STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF HENDERSON JULY 24, 2002
The Henderson County Board of Commissioners met for a regularly scheduled meeting at 9:00 a.m. in the Commissioners' Conference Room of the Henderson County Office Building.
Those present were: Chairman Bill Moyer, Vice-Chair Marilyn Gordon, Commissioner Grady Hawkins, Commissioner Don Ward, Commissioner Charlie Messer, County Manager David E. Nicholson, County Attorney Angela S. Beeker, and Clerk to the Board Elizabeth W. Corn.
Also present were: Planning Director Karen C. Smith, Finance Director J. Carey McLelland, Assistant to the County Manager Selena Coffey, Planners Nippy Page and Josh Freeman, Property Addressing Technician Curtis Griffin, and Deputy Clerk to the Board/Volunteer Coordinator Amy Brantley.
Absent was Public Information Officer Chris S. Coulson (on maternity leave).
CALL TO ORDER/WELCOME
Chairman Moyer called the meeting to order and welcomed all in attendance.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Hawkins led the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag.
County Manager David Nicholson gave the invocation.
DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA
Chairman Moyer requested the following additions to the agenda:
1. Under Staff Reports - AD-3" - Property Addressing update.
2. Under Staff Reports - AD-4" - Renaming of the National Guard Armory.
3. Under Important Dates - add continuation of Quasi-Judicial Proceeding for Statutory Vested Rights for 11:00 a.m. today (Harry L. Schenimann) to set a site visit (continued from Monday, July 22, 2002.
Chairman Moyer made the motion to approve the revised agenda. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner Gordon asked to pull one set of minutes for some corrections, July 10, 2002.
Chairman Moyer made the motion to approve the consent agenda, all but the July 10 minutes. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
The CONSENT AGENDA consisted of the following:
Minutes were presented for the Board=s review and approval of the following meetings:
April 17, 2002, regular meeting
June 25, 2002, special called meeting
June 27, 2002, special called meeting
July 8, 2002, regular meeting
July 11, 2002, special called meeting
Tax Collector=s Report
Terry Lyda, Henderson County Tax Collector, had provided the Board with the Tax Collector=s Report dated July 19, 2002 for their review and information.
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:
Minutes for the closed sessions held on February 20, 2002, March 11, 2002, March 20, 2002, and April 1, 2002 as presented and revised during the closed session of July 8, 2002. The Clerk is authorized to correct any typographical errors discovered subsequent to the July 8, 2002 closed session.
Notification of Vacancies
The Board was notified of the following vacancies which will appear for nomination at the next meeting:
1. Nursing/Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee - 1 vac.
2. Zoning Board of Adjustment, Hendersonville - 2 vac.
3. Juvenile Crime Prevention Council - 1 vac.
Chairman Moyer reminded the Board of the following vacancies and opened the floor to nominations:
1. Equalization and Review - 1 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
2. Juvenile Crime Prevention Council - 2 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
3. Nursing/Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee - 2 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
4. Zoning Board of Adjustment, Hendersonville City - 1 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
5. Zoning Board of Adjustment, Fletcher - 1 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
6. Mountain Area Workforce Development Board - 1 vac.
There were no nominations at this time so this item was rolled to the next meeting.
COMPREHENSIVE COUNTY PLAN (CCP) UPDATE
Chairman Moyer explained that at the last meeting action was deferred on this item due to the fact that Mr. Martin could not be present at that time.
Mr. Martin explained that he was in the midst of having a new grandbaby during the last meeting and thanked the Board for their patience.
Selena Coffey distributed copies of a bound AGrowth Management Policy@. Copies of a AGrowth Management Strategy@ were also distributed for the Boards review and information.
Mr. Dennie Martin, Martin-McGill Associates, provided the Board of Commissioners with an update on the progress of the Comprehensive County Plan. The Update focused primarily on the proposed Growth Management Strategy materials, which were just distributed to the Board. The Growth Management Strategy is a key element of the Comprehensive County Plan, therefore it was explained in detail.
Mr. Martin explained that this project began last fall. At that time a project outline and schedule were approved. The outline consisted of four principle components:
1. Review of the priorities and objectives of the project with the County Commission and with the members of the Advisory Committee, staff, and chief elected officials of the municipalities in Henderson County.
2. Gathering of the data and the assumptions for the project.
3. Development of Growth Management Policy.
4. 2020 Comprehensive Plan
He stated that a draft of the first three phases has been completed. They are currently working on the plan elements. In the original schedule the project would have been finished in August 2002. They are currently behind that schedule and it is stretching out for a number of reasons now with an estimated completion date of Thanksgiving or shortly after, dependent upon NCDOT completing the Thoroughfare Plan.
Mr. Martin complemented the Planning Staff and Selena Coffey for the help and contributions they have made to the project.
Mr. Martin stated that he considers the AGrowth Management Policy@ a statement of policy by the County related to managing growth. It is a general policy statement but it also forms the basis of the framework for all the plan elements to follow. He spoke of a concern for balance in the Comprehensive Plan and the need to balance change and growth with issues like protecting the quality of life and community value, heritage, and the environment in Henderson County.
It was the consensus of the Board to hold a workshop on this issue to discuss policy issues. Several items were brought up that stressed the need for a workshop.
The Board planned to set a workshop under AImportant Dates@ later in this meeting.
The purpose of the AGrowth Management Policy@:
1. Provides a policy framework for the 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
2. Reflects the diversity of the county=s needs and the wide range of factors which influence and direct growth.
3. Recognizes three Growth Paths:
C Henderson Urban Corridor
C Rural Community Areas
C Rural/Agriculture Regions
There was discussion about the municipal land use plans and the transportation plan. The transportation plan affects all of this. Water and sewer is important but transportation is essential. There was some discussion of policy issues and it was the Board=s consensus to hold a workshop to discuss policy issues. Several items were brought up that stressed the need for a workshop.
2002 SCATTERED SITE HOUSING GRANT
The Board had received documents associated with Henderson County=s 2002 Community Development Scattered Site Housing Grant. Henderson County has been awarded $400,000 to go toward owner-occupied rehabilitation programs. Mr. Nicholson explained that these documents had been prepared by our consultants, Benchmark. These are required policies that are associated only with this program. Many of these documents were familiar to the Board since they were required by our previous CDBG grants. The documents included the following:
1. Procurement Policy
2. Code of Conduct
3. Fair Housing
4. Complaint Procedure
5. Citizen Participation Plan
6. Section 3 Plan
7. Equal Employment
8. Anti-displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan
Mr. Nicholson informed the Board that Lee Smith was present from Benchmark to answer any questions the Board might have.
The plan is to take pre-applications during the month of August. There will be a screening process to make sure that persons are eligible for the program. There will be a selection committee made up of the City Managers (with the exception of Flat Rock because they did not wish to participate) and Mr. Nicholson. Habitat and Home Aid have also been invited to participate.
Following some discussion, Commissioner Hawkins made the motion to approve the presented policies and procedures for this program. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
US 25 SOUTH CORRIDOR STUDY
At the July 8, 2002 meeting, the Board of Commissioners had asked that the US 25 South Corridor Study be placed on the July 24, 2002 meeting agenda for discussion. The Planning Board and Planning Department presented a draft of the Study to the Board of Commissioners on January 7, 2002. Following the presentation, the Board of Commissioners accepted the Study and approved it for distribution as a draft to the Local Government Committee for Cooperative Action (LGCCA) and the Planning Boards of the City of Hendersonville and the Village of Flat Rock.
The Planning Department reviewed the Study with the LGCCA, the County=s Transportation Advisory Committee and a subcommittee of the City of Hendersonville Planning Board. Village of Flat Rock Councilwoman Judy Boleman, who served on the US 25 South Corridor Study Committee presented the study to representatives of the Village of Flat Rock. Written endorsement about the study from the Village of Flat Rock and the City of Hendersonville were also presented for review.
The subcommittee priorities (not recommendations) were:
1. Protect the aesthetics of the corridor.
2. Protect the historical and mixed use character of the northern portion of the study area, north of Erkwood and Shepherd.
3. Protect the historically residential character of the southern portion of the study area, south of Erkwood and Shepherd down to the Village of Flat Rock.
4. Enhance the health and viability of commercial properties in the northern portion of the study area.
5. Protect the properties values throughout the study area.
6. Reduce some of the nonconforming uses with regard to the zoning ordinance. About 43% of the acreage in the northern portion of the study area is in commercial land use; however, only 21% is actually zoned for commercial uses. That area has historically been under various commercial uses for many years. There are a series of mixed use, commercial, and residential uses that are currently nonconforming with the current R-15 and R-40 zoning. In the southern portion of the study area R-40 zoning is in conflict with the lot sizes in that area with quite a few being much smaller than that and were much smaller prior to the application of R-40 zoning.
7. Work to maintain U.S. 25 South as a two lane highway, preserve and enhance the current traffic capacity of U.S. 25 South, particularly addressing the issue of the excessive number of curb cuts along the corridor and also dealing with the design of several intersections, particularly the Erkwood/Shepherd intersection with U.S. 25.
