STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA                                       BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

COUNTY OF HENDERSON                                                                          MARCH 11, 2002


The Henderson County Board of Commissioners met on Monday, March 11, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. in the Commissioners= Meeting Room of the Henderson County Office Building at 100 North King Street, Hendersonville, NC. The regularly scheduled meeting for March 4, 2002 was moved to this date to accommodate attendance of Chairman Moyer, Commissioner Messer and County Manager David E. Nicholson at the NACo Conference in Washington, D.C.


Present were: Chairman William Moyer, Vice-Chair Marilyn Gordon, Commissioner Grady Hawkins, Commissioner Charlie Messer, Commissioner Don Ward, County Manager David E. Nicholson, County Attorney Angela S. Beeker, and Clerk to the Board Elizabeth W. Corn. 


Staff present was Finance Director Carey McLelland, Planning Director Karen C. Smith, Fire Marshal/Emergency Management Coordinator Rocky D. Hyder, Assistant County Attorney Jennifer O. Jackson, and Assistant to the County Manager Selena D. Coffey. 


Absent was Public Information Officer Chris S. Coulson. Deputy Clerk\Volunteer Coordinator Amy Brantley performed the video recording of the meeting.



Chairman Moyer welcomed all in attendance and called the meeting to order.



Commissioner Grady Hawkins led the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag.



County Manager David E. Nicholson gave the invocation.



Chairman Moyer made a motion to move the quasi-judicial public hearing on the application for Statutory Vested Rights, Final Phase of Lakewood RV Resort, Application #VR-02-01 by Howard M. George to begin after the public hearing on Economic Development Incentives-Meritor Heavy Vehicle Systems, LLC.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.


Under Discussion Items, Chairman Moyer added Item A, Update on the legislative conference in Washington, D.C.; added Item B, Draft LGCCA Resolution on State=s financial status for the Board=s consideration; added Item C, Discussion on Blue Cross Blue Shield becoming a profit-making entity and the Commissioners= recommended nominee for the regional board; and Item D, Update on the Western North Carolina Caucus.


Commissioner Ward requested that the Chairman write a letter to the Assessor inviting him to the next Commissioners= meeting to provide the Board with a quarterly update on the Assessor=s administration.  He further requested that the Assessor pull ten random assessments since this is a reassessment year.  Commissioner Ward thought the Board should be aware of what the assessment values in the County are going to be.  Commissioner Ward had randomly pulled five

or six property assessments and based on those properties, it appeared there would be a huge tax increase for the citizens and he wanted to hear Mr. Mitchum=s opinion about that situation.  If indeed there will be a huge tax increase, he wanted the citizens to be forewarned or see exactly what formula the assessments would be using. 


Other Board members too expressed an interest in discussing the situation with Mr. Mitchum.

Chairman Moyer stated that the Assessor would be invited to the next meeting and he would give Mr. Mitchum an overview of some of the issues that the Board wanted to talk about or has interest in. 


Chairman Moyer made a motion to approve the agenda with those changes.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.



Chairman Moyer reminded the Board that he had clarified a provision stated in the minutes for the February 4th meeting and had provided that information to the Board for its consideration. 


Commissioner Hawkins requested to pull Item J, Proclamation-March for Meals for comment.


County Manager David E. Nicholson noted that Item E, Public Records disposal and destruction, was for EMS.  Four records on the chart accompanying the agenda item were for 1981 through 1999.  Mr. Nicholson requested that the Board change that record to show through 1998 as opposed to 1999 to clarify a whole year under the property schedule.  Chairman Moyer expressed concern that with the change in EMS mileage rates there could arise a need for the old data to support a claim.  Mr. Nicholson replied that we would still have three years of information but that was a valid point and he would check on that situation.      


Chairman Moyer made a motion to approve Items A through I with the changes to the EMS records as requested.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.


The Consent Agenda consisted of the following:


Minutes were presented for the following Commissioners meetings: 

January 16, 2002, regular meeting; February 4, 2002, regular meeting; February 12, 2002, special called meeting; and February 14, 2002, special called meeting.


Tax Collectors Report

Tax Collector Terry F. Lyda presented the tax report.  Deputy Tax Collector Darlene B. Burgess presented the report on the status of delinquent tax collections to date.


Financial Report-January 2002; Cash Balance Report-January 2002

Finance Director Carey McLelland presented these reports for the Board=s information only.  No Board action was required.



Henderson County Public Schools Financial Report-January 2002

Finance Director Carey McLelland presented this report for the Board=s information only.  No Board action was required. 


Public Records Disposal Request and Destruction Log

EMS Director Terry Layne submitted a request to destroy some old EMS records that dated 1981 to 1999.  The date was changed to 1998 as requested by Mr. Nicholson earlier in the meeting.

Waterline Extension(s)

The City of Hendersonville had presented proposed waterline extensions for French Broad Baptist Church; Sunset Ridge; Cummings Cove Wexford Neighborhood and Morgan Business Park. 


Approval of Closed Session Minutes

The Board was requested to adopt the following motion:


Motion:  The following closed session minutes are hereby approved and shall be deemed sealed as provided by Section 11-6 of the Henderson County Code:


1.   Minutes for the closed sessions held on October 17, 2001, November 5, 2001, November 6, 2001, and November 14, 2001 as presented and revised during the closed session of February 20, 2002.  The Clerk is authorized to correct any typographical errors discovered subsequent to the February 20, 2002 closed session.


Property Addressing Report

The Monthly Property Addressing Report was presented for the Board=s information only.  No Board action was required.


CJPP-FY03 Grant Request

Staff presented a request on behalf of the Criminal Justice Partnership Program (CJPP) for a State grant to fund a resource Center for targeted convicted offenders and a pre-trial release program.  Staff further recommended that the Board approve the filing of the CJPP grant application with stipulations that should the program not be fully funded, the program would be adjusted within the State funds allocated.


PROCLAMATION- AMarch for Meals@

Commissioner Hawkins read a proposed proclamation by the Board of Commissioners proclaiming the month of March as AMarch for Meals@ and proclaimed March 23, 2002 as Henderson County=s March for Meals day.  Commissioner Hawkins made a motion for the Board to approve that proclamation.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.



Notification of Vacancies

Chairman Moyer advised the Board of these vacancies:


1.         Community Child Protection Team  - 1 vacancy.  Position #4 due to resignation.

2.         Planning Board, Fletcher  1- vacancy.  Position #5 due to expiring term

3.         Solid Waste Advisory Committee - 3 vacancies.  Positions #2, 5 and 9 due to expiring terms.

4.         Planning Board, Henderson County - 1 vacancy.  Position #2 due to resignation.

5.         Zoning Board of Adjustment, Hendersonville City - 1 vacancy.


Chairman Moyer reminded the Board a letter was received from the Town of Fletcher asking that Duane Gentle be reappointed.  Commissioner Ward made a motion to suspend the rules and reappoint Mr. Gentle to the Fletcher Planning Board.  All voted in favor and the motion carried. 



Equalization and Review B 2 vacancies-Positions 7 and 8

There were no nominations so these vacancies were rolled to the next meeting.


Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC) B 5 vacancies

Positions 4, 9, 10 and 12 were due to resignations.  Position # 26 was due to Legislative change.

Commissioner Messer nominated Christopher Smith for position # 9 and Katherine Kirtley for position #12.  Commissioner Ward made a motion to make those appointments for stated positions.  There were no further nominations.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.  The three remaining vacancies were rolled to the next meeting. 


Henderson County Board of Health B 2 vacancies

Positions 3 and 5 were due to expiring terms.  There were no nominations so these vacancies were rolled to the next meeting.


Nursing/Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee B 8 vacancies

Positions 2, 3, 7,12, 13, 16, and 18-Terms were due to expire in 2002.  Position #4 was due to resignation.  Chairman Moyer nominated Joy Davenport for position # 7, Wanda Weiss for position # 16 and Marshall Gravely for position # 4.  There were no further nominations.  Commissioner Ward made a motion to suspend the rules and appoint those individuals to the stated positions.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.  The five remaining vacancies were rolled to the next meeting.


