The Henderson County
Board of Commissioners met for a special called meeting at in the Commissioners' Conference Room
Those present were: Chairman Bill Moyer, Vice-Chairman Charlie Messer, Commissioner Larry Young, Commissioner Shannon Baldwin, Commissioner Chuck McGrady, County Manager David E. Nicholson, County Attorney Russell Burrell, and Clerk to the Board Elizabeth W. Corn.
Also present were: Acting Planning Director Selena Coffey, Planner Autumn Radcliff, and Public Information Officer Chris S. Coulson.
CALL TO ORDER/WELCOME
Chairman Moyer called the meeting to order and welcomed all in attendance.
PUBLIC HEARING – Rezoning Application #R-2005-04 – to
rezone a 3.17 acre (approximate) parcel of land, located off
Commissioner Messer made the motion for the Board to go into public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Autumn Radcliff informed the
Board that rezoning application #R-2005-04 was submitted on
The Henderson County Planning Board first considered rezoning application #R-2005-04 at its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, June 21, 2005, at which time the Board voted unanimously (9-0) on a motion to send the Board of Commissioners a favorable recommendation on rezoning the Subject Area to a C-1 zoning district.
Before taking action on the
application, 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 August 2, 2005 public hearing regarding rezoning
application #R-2005-04 were published in the Hendersonville Times-News on June
20, 2005 and June 27, 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 June 21, 2005. Planning Staff posted signs advertising the
hearing on the Subject Area on
The Subject Area is located
The C-1 Residential Commercial District which is proposed for the Subject Area is intended to provide for a range of office, retail, and service establishments of small to moderate size for small well-landscaped parking areas to be available to residents of nearby residential areas while maintaining the character and integrity of the neighborhood. The objective is to provide neighborhood conveniences and small commercial establishments without nuisance factors such as constant heavy trucking and excessive noise, dusts, or odors. The classification will be considered where proximity to residential areas, existing land uses, traffic patterns and other factors make it desirable to maintain a commercial character which is less intense than that permitted in the C-2 Neighborhood Commercial District. The character of this district shall be compatible with surrounding districts with regard to aesthetics, density, bulk and space. The WS-IV Watershed allows for single family residential uses to be developed at a maximum of one dwelling unit per 20,000 square feet. All non-residential development shall be 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 70% built upon area is allowed with a Special Intensity Allocation. This property is located in the WS-IV Watershed and it would have to comply with the percent built upon area. There are two streams on the property but neither is considered a perennial stream on the USGS topomap and therefore would not have to have a buffer.
The Subject Area is currently
vacant. Most uses within the vicinity of
the Subject Area are residential, agriculture, or commercial. Residential uses include Robin Crest
Subdivision to the west, Hunter’s Glen Subdivision to the southwest and a
number of single family residential homes that surround the Subject Area. In addition a number of farms and churches
are within the vicinity of the Subject Area including
Based on the following, staff does not support a C-1 Residential Commercial zoning district for the Subject Area:
At this time staff had identified no plans or policy changes in existing conditions or over-riding community interest that would justify granting the proposed rezoning and is also generally incumbent upon the applicant to demonstrate an over-riding justification for approving a given rezoning application. The applicant has submitted information that would inform the County’s consideration of the proposed rezoning.
Planning Board Recommendations
The Henderson County Planning Board first considered the rezoning request at its regular scheduled meeting on Tuesday, June 21 at which time the Board voted unanimously (9-0) on a motion to send the Board of Commissioners a favorable recommendation on rezoning the Subject Area to a C-1 zoning district. This was based on the following:
Agent for the applicants – Angela S. Beeker
Ms. Beeker introduced her clients: Sara and Shane Swekosky, who are the applicants in this matter. Ms. Beeker stated that C-1 is a district that is intended to be in and surrounded by residential properties. It is intended to be a spot, the maximum size of a C-1 district is 5 acres which is a fairly small district. This lot is 3.17 acres and the lot across the road diagonally is 1.06 acres (zoned C-1) so even with adding those two parcels together you’re still not up to the 5 acre maximum. It would lie within this Board’s discretion as to whether the Board would allow any more C-1 at the location so the potential for the C-1 acreage to grow beyond the 5 acre intent lies entirely in the Board’s hands even though the two acreages don’t touch. Ms. Beeker stated that this property is consistent and compatible with the residential zoning because of the small size. There are some safeguards that are built into the C-1 district to make it compatible with residential zoning. One of those is that 35% of the total land area has to be landscaped. There is a 15 foot wide buffer requirement around the boundary when it abuts a residential district and the site plan must be approved by the Zoning Administrator before the zoning permit will be issued so that the Zoning Administrator can check for compliance with the applicable laws and regulations and the intent of the ordinance. This property is within the urban services area and is ½ mile from the community node that is identified on the Land Use Plan. Ms. Beeker stated that she understood that those nodes were intended to have very generalized boundaries. She and her clients feel that it is in close enough proximity to that node to be considered part of it.
Ms. Beeker distributed copies of photographs taken of the property in question and some of surrounding properties. She reviewed those with the Board. Ms. Beeker also distributed an excerpt from the average daily traffic count maps and reviewed that also. Ms. Beeker then distributed an excerpt from Westlaw regarding legislative rezonings and had highlighted the part that she reviewed with the Board. In N.C. rezonings are legislative, meaning that the Board has all the discretion.
Ms. Beeker also reiterated that the Planning Board voted 9-0 to support this application in spite of staff’s recommendation. The Planning Board felt that this would be an area that is appropriate for small scale commercial development that would be allowed by the C-1 zoning. She spoke about the sewer issue stating that the uses that would be allowed (small retain uses) domestic sewage would be all that would be
required. Likely a septic system would suffice and there is plenty of land for a septic system, assuming it perks. She felt that being in the WS-IV watershed would not be an impediment to allowing commercial development here because the 10/70 option does anticipate commercial development in a WS-IV.
Sara Swekosky thanked the
Board for hearing their request. She stated that she does appreciate comments
and opinions, she respects others opinions. Her family lives on the property
directly behind the property in question so they are neighbors of the Subject Property. The restrictions of C-1 zoning are important
to them as a family. The future of the
community is important to them also. She stated that they had gone to neighbors
of the property who directly sit beside and in front of the property and the
majority of them are in support of the rezoning. She had signatures of the neighbors and
passed those up to the Board.
Shane Swekosky stated that they feel this is in a high traffic area but it will not be a high traffic business, it will reflect what is across the street and will fit to the character of what is already nearby. They feel it will look nice and it will be a family-owned business.
Angela S. Beeker, agent for the applicants
Ms. Beeker emphasized that the character of the commercial uses that are allowed in a C-1 is small retail. She had advised her clients not to share their use because she knew the rule was that the Board has to consider all of the potential uses for the property. She stated that what the applicants are planning for the property is small and rustic and would be very compatible. They have families in mind in what they are proposing.
Close public hearing/Discussion
Commissioner McGrady made the motion to close the public hearing. Board discussion followed. Commissioner McGrady made the motion that the Board deny the rezoning request. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner Messer made the motion to adjourn the meeting at All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Elizabeth W. Corn, Clerk to the Board William L. Moyer, Chairman