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
Also present were: Planning
CALL TO ORDER/WELCOME
Chairman Moyer called
the meeting to order and welcomed all in attendance, stating that the purpose
of the meeting was a workshop with respect to the Land Development Code. He also stated that there was a need to add
an item for closed session at the end of the meeting to discuss a confidential
matter related to the matter of Park Ridge MOB, LLC versus
Commissioner McGrady made the motion to approve the agenda with the addition of closed session. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
He explained that the yellow notebook was a compilation of what Planning Staff perceived to be the outstanding issues from the Commissioners. If there are any other issues the Board wishes to address, staff will go back to the last workbook from the last meeting or somewhere in the Code. He reviewed the issues as follows:
LDC Residential Issue 4 - Proposed RD Zoning
District. The Planning Board recommended a fourth zoning district, R4, that
would have one dwelling unit per 5 acres density. There was a lot of discussion
about where the boundary should be. At
the last workshop the Board gave some direction to staff on what that should
be. A map was included. Mr. Starr explained that it includes only the
public lands at Green River Gamelands,
2. LDC Residential Issue 11 – Addition of Estate Residential Zoning District (R-40). There were comments at the public hearing and through the public input process of the desire to keep the R-40 zoning district as it is. This option would add the language as it appears now in our current Zoning Ordinance from the set backs and even measuring them the same way they are measured, from the centerline as opposed to the edge of the right-of-way. The uses are the same and the minimum lot size is 40,000. Everything was kept the same as it is currently in the Zoning Ordinance. It maps the same areas. If it’s R-40 now, it will be proposed R-40 under this option. There was discussion regarding extension of the district to adjoining properties. It was decided that expansion of this district shall only be initiated by the Board of Commissioners or the Planning Board.
LDC Residential Issue 12
Addition of Waterfront Residential (WR) and Surface Water (SW) Districts (
LDC Commercial Issue 11 – Additional Local
Commercial Node along
LDC Commercial Issue 12 – Community Commercial
LDC Commercial Issue 13 – Local Commercial Node
LDC Commercial Issue 14 – Local Commercial Node
LDC Commercial Issue 15 – Local/Community
Commercial Node Expansion Along
9. LDC Commercial Issue 16 – Definition of Flea Market. Concerns were raised during the public hearing that the definition of a flea market should be expanded. The recommendation was to change the definition of flea market in Article XIV (Definitions) to:
“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.”
LDC Industrial Issue 3 – Industrial District
Expansion in Eastern Portion of County. Subject Area 2 on the map, just east of
LDC Industrial Issue 6 – Industrial Node at
LDC Industrial Issue 7 – Industrial Node at
13. LDC Development Issue 2 – Sign Regulations – Outdoor Advertising Signs (Billboards).
Mr. Starr stated that the earlier draft recommended spacing between signs of 1,000 feet. The previous draft had 500 feet spacing. The current regulations say 1,000 feet. The Board was comfortable with that.
LDC Development Issue 3 – Traffic Impact Study.
Mr. Starr stated that there was no change from the last meeting. Traffic Impact Studies (TIS) are required by
a variety of local governments in
Requirement Thresholds. A TIS is required for any proposed development that meets any of the following requirement thresholds:
a) Residential subdivision proposing 100 lots/units or more.
b) Any residential or nonresidential development proposed to generate an average daily traffic count of 1,000+ vehicles per day or 100+ trips during peak traffic hour. This traffic county must be based on the latest version of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual.
c) Any expansion or change to an existing or proposed residential or nonresidential development that would generate an additional 1,000+ vehicles per day or 100+ trips during peak traffic hour. This traffic county must be based on the latest version of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual.