Western Carolina Community Action B 1 vacancy

Position 2 was due to resignation.  There were no nominations so this vacancy was rolled to the next meeting.




Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Budget Follow Up

County Manager David E. Nicholson reminded the Board at the February 20th meeting, the Board requested him to come back with a detailed breakdown on any departmental line items that he was considering to bring the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Budget in balance due to the actions by the Governor.  Mr. Nicholson had provided that information to the Board in a memo dated March 6, 2002. 

Commissioner Messer asked when the Economic Development Incentive Agreement the County had with Raflatac for $47,268 went into effect.  Mr. Nicholson replied it would go into effect next fiscal year.  Ms. Beeker further expounded that the first payment would be due December 31st of this year because it=s structured around when Rafalatac provided certification that they have met certain requirements.  Since that certification was not received before December 31st of last year, the first payment will now be due December 31st of this year and it will actually be more than the $47,268 listed on Mr. Nicholson=s memo.  Ms. Beeker thought that amount would be $225,000.  Ms. Beeker assured the Board that Rafalatac would get their money. 


In a memo to the Board, Mr. Nicholson informed the Commissioners that when he appointed Terry Layne as EMS Director, Mr. Layne presented a proposal for a reorganization and change of responsibilities within EMS.  It was Mr. Layne=s suggestion, and Mr. Nicholson concurred, that with the new responsibilities Mr. Layne was assigning to the shift supervisors and to the training officer that the position of Assistant EMS Director could be eliminated.  Mr. Layne formerly held that position.  That resulted in a cost savings of $14,000. 

Commissioner Ward noted a lot of maintenance and repair had been eliminated.  He asked if that was an over budgeted item or was it something Mr. Nicholson hoped to keep for unexpected expenses. Mr. Nicholson replied there was a little bit of both in that some were slightly over budgeted to guard against any un-projected expenses.  He had not heard of any maintenance being postponed but if he learned of that need, he would release the money for that need.  Clearly, maintenance needs would continue to be met. 


The amount of $4,000 reduction in the Assessor=s budget resulted because Mr. Mitchum believes there needs to be some reduction in the overtime and comp. time budgeted for his Department. 


Mr. Nicholson explained the $15,000 reduction for the Sheriff=s Department was originally slated for the Drug Enforcement program.  That was money set up in the budget for buy monies but the Sheriff had been able to use Federal forfeitures to cover those costs and thereby the Sheriff would not have to spend the County=s funds.  The reduction of $15,000 in Departmental Supplies was the same case. 


Mr. Nicholson explained the $15,000 savings under the Recreation Department was due to the elimination of the Dana Summer Camp.   


UPDATE ON NACo Legislative Conference in Washington, D.C.

Chairman Moyer, Commissioner Messer and Mr. Nicholson attended the NACo Conference in Washington, D.C. the first week of March.  While there, they met with the North Carolina delegation to discuss the budget situation and some of the concerns about what the state organization was doing and not doing.  Chairman Moyer felt that most of the counties recognize that unless pressure is put on the state, both the Governor and the legislature, to take action this situation is not going to be resolved.  Most people who have looked at it from the counties standpoint believe the situation is going to be even worse next year. 


Commissioner Messer noted that several counties in the State are in worse condition than Henderson County.  The municipalities are also putting pressure on State representatives. The North Carolina delegation encouraged counties to continue to talk with their state representatives about the situation and hopefully something will break like it did last year. 


Commissioner Hawkins suggested the Board consider joining a lawsuit against the Governor for taking our money illegally.  He further stated the Governor, even when he was Attorney General, defied the legislature and the laws and there=s no reason to tolerate the inconvenience that the citizens of this county and all 100 counties have had to put up with because the Governor can=t balance the budget. 


Chairman Moyer sent a letter to the State as requested by the Board at its last meeting and requested a special meeting of the counties. 


Mr. Nicholson advised that per Ron Aycock, Executive Director of the County Commissioners Association, during the short session of the General Assembly, there will be two days for the County Commissioners and City Councils to address their concerns on this situation. 


Mr. Nicholson learned at the NACo Conference that a provision was put in on the House side of the budget that the Governor could not take funds without consulting with the members of the General Assembly.  He reminded the Board that county governments were created by the General Assembly to serve the General Assembly. 



Mr. Nicholson stated that last October, the sales tax was increased across the State by a half cent going from 6 cents per dollar up to 6.5 cents per dollar.  That was done as part of a deal to insure that local governments would get the reimbursements that are called for by the state budget act.  The General Assembly made it statewide for the first year and by July 1st of 2003, it will then become a local sales tax but the counties have to levy it.  As part of that, counties will lose the inventory reimbursements, the intangible tax reimbursements, and the elderly Homestead Act exemption reimbursements.  This is not an additional sales tax.  It=s just transferring that additional half-cent over to County government.  At the Washington meeting, counties were urged to consider levying this tax.  There is discussion among General Assembly about the possibility of changing this half-cent sales tax to July 1st of 2002.  A draft resolution from the North Carolina County Commissioners Association was presented to the Board for its consideration.  The Association hoped to get this resolution in place before the General Assembly meets again and decides it needs those monies next year and the following year. 


According to the last statistical information that was sent out our sales tax compared to the reimbursements netted a gain of  $211,000.  More importantly, it=s a growing revenue.  In four years, that $200,000 becomes $750,000.  So it gives us another revenue to be able to address our community=s needs. 


Mr. Nicholson recommended the Board set a public hearing on this matter for April 17, 2002 at 11:00 a.m. to levy this 2 cent sales tax in July 2002 as opposed to July 2003. 


Chairman Moyer stated that the counties represented at the NACo conference voted unanimously to adopt the resolution with the feeling that if a resolution was adopted and implemented in accordance with the duly adopted and enacted law with clear provisions that would make it much more difficult for the Governor and legislature to reverse course. 


Ms. Beeker advised the Board if it chose to move the effective date for the half-cent sales tax to July 1, 2002 rather than levying it in July, 2003 that should be included in the notice of the public hearing and the resolution.


Chairman Moyer made a motion to set a date for the required public hearing for the Article 44 Sales Tax for April 17, 2002 and that notice to say that the effective date would be either the earlier of July 1, 2003 or such earlier date as the legislature gives us permission to implement the 2 cent sales tax.  There was no further discussion.  All voted in favor and the motion carried. 



Mr. Nicholson read a draft resolution from the LGCCA presented to the Board for its consideration.  The resolution urged Governor Easley to release all funds that are being held by the State to the local governments; requested assurance from the Governor and the members of the General Assembly that all funds due to the local governments during Fiscal Year 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 would be fully funded; and that a dialogue between the local governments and the State be held concerning the issue of home rule for local governments.


Chairman Moyer made a motion to adopt the resolution and send it to the other local governments and to the LGCCA for consideration and hopefully adoption so there would be an united effort on this matter.  There was no further discussion.  All voted in favor and the motion carried. 



Fire Marshal/Emergency Management Coordinator Rocky D. Hyder explained to the Board this was a standardized contract that clearly defines the role and the job that our fire departments provide for the citizens of this county. 


Chairman Moyer made a motion to approve the standardized contract and authorize the County Manager to execute such contracts, filling in the appropriate blanks.


Mr. Hyder noted that the Legal Department had advised that three words were to be added to line six of paragraph 21, Indemnity Agreement, before the contract is adopted.  The line should read, ˙"procure all insurance coverage=s stated in paragraphs one, two, six and seven˙@ It=s inferred in the document that six and seven would be required as well.  Paragraph six states that the fire department names the County as an additional insured for liability purposes only.  Paragraph seven makes sure the fire departments have a blanket fidelity bond to cover the revenues that they get from the county each year, which is a standard business practice as well.  The indemnity agreement inferred that would be the case but Mr. Hyder felt it needed more clarification.