8. Improve traffic safety conditions along the corridor again adjusting curb cuts and intersection design.
9. Improve pedestrian and cyclist access throughout the corridor.
10. Resolve the problems of failing septic systems.
11. Discourage the use of satellite annexations by the municipalities, particularly with regard to land use issues.
12. Encourage the adjustment of the 1997 annexation agreement boundary.
Josh Freeman explained that there are a whole series of recommendations intended to address those priorities.
The Study Report recommended the following:
Land Use Recommendations:
1. Increase options for landowners along U.S. 25 in the northern portion of the study area, particularly those that will have access to public sewer, by changing some zoning districts to a single district that allows a mix of single and multi-family residential and small-scale commercial uses similar to those that already exist there.
2. Restrict the development of new industrial and commercial uses and maintain the lower and medium density of residential areas in the southern portion of the study area.
3. Improve standards for signage, buffering, landscaping building scale, etc. in the Zoning Ordinance to better protect the character of the corridor. Amendments to specific zoning districts as well as a corridor overlay district are proposed.
4. Development of a comprehensive access management program in cooperation with NCDOT to address curb cuts along the U.S. 25 South corridor. The study proposed that the County consider establishing a corridor overlay district in the Zoning Ordinance to implement the access management program.
5. Realignment of the intersections of U.S. 25 South with Shepherd Street and Erkwood Drive and improvements to the intersections of Brooklyn Avenues and U.S. 25 South and Balsam Street and U.S. 25 South. Installation of turn lanes along U.S. 25 South, where appropriate. Provision of sidewalks and bicycle lanes along U.S. 25 South within the study area.
6. Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to require more specific analysis, during the permitting process, of certain land use regarding traffic generation and their impact on the capacity of U.S. 25 South.
7. Installation of a planted, elevated median on U.S. 25 South to provide separation between northbound and southbound traffic. Such median would also restrict certain turning movements along the highway, except that turn lanes would be provided at appropriate locations.
Jurisdictional Matters Recommendations:
8. Support of the extension of sewer lines to serve failing septic systems.
9. Discouragement of land-use oriented satellite annexation in the study area by municipalities.
10. Adjustment of the Annexation Boundary between the City of Hendersonville and the Village of Flat Rock such that it runs east along Shepherd Street to the intersection of U.S. 176 and Shepherd Street.
Chairman Moyer spoke briefly about the transportation recommendations stating that a presentation was made to the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) and the recommendation of the TAC was that these be referred to the Thoroughfare Planning Group and the Comprehensive County Planning Group for their consideration in working into the Plan. He explained that one did not fit that recommendation (#6. Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to require more specific analysis, during the permitting process, of certain land use regarding traffic generation and their impact on the capacity of U.S. 25 South), stating that he felt the Planning Board would have to review that item.
Following discussion, it was suggested the Chairman write a letter to the Mayor of Hendersonville and the Mayor of Flat Rock to find out what their plans are regarding annexations.
Direction to Staff
Chairman Moyer asked staff to pull everything together and come back to the Board with the remaining area, based on the above recommendations, and what staff would recommend the Board implement. It might be as simple as taking R-40 to R-15 in this small area. Chairman Moyer felt strongly that the satellite annexations issue had to be part of the study. Some of the issues may be dealt with as part of the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite. This Board will debate the issues and try to come up with a recommendation which they can take back to the LGCCA.
UPDATE ON PENDING ISSUES
Legislative Update - Angela Beeker
Angela Beeker informed the Board that the Article 44 Sales Tax Legislation failed the second reading in the House. That was originally part of what we had been calling Senate Bill #1292 and early last week it was removed from 1292 and put into a separate Bill, House Bill #1633 because there was an understanding among the powers that be that if they would do that it would pass. The Sales Tax portion only was voted down at the second reading before the House. A motion was made to reconsider that however. If a motion to reconsider were to pass then it would be as if that vote voting it down had never occurred and it would be eligible for reconsideration by the House. The motion to reconsider has not been voted on yet. As of right now the Sales Tax is dead.
There has been no Bill passed to limit the authority of the Governor to withhold local funds. There were several introduced. There have been none that have been ratified.
According to this morning=s News and Observer the House did fold out a preliminary budget yesterday and has sent it to various subcommittees. The recommendations that came out now have a $288,000 hole in them as a result of the Sales Tax measure failing.
Ms. Beeker reminded the Board that Senate Bill #1292 had other revenue measures in it dealing with income tax and other taxes and revenues of the State, like the elimination of the marriage tax penalty and things like that and some corporate tax loopholes. The House budget as presented assumes that is going to pass but it hasn=t yet. If it doesn=t pass then you=re looking at a $455,000,000 shortfall in the budget. According to the News and Observer the Senate has said that they are going home. Until the House acts on some sort of budget the Senate is going home. If they go home without making any changes to the budget then of course it would be up to the Governor to balance the budget.
Ms. Beeker attended the County Attorney=s Conference last week and Jim Blackburn pointed out to the County Attorneys that there were two Bills introduced to allow the School Budgets more flexibility. They were both aimed at when you could reduce an appropriation to the school after your budget has passed. While Mr. Blackburn doesn=t think either of those is going to pass, he is forecasting that there is going to be a push on behalf of the Boards of Education to attempt to get local taxing authority.
David Nicholson stated that he is hearing everything, back and forth, about the Sales Tax issue. He felt there is a real push to get a reconsideration of that vote. The Sales Tax failed by two votes.
Commissioner Ward stated that our whole budget is based on this sales tax. He felt that it might be prudent to freeze personnel and capital expenses until we find out something on the sales tax.
Chairman Moyer asked Mr. Nicholson to explain where we stand with respect to employees etc. Mr. Nicholson stated that he is going through the current positions that are vacant and releasing some of those. We have begun the process of advertising for some of those positions. He has released some capital items and on some he has told the Department Heads not to plan to spend for them but rather to be patient and see what happens. Mr. Nicholson stated that he had not overreacted but overall had taken a wait and see attitude.
INFORMAL PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Eva Ritchey - Ms. Ritchey took issue with the fact that this portion of the meeting (Informal Public Comments) is not televised. She stated that the Board is spending the public=s money and doing the public=s business and the public has a right to hear public comment.
She also addressed appointments that the Board makes. She brought it to the Board=s attention that we are a diverse community and that when you have a Planning Board that doesn=t have a single woman on it, you do not have a Planning Board that reflects this community.
She understood that it was the Republican Caucus who kept the Sales Tax from passing. She stated she would like to ask Trudi Walend why the Republicans in Raleigh did not support that tax knowing that we needed it in this year. She expressed that she felt the Board, as a fully Republican Board, should ask your representatives why they didn=t support that tax.
Ms. Ritchey then addressed a statement from the Times-News concerning the Scheniman hearing. She spoke about the problem with Janice Moore at Howard Gap Road and stated that the process needed fixed regarding zoning matters.
2. Dick Baird - Mr. Baird agreed with Ms. Ritchey about the public comment part of the meeting needing to be televised. He recommended the Board of Commissioners reconsider that issue.
He stated that he was encouraged by the performance of the Board of Commissioners, stating that he thought they were doing a fine job.
He spoke to the issue of fund balance and asked the Board to consider bringing the County=s fund balance down to 8% (from approx. 9%) and to spend anything above the 8% on our debt.
Mr. Baird then addressed the issue of the failed Sales Tax and stated that it was an unnecessary tax for our county.
He briefly addressed infrastructure issues stating that the county must maintain control over where water lines go because it has such an effect on how the county develops. He quoted Commissioner Gordon about the need to find the proper balance between standard of living and quality of life. He stated the key to that is to have a good infrastructure plan.
Chairman Moyer stated that the Board will consider the issue of taping Informal Public Comments on a future agenda since that issue was raised today.
9-11 Commemoration - David Nicholson
A group had been put together to recommend a plan for a September 11 commemoration for our county.
Mr. Nicholson is a member of the group along with the Hendersonville City Manager, Chris Carter, and they recommend that we continue with our tradition of remembrance and commitment in lieu of a patriotic celebration. The proposed the following:
On the morning of September 11, 2002, they propose that the citizens of Henderson County line up on both sides of Main Street in Hendersonville. At the time of the attack, World Trade Center=s Towers, the Pentagon and the crash of United 93, the bell would be rung at the Historic Courthouse. During this time they suggest that a fire truck, police car and a military vehicle drive the length of Main Street in specific remembrance of those who lost their lives in performing these services.
During the period of the attacks, approximately 8:00 - 10:00 a.m. they would recruit volunteers to read the names of the victims of the attacks as well as the members of the military who have lost their lives defending our freedom since September 11, 2001 on a stage located at the Historic Courthouse. Mr. Nicholson stated that this number is just short of 3,000 names. LGCCA also suggested that bell ringing take place throughout the county, not just at the historic courthouse.
Although the above would be the main event, they also suggested that a community-wide message board be created to allow persons to share their thoughts and remembrances. They encourage the flying of the American Flag at homes and businesses and encourage individuals to wear Flag lapel pins or ribbons to note the day. It was also suggested that persons be requested to turn on their headlights while driving to show their support. They encouraged other groups or communities to plan events to observe the day, as they feel appropriate.
