January 15, 2002



The Henderson County Planning Board met for its regular meeting on Tuesday, January 15, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Land Development Building, 101 East Allen Street, Hendersonville, NC.  Board members present were Tedd Pearce, Chairman, Walter Carpenter, Jack Lynch, Valerie Welbourn, Mike Cooper, Rebecca Nesbitt and Leon Allison.  Others present included Karen C. Smith, Planning Director, Melissa Peagler, Planner, Josh Freeman, Planner, Daniel Gurley, Zoning Administrator and Kathleen Scanlan Secretary.  Absent members were Todd Thompson and Roger Wolff.


Approval of Minutes. Chairman Pearce presided over the meeting and called the meeting to order.  He asked for the approval of the December 18, 2001 minutes.  He stated that there was one grammatical error that had been discussed with the Secretary for correction.  Chairman Pearce made a motion to approve the minutes subject to the correction mentioned and Jack Lynch seconded the motion.  All members voted in favor.


Adjustment of Agenda.  Ms. Smith stated that there are two additional items for discussion.  The first item is a proposed amendment to the December 18, 2001 minutes.  The second item is a request for a variance from Jon Laughter, which is related to the first item regarding the amendment of the minutes.  Chairman Pearce stated that they would be discussed after Item 7.


Staff Reports.  Ms. Smith informed the Board members that the Board of Commissioners have scheduled the hearings on the three zoning applications that were sent forward at December 18, 2001 Planning Board meeting.  The Commissioners have scheduled public hearings for all three on February 4, 2002 at 7:00 p.m.




Mills River Village Phase II B (02-M1) – Revised Master Plan and Phase II B Development Plan (27 lots off NC 191) – Steve Waggoner, Agent for JMS Builders and Developers, Inc., Property Owner.  Ms. Peagler stated that Mills River Village would consist of 85 residential lots on an approximate 48.4-acre tract of land. A total of 58 lots have been platted located in Phase I and Phase IIA.  Phase IIB will consist of 27 residential lots.  Mills River Village is located in a Watershed III District and falls under the cluster development provision in the Watershed Ordinance. The subdivision was previously approved but because of the change in the amount of open natural space not subject to development and the lapse of time since approval, Staff required that the developer resubmit Phase IIB.   Water will be provided by the City of Hendersonville and a community sewer system will be used but will be converted to County sewer eventually.  The property is located in the Open Use zoning district.   She stated that Staff has reviewed the Master Plan and the Development Plan for conformance with the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance and there were no comments for the Master Plan as all requirements have been satisfied. 


Ms. Peagler stated that regarding the Development Plan the following are contingent on



1.         Watershed District – The Watershed District needs to be changed to state the property is located in Watershed III instead of Watershed IV.


2.         Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control – The Applicant should submit notice from NCDENR that a soil erosion and sedimentation control plan has been received or provide documentation that no plan is required prior to beginning construction (HCSO 170-19).


3.         Farmland Preservation District – This property appears to be within 1/2 mile of a Farmland Preservation district.  Therefore, the applicant needs to submit an Affidavit of Understanding of Farmland Preservation District.  The Final Plat should include a notation that the property is within ˝ mile of land in a Farmland Preservation District.  (HCSO 170-35)


4.         Water System – The Applicant must provide documentation from the City of Hendersonville that sufficient water capacity is available.  The applicant must also submit evidence that water supply system plans have been approved. (HCSO 170-20) 3.    


5.         Sewer System – The Applicant must provide documentation indicating that the  Community Sewer system has sufficient capacity to handle the increase of wastewater from this development. The applicant must also submit evidence that the appropriate authority has approved the community sewer system plans or evidence of their submission. Or provide documentation from the Henderson County Utility Department that they have sufficient capacity to service the subdivision. (HCSO 170-20)


6.         Restrictive Covenants- Applicant should submit to the Planning Department a copy of the restrictive covenants for the development or certification indicating none will be used.  (HCSO 170-36)


7.         Stream Setbacks -The most current USGS Topographic Maps indicate that there is a perennial stream on the property to be subdivided.  A minimum thirty-foot setback for buildings and other structures, excluding culverts and bridges, is required along all perennial streams. (HCSO 170-37-A)


8.         Flood Line – Approximate location of 100-year flood hazard line needs to be shown on the final plat. (HCSO Appendix 5)


