The Henderson County
Board of Commissioners met for a special called meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the Bo
Thomas Auditorium at
Those present were: Chairman Bill Moyer, Vice-Chairman
Also present were: Deputy
Clerk to the Board
CALL TO ORDER/WELCOME
Chairman Moyer called the meeting to order and welcomed all in attendance. He explained that the purpose of the meeting was to have a public hearing with respect to the Land Development Code. He stated that the college required everyone to be out of the building by 9:45 and the Board would proceed without an overview of the Land Development Code. The Board would move directly into receiving public comments limiting each person to 3 minutes. The Board would only allow comments on the Land Development Code and no other issues.
PUBLIC HEARING – LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
Shaw was speaking on behalf of the Henderson County Chamber of Commerce with
whom he served as chair in 2007. They
had sent a letter to the Board of Commissioners earlier in the year supporting
the Land Development Code. The Chamber
continues to be in support of the LDC and several suggestions were made by the
members of the Chamber. Industrial
zoning should be protected from residential and commercial incur gents.
2. Ben Campen owns Smiley’s Flea Market and has been in business in this county since 1984 (twenty-three years). Mr. Campen has been following the LDC as it is being proposed and his concern was about the definition found for a Flea Market. He felt that the proposed LDC as written described Flea Markets as a market usually held outdoors selling antiques, household goods and curios. He stated that while this is true they do have a much larger operation. He requested the definition to read “A place that has regular consistent hours of operation on a regular reoccurring basis of at least four days a month specifically dedicated to where people buy, auction, rent, sell, appraise, lease or exchange goods, products or services including but not limited to real property, personal property, services, food and/or entertainment whether it indoor, outdoor or a combination venue.” Mr. Campen stated that his business is all encompass.
Gardiner had written a letter to the Board but felt that she had not explained
the situation very well. In her letter
she had used Harley and Cracker Barrel as examples of businesses that know the
value of being on the interstate. She
did not mean to imply that they were suitable businesses for her property. She did not understand why the county would
rezone her property from Open Use to Residential 1. Her property is located on
Jones owns two pieces of property that are located in front of Hwy. #25
directly across from
Barmett was the spokesperson for the Four Seasons Sierra Committee. She stated that the Sierra Clubs mission is
“to explore and protect wild places of the earth, to practice and promote the
responsible use of the earth’s eco-system and resources, to educate and enlist
humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment.” Therefore, the Four Seasons Sierra Committee
was in support of a Land Development Code.
6. Martha Sachs had been attending hearings on the land use for some time and thought that it would have been completed by now. In all of the meetings she felt that the overall suggestion was to protect steep slopes and flood plains, stop clear cutting, and to protect the current R30 & R40 zones.
Blalock was speaking on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Henderson County.
The League of Women Voters is a non-partisan organization of men and
women who work to advocate and
educate the general public on issues which have been studied and positions that have been
reached. As a result of their studies,
the League believes that land
is a finite resource, not a commodity, and carries with it the responsibility
of stewardship. The respect for environment, economic and
social consequences of land use should
be the basis for all planning, regulations, implementation and
enforcement. She addressed three issues.
Affordable Housing – The League supports the Land Development Code’s expanded area for
affordable housing and the clarification of the difference between manufactured homes and mobile
homes in this document. Farmland Preservation
and Land Use – The Henderson County 2020 Comprehensive Plan states: “Development pressures upon farmland in
8. Tom Christ was speaking on behalf of the North Carolina Manufactured Housing Association. They feel that trailers represent affordable housing andshould not be banned from an area in the county. They would like to see trailers allowed in R1 and R2 zoning and be shown as real property with 4/12 roof pitches. The tax base on trailers should be maintained and not depreciate.
Essick was speaking on behalf of the North Carolina Manufactured Housing
Institute. She feels their homes are
well quality and affordable. A study was
done in several counties including
10. Ron Stephens felt that the Land Development Code was long over due. He requested that the Board reexamine 3 aspects of the LDC. 1) Make distinction between R2 & R3 in reference to the number of home per acre, 2) Manage slopes, and 3) Give full credit to flood plains as open space.