Mr. Hyder noted the fire departments would have to individually approve the standardized contract but he hoped it would be in effect at the beginning of this fiscal year.


Chairman Moyer amended his motion to include that amendment in wording.


Chairman Moyer called for a vote on the motion he made earlier with the change to paragraph 21 in the indemnity agreement.  All voted in favor of that motion as amended and the motion carried. 


Mr. Hyder further explained the fire and rescue advisory committee developed a new approach for developing the budgets for the fire departments.  Information was gathered from each department about what specific line items they=ve already budgeted and included into a database.  That information could then be utilized by the fire departments in the budget process to determine what the appropriate amount of funding would be for each particular line item.  That will provide a much better budget review process with the fire and rescue advisory committee this year.



Margo Nagel, 202 Scarlet Oak Lane-Ms. Nagel distributed printed material to the Commissioners.  Ms. Nagel urged the Board to evaluate the needs of the entire county population rather than just the retiree population or special interests groups. The younger generation, who is our future, has no voice in local government.  To retain the younger generation, better jobs than work in the fast food industry, affordable housing, and activities for the younger citizens are needed for them. 



Chairman Moyer made a motion to go into Closed Session as allowed pursuant to NCGS 143-318.11 for the following reasons:

1. (a) (1) To prevent disclosure of information that is privileged or confidential pursuant to the law of this State or of the United States, or not considered a public record within the meaning of Chapter 132 of the General Statutes, in accordance with and pursuant to NCGS 143-318.10(e) and Article II of Chapter 11 of the Henderson County Code.


2. (a) (6) To consider the qualifications, competence, performance, character, fitness, conditions of appointment, or conditions of initial employment of an individual public officer or employee or prospective public officer or employee; or to hear or investigate a complaint, charge, or grievance by or against an individual public officer or employee.


All voted in favor and the motion carried.


Chairman Moyer made a motion to go out of Closed Session.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.


QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING-Application for a Special Use Permit and Related Variance for a Proposed Baseball Complex-Application #SP-01-04 by Blue Ridge Community College


Chairman Moyer made a motion that the hearing be canceled for this date.  It would probably be rescheduled for a later date.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.


PUBLIC HEARING-on Economic Development Incentives-Meritor Heavy Vehicle Systems, LLC

Commissioner Ward made a motion to go into the public hearing on economic development incentives for Meritor Heavy Vehicle Systems.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.


Scott Hamilton, Vice President of Economic Development of the Committee of 100 of the Greater Hendersonville Chamber of Commerce, reminded the Board that one of the top priorities of the Committee of 100 is to work with our existing industry for their retention and their expansion.  This public hearing was for economic development incentives for Arvin-Meritor as they consider the purchasing of machinery and equipment for their facility located in the Fletcher area.  Also in attendance was Meredith Elliott, the immediate past chair of the Chamber of Commerce, President of the Chamber Bob Williford, Western Regional Manager from the North Carolina Department of Commerce Ronnie James, and the Vice-President of Industrial Marketing with AdvantageWest Sam Powers to support this request for Arvin-Meritor for this economic incentive.  Mr. Hamilton introduced John Hawk with Arvin-Meritor and Fred Harbison also with Arvin-Meritor to talk with the Board about their project, and what=s proposed for the facility in Henderson County. 


Mr. Hawk explained the background of Arvin-Mertior, formerly Rockwell in Henderson County. Arvin-Meritor in Henderson County is a partnership that works for the employees for Arvin-Meritor and for the citizens of Henderson County as well as the company. The relationship began twenty years ago when Rockwell invested a hundred million dollars in the facility in Fletcher and since that time, it has flourished.  Additional investments were made that totaled two hundred nineteen million dollars.  These investments allowed both the County and Arvin-Meritor to flourish.  New investment is the right thing for employees.  It keeps good paying jobs in Henderson County; it results in a positive revenue stream for the County.  The pay rate is higher than ten percent of the median wage in the County.  The investment that is proposed increases the tax base of that facility for years to come resulting in roughly a hundred fifteen thousand dollars additional taxes paid to the County.  At a time of downsizing in manufacturing in Western North Carolina, this would be a good opportunity to continue the partnership and help an existing high paying taxpayer. 


Arvin-Meritor is a good corporate citizen.  It supports numerous charity and civic organizations.  The Fletcher facility is a world-scale, world-class organization.  Meritor received the North Carolina Department Safety award for seventeen consecutive years.  It is also ISO 9001 certified, QS 9000 certified, and ISO 14,000 certified which is the environmental certification. It is a clean facility being recognized by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources as a small quantity generator. 

The Fletcher facility employs 620 employees and is the hub of the North American axle business for Meritor.  It supports additional plants, one of which is a front axle assembly plant in Arden.  During the most recent downturn in the truck market, the Fletcher facility was able to bring work back to the Fletcher facility from Mexico by closing the Mexico axle assembly facility.  Also Meritor brought work back from a facility in Frankfurt, Kentucky because the Fletcher facility is a low-cost, high quality producer of axles. 


Mr. Harbison explained that the housing program or the housing line that Meritor was considering putting in represents a twenty-one to twenty-two million dollar investment of the total program.  It would have specialized state-of-the art robotic welding equipment and CNC machining equipment for the production of housings.  Most of the equipment to be purchased would be one of a kind type of equipment and is specialized due to the nature of the process that Meritor uses.  This line would increase the housing capacity at the Fletcher facility by twenty-five to thirty percent and decrease their dependence on other sources of housings.  Currently, housings are purchased from Mexico, Brazil and Turkey.  You don=t often hear today that manufacturers are reducing their dependence on off-shore sources of components, but Meritor is proud to say they are.  Meritor hopes to have the line fully operational in about a year from now. 


As previously announced, the final axle assembly is moving to the Forest City facility to make room for this additional equipment.  This will preserve about thirty jobs by retraining employees currently assigned to the final axle assembly to work in the housing area at the Fletcher facility. 


Meritor has had a great partnership with Henderson County within the past twenty years growing the business well beyond the original expectations of Meritor.  Meritor is genuinely excited about furthering this partnership and asked for the Commissioners support on this project.


Chairman Moyer stated the Board was certainly pleased to have Meritor in the County and pleased to be a partner with them.  We are also pleased the new housing division would be placed here and coming from off-shore and other places.  Meritor has been a good citizen of the community and we are very pleased to that Meritor would be staying in the county.


Mr. James thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak on behalf of Arvin-Meritor.  He had been associated with them for over two years and had found them to be excellent citizens of the community and great people to do business with.  The North Carolina Department of Commerce was very pleased that Meritor was considering this expansion in Henderson County and looks forward to a long, long experience with Arvin-Meritor.  Mr. James, on behalf of the NC Department of Commerce, strongly urged the Board to consider and support this request.


Public Input

No one had signed up for public comment during this public hearing.


Chairman Moyer thanked Mr. Hamilton on behalf of the Board for retaining or bringing jobs to the County.


Commissioner Hawkins made a motion to go out of the public hearing.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.  Chairman Moyer adjourned the public hearing.

Ms. Beeker informed the Board of six minor corrections to the agreement.  She noted the name is correct as stated in the contract as Meritor Heavy Systems, LLC.  In the opening paragrah, the contract referred to Meritor as a Delaware corporation but Ms. Beeker noted the contract should state Limited Liability Company, LLC, and the same for the second whereas clause. 


In paragraph nine, page five at the top of the page, the last full line of that paragraph stated that in the event that the agreement is terminated, the County shall have no further obligation hereunder, but it should say neither party shall have any further obligation hereunder.


The same thing applied in paragraph number ten, the last full line where it says a portion thereof which has actually been paid to Meritor.  Ms. Beeker explained if Meritor had to refund any monies that were paid, the agreement would terminate.  Therefore, the wording was amended to state neither party shall have any further obligation hereunder after the word Meritor. 


In paragraph fifteen where the contract stated that Meritor could not assign the agreement without the Board=s consent, Meritor  had requested text to be added to state, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.


