left the meeting.


  1. Daniel Theron – Mr. Theron spoke in opposition also.


  1. John Arwe- Mr. Arwe stated that his neighbors had covered most of his concerns. He stated that this is Ash Wednesday and asked that the Board better schedule our meetings to do what needs done without interfering with church activities.


  1. Jamison Gillespie – Mr. Gillespie spoke in opposition to the rezoning request.


  1. Shirley McMillan – Ms. McMillan either declined to speak or had already left the meeting.


  1. William Good - Mr. Good was not available at the moment so Joan Good came forward and spoke.  She lives at 208 Kelly Lane in Heatherwood.  She spoke in opposition to the rezoning request.


  1. Jack Hodges – Mr. Hodges either declined to speak or had already left the meeting.


  1. Seth Smith – Mr. Smith either declined to speak or had already left the meeting.


  1. Marcia P. Grant – Ms. Grant declined to speak or had already left the meeting.


25. Al Bissonnette – Mr. Bissonnette spoke about the new Ingles on Long Shoals Road and the problems with the traffic.  They have to have a traffic cop to help with the traffic situation. He asked that the Board not let the same thing happen here.


Chairman Moyer offered, in accordance with the rules set at the beginning of the meeting, follow-up and responsive comments.


Rugby Neighbors – Mr. Swartzel

Mr. Swartzel – “I would like to address several points that Mr. Murdock made. One was his projection of traffic and I’m assuming that he came from Asheville to Henderson County to tell us what our traffic problems are here.  We know about our traffic problems. Number two – he said that there was a need and a want and a desire for services at this intersection.  I think we’ve proven tonight that that’s not the case.  He said that there was no intent for strip commercial development here.  Gentlemen, I contend and I submit to you that when Ingles locates it draws a crowd.  There is no other expectation than continued expansion if that were to occur.  He said there would be 138 new jobs.  My projection would be that he probably would close a store or two and there would be no net gain in any jobs because he’s drawing from stores that already have customers. Mr. Murdock also stated that there would be a $5 million investment here and I congratulate him on wanting to add to our local economy but gentlemen I’d like to tell you that placing a value on our continued prosperity and the quality of life here in Rugby is priceless. Thank you.”


Applicant or Representative

Bill Lapsley – “Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, ladies and gentlemen. For the record my name is Bill Lapsley, I am a consulting engineer and I am named along with Mr. Murdock as representing the applicant.  First let me say that I’ve learned a little more tonight – that now I can tell my wife I’m a misgrevient backyard bulley and I’m cut-throat. I have a few comments in response to a couple of items that were brought up.  First, before I do that let me say I think in the summation of the meeting tonight in light of all the things that are going on in the world around us I’m very pleased and proud that we live in a free and open society where a property owner (in this case the applicant happens to be Ingles) has the right to present its case to the community which it has done through the two agents that Mr. Ingles has asked to represent him and the corporation, that’s Mr. Murdock and I , the process that the commissioners have followed and the planning board and all the folks that have been here tonight, I think has been open, it’s been well done and I congratulate everyone for giving everyone in our society the opportunity to speak and present the case and I’m confident the commissioners will do the right thing, whatever that may be.


The first point that I’d like to make – it’s under the county rezoning ordinance in this type of case where a rezoning application has been submitted, the applicant whether it be Ingles or anyone else is not allowed to present a detailed site plan so a lot of these issues with regard to curb cuts, DOT approval, storm water run-off, all of those sorts of site specific things the applicant’s not allowed to present.  That’s not part of the zoning ordinance.  Can the applicant in this case provide it?  He certainly can. Would they be willing to?  We’d certainly be glad to. A lot of the issues that have been raised have been explored in Ingles original due diligence process before they decided to purchase the property including talking to DOT about driveway cuts, exploring (as Mr. Murdock mentioned) septic tank availability, and the soil conditions and all of those sort of things and all of the answers to those due diligence-type questions have been answered in the affirmative so that in large part is why Ingles made the decision to go ahead and purchase the property.  Was that at great risk? It certainly was but they have the right to do that and we certainly respect that. 


A couple of comments that I would address – there was a statement as I remember about the break-out of the property.  The way that I read and understand the county’s watershed protection – watershed supply protection ordinance limits the amount of area that can be built upon, whether it be commercial or residential.  In this case commercial.  The area is limited and it’s done on purpose to provide a maximum amount of land available for stormwater to percolate and avoid excessive run-off into the stream and in effect have some impact on the water supply.  In the case of this, it’s in a watershed supply protected area as staff has pointed out and those restrictions limit the built-upon area to 24%.  That in itself, that one ordinance will prohibit any more – whether they get it re, someone came in later and tried to rezone additional property, that ordinance, unless it is changed, limits the amount of land on this 12 acre site that can be developed.  The fact of the matter is for an Ingles-type store on a septic system requires a very large septic tank drain field area and the area and the balance of this 12.4 acres, a large part of it – of that additional land outside of the area that’s rezoned would have to be reserved not only for the water supply watershed protection ordinance but also for the septic system and that’s a fact and that’s something that they would have to abide by. I mentioned stormwater issues – a gentleman mentioned storm water run-off ordinance.  There is none in the county but maybe there should be.  Ingles typically provides stormwater retention  facilities and has done so at many of their stores and can do that at this store and that’s again a typical item that can be addressed in the site plan.  I wish the ordinance had those sorts of things but we – we’re not allowed to at this stage in the process.  There were a number of other issues and there’s no need to really go on into those but I just sum and say again we appreciate the opportunity to present the application and for the commissioners to consider and the community to consider and we’ll be glad to answer any questions that you might have.”



Staff had no concluding remarks.


Out of Public Hearing

Commissioner McGrady made the motion for the Board to go out of public hearing at 7:52 p.m.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.


Chairman Moyer expressed, on behalf of the Board, thanks to the applicant and to Mr. Swartzal and the group and everyone in attendance for the conduct tonight. The process was important and it was very helpful to move the process along.  He thanked everyone for their participation and how they participated.


Board Discussion

Commissioner Young made the motion to deny the rezoning request.


Following some discussion, a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously.



Commissioner McGrady made the motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:00 p.m.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.







Elizabeth W. Corn, Clerk to the Board                       William L. Moyer, Chairman