The Henderson County
Board of Commissioners met for a special called meeting at in the Commissioners' Conference Room
Those present were: Chairman Bill Moyer, Commissioner
Also present were: Communications
Officer Pam Brice, Associate County Attorney
Absent were Vice
CALL TO ORDER/WELCOME
Chairman Moyer called
the meeting to order and welcomed all in attendance at approx. He explained that the first item on the
agenda was a carry over from a previous meeting – Maintenance of Effort Funds
for Mental Health. At the last meeting there was some discussion about the
status of the pharmacy and it got a little off track. He asked the
MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT FUND ALLOCATION
Arthur Carder, CEO of Western Highlands LME had provided the following recommendation for the funds:
Community Health Network (CHN) $45,000.00
Following discussion at that meeting, the Board allocated $45,000 to Blue Ridge Community Health Services and $50,000.00 to Sixth Avenue Psychiatric Rehabilitation Partners and requested to see the complete funding applications for the remaining provider requests.
Staff requested the Board determine the allocation of the remaining $45,342 in Maintenance of Effort (MOE) funds, and direct Staff to distribute those funds.
Ann Marie Lester came
forward and addressed the Board. She
stated that they requested the MOE funds in the October cycle for the behavioral
assistance program which is a therapist at the Health Department. This is in
addition to that money. She explained
that this Prescription Assistance Program has a very limited formulary which
targets depression, mental health issues, diabetes, and asthma. It is more of a resource network versus being
a full service pharmacy. It is a
dispensing pharmacy, staffed by a pharmacist for the hours they are open and
they actually dispense medications to patients.
It is located on the
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WORKSHOP
Chairman Moyer explained that there have been numerous sessions of public comment, a workshop for the Board and the issues have been discussed at some of the regular Commission meetings. The attempt will be to bring all these issues together at this meeting. There will be no vote to resolve the issues at this time.
Chairman Moyer explained
Map Option 1: Local Commercial Node at Intersection of
Map Option 2: Local Commercial Nodes along
Map Option 3: Local Commercial Node along
Map Option 4: Local Commercial Node along
Map Option 5: Local Commercial Node at Intersection of
Map Option 6: Local Commercial Node along Upward Road to
Map Option 7: Industrial in the vicinity of
Map Option 8: Residential Zoning District Four (R4) in the vicinity
Chairman Moyer asked
that discussion be held on the R4 zoning until the other map options had all
been reviewed regarding commercial and industrial zoning.
Map Option 12: Industrial and Local Commercial Nodes along
Map Option 13: Additional Local Commercial Nodes along
Map Option 14: Additional Local Commercial Nodes along
Map Option 15: Local
Commercial and Industrial Nodes along Howard Gap and Sugarloaf Roads. Commissioner Williams addressed some
additional industrial property as subject area 3, stating it is an addition,
taking in the All Juice Plant which is a current industrial use and the
adjoining property has been requested to be included. He stated that there is water and sewer
Map Option 16: Local Commercial Node at Five Points
(Intersection of Sugar Loaf, Ridge, Stepp Mill, and Piney Mountain Roads).
Map Option 17: Industrial Zone Expansion at Intersection of
Howard Gap and
Map Option 18: Industrial Zone Expansion at Intersection of
Howard Gap and
Anthony had nothing else to share about industrial and commercial changes.
A few letters had been received and those were discussed as they relate to zoning of properties.
Chip Gould was in attendance, representing the Partnership with respect to the Industrial sites. Chairman Moyer called him forward. Mr. Gould stated that in 2003 the Commissioners asked the Partnership to do an Industrial Study and provide a map. They did that along with the two Lead Goforth Studies that were done identifying industrial sites. He stated that the two additional tracts that are added were not shown in the original work up on industrial sites. Andrew Tate feels comfortable as does the Product Development Committee that all the sites have been identified that would realistically be industrial. Some have been deleted because things have been built next to them and they are not as attractive as they were before. Chip Gould, on behalf of the Partnership, requested that the Commissioners consider removing recreational use, education and institutional use, business and professional, personal services, retail trade and wholesale trade from industrial. They currently have 112 uses in the industrial districts. “If we’re gonna try to protect industrial sites, then I think we can’t have them be everything. It does no good to allow everything in industrial sites because that defeats the purpose so we would ask that you consider in your process here, to look at those allowed uses and restrict that back in an effort to try to maintain some industrial land for industrial sites and not just be the catch all or open use that it currently is or will be if we just go forward and leave all these uses.” Much discussion followed.