The cost for this event should be minimal. They suggested the units of government to jointly purchase 2,000 small American Flags to be distributed along Main Street that morning at a cost of $800. Henderson County would supply the stage and sound system at the Historic Courthouse. The Kiwanis Club has offered their assistance in distributing the flags that morning and helping coordinate the day=s activities.
Mr. Nicholson has also talked with Dr. Burnham about the schools participating in the ceremony.
Chairman Moyer asked for the Board=s endorsement of this so that work could move forward on the efforts. It was the unanimous sense of the Board to proceed.
Resolutions/Proclamations - David Nicholson
Mr. Nicholson had researched the issue of the adopting of resolutions/proclamations by elected boards. Although he was unable to locate any specific written policies, many North Carolina local governments have procedures that they follow. These procedures cover the broad range from no outside resolutions to >we put any and all= resolutions on the agenda and let them decide. Based on this research and the Board=s previous discussions, he suggested the following recommendation:
It shall be the policy of the Henderson County Board of Commissioners to only consider resolutions or proclamations that directly effect the operations of county government. However, the Board may consider other resolutions or proclamations submitted and endorsed by one of its members.
The Clerk had prepared a table listing the 52 resolutions and proclamations the Board had adopted in the year 2001 for the Board=s reference.
After considering the above list, Mr. Nicholson suggested that there are times that the Board may want to consider resolutions honoring individuals/groups or noting special community events. As a standard procedure, he suggested that all resolutions requested by persons or groups in the future be placed in the Commissioners= mailboxes. Staff would only place resolutions/proclamations that are outside of normal agenda items on the agenda if requested by a Commissioner. Also, a member of the public may appear during Public Input and ask for the Board=s support for their cause.
Much discussion followed. It was the consensus of the Board to continue to allow the Chairman to use his own judgement concerning whether or not resolutions/proclamations would go on the agenda. The Board then would have the opportunity to adopt or deny adoption. People also have the option of offering a resolution or proclamation during Informal Public Comments.
Angela Beeker offered that most of the resolutions/proclamations that the Board is asked to adopt are really statements of policy. She stated that the Board is free not to adopt those statements.
Chairman Moyer called a brief technical recess stating the Board would go into public hearings following the recess.
CONTINUATION OF QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDING - Harry Schenimann
This proceeding had been continued until today at this time. The Board needed to set a site visit to go out and view the site off Howard Gap Road, the subject of the Schenimann application.
Following discussion, Chairman Moyer made the motion to continue this quasi-judicial proceeding to August 21 at 1:00 p.m. for the purpose of a site visit, to be convened at the site. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - HOME PROGRAM - Amendment to 2002 Asheville Regional Housing Consortium Action Plan Habitat for Humanity: Redirection of HOME Funds
Commissioner Ward made the motion to go into public hearing on this item. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Selena Coffey reminded the Board that Habitat for Humanity had requested the redirection of $50,000 in HOME Program funds as approved in January 2002. Because the redirection of HOME funds does constitute a major amendment to the Consortium=s one-year action plan, a public hearing is necessary.
The purpose of this public hearing is discussing an amendment to the 2002 Annual Action Plan of the Asheville Regional Housing Consortium. The amendment is necessary because Henderson County has changed the site location of an activity to be conducted with $50,000 of HOME Program funds awarded by the consortium. Henderson County Habitat for Humanity is the actual developer that will carry out the activity on behalf of Henderson County. Henderson County Habitat for Humanity originally intended to use the funds to purchase 10 vacant lots in the Village of King Creek, on which it would construct 10 owner-occupied housing units. The Village of King Creek development is located on Highway 176 in Hendersonville. Now Habitat plans to use the funds for the acquisition of a 32-acre tract of vacant land on Stepp Road adjacent to Clear Creek Elementary School in Henderson County. Habitat intends to construct 50 owner-occupied housing units for low and moderate income families. Construction of single-family, owner-occupied housing units is an eligible use of HOME program funds.
Malcolm McCormick, Habitat, came forward and presented the actual requests and was available to answer any questions. He informed the Board that this would have no adverse effect on the King Creek Development.
Sherman Fearing, Consortium Staff, was also present to answer any questions.
1. Sherman Fearing - Mr. Fearing had signed up as an attendee, not to speak.
Following discussion, Commissioner Hawkins made the motion to approve the redirection of the Home Funds as requested and presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner Ward made the motion for the Board to go out of public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - CDBG HOUSING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
Habitat for Humanity: Highlander Woods
Commissioner Ward made the motion for the Board to go into public hearing for this issue. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Selena Coffey reminded the Board that this public hearing was held to receive public input on a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application proposed by Habitat for Humanity for the Highlander Woods development.
In addition to Malcolm McCormick from Habitat for Humanity, Kate O=Hara from Land-of-Sky Regional Council was present to answer any questions.
Commissioner Hawkins had asked a question about the location of this development in conjunction with Clear Creek School. Mr. McCormick showed the location on the map. The development backs up to the school property. The Board asked that the schools be notified of the next public hearing so they can comment if they wish.
Malcolm McCormick requested the Board=s approval for the submission of a CDBG Grant in the amount of $250,000 which is the maximum they can apply for, at the rate of $10,000 per house for 25 houses. This grant will be for infrastructure, installing water lines, streets, power lines, etc. They expect to meet with the Department of Commerce on August 8th to discuss this project. They need the Board=s approval to be able to proceed. The applicant would be Henderson County, similar to the way the Grove Hills Development took place.
Kate O=Hara reminded the Board that two years ago the Board had agreed to file an application with the North Carolina Department of Community Assistance for the Grove Hills Project in Flat Rock. Because Habitat for Humanity does not have the ability to file directly for funding from the Department, the application has to go through the County Commissioners. The Commissioners would follow the same procedures that were followed with the Grove Hills Project. Habitat had asked Land-of-Sky to prepare the application but that would have to be an agreement between Land-of-Sky and the County. The funding for that and the planning costs for that would come out of the grant money as part of the planning line item. This is the first of two public hearings that are required to be held. This hearing is simply to receive public input and for the Board to agree to proceed with the filing of the application. Before the application is sent to DCA a second public hearing is required.
Sherman Fearing explained that part of the process of review for this particular project at Highlander Woods is that they have to conduct an environmental review assessment (HUD speak for a major review). It is not an environmental impact statement or phase I environmental review. It is outside of that. It=s an assessment that they have to conduct as a responsible entity for the Consortium. Part of that review process is solicitation of comments from various agencies that are responsible for overseeing natural environmental policy acts. They do contact local Boards of Education, County Boards of Education, and City Boards of Education to get comments from them on the impact of a particular project.
There was none.
Commissioner Ward made the motion for the Board to go out of public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
It was the consensus of the Board to support the project as presented and wish them well.
PUBLIC HEARING - on Road Names
Commissioner Ward made the motion for the Board to go into this public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Rocky Hyder stated that the purpose of the public hearing was to receive comments on the following road names:
Old Name Proposed Name
Samuley St. E. Walker Street Ext.
Sugarloaf Ridge Rd Ivy Hill Rd
Jewel Dr Leucothe Cove Rd
Axiom Way Pats Pl
New Road Names (Initial Names)
Orchard Valley Dr
Trail Creek Rd
Chairman Moyer stated that the Board members had a copy of a letter from Lloyd and Dovie Blythe with respect to Walker Street. The document expressed that the Blythes were in agreement with the renaming of the road to E. Walker Street Ext. but wished to remained #310 instead of #58. The Board asked Mr. Hyder to look into this and see if she could be accommodated. Chairman Moyer submitted a copy of the letter to become part of the record of the meeting, copy attached.
1. Dean Davis - Mr. Davis was not present when his name was called.
Rocky Hyder stated that Mr. Davis had come into their office. Staff was required to change the road name leading to his property because it had three dwellings. He wasn=t particularly happy about it. The road in question was not on the list for today=s public hearing.
Commissioner Ward asked Mr. Hyder to follow-up with Mr. Davis. Mr. Hyder was also asked to contact the Blythes about E. Walker Street Ext.
Commissioner Gordon made the motion to approve the road names as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner Ward made the motion for the Board to go out of public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PROPERTY ADDRESSING APPEAL - Quasi-Judicial Proceeding
Commissioner Gordon made the motion for the Board to go into Quasi-Judicial Proceeding. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Pursuant to Section 142-17 of the Henderson County Code, the property owners of proposed Horizon View Drive appealed the naming of their private drive.