Ms. Beeker noted a typographical error in paragraph number 12 and stated the words all obligations were in that paragraph twice and the duplicate wording should be deleted.  Another error was noted in the signature line on page eight; the period is to be deleted after LLC. 


Commissioner Hawkins made a motion that the contract be approved as presented with the additions that the County Attorney put forth.  Chairman Moyer added to the motion that the Board would be authorized to execute and deliver the agreement.  Commissioner Hawkins accepted the amendment to his motion.  All voted in favor of that motion and the motion carried.


Chairman Moyer thanked Meritor for its confidence in the County and stated the Board certainly had confidence in Meritor and extended to Meritor best wishes for its continued success.


QUASI-JUDICAL PUBLIC HEARING-Application for Statutory Vested Rights, Final Phase of Lakewood RV Resort, Application #VR-02-01 by Howard M. George

Chairman Moyer: AWe continue the quasi-judicial public hearing with respect to application for statutory vested rights, the final phase of Lakewood RV Resort which we had begun at an earlier date and we=ll continue that.  All the parties have been sworn and since we=re continuing the hearing, there is no reason to swear anybody, right?@


Ms. Beeker: ARight.  I would make a motion to go back into that public hearing, Mr. Chairman.@


Chairman Moyer: ATo reopen it or to.@


Ms. Beeker: ATo reopen it, yes sir.@


Commissioner Hawkins: ASo moved.@


Chairman Moyer: AAll in favor say aye.@  All voted in favor and the motion carried.  AWe were at the stage last time where we had all of the direct evidence submitted and we were going to move into the rebuttal evidence stage.  I will ask is anyone present for this hearing that wanted to be a party that was not a party as of the last hearing?  Good, okay.  We have three parties, Mr.  George, Alan Henderson and Ruby King that were the parties of record last time and they will continue to be the parties of record today.  With respect to the rebuttal evidence, we had a number of items that were open that people have requested additional information.  Does it matter who we start with, Angie?@


Ms. Beeker: ADo you have any preference?  Usually you leave it up to the petitioner to choose as to whether you would wish to go first or last.@


Chairman Moyer: AOk right go ahead.  This is Lex Veazey, council for petitioner.@


Mr. Veazey: AWe do have a little rebuttal evidence that we=d like to submit to the Commissioners.  There was a question about how emergency vehicles could turn around in this development.  We do have some more specific mapping survey work that I=ve submitted to Karen Smith, a copy, and I=d like to submit this to the Commissioners to look at as far as how the end of the dead end roads in the development vehicles can be turned around.  This more specific survey work, more detailed survey work, was done by Patterson and Patterson, William Patterson and Paul Patterson who are the surveyors and engineers who are here in the room with us today.  We also have, there was some question about the, that was submitted by Karen Smith I believe, regarding the location of the floodplain.@


Chairman Moyer: ALex, before you leave that, do you have copies of that for us and has Rocky been given, Mr. Hyder, been given a copy of this to take a look at?  And obviously the other parties need to receive it.@


Mr. Veazey: AYes sir I do.  I have Paul Patterson here who will testify to the accuracy of this proposal.  Mr. Patterson, is this the more detailed survey work showing turnaround areas and so forth at the end of the dead end streets in the development?@


Mr. Patterson: AYes it is.@


Mr. Veazey: AOkay.  I=d like to submit that into evidence.@


Commissioner Hawkins: AWhat does the hash mark represent on that?@


Mr. Veazey: AThose are gravel drives where vehicles can be turnaround.  They are partly the driveway into each lot and that=s how they will appear once the development is completed.  What they can do, the vehicles can pull in there, back out with relative ease, as I understand it.@


Commissioner Hawkins: AIs the solid shaded area the hard stands for the.@

Mr. Veazey: AThat is the proposed hard surface, yes for the street itself and these are more driveways and turnarounds on the lots themselves, the diagonal specified areas.  And you=ll notice there is one more dead end road that=s pretty short.  It=s about seventy-eight feet.  There=ll be a similar turnaround at the end of that for emergency vehicles, fire trucks, ambulances, etc., rescue squad vehicles.@


Commissioner Hawkins: AOn the lot for seven and ten that you had up a minute ago was that fourteen feet on either side or. I can see four, is that fourteen?.@


Mr. Veazey: AWhich dimension are you looking for?@


Commissioner Hawkins:  AOn the map you=ve got like a center line, like a center line down off the road and then on either side of it, it looks like you=ve got fourteen.  Is that gravel mount?.@


Mr. Patterson: AThat=s just the full dimension.  It=d probably be ten to twelve foot wide.@


Commissioner Hawkins: AThere=s not twenty-eight foot indicated there.  It=s just fourteen?@


Mr. Patterson: AThe total width would probably be twenty to twenty-two, something like that.@


Mr. Veazey: AAnd of course, this is probably better than most residential driveways have as far as turnaround because you have a windy, driveway sometimes, very narrow so we feel like this is a improvement over the normal subdivision turnaround areas.@


Chairman Moyer: AAny further questions on this at this time?  All right, go on to you next point, Lex@.


Mr. Veazey: AWe would also like to submit a more detailed map that was done by Patterson, Patterson surveyors showing the flood plain area.  There was some question about how far the hundred-year floodplain came onto the property and according to this map you can see that it=s on either side of the creek.  The tax computer map is inaccurate in that it shows it all on one side of the creek onto our property.  The creek on the northeast edge of the development is basically the dividing line between the development property and the property northeast of that and I=d like to show this to the Pattersons.  Is this relatively accurate, Paul Patterson, of the hundred year flood plain as it actually is located?@


Mr. Patterson: AYes it is.@


Mr. Veazey: AThe maximum according to Mr. Patterson would be knee deep if it ever did flood there.@


Commissioner Hawkins: ACould I ask you where that is in relation to the map that we have.  You said up in the north east section, does it come into like lot 116 or ?@


Mr. Patterson: AIt comes into, if you=ll look on your map, these lots the creek runs along the northeast side right here so it=s the lots right here.  It=s lots a hundred and twenty, going down to maybe lot seventy-five, seventy-five, seventy-six, seventy-seven, seventy-eight, seventy-nine.@


Commissioner Hawkins: AIs that t twenty or one twenty?@


Mr. Veazey: AThat=s t twenty and t is standing for travel trailer which are more easily or more quickly can be moved as opposed to a park model which would take a little longer to move if there were a flooding situation.  Is that correct?@


Mr. Patterson: AYes.@


Commissioner Hawkins: AAnd where is the extremity of the flood plain in reference to say t twenty?  Does it come up into t twenty or is it just close to it?  I can=t tell by correlating between that and this map.@


Mr. Veazey: AIt looks like it comes just into those lots.  How many feet would you say, Mr. Patterson?@


Mr. Patterson: AIn actuality, it would probably cover the entire lot but once again these are the mobile units, these are the ones on wheels, these aren=t the park models so they can easily be moved.  The park models on the other side of the road, they=ll be up approximately four blocks which is thirty-two inches above ground so those should not be effected by any flooding that might occur.@


Mr. Veazey: AAnd some more evidence regarding rebuttal is regarding the Henderson property that=s on the south end of the development.  There were some concerns by Alan Henderson who is representative of his mother, Elizabeth Henderson, the owner of that property about spray coming onto the property.  We have a proposal about putting a tree, a tree buffer there.  We are proposing eighty-three Leland cypress trees which would be every ten feet there would be these cypress trees planted.  Mr. Henderson is, with his experience planting trees with the orchard, is willing to plant those for us along the line and we would provide the trees, the expense of the trees to do that.@


Chairman Moyer: AWould you indicate the lots from where looks like to me it would from eight to forty-one.  Are you talking about eight to forty-one all the way?@


Mr. Veazey: AEight to forty-one, eight, nine, twenty-two, twenty-three, fifty-one, fifty-two, fifty-five to where the existing house is, fifty-six, fifty-seven, fifty-eight, fifty-nine, forty, and forty-one and that is a distance of approximately eight hundred fifty-four feet.@


Chairman Moyer: AWell, if the soil is good they=ll certainly have a quite a buffer in a very short time.@


Mr. Veazey: AAnd our information is that these are very good trees, lot better than pine trees which we planted on the other side of Mr. Henderson=s property as a buffer with the Nazarene church there.@


Chairman Moyer: AOh, yes.  Do you have anything else Mr. Veazey?@


Mr. Veazey: AWe do have a summary of.@


Chairman Moyer: AWe=ll have closing comments a little later.@


Mr. Veazey: AWe have none as far as rebuttal.@


Chairman Moyer: AIs that it?@


Ms. Beeker: AMr. Chair, if I could ask for one clarification.  When you were reading off the lot numbers did I misunderstand you to say fifty-five, fifty-six, fifty-seven, fifty-eight or do you mean thirty or the thirties?@


Mr. Patterson: AThose are thirties.@


Mr. Veazey: AThirties.  I=m sorry.@


Ms. Beeker: AThirties.  I just wanted to clarify that for the record.@


Mr. Veazey: AAll the lots along the southern edge of the development including the house, the existing house lot.@


Ms. Beeker: AOK@.