  1. Easements – The Henderson County Utilities Department has been working with the Developers on an easement for sanitary sewer as part of the county’s project to serve Mills River Elementary School. This easement is shown as proposed on the Development Plan.  Ms. Peagler showed on a map where the sewer easement is proposed.  The County Engineer had comments that easement documents need to be executed prior to final plat approval.  He asked if approval of the subdivision could be contingent on the execution of the easement documents.  Ms. Peagler stated that she has not found a provision in the Subdivision Ordinance that would authorize such a condition other than Section 170-37, which recommends that utility easements be provided if the property is located in an Urban Services Area shown in the Land Use Plan.  The Land Use Plan appears to include the subject property in an Urban Services Area map.  After speaking with the Henderson County Utility Department, it appears that the county is in the process of obtaining the community sewer system, which the previous sections of the subdivision are using, and the new section is intended to be serviced. 


(Board member Valerie Welbourn arrived). Ms. Peagler said that the submittal is for approval of the Master Plan and Development Plan for the subdivision.  Staff feels that the submittals satisfactorily address the requirements of the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance except for the items noted above.  Staff would recommend approval of the Master Plan and approval of the Development Plan subject to the above listed comments being addressed and revised plans being submitted prior to beginning construction.  Chairman Pearce stated that Staff is looking for approval subject to Items 1 – 8 and asked what the Board should do regarding easements (Item 9).  Ms. Smith stated that this is up to the Board and that Staff wanted to make the Board aware of the comments Mr. Tweed had.  She stated that she did not feel the Ordinance absolutely requires that the Board gets into whether or not they actually dedicate that easement, but the County Utilities Department would like that and because the County Engineer made the comment we wanted the Board to be made aware of this.  Mr. Cooper asked whether the applicants are having difficulties working out an easement.  Ms. Smith stated that she did not know.  Chairman Pearce asked the applicants to discuss this matter with the Board.


Mr. Skip Dunn, developer and part owner of Mills River Village stated that they would have no problem satisfying Items 1 – 8 and that they have the capacity in the sewer plant and are hoping that the County sewer will be out there shortly.  Mr. Dunn has talked with Doyle Freeman, with the County Utilities Department, and said that they would be willing to dedicate the easements with the plant because the development needs the sewer system more than the sewer plant.  Chairman Pearce asked Mr. Dunn if the Board had a condition with the approval that the easements would be dedicated with the plat, would this be a problem?  Mr. Dunn stated that this would not be a problem.  Mr. Carpenter stated that regarding the capacity of this system; the Beckums have part of that capacity to the people next door?  Mr. Dunn stated that it has never been addressed with any of our title insurance, but has no objection to Mr. Beckum having one tap for a residence to the plant, if he can get a line to the plant and has mentioned this to Mr. Beckum.  Mr. Carpenter said, referring to a legal document, is that what 15,000 gallons per day is for that one house?  Mr. Dunn stated that there was nothing about that.  He said the size of the system is 15,000 gallons, but has been enlarged, so if it refers to the 15,000 gallons, it is talking about the plant that is there.  Mr. Dunn stated that he thinks that the agreement that Larc Lindsey made with Mr. Beckum, which did not carry onto our property at all, but Mr. Dunn stated that he is willing to accept it.  Mr. Dunn feels that there is no way he can get a line to the plant.  Mr. Carpenter, referring again to the legal document, stated that he has a legal right-of-way and quoted the legal agreement, which states that whoever buys from Mr. Lindsey (Grantor) is obligated to provide Grantee reasonable access to Grantor’s sewer treatment plant on Grantor’s adjacent property after said plant is operational and allow Grantee to dispose up to 15,000 gallons per day through the plant.  Mr. Dunn stated that Mr. Lindsey did not own the property that the sewer plant is on.  It is the nineteen acres that Mr. Beckum owns.  Chairman Pearce asked Mr. Carpenter whether this is pertinent to tonight’s request.  Mr. Carpenter wanted to know how they figure capacity and in looking at it, is it capacity that is actually being used or capacity that is allocated and who keeps track with it.  Mr. Dunn said that every lot we are asking for approval is already hooked into the sewer line.  Mr. Carpenter stated that he had concerns whether there had been some capacity conveyed away, then how does the County know there is enough left?  Ms. Smith stated that it would be the County, if it ends up being County sewer, but for the private plan, it has to be from the operator and the State is the permitting authority.  Rebecca Nesbitt had concerns regarding the homes that are built so close to the river with regard to flooding.  Mr. Dunn stated that he was not concerned about any of the homes except lot 17, which the elevation is 2,078 and the 100-year flood states elevation at 2,063, so it is only 15 feet above the 100-year flood.  Ms. Nesbitt said that you feel that the flooding is on the other side.  Mr. Dunn stated yes.  Mr. Lynch asked whether the roads were private.  Mr. Dunn stated that they were private, but in Phases 2A and 2B the roads are to State specifications and we are hoping that someday the 32 adjoining acres will have an entrance to 191 and the State will then maintain those phases but will not come into Phase 1.  Chairman Pearce made a motion that the Planning Board find and conclude that the Master Plan and the Development Plans submitted for Mills River Village, Phase 2B subdivision complies with the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance except for those matter addressed in the technical comment section of Ms. Peagler’s memo that have not been satisfied by the applicant; and further move that such Plan be approved subject to the following conditions being satisfied by the applicant, Item 1 through 9 under the Development Plan technical comments in the Staff memo.  Leon Allison seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.


