STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF HENDERSON MAY 2, 2002
The Henderson County Board of Commissioners met for a special called meeting at 3:00 p.m. in the Commissioners' Conference Room of the Henderson County Office Building at 100 North King Street, Hendersonville, North Carolina.
Those present were: Chairman Bill Moyer, Vice‑Chairman Marilyn Gordon, Commissioner Don Ward, Commissioner Charlie Messer, County Attorney Angela S. Beeker, Planning Director Karen C. Smith, Deputy Clerk to the Board Amy R. Brantley, and Public Information Officer Chris S. Coulson.
Absent was: Commissioner Grady Hawkins
CALL TO ORDER/WELCOME
Chairman Moyer called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance. The purpose of this meeting was a workshop on the proposed new zoning ordinance.
REVIEW OF ARTICLE III, USE DISTRICTS
Karen Smith presented a chart which outlined the progress to date on comparison between the uses in each district and the NAICS definitions. If the Board has any questions on these uses they can be addressed at the next meeting.
LI - Limited Industrial
Ms. Smith informed the Board that Limited Industrial has been designed to take the place of the current Light Industrial District. The district does not allow any residential uses. It does have quite a few retail and service uses. This is almost a transition district from a situation such as Highway Commercial to a Heavy Industrial District. The uses have been reviewed by the Planning Board, and they made few changes to the text presented by Benchmark. Ms. Smith reviewed briefly the following uses:
C Crematories - These would be allowed in this district.
C Management of Companies and Enterprises - This would be allowed in the district.
C Yard Sales - These would be allowed, but there would be a limitation on the number of yard sales in a 12 month period, and how long they would be.
C Churches - Churches would not be allowed in this district.
There was much additional discussion concerning restrictions on yard sales. Commissioner Ward stated that he did not wish to restrict anyone who made their living in this way. The concern was differentiating between ongoing yard sales and true commercial uses. The Board requested Ms. Smith review this problem and bring some suggestions back to the Board.
Karen Smith stated that review is still needed concerning how the Board wishes to allow junkyards in districts. The word Ajunkyard@ will not appear in the ordinance right now because under NAICS, they fall under different categories such as scrap and recyclable materials, sale of used automotive parts, etc. Currently, Light Industrial and General Industrial have the standards that were developed during the Open Use project, and applied to junkyards when the former junkyard ordinance was repealed.
Another use that is being studied for some districts concerns the break point for shopping centers and malls currently set at 3,500 square feet. At this size they may be classified by right or with standards while something larger may have requirements. Ms. Smith stated that that number does not seem feasible for a shopping center, and she will be looking at a recommendation on that use.
Commissioner Messer confirmed that current junkyards will be grandfathered in when the new districts come into play. Given this, he questioned how the county will get cleaned up, even when the new ordinance is in place. Angela Beeker spoke to the Board=s ability to set the rules for a provision concerning non-conforming uses. She spoke also about an amortization period for a use that is not in conformance with the new rules. This would allow the Board for example, to give a use a five year period to come into compliance with the ordinance. Ms. Beeker answered several questions from the Board regarding restrictions and regulations on junkyards.
GI - General Industrial
General Industrial will take the place of the current General Industrial District, also know as the Heavy Industrial District. The district does not allow any residential uses. There are a lot of retail and service uses. This district is for manufacturing and heavy manufacturing. Ms. Smith explained that most of the uses that would be allowed in the LI District would also be allowed in the GI District.
Angela Beeker encouraged the Board to look at the number of commercial uses that are allowed in this district, if the intent of the GI District is to preserve land for economic development. There is also a Corridor Overlay District that could be used to achieve the same purpose along large corridors. Chairman Moyer agreed that this was a very important point, because past experience has shown that these areas can quickly become non-industrial. To achieve this, he stated that many of the uses would have to be pared down.