Chairman Moyer - AAlright we are in a quasi-judicial proceeding which is a - very much like a court proceeding to determine the rights of individuals. Only those parties that show that they have a direct - will be directly affected by this matter, have specific right in it will be approved as parties by the Board. Only those parties that are recognized by the Board as having an interest in this outcome will be able to participate in the hearing, ask any questions, give any testimony and it will be treated somewhat like a judicial proceeding. The uh staff is certainly recognized as a party and who will be speaking on behalf of the staff.@
Rocky Hyder - AI will be speaking on behalf of the staff and will also - may refer to Mr. Griffin at some point.@
Chairman Moyer - AAnd the applicants are certainly recognized as a party and who will be appearing on behalf of the applicants? Would you come up and state your name and address please.@
Joanna Walker - AMy name is Joanna Walker.@
Chairman Moyer - AAnd your address?@
Lyn Sutton - AI=m Lyn Sutton. I=m one of the three parties involved. The third party is a Mr. Muir and he=s out of the country at this time and he has asked us to speak on his behalf as well.@
Chairman Moyer - AOkay, anyone have any problem with any of these people? Is there anyone else in the attendance that wishes to be a party to this proceeding? I would ask that you step over to the Clerk and be sworn in. Everybody has to be sworn in. All testimony is under oath. Curtis, are you gonna speak also, possibly?@
Curtis Griffin - APossibly, sir.@
Chairman Moyer - AAlright, go ahead then and get sworn in.@
Clerk to the Board - AI need each of you to place your left hand on the Bible or at least touch the Bible with your left hand, raise your right hand - do you swear or affirm that the testimony you shall give to the Board of County Commissioners shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.@
In unison - AI do@
Chairman Moyer - AAlright if you=ll all be seated. There is a procedure that we will follow. It=s a little cumbersome for you and it=s also cumbersome for us but we=ll do the best we can to move through it in an efficient manner. We=ll have a presentation of the case by the staff and in this case Mr. Hyder and then there=ll be a chance for questions and then we=ll have the applicant put on their evidence and there=ll be a chance for questions of all the parties. We don=t have that many parties so it won=t be a problem and then we=ll move through that as quickly as we can. Right Mrs. Beeker?@
Angela Beeker - AYes sir.@
Chairman Moyer - AAlright, Mr. Hyder would you present the overall case?@
Rocky Hyder - AAs part of the county-wide addressing project staff identified this particular private drive as having three dwelling upon it and therefore according to section 142-7, paragraph E of the Henderson County Code and Addressing Ordinance the road must be named. I will submit as Exhibit A.@
Angela Beeker - AAt this time if you would just give just a general overview.@
Chairman Moyer - AJust an overview. I=ll get you back for evidence, OK?@
Angela Beeker - AYou=ll get a chance to do your evidence.@
David Nicholson - AIt=s confusing for everybody.@
Rocky Hyder - AAfter the naming of said road the appellants contacted our property addressing office and expressed their wishes to appeal under section 142-17 of the Henderson County Code and that=s the point we=re at to this point.@
Chairman Moyer - AOK, thank you. Any questions for Mr. Hyder at this time?@
Commissioner Hawkins - ARocky is the - uh - is the uh - I guess I=m trying to understand the - the complaint here. Is it the name of the road or the number - the number that=s been assigned to the physical addresses or both?@
Rocky Hyder - ABased on the correspondence and and contact we=ve had with the appellants they would prefer to maintain an address on Ray Hill Road. They - they don=t want this particular road named nor do they want to be addressed off of this particular - the new road name. They prefer to maintain an address on Ray Hill Road which is the closest intersecting road with their private drive.@
Commissioner Hawkins - ASo - so is this a road naming or a property addressing - I guess is what I=m getting at cause I=m a little confused as to which one we=re dealing with.@
Rocky Hyder - AUh basically from staff=s prospective, Commissioner Hawkins, this is very clearly a matter of section 142-7(e) of the County Code that says if three or more dwellings are on a private drive, that must be named and that=s basically what - the point we=re at.@
Commissioner Hawkins - ASo the road naming is the primary thing.@
Rocky Hyder - AYes sir.@
Angela Beeker - AI think@
Chairman Moyer - AThis is not an uncommon issue having faced it myself. Uh where you have a private drive, and in my case on Rutledge that goes back and a couple of houses back there and all of a sudden they want to say you=re no longer Rutledge Drive. You are now whatever we name this road, even though your entrance is on Rutledge Drive and anybody coming down there would be looking for that and not this other drive so it is - that is the problem.@
Angela Beeker - AAnd I was just going to say that the petitioners will also be able to tell you what exactly they are objecting to.@
Chairman Moyer - AWould you happen to have a map or diagram that shows this at all Rocky?@
Rocky Hyder - AYes sir.@
Chairman Moyer - AI think that=s part of it.@
Rocky Hyder - AThat was what we were gonna put in as exhibit A but we can certainly put that up if you want to earlier.@
Chairman Moyer - AWhy don=t you put it up now, you can introduce it when we get to your evidence.@
Rocky Hyder - AMr. Griffin has it.@
Mr. Griffin put the map up for viewing.
Chairman Moyer - ASo the Board can see.@
Rocky Hyder - AHorizon View Drive is the proposed naming of the private drive in question today and it intersects with Ray Hill Road. If you=re coming from Brannon Road it=s probably about one and one half tenths of a mile on your left.@
Chairman Moyer - AWould you show the location of the three homes that require this to be named?@
Rocky Hyder - AThe first one is what we have indicated as 133, the second one would be 165, and the third one would be 273 at the end of Horizon View Drive.@
Chairman Moyer - AIf you=ll let that up there, I think that=ll help the applicant when they@
Rocky Hyder - AOK@
Chairman Moyer - Ato orient the Board with their matter. Thank you. We=ll now proceed with the admission of evidence by the applicant. Which one will speak or - we prefer one at a time.@
Lyn Sutton - ATeam effort@
Chairman Moyer - ATeam effort@
Lyn Sutton - AUh Mrs. Walker would like to uh just present some pictures to you just that you can put things into prospective, whether you want to admit these as evidence or not is - is not important.@
Chairman Moyer - AWould you go back and give your name and address again as part of your testimony.@
Lyn Sutton - AOh again.@
Chairman Moyer - AAs part of your testimony so that we have it.@
Joanna Walker - AMy name is Joanna Walker. My address is 61 Ray Hill Road, Horse Shoe.@
Chairman Moyer - AOK@
Lyn Sutton - AAnd I=m Lyn Sutton from 59 Ray Hill Road.@
Chairman Moyer - AMrs. Walker you have a uh - an exhibit you=d like to hand out to the Board for consideration? You need to give the staff and all parties - so you need to give Mr. Hyder one and give it to - particularly to the Clerk and to the Commissioners to the extent that you have it. Mr. Hyder?@
Lyn Sutton - AHe needs one and then - theres - I=ve got five other ones so you can pass it@
Angela Beeker - AAre they all the same?@
Lyn Sutton - AYeah, all the same.@
Angela Beeker - AOh OK.@
Lyn Sutton - AJust uh copies.@
Chairman Moyer - AWell why don=t we share and then be sure to give the Clerk one and we=ll mark this Exhibit One, we=ll use the numbers?@
Angela Beeker - AOK. Ms. Corn if you=d put Exhibit One on yours.@
Several people were talking as they passed around copies and shared them.