Chairman Moyer: AWell, they are thirties aren=t they?@


Ms. Beeker: AThey=re thirties. Yes, sir.@


Chairman Moyer: AThen forty and forty-one.@


Ms. Beeker: AYes sir, it=s lots, my understanding is, eight through forty-one in˙except thirty-three.@


Mr. Patterson: AFourteen lots.@


Ms. Beeker: ARight. OK.  Eight, nine, twenty-two, twenty-three, thirty-one.@


Chairman Moyer: AAlright.  Mr. Henderson, do you have any questions of .?@


Mr. Henderson: ANo, Mr. Chair, we=re agreeable to do it.@

Chairman Moyer: AMs. King, do you have any.?  Is she here?@


Ms. Beeker: AShe=s not here. Would you note that for the record that Ms. King did not attend?@


Commissioner Hawkins: AI=ve got one question.  Do you with this buffer that you all have agreed to plant, do you feel that from your perspective that=s adequate to protect your whatever over spray might come through, that that=ll preclude that as being a problem on your property?@


Mr. George: AWe feel not only the spray but also the noise.@


Commissioner Hawkins: AAnd the noise? Thank you.@


Chairman Moyer: AIf you=ve ever seen a Leland cypress, they get thick and high very, very quickly.  Alan, would you come up to the microphone and state for the record, are you in agreement with respect to the row of Leland cypresses?  You=ve heard where it=s proposed to be, does that satisfy your concern?@


Mr. Henderson: AYes Mr. Chairman.  That will be very satisfactory.  And like I stated we are in agreement that we will help in the planting of these trees down the property line.@


Chairman Moyer: AOK.  All right, then I assume you don=t have any rebuttal testimony with respect to the issues we talked about before.  As indicated, Ms. Ruby King is not here but she=s had a chance for rebuttal testimony and obviously that she is not.  We can move to closing comments.  And let=s see. Lex, I=m going to give you a chance to go first again if you=re ready for your closing comments.@


Mr. Veazey: AI sure am.  This hearing of course is for a request for a vested right.  We=re requesting five years for a RV park expansion.  Currently, there are approximately a hundred ten lots spaces for RV=s in the current park and we=ve requested a hundred twenty-two additional spaces.  The ordinance, both the County ordinance and the state statue, requires there be a size specific development plan which we feel we have given you showing the location of the lots, the sizes of the lots, the street sizes, the location, the current location of the water servicing this property, also the various lines for water and utilities in the development.  The statute, as you know, for North Carolina and the County statute specifies that the vested right for two years but can be up to five years and we feel like the five year request is warranted in light of the relevant circumstances including the relatively large size of the development and it=s more than doubling present park and this will take about three stages to do.  We feel like five years is necessary; two years would not be enough.  The amount of investment is a consideration in the five years and we feel like we are putting a sizable investment in this development expansion.  We=re planning to connect to city water which will be quite costly.  We=re also going to either need to expand the present sewer system plant that=s currently on the property that=s being used by the current park or replace that totally or connect to the city sewer which would be quite costly.  Also the economic cycle is a consideration as far as the length of the vested right.  Today=s is pretty good for expansion because of the increased number of vehicles traveling by car, RV rather than planes and other means of transportation but that could all change.  Also the relatively inexpensive cost of gasoline is allowing many vehicles, more vehicles on the road encouraging that.  But of course that could change, we=ve seen gasoline prices go way up and way down very quickly.  Also the economy could worsen during the next five years.  So we feel like the five year request for the vested right is warranted for these reasons. 


As far as what we=re proposing here, of course is not mobile homes; we=re proposing recreational vehicles which include travel trailers according to the County ordinance and park model homes as defined in the County ordinance section two hundred dash seven.  The vested right ordinance specifies the Board may approve or disapprove the size specific plan based on the need to protect the public health, safety and welfare.  Karen Smith has submitted requests to the various agencies in the County regarding problems that they foresee.  We=ve also had Elizabeth Henderson represented by her son Alan Henderson regarding the possible spray problems from the adjacent property. 


We=ve also heard from Ruby King regarding her concern about additional traffic coming into the park because of the present road is right in front of her house.  As has been explained in prior evidence when Ruby King was present, there=s another road that=s being put in for the, onto Ballenger Road which is pretty far away from her driveway.  When people come in, they will be coming in the present driveway in front, the present road in front of her driveway because they have to check in but then they=ll be, most of them will be going out after that, especially the ones in the newer part of the park, on the other road that=s east of the present road. 


Also regarding the spray noise and the spraying from the adjacent Henderson property on the southside of the park, the, as has been presented in evidence there=s been a proposal that eighty-three Leland cypress trees be planted approximately ten feet apart on the property line between the RV park and the Henderson property and the RV developer is of course will pay for the trees themselves and Alan Henderson has agreed to help significantly with the planting of the trees with his experience in planting apple trees.  He I=m sure would do a good job.  That=s agreeable to him as he=s testified.  This would take place very quickly too before the development that would be one of the first things done in the development and these trees as I understand it grows very quickly, better than the pine row buffer that=s on the east side of the development that adjoins his property, the Henderson property.  Also the, with regards to emergency vehicles coming to the park as shown in evidence, we have a more detailed survey that=s been presented showing turnarounds for these vehicles.  It should be appropriate.  We also need to consider the relevant size of these lots as opposed to the size of a subdivision.  The rows, the three rows coming in here are shorter than or not longer than the average driveway in a subdivision.  The fire hoses can of course go the full length of these streets.  There=s a fire hydrant that=s going to be placed at the intersection of Ballenger Road and the new road going into the additional development which will be sufficiently close enough to the new part of the development.  Also as has been presented at the last meeting, in addition to the fire hydrant, the pond is available for additional water, plus the swimming pool.  The pond as testified by Mr. Hyder, the fire department would need approximately at least a minimum of a hundred thousand gallons of water based on the pond being about five feet and a hundred by a hundred approximately. Actually the pond from testimony from Mr. George is actually six feet but being conservative here and basing it on five feet deep, we come up with three hundred and fifty thousand gallons of water from my calculations and also as I said we have the swimming pool. 


As far as the flooding question that came up as has been presented by rebuttal today, we have a more detailed map showing the location of the hundred-year flood plain.  As testified by Mr. Patterson, this would be, if it did flood probably be not more than knee deep.  As testified by Mr. George, the onsite manager of the park, he hasn=t seen any evidence since May of any major flooding there.  He testified there was very good drainage in the park.  The lots that are adjacent on the north east edge of the development that are adjacent to the creek across which the flood plain area does approximately go is going to be limited to travel trailers that can be easily moved.  We=re not putting park models in that area which would take a little longer to move out of that area. 


We feel like that we have explained any problems with public safety, health and welfare and satisfied and hopefully in the Commissioners opinion too any concerns that the Board had concerning the public health, safety and welfare. 