Chairman Moyer requested that staff take a look at reducing the uses somewhat. He requested that they not take uses off the list, but develop a separate chart of uses that would be best suited for general industry. Ms. Beeker questioned whether it would be appropriate to ask the Chamber of Commerce for their input. It was the consensus of the Board to have staff consult with the Chamber. There was additional discussion on how to allow services in the GI Districts for employees of those large firms.
Karen Smith reminded the Board that in the Highway Business District, the Board had requested that AGo-Cart, Motorcycle and Similar Small Vehicle Tracks (Non-Racing)@ not be considered a special use. Commissioner Gordon stated that this might have some requirements, but not be a special use. Chairman Moyer stated that the general rule the Board was working on was that everything be permitted by ordinance, with very few special uses or conditional uses.
MU - Rural Mixed Use
Ms. Smith reminded the Board that staff had taken the first stab at this district. The recommendation staff had returned provided for no minimum lot size, and a mix of uses such as residential, recreation, business services and retail. There is very little in the way of industrial uses. Manufacturing uses that would be allowed would be more related to agriculture than anything else.
Chairman Moyer stated that his vision of this district would apply in areas that are primarily residential, but may need some nearby services. Areas would develop as a residential district, but the designation would contain enough complimentary uses to allow areas to become communities. This district would be applied in areas that want more than open use zoning, but less than a traditional residential zoning. There was additional discussion on the application of this district, and its use in preventing people from designing their own districts.
The yard sale provision in this district would be allowed by right, but no more than two per year at the same location. Commissioner Gordon clarified that different organizations could use the same property more than twice per year. Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to go back to the current rule which allows for no more than four times per year, but not more than a total of twelve days in one calendar year.
Karen Smith reminded the Board that at a previous meeting there had been a question about allowing car washes in this district. Commissioner Ward stated that small businesses need that type of flexibility, and that car washes should be allowed.
Ms. Smith questioned whether the Board was comfortable with how certain uses are allowed in the Mixed Use district. Almost everything in this district is allowed by right with standards, however those standards have not yet been developed. Commissioner Ward noted that ARepair and Maintenance Services - Commercial and Industrial Equipment@ is not allowed in MU. He requested that this be allowed as a conditional use. Following discussion, it was decided to allow this use with some restrictions on size.
Commissioner Messer questioned the requirements in MU for buffering, parking, signs and open space. He stated that questions on signs will arise, and will be crucial because of the mix of residential and business uses. Ms. Beeker reminded the Board of the differences between on-premise versus off-premise signs currently in place.
C - Conservation District
This district was designed to deal with land that may be under ownership such as the National Forest, State Forest, other areas that may be under conservation easements, or areas where development is not anticipated. The district would allow just a few uses that would be compatible with the use of the property or the designation of the property.
Chairman Moyer questioned the use of this district other than in the parks, since the national and state forests are already restricted by federal or state regulations. There was discussion concerning how and why this district would be applied to private lands. It was the consensus of the Board to recommend removing this district, and vote at such time as all commissioners are present.
Ms. Smith clarified with the Board the procedures for dealing with pre-existing districts.
1. The Table of Uses will not apply.
2. Staff is preparing a draft to remove shading, NAICS and plus signs since everything will be kept the same.
3. Staff is rearranging the special uses and conditional uses to be in keeping with the new districts.
4. Staff is adding which Board will review permits.
5. The Board requested accessory residences be removed, and that has been done except where they were already allowed.
Parking and signs have standards that currently apply to both sets of districts. Concerning parking, Ms. Smith felt that the new text was an improvement over the old as it is more comprehensive. She asked for the Board=s input on landscaping, buffering, parking and loading, signs, and open space. Commissioner Gordon stated she felt it would be hard to give input until determining the special requirements. This had been covered when the Board reviewed Article V, though not in detail. There followed much discussion on how regulations would apply to the old districts.
Chairman Moyer clarified that as proposed, the Open Use District can not be used in the future. Staff confirmed this was the case unless the Board wished to make a change to the proposal. It was the consensus of the Board to allow this district to be used in future rezonings. Staff will look at what revisions need to be made to allow this district.