Lyn Sutton - AHad we known it was going to be this formal we would have been uh better prepared with some sort of - something impressive.@
Chairman Moyer - ADon=t worry, we=ll get through it. Could you or Mrs. Walker explain this - what you handed us as Exhibit Number One please.@
Lyn Sutton - AYes. If you look at the picture, this is the entrance to our easement uh picture taken from the opposite side of Ray Hill Road looking down the easement. And if you=ll look at where the pick-up truck is making a left turn, that=s - making a turn into the first driveway for the first property and if you continue on through the easement you=ll see a little star there and that=s the end of the easement and the beginning of the other two properties. So all of that is readily recognizable from Ray Hill Road. The problem that we have is that the - we believe that the Ordinance was constructed primarily to improve emergency vehicle responses to the various properties. And from my experience I believe that we set up the potential for actually increasing the emergency vehicle response times. Now I need to give you a little perspective of where I=m coming from - my background so that you can understand how my opinions were developed. I worked for the largest fire department south of Washington, D.C. for almost 24 years. I personally responded to thousands of calls and uh at the end of my career I ended up being in charge of research and development for the Dade County Fire Department. It was not my responsibility to analyze response times but about ten years ago I got drawn into a project, kind of as a side issue, with the expansion of the department. We had to plan for seventeen new fire stations in a period of about five years. So my task was to make sure that equipment and the proper equipment was ready for these fire stations when they came online. Some cohorts of mine were in the same division were tasked with the responsibility of identifying the specific pieces of property where we were going to build these fire stations and to kind of project the needs in the future. And it was very difficult to do this based upon the information that our computer people and management information folks were giving to us. A lot of this stuff would come out in chart form, graph form and it was really very difficult to interpret so since we have this large project and had to pinpoint things we asked for some of the gurus to come up with a better way to understand this data and the entire county where we responded which was about one thousand nine hundred and twenty some miles square, which is a pretty big county, was all broken up into small response grids, little squares and every time we would receive a call we would give it a grid number so that we could retrieve the data later on and kinda anticipate and measure what our performance was. Well this project brought us to a new dimension in it because in the short terms there were a lot of blank numbers - or blank grids with no numbers in them in the short term so we asked for a five year study and not only a five year study but a five year moving average study covering a period of ten years starting from say 85 to 90 and 86 to 91 and 87 to 92, etc. And to put the various response times in these grids and to put the response numbers, the number of incidents that were in these areas and then to color code them for us so that we could develop a picture of this and what we got was you take a - imagine a fire station as being a point then you would think that everything as you traveled out away from it would be pretty even. We color coded it. Up to three minute response were pink, four to six were blue, seven to nine were yellow, ten and above were red. So now that we have a graphic representation of the way we respond to different places and what we saw was kind surprising because it was not an even - like radiating circles coming out from the fire station. There were various colors blended in in places. Now a lot of them could be explained by geographical obstructions. You would see maybe blue in a pink zone, you=d see yellow in a blue zone. And whenever you really got in there and looked at it closely you could see seven and eights surrounded by fives so - well why - why is it there? It=s easy to explain when there=s expressways, when there=s drainage canals/flood control canals, railroads, lakes and in this case around here mountains so those were easy to explain but still there were a lot of splotches that we couldn=t explain so we asked them to pull the reports, the individual incident reports that the data was based upon and when we did we started pulling these reports and the common denominator that showed up was they were individually named, very small streets out of the normal numbering sequence and the parallel is identical to what you=ve done to us on Ray Hill Road. So this is just a one particular incident and we=re not trying to attack the ordinance. We just want a variance for this particular little piece of land and we want to be logically numbered into that sequence.@
Chairman Moyer - AThank you. Mrs. Walker do you have anything you=d like to add?@
Joanna Walker - ANot really other than we had talked about possibly having a sign right at the entrance from Ray Hill to our little lane that would give the numbers on it - of the residents - the three residences that are there. We=ve already numbered - we already have numbers and we have numbers on our homes as requested several years ago. We did - made that change and by the way we were before Mr. Sutton moved next door to us uh we went through the long process of being asked to name that lane. We were not - we were - we had - nobody is left except for us, my husband and I and my husband has terminal cancer so the house - the property is in my name now which is why I=m here and uh I was the only one that didn=t agree with the name that they had picked as a matter of fact but I went with the majority - that name is not even close to what you=ve now shoved on us uh after being - after going through and having letters going back and forth between all the neighbors and trying to pick a name for the road if we thought we had to and then - now we have all new neighbors there. So it=s been a bit of a mess for us. We have a great deal of correspondence to our home too and it would be a real hardship on me to have to change - to change the address when I=m not just a normal household, I=ve got a lot going on and it would be a real hardship for me as a widow to have to go through all this process. I=m going through enough as it is. This is just sorta the straw that broke the camel=s back kind of thing. I would respectfully hope that you will listen to us on this and I have no objection - we=ll even pay for the sign if you want us to - that would number the roads and say - and point an arrow - with the sign pointing up our lane.@
Lyn Sutton - AThe problem once you get to the easement on Ray Hill Road is not the problem. The problem is not getting - or getting to the houses on the easement. The problem is finding the beginning of the easement on Ray Hill Road. Ray Hill Road is numbered from zero to six hundred, going from south to north. You have even numbers on the east, odd numbers on the west and it=s a nice common sequence, no matter whether you=re coming from the north or whether you=re coming from the south, you follow the numbers till they get smaller or till they get bigger and there you are and there=s your easement. You have signs that show you where the houses are, bingo, you=re there. If you do not have the house with - or have this easement within that normal numbering sequence then you set up delays both - or the potential for delays in the 9-1-1 center and in the responding units because they do not automatically clue in to this natural, well known, geographic landmark.@
Chairman Moyer - AThank you. Any questions from.@
Joanna Walker - AIt=s very easy for people to find our home with the directions we give them and it=s gonna be not so easy.@
Lyn Sutton - AActually it=s easier to find my house than sometimes I like but uh I had a three year old daughter who picked up the phone and started playing with it and I had hey put that down and within ten minutes I had a police officer at my door. She had dialed 9-1-1 and they used like a caller ID system and it told them where it was and he was - he was right there so@
Commissioner Hawkins - AOn - on your picture that you gave us the portion where the pick-up truck is turning in - is there another house just to the left of that or is that the first house you=d see, the one on?@
Lyn Sutton - AThat truck is turning into uh my driveway and my house would be to the left.@
Joanna Walker - AMy house is the one in the picture.@
Commissioner Hawkins - ASo from Ray Hill Road you - you look directly onto both of those houses.@
Commissioner Gordon - AWell is the property though there - if we go back to the plat, was there another piece of property between your property and Ray Hill Road?@
Joanna Walker - AThere=s a piece of property where the fence is which their entrance is on Ray Hill Road.@
Lyn Sutton - ARight@
Joanna Walker - ANot on our - not on our lane at all.@
Commissioner Gordon - ASo you don=t front on Ray Hill at all?@
Lyn Sutton - ANo, just the easement does and we do not.@
Commissioner Hawkins - ASo where=s the third house?@
Joanna Walker - AThe third house is you go past my house and up - up the - in the trees.@
Commissioner Hawkins - ASo you couldn=t see it from Ray Hill Road?@
Joanna Walker - ANo you can=t@
Lyn Sutton - ANo@
Commissioner Hawkins - AOK, that=s what I wanted to clarify, thank you.@
Lyn Sutton - ANo, you cannot.@
Chairman Moyer - AAlright any other?@
Lyn Sutton - AOur - our contention of course is that if we have proper signage there then - then it=s no problem. The problem is finding the easement in a logical numbered sequence.@
Chairman Moyer - AMr. Hyder do you have any questions for uh - not testimony yet. Do you have any questions for uh@
Rocky Hyder - AI do have a few.@
Chairman Moyer - AMs. Walker or Mr. Sutton?@
Rocky Hyder - AJust for the record Mr. Sutton, how many dwellings are accessed from the easement as you call it?@
Lyn Sutton - AThree.@
Joanna Walker - AThree@
Rocky Hyder - AOK and would you mind giving the Board directions to your house from Boylston Highway?@
Lyn Sutton - AFrom where?@
Rocky Hyder - ABoylston Highway, Highway 280"
Lyn Sutton - ABoylston Highway?@
Joanna Walker - AThat=s 280.@
Lyn Sutton - AOh, that=s 280. See that=s yet another name. I was thinking of Boylston Road.@
Joanna Walker - AYes.@
Lyn Sutton - AFrom uh 280 you would have to?@
Joanna Walker - A2.3 miles@
Lyn Sutton - AI was just gonna - get to Ray Hill Road, go south 2.3 miles and look for the numbers in sequence - that=s all and there it is.@
Rocky Hyder - ASo it=s your testimony today that there are numbers posted along Ray Hill Road to your house?@
Joanna Walker - AOn our mailboxes@
Lyn Sutton - AJust on the mailboxes. There are not numbers posted yet because we don=t know what numbers to post yet.@
Rocky Hyder - AThat=s all - all the questions I have.@
Lyn Sutton - ADefinitely not. If you can tell us what numbers to post we=ll be more than happy to post em@
Chairman Moyer - AThank you very much. You may have - you may have a seat now. Uh for our County Attorney in scanning the ordinance do we have a variance procedure in the ordinance?@
Angela Beeker - AYou do not.@
Chairman Moyer - AI did not think we did. Alright.@
Angela Beeker - AYou - you would have to find some basis why the action that was taken by the property address coordinator or by this Board previously was incorrect under the terms of your ordinance.@
Chairman Moyer - AAnd would you again cite for the Board the section of the ordinance pursuant to which this road was named?@
Angela Beeker - AWell there - I believe I - I=ve heard two issues - the naming of the road but also the numbering so I think they=re objecting to, correct me if I=m wrong, both the naming of the road and assigning you a new address. Or is it just the address, just assigning you an address?@
Lyn Sutton - AAssigning a name to that little easement.@
Angela Beeker - ARight so it=s a naming issue and you don=t want your number changed either, right?@
Lyn Sutton - AWe want a Ray Hill Road address so we can be@
Angela Beeker - AOK@
Lyn Sutton - AThat would be up to the@
Several people were talking, hard to make out.
