APRIL 16, 2002



The Henderson County Planning Board met for its regular meeting on Tuesday, April 16, 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, Vice Chairman, Roger Wolff,  Jack Lynch, Valerie Welbourn, Mike Cooper, and Leon Allison.  Others present included Karen C. Smith, Planning Director, Melissa Peagler, Planner, and Kathleen Scanlan, Secretary.  Also present was William Moyer, Chairman of the Board of Commissioners and ex-officio, non-voting member of the Planning Board.  Board member Todd Thompson was absent.


Approval of Minutes. Chairman Pearce presided over the meeting and called the meeting to order.  He asked for the approval of the March 19, 2002 minutes.  Roger Wolff made a motion to approve the minutes subject to changing the word flat to flag on page 9.  Jack Lynch seconded the motion.  All members voted in favor.


Adjustment of Agenda.  Chairman Pearce suggested that Item 5, Update on Revising Procedure for Zoning Map Amendments, be moved after Item 6 in the interest of time.  All Board members agreed.


Staff Reports.  Ms. Smith informed the Board that the hearing on the grade variance for Oleta Falls will be held tomorrow, April 17, 2002 at 11:00 a.m.  She also mentioned that the GIS Property Map Viewer is now on-line for the public and noted the website.  She also indicated that the Planning Department’s website will be online soon and that it will contain a wealth of information for the Board as well as the public.


Chairman Pearce informed the Board members that Valerie Welbourn has resigned from the Planning Board.  In recognition of her service on the Board, he presented a framed print of the old courthouse to her.




Mountain Vista (02-M05)- Master Plan and Development Plan Review (30 lots off US Highway 176) – RCI Reichert Consultants, Inc., Agent for Pavilion Development Corporation, Property Owner.  Ms. Peagler stated that Mountain Vista is a proposed residential subdivision consisting of 30 lots on approximately 98.6 acres of land off US Highway 176.  A single entrance to the development will be provided off Highway 176 with two cul-de-sacs serving as the street network for the subdivision.  She stated that lot sizes vary considerably throughout the development with the largest being 10.12 acres and the smallest being just under an acre at 0.96 of an acre.  The majority of the lots in the development are in the 1 ½ to 2-acre size.  Each lot will be served by individual septic tanks, but public water from the City of Hendersonville will be provided.  The property is located in the Open Use Zoning district.  At this time it is uncertain whether the developer will have private deed restrictions or covenants.   Ms. Peagler said that Staff has reviewed the Combined Master and Development Plan for conformance with the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance stated that all requirements of the Master Plan have been met.  She stated that regarding the Development Plan the following comments are contingent upon approval:


1.  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).


2.  Driveway Connections – US Highway 176 is a state maintained road. Access permits from NCDOT are required for driveways and for new road connections.


3.  Culverts and Drainage Plans - Culverts and drainage structures along proposed roads need to be designed to NCDOT standards.  Culvert locations, length, diameter and type should be shown on a revised Development Plan.  (HCSO 170-21-D, 170-29-B and Appendix 5)


4.  Restrictive Covenants- The applicant should present a copy of the restrictive covenants for the development or certification indicating none will be used to the Planning Board (HCSO 170-36)


5.  Road Grade – The surveyor should note on a revised Development Plan that grades of the proposed roads will not exceed 16% for paved collector roads, 18% for paved local residential roads and 15% for gravel local residential roads  (HCSO 170-21 Table 1)


6.  Water Supply – A letter from the City of Hendersonville Water Department needs to be submitted stating that there is sufficient capacity to service the proposed development and the water plans have been approved. (HCSO 170-20)


7.  Fire Hydrants – Any system served by a public water system shall meet the respective county or municipality’s minimum requirements for fire hydrant installation.  The locations of the proposed water lines and hydrant locations need to be shown on a revised Development Plan. (HCSO 170-20(c))


8.  Curve Table – It appears that no curves along the proposed road system will exceed requirements of Section 170-21 Table 1 however, on a revised Development Plan, a curve table should also be provided along with the line table for verification purposes. (HCSO 170-21 Table I)


9.  Road Names – The Property Addressing Department reports that the names of the roads as proposed would be accepted, however they have reserved a different name for Creek Source Lane.  This discrepancy should be cleared up and the appropriate road name indicated on a revised development plan. (HCSO 170-23)


10. Farmland Preservation – The developer needs to sign and submit an Affidavit of Understanding regarding Farmland Preservation Districts, and a notation on the final plat shall state that the property lies within ½ mile of a farmland preservation district. (HCSO 170-35) 