11. Richard Freudenberger is
a business owner in
12. Steve Dozier addressed
the slope and density issues. Currently
he there was no set number regarding steep slope. One of the issues he saw with steep slope
building was the run-off of silt. He
questioned when someone had heard of a mudslide or landslide in this area. He quoted that 30.3% of the entire county is
at 35% or greater slope. If you limit
building from that much of the county you are in essence going to stop growth
13. Janice Unwin suggested
less density of 1 home per 20 acres in the R4 zoning for land adjacent to and
in close proximity to
14. Dawn Piscopo requested
that the zoning of Camelot off of
15. Tuck Tannes requested that the Kanuga Corrider and the south side of Little River Road remained zoned as R40.
16. Leon Allison requested
17. Celia Hinds Engelman implored the Board to implement a Land Development Code which protects floodplains, steep slopes and growth.
18. Bill O’Connor stated that growth is good. In regards to density he favors less dense development. He recommended reducing the density depending on the level of slope.
19. Roger Russnak did not feel that people should be compensated for land with steep slopes and floodplains because they put everything closer together as a result.
20. Peggy O’Connor was opposed to the open space density bonus and the agriculture preservation density bonus. This allows developers to put additional homes in smaller areas.
21. David Weintraub was speaking on behalf of ECO. They were for the Land Development Code and felt it was necessary to protect the county.
22. Katie Breckheimer asked the Board for a tough LDC to protect the floodplains and steep slopes. She felt the Board could control the lines of infrastructure.
23. Sam Creech was speaking on behalf of the Board Members of the Home Builders Association of Hendersonville. He requested that the Board consider clarification of the building height limitation for residential dwellings and felt that the established height should be measured from the main finish floor elevation. This clarification would prevent common grade conditions which require elevated porches, and other similar conditions, from causing one to interpret the limitation of the building height as possibly being measured from the finish grade, which could obviously be moderate to substantially below the main floor level. He also asked that the Board consider increasing the maximum height limit to 40 feet above main level finish floor elevation, as opposed to 35 feet. He felt it was common to have a traditional and typical sized house with a wall length of 40 feet, main level walls at 10 feet high, upper floor system 12 inches (or greater), and upper level walls at 9 feet high. This scenario with a common and popular roof pitch or 45 degrees (or 12/12) equals 40 feet from main finish floor elevation, thus supporting our reasonable request. While the two requests seemed relatively minor in nature, the potential negative impact of not exacting these proposed changes on their building, real estate and homebuyer/owner community could be unnecessarily harmful, as this could possibly prevent perfectly appropriate and proportionate homes for the county from being allowed to be constructed. Mr. Creech felt that floodplain should be counted as open space.
24. William Fisk requested that the Board protect floodplains, slopes and the residential areas.
25. Cy Lieberman resides under a 45% slope and had experienced three mudslides from the neighbor above him and needed help from the county to resolve the issue.
26. Dale Hamlin was the
27. Jim Brissie was concerned about the protection of R40 zoning in his community. This property was zoned R40 over 25 years ago to provide low-density neighborhoods consisting of single-family homes. Setbacks are a major issue. He provided a petition with approximately 200 signatures from neighbors requesting the R40 zoning remain in their community.
28. Paul Taylor has been a
developer for twenty-seven years in
29. Bill Alexander was representing seventeen clients with more than 7000 acres of land. He felt that the changes that have been made should be given more public scrutiny. He (speaking for his clients) was opposed to any R4 designation outside of a national park, state park and state game lands. He was also opposed to the steep slope requirements.
30. James “Bo” Perry was
representing his family who has a large tract of land bordering
31. Dave Lowles, representing the Environmental Advisory Committee, recommended that areas in floodplains or slopes of 35% or greater should have only 1 home per 3 acres. He also recommended a traffic impact study be done for any development, whether commercial or residential, that has more than one thousand trips per day or any development with over one hundred lots.
32. Mike Cooper discussed
steep slopes. He did not feel that the
public understood exactly what a 35% slope was.