Chairman Moyer - AI think it=s a naming issue.@
Commissioner Gordon - AWell uh@
Angela Beeker - AI think it=s both@
Commissioner Gordon - AI think uh - I think perhaps@
Chairman Moyer - AThey=re willing to take any number you want on Ray Hill as long as - as long as they are identified as Ray Hill Road.@
Commissioner Gordon - ABut no - I=m sorry but the way I was understanding it - it might be different for each individual but Mrs. Walker was very clear that she was concerned about having a change of address that she would have to process.@
Chairman Moyer - AYes, she did that.@
Commissioner Gordon - AAnd so a change of numbering would necessitate that just as much as a change of street names so I think we need to bear that in mind.@
Chairman Moyer - AUm huh, that=s correct.@
Commissioner Gordon - AOK@
Angela Beeker - AUm I believe you were citing section 142-7 as the uh - paragraph E as the authority for the naming. Um the numbering falls under that really also.@
Commissioner Gordon - AWhat was that number again?@
Angela Beeker - AIt=s 142-7 is the relevant section, subparagraph E is particular to the naming um but also lumped in that section is the numbering also - 142-7 says street naming but it=s both.@
Chairman Moyer - AMrs. Walker would you come back up a minute. I want to get clarification of this issue just to be sure. Do you understand we=re talking about two issues - the naming of and the numbering.@
Joanna Walker - AThe naming is of - of the road is more important to us than the number. If we have to settle for - we would like to have - to retain. I would like to retain the 61 Ray Hill Road if possible but if that isn=t possible then we would still like to be on Ray Hill Road. That would make a minor thing and even if it=s a slightly different number the post office will probably find us for some time.@
Chairman Moyer - AAlright@
Joanna Walker - ABefore because it is a major job for me with all the business that I conduct.@
Chairman Moyer - ASo the number=s a concern but the name is the larger@
Joanna Walker - Athe name is the biggest concern and we object strongly to the name that was picked for us when we were given - you know we were first asked to choose a name and then - and we don=t like the name, it doesn=t apply to our area at all.@
Chairman Moyer - AOK thank you.@
Joanna Walker - AThe name is the most important but we=d like - if we can have both that would - that would really please us. If we can=t we would still like to have Ray Hill Road.@
Commissioner Gordon - AOK@
Chairman Moyer - AOK thank you. Mr. Hyder. Do you have another question before we get@
Commissioner Gordon - AUh. I want to ask Rocky a question.@
Chairman Moyer - AOK, would you prevent - present your evidence Mr. Hyder?@
Rocky Hyder - ASure. In accordance with 142-7(e) which we have discussed.@
Angela Beeker - ACall this exhibit number - you are A@
Rocky Hyder - AExhibit A, I=ve got it listed as Exhibit A.@
Chairman Moyer - AWell then we have a one and an A.@
Angela Beeker - AThat=s OK.@
Chairman Moyer - AAlright.@
Commissioner Hawkins - ALawyers can keep up with that.@
Chairman Moyer - AYou wouldn=t if you had a big case I can assure you.@
Rocky Hyder - AThe ordinance says that properties with three or more house shall be named and uh we=re demonstrating with Exhibit A as well the testimony of the appellants that there are three dwellings on this particular easement, private drive, whatever you wish to call it; therefore, it falls within the realm of that standard.@
Chairman Moyer - AAnd the three being properties 133, 165, and 273?@
Rocky Hyder - AThat=s correct. The same properties that the appellants have signed as part of their uh request for appeal. At this point staff would like to introduce as supporting evidence Exhibit B.@
Chairman Moyer - AYou=ll give the applicant copies of all this right?@
Distribution of Exhibit B.
Rocky Hyder - AExhibit B, item one is a photograph approaching the proposed Horizon View Drive from the north on Ray Hill Road. What we particularly want to point out here is there are no numbers at the beginning of that road. The mailbox numbers that - that were mentioned before are across the road from that particular road but there is nothing that specifically identifies that particular road serving any particular address. Picture number two of Exhibit B is the approach to Horizon - proposed Horizon View Drive from south on Ray Hill Road. Basically you will see again that is an opening to a driveway at this point but there=s no particular markings. Three is a view similar to what the appellants proposed or uh was shown to the Board - that is a view looking straight up Ray Hill or Horizon View Drive from Ray Hill and the last picture, number four would be a view of what we=re proposing as address number 133, Mr. Sutton=s driveway, from Horizon View Drive. That is not from Ray Hill Road. That is from Horizon View Drive. The purpose of this exhibit is to demonstrate that staff not only contents that we will not increase the response time to this particular property by the addressing project but we will actually improve the response time to this particular property by having a road sign at the corner there so that is clearly identified and then house numbering off of this particular road will actually improve the ability of our emergency responders to respond to a certain area. Our provision of emergency services in this county is much different than they are in some of your larger counties such as Dade County Florida and in which we have people responding from different areas. They are not always responding from the central station. Our Sheriff=s Deputies are mobile; therefore, they must either have a good knowledge of the area or have good directions to a home. So far, up to this point we have been able to depend on our emergency responders to have a good knowledge of the area but as our population approaches 100,000 people we all realize that that will not be the case in the future. Our last exhibit, staff would like to submit as supporting evidence is Exhibit C. Exhibit C is a - what is commonly referred to as a Misty Report. This is the information that would show up on the 9-1-1 screen in the event someone dialed 9-1-1 from one of the houses or locations on what is proposed to be Horizon View Drive. As we have shown before in Exhibit B, even though the houses are numbered off of this particular road there is no indication from the beginning of that road or from the area where the private easement is intersected as to what house number is where; therefore, we contend that our proposal to name this private easement is a better proposal and improves the service. Just as an example directions from Boyleston Highway or Highway 280 would be take Ray Hill Road about 2.3 miles, turn right on Horizon View, 133 is the first house on your left. That=s very clear directions that would be apparent to our dispatcher and we will be able to provide services in that manner. Uh and our last comment I would like to say that staff has already offered and certainly would be willing to work with the appellants on the naming of this particular drive, if they don=t like Horizon View Drive then we=re certainly willing to work with them on that. It became obvious to us that apparently county staff from a previous administration may have worked with these folks but we can find no record of that; therefore, we certainly would be willing to accept the responsibility and would be more than willing to waive the fee if it=s with the Board=s approval for the naming of that road since that road would not require the fee because it intersects with the public road on the initial naming so we would treat that just like it=s an initial naming if that would be the pleasure of the Board. At this point in time that=s all the supporting evidence staff has to submit.@
Chairman Moyer - AOK, you=ll get - wait - you=ll get your turn. Commissioners do you have any questions?@
Commissioner Hawkins - AI have one question Rocky because uh it seems to have come up. When the county names a road we also provide a road sign with it, do we not?@
Rocky Hyder - AThat=s correct.@
Commissioner Hawkins - ASo if it=s - if your road was named whatever there would be a sign at that driveway which makes it - would appear to me that there=d be no question then as to where the road was versus where it is now.@
Rocky Hyder - AThat=s correct in roads that intersect with state roads we do provide a sign for those particular places.@
Commissioner Hawkins - ASo they=d have the road sign.@
Rocky Hyder - AAnd in this case there would be a road sign provided.@
Angela Beeker - AMay I ask Rocky a question?@
Chairman Moyer - ACertainly@
Angela Beeker - AUm where are the mailboxes?@
Rocky Hyder - AThe mailboxes are across the road.@
Angela Beeker - ABut they=re on Ray Hill Road?@
Rocky Hyder - AFrom the drive they are on Ray Hill Road. They are across from the entrance to that private drive.@
Angela Beeker - ASo if the road is renamed they would need to move their mailboxes onto that road.@
Rocky Hyder - AThat is an issue that they have to deal with the post office on. We don=t - don=t get into that issue at all.@
Chairman Moyer - ANo - that=s - the post office will not come back to those private roads and deliver. I - we=ve been through that up and down and around. They cannot do it cause we=ve tried to move the mailboxes and they refuse to go in private roads like that and deliver so you have to leave the mailboxes out there and they have to be on the other side of the road and gives a - that gives a name out there that - so - trust me I=ve been up and down on that one.@
Commissioner Ward - AI have too.@
Chairman Moyer - AMany times and uh@
Commissioner Ward - AI=m facing it now.@
Chairman Moyer - ASo that creates some of the problem.@
Rocky Hyder - AWe=ve never contended that the property addressing project did anything in regards with the post office other than we=ve tried to coordinate those efforts. Certainly putting your house number on a post office box is not going to be acceptable according to the ordinance, as posting your address to your property, that=s two separate issues, completely separate issues.@
Angela Beeker - ABut - so your emergency responders then would not look to the mailbox, they=re gonna look for the house number.@
Rocky Hyder - AThat=s correct. They=re - the ordinance requires the posting of the parcel address and that will be either on the house itself if it=s visible from the road on which is named or at the end of the driveway, if it=s not visible from the road which is named. Uh using a post office - a lot of people get this issue confused but there is nothing to do with your mailbox that that complies with the property addressing ordinance other than the fact that we=ve tried to coordinate that with the post office so that the mail delivery is consistent.@
Commissioner Gordon - AIs - what would be the acceptable thing to do on a mailbox in a situation like that, just put a name on it or put the name and the street name as well - you know signs I=ve seen headings that do that.@
Rocky Hyder - AWhen I changed my address at my home I put the house number, the road which it was off of and the name, my last name and for a couple of weeks it was still - you know a little difficult for my deliverer to find everything that I needed but it - it worked itself out.@
Commissioner Gordon - AOK@
Chairman Moyer - ABut you still end up with a mailbox on that side of the road with a Horizon address on it even though it=s on Ray Hill Road.@
Commissioner Gordon - AYeah, I understand that@
Chairman Moyer - AThere=s no way to avoid it at least that I=ve been able to find out. Alright, Mr. Sutton you now have the right to ask Mr. Hyder any questions that you would like. This is not evidence now but you ask questions on what he has presented.@