Review of Special Use Permit Application # SP-01-04 for a Proposed Baseball Complex – Blue Ridge Community College, Applicant.  Mr. Gurley presented the review and stated that this is a review and recommendation sent to you by the Board of Commissioners for a Special Use Permit, # SP-01-04, submitted by Dr. David J. Sink, Jr., President of the Blue Ridge Community College.  He stated that basically this just for the compliance for the technical requirement stated in the Henderson County Zoning Ordinance.  The application is for the construction of a baseball field, dugouts, concession stand, restrooms, office area, and general storage.  The proposed location site is on the corner of Allen Road and East Campus Drive, which is the northern end from Allen Road (northeast property of the college property).  Mr. Gurley stated that the variance is also being requested from the Board of Commissioners to allow for the construction of two buildings that will house dugouts, offices, and storage area.  The buildings will be located approximately 11 feet and 26 feet from the property line instead of the required 30 feet.  The area is zoned O & I (Office and Institutional).  Mr. Gurley stated that Staff comments are based on various sections of the Zoning Ordinance that address the proposed baseball complex and he said he included various excerpts from the Zoning Ordinance in each member’s agenda packet as a reference.  Mr. Gurley stated that the items in particular he would like to have the Planning Board look at that the applicant should address are follows: (1) Traffic Flow; (2) Off-Street Parking; (3) Mr. Gurley stated that the agent for the applicant has indicated that he will provide documentation from the City of Hendersonville that sufficient water capacity is available, and evidence that water supply system plans have been approved as well as documentation from the North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources that the existing sewer system has sufficient capacity to handle the increase of wastewater from this development.  (4) Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan and (5) Drainage Improvements, Mr. Gurley stated that the applicant’s agent will address both of these items.  Mr. Gurley stated that pending satisfactory responses to the items mentioned, the Planning Department Staff would support a favorable recommendation by the Planning Board on application # SP-01-04 with findings that the proposal meets Section 200-70A(2) and Section 200-56D.  He added that unsatisfied items and any other items the Planning Board deems necessary may be listed as conditions to such recommendation.  Ms. Smith asked Mr. Gurley whether he is including the variance recommendation in that.  Mr. Gurley stated, not the recommendation, but said that he was not sure if the variance comes before you (as a Board) or if its included because you will see the site plan where two of the buildings are within the setback requirements and I wanted the Board to know what they were applying for regarding a variance.  Ms. Smith stated that she feels that any recommendation the Planning Board makes would need to be conditioned on granting the variance also; otherwise the plan will not take off as it is and would be totally up to the Board of Commissioners.  Mr. Allison asked why would another variance come before this Board tonight and this was does not?  Ms. Smith stated that this is a variance from the Zoning Ordinance; the Planning Board has the authority on variances from the Subdivision Ordinance, because the Planning Board is the final approval authority.  She stated that most variances come before the Board of Adjustment, but the Zoning Ordinance has been amended to allow somebody to ask for variances as part of their Special Use Permit now rather than having to go before the Board of Adjustment and the Board of Commissioners.  Mr. Gurley asked Mr. David Powlen, landscape architect for the Blueridge Community College project to present the project to the Board and to address the items that were reviewed by Mr. Gurley.