He showed an example of 35% and 45% slope and stated that this was not
steep. He felt that 60% should be the minimum
considered for steep slope, or a lot of land in
33. Phil Childs was in most part in agreement with the Land Development Code. He did not feel there was adequate commercial/industrial zoning in the plan for future growth. In regards to slope he felt that the slope should be 45% or even higher in certain cases. He felt that the density was slightly too restrictive.
34. Jeff Michels sang a song
about taking care of the land in
35. Mary Singleton wanted a Land Development Code with lots of teeth in it. She felt that commercial should not be located next to residential and that residential zoning needs to be protected. She wanted the mountains to be preserved and not allow houses all over the mountains.
36. Angela Fernandini requested that the Board allow zero building in the flood plain. Builders should not receive credit where they shouldn’t be building anyway. We needed to protect farm land.
37. Robert Danos recommended
putting teeth in the Land Development Code for buffers around the areas of
38. Anthony Hoots and his
siblings own 30 acres of land off
39. Walt Sheppard feels that the Board is trying to tell him what he can and cannot do with his property, and the rules would not allow him to sell a lot off of his property.
40. Ken Perkins represented
the Henderson County Affordable Housing Coalition. He shared a copy of the Draft Inclusionary
Zoning Ordinance from the town of
41. Eben Franz serves on the
board of the Affordable Housing Coalition.
He was concerned with the high cost of land and affordable housing. He stated that around 15% of
42. Wil Irvine felt that his right to domestic tranquility had been taken away with mini-storage buildings being allowed in his community.
43. Jeff Nabor spoke against mini-storage buildings being allowed in his community.
44. Phil Lovingood was
represented by Bill Alexander. Mr.
Lovingood is the owner of a 216 acre tract of land in
45. Brian Mooney urged the Board to take the time to get the LDC right.
46. Evelyn Nichols spoke against trailers in R1 and R2 zoning.
47. Bill McLeod asked that the floodplains and steep slopes be protected.
48. Larry Rogers was concerned about widespread use of R4, was in favor of gated communities, thought that steep slopes should be determined by engineers and felt that open space and floodplains need to be protected.
49. Mary Jane Pell wants the strongest most environmentally friendly LDC possible. She does not want to see building on steep slopes or floodplains. She doesn’t feel that density bonuses should be given.
50. Cornell Drajay stated that more business zoning areas are needed.
51. Dan Kincaid felt that the LDC needed to be voted on and passed as soon as possible.
52. Mitch Redmon felt that engineers should determine steep slopes. He did not want to see development in the floodplains and felt that new development could be controlled by infrastructure. Mr. Redmon was against large mobile home parks.
53. Angela Beeker requested on behalf of Spartan Holdings, LLC, and Jose M. and Reyna Martinez, that parcels 100005, 100006, and 100007 be zoned Community Commercial rather than the residential zoning currently proposed. She also requested on behalf of Hoopers Creek Quarry, LLC, that the Hooper’ Creek Quarry Property, PID 99-50262, be rezoned into the Industrial District as part of the countywide rezoning being considered at tonight’s public hearing. In regards to existing subdivisions there is a provision in the current code (Section 200A-209C) that requires the recombination of existing lots and subdivisions that do not meet the density and she feels this will have a great deal of unintended impact on subdivisions and asked that the Board take a look at exempting them. On behalf of Boyd Hyder in regards to C4 zoning and steep slopes that the Board control steep slope development through engineering steps and technical requirements rather than density. She and her clients were against mini-storage facilities in a residential area.
54. Karen Couch, speaking on her own behalf and her neighbors, was against rezoning of Old Kanuga and did not want set back regulations relaxed. They did want diversification in the types of development allowed. They wanted to retain R40 zoning.
55. David Hill is a professional land surveyor and did not agree with the penalties in the LDC and felt that the LDC should be put out to a public vote. He did not want his land regulated by the government. The county needs industry and infrastructure.
56. Eva Ritchey stated that the Board needed to protect the “children”. Conservation policies need to be included in the LDC and the LDC as written did not protect the ridges or steep slopes.
Commissioner Messer made the motion to adjourn the public hearing at 9:23 p.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Terry Wilson, Deputy Clerk to the Board William L. Moyer, Chairman