11. Lot Sizes – Maximum and minimum lot sizes in square feet needs to be included in the project summary. (HCSO Appendix 5 Plan Details)


12. General Legend – A general legend with appropriate symbols for contours, benchmarks, utilities, etc. should be included on a revised development Plan. (HCSO Appendix 5, General Legend)


13. Lot Design – The property surrounded by lots 19 through 28 is a lot itself 

 and should be included in the subdivision and labeled as such. (HCSO 170-31)


14. Reserved Land – The Development Plan does not explain the developer’s intentions for the property labeled ‘reserved by owner.’  If this is to be future development it needs to be so labeled and any future development would require review of a revised Master Plan and a new Development Plan.  If this is a lot the developer simply would like to hold on to, then it should be numbered, labeled and included as a lot in the development. (HCSO 170-31(c)


16. Private Residential Collector Road – The Developer has currently  designed Summit Grade Way to Collector Road Standards up to a point between lot 6 and lot 28. The ordinance states that the terminus or "last block" of a residential collector road ending in a dead end may be designed to the standards of a local residential subdivision road as long as such "last block" serves fewer than 25 units.  Staff would prefer to see the developer extend the Collector road portion up to the turnaround because it is uncertain as to whether driveway access for lots 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 will be from Summit Grade Way or Creek Source Lane (HCS0 170-21C (1)(a) 


Ms. Peagler stated that she had been in contact with the property owner, Mr. Reichert and he agreed to make Summit Grade Way a Collector road.  Mr. Carpenter asked why was the turnaround 1900 feet instead of midway through the road.  She showed the area of the collector road all the way up to the turn-around, so it would have a logical boundary where it ends being a collector and starts being a local road. 


17. Intersection – The intersection of the two proposed roads and the entrance from Highway 176 are within close proximity of each other and has the potential of being confusing, if not dangerous.  Given the sharp angle at which the two roads come together and this intersection being so close to the entrance of the subdivision and the potential for re-division of some of the lots on Creek Source Lane, it is suggested that the intersection of Creek Source Lane and Summit Grade Way be considered for reconfiguration. Section 170-21G does not contain specific standards for intersections.  However, Section 170-21C(3) states If not specifically listed in Table 1 above or elsewhere in this chapter, design and The Planning Board based on the standards and requirements of the NCDOT shall review subsequent construction of private roads.  Regarding intersections, the state road standards state that Intersections with angles from 60 to 75 degrees are acceptable under extreme conditions. (HCSO 170-21)


Ms. Peagler stated that she talked to Mr. Reichert regarding the intersection and

that the angle would come in no less than 80 degrees. 


Ms. Peagler stated that the submittal is for approval of the Combined Master and Development Plan for the subdivision.  Staff feels that with minor corrections and the developer satisfactorily addressing the comments for discussion, the submittals would satisfactorily address the requirements of the Henderson County Subdivision Ordinance.  Staff would recommend approval of the Combined Master and Development Plan subject to the above listed comments being addressed and revised plans being submitted prior to final plat approval. 


Mr. Chuck Reichert stated the reason that the turnaround was at 1,900 feet was for people who come into the development and realize they do not belong there, he said it would give them the opportunity to turnaround there rather than go all the way to the end.  He said he agrees to make a collector road to the turnaround.  He said regarding the intersection, they will be redesigning the roads to lessen the sharpness of the angle.  The angle will be no less than an 80-degree angle.  Mr. Reichert also mentioned that the property, which is labeled “reserved by owner” has no plans at the moment for that land, but will indicate on the plan “reserved by owner for future development.” 


Roger Wolff made a motion to move that the Planning Board find and conclude that the Combined Master and Development Plan submitted for Mountain Vista Subdivision complies with the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance except for those matters addressed in the Technical Comment section of staff’s memo that have not been satisfied by the applicant; and further move that such Plan be approved subject to the following Conditions: The applicant satisfies comments 1 through 14 under the Development Plan Technical comments in the staff memo with specific agreements identified for comments 16, that a collector road will be designed up to the turnaround and 17, that they will redesign the roads to lessen the sharpness to an 80 degree angle.  Leon Allison seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.