Mr. David Powlen addressed the issues regarding traffic flow and off-street parking.  He showed a larger campus plan and the proposed site of the baseball field to show the relationship of where it is located.  He showed the separation between the Hospice Center and the new proposed baseball field complex.  The parking that would be used for this complex would be the existing parking that is on the campus now.  He showed on the map the various locations of existing parking spaces.  He stated that at present they are proposing a seating capacity for the baseball field of approximately 450.  He stated presently they have approximately 200 parking spaces.  Chairman Pearce asked what the distance is from the building to the parking lot.  Mr. Powlen said that it is approximately 200-300 feet and added that they will be providing a handicapped accessible pathway to connect to the driveway.  He stated that the bleachers will only be located on the home side or first base side of the field.  He said it is designed to be expandable as needed.  Mr. Lynch asked whether the parking spaces will be occupied at the same time as when the baseball games are playing.  Mr. Powlen stated that primarily these games will primarily be scheduled in the evenings or on the weekends.  Mr. Lynch also asked what the space is between the Hospice and the baseball field.  Mr. Powlen stated that it would be approximately 1,400 or 1,500 feet and a substantial grade drop as well as a fairly densely wooded area between both locations, which should help to shield some of the noise and light.  Mr. Carpenter asked whether this wooded area is located on the college property.  Mr. Powlen said that there is a piece of property that is privately owned.  Mr. Lynch stated that lights were mentioned but not in the proposal, are they planning on installing lights or does NCAA require them?  Mr. Powlen stated that the NCAA does not require lighting and right now we are putting in enough capacity electric wise that it could be lighted in the future and it is anticipated that the lights could be donated.  Mr. Powlen referred the subject of lighting to Mr. Ed Bell, who is with the Blue Ridge Community College Staff to answer any lighting questions.  Mr. Bell stated that the college has been discussing with General Electric on lighting of this project.  Chairman Pearce stated that the only problem he feels that there might be regarding the lighting would be the potential of glare problems, which would need to be addressed and if lights were not installed, the odds are that part of the year, the field would need to be operated early enough that the school would not be closed down at the same time.  Mr. Powlen stated that he feels it is the college’s intention to get the complex lighted and the design of those lights would have to take in account a portion Interstate 26, and a nearby a residence.  Mr. Bell stated that the parking at present is virtually unused and if there were a game in session, he does not feel that there would be a parking problem or a noise issue because of the location of the proposed field.  Chairman Pearce asked Mr. Gurley and Ms. Smith whether lighting should be recommended as a condition for approval.  Ms. Smith stated that the Board of Commissioners has the authority to look at lighting as an issue.  She said that the Planning Board can recommend a condition if it is reasonable and if the applicant agrees.  Chairman Pearce feels that the Board needs to be concerned with the lighting; (1) that it would in no way interfere with vehicles driving on the Interstate and (2) that the lighting would not disturb the adjacent property owners.  Ms. Smith stated that these conditions are fairly general, if there is something more specific to be done, you might want the applicants to take a look at that, that is, the type of lighting, etc.  Mr. Cooper asked whether East Henderson High School who recently installed lights on their ball field had to come before any board to get permission to install them?  Ms. Smith she was not sure, but said she could look into that.  Ms. Smith stated that she had asked the applicants to bring a Master Plan to address the parking issue, since it did not show spaces on the plan.  She stated that it is not clear from the Ordinance, but it appears that parking has to be provided for each use and we can not distinguish at present but it helps to hear that the parking in that area is infrequently used.  She said we have to allot parking for each of the uses on the facility, based on this, I do not whether we can calculate this, but if the Planning Board wants to move ahead tonight that is fine, but if the Board wants Staff to do additional work on the parking determination we can do that too.  Chairman Pearce stated by us saying that they have adequate parking, does that mean paved?  Ms. Smith stated that none of our parking requirements require paved parking the concern is with spaces.  Chairman Pearce stated that the Board needs to take into account the vacant field that is graded.  Ms. Smith stated that it would be helpful to indicate that as part of the Special Use Permit and that parking is allowed in that area.  Ms. Smith stated that in addition to, something else came up in the presentation that they may expand or seating/bleachers might be added.  Chairman Pearce asked Mr. Powlen whether the 450 number is including the expanded number or the beginning number?  Mr. Powlen stated that that is the beginning number and for one side, and the other side could accommodate for future expansion of an additional 450 seats.  Ms. Smith stated that if you think that this is a possibility, you could make this expansion a part of your approval now as if it is not done now, you would need to come back for an additional approval for the expansion.  Mr. Powlen said they would like to add this now rather than come back again.  Mr. Welbourn stated that if they add on their plan an indication of overflow parking area and an estimated amount of spaces they feel they may need, which could take care of the parking issue.  Mr. Gurley stated that concerning traffic flow, he was concerned more with pedestrian traffic flow.  He was concerned whether there will be crosswalks, and some sort of signage to let vehicles know that during a game day there may be children running across that road to go back to the car.  Mr. Powlen said he had not planned on putting a crosswalk there because there is no sidewalk on the other side.   Mr. Powlen stated that the soil and erosion plan has been submitted.  With regard to the drain improvements, the area is very flat so there will be very little surface run-off and will be grassed.  Because of the need to control some of the water coming from the adjacent property and keep it off of the fields so it does not run across, they have installed two catch basins that will be piped under the field and released to allow sheet flow into the pond.  He said that there are some existing storm drainpipes to allow this water to run off.  The storm run-off will be very minimal.  Mr. Powlen stated that there will be for a landscaping purpose, there will be evergreen trees to screen for lighting and any noise.  After some further discussion, Chairman Pearce made a motion to send a favorable recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the Special Use Permit for Blue Ridge Community College Baseball Complex Facility, SP-01-04 subject to # 1, the variance being approved, # 2, adequate shielding of lighting for adjacent properties and I-26, if applicable; # 3, that adequate parking be provided for the complex to meet the demands of the proposed facility; and also contingent on conditions # 2, # 3, # 4 and # 5 as specified in the memorandum to the Board as discussed and in addition the proposal is amended to include the addition of future seating to the complex along the third base line.  Ms. Welbourn stated that she feels another condition should be regarding the buffering.  She feels that along a portion of the northeast corner behind the dugout area as shown on the map a buffer of evergreen trees should be planted for screening.  Chairman Pearce asked Mr. Powlen where they plan to buffer.  Mr. Powlen stated that they will put an evergreen tree screening at the corner of the storage facility and will run approximately 150 feet to the east to buffer for residence, etc.  Chairman Pearce requested to include what Mr. Powlen stated regarding buffering as another condition for approval of the special use permit.  Jack Lynch seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.  