Lyn Sutton - AOK. If your emergency responders - uh on Exhibit B- reach this point where it=s labeled number one and they saw a sign here that identified this as 596163 would it not be as easy to identify this location as it would be Horizon View Drive? I think the main - what I=m asking is if there=s a sign here that meets state standards, reflectivity, height, size, numbering style, the kind that the firefighters are used to looking for and it said 5961- 63, maybe even an arrow, would they not know to turn down this easement?@
Rocky Hyder - AThey may know to turn down the easement at that point in time but first of all our firefighters when they=re looking for road signs they normally look for names and the second point is that particular situation doesn=t have any opportunity for growth in the possible future. It doesn=t necessarily continue to identify what particular house is located down that driveway, just those particular sets of signs.@
Lyn Sutton - AI don=t see - there=s no@
Rocky Hyder - AIt will tell you that there are three houses down that drive is what it will tell you.@
Lyn Sutton - AExactly, exactly@
Rocky Hyder - AI=m looking for exact location.@
Lyn Sutton - AAnd I=ve been trying to get a - an answer about proper signage probably for the last five years but this process has been very very cumbersome and I=ve gotten different answers cause I=ve personally have wanted to put up a sign out there that makes it easy for them to find me but I=m not willing to go out and spend a couple hundred dollars if it=s gonna change and it is changed several times over the last couple of years. So uh - and I think these would be - these are good pictures, they do identify us very well; however, uh again my contention would be that finding this spot is more - on Ray Hill Road is more difficult if it=s named anything other than something in the logical numbering sequence.@
Chairman Moyer - ASir at this point you=re just to ask Mr. Hyder any questions you have.@
Lyn Sutton - AOh OK.@
Chairman Moyer - AYou=ll have a chance to make . . . comments.@
Lyn Sutton - AOK uh.@
Chairman Moyer - AAny other questions, Mr. Sutton?@
Lyn Sutton - AIt has to be in a question form huh?@
Commissioner Ward - ALike Jeopardy.@
Lyn Sutton - ANo, I don=t want to@
Chairman Moyer - AYou=ll have a chance to make a statement later.@
Lyn Sutton - AOK good.@
Chairman Moyer - AMrs. Walker, do you have any questions?@
Commissioner Ward - AI have one question, Mr. Chair if I may for Mr. Hyder. If we=re assuming we=re renaming Ray Hill Road so we=re going down where was it two miles or whatever down Ray Hill to - yeh 2.3 miles we=re assuming that will be something like 2130 or whatever the nomenclature will be so using that example we=re going on a tenth increments or what increments are we using that is standard now?@
Rocky Hyder - AOn this particular road because it didn=t have an addressing system off of the road itself, we used the distance-based addressing system which is one address every 5.285.@
Commissioner Ward - AIf we=re using that system, at the intersection of that road what would that number be - have you - I know Curtis is dying to@
Rocky Hyder - AI uh - I drove the road - their measurement is 2.3 miles, my particular odometer measured it at 2.4 miles. That would be in a distance-based equation which Ray Hill Road is not distance based@
Commissioner Ward - AYeah@
Rocky Hyder - AThat would be 2400"
Commissioner Ward - ASo we=re not gonna use distance-based on that road, it=s just a findable address?@
Rocky Hyder - AWe will be using distance-based from the intersection of Ray Hill Road and what is proposed as Horizon View Drive and 133, - let me get my map back in front - 165, and 273 are distance-based addresses.@
Commissioner Gordon - AThe uh property - well I shouldn=t - the 273, what size parcel of property is that?@
Lyn Sutton - AAbout 23 acres?@
Rocky Hyder - AI don=t have the acreage in front of me but it certainly is a large@
Lyn Sutton - AI think about 23 acres.@
Commissioner Gordon - ASo there=s certainly potential for more homes to be developed there at some point in time?@
Lyn Sutton - AI - maybe way down the road but not with the guy that=s in there now.@
Chairman Moyer - AAny other questions for Mr. Hyder. Ms. Beeker, do you have some questions?@
Angela Beeker - ANo sir@
Lyn Sutton - AActually the potential for developing that property is limited by the easement and the easement is only wide enough to - to access just into the one little corner and geographically they couldn=t really do anything with it.@
Chairman Moyer - AOK, thank you Mr. Hyder.@
Rocky Hyder - AOK@
Chairman Moyer - AMr. Sutton do you have any additional testimony, any additional evidence that you=d like to put in at this time?@
Lyn Sutton - ANaw, just make a - make a comment that Henderson County is in a - in a growth mode similar to what I experienced, hopefully not as - nearly as - as big or as rapid because the planning for it is very and the procedures that you go through, although often times well intentioned, you kinda have to stumble through them and make exceptions from time to time and then we find the process and you get better as you go along. I think that it was pretty wise to have a - an appeals process built into this ordinance cause it=s really a sticky one. Uh I think it - the ordinance itself uh serves - solves many more problems than it - than it creates but there are exceptions where the - the net effect is counter to what was intended and I think that this particular case is - is an example of that.@
Chairman Moyer - AThank you. Ms. Walker, do you have any closing comments?@
Ms. Walker stated something but it could not be made out.
Chairman Moyer - ANo, wait a minute. You have to come up here to speak, I=m sorry. With our camera system and everything we can=t pick you up over there.@
Joanna Walker - AI think that I - I think I can speak for Mr. Muir in the fact that he is a very very busy business man who travels throughout the world. He has a great deal of mail coming to his house, both UPS and various Fed Ex and things like this. This would be even harder for him with all the people that he=s dealing with um so I know we speak for him. He was sorry but he - he=s out of the country on business right now and his wife is with him so that=s why they couldn=t speak but they are 100% with us on this matter.@
Chairman Moyer - AThank you.@
Joanna Walker - AAnd we hope@
Chairman Moyer - AMr. Hyder, do you have any objection to that statement being put in about Mr. Muir?@
Joanna Walker - ANo, I have no objection.@
Chairman Moyer - AOK thank you. Mr. Hyder, do you have any closing comments?@
Rocky Hyder - AStaff would like to uh@
Chairman Moyer - AWait a minute, sorry@
Commissioner Gordon - ACan I ask one more question?@
Rocky Hyder - AYes mam.@
Commissioner Gordon - ACan anyone tell me the width of the road right-of-way on Horizon View Drive. It=s platted there and I wonder if anyone has a - a@
Someone answered but they were not at the microphone.
Commissioner Gordon - A60 feet OK, that=s what I - thank you.@
Chairman Moyer - AAlright before we go to Mr. - any other questions then before Mr. Hyder gives closing comments? Alright Mr. Hyder.@
Rocky Hyder - AOur - our closing comments are basically two items. One - we feel that the road was named in accordance and pursuant to the Henderson County Code, section 142-7(e). It=s consistent with that. Many roads have been named in this county consistent with that paragraph and we maintain that would protect the integrity of the ordinance to maintain same. Uh we also feel like that our evidence uh Exhibit B has demonstrated that - that we would not be reducing the services but we would actually improve the likelihood of our emergency responders whether they be volunteer coming from whatever area would be able to find this location.@
Chairman Moyer - AThank you. Did you have additional closing comments?@
Lyn Sutton - AJust one quickie.@
Chairman Moyer - AAlright.@
Lyn Sutton - AJust one quickie from an experiential level. We found that a greater call volume was coming in by cell phone as I started to retire than coming in through the - the land lines and therefore the dispatch centers have a much more difficult time locating these - these references because the cell phones don=t give you a land reference and as things grow it=s gonna get more and more that way. A lot - a lot of folks are uh actually giving up their land lines and use - as we grow on there will be more and more of that.@
Chairman Moyer - AThank you. Ms. Beeker will you give some legal advice to the Board as to what their rights are in light of the provisions of the ordinance?@
Angela Beeker - AYes sir. The question that you are being asked to answer pursuant to this appeal section is >are the actions that were taken to name the road and subsequently number the road in accordance with the ordinance= - were the provisions of the ordinance followed? Um a lot of what you heard today are public policy considerations behind the ordinance and so if you feel that the terms of the ordinance itself - you - you wish to change that public policy, that would not be for this proceeding but a subsequent proceeding to consider if you wish to amend the ordinance but the question that=s really before you today is um were the actions taken in accordance with the provisions of the ordinance as it=s written today?@
Chairman Moyer - AWould you speak to the issue of a variance?@
Angela Beeker - AYes sir. The ordinance does not provide a variance procedure for hardship cases or for any other reason and so in my opinion you would not be uh - have the authority unless you amended the ordinance to provide for a variance procedure which would again come later. Currently as it stands you don=t have the authority to issue a variance because you - when the ordinance was passed it was not included.@
Chairman Moyer - AQuestions from the Board of Mrs. Beeker? I think the - the grasp of the legal issues what we can do is very very limited in this situation whether that=s right or wrong but I do agree with her interpretation that we are being asked that appeal from whether the actions of the group was in accordance with the ordinance and that=s really the very very narrow issue. I think we certainly can, as Mr. Hyder has offered, uh have him go back to the group and see if they can work out a solution with respect to a name that would work out but short of amending the ordinance we are - we are locked in to what the ordinance says as Commissioners. Commissioner Hawkins?@