Ms. Smith reminded the Board that when this draft was put together, the Medical Institutional Care Development (MICD) Special Use permit, Residential Open Space Special Use, Planned Unit Developments and the RA, had been condensed down to a PUD permit for mixed uses. It is now her understanding that the Board does not wish to allow the mixed PUDs. However, to keep the current ordinance the way it is, they will need to add back the MICD and the RA requirements as special use permits. Ms. Beeker explained why staff had made this proposal. It was the consensus of the Board to leave the RA option out, and allow something close to it.
Ms. Beeker stated that currently, Medical Institutional Care Developments would be allowed in R-30 as a special use. When this was put together, the general rule of having more than one principal use allowed on a piece of property eliminated the need to have the MICD, and it was changed to a Mixed-Use PUD. Therefore, if it is stricken and Mixed-Use PUDs are not allowed, there would be no ability to have a MICD in R-30. It was the consensus of the Board to allow the comparable ability to get what would be allowed in a MICD.
Ms. Beeker stated that there was a section in Article V or VI that described how to measure a setback. There was a change between the old and new districts in how the setback is measured. In the new ordinance, setbacks will be measured from the edge of the travelway. In the old districts setbacks are measured from the center line of the travelway. Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to change this back to way it was for the old districts.
Karen Smith stated that the Surface Water and Waterfront Residential Districts had been kept separate. At one point they had been combined, but they have been separated again. Chairman Moyer questioned whether that would allow the removal of a district. Ms. Smith stated that if they are moved into one district, yes.
Watershed Protection Overlay District - This essentially takes the Watershed Ordinance and rolls it into the zoning ordinance. It is the same set of regulations, with the same watershed designations.
Corridor Overlay - This is intended to allow special standards for particular areas, such as Industrial Districts. It would require a map amendment, like any other zoning map change. It does not apply any standards to any particular area now, nor any limitations.
Airport Overlay - Early on in the meetings that were held with focus groups, representatives from the Asheville Regional Airport spoke about the possibility of having standards in areas around airports regarding height of buildings and some uses. The Planning Board spent some time on the uses that would be allowed, with a goal to limit large groupings of people in one place. Examples of types of uses that would be restricted would be hotels, residences, dense residential developments, group homes, hospitals, day cares, hospitals, etc. Commissioner Gordon questioned the size of the area for which this would be appropriate. Ms. Smith answered that that information would be in the Airport Master Plan, though the decision to apply it would fall to the Board. Ms. Beeker stated that currently the wording is too vague, and allows staff too much discretion in the decision to grant permits. It was the consensus of the Board to revisit whether or not to put such an overlay in the ordinance. Commissioner Ward questioned whether the City of Asheville or Buncombe County had an Airport Overlay District. Karen Smith will check on the content in these ordinances.
Ms. Smith asked the Board what they would like to cover at their next meeting. Chairman Moyer stated that he would like to move into signage and the conditions and how they related, since that might have a bearing on other sections. Commissioner Ward stated that he would like to see Article III with Article IV integrated into it. Staff will work on this, but there are some standards in Article IV that have not been written yet.
Ms. Beeker introduced a possibility of assigning levels to the uses, and have standards with which everyone is familiar. It was the consensus of the Board to give this a try.
Chairman Moyer made the motion for the Board 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)(3) To consult with an attorney employed or retained by the public body in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the public body, which privilege is hereby acknowledged. To consult with an attorney employed or retained by the public body in order to consider and give instructions to the attorney with respect to the following claim:
Henderson County and Cane Creek Water and Sewer District v.
Asheville-Buncombe-Henderson Water Authority; Buncombe County
and City of Asheville [Henderson Co. File No. 01-CVS-344]
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner Messer made the motion to adjourn the meeting at 5:00 p.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Amy R. Brantley, Deputy Clerk to the Board William L. Moyer, Chairman