Chairman Moyer stated that we need to have an option 6-A in addition to option 6, including some community commercial in case the Board wants to change that, so the option needs to be advertised.
Planning Board Chairman Tedd Pearce commented on commercial uses in the industrial areas. Some added to it was because of the landowners who had industrial uses and wanted a little bit more flexibility and felt that if they chose to put a commercial use in an industrial area they were the ones who were more apt to be adversely affected by it but if they felt it would be appropriate in their area on their land to have a commercial use, they felt they should have a right to have some commercial ability, such as a café or a restaurant located in an industrial area, to have somewhere to eat.
Moyer felt that R-4 should be restricted to the National Forest,
Commissioner McGrady explained that he understood that enholdings that are completely surrounded by National Forest or Parks would be included. Discussion followed and the Board seemed to be in agreement of favoring the R-4 zoning district.
Text option 2 – Special Subdivisions.
Discussion followed regarding family subdivisions and whether this went far enough.
Text option 3 – Development in areas of steep slope & floodplain.
The County can provide rules that set a much lower density for areas that contain steep slope or floodplain. Each residential zoning district could be amended to indicate areas with slope 35% or greater or within the 100-year floodplain. Suggested language for such could be: “The maximum residential density for areas with slope 35.0% or greater or within the Special Flood Hazard Area shall be one dwelling unit per three acres.” The Board could go to 45% and language was recommended if that was the decision, density being one dwelling unit per five acres.
Text option 4 – Off-site Access.
There was concern that our current regulations are not restrictive enough regarding development of properties that have inadequate off-site access or frontage on a public or private road.
The proposed subdivision regulations in the Land Development Code shows a maximum number of lots allowed for properties that have inadequate off-site access (less than 30 foot right-of-way) or inadequate frontage (less than 30 feet of frontage). This provision allows one lot per acre. This is the same provision as in our current Subdivision Ordinance.
Text option 5 – Commercial Uses in R-3
Concerns were raised regarding the limited amount of commercial and business uses allowed in the R-3 residential zoning district.
One solution is to allow more commercial and business uses in the R-3 zoning district as a special use permit.
Text option 6 – Board of Commissioner Approval for Referred Subdivisions and Impact of Larger Developments.
There were concerns that the Board of Commissioners should review larger subdivisions and a proposed development’s impact on community services as it relates to public safety and roads. There were a couple of recommended solutions:
#1 Provide a provision in the Subdivision Regulations (Article III) of the Land Development Code that would allow the Planning Board to refer any major subdivisions to the Board
of Commissioners for review and approval.
addition to Solution 1 above, change the name of Article IV in the Land Development
Code to Adequate Public Facilities & Service Regulations and provide a
provision in this article that would require proposed developments of certain
thresholds to prepare a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) and to prepare an Emergency
Services Impact Report. Traffic Impact
Studies are required by a variety of local governments in
There was much discussion regarding where the cut-off should be for whether a subdivision goes
before the Board of Commissioners or not, 250 was decided on.
Report. It is required for all subdivisions with 100 lots/units or more. It is also required for
subdivisions proposing more than 50 units and are located more than five road miles from the
nearest fire station. There was some discussion about the public water issue and the public sewer
Text option 7 – Sign Regulations – Freestanding Signs.
There was nothing new added.