Update on Revising Procedure for Zoning Map Amendments.  Ms. Smith stated that she and Mr. Freeman have not gone through the material that has been collected from other jurisdictions but have talked briefly about the application form and drafting a policy on multiple parcel rezoning and are also trying to get some type of confirmation of signatures on applications.  She stated that she hopes to get the material to the Board for next month’s meeting.  Chairman Pearce said that we need to look if the procedures will increase the cost of rezonings and if so, we might need to make some recommendations regarding fees.  Mr. Carpenter asked if there has been a problem before this time?  Ms. Smith stated that on rezonings there has not been, but there was a problem in new zonings previously.  The problem now is derived from larger scale rezonings and everything is considered a rezoning now since the Open Use District has been implemented.  Ms. Welbourn said, for instance, in the rezoning that Ms. Janis Moore brought in dealing with Howard Gap Road/Brookside Camp Road, there were a number of people who signed the petition but there was no one who came to the meeting in support of the rezoning to voice their opinion.  She said that someone asked, “so many people signed the petition, but where are they?”  She said it crosses her mind and she’s sure others, that there are so many signatures and should we question them?  Mr. Lynch stated that in this case, the petitioners expected Ms. Moore to “carry the ball.”  He said that he had talked with several of the people who signed the petition and they expect her to be the spokesperson for all of them.  Ms. Smith stated that the real question is policy or ordinance amendment.  With the new zonings there was a policy and maybe there are some certain circumstances where an ordinance amendment will not work in every case and policy might be better.  She stated that she is uncertain at this time, as it is new for Staff.  Mr. Carpenter said that the difficulty in the proposal is that there be some understandable piece of paper that contrasts the two districts.  He said the best thing he saw was what Mr. Freeman had come up with, a table of uses, which laid it out much better than looking and comparing the two statutes.  He said we can certainly mislead people with what the Board says because the Board is not necessarily thinking the same way they are.  Mr. Allison stated that he feels more comfortable with an application that each individual homeowner signs than a list of people on a piece of paper.  Mr. Wolff stated that he feels that people signing petitions is unreliable.  He said that either people do not know what they were signing or signed anything that anyone would ask them to sign because they knew it was not a very valuable document or they felt pressured to do whatever their neighbor wanted to do.  Ms. Welbourn said she does not feel that a petition is a document a person is really legally committed to.  Mr. Allison stated that if a property owner wants to get his property rezoned, they should take the time to come to the meeting in person, or send someone in their behalf.  Mr. Carpenter said, “when do they do that, at the Planning Board meeting or at the time they go before the Commissioners where the decision is made?”  The Planning Board simply makes a recommendation to the Commissioners.  Mr. Allison said that if the Planning Board could verify that these people know what they are signing and what the petitioner is talking about and what his proposed plans will be, it would make it a lot easier.  Mr. Wolff stated that if individuals are going to sign something, it should not be in petition form but needs to be a legal document.  He said it could say, “we are signing this document and understand that this is a legally binding document and our property, if approved, will be rezoned.  This is what we want and we understand the consequences.“  Ms. Smith stated that the complicating factors are the times when Staff gets these applications, a whole group wants the rezoning, but someone in the middle does not, then this becomes a study area.  She said the Planning Board at that time decides whether to add that person or not and therefore it is thrown off the application track, such as the Janis Moore situation.  She said because of this, she would like some type of guiding document when Staff encounters this so people will know what they are getting into.  She said that they sit down with the people and explain everything but if there would be some material that they could take with them for the other property owners it would be very beneficial.  After more discussion, Chairman Pearce said that the use table showing the comparisons would definitely be a beneficial document to provide with the rezoning application.  Mr. Carpenter stated that there should be addresses for each one that signs the petition.  Ms. Smith stated that at this time we ask for that information.  He further stated that a mailing should go out to each of those people who signed the petition explaining what exactly is the rezoning entails and include an envelope for acknowledgment of the letter.  Mr. Allison brought up the subject of the fee for the application.  Board members discussed this and suggested that an additional fee per additional tract of land rezoned should be charged.  Mr. Moyer said that this issue has been a problem for some time and said that he liked the idea of confirmation of rezoning being mailed out to each person who signed the petition.




Subcommittee Assignments and Meeting Dates.  Ms. Smith informed the Board that on Thursday, April 18, 2002 at 4:00 p.m. the Ad Hoc Subcommittee would meet regarding the amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance on private road standards and on May 1, 2002 at 4:00 p.m. the Ad Hoc Subcommittee will meet regarding the Howard Gap Zoning Study.

Adjournment.  There being no further business, Walter Carpenter made a motion to adjourn and Valerie Welbourn seconded the motion.  All members voted in favor.  The meeting adjourned at        7:52 PM.







Tedd M. Pearce, Chairman                            Kathleen Scanlan, Secretary