In just a quick summary, we are proposing that we be allowed to have recreational vehicles and park models in the park up to a hundred and twenty; that we are agreeable to a buffer of trees on the southern side; that the park will be built as proposed and the turnaround areas at the end of the streets; that a new road will be put in, or actually it=s a driveway now to the existing house will be improved so that traffic will be coming in and out more that road than the present road in front of Ms. King=s property; and of course, we=re under state and some county guidelines as far as we have to get approval for expansion of the sewer system and of course putting in the water system connected to the city.  Those are my comments.   Do you have any questions?@


Chairman Moyer: AAll right.  Thank you.  No.  No questions now, just closing remarks.  Staff or Alan do you have any closing remarks?@


Commissioner Hawkins: AI have one because I didn=t hear Rocky=s comment on the new better measure ends of the road.  I missed your comment on that.@


Mr. Hyder: AIt appears that the way they=ve designed the driveways at the very end of the road should be sufficient space ,turnaround space for, an EMS unit was my biggest concern because we don=t want to be transporting patients down a middle of a road while we=re trying to provide medical care and it certainly seems that they have provided what=s necessary for that.  I have one more closing comment, if you=re ready for that.  In the flood plain area, it might be a good idea for them to designate the lots that will be, I realize for travel trailers which is an excellent idea because they can be moved quickly, but certainly those people may not be from this area and may not realize that they=re in a flood prone area and it would be advisable to consider marking the lots that are in the designated in the flood plain area as such so that the people that pull in there and if we do experience some of the storms that we do get in the summertime and in the spring, they would be aware of the hazard that=s near.  Otherwise they may think that small little branch that you can see now that=s very unobtrusive and looks very calm could certainly cause them a lot of problems if they weren=t familiar with that.@

Chairman Moyer: AWhere would you like those markings? On the lots, are you talking about a map that they give or what?@


Mr. Hyder: AI think they could be done either way.  Certainly on the lot is going to be a little more effective, even right beside where they plug the unit in because they=re going to plug their unit in when they pull in to hook up.  So certainly, that would be a place where you could be assured that they were notified of the area that they=re in but even on the site map itself would certainly make them aware of the area.@


Chairman Moyer: AMr. George, would you respond to that?@


Mr. George: AYes, that=s a good idea.  We have people on site, I have a permanent manager that lives there, and there is a berm about three foot high along the creek there and I=ve been on the property since May and we=ve had some really incredible rains this week ago.  But I really don=t feel that it=s going to be a problem that we can educate those people but get them out quickly too if we had to.  But since May, we=ve hadn=t had any flooding and again that berm is probably a good three foot high along the stream there.  But we=d be glad to on the pedestal where the electric is we could put a little sign.  Sure.@


Chairman Moyer: AThat would be fine.  Any other questions from any of the Commissioners?  Do you want this, can we close the quasi-judicial?  I move we close this quasi-judicial public hearing.  All in favor say aye.@


All voted in favor and the motion carried.


Chairman Moyer: AIs there any discussion?@


Commissioner Hawkins: AI would like to propose or make a motion that the vested rights be approved as presented with the stipulation that we just talked about on the pedestals as indicated by the ordinance.  You know, I think the Board looks at public health, safety and welfare.  I think those areas where that was required in the flood plain has been addressed by the mobile units in posting the signs.  Certainly there traffic with the additional road has been addressed.  The EMS vehicles has been addressed with your updated map.  And you have worked out an agreement with your neighbor for a compatible farm use noise and over spray.  The public=s concern for sewer and water will be dealt with independently with the Health Department.  We don=t have to set any requirements on that so I think that they=ve met all the requirements and should be granted the vested rights.@


Chairman Moyer: AIf I may just amend that a little.  The motion will be to approve the conditional size specific development plan for a five year period pursuant to the authority given to us in the Ordinance, we can go up to five years, where in light of all the conditions, size of the development, level of investment, economic cycle, market conditions and merit and we=re finding that those be merited.  So in addition to the motion, we=d asked staff to bring back findings of fact that would cover the things Commissioner Hawkins has.@


Ms. Beeker: AAnd actually in this case, you have to adopt, you have to approve this by ordinance.  So we would need to bring an ordinance back to you for your consideration so if you could just direct staff to bring back an ordinance for final approval then we can take the intent of this motion and draft such an ordinance.@


Chairman Moyer: AI think there are only a few conditions we want.  We need trees, I think was an agreed upon condition, the road out for better access that was Ms. King=s concern which they=ve agreed to do, the signs on the post indicating which lots are possibly subject to flooding in a way they deem appropriate and that the indication of the gravel turnaround lane at the end of the two longer roads indicated by Paul Patterson would be graveled as he indicated on his map.  Was there one other Karen, another condition that you mentioned?@


Ms. Smith: AIt had to do with defining the units and I think that was probably covered in Mr. Hawkins= when he said as presented the travel trailers, recreational vehicles and park models.@


Chairman Moyer: ADo we need to put a number in there that they indicate, but that=s in the cover, in the plan?@


Ms. Beeker: AThat=s in the plan.  I had asked Mr. Veazey at the last meeting if they would be okay with putting the definitions in from our ordinance and they had said that would be fine as far as what=s allowed to go in there.@


Chairman Moyer: ADoes the motion made by Commissioner Hawkins as adjusted satisfactory to the various parties?@


Someone (possibly Mr. Henderson) uttered: AYes sir, it is.@


Chairman Moyer: AAll right.  We have a motion on the floor that we adopt an ordinance of findings and conclusion of law and finding of fact in accordance with our discussion.  Any further discussion or questions on what=s in the motion?  All in favor of that motion say aye.  Opposed?  Al right, it passes unanimously.  We=ll bring back an ordinance consistent with what we said tonight for our next meeting.  Do the parties get a copy of that before the meeting?@


Ms. Beeker: AIt is typical to do that if it=s OK with the Board.@


Chairman Moyer: AWe=ll try to get you a copy before the meeting so if there=s any questions you can work them out with Angie before we get to the meeting.@


Ms. Smith: AThe next meeting will be March 20th.@


Ms. Beeker: AIt meets our timeframe for April 4th, doesn=t it?  I=m sorry, April 1st.@


Chairman Moyer: AWould April 1st be satisfactory?@  (Someone, possibly Mr. Veazey, uttered:  AThat=ll be fine.@) That=ll give staff time, April 1st would be better and give us a chance to get it to you, make sure there=s no issues or problems and everything=s satisfactory with the wording and then we=ll consider it at our meeting on April 1st.  If there=s no questions, it may just be on the consent agenda.  It=ll depend upon whether any of the Commissioners want to take a look at it.@


PUBLIC HEARING-to consider Financing Documents to Finance Improvements to Flat Rock Middle School, Rugby Middle School, and Hendersonville Middle School

Commissioner Ward made a motion to go into this public hearing.  All voted in favor and the motion carried. 


Ms. Beeker stated this was the first of two public hearings to consider financing documents for proposed financings for middle schools improvement.  This public hearing is to consider financing improvements to all three middle schools, Rugby, Flat Rock and Hendersonville Middle School with the security interest to only be taken at this point in Rugby Middle School.  She reminded the Board at the last meeting, the Board awarded the financing to Branch Banking and Trust Company for nine point one million for a term of fifteen years for a rate of five point five nine percent.  Included in the agenda packet were the draft financing documents as they stand right now.  Ms. Beeker only received some those late Thursday and she had not had a chance to finish going through them and sending her comments to the bank. 


Two resolutions were also presented to the Board for its consideration.  The resolutions approve the financing and approve the documents with the authority been given to the Chairman to approve changes.  Since Ms. Beeker had not finished reviewing the financing documents, she recommended the Board just continue this public hearing until March the 20th.


Public Input

No one had signed up to speak during this public hearing.


Chairman Moyer made a motion to continue this public hearing until March 20 to consider the financing documents in final form at 11:00 am.


All voted in favor and the motion carried.


Commissioner Ward made a motion to go out of this public hearing.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.