Text option 8 – Sign Regulations – Outdoor Advertising Signs (Billboards)
The current regulations require that such signs (billboards) be placed at 1,000 feet from other outdoor advertising signs and residences. The draft LDC only provides a 300—500 space requirement between signs with no spacing requirement from residences. The draft LDC language could allow new outdoor advertising signs in areas where no additional signs are currently permitted. The current draft language is found in Section 200A-164 on page 172 of the draft LDC.
The previous draft had 500 feet instead of 1,000 feet. The Board could leave the current proposed LDC language in place or increase the proposed spacing requirement to 1,000 feet from other outdoor advertising signs and residences.
Text option 9 – Accessory and Temporary Manufactured Homes.
The current draft LDC proposes to permit accessory dwellings which are stick-built, modular, or manufactured dependent upon the district in which the accessory dwelling is to be placed. The concern expressed by the Board of Commissioners was that manufactured homes may not be permitted as accessory dwellings based on the size restrictions contained in the supplemental requirements. Additionally the Board is concerned that manufactured homes cannot be placed on a site as a temporary use.
Recommended solution was to modify the supplemental requirements for “Accessory Residential Dwelling” (SR 3.6) to increase the permitted size of the accessory dwelling. Staff does not suggest any additional changes that would be necessary to allow the accessory manufactured home as a temporary use. It is not necessary to regulate the length of placement of the manufactured home because the accessory manufactured home would be permitted as a permanent use within the applicable district. Additionally, by removing “(2) Ownership” the manufactured home may be owned by someone other than the property owner (for example a parent or child of the property owner).
Text option 10 – Commercial Uses in Industrial Zoning District.
Concerns were raised regarding the commercial uses allowed in the (Industrial) zoning district.
Recommended solution – Almost all commercial uses with the exception of retail trade uses, are allowed in the Industrial District. Staff recommends that the Board add the following uses as permitted in the I district: outdoor sale display areas; non-commercial athletic fields; and Christmas tree lot sales (See revised Table of Uses, beginning on page 3).
Staff does not recommend the addition of any other commercial uses to the Industrial District. The intent of the district is to allow for industrial and heavy commercial development. Those commercial uses which are not permitted in the industrial district may not be appropriate to be developed in industrial areas for factors including: differences in hours of operation, types/amounts of traffic generated, and/or the concentration of people in a residential/accommodation (i.e. hotel, dormitory, etc.) or institutional (i.e. school, adult day care, etc.) setting.
Allowing additional commercial development in the Industrial District will not allow for the preservation of industrial lands for industrial uses.
Commissioner McGrady stated that he would like to see a Text option #11 which strikes the wetlands/floodplain and any other sorts of things from the density bonus. He didn’t think that we should be providing density bonuses for portions of land that shouldn’t be built on or would be extremely expensive to build on.
Burrell mentioned a couple of legal issues to the Board, referencing a document
Mr. Burrell discussed the need to add a #.1.05.06 to the definitions which would add a related party is also a party that is controlled by the same entity as the disqualified party. The last page of the document – Mr. Burrell stated that two years ago this Board directed that it be reminded to consider the issue of exempting county owned real estate, property owned by Henderson County Government from the operation of the zoning code. This came up when this Board denied itself a rezoning.
This possible amendment would exempt government owned real estate from the operation of the zoning ordinance just to avoid the Board having to go to itself for a variance or to go to itself for a rezoning, as follows:
The provisions of this Chapter shall
not apply to buildings owned and used by
Chairman Moyer stated that development is such a key issue and he thinks the Board should step up and take that responsibility and look at the other enforcement provisions and see what they are willing to let go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment and what they need to bring to the Board of Commissioners.
Setting of a workshop
It was the consensus of the Board to have another workshop on the Land Development Code (LDC) and to set a public hearing about 60 days from now.
Much discussion followed. The Clerk was directed to try to get the auditorium at Blue Ridge Community College for the public hearing 45 to 60 days out (mid August to mid September) and the Board will actually set the public hearing at the July 2 Commission meeting. Staff will also have a recommendation for workshop dates at that time.
Commissioner Williams made the motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 p.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Elizabeth W. Corn, Clerk to the Board William L. Moyer, Chairman