November 20, 2001 Planning Board Meeting Minutes.  Ms. Peagler said after receiving some questions regarding the subdivision of October Ridge by the applicant’s agent, Jon Laughter, it came to Staff’s attention that the minutes were not correctly reflecting the conditions that were put on the subdivision for approval.  Ms. Peagler reviewed the motion made by Leon Allison in the minutes that indicated the approval subject to items 1, 5, and 9.  She stated that after listening to the tape, the motion in fact included item 12, regarding road design.  Ms. Smith stated that Ms. Peagler had written the applicant’s notification letter based on the fact that item 12 had been included, which the notification letter had gone out prior to the draft minutes which went out to the Planning Board members.  Ms. Smith stated that upon reviewing the minutes, Staff did not pick up the fact that item 12 had not been included.  Mr. Jack Lynch made a motion to amend the minutes of the November 20, 2001 meeting regarding October Ridge Subdivision to include condition Item 12 in the motion.  Valerie Welbourn seconded the motion and all members voted in favor. 


US 25 South Corridor Study – Joshua Freeman, Planner.  Mr. Freeman said that the US 25 Study Corridor Study is located at the beginning of US 25 and US 176 intersection and runs through the Village of Flat Rock.  The study area itself is between the City of Hendersonville and the Village of Flat Rock.  He stated that the entire study area, which the Committee looked at, is completely within the jurisdiction of Henderson County and added that they did not look at Flat Rock or the City Hendersonville and that the jurisdictions only apply to the County’s jurisdictions.  He said the US 25 corridor is the primary link between Flat Rock and the City of Hendersonville and is a significant entry corridor to both jurisdictions.  The corridor itself has much aesthetics, economic and historical values that are important to most citizens of Henderson County.  He noted that some quick characteristics of the study area is the fact that it is approximately 4,500 feet in length, 622 feet wide, an estimated 456 residents, 190 residential units, 11 businesses, 1 church, 86 acres divided into 92 parcels, 77 land owners, and that 70% of the study area acreage is some form of residential land use.  There is approximately 24% of the study area acreage which is in some form of commercial land use or community facilities and only 5% of the study area acreage is undeveloped.  Mr. Freeman demonstrated on the land use study map these divisions of acreage. 