PUBLIC HEARING-to consider Financing Documents for QZAB Bonds to Finance Improvements to Hendersonville Middle School

Commissioner Ward made a motion to go into this public hearing.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.


Ms. Beeker stated this public hearing was also to consider financing documents for a financing using a QZAB bond.  She further explained a QZAB bond is a special program for qualified zone academies which means no interest will be paid.  Hendersonville Middle School qualifies as a qualified zone academy.  The amount would be for  three million dollars for a term of thirteen years.  Ms. Beeker explained since no interest would be paid that three million dollars principal, debt service payments would actually go into a sinking fund that=s going to draw interest because it=s a balloon payment at the end.  As a result, the actual amount paid would be approximately two point three million dollars.  So not only was the method saving the interest but would also result in a saving on the principal.  Payments then to that fund would be a hundred sixty four thousand three hundred and sixty-three dollars per year with a guaranteed investment rate of five point four percent that BB&T bid.    Ms. Beeker advised there still remained work to be done to complete the financing documents.  Therefore she requested that the Board continue this public hearing to the 20th at eleven so that the final documents could be brought forward for the Board=s consideration.


Chairman Moyer made a motion to continue this hearing until eleven o=clock on March 20th to consider the final financing documents for the QZAB bonds to finance improvements at Hendersonville Middle School.


All voted in favor and the motion carried. 


Commissioner Ward made a motion to go out of the public hearing.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.


PUBLIC HEARING-on Proposed Amendments to the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance

Commissioner Ward made a motion to go into this public hearing on the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.


Ms. Smith explained that this hearing was on a set of three proposed amendments to the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance.  The amendments have resulted from on-going work of the County Planning Board to resolve some interpretation and also to take a look at some other issues that have arisen since the new subdivision ordinance was adopted in 1999.  These amendments were favorably recommended by the County Planning Board on September 14th, 2002.  Ms. Smith gave a brief summary of each of the amendments for the record. 


Amendment 1 involved modifications to reduce confusion about the term driveways and how they=re treated in the ordinance and to provide standards for a new category of private roads called limited local roads that serve up to three lots.  Proposed amendment 1 also clarified language related to road and right of way access; added minimum standards for one-way roads; clarified standards for private roads and commercial and industrial subdivisions; added a vertical clearance standard for private roads; and gave staff the ability to approve alternate turnaround designs for subdivisions in which they have approval authority. 


Amendment 2 was designed to clarify which road standards, road name approval and right of way access, are applicable to the minor subdivisions that have three or fewer lots and what the applicable standards are.   The amendment clarified that roads in minor subdivisions with fewer than four lots do not have to be constructed prior to final plat approval.  Ms. Smith noted  some wording changes that were made.


Amendment 3 clarified the standards that relate to bridges.  It required submission of an engineer certification that a bridge has been constructed according to the plan submitted to the Planning Board before the County signs the final plat or releases an improvement guarantee and that it also meets the requirements for NCDOT approval of bridge plans for bridges on private roads. 


In accordance with state law and the County Subdivision Ordinance notices of this hearing were in the February 25th 2002 and March 4th 2002 editions of the Times-News.   Notices of the hearing were also sent to area land development professionals, surveyors, engineers, landscapers, architectures and the like. 


Chairman Moyer: AQuestions for Karen?  This is obviously a subject we got into great depth a while back and asked the Planning Board to reconsider some of the previous recommendations that they made and this is what they came forth with.@


No one had signed up to speak during this public hearing but some individuals in the audience addressed the Board



William Patterson, 129 Ashwood Rd.-Mr. Patterson stated he is a professional land surveyor.  He expressed concern about the centerline radiuses for roads in the subdivisions and the requirements for cut and fill and slopes.


Stacy Rhodes, Route 2, Box 186-N, Hendersonville, NC  28792-Mr. Rhodes  stated he too is a professional land surveyor.  He expressed concern about the cut and fill and slope requirements as well as the centerline radiuses.


A.J. Ball, Route 6, Box 276-Mr. Ball had written a letter to the Board expressing his concern about the requirements for centerline radiuses and cut and fill and slopes.  He wanted his letter entered for the record. 


Commissioner Ward made the motion to go out of this public hearing.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.


There was much discussion among the Board about the concerns raised by the land surveyors and Mr. Ball. 


Chairman Moyer made a motion that the Board approve these proposed amendments to this Subdivision Ordinance and direct the Planning Board to study and make a recommendation to the Commissioners for further amendment with respect to site distance on vertical curves, centerline radius, and cut and fill slope with respect to collector, local and limited local roads, all three of those categories for each of the three items.  All voted in favor and the motion carried. 



Commissioner Hawkins reminded the Board that the County and the City of Hendersonville entered into a memorandum of understanding with the City of Hendersonville being responsible for constructing the Oklawaha Trail.  On page four of the memorandum of understanding, parameters for funding were stated that the City agreed to advance the entire cost of the project based on the budget that was attached for a cost of approximately a hundred eight thousand dollars for the trail.  Chairman Moyer had heard estimated costs for the trail might be as much as three to four hundred thousand dollars and that concerned him.  He pointed out to the Board that a term of the memorandum of understanding stated that  Aif at anytime during the design or implementation of the project, it is determined that the cost of the project will exceed the attached budget by more than ten percent, the City has the right to terminate the project and any and all of its obligations to construct the project under this memorandum.@  Chairman Moyer recommended that the Board correspond with the City of Hendersonville and find out if in fact these costs will exceed the ten percent and inquire as to what the City=s course of action will be, whether it will terminate the project or to fund it.  He further noted the agreement stated that the County has no funding obligation for the trail aside from that portion that goes through Jackson Park.  It would behoove the Board to find out what the City intends to do on the project.

The Board was in agreement for the Chairman to send a letter to the City asking them what their plan for the project is. 



Chairman Moyer advised the Board that legal staff had prepared a draft letter to the State as requested by the Board at its last meeting about the regulations for such an event.  He had discussion with Mr. Myron and suggested to him an alternate site in Henderson County which might be a better site for the event.  Chairman Moyer had directed the County Manager to try to set up with Mr. Myron a meeting to include him, Commissioner Messer and the County Manager to discuss the other proposed sites and find out if there was anything further the County could do to work out a suitable site for the event. 


Mr. Nicholson had talked with Mr. Myron about such a meeting but Mr. Myron was not ready to commit to such a meeting at this time. 


Commissioner Hawkins expressed concern and disappointment that the County was attempting to accommodate Mr. Myron by seeking an alternative site for the bike bash. 


Commissioner Ward thought it was in the best interest of the County to try to accommodate the event in Henderson County for economic development sake and he thought it was a good idea to seek an alternate site in Henderson County.  However, Commissioner Ward stated in his opinion the original proposed site in Etowah was a bad site for the event.


Commissioner Gordon stated it was important not to just focus on the revenues such an event would bring but also to promote activities of interest to the younger generation and such events promoted a well-rounded community.


Commissioner Messer stated that he was not opposed to such events that would accommodate motorcycle fans and that the Board should provide a window of opportunity to accommodate such events by suggesting alternative sites in Henderson County. 


Chairman Moyer advised the Board that he would keep them apprised of that offer and Mr. Myron=s decision. 



Chairman Moyer informed the Board that at the NACo Legislative Conference, he attended a meeting with the Congressional staff twice.   Projects from Western North Carolina were presented on which Federal help was needed.  Henderson County projects presented were the sewer project, Medicaid funding and reimbursements and the stormwater issue. 


Commissioner Messer stated the theme this year was homeland security.  Awareness of what=s happening around you was noted as a key factor for homeland security in light of the terrorists attacks in September 2001.  Bio-terrorism was another possible tactic terrorists might attempt to use next.  Henderson County was well ahead of other local governments in being prepared for bi-terrorism. 


Mr. Nicholson had attended a session on the Hippa program.  Hippa is a federal unfunded mandate that has been passed along to states, local governments and private business.  The program started out being the health insurance portability accountability act but regulations on privacy were incorporated which will impact human services= delivery of information on patients and clients.