15. LDC Development Issue 4 – Emergency Services Impact Report. Mr. Starr stated that there was a concern about what this report would entail. Staff had prepared a draft report form. The recommended solution to this concern was to add the following provision to Article IV (Adequate Public Facilities & Service Regulations):
S200A-102. Emergency Services Impact Report. An Emergency Services Impact Report may be required to evaluate the public safety of a proposed development and the effect it will have on the County’s existing Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS). This report and requirements is in addition to those requirements and review of the internal design of the development. An Emergency Services Impact Report shall be required for subdivisions proposing 100 lots/units or more, or subdivisions proposing more than 50 units located more than 5 road miles from a fire station and shall be submitted as part of the master plan approval.
1)Proximity and Impact
to Existing Services. Residential and
nonresidential subdivisions shall provide documentation to identify if a
proposed development or portion thereof is outside of a Fire Insurance District
or is more than 5 road miles from an existing fire station. The developer shall
also provide documentation identifying the response time to the nearest
2) Fire Suppression Water Supply. Residential and nonresidential subdivisions shall provide documentation to identify water resources for fire suppression. The developer shall also provide documentation identifying the type of water source (static or pressurized), number and spacing of hydrants, capacity, flow rate in gallons per minute, static and residual pressures.
3) Based on the findings
of the Emergency Services Impact Report and the recommendation of
Chairman Moyer expressed that if any of this becomes a bureaucratic burden or it’s not producing anything, then we ought to get rid of it. If it’s making a contribution, we ought to follow up on all these to make sure all these remain worthwhile and we’re not just adding paperwork for the sense of doing that.
16. LDC Development Issue 5 – Development in Areas of Steep Slope & Floodplain. The concern expressed by the public is that areas that have steep slope or floodplain should be protected, and developers should not receive the same density credit for these areas. The County cannot impose a rule that would not allow any development of these areas as that would be a regulatory taking under the constitution and would require “just compensation.”
Staff offered recommended options. The Board’s choice was:
“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 that areas with slope 35% or greater or within the 100-year floodplain. Language for such a provision was discussed and revised as follows: “The maximum residential density for areas with slope 60% or greater and shall be one half the normal allowable amount for the particular residential zoned area.. Then build in de minimis, if there is no more than 10% of it exceeding 60% it wouldn’t apply at all.”
Discussion followed. Chairman Moyer proposed the 60% or greater (instead of the recommended 35%) and one half the normal allowable density, leaving density bonus in and leaving the conservation easement out, with no adjustment for floodplain. Following more discussion, Chairman Moyer called for a vote. The vote was four in favor and one against with Commissioner McGrady casting the dissenting vote.
LDC Development Issue 7 – Height Restrictions
for Residential Structures. Concerns
were raised during the public hearing on
18. Revised Permitted Use Table. This table reflects the changes the Board made at the last meeting. Mr. Starr mentioned one update, stating that the version the Board received still indicated self-storage warehousing as a special use permit in local commercial district. That is not the case, by direction of the Board at the last meeting.
Mr. Starr stated that the Board of Commissioners has made a strong effort to try and be responsive to citizen requests with staff making numerous map changes in response to inquiries and requests that the Board received over the last few weeks. Chairman Moyer stated that he felt it appropriate to use the public hearing as a cut-off date, unless it were something that could fit into another area that the Board has already discussed.
Following discussion of the process, Chairman Moyer suggested that about December or January the Board re-examine the concepts of the Comprehensive Plan and see what fine tuning needs done. In January or February he suggested taking all the comments with respect to the Land Development Code that have been accumulated and decide what changes need made to the LDC. The Board will then know what changes were made to the Comprehensive Plan which may require other changes to the LDC.
Chairman Moyer made the motion to approve the Land Development Code with the changes the Board directed tonight, give it provisional approval, direct that it be sent to the Planning Board for review with the idea that it will come back to the Board of Commissioners for action on September 19. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner McGrady made the motion for the Board to go into closed session as allowed pursuant to NCGS 143-318.11for the following reason(s):
1. To discuss matters which are privileged and confidential due to attorney-client privilege related to the matter “Parkridge MOB, LLC versus County of Henderson et al".
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner Messer made the motion for the Board to go out of closed session at All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Elizabeth W. Corn, Clerk to the Board William L. Moyer, Chairman