Mr. Freeman mentioned that the study was formed at the request of the Board of Commissioners to examine land use on US 25 South and was prompted by the rezoning request by Mr. Bobby Sherman, at the intersections of US 25 South at Erkwood Drive and Shepherd Street and other zoning applications which caused some controversy.  Mr. Freeman said that the Henderson County Land Use Guide Key Strategy # 2 recommends that the county study municipal boundaries and make land use recommendations.  Key Strategy # 3 asks that the county study the major corridors and make recommendations on land uses in those areas.  He said that this study is an attempt to do both of these things and also to address the long-term conflicts.  He mentioned that the county members were Tedd Pearce, Jack Lynch and Valerie Welbourn from the Planning Board.  Other representatives included Judy Boleman, Town Council for the Village of Flat Rock, Mark Cordaro, Planning Board for the City of Hendersonville, and Chuck Cordray and Bill Owings who are landowner representatives. 


Mr. Freeman stated that the original direction from the Board of Commissioners was to look at a 300-foot wide corridor, but said they decided to look at all the area or given parcel that was touched by the 300-foot corridor.  The Committee focused on that study area alone and developed a range of priorities for the study area, which include about twenty-six recommendations to achieve those priorities.   Mr. Freeman stated that the Committee felt it was important to maintain the aesthetically pleasing historically mixed-use character of the corridor.  This entails protecting the overhead tree canopy, enhancing ground level landscaping as well as limiting the scale of future structures, keeping and encouraging the mixture of commercial and residential land uses, north of the Erkwood/Shepherd Street intersection.  He said another priority is to keep the area south of the Erkwood/Shepherd Street intersection, generally speaking, residential.  He said that in response to those they recommend:

  1. Developing standards to encourage the preservation of the existing tree canopy 
  2. Standards to broaden landscaping requirements
  3. Broaden signage and lighting requirements
  4. Develop some standards to limit the scale of structures in the corridor so that those structures are compatible with the existing structures
  5. Provide more opportunities for commercial properties by altering the zoning, so that zoning is more compatible with the land uses north of the Erkwood/Shepherd intersection
  6. Forgo any commercial or industrial rezoning south of the Erkwood/Shepherd intersection
  7. Enhance the health and viability of commercial properties north of the Erkwood/Shepherd intersection


Mr. Freeman added that the Committee valued commercial land uses in that area and thought they were important to the character and the health of the county and the corridor in particular. The Committee suggests by in large that the rezoning be conducted to fix some of the zoning conflicts.  The acreage north of the Erkwood/Shepherd intersection (43%) is in some form of commercial use, but only 21% is commercially zoned properly for this commercial use.  The Committee suggested to do-away the R-T zoning that is north of the Erkwood/Shepherd intersection and replacing it with C2P or NB district, which is proposed under the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite and expanding the CSP or NB district all the way out to Morton Lane, at least a 300 foot wide corridor either side of US 25 South, north of the Erkwood/Shepherd intersection. 

h.      Protection of property values, which could be done through a variety of ways. 

i.         South of the Erkwood/Shepherd intersection, the Committee suggested in order to protect property values was to keep the land use pattern as is and to discourage the county from any additional commercial or industrial rezoning in that area.

j.         Minimize the existing non-conformities in the area.  There are two major types of non-conformities in the area.  Only 21% of the commercial uses north of Erkwood/Shepherd Street are properly zoned. Rezoning to C2P or NB would reduce those non-conformities.  The R-40 area west of US 25 was identified as being very problematic because about 62% of the parcels are smaller than the allowable lot size.  The Committee suggested to rezone those areas from R-40 to R-20, which would resolve more than 50% of the non-conformities in that area.

k.       Addressing the access issue would be in keeping of the two-lane road along US 25 South.  The Committee felt that it suits the character of the corridor, however the reduction of the capacity of the corridor could lead sometime in the future to widen the two-lanes.  The reason for this might be because of the numerous curb cuts and their spacing, especially for safety reasons.  With regard to this, the Committee recommends that the County develops an Access Management Program that would be comprehensive and multi-jurisdictional in nature.  He said this means to develop a program or ordinance that limits or controls the way that curb cuts created and how they enter into the road.  NCDOT would provide assistance and work with the county on developing the program. 

l.         Restrict commercial uses north of the Erkwood/Shepherd intersection to light commercial to minimize traffic and the installation of turn lanes wherever they are necessary.  Another solution to this problem would be to address this issue by reconfiguring the intersection of Erkwood/Shepherd Streets.  The centerlines of Erkwood/Shepherd streets are offset by 180 feet, which promotes a safety concern with traffic.