Commissioner Hawkins reminded the Board that Blue Cross Blue Shield will be going from a non-profit to a for profit type operation.  The Board had received a public announcement from the State Attorney General seeking qualified candidates to serve on a regional board to administer the new for-profit organization of Blue Cross Blue Shield.  Jim Maher is very highly qualified and had volunteered to spend the time that would be needed for this position.  Mr. Maher serves on the Hospital Board of Directors and has a very extensive background in health care both at the profit and non-profit level.  Commissioner Hawkins asked the Board to consider recommending Mr. Maher to fill that position. 


It was the consensus of the Board for the Chairman to send a letter to the other municipalities in the County and the Western North Carolina Caucus urging them to also support Mr. Maher for that position. 



Mr. Nicholson reminded the Board it had to hold a public hearing to close out the CDBG program for the Habitat for Humanities project in the Grove Hills Subdivision.  Commissioner Hawkins made a motion to hold the public hearing on April the 1st at seven o=clock. 


All voted in favor and the motion carried.


Mr. Nicholson reminded the Board of a need to set a quasi-judicial public hearing on a special use permit from Blue Ridge Community College for the proposed construction of a baseball field complex.  Commissioner Hawkins made a motion to conduct that on April 1st, 2002 at seven o=clock.


All voted in favor and the motion carried.


Commissioner Ward asked the Board to direct Dr. Sink to advise how the maintenance of the baseball field complex would be funded. 


Ms. Beeker advised the Board to send this matter to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for consideration of the special use permit due to the conflict of interest.  Commissioner Ward had stated that would influence his decision of whether or not to approve the special-use permit or not.  Under the Zoning Ordinance, it is not a condition for issuing a special-use permit. 


Commissioner Gordon made a motion to refer this matter to the Zoning Board of Adjustment because of this potential conflict per the County Attorney=s recommendation and also for the Board to adopt a resolution per the County Attorney=s recommendation to transfer this matter to the Zoning Board of Adjustment to avoid a potential conflict with budgetary concerns.


There was no further discussion on the motion.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.


It was the consensus of the Board for Chairman Moyer to send a letter to Dr. Sink inviting him to come to a future Commissioners= meeting to address the concerns raised by the Board about the funding of maintenance for the proposed baseball field complex.


Commissioner Hawkins withdrew his motion to hold the quasi-judicial public hearing on the special-use permit for Blue Ridge Community College for the proposed baseball field complex. 


Mr. Nicholson advised the Board it needed to set a quasi-judicial public hearing for Oleta Falls for a variance from the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance and recommended it be set for Wednesday, March 20th at eleven o=clock before noon.


Chairman Moyer stated it was necessary for him to request to be recused from the quasi-judicial public hearing: 


Chairman Moyer: AI think we have another issue with respect to this because if you=ll remember the Oleta Falls this was a matter that came to us, we had a special meeting to deal with the performance bond to do certain, so this Board has acted on a matter that has a very specific bearing on this one and at least I feel I have a real conflict with this matter.  I don=t know that you were here Grady, I think that was when you were out, we called a special meeting and we.@


Commissioner Ward: ANo I was the one that wasn=t here.  I assumed it was at ten and it was at nine and I came in an hour late.@


Mr. Nicholson: AI think there were only three here.@


Chairman Moyer: AThey were going to have the opening of Oleta Falls and they needed and maybe there was only three.@


Commissioner Messer: AThere couldn=t have been three because I was at the beach that Friday, you had it on Friday at three o=clock or something.@


Chairman Moyer: AWell I guess the issue was there were discussions, there were things in the Board, there=s things in the minutes, are we still able to hear this matter?@


Ms. Beeker: AWell, the first and foremost question is can you be unbiased with regards to this request and that=s subject to a question that each of you would need to answer.  With regard to anything that was presented at the prior meeting that you had, the minutes from that meeting could be admissible and considered as part of the proceeding.  If this were court, that would except any documents that would be exceptions to the hearsay rule, if you want to put it technically, so the minutes would be admissible for your consideration to the extent that they contain information that=s relevant to the request they would be making for a variance.  With regard to a conflict though, I believe with respect to each of you, you=d need to be able to answer the question that you can remain impartial and unbiased with regard to this request, that you have not already made up your mind and if you cannot then you would need to ask the Board to recuse you from the consideration.  Then if there are more than two of you that feel that way, I would have to come back to you with some sort of recommendation because off the top of my head I=m not sure what I would recommend that you do in that scenario.@


Chairman Moyer: AWell, I think the problem from my standpoint the Board and I voted with the Board as taken specific action that has a direct bearing on this that=s in conflict with this.@


Ms. Beeker: AAnd I would advise that other Board members may not be in agreement and so would advise that those thoughts and considerations with all due respect, and I don=t mean for this to sound disrespectful, to be kept you know to yourself so that any other.@


Chairman Moyer: ABut if I ask to recuse myself.@


Ms. Beeker: AAll you need to say is you cannot remain impartial and unbiased and I would then advise the Board to accept that and vote to recuse you from it without you having to elaborate.@


Chairman Moyer: AWell that=s where I=ll be.@


Ms. Beeker: AWith regards to everyone else, if you=ve had any personal contact with the developer or site visits, then at the hearing you need to reveal that and then you would still need to be able to say you could reveal you know what your contacts were, if you visited it and make it a part of the hearing and then that would okay but you would still need to say that you can remain impartial and unbiased.@


Commissioner Hawkins: AAngie, do you think that this a situation that would fall into the category to refer it to the Zoning Board of Adjustment or does that not really fit from just from a personal?@


Ms Beeker: AI wish it were that simple.  This is a subdivision matter and there is not a like provision in the Subdivision Ordinance.@


Commissioner Hawkins: AWell, let=s see if we had two Commissioners that wasn=t here, whatever occurred there wouldn=t, I can=t remember, I remember the meeting but I can=t remember what happened.@


Ms. Beeker: AIf you can honestly say that you=re not going to be influenced by what happened but by your prior decision, then there=s no problem.@


Commissioner Gordon: AQuite honestly, it wouldn=t have occurred to me that it could have been an issue.  I had even forgotten about that.@


Commissioner Ward: AThe only thing I can remember I requested a meeting talking to Mr. Ball and I was late and missed the meeting so.@


Ms. Beeker: AIt sounds like we have a majority that you don=t need to elaborate unless you just want to, it sounds like that we do have a majority of Commissioners that would feel that they can be impartial and unbiased so it should be OK to go ahead and proceed with setting it.@


Commissioner Hawkins: AI make a motion then that we set the hearing for March 20th at eleven a.m. for Oleta Falls variance from the Subdivision Ordinances.@


Commissioner Gordon: AMay I ask is that, we started the discussion with wondering if we needed to set a special meeting for that and the other zoning request separate and apart for a regular meeting in order to keep the meeting from being a marathon like we got into the last time.@


Commissioner Hawkins: AI would withdraw that if you want to make a separate date for it.@


Commissioner Hawkins: AThen I just amend my motion to set the hearing for October Ridge at two o=clock on the 21st of March.@


All voted in favor and the motion carried.


Mr. Nicholson advised the Board that the Chamber of Commerce had extended an invitation for a meeting with the Board of Directors of the Chamber and the County Commissioners and staff.  The dates as proposed by the Chamber for such a meeting were not accommodating to the Commissioners= calendars.  Mr. Nicholson would request other possible dates from Mr. Williford and advise the Board of those dates at the next Commissioner=s meeting. 


Mr. Nicholson had provided the Board with a proposed schedule for the pre-budget workshops and the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite. The Board set a workshop for 5:00 pm on March 28th for the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite and budget; April 11th at four o=clock; two o=clock on May the 2nd; and a facilities workshop for April 4th at four o=clock.



Commissioner Hawkins made a motion to adjourn the meeting.  All voted in favor and the motion carried.  The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
















Elizabeth W. Corn, Clerk to the Board