Commissioner Hawkins - AI guess I just have a couple comments from the Ray Hill - from the folks that live that close to Ray Hill Road you know I can certainly see why that driving down particularly for your two addresses would be fairly easy to see from Ray Hill Road and you could associate. The area of concern I have on that is the third house up there cause you can=t see it from Ray Hill Road and I - I think that=s one of the reasons uh for the ordinance. Uh also I think there was some uh concern about not having the street sign there which will be one put there when the road is properly named. Uh and I think that the point was brought up about the cell phones is very well taken and I think that increases the - the urgency if you will to have the - the road named and laid so someone can find it as a physical address and in as much as uh the property addresser coordinator has indicated that maybe you can seek a road name that=s - that is uh suitable to you, I think that uh - that the procedures of the ordinance have been followed and I think you have a better physical address with the road sign down there which takes out from the responder which one of those houses he=s looking at. If you look at the mailbox over there it doesn=t tell you anything. You drive up to the mailbox and stop but that=s not where the fire is, it=s somewhere else. Uh I think that the post office and we=ve worked with them before is certainly able to take three numbers on that mailbox physically located out there and deliver your mail. Uh even if you just change your number and still kept Ray Hill you=ve have to go through the same thing of changing your addresses. I would venture that the new Fed Ex guy that coming to Mr. Muir=s house up there would have a difficult time of finding it if he couldn=t see it from Ray Hill Road so I would hope that uh that maybe we would be able to install a road sign there with a name that the three of you could agree on and number the houses appropriately in accordance with the ordinance and uh and be sure that you are able to receive or for folks down the road would be able to receive emergency services in a timely manner.@
Chairman Moyer - ACommissioner Gordon?@
Commissioner Gordon - AUh I speaking to the legal issue I think the uh considerations of the ordinance have been complied with. I find no problem with what=s been done in that respect. Speaking to the policy issues here I think it=s uh - what is being done is still appropriate. There is certainly potential there for more homes to be on that road and I think it would be a very big mistake at this point to not - not to give that road a name. From personal experience my parents live on a three home country lane that accesses Highway 280 and it has already made a significant difference for them in having an identifiable street sign at the road and I - I really think that once this is done there will - you will find that it will be much easier to find your homes and I hope that you will give it a chance to work and I agree that I - I think we should treat this naming as an initial naming and give them the opportunity to select their own name.@
Chairman Moyer - AAny other comments from any Commissioners?@
Commissioner Ward - AWell the only thing that I can say - I=m having the same problem you are and I can relate to exactly everything that you=ve said but it boils down to the fact that I=m gonna have to adjust just probably like everybody else in the county is gonna adjust. I think the staff has done exactly - when we first took this out it was a findable address that was the common - when you apply the law to it it=s not so simple. But uh - I think right now that everybody can find my address by my directions just like Mr. Sutton and Ms. Walker can but I think we have to look at ten to fifteen to twenty years down the road so we don=t want to have to spend all this time - we started this twelve years ago and we=re coming to a head right now and I just don=t want to have to have a backset where Commissioners ten years in the future is gonna have the same trouble that we=ve had. Unfortunately I=m gonna have to adjust and unfortunately I can=t see any other way but to give a street name and I know staff will work with you uh as they are working with me. I=m having more trouble with the post office than I am with staff but that=s another.@
Chairman Moyer - AYou=re gonna lose that one.@
Commissioner Ward - ABut uh@
Chairman Moyer - AIf you win let me know.@
Commissioner Ward - AI know exactly what you=re saying and - and I=m at the same predicament that you are but I guess I=m gonna have to adjust and hope that yuns can understand how to adjust also.@
Chairman Moyer - AAny other further discussion. Ms. Beeker, any further advice you want to give the Board?@
Angela Beeker - ANo sir. Um the Board of course will have to vote and then direct me to bring you back an order consistent with - you know making the findings of fact consistent with - with your order. And then you=ll of course need to um go out of quasi-judicial proceeding.@
Chairman Moyer - AMay I have that motion?@
Commissioner Ward - AI=ll make a motion to go out of the hearing, public hearing.@
Chairman Moyer - AAll in favor of that motion say aye.@
In unison - AAye@ (unanimous)
Chairman Moyer - ADoes the Board wish to have any further discussion or is it ready to proceed to direct Mrs. Beeker to prepare a draft of an order.@
Commissioner Gordon - AYes@
Commissioner Ward - AI think - I make a motion that we prepare an order - have staff prepare an order to finding of facts that - to this case that the staff obeyed the ordinance - the letter of the ordinance that they presented the name as a findable address and they can interpret that.@
Chairman Moyer - AAlright, do you need anything further Mrs. Beeker?@
Angela Beeker - ANo sir, I=ll bring back an order and include it in your agenda for your approval consistent with that.@
Chairman Moyer - AAll in favor of that motion say aye.@
In unison - AAye@ (unanimous)
Chairman Moyer AAlright@
Commissioner Ward - AAnd I wish something would have come out of this that had evidence for me but evidently it=s not but I feel for them.@
Chairman Moyer - AYeah and I=ve been through the same thing so we can certainly understand your efforts. We ask that if you have a problem with the name that you please get with staff as soon as can cause we will be coming out with an order saying that the road will be named, that=s been voted on but we will certainly work with you and do whatever we can to come up with something that=s - that meets your needs. Alright.@
NCACC Voting Delegate
Chairman Moyer was originally planning to attend the NCACC Conference on August 23-25 in Forsyth County but is not going to be able to attend. He asked if another Commissioner would be able to attend to represent Henderson County. Commissioner Messer stated that he would try to attend if no one else was planning to.
Chairman Moyer made the motion to make Commissioner Messer voting delegate for Henderson County. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
UPDATE ON PROPERTY ADDRESSING
Much has happened in the last couple of weeks. Chairman Moyer asked Mr. Hyder to update the Board.
Rocky Hyder used this as a chance to not only update the Board but also to address some of the customers who may watch this meeting on Cable TV. His staff sent out 3300 notices as the last batch for the county rural routes. Shortly after they arrived, staff noticed that they began to have a much larger percentage of customers coming in. People were lined up coming into the Property Addressing Office. Up to that point our contractor had a very good track record with previous mailings with an error rate of about nine tenths of one percent. In this mailing there was an error rate of eight percent. Staff contacted them as soon as they encountered this influx of customers. The contractor immediately dispatched someone to our offices and found some serious quality control issues. The contractor is in the process of fixing those problems now. Staff was overwhelmed with customer comments for about a week. That has slowed down and Mr. Hyder was happy to report that it appears to be back to close to a normal day today. Staff is still dealing with a lot of those 8% errors.
Mr. Hyder did not feel that this was a real setback, the county part is done. All the data collection is complete within the City of Hendersonville. Our Field Technician now is verifying all those streets and their=s will be mailed out soon. Laurel Park will come a little later but they have been willing to work with us up to this point and try to resolve most of their issues.
Mr. Hyder explained the procedure his staff follows when there is an error:
AWhen someone contacts us with an error they normally talk to Mr. Griffin first and he talks to that person one on one. We bring up their information on our database and review it there with them over the phone to make sure the information we have appears to be correct and in many cases if there=s an error that=s easily spotted at that point, we correct that error and send them out a notification of the correction at that point. Other cases are not so clear. You just can=t sit in front of a computer and see the real issues there and that=s when we visit the site our self and we look at the information that they provided us, we look at the information that=s provided by our contractor, and when we visit the site we try to marry that information up to see if there has been a mistake on our part or the contractor=s part, rectify that mistake. If there hasn=t been, we notify those people that we did not find an error and therefore the change would be effective. Now that=s not always exchanging good information. That=s not telling people what they want to hear but at least we are responsive to them. We physically view the site and make recommendations based on an actual visit. If the customer hasn=t contacted us and we find an error we immediately send another correction notice out to follow that and explain to them that the previous notification was found to be in error and this happens many times on corner lots, as you can imagine so we notify them at their last known mailing address of what the correction would be.@
NAMING OF THE HENDERSONVILLE NATIONAL GUARD ARMORY
The Board had received a request to name the National Guard Armory located on the Spartanburg Highway. Chairman Moyer asked Commissioner Hawkins if he was aware whether anything was moving along on that request.
Commissioner Hawkins had talked to the County Manager about finding out:
1. If the National Guard Armory had a name
2. If it did, who named it
He had heard nothing back from David yet.
There was some discussion about finding out whether the other veterans groups would support this.
Mr. Nicholson stated that from the research staff has done they cannot find where it was named at all. Ms. Beeker has pulled the statute to find out who actually owns the building.
Angela Beeker stated that the Department of Crime Control and Public Safety actually controls the building. The State owns it but it is managed for them by the Department of Crime Control and Public Safety. They would likely be the ones to authorize the naming.
Chairman Moyer asked staff to send them a letter to see what the procedure is for naming the building. It was the consensus of the Board to name it on the up-coming September 11 anniversary date.
CANE CREEK WATER & SEWER DISTRICT
Commissioner Gordon made the motion for the Board to convene as Cane Creek Water & Sewer District Board. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner Ward made the motion for the Board to go out of Cane Creek and reconvene as the Henderson County Board of Commissioners. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Chairman Moyer asked if any Commissioners would be out of town in August. There were none.
There was discussion of setting a workshop on the County Comprehensive Plan. Selena Coffey informed the Board that Dennie Martin could only meet the week of the 26th. The Board set the workshop for Thursday, August 29 at 3:00 p.m.
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)(4) To discuss matters relating to the location or expansion of industries or other businesses in the area served by the public body.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Commissioner Hawkins made the motion for the Board to go out of closed session at 1:27 p.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ACTION following Closed Session
There was none.
There being no further business to come before the Board, Commissioner Hawkins made the motion to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Elizabeth W. Corn, Clerk to the Board William L. Moyer, Chairman