m.    Recommend pedestrian/cyclist infrastructure. 

n.      Mr. Freeman stated that regarding jurisdictional issues, one problem is the number of septic systems that are failing in this area, which is driving the proposal to extend sewer lines north from Shepherd Street to Morton Lane.  The City of Hendersonville is currently in process of acquiring right-of-way and whatever else they need to do that.  He added that the Committee supports the extension of sewer lines to failing septic systems.  He stated that regarding land use oriented satellite annexation, which are annexations for which the sole and primary purpose is to extend to the property owner land use options that are not also available to that property owner through existing Henderson County zoning.  He stated that the Committee recommended that the City of Hendersonville and the Village of Flat Rock adopt a policy of avoiding land use oriented satellite annexations and suggested annexations in the US 25 South corridor should be contiguous to existing annexed areas and proceed according to an established annexation plan. 


o.      The Committee suggested that the City of Hendersonville and the Village of Flat Rock should consider moving the 1997 Annexation Agreement Boundary northwards, such that it runs west along Erkwood Drive to the current Flat Rock boundary at the intersection of Rutledge Drive and Erkwood and that it runs east along Shepherd Street to the intersection of US 176 and Shepherd Street.


Mr. Freeman stated that he is asking the Planning Board to support these recommendations as well as support on the Access Management proposal and the matter of overlay districts as they are proposed in the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite.  Mr. Freeman said that the overlay districts are districts that are applied to a particular area to address that area’s needs and to address issues that are not easily addressed in the Zoning Ordinance.  Mr. Freeman stated that many of the recommendations the Committee is asking for requires an overlay district in order to make the recommendations easily implemented.  Again, Mr. Freeman encouraged the Board of Commissioners to adopt as a tool for the Planning Department and for the residents of that area as well as rest of Henderson County.  He also asked for resolutions supporting, modifying or even disagreeing with the recommendations of the study to the Board of Commissioners would be helpful.  Ms. Smith added that the Board of Commissioners asked for other Boards to receive this study document.  Mr. Leon Allison asked whether the study also concerned traffic flow and to reroute it down Highland Lake Road?  Mr. Freeman stated that there was a recommendation in the last thoroughfare plan that called for improved east-west flow of traffic from Kanuga to US 176.  He stated that this was one of the alternatives, but not sure whether it got to the Planning Board.  Mr. Allison commended Staff on the work they have done regarding this study, but traffic flow has not been addressed.  If more commercial uses are proposed north of Erkwood/Shepherd Streets, this will encourage more traffic.  Mr. Freeman said that he agrees, but the problem that this Committee had was that they were trying to balance the transportation side of things with small area land use issues.  The Committee was trying to address the non-conformities at the same time trying to minimize the traffic impact.  He stated that what the Committee is trying to state is when traffic hits this corridor, lets make it move through a little easier and safer.  He stated that there will be no reduction of traffic with the recommendations and if anything, the traffic will be increased.  Ms. Nesbitt asked why was the piece, (a 300-foot wide corridor along the western side of US 25 South), which is most of the western side of Section B on the map that you pointed going to remain R-40.  Mr. Freeman stated that the goal in leaving it R-40 is to keep the lot sizes large, with one residential structure per lot and thereby minimize the need for additional curb cuts.  He stated that by and large the parcels located there are owned by a few landowners landowner and are conforming to R-40 district.  In discussing the traffic issue again, Board members had mentioned the proposal of the new Trend facility nearby the study area and Mr. Freeman stated that one of the recommendations the Committee made was that the County needs to address scale standards or something to minimize the size of a project that may take place in the corridor.  He stated that he was not sure that the Trend project fits within the range of things that the Committee was thinking about.   Mr. Allison referred to the traffic flow, he said that Highland Lake Road in 10 to 20 years people will be asking for it to be widened to relieve the traffic to go to Upward Road.  He said all the Committee is doing is putting off what eventually we will need.  Mr. Lynch said that when the thoroughfare plan numbers come out, that road will be around a “D” which means crowded and at that time the Board an accept the thoroughfare plan concept and suggest widening the road or whatever recommendations needed.  Mr. Freeman stated that the Committee is waiting to see what the thoroughfare plan states regarding this area and depending on the plan’s comments, the Committee might want to reassess their comments.  Mr. Lynch commended Staff on their hard work and said that Josh Freeman had worked one night, all night on this project to prepare the paperwork for the Commissioners.  Mr. Lynch added that the Board of Commissioners wanted the Committee to get this project done within a five-month frame and we did accomplish that time frame and said he has challenged the Commissioners as to when they will get this study approved.  Mr. Lynch asked whether all the landowners subject to the project had been contacted.  Mr. Freeman stated that they had but not received comments from everyone.  Ms. Smith stated that regarding the work on this project, it was not Staff but the singular effort of Josh Freeman.  Leon Allison made a motion to send a letter of support and endorsement regarding the US 25 South Corridor Study Committee recommendations as presented.  Rebecca Nesbitt seconded the motion.  All members voted in favor.  Although Mr. Allison did not vote, his non-vote counts as a favorable vote [as per Planning Board Rules of Procedure].  Mr. Allison stated that he did not want to vote and endorse this when the Commissioners had asked to send to all Committees for their review but they did not mention that we needed to vote on this.  Mr. Freeman said that as a Board, he wants comments on this because the Study Committee cannot assess this project until they know the reaction to the recommendations.  He feels that we need encouragement to the Commissioners to do something other than ignoring it and putting it on the shelf.  Chairman Pearce addressed Mr. Allison’s comment but stating that the Board has a right to make recommendations to the Board of Commissioners whether they request them or not.  Mr. Allison added that he has reservations voting on this as he feels the report did not address the traffic flow problem and what Flat Rock is really looking for.  Mike Cooper stated that he drives the US 25 South everyday as he is a resident on Little River Road and does not find that there is a traffic problem. 


Application for a Variance from the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance – John Free, Applicant, Regarding October Ridge Subdivision.  Ms. Peagler stated that the subdivision was originally completed as a minor subdivision in 1995 and a second phase of this minor subdivision in 1999.  Ms. Peagler showed the completed phases on a map of the subdivision.  She stated that at the November 20, 2001 Planning Board meeting, the Board required that the road be upgraded based on the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance section which states that the property owner must upgrade if they own both sides of the road to local standards.  Ms. Peagler stated that the owner’s agent, Jon Laughter, had contacted her and said that in that area there were a lot of rock outcroppings they would be unable to get the shoulder width that is required.  She said that they had mentioned that in most places they would be able to get a four-foot shoulder width requirement, but in some places the shoulder would drop to a two-foot width, and that is the reason why they are asking for a variance.  Jack Lynch asked what the length of the road is that involves the variance.  Ms. Peagler stated that it is between 200 feet and 500 feet.  Chairman Pearce said that the applicant is saying that parts of this road they can meet, but in some parts they cannot meet the requirements of the shoulder width.  He said that the rest of this road is not in the variance request.  Ms. Peagler stated that Staff could not require that they upgrade any other portion because it is an existing right-of-way and several homes are already there.  Chairman Pearce suggested that the Subcommittee look at the entire area and check out the variance request and see how justifiable it is and then ascertain if there is anyway to get the entire road in compliance, but the Board cannot require them to upgrade on that existing right-of-way section.  Chairman Pearce assigned this variance request to go to the Subcommittee on Short Term Issues to get a recommendation back to the full Board by the next Planning Board meeting.


Subcommittee Assignments and Meeting Dates.   


(a)    Update on Issues Under Review by Subcommittees – Ms. Smith stated that the Subcommittee that is working on the Howard Gap Road/Brookside Camp Road zoning application has met once and will meet again on February 7, 2002 at 4:30 p.m., which includes Subcommittee members Todd Thompson, Jack Lynch and Tedd Pearce.  Ms. Smith also mentioned that the Short Term Issues Subcommittee will meet on January 22, 2002, 9:30 a.m. and Ms. Peagler has a draft set of minutes from the last meeting, which she will present to this upcoming meeting for approval.  Board members decided to visit the site of Oleta Falls before the Subcommittee meeting.  Ms. Smith stated that there will be a small packet sent out with information and a map to show the directions to Oleta Falls.


(b)    Other -  Ms. Smith informed the Board members that the Board of Commissioners are planning to take up the subdivision amendments on January 16, 2002 regarding the amendments that were discussed at the Planning Board Retreat (regarding driveways, bridges and another minor issue).  She stated that this will not be a hearing at this time.


 Adjournment.  There being no further business, Chairman Pearce made a motion to adjourn and Jack Lynch seconded the motion.  All members voted in favor.  The meeting adjourned at 8:45 PM.





Tedd M. Pearce, Chairman                            Kathleen Scanlan, Secretary